Final Report

FINAL REPORT

VOLUME 1 OF 2:

ENVIRONMENTAL & SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT

PROJECT NO. 1003790

MAY 2006

REPORT NO. 1003790

REPORT TO Brunswick Pipeline Project c/o 1801 Hollis Street, Suite 1600 Halifax, NS B3J 3N4

FOR Brunswick Pipeline Project

ON Environmental & Socio-Economic Assessment

May 2006

Jacques Whitford 711 Woodstock Road Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B 5C2

Phone: 506-457-3200 Fax: 506-452-7652

www.jacqueswhitford.com

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 i

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 ii

GLOSSARY Units % percent $ dollars oC degrees Celsius cm centimetre dB decibel dBA decibel on the A-weighted scale Dth/d decatherms per day ha hectare km kilometre kPa kilopascal kPag kilopascal, gauge km/h kilometre per hour L litre

Leq equivalent sound level Lpm litres per minute m metre m2 square metre m3 cubic metre mg/L milligrams per litre mm millimetre NTU nephelometric turbidity units ppb parts per billion ppm parts per million psig pounds per square inch, gauge tcf trillion cubic feet µg/m3 micrograms per cubic metre

Acronyms/Abbreviations AC CDC Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists Al aluminum

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 iii

As arsenic ARD acid rock drainage ASU Archaeological Services Unit ATV all terrain vehicle BCWLAP British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection CAC conventional air contaminant CBSA Canadian Blood Services Agency CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency CEPA Canadian Energy Pipeline Association

CH4 methane City City of Saint John CMA census metropolitan area CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada CSA Canadian Standards Association Cu copper CWS Canada-wide standard DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) DWA deer wintering area EA environmental assessment EC Environment Canada e.g. for example EPP environmental protection plan ESA environmentally significant area FA federal authority Fe iron FOQ Fondation Les oiseleurs du Québec GDP gross domestic product GHG greenhouse gas GPS global positioning system HADD harmful alteration, disturbance, or destruction of fish habitat

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 iv

HDD horizontal directional drill i.e. that is to say IMP integrity management plan IPL International Power Line JPC Jaakko Pöyry Consulting L.L.C. Limited Liability Company LNG liquefied natural gas M&NP Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline MBCA Migratory Birds Convention Act MCFH mature coniferous forest habitat MDZ minimal disturbance zone Mn manganese MSDS material safety data sheet

N2O nitrous oxide NAPS National Air Pollution Surveillance Program NB New Brunswick NB Energy New Brunswick Department of Energy NB ESA New Brunswick Endangered Species Act NB Power New Brunswick Power NBBRC New Brunswick Birds Record Committee NBDAFA New Brunswick Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Aquaculture NBDELG New Brunswick Department of Environment and Local Government (formerly NBDOE; changed to NBENV on February 17, 2006) NBDF New Brunswick Department of Finance NBDNR New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources NBDNRE New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources & Energy NBDOE New Brunswick Department of Environment NBDOT New Brunswick Department of Transportation NBENV New Brunswick Department of Environment NBFSC New Brunswick Federation of Snowmobiling Clubs NBPUB New Brunswick Public Utilities Board NBSR New Brunswick Southern Railway NEB National Energy Board NEBA National Energy Board Act

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 v

NOx nitrogen oxides NRCan Natural Resources Canada NSA noise sensitive area

O3 ozone PCB polychlorinated biphenyl pers. comm. personal communication pH potential hydrogen PM particulate matter

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns POL petroleum, oils, and lubricants QRA quantitative risk analysis RA responsible authority RoW right-of-way SARA Species at Risk Act SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition SJL Saint John Lateral SNB Service New Brunswick

SO2 sulphur dioxide

SOx sulphur oxides SPL southern pipeline (corridor) TEK traditional ecological knowledge TEOM tapered element oscillating microbalance TLV threshold limit value TSBC Transportation Safety Board of Canada TSP total suspended particulate matter UNBI Union of New Brunswick Indians UNBSJ University of New Brunswick Saint John US United States US EPA United Stated Environmental Protection Agency VEC Valued Environmental Component VOC volatile organic compound WAWA Permit Watercourse and Wetland Alteration Permit WC watercourse

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 vi

WHMIS Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System WHSCC Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission WL wetland Zn zinc

Terms

Agency as defined by CEAA means: “the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.” air quality the chemical and physical properties of the air in the lower atmosphere, including gaseous and particulate air contaminants. centreline the line defined as being the centre of a right-of-way. chainage distance along the preferred corridor in kilometres from its origin at Mispec Point. check dam an erosion control structure constructed of hay bales, timber, or loose rock to control water flow in an erodible channel or ditch. cofferdam a temporary structure constructed around an excavation to exclude water so that work in or adjacent to a watercourse can be carried out in the dry. comprehensive study as defined by CEAA means: “an environmental assessment that is conducted pursuant to sections 21 and 21.1, and that includes a consideration of the factors required to be considered pursuant to subsections 16(1) and (2).” compressor station a facility containing equipment that is used to increase pressure to natural gas for transportation. contaminant a substance that is present or released in the environment at an amount, concentration, level, or rate that results in or may result in an adverse effect. culvert any structure not classified as a bridge and/or drainage system, which provides an opening for the passage of water. cumulative environmental as defined by CEAA means: “environmental effects that are likely to result effect from the Project in combination with projects or activities that have been or will be carried out.” electrofishing a method of capturing fish in a freshwater body by the use of a device that emits a low voltage shock that temporarily stuns the fish.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 vii

environmental assessment as defined by CEAA means: “in respect of a project, an assessment of the environmental effects of the project that is conducted in accordance with this Act and the regulations.” Includes an assessment of the environmental and socio-economic effects of the project.

environmental effect as defined by CEAA means: “in respect to a project, (a) any change that the project may cause in the environment, including any change it may cause to a listed wildlife species, its critical habitat or the residences of individuals of that species, as those terms are defined in subsection 2(1) of the Species at Risk Act, (b) any effect of any change referred to in paragraph (a) on (i) health and socio-economic conditions, (ii) physical and cultural heritage, (iii) the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by Aboriginal persons, or (iv) any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, palaeontological, or architectural significance, or (c) any change to the project that may be caused by the environment, whether any such change occurs within or outside Canada.”

Environmentally Significant an area identified by the Nature Trust of New Brunswick as having a rich Area diversity of species or special features (e.g., rare plants or animals). erosion the process of soil and rock weathering caused by natural means (i.e., gravity, water, wind, ice) federal authority as defined by CEAA means: “(a) a Minister of the Crown in right of Canada, (b) an agency of the Government or other body established by or pursuant to an Act of Parliament that is ultimately accountable through a Minister of the Crown in right of Canada to Parliament for the conduct of its affairs, (c) any department or departmental corporation set out in Schedule I or II to the Financial Administration Act, and (d) any other body that is prescribed pursuant to regulations made under paragraph 59(e).” fish habitat as defined by the Fisheries Act means the spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply, and migration areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes. footprint the area to be affected by the activities associated with the construction of the Project. grading the act of altering the ground surface to a desired grade or contour by cutting, filling, leveling, and/or smoothing. greenhouse gas radiative gases in the earth’s atmosphere which absorb long-wave heat radiation from the earth’s surface and re-radiate it, thereby warming the earth (e.g., carbon dioxide and water vapour). groundwater the water within the earth that supplies water wells and springs.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 viii

grubbing the removal of roots and stumps after clearing activities.

habitat the part of the physical environment in which a plant or animal lives.

hard plug a technique used in pipeline installation in which a portion of the pipeline trench is left unexcavated. This approach can be used for mitigation purposes, such as to stop or slow water flow, or to allow wildlife to cross the trench.

horizontal directional drill a river/railroad/highway/shoreline/marsh crossing technique used in pipeline construction in which the pipe is installed under the no-dig areas referenced above at depths usually greater than conventional crossings. An inverted arc-shaped hole with two sag bends is drilled beneath the no- dig area and the preassembled pipeline is pulled through it.

hydrostatic test a test in which the pipeline is filled with water and pressurized to demonstrate that no defect (e.g., weld integrity) is present that would cause an immediate failure at the operating pressure.

Induced potential voltage induced on a pipeline from high voltage overhead powerlines in close proximity. infrastructure basic facilities, such as transportation, communications, power supplies and buildings, which enable an organization, project, or community to function. launcher/receiver site facilities used to launch and receive pipeline internal inspection and cleaning equipment. liquefied natural gas a liquid composed predominantly of methane and which may contain minor quantities of ethane, propane, nitrogen, or other components normally found in natural gas, produced by cooling natural gas to -161°C.

meter station a facility to monitor natural gas flow in pipeline systems (i.e., gas entering and leaving the pipeline system). Meter stations may also allow for monitoring of natural gas quality. migratory birds birds protected in Canada under the Migratory Birds Convention Act. mitigation as defined by CEAA means: “in respect of a project, the elimination, reduction or control of the adverse environmental effects of the project, and includes restitution for any damage to the environment caused by such effects through replacement, restoration, compensation or any other means.” natural gas an odourless, colourless gaseous hydrocarbon mixture made up of methane and a small percentage of other light hydrocarbons, occurring naturally in the earth and used as a fuel.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 ix

penstock a conduit that carries a rapid flow of water controlled by a sluicegate.

pipeline as defined by NEBA means: “a line that is used or to be used for the transmission of oil, gas or any other commodity and that connects a province with any other province or provinces or extends beyond the limits of a province or the offshore area as defined in section 123, and includes all branches, extensions, tanks, reservoirs, storage facilities, pumps, racks, compressors, loading facilities, interstation systems of communication by telephone, telegraph or radio and real and personal property, or immovable and movable, and works connected to them, but does not include a sewer or water pipeline that is used or proposed to be used solely for municipal purposes.”

preferred corridor the pipeline corridor from the CanaportTM Liquefied Natural Gas facility at Mispec Point to the international border being filed with the National Energy Board. preliminary preferred the pipeline corridor selected based on an evaluation of corridor corridor alternatives and detailed review of the environmental and engineering characteristics of the corridor alternatives, and presented to the public at open houses in 2005. Project the proposed construction, and operation and maintenance of a pipeline from the CanaportTM Liquefied Natural Gas facility at Mispec Point to the United States border.

Proponent as defined by CEAA means: “in respect of a project, the person, body, federal authority or government that proposes the project.” public consultation the process of disseminating information to the public and seeking input and feedback from affected parties in the design, planning, and operation of a project. The process requires that the proponents give the parties to be consulted notice of the matter in sufficient form and detail to allow them to prepare their views on the matter. They are also given a reasonable amount of time to prepare their views and an opportunity to present their views to the proponents, who consider the views presented, fully and impartially. residual adverse an adverse environmental effect that remains after the mitigation has environmental effect been implemented. responsible authority as defined by CEAA means: “in relation to a project, means a federal authority that is required pursuant to subsection 11(1) to ensure that an environmental assessment of the project is conducted.” right-of-way the area which must be cleared (vegetation), crossed (watercourse), or developed (land) for the purpose of installing a pipeline.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 x

riparian the area adjacent to flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.

salmonid of or related to the salmonidae family of fish, including trout, salmon, and char.

significant residual adverse a residual adverse environmental effect that exceeds the environmental environmental effect effects significance rating criteria.

site restoration return of a site to a close approximation of its condition prior to disturbance.

soft plug a technique used in pipeline installation in which fill material is placed in a portion of the pipeline trench. This approach can be used for mitigation purposes, such as to stop or slow water flow, or to allow wildlife to cross the trench.

sound quality (acoustic environment) the type, character, frequency, intensity, and duration of sound or noise in the outdoor environment.

species at risk all species listed in Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act as “Extirpated”, “Endangered”, or “Threatened”, or listed by the New Brunswick Endangered Species Act as “Endangered” or “Regionally Endangered”. species of conservation species not under the protection of the Species at Risk Act or the New concern Brunswick Endangered Species Act (i.e., listed in the Species at Risk Act but not as “Extirpated”, “Endangered”, or “Threatened” in Schedule 1; listed as “Species of Special Concern” within Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act; or ranked as “S1”, “S2”, or “S3” by the Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre and also ranked as “At Risk”, “May be at Risk”, or “Sensitive” by NBDNR). spread a working section of pipeline construction that consists of several pipeline crews, each crew performing a separate function as construction progresses. stakeholder a member of a group or an individual who has a vested interest in the Project, beyond just owning land on the right-of-way. stringing the process of delivering and distributing line pipe joints where and when they are needed along the right-of-way. valve site a facility that includes a valve that can be used to isolate a section of the pipeline if necessary. Valve sites may also contain facilities such as crossover piping, sensors, and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems and equipment to allow remote operation of the valve if necessary.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 xi

watercourse the full width and length, including the bed, banks, sides, and shoreline, or any part of a river, creek, stream, spring, brook, lake, pond, reservoir, canal, ditch, or other natural or artificial channel open to the atmosphere, the primary function of which is the conveyance or containment of water whether the flow be continuous or not. wetland lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season. Wetlands are characterized by poorly drained soils and predominantly hydrophytic or water tolerant vegetation.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 xii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 Project Overview ...... 1 1.2 Proponent Information...... 1 1.3 Purpose and Need for the Project...... 2 1.4 Regulatory Framework ...... 2 1.5 Organization of the Report ...... 4 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...... 6 2.1 Project Definition and Location...... 6 2.2 Project Alternatives ...... 6 2.2.1 Alternatives to the Project ...... 6 2.2.2 Corridor Selection Process...... 6 2.2.2.1 Corridor Constraints ...... 6 2.2.2.2 Identification of the Study Area and Corridor Alternatives...... 8 2.2.2.3 Selection of Preliminary Preferred Corridor...... 8 2.2.2.4 Selection of the Preferred Corridor...... 22 2.3 Project Components...... 25 2.4 Project Activities...... 27 2.4.1 Construction Activities...... 28 2.4.2 Operation and Maintenance Activities...... 36 2.4.3 Decommissioning and Abandonment...... 37 2.5 Project Schedule ...... 38 2.6 Project Emissions and Discharges...... 38 2.6.1 Atmospheric Emissions...... 39 2.6.2 Liquid Wastes...... 39 2.6.3 Solid Wastes ...... 39 2.7 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events ...... 40 2.7.1 Hazardous Materials Spills...... 41 2.7.2 Erosion and Sediment Control Failures...... 41 2.7.3 Fires ...... 42 2.7.4 Occupational Injuries...... 42 2.7.5 Wildlife Encounters...... 43 2.7.6 Temporary Watercourse Crossing Washouts ...... 43 2.7.7 Disturbance of Unidentified Archaeological or Heritage Resources...... 44 2.7.8 Unauthorized Access to the RoW ...... 44 2.7.9 Pipeline Ruptures or Leaks ...... 44 2.7.9.1 Incident Probability...... 44 2.7.9.2 Release Behaviour of Methane...... 47 2.8 Environmental Management ...... 47 2.8.1 Environment, Health & Safety Policy...... 47

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 xiii

2.8.2 Environmental Management Framework ...... 47 2.8.2.1 Pipeline Design and Quality Assurance Program ...... 48 2.8.2.2 Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program ...... 48 2.8.2.3 Emergency Preparedness and Response Program...... 51 2.8.2.4 Public Awareness Program ...... 52 3.0 METHODOLOGY AND SCOPING ...... 53 3.1 Environmental Effects Assessment Methodology ...... 53 3.1.1 Environmental Effects Assessment Methods ...... 53 3.1.1.1 Step 1 - Scoping of Issues and Selection of Valued Environmental Components ...... 54 3.1.1.2 Step 2 - Establish Boundaries and Residual Environmental Effects Rating Criteria ...... 54 3.1.1.3 Step 3 - Identification of Project Environmental Effects ...... 56 3.1.1.4 Step 4 - Evaluation of Environmental Effects ...... 58 3.1.1.5 Step 5 - Analysis and Prediction of the Significance of Environmental Effects ...... 62 3.1.1.6 Step 6 - Inspection, Monitoring, and Follow-up ...... 63 3.1.1.7 Step 7 - Changes to the Project that may be Caused by the Environment ...... 63 3.1.2 Cumulative Environmental Effects Assessment Methods ...... 63 3.2 Issues Scoping and Selection of Valued Environmental Components...... 64 3.2.1 Consultation ...... 64 3.2.1.1 Regulatory Consultation...... 66 3.2.1.2 Public Consultation...... 68 3.2.1.3 Stakeholder Consultation ...... 79 3.2.1.4 Aboriginal Consultation ...... 81 3.2.2 Scope of the Project and Assessment ...... 84 3.2.2.1 Scope of the Project...... 84 3.2.2.2 Scope of Assessment...... 85 3.2.2.3 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries...... 94 4.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT...... 95 4.1 Physical Environment...... 95 4.1.1 General Topography and Physiography...... 96 4.1.2 Surficial Geology ...... 96 4.1.3 Bedrock Geology...... 97 4.1.4 Acid Rock Drainage...... 99 4.1.5 Slope Stability...... 100 4.1.6 Historic Seismic Activity ...... 100 4.2 Atmospheric Environment ...... 102 4.2.1 Climate ...... 102 4.2.1.1 Climate Normals...... 102 4.2.1.2 Winds ...... 106 4.2.2 Air Quality...... 106 4.2.2.1 Air Contaminant Emissions ...... 107 4.2.2.2 Ambient Air Quality...... 108 4.2.2.3 Sound Quality...... 114 4.3 Water Resources...... 116 4.3.1 Hydrogeological Setting ...... 116

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 xiv

4.3.2 Watersheds ...... 117 4.3.3 Unconsolidated Aquifers ...... 117 4.3.4 Bedrock Aquifers...... 118 4.3.5 Springs ...... 118 4.3.6 Locations of Water Wells...... 118 4.3.7 Potentially Contaminated Soils...... 120 4.4 Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 121 4.4.1 Species at Risk...... 121 4.4.2 Species of Conservation Concern...... 122 4.4.3 Methodology...... 125 4.4.4 Fish Survey Results ...... 135 4.4.4.1 International Power Line...... 135 4.4.4.2 Saint John Lateral ...... 136 4.4.4.3 Urban...... 136 4.4.5 Recreational Fish Species...... 138 4.4.6 Fish Habitat Survey Results ...... 139 4.5 Vegetation ...... 141 4.5.1 Forest Resources...... 141 4.5.1.1 Ecologically Important Forest Types ...... 141 4.5.1.2 Invasive Vascular Plants ...... 142 4.5.2 Vascular Plant Surveys ...... 142 4.5.2.1 Methodology...... 142 4.5.2.2 Vascular Plant Species of Conservation Concern...... 143 4.5.3 Vegetation-based ESAs and Other Constraints ...... 146 4.6 Wetlands ...... 148 4.6.1 Methodology...... 148 4.6.2 Results ...... 149 4.7 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat...... 157 4.7.1 Mammals...... 157 4.7.1.1 Mammal Species at Risk...... 157 4.7.1.2 Mammal Species of Conservation Concern ...... 158 4.7.2 Birds ...... 159 4.7.2.1 Bird Species at Risk ...... 159 4.7.2.2 Bird Species of Conservation Concern ...... 159 4.7.2.3 Breeding Bird Surveys...... 160 4.7.2.4 Other Bird Species of Conservation Concern ...... 167 4.7.3 Herpetiles ...... 168 4.7.3.1 Herpetile Species at Risk ...... 168 4.7.3.2 Herpetile Species of Conservation Concern ...... 168 4.7.4 Invertebrates ...... 168 4.7.4.1 Invertebrate Species at Risk ...... 168 4.7.4.2 Invertebrate Species of Conservation Concern...... 169 4.7.5 Wildlife Habitat ...... 169 4.7.5.1 Forested Areas...... 169 4.7.5.2 Wintering Areas...... 169 4.7.5.3 Mature Coniferous Forest Habitat ...... 170

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 xv

4.7.5.4 Wildlife-based ESAs...... 171 4.8 Health and Safety...... 172 4.9 Traditional Land and Resource Use...... 175 4.10 Land and Resource Use...... 178 4.10.1 Existing Land Use ...... 178 4.10.1.1 Soil and Soil Productivity...... 179 4.10.2 Urban Land Use ...... 181 4.10.2.1 Urban Preferred Corridor...... 181 4.10.2.2 Industrial and Commercial Land Use ...... 184 4.10.2.3 Residential Land Use ...... 184 4.10.2.4 Recreational Land Use...... 185 4.10.2.5 Agricultural Land Use...... 185 4.10.2.6 Forestry Land Use...... 185 4.10.3 Rural Land Use ...... 186 4.10.3.1 Rural Preferred Corridor...... 186 4.10.3.2 Industrial and Commercial Land Use ...... 186 4.10.3.3 Residential Land Use ...... 187 4.10.3.4 Recreational Land Use...... 187 4.10.3.5 Agricultural Land Use...... 188 4.10.3.6 Forestry Land Use...... 188 4.11 Infrastructure and Services ...... 189 4.11.1 Urban Infrastructure and Services...... 189 4.11.1.1 Transportation ...... 189 4.11.1.2 Water, Sewerage, and Waste Disposal Services...... 191 4.11.1.3 Electrical and Gas Utilities...... 192 4.11.1.4 Health and Emergency Services ...... 193 4.11.1.5 Accommodations...... 194 4.11.2 Rural Infrastructure and Services...... 194 4.11.2.1 Transportation ...... 194 4.11.2.2 Water, Sewerage, and Waste Disposal Services...... 195 4.11.2.3 Electrical Utilities ...... 195 4.11.2.4 Health Services and Emergency Services ...... 196 4.11.2.5 Accommodations...... 197 4.12 Labour and Economy ...... 198 4.12.1 Overview of the Labour Force, Income, and Economic Conditions ...... 198 4.13 Archaeological and Heritage Resources ...... 201 4.13.1 Background Information ...... 202 4.13.2 Known Archaeological and Heritage Resources ...... 202 4.13.2.1 Mispec Point to Grandview Avenue ...... 202 4.13.2.2 Grandview Avenue to Lancaster (Route 7) ...... 203 4.13.2.3 Rural Route Part 1...... 204 4.13.2.4 Rural Route Part 2 (Paralleling the IPL) ...... 204 4.13.2.5 St. Stephen Area and Terminal Point...... 206 4.13.3 Architectural Heritage...... 206 4.13.4 Paleontological Resources...... 206

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 xvi

4.13.4.1 Mispec Point to Grandview Avenue ...... 206 4.13.4.2 Grandview Avenue to Route 7 ...... 207 4.13.4.3 Rural Route Part 1 (Paralleling the SJL beginning at Route 7) ...... 207 4.13.4.4 Rural Route Part 2 (Paralleling the IPL) ...... 207 4.13.4.5 St. Stephen Area and Terminal Point...... 208 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ...... 209 5.1 Atmospheric Environment ...... 209 5.1.1 Rationale for Selection as Valued Environmental Component...... 209 5.1.2 Environmental Assessment Boundaries...... 210 5.1.2.1 Spatial ...... 210 5.1.2.2 Temporal ...... 210 5.1.2.3 Administrative and Technical ...... 211 5.1.3 Residual Environmental Effects Rating Criteria ...... 214 5.1.4 Potential Interactions, Issues, and Concerns ...... 215 5.1.4.1 Construction ...... 215 5.1.4.2 Operation and Maintenance...... 217 5.1.4.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events ...... 217 5.1.4.4 Rockwood Park ...... 218 5.1.5 Environmental Effects Analysis and Mitigation...... 219 5.1.5.1 Construction ...... 219 5.1.5.2 Operation and Maintenance...... 226 5.1.5.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events ...... 229 5.1.6 Determination of Significance...... 234 5.1.7 Follow-up and Monitoring...... 234 5.2 Water Resources...... 236 5.2.1 Rationale for Selection as Valued Environmental Component...... 236 5.2.2 Environmental Assessment Boundaries...... 236 5.2.2.1 Spatial ...... 236 5.2.2.2 Temporal ...... 237 5.2.2.3 Administrative and Technical ...... 237 5.2.3 Residual Environmental Effects Rating Criteria ...... 238 5.2.4 Potential Interactions, Issues, and Concerns ...... 238 5.2.4.1 Construction ...... 239 5.2.4.2 Operation and Maintenance...... 240 5.2.4.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events ...... 241 5.2.4.4 Rockwood Park ...... 241 5.2.5 Environmental Effects Analysis and Mitigation...... 241 5.2.5.1 Construction ...... 241 5.2.5.2 Operation and Maintenance...... 255 5.2.5.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events ...... 257 5.2.6 Determination of Significance...... 263 5.2.7 Follow-up and Monitoring...... 264 5.3 Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 267 5.3.1 Rationale for Selection as Valued Environmental Component...... 267 5.3.2 Environmental Assessment Boundaries...... 267

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 xvii

5.3.2.1 Spatial ...... 267 5.3.2.2 Temporal ...... 268 5.3.2.3 Administrative and Technical ...... 268 5.3.3 Residual Environmental Effects Rating Criteria ...... 269 5.3.4 Potential Interactions, Issues, and Concerns ...... 270 5.3.4.1 Construction ...... 271 5.3.4.2 Operation and Maintenance...... 276 5.3.4.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events ...... 276 5.3.4.4 Rockwood Park ...... 277 5.3.5 Environmental Effects Analysis and Mitigation...... 278 5.3.5.1 Construction ...... 278 5.3.5.2 Operation and Maintenance...... 293 5.3.5.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events ...... 296 5.3.5.4 Species at Risk, Species of Conservation Concern, and ESAs ...... 304 5.3.6 Determination of Significance...... 305 5.3.7 Follow-up and Monitoring...... 306 5.4 Vegetation ...... 309 5.4.1 Rationale for Selection as Valued Environmental Component...... 309 5.4.2 Environmental Assessment Boundaries...... 309 5.4.2.1 Spatial ...... 309 5.4.2.2 Temporal ...... 309 5.4.2.3 Administrative and Technical ...... 309 5.4.3 Residual Environmental Effects Rating Criteria ...... 310 5.4.3.1 Species at Risk...... 310 5.4.3.2 Species of Conservation Concern...... 311 5.4.3.3 Common and/or Secure Species ...... 311 5.4.4 Potential Interactions, Issues, and Concerns ...... 313 5.4.4.1 Construction ...... 314 5.4.4.2 Operation and Maintenance...... 315 5.4.4.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events ...... 315 5.4.4.4 Rockwood Park ...... 316 5.4.5 Environmental Effects Analysis and Mitigation...... 316 5.4.5.1 Construction ...... 316 5.4.5.2 Operation and Maintenance...... 319 5.4.5.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events ...... 321 5.4.5.4 Species at Risk, Species of Conservation Concern, and ESAs ...... 325 5.4.6 Determination of Significance...... 326 5.4.7 Follow-up and Monitoring...... 326 5.5 Wetlands ...... 327 5.5.1 Rationale for Selection as Valued Environmental Component...... 327 5.5.2 Environmental Assessment Boundaries...... 327 5.5.2.1 Spatial ...... 327 5.5.2.2 Temporal ...... 328 5.5.2.3 Administrative and Technical ...... 328 5.5.3 Residual Environmental Effects Rating Criteria ...... 329 5.5.4 Potential Interactions, Issues, and Concerns ...... 329

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 xviii

5.5.4.1 Construction ...... 330 5.5.4.2 Operation and Maintenance...... 331 5.5.4.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events ...... 332 5.5.4.4 Rockwood Park ...... 333 5.5.5 Environmental Effects Analysis and Mitigation...... 333 5.5.5.1 Construction ...... 333 5.5.5.2 Operation and Maintenance...... 341 5.5.5.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events ...... 343 5.5.6 Determination of Significance...... 350 5.5.7 Follow-up and Monitoring...... 350 5.6 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat...... 351 5.6.1 Rationale for Selection as Valued Environmental Component...... 351 5.6.2 Environmental Assessment Boundaries...... 351 5.6.2.1 Spatial ...... 351 5.6.2.2 Temporal ...... 351 5.6.2.3 Administrative and Technical ...... 351 5.6.3 Residual Environmental Effects Rating Criteria ...... 352 5.6.4 Potential Interactions, Issues, and Concerns ...... 353 5.6.4.1 Construction ...... 353 5.6.4.2 Operation and Maintenance...... 354 5.6.4.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events ...... 354 5.6.4.4 Rockwood Park ...... 355 5.6.5 Environmental Effects Analysis and Mitigation...... 355 5.6.5.1 Construction ...... 355 5.6.5.2 Operation and Maintenance...... 360 5.6.5.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events ...... 362 5.6.5.4 Species at Risk, Species of Conservation Concern, and ESAs ...... 367 5.6.6 Determination of Significance...... 367 5.6.7 Follow-up and Monitoring...... 368 5.7 Health and Safety...... 369 5.7.1 Rationale for Selection as Valued Environmental Component...... 369 5.7.2 Environmental Assessment Boundaries...... 369 5.7.2.1 Spatial ...... 369 5.7.2.2 Temporal ...... 370 5.7.2.3 Administrative and Technical ...... 370 5.7.3 Residual Environmental Effects Rating Criteria ...... 371 5.7.4 Potential Interactions, Issues, and Concerns ...... 371 5.7.4.1 Construction ...... 372 5.7.4.2 Operation and Maintenance...... 374 5.7.4.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events ...... 374 5.7.4.4 Rockwood Park ...... 376 5.7.5 Environmental Effects Analysis and Mitigation...... 376 5.7.5.1 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events ...... 376 5.7.6 Determination of Significance...... 391 5.7.7 Follow-up and Monitoring...... 392 5.8 Traditional Land and Resource Use...... 393

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 xix

5.9 Land and Resource Use...... 395 5.9.1 Rationale for Selection as Valued Environmental Component...... 395 5.9.2 Environmental Assessment Boundaries...... 395 5.9.2.1 Spatial ...... 395 5.9.2.2 Temporal ...... 395 5.9.2.3 Administrative and Technical ...... 395 5.9.3 Residual Environmental Effects Rating Criteria ...... 396 5.9.4 Potential Interactions, Issues, and Concerns ...... 397 5.9.4.1 Construction ...... 398 5.9.4.2 Operation and Maintenance...... 400 5.9.4.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events ...... 401 5.9.4.4 Rockwood Park ...... 402 5.9.5 Environmental Effects Analysis and Mitigation...... 403 5.9.5.1 Construction ...... 403 5.9.5.2 Operation and Maintenance...... 408 5.9.5.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events ...... 410 5.9.6 Determination of Significance...... 416 5.9.7 Follow-up and Monitoring...... 416 5.10 Infrastructure and Services ...... 417 5.10.1 Rationale for Selection as Valued Environmental Component...... 417 5.10.2 Environmental Assessment Boundaries...... 417 5.10.2.1 Spatial ...... 417 5.10.2.2 Temporal ...... 417 5.10.2.3 Administrative and Technical ...... 417 5.10.3 Residual Environmental Effects Rating Criteria ...... 418 5.10.4 Potential Interactions, Issues, and Concerns ...... 418 5.10.4.1 Construction ...... 419 5.10.4.2 Operation and Maintenance...... 420 5.10.4.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events ...... 420 5.10.4.4 Rockwood Park ...... 420 5.10.5 Environmental Effects Analysis and Mitigation...... 421 5.10.5.1 Construction ...... 421 5.10.5.2 Operation and Maintenance...... 425 5.10.5.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events ...... 426 5.10.6 Determination of Significance...... 432 5.10.7 Follow-up and Monitoring...... 432 5.11 Labour and Economy ...... 433 5.11.1 Rationale for Selection as Valued Environmental Component...... 433 5.11.2 Environmental Assessment Boundaries...... 433 5.11.2.1 Spatial ...... 433 5.11.2.2 Temporal ...... 433 5.11.2.3 Administrative and Technical ...... 433 5.11.3 Residual Environmental Effects Rating Criteria ...... 434 5.11.4 Potential Interactions, Issues, and Concerns ...... 434 5.11.4.1 Construction ...... 435 5.11.4.2 Operation and Maintenance...... 435

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 xx

5.11.4.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events ...... 435 5.11.4.4 Rockwood Park ...... 435 5.11.5 Environmental Effects Analysis and Mitigation...... 436 5.11.5.1 Construction ...... 436 5.11.5.2 Operation and Maintenance...... 438 5.11.5.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events ...... 439 5.11.6 Determination of Significance...... 444 5.11.7 Follow-up and Monitoring...... 444 5.12 Archaeological and Heritage Resources ...... 445 5.12.1 Rationale for Selection as Valued Environmental Component...... 445 5.12.2 Environmental Assessment Boundaries...... 445 5.12.2.1 Spatial ...... 445 5.12.2.2 Temporal ...... 445 5.12.2.3 Administrative and Technical ...... 445 5.12.3 Residual Environmental Effects Rating Criteria ...... 447 5.12.4 Potential Interactions, Issues, and Concerns ...... 448 5.12.4.1 Construction ...... 448 5.12.4.2 Operation and Maintenance...... 449 5.12.4.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events ...... 449 5.12.4.4 Rockwood Park ...... 449 5.12.5 Environmental Effects Analysis and Mitigation...... 449 5.12.5.1 Construction ...... 449 5.12.5.2 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events ...... 454 5.12.6 Determination of Significance...... 456 5.12.7 Follow-up and Monitoring...... 457 6.0 EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT...... 459 6.1 Categories of Effects of the Environment on the Project...... 459 6.2 Environmental Effects Analysis ...... 459 6.2.1 Weather and Flooding...... 460 6.2.2 Seismic Activity ...... 461 6.2.3 Sinkholes...... 462 6.2.4 Induced Potential...... 463 6.2.5 Forest Fires ...... 463 6.2.6 Soil Contamination ...... 464 6.2.7 Significance...... 464 7.0 CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT...... 466 7.1 Step 1 – Describe the Spatial and Temporal Boundaries Used to Assess Cumulative Environmental Effects ...... 466 7.2 Step 2 – Describe the Residual Environmental Effects of the Project...... 466 7.3 Step 3 – Describe the Potentially Measurable Residual Environmental Effects of Other Projects and/or Activities that May Interact with the Project...... 467 7.3.1 Identification of Past, Present and Future Projects and Activities ...... 467 7.3.1.1 Land Use Actions ...... 467 7.3.1.2 Global Actions ...... 477

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 xxi

7.4 Step 4 - Identify the Potential Interactions of the Project with the Other Projects and Activities (Cumulative Environmental Effects Assessment) ...... 478 7.5 Step 5 - Evaluate the Significance of the Resulting Cumulative Environmental Effects480 7.5.1 Atmospheric Environment ...... 480 7.5.2 Water Resources...... 481 7.5.3 Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 481 7.5.4 Vegetation ...... 482 7.5.5 Wetlands ...... 483 7.5.6 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat...... 483 7.5.7 Health and Safety...... 484 7.5.8 Traditional Land and Resource Use...... 484 7.5.9 Land and Resource Use...... 484 7.5.10 Infrastructure and Services ...... 485 7.5.11 Labour and Economy ...... 486 7.5.12 Archaeological and Heritage Resources ...... 486 7.6 Step 6 - Suggest Mitigation to Minimize the Identified Cumulative Environmental Effects ...... 486 8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 487 9.0 CLOSING...... 491 10.0 REFERENCES...... 492 10.1 References Cited...... 492 10.2 Personal Communications ...... 504

List of Tables

Table 1.4.1 Legislation that May be Applicable to the Project...... 3 Table 2.2.1 Constraints ...... 7 Table 2.2.2 Length of the Three Corridor Alternatives from the Lake Utopia Spur to the St. Croix River...... 19 Table 2.2.3 Adjustments from IPL RoW made on Rural Corridor...... 20 Table 2.2.4 Changes to the Preliminary Preferred Corridor as a Result of Public and Stakeholder Consultation ...... 23 Table 2.2.5 Preferred Corridor Segment Descriptions ...... 24 Table 2.4.1 Description of Project Activities and Physical Works...... 27 Table 2.4.2 Urban Portion Construction Workforce...... 29 Table 2.4.3 Urban Portion Construction Equipment ...... 29 Table 2.4.4 Rural Portion Construction Workforce ...... 30 Table 2.4.5 Rural Portion Construction Equipment ...... 31 Table 2.7.1 Pipeline Ruptures ...... 45 Table 3.1.1 Description of Project Activities and Physical Works...... 56 Table 3.1.2 Example Project Activity – Environmental Effects Interaction Matrix ...... 58 Table 3.1.3 Example Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix ...... 59 Table 3.1.4 Example Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix ...... 62 Table 3.2.1 Consultation Time-line...... 66

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 xxii

Table 3.2.2 Regulatory Meetings...... 66 Table 3.2.3 Open House Objectives...... 70 Table 3.2.4 Stakeholder Summary ...... 71 Table 3.2.5 Open House Locations and Dates...... 72 Table 3.2.6 Materials and Publications Available at Open Houses ...... 73 Table 3.2.7 Open House Exit Questionnaire Responses ...... 75 Table 3.2.8 Summary of Public Input: Public Concern and EA Linkages to Issue Resolution76 Table 3.2.9 Summary of Meetings with Stakeholders ...... 79 Table 3.2.10 First Nation Open Houses ...... 82 Table 3.2.11 Valued Environmental Components (VECs) ...... 87 Table 3.2.12 Table of Concordance with NEB Filing Requirements for Biophysical and Socio- economic Elements ...... 93 Table 4.1.1 Surficial Geology – Urban Section of 2004 Corridor...... 96 Table 4.1.2 Surficial Geology – Rural Section of 2004 Corridor...... 97 Table 4.1.3 Bedrock Geology – Urban Section of 2004 Corridor ...... 98 Table 4.1.4 Bedrock Geology – Rural Section of 2004 Corridor ...... 98 Table 4.1.5 Potential Sulphide-Bearing Rock Formations – Urban Section of 2004 Corridor 99 Table 4.1.6 Potential Sulphide-Bearing Rock Formations – Rural Section of 2004 Corridor100 Table 4.2.1 Summary of Climate Normals for the Saint John Airport (1971-2000) ...... 103 Table 4.2.2 Summary of Climate Normals for Pennfield (1971-2000)...... 104 Table 4.2.3 Summary of Climate Normals for Hoyt/Blissville (1971-2000)...... 105 Table 4.2.4 Air Contaminant and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimates for New Brunswick ...... 107 Table 4.2.5 Emissions from Major Sources in the Saint John Airshed 1997-2003...... 108 Table 4.2.6 Nitrogen Dioxide Monitoring Results – Annual Averages...... 109 Table 4.2.7 Sulphur Dioxide Monitoring Results – Exceedances and Annual Averages .....110 Table 4.2.8 Total Suspended Particulate Matter Monitoring Results – Annual Averages ....111 Table 4.2.9 PM2.5 Monitoring Results – Annual Averages...... 112 Table 4.2.10 Ground-Level Ozone Monitoring Results – Exceedances and Annual Averages ...... 113 Table 4.2.11 Carbon Monoxide Dioxide Monitoring Results – Annual Averages ...... 114 Table 4.2.12 Baseline Sound Pressure Level Monitoring: 24-hour Monitoring Data Summary ...... 115 Table 4.3.1 Summary of NBENV Well Records Within 500 m of the Preferred Corridor and Variants Around Rockwood Park...... 119 Table 4.3.2 Summary of Wells By Location...... 120 Table 4.4.1 Rarity Rankings ...... 123 Table 4.4.2 Summary of Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 127 Table 4.4.3 Fish Families and Species within the IPL Parallel Section ...... 135 Table 4.4.4 Fish Families and Species within the Saint John River ...... 137 Table 4.5.1 Vascular Plants of Conservation Concern Identified During Surveys...... 143 Table 4.5.2 Plant Species from the AC CDC Database Potentially Occurring Within the Preferred Corridor...... 146 Table 4.5.3 Vegetation-based ESAs Intersecting or in Proximity to the Preferred Corridor .147 Table 4.6.1 Wetland Classes according to the New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources ...... 148 Table 4.6.2 Wetland Classes according to the Canadian Wetland Classification System ...148 Table 4.6.3 Data Gathered on Wetlands within the Preferred Corridor...... 150 Table 4.7.1 Total Avian Species Recorded During Surveys from July 15-22, 2005...... 161 Table 4.7.2 Avian Species at Risk and Species of Conservation Concern Recorded During Surveys from July 15-22, 2005...... 164

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 xxiii

Table 4.7.3 Other Bird Species of Conservation Concern...... 167 Table 4.7.4 Age Distribution of Forested Vegetation within the Preferred Corridor and Rockwood Park Variants ...... 169 Table 4.8.1 Injury Frequency...... 173 Table 4.8.2 Pipeline Ruptures ...... 173 Table 4.10.1 Summary of Soil Capability for Agriculture throughout the Preferred Corridor and Variants Around Rockwood Park...... 180 Table 4.11.1 Traffic Corridors Crossed by the Urban Portion of the Preferred Corridor and North and South Variants around Rockwood Park...... 189 Table 4.11.2 Water and Sewerage Infrastructure Crossed by the Urban Portion of the Preferred Corridor and North and South Variants around Rockwood Park...... 191 Table 4.11.3 Existing Gas Pipelines Crossed by the Urban Portion of the Preferred Corridor and North and South Variants around Rockwood Park...... 192 Table 4.11.4 Overnight Accommodations in Saint John County and the Surrounding Area ..194 Table 4.11.5 Overnight Accommodations in Charlotte County and the Surrounding Area ....197 Table 4.12.1 Summary of Selected Demographic, Income and Labour Characteristics, 2001 ...... 199 Table 4.12.2 Summary of Labour Force by Industry, 2001 ...... 199 Table 4.12.3 Summary of Education Levels, 2001...... 200 Table 5.1.1 Key Aspects and Issues of Atmospheric Environment ...... 210 Table 5.1.2 Canadian and New Brunswick Ambient Air Quality Objectives ...... 212 Table 5.1.3 Project Activity – Environmental Effects Interaction Matrix for Atmospheric Environment ...... 215 Table 5.1.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Atmospheric Environment...... 219 Table 5.1.5 Typical Construction Equipment Noise...... 223 Table 5.1.6 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Atmospheric Environment...... 227 Table 5.1.7 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Atmospheric Environment...... 229 Table 5.1.8 Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix for Atmospheric Environment ...... 234 Table 5.2.1 Project Activity – Environmental Effects Interaction Matrix for Water Resources ...... 239 Table 5.2.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Water Resources ...... 242 Table 5.2.3 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Water Resources ...... 256 Table 5.2.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Water Resources ...... 258 Table 5.2.5 Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix for Water Resources ...... 264 Table 5.3.1 Project Activity – Environmental Effects Interaction Matrix for Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 270 Table 5.3.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 278 Table 5.3.3 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 294 Table 5.3.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 297 Table 5.3.5 Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix for Fish and Fish Habitat .....305 Table 5.4.1 Relationship Between Rarity Rankings and Significance Criteria ...... 312 Table 5.4.2 Project Activity – Environmental Effects Interaction Matrix for Vegetation ...... 313 Table 5.4.3 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Vegetation...... 317 Table 5.4.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Vegetation...... 320 Table 5.4.5 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Vegetation...... 321 Table 5.4.6 Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix for Vegetation ...... 326 Table 5.5.1 Project Activity – Environmental Effects Interaction Matrix for Wetlands ...... 329 Table 5.5.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Wetlands ...... 334 Table 5.5.3 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Wetlands ...... 341 Table 5.5.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Wetlands ...... 344

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 xxiv

Table 5.5.5 Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix for Wetlands ...... 350 Table 5.6.1 Project Activity – Environmental Effects Interaction Matrix for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 353 Table 5.6.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 356 Table 5.6.3 Amount of DWAs Affected by RoW Construction...... 359 Table 5.6.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 360 Table 5.6.5 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 363 Table 5.6.6 Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 368 Table 5.7.1 Project Activity – Environmental Effects Interaction Matrix for Health and Safety ...... 371 Table 5.7.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Health and Safety ...... 377 Table 5.7.3 Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix for Health and Safety...... 392 Table 5.9.1 Project Activity – Environmental Effects Interaction Matrix for Land and Resource Use ...... 397 Table 5.9.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Land and Resource Use ...... 403 Table 5.9.3 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Land and Resource Use ...... 408 Table 5.9.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Land and Resource Use ...... 410 Table 5.9.5 Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix for Land and Resource Use 416 Table 5.10.1 Project Activity – Environmental Effects Interaction Matrix for Infrastructure and Services...... 418 Table 5.10.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Infrastructure and Services ...... 421 Table 5.10.3 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Infrastructure and Services ...... 425 Table 5.10.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Infrastructure and Services ...... 426 Table 5.10.5 Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix for Infrastructure and Services ...... 432 Table 5.11.1 Project Activity – Environmental Effects Interaction Matrix for Labour and Economy...... 434 Table 5.11.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Labour and Economy...... 436 Table 5.11.3 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Labour and Economy...... 438 Table 5.11.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Labour and Economy...... 440 Table 5.11.5 Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix for Labour and Economy .....444 Table 5.12.1 Project Activity – Environmental Effects Interaction Matrix for Archaeological and Heritage Resources...... 448 Table 5.12.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Archaeological and Heritage Resources ...... 450 Table 5.12.3 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Archaeological and Heritage Resources ...... 454 Table 5.12.4 Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix for Archaeological and Heritage Resources ...... 457 Table 7.3.1 Other Future Projects for Consideration of Cumulative Environmental Effects.471 Table 7.4.1 Identification of Potential Interactions of the Project with Other Projects and Activities ...... 479

List of Appendices (Volume 2)

APPENDIX A Figures APPENDIX B Public Consultation Materials and Issue Resolution APPENDIX C Additional Fish and Fish Habitat Information APPENDIX D Additional Vegetation Information

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 xxv

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 xxvi

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Overview

Through an Application being filed with the National Energy Board (NEB), Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd. (“Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company”, “the Proponent”) is seeking a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (“Certificate”) that will permit the construction and operation of the Brunswick Pipeline (“the Project”).

The Proponent and Repsol Energy Canada Ltd. ("Repsol Canada") have signed a firm transportation service agreement for the transportation of 750,000 Dth/d of natural gas on the Brunswick Pipeline for a term of 25 years.

The gas to be transported by the Project will originate at the proposed Canaport™ LNG facility to be located at Mispec Point in Saint John, New Brunswick. The Project will extend from Mispec Point to the international border near St. Stephen, New Brunswick where it will interconnect with facilities to be constructed, owned and operated by Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline L.L.C. (Limited Liability Company).

The Project will be located within a preferred pipeline corridor (the “preferred corridor”) identified by the Proponent, as shown in Figure 1.1.1 (note: all figures are found in Volume 2: Appendix A).

This environmental assessment (EA) was prepared by Jacques Whitford on behalf of the Proponent. The purpose of the EA is to determine the significance of potential environmental effects of the Project to the receiving environment, to optimize positive environmental effects, and to reduce adverse environmental effects resulting from the Project. In the context of this report, the term “environment” or “environmental” includes both biophysical and socio-economic components.

1.2 Proponent Information

The Project is a stand-alone, separately owned pipeline project. It is not connected to nor integrated with the system owned and operated by Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership ("M&NP"). M&NP initially conducted open seasons and commenced development of the Project on a stand-alone basis, separate from the rest of its system. On May 15, 2006, M&NP transferred all of its rights and interests in the Project to Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company.

Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company is wholly owned by Emera Inc. ("Emera"). Emera is an energy and services company based in Atlantic Canada with over $4 billion in assets. Emera has participated in the natural gas production and transportation systems owned and operated by Sable Offshore Energy Inc. and M&NP since the commencement of their operations. Emera has established a contractual relationship with St. Clair Pipelines (1996) Ltd. ("St. Clair") to provide Project management and technical services to obtain permits for and construct the Brunswick Pipeline, as well as to operate the Brunswick Pipeline once it is in service. St. Clair is well known to the Board as it was responsible

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 1

for the design and construction of the M&NP system and currently is the contract operator of the M&NP system. St. Clair personnel have carried out much of the development work on the Brunswick Pipeline to date and, as such, are supporting a seamless transition of the ownership of the Project to Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company. The key St. Clair personnel that have been involved with the Project to date will continue to be involved in the Project.

Contact Information: Brunswick Pipeline Project Suite 1600 1801 Hollis Street Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada, B3J 3N4 Phone: (902) 425-4474 Fax: (902) 420-0253 1-800-223-1716

Project Contact: Mr. Jim McLelland, P.Eng. Project Manager Phone: (902) 490-2201 [email protected]

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Project

The primary purpose of and need for the Project is to provide the necessary new infrastructure to transport natural gas from the CanaportTM LNG facility, currently being developed near Saint John, to markets in Maritimes Canada and the Northeastern United States. The gas will be supplied by Repsol YPF, which is an integrated international oil and gas company that operates in more than 25 countries. Repsol YPF is one of the ten major private oil companies in the world and its oil and gas reserves total more than 5.4 billion barrels of oil equivalent, located mostly in Latin America and North Africa. This pipeline will enable Repsol to market new gas supplies from the CanaportTM LNG receiving terminal, commencing as early as November 2008. Specifically, the Project is designed to enable Repsol to transport up to 750,000 Dth/d of natural gas to various markets.

1.4 Regulatory Framework

The Project requires approval from the NEB pursuant to the National Energy Board Act (NEBA). An Application (i.e., Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to NEBA) is being filed with the NEB concurrently with this EA. The Application triggers the requirement for an EA under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) as the issuance of the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity is on the Law List Regulations. The NEB will be an RA for the EA under CEAA. Based on the other authorizations required that are on the Law List Regulations, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) and Transport Canada may also be RAs. Federal agencies providing expert advice on the Project may include Environment Canada (EC), Health Canada (HC) and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). As the Project is on the Comprehensive Study List Regulations, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the “Agency”) will act as the federal environmental assessment coordinator. This EA must meet the requirements of CEAA and the Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment provisions of the NEB

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 2

Filing Manual (NEB 2004a) and the NEB will be a Responsible Authority (RA) for the EA. It must also meet the requirements of the NEB Brunswick Pipeline Project draft Environmental Assessment Scoping Document (NEB 2006), which was issued for public comment on May 5, 2006.

NEB approvals will be obtained through a two-step regulatory process. Step 1 is to file an Application for a preferred corridor, including an environmental and socio-economic assessment of the preferred corridor that will meet CEAA and NEBA requirements. The Application also addresses the balance of the filing requirements under NEBA. Step 2 is to file an Application for a detailed pipeline route and 30 m right-of-way (RoW) within the preferred corridor to the NEB following issuance of an NEB Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and completion of the EA.

The Project is affected by federal and provincial statutes and regulations (Table 1.4.1). Subsequent to NEB approval, the Project will require permits and/or approvals from various federal and provincial regulatory agencies, potentially including but not necessarily limited to those agencies and legislation listed in Table 1.4.1.

Table 1.4.1 Legislation that May be Applicable to the Project

Legislation Agency Type of Activity Federal Canadian Environmental National Energy Board The Project Assessment Act and Environment Canada Regulations Fisheries and Oceans Canada Transport Canada Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Canadian Environmental Environment Canada Hazardous wastes Protection Act Petroleum, oil, lubricant storage Canadian Environmental Marine Environment Division Sulphide-Bearing Rock Protection Act - Part 7, Division Environmental Protection Service Disposal (if required) 3, 1999 (Ocean Disposal Environment Canada Permit) Canadian Transportation President of the Queen's Privy Council for Project Operation and Accident Investigation and Canada Maintenance – accident and Safety Board Act and incident reporting Transportation Safety Board Regulations Explosives Act Natural Resources Canada Handling of blasting agents and explosives Fisheries Act Fisheries and Oceans Canada Watercourse crossings Historic Sites and Monuments Department of Canadian Heritage Protection of archaeological Act sites Migratory Birds Convention Act Environment Canada RoW clearing and construction of pipeline National Energy Board Act and National Energy Board The Project Onshore Pipeline Regulations, 1999 Navigable Waters Protection Transport Canada Works or construction activity in Act navigable waters Species at Risk Act Environment Canada RoW clearing and construction of pipeline Transportation of Dangerous Transport Canada Transporting and handling Goods Act, 1992 and dangerous goods Regulations

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 3

Table 1.4.1 Legislation that May be Applicable to the Project

Legislation Agency Type of Activity Provincial Clean Environment Act New Brunswick Department of Environment Disposal of hydrostatic test Water Quality Regulation water Used Oil Regulation Waste oil disposal Clean Water Act New Brunswick Department of Environment Altering or crossing a Watercourse and Wetland waterbody or wetland Alteration Regulation Watershed Protected Area Designation Order Endangered Species Act New Brunswick Department of Environment Construction of pipeline

Forest Fires Act New Brunswick Department of Natural Accidental events Resources Controlled burns Historic Sites Protection Act New Brunswick Culture and Sport Secretariat Protection of archaeological sites Occupational Health and Safety New Brunswick Occupational Health and Construction, and Operation Act Safety Commission and Maintenance for worker Occupational Health and health and safety Safety Regulations Occupational Health and Safety Code of Practice for Working Alone Regulations Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System Regulations Workers' Compensation Act and Workers' Compensation Regulations Transportation of Dangerous New Brunswick Department of Public Safety Transporting or handling Goods Act and Regulations dangerous goods

1.5 Organization of the Report

This EA is organized into the following ten sections.

Section 1.0 provides an introduction to the EA, and outlines the purpose, structure and content of the EA.

Section 2.0 provides a description of the Project, details of the Project elements and activities, including accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events, to be assessed, and the environmental management practices to be implemented on the Project.

Section 3.0 provides a description of the issues scoping process, outlines the scope of the Project and the scope of the EA, and includes a summary of public, stakeholder, Aboriginal, and regulatory consultation efforts. The methodology employed for this EA is also described in Section 3.0.

Section 4.0 provides a description of the existing environment in the Project area in terms of the Valued Environmental Components (VECs) being assessed.

Section 5.0 provides an assessment of potential environmental effects for each VEC including accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 4

Section 6.0 provides an assessment of the effects of the environment on the Project.

Section 7.0 provides an assessment of cumulative environmental effects.

Section 8.0 provides the EA conclusions.

Section 9.0 provides the closing remarks.

Section 10.0 provides the references cited in the EA.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 5

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Definition and Location

The Project will extend from the Canaport™ LNG facility at Mispec Point in Saint John to the international border near St. Stephen where it will interconnect to facilities owned and operated by Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline L.L.C.

The Project will involve a pipeline of approximately 145 km, about 35 km of which will be within the Saint John city limits. The pipeline will be 762 mm (30 inches) in diameter and will operate at a maximum pressure of 9,930 kPag (1,440 psig).

2.2 Project Alternatives

2.2.1 Alternatives to the Project

The Project will transport approximately 750,000 Dth/d of natural gas from the Canaport™ LNG facility at Mispec Point in Saint John to the international border near St. Stephen, a distance of approximately 145 km. There are no economically and technically feasible alternatives to using a pipeline to reliably transport large quantities of natural gas over these distances.

Due to the anticipated volumes of natural gas to be shipped, using the existing Saint John Lateral (SJL) pipeline for transporting gas from the Canaport™ LNG facility to the Baileyville compressor station is not a technically or economically viable option.

2.2.2 Corridor Selection Process

This section defines the corridor selection process aimed at evaluating alternative means of carrying out the Project that are technically and economically feasible, describes the alternative corridors that were considered for this Project, and provides the basis for selecting the preferred corridor.

2.2.2.1 Corridor Constraints

The corridor selection process relied upon comprehensive constraint mapping to identify alternative corridors and to assist in selecting a preferred corridor. The corridor selection process consisted of the following steps.

Identification of the Project study area – the initial study area was determined, and corridor alternatives identified, by the required origin and terminal points of the pipeline and by key constraints (e.g., engineering and environmental constraints) mapped at a scale of 1:200,000.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 6

Selection of the preliminary preferred corridor – the corridor alternatives were evaluated and the preliminary preferred corridor was selected based on a more detailed review of the environmental and engineering characteristics of the preliminary corridor alternatives mapped at a scale of 1:50,000, analysis of available information, field investigations, and regulatory and stakeholder consultation.

Selection of the preferred corridor – the selection of the preferred corridor was based on the evaluation of additional corridor routing alternatives to, and modifications of, the preliminary preferred corridor, identified from public and stakeholder consultation, and supplementary field investigations.

The delineation of the pipeline RoW (30 m wide) within the preferred corridor will be completed following the issuance of an NEB Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and will be based on further site-specific constraint mapping, field investigations, and information received from the public, landowners, other interested parties, and government agencies.

Constraints outline areas that have attributes or characteristics of particular environmental interest or that can pose difficulties for construction. There are three classes of constraints:

Class 1 - where mitigation may not be practicable;

Class 2 - where mitigation is practicable; and

Class 3 - where special construction practices may be required.

The constraints used in selecting the preferred corridor are similar to the constraints previously used in corridor selection studies for the M&NP Mainline and SJL projects and are consistent with the environmental features to be considered in route selection studies for linear facilities, as recommended by the New Brunswick Department of Environment (NBENV; NBDELG 2005a). The constraints used in the preferred corridor selection process are listed in Table 2.2.1.

Table 2.2.1 Constraints Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Blueberry fields Agricultural land Bedrock (outcrop, shallow) Raptor nest Christmas tree plantation Mineral claims Ecological site and reserve Atlantic salmon angling river Topography (slopes >20%) Salmon spawning habitat Deer wintering areas Waterbody (<200 m) Fish hatchery Ducks Unlimited site Sulphide-bearing (acid generating) rock Landfill site Old growth forest Mine/quarry pit Land with recreational value Mining area Permanent sample plot Historical, or archaeological site Plantation Maliseet or Mi’kmaq spiritual sites or Traditional hunting, fishing, or sacred places gathering sites Rare amphibians Recreational area Wetlands Significant wildlife habitat

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 7

Table 2.2.1 Constraints Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Area with sinkholes Areas with elevated potential for rare plants Limestone/gypsum Water supply area Sugar bush Housing (<40 m) School Reserve/park Airport runway Stream crossing Cemetery U-fish pond Church Tree nursery Military base Municipality/built-up area Reservoir Key: Class 1 - where mitigation may not be practicable Class 2 - where mitigation is practicable Class 3 - where special construction practices may be required

Throughout the corridor selection process, information received from the public, stakeholder groups, and other interested parties at open houses and through other consultative processes was considered in the decision-making process.

2.2.2.2 Identification of the Study Area and Corridor Alternatives

The study area for the evaluation of corridor alternatives is located in southwest New Brunswick. The pipeline origin is the Canaport™ LNG facility at Mispec Point in Saint John, and the pipeline terminal point is the international border near St. Stephen (Figure 2.2.1).

The environmental constraints and technical issues related to selecting a corridor through Saint John (the City) are very different than selecting a corridor through the undeveloped, mostly forested lands to the west of the City. Therefore, the selection of corridor alternatives was undertaken in two parts: first, the selection of corridor alternatives from the Canaport™ LNG facility, east of Saint John, to a point immediately west of the City (the urban corridor); and second, the selection of corridor alternatives from the west side of Saint John to the Maine/New Brunswick border (the rural corridor).

In general, the corridor alternatives identified for evaluation represented the routes from the pipeline origin to its terminal point, avoiding known concentrations of environmental constraints, and following existing RoWs wherever practicable. Discussions with various stakeholder groups and regulatory agencies were also held to help identify potential corridor alternatives and to obtain feedback on the evaluation criteria for selecting a preferred corridor. The corridor alternatives identified for both the urban and rural portions of the pipeline are shown in Figure 2.2.2, and are discussed in the following text.

2.2.2.3 Selection of Preliminary Preferred Corridor

The urban and rural corridor alternatives were evaluated, and the urban and rural portions of the preliminary preferred corridor were selected, against general corridor selection criteria. These criteria included:

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 8

overall length;

potential interaction with known environmental constraints;

land use;

risk (i.e., risk associated with encountering unidentified technical, constructability or health and safety issues, potential for cost overruns, and potential for schedule slippage); and

cost.

Detailed cost estimates for all corridor alternatives considered were not prepared since the level of estimate (i.e., estimate accuracy given the different levels of engineering information available for each alternative) would preclude meaningful comparison. However, it was recognized that the shortest corridor alternative that potentially intersected the fewest number of environmental constraints and represented the lowest risk would likely be, in the end, the least costly option.

Description of Urban Corridor Alternatives

The origin of the urban portion of the corridor is the Canaport™ LNG facility on Mispec Point, and the terminal point is Prince of Wales, immediately west of the Saint John city limits. The following three corridor alternatives were identified for the urban portion of the Project:

a marine crossing south of Saint John (Marine Alternative);

creating a new RoW north of Saint John, crossing the Kingston Peninsula (North Alternative); and

through Saint John (City Alternative) (i.e., via a corridor paralleling the existing SJL or via other existing sub-alternatives identified through the City).

The three urban corridor alternatives identified, and any sub-alternatives (i.e., variants of a corridor alternative), are shown in Figure 2.2.2 and Figure 2.2.4A. Generally, each of the urban corridor alternatives likely would result in a different set of potential environmental effects because each corridor alternative is located in distinct environments, and thus would potentially interact with different types of environmental constraints.

Marine Alternative

The Marine Alternative is shown in Figure 2.2.2 and Figure 2.2.4A as a broad area crossing the Saint John Harbour. The following three marine crossing sub-alternatives were identified from Black Point to the west side of the Saint John Harbour (PCS 2005):

from north of Black Point due west across the Saint John Harbour to a landfall site near Sheldon Point on the west bank of the harbour (a potential northern marine corridor);

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 9

from north of Black Point southwest across the outer Saint John Harbour to a landfall site between Tiner Point and Franks Head, in the vicinity of Lorneville, on the west bank of the harbour (a potential southern marine corridor); and

from north of Black Point, due west across the Saint John Harbour to a point just off Shelton Point, then the pipeline would turn southwest and run parallel to the shoreline, between the shoreline and the anchorage areas A and B, to the end of the western landfall site near Lorneville.

All marine sub-alternatives would require a land to water horizontal directional drill (HDD) on the east side of the harbour, and may require a land to water HDD (i.e., on the west side of the harbour). If further detailed engineering assessment determined that an HDD were not technically viable, open cuts, with their attendant potential environmental effects, would be required.

North Alternative

The North Alternative is shown in Figure 2.2.2 and Figure 2.2.4A. The North Alternative starts at Mispec Point and proceeds north, paralleling an existing power transmission line. Once across Red Head Road, it proceeds towards Black River Road, past Calvert Lake, and then turns towards the Grandview Avenue Industrial Park. The North Alternative then proceeds towards the Irving Oil refinery on Grandview Avenue, travels east of the refinery through a developed section of Saint John, and parallels another electrical power transmission line RoW to the four-lane highway, Route 1.

From Route 1, the North Alternative parallels the north edge of Rockwood Park to Sandy Point, passing adjacent to residential areas and planned subdivisions. An HDD would likely be required to cross the Kennebecasis Bay from Sandy Point to Barlow’s Bluff on the Kingston Peninsula. The corridor alternative then crosses to the west side of the Kingston Peninsula and turns southwest paralleling Highway 845. A second HDD would be required to cross the Saint John River from just north of Hardings Point to Westfield Beach. The North Alternative then travels southwest until it intersects an existing power line RoW. It then parallels the power line RoW south until it reaches the existing SJL RoW, near Prince of Wales. HDD is the preferred method for crossing the Kennebecasis Bay and Saint John River. However, if further detailed engineering assessment determined that the HDDs were not technically viable, open cuts, with their attendant potential environmental effects, would be required to cross these watercourses.

City Alternative

Locating the corridor through Saint John would represent the shortest land-based corridor, and would also take advantage of the many opportunities to parallel existing RoWs, including the existing M&NP SJL RoW. However, locating the corridor through the City also poses several technical challenges. Saint John is a highly developed, old city, with well established industrial and residential areas with their attendant subsurface infrastructure. Crossing the Saint John River through the City and the potential for encountering contaminated areas presents additional challenges.

Four corridor sub-alternatives through the City were identified in an attempt to avoid built-up areas and allow the crossing of the Saint John River without undue difficulty. These sub-alternatives are

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 10

discussed in detail in Godfrey (2005). The four corridor sub-alternatives through Saint John, shown in Figure 2.2.2 and Figure 2.2.4A, include the following.

The Inner City Sub-alternative starts at Mispec Point and proceeds north, paralleling the existing Irving Oil pipeline from the CanaportTM LNG terminal until it intersects the existing SJL. The sub- alternative then, for the most part, follows the existing M&NP SJL RoW and/or Route 1 through the core of the City and crosses the Saint John River near Reversing Falls via suspension off the Reversing Falls Bridge or the Harbour (Route 1) Bridge.

The Pleasant Point Sub-alternative starts at Mispec Point and proceeds north, paralleling an existing power transmission line. Once across Red Head Road, the sub-alternative proceeds towards Black River Road. Once past Calvert Lake, it turns towards the Grandview Avenue Industrial Park and then proceeds towards the Irving Oil refinery on Grandview Avenue. The sub- alternative then travels east of the refinery, through a developed section of Saint John, paralleling another power transmission line corridor to the four-lane highway, Route 1. From Route 1, the Pleasant Point Sub-alternative parallels an existing power transmission line that proceeds in a westerly direction through Rockwood Park to a location adjacent to the Howe’s Lake Landfill area. The sub-alternative would parallel the transmission line RoW in the Park for a distance of approximately 2.4 km. Once past the Rockwood Park area, the sub-alternative proceeds west along an existing power transmission line, turning south to Pokiok and then west towards the Saint John River. An HDD would be required to cross the Saint John River from Pokiok to Pleasant Point. The Pleasant Point Sub-alternative proceeds south from Pleasant Point for approximately 1.6 km aligned along Milford Road and then Green Head Road. The Pleasant Point Sub-alternative then turns west and parallels the New Brunswick Southern Railway (NBSR) properties and parallels the railway tracks west from Bay Street for approximately 800 m before turning south. It then crosses the tracks and follows property lines until it intersects Pipeline Road (named for the water pipelines that parallel this road). The Pleasant Point Sub-alternative then follows Pipeline Road for approximately 750 m before turning south to follow the east side of Gault Road to Manawagonish Road. It crosses Route 7 and then turns south and crosses Route 1. On the south side of Route 1, the Pleasant Point Sub-alternative parallels a series of existing RoWs, including two power transmission lines, an access road, and then the existing SJL.

The Dominion Park Island Sub-alternative follows the Pleasant Point Sub-alternative until Millidge Avenue, then heads west to the south side of the Millidgeville Wastewater Treatment Plant and crosses the Saint John River (requiring two HDDs, one from the east side of the river to Dominion Park Island at Swift Point, and a second HDD across to the west side of the river at Arthurs Point). It then proceeds southwest north of Grassy Lake and Ludgate Lake, through the Spruce Lake Watershed, until the SJL is intersected, near Prince of Wales.

The Boars Head Sub-alternative follows the Dominion Park Island Sub-alternative, but deviates north near Robertson Lake to Boars Head and crosses the Saint John River to Belmont (requiring one long HDD). It then follows the same path as the Dominion Park Island Sub-alternative until the SJL is intersected.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 11

Evaluation of Urban Corridor Alternatives

The urban corridor alternatives were evaluated against the general corridor selection criteria described previously (i.e., overall length, potential to interact with known environmental constraints, land use, risk and cost). The evaluation included consideration of feedback from open houses, the Project toll-free telephone line and email contacts, technical and environmental studies on the preliminary preferred corridor; and additional discussions with stakeholders.

The technical studies used to support the evaluation of alternative corridors included:

a preliminary evaluation of interferences presented by underground infrastructure and related constructability issues (Godfrey 2005);

a technical feasibility study of potential marine crossing alternatives (PCS 2005); and

a technical feasibility study of HDDs across major watercourses and water bodies (AK Energy 2005).

The following discussion summarizes the evaluation of each corridor alternative against the general corridor selection criteria and highlights some of the key issues related to each alternative.

Marine Alternative

A corridor crossing the Saint John Harbour would interact with environmental constraints typical of the marine and estuarine environment. Potential environmental effects related to a marine corridor could include, but may not be limited to, the following:

change in accessibility to the fishery;

harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of marine fish habitat resulting from the ditch excavated across the harbour as well as anchor drops and cable sweeps during Construction;

direct mortality of marine fish, including commercially fished species;

potential interaction and disturbance of contaminated sediments (i.e., at existing ocean disposal sites);

loss of salt marsh or other environmentally sensitive marine shore habitat;

interference with ships and other marine vessel traffic in Saint John Harbour or anchorages; and

worker health and safety risks related to marine work.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 12

The Marine Alternative represents the most direct path from the Canaport™ LNG facility to the SJL near the western limits of Saint John (approximately 28 km). Due to various constraints within the Saint John Harbour, however, it is unlikely that the Marine Alternative would take a direct path across the harbour, resulting in a pipeline that would be considerably longer than 28 km. If a corridor involving a marine crossing were to be considered further, several issues would have to be overcome when constructing the pipeline.

Normally, the pipeline would access the marine floor by an HDD originating from the shore and terminating at sea. This operation would involve mobilizing equipment onshore and on a jack-up rig, moored barges, and other marine support vessels at sea (Gonzales, pers. comm.). The pipeline would be laid on the seafloor by utilizing specialized barges working off anchors, and could involve bucket dredging, pipeline plowing, pipeline jetting, use of jack up vessels, various support vessels and barges, and potentially some underwater blasting (PCS 2005).

The Bay of Fundy, into which the Saint John Harbour flows, experiences the highest tides in the world. Strong ocean currents, local tidal changes of up to 8.2 m (27 feet) in Saint John Harbour, and the unknown effects of weather delays in the vicinity of Mispec Point, would create design, engineering and construction issues and result in substantial construction and occupational safety risks for the offshore HDD and pipe laying operations (PCS 2005). The offshore HDDs would be extremely challenging technically and have the potential to encounter cost overruns, protracted drilling time resulting in schedule delays, and possible failure (AK Energy 2005). For example, the conditions presented in crossing Saint John Harbour would make subsurface assembly of equipment, underwater operations and barge anchoring more complicated and technically challenging. The potential for poor underwater visibility (i.e., high turbidity in the vicinity of the marine corridor crossing sub-alternatives) coupled with strong currents near Mispec Point presents an occupational safety risk to divers (PCS 2005).

Harsh winter weather, thick fog and ship traffic would likely shut down construction activities throughout the course of Construction and during critical marine activities (PCS 2005). These shut downs would be required to ensure that the safety of personnel is addressed and the pipe is not damaged during installation. Further, the timing of these operations may also be restricted to scheduled windows that would not interfere with the breeding cycles of important species (e.g., lobster) and commercial fishing seasons that would result in increased schedule risk to the Project. Approximately 100 fishers fish in the Saint John Harbour area, mostly for lobster but also groundfish and scallop (Jacques Whitford 2004a).

The marine conditions (e.g., tides, weather conditions described in Section 4.2.1.1, Climate Normals) off Mispec Point and on the opposite shore may preclude the feasibility of an HDD to access the marine floor from land. As a contingency, a marine corridor may require a large open cut of the marine shoreline, with its attendant potential effects to the marine environment.

The availability of equipment required to complete the offshore HDD work is known to be limited and in high demand (PCS 2005). This, coupled with mobilization timelines for offshore equipment and any regulatory restrictions in the timing of the offshore work, will represent an additional Project schedule and cost risk.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 13

The shoreline between Sheldon Point and Franks Head is an Environmentally Significant Area (ESA), including Saints Rest Marsh and Beach and the Irving Nature Park (Taylors Island ESA). Saints Rest Marsh is the last remnant of tidal marsh in the Saint John area. Previous natural gas pipeline construction experience in the area of Saints Rest Marsh suggests it is unlikely that the open-cut crossing of the Manawagonish Stream that would be required once this marine crossing made landfall would be permissible due to the sensitive nature of the area. Therefore, these areas would likely have to be avoided as potential landfall sites or would require elaborate mitigation.

The pipeline would also have to avoid the existing Black Point ocean disposal site, which is a temporary ocean disposal site off Anthony’s Cove, southwest of Black Point, for soils dredged out of Saint John Harbour shipping lanes. There is risk that the soils are contaminated and any construction through these disposal areas may re-suspend this contamination and cause it to migrate to other adjacent seafloor areas.

There is no standard for pipeline installation depths under anchorage areas or navigable waters, and the Proponent is required to propose the method and depth of the installed pipeline and any installed cover or backfill to regulatory authorities. The depth of cover requires considerations for protecting public safety and the pipeline, while considering circumstances and potential construction methodology (PCS 2005). Increased depth of cover will likely result in an additional Project cost and protracted schedule.

A marine crossing of the channel or anchorage areas would cause substantial disruptions to shipping and may necessitate a request to close anchorage areas during Construction (PCS 2005). Therefore, the anchorage areas may have to be avoided by the pipeline.

A shipwreck has been identified within the Saint John Harbour and it is possible that other unknown shipwrecks exist in the area as well; however, it is unlikely that these features would be a significant constraint for a marine crossing.

The obstacles described above would result in a more circuitous corridor and would increase the length of the pipeline by a range of approximately 5.8 to 12.7 km, based on a description of marine crossing corridor alternatives in PCS (2005). Increasing the length of the pipeline would increase the Project footprint and costs, add substantially to the timeframe for Construction, and introduce an additional level of schedule risk to the Project (McLelland, pers. comm.). An independent assessment of the feasibility of a marine crossing for the pipeline concluded that a marine crossing would be very high risk in a hostile environment, where no other pipelines of a similar nature exist (PCS 2005).

The schedule, cost, and level of risk associated with a marine crossing would potentially jeopardize the technical and economic feasibility of the Project. Therefore, a corridor alternative requiring a marine crossing was rejected.

North Alternative

A pipeline corridor north of the City to Kingston Peninsula would interact with environmental constraints typical of developed urban residential and commercial areas, in addition to environmental constraints

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 14

expected in undeveloped and rural areas. Potential environmental effects related to the North Alternative would include, but may not be limited to, the following:

potential to encounter contaminated lands (i.e., through or near industrial areas);

temporary increased noise (i.e., adverse change in sound quality) near residential areas;

temporary disruption in traffic flow and to other urban infrastructure (e.g., sewer and water services);

change in groundwater and surface water quality or quantity, including protected watersheds;

harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of freshwater fish habitat;

changes in quality, quantity, or function of wetlands;

loss of forest resources;

change in the quality and quantity of terrestrial habitat; and

change in land use and creation of access to previously inaccessible areas.

The North Alternative would result in a much longer pipeline (approximately 58 km from Mispec Point to Prince of Wales) compared to the other urban alternatives and correspondingly would have a larger footprint, as it would require a relatively substantial amount of new RoW to be created (approximately 129 ha), much of it through previously undeveloped land.

The North Alternative also would require two long and technically challenging HDD crossings: one high risk HDD under Kennebecasis Bay from Sandy Point (approximately 2,300 m long); and another medium to high risk HDD under the Saint John River between Harding Beach and Westfield Beach (approximately 1,650 m long) (Dwyer, pers. comm.). If the HDDs were not successful, open cut crossings would be required, resulting in potential environmental effects to fish and fish habitat (e.g., from underwater trenching and blasting), additional increased costs, and schedule delays.

A much greater portion (approximately 9 km or 27 ha of RoW) of a North Alternative would intersect the East and West Musquash Watershed than either the City Alternative or the Marine Alternative. This large watershed provides a portion of the drinking water requirements for the greater Saint John region. There would also be a greater number of watercourse crossings between Mispec Point and Prince of Wales than for the other urban corridor alternatives.

The North Alternative would result in increased potential compared to both the Marine and City Alternatives for adverse environmental effects to the terrestrial and aquatic (freshwater) environments related to the creation of new RoW and locating substantial portions of the corridor through undeveloped areas, including a much greater length of RoW through the protected watershed. Further,

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 15

the incremental costs related to the increased length of the corridor and the additional costs and risks associated with the two HDDs, represent an additional level of technical risk and cost exposure to the Project. Therefore, a corridor alternative north of Saint John was rejected as it was both technically and economically not feasible.

City Alternative

All sub-alternatives through the City would potentially intersect the existing SJL RoW to the west of the City core, near Prince of Wales. A pipeline through the core of Saint John would interact with environmental constraints typical of developed urban residential and commercial areas. Potential environmental effects related to a City Alternative would include, but may not be limited to, the following:

increased potential to encounter contaminated lands (i.e., through or near industrial areas);

temporary increased noise (i.e., adverse change in sound quality) near residential areas; and

temporary disruption in traffic flow and to other urban infrastructure (e.g., sewer and water services).

There are many potential variants to a corridor running through Saint John. The Inner City Sub- alternative would require most pipeline construction activities to take place in or near the core of Saint John and would encounter areas of contaminated lands and areas congested with existing utilities (e.g., natural gas distribution pipelines, water mains, the Irving Oil refinery pipe rack) (Godfrey 2005). It would also result in a higher level of disruption to traffic flow than other City sub-alternatives and require construction around the Fort LaTour National Historic Site. Further, Saint John has just completed a substantial riverfront restoration project in the Harbour Bridge area, much of which would need to be torn-up and rebuilt if the pipeline route were to parallel the existing SJL in this area. Finally, the Inner City Sub-alternative would require a bridge crossing of the Saint John River. Discussions with the New Brunswick Department of Transportation (NBDOT), the Harbour Bridge Commission, and NBSR indicated that suspending the pipeline off two of the three existing bridges over the Saint John River would not be technically feasible, and suspending the pipeline off the third (Harbour Bridge) would have a high technical risk and is likely not permissible (S. More, pers. comm.). Therefore, locating a corridor through the core of Saint John was not a feasible alternative.

Locating the corridor through the north side of Saint John (i.e., Dominion Park Island and Boars Head Sub-alternatives) avoids some of the infrastructure congestion, and minimizes the potential for encountering contamination and for causing disruption to traffic flow, when compared with the Inner City Sub-alternative. However, the Dominion Park Island Sub-alternative requires two technically very high risk HDDs, and the Boars Head Sub-alternative requires a long and technically difficult HDD that carries a high level of technical risk and additional cost (AK Energy 2005). If the HDDs were not successful, then open cut crossings would be required, resulting in potential environmental effects to fish and fish habitat (e.g., from underwater trenching and blasting), increased costs, and schedule delays.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 16

Both of these corridor sub-alternatives would require construction through newly developed residential areas with the attendant potential environmental effects from traffic disruption and noise. Moreover, both of these corridor alternatives result in a substantial portion of the pipeline (approximately 4.1 km) being built through the Spruce Lake Watershed, which is protected under the New Brunswick Watershed Protected Area Designation Order. This large watershed provides drinking water to the greater Saint John region and it is desirable to avoid this constraint, if practicable. The concerns over the technical feasibility of the HDDs represent avoidable risks to the Project. Therefore, the corridor sub-alternatives through the north side of Saint John via Dominion Park Island and Boars Head were rejected due to their higher technical and schedule risk and were considered economically not feasible.

The Pleasant Point Sub-alternative provides a relatively direct path from Mispec Point to the west side of Saint John without transecting the City core, and runs predominantly through undeveloped or commercial lands. The Pleasant Point Sub-alternative does not require any bridge crossings, but does require one HDD of the Saint John River at one of its narrowest points (less technical and schedule risk than other alternatives) in the Saint John area. Preliminary technical studies have indicated that the HDD is technically feasible and carries a much lower level of risk relative to the other sub-alternatives (AK Energy 2005). Further, the Pleasant Point Sub-alternative minimizes interactions with residential areas and follows existing utility corridors to the extent practicable, and only intersects the most southerly end of the Spruce Lake Watershed for a short distance (approximately 1 km) where it parallels the existing SJL RoW. The Pleasant Point Sub-alternative passes through Rockwood Park, a large recreational area in the centre of the City. The Pleasant Point Sub-alternative is not located within the more popular and used areas of the Park. Three trails in Rockwood Park are crossed by the corridor of this Pleasant Point Sub-alternative. Some of the trails are crossed more than once and/or are paralleled. The gated asphalt access roads to the former parking lot on the west side of the Park are each crossed once. The proposed corridor parallels an existing power transmission line RoW and once construction is completed, the proposed pipeline and associated RoW should not interfere with current park activities.

The Pleasant Point Sub-alternative is the City sub-alternative with the most direct path, the least potential for interference with existing infrastructure, the least potential for environmental effects (e.g., minimum distance through residential areas), and carries the least technical and cost risk. Based on the attendant technical and schedule risk anticipated, this Sub-alternative is considered the only economically feasible alternative and offers, by far, the least potential environmental effects of all considered alternatives. Therefore, the Pleasant Point Sub-alternative was selected as the preliminary preferred corridor for the urban portion of the pipeline, and was presented to the public at the open houses (Section 3.2.1, Consultation). The preliminary preferred corridor for the urban portion of the Project is shown in Figure 2.2.2.

Several challenges with the preliminary preferred corridor were identified during the public and stakeholder consultations. Specifically, some members of the public were opposed to an alternative pipeline corridor along an existing power transmission line RoW in Rockwood Park. In response to these concerns, variants to the preliminary preferred corridor were identified that avoid the Park. These variants are shown in Figure 2.2.6 and are discussed in further detail in Section 2.2.2.4.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 17

Rural Corridor Alternatives

Rural corridor alternatives would interact with environmental constraints typical of undeveloped and rural areas. Potential environmental effects related to a rural corridor would include, but may not be limited to, the following:

change in groundwater and surface water quality or quantity, including protected watersheds;

harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of freshwater fish habitat;

changes in quality, quantity, or function of wetlands;

loss of forest resources;

change in the quality and quantity of terrestrial habitat;

loss of species at risk or species of conservation concern;

loss of protected habitat for species at risk or species of conservation concern; and

change in land use and creation of access to previously inaccessible areas.

The rural portion of the pipeline begins at Prince of Wales, immediately west of the Saint John city limits, and the terminal point is the international border near St. Stephen. The construction of the SJL was accomplished through this area with minimal construction challenges. As a result of this, and the desire to parallel existing RoWs, a decision was made to follow the existing SJL RoW westward between Prince of Wales and Lake Utopia. At Lake Utopia, the following three corridor alternatives were considered.

The SPL (southern pipeline) Alternative heads south of Lake Utopia through the Town of St. George, then northwest to intersect with the New Brunswick Power (NB Power) International Power Line (IPL) RoW, leaving the IPL RoW just before the St. Croix River, and crossing this river immediately adjacent to the existing Mainline.

The Mainline Alternative follows the SJL RoW to the existing M&NP Mainline RoW, and then parallels the existing Mainline RoW to the St. Croix River crossing location.

The IPL Alternative follows the SJL RoW until the planned NB Power IPL RoW is intersected, then parallels the IPL (to the extent practicable), leaving the IPL RoW just before the St. Croix River, and crossing this river immediately adjacent to the existing Mainline.

These three rural corridor alternatives are shown in Figure 2.2.2 and Figures 2.2.4B-2.2.4D. All three corridors run in an east-west direction, perpendicular with the general surface water flow, and intersect watercourses and any environmental constraints often associated with watercourses (e.g., archaeological sites, habitat with potential to harbour species at risk or species of conservation concern, wetland areas). The overall environments intersected by the three rural corridor alternatives are similar and all three corridor alternatives have the potential to intersect the types of environmental

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 18

constraints listed previously for rural corridors. Equally, the technical and constructability risks for all three corridor alternatives are similar. The only exception to this is that a corridor located south of Lake Utopia would interact with a greater number of environmental constraints related to urban and built-up areas, due to its proximity to St. George, and would have a higher technical risk due to the more difficult terrain (i.e., undulating and severe slopes greater than 20%) south of Lake Utopia and Didgeguash Lake.

Therefore, the extent of the potential for environmental effects for each alternative is largely related to the lengths of each rural corridor alternative, which are shown in Table 2.2.2. Length of the pipeline tends to be directly proportional to cost where similar constraints are encountered. All rural corridor alternatives would require an HDD across the St. Croix River, adjacent to the existing M&NP Mainline crossing. Each rural corridor alternative, from the point just east of Lake Utopia where the existing Lake Utopia Spur to St. George branches off the existing SJL (i.e., the Lake Utopia Spur), to the St. Croix River, was evaluated against the general selection criteria, including selected environmental constraints. As previously indicated, the corridor alternatives were routed to avoid groupings or obvious environmental constraints to the greatest extent.

Table 2.2.2 Length of the Three Corridor Alternatives from the Lake Utopia Spur to the St. Croix River SPL Mainline IPL 72 km 88 km 69 km

SPL Alternative

Locating the corridor south of Lake Utopia would raise several major technical issues. There is a relatively narrow area of land (approximately 500 m) between Lake Utopia and Letang River for eventually selecting a pipeline route. This area is very congested with existing infrastructure, residential housing, and commercial businesses. Although there are fewer watercourse crossings associated with this corridor alternative, the watercourses tend to be wider than the other two rural corridor alternatives to the north, and are thus more likely to require wet crossings and have associated increased potential for environmental effects. For example, the crossing of the Magaguadavic River within the SPL corridor area would likely require an HDD or a wet crossing due to the width of the river and associated riparian wetlands. An HDD crossing would result in increased cost and technical risk to the Project, and an open cut would also result in increased cost and schedule delays, as well as potential environmental effects to fish and fish habitat.

The terrain south of Lake Utopia is not overly amenable to pipeline construction. Thus, locating the corridor south of Lake Utopia would carry a high level of technical and cost risk associated with its construction. Locating the corridor south of Lake Utopia is not the most direct path to the pipeline terminal point and would result in greater distance than the IPL corridor alternative. Further, the SPL corridor alternative would potentially only parallel an existing RoW for approximately 60% of its length and thus would result in a larger area that would be cleared to provide new RoW in comparison to the other two rural corridor alternatives.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 19

The much higher level of technical and cost risk, the greater length, and the potential to create new access to undeveloped areas, makes this alternative non-preferred. Therefore, the SPL Alternative was rejected.

Mainline Alternative

Locating the corridor such that it parallels the existing SJL and the existing Mainline has the benefit of paralleling an existing RoW for the majority of its entire length. However, the Mainline Alternative is substantially longer than the IPL Alternative (i.e., approximately 19 km longer) and the SPL alternative (i.e., approximately 16 km longer). Therefore, the Mainline Alternative was rejected due to the additional length of the pipeline, and thus, greater costs and greater potential to interact with environmental constraints. For example, it was observed from topographical map analysis that the Mainline Alternative would intersect at least 45 watercourses and 20 wetlands (or approximately 1.6 km of wetland intersected) between the Lake Utopia Spur and the St. Croix River, compared to 41 watercourses and 13 wetlands (or approximately 1.0 km of wetland intersected) for the IPL Alternative.

IPL Alternative

Locating the pipeline corridor such that it parallels the existing SJL RoW and the IPL RoW represents the most direct (i.e., shortest) corridor alternative. However, although power line RoWs and pipeline RoWs are similar in that both require the clearing of trees, power lines only disrupt the ground surface where towers are constructed, and areas with access roads or marshalling sites. Pipeline construction will disrupt the ground along the entire length of the RoW except in areas that are spanned by HDDs or bored crossings (e.g., watercourses or roads). Further, severe terrain (e.g., steep slopes adjacent to watercourse crossings) is sometimes preferred in locating power line towers, as it facilitates the spanning of obstacles (i.e., watercourse crossings). Therefore, power line RoWs can more easily avoid many environmental constraints (e.g., wetlands) by positioning the towers such that environmental constraints are spanned. As such, detailed aerial photography and environmental databases were examined in areas where the IPL Alternative paralleled the IPL RoW. The IPL Alternative was then adjusted to deviate from the existing IPL RoW to minimize potential interactions with Class 1 and 2 constraints (e.g., wetland areas) and/or to avoid difficult terrain (i.e., Class 3 constraints). The reasons for these deviations are listed in Table 2.2.3.

Table 2.2.3 Adjustments from IPL RoW made on Rural Corridor Location From Preferred Corridor Origin Description of Change Reason for Change (km+m)* Front, Meadow Brook Corridor adjusted north to match up To avoid constructability issues related to terrain 88+000 with the adjustment going around near the Lee Settlement. Magaguadavic River. Magaguadavic River Expanded north boundary of corridor. To allow for route options in consideration of large 91+000 watercourse crossing. Williamston Meadow Brook Corridor adjusted south. To avoid a large wetland area. 94+000 Dowdell Meadow Brook Corridor adjusted south. To avoid wetland (Blackspruce Bog). 98+000 Guntree Brook Corridor adjusted south. To avoid a wetland area and to align with a good 100+750 watercourse crossing location.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 20

Table 2.2.3 Adjustments from IPL RoW made on Rural Corridor Location From Preferred Corridor Origin Description of Change Reason for Change (km+m)* Black Brook Corridor adjusted approximately 1 km To avoid a large wetland area associated with Black 104+500 north of IPL RoW centreline. Brook. Dideguash River Corridor adjusted north. To avoid a wetland and to align properly for a road 109+000 crossing of Route 760. North Branch Campbell Corridor adjusted south. To avoid a wetland. Brook 112+500 Waweig area Corridor adjusted south. To avoid potential land use issues (e.g., agriculture) 116+000 and to align properly for a watercourse crossing. Berry Brook Corridor adjusted slightly south. To avoid a wetland. 119+750 Poute Brook Corridor adjusted to the south of the To facilitate a watercourse crossing. 125+750 IPL RoW centreline. Gallop Stream Corridor adjusted slightly to south. To avoid three wetland areas and to align properly 125+250 for a watercourse crossing. Dennis Stream Corridor adjusted approximately 1 km To avoid a difficult crossing of railroad, road and 129+750 north of IPL RoW centreline. stream in close proximity to one-another. Corridor could not be adjusted to the south due to the presence of wetlands, potential salmon habitat, and difficult topography. Doyle Lake Corridor adjusted north. To avoid Doyle Lake wetland. 133+750 Bush Brook Corridor adjusted north. To avoid a wetland at Bush Brook and to align 134+000 properly for a watercourse crossing. Mohannes Stream Corridor adjusted north. To avoid wetland areas. 141+500 *Location identifiers can be found in Figures 2.2.5A to 2.2.5D, inclusive, and represent the distance along the preferred corridor from its origin at Mispec Point. The IPL Alternative, after adjusting the corridor to avoid concentrations of environmental constraints (i.e., the deviations identified in Table 2.2.3), remains considerably shorter than both the Mainline Alternative and the SPL Alternative, and therefore likely represents both the least cost and risk alternative. The shorter length of the IPL Alternative relative to the other two alternatives minimizes the potential for the corridor to intersect key environmental constraints that may result in potential adverse environmental effects. Therefore, the IPL Alternative was selected as the preliminary preferred corridor for the rural portion of the pipeline and was presented to the public at the open houses.

Summary – Selection of Preliminary Preferred Corridor

During the corridor selection process, the evaluation of the corridor alternatives included both urban and rural components. The urban alternatives included a marine alternative, an alternative north of Saint John, and various alternatives through the City. Only one corridor and its accompanying variants through Saint John was found to be technically and economically feasible. This route, the Pleasant Point sub-alternative and its variants, is the preferred corridor in the urban portion of the route. The rural alternatives included only a corridor paralleling the SJL from the urban corridor eastward for a distance of approximately 30 km and from there, the rural route considered three alternatives to complete the route to the international border: The Southern Pipeline alternative; the Mainline alternative; and the IPL alternative. Both the Southern pipeline and Mainline alternatives were more costly and presented additional technical challenges, such as a potentially high risk HDD watercourse

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 21

crossing. The additional environmental effects of these two alternatives and a combination of technical risk and/or increased cost resulted in their rejection. The IPL alternative was selected as the best alternative for the rural portion of the route for environmental, technical and economic reasons.

Together the Pleasant Point alternative (and its variants), the portion paralleling the SJL, and the IPL alternative make up the preferred corridor for the Project.

2.2.2.4 Selection of the Preferred Corridor

Public and Stakeholder Input to Preliminary Preferred Corridor

The preliminary preferred corridor for the urban and rural portions of the Project was presented to members of the public at open houses and to stakeholder groups at meetings.

Three Project open houses were held to obtain feedback from the public on the preliminary preferred corridor in September 2005. Corridor alternatives and the selection process being used were discussed with regulatory agencies including DFO, EC, NBENV, and the Department of Natural Resources (NBDNR). Discussions were also held with key stakeholders along the corridor alternatives including the City of Saint John, Irving Oil Limited, NBSR, NBDOT, J.D. Irving Limited, Atlantic Salmon Federation, Saint John Horticultural Society, and Saint John Harbour Bridge Authority. Further, ongoing consultation with, and feedback from, potentially affected landowners within the corridor alternatives and members of the public were facilitated through the open houses held for the Project, the Project toll-free telephone line, and the Project email address. Potentially affected landowners were also contacted by M&NP RoW representatives to discuss specific concerns with the location of the corridor. Details of the consultation process employed in the evaluation of corridor alternatives are provided in Section 3.2.1. Feedback was obtained during these sessions and modifications were made to the preliminary preferred corridor, primarily to the urban portions, and formed the basis for the selection of the preferred corridor.

In response to feedback obtained through public and stakeholder consultation, two preliminary variants (i.e., variants of the preferred corridor) that avoid Rockwood Park were identified in late 2005. Although several preliminary variants to avoid Rockwood Park were identified initially, the following two variants were retained for further technical evaluation and consideration:

north of Rockwood Park variant; and

south of Rockwood Park variant.

These two corridor variants form part of the Application to the NEB and were included in the scope of this EA; however, a corridor following an existing power transmission line RoW in the Park remains the preferred option. An additional open house was held in Saint John on December 6, 2005 to present the preliminary preferred corridor and Rockwood Park variants to the public. This open house is discussed in Section 3.2.1. The two variants around Rockwood Park are assessed in this EA along with the preferred corridor, which is adjacent to an existing power transmission line RoW in the Park.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 22

North of Rockwood Park Variant

Once across Route 1, there are two sub-variants to get to the north end of Rockwood Park at Sandy Point Road. One sub-variant is to parallel Foster-Thurston Drive; the other sub-variant is for the corridor to head further east and around Ashburn Lake, and then turn west to the northern-most point of Rockwood Park. Once past the northern-most point of the Park, this corridor proceeds southwesterly, passing west of the Saint John Hospital/University of New Brunswick Saint John (UNBSJ) complex, or alternatively east of this complex. Both of these sub-variants then proceed south to the Howe’s Lake Landfill area.

South of Rockwood Park Variant

This variant parallels Marsh Creek between Rothesay Avenue and Route 1. Once across Route 1, the corridor proceeds north and northwesterly, paralleling the Rockwood Park boundary outside the Park (for the most part) where eventually it reaches the Howe’s Lake Landfill area.

Description of the Preferred Corridor

The preferred corridor, with distance markings (i.e., chainage), is shown in Figures 2.2.5A to 2.2.5D, inclusive. The Rockwood Park variants are shown in Figure 2.2.6. A summary of the changes made to the preliminary preferred corridor (and their locations) as a result of public and other stakeholder input is provided in Table 2.2.4.

Table 2.2.4 Changes to the Preliminary Preferred Corridor as a Result of Public and Stakeholder Consultation

Location From Preferred Corridor Description of Change Reason for Change Origin (km+m)*

1+000 Corridor widened. To allow for locating of metering station. 7+500 Widened corridor to allow for To allow for routing options in consideration of proposed consideration of RoW adjustment. new road construction. 11+250 Moved corridor south. Anticipated new subsurface infrastructure. 12+000 Widened corridor to allow for Existing subsurface infrastructure. consideration of RoW adjustment. 14+100 Corridor widened. To allow for route options for Route 1 highway crossing. 17+500 Widened corridor to allow for To allow for route options in consideration of existing consideration of RoW adjustment. closed landfill. 19+500 Widened corridor to allow for To allow for route options in consideration of proposed consideration of RoW adjustment. new subdivision. 23+250 Widened corridor to allow for To allow for locating the RoW on either side of rail yard. consideration of RoW adjustment. 25+000 Moved corridor north. Landowner provided data on gravel volumes in existing pit that demonstrate considerable loss of this limited resource were the pipeline to be located within the pit.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 23

Table 2.2.4 Changes to the Preliminary Preferred Corridor as a Result of Public and Stakeholder Consultation

Location From Preferred Corridor Description of Change Reason for Change Origin (km+m)*

27+750 Widened corridor to allow for To allow for route options in consideration of proposed consideration of RoW adjustment. new subdivision. 28+000 Widened corridor to allow for To allow for route options for crossing highway. consideration of RoW adjustment. 29+000 Moved corridor south. Moved corridor away from existing homes. 91+000 Widended corridor to allow for To allow for route options in consideration of large consideration of RoW adjustment. watercourse crossing (Magaguadavic River). 112+500 Moved corridor south. Bedrock cliff and wetland for entire width of corridor at watercourse crossing. *Location identifiers can be found in Figures 2.2.5A to 2.2.5D, inclusive, and represent the distance along the preferred corridor from its origin at Mispec Point.

The preferred corridor, as shown in Figure 2.2.3 and Figures 2.2.4A to 2.2.4D, inclusive, follows existing RoWs wherever practicable. Of the approximate 145 km length of the preferred corridor, approximately 95 km follows existing or planned RoWs, as shown in Table 2.2.5.

Urban corridors for this Project are typically 100 m in width, except in specific areas where they have been widened to permit the future consideration of detailed routing options. Segments of the preferred corridor in rural areas that follow the existing SJL are 200 m wide and segments of the preferred corridor in rural areas that follow the existing IPL are 500 m wide. A description of preferred corridor segments and their approximate distances are summarized in Table 2.2.5.

Table 2.2.5 Preferred Corridor Segment Descriptions Distance Length of Nominal Corridor Corridor Corridor Major RoW(s) Included Within Corridor Segment Parallels Segment Width Corridor Existing (km) (m) RoWs (km) Mispec Point to Grandview Industrial Power line to Canaport; power line to Park, bordering the east side of the Irving Rockwood Park 14.1 100 2.4 Oil Limited Refinery to McKay Highway (Route 1) Route 1 to Rockwood Park then to Pokiok Rockwood Park power line (excluding Rockwood Park routing 6.4 100 4.2 variants) Pokiok to Pleasant Point (across Saint Pipeline Road utilities corridor John River) then to Route 1 interchange 8.1 100 4.3 near Highway 7 Route 1 interchange to Prince of Wales 11.0 100 M&NP SJL RoW 8.7 Prince of Wales to southeast of Lee M&NP SJL RoW 47.3 200 47.3 Settlement

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 24

Table 2.2.5 Preferred Corridor Segment Descriptions Distance Length of Nominal Corridor Corridor Corridor Major RoW(s) Included Within Corridor Segment Parallels Segment Width Corridor Existing (km) (m) RoWs (km) Lee Settlement to St. Croix River and NB Power IPL RoW 58.0 500 28.2 international boundary Total 144.9 95.1

2.3 Project Components

The Project will involve a pipeline of approximately 145 km, about 35 km of which will be within the Saint John area. The pipeline itself will be 762 mm (30 inches) in diameter and will operate at a maximum pressure of 9,930 kPag (1,440 psig).

The pipeline and associated RoW will be located within the preferred corridor shown in Figures 2.2.4A to 2.2.4D, inclusive. During Construction, work will be confined to the 30 m wide RoW with additional temporary work areas required at watercourse and road crossings and construction staging areas. RoW clearing will be conducted during the winter months and pipeline construction will be completed during the summer and fall, for the most part. However, it is anticipated that some limited construction will be conducted during the winter months. Where practicable, the Project RoW will parallel and overlap existing RoWs. Marshalling yards, storage areas, and access roads to the RoW will also be required on a temporary basis. It is anticipated that existing roads can be used for access to the RoW and planned valve sites during the Operation and Maintenance phase of the Project.

No compressor stations are anticipated for the Project, as sufficient pressure for transporting the natural gas will be provided at the CanaportTM LNG facility. The entire pipeline system will be installed subsurface with the exception of valve sites (3 valve sites in urban Saint John and 3 valve sites in rural areas), a combined meter station and launcher site (immediately outside of the CanaportTM LNG facility battery limits), and a combined valve and launcher/receiver site adjacent to LV 63 on the existing SJL (off of the West Branch Road, Musquash).

Valve sites would be fenced areas, approximately 20 m x 20 m, which would be locked and regularly inspected for safety and security. Valve sites will include the following:

sectional valves with manual and remote control capability;

blowdown capabilities;

a small building approximately 2.4 m x 3.0 m to house electronic equipment;

a permanent access road; and

power supply and telecommunications supply (e.g., satellite communications dish).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 25

The combined meter station and launcher site would be a fenced and gravelled area, which would be locked and regularly inspected for safety and security. The meter station and launcher site would include the following:

station inlet and outlet valving, sectionalizing block and yoke valves with manual and remote operations capability;

blowdown capabilities;

check valving;

internal inspection equipment launching facilities;

measurement and gas analysis equipment, where necessary, regulation and associated facilities;

a measurement building to house the custody transfer meter runs and gas sampling equipment (building size to be determined);

a small building approximately 3.0 m x 3.4 m to house electronic equipment;

a permanent access road; and

power supply and telecommunications supply (e.g., satellite communications dish).

The combined valve site and launcher/receiver site would be a fenced and gravelled area, approximately 30 m x 100 m, which would be locked for safety and security. The site will include the following:

sectional valves with manual and remote control capability;

blowdown capabilities;

internal inspection equipment launching and receiving facilities;

a small building approximately 2.4 m x 3.0 m to house electronic equipment;

a permanent access road; and

power and telecommunications supply, where available (e.g., satellite communications dish).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 26

2.4 Project Activities

The physical works and activities to be assessed were identified for the Construction, and Operation and Maintenance phases of the Project, and grouped into the following categories, as shown in Table 2.4.1. These activities are described in greater detail in the sections following.

Table 2.4.1 Description of Project Activities and Physical Works Project Phase Activity Category Project Activities and Physical Works Construction Site Preparation Includes all Project-related activities associated with preparing the RoW for access and pipeline construction. Project-related activities may include: clearing; grubbing; grading; blasting; and duff/topsoil stripping. Pipeline Installation Includes all Project-related activities associated with pipeline installation. Project- related activities may include: trenching (excavation); boring (road and railroad crossings); horizontal directional drilling (HDD); blasting; stringing; bending; construction of valve sites; welding; non-destructive examination of welds (e.g., x-ray, gamma ray, ultrasonic, magnetic particle); pipeline installation; installation of cathodic protection systems; backfilling and duff/topsoil replacement; hydrostatic testing and dewatering; pipeline commissioning; installation of signage and fencing; and site restoration. Watercourse Crossings Includes all Project-related activities that are required wherever the proposed pipeline crosses a watercourse. Watercourse crossing alternatives include “wet crossing”, “dry crossing”, or directional drilling. Project-related activities may include: site preparation; instream trenching (excavation); temporary watercourse diversion; horizontal directional drilling; installation of temporary watercourse crossing structures; and site restoration. Temporary Ancillary Structures and Includes all Project-related activities that are required for the construction, operation, Facilities and removal of temporary ancillary structures and facilities. Temporary ancillary structures and facilities may include: temporary site access roads; petroleum storage areas; marshalling yards; storage areas; and restoration of these sites.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 27

Table 2.4.1 Description of Project Activities and Physical Works Project Phase Activity Category Project Activities and Physical Works Operation and Maintenance Project Presence Includes all Project-related aspects that will be present for the life of the Project, including: presence of the pipeline; presence of the RoW (including signage); presence of valve sites, and meter and regulating stations; and cathodic protection infrastructure. Pipeline Maintenance Includes all Project-related activities that are required to maintain the pipeline, including: monitoring of pipeline (including internal inspection); and maintenance of valve sites, and meter and regulating stations. RoW Maintenance Includes all Project-related activities that are required to maintain the RoW, including: maintenance of vegetation; and installation of post-Construction pipeline crossings.

2.4.1 Construction Activities

Pipeline construction will be conducted in accordance with the M&NP’s current management practices and an Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) that will be developed specifically for the Project (see Section 2.8, Environmental Management). These practices and plans will be modelled on M&NP’s current experience in the area. Pipeline construction is divided into several working sections called “spreads”. A spread consists of several pipeline crews, with each crew performing a separate function as construction progresses. Estimates of crew composition and equipment required for construction of the urban portion of the pipeline are provided in Tables 2.4.2 and 2.4.3, respectively. Estimates of crew composition and equipment required for construction of the rural portion of the pipeline are provided in Tables 2.4.4 and 2.4.5, respectively. An overview of pipeline construction activity categories and activities is also provided.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 28

Table 2.4.2 Urban Portion Construction Workforce

Duration Working Total Crew Supervision Welders Operators Teamsters Labourers (weeks) day/hour /crew

Overhead 24 6/12s 3 7 4 2 16 Clearing 6.2 6/10s 2 5 4 4 15 Grading 10.3 6/11s 1 9 3 4 17 Rock Ditch 6.2 6/12s 2 8 1 4 15 Stringing 3.9 5/11s 1 3 5 6 15 Bending 18.0 6/12s 2 1 2 2 2 9 Pipe Crew 1.7 6/11s 1 14 3 2 20 Lowerin/tiein/backfill 7.0 6/12s 1 5 14 2 8 30 Mini Crew A 14.2 6/12s 2 7 10 2 6 27 Mini Crew B 14.2 6/12s 2 7 10 2 6 27 Tie-in Crew 8.0 6/12s 1 9 15 2 6 33 Hydro Test 2.0 7/12s 1 10 4 2 6 23 Road Crossings A 8.0 6/10s 2 5 4 2 3 16 Road Crossings B 6.0 6/10s 2 5 4 2 3 16 Stream Crossings 9.0 6/12s 1 5 10 2 4 22 HDD 30.0 7/24s 3 4 0 4 11 Clean-up 12.9 6/11s 1 14 4 7 26 Total 28 68 126 41 75 338

Table 2.4.3 Urban Portion Construction Equipment Autos/ Fuel Grease Mechs Weld Feller/ Log Equipment Lowboy Bus Skidder trucks Truck Truck Rigs Rigs Buncher Truck Overhead 7 1 1 1 3 1 Clearing 4 1 2 1 4 Grading 2 1 Rock Ditch 2 1 Stringing 2 1 Bending 2 1 Pipe Crew 2 1 Lowerin/tiein/backfill 1 2 1 Mini Crew A 2 3 1 Mini Crew B 2 3 1 Tie-in Crew 3 4 1 Hydro Test 4 2 1 Road Crossings A 4 2 1 Road Crossings B 4 2 1 Stream Crossings 2 2 1 HDD 3 Clean-up 1 1 Total 47 1 1 1 3 21 15 2 1 4 235 235 572 583 Rock Dump String Picker Equipment D-6 D-8 Grapple Hoe Boom Boom Drills Truck Truck Truck Overhead Clearing 1 Grading 1 1 2 2 2 2 Rock Ditch 2 4 Stringing 2 3 1 Bending 1 1 Pipe Crew 3 Lowerin/tiein/backfill 1 2 3 4 1 Mini Crew A 1 3 1 2 Mini Crew B 1 3 1 2 Tie-in Crew 1 4 6 Hydro Test Road Crossings A 1 1 1

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 29

Table 2.4.3 Urban Portion Construction Equipment 235 235 572 583 Rock Dump String Equipment D-6 D-8 Picker Grapple Hoe Boom Boom Drills Truck Truck Road Crossings B 1 1 1 Stream Crossings 1 2 3 HDD 1 Clean-up 2 4 2 Total 2 7 7 25 6 21 6 4 4 3 Skid Bend Auto 2 Ton Fill Compre Bore Water Equipment HDD Rig Truck Mach. Welder Flatbed Pump -ssor Mach. Pumps Overhead 1 Clearing Grading Rock Ditch Stringing 1 Bending 1 Pipe Crew 3 1 Lowerin/tiein/backfill 2 Mini Crew A 1 Mini Crew B 1 Tie-in Crew 1 2 Hydro Test 1 1 Road Crossings A 1 1 Road Crossings B 1 1 Stream Crossings 1 HDD 1 Clean-up 1 1 Total 2 1 3 9 1 1 2 1 4

Table 2.4.4 Rural Portion Construction Workforce

Duration Working Total Crew Supervision Welders Operators Teamsters Laborers (weeks) day/hour /crew

Overhead 26.0 6/12s 11 22 13 10 56 RoW Access 5.4 6/11a 2 6 2 11 21 Clearing 16.0 6/11s 2 7 4 4 17 RoW Rip Rap 5.4 6/11s 1 3 1 8 13 Grading 6.0 6/11s 2 28 2 3 35 Ditch 6.3 6/12s 1 19 1 2 23 Rock Ditch 6.3 6/12s 1 9 1 0 11 Rock Ditch (Sub) 6/12s 1 14 0 4 19 Stringing 4.6 5/11s 1 4 16 9 30 Bending 6.9 6/12s 2 2 5 1 14 24 End Prep 5.5 6/11s 7 3 2 0 12 Technicians 5.4 6/12s 5 1 6 Pipe Crew 5.4 6/11s 1 22 5 4 0 32 Weld Repair 5.5 6/11s 4 4 Coating 5.4 6/12s 1 2 2 12 17 Lowerin/tiein/backfill 6.5 6/12s 2 5 17 2 8 34 Padding 6.5 6/11s 1 4 19 2 26 Tie-in Crew (A) 6.5 6/12s 1 7 12 2 6 28 Tie-in Crew (B) 6.5 6/12s 1 7 12 2 6 28 Road Crossings (A) 13.0 6/11s 1 5 4 1 2 13 Road Crossings (B) 13.0 6/11s 1 5 4 1 2 13 Stream Crossings (A) 17.0 6/12s 1 5 8 1 4 19 Stream Crossings (B) 17.0 6/12s 1 5 8 1 4 19 HDD (1) 20.0 7/24s 3 2 2 7 Hydro Test 7/12s 3 14 8 4 8 37 Clean-up 6.1 6/11s 1 24 4 8 37 Total 47 89 230 86 129 581

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 30

Table 2.4.5 Rural Portion Construction Equipment Autos/ Fuel Grease Mechs Weld Feller/ Log Equipment Lowboy Bus Skidder trucks Truck Truck Rigs Rigs Buncher Truck Overhead 11 6 2 1 11 2 RoW Access 2 2 Clearing 3 1 4 2 3 RoW Rip Rap 2 1 Grading 3 1 Ditch 2 1 Rock Ditch 1 Rock Ditch (Sub) 1 1 Stringing 7 1 Bending 5 1 End Prep 3 1 Technicians 5 Pipe Crew 1 1 Weld Repair 2 Coating 2 1 Lowerin/tiein/backfill 2 2 1 Padding 1 1 Tie-in Crew (A) 2 4 1 Tie-in Crew (B) 2 4 1 Road Crossings (A) 2 2 1 Road Crossings (B) 2 2 1 Stream Crossings 2 2 1 HDD (1) 3 Hydro Test 10 2 Clean-up 3 1 Total 77 6 2 1 11 20 22 4 2 3 Skid 235 235 Hoe Rock String Dump Equipment D-6 D-8 Ditcher Truck Hoe Grapple Ram Drills Truck Truck Overhead 2 RoW Access 2 2 Clearing 1 RoW Rip Rap 2 Grading 1 17 3 2 1 Ditch 1 8 1 1 Rock Ditch 1 4 Rock Ditch (Sub) 8 Stringing 9 Bending End Prep 1 Technicians Pipe Crew Weld Repair Skid 235 235 Hoe Rock String Dump Equipment D-6 D-8 Ditcher Truck Hoe Grapple Ram Drills Truck Truck Coating Lowerin/tiein/backfill 1 3 3 Padding 1 2 1 18 Tie-in Crew (A) 1 1 3 Tie-in Crew (B) 1 1 3 Road Crossings (A) 1 1 Road Crossings (B) 1 1 Stream Crossings 1 2 HDD (1) Hydro Test 2 Clean-up 3 14 3 1 2 Total 2 10 43 36 4 1 1 10 9 22

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 31

Table 2.4.5 Rural Portion Construction Equipment 2/3 Pilot Cherry 572 583 Auto Weld Ton LS 98 Equipment Loader Grader Cars Picker Boom Boom Welder Rigs Flat- Clam bed Overhead 24 2 2 3 1 RoW Access Clearing RoW Rip Rap Grading Ditch Rock Ditch Rock Ditch (Sub) Stringing 1 1 Bending 4 End Prep 3 Technicians Pipe Crew 5 5 2 Weld Repair 2 Coating 1 1 Lowerin/tiein/backfill 1 5 2 1 1 Padding 1 Tie-in Crew (A) 4 3 1 Tie-in Crew (B) 4 3 1 Road Crossings (A) 1 2 Road Crossings (B) 1 2 Stream Crossings 1 2 1 HDD (1) 1 Hydro Test 2 2 2 4 Clean-up 1 2 Total 24 7 15 19 5 22 9 2 2 3 Bend Fill Compr- Water Ambul- Water Equipment Mach. Pump essor Truck ance Pumps Overhead 2 2 RoW Access Clearing RoW Rip Rap Grading Ditch Rock Ditch Rock Ditch (Sub) Stringing Bending 1 End Prep Technicians Pipe Crew Weld Repair Coating Lowerin/tiein/backfill 2 Bend Fill Compr- Water Ambul- Water Equipment Mach. Pump essor Truck ance Pumps Padding Tie-in Crew (A) 2 Tie-in Crew (B) 2 Road Crossings (A) 1 1 Road Crossings (B) 1 1 Stream Crossings 1 HDD (1) Hydro Test 3 8 Clean-up Total 1 3 8 2 2 9

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 32

Site Preparation

Before site preparation and clearing begins, landowners affected by the Project will be notified of the intended Project schedule. The boundaries of the RoW, facilities sites, additional temporary workspaces, and any temporary access roads will be surveyed and staked to prevent potential environmental effects to adjacent areas. All applicable permits and approvals will be obtained prior to site preparation and clearing.

The clearing crew identifies access lanes to the RoW which extend from travelled roads. Typically, construction access points to the RoW are situated at locations where the RoW crosses a roadway and a road rental license has been obtained by the landowner. Siting construction access points at these locations minimizes effects to private landowners. In some instances, temporary access roads are required across private and/or Crown lands. Where temporary access roads are required across private lands, existing farm lanes and logging roads are used whenever practicable. Access roads are only sited in locations that are acceptable to the affected landowner.

Clearing crews will brace and cut all fences that cross the RoW and install temporary gates where required. Any environmentally sensitive features, and all watercourses and wetlands, will be flagged prior to commencement of clearing. Any safety concerns identified within the RoW (e.g., rock ledges) will be flagged. Environmental flagging will be placed on the RoW to delineate the Minimal Disturbance Zone (MDZ) adjacent to watercourses and placed to delineate where temporary work room will be cleared. Access over watercourses will be facilitated using swamp mat bridges or equivalent portable bridges installed to span the watercourse from top of bank to top of bank. These bridges will be installed as per requirements noted in associated permit approvals. Brush matting and/or corduroy will be used at approaches to watercourse crossings to minimize rutting in the riparian zone. Access through wetland areas will be achieved through the construction of corduroy roads, as required. Watercourses that cannot be spanned will be accessed by going around the watercourse using existing or temporary access roads. Temporary bridge structures installed for clearing may be left for the geotechnical crews who will immediately follow the clearing crews. Merchantable timber will be salvaged and used for construction purposes where prior agreements have been made with the individual landowners and/or the Crown.

Grading crews will construct the access along the RoW that will be used by all subsequent crews along the RoW. This includes approaches across road, highway, and railway ditches to allow equipment onto the working side of the RoW. Waterflow in ditches will be maintained with the installation of culverts or swamp mats as required. Flagging of all environmental features such as watercourses, wetlands, and archaeological monitoring areas, will take place prior to the start of grading activities. Archaeological monitoring and erosion and sediment control mitigation as well as any other warranted mitigation, will be implemented as crews work in areas that warrant such mitigation.

In forested areas, stumps will be separated from forest soil and forest soil will be preserved by removing the duff/topsoil layer and storing it separately from the subsoil materials. Stumps will be buried within the RoW with landowner permission, or removed and disposed of at an approved location. In agricultural areas, the topsoil will be stripped by bulldozers and/or graders so that it is not mixed with subsoil and trench spoil. During Construction, cross RoW drainage identified during grading will be

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 33

maintained through the use of culverts. Field drainage systems will be repaired and restored to their original performance.

Pipeline Installation

A trenching machine or hydraulic hoe will be used to excavate a trench to a depth sufficient to attain the necessary cover over the pipeline. Generally, the pipeline cover will be 1 m deep, except where site- specific conditions dictate that additional cover is required. The width of the trench will generally be twice the diameter of the pipeline. In agricultural areas, tiles that are cut during trench excavation will be flagged and repaired. Laneways and driveways will be left over the trench as long as practicable, where requested by the landowner.

Concurrent with trenching activities, a slip boring crew will install the pipeline at road and railway crossings that cannot be open cut. This operation involves excavation on both sides of the proposed crossing to allow room for boring equipment to be operated and the pipe to be installed at the correct elevation. Typically, major roads will be bored unless prohibited by soil conditions or other obstacles and smaller roads will be crossed using an open cut method. Open cuts of roads are typically achieved in one day, and the road surface is restored. Safety barricades, fences, signs and/or flashers will be installed as required in the area of any road excavations. NBDOT traffic control regulations will be followed.

In areas of shallow bedrock, blasting may be required to excavate the trench. Blasting activity will be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations and guidelines, and will take into account adjacent structures, facilities, and services (e.g., other pipelines). Blast mats will be used to prevent scattering of rock and debris. Where required, existing groundwater wells within 500 m of blasting activity will be identified and seismic monitoring for potential environmental effects will be undertaken for the well situated closest to the pipeline RoW within that 500 m on both sides of the blasting area. Similarly, monitoring will also be undertaken for groundwater well systems located within 100 m of trenching activities.

Pipe sections will be delivered via stringing trucks to the construction site and laid on wooden skids adjacent to the trench area. The pipe will be bent to conform to the topography of the pipeline trench and sections will be welded into one continuous length. The welded joints will be inspected and then coated with a urethane or a fusion-bonded epoxy material. The bottom of the pipeline trench will be padded with sand and/or the pipe will be placed on foam blocks or “pillows”, where required, to protect the pipe coating. The pipeline will be lowered into the trench using sideboom tractors and/or excavators and soil will be backfilled using a dragline, bulldozer, or excavator. A tie-in crew will make the final welds to connect the lowered-in sections of pipe.

In agricultural areas, subsoil will be placed back into the trench and the trench will then be covered with topsoil. Excess subsoil will be removed and disposed of at an approved location. Topsoil will be replaced using a dragline, excavators and/or small bulldozers. In areas of steep slopes, diversion berms and soil stabilization techniques will be employed to restore the RoW.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 34

Following backfilling, the pipeline will be hydrostatically tested to ensure integrity of the system. This will be done by filling the pipeline section with water and pressurizing the system. Water will be obtained from nearby lakes, watercourses, or municipal sources in accordance with applicable permits for water withdrawal. After testing, the water will be discharged into a vegetated area within the same watershed from where it was withdrawn in accordance with applicable permits.

During clean-up, crews will also repair fences, pick up debris, seed and restore the RoW, and restore sensitive areas such as steep slopes, ditch banks, and watercourse and wetland crossings.

Watercourse Crossings

Installation of the pipeline under watercourses is accomplished via three methods: HDD; open cut wet crossing; or open cut dry crossing. HDD involves the drilling of a hole underneath a watercourse of sufficient size for the pipe, through the use of a drill that can be steered as it progresses. Wet crossings are constructed directly through the undiverted flow of the watercourse, and dry crossings entail isolating the flowing water from the pipeline trench in the watercourse by damming of the water and the diversion of flowing water around the construction zone via water pumps or culverts. The choice of crossing method will be influenced by factors including the width and depth of the watercourse, flow rate, environmental sensitivities, adjacent land use and soil conditions, and technical feasibility. Pipeline sections to be installed under watercourses are typically pre-pressure tested prior to installation under the watercourse.

Geotechnical data is obtained prior to drilling on watercourse crossings identified for HDDs to confirm the suitability of the crossing area (i.e., drilling may not be feasible in some soil materials such as unconsolidated gravels). HDD equipment will be set up a minimum of 10 m from the edge of the watercourse and no clearing or grading will be conducted within the 10 m zone. A drilling mud release contingency plan will be prepared for all HDDs. Only bentonite based drilling mud will be used for HDDs. Any additives to the drilling mud will be non toxic.

Watercourse crossing restoration and erosion and sediment control protection will be initiated and completed immediately following the installation of the pipeline. These procedures will be fully defined in the Project-specific EPP for Construction (see Section 2.8, Environmental Management).

Temporary Ancillary Structures and Facilities

Temporary structures and facilities to support pipeline construction will be located along the RoW. Many of the activities conducted in these areas are related to the storing of materials and supplies and the refueling and maintaining of equipment used in construction.

Work will be conducted in these areas in accordance with a Construction Safety Manual and the EPP for Construction that will prescribe measures to store materials and refuel and maintain equipment safely and in a manner that does not pose a risk to the environment (e.g., hazardous materials spills). Response Plan and Procedures will also be included in the EPP to mitigate the effects of accidents (e.g., spills, fires) should they occur.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 35

2.4.2 Operation and Maintenance Activities

The Proponent will operate and maintain the pipeline in accordance with standard procedures designed to ensure the integrity of the system over its operating life, which will be a minimum of 25 years, although it is expected that the actual life will continue for much longer. The pipeline RoW will be patrolled on a routine basis and required maintenance will be handled by qualified personnel. Air services will be contracted as required for routine inspection of the pipeline RoW.

The pipeline RoW will be clearly marked at public roads, railroads, navigable water crossings, and other areas as required to reduce the possibility of damage or interference resulting from the construction activities of other projects. Aerial marker signs will also allow the rapid identification of the pipeline during aerial surveillance.

Sectionalizing valves, installed during Construction in accordance with regulations, will allow the isolation of pipeline segments when required for maintenance activities. Typical maintenance or routine activities may include internal pipeline inspections using internal inspection equipment; over the ground leakage, erosion, and vegetation surveys; cathodic protection readings; valve site and metering station maintenance; and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system maintenance.

RoW maintenance procedures will be consistent with M&NP’s existing procedures and those used by other major pipeline companies across Canada, with specific modifications made for the region. Maintenance will be performed by qualified personnel and/or contractors.

Land use along the RoW will be monitored, and land use will need to conform to guidelines for permitted uses on the RoW. Heavy equipment use will be restricted directly over the pipeline and will only be allowed to cross the pipeline at properly installed crossings.

Vegetation control will be accomplished by methods that have been approved, where required, by the local regulatory authority. Mechanical means will be used to control vegetation growth on the RoW. No chemical spraying will be undertaken on the RoW; however, limited chemical spraying may be used, where allowed by regulation, to control vegetation growth within the confines of fenced and gravelled meter stations and other fenced areas. Only herbicides of low persistence and low ecological toxicity will be used.

Pipeline valves and aboveground facilities will be properly secured and protected by suitable fences to prevent tampering by unauthorized parties. The fenced areas will be inspected and maintained to ensure safety and an acceptable condition.

The pipeline will be operated and maintained in accordance with standard procedures designed to ensure the integrity of the pipeline system. The pipeline will be patrolled on a routine basis and emergency maintenance will be handled by qualified personnel.

A control zone will be established that extends 30 m on either side of the pipeline RoW (as per Section 112 of the NEB Act). To ensure safety, excavation using mechanical equipment or explosives within

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 36

this control zone will require approval from the Proponent. The existence of the control zone will not preclude development of the land.

Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) will be established in accordance with CSA Z731-95 and NEB requirements and based on a hazard assessment for the pipeline. The Proponent will establish and maintain liaison with the agencies that may be involved in an emergency response on the pipeline and will consult with them in developing and updating a Field Emergency Response Plan for the pipeline. The Proponent will take all reasonable steps to inform all persons who may be associated with an emergency response activity on the pipeline (i.e., residents, instituations, and businesses falling within the EPZ) of the practices and procedures to be followed, and will make available to them the relevant information contained in the Field Emergency Response Plan and associated emergency response plans and procedures.

Prior to commissioning the pipeline, the Proponent will file an Operations Manual with the NEB. This manual will take into consideration current and ongoing discussions with regulatory agencies, stakeholder, and community groups, to ensure consideration of local needs, and will meet or exceed the requirements of Part 6 of the NEB Onshore Pipeline Regulation. Further details of this manual and others are outlined in Section 2.8 (Environmental Management).

2.4.3 Decommissioning and Abandonment

The pipeline and associated facilities will be designed, operated, and maintained to provide safe and efficient service for its operating life. As is common in the industry, facility life could be extended with appropriate technical and maintenance activities. However, if unforeseen events occur, some facilities may eventually need to be decommissioned or abandoned. Should that occur, appropriate technology will be used, and all regulatory requirements in place at that time will be met.

Decommissioning and abandonment plans will be developed after consulting with the NEB and other regulatory authorities. Environmental issues associated with decommissioning and abandonment options and regulatory requirements will be considered.

In the case of decommissioning, to minimize adverse environmental effects, the pipeline is typically left in the ground, disconnected from any operating facilities, filled with an inert medium, and sealed. To keep the pipe from corroding, cathodic protection is continuously maintained. Following decommissioning, the Proponent will continue to monitor land use along the RoW, and land use will need to continue to conform to the guidelines for permitted uses on the RoW. Heavy equipment use will be restricted directly over the pipeline and will only be allowed to cross the pipeline at properly installed crossings.

In the case of abandonment, surface facilities, particularly valves and meter stations, will be removed. Sites will meet legislative standards and will be left clean and safe. In some instances, groundwater and/or soils testing may be undertaken to ensure that sites are free of contamination. If contamination is discovered, sites will be restored to approved standards. In some cases, the pipe is removed and salvaged during abandonment. Removing buried pipe may result in environmental effects similar to those experienced during Construction. If pipe removal becomes necessary, pipe sections under

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 37

watercourse crossings and wetlands will be left in place. Abandonment activities will comply with the regulatory requirements in place at the time of any abandonment of facilities.

A decommissioning and abandonment plan will be filed with the NEB prior to implementation of this activity for any facilities associated with the Project, where relevant. Any decommissioning or abandonment activities would be subject to future examination under NEBA, and consequently under CEAA, as appropriate. Therefore, at this time, these activities are not assessed further in this EA.

2.5 Project Schedule

An in-service date of late 2008 is currently targeted for the pipeline. Other key milestones either completed or planned are noted below:

public open houses – fall 2005;

environmental assessment field studies – summer and fall 2005;

Application including Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment filed with NEB – mid 2006;

NEB regulatory process – 2006/2007;

define and confirm detailed pipeline RoW – 2006;

file detailed route with the NEB – early 2007;

clearing – winter 2007/2008;

major HDDs – winter 2007/2008; and

construction – summer and fall 2008.

A limited number of other construction activities (e.g., blasting) may also be initiated in the winter 2007/2008.

2.6 Project Emissions and Discharges

Emissions and wastes will be generated during each phase of the Project including air emissions, noise emissions, and liquid and solid wastes. Applicable guidelines and regulatory requirements have been identified for emissions and discharges in consideration of environmental protection. The following is an outline of emissions, sources of waste discharge, and applicable protection standards.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 38

2.6.1 Atmospheric Emissions

Air emissions during construction of a pipeline generally include carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon

dioxide (CO2) emissions from construction equipment exhaust (e.g., trucks, dozers, graders, pumping equipment, generators). Air emissions will also be produced during welding procedures and clearing activities if wood waste materials are burned on the RoW. Air emissions may also result during initial purging of the pipeline.

The majority of noise emissions during Construction will be associated with the operation of construction equipment and construction activities, including blasting.

During Operation, natural gas (methane; CH4) emissions will occur during system blowdown and system purging, if required. As well, methane emissions will also include fugitive emissions due to venting from pneumatic devices, valve maintenance, launcher/receiver barrels, and meter stations. Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide emissions will occur from the exhaust of maintenance vehicles and equipment.

Most noise emissions during normal operations will essentially be associated with vehicles and maintenance activities (including aerial surveillance and planned purging of the pipeline).

2.6.2 Liquid Wastes

Liquid wastes generated during Construction include petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POLs) from construction equipment, solvents, and potentially hydrostatic test waters. Liquid wastes that are typically produced during pipeline operations include waste methanol, ethylene, and spent varsol solvent, used for maintenance of the pipeline. Other sources of liquid wastes typical for pipelines include spent oils, greases, and fuels from vehicle maintenance. These wastes are considered hazardous and will be collected and disposed of in accordance with applicable local and provincial regulatory requirements.

Waste drilling mud used in HDDs may also be generated and will be disposed of in accordance with the appropriate regulatory authority requirements. Liquid wastes from construction crews, including sewage and grey water, will be collected and disposed in a manner consistent with applicable local and provincial standards.

2.6.3 Solid Wastes

Solid wastes generated during Construction include such items as brush, cables, extraneous sub-soil and rock, temporary fencing, signs, metal containers and canisters, and welding rods. De-sanding/de- silting cuttings will also be generated from HDDs and will be collected and disposed of in a manner consistent with applicable local and provincial standards.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 39

During Operation, a limited amount of solid wastes will be produced such as spent grease containers used for the maintenance of valves, contaminated filter elements at meter stations, spent batteries, various aerosols, paint containers, contaminated rags, methanol drums, iron sulphide, and other pipeline solids. Other solid wastes (e.g., paper) will also be produced during daily operations in the Proponent’s (or its representatives) and any contractor offices. Wastes may include hazardous materials, such as spent toner cartridges for printers and photocopiers, and cleaning/maintenance materials. Waste materials will be recycled to the greatest extent practicable. Hazardous wastes will be handled and disposed of in accordance with regulatory requirements.

2.7 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

During Construction, and Operation and Maintenance of the Project, there is the potential for accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events to occur. Accidental events with the greatest potential for environmental effects include:

hazardous materials spills (e.g., POLs);

erosion and sediment control failures;

fires;

occupational injuries;

wildlife encounters;

temporary watercourse crossing washouts;

disturbance of unidentified archaeological or heritage resources;

unauthorized access to the RoW; and

pipeline ruptures or leaks.

The Proponent will develop and implement an Environment, Health & Safety Policy that establishes its commitment to protecting the environment, and ensuring the health and safety of their employees, customers, and members of the public. An environmental management framework, comprised of a Pipeline Design and Quality Assurance Program, an Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program, an Emergency Preparedness and Response Program, and a Public Awareness Program, will be implemented for the Project to ensure that the Proponent’s Environment, Health & Safety Policy objectives are achieved (Section 2.8, Environmental Management). Specific plans and procedures will be prepared within this environmental management framework to mitigate potential adverse environmental effects to public and worker health and safety identified from the assessment of Project activities, including accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 40

A description of the Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events assessed in this EA is provided below.

2.7.1 Hazardous Materials Spills

Spills of POLs may occur during Construction during refueling of machinery or through breaks in hydraulic lines and during Operation and Maintenance through minor equipment leaks or breaks. These spills are usually highly localized and easily cleaned up by onsite crews using standard equipment and materials. In the unlikely event of a large spill, soil, groundwater, and surface water contamination may occur, thereby potentially adversely affecting the quality of groundwater, fish and fish habitat, and wetland habitat, and resulting in the ingestion/uptake of contaminants by wildlife. Depending on the nature of the spill, it could also potentially affect residential, commercial, agricultural, and other land uses.

The handling of fuel and other hazardous materials will be in compliance with the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) Regulations and will be located in work areas away from vulnerable areas, such as watercourses. Operation and maintenance procedures will be planned so that activities involving hazardous materials or toxic substances (e.g., fuelling equipment) are performed safely. A Construction Safety Manual, a Maintenance Safety Manual, and operation and maintenance procedures will be prepared and will prescribe personal protective equipment to prevent spills and to protect workers from hazardous materials. Further, the EPP for Construction and Field Emergency Response Plan developed for Operation and Maintenance will include spill response procedures that will direct workers and contractors to quickly contain and clean-up spills if they do occur and prevent hazardous or toxic materials from entering vulnerable areas such as watercourses. Workers and contractors will be given training on the applicable sections of the safety manuals and procedures, and safety program audits and site inspections will ensure compliance with procedures in the field.

All hazardous materials spills will be reported to the appropriate regulatory authorities, as required (e.g., for watercourses, NBENV will be notified if the spill occurs during regular office hours (8:15 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.), and the Coast Guard (1-800-565-1633) will be notified if the spill occurs after hours (Welles, pers. comm.)). All information at hand will be provided, in the event that a response from the Emergency Measures Organization is also required.

2.7.2 Erosion and Sediment Control Failures

A potential exists for failure of erosion and sediment control structures due to precipitation events. Such a failure could result in the release of a large quantity of sediment-laden runoff to receiving watercourses with potential adverse environmental effects on fish and fish habitat.

An EPP for Construction will be prepared for the Project that will include erosion and sediment control measures to mitigate and protect the environment from potential environmental effects that may arise as a result of construction activities. Inspection and monitoring of these measures will be conducted by

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 41

qualified inspectors, particularly during and after extreme precipitation events or snow melts that result in visible overland flow of water. Remedial action will be taken as necessary.

2.7.3 Fires

Fires within the RoW and surrounding area could result from a number of Project-related causes including:

forest fires arising from Project-related activities;

hot engines;

human carelessness; and/or

pipeline rupture and ignition.

Approximately three quarters of the preferred corridor passes through forested areas where Project- related uncontrolled fires could have adverse effects on the environment. Fires may result in habitat loss, direct mortality to wildlife, and loss or damage of property. Material management (i.e., fuel and other hazardous materials) and operational procedures (i.e., storage, handling and transfer) will reduce the potential for and extent of accidental fires related to the Project. In the unlikely event of a fire, local emergency response and fire fighting capability will respond to reduce the severity and extent of damage.

A Construction Safety Manual, a Maintenance Safety Manual, and operation and maintenance procedures will be prepared that will describe how to perform work safely to prevent fires, and will prescribe measures that will mitigate the effects of, and contain, construction fires if they should occur. During Construction, due care and attention will be made to reduce the potential for starting forest fires. In particular, construction activities will be planned such that potential ignition sources are minimized and emergency response capability is provided at the site to respond to any small fires that may start onsite.

Workers and contractors will be trained in the fire prevention and fire response procedures contained in the EPP and in accordance with the New Brunswick Forest Fires Act. Safety program audits and site inspections will also be implemented throughout the Project Construction, and Operation and Maintenance phases to ensure compliance with program policy and procedures.

2.7.4 Occupational Injuries

Injuries to workers and contractors may result from the work performed to construct, operate and/or maintain the pipeline. Accidents that could result in occupational injuries will be addressed by the Proponent’s Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program and a commitment to maintaining a high level of safety in all of the Proponent’s operations.

Occupational injuries resulting from conventional accidents will be addressed by the Proponent’s Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program. A Construction Safety Manual, a

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 42

Maintenance Safety Manual, and operation and maintenance procedures will be prepared that will describe how to perform work safely and prevent accidents, and will prescribe measures, such as use of personal protective equipment, that will mitigate the effects of accidents if they occur. Workers and contractors will be trained in the policies and procedures contained in the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program. Safety program audits and site inspections will also be implemented throughout the Project Construction, and Operation and Maintenance phases to ensure compliance with program policy and procedures.

2.7.5 Wildlife Encounters

There is the potential for workers to come into contact with wildlife during the Construction, and Operation and Maintenance phases of the Project. This could have adverse environmental effects on wildlife (e.g., disturbance of critical life cycles) and workers.

Noise and activities related to pipeline construction will minimize the potential for wildlife encounters. The Project EPP for Construction will include measures to address potential encounters with wildlife.

During routine operation and maintenance activities, personnel will be aware of the potential for wildlife encounters and will be trained to respond appropriately. Project personnel will not harass or feed wildlife, and waste materials that could attract wildlife to work sites will be appropriately stored and disposed. All vehicles will operate at appropriate speeds and will yield to wildlife.

2.7.6 Temporary Watercourse Crossing Washouts

Extreme weather events could potentially result in high water levels that may washout temporary watercourse crossings (i.e., culverts or bridges) installed during Construction to facilitate vehicle and equipment crossings. Washout of a temporary watercourse crossing could result in the release of sediment to the watercourse, loss of equipment and materials (e.g., access road construction materials), and, ultimately, in adverse environmental effects on fish and fish habitat and water quality.

The EPP for Construction will include procedures that will minimize the potential environmental effects of a temporary watercourse crossing washout. These plans will be authorized under WAWA permits and, as applicable, HADD authorizations. These procedures include design requirements, use of construction materials to minimize sedimentation, and maintaining fish passage, where required.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 43

2.7.7 Disturbance of Unidentified Archaeological or Heritage Resources

There is potential for the disturbance or discovery of unidentified archaeological or heritage artifacts. The determination of a significant archaeological resource is typically defined by provincial regulators, and is typically a site that contains features (i.e., non-removable indications of past human use and activity, such as a fire hearth, a living floor, or a burial site) in addition to artifacts, and is unique.

The EPP for Construction will include measures to prepare for the potential for an encounter with an unknown archaeological or heritage resource. These procedures will outline the actions to be taken by Project personnel in the event of the accidental discovery of a potential archaeological/heritage site. It will include such contingencies as stopping all work in the area of the discovery and contacting the provincial regulating agency for assistance and guidance.

2.7.8 Unauthorized Access to the RoW

During Construction, members of the public will not have unsupervised access to the RoW. Unauthorized access to the RoW during Construction resulting in environmental effects is unlikely. However, during the Operation and Maintenance phase, unauthorized access to private property along the RoW could result in adverse environmental effects on land use (e.g., trespassing, damage from all terrain vehicle (ATV) traffic, damage to fencing) or the terrestrial and aquatic environment (e.g., removal of trees, ATV traffic in wetlands and watercourses, damage to RoW restoration efforts).

To minimize the potential environmental effects of unauthorized access to the RoW during Operation and Maintenance, fencing or other barriers and signage will be installed, as per agreements with individual landowners, to minimize access along the RoW.

2.7.9 Pipeline Ruptures or Leaks

2.7.9.1 Incident Probability

Pipeline ruptures are defined as a loss of containment that immediately impairs the operation of the pipeline. Pipeline rupture frequencies for NEB regulated pipelines are shown in Table 2.7.1. Since 1991 there have been 29 pipeline ruptures; most of these ruptures are attributable to corrosion issues. Jeglic (2004) analyzed pipeline ruptures in major Canadian pipeline systems and obtained a pipeline rupture frequency of 0.049 ruptures per 1,000 km of pipeline for NEB regulated natural gas pipelines. Seventy percent of the pipeline ruptures analyzed were a result of time dependant causes, and time dependant defects that may cause ruptures (e.g., corrosion) which can be detected by internal inspection. Jeglic (2004) concluded that reductions in numbers of pipeline ruptures could be expected with improvements in defect detection and the implementation of integrity management plans, which would typically include internal inspections.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 44

Table 2.7.1 Pipeline Ruptures NEB Pipeline Ruptures Cause of NEB Ruptures Year # of NEB External Natural Material Other Ruptures Corrosion Operational Unknown Interface Forces Defect Causes 1991 2 1 1 1992 3 2 1 1993 1 1 1994 6 2 2 1 1 1995 4 4 1996 3 2 1 1997 2 1 1 1998 1 1 1999 1 1 2000 1 1 2001 2 2 2002 3 1 1 1 2003 0 Total 29 16 4 1 3 2 1 2 Source: NEB 2005 Natural gas releases, for the purposes of safety reporting, are any unintended or uncontrolled release of natural gas (NEB 2004b). The total number of natural gas releases for NEB regulated pipelines reported between 2000 and 2003, inclusive, was 74 (i.e., an average of 18.5 per year). Nine of the 74 natural gas releases were from the pipe body (rather than from fittings and flanges at valve or compressor stations) with no pipe body releases reported for 2003 (NEB 2005). Note that natural gas releases are reportable to the NEB regardless of volume.

Ruptures in NEB regulated pipelines are low in frequency (Section 4.8, Health and Safety). The normalized number of ruptures for NEB regulated natural gas systems is 0.049 per 1000 km-years (Jeglic 2004). If the rupture frequency for the Project (approximately 145 km) is assumed to be the average rupture frequency for NEB regulated pipelines, then the probability of a rupture occurring in any year would be 0.0071 or approximately one rupture every 140 years. In the quantitative risk analysis (QRA) (Bercha 2006), it was shown that the rupture frequency is even lower for the proposed pipeline at a value of 0.019 per 1000 km-years and for 145 km, approximately one every 360 years.

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSBC) reports that the average number of releases from federally regulated gas pipelines between 2000 and 2004, inclusive, was 13 per year, with 6 of the 13 releases resulting in a fire or explosion (TSBC 2005).

The number of fatalities and injuries due to ruptures has been decreasing over the last 20 years. Jeglic (2004) reports that there were no fatalities in the last 18 years or injuries in the last 7 years caused by pipeline ruptures on NEB regulated pipelines. Jeglic (2004) also noted that fatalities and injuries resulting from ruptures are most likely to occur when an ignition takes place.

There is a 1 in 4 chance that a rupture will result in injury and a 1 in 23 chance that a rupture will result in a fatality (Jeglic 2004). Thus, the probability of an injury occurring from a rupture of the proposed pipeline is approximately one injury every 1,450 years, and the probability of a fatality occurring is approximately one fatality every 8,350 years (Bercha, pers. comm.). The probability of injuries or fatalities from pipeline ruptures to employees is over twice the probability of injuries or fatalities to members of the public (70% versus 30%) (Jeglic 2004).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 45

The dominant cause of pipeline ruptures is corrosion (Jeglic 2004). Other causes of pipeline ruptures include external interference (e.g., physical intrusion by humans) and material, manufacturing or construction defects (Jeglic 2004; NEB 2005). The probability of ruptures and uncontrolled leaks of natural gas from the pipeline will be further reduced by implementing M&NP’s Pipeline Design and Quality Assurance Program, the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program, and the Emergency Preparedness and Response Program.

A quantitative risk analysis (QRA) of the pipeline was conducted on the preferred corridor (Bercha 2006) and will be filed with the Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. The risk assessment process used is consistent with the guidelines established in the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Z662 Standard (CSA 2003b) and was directed at systematically identifying areas of elevated risk, and evaluating and recommending appropriate options for risk reduction. In the QRA, Bercha (2006) concluded that the individual risk levels to members of the public were within acceptable limits and individual risk results were in the range of values that could be considered insignificant. Specifically, Bercha (2006) reported that the maximum resident individual specific risk for the Project (i.e., fatalities per year per individual) is approximately 1 in 1 million for urban locations, and 5 in 10 million for rural locations. When compared to other common risks and risk thresholds, the Project risk is considered low.

The Project will be designed in accordance with the design criteria, specifications, programs, manuals, procedures, measures, and plans identified in CSA Z662. The CSA Z662 Standard requires more stringent design criteria (e.g., increased pipe wall thickness, maximum valve spacing) be applied for pipeline construction in urban areas with higher population densities and where the potential for and consequences of accidents will be greater than in unpopulated areas (i.e., Class Locations in CSA Z662).

Key features of the pipeline design to prevent ruptures and uncontrolled pipeline leaks are:

the pipe will be installed with the dimensional and toughness properties that will resist deformation and penetration; the external surface of the pipe will be coated with a urethane or fusion bonded epoxy coating which has proven to be most compatible with cathodic protection systems, highly resistant to disbonding, and provides a durable primary protection against galvanic corrosion; and the pipeline will include a cathodic protection system as a secondary protection against corrosion for local areas that, for whatever reason, are not receiving the full protection of the external coating.

A Quality Assurance Program will also be implemented to ensure that the construction materials (i.e., pipe and pipeline components) that are used in the pipeline meet the specifications provided for in the pipeline design to reduce the probability of material defects. The Quality Assurance Program will also include inspection and test procedures (e.g., pressure testing and non destructive tests) in accordance with CSA Z662 to assure pipeline and weld integrity.

Operation and maintenance procedures will be developed for the Project that will ensure that regulatory requirements are met and the pipeline is operated and maintained to a high standard and the probability of unplanned releases of natural gas from the pipeline are kept low. Further, a Pipeline Integrity Management Plan (Pipeline IMP), including condition monitoring measures such as routine

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 46

internal inspections of the pipeline to detect time dependant material defects (e.g., corrosion) and routine monitoring of corrosion protection measures (i.e., cathodic protection equipment and facilities) will further reduce the probability of a pipeline rupture or leak from occurring from corrosion.

2.7.9.2 Release Behaviour of Methane

Methane has an ignition temperature of 540oC and is flammable at concentrations between 5-15% in air. Natural gas is lighter than air, and when released to the atmosphere it disperses quickly and tends to rise. Natural gas releases outdoors are generally hazardous only if they are ignited and the hazards are primarily those associated with thermal radiation or burn injuries.

2.8 Environmental Management

2.8.1 Environment, Health & Safety Policy

2.8.2 Environmental Management Framework

The Project’s environmental management framework is comprised of the following major program components:

a Pipeline Design and Quality Assurance Program;

an Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program;

an Emergency Preparedness and Response Program; and

a Public Awareness Program. These program components will be implemented by the Proponent to ensure that the objectives and elements of the Proponent’s Environment, Health & Safety Policy are achieved. Specific plans and procedures will be prepared within each program component of the environmental management framework to mitigate potential adverse environmental effects to VECs identified from the assessment of Project activities, including accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events. The environmental management framework and its associated program components are described in detail below.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 47

2.8.2.1 Pipeline Design and Quality Assurance Program

The Proponent’s Environment, Health & Safety Policy objectives will be achieved through a comprehensive design process that includes meeting pipeline design standards and codes prescribed by applicable legislation (e.g., NEBA, Onshore Pipeline Regulations), conducting a quantitative risk analysis (QRA) of the pipeline, and implementing a Quality Assurance Program for Construction.

The Project will be designed in accordance with the design criteria, specifications, programs, manuals, procedures, measures, and plans identified in CSA Z662. The CSA Z662 Standard ensures that the pipeline will be designed to accommodate normal operating conditions (e.g., pressure, thermal expansion ranges, sustained force loadings). The Z662 Standard requires more stringent design criteria (e.g., increased pipe wall thickness, maximum valve spacing) be applied for pipeline construction in urban areas with higher population densities and where the potential and consequences of accidents will be greater than in unpopulated areas (i.e., Class Locations in CSA Z662). Further, the standards require that pipeline design criteria are prepared to accommodate additional loadings (e.g., earthquakes and seismic-related earth movements, thaw settlement and frost heave, loss of support, overburden loads and cyclical traffic loads, mechanical vibrations). The CSA Standard also provides guidance for designing pipelines paralleling alternating current electrical transmission lines (e.g., IPL).

A QRA was conducted on the proposed pipeline consistent with the risk assessment guidelines established in the CSA Z662 Standard (Bercha 2006). The risk assessment also includes a semi- quantitative assessment of relative operational risks of the directional drill crossings planned along the preferred corridor (e.g., across the Saint John River). The QRA consisted of the definition of hazards along the preferred corridor, hazard frequency analysis and consequence modelling, an assessment of risk, and identification of additional mitigation. The QRA provided a series of risk mitigation measures that are employed to minimize risk on natural gas pipelines that will be used in developing the Project design.

A Quality Assurance Program will also be implemented to ensure that the construction materials (i.e., pipe and pipeline components) used in the pipeline meet the specifications provided for in the pipeline design to reduce the probability of material defects. The Quality Assurance Program will also include inspection and test procedures (e.g., pressure testing and non-destructive tests) in accordance with CSA Z662 to assure pipeline and weld integrity. Every weld made will be inspected by x-ray and/or ultrasonic methods (i.e., all welds made by automatic welders will be ultrasonically inspected and a percentage of these will also be x-rayed, and all welds made by traditional stick welding will be x-rayed).

2.8.2.2 Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program

The Proponent’s Environment, Health & Safety Policy objectives will also be achieved by the implementation of a comprehensive set of Environmental Protection and Safety Management policies and procedures through all Project phases. These policies and procedures will prescribe measures to ensure that the pipeline is constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the design, and to protect the environment and worker and public health and safety. These policies and procedures are described below.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 48

A Construction Safety Manual will be prepared that will describe the Proponent’s Safety Policy and provide safe work procedures for pipeline construction to ensure work is performed safely and in accordance with applicable health and safety regulations. Similarly, a Maintenance Safety Manual will be prepared to ensure work is performed safely and in accordance with applicable health and safety regulations during Operation and Maintenance.

An EPP for Construction will be prepared for the Project that will prescribe the work procedures, methods, and measures to mitigate and protect the environment from potential environmental effects that may arise as a result of the construction activities. The EPP will be based on the current policies and procedures, environmental management practices, and contingency plans of M&NP and Duke Energy for pipeline projects. The Project EPP will consist of the following key sections.

The roles and responsibilities of the Proponent’s management, staff, and contractors with respect to the implementation of the measures prescribed to protect the environment will be clearly defined. The qualifications and training requirements for the Proponent’s management, staff, and contractors implementing the EPP will also be defined.

Major construction activities will be described and their sequence defined. Applicable design specifications and standard drawings for the pipeline will be referenced and/or provided in the EPP for each construction activity (e.g., clean-up and site restoration specifications), including testing procedures (e.g., hydrostatic test specifications). The EPP will also identify the mitigation measures and applicable procedures to be implemented for various construction activities.

The EPP will identify measures to minimize any disruption to local communities as a result of construction. While not part of the EPP, traffic management plans will be identified for areas where construction activities may temporarily block access to roads or to other areas frequented by the public. The EPP will provide guidance on the use of worker accommodations and access to work sites. Any special requirements for site access or accommodations required to minimize local disruptions will be identified.

The environmental resources that are present along the pipeline that may interact with construction activities will be identified in the EPP, and the specific mitigation measures to be implemented to protect these resources will be defined. As a minimum, the mitigation identified in this EA will be described in the EPP, but will also include additional environmental protection measures deemed appropriate for the detailed pipeline route within the corridor.

The EPP will describe monitoring and follow-up measures to be implemented to ensure that the environmental protection measures and mitigation identified are effective (e.g., environmental effects monitoring programs, environmental compliance monitoring, and post-Construction monitoring).

The EPP will provide contingency and emergency response plans for Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events. These contingency and emergency response plans will include, but are not limited to:

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 49

hazardous materials and toxic substance spill response procedures to prevent and contain hazardous materials and toxic substance spills during Construction;

soil erosion and sediment control guidelines to ensure water quality is maintained during pipeline installation and watercourse crossings;

fire response;

encountering contamination or contaminated sites to prevent the migration of contaminants and ensure the safe disposal of contaminated material to meet regulatory requirements;

how to respond to wildlife encounters to ensure the protection of the wildlife and the person; and

procedures and guidance in the event that a heritage, paleontological, or archaeological resource is encountered during Construction, to safeguard the resource and ensure that applicable regulatory requirements are complied with.

The effectiveness of EPP implementation will be assured by a site inspection and monitoring program, including the presence of an inspector onsite to ensure compliance with the EPP and the Proponent’s environmental policies and procedures to be developed. The inspector will work cooperatively with Project personnel to address environmental issues and take immediate action to address any Project works that are perceived to be in non-compliance with the environmental management program, including, if necessary, stopping or re-locating work.

Comprehensive operation and maintenance manuals will be prepared for the Operation and Maintenance phase of the pipeline system. The manuals will describe safe work plans and procedures, and will outline the requirements for worker and contractor training in health and safety policy and procedures, and applicable environmental protection policy, plans, and procedures.

Contractor safety is of particular importance during pipeline construction; a key objective of the Proponent’s Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program (to be developed) will be to reduce contractor accidents and occupational injuries. To this end, contractors that have comprehensive health and safety programs and a good track record of safety performance will be preferred. Candidate contractors for construction will be pre-qualified based on a demonstrated safety track record and an established Health and Safety Program for its workers. Contractors selected to work on the pipeline construction will be required to develop comprehensive safe work plans, subject to the Proponent’s review and approval, for the construction work they will be performing. During Construction, contractor compliance with the approved construction safe work procedures and the requirements of the Proponent’s Environment, Health & Safety Policy and M&NP’s Construction Safety Manual will be monitored. Similar processes will be established for the Operation and Maintenance phase of the Project. Finally, a post-work evaluation of contractor safety performance and compliance with applicable health and safety policy and procedures will be used to confirm the contractor’s qualifications for future work with the Proponent.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 50

A Pipeline Integrity Management Plan (Pipeline IMP) will be prepared and implemented to detect pipeline defects and prevent pipeline ruptures. The Pipeline IMP describes a series of management systems and measures to be implemented during Operation and Maintenance of the Project that ensures it is suitable for continued safe, reliable, and environmentally responsible service. To this end, the Pipeline IMP employs a cycle of hazard identification, condition monitoring, mitigation of hazards, documentation, and feedback measures, including the following:

internal inspection programs;

investigative excavation programs;

slope monitoring and surveillance;

watercourse crossing inspections;

cathodic protection surveys; and

leak detection surveys.

Routine pipeline monitoring and surveillance programs, including line patrol surveys, will be conducted to identify potential operational problems and/or security issues and unauthorized activities in the RoW that could compromise the integrity of the pipeline system. Line patrol surveys (by land and by air), implemented concurrently with the installation of natural barriers, signage, and fencing, and a public awareness program (described below), will be directed at preventing unauthorized access to the RoW and potential damage to the pipeline system.

Further, ongoing engineering assessments of the pipeline will be conducted as required to evaluate changing conditions (e.g., changes in pipe class location). The Pipeline IMP will also define the qualifications and training requirements for technical staff involved in the development and implementation of the Pipeline IMP, and technical staff will be required to keep themselves current with ongoing research and development initiatives related to pipeline integrity management. The monitoring of the effectiveness of the Pipeline IMP will be established through an internal oversight committee and regular dialogue with the NEB and industry.

Audits and site inspections will be conducted to ensure that the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program policies and procedures are being implemented effectively, deficiencies recorded, and corrective actions taken.

2.8.2.3 Emergency Preparedness and Response Program

The Emergency Preparedness and Response Program is comprised of standards addressing emergency response training and the scope and frequency of emergency response exercises, continuing education programs for first responders and Emergency Planning Zone residents, and a formal liaison program for both lead and supporting government agencies. The Field Emergency Emergency Response Plan will be developed in accordance with NEB requirements and will prescribe measures to ensure effective and timely response to emergencies, and to protect the public. These procedures will be directed at ensuring any adverse environmental effects of potential pipeline

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 51

accidents, in the unlikely event that they occur (e.g., fire resulting from a pipeline rupture), to persons in the Emergency Planning Zones (established in accordance with CSA Z731-95 and NEB requirements and based on a hazard assessment) are minimized. The Field Emergency Response Plan will be comprehensive and will identify arrangements made to respond to pipeline incidents, including any mutual aid agreements made with outside agencies, outline roles and responsibilities related to emergency response, define notification and reporting requirements for incidents, and provide guidelines and site-specific emergency response procedures for operation and maintenance staff and first responders.

Further, a continuing education program for first responders (i.e., fire departments, police, emergency management organizations) will be implemented, including the assignment of clear roles and responsibilities and chain of command for emergencies along the pipeline route, conducting emergency response training and mock emergency exercises, and educating applicable emergency response agencies.

2.8.2.4 Public Awareness Program

A public awareness and education program will be implemented in accordance with NEB regulatory requirements. The purpose of the Public Awareness Program is to alert the public of the requirements and restrictions associated with activities conducted in and around the pipeline RoW. The program will include “call before you dig” advertising, the posting of warning signs along the RoW, the promotion of “one call” locate services, and ongoing discussions with forestry contractors, excavation contractors, sign installers, and local authorities (e.g., municipalities).

Further, landowners (e.g., communities and local governance) will be consulted on an ongoing basis throughout the Project Construction, and Operation and Maintenance phases. These ongoing consultations will be directed at landowners with pipeline easements along the RoW and will ensure that future activities on their properties are conducted in a manner that will not compromise the integrity of the pipeline.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 52

3.0 METHODOLOGY AND SCOPING

3.1 Environmental Effects Assessment Methodology

The methods used to analyze environmental effects were in accordance with CEAA and the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2004a). Environmental effects are defined in CEAA, in respect of a project, as

“(a) any change that the project may cause in the environment, including any change it may cause to a listed wildlife species, its critical habitat or the residences of individuals of that species as those terms are defined in section 2(1) of the Species at Risk Act (SARA), (b) any effect of any change referred to in paragraph (a) on health and socio- economic conditions, on physical and cultural heritage, the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by Aboriginal persons, or any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance, or (c) any change to the project that may be caused by the environment.”

In the context of this report, the phrase “environmental assessment” (EA) includes consideration of both biophysical and socio-economic components.

3.1.1 Environmental Effects Assessment Methods

The methodological approach employed in this EA provides an evaluation of Project-related environmental effects following the methodological framework described by Barnes et al. (2000). The approach is designed to address the scope of the Project and the factors to be considered as outlined in Sections 15 and 16 of CEAA, and to meet the requirements of the RAs as outlined in the draft scoping document (NEB 2006). The methodological framework for the assessment of cumulative environmental effects is described in Section 3.1.2.

The approach follows seven basic steps to assess environmental effects. These are:

1) Identify the issues through scoping and select Valued Environmental Components (VECs) on which to focus the environmental assessment;

2) Establish boundaries for the environmental assessment and residual environmental effects rating criteria (thresholds of significance) for determining the significance of environmental effects for each VEC;

3) Identify environmental effects of Project activities, by Project phase;

4) Evaluate environmental effects using the significance criteria identified in Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the “Agency”) guidance documentation (CEAA 1994) in light of proposed mitigation;

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 53

5) Analyze the environmental effects and predict their significance by applying the residual environmental effects rating criteria;

6) Outline a monitoring and follow-up program, as required; and

7) Determine the effects of the environment on the Project.

3.1.1.1 Step 1 - Scoping of Issues and Selection of Valued Environmental Components

Scoping involves consultation with all stakeholders, including the general public, RAs under CEAA, regulatory authorities, and the Aboriginal community to identify the issues that need to be addressed in the EA. It also involves the application of professional judgement by the authors of the environmental assessment report, including the consideration of baseline studies undertaken for the Project.

A key objective during the issues scoping process is to identify the best way to organize or “package” issues into VECs that make sense for the focused analysis of potential environmental effects of the Project. Importantly, scoping is also a useful tool for the Responsible Authorities to exercise their discretion to determine the scope of the environmental assessment pursuant to Sections 15 and 16 of CEAA as outlined in the draft scoping document (NEB 2006).

For the biological and physical environment, VECs may represent “key” or “indicator” species, communities, species groups, or ecosystems, as well as, “pathways” (e.g., air, water), which act as media for the transfer of environmental effects. VECs may also reflect issues that are socially, culturally or economically of value. The ultimate selection of the VEC or VECs must reflect an informed understanding of the potential Project-environment interactions, the importance of components to ecological integrity, their sensitivity to the planned perturbations, and the values of society. Regardless, practitioners must use their good professional judgement in consideration of all or many of these factors, including the opinions expressed to them by the various participants during the scoping process. In this EA, VECs are equivalent to Valued Ecosystem Components and Valued Socio-cultural Components as described in the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2004a) and are those reflected in the draft scoping document (NEB 2006).

3.1.1.2 Step 2 - Establish Boundaries and Residual Environmental Effects Rating Criteria

Boundaries

An important aspect of the environmental assessment analysis is the determination of boundaries because they focus the scope of work, allowing for a meaningful analysis of potential environmental effects associated with the Project. The setting of boundaries also aids in determining the most effective use of available study resources. There are two distinct types:

temporal and spatial boundaries of the Project and the VECs; and

administrative and technical boundaries of the assessment.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 54

The first type of boundary is defined by the temporal and spatial characteristics of the Project and various VECs. For example, ecological, socio-cultural, economic, health, heritage, traditional land use, and Project boundaries are of this type. These boundaries encompass those periods and areas during, and within which, the VECs are likely to interact with, or be influenced by, the Project. These boundaries may extend well beyond physical Project limits, even the limits of potential direct interactions between the Project and the VECs, particularly in the case of migratory species, or regional or national socio-cultural and economic systems. The “Assessment Area” is determined for each VEC based on spatial boundaries.

The second type of boundary addresses the limitations on the scope of, or approach to, work during the assessment of environmental effects. These boundaries are referred to as administrative boundaries and technical boundaries to the assessment, and are imposed by such factors as finite resources of data, time, cost, and labour, as well as technical, political, or administrative reasons or jurisdictions.

Administrative boundaries refer to the temporal and spatial dimensions imposed on the environmental assessment for political, socio-cultural, and economic reasons. Technical boundaries represent the technical limitations on the ability to evaluate or predict potential environmental effects of the Project. For example, it may be difficult to measure or predict the number of individuals of any particular species that might be affected by the Project. Where such technical boundaries exist, it is important that they be acknowledged, and alternative strategies used to characterize the VEC and/or environmental effects be described.

Residual Environmental Effects Rating Criteria

Fundamental to decision-making under CEAA and the approach described by Barnes et al. (2000) in meeting the requirements of CEAA is the determination of significance. Under CEAA, the determination of significance is central to decision-making. Rating criteria are specifically defined for each VEC to provide the threshold for determining the significance of residual environmental effects. These “residual environmental effects rating criteria” or “significance thresholds” are established based on information obtained during issues scoping, available information on the status and characteristics of the VEC, and professional judgement.

The evaluation criteria recommended by the Agency (CEAA 1994) to assist in the determination of significance are used to develop specific definitions for the determination of significance, as appropriate. These significance thresholds determine at which point the VEC would experience environmental effects of sufficient geographic extent, magnitude, duration, frequency and/or reversibility to affect its integrity (each of these are described in more detail in Step 5). These evaluation criteria help to frame significance thresholds that reflect the sensitivity of each VEC to perturbation and its ability to recover.

In developing residual environmental effects rating criteria, one first needs to define which population, stock, community, or ecosystem is represented by the VEC, or in the case of abiotic physical components like air quality, which airshed(s) are affected. For socio-cultural and economic VECs, one must determine the people, groups of people, cultural resource, or communities that are affected.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 55

The challenge in determining whether or not environmental effects are significant is that some degree of professional judgement is normally needed to evaluate whether the predicted environmental effects (e.g., loss of habitat, mortality, change in land use) will exceed the designated threshold of significance. In most cases the significance is obvious when compared to the criteria in light of the various data and information contained in the analysis. However, in some instances, lack of previous experience, insufficient data, or the use of predictive tools may cast sufficient uncertainty that it may be difficult to apply the criteria with a high degree of certainty. This is a technical limitation or boundary of the environmental assessment. A precautionary approach to mitigation or the development of significance criteria that incorporates an appropriate level of contingency commensurate with the level of uncertainty in the analysis is used to deal with this potential methodological challenge should it arise.

3.1.1.3 Step 3 - Identification of Project Environmental Effects

This step involves the listing of Project activities by Project phase, the identification of VEC-specific environmental effects (i.e., Project-VEC interactions), and a description of issues and concerns regarding key interactions. Table 3.1.1 presents a breakdown of the Project activities associated with each of the Project phases as well as Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events, as described in Section 2.0. Decommissioning and abandonment activities would be subject to future examination under NEBA, and consequently under CEAA, as appropriate.

Table 3.1.1 Description of Project Activities and Physical Works Project Phase Activity Category Project Activities and Physical Works Construction Site Preparation Includes all Project-related activities associated with preparing the RoW for access and pipeline construction. Project-related activities may include: clearing; grubbing; grading; blasting; and duff/topsoil stripping. Pipeline Installation Includes all Project-related activities associated with pipeline installation. Project- related activities may include: trenching (excavation); boring (road and railway crossings); horizontal directional drilling (HDD); blasting; stringing; bending; construction of valve sites; welding; non-destructive examination of welds (e.g., x-ray, gamma ray, ultrasonic, magnetic particle); pipeline installation; installation of cathodic protection systems; backfilling and duff/topsoil replacement; hydrostatic testing and dewatering; pipeline commissioning; installation of signage and fencing; and site restoration.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 56

Table 3.1.1 Description of Project Activities and Physical Works Project Phase Activity Category Project Activities and Physical Works Watercourse Crossings Includes all Project-related activities that are required wherever the proposed pipeline crosses a watercourse. Watercourse crossing alternatives include “wet crossing”, “dry crossing”, or directional drilling. Project-related activities may include: site preparation; instream trenching (excavation); temporary watercourse diversion; horizontal directional drilling; installation of temporary watercourse crossing structures; and site restoration. Temporary Ancillary Structures and Includes all Project-related activities that are required for the construction, operation, Facilities and removal of temporary ancillary structures and facilities. Temporary ancillary structures and facilities may include: temporary site access roads; petroleum storage areas; marshalling yards; storage areas; and restoration of these sites. Operation and Maintenance Project Presence Includes all Project-related aspects that will be present for the life of the Project, including: presence of the pipeline; presence of the RoW (including signage); presence of valve sites, and meter and regulating stations; and cathodic protection infrastructure. Pipeline Maintenance Includes all Project-related activities that are required to maintain the pipeline, including: monitoring of pipeline (including internal inspection); and maintenance of valve sites, and meter and regulating stations. RoW Maintenance Includes all Project-related activities that are required to maintain the RoW, including: maintenance of vegetation; and installation of post-Construction pipeline crossings. Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events Hazardous Materials Spills Erosion and Sediment Control Failures Fires Occupational Injuries Wildlife Encounters Temporary Watercourse Crossing Washouts Disturbance of Unidentified Archaeological or Heritage Resources Unauthorized Access to RoW Pipeline Ruptures or Leaks

To standardize this step and in keeping with standard practice, a Project activity-environmental effects interaction matrix is used for each VEC (Table 3.1.2). It describes the environmental effects to each VEC for each Project phase, including Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events, and is limited to only those interactions identified through scoping.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 57

Table 3.1.2 Example Project Activity – Environmental Effects Interaction Matrix

Potential Interactions Between Project Activities and Environmental Effects Valued Environmental Component: NAME OF VEC

Potential Environmental Effect Project Activities and Physical Works (See Table 3.1.1 for list of specific activities and works) Effect 1 Effect 2

Construction Site Preparation Pipeline Installation Watercourse Crossings Temporary Ancillary Structures and Facilities Operation and Maintenance Project Presence Pipeline Maintenance RoW Maintenance Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events Hazardous Materials Spill Erosion and Sediment Control Failure Fire Occupational Injury Wildlife Encounter Temporary Watercourse Crossing Washout Disturbance of Unidentified Archaeological or Heritage Resource Unauthorized Access to RoW Pipeline Rupture or Leak

3.1.1.4 Step 4 - Evaluation of Environmental Effects

The next step in the environmental assessment analysis consists of the evaluation of potential residual environmental effects of the Project, by Project phase, in light of proposed specific mitigation and the evaluation criteria for determining significance described by the Agency (CEAA 1994). The purpose of this step is to evaluate the interactions between project activities and the VECs and to determine the nature and extent of residual environmental effects (i.e., those environmental effects that may persist after all mitigation strategies have been implemented). As most projects involve at least some kind of environmental effect, it has become practice to evaluate their significance. The significance of environmental effects is determined in Step 5, on the basis of the evaluation conducted in Step 4.

The evaluation of environmental effects takes into consideration:

the potential interaction between project activities, for each of the project phases, and their environmental effects (as described in Step 3);

the mitigation strategies applicable to each of the interactions; and

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 58

the Agency’s evaluation criteria for determining significance (CEAA 1994) and any other evaluation criteria established by the Jacques Whitford Study Team to further characterize the nature and extent of the environmental effects, where required. An environmental effects assessment matrix template is used to summarize the analysis of environmental effects by project phase, including Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events (Table 3.1.3). This allows for a comprehensive analysis of all project-VEC interactions in a matrix format. Supporting discussion in the accompanying text highlights particularly important relationships, data, or assessment analysis, but does not necessarily have to address all items noted in the table.

Table 3.1.3 Example Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: NAME OF VEC

Potential Project Activities and Physical Environmental Works Effects Mitigation (See Table 3.1.1 for list of specific (A=Adverse; activities and works) P=Positive) Magnitude Magnitude Extent Geographic Duration/Frequency Reversibility Ecological/Socio- and Cultural Context Economic

Construction Site Preparation Pipeline Installation Watercourse Crossings Temporary Ancillary Structures and

Facilities Operation and Maintenance Project Presence Pipeline Maintenance RoW Maintenance Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events Hazardous Materials Spill Erosion and Sediment Control Failure Fire Occupational Injury Wildlife Encounter Temporary Watercourse Crossing

Washout Disturbance of Unidentified

Archaeological or Heritage Resource Unauthorized Access to RoW Pipeline Rupture or Leak

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 59

Table 3.1.3 Example Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: NAME OF VEC

Key: Magnitude*: Geographic Extent: Frequency: Ecological/Socio-cultural and Economic 1 = Low: e.g., within normal variability of 1 = <1 km2 1 = <11 events/year Context: baseline conditions 2 = 1-10 km2 2 = 11 - 50 events/year 1 = Relatively pristine area or area not 2 = Medium: e.g., increase/decrease with 3 = 11-100 km2 3 = 51 - 100 events/year adversely affected by human activity. regard to baseline but within regulatory 4 = 101 - 1,000 km2 4 = 101 - 200 2 = Evidence of adverse environmental limits and objectives 5 = 1,001 - 10,000 km2 events/year effects. 3 = High: e.g., singly or as a substantial 6 = >10,000 km2 5 = >200 events/year contribution in combination with other 6 = continuous sources causing exceedances or Duration: N/A= Not Applicable impingement upon limits and objectives 1 = <1 month Reversibility: (A) = adverse beyond the Project boundary 2 = 1 - 12 months R = Reversible (P) = positive 3 = 13 - 36 months I = Irreversible 4 = 37 - 72 months 5 = >72 months *These magnitude definitions are typical for the Atmospheric Environment VEC and are provided for illustrative purposes only. The key may be varied considerably from VEC to VEC to enable the characterization of the parameters that are relevant for the classification and evaluation of significance.

Classifying Potential Environmental Effects

The concept of classifying environmental effects simply means determining whether they are adverse or positive. This is indicated in Table 3.1.3 by the simple use of a bracketed (“A”) or (“P”). The following includes some of the key factors that can be considered for determining adverse environmental effects, as per the Agency guidelines (CEAA 1994):

adverse environmental effects on the health of biota;

loss of rare or endangered species;

reductions in biological diversity;

loss or avoidance of critical/productive habitat;

fragmentation of habitat or interruption of movement corridors and migration routes;

transformation of natural landscapes;

discharge of persistent and/or toxic chemicals;

toxicity effects on human health;

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 60

loss of, or detrimental change in, current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes;

foreclosure of future resource use or production; and

adverse environmental effects on human health or well being.

Mitigation

Mitigation includes Project design, environmental protection strategies, and mitigation specific to the minimization or control of potential adverse environmental effects on a particular VEC. As required by CEAA, these measures must be technically and economically feasible. In the case of beneficial environmental effects, enhancement opportunities (e.g., maximize opportunities for local suppliers and developers) are considered. The environmental effects analysis will be undertaken in consideration of the proposed mitigation and environmental effects predictions. Environmental effects remaining after mitigation will be determined to be residual environmental effects. M&NP’s current environmental management practices will be factored into the overall mitigation strategies that will be specifically included for the Project. Table 3.1.3 is used to summarize specific mitigation that will be employed for each environmental effect.

Application of Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Environmental Effects

Several criteria are taken into account when evaluating the nature and extent of environmental effects. These criteria include, as stated previously (CEAA 1994):

magnitude;

geographic extent;

duration and frequency;

reversibility; and

ecological, socio-cultural, and economic context.

Each criterion has a numeric descriptor in the key of the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 3.1.3) to simplify the presentation of results of the environmental assessment and reflect different levels at which the criterion applies. The key is modified as appropriate for each VEC.

The criteria used to evaluate environmental effects according to the NEB Filing Manual include the aforementioned criteria as well as direction, probability of occurrence, and permanence (NEB 2004a). As described previously for classifying potential environmental effects, direction is addressed by determining whether these environmental effects are adverse or positive, which is indicated in Table 3.1.3 by the simple use of a bracketed (A) or (P). Probability of occurrence is addressed in Section

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 61

3.1.1.5 (Step 5), and permanence is addressed through the evaluation of reversibility (i.e., if a potential environmental effect is irreversible, it is also permanent).

3.1.1.5 Step 5 - Analysis and Prediction of the Significance of Environmental Effects

The analysis and prediction of the significance of environmental effects encompasses the following:

determination of the significance of residual environmental effects for each phase of the Project and for the Project overall and for any predicted significant environmental effects;

establishment of the level of confidence for predictions; and

determination of scientific certainty and probability of occurrence of the predicted residual environmental effects.

Upon completion of the evaluation of environmental effects in Step 5, the residual environmental effects are assigned an overall rating of significance for each of the Project phases (e.g., Construction, Operation and Maintenance, and Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events) and for the Project overall.

These are presented in the residual environmental effects summary template (Table 3.1.4). This table provides a phase-by-phase and a Project overall residual environmental effects rating. Where significant adverse or positive residual environmental effects are predicted, a level of confidence and likelihood of occurrence rating are also given to each prediction.

Table 3.1.4 Example Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix

Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix Valued Environmental Component: NAME OF VEC

Residual Likelihood Level of Phase Environmental Confidence Probability of Scientific Effects Rating* Occurrence Certainty Construction Operation and Maintenance Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events Project Overall Key: Residual Environmental Effects Rating: Probability of Occurrence of Residual Environmental Effects: based on professional judgement S = Significant Adverse Environmental Effects 1 = Low Probability of Occurrence NS = Not-significant Adverse Environmental Effects 2 = Medium Probability of Occurrence P = Positive Environmental Effects 3 = High Probability of Occurrence

Level of Confidence of Residual Environmental Scientific Certainty of Probability of Occurrence of Residual Environmental Effects: based on Effects Rating: scientific information and statistical analysis or professional judgement 1 = Low Level of Confidence 1 = Low Level of Confidence 2 = Medium Level of Confidence 2 = Medium Level of Confidence 3 = High Level of Confidence 3 = High Level of Confidence N/A = Not Applicable

*As determined in consideration of established residual environmental effects rating criteria.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 62

Significance Rating

Taking into consideration the analyses conducted in Steps 4 and 5, a phase-by-phase and an overall rating of significant or not significant is assigned. A rating of positive may also be applied where the environmental effects are found to be positive rather than adverse. Specific thresholds for determining significance are developed for each VEC to reflect the distinction between those environmental effects that should or should not be collectively considered significant (Step 2).

The rating of significance is determined by the aggregate consideration of Project-related environmental effects against the thresholds that have been established for the specific VEC, and within the defined environmental assessment boundaries established for that VEC. Significant environmental effects are those which are considered to be of sufficient magnitude, duration, frequency, geographic extent, and/or reversibility to cause a change in the VEC that will alter its status or integrity beyond an acceptable level. Establishment of the criteria is based on professional judgement, but is transparent and in consideration of public, regulatory and Aboriginal consultation. The capacity of renewable resources (i.e., those that are likely to be affected by the Project) to meet the needs of the present and those of the future is considered during the determination of significance. The likelihood of significant residual adverse environmental effects is determined.

3.1.1.6 Step 6 - Inspection, Monitoring, and Follow-up

Appropriate inspection, monitoring, and follow-up are described as part of the environmental effects analysis. In developing a follow-up program, the results of Steps 1 through 5 are helpful in focusing on important interactions, where there is a high level of uncertainty about environmental effects predictions, where significant environmental effects are predicted, or in areas of particular sensitivity. Inspection, monitoring, and follow-up plans are developed to achieve compliance with commitments, minimize environmental and socio-economic effects, and to verify the accuracy of assessments, where appropriate.

3.1.1.7 Step 7 - Changes to the Project that may be Caused by the Environment

In addition to the six-step process for evaluating the environmental effects of the Project, it is also necessary to consider those changes to the Project that may arise as a result of the environment. For example, natural phenomena like severe weather, forest fires, floods and earthquakes can result in environmental effects as defined in CEAA. These effects of the environment on the Project are addressed in a separate section (Section 6.0) after the environmental effects analysis (Section 5.0).

3.1.2 Cumulative Environmental Effects Assessment Methods

Section 16(1)(a) of CEAA requires that every environmental assessment of a project shall include a consideration of any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the Project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out. The Cumulative Effects Practitioners Guide (Hegmann et al. 1999) offers guidance on how to meet this requirement. The following bullets outline the sequential framework that was used for the assessment of Project-

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 63

related cumulative environmental effects in consideration of the requirements of CEAA and the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2004a).

Describe the spatial and temporal boundaries used to assess cumulative environmental effects.

Describe the residual environmental effects of the Project.

Describe other past, present, and likely future projects and activities, and the potentially measurable residual environmental effects of other projects and activities that may interact with the Project.

Identify the potential interactions of the Project with the other projects and/or activities (cumulative environmental effects).

Describe general and specific mitigation measures that are technically and economically feasible.

Evaluate the significance of the resulting cumulative environmental effects.

All VECs shall be considered in the assessment of the Project on cumulative environmental effects.

The selection of current and future projects that may have environmental effects that interact with those of the Project was done in consultation with NBENV and the Agency. Other projects were selected based on their proximity to the Project, the possibility of interactions with the environmental effects of the Project, and the likelihood of the other project(s) being carried forward (i.e., the Project is registered with the Province under the New Brunswick Clean Environment Act (NBDELG 2006) or listed on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry (CEAA 2006)). The spatial boundaries of the cumulative environmental effects assessment included consideration of all projects in Saint John County and Charlotte County.

Current and future activities (e.g., hunting and fishing) were selected based on public and regulatory consultation, and the professional observations and opinions of members of the Jacques Whitford Study Team.

3.2 Issues Scoping and Selection of Valued Environmental Components

The scoping and consultation processes were conducted in accordance with CEAA and the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2004a).

3.2.1 Consultation

Consultation is the process by which interested parties are provided the opportunity to contribute to the scoping of the environmental assessment in accordance with Section 16 (1)(c) of CEAA. This process includes consultation with regulatory agencies, members of the public, interested parties (i.e., environmental and community organizations), individual and commercial landowners, and the

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 64

Aboriginal community. Stakeholder consultation is an important component of the Proponent’s project planning and development.

The goals of the environmental assessment (including corridor selection) consultation program for the Project are to:

identify stakeholders who have interests in the Project area and who could potentially be affected by the Project as soon as practicable in the planning phase of the Project;

inform potential stakeholders throughout the various phases of the Project by sharing information on key project specifics in a clear and timely manner;

create opportunities for meaningful input and advise stakeholders of their opportunities to communicate with the Company or regulatory agencies if they so desire;

understand and respond to any issues or concerns in an effort to ensure those issues or concerns are resolved or mitigated to the extent practicable; and

identify communications with stakeholders leading up to the Construction phase with a view to developing the long-term relationships required during Project Construction, and Operation and Maintenance.

Consultation Time-Line

The initial phases of consultation for this Project were directly linked to the preparation of this EA and relate to understanding the scope of the assessment and pipeline corridor selection. Subsequent consultation phases will relate to the follow-up on issues raised and unresolved in the EA and to support detailed pipeline route selection later in the NEB regulatory approval process, as summarized in Table 3.2.1.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 65

Table 3.2.1 Consultation Time-line Time-frame Project Phase Details Objective May- Scoping Preliminary consultation with Identification of: roles of various agencies in the EA; September, regulatory agencies and potentially affected stakeholders; regulatory 2005 local stakeholder groups requirements; potential Project constraints; regulatory potentially affected by the agencies’ information needs. Project. Provision of: Project documentation, description of corridor alternatives; corridor selection process. September- Environmental Open houses, public Identification of: public information and education needs; December, Assessment and notification, stakeholder potential landowner concerns; local stakeholder 2005 Corridor Selection communication, and concerns; local socio-economic impacts; local knowledge Aboriginal consultation. to aid in corridor selection; potential constraints to the Project; themes and topics to be carried forward to the next phase of the Project (i.e., detailed route selection); ongoing consultation needs. Provision of: Project documentation; alternative corridor information; opportunity to contribute to corridor selection; open dialogue with members of the public and stakeholders. 2006 and NEB Filing and Meetings with regulatory Follow through on information and education requests; early 2007 Detailed Route agencies and follow-up with ongoing communication with landowners, members of Selection results of public the public and stakeholders; ongoing communication with consultation. regulatory agencies.

3.2.1.1 Regulatory Consultation

A number of federal and provincial regulatory agency experts were contacted during the initial assessment scoping and corridor selection process to contribute expert advice, identify major constraints and important factors to be considered, or to express concerns regarding the Project with respect to their specific mandates. The corridor alternatives, constraints, and evaluation criteria were reviewed with local regulators, including DFO, EC, and NBENV (known as NBDELG at the time). Initial process discussions on the Project were also initiated with the NEB, the Agency, and the New Brunswick Department of Energy (NB Energy). These consultations will continue throughout the regulatory approval process for the Project. The regulatory agencies contacted and a summary of topics discussed and major outcomes are presented in Table 3.2.2. Table 3.2.2 Regulatory Meetings Regulator(s) Date Location Themes / Topics Discussed NBDELG May 16, 2005 NBDELG overview of Project NBDNRE Offices, harmonized CEAA process and provincial regulatory NB Energy Marysville, NB process NBPUB supply and market of gas environmental and socio-economic considerations with respect to pipeline corridor selection process Agency May 25, 2005 The Agency overview of Project and process discussion NBDELG Boardroom, pipeline corridor selection process (alternatives, public EC Halifax, NS consultation and RoW) DFO status of IPL RoW NEB harmonized process and filing one EA report NRCan stakeholder consultation process DFO June 28, 2005 DFO Offices, role of DFO in EA Sussex, NB EA data produced for NB Power IPL EA still valid and can be used for the Project wet and dry crossings, HADD authorization

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 66

Table 3.2.2 Regulatory Meetings Regulator(s) Date Location Themes / Topics Discussed pipeline corridor alternatives and pipeline corridor selection process (environmental and socio-economic issues, specific features of the physical or biological environment, and public support / opposition) list of stakeholders to be consulted NBDELG June 28, 2005 NBDELG role of NBDELG in EA Offices, pipeline corridor selection process, issues and Marysville, NB constraints (avoiding wetlands and protected watersheds) Project will be licensed by NEB and will not have PUB involvement EA data produced for NB Power IPL and M&NP SJL EAs still valid and can be used for the Project new NBDELG document that provides guidance for pipeline routing and EA preparation watercourse crossings, WAWA permits EC June 29, 2005 EC Offices, role of EC in EA Dartmouth, NS EA data produced for NB Power IPL project and M&NP SJL project EAs may not necessarily be sufficient for this Project, because some of the requirements have changed since these Projects were carried out (e.g., wetlands, SARA) ensure that this Project does not compromise 13 Environmental Protection Plans being prepared by NB Power for environmentally sensitive areas for IPL wetland avoidance marine crossing corridor options, Disposal at Sea permit list of stakeholders to be consulted NBDELG August 24, 2005 NBDELG update on Project and discussion of protected Offices, watersheds to be crossed by corridor Marysville, NB NBDELG September 8, 2005 NBDELG update on status of Project and preliminary preferred Offices, corridor Marysville, NB NB Energy September 8, 2005 NB Energy general introduction to Project Offices, open house preview Fredericton, NB Archaeological September 29, 2005 NBDELG present methodology for ensuring heritage resources Services Unit Offices, are protected (ASU) Marysville, NB NBDELG December 2, 2005 NBDELG Project update and current pipeline corridor Offices, Marysville, NB Key for acronyms: ASU – Archaeological Services Unit NBDELG - New Brunswick Department of Environment and Local Government (now NBENV) NBDNR - New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources NB Energy – New Brunswick Department of Energy NBPUB - New Brunswick Public Utilities Board Agency – Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency EC – Environment Canada DFO – Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) NEB – National Energy Board NRCan – Natural Resources Canada NB Power IPL – New Brunswick Power International Power Line EA – Environmental Assessment SARA – Species at Risk Act HADD – harmful alteration, destruction or disruption of fish habitat pursuant to the Fisheries Act

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 67

3.2.1.2 Public Consultation

Consultation with the public is required to fulfill the Proponent’s vision for consultation and to obtain regulatory approval for the Project. In the context of this Project, public consultation was directed at providing information to, and obtaining feedback from, interested parties, members of the public and potentially affected landowners on the selection of a preferred corridor and corridor alternatives. The specific objectives of the public consultation program for the Project were to:

provide opportunities for the public to have meaningful input into key decisions regarding the Project, including corridor selection;

provide sufficient information about the Project to the public in a timely manner, so as to enable the public to respond effectively to the alternatives being presented;

obtain environmental and socio-economic information from those most familiar with the study area, so as to identify constraints which may affect corridor selection and Project development;

identify issues and concerns of those potentially affected by the Project; and

establish communication with stakeholders, so as to facilitate resolutions to concerns and topics discussed throughout the planning process.

Techniques Used

A variety of techniques were used to provide information to the public and to elicit feedback about the Project. By using more than one method of communicating with the interested parties, there was a greater opportunity for individuals and interested parties to participate. It was important to ensure that there were mechanisms that went beyond providing information to encouraging a dialogue that will be sustained throughout the various phases of the Project. To this end, the consultation program consisted of the following components which are discussed in more detail in subsequent sections:

open houses;

questionnaires; and

notification and communication.

Open Houses

Open houses were chosen as a method to encourage the public and interested parties to interact with the Project Team (i.e., M&NP staff and Jacques Whitford consultants). The informal format of the open houses encouraged two-way information exchange, which was important in meeting the objectives of the consultation program. The open houses were conducted both during the afternoon and early evening so as to be available to a larger cross-section of the population.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 68

Questionnaires

As part of the open houses, attendees were encouraged to fill out a questionnaire. This provided an opportunity for the individuals to have their questions and concerns recorded and opened individualized dialogues with the Project Team. By combining the open houses with a questionnaire, the Project Team was able to maximize the number of individuals it reached with informational materials and the number of individuals who wanted direct contact with the Project Team while still providing those who would be less likely to come forward in person with the opportunity to express their views and ask questions.

Notification and Communication

The public was notified of the Project through newspaper advertisement, local media, and notices placed in visible areas. In addition to information about the Project, these notices advertised a toll-free telephone line and email address that were created specifically to communicate with the public and interested parties about information requests, landowner inquiries, and statements of objection or support, among others. The benefit of having lines of communication dedicated specifically to the Project were to provide an ongoing means of communication between individuals and the Project Team; provide individuals with an opportunity to learn about the Project through open houses and Project-related documents before they made comment; and create an opportunity for individuals who may not have been able to attend the open houses to have input on the Project.

Public Input Tracking Database

As described, public input and notification was sought through a proactive approach that enabled two- way communication. A primary result of the public consultation program therefore was an exchange of information, including statements of support, statements of opposition, questions, and requests for information and supporting documentation (e.g., maps, regulatory documents).

In order to document and take action on these outcomes, a Public Input Tracking Database was created. This database allows the Project Team to document the outcomes of the public consultation program, which serves the following four purposes.

1) It provides an official record of public input including concerns, potential issues, and statements of support and opposition and the actions taken by the Project Team to address them.

2) It provides a tracking device to ensure that all requests for information and questions are addressed in a satisfactory and timely manner.

3) It is a method of identifying outstanding issues and concerns that will require further effort on the part of the Project Team to address through future phases of the Project.

4) It is a method of identifying potential issues and concerns that may remain unresolved.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 69

All public input received during the open houses, from the exit questionnaires, via email and calls to the toll-free telephone line, and through direct consultation, was recorded in the Public Input Tracking Database. It was determined whether or not action was required on the part of the Project Team and if so, responsibility for that action was delegated to a Project Team member. The status of each entry was tracked accordingly. A summary of the data contained in the master database is provided in Appendix B1. This database reflects the status as of April 30, 2006. Updates to the database will be provided to the NEB or other regulators as required.

Geographic Area of Interest

The geographic region included in the public consultation program covered the area between the CanaportTM LNG facility on Mispec Point in Saint John, New Brunswick to the international border near St. Stephen, New Brunswick. Communities within 10 km of the preliminary preferred corridor were solicited to participate in the open houses and public consultation program for the Project. Stakeholder groups with an interest in the Project were identified, and potentially affected landowners in the area were provided with information on the Project and encouraged to participate in the open houses. The locations of the open houses were determined based on the distribution of the population, availability of suitable venues, and alignment of the preliminary preferred corridor.

Open Houses

Objectives

Three open houses were held for the Project in late September 2005 in three New Brunswick communities along the preliminary preferred corridor. A fourth open house was held in Saint John in early December 2005 in response to requests for an additional consultation opportunity that focused on the urban section of the corridor, particularly Rockwood Park, and to provide the public with any new information on the preliminary preferred corridor obtained since the previous open houses. The objectives of the open houses, along with the methods used during the open houses to meet them, are described in Table 3.2.3. Table 3.2.3 Open House Objectives Objective Method or Information source To notify regulatory agencies, members of the public, interested parties (i.e., Advertisement environmental and community organizations), individual and commercial landowners, and the Aboriginal community that a pipeline project is being initiated. To provide an overview of the Project scope and schedule. Storyboards; Maps; Project backgrounders To provide a clear understanding of why the Project is necessary and what are the Direct consultation; Storyboards benefits to New Brunswick and local communities. To describe the NEB regulatory process to be followed to obtain regulatory Videos; Information bulletins; approval for the pipeline, describe the planning process, and inform the public on Storyboards how it can participate in the selection of pipeline corridors. To describe the EA process to be followed and the content of the EA. Project backgrounder To describe how the alternative pipeline corridors will be evaluated and the Direct consultation, Project preferred alternative selected. backgrounder To identify the pipeline corridor alternatives being evaluated. Storyboards To provide information on the environmental and socio-economic considerations of Storyboards, Backgrounders, the Project. Information bulletins To seek public input regarding the corridor selection process, and feedback on the Direct consultation; Exit alternatives being evaluated. questionnaires

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 70

The public was notified of the Project via the following three media:

newspaper notices;

posters; and

direct mail (i.e., mail-outs to potentially affected landowners and identified stakeholders).

Advertising for the open houses was accomplished by placing notices and advertisements in local French- and English-language newspapers (i.e., the Saint John Telegraph Journal, L’Acadie Nouvelle and the St. Croix Courier). The notices and advertisements invited members of the public to the open houses and provided a toll-free telephone line and an email address where additional information could be requested. Notices inviting members of the public to the open houses were also posted in prominent locations (e.g., community centres, retail outlets, post offices) in 16 communities along the preliminary preferred corridor. The notices and newspaper advertisements are provided in Appendix B2.

Key stakeholders (e.g., municipalities, community interest groups, potentially affected companies and organizations, environmental and conservation groups and organizations) were identified through discussions with regulators and local municipal officials and were mailed invitations to the open houses. All landowners within the preferred corridor were also mailed invitations to the open houses. An example of the notification letter is provided in Appendix B3. In total, notification letters were sent to over 100 stakeholder groups. Table 3.2.4 summarizes the types of stakeholders that were contacted, and a full list is included in Appendix B4. Table 3.2.4 Stakeholder Summary Stakeholder Type Number Municipalities 14 Environment, Conservation, and Recreation Groups 15 Community and Business Groups* 24 Government Representatives (MP and MLA) 65 *Two of these groups were contacted for the Rockwood Park open house only.

Schedule and Attendance

The initial three open houses were held from September 20-22, 2005 in Saint John, St. Stephen and Pennfield, respectively. The different locations selected for the open houses enabled people from both rural areas and urban Saint John to participate. Subsequent to the open houses held in September 2005, the Project received feedback from some stakeholders and members of the public objecting to the selection of a preliminary preferred corridor located along an existing power transmission line RoW in Rockwood Park in the north end of Saint John. In response to this feedback, an additional open house was held in Saint John on December 6, 2005 to present variants to locating the corridor in Rockwood Park. Individuals at all four open houses were invited to sign a register (Appendix B5). A total of 150 people signed the attendance registers at the initial three open houses (Table 3.2.5), but an

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 71

unofficial headcount indicated an actual attendance of 105, 69 and 10 at the Saint John, St. Stephen and Pennfield open houses, respectively. Attendance was high at the Rockwood Park open house, where 143 people signed the register and an unofficial headcount showed that 322 were in attendance. The 322 attendees to the Rockwood Park open house included approximately 85 “Friends of Rockwood Park”, a local organization opposed to locating the proposed pipeline along an existing power transmission line RoW in Rockwood Park. Table 3.2.5 Open House Locations and Dates Registered Estimated Location Date and Venue Attendants Attendants September 20, 2005, 14:30 to 21:00 Saint John 85 105 Hotel Courtenay Bay September 21, 2005, 13:00 to 20:30 St. Stephen 60 69 Royal Canadian Legion Branch September 22, 2005, 13:00 to 20:30 Pennfield 5 10 Eastern Charlotte Lions Club December 6, 2005, 10:30 to 11:30 (open to media) Saint John 12:30 to 13:30 (open to City council) 143 322 (Rockwood Park) 15:00 to 20:30 (open to the public) Millidgeville Community Centre Total 293 506

Format and Materials

The format for the open house presentations was informal, consisting of a series of poster storyboards describing various components of the Project, including the timeline, corridor selection, public consultation and regulatory approvals process. The content of the Rockwood Park storyboards was somewhat different than for the initial open houses and addressed topics more specific to the Rockwood Park portion of the preliminary preferred corridor (Table 3.2.6). Topics of all of the storyboards are summarized in Table 3.2.6 and the storyboards are provided in their entirety in Appendices B6 and B7. A variety of other materials and publications were available to the public at the open houses, including literature from the NEB and videos (Table 3.2.6). Examples of NEB publications available at the open houses are provided in Appendices B8 to B11. In addition, all attendees were provided with an information package containing background information and an exit questionnaire. The purpose of the background information was to augment and reinforce the information provided in the open house presentations, and provide the public with information pertaining to the Project that could be referenced after the open houses. The background information that was provided is included in Appendix B12.

Maps of the corridor alternatives were displayed for the public at all of the open houses. At the initial three open houses, the preliminary preferred corridor and corridor alternatives were shown on 1:50,000 scale topographical maps. The preliminary preferred corridor and corridor alternatives for the urban area were also displayed for the public on 1:5,000 scale aerial photographs. At the Rockwood Park open house, there were 1:50,000 scale topographical maps depicting the preliminary preferred corridor, and a 1:7,500 scale aerial photograph of the Rockwood Park area depicting the preliminary preferred corridor along an existing power transmission line RoW in Rockwood Park, and two variants that avoid Rockwood Park: a south variant and a north variant.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 72

Technical, environmental, and RoW representatives were also available to discuss the scope of the Project, answer questions, and identify issues related to the Project with the public. The open house materials and presentations were prepared in English. Bilingual staff attended the sessions in the event that an explanation of the materials and presentations in French was requested; however, there were no requests for translation.

Table 3.2.6 Materials and Publications Available at Open Houses

Videos The Public Hearing Process (NEB) In the Public Interest (NEB) A Legacy of Commitment (M&NP) M&NP Project Project Backgrounders Natural Gas The Environmental Study The Corridor Selection Process Pipeline Construction Urban Pipeline Construction Pipeline Safety NEB Information Bulletins Pipeline Regulation in Canada: a Guide for Landowners and the Public (display only) No. 2 – The Public Hearing Process No. 4 – How to Participate in a Public Hearing No. 9 – Protection of the Environment Regulation of Commodity Pipelines Living and Working Near Pipelines – Landowner Guide A Proposed Pipeline or Power Line Project: What You Need to Know Storyboards Overview of Project Project Team Introduction CanaportTM LNG Facility Information Project Schedule NEB Approval Process Constraints to the Project Corridor Selection Process Corridor Alternatives Community Public Consultation Landowners Pipeline Construction Environment Rockwood Park Storyboards M&NP Introduction Preliminary Preferred Corridor Preliminary and Rejected Corridors Concerns with Marine Crossing Public Input to Corridor Selection Land and Landowners Preliminary Preferred and Alternate Corridors Near Rockwood Park Preliminary Preferred Corridor in Rockwood Park Frequently Asked Questions

All members of the Project Team present took notes during the open houses as a means of recording the comments and questions raised by the public. A debriefing for the Project Team members was held immediately following each open house to discuss and further document the comments, questions, and requests for information noted. This public input was tracked through the Public Input Tracking Database.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 73

Summary of Open Houses

Saint John

In the Saint John open house, the majority of the participants consisted of interested residents, concerned landowners, and members of the business and political community from the Greater Saint John area. Many of the questions posed by the participants related to the alignment of the pipeline and how the preliminary preferred corridor was determined. Several people requested copies of maps that were displayed at the open house. Some residents and landowners expressed concerns over the preliminary preferred corridor, with most of these concerns involving specific properties or locations (e.g., Rockwood Park, Milford crossing). However, generally the feedback was positive with respect to the choice of the preliminary preferred corridor. Other concerns mainly involved pipeline safety with respect to construction, operation, and aboveground facilities (e.g., valve sites). A few people inquired about supplier and employment opportunities associated with the pipeline.

St. Stephen

The majority of the participants at the open house in St. Stephen were comprised of resident landowners, and their feedback focused heavily on landowner issues and concerns. As for the Saint John open house, many of the questions posed by participants related to the alignment of the pipeline and how the preliminary preferred corridor was determined. Several landowners objected to the pipeline crossing their property, citing concerns over property devaluation. Some members of the public expressed concerns over safety with respect to natural gas, as well as ATV trespassing via the cleared RoW. Several positive comments were received with respect to the potential for increased employment and economic opportunities in the area as a result of the Project.

Pennfield

Very few participants attended the open house in Pennfield. Those in attendance mainly included resident landowners and individuals seeking employment opportunities. Some participants provided verbal feedback to Project representatives during the event. One landowner had concerns about the pipeline crossing his property. Another issue raised involved ATV trespassing via the cleared RoW, with particular concern over the impact of ATVs and other vehicles driving across watercourses.

Rockwood Park

The second open house in Saint John was attended primarily by those interested in learning more about alternatives to the preliminary preferred corridor along an existing power transmission line RoW in Rockwood Park. Major concerns that came out of the Rockwood Park open house were:

many participants indicated that the pipeline should cross the Saint John Harbour, and did not believe that a land-based corridor through the City was justified (several requests were made for a report that would provide a basis for not selecting a marine corridor for the pipeline);

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 74

concerns for the Milford area related to emergency evacuation and safety in the event of a pipeline rupture;

concerns with property values being negatively affected by locating the pipeline near residential areas;

concerns with the potential effects of blasting on their homes and/or groundwater wells (there has been considerable blasting associated with road work in the area); and

concerns that locating the corridor adjacent to the power line would lead to Rockwood Park becoming a utility corridor for many more linear facilities.

The feedback obtained from the open houses was mixed regarding the choice of locating the preliminary preferred corridor along an existing power transmission line RoW in Rockwood Park. Many landowners that would potentially be affected by the corridor variants around Rockwood Park were in favour of locating the corridor alongside an existing power transmission line RoW. Many participants were opposed to any corridor in the vicinity of, or through, Rockwood Park.

Exit Questionnaire

The information packages contained an exit questionnaire that attendees were encouraged to fill out. An example of the exit questionnaire is provided in Appendix B13. The intent of the questionnaire was to offer an alternate means through which the public could provide additional information on the Project, including information and feedback that they may not have given verbally to the Project representatives. These comments and requests for information were recorded in the Public Input Tracking Database. The questions on the exit questionnaire focused on the overall effectiveness of the open houses, the proposed routing of the corridor, and the environmental and socio-economic effects of the Project. In total, 139 questionnaires were completed: 37 at the Saint John open house, 10 at the St. Stephen open house, and 92 at the Rockwood Park open house. No questionnaires were completed at the Pennfield open house.

A summary of the exit questionnaire responses can be found in Appendix B14. The questionnaire also asked respondents about the preliminary preferred corridor selection (Table 3.2.7). Responses provided as a result of this question helped to identify public concerns and potential outstanding issues. Table 3.2.7 Open House Exit Questionnaire Responses No answer or Open House In Favour Opposed Undecided Total unusable Saint John 10 3 21 3 37 St. Stephen 5 1 2 2 10 Pennfield 0 0 0 0 0 Saint John 13 56 16 7 92 (Rockwood Park)

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 75

Ongoing Communication

In an effort to increase the opportunities for public involvement and create a sustained dialogue with the public, three separate communication devices were created. Two methods were set up to enable the public to communicate with M&NP: a toll-free telephone line and an email address. These were included in all direct letters of notification mailed to interested parties and with all forms of notification through the media. They were also provided with the materials at the open houses. To date, 112 telephone inquiries have been logged (either to the toll-free telephone line or M&NP personnel directly) and 57 inquiries have been received via email. These points of contact are recorded in the Public Input Tracking Database, where appropriate action can be tracked.

A mailing list has been created in order to provide a method for M&NP to communicate with interested parties. Whenever contact is made with an interested party, they are asked if they would like to be added to the mailing list. To date, 176 individuals have been added to the mailing list.

Results of Public Consultation

Input from the public consultation program resulted in the identification of specific information requests and components of the Project for which there was general public concern. Many of these concerns are addressed in this EA document, and the Proponent will work towards communicating that information to the public through direct consultation as recorded in the Public Input Tracking Database and continued notification through the media. A summary of the most common public concerns, and an indication of how the concerns are addressed in this EA, or how they will be addressed later in the regulatory process, is provided in Table 3.2.8. Table 3.2.8 Summary of Public Input: Public Concern and EA Linkages to Issue Resolution Type of Summary of Most Common Public Link to Section of EA Addressing the Concern Concern Concerns Environmental Erosion and sedimentation with An EPP during Construction will include erosion and watercourse construction. sediment controls that will be employed during Project Effects of increased ATV access. Construction as described in Sections 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, and Loss of urban forest for wildlife use. 5.5 of the EA. Presence of protected flora in The potential environmental effects of ATV access and Rockwood Park. mitigation are discussed in Section 5.9 of the EA. The potential loss of forest resources and mitigation is discussed in Section 5.9 of the EA, and potential environmental effects to wildlife habitat are discussed in Section 5.6 of the EA. The preferred corridor is not in the vicinity where most of the rare plants have been observed (Section 4.5) and potential environmental effects to rare plants and mitigation are discussed in Section 5.4 of this EA.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 76

Table 3.2.8 Summary of Public Input: Public Concern and EA Linkages to Issue Resolution Type of Summary of Most Common Public Link to Section of EA Addressing the Concern Concern Concerns Health and Public safety in terms of transmission Section 5.7 of the EA discusses the potential safety and handling of natural gas. environmental effects to public health and safety and Risk assessment and emergency mitigation to be employed to safeguard public health and response plan. safety. Safety issues specific to an urban Emergency response plans and procedures and ongoing environment. public awareness programs during Operation and Aboveground facilities. Maintenance are described in Section 2.8 of the EA. Proximity of the pipeline to homes. The design of the pipeline will be to strict codes and standards and based on a quantitative risk analysis (QRA) of the entire pipeline system in urban and rural areas, as described in Section 2.8 of the EA. Special areas Cultural, heritage, archaeological and Potential environmental effects to archaeological and Aboriginal significant sites. heritage resources and mitigation to be employed are Environmentally significant areas. discussed in Section 5.12 of the EA. Areas of interest to individuals. Maliseet and Mi’kmaq spiritual sites and sacred places are Class 1 constraints (see Section 2.2) and will be taken into consideration during detailed routing. The selection of the detailed pipeline route will incorporate traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and potential environmental effects to traditional land and resource use, and mitigation to be employed, which are discussed in Section 5.8 of the EA. Environmentally significant areas are Class 1 constraints (see Section 2.2) and will be taken into consideration during detailed routing. Areas of interest, such as historical sites, infrastructure, and recreational sites, are Class 1 and Class 2 constraints (see Section 2.2) and will be taken into consideration during detailed routing. Corridor Landowner rights. The final routing of the pipeline will be in accordance with selection and Concern with the effect on property NEB requirements and will include ongoing public routing in values consultation as identified in Section 3.2.1 of the EA; the general Future development concerns and Proponent is committed to ongoing consultation with concerns about land use. potentially affected landowners directed at resolving land ownership concerns in a fair and equitable manner. Land use and resource use are discussed in Section 5.9 of the EA. Calls to use the marine corridor. The final routing of the pipeline will be in accordance with Concerns about the effects of NEB requirements and will include ongoing public construction on municipal consultation as identified in Section 3.2.1 of the EA; the infrastructure. Proponent is committed to ongoing consultation with potentially affected landowners directed at resolving land ownership concerns in a fair and equitable manner. The preferred corridor was selected based on an evaluation of corridor alternatives, including a marine corridor crossing the Saint John Harbour as described in Section 2.2 of the EA. Potential environmental effects to municipal infrastructure and mitigation to be employed are discussed in Section 5.10 of the EA.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 77

Table 3.2.8 Summary of Public Input: Public Concern and EA Linkages to Issue Resolution Type of Summary of Most Common Public Link to Section of EA Addressing the Concern Concern Concerns Requests for Additional information regarding The Proponent is committed to consulting with, and information and corridor choice. providing timely information to, members of the public documentation More technical explanation of urban throughout the pipeline approvals process, including the corridor selection. following specific activities: Map requests. A comprehensive consultation program has been More information about public safety. implemented for the EA, as described in Section 3.2.1. The final routing of the pipeline will be in accordance with NEB requirements and will include ongoing public consultation as identified in Section 3.2.1 of the EA. The Proponent is committed to ongoing consultation with potentially affected landowners directed at resolving land ownership concerns in a fair and equitable manner. The Proponent will facilitate ongoing public interaction through the communication tools (e.g., email, telephone), and will respond to information requests as required. Statements of Local benefits versus local risk. The need and purpose for the Project is discussed in objection Poor local benefits. Section 1.3 of the EA; potential environmental effects to Objections to use of Rockwood Park. the economy are discussed in Section 5.11 of the EA. Objections to the corridor selection. Project approvals, including the approval of this EA, will be in accordance with NEB and CEAA requirements as identified in Section 1.4 of the EA; these approvals include public hearings as part of the approval process, where objections to the Project and the EA can be heard by the NEB.

Mechanisms (e.g., toll-free telephone line, email, RoW representative contacts) have been put into place to ensure ongoing communication with the public and interested parties. Public consultation during pipeline Operation and Maintenance will be defined in a Public Awareness Program, described in Section 2.8 (Environmental Management).

Landowner Consultation

The Proponent’s commitments to all landowners will be contained in a “Letter of Commitments” that will be presented to all affected landowners. The Proponents RoW representatives are responsible for addressing landowner concerns about land use, compensation, and regulations governing pipeline routing as it relates to land ownership.

A dialogue with potentially affected landowners and commercial landowners was initiated primarily through promoting the open houses, as detailed previously. Any landowners within the preliminary preferred corridor in rural areas, and those landowners whose properties intersected the preliminary preferred corridor in urban Saint John, were identified and sent a letter announcing the Project and inviting them to the open houses. In addition, the Proponent’s RoW representatives are continually in direct contact with potentially affected parties. These RoW representatives are responsible for addressing landowner concerns about land use, compensation, and regulations governing pipeline routing as it relates to land ownership. In cases where individuals contacted the Project Team with questions or comments that related to land ownership along the corridor alternatives (including the preliminary preferred corridor), they were referred to these RoW representatives.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 78

3.2.1.3 Stakeholder Consultation

Numerous meetings were held with key stakeholders (e.g., community groups, commercial landowners with large tracts of property that may be affected, or parties with an interest in lands that would be intersected by the pipeline corridor). These meetings are and will be continuing throughout the design and Construction phases of the Project.

The objective of these consultations was to provide a brief presentation on Project activities and to solicit comments and concerns. A summary of the meetings with stakeholders, resulting in the exchange of information used in this EA and the selection of the corridor (and eventually the RoW), is provided in Table 3.2.9. The Proponent will continue to engage various stakeholders on issues related to the Project. Table 3.2.9 Summary of Meetings with Stakeholders Stakeholder(s) Date Location Themes / Topics Discussed City of Saint John May 16, 2005 Saint John update on the Project status City Hall pipeline corridor selection issues (environmental and socio-economic issues, specific features of the physical or biological environment, and public support/opposition) list of contacts at the City for further communications list of additional stakeholders affiliated with the City to be consulted NB Power July 7, 2005 NB Power details of the proposed Crossing Agreement Fredericton Offices pipeline corridor issues related to paralleling the Executive IPL RoW Boardroom Irving Oil Limited August 12, 2005 Telephone proposed new access road to Redhead area discussion City of Saint John August 15, 2005 Saint John update on Project status City Hall corridor alternatives and preferred corridor selection Project timeline City concerned over high-pressure line within urban setting. potential issues along preferred corridor, as well as other issues in the Saint John area specifically City concerned over proposed pipeline corridor adjacent to Pipeline Road, in Saint John Irving Oil Limited, September 7, 2005 JDI Offices, Saint overview of preliminary preferred corridor location John D. Irving John, NB for the Project Limited (JDI), summarized material and information to be Repsol YPF S.A. presented at September open houses (Repsol) discussed potential interferences of corridor with future JDI plans in the vicinity of the Church Street Bridge Saint John September 30, 2005 Telephone Project update to Geoff Spear re: corridor along Horticultural discussion existing transmission line RoW in Rockwood Park Society Saint John October 3, 2005 Telephone Project update to Wallace McMurray re: corridor Horticultural discussion along existing transmission line RoW in Rockwood Society Park Town of St. October 6, 2005 St. Stephen Town general meeting and discussion of protection of Stephen Offices Dennis Stream Watershed with Mayor and staff

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 79

Table 3.2.9 Summary of Meetings with Stakeholders Stakeholder(s) Date Location Themes / Topics Discussed City of Saint John October 11, 2005 Saint John Project update and discussion of pipeline corridor Council City Hall location (closed session) City of Saint John October 18, 2005 Rockwood Park identified cave and rare plant locations in Leisure Services Facility, Saint John, Rockwood Park NB identification of stakeholder groups to consider contacting Rockwood Park forest inventory City of Saint John October 20, 2005 Telephone Identification of areas in Saint John serviced by discussion private wells and municipal water supplies JDI October 26, 2005 JDI Offices, Saint corridor location concerns, discussed issues John, NB related to future development near Rothesay Avenue, Highway 1 and Highway 7 interchange, and NBSR technical issues SNC Lavalin October 27, 2005 SNC Lavalin potential issues with Harbour Bridge Offices, Fredericton, NB Atlantic Salmon October 31, 2005 ASF Boardroom, potential pipeline interactions with Atlantic Salmon Federation St. Stephen, NB watercourses locations of Atlantic salmon spawning habitat, electrofishing, and smolt sites mitigation Saint John November 2, 2005 Saint John Project introduction and corridor along existing Horticultural Horticultural transmission line RoW in Rockwood Park Society Society Office, Saint John, NB Mayor of Saint November 2, 2005 Saint John discussed issues related to locating pipeline John City Hall through the City issues related to locating pipeline along existing transmission line RoW in Rockwood Park JDI November 17, 2005 JDI Offices, Saint corridor location concerns, widen corridor at some John, NB locations to avoid constraints City of Saint John, November 17, 2005 Saint John Project update meeting Planning City Hall Department City of Saint John, November 17, 2005 Leisure Services introduction and discussion of corridor along Leisure Services Offices, Saint John, existing transmission line RoW in Rockwood Park NB Atlantica Centre December 5, 2005 Enterprise Saint Project update for Energy, John Boardroom, Saint John Labour Market Gap Study Enterprise Saint Saint John, NB John, and the Saint John Board of Trade Saint John December 5, 2005 Saint John update to corridor and costs Horticultural Horticultural presented alternate corridors around Rockwood Society Society Office, Park Saint John, NB City of Saint John, December 5, 2005 Leisure Services presented corridor variants around Rockwood Park Leisure Services offices, Saint John, NB Saint John Port December 14, 2005 Saint John Port extent of harbour dredging and dredging dumping Authority Authority Office, locations Saint John, NB potential contaminated sites in the harbour ship wreck locations shipping traffic patterns and timing

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 80

Table 3.2.9 Summary of Meetings with Stakeholders Stakeholder(s) Date Location Themes / Topics Discussed NB Power December 14, 2005 NB Power status of IPL project (International Power Line) Fredericton Offices, Fredericton, NB NBDOT January 11, 2006 NBDOT Offices, discussed potential overlap with proposed south Fredericton, NB variant under Hwy 1 and the new highway overpass Strescon Limited January 12, 2006 Strescon Offices, concerns over pipeline interfering with property Saint John, NB development at Rothesay Avenue opposed to north variant around Rockwood Park JDI January 12, 2006 JDI Offices, Saint widened corridor at NBSR property John, NB emergency vehicle access through NBSR yard NBENV Water March 16, 2006 Telephone vertification of the water supply for the Town of St. Planning Section discussion Stephen Saint John Energy March 29, 2006 Saint John Energy presented urban portion of pipeline corridor and Office, Saint John, outlined Project timing NB discussed need for construction coordination (e.g., line raisings) Rockwood Park March 29, 2006 Saint John presented preferred corridor along existing Advisory Board City Hall transmission line RoW in Rockwood Park discussed corridor variants around Rockwood Park rationale for not selecting the marine alternative restoration options for Rockwood Park Rogers Wireless April 3, 3006 M&NP Halifax discussed pipeline routing near Spruce Lake and Office, Halifax, NS construction of new Rogers Wireless tower in the Spruce Lake area in spring 2006 City of Saint John, April 26, 2006 Saint John City Hall presented preferred corridor along existing Environment transmission line RoW in Rockwood Park Committee discussed corridor variants around Rockwood Park rationale for not selecting the marine alternative restoration options for Rockwood Park general issues related to the EA and preferred corridor within Saint John NB Power Holding May 10, 2006 Telephone discussed location of potable water supply for Point Company / Point discussion Lepreau and potential wet crossing of Atkinson Lepreau Brook Refurbishment Project

3.2.1.4 Aboriginal Consultation

In order to meet the goals for Aboriginal consultation and as required under NEBA, an Aboriginal consultation plan and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) study have been prepared and initiated for the Project. An Aboriginal consulting firm was retained to facilitate the consultation process and the TEK plan. The objectives of these efforts are:

to respond to questions and concerns with regard to potential environmental effects to Aboriginal interests resulting from Project activities;

to inform the Aboriginal communities that the EA is one way to participate in the Project approval process; and

to gather information on the nature and extent of potential environmental effects on current land and resource use for traditional purposes; and

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 81

The Aboriginal consultation plan was implemented to gather environmental and socio-economic information for use in the EA. The TEK study is ongoing and the information being gathered through this process will be used to enhance the detailed route process. The activities related to these efforts are described below.

Aboriginal Consultation Plan

The following is a summary of the Aboriginal consultation process and describes the methods used for consultation; the locations and times where direct Aboriginal contact took place; and the key leaders, informants and stakeholders consulted. The results of the consultation efforts are presented.

As part of the Aboriginal consultation plan, open houses and direct consultation were identified as the primary forms of communication with First Nation communities and organizations. Through direct contact with the Chiefs, all 15 communities were given information about the Project and permission was requested to hold an open house in each of their communities. Of these, 13 agreed to allow the open houses (Table 3.2.10). The two exceptions were the Bouctouche and Fort Folly First Nations. In these cases, either the Chief or a Council member was briefed on the Project by the Aboriginal consultant and/or M&NP staff. Following the meeting with the Chief of Fort Folly First Nation, the TEK study was permitted within that community. Table 3.2.10 First Nation Open Houses Date First Nation Community November 16, 2005 Woodstock Maliseet First Nation November 16, 2005 Kingsclear Maliseet First Nation November 17, 2005 Indian Island Mi’kmaq First Nation November 17, 2005 Oromocto Maliseet First Nation November 21, 2005 Madawaska Maliseet First Nation November 21, 2005 Maliseet Nation at Tobique November 22, 2005 Metepenagiag Mi’kmaq First Nation November 22, 2005 Burnt Church Mi’kmaq First Nation November 30, 2005 St. Mary’s Maliseet First Nation December 1, 2005 Eel River Bar Mi’kmaq First Nation December 2, 2005 Big Cove Mi’kmaq First Nation December 5, 2005 Pabineau Mi’kmaq First Nation December 7, 2005 Eel Ground Mi’kmaq First Nation

Materials presented and made available at these sessions included the same material available at the open houses held in Saint John, Pennfield, and St. Stephen (Section 3.2.1.2), with some supplemental information to address particular First Nations’ interests. Members of the Project Team were available at the First Nation open houses to answer questions and discuss any issues or concerns raised. Exit questionnaires were available for participants to provide feedback, and staff took notes of the issues raised by those in attendance.

The major topic noted at the open houses centred on employment opportunities (e.g., training, contracting, direct employment). There was also concern expressed over the potential environmental effects of construction and safety issues associated with natural gas. There were a couple of comments regarding land ownership. One person brought up the Passamaquoddy Tribe’s claim to a portion of New Brunswick, asking if M&NP was consulting with that group. Another person pointed out

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 82

that Brother’s Island, near Saint John, was jointly owned by all the Maliseet First Nations. Those in attendance asked to be kept informed of the Project with relevant documentation and maps, and to be informed of the final detailed route selection.

Participants at the open houses were also invited to fill out an exit questionnaire. One person expressed their concern about the Rockwood Park portion of the proposed pipeline corridor, expressing that they hoped it would be done with little impact. Other concerns recorded on the exit questionnaires related to ensuring that Native sacred lands would not be disturbed and that proof of historical Aboriginal settlements would be preserved.

In addition to the open houses, the two representative organizations of New Brunswick Aboriginal people, the MAWIW Council and the Union of New Brunswick Indians (UNBI), were contacted and each were provided with a detailed briefing of the Project.

Recommendations

The report on the Aboriginal consulting process contained a number of recommendations based on the outcomes from direct consultation with the community chiefs, participants at the open houses, and the two representative organizations (MAWIW Council and UNBI). These are reproduced below (ARC 2006a).

Provide to each of the New Brunswick First Nations a copy of the final EA, as well as the finalized EA map sets at the earliest opportunity.

Develop specific detailed protocols, in concert with the organizational liaisons, addressing processes for the dissemination of information on employment and contracting opportunities, as well as a reporting process to measure results, and share with the First Nation leadership.

Develop a detailed informational package on M&NP’s safety procedures and distribute to each of the New Brunswick First Nation communities.

Provide copies of the consultation process report to each of the New Brunswick First Nation communities.

Traditional Ecological Knowledge Study

Preliminary TEK results and findings and results from this consultation effort have been incorporated into the EA for the Project (Section 4.9, Traditional Land and Resource Use Existing Conditions; Section 5.8, Traditional Land and Resource Use Environmental Effects Assessment), and the final TEK Report will also be incorporated into the NEB Application filing.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 83

3.2.2 Scope of the Project and Assessment

The filing of the NEB application will trigger requirements for an environmental assessment under CEAA, and the Government of Canada will be required to undertake an environmental assessment of this Project as prescribed under CEAA. The Project is also subject to the Environmental and Socio- economic Assessment requirements of NEBA.

The NEB will be the lead RA for the environmental assessment of this Project, and based on the authorizations required, DFO and Transport Canada will also be RAs. Federal agencies providing expert advice on the Project may include EC and NRCan.

The scope of this EA is prepared pursuant to the NEB’s Filing Manual requirements (NEB 2004a), NEB Brunswick Pipeline Project draft Environmental Assessment Scoping Document (NEB 2006) and Sections 15 and 16 of CEAA. Under CEAA, the scope of the environmental assessment includes the scope of the project and the scope of the factors to be assessed. The scope of the assessment includes a consideration of the factors established in paragraphs 16(1)(a) through (d), and 16(2)(a) though (d) of CEAA. Further, pursuant to Section 4.2.2 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2004a), alternative means of carrying out the project were determined to be a relevant factor and are described in Section 2.2 (Project Alternatives) (also a requirement of CEAA, Section 16(2)).

All factors are considered in terms of construction, and operation and maintenance activities. Any decommissioning or abandonment activities, and certain modifications, would be subject to future examination under NEBA, and consequently under CEAA, as appropriate. Therefore, at this time, environmental effects resulting from decommissioning are not included in the environmental effects assessment (Section 5.0, Environmental Assessment).

3.2.2.1 Scope of the Project

The scope of the Project will be determined by the NEB pursuant to its authority under Section 15 of CEAA. It is proposed that the scope of the Project be limited to the physical works and activities related to the Project, and the transmission of pipeline quality natural gas from the proposed Canaport™ LNG facility at Mispec Point, near Saint John, New Brunswick to the international border near St. Stephen, New Brunswick, including:

all construction activities associated with the preparation of the RoW, installation and testing of the pipeline, and restoration and maintenance of the pipeline, including all temporary watercourse crossings, access roads, above and below ground facilities associated with the pipeline, and its proper functioning; and

operation and maintenance of the new facilities.

The scope of the Project does not include consideration of:

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 84

decommissioning and abandonment (note: that decommissioning or abandonment activities would be subject to future examination under NEBA, and consequently under CEAA, as appropriate);

any facilities, activities, or ancillary structures upstream of the proposed pipeline, any portion of the Canaport™ LNG facility (which has already been assessed under CEAA) (note: the Canaport™ LNG facility will be included in the assessment of cumulative environmental effects);

downstream facilities in the United States on the M&NP system, including pipeline looping and compressor stations;

the source of aggregates, concrete, and other materials required from outside of the Project RoW where they are acquired from existing, operating licensed sources;

the manufacturing and transportation of the pipe itself;

the ultimate use of the natural gas; and

the land transportation of workers and materials (with the exception of accident scenarios which are included), including the transportation and disposal of waste products at approved facilities, to and from the Project limits or the origin or destination for them (e.g., sulphide-bearing rock disposal sites).

The transportation of materials to the site is not considered because all materials shall come from existing, licensed and approved suppliers. The transportation of waste products is not considered because all waste products shall be disposed or recycled in licensed facilities, and all waste transportation activities shall be in compliance with the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, where applicable.

However, any or all of the above facilities and activities may be considered, as appropriate, in the assessment of cumulative effects.

The physical works and activities assessed are identified for the Construction, and Operation and Maintenance phases of the Project, as well as Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events, and are grouped into categories, as shown in Table 3.1.1. The physical works and activities assessed provide the basis for determining Project interactions with the environment and assessment of potential environmental effects, including accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events (Table 3.1.1).

3.2.2.2 Scope of Assessment

The environmental assessment considers the physical works and physical activities described in Section 2.4, according to the mandatory factors described in Section 3.2.2.1. These physical works and activities include the construction, and operation and maintenance of the preferred corridor and Rockwood Park corridor variants. Specific issues considered include: issues identified through regulatory, stakeholder and public consultation; issues identified by the RAs; and issues identified through the professional judgement of the Jacques Whitford Study Team. General guidance regarding the assessment process and the scope of the assessment are provided in CEAA, the NEB Filing

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 85

Manual (NEB 2004a) and the NEB Brunswick Pipeline Project draft Environmental Assessment Scoping Document issued for public comment (NEB 2006), and will be confirmed by the RAs. Additional specific guidance regarding provincial assessment requirements will be provided through joint federal/provincial direction, as necessary.

The environmental assessment methodology used has evolved from methods proposed by Barnes et al. (2000), stressing an assessment focused on environmental components of greatest concern to potentially affected parties. In general, the methodology is designed to:

focus on issues of greatest concern;

address regulatory requirements;

address issues raised by the public and other stakeholders;

integrate engineering design and mitigation and follow-up programs into a comprehensive environmental management planning process; and

describe potential cumulative environmental effects.

The environmental assessment methodology for this Project includes an evaluation of the potential environmental effects of each Project phase (i.e., Construction, and Operation and Maintenance) as well as Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events, with regard to Valued Environmental and Socio-economic or Socio-cultural Components (referred to as Valued Environmental Components or VECs). Project-related environmental effects are assessed within the context of temporal and spatial boundaries established for the environmental assessment. The evaluation of potential cumulative environmental effects with regard to other projects and activities includes past, present, and likely future activities that will be carried out and will interact temporally or spatially with the Project.

Pursuant to Sections 16(1) and 16(2) of CEAA, the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2004a) and the NEB Brunswick Pipeline Project draft Environmental Assessment Scoping Document (NEB 2006), the environmental assessment includes a consideration of the following factors:

the environmental effects of the Project, including the environmental effects of accidents, malfunctions, or unplanned events that may occur in connection with the Project and any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out;

the significance of the environmental effects;

comments from the public;

measures that are technically and economically feasible and that would mitigate any significant adverse environmental effects of the Project;

any other matter relevant to the environmental assessment, such as the need for the Project and alternatives to the Project;

the purpose of the Project;

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 86

alternative means of carrying out the Project that are technically and economically feasible and the environmental effects of any such alternative means;

the need for, and the requirements of, any follow-up program in respect of the Project; and

the capacity of renewable resources that are likely to be significantly affected by the Project to meet the needs of the present and those of the future.

Environmental effects include those to species at risk listed on Schedule 1 of SARA, and effects of the environment on the Project. The scope of the factors to be considered/assessed in relation to the Project will be determined by the NEB and other RAs pursuant to Section 16(3) of CEAA, based upon consultations with the public, regulatory authorities, and field studies conducted to date. The EA will focus on the applicable Biophysical and Socio-economic Elements described in the NEB Filing Manual in Tables A-3 to A-5 (NEB 2004a) and the draft scoping document (NEB 2006), and specifically the VECs provided in Table 3.2.11. As required by the NEB Filing Manual in Tables A-3 to A-5, information on various elements of the physical environment that may be affected by Project activities and/or that may have an effect on the Project are considered in the EA. Potential environmental effects during Construction are influenced by such characteristics of the physical environment as general topography and physiography, surficial and bedrock geology, sulphide-bearing rock (acid rock) presence, slope stability, and historic seismic activity. While a separate VEC on the physical environment is not included in the EA, aspects of the physical environment are considered in other VECs, as appropriate (e.g., sulphide-bearing rock presence is considered in the Water Resources VEC). The potential effects of the physical environment on the Project are assessed in Section 6.0 (Effects of the Environment on the Project).

Table 3.2.11 Valued Environmental Components (VECs) List of VECs Issues to be Considered within each VEC

Atmospheric Environment Air quality, including PM2.5, PM10, combustion gases, and greenhouse gas emissions (Construction phase) Sound quality (acoustic environment) Climate (weather conditions) as it relates to the Construction, and Operation and Maintenance of the Project Water Resources Identification of water wells Change in groundwater flow patterns, quality or quantity Protected watersheds Fish and Fish Habitat Surface water flow patterns and quality and sulphide-bearing rock Fish and fish habitat Species at risk and species of conservation concern Fish-based ESAs Vegetation Terrestrial vegetation Species at risk and species of conservation concern Vegetation-based ESAs Wetlands Wetland functionality Species at risk and species of conservation concern Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Migratory birds and bird habitat Species at risk and species of conservation concern Wildlife-based ESAs Health and Safety Health and safety to members of the public Worker and occupational health and safety Traditional Land and Resource Use Traditional land and resource use by Aboriginal persons

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 87

Table 3.2.11 Valued Environmental Components (VECs) List of VECs Issues to be Considered within each VEC Land and Resource Use Human occupancy Resource use (e.g., forest resources) Recreational resource use Agricultural resources and soil quality Infrastructure and Services Emergency response capacity Accommodation of workforce (housing and living) Utilities and services Labour and Economy Availability of adequate labour force Economic considerations Archaeological and Heritage Archaeological, paleontological, and heritage resources Resources Effects of the Environment on the Changes to or effects on the Project caused by environmental forces or processes Project Weather patterns as they relate to pipeline Construction, and Operation and Maintenance, including extreme conditions Rationale for the selection of VECs and the issues to be considered within each VEC is provided as follows. Atmospheric Environment During Construction, there will be an increase in local traffic, in particular heavy equipment, which has the potential to adversely affect the local environment. The potential environmental effects on the sub- components below are considered. Air Quality The potential environmental effects of the Project are assessed by quantifying the potential emissions of air contaminant releases to the environment for total particulate matter (PM), particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), combustion gasses and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Baseline ambient air quality and emissions data in the vicinity of the Project are collected from published sources (where available) to establish existing conditions in the study area. A list of activities that are expected to generate emissions in each phase of the Project are presented in this EA. The emissions are quantified on the basis of the different activities that would occur during each phase of the Project. For example, there is potential for the generation of airborne dust from heavy equipment. Once the potential emissions are quantified, the potential to cause significant adverse environmental effects on air quality is assessed by comparison with other similar projects, by dispersion modelling, or by professional judgement, depending on the nature and quantity of emissions. The generation of GHGs are assessed by comparing the GHG emissions with appropriate benchmarks such as other similar projects. The loss of carbon sinks are assessed by examining the potential loss of productive land area. Where practicable, methods to reduce GHG emissions and minimize the loss of carbon sinks are evaluated and presented. Sound Quality

The potential environmental effects are assessed by conducting baseline noise monitoring to determine existing noise levels in areas where noise is anticipated to be an issue during the Construction phase of the Project (i.e., HDD locations).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 88

Weather Patterns

Weather conditions as they relate to the Construction, and Operation and Maintenance of the Project are assessed. Climate change is assessed qualitatively in the context of the potential environmental effects of Project-related GHGs on the atmosphere and of the potential loss of carbon sinks from the Construction, and Operation and Maintenance of the Project.

Water Resources

Construction activities such as grade cuts and blasting have the potential to adversely affect water resources in the vicinity of the Project.

The EA considers changes in quality, quantity, and flow patterns of groundwater resources and surface water resources within protected watersheds intersected by the Project during the Construction, and Operation and Maintenance phases, and in the case of potential Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events.

Fish and Fish Habitat

The installation of the proposed pipeline within watercourses and watercourse crossing structures required for the Project has the potential to result in adverse environmental effects to various sub- components of the aquatic environment. The potential environmental effects on the sub-components below, including fish-based ESAs, are considered.

Surface Water Quality

The EA considers the potential environmental effects of the Project on surface water as it relates to fish and fish habitat due to construction (including the installation of watercourse crossings and potential interactions with sulphide-bearing rock), and operation and maintenance activities, and in the case of potential accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events.

Fish and Fish Habitat

All watercourses with the potential to be crossed by the Project are identified using available maps, aerial photo interpretation, and field inspection. Existing and gathered information on the fish species and habitat present in these river systems is used. Fish habitat is characterized qualitatively using the DFO/NBDNR Habitat Assessment Forms and methodology as developed by Hooper et al. (1995).

Species at Risk or Species of Conservation Concern

Atlantic salmon and other fish species at risk or species of conservation concern that may be present in some of the rivers to be crossed by the preferred corridor and variants around Rockwood Park are considered in this EA.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 89

Vegetation

Project activities have the potential to result in adverse environmental effects to the vegetated terrestrial environment. This EA assesses the potential environmental effects of Project activities on vegetation (i.e., vascular plant life) and vegetation-based ESAs during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance, as well as Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events.

Species at Risk or Species of Conservation Concern

Vascular plant species at risk or species of conservation concern that may be present within the preferred corridor and variants around Rockwood Park are considered in this EA.

Wetlands

Project activities have the potential to result in adverse environmental effects to wetlands. This EA assesses the potential environmental effects of Project activities on wetlands during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance, as well as Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events.

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

Project activities have the potential to result in adverse environmental effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat. This EA considers the potential environmental effects of Project activities on birds and bird habitat, other wildlife and wildlife habitat, and wildlife-based ESAs during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance, as well as Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events.

Species at Risk or Species of Conservation Concern

Terrestrial wildlife species at risk or species of conservation concern that may be present within the preferred corridor and variants around Rockwood Park are considered in this EA.

Health and Safety

Health and safety is assessed in this EA because of public concern and the potential for the Project to result in environmental effects on the public and workers during all phases of the Project. This EA assesses the environmental effects on public and worker health and safety separately.

Traditional Land and Resource Use

The Aboriginal community, including representative First Nation groups, are provided an opportunity to identify any traditional land and resource use in, or within the vicinity of, the Project area. All identified current uses of land and resources for traditional purposes by Aboriginal persons are considered, based on previous environmental assessments conducted for the SJL EA and IPL EA, and information obtained through direct consultation during open houses held for this Project in Aboriginal communities. A TEK study for the Project, including interviews and focused discussions with Aboriginal community members, has been initiated and its results will be used to confirm the traditional land and resource use by Aboriginal persons in the area of the preferred corridor and to assist with pipeline route selection.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 90

Land and Resource Use

The Project has the potential to disrupt existing land use (e.g., residential, commercial, recreational, forest resource, and agricultural) within the vicinity of the Project. The potential environmental effects on the sub-components below are considered in the EA during all phases of the Project.

Residential, Commercial, and Recreational Land Use

The environmental effects of the Project on residential and commercial properties are considered for any properties crossed by the preferred corridor and variants around Rockwood Park. Navigability for many of the watercourses along the preferred corridor and variants around Rockwood Park is assumed. The potential environmental effects of the Project on navigation are assessed.

Any identified recreational land use such as hiking, hunting, and/or fishing is considered.

Forest and Agricultural Resources

Consideration of the potential environmental effects of the Project on forest and agricultural resources is limited to land that will be crossed by the preferred corridor and variants around Rockwood Park.

Infrastructure and Services

Project activities have the potential to result in environmental effects on infrastructure and services in the vicinity of the Project. Infrastructure and services include but are not limited to health care, policing and fire protection, transportation, sanitary and storm water sewers, water mains, and electrical utilities. This EA considers the potential environmental effects of Project activities on infrastructure and services during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance, as well as Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events.

Labour and Economy

The Project has the potential to result in environmental effects on labour and economy. This EA assesses labour supply and the overall performance of the economy at both a provincial and regional level during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance, as well as Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events.

Archaeological and Heritage Resources

During Construction, Operation and Maintenance, and Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events, the potential environmental effects to archaeological features within the preferred corridor and variants around Rockwood Park are assessed and appropriate mitigation is recommended. In addition, known paleontological sites, and heritage structures and buildings are considered.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 91

Effects of the Environment on the Project

Due to the potential for adverse weather conditions (e.g., precipitation, flooding), there is the potential for an adverse environmental effect of the environment on Project activities, schedule and infrastructure. The Project may also be affected by the geology of the region, induced potential, forest fires, and contaminated soils. Therefore, this EA considers the following categories of environmental events that could have an effect on the Project:

weather (severe rainfall and flooding);

seismic activity (earthquakes);

sinkholes;

induced potential;

forest fires; and

contaminated soils.

The potential environmental effects related to encountering sulphide-bearing rock and contaminated soils along the preferred corridor and variants around Rockwood Park are assessed in Water Resources (Section 5.2).

The extent of consideration of climate and climate change is limited to the potential effects of adverse weather conditions that may interact with the Project, such that the Project schedule is compromised or the Project design must be altered to minimize potential environmental effects and/or to protect human health.

NEB Requirements

A concordance table based on the NEB filing requirements for biophysical and socio-economic elements (NEB 2004a) is provided in Table 3.2.12.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 92

Table 3.2.12 Table of Concordance with NEB Filing Requirements for Biophysical and Socio- economic Elements Biophysical and Socio-economic Location in Environmental Assessment Elements Physical Environment Section 2.7 (Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events): fire potential Section 4.1 (Physical Environment): ground instability, sulphide-bearing (acid-generating) rock, erosion Section 4.2 (Atmospheric Environment): climate change (variability) Section 4.3 (Water Resources): sulphide-bearing rock, soil contamination Section 5.1 (Atmospheric Environment): climate change Section 5.3 (Fish and Fish Habitat): sulphide-bearing rock Section 5.2 (Water Resources): sulphide-bearing rock, soil contamination Section 6.0 (Effects of the Environment on the Project): ground instability, flooding, fire potential, soil contamination Soil and Soil Section 4.10 (Land and Resource Use) Productivity Section 5.9 (Land and Resource Use) Vegetation Section 4.5 (Vegetation) Section 5.4 (Vegetation) Water Quality and Section 4.3 (Water Resources) Quantity Section 5.2 (Water Resources) Section 4.4 (Fish and Fish Habitat) Section 5.3 (Fish and Fish Habitat) Fish and Fish Habitat Section 4.4 (Fish and Fish Habitat) Section 5.3 (Fish and Fish Habitat) Wetlands Section 4.6 (Wetlands) Section 5.5 (Wetlands) Wildlife and Wildlife Section 4.7 (Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat) Habitat Section 5.6 (Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat) Species at Risk or Section 4.4 (Fish and Fish Habitat) Species of Special Section 5.3 (Fish and Fish Habitat) Status Section 4.5 (Vegetation) Section 5.4 (Vegetation) Section 4.7 (Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat) Section 5.6 (Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat) Air Quality Section 4.2 (Atmospheric Environment) Section 5.1 (Atmospheric Environment) Acoustic Environment Section 4.2 (Atmospheric Environment) Section 5.1 (Atmospheric Environment) Human Occupancy and Section 4.10 (Land and Resource Use) Resource Use Section 5.9 (Land and Resource Use) Heritage Resources Section 4.13 (Archaeological and Heritage Resources) Section 5.12 (Archaeological and Heritage Resources) Traditional Land and Section 4.9 (Traditional Land and Resource Use) Resource Use Section 5.8 (Traditional Land and Resource Use) Social and Cultural Section 5.7 (Health and Safety) Well-being Section 5.9 (Land and Resource Use) Human Health Section 4.8 (Health and Safety) Section 5.7 (Health and Safety) Infrastructure and Section 4.11 (Infrastructure and Services) Services Section 5.10 (Infrastructure and Services) Employment and Section 4.12 (Labour and Economy) Economy Section 5.11 (Labour and Economy)

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 93

Requirements of CEAA and the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2004a) are met in this EA. The issue of permafrost is not applicable to the study area. The preferred corridor and variants around Rockwood Park are routed through well developed urban areas (i.e., Saint John and the Town of St. Stephen) and relatively well developed rural areas that contain other infrastructure of a similar nature to the Project (e.g., SJL, IPL, Mainline).

3.2.2.3 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries

The spatial and temporal boundaries for each VEC are determined based on the likelihood of an interaction between Project activities and the elements of the environment for which each VEC is responsible.

Temporal boundaries are mainly limited to the Construction phase of the Project, which has the highest potential for VEC/Project interactions. There will be some interactions that extend beyond the Construction phase, such as limits to certain types of land use (e.g., development within the pipeline RoW (for safety reasons)) and RoW vegetation management that will continue for the life of the Project, and these interactions are also considered.

The spatial and temporal boundaries for each VEC are defined in their respective sections of Section 5.0 (Environmental Assessment).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 94

4.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

The following components of the existing environment for the preferred corridor (and Rockwood Park variants where these components differ) are described in Section 4.0 (Existing Environment):

Physical Environment (Section 4.1);

Atmospheric Environment (Section 4.2);

Water Resources (Section 4.3);

Fish and Fish Habitat (Section 4.4);

Vegetation (Section 4.5);

Wetlands (Section 4.6);

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat (Section 4.7);

Health and Safety (Section 4.8);

Traditional Land and Resource Use (Section 4.9);

Land and Resource Use (Section 4.10);

Infrastructure and Services (Section 4.11);

Labour and Economy (Section 4.12); and

Archaeological and Heritage Resources (Section 4.13).

4.1 Physical Environment

The information in this section is derived primarily from the Preliminary Evaluation of Pipeline Route Options report that was prepared by Jacques Whitford for M&NP in 2004 (Jacques Whitford 2004b). Unless stated otherwise, the information presented in Section 4.1 (Physical Environment) is based on the “North Alternative” and “Rural” corridors as defined in that document (i.e., the 2004 corridor). Since that report was published, relatively minor changes to this corridor have been made (i.e., less than 20 km); however, the information presented here is representative of the preferred corridor. In 2006 and/or 2007, additional geotechnical investigations will be undertaken to determine site conditions along the defined RoW within the preferred corridor.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 95

4.1.1 General Topography and Physiography

The preferred corridor lies predominantly within the St. Croix Highlands physiographic division. Within this major division, the preferred corridor travels through three minor divisions: Musquash Lowland, Clarendon Hills, and Magaguadavic Highlands. The easternmost portion of the preferred corridor (i.e., generally the portion within Saint John) lies within the Caledonian Highlands division and encompasses two subdivisions: Central Plateau and Mispec Plateau. The Central Plateau is characterized by a gently undulating to level surface with hills typically 30-90 m high. The topography of the Mispec Plateau subdivision is hummocky to rolling. Slopes are regular or vary between 4-15%.

From the Saint John River, heading west, the preferred corridor traverses the Musquash Lowland, crossing the drainage systems of the Pocologan River, New River, and Lepreau River, all of which flow into the Bay of Fundy. The Musquash Lowland is an undulating plain with elevations ranging from 50-150 m. Further west, the preferred corridor crosses the southwestern extremity of the Clarendon Hills subdivision. The elevation in this area reaches a maximum of 330 m above sea level and there are numerous lakes in this area including Red Rock Lake, Sparks Lake, and Clear Lake among others. Finally, the western portion of the preferred corridor passes through the Magaguadavic Highlands subdivision. Elevation in this area ranges from 60-120 m above sea level.

4.1.2 Surficial Geology

Approximately 63.4% of the urban section of the 2004 corridor crosses through morainal surficial geological formations; the remainder passes through marine sediment formations (22.6%) and rock (14%) (Jacques Whitford 2004b). The majority of the formations are overlaid by a discontinuous veneer (less than 0.5 m thick) over rock. Table 4.1.1 summarizes the surficial geology along the urban section of the 2004 corridor. Table 4.1.1 Surficial Geology – Urban Section of 2004 Corridor Formation Title Description % discontinuous veneer over rock, less than 0.5 m thick; mainly stony till (more than 35% of clasts pebble-sized and larger); loamy lodgment till, 49.7 minor ablation till, silt, sand, gravel, rubble Morainal Sediments blanket, generally 0.5-3 m thick; mainly stony till (more than 35% of clasts pebble-sized and larger; loamy lodgment till, minor ablation till, 13.7 silt, sand, gravel, rubble blanket and plains: sand, silt, some gravel and clay; generally 0.5-3 m 6.0 thick Marine Sediments blanket and plains: sand, silt, some gravel and clay; generally 0.5-3 m thick overlying ice-contact deposits: eskers, kames, kame and kettle 16.6 complexes; sand, gravel, minor silt; generally more than 2 m thick various lithologies and ages; generally weathered and partially Rock disintegrated, glacially moulded surface; few localities show glacially 14.0 scoured and polished surfaces Source: Jacques Whitford 2004b

Approximately 72.5% of the rural portion of the 2004 corridor crosses morainal surficial sediment formations (Jacques Whitford 2004b). One of these formations comprises more than 30% of the 2004 corridor and consists of a discontinuous veneer (less than 0.5 m) over rock. A second morainal

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 96

sediment formation, comprising approximately 18% of the 2004 corridor, is a blanket soil that is generally 0.5-3 m thick. The remainder of the 2004 corridor is comprised of marine sediments (approximately 15.1%), glaciofluvial sediments (approximately 7.3%), and rock (approximately 5.0%) (Jacques Whitford 2004b). Table 4.1.2 describes the surficial geology along the rural section of the 2004 corridor. Table 4.1.2 Surficial Geology – Rural Section of 2004 Corridor Formation Title Description % discontinuous veneer over rock, less than 0.5 m thick; loamy lodgment till, minor 3.4 ablation till, silt, sand, gravel, rubble discontinuous veneer over rock, less than 0.5 m thick; mainly stony till (more than 35% of clasts pebble-sized and larger); loamy lodgment till, minor ablation 32.9 till, silt, sand, gravel, rubble rolling and ribbed ablation moraines: loamy ablation till, some lodgment till, minor silt, sand, gravel, and boulders; generally greater than 1.5 m thick; mainly 5.0 stony till (more than 35% of clasts pebble-sized and larger) discontinuous veneer over rock, less than 0.5 m thick; mainly sandy till (sand Morainal Sediments content greater than 50%); loamy lodgment till, minor ablation till, silt, sand, 6.0 gravel, rubble mainly bouldery till (more than 25% of clasts boulder-sized); hummocky, ribbed and rolling ablation moraines: loamy ablation till, some lodgment till, minor silt, 3.2 sand, gravel, and boulders; generally greater than 1.5 m thick discontinuous veneer over rock, less than 0.5 m thick; mainly boulder till (more than 25% of clasts boulder-sized); loamy lodgment till, minor ablation till, silt, 4.1 sand, gravel, rubble blanket, generally 0.5-3 m thick; loamy lodgment till, minor ablation till, silt, sand, 17.9 gravel, rubble blanket and plains: sand, silt, some gravel and clay; generally 0.5-3 m thick overlying rolling and ribbed ablation moraines: loamy ablation till, some 4.4 lodgment till, minor silt, sand, gravel, and boulders; generally greater than 1.5 m thick; mainly stony till (more than 35% of clasts pebble-sized and larger) blanket and plains: sand, silt, some gravel and clay; generally 0.5-3 m thick 4.1 Marine Sediments blanket and plains: sand, silt, some gravel and clay; generally 0.5-3 m thick overlying plains and valley trains, generally more than 1.5 m thick; outwash: 1.6 sand, gravel, minor silt blanket and plains: sand, silt, some gravel and clay; generally 0.5-3 m thick overlying deltas, generally more than 5 m thick; outwash: sand, gravel, minor 5.0 silt deltas, generally more than 5 m thick; outwash: sand, gravel, minor silt 1.9 Glaciofluvial Sediments plains and valley trains, generally more than 1.5 m thick; outwash: sand, gravel, 5.4 minor silt various lithologies and ages; generally weathered and partially disintegrated, Rock glacially moulded surface; few localities show glacially scoured and polished 5.0 surfaces Source: Jacques Whitford 2004b Surficial geology along the preferred corridor is shown in Figures 4.1.1A and 4.1.1B.

4.1.3 Bedrock Geology

The urban portion of the 2004 corridor crosses through 13 bedrock geological formations consisting of intrusive and sedimentary rocks. The Ashburn Formation accounts for the largest percentage of the urban corridor (14.5%) and is characterized by red conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and shale (Jacques Whitford 2004b). Table 4.1.3 provides descriptions and the approximate amount of each geological formation along the urban portion of the 2004 corridor.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 97

Table 4.1.3 Bedrock Geology – Urban Section of 2004 Corridor Geological Formation Approximate % Rock Types Bails Lake Formation 14.5 red conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone and shale

Coldbrook Group 3.4 felsic volcanic and associated sedimentary rocks

Quaco Formation 4.2 red and grey conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone and shale Lancaster Formation 5.9 grey conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone and shale quartzose to feldspathic sandstone, siltstone and shale; micaceous Saint John Group 12.2 sandstone, quartzite and quartzite pebble to polymictic conglomerate; minor limestone Coldbrook Group 1.7 intermediate volcanic and associated sedimentary rocks

Ashburn Formation 21.4 marble, pelite, and quartzite; schist Undivided Felsic to Mafic Intrusions - composite intrusions: granodiorite, granite and diorite; minor includes the Fairville Granite and 1.7 gabbro and rhyolite Rockwood Park Granodiorite Brookville Gneiss 1.3 orthogenesis and paragneiss granodiorite, quartz diorite and diorite; syenitic and alkalic Mayflower Lake Quartz Diorite 4.2 granitoids Kennebecasis Formation 4.2 red conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone and shale quartzose wacke, quartzite, shale and siltstone; minor Martinon Formation 14.7 conglomerate composite intrusions: granodiorite, granite and diorite; minor Ludgate Lake Pluton 10.9 gabbro and rhyolite Source: Jacques Whitford 2004b The bedrock geology along the rural portion of the 2004 corridor consists of intrusive and sedimentary rocks from numerous formations. The Kendall Mountain Formation accounts for the largest percentage (10.4%) of the bedrock geology. The formation is characterized by quartzose wacke, quartzite, shale and siltstone with minor conglomerate. All other formations each account for less than 10% of the area (Jacques Whitford 2004b). Table 4.1.4 provides descriptions and the approximate amount of each geological formation along the rural portion of the 2004 corridor. Table 4.1.4 Bedrock Geology – Rural Section of 2004 Corridor Geological Formation Approximate % Rock Types composite intrusions: granodiorite, granite and diorite; minor Prince of Wales Pluton 4.8 gabbro and rhyolite granodiorite, quartze diorite and diorite; syenitic and alkalic Musquash Pluton 3.5 granitoids composite intrusions: granodiorite, granite and diorite; minor Hanson Stream Pluton 3.1 gabbro and rhyolite Harvey Hill Granite 2.3 granite and felsic porphyry Bails Lake Formation 0.8 red conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone and shale composite intrusions: granodiorite, granite and diorite; minor Red Head Pluton 2.2 gabbro and rhyolite Kingston Dyke Complex 5.7 felsic and mafic dyke swarms composite intrusions: granodiorite, granite and diorite; minor Ragged Falls Pluton 6.7 gabbro Mosquito Lake Road Volcanics 2.3 felsic volcanic and associated sedimentary rocks Lake of the Hills Volcanics 1.1 mafic volcanic and associated sedimentary rocks composite intrusions: granodiorite, granite and diorite; minor Pull and Be Damned Complex 1.0 gabbro and rhyolite intercalated felsic and mafic volcanic and associated Letete Formation 3.4 sedimentary rocks feldspathic and lithic sandstone, siltstone, shale, and Letete Formation 5.1 conglomerate; calcareous sandstone and limestone; arkose

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 98

Table 4.1.4 Bedrock Geology – Rural Section of 2004 Corridor Geological Formation Approximate % Rock Types Unnamed Felsic or Mafic Intrusions 1.8 granite and felsic porphyry Letete Formation 5.1 felsic volcanic and associated sedimentary rocks Eastport Formation 1.1 red and grey conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone and shale Eastport Formation 7.6 felsic volcanic and associated sedimentary rocks feldspathic and lithic sandstone, siltstone, shale and Eastport Formation 0.3 conglomerate; calcareous sandstone and limestone; arkose Bocabec Pluton 9.2 gabbro, diorite, and ultramafic rocks Bocabec Pluton 4.3 granite and felsic porphyry feldspathic and lithic sandstone, siltstone, shale and Waweig Formation 5.4 conglomerate; calcareous sandstone and limestone; arkose feldspathic and lithic sandstone, siltstone, shale and Oak Bay Formation 0.8 conglomerate; calcareous sandstone and limestone; arkose Calais Formation 0.5 carbonaceous to non-carbonaceous shale, wacke, and siltstone quartzose wacke, quartzite, shale and siltstone; minor Kendall Mountain Formation 10.4 conglomerate Allen Brook Gabbro 1.6 gabbro, diorite, and ultramafic rocks Mohannes Pluton 3.2 granite and felsic porphyry Didgeguash Formation 2.7 carbonaceous to non-carbonaceous shale, wacke and siltstone calcareous and/or micaceous, feldspathic sandstone, siltstone Flume Ridge Formation 4.1 and shale Source: Jacques Whitford 2004b Bedrock geology along the preferred corridor is shown in Figures 4.1.2A and 4.1.2B.

4.1.4 Acid Rock Drainage

Potential sulphide-bearing or acid generating rock contains various sulphide minerals. When these minerals are disturbed and come into contact with water, oxygen, and iron reducing bacteria, the sulphide minerals oxidize and generate acid. When carbonate minerals including aragonite, calcite, dolomite and others are present, acid generation is buffered.

Approximately 64% of the urban section of the 2004 corridor crosses through potential sulphide-bearing rock (Jacques Whitford 2004b). Table 4.1.5 summarizes the formations along the urban section of the 2004 corridor with sulphide-bearing rock potential. Table 4.1.5 Potential Sulphide-Bearing Rock Formations – Urban Section of 2004 Corridor Geological Formation Approximate Length (km) Bails Lake Formation 5.20 Coldbrook Group 1.80 Quaco Formation 1.50 Lancaster Formation 2.10 Saint John Group 4.35 Brookville Gneiss 0.45 Kennebecasis Formation 1.50 Undivided Felsic to Mafic Intrusions – includes the Fairville Granite 0.60 and Rockwood Park Granodiorite Martinon Formation 5.25 Source: Jacques Whitford 2004b

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 99

Potential sulphide-bearing rock is present over approximately 67% (74.5 km) of the rural portion of the 2004 corridor (Jacques Whitford 2004b). Three formations comprise approximately half the potential sulphide-bearing rock: Letete Formation, Bocabec Formation, and the Kendall Mountain Formation. Table 4.1.6 summarizes the formations along the rural section of the 2004 corridor with sulphide- bearing rock potential. Table 4.1.6 Potential Sulphide-Bearing Rock Formations – Rural Section of 2004 Corridor Geological Formation Approximate Length (km) Bails Lake Formation 0.90 Kingston Dyke Complex 6.30 Mosquito Lake Road Volcanics 2.50 Lake of the Hills Volcanics 1.20 Letete Formation 15.20 Eastport Formation 9.90 Bocabec Pluton 10.20 Waweig Formation 6.00 Oak Bay Conglomerate 0.90 Calais Formation 0.60 Kendall Mountain Formation 11.50 Allen Brook Gabbro 1.80 Didgeguash Formation 3.00 Flume Ridge Formation 4.50 Source: Jacques Whitford 2004b

4.1.5 Slope Stability

Slope stability is generally determined by two factors: topography (i.e., slope) and material type and orientation. Steep slopes (i.e., slope of 20% or greater) are more at risk for slope failure than flat areas, and materials such as silt or clays are more susceptible than tills or bedrock. As well, horizontal layering of stratigraphy is more stable than when layers are aligned in the same direction as the slope. Major watercourse crossings generally have large valleys that may also be more susceptible to slope instability.

Along the urban portion of the 2004 corridor, steep slopes (i.e., greater than 20%) occur at only two locations, and more than 90% has a slope of less than 10% (Jacques Whitford 2004b). Similar to the urban portion of the 2004 corridor, more than 90% of the rural portion crosses slopes that have a grade of less than 10% (Jacques Whitford 2004b). Slopes greater than 20% occur at approximately six locations along the rural portion of the 2004 corridor (Jacques Whitford 2004b).

4.1.6 Historic Seismic Activity

Historically, seismic activity in New Brunswick has been concentrated in three areas: Passamaquoddy Bay; Moncton; and the Central Highlands. The highest magnitudes (on the Richter scale) recorded for each region are:

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 100

February 8, 1855 Moncton earthquake of magnitude 5.2;

March 21, 1904 Passamaquoddy earthquake of magnitude 5.9; and

January 9, 1982 Miramichi earthquake of magnitude 5.7.

Over the last 30 years, there have been five earthquakes with a magnitude greater than 2.6 (on the Richter scale) in the Bay of Fundy, within 20 km of Saint John and primarily to the south-southeast:

October 13, 1975, 45.09oN 65.92oW, magnitude 2.7;

October 15, 1975, 45.11oN 65.89oW, magnitude 3.1;

April 20, 1979, 45.18oN 66.00oW, magnitude 2.8;

September 4, 1982, 45.12oN 65.93oW, magnitude 2.9; and

February 24, 1989, 45.15oN 65.85oW, magnitude 2.9.

There is a scattered distribution of smaller earthquakes (most of which were less than magnitude 4) throughout the rest of the region during that time.

Continuing activity in the Passamaquoddy Bay area suggests that it is the most likely location for the next substantive earthquake in southern New Brunswick (Jacques Whitford 2004a). Various studies of seismic activity and its causes in Passamaquoddy Bay have been conducted and reviewed over the last 15 years (see NB Power 2003; Gehrels and Belkap 1993; Pecore and Fader 1990; Gates 1989; Burke et al. 1987). There is no clear consensus on the causes of continued seismic activity in Passamaquoddy Bay, although regional subsidence centred in Passamaquoddy Bay and crustal movement along the Oak Bay Fault have been identified as potential mechanisms. However, there is limited evidence to suggest that contemporary subsidence in Passamaquoddy Bay is connected to seismicity in that area (NB Power 2003). Similarly, there is a lack of evidence of recent movement along the trace of the Oak Bay Fault, which had previously been thought to be associated with seismic activity in the Passamaquoddy Bay region (NB Power 2003). Currently, the mechanisms and forces that cause seismic events in the Bay of Fundy remain poorly understood.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 101

4.2 Atmospheric Environment

The Atmospheric Environment is characterized by climate, air quality (ambient air quality and air contaminant emissions), and sound quality.

4.2.1 Climate

The climate of New Brunswick is typically continental. However, the Saint John region is considered to have a modified continental climate. The Bay of Fundy and Lurcher marine areas west of Nova Scotia provide a strong moderation of air temperature over the region in both summer and winter. During the winter, cold air frequently flows across New Brunswick from the centre of the North American continent. Most storms originate over the North Atlantic or the Gulf of Mexico. In summer, the main air mass is warm continental, with occasions of hot, humid air from the Gulf of Mexico. Weather changes are also brought about by moist air from the Atlantic Ocean that can produce mild spells in winter and cool weather in the summer (Environment Canada 2000).

At locations near the Bay of Fundy, the continental air masses are modified by the influence from the ocean. There is a blending of the continental and maritime influences, which produce a moderating effect on temperature. Coastal locations such as Saint John and St. Andrews experience moist Atlantic air most of the year, producing mild periods in the winter and relatively cool weather for the remainder of the year.

The flow of large air masses over a large body of cold water such as the Bay of Fundy can strongly influence the vertical temperature gradient and hence the air density and stability of the flow. As the air mass moves over the water body it is often cooled and as a result the flow becomes stable and the vertical motions are reduced somewhat in the cold bottom layer. This stability can greatly influence the dispersion of exhaust plumes from sources located on the coast of the Bay of Fundy.

The southern landscape in New Brunswick is characterized by hills sloping down to tidal marshes at the edge of the Bay of Fundy. Topography has little effect on the climate of New Brunswick, except that there may be local effects due to an influence on the direction of air motion near the ground surface.

4.2.1.1 Climate Normals

Saint John

The description of the climate is based upon Climate Normals and weather extremes from the Environment Canada weather station operated at the Saint John Airport over the time period 1971- 2000 (Environment Canada 2005a). A summary of the Climate Normals for the Saint John Airport for the period of 1971-2000 is presented in Table 4.2.1. The period of record, used to calculate extremes, is 1946-2000 (Environment Canada 2005a). The Saint John Airport weather data are considered to be an accurate representation of average weather conditions along the Bay of Fundy coast in southern New Brunswick and specifically in the Saint John Airshed.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 102

Table 4.2.1 Summary of Climate Normals for the Saint John Airport (1971-2000) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year Temperature Daily Mean (°C) -8.1 -7.3 -2.5 3.6 9.4 14 17.1 16.9 12.8 7.3 2 -4.7 5 Daily Maximum (°C) -2.7 -1.9 2.3 8.3 14.8 19.5 22.4 22.2 17.7 11.9 6 0.3 10.1 Daily Minimum (°C) -13.6 -12.7 -7.3 -1.2 4 8.4 11.7 11.6 7.7 2.7 -2.1 -9.7 -0.1 Extreme Maximum (°C) 14 13.3 17.5 22.8 33 32 32.8 34.4 31 25.6 21.7 16.1 -- Date of occurrence 1979/ 1994/ 1999/ 1976/ 1992/ 1983/ 1963/ 1976/ 1999/ 1947/ 1956/ 1973/ -- (yyyy/dd) 03 21 28 20 22 22 26 22 03 18 01 17 Extreme Minimum (°C) -31.7 -36.7 -30 -16.7 -7.8 -2.2 1.1 -0.6 -6.7 -10.6 -16.9 -34.4 -- Date of occurrence 1971/ 1948/ 1948/ 1969/ 1947/ 1949/ 1948/ 1947/ 1947/ 1974/ 1996/ 1989/ -- (yyyy/dd) 18 11 14 04 15 01 08 28+ 29 22 30 30 Precipitation Rainfall (mm) 78.2 48.8 71.7 81.7 115.9 100.9 101.5 89.6 117.4 122.6 121.6 98.2 1147.9 Snowfall (cm) 66.5 50 47.4 22.2 1.4 0 0 0 0 2.2 12.5 54.7 256.9 Precipitation (mm) 139.4 94 117.9 104.2 117.5 100.9 101.5 89.6 117.4 124.8 133.7 149.4 1390.3 Extreme Daily 83 95 74 125.5 66.5 108.2 79.4 125.2 83.2 85.3 154.4 105.7 -- Precipitation (mm) Date of occurrence 1978/ 1947/ 1980/ 1962/ 1973/ 1985/ 1990/ 1970/ 1999/ 1963/ 1975/ 1967/ -- (yyyy/dd) 26 05 18 01 21 01 25 02 22 29 13 04 Days With Maximum Temperature 19.1 17.1 9 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.4 13.8 63 < =0°C Maximum Temperature 11.9 11.2 22 29.3 31 30 31 31 30 31 26.6 17.2 302.2 > 0°C Measurable Rainfall 6.9 5.3 8.2 10.6 13.5 13.2 12 10.9 11.4 12.1 12 9 125.1 (≥ 0.2 mm) Measurable Snowfall 13 10.7 9.8 5.7 0.57 0 0 0 0 0.73 4 11.1 55.7 (≥ 0.2 cm) Measurable 16.4 13 14.8 14 13.6 13.2 12 10.9 11.4 12.3 14.1 16.6 162.3 Precipitation (≥ 0.2 mm) Bright Sunshine Total Hours with Bright 123 129.6 147.8 160.9 201.5 211.1 223.1 221.6 177.6 147.2 105.7 101 1950.1 Sunshine Days with Measurable 22.7 21.8 22.8 22.8 25.8 25.5 26.1 26.3 25.1 24.4 21.2 20.4 284.9 Bright Sunshine Wind Mean Wind Speed 18.2 17.7 18.6 17.7 16 14.3 12.8 12.1 14.1 15.9 17.4 17.8 16.1 (km/h) Most Frequent Wind NW NW NW N S S S S S S NW NW S Direction Extreme Wind Gust 143 146 137 121 132 129 105 96 130 138 126 145 -- Speed (km/h) Source: Environment Canada 2005a Bold indicates a record During the winter, the air mass is cold and unaltered with a January daily mean temperature of –8.1°C. In the summer, the air mass is predominantly warm continental with a July daily mean temperature of 17.1°C. The extreme maximum and minimum temperatures recorded are 34.4°C and –36.7°C, recorded during August and February, respectively.

The average annual precipitation at the Saint John weather station is 1,390.3 mm, of which 80% is in the form of rain. Extremes in daily precipitation occur in April and December and are in the range of 125-154 mm.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 103

The sunshine hours from the Saint John Airport weather station are reported as 1,950.14 hours per year. The most amount of sunshine occurs in July with approximately 223.1 hours while the least amount of sunshine occurs during the month of December with approximately 101 hours.

The average annual wind speed reported at the Saint John Airport weather station is approximately 16 km/h. The maximum wind speeds occur in March with average speeds of 19 km/h and the minimum speeds occur in August at an average of 12 km/h. The average monthly wind speeds are higher in the winter than the summer. The prevailing winds are from the south or southwest in summer and from the northwest in winter. Winds are discussed in further detail below.

Pennfield

To address any potential differences in climate that may be present between urban areas and rural areas, a summary of the Climate Normals for the Pennfield, New Brunswick weather station for the period of 1971-2000 is presented in Table 4.2.2 (Environment Canada 2005b). Table 4.2.2 Summary of Climate Normals for Pennfield (1971-2000) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year Temperature Daily Mean (°C) -7 -5.8 -1.3 4.1 8.9 12.8 15.7 15.7 12.3 7.6 2.7 -3.8 5.2 Daily Maximum (°C) -1.8 -0.3 3.6 9.1 14.6 18.5 21.4 21.4 18 12.8 7.1 1.2 10.5 Daily Minimum (°C) -12.2 -11.2 -6.2 -1 3.1 7 9.9 10 6.5 2.4 -1.7 -8.7 -0.2 Extreme Maximum (°C) 14.4 14.5 19.5 23 37.2 33.5 34.4 36.7 34 24.5 18.5 16.5 -- Date of occurrence 1979/ 1994/ 1998/ 1982/ 1977/ 1983/ 1977/ 1976/ 1989/ 1989/ 1989/ 1982/ -- (yyyy/dd) 03 21 29 25+ 22 22 21 22 10 28+ 01 04 Extreme Minimum (°C) -36.5 -31 -28.5 -14 -7.8 -2.2 2.2 -0.5 -5 -9 -18.3 -35.5 -- Date of occurrence 1982/ 1993/ 1989/ 1995/ 1977/ 1976/ 1976/ 1982/ 1995/ 1997/ 1978/ 1989/ -- (yyyy/dd) 18 07 07 05 01 05 23+ 30+ 30 25 22 30 Precipitation Rainfall (mm) 86.8 61.9 84.6 100.5 125 106.4 103.4 100.3 118.1 124.1 123.7 105.3 1239.8 Snowfall (cm) 50.9 43.3 42.7 11 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 8.9 36.7 194.1 Precipitation (mm) 137.7 105.2 127.2 111.5 125 106.4 103.4 100.3 118.1 124.8 132.6 142 1434 Extreme Daily 82.6 83.3 71.8 86.4 60 62.8 68 111 82 75.9 84.3 103.8 -- Precipitation (mm) Date of occurrence 1978/ 1970/ 1998/ 1973/ 1990/ 1984/ 1996/ 1981/ 1969/ 1977/ 1975/ 1981/ -- (yyyy/dd) 25 03 09 28 13 26 13 15 09 01 13 02 Days With Maximum Temperature 18 14.6 6.7 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.2 12.4 54.2 < =0°C Maximum Temperature 13 13.7 24.4 29.7 31 30 31 31 30 31 27.8 18.6 311.2 > 0°C Measurable Rainfall 7.5 6.1 10.4 13.7 17 16.4 15.8 15.3 14.8 15.1 13.3 9.7 155.2 (≥ 0.2 mm) Measurable Snowfall 7.5 6.1 10.4 13.7 17 16.4 15.8 15.3 14.8 15.1 13.3 9.7 155.2 (≥ 0.2 cm) Measurable 12.1 10.6 13.8 14.8 17 16.4 15.8 15.3 14.8 15.2 14.4 14.2 174.4 Precipitation (≥ 0.2 mm) Source: Environment Canada 2005b Bold indicates a record During the winter, the air mass is cold with a January daily mean temperature of –7°C. In the summer, the air mass is predominantly warm with a July and August daily mean temperature of 15.7°C. The

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 104

extreme maximum and minimum temperatures recorded are 37.2°C and –36.5°C, recorded during May and January, respectively.

The average annual precipitation is 1,434 mm. Extremes in daily precipitation occur in August, with 111 mm of rain.

There is no reported information in the Canadian Climate Normals with respect to winds or sunshine for the Pennfield weather station.

Hoyt/Blissville

Rural Climate Normals in the vicinity of the Project are also characterized by the summary of the Climate Normals for the Hoyt/Blissville, New Brunswick weather station for the period of 1971-2000, presented in Table 4.2.3 (Environment Canada 2005c). Table 4.2.3 Summary of Climate Normals for Hoyt/Blissville (1971-2000) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year Temperature Daily Mean (°C) -8.9 -7.6 -2.1 4.7 11.2 16.3 19.3 18.5 13.8 7.7 1.9 -5.2 5.8 Daily Maximum (°C) -3.3 -1.6 3.4 10.1 17.8 22.9 25.5 24.8 19.8 13.1 6.1 -0.4 11.5 Daily Minimum (°C) -14.4 -13.5 -7.6 -0.8 4.6 9.7 13 12.2 7.8 2.3 -2.4 -10 0.1 Extreme Maximum (°C) 15 20 23.5 30 37.5 35 35 36.5 34 26.5 22 15.5 -- Date of occurrence 1983/ 1994/ 1998/ 1990/ 1992/ 1988/ 1991/ 1995/ 1999/ 1995/ 1990/ 1982/ -- (yyyy/dd) 11 20 31 27 22 16 20 01 03 14 04 04+ Extreme Minimum (°C) -38.5 -34.5 -34.5 -14 -6 -1 3 0.5 -4 -9.5 -21.5 -36 -- Date of occurrence 1994/ 1993/ 1982/ 1995/ 1992/ 1988/ 1989/ 1985/ 1992/ 1983/ 1989/ 1989/ -- (yyyy/dd) 20 07 01 05 07 03+ 01 30 24+ 21+ 24 30 Precipitation Rainfall (mm) 56.5 35.9 55.7 75.7 105.4 88.7 95.1 86.4 95 98.2 101.7 66.6 960.9 Snowfall (cm) 57.5 41.8 47.8 14 0.6 0 0 0 0.1 1.6 11.6 44.1 219.1 Precipitation (mm) 114 77.7 103.4 89.7 106 88.7 95.1 86.4 95.1 99.8 113.3 110.7 1179.9 Extreme Daily 60 40.8 78.4 68 61.2 47.4 86.6 65 78.4 54.6 54 66.9 -- Precipitation (mm) Date of occurrence 1998/ 1982/ 1998/ 2000/ 1983/ 1984/ 1996/ 1981/ 1999/ 1995/ 1987/ 1993/ -- (yyyy/dd) 24 03 09 22 30 26 13 06 22 28 30 11 Days With Maximum Temperature 21 17.2 8.8 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.8 15.8 67.23 < =0°C Maximum Temperature 10 11.1 22.2 29.4 31 30 31 31 30 31 26.3 15.3 298.3 > 0°C Measurable Rainfall 6.2 4.9 8.8 13.3 15.9 14 13.3 12.2 12.7 13.6 13.4 8.3 136.6 (≥ 0.2 mm) Measurable Snowfall 10.3 8.4 7.6 3.2 0.32 0 0 0 0.05 0.45 3.1 8.1 41.52 (≥ 0.2 cm) Measurable 14 11.6 14.1 14.9 16 14 13.3 12.2 12.7 13.6 15.4 14.7 166.5 Precipitation (≥ 0.2 mm) Source: Environment Canada 2005c Bold indicates a record During the winter, the daily mean temperature in January is –8.9°C. In the summer, the air mass is warmer with a July daily mean temperature of 19.3°C. The extreme maximum and minimum temperatures recorded are 37.5°C and –38.5°C, recorded during May and January, respectively.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 105

The average annual precipitation is 1,179.9 mm. Extremes in daily precipitation occur in July, with 86.6 mm of rain.

There is no reported information in the Canadian Climate Normals with respect to winds or sunshine for the Hoyt/Blissville weather station.

4.2.1.2 Winds

The annual average joint frequency distribution of wind speed and direction for the Saint John weather station is presented in Figure 4.2.1 (Environment Canada 2003a). The wind direction is reported as the direction from which the wind blows, and is measured at a height of 10 m above grade. The relative length of a particular wind vector indicates the frequency of winds occurring from that direction, and the various colours used for each vector are indicative of the frequency of occurrence of a specific range of wind speeds. The use of seven years of meteorological data (1995-2001) adequately represents the wind frequency distribution for the region.

As shown in Figure 4.2.1, the dominant winds are from the southwestern quadrant, with the northwesterly direction also being important, though not as dominant. The wind blows from these directions approximately 70% of the year. Low wind speeds (<12 km/hr) occur most frequently from the southwest direction. Overall, winds less than 12 km/hr (3.34 m/s) occur approximately 15% of the year. Strong winds (>30 km/hr) blow from the southwest and the northwest in approximately equal frequency. Overall, winds greater than 30 km/hr (8.5 m/s) occur approximately 5% of the year. The annual average wind speed is approximately 16.5 km/hr (4.6 m/s).

Seasonally, prevailing winds in spring and summer tend to occur frequently from the southwest. The summer distribution is characterized by frequent winds from the southwest. The autumn distribution shows the transition to the winter, with winds frequently blowing from the northwest quadrant, as well as from the southwest. In winter, there are winds frequently from the northwest, north, and northeast. Winds from the south are much less frequent during this time of year.

Overall, the prevailing winds on an annual basis are from the southwest and from the northern quadrants (northwest/north).

4.2.2 Air Quality

The existing conditions relating to air quality in the vicinity of the Project are provided below. These conditions were characterized through a consideration of the existing emissions of GHGs and selected air contaminants to the airshed, as well as ambient ground-level concentrations of the air contaminants of interest (defined in Section 5.1.2.3 as total suspended particulate matter (PM) (including dust), particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and carbon monoxide (CO)).

Air quality in a region can be affected by local sources of emissions (either stationary sources such as industrial smokestacks or mobile sources such as motor vehicles), or from the long-range transport of

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 106

air contaminants from other regions to the airshed. Local weather conditions can also exacerbate air quality problems.

Southern New Brunswick has a relatively heavy industrial base, mainly concentrated in or near Saint John, although extending to more rural areas such as St. Stephen and Lake Utopia. Saint John in particular has a pulp mill, a paper mill, a tissue mill, three thermal generating stations (one operating on natural gas), an oil refinery, several plastics processing facilities, printing operations, and a number of other commercial and industrial sources of air contaminants. These sources, combined with other sources of contaminants such as vehicle emissions as well as air contaminants transported to the region from distant sources by prevailing winds, can affect ambient air quality in the region. For these reasons, it is useful to review air contaminant emissions in the region, as well as historical ambient air quality monitoring results, to characterize existing conditions for air quality.

4.2.2.1 Air Contaminant Emissions

Existing contaminant releases from sources in New Brunswick serve as a benchmark for comparison with Project-related emissions, and to assist in the assessment of cumulative environmental effects. Existing contaminant releases are generally classified into two categories:

conventional air contaminants (CACs), including particulate matter and combustion gases such as

SO2, NOx, and CO; and

GHGs, including primarily CO2 but also including methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O).

A summary of estimated emissions of CACs and GHGs from major sources in New Brunswick for the year 2000 is presented in Table 4.2.4.

Table 4.2.4 Air Contaminant and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimates for New Brunswick

Estimated Total Emissions for New Brunswick (Year 2000) Contaminant (tonnes/year)

Total Particulate Matter (PM)1 37,021 1 Particulate Matter less than 10 microns (PM10) 21,109 1 Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) 15,773 2 Sulphur Oxides (SOx as SO2) 175,000 1 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as NO2) 82,147 Carbon Monoxide (CO)1 336,781 Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) 3 22,400,000 (CO2-equivalent) Source: 1 Environment Canada 2000 CAC Emissions Inventory (Environment Canada 2004a) 2 Environment Canada Consensus Forecasts 1990-2010 (Environment Canada 2003b) 3 Environment Canada GHG Inventory, 1990-2002 (Environment Canada 2004b).

As an indication of the emissions originating in the specific area of the Project, historical emissions of particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide were compiled from existing industrial sources in southern New Brunswick (including the City of Saint John and the Counties of Kings, Saint John, and Charlotte) during the five-year period from 1997-2003. A summary of these

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 107

emissions from selected industrial sources, as obtained from NBENV, is presented in Table 4.2.5 (NBDELG 2005b).

Table 4.2.5 Emissions from Major Sources in the Saint John Airshed 1997-2003 Conventional Air Contaminant Emissions Data Year (Tonnes/year) PM SO2 NOx CO 2003 1,905 53,217 19,750 2,560 2002 2,437 57,769 18,607 2,386 2001 2,820 79,688 23,896 3,289 Totals for Selected Major Sources in Southern New Brunswick 2000 2,296 73,116 21,005 3,034 1999 1,906 62,423 17,181 2,323 1998 1,704 77,519 19,685 1,818 1997 1,361 62,594 12,708 1,613 Source: NBDELG 2005b, Fortune, pers. comm. It should be noted that the emissions data in Table 4.2.5 represent the releases of CACs for selected industrial facilities as reported to the NBENV and maintained in the NBENV emissions inventory (NBDELG 2005b, Fortune, pers. comm.). These releases are not intended to represent the entire emissions inventory for sources in southern New Brunswick, as data for all sources are unavailable. It should also be noted that the data in Table 4.2.5 represent the releases of contaminants from fuel combustion only; fugitive releases of contaminants are generally not reported or maintained in the provincial emissions inventory.

According to the data in Table 4.2.5, the total emissions of CACs in southern New Brunswick appear to be following a slightly increasing trend. Although this trend could be the result of increased fuel consumption and/or increased production, it may also be an artifact of more rigorous emissions testing

of sources, improved reporting of emissions, or improved emissions estimation techniques. SO2 emissions from 2001-2003 are on a downward trend according to the data in Table 4.2.5, which could

be attributed to the increased use of natural gas (negligible SO2 content) by industries for energy production.

4.2.2.2 Ambient Air Quality

The Province of New Brunswick, through NBENV, has been operating a network of ambient air monitoring stations within the province to measure various air quality parameters. The results from monitoring stations in Saint John for the period of 1996-2003 are presented and discussed briefly in this section for the purpose of providing context with regard to regional ambient air quality as approximately 25% of the pipeline will be located in the Saint John area with the remaining installation occurring in unpopulated, rural areas.

Because of the relatively large industrial presence in southern New Brunswick, Saint John has the longest history of air quality monitoring in the province and the greatest number of monitoring stations, with more than 30 different monitoring stations currently located in and around the City. Not all sites

measure all contaminants; however, there were several locations where SO2, NOx, PM, PM10, PM2.5, and ozone (O3) were monitored on a continuous basis. There is little monitoring conducted in rural

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 108

areas associated with the corridor, except for limited monitoring at Point Lepreau and St. Andrews. For the purposes of this discussion, ambient monitoring results will be primarily centred on the Saint John monitoring network, as it represents the area with the highest concentration of monitoring and is typical of an urban area (which tends to exhibit higher monitoring results than rural areas).

More detail on the air quality monitoring stations, the contaminant types, and specific locations may be found in the annual publication by NBENV (NBDELG 2005b; NBDELG 2004; NBDELG 2003a; NBDELG 2002a; NBDOE 1999a; NBDOE 1999b). It is noted that the most recent year of published data available from NBENV is the year 2003.

Nitrogen Oxides

A summary of the annual average concentrations of ambient nitrogen dioxide (NO2) measured in the Saint John area for the years 1996-2003 is presented in Table 4.2.6. Table 4.2.6 Nitrogen Dioxide Monitoring Results – Annual Averages

Year Monitoring Location Site A Site B Site E 2003 Annual Average (µg/m3) 11.3 30.3 9.7 2002 Annual Average (µg/m3) 9.6 19.9 8.2 2001 Annual Average (µg/m3) 13.3 24.8 9.5 2000 Annual Average (µg/m3) 7.6 22.1 -- 1999 Annual Average (µg/m3) 7.6 21.0 -- 1998 Annual Average (µg/m3) 11.4 16.8 -- 1997 Annual Average (µg/m3) 11.4 19.1 -- 1996 Annual Average (µg/m3) 11.4 22.9 -- Site A = Forest Hills Site F = Hillcrest Site B = Customs Building (Prince William St.) Site G = Three Mile Site C = Provincial Building (110 Charlotte St.) Site H = Forest Products Site D = Point Lepreau Site I = Silver Falls Site E = Champlain Heights µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic metre -- = Data not available (i.e., not monitored, or missing data) Source: NBDELG 2005b, NBDELG 2004, NBDELG 2003a, NBDELG 2002a, NBDOE 1999a, NBDOE 1999b Ambient nitrogen dioxide was monitored at the Customs Building site, the Forest Hills site and the Champlain Heights site in 2003. All measured values were below the 1-hour, 24-hour and annual standards for New Brunswick. The maximum measured 1-hour concentration was 205 µg/m3 (measured at the Customs Building) which is well below the 1-hour standard of 400 µg/m3. Concentrations measured at the Customs Building location were significantly higher than concentrations measured at the Forest Hills and Champlain Heights locations with maximum measured concentrations at these sites of 83 µg/m3 and 117 µg/m3 respectively. Annual average values for all sites in 2003 ranged from 10-30 µg/m3, all well below the ambient annual average standard of 100 µg/m3.

Sulphur Dioxide

A summary of the provincial monitoring data for sulphur dioxide (SO2) for the Saint John area for the period of 1996-2003 is presented in Table 4.2.7.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 109

Table 4.2.7 Sulphur Dioxide Monitoring Results – Exceedances and Annual Averages Monitoring Location Total Year exceeded Site E Site J Site A Site B Site F Site G Site H Site I hours 2003 Exceedances of the 1- 1 0 1 0 0 2 10 153 167 hour standard Exceedances of the 24- 23 0 47 0 0 3 117 418 608 hour standard Annual Average (µg/m3) 17.8 6.3 11.8 7.1 0.8 17.8 15.7 27.2 -- 2002 Exceedances of the 1- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 hour standard Exceedances of the 24- 0 0 0 23 0 0 14 -- 37 hour standard Annual Average (µg/m3) 11.5 7.6 8.4 12.6 1.3 13.9 10.7 -- -- 2001 Exceedances of the 1- 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 -- 5 hour standard Exceedances of the 24- 0 0 4 0 0 0 47 -- 51 hour standard Annual Average (µg/m3) 21.2 8.0 8.0 13.3 2.7 15.9 18.6 -- -- 2000 Exceedances of the 1- 1 3 4 2 0 1 3 -- 14 hour standard Exceedances of the 24- 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 -- 35 hour standard Annual Average (µg/m3) 26.5 10.6 10.6 13.3 2.7 13.3 10.6 -- -- 1999 Exceedances of the 1- 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 -- 6 hour standard Exceedances of the 24- 25 0 0 0 0 25 0 -- 50 hour standard Annual Average (µg/m3) 31.8 13.3 13.3 13.3 8.0 21.2 10.6 -- -- 1998 Exceedances of the 1- 5 3 4 0 0 11 1 -- 24 hour standard Exceedances of the 24- 9 31 26 0 0 119 0 -- 185 hour standard Annual Average (µg/m3) 26.5 13.3 13.3 13.3 8.0 26.5 18.6 -- -- 1997 Exceedances of the 1- 4 0 0 9 1 33 3 -- 50 hour standard Exceedances of the 24- 7 0 47 59 0 216 52 -- 381 hour standard Annual Average (µg/m3) 21.2 13.3 21.2 18.6 8.0 37.1 23.9 -- -- 1996 Exceedances of the 1- 2 0 0 0 0 23 2 -- 27 hour standard Exceedances of the 24- 0 0 0 42 0 125 78 -- 245 hour standard Annual Average (µg/m3) 18.6 13.3 18.6 15.9 8.0 21.2 21.2 -- -- Site A = Forest Hills Site F = Hillcrest Site B = Customs Building (Prince William St.) Site G = Three Mile Site C = Provincial Building (110 Charlotte St.) Site H = Forest Products Site D = Point Lepreau Site I = Silver Falls Site E = Champlain Heights Site J = Paper Mill Pond µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic metre -- = Data not available Source: NBDELG 2005b, NBDELG 2004, NBDELG 2003a, NBDELG 2002a, NBDOE 1999a, NBDOE 1999b Ambient sulphur dioxide was monitored at eleven locations in and around the Saint John area in 2003. The 1-hour ambient standard (450 µg/m3) was exceeded occasionally during 2003 at several monitoring stations. The two sites with the greatest number of exceedances were the Paper Mill Pond site and the Silver Falls site. The standard was exceeded for 153 hours in 2003 at the Paper Mill Pond

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 110

monitoring site and 10 hours at the Silver Falls monitoring site, representing 2% and 0.1% of the year respectively. The sites in west Saint John (Customs and Hillcrest) recorded no exceedances.

The 24-hour standard of 150 µg/m3 was exceeded during 2003 at several monitoring stations. The highest concentrations were recorded at the Paper Mill Pond site with the 24-hour standard being exceeded during 5% of the year. The second highest concentrations were recorded at the Silver Falls site with exceedances occurring during 1% of the year.

An episode control program is in place to prevent ambient sulphur dioxide reaching undesirably high levels in Saint John. Control actions are initiated by major industries in the City in response to measurements made at the monitoring sites.

Particulate Matter

Particulate matter (also referred to as Total Suspended Particulate Matter or TSP) was measured at NBENV’s Forest Hills and Provincial Building monitoring sites in Saint John up until 1998, when TSP monitoring was discontinued in the area. The monitoring effort has been re-directed to support the measurement of particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10) and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) (NBDOE 1999b).

A summary of the annual average concentrations of TSP for the Saint John area for the years 1996- 1998 is presented in Table 4.2.8. Table 4.2.8 Total Suspended Particulate Matter Monitoring Results – Annual Averages

Year Monitoring Location Site A Site C 1998 Annual Average (µg/m3) 16.0 23.0 1997 Annual Average (µg/m3) 23.0 32.0 1996 Annual Average (µg/m3) 18.0 25.0 Site A = Forest Hills Site F = Hillcrest Site B = Customs Building (Prince William St.) Site G = Three Mile Site C = Provincial Building (110 Charlotte St.) Site H = Forest Products Site D = Point Lepreau Site I = Silver Falls Site E = Champlain Heights µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic metre Source: NBDOE 1999a, NBDOE 1999b -- = Data not available (i.e., not monitored, or missing data) In 1996, the measured PM values (every 6th day sampling) were below the 24-hour standard on all but two days at Forest Hills. The measured values (every 6th day sampling) were below the 24-hour and annual standards in 1997 and 1998, at both sites. The measured annual average concentrations of PM at Forest Hills ranged from 16-22 µg/m3 (1994-1998). The annual concentrations at Provincial Building ranged from 22-31 µg/m3 from 1994-1998.

Particulate Matter Less than 10 Microns (PM10)

High volume samplers to monitor particulate matter less than 10 microns were operated at three sites in 2002 (Forest Hills, Provincial Building and Hillcrest) and at two sites in 2003 (Provincial Building and Hillcrest) in the Saint John network. No exceedances of the California/GVRD 24-hour standard of 50 µg/m3 were recorded at any of the monitoring sites for 2002-3003.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 111

The PM10 fraction was continuously monitored during 2002 and 2003 at Forest Hills using Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) technology. The measured maximum hourly values ranged from 60-90 µg/m3 in 2002-2003. The threshold of 50 µg/m3 averaged over 24 hours (used in some jurisdictions) was not exceeded during 2003, and was exceeded for 21 hours during 2002 (during one event).

Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Microns (PM2.5)

Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) was monitored continuously with TEOM technology since 1997 at the province’s Forest Hills monitoring station. In 2003, PM2.5 data was recorded for approximately 95% of the total hours for the year at Forest Hills. There were four days having a 24- hour average exceeding the Canada-Wide Standard (CWS) of 30 µg/m3. The 98th percentile reading for the year was 18.5 µg/m3, compared to the 24-hour CWS of 30 µg/m3.

A summary of the annual average concentrations of particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) for the Saint John area for the years 1996-2003 is presented in Table 4.2.9.

Table 4.2.9 PM2.5 Monitoring Results – Annual Averages

Year Monitoring Location Site A 2003 Annual Average (µg/m3) 6.1 2002 Annual Average (µg/m3) 5.0 2001 Annual Average (µg/m3) 7.6 2000 Annual Average (µg/m3) 5.5 1999 Annual Average (µg/m3) 5.4 1998 Annual Average (µg/m3) 6.8 1997 Annual Average (µg/m3) 6.4 1996 Annual Average (µg/m3) -- Site A = Forest Hills Site F = Hillcrest Site B = Customs Building (Prince William St.) Site G = Three Mile Site C = Provincial Building (110 Charlotte St.) Site H = Forest Products Site D = Point Lepreau Site I = Silver Falls Site E = Champlain Heights µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic metre -- = Data not available (i.e., not monitored, or missing data) Source: NBDELG 2005b, NBDELG 2004, NBDELG 2003a, NBDELG 2002a, NBDOE 1999a, NBDOE 1999b

The PM2.5 data monitored during the period of 2000 to 2003 is in compliance with the Canada-Wide Standard (30 µg/m3 as a 24-hour average, over three years).

Ground-level Ozone

A summary of the annual average concentrations of ground-level ozone (O3) for the Saint John area for the years 1996-2003 is presented in Table 4.2.10. It is noted that, while ozone is not emitted directly, it tends to be a useful indicator of overall ambient air quality in a region.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 112

Table 4.2.10 Ground-Level Ozone Monitoring Results – Exceedances and Annual Averages Monitoring Location Total Year exceedances Site A Site B Site D Site F (hours) 2003 Exceedances of the 1-hour objective 0 0 0 0 0 Exceedances of the 8-hour CWS 1 0 -- 4 -- Annual Average (µg/m3) 49 45 51 55 -- 2002 Exceedances of the 1-hour objective 0 0 0 0 0 Exceedances of the 8-hour CWS 0 0 -- 3 -- Annual Average (µg/m3) 47 43 41 57 -- 2001 Exceedances of the 1-hour objective 0 2 0 4 6 Exceedances of the 8-hour CWS 0 13 90 36 139 Annual Average (µg/m3) 38 43 52 58 -- 2000 Exceedances of the 1-hour objective 0 0 0 0 0 Exceedances of the 8-hour CWS 0 0 13 0 13 Annual Average (µg/m3) 38 40 50 56 -- 1999 Exceedances of the 1-hour objective 4 5 9 5 23 Annual Average (µg/m3) 46 40 60 58 -- 1998 Exceedances of the 1-hour objective 0 0 8 11 19 Annual Average (µg/m3) 40 58 62 58 -- 1997 Exceedances of the 1-hour objective 0 4 -- 1 5 Annual Average (µg/m3) 48 62 58 -- -- 1996 Exceedances of the 1-hour objective 0 0 -- 2 2 Annual Average (µg/m3) 52 56 63 0 -- Site A = Forest Hills Site F = Hillcrest Site B = Customs Building (Prince William St.) Site G = Three Mile Site C = Provincial Building (110 Charlotte St.) Site H = Forest Products Site D = Point Lepreau Site I = Silver Falls Site E = Champlain Heights µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic metre -- = Data not available (i.e., not monitored, or missing data) CWS = Canada-Wide Standard Source: NBDELG 2005b, NBDELG 2004, NBDELG 2003a, NBDELG 2002a, NBDOE 1999a, NBDOE 1999b During 2002 and 2003, ground-level ozone concentrations were monitored at four locations in the Saint John network, and there were no exceedances of the 1-hour National Ambient Air Quality Objective for ozone measured (160 µg/m3/80 ppb). There were a total of five hours during 2003 where the CWS for 3 8-hour average ground level O3 (130 µg/m ) was exceeded. New Brunswick and other provincial governments have committed to being in compliance with the CWS for ozone by 2010.

The annual means for Forest Hills ranged from 38-52 µg/m3 (19-26 ppb) over the period 1996-2003 inclusive. The value for 2003 was 49 µg/m3, which is slightly higher than the average for 2002 of 47 µg/m3. Annual means at the Customs Building ranged from 40-62 µg/m3 over the period of 1996-2003, and at Hillcrest results were fairly consistent ranging between 55-58 µg/m3 during the same period.

The annual means for Point Lepreau ranged from 50-63 µg/m3 (25-31 ppb) over the period 1995-2003 inclusive. NBENV attributed the higher value at Point Lepreau (compared to Saint John) to the lack of other emissions such as nitric oxide that react and remove ozone from the air (NBDELG 2003a).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 113

Carbon Monoxide

A summary of the annual average concentrations of carbon monoxide at the Customs Building site for the years 1996-2003 is presented in Table 4.2.11. Table 4.2.11 Carbon Monoxide Dioxide Monitoring Results – Annual Averages Monitoring Location Year Site B 2003 Annual Average (µg/m3) 505.7 2002 Annual Average (µg/m3) 620.2 2001 Annual Average (µg/m3) 696.4 2000 Annual Average (µg/m3) 464.3 1999 Annual Average (µg/m3) 1160.7 1998 Annual Average (µg/m3) 1160.7 1997 Annual Average (µg/m3) 1508.9 1996 Annual Average (µg/m3) 580.3 Site A = Forest Hills Site F = Hillcrest Site B = Customs Building (Prince William St.) Site G = Three Mile Site C = Provincial Building (110 Charlotte St.) Site H = Forest Products Site D = Point Lepreau Site I = Silver Falls Site E = Champlain Heights µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic metre -- = Data not available (i.e., not monitored, or missing data) Source: NBDELG 2005b, NBDELG 2004, NBDELG 2003a, NBDELG 2002a, NBDOE 1999a, NBDOE 1999b Peak hourly values in every month were well below the applicable standard of 35,000 µg/m3 in 2003. There were also no exceedances of the 8-hour standard of 15,000 µg/m3 during 2003. Similar results were recorded for previous years.

4.2.2.3 Sound Quality

Outdoor sound quality can be influenced by a variety of natural and anthropogenic factors. Sound quality may be affected by stationary and mobile sources, such as noise from industrial equipment, vehicle traffic and operation of heavy equipment. Sound quality may also be affected by weather conditions such as temperature, humidity, wind direction, and wind speed, which affect sound propagation. Local topographical features such as hills or wooded areas may serve to attenuate sound levels. There may be sound reflections if the atmospheric mixing height is low (a few hundred metres), or if solid structures are located near the source of noise emissions.

The existing sound quality will be represented by existing noise levels near the preferred corridor. This was characterized by conducting a baseline sound quality assessment near the preferred corridor. The assessment consisted of conducting 24-hour monitoring at four locations in the vicinity of the preferred corridor. The selected locations, considered to be noise sensitive areas (NSAs), are presented in Figure 4.2.2. The NSAs were selected for the study because they are in residential areas that are located close to the preferred corridor.

The Woodhaven Drive (Site 1) and Creighton Avenue (Site 4) locations are thought to be representative of residences nearest to the preferred corridor. These areas will likely be influenced by the Project activities on a short-term basis.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 114

The Milford Road (Site 3) and Pokiok (Site 2) locations are representative of the greatest potential environmental effects of the Project on sound quality for their respective locations along the corridor due to the proximity of horizontal directional drilling activities, which are expected to be the most significant and prolonged sources of noise during Construction.

During the baseline monitoring, sound pressure levels were logged at 1-minute intervals at each of the locations and these data were used to calculate the 1-hour and 24-hour equivalent sound pressure

level (Leq) for each of the monitoring sites. A summary of the results is presented in Table 4.2.12. Table 4.2.12 Baseline Sound Pressure Level Monitoring: 24-hour Monitoring Data Summary

Measured 24-hour Maximum Equivalent Sound Monitoring Location Date Start/Stop Time Observed 1-hr Leq Pressure Level Leq (dBA) (dBA)

Site 1 - Woodhaven Drive October 13-14, 2005 12:30 / 12:30 46.6 52.1 Site 2 - Pokiok October 13-14, 2005 14:10 / 14:10 53.7 64.0 Site 3 - Milford Road October 4-5, 2005 12:05 / 12:05 46.3 57.4 Site 4 - Creighton Avenue October 5-6, 2005 13:30 / 13:30 51.8 53.1

The values recorded at all locations were typical of the expected ambient sound pressure levels, considering the urban/residential land use at the monitoring locations and the moderate traffic volumes at these largely residential locations. It is noted that the relatively higher observed 1-hour and 24-hour sound pressure levels measured at the Pokiok location are likely due to the presence of athletic events being conducted at Shamrock Park during the monitoring period.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 115

4.3 Water Resources

4.3.1 Hydrogeological Setting

Groundwater, an integral component of the hydrologic cycle, originates from the percolation of rain, snowmelt, or surface water into the ground. This water fills voids between individual grains in unconsolidated materials and fractures developed in consolidated materials. The upper surface of the saturated zone is called the water table. Groundwater flows through soil and bedrock from areas of high elevation (recharge area) to areas of low elevation (discharge area), where it exits as springs, streams, and lakes.

Groundwater yield can vary greatly depending on the hydraulic properties of overburden or bedrock aquifers. An aquifer is a formation or group of formations that can store or yield useable volumes of groundwater to wells or springs. Aquifers may vary in capacity from only a few litres per minute (Lpm), suitable for individual family use, to many thousands of Lpm, suitable for municipal or major industrial uses.

Groundwater quality is affected by contaminants entering the subsurface at recharge zones and by the geochemical composition of the aquifer materials through which it passes and the time the water resides within that material. For example, natural groundwater that flows quickly through clean gravel, fractured granite, or other non-soluble rocks usually produces better potable quality than water that flows slowly through highly soluble organic soils or limestone bedrock.

Groundwater and surface water resources are hydraulically linked. Groundwater sustains the base flow of most lakes and streams in Atlantic Canada during dry periods. Because groundwater is in direct hydraulic interaction with surface water systems, the quality and quantity of groundwater can have a direct effect on the quality of streams and lakes, especially during the low flow periods. The protection of groundwater resources is therefore of prime importance when considering freshwater or near shore habitat protection.

The preferred corridor is located in the Fundy Coastal and Valley Lowlands Ecoregions (Hinds 2000). The ecoregion is marked by warm, rainy summers and mild, snowy winters. The mean annual precipitation ranges from 1,100-1,400 mm. The major land uses are forestry and agriculture, with Saint John and St. Stephen being the major communities along the preferred corridor.

Groundwater resources may be public or private, such as schools, hospitals, farms, industrial and commercial establishments. Water supplies in municipal areas may be high capacity wells or well fields extracting large volumes of water from a limited locality to be distributed to a larger geographical area. Pumping rates for municipal supplies are high, and the quality and quantity of water may be influenced by a large horizontal area (capture zone).

NBENV has identified wellfield protection areas for a number of municipalities using groundwater as their water supply source. The designated limits land uses and activities that can occur within a radius distance from an active well field. The Town of St. Stephen is in the process of identifying a designated

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 116

wellfield protection area (see Figure 4.3.1). The preferred corridor does not intersect this or any other designated wellfield protected areas.

In rural areas, private wells for domestic and farm uses are the most common water supply source. In comparison to municipal supplies, groundwater pumping rates and capture zones for private wells are small.

Groundwater resources may be present in surficial, unconsolidated geologic formations or in bedrock aquifers. Alternatively, springs originating in sloped surficial formations may be developed into water supplies. Surface water sources for individual domestic use are generally rare, but may occur in rural areas.

4.3.2 Watersheds

In New Brunswick, approximately 40% of the population obtains their water supply from surface water. Surface water supplies are sensitive to contamination, and uncontrolled land use and activities within a watershed can put the supply of thousands of residents at risk. Approximately 30 watersheds have been identified that are active water supplies requiring protection. New Brunswick enacted the Watersheds Designation Order to limit land uses and activities which may pose a threat to water supplies. Two Watershed Protection Areas have been identified within the preferred corridor: Dennis Stream Watershed near St. Stephen and the Spruce Lake Watershed, west of Saint John (see Figures 2.2.4A to 2.2.4D, inclusive). The boundary of a third Watershed Protection Area, the East and West Musquash Watershed, is within 50 m of the preferred corridor.

4.3.3 Unconsolidated Aquifers

The surficial deposits along the length of the preferred corridor are dominantly glacial tills of varying thickness, texture, and stoniness. The till typically has a poorly to largely unsorted grain size distribution, and has a loamy to sandy loam texture with a varying stone content. Particle sizes range from clay to boulders, and the finer grained silt and clay fraction controls groundwater flow rate and well yield potential, as well as potential for contaminants to move through the till. The dominant formation (approximately one third of the preferred corridor) has stone content in excess of 35% and is associated with bedrock outcrops and deposits less than 0.5 m thick. Approximately 5% of the preferred corridor is exposed and weathered bedrock of varying lithology. The remainder of the preferred corridor is primarily moraine blanket and plains deposits between 0.5-5.0 m thick, or greater. Based on this observation, and typical pipeline trench cover of 1 m, approximately 40-50% of the pipeline RoW will need to be excavated into bedrock.

Little is known about the depth and saturated thickness of glaciofluvial sediments (e.g., re-worked silt, sand and gravel deposits) along the length of the preferred corridor. Boreholes drilled during the pre- design phase of the SJL indicate overburden thicknesses of up to 24 m in some locations (Washburn & Gillis 1998). Where suitable saturated thickness (>5 m) and lithology (sand and gravel materials) occur, these materials could be a potential source of groundwater suitable for development of moderate to large capacity water supply wells. In most areas of the preferred corridor, glacial tills have characteristically low permeability suggesting low groundwater yields. The usefulness of these aquifers for water supply is restricted to small domestic and farm sources. The higher permeability glaciofluvial

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 117

deposits would likely be associated with kame terraces, bedrock channels, and other glacial landforms along river valleys.

4.3.4 Bedrock Aquifers

The bedrock geology along the length of the preferred corridor is complicated; many bedrock geological formations consisting of intrusive and sedimentary rocks are found along the approximately 145 km preferred corridor. The geology consists mainly of intensely deformed Ordovician, Silurian, and Lower Devonian aged sedimentary and volcanic rocks that are intruded by granitoid rocks of Middle Devonian and Early Carboniferous age (NBDNRE 2000). Three geological zones of southern New Brunswick are transected by the preferred corridor. From east to west these are described below.

The Caledonia Zone is underlain by a Middle Proterozoic quartzite-carbonate sequence and succession of Late Proterozoic volcanic and associated intrusive rocks.

The Mascarene zone is underlain by Silurian to Early Devonian volcanic rocks interbedded with shallow-marine to fluviatile sedimentary rocks.

The St. Croix Zone is characterized by Late Cambrian to Early Ordovician volcanic rocks and Early to Middle Ordovician shales and wackes.

The majority of the preferred corridor is located in areas of metamorphic and igneous rocks, which store and transmit groundwater through fractures and faulting (low to moderate well yields anticipated). The upper portions of the bedrock, which are weathered and typically more hydraulically conductive than the deeper zones, represent the highest potential for water supply development, but are also more likely to be affected by excavation dewatering and surface source impacts than deeper bedrock zones. Groundwater yields are dependent on the size, spacing, and connectivity of fracture systems and are therefore spatially variable and difficult to predict. Middle Ordovician shale in the St. Croix zone and limestone, conglomerates, and fractured crystalline intrusions in the Caledonia Zone are known bedrock aquifers.

4.3.5 Springs

Springs occur in topographically low areas when the groundwater table intersects the ground surface, and are most likely to occur on hillsides, coastal cliffs, and valley floors. The preferred corridor intersects valleys and hillsides in several locations where springs may occur. Springs may sustain headwaters of local watercourses and occasional spring-fed domestic water supplies.

4.3.6 Locations of Water Wells

A formal request was made to NBENV to search their well development database for records of wells occurring along the preferred corridor and variants around Rockwood Park. An exhaustive list of PIDs for properties within 500 m of the preferred corridor (and including the preferred corridor) was provided to NBENV for their search. It should be noted that the database contains only those wells installed since 1994. Numerous wells constructed prior to 1994 may therefore be present and unaccounted for within 500 m of the preferred corridor. Records for nineteen wells within 500 m of the preferred corridor were available (Table 4.3.1).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 118

Table 4.3.1 Summary of NBENV Well Records Within 500 m of the Preferred Corridor and Variants Around Rockwood Park

Depth to Date Well PID Location Water Table Aquifer Constructed Depth (m) (m) 15087083 Rollingdam, Charlotte March 2002 100.6 6.96 Slate (likely Waweig County Formation) 15164551 Rollingdam, Charlotte August 2004 44.0 4.9 Slate (likely Waweig County Formation) 55053409 Musquash, Saint John November 2002 108.2 Not specified Slate (likely Lancaster County Formation) Saint John, Saint John October 2004 243.8 Not specified Limestone and conglomerate 00052548 County November 2004 121.9 Not specified (likely Saint John Formation) 00048058 Saint John, Saint John August 2003 22.9 Not specified Clay and gravel County 55063390 Saint John, Saint John November 2002 91.4 Not specified Shale (likely Lepreau or County Quaco Formation) October 2003 91.4 4.6 Red conglomerate (likely Saint John Formation) 55063416 Saint John, Saint John May 2003 73.2 Not specified Red rock (likely red County conglomerates of Saint John Formation) 55116073 Saint John, Saint John June 2004 18.9 2.4 Clay and gravel County 55063382 Saint John, Saint John July 2005 68.8 Not specified Not specified County 55117113 Saint John, Saint John November 2004 137.2 Not specified Brown and red conglomerate County (likely Saint John Formation) 00313775 Saint John, Saint John September 1994 100.6 Not specified Granite (likely undivided felsic County and mafic intrusions) 0021448 Saint John, Saint John July 2000 160.0 9.1 Shale (likely Lepreau or County Quaco Formation) 00053132 Saint John, Saint John April 1995 93.0 1.5 Clay and gravel and County limestone (likely Saint John Formation) 55058556 Saint John, Saint John October 1994 91.4 Not specified Granite (likely undivided felsic County and mafic intrusions) 00052795 Saint John, Saint John August 1997 42.7 Not specified Grey and white rock (likely County undivided felsic and mafic intrusions) 00051326 Saint John, Saint John May 1997 8.5 Not specified Red conglomerate (likely County Saint John Formation) 55123905 Saint John, Saint John May 1999 48.8 Not specified Grey rock (likely undivided County felsic and mafic intrusions) 55020754 Saint John, Saint John July 1999 213.4 Not specified Granite (likely undivided felsic County and mafic intrusions) 00052407 Saint John, Saint John June 1994 152.4 Not specified Granite (likely undivided felsic County and mafic intrusions)

For Rockwood Park specifically, the A-frame, horse barns, and interpretive centre depend on wells. Otherwise, the golf course, campground, sanitation services and Lily Lake pavilion are all connected to municipal water supply (Watson, pers. comm.).

The Town of St. Stephen‘s water supply is a mix of groundwater and surface water through a wellfield comprised of two high capacity groundwater wells and an infiltration gallery. The infiltration gallery

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 119

supplies shallow groundwater and surface water from Dennis Stream. Due to the mix of surface water and groundwater supplies, the Town wellfield is protected by designation within both a protected watershed and a Well Field Protection area (Pettie, pers. comm.). The preferred pipeline corridor does not intersect the Well Field Protection area, however it is directly adjacent (see Figure 4.3.1; Jacques Whitford, 2005a).

A preliminary interpretation of aerial photographs of the preferred corridor suggests that there are several more domestic wells within 500 m of the preferred corridor that are not included in the NBENV well records database. The estimated numbers of potential wells are tabulated from east to west in Table 4.3.2. Table 4.3.2 Summary of Wells By Location

Approximate Number of Wells Within 500 m of the Location Preferred Corridor

Hundreds of commercial and domestic wells may be located City of Saint John within 1 km of the preferred corridor1 Prince of Wales 20 homes and possible industrial supplies Musquash 30 – 40 homes Side road off secondary highway 780 5 – 10 camps which may have water supply Side road off secondary highway 770, north of Second Falls 1 home or camp Elmsville 5 homes and possible agricultural supply North of Waweig, Route 127 2 homes South of Moores Mills, between secondary highways 755 4 homes (may be supplied by the Town of St. Stephen and 750 Central Water Supply) 21 homes (may be supplied by the Town of St. Stephen Secondary highway 750 in Dennis Stream Watershed Central Water Supply) 11 homes (may be supplied by the Town of St. Stephen Route 3, in Dennis Stream Watershed Central Water Supply) Secondary highway 740, east of Little Ridge 2 homes Secondary highway 725, south of Little Ridge 4 homes Total potential domestic wells or springs in rural areas2 105 or more 1 Several developments surrounding the urban core of Saint John are known to be supplied by private domestic wells, including but not restricted to Lorneville, Ocean Westway, Duck Cove, Millidgeville, and south of Loch Lomond Road. The developments north of the Trans Canada Highway are serviced by a mix of municipal and private supplies (Webb, pers. comm.). This location includes the variants around Rockwood Park. 2 This total represents all potential wells within 500 m of the boundaries of the preferred corridor, with the exception of those wells in Saint John. The potential private drilled wells west of Elmsville are likely located in marine clastic formations, including Kendall Mountain, Eastport, and Waweig formations. East of Elmsville, the potential private drilled wells are likely located in composite igneous intrusions. If dug, these wells may be located in poorly sorted shallow blanket and veneer tills.

4.3.7 Potentially Contaminated Soils

There is the potential for soil contamination (e.g., petroleum hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, metals, and solvents) in several areas within Saint John along the preferred corridor, due to its long history of occupation and industrialization. In addition to the possibility of contaminated sites within the preferred corridor, both the north and south variants around Rockwood Park have the potential to intersect contaminated sites within their corridors as well.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 120

4.4 Fish and Fish Habitat

For ease of reporting for Fish and Fish Habitat, the preferred corridor was divided into urban, SJL, and IPL sections. A total of 119 watercourses or water bodies are within or adjacent to the preferred corridor (Figures 4.4.1A to 4.4.1F, inclusive) of which the Project is anticipated to cross at least 87 (26 urban watercourse crossings, 32 SJL-section watercourse crossings, and 42 IPL-section watercourse crossings). Selected baseline surveys of fish and fish habitat were conducted in 2005.

The preferred corridor intersects two protected watersheds: Spruce Lake Watershed and Dennis Stream Watershed, which are also designated reservoirs. As the Spruce Lake Watershed boundary overlaps Route 1, the pipeline will be located at least 30 m from Spruce Lake. The boundary of the East and West Musquash Watershed is within 50 m of the preferred corridor and the pipeline RoW will be located at least 30 m from the East and West Musquash Watershed boundary. Therefore, neither Spruce Lake nor the East and West Musquash Watershed and Spruce Lake are characterized in this section, nor are they carried forward in this EA with respect to fish and fish habitat. The preferred corridor intersects Dennis Stream, which is characterized in this section and carried forward in the EA with respect to fish and fish habitat.

The Project potentially interacts with a number of potential fish bearing lakes. Crystal Lake, which is located in Rockwood Park, is located within the preferred corridor. Frying Pan Lake, which is also located in Rockwood Park, is located approximately 40 m from the preferred corridor. The corridor variants around Rockwood Park potentially interact with two lakes. The north variant potentially interacts with Asburn Lake, which is located in the northeast corner of the Park. The south variant is within 30 m of the southwest end of Lily Lake.

Three fish-based ESAs exist downstream of the preferred corridor near watercourse estuaries and do not interact directly with the Project (Figures 4.4.1A to 4.4.1F, inclusive). The Dennis Stream ESA, located approximately 5.5 km downstream of the southern boundary of the preferred corridor, supports a gaspereau run and provides rearing habitat for salmon and in the past a small number of sea-run brook trout. The Waweig River ESA, located approximately 2.6 km downstream of the southern boundary of the preferred corridor, is a small river with a small salmon run that is often corralled because of low flow. The Pocologan ESA, located approximately 2 km downstream of the southern boundary of the preferred corridor, is characterized as having rearing areas with a moderate salmon run. Low water may concentrate the fish in a tidal basin near the mouth of the Pocologan River and prohibit upstream fish passage (Seymour, pers. comm.).

Wetland and riparian habitat directly influence fish habitat quality and are described in Section 4.5 (Vegetation) and Section 4.6 (Wetlands).

4.4.1 Species at Risk

New Brunswick Endangered Species Act

There are no species of freshwater fish listed under the New Brunswick Endangered Species Act (NB ESA).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 121

Species at Risk Act

There are two freshwater fish species in New Brunswick protected under SARA:

Inner Bay of Fundy Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar): Schedule 1, “Endangered”; and

Lake Utopia dwarf smelt (Osmerus sp.): Schedule 1, “Threatened”.

Neither of these species is known to exist within watercourses crossed by the preferred corridor nor the Rockwood Park corridor variants.

For reference, definitions of rarity rankings are summarized in Table 4.4.1.

4.4.2 Species of Conservation Concern

Species at Risk Act

There are two freshwater fish species in New Brunswick listed, but not protected, under SARA:

redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), Schedule 3, “Special Concern”; and

shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), Schedule 3, “Special Concern”.

Very few sightings of the redbreast sunfish have been reported within the St. Croix Watershed. NBDNR has two recorded sightings: one in Big Lake on the American side and another from the 1970s in East Grand Lake which may have been a case of misidentification (Seymour, pers. comm.).

The shortnose sturgeon is found within the Saint John River system. Although this sturgeon may migrate through the Assessment Area (defined in Section 5.3) to the Gulf of Maine where it has occasionally been observed, it is usually associated with freshwater habitat in the middle reaches of large rivers. In the Saint John River, shortnose sturgeon is known to occur near Gagetown, where there may be a spawning population (Scott and Crossman 1973).

In addition, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assessed and listed the Bay of Fundy striped bass (Morone saxatilis), as “Threatened” in November 2004. The striped bass had a historical breeding population in the Saint John River, but the spawning population is believed to be extirpated since 1979 (DFO 1999). DFO stock status reports suggest that the extirpation was the result of loss of habitat from the construction of the Mactaquac Dam, and subsequent unnatural fluctuations in water velocity and volume. As such, Bay of Fundy striped bass were known to use the Saint John River within the Assessment Area. However, these populations now occur only in the Annapolis and Shubenacadie Rivers, and are therefore not known to exist within the Assessment Area. Striped bass occur periodically in the Saint John River below Mactaquac, but these are believed to be feeding migrants from waters located along the northeast United States coast (DFO 1999; Curry, pers. comm. in Jacques Whitford 2004c). A recreational fishery for striped bass exists in the Saint John River; however, it is restricted with a one fish retention limit and a partial open-season.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 122

Table 4.4.1 Rarity Rankings

Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre (AC CDC 2003) Extremely rare throughout its range in the province (typically 5 or fewer occurrences or very S1 few remaining individuals). May be especially vulnerable to extirpation. Rare throughout its range in the province (6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining individuals). S2 May be vulnerable to extirpation due to rarity or other factors. Uncommon throughout its range in the province, or found only in a restricted range, even if S3 abundant at some locations. (21 to 100 occurrences). Usually widespread, fairly common throughout its range in the province, and apparently S4 secure with many occurrences, but the species is of long-term concern (e.g. watch list). (100+ occurrences). Numeric range rank: A range between two consecutive numeric ranks. Denotes uncertainty S#S# about the exact rarity of the species (e.g., S1S2) NBDNR General Status (NBDNR 2005a; NBDNRE 2003) Species for which a formal assessment has been completed, and determined to be at risk of At Risk extirpation or extinction. May Be At Species or populations that may be at risk of extirpation or extinction, and are therefore Risk candidates for a detailed risk assessment. Species which are not believed to be at risk of extirpation or extinction, but which may Sensitive require special attention or protection to prevent them from becoming at risk. Species that are not believed to be At Risk, May Be At Risk, or Sensitive. These were generally species that were widespread and/or abundant. Although some Secure species Secure may be declining, their level of decline was not felt to be a threat to their status in the province. Species at Risk Act (SARA) Extirpated Wildlife species that no longer exists in the wild in Canada, but exists elsewhere in the wild. (Schedule 1) Endangered Wildlife species that is facing imminent extirpation or extinction. (Schedule 1) Threatened Wildlife species that is likely to become an endangered species if nothing is done to reverse (Schedule 1) the factors leading to its extirpation or extinction. Species of Wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a Special combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. Concern (Schedule 1 and all other Schedules) New Brunswick Endangered Species Act (NB ESA) Any indigenous species of fauna or flora threatened with imminent extinction or imminent Endangered extirpation throughout all or a significant portion of its range and designated by regulation as Species endangered. Regionally Any indigenous species of fauna or flora threatened with imminent extirpation throughout all Endangered or a significant portion of its range in the Province and designated by regulation as regionally Species endangered.

Species at Risk Species of Conservation Secure Species Concern

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 123

NBDNR General Status of Wildlife in New Brunswick

NBDNR lists seven freshwater fish species of conservation concern:

Lake Utopia dwarf smelt is listed as “At Risk”;

anadromous Atlantic salmon and striped bass are listed as “May Be At Risk”; and

Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus), lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis), and shortnose sturgeon are listed as “Sensitive”.

Lake Utopia dwarf smelt do not occur within the Assessment Area. The preferred corridor is located north of Lake Utopia and outside the watersheds of the Lake Utopia dwarf smelt spawning tributaries.

The “May Be At Risk” designation is a high concern category that includes species that are of concern because of low numbers, population declines, or habitat pressures. Of these species in New Brunswick, both Atlantic salmon and striped bass have a historical breeding population in the Saint John River Watershed (DFO 1999; Curry, pers. comm. in Jacques Whitford 2004c). The current status of striped bass is explained previously.

Anadromous Atlantic salmon in the Saint John River and its tributaries are considered as part of the Outer Bay of Fundy Atlantic salmon stock. This stock is not currently a federally protected species; however, their population has been decreasing over the last 100 years and reached very low numbers in the last decade (DFO 2001; DFO 2002). Historically, Atlantic salmon provided the primary recreational and commercial fishery in the Saint John River. Today, recreational and commercial fishing for Outer Bay of Fundy Atlantic salmon in rivers has been indefinitely banned pending a substantial improvement in adult salmon returns to native rivers, including the Saint John River (Arseneau, pers. comm. in Jacques Whitford 2004c). Adult salmon numbers in the Saint John River have declined from the 1960’s estimate of over 100,000 to the year 2004 count at the Mactaquac Dam of 695 individuals (DFO 2005). DFO attributes this loss primarily to the cumulative environmental effects of commercial fishing and hydroelectric power generation (DFO 2001; DFO 2002). There is currently an intensive effort to re-establish Atlantic salmon stocks in the Saint John River. Despite current low numbers of mature fish, the Atlantic salmon is still considered to be of extreme value to recreational fishermen in the Upper Saint John River Valley (Arseneau, pers. comm. in Jacques Whitford 2004c). Therefore, the anadromous Atlantic salmon was given special consideration as a species of conservation concern in the assessment of environmental effects on Fish and Fish Habitat.

The arctic char, lake trout and lake whitefish do not occur within the Assessment Area. The status of the shortnose sturgeon was described previously.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 124

4.4.3 Methodology

Consultation with DFO determined that submission of fish and fish habitat data from the SJL (Washburn & Gillis 1999a) would be valid for the Project where the preferred corridor parallels the existing SJL or the Mainline. DFO has requested, however, that two fish and fish habitat confirmatory surveys within the SJL parallel section be undertaken to verify the SJL data. These surveys will be completed in 2006. The HDD crossing of the St. Croix River will be completed adjacent to the Mainline and the existing data for the Mainline is also considered valid for the purposes of the Project.

Further consultation with DFO (Currie, pers. comm.; Keating, pers. comm.; MacDougal, pers. comm.) and NBDNR (Seymour, pers. comm.) described the present and historical distribution of Atlantic salmon and other recreational fish species in southwestern New Brunswick. Consultation with the St. Croix International Waterway Commission (Sochasky, pers. comm.) and the Atlantic Salmon Federation provided additional information for the watercourses in the Assessment Area mainly focusing on salmon spawning and rearing habitat areas (Carr, pers. comm.).

Watercourses and water bodies within or adjacent to the preferred corridor were identified using Service New Brunswick (SNB) maps, and high resolution aerial photography from June 2005. The habitat surveys were conducted as per NBDNR guidelines, using standard stream habitat forms (Hooper et al. 1995) and extended 100 m upstream and 100 m downstream of potential best crossing locations and where the pipeline RoW will be within 30 m of a watercourse or water body, based on GPS coordinates taken from GIS mapping. Qualitative electrofishing surveys were completed where hydrologic and water quality conditions permitted. All trout and eels captured during the surveys were measured to the nearest millimetre and centimetre respectively and released unharmed. The data from the 2005 surveys is reported in this EA as applicable.

Detailed routing field surveys will also be completed in 2006 for the urban watercourses in support of permit applications. Habitat assessments within the IPL parallel section were carried out at 28 of the 42 identified watercourses within this section of the preferred corridor in the summer of 2005. The sites were selected for fish and fish habitat surveys based on access conditions and landowner consent. Of these, twenty-one watercourses within the IPL parallel section were electrofished. WC93 (Tributary to Doyle Lake) was dip-netted for species identification as the sediment mat was too deep for the base of the electrofisher to be kept dry. WC91 (North Branch Campbell Brook) was not electrofished due to water depth during the field visit. A subsequent visit to WC91 in October 2005 to determine if widening of the preferred corridor was necessary identified an area that may need to be electrofished in 2006. Electrofishing and dip-netting results for the IPL parallel section are presented in Appendix C.

Table 4.4.2 lists all of the watercourses and water bodies within the preferred corridor and corridor variants around Rockwood Park. Data from the 2005 field studies and the Saint John Lateral Pipeline Project: Fish Habitat and Watercourse Crossings 1997/1998 Field Program Final Report (Washburn & Gillis 1999a) is incorporated into the table. Headings within Table 4.4.2 indicate the beginning and end of the IPL parallel, SJL parallel, and urban sections.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 125

Additional fish and fish habitat surveys will be conducted in the summer of 2006 in support of detailed routing of the pipeline and for permitting purposes. The level of effort required for these surveys will be determined in consultation with DFO, NBDNR, and NBENV officials. All 2006 stream habitat information will be provided to the appropriate regulating agencies, once completed. The pipeline will be routed accordingly within the preferred corridor to mitigate any significant issues identified during the detailed routing field surveys.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 126 Table 4.4.2 Summary of Fish and Fish Habitat WC # Name Date Assessed1 Fish Species Present2 Substrate (%) pH Rock Sand Fines Gravel Rubble Boulder Bedrock Depth (cm) DO** (mg/L) Habitat Type Wet Width (m) Wet Width Embeddedness Water Temp.( C) Discharge (m3/s) Discharge Channel WidthChannel (m) Urban Start 1 Pond at Mispec Point, inflow and outflow Assess in 2006 2 Bean Brook Assess in 2006 3 Tributary to Beyea Brook Assess in 2006 4 Beyea Brook Assess in 2006 5 Tributary to Hazen Creek Assess in 2006 6 Hazen Creek Assess in 2006 7 Unnamed (Champlain Heights) Assess in 2006 8 Little River Assess in 2006 9 Tributary to Tributary to Major's Brook Assess in 2006 10 Tributary to Major's Brook Assess in 2006 11 Marsh Creek Assess in 2006 East Rockwood Park Boundary Preferred Corridor 12 Tributary to Marsh Creek Assess in 2006 26 12.9 Frying Pan Lake Assess in 2006 27 13 Patterson Brook Assess in 2006 14 Crystal Lake Assess in 2006 Potential HDD 15 Tributary to Patterson Brook (Crystal Lake Outflow) Assess in 2006 Potential HDD 16 Tributary to Patterson Brook (small impoundment Assess in 2006 outflow) Potential HDD 17 Tributary to Patterson Brook (wooden box culvert Assess in 2006 east of former ski lift) Potential HDD 18 Tributary to Patterson Brook (concrete culvert) Assess in 2006

19 Tributary to Patterson Brook (culvert near asphalt Assess in 2006 access road to former ski hill parking lot) South Rockwood Park Variant 12.1 S Tributary to Marsh Creek (South Lily Lake Outflow) Assess in 2006

12.15 S Lily Lake Assess in 2006 2,3,12,206 12.2 S Tributary to Patterson Brook (North Lily Lake Assess in 2006 Outflow) 12.3 S Patterson Brook Assess in 2006 North Rockwood Park Variant 12.1 N Tributary to Little Marsh Creek (Ashburn Lake Assess in 2006 Outflow) 12.2 N Tributaryto tributary to Little Marsh Creek Assess in 2006 12.25 N Ashburn Lake Assess in 2006 12.3 N Tributary to Ashburn Lake Inflow (Owen Lake Assess in 2006 Outflow) 12.4 N Ashburn Lake Inflow (Harrigan Lake Outflow) Assess in 2006

12.5 N North Tributary to Patterson Brook Assess in 2006

26 Trinutary to South Bay (Bay Street) Assess in 2006 Urban End SJL Parallel Start 27 Tributary to Manawagonish Cove (east branch) Assess in 2006 (not in SJL3) 28 Tributary to Manawagonish Cove (west branch) Assess in 2006 (not in SJL3) 29 Tributary to 304 SJL3 6 1.5-4 1.5-4 1 9 - - - 2111Riffle/pool/deadwater 20->50 30 Tributary to Manawagonish Cove4 SJL3 None 0.8 0.8 5 - 1234- - Riffle 20-35 31 Spruce Lake Drainage4 SJL3 None 0.2-1.0 0.2-1.5 5 5 -----12 Riffle/run >50 32 Tributary to Ferguson Creek4 SJL3 None 0.2-1.0 0.2-1.5 10 78.1 3 -----21 Run>50 33 Ferguson Creek4 SJL3 2 1.5 2 5 77.4 4 - 12345- Riffle,/run 20-35 34 Tributary to Ferguson Creek4 SJL3 None 0.25 1 10 4 -----12 Run/pool >50 35 Menzies Stream4 SJL3 2,4,5,7,10 1.5 2 <5 3 - - 12345 Run<20 36 Spectacles Lake outflow (Tributary to Perch SJL3 None 1 1.5 10 8 - 1 2 - - 3 4 Cascade/pool 20-35 Brook)4 37 Perch Brook4 SJL3 None 2 3 25 7 - - 23451/6 Deadwater 35-50 38 Lindy Lake Outlet (Tributary to Perch Brook)4 SJL3 None 1 2 25 NR - 12345- Riffle 20-35 39 Lindy Lake SJL3 40 Shadow Lake Outlet4 SJL3 2,4,6 2.5 3 85 4 ----123 Beaver pond >50 41 Tributary to Shadow Lake Outlet4 SJL3 2 0.5-1.25 1-1.5 10 2 - - 1 2 3 - - Riffle/run 20-50 42 Tributary to Musquash River4 SJL3 4 0.5-1 1-1.5 10 3.5 - - - 1 2 3 - Riffle 20-35 43 East Branch Musquash River4 SJL3 None 1-9 1.5-11 20 11 Varialble fines to boulder Riffle/run/pool <20-50 44 Tributary 2 to East Branch Musquash River 4 SJL3 (Assessed with 4,7 2-10 2.5-12 20 11 Varialble fines to boulder Cascade to deadwater 20-35 Tributary 1 for SJL3) 45 Tributary 1 to East Branch Musquash River 4 SJL3 (Assessed with 4,7 2-10 2.5-12 20 11 Varialble fines to boulder Cascade to deadwater 20-35 Tributary 2 for SJL3) 46 Tributary to Musquash River4 SJL3 None 0.5-1.5 0.5-1.5 10 4 ----123Swamp/riffle/run 35->50 47 West Branch Musquash River 4 SJL3 4, 5, 6, 7, 192.564016 1------Pool 20-35 48 Wetmore Creek Assess in 2006 49 Tributary to Wetmore Creek4 SJL3 None 2 2 30 8 ------1 Deadwater >50 50 Trib toTributary to Hanson Stream4 SJL3 None 2-3 2.5-3.5 <5 16 ----321 Deadwater >50 51 Tributary to Hanson Stream4 SJL3 2, 9, 1034.5209 -----12 Riffle/run >50 52 Hanson Stream4 SJL3 2, 4 3 3.5 40 10 - 1 2 3 - 4 5 Pool >50 53 Hideaway Lake

65 Little New River4 SJL3 2, 4, 5, 6, 1020253015 - - -1234 Riffle/flatwater 35-50 66 Cranberry Lake Outlet4 SJL3 none 0.75 1 100 4 -----12 Beaver pond 35->50 67 Cranberry Lake 68 Tributary 2 to Pocologan River (East) Assess in 2006 (not in SJL3) 69 Tributary to Love Lake Brook4 SJL3 7, 9 0.5-3 0.5-3.5 40 10 -----12 Beaver pond 35->50 70 Tributary to Pocologan River (West) 4 SJL3 No watercourse present on NR NR NR NR NR NR Organic debris Black Spruce Bog - Oct. 97 71 Pocologan River4 SJL3 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 21 10 10 100 - - 2 - - - 1 Deadwater >50

72 East Tributary to Seeley Pond5 SJL3 None 1.5 2 2 7 - 3 2 - - - 1 Riffle/pool 35-50 73 Tributary to Red Rock Stream Assess in 2006 74 Black Brook Assess in 2006 (not in SJL3) 75 Widgeon Lake 76 Red Rock Stream (lake outlet)4 SJL3 2, 4, 5, 7 4 4 15 - - - 1 2 3 - Riffle/run 20-35 77 Back Meadow Brook4 SJL3 2, 4, 7, 9, 16 3.5 5 15/20 - - - 1234 Riffle/run 35-50 SJL Parallel End IPL Start 78 Front Meadow Brook4 SJL3 2 2 2.5 40 - 1 2 - - 3 4 Riffle/run >50 79 Unnamed R Tributary to Maguagdavic River Assess in 2006 80 Magaguadavic River Aug 12/05 5, 7, dace 55 63 120 NA 23.9 7.80 7.4 0 20 20 15 35 5 5 Run >50 81 Williamson Meadow Brook Assess in 2006 82 Bonny River Assess in 2006 83 Dowdell Meadow Brook Aug 11 & 23/05 9 6 7 30 0.020 NR NR NR 0 5 20 20 20 10 25 Beaver NR 83.5 Tributary to Dowdell Meadow Brook Aug 23/05 None 0.2 0.5 1 NA 20.8 4.64 5 0 0 20 30 20 5 25 Riffle NR 84 Guntree Brook Aug 10/05 2, 7, 9, 10, 20 2 2.5 30 0.097 29.7 5.92 7.0 0 5 40 50 5 <5 <5 Riffle 5 85 Clarence Stream Aug 9/05 6, 7, 10, 23, dace 6 8 40 0.290 NA NA NA 0 5 40 40 10 5 0 Run 15 86 Gardener Brook Aug 12 & 24/05 5, 7, 10, 16, 20 12 13 60 0.091 19.1 6.86 7.2 0 10 20 20 30 10 10 Beaver pond 80 87 Black Brook Aug 8/05 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 17 2.1 3 2.5 0.051 NR NR NR 0 20 10 10 40 15 5 Riffle/run 50 88 Digdeguash River Sept 8/05 5, 6, 7, 16, 22, 24 25 27 50 3.098 NR NR NR 0 15 20 35 25 5 <5 Riffle/run 20 89 Unnamed Q Tributary to Digdeguash River Sept 9/05 No watercourse present 90 Unnamed P Unnamed Tributary to Campbell Brook Sept 12/05 2, 7, 9, 21, 22 2 2.2 10 NR NR NR NR 0 0 5 15 40 35 5 Run/riffle 70

Table 4.4.2 Summary of Fish and Fish Habitat WC # Name Date Assessed1 Fish Species Present2 Substrate (%) pH Rock Sand Fines Gravel Rubble Boulder Bedrock Depth (cm) DO** (mg/L) Habitat Type Wet Width (m) Wet Width Embeddedness Water Temp.( C) Discharge (m3/s) Discharge Channel WidthChannel (m) 91 North Branch Campbell Brook Sept 15/05 Partial Assessment (not 35 37 >150 0 NR NR NR 00550090 Deadwater NR electrofished) 92 Doyle Lake 93 Unnamed O Tributary to Doyle Lake Sept 9/05 16, 21 (Dip-netted for 4 4 60 NR 19.4 6.06 3.5 000000100 Deadwater 100 species identification) 94 Unnamed N Tributary to Doyle Lake Sept 9/05 No watercourse present 95 Unnamed M Tributary to Doyle Lake Aug 18/05 Not electrofished 0.03 1.2 3 NR NR NR NR 0 0 <5 5 15 20 55 Riffle >50 96 Unnamed L Tributary to Twin Lakes Aug 18/05 No watercourse present 97 Unnamed K Tributary to Meadow Brook Aug 30/05 2, 5, 7, 16, 22 1.7 1.7 20 0.128 14.8 6.53 6.9 0 0 10 25 45 10 10 Riffle 20-30 98 Meadow Brook (East) Aug 29/05 2, 5, 6, 7, 16, 22 5 6.5 20 0.033 17.3 6.95 7.4 40 5 20 20 5 5 5 Run 20 99 Waweig River Aug 5/05 2, 4, 5 6 9 60 0.537 NR NR NR 95 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Riffle/Run 15 100 Berry Brook Aug 24/05 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 16 3 5.5 20 0.01 17.6 7.04 7.7 000054550Run90 101 Pout Brook Aug 25/05 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 16 1.5 4.5 3 0.008 17.3 6.51 3.80 0 0 20 25 15 25 15 Riffle/Run 50 102 Unnamed J Tributary to McCarley Brook Aug 25/05 No watercourse present 103 McCarley Brook Aug 4/05 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 16 1.5 3 53 0.245 18 5.6 NR 005580100 RunNR 104 Unnamed I Tributary to Gallop Stream Aug 19/05 2 1 5 8 0.058 16.7 6.3 5.5 0 0 10 10 20 10 50 Run 95 105 Gallop Stream Aug 19/05 2, 10, 16, 4, 22 4 5 20 0.103 17.5 6.1 7.8 0 25 15 20 20 10 10 Riffle/run/pool 10 106 Unnamed H Unnamed Tributary to Gallop Stream Assess in 2006

107 Unnamed F Tributary to Dennis Stream Assess in 2006 108 Unnamed G Tributary to Dennis Stream Aug 18/05 Seasonal. Dry at time of 00.500NRNR 000000100Fines and grass 100 2005 survey. 109 Dennis Stream Aug 4/05 2, 5, 6, dace 11 11 40 3.129 23.8 7.8 NR 0 15 40 35 5 0 0 Run <5 110 Bush Brook Sept 10/05 6, 17, 20, 23 4 4 40 0.113 16.6 6.4 5.0 000005050Run100 111 Unnamed E Tributary to Bush Brook Sept 10/05 2, 7, 10, 16, 22 1.5 2 30 0.003 14.7 5.85 8.0 000000100Run100 112 Tributary to Soap Brook Assess in 2006 113 Unnamed D Assess in 2006 114 Meadow Brook (West) Assess in 2006 115 Mohannes Stream Assess in 2006 116 Tributary to Mohannes Stream Assess in 2006 117 Unnamed B Aug 26/05 No watercourse present 118 Unnamed A Aug 26/05 No watercourse present 119 St. Croix River Planned HDD Assessed in Mainline IPL Parallel End (USA-Canada Border)

Notes: 1 The level of effort required for the fish and fish habitat surveys in 2006 will be determined in consultation with DFO, NBDNR, and NBENV officials. 2 Fish Species: 1 – Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar ) 9 – threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus ) 17 – brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus) 3 Washburn and Gillis (1999a) 2 – brook trout (Savlelinus fontinalis ) 10 – common white sucker (Catostamus commersoni ) 18 – burbot (Lota lota ) 4 Substrate ordinal rankings (1 thru 7) in the order presented 3 – brown trout (Salmo trutta ) 11 – minnow spp. (Notropis spp .) 19 – banded killifish (Fundulosus diapanus ) in Washburn and Gillis (1999a) 4 – blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus ) 12 – yellow perch (Perca flavenscens ) 20 – smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui ) 5 Assessed as Fork Lake Inlet in Washburn and Gillis (1999a) 5 – common shiner (Notropis cornutrus ) 13 – gaspereau (Alosa pseudoharengus/Alosa aestivalis ) 21 – nine spine stickleback (Pungitius pungitius ) 6 NBDNR Fish Assessment Data (1972) 6 – American eel (Anguilla rostrata ) 14 – mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus ) 22 – longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae ) 7 NBDNR Fish Assessment Data (1975) 7 – creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus ) 15 – slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus ) 23 – pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus ) HDD Horizontal Directional Drill 8 – sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus ) 16 – northern redbelly dace (Chrosomus eos ) 24 – longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus NR Not Recorded

4.4.4 Fish Survey Results

The distribution of fish species in watercourses crossed by the preferred corridor as determined during the desktop study, the 2005 field surveys for the Project, Washburn & Gillis (1999a), and from information obtained from other sources is summarized in Table 4.4.2. The watercourses are listed in order of occurrence within the preferred corridor from east Saint John to the international border.

4.4.4.1 International Power Line

A total of 14 fish species, representing 8 families, were recorded in the IPL section watercourses during fish surveys in 2005 (excluding the St. Croix River). Electrofishing results are presented in Appendix C. Three additional species are known to exist historically within this section of the preferred corridor: Atlantic salmon; redbreast sunfish; and gaspereau. Discussions with the Atlantic Salmon Federation also indicated reported catches of brown trout in the Digdeguash River (Carr, pers. comm.) resulting in a total of 18 fish species, representing 8 families, that may use watercourses that will be crossed by the preferred corridor within the IPL parallel section. Fish families and species are presented in Table 4.4.3. Table 4.4.3 Fish Families and Species within the IPL Parallel Section Species Presence Species of Family Conservation Common Name Scientific Name Recent Historical 2005 Concern or Species at Risk Anguillidae American eel Anguilla rostrata x x x Catastomatidae longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus x x common sucker Catostomus commersoni x x Centrachidae pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus x x sunfish redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus x x smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieui x x Clupeidae alewife Alosa pseudoharengus x x (gaspereau) Cyprinidae blacknose dace Rhinichthys atratulus x x common shiner Notropis cornutus x x creek chub Semotilus atramaculatus x x longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae x x northern redbelly Chrosomus eos x x dace Gasterosteidae ninespine Pungitius pungitius x x stickleback threespine Gasterosteus aculeatus x x stickleback Ictaluridae brown bullhead Ictalurus nebulosus x x Salmonidae Atlantic salmon Salmo salar x x x brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis x x brown trout Salmo trutta x Two newts (unidentified) were captured through electrofishing, one in WC84 (Guntree Brook) and one in WC101 (Pout Brook), and released unharmed.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 135

4.4.4.2 Saint John Lateral

Fish and fish habitat data from Washburn & Gillis (1999a) is considered acceptable for the purposes of Project watercourse crossings that parallel the SJL. Species encountered during the 1997/1998 Washburn & Gillis surveys are presented in Table 4.4.2.

4.4.4.3 Urban

Consultation with DFO resulted in no fish-related issues being identified for the urban section, as it was understood that the Saint John River will be horizontally directional drilled, which is DFO’s preferred crossing method for the river (Currie, pers. comm.). Geotechnical studies will be conducted to confirm the technical feasibility of the HDD. Additional fish and fish habitat surveys for the urban watercourses will be completed as required following consultation with regulatory authorities.

Rockwood Park

Historically, fish were stocked in select Rockwood Park lakes. Park lake fish assessment data from NBDNR dating back to 1975 indicates the historical presence of fish species in the following stocked lakes (Connell, pers. comm.):

Fisher Lakes – brook trout and yellow perch;

Frying Pan Lake – brook trout; and

Lily Lake – brook trout, brown trout, smallmouth bass, and yellow perch.

More recent NBDNR stocking data indicates that splake (Salvelinus namaycush x Salvelinus fontinalis), a hatchery hybrid of brook trout and lake trout, were stocked in Fisher Lakes in 2003 (Connell, pers. comm.). Discussions with City of Saint John Leisure Services (Watson, pers. comm.) indicate that all of the above species are occasionally caught by anglers within Rockwood Park’s lakes. Stocking efforts have ceased since the 2003 stocking of Fisher Lakes and ice fishing activities within the park have also decreased over the years, most likely because of the harvesting of fish by anglers in combination with the cessation of stocking efforts.

The preferred corridor along the transmission line RoW in the Park has at least six watercourse crossings. The north end of Crystal Lake is also within the preferred corridor (Figure 4.4.1B). Paterson Brook is immediately adjacent and runs parallel to the preferred corridor before crossing the corridor outside of the west park boundary. Frying Pan Lake, the source of Patterson Brook, is located approximately 40 m from the preferred corridor. If fish presence is confirmed in Patterson Brook and there are no barriers to Frying Pan Lake, then the lake will be assumed to be fish bearing.

The six watercourses crossings were identified along the preferred corridor within Rockwood Park on January 16, 2006, during above 0oC conditions. The Crystal Lake outflow drains north across the preferred corridor and down a steep grade (>30%) to Patterson Brook. As the gradient is severe, upstream fish passage from Patterson Brook, if it occurs within the brook, to Crystal Lake would be prohibited.

The south variant around Rockwood Park has at least three watercourse crossings (Figure 4.4.1B). The Lily Lake outflow (south) drains down a very steep embankment to a subsurface flow beneath the

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 136

Crown Street ramp to Route 1. The outflow continues south (possibly within municipal storm drains) to Marsh Creek. Barriers to upstream fish migration include the man-made dyke at the south Lily Lake outflow, the extreme slope gradient approaching the Crown Street access ramp, and the subsurface flow beneath the Crown Street access ramp. Although the south variant corridor around Rockwood Park does not intersect Lily Lake, it is within 30 m of the lake.

The north variant around Rockwood Park has at least seven watercourse crossings, and the variant itself is braided twice such that there are four different corridor possibilities (Figure 4.4.1B). The outflows of the Park’s northern lakes that are within 30 m of the north variant will be assessed in 2006.

During the detailed route selection process, the location of a 30 m RoW will be determined. If one of the Rockwood Park variants is selected and the RoW is within 30 m of any of the lakes along these routes, additional fish surveys will be completed as required following consultation with regulatory agencies.

Saint John River

Information regarding Saint John River fish species known to reside in or use the river in ‘The Narrows’ (Figure 4.4.1A) just upstream of the Reversing Falls was obtained from DFO (Curry, pers. comm. in Jacques Whitford 2004c; Jones, pers. comm. in Jacques Whitford 2004c). Fish species known to use this section of the Saint John River are presented in Table 4.4.4.

Table 4.4.4 Fish Families and Species within the Saint John River Species Family Common Name Scientific Name Acipenseridae Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrhynchus shortnose sturgeon Anguillidae American eel Anguilla rostrata Catastomatidae common sucker Catostomus commersoni Centrachidae pumpkinseed sunfish Lepomis gibbosus smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieui Clupeidae alewife (gaspereau) Alosa pseudoharengus American shad Alosa sapidossima Cyprinidae common shiner Notropis cornutus creek chub Semotilus atramaculatus fallfish Semotilus corporalis golden shiner Notemigonus chrysoleucas lake chub Couesius plumbeus northern redbelly dace Chrosomus eos Cyprinodontidae banded killifish Fundulus diaphanous mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus Esocidae chain pickerel Esox niger muskellunge Esox masquinongy Flounder various species Gadidae burbot lota lota Gasterosteidae various species of stickleback Ictaluridae brown bullhead Ictalurus nebulosus Osmeridae rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax Percichthyidae striped bass Morone saxatilis white perch Morone americana

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 137

Table 4.4.4 Fish Families and Species within the Saint John River Species Family Common Name Scientific Name Percidae yellow perch Perca flavescens Petromyzontidae sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus Salmonidae Atlantic salmon Salmo salar brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis brown trout Salmo trutta rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss

4.4.5 Recreational Fish Species

Recreational fish species in the preferred corridor, as determined by DFO, include all salmonids, smallmouth bass, American eel, and gaspereau (alewife) (Arseneau, pers. comm. in Jacques Whitford 2004c). Striped bass are also commonly fished in the Saint John River. Brook trout were the most common recreational species that were observed in the fish survey and were determined to be the dominant recreational species in the preferred corridor watercourse crossings as shown in Table 4.4.2. Brook trout are well established throughout the Assessment Area, and in a variety of habitats. In more than one case, brook trout were observed within a few metres of the origin of a stream, in water only a few centimetres deep. Sea-run brook trout were introduced in the past by NBDNR into Dennis Stream but the attempt was met with poor returns (Seymour, pers. comm.). Atlantic salmon (Outer Bay of Fundy Atlantic salmon stock) were not observed during the 2005 electrofishing surveys but are known to occur within the preferred corridor watercourse crossings in the St. Croix River, Dennis Stream, Waweig River (mainly hatchery escapees (Seymour, pers.comm.)), Digdeguash River, Magaguadavic River, Pocologan River, Little River, Lepreau River, and Saint John River. Rainbow and brown trout are not native to Atlantic Canada (Scott and Crossman 1973). They were introduced primarily through private stockings, and have self-sustaining stocks in some locations along the Upper Saint John River Valley (Arseneau, pers. comm. in Jacques Whitford 2004c). Catches of brown trout have also been reported in the Digdeguash River (Carr, pers. comm.; Seymour, pers. comm.). NBDNR assessment data from 1975 indicate the historical presence of brown trout in Lily Lake (Connell, pers. comm.). Smallmouth bass are also not native to New Brunswick but are considered important in terms of their recreational value to the province of New Brunswick, and in recent years, have been the primary sport fish of Saint John River anglers. Smallmouth bass prefer warmer average temperature than do salmonids, and are not as adept at living in small stream environments although they were observed in WC110 (Bush Brook), WC86 (Gardner Brook), and WC84 (Guntree Brook) in the 2005 surveys, and are common in the St. Croix River. No smallmouth bass were recorded in the SJL surveys (Washburn & Gillis 1999a). Splake are a genetically stable hybrid cross between brook trout and lake trout and have been culturally produced since the 1870s. Unlike most other hybrid trout, splake are capable of reproducing, but no records of splake reproduction outside hatcheries have been documented (Maine IFW 2006). They grow faster than either parent species and are relatively easy for anglers to catch, especially in winter.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 138

As such, splake have been stocked extensively across North America for recreational fisheries. Splake prefer water temperatures less than 15.5oC, tend to go deep during the summer, and feed primarily on smelt, white perch, yellow perch, and minnows (Maine IFW 2006). In 2003, 750 splake were stocked in Fisher Lakes in Rockwood Park (Connell, pers. comm.); however, discussions with City of Saint John Leisure Services indicate that fishing pressure for splake in recent years in combination with the cessation of the stocking program in 2003, has nearly wiped out the splake population in Fisher Lakes (Watson, pers. comm.). Striped bass are known to exist in the Lower Saint John River up to the Mactaquac Dam and are believed to be feeding migrants from United States’ waters. They are commonly fished near the Reversing Falls during the summer, primarily at night. Although historically there was a breeding population in the Saint John River, the spawning population is believed to be extirpated since 1979 (DFO 1999), since the construction of the Mactaquac Dam. Migrant striped bass are not transported through the fishway at the Mactaquac Dam (Jones, pers. comm. in Jacques Whitford 2004c). Gaspereau are known to run in Dennis Stream and the Magaguadavic River, actively using the fishway in St. George. A large run also occurs in the St. Croix River. DFO transports gaspereau around the Woodland Dam by truck for release back into the St. Croix River upstream of the closed fishway (Sochasky, pers. comm.).

4.4.6 Fish Habitat Survey Results

Table 4.4.2 contains the results of the 2005 fish and fish habitat surveys for the Project for watercourses paralleling the IPL. The table includes some of the key NBDNR parameters for habitat characterization and water quality parameters (i.e., temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen) as recorded in the field at the time of sampling. Table 4.4.2 also presents data from the SJL fish and fish habitat surveys (Washburn & Gillis 1999a). The summer water temperature in all streams was within the preferred range (<20°C) for brook trout (Scott and Crossman 1973) except WC109 (Dennis Stream), WC84 (Guntree Brook), WC83.5 (Tributary to Dowdell Brook), and WC80 (Magaguadavic River). These observed temperatures may have been skewed to higher values due to excessive heating of the temperature probe by the sun on extremely hot days. The dissolved oxygen levels were also at acceptable levels for salmonids in waters where they were found. Low dissolved oxygen readings were observed in WC110 (Bush Brook; 5.0 mg/L), WC101 (Pout Brook; 3.80 mg/L), WC93 (Tributary to Doyle Lake; 3.5 mg/L) and WC83.5 (Tributary to Dowdell Meadow Brook; 5.0 mg/L) because these locations were adjacent to wetlands or beaver dams. The substrate in most streams and rivers was good for salmonid nursery and rearing habitat. Only a few of the brooks contained potential salmonid spawning habitat (i.e., cool, clear water dominated by gravel with low embeddedness) within the areas surveyed; small patchy areas in WC90 (unnamed tributary to Campbell Brook), the upstream reaches of WC114 (Meadow Brook (East)), and the downstream reaches of WC105 (Gallop Stream) were identified as potential spawning habitat for brook trout. Access to these spawning areas by Atlantic salmon is severely restricted by the presence of large beaver dams on the majority of the brooks. The passage of brook trout populations already established within these watercourses over some of the large beaver dams may be facilitated during spring freshet or extreme precipitation events.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 139

Atlantic salmon (Outer Bay of Fundy Atlantic salmon stock) spawning and rearing habitat was identified within the preferred corridor at WC109 (Dennis Stream) (Carr, pers. comm.). An Atlantic Salmon Federation smolt collector site on WC80 (Magaguadavic River) is located approximately 250 m downstream of the preferred corridor (Carr, pers. comm.). The presence and active use of this habitat by Atlantic salmon is important as salmon return counts have been following a decreasing trend, and as such, actively used spawning habitat is critical to the survival of the species.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 140

4.5 Vegetation

According to the Ecological Land Classification Working Group (Hinds 2000), the preferred corridor falls within and across several ecologically distinct areas. These include two of the largest regional ecological groupings in New Brunswick: the Fundy Coastal and Valley Lowlands Ecoregions. Considerable climatic variation occurs across this range due primarily to the influence of the Bay of Fundy. The transition between the two ecoregions occurs where the preferred corridor leaves the tidally-influenced port of Saint John Harbour and passes north of Lake Utopia into the Lake Lands, or southern uplands.

The southern-most areas of the preferred corridor (occupied primarily by the existing SJL RoW) may support tolerant hardwoods such as sugar maple (Acer saccharum) and yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis) in dryer upland areas, but is primarily dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum), white birch (Betula papyriferus), balsam fir (Abies balsamea), and white spruce (Picea glauca). Wetlands such as bogs and swamps typically support eastern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis), black spruce (Picea mariana), American larch (Larix laricina), and red maple. Plant species at risk and species of conservation concern may be found in forests, bogs, fens, headlands, cliffs, and stream margins.

Where the preferred corridor parallels the IPL, tolerant hardwoods such as sugar maple and hemlock are able to persist in the warmer, dryer climate. Butternut (Juglans cinerea), now considered a species of conservation concern in New Brunswick (“Sensitive”, “S3”) and a species at risk federally (“Endangered”), is present in this area but is mostly restricted to the Saint John River valley. The more common quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) is also characteristic in regenerating areas which have been disturbed by deforestation or fire. Several rare species of plants may be found in the rich, alluvial floodplain and riparian habitats of this ecoregion (Hinds 2000).

4.5.1 Forest Resources

4.5.1.1 Ecologically Important Forest Types

According to NBDNR Inventory Mapping Data (2006), ecologically important forest types along the preferred corridor include areas of old growth, wetlands, mature forest, and shade-tolerant or partially shade-tolerant hardwood forest stands. In this instance, “old growth” refers to stands of spruce forest not yet harvested, and “mature forest” refers to merchantable forest stands containing species other than spruce or fir. The only old growth area within the preferred corridor occurs near New River and occupies less than 5 ha of the approximately 4,672 ha of land within the preferred corridor (Figure 2.2.4B). Wetlands that in any way overlap the preferred corridor occupy a total area of approximately 800 ha, which is equivalent to approximately 16% of the area occupied by the preferred corridor. Shrub wetlands comprise the majority of wetland types with emergent wetlands, fens, and bogs also present. According to the available data, approximately one quarter of spruce-fir forest areas traversed by the preferred corridor are considered to be greater than 121 years of age (the oldest age bracket available from NBDNR forest inventory data). The majority of forest stands within the corridor are “Type 2”, meaning they contain both merchantable and non-merchantable timber. Merchantable stands (Type 1), are not as abundant as Type 2, but are far more common than Type 3 (Unmerchantable) forest stands.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 141

Eastern white cedar is also considered an important forest stand type due to its ability to harbour rare species of plants. Cedar stands were found to be far more common than any of the hardwood species, comprising almost half of the forest stands present within the preferred corridor.

4.5.1.2 Invasive Vascular Plants

Species not native to New Brunswick which are known to be aggressive colonizers that displace native populations by securing their habitat, and which can be expected in the study area include purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula), and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Specific data describing the precise geographic distributions of these species were not available although it can be assumed that they are fairly common within the preferred corridor in their preferred habitats. These habitats generally consist of disturbed regions containing ditches, wetlands, slow streams, and moist shrub thickets.

4.5.2 Vascular Plant Surveys

4.5.2.1 Methodology

The preferred corridor was selected through a constraint mapping exercise that identified important features such as terrain, flora and fauna, as well as geotechnical and socio-economic factors. Aerial photography, topographic maps and forest inventory maps were used to identify areas of potential habitat for vascular plant species at risk and species of conservation concern. The Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre (AC CDC) was consulted to provide data on any rare (i.e., species at risk or species of conservation concern) or uncommon species within 5 km of the corridor alternatives (including the preferred corridor and variants around Rockwood Park). Land features in the survey area considered to have the potential to harbour rare plants included areas of known high species richness, ravines, riparian habitat, cedar swamps, seepages, intervale forest, wetlands, and watercourses. Following selection of the preferred corridor, field surveys for vascular plant species at risk and species of conservation concern were conducted. Vascular plant surveys were completed in July, August, and September 2005 and were intended to gather data on rare plants and on the types of wetlands which may be present in the preferred corridor. Areas of active agricultural fields were not subject to plant surveys. A separate discussion of wetlands is presented in Section 4.6 (Wetlands).

The onset of summer in 2005 was generally thought to be approximately two weeks later than normal, extending well into September. Therefore, the surveys are considered to have covered off critical biological windows, although surveys were not conducted in early summer.

Every effort was made to identify all species of vascular plants encountered during the surveys, and the population status of each species was checked against lists of provincially rare species. These lists include the Draft Status of Vascular Plants as designated in The General Status of Wildlife in New Brunswick (NBDNRE 2003), the AC CDC New Brunswick Vascular Plants Tracking List (AC CDC 2003), the NB ESA, and SARA. Hinds (2000) and Gleason and Cronqvist (1991) were also used as references. The locations of rare vascular plants found during the surveys were recorded using a

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 142

handheld GPS 12 instrument. The number of shoots or individual plants was noted, as was the distribution of the population, occupied habitat, and associated plant species.

Whenever practicable, vascular plant species encountered were identified in the field. When field identification was not practicable, care was taken to restrict the amount of plant material collected to the minimum required for identification. For specimens that could be uncommon or rare, a GPS location was recorded.

A total of 280 species of vascular plants were recorded during the surveys. No plant species at risk (i.e., those listed on Schedule 1 of SARA or under the NB ESA) were identified during surveys. The complete list of vascular plants identified during the surveys is provided in Appendix D.

Information for the corridor variants around Rockwood Park was derived from “Rockwood Park: An Integrated Resource Management Plan” (Urquhart 2005). Existing AC CDC records suggest that there is moderate to low potential for habitat within the preferred corridor that is capable of supporting species of conservation concern. Vascular plant surveys will be conducted for the corridor variants around the Park, as required, in 2006.

4.5.2.2 Vascular Plant Species of Conservation Concern

The locations of study sites visited by Jacques Whitford biologists and vascular plant species of conservation concern recorded during the surveys are shown in Figures 4.5.1A and 4.5.1B. A total of 14 plant species of conservation concern were encountered within approximately 50 m of the preferred corridor during field surveys. It should be noted that butternut was not encountered during these surveys. Although butternut is considered by COSEWIC to be widespread in southern Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick, this species has been designated as “Endangered” because of a projected decline due to butternut canker (COSEWIC 2005). Surveys of the IPL (AMEC 2002) and SJL (Washburn & Gillis 1998) also yielded rare species data. Results from all field surveys are summarized in Table 4.5.1. Table 4.5.1 Vascular Plants of Conservation Concern Identified During Surveys Scientific Name NBDNR Site Name Common Name Comment and AC CDC Rank* Status** Rhynchospora fusca Southern edge of Canaport Canaport Brown Beakrush Secure – “S2” Pond Cypripedium parviflorum – Found at the edge of the Rockwood Park possibly “S3” (see Yellow Lady’s Slipper Sensitive preferred corridor below for discussion) Found at two locations in Prince of Wales Carex folliculate – Long Sedge Secure field-identified wetland near Exit “S3” preferred corridor Bog East of Utricularia Hidden-fruited Found 140 m south of the Secure Hideaway Lake geminiscapa –“S2” Bladderwort SJL RoW Found adjacent to SJL RoW Bartonia paniculata Lepreau River Twining Bartonia Sensitive and 96 m upstream of the ssp. Iodandra – “S2” preferred corridor

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 143

Table 4.5.1 Vascular Plants of Conservation Concern Identified During Surveys Scientific Name NBDNR Site Name Common Name Comment and AC CDC Rank* Status** Magaguadavic Juncus militaris – Found within 50 m of IPL Bayonet Rush Secure River “S3” RoW Utricularia minor – Found within 50 m of IPL Bonny River Lesser Bladderwort Sensitive “S2” RoW Platanthera Large Purple-fringed Found within 50 m of IPL Clarence Stream Sensitive grandiflora – “S3” Orchis RoW Utricularia minor – Found within 50 m of IPL Digdeguash River Lesser Bladderwort Sensitive “S2” RoW North Branch Utricularia Hidden-Fruited Found within 50 m of IPL Secure Campbell Brook geminiscapa –“ S2” Bladderwort RoW Scattered along rocky stream Lobelia cardinalis – Dennis Stream Cardinal Flower Secure edge in and outside the “S3” preferred corridor Rosa palustris – Found within 50 m of IPL Bush Brook Swamp Rose Sensitive “S2” RoW Utricularia Hidden-fruited Found within 50 m of IPL Secure Mohannes geminiscapa – “S2” Bladderwort RoW Stream Viburnum. Found within 50 m of IPL Southern Arrow-wood Sensitive recognitum – “S2” RoW Utricularia purpurea Found within 50 m of IPL Purple Bladderwort Secure – “S2S3” RoW Juncus militaris – Found scattered in and Bayonet Rush Secure “S3” outside the preferred corridor St. Croix River Brasenia schreberi – Found scattered in and Watershield Secure “S3” outside the preferred corridor Zizania palustris – Found scattered in and Indian Wild Rice Secure “S3” outside the preferred corridor Sources: Jacques Whitford 2004a; AMEC 2002; Washburn & Gillis 1998 *AC CDC 2003 (see Table 4.4.1 for definitions of rarity rankings) **NBDNRE 2003 (see Table 4.4.1 for definitions of rarity rankings) Brown beakrush – This plant is ranked as S2 by the AC CDC and as Secure by NBDNR. Several hundred plants were found within the preferred corridor at the southern edge of Canaport Pond during surveys in 2004 for the Canaport LNG project (Fundy Engineering 2005).

Yellow lady’s slipper – Yellow lady’s slipper was found within the preferred corridor in Rockwood Park, in the urban section of the preferred corridor. The plants were present in large patches (as is typical for this species) near the edge of a small (approximately 0.5 ha) pond in swampy ground associated with cedar fen habitat. Since the plants were discovered past flowering-time, it is not certain whether specimens are C. parviflorum var. makasin (“S2”, “Sensitive”), or C. parviflorum var. pubescens (“S4”, “Secure”). The current rank and status for yellow lady’s slipper (including both varieties) is “S4” and “Secure”. Although this plant occurs near the preferred corridor edge, other locations are known within Rockwood Park which will not be affected by the Project.

Long Sedge – Long sedge was found approximately 50 m outside the preferred corridor in a field- identified wetland near the Prince of Wales exit. This wetland did not appear on NBDNR maps but contained a small stream with some associated fen, marsh, and shrub wetland habitats. Two locations were identified for this species in its preferred habitat of shaded stream edges; however, each location represented only a few individual plants. This plant is ranked as “S3” by the AC CDC and as “Secure” by NBDNR.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 144

Hidden-fruited bladderwort - This aquatic plant was identified during surveys for the IPL as occurring in North Branch Campbell Brook within 50 m of the IPL RoW, which is approximately 30 m outside the preferred pipeline corridor. It is ranked “S2” by the AC CDC and as “Secure” by NBDNR. This plant was also identified during surveys for the SJL as occurring on the surface of a sphagnum-lined bog channel approximately 140 m south of the SJL RoW east of Hideaway Lake.

Twining bartonia - This plant is typically found in boggy habitats and was identified during surveys for the SJL as occurring on the Lepreau River in peaty cobble shoreline adjacent to the SJL RoW, and also approximately 96 m upstream of the preferred corridor (thereby placing it outside the preferred pipeline corridor at this location). It is ranked as “S2” by the AC CDC and as “Sensitive” by NBDNR.

Bayonet rush – Bayonet rush was found to be infrequently scattered in shallow, slow-moving waters near the shore of the St. Croix River, both within and outside the preferred corridor, in the same habitat as watershield and Indian wild rice. It was also identified during surveys for the IPL as occurring within the preferred pipeline corridor on the Magaguadavic River. In New Brunswick, it is ranked as “S3” by the AC CDC and as “Secure” by NBDNR.

This plant was also identified during surveys for the IPL as occurring in the Magaguadavic River within 50 m of the IPL RoW.

Lesser bladderwort - This aquatic plant was identified during surveys for the IPL as occurring in the Digdeguash River and Bonny River within 50 m of the IPL RoW and within the preferred pipeline corridor. It is ranked as “S2” by the AC CDC and as “Sensitive” by NBDNR.

Large purple-fringed orchis - This plant was identified during surveys for the IPL as occurring in Clarence Stream within 50 m of the IPL RoW and within the preferred pipeline corridor. It is ranked as “S3” by the AC CDC and as “Sensitive” by NBDNR. It is a plant of typically rich, moist woods.

Cardinal flower – Cardinal flower was found along the rocky shores of Dennis Stream within the preferred corridor, an area where it has been previously described. This species is ranked as “S3” by the AC CDC and as “Secure” by NBDNR.

Swamp rose - This plant was identified during surveys for the IPL as occurring in Bush Brook, which places it within the preferred pipeline corridor. It is ranked as “S2” by the AC CDC and as “Sensitive” by NBDNR. As the name suggests, swampy habitats are preferred by this species.

Southern arrow-wood - This plant was identified during surveys for the IPL as occurring along Mohannes Stream but outside the preferred pipeline corridor as the corridor deviates from the IPL RoW at this location. It is also known to occur along the shores of the St. Croix River (Hinds 2000) where it is likely more common, and has also been seen in moist hardwoods in the St. Stephen area. It was not, however, encountered during surveys of that area during the present study. It is ranked as “S2” by the AC CDC and as “Sensitive” by NBDNR.

Purple bladderwort - This aquatic plant was identified during surveys for the IPL as occurring in the St. Croix River within 50 m of the IPL RoW but outside the preferred pipeline corridor. It is ranked as “S2S3” by the AC CDC and as “Secure” by NBDNR.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 145

Watershield – Watershield was found to be infrequently scattered both within and outside the preferred corridor in shallow, slow-moving waters near the shore of the St. Croix River in the same habitat as bayonet rush and Indian wild rice. Watershield is ranked as “S3” by the AC CDC and as “Secure” by NBDNR.

Indian wild rice – This plant is usually found in shallow, still or slow-moving waters and is often planted to encourage the presence of waterfowl. It was found both within and outside the preferred corridor in the quiet near-shore waters of the St. Croix River and was frequently interspersed in this habitat with watershield and bayonet rush, which are described above. Indian wild rice was commonly used as a food source by First Nations peoples. Indian wild rice is ranked as “S3” by the AC CDC and as “Secure” by NBDNR. This species was found in and adjacent to the preferred corridor.

Species of conservation concern not encountered during field surveys but identified by the AC CDC as potentially occurring within the preferred corridor are presented in Table 4.5.2 (refer to Figures 4.5.1A and 4.5.1B). The locations of all these plants are described in the AC CDC database with an accuracy of approximately 500 m or greater and are therefore not likely to occur within 50 m of the preferred corridor. However, precise (less than 10 m accuracy) locations are available for coast sedge and watershield which occur to the west of Wetland #9 in the Lindy Lake Bog (Wetland #14) and are within the preferred corridor. Currently, the southern portion of Lindy Lake and a small portion of the associated wetland are described as falling within the preferred corridor. Table 4.5.2 Plant Species from the AC CDC Database Potentially Occurring Within the Preferred Corridor

Scientific Name and Location Common Name NBDNR Status** AC CDC Rank*

Geocaulon lividum – “S3” Northern Comandra Secure Prince of Wales Exit and Arethusa bulbosa – “S3” Swamp-Pink Secure Vicinity Carex exilis – “S2” Coast Sedge Secure Brasenia schreberi – “S3” Watershield Secure Digdeguash River Lobelia cardinalis – “S3” Cardinal Flower Secure Clarence Stream Schoenoplectus torreyi – “S3” Torrey's Bulrush Secure Waweig River Carex cryptolepis – “S3” Northeastern Sedge Secure Lobelia cardinalis – “S3” Cardinal Flower Secure Dennis Stream Platanthera hookeri – “S3” Hooker Orchis Secure Platanthera grandiflora – “S3” Large-Leaved Fringed-Orchis Secure Bush Brook Pyrola americana – “S3S4” American Wintergreen Secure Meadow Brook Utricularia minor – “S2” Lesser Bladderwort Sensitive Mohannes Stream Viburnum recognitum – “S2” Northern Arrow-Wood Not Ranked St. Croix River Boehmeria cylindrica – “S2” False Nettle Sensitive *AC CDC 2003 (see Table 4.4.1 for definitions of rarity rankings) **NBDNRE 2003 (see Table 4.4.1 for definitions of rarity rankings)

4.5.3 Vegetation-based ESAs and Other Constraints

Only three vegetation-based ESAs intersect with, or are located near, the preferred corridor (Table 4.5.3 and Figures 4.5.1A and 4.5.1B). It should be noted that these ESAs constitute watercourses along the shores of rivers where rare plants have been found during fieldwork related to projects described in this report or have been reported by other sources. However, the site where the preferred corridor will cross these rivers may be some distance from the biological feature for which the ESA was

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 146

established to protect. This is especially true of the Waweig River, where the corridor crosses 5 km north of the approximate known location of Gentiana rubricaulis. However, since this is also an aquatic-based ESA (pertaining to fish-runs), the entire river is considered an ESA, including the preferred corridor crossing point. Table 4.5.3 Vegetation-based ESAs Intersecting or in Proximity to the Preferred Corridor

Potential ESA Name Location Importance of ESA Interaction with Project

A diverse floodplain flora Rare plants near Magaguadavic River Flows into Passamaquoddy harbours rare species of the crossing are (Site ID 844) Bay at Saint George plants as well as Deer being avoided. Wintering Areas. Dry acid oak woods are the site of several rare plants. This site is well The moist woodland shore of north of the the river is the only currently proposed Spragues Falls At Woodland on the St. Croix known extant site in New crossing; however (Site ID 823) River. Brunswick of the common the St. Croix River lousewort (Pedicularis is considered a canadensis) formerly also sensitive area. known from Currie Mountain west of Fredericton. A roadside ditch near a The ESA is beaver pond between Waweig described as and Bartletts Mills along Route Waweig River Flows into St. Croix River, occupying only the 765 is one of only a few (Site ID 828) east of Oak Bay. mouth of the river, known locations in the which is not near province for Gentiana the crossing. rubricaulis. Permanent Sample Plots (PSPs) are found south of St. David Ridge and southeast of Wellington Lake. These sites were avoided during routing for the IPL. The preferred corridor runs through the southern edge of the Loch Alva Protected Area, which contains 21,925 ha of the two neighbouring ecoregions (i.e., Fundy Coastal Ecoregion and Valley Lowlands Ecoregion) (Figures 4.5.1A and 4.5.1B).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 147

4.6 Wetlands

Wetlands are defined by NBDNR as “land that has the water table at, near, or above the land’s surface, or which is saturated for long enough to promote wetland or aquatic processes as indicated by hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and various kinds of biological activity adapted to the wet environment”. The majority of the biodiversity of the landscape is known to be present in areas such as these, and it is partially for this reason such habitats are protected.

Specific terminology describing wetlands used in this EA will reflect what is used by NBDNR in their Inventory Mapping Data (NBDNR 2006). These terms include bogs, fens, shrub wetlands, forested wetlands, emergent wetlands, and aquatic beds (NBDNRE 2002) (Table 4.6.1). These terms are related to the five general wetland classes which exist in New Brunswick according to the Canadian Wetland Classification System: bog, swamp, marsh, fen, and shallow water (National Wetland Working Group 1997), as described in Table 4.6.2. Table 4.6.1 Wetland Classes according to the New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources Wetland Type Description Bog Typically covered by peat, having a saturated water regime, and having a closed drainage system (i.e. no water contributions from the upland). The surface is frequently covered by ericaceous shrubs, sedges and sphagnum moss. Black spruce are the common trees. Fen Typically covered by peat, having a saturated water regime, and having an open drainage system (i.e. receives water from surrounding upland areas through streams or runoff). The surface is typically covered by sedges. They are generally flat or lower in elevation than the surrounding land. Shrub Wetland Dominated by a variety of shrubs. Most commonly includes shrub-dominated marshes and alder thickets. Forested Forested areas with abundant standing water and the seasonally flooded forest of the Saint John River Wetland Valley. Not common in New Brunswick since most treed wetlands will fall under the ‘bog” classification. Emergent Dominated by rooted herbaceous plants. Includes most typical marshes as well as wet meadows. Wetland Aquatic Bed Dominated by shallow standing water and may be characterized by plants that grow on or below the surface of the water. Source: NBDNRE 2002

Table 4.6.2 Wetland Classes according to the Canadian Wetland Classification System Wetland Type Description Bog Dense layer of peat; acidic; low nutrient content; water table at or near the surface; usually covered with mosses, shrubs and sedges; trees possibly present Fen Covered with peat; water table at or near the surface; higher nutrient content than bogs; vegetation usually characterized by sedges and grasses; trees and shrubs may or may not be present. Swamp Stagnant or slow-flowing pool; high nutrient content; usually covered with trees or shrubbery. Marsh Periodically or permanently flooded; absence of trees; emergent vegetation; usually high nutrient content. Shallow Water Include basins, pools and ponds, as well as wetlands found beside rivers, coastlines and shorelines; submerged vegetation; floating leaved plants. Source: National Wetland Working Group 1997 4.6.1 Methodology

Survey sites were identified using topographic maps, aerial photography (GEODAT 2005), and NBDNR Inventory Mapping Data (NBDNR 2006). This process was conducted in concert with analysis of habitat which could potentially harbour plants at risk or species of conservation concern, since this is often the case for wetlands and riparian zones. Surveys were conducted along the preferred corridor to collect baseline data during the months of July, August, and September of 2005. Habitat, wetland class/type, hydrology, human usage, and the potential for rare species of wildlife (i.e., species at risk or species of conservation concern) were all assessed onsite.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 148

4.6.2 Results A total of 80 wetlands were identified during the desktop study and field surveys as occurring within the preferred corridor. No wetlands were identified within the corridor variants around Rockwood Park. The total area occupied by wetland habitat in the preferred corridor is estimated to be approximately 800 ha. Several of these wetlands, according to NBDNR mapping data, comprise differentiated habitats within a single wetland complex. These habitats are each treated separately in order to assess the environmental effects on each wetland and amount to a total of 110 discreet units. The vast majority of these are shrub wetlands, which occupy more than half the wetland area in the preferred corridor, followed in abundance by bogs, which comprise less than a quarter of wetland area. Forested wetlands, fens, aquatic beds and emergent wetlands make up the remaining area. Twelve wetlands were visited by field crews and are described in Table 4.6.3. Several smaller wetlands were identified during the course of these field surveys, which were predominantly alder thickets, shrub wetlands, and small treed swamps associated with existing watercourses and identified wetlands. The wetlands identified using NBDNR maps, wetlands identified by Fundy Engineering (2005), and the field-identified wetlands are all listed in Table 4.6.3. Identified wetlands and study sites visited by Jacques Whitford biologists are shown in Figures 4.6.1A and 4.6.1B. Wetlands described by NBDNR which have more than one vegetation class have those classes listed separately in Table 4.6.3. Studies of wetlands conducted by AMEC (2002) for the proposed IPL, by Washburn & Gillis (1998) for the SJL, and by Fundy Engineering (2005) for the CanaportTM LNG facility area are also taken into consideration in this EA. Digital data provided by NBDNR was used to manipulate figures in an attempt to provide accurate calculations of areas and specific habitats which could be affected by the Project. While several of the wetlands listed in Table 4.6.3 represent locations for vascular plant species of conservation concern, it appears the complex of wetlands in the vicinity of the Prince of Wales Exit offers the most concentrated populations of such species. Plants of conservation concern were also noted in the western and northern parts of the province towards the St. Croix River and in the vicinity of larger rivers such as the Magaguadavic and Didgeguash, as discussed in Section 4.5 (Vegetation). Studies conducted by AMEC along the IPL and by Washburn & Gillis along the SJL contain sufficient biophysical information for the purposes of completing wetland functional analysis reports. These data are based on detailed field investigations, aerial photographical study and study of the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) Wetlands Atlas for New Brunswick (CWS 1987). Wetlands identified by AMEC in the New Brunswick Wetlands Atlas were checked against mapping resources provided by NBDNR currently being used for this study, and were found to correspond well. There were additional wetlands identified in the SJL report as a result of field investigations that could not be located as part of the dataset provided by NBDNR. These were wetlands identified by the SJL pipeline project personnel that were not known to NBDNR at the time of that project. Supplementary field surveys of these wetlands to support detailed route selection in 2006 may be required to complete the functional analysis in order to develop appropriate mitigation/compensation for any Project activities that interact with these wetlands.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 149

Table 4.6.3 Data Gathered on Wetlands within the Preferred Corridor Wetland # Site Name Rare Species on Figures Wetland Wetland Habitat Wetland Area (ha) (where Present* Sources 4.6.1A and Identifier Type (where known) (where known) applicable) (where known) 4.6.1B This wetland was Small pond on the west side redelineated by Emergent Brown Beakrush 1 N/A Canaport of Canaport Road. Emergent Fundy Engineering Jacques Whitford 2004a wetland (“S2”: “Secure”) vegetation present. as part of their EIA Registration Fundy Engineering 2 N/A Canaport Unknown ~0.5 2005 Fundy Engineering 3 N/A Canaport Unknown ~10 2005 Fundy Engineering 4 N/A Canaport Unknown ~3 2005 Fundy Engineering 5 N/A Canaport Unknown ~4 2005 Shrub 6 93735 Alders on water 7.6 NBDNR Wetland

Emergent 7 9763 Shrub vegetation 4.1 NBDNR Wetland

Shrub 8 9552 Shrub vegetation 0.9 NBDNR Wetland

Alders on water; Marshland and some associated alder thicket border the trail to the Emergent southwest of Frying Pan 9 9567 1.9 NBDNR; Fieldwork Wetland Lake. An associated watercourse flows underneath a bridge along the pathway. Yellow Lady's Slipper (further field Cedar fen with steep rocky 10 W1 Rockwood Park Fen identification Fieldwork outcrops at eastern border. required for precise status)

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 150

Wetland # Site Name Rare Species on Figures Wetland Wetland Habitat Wetland Area (ha) (where Present* Sources 4.6.1A and Identifier Type (where known) (where known) applicable) (where known) 4.6.1B Shrub 11 10870 Alders on water 1.6 NBDNR Wetland 12 10823 Bog Shrub vegetation 69.4 NBDNR Fen Shrub vegetation 6.4 13 10744 NBDNR Fen Alders on water 3.0 Some wet meadows and thickets were found associated with a stream along which Long Sedge (S3) Shrub was discovered. Drainage in 14 W2 Prince of Wales Long Sedge (“S3”) Fieldwork Wetland this area has been affected by burms situated to the north of the site so wetlands are somewhat atypical in this area. Shrub Alders on water 8.3 Twining Bartonia Wetland (“S2”; “Sensitive”), Shrub 15 10593 Alders on water 4.7 Hidden-fruited NBDNR Wetland Bladder-wort (“S2”; Shrub Shrub vegetation 11.2 “Secure”) Wetland Shrub 16 10723 Shrub vegetation 1.7 NBDNR Wetland Emergent Emergent vegetation 17.4 Wetland Coast Sedge (“S2”; 17 10695 NBDNR Emergent “Secure”) Shrub vegetation 3.3 Wetland Shrub 18 93830 Alders on water 0.8 NBDNR Wetland Shrub 19 10775 Shrub vegetation 9.5 NBDNR Wetland Shrub 20 10762 Alders on water 2.6 NBDNR Wetland Shrub 21 10781 Alders on water 13.1 NBDNR Wetland

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 151

Wetland # Site Name Rare Species on Figures Wetland Wetland Habitat Wetland Area (ha) (where Present* Sources 4.6.1A and Identifier Type (where known) (where known) applicable) (where known) 4.6.1B Emergent Forested Vegetation 1.1 Wetland Open water with vegetation Emergent present on top of or near the 3.6 Wetland 22 10737 water surface NBDNR Emergent Alders on water 6.3 Wetland Emergent Alders on water 7.5 Wetland Shrub Alders on water 14.5 Wetland 23 10782 NBDNR Shrub Shrub vegetation 7.4 Wetland 24 10878 Bog Forested Vegetation 1.3 NBDNR Shrub 25 10882 Alders on water 4.1 NBDNR Wetland Shrub 26 11007 Alders on water 2.1 NBDNR Wetland Shrub 27 11005 Alders on water 1.8 NBDNR Wetland Shrub Alders on water 14.6 Wetland Shrub Shrub vegetation 10.2 Wetland 28 10888 NBDNR Shrub Shrub vegetation 4.6 Wetland Shrub Alders on water 0.3 Wetland 29 10872 Bog Forested Vegetation 12.1 NBDNR 30 10930 Bog Shrub vegetation 3.8 NBDNR Shrub 31 10843 Alders on water 8.9 NBDNR Wetland Bog Forested Vegetation 11.6 32 10966 NBDNR Bog Shrub vegetation 16.7

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 152

Wetland # Site Name Rare Species on Figures Wetland Wetland Habitat Wetland Area (ha) (where Present* Sources 4.6.1A and Identifier Type (where known) (where known) applicable) (where known) 4.6.1B Shrub 33 10865 Alders on water 15.1 NBDNR Wetland Bog Alders on water 3.7 Bog Forested Vegetation 1.6 34 10927 NBDNR Bog Shrub vegetation 0.6 Bog Forested Vegetation 35.5 Shrub vegetation 1.5 35 10899 Bog NBDNR Forested Vegetation 5.3 Shrub Shrub vegetation 2. 6 Wetland Shrub 36 10858 Emergent vegetation 5.9 NBDNR Wetland Shrub Alders on water 41.0 Wetland Shrub 37 10828 Alders on water 3.3 NBDNR Wetland 38 10766 Bog Forested Vegetation 4.6 NBDNR Shrub 39 93752 Alders on water 52.4 NBDNR Wetland Shrub 40 9815 Front Meadow Alders on water 20.0 NBDNR Wetland Shrub 41 9721 Front Meadow Alders on water 22.8 NBDNR Wetland Williamstown Shrub 42 9915 Alders on water 3.1 NBDNR Meadow Wetland West Shrub 43 93755 Williamstown Alders on water 6.6 NBDNR Wetland Meadow Shrub Shrub vegetation 0.5 Wetland 44 9948 NBDNR Shrub Shrub vegetation 1.3 Wetland Lesser Bladderwort 45 9956 Bonny River Fen Alders on water 10.1 NBDNR (“S2”; “Sensitive”)

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 153

Wetland # Site Name Rare Species on Figures Wetland Wetland Habitat Wetland Area (ha) (where Present* Sources 4.6.1A and Identifier Type (where known) (where known) applicable) (where known) 4.6.1B Shrub Forested Vegetation 4.6 Wetland Large bog was explored but no rare species or rich-habitat Shrub species were found. Habitat 7.5 Wetland consisted mostly of 46 9985 Dowdall Meadow ericaceous shrubs. NBDNR Shrub Shrub vegetation 5.2 Wetland Shrub Emergent vegetation 3.1 Wetland Shrub Shrub vegetation 2.1 Wetland Shrub Guntree Brook Alders on water 3.7 Wetland Open water with vegetation Shrub Guntree Brook present on top of or near the 2.0 Wetland 47 9884 water surface NBDNR Shrub Guntree Brook Alders on water 9.7 Wetland Shrub Guntree Brook Shrub vegetation 4.1 Wetland Large Purple-fringe Orchis (“S3”; Shrub 48 9641 Clarence Stream Shrub vegetation 15.6 “Secure”), Torrey’s NBDNR Wetland bulrush (“S3”; “Secure”) Shrub Emergent vegetation 18.1 Wetland 49 9825 Gardner Brook NBDNR Shrub Alders on water 18.0 Wetland Forested 50 9840 Forested Vegetation 2.7 NBDNR Wetland Fen Shrub vegetation 5.5 51 9725 Black Brook Fen Emergent vegetation 11.6 NBDNR Fen Alders on water 6.0

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 154

Wetland # Site Name Rare Species on Figures Wetland Wetland Habitat Wetland Area (ha) (where Present* Sources 4.6.1A and Identifier Type (where known) (where known) applicable) (where known) 4.6.1B Scattered fen wetlands containing cedars were 52 W3 Black Brook Fen observed within the corridor Fieldwork near the large wetland delineated by NBDNR. Cardinal Flower (“S3”; “Secure”), Shrub 53 9920 Didgeguash Shrub vegetation 3.7 Lesser Bladder- NBDNR Wetland wort (“S2”; “Secure”) Open water with vegetation Hidden-fruited present on top of or near the 2.5 Bladder-wort (“S2”; North Campbell Emergent 54 9961 water surface “Secure”) NBDNR Stream Wetland Emergent vegetation 3.2

Emergent Watershield (“S3”; 55 10005 Doyle Lake Emergent vegetation 7.8 NBDNR Wetland “Secure”) Some alder thicket associated with a small Shrub watercourse was seen to 56 W4 Near Doyle Lake Fieldwork Wetland cross the corridor through mixed cutover coniferous forest. Northeastern Shrub 57 35598 Waweig River Shrub vegetation 3.1 Sedge (“S3”; NBDNR Wetland “Secure”) Shrub 58 35616 Berry Brook Alders on water 4.0 NBDNR Wetland Shrub 59 35637 Shrub vegetation 6.3 NBDNR Wetland 60 35608 Aquatic bed Open water 1.6 NBDNR Shrub 61 35605 Alders on water 3.2 NBDNR Wetland Shrub 62 35603 Shrub vegetation 0.8 NBDNR Wetland Shrub 63 35635 Shrub vegetation 1.2 NBDNR Wetland Shrub 64 35632 Alders on water 1.1 NBDNR Wetland Shrub Cardinal Flower 65 35587 Dennis Stream Shrub vegetation 2.2 NBDNR Wetland (“S3”; “Secure”)

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 155

Wetland # Site Name Rare Species on Figures Wetland Wetland Habitat Wetland Area (ha) (where Present* Sources 4.6.1A and Identifier Type (where known) (where known) applicable) (where known) 4.6.1B A small, stagnant vernal pool with little associated wetland. It is situated near the centre Shrub 66 W5 Dennis Stream of the preferred corridor. <1.0 Fieldwork Wetland Cardinal flower (S3) was found scattered along Dennis Stream. Dennis Stream Shrub NBDNR 67 35591 Shrub vegetation 3.5 Wetland 68 Dennis Stream Shrub NBDNR 93767 Shrub vegetation 9.6 Wetland 69 Dennis Stream Shrub NBDNR 35618 Shrub vegetation 2.2 Wetland 70 Dennis Stream Shrub NBDNR 35644 Shrub vegetation 2.8 Wetland 71 Dennis Stream Shrub NBDNR 35631 Shrub vegetation 11.0 Wetland Shrub 72 35661 Bush Brook Shrub vegetation 9.9 NBDNR Wetland Shrub 73 35678 Shrub vegetation 19.8 NBDNR Wetland Shrub 74 35685 Alders on water 14.3 NBDNR Wetland Shrub 75 35689 Alders on water 10.6 NBDNR Wetland Mohannes Shrub 76 35714 Alders on water 4.7 NBDNR Stream Wetland 77 35727 Aquatic bed Emergent vegetation 4.1 NBDNR Shrub 78 35733 Shrub vegetation 6.9 NBDNR Wetland Magaguadavic Shrub 79 93731 Alders on water 3.4 NBDNR River Wetland Magaguadavic Shrub 80 93738 Alders on water 4.0 NBDNR River Weltand *See Table 4.4.1 for definitions of rarity rankings

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 156

4.7 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

There are 57 species of mammals and approximately 25 species of amphibians and reptiles native to New Brunswick (Dilworth 1984; Gorham 1970). The variety of habitats present within the Assessment Area (defined in Section 5.6, Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat VEC) are expected to support a mammalian species assemblage that includes herbivores (e.g., deer, moose), insectivores (e.g., bats), carnivores (e.g., bobcat), and omnivores (e.g., bear, fox). Similarly, a variety of salamanders, frogs, turtles, and snakes are expected to be present within the Assessment Area.

Of the approximately 409 bird species that have been documented to occur in New Brunswick (NBBRC 2004), breeding bird surveys summarized by Erskine (1992) indicate 148 species of birds reported to potentially use breeding habitat within the general area of the preferred corridor. The majority of these species (approximately 62%) breed in forested habitat.

The following sections present information on faunal species which are of particular interest due to potential disturbance as a result of Project development. Available information on the known occurrence of faunal species at risk and species of conservation concern in the Assessment Area was compiled and reviewed to determine their presence relative to the preferred corridor. Sources included SARA, the NB ESA, the AC CDC database, and NBDNR rankings. Refer to Table 4.4.1 for definitions of the AC CDC and NBDNR rankings. Breeding bird surveys were also completed in July 2005 to identify bird species present at selected locations along the preferred corridor (Figures 4.7.1A and 4.7.1B).

4.7.1 Mammals

4.7.1.1 Mammal Species at Risk

Mammal species at risk include those listed as “Extirpated”, “Endangered” or “Threatened” on Schedule 1 of SARA and those protected under the NB ESA. No New Brunswick mammal species are listed on Schedule 1 of SARA.

The eastern population of cougar (Felis concolor) is listed as “Endangered” under the NB ESA. The species is not listed under SARA as it is considered “Data Deficient”. Similarly, the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) is listed as “Regionally Endangered” under the NB ESA.

The habitat requirements of the cougar in New Brunswick are not known. However, elsewhere throughout its range cougars have been found in a variety of habitats ranging from large swampy areas to dense coniferous stands. The major prey species in these areas is white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus).

In New Brunswick, Canada lynx tend to inhabit forested wilderness areas, favouring mature forests with a dense undercover of thickets and windfalls. They will inhabit other types of habitat as long as they contain minimal forest cover and adequate numbers of prey (i.e., snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus)).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 157

In New Brunswick, lynx are reported to mostly inhabit the northern portion of the Saint John River basin (Choates 1973).

Both lynx and cougar tend to be wide-ranging, and suitable habitat for both species is likely distributed throughout the Assessment Area. The preferred corridor is not known to represent important limiting habitat for either species. However the AC CDC database search within 5 km of the preferred corridor returned two records for lynx, a species listed by the AC CDC as “S1”.

4.7.1.2 Mammal Species of Conservation Concern

Mammal species of conservation concern include those listed as “Special Concern” on Schedule 1 and those listed on Schedules 2 and 3 of SARA, those designated as “At Risk”, “May Be At Risk”, or “Sensitive” by NBDNR, and those identified as “Extremely Rare”, “Rare” or “Uncommon” in the AC CDC database for which records of rare element occurrences have been identified in the preferred corridor.

The Gaspé shrew (Sorex gaspensis) is listed as “Special Concern” on Schedule 3 of SARA, indicating that the status of this species is undergoing review to determine whether it will be placed on Schedule 1 in the future (Environment Canada 2005d). The Gaspé shrew is considered “May Be At Risk” by NBDNR (2005a). This species has been reported to inhabit a restricted range on islands in north central New Brunswick and is unlikely to inhabit areas of the preferred corridor.

Other mammal species that have been assessed to be “Sensitive” by NBDNR include eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus), little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), and northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). Eastern pipistrelle, northern long-eared bat, and little brown bat are most sensitive during the winter months when regional populations have congregated into a few locations to hibernate. Disturbance at these sites can potentially result in the deaths of large numbers of bats. The sink holes associated with karst topography often form over solution caves, which can provide hibernation sites for a number of bat species including eastern pipistrelle, which prefer solution caves. No major hibernation sites have been identified within the preferred corridor. There are a number of caves in Rockwood Park, located within Saint John; however, these are avoided by the preferred corridor. These caves support few hibernating bats due to human disturbance or environmental factors (McAlpine, pers. comm.). A search of the AC CDC database within 5 km of the preferred corridor returned records for big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), eastern pipistrelle, eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis), and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), all which are listed as “S2?” in the AC CDC database (refer to Table 4.4.1).

The long-tailed shrew (Sorex dispar) is considered “May Be At Risk” (NBDNR 2005a). This species has only been recorded in Albert County in southern New Brunswick and Colchester County in northern Nova Scotia. The range of long-tailed shrew in nearby Maine extends only to the central part of the state. Long-tailed shrews inhabit humid, moss-covered talus slopes within softwood or sometimes deciduous forests. Therefore, long-tailed shrews are unlikely to inhabitat areas of the preferred corridor.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 158

4.7.2 Birds

4.7.2.1 Bird Species at Risk

The Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), Eskimo Curlew (Numenius borealis), and Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii) are listed as “Endangered” on Schedule 1 of SARA. Piping Plover is also considered “Endangered” under the NB ESA. Piping Plovers are migrants that nest on sandy beaches along the eastern seaboard and in Atlantic Canada. The status of the Eskimo Curlew is uncertain and in 1978 it was estimated that as few as 20 individuals remained. Historically, this species migrated through Atlantic Canada in large numbers, feeding on berry crops in a variety of coastal and terrestrial habitats (Environment Canada 2005d). Roseate Terns breed along the Atlantic coast in Nova Scotia and Quebec although they have been observed in New Brunswick (Environment Canada 2005d). It is not likely that any of these species inhabit the preferred corridor.

The Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) and Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) are listed as “Threatened” on Schedule 1 of SARA, whereas Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) is listed as “Special Concern”. Harlequin Duck and Peregrine Falcon are also considered “Endangered” under the NB ESA. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is considered “Regionally Endangered” under the NB ESA. The Least Bittern inhabits dense marshes around freshwater lakes and rivers with the majority of nesting birds found in Ontario (Environment Canada 2005d). In southern New Brunswick, it has been reported at Red Head Marsh, Musquash, and Piries Lake (Erskine 1992). A search of the AC CDC database within 5 km of the preferred corridor returned four records for Least Bittern (“S1S2”). In Atlantic Canada, Peregrine Falcons inhabit coastal areas during migration from northern areas to their wintering grounds in the southern U.S. and Central and South America. No critical habitat for these species has been identified within the preferred corridor, and therefore it is not likely that any of these species inhabit the preferred corridor, with the possible exception of Bald Eagle. The locations of well established Bald Eagle nests generally are known in New Brunswick. While there are no known Bald Eagle nests along the preferred corridor, there was one Bald Eagle record during bird surveys (Section 4.7.2.3).

4.7.2.2 Bird Species of Conservation Concern

Yellow Rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis) and the eastern population of Barrow’s Goldeneye (Bucephala islandica) are listed as “Special Concern” on Schedule 1 of SARA. Yellow Rail are known to breed throughout New Brunswick, typically in marshes dominated by sedges, true grasses, and rushes, where there is little or no standing water (Environment Canada 2005d). The eastern population of Barrow’s Goldeneye has only been documented to breed in Quebec; however, small numbers of wintering birds are found in coastal areas of Atlantic Canada (Environment Canada 2005d). It is unlikely that either of these species inhabit the preferred corridor, given the lack of suitable habitat. It is possible that Yellow Rail may be found in habitat adjacent to the preferred corridor; however, generally the preferred corridor avoids the type of wetland habitat (i.e., marshes) in which this species is found.

Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus), Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus), and Bicknell’s Thrush (Catharus bicknelli) are listed as “Special Concern” on Schedule 3 of SARA. Red-shouldered Hawk is

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 159

known to breed occasionally in New Brunswick, preferring deciduous or mixedwood forests. In contrast, the Short-eared Owl is an open ground hunter. Both species may use suitable habitats in the vicinity of the preferred corridor. A search of the AC CDC database within 5 km of the preferred corridor returned nine records of Red-shouldered Hawk (“S2”). Bicknell’s Thrush breeds mainly in high elevation, dense and stunted fir/spruce forests with an average canopy height ranging from 3-7 m in New Brunswick (Environment Canada 2005d). In the south it is also known from Grand Manan Island and other scattered locations along the southern Fundy Coast (Erskine 1992). In coastal habitats dense low spruces are used. It is not expected that Bicknell’s Thrush inhabits the preferred corridor since preferred breeding habitat is uncommon in this area; however, there was one record during bird surveys (Section 4.7.2.3).

4.7.2.3 Breeding Bird Surveys

Breeding bird surveys were conducted at 17 sites along the preferred corridor between July 15 and July 22, 2005 by two experienced bird surveyors (refer to Figures 4.7.1A and 4.7.1B for the location of breeding bird survey sites). The 17 areas represented two broad habitat types: wetland and mature forest. During morning surveys, all bird species that were observed or heard within approximately 200 m of the preferred corridor were recorded. Morning surveys started no earlier than 05:00, and ended no later than 13:45. Evidence of breeding activity was gathered for each identified species with techniques used in the Maritime Breeding Bird Atlas Project (Erskine 1992). Evidence from breeding observations was used to determine the breeding status of each species. Each bird observed or heard was documented, indicating its breeding status and habitat association.

Evening surveys were conducted at several sites where there was suitable access. Evening surveys started no earlier than 17:00, and ended no later than 21:50. Evening surveys followed a similar protocol to morning surveys; however, observations were made from available road access and did not necessarily cover all habitat at the site.

The survey site located at the confluence of the Lake Utopia Spur off the SJL and the SJL exhibited the greatest species diversity (78 species recorded) and the greatest number of individual birds (507). This area is largely grassland, within the RoWs of the existing pipelines, and possibly provides increased foraging opportunities for a variety of bird species in comparison to the surrounding forested area.

A total of 111 species of birds were recorded during the surveys (750 records, with a total of 4,623 individual birds). The most numerous species recorded overall was the Black-capped Chickadee (349 individuals). The most numerous species recorded in the forest habitat type and the wetland habitat type were the Black-capped Chickadee (301 individuals) and the White-throated Sparrow (64 individuals), respectively. Table 4.7.1 indicates the number of individual birds recorded during the surveys and the highest observed breeding status for each species.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 160

Table 4.7.1 Total Avian Species Recorded During Surveys from July 15-22, 2005 Forest Wetland Highest Highest Common Name Latin Name Total Breeding Total Breeding Total Reported Status Reported Status Recorded* Recorded* Common Loon Gavia immer 3 PO 3 Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura 1 PO 9 PO 10 Wood Duck Aix sponsa 2 CO 2 Hooded Merganser Lophodytes 3 CO 3 cucullatus Common Merganser Mergus merganser 7 CO 7 Osprey Pandion haliaetus 2 CO 2 Bald Eagle Haliaeetus 1 PO 1 leucocephalus Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus 3 PO 3 Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipter striatus 1 CO 1 Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii 2 CO 2 Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus 9 CO 4 CO 13 Red-Tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis 1 CO 1 American Kestrel Falco sparverius 5 CO 5 Spruce Grouse Falcipennis 13 CO 13 canadensis Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus 20 CO 20 Killdeer Charadrius 4 CO 4 vociferus Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria 3 CO 3 American Woodcock Scolopax minor 3 CO 3 Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura 25 CO 5 PR 30 Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus 2 CO 2 Barred Owl Strix varia 8 CO 8 Long-eared Owl Asio otus 5 CO 2 CO 7 Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor 35 CO 4 PO 39 Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus 1 CO 3 CO 4 vociferus Ruby-throated Archilochus 5 CO 1 PO 6 Hummingbird colubris Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcon 3 CO 3 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius 30 CO 2 CO 32 Downy Woodpecker Picoides 23 CO 1 PO 24 pubescens Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus 29 CO 1 PO 30 Black-backed Picoides articus 12 CO 3 PR 15 Woodpecker Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus 75 CO 9 CO 84 Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus 24 CO 1 PO 25 Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi 15 CO 15 Eastern Wood Pewee Contopus virens 10 CO 10 Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Empidonax 166 CO 9 CO 175 flaviventris Alder Flycatcher Empidonax 31 CO 9 PR 40 alnorum Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii 1 PO 1 Least Flycatcher Empidonax 11 CO 1 PO 12 minimus Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe 4 CO 1 PO 5 Great crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus 6 CO 6 Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor 10 CO 10

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 161

Table 4.7.1 Total Avian Species Recorded During Surveys from July 15-22, 2005 Forest Wetland Highest Highest Common Name Latin Name Total Breeding Total Breeding Total Reported Status Reported Status Recorded* Recorded* Northern Rough-winged Stelgidopteryx 1 CO 1 Swallow serripennis Bank Swallow Riparia riparia 3 OB 3 Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon 8 OB 8 pyrrhonota Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica 4 OB 4 Gray Jay Perisoreus 21 CO 1 PO 22 canadensis Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata 38 CO 7 CO 45 American Crow Corvus 39 CO 14 PO 53 brachyrhyncos Common Raven Corvus corax 50 CO 12 CO 62 Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapilla 301 CO 48 CO 349 Boreal Chickadee Poecile hudsonica 77 CO 77 Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis 162 CO 14 CO 176 White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis 5 CO 5 Brown Creeper Certhia americana 40 CO 2 CO 42 Winter Wren Troglodytes 55 CO 4 PO 59 troglodytes Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa 172 CO 8 CO 180 Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula 35 CO 35 Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis 4 CO 4 Veery Catharus 57 CO 57 fuscescens Bicknell's Thrush Catharus bicknelli 1 CO 1 Swanson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus 149 CO 20 PR 169 Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus 218 CO 45 CO 263 Wood Thrush Hylocichla 9 CO 2 PO 11 mustelina American Robin Turdus migratorius 110 CO 34 CO 144 Gray Catbird Dumetella 1 CO 1 carolinensis Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla 17 CO 2 PR 19 cedrorum Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius 83 CO 8 PR 91 Philadelphia Vireo Vireo 1 CO 1 philadelphieus Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus 55 CO 11 PO 66 Tennessee Warbler Vermivora 13 CO 8 PO 21 peregrina Nashville Warbler Vermivora 91 CO 28 CO 119 ruficapilla Northern Parula Warbler Parula americana 45 CO 6 CO 51 Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia 21 CO 21 Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica 23 CO 23 pensylvanica Magnolia Warbler Dendroica 259 CO 26 CO 285 magnolia Cape May Warbler Dendroica tengrina 2 CO 2 Black-throated Blue Dendroica 15 CO 15 Warbler caerulescens Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata 134 CO 8 CO 142

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 162

Table 4.7.1 Total Avian Species Recorded During Surveys from July 15-22, 2005 Forest Wetland Highest Highest Common Name Latin Name Total Breeding Total Breeding Total Reported Status Reported Status Recorded* Recorded* Black-throated Green Dendroica virens 137 CO 10 CO 147 Warbler Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca 26 CO 26 Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus 10 CO 10 Palm Warbler Dendroica 8 CO 1 CO 9 palmarum Bay-breasted Warbler Dendroica 31 CO 3 CO 34 castanea Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia 86 CP 7 PO 93 American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla 85 CO 85 Ovenbird Seiurus 53 CO 13 CO 66 aurocapillus Northern Waterthrush Seiurus 12 CO 12 noveboracensis Mourning Warbler Oporornis 2 CO 2 philadelphia CommonYellowthroat Geothlypis trichas 76 CO 26 CO 102 Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla 4 CO 4 Canada Warbler Wilsonia 42 CO 11 CO 53 canadensis Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus 2 PO 2 ludovicianus Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea 1 PO 1 Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina 8 CO 3 PO 11 Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia 14 CO 5 PO 19 Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolinii 3 CO 2 CO 5 Swamp Sparrow Melodpiza 14 CO 6 PR 20 georgiana White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia 162 CO 64 CO 226 albicollis Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis 173 CO 9 CO 182 Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius 3 CO 1 PO 4 phoeniceus Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus 14 CO 4 CO 18 Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula 26 CO 26 Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula 2 CO 2 Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater 1 PO 1 Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enudleator 7 CO 7 Purple Finch Carpodacus 51 CO 9 CO 60 purpureus Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra 4 CO 4 White-winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera 14 CO 2 PO 16 Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus 21 CO 7 CO 28 American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis 29 CO 6 PR 35 Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes 5 CO 2 PR 7 vespertinus Total 4,059 564 4,623 *OB=Observed Only; PO=Possible Breeder; PR=Probable Breeder; CO=Confirmed Breeder

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 163

Several species of conservation concern were recorded during the surveys, and are listed in Table 4.7.2. Bald Eagle, a species at risk pursuant to the NB ESA, was also observed during the surveys. No SARA-listed species were observed during surveys. Table 4.7.2 Avian Species at Risk and Species of Conservation Concern Recorded During Surveys from July 15-22, 2005 AC CDC Common Name Scientific Name NBDNR Status* Rank* Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura S2 Secure Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus S4 Regionally Endangered Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii S1S2 May Be At Risk Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis S4 Sensitive Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria S2 (S3M) Secure Long-eared Owl Asio otus S2S3 Undetermined Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor S4 Sensitive Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus S3 Sensitive Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii S1S2 Sensitive Great-crested Myiarchus crinitus S4 Sensitive Flycatcher Northern Rough- Stelgidopteryx serripennis S2 Sensitive winged Swallow Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis S3 Sensitive Bicknell's Thrush Catharus bicknelli S2 May Be At Risk Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina S3 May Be At Risk Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus S2S3 Sensitive Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea S3 Secure Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enudleator S3 Sensitive Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra S2S3 Secure Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus S4 Sensitive *See Table 4.4.1 for definitions of rarity rankings Turkey Vultures are often found nesting on cliffs or ledges associated with woodlands, or overlooking open grasslands. Nine individuals were observed at a site in wetland habitat and were recorded as possible breeders due to the presence of nearby suitable nesting habitat. One other individual observed in forested habitat was also recorded as a possible breeder due to the presence of nearby suitable nesting habitat. The breeding population of Turkey Vultures in New Brunswick is considered “Secure” by NBDNR, but is ranked “S2” by the AC CDC.

Bald Eagles prefer to nest in tall trees near large open bodies of water such as lakes and marshes where they have quick access to fish. A single individual was observed during a morning survey at Site 14, and was given the status of possible breeder, due to its presence in suitable breeding habitat. The breeding population of Bald Eagles in New Brunswick is considered “Regionally Endangered” by NBDNR, and has been assigned the rank of “S4” by the AC CDC.

Cooper’s Hawk is most commonly found nesting in riparian or wetland forests. During surveys, a pair of Cooper’s Hawk was observed near Site 18. The pair was observed attending young at a nest, thus confirming breeding. Outside of the survey sites, a newly fledged female Cooper’s Hawk was seen in Oak Bay. The breeding population of Cooper’s Hawks in New Brunswick is considered “May Be At Risk” by NBDNR, and is ranked “S1S2” by the AC CDC.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 164

Red-tailed Hawks prefer to nest in woodlands, frequently foraging in cutovers and other open areas. A single Red-tailed Hawk was observed during an evening survey at Site 14, in forested habitat. This individual was confirmed to be breeding due to the presence of recently fledged young. The breeding population of Red-tailed Hawks in New Brunswick is considered “Sensitive” by NBDNR, although it is ranked an “S4” species by the AC CDC.

Solitary Sandpipers nest in swampy margins of wetland habitats and are frequently found far from the coast. Three individuals were observed in forested habitat at one site during the surveys. These individuals were recorded as confirmed breeders due to the presence of fledged young. The breeding population of Solitary Sandpipers in New Brunswick is considered “Secure” by NBDNR, but is ranked “S2” (“S3” for the migratory population) by the AC CDC.

Long-eared Owls nest almost exclusively in stick nests built by other bird species. These nests are usually located in wooded sites, often screened by vegetation. During the surveys, seven Long-eared Owls were observed. A pair of Long-eared Owls observed attending young in wetland habitat were recorded as confirmed breeders. The remaining five individuals were sighted in woodland habitats. Of these, three were recorded as possible breeders due to their presence in suitable nesting habitat, whereas the other two individuals were recorded as confirmed breeders because fledged young were observed. The status of these birds is “Undetermined” by NBDNR; however, they are listed as an “S2S3” species by the AC CDC.

Common Nighthawks prefer to nest in open and semi-open habitats such as clearings, cultivated fields and rocky outcrops. A total of 39 individuals were observed at 12 different sites during the surveys. Four of the individuals were sighted in wetland habitats and were recorded as possible breeders, whereas the remaining 35 individuals were observed in forested habitats. Of the 35 birds found in forested habitats, 21 were confirmed as breeders, eight were recorded as probable breeders since they exhibited territorial behaviour, and 10 individuals were recorded as possible breeders due to their presence in suitable nesting habitat. The breeding population of Common Nighthawks in New Brunswick is considered “Sensitive” by NBDNR, although it is ranked “S4” by the AC CDC.

Whip-poor-wills are most often found in mixed stands of deciduous and coniferous forests of a medium age. Four individuals were observed at two different sites during the surveys. Three of these birds were observed in a wetland habitat and were recorded as confirmed breeders due to the presence of fledged young. The remaining individual was found in forested habitat and was recorded as a possible breeder due to its presence in a suitable nesting habitat. The breeding population of Whip-poor-will in New Brunswick is considered “Sensitive” by NBDNR, and is ranked “S3” by the AC CDC.

Willow Flycatchers frequent shrubby habitats (Erskine 1992). A single Willow Flycatcher was observed in forested habitat during the surveys. This individual was recorded as a possible breeder due to its presence in suitable breeding habitat. The breeding population of Willow Flycatchers is considered “Sensitive” in New Brunswick by NBDNR, and is ranked as an “S1S2” species by the AC CDC.

Great-crested Flycatchers prefer to nest in woodlands (Erskine 1992). Six individuals were observed at two woodland sites (Sites 4 and 16). All six birds were confirmed breeders as evidenced by the birds sitting on nests and attending young. The breeding population of Great-crested Flycatchers in New

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 165

Brunswick is considered “Sensitive” by NBDNR, although it is ranked as an “S4” species by the AC CDC.

Northern Rough-winged Swallows prefer to nest in cliff-type habitats such as rocky gorges, road cuts, gravel pits, and railroad embankments. During the survey at Site 5, a single Northern Rough-winged Swallow was observed. This individual was recorded as a confirmed breeder because of the presence of fledged young. The breeding population of Northern Rough-winged Swallow in New Brunswick is considered “Sensitive” by NBDNR, and is ranked “S2” by the AC CDC.

Eastern Bluebirds show a preference for nesting in habitats with sparse vegetation and scattered trees. Four individuals were observed at Site 14 during the surveys. These individuals were recorded as confirmed breeders since fledged young were observed. The breeding population of Eastern Bluebird in New Brunswick is considered “Sensitive” by NBDNR and is ranked “S3” by the AC CDC.

Bicknell’s Thrush breeds mainly in high elevation, dense and stunted fir/spruce forests with an average canopy height ranging from 3-7 m in New Brunswick (Environment Canada 2005d). In the south it is also known from Grand Manan Island and other scattered locations along the southern Fundy Coast (Erskine 1992). In coastal habitats dense low spruces are typically used. Bicknell’s Thrush was recorded at Site 16 within the SJL RoW, carrying food. This site is approximately 13 km from the coast. No typical habitat for Bicknell’s Thrush was seen in the vicinity of the preferred corridor near this site. The breeding population of Bicknell’s Thrush in New Brunswick is considered “May Be At Risk” by NBDNR. The AC CDC rank for this species is “S2”.

Wood Thrushes most often occur in hardwood forests near local seepage areas (Erskine 1992). A total of 11 individuals were recorded at five sites. Four of the sites were forested habitats and one site was wetland habitat. Three of the individuals were confirmed breeders due to the presence of fledged young. The remaining eight individuals were recorded as possible breeders due to their presence in suitable breeding habitat. The breeding population of Wood Thrushes in New Brunswick is considered “May Be At Risk” by NBDNR. The AC CDC rank for this species is “S3”.

Pine Warblers prefer to nest in mature pine stands. Ten individuals were observed at four forested habitat sites. Eight of these individuals were recorded as confirmed breeders because they were observed attending young. The remaining two individuals were recorded as possible breeders due to their presence in suitable nesting habitat. The breeding population of Pine Warblers in New Brunswick is considered “Sensitive” by NBDNR and is ranked “S2S3” by the AC CDC.

Indigo Buntings nest in bushy areas, along edge habitats, such as roadways, farmed land, and riparian habitats. One individual was observed in forested habitat during the surveys. This individual was recorded as a possible breeder due to its presence in suitable nesting habitat. The breeding population of Indigo Bunting in New Brunswick is considered “Secure” by NBDNR, although it is ranked as “S3” by the AC CDC.

Pine Grosbeaks prefer to nest in moist, open spruce-pine forests. Seven individuals were observed in three forested habitat sites during the surveys. Five of these birds were recorded as confirmed breeders because they were observed attending young or fledged young were present. The two

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 166

remaining birds were recorded as probable breeders due to their presence in suitable nesting habitat. The breeding population of these birds in New Brunswick is considered “Sensitive” by NBDNR and is ranked “S3” by the AC CDC.

Red Crossbills most commonly nest in mature conifer forests. Four individuals were observed in forested habitat at one site during the surveys. These individuals were recorded as confirmed breeders because of the presence of fledged young. The breeding population of Red Crossbills in New Brunswick is considered “Secure” by NBDNR, but they are ranked as an “S2S3” species by the AC CDC.

Purple Finches prefer to nest in coniferous trees, but have been known to frequent open mixed woodland, well-treed gardens, and spruce/fir forests (Erskine 1992). A total of 60 individuals were recorded during surveys. Nine of the individuals were recorded in wetland habitat and 51 were found in forested habitat. Fifty-seven individuals were recorded as confirmed breeders due to the presence of active nests or young. Three individuals were recorded as possible breeders because they were observed in suitable breeding habitat. The breeding population of Purple Finches in New Brunswick is considered “Sensitive” by NBDNR, while it is ranked as an “S4” species by the AC CDC.

4.7.2.4 Other Bird Species of Conservation Concern

In addition to the species identified during field surveys, Table 4.7.3 identifies other bird species of conservation concern identified by NBDNR within the Assessment Area. Table 4.7.3 also indicates whether a record of the species was returned during a search of the AC CDC database within 5 km of the preferred corridor. These species were not observed during the bird surveys. Table 4.7.3 Other Bird Species of Conservation Concern Record Returned Common Name Scientific Name by the AC CDC NBDNR Status* (AC CDC Rank)* Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus No (S2B) Sensitive Eastern Meadowlark Sutrnella magna Yes (S2B) May Be At Risk Horned Lark Eremophila alperstris Yes (S3B) May Be At Risk Yellow Rail Coturnicops No (S1?B) May Be At Risk noveboracensis Virginia Rail Rallus limicola Yes (S3B) Sensitive Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Yes (S2B) May Be At Risk Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow Ammodramus nelsoni Yes (S3B) Secure American Coot Fulica Americana No (S2B) Sensitive Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Yes (S2B) Sensitive Green Heron Butorides virescens Yes (S2B) Sensitive Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum Yes (S2B) Sensitive Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica No (S4B) Sensitive Purple Martin Progne subis No (S3B) Sensitive House Wren Troglodytes aedon Yes (S1B) Status Undetermined Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris Yes (S2B) Sensitive Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater No (S4B) May Be At Risk Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Yes (S2B) Sensitive Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos No (S3B) Sensitive Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis No (S4B) Sensitive Three-toed Woodpecker Picoides tridactylus Yes (S3) Sensitive *See Table 4.4.1 for definitions of rarity rankings

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 167

4.7.3 Herpetiles

4.7.3.1 Herpetile Species at Risk

The leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) is listed as “Endangered” on Schedule 1 of SARA and as “Endangered” under the NB ESA (Environment Canada 2005d). The leatherback turtle is a marine reptile species known to use marine habitat on the east coast of Canada, generally between June and October (Environment Canada 2005d), and would not be found within the preferred corridor.

4.7.3.2 Herpetile Species of Conservation Concern

The wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) is listed as “Special Concern” on Schedule 3 of SARA and is considered “Sensitive” by NBDNR. The species nests on open sandy areas next to water, such as high riverbanks, road sides, rail embankments, and wetlands. Hibernacula are found in fast flowing watercourses. Wood turtles are slow to mature, long-lived, and have only modest reproductive potential. As such, any disturbance that reduces hatching success, recruitment of juveniles into the adult population, or increases mortality of the adult breeding population above a normal level, can result in precipitous population declines. Directed intensive removal of adults and juveniles for the commercial pet trade has been identified as the primary cause of population decline; however, disturbances to beach areas, pollution and sedimentation of watercourses, and habitat changes that favour generalists (e.g., striped skunk, red fox, raccoon) that prey on eggs, are also factors affecting wood turtle populations.

The AC CDC database search within 5 km of the preferred corridor returned seven records for wood turtle, listed as “S3” in the AC CDC database. Wood turtles were observed at Black Brook and Dennis Stream during surveys in August 2001 for the IPL (AMEC 2002). A single wood turtle was observed at each site, up to 65 m from the watercourse, where they were foraging in the woods. While suitable nesting habitat was not identified within or near the IPL RoW at either site, it was speculated that nesting may occur in man-made embankments such as the railroad bed at Dennis Stream, and that hibernation may occur within the watercourse at either crossing location (AMEC 2002).

The dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus) is also considered “Sensitive” by NBDNR. This species is found in forest brooks, seepage areas, and near springs. The AC CDC database search within 5 km of the preferred corridor returned three records for dusky salamander, listed as “S3” in the database. Eighteen records of the grey tree frog (Hyla versicolor; “S3”) were also identified by the AC CDC search.

4.7.4 Invertebrates

4.7.4.1 Invertebrate Species at Risk

The maritime ringlet butterfly (Coenonympha nipisquit) is listed as “Endangered” on Schedule 1 of SARA and under the NB ESA. This species is endemic to salt marshes and in New Brunswick has only been identified at three colonies within or near the city limits of Bathurst (Environment Canada 2005d). This species is not likely to occur along the preferred corridor.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 168

4.7.4.2 Invertebrate Species of Conservation Concern

The monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) is listed as “Special Concern” on Schedule 1 of SARA. In Canada, monarch butterflies are primarily found wherever milkweed and wildflowers such as goldenrod, asters, and purple loosestrife exist. This includes abandoned farmland, along roadsides, and other open spaces where these plants grow (Environment Canada 2005d). This species may occur within the preferred corridor during the summer. Two records for monarch butterfly were returned from the AC CDC database search within 5 km of the preferred corridor. This species is listed by the AC CDC as “S2”.

4.7.5 Wildlife Habitat

4.7.5.1 Forested Areas

The age class distribution of forest vegetation within the preferred corridor and Rockwood Park variants ranges from stands classified as young or immature, to stands classified as mature and overmature. For the preferred corridor, the largest age class is “mature”, representing approximately 38% of the forested area, followed by “immature”, representing approximately 28% of the forested area (Table 4.7.4). Detailed discussions of vegetation and wetlands are provided in Sections 4.5 (Vegetation) and 4.6 (Wetlands), respectively. Figures 4.7.1A and 4.7.1B show forested area within the preferred corridor and Rockwood Park variants. Table 4.7.4 Age Distribution of Forested Vegetation within the Preferred Corridor and Rockwood Park Variants Approximate Approximate # of # of hectares hectares in Approximate Approximate in preferred preferred corridor # of hectares # of hectares Age Class corridor from within Rockwood in North of in South of Mispec Point Park only1 Rockwood Rockwood to U.S. Park Variant1,2 Park Variant1 Border1 R (regenerating – trees predominantly <3 m) 150 0 0 0 S (sapling – trees predominantly 2-7 m and 1- 581 0 1 0 9 cm dbh) Y (young – accumulating volume rapidly) 328 0 1 0 I (immature – accumulating volume slowly) 915 4 19 6 M (mature – volume stable) 1,228 1 28 3 O (overmature – volume declining due to 34 0 5 0 natural mortality) Total 3,236 5 54 9 1 Note that preferred corridor width varies from 100 m through Saint John to 200 m along the SJL and 500 m along the IPL, except in discrete areas where corridor width was extended pending detailed route selection for the pipeline. 2 Values are an average of the four potential north variants around Rockwood Park.

4.7.5.2 Wintering Areas

White-tailed deer are known to make use of corridors and trails such as power line (e.g., Rockwood Park) and pipeline (e.g., SJL) RoWs and abandoned railroad tracks (Jacques Whitford 2004a). Deer are relatively abundant in southern New Brunswick and are generally not limited by habitat. Moose (Alces alces) are also present in suitable habitat. White-tailed deer and moose populations in New Brunswick are considered to be increasing (Cumberland, pers. comm.).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 169

Wintering areas for white-tailed deer and moose are the most restrictive habitat requirements for mammals in the Project area. A deer wintering area (DWA) is an area currently used by deer during winter and also includes adjacent stands that have a potential for providing shelter and food on a long- term (>50 years) basis (NBDNRE 1994a). In New Brunswick, DWAs tend to consist of spruce and balsam fir stands in riparian zones or south facing, with gentle slopes, and at least 70% canopy closure. Moose wintering areas are similar but generally have a less dense canopy cover. Both types of wintering areas are usually in close proximity to water. Moose tend to congregate in wintering areas only during periods when snow depths are high. In southern New Brunswick, where winters are relatively mild, moose wintering areas are not as important as they are in other locations. DWAs are also not as important for deer in southern New Brunswick as compared to northern parts of the province, again due to the relatively milder winter conditions. However, deer tend to gather in DWAs when snow depths become approximately 30 cm. Thus DWAs are still important habitat features for deer in southern New Brunswick.

The preferred corridor traverses nine DWAs (see Figures 4.7.1A and 4.7.1B for their locations). These DWAs and their NBDNR identifiers are the following:

Guntree Brook (#426402);

Keyhole Hills (#476601);

Lee Settlement (#436402);

Rocky Brook (#436401);

Joshua Lake (#476501);

W. Br. Reservoir 2 (#486504);

Unnamed (#446501);

Digdeguash Lake (#426403); and

Lepreau Falls (#476602).

4.7.5.3 Mature Coniferous Forest Habitat

An inventory of mature coniferous forest habitat (MCFH) on Crown land is maintained by the province of New Brunswick. MCFH are stands with the structural and spatial attributes required by old forest- dependent species such as American marten (Martes americana). These areas are typically composed of mature or overmature conifer or conifer-dominated mixedwood stands with a high degree of crown closure and a high incidence of standing dead wood (NBDNRE 1996).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 170

Only one area designated as MCFH intersects the preferred corridor (Figure 4.7.1A and 4.7.1B). The total area of the stand is approximately 690 ha, of which approximately 250 ha falls within the preferred corridor.

4.7.5.4 Wildlife-based ESAs

Five wildlife-based ESAs have been identified in the vicinity of the preferred corridor as having some importance for wildlife:

Loch Alva (Red Spruce Stand) (Site ID 789) – this area is approximately 12 ha of undisturbed forest that supports large populations of white-tailed deer and moose;

Utopia Wildlife Refuge (Site ID 328) – this area includes DWAs;

Waweig River (Site ID 828) – Osprey are known to nest along this river;

Harbells Cave (Site ID 784) – this cave is known to support small numbers (1-25) of little brown bat and northern long-eared bat; and

Reversing Falls & Outcrop Islands (Site ID 794) – islands off Prospect Point are known as foraging and nesting areas for gulls, terns and cormorants.

Only the Utopia Wildlife Refuge intersects the preferred corridor (refer to Figure 4.7.1A and 4.7.1B). The existing SJL crosses through the northeast corner of the Utopia Wildlife Refuge. Loch Alva is located 7.5 km north of the preferred corridor, Waweig River is 2 km south of the preferred corridor, Harbells Cave is 600 m south of the preferred corridor, and Reversing Falls & Outcrop Islands is 1 km southeast of the preferred corridor. The preferred corridor is located approximately 3.5 km south of the Lepreau Game Management Area, which is not an ESA but may have some importance for wildlife.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 171

4.8 Health and Safety

The M&NP natural gas transmission pipeline consists of an approximately 1,300 km Mainline that runs from the Sable Offshore Energy Inc. gas plant at landfall in Goldboro, through Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. The system interconnects with the Portland Natural Gas Transmission System, the Tennessee Gas Transmission System, and Algonquin Gas Transmission System. M&NP serves Canadian markets in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick directly from the Mainline (i.e., Fredericton, Amherst and St. Stephen) and via the following lateral pipelines:

Point Tupper Lateral (60 km);

Moncton Lateral (12 km);

Halifax Lateral (124 km); and

Saint John Lateral (102 km).

The design, construction, and operation and maintenance of natural gas transmission pipelines is a highly regulated, safe, and proven technology. Natural gas pipelines are located in all of the urban areas of North America and have been transporting natural gas safely and reliably over the last 50 years in Canada. The performance of NEB regulated pipelines, as measured by key performance indicators, is comparable with the performance of similar industries in the United States and Europe (NEB 2005). M&NP’s safety record exceeds the norms for safety performance for NEB regulated pipelines. Key pipeline performance indicators include:

safety indicators, such as injury frequency per 100 full-time equivalent workers and fatalities, that relate to occupational safety of employees and contractors on pipelines;

integrity indicators, such as the number of pipeline ruptures, that relate to the potential for public health and safety effects; and

environmental indicators, such as the frequency of natural gas releases during pipeline operations, that relate to the potential for health and safety and other environmental effects.

The injury frequency compiled for all NEB regulated pipelines compared to the injury frequency for M&NP is shown in Table 4.8.1. Injury frequency is defined as the number of lost time injuries per 100 full-time equivalent workers (i.e., 200,000 hours worked) (NEB 2004b). Injury frequency data compiled by the NEB also shows that since 2000, contractor injury frequency rates are consistently much higher (i.e., greater than four times) than pipeline employee injury frequency rates. However, the overall lost time injury frequency (per 100 full-time equivalent workers) rates for NEB regulated pipelines, including contractors, are well below industry norms in New Brunswick. The lost time injury frequency rate for all industries reported for New Brunswick in 2004 was 3.43, and the lost time injury frequency rate for New Brunswick focus industries (logging, sawmills, garages, nursing homes) was 6.74 in 2004

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 172

(WHSCC 2005). In comparison, the maximum overall lost time injury frequency rate for NEB regulated industries over the last 5 years was 1.99. Table 4.8.1 Injury Frequency Loss Time Injury Frequency (per 100 full-time equivalent workers) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Not Not NEB regulated pipelines - Employees 0.23 0.87 0.16 0.66 available available Not Not NEB regulated pipelines - Contractors 1.69 5.35 1.92 3.04 available available Not Not NEB regulated pipelines - Combined 0.92 1.99 0.53 0.92 available available M&NP – Employees 1.90 1.50 1.13 0 0 0

M&NP – Contractors Not Not Not 2.17 3.04 0 available available available M&NP – Combined Not Not Not 2.00 2.77 0.98 available available available Source: Adapted from NEB 2005 Pipeline ruptures are defined as a loss of containment that immediately impairs the operation of the pipeline. Pipeline rupture frequencies for NEB regulated pipelines are shown in Table 4.8.2. Since 1991 there have been 29 pipeline ruptures; most of these ruptures are attributable to corrosion issues. Jeglic (2004) analyzed pipeline ruptures in major Canadian pipeline systems and obtained a pipeline rupture frequency of 0.049 ruptures per 1,000 km of pipeline for NEB regulated natural gas pipelines. Seventy percent of the pipeline ruptures analyzed were a result of time dependant causes, and time dependant defects that may cause ruptures (e.g., corrosion) which can be detected by internal inspection. Jeglic concluded that reductions in numbers of pipeline ruptures could be expected with improvements in defect detection and the implementation of integrity management plans, such as internal inspections. Table 4.8.2 Pipeline Ruptures NEB Pipeline Ruptures Cause of NEB Ruptures Year # of NEB External Natural Material Other Ruptures Corrosion Operational Unknown Interface Forces Defect Causes 1991 2 1 1 1992 3 2 1 1993 1 1 1994 6 2 2 1 1 1995 4 4 1996 3 2 1 1997 2 1 1 1998 1 1 1999 1 1 2000 1 1 2001 2 2 2002 3 1 1 1 2003 0 Total 29 16 4 1 3 2 1 2 Source: NEB 2005 Natural gas releases, for the purposes of safety reporting, are any unintended or uncontrolled release of natural gas (NEB 2004b). The total number of natural gas releases reported between 2000 and

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 173

2003, inclusive, for NEB regulated pipelines was 74 (i.e., an average of 18.5 per year). Nine of the 74 natural gas releases were from the pipe body (rather than from fittings and flanges at valve or compressor stations) with no pipe body releases reported for 2003 (NEB 2005). Note that natural gas releases are reportable to the NEB regardless of volume. Between 2000 and 2003, pipe-body gas releases per 1,000 km of gas pipeline ranged from 0 to 0.19, and averaged 0.075, while all pipeline gas releases averaged 0.45 per 1000 km-years (NEB 2005).

It is also important to differentiate between leaks and ruptures. Ruptures are containment failures which immediately impair the operation of the pipeline. They result in substantial releases of pipeline fluids which can be hazardous; leaks are minor releases that generally do not pose a hazard. According to Jeglic (2004), the normalized number of ruptures for NEB regulated natural gas systems is 0.049 ruptures per 1,000 km-years.

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada reports statistics on accidents for all Canadian gas pipelines. The average number of releases from gas pipelines between 2000 and 2004 inclusive was 13 per year, with 4 of the 13 releases originating from the line pipe (rather than from valve or meter sites, or compressor stations) and 6 of the 13 releases resulting in a fire, ignition, or explosion (TSBC 2005).

There has been only one minor unintended or uncontrolled gas release resulting from a pressure relief valve (operating as per design) on the M&NP Canada pipeline system to date, and it was reported to the appropriate regulatory authorities.

In order to assess the risks specifically for the Project, a risk assessment was conducted for the preferred corridor (described in Section 2.8.2.1, Pipeline Design and Quality Assurance Program) (Bercha 2006). The risk assessment process met and exceeded the guidelines established in the CSA Z662 Standard (CSA 2003b) and was directed at systematically identifying areas of elevated risk, and evaluating and recommending appropriate options for risk mitigation.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 174

4.9 Traditional Land and Resource Use

Traditional Land and Resource Use by Aboriginal persons is defined as the current use of lands and resources within those lands that are within the footprint of the Project or on adjacent lands where those uses and resources are potentially affected by the Project. This “use” refers to contemporary hunting, fishing, and gathering activities for subsistence purposes as well as the use of lands and resources for social and ceremonial activities.

There are 15 First Nation (Aboriginal) communities in the Province of New Brunswick. These communities are made up of two separate, although closely related, Nations: the Maliseet First Nation and the Mi’kmaq First Nation. Within New Brunswick, the traditional territory of the six Maliseet communities is the western side of the province and includes the area captured by the drainage basin of the Saint John River. Currently, the existing Maliseet First Nation Communities (or Reserves) are all located along the Saint John River. The traditional territory of the Mi’kmaq are the northern and eastern portions of the province, with the nine current Mi’kmaq Communities (Reserves) being located on major rivers that flow into the marine water bodies bordering New Brunswick: the Bay of Chaleur, Northumberland Strait, and Bay of Fundy (see Figure 4.9.1 for the outline of these traditional territories). Of the two First Nations within New Brunswick, the Project falls within the traditional territory of the Maliseet, with the closest Maliseet community to the preferred corridor being the Oromocto First Nation, approximately 65 km away. All of the Mi’kmaq communities are located over 100 km from the Project area, with the furthest being located approximately 300 km away. The locations of these communities, however, may not necessarily be relevant to the current use by Aboriginal Persons to the area of the Project, and thus all 15 First Nations communities within New Brunswick were and are being consulted in respect of the Project.

The information on traditional use recently gathered for M&NP’s Saint John Lateral (SJL) pipeline project and NB Power’s International Powerline (IPL) project is still considered relevant for the Brunswick Pipeline Project and the consultation efforts for this Project are intended to update and augment this information. Aboriginal consultation efforts to date for the Project are summarized in Section 3.2.1.4 of this EA. The Chiefs of each of the 15 communities were sent letters in the fall of 2005 introducing the Project. This letter expressed M&NP’s intention to consult with their respective communities about the Project. The letter further stated M&NP’s desire to hold an open house about the Project within each community as part of the consultation process and that this consultation process would also involve a Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) study. Subsequently, open house sessions were held in November and December 2005 (see Section 3.2.1.4, Aboriginal Consultation).

The TEK study for the Project includes a series of interviews with various Aboriginal community members being carried out by the consulting firm hired to undertake the TEK, Aboriginal Resource Consultants (ARC). This TEK work is ongoing and is anticipated to be completed in the spring of 2006. This study will be made available to all applicable regulating agencies for review when completed. Any site-specific information that is generated during this process will be reviewed and considered during the detailed routing process.

The purpose and objectives of the TEK study are to ensure that the “technical” scientific studies undertaken in the pipeline design and eventual route selection process are augmented with the

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 175

traditional knowledge and current traditional land and resource use activities of the Maliseet and Mi’kmaq Peoples of New Brunswick. In developing a detailed collection of data from Elders, traditionalists, hunters, fishers and gatherers, this database will compliment the technical studies being undertaken for the Project and allow for a planned approach of avoiding areas of specific significance to the First Nations of New Brunswick, and/or mitigation where avoidance is not practicable (ARC 2006b).

Identified Current Use

The Project is located within both the urban setting of Saint John, and the rural setting of southwestern New Brunswick. Although the general area in the vicinity Saint John has been occupied and used by First Nations people for thousands of years before the arrival of Europeans, the area has been an urban setting for the last several hundred years. All of the areas occupied by the urban portions of the proposed pipeline, within Saint John, have been heavily developed or used and/or are currently being held by private landowners. While there are certainly a number of First Nation peoples living within the City, it is not anticipated that activities typically considered “traditional current use” are ongoing within the city limits. Additional consultations with First Nations are ongoing and this assumption is being confirmed.

Once outside Saint John, the preferred corridor travels through mainly rural settings that are either forested or are currently, or have recently been, used for agriculture. Virtually all of the forested areas within the corridor have been previously logged at some point in the recent or historical (100-200 years ago) past to the present. The preferred corridor largely follows the planned IPL RoW and the existing SJL RoW, the locations of which would have taken into account traditional knowledge and Aboriginal current use activities.

The information used to determine current use of the preferred corridor includes information gathered for both other adjacent projects, such as the IPL and SJL, and the current pipeline Project specifically.

There appear to be two general areas of focus with respect to issues and concerns raised during the consultation process for the Project: 1) general concerns for the well being and preservation of the biophysical environment of the province and what potential adverse effects the Project may have on that environment, and 2) opportunities for business and employment that the Project may bring to First Nation peoples. Business and employment opportunities for First Nations are being addressed elsewhere in this EA (Section 5.11, Labour and Economy). This section of the EA focuses on the biophysical environment as it relates to the current use of lands and resources by the First Nations.

Given that the Project will be paralleling, to the extent practicable, existing RoWs for which information on current use by Aboriginal persons has already been gathered recently (within nine years for the SJL, and six years for the IPL), the information gathered for both the IPL and SJL is relevant to this EA. To augment this previous TEK information, additional efforts such as the open houses in Aboriginal communities and community member interviews were undertaken. Further, any conclusions or assumptions based on the information from those other projects are being and will continue to be tested and confirmed during the consultation process for the Brunswick Pipeline Project.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 176

Traditional use studies and consultation efforts for the SJL resulted in the identification of a variety of concerns. These all related to general environmental concerns regarding the construction and operation of that pipeline facility. These concerns included disturbance to traditional hunting, fishing and gathering areas, a general concern for medicinal gathering areas, concerns for burial and/or ceremonial sites, and for unidentified archaeological sites. Some participants expressed a preference that the SJL avoid wetlands (often seen as concentration areas for medicinal plants). Specifically the SJL consultation identified various wildlife species for potential adverse environmental effects from that project including moose and deer, and plants such as sweet grass (Hierochloe odorata), calamus or muskrat root, wild ginseng, white and black ash trees (Washburn & Gillis 1999b). Some participants inquired about how much Crown Land the SJL pipeline would cross.

During the consultation for the SJL, three specific areas of concerns were identified as being of Aboriginal interest. Two of the areas (one at Seven Mile Lake and the other at Musquash River (Figure 2.2.4B)) were avoided by the SJL RoW (Washburn & Gillis 1999b) and are avoided by the proposed Brunswick Pipeline Project. The third area at Spruce Lake is currently crossed by the preferred corridor (Figure 2.2.4A). At the request of the First Nation sources, the rationale for the concern in each of these three cases has been kept confidential; however, it was concluded in the SJL Heritage Resources Report that mitigation typically implemented for pipeline projects to protect the environment from adverse effects would be sufficient to address the issue at Spruce Lake (Washburn & Gillis 1999b).

During the IPL EA process, no site-specific traditional land and resource use within the IPL study area was identified. There are a number of plant species located along the planned 50 m RoW of the IPL that are used by First Nation people; however, none of the specific plant populations along the IPL RoW were identified as being used by Aboriginal persons either now or in the past (AMEC 2002). Further, the plant species identified are common and occur throughout southern and other parts of New Brunswick. These plants include gold thread (Coptis groenlandica), which was very common in the IPL study area, and sweet grass, fiddleheads, and black and white ash (AMEC 2002).

Fish species such as Atlantic salmon was identified as a concern, however, no specific areas along the IPL were noted. The current pipeline Project does cross a watercourse (Dennis Stream) known to contain salmon and salmon habitat. This issue is addressed in Section 5.3 (Fish and Fish Habitat) of this EA.

The Lake Utopia region was identified in the IPL study as a gathering site, however, no site-specific information was presented. Of the plants species identified that are gathered, all are either not located in the general Project area or are common and not considered to be significantly affected by the current pipeline Project. During the IPL consultation process, a general comment was made that the area of the IPL RoW is used for hunting and fishing, although no specific sites for these activities were identified (AMEC 2002).

During the consultation efforts that have taken place to date for the Brunswick Pipeline Project, similar issues as those described above have been identified. These include a general concern for First Nation sacred lands, although no known sites were identified, and a general concern for historical First Nation settlements, although, again, no specific areas were identified during the consultation efforts completed to date.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 177

4.10 Land and Resource Use

The Project is located within Saint John and Charlotte Counties, New Brunswick. The pipeline will pass through one incorporated municipality, the City of Saint John. Outside of Saint John, the pipeline extends from Lorneville to the international border at the St. Croix River near St. Stephen.

The preferred corridor was selected through a constraint mapping exercise that identified important features such as terrain, flora, fauna, as well as geotechnical and socio-economic factors (e.g., a preference to avoid communities and built-up areas). Every effort was made to locate the preferred corridor adjacent to existing industrial or commercial RoWs, and avoid residential lands wherever practicable.

4.10.1 Existing Land Use

The preferred corridor extends from the CanaportTM LNG facility at Mispec Point, outside of Saint John, New Brunswick to the international border north of St. Stephen, New Brunswick. Since there are distinctly different land uses between the rural and urban sections of the preferred corridor; land use will be described separately for urban and rural sections.

Land uses have been identified from recent aerial photography (GEODAT 2005), maps, and regulatory databases, as well as baseline field studies. Current land uses include residential, industrial and commercial properties, recreation, forestry, and to a lesser extent, agriculture.

Within Saint John, the preferred corridor is located on land that is primarily urban, including areas of substantial underground infrastructure, complex road networks, heavy industry, and residential areas. Saint John is the second largest city in New Brunswick in terms of population and is the leader in industrial activity in the Province. As Canada's oldest incorporated city and New Brunswick's largest municipality, Saint John has been providing municipal services to local citizens for more than two centuries. Saint John is typical of an industrialized urban environment. Several large industries are located near the preferred corridor, including a port, an oil refinery, a pulp and paper plant, transportation infrastructure (e.g., roads and railways), and numerous small businesses and other commercial properties that support the industry base. The preferred corridor passes through or near some existing or proposed residential subdivisions as well as Rockwood Park in the north end of Saint John (Section 4.10.2.1, Urban Preferred Corridor). The preferred corridor also passes near the Musquash Harbour and Saints Rest Marsh ESAs, and the extreme southern portion of the protected Spruce Lake Watershed.

Along the rural portion of the preferred corridor, the land is primarily woodland (a mix of industrial freehold and private land) and, to a lesser extent, agricultural land. The preferred corridor also intersects the protected Dennis Stream Watershed, Route 1, and a number of secondary highways.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 178

4.10.1.1 Soil and Soil Productivity

The preferred corridor is located in two adjacent geomorphologic regions of New Brunswick. The eastern portion of the preferred corridor lies in the Caledonian Highlands (Mispec Point to Saint John River) while the remainder of the preferred corridor is located in the St. Croix Highlands (Colpitts et al. 1995). These two major landforms cause cool air coming off the Bay of Fundy to rise and condense and fall as precipitation in the highland regions. This proximity to cool water plays a major role in macroclimate throughout the region and provides a cooling effect along the coastal region during the growing season. This effect is slowly ameliorated further inland where the prevailing westerly winds create drier conditions. Wide fluctuations in seasonal and daily temperatures are common, producing a wide range of growing conditions (Colpitts et al. 1995).

Soil information plays an important role in land use planning by providing means to predict forest growth, or crop production, although it is not the only factor (Colpitts et al. 1995; CanSIS 2003). Forests are classified based on four categories: climate; geomorphology; regolith; and site type. Regolith refers to the entire surface layer of unconsolidated material which includes soil and rock fragments, either weathered in place (residual) or transported by glaciers, that covers bedrock (Colpitts et al. 1995).

Soil makes up the major portion of the uppermost part of the regolith and is the major source of plant nutrients. The underlying geologic nature of the rock affects the soil character and the type of vegetation it will support. The soil’s ability to hold water is a major indicator of soil type. Generally, well drained soils have the potential to support more diverse plant communities than do soils that are poorly drained (Colpitts et al. 1995).

Soils are classified according to their origin and characteristics. The Canada Land Inventory (CanSIS 2003) determines the capability for agriculture on biophysical and socio-economic levels, including whether the land needs improvements (i.e., clearing) in order to be cultivated, and how well the soils can be managed. Table 4.10.1 summarizes the classes of soils present throughout the preferred corridor and variants around Rockwood Park. Figures 4.10.1A and 4.10.1B are a pictoral representation of these classes. Soils present in the preferred corridor and variants around Rockwood Park include Class 3, Class 4, Class 5, and Class 7. Most of the soil (i.e., >50%) has little or no capacity for arable cultivation.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 179

Table 4.10.1 Summary of Soil Capability for Agriculture throughout the Preferred Corridor and Variants Around Rockwood Park Soil Class Description Urban (ha) / % of Total* Rural (ha) / % of Total* Soils in this class have no significant Class 1 0 ha / 0% 0 ha / 0% limitations in use for crops. Soils in this class have moderate limitations Class 2 that restrict the range of crops or require 0 ha / 0% 0 ha / 0% moderate conservation practices. Soils in this class have moderately severe Class 3 limitations that restrict the range of crops or 0 ha / 0% 162 ha / 4% require special conservation practices. Soils in this class have severe limitations that Class 4 restrict the range of crops or require special 140 ha / 37% 1,142 ha / 31% conservation practices. Soils in this class have very severe limitations that restrict their capability in producing Class 5 0 ha / 0% 403 ha / 11% perennial forage crops, and improvement practices are feasible. Soils in this class are capable only of Class 6 producing forage crops, and improvement 0 ha / 0% 0 ha / 0% practices are not feasible. Soils in this class have no capacity for arable Class 7 229 ha / 61% 2,036 ha / 54% culture or permanent pasture. Organic soils (not placed in capability Class “O” 5 ha / <2% 0 ha / 0% classes). Total 374 ha 3,743 ha Source: CanSIS 2003 *ha of soil calculated by multiplying linear distance of class by the preferred corridor width at that location, which varies between 100 m (urban), 200 m (SJL), and 500 m (IPL). The high percentage of Class 7 soils within the preferred corridor (and variants around Rockwood Park) mirrors the pattern of forestation in southern New Brunswick where most of the forested vegetation is conifer-dominated. This vegetation pattern indicates medium to poorly drained soils and correlates to the classification of soils in the region. The hilly, hard rock (i.e., igneous, volcanic) terrain allows for the formation of many basins that trap moisture in the soil. In the rural portion of the preferred corridor there are few agricultural areas, due to the high level of poor soils. Greater agricultural activity is located further north towards the Saint John River valley basin where soils are deeper, better drained, and have higher nutrient input from the parent material.

Class 1 through Class 3 soils have the greatest capacity to support large agricultural crops. There are few locations throughout the preferred corridor and surrounding area where large deposits of Class 3 soils are found, and there are no areas of Class 1 or Class 2 soils (Table 4.10.1 and Figure 4.10.1A and 4.10.1B). The urban portion of the preferred corridor and the variants around Rockwood Park travel through residential and industrial areas, thus there is limited potential for agricultural activities in this area.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 180

4.10.2 Urban Land Use

4.10.2.1 Urban Preferred Corridor

One of the objectives of corridor selection was to define a preferred corridor that would intersect with the least number of identified constraints. Due to the complexities associated with selection of the preferred corridor in the urban area (e.g., number of houses, amount of existing infrastructure), the corridor width was limited to 100 m, with some sections of the preferred corridor widened in consideration of further refinement during detailed RoW selection (Figure 2.2.4A).

Mispec Point to Grandview Avenue

The section of the preferred corridor between Mispec Point, at the beginning of the pipeline, and Grandview Avenue is 9.1 km long. The preferred corridor crosses Red Head Road opposite the CanaportTM LNG facility, and follows an existing power transmission line RoW until the power line turns east. The preferred corridor then continues north, avoiding houses along Proud Road and passing northwest of Calvert Lake. Once past Calvert Lake, the preferred corridor turns west and continues to a point south of the Saint John Regional Correction Centre off Old Black River Road. There are four residences on Red Head Road, and a number of commercial properties under development on McLiveen Drive that fall within this section of the preferred corridor. Between Old Black River Road and Grandview Avenue, a distance of 1.5 km, the preferred corridor passes between four commercial properties in the Grandview Industrial Park to the west, and a rock quarry to the east. There are three residences and four commercial buildings in this section of the preferred corridor.

Grandview Avenue to Route 1

The preferred corridor crosses Grandview Avenue 525 m east from the existing M&NP SJL terminal location. The preferred corridor then skirts the Irving Oil Ltd. tank farm and follows the fence line north between the tanks and the Champlain Heights subdivision, where it crosses Little River, continuing to Loch Lomond Road. A portion of the preferred corridor between Loch Lomond Road and the Westmorland/Ellerdale intersection is adjacent to a large cemetery. The preferred corridor will parallel, to the extent practicable, an existing power transmission line RoW that is located along this section. Along the preferred corridor in this section, there are three residences, six apartment buildings, and buildings associated with the cemetery at the Westmorland/Ellerdale intersection. A 500 m-long section of undeveloped land lies between Westmorland Street and a line of commercial properties on Rothesay Avenue, which is a major commercial centre in east Saint John. After crossing Rothesay Avenue, the preferred corridor passes through a CN Rail yard and crosses Marsh Creek. The preferred corridor then passes on through the south side of the Strescon property and crosses Route 1, which is a four-lane highway. There are seven residences, seven commercial properties, and five railroad tracks (a rail yard) within this section of the preferred corridor.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 181

Rockwood Park

The preferred corridor follows an existing power transmission line RoW in Rockwood Park. There are also two variants that go around the Park: one variant north of the Park and the other to the south. The preferred corridor passes through Rockwood Park along an existing power transmission line RoW for a distance of 2.4 km until reaching Sandy Point Road. The preferred corridor crosses some of the walking/hiking trails located within the Park. The preferred corridor does not pass through any lakes within the Park boundary.

Rockwood Park is a popular destination for Saint John residents and visitors. Offering a wide range of attractions throughout the year, the Park’s 890 ha of land are classified according to three categories identified for public use: Conservation and Wilderness Zone, Recreational and Cultural Zone, and Heritage Zone (Urquhart 2005). In various seasons, Rockwood Park offers the following attractions:

Kiwanis Playpark at Fisher Lakes;

Rockwood Park Municipal Golf Course & Aquatic Driving Range;

Rockwood Park Campground;

Cherry Brook Zoo & Vanished Kingdom Park;

beaches at Fisher Lakes and Lily Lake;

hiking, biking, cross-country skiing, and running trails;

picnic sites at Fisher Lakes and throughout the wilderness zone of the Park;

Rockwood Stables & Turn of the Century Trolleys; and

horseback riding.

Generally, the preferred corridor avoids most of the recreational areas and attractions located in Rockwood Park.

Many students use Rockwood Park for learning by collecting data in the Park for school projects (Urquhart 2005). As a recreational facility, it provides a location for both organized special events and informal gatherings. Future plans for Rockwood Park include efforts to improve and expand the existing trail network, and update trail maps. User-specific trails may be identified, including trails designated for, but not limited to, horseback riding, cycling, or dog walking. Another goal is to identify and select specific sites with interpretive and educational potential for program and infrastructure development, such as developing an interpretive boardwalk in a marsh/bog area that would provide information specific to wetland habitat, and augmenting the existing arboretum (Urquhart 2005).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 182

The corridor variant that travels north around Rockwood Park follows Route 1 north for a small distance before turning northwest and paralleling Foster-Thurston Drive. One other potential north variant is to continue the corridor north around Ashburn Lake. These two variants merge around the north end of the Park. Once on the west side of Rockwood Park, the corridor again divides into two sub-variants, one west and one east of the UNBSJ Campus and the Regional Hospital complex. These variants both rejoin the preferred corridor between Samuel Davis Drive and Millidgeville Avenue. While mostly urban in nature, the north variant around Rockwood Park includes two and possibly three subdivisions that are proposed or are currently under development.

The south variant around Rockwood Park follows Route 1 south for approximately 900 m where it crosses Route 1 via an HDD. The south variant then follows a number of streets south of Rockwood Park including Mount Pleasant Avenue, Crown Street, and Hawthorne Avenue Extension, before following the Park’s southern boundary and rejoining the preferred corridor at Samuel Davis Drive.

Sandy Point Road to Pleasant Point

From Sandy Point Road, the preferred corridor follows an existing power transmission line over Samuel Davis Drive, past an electric power substation on Millidge Avenue, until turning south at Robertson Lake. The preferred corridor passes through a wooded area that is proposed for development as a residential subdivision. The preferred corridor then crosses an undeveloped section of land behind Spar Cove Road and vacant land behind residential properties on the corner of Spar Cove Road and Bridge Street. Saint John has long-term plans to develop a waste lift station on the vacant land on the corner of Spar Cove Road and Bridge Street.

An HDD crossing of the Saint John River is proposed from Spar Cove Road to Pleasant Point. The approach area to the HDD site on the east side of the Saint John River is the parking area for Shamrock Park, which is an area used for summer recreation (i.e., soccer and baseball fields). The area to the east side of the HDD is a contractor’s yard that is used for storage of equipment and materials. Soil contamination is possible at this location (Section 4.3, Water Resources). The west bank of the proposed HDD location is a residential area. There is a private dock on the west side of the river at the proposed HDD location. Along this section, the preferred corridor encompasses five residences and two commercial buildings on Millidge Avenue, two apartment complexes on Belleview Avenue, and one dwelling on both Pokiok Road and Bridge Street.

Pleasant Point to Manawagonish Road

The preferred corridor proceeds south from Pleasant Point for 1.6 km, passing to the east of residential properties and a contractor’s yard, aligned along Milford Road and then Green Head Road. In this area, the land near the preferred corridor is residential, with the land within the preferred corridor being mostly open grassland. As the preferred corridor approaches Green Head Road, the land within the preferred corridor transitions to various commercial properties. There are nine residences and one church, all located on Milford Road, within this section of the preferred corridor. At this location, the preferred corridor is approximately 600 m from the JD Irving Pulp and Paper Mill. The preferred corridor then turns west and parallels the NBSR properties. The preferred corridor encompasses fifteen residences off Gifford Road, near the Green Head Road overpass, a large rail yard with

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 183

associated buildings and workspaces, and two commercial properties, Maritime Paper and Dexter, which are located to the south of the NBSR. The preferred corridor parallels the railway tracks west from Bay Street for 800 m before turning south, then crossing the tracks and following property lines until it intersects Pipeline Road (named for the water pipelines that parallel this road). The property south of the preferred corridor where it parallels the railway tracks is a rock and gravel quarry, the only quarry within west Saint John. The preferred corridor follows Pipeline Road for approximately 750 m before turning south to follow the east side of Gault Road to Manawagonish Road. There is an RCMP detachment on Gault Road in this section of the preferred corridor.

Manawagonish Road to Common Point

After crossing Manawagonish Road, the preferred corridor runs adjacent to two residential properties and a series of agricultural fields. This area is being developed and/or is proposed for development into residential subdivisions. The preferred corridor crosses Route 7, then turns south and crosses Route 1, both of which are four-lane highways. On the south side of Route 1, the preferred corridor parallels a series of existing RoWs, including two power transmission lines, an access road, and the SJL. The preferred corridor continues to parallel the SJL after the Route 1 crossing location to the Prince of Wales interchange, a distance of 11 km. This section of the preferred corridor passes by new industrial developments near the Lorneville exit on Route 1.

4.10.2.2 Industrial and Commercial Land Use

Many commercial properties and large industrial complexes are located within the preferred corridor. Two industrial parks are located in the east side of Saint John: Grandview Industrial Park and McAllister Industrial Park. Large industrial complexes within, or adjacent to, the preferred corridor include the Irving Oil Refinery and the JD Irving/NBSR rail yard. The preferred corridor crosses the Rothesay Avenue district, an area with high retail volume and associated vehicular traffic.

4.10.2.3 Residential Land Use

Approximately one third of the urban portion of the preferred corridor is located within the proximity of residential homes. These areas include Champlain Heights, Lancaster, Spar Cove Road, Milford, and Millidgeville. While most residential properties contain single family dwellings, there are locations with low-rise apartment buildings, particularly in the Spar Cove Road and Milford areas.

New subdivisions are currently being developed and/or are planned within the urban portion of the preferred corridor. These include subdivisions at Robertson Lake and Fundyview Estates. Robertson Lake subdivision has been given tentative approval from the City of Saint John and construction (road building, clearing, etc.) may begin in 2006. Fundyview Estates is a development located east of the Carvel Farm on Manawagonish Road. The eastern portion of Fundyview Estates is already developed with twelve homes constructed as of November 2005. Development of the western portion may begin in 2006.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 184

4.10.2.4 Recreational Land Use

Recreational activities within the region include ATV use in some of the more rural parts of Saint John, hiking, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, and mountain biking. These activities occur along the NB Power transmission lines, woods roads, and trails that serve as informal recreational areas, typically located away from core residential areas. Recreational fishing for brook trout likely occurs seasonally in some streams and lakes throughout the urban portion of the preferred corridor (see Section 4.4, Fish and Fish Habitat). The preferred corridor does not cross any snowmobile trails operated by the New Brunswick Federation of Snowmobiling Clubs (NBFSC 2005).

There are numerous recreational facilities including gyms, pools, sports fields, and green spaces that are municipally owned and operated, as well as private clubs and provincially-run schools located throughout Saint John. Near the Spar Cove Road area, the City maintains Shamrock Park, which is an extensive sporting complex that was originally developed for the Canada Summer Games in 1985. The north end of Saint John is also home to Rockwood Park. Rockwood Park has an extensive trail system for cycling, running/jogging, walking, horseback riding, fishing, boating, wildlife/wild flora observing, and sightseeing. Rockwood Park also contains a golf course, driving range, and a zoo. Mispec Beach, located east of the proposed CanaportTM LNG facility, consists of a beach, walking trails, observation decks, paved playing court, playground, multi-purpose sports field, and picnicking areas. Although Mispec Beach is not located near the preferred corridor, the preferred corridor does cross Red Head Road, the access road to Mispec Beach.

4.10.2.5 Agricultural Land Use

In the urban portion of the preferred corridor, one farm (Carvel Farm) located between Route 7 and Manawagonish Road, is crossed by the preferred corridor. The farm still raises some cattle and uses fields for pasture. However, this land is being developed for residential housing and is unlikely to continue operation as a farm for much longer.

4.10.2.6 Forestry Land Use

Most of the lands in the eastern section of the preferred corridor through Saint John are forested. The majority of this forested land is owned by the City or held privately. There are 116 ha of forest throughout the preferred corridor within Saint John. There are no commercial logging operations within the municipal boundary. The north variant around Rockwood Park contains 12 ha of forest that would have to be removed for the RoW, while the south variant around the Park would require removal of 4 ha of forest, compared to the removal of a maximum of 2.5 ha along an existing power transmission line RoW in Rockwood Park within the preferred corridor (see Table 4.7.4).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 185

4.10.3 Rural Land Use

4.10.3.1 Rural Preferred Corridor

Where practicable, the preferred corridor was located adjacent to existing RoWs (Figures 2.2.4B to 2.2.4D, inclusive). The preferred corridor parallels the existing SJL pipeline RoW from Lorneville to the IPL crossing location near Lee Settlement, a distance of 47.5 km. From there, the preferred corridor parallels the IPL, to the extent practicable, from the SJL to the St. Croix River at the international border, a distance of 57 km.

M&NP Saint John Lateral Parallel Section

In this portion of the preferred corridor, 99% of the 47.5 km parallels or overlaps the existing SJL RoW. Most of the area paralleling the existing SJL is woodland. The SJL RoW was selected to avoid land use conflicts with blueberry fields, agricultural fields, quarries, and other identified constraints. Similarly, use of the SJL RoW will minimize these land use conflicts for the Project.

NB Power International Power Line Parallel Section

As with the SJL section, most of the IPL section paralleled by the preferred corridor is woodland and travels through sparsely populated areas of New Brunswick. Although this 57 km section of the preferred corridor does not cross through any large municipalities, it does pass by some rural settlements including Lee Settlement, Williamstown, Elmsville, Waweig, St. David Ridge, Old Ridge, and Hayman Hill.

In an effort to minimize potential adverse environmental effects, the corridor selection process avoided many biophysical constraints (e.g., wetlands) that were traversed by the IPL, resulting in approximately 55% of the preferred corridor paralleling the IPL in this section. Other than intermittent residential and industrial land use and the crossings of the various roads and utility RoWs, the remaining land within this portion of the preferred corridor is largely designated to forestry. Other uses of the lands and waters in and adjacent to the preferred corridor include hunting, trapping, fishing, canoeing, ATV use, and snowmobile use in season. There are no known commercial fishing operations in the rural portion of the preferred corridor.

4.10.3.2 Industrial and Commercial Land Use

As noted above, the amount of industrial and commercial land use within, or adjacent to, the rural portion of the preferred corridor is limited to relatively small areas.

Only one industrial operation, a vinyl fencing manufacturing company on St. David Ridge Road, has been identified along the rural portion of the preferred corridor.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 186

Several commercial operations have been identified adjacent to, or within, the rural portion of the preferred corridor. North of the preferred corridor, immediately west of the Musquash interchange on Route 1, there is an extensive gravel and sand quarry extending to the north away from the preferred corridor. At the East Branch Musquash Reservoir, the preferred corridor encompasses an access road and a Penstock that is used to convey water to an NB Power generating station south of the preferred corridor. At the West Branch Musquash Reservoir, the preferred corridor travels south of the Scott Falls Dam and an NBDOT salt shed and maintenance facility. To the north of the Lepreau interchange there is an extensive forestry operation and further west is a quarry, both of which are outside of the preferred corridor. There are various woods roads that cross the preferred corridor. Along the section that parallels the SJL, there are a number of facilities related to the existing M&NP pipeline, such as valve sites and cathodic protection facilities. There is one abandoned quarry on the west side of the Didgeguash River junction within the preferred corridor that parallels the IPL.

The preferred corridor crosses the St. Stephen to McAdam spur of the NBSR, following Route 750. An abandoned railway track between Route 760 and Route 127 is also crossed by the preferred corridor. There is a commercial auto-mechanic business on Route 760, adjacent to the preferred corridor.

4.10.3.3 Residential Land Use

The rural portion of the preferred corridor travels through generally unpopulated areas, thus residential areas are largely avoided. Along the SJL paralleled section, the preferred corridor includes, or is adjacent to, homes at Musquash and a number of cabin lots on Widgeon Lake. Apart from these homes and cabins, there are no residences within the preferred corridor from Lorneville to the western intersection with the IPL, at which point the preferred corridor leaves the SJL and begins to parallel the IPL.

The residential properties crossed by the preferred corridor where it parallels the IPL include three properties in the Lee Settlement area, two residential properties on Route 127, three residential properties on Route 755, three residential properties on St. David Ridge (Route 750), nine residential properties on Old Ridge (Route 745), and five residential properties on Route 725.

4.10.3.4 Recreational Land Use

No properties have been specifically set aside for recreational purposes within the rural portion of the preferred corridor and there are no parks or campgrounds. New River Beach Provincial Park is located to the south of the preferred corridor and other privately operated campgrounds are located along the coast. The New Brunswick Federation of Snowmobiling Clubs operates one connector trail in this part of the province, extending from the #12 Trail south towards St. Stephen (NBFSC 2005). Although the #12 Trail does not intersect the preferred corridor, a connecting trail to #12 does intersect the preferred corridor.

There are numerous trails and woods roads used by ATV operators and seasonal hunters. The Lake Utopia Wildlife Refuge is the only area along the rural portion of the preferred corridor that is closed to hunting and trapping. Fishing for brook trout and other game fish is permitted in season throughout the region. Atlantic salmon fishing is closed within the entire Saint John River system, although the season

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 187

is open on selected rivers in Charlotte County. Large rivers in the region are used for canoeing, particularly during the spring, although most of these rivers have barriers along their reaches that limit motorized boating. The Magaguadavic River has a falls near its mouth in St. George and for most of the year the water level is too low for any boat traffic other than canoes and kayaks. The St. Croix River is the exception, as small motorized boats can navigate a considerable distance inland due to a number of electric power and water control dams.

4.10.3.5 Agricultural Land Use

Two blueberry farms are partially located within the preferred corridor. These include a 0.46 ha section of a farm west of New River (Figure 2.2.4B), and a 7.3 ha section of a farm west of Front Meadow Brook (Figure 2.2.4C). The blueberry farm near Lee Settlement is bordered to the north and west by a 36.2 ha pine tree nursery, both of which are within the preferred corridor. Other tree nurseries close to the preferred corridor include those located around Lee Settlement off Route 770, St. David Ridge off Route 750, Hayman Hill off Route 740, and north of Soap Brook off Route 735.

Traditional agricultural crops of hay and grains are grown on farms throughout southern New Brunswick. Within the preferred corridor, there are farms at Hayman Hill, Old Ridge (three farms), St. David Ridge, Waweig, and Elmsville.

4.10.3.6 Forestry Land Use

Most of the rural portion of the preferred corridor is forested. Forested lands which include areas for watershed protection, recreational use, and fiber production, are key components of the forestry industry in southern New Brunswick. Within these forested areas, there are also plantations and areas scheduled for pre-commercial or commercial thinning. Essentially all of the forested area within the preferred rural corridor has been previously harvested and is in various stages of regeneration.

There are approximately 3,236 ha of forested land within the preferred corridor (and an additional 12 ha in the north variant around Rockwood Park and 4 ha in the south variant). The majority of the forested Crown land within the preferred corridor is leased to JD Irving Ltd., with the remainder in private ownership. The majority of Crown land in the area of the preferred corridor occurs between the Musquash and Didgeguash Rivers. Land east of Musquash is largely owned by the City of Saint John, whereas the land west of Didgeguash is generally privately owned. It is not known how much of the privately held forested land is being actively managed. However, recent aerial photography suggests that the majority of this forested land is being used for forestry purposes.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 188

4.11 Infrastructure and Services

4.11.1 Urban Infrastructure and Services

4.11.1.1 Transportation

Traffic Corridors Saint John has an extensive arterial and collector street network (Figure 4.11.1). Traffic from the downtown core can travel quickly to the outlying residential centres via the Saint John Throughway (Route 1) or across the Reversing Falls Bridge on Chesley Drive. Rothesay Avenue, Millidge Avenue, and Manawagonish Road also serve as collector roads. Saint John has good access to the provincial highway system through Route 1, which is an access-controlled, grade-separated thoroughfare that extends from east to west through the City, connecting to the United States to the west, and the Kennebecasis Valley, Moncton, and the other Atlantic Provinces to the east. It is a major thoroughfare for truck traffic to the United States via US Route 1 at the St. Stephen, New Brunswick/Calais, Maine border crossing. While traffic travelling in an east-west direction flows smoothly through the Saint John area, a four-booth toll at the end of Harbour Bridge over the Saint John River can slow traffic flow. Access to Fredericton is provided by Route 7, which is an access-controlled, grade-separated highway that exits the western part of Saint John. Route 111, at the east end of the City, provides access to the airport from Route 1. Route 100 also provides east-west access through the City and is the main access route to many of Saint John’s commercial and industrial areas, including the downtown.

The preferred corridor intersects numerous traffic corridors within the urban area. Table 4.11.1 summarizes the urban roadways crossed by the preferred corridor and the north and south variants around Rockwood Park. Table 4.11.1 Traffic Corridors Crossed by the Urban Portion of the Preferred Corridor and North and South Variants around Rockwood Park Section of Preferred Corridor Traffic Corridors Crossed Mispec Point to Loch Lomond Road Red Head Rd. Old Black River Rd. Grandview Ave. Loch Lomond Road to Westmorland Road Loch Lomond Rd. Westmorland Rd. Ellerdale St. Westmorland Road to Samuel Davis Drive Rothesay Ave. Route 1 Sandy Point Rd. Foster-Thurston Dr.* University Ave.* Hawthorne Ave.* Samuel Davis Drive to Millidge Avenue Samuel Davis Dr. Millidge Ave. Millidge Avenue to Manchester Avenue Belleview Ave. Spar Cove Rd. Bay St. Manchester Avenue to Route 7 Manawagonish Rd. Source: Godfrey 2005; Godfrey 2006 *Crossing depends on corridor variant selected.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 189

Railways

Saint John is the main terminus for the NBSR (formerly the CP Rail Line) and the CN Rail Line connector line from Moncton to Saint John. NBSR is a privately owned railway with a US partner, Eastern Maine Railway. The railway connects at strategic points to provide shippers with complete access to North American markets. The NBSR connects with the CP Rail Line network via the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway at St. Jean, PQ, and connects to the CN network at Moncton. NBSR services bulk unloading, cross-dock, marine, lumber re-load and chemical handling. Freight services are available five days a week to the US and connection to the CN Rail Line occurs seven days a week. The CN Rail Line connection to Moncton provides Saint John with access to the CN Rail Line to Halifax and westward to central and western Canada and to the mid-west United States.

The preferred corridor intersects with the CN Rail between Westmorland Road and Route 1 and between Millidge Avenue and Manchester Avenue (Godfrey 2005).

Marine Facilities

The Port of Saint John is a modern international seaport located in the centre of Saint John’s downtown core. It offers 24 berthing terminals and a total docking frontage of 4,800 m. It has 105,500 m2 of shed storage and 47 ha of open dock area. Its facilities include a container terminal, forest products terminal, a computerized dry bulk terminal, multi-use freight handling facilities, and a number of private liquid bulk and other special use terminals.

The Digby Ferry Terminal is located at the west end of Saint John. It provides vehicle and passenger access across the Bay of Fundy to Nova Scotia. Ferry service from Saint John to the Kingston Peninsula is provided during the summer months by the Millidgeville – Summerville Ferry across the Kennebecasis River.

The preferred corridor does not interact with marine facilities.

Airports

Eastern Charlotte County and western Saint John County are served by the Saint John Airport. The airport is located on Loch Lomond Road and can be accessed from Route 111 via Route 1 or through Saint John via Loch Lomond Road. The airport has two runways that serve both jet and propeller aircraft service. It provides daily scheduled passenger flight services to Halifax, Montreal, and Toronto by major carriers. Air cargo services that interlink to local trucking and courier services are also available. The airport is also home to the Atlantic Flight Centre, a fixed base operator and flight training school.

The preferred corridor does not interact with the Saint John Airport. However, the preferred corridor does cross Loch Lomond Road, one means of access to the airport from Saint John.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 190

4.11.1.2 Water, Sewerage, and Waste Disposal Services

Within Saint John, most residents are on municipal water and sewage systems. There is a large waste treatment facility on Route 1 near Saints Rest Marsh. Municipal waste for the urban area is sent to the Saint John Regional Sanitary Landfill, located on the northern edge of Saint John on Route 7. Operated by the Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission, the Crane Mountain Sanitary Landfill facility operates an extensive blue box recycling program with 23 depots across the Fundy Region. It also has an interpretive centre and a wetland and trails program.

The City of Saint John has identified a location for a future waste water lift station at Spar Cove Road. This location is within the preferred corridor.

The preferred corridor interacts with numerous water mains, and sanitary and storm sewers. Table 4.11.2 summarizes the infrastructure that falls within urban sections of the preferred corridor and the north and south variants around Rockwood Park. Table 4.11.2 Water and Sewerage Infrastructure Crossed by the Urban Portion of the Preferred Corridor and North and South Variants around Rockwood Park Section of Preferred Corridor Infrastructure Crossed Mispec Point to Loch Lomond Road 300 mm water main (Dedication St.) 300 mm water main (Grandview Ave.) 575 mm sanitary sewer (Grandview Ave.) 300 mm storm sewer (Grandview Ave.) 1,600 mm culvert (Grandview Ave.) 900 mm water main (near Loch Lomond Rd.) 400 mm water main (near Loch Lomond Rd.) Loch Lomond Road to Westmorland Road 300 mm storm sewer (Ellerdale St.) 300 mm sanitary sewer (Ellerdale St.) 400 mm water main (Ellerdale St.) 200 mm water main (Ellerdale St.) 200 mm sanitary sewer (Westmorland Rd.) 200 mm water main (Westmorland Rd.) two 600 mm water mains (west of Westmorland Rd.) 300 mm water main (abandoned; west of Westmorland Rd.) Westmorland Road to Samuel Davis Drive 750 mm sanitary collector sewer (east of Rothesay Ave.) (see Rockwood Park variants below) 900 mm water main (Rothesay Ave.) 250 mm water main (Rothesay Ave.) 450 mm storm sewer (Rothesay Ave.) water main (Sandy Point Rd.) Route 1 to Samuel Davis Drive 200 mm diameter PVC sanitary sewer and a 300 mm diameter (Rockwood Park North variant) PVC water main parallel to the proposed pipeline for approximately 60 metres (Foster Thurston Dr.) 250 mm diameter PVC sanitary sewer and a 300 mm diameter PVC water main (Sandy Point Rd. at the intersection with Foster Thurston Dr.) on the west side of the University, 375 mm diameter sanitary sewer, 300 mm diameter water main (University Ave.). on the east side of the University, 300 mm diameter PVC water main (Tucker Park Rd.) on the east side of the University, 300 mm diameter water main (University Ave.) Route 1 to Samuel Davis Drive 150 mm and 200 mm diameter water main, and a 225 mm and (Rockwood Park South variant) 250 mm diameter sanitary sewer (Gilbert St.) 300 mm diameter water main (Wright St.) 900 mm diameter combined sewer (Gilbert St.)

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 191

Table 4.11.2 Water and Sewerage Infrastructure Crossed by the Urban Portion of the Preferred Corridor and North and South Variants around Rockwood Park Section of Preferred Corridor Infrastructure Crossed 225 mm diameter sanitary sewer (Mount Pleasant Ave.) 150 mm diameter water main (Highwood Dr.) 250 mm diameter water main and two crossings of a 250 mm diameter sanitary sewer (in the Community Garden area) 200 mm diameter water main (leading from Lily Lake) 200 mm diameter water main (Hawthorne Ave. Extension) 250 mm diameter water main (Rockwood Park wooded area from the water storage standpipe to Sandy Point Rd.) Samuel Davis Drive to Millidge Avenue 500 mm water main (Millidge Ave.) 200 mm water main (Millidge Ave.) 600 mm storm sewer (Millidge Ave.) 375 mm sanitary sewer (Millidge Ave.) Millidge Avenue to Manchester Avenue 200 mm water main (Spar Cove Rd.) 1,200 mm combined sewer (Spar Cove Rd.) 300 mm storm outfall (two) (Millford Rd.) 200 mm water main (Church Ave.) 200 mm sewer (Church Ave.) Manchester Avenue to Route 7 300 mm water main (Manchester Ave.) 300 mm water main (Westgate Park) 1,500 mm water main (Pipeline Rd.) 600 mm water main (Pipeline Rd.) 350 mm water main (Manawagonish Rd.) 900 mm water main (abandoned) Source: Godfrey 2005; Godfrey 2006

4.11.1.3 Electrical and Gas Utilities

The urban portion of the preferred corridor includes numerous power lines, ranging from small subdivision-level pole utilities to major power lines. Other electricity infrastructure within the urban portion of the preferred corridor includes step-up or step-down sub-stations. The preferred corridor is adjacent to a Saint John Energy sub-station on Millidge Avenue.

Enbridge Gas New Brunswick has 100 mm and 150 mm diameter steel and 50 mm diameter polyethylene distribution pipelines that run through Saint John. Table 4.11.3 summarizes where the preferred corridor and the north and south variants around Rockwood Park intersect these pipelines. Table 4.11.3 Existing Gas Pipelines Crossed by the Urban Portion of the Preferred Corridor and North and South Variants around Rockwood Park Section of Preferred Corridor Existing Gas Pipelines Crossed Mispec Point to Loch Lomond Road 100 mm steel distribution pipeline (Grandview Ave.) Loch Lomond Road to Westmorland Road no pipelines crossed Westmorland Road to Samuel Davis Drive 150 mm steel distribution pipeline (Rothesay Ave.) Route 1 to Samuel Davis Drive 150 mm diameter steel distribution pipeline (University Ave.) (Rockwood Park North variant) Route 1 to Samuel Davis Drive 50 mm diameter PE distribution pipeline (Gilbert St.) (Rockwood Park South variant) 50 mm diameter PE distribution pipeline (Davenport Ave.) Samuel Davis Drive to Millidge Avenue 150 mm steel distribution pipeline (Millidge Ave.) Millidge Avenue to Manchester Avenue no pipelines crossed Manchester Avenue to Route 7 50 mm polyethylene distribution pipeline (east of Manchester Ave.) Source: Godfrey 2005; Godfrey 2006

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 192

4.11.1.4 Health and Emergency Services

Health Services

Three hospitals and other health and long-term/chronic care facilities (e.g. the Worker’s Compensation Rehabilitation Centre) are located in Saint John. The largest of these units, the Saint John Regional Hospital, is a 700-bed acute care teaching hospital, and is accessed via either University Avenue or Sandy Point Road. It is New Brunswick’s largest regional hospital and one of the largest in eastern Canada. The Saint John Regional Hospital will fall within the Project’s Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) only if the pipeline RoW is located within the north variant around Rockwood Park.

Other facilities include the Saint John Regional Hospital-Addiction Services (50 beds) in South Bay, St. Joseph’s Hospital (213 beds/cribs), a general care facility located in the uptown area, and the Workers’ Compensation Rehabilitation Centre near Grand Bay. The Saint John Regional Hospital-Addiction Services will likely fall within the Project’s EPZ if the pipeline RoW is located within the north variant around Rockwood Park. The other facilities are not expected to fall within the Project’s EPZ for the preferred corridor or the corridor variants around Rockwood park.

The Saint John Canadian Blood Services Agency (CBSA) facility for the province of New Brunswick is located south of the Saint John Hospital, approximately 100 m from one of the north of Rockwood Park route variants. This facility processes, stores, and supplies blood to the entire Province of New Brunswick.

In both the Saint John metro area and the surrounding county, ambulance services are provided by a single agency, the Saint John KV Service, a not-for-profit service run by the Atlantic Health Sciences Corporation. Its service boundary ends at Musquash. The Saint John KV Service maintains three to five ambulances with two-person crews 24 hours a day.

Policing Services

The Saint John City Police operate a two-district system: one district office in the north end of the City and one district office in City Hall. There are 175 officers and 22 civilians working for the force. The Rothesay Regional Police Force services the town of Rothesay and the neighbouring town of Quispamsis. There are 31 officers, 11 civilians, and 8 auxiliary members working for the Rothesay force.

Fire Response Services

Seven fire stations service the Saint John metro area. Equipment and personnel from these stations can service areas outside the City if an emergency situation arises, or if the station has a standing agreement for services (e.g., a standing agreement exists between the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station and the Saint John Fire Department).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 193

The Musquash Fire Department is responsible for the area from the Saint John city limits to St. Stephen and Harvey Brook. The Musquash Fire Department includes two stations, one in Musquash and one in Dipper Harbour. These are volunteer stations with 20 personnel available in Musquash and 15 in Dipper Harbour. The Musquash station has one Rescue Unit (with an auto extraction unit, breathing apparatus, etc.) and one truck with pumping capability (325 gallons per minute with a carrying capacity of 1,300 gallons). The Dipper Harbour station has one truck similar to the one in Musquash, plus another with a larger pumping capability (625 gallons per minute with a carrying capacity of 1,200 gallons).

4.11.1.5 Accommodations

Tourism New Brunswick (2005) lists 230 establishments that provide overnight accommodations in the Fundy Coastal Region of the province. This region stretches from Fundy National Park to Deer and Campobello Islands. Within the urban region of the preferred corridor, there are 33 establishments that provide overnight accommodation, 27 of which provide year-round lodging (Tourism New Brunswick 2005). Table 4.11.4 summarizes overnight accommodations in Saint John County and the surrounding area. Table 4.11.4 Overnight Accommodations in Saint John County and the Surrounding Area Inns/B&B/Cottage/Tourist Hotel/Motel Campgrounds Location Home No. Unit No. Unit No. Unit Saint John 21 1343 23 116 4 233+ Rothesay - - 1 9 - - St. Martins - - 15 57 2 88+ Total 21 1343 39 182 6 321+ Source: Tourism New Brunswick 2005

4.11.2 Rural Infrastructure and Services

4.11.2.1 Transportation

Traffic Corridors

Within Charlotte County, the preferred corridor intersects Route 1, a number of secondary highways (e.g., 725, 735, 740, 745, 750, 755, 760, 770, and 785), smaller roads, forest access roads, and trails. Through the western portion of Saint John County and a portion of eastern Charlotte County, the preferred corridor parallels the existing M&NP SJL. It is anticipated that many access points used during construction of the SJL will be used for construction of the Project.

Railways

The NBSR runs largely north of the preferred corridor; however, the preferred corridor does intersect the McAdam to St. Stephen link along Rte. 750 (St. David Ridge Road).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 194

Marine Facilities

As a coastal region, Charlotte County and western Saint John County have access to two year-round ports, Saint John and Bayside, and a large number of small craft harbours. The preferred corridor does not interact with any of these marine facilities.

Airports

Charlotte County is served by the Saint John Airport Corporation and the Fredericton International Airport.

4.11.2.2 Water, Sewerage, and Waste Disposal Services

Most residents surrounding the rural portion of the preferred corridor are on private well/septic systems. The rural portion of the preferred corridor does not cross any municipalities that provide municipal water and sewerage services. Municipal garbage is disposed at local landfills such as the one in the Stewart Meadow Brook area on Route 770 or the one near New River Beach, north of Route 1. The South West Solid Waste Commission in St. Stephen is responsible for garbage collection throughout Charlotte County and manages waste from southwestern New Brunswick. Hemlock Knoll Sanitary Landfill (operated by the South West Solid Waste Commission) is located in Lawrence Station and accepts waste from southwestern New Brunswick. Fifty percent of the waste from the region managed by the Valley Solid Waste Commission (upper Saint John River Valley) is also sent to this landfill for disposal. South West Solid Waste Commission also runs a recycling program from 12 dropoff points throughout southwestern New Brunswick.

4.11.2.3 Electrical Utilities

Charlotte County is sparsely populated along most of the rural portion of the preferred corridor, thus there are few subdivision-level power lines. However, there are several large utility power lines that leave Point Lepreau Generating Station and head north to tie in to the NB Power grid. As well, several large power lines that serve communities along the Fundy Coast such as St. George, St. Andrews, and St. Stephen, are crossed by the preferred corridor.

In addition to providing drinking water to the City of Saint John, the East Branch Musquash Reservoir is also the source of water for a hydroelectric power generation facility at Musquash. Water from the Reservoir is channelled though an approximately 0.9 km long, 3 m diameter wooden pipe called a Penstock. This portion of the Musquash Dam system and the Penstock were constructed in 1920, making it the oldest hydroelectric power generation facility in New Brunswick. The Penstock is crossed by the preferred corridor.

The Scott Falls Dam is on the West Branch Musquash Reservoir and is situated north of the preferred corridor.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 195

The proposed IPL has received regulatory approval from the NEB and the centreline of the transmission line RoW has been cut.

4.11.2.4 Health Services and Emergency Services

Health Services

The Charlotte County Hospital in St. Stephen has 80 beds and is served by 25 medical staff. The hospital has a number of services, including a coronary care unit, a nursery, two operating theatres, and an emergency outpatients department. The hospital is served by a privately owned and operated ambulance service. The Fundy Hospital in Blacks Harbour has an emergency department with ambulance service provided by Fundy Ambulance Service which is run by the not-for-profit Atlantic Health Sciences Corporation.

Ambulance services in the Fundy region, which includes both Charlotte and Saint John Counties, are administered as territorial franchises with only one service provider per geographic boundary. In the Lepreau area, McGovern Ambulance NB Ltd., a private organization with three employees, provides service with a single vehicle. In Blacks Harbour, the Fundy Ambulance Service maintains two vehicles and two two-person crews; one is a primary team, the other is a backup. In St. Andrews, McGovern Ambulance NB Ltd. maintains three vehicles with one on call 24 hours a day operated by a two-person crew. Extra employees and vehicles are available when needed. In St. Stephen, Holmes Ambulance, a private company, maintains three vehicles; one is staffed 24 hours a day.

Policing Services

RCMP services in Charlotte County are divided into districts. District 1 has seven detachments: St. George; St. Stephen; St. Andrews; Lepreau; Deer Island; Campobello; and Grand Manan, with the district office located in St. George. In total, 30 officers, one district commander, five clerical staff, and several volunteer auxiliaries serve the area. The communities of Pennfield, Pleasant Ridge, Lee Settlement, and Musquash are also covered by District 1.

The Town of St. Stephen and the Village of Blacks Harbour have local municipal police forces with paid officers and several volunteer auxiliary officers. St. Stephen has 11 officers, a chief, a deputy chief, one administrative person, and five auxiliary police. Blacks Harbour has four officers and two auxiliary volunteers.

Fire Response Services

In Charlotte County, 14 fire stations, mostly volunteer, provide fire services. The stations have informal agreements to provide mutual aid to each other for large or simultaneous fires. Charlotte County does not have a Hazmat (hazardous materials) unit at any of the fire stations. In addition, NBDNR has two provincial fire centres, or ranger offices, located in St. George and Welsford, that provide forest fire fighting services for the area adjacent to the preferred corridor. St. George has 14 full-time rangers/wardens. Available equipment includes two 1,000-1,200-gallon tankers, approximately six Wajax pumps, hoses, and back tanks. The Welsford office, which covers the area east of the Lepreau

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 196

River, has eight full-time employees. Equipment available at this station is similar to that available in the St. George station.

If required during a forest fire, NBDNR will hire contractors to provide bulldozers, half ton trucks, or helicopters with water buckets up to 500 gallons. Six water bombers are located in Chatham. Depending on the fire index, three water bombers may be kept in Fredericton, particularly during early spring and late fall. In addition, two spotter aircraft can be used to locate fires. Other large water bombers can be contracted from Quebec and Newfoundland to fight large fires should circumstances warrant them. The network of local fire departments in Charlotte County can also provide assistance in the case of a large forest fire. In addition, Irving’s Woodland Division has a 1,000 gallon tanker, Wajax pumps, bulldozers, and three water bombers based out of Juniper that can also be contracted by NBDNR. If a forest fire occurs, the ranger responsible for the applicable area will contact the fire centre in Fredericton if additional services are required.

4.11.2.5 Accommodations

Within the vicinity of the rural section of the preferred corridor, there are 54 places identified that provide overnight accommodation, 31 of which provide year round lodging (Tourism New Brunswick 2005). This number does not include lodgings on Deer and Campobello Islands which are accessed by ferry from the mainland. Table 4.11.5 summarizes overnight accommodations in Charlotte County and the surrounding area. Table 4.11.5 Overnight Accommodations in Charlotte County and the Surrounding Area Campgrounds Hotel/Motel Inns/B&B/Cottage/Tourist Home Location No. Unit Price ($) No. Unit Price ($) No. Unit Price ($) Pomeroy Ridge - - - 1 3 - - - Bocabec - - - 1 1 107 - - - Pocologan 3 35 50-85 - - - 1 82 16-25 Blacks Harbour - - - 4 10 35-85 - - - St. George 2 42 65-165 8 20 50-150 - - - St. Andrews 6 352 40-729 35 206 25-325 2 343 20-34 St. Stephen 4 127 45-139 2 9 75-120 2 - 18-32 Back Bay - - - 1 2 75 - - - Canoose - - - 1 9 102-180 - - - Chance Harbour - - - 1 11 105-185 - - - Canal ------1 26 New River Beach ------1 - 21-24 Welshpool - - - 2 2 120 - - - Pennfield 1 17 43-75 ------Second Falls - - - 1 2 - - - - Total 16 573 40-729 57 275 25-325 7 425+ 16-34 Source: Tourism New Brunswick 2005

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 197

4.12 Labour and Economy

An overview of the existing labour force, income levels and economic conditions for New Brunswick is provided, followed by an overview of existing conditions for the Saint John Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) and Charlotte County. The information is derived from a number of sources, including Jacques Whitford (2004b), Statistics Canada (2001a; the most recent), and the New Brunswick Department of Finance (NBDF 2005).

4.12.1 Overview of the Labour Force, Income, and Economic Conditions

In 2001, New Brunswick’s gross domestic product (GDP) was estimated to be approximately 27 billion dollars (2001 dollars). Some of the leading sectors of the economy include construction, manufacturing, transportation, finance, and retail trade. Recent large scale projects in the Province have included the Irving Refinery expansion and the M&NP projects, consisting of the construction of hundreds of kilometres of natural gas pipeline. Domestic exports account for approximately 40% of the economy. Leading sources of exports by commodity include energy, forestry, and agricultural and fishery products. In 2001, New Brunswick recorded a median household income of $39,951, a labour force participation rate of 63.1%, and an unemployment rate of 12.5% (Table 4.12.1). The population of New Brunswick in 2001 was 729,498, a decrease of approximately 1% from the 1996 level. The median age of the population in 2001 was 38.6 years (Table 4.12.1). The Saint John CMA is New Brunswick’s largest urban centre. It serves as a regional service centre, as a transportation hub for goods being exported from and imported into the country, and as a distribution centre for the delivery of goods throughout the region. Saint John is a regional commercial centre for retail and wholesale activities servicing a marketing area of an approximately 80 km radius that includes approximately 140,000 residents. The CMA contributes about 33% to New Brunswick’s GDP. The largest employers in the area are the health centre, the school board, the Irving Refinery, a pulp and paper mill, the City of Saint John, NB Power, and various plastic, packaging, food processing and metalworking companies. The tourism industry is a growing sector of the economy with a steadily increasing number of cruise ships arriving at Saint John Harbour. The CMA also includes call centres that service large international companies such as Xerox and IBM. In 2001, Saint John recorded a median household income of $41,596, a labour force participation rate of 62.9%, and an unemployment rate of 9.2% (Table 4.12.1). The population of Saint John CMA in 2001 was 122,678, a decrease of approximately 2% from the 1996 level. The median age of the population in 2001 was 37.9 years (Table 4.12.1).

Charlotte County, like other areas of southwestern New Brunswick, is primarily a resource-based economy with the main inland industry being forestry, and fishing and aquaculture dominating coastal areas. Other resource-based industries include quarries and agriculture. The manufacturing sector in Charlotte County is related largely to the primary industries (e.g., pulp and paper, fish processing). In 2001, Charlotte County recorded a median household income of $38,073, a labour force participation rate of 62.6%, and an unemployment rate of 17.1% (Table 4.12.1). The population of Charlotte County in 2001 was 27,366, which was virtually unchanged from the 1996 level. The median age of the population in 2001 was 38.9 years (Table 4.12.1).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 198

Tables 4.12.1, 4.12.2, and 4.12.3 provide a summary of select labour force characteristics and population education levels based on census data from 2001. Compared to New Brunswick as a whole, Saint John CMA has a higher median household income, lower unemployment rate, and lower proportion of individuals experienced in manufacturing and construction industries. Conversely, Charlotte County has a lower median household income, a higher unemployment rate, and higher proportion of individuals experienced in manufacturing and construction industries than New Brunswick as a whole. Table 4.12.1 Summary of Selected Demographic, Income and Labour Characteristics, 2001 Labour Force and Economic New Brunswick Saint John CMA Charlotte County Characteristics Population 729,498 122,678 27,366 Population change (% change -1.0% -2.0% 0.1% 1996 to 2001) Median age of the population 38.6 37.9 38.9 (years) Median household income $39,951 $41,596 $38,073 Labour force participation rate 63.1% 62.9% 62.6% Unemployment rate 12.5% 9.2% 17.1% Employment Rate 55.2% 57.1% 51.9% Source: Statistics Canada 2001a Table 4.12.2 Summary of Labour Force by Industry, 2001 Industry New Brunswick Saint John CMA Charlotte County Total experienced labour 365,040 (100%) 60,295 (100%) 13,490 (100%) force (% of total labour force) Agriculture and other 27,415 (8%) 2,235 (4%) 2,155 (16%) resource-based industries (% of total labour force) Manufacturing and 69,185 (19%) 9,440 (16%) 3,720 (28%) construction industries (% of total labour force) Wholesale and retail trade 53,625 (15%) 9,830 (16%) 4,485 (11%) (% of total labour force) Finance and real estate (% 14,800 (4%) 2,740 (5%) 335 (2%) of total labour force) Health and education (% of 64,415 (18%) 11,415 (19%) 1,920 (14%) total labour force) Business services (% of total 57,435 (15%) 12,955 (21%) 1,495 (11%) labour force) Other services (% of total 78,170 (21%) 11,680 (19%) 2,380 (18%) labour force) Source: Statistics Canada 2001a

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 199

Table 4.12.3 Summary of Education Levels, 2001 Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of Population Population Population Population Age Population with High with a Region with Trades with a College Class with Less than School and/or University Certificate or Certificate or High School some Post Certificate or Diploma Diploma Secondary Degree New Brunswick 17.0 34.4 11.1 19.5 18.0 20-34 Saint John CMA 14.0 37.8 10.5 18.2 19.6 Charlotte County 23.7 36.1 14.8 15.5 9.6 New Brunswick 26.0 27.5 13.8 18.0 14.7 35-44 Saint John CMA 20.7 28.4 14.3 18.8 17.8 Charlotte County 26.7 28.3 16.5 17.7 10.8 New Brunswick 37.2 20.1 14.3 13.5 15.0 45-64 Saint John CMA 29.4 23.2 15.8 16.1 15.4 Charlotte County 34.9 20.8 16.7 13.1 14.6 Source: Statistics Canada 2001a

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 200

4.13 Archaeological and Heritage Resources

Archaeological and Heritage Resources are defined as any standing, surface, or subsurface remnants from past human activities within the area proposed to be affected by the Project. This definition also includes paleontological (fossil) resources.

Saint John has seen numerous episodes of habitation by different cultural groups stretching back thousands of years. The location of this City at the mouth of the largest river in the Maritimes, the Saint John River, has made it a very valuable location for several reasons: habitation; resources; security; and trade. Physical evidence of the use of this area, in the form of documented archaeological sites, by the First Nation of the Saint John River, the Wolastoqiyik (Maliseet), goes back almost continuously for the last 5,000 years and in areas further up the river, 10,000 years. Virtually all of the cultural groups of European descent previously and currently living in New Brunswick came to the Province through the port of Saint John. Saint John is the oldest incorporated city in Canada. Much of that history still exists both in the ground, in the form of archaeological sites, and in built heritage, in the form of buildings and structures of various architectural styles.

Some of the geological formations in and around the City also have high potential for paleontological resources, in particular, a bedrock formation known as the “Saint John Group” that contains fossils from the Cambrian time period, in particular trilobites (hard-shelled, segmented creatures that existed over 300 million years ago in the Earth's ancient seas) (Young 1998; Bay of Fundy Tourism Partnership 2005; Johnson, pers. comm.).

In order to describe the existing conditions for Archaeological and Heritage Resources for the Project, the preferred corridor will be divided into the following five sections: 1) Mispec Point to Grandview Avenue; 2) Grandview Avenue to Lancaster (Route 7); 3) Rural Route Part 1 (paralleling the SJL pipeline); 4) Rural Route Part 2 (paralleling the IPL); and 5) St. Stephen area and terminal point.

Typically there are two methods for determining the existing conditions of Archaeological and Heritage Resources for EA purposes. These are:

seek out data on known resources through a review of the provincial archives, provincial heritage records, documented archaeological sites, provincial and local museum records, local historical societies, community historians, and Aboriginal people; and

undertake a field search for those resources that exist, but of which we do not currently have knowledge.

The most effective approach to gather this information is a combination of these two methods.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 201

4.13.1 Background Information

Prior to initiating the field components of the archaeological and heritage investigation, a literature search and desk-top modelling exercise were undertaken to determine the location of known resources in the area and in addition determine the locations of areas with a high potential to contain as yet unknown heritage resources along the Project RoW. This background research included the results of the archaeological studies undertaken for adjacent projects (e.g., the SJL (Washburn & Gillies 1999b, AMEC 2001; Heritage Technologies 2001) and the IPL (AMEC 2002)), the data gathering from the Canadian Inventory of Historic Buildings, the Borden Maps (of recorded archaeological sites), the Maritime Archaeological Resource Inventory, Archaeological Projects Manuscripts, the Historic Site Registry, New Brunswick Provincial Archives, predictive modelling and terrain analysis. In addition, consultation was conducted with the provincial regulating agency, Archaeological Services Unit (ASU; Heritage Branch), landowners, and stakeholders.

Although the preferred corridor runs through some areas that have never been subjected to an archaeological survey, the majority of the preferred corridor runs parallel to or in close proximity to other recent project locations, such as the corridors for the IPL, the M&NP SJL and Mainline pipelines, and the CanaportTM LNG facility location, which have been previously reviewed for archaeological resources. Other sections of the preferred corridor traverse well-known areas of cities and towns like Saint John and St. Stephen. Thus the archaeological research conducted for these and other projects was available for use as background information, and informed this section of the EA. A list of related documents is found in the references at the end of this document (Section 10, References).

4.13.2 Known Archaeological and Heritage Resources

Following a desktop analysis, representative sections of the preferred corridor were subject to an archaeological and heritage field reconnaissance in 2005 in order to assess their level of archaeological potential, level of disturbance (through urban renewal), and to determine the areas that may warrant further investigation and/or archaeological testing during the detailed routing phase of this Project.

4.13.2.1 Mispec Point to Grandview Avenue

Much of this area has been subject to previous heritage surveys for other developments, most notably the CanaportTM LNG facility project and the Orimulsion project. The known archaeological and heritage resources in this area consist primarily of the World War II period defensive position, known as Fort Mispec, located on the high bluffs of Mispec Point. This site is located within the area of the CanaportTM LNG facility, and will not be directly affected by the Project (Jacques Whitford 2005b). Archaeological testing was conducted at locations along the two watercourses within this area for these previous projects (Jacques Whitford 2004a). Only very late 19th and 20th century material was recovered. While the preferred corridor goes further inland from the proposed CanaportTM LNG facility, this area has lower archaeological potential and is not anticipated to yield significant heritage resources. There are currently no other known archaeological or heritage resources in this portion of

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 202

the preferred corridor area. The portion of the corridor near Calvert Lake is considered to have moderate archaeological potential.

4.13.2.2 Grandview Avenue to Lancaster (Route 7)

This portion of the preferred corridor encompasses virtually all of the area known as the urban corridor that traverses Saint John and is mainly located to the north of the heart of the City. In general, since the preferred corridor avoids the more historic areas of the City and mainly traverses areas settled as the City expanded in the 20th century, most of the preferred corridor is anticipated to have low potential for significant historic period heritage resources. There are no known archaeological sites within this portion of the preferred corridor; however, there are a few areas that were considered to have high archaeological potential within the immediate or general vicinity of this section of the corridor. These are discussed below.

The proposed crossing location of Marsh Creek has seen numerous episodes of disturbance as the City has grown around this area (such as the active railway yard to the east and a large industrial facility (Strescon) to the north); however, since intact archaeological sites have been discovered in many disturbed contexts, some heritage potential remains for this area. The areas of the east and west shorelines of the creek have some potential for archaeological resources; however, much of the area is low lying and is considered to have a moderate archaeological potential.

Rockwood Park was field investigated; however, given its relatively remote location (in the context of pre-contact and early historic periods), it was determined that this area generally has low potential for archaeological and heritage resources. Some building remains and concrete features were noted that related to the Rockwood Park ski hill that was opened in 1967 as part of the Canadian Centennial celebrations and was in operation until it closed in 1982. This ski hill ceased operating due to unpredictable winter conditions and insufficient snowfall (Morrison, pers. comm.) and is not considered a heritage feature.

The area known as Indiantown (east side of the Saint John River at the proposed HDD crossing) is one of the earliest historic period settlements in Saint John, and there is evidence that this location was also used by First Nations both in the pre-contact era and after the advent of European settlers (Ganong 1899; Burke 1988). The area of the preferred corridor, however, has been subjected to a high degree of infilling, urban renewal, and industrialization and thus it is not anticipated that intact resources exist in this area. Therefore the archaeological potential of the preferred corridor in this area is considered low.

The west side of the Saint John River HDD has been subject to differing levels of recent disturbance. There are remnants of the ferry crossing on the west shoreline used in the 19th and early 20th centuries, in the form of submerged timber framing for the dock that was located there. As the crossing will be a directional drill, these timbers are not anticipated be affected by the Project. It is also unlikely they would be considered a significant archaeological resource. The large semi-forested stone bluffs west of this HDD location offer an excellent vantage of the Saint John River and other than logging activities, appear undisturbed. According to Burley (1976), a local landowner named Leo Hanson was digging in the area of Dennison’s Point and located “a number of historic items and possibly a quantity of lithic tools.” This site, located along the shoreline, was designated BhDm 6 on the Borden Mapping.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 203

Although not anticipated to affect the shoreline area, the preferred corridor in this area was assessed on foot. When the preferred route is established in this area, a program of subsurface testing will likely be warranted.

4.13.2.3 Rural Route Part 1

This section of the preferred corridor parallels the M&NP SJL beginning at Route 7 and going to the IPL crossing location. Most of the corridor for this section parallels the RoW for the SJL, which was constructed in 2000. There are certain areas where the preferred corridor has diverged from the existing RoW due to a lack of sufficient room for another pipeline at a particular point, or to avoid problematic watercourse/wetland areas.

Detailed archaeological research and fieldwork was conducted for the SJL pipeline prior to its construction 2000 (Washburn & Gillis 1998). This work resulted in the identification of only two archaeological or heritage resources within the SJL, and within or in close proximity to this section of preferred corridor. These included the historic penstock on the Musquash River (the oldest electric dam in New Brunswick) and a surface collected pre-contact unifacial quartz scraper from the west bank of the Lepreau River. Outside of these areas most of this section of the preferred corridor, with the exception of the larger watercourse crossings (e.g., Lepreau River, Musquash River, New River, the Pocologan River, and Red Rock Stream), has low potential for archaeological resources.

Glacial features such as eskers and moraines are considered to have moderate to high archaeological potential. There are a number of these formations in the area of the preferred corridor. Where warranted, these features will be identified and investigated during the detailed route survey.

4.13.2.4 Rural Route Part 2 (Paralleling the IPL)

This section of the preferred corridor closely parallels much of the RoW for the IPL. There are certain areas where the preferred corridor has diverged from the existing RoW.

Archaeological research and fieldwork was conducted for the IPL in 2001 (AMEC 2002). This resulted in the identification of three archaeological or heritage resources within the IPL RoW, and within or in close proximity to this section of preferred corridor. These included a group of historic standing building features at St. David Ridge, various linear stone features (agricultural fencelines), and a rock lined depression along Route 3 at Old Ridge.

Sample areas along the IPL portion of the preferred corridor were evaluated for archaeological potential in 2005, as discussed in the following text.

Magaguadavic River

New archaeological surveys of the Magaguadavic River system conducted by provincial archaeologists in 2004 and 2005 have identified a large number of sites, both historic and pre-contact, along the shores of this river (Suttie, pers. comm.). Although those surveys did not encompass the preferred

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 204

corridor, this area is considered to have high potential for pre-contact and historic period archaeological resources. During the survey of the IPL, one pre-contact artifact was recovered on the west bank of the Magaguadavic River. The IPL crossing location of the Magaguadavic River is within the southern boundary of the proposed Brunswick corridor crossing location. There are two known previously recorded pre-contact archaeological sites flanking the boundaries of the preferred corridor: BhDq 6 and BhDq 11. Although BhDq 11, the McDougall Falls site, is north of the preferred corridor, BhDq 6 is located on the east shoreline at the southern edge of the preferred corridor. Therefore, due to the proximity of this type of site to the preferred corridor, there is a strongly elevated potential for similar resources to exist within much of the preferred corridor area.

Several historic period resources in the form of old farmsteads were identified within the preferred corridor on the west side of the Magaguadavic River. Features identified include cellar depressions, chimney bricks, and the effects of historic period agricultural activities on the landscape. Based on the artifacts observed and the available documentary evidence on this area, it is anticipated that these features date from the mid to late 19th century. Potential interaction between the Project and these features will be determined during the detailed route selection process.

Digdeguash River

The boundaries of the preferred corridor on the east shore of the Digdeguash River was walked and although it is clear that this shoreline area is very prone to flooding, there are a number of locations adjacent to the shoreline that would be suitable for judgmental testing. There is a remnant of an oxbow on the west shore of this river that appears to have higher archaeological potential, as it is more level. There are no known resources in this area; however, archaeological testing will be warranted during the detailed route survey.

Dennis Stream

A survey of the preferred corridor area at Dennis Stream revealed several concrete foundation structures which are interpreted as the remains of an old mill. Based on their construction technique they appear to date to the late 19th century. The trees that are currently growing in this area suggest that this facility has been abandoned for most of the 20th century. The presence of this feature suggests that the potential for other historic period resources in this area is high. Potential interaction between the Project and this feature will be determined during the detailed route selection process.

A pre-contact period First Nation archaeological site was discovered on the west side of Dennis Stream within the 50 m RoW of the IPL. The IPL crossing of Dennis Stream is within the preferred corridor crossing location.

Most of the watercourses crossed by this section of the preferred corridor are considered to have high potential for archaeological resources. Subsurface archaeological testing for these areas will be undertaken once a detailed route has been determined. They include (but are not limited to): Bonny River; Dowdall Meadow Brook; Guntree Brook; Gardner Brook; Clarence Stream; Digdeguash River; North Branch Campbell Brook; Waweig River; Sawyer Brook; Dennis Stream; and Mohannes Stream.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 205

4.13.2.5 St. Stephen Area and Terminal Point

The area of St. Stephen has moderate to high archaeological potential, particularly near the shorelines of the St. Croix River, which serves as a topographical border between New Brunswick and Maine. The St. Croix River was unquestionably used by the indigenous peoples in the area, both prior to and after the advent of European settlers. This river was also recognized as being the location of the first European French settlement in North America, located on St. Croix Island and dated to 1604. Land grants to French settlers followed throughout the 1600s, but Acadian settlement of the area was scarce. Loyalists settled the area that is now St. Stephen in 1784. The area around St. Stephen was used predominantly for agriculture, fishing, and logging. Mills were common along the shorelines of the river; there were reportedly seven mills in the area in 1803. The St. Croix River continued to feature prominently in the lumber industry during the 19th and 20th centuries (Jacques Whitford 2005c).

Several 19th and early 20th century abandoned farmsteads were identified in the area of the Mainline pipeline as it approaches the St. Croix River area. It is anticipated that this will also be consistent for the Project. Until a detailed route is determined, it is not known if any such resources will be affected by the Project. Typically, historic period farmsteads are not considered significant heritage resources, and proper dating and documentation of these features is sufficient mitigation in cases where the Project is anticipated to affect them. At this time, there are no known archaeological sites within the preferred corridor in the St. Stephen area.

4.13.3 Architectural Heritage

There are a large number of historic period buildings located in Saint John and the Town of St. Stephen, as well as in the smaller communities of Charlotte County (Spinney and Grearson 1984; Finley, pers. comm.). Many of these buildings are listed on the Canadian Inventory of Historic Buildings.

At this time, no commercial or residential heritage buildings are anticipated to be affected by Project activities. The rural nature of a large portion of the preferred corridor makes it very unlikely that any heritage buildings currently within the preferred corridor will be affected by the Project.

4.13.4 Paleontological Resources

Paleontological resources are most likely to be found in formations of sedimentary rock. The geology of each section of the preferred corridor, the known paleontological resources therein, and the level of potential for unknown paleontological resources, are described in the following text.

4.13.4.1 Mispec Point to Grandview Avenue

The geology in the Mispec Point and Red Head area is predominantly Pennsylvanian and Triassic Mesozoic in period, and varies between the Pictou and Fundy groups of sedimentary and volcanic formations. These formations have the potential for paleontological resources.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 206

The bedrock in the Grandview Avenue area is known as the “Saint John Group” and contains fossils from the Cambrian time period, in particular trilobites (hard-shelled, segmented creatures that existed over 300 million years ago in the Earth's ancient seas). They went extinct before dinosaurs even existed, and are one of the key signature creatures of the Paleozoic Era, the first era to exhibit a proliferation of the complex life-forms that established the foundation of life as it is today (NB Museum 1999).

4.13.4.2 Grandview Avenue to Route 7

The geology along the urban portion of the preferred corridor that traverses Saint John features formations of rock dating from the Pre-Cambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician, and Pennsylvanian periods, which spans over 400 million years of development. The rocks of the Pre-Cambrian are almost devoid of fossils. In the early Cambrian there are traces and signs of soft-bodied animals: track marks and fossilized worm burrows. In the 45 million years of the Cambrian period, every major group of animals with hard parts appears in the fossil record, from early chordates to arthropods. Fossils of early marine creatures called trilobites and ostracods, species that preceded the emergence of land animals, have been found in Saint John dating to this period. A specific formation of interest is the “Saint John Group”, which is a ribbon of Cambrian rock running from Reversing Falls in Saint John east to Hanford Brook, which contains many trilobite and ostracod fossils. Much of this area is located outside of the preferred corridor.

Another area of note in Saint John is the rock cliffs bordering the Mackay Highway (Route 1), where fossils of 500-million-year-old jellyfish-like animals have been found. Since most fossils are of animal bones, shells, or vegetation, finding an invertebrate fossil like a jellyfish is an exceptional event, and this area is considered to be one of the best soft-bodied fossil sites in North America (Young 1998).

Due to the known presence of fossil bearing formations in the general vicinity of the preferred corridor, it is likely that some paleontological resources may exist within the preferred corridor and could possibly be affected by the Project (NB Museum 1999).

4.13.4.3 Rural Route Part 1 (Paralleling the SJL beginning at Route 7)

The section of the preferred corridor that parallels the SJL pipeline is another area with moderate to high potential for paleontological resources. The preferred corridor transects areas of sedimentary rock formation such as the Lancaster Formation, the Fowled Lake Beds, and portions of the Saint John Group (Johnson, pers. comm.). All of these formation types have yielded plant and invertebrate fossils in the past (M&NP 2000).

4.13.4.4 Rural Route Part 2 (Paralleling the IPL)

The section of the corridor that parallels the IPL has considerably less potential for paleontological resources, as many of the formations in this area are hard intrusives and therefore are not fossil- bearing in nature. The preferred corridor may transect smaller areas of sedimentary rock formation such as the Mascarene Group closer to Saint Stephen.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 207

4.13.4.5 St. Stephen Area and Terminal Point

The immediate St. Stephen area is underlain by igneous rocks such as gabbro and norite, which crystallized from a molten state and therefore do not contain fossils as water-lain sedimentary rocks often do. Therefore, there are no concerns for paleontological resources in this area (Wilson, pers. comm.).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 208

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

5.1 Atmospheric Environment

5.1.1 Rationale for Selection as Valued Environmental Component

The Atmospheric Environment is the component of the environment that comprises the layer of air near the earth’s surface to a height of approximately 10 km. In the context of this EA, the Atmospheric Environment is defined by three key aspects: climate, which is characterized by local, regional, or global weather changes; air quality, which is characterized by the chemical and physical properties of the air in the lower atmosphere, including gaseous and particulate air contaminants; and sound quality, which is characterized as the type, character, frequency, intensity, and duration of sound or noise in the outdoor environment.

The Atmospheric Environment has been selected as a VEC not only due to the nature of potential environmental effects on the local airshed, such as air contaminant releases and noise emissions as a result of Project construction, and operation and maintenance activities, but also because of its intrinsic importance to the health and well-being of humans, wildlife, vegetation, and other biota. The atmospheric environment is an important pathway for the transport and eventual deposition of air contaminants to aquatic, terrestrial, and human environments.

The key aspects and issues of the Atmospheric Environment are presented in Table 5.1.1. These key aspects have been selected on the basis of consideration of the Project description (Section 2.0) and those Project-related emissions that are considered to be substantive. It should be noted that these issues relate to the characterization of existing conditions for each key aspect (Section 4.2), as well as the potential environmental effects during the Construction, and Operation and Maintenance phases of the Project, and Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 209

Table 5.1.1 Key Aspects and Issues of Atmospheric Environment Key Aspects of Atmospheric Issues Considered Environment Climate Weather conditions as they relate to the Construction, and Operation and Maintenance phases of the Project. Air Quality Emissions of selected air contaminants to the airshed, including total particulate matter, particulate matter less than 10 microns, particulate matter less than 2.5 microns, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide; ambient air quality, including the ground-level concentrations of total suspended particulate matter, particulate matter less than 10 microns, particulate matter less than 2.5 microns, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide. Emissions of greenhouse gases. The potential environmental effects during the Construction, and Operation and Maintenance phases on air quality in the Assessment Area (defined in Section 5.1.2.1). Sound Quality Quality of sound in the Assessment Area (defined in Section 5.1.2.1), including ambient sound pressure levels, and frequency and duration of sound and noise emissions. The potential environmental effects during the Construction, and Operation and Maintenance phases on sound quality in the Assessment Area.

5.1.2 Environmental Assessment Boundaries

5.1.2.1 Spatial

The spatial boundaries (“Assessment Area”) for the characterization of potential environmental effects for each key aspect of the Atmospheric Environment are defined by the zone of influence associated with Project Construction, and Operation and Maintenance.

The spatial boundaries defining the “Assessment Area” for the climate aspects of the Atmospheric Environment are those that delineate southern New Brunswick.

The spatial boundaries (“Assessment Area”) for the air quality and sound quality aspects of the Atmospheric Environment are defined as the preferred corridor and variants around Rockwood Park for the proposed pipeline and associated facilities, extending approximately 300 m from the centreline of the preferred corridor and variants around Rockwood Park. The potential environmental effects of Project-related activities on air quality and sound quality are generally not expected to extend beyond approximately 300 m from the centreline. This 300 m range generally provides for sufficient dispersion of emissions and dissipation of noise generated from Project-related activities, such as heavy equipment operation and vehicle traffic.

5.1.2.2 Temporal

The temporal boundaries for the assessment of potential environmental effects for each key aspect of the Atmospheric Environment include the periods of Construction, and subsequent Operation and Maintenance of the Project for the life of the pipeline.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 210

5.1.2.3 Administrative and Technical

The technical and administrative boundaries for the Atmospheric Environment and its key aspects pertain mainly to regulatory limits and standards with regard to the emissions of air contaminants and noise in the Assessment Area. These limits are set by regulatory authorities to reflect environmental protection objectives with the intent of being protective of air quality and human and environmental health.

It is the professional judgment of the Jacques Whitford Study Team that the data available to characterize the existing conditions and existing knowledge of the Atmospheric Environment in the Assessment Area regarding the potential Project-VEC interactions, are sufficient to provide a baseline against which the environmental effects of the Project could be assessed (Section 4.2, Atmospheric Environment).

Climate

Climate change is a global issue. In a national or global context, the Project-related emissions of greenhouse gases are very small, and although some loss of carbon sinks will result from deforestation of the RoW during Construction, the potential environmental effects of the Project on climate (local, regional, and global) are expected to be inconsequential, and would not contribute measurably to climate change. The Project will therefore have negligible environmental effects on global climate.

Climate change is, as a consequence, assessed qualitatively in the context of the potential environmental effects of Project-related greenhouse gas emissions on the atmosphere and of the potential loss of carbon sinks from Construction, and Operation and Maintenance of the Project.

The potential environmental effects of the expected changes in climate on the Project are assessed in Section 6.0 (Effects of the Environment on the Project).

Air Quality

Based on the issues identified in Section 5.1.1, air quality will be assessed in the context of potential Project-related air contaminant emissions and the ambient ground-level concentrations of these contaminants, as well as potential greenhouse gas emissions in the Assessment Area. The Project- related air contaminants of interest consist of total suspended particulate matter (PM) (including dust), particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and carbon monoxide (CO).

The National Ambient Air Quality Objectives and the New Brunswick Maximum Permissible Ground- Level concentrations for the selected air contaminants are presented in Table 5.1.2 for reference and comparison with observed data. These are supplemented, where required, by other national initiatives such as the Canada-Wide Standards from the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), as well as standards and objectives from other jurisdictions, in order to provide some quantitative basis for comparison with the measured ambient air quality monitoring data in the Assessment Area.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 211

Table 5.1.2 Canadian and New Brunswick Ambient Air Quality Objectives

New Brunswick National Ambient Air Maximum Quality Objectives, Other Ambient Air Permissible Ground- Maximum Quality Standards Air Contaminant Averaging Period Level Desirable/Acceptable or Objectives Concentrations1 Levels2 (µg/m³) (µg/m³) (µg/m³)

Total Suspended 24-hour 120 --/120 -- Particulate Matter Annual 70 60/70 -- Particulate Matter less 24-hour -- -- 503 than 10 microns Particulate Matter less -- 24-hour -- 304 than 2.5 microns -- 1-hour 450*/900 450/875 -- Sulphur dioxide 24-hour 150*/300 150/300 -- Annual 30*/60 30/60 -- 1-hour 400 --/400 -- Nitrogen oxides as 24-hour 200 --/200 -- Nitrogen dioxide Annual 100 60/100 -- 1-hour 35,000 15,000/35,000 -- Carbon monoxide 8-hour 15,000 5,725/15,000 -- 1-hour -- 100/161 -- 8-hour -- -- 130 (65 ppb)4 Ground-level ozone 24-hour -- 30/50 -- Annual -- --/30 -- Source: 1 NBDELG 2002a * SO2 objective in Charlotte, Kings and Saint John Counties is half of the New Brunswick Standard 2 Government of Canada (1999), National Ambient Air Quality Objectives 3 BCWLAP 1995, Interim Air Quality Standard for Fine Particulate PM10 4 CCME 2000, Canada Wide Standards for Particulate Matter and Ozone -- No standard or objective available

It should be noted that ground-level ozone (O3) is not emitted directly, but rather formed by secondary photochemical reaction between nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the atmosphere in the presence of strong sunlight. Although it is not expected that ground-level ozone concentrations in the Assessment Area will change substantially as a result of Project activities, it is useful to consider this air contaminant in the assessment of existing conditions (Section 4.2, Atmospheric Environment), since ozone is often considered an indicator of ambient air quality conditions in the environment, and may also indirectly provide a general indication of precursor VOC levels in the airshed. Therefore, ground-level ozone was briefly discussed in Section 4.2 as it pertains to the characterization of existing conditions in the Assessment Area.

There are currently no air quality standards or guidelines for concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG) in ambient air, nor are there any emission limits with respect to GHG releases from point sources on a local basis. Furthermore, greenhouse gases as precursors to climate change constitute a global phenomenon rather than a local issue, and given the limited nature of the Project on the global scale, the emissions of greenhouse gases as a result of Project-related activities are not expected to be substantive or discernible from current national or global levels. Notwithstanding, any changes to the existing greenhouse gas emissions in the area as a result of Project-related construction, and operation and maintenance activities will be assessed qualitatively in the context of applicable and feasible mitigation strategies.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 212

Sound Quality

Based on the issues identified in Section 5.1.1, sound quality will be assessed in the context of the potential environmental effects on sound quality caused by noise emissions to the Assessment Area, including the intensity, frequency, and duration of these emissions, resulting from Project-related construction, and operation and maintenance activities.

Sound quality is typically characterized in terms of the type, character, frequency, intensity, and duration of sound emissions. Since the human ear does not respond to sound on a linear scale, the intensity of sound emissions or ambient sound pressure levels is characterized using a logarithmic

decibel (dB) scale. It is conventional to use the A-weighted (dBA) scale for representing sound pressure levels from man-made sources. Measured parameters for environmental sound or noise are

generally expressed as an “equivalent sound level” (Leq) over a specified period of time (e.g., 1-hour or 24-hours).

Sound quality in the outdoor environment can be influenced by a variety of natural and anthropogenic factors. Natural factors which may influence the sound quality of the outdoor environment include sound associated with wind and wind movement through vegetation, waves in water colliding against shorelines, as well as sounds produced by birds and other animals. Weather conditions such as temperature, humidity, wind direction, and wind speed may also affect the propagation of sound. There may be sound reflections due to the presence of nearby structures, or in the atmosphere, if the mixing height is low (e.g., a few hundred metres).

Some factors that may influence sound quality include sound emissions from stationary and mobile sources such as the operation of construction equipment (e.g., bulldozers, trucks, diesel generators) and vehicle traffic. These types of sound emissions are unwanted, and are referred to as noise. In addition, changes in the physical properties of the environment (such as a change in land cover or the removal or construction of physical structures such as buildings, which can serve to attenuate noise) can also result in changes to sound propagation characteristics of the environment, thereby influencing sound quality in a specific area. Local topographical features such as hills or wooded areas may also serve to attenuate (or reduce) sound levels.

Regulatory Limits for Sound Quality

While a number of jurisdictions, including the Province of Ontario and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), have established specific regulatory limits for sound pressure levels from industrial or construction activities, no official regulatory limits have been established by the Province of New Brunswick.

More general noise requirements from the Province of New Brunswick take the form that noise from any process must be controlled such that it does not cause substantial loss of enjoyment of the normal use of any property, or substantial interference with the normal conduct of business. Some requirements stated in recent Certificates of Approval to operate from NBENV specify maximum noise levels at facility boundaries, or limitations on the generation of noise over existing background noise

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 213

levels (e.g. 10 dBA). Another provincial agency, the New Brunswick Department of Transportation (NBDOT) has established a noise guideline level for highway-related noise of 65 dBA (24-hour Leq) at Noise Sensitive Areas (NSAs) (ADI 2003). Noise threshold values established in other jurisdictions and

in the United States, vary from 55-70 dBA and may be 1-hour or 24-hour standards.

5.1.3 Residual Environmental Effects Rating Criteria

The science of climate change has not been advanced to the point where a clear cause-and-effect relationship can be established between specific or even provincial and national emissions and global climate. As noted in Section 5.1.2.3, climate change is a global issue. The Project may reduce greenhouse gas emissions by making available natural gas in North American markets, thereby displacing the use of other higher carbon fossil fuels. Based on the information presented in Section 2.0 (Project Description), it is clear that the Project itself will result in very low emissions of greenhouse gases during the Construction, and Operation and Maintenance phases. There may be some very limited local changes in wind and energy balances that occur as a result of the removal of vegetation of the RoW, but these are expected to be very limited in extent as the RoW will only extend to an approximate 30 m width, and some regrowth of immature vegetation in the RoW following Construction will mitigate these environmental effects. As such, the Project would not result in a significant environmental effect on climate, and therefore climate will not be discussed further in this environmental assessment.

A significant residual adverse environmental effect with respect to air quality is one that degrades the quality of the air such that the maximum Project-related emissions of the air contaminants of interest (as defined in this EA) lead to an exceedance of the New Brunswick or federal ambient air quality standards, as defined in Table 5.1.2.

A significant residual adverse environmental effect on air quality in terms of greenhouse gas emissions for this EA is considered to be one that results in a substantive increase to provincial releases (i.e.,

>1% of total provincial GHG emissions, expressed as CO2 equivalents). This is in itself a conservatively set threshold as climate change is a global phenomenon to which New Brunswick is a small contributor in the context of national and global emissions.

A significant residual adverse environmental effect with respect to sound quality is considered to be a frequent exceedance of the noise guideline level at a Noise Sensitive Area, with “frequent” defined as

1 day per month or 12 days per year. The current NBDOT noise limit of 65 dBA (based on a 24-hour Leq) at the nearest NSA will be used as the noise guideline level (ADI 2003).

A positive environmental effect on air quality occurs when there is a predicted or expected improvement in ambient air quality in the area affected by Project components and activities.

A positive environmental effect on sound quality occurs when Project-related activities result in a reduction in ambient sound pressure levels and a corresponding improvement in sound quality.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 214

5.1.4 Potential Interactions, Issues, and Concerns

This section provides an assessment of the potential for Project-related activities to affect the Atmospheric Environment. A summary of the potential environmental effects resulting from the Project- VEC interactions is provided in Table 5.1.3.

Table 5.1.3 Project Activity – Environmental Effects Interaction Matrix for Atmospheric Environment

Potential Interactions Between Project Activities and Environmental Effects Valued Environmental Component: ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT

Potential Environmental Effect Project Activities and Physical Works Change in Sound (See Table 3.1.1 for list of specific activities and works) Change in Air Quality Quality Construction Site Preparation Pipeline Installation Watercourse Crossings Temporary Ancillary Structures and Facilities Operation and Maintenance Project Presence Pipeline Maintenance RoW Maintenance Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events Hazardous Materials Spill Erosion and Sediment Control Failure Fire Occupational Injury Wildlife Encounter Temporary Watercourse Crossing Washout Disturbance of Unidentified Archaeological or Heritage Resource Unauthorized Access to RoW Pipeline Rupture or Leak

5.1.4.1 Construction

The activities associated with Construction, including site preparation, pipeline installation, watercourse crossings and the installation of temporary ancillary structures and facilities as required, may potentially have interactions with the Atmospheric Environment. There is potential for environmental effects related to particulate matter (fugitive dust) generated during construction activities, emissions of combustion gases (GHGs and air contaminants of interest) from construction equipment, and noise generated by the construction equipment and activities.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 215

Air Quality

Site preparation activities include clearing, grubbing, grading, blasting, and duff/topsoil stripping. Air contaminant emissions will be generated by the use of diesel-powered construction equipment and from fugitive dust emissions from equipment traffic in and around the RoW and blasting activities, where required. These emissions could affect ambient air quality in the immediate vicinity of the preferred corridor, but given their transient and short-term nature, are unlikely to affect a wide geographic area.

Pipeline installation activities including excavation, boring/horizontal directional drilling, blasting, pipeline preparation (bending and welding), construction of the valve sites, and backfilling have the potential to interact with air quality near the preferred corridor. The emissions of particulate matter, combustion gases, and greenhouse gases from equipment as well as fugitive dust emissions have the potential to cause environmental effects related to ambient air quality in the immediate vicinity of the Project.

The installation of watercourse crossings will not interact with air quality and therefore will not be carried further in this environmental assessment with respect to air quality. The potential environmental effects from equipment used during this activity are considered under other construction activities in the sections below.

The installation and subsequent removal of any required temporary ancillary structures and facilities have the potential to interact with air quality. The construction of site access roads and storage areas will result in particulate matter, combustion gas, and greenhouse gas emissions from construction equipment and has the potential to generate fugitive dust emissions in the area of the activity.

Sound Quality

Interactions with sound quality may occur during site preparation activities due to the noise generated by construction equipment including excavators, bulldozers, dump trucks, and tree removal equipment, as well as noise from blasting, when required.

Pipeline installation activities including boring/horizontal directional drilling, blasting, and noise generated by heavy equipment operation have the potential to cause an environmental effect on sound quality.

The major watercourse crossing of the Saint John River in urban Saint John will require horizontal directional drilling, which has the potential to cause an adverse environmental effect on sound quality. A horizontal directional drill (HDD) is planned to cross the Saint John River from Pokiok to Pleasant Point in the City of Saint John. A HDD is also planned to cross the St. Croix River; however, this activity will be in a rural environment away from concentrations of people. The potential interactions of these activities with the surrounding environment are considered together with general construction activities.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 216

The construction, operation, and removal of temporary ancillary structures including site access roads and storage areas have the potential to cause environmental effects on sound quality in areas directly adjacent to the preferred corridor.

5.1.4.2 Operation and Maintenance

Air quality will be affected by Operation and Maintenance of the pipeline and RoW due to the emissions, although minimal, associated with these activities. Sound quality could also be affected on an infrequent, short-term basis.

Air Quality

There are few activities during the Operation and Maintenance phase of the Project, including monitoring and inspection of the pipeline and RoW maintenance, that have the potential to interact with air quality due to the negligible emissions associated with these activities. Blowdown/purging of natural

gas (CH4) will occur on a localized, infrequent basis, in negligible amounts associated with routine operation and maintenance activities, but these are not expected to adversely affect air quality. Internal inspection of the pipeline and the valve sites may result in minor emissions of natural gas, a greenhouse gas. Major system blowdown or pipeline rupture is evaluated as part of the Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events section of the environmental assessment.

Following pipeline installation, the RoW will be re-vegetated thereby reducing or eliminating the potential for fugitive dust emissions. The operation of mechanized heavy equipment will be limited during the Operation and Maintenance phase, thereby minimizing environmental effects on air quality.

Sound Quality

The presence of the Project will not result in interactions with sound quality as there is no noise associated with the pipeline or valve sites. Therefore, the Project presence will not be carried further in the environmental assessment of the Project on Sound Quality.

Pipeline maintenance and RoW maintenance have the potential to cause environmental effects to sound quality due to the noise generated by vehicles and equipment during these activities, including aircraft patrol and blowdown noise due to valve maintenance, among others. This noise will be of a limited and infrequent nature and of short duration, but is nonetheless carried forward in the environmental assessment.

5.1.4.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events associated with the operation of the pipeline (as identified in Table 5.1.3) have the potential to interact with the Atmospheric Environment with respect to both air quality and sound quality.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 217

Air Quality

With regards to Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events, emissions could be generated in the event of a fire or in the event of a pipeline rupture, thereby creating the potential for an adverse environmental effect.

In the event of a pipeline rupture, the potential environmental effect on air quality is the release of a flammable substance that may result in ignition at the source or at some distance from the source, or the exposure of environmental receptors to high concentrations of natural gas which may deplete oxygen, particularly near the source. In the event of a fire, the potential for environmental effects is due to the emission of fine particles, combustion gases, and unburned natural gas.

All other identified potential accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events (i.e., hazardous materials spill, erosion and sediment control failure, occupational injury, wildlife encounter, temporary watercourse crossing washout, disturbance of an unidentified archaeological or heritage resource, unauthorized access to RoW) are not expected to result in interactions with air quality and therefore will not be carried further in the environmental assessment with respect to air quality.

Sound Quality

Potential environmental effects on sound quality could occur as a result of unauthorized access to the RoW or as a result of a pipeline rupture. Noise would be generated in the event of unauthorized access to the RoW by motorized vehicles such as all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, and motorcycles. A pipeline rupture would likely have noise associated with it, which could result in a nuisance to residents living near the RoW.

All other identified potential accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events (i.e., hazardous materials spill, erosion and sediment control failure, fire, occupational injury, wildlife encounter, temporary watercourse crossing washout, disturbance of an unidentified archaeological or heritage resource) are not expected to result in interactions with sound quality and therefore will not be carried further in the environmental assessment with respect to sound quality.

5.1.4.4 Rockwood Park

The preferred corridor is located along an existing power transmission line RoW in Rockwood Park. In response to feedback obtained through public and stakeholder consultation, two variants were identified to avoid Rockwood Park (i.e., in addition to the preferred corridor). These include:

the north of Rockwood Park variant; and

the south of Rockwood Park variant.

Both of the variants result in the same general interactions with the Atmospheric Environment as the preferred corridor. As a result, the potential environmental effects on the Atmospheric Environment and

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 218

associated mitigation would be similar to the preferred corridor and the assessment of the variants around Rockwood Park will only be discussed separately in the EA where site-specific potential interactions are identified with respect to the Atmospheric Environment.

5.1.5 Environmental Effects Analysis and Mitigation

5.1.5.1 Construction

An evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Construction as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.1.4) is provided in this section. A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

Table 5.1.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Atmospheric Environment

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT Phase: Construction

Site Preparation Change in air Application of dust quality (A) suppressant Follow equipment maintenance schedules Preserve natural vegetation where 2 3 2/2 R 2 practicable Use low sulphur fuel where feasible Minimize activities that generate large quantities of dust during high winds Change in sound Noise controls where quality (A) warranted (e.g., sound barriers) 2 3 1/2 R 2 Timing restrictions where warranted

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 219

Table 5.1.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Atmospheric Environment

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT Phase: Construction

Pipeline Installation Change in air Application of dust quality (A) suppressant Follow equipment maintenance schedules Use of low sulphur fuels where feasible 2 3 2/2 R 2 Preserve natural vegetation where practicable Minimize activities that generate large quantities of dust during high winds Change in sound Noise controls where quality (A) warranted (e.g. sound barriers) Timing restrictions where warranted Locate equipment at 2 3 1/2 R 2 a distance from nearby receptors where practicable (welding machines, compressors, pumps) Watercourse Crossings Change in sound Noise controls where quality (A) warranted (e.g., sound barriers) Use of shrouds or enclosures to surround stationary mechanized 2 1 2/3 R 2 equipment where warranted Timing restrictions on ancillary activities Other mitigation as recommended in RSE (2006)

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 220

Table 5.1.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Atmospheric Environment

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT Phase: Construction

Temporary Ancillary Change in air Application of dust Structures and Facilities quality (A) suppressant Follow equipment maintenance schedules Use of low sulphur fuels where feasible 2 1 2/2 R 2 Preserve natural vegetation where practicable Minimize activities that generate large quantities of dust during high winds Change in sound Noise controls where quality (A) warranted (e.g. sound barriers) 2 1 1/2 R 2 Timing restrictions where warranted Key:

Magnitude: Geographic Extent: Frequency: Ecological/Socio-cultural and Economic 1 = Low: e.g., within normal variability of 1 = <1 km2 1 = <11 events/year Context: baseline conditions 2 = 1-10 km2 2 = 11 - 50 events/year 1 = Relatively pristine area or area not 2 = Medium: e.g., increase/decrease with 3 = 11-100 km2 3 = 51 - 100 events/year adversely affected by human activity. regard to baseline but within regulatory 4 = 101 - 1,000 km2 4 = 101 - 200 2 = Evidence of adverse environmental limits and objectives 5 = 1,001 - 10,000 km2 events/year effects. 3 = High: e.g., singly or as a substantial 6 = >10,000 km2 5 = >200 events/year contribution in combination with other 6 = continuous sources causing exceedances or Duration: N/A = Not Applicable impingement upon limits and objectives 1 = <1 month Reversibility: (A) = adverse beyond the Project boundary 2 = 1 - 12 months R = Reversible (P) = positive 3 = 13 - 36 months I = Irreversible 4 = 37 - 72 months 5 = >72 months

Air Quality

Air quality may be affected during Construction due to emissions associated with heavy equipment operation, as discussed below.

During construction of the proposed pipeline, emissions of conventional air contaminants and greenhouse gases (CO2) will result from the operation of construction equipment along the RoW. There also exists the potential for fugitive emissions of particulate matter to result from construction activities including clearing, grubbing, grading, back-filling, boring, and blasting.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 221

The amount and type of equipment used during Construction will vary depending on the requirements of the location along the RoW. The inventory of construction equipment used in each phase of construction is approximate and therefore existing information and professional judgment was used to assess potential environmental effects. The estimated inventory of construction equipment to be used on a monthly basis during Construction is presented in Section 2.0 (Project Description). It is noted that not all equipment will be used at the same location at the same time; rather, the equipment will be staggered along the pipeline RoW and construction will take place at several locations at once.

As detailed in the Project Description (Section 2.0), emissions associated with construction equipment such as excavators, skidders, and similar equipment, are expected to be low and the proposed time period for construction activities is relatively short (i.e., less than 1 year). Also, the construction activities are transient in nature which will aid in the dispersion of emissions, with scheduled progress of the pipeline construction anticipated to be from 0.5 km to 1.5 km per day. Based on the tentative inventory of construction equipment to be used and the construction schedule, air contaminant emissions are expected to be very low and inconsequential in comparison to other sources in southern New Brunswick.

Greenhouse gas emissions may occur from the emission of carbon dioxide from heavy equipment used during Construction, as well as small amounts of natural gas during commissioning of the pipeline. However, these emissions are expected to be small and not distinguishable in the context of provincial or national emissions. During Construction, existing vegetation in the 30 m-wide RoW will be removed from forested areas that currently exist along the 145 km length of the pipeline RoW, thereby resulting in the loss of carbon sinks associated with existing vegetation.

Because of the low emissions associated with the construction activities, local air quality will not be adversely affected during most atmospheric conditions. In addition, the use of properly maintained vehicles and equipment will ensure that vehicle emissions do not significantly adversely affect ambient air quality. Unnecessary idling of vehicles should also be avoided to the extent practicable to eliminate unnecessary emissions.

Fugitive emissions of dust are transient in nature and difficult to characterize as they are based on many factors such as soil moisture, level of activity, and meteorological conditions in the area of construction. Nonetheless, these emissions are not expected to be substantive and will largely be confined to the area where activity is taking place, within the pipeline RoW. Fugitive emissions will be minimized by the application of dust suppressants such as water during periods of heavy activity and dry periods. It is recommended that drill rigs used in areas of blasting be equipped with dust collectors in good working order. Also, careful scheduling of construction activities should be conducted to minimize dust during periods of high winds and ensure that the airborne dust remains within the federal and provincial air quality standards.

The magnitude, frequency and duration of the construction activities are such that applicable air quality standards are unlikely to be exceeded.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 222

Based on consideration of the potential environmental effects of construction activities associated with the Project, the proposed mitigation, and the residual environmental effects significance ratings criteria, the residual adverse environmental effects on air quality are rated not significant.

Sound Quality

Sound emissions generated by construction activities are usually of relatively short duration. Due to the nature of the activities, noise is also very localized and transient along the length of the proposed pipeline as the construction proceeds. These sound emissions can affect activities for specific land use directly adjacent to the construction areas. Construction will involve activities including clearing, grubbing, grading, horizontal directional drilling (HDD), and erection of temporary ancillary structures and facilities. The typical noise outputs of construction machinery commonly used for these activities at a distance of 15 m from the equipment are listed in Table 5.1.5. The level of activity on construction sites will vary with the various phases of Construction. Table 5.1.5 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Typical Noise Level Equipment Powered By Internal Combustion Engines (dBA at 15 m) Earth-Moving Front Loaders 72 – 97 Backhoes 72 – 93 Tractors 73 – 96 Scrapers, Graders 77 – 95 Trucks 70 – 96 Materials Handling Cranes (Moveable) 75 – 95 Cranes (Derrick) 86 – 88 Stationary Pumps 70 – 80 Generators 70 – 82 Compressors 68 – 86 Impact Equipment Jack Hammers and Rock Drills 76 – 98 Impact Pile Drivers (Peaks) 89 – 104 HDD Operation (at 30 m) 76 – 86 Source: 1Harris 1979 2RSE 2006 Mitigation of the noise during Construction for the most directly affected areas (i.e., <100 m from the RoW) should be accomplished by keeping the equipment in good working order (with mufflers) and restricting construction activities to daytime hours (10-12 hours per day) where practicable. This may not maintain noise levels below the guidelines at all times; however, actual levels are expected to be acceptable most of the time as the machines will be moving and therefore will not always be at the nearest point to any particular residence. The progress of the pipeline construction activities is predicted to range between 0.5-1.5 km per day, which means that any given residence will be exposed to construction noise on a temporary basis (for up to a few days), during daytime hours. Therefore, the noise levels are not expected to exceed 24-hour Leq of 65 dBA for more than one day per month due to site preparation or pipeline installation activities.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 223

HDD for the watercourse crossing of the Saint John River is expected to be the largest, most prolonged source of noise emissions during the construction of the proposed pipeline. The main urban HDD activities will be located in the north end of Saint John, west of Bridge Street and Pokiok Road, and on the west side of Saint John at Pleasant Point. HDD will also be required in western New Brunswick, to cross the St. Croix River, in a largely rural area. It is recommended similar mitigation (as described below) be applied to all HDD activities as required.

The Saint John River HDD will occur 24 hours per day for approximately 20 weeks, during which relatively high sound pressure levels may be experienced on a more or less continuous basis. The typical equipment required consists of a drilling rig, electric mud pumps, portable generators, mud mixing and cleaning equipment, mobile cranes, forklifts, loaders, trucks, and portable light sets. The HDD equipment and corresponding noise emission levels are presented in Table 5.1.5.

The worst-case noise level (with no mitigation) as a result of the HDD activities is expected to be

86 dBA at a distance of 30 m (Resource Systems Engineering 2006). The proposed shore crossings are located within close proximity of several residences, with one house approximately 50 m from the proposed HDD site and others located within 50-100 m of the drilling locations.

In order to predict the sound pressure levels at the nearest residences to the HDD activities, straight line sound attenuation modelling was conducted. The model assumes that the sound pressure levels

will attenuate logarithmically, at a rate of approximately 6 dBA for each doubling of distance. Modelling was conducted at Baseline Monitoring Site 2 and Site 3; these sites are representative of the area where the HDD activities are likely to have the most impact on sound quality due to their close proximity to the HDD activities (see Figure 4.2.2).

Based on the sound attenuation modelling, the predicted 24-hour Leq at Milford Road, approximately 500 m from the HDD activities (Baseline Monitoring Site 3), with the contribution of noise from

unmitigated HDD activities would be 61.7 dBA. The predicted 24-hour Leq at Pokiok, approximately 300 m from the HDD activities (Baseline Monitoring Site 2), with the contribution of noise from

unmitigated HDD activities would be 66.2 dBA. Based on model results, uncontrolled HDD activities (with no mitigation applied) would likely exceed the noise limit of 65 dBA (based on a 24-hour Leq) at all residences closer than 500 m, on a nearly continuous basis for the duration of the HDD activities. It is therefore clear that noise mitigation is warranted.

Due to the relatively isolated location of the proposed HDD for the St. Croix River, it is not anticipated that a considerable amount of noise reduction mitigation will be required at that location. However, the proximity of any new residences in the area should be reviewed prior to commencement of the HDD and noise mitigation should be reconsidered if there are new residences that could be adversely affected by the noise created by the HDD activities.

It is recommended that several mitigation measures be developed and incorporated to reduce the environmental effect of the Saint John River HDD activities on sound quality. The drilling rig at the Saint John River site should be partially or fully enclosed as required, and/or noise barriers should be placed around the drilling site with adequate mass, height and length to attenuate noise to below 65 dBA at the nearest receptor. The enclosures should be set up with the required opening directed away

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 224

from the nearest residences so that line of sight propagation of noise occurs away from the nearest residences. The arrangement of the drilling rig and other equipment, which are major sources of noise, should be designed to maximize the distance between this equipment and the nearest residences. It is recommended that all construction equipment used in the area be maintained in good working condition according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Mufflers that are in good working condition or upgraded silencers (if warranted) should be used. The use and movement of ancillary equipment should be minimized during nighttime hours. The expected noise reduction from the use of insulated sound barriers is typically in the range of 10-25 dBA depending on the composition and placement of the barriers, and complete equipment enclosure could provide noise attenuation of 15-30 dBA depending on the composition and design (RSE 2006).

Resource Systems Engineering (RSE) has measured sound levels from the operation of HDD equipment, similar to what would be used in the Saint John River crossing, at numerous river crossings in Maine. Based on a preliminary assessment of potential mitigation measures for the Saint John River HDD crossing completed by RSE, it is likely that strategic equipment placement combined with partial enclosures and barriers has the potential to reduce sound levels by more than 20 dBA at nearby NSAs (Resource Systems Engineering 2006). It is recommended that a noise mitigation design be developed following the completion of the drill site layout and complete sound pressure level estimates (based on the mitigation design) at nearby NSAs to ensure adequate mitigation is in place prior to commencing HDD activities at the Saint John River site.

Assuming noise controls are put in place to attenuate sound levels by 20 dBA, a second round of sound attenuation modelling was conducted. Based on model results, the predicted 24-hour Leq at Milford Road, approximately 500 m from the HDD activities (Baseline Monitoring Site 3), after the contribution

of noise from mitigated HDD activities, would be 47.6 dBA, only slightly higher than the existing baseline 24-hour Leq of 46.3 dBA. The predicted 24-hour Leq at Pokiok, approximately 300 m from the HDD activities (Baseline Monitoring Site 2), after the contribution of noise from mitigated HDD activities, would be 54.4 dBA, only slightly higher than the existing baseline 24-hour Leq of 53.7 dBA. The predicted 24-hour Leq at 50 m from the HDD site (approximate distance to the nearest residence) after the contribution of noise from mitigated HDD activities would be 62 dBA.

Based on the model results and with the understanding that following the finalized drill site layout, site- specific noise mitigation designs will be developed and verified prior to drilling, a significant environmental effect with respect to sound quality (i.e., >65 dBA for more than one day a month) is not likely to occur at the nearest receptor.

It should be noted that the sound pressure level modelling predictions were made for outdoor locations. These sound level predictions assumed straight-line sound transmission from the source to receptor, neglecting attenuating factors such as terrain and trees. The predictions also do not include the

10-15 dBA attenuation which is typically achieved by the walls of a well constructed residence when the windows are closed. As the tentative drilling schedule is from December 2007 to May 2008, it is expected that the windows of nearby residences will be closed most of the time during the drilling activities, thereby achieving the full sound attenuating effect typical of a well constructed house. In light of these attenuating factors, the potential for significant environmental effects to nearby residences in an indoor environment is low.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 225

Following the installation of HDD equipment and noise control measures, it is recommended follow-up noise monitoring be conducted at the nearest residences to verify the effectiveness of the mitigation. Further mitigation should be implemented in the event of unacceptable noise levels and additional monitoring should be conducted to ensure acceptable noise levels prior to the commencement of 24- hour drilling. Implementation of the proposed mitigation measures will reduce the potential environmental effects of the HDD activities such that the significance criteria threshold for noise (see Section 5.1.3) is not exceeded.

Since construction activities (i.e., site preparation, pipeline installation, watercourse crossings, temporary ancillary structures and facilities) will be of relatively short duration (excluding HDD) and timing restricted where feasible, construction noise is not expected to cause significant environmental effects. Horizontal directional drilling activities, while having the potential to result in significant environmental effects, should be mitigated using best practices to ensure that significant environmental effects do not occur, and additional mitigation and monitoring should be implemented as necessary to ensure that the noise from the horizontal directional drilling activities does not result in a significant environmental effect.

Summary – Construction Phase

5.1.5.2 Operation and Maintenance

An evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Operation and Maintenance as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.1.6) is provided in this section. A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 226

Table 5.1.6 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Atmospheric Environment

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT Phase: Operation and Maintenance

Pipeline Presence Change in air Pipeline IMP quality (A) Use of cathodic 1 1 1/1 R 2 protection system Pipeline Maintenance Change in air Pipeline IMP quality (A) Use of cathodic protection 1 1 1/1 R 2 Isolate section of pipeline being worked on Change in sound Noise controls where quality (A) warranted (e.g. sound barriers) 1 1 1/1 R 2 Timing restrictions where warranted Pipeline IMP RoW Maintenance Change in sound Noise controls where quality (A) warranted (e.g. sound barriers) 1 1 1/1 R 2 Timing restrictions where warranted Key:

Air Quality

The presence of the Project may result in some minor emissions of natural gas from the pipeline as well as from valves, pipes and flanges at meter or valve sites during normal operation, resulting in greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. These emissions are not expected to be substantive, or to be measurable in the context of other emissions locally or provincially. It is recommended that a regular preventative maintenance program be implemented to minimize emissions from the pipeline

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 227

and valve sites, including a leak detection and repair program and cathodic protection system, to prevent leaks from occurring. Any major leaks would be repaired upon detection. With this mitigation applied, the potential for adverse environmental effects to air quality from the Project presence is very remote.

Pipeline maintenance activities (e.g., internal inspection, valve maintenance) have the potential to result in emissions of natural gas to the atmosphere, resulting in greenhouse gas emissions. These activities, while conducted on a periodic basis, are not expected to occur frequently, and will be of very limited duration. Any major maintenance activities would be conducted by isolating the pipeline section in accordance with operating procedures directed at minimizing the potential amount of natural gas released to the environment. The Pipeline IMP should be implemented to minimize leaks. The cathodic protection system on the pipeline will help to prevent corrosion of the pipeline, thereby minimizing the potential for leaks. With this mitigation applied, the potential for adverse environmental effects to air quality from pipeline maintenance activities is very low.

Based on consideration of the potential environmental effects of operation and maintenance activities associated with the Project, the proposed mitigation, and the residual environmental effects significance ratings criteria, the residual adverse environmental effects on air quality are rated not significant.

Sound Quality

Activities required to maintain the pipeline and the RoW including the maintenance of valve sites (e.g., Pipeline IMP), vegetation, and signage, may temporarily increase sound pressure levels in areas directly adjacent to the RoW. Typical maintenance or routine activities may include internal pipeline inspections using internal inspection equipment, yearly over the ground surveys, and cathodic protection readings. The maintenance should take place during regular working hours whenever practicable and should not typically increase noise levels above the suggested guidelines.

There will be occasional changes in sound pressure levels due to maintenance, such as from inspection planes flying above the pipeline RoW (110 dBA at 305 m). Also, annual blowdown events as part of valve maintenance will result in higher than normal sound pressure levels lasting 7 minutes for each valve. However, these high sound levels due to maintenance activities will occur on an infrequent basis and will attenuate quickly due to their very short duration. In the case of blowdown events, nearby (i.e., within approximately 200 m) residents should be notified in advance. Since maintenance activities will be of a relatively short duration and occur during regular working hours, maintenance activities are not expected to cause significant residual adverse environmental effects.

Summary – Operation and Maintenance Phase

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 228

ratings criteria, the residual adverse environmental effects on the Atmospheric Environment are rated not significant.

5.1.5.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

An evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.1.7) is provided in this section. A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

Table 5.1.7 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Atmospheric Environment

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Change in air quality CSA Z662 Design (A) Standards Quantitative Risk Analysis Construction Quality Assurance Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program Fire Operation and 3 3 1/1 R 2 Maintenance Procedures Pipeline IMP Public Awareness Program Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan RoW Monitoring and Surveillance Change in sound Signage, natural barriers quality (A) and fencing Unauthorized Access to Public Awareness 2 1 1/2 R 2 RoW Program RoW Monitoring and Surveillance

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 229

Table 5.1.7 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Atmospheric Environment

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Project Activities and Potential Physical Works Environmental Effects (See Table 3.1.1 for list of Mitigation (A=Adverse; specific activities and P=Positive) works) Magnitude Magnitude Extent Geographic Duration/Frequency Reversibility Ecological/Socio- and Cultural Economic Context Change in air quality Environmental (A) Protection and Safety Management Program CSA Z662 Design Standards Quantitative Risk Analysis Construction Quality Assurance 2 2 1/1 R 2 Operation and Pipeline Rupture or Leak Maintenance Procedures Worker and contractor training Pipeline IMP Public Awareness Program RoW Monitoring and Surveillance Change in sound None required quality (A) 2 1 1/1 R 2

Key: Geographic Extent: Frequency: Ecological/Socio-cultural and Economic Magnitude: 2 1 = Low: e.g., within normal variability of 1 = <1 km 1 = <11 events/year Context: 2 = 1-10 km2 2 = 11 - 50 events/year 1 = Relatively pristine area or area not baseline conditions 2 2 = Medium: e.g., increase/decrease with 3 = 11-100 km 3 = 51 - 100 events/year adversely affected by human activity. 4 = 101 - 1,000 km2 4 = 101 - 200 2 = Evidence of adverse environmental regard to baseline but within regulatory 2 limits and objectives 5 = 1,001 - 10,000 km events/year effects. 6 = >10,000 km2 5 = >200 events/year 3 = High: e.g., singly or as a substantial 6 = continuous N/A = Not Applicable contribution in combination with other Duration: sources causing exceedances or 1 = <1 month Reversibility: (A) = adverse impingement upon limits and objectives 2 = 1 - 12 months R = Reversible (P) = positive beyond the Project boundary 3 = 13 - 36 months I = Irreversible 4 = 37 - 72 months 5 = >72 months

An environmental management framework, comprised of a Pipeline Design and Quality Assurance Program, an Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program, an Emergency Preparedness and Response Program, and a Public Awareness Program, will be developed and implemented by the Proponent and should contain specific measures to mitigate potential adverse environmental effects identified from the assessment of Project activities, including accidents, malfunctions and unplanned events. The mitigation measures to be implemented (described in Section 2.8, Environmental Management) are prevention oriented to reduce the risk of accidents, malfunctions and unplanned events occurring as a result of Project construction, and operation and maintenance activities.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 230

Air Quality

Fires could result in adverse environmental effects with respect to air quality. In the unlikely event of a fire (forest fire or other), smoke consisting of particulate matter and combustion gases would be released, and potentially affect a relatively wide geographic area. Contingency planning and procedures in the event of a fire will be presented in the Proponent’s Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program. A Construction Safety Manual, a Maintenance Safety Manual and operation and maintenance procedures will be prepared and should describe how to perform work safely to prevent fires, and prescribe measures that will mitigate the environmental effects of, and contain, construction fires should they occur. During Construction, due care and attention should be made to reduce the potential for starting forest fires. In particular, construction activities should be planned such that potential ignition sources are minimized and emergency response capability is provided along the Project site to respond to any small fires that may start onsite. It is recommended that workers and contractors be trained in the fire prevention and response procedures contained in the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program and in accordance with the New Brunswick Forest Fires Act. Safety Program audits and site inspections should also be implemented throughout the Project Construction and Operation and Maintenance phases to ensure compliance with program policy and procedures. Thus, the potential environmental effects from construction-related fires and/or forest fires are rated not significant.

Fires relating to pipeline operation, for the most part, will be addressed by the measures to reduce the probability and severity of pipeline ruptures and leaks, discussed above. As the probability of a pipeline rupture occurring on the Project pipeline is low (one rupture every 360 years), then the probability of a fire resulting from a pipeline rupture is lower. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSBC) reports that the average number of releases from gas pipelines between 2000 and 2004, inclusive, was 13 per year, with 6 of the 13 releases resulting in a fire or explosion (TSBC 2005). Therefore, the probability of a fire resulting from a pipeline rupture or leak on the Brunswick Pipeline is approximately one fire every 800 years.

The likelihood of an accidental release of natural gas that would endanger public safety is assessed in Section 5.7 (Health and Safety) and is considered to be low. Leaks from the pipeline are not likely to cause any adverse environmental effects to air quality. However, in the event of a catastrophic release of natural gas as a result of a pipeline rupture, the resulting gas cloud could ignite on contact with an ignition source and result in significant environmental effects (refer to Section 5.1.3). However, such a scenario is not likely to occur and the M&NP Emergency Preparedness and Response Program (M&NP 2004b) contains actions designed to minimize the environmental effects to health, safety and the environment should such an event occur.

Methane is considered to be biologically inert (i.e., high concentrations of methane (10,000 ppm) are not toxic) except when the oxygen concentration decreases to a point where it acts as a simple asphyxiant (Kamens and Stern 1973; Pennington and Fuerst 1971). Threshold limit values (TLVs) for either methane or natural gas have not been published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), because the limiting factor during an event is the available oxygen in the atmosphere (ACGIH 1982).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 231

The risk of a pipeline rupture or leak will be kept low through a comprehensive design process that includes meeting pipeline design standards (i.e., CSA Z662) and codes prescribed by applicable legislation (e.g., NEBA, Onshore Pipeline Regulations), conducting a quantitative risk analysis (QRA) of the pipeline and implementing a Quality Assurance (QA) plan for Construction.

It is recommended that the Proponent develop operation and maintenance procedures including a Pipeline IMP for the Project that will ensure that regulatory requirements are met and the pipeline is operated and maintained to a high standard and the probability and volume of unplanned releases of natural gas from the pipeline are minimized. The Pipeline IMP, which should include routine inspections of the pipeline to detect time dependant material defects (e.g., monitoring of corrosion protection measures (i.e., cathodic protection equipment and facilities)), together with operation of the entire system and all of its components within a safe operational envelope, will further reduce the probability of a pipeline rupture or leak from occurring.

The entire pipeline system will be installed subsurface, with the exception of valve sites, and meter station and launcher/receiver sites. Burying the pipeline provides a level of protection from third party intrusions that could compromise the integrity of the pipeline. Unauthorized access to portions of the pipeline that are not buried is not permitted. The meter station and valve and launcher/receiver sites will be fenced, and regularly inspected for security. It is recommended a pipeline monitoring and surveillance program be implemented such that the entire length of the pipeline RoW will be patrolled regularly (by foot and by air) to identify unauthorized activities within the RoW.

Given the design considerations incorporated into the Project and the strict requirements for Operation and Maintenance, the likelihood of a fire, or release of natural gas of any substantial size, as a result of the Operation and Maintenance of the Project is very low.

Based on consideration of the potential environmental effects of Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events associated with the Project, the proposed mitigation, and the residual environmental

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 232

effects significance ratings criteria, the residual adverse environmental effects on air quality have the potential to be significant but are unlikely to occur.

Sound Quality

The Project activities associated with Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events that may cause noise at elevated levels are unauthorized RoW access and a release from the pipeline. Unauthorized RoW access by motorized vehicles such as all-terrain vehicles has the potential to temporarily increase noise levels above baseline levels at the nearest residences. However, the noise of unauthorized access would be transient in nature and would not be likely to adversely affect any given residential receptor for a prolonged period. It is recommended that measures be employed along the pipeline route to prevent the RoW being used for unwanted ATV and snowmobile traffic. The specific measures to be employed will be determined after the detailed pipeline route has been selected and should be based on the specific geographic conditions that exist, and after discussions with landowners, stakeholders and regulatory agencies, as appropriate. Measures typically employed include installation of natural barriers using the natural topography to advantage where practicable (e.g., placement of rock barriers, planting of tree and shrub barriers), fencing and posting of signs prohibiting trespass. The Public Awareness Program for the pipeline should also include a discussion of trespass and the potential consequences of unauthorized and/or unlawful entry onto properties along the RoW. It is recommended that the pipeline RoW be routinely monitored for unauthorized activities in the RoW during the course of the Project Operation and Maintenance phase. If unauthorized activities in the RoW are detected, additional measures to stop and/or discourage unauthorized activities should be implemented after discussions with landowners, stakeholders and regulatory agencies, as appropriate. Because of the infrequent and transient nature of the noise associated with unauthorized access, and the mitigation proposed, noise is not expected to cause significant environmental effects.

Pipeline leaks are not expected to cause significant environmental effects to sound quality. However, in the unlikely event of a pipeline rupture, the resulting noise from the associated release of gas would likely be discernible to nearby residential receptors, and in limited cases, the resulting noise could be substantive (e.g., in the event of an explosion). Despite this, the safety record of NEB regulated natural gas pipelines in Canada and in North America in general is excellent, so this is not likely to occur. If it occurred, the duration of the noise emissions is expected to be very short, and the frequency of the occurrence of a rupture is also expected to be extremely low.

Based on consideration of the potential environmental effects of Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events associated with the Project, the proposed mitigation, and the residual environmental effects significance ratings criteria, the residual adverse environmental effects on sound quality are rated not significant.

Summary – Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 233

5.1.6 Determination of Significance

The significance of potential residual environmental effects resulting from any interactions between Project activities and the Atmospheric Environment, after taking into account any proposed mitigation, is summarized in Table 5.1.8. The table also considers the level of confidence of the Jacques Whitford Study Team in this determination.

Table 5.1.8 Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix for Atmospheric Environment

Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix Valued Environmental Component: ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT Residual Likelihood Level of Phase Environmental Confidence Probability of Scientific Effects Rating* Occurrence Certainty Construction NS 3 3 3 Operation and Maintenance NS 3 3 3 Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events S 3 1 3 Project Overall NS 3 1/3 3

Key: Probability of Occurrence of Residual Environmental Effects: based on professional judgement Residual Environmental Effects Rating: 1 = Low Probability of Occurrence S = Significant Adverse Environmental Effects 2 = Medium Probability of Occurrence NS = Not-significant Adverse Environmental Effects 3 = High Probability of Occurrence P = Positive Environmental Effects Scientific Certainty of Probability of Occurrence of Residual Environmental Effects: based on scientific Level of Confidence Of Residual Environmental information and statistical analysis or professional judgement Effects Rating: 1 = Low Level of Confidence 1 = Low Level of Confidence 2 = Medium Level of Confidence 2 = Medium Level of Confidence 3 = High Level of Confidence 3 = High Level of Confidence N/A = Not Applicable

*As determined in consideration of established residual environmental effects rating criteria. Based on consideration of the potential environmental effects of all phases of the Project, the proposed mitigation, and the residual environmental effects significance ratings criteria, the residual adverse environmental effects on the Atmospheric Environment are rated not significant, with the exception of some accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events that are unlikely to occur.

5.1.7 Follow-up and Monitoring The magnitude of emissions resulting from Construction, and Operation and Maintenance of the Project is expected to be very small in comparison to emissions from other sources in the Assessment Area, and the potential environmental effects to ambient air quality resulting from the Project are not expected to be discernible from current levels. Any short-term, measurable environmental effects to air quality from dust and noise are likely to be localized to the specific area being worked on during Construction, and relatively localized to the Project area during Operation and Maintenance. In addition, there are currently several ambient monitors operated by NAPS/NBENV in southern New Brunswick, including an extensive ambient air quality monitoring network in Saint John. The operation of the pipeline includes the Pipeline IMP that should be implemented to minimize emissions and prevent leaks from occurring. Provided the recommended mitigation actions are implemented during all phases of the Project, additional routine monitoring of ambient air quality and noise on a continuous basis during Construction, or Operation and Maintenance is not warranted. It is recommended that a detailed noise mitigation design be prepared for the Saint John River HDD site and further predictions conducted (based on the mitigation design) of drilling sound levels at the

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 234

nearest residences prior to the commencement of HDD at the site. Noise monitoring will be required to verify the effectiveness of the noise mitigation for the HDD activities. It is recommended that sound pressure levels be monitored during HDD activities, during daytime hours at the nearest residence prior to the continuation of HDD activities on a 24-hour basis. Additional noise monitoring or mitigation may be required to address any potential complaints from residents received by the NEB, NBENV, or the Proponent, particularly during construction activities. In addition, it is recommended that spot checks of noise levels be conducted at the nearest residences on a periodic basis during HDD activities, to monitor the effectiveness of the implemented mitigation and to provide a basis for implementing further actions aimed at preventing significant environmental effects during Construction.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 235

5.2 Water Resources

5.2.1 Rationale for Selection as Valued Environmental Component

Water Resources (including groundwater and surface water) was selected as a VEC because of the potential importance of the water supply to residents located along the preferred corridor. In particular, this VEC assesses the potential environmental effects of Project activities on the quality, quantity, and flow patterns of groundwater resources within 500 m of the preferred corridor (and includes the preferred corridor), and surface water resources within protected watersheds intersected by the preferred corridor, during Construction, Operation and Maintenance, as well as Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events during all stages of pipeline Construction, and Operation and Maintenance. Water Resources includes both surface water and groundwater, as they are hydraulically interactive. Where specific potential environmental effects may occur, they are referred to as groundwater resources and surface water resources respectively in the following discussions.

This VEC deals with water resources for public, industrial, institutional, agricultural or municipal supply. Surface water resources for freshwater ecological purposes are addressed in Section 5.3 (Fish and Fish Habitat) and surface water for recreational purposes is addressed in Section 5.9 (Land and Resource Use).

In any major undertaking, such as a pipeline construction project, water resources may be affected both physically (reduced yield) and chemically by a wide variety of inorganic and organic substances, as well as physical properties such as sediment load and water temperature.

5.2.2 Environmental Assessment Boundaries

5.2.2.1 Spatial

The spatial boundaries (the “Assessment Area”) for the assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Project on Water Resources include the preferred corridor, north and south variants around Rockwood Park, and the area of influence beyond the boundaries of the preferred corridor. The area of influence is defined as 500 m on each side of the preferred corridor based on the maximum likely distance of potential environmental effects to water resources.

Vibration damage to a designated watershed or water supply well is generally a function of distance between the energy source and the well, and the seismic properties of the aquifer materials. With respect to rock type, risk of damage to a water well is considered to be greater for fractured crystalline bedrock than for wells completed in overburden or soft sedimentary bedrock such as sandstone. Temporary sedimentation of a watercourse from blast vibrations is mainly a function of distance. Risk from blasting is greatest within 50 m, moderate from 50-200 m, and expected to be minimal beyond approximately 200 m. It is highly unlikely that any environmental effects will be manifested at a distance greater than 500 m. Therefore, the Assessment Area for determining the potential

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 236

environmental effects of the Project on groundwater from blasting includes drilled wells and surface water bodies within 500 m of both sides of the preferred corridor, including the corridor variants around Rockwood Park.

The spatial boundaries (the “Assessment Area”) for the assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Project on water resources from accidental spills or from acidic drainage are considered within 500 m hydraulically down-gradient of the preferred corridor and variants around Rockwood Park, assuming highly permeable media (i.e., sand and gravel aquifers) or mineralized bedrock.

5.2.2.2 Temporal

The temporal boundaries for the assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Project on Water Resources include the periods of Construction, and Operation and Maintenance of the Project for the life of the pipeline.

5.2.2.3 Administrative and Technical

Water quality is protected through federal and provincial legislation and guidelines. Baseline information for this assessment was available for areas tested along the SJL. Well driller’s reports provided by NBENV from their water well database identified well construction but did not report water chemistry results for wells near the preferred corridor.

Potential environmental effects to the quality of water for human consumption are assessed in relation to the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality for potable domestic water supplies (Health Canada 1996, updated 2004).

Activities permitted within designated water supply watersheds in New Brunswick are governed by the Watershed Protected Area Designation Order - Clean Water Act, N.B. Reg. 2001-83. The evaluation of potential environmental effects to water supplies in protected watersheds is made in reference to this Act and the supporting regulation.

Potential groundwater resources intersecting the pipeline corridor were identified in Section 4.3 (Water Resources) based on available well records, aerial photograph interpretation, delineations of Watershed Protected Areas, an interview with a Saint John Public Health inspector, and discussions with the Town of St. Stephen. It has been assumed, for the purposes of this EA, that homes located in rural areas are each supplied by a private well, and homes in urban areas are supplied by a mix of private wells and central water systems. Additionally, it has been assumed that there is potential for individual homes and businesses to be drawing surface water for potable use from watercourses other than those in identified Designated Protected Watersheds. Finally, it has been assumed that there is the potential to intersect sulphide-bearing rock at all watercourse crossings, and in proximity to all wells identified within the pipeline corridor. Pre-Construction fieldwork will be conducted to verify these conservative EA assumptions and underpin the development of the site-specific mitigation measures to be implemented for the Project and documented in the EPP for Construction. Recommendations as to which aspects of Water Resources warrant further investigation (i.e., where more detailed information

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 237

would be of use for final design of the Project are provided throughout this Water Resources assessment.

It is the professional judgement of the Jacques Whitford Study Team that the data available to characterize the existing conditions and existing knowledge of Water Resources in the Assessment Area regarding the potential Project-VEC interactions were sufficient to provide a baseline against which the environmental effects of the Project could be assessed.

5.2.3 Residual Environmental Effects Rating Criteria

A significant residual adverse environmental effect on water resources is defined as one in which the Project causes one or more of the following:

yield from an otherwise adequate water supply decreases to the point where it is inadequate for intended use;

the quality of groundwater from an otherwise adequate water supply that meet guidelines deteriorates to the point where it becomes non-potable or cannot meet the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (Health Canada 1996, updated 2004); and/or

the water supply (i.e., groundwater or surface water) is physically or chemically altered to the extent that interaction with local surface water results in stream flow or chemistry changes that adversely affect aquatic life or surface water supply.

A positive environmental effect is defined as one on which the quantity or quality of a water resource is improved as a result of the Project.

5.2.4 Potential Interactions, Issues, and Concerns

This section evaluates the potential for Project-related activities to affect Water Resources. Table 5.2.1 provides a summary of the potential environmental effects resulting from the Project-VEC interactions, which are discussed below.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 238

Table 5.2.1 Project Activity – Environmental Effects Interaction Matrix for Water Resources

Potential Interactions Between Project Activities and Environmental Effects Valued Environmental Component: WATER RESOURCES

Potential Environmental Effect Change in Change in Change in Project Activities and Physical Works Water Water Water (See Table 3.1.1 for list of specific activities and works) Resources Resources Resources Quality Quantity Flow Pattern Construction Site Preparation Pipeline Installation Watercourse Crossings Temporary Ancillary Structures and Facilities Operation and Maintenance Project Presence Pipeline Maintenance RoW Maintenance Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events Hazardous Materials Spill Erosion and Sediment Control Failure Fire Occupational Injury Wildlife Encounter Temporary Watercourse Crossing Washout Disturbance of Unidentified Archaeological or Heritage Resource Unauthorized Access to RoW Pipeline Rupture or Leak

5.2.4.1 Construction

The potential Project interactions with Water Resources during the Construction phase include changes in the quality, quantity, and flow of nearby or down-gradient water resources. Changes in water quality may be caused by sedimentation as a result of blasting, acidic drainage or the discharge of water from trench excavations. Physical changes in groundwater flow and the quantity of water resources available for consumption may be caused by trench excavation, dewatering, or blasting operations.

Trench dewatering may result in a loss of yield for dug wells, typically 4-5 m deep, or lower the base flow in nearby shallow groundwater-fed water bodies, especially during dry periods when water levels are naturally low. Water discharged from trenches may be sediment laden, contaminated (if leached from contaminated soils or acidic bedrock), or the temperature of water discharged from the trench may be significantly different than the receiving environment (particularly if water was pooled in the trench for several hours to days).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 239

Acid is generated when sulphide minerals are exposed to air or oxygenated water and iron oxidizing bacteria. Bedrock with sulphide-bearing rock potential is expected to be encountered in segments of the preferred corridor. Significant adverse and long-term environmental effects on water quality from acidic drainage can occur in excess of natural conditions and/or maximum allowable concentrations for drinking water (Health Canada 1996, updated 2004).

The potential environmental effects of blasting on Water Resources include a short-term (i.e., days to weeks) increase in water-borne sediment in wells and surface water resources, to a permanent change in well yield resulting from aquifer fracture redistribution or borehole collapse. The vibrations from nearby blasting (up to a maximum probable distance of 200 m) may cause temporary turbidity and colour in water supplies. In rare cases, blast fracturing of bedrock may alter fracture geometry, open new fractures or change the aperture of existing fractures, or permanently change the local groundwater flow regime. Changes in fracture geometry and affecting well yields could be a benefit, if larger yield occurs. Changes in fracture geometry may be an adverse environmental effect if the casing seal of a water supply well is impaired or if fractures open between the borehole and shallow, potentially affected, groundwater.

Equipment traffic in marshalling yards and other ancillary Project sites may compact shallow surficial aquifers, potentially altering flow to nearby springs and shallow drilled or dug wells (e.g., less than 5 m in depth). Surface compaction may also reduce the infiltration of precipitation and recharge to shallow aquifers, and increase erosion and surface runoff to watercourses. This is of particular concern in water supply watersheds.

Large volumes of hydrostatic test water will be required during the commissioning of the pipeline. This water will be supplied from water bodies and established municipal supplies near the pipeline, and returned to the environment at the completion of the test. Drawing large volumes of water from surface water may lower water levels temporarily. The discharge of this water may be an erosion risk, and a source of contaminant release to the environment.

5.2.4.2 Operation and Maintenance

Project interactions with Water Resources during Operation and Maintenance may include the interception of recharge waters to water wells and watercourses by the pipeline, and changes to down- gradient water quality due to uncontrolled acidic drainage or vegetation control chemicals.

A buried linear structure such as a pipeline can act as a conduit for shallow groundwater movement along the pipeline trench, especially if it is excavated below the average water table depth. The pipeline trench could cause permanent diversion of shallow groundwater flow to springs, groundwater- fed water bodies, or dug wells, particularly if the hydrological properties of backfill placed in the trench differ significantly from the native materials. Again, the magnitude of any environmental effect would be proportional to the distance between the trench and any receptor well, spring, or surface water body.

Long-term acidic drainage is possible along the pipeline trench in acidic drainage risk areas during Project Operation and Maintenance if the trenches are not securely sealed against infiltration and lateral transmission of surface water or shallow groundwater.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 240

Herbicides will be used within the fenced areas of valve sites and meter stations, except in designated watershed areas where they are prohibited by provincial regulation. Herbicide application in these areas may infiltrate groundwater and affect down-gradient wells and water bodies.

5.2.4.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events during any of the Project phases could have adverse environmental effects on the quality of Water Resources. Spills of hazardous materials during pipeline Construction and Operation and Maintenance, failure of erosion and sediment controls, firefighting chemicals used to control fires, temporary watercourse crossing washout, and a pipeline rupture or leak, may affect the quality of down-gradient water resources.

Unauthorized access to the pipeline RoW is not expected to affect the quality of Water Resources. The pipeline RoW crosses the Dennis Stream Watershed (refer to Section 4.3.1, Hydrogeological Setting), but the portion of the stream that falls within the anticipated pipeline RoW area is too big to be crossed by ATVs or other motorized vehicles. The Spruce Lake Watershed is also within the preferred corridor, but the anticipated pipeline RoW area crosses at the outfall, beyond the point where the watershed would be affected and there are existing trails in this area already in use. The boundary of the East and West Musquash Watershed is within 50 m of the preferred corridor, but as with the Spruce Lake Watershed, the anticipated pipeline RoW area crosses at the outfall, beyond the point where the watershed would be affected. Also, both the Spruce Lake Watershed and the East and West Musquash Watershed are located along existing RoWs, and therefore no changes to unauthorized access are expected.

5.2.4.4 Rockwood Park

Both of the corridor variants around Rockwood Park could potentially result in the same general interactions with Water Resources as the preferred corridor, only to a different extent. As a result, the potential environmental effects on Water Resources and associated mitigation would be similar for both the preferred corridor and the assessment of the variants around Rockwood Park. Any site-specific potential interactions and associated mitigation for the variants around Rockwood Park with respect to Water Resources will be noted separately in the EA as warranted.

5.2.5 Environmental Effects Analysis and Mitigation

5.2.5.1 Construction

This section provides an evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Construction as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.2.2). A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows Table 5.2.2.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 241

Table 5.2.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Water Resources

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: WATER RESOURCES Phase: Construction

Site Preparation Trench excavation and Minimize dewatering dewatering Monitor wells and water Change in water supply lakes and rivers resources quality within 50 m of (A) excavation Change in water Use sediment control resources quantity Provide temporary 1 1 1/1 R 2 (A) water supplies when required Dispose of contaminated soils as per applicable permits and regulations Blasting Identify wells within 500 Change in water m resources quality Inspect/test wells within (A) 100 m or with low yield Change in water Collect water samples resources quantity for at-risk wells (A) Design blasts to Change in water minimize vibration 2 1 1/1 R 2 resources flow Follow regulatory pattern (A/P) guidelines for blasting Provide temporary water supplies if required Deepen or replace permanently affected wells Exposing Acid Rock Monitor down-gradient Change in water water resources in resources quality bedrock excavation (A) areas Provide temporary 1 1 3/1 R 2 water supplies when required ARD management plan Deepen or replace affected wells

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 242

Table 5.2.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Water Resources

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: WATER RESOURCES Phase: Construction

Pipeline Installation Change in water Use materials in trench resources flow backfill that resemble pattern (A/P) aquifer hydraulic properties Install groundwater flow barriers in trench 1 1 1/1 R 2 annulus Provide temporary water supplies Deepen or replace affected wells Change in water Adjust water withdrawal resources quality procedures in (A) accordance with water Change in water source water levels 1 1 1/1 R 2 resources quantity Use sediment control (A) Provide temporary water supplies when required Watercourse Crossings Change in water Use proper sediment resources quality control (A) ARD management plan Change in water Provide comprehensive resources quantity monitoring and develop (A) and implement site- Change in water specific treatment plan resources flow where warranted (i.e., pattern (A/P) isolation, excavation, and/or in-situ treatment) 1 1 1/1 R 2 Use backfill with hydrological properties that address environmental concern (higher, lower or same permeability) Install groundwater flow barriers in trench annulus

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 243

Table 5.2.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Water Resources

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: WATER RESOURCES Phase: Construction

Temporary Ancillary Change in water Avoid placing high- Structures and Facilities resources quality traffic work sites (e.g., (A) marshalling or storage Change in water yards) in protected resources quantity watersheds, slopes and (A) recharge areas Change in water Avoid areas up-gradient 1 1 2/1 R 2 resources flow of springs pattern (A/P) Provide temporary water supplies when required Deepen or replace permanently affected wells Key:

Magnitude: Geographic Extent: Frequency: Ecological/Socio-cultural and Economic 1 = Low: e.g., affecting the available quantity 1 = <1 km2 1 = <11 events/year Context: or quality of water resources at levels that 2 = 1-10 km2 2 = 11 - 50 events/year 1 = Relatively pristine area or area not are indiscernible from natural variation 3 = 11-100 km2 3 = 51 - 100 events/year adversely affected by human activity. 2 = Medium: e.g., limiting the available 4 = 101 - 1,000 km2 4 = 101 – 200 2 = Evidence of adverse environmental quantity or quality of water resources, such 5 = 1,001 - 10,000 km2 events/year effects. that these resources are occasionally 6 = >10,000 km2 5 = >200 events/year rendered unusable to current users for 6 = continuous periods up to two weeks at a time Duration: N/A = Not Applicable 3 = High: e.g., limiting the available quantity 1 = <1 month Reversibility: (A) = adverse and quality of water resources, such that 2 = 1 - 12 months R = Reversible (P) = positive these resources are rendered unusable or 3 = 13 - 36 months I = Irreversible unavailable for current users during the life 4 = 37 - 72 months of the Project for future generations 5 = >72 months beyond the life of the Project

The main potential adverse environmental effects on Water Resources during the Construction phase include changes in groundwater quantity or quality in nearby or down-gradient water wells. Physical changes in groundwater flow may be caused by trench excavation and backfilling or blasting operations. Changes in watershed or well water quality may be caused by blasting or acidic drainage. The following subsections describe the mitigation measures to be implemented that will address potential environmental effects of various Project activities.

Trench Excavation and Dewatering

The depth to the water table along the preferred corridor is highly variable. Well Driller’s Reports for private wells in Rollingdam (western Charlotte County) indicate that the water table is between 4.9-6.1 m below ground surface in this area. A Well Driller’s Report for a private well in Saint John

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 244

indicates a water table depth of 9.1 m below ground surface. There are several stream and river crossings along the preferred corridor indicating that the water table is close to the surface in the adjacent areas, whereas the water table will be deeper in upland and hilly areas. In areas where the water table is encountered above the bottom floor of the excavation, it may be necessary to dewater the trench. Dewatering may also be required if areas of the trench in which the pipeline will be laid are left open during periods of heavy or lasting precipitation. The exact locations and the proportion of the pipeline route where trench dewatering would be likely required, would be determined when the final route is selected and the construction work proceeds.

Dewatering for the excavation of trenches may intercept or divert horizontal shallow groundwater flow which may temporarily or permanently affect down-gradient dug or shallow drilled wells, springs, and wetlands. Excavation is most likely to affect the shallow (i.e., <10 m depth) groundwater flow regime in overburden and shallow bedrock, with minimal environmental effects on deeper flow systems. The potential environmental effects may be a loss of yield for dug wells, shallow drilled wells, and springs; reduced base-flow in nearby watercourses during the dry period; and lowered water levels in ponds and wetlands, particularly during dry periods.

Groundwater contributions to watercourses, including those within designated Watershed Protection Areas, may be affected if considerable flow interception occurs. Base flow quantity environmental effects are expected to be minimal and temporary. Pipeline trenches are shallow and oriented perpendicular to most streams, allowing deeper unaffected groundwater to continue to contribute to stream flow. Furthermore, watercourses are generally supplied over a much larger area than will be affected by the proposed pipeline. Water quantity changes to stream waters, particularly in the Dennis Stream and Spruce Lake Designated Watershed Protection Areas, due to trench excavation are therefore not considered to be significant.

The magnitude of the environmental effect of dewatering on Water Resources will depend on distance, location (up-gradient or down-gradient) of the excavation, hydraulic properties of the overburden deposits, and the duration of dewatering operations. For example, environmental effects are unlikely to be substantive at distances over 50 m from the excavation, and would be of more concern in highly permeable sand and gravel areas than in the typically poorly permeable glacial till terrain intersected by most of the preferred corridor. The magnitude of water level decline in a dug well is likely to be greater up-gradient of an excavation, whereas a water quality environmental effect would be more likely to occur down-gradient of an excavation.

Environmental effects of dewatering activities should be temporary, since most excavations will be open for a few days to weeks at most, and pumping durations would be measured in hours to days on a site-specific basis during Construction. Dewatering activities should be minimized to the extent practicable, as well as minimizing the time that the trench stays open. Typically, completed trenches are only dewatered immediately prior to the lowering in of the pipeline. Aquifer dewatering should not occur during Operation and Maintenance.

Sedimentation in watercourses and nearby shallow wells may occur as a result of the discharge of sediment-laden water from trench excavations, instream work, or from erosion by discharged water. Proper sediment control will be essential to reducing sediment release and erosion in rural areas and at

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 245

watercourse crossings in Designated Watershed Protected Areas. All works within 75 m of a protected watershed will require approval from NBENV in the form of an exemption to the Watershed Protected Area Designation Order. The disposal of groundwater pumped from trenches should be controlled through standard erosion and sedimentation control practices to prevent sediment loading in nearby streams or overland flow towards wells. Sediment control measures (described in the Construction Manual and in accordance with the EPP) should be implemented for areas within 50 m of residential water wells and at stream crossings, particularly in water supply watersheds. The exact location of the watercourse crossing in the water supply watershed of Dennis Stream will be selected to minimize environmental effects based on additional field studies. Detailed sediment control measures to be implemented for the Dennis Stream crossing should be included in the Project EPP.

The Town of St. Stephen water supply, located within the Dennis Stream Watershed, is a combination of groundwater and surface water from an infiltration gallery. Groundwater and surface water supplies are protected by both a Designated Watershed Protected Area and a proposed Wellfield Protection Zone. The Designated Watershed Protected Area limits land use that may pose a risk to surface water supplies within the watershed, and the proposed Wellfield Protection Zone limits land use and activities that may pose a risk to groundwater within certain time dependant capture zones for the well head. The preferred pipeline corridor does not intersect the proposed Well Field Protection area for the Town of St. Stephen, however, it does abut it (see Figure 4.3.1). There is still a heightened concern on the part of the Town of St. Stephen regarding their drinking water supply.

The proposed watercourse crossing methodology for Dennis Stream is an isolated or dry crossing, with a wet crossing method proposed as a contingency in the event that the dry crossing is not possible. This crossing method is recommended based on consideration of protecting the integrity of the watershed and the water quality to the extent practicable in the stream. Typically, a water flow rate of 1 m3/s is considered as a maximum for dry crossing; a wet crossing is implemented above this flow rate. Isolated dry crossings for flow rates in excess of 1 m3/s may be possible depending on site- specific conditions (e.g., bank configuration, channel configuration, flow rates). It is recommended that every reasonable effort be made to implement an isolated (dry) crossing method at Dennis Stream.

Prior to any watercourse crossing, it should be confirmed that the watercourse is not used as a water supply (i.e., for summer residents). If the configuration or the flow of any stream that is used as a water supply requires a wet crossing to be implemented, then it is recommended that additional mitigative measures are implemented to minimize the amount of sedimentation released downstream of the crossing location. These could include such measures as: pumping as much water as practicable around the crossing location, using a series of floating silt curtains downstream of the crossing location (where practicable), and minimizing the duration of the crossing as much as practicable. Sedimentation of a surface water supply, if it occurs, is expected to be short-term with no lasting environmental effects after a number of days; however, it could potentially render the supply non-potable for this period (although this is unlikely).

If the material from the instream portion of the trench is silt laden, it is recommended that appropriate mitigation be implemented in order to minimize silt from this material from entering the watercourse (e.g., import new coarse (i.e., free from fines) material to backfill the trench). Rock used to cap the trench should be selected in accordance with the anticipated maximum flow rates of the watercourse.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 246

It is anticipated that water and surficial materials affected by anthropogenic contaminants will be encountered during trench excavation. This is unlikely to occur in rural lengths of the pipeline; however, due to the long history of development and industry in and around Saint John, there may be areas within the City that have the potential for environmental effects from petroleum hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, metals, and solvents. Following the selection of a detailed route, specific areas of potential contamination will be identified. In order to reduce the risk of affecting uncontaminated areas, it is recommended that soil and water removed from trench excavations be sampled and analyzed for contaminants of concern if suspected of being affected, or if a sheen is observed or odour is detected. It is recommended that the Proponent implement the following mitigation measures in the event contaminated soils are encountered during Construction.

The contractor should immediately stop work and inform the Proponent that contaminated soil has been encountered or suspected. The Proponent should retain expert advice on assessing and developing a soil handling plan.

The Proponent should inform the appropriate government agencies and landowner if the soil is deemed to be contaminated.

The Proponent should erect signage to warn site personnel and the public of the contaminated area. Construction equipment should be removed from the area.

Any disposal of contaminated soils must be implemented as per applicable permits and regulations.

In general, the environmental effects on Water Resources due to pipeline construction can be mitigated during planning and Construction by using proven mitigation methods for control of vibration, runoff, and excavation dewatering. Mitigation should include, as required, measures to:

identify and monitor water quantity and quality in all wells within 50 m of an excavation;

avoid interruption of major springs used as water supplies;

dewater excavations only where necessary;

adjust scheduling to minimize the duration of excavation dewatering;

prevent water migration in trench through use of trench plugs;

provide temporary potable water to affected users as required; and

replace seriously affected wells (i.e., yield no longer meets demand, or water quality decreases to become non-potable) with deeper dug wells or drilled wells.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 247

In the areas where residential wells are expected to be present (see Table 4.3.2), all wells within 50 m of the pipeline RoW should be located, inspected, and inventoried for type, depth, water level, and probable yield. Baseline water quality samples should be collected for these wells (or the closest wells in cases of large subdivisions), and analysis performed for coliform bacteria, pH, and selected indicator parameters, depending on site-specific concerns (e.g., acidity, turbidity). A water sample should be collected, labeled, suitably preserved, and archived for later analysis, in the event of a damage claim.

Careful scheduling of activities (e.g., excavation, dewatering, instream work) can minimize the probability of well yield losses in areas prone to aquifer dewatering. Dewatering of excavations should be done only when necessary for safe installation of pipe and the duration of dewatering operations minimized. Depending on safety concerns for humans and biota, one method is to allow aquifer water to stand in excavations until immediately before pipeline installation and backfill, or to apply sub-aqueous installation techniques. Appropriate safety precautions should be maintained around any open or flooded excavations.

In the unlikely event that excavation activities affect water supply, it may be necessary to provide a temporary water supply to affected users for a few days to weeks, depending on the construction schedule in each residential area. This is usually done using a portable storage tank and pumping system for the entire water supply, or a filter system or bottled supply for potable uses only.

In the unlikely event that a water supply well or spring is permanently impaired by pipeline construction, the well should be replaced as soon as practicable with a drilled well of equivalent capacity and water quality. Drilled wells are preferred to replace dug wells or springs. Where drilled wells are not practicable (e.g., in areas of brackish groundwater), a relocated well, deeper dug well, or cistern system may be appropriate.

Residual adverse environmental effects of excavation and dewatering on Water Resources should be temporary and of limited extent, provided that the above mitigative measures are implemented.

Blasting

The pipeline trench will typically be excavated to a depth of approximately 2 m, with some segments requiring deeper excavations to maintain pipeline gradients or to cross roadways or streams. Surficial deposits within the preferred corridor vary in depth; surficial materials are thicker than 3 m over much of the preferred corridor; however, roughly 5% of the preferred corridor length has exposed bedrock and approximately 25-40% of the preferred corridor length has bedrock 0.5-3 m deep (Section 4.1, Physical Environment). Mechanical ripping or blasting of bedrock will therefore likely be required for a substantive proportion of the pipeline route.

The bedrock in the preferred corridor typically consists of quartzite, granite, and other metamorphic and igneous rocks. These extremely hard crystalline bedrock types typically require blasting to excavate. A preliminary investigation of bedrock ripability conducted in the SJL corridor found that a large proportion of the geologic formations traversed by the pipeline were associated with low ripability and would likely require blasting (Washburn & Gillis 1998). The upper few metres of bedrock in some areas is largely weathered and partially disintegrated, and may be mechanically ripped; however, blasting of bedrock

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 248

was required in most locations during the construction of the SJL, which is partially paralleled by the preferred corridor. Further investigation into the blasting requirements will be undertaken when the final route is selected.

A preliminary review of air photos and 1:500,000 scale geological maps indicates 60-100 or more wells completed into granitic and volcanic rocks within 500 m of the centreline of the preferred corridor, east of Elmsville. Twenty to 40 potential wells located in marine clastic formations were identified within 500 m of the centreline of the preferred corridor, between Elmsville and St. Stephen. The uncertainty in the estimate resides in the unknown number of residences and facilities within the urbanized area of Saint John and the Dennis Stream Watershed that are not connected to the municipal and community water supplies (Table 4.3.2). This uncertainty will be addressed during recommended well inventories to be undertaken after the route is selected. There is a high likelihood that these marine clastic formations would require blasting if unweathered sections were encountered during trench excavations.

The main potential environmental effects of bedrock blasting on Water Resources include the permanent alteration of fracture geometry (opening new fractures or changes to the aperture of existing fractures) in the water bearing fracture zone of drilled wells, and temporary increase in water borne sediment in shallow wells and watercourses.

Damage to water wells from blasting of the scale that would be carried out for the proposed pipeline is unlikely. Studies have shown that relatively high levels of ground vibration have no significant or lasting environmental effect on drilled or dug wells. The most likely noticeable environmental effect would be a temporary increase in turbidity due to ground vibration. Well known relationships exist between blast charge weight, distance, and ground vibration. These relationships can be applied to design blasts to protect adjacent wells from damage, if present.

Blasting damage to water wells, if any, is expected to be minimal due to the shallow depths of the trench (approximately 2 m) and paucity of domestic wells anticipated over much of the preferred corridor. A mitigation strategy is recommended in areas where wells may be present within 500 m of the centreline of the pipeline RoW. The risk of blasting damage to residential water wells can be mitigated by the following procedures:

identify all domestic water wells within 500 m of the blasting area;

inspect wells within 100 m of blasting for vulnerability to cave in and identify low yield wells;

identify low-yield (<2.25 Lpm) wells and conduct short pumping water yield tests;

collect and analyze water samples from closest wells and archive samples from other wells;

design blasts to minimize vibration;

establish clear contractor guidelines and procedures for blasting and monitoring;

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 249

carry out blasting according to regulatory guidelines;

use rock breakers (i.e., hoe rams) instead of explosives, if feasible;

provide seismic monitoring of the closest well within 500 m on both sides of a blast area;

provide temporary water supply for affected wells if damage occurs; and

remediate or replace permanently affected wells (quality or quantity).

All blasting areas will be identified on appropriate maps during routing of the pipeline RoW; this may be refined through geotechnical drilling or geophysical surveys in critical areas. It is recommended that all wells within 100 m of any blasting zone be inspected and inventoried for age, specifications and yield, and a water sample collected and archived.

A concise blasting and blast monitoring protocol should be established and enforced in residential areas for all contractors. All blasting activities must be carried out in compliance with appropriate regulations and guidelines to minimize damage to both structures and water wells.

The energy imparted by blasting will be minimized by using proven design techniques. Explosive charges will be as small as necessary to break the rock for excavation and to maintain acceptable ground vibration levels at the nearest structures and wells. It is recommended that monitoring of water wells be incorporated into blast monitoring programs.

In the event of a damage claim, an inspection of the affected well should be conducted by a qualified person, including a short pumping test to determine effective well yield. A water sample should be analyzed and compared with the archived sample to identify water quality changes. If damage is proven, remediation may range from provision of suitable water storage tankage to deepening the well or replacing a severely damaged well.

Acid Drainage

The main concern with acidic drainage in the vicinity of a pipeline excavation is degradation of water quality at down-gradient water resources. In severe cases, the presence of acidity in groundwater can lead to degradation of groundwater or receiving surface water quality to below acceptable CCME Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines (Health Canada 1996, updated 2004). Typical problems include depressed pH and alkalinity, increased calcium-sulphate hardness from natural attenuation of acidic drainage, elevated concentrations of iron, manganese, aluminum, arsenic, and nickel from the natural formation, and elevated copper, lead, cadmium, and zinc from home plumbing corrosion.

Upon exposure to the atmosphere or oxygenated waters, bedrock formations containing sulphide mineralization can produce acidic drainage characterized by high total dissolved solids, low pH (2.0-4.0), and elevated concentrations of sulphate and metals. The acid generation process generally occurs in two stages: an initial chemical oxidation stage that lowers pH to the 2.5-4.0 range; and a later

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 250

biologically-mediated stage that can lower pH further. Due to the short time frame of Construction, the earlier chemical stage is more likely, and increased acidity due to biological activity should be minimal, provided appropriate mitigative measures are taken.

The potential environmental effects of acidic drainage on groundwater resources, down-gradient water wells, or surface receiving waters depends on the sulphide mineral content of the bedrock, the size of the excavation and the time that the material is exposed, the hydraulic properties of the aquifer, the presence of naturally occurring buffering materials such as calcite within the rock mass or the associated overburden, and groundwater flow pathways.

Several geologic formations traversed by the preferred corridor have the potential to produce acid rock drainage (ARD). The ARD risk areas are well known along the portions of the preferred corridor that parallel the SJL. The occurrence of acid generating bedrock along the remainder of the pipeline will be determined prior to pipeline construction through a detailed drilling and sampling program. Considering the number of potential acid rock generating formations, a detailed sampling program is recommended to properly delineate areas of concern.

Approximately two thirds of the urban portion of the preferred corridor is underlain by potential acid generating rock, including the Bails Lake, Quaco, Lancaster, Lorneville and Martinon formations, as well as the formations of the Coldbrook and Saint John Groups (Table 4.1.5). Approximately two thirds of the rural portion of the preferred corridor is reportedly underlain by sulphide-bearing rocks with ARD potential, most notably the Letete, Bocabec, and Kendal Mountain Formations (Table 4.1.6).

It is expected that detailed investigation will flag numerous formations as being potential acid rock generating formations; however, only some of these formations will actually require mitigative activities. For instance, during the construction of the SJL, known occurrences of acid generating rock were associated with the Kingston Dyke Complex, the Brookville Gneiss Group, and the Saint John Group. The Kingston Dyke Complex was, however, the only area requiring full mitigation measures.

The areas of acid producing mineralization associated with a specific geological formation are localized and can therefore show substantive differences in ARD potential over a short distance. Although preliminary geotechnical results and the results of the SJL installation are available, it is not possible to identify with certainty the rock to be encountered during the installation of the proposed pipeline that may have high ARD potential. A program of in-situ inspection and testing of bedrock exposures to address ARD potential and requirement for mitigative action should be undertaken.

Guidelines for management of acidic materials are not available for New Brunswick; however, Nova Scotia, which has significant naturally-occurring ARD issues with bedrock, has developed guidelines that will be applicable to this Project. The Sulphide Bearing Materials Disposal Regulations under Section 66 of the Nova Scotia Environment Act prohibit the disposal of sulphide-bearing materials without first obtaining an approval if the total volume excavated exceeds 500 m3 in situ or 1,300 tonnes. No sulphide-bearing materials may be stored or disposed of within 60 m of a watercourse. This regulation provides detailed procedures for the assessment and testing of potential sulphide-bearing bedrock zones, as well as procedures for the storage and disposal of sulphide-rich spoils.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 251

Mitigation measures for acid rock encountered during Construction would be similar to those used for the existing SJL pipeline. It is recommended that the Proponent develop an ARD management plan, or update an existing ARD management plan as required, which will specify mitigation measures to control ARD. The potential acid generating geological formations identified in this EA should be confirmed with further detailed sampling and analyses. The primary mitigation measure to control acidic drainage is to isolate the sulphide-rich bedrock source from the atmosphere and from oxygen- rich percolating groundwater or interflow along the pipeline annulus. While groundwater at many acidic drainage risk zones may be found to be naturally acidic, it is recommended that the following mitigation measures be considered in the ARD management plan to prevent further degradation caused by pipeline construction where sulphide-bearing (acid generating) bedrock cannot be avoided:

conduct a drilling and sampling program with emphasis on bedrock areas near domestic water wells and in Designated Watershed Protection Areas that present an acidic drainage risk;

inventory water wells within 500 m and down-gradient of the acidic drainage risk zones;

collect baseline water samples for pH, Al, Fe, Mn, As, Cu, Zn, alkalinity, and sulphate for wells within 100 m of excavation zones in acid generating bedrock;

collect baseline water samples for pH, Al, Fe, Mn, As, Cu, Zn, alkalinity, and sulphate for watercourses in Designated Watershed Protection Areas where the detailed RoW is within 250 m of a watercourse in acid generating bedrock;

carry out excavation work in accordance with appropriate regulatory guidelines, such as the Nova Scotia Sulphide Bearing Material Disposal Regulations;

minimize over-break of bedrock during excavation blasting;

minimize the extent of excavations in acid generating bedrock areas;

divert surface water and shallow groundwater away from excavation in acid generating bedrock areas;

minimize volume of sulphide-bearing material requiring storage or disposal (e.g., by minimizing excavation, using excavated materials as backfill with capping where possible, and adjusting trench blasting activities to minimize over-breakage);

dispose of waste rock materials in accordance with appropriate regulatory guidelines, such as the Nova Scotia Sulphide Bearing Material Disposal Regulations;

isolate the mineralized portion of the trench with impermeable fills;

minimize groundwater through flow along trenches using impermeable plugs or barriers;

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 252

remediate any affected wells by deepening, grouted casing or liners, or replacement;

engage a qualified professional to conduct an initial screening for evidence of acidic drainage (drop in pH or visual evidence of iron precipitate) within seven days of the implementation of acid rock mitigation in areas where rock with ARD potential was encountered within 250 m of a watercourse in a Designated Watershed Protection Area; and

monitor wells and watercourses in Designated Watershed Protection Areas situated closest to pipeline RoW within 500 m down-gradient of pipeline in acidic drainage risk areas for at least two years following Construction.

A scenario associated with a likelihood of significant and lasting environmental effects to Water Resources could occur if formations with ARD potentials are encountered within Designated Water Supply Watershed boundaries. For example, the preferred corridor is located within the 75 m watercourse set back (Protected Area B) in the Spruce Lake Watershed, and a watercourse crossing (Protected Area A) is required in the Dennis Stream Watershed. In these cases, the full complement of mitigative activities would be required, including the removal of all potentially acid generating bedrock to an appropriate disposal facility and the placement of impermeable liners (clay) in the trench to restrict oxygen exposure to bedrock remaining in place. The addition of buffering materials (i.e., lime) would be required to respond to drops in pH immediately following work (e.g., trenching) that exposes materials with ARD potential.

Acidic drainage risk areas identified on maps should be investigated through geotechnical drilling and rock chemistry sampling to determine percent sulphide content and acid producing/consuming potential. An inventory of water wells in ARD potential areas within 500 m (down-gradient) of the pipeline RoW should be made in affected areas. The closer wells (within 100 m of the pipeline RoW) should be inspected and sampled as described above. These baseline samples would likely be done in coordination with the recommended pre-blasting surveys, and would be used for resolution of any damage claims.

Since the magnitude of acidic drainage can be proportional to the time of exposure, the duration of excavation and pipeline construction should be as short as practicable in acidic drainage areas. To prevent the pipeline trench from acting as a drain for acidic groundwater flow, it is recommended that the annular spaces of the pipeline trench in acidic bedrock terrain be rendered impermeable to groundwater through flow by using impermeable backfills in severe areas and trench plugs at appropriate intervals to limit contact between sulphide-rich materials and groundwater.

The main environmental effects on water wells from acidic drainage include degradation in water quality and corrosion of plumbing equipment. Depending on the scale of environmental effect, mitigation could range from provision of water treatment (e.g., soda ash feeder, filters), deepening of casing to below the shallow affected zone, or well replacement. A water well that suffered permanent damage should be replaced with a deeper drilled well with casing securely grouted into deep bedrock.

All sulphide-bearing waste rock materials excavated from acidic drainage risk zones must be stored and disposed of properly. The risk of acidic drainage to groundwater or surface water from excavated

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 253

materials stored on the ground surface or used as excavation backfill will require special temporary onsite storage and ultimate onsite or offsite disposal.

A recommended process for the disposal of sulphide-bearing waste rock includes: an initial screening and hazard identification; confirmation of sulphide content by sampling and analysis; development of a mitigation plan for excavation, handling, and disposal of sulphide materials; and application for a permit for sulphide material disposal at an approved site. Disposal methods may include onsite encapsulation in low-permeability earthen cells, burial as a mixture with impermeable or acid-consuming materials, or offsite disposal in saltwater (e.g., ocean dumping, near shore fills).

Significant residual adverse environmental effects from acidic drainage in excess of natural conditions are unlikely to occur if the above mitigation measures, including (if necessary) the repair or replacement of wells and complete removal or encapsulation of ARD potential bedrock in Designated Watershed Protected Areas, are implemented.

Compaction

Equipment traffic in marshalling yards and other ancillary Project sites may compact shallow surficial aquifers, potentially altering flow to springs and shallow drilled or dug wells (less than 5 m in depth). Surface compaction may also reduce the infiltration of precipitation and recharge to shallow aquifers, and increase erosion and surface runoff to watercourses in surface water supply watersheds. Marshalling yards and other ancillary facilities should avoid the following areas: Designated Watershed Protected Areas; topographically high areas that may be aquifer recharge zones; areas immediately up- gradient of identified shallow springs; and glacial materials or slopes that may be more susceptible to runoff and erosion. Erosion is expected to be of limited concern within the city limits of Saint John due to the presence of fill material, shallow bedrock, and the presence of concrete and asphalt at surface. Marshalling areas should be temporary, and only used during construction of the pipeline.

Hydrostatic Testing

Prior to commissioning of the pipeline, hydrostatic testing will be performed to confirm the integrity of the pipeline system. Hydrostatic testing involves filling the pipeline or sections of the pipeline with water and pressurizing the line above the normal operating pressure for a designated period of time while continuously monitoring the pressure. In order to test the approximately 145 km of pipeline, a maximum estimated 62,751 m3 of water will be required and discharged back to the environment. It is anticipated that the estimated volume of water will not be required all at once and that sections of the pipeline will be tested separately. It may be possible to transfer water from one test section to another, thereby reducing the total volume of water used for hydrostatic testing. Additional water will also be required where major watercourse crossing pipe sections are pre-tested prior to installation.

Water will be obtained from nearby lakes, watercourses, or municipal sources in accordance with permit limits set by NBENV for water withdrawal. The extraction of large volumes of water from watercourses, groundwater, and water bodies has the potential to temporarily lower surface water levels or nearby well yields, which may affect potable water supplies. The sources of suitable water for the hydrostatic testing will be determined on a segment-specific basis as the pipeline progresses. The

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 254

test locations and water volumes must be identified and approved by regulating agencies prior to withdrawal of testing water, and fish and water quality protection measures must be put in place. Hydrostatic testing and dewatering should be done in accordance with the EPP and all applicable permits. Protection measures undertaken may include: selection of intake sources in streams or lakes with adequate base flow to protect the ecosystem; screening at the pipe inlet to prevent the entry of biota; avoiding periods of seasonal low water, and multiple use of extracted water for different (adjacent) pipeline test sections. Temporary water supplies should be provided if well yields and available water quantity in Designated Protected Watersheds is affected, although water will only be taken from these watersheds if no other reasonable options exist.

Test waters should be returned to a vegetated area in the same watershed from which water was taken in a manner that does not affect the quality of the receiving environment. Erosion control measures should be in place, and water should be discharged at a minimum setback from surface water bodies to ensure that the physical and chemical quality of the discharge water will not negatively affect surface water resources. Protective riprap, sheeting, tarpaulins, or equivalent should be used as required to dissipate energy of discharge to minimize soil erosion during dewatering.

The quality of the discharged test water may be degraded in comparison to that of the source water. The hydrostatic test water may contain residual metals from grinding and welding of the pipeline, soils particulates and methanol (if hydrostatic testing is undertaken during periods when the water is likely to freeze), which may potentially be released into the environment. Any waters in which methanol has been added should be disposed of at an appropriate waste disposal facility and not released to the environment. It is recommended that hydrostatic test waters be evaluated qualitatively, and if required, sampled and analyzed for a set of indicative water quality parameters. Mitigative action should be taken if water quality parameters exceed the CCME Environmental Quality Guidelines (CCME 1999), including the use of filter membranes at the line discharge or discharge to a disposal facility.

Summary – Construction Phase

5.2.5.2 Operation and Maintenance

This section provides an evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Operation and Maintenance as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.2.3). A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 255

Table 5.2.3 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Water Resources

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: WATER RESOURCES Phase: Operation and Maintenance

Project Presence Change in water Replace backfill with resources quantity fill having (A) hydrological Change in water properties that 1 1 1/1 R 2 resources flow address concern pattern (A/P) (higher or lower permeability) Change in water Locate sources of resources quality acid drainage (A) Isolate source rock with impermeable material Drainage control corrections 1 1 3/1 R 2 Install groundwater flow barriers in trench annulus Same mitigation as recommended for Construction phase RoW Maintenance Change in water Only herbicides of resources quality low persistence and (A) low ecological toxicity should be used within 1 1 1/1 R 2 the confines of the valve and metering sites Key: Magnitude: Geographic Extent: Frequency: Ecological/Socio-cultural and Economic 1 = Low: e.g., affecting the available quantity 1 = <1 km2 1 = <11 events/year Context: or quality of water resources at levels that 2 = 1-10 km2 2 = 11 - 50 events/year 1 = Relatively pristine area or area not are indiscernible from natural variation 3 = 11-100 km2 3 = 51 - 100 events/year adversely affected by human activity. 2 = Medium: e.g., limiting the available 4 = 101 - 1,000 km2 4 = 101 – 200 2 = Evidence of adverse environmental quantity or quality of water resources, such 5 = 1,001 - 10,000 km2 events/year effects. that these resources are occasionally 6 = >10,000 km2 5 = >200 events/year rendered unusable to current users for 6 = continuous periods up to two weeks at a time Duration: N/A = Not Applicable 3 = High: e.g., limiting the available quantity 1 = <1 month Reversibility: (A) = adverse and quality of water resources, such that 2 = 1 - 12 months R = Reversible (P) = positive these resources are rendered unusable or 3 = 13 - 36 months I = Irreversible unavailable for current users during the life 4 = 37 - 72 months of the Project for future generations 5 = >72 months beyond the life of the Project

Water resources located close to the pipeline may be temporarily or permanently affected by its presence. Long-term diversion of shallow groundwater along the pipeline could occur unless mitigative

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 256

measures are implemented. Changes in the local aquifer permeability caused by equipment compaction or use of fill materials of lower permeability than the natural surrounding aquifer could reduce or intercept flow to some springs. Alternatively, the use of materials of higher permeability than the natural surrounding aquifers may provide a preferential flow path for groundwater that can shunt water to down-gradient areas, or redirect water from shallow wells and watercourses up-gradient of the pipeline. This environmental effect may be more pronounced in areas with a higher topographical gradient.

Depending on the nature of the potential groundwater disruption, the composition of pipeline backfill materials should be considered. For example, it may be desirable to use permeable materials as backfill for pipeline segments completed in permeable media up-gradient of a spring, to maintain natural flow patterns towards a spring. In poorly permeable terrain, such as glacial till or bedrock, trench plugs consisting of impermeable materials may be necessary to prevent the trench from acting as an interceptor drain. The shallow trench is unlikely to affect deep regional flow systems or most shallow flow systems. If, despite preventative measures, water supply springs or wells are adversely affected by the pipeline development, the supply should be deepened or replaced with an appropriate drilled well.

Vegetation control should be accomplished by methods that have been approved, where required, by the local regulatory authority. It is recommended that mechanical means be used to control vegetation growth on the pipeline RoW. No chemical spraying should be undertaken on the RoW with the exception of limited chemical spraying to control vegetation growth within the confines of fenced and gravelled valve and meter stations. Land application of chemicals is not an allowed activity in Designated Watershed Protected Areas; meter stations and other facilities requiring chemical vegetation control will be located outside of these areas. Only herbicides of low persistence and low ecological toxicity should be used. Substantive or long-term detrimental environmental effects are not expected from vegetation control activities along the pipeline RoW.

Acidic drainage environmental effects lasting beyond the Construction phase of the Project are possible if the trenches are not securely sealed against infiltrating surface water or shallow groundwater. The mitigative measures described for the Construction phase (Section 5.2.5.1) should be applied at any location where continuing acidic drainage is detected through routine pipeline operational monitoring. Monitoring programs are discussed in Section 5.2.7 (Follow-up and Monitoring).

Summary – Operation and Maintenance Phase

5.2.5.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

This section provides an evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.2.4). A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 257

Table 5.2.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Water Resources

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: WATER RESOURCES Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Hazardous Materials Spill Change in water Enforce a minimum resources quality setback from water (A) resources for use of hazardous materials Treatment or replacement of water supply, if required Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program Construction Safety Manual 2 1 2/1 R 2 Maintenance Safety Manual Emergency Response Plans Spill Response Procedures Operation and Maintenance Procedures Worker and contractor training Audits and Inspections Erosion and Sediment Change in water Provide temporary Control Failure resources quality water supplies, if (A) necessary Replace infrastructure, 1 1 1/1 R 2 if damaged Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 258

Table 5.2.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Water Resources

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: WATER RESOURCES Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Fire Change in water CSA Z662 Design resources quality Standards (A) Quantitative Risk Analysis Construction Quality Assurance Environmental and Safety Management Program Operation and 2 1 2/1 R 2 Maintenance Procedures Pipeline IMP Public Awareness Program Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan RoW Monitoring and Surveillance Temporary Watercourse Change in water Provide temporary Crossing Washout resources quality water supplies, if (A) necessary Replace infrastructure, 1 1 1/1 R 2 if damaged Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 259

Table 5.2.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Water Resources

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: WATER RESOURCES Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Pipeline Rupture or Leak Change in water Environmental and resources quality Safety Management (A) Program CSA Z662 Design Standards Quantitative Risk Analysis Construction Quality Assurance Operation and 2 1 2/1 R 2 Maintenance Procedures Worker and contractor training Pipeline IMP Public Awareness Program RoW Monitoring and Surveillance Key:

Accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events during any of the Project phases could have adverse environmental effects on the quality of Water Resources. Spills of hazardous materials, failure of erosion and sediment controls, fires, temporary watercourse crossing washout, and a pipeline rupture or leak, may affect the quality of down-gradient water resources. The main potential malfunction during Operation and Maintenance would be a pipeline rupture, with associated risks of explosion and fire.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 260

Proponent and should contain specific measures to mitigate potential adverse environmental effects identified from the assessment of Project activities, including accidents, malfunctions and unplanned events. The mitigation measures to be implemented (described in Section 2.8, Environmental Management) are prevention oriented to reduce the risk of accidents, malfunctions and unplanned events occurring as a result of Project construction and operation and maintenance activities.

Hazardous Material Spill

Accidental releases of petroleum hydrocarbons or other compounds, or release of firefighting chemicals could theoretically degrade local and down-gradient groundwater quality to below acceptable criteria specified by the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (Health Canada 1996, updated 2004). The significance of an accidental release would depend on the chemical characteristics and volume of the release, the proximity to water resources, and hydraulic properties of the aquifer affected. For example, a spill in an area of thick, poorly permeable soil is less likely to affect aquifers or down- gradient water resources than a spill in an area of highly permeable overburden or permeable fractured bedrock. The persistence and mobility of the contaminant would also determine the risk to down- gradient water resources.

A Construction Safety Manual, a Maintenance Safety Manual, and operation and maintenance procedures will be prepared and should prescribe measures to prevent spills of hazardous materials. Further, the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program during Construction and Emergency Response Plans development for Operation and Maintenance should include spill response procedures that will direct workers and contractors to quickly contain and clean up spills should they occur, and prevent hazardous or toxic materials from entering vulnerable areas such as watercourses. It is recommended that workers and contractors be given training on the applicable sections of the safety manuals and procedures, and safety program audits and site inspections will ensure compliance with procedures in the field. The handling of fuel and other hazardous materials will be in compliance with the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System, and should be located in work areas away from vulnerable areas (e.g., fuelling of equipment and storage of hazardous materials within 100 m of the Spruce Lake and Dennis Stream protected watersheds and identified water supply wells should be prohibited). Operation and maintenance procedures should ensure activities involving hazardous materials or toxic substances (e.g., fuelling equipment) are performed safely, and activities where hazardous materials are stored or used are located well away from vulnerable areas. It is recommended that engineered barriers (e.g., secondary containment of storage tanks) be used to ensure that any spills are confined within a small area and will not disperse in the environment to any great extent. In the unlikely event of a hazardous material spill, the spilled material should be controlled and contained, and clean-up should be implemented immediately or as soon as appropriate materials and equipment are on site. All of these measures will lower the potential for an occurrence of a hazardous material spill and as well as minimize adverse environmental effects when a spill does occur.

Given the mitigation in place, Project-related hazardous materials spills have the potential to be significant but are unlikely to occur.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 261

Erosion and Sediment Control Failure The failure of sediment control activities, such as the washout of sediment control fences and the overtopping of hay bales and berms during extreme high flow events or tampering, similar to a temporary watercourse crossing washout, may result in the sedimentation of down-gradient water resources. This is of particular concern during the crossing of watercourses that may be used as water supplies (to be confirmed during detailed field studies). It is recommended that the Proponent contact downstream residents (permanent and seasonal) regarding potential use of water from the watercourse. The environmental effects to the water supply (for surface water only) would be short- term with no lasting environmental effects after a number of days; however, it could potentially render the supply non-potable for this period (although this is unlikely). The excess sediment load may damage filtration equipment, if present in the central distribution system, which would need to be replaced. Temporary shut down of the water supply intake, and provision of an alternative water supply should be provided to residents if the failure of sediment control activities interrupts water supply. The final location of the watercourse crossing will be chosen to minimize potential environmental effects of Construction.

Given the mitigation in place, Project-related erosion and sediment control failures have the potential to be significant but are unlikely to occur. Fire Contingency planning and procedures in the event of a fire should be presented in the Proponent’s Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program. A Construction Safety Manual, a Maintenance Safety Manual and operation and maintenance procedures will be prepared and should describe how to perform work safely to prevent fires, and prescribe measures that will mitigate the environmental effects of, and contain, construction fires should they occur. During Construction, due care and attention should be made to reduce the potential for starting forest fires. In particular, construction activities should be planned such that potential ignition sources are minimized and emergency response capability is provided along the Project site to respond to any small fires that may start onsite. It is recommended that workers and contractors be trained in the fire prevention and response procedures contained in the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program and in accordance with the New Brunswick Forest Fires Act. Safety program audits and site inspections should also be implemented throughout the Project Construction and Operation and Maintenance phases to ensure compliance with program policy and procedures. Thus, the potential environmental effects from construction-related fires and/or forest fires are rated not significant. Pipeline Rupture or Leak The risk of a pipeline rupture or leak will be kept low through a comprehensive design process that includes meeting pipeline design standards (i.e., CSA Z662) and codes prescribed by applicable legislation (e.g., NEBA, Onshore Pipeline Regulations), conducting a quantitative risk analysis (QRA) of the pipeline and implementing a Quality Assurance (QA) plan for Construction.

It is recommended that the Proponent develop operation and maintenance procedures including a Pipeline IMP that will ensure that regulatory requirements are met and the pipeline is operated and maintained to a high standard and the probability and volume of unplanned releases of natural gas from the pipeline are minimized. The Pipeline IMP, which should include routine inspections of the pipeline

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 262

to detect time dependant material defects (e.g., monitoring of corrosion protection measures (i.e., cathodic protection equipment and facilities)), together with operation of the entire system and all of its components within a safe operational envelope, will further reduce the probability of a pipeline rupture or leak from occurring.

The implementation and adherence to the general practices described in the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program will prevent significant residual adverse environmental effects due to accidental releases during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance. Any water supply wells or springs permanently affected by groundwater flow diversion, acidic drainage, accidental release, or blasting damages should be replaced to a similar condition prior to the damage. It is anticipated that even if one of these accidents were to occur, the environmental effects would not be permanent. Any temporary disruption of the surface water supply due to quantity (dewatering) or quality (sedimentation) should be mitigated by the provision of temporary water supplies to those affected. Although adverse environmental effects from accidental releases have the potential to be significant, they are unlikely to occur. Summary – Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events Based on consideration of the potential environmental effects of Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events associated with the Project, the proposed mitigation, and the residual environmental effects significance ratings criteria, the residual adverse environmental effects on Water Resources have the potential to be significant but are unlikely to occur.

5.2.6 Determination of Significance

Table 5.2.5 evaluates the significance of potential residual environmental effects resulting from any interactions between Project activities and Water Resources, after taking into account any proposed mitigation. The table also considers the level of confidence of the Jacques Whitford Study Team that was used in this determination.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 263

Table 5.2.5 Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix for Water Resources

Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix Valued Environmental Component: WATER RESOURCES

Residual Likelihood Level of Phase Environmental Confidence Probability of Scientific Effects Rating* Occurrence Certainty Construction NS 2 1 2 Operation and Maintenance NS 3 1 3 Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events S 2 1 3 Project Overall NS 2/3 1 2/3 Key: Residual Environmental Effects Rating: Probability of Occurrence of Residual Environmental Effects: based on professional judgement S = Significant Adverse Environmental Effects 1 = Low Probability of Occurrence NS = Not-significant Adverse Environmental Effects 2 = Medium Probability of Occurrence P = Positive Environmental Effects 3 = High Probability of Occurrence

*As determined in consideration of established residual environmental effects rating criteria.

Based on consideration of the potential environmental effects of all phases of the Project, the proposed mitigation, and the residual environmental effects significance ratings criteria, the residual adverse environmental effects on Water Resources are rated not significant, with the exception of some accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events that are unlikely to occur.

5.2.7 Follow-up and Monitoring

It is recommended that pre-Construction monitoring be conducted to collect baseline data for surface water supplies and wells potentially affected by trench excavation and dewatering, blasting, or acidic drainage. Areas where springs are likely to occur and may be an important component of local water supplies or watercourse flow should be identified through landowner surveys prior to pipeline construction.

Groundwater Monitoring All wells and water supply springs located within 50 m of the pipeline RoW where trench excavation and dewatering will occur should be located, inspected and inventoried for depth, water level, and probable yield. Baseline water quality samples should be collected for these wells, including analysis for coliform bacteria, pH, and selected indicator parameters depending on site-specific concerns (e.g., acidity, turbidity) and water samples collected.

Identify all wells within 500 m of blasting areas. All wells within 100 m of blasting areas should be inspected and documented. Low yield wells (i.e., <2.25 Lpm) within 100 m of a blasting zone should be identified and inventoried for specifications and yield, and a water sample collected.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 264

All water wells identified within 500 m and down-gradient of the acidic drainage risk areas should be located and documented on appropriate maps.

All water wells within 100 m of Project RoW (when determined) and down-gradient of bedrock excavation zones in acidic drainage risk areas should have baseline water samples collected for pH, Al, Fe, Mn, As, Cn, Zn, alkalinity, and sulphate.

Surface Waters

Headwaters of designated Watershed Protection Areas immediately down-gradient of the pipeline RoW should be baseline sampled for general chemistry, metals and suspended solids.

If identified as a water supply of sensitive habitat or wetland, a baseline sample should be collected prior to watercourse crossing work.

Construction Monitoring

Monitoring of Water Resources is recommended during Construction to ensure no residual adverse environmental effects occur due to trench excavation and dewatering or blasting.

Groundwater

All wells within 50 m of an excavation should be monitored for water quantity and quality.

All water wells within 500 m of blasting areas should be identified, and seismic monitoring undertaken for the well situated closest to the pipeline RoW within that 500 m on both sides of the blasting area.

Surface Water

The suspended solids should be monitored (i.e., grab samples taken and analyzed) upstream and downstream of any stream crossing on a daily basis during the implementation of each crossing.

If identified as a water supply of sensitive habitat or wetland, suspended solids monitoring should be performed during the stream crossing work period.

Post-Construction Monitoring

Groundwater

Monitoring of groundwater during pipeline operation should be conducted to identify any long-term changes in water quality due to acidic drainage or accidental spills. Within ARD areas that coincide with residential wells along the preferred corridor, the nearest down-gradient residential well within 500 m of the RoW should be used as a monitoring well. This well should be checked on a quarterly basis for two years for general chemistry in order to identify any changes in groundwater quality that might be indicative of acidic drainage.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 265

Surface Water

In areas where bedrock with ARD potential are exposed within 250 m of a watercourse within a designated Watershed Protection Area, quarterly monitoring for ARD indicator parameters should be done for two years for general chemistry in order to identify any changes in stream water quality that might be indicative of acidic drainage.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 266

5.3 Fish and Fish Habitat

5.3.1 Rationale for Selection as Valued Environmental Component

Fish and Fish Habitat was selected as a VEC because of the potential for interactions between Project activities and the freshwater biological environment. In particular, this VEC assesses the potential environmental effects on fish and fish habitat, fish and fish habitat-based ESAs, and surface water quality during the Construction, and Operation and Maintenance phases of the Project, as well as Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events.

Surface water quality was selected as an indicator because of the relationship between surface water conditions and the health of fish and fish habitat. Surface water as a drinking water resource is discussed in Section 5.2 (Water Resources).

In the context of this VEC, the following definitions apply.

“Fish” is defined as per the Fisheries Act as fish, shellfish and crustaceans and any parts of fish, shellfish and crustaceans; and the eggs, sperm, spawn, larvae, spat and juvenile stages of fish, shellfish and crustaceans. Reference in the Fisheries Act to marine animals is not included as the Project does not interact with the marine environment.

“Fish habitat” is defined as per the Fisheries Act as spawning, nursery, rearing, food supply, over wintering, and migration areas and any other areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes.

“Surface water” is defined as including the chemical, physical, and biological attributes of surface water including, but not limited to, suspended sediments, flow regime, and water quality. Surface water also includes consideration of sulphide-bearing rock drainage potential.

5.3.2 Environmental Assessment Boundaries

5.3.2.1 Spatial

The spatial boundaries (the “Assessment Area”) for the assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Project on Fish and Fish Habitat include the watercourses that may be crossed by the preferred corridor or Rockwood Park variants and where activities associated with Construction, Operation and Maintenance, and Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events of the Project could potentially result in environmental effects on fish, fish habitat, and surface water quality.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 267

5.3.2.2 Temporal

The temporal boundaries for the assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Project on Fish and Fish Habitat include the periods of Construction, and Operation and Maintenance of the Project for the life of the pipeline.

5.3.2.3 Administrative and Technical

There are a number of administrative and technical limitations that were considered during the assessment of the environmental effects of the Project on Fish and Fish Habitat. Most of these limitations are regulatory in nature as described in the following sections.

Fish and Fish Habitat

All fish and fish habitat are protected through federal and provincial legislation. This is administered in the province of New Brunswick by the Watercourse and Wetland Alteration Regulation of the Clean Water Act. This application process applies to all activities within 30 m of a watercourse. Fish habitat is protected under the Fisheries Act and by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat (DFO 1986). This policy applies to all projects and activities in or near water, which could alter, disrupt or destroy fish habitat by chemical, physical, or biological means. The guiding principle of this policy is to achieve no net loss of the productive capacity of fish habitats. The Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat is regulated by Sections 20, 21, 22, 30, 32, 35, 37, 40 and 43 of the Fisheries Act. Watercourses crossed using the ‘wet-crossing’ technique will require under Section 35 (2) of the Fisheries Act a harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat (HADD) authorization from DFO.

Species at Risk Act

Fish species at risk and species of conservation concern are protected federally under SARA. SARA is administered by Environment Canada, Parks Canada Agency and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Details on the application of the SARA are provided in Section 5.4.2.3 (Vegetation).

New Brunswick Endangered Species Act

Endangered fish species are protected provincially under the NB ESA. The purpose of this Act is to provide protection to endangered species and their habitats. The NB ESA is administered by NBDNR. There are no species of freshwater fish listed under the NB ESA.

Surface Water

Surface water is protected through federal and provincial legislation. Water quality of watercourses is protected in New Brunswick under the Clean Water Act. As noted previously, activities that could alter water quality of watercourses are regulated under the Watercourse and Wetland Alteration Regulation of the Clean Water Act. Under the Water Classification Regulation of the Clean Water Act, water quality standards are established for classified lakes and rivers in New Brunswick (NBDELG 2002b).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 268

Some lakes but no watercourses within New Brunswick have been classified under the regulation; therefore, it is assumed that all of the watercourses should be considered as Class A, which would require that the watercourses be managed to have water quality and aquatic life as it occurs naturally (Burtt, pers. comm.).

The quality of water from a biological perspective is assessed in relation to the Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for Aquatic Life (CCME 1999) and in respect of the Fisheries Act.

Details on existing conditions for Fish and Fish Habitat are presented in Section 4.4 (Fish and Fish Habitat). It has been assumed, for the purposes of this EA, that fish and fish habitat are present in all of the watercourses to be crossed by the pipeline within the preferred corridor. This is a conservative approach for assessing environmental effects. Pre-Construction fieldwork will be conducted in consultation with DFO, NBDNR and NBENV to verify these EA assumptions and underpin the development of the site-specific mitigation measures to be implemented for the Project and documented in the EPP for Construction.

It is the professional judgement of the Jacques Whitford Study Team that the data available to characterize the existing conditions and existing knowledge of Fish and Fish Habitat in the Assessment Area regarding the potential Project-VEC interactions, will be sufficient to provide a baseline against which the environmental effects of the Project could be assessed.

5.3.3 Residual Environmental Effects Rating Criteria

A significant residual adverse environmental effect on Fish and Fish Habitat is one that alters fish habitat physically, chemically, or biologically, in quality or extent, in such a way as to cause an adverse change in the ecological function of that habitat, or an adverse change (caused by avoidance and/or mortality) in the distribution or abundance of a fish species or community that is dependent upon that habitat, such that natural recruitment would not re-establish the community to its original composition, density and extent in one generation; or would result in an unmitigated or non-compensated net loss of fish habitat as defined in the Fisheries Act.

The criteria for significant residual adverse environmental effects for Vegetation (Section 5.4.3) are also to be applied to Fish and Fish Habitat, as they relate to species at risk and species of conservation concern.

A significant residual adverse environmental effect on surface water quality is one that causes a long- term Project-related exceedance of the CCME Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life (CCME 1999).

A positive environmental effect is defined as one that enhances the quality of habitat, increases species diversity, and/or increases the area of valued habitat.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 269

Environmentally Significant Areas (Fish-based)

A significant residual adverse environmental effect on ESAs is one that results in the loss of a substantive amount (i.e., greater than 10%) of the ESA and/or substantially degrades the quality or nature of the ESA.

A positive environmental effect occurs when Project activities help to increase species populations and/or diversity.

5.3.4 Potential Interactions, Issues, and Concerns

This section evaluates the potential for Project-related activities to affect Fish and Fish Habitat. Table 5.3.1 provides a summary of the potential environmental effects resulting from the Project-VEC interactions, which are discussed below.

Table 5.3.1 Project Activity – Environmental Effects Interaction Matrix for Fish and Fish Habitat

Potential Interactions Between Project Activities and Environmental Effects Valued Environmental Component: FISH AND FISH HABITAT

Potential Environmental Effect Change in Project Activities and Physical Works Change in Fish Surface Water (See Table 3.1.1 for list of specific activities and works) Habitat Direct Mortality and Fish Quantity Habitat Quality Construction Site Preparation Pipeline Installation Watercourse Crossings Temporary Ancillary Structures and Facilities Operation and Maintenance Project Presence Pipeline Maintenance RoW Maintenance Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events Hazardous Materials Spill Erosion and Sediment Control Failure Fire Occupational Injury Wildlife Encounter Temporary Watercourse Crossing Washout Disturbance of Unidentified Archaeological or Heritage Resource Unauthorized Access to RoW Pipeline Rupture or Leak

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 270

5.3.4.1 Construction

There are several Project-related construction activities that could affect Fish and Fish Habitat within the Assessment Area. The most substantive and likely interaction is the loss, or change, of fish habitat as a result of the installation of the pipeline through watercourses. Where ‘open-cut’ or ‘wet-crossing’ techniques are used under HADD authorization from DFO, high levels of sedimentation can result in trauma to aquatic species and downstream habitat quality degradation. Blasting near or within a watercourse may also result in trauma to aquatic species. Direct mortality may occur during watercourse crossing installations.

The other potential environmental effects that may occur during all Construction phases (including watercourse crossings and temporary bridge crossing installations) include increases in total suspended sediments, increased turbidity, change in hydrologic conditions, change in pH, and increased temperature due to change in surrounding land cover (e.g., clearing of riparian vegetation). There is also the potential for some indirect environmental effects (i.e., noise from construction activities) that may cause temporary avoidance of fish habitat.

Site Preparation

Clearing, Grubbing, Topsoil Stripping, and Grading

Riparian vegetation will be cleared for the pipeline RoW. Removing vegetation near riverbanks removes shaded habitat and may increase bank erosion. Fish are sensitive to changes in water temperature and salmonids require sustained water temperatures less than 20°C. Shaded areas provide cooler temperatures during periods of warm, sunny weather. Any reduction in available spawning or rearing habitat or barriers to traditional spawning migration routes could undermine the reproductive potential of the local stock.

Sedimentation (increased sediment load in stream water and deposition in downstream sediments) is perhaps the most common environmental effect of construction activities on fish and fish habitat. Suspended sediment also occurs naturally in watercourses, occasionally at high concentrations. The environmental effects of sediment are well studied and understood (Anderson et al. 1996). Anderson et al. (1996) and Trow Consulting Engineers Ltd. (1996) summarized the potential environmental effects of sedimentation on fish habitat as follows:

degradation of water quality (i.e., oxygen levels, light penetration, water temperature, water chemistry such as organics and metals) leading to changes in primary production and food availability;

changes in stream morphology and stream bed porosity leading to degradation of spawning substrates, holding pools, instream cover, and over wintering habitat;

reducing the diversity and abundance of bottom dwelling fish food organisms; and

destruction of aquatic vegetation that are buried by sediments.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 271

The potential direct environmental effects on fish are a function of the concentration of suspended sediments, duration of the exposure, sensitivity of the life stage, as well as the hardness, size and angularity of the suspended particles. Environmental effects may include:

first-level behavioural responses, usually temporary and not resulting in a change in health;

minor physiological influences where the fish may avoid the exposure but there may be environmental effects to health due to exposure or reduction in food supply;

physiological changes due to long-term exposure affecting life stages or feeding; and

loss of eggs and larvae that cannot avoid areas of exposure where larvae are most sensitive; eggs are marginally more tolerant than larvae.

Erosion and sedimentation could be associated with all phases and most activities of the Project and are discussed in site preparation because it is the first occurrence for this potential Project-VEC interaction. Erosion and sedimentation can occur anywhere and any time soil is exposed. Potential characteristics of the watercourses that may increase the risk of erosion and sedimentation include:

stream morphology;

high discharge; and

presence of erodible soils.

Beaver Dam Removal

Numerous beaver dams were identified within the preferred corridor during the 2005 field surveys and the removal of beaver dams during site preparation activities is likely. This activity can affect surface water and fish habitat quality.

Blasting

Blasting can have physical and chemical environmental effects on the aquatic environment. Shock waves and vibrations from blasting can damage fish swim bladders and rupture internal organs, and may kill or damage fish eggs or alevins (DFO 1995a). Blasting can cause resuspension of sediments (Munday et al. 1986), bank failure and resultant sedimentation and habitat avoidance. Nitrogen-based explosives can affect aquatic life through direct toxicity of the compounds, reducing dissolved oxygen during nitrification, and providing nutrients for aquatic plants. Nitrite is highly toxic to fish and can reduce the oxygen carrying capacity of blood; ammonia can cause gill damage, and promote algal growth. Pommen (1983) provides detailed information on the potential chemical environmental effects of blasting. However, nitrogen-based explosives will not be used in site preparation (see Section 5.3.5.1, Construction).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 272

Blasting may also result in the release of sediment to watercourses through the settling of dust and/or rock slides. The environmental effects of blasting are considered in site preparation.

Pipeline Installation

Excavation/Trenching

The primary potential environmental effect of excavation is exposure of surface water (e.g., rain water) to sulphide-bearing bedrock causing a pH reduction in receiving watercourses to levels that are harmful to fish. When fish are exposed to low pH waters, the fish body fluids will lose sodium and chloride ions and plasma osmotic pressure decreases. This creates physiological stress in the fish, which can eventually cause death. Different fish species have different pH tolerances, with salmonids being quite sensitive to acidic pH. The ecology of the aquatic system starts to change at pH levels of 5.0-6.0, with a reduction of diversity and plant and animal species; pH values of 4.5-5.0 are harmful to salmonid eggs and fry, while pH values less than 4.0 are lethal to all salmonids. Excavation may also potentially increase sedimentation through the settling of dust. The environmental effects of sedimentation are considered in site preparation.

Blasting

The environmental effects of blasting are considered as part of the assessment of site preparation activities.

Hydrostatic Testing and Dewatering

The environmental effects of hydrostatic testing and dewatering are degradation of water quality, sedimentation, and a loss of fish and fish habitat quantity. An estimated water volume of 62,751 m3 will be required for hydrostatic testing. Water will be obtained from nearby lakes, watercourses, or municipal sources in accordance with permit limits set by NBENV for water withdrawal. The extraction of large volumes of water from watercourses, groundwater, and water bodies has the potential to temporarily lower surface water levels or nearby well yields, which may directly or indirectly affect the aquatic environment. The quality of the discharged test water is not expected to be substantively different from that of the source water; however, residual metals from grinding and welding and soils particulates left over inside the pipeline as a result of construction may potentially be released into the environment and could result in a change in surface water quality or sedimentation from soils particles in the pipeline. The environmental effects of sedimentation are considered in site preparation. During winter conditions, methanol mixed with the test water to prevent freezing can degrade water quality if released directly into a watercourse.

Backfilling and Topsoil Replacement

Backfilling and topsoil replacement near watercourses can result in sedimentation of watercourses. The environmental effects of sedimentation are considered in site preparation.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 273

Site Restoration

During site restoration, sedimentation of the watercourse can occur from failure of erosion control measures upslope of watercourses. The environmental effects of sedimentation are considered in site preparation. Surface water runoff associated with seeding of high gradient slopes may result in small amounts of nutrients (e.g., nitrate and phosphate) entering surface waters and may cause a decrease in surface water quality.

Watercourse Crossings

Temporary Vehicle Crossings

Sedimentation of watercourses may result from runoff from approach roads and bridge abutments. The environmental effects of sedimentation are described in site preparation. Washouts of temporary vehicle crossings are unplanned events and are considered in Section 5.3.5.3 (Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events).

Wet-Crossings

Wet-crossings of watercourses should be avoided to the extent practicable. Wet-crossing or ‘open-cut’ techniques involve instream works to install the pipeline through the watercourse while the water runs freely through the streambed excavation and are only employed when dry crossings are not feasible. Watercourses with a measured discharge >1 m3/s are considered as candidates for wet-crossings by DFO (Currie, pers. comm.). As a general guideline, watercourses with a wetted width >10 m are also considered candidates for wet crossings. The flow of water associated with these constraints is logistically difficult to manage with pumps in order to bypass the crossing area within the watercourse and successfully create and maintain a ‘dry’ or isolated work area. Wet crossings are also employed as a contingency if HDDs fail or are not feasible, with the exception of the Saint John River HDD, where it is assumed that HDD is the only acceptable crossing method.

For some wet-crossings, the streambed may need to be temporarily ‘padded’ with excavated substrate to allow heavy machinery to sit atop, keeping the machinery high enough out of the water to safely operate in deep areas of a watercourse. Disturbance of watercourse substrates by heavy equipment can potentially cause acute heavy sedimentation. The force of the flowing water suspends and transports the sediments over large distances and potentially results in decreased habitat quality as the sediment settles out and fills interstitial spaces between substrates. Entry, egress, and movement of heavy equipment in the watercourse may suspend shoreline and streambed sediments. Heavy equipment use on stream banks may destabilize the bank and cause sloughing of bank soils. Minor hydrocarbon leaks from instream heavy equipment can degrade water quality. As such, wet-crossing techniques require authorization from DFO. The environmental effects of sedimentation on aquatic species are considered in site preparation.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 274

Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD)

Horizontal directional drilling is a technique that does not involve works within a watercourse for physical installation of the pipe, as a borehole is drilled beneath the streambed and a section of pipe pulled through. Independent survey verification wires are typically run across the watercourse at a width equal to the proposed depth of the crossing profile to determine the position and depth of the drill throughout drilling. HDDs generally originate and terminate more than 10 m from the edges of the watercourse due to the approach angles needed to attain the required depth of cover over the pipe beneath the streambed. Sedimentation of the watercourse can potentially occur in the event of a frac- out and may result in a loss of habitat quality. During frac-outs, drilling mud may enter the watercourse from beneath the streambed through fissures in the bedrock or interstitial spaces through the soils.

Dry-Crossings

Dry-crossing or isolated techniques involve segregating the crossing area with cofferdams or AquaDams® and temporarily pumping or fluming the water around the construction area creating an ‘isolated’ or ‘dry’ work area in the stream bed. Controlled removal of the impoundment structures may result in sedimentation. The environmental effects of sedimentation are considered in site preparation.

Site Restoration

During site restoration, sedimentation of the watercourse during stream bank replacement can potentially occur during instream habitat replacement, bank contouring, bank armouring, and bank restoration. The environmental effects of sedimentation are considered in site preparation. Replacement of instream habitat may result in an increase in habitat quality as replaced substrates may be of a higher quality than those removed prior to installation of the pipeline.

Seeding/fertilizing of the disturbed riparian zones may result in small amounts of nutrients (e.g., nitrate and phosphate) entering surface waters and may cause a localized loss of surface water quality.

Temporary Ancillary Structures and Facilities

The handling of hydrocarbons and hazardous materials during Project Construction, and storage of these materials at ancillary facilities could potentially affect the quality of surface water and fish habitat. Interactions other than minor chronic release (e.g., minor drips from machinery) would be considered the result of accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events.

Sedimentation from runoff associated with temporary work areas near watercourses can potentially occur during site preparation. The environmental effects of sedimentation on Fish and Fish Habitat are considered in site preparation.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 275

5.3.4.2 Operation and Maintenance

Project Presence

Presence of the RoW through watercourses may have positive environmental effects on habitat quality as reconstructed streambeds may be of higher habitat quality than that which existed prior to Construction.

Valve sites will be required throughout the pipeline and will be placed a considerable distance from watercourses. As such, valve sites are not anticipated to interact with watercourses and are not considered further in the assessment of Fish and Fish Habitat.

Pipeline and RoW Maintenance

There is the potential for instream work to be required during the Operation and Maintenance phase of the Project. Instream pipeline repairs or watercourse engineering (e.g., forming banks) to maintain watercourse morphology and crossing integrity may potentially result in loss of habitat and surface water quality, change in habitat quantity, and direct mortality to fish. The environmental effects of sedimentation and loss of riparian vegetation are considered in Site Preparation (Section 5.3.4.1, Construction).

5.3.4.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events that may occur in association with the Project and have adverse environmental effects on Fish and Fish Habitat include:

hazardous materials spill;

erosion and sediment control failure;

fire;

temporary watercourse crossing washout;

unauthorized access to RoW; and

pipeline rupture or leak.

Hazardous materials spills may damage fish habitat and/or cause direct mortality of fish. Hazardous materials spills could be the result of construction activities (e.g., equipment fuelling or faulty vehicle components) or operation and maintenance activities (e.g., equipment fuelling).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 276

Erosion and sediment control measures could fail and release sediment into watercourses during precipitation events.

Fire could remove riparian vegetation near watercourses. Fire may also temporarily elevate water temperature and increase sedimentation. Direct mortality of fish at early life stages may result from ash deposition and sedimentation as early fish life stages have limited avoidance capability. Fire may be caused as a result of construction activities (e.g., hot equipment) and operation and maintenance activities (e.g., discarded cigarettes or hot exhaust systems in contact with roadside vegetation).

Temporary vehicle crossing washouts may cause the loss or degradation of fish habitat, and direct mortality of fish. This could result from storms greater than accounted for in the structure design.

Unauthorized access of vehicles (e.g., ATVs, bikes) through RoW watercourse crossings may result in potential environmental effects to Fish and Fish Habitat. Operation of an ATV through or within a watercourse is prohibited under the Fisheries Act. Direct mortality of early life stages of fish and benthic invertebrates can result from compaction of gravels and sediments due to the force of the tires. The churning motion of the tires may also result in acute sedimentation events. Hydrocarbons adhered to the ATV can be released into the freshwater environment through the force of the displaced water caused by the motion of the vehicle. ATVs abandoned during failed crossing attempts can overturn or be swept downstream and release gasoline, oil and grease into the watercourse. Destabilization and erosion of watercourse banks, destruction of vegetation, exposure of subsoils, rutting, and channelization of the RoW by ATVs also contributes to watercourse sedimentation.

The presence of the RoW grants easy access to fish-bearing watercourses and uncontrolled access could result in a depletion of fishery resources along the RoW through recreational fishing. The environmental effect on fish populations would depend on the amount of fishing pressure on a given stream. Indirect mortality of fish could result from unauthorized access to watercourses along the RoW.

Pipeline leaks within watercourses may result in dissolved hydrocarbons degrading surface water quality and in turn fish habitat quality. Large ruptures in the pipeline beneath the streambed, although unlikely, may result in sedimentation as natural gas venting to the water surface agitates and suspends streambed sediments.

The environmental effects of sedimentation are considered in Site Preparation (Section 5.3.4.1, Construction).

5.3.4.4 Rockwood Park

Both of the corridor variants around Rockwood Park could potentially result in the same general interactions with Fish and Fish Habitat as the preferred corridor, only to a different extent. As a result, the potential environmental effects on Fish and Fish Habitat and associated mitigation would be similar for both the preferred corridor and the assessment of the variants around Rockwood Park. Any site- specific potential interactions and associated mitigation for the variants around Rockwood Park with respect to Fish and Fish Habitat will be noted separately in the EA as warranted.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 277

5.3.5 Environmental Effects Analysis and Mitigation

5.3.5.1 Construction

This section provides an evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Construction as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.3.2). A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

Table 5.3.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Fish and Fish Habitat

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: FISH AND FISH HABITAT Phase: Construction

Project Activities and Physical Works Potential Environmental (See Table 3.1.1 Effects Mitigation for list of specific (A=Adverse; P=Positive) activities and works) Magnitude Magnitude Extent Geographic Duration/Frequency Reversibility Ecological/Socio- and Cultural Economic Context

Site Preparation Change in surface water Follow EPP and site-specific and fish habitat quality or generic watercourse (A) crossing plans Direct mortality (A) Erosion control measures Limit area of disturbance especially within 30 m of a watercourse For winter clearing, maintain a 30 m buffer zone at watercourse crossing locations Obtain DFO approval for 1 2 2/2 I/R 2 blasting near/through watercourses Conduct winter blasting in accordance with DFO restrictions Follow DFO’s watercourse blasting guidelines Apply for WAWA permit, follow requirements Implement the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 278

Table 5.3.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Fish and Fish Habitat

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: FISH AND FISH HABITAT Phase: Construction

Pipeline Installation Change in surface water Erosion control measures and fish habitat quality Follow EPP (A) Implement Hydrostatic Direct mortality (A) Testing section of EPP Dispose of hydrostatic test waters within the same watershed from which water 1 2 2/2 I/R 2 was obtained Monitor dewatering areas for erosion Implement the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 279

Table 5.3.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Fish and Fish Habitat

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: FISH AND FISH HABITAT Phase: Construction

Watercourse Change in surface water Develop watercourse Crossings and fish habitat quality crossing plans using DFO (A/P) and Watercourse Alteration Change in fish habitat Technical Guidelines quantity (A) Apply for WAWA permit, Direct mortality (A) follow requirements Follow EPP and site-specific or generic watercourse crossing plans Erosion control measures Limit area of disturbance especially within 30 m of a watercourse Minimize instream work, work in the dry where practicable Obtain DFO authorization for wet-crossings, dry-crossings, 1-2 2 2/2 I/R 2 and instream blasting Follow DFO guidelines for blasting near/in watercourses Field identify and flag critical Atlantic salmon spawning and rearing habitat in WC109 (Dennis Stream) with Atlantic Salmon Federation personnel Avoid critical Atlantic salmon spawning and rearing habitat in WC11 (Dennis Stream) in consultation with DFO Floating silt curtains and pump around for instream sediment control during wet- crossings

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 280

Table 5.3.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Fish and Fish Habitat

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: FISH AND FISH HABITAT Phase: Construction

Instream equipment should be clean and inspected for drips and leaks prior to entering a watercourse and inspected regularly for leaks while instream Crossing construction should only be started when the chance of heavy precipitation is low Adhere to the instream work windows Ensure water flow around work site is not interrupted Pump intakes should be screened as per DFO’s Freshwater Intake-End-of- Pipe Fish Screen Guideline Restore stream to pre- construction status Contour, stabilize, armor and vegetate disturbed stream banks Environmental monitoring for HDDs and all crossings upstream of critical Atlantic salmon habitat Adhere to DFO’s HADD authorization conditions Implement the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program Implement mitigation for Dennis Stream

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 281

Table 5.3.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Fish and Fish Habitat

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: FISH AND FISH HABITAT Phase: Construction

Temporary Change in surface water Follow EPP and site-specific Ancillary Structures and fish habitat quality EPPs and Facilities (A) Erosion control measures Limit area of disturbance especially within 30 m of a watercourse Designated fuel storage areas to be at least 100 m from watercourses 1 1 2/1 R 2 Designated refuelling areas to be at least 30 m from watercourses Proper containment measures for hazardous materials storage tanks Implement the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program Key:

Magnitude: Geographic Extent: Frequency: Ecological/Socio-cultural and Economic 1 = Low: localized environmental effect on a 1 = <1 km² 1 = <11 events/year Context: specific group, habitat, or ecosystem, 2 = 1-10 km² 2 = 11 - 50 events/year 1 = Relatively pristine area or area not returns to pre-Project levels in one 3 = 11-100 km² 3 = 51 - 100 events/year adversely affected by human activity. generation or less, within natural variation 4 = 101 - 1,000 km² 4 = 101 – 200 2 = Evidence of adverse environmental 2 = Medium: portion of a population or habitat, 5 = 1,001 - 10,000 km² events/year effects. or ecosystem, returns to pre-Project levels 6 = >10,000 km² 5 = >200 events/year in one generation or less, rapid and 6 = continuous unpredictable change, temporarily outside Duration: N/A = Not Applicable range of natural variability 1 = <1 month Reversibility: (A) = adverse 3 = High: affecting a whole stock, population, 2 = 1 - 12 months R = Reversible (P) = positive habitat or ecosystem, outside the range of 3 = 13 - 36 months I = Irreversible natural variation, such that communities do 4 = 37 - 72 months not return to pre-Project levels for multiple 5 = >72 months generations

During Construction, several activities could potentially result in environmental effects on Fish and Fish Habitat. These include:

activities that involve disturbance to soils and removal of vegetative cover that leads to an increase in erosion and sediment rates and amounts (site preparation, pipeline installation, temporary watercourse crossings, watercourse crossings, temporary ancillary structures and facilities);

removal of habitat (watercourse crossings);

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 282

excavation of sulphide-bearing bedrock (site preparation, pipeline installation, watercourse crossings);

blasting (site preparation, pipeline installation, watercourse crossings);

storage and handling of hazardous materials (site preparation, pipeline installation, watercourse crossings, temporary ancillary structures and facilities); and

Project-related noise (site preparation, pipeline installation, and watercourse crossings).

The following sections describe the strategies aimed at mitigating these potential environmental effects.

Site Preparation and Pipeline Installation

Clearing, Grubbing, Topsoil Stripping, and Grading

It is recommended that a minimal disturbance zone (MDZ) be established at all watercourses within which there will be additional watercourse protection mitigation implemented. This MDZ should be established and marked by the Proponent’s (or their designate) personnel prior to clearing activities. Mitigation should also include a limitation to clearing activities within 10 m of, or top of slope for steep approaches to, all watercourses to those trees that cannot be removed using an excavator (i.e., small seedlings and shrubs, etc. should be left in place until the watercourse grubbing phase, immediately ahead of pipeline trenching). It is recommended that the removal of the trees with the MDZ be undertaken by hand clearing (i.e., chainsaws) and those types of equipment able to remain outside of the MDZ and “reach” into the MDZ area to cut trees. Trees felled within the MDZ should be removed using cable skidders or similar means to avoid disturbing the ground within the MDZ. It is recommended felling or skidding trees across a watercourse be avoided and heavy machinery not be used within 10 m of stream banks, where practicable. Clearing should only occur in areas necessary for RoW development. Grubbing of the watercourse banks should be limited to within approximately 10 m until the period immediately before the excavation of the trench and installation of the pipeline, when flow in the watercourse has been temporarily dammed and the water pumped around the crossing location.

Clearing is planned during the winter as frozen ground conditions provide easier access and defoliated vegetation can be cleared more efficiently on the RoW. In order to facilitate blasting in urban settings, some limited grubbing of the RoW may take place in the winter. These activities will only take place away from watercourses (outside of the 30-m buffer zone) or outside anticipated blasting zones for fish preservation based on DFO blasting guidelines where fish are present, or in consultation with DFO where no fish are believed to be present. A small slash line for surveying, and foot access to or across a watercourse, may be cleared through the winter buffer zone. In the event that minor access clearing and grubbing is required through this buffer zone, it is recommended that erosion and sedimentation control measures be implemented. The remainder of the winter buffer zone will be cleared, grubbed, and stripped prior to installation of the watercourse or a temporary vehicle access crossing during non- winter conditions.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 283

For watercourses where the crossing technique will be an HDD, only a narrow hand cut slash line will be cleared through the buffer zone for access by foot to the watercourse (unless vehicle access is required across the watercourse). Where required, a cut slash line will be made sufficiently wide to accommodate piping required to pump water from the nearest waterbody to HDD equipment. The buffer zone should not be cleared beyond that required for foot access where watercourses are crossed by an HDD. Temporary work spaces outside the riparian buffer zone will be required to accommodate the HDD drilling rig, mud tanks, and/or sumps. Where warranted, containment berms may also be constructed to prevent migration of drilling fluids in the event of accidental release of drilling mud.

The duff/topsoil layer will be stripped and stockpiled separately from subsoils at the edge of the RoW and returned across the RoW when final grading of the RoW is completed. The topsoil should remain segregated from the subsurface spoil pile throughout Construction.

As indicated previously, erosion and sedimentation may occur during all Project phases. Erosion and sedimentation control measures and mitigation are summarized here, but apply to all phases where Project-induced erosion or sedimentation is possible.

It is recommended that erosion control systems be implemented to manage runoff from construction areas. Erosion control measures should be described in detail in the EPP and should include erosion control fencing, check dams, use of mulch (possibly from shrubs and trees removed during clearing) and, if necessary, sedimentation control ponds. As these erosion control measures also slow the transport of surface runoff, they will also increase the potential for localized infiltration to groundwater in some areas.

Soil loss from slopes may occur even with erosion and runoff control measures. To prevent this soil from entering a waterbody, mitigative measures should be implemented to intercept it. Methods that should be used to trap sediment include vegetated buffer strips, sediment fences, filter berms, diversion berms, and sediment traps. It is recommended that erosion control structures be monitored to ensure the structures remain in place and operate effectively throughout Construction. Erosion control measures should not be removed until the exposed areas have been stabilized by vegetation.

It is recommended that the Proponent develop and follow the EPP for watercourse crossing structures and the Watercourse Alteration Technical Guidelines (NBDELG 2002c) in the design and construction of all watercourse crossings. The Proponent should also implement their Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program to manage and mitigate potential environmental effects.

Where heavy equipment operates in or within 30 m of a watercourse, the banks and channel morphology should be restored as close as practicable to their pre-construction condition, and in consultation with DFO and NBDNR, where appropriate.

The CCME 2002 Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Total Particulate Matter Guidelines for Suspended Sediments and Guidelines for Turbidity apply to sedimentation and siltation of watercourses. The Guidelines for Suspended Sediments state, “During clear flow periods, anthropogenic activities should not increase suspended sediment concentrations (or nonfilterable residue levels) by more than 25 mg/L over background levels during any short-term exposure period

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 284

(e.g., 24 hours). For longer term exposure (e.g., 30 days or more), average suspended sediment concentrations should not be increased by more than 5 mg/L over background levels” (CCME 2002).

Environmental monitoring of sedimentation to watercourses will follow the Guidelines for Turbidity, which state, “Induced turbidity should not exceed a change of 8 NTUs for short-term exposure (e.g., 24 hours) above background concentration in all waters during clear flows. A long-term guideline (e.g., 30 days) has been set as well, stating that the mean turbidity should not exceed a change of 2 NTUs during clear flows” (CCME 2002). The 8 and 2 NTU numbers are extrapolated using the suspended sediment and general turbidity correlation of 3 to 1 and are rounded to the nearest whole number for practicality of field measurements using a turbidity meter (CCME 2002).

For the Project, sedimentation and siltation should be minimized during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance with the use of proper mitigation techniques outlined in the EPP and Watercourse Alteration Technical Guidelines (NBDELG 2002c). Instream work will be conducted to avoid periods of increased sensitivity such as spawning and egg incubation times. For all wet and dry crossings, instream work will be conducted between June 1 and September 30. If any instream work outside of these windows is required, approval will be sought from NBENV and DFO. Additional mitigation required to facilitate this early or late season work may be required and could include the addition of pre-emptive steps to ensure erosion and sediment control measures are effective, such as monitoring weather forecasts and ensuring soil stabilization mitigation is implemented prior to any forecasted precipitation events and/or freeze-up. HDD crossings are planned for winter months. During the summer, low water flows and dry soil also make watercourse installation easier.

Instream work may be required outside of the preferred timing window when seasonal weather conditions permit and where there is no anticipated environmental effect on sensitive life stages. Instream work may also be required outside of the preferred timing window when work must be completed prior to the onset of winter conditions, or where the advantages of completing the work prior to winter conditions justifies late season work. In the event of instream work outside of the June 1 to September 30 season, the Proponent will be required to consult with DFO, and appropriate permits and authorizations will be obtained. Instream work completed after September 30 will require continuous monitoring during the work period and inspection of sediment control mitigation during periods of substantial visible overland flow of water (e.g., major thaw events). Alternative sediment control mitigation (e.g., surface ice conditions) may be required during the winter period in applicable situations (Trow Consulting Engineers Ltd. 1996). Alternative sediment control techniques will be discussed with DFO prior to authorization of late season instream work.

There will be a 30 m buffer zone adjacent to each watercourse, where clearing will only occur in areas necessary for RoW development. Instream activities should be minimized during temporary vehicle crossing installation and removal (e.g., keeping entrance/egress to the minimum). If instream work is to be conducted in the dry, water flow should be pumped around the construction site or channelled acrosss the construction site through a culvert. Heavy equipment operation instream for bridge installation and removal will require approval from DFO and NBDNR. Details on these approaches are outlined in the Watercourse Alteration Technical Guidelines (NBDELG 2002c).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 285

Runoff controls will limit or contain soil movement from the construction site. Minimizing raindrop impact on the soil, reducing runoff volume, and decreasing runoff velocity are three main objectives. It is recommended that diversion berms be used on slopes to intercept sheet flow on exposed surfaces and to reroute flow into undisturbed areas. Erosion protection should be implemented at the berm outlets. Flow checks should be constructed in ditches, swales, or chutes to reduce hydraulic gradient and flow velocity, thus minimizing the potential erosion of the channel.

In the event of late season work (i.e., after September 30), it is recommended that stabilization of exposed soils be completed within the work area:

within 5 days of disturbance within 30 m of a watercourse (using mulch or another approved late season stabilization material), or prior to any forecasted winter storm event and/or the onset of frozen ground conditions; or

within 30 days of disturbance beyond 30 m of a watercourse or prior to any forecasted winter storm event and/or the onset of frozen ground conditions, when practicable.

During Construction, it is recommended that a wet weather shut down policy be developed and be in place to avoid soil disturbance during runoff periods. In addition, a watercourse monitoring program should be developed in consultation with DFO, which should include total suspended solids and pH parameters (where the potential for sulphide-bearing rock drainage exists).

Beaver Dam Removal

Where the removal of a beaver dam is required (e.g., to lower water levels), the beaver must be removed prior to the lowering of the dam by a licensed Nuisance Wildlife Control Officer in accordance with NBDNR Beaver Dam Removal Guidelines and the Watercourse and Wetland Alteration Regulation. Activities relating to the removal of beaver dams for the Project must comply with the conditions described on the WAWA permit. Typically, the main constraints in removing a beaver dam are that the dam breach cannot be wider than the average width of the channel below the dams, and that any soils exposed as a result of the lowering of the water levels above the dam must be stabilized. Also, the dam should be removed in top down order to allow for a gradual release of water from the headpond.

Blasting

Blasting in watercourses and wetlands should be avoided to the extent practicable; however, due to the presence of very hard surface bedrock within several areas of the preferred corridor, it may be unavoidable in some watercourses and/or wetlands. Should blasting be required during construction in or near a watercourse, authorization will be required from DFO for the use of explosives (Section 32 of the Fisheries Act). Blasting in or near watercourses or wetlands must be conducted in accordance with the EPP and Guidelines for use of Explosives in Canadian Fisheries Waters (Wright and Hopky 1998), and in full compliance with the requirements of DFO’s authorization.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 286

Environmental effects from blasting to Fish and Fish Habitat can be minimized through use of mitigative measures, which include but are not limited to:

consultation with DFO regional authorities during the planning process;

exclusion of fish from the blasting area, where practicable, using appropriate methods (e.g., electrofishing);

use of non-propagating explosives;

use of time-delay blasting caps for detonation of multiple, smaller charges;

avoid use of ammonium nitrate-fuel oil mixtures in or near water due to the production of toxic ammonia;

recovery of all residual blasting components (e.g., shock tubes and detonation wire); and

avoid detonating explosives in or near fish habitat that produces, or is likely to produce, an instantaneous pressure change greater than 100 kPa in the swim bladder of a fish.

Blasting through fish-bearing watercourses will generally be undertaken between June 1 and September 30, outside of the biologically sensitive period to avoid the sensitive and critical fish life stages, or will be limited to distances from the watercourse where blast vibration will be non-lethal. If winter blasting is required, it will be conducted in accordance with any additional restrictions identified through consultation with DFO.

Hydrostatic Testing

The sources of suitable water for the hydrostatic testing will be determined on a segment-specific basis as the pipeline progresses. The test locations and water volumes will be identified and approval sought from regulating agencies prior to withdrawal of testing water. Hydrostatic testing and dewatering should be done in accordance with the EPP. Protection measures undertaken may include: selection of intake sources in streams or lakes with adequate base flow to protect the ecosystem; screening at the pipe inlet to prevent the entry of biota; limiting the rate of withdrawal; and avoiding periods of seasonal low water. All conditions on water withdrawal permits should be followed. Test waters should be returned to the same watershed from which the water was taken in a manner that does not affect the quality of the receiving environment. This may include, but is not limited to, the use of filter membranes at the line discharge. Erosion control measures should be in place, and water should be discharged at a minimum setback from surface water bodies to ensure that the temperature will be the same as that of the receiving environment. Any test waters mixed with methanol (winter conditions) should be disposed of at an appropriate waste disposal facility.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 287

Watercourse Crossings

Temporary Watercourse Crossings

Generally, watercourse crossings (if constructed with proper mitigation) do not violate the Fisheries Act and therefore do not require HADD authorization from DFO. If DFO estimates that there will be a HADD, then HADD authorization must be obtained from DFO and DFO may require various conditions of approval to ensure DFO’s No Net Loss Policy is met. In addition, Transport Canada approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act may be required for temporary vehicle crossings over navigable waters.

Access across watercourses during initial clearing and RoW preparation phases of the Project should be accomplished in accordance with the recommendations in this EA as well as all appropriate permits and authorizations (e.g., Watercourse and Wetland Alteration Permit).

It is recommended that short length single span bridges and/or culverts be installed without heavy equipment entry into the watercourse, where practicable. Multi-span bridges, if required, will require instream heavy equipment use for bridge pier placement and opposing bank abutment construction. Authorization from DFO and NBDNR is required for instream works. All works must comply with the conditions of the WAWA permit. It is recommended that earthen and rock bridge abutments be surrounded with sediment fencing to mitigate sedimentation from bridge approach and abutment runoff. The bridge deck railing should be lined with a suitable fabric to prevent soils from vehicle undercarriages and tires from entering the water, and the bridge should be regularly inspected and cleaned of dirt, as required.

Mitigation for the potential HADD of fish habitat required by DFO for large scale construction projects in New Brunswick includes the following:

the area of disturbance should be limited to that which is absolutely necessary to complete the Project;

all work should be done in strict accordance with conditions of approval;

a pre-Construction meeting with DFO, NBDNR, and NBENV to review conditions of authorization for wet crossings should be held;

all streambeds and stream banks associated with the proposed work should be permanently restored as soon as practicable following disturbance;

a wet weather shut down policy should be in place and should include the minimum forecast intensity/duration rainfall event that will evoke the implementation of response measures;

instream work or any work within 30 m of any watercourse will not be permitted outside of the period between June 1 and September 30 without written permission from DFO and NBENV;

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 288

work conducted outside the June 1 to September 30 time period will be subject to conditions/requirements determined by DFO on a site-specific basis;

a fish salvage should be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to dewatering for a dry crossing, and for a wet crossing;

a Compliance Monitoring Plan should be developed prior to commencement of any construction activity within watercourses; and

any temporary stream diversions associated with the project works should allow for fish passage.

All watercourse crossings must be installed in compliance with the conditions set in the site-specific WAWA permit. Temporary bridge installation will require approval from DFO and Transport Canada (Navigable Waters Protection Program).

Dry-Crossings

Dry-crossings generally do not constitute a HADD under the Fisheries Act (Currie, pers. comm.). As such, dry-crossings should be implemented wherever practicable and should be done using dam and pump/flume procedures. Fish should be removed from the area of planned construction activities prior to construction by enclosing the area with fine-mesh nets and removing the fish using DFO approved methods (e.g., electrofishing or seine netting). Direct mortality of some fish can be expected at rates consistent with those typical for electrofishing and the use of barrier nets. Water pump intakes that are used during dam and pump procedures will be in compliance with the DFO Freshwater Intake End-of- Pipe Fish Screen Guideline (DFO 1995b).

Wet-Crossings

Wet-crossings generally constitute a HADD under the Fisheries Act (Currie, pers. comm.). However, convention on previous projects has been to apply to DFO for HADD authorizations related to wet crossings and follow mitigation measures determined in consultation with DFO and NBDNR. As a general guideline, the dam and pump method should be applied to streams where the expected maximum discharge does not exceed 1.0 m3/s. Adequate pump capacity should be onsite to handle anticipated water flows and any potential increases in flow during the Construction period. Back-up pumps with adequate capacity to handle 100% of the downstream flow should be onsite and ready for immediate replacement service should the primary operating pump(s) fail.

Even though authorization for wet-crossings may be obtained, the dry-crossing technique is still the more desirable crossing method and should be pursued to the extent practicable. Prior to initiating a planned wet-crossing, the watercourse should be reviewed and re-assessed in consultation with DFO and NBDNR, and if conditions allow, a dry-crossing should be completed with the understanding that the wet-crossing HADD authorization will not be required.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 289

Candidates for wet crossings are based on various environmental, engineering and technical considerations. Authorization for eleven potential wet-crossings will be applied for prior to Construction for the following watercourses:

St. Croix River – as a contingency in the event the planned HDD fails;

Dennis Stream – as a contingency if a dry crossing is not feasible (see below);

Digdeguash River – wide crossing (approximately 27 m wide) with a measured discharge of 3.1 m3/s (on September 8, 2005);

Bonny River – as the crossing is >10 m in width;

Magaguadavic River – as it is a large crossing (55-60 m) with a high discharge;

Pocologan River – a wet crossing was implemented during the SJL construction due to the crossing width (22 m), depth (3 m), and discharge;

Little New River – as it was planned for open-cut during the SJL construction due to the crossing width (20 m) and discharge (>1 m3/s);

New River – as it was planned for open-cut during the SJL construction due to the crossing width (20 m) and discharge (>1 m3/s);

Lepreau River – as it was planned for open-cut during the SJL construction due to the crossing width (35 m) and discharge (>1 m3/s);

Atkinson Brook – as a safety hazard mitigation contingency in the event the upstream dry crossing containment structure cannot be maintained on the sand and silt streambed. Serious safety concerns resulted from the instability of the upstream containment structure during the dry-crossing for the SJL; and

West Branch Musquash River – due to discharge (>1 m3/s).

For wet-crossings, fish will be removed as described for dry-crossings. Floating silt curtains (a filter fabric wall hung from floating booms that allows water to flow through it but traps sediment particles) in conjunction with pumping upstream waters around the work area to minimize flow through the work area should be used to mitigate sedimentation where conditions allow. In watercourses where padding of the streambed for safe operation of heavy equipment in deep waters may be required, it is recommended that the area be enclosed with a floating sediment curtain to isolate the padded work area from the rest of the watercourse. Instream works should be kept to the minimum.

CCME Guidelines will be exceeded for any wet crossing undertaken for pipeline installation; however, this activity will be temporary (i.e., 1-2 days). A wet crossing permit will be required from DFO and

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 290

NBENV for these crossings. It is recommended that the Proponent work in consultation with DFO to develop appropriate mitigation and, where required, compensation for Guideline exceedances at these crossings.

Dennis Stream

The proposed watercourse crossing methodology for Dennis Stream is an isolated or dry crossing. If a dry crossing is not feasible, it is recommended that the Proponent evaluate the feasibility to undertake a HDD for the crossing of Dennis Stream. A wet crossing method is proposed only as a contingency in the event that a HDD or dry crossing is not feasible. Even though the measured stream discharge exceeds 1 m3/s, the dry crossing method is still recommended based on consideration of protecting, to the extent practicable, close proximity downstream Atlantic salmon spawning and rearing habitat identified during consultation with the Atlantic Salmon Federation (Carr, pers. comm., unpublished data). Dry crossing for flows in excess of 1 m3/s are possible depending on site specific conditions (e.g., bank configuration, channel configuration, flow rates). It is recommended that every reasonable effort be made to implement an isolated (dry) crossing method at Dennis Stream.

The corridor at Dennis Stream is significantly wider than at most other crossing locations. As such, there is more opportunity to laterally avoid critical Atlantic salmon habitat to the extent possible within the Dennis Stream corridor when determining a crossing location. More detailed fish and fish habitat surveys will be completed in 2006 to determine a crossing location. Multiple stream discharges will be measured throughout the summer of 2006 during low flow and after precipitation events to establish baseline data to aid in planning a dry crossing.

In the event that the configuration or flow of Dennis Stream requires a wet crossing to be implemented, then additional mitigative measures are recommended downstream of the crossing to minimize the amount of sediment released to the downstream Atlantic salmon spawning and rearing habitat. These additional mitigation measures could include, but are not limited to: pumping as much water as practicable around the crossing location, using a series of floating silt curtains downstream of the crossing location where practicable, pumping and filtering sediment laden waters within the curtained zones, and minimizing the duration of the crossing.

If the material from the instream portion of the trench is silt laden, it is recommended that new coarse (i.e., free from fines) material be brought in to backfill the trench and that the original trench material not be used. Conversely, if the amount of trench material is considerable, then only the bottom portions of the trench should be backfilled with the original material and the upper layers of the trench should be backfilled with the coarse material. Rock used to cap the trench will be selected in accordance with the anticipated maximum flow rates of the watercourse.

Atkinson Brook The preferred corridor intersects WC 52 (Hanson Stream) and WC 54 (Atkinson Brook) approximately 5 km north of the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station freshwater intake. Both of these watercourses drain into the Little Lepreau River impoundment. The freshwater intake for Point Lepreau is located near the south end of the impoundment from which freshwater is piped to the Lepreau facility where it is treated prior to use. Historically, the treated freshwater was also the potable water supply

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 291

for Point Lepreau; however, it is unclear if this is still the case as alternative potable water may also be used (Samms, pers. comm.). Discussions with Point Lepreau Refurbishment Project personnel indicated that there were no issues with the watercourse crossings during construction of the SJL and no issues are anticipated for the construction of the Brunswick Pipeline (Hickman, pers. comm.). Advance notification of the planned construction was requested, however, as the sedimentation associated with pipeline watercourse crossing construction in conjunction with maintenance or works on the impoundment dam could potentially be a sedimentation issue with respect to the Lepreau intake (Hickman, pers. comm.)

Horizontal Directional Drilling

Horizontal directional drilling is a technique that does not involve works within a watercourse, as a borehole is drilled beneath the streambed and a section of pipe pulled through. HDDs generally originate and terminate more than 10 m from the edges of the watercourse due to the approach angles needed to attain the required depth of cover over the pipe beneath the streambed. Sedimentation of the watercourse can potentially occur in the event of a frac-out and may result in a loss of habitat quality. During frac-outs, drilling mud may enter the watercourse from beneath the streambed through fissures in the bedrock or interstitial spaces through the soils.

Set-up of the HDD rig and support structures normally occurs outside of the riparian buffer zone and a small hand cut slash line for access to the watercourse is cleared through the riparian buffer zone. Temporary work spaces are generally required to accommodate the HDD rig, support structures, and vehicles such as mud tanks and vac trucks. It is recommended that earthen berms be constructed as necessary to contain potential fluid migration in the event of an accidental release of drilling mud.

HDDs can take place year round and are common in winter, especially in areas where frozen ground conditions are required to support the mass of the drill rig, associated structures, and vehicles requiring access to the HDD site. During winter HDD events, monitoring of the watercourse is carried out by measuring the turbidity of downstream water samples collected from pre-established downstream transects and comparing the samples to an upstream background control. Sufficient materials should be available onsite to effectively respond to and contain a potential frac-out.

The extent of sedimentation of a frac-out is potentially small as it is usually detected quickly by the drilling crew as a loss of drilling mud volume or by environmental monitors. The environmental effects of sedimentation on Fish and Fish Habitat are presented in Site Preparation (Section 5.3.4.1, Construction).

Watercourses planned to be crossed with HDDs are the Saint John River and the St. Croix River. Dennis Stream is also a potential candidate for an HDD, in the event that a dry crossing is not feasible; however, terrain and geotechnical issues may limit the feasibility of the HDD crossing technique at Dennis Stream.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 292

Temporary Ancillary Structures and Facilities

It is recommended that refuelling areas and petroleum storage areas be at least 30 m and 100 m from watercourses, respectively. Where petroleum storage areas are designed to be contained within earthen berms, the berms should be constructed to allow for containment of 1.25 times the volume of the largest tank. Where smaller tanks are employed, they may alternatively be contained within an industrial grade plastic drip bin with a capacity of 1.25 times the tank volume. It is recommended precipitation be visually monitored within the contained areas for sheen on a regular basis. A minimum freeboard of 0.5 m should be maintained to prevent overflow during precipitation events. Accumulated precipitation should be pumped off into offsite vegetation after test results of samples indicate the water is suitable for offsite disposal and the appropriate permits for offsite disposal have been received. Hydrocarbon affected water samples may be treated onsite, re-tested, and disposed onsite with appropriate approval or transported to an approved disposal facility. It is recommended that surface runoff near petroleum storage sites be monitored for hydrocarbons as runoff could facilitate hydrocarbon transport to nearby watercourses and result in a decrease in surface water quality.

As storage areas are located on cleared areas, there is a potential for sedimentation associated with site runoff until the establishment of stable vegetation following site restoration. Erosion control measures should be installed and monitored as appropriate. The potential environmental effects of sedimentation on the Fish and Fish Habitat are presented in Site Preparation (Section 5.3.4.1, Construction).

Summary – Construction Phase

5.3.5.2 Operation and Maintenance

This section provides an evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Operation and Maintenance as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.3.3). A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 293

Table 5.3.3 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Fish and Fish Habitat

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: FISH AND FISH HABITAT Phase: Operation and Maintenance

Project Presence Change in surface N/A water and fish 1 2 5/6 R 2 habitat quality (P) Pipeline Maintenance Change in surface Routine monitoring water and fish Follow EPP habitat quality (A) Erosion control Change in fish measures habitat quantity (A) Limit area of Direct mortality (A) disturbance especially within 30 m of a watercourse 1 2 2/1 I/R 2 Apply for WAWA permit, follow requirements Implement the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program RoW Maintenance Change in surface Routine monitoring water and fish Follow EPP habitat quality (A) Erosion control measures Limit area of disturbance especially within 30 m of a watercourse Apply for WAWA permit, follow requirements 1 2 2/1 R 2 Apply for fording permit; follow requirements Limit use of herbicide Use herbicide of short persistence and low ecological toxicity Implement the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 294

Table 5.3.3 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Fish and Fish Habitat

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: FISH AND FISH HABITAT Phase: Operation and Maintenance

Key:

Project Presence

The presence of the RoW through watercourses may have positive environmental effects on habitat quality as reconstructed streambeds may be of higher habitat quality than that which existing prior to Construction.

Pipeline and RoW Maintenance

Maintenance of the pipeline and the RoW may result in changes in surface water and habitat quality. It is recommended that watercourse crossings be inspected along the RoW on a regular basis and following heavy precipitation events for stream bank stability, streambed scouring, exposed instream pipe, and to ensure the overall integrity and stream morphology of the watercourse crossing. The purpose of these inspections is to verify that restoration of the stream banks was effective. The frequency of these inspections should decrease as confidence in the effectiveness of the restoration measures (e.g., revegetation of stream banks) taken increases over time. Any future instream pipeline repairs or watercourse engineering to maintain watercourse morphology and crossing integrity may potentially result in loss of habitat and surface water quality, change in habitat quantity, and direct mortality to fish. WAWA permits will be sought for any future maintenance activities required at these crossings (e.g., bank stabilization). The maintenance or construction activities must be conducted in accordance with the requirements specified in the WAWA permit and protective measures in the EPP should be implemented. The Proponent will implement their Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program to manage and mitigate potential environmental effects. It is recommended that

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 295

erosion control measures be installed as required, and any debris removed from the banks or the watercourse to maintain stream morphology and integrity of the crossing be disposed of to prevent the material from re-entering the watercourse.

In addition to watercourse crossing inspections, it is recommended that the entire RoW be monitored regularly for evidence of erosion, drainage control failure, and pipeline integrity issues. Routine pipeline RoW maintenance that may potentially interact with Fish and Fish Habitat includes erosion control, vegetation control, and watercourse crossing repairs. The primary issue of concern is the release of sediment into surface water.

Vegetation control should be conducted by manual and mechanical (e.g., skidder mowers) clearing of trees of heights greater than approximately 1.5 m within the RoW during operation of the pipeline. Low toxicity and low persistence chemical herbicide use should be limited to the confines of fenced and gravelled meter stations and other station facilities. Chemical spraying should not be carried out along the RoW. Slash should not be allowed to enter any watercourse. Increases in watercourse nutrient levels from seeding/fertilizer would be temporary as the applications are infrequent and these nutrient forms are readily absorbed by sediments or taken up by plants. Application for a WAWA permit is required for any activities within 30 m of a watercourse. Fording permits for streams must be obtained for annual maintenance activities that involve travelling the entire length of the RoW using motorized vehicles (e.g., ATVs). It is recommended that the Proponent follow the EPP measures and implement the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program for RoW maintenance and herbicide use, including use of low toxicity, short persistence herbicides.

Summary – Operation and Maintenance Phase

5.3.5.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

This section provides an evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.3.4). A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 296

Table 5.3.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Fish and Fish Habitat

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: FISH AND FISH HABITAT Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Hazardous Materials Change in surface Environmental Spill water and fish Protection and Safety habitat quality (A) Management Program Change in fish Construction Safety habitat quantity (A) Manual Direct mortality (A) Maintenance Safety Manual Emergency Response Plans 1-2 2-3 1/1 I/R 2 Spill Response Procedures Operation and Maintenance Procedures Worker and contractor training Audits and Inspections Erosion and Sediment Change in surface Follow EPP Control Failure water and fish Monitor erosion control habitat quality (A) measures regularly Change in fish Implement the 1-2 1-3 1/1 I/R 2 habitat quantity (A) Environmental Direct mortality (A) Protection and Safety Management Program

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 297

Table 5.3.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Fish and Fish Habitat

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: FISH AND FISH HABITAT Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 298

Table 5.3.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Fish and Fish Habitat

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: FISH AND FISH HABITAT Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Project Activities and Potential Physical Works Environmental Effects (See Table 3.1.1 for list Mitigation (A=Adverse; of specific activities and P=Positive) works) Magnitude Magnitude Extent Geographic Duration/Frequency Reversibility Ecological/Socio- and Cultural Context Economic Pipeline Rupture or Change in surface Environmental Leak water and fish Protection and Safety habitat quality (A) Management Program Direct mortality (A) CSA Z662 Design Standards Quantitative Risk Analysis Construction Quality Assurance Operation and 1-2 1-2 1/1 I/R 2 Maintenance Procedures Worker and contractor training Pipeline IMP Public Awareness Program RoW Monitoring and Surveillance Key: Magnitude: Geographic Extent: Frequency: Ecological/Socio-cultural and Economic 1 = Low: localized environmental effect on a specific 1 = <1 km² 1 = <11 events/year Context: group, habitat, or ecosystem, returns to pre- 2 = 1-10 km² 2 = 11 - 50 events/year 1 = Relatively pristine area or area not Project levels in one generation or less, within 3 = 11-100 km² 3 = 51 - 100 adversely affected by human activity. natural variation 4 = 101 - 1,000 km² events/year 2 = Evidence of adverse environmental 2 = Medium: portion of a population or habitat, or 5 = 1,001 - 10,000 km² 4 = 101 – 200 effects. ecosystem, returns to pre-Project levels in one 6 = >10,000 km² events/year generation or less, rapid and unpredictable 5 = >200 events/year change, temporarily outside range of natural Duration: 6 = continuous N/A = Not Applicable variability 1 = <1 month (A) = adverse 3 = High: affecting a whole stock, population, 2 = 1 - 12 months Reversibility: (P) = positive habitat or ecosystem, outside the range of 3 = 13 - 36 months R = Reversible natural variation, such that communities do not 4 = 37 - 72 months I = Irreversible return to pre-Project levels for multiple 5 = >72 months generations

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 299

Hazardous Materials Spill

Known hazardous materials that will be used during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance of the pipeline include fuels, lubricants, solvents, windshield washer fluid, and antifreeze. These materials could be accidentally introduced into fish habitat through a spill and could temporarily degrade water quality resulting in subsequent environmental effects on freshwater fish such as the reduction in habitat quality associated with water quality degradation. In addition, contaminants can accumulate in sediments and be mobilized slowly over time. If a major spill of a highly toxic and soluble material were to occur at one of the watercourse crossings, the geographic extent would include both the tributary and areas downstream in the watershed depending on the quantity and the toxicity of the material spilled. Mortalities could potentially occur at all fish life stages within the affected area. Changes in water quality could also affect other trophic levels, resulting in drift or direct mortalities of benthic organisms. Non-lethal environmental effects could include avoidance behaviour and disruption of feeding and migration patterns.

The magnitude of the environmental effect of a spill would be dependent on a number of factors. Reversibility of physical environmental effects is high, due to the dynamic nature of lotic water systems. The high spring flows and high bed load transport will effectively flush the system during the spring following the event. Reversibility of environmental effects on fish populations will depend on the species involved, and the proportion of the watershed affected. Resident fish would re-establish within the affected area.

Accidents during the Operation and Maintenance phase of the Project are primarily related to vehicle incidents, most importantly the potential spill of a transport vehicle carrying hazardous cargo (e.g., petroleum products). The transportation of dangerous goods is regulated under Section 7 of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. An EPP that will be developed for the Project would be initiated in the event of a release into the environment. Spill response materials to facilitate a rapid containment and clean-up of hazardous materials spills should be available onsite during construction in or near watercourses and wetlands. In the unlikely event of a hazardous material spill, the spilled material should be controlled and contained, and clean-up should be implemented immediately or as soon as appropriate materials and equipment are on site. These measures will lower the potential for a significant hazardous material spill, as well as minimize any potential adverse environmental effects when minor spills do occur. Given the mitigation in place, Project-related hazardous materials spills in a watercourse have the potential to be significant but are unlikely to occur.

Erosion and Sediment Control Failure

There is a potential during heavy precipitation events or flash floods for erosion control structures (e.g., check dams) to fail. Changes in surface water and fish habitat quality may occur. To reduce the possibility of this occurring, protection measures should be followed as described in the EPP. Specifically, erosion control structures should be monitored regularly and maintained in a functional condition until the grass on seeded slopes is sufficiently established to be an effective erosion deterrent. All erosion berms should be inspected regularly and those found to be deficient should be repaired.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 300

Temporary Watercourse Crossing Washout

Vehicle Crossing Washout

There is a potential during high flood events for temporary bridge installations or culverts to be washed out during unanticipated storm events. This could temporarily degrade water quality, and in turn habitat quality, due to increased sedimentation, or affect habitat quantity by deposition of debris material into the stream (e.g., culverts, bridge spans, and piers) that could potentially cause direct mortality and affect fish passage and stream morphology. Factors influencing the magnitude, duration, and geographic extent of the environmental effect include amount and duration of flooding, type and size of washout, natural terrain surrounding watercourse, and location within the watershed. The extent of the environmental effects of such a bridge failure or washout on fish is predicted to be low due to the small area of a watershed which is covered by the watercourse crossing. Reversibility potential is high due to the dynamic nature of stream high spring discharges and high spring bed load transportation.

Watercourse crossing structures should be sized and designed to accommodate most high water events and must be installed as per applicable permits. It is recommended that watercourse crossing structures, approaches and abutments be inspected at regular intervals and deficiencies corrected immediately.

Dry-Crossing Impoundment Washout

Failure of temporary water impoundment structures resulting in a washout can result in a large acute increase in suspended sediments and may constitute a HADD under the Fisheries Act. Dry-crossing impoundment structure washouts are considered rare and unlikely but should be mitigated in consultation with DFO and NBDNR in the unlikely event that HADD authorization is required during a dry-crossing.

Thus, the potential environmental effects from a Project-related erosion control or watercourse crossing failures are rated not significant.

Fire

A forest fire could alter water quality within streams, resulting in subsequent environmental effects on the population of freshwater fish such as habitat quality loss. Fire within the preferred corridor and surrounding area could occur during any phase of the Project due to lightning or human activities. It is assumed, for the purposes of this assessment, that the affected area for such an event would extend to all areas downstream of the area affected by fire. Factors influencing the severity and duration of environmental effects include time of year, extent of fire damage, and type of fire (e.g., forest, petroleum, electrical).

A fire during late summer or early fall could interfere with migration and spawning of salmonid species if the interaction was of sufficient duration. During early life stages (i.e., eggs, alevins), salmonids are more sensitive to the deposition of ash and sediment through runoff and have limited avoidance ability. Therefore, fires during the fall (spawning) and winter (incubation) present a greater risk to salmonid

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 301

populations and direct mortality to fish could result. Atlantic salmon are known to spawn in some of the watercourses crossed by the Project. Reversibility of physical environmental effects is probable, but would occur over a number of years. Habitat quantity loss could result from stream bank sloughing and excessive sedimentation resulting in downstream morphological changes from snags and root wads. Spring flows and high bed load transport will effectively flush the system during the spring following the event; however, erosion within the watershed would continue to contribute sediments to the stream system for a number of years. Restoration of bank stability and cool temperatures would rely on the re- establishment of riparian communities through vegetative succession. Natural forest regeneration and restoration will take place. If warranted, additional stabilization of watercourse banks within the RoW should be considered. The environmental effects on the population of resident and migratory fish are reversible. Benthic drift from upper portions of the watercourse will re-establish food resources. For fish populations, individuals from other portions of the watershed would recolonize the areas affected.

The potential for Project-related fires during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance should be mitigated through equipment maintenance (e.g., power saw mufflers and vehicle exhaust systems) and proper vigilance working with power equipment in forested areas. Also, any burning of vegetative debris will require permits from NBDNR and/or NBENV. All construction activities will be done in compliance with regulations contained within the Forest Fires Act. The potential for Project-related fires during Operation and Maintenance should also be mitigated through vegetation management (e.g., mowing and brush cutting).

In the event of a fire occurring as a result of construction and operation and maintenance activities, onsite personnel should be prepared to control and fight any fires in and about the work area, as required by the Forest Fires Act. The pipeline Contractor, when selected, should be required to develop a plan for responding to any fires within or adjacent to the Project areas (whether they are part of the Project or not). This plan should contain safe work practices to reduce the risk of fire, and standard equipment which would need to be available in case of fire. The EPP should be implemented and all fires will be reported to NBDNR. Some restrictions may be placed on pipeline construction activities during periods of “extreme” forest fire potential. Other mitigation includes implementing no smoking policies on the RoW during periods of high forest fire index and/or as required by NBDNR. The Proponent and its construction contractors will work with local NBDNR officials during the forest fire season. All forest fires will be managed by NBDNR.

A Construction Safety Manual, a Maintenance Safety Manual and operation and maintenance procedures will be prepared and should describe how to perform work safely to prevent fires, and prescribe measures that will mitigate the environmental effects of, and contain, construction fires should they occur. During Construction, due care and attention should be made to reduce the potential for starting forest fires. In particular, construction activities should be planned such that potential ignition sources are minimized and emergency response capability is provided along the Project site to respond to any small fires that may start onsite. It is recommended that workers and contractors be trained in the fire prevention and response procedures contained in the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program and in accordance with the New Brunswick Forest Fires Act. It is also recommended that safety program audits and site inspections be implemented throughout the Project Construction and Operation and Maintenance phases to ensure compliance with program policy and procedures. Thus, the potential environmental effects from construction-related fires and/or forest fires are rated not significant.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 302

Unauthorized Access to RoW

It is recommended that measures be employed along the pipeline route to prevent the RoW being used for unwanted ATV and snowmobile traffic. The specific measures to be employed will be determined after the detailed pipeline route has been selected and should be based on the specific geographic conditions that exist, and after discussions with landowners, stakeholders and regulatory agencies, as appropriate. Measures typically employed include installation of natural barriers using the natural topography to advantage where practicable (e.g., placement of rock barriers, planting of tree and shrub barriers), fencing and posting of signs prohibiting trespass. The Public Awareness Program for the pipeline should also include a discussion of trespass and the potential consequences of unauthorized and/or unlawful entry onto properties along the RoW. It is recommended that the pipeline RoW be routinely monitored for unauthorized activities in the RoW during the course of the Project Operation and Maintenance phase. If unauthorized activities in the RoW are detected, additional measures to stop and/or discourage unauthorized activities should be implemented after discussions with landowners, stakeholders and regulatory agencies, as appropriate. Thus, the potential environmental effects from Project-related unauthorized access to the RoW are rated not significant.

Pipeline Rupture or Leak

Pipeline leaks within watercourses, although unlikely, may result in dissolved hydrocarbons and potentially degrade surface water quality and in turn fish habitat quality. Large ruptures in the pipeline beneath the streambed may result in sedimentation as natural gas venting to the water surface agitates and suspends streambed sediments and could lead to direct mortality of fish. The pressure of the pipeline is constantly monitored in the main control room and sudden drops in pressure could trigger the Emergency Shut Down (ESD) valves or, in the case of small pressure drops, trigger an inspection of the pipeline. In both cases, the Emergency Preparedness and Response Program would be activated. Measures outlined in the Emergency Preparedness and Response Program and environmental protection measures in the EPP would be followed.

Pipeline leaks or ruptures may result in disturbance of sediments within the watercourse. If a pipeline leak or rupture were to occur near a watercourse and was ignited, surface water quality could be affected by an increase in water temperature, and could result in fish mortality.

However, the likelihood of a pipeline failure (i.e., leak or rupture) occurring is extremely low (refer to Section 2.7.9.1, Incident Probability). The risk of a pipeline failure will be kept low through a comprehensive design process that includes meeting pipeline design standards (i.e., CSA Z662) and codes prescribed by applicable legislation (e.g., NEBA, Onshore Pipeline Regulations), conducting a quantitative risk analysis (QRA) of the pipeline, and implementing a Quality Assurance (QA) plan for Construction. It is recommended that the Proponent develop operation and maintenance procedures for the Project, including a Pipeline IMP that will ensure that regulatory requirements are met, the pipeline is operated and maintained to a high standard, and the probability and volume of unplanned releases of natural gas from the pipeline are minimized. The Pipeline IMP, which should include routine inspections of the pipeline to detect time dependant material defects (e.g., monitoring of corrosion protection measures (i.e., cathodic protection equipment and facilities)), together with operation of the entire system and all of its components within a safe operational envelope, will further

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 303

reduce the probability of a pipeline rupture or leak from occurring. Thus, the potential environmental effects from a pipeline rupture or leak are rated not significant.

Summary – Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

5.3.5.4 Species at Risk, Species of Conservation Concern, and ESAs

Species at Risk and Species of Conservation Concern

Critical Atlantic salmon spawning and rearing habitat was identified in consultation with the Atlantic Salmon Federation within the preferred corridor at WC109 (Dennis Stream). The primary method of mitigating this potential loss of habitat quality will be avoidance, which can include routing the pipeline within the preferred corridor away from the habitat, horizontal directional drilling beneath the streambed if lateral avoidance within the preferred corridor cannot successfully avoid the habitat, or both in conjunction with each other. A wet crossing of Dennis Stream above this habitat should be avoided, if possible, and only be considered if, after consultation with DFO and NBDNR, it is determined that a high flow dry crossing or HDD is not practicable, and additional mitigation measures are employed to minimize total suspended solids passing through the downstream habitat. Sedimentation of this critical downstream habitat may have significant adverse environmental effects on Atlantic salmon due to the continuing declining trend in return counts on an already fragile population. Potential interactions with the habitat must be discussed further with DFO and mitigated in consultation with both DFO and NBDNR to ensure that potential environmental effects will be not significant.

Potential residual adverse environmental effects as a result of Project activities on fish species protected federally under SARA are related to sedimentation potentially resulting from a frac-out during HDD crossings on the St. Croix and Saint John Rivers affecting redbreast sunfish and shortnose sturgeon, respectively. Sufficient materials should be available onsite to effectively respond to and contain a potential frac-out. The extent of sedimentation of a frac-out is usually small as it is generally detected quickly by the drilling crew as a loss of drilling mud volume or by inspectors. The environmental effects of sedimentation on Fish and Fish Habitat are presented in Section 5.3.5.1 (Construction). Although frac-outs do and may potentially occur, the magnitude of a frac-out can be controlled by monitoring the mud returns, plugging frac holes with mud products, rapid response by the environmental inspector, and recovery of fugitive drilling mud with trash pumps in low flow watercourses. As the magnitude of a potential frac-out is generally limited in geographical extent, the potential residual environmental effects on redbreast sunfish and shortnose sturgeon are rated as not significant. There are no other SARA-listed species within the preferred corridor (Section 4.4, Fish and Fish Habitat).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 304

Arctic char, lake trout, and lake whitefish, which are listed as “Sensitive” by NBDNR (refer to Section 4.4.2, Species of Conservation Concern), are not anticipated to interact with the Project as they either do not occur within the preferred corridor or exist within lakes which will be avoided by a minimum of 30 m from the RoW. As such, no potential residual adverse environmental effects on these species are anticipated.

Outer Bay of Fundy Atlantic salmon and its habitat interact with the preferred corridor. Potential residual environmental effects would primarily be the result of sedimentation of watercourses from watercourse crossing installations. With mitigation including habitat avoidance during final route selection and/or HDD crossing techniques, the potential residual adverse environmental effects on the Outer Bay of Fundy Atlantic salmon are rated not significant.

Potential residual adverse environmental effects on striped bass existing in the Saint John River are also rated not significant as environmental effects will be avoided with the HDD of the river.

Environmentally Significant Areas

The preferred corridor does not interact with the three ESAs for fish and fish habitat; Dennis Stream (Site ID 816), Waweig River (Site ID 828), and Pocologan River (Site ID 850), identified through NBDNR ESA requests. All three sites are located near the estuaries, considerable distances downstream of the preferred corridor, and will not interact directly with the Project. Therefore, no potential residual adverse environmental effects from the Project are anticipated on these ESAs.

5.3.6 Determination of Significance

Table 5.3.5 evaluates the significance of potential residual environmental effects resulting from any interactions between Project activities and Fish and Fish Habitat, after taking into account any proposed mitigation. The table also considers the level of confidence of the Jacques Whitford Study Team in this determination.

Table 5.3.5 Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix for Fish and Fish Habitat

Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix Valued Environmental Component: FISH AND FISH HABITAT

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 305

Table 5.3.5 Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix for Fish and Fish Habitat

Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix Valued Environmental Component: FISH AND FISH HABITAT

Residual Likelihood Level of Phase Environmental Confidence Probability of Scientific Effects Rating* Occurrence Certainty Key: Residual Environmental Effects Rating: Probability of Occurrence of Residual Environmental Effects: based on professional judgement S = Significant Adverse Environmental Effects 1 = Low Probability of Occurrence NS = Not-significant Adverse Environmental Effects 2 = Medium Probability of Occurrence P = Positive Environmental Effects 3 = High Probability of Occurrence

*As determined in consideration of established residual environmental effects rating criteria.

Based on consideration of the potential environmental effects of all phases of the Project, the proposed mitigation, and the residual environmental effects significance ratings criteria, the residual adverse environmental effects on Fish and Fish Habitat are rated not significant, with the exception of some accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events that are unlikely to occur.

5.3.7 Follow-up and Monitoring

The Project may result in residual adverse environmental effects on surface water quality through sedimentation and acidification from exposed acid rock drainage and on fish and fish habitat through sedimentation and removal of riparian vegetation. In particular, TSS concentrations in watercourses may increase as a result of the mobilization of sediment from Project-related activities. An increase in TSS concentrations may elevate surface water temperature and increase the rate of sedimentation that may adversely alter fish habitat. Loss of riparian vegetation results in a loss of watercourse shade and can cause elevation of instream temperatures and degrade water and fish habitat quality. In addition, the pH of surface water may be lowered (become more acidic) should water make contact with any sulphide-bearing rock that may be exposed during Project-related activities.

The surface water follow-up program should consist of both compliance and effectiveness monitoring. During Construction, compliance monitoring will ensure that all applicable environmental protection and permitting requirements for work within 30 m of a watercourse are followed, and that remedial action, if necessary, is successfully implemented. It is recommended that surface water compliance monitoring consist of the following core elements for all wet crossings and HDDs, for dry crossings rated as having medium or high sensitivity fish habitat (CAPP et al. 2005), as outlined in applicable permits, and/or as determined in consultation with provincial and federal agencies:

sampling of total suspended solids when precipitation events result in the visible overland flow of water;

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 306

regular sampling of pH in watercourses where interaction with sulphide-bearing rock has been identified;

inspection of all sediment and erosion control measures;

inspection of hazardous materials storage areas (including potential sediment generating materials);

inspection of temporary bridge structures for verification of correct installation, and for subsequent signs of erosion or degradation;

development and maintenance of a log of erosion-prone areas; and

exceedance thresholds (e.g., CCME Guidelines) and remedial actions.

The location and frequency of observations and the required sample size should be determined in consultation with DFO through their respective permitting and authorization processes.

The surface water effectiveness monitoring program should evaluate the effectiveness, over time, of required remedial actions implemented during compliance monitoring.

The primary residual adverse environmental effect of the Project on Fish and Fish Habitat is the potential for the sedimentation of watercourses. The loss of fish habitat from instream activities will be mitigated by ensuring protective measures in the EPP are implemented and environmental protection and permitting conditions are followed.

Follow-up monitoring should consist of both compliance and effectiveness monitoring. During Construction, compliance monitoring will ensure that all applicable environmental protection and permitting requirements for work within 30 m of a watercourse are followed, and that remedial action, if necessary, is successfully implemented. Remedial action may involve fish relocation for dewatered sections of streams and/or near blasting areas.

Effectiveness monitoring for Fish and Fish Habitat has the following objectives:

verify that mitigative strategies used during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance have been effective;

determine the total amount of HADD that occurred as a result of the Project;

verify that HADD compensation is completed effectively; and

identify the need for any additional HADD compensation.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 307

It is recommended that the Proponent develop the exact specifications of the monitoring program in consultation with DFO and NBENV. The monitoring program will be subject to approval by DFO as part of the HADD authorization process and NBENV as a part of the WAWA permitting process. This work will be undertaken in selected streams as determined through the authorization/permitting processes. The effectiveness monitoring, to be developed by the Proponent in consultation with DFO and NBENV, should consist of the following core elements for comparison with pre-development baseline conditions:

assessment of fish habitat; and

a substrate and embeddedness study for visual assessment of the extent of potential sedimentation resulting from construction activities.

The fish habitat assessment should use the NBDNR/DFO fish habitat assessment methodology (Hooper et al. 1995). The fish habitat assessment should also include the measurement of pH and dissolved oxygen in those watercourses identified, in consultation with DFO and NBENV, as fish are sensitive to these parameters.

It is recommended that a riparian vegetation and stream bank monitoring program be designed to ensure long-term stream and slope stability and provide watercourse shade.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 308

5.4 Vegetation

5.4.1 Rationale for Selection as Valued Environmental Component

Vegetation was selected as a VEC because of the potential for interactions between Project activities and the vegetated terrestrial environment, and because of the relationship between this VEC and wildlife and other biological and physical environments. In particular, this VEC assesses the potential environmental effects of Project activities on vegetation and vegetation-based ESAs during the Construction, and Operation and Maintenance phases, as well as Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events. In the context of this VEC, vegetation is limited to vascular plant life and will focus on species at risk and species of conservation concern as indicators of potential environmental effects on vegetation.

5.4.2 Environmental Assessment Boundaries

5.4.2.1 Spatial

The spatial boundaries (the “Assessment Area”) for the assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Project on Vegetation include the preferred corridor and variants around Rockwood Park, where activities associated with Construction, Operation and Maintenance, and Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events of the Project could potentially result in environmental effects on Vegetation.

The spatial boundaries (the “Assessment Area”) for the assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Project on species at risk and species of conservation concern include the regional biogeoclimatic zone (i.e., the Valley Lowland and Fundy Coastal Ecoregions) and the alternative habitat available within the zone.

5.4.2.2 Temporal

The temporal boundaries for the assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Project on Vegetation include the periods of Construction, and Operation and Maintenance of the Project for the life of the pipeline.

5.4.2.3 Administrative and Technical

Endangered and threatened plant species that are protected federally under SARA are listed in Schedule 1 of the Act. As defined in SARA, "wildlife species" means a species, subspecies, variety or geographically or genetically distinct population of animal, plant or other organism, other than a bacterium or virus, that is wild by nature and (a) is native to Canada; or (b) has extended its range into Canada without human intervention and has been present in Canada for at least 50 years. The

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 309

purpose of this Act is to protect wildlife species at risk and their critical habitat. SARA is administered by Environment Canada, Parks Canada Agency, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Endangered plant species are protected provincially under the NB ESA. The purpose of this Act is to provide protection to endangered species and their habitats. The NB ESA is administered by NBDNR. The Endangered Species Regulation lists those plants considered endangered in the Province.

Information used for the assessment of plants was obtained from the NB ESA, the Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre (AC CDC 2005), NBDNR (2004a), the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC 2005), Inventory Mapping Data (NBDNR 2006), and aerial photography (GEODAT 2005). Knowledge of the vegetation affected by the Project is based on vascular plant surveys conducted for this Project in July, August and September 2005, other information provided by the above sources, and the professional judgement of the Jacques Whitford Study Team. Information on the locations of vegetation species at risk and species of conservation concern varied in precision from 50 m to 5 km. Information for the variants around Rockwood Park was derived from “Rockwood Park: An Integrated Resource Management Plan” (City of Saint John year unknown).

It is the professional judgement of the Jacques Whitford Study Team that the data available to characterize the existing conditions and existing knowledge of vegetation in the Assessment Area regarding the potential Project-VEC interactions, were sufficient to provide a baseline against which the environmental effects of the Project could be assessed. Section 4.5 (Vegetation) provides details on existing conditions for Vegetation in the Assessment Area.

5.4.3 Residual Environmental Effects Rating Criteria

The federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) and New Brunswick Endangered Species Act (NB ESA) protect species at risk. There are different levels of protection afforded a species within these Acts depending upon the species rarity ranking. For example, only those species currently listed in Schedule 1 of SARA are protected by that Act. Of further complication, SARA-listed species designated as “Species of Special Concern” are not protected by the prohibitions of Sections 32-36 of SARA, but do require that provincial or regional management plans be developed to protect the species within a specified timeframe. There are also several agencies that provide lists of species of conservation concern that are not protected by an Act, but that do require special consideration for the purpose of environmental assessment. As a result, several significance criteria are required to accommodate the different levels of protection afforded by these various Acts, agencies and listings. Definitions of rarity ranks and the relationship between rarity rankings and the significance criteria are summarized in Table 5.4.1.

5.4.3.1 Species at Risk

A significant residual adverse environmental effect on all species listed in Schedule 1 of SARA as “Extirpated”, “Endangered” or “Threatened” or listed by the NB ESA as “Endangered” or “Regionally Endangered” is one that results in a non-permitted contravention of any of the prohibitions stated in

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 310

Sections 32-36 of SARA, or in contravention of any of the prohibitions stated in Section 3 of the NB ESA.

5.4.3.2 Species of Conservation Concern

A significant residual adverse environmental effect on species of conservation concern not under the protection of SARA or the NB ESA (i.e., listed in SARA but not as “Extirpated”, “Endangered” or “Threatened” in Schedule 1; listed as “Species of Special Concern” within Schedule 1 of SARA; or ranked as “S1”, “S2”, or “S3” by AC CDC and also (where available) ranked “At Risk”, “May Be At Risk” or “Sensitive” by NBDNR) is:

one that alters the terrestrial habitat within the Assessment Area (i.e., Valley Lowland and Fundy Coastal Ecoregions) physically, chemically, or biologically, in quality or extent, in such a way as to cause a change or decline in the distribution or abundance of a viable population that is dependent upon that habitat such that the likelihood of the long-term survival of these rare, uncommon and/or non-secure population(s) within the Assessment Area is substantially reduced as a result; and/or

one that results in the direct mortality of individuals or communities such that the likelihood of the long-term survival of these rare, uncommon and/or non-secure population(s) within the Assessment Area (i.e., Valley Lowland and Fundy Coastal Ecoregions) is substantially reduced as a result; and/or

in the case of species of conservation concern listed in Schedule 1 of SARA, where the Project activities are not in compliance with the objectives of management plans (developed as a result of Section 65 of SARA) that are in place at the time of relevant Project activities.

5.4.3.3 Common and/or Secure Species

A significant residual adverse environmental effect on all species not at risk or of conservation concern (including those designated as “S4” by the AC CDC and as “Secure” by NBDNR) is:

one that affects plants or wildlife (e.g., direct mortality, change in migratory patterns, habitat avoidance) or plant or wildlife habitat (loss or change) in such a way as to cause a decline in abundance or change in distribution of these common and/or secure population(s) of indicator/representative wildlife species over one or more generations within the Assessment Area (i.e., the Valley Lowland and Fundy Coastal Ecoregions), and natural recruitment may not re- establish the population(s) to its original level.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 311

Table 5.4.1 Relationship Between Rarity Rankings and Significance Criteria

Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre (AC CDC 2003) Extremely rare throughout its range in the province (typically 5 or fewer occurrences or very S1 few remaining individuals). May be especially vulnerable to extirpation. Rare throughout its range in the province (6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining individuals). S2 May be vulnerable to extirpation due to rarity or other factors. Uncommon throughout its range in the province, or found only in a restricted range, even if S3 abundant at some locations. (21 to 100 occurrences). Usually widespread, fairly common throughout its range in the province, and apparently S4 secure with many occurrences, but the species is of long-term concern (e.g. watch list). (100+ occurrences). Numeric range rank: A range between two consecutive numeric ranks. Denotes uncertainty S#S# about the exact rarity of the species (e.g., S1S2) NBDNR General Status (NBDNR 2005a) Species for which a formal assessment has been completed, and determined to be at risk of At Risk extirpation or extinction. May Be At Species or populations that may be at risk of extirpation or extinction, and are therefore Risk candidates for a detailed risk assessment. Species which are not believed to be at risk of extirpation or extinction, but which may Sensitive require special attention or protection to prevent them from becoming at risk. Species that are not believed to be At Risk, May Be At Risk, or Sensitive. These were generally species that were widespread and/or abundant. Although some Secure species Secure may be declining, their level of decline was not felt to be a threat to their status in the province. Species at Risk Act (SARA) Extirpated Wildlife species that no longer exists in the wild in Canada, but exists elsewhere in the wild. (Schedule 1) Endangered Wildlife species that is facing imminent extirpation or extinction. (Schedule 1) Threatened Wildlife species that is likely to become an endangered species if nothing is done to reverse (Schedule 1) the factors leading to its extirpation or extinction. Species of Wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a Special combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. Concern (Schedule 1 and all other Schedules) New Brunswick Endangered Species Act (NB ESA) Any indigenous species of fauna or flora threatened with imminent extinction or imminent Endangered extirpation throughout all or a significant portion of its range and designated by regulation as Species endangered. Regionally Any indigenous species of fauna or flora threatened with imminent extirpation throughout all Endangered or a significant portion of its range in the Province and designated by regulation as regionally Species endangered.

Species at Risk Species of Conservation Secure Species Concern

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 312

A positive environmental effect occurs when Project activities help to increase species populations and/or diversity.

Environmentally Significant Areas (Vegetation-based)

A significant residual adverse environmental effect on ESAs is one that results in the loss of a substantive amount (e.g., greater than 10%) of the ESA and/or substantially degrades the quality or nature of the ESA. A positive environmental effect occurs when Project activities help to increase species populations and/or diversity.

5.4.4 Potential Interactions, Issues, and Concerns

This section evaluates the potential for Project-related activities to affect Vegetation. Table 5.4.2 provides a summary of the potential environmental effects resulting from the Project-VEC interactions, which are discussed below.

Table 5.4.2 Project Activity – Environmental Effects Interaction Matrix for Vegetation

Potential Interactions Between Project Activities and Environmental Effects Valued Environmental Component: VEGETATION

Potential Environmental Effect Project Activities and Physical Works Change in Change in (See Table 3.1.1 for list of specific activities and works) Habitat Direct Mortality Habitat Quality Quantity Construction Site Preparation Pipeline Installation Watercourse Crossings Temporary Ancillary Structures and Facilities Operation and Maintenance Project Presence Pipeline Maintenance RoW Maintenance Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events Hazardous Materials Spill Erosion and Sediment Control Failure Fire Occupational Injury Wildlife Encounter Temporary Watercourse Crossing Washout Disturbance of Unidentified Archaeological or Heritage Resource Unauthorized Access to RoW Pipeline Rupture or Leak

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 313

5.4.4.1 Construction

There are several construction activities related to the Project that could affect Vegetation. The most substantive and likely interactions are a change in habitat quantity or quality (including ESAs), and the potential loss of species at risk or species of conservation concern if they are present, as a result of site preparation and temporary ancillary structures and facilities. Watercourse crossings also have the potential to affect habitat quality and quantity, and vascular plant species at risk or species of conservation concern.

Site Preparation

Clearing and grubbing for site preparation will remove vegetation and, particularly in forested areas, will change the quality of the habitat along the edge of the Project footprint. Vegetation and habitat within the Project footprint will be permanently altered. Forest clearing will alter the habitat bounding the Project footprint, allowing for more sun-tolerant species to establish and reducing habitat for shade- dependent species.

There were no vascular plant species at risk recorded within or near the preferred corridor; however, 14 species of conservation concern were encountered within approximately 50 m of the preferred corridor during field-based surveys (Section 4.5, Vegetation).

Three vegetation-based ESAs are designated within or near the preferred corridor. The ESAs within or near the preferred corridor that could potentially be affected by the site preparation activities include Magaguadavic River, Spragues Fall, St. Croix River, and Waweig River. Also, the preferred corridor runs through the southern boundary of the Loch Alva Protected Area.

Watercourse Crossings

The Project will require watercourse crossings. Installation of watercourse crossings can alter aquatic or wetland habitat on which some plant species are dependent. Improperly installed crossings can result in flooding or extensive erosion.

Species of conservation concern that are not directly affected by watercourse crossings may be indirectly affected by changes in hydrology as a result of Project activities (e.g., ponding or drainage if areas disturbed for watercourse crossings are not returned to their original elevation). Thus, the final design of each watercourse crossing must ensure the hydrology of each area is maintained.

Six watercourse crossings have the potential to directly or indirectly affect vascular plant species of conservation concern. These watercourse crossings include Dennis Stream, Bonny River, Clarence Stream, Didgeguash River, Bush Brook, and Mohannes Stream.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 314

Temporary Ancillary Structures and Facilities

Construction of temporary ancillary structures and facilities has the potential to have interactions with vegetation similar to those of site preparation activities, although on a smaller scale.

5.4.4.2 Operation and Maintenance

Pipeline Maintenance

Routine pipeline maintenance activities will primarily consist of annual over the ground surveys, internal pipeline inspections using internal inspection equipment, and cathodic protection readings. With the exception of accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events that could occur during Operation and Maintenance, which are discussed in Section 5.4.5.3, these routine maintenance activities have little or no potential for interaction with Vegetation.

Maintenance activities that have the potential to interact with Vegetation could occur if there was a requirement to expose a section of the pipe for repairs. Pipeline repairs will occur only within the footprint of the Project that has been previously disturbed during Construction and the RoW will be revegetated following repairs.

RoW Maintenance

Vegetation control along the pipeline RoW is part of regular maintenance and may involve both manual and mechanized cutting. Vegetation cutting will occur only within the footprint of the Project that has been previously disturbed during Construction. Limited chemical spraying may be used, where allowed by regulation, to control vegetation growth within the confines of fenced and gravelled meter stations and other station facilities; however, aerial drift or surface runoff could potentially transport herbicides to areas outside the Project footprint.

5.4.4.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events that may occur in association with the Project and have an adverse environmental effect on Vegetation include:

hazardous material spills;

erosion and sediment control failure;

fire; and

unauthorized access to RoW.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 315

Hazardous Material Spills

Hazardous material spills may damage habitat and/or cause direct mortality of vegetation. Hazardous material spills could be the result of construction activities (e.g., equipment fuelling or faulty vehicle components) or operation and maintenance activities (e.g., equipment fuelling).

Erosion and Sediment Control Failure

Erosion and sediment control measures could fail during heavy precipitation events, resulting in erosion of vegetation habitat.

Fire

Fire could remove vegetation and alter habitat in the Assessment Area. Also, burned forest land may be converted for agriculture. Fire may be caused as a result of construction or operation and maintenance activities (e.g., hot equipment).

Unauthorized Access to RoW

Unauthorized access to the RoW may damage habitat and/or cause direct mortality of vegetation through the use of ATVs or other motorized vehicles.

5.4.4.4 Rockwood Park

Both of the corridor variants around Rockwood Park could potentially result in the same general interactions with Vegetation as the preferred corridor, only to a different extent. As a result, the potential environmental effects on Vegetation and associated mitigation would be similar for both the preferred corridor and the assessment of the variants around Rockwood Park. Any site-specific potential interactions and associated mitigation for the variants around Rockwood Park with respect to Vegetation will be noted separately in the EA as warranted.

5.4.5 Environmental Effects Analysis and Mitigation

5.4.5.1 Construction

This section provides an evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Construction as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.4.3). A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 316

Table 5.4.3 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Vegetation

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: VEGETATION Phase: Construction

Project Activities and Physical Potential Works Environmental Effects (See Table 3.1.1 Mitigation (A=Adverse; for list of specific P=Positive) activities and works) Magnitude Magnitude Extent Geographic Duration/Frequency Reversibility Ecological/Socio- and Cultural Context Economic

Site Preparation Change in habitat Avoidance by route selection quality (A) Limit area of disturbance Change in habitat Follow EPP quantity (A) Develop site-specific EPP Direct mortality (A) measures to protect plant species at risk and species of conservation concern concentrations Include vascular plant species at risk and species of 1 2 2/4 R 2 conservation concern in employee awareness training Use designated roadways and access; limit offroad activity Erosion control measures Implement Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program Watercourse Change in habitat Planning for watercourse Crossings quality (A) crossings using Watercourse Change in habitat Alteration Technical quantity (A) Guidelines Direct mortality (A) Limit area of disturbance Follow EPP Develop site-specific EPP measures to protect plant 1 2 2/2 R 2 species at risk and species of conservation concern concentrations Erosion control measures Implement Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program Temporary Change in habitat Limit area of disturbance Ancillary Structures quality (A) Follow EPP and Facilities Change in habitat Use designated roadways quantity (A) and access; limit offroad Direct mortality (A) activity 1 2 2/2 R 2 Erosion control measures Implement Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 317

Table 5.4.3 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Vegetation

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: VEGETATION Phase: Construction

Key: Magnitude: Geographic Extent: Frequency: Ecological/Socio-cultural and Economic 1 = Low: e.g., specific group, habitat, or 1 = <1 km2 1 = <11 events/year Context: ecosystem localized one generation or 2 = 1-10 km2 2 = 11 - 50 events/year 1 = Relatively pristine area or area not less, within natural variation 3 = 11-100 km2 3 = 51 - 100 events/year adversely affected by human activity. 2 = Medium: e.g., portion of a population or 4 = 101 - 1,000 km2 4 = 101 - 200 2 = Evidence of adverse environmental habitat, or ecosystem 1 or 2 generations, 5 = 1,001 - 10,000 km2 events/year effects. rapid and unpredictable change, 6 = >10,000 km2 5 = >200 events/year temporarily outside range of natural 6 = continuous variability Duration: N/A = Not Applicable 3 = High: e.g., affecting a whole stock, 1 = <1 month Reversibility: (A) = adverse population, habitat or ecosystem, outside 2 = 1 - 12 months R = Reversible (P) = positive the range of natural variation 3 = 13 - 36 months I = Irreversible 4 = 37 - 72 months 5 = >72 months

Site Preparation

During the corridor selection process, regulators and stakeholders identified known locations of environmentally significant areas (ESAs) for vegetation within the corridor alternatives. As well, a constraint mapping exercise identified important features such as AC CDC occurrence records of species at risk, species of conservation concern, and other environmentally significant areas. These constraints were taken into consideration when selecting and adjusting the preferred corridor. The detailed route selection process for the Project is ongoing. Additional field surveys will be carried out in 2006 along the detailed pipeline route to ensure that the protection of rare species is included in the RoW selection process. Species at risk, species of conservation concern, and ESAs identified during these surveys will be incorporated into the pipeline routing criteria and the pipeline RoW will be routed to avoid species at risk, species of conservation concern, and ESAs, to the extent practicable.

It is recommended that the Proponent develop and implement site-specific EPP measures to protect potentially affected sensitive natural features of ESAs, species at risk, and species of conservation concern. The Proponent will implement an Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program to manage and mitigate potential environmental effects. This would include, but is not limited to, the delineation, surveying, and flagging of the locations of species at risk or species of conservation concern to ensure minimum cutting occurs in these areas. ESAs, species at risk, and species of conservation concern should be included in employee awareness training. Site preparation activities should be limited to the Project RoW and other designated work areas. Vehicles and equipment used during site preparation activities should use only designated roadways and access areas. It is recommended that erosion protection measures be used to reduce or eliminate sedimentation by

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 318

flowing water. These measures should be placed on, or applied to, the soil surface in conjunction with runoff control and sediment interception measures as appropriate.

Watercourse Crossings

As outlined for site preparation, routing of the pipeline will avoid ESAs, species at risk, and species of conservation concern to the extent practicable. Protection measures that should be considered and reflected in the Project EPP include flagging of the limits of clearing in order to avoid accidental trampling of species at risk and species of conservation concern near the pipeline RoW. Protection measures for species at risk and species of conservation concern should be included in the EPP for watercourse crossings.

Temporary Ancillary Structures and Facilities

It is recommended that mitigation measures be implemented as described for Site Preparation. Temporary workspaces should be surveyed and flagged prior to Construction to ensure their reclamation and maintenance with the rest of the RoW. Any ancillary structures and facilities not currently identified that could be situated outside of the RoW and developed in a previous greenspace will be subjected to a vascular plant survey. To the extent practicable, already developed lands should be sought and used for these activities.

Revegetation with native vegetation should occur on exposed soils to ensure long-term stabilization. Seed mixes should be free of weed species to the extent feasible. It is also recommended that cleaning stations for equipment and vehicles be available, where required, to reduce the spread and introduction of invasive species of plants.

Summary – Construction Phase

5.4.5.2 Operation and Maintenance

This section provides an evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Operation and Maintenance as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.4.4). A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 319

Table 5.4.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Vegetation

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: VEGETATION Phase: Operation and Maintenance

Pipeline Maintenance Change in habitat Follow EPP quality (A) Implement Direct mortality (A) Environmental 1 1 1/1 R 2 Protection and Safety Management Program RoW Maintenance Change in habitat Follow EPP quality (A) Manual/mechanical Direct mortality (A) cutting along RoW Limit use of herbicide Use herbicide of short persistence and low ecological toxicity Follow 1 2 1/1 R 2 manufacturer’s guidelines for spraying Implement Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program Key:

Magnitude: Geographic Extent: Frequency: Ecological/Socio-cultural and Economic 1 = Low: e.g., specific group, habitat, or 1 = <1 km2 1 = <11 events/year Context: ecosystem localized one generation or 2 = 1-10 km2 2 = 11 - 50 events/year 1 = Relatively pristine area or area not less, within natural variation 3 = 11-100 km2 3 = 51 - 100 events/year adversely affected by human activity. 2 = Medium: e.g., portion of a population or 4 = 101 - 1,000 km2 4 = 101 - 200 2 = Evidence of adverse environmental habitat, or ecosystem 1 or 2 generations, 5 = 1,001 - 10,000 km2 events/year effects. rapid and unpredictable change, 6 = >10,000 km2 5 = >200 events/year temporarily outside range of natural 6 = continuous variability Duration: N/A = Not Applicable 3 = High: e.g., affecting a whole stock, 1 = <1 month Reversibility: (A) = adverse population, habitat or ecosystem, outside 2 = 1 - 12 months R = Reversible (P) = positive the range of natural variation 3 = 13 - 36 months I = Irreversible 4 = 37 - 72 months 5 = >72 months

Pipeline Maintenance

As outlined for Construction, routing of the pipeline will avoid ESAs, species at risk, and species of conservation concern to the extent practicable. Pipeline repairs should occur only within the footprint of the Project that has been previously disturbed during Construction and revegetated following installation of the pipeline. The Proponent should follow EPP measures for pipeline maintenance.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 320

RoW Maintenance

Manual and mechanized cutting will be limited to trees and alders over a certain height (approximately 1.5 m). Chemical herbicide (short persistence herbicides) use should be limited to the confines of fenced and gravelled meter stations and other station facilities. Chemical spraying should not be carried out along the RoW. It is recommended that the Proponent follow EPP measures for RoW maintenance and herbicide use at meter stations and other station facilities.

Summary – Operation and Maintenance Phase

5.4.5.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

This section provides an evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.4.5). A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

Table 5.4.5 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Vegetation

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: VEGETATION Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Project Activities and Physical Works Potential Environmental (See Table 3.1.1 for list Effects Mitigation of specific activities and (A=Adverse; P=Positive) works) Magnitude Magnitude Extent Geographic Duration/Frequency Reversibility Ecological/Socio- and Cultural Context Economic

Hazardous Materials Change in habitat Environmental Spill quality (A) Protection and Safety Direct mortality (A) Management Program Construction Safety Manual Maintenance Safety Manual Emergency Response Plans 1 1 1/1 R 2 Spill Response Procedures Operation and Maintenance Procedures Worker and contractor training Audits and Inspections

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 321

Table 5.4.5 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Vegetation

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: VEGETATION Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Erosion and Sediment Change in habitat Implement EPP Control Failure quality (A) procedures Direct mortality (A) Employee training 1 1 1/1 R 2 Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program Fire Change in habitat CSA Z662 Design quality (A) Standards Direct mortality (A) Quantitative Risk Analysis Construction Quality Assurance Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program Operation and 3 1 1/1 R 2 Maintenance Procedures Pipeline IMP Public Awareness Program Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan RoW Monitoring and Surveillance Unauthorized Access to Change in habitat Avoidance of plant RoW quality (A) species at risk and Direct mortality (A) species of conservation concern by route selection Signage, natural 1 1 5/2 R 2 barriers and fencing Public Awareness Program RoW Monitoring and Surveillance

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 322

Table 5.4.5 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Vegetation

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: VEGETATION Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Key:

Hazardous Materials Spills

Known hazardous materials that will be used during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance of the Project include fuels, lubricants, and solvents. These materials could be accidentally introduced into vegetation through an accidental spill. The likelihood of a hazardous materials spill to occur and affect an entire population of plant species at risk or species of conservation concern in the Assessment Area is low.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 323

It is recommended that workers and contractors be given training on the applicable sections of the safety manuals and procedures, and safety program audits and site inspections will ensure compliance with procedures in the field. The handling of fuel and other hazardous materials will be in compliance with the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System, and should be located in work areas away from vulnerable areas (e.g., watercourses). Operation and maintenance procedures should ensure activities involving hazardous materials or toxic substances (e.g., fuelling equipment) are performed safely, and activities where hazardous materials are stored or used are located well away from vulnerable areas. It is recommended that engineered barriers (e.g., secondary containment of storage tanks) be used to ensure that any spills are confined within a small area and will not disperse in the environment to any great extent.

These measures will lower the potential for a significant hazardous material spill, as well as minimize any potential adverse environmental effects when minor spills do occur. Given the mitigation in place, potential Project-related adverse environmental effects from hazardous materials spills are unlikely to occur and are rated not significant. Erosion and Sediment Control Failure There is a potential for erosion control structures (e.g., diversion berms) to fail during heavy precipitation events or flash floods. To reduce the likelihood of these failures, protection measures should be followed as described in the EPP. Specifically, it is recommended that erosion control structures be monitored regularly and maintained in a functional condition until the grass on seeded slopes is sufficiently established to effectively prevent erosion. All erosion control structures should be installed and maintained as per WAWA permit(s) for the Project. Any erosion control structures found to be damaged should be repaired immediately.

The potential for interactions between failures of these structures and vascular plant species at risk or species of conservation concern will be reduced by avoiding placement of drainage channels in close proximity to species at risk or species of conservation concern. Thus, the potential environmental effects from Project-related erosion and sediment control failure are rated not significant. Fire The potential environmental effects of a fire in the Assessment Area could be severe. A forest fire could alter habitat quality, resulting in subsequent environmental effects on populations of species at risk or species of conservation concern and/or ESAs. Fire within the Assessment Area of the pipeline could occur during any phase of the Project due to lightning or human activities. Factors influencing the severity and duration of environmental effects include time of year, extent of fire damage, and type of fire (e.g., forest fire).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 324

start onsite. It is recommended that workers and contractors be trained in the fire prevention and response procedures contained in the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program and in accordance with the New Brunswick Forest Fires Act. Safety program audits and site inspections should also be implemented throughout the Project Construction and Operation and Maintenance phases to ensure compliance with program policy and procedures. Thus, the potential environmental effects from construction-related fires and/or forest fires are rated not significant.

In the event of a fire occurring as a result of the Project, Proponent and construction personnel should be prepared to control and fight any fires in and about the work area, as outlined in the EPP and the New Brunswick Forest Fires Act. The Proponent’s ERP should be executed. All fires will be reported to NBDNR. All forest fires will be managed by NBDNR.

Unauthorized Access to RoW

Unauthorized access to the RoW could occur during Construction, or Operation and Maintenance of the Project. Unauthorized access to the RoW by ATVs or other motorized vehicles could cause a change in habitat quality for vegetation through soil compaction or increased erosion potential and may result in the loss of plant species at risk or species of conservation concern.

The potential for interactions between unauthorized access to the RoW and Vegetation will be reduced through the route selection process to avoid areas with plant species at risk or species of conservation concern. It is recommended that measures be employed along the pipeline route to prevent the RoW being used for unwanted ATV and snowmobile traffic. The specific measures to be employed will be determined after the detailed pipeline route has been selected and should be based on the specific geographic conditions that exist, and after discussions with landowners, stakeholders and regulatory agencies, as appropriate. Measures typically employed include installation of natural barriers using the natural topography to advantage where practicable (e.g., placement of rock barriers, planting of tree and shrub barriers), fencing and posting of signs prohibiting trespass. The Public Awareness Program for the pipeline should also include a discussion of trespass and the potential consequences of unauthorized and/or unlawful entry onto properties along the RoW. It is recommended that the pipeline RoW be routinely monitored for unauthorized activities in the RoW during the course of the Project Operation and Maintenance phase. If unauthorized activities in the RoW are detected, additional measures to stop and/or discourage unauthorized activities should be implemented after discussions with landowners, stakeholders and regulatory agencies, as appropriate. Thus, the potential environmental effects from Project-related unauthorized access to the RoW are rated not significant.

Summary – Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

5.4.5.4 Species at Risk, Species of Conservation Concern, and ESAs

The pipeline RoW will be routed so that viable populations of vascular plant species of conservation concern will remain following pipeline Construction and during Operation and Maintenance. In doing

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 325

so, the long-term survival of these vascular plant species is not likely to be reduced. Also, there will not be a substantive loss of sensitive natural features (i.e., less than 10%) as found in ESAs or the Loch Alva Protected Area as a result of the Project.

Increased knowledge and protection of vascular plant species at risk and species of conservation concern in the area is a positive environmental effect that offsets some of the losses of individual plants.

5.4.6 Determination of Significance

Table 5.4.6 evaluates the significance of potential residual environmental effects resulting from any interactions between Project activities and Vegetation, after taking into account any proposed mitigation. The table also considers the level of confidence of the Jacques Whitford Study Team in this determination.

Table 5.4.6 Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix for Vegetation

Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix Valued Environmental Component: VEGETATION

Residual Likelihood Level of Phase Environmental Confidence Probability of Scientific Effects Rating* Occurrence Certainty Construction NS 3 3 3 Operation and Maintenance NS 3 3 3 Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events NS 3 1 3 Project Overall NS 3 1/3 3 Key: Residual Environmental Effects Rating: Probability of Occurrence of Residual Environmental Effects: based on professional judgement S = Significant Adverse Environmental Effects 1 = Low Probability of Occurrence NS = Not-significant Adverse Environmental Effects 2 = Medium Probability of Occurrence P = Positive Environmental Effects 3 = High Probability of Occurrence

*As determined in consideration of established residual environmental effects rating criteria.

5.4.7 Follow-up and Monitoring

There is potential for damage to vascular plant species at risk or species of conservation concern from herbicide use at meter stations and other station facilities, therefore monitoring in these areas for potential environmental effects of herbicide use is recommended. Details of the monitoring program should be developed and site-specific baseline conditions should be established prior to herbicide use.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 326

5.5 Wetlands

5.5.1 Rationale for Selection as Valued Environmental Component

Wetlands were selected as a VEC because of the potential for interactions between Project activities and wetland environments, and because of the relationship between wetlands and wildlife and other biological and physical environments. Wetlands were also selected in response to Environment Canada’s and NBENV’s goal for no net loss of wetland function (Environment Canada 1991, NBDNRE and NBDELG 2002). In particular, this VEC assesses the potential environmental effects of Project activities on Wetlands during Construction, Operation and Maintenance, as well as Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events.

In the context of this VEC:

“Wetland” is defined per the New Brunswick Clean Environment Act as land that, either periodically or permanently, has a water table at, near or above the land’s surface or that is saturated with water, and sustains aquatic process as indicated by the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and biological activities adapted to wet conditions; and

“Wetland function” is defined per the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation as “…the natural processes and derivation of benefits and values associated with wetland ecosystems, including economic production (e.g., peat, agricultural crops, wild rice, peatland forest production), fish and wildlife habitat, organic carbon storage, water supply and purification (groundwater recharge, flood control, maintenance of flow regimes, shoreline erosion buffering), and soil and water conservation, as well as tourism, heritage, recreational, educational, scientific, and aesthetic opportunities” (Environment Canada 1991).

5.5.2 Environmental Assessment Boundaries

5.5.2.1 Spatial

The spatial boundaries (the “Assessment Area”) for the assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Project on Wetlands include all wetlands within 30 m of the preferred corridor and variants around Rockwood Park, where activities associated with Construction, Operation and Maintenance, and Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events of the Project could potentially result in environmental effects on Wetlands. For the assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Project on wetland loss and/or degradation, the Assessment Area includes the Valley Lowland and Fundy Coastal Ecoregions and the alternative wetlands within these zones.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 327

5.5.2.2 Temporal

The temporal boundaries for the assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Project on wetlands and wetland loss and/or degradation include the periods of Construction, and Operation and Maintenance of the Project for the life of the pipeline.

5.5.2.3 Administrative and Technical

Wetlands are protected through federal policy and provincial legislation. Although there is no specific federal legislation regarding wetlands, they may be protected federally under SARA if they contain critical habitat for species at risk, the Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA) if they contain nests of migratory birds, and/or the Fisheries Act if the wetland contributes to an existing or potential fishery. Details on the application of SARA and the protection of species at risk and species of conservation concern are provided in the Vegetation VEC (Section 5.4), details on the application of the MBCA for protection of migratory birds are provided in the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat VEC (Section 5.6), and details on the application of the Fisheries Act for the protection of fish and fish habitat are provided in the Fish and Fish Habitat VEC (Section 5.3).

Wetland conservation is federally promoted by the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation (Environment Canada 1991). The objective of this policy is to “promote the conservation of Canada’s wetlands to sustain their ecological and socio-economic function, now and in the future.” Coordination of implementation of the policy is the responsibility of Environment Canada, specifically the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) and the Environmental Conservation Branch (ECB).

Wetlands are addressed provincially by the New Brunswick Wetlands Conservation Policy (NBDNRE and NBDELG 2002). The primary objective of this policy is to prevent the loss of provincially significant wetlands and achieve no net loss of wetland functions for all other wetlands (i.e., wetlands greater than 1 ha in size). Implementation of this policy is the responsibility of NBENV, through existing legislation, a description of which follows.

Wetlands are protected provincially by the Clean Water Act and the Clean Environment Act. Under the Clean Water Act, a permit is required for a wetland alteration. Both of these Acts are administered by NBENV. The Clean Environment Act includes provisions to designate a wetland or any portion of it as a protected area. Under the Clean Water Act, the Watercourse and Wetland Alteration Regulation applies to all wetlands of 1 ha or greater in size, or any wetland contiguous to a watercourse. The application process applies to all Project-related activities within 30 m of such wetlands.

Existing information used for this assessment of wetlands was obtained from NBDNR Inventory Mapping Data (NBDNR 2006), orthographic maps, and aerial photography (GEODAT 2005). Additional sources of information on wetlands include studies carried out by AMEC for the proposed International Power Line (IPL) project, by Washburn & Gillis for the Saint John Lateral (SJL) pipeline, and by Fundy Engineering for a secondary access road at Read Head (Fundy Engineering 2005). The final results of the post-construction SJL Wetland Environmental Effects Monitoring Program were also obtained (AMEC 2005). Knowledge of the wetlands affected by the Project is based on wetland habitat surveys

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 328

conducted in 2005 and other information provided by the above sources, and the professional judgement of the Jacques Whitford Study Team.

It is the professional judgement of the Jacques Whitford Study Team that the data available to characterize the existing conditions and existing knowledge of Wetlands in the Assessment Area regarding the potential Project-VEC interactions, were sufficient to provide a baseline against which the environmental effects of the Project could be assessed. Details on Wetlands in the Assessment Area are provided in Section 4.6.

5.5.3 Residual Environmental Effects Rating Criteria

A significant residual adverse environmental effect on wetlands is one that results in a non- compensated net loss of wetland function.

A positive environmental effect may enhance the quality, increase the species diversity, or increase the area of the wetland.

5.5.4 Potential Interactions, Issues, and Concerns

This section evaluates the potential for Project-related activities to affect Wetlands. Table 5.5.1 provides a summary of the potential environmental effects resulting from the Project-VEC interactions, which are discussed below.

Table 5.5.1 Project Activity – Environmental Effects Interaction Matrix for Wetlands

Potential Interactions Between Project Activities and Environmental Effects Valued Environmental Component: WETLANDS

Potential Environmental Effect Project Activities and Physical Works Change in Loss of Change in (See Table 3.1.1 for list of specific activities and works) Wetland Wetland Wetland Quality Quantity Function Construction Site Preparation Pipeline Installation Watercourse Crossings Temporary Ancillary Structures and Facilities Operation and Maintenance Project Presence Pipeline Maintenance RoW Maintenance Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events Hazardous Materials Spill Erosion and Sediment Control Failure

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 329

Table 5.5.1 Project Activity – Environmental Effects Interaction Matrix for Wetlands

Potential Interactions Between Project Activities and Environmental Effects Valued Environmental Component: WETLANDS

Potential Environmental Effect Project Activities and Physical Works Change in Loss of Change in (See Table 3.1.1 for list of specific activities and works) Wetland Wetland Wetland Quality Quantity Function Fire Occupational Injury Wildlife Encounter Temporary Watercourse Crossing Washout Disturbance of Unidentified Archaeological or Heritage Resource Unauthorized Access to RoW Pipeline Rupture or Leak

5.5.4.1 Construction

There are several construction activities related to the Project that could affect Wetlands. The most substantive and likely interactions are a change in habitat quality or quantity, and the potential loss of wetland function, as a result of the site preparation activities, watercourse crossings, and temporary ancillary structures and facilities.

Eighty wetlands have been identified within, or intersecting, the preferred corridor (Section 4.6, Wetlands). Of these wetlands, 26 are bisected by the preferred corridor and cannot be avoided by the proposed preferred corridor alignment, and therefore will likely be physically disturbed by construction activities. Nineteen wetlands are situated within the preferred corridor such that they may be avoided during the route selection process, but there is a potential for indirect environmental effects from the Project. The remaining 35 wetlands will likely be avoided during the route selection process and will be located a minimum of 30 m outside the RoW.

Site Preparation

Clearing, grubbing, and soil stripping for site preparation will remove vegetation and wetland soils and will change the quality and quantity of wetland habitat within the Project footprint. Wetland habitat within the Project footprint will be temporarily displaced. Wetland soils will be segregated and will be returned after pipeline installation has been completed.

Blasting can have physical and chemical environmental effects on wetland habitat. Blasting can cause bank failure and/or rock slides and resultant filling of wetland habitat. Nitrogen-based explosives can affect wetland habitat quality by providing nutrients for aquatic plants and promoting algal growth.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 330

Pipeline Installation

Excavation and trenching may expose surface water to sulphide-bearing bedrock, causing a pH reduction in wetlands to levels that are harmful to fish, and a potential loss of wetland function in wetlands supporting commercially or recreationally fished species. The environmental effects of pH reduction to fish are assessed in the Fish and Fish Habitat VEC (Section 5.3).

Improper restoration of wetland habitat following pipeline installation can alter wetland habitat and may result in the loss of wetland function. There is some potential for alteration of the hydrology of wetlands as a result of Project activities (e.g., ponding or drainage if wetlands are not returned to their original elevation). Thus, restoration of each wetland must ensure the hydrology of each area is maintained.

Fertilizer associated with seeding along the RoW following pipeline installation may introduce excess nutrients into wetlands, altering wetland habitat quality.

Watercourse Crossings

The Project will require watercourse crossings. Installation of watercourse crossings can alter associated wetland habitat through drainage, flooding, or extensive erosion. Improper installation of watercourse crossings could also result in the blockage of fish passage and a potential loss of wetland function in wetlands supporting commercially or recreationally fished species. The environmental effects of the blockage of fish passage are assessed in the Fish and Fish Habitat VEC (Section 5.3).

Wetlands that are not directly affected by watercourse crossing structures may be indirectly affected by changes in hydrology. There is some potential for alteration of the hydrology of the area as a result of Project activities (e.g., ponding or drainage if areas disturbed for watercourse crossings are not returned to their original elevation). Thus, the final design of each watercourse crossing must ensure the hydrology of each area is maintained.

Temporary Ancillary Structures and Facilities

Construction of temporary ancillary structures and facilities has the potential to have interactions with Wetlands similar to those of site preparation and pipeline installation activities, although on a smaller scale. While temporary ancillary structures and facilities will not be directly sited in wetlands, wetlands adjacent to these structures and facilities could be affected by construction and site preparation.

5.5.4.2 Operation and Maintenance

Pipeline Maintenance

Routine pipeline maintenance activities will primarily consist of annual over the ground surveys, internal pipeline inspections, and cathodic protection readings. With the exception of accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events that could occur during operation and maintenance activities, these routine activities have little or no potential for interaction with Wetlands.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 331

Operation and maintenance activities that have the potential to interact with Wetlands could occur if there was a requirement to expose a section of the pipe for repairs. Pipeline repairs will occur only within the footprint of the Project that has been previously disturbed during Construction and restored following laying of the pipeline. Pipeline maintenance has the potential to have interactions with Wetlands similar to those of site preparation and pipeline installation activities, although on a smaller scale.

RoW Maintenance

Clearing along the proposed RoW is part of regular maintenance and may involve both manual and mechanized cutting. Vegetation cutting will occur only within the footprint of the Project that has been previously disturbed during Construction and restored following installation of the pipeline. Clearing for maintenance reasons will not typically be required in wetlands, only in rare circumstances and at infrequent intervals. Limited chemical spraying may be used, where allowed by regulation, to control vegetation growth within the confines of meter stations and other station facilities. Spraying will occur within the footprint of the Project that has been previously disturbed; however, aerial drift or surface runoff could potentially transport herbicides into wetlands, potentially altering wetland habitat quality.

5.5.4.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events that may occur in association with the Project and have an adverse environmental effect on wetlands include:

hazardous material spills;

erosion and sediment control failure;

fire;

temporary watercourse crossing washout;

unauthorized access to RoW; and

pipeline rupture or leak.

Hazardous Material Spills

Hazardous material spills may damage wetland habitat and/or result in a loss of wetland function. Hazardous material spills could be the result of construction activities (e.g., equipment fuelling or faulty vehicle components) or operation and maintenance activities (e.g., equipment fuelling).

Erosion and Sediment Control Failure

Erosion and sediment control measures could fail during heavy precipitation events, resulting in erosion or filling of wetland habitat.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 332

Fire

Fire could alter wetland habitat in the Assessment Area. Fire may be caused as a result of construction, or operation and maintenance activities (e.g., hot equipment).

Temporary Watercourse Crossing Washout

Temporary watercourse crossing washout may result in a change in wetland quality or loss of wetland function, in particular if the wetland provides habitat for commercially or recreationally fished species.

Unauthorized Access to RoW

Unauthorized access to the RoW may damage wetland habitat through the use of ATVs or other motorized vehicles.

The environmental effects of Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events to fish and fish habitat are assessed in the Fish and Fish Habitat VEC (Section 5.3).

Pipeline Rupture or Leak

A pipeline rupture or leak within a wetland could result in temporary adverse environmental effects to wetland quality and function. The adverse environmental effects of a rupture that results in a fire are considered above under the Fire heading in this section. The potential adverse environmental effects that could result from repairing a rupture or leak are considered in the Pipeline Installation (Section 5.5.4.1, Construction) and Pipeline Maintenance (Section 5.5.4.2, Operation and Maintenance) sections of this VEC.

5.5.4.4 Rockwood Park

Both of the corridor variants around Rockwood Park could potentially result in the same general interactions with Wetlands as the preferred corridor, only to a different extent. As a result, the potential environmental effects on Wetlands and associated mitigation would be similar for both the preferred corridor and the assessment of the variants around Rockwood Park. Any site-specific potential interactions and associated mitigation for the variants around Rockwood Park with respect to Wetlands will be noted separately in the EA as warranted.

5.5.5 Environmental Effects Analysis and Mitigation

5.5.5.1 Construction

This section provides an evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Construction as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.5.2). A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 333

Table 5.5.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Wetlands

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: WETLANDS Phase: Construction

Site Preparation Change in wetland Avoidance by route quality (A) selection, if possible Change in wetland Limit area of quantity (A) disturbance Loss of wetland Follow EPP function (A) Develop site-specific EPP measures to protect wetland function Obtain WAWA permit and follow permit conditions including compensation to ensure no net loss of wetland function Obtain approval to blast from DFO and follow DFO’s blasting guidelines Use designated roadways and access; limit offroad activity 1 1 2/2 R 2 Avoid locating temporary work areas in wetland, where practicable Stockpile surface wetland soils separately and then return them to wetland Maintain water flow within or across wetland Avoid directing runoff water flow toward wetland Erosion control measures Implement Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 334

Table 5.5.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Wetlands

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: WETLANDS Phase: Construction

Pipeline Installation Change in wetland Follow EPP quality (A) Develop site-specific Loss of wetland EPP measures to function (A) protect wetland function Use designated roadways and access; limit offroad activity Install trench plugs in open trench Maintain water 1 1 2/2 R 2 flow/drainage across RoW Erosion control measures Avoid seeding in and within 30 m of wetland Implement Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 335

Table 5.5.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Wetlands

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: WETLANDS Phase: Construction

Watercourse Crossings Change in wetland Planning for quality (A) watercourse Change in wetland crossings using quantity (A) Watercourse Loss of wetland Alteration Technical function (A) Guidelines Limit area of disturbance Follow EPP Develop site-specific EPP measures to protect wetland function 1 2 2/2 R 2 Follow WAWA permit conditions Avoid locating temporary work areas in wetland, where practicable Erosion control measures Implement Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 336

Table 5.5.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Wetlands

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: WETLANDS Phase: Construction

Temporary Ancillary Change in wetland Limit area of Structures and Facilities quality (A) disturbance Change in wetland Follow EPP quantity (A) Use designated Loss of wetland roadways and function (A) access; limit offroad activity Erosion control measures Designated fuel storage areas to be 1 1 2/2 R 2 at least 100 m from wetlands Designated refuelling areas to be at least 30 m from wetlands Implement Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program Key:

Site Preparation

During the corridor selection process, regulators and stakeholders identified known locations of wetlands within the alternate corridors. As well, a constraint mapping exercise identified important features such as AC CDC occurrence records of species at risk, species of conservation concern, and other environmentally significant areas, including wetlands. These constraints were taken into consideration when selecting the preferred corridor. The detailed route selection process for the

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 337

Project is ongoing and any wetland surveys required along the detailed pipeline route will be carried out in 2006. The pipeline RoW will be routed to avoid wetlands to the extent practicable. Wetland evaluations will be completed on all wetlands identified within 30 m of the RoW to determine the “significance” of each wetland. This process has been completed for wetlands that interact with the SJL and partially completed for the IPL.

Until the detailed route has been determined, the exact amount of wetland to be directly affected by Project activities is not defined. However, there is a wide range of mitigation that can be implemented to minimize any adverse environmental effects to those wetlands that will be affected by Project activities. A Wetland and Watercourse Alteration (WAWA) permit will be required for all construction activities within 30 m of a wetland and this permit will define the mitigation measures required, and will include measures to compensate for no net loss of wetland function. During the Site Preparation phase of Construction, it is recommended that any surface wetland soils that are removed for grade be stockpiled separately from trench soils and then returned to the wetland during the clean-up phase of the Project. It is recommended that water flow be maintained within or across the wetland during construction activities. It is recommended that erosion and sediment control measures be implemented within 30 m of a wetland to minimize the run-off of sediment laiden water into wetlands both within and adjacent to the RoW.

It is recommended that any temporary work areas required for the Project not be located within a wetland to the extent practicable.

It is also recommended that the Proponent develop and implement site-specific EPP measures to protect wetlands proximal to the Project. This would include the delineation, surveying, and flagging to ensure minimum cutting occurs in these areas. Adjacent to each wetland, a 30 m buffer zone will be maintained where site preparation activities should only occur in areas necessary for RoW construction. Site preparation activities should be limited to the Project footprint. Vehicles and equipment used during site preparation activities should use only designated roadways and access areas. It is recommended that erosion protection measures be used to reduce or eliminate soil erosion by flowing water. These measures should be placed on, or applied to, the soil surface in conjunction with runoff control and sediment interception measures as appropriate. Where water runoff controls are implemented along the RoW, it is recommended that the flow of water not be directed toward a wetland where practicable.

Should blasting be required during Construction in or near a wetland providing fish habitat, authorization will be required from DFO for the use of explosives. Blasting must be conducted in accordance with the EPP to be developed for the Project and Guidelines for use of Explosives in Canadian Fisheries Waters (Wright and Hopky 1998), and in full compliance with the requirements of DFO’s authorization. Any increase in wetland nutrient loads from blasting would be temporary and the nutrients would be readily absorbed by soils or taken up by plants.

It is recommended and assumed that the Proponent will develop a wetland compensation plan in consultation with NBDNR and Environment Canada’s Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), in accordance with the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation (Environment Canada 1991) and New Brunswick

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 338

Wetlands Conservation Policy (NBDNRE and NBDELG 2002), to ensure no net loss of wetland function.

Pipeline Installation

As outlined above under the Site Preparation heading, routing of the pipeline will avoid wetlands to the extent practicable. Protection measures that should be considered and reflected in site-specific EPPs include flagging of the limits of clearing in order to avoid potential environmental effects to wetlands. Protection measures for wetlands should be included in a site-specific EPP.

Wetland soils removed during excavation and trenching should be stockpiled separately and used for restoration of the trench in the wetland. When the trench is open, prior to pipeline installation, it is recommended that trench plugs be installed to prevent water flow in or out of the wetland. Following installation of the pipeline in the trench, bentonite plugs should be installed at the wetland boundary on each end of the trench to prevent flooding or drainage of the wetland through the trench. It is recommended that any wood riprap (timber corduroy) and gravel fill material used to facilitate temporary access through wetlands be removed to the original wetland water elevation. Further, it is recommended that water flow or drainage across the pipeline RoW be maintained to sustain wetland hydrology. Subject to agency and landowner approval, some wood riprap may be left in place to facilitate future RoW access by operations personnel.

All wetland alteration will meet the Conditions of Approval as described in WAWA permits. Wetlands will be restored to maintain the original hydrology. It is recommended that seeding be avoided both in and within 30 m of wetlands. Any increase in wetland nutrient loads associated with seeding in adjacent upland areas would be temporary and the nutrients would be readily absorbed by soils or taken up by plants.

Watercourse Crossing Structures

As outlined above under the Site Preparation heading, routing of the pipeline will avoid wetlands to the extent practicable. Protection measures that should be considered and reflected in site-specific EPPs include flagging of the limits of clearing in order to minimize to the extent practicable the amount of land cleared within wetlands. Protection measures for wetlands should be included in a site-specific EPP for wetland crossings.

All watercourse crossings will be implemented in compliance with the conditions set in WAWA permits. Sedimentation will be minimized with the use of proper mitigative steps outlined in various sections of the EPP and in the Watercourse Alteration Technical Guidelines (NBDELG 2002c). During Construction, an onsite inspector will ensure that the installations are conducted according to the planning process, meet the Conditions of Approval as described in the WAWA permit, and do not introduce suspended sediments or contaminants to surface waters. It is recommended that any temporary work areas required for watercourse crossings not be established in wetlands to the extent practicable.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 339

As outlined above in the Site Preparation section, the Proponent will follow an EPP and erosion protection measures should be implemented. A wetland compensation plan will be developed for those wetlands that cannot be directly avoided by the pipeline RoW.

Temporary Ancillary Structures and Facilities Construction

It is recommended that mitigation measures be implemented as described for Site Preparation. Wetlands near any currently unidentified ancillary structures and facilities (i.e., marshalling/storage yards) that could be situated outside of the RoW should be subjected to a wetland survey where warranted.

Previously disturbed land such as woods roads and other cleared areas should be preferentially chosen for these temporary facilities. Any ancillary structures and facilities should be reviewed for their potential environmental effects on Wetlands. In consideration of the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation (Environment Canada 1991) and New Brunswick Wetlands Conservation Policy (NBDNRE and NBDELG 2002), it is recommend that wetlands be avoided to the extent practicable for these structures and facilities. It is expected that there will be more flexibility in the placement of the ancillary structures and facilities, so few wetlands in previously undisturbed areas will likely be affected. Exceptions will include unavoidable wetlands for access roads in undisturbed areas. Where applicable, a WAWA permit will be obtained.

It is recommended that refuelling areas and petroleum storage areas be at least 30 m and 100 m from wetlands, respectively. Permanent storage areas for containers or drums be clearly marked, have appropriate secondary containment, and be located on an impermeable floor that slopes to a safe collection area. Any wastewater from cleaning equipment should not be released into a wetland. Storage of all hazardous materials must comply with WHMIS requirements, and appropriate material safety data sheets (MSDS) will be located at the storage site.

The mitigation outlined above is designed to achieve the same low post-Construction environmental effects that were confirmed through monitoring studies for the SJL (AMEC 2005). This study identified increased human access, invasive species, exotic species, water quality, sedimentation and physical alteration as the environmental effects incurred on wetlands as the result of pipeline construction. Of these, only human disturbance by ATVs and colonization by invasive species were of any significance. However, since more than 80% recovery of native vegetation was observed in all cases, and since water quality and hydrology appear unaltered, no net loss of wetland function was observed as a result of construction of the SJL. The wetland characteristics for the Project are considered to be similar to those encountered during other pipeline projects in this part of New Brunswick; therefore, the implementation of comparable mitigation developed and implemented for the Mainline and SJL are anticipated to yield similar results for this Project.

Summary – Construction Phase

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 340

5.5.5.2 Operation and Maintenance

This section provides an evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Operation and Maintenance as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.5.3). A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

Table 5.5.3 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Wetlands

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: WETLANDS Phase: Operation and Maintenance

Pipeline Maintenance Change in wetland Follow EPP quality (A) Use designated roadways and access; limit offroad activity Install trench plugs in open trench Maintain water flow/drainage across RoW 1 1 1/1 R 2 Erosion control measures Avoid seeding in and within 30 m of wetland Implement Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 341

Table 5.5.3 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Wetlands

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: WETLANDS Phase: Operation and Maintenance

RoW Maintenance Change in wetland Follow EPP quality (A) Manual/mechanical Loss of wetland cutting along RoW; function (A) restrict herbicide use to fenced area of valve sites Use herbicide of short persistence and low ecological toxicity 1 1 1/1 R 2 Follow manufacturer’s guidelines for spraying Implement Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program Key:

Pipeline Maintenance

Any future pipeline repairs would typically occur only within the footprint of the Project that has been previously disturbed during Construction. The Proponent should follow EPP measures for any future pipeline maintenance activities. Mitigation for any pipeline repairs (i.e., dig-ups) required during pipeline maintenance should be implemented as described under the Pipeline Installation heading (Section 5.5.5.1, Construction) of this VEC.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 342

RoW Maintenance

Manual and mechanized cutting will be limited to trees and alders over a certain height (i.e., approximately 1.5 m). Chemical herbicide use (low toxicity, short persistence herbicides) should be limited to the confines of fenced and gravelled meter stations and other station facilities that are not anticipated to be located within or 30 m from any wetlands. Chemical spraying should not be carried out along the RoW. The Proponent should follow EPP measures for RoW maintenance and herbicide use at meter stations.

Summary – Operation and Maintenance Phase

5.5.5.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

This section provides an evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.5.4). A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 343

Table 5.5.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Wetlands

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: WETLANDS Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Hazardous Materials Change in wetland Environmental Spill quality (A) Protection and Safety Loss of wetland Management Program function (A) Construction Safety Manual Maintenance Safety Manual Emergency Response Plans 2 1 1/1 R 2 Spill Response Procedures Operation and Maintenance Procedures Worker and contractor training Audits and Inspections Erosion and Sediment Change in wetland Implement EPP Control Failure quality (A) procedures Loss of wetland Avoid directing function (A) temporary ditches/runoff channels towards wetland 1 1 1/1 R 2 Employee training Implement Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 344

Table 5.5.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Wetlands

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: WETLANDS Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Fire Change in wetland CSA Z662 Design quality (A) Standards Loss of wetland Quantitative Risk function (A) Analysis Construction Quality Assurance Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program Operation and 3 2 1/1 R 2 Maintenance Procedures Pipeline IMP Public Awareness Program Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan RoW Monitoring and Surveillance Temporary Watercourse Change in wetland Avoidance of wetlands Crossing Washout quality (A) by route selection Loss of wetland Implement EPP function (A) procedures 1 1 1/1 R 2 Implement Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program Unauthorized Access to Change in wetland Avoidance of wetlands RoW quality (A) by route selection Signage, natural barriers and fencing 1 1 5/2 R 2 Public Awareness Program RoW Monitoring and Surveillance

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 345

Table 5.5.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Wetlands

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: WETLANDS Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Pipeline Rupture or Change in wetland Environmental Leak quality (A) Protection and Safety Loss of wetland Management Program function (A) CSA Z662 Design Standards Quantitative Risk Analysis Construction Quality Assurance Operation and 3 2 2/1 R 2 Maintenance Procedures Worker and contractor training Pipeline IMP Public Awareness Program RoW Monitoring and Surveillance Key:

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 346

Hazardous Materials Spill

Known hazardous materials that will be used during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance of the Project include fuels, lubricants, solvents, windshield washer, and antifreeze. These materials could be accidentally introduced into wetlands through an accidental spill.

A Construction Safety Manual, a Maintenance Safety Manual, and operation and maintenance procedures will be prepared and should prescribe measures to prevent spills of hazardous materials. Further, the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program during Construction and Emergency Response Plans development for Operation and Maintenance should include spill response procedures that will direct workers and contractors to quickly contain and clean up spills should they occur, and prevent hazardous or toxic materials from entering vulnerable areas such as watercourses. It is recommended that workers and contractors be given training on the applicable sections of the safety manuals and procedures, and safety program audits and site inspections will ensure compliance with procedures in the field. The handling of fuel and other hazardous materials will be in compliance with the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System, and should be located in work areas away from vulnerable areas (e.g., watercourses). Operation and maintenance procedures should ensure activities involving hazardous materials or toxic substances (e.g., fuelling equipment) are performed safely, and activities where hazardous materials are stored or used are located well away from vulnerable areas. It is recommended that engineered barriers (e.g., secondary containment of storage tanks) be used to ensure that any spills are confined within a small area and will not disperse in the environment to any great extent. These measures will lower the potential for a significant hazardous material spill, as well as minimize any potential adverse environmental effects when minor spills do occur. Given the mitigation in place, potential Project-related adverse environmental effects from hazardous materials spills are unlikely to occur and are rated not significant.

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Failure

There is a potential for erosion control structures (e.g., diversion berms) to fail during heavy precipitation events or flash floods. To reduce the likelihood of these failures, protection measures should be followed as described in the EPP. Specifically, it is recommended that erosion control structures be monitored regularly and maintained in a functional condition until the grass on seeded slopes is sufficiently established to be an effective erosion deterrent. All erosion control structures should be installed and maintained as per WAWA permit(s) for the Project. Any erosion control structures found to be damaged should be repaired immediately. It is recommended that any temporary ditches or runoff channels constructed for erosion and sediment control not be directed towards any wetlands, either within or adjacent to the RoW. Thus, the potential environmental effects from Project-related erosion and sediment control failure are rated not significant.

Temporary Watercourse Crossing Washout

There is a potential during high flood events for temporary watercourse crossing structures to be washed out, which would potentially affect Wetlands. This could temporarily degrade wetland quality due to increased sedimentation, or affect wetland function by deposition of debris material into streams

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 347

within wetlands that provide fish habitat. Factors influencing the magnitude, duration, and geographic extent of the environmental effect include amount and duration of flooding, type and size of washout, and the natural terrain surrounding the watercourse and location within the watershed. The extent of the environmental effects of such a road failure or washout on Wetlands is predicted to be low, as most wetlands generally are in low-lying areas, such that the extent of environmental effects will be limited. Watercourse crossing structures should be inspected at regular intervals and deficiencies corrected immediately. Thus, the potential environmental effects from a Project-related watercourse crossing washout are rated not significant.

Fires

The potential environmental effects of a fire in the Assessment Area could be severe. A forest fire could alter wetland habitat quality or result in a loss of wetland function. Fire within the Assessment Area of the pipeline could occur during any phase of the Project due to lightning or human activities, or from pipeline rupture and natural gas ignition during Operation and Maintenance. Factors influencing the severity and duration of environmental effects include time of year, extent of fire damage, and type of fire (chemical or forest). Reversibility of adverse environmental effects to wetlands is high; however, this would occur over a number of years. Restoration of wetland quality or function would rely on the re-establishment of vegetation communities and repopulation of fish and wildlife.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 348

Unauthorized Access to RoW

Unauthorized access to the RoW could occur during Construction, or Operation and Maintenance of the Project. Unauthorized access to the RoW by ATVs or other motorized vehicles could cause a change in habitat quality for wetlands through rutting or increased erosion potential.

It is recommended that measures be employed along the pipeline route to prevent the RoW being used for unwanted ATV and snowmobile traffic. The specific measures to be employed will be determined after the detailed pipeline route has been selected and should be based on the specific geographic conditions that exist, and after discussions with landowners, stakeholders and regulatory agencies, as appropriate. Measures typically employed include installation of natural barriers using the natural topography to advantage where practicable (e.g., placement of rock barriers, planting of tree and shrub barriers), fencing and posting of signs prohibiting trespass. The Public Awareness Program for the pipeline should also include a discussion of trespass and the potential consequences of unauthorized and/or unlawful entry onto properties along the RoW. It is recommended that the pipeline RoW be routinely monitored for unauthorized activities in the RoW during the course of the Project Operation and Maintenance phase. If unauthorized activities in the RoW are detected, additional measures to stop and or discourage unauthorized activities should be implemented after discussions with landowners, stakeholders and regulatory agencies, as appropriate. Thus, the potential environmental effects from Project-related unauthorized access to the RoW are rated not significant.

Pipeline Rupture or Leak

A pipeline rupture or leak could cause a temporary change in wetland quality and loss of wetland function; however, the likelihood of a pipeline failure (i.e., leak or rupture) occurring is extremely low (refer to Section 2.7.9.1, Incident Probability). The risk of a pipeline failure will be kept low through a comprehensive design process that includes meeting pipeline design standards (i.e., CSA Z662) and codes prescribed by applicable legislation (e.g., NEBA, Onshore Pipeline Regulations), conducting a quantitative risk analysis (QRA) of the pipeline, and implementing a Quality Assurance (QA) plan for Construction. It is recommended that the Proponent develop operation and maintenance procedures for the Project, including a Pipeline IMP that will ensure that regulatory requirements are met, the pipeline is operated and maintained to a high standard, and the probability and volume of unplanned releases of natural gas from the pipeline are minimized. The Pipeline IMP, which should include routine inspections of the pipeline to detect time dependant material defects (e.g., monitoring of corrosion protection measures (i.e., cathodic protection equipment and facilities)), together with operation of the entire system and all of its components within a safe operational envelope, will further reduce the probability of a pipeline rupture or leak from occurring. Thus, the potential environmental effects from a pipeline rupture or leak are rated not significant.

Summary – Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 349

5.5.6 Determination of Significance

Table 5.5.5 evaluates the significance of potential residual environmental effects resulting from any interactions between Project activities and Wetlands, after taking into account any proposed mitigation. The table also considers the level of confidence of the Jacques Whitford Study Team in this determination.

Table 5.5.5 Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix for Wetlands

Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix Valued Environmental Component: WETLANDS

*As determined in consideration of established residual environmental effects rating criteria.

5.5.7 Follow-up and Monitoring

It is recommended that the Proponent develop a follow-up program for wetlands in consultation with the appropriate regulatory authorities. Wetlands within the RoW should be monitored after Construction is completed (typically at 1, 3, and 5 year intervals), to visually assess wetland hydrology, introduction of invasive plant species, and use by recreational vehicles, as was completed for the SJL by AMEC (2005).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 350

5.6 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

5.6.1 Rationale for Selection as Valued Environmental Component

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat was selected as a VEC because of the potential for interactions between Project activities and wildlife, and because of the relationship between wildlife and other biological and physical environments. In particular, this VEC assesses the potential environmental effects of Project activities on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat during Construction, Operation and Maintenance, as well as Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events. In the context of this VEC, birds and bird habitat, other wildlife and wildlife habitat, and species at risk and species of conservation concern (including birds and wildlife species) are assessed as indicators for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat in the Assessment Area.

5.6.2 Environmental Assessment Boundaries

5.6.2.1 Spatial

The spatial boundaries (the “Assessment Area”) for the assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Project on wildlife include the preferred corridor and variants around Rockwood Park, where activities associated with Construction, Operation and Maintenance, and Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events of the Project could potentially result in environmental effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat.

The spatial boundaries (the “Assessment Area”) for the assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Project on wildlife habitat loss and/or degradation include the regional biogeoclimatic zone (i.e., the Valley Lowland and Fundy Coastal Ecoregions) and the alternative terrestrial habitat available within the zones.

5.6.2.2 Temporal

The temporal boundaries for the assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Project on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat include the periods of Construction, and Operation and Maintenance of the Project for the life of the pipeline.

5.6.2.3 Administrative and Technical

Wildlife species are protected federally under SARA. As defined in SARA, "wildlife species" means a species, subspecies, variety or geographically or genetically distinct population of animal, plant or other organism, other than a bacterium or virus, that is wild by nature and (a) is native to Canada; or (b) has extended its range into Canada without human intervention and has been present in Canada for at least 50 years. The purpose of SARA is to protect wildlife species at risk, and their critical habitat.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 351

SARA is administered by Environment Canada, Parks Canada Agency, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Endangered wildlife species are protected provincially under the NB ESA. The purpose of the NB ESA to provide protection to endangered species and their habitats. The NB ESA is administered by NBDNR.

Migratory birds are protected federally under the MBCA. The purpose of this Act is to protect migratory birds and active nests. The MBCA is administered by Environment Canada.

Spatial habitat information used for the assessment includes AC CDC element occurrences for wildlife species at risk and species of conservation concern, maps of deer wintering areas (DWAs), habitat for species at risk and ESAs. Information used for the assessment of wildlife and wildlife habitat was obtained from SARA, the NB ESA, the Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre (AC CDC 2005), NBDNR (2005a), aerial photography (GEODAT 2005), and previous environmental assessments conducted for the Saint John Lateral Pipeline (Washburn & Gillis 1998), the M&NP Mainline Pipeline (Washburn & Gillis 1996), and the International Power Line Project (AMEC 2002). Knowledge of the avifauna potentially affected by the Project is based on avifauna surveys conducted for this Project in July 2005, other information provided by the above sources, and the professional judgement of the Jacques Whitford Study Team.

It is the professional judgement of the Jacques Whitford Study Team that the data available to characterize the existing conditions and existing knowledge of Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat in the Assessment Area regarding the potential Project-VEC interactions, were sufficient to provide a baseline against which the environmental effects of the Project could be assessed. Existing conditions for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat are presented in Section 4.7.

5.6.3 Residual Environmental Effects Rating Criteria

The criteria for significant residual adverse environmental effects for Vegetation (Section 5.4.3) are also to be applied to Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat.

A positive environmental effect occurs when Project activities help to increase species populations and/or diversity.

Environmentally Significant Areas (Wildlife-based)

A positive environmental effect occurs when Project activities help to increase species populations and/or diversity.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 352

5.6.4 Potential Interactions, Issues, and Concerns

This section evaluates the potential for Project-related activities to affect Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat. Table 5.6.1 provides a summary of the potential environmental effects resulting from the Project-VEC interactions, which are discussed below.

Table 5.6.1 Project Activity – Environmental Effects Interaction Matrix for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

Potential Interactions Between Project Activities and Environmental Effects Valued Environmental Component: WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT

Potential Environmental Effect

Project Activities and Physical Works (See Table 3.1.1 for list of specific activities and works) Change in Change Habitat Quality Habitat Fragmentation in Change Habitat Quantity Direct Mortality

5.6.4.1 Construction

Direct loss of wildlife habitat could result from a number of construction activities such as vegetation clearing, grubbing, grading, blasting, and topsoil stripping. These activities could result in direct mortality of migratory birds if they occur during the breeding bird season. Increased activity along the pipeline RoW could also increase avoidance of adjacent terrestrial habitat by wildlife. Although deer in

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 353

Rockwood Park will be temporarily displaced during Construction to other areas of the Park away from the existing power transmission line corridor, no adverse environmental effects are anticipated on the deer population in the Park.

Wood turtle use stream corridors for a large portion of their life, and there have been records of wood turtle in the general vicinity of the preferred corridor (i.e., at Black Brook and Dennis Stream). As such, there is the potential for habitat quality to be adversely affected by clearing and grubbing activities around watercourses and for turtle mortality during Construction at stream crossings.

In those areas where the detailed pipeline route parallels and abuts existing linear RoWs, the clearing and subsequent construction activities within the RoW will widen existing linear RoWs by 30 m thus increasing the magnitude of existing habitat fragmentation. Trenching and pipeline installation activities will produce temporary barriers to wildlife movement.

5.6.4.2 Operation and Maintenance

Operational activities with a potential environmental effect on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat are limited to RoW vegetation maintenance or repairs to the pipeline which could cause a reduction in habitat quality or cause direct mortality. RoW maintenance activities could disturb wildlife inhabiting the RoW habitats and vegetation control measures could affect habitat quality for some wildlife species. Repairs to the pipeline could have similar environmental effects to those that could occur during construction activities such as pipeline installation and trenching.

5.6.4.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events that may occur in association with the Project and may have an adverse environmental effect on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat include hazardous material spills, failure of erosion and sediment controls, forest fires, wildlife encounters, and unauthorized access to the RoW.

Hazardous material spills could be the result of construction activities (e.g., equipment fuelling or faulty vehicle components). Depending on the toxicity of the substance, hazardous material spills may cause direct or indirect mortalities of wildlife by contaminating water, soil, or food sources. Chemicals could be directly adsorbed by animals through dermal contact with contaminated soils or water or ingested via contaminated prey or soil.

There is a potential for erosion control structures (e.g., diversion berms) to fail during heavy precipitation events or flash floods thus adversely affecting wood turtle habitat.

Forest fires induced by a Project-related accident could result in direct wildlife mortalities and a change in terrestrial habitat. Fire may occur as a result of construction, or operation and maintenance activities.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 354

Wildlife encounters, resulting in wildlife mortality, could occur due to increases in human activity during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance.

Unauthorized access to the RoW by ATVs or other motorized vehicles could result in destruction of nests of grassland nesting birds, disturbance of wildlife through excessive noise, and destruction of wood turtle habitat or direct mortality when vehicles drive through watercourses.

5.6.4.4 Rockwood Park

Both of the corridor variants around Rockwood Park could potentially result in the same general interactions with Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat as the preferred corridor, only to a different extent. As a result, the potential environmental effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat (e.g., bats) and associated mitigation would be similar for both the preferred corridor and the assessment of the variants around Rockwood Park. Any site-specific potential interactions and associated mitigation for the variants around Rockwood Park with respect to Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat will be noted separately in the EA as warranted.

5.6.5 Environmental Effects Analysis and Mitigation

5.6.5.1 Construction

This section provides an evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Construction as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.6.2). A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 355

Table 5.6.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT Phase: Construction

Site Preparation Change in habitat Locate RoW adjacent quality (A) to other linear Habitat disturbances (i.e., fragmentation (A) Saint John Lateral, Change in habitat IPL Route) quantity (A) Minimize RoW width Direct mortality (A) and clearing to greatest extent practicable Minimize size of temporary workspaces Confine clearing and 1 2 2/6 R 2 grubbing to RoW Minimize removal of shrubs and grubbing within 30 m of all streams Environmentally sensitive areas flagged and/or fenced prior to commencement of clearing and construction Pipeline Installation Change in habitat Minimize length of quality (A) time that trenches Habitat are left open fragmentation (A) Check open trenches for wildlife such as wood turtles prior to backfilling 1 2 2/6 R 2 Erect fencing around boreholes and pits to protect wildlife Revegetation program implemented Watercourse Crossings Change in habitat Isolate work and quality (A) ensure no wood Habitat turtles present before 1 2 2/2 R 2 fragmentation (A) commencing work Direct mortality (A)

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 356

Table 5.6.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT Phase: Construction

Project Activities and Potential Physical Works Environmental (See Table 3.1.1 for list of Effects Mitigation specific activities and (A=Adverse; works) P=Positive) Magnitude Magnitude Extent Geographic Duration/Frequency Reversibility Ecological/Socio- and Cultural Context Economic Temporary Ancillary Change in habitat Locate RoW adjacent Structures and Facilities quality (A) to other linear Habitat disturbances (i.e., fragmentation (A) Saint John Lateral, 1 2 2/2 R 2 Change in habitat IPL Route) quantity (A) Minimize size of Direct mortality (A) temporary workspaces Key:

A constraint mapping exercise identified important habitat features such as DWAs, mature coniferous forest habitat, AC CDC occurrence records of species at risk and species of conservation concern, habitat for species at risk, migratory bird staging areas, and environmentally significant areas. These constraints were taken into consideration when the preferred corridor was chosen. As well, the pipeline RoW in rural areas will, for the most part, be adjacent to the existing SJL RoW and future IPL RoW. While clearing and construction of the RoW will widen the existing linear corridor by 30 m, thus increasing the magnitude of habitat fragmentation, this is preferred to creating a new RoW through undisturbed forest habitats.

Potential environmental effects that can result from site preparation include the creation of edge habitat and fragmentation of forest patches as well as, for migratory birds, loss of nesting sites and direct mortality of birds or eggs. The establishment of the pipeline RoW will result in the alteration of forest and shrub habitat to grasslands initially, followed by the growth of shrub habitat. The habitat within the pipeline RoW will predominately be shrub, edge habitat, and disturbed habitats.

The environmental effects of this component of the Project are most severe when site preparation activities (e.g., clearing, grubbing, grading, blasting) occur between May and August, inclusive, when most wildlife species are breeding. High levels of activity and noise early in the breeding period may

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 357

displace birds and other wildlife species that are establishing their breeding territory or cause birds to abandon active nest sites and eggs. Clearing and grubbing at any time between May 1 and August 31 could also result in the direct mortality of eggs and/or unfledged nestlings if trees or shrubs containing active nests are felled. Undertaking the site preparation work outside of the breeding season for birds will remove habitat for tree nesting birds; however, the birds have the option of establishing nests in adjacent areas. If adjacent suitable habitat is not available, those birds will not likely nest until nearby habitat becomes available, as most birds return to the same general area from year to year. The result is likely a higher non-breeding population. In the short-term, clearing of mature forest resembles clear- cutting of forest habitat; mature forest becomes unavailable or reduced in the immediate area. During site preparation, clearing and grubbing will be confined to the 30 m wide RoW. The majority of clearing activities, as well as some additional site preparation activities (grubbing, grading, blasting), is planned to occur during the winter months. Similarly, the footprint of temporary workspaces within forested areas should also be minimized. Within 30 m of all streams, the amount of grubbing and grading should be minimized to protect stream habitat.

Linear developments such as pipelines create edge habitats along either side of the RoW. Edges in habitat created by clearing have both positive and adverse implications for birds. Clearing of the RoW will generate additional edge habitats and create open habitat for edge-nesting or old field species. Edge habitats often support a large number and variety of bird species. Edges also tend to attract generalist predators such as raccoons, red fox, coyote, dogs, cats, crows, and jays. The presence of high concentrations of predators along habitat edges can result in these areas becoming reproductive sinks in which large numbers of birds attempt to breed but have poor breeding success. It should be noted that the majority of the preferred corridor mostly affects existing edge habitat located adjacent to the SJL and IPL RoWs. During bird surveys along the preferred corridor, the site that exhibited the greatest species richness (78 species) and the greatest number of individuals (507) was located at the confluence of two pipeline routes (SJL and Lake Utopia Spur off the SJL). This area is predominantly grassland created by the pipeline RoWs, as well as nearby clear cuts.

Establishing the new RoW adjacent to existing linear developments and areas of disturbance can minimize creation of additional edge habitats. As edges have already been created, siting the RoW parallel to the existing SJL RoW and IPL RoW will move the edge habitat by the width of the RoW (30 m), but will not create any new edge environmental effects. Approximately 66% of the preferred corridor length (95 km of 145 km) includes existing RoWs and thus offers the possibility of the RoW to parallel existing or planned future RoWs. In all cases, the resultant corridor width will not approach the 200 m critical distance suggested by a CWS study conducted in Quebec (CWS and FOQ 2002), which suggested that the critical distance between two woodlands must not be greater than 200 m to ensure that adjacent habitat patches will be used as a travel corridor by birds. Resultant total RoW widths will range from 50 m to 80 m, depending on the width of RoW overlap permitted and/or the specific RoW paralleled (i.e., existing SJL RoW or future IPL RoW). The presence of a successful Cooper’s Hawk nest within 200 m of the SJL RoW (Section 4.7, Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat) indicates that this uncommon species will use suitable nesting habitat adjacent to a linear opening.

Trenching and pipeline installation activities will also produce temporary barriers to wildlife movement. It is recommended that breaks of approximately 10 m to 20 m be established in spoil piles and that these breaks coincide with the location of trench plugs to facilitate access across the RoW by wildlife. It

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 358

is also recommended that the ends of open trenches be sloped or stepped to facilitate easy access out of the trench for wildlife.

The potential for loss of wood turtle habitat and individuals can be mitigated by minimizing the amount of grubbing and grading within 30 m of all streams and by only grubbing the pipeline trench, and not the entire RoW, where practicable, within 10 m of stream banks. Openings in the forest canopy as a result of Construction will create additional sunning areas and may constitute a beneficial environmental effect for turtles. To prevent direct mortality of herpetiles during the physical excavation of the pipeline trench, it is recommended that the portion of the stream to be isolated for the watercourse crossing (as per requirements for fish salvage) be inspected to ensure no turtles are present before commencing crossing work. In addition, any trenches that have been open over night should be inspected for wood turtles prior to backfilling.

For planning purposes, three different corridor widths have been defined for the preferred corridor: a 100 m-wide corridor along the Saint John section; a 200 m-wide corridor along the SJL; and a 500 m- wide corridor along the IPL. However, the ultimate RoW for the proposed pipeline will only be 30 m wide. No DWAs intersect the urban corridor section. Of the nine DWAs that intersect the preferred corridor, five intersect the corridor along the SJL and four intersect the corridor along the IPL (Table 5.6.3). Of the DWAs that intersect the preferred corridor, only three have more than 10% of their area within the preferred corridor (Table 5.6.3). The relative amount of area that will be cleared within any of the DWAs that intersect the preferred corridor will be less than 1% for most areas and overall. The greatest amount of any one DWA that will be affected by RoW construction is Lee Settlement where just over 5% of the DWA could fall into the RoW (Table 5.6.3). Table 5.6.3 Amount of DWAs Affected by RoW Construction Area within Area within 30 m Total Area of DWA % of Total DWA DWA Preferred Corridor wide RoW (ha) (ha) Affected by RoW (ha) (estimated) Keyhole Hills (#476601) 415 21.21 3.07 0.74 Joshua Lake (#476501) 463 17.71 2.65 0.57 W. Br. Reservoir 2 744 50.91 7.75 1.04 (#486504) Unnamed (#446501) 222 32.41 4.68 2.11 Lepreau Falls 334 15.01 1.75 0.52 (#476602) Lee Settlement 47 33.42 2.39 5.10 (#436402) Rocky Brook (#436401) 264 11.22 0.35 0.13 Guntree Brook 241 4.32 0.01 0.004 (# 426402) Digdeguash Lake 581 1172 5.86 1.00 (#426403) Totals 3,358 303.10 28.68 0.85 1 200 m-wide corridor 2 500 m-wide corridor Similarly, only one block of mature coniferous forest habitat intersects the preferred corridor (approximately 16.8 ha within the 200 m-wide corridor) and approximately 2.5 ha of this block will be affected by construction of the 30 m-wide RoW.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 359

In forested areas, the duff/topsoil layer should be preserved and stored separately from the subsoil layer. Following pipeline installation, the duff layer should be replaced. A similar protocol should be employed for wetland soils. It is also recommended that trench blocks be installed at either end of wetlands to prevent the pipeline trench from dewatering the wetland, and the period that the pipeline trench is left open be minimized.

Summary – Construction Phase

5.6.5.2 Operation and Maintenance

This section provides an evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Operation and Maintenance as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.6.4). A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

Table 5.6.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT Phase: Operation and Maintenance

Pipeline Maintenance Change in habitat Minimize length of time quality (A) that trenches are left Direct mortality (A) open Check open trenches for wildlife such as 1 1 5/6 R 2 wood turtles prior to backfilling Retain surface soils for reinstatement following maintenance or repairs

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 360

Table 5.6.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT Phase: Operation and Maintenance

RoW Maintenance Change in habitat A WAWA permit will be quality (A) obtained for any Direct mortality (A) mechanical vegetation management within 30 m of a wetland greater than 1 ha or contiguous to a watercourse Only mechanical 1 1 5/6 R 2 vegetation management to be used Vegetation management to occur outside of the breeding season for birds Key:

Operation and maintenance activities that may have a potential environmental effect on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat is limited to RoW vegetation management or maintenance and repairs to the pipeline which could cause a reduction in habitat quality or cause direct mortality to wildlife.

For vegetation management within 30 m of a wetland greater than 1 ha or contiguous to a watercourse, a permit under the Watercourse and Wetland Alteration Regulation will be obtained, as required, and all work will comply with terms and conditions of the approval. All RoW vegetation management will be completed outside the breeding season for birds, and should be performed by manual or mechanical means. No chemical spraying should be undertaken on the RoW; however, limited chemical spraying may be used, where allowed by regulation, to control vegetation growth within the confines of fenced and gravelled meter stations and other station facilities. Only herbicides of low persistence and low ecological toxicity should be used.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 361

It is recommended that repair work to pipelines involving trenching adhere to the same mitigation measures required during construction of the pipeline, including minimizing the time that trenches are left open and checking open trenches for wildlife such as wood turtles prior to backfilling. Surface soils should be retained for reinstatement following maintenance or repair operations.

Disturbance to wildlife could be caused by occasional changes in sound pressure levels due to maintenance, such as from inspection planes flying above the pipeline RoW. However, these high sound levels will occur on an infrequent basis and will attenuate quickly due to their very short duration.

Summary – Operation and Maintenance Phase

5.6.5.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

This section provides an evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.6.5). A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 362

Table 5.6.5 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Hazardous Materials Spill Change in habitat Environmental quality (A) Protection and Safety Direct mortality (A) Management Program Construction Safety Manual Maintenance Safety Manual Emergency Response Plans 1 1 1/1 R 2 Spill Response Procedures Operation and Maintenance Procedures Worker and contractor training Audits and Inspections Erosion and Sediment Change in habitat EPP for Construction Control Failure quality (A) Environmental Direct mortality (A) Protection and Safety Management Plan 1 1 1/1 R 2 Emergency Preparedness and Response Program Employee training Fire Change in habitat Environmental quality (A) Protection and Safety Habitat Management fragmentation (A) Program Direct mortality (A) Operation and 1/2 2 1/1 R 2 Maintenance Procedures Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 363

Table 5.6.5 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Wildlife Encounter Direct mortality (A) Project personnel should not chase, harass, or feed wildlife Vehicles should operate at appropriate speed 1 1 1/1 R 2 and yield to wildlife Proper storage and disposal of construction site wastes that might attract wildlife Worker training Unauthorized Access to Change in habitat Avoidance of RoW quality (A) sensitive wildlife Direct mortality (A) areas by route selection Signage, natural 1 2 1/2 R 2 barriers and fencing Public Awareness Program RoW Monitoring and Surveillance Key:

Accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events that may occur in association with the Project and may have adverse environmental effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat include hazardous material spills, failure of erosion and sediment controls, forest fires, wildlife encounters, and unauthorized access to the RoW. An environmental management framework, comprised of a Pipeline Design and Quality Assurance Program, an Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program, an Emergency

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 364

Preparedness and Response Program, and a Public Awareness Program, will be developed and implemented by the Proponent and should contain specific measures to mitigate potential adverse environmental effects identified from the assessment of Project activities, including accidents, malfunctions and unplanned events. The mitigation measures to be implemented (described in Section 2.8, Environmental Management) are prevention oriented to reduce the risk of accidents, malfunctions and unplanned events occurring as a result of Project construction and operation and maintenance activities.

Hazardous Material Spills

The likelihood of a hazardous materials spill during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance is low. Few wildlife species are likely to be at risk as a result of a hazardous materials spill. A Construction Safety Manual, a Maintenance Safety Manual and operation and maintenance procedures will be prepared and will prescribe measures to prevent spills of hazardous materials. Further, the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program during Construction, and Emergency Response Plans developed for Operation and Maintenance, should include spill response procedures that will direct workers and contractors to quickly contain and cleanup spills should they occur, and prevent the hazardous or toxic materials from entering vulnerable areas such as watercourses. It is recommended that workers and contractors be given training on the applicable sections of the safety manuals and procedures, and safety program audits and site inspections will ensure compliance with procedures in the field. The handling of fuel and other hazardous materials will be in compliance with the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System and should be located in work areas away from vulnerable areas (e.g., watercourses). Operation and Maintenance procedures should ensure activities involving hazardous materials or toxic substances (e.g., fuelling equipment) are performed safely and activities where hazardous materials are stored or used are located well away from vulnerable areas. It is recommended that engineered barriers (e.g., secondary containment of storage tanks) be used to ensure that any spills are confined within a small area and will not disperse in the environment to any great extent. Thus, the potential environmental effects from Project-related hazardous materials spills are rated not significant.

Erosion and Sediment Control Failure

There is a potential for erosion control structures (e.g., diversion berms) to fail during heavy precipitation events or flash floods thus adversely affecting wood turtle habitat. To reduce the likelihood of these failures, protection measures should be followed as described in the EPP. Specifically, it is recommended that erosion control structures be monitored regularly and maintained in a functional condition until the grass on seeded slopes is sufficiently established to be an effective erosion deterrent. All erosion control structures should be installed and maintained as per WAWA permit(s) for the Project. Any erosion control structures found to be damaged should be repaired immediately. Thus, the potential environmental effects from Project-related erosion and sediment control failure are rated not significant Thus, the potential environmental effects from Project-related erosion and sediment control failure are rated not significant.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 365

Fire

A fire that is allowed to burn uncontrollably would modify habitat and could result in wildlife mortality, especially during the breeding season. However the likelihood of a forest fire during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance is low.

Thus, the potential environmental effects from Project-related fires and/or forest fires are rated not significant.

Wildlife Encounters

The noise and activity related to pipeline construction should minimize the potential for wildlife encounters. During routine maintenance activities, personnel should be aware of the potential for wildlife encounters and should be trained to respond appropriately. Project personnel should not harass or feed wildlife and waste materials that could attract wildlife to work sites should be appropriately stored and disposed. All vehicles should operate at appropriate speeds and yield to wildlife. The incidence of wildlife encounters is expected to be low. Thus, the potential environmental effects from Project-related wildlife encounters are rated not significant.

Unauthorized Access to RoW

Unauthorized access to the RoW could occur during Construction, or Operation and Maintenance of the Project. Unauthorized access to the RoW by ATVs or other motorized vehicles could result in destruction of nests of grassland nesting birds, disturbance of wildlife through excessive noise, and destruction of wood turtle habitat or mortality when vehicles drive through watercourses.

The RoW will be located to avoid, wherever practicable, interactions with sensitive wildlife habitat, thus minimizing the potential environmental effects of unauthorized access to the RoW by motorized vehicles. It is recommended that the measures be employed along the pipeline route to prevent the

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 366

RoW being used for unwanted ATV and snowmobile traffic. The specific measures to be employed will be determined after the detailed pipeline route has been selected and should be based on the specific geographic conditions that exist, and after discussions with landowners, stakeholders and regulatory agencies, as appropriate. Measures typically employed include installation of natural barriers using the natural topography to advantage where practicable (e.g., placement of rock barriers, planting of tree and shrub barriers), fencing and posting of signs prohibiting trespass. The Public Awareness Program for the pipeline should also include a discussion of trespass and the potential consequences of unauthorized and/or unlawful entry onto properties along the RoW. It is recommended that the pipeline RoW be routinely monitored for unauthorized activities in the RoW during the course of the Project Operation and Maintenance phase. If unauthorized activities in the RoW are detected, then additional measures to stop and or discourage unauthorized activities should be implemented after discussions with landowners, stakeholders and regulatory agencies, as appropriate. Given the mitigation in place, potential Project-related adverse environmental effects from unauthorized RoW access are unlikely to occur and are rated not significant.

Summary – Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

5.6.5.4 Species at Risk, Species of Conservation Concern, and ESAs

It is not expected that Project activities will have significant residual adverse environmental effects on wildlife species at risk, wildlife species of conservation concern, or common and/or secure wildlife species. The pipeline RoW will be routed so that there will not be a substantive loss of ESAs (i.e., less than 10%) as a result of the Project.

5.6.6 Determination of Significance

Table 5.6.6 evaluates the significance of potential residual environmental effects resulting from any interactions between Project activities and Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat, after taking into account any proposed mitigation. The table also considers the level of confidence of the Jacques Whitford Study Team in this determination.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 367

Table 5.6.6 Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix Valued Environmental Component: WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT

Residual Likelihood Level of Phase Environmental Confidence Probability of Scientific Effects Rating* Occurrence Certainty Construction NS 3 3 3 Operation and Maintenance NS 3 3 3 Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events NS 3 1 3 Project Overall NS 3 3 3 Key: Residual Environmental Effects Rating: Probability of Occurrence of Residual Environmental Effects: based on professional judgement S = Significant Adverse Environmental Effects 1 = Low Probability of Occurrence NS = Not-significant Adverse Environmental Effects 2 = Medium Probability of Occurrence P = Positive Environmental Effects 3 = High Probability of Occurrence

*As determined in consideration of established residual environmental effects rating criteria.

Based on consideration of the potential environmental effects of all phases of the Project, the proposed mitigation, and the residual environmental effects significance ratings criteria, the residual adverse environmental effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat are rated not significant.

5.6.7 Follow-up and Monitoring

It is recommended that an onsite inspector be present during pipeline construction to ensure that the EPP and other aspects of the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program, and any permit conditions are met. Inspections of open pipeline trenches should be made to ensure that no wildlife (particularly herpetiles) become trapped or are buried in the trenches.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 368

5.7 Health and Safety

5.7.1 Rationale for Selection as Valued Environmental Component

Health and Safety is a component of the environment that relates to the general public and the site workers. Health and Safety was selected as a VEC because of public concern and the potential for the Project to result in environmental effects to the public and site workers. In particular, this VEC assesses the potential environmental effects of Project activities on the public and workers during Construction, Operation and Maintenance, as well as a consequence of potential Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events.

Key aspects of the Health and Safety VEC will be assessed separately with respect to the public and site workers. This approach recognizes that the nature of the Project’s potential environmental effects would be different for general members of the public as opposed to site workers.

5.7.2 Environmental Assessment Boundaries

The EA focuses on people who may be present (from time to time or continuously) within the Project area and may be exposed to routine activities, and/or potential accidents that could result in adverse environmental effects to Health and Safety. These people fall into two categories: members of the general public (including landowners); and workers. The assessment of environmental effects of the Project on the public focuses on those persons who may experience Project-related environmental effects regardless of where they may otherwise live or travel. The assessment of environmental effects of the Project on the general public will include potential environmental effects to public health, as well as potential environmental effects to public well being (i.e., emotional or social stressors) that may result from concern over operations-related pipeline accidents and malfunctions. The assessment of environmental effects of the Project on the workers focuses on those persons who may experience Project-related environmental effects as an employee or contractor for the Project. The assessment of environmental effects of the Project on the workers does not include workers at adjacent facilities or persons in the Assessment Area in the course of their business as visitors. In this case, these workers are considered members of the public.

5.7.2.1 Spatial

The spatial boundaries (the “Assessment Area”) for the assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Project on Health and Safety include the preferred corridor and variants around Rockwood Park and the Emergency Planning Zone(s). Also included are areas adjacent to the preferred corridor and variants around Rockwood Park, where activities associated with Construction, Operation and Maintenance, and potential Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events of the Project could interact with Health and Safety. A risk assessment (described in Section 2.8, Environmental Management) will be used to delineate the Emergency Planning Zone(s) for the Project, and will be used for developing the various constituents of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Program. Depending on the criteria used in a hazard assessment, an Emergency Planning

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 369

Zone for a 762 mm (30 inches) outside diameter pipeline operating at 9,930 kPag (1,440 psig) could be as large as approximately 800 m (i.e., an 800 m radius from the pipeline). For the purpose of this EA, the Emergency Planning Zone will be 800 m from the pipe.

For routine construction, and operation and maintenance activities, the prediction of air emissions and noise determine the boundaries for the health environmental effects analysis aspects of the health and safety related to the Project (Section 5.1, Atmospheric Environment). For natural gas-related accidents (i.e., fire, pipeline rupture or natural gas leaks) the specific boundaries reflect the results of the quantitative risk analysis (QRA) described in Sections 2.7.9 (Pipeline Ruptures or Leaks) and 2.8.2 (Brunswick Pipeline Environmental Management Framework), and the Emergency Planning Zone(s). For workers, the spatial boundary for the EA has been established as the pipeline RoW, including temporary work areas required at watercourse crossings and construction staging areas, marshalling yards, storage areas and access roads to the RoW, the metering station, valve and launcher/receiver sites.

5.7.2.2 Temporal

The temporal boundaries for the assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Project on Health and Safety were established by determining the period of time over which the Project specific environmental effects are to be considered. They are identified as follows:

Construction activities related to site preparation, planned to occur during the winter of 2007/2008, and construction activities related to pipeline installation, watercourse crossings, and temporary ancillary structures and features, planned to occur over during the summer and fall of 2008; and

Operation and maintenance activities related to the presence of the pipeline, maintenance of the pipeline, and maintenance of the RoW after natural gas has been introduced into the pipeline, for the operating life of the pipeline.

The potential environmental effects of the Project on Health and Safety are limited to the times when Project related activities are being carried out and will cease to exist when operations have been terminated.

5.7.2.3 Administrative and Technical

The administrative boundary for the assessment of Health and Safety is based on the jurisdictional boundaries established under the applicable occupational health and safety laws of the Province of New Brunswick. Worker safety during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance will be assured by compliance with the requirements of various governing standards including the Canada Labour Code, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and Regulations, the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System Regulations, the New Brunswick Employment Standards Act, and the New Brunswick Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 370

The technical limitations of the assessment pertain mainly to regulatory limits with respect to NEBA, the Onshore Pipeline Regulations, 1999 under NEBA, and the codes and standards referenced by this legislation for the design, Construction, and Operation and Maintenance of the pipeline.

It is the professional judgement of the Jacques Whitford Study Team that the data available to characterize the existing conditions and existing knowledge of public and worker health and safety in the Assessment Area regarding the potential Project-VEC interactions, were sufficient to provide a baseline against which the environmental effects of the Project could be assessed. Existing conditions for Health and Safety are presented in Section 4.8.

5.7.3 Residual Environmental Effects Rating Criteria

A significant residual adverse environmental effect would occur where serious injury (e.g., permanently disabling) or a fatality could arise as a result of an Accident, Malfunction, or Unplanned Event.

A positive environmental effect occurs when the Project results in a decrease in the likelihood (from present conditions) that a serious injury or loss of life could arise.

5.7.4 Potential Interactions, Issues, and Concerns

This section evaluates the potential for Project-related activities to affect Health and Safety. Table 5.7.1 provides a summary of the potential environmental effects resulting from the Project-VEC interactions, which are discussed below.

Table 5.7.1 Project Activity – Environmental Effects Interaction Matrix for Health and Safety

Potential Interactions Between Project Activities and Environmental Effects Valued Environmental Component: HEALTH AND SAFETY

Potential Environmental Effect Project Activities and Physical Works Change in Public Health Change in Worker Health (See Table 3.1.1 for list of specific activities and works) and Safety and Safety Construction Site Preparation Pipeline Installation Watercourse Crossings Temporary Ancillary Structures and Facilities Operation and Maintenance Project Presence Pipeline Maintenance RoW Maintenance Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events Hazardous Materials Spill Erosion and Sediment Control Failure

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 371

Table 5.7.1 Project Activity – Environmental Effects Interaction Matrix for Health and Safety

Potential Interactions Between Project Activities and Environmental Effects Valued Environmental Component: HEALTH AND SAFETY

Potential Environmental Effect Project Activities and Physical Works Change in Public Health Change in Worker Health (See Table 3.1.1 for list of specific activities and works) and Safety and Safety Fire Occupational Injury Wildlife Encounter Temporary Watercourse Crossing Washout Disturbance of Unidentified Archaeological or Heritage Resource Unauthorized Access to RoW Pipeline Rupture or Leak

Because of the stringent regulatory requirements afforded to the design, construction, and operation of pipelines, and the comprehensive health and safety policy and procedures adopted by the Proponent for its workers and contractors, adverse potential environmental effects would not be a result of normal construction, and operation and maintenance activities. A strict regimen of preventative environment, health and safety management policies and procedures (e.g., Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program) will be implemented with a goal of preventing or avoiding accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events. The only substantive interactions with public health and safety could only result from Accidents, Malfunctions, or Unplanned Events.

5.7.4.1 Construction

Public Health and Safety

Construction activities will, for the most part, be conducted entirely within the Project RoW, and members of the public will not have unsupervised access to the RoW during Construction. As such, the public will not be exposed to most Construction activities. In urban areas, Construction has the potential to temporarily disrupt traffic flow and the normal living activities of local residents that may affect public well being. However, the duration of pipeline construction is short-term, with approximately 145 km of pipeline being installed within a 9 to 12 month period and any disruptions to local communities from Construction would be temporary (i.e., less than a few days). Major road crossings will be slip bored unless prohibited by soil conditions and would not disrupt traffic flow. The preferred corridor in urban areas has, to the greatest extent practicable, avoided developed areas and for the most part, follows existing RoWs and industrial areas. Therefore, Project-related environmental effects to public Health and Safety, including public well being, resulting from normal construction activities along the pipeline are not anticipated.

The routine construction activities that may affect public health and safety are those that generate dust or noise. Noise will be generated from the clearing of the RoW, heavy equipment operation, and construction activities (e.g., blasting). Dust will be generated by site preparation activities and blasting. In rural areas, Construction has the potential to disrupt public well being by temporarily restricting the

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 372

use of watercourses and the land intersected by the RoW by local residents for recreation or by Aboriginal peoples for traditional purposes.

Dust and noise is assessed in Section 5.1 (Atmospheric Environment). The likely environmental effects of Project-related dust and noise during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance have been determined to be not significant. Although there may be significant environmental effects to air quality as a result of an accidental event, this is not likely to occur.

Temporary restrictions to use of land for recreational purposes is assessed in Section 5.9 (Land and Resource Use), where the environmental effects of Project-related restrictions in land use during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance, including Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events, have been assessed and determined to be not significant. Temporary restrictions to use of land and resources for traditional purposes by Aboriginal peoples is assessed in Section 5.8 (Traditional Land and Resource Use), where the environmental effects of Project-related restrictions to land use for traditional purposes by Aboriginal peoples during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance, including Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events, have been assessed and determined to be not significant. Therefore, potential environmental effects to the cultural and social well-being of the local communities and to Aboriginal peoples as a result of Project-related construction activities are not anticipated.

Worker Health and Safety

During Construction, workers may be exposed to noise, dust, and hazardous chemicals resulting directly from the construction activities themselves or indirectly from the materials and equipment required for Construction (e.g., fuels, lubricants, cleaning agents). Conventional construction accidents related to working near heavy equipment, excavations, and watercourses, blasting, handling materials construction, welding, and RoW clearing may also occur.

Routine activities that have the potential to affect worker health and safety in Construction relate to the construction activities within the RoW. These activities include, but are not limited to, potential exposure to noise, dust, and hazardous chemicals, and conventional construction hazards related to hoisting and rigging accidents, working around heavy equipment, excavations, and welding and cutting.

Environmental effects resulting from routine construction activities are expected to be low in magnitude since the Construction Safety Manual will prescribe protective measures (e.g., preparation of safe work procedures, use of personal protective equipment) to mitigate potential hazards (e.g., noise, hazardous chemical handling and conventional construction hazards) and to ensure the Proponent’s policy and applicable regulations are met (e.g., Canada Labour Code, Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and Regulations, Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System Regulations, Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program). Similarly, contractors selected to work on the Project should be required to have safety policies and procedures that will meet the Proponent’s policy and applicable regulations. Only Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events will result in potential environmental effects on worker Health and Safety.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 373

5.7.4.2 Operation and Maintenance

Public Health and Safety

Operation and maintenance activities will, for the most part, be conducted entirely within the Project RoW, metering stations, and valve and launcher/receiver sites, and members of the public will not have unsupervised access to these areas during Operation and Maintenance. Further, these areas, with the exception of the RoW, will be fenced in and monitored to prevent unauthorized access. As such, the public will not be exposed to most operation and maintenance activities. During Operation and Maintenance, air emissions (combustible gases) may be emitted in a controlled fashion and at levels that are within regulatory limits (Section 5.1, Atmospheric Environment). Environmental effects on public health and safety are therefore rated not significant.

Worker Health and Safety

Operation and maintenance activities will be governed by the Maintenance Safety Manual and a comprehensive set of operating procedures. The Proponent will also implement an Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program. The operation and maintenance activities will include potential exposure to hazardous chemicals, and conventional operations hazards related to the operation and maintenance of the pipeline. Environmental effects resulting from routine operation activities are expected to be low in magnitude since the Maintenance Safety Manual and associated procedures will prescribe protective measures from the operational hazards that will ensure the Proponent’s policy and applicable occupational safety regulations are met. Routine atmospheric emissions (Section 5.1) meet regulatory requirements (environmental and occupational health and safety), and are therefore rated not significant.

5.7.4.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Public Health and Safety

For the most part, Project construction activities will be conducted entirely within the Project RoW, and members of the public will not have unsupervised access to the RoW during Construction. As such, the public will not be exposed to most construction activities. During Construction, the potential environmental effects to public health and safety are related to potential accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events associated with hazardous materials spills that migrate beyond the pipeline RoW and associated areas, erosion and sediment control failure in Protected Watersheds (i.e., those supplying drinking water to communities), or fires (i.e., forest fires) caused during Construction. Receptors for environmental effects from hazardous material spills would be the residents of communities using local water resources for potable purposes. Receptors of environmental effects from fires would be the residents adjacent to the pipeline RoW. Project operation and maintenance activities may also result in hazardous material spills at metering stations, valve and launcher/receiver sites that may migrate beyond the site boundaries.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 374

During Operation and Maintenance, the potential environmental effects to public health and safety are related to potential accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events associated with pipeline loss of containment (i.e., pipeline leaks or ruptures) and fires. Only those landowners and residents within the pipeline Emergency Planning Zone(s) would be considered receptors for these potential environmental effects.

During Operation and Maintenance, unauthorized access to previously inaccessible properties (i.e., unsupervised or controlled access to lands by persons other than the landowner) to the RoW for recreational purposes (e.g., access to watercourses for fishing or recreational all terrain vehicle (ATV) use) could result in public accidents (e.g., ATV accident). The level of Project activity in the RoW during Construction will be high, in many areas impassable, and Construction will only occur for a relatively short period of time (i.e., less than 1 year). Therefore, it is unlikely that accidents from unauthorized access to the RoW will occur during Construction.

Erosion and sediment control failure relates to water quality and has been assessed in Section 5.2 (Water Resources), where the environmental effects of Project-related environmental effects on water resources and water quality during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance, including Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events, have been assessed and determined to be not significant.

Hazardous material spills that may occur during Construction, or Operation and Maintenance of the pipeline that may migrate beyond the pipeline RoW or site boundaries would occur from spills to the ground entering the groundwater, or spills that enter watercourses. Hazardous materials spills into watercourses and/or that may enter the groundwater relates to water quality and is assessed in Section 5.2 (Water Resources), where the environmental effects of Project-related environmental effects on water resources and water quality during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance, including Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events, have been assessed and may be significant but are unlikely to occur.

During Operation and Maintenance, the potential environmental effects to public health and safety also relate to potential environmental effects to public well being (i.e., emotional or socio stressors) resulting from public concern that operation-related pipeline accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events may occur.

Worker Health and Safety

Routine activities that have the potential to affect worker health and safety during Construction relate to the construction activities within the RoW. These activities include, but are not limited to, potential exposure to noise, dust, and hazardous chemicals, and conventional construction hazards related to hoisting and rigging accidents, working around heavy equipment, excavations, and welding and cutting.

During Operation and Maintenance, workers may be exposed to noise, dust, and hazardous chemicals spills resulting directly from the operation activities themselves or indirectly from the materials and equipment required for operation (e.g., fuels, lubricants, cleaning agents). Conventional operation and maintenance accidents related to working near heavy equipment, maintenance work on metering and other equipment associated with pipeline operation, welding, and maintaining the RoW may also occur.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 375

Workers may also be exposed to natural gas released during routine maintenance work, from leaking pipe components (e.g., valves and fittings) or as a result of loss on containment in the pipeline (i.e., rupture). Fires and explosions, although unlikely, may also result from uncontrolled releases of natural gas.

During Operation and Maintenance, the potential environmental effects to worker health and safety relate to potential accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events associated with hazardous material spills, occupational injury, pipeline loss of containment (i.e., pipeline leaks or ruptures), and fires.

5.7.4.4 Rockwood Park

Variants to avoid Rockwood Park (see Section 2.2.2.4, Selection of the Preferred Corridor) were also evaluated with respect to potential environmental effects to Health and Safety. The mitigation put in place during Construction and Operation and Maintenance of the pipeline will ensure the likelihood of potential environmental effects to Health and Safety is very low. Health and Safety interactions encountered for either of the corridor variants around Rockwood Park would not change the assessment or the rating of significance for Health and Safety.

However, locating the pipeline north or south of Rockwood Park, rather than along an existing power transmission line RoW in the Park (the preferred corridor), would result in an incrementally higher number of residences falling within the pipeline Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ). Further, if the north variant around Rockwood Park is selected, then the pipeline would be located closer to the Saint John Regional Hospital than the preferred corridor or the south variant. Specifically, the north variant would locate the pipeline approximately 140 m from the hospital, well within the EPZ (Figure 2.2.6). If either the preferred corridor or south variant around Rockwood Park is selected, then the Saint John Regional Hospital would not fall within the Project’s EPZ.

Both of the corridor variants around Rockwood Park could potentially result in the same general interactions with Health and Safety as the preferred corridor, only to a different extent. As a result, the potential environmental effects on Health and Safety and associated mitigation would be similar for both the preferred corridor and the assessment of the variants around Rockwood Park. Any site- specific potential interactions and associated mitigation for the variants around Rockwood Park with respect to Health and Safety will be noted separately in the EA as warranted.

5.7.5 Environmental Effects Analysis and Mitigation

5.7.5.1 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

This section provides an evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.7.2). A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 376

Table 5.7.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Health and Safety

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: HEALTH AND SAFETY Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Hazardous Materials Spill Change in public Construction Safety health and safety Manual (A) Maintenance Safety Manual Spill Response Procedures Operation and Maintenance Procedures Worker and contractor 1 1 1/1 R 2 training Audits and Inspections Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan Change in Construction Safety worker health Manual and safety (A) Maintenance Safety Manual Spill Response Procedures Operation and Maintenance Procedures Worker and contractor 2 1 1/1 R 2 training Audits and Inspections Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 377

Table 5.7.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Health and Safety

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: HEALTH AND SAFETY Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Occupational Injury Change in Construction Safety worker health Manual and safety (A) Maintenance Safety Manual Contractor Selection and Contract Management Operation and Maintenance Procedures Worker and contractor 3 1 1/2 I 2 training Audits and Inspections Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan Unauthorized Access to Change in public Signage, natural barriers RoW health and safety and fencing (A) Public Awareness Program RoW Monitoring and Surveillance 1 1 2/1 R 2 Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 378

Table 5.7.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Health and Safety

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: HEALTH AND SAFETY Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Pipeline Rupture or Leak Change in public CSA Z662 Design health and safety Standards (A)) Quantitative Risk Analysis Construction Quality Assurance Operation and Maintenance Procedures Worker and contractor training Pipeline IMP 2 1 1/1 R 2 Public Awareness Program RoW Monitoring and Surveillance Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 379

Table 5.7.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Health and Safety

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: HEALTH AND SAFETY Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Change in CSA Z662 Design worker health Standards and safety (A) Quantitative Risk Analysis Construction Quality Assurance Construction Safety Manual Maintenance Safety Manual Operation and Maintenance Procedures Worker and contractor 2 1 1/1 R 2 training Pipeline IMP Public Awareness Program Audits and Inspections RoW Monitoring and Surveillance Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 380

Table 5.7.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Health and Safety

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: HEALTH AND SAFETY Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Fire Change in public CSA Z662 Design health and safety Standards (A) Quantitative Risk Analysis Construction Quality Assurance Operation and Maintenance Procedures Worker and contractor training Pipeline IMP Public Awareness 3 2 1/1 I 2 Program Continuing Education for First Responders RoW Monitoring and Surveillance Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 381

Table 5.7.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Health and Safety

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: HEALTH AND SAFETY Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Change in CSA Z662 Design worker health Standards and safety (A) Quantitative Risk Analysis Construction Quality Assurance Construction Safety Manual Maintenance Safety Manual Operation and Maintenance Procedures Worker and contractor 3 1 1/1 I 2 training Pipeline IMP Public Awareness Program Audits and Inspections RoW Monitoring and Surveillance Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan Key:

Magnitude: Geographic Extent: Frequency: Ecological/Socio-cultural and Economic 1 = Low: e.g., no environmental effects 1 = <1 km2 1 = <11 events/year Context: beyond accident location, non lost time 2 = 1-10 km2 2 = 11 - 50 events/year 1 = Relatively pristine area or area not injuries, affecting only those involved in the 3 = 11-100 km2 3 = 51 - 100 events/year adversely affected by human activity. accident, malfunction, or unplanned event. 4 = 101 - 1,000 km2 4 = 101 - 200 2 = Evidence of adverse environmental 2 = Medium: e.g., environmental effects 5 = 1,001 - 10,000 km2 events/year effects. temporarily beyond accident location, lost 6 = >10,000 km2 5 = >200 events/year time injuries, affecting persons not directly 6 = continuous involved in the accident, malfunction, or Duration: N/A = Not Applicable unplanned event. 1 = <1 month Reversibility: (A) = adverse 3 = High: e.g., long-term environmental effects 2 = 1 - 12 months R = Reversible (P) = positive at or beyond accident location, serious 3 = 13 - 36 months I = Irreversible injury or loss of life, affecting regional 4 = 37 - 72 months population. 5 = >72 months

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 382

Program, an Emergency Preparedness and Response Program, and a Public Awareness Program, will be implemented to ensure that the Proponent’s Environment, Health & Safety Policy objectives are achieved. Specific plans and procedures should be prepared within this environmental management framework to mitigate potential adverse environmental effects to public and worker health and safety identified from the assessment of Project activities, including accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events.

The potential for accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events exists for all phases of the Project and could affect both the general public and workers. Accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events will be prevented and will be mitigated by the implementation of the environmental management framework, described in Section 2.8 (Environmental Management), and summarized in the following text (note: the underlined portions of the text below identifies the mitigation referenced in Table 5.7.2).

Pipeline Design and Quality Assurance Program (Section 2.8.2.1):

the pipeline design will be in accordance with the design criteria, specifications, programs, manuals, procedures measures and plans identified in the CSA Z662 Design Standards (CSA 2003a);

a quantitative risk analysis (QRA) has been conducted on the preferred corridor (Bercha 2006), consistent with the guidelines established in the CSA Z662 standard; and

a Quality Assurance Program should be implemented to ensure that construction materials used meet the pipeline design specifications.

Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program (Section 2.8.2.2):

safety policy and procedures for pipeline construction (i.e., a Construction Safety Manual) will be prepared for the Project;

safety policy and procedures for pipeline Operation and Maintenance (i.e., a Maintenance Safety Manual) will be prepared for the Project;

Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) for Construction will be prepared for the Project that should prescribe work procedures, methods and measures to protect the environment during Construction, including:

Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines to ensure water quality is maintained during pipeline installation and watercourse crossings; and

Spill Response Procedures to prevent and contain hazardous material toxic substance spills during Construction.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 383

program audits and inspections should be conducted to ensure that the environmental protection and safety procedures are being implemented effectively, deficiencies recorded and corrective actions taken;

comprehensive operation and maintenance manuals should describe safe work plans and procedures, and should outline the requirements for worker and contractor training in health and safety policy and procedures, and environmental protection policy and procedures;

contractor selection and contract management processes, that integrate health and safety requirements into the pre-qualification, selection, and performance evaluation of contractors working on the Project should be implemented;

a Pipeline Integrity Management Plan (Pipeline IMP) to detect pipeline defects and prevent pipeline ruptures will be prepared;

routine pipeline monitoring and surveillance program should be conducted to identify potential operational problems and/or unauthorized activities in the RoW; and

installation of natural barriers, signage, and fencing to prevent unauthorized access to the RoW.

Emergency Preparedness and Response Program (Section 2.8.2.3);

a Field Emergency Response Plan based on Emergency Planning Zones established by a hazard assessment, NEB requirements and the CSA Z731-95 standards will be prepared for the Project; and

a continuing education program for first responders (i.e., fire departments, police, emergency management organizations), including ongoing training and conducting emergency drills will be implemented.

Public Awareness Program (Section 2.8.2.4);

public awareness and education will be implemented in accordance with NEB requirements; and

landowners and stakeholders (e.g., communities and local governance) will be consulted on an ongoing basis throughout Operation and Maintenance.

A discussion of the principal accidents of concern and mitigation relating to health and safety are provided below.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 384

Hazardous Materials Spill

The handling of fuel and other hazardous materials will be in compliance with the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and Workplace Hazardous Material Information System and should be located in work areas away from vulnerable areas such as watercourses. Operation and Maintenance procedures should be prepared that will ensure activities involving hazardous materials or toxic substances (e.g., fuelling equipment) are performed safely and activities where hazardous materials are stored or used are located well away from vulnerable areas (e.g., watercourses). It is recommended that engineered barriers (e.g., secondary containment of storage tanks) be used to ensure that any spills are confined within a small area and will not disperse in the environment to any great extent. A Construction Safety Manual, a Maintenance Safety Manual, and operation and maintenance procedures will be prepared and will prescribe measures to prevent spills and protect workers from hazardous materials. Further, the EPP during Construction and Emergency Response Plans developed for Operation and Maintenance will include spill response procedures that will direct workers and contractors to quickly contain and clean-up spills should they occur and prevent hazardous or toxic materials from entering vulnerable areas such as watercourses. It is recommended that workers and contractors be given training on the applicable sections of the safety manuals and procedures, and safety program audits and site inspections will ensure compliance with procedures in the field.

Although hazardous material spills represent a potential to adversely affect public health and safety, the implementation of the mitigation described above provides measures to ensure that the magnitude, duration, geographic extent, and likelihood of a hazardous material spill is low. The potential environmental effects to public health and safety resulting from hazardous material spills into watercourses and/or that may enter the groundwater relates to water quality, which has been assessed in Section 5.2 (Water Resources). It was determined that the environmental effects of Project-related environmental effects on water resources and water quality for all Project phases could be significant, but are unlikely to occur.

Although hazardous material spills represent a potential to adversely affect worker health and safety, the Construction Safety Manual and Maintenance Safety Manual will prescribe measures to protect workers (i.e., personal protective equipment) when handling hazardous materials. Further, the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program during Construction will include spill response procedures that should provide measures to ensure that the likelihood of a hazardous material spill is low and potential spills are small and in areas that would not pose a risk to public health and safety or the environment.

Occupational Injury

Conventional accidents during all Project phases could cause potential adverse environmental effects to worker health and safety. However, conventional accidents that could result in occupational injuries will be addressed by the Proponent’s Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program and a commitment to maintaining a high level of safety in all of the Proponent’s operations. The principle accidents, malfunctions, or unplanned events of concern relating to Health and Safety are related to conventional hazards posed by undertaking construction, and operation and maintenance activities.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 385

Occupational injuries related to the transport of natural gas will, for the most part, be addressed by the measures to reduce the probability and severity of loss of pipeline containment (i.e., ruptures/leaks) and fires, and are discussed in the following sections.

Occupational injuries resulting from conventional accidents will be addressed by the Proponent’s Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program. A Construction Safety Manual, a Maintenance Safety Manual, and operation and maintenance procedures will be prepared and should describe how to perform work safely and prevent accidents, and prescribe measures, such as use of personal protective equipment, that will mitigate the environmental effects of accidents if they occur. It is recommended that workers and contractors be trained in the policies and procedures contained in the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program. Safety program audits and site inspections should also be implemented throughout the Project Construction, and Operation and Maintenance phases to ensure compliance with program policy and procedures.

Contractor safety is of particular importance during pipeline construction, and a key objective of the Proponent’s Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program will be to reduce contractor accidents and occupational injuries. To this end, only contractors should be selected that have comprehensive health and safety programs and a good track record of safety performance. Candidate contractors for construction should be pre-qualified based on a demonstrated safety track record and an established health and safety program for its workers. Contractors selected to work on the pipeline construction should be required to develop comprehensive safe work plans, subject to review and approval by the Proponent, for the construction work they will be performing. During Construction, it is recommended that contractor compliance with the approved construction safe work procedures and the requirements of the Proponent’s Environment, Health & Safety Policy and Construction Safety Manual be monitored. Finally, a post-work evaluation of contractor safety performance and compliance with applicable health and safety policy and procedures should be used to confirm the contractor’s qualifications for future work with the Proponent.

The frequency of occupational injuries (i.e., lost time injuries per 100 full-time equivalent workers) resulting from the construction and operation and maintenance of NEB regulated natural gas pipelines is low compared to other industries (Section 4.8, Health and Safety). The overall lost time injury frequency (per 100 full-time equivalent workers) rates for NEB regulated pipelines, including contractors, are well below industry norms in New Brunswick. The lost time injury frequency rate for all industries reported for New Brunswick in 2004 was 3.43, and the lost time injury frequency rate for New Brunswick focus industries (logging, sawmills, garages, nursing homes) was 6.74 in 2004 (WHSCC 2005). In comparison, the maximum overall lost time injury frequency rate for NEB regulated industries over the last 5 years was 1.99. For the last 5 years, M&NP’s overall injury frequency rate was 2.07, and during the heavy construction period between 1999 and 2001, the maximum injury frequency was 2.77.

Although this injury rate is low in relation to industries in New Brunswick, the Proponent’s Environment, Health & Safety Policy, and implementation of the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program, contractor selection, contract management processes, worker and contractor training, and audits and site inspections will further reduce the probability of injuries occurring.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 386

Pipeline Rupture or Leak

Ruptures releasing significant amounts of natural gas from the pipeline during the Project Operation and Maintenance phase could have environmental effects on worker and public health and safety. Potential environmental effects to public and worker health and safety would result from the ignition of natural gas released to the environment from a rupture of the pipeline. Ruptures releasing natural gas could not occur during the Project Construction phase.

Natural gas is odourless, colourless, non-corrosive, and non-toxic. However, as with any gaseous material besides air and oxygen, accidental natural gas releases can cause asphyxiation in an unventilated confinement provided they are of sufficient volume to cause displacement of the breathable air. Natural gas is lighter than air, and when released to the atmosphere it disperses quickly and tends to rise. Natural gas releases outdoors are generally hazardous only if they are ignited and the hazards are primarily those associated with thermal radiation or burn injuries.

Ruptures in NEB regulated pipelines are low in frequency (Section 4.8, Health and Safety). The normalized number of ruptures for NEB regulated natural gas systems is 0.049 per 1000 km-years (Jeglic 2004). There has been only one small gas release resulting from a pressure relief valve (operating as per design) on the M&NP Canada pipeline system to date. If the rupture frequency for the Project (approximately 145 km) is assumed to be the average rupture frequency for NEB regulated pipelines, then the probability of a rupture occurring in any year would be 0.0071 or approximately one rupture every 140 years. In the quantitative risk analysis (Bercha 2006) it was shown that the rupture frequency is even lower for the proposed pipeline at a value of 0.019 per 1000 km-yrs and for 145 km, approximately one every 360 years.

The number of fatalities and injuries due to ruptures has been deceasing over the last 20 years. Jeglic (2004) reports that there were no fatalities in the last 18 years or injuries in the last 7 years, caused by pipeline ruptures on NEB regulated pipelines. Jeglic (2004) also noted that fatalities and injuries resulting from ruptures are most like to occur when an ignition takes place.

There is a 1 in 4 chance that a rupture will result in injury and a 1 in 23 chance that a rupture will result in a fatality (Jeglic 2004). Thus, the probability of an injury occurring from a rupture of the proposed pipeline is approximately one injury every 1,450 years, and the probability of a fatality occurring is approximately one fatality every 8,350 years. The probability of injuries or fatalities from pipeline ruptures to employees is over twice the probability of injuries or fatalities to members of the public (70% versus 30%).

Potential environmental effects to public and worker health and safety from ruptures releases of natural gas from the pipeline will be mitigated by implementing M&NP’s Pipeline Design and Quality Assurance Program, the Pipeline IMP, the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program, and the Emergency Preparedness and Response Program.

The Project will be designed in accordance with in the provisions of Canadian Standard CSA Z662. This standard requires more stringent design criteria (e.g., greater safety factor, maximum valve

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 387

spacing) be applied for pipeline construction in urban areas with higher population densities and where the potential and consequences of accidents could be greater than in unpopulated areas.

Key features of the pipeline design to prevent accidents, malfunctions or unplanned events are:

the pipe will be installed with the dimensional and toughness properties that will resist deformation and penetration and internal pressure;

the external surface of the pipe will be coated with a urethane coating or fusion bonded epoxy which has proven to be most compatible with cathodic protection systems, highly resistant to disbonding, and provides a durable primary protection against galvanic corrosion;

the pipeline will include a cathodic protection system as a secondary protection against corrosion for local areas that, for whatever reason, are not receiving the full protection of the external coating; and

the pipeline location will be conspicuously posted with the operator’s toll-free telephone number so that anyone contemplating digging in its vicinity or anyone observing suspicious occurrences can contact the operator promptly and easily.

It is also recommended that the Proponent implement a Quality Assurance Program to ensure that construction materials (i.e., pipe and pipeline components) used in the pipeline meet the specifications provided for in the pipeline design to reduce the probability of material defects. The Quality Assurance Program should also include inspection and test procedures (e.g., pressure testing and non-destructive tests) in accordance with CSA Z662 to assure pipeline and weld integrity.

Operation and maintenance procedures including a Pipeline IMP will be developed for the Project that will ensure that regulatory requirements are met and the pipeline is operated and maintained to a high standard and the probability and volume of unplanned releases of natural gas from the pipeline are minimized. The Pipeline IMP, which should include routine inspections of the pipeline to detect time dependant material defects (e.g., monitoring of corrosion protection measures (i.e., cathodic protection equipment and facilities)), together with operation of the entire system and all of its components within a safe operational envelope, will further reduce the probability of a pipeline rupture or leak from occurring.

The entire pipeline system will be installed subsurface, with the exception of valve sites (3 valve sites in urban Saint John and 3 valve sites in rural areas), a combined meter station and launcher site (immediately outside of the CanaportTM LNG facility battery limits), and a combined valve and launcher/receiver site adjacent to LV 63 on the existing SJL. Burying the pipeline provides a level of protection from third party intrusions that could compromise the integrity of the pipeline. Unauthorized access to portions of the pipeline that are not buried is not permitted. The meter station and valve and launcher/receiver sites will be fenced, and regularly inspected for security. It is recommended that a pipeline monitoring and surveillance program be implemented such that the entire length of the pipeline RoW will be patrolled regularly (by foot and by air) to identify unauthorized activities within the RoW.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 388

Potential environmental effects to public well being would likely be limited to persons in the vicinity of the preferred corridor (i.e., potentially affected landowners). Open communication with the public, continued public education on the Project and public participation in the consultation process are means to reduce potential psychosocial effects (i.e., emotional or social stressors) (Cantox 1999). A dialogue with potentially affected landowners has already been initiated through promoting the open houses on the Project, and follow-up by RoW representatives (as described in Section 3.2.1, Consultation). Public awareness programs and continued contact with landowners, contractors, and local authorities will further mitigate potential environmental effects to public well being resulting over concern of operations-related pipeline accidents and malfunctions occurring.

Although the probability of a pipeline rupture or leak is low, implementing M&NP’s Pipeline Design and Quality Assurance Program, the Pipeline IMP, the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program, the Public Awareness Program, and RoW monitoring and surveillance will further reduce the possibility of a pipeline rupture or leak occurring.

Fire

Fires during the Project Construction, and Operation and Maintenance phases could have potential environmental effects to public and worker health and safety that are high in magnitude. Potential environmental effects during the Construction phase would result from the fires caused by construction equipment and/or materials, and/or forest fires caused by construction activities. Potential environmental effects during the Operation and Maintenance phase would result from the unplanned ignition of the natural gas released to the environment in an uncontrolled fashion from a rupture or leak of the pipeline.

Potential environmental effects to public and worker health and safety resulting from fires caused by construction fires will be addressed by the Proponent’s Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program. A Construction Safety Manual, a Maintenance Safety Manual, and operation and maintenance procedures will be prepared and should describe how to perform work safely to prevent fires, and prescribe measures that will mitigate the environmental effects of, and contain, construction fires should they occur. During Construction, due care and attention should be made to reduce the potential for starting forest fires. In particular, construction activities should be planned such that potential ignition sources are minimized and emergency response capability is provided along the Project site to respond to any small fires that may start onsite. It is recommended that workers and contractors be trained in the fire prevention and response procedures contained in the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program and in accordance with the New Brunswick Forest Fires Act. Safety program audits and site inspections should also be implemented throughout the Project

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 389

Construction, and Operation and Maintenance phases to ensure compliance with program policy and procedures. Thus, the potential environmental effects on Health and Safety from construction-related fires and/or forest fires are rated not significant.

Fires relating to pipeline operation, for the most part, will be addressed by the measures to reduce the probability and severity of pipeline ruptures and leaks, discussed previously. However, additional measures will be taken to ensure public and worker health and safety in responding to any ruptures and/or pipeline leaks that may result in fire or explosion. These additional measures will take the form of the development and implementation of the Field Emergency Response Plan that should prescribe measures to ensure effective and timely response to emergencies, to protect the public and to remedy any damage resulting from Project activities. Further, a continuing education program for first responders (i.e., fire departments, police, emergency management organizations), including the developing of clear roles and responsibilities and chain of command for emergencies along the pipeline RoW, conducting emergency response training and mock emergency exercises, and educating applicable emergency response agencies in the contents of the Proponent’s Emergency Response Plans.

As the probability of a pipeline rupture occurring on the Project is low (one rupture every 360 years), then the probability of a fire resulting from a pipeline rupture is lower. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada reports that average number of releases from gas pipelines between 2000 and 2004, inclusive, was 13 per year, with 6 of the 13 releases resulting in a fire or explosion (TSBC 2005). Therefore, the probability of a fire resulting from a pipeline rupture or leak on the Brunswick Pipeline is approximately one fire every 800 years.

Although the potential environmental effects to public and worker health and safety are high in magnitude, the probability of a pipeline rupture or leak resulting in a fire is low. Implementing the mitigation provided in M&NP’s Pipeline Design and Quality Assurance Program, the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program, the Emergency Preparedness and Response Program, and the Public Awareness Program will assure the probability of a pipeline rupture or leak and fire occurring remain very low.

Unauthorized Access to the RoW

Unsupervised or controlled access to lands along the RoW for recreational or other purposes by persons other than the landowner could result in public accidents (e.g., ATV accident). New access to lands by means of the RoW will only occur in areas where the Project is creating new RoW (i.e., not paralleling or overlapping an existing RoW). The preferred corridor follows existing RoWs wherever practicable (see Section 2.2, Project Alternatives). Of the approximately 145 km length of the preferred corridor, approximately 95 km follows existing RoWs, and approximately 50 km does not follow existing RoWs. In urban areas, much of the preferred corridor runs through areas that are already accessible or are not attractive to persons wanting access to lands for recreational purposes. Most of the new corridor in the rural areas of the preferred corridor is associated with corridor diversions from the IPL RoW to avoid wetland areas.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 390

It is recommended that measures be employed to prevent the pipeline RoW being used for unwanted ATV and snowmobile traffic. The specific measures to be employed will be determined after the detailed pipeline route has been selected and should be based on the specific geographic conditions that exist, and after discussions with landowners, stakeholders and regulatory agencies, as appropriate. Measures typically employed include installation of natural barriers using the natural topography to advantage where practicable (e.g., placement of rock barriers, planting of tree and shrub barriers), fencing and posting of signs prohibiting trespass. The Public Awareness Program for the pipeline should also include a discussion of trespass and the potential consequences of unauthorized and/or unlawful entry onto properties along the RoW. It is recommended that the pipeline RoW be routinely monitored for unauthorized activities in the RoW during the course of the Project Operation and Maintenance phase. If unauthorized activities in the RoW are detected, then additional measures to stop and or discourage unauthorized activities should be implemented after discussions with landowners, stakeholders, and regulatory agencies, as appropriate.

The limited new RoW created by the pipeline, and the measures put into place to discourage unauthorized access to the RoW will make an accident resulting in potential environmental effects on Health and Safety resulting from unauthorized access to the RoW unlikely.

Summary – Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

5.7.6 Determination of Significance

Table 5.7.3 evaluates the significance of potential residual environmental effects resulting from any interactions between Project activities and Health and Safety, after taking into account any proposed mitigation. The table also considers the level of confidence of the Jacques Whitford Study Team in this determination.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 391

Table 5.7.3 Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix for Health and Safety

Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix Valued Environmental Component: HEALTH AND SAFETY

Residual Likelihood Level of Phase Environmental Confidence Probability of Scientific Effects Rating* Occurrence Certainty Construction NA 3 1 3 Operation and Maintenance NA 3 1 3 Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events S 2 1 3 Project Overall NS 2/3 1 3 Key: Residual Environmental Effects Rating: Probability of Occurrence of Residual Environmental Effects: based on professional judgement S = Significant Adverse Environmental Effects 1 = Low Probability of Occurrence NS = Not-significant Adverse Environmental Effects 2 = Medium Probability of Occurrence P = Positive Environmental Effects 3 = High Probability of Occurrence

*As determined in consideration of established residual environmental effects rating criteria.

Based on consideration of the potential environmental effects of all phases of the Project, the proposed mitigation, and the residual environmental effects significance ratings criteria, the residual adverse environmental effects on Health and Safety are rated not significant, with the exception of some accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events that are unlikely to occur.

5.7.7 Follow-up and Monitoring

The effectiveness of Health & Safety related mitigation should be monitored throughout the life of the Project for all phases of the Project to ensure that planned mitigation is effective and to provide assurance that the Proponent’s Environment, Health & Safety Policy objectives are being achieved as the Project proceeds. These activities will be defined in the Project Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program, described in Section 2.8 (Environmental Management).

A systematic approach to the design, construction and operation of the pipeline system, and comprehensive health and safety policy and procedures should be implemented to ensure that adverse potential environmental effects would not be a result of normal construction and operation and maintenance activities. This systematic approach to public and worker health and safety and the environment will also provide a level of assurance that accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events resulting in harm to workers, the public, or the environment are unlikely to occur. Further, contingency plans and emergency response plans should be in place to minimize the potential environmental effects of Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events in the unlikely event that they do occur. A description of the Proponent’s approach to managing health, safety, and the environment is provided in Section 2.8 (Environmental Management).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 392

5.8 Traditional Land and Resource Use

For the purposes of this assessment, Traditional Land and Resource Use by Aboriginal persons is defined as the current use of lands and resources within those lands by Aboriginal persons that are within the footprint of the Project or on adjacent lands where those uses and resources are potentially affected by the Project. This “use” refers to contemporary hunting, fishing, and gathering activities for subsistence purposes as well as the use of lands and resources for social and ceremonial activities

There have been several initiatives undertaken in an effort to gather information on current use by Aboriginal persons in the general and specific area of the current pipeline Project. These initiatives are described in Section 4.9 of this EA and include information obtained through consultation efforts for this project and adjacent projects. To date, only one general area of traditional use by Aboriginal persons has been identified in the area of the Project, in the area of Spruce Lake (Figure 2.2.4A). However, consultation is ongoing and the result of these efforts will be presented to regulating agencies when they are available in the spring of 2006. If site-specific land or resource use is identified within the preferred corridor, it is recommended that the nature and location of the resource be identified and considered along with a number of other criteria in determining the location of the pipeline RoW. It is recommended that the Proponent continue to engage and consult with the First Nation communities throughout the detailed routing process. This should include supporting various site visits and field investigations of the proposed RoW to further ensure that the concerns of the First Nation communities are appropriately addressed. For any areas of resource use that cannot be avoided, it is recommended that the Proponent work with the First Nation communities to develop appropriate mitigation if similarly available resources cannot be located in areas adjacent to the proposed RoW.

As noted in Section 4.9 of this EA, it was concluded in the SJL Heritage Resources Report that mitigation typically implemented for pipeline projects to minimize adverse environmental effects would be sufficient to address the issue at the one specific area of Aboriginal interest, Spruce Lake (Washburn & Gillis 1999b). Further, the environmental assessment for the IPL project found that it is not anticipated that the IPL project will significantly affect any resident populations of the species (e.g., moose, deer) that are commonly hunted in the general IPL project area (AMEC 2002). Field surveys conducted for the IPL project found that that no significant adverse environmental effects will occur on traditionally/historically used plant species that may potentially be used by Aboriginal persons (AMEC 2002). Therefore it is not, at this time, anticipated that there will be any direct interaction between the Brunswick Pipeline Project and site-specific areas of traditional land and resource use that cannot be mitigated.

Consultation with the New Brunswick First Nation communities is ongoing. However, the fact that plant and animals species of concern that have been identified to date are either not located within the proposed pipeline corridor or are abundant in the area supports the conclusion that these resources either can be avoided during the pipeline routing process or that potential adverse environmental effects to some populations of these species will not affect their availability in the area of the Project. This is supported in Sections 5.3 (Fish and Fish Habitat), 5.4 (Vegetation), 5.5 (Wetlands), and 5.6 (Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat) of this EA where the potential environmental effects of the Project to the general biological habitat are determined to be not significant. It is worth further note that areas identified during consultation as being of concern, such as wetland and known heritage resources, were

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 393

constraints identified during the selection of the preferred corridor of the Project (See Table 2.2.1 this report) and were thus avoided to the extent practicable. Additional mitigation is being considered for instances where wetlands cannot be avoided (see Section 5.5, Wetlands).

The results of archaeological surveys undertaken for the SJL and the IPL are still relevant to the current pipeline Project, although these types of resources can very isolated and thus the lack (or conversely the presence) of archaeological and heritage resources within the broad length of the SJL or IPL is not necessarily determinative of the existence of such resources in the current pipeline corridor. Detailed archaeological surveys will take place during the summer of 2006 in conjunction with the detailed routing process to ensure protection of such resources through either avoidance or appropriate mitigation (e.g., archaeological excavation). It is recommended that an archaeological response protocol be developed and included in the Project Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) to respond to any encounters with unknown archaeological resources.

As a result of the consultation processes undertaken to date, four recommendations have been made in respect of the consultation process and Project. These recommendations are listed in Section 3.2.1.4 (Aboriginal Consultation) of this EA and refer mainly to requests to provide for documentation about the environmental studies to be completed and to develop protocols to address issues related to information dissemination and are being reviewed by the Proponent. These recommendations should be implemented and the requested information should be provided to all of the First Nation communities within New Brunswick.

Further, the mitigation available to the Proponent during the detailed routing process (i.e., avoidance), as well as the mitigation options regarding the actual installation of the pipeline, combined with the additional biophysical, archaeological, and First Nation field studies proposed for the summers of 2006 and, if necessary, 2007, support the conclusion that any lands or resources currently being used for traditional purposes by Aboriginal persons and the First Nation community in general can either be avoided or the site-specific concern mitigated.

Based on consideration of the potential environmental effects of construction activities associated with the Project, and the proposed mitigation, the Project is not anticipated to have any significant adverse environmental effects to Traditional Land and Resource Use by Aboriginal persons. The TEK report to be completed in the spring of 2006 will be used to verify the findings of the Traditional Land and Resource Use VEC and will be filed as part of the NEB application.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 394

5.9 Land and Resource Use

5.9.1 Rationale for Selection as Valued Environmental Component

Land and Resource Use was selected as a VEC because of the potential for Project-interactions with the various forms of land use that take place in the vicinity of the preferred corridor and variants around Rockwood Park. In particular, this VEC assesses the potential environmental effects of Project activities on Land and Resource Use during Construction, Operation and Maintenance, as well as Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events. Project-related interactions with Land and Resource Use may include residential and commercial land uses, recreational land use/access, navigation, and forest resource and agricultural uses.

5.9.2 Environmental Assessment Boundaries

5.9.2.1 Spatial

The spatial boundaries (the “Assessment Area”) for the assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Project on commercial, residential and recreational land uses include the preferred corridor and variants around Rockwood Park, and nearby (i.e., within 300 m of the preferred corridor) commercial, residential and recreational areas, where activities associated with Construction, Operation and Maintenance, and Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events of the Project could potentially interact with land use.

The spatial boundaries (the “Assessment Area”) for the assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Project on forest and agricultural resources include the preferred corridor and the variants around Rockwood Park. In the rural portion of the corridor, forestry dominates the landscape and the local economy. Consequently, the environmental effects of the Project on this resource is assessed at both local and regional levels.

5.9.2.2 Temporal

The temporal boundaries for the assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Project on Land and Resource Use include the Construction, and Operation and Maintenance of the Project for the life of the pipeline.

5.9.2.3 Administrative and Technical

The Project is located within Saint John County and Charlotte County. Planning within incorporated municipalities is regulated by municipal zoning regulations. Saint John is the only municipality through which the Project crosses. Most of the preferred corridor passes through unincorporated rural areas, which are regulated under the Rural Planning District Regulation – Community Planning Act, administered by NBENV.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 395

Information used to assess residential, commercial, and recreational land use concerns was obtained from public and stakeholder consultations, and maps and property identification data. Knowledge of the area affected by the Project is based on this information base, as well as the professional judgement of the Jacques Whitford Study Team.

The public right to navigation is protected by the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which is administered by the Minister of Transport (Transport Canada), and the quality of water for recreational purposes is assessed in relation to the Recreational Water Quality Guidelines and Aesthetics (CCME 1999).

Agriculture and forestry land use data are based on forest cover information from aerial photography (GEODAT 2005), Inventory Mapping Data (NBDNR 2006), New Brunswick Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture (NBDAFA), and Statistics Canada information. Forestry activities at both the property and regional levels span rotations in excess of fifty years. Agricultural activities span rotations of three to five years for most crops.

Changes to future land management practices as a result of better information on wood supply and the voluntary implementation of agriculture soil and water conservation Best Management Practices are difficult to quantify and unlikely to represent projects or activities that will be carried out in the future that may overlap with the Project. As such, they are not considered further in this assessment.

It is the professional judgement of the Jacques Whitford Study Team that the data available to characterize the existing conditions and existing knowledge of land use in the Assessment Area regarding the potential Project-VEC interactions, were sufficient to provide a baseline against which the environmental effects of the Project could be assessed. Existing conditions for Land and Resource Use are presented in Section 4.9.

5.9.3 Residual Environmental Effects Rating Criteria

A significant residual adverse environmental effect on Land and Resource Use (e.g., residential, commercial, public, forestry, agricultural, and/or recreational land use) is one where the proposed use of land for the Project and related facilities is not compatible with adjacent land use activities and plans, and the proposed use of land for the Project will create a change or disruption that restricts or degrades present land uses, such that the activities cannot continue to be undertaken at current levels for extended periods of time, and cannot be compensated.

A positive environmental effect occurs when the Project results in enhanced or increased in land and resource use for residential, commercial, public, forestry, agricultural and/or recreational use.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 396

5.9.4 Potential Interactions, Issues, and Concerns

This section evaluates the potential for Project-related activities to affect Land and Resource Use. Table 5.9.1 provides a summary of the potential environmental effects resulting from the Project-VEC interactions, which are discussed below.

Table 5.9.1 Project Activity – Environmental Effects Interaction Matrix for Land and Resource Use

Potential Interactions Between Project Activities and Environmental Effects Valued Environmental Component: LAND AND RESOURCE USE

Potential Environmental Effect

Project Activities and Physical Works (See Table 3.1.1 for list of specific activities and works) Change in Residential Change in Residential Use Land in Recreational Change Use Land Change in Commercial Use Land Forest in Change Use Land Resource Change in Agricultural Use Land

Construction Site Preparation Pipeline Installation Watercourse Crossings Temporary Ancillary Structures and Facilities Operation and Maintenance Project Presence Pipeline Maintenance RoW Maintenance Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events Hazardous Materials Spill Erosion and Sediment Control Failure Fire Occupational Injury Wildlife Encounter Temporary Watercourse Crossing Washout Disturbance of Unidentified Archaeological or Heritage Resource Unauthorized Access to RoW Pipeline Rupture or Leak

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 397

5.9.4.1 Construction

Residential Land Use

At this time it is not anticipated that any existing residential housing will be directly affected by the Project (i.e., no houses will need to be moved). A concern was raised during public consultation as to whether the proximity of a pipeline would have an adverse environmental effect on property values. There is the potential that construction activities, such as blasting, could affect residential homes. Other potential environmental effects may include temporary or limited access to residential areas during pipeline installation. Potential environmental effects related to issues of noise and groundwater wells during the Construction phase are discussed in Sections 5.1 (Atmospheric Environment) and 5.2 (Water Resources), respectively and shall not be considered further in this section of the EA.

Recreational Land Use

Construction of the Project has the potential to interact with recreational land use. The recreational land uses in the immediate vicinity of the Project include such pursuits as boating, fishing, snowmobiling, berry picking, ATV use, hunting, hiking, mountain biking, and wildlife watching. During Construction, the Project will temporarily affect recreational land use within the eventually selected 30 m RoW by limiting access where Construction activities are occurring.

Navigable Waters

Construction activities related to site preparation and the watercourse crossing structures for the Project may temporarily affect navigability of all navigable waters. The determination of navigable waters within the Project area will be made by Transport Canada for all watercourses crossed by the Project. Any conditions with regards to crossing rivers as per the Navigable Waters Protection Act will be adhered to. The buried pipeline will not pose any restrictions to boating on the watercourse once Construction is completed.

Recreation

Recreational fishing and access along some woods roads for hunting, ATV use, or hiking may be temporarily interrupted during Construction. Where trails parallel existing RoWs (i.e., power lines), construction activities may limit access to trails in the local area. Hiking trails that parallel power lines within Rockwood Park may experience temporary restrictions or loss of the use of these trails within the RoW during construction activities. The eventual RoW within Rockwood Park will not be used as a new trail, unless park stakeholders request such an upgrade. The parking area for Shamrock Park is within the preferred corridor. A portion of the soccer and baseball fields within Shamrock Park may be used as a staging area during the winter months of 2007/2008 for the pipeline “pull-section” for the HDD for the Saint John River.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 398

Commercial Land Use

To the extent practicable, commercial properties will be avoided in detailed routing of the pipeline. Potential environmental effects may include temporary or limited access to commercial areas during pipeline installation. For example, the Project crosses Rothesay Avenue, a large commercial centre in eastern Saint John, and there is a potential for traffic disruptions for a period of one to two weeks while the pipeline is being installed. The pipeline installation may result in temporary short-term inconveniences and access to some businesses within the area of the pipeline RoW during Construction.

It is not anticipated that any commercial buildings will be directly affected by pipeline construction activities. If any commercial buildings cannot be avoided during the detailed route selection process, however, the Proponent should discuss measures to address the situation with the owner including the possible purchase of the building at fair market value prior to Construction.

Forestry Resource Land Use

Construction activities during the Project have the potential to interact with forestry resource land use. Site preparation, including clearing, grubbing, grading, blasting, and topsoil stripping will remove forest resources. This activity may result in the direct loss of marketable trees ready for harvesting. Also, the construction of temporary ancillary structures and facilities may result in the loss of trees.

Agricultural Land Use

Construction activities during the Project have the potential to interact with agricultural land use. Site preparation activities including clearing, grubbing, grading, blasting, and topsoil stripping may temporarily remove arable land. Within the RoW, land will be temporarily lost to agricultural use. This potential environmental effect will be assessed based on the overall amount of land in southern New Brunswick that is currently in agriculture. Further it is anticipated that potential adverse environmental effects to agricultural activities will be temporary and limited to the Construction phase of the Project.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 399

Soil Productivity

During Construction, there is the potential to lose valuable soil resources, even if they are not currently being cultivated, or the land is currently forested. Construction activities have the potential to have long-term environmental effects by changing the physical and chemical properties of soils that may affect productive capability and future land use. The most common environmental effects are loss of topsoil, mixing of subsoil and topsoil, compaction, increased stoniness, and loss of soil capability. The main issues associated with pipeline construction is the loss of soil capability caused by the mixing of organic and inorganic soil layers during grubbing, stripping, and compaction (M&NP 2000). Vehicle ruts made through wet areas may add to mixing and compaction.

5.9.4.2 Operation and Maintenance

The Operation and Maintenance phase of the Project may have an adverse environmental effect on Land and Resource Use as a result of the limits that the presence of the pipeline may have on adjacent or proposed future activities in proximity to the pipeline, for the life of the Project. Regular maintenance along the RoW (e.g., mowing) and maintenance of the pipeline itself is not anticipated to affect Land and Resource Use.

Residential Land Use

There are some covenants for landowners/users as a result of the future pipeline RoW. The presence of the Project places limits on the permissible uses of the easement lands associated with the pipeline. For example, the pipeline easement prohibits landowners from building permanent structures such as a garage on the pipeline RoW. Operation and Maintenance of the Project will not affect current residential land use but may affect future residential land use that involves excavation using mechanical equipment or explosives within the 30 m control zone.

The Operation and Maintenance phase of the Project will produce noise that might affect residential land use in areas adjacent to the Project. Noise produced during Operation and Maintenance is addressed in Section 5.1 (Atmospheric Environment) of this EA and will not be considered further with respect to Land and Resource Use.

Recreational Land Use

Recreational use of the rivers and streams throughout the Project area is not expected to change as a result of the Operation and Maintenance phase of the Project. Navigability along navigable waters (as yet not determined) will be restored after Construction, in accordance with the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

The presence of the Project during the Operation and Maintenance phase will affect recreational land use. The presence of the Project may increase access by the public to previously inaccessible areas for activities such as hunting and fishing. In the urban portion of the preferred corridor, no new access to previously inaccessible areas will be created. In the rural portion of the preferred corridor, new RoW

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 400

will be created that does not parallel either the SJL or the IPL; there will be approximately 50 km of new RoW created. The new RoW is not anticipated to create new access as it will for the most part parallel existing RoWs. The operation of ATVs and snowmobiles on the Project RoW is considered trespass unless it is authorized by the landowner; existing trails will be permitted to continue access across the eventual 30 m the RoW.

Commercial Land Use

The presence of the pipeline will not affect current commercial land use but may affect future commercial land use that involves excavation using mechanical equipment or explosives within the 30 m control zone.

Forestry Resource Land Use

The Operation and Maintenance phase of the Project may have the potential to interact with forestry resource land use. The removal of trees on the RoW is permanent throughout the duration of the Project. Access to woodlots adjacent to the future pipeline RoW for harvest will be permitted.

Agricultural Land Use

Operation and Maintenance of the Project has the potential to interact with agricultural land use. However, the pipeline will be designed to accommodate identified agricultural activities after Construction is completed. The agricultural land removed during Construction will be returned to cultivation over the pipeline during the Operation and Maintenance phase.

5.9.4.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Although unlikely, the potential environmental effects on Land and Resource Use of Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events could result from temporary watercourse washout, a hazardous materials spill, pipeline rupture, and fire. An occupational injury, wildlife encounter, disturbance to an unidentified archaeological or heritage resources, or unauthorized access to the RoW are not anticipated to have potential environmental effects on Land and Resource Use, and are not considered further in this EA. The potential environmental effects of an unplanned event on air quality, water resources, and health and safety are addressed in Sections 5.1 (Atmospheric Environment), 5.2 (Water Resources), and 5.7 (Health and Safety), respectively.

Residential Land Use

The identified accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events of the Project have the potential to interact with residential land use. Potential incidents including hazardous materials spills, fires, and a pipeline rupture or leak, in the unlikely event that they should occur, could result in a requirement to evacuate properties, or cause property damage. An unplanned event such as this may cause access to residential areas in the vicinity of the event to be limited until declared safe.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 401

Recreational Land Use

Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events also have the potential to interact with recreational land use. Potential incidents include hazardous materials spills, erosion and sediment control failures, fires, temporary watercourse crossing washout, and a pipeline rupture or leak. Hazardous materials spills, erosion and sediment control failures, fires, and a temporary watercourse crossing washout might affect recreational activities such as boating and fishing and the navigability of certain waterways. Hazardous materials spills, erosion and sediment control failures, fires, temporary watercourse crossing washout, and a pipeline rupture or leak could affect activities such as hunting, biking, hiking and ATV use for a limited time. Section 5.3 (Fish and Fish Habitat) contains a discussion of the potential environmental effects of sediment control failure on fish and their habitat. In the event of a sediment control failure, or any other unplanned event, a decreased potential for fishing and hunting in the immediate vicinity may result.

Commercial Land Use

Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events of the Project have the potential to interact with commercial land use. Potential incidents including hazardous materials spills, fires, and a pipeline rupture or leak, in the unlikely event that they should occur, could affect air or water quality and result in a requirement to evacuate properties, or cause property damage. An unplanned event could result in an interruption to business activities for a short period of time.

Forestry Resource Land Use

Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events of the Project have the potential to interact with forestry resource land use. Potential incidents include hazardous materials spills, pipeline rupture, fires and temporary watercourse crossing washouts. Fire is the most critical of these potential incidents.

Agricultural Land Use

Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events of the Project have the potential to interact with agricultural land use. Potential incidents including hazardous materials spills, pipeline rupture, and fires, could cause property damage or a loss of crops.

5.9.4.4 Rockwood Park

Both of the corridor variants around Rockwood Park could potentially result in the same general interactions (with the exception of the recreational use of Rockwood Park) with Land and Resource Use as the preferred corridor, only to a different extent. As a result, the potential environmental effects on Land and Resource Use and associated mitigation would be similar for both the preferred corridor and the assessment of the variants around Rockwood Park. Any site-specific potential interactions and associated mitigation for the variants around Rockwood Park with respect to Land and Resource Use will be noted separately in the EA as warranted.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 402

5.9.5 Environmental Effects Analysis and Mitigation

5.9.5.1 Construction

This section provides an evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Construction as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.9.2). A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

Table 5.9.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Land and Resource Use

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: LAND AND RESOURCE USE Phase: Construction

Project Activities and Physical Potential Works Environmental (See Table 3.1.1 Effects Mitigation for list of specific (A=Adverse; activities and P=Positive) works) Magnitude Magnitude Extent Geographic Duration/Frequency Reversibility Ecological/Socio- and Cultural Context Economic

Site Preparation Change in Pre-blast survey residential land RoW selection process use (A) Restrict clearing to within Change in RoW and temporary work 1 3 2/3 R 2 recreational areas land use (A) Adhere to all WAWA permit conditions Change in RoW selection process forest resource Restrict clearing to within land use (A) RoW and temporary work areas Compensation for affected 1 3 2/3 R 2 landowners during Construction Notify forestry harvesting operations during finalization of RoW Change in Avoid agricultural lands agricultural land where practicable use (A) Compensation for affected landowners during Construction 1 2 2/2 R 2 Suspend work in wet conditions Maintain soil layers Maintain a single travel path over agricultural lands Pipeline Installation Change in Implement traffic plan to residential land provide detours and efficient use (A) traffic flow around 1 3 2/3 R 2 Change in construction commercial Adhere to CSA Z662 Design land use (A) Standards

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 403

Table 5.9.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Land and Resource Use

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: LAND AND RESOURCE USE Phase: Construction

Change in Signage for all navigable recreational waters notifying change in land use (A) navigability during pipeline 1 2 2/2 R 2 installation as applicable Recreational trails quickly re- opened Watercourse Change in Adhere to all WAWA permit Crossings recreational conditions land use (A) Signage for all navigable waters notifying change in 1 2 2/2 R 2 navigability during watercourse crossings as applicable Temporary Change in Minimize out of RoW clearing Ancillary Structures forest resource Compensation for affected and Facilities land use (A) landowners during Construction 1 2 2/2 R 2 Notify forestry harvesting operations during finalization of RoW Key: Magnitude: 1 = Low: e.g., specific group, residence or Geographic Extent: Frequency: Ecological/Socio-cultural and neighbourhood affected such that adjacent 1 = <1 km2 1 = <11 events/year Economic Context: land use activities will be disrupted such 2 = 1-10 km2 2 = 11 - 50 events/year 1 = Relatively pristine area or area that current activities cannot continue even 3 = 11-100 km2 3 = 51 - 100 events/year not adversely affected by human after short periods of time. 4 = 101 - 1,000 km2 4 = 101 - 200 activity. 2 = Medium: e.g., part of a community 5 = 1,001 - 10,000 km2 events/year 2 = Evidence of adverse affected such that adjacent land use 6 = >10,000 km2 5 = >200 events/year environmental effects. activities will be disrupted such that current 6 = continuous activities cannot continue for extended Duration: period of time longer than two years. 1 = <1 month Reversibility: N/A = Not Applicable 3 = High: e.g., community affected such that 2 = 1 - 12 months R = Reversible (A) = adverse adjacent land use activities will be 3 = 13 - 36 months I = Irreversible (P) = positive disrupted such that current activities 4 = 37 - 72 months cannot continue for extended periods of 5 = >72 months time longer than two years and are not compensated for.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 404

Residential Land Use

It is not anticipated that any homes will need to be removed as a result of the Project. If any residences cannot be avoided during the detailed route selection process, however, it is recommended that the Proponent purchase the residence at fair market value prior to Construction. The Proponent will work with local developers for any proposed new subdivisions or development to design the pipeline to minimize adverse environmental effects and interactions between the proposed development and the pipeline. In situations where fair accommodation cannot be reached, the Proponent should compensate the landowner/developer for their demonstrated losses. The regulatory process ensures a fair determination of market value in the event the parties cannot agree to it themselves.

It is not anticipated that the Project will result in a measurable change in local property values. Since the preferred corridor is selected to minimize disruptions to existing land use, the likelihood of adverse environmental effects on property value from changes to land use is minimized. Further, adjacent lands during Operation will not be exposed to substantial public health and safety risks (Section 5.7, Health and Safety VEC). Section 2.7.9.1 (Incident Probability) of this EA describes the quantitative risk probability of pipeline ruptures or leaks. The low level of risk is not anticipated to result in a significant economic risk that would affect property values. In addition, there are a number of existing natural gas pipelines within Saint John, thus the public is becoming more accustomed to this technology. Given all of these factors, it is not likely that property value will be adversely affected as a result of the Project and the environmental effects of the Project on property values are rated not significant.

In order to verify that blasting and other site preparation and trenching activities do not adversely affect residential homes in the area of the Project, it is recommended that a pre-blast survey of homes within a certain radius of the construction activities be undertaken. This survey would assess current conditions (foundation competence) within representative house and buildings in order to create baseline conditions against which to confirm or refute claims of damage resulting from the construction activities.

The potential environmental effects resulting from air emissions, noise, and potential disruption of water supply on residential land use during Construction are addressed in Sections 5.1 (Atmospheric Environment) and 5.2 (Water Resources) and are not discussed here. Any short-term slow down in traffic or access to residential areas will be minimized and are discussed in Section 5.10 (Infrastructure and Services) of this EA. Potential increases in traffic is residential areas is anticipated in the short term for a portion of the Construction phase. The Proponent and its construction contractors will work with City officials and local law enforcement officials to minimize traffic interruptions and ensure that traffic continuity is maintained, if periodically slowed down.

Increases in traffic in concentrated construction areas such as the HDD sites, in particular on either side of the Saint John River are anticipated. Pleasant Point, in particular, has only one street to access the HDD location on the shoreline of the Saint John River, which could see a substantial increase in vehicle traffic for the period of the HDD. It is recommended a traffic management plan be developed for the access areas to both HDD sites. The development of this plan may warrant consultation with City of Saint John officials.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 405

Recreational Land Use

To minimize potential environmental effects on recreational land use, it is recommended that the mitigation measures listed in Table 5.9.2 be implemented. The major environmental effects are short- term changes in navigability on major rivers and a short-term reduction in access to hunting, fishing, biking, and ATV use locations. Existing access across the RoW will be maintained during Construction with only very minor temporary interruptions. All trail systems, including the system in Rockwood Park, will only be partially affected in the vicinity of the construction activities and will be fully restored once Construction is completed. All areas to be affected by pipeline construction activities will be restored following the completion of Construction and it is anticipated that current recreational activities will resume after clean-up. Shamrock Park may be used as a staging area for the Saint John River HDD; however, that work is planned for the winter of 2007/2008 when recreational use of the Park is limited and it is anticipated that the soccer and baseball fields will be restored for use in the summer of 2008.

During Construction, navigation on all watercourses deemed navigable will be temporarily restricted within the Project construction area as a result of the requirement to install temporary watercourse crossings (i.e., bridge or culvert) for access for construction. Signage warning boaters and fishers of work in progress in the Project area will be necessary. Approval from the Minister of Transport (Transport Canada) under the Navigable Waters Protection Act will be required.

Any interruption of recreational use on land, or at watercourses will only affect a very small portion of available recreational lands/streams, and will be limited to the Construction phase of the Project.

Rockwood Park

During Construction, trails that cross the RoW may be temporarily disrupted during pipe installation but the existing topography and surface will be restored to the extent practicable, and other mitigation measures should be implemented in consultation of the Saint John Horticultural Society, the City of Saint John (Leisure Services), and other stakeholders. Activities that currently occur in the park will not be altered after Construction.

Commercial Land Use

The routing of the corridor has been and the eventual RoW will be selected to avoid local business operations of the extent practicable. The potential environmental effects resulting from air emissions, noise, and potential disruption of water supply on commercial land use during Construction are addressed in Sections 5.1 (Atmospheric Environment) and 5.2 (Water Resources) and are not discussed here. A traffic control plan will be implemented when construction of the pipeline crosses any roads that serve as access to a commercial or industrial area, such as Grandview Avenue and Rothesay Avenue. Any short-term slow down in traffic or access to industry/business areas will be minimized and are discussed in Section 5.10 (Infrastructure and Services) of this EA. In all likelihood, only the actual trenching and pipeline installation phases of Construction will have any interaction with commercial land use, and any interruptions will be temporary and similar to other urban construction activities such as street paving. Where there may be an interaction with existing land use, the pipeline will be designed so that current commercial land uses will continue as required. The Proponent and its

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 406

contractors will work with City of Saint John officials and local business owners to minimize any temporary disruptions to local business operations.

Any mineral claims on lands within the pipeline RoW will be addressed in a fair and equitable manner with those holding the claim.

Forest Resource Land Use

There are approximately 1,228 ha (38% of the forested area of the corridor) of mature forest throughout the entire preferred corridor (Table 4.7.4). The width of the RoW will be maintained to 30 m except in areas where additional temporary work room is required. The Proponent should work with local forestry operations to minimize environmental effects to their operations. As the Project RoW will be relatively small compared to the overall forest resources available in southern New Brunswick, it is not anticipated that the Project will result in a significant decrease in the merchantable forest resource, and that forest resource managers will be able to meet the present and future forestry needs in this area. Landowners or leasees will be compensated for the trees that are cleared for the RoW, and any land needs to be cleared for temporary ancillary structures or facilities.

Agricultural Land Use

The preferred corridor crosses less than 1% of agricultural lands in southern New Brunswick. The majority of soils (approximately 95%) crossed by the Project have little or no capability for arable cultivation (Class 4 through Class 7) and the remaining soils (Class 3) have moderately severe limitations restricting the range of crops (Table 4.10.1). Actively farmed Class 3 soils (e.g., Hayman Hill, Route 740 and Upper Little Ridge, Route 725) should be confirmed once the RoW is defined and marked on the EPP maps. It is recommended that the topsoil layers be removed and piled separately during Construction, and replaced during site restoration. In any location where the topsoil has to be stored for extended periods, or over winter, it should be protected from wind and water erosion by covering it with hay mulch and seeding. The Project will not adversely affect the overall agricultural productivity of the Assessment Area. Farmers/landowners whose agricultural fields are within the eventually selected 30 m RoW will be compensated for lost production during the Construction phase of the Project. Areas with crop growth that are directly affected by construction activities may experience reduced crop yields for a brief period after Construction. The Proponent should work with farmers/landowners to monitor any residual crop loss and if required implement additional mitigation in order to return the land to its pre-Construction capacity. Farmers/landowners will be compensated for reduced crop yields during this post-Construction period.

Summary – Construction Phase

Construction activities related to the Project are anticipated to be relatively brief and temporary with current land and resources use returning, for the most part, to the existing status following the completion of Construction, and compensation for any adverse environmental effects.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 407

5.9.5.2 Operation and Maintenance

This section provides an evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions as a result of Operation and Maintenance as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.9.3). A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

Table 5.9.3 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Land and Resource Use

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: LAND AND RESOURCE USE Phase: Operation and Maintenance

Project Activities and Potential Environmental Physical Works Effects (See Table 3.1.1 for list Mitigation (A=Adverse; of specific activities and P=Positive) works) Magnitude Magnitude Extent Geographic Duration/Frequency Reversibility Ecological/Socio-Cultural Context Economic and

Project Presence Change in residential Land/business land use (A) owner Change in commercial compensation 1 2 2/3 R 2 land use (A)

Change in recreational Install post- land use (A) Construction Change in forest pipeline 1 2 2/2 R 2 resource land use (A) crossings Change in agricultural land use (A) Key: Magnitude: 1 = Low: e.g., specific group, residence or Geographic Extent: Frequency: Ecological/Socio-cultural and neighbourhood affected such that adjacent 1 = <1 km2 1 = <11 events/year Economic Context: land use activities will be disrupted such 2 = 1-10 km2 2 = 11 - 50 events/year 1 = Relatively pristine area or area that current activities cannot continue even 3 = 11-100 km2 3 = 51 - 100 events/year not adversely affected by human after short periods of time. 4 = 101 - 1,000 km2 4 = 101 - 200 activity. 2 = Medium: e.g., part of a community 5 = 1,001 - 10,000 km2 events/year 2 = Evidence of adverse affected such that adjacent land use 6 = >10,000 km2 5 = >200 events/year environmental effects. activities will be disrupted such that current 6 = continuous activities cannot continue for extended Duration: period of time longer than two years. 1 = <1 month Reversibility: N/A = Not Applicable 3 = High: e.g., community affected such that 2 = 1 - 12 months R = Reversible (A) = adverse adjacent land use activities will be 3 = 13 - 36 months I = Irreversible (P) = positive disrupted such that current activities 4 = 37 - 72 months cannot continue for extended periods of 5 = >72 months time longer than two years and are not compensated for.

Residential and Commercial Land Use

The presence of the pipeline is not anticipated to adversely affect current use of land in residential and commercial areas. Some restrictions on future residential and/or commercial use of land may be required in order to protect the integrity and safety of the pipeline. Any future development that involves excavation using mechanical equipment or explosives within the 30 m control zone will require

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 408

approval from the Proponent. The Proponent has communicated and will continue to communicate with developers that fall within the preferred corridor and variants around Rockwood Park. Once the detailed route selection process is completed, the Proponent should discuss measures to address any changes or restrictions to land use with affected developers, including compensation where warranted.

Recreational Land Use

It is not anticipated that there will be any residual environmental effects of the Project’s presence on recreational land use other than the loss of forest habitat during Construction. This forest within the eventual 30 m RoW will not be allowed to grow back due to the need to maintain the ability to access the RoW in the case of an emergency on the RoW, but can return to forest after the lifespan of the Project. This slight decrease in forest habitat is not expected to change the amount of wildlife in certain vicinities for viewing or hunting, and the Project’s presence is not anticipated to have any direct mortality on wildlife, except in the situation of an unplanned event (Section 5.6, Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat). The presence of the pipeline will create additional edge habitat to the forest landscape. The presence of the pipeline is not anticipated to affect hunting capabilities throughout the Project area. The continued presence of the Project will not change any current recreational land use associated with watercourses. Unlike during Construction, there will not be any interruption of recreational use on land or at watercourses due to the continued Project presence. Although considered trespass, the existence of the eventual pipeline RoW may increase ATV traffic along the RoW (this potential environmental effect is discussed in Section 5.9.5.3).

Rockwood Park

All recreational activities that currently occur in Rockwood Park, in any season, will be allowed to continue during the Operation and Maintenance phase of the Project. Certain activities within or near the proposed pipeline RoW (e.g., campfires, excavations, installation of fence posts) will require that the Proponent be notified in advance of the activity, in accordance with the Onshore Pipeline Regulations, to ensure that the activity does not compromise the integrity of the pipeline. There will be no aboveground obstructions or features in the RoW that would limit access to any of the Park’s trails or facilities. The existing topography of the land within the park adjacent to the power transmission line RoW will be restored to the maximum extent practicable.

Forest Resource Land Use

The Operation and Maintenance phase of the Project will not result in environmental effects beyond those resulting from the Construction phase.

Agricultural Land Use

Any current agricultural activities within the current corridor and eventual RoW will be permitted to continue during the Operation and Maintenance phase of the Project. The Operation and Maintenance phase of the Project will not result in environmental effects to agricultural activities beyond those temporary environmental effects resulting from the Construction phase.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 409

Summary – Operation and Maintenance Phase

5.9.5.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

This section provides an evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.9.4). A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

Table 5.9.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Land and Resource Use

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: LAND AND RESOURCE USE Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Project Activities and Physical Potential Environmental Works Effects (See Table 3.1.1 Mitigation (A=Adverse; for list of specific P=Positive) activities and works) Magnitude Magnitude Extent Geographic Duration/Frequency Reversibility Ecological/Socio- and Cultural Context Economic

Hazardous Change in residential Environmental Materials Spill land use (A) Protection and Change in recreational Safety Management land use (A) Program Change in commercial Construction Safety land use (A) Manual Change in forest Maintenance Safety resource use (A) Manual Change in agricultural Emergency land use (A) Response Plans 1 1 1/1 R 2 Spill Response Procedures Operation and Maintenance Procedures Worker and contractor training Audits and Inspections Erosion and Change in recreational Follow EPP Sediment Control land use (A) Monitor erosion Failure control measures regularly 1 1 1/1 R 2 Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 410

Table 5.9.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Land and Resource Use

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: LAND AND RESOURCE USE Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Fire Change in residential Environmental land use (A) Protection and Change in recreational Safety Management land use (A) Program Change in commercial Operation and land use (A) Maintenance 1 2/3 1/1 I 2 Change in forest Procedures resource use (A) Emergency Change in agricultural Preparedness and land use (A) Response Plan RoW Monitoring and Surveillance Temporary Change in recreational Follow EPP Watercourse land use (A) Monitor approach Crossing Washout roads, abutments and bridge decks regularly. Correct deficiencies 1 1 1/1 R 2 immediately Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program Unauthorized Change in recreational Signage, natural Access to RoW land use (A) barriers and fencing Public Awareness 1 3 1/2 R 2 Program RoW Monitoring and Surveillance

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 411

Table 5.9.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Land and Resource Use

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: LAND AND RESOURCE USE Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Pipeline Rupture or Change in residential Environmental Leak land use (A) Protection and Change in recreational Safety Management land use (A) Program Change in commercial CSA Z662 Design land use (A) Standards Change in forestry Quantitative Risk resource land use (A) Analysis Change in agricultural Construction Quality land use (A) Assurance 1 2 1/1 R 2 Operation and Maintenance Procedures Worker and contractor training Pipeline IMP Public Awareness Program RoW Monitoring and Surveillance Key: Magnitude: 1 = Low: e.g., specific group, residence or Geographic Extent: Frequency: Ecological/Socio-cultural and Economic neighbourhood affected such that adjacent 1 = <1 km2 1 = <11 events/year Context: land use activities will be disrupted such 2 = 1-10 km2 2 = 11 - 50 events/year 1 = Relatively pristine area or area not that current activities cannot continue even 3 = 11-100 km2 3 = 51 - 100 events/year adversely affected by human after short periods of time. 4 = 101 - 1,000 km2 4 = 101 - 200 activity. 2 = Medium: e.g., part of a community 5 = 1,001 - 10,000 km2 events/year 2 = Evidence of adverse environmental affected such that adjacent land use 6 = >10,000 km2 5 = >200 events/year effects. activities will be disrupted such that current 6 = continuous activities cannot continue for extended Duration: period of time longer than two years. 1 = <1 month Reversibility: N/A = Not Applicable 3 = High: e.g., community affected such that 2 = 1 - 12 months R = Reversible (A) = adverse adjacent land use activities will be 3 = 13 - 36 months I = Irreversible (P) = positive disrupted such that current activities 4 = 37 - 72 months cannot continue for extended periods of 5 = >72 months time longer than two years and are not compensated for.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 412

Management) are prevention oriented to reduce the risk of accidents, malfunctions and unplanned events occurring as a result of project construction and operation and maintenance activities. Hazardous Materials Spill Hazardous materials spills and fires could have environmental effects on recreational, residential, commercial, forest resource, and agriculture land use depending on the location, extent, and timing of the spill and/or fire. Spills are frequently the result of the loss of petroleum, oils, and lubricants during refuelling of machinery or through breaks in hydraulic lines. These spills are usually highly localized and easily cleaned up by onsite crews using standard equipment.

In the unlikely event of a large spill, soil, groundwater, and surface water contamination may occur, thereby potentially adversely affecting the groundwater (see Section 5.2, Water Resources), fish and fish habitat (see Section 5.3, Fish and Fish Habitat), wetland habitat (see Section 5.5, Wetlands), and resulting in the ingestion/uptake of contaminants by wildlife (see Section 5.7, Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat). Spills related to project activities will be very limited in area and anticipated to be very limited in duration. Residential and commercial land use will be restored following the completion of clean-up of the spill.

A Construction Safety Manual, a Maintenance Safety Manual and operation and maintenance procedures will be prepared and will prescribe measures to prevent spills of hazardous materials. Further, the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program during Construction, and Emergency Response Plans developed for Operation and Maintenance, will include spill response procedures that will direct workers and contractors to quickly contain and cleanup spills should they occur and prevent hazardous or toxic materials from entering vulnerable areas such as watercourses. It is recommended that workers and contractors be given training on the applicable sections of the safety manuals and procedures, and safety program audits and site inspections will ensure compliance with procedures in the field. The handling of fuel and other hazardous materials will be in compliance with the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System and should be located in work areas away from vulnerable areas (e.g., watercourses). Operation and maintenance procedures should ensure activities involving hazardous materials or toxic substances (e.g., fuelling equipment) are performed safely and activities where hazardous materials are stored or used are located well away from vulnerable areas. It is recommended that engineered barriers (e.g., secondary containment of storage tanks) be used to ensure that any spills are confined within a small area and will not disperse in the environment to any great extent. Thus, the potential environmental effects from Project-related hazardous materials spills on Land and Resource Use are rated not significant. Fire Fires as a result of the Project may result in a significant loss or damage to property, forests, or agricultural crops, and could restrict access to recreational, residential, commercial, forest resource, or agricultural land use areas. Proper material management (i.e., fuel and other hazardous materials) and operational procedures (i.e., storage, handling, and transfer of POLs) will reduce the potential for and extent of accidental fires related to the Project. In the event of a forest fire (project induced or not) in the area of the Project, fire fighting activities will be coordinated by provincial officials.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 413

Contingency planning and procedures in the event of a fire will be presented in the Proponent’s Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program. A Construction Safety Manual, a Maintenance Safety Manual and operation and maintenance procedures will be prepared and should describe how to perform work safely to prevent fires, and prescribe measures that will mitigate the environmental effects of, and contain, construction fires should they occur. During Construction, due care and attention should be made to reduce the potential for starting forest fires. In particular, construction activities should be planned such that potential ignition sources are minimized and emergency response capability is provided along the Project site to respond to any small fires that may start onsite. It is recommended that workers and contractors be trained in the fire prevention and response procedures contained in the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program and in accordance with the New Brunswick Forest Fires Act. Safety program audits and site inspections should also be implemented throughout the Project Construction and Operation and Maintenance phases to ensure compliance with program policy and procedures. Thus, the potential environmental effects from construction-related fires and/or forest fires have the potential to be significant but are unlikely to occur. Erosion and Sediment Control Failure There is the potential during heavy precipitation events or flash floods for erosion control structures (e.g., check dams) to fail. Erosion and sediment control failure could result in a disturbance to recreational fishing, and could be harmful to fish and fish habitat, including game fish like smallmouth bass, brook trout and Atlantic salmon. Changes in surface water and fish habitat quality may occur. To reduce the possibility of this occurring, protection measures should be followed as described in the EPP. Specifically, it is recommended that erosion control structures be monitored regularly and maintained in a functional condition until the grass on seeded slopes is sufficiently established to be an effective erosion deterrent. All erosion berms should be inspected regularly and those found to be deficient should be repaired. Thus, the potential environmental effects from Project-related erosion and sediment control failure are rated not significant. Temporary Watercourse Crossing Washout The washout of a temporary watercourse crossing structures could result in disturbance to the recreational use of the river or stream (i.e., boating or fishing). These temporary watercourse crossing structures will be installed as per Watercourse and Wetland Alteration (WAWA) permits and the Project EPP for Construction. Watercourse crossing structures should be sized and designed to accommodate most high water events and will be installed as per applicable permits. It is recommended that watercourse crossing structures, approaches and abutments be inspected at regular intervals and deficiencies corrected immediately. Thus, the potential environmental effects from a Project-related watercourse crossing washout are rated not significant. Unauthorized Access to RoW It is recommended that measures be employed along the pipeline route to prevent the RoW being used for unwanted ATV and snowmobile traffic. The specific measures to be employed will be determined after the detailed pipeline route has been selected and should be based on the specific geographic conditions that exist, and after discussions with landowners, stakeholders and regulatory agencies, as appropriate. Measures typically employed include installation of natural barriers using the natural topography to advantage where practicable (e.g., placement of rock barriers, planting of tree and shrub barriers), fencing and posting of signs prohibiting trespass. The Public Awareness Program for the

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 414

pipeline should also include a discussion of trespass and the potential consequences of unauthorized and/or unlawful entry onto properties along the RoW. It is recommended that the pipeline RoW be routinely monitored for unauthorized activities in the RoW during the course of the Project Operation and Maintenance phase. If unauthorized activities in the RoW are detected, additional measures to stop and or discourage unauthorized activities should be implemented after discussions with landowners, stakeholders and regulatory agencies, as appropriate. Thus, the potential environmental effects from Project-related unauthorized access to the RoW are rated not significant.

Pipeline Rupture or Leak

The entire pipeline system will be installed subsurface, with the exception of valve sites, and meter station and launcher/receiver sites. Burying the pipeline provides a level of protection from third party intrusions that could compromise the integrity of the pipeline. Unauthorized access to portions of the pipeline that are not buried is not permitted. The meter station and valve and launcher/receiver sites will be fenced, and regularly inspected for security. It is recommended that a pipeline monitoring and surveillance program be implemented such that the entire length of the pipeline RoW will be patrolled regularly (by foot and by air) to identify unauthorized activities within the RoW.

It is also recommended that the Proponent implement a Public Awareness and Education Program to minimize the potential for accidental human intrusion resulting in a pipeline rupture. An annual Public Awareness Program, in accordance with NEB regulations, should be implemented, stressing the hazards of, and need for, preventing unauthorized activities (e.g., digging) that may cause or contribute to pipeline ruptures occurring within the pipeline RoW. Call-before-you-dig programs, RoW warning markers, and extensive direct contact with landowners, contractors and local authorities will also help prevent unauthorized activities from occurring within the pipeline RoW. Thus, the potential environmental effects from a Project-related pipeline rupture or leak are rated not significant. Summary – Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events Based on consideration of the potential environmental effects of Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events associated with the Project, the proposed mitigation, and the residual environmental effects significance ratings criteria, the residual adverse environmental effects on Land and Resource Use have the potential to be significant but are unlikely to occur.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 415

5.9.6 Determination of Significance

Table 5.9.5 evaluates the significance of potential residual environmental effects resulting from any interactions between Project activities and Land and Resource Use, after taking into account any proposed mitigation. The table also considers the level of confidence of the Jacques Whitford Study Team in this determination.

Table 5.9.5 Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix for Land and Resource Use

Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix Valued Environmental Component: LAND AND RESOURCE USE

Residual Likelihood Level of Phase Environmental Confidence Probability of Scientific Effects Rating* Occurrence Certainty Construction NS 3 1 3 Operation and Maintenance NS 3 1 3 Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events S 3 1 3 Project Overall NS 2/3 1/3 3 Key: Residual Environmental Effects Rating: Probability of Occurrence of Residual Environmental Effects: based on professional judgement S = Significant Adverse Environmental Effects 1 = Low Probability of Occurrence NS = Not-significant Adverse Environmental Effects 2 = Medium Probability of Occurrence P = Positive Environmental Effects 3 = High Probability of Occurrence

*As determined in consideration of established residual environmental effects rating criteria.

Based on consideration of the potential environmental effects of all phases of the Project, the proposed mitigation, and the residual environmental effects significance ratings criteria, the residual adverse environmental effects on Land and Resource Use are rated not significant, with the exception of some accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events (e.g., forest fire) that are unlikely to occur.

5.9.7 Follow-up and Monitoring

Where the Project parallels existing corridors (e.g., power lines, pipelines), the Project is not anticipated to induce any greater degree of trespassing. Where trespass becomes an issue for landowners, the Proponent should work with landowners to decrease the access. Mitigation measures that can be taken include signage (especially at road crossings), fencing, and rock and tree screen barriers.

The pipeline is regularly inspected and the RoW is periodically monitored. A toll-free telephone line is available for residents who will live along the eventual RoW so that an issue or concern can reach the Proponent quickly. A team is specifically dedicated to responding to calls from residents. Therefore, no additional monitoring or follow-up will be required for Land and Resource Use.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 416

5.10 Infrastructure and Services

5.10.1 Rationale for Selection as Valued Environmental Component

Infrastructure and Services was selected as a VEC because of the potential for the Project to interact with infrastructure and services in the immediate vicinity of the Project. In particular, this VEC assesses the potential environmental effects of Project activities on Infrastructure and Services during Construction, Operation and Maintenance, and Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events. Infrastructure and services include but are not limited to health care, policing and fire protection, transportation, sanitary and storm water sewers, water mains, and electrical and other natural gas utilities.

5.10.2 Environmental Assessment Boundaries

5.10.2.1 Spatial

The spatial boundaries (the “Assessment Area”) for the assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Project on Infrastructure and Services include the preferred corridor and variants around Rockwood Park and adjacent areas and communities where activities associated with Construction, Operation and Maintenance, and Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events of the Project could result in environmental effects on Infrastructure and Services.

5.10.2.2 Temporal

The temporal boundaries for the assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Project on Infrastructure and Services included the Construction, Operation and Maintenance of the Project for the life of the pipeline.

5.10.2.3 Administrative and Technical

Information used for the assessment of Infrastructure and Services include aerial photography (GEODAT 2005; City of Saint John 2004), and previous environmental assessments conducted for the SJL Pipeline (Washburn & Gillis 1998), the M&NP Mainline Pipeline (Washburn & Gillis 1996), and the IPL (AMEC 2002). Other sources include Government of New Brunswick databases, internet sites of recreational user groups, a preliminary evaluation of the urban corridor routing (Godfrey 2005; Godfrey 2006), consultation with City of Saint John officials, and the professional judgment of the Jacques Whitford Study Team.

It is the professional judgement of the Jacques Whitford Study Team that the data available to characterize the existing conditions and existing knowledge of Infrastructure and Services in the Assessment Area regarding the potential Project-VEC interactions, were sufficient to provide a baseline against which the environmental effects of the Project could be assessed. Details on Infrastructure and Services in the Assessment Area are provided in Section 4.11.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 417

5.10.3 Residual Environmental Effects Rating Criteria

A significant residual adverse environmental effect on Infrastructure and Services is one in which the Project results in an uncompensated decrease in the integrity and/or functionality of infrastructure and services.

A positive environmental effect occurs when the Project results in enhanced or increased functionality or integrity of infrastructure and services.

5.10.4 Potential Interactions, Issues, and Concerns

This section evaluates the potential for Project-related activities to affect Infrastructure and Services. Table 5.10.1 provides a summary of the potential environmental effects resulting from the Project-VEC interactions, which are discussed below.

Table 5.10.1 Project Activity – Environmental Effects Interaction Matrix for Infrastructure and Services

Potential Interactions Between Project Activities and Environmental Effects Valued Environmental Component: INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES

Potential Environmental Effect Project Activities and Physical Works (See Table 3.1.1 for list of specific activities and works) Change in Infrastructure and/or Services

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 418

5.10.4.1 Construction

Within Saint John or in its vicinity, the preferred corridor crosses Red Head Road, Old Black River Road, Grandview Avenue, Loch Lomond Road, Westmorland Road, Rothesay Avenue, Route 1, and other secondary transportation corridors. While the rural portion of the preferred corridor intersects a number of secondary highways, the only major transportation corridor intersected is Route 1. Similarly, the preferred corridor intersects with the CN Railway, and the New Brunswick and Southern Railway (NBSR) in Saint John and on the McAdam to St. Stephen railway link. During pipeline installation, there could be temporary disruptions to traffic flow at these crossing locations.

The preferred corridor also follows an existing power transmission line RoW in Rockwood Park. Pipeline installation could result in temporary disruptions to recreational activities within the affected portion of the Park. An assessment of the potential for environmental effects on recreational land use, with respect to Rockwood Park, can be found in Section 5.9 (Land and Resource Use) of this assessment. The potential for loss of recreational activity was assessed, the interruption to such activities considered to be temporary, and rated not significant.

The local Saint John Canadian Blood Services Agency (CBSA) facility is located south of the Saint John Hospital, approximately 100 m from one of the north of Rockwood Park route variants. This facility processes, stores, and supplies blood to the entire Province of New Brunswick and is sensitive to ground vibrations such as those that would be anticipated during construction activities (e.g., blasting) in proximity to the facility. Access to the facility by donors during collection hours and by mobile CBSA vehicles is required for the operation of blood services in New Brunswick.

The Saint John portion of the preferred corridor will also pass through areas that have numerous sanitary and storm sewers and water mains, as well as existing oil and/or gas pipelines, as listed in Table 4.11.2 and Table 4.11.3 (Section 4.11, Infrastructure and Services). These existing utilities are buried at various depths and there have been recent upgrades to the City’s sanitary sewer and water distribution systems (Godfrey 2005; Godfrey 2006). The exact location, depth, and size of all underground infrastructure utilities will need to be obtained to complete the identification of potentially conflicting infrastructure (Godfrey 2005; Godfrey 2006). Interaction with any of the existing infrastructure could result in brief service interruptions to area residents.

Along the rural portion of the preferred corridor, some potable water wells and septic systems may be present. The number and distribution of existing groundwater resources is addressed in Section 5.2 (Water Resources).

Some construction personnel (approximately 340 and 580 workers in the urban and rural portions of the pipeline, respectively) will require accommodations during site preparation and pipeline installment.

Temporary site access roads may be required. Depending on the location of these temporary facilities, traffic flow patterns could be affected where the temporary access roads meet existing transportation corridors.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 419

5.10.4.2 Operation and Maintenance

Should pipeline repairs be required at locations within urban areas where the pipeline crosses existing streets, or where the pipeline crosses transportation corridors, temporary disruptions to traffic could occur.

If excavation is required to repair a section of pipeline, the potential environmental effects would be the same as construction activities and are thus considered in Section 5.10.5.1 (Construction). These environmental effects are unlikely; however, if they do occur they will be temporary.

5.10.4.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

A hazardous materials spill, pipeline leak or rupture, although unlikely, and fire resulting from an accident, malfunction or unplanned event, could result in disruptions to traffic flow should the event occur at a transportation corridor crossing or broken water mains or other utilities that may be in the vicinity. In the event of a pipeline rupture and/or rupture and fire, local fire response services will be required. Depending on the detailed design and final routing of the pipeline RoW, the Saint John Regional Hospital may fall within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) for the Project if the north variant around Rockwood Park is selected, and therefore would be included in the Project Emergency Preparedness and Response Plans. This would not be the case if either the preferred corridor through Rockwood Park or the south variant is selected. In the event of a pipeline rupture and/or rupture and fire, local fire response services will also be required.

During Construction, or Operation and Maintenance, an occupational injury may require local medical services.

5.10.4.4 Rockwood Park

During pipeline installation in the preferred corridor in Rockwood Park, there could be temporary disruptions to the hiking trails and any other recreational activities in areas of the Park immediately adjacent to the construction activities. This potential interaction was assessed in Section 5.9 (Land and Resource Use) and was determined to be temporary and rated not significant. The corridor variants around Rockwood Park (north and south) present potential interactions with the infrastructure of the park and the homes surrounding the Park. Tables 4.11.1 to 4.11.3 (Section 4.11, Infrastructure and Services Existing Conditions) summarize the major infrastructure that the pipeline would cross within Saint John. The Cherry Brook Zoo has a single access road. Depending on the method used to cross the road (i.e., bore vs. open cut), there may be some short duration delays (i.e., less than one day) in accessing the zoo. However, any of these disruptions to infrastructure, whether roads, domestic water, or natural gas supply, would be of very short duration, and only during the Construction phase of the Project.

If the north variant around Rockwood Park is selected, then the pipeline would be located closer to the Saint John Regional Hospital than the preferred corridor (the north variant would locate the pipeline approximately 140 m from the hospital, and would locate the pipeline well within the EPZ (Figure 2.2.6).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 420

Both of the corridor variants around Rockwood Park could potentially result in the same general interactions with Infrastructure and Services as the preferred corridor, only to a different extent. As a result, the potential environmental effects on Infrastructure and Services and associated mitigation would be similar for both the preferred corridor and the assessment of the variants around Rockwood Park. Any site-specific potential interactions and associated mitigation for the variants around Rockwood Park with respect to Infrastructure and Services will be noted separately in the EA as warranted.

5.10.5 Environmental Effects Analysis and Mitigation

5.10.5.1 Construction

This section provides an evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Construction as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.10.3). A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

Table 5.10.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Infrastructure and Services

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES Phase: Construction

Site Preparation Change in Accommodations infrastructure Plan for construction 1 2 1/2 R 2 and/or services workers (N/A)

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 421

Table 5.10.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Infrastructure and Services

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES Phase: Construction

Pipeline Installation Change in Pipeline will be infrastructure installed by bore, if and/or services (A) practicable, under major transportation corridors or corridors with high traffic volumes Minimize time that crossings are trenched on secondary routes Pipeline installation timed to occur during periods of low traffic volumes 1 2 1/2 R 2 RoW routed to avoid water, sewer and gas infrastructure Accommodations Plan for construction workers Site restoration immediately following construction Proponent and contractors to work with City officials and operators of other utilities Temporary Ancillary Change in Site temporary Structures and Facilities infrastructure facilities to minimize 1 2 2/1 R 2 and/or services (A) conflict with existing traffic flow

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 422

Table 5.10.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Infrastructure and Services

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES Phase: Construction

Key:

Magnitude: Geographic Extent: Frequency: Ecological/Socio-cultural and Economic 1 = Low: e.g., infrastructure and services are 1 = <1 km2 1 = <11 events/year Context: affected in nearby communities over the 2 = 1-10 km2 2 = 11 - 50 events/year 1 = Relatively pristine area or area not short-term. 3 = 11-100 km2 3 = 51 - 100 events/year adversely affected by human activity. 2 = Medium: e.g., infrastructure and services 4 = 101 - 1,000 km2 4 = 101 - 200 2 = Evidence of adverse environmental are affected in nearby communities for 5 = 1,001 - 10,000 km2 events/year effects. more than the short-term but less the 6 = >10,000 km2 5 = >200 events/year predicted life of the Project. 6 = continuous 3 = High: e.g., infrastructure and services are Duration: N/A = Not Applicable affected in nearby communities for more 1 = <1 month Reversibility: (A) = adverse than the predicted life of the Project, or 2 = 1 - 12 months R = Reversible (P) = positive irreversibly. 3 = 13 - 36 months I = Irreversible 4 = 37 - 72 months 5 = >72 months

Pipeline installation could result in temporary disruptions to traffic flow in areas where the pipeline crosses transportation corridors. However, along major transportation corridors such as Route 1, or at corridors with high traffic volumes such as Rothesay Avenue, the pipeline will likely be installed by bore (i.e., placed under the road with no interruption to traffic). If these road bores are not practicable, there may be some temporary slowing of traffic as the pipeline is installed via open trenching methods. These interruptions will be no different from those experienced by urban dwellers throughout Saint John as various construction projects use and affect the road network. Similarly, for secondary highways and smaller roads, the pipeline will be placed in a trench through the road. Again, any interruptions will be coordinated and for very short duration. Further, alternative transportation corridors are available along the preferred corridor that will allow traffic to continue without interruption and placement of pipeline at any given crossing location is typically completed within one day. Where trenching and placement of pipeline in transportation corridors is used, the work should be completed as quickly as practicable to minimize disruptions to traffic flow. The environmental effect on traffic will be localized, and of a short duration. As well, pipeline installation should occur during periods of low traffic volume whenever practicable. Any temporary traffic disruptions will be coordinated with the appropriate municipal or provincial authorities and will meet all applicable by-laws or regulations. At no time should access to any area be completely cut off. Alternate access, if required, should always be available in case of emergency. Site restoration will immediately follow pipeline installation.

The Proponent and its contractors will work with the Canadian Blood Services Agency (CBSA) to ensure that construction activities do not adversely affect the materials and equipment contained within their facility. Numerous other construction activities (e.g., City sponsored water and sewer work) have taken place in proximity to the facility and in all cases mitigation such as proper notification and

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 423

planning, construction scheduling, and vibration minimization techniques have been sufficient to address the requirements of the CBSA. It is anticipated that this will be the case for any pipeline construction activities as well. It is not anticipated that construction activities within the preferred corridor will affect the facility or limit access to it.

The preferred corridor travels through areas with sanitary and storm sewers, water mains, and oil and gas pipelines in the urban Saint John section (Section 4.11, Infrastructure and Services). The final RoW alignment and pipeline design will avoid all such infrastructure to the extent practicable. All subsurface infrastructure should be located prior to excavating and the Proponent should work closely with utility companies, landowners, and municipalities (e.g., the City of Saint John) to identify and avoid all subsurface infrastructures such that disruptions to services will not occur as a result of pipeline installation. Alternatively, if absolutely necessary, interruptions should be of very short duration. Where justified, costs for any alterations to existing infrastructure will be borne by the Proponent.

The potential environmental effects of Project construction activities in areas with potable water wells and septic systems along the rural section was assessed in Section 5.2 (Water Resources) and rated not significant.

Some construction personnel will require accommodations during site preparation and pipeline installation. It is anticipated that approximately 340 workers will be required for construction of the urban portion of the pipeline and approximately 580 workers will be required for construction of the rural section. Site preparation activities will occur during winter and spring, a period when tourism is lowest in the area. Pipeline installation will occur in the summer and fall and could affect the availability of accommodations in localized areas for a short period of time. However, during construction of the urban portion of the pipeline, many workers will return home at the end of the work day. For those construction personnel that require it, accommodations will be pre-arranged based on the site preparation and pipeline installation schedules and it is anticipated that existing accommodations along the preferred corridor will be able to accommodate the construction personnel (Section 5.11, Labour and Economy). The majority of construction workers (e.g., operators and labourers) will be local residents who will not require additional accommodations. Recreational vehicle campgrounds are frequently used by those members of the labour force who are not local residents. There are a number of campgrounds throughout the urban and rural portions of the Project. Often, construction workers exploit types of accommodations, such as renting houses, that tourists do not. It is anticipated that the workforce requirements will be similar to those required for the construction of the SJL, and the facilities available in Saint John and along the preferred corridor will be adequate to accommodate the increased usage.

Where temporary access to the RoW is required for Construction, the Proponent will, where practicable, acquire the right to use an existing access on a temporary basis. If necessary, the contractor may make improvements to these access routes by minor grading or adding gravel as needed. Therefore, the environmental effects on traffic flow caused by the presence of temporary access roads are expected to be negligible and rated not significant.

Planned mitigations for Construction will minimize the disruption to secondary transportation routes during Construction. Pipeline crossing sites are typically completed in one day or less.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 424

Summary – Construction Phase

5.10.5.2 Operation and Maintenance

This section provides an evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Operation and Maintenance as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.10.4). A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

Table 5.10.3 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Infrastructure and Services

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES Phase: Operation and Maintenance

Pipeline Maintenance Change in Minimize time that infrastructure road crossings are 1 1 1/1 R 2 and/or services (A) trenched Key:

Similar to pipeline installation, where trenching is required for pipeline maintenance during Operation and Maintenance, the duration that trenches are open should be minimized at highway or road crossings. It is anticipated that the requirement for this type of pipeline maintenance will be highly unlikely and, if required, temporary. This kind of maintenance work would be limited to localized areas.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 425

Summary – Operation and Maintenance Phase

5.10.5.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

This section provides an evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.10.5). A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

Table 5.10.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Infrastructure and Services

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Hazardous Materials Spill Change in Construction Safety infrastructure Manual and/or services (A) Maintenance Safety Manual Spill Response Procedures Operation and 1 1 1/1 R 2 Maintenance Procedures Worker and contractor training Audits and Inspections

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 426

Table 5.10.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Infrastructure and Services

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Fire Change in CSA Z662 Design infrastructure Standards and/or services (A) Quantitative Risk Analysis Construction Quality Assurance Operation and Maintenance Procedures Worker and 2 3 1/1 R 2 contractor training Pipeline IMP Public Awareness Program Field Emergency Response Plan Continuing Education for First Responders RoW Monitoring and Surveillance Occupational Injury Change in Construction Safety infrastructure Manual and/or services (A) Maintenance Safety Manual Contractor Selection and Contract Management Operation and Maintenance Procedures Worker and 1 1 1/1 R 2 contractor training Audits and Inspections Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 427

Table 5.10.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Infrastructure and Services

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Project Activities and Potential Physical Works Environmental (See Table 3.1.1 for list of Effects Mitigation specific activities and (A=Adverse; works) P=Positive) Magnitude Magnitude Extent Geographic Duration/Frequency Reversibility Ecological/Socio- and Cultural Context Economic Pipeline Rupture or Leak Change in CSA Z662 Design infrastructure Standards and/or services (A) Quantitative Risk Analysis Construction Quality Assurance Operation and Maintenance 1 1 1/1 R 2 Procedures Worker and contractor training Pipeline IMP Public Awareness Program RoW Monitoring and Surveillance Key:

An environmental management framework, comprised of a Pipeline Design and Quality Assurance Program, an Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program, an Emergency Preparedness and Response Program, and a Public Awareness Program, will be developed and implemented by the Proponent and should contain specific measures to mitigate potential adverse environmental effects identified from the assessment of Project activities, including accidents, malfunctions and unplanned events. The mitigation measures to be implemented (described in Section 2.8, Environmental Management) are prevention oriented to reduce the risk of accidents, malfunctions and unplanned events occurring as a result of project construction and operation and maintenance activities.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 428

Hazardous Materials Spill

The likelihood of a significant residual adverse environmental effect resulting from a hazardous material spill during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance is low. The potential environmental effects of a spill of hazardous materials would depend on the location and severity of the event. Due to the nature of construction equipment with numerous hydraulic hoses, a number of localized, small spills may occur. However, should such an event occur, it is anticipated that it would be localized and of short duration.

A Construction Safety Manual, a Maintenance Safety Manual and operation and maintenance procedures will be prepared and will prescribe measures to prevent spills of hazardous materials. Further, the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program during Construction, and Emergency Response Plans developed for Operation and Maintenance, will include spill response procedures that will direct workers and contractors to quickly contain and cleanup spills should they occur and prevent hazardous or toxic materials from entering vulnerable areas such as watercourses. It is recommended that workers and contractors be given training on the applicable sections of the safety manuals and procedures, and safety program audits and site inspections will ensure compliance with procedures in the field. The handling of fuel and other hazardous materials will be in compliance with the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System and should be located in work areas away from vulnerable areas (e.g., watercourses). Operation and maintenance procedures should ensure activities involving hazardous materials or toxic substances (e.g., fuelling equipment) are performed safely and activities where hazardous materials are stored or used are located well away from vulnerable areas. It is recommended that engineered barriers (e.g., secondary containment of storage tanks) be used to ensure that any spills are confined within a small area and will not disperse in the environment to any great extent. Thus, the potential environmental effects from Project-related a hazardous material spill are rated not significant.

Fire

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 429

Conventional accidents that could result in occupational injuries will be addressed by the Proponent’s Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program and a commitment to maintaining a high level of safety in all of the Proponent’s operations. The principal accidents, malfunctions, or unplanned events of concern relating to Health and Safety are related to conventional hazards posed by undertaking construction, and operation and maintenance activities. Occupational injuries related to the transport of natural gas will, for the most part, be addressed by the measures to reduce the probability and severity of loss of pipeline containment (i.e., ruptures/leaks) and fires, and are discussed in the following sections.

Occupational Injury

A Construction Safety Manual, a Maintenance Safety Manual, and operation and maintenance procedures will be prepared and should describe how to perform work safely and prevent accidents, and prescribe measures, such as use of personal protective equipment, that will mitigate the environmental effects of accidents if they occur. It is recommended that workers and contractors be trained in the policies and procedures contained in the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program. Safety program audits and site inspections should also be implemented throughout the Project Construction, and Operation and Maintenance phases to ensure compliance with program policy and procedures.

Although this injury rate is low, the Proponent’s Environment, Health & Safety Policy, and implementation of the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program, contractor selection and contract management processes, worker and contractor training, and audits and site inspections will further reduce the probability of injuries occurring. Thus, the potential environmental effects to Infrastructure and Services from a Project-related injury are rated not significant.

Pipeline Rupture or Leak

Ruptures resulting in fire from the pipeline during the Project Operation and Maintenance phase may have environmental effects on Infrastructure and Services. Potential environmental effects to public and worker health and safety was assessed in Section 5.7 (Health and Safety). Potential

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 430

environmental effects to infrastructure, such as disruption of services, would only be temporary (i.e., 24 to 48 hours) as a result of a large pipeline rupture and fire, both of which are highly unlikely. The magnitude of the potential environmental effect would largely be a function of detailed pipeline design and the final location of the pipeline RoW. If the Saint John Regional Hospital falls within the Project EPZ (i.e., only if the pipeline is located within the north of Rockwood Park variant), then the Proponent will liaise with Saint John Regional Hospital staff to ensure appropriate emergency response and plans and procedures are in place to address potential pipeline rupture and fires.

The entire pipeline system will be installed subsurface, with the exception of valve sites, and meter station and launcher/receiver sites. Burying the pipeline provides a level of protection from third party intrusions that could compromise the integrity of the pipeline. Unauthorized access to portions of the pipeline that are not buried is not permitted. The meter station and valve and launcher/receiver sites will be fenced, and regularly inspected for security. It is recommended that a pipeline monitoring and surveillance program be implemented such that the entire length of the pipeline RoW will be patrolled regularly (by foot and by air) to identify unauthorized activities within the RoW.

It is also recommended that the Proponent implement a Public Awareness and Education Program to minimize the potential for accidental human intrusion resulting in a pipeline rupture. An annual Public Awareness Program, in accordance with NEB regulations, should be implemented, stressing the hazards of, and need for, preventing unauthorized activities (e.g., digging) that may cause or contribute to pipeline ruptures occurring within the pipeline RoW. Call-before-you-dig programs, RoW warning markers, and extensive direct contact with landowners, contractors and local authorities will also help prevent unauthorized activities from occurring within the pipeline RoW. Thus, the potential environmental effects from Project-related from a pipeline rupture or leak are rated not significant. Summary – Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events Based on consideration of the likelihood of potential environmental effects of Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events resulting from the Project activities and the proposed mitigation, and the residual environmental effects significance ratings criteria, the residual adverse environmental effects on Infrastructure and Services are rated not significant.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 431

5.10.6 Determination of Significance

Table 5.10.6 evaluates the significance of potential residual environmental effects resulting from any interactions between Project activities and Infrastructure and Services, after taking into account any proposed mitigation. The table also considers the level of confidence of the Jacques Whitford Study Team in this determination.

Table 5.10.5 Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix for Infrastructure and Services

Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix Valued Environmental Component: INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES

Residual Likelihood Level of Phase Environmental Confidence Probability of Scientific Effects Rating* Occurrence Certainty Construction NS 3 2 3 Operation and Maintenance NS 3 1 3 Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events NS 3 1 3 Project Overall NS 3 1/2 3 Key: Residual Environmental Effects Rating: Probability of Occurrence of Residual Environmental Effects: based on professional judgement S = Significant Adverse Environmental Effects 1 = Low Probability of Occurrence NS = Not-significant Adverse Environmental Effects 2 = Medium Probability of Occurrence P = Positive Environmental Effects 3 = High Probability of Occurrence

*As determined in consideration of established residual environmental effects rating criteria.

Based on consideration of the potential environmental effects of all phases of the Project, the proposed mitigation, and the residual environmental effects significance ratings criteria, the residual adverse environmental effects on Infrastructure and Services are rated not significant.

5.10.7 Follow-up and Monitoring

During Construction, it is anticipated there will be no significant delay or congestion experienced by users of the road transportation network. Any potential adverse environmental effects to Infrastructure and Services are anticipated to be minor, localized, and of short duration. Therefore, no monitoring or follow-up is required.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 432

5.11 Labour and Economy

5.11.1 Rationale for Selection as Valued Environmental Component

Labour and Economy was selected as a VEC because of the potential interactions with Project activities primarily during the Construction phase of the Project, as well as during Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events. Specifically, Project-related interactions are evaluated with respect to the labour supply and the overall performance of the economy at both a provincial and regional level.

5.11.2 Environmental Assessment Boundaries

5.11.2.1 Spatial

The spatial boundaries for the assessment of the potential environmental effects (which include socio- economic effects as defined in Section 1.1, Project Overview) of the Project on Labour and Economy include the footprint and adjacent areas of the Project where activities associated with Construction, Operation and Maintenance, and Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events could potentially result in direct or indirect environmental effects. These environmental effects could include changes in employment rates, income, economic output, and labour supply. The Project’s environmental effects can be expected to be largely restricted to southwestern New Brunswick. However, the Province of New Brunswick, as a whole, may also be affected.

5.11.2.2 Temporal

The temporal boundaries for the assessment include the time period covering the Construction, and Operation and Maintenance of the Project. The primary focus is on evaluation of the potential environmental effects during the Construction period (winter 2007/2008 and summer/fall 2008). These environmental effects may also persist, to a lesser extent, during Project Operation and Maintenance.

5.11.2.3 Administrative and Technical

The Project lies within Saint John Census Metropolitan Area and Charlotte County. These jurisdictions have partial responsibility for the development and implementation of economic development strategies for their respective areas. The Province of New Brunswick has primary responsibility with respect to the management of economic development throughout the Province.

Information used for the assessment consisted of readily available information obtained from the following sources: Statistics Canada; the New Brunswick Department of Finance; and documentation from past environmental assessments of energy projects in the region. It is the professional judgement of the Jacques Whitford Study Team that the data available to characterize the existing conditions in the Assessment Area were sufficient to provide a baseline against which the environmental effects of

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 433

the Project could be adequately assessed. Existing conditions for Labour and Economy are provided in Section 4.12.

5.11.3 Residual Environmental Effects Rating Criteria

A significant residual adverse environmental effect on Labour and Economy is one where the Project induces substantive adverse changes in regional employment and/or regional economies. This includes access to existing businesses and agricultural and forestry operations, where the Project results in an extended (>7 consecutive days) temporary loss of access to, or a long-term sizable decrease to these economic activities.

A positive environmental effect occurs when the Project results in increased or enhanced changes in regional employment and/or regional economies.

5.11.4 Potential Interactions, Issues, and Concerns

This section evaluates the potential for Project-related activities to affect Labour and Economy. Table 5.11.1 provides a summary of the potential environmental effects resulting from the Project-VEC interactions, which are discussed below.

Table 5.11.1 Project Activity – Environmental Effects Interaction Matrix for Labour and Economy

Potential Interactions Between Project Activities and Environmental Effects Valued Environmental Component: LABOUR AND ECONOMY

Potential Environmental Effect Project Activities and Physical Works Change in Labour Change in Economy (See Table 3.1.1 for list of specific activities and works) (labour supply; (incomes; economic employment) production) Construction Site Preparation Pipeline Installation Watercourse Crossings Temporary Ancillary Structures and Facilities Operation and Maintenance Project Presence Pipeline Maintenance RoW Maintenance Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events Hazardous Materials Spill Erosion and Sediment Control Failure Fire Occupational Injury Wildlife Encounter

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 434

Table 5.11.1 Project Activity – Environmental Effects Interaction Matrix for Labour and Economy

Potential Interactions Between Project Activities and Environmental Effects Valued Environmental Component: LABOUR AND ECONOMY

Potential Environmental Effect Project Activities and Physical Works Change in Labour Change in Economy (See Table 3.1.1 for list of specific activities and works) (labour supply; (incomes; economic employment) production) Temporary Watercourse Crossing Washout Disturbance of Unidentified Archaeological or Heritage Resource Unauthorized Access to RoW Pipeline Rupture or Leak

5.11.4.1 Construction

Project Construction is expected to create direct, indirect, and induced employment and income. This will also be reflected by environmental effects on overall regional and provincial economic output and value added (gross domestic product, or GDP). These environmental effects are expected to be positive. There are potential adverse environmental effects on the local labour supply. The concern is that a large local demand due to the Project may cause a regional or provincial shortage of skilled labour in specific sectors and, thus, inhibit other economic development or create deleterious competition for the available labour. Additional concerns include the potential for the Project to interact adversely with existing industries (i.e., agriculture and forestry) during Construction.

5.11.4.2 Operation and Maintenance

Operation and Maintenance of the Project will require equipment and personnel. This is expected to create employment and local business opportunities. These environmental effects, although smaller in comparison to the Construction phase, are expected to be positive.

5.11.4.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events can cause disruptions to both the Project and other economic activities in the region (e.g., service, manufacturing, agriculture and forestry). These environmental effects include disruption of work itself, damage to property and resources, and restricted access to commercial and industrial operations. This could be a result of a hazardous materials spill, fire, or pipeline rupture.

5.11.4.4 Rockwood Park

Both of the corridor variants around Rockwood Park could potentially result in the same general interactions with Labour and Economy as the preferred corridor. As a result, the potential environmental effects on Labour and Economy and associated mitigation would be similar for both the preferred corridor and the assessment of the variants around Rockwood Park. Any site-specific

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 435

potential interactions and associated mitigation for the variants around Rockwood Park with respect to Labour and Economy will be noted separately in the EA as warranted.

5.11.5 Environmental Effects Analysis and Mitigation

5.11.5.1 Construction

This section provides an evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Construction as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.11.2). A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

Table 5.11.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Labour and Economy

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: LABOUR AND ECONOMY Phase: Construction

Site Preparation Change in labour Communication with (A/P) labour unions 1 5 3/6 R 2 Change in Communication with 1 5 3/1 R 2 economy (A/P) local suppliers Pipeline Installation Change in labour Communication with (A/P) labour unions 1 5 3/6 R 2 Change in Communication with 1 5 3/1 R 2 economy (A/P) local suppliers Temporary Ancillary Change in labour Communication with Structures and Facilities (A/P) labour unions 1 5 3/6 R 2 Change in Communication with 1 5 3/1 R 2 economy (A/P) local suppliers Key:

Magnitude: Geographic Extent: Frequency: Ecological/Socio-cultural and Economic 1=Low: e.g., employment and business are 1=<1 km² 1=<11 events/year Context: affected for eighteen months, or less. 2=1-10 km² 2=11 - 50 events/year 1 = Relatively pristine area or area not 2=Medium: e.g., employment and business are 3=11-100 km² 3=51 - 100 events/year adversely affected by human activity. affected for more than eighteen months but 4=101 - 1,000 km² 4=101 - 200 events/year 2 = Evidence of adverse environmental effects. less than the life of the Project. 5=1,001 - 10,000 km² 5=>200 events/year 3=High: e.g., employment and business are 6=>10,000 km² 6=continuous affected for longer than the life of the Project, N/A=Not Applicable or irreversibly. Duration: Reversibility: (A)=adverse 1=<1 month R=Reversible (P)=positive 2=1 - 12 months I=Irreversible 3=13 - 36 months 4=37 - 72 months 5=>72 months

During Construction, the urban portion of the Project (i.e., Saint John CMA) is estimated to involve approximately 340 individuals in various jobs, while the rural portion (i.e., Charlotte County) is

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 436

estimated to involve approximately 580 construction workers, plus supporting staff. Each of these positions, however, will be of varying duration. Total direct employment is estimated at approximately 373 person years, full-time equivalent (FTE).

The primary skills required for the work include truck drivers, equipment operators, piping trade, industrial welders, surveyors, and general labourers. The Proponent will attempt to source qualified labour locally (i.e., within Saint John CMA and Charlotte County), although the extent to which this occurs will depend somewhat on the hiring practices of the contractors and businesses that are used during Construction. Total Project expenditures are estimated at $350 million. This expenditure will affect various components of the economy, both within New Brunswick and the rest of Canada. Two types of economic effects, GDP impacts and gross economic production, are estimated using the Statistics Canada (2001b) New Brunswick input-output multiplier for oil and gas engineering construction. The GDP impact is a measure of the value added to the economy directly and indirectly through employment income and business profit. The impact on gross production is a measure of the change in the total output of the economy. The total GDP impact from construction activities is estimated at $137 million for the Province of New Brunswick and $210 million for the rest of Canada. The gross economic impact is estimated at $529 million for New Brunswick and $693 million for the rest of Canada. No mitigation is recommended with respect to the environmental effect on economic production from construction activities.

There is a total workforce of approximately 74,000 in Saint John CMA and Charlotte County (Statistics Canada 2001a). Of these, approximately 9,500 are experienced in construction and manufacturing industries in Saint John CMA. In Charlotte County, approximately 4,800 are experienced in construction and manufacturing industries. Given the existence of an experienced labour force in the region relative to the demands of the Project during Construction, there are no anticipated adverse environmental effects on the labour supply. Furthermore, as noted in Section 4.12.1 (Labour and Economy), the Assessment Area, particularly Charlotte County, has a relatively high rate of unemployment. This is further indication of the availability of labour. The unemployment rate for Saint John CMA, although lower relative to the provincial rate, is well above the rate considered to be a full employment level for an economy. It is the intent of the Proponent to communicate labour and material requirements to labour unions and local suppliers in advance of tenders to allow the local markets time to prepare for bids and adjust the labour force and training requirements where practicable. This communication may include vendor information sessions.

The Proponent has plans to encourage local and Aboriginal employment, procurement and contracting opportunities. One element of this plan includes an agreement with the First Nations of New Brunswick for an Aboriginal “set-aside” that targets 2% of all third party contracted services for New Brunswick Mi’kmaq and Maliseet businesses.

Any environmental effects on other industries, such as forestry and agriculture, will be minimized by paralleling existing corridors, where practicable. Merchantable timber should be salvaged as per agreements negotiated with individual landowners and/or the Crown. The duration of the construction at road crossings is to be minimized to avoid adverse environmental effects on businesses that depend on the local transportation infrastructure. Traffic mitigation strategies should be developed as appropriate.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 437

Summary – Construction Phase

Based on consideration of the potential environmental effects of construction activities associated with the Project, the proposed mitigation, and the residual environmental effects significance ratings criteria, the overall residual adverse environmental effects on Labour and Economy are rated positive.

5.11.5.2 Operation and Maintenance

This section provides an evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Operation and Maintenance as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.11.3). A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

Table 5.11.3 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Labour and Economy

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: LABOUR AND ECONOMY Phase: Operation and Maintenance

Project Presence Change in labour Not required (P) 2 5 5/6 R 2 Change in economy (P) Pipeline Maintenance Change in labour Not required (P) 2 5 5/6 R 2 Change in economy (P) RoW Maintenance Change in labour Not required (P) 2 5 5/6 R 2 Change in economy (P) Key:

During Operation and Maintenance, total direct employment is estimated at approximately 4.0 FTEs. The overall expenditure is estimated at $3.4 million annually. This expenditure will affect various

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 438

components of the economy, both within New Brunswick and the rest of Canada. The annual GDP impact from operation and maintenance activities is estimated at $2 million for the Province of New Brunswick and $2 million for the rest of Canada. The gross economic impact is estimated at $4 million for New Brunswick and $5 million for the rest of Canada. No mitigation is recommended with respect to the environmental effect on economic production from operation and maintenance activities.

The Project will also contribute tax revenues to various levels of government. The preliminary estimated annual taxes include $3.3 million (property), $2 million (federal income tax), $1 million (provincial tax), and $1 million (capital tax) for a total of $7.3 million.

Summary – Operation and Maintenance Phase

Based on consideration of the potential environmental effects of operation and maintenance activities associated with the Project, and the residual environmental effects significance ratings criteria, the residual adverse environmental effects on Labour and Economy are rated positive.

5.11.5.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

This section provides an evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.11.4). A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 439

Table 5.11.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Labour and Economy

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: LABOUR AND ECONOMY Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Hazardous Materials Change in labour Environmental and Spill (A) Safety Management Change in economy Program (A) Construction Safety Manual Maintenance Safety Manual Emergency Response Plans 1 2 1/1 R 2 Spill Response Procedures Operation and Maintenance Procedures Worker and contractor training Audits and Inspections Fire Change in labour • CSA Z662 Design (A) Standards Change in economy • Quantitative Risk (A) Assessment • Construction Quality Assurance • Environmental and Safety Management Program • Operation and 1 2 1/1 R 2 Maintenance Procedures • Pipeline IMP • Public Awareness Program • Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan • RoW Monitoring and Surveillance

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 440

Table 5.11.4 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Labour and Economy

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: LABOUR AND ECONOMY Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Pipeline Rupture or Change in labour • Environmental and Leak (A) Safety Management Change in economy Program (A) • CSA Z662 Design Standards • Quantitative Risk Assessment • Construction Quality Assurance • Operation and 1 2 1/1 R 2 Maintenance Procedures • Worker and contractor training • Pipeline IMP • Public Awareness Program • RoW Monitoring and Surveillance Key:

Hazardous Materials Spill

A hazardous materials spill, fire, or pipeline rupture is expected to have adverse environmental effects on Labour and Economy. However, these events have a low probability of occurrence and are likely to be short-term and localized. The nature and severity of the adverse environmental effects also depend on the location and timing of any accident, malfunction, or unplanned event. In the urban portion of the Project, where there is a greater concentration of businesses than in rural areas, there are more likely to be adverse environmental effects resulting from an event interfering with other commercial or

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 441

industrial activities. In rural areas, the adverse environmental effects are more likely to relate to the impairment of resource industries (e.g., forestry). The potential environmental effects of the Project on forest resources were assessed in Section 5.9 (Land Use and Resources).

An environmental management framework, comprised of a Pipeline Design and Quality Assurance Program, an Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program, an Emergency Preparedness and Response Program, and a Public Awareness Program, will be developed and implemented by the Proponent and should contain specific measures to mitigate potential adverse environmental effects identified from the assessment of Project activities, including accidents, malfunctions and unplanned events. The mitigation measures to be implemented (described in Section 2.8, Environmental Management) are prevention oriented to reduce the risk of accidents, malfunctions and unplanned events occurring as a result of project construction and operation and maintenance activities.

Fire

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 442

phases to ensure compliance with program policy and procedures. Thus, the potential environmental effects from construction-related fires and/or forest fires are rated not significant.

Pipeline Rupture or Leak

The entire pipeline system will be installed subsurface, with the exception of valve sites, and meter station and launcher/receiver sites. Burying the pipeline provides a level of protection from third party intrusions that could compromise the integrity of the pipeline. Unauthorized access to portions of the pipeline that are not buried is not permitted. The meter station and valve and launcher/receiver sites will be fenced, and regularly inspected for security. It is recommended that a pipeline monitoring and surveillance program be implemented such that the entire length of the pipeline RoW will be patrolled regularly (by foot and by air) to identify unauthorized activities within the RoW. Thus, the potential environmental effects from Project-related pipeline rupture or leak are rated not significant.

It is also recommended that the Proponent implement a Public Awareness and Education Program to minimize the potential for accidental human intrusion resulting in a pipeline rupture. An annual Public Awareness Program, in accordance with NEB regulations, should be implemented, stressing the hazards of, and need for, preventing unauthorized activities (e.g., digging) that may cause or contribute to pipeline ruptures occurring within the pipeline RoW. Call-before-you-dig programs, RoW warning markers, and extensive direct contact with landowners, contractors and local authorities will also help prevent unauthorized activities from occurring within the pipeline RoW. Fires relating to pipeline operation, for the most part, will be addressed by the measures to reduce the probability and severity of pipeline ruptures and leaks, discussed above. As the probability of a pipeline rupture occurring on the Project pipeline is low (one rupture every 360 years), then the probability of a fire resulting from a pipeline rupture is lower. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSBC) reports that the average number of releases from gas pipelines between 2000 and 2004, inclusive, was 13 per year, with 6 of the 13 releases resulting in a fire or explosion (TSBC 2005). Therefore, the probability of a fire resulting from a pipeline rupture or leak on the Brunswick Pipeline is approximately one fire every 800 years.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 443

Summary – Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events Based on consideration of the potential environmental effects of Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events associated with the Project, the proposed mitigation, and the residual environmental effects significance rating criteria, the residual adverse environmental effects on Labour and Economy are rated not significant.

5.11.6 Determination of Significance

Table 5.11.5 evaluates the significance of potential residual environmental effects resulting from any interactions between Project activities and Labour and Economy, after taking into account any proposed mitigation. The table also considers the level of confidence of the Jacques Whitford Study Team in this determination.

Table 5.11.5 Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix for Labour and Economy

Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix Valued Environmental Component: LABOUR AND ECONOMY

Residual Likelihood Level of Phase Environmental Confidence Probability of Scientific Effects Rating* Occurrence Certainty Construction P 3 3 3 Operation and Maintenance P 3 3 3 Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events NS 2 1 3 Project Overall P 2/3 1/3 3 Key: Residual Environmental Effects Rating: Probability of Occurrence of Residual Environmental Effects: based on professional judgement S = Significant Adverse Environmental Effects 1 = Low Probability of Occurrence NS = Not-significant Adverse Environmental Effects 2 = Medium Probability of Occurrence P = Positive Environmental Effects 3 = High Probability of Occurrence

*As determined in consideration of established residual environmental effects rating criteria.

Based on consideration of the potential environmental effects of all phases of the Project, the proposed mitigation, and the residual environmental effects significance ratings criteria, the residual adverse environmental effects on Labour and Economy are considered to be positive, with the exception of some accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events that are rated not significant.

5.11.7 Follow-up and Monitoring

No monitoring or follow-up is recommended with respect to the environmental effects of the Project on Labour and Economy.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 444

5.12 Archaeological and Heritage Resources

5.12.1 Rationale for Selection as Valued Environmental Component

Archaeological and Heritage Resources was included as a VEC in recognition of the interest of potentially affected First Nations, the general public as a whole, and provincial and federal regulatory agencies administering the effective management of these resources. For the purposes of this EA, Archaeological and Heritage Resources are defined as any physical remnants found on top of and/or below the surface of the ground that inform us of past human use of and interaction with the physical environment. These resources may date from the earliest pre-contact periods of human occupation within the proposed RoW, and extend up to the relatively recent past. Heritage buildings and/or structures are, by definition, part of this VEC. Although more related to issues of evolution or biophysical “heritage”, paleontological resources or fossil-bearing rocks are also included in this VEC. In particular, this VEC assesses the potential environmental effects of Project activities on Archaeological and Heritage Resources during Construction, Operation and Maintenance, as well as Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events.

5.12.2 Environmental Assessment Boundaries

5.12.2.1 Spatial

The spatial boundaries (the “Assessment Area”) for the assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Project on Archaeological and Heritage Resources include the locations of all Project- related activities associated with Construction, Operation and Maintenance, and Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events that could involve any ground disturbance within the preferred corridor or variants around Rockwood Park. Archaeological and Heritage Resources may be affected by any surficial or subsurface Project-related disturbance of the area within which these resources are located. The assessment of potential Project-related environmental effects on Archaeological and Heritage Resources is focused principally on those Project activities (including related geotechnical investigations) that entail ground disturbance, and are within the physical limits of those activities.

5.12.2.2 Temporal

The temporal boundaries for the assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Project on Archaeological and Heritage Resources include the Construction, and Operation and Maintenance of the Project for the life of the pipeline.

5.12.2.3 Administrative and Technical

The Archaeological Services Unit (ASU) of the Heritage Branch of the New Brunswick Culture and Sports Secretariat administers archaeological resources in the Province of New Brunswick. Archaeological sites are considered to be non-renewable resources and the unauthorized disturbance

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 445

of such resources may not legally take place except under strictly controlled conditions imposed by the terms of an Archaeological Field Research License which is issued to qualified personnel by the provincial government through ASU. ASU is also responsible for approving or modifying recommended mitigation measures applied to archaeological and heritage resources. Some archaeological sites can be assigned a “protected” status under the Historic Sites Protection Act if so designated by the Minister. The unauthorized disturbance of a protected heritage resource is punishable by a fine.

Baseline information for this assessment included the Maritime Archaeological Resource Inventory files, Borden Mapping, and Archaeological Projects Manuscripts located at ASU in Fredericton, the Canadian Inventory of Historic Buildings (Finley, pers. comm.; Bourque, pers. comm.), the list of Provincially Designated Historic Sites, local historical records, documented local histories, consultation with ASU (Allen, pers. comm.; Ferguson, pers. comm.; Suttie, pers. comm.), the New Brunswick Provincial Archives, First Nations Communities, academic historians and archaeologists, geologists (Johnson, pers. comm.; Wilson, pers. comm.), landowners, stakeholders, and predictive modelling and terrain analysis. Baseline information was also gathered from previous environmental assessments, registrations and screenings that have been conducted near or within portions of the Project Assessment Area in the past decade (e.g., AMEC 2000; AMEC 2002; Jacques Whitford 2000; Jacques Whitford 2004a; Washburn & Gillis 1998; Washburn & Gillis 1999b). Limitations imposed on this assessment include the inability to accurately and completely predict the presence of all existing archaeological sites. It is not possible to predict for such features as animal kill sites or burial sites because of the randomness of their locations and unknown patterns of distribution.

Technical boundaries pertain mainly to the methodology of field testing implementation and the determination of high potential. The models for determining archaeological potential are designed based on the professional judgement and experience of the archaeological team and the general knowledge of the archaeological community in the Maritimes. The testing strategies, where applicable, are determined in consultation with the regulatory authority, ASU, and the professional archaeologist(s) applying for the license to conduct any required fieldwork, in combination with the state of the available data on the location and configuration of known archaeological sites within the general area of the Project.

Factors that aided in the determination of archaeological potential include availability of potable water, suitability for habitation (e.g., ground conditions), proximity to desirable resources (e.g., workable stone), strategic location, and proximity to water transportation routes, portage routes and food supplies. Considerations of the location types of other archaeological and heritage sites also informed this process.

Age is considered because an older heritage site is often regarded as more significant (depending on the nature of the site). This is due to the fact that there are typically fewer sites of greater antiquity than of more recent heritage sites. For example, both historic and recent urban development has destroyed a large, but indefinite number of pre-contact First Nation archaeological sites, and the number of remaining sites is unknown and decreasing. On the other hand, there are numerous abandoned late 19th century farmsteads located throughout the Province that are not being lost at the same rate as pre-contact archaeological sites. Therefore, when a pre-contact site is identified, the Province will typically put a higher level of importance on this site type due to its age and relative scarcity.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 446

The integrity of an archaeological site is defined as the site remaining as close to its immediately abandoned state as possible, allowing for a certain amount of weathering and natural decomposition of the structures and artifacts that make up the site. These latter processes tend to act in predictable and accountable ways so that an archaeologist excavating a site can consider and allow for their potential to alter a site’s appearance. The activities of heavy equipment during groundbreaking activities such as grading and excavation work, on the other hand, can have an irreversibly adverse environmental effect on the integrity of an archaeological site that would not allow for the reconstruction of the site’s original appearance. Artifacts and features (non-artifact remnants of past human activities) are able to provide the most information about the site’s original occupants when they have not been subject to any anthropogenic or substantive natural destructive forces. The initial phases of Construction typically include grading, excavation, and the preparation of the surface for the successive phases of construction. Therefore, it is the earliest phases of Construction that have the most potential to have adverse environmental effects on any sites within the area of construction.

In summary, in the evaluation of the significance of environmental effects, the “significance” of the archaeological or heritage resources that may be affected as a result of the project must be determined. This determination is made by the regulating heritage authority, with input from the public, other professional archaeologists, and appropriate First Nations communities, where warranted.

It is the professional judgement of the Jacques Whitford Study Team that the data available to characterize the existing conditions and existing knowledge of Archaeological and Heritage Resources in the Assessment Area regarding the potential Project-VEC interactions, were sufficient to provide a baseline against which the environmental effects of the Project could be assessed. This data will be further supplemented by future field observations. Existing conditions for Archaeological and Heritage Resources are presented in Section 4.13.

5.12.3 Residual Environmental Effects Rating Criteria

For this VEC, a significant residual adverse environmental effect is a Project-related disturbance to, or destruction of, an archaeological or heritage resource (including paleontological resources) that is considered by the provincial heritage and archaeological regulators to be of major importance (i.e., to be significant) due to factors such as rarity, undisturbed condition, spiritual importance, or research importance, and that cannot be mitigated.

A positive environmental effect is one that results in enhanced understanding of local, regional, or cultural heritage through increased knowledge, or provides physical protection for a site that might otherwise have been destroyed through natural or non-Project anthropogenic events, in the absence of the Project.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 447

5.12.4 Potential Interactions, Issues, and Concerns

This section evaluates the potential for Project-related activities to affect Archaeological and Heritage Resources. Table 5.12.1 provides a summary of the potential environmental effects resulting from the Project-VEC interactions, which are discussed below.

Table 5.12.1 Project Activity – Environmental Effects Interaction Matrix for Archaeological and Heritage Resources

Potential Interactions Between Project Activities and Environmental Effects Valued Environmental Component: ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HERITAGE RESOURCES

Potential Environmental Effect Project Activities and Physical Works (See Table 3.1.1 for list of specific activities and works) Change in Archaeological and/or Heritage Resource

5.12.4.1 Construction

The groundbreaking activities and large machinery movement related to construction of the proposed pipeline including site preparation, pipeline installation, and the construction of watercourse crossings and temporary ancillary structures and facilities, have the potential to interact with known and unknown archaeological sites along the pipeline RoW. Blasting and trenching activities may expose paleontological resources where fossil-bearing rock types are encountered. In addition, related ancillary facility construction activities, if required, may affect Archaeological and Heritage Resources in off-RoW areas.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 448

5.12.4.2 Operation and Maintenance

The activities associated with Operation and Maintenance of the proposed pipeline are not anticipated to have any affect on Archaeological and Heritage Resources since no new groundbreaking activities will take place during this phase. As there will be no interaction between the Operation and Maintenance phase of the Project and the VEC, this phase will not be considered further in this assessment.

5.12.4.3 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

The groundbreaking activities that could take place during an accident, malfunction, or unplanned event could have an environmental effect on both known and presently unknown archaeological and heritage resources. Examples include the clean-up of a spilled material (e.g., petroleum, oil, and lubricants) that could result in groundbreaking activity during clean-up, or the potential for unplanned Project-related vehicle movement in a sensitive area. The discovery and/or disturbance of any previously unknown archaeological resource during any phase of the Project will be considered an unplanned event.

Examples of accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events that are not anticipated to affect Archaeological and Heritage Resources include fires, occupational injury, wildlife encounters, temporary watercourse crossing washout, unauthorized access to RoW, and pipeline rupture or leak. As there will be no interactions between these specific accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events and the VEC, they will not be considered further in this assessment.

5.12.4.4 Rockwood Park

Both of the corridor variants around Rockwood Park could potentially result in the same general interactions with Archaeological and Heritage Resources as the preferred corridor, only to a different extent. As a result, the potential environmental effects on Archaeological and Heritage Resources and associated mitigation would be similar for both the preferred corridor and the assessment of the variants around Rockwood Park. Any site-specific potential interactions and associated mitigation for the variants around Rockwood Park with respect to Archaeological and Heritage Resources will be noted separately in the EA as warranted.

5.12.5 Environmental Effects Analysis and Mitigation

5.12.5.1 Construction

This section provides an evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Construction as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.12.2). A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 449

Table 5.12.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Archaeological and Heritage Resources

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HERITAGE RESOURCES Phase: Construction

Project Activities and Potential Physical Works Environmental Effects (See Table 3.1.1 for Mitigation (A=Adverse; list of specific P=Positive) Context activities and works) Magnitude Reversibility Ecological/Socio- Geographic Extent Extent Geographic Duration/Frequency Duration/Frequency Cultural and Economic and Cultural Site Preparation Change in Pre-Construction archaeological archaeological survey and/or heritage and testing resources (A) Routing of pipeline to avoid known resources If avoidance is not practicable, then recording, testing and/or excavation Archaeological 1 1 1/1 I 2 monitoring Provide opportunity to access to exposed rock to paleontologists Adjacent off-RoW areas of known archaeological and heritage resources should be marked Pipeline Installation Change in Pre-Construction archaeological archaeological survey and/or heritage and testing resources (A) Routing of pipeline to avoid known resources If avoidance is not practicable, then recording, testing and/or excavation 1 1 1/1 I 2 Archaeological monitoring Adjacent off-RoW areas of known archaeological and heritage resources should be marked

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 450

Table 5.12.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Archaeological and Heritage Resources

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HERITAGE RESOURCES Phase: Construction

Project Activities and Potential Physical Works Environmental Effects (See Table 3.1.1 for Mitigation (A=Adverse; list of specific P=Positive) Context activities and works) Magnitude Reversibility Ecological/Socio- Geographic Extent Extent Geographic Duration/Frequency Duration/Frequency Cultural and Economic and Cultural Watercourse Crossings Change in Pre-Construction archaeological archaeological survey and/or heritage and testing resources (A) Routing of pipeline to avoid known resources If avoidance is not practicable, then recording, testing and/or excavation 1 1 1/1 I 2 Archaeological monitoring Adjacent off-RoW areas of known archaeological and heritage resources should be marked Temporary Ancillary Change in Pre-Construction Structures and Facilities archaeological archaeological survey and/or heritage and testing resources (A) Routing of pipeline to avoid known resources If avoidance is not practicable, then recording, testing and/or excavation 1 1 1/1 I 2 Archaeological monitoring Adjacent off-RoW areas of known archaeological and heritage resources should be marked

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 451

Table 5.12.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Archaeological and Heritage Resources

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HERITAGE RESOURCES Phase: Construction

Magnitude: Geographic Extent: Frequency: Ecological/Socio-cultural and Economic 1= Low: e.g., minor impairments to cultural 1=<1 km2 1=<11 events/year Context: resources appreciation or environmental 2=1-10 km2 2=11 - 50 events/year 1 = Relatively pristine area or area not effects to non-significant historic period 3=11-100 km2 3=51 - 100 events/year adversely affected by human activity. heritage feature, e.g., stone fence line, field 4=101 - 1,000 km2 4=101 - 200 events/year 2 = Evidence of adverse environmental stone pile; loss of individual artifact. 5=1,001 - 10,000 km2 5=>200 events/year effects. 2= Medium: e.g., loss of historic or cultural 6=>10,000 km2 6=continuous resources not of major importance, or pre- N/A = Not Applicable disturbed heritage site/artifacts present, Duration: Reversibility: (A) = adverse however, no or little chance of intact 1=<1 month R=Reversible (P )= positive features. 2=1 - 12 months I=Irreversible 3= High: e.g., intact “significant” heritage site, 3=13 - 36 months pre-contact and/or contact period, features 4=37 - 72 months present, portion or all of site will be 5= >72 months destroyed or lost.

The potential environmental effect of all Project construction activities (i.e., site preparation, pipeline installation, watercourse crossings, and temporary ancillary structures and facilities) is defined as a change in archaeological and/or heritage resources. Because this type of resource is static and non- renewable, changes to this resource are typically in the form of disruption, damage or destruction, and are considered to be adverse environmental effects. The following paragraphs outline the measures that should be taken prior to and during Project construction activities to minimize and prevent these environmental effects.

The preferred corridor has been preliminarily divided into areas of low archaeological potential and moderate to high archaeological potential. Areas of moderate to high archaeological potential may include both pre-contact and historic period resources. During the 2005 fieldwork season, some of the areas considered to have higher archaeological potential were surveyed; however, the entire length of the detailed pipeline route (both urban and rural portions) should be surveyed on foot once that route is confirmed in 2006. Archaeological testing should also be conducted in areas where it is considered warranted. Where there are limitations in flexibility for watercourse crossing locations, it is recommended that each option be tested prior to confirming the route. For example, the entire length of the Magaguadavic River system has been demonstrated to have very high archaeological potential and therefore it is not feasible to test the entire width of corridor for resources, nor is adjusting the corridor to avoid one resource considered to be reasonable mitigation, as it would be very difficult to find an area that did not have elevated potential for resources. Therefore, it is most effective to implement a detailed program of survey and testing during the period when the final detailed route is being determined. This methodology has been discussed and developed in conjunction with ASU, and is approved by the Province (Allen, pers. comm.; Ferguson, pers. comm.).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 452

Should a significant archaeological resource be discovered during the preliminary pipeline survey, the preferred mitigation should be re-alignment of the pipeline to avoid the site. Where re-alignment is not practicable, other options such as subsurface boring or a full professional archaeological excavation should be implemented for those portions of the site to be affected by the Project.

This methodological approach will ensure that the majority of archaeological and heritage resources within the detailed route will be identified, recorded, and mitigated prior to Construction. This mitigation could involve the avoidance of the site through re-routing of the pipeline, testing and excavation of any archaeological sites within the RoW, or recording of the resource (e.g., historic period house foundations, stone field piles, fencing) during the detailed survey. In areas that are deemed to have high potential for archaeological and heritage resources, but where no resources have been encountered, archaeological monitoring may be recommended. In addition, if known archaeological and heritage resources are located near to, but not within, the RoW for the detailed route, then these resources should be demarcated and/or fenced off to facilitate identification by workers onsite, and the adjacent areas of construction may require archaeological monitoring.

There may be various facilities associated with the Project (i.e., marshalling yards, temporary site access roads, equipment receiving areas). Most of these areas will be located within the Project area and will therefore be included within the modelling and archaeological fieldwork. Any facilities required for the Project that do not fall within the Project footprint, which have not yet been identified, should be subject to an archaeological review prior to their development to determine the presence of known resources or archaeological potential. If, during a preliminary archaeological survey, any significant heritage resources are encountered at the proposed location, then appropriate mitigation should be implemented up to and including relocation of the facility.

Due to the inherent nature of this type of resource, the possibility always exists that an unknown archaeological or heritage resource could be encountered during any phase of the Project; however, this occurrence would be considered an unplanned event, and would be mitigated in the same manner as described previously (excavated and/or recorded). This eventuality is discussed below in Section 5.12.5.2.

Given the small size of the eventual RoW and pipeline trench relative to the size of the potential fossil- bearing geological formations, it is very unlikely that significant fossils will be exposed or lost as a result of Project activities. However, in an effort to identify fossils in bedrock areas exposed during Construction, it is recommended that paleontological personnel from the New Brunswick Museum and NBDNR be contacted and given the opportunity to access bedrock during construction activities along the RoW, provided the conditions are safe.

Summary – Construction Phase

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 453

5.12.5.2 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

This section provides an evaluation of key potential Project-VEC interactions for Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events as summarized in the environmental effects assessment matrix (Table 5.12.3). A discussion of the environmental effects analysis and mitigation follows the table.

Table 5.12.3 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Archaeological and Heritage Resources

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HERITAGE RESOURCES Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Project Activities and Potential Physical Works Environmental (See Table 3.1.1 for list of Effects Mitigation specific activities and (A=Adverse; Context Context

works) P=Positive) Magnitude Reversibility Ecological/Socio- Geographic Extent Extent Geographic Duration/Frequency Duration/Frequency Cultural and Economic and Cultural Hazardous Materials Spill Change in Archaeological archaeological follow-up in spill and/or heritage areas 1 1 1/1 I 2 resources (A) Develop and include an archaeological protocol in EPP Erosion and Sediment Change in Erosion and Control Failure archaeological sediment control and/or heritage measures reinstated resources (A) Archaeological excavation, salvage, and/or recording, as 1 1 1/1 I 2 determined by ASU. Develop and include an archaeological protocol in EPP Disturbance of Unidentified Change in All groundbreaking Archaeological or Heritage archaeological work must stop Resource and/or heritage immediately resources (A) Develop and include an archaeological protocol in EPP Contact ASU If avoidance is not 1 1 1/2 I 2 practicable, then testing, excavation and/or recording, as determined by ASU Archaeological monitoring as required

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 454

Table 5.12.3 Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix for Archaeological and Heritage Resources

Environmental Effects Assessment Matrix Valued Environmental Component: ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HERITAGE RESOURCES Phase: Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Project Activities and Potential Physical Works Environmental (See Table 3.1.1 for list of Effects Mitigation specific activities and (A=Adverse; Context Context

works) P=Positive) Magnitude Reversibility Ecological/Socio- Geographic Extent Extent Geographic Duration/Frequency Duration/Frequency Cultural and Economic and Cultural Key:

Magnitude: Geographic Extent: Frequency: Ecological/Socio-cultural and Economic 1= Low: e.g., minor impairments to cultural 1=<1 km2 1=<11 events/year Context: resources appreciation or environmental 2=1-10 km2 2=11 - 50 events/year 1 = Relatively pristine area or area not effects to non-significant historic period 3=11-100 km2 3=51 – 100 events/year adversely affected by human activity. heritage feature, e.g., stone fence line, field 4=101 - 1,000 km2 4=101 – 200 events/year 2 = Evidence of adverse environmental stone pile; loss of individual artifact. 5=1,001 - 10,000 km2 5=>200 events/year effects. 2= Medium: e.g., loss of historic or cultural 6=>10,000 km2 6=continuous resources not of major importance, or pre- disturbed heritage site/artifacts present, Duration: Reversibility: N/A = Not Applicable however, no or little chance of intact 1=<1 month R=Reversible (A) = adverse features. 2=1 - 12 months I=Irreversible (P) = positive 3= High: e.g., intact “significant” heritage site, 3=13 - 36 months pre-contact and/or contact period, features 4=37 - 72 months present, portion or all of site will be 5=>72 months destroyed or lost.

Hazardous Materials Spill

Due to the precautions taken by the Proponent and the contractor, spills should be infrequent and minor, and therefore only limited ground disturbance will be required to mitigate these situations. For any spills that occur in areas that have known archaeological and/or heritage resources, or that have moderate to high archaeological potential, it is recommended that a professional archaeologist be contacted to review any locations of spill clean-up activities (depending upon the nature and location of the spill, clean-up of spills may need to be undertaken immediately upon discovery and cannot always be expected to wait until an archaeologist can travel to the location). The discovery of an unknown archaeological or heritage resource during clean-up of a hazardous materials spill would be considered an unplanned event, and the mitigation for this event is discussed below in the section “Disturbance of an Unknown Archaeological or Heritage Resource”.

Erosion or Sediment Control Failure

In the event of a failure of erosion or sediment control measures, these measures should be reinstated immediately to prevent the washout or burying of any known or unknown archaeological or heritage sites in the immediate vicinity. If a known archaeological or heritage resource is affected by this event, it is recommended that the environmental effects be mitigated through a program of excavation, salvage and/or recording, as determined by ASU. The discovery of an unknown archaeological or heritage resource during a failure of erosion or sediment control measures would be considered an

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 455

unplanned event, and the mitigation for this event is discussed below in the section “Disturbance of an Unknown Archaeological or Heritage Resource”.

Disturbance of Unidentified Archaeological or Heritage Resource

In order to prepare for the potential for an encounter with an unknown archaeological or heritage resource, a response protocol should be included in the EPP. The protocol should outline the actions to be taken by Project personnel in the event of the accidental discovery of a potential archaeological/heritage site. It is recommended that the protocol include such contingencies as stopping all work in the area of the discovery and contacting the provincial regulating agency for assistance and guidance.

If the resource is identified as significant, then attempts should be made to prevent additional disturbance and/or damage to the resource by avoiding further groundbreaking work in the immediate area of the encounter. If avoidance of the resource is not practicable, then the environmental effect on the resource should be mitigated through a program of testing, excavation, and/or recording, as determined by ASU. In addition, archaeological monitoring of groundbreaking work near the area of the resource may be recommended.

Summary – Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

5.12.6 Determination of Significance

Table 5.12.4 evaluates the significance of potential residual environmental effects resulting from any interactions between Project activities and Archaeological and Heritage Resources, after taking into account any proposed mitigation. The table also considers the level of confidence of the Jacques Whitford Study Team in this determination.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 456

Table 5.12.4 Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix for Archaeological and Heritage Resources

Residual Environmental Effects Summary Matrix Valued Environmental Component: ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HERITAGE RESOURCES

Residual Likelihood Level of Phase Environmental Confidence Probability of Scientific Effects Rating* Occurrence Certainty Construction NS 3 1 3 Operation and Maintenance N/A N/A N/A N/A Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events S 3 1 3 Project Overall NS 3 1 3 Key: Residual Environmental Effects Rating: Probability of Occurrence of Residual Environmental Effects: based on professional judgement S = Significant Adverse Environmental Effects 1 = Low Probability of Occurrence NS = Not-significant Adverse Environmental Effects 2 = Medium Probability of Occurrence P = Positive Environmental Effects 3 = High Probability of Occurrence

*As determined in consideration of established residual environmental effects rating criteria.

Based on consideration of the potential environmental effects of all phases of the Project, the proposed mitigation, and the residual environmental effects significance ratings criteria, the residual adverse environmental effects on Archaeological and Heritage Resources are rated not significant, with the exception of some accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events that are unlikely to occur.

5.12.7 Follow-up and Monitoring

The following steps are recommended to protect archaeological and heritage resources within the vicinity of the preferred corridor.

The entire length of the detailed route will be subject to a walkover and survey once the 30 m RoW is determined in 2006. Archaeological testing should also be conducted in areas where it is considered warranted. Where there are limitations in flexibility for watercourse crossing locations, each option should be tested prior to confirming the route. This methodology has been discussed and developed in conjunction with ASU, and is approved by the Province. This methodological approach will ensure that the majority of archaeological and heritage resources within the detailed route will be identified, recorded and mitigated prior to Construction.

If a significant archaeological or heritage resource is encountered within the RoW during the pre- Construction survey, then appropriate mitigation should be developed in consultation with the provincial regulating agency (ASU) and implemented.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 457

Adjustment of the RoW should be considered as the preferred mitigation to avoid significant archaeological sites discovered during the detailed route.

If avoidance of the resource is not practicable, then the archaeological or heritage site should be mitigated by recording, testing, and excavation, as determined by the archaeologist and in consultation with ASU.

Areas that are still considered to have elevated potential for archaeological or heritage resources should be recommended for archaeological monitoring during the Construction phase of the Project.

Areas where there are known archaeological or heritage resources located near to, but not within the boundaries of, the RoW should be demarcated and/or fenced, and the construction in the adjacent areas may require monitoring.

The Proponent should develop a set of archaeological protocols in an Environmental Protection Plan to address any encounters with archaeological/heritage resources during Construction, and should implement this protocol.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 458

6.0 EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT

The definition of “environmental effect” under Section 2(1) of CEAA includes “any change to the Project that may be caused by the environment”. To address this requirement, environmental factors potentially affecting the Project are characterized in this section, and planned mitigation is proposed.

The mitigative strategies for minimizing the likelihood of a significant environmental effect of the environment on the Project occurring are inherent in the Pipeline Design and Quality Assurance Program, the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program, and the Emergency Preparedness and Response Program, described in Section 2.8 (Environmental Management).

6.1 Categories of Effects of the Environment on the Project

The categories of environmental events that could have an effect on the Project include the following:

weather (severe rainfall and flooding);

seismic activity (earthquakes);

sinkholes;

induced potential;

forest fires; and

soil contamination.

Social and economic environments are not considered in the assessment of effects of the environment on the Project.

6.2 Environmental Effects Analysis

The spatial boundaries for the assessment of effects of the environment on the Project include all areas where Project-related activities may occur within the preferred corridor or variants around Rockwood Park.

The temporal boundaries for the assessment of effects of the environment on the Project include the periods of Construction, and Operation and Maintenance, for the operating life of the pipeline.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 459

A significant residual adverse environmental effect of the environment on the Project would be one that would result in:

a long-term interruption in service (e.g., pipeline rupture that stops distribution of natural gas); and/or

damage to infrastructure such that public health and safety is at risk (e.g., pipeline explosion); and/or

damage to infrastructure that would not be technically or economically feasible to repair.

There are a number of planning, design, and construction strategies intended to minimize the potential effects of the environment on the Project so that the risk of serious damage or interruption of service can be reduced to acceptable levels. The Project will be designed in accordance with the design criteria, specifications, programs, manuals, procedures, measures, and plans identified in CSA Z662, as required by the Onshore Pipeline Regulations under NEBA. The CSA Z662 Standards ensure that the pipeline will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to accommodate the extent and influence of the range of environmental conditions that could be experienced during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance.

Further, the Pipeline IMP should provide a series of management systems and measures to be implemented during Operation and Maintenance of the pipeline to ensure the pipeline is suitable for continued safe, reliable, and environmentally responsible service throughout its operating life. For example, ongoing engineering assessments of the pipeline should be conducted, as required, to evaluate changing pipeline conditions.

6.2.1 Weather and Flooding

A characterization of weather and climate within the Assessment Area is presented in Atmospheric Environment (Section 4.2).

The only weather factor that is likely to have an environmental effect on the Project is extreme rainfall during pipeline construction, which can lead to flooding. Extreme rain can result in stoppages of work. However, rain is an expected work condition and the schedule allows for it. The EPP should include provisions for site drainage and sedimentation and erosion control to ensure that trenches and bores remain in suitable condition for pipeline installation.

The entire pipeline system is buried, with the exception of valve sites, launcher/receives sites, and a metering station. During Operation and Maintenance, seasonal flooding will not be an issue; however, extreme flood events could result in damage to the pipeline necessitating potential shutdown and/or major repair (e.g., in the case of extreme erosion). Pipeline design will be in accordance with the design criteria, specifications, programs, manuals, procedures, measures, and plans identified in the CSA Z662 Standard and pipeline design should take into account environmental stresses, including flooding, which may be placed on the pipeline during Operation and Maintenance.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 460

The failure of the Musquash Hydroelectric System was identified as a risk to the pipeline in the SJL EA. Consistent with the approach taken with the SJL, a quantitative risk analysis (QRA) and design study for the Brunswick pipeline near the Penstock and in the vicinity of the Musquash facilities will be conducted during detailed route selection and design. The QRA and design study will consider the risk of potential scour effects on the pipeline and will recommend mitigation that will bring the risk of pipeline failure within acceptable limits.

6.2.2 Seismic Activity

The preferred corridor crosses a number of old geologic fault lines. All of the faults are dormant with no recent historical seismic activity associated with them. Earthquake epicentres occur in three regions: Passamaquoddy Bay, Central Highlands (Miramichi), and Moncton (NRCan 1994). Seismic events have been more frequent in these regions and occasionally of a magnitude to be potentially damaging to pipeline structures (e.g., greater than magnitude 5 on the Richter Scale). The preferred corridor is located greater than 10 km from these regions.

There have been more than 50 seismic events recorded in the Passamaquoddy Bay area since 1870 although most were minor and did not cause property damage. The largest reported event occurred in 1904 when an earthquake with an estimated magnitude of 5.1 toppled chimneys in St. Stephen and Eastport, Maine (Washburn & Gillis 1998). The Oak Bay Fault, an old geologic structure extending northwards from Campobello Island up the St. Croix River has been suggested as a factor in seismic activity in Passamaquoddy Bay.

A general review of recent neotectonic studies (the study of the Earth’s crustal movement) was completed by Dr. Burke for the Point Lepreau Solid Radioactive Waste Management Facility report (NB Power 2003). Dr. Burke confirmed that earthquakes in New Brunswick predominantly occurred in the Central Highlands, Moncton and the Passamaquoddy Bay regions. The continuing activity in the latter region suggests that it is the most likely source area for the next substantive earthquake in southern New Brunswick. Two mechanisms are suggested for the generation of seismic events in that area:

regional subsidence centred in Passamaquoddy Bay; and

crustal movement along the Oak Bay Fault.

The evidence for a subsidence rate in Passamaquoddy Bay that is substantially different than that of other nearby areas (e.g., Gulf of Maine) has been the subject of much debate over the last few decades, and was reviewed and summarized by Burke in NB Power (2003). Gates (1989) accepts that there is a differential downwarp of approximately 12 m between Passamaquoddy Bay and coastal Maine farther to the west, but concludes most of this took place over 5,000 years ago. He suggests this differential subsidence was the response of a weakened crust responding to the large stresses of postglacial warping. Gehrels and Belknap (1993) re-examined the historical tidal gauge information and examined evidence from the dating of salt marshes in the coastal portion of eastern Maine. They showed that the tidal gauge records for Eastport, just west of Passamaquoddy Bay, gave a submergence rate of only 2.5 mm/yr from 1930 to 1990, which was not substantially different from that at Saint John (2.3 mm/yr) and Portland, Maine (2.3 mm/yr). This led Burke to conclude that there is little connection between seismicity and contemporary subsidence of Passamaquoddy Bay.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 461

The recent studies of possible movement along the Oak Bay Fault were also reviewed and summarized in NB Power (2003). Pockmarks and plumose structures, possible indicators of active faulting, were found in 1988 during a marine geophysical survey in Passamaquoddy Bay (Pecore and Fader 1990). However, there is a lack of evidence of recent movement along the trace of the Oak Bay Fault, which has previously been thought to be associated with earthquake activity in the Passamaquoddy Bay region. This lead Burke to conclude that other smaller faults are probably responsible for the activity, but no positive identification of such a correlation has yet been made. No pockmarks or plumose features were found during a marine geophysical survey off of Point Lepreau (along the Lepreau Fault) and no deformation of recent deposits above bedrock faults was observed (Fader 1989).

Currently, the mechanisms and forces that cause seismic events in the Bay of Fundy (including those near Mispec Point) remain poorly understood.

Service could be interrupted due to earthquake damage in an extreme event. An earthquake with a magnitude substantively greater than the design-base earthquake could result in damage to the pipeline that is not technically or economically feasible to repair. Pipeline design will be in accordance with the design criteria, specifications, programs, manuals, procedures, measures, and plans identified in the CSA Z662 Standard and pipeline design should take into account environmental stresses, including earthquakes, which may be placed on the pipeline during Operation and Maintenance. Design-base earthquake magnitude values are selected based on probability of threshold magnitude events occurring and being exceeded during the planned 25 year operating life of the Project. A quantitative risk analysis (QRA) has been conducted on the preferred corridor (Bercha 2006), consistent with the guidelines established in the CSA Z662 Standard and a Quality Assurance Program will be implemented to ensure that construction materials used meet the pipeline design specifications. Further details on the risk assessment and the Quality Assurance Program are provided in Section 2.8 (Environmental Management).

Further, a comprehensive Maintenance Safety Manual will be prepared for the operation of the pipeline system and should include actions in response to environmental perturbations, such as a seismic event. For example, in the unlikely event that a seismic event should occur, the Maintenance Safety Manual will describe how the pipeline will be evaluated after the event to confirm pipeline integrity.

6.2.3 Sinkholes

Sinkholes result from surface water infiltration into, or groundwater flow through soluble geological formations, resulting in cavities that may or may not be filled with water. Sinkholes are the identifying feature of Karst topography and are the visible surface structures that occur in areas underlain by soluble rocks such as limestone, siltstone, gypsum, and sandstone.

Within Rockwood Park, there is an area of Precambrian limestone where three caves have been identified: Harbell's Cave, Howe's Cave, and Kramp Cave. Harbell’s Cave is a solution cave and is 73.5 m long and 15 m deep and is located on an active sinking stream, approximately 600 m south of the preferred corridor and approximately 500 m northwest of the south variant around Rockwood Park. Howe’s Cave is located on the northern boundary of private property on the west side of the park off Sandy Point Road, north of the preferred corridor and the south variant around Rockwood Park, and approximately 850 m east of the north variant around Rockwood Park. Kramp Cave is located on the

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 462

northern tip of Owen Lake, approximately 2 km north of the preferred corridor and approximately 160 m south of the north variant around Rockwood Park. Kramp Cave is approximately 27 m long. There are no other formations with the potential to cause subsidence or sinkholes along the preferred corridor or Rockwood Park variants.

Limestone cave areas and other areas with sinkhole potential are a Class 1 constraint and were avoided when developing the location of the preferred corridor. A detailed geotechnical evaluation will be completed along the proposed RoW in areas where there is a potential for subsidence or sinkholes prior to pipeline installation. If locations are identified where subsidence or sinkholes are a concern, they should be avoided when selecting the final pipeline RoW. Moreover, the pipeline design can accommodate incidents such as a loss of bearing and/or subsidence. A routine pipeline monitoring and surveillance program (i.e., line patrol surveys) is required by CSA Z662 and will be conducted in order to observe conditions and activities on and adjacent to the RoW that may affect the safety and operation of the pipelines, including erosion, scour and/or subsidence.

6.2.4 Induced Potential

Fault currents resulting from lightning and upset conditions of electrical facilities could result in danger to personnel and damage to coatings and the pipe. Such adverse environmental effects can occur where a pipeline is close to the grounding facilities of electrical transmission line structures, substations, generating stations, and other facilities that have high fault current-carrying grounding networks. Pipelines paralleling alternating current electrical transmission lines (i.e., the NB Power IPL) are also subject to induced potentials.

The Project will be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of CSA Z662, which requires that engineering studies be conducted and provides guidance on reducing the effects of induced alternating current potentials to specified maximum levels. Specifically, the CSA Z662 requires that the pipeline complies with the applicable requirements of CSA-C22.3 No. 6, Principles and Practices of Electrical Coordination between Pipelines and Electric Supply Lines. This standard describes mutual interference effects between the pipeline and the electrical transmission line, and specifies methods that, when used in the design, Construction, and Operation and Maintenance of the pipeline, will reduce these effects.

6.2.5 Forest Fires

There is potential for natural forest fires to affect the construction or operation of the Project. New Brunswick has a forest fire control program in place to identify and control fires, minimizing the potential magnitude and extent of any forest fires, and their environmental effect on the Project.

During Construction, due care and attention should be made to reduce the potential for starting forest fires. In particular, construction activities should be planned such that potential ignition sources are minimized and emergency response capability is provided along the Project site to respond to any small fires that may start onsite. It is recommended that workers and contractors be trained in the fire prevention and response procedures contained in the Environmental Protection and Safety

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 463

Management Program and in accordance with the New Brunswick Forest Fires Act. Safety program audits and site inspections should also be implemented throughout the Project Construction and Operation and Maintenance phases to ensure compliance with program policy and procedures.

Any forest fires that occur, whether Project related or not, will be managed by NBDNR. The Proponent’s contractor personnel and equipment should be made available to fight any forest fires in the area of the Project if requested by NBDNR. As most of the pipeline itself is below the ground, it is not anticipated that forest fires in proximity to the pipeline RoW will adversely affect the pipeline. Above-ground facilities, such as valves and launcher/receivers, will be protected from the effects of the fire by the natural fire break afforded by the cleared RoW.

6.2.6 Soil Contamination

As previously stated in Section 4.3 (Existing Conditions, Water Resources), there may be contaminated sites along the preferred corridor. Potentially contaminated sites, if encountered during Construction, will be managed in accordance with the Guideline for Management of Contaminated Sites (NBDELG 2003b). The site should be evaluated in a timely manner to determine whether there are offsite effects or unacceptable onsite effects, and to minimize the effects on the Project construction schedule. It is not anticipated that any contaminated soils will adversely affect the pipeline coating or the pipeline itself.

6.2.7 Significance

Implementing the Pipeline Design and Quality Assurance Program, the Environmental Protection and Safety Management Program, and the Emergency Preparedness and Response Program will minimize the potential effects of the environment on the Project so that the risk of serious damage or interruption of service from environmental perturbations can be reduced to acceptable levels. The Project should be mitigated such that the environment will not affect the Project to the extent that there is:

a long-term interruption in service (e.g., pipeline rupture that stops distribution of natural gas); and/or

damage to infrastructure such that public health and safety is at risk (e.g., pipeline fire); and/or

damage to infrastructure that would not be technically or economically feasible to repair.

An earthquake with a magnitude greater than the design-base earthquake for the pipeline or extreme flood events could result in a significant effect of the environment on the Project. However, with adherence to CSA Z662 for pipeline design and installation, this is considered extremely unlikely. Based on a review of existing information, the preferred corridor does not intersect any geological formations that have a potential for subsidence and development of sinkholes; given the mitigations identified above, the potential for this environmental effect to occur on the Project is negligible. The pipeline will be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of CSA Z662 and of CSA-C22.3 No. 6, which will mitigate the mutual interference effects between the pipeline and electrical

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 464

transmission lines during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance of the pipeline. The Field Emergency Response Plan and worker training will effectively mitigate the potential effects from a forest fire, and the Guideline for Management of Contaminated Sites (NBDELG 2003b) will be adhered to in the event that a potentially contaminated site is encountered during Construction.

Therefore, in consideration of the planned mitigation, all residual effects of the environment on the Project are rated to be not significant.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 465

7.0 CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

Section 16(1)(a) of CEAA requires that every environmental assessment of a project shall include a consideration of any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out. The methodology used for the assessment of Project-related cumulative environmental effects in consideration of the requirements of the Act is outlined in Section 3.1.2 (Cumulative Environmental Effects Assessment Methods).

7.1 Step 1 – Describe the Spatial and Temporal Boundaries Used to Assess Cumulative Environmental Effects

The spatial boundaries (the “Assessment Area”) for the assessment of the potential cumulative environmental effects of the Project were defined by the likely extent of the measurable environmental effects of the Project.

The temporal boundary for the assessment of the potential cumulative environmental effects of the Project are defined for each VEC to begin at the point in time at which background knowledge or data are sufficient to support trend analysis, or at least benchmark cumulative environmental effects as represented by the existing conditions, extending into the reasonably foreseeable future for the selection of other projects that will be carried out.

Rockwood Park

Both of the corridor variants around Rockwood Park could potentially result in similar environmental effects and associated mitigation as the preferred corridor. As a result, the potential cumulative environmental effects would be similar for both the preferred corridor and the assessment of the variants around Rockwood Park. Any site-specific potential interactions and associated mitigation for the variants around Rockwood Park with respect to cumulative environmental effects will be noted separately in the EA as warranted.

7.2 Step 2 – Describe the Residual Environmental Effects of the Project

The assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Project was carried out in Section 5.0 (Environmental Assessment) of this report. Residual environmental effects of the Project for each VECs assessed are outlined in Table 7.4.1 (Step 4 – Cumulative Environmental Effects Assessment). Although residual environmental effects may occur during Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events, only those that are likely to occur (pursuant to CEAA) are carried forward into the cumulative environmental effects assessment.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 466

7.3 Step 3 – Describe the Potentially Measurable Residual Environmental Effects of Other Projects and/or Activities that May Interact with the Project

7.3.1 Identification of Past, Present and Future Projects and Activities

The selection of past, present, and future projects and activities that may have had or may possibly have environmental effects that interact with those of the Project are selected separately for each VEC. The level of inclusion of these projects and activities in the cumulative environmental effects assessment may be limited by the availability of data and information.

Past, present, and future projects and activities (e.g., urbanization, forest resource harvesting) that may have had or may possibly have environmental effects that interact with those of the Project were selected based on public and regulatory consultation and the professional observations and judgement of members of the Jacques Whitford Study Team.

The past, present, and future projects and activities that potentially act in combination with the environmental effects of the Project have been grouped into the following two categories of actions, which are further described in the following subsections:

land use actions; and

global actions.

7.3.1.1 Land Use Actions

There are a number of land use actions with environmental effects that may act in combination with the residual environmental effects of the Project. The specific land use actions that are considered in this cumulative environmental effects assessment are:

adjacent activities;

existing RoWs;

urbanization; and

planned development projects.

Figure 7.3.1 presents the location of known land use actions presently occurring within the Assessment Area, and also includes the locations of planned development projects that will be carried out. The location of activities is not presented in Figure 7.3.1 as they are dispersed or diffuse and not possible to effectively depict cartographically.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 467

Adjacent Activities

This category includes all adjacent land use activities that are not related to a specific project and that may have overlapping environmental effects with those of the Project. These include land uses and activities such as forest resource harvesting, agriculture, watershed protected areas, rural residential land use, hunting, and fishing. Urban residential, commercial, and industrial land uses are included in the urbanization category.

Forest Resource Use

Forest resources harvesting activities in the vicinity of the Project are extensive (Section 4.10, Land and Resource Use) and consist of both harvesting of wood for commercial purposes on Crown and private lands (i.e., freeholds) and for domestic (i.e., personal) use. Construction of access roads for forestry operations results in the loss of terrestrial habitat, fragmentation of the landscape, and the crossing of watercourses.

There are a number of forest products mills in the vicinity of the Project (e.g., mills owned by J.D. Irving, Ltd. in Saint John, J.D. Irving, Ltd. Lake Utopia Paper Mill, Flakeboard Mill in St. Stephen), which result in associated noise and emissions.

Agricultural Land Use

Agricultural land use in the vicinity of the Project is minimal (Section 4.10, Land and Resource Use). It consists of both high yield commercial farming activities for profit and of low yield domestic farming activities (i.e., for personal consumption). The majority of the agricultural land located in the vicinity of the Project is used for the cultivation of hay, grains, blueberries, and tree nurseries.

Watershed Protected Areas

Two Watershed Protection Areas have been identified within the preferred corridor: Dennis Stream Watershed near St. Stephen and the Spruce Lake Watershed, west of Saint John. The boundary of a third Watershed Protection Area, the East and West Musquash Watershed, is within 50 m of the preferred corridor.

Rural Residential Land Use

Residential land use in urban areas is discussed in the urbanization section. In rural areas, residential land use occurs sporadically in the vicinity of the Project, mostly along roads, and has resulted in the loss of forest and increased fragmentation of the landscape.

Hunting

The Project is located within Wildlife Management Zones 20 and 23. Zone 20 runs from Route 7 in Saint John west to the United States’ border and was an active hunting area for deer (433 registered

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 468

kills out of a provincial total of 6,878), moose (192 registered kills out of a provincial total of 1,794), and black bear (234 registered kills out of a provincial total of 2,111) in 2004 (NBDNR 2004b). Zone 23 runs from Route 7 east through Saint John to Fundy National Park. Zone 23 was an active hunting area in 2004 for deer (414 registered kills out of a provincial total of 6,878), moose (134 registered kills out of a provincial total of 1,794), and black bear (53 registered kills out of a provincial total of 2,111) (NBDNR 2004). These hunting activities occur on wooded lands, both private and Crown owned. This includes woodlots.

No specific locations have been identified with respect to Aboriginal hunting in the vicinity of the current Project. During the IPL consultation process, a general comment was made that the area of the IPL RoW is used for hunting and fishing by Aboriginal persons, although no specific sites were identified (AMEC 2002). Additional information on Aboriginal hunting is still being gathered as part of a TEK study for the current Project, and will be updated once that TEK study is completed in the spring of 2006.

There is some trapping activity in the vicinity of the Project for a range of furbearer species for recreational, commercial, and animal control purposes.

Fishing

The Project is anticipated to cross at least 87 watercourses, many of which are used for recreational fishing activities. Recreational fish species in the vicinity of the Project include salmonids, smallmouth bass, American eel, gaspereau (alewife), and striped bass (Section 4.4, Fish and Fish Habitat).

Existing RoWs

Existing RoWs crossed by the preferred corridor includes existing infrastructure such as highways and roads (e.g., Routes 1 and 7), pipelines (e.g., SJL), power lines (e.g., IPL), and railways (e.g., tracks owned by CN Rail and New Brunswick Southern Railway).

Existing transportation RoWs (e.g., highways, roads, railways) carry traffic loads and therefore have associated noise and contaminant emissions (including greenhouse gases), and the potential for wildlife encounters (e.g., vehicle-wildlife accidents). The construction of these RoWs resulted in the loss of terrestrial habitat and agricultural lands from service, further fragmentation of the landscape, and the crossing of multiple watercourses. Some watercourse crossings may be acting as barriers or partial barriers to fish passage.

The construction of existing pipeline and power line RoWs has resulted in the loss of forest and increased fragmentation of the landscape.

Activities that are ongoing or that are likely to occur on RoWs are related to general maintenance activities (e.g., mowing and tree cutting) and trespassing such as unauthorized ATV use of pipeline RoWs.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 469

Urbanization

Urbanization projects typically include the development of buildings, roads, and infrastructure (e.g., sewer and electrical distribution lines). Urbanization projects also include the development of suburbs and their associated municipal services such as water treatment facilities and connector roads, and common developments such as building commercial structures (e.g., grocery stores and parking lots). Urbanization activities include road maintenance (e.g., use of sand and salt for winter safety and snow removal and deposition) and vehicle traffic.

Past urbanization is measurable as the total amount of land that has been paved, or is used for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes within a municipality. Within Saint John and Charlotte Counties, urbanization includes, but is not limited to, the City of Saint John and the Town of St. Stephen.

The consideration of future urbanization is limited to known projects as listed in Table 7.3.1 although it is recognized that future development within Saint John may proceed in accordance with the Municipal Development Plan (City of Saint John 1973), Zoning By-law (City of Saint John 1983), and Subdivision By-law (City of Saint John 1999), and that future development within the Town of St. Stephen may proceed in accordance with the Municipal Plan (Town of St. Stephen 2004a) and Zoning By-laws (Town of St. Stephen 2004b).

Planned Development Projects

This category includes all planned projects and development that is likely to occur within the vicinity of the Project. The consideration of planned development projects is limited to known projects as listed in Table 7.3.1.

The selection of future projects that have the potential to interact with the Project was accomplished in consultation with NBENV personnel (Maguire, pers. comm.) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (McDonald, pers. comm.). These other projects were selected based on their proximity to the Project (i.e., within Saint John or Charlotte Counties), the possibility of interactions with the residual environmental effects of the Project, and the likelihood of the other project(s) being carried forward (i.e., the project is registered with the Province under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulation (NBDELG 2006) or listed on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry (CEAA 2006)).

The future projects that will be carried out and the residual environmental effects that could potentially act in combination with the residual environmental effects of the Project are presented and described in Table 7.3.1. Included in the table is a high-level summary of the potential residual environmental effects of each project based on available information that could interact with the potential residual environmental effects of the Project. It should be noted that the level of information for each project varies as most have not undergone the environmental assessment process (i.e., the project is registered, or is in the process of being registered, with the Province under the Environmental Impact Regulation) and do not have well developed project descriptions at this time.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 470

Table 7.3.1 Other Future Projects for Consideration of Cumulative Environmental Effects Potential Residual Environmental Effects that may Name of Project Description of Project Overlap with the Residual Environmental Effects of the Project Saint John County Irving Oil LNG Marine Terminal The project facilities include the necessary Greenhouse gas, dust, and and Multi-purpose Pier infrastructure to receive, store and noise emissions during regassify LNG that is unloaded from construction. marine tankers at a multi-purpose pier and Increased vehicular traffic and transport the natural gas through a pipeline associated emissions during to the existing Irving Refinery in Saint John operation. (as described in the LNG EIA). The Increased employment during terminal is expected to operate construction and operation. continuously, with a design capacity of Crossing of a 0.5 ha fen. 28.3 million cubic metres of natural gas per Loss of 15 ha of shrub and day (1,000 million standard cubic feet per forested habitat. day -MMSCFD). This project has received Alteration of forest habitat to EIA approval and construction activities shrub habitat along pipeline have already started. The project is RoW. expected to be operational in 2008. Increased habitat fragmentation. Irving Oil LNG and Marine This project involves the infilling of 2.9 ha Greenhouse gas, dust, and Terminal Pond and Wetland of (alder) wetland and 0.6 ha of a pond noise emissions during Infilling known as CanaportTM pond. The Irving Oil construction. LNG and Marine Terminal project received Loss of wetland and pond a Lieutenant-Governor in Council approval habitat. in August 2004 after a comprehensive federal and provincial environmental assessment. The approved project did not include the infilling of this pond and wetland. This modification was due to the company finalizing the configuration of the large low pressure onshore LNG storage tanks. The full containment tanks are larger and result in the loss of the CanaportTM access road and edge of the wetland. This would require the existing onsite access road to be relocated to the area of the existing pond and wetland. The infilling of the pond and wetland is the focus of this review. A Certificate of Determination has been issued. CanaportTM LNG Limited The project consists of the expansion of a Greenhouse gas, dust, and Terminal spoils pile that will affect a wetland, and noise emissions during the proposed mitigative measures. The construction. project also includes mitigation proposed Loss of wetland habitat. for all potential environmental effects to wetlands at the CanaportTM LNG facility that may occur during development of the site.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 471

Table 7.3.1 Other Future Projects for Consideration of Cumulative Environmental Effects Potential Residual Environmental Effects that may Name of Project Description of Project Overlap with the Residual Environmental Effects of the Project Red Head Secondary Access Irving Oil Limited is proposing to construct Greenhouse gas, dust, and Road a secondary access road to alleviate noise emissions during construction traffic related to the construction. CanaportTM LNG facility along the Red Increased vehicular traffic and Head Road. Determination review in associated emissions during progress as of January 13, 2006. operation. Increased habitat fragmentation. Construction and Demolition Construction and demolition debris Increased vehicular traffic and Debris Disposal material that originates outside the associated emissions during province will be disposed in an existing operation. disposal site located in Saint John, pending appropriate approvals. Musquash Estuary Restoration Ducks Unlimited Canada is proposing to Greenhouse gas, dust, and remove a portion of an abandoned railway noise emissions during bed and a short agricultural dyke to allow construction. tidal flow and restore 14.57 ha of Restoration of 36 ha of salt freshwater marsh within the Musquash marsh, which is Provincially Estuary back to a fully functioning salt Significant. mash. A Certificate of Determination has been issued. Maguire’s Cove Barge The City of Saint John (Saint John Greenhouse gas, dust, and Terminal Industrial Parks Ltd.) is proposing to noise emissions during construct and operate a barge terminal at construction. Maguire’s Cove, near Lorneville, NB, Increased employment during adjacent to the NB Power Coleson Cove construction. Generating Station. The proposed project Loss of terrestrial habitat and includes a permanently fixed bulkhead, increased habitat fragmentation located at the shoreline, a barge landing as a result of the access road. pad, two permanently fixed moorings located on the west side of the landing pad, an access road to the landing pad and a small storage building. The purpose of the terminal is for the shipment of large prefabricated pollution control equipment for thermal generating plants located in various parts of the United States. Based on current predictions, the facility will be used 3 to 5 times a year and is not likely to exceed 12 uses per year. A Certificate of Determination has been issued. Irving Paper Mill Heater The proposed project involves installing Potential redistribution of and operating a small natural gas-fired emissions during operation. heater to produce heat for the paper making process at the Irving Paper Mill on Bayside Drive in Saint John. A Certificate of Determination has been issued.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 472

Table 7.3.1 Other Future Projects for Consideration of Cumulative Environmental Effects Potential Residual Environmental Effects that may Name of Project Description of Project Overlap with the Residual Environmental Effects of the Project J.D. Irving, Ltd. Gypsum The project involves the construction and Greenhouse gas, dust, and Wallboard Manufacturing Plant operation of a gypsum wallboard noise emissions during manufacturing plant to be located at the construction. former Saint John Shipbuilding yard. It Emissions during operation. would produce commercial grade Increased employment during wallboard products using synthetic gypsum construction and operation. produced by the flue gas desulphurization system at the NB Power Coleson Cove Generating Station and natural gypsum as required. Determination review is in progress as of January 13, 2006. Waste Oil Importation Waste oil is being proposed to be imported Emissions during operation. from Ontario, Québec and Newfoundland for processing into fuel oil at their (Barrington Environmental Services) existing facility on Bayside Drive in Saint John. Determination review is in progress as of January 13, 2006. Red Head Marsh Restoration Ducks Unlimited will remove a water Greenhouse gas, dust, and control structure in order to restore tidal noise emissions during exchange into the wetland and revert it to construction. its original brackish state. Restoration of brackish marsh (approximately 59 ha). Point Lepreau Generating The Point Lepreau Generating Station is a Greenhouse gas, dust, and Station Refurbishment 680 MW(e) CANDU® nuclear generating noise emissions during station located in Lepreau, New construction. Brunswick. It has been in operation since Increased employment during 1983. The Government of New Brunswick construction. announced in August 2005 that it would Loss of approximately 6.5 ha of proceed with a refurbishment of the plant terrestrial habitat. to extend its life for an additional 25-30 years beyond the year 2008. Irving Pulp & Paper Lime Kiln Irving Pulp & Paper is completing the Reduction in emissions. Replacement replacement of its lime kilns at the Reversing Falls mill, and associated process upgrades aimed at reducing emissions from the current operation of the mill. Construction is nearly completed, and once operational will substantially reduce emissions from the operation of the mill while allowing for future production increases. Irving Oil Refinery Tail Gas Irving Oil has announced that it plans to Reduction in mill emissions. Scrubber Replacement replace its existing Tail Gas Scrubber and associated air pollution control systems that were installed as part of the Irving Refinery Upgrade project in early 2000.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 473

Table 7.3.1 Other Future Projects for Consideration of Cumulative Environmental Effects Potential Residual Environmental Effects that may Name of Project Description of Project Overlap with the Residual Environmental Effects of the Project One Mile House Interchange The New Brunswick Department of Greenhouse gas, dust, and Transportation has proposed the noise emissions during construction of a new truck route at One construction. Mile House in east Saint John, to facilitate Increased employment during access to and from Route 1 to industrial construction. and commercial centres in east Saint Loss of terrestrial habitat. John. Installation of Portal Radiation The Canada Border Service Agency Greenhouse gas, dust, and Detection Equipment intends to install two radiation portal noise emissions during detection units at the Saint John Port construction. Authority property in Saint John, New Increased employment during Brunswick. The proposed project will construction. include the construction of concrete foundations and associated electrical work for the installation of these units. The concrete foundations will consist of two separate support pads for each unit that will measure approximately 1.067 m by 3.656 m and be placed 4.050 m apart. Electrical work associated with this project will include the replacement of circuit breakers and electrical panels in an existing onsite sub station and the installation of required conduit and electrical wiring. Eastern Wastewater Treatment The project involves the design and Greenhouse gas, dust, and Facility construction of a secondary wastewater noise emissions during treatment plant to treat sewage generated construction. in the Central / Eastern Drainage Sub- Increased employment during areas of Saint John. The proposed site for construction and operation. the facility is at the current Hazen Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. The scope of the assessment will include the construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of the proposed treatment plant and all associated works.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 474

Table 7.3.1 Other Future Projects for Consideration of Cumulative Environmental Effects Potential Residual Environmental Effects that may Name of Project Description of Project Overlap with the Residual Environmental Effects of the Project Saint John Urban Stream The project will improve natural habitat for Improved aquatic and terrestrial Renewal Project fish (including brook trout and cyprinids) habitat. and wildlife (including mink and raccoons) while also increasing public appreciation for urban watercourses. The goals of the project are to remove debris, and conduct physical and chemical surveys of the watercourses and their riparian zones. The survey will evaluate streams for the potential for enhancement. Stream channels will be checked for heavy sediment flow, flow velocity, riffle pool ratio, and basic morphology. Riparian zones located within 6 m of the stream will be investigated for floral diversity, undercutting of banks and evidence of erosion. Water chemistry, including dissolved oxygen, pH, and chloride content will be evaluated. Specific locations will be identified where native trees and shrubs can be planted to improve aesthetics and to stabilize riparian habitat. As well birdhouses built by local children will be placed along side a few of the streams. Miscellaneous Construction Includes all other development projects in Greenhouse gas, dust, and Projects in Saint John (i.e., Saint John (e.g., various road upgrades, noise emissions during future unidentified urbanization infrastructure projects). construction. projects) Increased employment during construction. Charlotte County Route 1 Upgrade The project involves the upgrade of Route Greenhouse gas, dust, and (Route 127-Route 770) 1 from two to four lanes in order to improve noise emissions during highway safety for the public. The total construction. length of the upgrading is 28 km. Improved traffic flow during operation. Increased employment during construction. Loss of terrestrial habitat. St. George Water Exploration The proposed project involves Environmental effects on Project groundwater exploration in St. George to groundwater. supply potable drinking water. Town of St. Stephen Water The project involves the drilling and Greenhouse gas, dust, and Supply Development operation of a groundwater well in the noise emissions during Todd Street area in order to supply the construction. municipality with drinking water. Environmental effects on groundwater.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 475

Table 7.3.1 Other Future Projects for Consideration of Cumulative Environmental Effects Potential Residual Environmental Effects that may Name of Project Description of Project Overlap with the Residual Environmental Effects of the Project Route 1 Upgrade The project involves the Greenhouse gas, dust, and (US Border to Church Street) construction/highway upgrade of Route noise emissions during 1, from the US Border to Church St. (St. construction. Stephen). Increased employment during construction. Improved traffic flow during operation. Loss of terrestrial habitat. Increased habitat fragmentation. Wallace Cove Wharf Facility The proposed project will replace the Greenhouse gas, dust, and existing Wallace Cove Ferry Terminal with noise emissions during a new fixed wharf facility. The new wharf construction. facility will have increased marshalling Increased employment during yards for vehicles and will be able to construction. accommodate a future (larger) anticipated Loss of terrestrial habitat. design vessel. This will result in improving the transportation link between North Head on Grand Manan and Blacks Harbour. The Wallace Cove Ferry Terminal is located along the Bay of Fundy coast, approximately 2 km from Blacks Harbour. The existing wharf structure will not be decommissioned as part of this project. A Certificate of Determination has been issued. Lake Utopia Paper Landfill This project consists of the closure of the Greenhouse gas, dust, and Closure Lake Utopia Paper landfill. noise emissions during decommissioning. St. Stephen Truck Route The proposed project is located in the town Greenhouse gas, dust, and Upgrade of St. Stephen from Route 3 to Church noise emissions during Street and consists of upgrading the construction. existing 2-lanes to 4-lanes. The total Increased employment during length of the project will be approximately construction. 4.2 km and will be a Level 1 controlled Improved traffic flow during access highway. operation. Loss of terrestrial habitat. Beaver Harbour Breakwater The project entails construction of a new Greenhouse gas, dust, and Wharf and Improvements breakwater wharf at Beaver Harbour, to be noise emissions during located southeast of the existing construction. breakwater wharf, which will remain in Increased employment during place. At the same time, other construction. improvements will be implemented at the Loss of terrestrial habitat. harbour, including drilling, blasting and infilling at the base of a shoreline cliff to create a permanent access road and service area for the new wharf, and installation of a new floating wharf. No dredging will be required as part of this project. A Certificate of Determination has been issued.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 476

Table 7.3.1 Other Future Projects for Consideration of Cumulative Environmental Effects Potential Residual Environmental Effects that may Name of Project Description of Project Overlap with the Residual Environmental Effects of the Project Lake Utopia Paper Dissolved The project consists of the installation of a Decrease in emissions. Air Flotation Clarifier dissolved air floatation clarifier at the company’s existing paper mill in St. George. A Certificate of Determination has been issued. Upgrade of Municipal Water The proposed project will upgrade a Greenhouse gas, dust, and Supply in Black’s Harbour municipal water supply system in Black's noise emissions during Harbour to ensure a safe, reliable and construction. adequate water supply for the residents. Increased employment during Currently the village obtains its water construction. supply from a local company's water Environmental effects on supply. The proposed project will include groundwater. the drilling of several test wells; the development of two production wells; the construction of two well houses, the installation of water mains to connect new wells to existing distribution system; the installation of a new SCADA system to monitor the system; and various other upgrades such as the installation of back flow devices. It is proposed that this upgrade will begin in the spring of 2006. Standard construction methods and materials will be used for this proposed project. International Power This project involves the construction of a Greenhouse gas, dust, and Transmission Line (Point power transmission line and RoW from the noise emissions during Lepreau Generating Station to Point Lepreau Generating Station into the construction. Maine) State of Maine. Increased employment during construction. Loss of forest habitat. Increased habitat fragmentation. Miscellaneous Construction Includes all other development projects in Greenhouse gas, dust, and Projects in St. Stephen (i.e., the Town of St. Stephen (e.g., various road noise emissions during future unidentified urbanization upgrades, infrastructure projects). construction. projects) Increased employment during construction.

7.3.1.2 Global Actions

There are a number of global actions that may act in combination with the environmental effects of the Project. This cumulative environmental effects assessment focuses on global actions that have measurable environmental effects in the vicinity of the Project (i.e., regional air quality as a measurement of the cumulative emissions of global burning of fossil fuels acting on the regional airshed).

The environmental effects of climate overlapping those of the Project are considered in Section 6.0 (Effects of the Environment on the Project).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 477

The air quality in a given region is the result of local, regional, and global actions contributing gases and contaminants to the regional airshed. A general review of air quality in the vicinity of the Project is provided in Section 4.2 (Existing Conditions, Atmospheric Environment).

7.4 Step 4 - Identify the Potential Interactions of the Project with the Other Projects and Activities (Cumulative Environmental Effects Assessment)

The fourth step of the cumulative environmental effects assessment is to identify the potential interactions of the Project with the other projects and activities. This has been done using an interaction matrix, included here as Table 7.4.1. In Table 7.4.1, the likely residual environmental effects of the Project after Construction and during Operation and Maintenance, and the other projects and activities’ categories are provided. Step 4 was accomplished by comparing the residual environmental effects of the Project (as described in Section 5.0 (Environmental Assessment)) with the likely residual environmental effects of the other projects and activities (as described in Section 7.3). A “Y” was placed where a likely interaction could occur (Y = yes) and an “N” placed where no interaction is expected to occur (N = no). The evaluation of the significance of the identified cumulative environmental effects occurs in Section 7.5.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 478

Table 7.4.1 Identification of Potential Interactions of the Project with Other Projects and Activities

Land Use Actions

Valued Global Environmental Potential Residual Environmental Effects of the Project Actions Component RoWs RoWs Existing Planned Projects Adjacent Adjacent Activities Urbanization Urbanization Development Development

Atmospheric Dust and emissions (including GHGs) during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance Y Y Y Y Y Environment Change in noise levels during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance Y Y Y Y N Loss of carbon sequestration Y Y Y Y N Water Resources Change in water levels in wells or protected watersheds during Construction Y Y Y Y N Change in water quality in wells or protected watersheds during Construction Y Y Y Y N Fish and Fish Change in fish passage during Construction Y Y Y Y N Habitat Noise disturbance during Construction leading to habitat avoidance Y Y Y Y N Change in riparian and stream habitat Y Y Y Y N Decrease in surface water quality during Construction Y Y Y Y N Vegetation Loss of species of conservation concern Y Y Y Y N Loss of forest habitat in ESAs Y Y Y Y N Wetlands Loss of wetland area Y Y Y Y N Loss of wetland function Y Y Y Y N Wildlife and Wildlife Direct mortality Y Y Y Y N Habitat Loss of species of conservation concern Y Y Y Y N Noise disturbance during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance leading to habitat Y Y Y Y N avoidance Loss of wildlife habitat Y Y Y Y N Increased habitat fragmentation Y Y Y Y N Health and Safety None identified N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Traditional Land and None identified (to be updated once the TEK study is completed in spring 2006). N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Resource Use Land and Resource Decrease in amount of land available for forestry operations Y Y Y Y N Use Loss of agricultural land use during Construction Y Y Y Y N Decrease in navigability during Construction Y Y Y Y N Decrease in surface water quality during Construction Y Y Y Y N Increased access for fishing and hunting opportunities Y Y Y Y N Illegal use of the RoW (e.g., ATV use) causing disturbance and habitat destruction Y Y Y Y N Infrastructure and Temporary closure of roads that are open cut during Construction Y Y Y Y N Services Labour and Increase in employment during Construction Y Y Y Y N Economy Increase in local economy during Construction Y Y Y Y N Archaeological and None identified N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Heritage Resources

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 479

7.5 Step 5 - Evaluate the Significance of the Resulting Cumulative Environmental Effects

The fifth step of the cumulative environmental effects assessment is to evaluate the significance of the cumulative environmental effects resulting from interactions between the Project and other projects and activities. The significance criteria used to evaluate the cumulative environmental effects of the Project interacting with other projects and activities are those used for each VEC in Section 5.0 (Environmental Assessment). The contribution of the Project to cumulative environmental effects is also discussed.

7.5.1 Atmospheric Environment

The Project will result in temporary measurable environmental effects on air quality (including greenhouse gas emissions), noise emissions during Construction (e.g., heavy machinery) and to a lesser extent, during Operation and Maintenance (e.g., vegetation control equipment, pipeline maintenance), and in a permanent loss of carbon sequestration (i.e., loss of forest). These environmental effects would be intermittent, small in magnitude, and very localized.

Other projects and activities (i.e., land use actions and global actions) result in localized environmental effects on the Atmospheric Environment during Construction and/or Operation and Maintenance that may overlap with those of the Project. These include air and noise emissions during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance, and changes in traffic patterns and volumes during Operation and Maintenance, which could cause a change in the distribution and quantity of air and noise contaminants in the region. In addition, other projects and activities (i.e., land use actions) have the potential to result in or have resulted in a loss of carbon sequestration (i.e., loss of forest habitat).

The baseline air quality within the Assessment Area (as defined in Section 5.1.2) is considered relatively good, with few short-term exceedances of New Brunswick air quality standards, as characterized in Section 4.2 (Existing Conditions, Atmospheric Environment). The contributions of air contaminants to the Assessment Area from the Project in combination with other projects and activities are not likely to result in an exceedance of the New Brunswick Air Quality Regulation – Clean Air Act, and will be temporary. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the emissions of the Project overlapping those of other regional projects and on air quality will be not significant.

Noise emissions as a result of the Project will mostly be limited to Construction, with minor increases in noise levels during maintenance activities associated with the Operation and Maintenance phase. It is not predicted that ambient noise levels (including noise from all sources acting on a receptor) will exceed the threshold for significance for sound quality, as presented in Section 5.1.3. Therefore, the potential cumulative environmental effects of the Project in combination with other past, present and future projects on noise emissions are rated not significant.

The Project will result in a maximum loss of 435 ha (145 km by 30 m RoW) of forest habitat within the RoW, resulting in a loss of carbon sequestration opportunities (i.e., carbon sinks). However, as explained in Section 7.5.9 (Land and Resource Use), the Project results in a relatively small loss of forest productivity (a maximum of approximately 0.0004% of the Crown timber licenses it passes

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 480

through) and during Operation and Maintenance, the RoW is allowed to revegetate with the exception of removal of trees greater than approximately 1.5 m in height. Therefore, the potential cumulative environmental effects of the Project in combination with other past, present and future projects on carbon sequestration are rated not significant.

7.5.2 Water Resources

The Project has the potential to result in temporary environmental effects on groundwater, water wells, and protected watersheds in the vicinity of the Project during Construction. Although regional groundwater flow systems are unlikely to be affected by the Project and it is anticipated that mitigation such as deepening and repair of affected wells will be implemented to ensure there are no significant residual adverse environmental effects on water resources, there may be a short period of time in which water resources are affected.

Other projects and activities (i.e., land use actions) have the potential to result in similar environmental effects on Water Resources as those identified for the Project. Existing RoWs and past activities and urbanization may have adversely affected water resources, and future roads constructed for adjacent activities, urbanization, and other planned development projects have the potential for similar environmental effects on water resources in the future. However, due to the dispersed pattern of these other projects and activities (Figure 7.3.1) and the short time frame in which the Project may have environmental effects on groundwater, water wells, and protected watersheds in the vicinity of the Project, the cumulative environmental effects of the Project in combination with other past, present and future projects are predicted to be not significant.

7.5.3 Fish and Fish Habitat

During Construction, the Project has the potential to result in temporary blockage to fish passage, noise disturbance, which could lead to habitat avoidance, and a temporary decrease in surface water quality. Riparian habitat may be affected as it re-grows after disturbance caused by the Project, and stream habitat may be slightly altered after Construction is completed, although every effort should be made to restore waterbodies to the same condition they were found in, if not better.

Other projects and activities (i.e., land use actions) have the potential to result in similar environmental effects on Fish and Fish Habitat as those identified for the Project. For example, the construction of past and future projects such as roads, which are included in all four categories of land use actions (i.e., adjacent activities, existing RoWs, urbanization, and planned development projects), across waterbodies would have the potential to create temporary if not permanent blockages to fish passage, as well as noise disturbance and decreases in surface water quality though the addition of sediments during construction and road salts during Operation and Maintenance.

Although the Project will result in environmental effects on Fish and Fish Habitat, they will be temporary (i.e., 1-2 days in the case of fish blockage and noise disturbance activities), will occur at times that are least likely to affect fish populations adversely (i.e., will follow WAWA permit requirements), and releases of sediment will not exceed CCME guidelines for the protection of aquatic life for extended

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 481

periods of time, except in the case of proposed wet crossings. In the case of altered stream habitat, the Proponent must ensure that fish habitat quality will be the same if not improved after Construction across a waterbody. If fish habitat is altered adversely, HADD authorization (which includes compensation measures) under the Fisheries Act will be required. It is expected that future projects will meet required regulations with respect to instream construction timing restrictions, guidelines for sediments, and HADD requirements of the Fisheries Act, and will therefore not result in environmental effects that overlap with the Project to exceed thresholds for significance criteria for Fish and Fish Habitat (Section 5.3.3).

Existing RoWs, adjacent activities (e.g., agriculture), and past urbanization may continue to have environmental effects on Fish and Fish Habitat that will overlap with those of the Project. For example, anadromous Atlantic salmon populations in the Saint John River and its tributaries have been decreasing over the last 100 years and reached very low numbers in the last decade; DFO attributes this loss primarily to the cumulative environmental effects of commercial fishing and hydroelectric power generation (DFO 2001, DFO 2002). Although these contributions will be adverse, the Project will not contribute residual adverse environmental effects that will exceed threshold levels for significance (Section 5.3.3). Therefore, the cumulative environmental effects of the Project in combination with other past, present and future projects on Fish and Fish Habitat are predicted to be not significant.

7.5.4 Vegetation

The Project has the potential to result in the loss of vascular plant species of conservation concern and the loss of forest habitat in Environmentally Significant Areas.

Other projects and activities (i.e., land use actions) have had or have the potential to result in similar environmental effects on Vegetation as those identified for the Project.

Forest habitat within ESAs crossed by the Project will be altered, as trees will be cut after reaching an approximately 1.5 m; however, ESAs will not be substantially degraded. Routing of the Project RoW (to be completed in 2006) will avoid all species at risk and as many species of conservation concern as practicable, will not contravene SARA or the NB ESA, and will not result in a significant residual adverse environmental effect on Vegetation (as defined in Section 5.4.3). It is reasonable to assume that future projects and activities will also meet the requirements of provincial and federal legislation with respect to species of conservation concern and will therefore not result in environmental effects that overlap with the Project to exceed thresholds for significance criteria species of conservation concern (Section 5.4.3).

Existing RoWs, past adjacent activities (e.g., agriculture, forestry), and past urbanization may have had environmental effects on vascular plant species of conservation concern (i.e., before species at risk legislation was passed) that the Project will overlap, as may future projects and activities on ESAs. Although these contributions may have been or may be adverse, the Project will not contribute residual adverse environmental effects that will combine to exceed threshold levels for significance (Section 5.4.3). Therefore, the cumulative environmental effects of the Project in combination with other past, present and future projects on Vegetation are predicted to be not significant.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 482

7.5.5 Wetlands

The Project has the potential to result in a loss of wetland area and decrease in the functioning of wetlands crossed by the Project RoW, although every effort should be made to avoid wetlands during routing of the pipeline in 2006.

Other projects and activities (i.e., land use actions) have the potential to result in similar environmental effects on Wetlands as those identified for the Project.

All work within 30 m of a wetland must follow WAWA permit requirements, and in wetlands greater than 1 ha, any substantive wetland area lost or decrease in wetland function as a result of the Project must be compensated, resulting in a net gain in wetland area and function in the region. Future projects and activities will be required to meet wetland regulations in the Province and past and existing activities that were not regulated may have had environmental effects that created adverse environmental effects on wetlands. However, because the Project will not result in residual adverse environmental effects to wetlands, it will not overlap with other projects or activities to result in significant cumulative environmental effects to wetlands. Therefore, the cumulative environmental effects of the Project in combination with other past, present and future projects on Wetlands are predicted to be not significant.

7.5.6 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

The Project has the potential to result in residual environmental effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat such as direct mortality and loss of species of conservation concern that cannot escape construction activities, noise disturbance during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance resulting in habitat avoidance, and loss of forest habitat and increased fragmentation of the landscape.

Other projects and activities (i.e., land use actions) have the potential to result in similar environmental effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat as those identified for the Project.

During Construction, and Operation and Maintenance of the Project, mitigation (e.g., timing restrictions) will minimize loss of life and routing will avoid habitat of species at risk and species of conservation concern; the Project will not contravene any existing legislation (i.e., MBCA, SARA, NB ESA). Noise emissions as a result of the Project will mostly be limited to Construction, with minor increases in noise levels during maintenance activities associated with the Operation and Maintenance phase. All future projects and activities will be required to follow existing legislation and regulations and will therefore not have environmental effects that overlap with those of the Project to exceed significance criteria for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat (Section 5.6.3). Past and present projects and activities may have contravened existing legislation, but it is not expected that these adverse environmental effects will overlap with those of the Project to exceed significance criteria (Section 5.6.3).

The Project is expected to result in the conversion of a maximum of 435 ha (145 km by 30 m RoW) of forest into shrub habitat and will contribute to further fragmentation of the landscape. However, because approximately 65% of the preferred corridor (95 km of 145 km) will parallel existing or planned

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 483

RoWs (e.g., Saint John Lateral and the IPL), the expected conversion of forest into shrub habitat is approximately 340 ha. While clearing and construction of the RoW will widen existing linear corridors, thus increasing the magnitude of habitat fragmentation, this is preferred to creating a new corridor through undisturbed forest habitats, and the resultant corridor width will not approach the 200 m critical distance for birds suggested by a CWS study conducted in Quebec (CWS and FOQ 2002). Also of note, is the fact that terrestrial habitat will not be permanently removed from the RoW but converted into shrub habitat, resulting in less of a barrier to wildlife movements than complete removal of vegetation. In addition, the region is heavily forested and constraint mapping identified important habitat features such as deer wintering area, mature coniferous forest habitat, AC CDC occurrence records of species at risk and species of conservation concern, habitat for species at risk, migratory bird staging areas, and environmentally significant areas that were taken into consideration when the preferred corridor was selected. Therefore the Project is not expected to overlap with the environmental effects of other projects and activities to an extent that would exceed significance criteria (Section 5.6.3), and the cumulative environmental effects of the Project in combination with other past, present and future projects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat are predicted to be not significant.

7.5.7 Health and Safety

There were no identified likely residual environmental effects of the Project on Health and Safety that were likely to occur.

7.5.8 Traditional Land and Resource Use

As no adverse environmental effects on Traditional Land and Resource Use by Aboriginal persons in the vicinity of the Project have been identified, no cumulative environmental effects to Traditional Land and Resource Use are anticipated. Further, no adverse environmental effects to Traditional Land and Resource Use were noted as a result of adjacent projects (e.g., IPL, SJL). Additional information on the Traditional Land and Resource Use by Aboriginal persons is still being gathered for the current Project in the form of a TEK study to be completed in the spring of 2006. The results of that TEK study will be used to confirm these findings once they are received and will be forwarded to regulatory agencies.

7.5.9 Land and Resource Use

The Project will result in the permanent loss of forest production opportunities within the RoW, temporary loss of agricultural capacity, a temporary closure to navigational opportunities and decrease in surface water quality for recreational purposes during Construction, increased access to hunting and fishing opportunities, and illegal use of the RoW for activities such as ATV use that can cause disturbance to people and wildlife, and destroy terrestrial and aquatic habitat.

Other projects and activities (i.e., land use actions) have the potential to result in similar environmental effects on Land and Resource Use as those identified for the Project. For example, adjacent land uses such as agriculture reduce the amount of forest habitat available for forestry operations, and roads

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 484

associated with forestry operations can open up access to hunting and fishing opportunities. Construction of roads, which is associated with every category, has the potential to result in each of the environmental effects identified for the Project.

The Project passes through two Crown timber licenses: Queens-Charlotte (approximately 623,610 ha) and Fundy (approximately 427,224 ha), which are both managed by J.D. Irving, Ltd. All licensees produce a forest management plan under the Crown Lands and Forests Act, which cover a 25-year period and are sustainable over an 80-year planning period. In 2004, approximately 2,939 ha were reforested on Crown land in the Queens-Charlotte license, and approximately 1,203 ha in the Fundy license (NBDNR 2005b). Concerns about the declining wood supply and issues related to several elements of the forest management system for Crown land in New Brunswick were assessed in 2002 by an independent consulting firm (JPC 2002). In response to this assessment, the Province developed and presented a “go forward” strategy aimed at capitalizing on New Brunswick’s forestry strengths and successes that would maintain a healthy forest environment and vibrant forest economy (Select Committee on Wood Supply 2004). The Project will result in the permanent loss of a maximum of 435 ha (145 km by 30 m RoW) of forest production opportunity within the RoW through Crown and private lands. However, because of the relatively small amount of forest productivity lost as a result of the Project (a maximum of approximately 0.0004% of the Crown timber licenses it passes through) and the Province’s commitment to maintaining a viable forest industry (Select Committee on Wood Supply 2004), the cumulative environmental effects of the Project in combination with other past, present and future projects on forestry are predicted to be not significant.

The Project also has the potential to result in illegal use of the RoW (e.g., ATV use) and increased access to hunting and fishing opportunities. However, approximately 66% of the preferred corridor (95 km of 145 km) will parallel existing or planned RoWs (e.g., SJL and the IPL), thereby not resulting in a large number of increased access opportunities. Mitigation as described in Section 5.9 (Land and Resource Use) will help deter potential illegal users of the RoW (e.g., fencing, signage) and it is anticipated that the Proponent will work closely with local law enforcement agencies to educate the public about the adverse environmental effects associated with illegal use of the RoW. Therefore, the cumulative environmental effects of the Project in combination with other past, present and future projects on illegal access along the RoW are predicted to be not significant.

Other environmental effects of the Project on Land and Resource Use will be temporary (i.e., loss of agricultural productivity, closure of navigational opportunities, and decrease in surface water quality) and will not overlap with the environmental effects of other projects and activities to exceed significance criteria (Section 5.9.3).

Therefore, the cumulative environmental effects of the Project in combination with other past, present and future projects on Land and Resource Use are predicted to be not significant.

7.5.10 Infrastructure and Services

The Project will result in the temporary closure of roads that are open cut during Construction.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 485

Other projects and activities (i.e., land use actions) have the potential to result in the closure of roads during construction, and operation and maintenance, especially during the construction of roads (associated with each category).

Major roads crossed by the Project will be bored; only small roads with low traffic volumes will be open cut, resulting in their temporary closure that should be further mitigated by temporary detour routes as warranted. While other projects and activities will have environmental effects that overlap with the Project, these are temporary and dispersed throughout the region. Therefore, the Project is not expected to overlap with the environmental effects of other projects and activities to exceed significance criteria (Section 5.10.3). Therefore, the cumulative environmental effects of the Project in combination with other past, present and future projects on Infrastructure and Services are predicted to be not significant.

7.5.11 Labour and Economy

The Project is expected to result in an increase in employment opportunities and the local economy during Construction.

Other projects and activities (i.e., land use actions) also have the potential to result in increases in employment and the local economy.

While the environmental effects of the Project and those of other projects and activities are positive, they overlap to create the potential for a labour shortage in the region. This does not constitute a significant adverse cumulative environmental effect, but it may cause problems for the Proponent and/or the proponents of other projects and activities if construction occurs at the same time. Therefore, the cumulative environmental effects of the Project in combination with other past, present and future projects on Labour and Economy are predicted to be positive and not significant.

7.5.12 Archaeological and Heritage Resources

There were no identified residual environmental effects of the Project on Archaeological and Heritage Resources that are likely to occur.

7.6 Step 6 - Suggest Mitigation to Minimize the Identified Cumulative Environmental Effects

The Project will result in some adverse cumulative environmental effects; however, in all cases, these cumulative environmental effects are similar in magnitude, duration, and extent to the environmental effects presented in Section 5.0 (Environmental Assessment), and are rated as not significant. In this regard, the mitigation presented in Section 5.0 mitigates the potential cumulative environmental effects of the Project. Therefore, there is no additional mitigation recommended for minimizing the potential cumulative environmental effects of the Project in addition to that identified for the mitigation of environmental effects in Section 5.0 (Environmental Assessment).

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 486

8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This environmental assessment (EA) report describes and evaluates the potential environmental and socio-economic effects of the Brunswick Pipeline Project during all Project phases (i.e., Construction, Operation and Maintenance, and Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events). The EA is based on information collected during field surveys, consultation with regulators, stakeholders, the public and the Aboriginal community, background research, and the professional judgement of the Jacques Whitford Study Team. In accordance with the requirements of Sections 16(1) and 16(2) of CEAA, applicable sections of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2004a), and the provisions of the NEB Brunswick Pipeline Project draft Environmental Assessment Scoping Document (NEB 2006), this Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment includes:

• a discussion of the alternatives to the Project and the alternative means of carrying out the Project that are technically and economically feasible and the environmental effects of any such alternative means;

• a description of the Project including the purpose and need, the proposed facilities and activities, and the potential accidents, malfunctions or unplanned events that may occur in connection with the Construction, and Operation and Maintenance phases of the Project;

• a consideration of the capacity of renewable resources that are likely to be significantly affected by the Project to meet the needs of the present and those of the future;

• a summary of consultation mechanisms, comments from the public and issues raised during consultation (i.e., issues scoping) as well as a description of the methodological approach to the environmental assessment;

• a description of the existing biophysical and socio-economic environment in the Project area in terms of the Valued Environmental and Socio-economic Components (VECs) being assessed;

• an assessment of the environmental effects of the Project for each of the VECs, and the significance of the environmental effects;

• an assessment of cumulative environmental effects;

• an assessment of the effects of the environment on the Project;

• recommendations for measures to mitigate any significant adverse environmental effects; and

• recommendations for follow-up and monitoring.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 487

The scope of the EA was determined in consideration of the requirements of Sections 15 and 16 of CEAA, the Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment provisions of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2004a), and the provisions of the NEB Brunswick Pipeline Project draft Environmental Assessment Scoping Document (NEB 2006). Consultation with the public, stakeholders, regulatory authorities, and Aboriginal community was a major component of the scoping process and was ongoing for the duration of the EA. Public consultation was initiated in May 2005 and is ongoing via the following methods:

• holding open houses on the Project;

• opening a dialogue with potentially affected landowners and key stakeholders; and

• notifying the public of the Project and soliciting comments through a toll-free telephone line and email address.

Regulatory consultation was initiated for the pipeline corridor selection process and the EA. The alternate pipeline corridors considered, constraints, and evaluation criteria were reviewed with local regulators, including but not limited to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) (Fisheries and Oceans Canada), Environment Canada, the New Brunswick Department of Environment (NBENV), the New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources (NBDNR), and the New Brunswick Department of Transportation (NBDOT).

An Aboriginal consultation plan and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) plan were prepared and initiated for the Project. An Aboriginal consulting firm was retained to facilitate the consultation process and the TEK plan. Open houses and direct consultation were identified as the primary forms of communication with Aboriginal communities and organizations. Subsequently, direct contact was made with the Chiefs, and open houses were held in most of the Aboriginal communities.

All issues raised during public consultation were reviewed and evaluated for their relevance to the EA, and considered during the scoping process and selection of the VECs.

Twelve Valued Environmental Components (VECs) were selected for the EA, comprising a range of biophysical and socio-economic aspects of the environment that may be affected by the Project. These are:

• Atmospheric Environment;

• Water Resources;

• Fish and Fish Habitat;

• Vegetation;

• Wetlands;

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 488

• Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat;

• Health and Safety;

• Traditional Land and Resource Use;

• Land and Resource Use;

• Infrastructure and Services;

• Labour and Economy; and

• Archaeological and Heritage Resources.

Project-VEC interactions were analyzed by Project phase to determine potential environmental effects associated with Project components and activities. Residual environmental effects were predicted for VECs following the application of proposed mitigation measures. The residual environmental effects of each Project phase were evaluated as significant, not significant, or positive, based on the significance threshold developed for each VEC. In all cases, the residual environmental effects of the Project were rated not significant, except in the case of some Accidents, Malfunctions or Unplanned Events (e.g., hazardous materials spills, pipeline ruptures, fires) that have the potential to be significant but are unlikely to occur.

Effects of the environment on the Project included those from weather-related events (e.g., rainfall and flooding), seismic-related events (e.g., earthquakes), sinkholes (i.e., Karst topography), induced potential (e.g., induced electrical potential from paralleling electrical transmission lines), forest fires and soil contamination. The Project will be planned, designed and constructed such that the identified effects of the environment on the Project are rated not significant, or if significant, extremely unlikely.

The assessment of cumulative environmental effects of the Project considered the following categories of past, present, and future projects and activities that will be carried out:

• land use actions (i.e., adjacent activities, existing RoWs, urbanization, and planned development projects); and

• global actions that may act in combination with the environmental effects of the Project (i.e., regional air quality as a measurement of the cumulative emissions of global burning of fossil fuels acting on the regional airshed).

The VECs considered in the cumulative environmental effects assessment were Atmospheric Environment, Water Resources, Fish and Fish Habitat, Vegetation, Wetlands, Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat, Land and Resource Use, Infrastructure and Services, and Labour and Economy. The Project is not anticipated to result in substantive contributions to cumulative environmental effects due to the mitigation measures and environmental management framework for the Project. Therefore, there is no

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 489

additional mitigation recommended for minimizing the potential cumulative environmental effects of the Project in addition to that identified for the mitigation of environmental effects in the EA.

A Follow-up and Monitoring Program is outlined in the EA. During Construction, the effectiveness of the Environmental Management and Safety Program will be assured by a comprehensive site inspection and monitoring program, including the presence of qualified inspectors onsite to ensure compliance with the EPP and the Proponent’s environmental, health and safety policies and procedures. During Operation and Maintenance, routine pipeline monitoring and surveillance programs and engineering assessment will be implemented to ensure the effectiveness of the Pipeline Integrity Management Plan (Pipeline IMP) and effectiveness of mitigation to prevent unauthorized access to the RoW and potential damage to the pipeline system.

Numerous follow-up and monitoring activities specific to each VEC are recommended in this EA report. If any follow-up and monitoring activities are identified in addition to those outlined in the EA, they must be scoped in consultation with the appropriate regulating agencies and implemented by the Proponent as required.

Based on the results of the EA, and the provision that the mitigation identified in the EA is implemented on the Project, it is concluded that the Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 490

9.0 CLOSING

This report has been prepared for the sole benefit of Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd. The report may not be used by any other person or entity, other than for its intended purposes, without the consent of Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd.

The information and conclusions contained in this report are based upon work undertaken in accordance with generally accepted engineering and scientific practices current at the time the work was performed. The information provided to Jacques Whitford in this report was compiled from existing documents and data provided by Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership on behalf of Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd. Jacques Whitford has assumed that those data are correct and accurately describe the environment of the Project. If any conditions become apparent that differ significantly from our understanding of conditions as presented in this report, Jacques Whitford requests that we be notified immediately, and permitted to reassess the conclusions provided herein.

This report was prepared by Chris Blair, Jacques Whitford EA Project Manager, and reviewed by Colleen Leeder, M.Sc., of Jacques Whitford.

P:\1003xxx\1003790\A5500 Environmental Assessment\Draft Document for Client Review 2006\Full EA - May 15, 2006\Chapters 1-10, May 15.doc

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 491

10.0 REFERENCES

10.1 References Cited

AC CDC (Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre). 2003. Provincial Lists and Ranks.

AC CDC. 2005. Information request.

ACGIH (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists). 1982. Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents in the Work Environment with Intended Changes for 1982. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, Ohio. 93pp.

ADI. 2003. Identification of a Realistic Provincial Standard Noise Threshold Level. Report prepared for the New Brunswick Department of Transportation. Report: (55) 0600-454.1. April 2003.

AK Energy. 2005. Feasibility Assessment of Horizontal Directional Drill for Duke Energy’s M&NP LNG#4 Project. AK Energy Services. Waltham, Massachusetts. Report to Duke Energy. August 2, 2005.

AMEC. 2000. M&NP Proposed Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Projects Archaeological Assessment.

AMEC. 2001. Archaeological monitoring of construction activities Saint John Lateral Pipeline Project – Final Report.

AMEC. 2002. 345 kV International Power Line Project from Point Lepreau to the NB/Maine Border Comprehensive Study Report. Prepared for New Brunswick Power Corporation. July 2002.

AMEC. 2005. M&NP Saint John Lateral Pipeline Project Wetland Environmental Effects Monitoring Program: 2005 Results. Report prepared for Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline on May 8, 2005, No. TV51083.

Anderson, P.G., B.R. Taylor and G.C. Balch. 1996. Quantifying the effects of sediment release on fish and their habitats. Canadian Manuscript Report on Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, No. 2346.

ARC (Aboriginal Resource Consultants). 2006a. Report on the Consultation Process Related to the Proposed Development of the Brunswick Pipeline with New Brunswick First Nations. Report prepared for Jacques Whitford Environment Limited. Maliseet Nation at Tobique, Perth, New Brunswick.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 492

ARC. 2006b. Proposal to Undertake a Traditional Ecological Knowledge Study of the Preferred Corridor of the Brunswick Pipeline Project. Report prepared for Jacques Whitford Environment Limited. Maliseet Nation at Tobique, Perth, New Brunswick.

Barnes, J.L., M. Stephenson, L.H. Davey. 2000. An Integrated Approach to Cumulative Environmental Effects Assessment, Meeting the Requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, in Proceedings of the 27th Annual Aquatic Toxicity Workshop: October 1-4, 2000, St. John’s, Newfoundland. Edited by K.C. Penney, K.A. Coady, M.H. Murdoch, W.R. Parker and A.J. Niimi. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2331, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, p. 20-33.

Bay of Fundy Tourism Partnership. 2005. Sea Cliffs and Fossils Ecozone. Accessed November 2005 online at: http://www.bayoffundytourism.com/ecozones/seacliffs.php.

BCWLAP (British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection). 1995. Interim Air Quality

Objective for Fine Particulate PM10. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection. January 1995. Internet publication: http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/epd/cpr/objectiv/aqoffp.html.

Bercha, F. 2006. Quantitative Risk Analysis of the New Brunswick Natural Gas Pipeline Draft Final Report. Bercha Engineering Limited. Calgary, AB. Report to M&NP, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Burke, K.B.S., Slauenwhite, S. and Bidiscombe, P. 1987. Historical seismicity of the Passamaquoddy Bay region of New Brunswick for the period 1811-1900. Contract report 23222-6-3421 01-ST for Geophysics Division, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. 93pp.

Burke, R. 1988. Indiantown: A town forgotten.

Burley, D. 1976. An archaeological reconnaissance of Saint John, New Brunswick.

CanSIS (Canadian Soil Information System). 2003. Canada Land Inventory, National Soil Database, CanSIS. Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Accessed February 2006 at: http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/nsdb/cli/index.html. Last updated June 2003.

Cantox. 1999. Public Health Risk Assessment of the Irving Oil Refinery Upgrade.

CAPP (Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association and Canadian Gas Association). 2005. Pipeline Associated Watercourse Crossings. Prepared by TERA Environmental Consultants and Salmo Consulting Inc., Calgary, Alberta.

CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 1999. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Updated 2001, 2002, 2003. Winnipeg. Publication No. 1299, ISBN 1-896997-34-1.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 493

CCME. 2000. Canada Wide Standards for Particulate Matter and Ozone, endorsed by the Council of Ministers of the Environment, June 2000, Quebec City, Quebec. Internet publication: http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/pmozone_standard_e.pdf.

CCME. 2002. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Total Particulate Matter. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

CEAA (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency). 1994. A Reference Guide for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Determining Whether a Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects. Prepared by the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office.

CEAA. 2006. Environmental Assessment Registry Search Results. Accessed online January 19, 2006 at: http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/index_e.cfm.

Choates, J.S. 1973. Wildlife resources of the Saint John River Basin, New Brunswick. Saint John River Basin Board, Rept. No. 8a, 135 pp.

City of Saint John. 1973. Municipal Development Plan of the City of Saint John. 1973 as amended.

City of Saint John. 1983. Zoning By-law of the City of Saint John. C.P.-100. 1983 as amended.

City of Saint John. 1999. A By-law to Regulate the Subdivision of Land within the City of Saint John. By-law Number C.P. 120. Amended up to and including amending by-law C.P. 120-3 May 12, 1999. City of Saint John, New Brunswick.

City of Saint John. 2004. Aerial Photography of City of Saint John. Planning and Development, City of Saint John. Saint John, New Brunswick.

City of Saint John. Date unknown. Rockwood Park: An Integrated Resource Management Plan. Report prepared by Charlene Urquhart for the City of Saint John, Leisure Services Department.

Colpitts, M.C., S.H. Fahmy, J.E. MacDougall, T.T.M. Ng, B.G. McInnis, and V.F. Zelazny. 1995. Forest Soils of New Brunswick. New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources and Energy, Timber Management Branch; Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Branch; and Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service. CLBRR Contribution No. 95-38.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2005. Canadian Species at Risk. November 2005.

CSA (Canadian Standards Association). 2003a. CSA Standard Z662-03 - Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems. Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, Ontario. June, 2003.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 494

CSA. 2003b. Commentary on CSA Standard Z662-03, Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems. Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, Ontario. June, 2003.

CWS (Canadian Wildlife Service). 1987. Wetlands Atlas for New Brunswick. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada.

CWS and FOQ (Fondation Les oiseleurs du Québec). 2002. Forest Corridors - Identifying Conservation Criteria. Accessed online November 2005 at: http://www.qc.ec.gc.ca/faune/corridors_verts/html/criteres_e.html.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 1986. Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat. Ottawa, Ontario.

DFO. 1995a. Factsheet #2. Blasting – Fish and Fish Habitat Protection. Department of Fisheries and Oceans. St. John’s, Newfoundland.

DFO. 1995b. Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline. Ottawa, Ontario.

DFO. 1999. Status of Wild Striped Bass and Interaction Between wild and Cultured Striped Bass in the Maritime Provinces. DFO Science Stock Status Report D3-22.

DFO. 2001. Atlantic Salmon Maritime Provinces Overview for 2000. DFO Stock Status Report D3-14 (2001) (revised).

DFO. 2002. Atlantic Salmon Maritime Provinces Overview for 2001. DFO Stock Status Report D3-14 (2002).

DFO. 2005. DFO Website. Accessed online September 2005 at: https://www.glf.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/pls/secure/asir_inter_count?langE=en&prov_cdE=2&species_type_cdE=1.

Dilworth, T. (ed). 1984. Land Mammals of New Brunswick. Unipress Ltd. 228p.

Environment Canada. 1991. The Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation. Environment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario.

Environment Canada. 2000. Climates of Canada. Environment Canada, Atmospheric Environment Service. Available online at: http://atlantic- web1.ns.ec.gc.ca/climatecentre/default.asp?lang=En&n=7A6129C7-1. Accessed on November 2, 2005.

Environment Canada. 2003a. Weather Data for the Saint John Airport 1995-2001. Meteorological Service of Canada, Environment Canada, Fredericton, New Brunswick. September, 2003.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 495

Environment Canada. 2003b. Consensus Forecasts for Criteria Air Contaminants 1990-2010. Environment Canada, Criteria Air Contaminants Division. Internet Publication: http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/pa/pa_cons_e.cfm.

Environment Canada. 2004a. Environment Canada 2000 Criteria Air Contaminant Emissions for Canada Inventory, web publication, http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/cac/cac_ESummaries_e.cfm

Environment Canada. 2004b. Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2002. Environment Canada, Greenhouse Gas Division, 2004. Internet Publication: http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/ 1990_02_report/forward_e.cfm.

Environment Canada. 2005a. Canadian Climate Normals 1971-2000 for the Saint John A Weather Station. Environment Canada, Meteorological Service of Canada, Ottawa, ON, 2003. Available online at: http://climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html. Accessed on November 2, 2005.

Environment Canada. 2005b. Canadian Climate Normals 1971-2000 for the Pennfield Weather Station. Environment Canada, Meteorological Service of Canada, Ottawa, ON, 2003. Available online at: http://climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html. Accessed on November 2, 2005.

Environment Canada. 2005c. Canadian Climate Normals 1971-2000 for the Hoyt/Blissville Weather Station. Environment Canada, Meteorological Service of Canada, Ottawa, ON, 2003. Available online at: http://climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html. Accessed on November 2, 2005.

Environment Canada. 2005d. Species at Risk. Online: http://www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca/search/

Erskine, A.J. 1992. Atlas of Breeding Birds of the Maritime Provinces. The Province of Nova Scotia.

Fader, G.B.J. 1989. Cruise Report 88-018 (C), Phase 4, 88-018 (C), Phase 5, M.V. Navicula, Passamaquoddy Bay and Bay of Fundy. Atlantic Geoscience Centre, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. 20 pp.

Fundy Engineering. 2005. Red Head Secondary Access Road, Environmental Impact Assessment. Report Prepared for Irving Oil Limited.

Ganong, W. F. 1899. A monograph on Historic Sites in the Province of New Brunswick.

Gates, O. 1989. The geology and geophysics of the Passamaquoddy Bay area, Maine and New Brunswick, and their bearing on local subsidence, methods in Anderson, W.A. and Borns, H.W. Jr. (editors). 1989. Neotectonics of Maine, studies in seismicity, crustal warping and sea level change. Maine Geological Survey. Bulletin 40:11-24.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 496

Gehrels, W.R. and Belknap, D.F. 1993. Neotechnic history of eastern Maine evaluated from historic sea-level data and 14C dates on salt-marsh peats. Geology. 21:615-618.

GEODAT. 2005. Aerial Photography of Proposed Brunswick Pipeline, M&NP, flown June 1-3 2005.

Gleason and Conqvist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada, 2nd ed. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York.

Godfrey. 2005. Preliminary Evaluation of the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Brunswick Pipeline Corridor Selection Urban Routes. Saint John, New Brunswick. October 2005.

Godfrey. 2006. Preliminary Evaluation of the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Brunswick Pipeline Corridor Selection Northern Routes – Rockwood Park Options. Draft Report. Saint John, New Brunswick. April 2006.

Gorham, S.W. 1970. The amphibians and reptiles of New Brunswick. Monographic series No.6. The New Brunswick Museum, Saint John, New Brunswick. 30 pp.

Government of Canada. 1999. National Ambient Air Quality Objectives. Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Schedule 1, 1999. Government of Canada. Internet publication: http://hc- sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/air_quality/regulations.htm#3.

Harris, C.M. 1979. Handbook of Noise Control, 2nd Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Health Canada. 1996. Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines. Federal-Provincial Subcommittee on Drinking Water. Updated 2004.

Hegmann, G., C. Cocklin, R. Creasey, S. Dupuis, A. Kennedy, L. Kingsley, W. Ross, H. Spaling and D. Stalker. 1999. Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide. Prepared by AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. and the CEA Working Group for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Hull, Quebec.

Heritage Technologies Inc. 2001. Final Report – Archaeological Monitoring for the Saint John Lateral Pipeline.

Hinds, H.R. 2000. The Flora of New Brunswick. Second Edition. University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick.

Hooper, W.C., L. McCabe and T. Robertson. 1995. A Standardized Fisheries Stream Survey for Atlantic Canada. Department of Natural Resources and Energy, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Fredericton, New Brunswick.

INGAA. 2001. Natural Gas Pipeline Impact Study. Prepared for the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) Foundation by Allen, Williford & Seale Inc. Houston, Texas.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 497

Jacques Whitford. 2000. Final Report – Archaeological Monitoring Route Review Saint John Lateral Pipeline Urban Right Of Way. Report prepared for M&NP.

Jacques Whitford. 2001. Walkover and Testing of Low potential areas and archaeological monitoring of pipeline construction Saint John Lateral Pipeline.

Jacques Whitford. 2004a. LNG Marine Terminal and Multi-purpose Pier. Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for Irving Oil Limited, Saint John, New Brunswick. March 2004.

Jacques Whitford. 2004b. Preliminary Evaluation of Pipeline Route Options. Report prepared for Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline. September 2004.

Jacques Whitford. 2004c. Final Comprehensive Study Report: New Route 2 Trans-Canada Highway Project Perth-Andover to Woodstock, New Brunswick.

Jacques Whitford. 2005a. Final Well Field Protection Study, St. Stephen, New Brunswick. Report to the Town of St. Stephen, New Brunswick. NBF15845.

Jacques Whitford. 2005b. Photographic Documentary on Fort Mispec. Report prepared for Fundy Engineering.

Jacques Whitford. 2005c. Route 1 St. Stephen to US Border. Screening Report. Report prepared for the New Brunswick Department of Transportation.

Jeglic, F. 2004. Analysis of Ruptures and Trends on Major Canadian Pipeline Systems. National Energy Board of Canada, Calgary, AB, 2004. Available online at: http://www.neb.gc.ca/safety/AnalysisRupturesTrends_e.pdf.

JPC (Jaakko Pöyry Consulting). 2002. New Brunswick Crown Forests: Assessment of Stewardship and Management. Report for the New Brunswick Government and the New Brunswick Forest Products Association. November 2002.

Kamen, R.M. and A.C. Stern. 1973. Methane in Air Quality and Automobile Exhaust Emission Standards. J. Air Pollution Control Assoc., 23:592-596.

M&NP (Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline). 1999. Archaeological Heritage Resources. Environmental Protection Plan (Saint John Lateral Pipeline Project).

M&NP. 2000. Environmental Protection Plan (Saint John Lateral Pipeline Project). Revision 01. Filing Date: January 14, 2000.

M&NP. 2004b. Emergency Preparedness and Response Program. Updated March 2004.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 498

Maine IFW (Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife). 2006. Splake Fact Sheet. Accessed online February 7, 2006 at: http://www.maine.gov/ifw/fishing/fishidentification/splake.htm.

Munday, D.R., G.L. Ennis, D.G. Wright, D.C. Jeffries, E.R. McGreer and J.S. Mathers. 1986. Development and Evaluation of a Model to Predict Effects of Buried Underwater Blasting Charges on Fish Populations in Shallow Water Areas. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, No. 1418. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Habitat Management Division, Vancouver, British Columbia.

National Wetlands Working Group. 1997. The Canadian Wetland Classification System, Second Edition. Eds. B.G. Warner and C.D.A. Rubec. Wetlands Research Centre, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario.

NBBRC (New Brunswick Birds Record Committee). 2004. List of New Brunswick Birds. New Brunswick Museum. Online: http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/maryspt/BRC/NBBirds.html

NBDELG (New Brunswick Department of Environment and Local Government). 2002a. A Report on Air Quality Monitoring Results in New Brunswick for the Year 2000. New Brunswick Department of Environment and Local Government, Sciences and Reporting Branch. Technical Report T- 2001-01. Spring 2002.

NBDELG. 2002b. Understanding the Law, A Guide to New Brunswick’s Water Classification Regulation.

NBDELG. 2002c. Watercourse Alterations Technical Guidelines. Regional Services Branch.

NBDELG. 2003a. A Report on Air Quality Monitoring Results in New Brunswick for the Year 2001. New Brunswick Department of the Environment and Local Government, Sciences and Reporting Branch. Technical Report T-2002-02. Spring 2003.

NBDELG. 2003b. Guideline for the Management of Contaminated Sites. Version 2. November 2003.

NBDELG. 2004. A Report on Air Quality Monitoring Results in New Brunswick for the Year 2002. New Brunswick Department of the Environment and Local Government, Sciences and Reporting Branch. Technical Report T-2003-01. Fall 2004.

NBDELG. 2005a. Additional Information Requirements for Linear Facilities. A Guide to Environmental Impact Assessment in New Brunswick. March 2005.

NBDELG. 2005b. A Report on Air Quality Monitoring Results in New Brunswick for the Year 2003. New Brunswick Department of the Environment and Local Government, Sciences and Reporting Branch. Technical Report. Fall 2005.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 499

NBDELG. 2006. Record of EIA Registrations and Determinations. New Brunswick Environmental Impact Assessment. Updated as of January 13, 2006. Accessed online January 19, 2006 at: http://www.gnb.ca/0009/0377/0002/EIA.pdf.

NBDF (New Brunswick Department of Finance). 2005. Economics and Statistics. Accessed online October 12, 2005 at: http://www.gnb.ca/0024/economics/index.asp.

NBDNR (New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources). 2004a. Information request.

NBDNR. 2004b. New Brunswick Big Game Harvest Reports. Fish and Wildlife Branch, New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources.

NBDNR. 2005a. General Status of Wildlife in New Brunswick. Accessed online at: http://www1.gnb.ca/0078/fw/wstatus/search-e.asp. Last modified 9/8/2005.

NBDNR. 2005b. Silviculture Statistics. Crown Lands. 2004-2005. Technique. June 2005.

NBDNR. 2006. Inventory Mapping Data.

NBDNRE (New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources and Energy). 1994a. A Vision for New Brunswick Forests…Goals and Objectives for Crown Land Management in Washburn & Gillis. 1998. Proposed Saint John Lateral Pipeline Project. Route Selection and Environmental Impact Assessment Study Report. Prepared for Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd.

NBDNRE. 1996. Management of Forest Habitat in New Brunswick. Canada/New Brunswick Cooperation Agreement on Forest Development in Washburn & Gillis. 1998. Proposed Saint John Lateral Pipeline Project. Route Selection and Environmental Impact Assessment Study Report. Prepared for Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd.

NBDNRE. 2000. Bedrock Geology of New Brunswick. Minerals and Energy Division. Map NR-1 (2000 Edition). Scale 1:500,000.

NBDNRE. 2002. New Brunswick’s Integrated Land Classification System.

NBDNRE. 2003. General Status of Wildlife in New Brunswick: Draft Vascular Plant Status. Fredericton, New Brunswick. April 4, 2003.

NBDNRE and NBDELG. 2002. New Brunswick Wetlands Conservation Policy. July 2002.

NBDOE (New Brunswick Department of Environment). 1999a. A Report on Air Quality Monitoring Results in New Brunswick for the Years 1996 and 1997. Technical Report T-9901, New Brunswick Department of the Environment, Environmental Evaluation Section, P.O. Box 6000, Fredericton, New Brunswick.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 500

NBDOE. 1999b. A Report on Air Quality Monitoring Results in New Brunswick for the Year 1998. Technical Report T-9904, New Brunswick Department of the Environment, Environmental Evaluation Section, P.O. Box 6000, Fredericton, New Brunswick.

NBFSC (New Brunswick Federation of Snowmobile Clubs). 2005. NBFSC 2004-2005 Snowmobile Trail Map. Online: http://www.nbfsc.com/map.html.

NB Museum. 1999. New Brunswick Museum. Accessed online October 2005 at: http://www.nbm- mnb.ca/WhatsNew.htm.

NB Power. 2003. Point Lepreau Solid Radioactive Waste Management Facility. Environmental Assessment Study. Report prepared for New Brunswick Power. May 2003. 556 pp.

NEB (National Energy Board). 2004a. Filing Manual. National Energy Board, Calgary, Alberta.

NEB. 2004b. “Focus on Safety – A Comparative Analysis of Pipeline Performance 2000-2002”. NEB Publication ISBN 0-662-35813-9, NEB Publications Office, Calgary, Alberta. January 2004.

NEB. 2005. “Focus on Safety and Environment – A Comparative Analysis of Pipeline Performance 2000-2003”. NEB Publication ISBN 0-662-39166-7, NEB Publications Office, Calgary, Alberta. March 2005.

NEB. 2006. Brunswick Pipeline Project Environmental Assessment Scoping Document. Issued for public comment on May 5, 2006. National Energy Board, Calgary, Alberta.

NRCan (Natural Resources Canada). 1994. Seismicity. Accessed online November 2005 at: http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/archives/5thedition/environment/land/mcr4171.

PCS (Project Consulting Services). 2005. Feasibility Study of a Proposed Crossing of the Outer Saint John Harbour, Saint John, New Brunswick. Report prepared for Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Company by PCS.

Pecore, S.S. and Fader, G.B.J. 1990. Surficial geology, pockmarks and associated neotectonic features of Passamaquoddy Bay, New Brunswick. Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 2213. 45pp.

Pennington, K. and R. Fuerst. 1971. Biochemical and Morphological Effects of Various Gases on Rabbit Erythrocytes. Arch. Environ. Health, 22:476-481.

Pommen, L.W. 1983. The Effect on Water Quality of Explosives Use in Surface Mining. Volume 1: Nitrogen Sources, Water Quality, and Prediction and Management of Impacts. Ministry of Environment Technical Report, Victoria, B.C.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 501

RSE (Resource Systems Engineering). 2006. Saint John River Crossing Horizonal Directional Drilling – Noise Mitigation at Drill Exit Site. Letter from Resource Systems Engineering to Jacques Whitford, April 19, 2006.

Rowe, J.S. 1972. Forest Regions of Canada. Department of Environment, Canadian Forest Service.

Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Ottawa.

Select Committee on Wood Supply. 2004. Final Report on Wood Supply in New Brunswick. Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick. First Session. Fifty-fifth Legislature. September 2004.

Spinney, L. and Grearson, A. 1984. A History of Abandoned Settlements in Charlotte County. Accessed November 2005 online at: www.rootsweb.com/~nbpstgeo/stge5g.htm.

Statistics Canada. 2001a. Community Profiles. Accessed October 12, 2005 at http://www12.statcan.ca/english/profil01/PlaceSearchForm1.cfm.

Statistics Canada. 2001b. New Brunswick Input-Output Multiplier. Statistics Canada, Ottawa, ON.

Tourism New Brunswick. 2005. Accommodations in New Brunswick. Online: (www.tourismnewbrunswick.ca).

Town of St. Stephen. 2004a. Town of St. Stephen Municipal Plan. By-law No. M-1.

Town of St. Stephen. 2004b. Town of St. Stephen Zoning By-law. By-law No. Z-l.

Trow Consulting Engineers Ltd. 1996. Instream Sediment Control Techniques Field Implementation Manual. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Northeast Science & Technology. FG-007. 109p

TSBC (Transportation Safety Board of Canada). 2005. Pipeline Occurrence Statistics for September 2005. Available online at: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/stats/pipe/2005_sep/index.asp.

Urquhart, C. 2005. Rockwood Park: An Integrated Resource Management Plan. Report prepared for the City of Saint John, Leisure Services Department.

Washburn & Gillis. 1996. M&NP Mainline Environmental Impact Assessment Report. Report prepared for Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd.

Washburn & Gillis. 1998. Proposed Saint John Lateral Pipeline Project. Route Selection and Environmental Impact Assessment Study Report. Prepared for Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 502

Washburn & Gillis. 1999a. Saint John Lateral Pipeline Project: Fish Habitat and Watercourse Crossings 1997/1998 Field Program Final Report.

Washburn & Gillis. 1999b. Saint John Lateral Pipeline Project Heritage Resources Final Report.

WHSCC (Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission). 2005. “WGSCC Annual Report 2004”. Health, Safety and Compensation Commission of New Brunswick, Saint John, New Brunswick. March 2005.

Wright, D.G, and G.E. Hopky. 1998. Guidelines for the use of Explosives In or Near Canadian Fisheries Waters. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2107, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa, Ontario.

Young, D. 1998. Rocks with a Role. What on Earth. Volume 12(1). Accessed November 2005 online at: http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/earth/waton/f983.html.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 503

10.2 Personal Communications

Allen, Pat. Archaeologist, New Brunswick Culture and Sport Secretariat, Heritage Branch. 2005.

Arseneau, Emile. Fisheries Officer, DFO, St. Leonard. 2003. in Jacques Whitford. 2004c. Final Comprehensive Study Report: New Route 2 Trans-Canada Highway Project Perth-Andover to Woodstock, New Brunswick.

Bercha, Frank. President, The Bercha Group. 2006.

Bourque, Gilles. Heritage Planner, New Brunswick Culture and Sport Secretariat, Heritage Branch. 2005.

Burtt, Jonathon. Officer, Water Planning Section, NBENV. October 17, 2005.

Carr, Jonathon. Atlantic Salmon Federation. 2005.

Connell, Chris. Fishery Enhancement Biologist, Fish and Wildlife Branch, NBDNR. February 7, 2006.

Cumberland, R. Big Game Biologist, NBDNR. October 11, 2005.

Currie, Ted. Habitat Assessment Biologist, DFO. 2005.

Curry, Allen. Fellow, Canadian Rivers Institute. 2003 in Jacques Whitford. 2004c. Final Comprehensive Study Report: New Route 2 Trans-Canada Highway Project Perth-Andover to Woodstock, New Brunswick.

Dwyer, Wayne. Project Manager, AK Energy Services. January 18, 2006.

Ferguson, Albert. Archaeologist, New Brunswick Culture and Sport Secretariat, Heritage Branch. 2005.

Finley, Scott. Heritage Planner, New Brunswick Culture and Sport Secretariat, Heritage Branch. 2005.

Fortune, Sean. Air Emissions Specialist, Sciences and Reporting Branch, NBENV. November 1, 2005

Gonzales, Ed. Director of Operations, AK Energy Services. 2006.

Hickman, Charles. Licencing Manager, Point Lepreau Refurbishment Project. May 10, 2006.

Johnson, Susan. Bedrock Geologist, Geological Surveys Branch, NBDNR. 2005.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 504

Jones, Ross. Salmonid Research, DFO, Moncton. 2003. in Jacques Whitford. 2004c. Final Comprehensive Study Report: New Route 2 Trans-Canada Highway Project Perth-Andover to Woodstock, New Brunswick.

Keating, Brian. Area Habitat Management Coordinator, Sussex, Area Habitat Management, DFO. 2005.

MacDougall, Robert. Area A Resource Management Officer, Area Habitat Management, DFO. 2005.

Maguire, David. Project Manager, Project Assessment (EIA) Branch, NBENV. October 2005.

McAlpine, D. Zoologist, Natural History Museum of New Brunswick. October 20, 2005.

McDonald, Derek. Senior Program Officer, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Atlantic Regional Office. November 2005.

McLelland, Jim. Project Manager, Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline. 2006.

More, Stephanie. Project Manager, Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline. April 2006.

Morrison, Bernie. Director of Leisure Services, City of Saint John. January 16, 2005.

Pettie, Katie. Hydrogeologist, Water Planning Section, NBENV. 2006.

Samms, Jim. NB Power Holding Company. May 10, 2006.

Seymour, Pam. Biologist, Regional Biology, NBDNR. 2005.

Sochasky, Lee. St. Croix International Waterway Commission. 2005.

Suttie, Brent. Archaeologist, New Brunswick Culture and Sport Secretariat, Heritage Branch. 2005.

Watson, Kevin. Leisure Services Coordinator, East District, Forest Glen Community Centre, City of Saint John. 2005 and 2006.

Webb, Philip. Public Health Inspector, Department of Public Health, City of Saint John. October 20, 2005.

Welles, Jennifer. Materials and Standards / Environment, NBENV. March 6, 2006.

Wilson, Reg. Geologist, Bedrock Mapping Section, NBDNR. 2005.

BRUNSWICK PIPELINE PROJECT PROJECT 1003790. May 2006 505