Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Abandonment Project - Environmental and Socio- Economic Assessment

Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Abandonment Project - Environmental and Socio- economic Assessment

August 16, 2019

Prepared for:

Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline L.P. Suite 206 102 Western Parkway Bedford, Nova Scotia B4B 0V2

Prepared by:

Stantec Consulting Ltd. 845 Prospect St., Fredericton, NB E3B 2T7

Job No.: 121416335

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

This document titled Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Abandonment Project - Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment was prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. (“Stantec”) for the account of Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline LLP (the “Client”). Any reliance on this document by any third party is strictly prohibited. The material in it reflects Stantec’s professional judgment in light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec and the Client. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. In preparing the document, Stantec did not verify information supplied to it by others. Any use which a third party makes of this document is the responsibility of such third party. Such third party agrees that Stantec shall not be responsible for costs or damages of any kind, if any, suffered by it or any other third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this document.

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

August 16, 2019

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... I

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ...... 7 1.2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ...... 7 1.2.1 Federal Legislation ...... 7 1.2.2 Provincial Legislation ...... 8 1.3 ASSESSMENT SCOPE ...... 9

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 10 2.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT ...... 10 2.1.1 Alternatives to the Project ...... 10 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND CURRENT LAND USE ...... 10 2.3 FACILITY COMPONENTS ...... 13 2.4 PROJECT ACTIVITIES ...... 13 2.5 EMISSIONS AND WASTES ...... 17 2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN ...... 17 2.7 PROJECT SCHEDULE ...... 18 2.8 PROJECT WORKFORCE ...... 18 2.9 RELATED AND INDUCED ACTIVITIES ...... 18

3.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT ...... 19

4.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ...... 20 4.1 BIOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 20 4.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT ...... 21

5.0 ASSESSMENT METHODS ...... 22 5.1 SCOPING THE ASSESSMENT...... 22 5.1.1 Potential Effects, Pathways and Measurable Parameters ...... 22 5.1.2 Boundaries ...... 23 5.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 23 5.3 PROJECT – VC INTERACTIONS ...... 23 5.4 MITIGATION OF PROJECT EFFECTS ...... 24 5.5 ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT EFFECTS ...... 24 5.6 ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...... 25 5.6.1 Project and Activity Inclusion List ...... 25 5.6.2 Assessment of Residual Cumulative Effects ...... 26 5.7 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE ...... 27

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ...... 28 6.1 SELECTION OF VALUED COMPONENTS ...... 28 6.2 VEGETATION AND WETLANDS ...... 31 6.2.1 Scope of Assessment ...... 31

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

August 16, 2019

6.2.2 Temporal and Spatial Boundaries ...... 32 6.2.3 Evaluation Criteria ...... 33 6.2.4 Existing Conditions ...... 37 6.2.5 Potential Effects ...... 38 6.2.6 Mitigation Measures ...... 38 6.2.7 Residual Effects ...... 39 6.2.8 Assessment of Cumulative Effects on Vegetation and Wetlands ...... 40 6.2.9 Determination of Significance ...... 40 6.2.10 Monitoring ...... 41 6.3 WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ...... 41 6.3.1 Scope of Assessment ...... 41 6.3.2 Temporal and Spatial Boundaries ...... 41 6.3.3 Evaluation Criteria ...... 42 6.3.4 Existing Conditions ...... 42 6.3.5 Potential Effects ...... 43 6.3.6 Mitigation Measures ...... 44 6.3.7 Residual Effects ...... 44 6.3.8 Assessment of Cumulative Effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat...... 45 6.3.9 Determination of Significance ...... 45 6.3.10 Monitoring ...... 46 6.4 EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT ...... 46 6.4.1 Scope of Assessment ...... 46 6.4.2 Evaluation Criteria ...... 46 6.4.3 Existing Conditions ...... 46 6.4.4 Potential Effects ...... 47 6.4.5 Mitigation Measures ...... 47 6.4.6 Residual Effects ...... 47

7.0 MALFUNCTIONS AND ACCIDENTAL EVENTS ...... 48 7.1 IDENTIFICATION OF EVENTS AND POTENTIALLY AFFECTED VALUED COMPONENTS ...... 48 7.1.1 Project Interactions ...... 49 7.1.2 Significance Determination ...... 49 7.1.3 Mitigation...... 50 7.2 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS ...... 50 7.2.1 Fire...... 50 7.2.2 Hazardous Material Release ...... 51 7.2.3 Vehicle Accidents ...... 51 7.2.4 Damage to Existing Utilities ...... 52 7.3 SUMMARY OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS ...... 52

8.0 MONITORING ...... 54

9.0 CONCLUSIONS ...... 55

10.0 REFERENCES ...... 56

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

August 16, 2019

LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Concordance with the NEB Filing Manual, 2017-01 ...... 9 Table 2.1 Project Activities ...... 14 Table 5.1 Project Inclusion List ...... 26 Table 6.1 AC CDC Lichen and Vascular Plant SOCI within 5 km of the PDA ...... 37 Table 6.2 Mitigation Measures ...... 38 Table 6.3 Summary of Residual Effects ...... 40 Table 6.4 AC CDC Wildlife SOCI within 5 km of the PDA ...... 42 Table 6.5 Mitigation Measures ...... 44 Table 6.6 Summary of Residual Effects ...... 45 Table 6.7 Mitigation Measures ...... 47 Table 7.1 Project Interactions arising from Accidents and Malfunctions ...... 49 Table 7.2 Key Mitigation Measures for Effects of Accidents and Malfunctions on the Project ...... 50

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Project Location ...... 3 Figure 1.2 Project Location - Onshore Infrastructure ...... 5 Figure 2.1 Detailed Project Location ...... 11 Figure 2.2 Aerial Photo of CTS Facility ...... 15 Figure 6.1 Project Development Area and Local Assessment Area ...... 35

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Site Photos and Drawings Appendix B Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Appendix C ACCDC Report

iii

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

August 16, 2019

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Executive Summary August 16, 2019

Executive Summary

Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline LLP, a wholly owned subsidiary of M&NP Inc (M&NP), is applying to the National Energy Board (NEB) under section 74(1)(d) of the National Energy Board Act (NEB Act) for leave to abandon the M&NP Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station (CTS; the Project), located in Goldboro, Nova Scotia. This Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment (ESA) has been conducted as part of the application for the leave to abandon the CTS.

The CTS is owned and operated by M&NP and since construction in 2010 has provided a natural gas receipt point for the Encana Deep Panuke Development. In 2018, Encana declared cessation of Deep Panuke production, and filed an application for leave to abandon the Deep Panuke Development. As a result, the M&NP CTS is no longer required, and M&NP is seeking approval to abandon the facility.

The abandonment process will involve the removal of all above-ground and below-ground infrastructure. The existing gravel pad will be left in place and the area will be maintained as an access site for the M&NP Mainline pipeline. The facility footprint is approximately 0.2 ha and Project activities be confined to the facility footprint and existing M&NP right-of-way.

This ESA has been prepared to meet the requirements of the NEB Filing Manual, 2017-01 (NEB 2017). The ESA is focused primarily on potential interactions between Project activities (i.e., physical works associated with facility removal) and components of the biophysical and socio-economic environment.

The ESA considers valued components (VCs), which are environmental and socio-economic elements of particular value or interest to the proponent, government agencies, Indigenous groups or the public and are identified based on the biophysical and socio-economic elements listed in Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual. The level of detail provided in the ESA corresponds to the Project’s nature and magnitude, its predicted environmental and socio-economic effects, and the level of public interest.

VCs included in this assessment are vegetation and wetlands, and wildlife and wildlife habitat. Species at risk and their habitat are incorporated into each of these VCs. Changes to the Project that may be caused by the environment, as well as potential effects related to a number of accident and malfunction scenarios area also assessed. Standard industry practices and avoidance measures, along with Project-specific mitigation measures outlined in a Project-specific Environmental Protection Plan, are proposed for implementation during physical abandonment activities to reduce or eliminate residual effects on VCs. With the implementation of proposed mitigation, residual effects of the Project on vegetation and wetlands and wildlife and wildlife habitat are predicted to be negligible.

In summary, adverse residual environmental and socio-economic effects, including cumulative effects, associated with Project activities are predicted to be not significant, provided that proposed mitigation is implemented.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx i

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Executive Summary August 16, 2019

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx ii

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Introduction August 16, 2019

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline LLP, a wholly owned subsidiary of M&NP Inc (M&NP), is applying to the National Energy Board (NEB) under section 74(1)(d) of the National Energy Board Act (NEB Act) for leave to abandon the M&NP Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station (CTS; the Project), located in Goldboro, Nova Scotia (Figure 1.1). As part of this application, the following Environmental and Socio- economic Assessment (ESA) has been conducted.

The CTS is owned and operated by M&NP and since construction in 2010 has provided a natural gas receipt point for the Encana Deep Panuke Development, which produced natural gas from the Deep Panuke field offshore Nova Scotia. Natural gas from the Deep Panuke Development was transported to the Encana Gas Export Pipeline Terminus Facility before being transferred to the CTS and then to the M&NP 762 mm OD Mainline pipeline (Figure 1.2).

In 2018, Encana declared cessation of Deep Panuke production, and filed an application for leave to abandon the Deep Panuke Development. As a result, the M&NP CTS is no longer required, and M&NP is seeking approval to abandon the facility. The abandonment process will involve the removal of all above- ground infrastructure and the removal of below-ground infrastructure. The existing gravel pad will be left in place, and the area will be maintained as an access site for the M&NP Mainline pipeline.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 1

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Introduction August 16, 2019

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 2

N e w B r u n swick

PEI Charlottetown ! ! ! Sydney Fredericton ! Moncton

Goldboro ^_! Project Location

Halifax ! NovaNova ScotiaScotia S a b le II s s l l and and ") USAUSA ") Yarmouth ! ") CANADACANADA Deep Sable Panuke ^_ ") Offshore ") Energy Project

0 50 100 ") Offshore Platform Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline $ $ Kilometers ¯ (At original document size of 8.5x11) Alma Pipeline International Boundary ( 1:3,500,000 121416335-005 MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE Encana Pipeline Provincial Boundary DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER Notes STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT Sable Offshore Pipeline 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 20N 2. Data Source: Government of Canada Figure No. 1.1

Project Location Map \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\2_drawings\3_draft_figures\121416335-005.mxd 2019-08-15 By: Revised: jrandall Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Introduction August 16, 2019

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 4 or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient full accepts the responsibility and verifying for theaccuracy andformat, completeness thedata. of electronic in supplied data for responsibility the accuracy and/orno completeness this verified informationof not assumes andhas shall Stantec notresponsibleStantec be any errors result. for a as section. Notes herein the in incorporated cited be as may others which by provided omissions or information on based prepared been has document This Disclaimer: Application Maritimes \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\2_drawings\3_draft_figures\121416335-004.mxd Revised: 2019-08-15 By: jrandall Maritimes the GIS User Community User GIS the contributors, and OpenStreetMap (c) Kong), (Hong EsriChina METI, Japan, Esri Survey, Ordnance IGN,NL, Kadaster GeoBase, NRCAN, NPS, USGS, GEBCO, FAO, Corp., P increment Intermap, 3. 2. 1. Notes Background: Sources: Esri, HERE, Esri, Garmin, Sources: Background: Nova of Scotia Government Sources: Data 1983UTM Zone 20NNAD System: Coordinate & & to Northeast Northeast Abandon Pipeline Pipeline Deep Location Project Panuke Limited Management Custody ) " Partnership (Client) WatercourseLocations IndustrialPark Boundary Way Onshoreof Right Pipeline SableOffshore Energy Way Pipeline of Right Maritimesand Northeast Utility Easement Way Pipeline of Right DeepOnshore Panuke Residence Ltd. Transfer on behalf Station of Attachment WetlandsDelineation) (2019 Wetlands(NSDNR 2007) (NSGC) Wetland/ Swamp WetlandsSurvey) (2008 JacquesWhitfordDelineated Water Access Track/Trail/SeasonalRoad AbandonedRailway Railway Road Privateor Restricted Lane LocalRoad ArterialRoad CollectorRoad 5 - Abandonment Environmental Project Location Project No. Figure PROJECT STATION ABANDONMENT TRANSFER CUSTODY PANUKE DEEP PIPELINE NORTHEAST AND MARITIMES 0 (At original document size8.5x11) of document original (At 1.2 200 and 1:25,000 Socio-Economic Filed 400 Kilometers on August ( $ 121416335-004 ¯ Assessment $ 22, 2019 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Introduction August 16, 2019

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 6

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Introduction August 16, 2019

1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The CTS was originally included as part of the scope of the Encana Deep Panuke Development. In December 2002, Encana received Ministerial approval for the Deep Panuke Comprehensive Study Report based on a development comprising three offshore platforms and a dedicated export pipeline with tie-in to M&NP facilities. In 2006 Encana re-filed a Development Plan Application and NEB application based on a new development design basis. The 2006 Environmental Assessment Report for the revised development received approval in 2007. As part of the scope of applications for regulatory approval, Encana included the onshore facilities including the CTS. Abandonment activities were assessed and approved as part of the 2006-2007 environmental assessment. Adverse effects to the environment as a result of abandonment activities were predicted to be not significant (Encana 2018).

In 2007, ownership of the land where the CTS is located was transferred to M&NP. In late 2009, M&NP filed an application under Section 58 of the NEB Act for construction of the facility, which also included consideration of future decommissioning/abandonment activities (Stantec 2009). That application was approved by NEB Order XG-M124-04-2010 dated March 3, 2010, with the associated environmental screening having concluded there would be no significant adverse environmental effects. The CTS was then constructed and placed in service that same year.

1.2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

1.2.1 Federal Legislation

1.2.1.1 National Energy Board Act

The Project will require an Order from the NEB under section 74(1)(d) of the NEB Act. The NEB has a mandate to consider potential socio-economic and environmental effects of the Project. Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) has prepared this ESA to support M&NP’s application under s. 74(1)(d) of the NEB Act and in accordance with the NEB Filing Manual, 2017-01 (NEB 2017).

Section 50 of the Onshore Pipeline Regulations under the NEB Act also states that “a company shall include an application made under Section 74(1)(d) of the NEB Act for leave to abandon a pipeline or part of one the reasons, and the procedures that are to be used, for the abandonment"

1.2.1.2 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

The Project is not an activity listed in the Regulations Designating Physical Activities under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) (i.e., less than 40 km of pipe is planned to be removed from the ground) and, therefore, does not require an environmental assessment under the CEAA 2012.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 7

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Introduction August 16, 2019

1.2.1.3 Migratory Birds Convention Act

The Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA), by way of Migratory Bird Sanctuary Regulations and Migratory Birds Regulations, defines the provisions by which an estimated 450 native species of migratory birds (including their nests and eggs) are protected in Canada. Measures will be implemented to comply with the MBCA should the Project activities affect migratory birds that violates MBCA regulations.

1.2.1.4 Species at Risk Act

The Species at Risk Act (SARA), by way of Schedule 1, lists species in Canada that are classified as being extirpated, endangered, threatened, or of special concern. Special measures are outlined to help protect and recover the more than 300 wild flora and fauna species listed in Schedule 1. These special measures primarily include prohibitions against the killing, harming, or harassment of listed species; the damage or destruction of species residences; and the destruction of any part of their critical habitat.

1.2.2 Provincial Legislation

1.2.2.1 Wetland Alteration

In Nova Scotia, wetlands and watercourses are afforded protection under the Nova Scotia Environment Act. Wetland and watercourse alterations require approval from Nova Scotia Environment, in many cases, under the Activities Designation Regulations and advice provided by the Nova Scotia Wetland Conservation Policy. The alteration of a wetland is prohibited unless the proponent has been granted an Approval under the Nova Scotia Environment Act and Activities Designation Regulation. The proponent must complete a wetland alteration application in accordance with requirements set out by Nova Scotia Environment.

1.2.2.2 Nova Scotia Endangered Species Act

In Nova Scotia, certain species are protected under the Nova Scotia Endangered Species Act. Species identified as seriously at risk of extinction in Nova Scotia are identified by a provincial status assessment process through the Nova Scotia Endangered Species Working Group. Once identified, they are protected under the Nova Scotia Endangered Species Act. The conservation and recovery of species assessed and legally listed under the Nova Scotia Endangered Species Act is coordinated by the Wildlife Division of the Nova Scotia Department of Lands and Forestry (NSDLF). There is also a provincial General Status assessment process that serves as a first alert tool for identifying species in the province that are potentially at risk. Under this process, species are assigned to one of four categories that designate their population status in Nova Scotia. These include “Secure”, “Sensitive”, “May be at Risk”, and “At Risk”. Although species assessed under this process are not granted legislative protection, the presence of species ranked as “Sensitive”, “May be at Risk” and “At Risk” is an indication of concern by provincial regulators.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 8

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Introduction August 16, 2019

1.3 ASSESSMENT SCOPE

This ESA has been prepared to meet the requirements of the NEB Filing Manual, 2017-01 (NEB 2017), including requirements outlined in Guide A (Section A.2 and Tables A-2 and A-3) and Guide B (Section B.4), which provides guidance for filing requirements for abandonment under s. 74(1)(d) of the NEB Act (NEB 2017). Pursuant to section A.2 and B.4, the level of detail provided in the ESA corresponds to the Project’s nature and magnitude, its predicted environmental and Socio-economic effects, and the level of public interest.

Table 1.1 provides the concordance between the ESA and the NEB Filing Manual, 2017-01 requirements for biophysical and Socio-economic elements (NEB 2017, Guide A, Tables A-2 and A-3) and for abandonment projects (NEB 2017, Guide B). Section 6.1 outlines which valued components (VCs) listed in Tables A-2 and A-3 have been included in this ESA, and provides rationale for either including or scoping out each VC.

Table 1.1 Concordance with the NEB Filing Manual, 2017-01

Filing Requirements Report Section(s) A.2.5 Description of the Environmental and Socio-economic Setting 4.1, 4.2 A.2.6 Effects Assessment A.2.6.1 Identification and Analysis of Effects 6.1, 6.2.5, 6.3.5 A.2.6.2 Mitigation Measures 6.2.6, 6.3.6, 6.4.5, 7.1.3 A.2.6.3 Evaluation of Significance 6.2.7, 6.3.7, 6.4.6, 7.2.1,7.2.2, 7.2.3, 7.2.4, 9.0 A.2.7 Cumulative Effects Assessment A.2.7.1 Scoping and Analysis of Cumulative Effects 5.6, 6.2.8, 6.3.8 A.2.7.2 Mitigation Measures for Cumulative Effects N/A A.2.7.3 Applicant’s Evaluation of Significance of Cumulative Effects 6.2.8, 6.3.8 A.2.8 Inspection, Monitoring and Follow-Up 6.2.10, 6.3.10, 8.0 B.2 Filing Requirements (for Applications to Abandon) – Environment and Socio-economic Assessment B.2.1 Ecological settings and land use 4.1, 4.2, 6.2.4, 6.3.4, 6.4.3 B.2.2 Ecological settings and Land use for Project components to be N/A abandoned B.2.3 Methods to be used to cleanup any contamination N/A B.2.4 Abandonment method, reclamation 2.3 B.2.6 Regulatory requirements for reclamation and remediation 2.4 B.2.7 Historical spills 4.1

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 9

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Project Description August 16, 2019

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT

The purpose of the Project is to abandon the CTS. When constructed and during operations, the purpose of the CTS was to provide a natural gas receipt point for the Encana Deep Panuke Development and connect to the M&NP Mainline. Encana declared cessation of Deep Panuke production on May 7, 2018. As a result, the M&NP CTS is no longer required.

2.1.1 Alternatives to the Project

Alternatives to the Project are defined as functionally different ways to meet the need and achieve the purpose of the Project (CEAA 2012). M&NP has evaluated options for removal of infrastructure as well as abandonment in place and determined that removal of infrastructure is the preferred course of action given the size of the site and the nature of the below-ground infrastructure.

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND CURRENT LAND USE

The Project is located in Guysborough County, eastern Nova Scotia, near the community of Goldboro. The entire 0.2 ha facility is located on privately-owned land, owned by M&NP. The Project is located adjacent to the Goldboro Industrial Park, on land zoned for industrial use (Figure 2.1).

The Project connects to the Mainline pipeline; the M&NP Point Tupper Lateral runs parallel to the Mainline pipeline. There are several natural gas developments in the area (Figure 2.1), including the Encana GEPT (part of the Encana Deep Panuke Development), which is located immediately adjacent to, and is connected with the Project, and the Sable Offshore Energy Gas Plant (SOEP), and associated natural gas liquids pipeline which is operated by ExxonMobil. The Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) pipeline shares a right-of-way (ROW) with the M&NP pipelines, and there is an M&NP metering station located between the SOEP and the M&NP and Encana facilities. Access to the site is provided by a private access road which connects to Sable Road.

Goldboro is a rural community; the communities of Guysborough and Sherbrooke are located approximately 25 km north and west of the Project, respectively. The closest First Nations Community is Paqtnkek Mi'kmaw Nation, which is approximately 50 km northwest of the Project (CIRNAC 2019). Forestry is the dominant land use; the area mostly forested or representative of natural habitat include grassy areas, shrub thickets, and wetlands. The area also hosts an active fishery, as well as some agriculture and tourism activities (Environment Canada 1999).

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 10

MNP Pipeline RoW Watercourse 0 50 100 metres Sable Offshore Energy OP RoW Property Boundary (At original document size of 8.5x11) Industrial Park Boundary Delineated Wetland (Stantec 2019) 1:3,500 Encana Onshore Pipeline RoW Delineated Wetlands (Jacques Whitford 2008) Project Utility Easement Wetlands (NSGC and NSDNR) Location ($¯$ MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE 121416335-003 Notes DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 CSRS UTM Zone STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT 20N 2. Data Source: Government of Nova Scotia Figure No. 3. Background Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, 2.1 Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Detailed Project Location Community Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment

Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\2_drawings\3_draft_figures\121416335-003.mxd 2019-08-15 By: Revised: jrandall Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Project Description August 16, 2019

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 12

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Project Description August 16, 2019

2.3 FACILITY COMPONENTS

The scope of the Project involves the removal of all above-ground infrastructure associated with the CTS, as well as the removal of the below-ground infrastructure, and reinstatement of the gravel pad located on the site. The existing road which runs from Sable Road to the Project site will be used to access the site during abandonment activities and will remain in place after the Project to provide access to the M&NP Mainline pipeline. This access road is owned by Encana and is not included in this assessment.

The CTS is approximately 0.2 ha in area (approximately 40 m by 50 m) and consists of the following components:

• Fenced area; • Gravel pad; • Electrical building (3.65m x 3.05m); • Gas analysis building (3.65m x 3.05m); • Meter building (8.7m x 19.5m); • Storage building (4.5m x 5.4m); • Metering equipment; • Filter separator and temporary liquids storage tank; • Pressure control valving with flow control override; • 406.4 mm hot tap connection and associated valving; and • Associated above- and below-ground piping.

All abandonment activities will take place within the existing M&NP ROW and CTS facility boundaries. No additional temporary workspace is anticipated. The existing gravel pad will remain in place following abandonment activities to provide an access point for the M&NP Mainline pipeline. The existing hot tap connection valving may also be retained for use with the M&NP Mainline pipeline. All other infrastructure will be dismantled and removed from the site.

An aerial photo of the facility is provided in Figure 2.2. A detailed site plan and photos of the CTS are provided in Appendix A. 2.4 PROJECT ACTIVITIES

Project activities will follow standard decommissioning/abandonment protocols in accordance with M&NP standard operating procedures, including those outlined in the Enbridge Environmental Guidelines for Construction and best management practices. The anticipated project activities are provided in Table 2.1.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 13

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Project Description August 16, 2019

Table 2.1 Project Activities

Activity Associated Activities Site Preparation • Utilities (e.g., electrical, fibre-optic cables) will be disconnected. Removal of Above-Ground • Equipment will be isolated from the system and removed. Infrastructure • All remaining above-ground infrastructure (e.g. piping) will be dismantled and removed. • Site buildings will be disassembled, or demolished, and concrete foundations will be demolished and removed. • Perimeter fencing will be removed. • Where possible, equipment and material will be reused at other M&NP facilities, recycled, or sold as scrap. Remaining waste will be disposed of in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements and at approved facilities. Removal or Abandonment of • The areas where below-ground infrastructure is present will be excavated. Below-Ground Infrastructure • The CTS connection to the Mainline will be disconnected and capped. All disconnected piping and associated infrastructure will be removed. • Where possible, material will be recycled or sold as scrap. Remaining waste will be disposed of in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements and at approved facilities. Site Restoration • If required, clean fill will be brought to the site and the area will be recontoured to match the surrounding grade. • The gravel pad will be reinstated, and the site will remain as a graveled access location for the M&NP Mainline pipeline.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 14

May 28, 2019 1:2,257 0 0.0175 0.035 0.07 mi MLV Valve Setting Compressor Station/Facility Site Labels 0 0.03 0.06 0.12 km MLV Labels M&NP Deep Panuke Custody Valve Section © 2019 Microsoft Corporation © 2019 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2019) Distribution Airbus DS Lateral Take-off Site Transfer Station Valve Section Labels

Aaron Carson Compressor Station/Facility Site © 2019 Microsoft Corporation, © 2019 DigitalGlobe, ©CNES (2019) Distribution Airbus DS | Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Project Description August 16, 2019

2.5 EMISSIONS AND WASTES

The Project will generate solid waste such as pipes, building materials, fencing, signs, metal containers, canisters, welding rods, cables, machinery and concrete. Where possible, equipment and material will be reused at other M&NP facilities, recycled, or sold as scrap. Waste produced from the demolition of the M&NP facilities may also include liquid and hazardous wastes such as petroleum, oil, lubricants (POLs), and solvents. Piping and other equipment which may contain or came into contact with hazardous waste will be tested prior to disposal. All waste produced, including hazardous wastes, will be disposed of in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements and at approved facilities.

Air emissions from abandonment activities will include combustion emissions from construction equipment and vehicles transporting material off site, as well as fugitive emissions from vehicle travel and ground disturbance activities. The Project is not anticipated to result in substantive emissions of air contaminants and greenhouse gases (GHG). Mitigation measures, such as the use of water sprayers, will be used to control dust emissions, if required. Noise emissions will also be generated during abandonment activities from the operation of construction equipment.

Site run-off from precipitation events will be carefully managed. Sedimentation and erosion control measures will be implemented as required in accordance with the Enbridge Environmental Guidelines for Construction and best management practices. An erosion and sedimentation plan will be incorporated into the Project Environmental Protection Plan (EPP). Mitigation measures (e.g., erosion and sedimentation control measures) will be installed prior to abandonment, and ground disturbance will be held to a minimum. Management of site run-off will employ best practices such as straw bales and sediment control fencing to avoid or mitigate potential environmental effects to sensitive areas (e.g., wetlands). These structures will be removed after the site has been stabilized.

2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN

An EPP has been developed for the Project. The EPP identifies the measures to be implemented during physical abandonment activities to mitigate effects on the environment, such as on vegetation and wildlife.

The Project EPP is based on:

• the current NEB application to the NEB for an Order pursuant to s.74 of the NEB Act (Section 74 Application); • Enbridge’s Environmental Guidelines for Construction (Enbridge 2012); • applicable legislation, regulations and guidance documents; and • industry best management practices.

Before starting physical abandonment activities, the EPP will be updated to incorporate the results of the regulatory process and the ongoing consultation program. The EPP will be reviewed with the Project Contractor prior to conducting the work.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 17

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Project Description August 16, 2019

2.7 PROJECT SCHEDULE

The Project will be conducted in conjunction with abandonment activities for the Deep Panuke Development. Abandonment activities are anticipated to begin following regulatory approval, in late 2019 or early 2020. Abandonment of the facility will take approximately two months.

2.8 PROJECT WORKFORCE

The Project will involve a workforce of less than 50 workers during physical abandonment activities. The skills of the anticipated workforce will include heavy equipment operators, labourers, teamsters, mechanics, foremen, surveyors, inspectors and field office support personnel. Workers will stay in existing accommodation (e.g., hotels) in nearby population centers (e.g., Antigonish). No new permanent part- time or full-time jobs will be directly created by the Project. The nature of the work will present temporary work opportunities for area contractors but is not expected to attract local area workers away from their existing employers.

2.9 RELATED AND INDUCED ACTIVITIES

This Project is in direct response to the abandonment of the Encana Deep Panuke Development. There are no other related or induced activities planned in association with the Project.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 18

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Consultation and Engagement August 16, 2019

3.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT

M&NP has notified indigenous groups, stakeholders, and members of the public about the Project to identify and understand concerns or issues they may have regarding the proposed development. M&NP will follow up as appropriate regarding matters that are raised. 4.0

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 19

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Existing Environment August 16, 2019

4.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

4.1 BIOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

With the exception of the facilities and infrastructure described in Section 2.2 above, land in the vicinity of the Project is undeveloped, including large portions of the Goldboro Industrial Park. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted in July 2019. Results indicate that there it is unlikely to be contaminated soil present at the site, and there are no records of historical spills (Stantec 2019). A copy of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is provided in Appendix B.

The landfall area is underlain by rocks of the Meguma Group, consisting primarily of the older Goldenville Formation and the younger Halifax Formation. Surficial geology in the Country Harbour area is mainly quartzite till. Well water records from the Goldboro area indicate a range of overburden thickness from 2.7 m to 4.6 m (Encana 2018). Previous geophysical studies conducted by Encana into the composition of the soil and bedrock indicate that there is low potential for acid rock drainage in the area (Stantec 2009).

The Project is located within the Atlantic Coast Ecoregion. The ecoregion covers 6,360 km² in a narrow strip along the southeastern coastline of Nova Scotia from Digby to Scatarie Island off the east coast of Cape Breton. The ecoregion is characterized by highly irregular coastline with drowned estuaries and headlands, with deep inlets along the eastern coast where the Project is located. Forested areas in the area are typically open coniferous forest composed predominantly of white and black spruce and balsam fir. The ecoregion provides habitat for shorebirds and seabirds as well as winter habitat for white-tailed deer (Environment Canada 1999).

Land use adjacent the Project is mostly forested or representative of natural habitat including grassy areas, shrub thickets, and wetlands. Forests in the area are boreal in nature and characterized by relatively low species richness. Forest plant communities present in the vicinity of the Project are dominated by various combinations of black spruce (Picea mariana), balsam fir (Abies balsamea), tamarack (Larix laricina), and mountain white birch (Betula cordifolia). Shrub thickets are typically found on stony knolls, and in some cases are associated with disturbed areas such as abandoned mine sites. The adjacent forest areas have been subject to recent harvesting activities and are in various stages of growth. In addition, there has recently been clearing in the Goldboro Industrial Park as part of the Goldboro LNG Project (Encana 2018).

Wetlands in the area consist mainly of bogs, swamps, and marshes. A small unmapped wetland is located at the southwest corner of the Project. This wetland was first delineated in 2008 as part of the environmental assessment for the construction of the Deep Panuke Development. This wetland was completely altered by a temporary working room area associated with construction activity carried out by Encana but was restored by Encana in accordance with their provincial Water Approval conditions. The closest mapped wetland is located approximately 80 m from the Project, on the opposite (north) side of the M&NP Mainline ROW.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 20

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Existing Environment August 16, 2019

The area falls within the Betty’s Cove Brook watershed. Betty’s Cove Brook is located approximately 160 m to the west and runs underneath Sable Road to the southeast. Gold Brook and its associated wetland are located approximately 75 m northeast of the Project.

Pre-construction surveys conducted in 2008 documented the presence of a variety of birds, mammals, and herptiles in the vicinity of the Project (Stantec 2009). An AC CDC report (Appendix C) obtained for the Project in 2019 indicated the potential for several legally protected bird species within 5 km of the Project; however, no legally protected mammals or herptiles were identified. Wildlife species likely to be present in the area are described in more detail in Section 6.3.4.

4.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Guysborough County has a human population of 7,337 in 2017, a decline of 1.4% since 2016. The county is primarily rural with a total land mass of 4,371 square kilometres located in northeastern Nova Scotia. The county population includes the incorporated town of Mulgrave and the municipal Districts of Guysborough and St. Mary’s (Encana 2018).

The majority of the population is located in Mulgrave, the former town of Canso and the shire towns of Guysborough and Sherbrooke with the remainder of the population residing throughout the rest of the county. Denser populated areas within the county closer to the Project site include Goldboro, Isaac's Harbour, Drumhead, Seal Harbour, Coddles Harbour, Larry's River, Stormont, Middle Country Harbour, Country Harbour Mines and Cross Roads Country Harbour. The nearest residence is located approximately 1.8 km from the Project (Stantec 2009).

No known archaeological or heritage sites have been identified within the footprint of the CTS. The shoreline of Bettys Cove, located 2 km from the Project, has been the location of several pre-European contact artifacts and a cemetery on the point referred to as Redhead is present. There is also evidence further along the shoreline of three shipwrecks as well as nineteenth and twentieth century mining activities (Encana 2018).

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 21

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Assessment Methods August 16, 2019

5.0 ASSESSMENT METHODS

The ESA was completed to meet the requirements of the NEB Filing Manual, 2017-01 (NEB 2017). The approach applied a framework for assessing project-specific environmental effects, including accidents and malfunctions, as well as cumulative effects likely to result from the Project, in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out. For the purposes of this assessment, the term environment refers broadly to biophysical and Socio-economic elements.

Project-related and cumulative environmental effects are assessed sequentially in the ESA. Potential project-related environmental effects and the mechanisms through which they act are discussed first, considering design and mitigation measures that help to reduce or avoid the effect. Residual project-related environmental effects are characterized using specific criteria (e.g., direction, magnitude, geographic extent, duration, frequency) defined for each VC. If there is an identified potential for adverse environmental effects of the Project to interact cumulatively with the residual environmental effects of reasonably foreseeable projects or physical activities, these cumulative environmental effects are also assessed. The significance of residual Project and residual cumulative effects is then determined based on pre-defined criteria or thresholds.

5.1 SCOPING THE ASSESSMENT

To focus the ESA on matters of relevance, likely interactions of the Project with the surrounding biophysical and Socio-economic environment are identified using a variety of sources, including:

• federal and provincial regulatory requirements; • existing regional information and documentation regarding environmental (biophysical and Socio- economic) components found in the vicinity of the Project (e.g., species at risk); • documentation relating to other projects and activities in the vicinity of the Project; and • professional judgment of the environmental and Socio-economic assessment practitioners, based on experience with similar projects elsewhere and other projects and physical activities in the vicinity of the Project.

5.1.1 Potential Effects, Pathways and Measurable Parameters

The assessment of each VC begins with a description of the pathways whereby specific project activities and actions could result in an environmental effect (i.e., the effect pathways). For each VC, the Project’s potential effects are identified and assessed in the context of the VC’s existing conditions, as well as its biophysical or Socio-economic characteristics, regulatory context, and any input received from consultation activities.

Once effect pathways are identified, one or more measurable parameter(s) are selected to facilitate quantitative (where possible) and qualitative assessment of residual project effects and residual cumulative effects. Measurable parameters provide defensible and acceptable means to characterize

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 22

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Assessment Methods August 16, 2019

change in a VC attributable to the Project and contribute to the determination of the significance of those effects. Where practical, these parameters are measurable and quantifiable (e.g., direct habitat loss). However, some effects lack defined parameters to measure effects and are therefore predicted qualitatively using scientific literature, professional judgement, and past project experience. Examples include sensory disturbance and increased mortality risk due to vehicle collisions with wildlife.

5.1.2 Boundaries

5.1.2.1 Spatial Boundaries

Spatial boundaries for assessing Project and cumulative effects include:

• Project Disturbance Area (PDA) – Encompasses the anticipated area of physical disturbance associated with Project physical abandonment activities. • Local Assessment Area (LAA) – Encompasses the areas in which project-related effects (direct or indirect) are predicted to occur. The LAA(s) encompasses the PDA(s) and is VC-specific. • Regional Assessment Area (RAA) – The area within which potential cumulative effects are assessed and is the area of predicted likely residual effects from the Project in combination with those of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects and physical activities. The RAA encompasses the PDA(s) and the LAA(s) and is VC specific.

5.1.2.2 Temporal Boundaries

Temporal boundaries identify when an environmental effect will be evaluated in relation to specific Project phases and activities. Pending regulatory approval, physical abandonment activities are scheduled to occur over approximately 2 months, beginning in Q4 2019.

5.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS

The existing conditions of the VC are based on data collected during desktop review, field programs, and consultation and engagement activities in support of the Project. Each VC section contains a description of relevant baseline information that is used as the basis to assess Project and cumulative effects.

5.3 PROJECT – VC INTERACTIONS

Each VC section includes a table showing Project physical activities during each Project phase that have the potential to interact with the VC, resulting in environmental effects. Physical activities that do not interact with the VC are also identified and rationale provided for their exclusion.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 23

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Assessment Methods August 16, 2019

5.4 MITIGATION OF PROJECT EFFECTS

Mitigation is defined by the NEB Filing Manual, 2017-01 (NEB 2017) as:

“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.”

Measures are identified, as necessary, to mitigate the potential effects of physical abandonment activities and abandonment in place on each VC. These measures include site-specific and standard industry practices, compliance with legislation, regulations, and guidelines, planning considerations, and other measures applicable to the Project. These measures and their links to effects and interactions are discussed.

Both standard and project-specific mitigation measures are outlined in the Project’s EPP.

5.5 ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT EFFECTS

For each VC, the Project’s potential effects are identified and assessed in the context of the VC’s existing conditions, as well as its biophysical or Socio-economic requirements and characteristics. The methods used to assess the effects are presented in each VC section. The Project’s potential effects are then discussed in the context of the following:

• Potential Project Effects: The assessment of each potential project effect begins with a description of the pathways whereby specific project activities and actions could result in an environmental effect. • Mitigation for Potential Project Effects: Mitigation measures that assist in reducing or avoiding potential environmental effects are identified for each effect pathway. • Assessment of Residual Project Effects: Available data are analyzed to describe the residual effects of project interactions with each VC. Residual environmental effects (i.e., the environmental effects that remain after mitigation has been applied) are described, taking into account how the proposed mitigation will reduce or avoid the effect. Effects are reviewed on a Project-wide basis and, where relevant to the assessment, a discussion of possible site-specific effects is presented. The residual effects assessment considers both positive and adverse effects after mitigation and other management measures are implemented. If positive residual effects are identified, they are not assessed further. • Characterization of Residual Project Effects: Residual effects are then characterized in terms of the direction, magnitude, geographic extent, frequency, duration, reversibility, and likelihood. Where possible, these characteristics are described quantitatively for each residual environmental effect. If these characteristics cannot be expressed quantitatively, they are described using qualitative terms that are defined specifically for the VC or effect.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 24

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Assessment Methods August 16, 2019

5.6 ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

In addition to assessing Project-related residual effects, section A.2.7 of the NEB Filing Manual, 2017-01 (NEB 2017) requires that the assessment consider cumulative environmental effects predicted to result from the Project’s residual effects in combination with the residual effects of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects or physical activities.

Existing environmental conditions reflect cumulative effects that have already occurred on the environment from past projects and activities. Past and existing physical activities that have been or are being carried out have influenced the baseline conditions. The effects of other past and existing physical activities in combination with the effects of the Project are therefore considered in the assessment of the residual environmental effects of the Project (Section 5.5). Reasonably foreseeable future projects and physical activities (as defined in Section 5.6.1) are considered, in combination with the Project, during the cumulative effects assessment, which takes into account the existing conditions (i.e., baseline conditions) for the VC.

With respect to the cumulative effects assessment, two conditions must be met to pursue an assessment of cumulative environmental effects:

1. There are predicted adverse residual Project effects on the VC; and 2. The adverse residual Project effects act cumulatively with effects of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects or physical activities.

Where either the first or second of these conditions are not met, there is no expectation that the Project will contribute cumulatively to residual effects, and further assessment is not warranted. If both of the two conditions are met, then the assessment of cumulative effects continues within the VC section following assessment of residual Project effects.

5.6.1 Project and Activity Inclusion List

Where a cumulative effects assessment is completed for a VC, the focus is on those other projects and physical activities that could result in the same residual environmental effect to the environmental effects being considered for the Project. The project and physical activity inclusion list includes past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects and physical activities with residual environmental effects that could overlap spatially and temporally with the Project. Reasonably foreseeable future projects and physical activities are defined as those that: (a) have been publicly announced with a defined schedule and sufficient project details that allow for a meaningful assessment, (b) are currently undergoing an environmental assessment, (c) are in a permitting process, or (d) are approved but not yet operational.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 25

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Assessment Methods August 16, 2019

A list of projects and activities included in the cumulative effects assessment is provided in Table 5.1. The area around the Project is mainly forested and rural, however there is substantial natural gas infrastructure in the immediate area. As described in Section 2.2 applications to decommission and abandon both the Encana Deep Panuke facility and the ExxonMobil Goldboro Gas Plant have been filed with the NEB. Environmental assessments have also been completed for the construction of two new natural gas facilities in the Goldboro industrial park, the Pieridae Goldboro LNG Facility and the Bear Paw Pipeline Compressor station. The area has also been historically used for forestry, and it is anticipated that forestry activities will continue.

Table 5.1 Project Inclusion List

Type of Project Project Location Forestry Ongoing forestry practices Throughout RAA Infrastructure Encana Deep Panuke Abandonment Goldboro Industrial Park ExxonMobil Goldboro Gas Plant and 26” Gathering Pipeline Goldboro Industrial Park Abandonment Goldboro Liquified Natural Gas Facility (Pieridae Energy) Goldboro Industrial Park Bear Paw Pipeline Compressor Station Goldboro Industrial Park

5.6.2 Assessment of Residual Cumulative Effects

Once it is determined that the potential for a cumulative effect on a VC exists, the assessment of cumulative effects is discussed in the context of the following:

• Pathways for Potential Cumulative Effects: The assessment of each potential cumulative environmental effect includes a description of the pathways whereby the Project’s residual environmental effects interact with those of other projects and physical activities. • Mitigation for Potential Cumulative Effects: Mitigation measures that assist in reducing or avoiding potential cumulative environmental effects are identified for each environmental effect, where they differ from mitigation for project effects. Those measures that help to reduce or avoid the interaction of the residual Project effect with the same residual effects from other projects and physical activities are identified and may include regional initiatives or collaboration with other entities (e.g., industrial proponents, municipalities). • Assessment of Residual Cumulative Effects: Available data are analyzed to quantify (where possible) and qualify the residual cumulative effects. Residual cumulative environmental effects (i.e., the environmental effect of all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects and physical activities in combination with the residual effect of the Project) are described, taking into account how the proposed mitigation will reduce or avoid the effect. The Project’s contribution to the residual cumulative effect is also described. • Characterization of Residual Cumulative Effects: Each residual cumulative environmental effect is described and he discussion of each residual cumulative effect concludes with a statement that summarizes the effect in the context of existing environmental conditions of the RAA.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 26

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Assessment Methods August 16, 2019

5.7 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE

Following the guidance of the NEB Filing Manual, 2017-01 (NEB 2017), the assessment evaluates the significance of residual project effects and residual cumulative effects. Residual Project effects and residual cumulative effects are evaluated in the context of changes relative to existing conditions in the RAA.

The determination of significance involves applying the established threshold criteria beyond which a residual effect on a VC would be considered significant. The Project and cumulative residual effects assessments consider both positive and adverse effects. However, in accordance with the NEB Filing Manual, 2017-01, the significance determination focuses on residual adverse effects. Therefore, if positive residual effects are identified, they are not assessed further.

If a residual adverse Project effect or residual adverse cumulative effect is determined to be significant, per the guidance of the NEB filing Manual (NEB 2017), the likelihood of the significant effect is evaluated.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 27

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Environmental Effects Assessment August 16, 2019

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

6.1 SELECTION OF VALUED COMPONENTS

The ESA focuses on VCs, which are environmental and Socio-economic elements of particular value or interest to the proponent, government agencies, Indigenous groups or the public and are identified based on the biophysical and Socio-economic elements listed in Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual, 2017-01 (NEB 2017).

The VCs that were selected:

• represent a broad environmental, ecological or human environment component that might be affected by the Project; • are a part of the heritage of Indigenous peoples or a part of their current use of lands for traditional purposes; • are of scientific importance; or • have been identified as important issues or concerns by stakeholders or in other effects assessments in the region.

The rationale for selecting each VC is explained in the applicable VC sections (Section 6.2 through Section 6.4).

VCs included in this assessment are:

• vegetation and wetlands; and

wildlife and wildlife habitat;Additionally, changes to the Project that may be caused by the environment are addressed (Section 6.4). Potential effects related to a number of accident and malfunction scenarios are also assessed (Section 7.0).

VCs identified in Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual, 2017-01 that are not carried forward in this assessment are:

• soil capability; • physical and meteorological environment; • aquatic resources (including fish and fish habitat and water quality and quantity); • atmospheric environment; • acoustic environment; • human occupancy and resource use; • heritage resources; • navigation and navigation safety; • traditional land and resource use; • human health and aesthetics; • infrastructure and services; and • employment and economy.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 28

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Environmental Effects Assessment August 16, 2019

The text below provides rationale for scoping out these VCs from further consideration.

Soil Capability

The Project will be located entirely within the existing graveled facility site and ground disturbance will be limited to excavation to remove below-ground infrastructure before the site is restored to a graveled area. In addition, results of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment conducted in July 2019 revealed no evidence of environmental contamination associated with the site. Therefore, this VC was not carried forward in the assessment.

Physical and Meteorological Environment

Although not addressed as a VC, the physical and meteorological environment is discussed in other VC chapters, as it could interact with the Project, either having effects on the Project, or being affected by it.

Potential effects associated with erosion potential are discussed as they relate to wetlands and meteorological conditions and potential effects associated with extreme weather events are discussed in the context of effects of the environment on the Project.

Aquatic Resources

There are no watercourses or waterbodies located within 30 m of the Project. The closest watercourse is located approximately 90 m to the south. Project activities not anticipated to interact with surface water, including fish and fish habitat, or with groundwater. Therefore, the aquatic resources VC including water quality and quantity, and fish and fish habitat, was not carried forward in the assessment.

Atmospheric Environment

Natural gas has already been purged from the facility, as part of abandonment activities related to the adjacent Deep Panuke system. Emissions of criteria air contaminants (CACs) and GHGs will only arise from vehicles used to undertake physical abandonment activities and are unlikely to exceed provincial reporting criteria.

These activities will result in short-term, negligible emissions that are transient in nature and will be addressed through standard mitigation (e.g., reducing idling, use of multi-passenger vehicles, equipment maintenance) as outlined in the Project’s EPP. The Project’s contribution to residual effects on CACs and GHGs during physical abandonment activities are predicted to be temporary, localized, and negligible. Therefore, no further assessment is warranted.

Cumulative effects associated with the release of GHGs are a global issue. Given the limited scale of the proposed Project, and the global nature of GHG cumulative effects, an assessment of the cumulative effects of GHG emissions is beyond the scope of this Project.

As such, these emissions were excluded from consideration and this VC was not carried forward in the assessment.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 29

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Environmental Effects Assessment August 16, 2019

Acoustic Environment

Noise emissions will be limited to those generated by equipment and vehicles used during physical abandonment activities. The closest receptor to the Project is located approximately 1.8 km away. There are no predicted interactions with the acoustic environment because any change in noise levels as a result of physical abandonment activities will be limited and short term. As a result of abandonment, any current operations-related noise will cease. Therefore, this VC was not carried forward in the assessment.

Human Occupancy and Resource Use

There are no predicted interactions with human occupancy and resource use as the Project will be located entirely within a previously developed facility site, on land owned by M&NP and zoned for industrial use. No access restrictions or change in land use are anticipated during physical abandonment activities. Therefore, the VC was not carried forward in the assessment.

Heritage Resources

There are no anticipated interactions with heritage resources as the Project footprint will be limited to the existing facility footprint, and ground disturbance will be limited to excavating a small amount of below- ground infrastructure from within the existing gravel pad. In addition, The Project is located on privately owned land that has been previously disturbed and is currently occupied by industrial development. Therefore, the VC was not carried forward in the assessment.

Navigation and Navigation Safety

There are no predicted interactions with navigation and navigation safety as no physical abandonment activities will be undertaken in, on, over, under, through or across navigable waterways. Therefore, this VC was not carried forward in the assessment.

Traditional Land and Resource Use

There are no anticipated interactions with traditional land and resources use as the project is located entirely on private land owned by M&NP that has been previously disturbed and is currently occupied by industrial development. Access to the Project footprint is currently restricted by a locked fence. Following the abandonment activities, the gravel pad will remain, and the site will continue to be used by M&NP as an access point to the Mainline and Point Tupper Lateral Pipelines. No access restrictions or change in land use in the area surrounding the Project are anticipated during physical abandonment activities.

Social and Cultural Well-being

There are no anticipated interactions with social and cultural well-being as the Project will occur almost entirely within an existing ROW and site facility boundaries and has limited potential to adversely affect Indigenous groups, local residents or communities. Furthermore, the Project will require a relatively small workforce over a relatively short duration of activity. Existing commercial accommodation in nearby centres (e.g. Antigonish) will be used to house workers during physical abandonment. Therefore, there is

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 30

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Environmental Effects Assessment August 16, 2019

limited potential for interactions with social and cultural well-being, and this VC was not carried forward in the assessment.

Human Health and Aesthetics

Interactions with human health are not predicted during physical abandonment as the Project will occur almost entirely within an existing ROW and site facility boundaries and has limited potential to adversely affect human health. Interactions with air quality and the acoustic environment are predicted to be temporary, localized, and negligible during the physical abandonment period, and will not exceed regulated thresholds for human health.

No interactions with aesthetics are predicted during physical abandonment because the pipeline will be abandoned in place and above-ground facilities will be removed as part of physical abandonment. As a result of abandonment, any effects on aesthetics related to the ongoing presence of above-ground facilities will cease.

Infrastructure and Services

There are no anticipated interactions with infrastructure and services as the Project will not require additions, modifications, or repairs to local or regional infrastructure. Workers will stay in existing accommodation and make use of existing services in nearby population centers. There may be a slight increase in vehicle traffic accessing the site; however, mitigation measures such as the use of multi- passenger vehicles will be implemented. The Project is located in a rural area with limited traffic and there is sufficient existing capacity to accommodate this increase. Therefore, this VC was not carried forward in the assessment.

Employment and Economy

The Project will require a relatively small workforce over a relatively short duration of activity. No new permanent part-time or full-time jobs will be directly created by the Project. The nature of the work will present temporary work opportunities for area contractors but is not expected to attract local area workers away from their existing employers. While some limited positive effects arising from worker employment are expected (i.e., due to short term employment) residual effects will not be large enough to result in changes to the economy. Therefore, this VC was not carried forward in the assessment.

6.2 VEGETATION AND WETLANDS

6.2.1 Scope of Assessment

Vegetation and Wetlands is a VC because the Project has the potential to interact with vegetation, vegetation communities, and wetlands, which are valued by the people of Nova Scotia for the many biological, ecological, and sociological functions they perform.

The scope of this assessment has also been influenced by:

• provincial and federal regulations and policy guidance

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 31

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Environmental Effects Assessment August 16, 2019

• the nature, scope, and extent of the Project and its activities • the environmental setting of the Project

The focus of this assessment is on plant species of conservation interest (SOCI). SOCI are those species that are:

• listed under the Nova Scotia Endangered Species Act (NS ESA) or Schedule 1 of the federal SARA as being either endangered, threatened, vulnerable, or of special concern (i.e., species at risk); • listed in Schedule 2 or 3 of SARA; • not yet listed under provincial or federal legislations but identified by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) as being either endangered, threatened, vulnerable, or of special concern; • listed by the NSDLF (2018) to be at risk, may be at risk, or sensitive to human activities or natural events; or • ranked S1 (critically imperiled), S2 (imperiled), or S3 (vulnerable) in Nova Scotia by the Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre (AC CDC) (AC CDC 2019a).

The Nova Scotia Wetland Conservation Policy (NSE 2011) provides context to legislation, regulations and operational policies designed to protect and guide management of wetlands in Nova Scotia. Most importantly, the policy establishes a specific goal of no loss of Wetlands of Special Significance (WSS) and no net loss in area and function for other wetlands. Government will not support or approve alterations proposed for a WSS or any alterations that pose a substantial risk to a WSS, except those that are required to maintain, restore, or enhance a WSS; or alterations deemed to provide necessary public function (NSE 2011). The government considers the following to be WSS:

• all salt marshes; • wetlands that are within or partially within a designated Ramsar site per the Ramsar Convention; Provincial Wildlife Management Area (Crown and Provincial lands only), Provincial Park, Nature Reserve, Wilderness Area or lands owned or legally protected by nongovernment charitable conservation land trusts; • intact or restored wetlands that are project sites under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and secured for conservation through the Nova Scotia Eastern Habitat Joint Venture; • wetlands known to support at-risk species as designated under SARA or the NS ESA; and • wetlands in designated protected water areas as described within Section 106 of the Environment Act.

6.2.2 Temporal and Spatial Boundaries

The assessment of potential effects is limited to physical abandonment activities. Spatial boundaries for assessing Project effects include:

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 32

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Environmental Effects Assessment August 16, 2019

• Project Disturbance Area (PDA) – Encompasses the anticipated area of physical disturbance associated with Project physical abandonment activities. • Local Assessment Area (LAA) – Encompasses the area within which the environmental effects of the Project can be measured or predicted, including the PDA. The LAA for vegetation and wetlands is a 500 m buffer of the PDA. • Regional Assessment Area (RAA) – Encompasses the area within which cumulative environmental effects can be measured or predicted, including the LAA and PDA. The RAA for vegetation and wetlands is Guysborough County.

The PDA and LAA for both the vegetation and wetlands and the wildlife and wildlife habitat VCs are provided in Figure 6.1.

6.2.3 Evaluation Criteria

A significant residual adverse environmental effect on vegetation is one that, after mitigation has been considered, results in a non-permitted contravention of any of the prohibitions stated in sections 32-36 of the federal SARA, or in contravention of any of the prohibitions stated in section 3 of the NS ESA; or threatens the long-term sustainability of a plant species within the RAA.

A significant adverse residual environmental effect on wetlands is defined as:

• one that results in an unauthorized permanent net loss of wetland area; or • one that results in a loss of a Wetland of Special Significance.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 33

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Environmental Effects Assessment August 16, 2019

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 34

G o ld B r o Tree Pelt o XY k Lichen Short-eared !9 Owl

B e t ty s C o v e B ro o k

0 125 250 metres $ $ M&NP PDA Local Road (At original document size of 8.5x11) ¯ 500m LAA Track/Trail/Seasonal Road 1:10,000 ( ACCDC Plants/Lichens Watercourse 121416335-001 Notes MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 CSRS UTM Zone 20N XY Tree Pelt Lichen Delineated Wetland Project DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER 2. Data Sources:Government of Nova Scotia ACCDC Wildlife (Stantec 2019) Location STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT 3. Background: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Delineated Wetlands Short-eared Owl Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, !9 (Jacques Whitford 2008) AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Figure No. 6.1 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., Encana Onshore Pipeline RoW Wetlands (NSGC and NSDNR) GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Goldboro-New Brunswick Corridor Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri Project Development Area and Local China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the

\\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\2_drawings\3_draft_figures\121416335-001.mxd 2019-08-15 By: Revised: jrandall GIS User Community Assessment Area Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Environmental Effects Assessment August 16, 2019

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 36

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Environmental Effects Assessment August 16, 2019

6.2.4 Existing Conditions

The PDA includes the graveled, fenced-in CTS, which contain several ruderal vascular plant species (i.e., species that colonize disturbed areas) but no SOCI. The LAA encompasses a 500 m buffer of the PDA, which includes a mix of forest, existing industrial land, including pipelines and the SOEP facility, anthropogenic land such as roadways, wetlands, and watercourses. Gold Brook and its associated wetland are located approximately 75 m from the PDA, and a 0.09 ha sapling-aged deciduous treed swamp is located adjacent to the southwest corner of the PDA. The entire LAA was not recently field surveyed, but the wetland adjacent to the PDA was delineated and surveyed for vascular plants in late June 2019. Historical information is available in Stantec (2009).

The wetland adjacent to the CTS (and the surrounding upland) was harvested prior to the construction of the CTS and has no tree canopy layer. The shrub layer of the wetland is dominated by regenerating heart-leaved paper birch (Betula cordifolia), sheep laurel (Kalmia angustifolia), northern wild raisin (Viburnum nudum), common Labrador tea (Ledum groenlandicum), and mountain holly (Nemopanthus mucronatus). The herbaceous layer is dominated by sphagnum mosses, common wooly bulrush (Scirpus cyperinus), three-seeded sedge (Carex trisperma), creeping snowberry (Gaultheria hispidula), and bunchberry (Cornus canadensis). A vegetation survey was conducted within the wetland and no SOCI were noted. This wetland is not a WSS.

AC CDC data obtained for the Project indicates two lichen and two vascular plant SOCI have been recorded within 5 km (AC CDC 2019b, Table 6.1). None are listed as species at risk.

Table 6.1 AC CDC Lichen and Vascular Plant SOCI within 5 km of the PDA

Common Name Scientific Name S Rank1 Lichens corrugated shingles lichen Fuscopannaria ahlneri S3 tree pelt lichen Peltigera collina S2? Vascular Plants northern burreed Sparganium hyperboreum S1S2 slender cottongrass Eriophorum gracile S2S3 1 S1 = critically imperiled, S2 = imperiled, S3 = vulnerable, S4 = apparently secure, S5 = secure, SNA = not applicable (typically exotic species) S#S# = a numeric range rank used to indicate any range of uncertainty about the status of the species or community (AC CDC 2019a)

The two lichen species grow primarily on trees and are unlikely to be found within or adjacent to the PDA, though tree pelt lichen (Peltigera collina) was observed on a red maple (Acer rubrum) tree within 1 km of the PDA (Figure 6.1).

Northern burreed (Sparganium hyperboreum) grows in poor, cold shallow water, and is unlikely to be found near the PDA. Slender cottongrass (Eriophorum gracile) grows in wetlands with sphagnum moss- dominated ground cover. The wetland adjacent to the CTS represents potential habitat for this species, but it was not observed there during 2019 field surveys.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 37

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Environmental Effects Assessment August 16, 2019

6.2.5 Potential Effects

Abandonment of the CTS will include removal of both above- and below-ground infrastructure, followed by backfilling and re-grading the area with gravel to keep it as unvegetated access site for the Mainline pipeline. As the CTS only contains ruderal plant species that are common within the surrounding area, no potential effects on vegetation are anticipated.

Changes in wetland area or function may occur during physical abandonment activities due to:

• Increased sedimentation through soil erosion; • Changes in runoff patterns resulting in changes to wetland hydrology; and • Introduction of invasive plant species to the wetland and surrounding area.

There are no wetlands within the CTS, but there may be potential effects on the wetland adjacent to the CTS. Operation of heavy equipment within the CTS has the potential to result in indirect disturbance to the wetland through erosion and sedimentation and changes in runoff patterns, which could result in changes to wetland hydrology. Erosion and sedimentation and changes to wetland hydrology could result in a net loss of wetland area or wetland function. Direct disturbance to the wetland could occur if heavy equipment operates outside of anticipated work boundaries. Heavy equipment can act as a vector, aiding in the spread of invasive plant species. Invasive plant species can have a negative impact on wetland function by outcompeting native wetland plant species. Both indirect and direct disturbance may result in a change in wetland area or a change in wetland function.

6.2.6 Mitigation Measures

Standard industry practices and avoidance measures, along with Project-specific mitigation measures outlined in the EPP, will be implemented during physical abandonment activities to reduce potential effects on vegetation and wetlands. Key mitigation measures are summarized in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2 Mitigation Measures

Project Component or Potential Effect Mitigation Measure Activity All Project activities resulting Erosion and sedimentation resulting in Employ standard erosion and in ground disturbance net loss of wetland area or function sedimentation control measures for the wetland adjacent to the CTS. All Project activities resulting Changes in runoff patterns resulting in Take care to maintain existing grade and in ground disturbance changes to wetland hydrology, which not alter existing runoff patterns. could cause a net loss of wetland area or function

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 38

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Environmental Effects Assessment August 16, 2019

Table 6.2 Mitigation Measures

Project Component or Potential Effect Mitigation Measure Activity All Project activities Introduction of invasive plant species to All equipment arriving on site will be the wetland and surrounding area examined to make sure it is clean and free of soil or vegetative debris before it enters the PDA to begin work. If additional gravel is required for re-grading following the removal of infrastructure, quarried, crushed material will be to reduce the risk of introducing or spreading invasive vascular plant species. All Project activities resulting Operation of heavy equipment within Flag wetland boundary and avoid in ground disturbance wetland boundary may result in a net operating equipment within wetland loss of wetland area or function boundary.

6.2.7 Residual Effects

As the PDA is a small, graveled industrial area containing no vascular plant SOCI and no wetlands, and Project activities are expected to be limited to the PDA, residual effects on vegetation and wetlands are expected to be limited to possible indirect effects to an adjacent wetland that should not have lasting effects on wetland area or function. No direct alteration to the wetland is predicted. Sediment and erosion control measures will limit the potential for sediment introductions into the wetland. Although weeds or invasive species may be introduced or spread from vehicle and equipment movement, equipment will be cleaned and inspected to reduce the potential spread of weeds or invasive species. Residual Project effects on vegetation and wetlands are summarized in Table 6.3. The residual effects will occur within a disturbed landscape. With the implementation of mitigation measures described in Section 6.2.6, residual effects on vegetation and wetlands are predicted to be adverse in direction, negligible in magnitude, limited to a small portion of the LAA adjacent to the PDA, short-term in duration, occur once during physical abandonment activities, and reversible. As residual effects of the Project on wetlands are predicted to be short-term, negligible and reversible, no further consideration of cumulative effects on wetlands is warranted.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 39

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Environmental Effects Assessment August 16, 2019

Table 6.3 Summary of Residual Effects

Residual Residual Effects Characterization Effect Direction Magnitud Geographic Duration Frequency Reversibilit Ecological and e Extent y Socio- economic Context Change in A N LAA ST S R D Vegetation and Wetlands KEY Geographic Extent Frequency Direction PDA Project Disturbance Area S Single event P Positive LAA Local Assessment Area IR Multiple irregular event A Adverse RAA Regional Assessment Area R Multiple regular event N Neutral Duration C Continuous Magnitude ST Short-term Reversibility N Negligible MT Medium-term R Reversible L Low LT Long-term I Irreversible M Moderate N/A Not applicable Ecological and Socio-economic Context H High U Undisturbed D Disturbed 6.2.8 Assessment of Cumulative Effects on Vegetation and Wetlands

As described in Section 5.6, two conditions must be met to pursue an assessment of cumulative environmental effects:

Residual effects of the Project on vegetation and wetlands are predicted to be negligible in magnitude. As such, the contribution of the Project to cumulative effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat is considered negligible in the RAA; therefore, a further quantitative assessment of cumulative effects is not warranted.

6.2.9 Determination of Significance

With the implementation of mitigation and environmental protection measures, Project residual environmental effects on vegetation and wetlands are predicted to be not significant. Residual effects do not affect the long-term viability or persistence of native vegetation communities, ecological communities of management concern, plant species of conservation interest or wetlands in the RAA. Residual cumulative effects on vegetation are predicted to be not significant.

Prediction confidence is considered high for vegetation and wetlands risk based on the quality and quantity of available existing conditions data and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation during physical abandonment activities.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 40

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Environmental Effects Assessment August 16, 2019

6.2.10 Monitoring

Environmental measures outlined in the Project EPP, including environmental inspection and monitoring, will be implemented during physical abandonment activities. Because of the disturbed nature of the landscape within and immediately surrounding the CTS, no monitoring is recommended for vegetation and wetlands once physical abandonment activities are complete.

6.3 WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT

6.3.1 Scope of Assessment

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat is a VC because the Project has the potential to cause changes in wildlife habitat and mortality risk. The wildlife and wildlife habitat VC represents the broad range of wildlife species that are known to occur or have the potential to occur regionally. The focus of this assessment is on SOCI (as defined in Section 6.2.1).

Migratory birds in Canada, including species that are not SOCI, are protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA), by way of the Migratory Birds Regulations and Migratory Bird Sanctuary Regulations. These regulations define the provisions by which an estimated 450 native species of migratory birds (including their nests and eggs) are protected in Canada.

The scope of this assessment has also been influenced by:

• provincial and federal regulations and policy guidance; • the nature, scope and extent of the Project and its activities; and • the environmental setting of the Project.

6.3.2 Temporal and Spatial Boundaries

The assessment of potential effects is limited to physical abandonment activities. Spatial boundaries for assessing Project effects include:

• Project Disturbance Area (PDA) - Encompasses the anticipated area of physical disturbance associated with Project physical abandonment activities. • Local Assessment Area (LAA) - Encompasses the area within which the environmental effects of the Project can be measured or predicted, including the PDA. The LAA for wildlife and wildlife habitat is a 500 m buffer of the PDA. • Regional Assessment Area (RAA) – Encompasses the area within which cumulative environmental effects can be measured or predicted, including the LAA and PDA. The RAA for wildlife and wildlife habitat is Guysborough County.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 41

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Environmental Effects Assessment August 16, 2019

The PDA and LAA for the wildlife and wildlife habitat VC, which are the same as for the vegetation and wetlands VC, are provided in Figure 6.1.

6.3.3 Evaluation Criteria

A significant adverse residual environmental effect on wildlife and wildlife habitat is defined as:

• one that results in a non-permitted contravention of any of the prohibitions stated in sections 32-36 of SARA, or in contravention of any of the prohibitions stated in section 3 of the NS ESA; • one that threatens the long-term sustainability of a wildlife species within the RAA; or • one that is inconsistent with the goals, objectives or activities of recovery strategies and action plans for any SOCI.

6.3.4 Existing Conditions

An AC CDC report obtained for the Project indicated the potential for fourteen wildlife SOCI within 5 km of the PDA (AC CDC 2019b, Table 6.4). No mammal or herpetile SOCI were recorded in the AC CDC dataset within 5 km.

Table 6.4 AC CDC Wildlife SOCI within 5 km of the PDA

Common Name Scientific Name SARA rank COSEWIC rank NS ESA rank S Rank1 bank swallow Riparia riparia threatened threatened endangered S2S3B barn swallow Hirundo rustica threatened threatened endangered S2S3B Canada warbler Cardellina threatened threatened endangered S3B canadensis common threatened special concern threatened S2B nighthawk Chordeiles minor olive-sided threatened special concern threatened S2B flycatcher Contopus cooperi short-eared owl Asio flammeus special concern special concern S1S2B evening Coccothraustes special concern vulnerable S3S4B,S3N grosbeak vespertinus long-eared owl Asio otus S2S3 boreal Poecile hudsonicus S3 chickadee red-breasted Sitta canadensis S3 nuthatch Henry's elfin Callophrys henrici S3 (invertebrate) gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis S3B

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 42

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Environmental Effects Assessment August 16, 2019

Table 6.4 AC CDC Wildlife SOCI within 5 km of the PDA

Common Name Scientific Name SARA rank COSEWIC rank NS ESA rank S Rank1 Wilson's warbler Cardellina pusilla S3B greater Tringa melanoleuca S3B, S3S4M yellowlegs 1 S1 = critically imperiled, S2 = imperiled, S3 = vulnerable, S4 = apparently secure, S5 = secure, SNA = not applicable (typically exotic species) S#S# = a numeric range rank used to indicate any range of uncertainty about the status of the species or community (AC CDC 2019a)

In consideration of the habitat within and immediately surrounding the PDA, many of the species listed in Table 6.4 are unlikely to be found within or adjacent to the PDA. Those wildlife SOCI that may be found within or adjacent to the PDA include:

• Canada warbler (Cardellina canadensis), which nests in forests with a well-developed shrub layer and regenerating forest, such as is found surrounding the CTS • Common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), which nests in recently cleared or regenerating areas, such as the nearby pipeline ROW • Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), a species that prefers edges where it can sit in tall trees and catch insects over open areas such as ROWs • Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), a species that nests in open areas such as cleared ROWs and open wetlands, and was observed in the wetland associated with Gold Brook in 2008 (Figure 6.1) • Gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), which nests in dense shrubs and thickets • Wilson’s warbler (Cardellina pusilla), which nests in thickets and low shrubs

6.3.5 Potential Effects

As the Project physical activities are anticipated to be limited to the PDA, no long-term changes in wildlife habitat are expected. If physical activities occur outside of the PDA, some changes to wildlife habitat may occur within the regenerating forest adjacent to the PDA. As this area is dominated by shrubs and does not contain tree canopy, the changes are expected to be minimal.

Wildlife disturbance has the potential to occur as a result of change to habitat during physical abandonment activities due to indirect loss or alteration of habitat effectiveness through sensory disturbance. Operation of heavy equipment will cause sensory disturbance to wildlife in proximity to the CTS through changes in light and noise. These types of indirect disturbances can result in temporary habitat loss and reduced habitat effectiveness, as habitats near the CTS may be avoided by wildlife during the duration of the work (Bayne et al. 2008).

Wildlife disturbance also has the potential to occur as a result of change in mortality risk during physical abandonment activities due to Project-related works and activities resulting in accidental mortality of small, less mobile species or individuals (e.g., amphibians, juvenile birds) or vehicle-wildlife collisions. Construction noise and activity can lead to some animals, such as herpetiles and small mammals, leaving protective cover, which can lead to increases in mortality though predation or collisions with equipment.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 43

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Environmental Effects Assessment August 16, 2019

The Project could lead to wildlife mortality through collisions between birds and equipment, particularly lighted equipment, and between moving vehicles and wildlife. Lighted equipment can attract migrating birds, and collisions are more frequent at night or in inclement weather (Ogden 1996; Longcore and Rich 2004). Additional wildlife mortality could occur if physical activities, particularly the operation of heavy machinery, occurs outside of the PDA, or particularly if it occurs during the breeding bird season.

6.3.6 Mitigation Measures

Standard industry practices and avoidance measures, along with Project-specific mitigation measures outlined in the EPP will be implemented during physical abandonment activities to reduce potential effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat. Key mitigation measures are summarized in Table 6.5.

Table 6.5 Mitigation Measures

Project Potential Effect Mitigation Measure Component and Activities All Project Wildlife mortality Use an Environmental Management Plan/Environmental Protection Plan and activities include a wildlife component to address potential interactions with wildlife species. Wildlife mortality, Restrict abandonment activities to the PDA. disturbance Wildlife mortality, Avoid abandonment activities during the breeding season for migratory birds (mid- disturbance April to mid-August), to the extent practical. Wildlife mortality, If abandonment activities must occur during the breeding season for migratory disturbance birds (mid-April to mid-August), employ qualified wildlife biologists to undertake nest searches to identify and flag active nests within and adjacent to the PDA. Apply species-specific setback distances to active nests discovered to protect them from disturbance until the young have fledged. Wildlife mortality Use full cut-off lighting to reduce attraction to migrating birds. Wildlife mortality, Properly store and dispose of construction site wastes that might attract wildlife. disturbance

6.3.7 Residual Effects

Change to habitat may occur as habitat near the Project site may become less suitable during physical abandonment activities due to incremental increases in sensory disturbance to wildlife (e.g., light, noise). Change in mortality risk may occur due to accidental wildlife collisions with Project-related equipment and vehicles. However, as the PDA is a small, graveled industrial area, and Project activities are expected to be limited to the PDA, and planned outside the breeding bird season, residual effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat are expected to be limited to sensory disturbance to wildlife inhabiting the area surrounding the PDA. As the Project activities are anticipated to be limited to the Project footprint, no direct changes to wildlife habitat are expected.

With the implementation of mitigation measures described in Section 6.3.6 residual effects on wildlife are predicted to be adverse in direction, negligible in magnitude, limited to a small portion of the LAA adjacent to the PDA, short-term in duration, occur once during physical abandonment activities, and reversible.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 44

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Environmental Effects Assessment August 16, 2019

The residual effects will occur within a disturbed landscape. Residual Project effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat are summarized in Table 6.6.

Table 6.6 Summary of Residual Effects

Residual Residual Effects Characterization Effect Direction Magnitude Geographic Duration Frequency Reversibility Ecological and Extent Socio-economic Context Change A N LAA ST S R D in Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat KEY Geographic Extent Frequency Direction PDA Project Disturbance Area S Single event P Positive LAA Local Assessment Area IR Multiple irregular event A Adverse RAA Regional Assessment Area R Multiple regular event N Neutral Duration C Continuous Magnitude ST Short-term Reversibility N Negligible MT Medium-term R Reversible L Low LT Long-term I Irreversible M Moderate N/A Not applicable Ecological and Socio-economic Context H High U Undisturbed D Disturbed 6.3.8 Assessment of Cumulative Effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

As described in Section 5.6, two conditions must be met to pursue an assessment of cumulative environmental effects:

Residual effects of the Project are predicted to be negligible in magnitude. As such, the contribution of the Project to cumulative effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat is considered negligible in the RAA; therefore, a further quantitative assessment of cumulative effects is not warranted.

6.3.9 Determination of Significance

With the implementation of mitigation and environmental protection measures, Project residual environmental effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat are predicted to be not significant. The Project residual effects on habitat and mortality risk are unlikely to pose a threat to the persistence or viability of wildlife species (including SOCI) in the LAA or RAA.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 45

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Environmental Effects Assessment August 16, 2019

Prediction confidence is considered high for wildlife and wildlife habitat risk based on the quality and quantity of available existing conditions data and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation during physical abandonment activities.

6.3.10 Monitoring

Environmental measures outlined in the Project EPP, including environmental inspection and monitoring, will be implemented during physical abandonment activities. Because of the disturbed nature of the landscape within and immediately surrounding the CTS, no monitoring is proposed for wildlife and wildlife habitat once physical abandonment activities are complete.

6.4 EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT

6.4.1 Scope of Assessment

The NEB Filing Manual (2017-01) requires consideration of changes to the Project that may be caused by the environment. Potential effects of the environment on the Project refers to the environmental forces and/or forces of nature that could affect the Project physically or hamper the ability to carry out the Project activities in their normal, planned manner.

6.4.2 Evaluation Criteria

A significant adverse residual effect of the environment on the Project is defined as one that results in one or more of the following:

• damage to Project infrastructure resulting in harm to Project workers or the public • damage to Project infrastructure which precludes completion of planned physical abandonment activities, or • a substantial change to the Project schedule by delaying Project activities by one season or more, or resulting in a shutdown of abandonment for three months or more

6.4.3 Existing Conditions

The daily average temperature as measured at the Stillwater Sherbrooke Climate Monitoring Station (approximately 29 km from the Project) from 1981 to 2010 is 6.6°C. January is the coldest month, and August is the warmest (-6.2°C and 18.6°C daily average temperature, respectively). Extreme temperatures vary from -39.0°C (February 7, 1985) to 35.0°C (June 24, 1976) (ECCC 2018).

The total annual precipitation measured at the climate station is 1,524.7 mm, of which 88.3% falls as rain. November is the wettest month (155.8 mm of total precipitation), and winter months (January and February) are the driest. The extreme daily precipitation event occurred on September 14, 1996 when 142.6 mm of rainfall was recorded (ECCC 2018). Peak average monthly snowfall typically occurs during the months of January (44.5 cm of total precipitation) and March (45.6 cm of total precipitation) (ECCC 2018). The extreme daily snowfall is 38.1 cm (February 26, 1972) (ECCC 2018).

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 46

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Environmental Effects Assessment August 16, 2019

6.4.4 Potential Effects

Environmental forces such as extreme weather (e.g., extreme temperatures, heavy precipitation, flooding, extreme storm events) and wildfires have the potential to interrupt physical abandonment activities as a result of safety concerns, difficulties accessing the site, or loss or damage or infrastructure or equipment. Heavy precipitation events could also result in erosion and sedimentation to environmentally sensitive features such as wetlands.

6.4.5 Mitigation Measures

Standard industry practices and avoidance measures, along with Project-specific mitigation measures outlined in the EPP will be implemented during physical abandonment activities to reduce potential effects of the environment on the Project. Key mitigation measures are summarized in Table 6.7.

Table 6.7 Mitigation Measures

Project Component Potential Effect Mitigation Measure All Project Activities • Flooding, erosion, and/or • Implement contingency plans for severe sedimentation weather events. • Altered/restricted access to the site • Monitor weather forecasts and • Damage to infrastructure and/or secure/shut down Project site in advance equipment of forecasted adverse weather events. • • Interruption to Project schedule Confirm the efficacy of sediment and erosion control measures prior to and following an adverse weather event.

6.4.6 Residual Effects

Severe weather conditions are normally short-term and may cause the temporary suspension of specific activities until they abate. The effects of severe weather can generally be mitigated through adjustments to the timing of physical abandonment activities. When avoidance through schedule adjustment is not practical, M&NP will implement site-specific mitigations, such as installing additional erosion control measures, use of lower ground-pressure equipment and infilling of ruts, de-compaction or other reclamation measures, as required. No residual effects are anticipated.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 47

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Malfunctions and Accidental Events August 16, 2019

7.0 MALFUNCTIONS AND ACCIDENTAL EVENTS

The NEB Filing Manual, 2017-01 (NEB 2017) requires that the environmental assessment for a project consider the effects of accidents and malfunctions that might occur. These are rare unplanned events or conditions that could result from acts of nature, human error, equipment failure, or other possible causes. Project planning and design, equipment selection, hazard analysis and corrective action, emergency response planning, security management, and the implementation of standard environmental protection measures in the EPP will reduce the potential for accidents and malfunctions to occur and reduce the effects of an event if it occurs.

All efforts to minimize the potential for accidental events will be taken during the abandonment process. Preventative and contingency measures will be put into place during construction activities and have been previously outlined in the Enbridge Environmental Guidelines for Construction and best management practices. Emergency response and contingency measures are also outlined in the Enbridge Environmental Guidelines for Construction (Enbridge 2012). The previously stated emergency response and contingency plans in place during abandonment is predicted to prevent any adverse environmental effects.

7.1 IDENTIFICATION OF EVENTS AND POTENTIALLY AFFECTED VALUED COMPONENTS

This assessment considers the following accident and malfunction scenarios:

• Fire: Includes an explosion and/or fire that originates at a Project component. • Hazardous material release: Releases of fuel, petroleum products or other chemicals used on site that could occur during physical abandonment activities. • Vehicle accident: Any Project-related vehicle accident that may occur on a road transportation network, including vehicle accidents involving wildlife. • Damage to existing utilities: Damage could occur to existing pipelines and/or foreign utilities during physical abandonment activities.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 48

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Malfunctions and Accidental Events August 16, 2019

7.1.1 Project Interactions

Accident and malfunction scenarios that could affect specific VCs are outlined in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1 Project Interactions arising from Accidents and Malfunctions

Damage to Substance Vehicle Valued Component Fire Existing Release Accident Utilities Soil Capability –  –  Vegetation   –  Wetlands   –  Water Quality and Quantity – – – – Fish and Fish Habitat – – – – Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat     Atmospheric Environment  – –  Human Occupancy and Resource Use – – – – Heritage Resources – – – – Navigation and Navigation Safety – – – – Traditional Land and Resource Use – – – – Social and Cultural Well-being – – – – Human Health and Aesthetics    – Infrastructure and Services  –   Employment and Economy – – – –

7.1.2 Significance Determination

The residual effects characterization and significance thresholds established for the VCs in Section 6 have been applied in this assessment, as appropriate. VCs which otherwise would not be affected by the Project, are considered as part of this assessment, due to the potential for accident and malfunction scenarios to affect this VC, and are outlined below:

• A significant adverse residual effect on soil capability is defined as a permanent change in soil quality and quantity that, following the implementation of mitigation measures, reduces land capability. • a significant adverse residual environmental effect on the atmospheric environment is one that degrades the quality of the ambient air such that the maximum Project-related ground-level concentration plus the conservative background level of the air contaminant being assessed (e.g. particulate matter due to fire) frequently exceeds the respective ambient air quality objective, guideline or standard. • A significant adverse residual effect on infrastructure and services is defined where Project activities result in changes to the availability of services or infrastructure such that standards of service are routinely and persistently reduced below current levels for an extended period of time.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 49

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Malfunctions and Accidental Events August 16, 2019

• A significant adverse residual effect on human health and aesthetics is defined as where Project activities result in injury or illness, or permanent loss of enjoyment of an area.

7.1.3 Mitigation

Emergency management during physical abandonment activities will be governed by Enbridge’s Environmental Guidelines for Construction and related operating procedures, as well as the Project-specific EPP. M&NP’s employees and contractors receive training for emergency events and if there is an incident, will work closely with authorities and emergency responders to manage the incident. Additional prevention and response measures that will be implemented for this Project are outlined in Table 7.2.

Table 7.2 Key Mitigation Measures for Effects of Accidents and Malfunctions on the Project

Scenario Mitigation Measures Fire • The Contractor will have the necessary fire-fighting equipment on hand that is capable of controlling any fire that may occur as a result of their activities, as identified by provincial regulations and responsible government agencies. • All motorized equipment must carry a fully charged fire extinguisher. • Personnel will be made aware of the proper disposal methods for welding rods, cigarette butts and other hot or burning material. • Smoke only in designated areas. Hazardous material • In the event of a release of any size, the Contractor shall immediately report the release release to the Nova Scotia Environment Emergency line or the Canadian Coast Guard. • If an accidental release does occur, measures to control, contain, recover and clean up the release are to be implemented immediately to minimize the potential for adverse environmental and human health effects, or to ensure the release does not spread or increase in size • Bulk fuel trucks, service vehicles, and pick-up trucks equipped with box-mounted fuel tanks shall carry spill prevention, containment, and clean-up materials that are suitable for the volume of fuels or oils carried. • All fuel tanks, hazardous materials and chemicals shall be stored within appropriate secondary containment, Vehicle accident • Physical abandonment activities will be restricted to the facility footprint to the approved Project footprint. All physical abandonment traffic will adhere to safety and road closure regulations. Damage to existing • Foreign lines and cables will be located and marked using One-Call services before utilities the start of physical abandonment to ensure the safety of the workers and public.

7.2 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS

7.2.1 Fire

A fire originating from a PDA during physical abandonment activities may result in effects to the atmospheric environment, human health and aesthetics, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife, and infrastructure and services (including emergency services).

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 50

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Malfunctions and Accidental Events August 16, 2019

Flammable material will be regularly removed from the work site to reduce the potential for a fire to spread. Equipment used on site will meet applicable codes and standards designed to prevent fires and explosions. Regular equipment inspection and maintenance will be conducted. Necessary fire-fighting equipment to meet regulatory requirements will be maintained on site.

Fires are not expected to occur because of the preventative and response measures implemented by the Project, and by M&NP across their operations. With implementation of prevention and response measures, the effects of a fire are predicted to be not significant.

7.2.2 Hazardous Material Release

Gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricants and other hazardous materials will be stored and used on site during physical abandonment. Improper handling, use, or storage of these materials could result in a release. Most releases are highly localized and can be readily cleaned up by onsite crews using standard equipment. In the event of a substantial release, contamination could affect soils, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and human (including worker) health.

Contractors undertaking physical abandonment activities will be aware of release response procedures, will be required to have Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) training, and will abide by all federal, provincial, and local requirements for the storage, handling, transport, disposal, and release reporting requirements for all potentially hazardous products and waste materials.

All equipment at the site will meet applicable codes and equipment operators will follow recommended operational practices and the Project EPP. Release response equipment and materials will be kept on site. Response measures will generally focus on containing and limiting the effects of a release and remediating the affected area as quickly as possible. This may require the use of berms and absorbent materials. For substantial releases, offsite disposal of contaminated material, site assessment, and remediation may be required.

Substance releases, if they occur, are expected to be limited in volume and area, and can be cleaned up by on-site crews using standard equipment. Site assessment and remediation may be required if a release results in the contamination of soil, vegetation or groundwater. With the implementation of preventative and response measures, the residual effects of a release on VCs considered in this assessment are predicted to be not significant.

7.2.3 Vehicle Accidents

Vehicle accidents could potentially occur during the Project, resulting in a need for support from local emergency services. During the physical abandonment phase, higher levels of worker and vehicle traffic to and from the PDAs, and the operation of equipment on site, increase the potential for vehicle accidents (effects on human health). Increased vehicle use during physical abandonment activities may increase collision-related mortality to wildlife.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 51

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Malfunctions and Accidental Events August 16, 2019

While traffic will increase during the physical abandonment phase, there are no specific features of the Project that are expected to increase accident rates or decrease traffic safety, as no additional access roads are required for the Project. Project personnel, including contractors, operating Project-related vehicles will observe all traffic rules and local, provincial and federal highway regulations. In the event of a vehicle accident, onsite emergency response personnel would coordinate with local emergency service providers.

Vehicle accidents, if they occur, are expected to be infrequent and of limited severity. The Project will comply with applicable traffic rules and regulations. With implementation of preventative and response measures, the residual effects of a vehicle accident are predicted to be not significant.

7.2.4 Damage to Existing Utilities

There is substantial existing natural gas infrastructure located in the vicinity of the Projects. Damage to existing pipelines and infrastructure during physical abandonment activities could result in releases and the temporary loss of use of this infrastructure until repairs are undertaken. Potentially affected VCs include atmospheric environment (if natural gas is released from adjacent pipelines), human health, and infrastructure and services, if operating utilities are affected. A line strike would require excavation, repair, or replacement of the affected section of pipeline; such activities could also affect biophysical resources, as noted in Table 7.1.

Neighboring pipelines, equipment and transmission lines within proximity to the PDA will be marked and located following M&NP’s ground disturbance policy, as required. All foreign lines and cables will be marked and labelled using Nova Scotia One-Call services and daylighted before the start of abandonment activities to protect the safety of the workers and public. Flagging and signage will be used at overhead line crossings to alert equipment operators of hazards. Physical abandonment activities near adjacent pipelines will be conducted in compliance with all requirements of Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Z662-15 and the NEB Onshore Pipeline Regulations for work in proximity to an operating pipeline. Prior to any equipment working on, or crossing over, an adjacent pipeline, a crossing permit will be obtained from the operator for each specific location, detailing the conditions and limitations for each crossing.

Damage to existing pipelines, third-party infrastructure and foreign utilities is unlikely due to the implementation of mitigation measures such as M&NP’s ground disturbance procedures, site planning, proximity agreements, and the use of Nova Scotia’s One-Call service. With implementation of preventative and response measures, residual effects of damage to existing pipelines and/or foreign utilities are anticipated to be not significant.

7.3 SUMMARY OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS

The Project will be abandoned in a manner that prevents and reduces potential hazards and risks to the safety and security of the public, employees, property, facilities and the environment. In the unlikely event

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 52

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Malfunctions and Accidental Events August 16, 2019

of an accident or malfunction, such unplanned events are effectively managed during physical abandonment activities through implementing contingency measures in the Project-specific EPP. Overall, the potential environmental effects of assessed Project-related accidents and malfunctions scenarios on all assessed VCs, are predicted to be not significant. Although cumulative effects of accidents and malfunctions from other projects (past, planned or future) in combination with Project related accidents and malfunctions are possible, they are unlikely to occur, and no cumulative effects assessment was conducted.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 53

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Monitoring August 16, 2019

8.0 MONITORING

Environmental measures outlined in the Project EPP, including environmental inspection and monitoring, will be implemented during physical abandonment activities. Because of the disturbed nature of the landscape within and immediately surrounding the CTS, no monitoring following physical abandonment activities is recommended.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 54

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Conclusions August 16, 2019

9.0 CONCLUSIONS

The ESA has focused primarily on potential interactions between Project activities (i.e., physical works associated with facility removal, pipeline segmentation) and components of the biophysical and Socio- economic environment. Project activities will occur on approximately 0.2 ha and will be confined to the facility footprint and existing M&NP right-of-way.

The findings of the ESA are that the adverse environmental and Socio-economic effects associated with Project activities can be mitigated using a combination of standard and project-specific environmental protection measures.

With the implementation of proposed mitigation, any adverse residual environmental and Socio-economic effects associated with Project activities are predicted to be not significant. Cumulative effects are predicted to be not significant.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 55

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

References August 16, 2019

10.0 REFERENCES

AC CDC (Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre). 2019a. Understanding Ranks. Available online: http://accdc.com/en/rank-definitions.html. Last accessed: July 31, 2019.

AC CDC. 2019b. Data Report 6468: Goldboro, NS. Prepared: July 19, 2019.

Bayne, L.M., L. Habib., and S. Boutin. 2008. Impacts of chronic anthropogenic noise from energy sector activity on abundance of songbirds in the boreal forest. Conservation Biology 22: 1186-1193.

CIRNAC. Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. 2019. First Nation Profile Paqtnkek Mi’kmaw Nation. http://fnp-ppn.aadnc- aandc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=019&lang=eng. Accessed July 2019.

Enbridge. 2012. Environmental Guidelines for Construction Revision 0.2.

Encana. 2018. Deep Panuke Offshore Gas Development Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment for Abandonment of Pipeline & Associated Facilities. Available: https://apps.neb- one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/3578191. Accessed July 2019.

ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada). 2018. Climate Normals Stillwater Sherbrooke Climate Monitoring Station. Available: http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/results _1981_2010_e.html?searchType=stnProv&lstProvince=&txtCentralLatMin=0&txtCentralLatSec=0 &txtCentralLongMin=0&txtCentralLongSec=0&stnID=6482&dispBack=0 Accessed July 2019.

Environment Canada. 1999. Ecoregions and Ecodistricts of Nova Scotia. Available: http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/publications/surveys/ns/nsee/nsee_report.pdf Accessed July 2019.

Longcore, T. and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2: 191–198.

NEB (National Energy Board). 2017. Filing manual, Release 2017-01. Available: https://www.neb- one.gc.ca/bts/ctrg/gnnb/flngmnl/flngmnl-eng.pdf. Accessed July 2019.

NSDLF (Nova Scotia Department of Lands and Forest). 2019. Species at Risk Overview. https://novascotia.ca/natr/wildlife/biodiversity/species-list.asp. Accessed July 4, 2019.

NSDLF. 2018. General Status Ranks of Wild Species in Nova Scotia. Available online at: http://novascotia.ca/natr/wildlife/genstatus/ Updated: 2018-08-14

NSE (Nova Scotia Environment). 2011. Nova Scotia Wetland Policy. September 2011.

Ogden, L.J.E. 1996. Collision Course: The Hazards of Lighted Structures and Windows to Migrating Birds. Fatal Light Awareness Program (FLAP) and World Wildlife Fund Canada. Toronto, ON.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 56

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

References August 16, 2019

Stantec. 2009. M&NP Encana Custody Transfer Station Environmental Screening. Available: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/File/Download/587361 Accessed July 2019.

Stantec. 2019. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. 420 Sable Road, Goldboro, Nova Scotia.

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 57

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

References August 16, 2019

jb \\ca0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\active\121416335\1_environmental\5_report\1_esa\rpt_20190816_esa_abandonment_mnp_cts.docx 58

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Appendix A Site Photos and Drawings August 16, 2019

Appendix A SITE PHOTOS AND DRAWINGS

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Appendix A Site Photos and Drawings August 16, 2019

Photo 1 – East and South sides of Telemetry Building

Photo 2 -- Adjoining Encana Property to the East of the Site Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

Photo 3 – Garage and Meter Building

Photo 4 – External Infrastructure – Piping

Photo 5 – Gas Analysis Building

Photo 6 – Above-ground Hydraulic Reservoir (North end of the Property)

Photo 7 – External Infrastructure – Piping

Photo 8 – West side of Garage Building

Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Appendix B Phase I Environmental Site Assessment August 16, 2019

Appendix B PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Appendix B Phase I Environmental Site Assessment August 16, 2019

DRAFTFINAL -- PropertyPhase I Environmental Condition Assessment Site Assessment Report

400121416335 Maitland Ave, Atlamonte Springs, FL 420 Sable Road, Goldboro, NS

Prepared for: Enbridge

Prepared by: EDRStantec Applications Consulting Development Ltd. Group 6845 Armstrong Prospect Road Street Shelton,Fredericton, CT 06484 NB 2T72T7

Job No.: 1234567121416335.600

AprilAugust 09, 07, 2018 2019 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer StationTable of Contents

Executive Summary...... 1 Executive Summary...... 2 Site Description and Current Operations...... 2 Records Review...... 2 Site Visit/Interviews...... 2 Conclusions...... 2 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment...... 3 1.0 General Information...... 4 2.0 Introduction...... 5 2.1 Objectives...... 5 2.2 Scope of Work...... 5 2.3 Regulatory Framework...... 5 3.0 Records Review...... 7 3.1 Information Sources...... 7 3.2 Previous Reports...... 7 3.3 Regulatory Information...... 8 3.4 Physical Setting...... 8 3.4.1 Sur®cial Geology...... 8 3.4.2 Surface Water Drainage...... 8 3.4.3 Topography and Regional Drainage...... 8 3.4.4 Bedrock Geology...... 9 4.0 Site Description...... 10 4.1 Property Information...... 10 4.2 On-Site Buildings and Structures...... 10 4.3 Historical Land Use...... 10 5.0 Site Visit Findings...... 11 5.1 Current Site Operations...... 11 5.2 Waste Generation and Storage...... 11 5.2.1 Solid and Liquid Wastes...... 11 5.2.2 Drains, Sumps, Septic Systems and Oil Water Separators...... 11 5.2.3 Air Discharges and Odours...... 11 5.3 Fuel and Chemical Storage...... 11 5.3.1 Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)...... 11 5.3.2 Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs)...... 11 5.3.3 Other Storage Containers...... 11 5.4 Building Systems/Equipment...... 11 5.4.1 Heating and Cooling Systems...... 11 5.4.2 Hydraulic Equipment...... 12 5.5 Exterior Site Observations...... 12 5.5.1 Surface Features...... 12 5.5.2 Fill Materials...... 12 5.5.3 Wells...... 12 5.6 Hazardous Building Materials...... 12

5.6.1 Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACMs)...... 12 5.6.2 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)...... 12 5.6.3 Lead-Based Materials...... 12 5.6.4 Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation (UFFI)...... 13 5.6.5 Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODSs)...... 13 5.7 Special Attention Items...... 13 5.7.1 Radon Gas...... 13 5.7.2 Microbial Contamination (Mould) and Indoor Air Quality...... 13 5.7.3 Electromagnetic Frequencies (EMFs)...... 13 5.7.4 Noise and Vibration...... 13 5.8 Neighbouring Property Information...... 14 5.9 Client-Speci®c Items...... 15 6.0 Conclusions...... 16 7.0 Closure...... 17

Appendices Appendix A Site Plans...... 18 Appendix B Photographs...... 20 Appendix C Assessor Quali®cations...... 31 Appendix D Supporting Documentation...... 34

Project No. 121416335.600 420 Sable Road, Goldboro Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2019 08/07/2019 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

Executive Summary Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

Executive Summary Site Description and Current Operations

Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) of the property located at 420 Sable Road in Goldboro, Nova Scotia, herein referred to as the "Site". The Phase I ESA was conducted for Enbridge in support of divestiture of the Site. The purpose of the Phase I ESA was to assess if evidence of potential or actual environmental contamination exists in connection with the Site, as a result of current or past activities on the Site or neighbouring properties.

Records Review

The properties located to the north and east of the Site were undeveloped until the installation of the pipeline in 2003 and 2012, respectively. The construction of the Encana Corporation Terminus industrial facility was constructed in 2012/2013.

The properties located to the south and west of the Site have been undeveloped since at least 1939.

Site Visit/Interviews

The site contact reported that very minor (<1 litre) releases of grease from the valves have potentially occurred at the Site. After these events, the gravel would have been immediately cleaned up. Spill kits are located in employee vehicles and on the Site. The presence of these potential releases does not represent an environmental concern to the Site.

No environmental concerns were identified during the site visit or through interviews with persons associated with the Site.

Conclusions

The Phase I ESA has revealed no evidence of environmental contamination associated with the Site. No further environmental investigations are recommended at this time.

The statements made in this Executive Summary are subject to the same limitations included in the Closure (Section 7.0) and are to be read in conjunction with the remainder of this report.

Project No. 121416335.600 420 Sable Road, Goldboro 08/07/2019 Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2019 1 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

1.0 General Information

Client Information: Consultant Information: Enbridge Stantec Consulting Ltd. Doug Schmidt 845 Prospect Street 745 Richmond Street Fredericton, NB 2T72T7 Chatham, ON N7M 5J5 Phone: 506-452-7000 Fax: 506-452-0112 Project Information: E-mail Address: [email protected] 121416335 Site Visit Date: 07/23/2019 121416335.600 Report Date: 08/07/2019 Site Assessor: Karen Cameron, B.Sc. Site Information: Report Preparer: Karen Cameron, B.Sc. 121416335 Senior Reviewer: Patrick Turner, B.Sc., P.Eng. 420 Sable Road Goldboro, NS B0H

Site Assessor: Karen Cameron, B.Sc. Environmental Scientist

Report Preparer: Karen Cameron, B.Sc. Environmental Scientist

Senior Reviewer: Patrick Turner, B.Sc., P.Eng. Associate, Environmental Services

The environmental site assessment and preparation of this report were completed in general accordance with the objectives, requirements or standards of the CSA Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Standard Z768-01 (R2016).

Project No. 121416335.600 420 Sable Road, Goldboro 08/07/2019 Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2019 3 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

2.0 Introduction 2.1 Objectives

A site plan is included in Appendix A and selected photographs of the Site are included in Appendix B.

2.2 Scope of Work

The Phase I ESA carried out by Stantec on this property was conducted in general accordance with Stantec's Proposal Number 121495038 dated June 21, 2019 and the Canadian Standards Association's (CSA) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Standard Z768-01 (R2016) and consisted of the following:

• records review including, but not limited to, publicly available city directories, aerial photographs, fire insurance plans, geological and topographic maps • provincial government regulatory search • review of available environmental databases and records • review of previous environmental reports and existing title searches, if made available • interviews with persons having knowledge of the Site • a site visit • evaluation of information and preparation of the report provided herein

A Phase I ESA does not include sampling or testing of air, soil, groundwater, surface water or building materials. For this Phase I ESA, no enhancements to the CSA standard were made.

This assessment did not include a review or audit of operational environmental compliance issues, or of any environmental management systems, which may exist for the Site.

The assessment of the Site for the potential presence of hazardous building materials was based on the age of the building(s) and components, and a non-intrusive visual review of the Site. No sampling of materials was conducted. A Phase I ESA does not constitute a Hazardous Materials Survey or Designated Substances Survey.

The assessment of the Site for microbial contamination and moisture damage was made during the walk through of the building(s). This assessment was visual only and not every area was assessed. No sampling or intrusive investigation was conducted.

The professional qualifications of the project team are provided in Appendix C.

The site visit was conducted by Karen Cameron, B.Sc., of Stantec, on July 23, 2019. The Site and readily visible and publicly accessible portions of adjoining and neighbouring properties were observed for the presence of potential sources of environmental contamination. Stantec was accompanied by Mr. Steve Cassidy, Multi-Discipline Technician of Enbridge during the site visit. Mr. Cassidy has been associated with the Site since 2014.

Interviews were carried out to obtain or confirm information on the historic operations and activities on the Site. Mr. Cassidy was interviewed during the course of the site visit. Pertinent information gathered from these interviews is presented within the appropriate sections of this report.

2.3 Regulatory Framework

During a Phase I ESA samples are not collected, however, if there are previous soil or groundwater sample results available, the results are compared to applicable federal and provincial regulations and guidelines.

Project No. 121416335.600 420 Sable Road, Goldboro 08/07/2019 Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2019 4 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

2.0 Introduction (continued) 2.3 Regulatory Framework (continued)

In Nova Scotia, the roles and powers of Nova Scotia Environment (NSE) when dealing with contaminated sites are outlined primarily in the Nova Scotia Environment Act (S.N.S. 1994-95, c.1). NSE has a mandate to deal with situations where there is an immediate threat to human health or the environment. This can be initiated by owner driven triggers (e.g. refinancing, resale, etc.) or regulatory driven triggers (e.g. compliance investigation, spill, etc.). The Guidelines for Management of Contaminated Sites in Nova Scotia (March 1996) provide advice and information to property owners and consultants to use when assessing the environmental condition of a property, when determining whether or not restoration is required, and in determining the kind of restoration needed to allow continued use or reuse of the site. A Phase I ESA is an initial step in the site assessment process, which may lead to the requirement for restoration work if actual or potential sources of environmental contamination are identified.

A Phase I ESA involves a review of any site buildings for the potential presence of hazardous materials related to building components and materials. Specific federal or provincial regulations, guidelines or codes of practice exist for these individual hazardous materials. Where required, this documentation was utilized to determine appropriate conclusions and formulate appropriate recommendations.

Project No. 121416335.600 420 Sable Road, Goldboro 08/07/2019 Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2019 5 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

3.0 Records Review 3.1 Information Sources

The applicable search distance for the records review included the Site, properties immediately adjoining the Site and other neighbouring properties where activities considered to be potential sources of environmental contamination were apparent. Information sources obtained and reviewed as part of the records review are listed below.

SOURCE INFORMATION/CONTACT Aerial Photographs 1980, 1991, 1998, 2003, 2008, 2015 - Nova Scotia Geomatics

1939 - National Air Photo Library

Fire Insurance Plans None available

City Directories None available

Previous Environmental Reports None provided

Company Records None provided

Geological and Geotechnical Reports No geotechnical reports were provided to Stantec for review.

Regulatory Infractions Nova Scotia Environment - Received July 18, 2019

Reportable Spill Occurrences Nova Scotia Environment - Received July 18, 2019

Contaminated Sites Nova Scotia Environment - Received July 18, 2019

PCB Storage Sites Nova Scotia Environment - Received July 18, 2019

Landfill Records Nova Scotia Environment - Received July 18, 2019

Underground & Aboveground Storage Tanks Nova Scotia Environment - Received July 18, 2019

Other Available Information Surficial Geology Map of the Province of Nova Scotia, Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources, Map 92-3, 1992.

Geological Map of the Province of Nova Scotia, Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources, Map ME2000-1, 2000.

Map Showing Potential Radon in Indoor Air in Nova Scotia, Province of Nova Scotia, Department of Natural Resources. Accessed interactive map in July 2019.

Water Well Records Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources - Groundwater Map; accessed online July 2019

3.2 Previous Reports

No previous environmental reports were provided to Stantec.

Project No. 121416335.600 420 Sable Road, Goldboro 08/07/2019 Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2019 6 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

3.0 Records Review (continued) 3.3 Regulatory Information

We have received Nova Scotia Environment's Environmental Registry response to our inquiry for the subject site and adjoining properties. The information is summarized below and attached in Appendix D.

Regulatory Infractions Search: Nova Scotia Environment (NSE) has provided no records of infractions for the subject site or adjoining properties.

Environmental Investigations: Information pertaining to site assessments, risk assessments, remedial work or other environmental investigations registered with NSE for the subject or adjoining properties are available only through "Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy" (FOIPOP) requests which require a ninety day turn-around time. Ms. Tina Skeir of NSE indicated that the following records requiring a FOIPOP request are on file for the adjoining property:

• An industrial file (file# 92100-30-ANT-2008-063105) containing photos, inspection reports, approval and application pertaining to 299 Sable Rd, Goldboro. • Two water resource management files (file# 95100-30-ANT-2009-066632, 95100-30-ANT-2009-070444) containing correspondence, file activity reports, inspection reports, notes to file, photos, wetland alteration proposal, final report, and monitoring plan pertaining to 422 Sable Rd., Goldboro.

Based on the nature of the files, these properties are not expected to represent a potential environmental concern to the Site and the files were not requested.

Tank Registrations: Information from the NSE Petroleum Storage Tank Registry indicated that no tanks were registered to the subject property or adjoining properties.

Approvals: • Approval to Construct - Liquefied Natural Gas Plant at Goldboro, Guysborough County, Nova Scotia (PID Nos. 35066158, 35179464, 35198134, 35095884, 35197862, 35094770, 35122068, 35122076, and 35094481) dated September 12, 2008. • Approval for wetland alterations between Highway 316 and the metering station connected to the M&NE Pipeline in Goldboro, Guysborough County, Nova Scotia (PID No. 35179464) dated November 30, 2010.

These approvals are not expected to represent a potential environmental concern to the Site.

3.4 Physical Setting 3.4.1 Surficial Geology

Based on an available surficial geology map, the native surficial soils of the Site consist of stoney till plain (Ground Moraine). A site-specific determination would be required in order to obtain detailed soil profile and permeability information.

3.4.2 Surface Water Drainage

The surfaces of the Site consist of gravel. Stormwater is anticipated to drain by infiltration and/or overland flow.

3.4.3 Topography and Regional Drainage

The Site is generally flat and at a similar elevation to the adjoining property to the east. The Site is at a slightly lower elevation than the adjoining properties to the north, south, and west.

Based on an available topographic map and the observed site topography, regional surface drainage (anticipated shallow groundwater flow direction) appears to be to the northeast to a tributary of Seal Harbour Lake.

Project No. 121416335.600 420 Sable Road, Goldboro 08/07/2019 Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2019 7 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

3.0 Records Review (continued) 3.4 Physical Setting (continued) 3.4.3 Topography and Regional Drainage (continued)

It should be noted that the direction of the shallow groundwater flow in limited areas can also be influenced by the presence of underground utility corridors and is not necessarily a reflection of regional or local groundwater flow or a replica of the Site or area topography.

3.4.4 Bedrock Geology

Based on an available bedrock geology map, bedrock in the area of the Site consists of greywacke of the Goldenville Formation.

Project No. 121416335.600 420 Sable Road, Goldboro 08/07/2019 Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2019 8 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

4.0 Site Description 4.1 Property Information

The Site is located in rural Nova Scotia, in the Goldboro Industrial Park. The Site is currently occupied by the Maritimes and Northeast (M&NE) Pipeline metering station and four associated single-storey buildings. The area of the Site is approximately 3,062 square metres. The Site is currently not provided with municipal services, with the exception of power provided by Nova Scotia Power Incorporated (NSPI).

Current Site Owner: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Legal Description: PID No. 35206515 Property Area: 3,026 sq.m.

Utility Providers: Water: Site not serviced Storm and Sanitary Sewers: Site not serviced Electricity: NSPI and backup batteries Natural Gas: Site not serviced

4.2 On-Site Buildings and Structures

The site buildings consist of two pre-fabricated metal sheds, and two metal garage-style buildings. The following is a summary of the site buildings information.

Building ID: # of Basement: Area: Year Building Use: General Levels: Built: Construction: Site Building One No 15 sq.m. 2012/2 Telemetry Pre-fabricated metal A 013 shed Site Building One No 32.5 2012/2 Garage Metal construction B sq.m. 013 on a concrete slab Site Building One No 220 sq.m. 2012/2 Meter Building Metal construction C 013 on gravel floor Site Building One No 9 sq.m. 2012/2 Gas Analysis Pre-fabricated metal D 013 shed

4.3 Historical Land Use

Historical land use for the Site was determined through historical records listed in Section 3.0.

Based on the reviewed aerial photographs the area was generally vacant woodland until the early 1990s when the Site appears to have undergone some disturbance. In the 2015 aerial photograph, the M&NE metering station is apparent having been constructed around 2012/2013. The site contact reported that very minor (<1 litre) releases of grease from the valves have potentially occurred at the Site. After these events, the gravel would have been immediately cleaned up. Spill kits are located in employee vehicles and on the Site. The presence of these potential releases do not represent an environmental concern to the Site.

Project No. 121416335.600 420 Sable Road, Goldboro 08/07/2019 Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2019 9 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

5.0 Site Visit Findings 5.1 Current Site Operations

The Site is located in rural Nova Scotia, in the Goldboro Industrial Park. The Site is currently occupied by the M&NE Pipeline metering station and four associated single-storey buildings.

5.2 Waste Generation and Storage 5.2.1 Solid and Liquid Wastes

No wastewater discharges were identified to be produced on the Site at the time of the site visit. No hazardous waste generation or storage was identified to be conducted on the Site, with the exception of oily filter elements that are stored in drums adjacent to Site Building B until disposal, as needed by Terra Pure.

Non-hazardous solid waste is removed from the Site as needed and returned to the Enbridge offices located in New Glasgow for disposal by a licensed waste hauler.

5.2.2 Drains, Sumps, Septic Systems and Oil Water Separators

No floor drains, sumps, septic systems, interceptors, or separators are identified on the Site.

5.2.3 Air Discharges and Odours

No sources of air emissions that are suspected to result in residual contamination to the property were identified on the Site. Further, no strong, pungent, or unusual odours were identified during the site visit.

5.3 Fuel and Chemical Storage 5.3.1 Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)

No chemical or fuel storage USTs were identified on the Site. Further, no vent or fill pipes indicating the potential presence of an abandoned or decommissioned UST were observed.

5.3.2 Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs)

No chemical or fuel storage ASTs were identified on the Site.

5.3.3 Other Storage Containers

No chemical storage was observed stored on the Site other than a small quantity of compressed gas. There were no concerns with the presence of the stored gas.

5.4 Building Systems/Equipment 5.4.1 Heating and Cooling Systems

Site Building A, Site Building B, and Site Building D are provided with heating via electric heat (baseboard or space heaters). No heating systems are on the Site for Site Building C. Back-up power is provided by an uninterrupted power supply (UPS) in Site Building A, which is charged from the NSPI supply.

Cooling is provided to Site Building A via an electric heat pump. No cooling systems are provided for Site Building B, Site Building C, and Site Building D.

Project No. 121416335.600 420 Sable Road, Goldboro 08/07/2019 Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2019 10 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

5.0 Site Visit Findings (continued) 5.4 Building Systems/Equipment (continued) 5.4.2 Hydraulic Equipment

No in-ground hydraulic equipment reported to Stantec. Based on information provided there are hydraulic valves and small hydraulic reservoirs on the Site, which are not considered to be an environmental concern to the Site.

5.5 Exterior Site Observations 5.5.1 Surface Features

No stained surficial materials or stressed vegetation was observed on the Site. No watercourses, pits, lagoons or ditches were identified on the Site and no standing water was observed.

5.5.2 Fill Materials

No evidence of imported fill materials was observed. The Site generally appears to be at grade with the adjacent roadways and adjoining property to the east, and is at a slightly lower elevation than the adjoining properties to the north, south, and west. It is unlikely that significant quantities of fill materials were brought onto the Site.

5.5.3 Wells

Based on the site visit, no abandoned or existing wells (oil, gas or disposal) were identified on the Site.

5.6 Hazardous Building Materials 5.6.1 Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACMs)

The common use of friable (crumbles easily by hand pressure) asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) in construction generally ceased voluntarily in the mid 1970s but was only banned through legislation in the mid-late 1980s. Asbestos was used in thousands of building products and the common uses of friable ACMs included boiler and pipe insulation, and spray-on fireproofing. Asbestos was also used in many manufactured products such as floor tiles, ceiling tiles, transite cement products and various other construction materials. Some cement drain piping currently used in the construction of buildings still contains asbestos (non-friable). Vermiculite used as insulation may be contaminated with asbestos fibres.

Based on the age of the site buildings, friable ACMs are not expected.

5.6.2 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

From the 1930s to the 1970s, PCBs were widely used as coolants and lubricants for electrical equipment, including transformers and capacitors, and in a number of industrial materials, including sealing and caulking compounds, inks and paint additives. The use of PCBs was prohibited in heat transfer and electrical equipment installed after September 1, 1977, and in transformers and capacitors installed after July 1, 1980. Regulations now require that PCB containing equipment be taken out of service prior to regulated deadlines.

No oil-filled transformers were observed on the Site. The site buildings utilizes fluorescent light fixtures. However, PCB-containing ballasts are not expected based on the age of the site buildings.

5.6.3 Lead-Based Materials

In 1976, the lead content in interior paint was limited to 0.5% by weight under the federal Hazardous Products Act. Lead based water supply pipes were used greater than 50 years ago. Between 1930 and 1986, most buildings used copper pipe with lead-solder joints. Other lead-based products include wall shielding (x-ray rooms).

Based on the age of the site buildings, it is unlikely that lead-based products are on the Site.

Project No. 121416335.600 420 Sable Road, Goldboro 08/07/2019 Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2019 11 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

5.0 Site Visit Findings (continued) 5.6 Hazardous Building Materials (continued) 5.6.4 Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation (UFFI)

Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation (UFFI) was used as an insulation product for existing houses between the mid-1970s and its ban in Canada in 1980. It was not commonly used for commercial or industrial buildings.

Based on the age and construction of the site buildings, it is unlikely that UFFI is present on the Site.

5.6.5 Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODSs)

Refrigeration and air conditioning equipment in place before 1998 may contain refrigerants containing Ozone-depleting Substances. Non-ODS refrigerants have been developed and are available to replace these materials in newer equipment.

Sources of ODSs on the Site are limited to minor quantities of refrigerant in refrigeration and air conditioning equipment.

5.7 Special Attention Items 5.7.1 Radon Gas

Radon is a radioactive gas associated with uranium rich black shale and/or granite bedrock. Radon emits alpha particles and produces several solid radioactive products called radon daughters. Harmful levels of radon and radon daughters can accumulate in confined air spaces, such as basements and crawl spaces.

Based on a map supplied by the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources, a low risk exists on the Site for the potential of radon in indoor air. Based on the geology of the area and construction of the site buildings (i.e. no basement levels), radon gas accumulation is not expected to be a significant environmental concern at the Site.

5.7.2 Microbial Contamination (Mould) and Indoor Air Quality

The growth of mould in indoor environments is typically due to a moisture problem related to building envelope or mechanical systems deficiencies or design, and can produce adverse health effects. There is no practical way to eliminate all mould and mould spores in the indoor environment. The way to control mould is to control moisture.

No visual evidence of suspected mould growth was observed in the accessed areas of the site buildings at the time of the site visit.

5.7.3 Electromagnetic Frequencies (EMFs)

Electrical currents induce electromagnetic fields. No scientific data supports definitive answers to questions about the existence or non-existence of health risks related to electromagnetic fields.

No high-voltage transmission lines or electrical substations, which could generate significant electromagnetic fields, were identified on or adjacent to the Site.

5.7.4 Noise and Vibration

The effects of noise and vibration on human health vary according to the susceptibility of the individual exposed, the nature of the noise/vibration and whether exposure occurs in the working environment or in the home.

No major or persistent sources of noise and vibration were identified on the Site at the time of the site visit.

Project No. 121416335.600 420 Sable Road, Goldboro 08/07/2019 Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2019 12 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

5.0 Site Visit Findings (continued) 5.8 Neighbouring Property Information

The current activities on neighbouring properties observed at the time of the Site visit and a summary of historic information gathered through the records review are presented in the following sections.

Direction From Site: Relation to Property: Current Use: Across What North Adjoining Pipeline Right of Way Property Line Occupant Name: Address: NS Natural Resources Goldboro Current Activities: The property located to the north of the Site is occupied by a buried pipeline. Historical Activities The property located to the north of the Site was undeveloped until the installation of the pipeline in 2003. Potential Environmental Concerns: No current or historical activities, operations, or tenants on the adjoining properties to the north of the Site were identified that would be considered a potential environmental concern to the Site.

Direction From Site: Relation to Property: Current Use: Across What East Adjoining Industrial Property Line Occupant Name: Address: Encana Corporation 422 Sable Road Current Activities: The property located to the east of the Site is occupied by the Encana Corporation Terminus. Historical Activities The property located to the east of the Site was undeveloped until the current industrial facility was constructed in 2012/2013. Potential Environmental Concerns: No current or historical activities, operations, or tenants on the adjoining properties to the east of the Site were identified that would be considered a potential environmental concern to the Site.

Direction From Site: Relation to Property: Current Use: Across What South Adjoining Undeveloped Property Line Occupant Name: Address: NA NA Current Activities: The property located to the south of the Site is currently undeveloped. Historical Activities The property located to the south of the Site has been undeveloped since at least 1939. Potential Environmental Concerns: No current or historical activities, operations, or tenants on the adjoining properties to the south of the Site were identified that would be considered a potential environmental concern to the Site.

Direction From Site: Relation to Property: Current Use: Across What West Adjoining Undeveloped Property Line Occupant Name: Address: NA NA Current Activities: The property located to the west of the Site is currently undeveloped. Historical Activities The property located to the west of the Site has been undeveloped since at least 1939. Potential Environmental Concerns: No current or historical activities, operations, or tenants on the adjoining properties to the west of the Site were identified that would be considered a potential environmental concern to the Site.

Project No. 121416335.600 420 Sable Road, Goldboro 08/07/2019 Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2019 13 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

5.0 Site Visit Findings (continued) 5.9 Client-Specific Items

No specific client requests were made with respect to this Phase I ESA.

Project No. 121416335.600 420 Sable Road, Goldboro 08/07/2019 Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2019 14 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

6.0 Conclusions

The Phase I ESA has revealed no evidence of environmental contamination associated with the Site. No further environmental investigations are recommended at this time.

Project No. 121416335.600 420 Sable Road, Goldboro 08/07/2019 Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2019 15 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

7.0 Closure

This report documents work that was performed in accordance with generally accepted professional standards at the time and location in which the services were provided. No other representations, warranties or guarantees are made concerning the accuracy or completeness of the data or conclusions contained within this report, including no assurance that this work has uncovered all potential liabilities associated with the identified property.

This report provides an evaluation of selected environmental conditions associated with the identified portion of the property that was assessed at the time the work was conducted and is based on information obtained by and/or provided to Stantec at that time. There are no assurances regarding the accuracy and completeness of this information. All information received from the client or third parties in the preparation of this report has been assumed by Stantec to be correct. Stantec assumes no responsibility for any deficiency or inaccuracy in information received from others.

The opinions in this report can only be relied upon as they relate to the condition of the portion of the identified property that was assessed at the time the work was conducted. Activities at the property subsequent to Stantec's assessment may have significantly altered the property's condition. Stantec cannot comment on other areas of the property that were not assessed.

Conclusions made within this report consist of Stantec's professional opinion as of the time of the writing of this report, and are based solely on the scope of work described in the report, the limited data available and the results of the work. They are not a certification of the property's environmental condition. This report should not be construed as legal advice.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the client identified herein and any use by any third party is prohibited. Stantec assumes no responsibility for losses, damages, liabilities or claims, howsoever arising, from third party use of this report.

This report is limited by the following:

• the ground surface was wet at the time of the site visit

The locations of any utilities, buildings and structures, and property boundaries illustrated in or described within this report, if any, including pole lines, conduits, water mains, sewers and other surface or sub-surface utilities and structures are not guaranteed. Before starting work, the exact location of all such utilities and structures should be confirmed and Stantec assumes no liability for damage to them.

The conclusions are based on the site conditions encountered by Stantec at the time the work was performed at the specific testing and/or sampling locations, and conditions may vary among sampling locations. Factors such as areas of potential concern identified in previous studies, site conditions (e.g., utilities) and cost may have constrained the sampling locations used in this assessment. In addition, analysis has been carried out for only a limited number of chemical parameters, and it should not be inferred that other chemical species are not present. Due to the nature of the investigation and the limited data available, Stantec does not warrant against undiscovered environmental liabilities nor that the sampling results are indicative of the condition of the entire site. As the purpose of this report is to identify site conditions which may pose an environmental risk; the identification of non-environmental risks to structures or people on the site is beyond the scope of this assessment.

Should additional information become available which differs significantly from our understanding of conditions presented in this report, Stantec specifically disclaims any responsibility to update the conclusions in this report.

This report was prepared by Karen Cameron, B.Sc. and reviewed by Patrick Turner, B.Sc., P.Eng.

Project No. 121416335.600 420 Sable Road, Goldboro 08/07/2019 Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2019 16 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

Appendix A

Site Plans Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

Enca naOnshore Pipeline RoW PropertyBounda ry Goldb oro-NewBrunswick Corridor

GroundwaFlow ter Direction

Site Building C Site Building D

Pipeline Right of Way

Site Building B Site Building A

($¯$

0 25 50 m etres (At original (At docum size ent 8.5x11)of Client/Project 121416335-002 1:1,200 M ARITIMESNORTHEAST& PIPELINE ENV IRONM ENTALAND SOCIO-ECONOM ASSESSM IC ENT– ENCANACUSTODY TRANSFER STATION DECOM M ISSIONING Notes ANDABANDONM ENT Project 1. CoordinateSystem NAD : 1983CSRS UTM Zone 20N Figure No. Location 2. DataSources:Governm Novaof ent Scotia 3. Background:Source:DigitalGlobe, Esri, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus USDA,DS, 1 USGS,AeroGRID, andIGN, theGISUser Com m unity Sources:HERE, Esri, Ga rmin,Intermaincrem p, GEBCO, Corp., P ent USGS, FAO,NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership IGN, KadaIGN, OrdnanceNL, ster Survey, Japan,Esri METI,China Esri OpenStreetMa(Hong (c) Kong), p Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment contributors, andcontributors, theGISUser Com m unity 420 Sable Road, Goldboro

DisclaimThis er: docum ha ent been s prepared ba sedinformaon provided tion by othersas cited thein Notes section. Stantec haverified not s the accuracy and/orcom pletenessofinformathis and tion shabe responsiblenot ll om or any issionsforwhich errors ma ybe incorporated herein Stantecasaresult.

\a01-ps0\okru\24acie111351evrn na\_rwns3datfgrs1113502md eie:21-80 y rnall jranda By: 2019-08-07 Revised: ental\2_drawings\3_draft_figures\121416335-002.mxd ctive\121416335\1_environm \\ca 0214-ppfss01\workgroup\1214\a a ssumresponsibility esno dafor supplied ta electronicin formaand therecipient t, accepts full responsibility verifyingfor theaccuracy and com pletenesstheofda ta. Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

Appendix B

Photographs Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

View of the east and south sides of Site Building A

View of the west side of Site Building A

Project No. 121416335.600 420 Sable Road, Goldboro Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2019 08/07/2019 1 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

Example of span gas storage on the Site, within Site Building A

Backup UPS, located within Site Building A

Project No. 121416335.600 420 Sable Road, Goldboro Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2019 08/07/2019 2 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

View of the east side of Site Building B

View of the south side of Site Building B

Project No. 121416335.600 420 Sable Road, Goldboro Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2019 08/07/2019 3 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

View of the west side of Site Building B

View inside Site Building B

Project No. 121416335.600 420 Sable Road, Goldboro Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2019 08/07/2019 4 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

View of the east side of Site Building C

View of the south side of Site Building C

Project No. 121416335.600 420 Sable Road, Goldboro Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2019 08/07/2019 5 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

View inside Site Building C

View of the south and west sides of Site Building D

Project No. 121416335.600 420 Sable Road, Goldboro Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2019 08/07/2019 6 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

View of the north and east sides of Site Building D

Example of compressed gas storage on the Site, within Site Building D

Project No. 121416335.600 420 Sable Road, Goldboro Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2019 08/07/2019 7 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

View of aboveground hydraulic reservoir noted on the Site (north end of the property)

Adjoining property to the north of the Site

Project No. 121416335.600 420 Sable Road, Goldboro Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2019 08/07/2019 8 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

Adjoining property to the east of the Site

Adjoining property to the south of the Site

Project No. 121416335.600 420 Sable Road, Goldboro Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2019 08/07/2019 9 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

Adjoining property to the west of the Site

Project No. 121416335.600 420 Sable Road, Goldboro Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2019 08/07/2019 10 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

Appendix C

Assessor Quali®cations Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT ASSESSOR QUALIFICATIONS – Karen Cameron

Karen Cameron, B.Sc. Environmental Scientist

Profile

Karen Cameron, B.Sc., has been with Stantec Consulting Ltd. since September 2012. Ms. Cameron has conducted over 100 Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. These environmental assessments and remediation projects dealt with metal, hydrocarbon and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon in soil and/or groundwater. Prior to joining Stantec, Karen worked for over four years with Pinchin LeBlanc Environmental Ltd.

Education B.Sc. – Dalhousie University – Earth Sciences, 2007

Associations Atlantic Provinces Section of the American Industrial Hygiene Association

Competencies Site Visit Report Writer Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT ASSESSOR QUALIFICATIONS - Patrick Turner

Patrick Turner, B.Sc. P.Eng Project Manager

Profile

Patrick Turner, B.Sc., P.Eng., has been with Stantec for over 10 years with over twelve years total experience. Mr. Turner has conducted over 500 Phase I, II and III Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Ontario and Quebec. These environmental assessments and remediation projects dealt with metal, hydrocarbon, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, polychlorinated biphenyl and chlorinated solvent impacts in soil and/or groundwater. Prior to joining Stantec, Patrick worked for two years with NS Department of Transportation and Public Works Asset Management Group.

Education B.Sc. – Dalhousie University – Math, 1997 Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) – Technical University of Nova Scotia 1998

Associations Engineers of Nova Scotia Toast Masters International

Competencies Site Visit Report Writer Technical Report Review

* denotes projects completed with other firms One Team. Infinite Solutions. Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

Appendix D

Supporting Documentation Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

PO Box 442 Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2P8

Information Access ph: (902) 424-2549 and Privacy fax: (902) 424-6925

July 18, 2019 Our file # ENV-2019-1921/1924

Email: [email protected]

Karen Cameron Stantec 102-40 Highfield Park Drive Dartmouth NS B3K 5V3

Dear Ms. Cameron:

RE: 420 Sable Rd. Lot L3 (PID 35206515); 299 Sable Rd. Lot RL-2015A (PID 35179464); 422 Sable Rd. Lot L2 (PID 35206507); and 570 Goldboro Rd. (PID 35094366), Goldboro

I refer to your enquiry of the Environmental Registry received July 10, 2019. We acknowledge receipt of payment for 4 properties.

Enclosed is the information that was located through the Environmental Registry with regards to 299 Sable Rd. and 422 Sable Rd., Goldboro.

No information was located through the Environmental Registry with regards to the remaining above referenced properties.

An industrial file (file# 92100-30-ANT-2008-063105) containing photos, inspection reports, approval and application pertaining to 299 Sable Rd., Goldboro was located. Two water resource management files (file# 95100-30-ANT-2009-066632, 95100-30-ANT-2009-070444) containing correspondence, file activity reports, inspection reports, notes to file, photos, wetland alteration proposal, final report, and monitoring plan pertaining to 422 Sable Rd., Goldboro were also located. These records, while not in the Environmental Registry, may be relevant to your request. Should you feel you require these records, they are subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIPOP) Act. FOIPOP applications can be submitted by filling out the attached application form. Please quote the Environmental Registry number in your FOIPOP application.

Nova Scotia Environment makes no representations or warranties on the accuracy or completeness of the information provided.

Sincerely,

Tina Skeir Information Access Office Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 Application to Abandon Deep Panuke Custody Transfer Station

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Appendix C ACCDC report August 16, 2019

Appendix C ACCDC REPORT

MARITIMES AND NORTHEAST PIPELINE DEEP PANUKE CUSTODY TRANSFER STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Appendix C ACCDC report August 16, 2019

DATA REPORT 6468: Goldboro, NS

Prepared 19 July 2019 by J. Churchill, Data Manager

CONTENTS OF REPORT 1.0 Preface 1.1 Data List 1.2 Restrictions 1.3 Additional Information Map 1: Buffered Study Area 2.0 Rare and Endangered Species 2.1 Flora 2.2 Fauna Map 2: Flora and Fauna 3.0 Special Areas 3.1 Managed Areas 3.2 Significant Areas Map 3: Special Areas 4.0 Rare Species Lists 4.1 Fauna 4.2 Flora 4.3 Location Sensitive Species Map 1. A 100 km buffer around the study area 4.4 Source Bibliography 5.0 Rare Species within 100 km 5.1 Source Bibliography

1.0 PREFACE

The Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre (AC CDC; www.accdc.com) is part of a network of NatureServe data centres and heritage programs serving 50 states in the U.S.A, 10 provinces and 1 territory in Canada, plus several Central and South American countries. The NatureServe network is more than 30 years old and shares a common conservation data methodology. The AC CDC was founded in 1997, and maintains data for the jurisdictions of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Although a non-governmental agency, the AC CDC is supported by 6 federal agencies and 4 provincial governments, as well as through outside grants and data processing fees.

Upon request and for a fee, the AC CDC queries its database and produces customized reports of the rare and endangered flora and fauna known to occur in or near a specified study area. As a supplement to that data, the AC CDC includes locations of managed areas with some level of protection, and known sites of ecological interest or sensitivity.

1.1 DATA LIST Included datasets: Filename Contents GoldboroNS_6468ob.xls All Rare and legally protected Flora and Fauna in your study area GoldboroNS_6468ob100km.xls A list of Rare and legally protected Flora and Fauna within 100 km of your study area GoldboroNS_6468ma.xls All Managed Areas in your study area GoldboroNS_6468sa.xls All Significant Natural Areas in your study area GoldboroNS_6468ff.xls Rare and common Freshwater Fish in your study area (DFO database) Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 ApplicationData to Report Abandon 6468: Deep Goldboro, Panuke NS Custody Transfer Station Page 2 of 18 1.2 RESTRICTIONS The AC CDC makes a strong effort to verify the accuracy of all the data that it manages, but it shall not be held responsible for any inaccuracies in data that it provides. By accepting AC CDC data, recipients assent to the following limits of use: a) Data is restricted to use by trained personnel who are sensitive to landowner interests and to potential threats to rare and/or endangered flora and fauna posed by the information provided. b) Data is restricted to use by the specified Data User; any third party requiring data must make its own data request. c) The AC CDC requires Data Users to cease using and delete data 12 months after receipt, and to make a new request for updated data if necessary at that time. d) AC CDC data responses are restricted to the data in our Data System at the time of the data request. e) Each record has an estimate of locational uncertainty, which must be referenced in order to understand the record’s relevance to a particular location. Please see attached Data Dictionary for details. f) AC CDC data responses are not to be construed as exhaustive inventories of taxa in an area. g) The absence of a taxon cannot be inferred by its absence in an AC CDC data response.

1.3 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The accompanying Data Dictionary provides metadata for the data provided.

Please direct any additional questions about AC CDC data to the following individuals:

Plants, Lichens, Ranking Methods, All other Inquiries Sean Blaney, Senior Scientist, Executive Director Tel: (506) 364-2658 [email protected]

Animals (Fauna) Plant Communities John Klymko, Zoologist Sarah Robinson, Community Ecologist Tel: (506) 364-2660 Tel: (506) 364-2664 [email protected] [email protected]

Data Management, GIS Billing James Churchill, Data Manager Jean Breau Tel: (902) 679-6146 Tel: (506) 364-2657 [email protected] [email protected]

Questions on the biology of Federal Species at Risk can be directed to AC CDC: (506) 364-2658, with questions on Species at Risk regulations to: Samara Eaton, Canadian Wildlife Service (NB and PE): (506) 364-5060 or Julie McKnight, Canadian Wildlife Service (NS): (902) 426-4196.

For provincial information about rare taxa and protected areas, or information about game animals, deer yards, old growth forests, archeological sites, fish habitat etc., in New Brunswick, please contact Hubert Askanas, Energy and Resource Development: (506) 453-5873.

For provincial information about rare taxa and protected areas, or information about game animals, deer yards, old growth forests, archeological sites, fish habitat etc., in Nova Scotia, please contact Donna Hurlburt, NS DLF: (902) 679-6886. To determine if location-sensitive species (section 4.3) occur near your study site please contact a NS DLF Regional Biologist:

Western: Duncan Bayne Western: Sarah Spencer Central: Shavonne Meyer Central: Kimberly George (902) 648-3536 (902) 634-7555 (902) 893-6350 (902) 890-1046 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Eastern: Lisa Doucette Eastern: Terry Power (902) 863-4513 (902) 563-3370 [email protected] [email protected]

For provincial information about rare taxa and protected areas, or information about game animals, fish habitat etc., in Prince Edward Island, please contact Garry Gregory, PEI Dept. of Communities, Land and Environment: (902) 569- 7595.

Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 ApplicationData to Report Abandon 6468: Deep Goldboro, Panuke NS Custody Transfer Station Page 3 of 18 2.0 RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

2.1 FLORA The study area contains 2 records of 2 vascular, 5 records of 2 nonvascular flora (Map 2 and attached: *ob.xls).

2.2 FAUNA The study area contains 40 records of 26 vertebrate, 2 records of 2 invertebrate fauna (Map 2 and attached data files - see 1.1 Data List). Please see section 4.3 to determine if 'location-sensitive' species occur near your study site.

Map 2: Known observations of rare and/or protected flora and fauna within the study area.

Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. on behalf of Attachment 5 - Abandonment Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership Filed on August 22, 2019 ApplicationData to Report Abandon 6468: Deep Goldboro, Panuke NS Custody Transfer Station Page 4 of 18 3.0 SPECIAL AREAS

3.1 MANAGED AREAS The GIS scan identified 2 managed areas in the vicinity of the study area (Map 3 and attached file: *ma*.xls).

3.2 SIGNIFICANT AREAS The GIS scan identified 2 biologically significant sites in the vicinity of the study area (Map 3 and attached file: *sa*.xls).

Map 3: Boundaries and/or locations of known Managed and Significant Areas within the study area.

4.0 RARE SPECIES LISTS Rare and/or endangered taxa (excluding “location-sensitive” species, section 4.3) within the study area listed in order of concern, beginning with legally listed taxa, with the number of observations per taxon and the distance in kilometers from study area centroid to the closest observation (± the precision, in km, of the record). [P] = vascular plant, [N] = nonvascular plant, [A] = vertebrate animal, [I] = invertebrate animal, [C] = community. Note: records are from attached files *ob.xls/*ob.shp only.

4.1 FLORA Scientific Name Common Name COSEWIC SARA Prov Legal Prot Prov Rarity Rank Prov GS Rank # recs Distance (km) N Peltigera collina Tree Pelt Lichen S2? 3 Sensitive 2 0.9 ± 0.0 N Fuscopannaria ahlneri Corrugated Shingles Lichen S3 4 Secure 3 3.1 ± 0.0 P Sparganium hyperboreum Northern Burreed S1S2 3 Sensitive 1 1.5 ± 0.0 P Eriophorum gracile Slender Cottongrass S2S3 3 Sensitive 1 4.1 ± 1.0

4.2 FAUNA Scientific Name Common Name COSEWIC SARA Prov Legal Prot Prov Rarity Rank Prov GS Rank # recs Distance (km) A Riparia riparia Bank Swallow Threatened Threatened Endangered S2S3B 2 May Be At Risk 1 3.5 ± 7.0 A Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow Threatened Threatened Endangered S2S3B 1 At Risk 1 3.5 ± 7.0 A Cardellina canadensis Canada Warbler Threatened Threatened Endangered S3B 1 At Risk 1 3.5 ± 7.0 A Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl Special Concern Special Concern S1S2B 2 May Be At Risk 2 0.7 ± 0.0 A Chordeiles minor Common Nighthawk Special Concern Threatened Threatened S2B 1 At Risk 1 3.5 ± 7.0 A Contopus cooperi Olive-sided Flycatcher Special Concern Threatened Threatened S2B 1 At Risk 1 3.5 ± 7.0 A Coccothraustes vespertinus Evening Grosbeak Special Concern Vulnerable S3S4B,S3N 4 Secure 1 3.5 ± 7.0 A Salmo salar Atlantic Salmon S1 2 May Be At Risk 1 2.8 ± 1.0 A Asio otus Long-eared Owl S2S3 2 May Be At Risk 2 0.4 ± 0.0 A Poecile hudsonicus Boreal Chickadee S3 3 Sensitive 3 3.5 ± 7.0 A Sitta canadensis Red-breasted Nuthatch S3 4 Secure 1 3.5 ± 7.0 A Salvelinus fontinalis Brook Trout S3 3 Sensitive 1 2.8 ± 1.0 A Dumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird S3B 2 May Be At Risk 1 3.5 ± 7.0 A Cardellina pusilla Wilson's Warbler S3B 3 Sensitive 2 1.1 ± 0.0 A Tringa melanoleuca Greater Yellowlegs S3B,S3S4M 3 Sensitive 1 3.5 ± 7.0 A Somateria mollissima Common Eider S3S4 4 Secure 3 1.9 ± 0.0 A Actitis macularius Spotted Sandpiper S3S4B 3 Sensitive 2 3.5 ± 7.0 A Empidonax flaviventris Yellow-bellied Flycatcher S3S4B 3 Sensitive 2 3.5 ± 7.0 A Regulus calendula Ruby-crowned Kinglet S3S4B 3 Sensitive 3 3.5 ± 7.0 A Catharus fuscescens Veery S3S4B 4 Secure 1 3.5 ± 7.0 A Catharus ustulatus Swainson's Thrush S3S4B 4 Secure 2 3.5 ± 7.0 A Oreothlypis peregrina Tennessee Warbler S3S4B 3 Sensitive 1 3.5 ± 7.0 A Setophaga castanea Bay-breasted Warbler S3S4B 3 Sensitive 2 3.5 ± 7.0 A Setophaga striata Blackpoll Warbler S3S4B 3 Sensitive 1 3.5 ± 7.0 A Passerella iliaca Fox Sparrow S3S4B 4 Secure 1 3.5 ± 7.0 A Mergus serrator Red-breasted Merganser S3S4B,S5N 4 Secure 2 3.5 ± 7.0 I Callophrys henrici Henry's Elfin S3 4 Secure 1 0.2 ± 0.0 I Amblyscirtes vialis Common Roadside-Skipper S3S4 4 Secure 1 0.2 ± 0.0

4.3 LOCATION SENSITIVE SPECIES The Department of Natural Resources in each Maritimes province considers a number of species “location sensitive”. Concern about exploitation of location-sensitive species precludes inclusion of precise coordinates in this report. Those intersecting your study area are indicated below with “YES”.

Nova Scotia Scientific Name Common Name SARA Prov Legal Prot Known within the Study Site? Fraxinus nigra Black Ash Threatened No Emydoidea blandingii Blanding's Turtle - Nova Scotia pop. Endangered Vulnerable No Glyptemys insculpta Wood Turtle Threatened Threatened No Falco peregrinus pop. 1 Peregrine Falcon - anatum/tundrius pop. Special Concern Vulnerable No Bat Hibernaculum [Endangered]1 [Endangered]1 No

1 Myotis lucifugus (Little Brown Myotis), Myotis septentrionalis (Long-eared Myotis), and Perimyotis subflavus (Tri-colored Bat or Eastern Pipistrelle) are all Endangered under the Federal Species at Risk Act and the NS Endangered Species Act.

4.4 SOURCE BIBLIOGRAPHY The recipient of these data shall acknowledge the AC CDC and the data sources listed below in any documents, reports, publications or presentations, in which this dataset makes a significant contribution.

# recs CITATION 37 Lepage, D. 2014. Maritime Breeding Bird Atlas Database. Bird Studies Canada, Sackville NB, 407,838 recs. 3 Benjamin, L.K. (compiler). 2007. Significant Habitat & Species Database. Nova Scotia Dept Natural Resources, 8439 recs. 2 Benjamin, L.K. (compiler) 2012. Significant Habitat & Species Database. NS Dept of Natural Resources. 2 Cameron, R.P. 2011. Lichen observations, 2011. Nova Scotia Environment & Labour, 731 recs. 2 Klymko, J. 2018. Maritimes Butterfly Atlas database. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre. 2 Neily, T.H. & Pepper, C.; Toms, B. 2018. Nova Scotia lichen database [as of 2018-03]. Mersey Tobeatic Research Institute. 2 Newell, R.E. 2000. E.C. Smith Herbarium Database. Acadia University, Wolfville NS, 7139 recs. 2 Staff, DNR 2007. Restricted & Limited Use Land Database (RLUL). 1 Munro, Marian K. Nova Scotia Provincial Museum of Natural History Herbarium Database. Nova Scotia Provincial Museum of Natural History, Halifax, Nova Scotia. 2014. 1 Munro, Marian K. Tracked lichen specimens, Nova Scotia Provincial Museum of Natural History Herbarium. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre. 2019.

5.0 RARE SPECIES WITHIN 100 KM A 100 km buffer around the study area contains 17130 records of 120 vertebrate and 394 records of 42 invertebrate fauna; 3008 records of 220 vascular, 1432 records of 64 nonvascular flora (attached: *ob100km.xls).

Taxa within 100 km of the study site that are rare and/or endangered in the province in which the study site occurs (including “location-sensitive” species). All ranks correspond to the province in which the study site falls, even for out-of-province records. Taxa are listed in order of concern, beginning with legally listed taxa, with the number of observations per taxon and the distance in kilometers from study area centroid to the closest observation (± the precision, in km, of the record).

Taxonomic Group Scientific Name Common Name COSEWIC SARA Prov Legal Prot Prov Rarity Rank Prov GS Rank # recs Distance (km) Prov A Myotis lucifugus Little Brown Myotis Endangered Endangered Endangered S1 1 At Risk 42 28.0 ± 5.0 NS Atlantic Salmon - Inner Bay NS A Salmo salar pop. 1 Endangered Endangered S1 2 May Be At Risk 1 97.6 ± 0.0 of Fundy pop. A Charadrius melodus melodus Piping Plover melodus ssp Endangered Endangered Endangered S1B 1 At Risk 592 16.8 ± 7.0 NS A Sterna dougallii Roseate Tern Endangered Endangered Endangered S1B 1 At Risk 61 8.7 ± 0.0 NS A Calidris canutus rufa Red Knot rufa ssp Endangered Endangered Endangered S2M 1 At Risk 11 51.6 ± 0.0 NS A Antrostomus vociferus Eastern Whip-Poor-Will Threatened Threatened Threatened S1?B 1 At Risk 2 61.2 ± 7.0 NS A Catharus bicknelli Bicknell's Thrush Threatened Special Concern Endangered S1S2B 1 At Risk 1 76.6 ± 7.0 NS A Limosa haemastica Hudsonian Godwit Threatened S1S2M 3 Sensitive 4 57.3 ± 0.0 NS

Taxonomic Group Scientific Name Common Name COSEWIC SARA Prov Legal Prot Prov Rarity Rank Prov GS Rank # recs Distance (km) Prov A Glyptemys insculpta Wood Turtle Threatened Threatened Threatened S2 3 Sensitive 3864 23.3 ± 10.0 NS A Anguilla rostrata American Eel Threatened S2 4 Secure 1 93.6 ± 0.0 NS A Chaetura pelagica Chimney Swift Threatened Threatened Endangered S2B,S1M 1 At Risk 129 22.5 ± 7.0 NS A Riparia riparia Bank Swallow Threatened Threatened Endangered S2S3B 2 May Be At Risk 147 3.5 ± 7.0 NS A Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow Threatened Threatened Endangered S2S3B 1 At Risk 393 3.5 ± 7.0 NS A Cardellina canadensis Canada Warbler Threatened Threatened Endangered S3B 1 At Risk 364 3.5 ± 7.0 NS A Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink Threatened Threatened Vulnerable S3S4B 3 Sensitive 173 15.8 ± 7.0 NS A Sturnella magna Eastern Meadowlark Threatened Threatened SHB 3 Sensitive 2 23.9 ± 0.0 NS A Hylocichla mustelina Wood Thrush Threatened Threatened SUB 5 Undetermined 8 13.3 ± 7.0 NS Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah Sparrow princeps NS A Special Concern Special Concern S1B 3 Sensitive 2 15.8 ± 7.0 princeps ssp Peregrine Falcon - NS A Falco peregrinus pop. 1 Special Concern Special Concern Vulnerable S1B,SNAM 3 Sensitive 2 54.1 ± 7.0 anatum/tundrius Bucephala islandica (Eastern Barrow's Goldeneye - NS A Special Concern Special Concern S1N 1 At Risk 1 97.9 ± 0.0 pop.) Eastern pop. A Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl Special Concern Special Concern S1S2B 2 May Be At Risk 4 0.7 ± 0.0 NS A Euphagus carolinus Rusty Blackbird Special Concern Special Concern Endangered S2B 2 May Be At Risk 166 15.9 ± 0.0 NS A Chordeiles minor Common Nighthawk Special Concern Threatened Threatened S2B 1 At Risk 176 3.5 ± 7.0 NS A Contopus cooperi Olive-sided Flycatcher Special Concern Threatened Threatened S2B 1 At Risk 578 3.5 ± 7.0 NS Histrionicus histrionicus pop. Harlequin Duck - Eastern NS A Special Concern Special Concern Endangered S2N 1 At Risk 33 35.0 ± 2.0 1 pop. Striped Bass- Southern Gulf NS A Morone saxatilis pop. 1 Special Concern S2S3N 2 May Be At Risk 1 55.9 ± 1.0 of St Lawrence pop. A Chelydra serpentina Snapping Turtle Special Concern Special Concern Vulnerable S3 3 Sensitive 11 36.3 ± 1.0 NS A Contopus virens Eastern Wood-Pewee Special Concern Special Concern Vulnerable S3S4B 3 Sensitive 212 13.3 ± 7.0 NS A Coccothraustes vespertinus Evening Grosbeak Special Concern Vulnerable S3S4B,S3N 4 Secure 223 3.5 ± 7.0 NS A Chrysemys picta picta Eastern Painted Turtle Special Concern S4S5 4 Secure 2 47.8 ± 1.0 NS A Calidris subruficollis Buff-breasted Sandpiper Special Concern SNA 8 Accidental 1 85.5 ± 0.0 NS A Lynx canadensis Canadian Lynx Not At Risk Endangered S1 1 At Risk 6 69.7 ± 1.0 NS A Aegolius funereus Boreal Owl Not At Risk S2?B 5 Undetermined 5 34.1 ± 7.0 NS A Hemidactylium scutatum Four-toed Salamander Not At Risk S3 4 Secure 11 15.7 ± 0.0 NS A Sterna hirundo Common Tern Not At Risk S3B 3 Sensitive 315 6.9 ± 7.0 NS A Sialia sialis Eastern Bluebird Not At Risk S3B 3 Sensitive 14 13.3 ± 7.0 NS A Buteo lagopus Rough-legged Hawk Not At Risk S3N 4 Secure 2 27.7 ± 6.0 NS A Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk Not At Risk S3S4 4 Secure 48 16.8 ± 7.0 NS A Circus hudsonius Northern Harrier Not At Risk S3S4B 4 Secure 171 15.8 ± 7.0 NS A Ammospiza nelsoni Nelson's Sparrow Not At Risk S3S4B 4 Secure 69 6.9 ± 7.0 NS A Alces americanus Moose Endangered S1 1 At Risk 52 29.4 ± 0.0 NS A Salmo salar Atlantic Salmon S1 2 May Be At Risk 66 2.8 ± 1.0 NS American Three-toed NS A Picoides dorsalis S1? 5 Undetermined 4 25.2 ± 7.0 Woodpecker A Passerina cyanea Indigo Bunting S1?B 5 Undetermined 4 38.1 ± 7.0 NS A Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night-heron S1B 2 May Be At Risk 1 65.7 ± 7.0 NS A Anas acuta Northern Pintail S1B 2 May Be At Risk 2 38.1 ± 7.0 NS A Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy Duck S1B 4 Secure 2 53.1 ± 7.0 NS A Haematopus palliatus American Oystercatcher S1B 5 Undetermined 7 51.4 ± 7.0 NS A Mimus polyglottos Northern Mockingbird S1B 4 Secure 15 15.8 ± 7.0 NS A Toxostoma rufum Brown Thrasher S1B 5 Undetermined 4 50.9 ± 0.0 NS A Vireo gilvus Warbling Vireo S1B 5 Undetermined 5 56.4 ± 7.0 NS A Calidris minutilla Least Sandpiper S1B,S3M 4 Secure 47 41.8 ± 0.0 NS A Charadrius semipalmatus Semipalmated Plover S1B,S3S4M 4 Secure 97 32.2 ± 0.0 NS A Vespertilionidae sp. bat species S1S2 59 20.6 ± 0.0 NS A Pluvialis dominica American Golden-Plover S1S2M 3 Sensitive 10 57.3 ± 0.0 NS A Vireo philadelphicus Philadelphia Vireo S2?B 5 Undetermined 14 61.2 ± 7.0 NS A Mareca strepera Gadwall S2B 2 May Be At Risk 2 52.1 ± 0.0 NS A Empidonax traillii Willow Flycatcher S2B 3 Sensitive 4 38.1 ± 7.0 NS A Setophaga tigrina Cape May Warbler S2B 3 Sensitive 65 13.3 ± 7.0 NS

Taxonomic Group Scientific Name Common Name COSEWIC SARA Prov Legal Prot Prov Rarity Rank Prov GS Rank # recs Distance (km) Prov A Piranga olivacea Scarlet Tanager S2B 5 Undetermined 5 53.4 ± 7.0 NS A Pooecetes gramineus Vesper Sparrow S2B 2 May Be At Risk 5 25.2 ± 7.0 NS A Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird S2B 4 Secure 28 22.5 ± 7.0 NS A Bucephala clangula Common Goldeneye S2B,S5N 4 Secure 95 6.3 ± 12.0 NS A Branta bernicla Brant S2M 3 Sensitive 1 36.6 ± 16.0 NS A Phalacrocorax carbo Great Cormorant S2S3 3 Sensitive 82 43.8 ± 7.0 NS A Asio otus Long-eared Owl S2S3 2 May Be At Risk 23 0.4 ± 0.0 NS A Spinus pinus Pine Siskin S2S3 3 Sensitive 199 6.9 ± 7.0 NS A Rallus limicola Virginia Rail S2S3B 5 Undetermined 7 41.5 ± 7.0 NS A Tringa semipalmata Willet S2S3B 2 May Be At Risk 352 6.7 ± 0.0 NS A Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow S2S3B 2 May Be At Risk 87 15.8 ± 7.0 NS A Pheucticus ludovicianus Rose-breasted Grosbeak S2S3B 3 Sensitive 155 6.9 ± 7.0 NS A Icterus galbula Baltimore Oriole S2S3B 2 May Be At Risk 19 39.5 ± 7.0 NS A Pinicola enucleator Pine Grosbeak S2S3B,S5N 2 May Be At Risk 74 13.3 ± 7.0 NS Numenius phaeopus NS A hudsonicus Hudsonian Whimbrel S2S3M 3 Sensitive 24 57.3 ± 0.0 A Calidris melanotos Pectoral Sandpiper S2S3M 4 Secure 11 61.9 ± 0.0 NS A Perisoreus canadensis Canada Jay S3 3 Sensitive 319 6.9 ± 7.0 NS A Poecile hudsonicus Boreal Chickadee S3 3 Sensitive 591 3.5 ± 7.0 NS A Sitta canadensis Red-breasted Nuthatch S3 4 Secure 403 3.5 ± 7.0 NS A Alosa pseudoharengus Alewife S3 3 Sensitive 18 18.6 ± 1.0 NS A Salvelinus fontinalis Brook Trout S3 3 Sensitive 34 2.8 ± 1.0 NS A Salvelinus namaycush Lake Trout S3 3 Sensitive 1 82.2 ± 0.0 NS A Calidris maritima Purple Sandpiper S3?N 3 Sensitive 25 14.9 ± 13.0 NS A Calcarius lapponicus Lapland Longspur S3?N 4 Secure 1 79.9 ± 0.0 NS A Falco sparverius American Kestrel S3B 4 Secure 207 13.3 ± 7.0 NS A Charadrius vociferus Killdeer S3B 3 Sensitive 134 15.8 ± 7.0 NS A Gallinago delicata Wilson's Snipe S3B 3 Sensitive 223 6.9 ± 7.0 NS A Sterna paradisaea Arctic Tern S3B 2 May Be At Risk 84 6.9 ± 7.0 NS A Coccyzus erythropthalmus Black-billed Cuckoo S3B 2 May Be At Risk 41 24.8 ± 7.0 NS A Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern Kingbird S3B 3 Sensitive 66 15.8 ± 7.0 NS A Dumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird S3B 2 May Be At Risk 157 3.5 ± 7.0 NS A Cardellina pusilla Wilson's Warbler S3B 3 Sensitive 58 1.1 ± 0.0 NS A Tringa melanoleuca Greater Yellowlegs S3B,S3S4M 3 Sensitive 169 3.5 ± 7.0 NS A Oceanodroma leucorhoa Leach's Storm-Petrel S3B,S5M 4 Secure 58 10.5 ± 0.0 NS A Fratercula arctica Atlantic Puffin S3B,S5N 3 Sensitive 2 60.4 ± 7.0 NS A Pluvialis squatarola Black-bellied Plover S3M 4 Secure 73 39.1 ± 0.0 NS A Tringa flavipes Lesser Yellowlegs S3M 4 Secure 98 44.2 ± 0.0 NS A Arenaria interpres Ruddy Turnstone S3M 4 Secure 42 32.2 ± 0.0 NS A Calidris pusilla Semipalmated Sandpiper S3M 3 Sensitive 76 51.6 ± 0.0 NS A Calidris fuscicollis White-rumped Sandpiper S3M 4 Secure 17 61.9 ± 0.0 NS A Limnodromus griseus Short-billed Dowitcher S3M 4 Secure 26 61.9 ± 0.0 NS A Calidris alba Sanderling S3M,S2N 4 Secure 29 55.6 ± 0.0 NS A Somateria mollissima Common Eider S3S4 4 Secure 501 1.9 ± 0.0 NS A Picoides arcticus Black-backed Woodpecker S3S4 3 Sensitive 85 6.9 ± 7.0 NS A Loxia curvirostra Red Crossbill S3S4 4 Secure 52 16.8 ± 7.0 NS A Botaurus lentiginosus American Bittern S3S4B 3 Sensitive 140 20.9 ± 0.0 NS A Spatula discors Blue-winged Teal S3S4B 2 May Be At Risk 61 21.6 ± 7.0 NS A Actitis macularius Spotted Sandpiper S3S4B 3 Sensitive 390 3.5 ± 7.0 NS A Empidonax flaviventris Yellow-bellied Flycatcher S3S4B 3 Sensitive 489 3.5 ± 7.0 NS A Regulus calendula Ruby-crowned Kinglet S3S4B 3 Sensitive 1135 3.5 ± 7.0 NS A Catharus fuscescens Veery S3S4B 4 Secure 197 3.5 ± 7.0 NS A Catharus ustulatus Swainson's Thrush S3S4B 4 Secure 888 3.5 ± 7.0 NS A Oreothlypis peregrina Tennessee Warbler S3S4B 3 Sensitive 150 3.5 ± 7.0 NS A Setophaga castanea Bay-breasted Warbler S3S4B 3 Sensitive 302 3.5 ± 7.0 NS A Setophaga striata Blackpoll Warbler S3S4B 3 Sensitive 83 3.5 ± 7.0 NS A Passerella iliaca Fox Sparrow S3S4B 4 Secure 82 3.5 ± 7.0 NS

Taxonomic Group Scientific Name Common Name COSEWIC SARA Prov Legal Prot Prov Rarity Rank Prov GS Rank # recs Distance (km) Prov A Mergus serrator Red-breasted Merganser S3S4B,S5N 4 Secure 100 3.5 ± 7.0 NS A Bucephala albeola Bufflehead S3S4N 4 Secure 30 6.3 ± 12.0 NS A Progne subis Purple Martin SHB 2 May Be At Risk 3 33.4 ± 0.0 NS A Eremophila alpestris Horned Lark SHB,S4S5N 4 Secure 1 82.8 ± 7.0 NS A Morus bassanus Northern Gannet SHB,S5M 4 Secure 14 55.2 ± 16.0 NS I Danaus plexippus Monarch Endangered Special Concern Endangered S2B 3 Sensitive 20 11.5 ± 0.0 NS I Alasmidonta varicosa Brook Floater Special Concern Threatened S1S2 3 Sensitive 8 23.1 ± 0.0 NS I Neurocordulia michaeli Broadtailed Shadowdragon S1 26 28.1 ± 0.0 NS I Lycaena dorcas Dorcas Copper S1? 6 Not Assessed 18 83.1 ± 0.0 NS I Strymon melinus Grey Hairstreak S1S2 4 Secure 2 72.2 ± 1.0 NS I Nymphalis l-album Compton Tortoiseshell S1S2 4 Secure 1 92.4 ± 2.0 NS I Haematopota rara Shy Cleg S1S3 5 Undetermined 1 85.7 ± 0.0 NS I Lycaena hyllus Bronze Copper S2 4 Secure 1 38.7 ± 0.0 NS I Lycaena dospassosi Salt Marsh Copper S2 1 At Risk 1 99.5 ± 0.0 NS I Satyrium calanus Banded Hairstreak S2 5 Undetermined 1 92.1 ± 2.0 NS I Aglais milberti Milbert's Tortoiseshell S2 4 Secure 1 92.4 ± 2.0 NS I Margaritifera margaritifera Eastern Pearlshell S2 3 Sensitive 58 22.2 ± 0.0 NS I Pantala hymenaea Spot-Winged Glider S2?B 3 Sensitive 1 37.2 ± 1.0 NS I Thorybes pylades Northern Cloudywing S2S3 3 Sensitive 18 38.3 ± 0.0 NS I Amblyscirtes hegon Pepper and Salt Skipper S2S3 4 Secure 5 33.5 ± 0.0 NS I Satyrium liparops Striped Hairstreak S2S3 5 Undetermined 3 91.3 ± 1.0 NS I Euphydryas phaeton Baltimore Checkerspot S2S3 4 Secure 23 26.7 ± 0.0 NS I Gomphus descriptus Harpoon Clubtail S2S3 3 Sensitive 16 70.9 ± 0.0 NS I Ophiogomphus aspersus Brook Snaketail S2S3 2 May Be At Risk 5 70.9 ± 0.0 NS I Ophiogomphus mainensis Maine Snaketail S2S3 2 May Be At Risk 14 55.6 ± 0.0 NS I Ophiogomphus rupinsulensis Rusty Snaketail S2S3 2 May Be At Risk 36 28.0 ± 0.0 NS I Alasmidonta undulata Triangle Floater S2S3 4 Secure 5 36.5 ± 0.0 NS I Iphthiminus opacus a Darkling Beetle S3 1 87.7 ± 0.0 NS I Callophrys henrici Henry's Elfin S3 4 Secure 2 0.2 ± 0.0 NS I Callophrys lanoraieensis Bog Elfin S3 2 May Be At Risk 1 73.3 ± 1.0 NS I Speyeria aphrodite Aphrodite Fritillary S3 4 Secure 4 47.4 ± 100.0 NS I Polygonia faunus Green Comma S3 4 Secure 7 38.7 ± 0.0 NS I Oeneis jutta Jutta Arctic S3 2 May Be At Risk 4 41.9 ± 0.0 NS I Aeshna clepsydra Mottled Darner S3 4 Secure 3 46.0 ± 1.0 NS I Boyeria grafiana Ocellated Darner S3 3 Sensitive 7 28.0 ± 0.0 NS I Gomphaeschna furcillata Harlequin Darner S3 3 Sensitive 3 58.5 ± 0.0 NS I Nannothemis bella Elfin Skimmer S3 4 Secure 3 58.5 ± 0.0 NS I Sympetrum danae Black Meadowhawk S3 3 Sensitive 8 6.8 ± 0.0 NS I Enallagma vernale Vernal Bluet S3 5 Undetermined 4 66.2 ± 0.0 NS I Amphiagrion saucium Eastern Red Damsel S3 4 Secure 4 87.1 ± 0.0 NS I Cupido comyntas Eastern Tailed Blue S3? 1 72.3 ± 0.0 NS I Polygonia interrogationis Question Mark S3B 4 Secure 17 16.4 ± 0.0 NS I Erynnis juvenalis Juvenal's Duskywing S3S4 4 Secure 1 53.8 ± 1.0 NS I Amblyscirtes vialis Common Roadside-Skipper S3S4 4 Secure 15 0.2 ± 0.0 NS I Polygonia progne Grey Comma S3S4 4 Secure 19 36.7 ± 0.0 NS I Lanthus parvulus Northern Pygmy Clubtail S3S4 4 Secure 10 29.7 ± 0.0 NS I Lampsilis radiata Eastern Lampmussel S3S4 3 Sensitive 16 30.9 ± 0.0 NS Erioderma pedicellatum Boreal Felt Lichen - Atlantic NS N Endangered Endangered Endangered S1 1 At Risk 472 7.0 ± 0.0 (Atlantic pop.) pop. N Erioderma mollissimum Graceful Felt Lichen Endangered Endangered S1S2 2 May Be At Risk 12 45.3 ± 0.0 NS N Peltigera hydrothyria Eastern Waterfan Threatened Threatened S1 2 May Be At Risk 2 51.3 ± 0.0 NS N Pannaria lurida Wrinkled Shingle Lichen Threatened Threatened S1S2 2 May Be At Risk 1 98.4 ± 0.0 NS N Fuscopannaria leucosticta Rimmed Shingles Lichen Threatened S2S3 2 May Be At Risk 4 68.1 ± 0.0 NS N Anzia colpodes Black-foam Lichen Threatened Threatened S3 3 Sensitive 1 51.5 ± 0.0 NS Sclerophora peronella (Nova Frosted Glass-whiskers NS N Special Concern Special Concern S1? 11 46.4 ± 0.0 Scotia pop.) Lichen - Nova Scotia pop. N Pectenia plumbea Blue Felt Lichen Special Concern Special Concern Vulnerable S3 4 Secure 95 5.5 ± 0.0 NS

Taxonomic Group Scientific Name Common Name COSEWIC SARA Prov Legal Prot Prov Rarity Rank Prov GS Rank # recs Distance (km) Prov N Fissidens exilis Pygmy Pocket Moss Not At Risk S1S2 1 At Risk 3 44.9 ± 0.0 NS N Pseudevernia cladonia Ghost Antler Lichen Not At Risk S2S3 3 Sensitive 4 13.2 ± 0.0 NS N Cladonia brevis Short Peg Lichen S1 1 85.9 ± 0.0 NS N Oligotrichum hercynicum Hercynian Hair Moss S1? 5 Undetermined 1 98.5 ± 0.0 NS N Lichina confinis Marine Seaweed Lichen S1? 6 Not Assessed 2 88.9 ± 2.0 NS Eyed Mossthorns Woollybear NS N Polychidium muscicola S1? 2 May Be At Risk 1 45.4 ± 0.0 Lichen N Parmeliella parvula Poor-man's Shingles Lichen S1? 2 May Be At Risk 2 9.3 ± 0.0 NS N Plagiochila asplenioides Greater Featherwort S1S2 5 Undetermined 1 55.4 ± 0.0 NS N Sphagnum platyphyllum Flat-leaved Peat Moss S1S2 2 83.5 ± 0.0 NS N Cyrto-hypnum minutulum Tiny Cedar Moss S1S2 3 Sensitive 1 78.0 ± 0.0 NS N Hamatocaulis vernicosus a Moss S1S2 3 Sensitive 1 93.0 ± 0.0 NS N Barbilophozia lycopodioides Greater Pawwort S1S3 5 Undetermined 1 99.5 ± 0.0 NS N Peltigera neckeri Black-saddle Pelt Lichen S1S3 5 Undetermined 1 55.6 ± 0.0 NS N Atrichum angustatum Lesser Smoothcap Moss S2? 3 Sensitive 1 57.6 ± 3.0 NS N Campylium polygamum a Moss S2? 5 Undetermined 2 52.7 ± 0.0 NS N Campylium radicale Long-stalked Fine Wet Moss S2? 5 Undetermined 1 85.4 ± 0.0 NS N Platydictya jungermannioides False Willow Moss S2? 3 Sensitive 2 61.8 ± 0.0 NS N Pohlia sphagnicola a moss S2? 1 35.9 ± 0.0 NS N Scorpidium scorpioides Hooked Scorpion Moss S2? 3 Sensitive 2 83.8 ± 0.0 NS Toothed-leaved Nitrogen NS N Tetraplodon angustatus S2? 3 Sensitive 2 43.0 ± 0.0 Moss N Leptogium teretiusculum Beaded Jellyskin Lichen S2? 3 Sensitive 1 84.1 ± 0.0 NS N Cladonia labradorica Labrador Lichen S2? 5 Undetermined 1 13.7 ± 0.0 NS N Peltigera collina Tree Pelt Lichen S2? 3 Sensitive 16 0.9 ± 0.0 NS N Tetraplodon mnioides Entire-leaved Nitrogen Moss S2S3 4 Secure 1 51.2 ± 0.0 NS N Limprichtia revolvens a Moss S2S3 3 Sensitive 5 83.1 ± 0.0 NS N Solorina saccata Woodland Owl Lichen S2S3 2 May Be At Risk 1 55.4 ± 0.0 NS N Cetraria muricata Spiny Heath Lichen S2S3 5 Undetermined 2 5.4 ± 1.0 NS Powder-foot British Soldiers NS N Cladonia incrassata S2S3 5 Undetermined 1 51.3 ± 0.0 Lichen N Leptogium tenuissimum Birdnest Jellyskin Lichen S2S3 6 Not Assessed 1 7.8 ± 0.0 NS N Usnea mutabilis Bloody Beard Lichen S2S3 3 Sensitive 1 84.7 ± 0.0 NS Eastern Boreal Pixie-cup NS N Cladonia coccifera S2S3 3 Sensitive 1 79.0 ± 1.0 Lichen N Collema nigrescens Blistered Tarpaper Lichen S3 3 Sensitive 3 59.8 ± 0.0 NS N Sticta fuliginosa Peppered Moon Lichen S3 3 Sensitive 10 33.2 ± 0.0 NS N Leptogium subtile Appressed Jellyskin Lichen S3 3 Sensitive 1 65.9 ± 0.0 NS N Fuscopannaria ahlneri Corrugated Shingles Lichen S3 4 Secure 30 3.1 ± 0.0 NS N Heterodermia speciosa Powdered Fringe Lichen S3 4 Secure 4 32.5 ± 0.0 NS N Leptogium corticola Blistered Jellyskin Lichen S3 3 Sensitive 20 46.4 ± 0.0 NS N Nephroma bellum Naked Kidney Lichen S3 3 Sensitive 1 92.8 ± 1.0 NS N Placynthium nigrum Common Ink Lichen S3 5 Undetermined 1 61.7 ± 10.0 NS Blue-gray Moss Shingle NS N Moelleropsis nebulosa S3 4 Secure 27 7.0 ± 0.0 Lichen N Anomodon tristis a Moss S3? 3 Sensitive 1 55.9 ± 0.0 NS Pompom-tipped Shadow NS N Phaeophyscia pusilloides S3? 5 Undetermined 1 93.8 ± 0.0 Lichen Black-footed Reindeer NS N Cladina stygia S3? 3 Sensitive 2 44.9 ± 0.0 Lichen N Dicranella varia a Moss S3S4 5 Undetermined 2 84.4 ± 0.0 NS N Encalypta procera Slender Extinguisher Moss S3S4 4 Secure 3 59.0 ± 0.0 NS N Splachnum ampullaceum Cruet Dung Moss S3S4 4 Secure 2 67.1 ± 0.0 NS N Schistidium agassizii Elf Bloom Moss S3S4 4 Secure 1 28.0 ± 3.0 NS N Hypogymnia vittata Slender Monk's Hood Lichen S3S4 4 Secure 71 13.6 ± 0.0 NS N Leptogium acadiense Acadian Jellyskin Lichen S3S4 1 84.1 ± 0.0 NS N Physconia detersa Bottlebrush Frost Lichen S3S4 3 Sensitive 1 51.5 ± 0.0 NS

Taxonomic Group Scientific Name Common Name COSEWIC SARA Prov Legal Prot Prov Rarity Rank Prov GS Rank # recs Distance (km) Prov N Coccocarpia palmicola Salted Shell Lichen S3S4 4 Secure 554 5.5 ± 0.0 NS N Physcia tenella Fringed Rosette Lichen S3S4 6 Not Assessed 1 45.6 ± 3.0 NS N Anaptychia palmulata Shaggy Fringed Lichen S3S4 4 Secure 14 13.2 ± 0.0 NS N Evernia prunastri Valley Oakmoss Lichen S3S4 3 Sensitive 1 64.0 ± 0.0 NS Brookside Stippleback NS N Dermatocarpon luridum S3S4 4 Secure 4 16.6 ± 8.0 Lichen N Heterodermia neglecta Fringe Lichen S3S4 4 Secure 15 16.8 ± 0.0 NS Bartonia paniculata ssp. NS P paniculata Branched Bartonia Threatened Threatened SNA 1 93.2 ± 10.0 P Juncus caesariensis New Jersey Rush Special Concern Special Concern Vulnerable S2 3 Sensitive 71 83.8 ± 0.0 NS P Floerkea proserpinacoides False Mermaidweed Not At Risk S2 3 Sensitive 9 46.8 ± 1.0 NS P Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar Vulnerable S1 1 At Risk 2 10.3 ± 0.0 NS P Sanicula odorata Clustered Sanicle S1 2 May Be At Risk 1 97.3 ± 0.0 NS P Zizia aurea Golden Alexanders S1 2 May Be At Risk 14 34.8 ± 0.0 NS P Arnica lonchophylla Northern Arnica S1 2 May Be At Risk 1 69.5 ± 7.0 NS P Bidens hyperborea Estuary Beggarticks S1 2 May Be At Risk 1 57.3 ± 1.0 NS P Ageratina altissima White Snakeroot S1 2 May Be At Risk 2 56.4 ± 7.0 NS P Cardamine dentata Toothed Bittercress S1 2 May Be At Risk 1 82.5 ± 0.0 NS P Cochlearia tridactylites Limestone Scurvy-grass S1 2 May Be At Risk 12 27.6 ± 0.0 NS P Stellaria crassifolia Fleshy Stitchwort S1 2 May Be At Risk 1 90.4 ± 2.0 NS P Hudsonia tomentosa Woolly Beach-heath S1 2 May Be At Risk 6 54.2 ± 1.0 NS P Desmodium canadense Canada Tick-trefoil S1 2 May Be At Risk 10 90.2 ± 0.0 NS P Bistorta vivipara Alpine Bistort S1 2 May Be At Risk 1 78.1 ± 1.0 NS P Montia fontana Water Blinks S1 2 May Be At Risk 2 52.8 ± 3.0 NS Agalinis purpurea var. Small-flowered Purple False NS P S1 2 85.1 ± 0.0 parviflora Foxglove P Scrophularia lanceolata Lance-leaved Figwort S1 5 Undetermined 1 29.7 ± 1.0 NS P Pilea pumila Dwarf Clearweed S1 2 May Be At Risk 1 77.0 ± 6.0 NS P Carex alopecoidea Foxtail Sedge S1 2 May Be At Risk 2 52.6 ± 0.0 NS P Carex granularis Limestone Meadow Sedge S1 2 May Be At Risk 2 85.5 ± 0.0 NS P Carex gynocrates Northern Bog Sedge S1 2 May Be At Risk 11 86.0 ± 0.0 NS P Carex haydenii Hayden's Sedge S1 2 May Be At Risk 2 64.7 ± 5.0 NS P Carex pellita Woolly Sedge S1 2 May Be At Risk 7 90.3 ± 0.0 NS P Carex plantaginea Plantain-Leaved Sedge S1 2 May Be At Risk 2 98.3 ± 0.0 NS P Carex tenuiflora Sparse-Flowered Sedge S1 2 May Be At Risk 3 19.5 ± 1.0 NS P Carex tincta Tinged Sedge S1 2 May Be At Risk 1 52.6 ± 1.0 NS Carex viridula var. NS P saxilittoralis Greenish Sedge S1 2 May Be At Risk 4 90.6 ± 0.0 P Carex viridula var. elatior Greenish Sedge S1 2 May Be At Risk 17 87.1 ± 0.0 NS Inflated Narrow-leaved NS P Carex grisea S1 2 May Be At Risk 6 52.2 ± 0.0 Sedge P Cyperus lupulinus Hop Flatsedge S1 2 May Be At Risk 5 53.6 ± 0.0 NS Cyperus lupulinus ssp. NS P macilentus Hop Flatsedge S1 2 May Be At Risk 10 54.2 ± 1.0 P Eleocharis erythropoda Red-stemmed Spikerush S1 2 May Be At Risk 1 94.1 ± 0.0 NS P Iris prismatica Slender Blue Flag S1 2 May Be At Risk 2 35.1 ± 7.0 NS Malaxis monophyllos var. North American White NS P S1 2 May Be At Risk 1 42.0 ± 7.0 brachypoda Adder's-mouth P Bromus latiglumis Broad-Glumed Brome S1 2 May Be At Risk 13 62.9 ± 0.0 NS P Elymus wiegandii Wiegand's Wild Rye S1 2 May Be At Risk 6 66.0 ± 0.0 NS P Elymus hystrix Spreading Wild Rye S1 2 May Be At Risk 1 80.6 ± 1.0 NS P Potamogeton nodosus Long-leaved Pondweed S1 2 May Be At Risk 1 35.6 ± 5.0 NS P Sparganium androcladum Branching Bur-Reed S1 2 May Be At Risk 1 51.7 ± 1.0 NS P Equisetum palustre Marsh Horsetail S1 2 May Be At Risk 8 97.0 ± 0.0 NS P Solidago hispida Hairy Goldenrod S1? 2 May Be At Risk 1 73.2 ± 7.0 NS P Dichanthelium lindheimeri Lindheimer's Panicgrass S1? 5 Undetermined 1 88.7 ± 0.0 NS P Fraxinus nigra Black Ash Threatened S1S2 1 At Risk 64 37.2 ± 0.0 NS

Taxonomic Group Scientific Name Common Name COSEWIC SARA Prov Legal Prot Prov Rarity Rank Prov GS Rank # recs Distance (km) Prov P Rudbeckia laciniata Cut-Leaved Coneflower S1S2 2 May Be At Risk 2 38.9 ± 0.0 NS P Cornus suecica Swedish Bunchberry S1S2 3 Sensitive 1 53.8 ± 6.0 NS P Anemone virginiana var. alba Virginia Anemone S1S2 3 Sensitive 3 97.8 ± 0.0 NS Small-flowered Grass-of- NS P Parnassia parviflora S1S2 2 May Be At Risk 1 77.5 ± 1.0 Parnassus P Carex livida Livid Sedge S1S2 2 May Be At Risk 22 78.5 ± 5.0 NS P Juncus greenei Greene's Rush S1S2 2 May Be At Risk 1 54.2 ± 1.0 NS Juncus alpinoarticulatus ssp. NS P americanus S1S2 2 May Be At Risk 8 51.3 ± 5.0 P Platanthera huronensis Fragrant Green Orchid S1S2 5 Undetermined 2 59.9 ± 10.0 NS P Cinna arundinacea Sweet Wood Reed Grass S1S2 2 May Be At Risk 24 62.8 ± 0.0 NS P Sparganium hyperboreum Northern Burreed S1S2 3 Sensitive 2 1.5 ± 0.0 NS P Cryptogramma stelleri Steller's Rockbrake S1S2 2 May Be At Risk 13 98.9 ± 0.0 NS P Selaginella selaginoides Low Spikemoss S1S2 2 May Be At Risk 2 82.0 ± 0.0 NS P Carex vacillans Estuarine Sedge S1S3 5 Undetermined 3 52.6 ± 0.0 NS P Osmorhiza longistylis Smooth Sweet Cicely S2 2 May Be At Risk 15 43.7 ± 0.0 NS P Erigeron philadelphicus Philadelphia Fleabane S2 3 Sensitive 2 61.2 ± 7.0 NS P Symphyotrichum ciliolatum Fringed Blue Aster S2 3 Sensitive 2 39.5 ± 7.0 NS P Impatiens pallida Pale Jewelweed S2 3 Sensitive 6 31.6 ± 7.0 NS P Caulophyllum thalictroides Blue Cohosh S2 2 May Be At Risk 31 43.6 ± 0.0 NS P Cardamine parviflora Small-flowered Bittercress S2 3 Sensitive 2 94.6 ± 0.0 NS P Draba arabisans Rock Whitlow-Grass S2 3 Sensitive 3 99.8 ± 1.0 NS P Lobelia kalmii Brook Lobelia S2 2 May Be At Risk 70 78.7 ± 0.0 NS P Stellaria humifusa Saltmarsh Starwort S2 3 Sensitive 4 35.7 ± 0.0 NS P Stellaria longifolia Long-leaved Starwort S2 3 Sensitive 1 66.4 ± 0.0 NS P Oxybasis rubra Red Goosefoot S2 2 May Be At Risk 4 65.7 ± 7.0 NS P Crassula aquatica Water Pygmyweed S2 3 Sensitive 2 76.6 ± 7.0 NS P Myriophyllum farwellii Farwell's Water Milfoil S2 3 Sensitive 4 25.8 ± 0.0 NS P Utricularia resupinata Inverted Bladderwort S2 3 Sensitive 1 99.9 ± 0.0 NS P Persicaria arifolia Halberd-leaved Tearthumb S2 3 Sensitive 5 54.2 ± 0.0 NS P Rumex triangulivalvis Triangular-valve Dock S2 3 Sensitive 4 62.5 ± 6.0 NS P Anemonastrum canadense Canada Anemone S2 2 May Be At Risk 2 56.1 ± 3.0 NS P Anemone quinquefolia Wood Anemone S2 3 Sensitive 3 28.3 ± 0.0 NS P Anemone virginiana Virginia Anemone S2 3 Sensitive 24 53.1 ± 0.0 NS P Caltha palustris Yellow Marsh Marigold S2 3 Sensitive 1 84.1 ± 0.0 NS P Galium labradoricum Labrador Bedstraw S2 3 Sensitive 28 82.8 ± 0.0 NS P Salix pedicellaris Bog Willow S2 3 Sensitive 6 84.2 ± 0.0 NS P Comandra umbellata Bastard's Toadflax S2 2 May Be At Risk 22 53.4 ± 0.0 NS Saxifraga paniculata ssp. NS P laestadii Laestadius' Saxifrage S2 3 Sensitive 1 95.2 ± 7.0 P Tiarella cordifolia Heart-leaved Foamflower S2 3 Sensitive 1 85.9 ± 7.0 NS P Viola nephrophylla Northern Bog Violet S2 3 Sensitive 6 67.7 ± 0.0 NS P Carex bebbii Bebb's Sedge S2 3 Sensitive 6 47.5 ± 10.0 NS P Carex castanea Chestnut Sedge S2 2 May Be At Risk 15 82.4 ± 0.0 NS P Carex hystericina Porcupine Sedge S2 2 May Be At Risk 29 53.0 ± 0.0 NS P Carex tenera Tender Sedge S2 3 Sensitive 3 51.7 ± 3.0 NS P Carex atratiformis Scabrous Black Sedge S2 3 Sensitive 1 98.5 ± 7.0 NS P Eleocharis quinqueflora Few-flowered Spikerush S2 3 Sensitive 10 86.3 ± 0.0 NS Juncus stygius ssp. NS P americanus Moor Rush S2 3 Sensitive 27 81.9 ± 1.0 Allium schoenoprasum var. NS P sibiricum Wild Chives S2 2 May Be At Risk 1 62.5 ± 7.0 P Lilium canadense Canada Lily S2 2 May Be At Risk 40 28.0 ± 2.0 NS Cypripedium parviflorum var. NS P pubescens Yellow Lady's-slipper S2 3 Sensitive 6 52.8 ± 0.0 P Cypripedium reginae Showy Lady's-Slipper S2 2 May Be At Risk 125 55.6 ± 0.0 NS P Spiranthes lucida Shining Ladies'-Tresses S2 2 May Be At Risk 29 89.6 ± 0.0 NS

Taxonomic Group Scientific Name Common Name COSEWIC SARA Prov Legal Prot Prov Rarity Rank Prov GS Rank # recs Distance (km) Prov P Dichanthelium linearifolium Narrow-leaved Panic Grass S2 3 Sensitive 1 93.0 ± 7.0 NS P Potamogeton friesii Fries' Pondweed S2 2 May Be At Risk 3 67.0 ± 0.0 NS P Potamogeton richardsonii Richardson's Pondweed S2 2 May Be At Risk 4 35.4 ± 0.0 NS P Cystopteris laurentiana Laurentian Bladder Fern S2 2 May Be At Risk 3 98.5 ± 10.0 NS P Dryopteris fragrans Fragrant Wood Fern S2 3 Sensitive 1 44.7 ± 7.0 NS P Polystichum lonchitis Northern Holly Fern S2 3 Sensitive 5 80.5 ± 5.0 NS P Woodsia glabella Smooth Cliff Fern S2 3 Sensitive 1 98.5 ± 7.0 NS P Symphyotrichum boreale Boreal Aster S2? 3 Sensitive 41 84.6 ± 0.0 NS P Cuscuta cephalanthi Buttonbush Dodder S2? 5 Undetermined 4 53.1 ± 7.0 NS P Epilobium coloratum Purple-veined Willowherb S2? 3 Sensitive 3 59.2 ± 0.0 NS P Crataegus submollis Quebec Hawthorn S2? 5 Undetermined 2 67.2 ± 7.0 NS P Eleocharis ovata Ovate Spikerush S2? 3 Sensitive 1 19.8 ± 0.0 NS P Scirpus pedicellatus Stalked Bulrush S2? 3 Sensitive 3 63.4 ± 0.0 NS P Senecio pseudoarnica Seabeach Ragwort S2S3 3 Sensitive 17 10.7 ± 0.0 NS P Betula michauxii Michaux's Dwarf Birch S2S3 3 Sensitive 11 8.0 ± 0.0 NS P Sagina nodosa Knotted Pearlwort S2S3 4 Secure 7 35.9 ± 1.0 NS P Sagina nodosa ssp. borealis Knotted Pearlwort S2S3 4 Secure 2 89.3 ± 0.0 NS P Hypericum x dissimulatum Disguised St. John's-wort S2S3 3 Sensitive 1 22.0 ± 1.0 NS Orange-fruited Tinker's NS P Triosteum aurantiacum S2S3 3 Sensitive 130 43.5 ± 0.0 Weed P Shepherdia canadensis Soapberry S2S3 3 Sensitive 3 96.6 ± 0.0 NS P Empetrum atropurpureum Purple Crowberry S2S3 3 Sensitive 1 52.2 ± 3.0 NS P Euphorbia polygonifolia Seaside Spurge S2S3 3 Sensitive 10 53.7 ± 0.0 NS P Halenia deflexa Spurred Gentian S2S3 3 Sensitive 23 29.8 ± 1.0 NS P Hedeoma pulegioides American False Pennyroyal S2S3 3 Sensitive 2 76.3 ± 5.0 NS Polygonum aviculare ssp. NS P buxiforme Box Knotweed S2S3 5 Undetermined 1 92.8 ± 0.0 Polygonum oxyspermum ssp. NS P raii Ray's Knotweed S2S3 5 Undetermined 4 23.8 ± 1.0 P Amelanchier fernaldii Fernald's Serviceberry S2S3 5 Undetermined 1 20.8 ± 1.0 NS P Potentilla canadensis Canada Cinquefoil S2S3 3 Sensitive 1 53.3 ± 2.0 NS P Galium aparine Common Bedstraw S2S3 3 Sensitive 15 52.8 ± 0.0 NS P Salix pellita Satiny Willow S2S3 3 Sensitive 1 49.0 ± 1.0 NS P Carex adusta Lesser Brown Sedge S2S3 3 Sensitive 1 41.3 ± 5.0 NS P Carex hirtifolia Pubescent Sedge S2S3 3 Sensitive 21 43.6 ± 0.0 NS Eleocharis flavescens var. NS P olivacea Bright-green Spikerush S2S3 3 Sensitive 3 47.6 ± 0.0 P Eriophorum gracile Slender Cottongrass S2S3 3 Sensitive 8 4.1 ± 1.0 NS P Cypripedium parviflorum Yellow Lady's-slipper S2S3 3 Sensitive 52 53.1 ± 0.0 NS P Poa glauca Glaucous Blue Grass S2S3 3 Sensitive 8 98.9 ± 0.0 NS P Stuckenia filiformis Thread-leaved Pondweed S2S3 3 Sensitive 8 62.5 ± 0.0 NS Botrychium lanceolatum ssp. NS P angustisegmentum Narrow Triangle Moonwort S2S3 3 Sensitive 5 82.0 ± 0.0 P Botrychium simplex Least Moonwort S2S3 3 Sensitive 3 78.4 ± 1.0 NS P Angelica atropurpurea Purple-stemmed Angelica S3 4 Secure 10 61.9 ± 0.0 NS P Erigeron hyssopifolius Hyssop-leaved Fleabane S3 3 Sensitive 9 53.1 ± 0.0 NS P Bidens beckii Water Beggarticks S3 4 Secure 6 46.9 ± 0.0 NS Packera paupercula var. NS P paupercula Balsam Groundsel S3 4 Secure 1 58.9 ± 0.0 P Packera paupercula Balsam Groundsel S3 4 Secure 45 53.1 ± 0.0 NS P Betula pumila Bog Birch S3 3 Sensitive 1 84.8 ± 0.0 NS P Campanula aparinoides Marsh Bellflower S3 3 Sensitive 8 36.9 ± 0.0 NS P Vaccinium boreale Northern Blueberry S3 3 Sensitive 5 20.8 ± 1.0 NS P Vaccinium cespitosum dwarf bilberry S3 4 Secure 35 28.0 ± 0.0 NS P Bartonia virginica Yellow Bartonia S3 4 Secure 1 79.5 ± 0.0 NS P Proserpinaca palustris Marsh Mermaidweed S3 4 Secure 26 55.4 ± 0.0 NS P Proserpinaca pectinata Comb-leaved Mermaidweed S3 4 Secure 2 89.1 ± 1.0 NS

Taxonomic Group Scientific Name Common Name COSEWIC SARA Prov Legal Prot Prov Rarity Rank Prov GS Rank # recs Distance (km) Prov P Teucrium canadense Canada Germander S3 3 Sensitive 33 49.9 ± 0.0 NS P Decodon verticillatus Swamp Loosestrife S3 4 Secure 1 84.3 ± 7.0 NS P Epilobium strictum Downy Willowherb S3 3 Sensitive 5 39.4 ± 0.0 NS P Polygala sanguinea Blood Milkwort S3 3 Sensitive 2 92.5 ± 1.0 NS P Persicaria pensylvanica Pennsylvania Smartweed S3 4 Secure 14 52.3 ± 0.0 NS P Fallopia scandens Climbing False Buckwheat S3 3 Sensitive 26 30.5 ± 0.0 NS P Plantago rugelii Rugel's Plantain S3 4 Secure 2 95.4 ± 0.0 NS P Samolus parviflorus Seaside Brookweed S3 3 Sensitive 6 52.4 ± 0.0 NS P Pyrola asarifolia Pink Pyrola S3 4 Secure 3 86.1 ± 0.0 NS P Pyrola minor Lesser Pyrola S3 3 Sensitive 1 99.2 ± 2.0 NS P Ranunculus gmelinii Gmelin's Water Buttercup S3 4 Secure 26 35.6 ± 2.0 NS P Endotropis alnifolia alder-leaved buckthorn S3 4 Secure 332 54.8 ± 0.0 NS P Agrimonia gryposepala Hooked Agrimony S3 4 Secure 170 43.5 ± 0.0 NS P Amelanchier spicata Running Serviceberry S3 4 Secure 2 44.7 ± 5.0 NS P Galium kamtschaticum Northern Wild Licorice S3 4 Secure 3 93.9 ± 0.0 NS P Geocaulon lividum Northern Comandra S3 4 Secure 4 49.2 ± 0.0 NS P Limosella australis Southern Mudwort S3 4 Secure 3 82.6 ± 5.0 NS Yellow-seeded False NS P Lindernia dubia S3 4 Secure 11 52.7 ± 0.0 Pimperel P Laportea canadensis Canada Wood Nettle S3 3 Sensitive 15 43.5 ± 3.0 NS P Verbena hastata Blue Vervain S3 4 Secure 43 43.5 ± 0.0 NS P Carex cryptolepis Hidden-scaled Sedge S3 4 Secure 7 48.4 ± 1.0 NS P Carex eburnea Bristle-leaved Sedge S3 3 Sensitive 22 57.4 ± 5.0 NS P Carex lupulina Hop Sedge S3 4 Secure 10 52.1 ± 6.0 NS P Carex rosea Rosy Sedge S3 4 Secure 5 36.7 ± 4.0 NS P Carex tribuloides Blunt Broom Sedge S3 4 Secure 9 34.2 ± 5.0 NS P Carex wiegandii Wiegand's Sedge S3 3 Sensitive 1 82.5 ± 0.0 NS P Carex foenea Fernald's Hay Sedge S3 4 Secure 1 72.0 ± 0.0 NS P Juncus subcaudatus Woods-Rush S3 3 Sensitive 4 14.6 ± 0.0 NS P Juncus dudleyi Dudley's Rush S3 4 Secure 81 32.8 ± 0.0 NS P Goodyera repens Lesser Rattlesnake-plantain S3 3 Sensitive 6 67.6 ± 0.0 NS P Neottia bifolia Southern Twayblade S3 4 Secure 38 13.9 ± 0.0 NS P Platanthera grandiflora Large Purple Fringed Orchid S3 4 Secure 22 21.6 ± 10.0 NS P Platanthera hookeri Hooker's Orchid S3 4 Secure 3 48.5 ± 0.0 NS P Platanthera orbiculata Small Round-leaved Orchid S3 4 Secure 2 39.9 ± 0.0 NS P Spiranthes ochroleuca Yellow Ladies'-tresses S3 4 Secure 3 84.6 ± 0.0 NS P Alopecurus aequalis Short-awned Foxtail S3 4 Secure 5 58.8 ± 1.0 NS P Dichanthelium clandestinum Deer-tongue Panic Grass S3 4 Secure 79 28.3 ± 0.0 NS P Potamogeton obtusifolius Blunt-leaved Pondweed S3 4 Secure 11 47.8 ± 1.0 NS P Potamogeton praelongus White-stemmed Pondweed S3 3 Sensitive 10 31.6 ± 10.0 NS P Potamogeton zosteriformis Flat-stemmed Pondweed S3 3 Sensitive 1 97.5 ± 7.0 NS P Sparganium natans Small Burreed S3 4 Secure 6 28.6 ± 0.0 NS P Asplenium trichomanes Maidenhair Spleenwort S3 4 Secure 3 48.6 ± 0.0 NS P Asplenium viride Green Spleenwort S3 3 Sensitive 19 64.4 ± 0.0 NS P Equisetum pratense Meadow Horsetail S3 3 Sensitive 14 81.4 ± 0.0 NS P Equisetum variegatum Variegated Horsetail S3 4 Secure 39 44.9 ± 0.0 NS P Isoetes acadiensis Acadian Quillwort S3 3 Sensitive 1 37.4 ± 1.0 NS P Diphasiastrum sitchense Sitka Ground-cedar S3 4 Secure 4 36.9 ± 1.0 NS P Huperzia appressa Mountain Firmoss S3 3 Sensitive 1 95.1 ± 1.0 NS P Sceptridium dissectum Dissected Moonwort S3 4 Secure 3 51.5 ± 1.0 NS P Polypodium appalachianum Appalachian Polypody S3 5 Undetermined 1 92.8 ± 0.0 NS P Bidens vulgata Tall Beggarticks S3? 7 Exotic 1 81.9 ± 0.0 NS Persicaria amphibia var. NS P emersa Long-root Smartweed S3? 5 Undetermined 1 52.6 ± 0.0 P Diphasiastrum x sabinifolium Savin-leaved Ground-cedar S3? 4 Secure 2 60.6 ± 5.0 NS P Suaeda calceoliformis Horned Sea-blite S3S4 4 Secure 3 89.1 ± 0.0 NS P Myriophyllum sibiricum Siberian Water Milfoil S3S4 4 Secure 2 56.8 ± 0.0 NS

Taxonomic Group Scientific Name Common Name COSEWIC SARA Prov Legal Prot Prov Rarity Rank Prov GS Rank # recs Distance (km) Prov P Nuphar microphylla Small Yellow Pond-lily S3S4 4 Secure 1 98.0 ± 2.0 NS P Sanguinaria canadensis Bloodroot S3S4 4 Secure 112 42.7 ± 5.0 NS P Polygonum fowleri Fowler's Knotweed S3S4 4 Secure 3 57.0 ± 0.0 NS P Rumex fueginus Tierra del Fuego Dock S3S4 4 Secure 9 88.0 ± 0.0 NS Fragaria vesca ssp. NS P americana Woodland Strawberry S3S4 4 Secure 17 58.9 ± 0.0 P Salix petiolaris Meadow Willow S3S4 4 Secure 4 84.2 ± 0.0 NS P Eriophorum russeolum Russet Cottongrass S3S4 4 Secure 7 46.3 ± 5.0 NS P Triglochin gaspensis Gasp├⌐ Arrowgrass S3S4 5 Undetermined 23 53.6 ± 0.0 NS P Juncus acuminatus Sharp-Fruit Rush S3S4 4 Secure 3 54.6 ± 0.0 NS P Luzula parviflora Small-flowered Woodrush S3S4 4 Secure 2 47.7 ± 0.0 NS P Liparis loeselii Loesel's Twayblade S3S4 4 Secure 6 60.4 ± 1.0 NS P Panicum philadelphicum Philadelphia Panicgrass S3S4 4 Secure 1 78.8 ± 0.0 NS P Trisetum spicatum Narrow False Oats S3S4 4 Secure 1 90.3 ± 0.0 NS P Cystopteris bulbifera Bulblet Bladder Fern S3S4 4 Secure 102 48.6 ± 1.0 NS Equisetum hyemale ssp. NS P affine Common Scouring-rush S3S4 4 Secure 24 47.6 ± 11.0 P Equisetum scirpoides Dwarf Scouring-Rush S3S4 4 Secure 62 81.8 ± 0.0 NS P Diphasiastrum complanatum Northern Ground-cedar S3S4 4 Secure 2 84.3 ± 5.0 NS P Schizaea pusilla Little Curlygrass Fern S3S4 4 Secure 9 7.9 ± 0.0 NS P Viola canadensis Canada Violet SH 0.1 Extirpated 1 99.8 ± 0.0 NS

5.1 SOURCE BIBLIOGRAPHY (100 km) The recipient of these data shall acknowledge the AC CDC and the data sources listed below in any documents, reports, publications or presentations, in which this dataset makes a significant contribution.

# recs CITATION 8492 Lepage, D. 2014. Maritime Breeding Bird Atlas Database. Bird Studies Canada, Sackville NB, 407,838 recs. 3734 Eaton, S. 2014. Nova Scotia Wood Turtle Database. Environment and Climate Change Canada. 1596 Erskine, A.J. 1992. Maritime Breeding Bird Atlas Database. NS Museum & Nimbus Publ., Halifax, 82,125 recs. 794 Morrison, Guy. 2011. Maritime Shorebird Survey (MSS) database. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, 15939 surveys. 86171 recs. 638 Blaney, C.S.; Mazerolle, D.M.; Belliveau, A.B. 2014. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre Fieldwork 2014. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre, # recs. 526 Neily, T.H. & Pepper, C.; Toms, B. 2018. Nova Scotia lichen database [as of 2018-03]. Mersey Tobeatic Research Institute. 416 Blaney, C.S.; Mazerolle, D.M. 2009. Fieldwork 2009. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre. Sackville NB, 13395 recs. 366 Blaney, C.S.; Mazerolle, D.M.; Belliveau, A.B. 2015. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre Fieldwork 2015. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre, # recs. 337 Neily, T.H. & Pepper, C.; Toms, B. 2013. Nova Scotia lichen location database. Mersey Tobeatic Research Institute, 1301 records. 333 Benjamin, L.K. (compiler). 2012. Significant Habitat & Species Database. Nova Scotia Dept Natural Resources, 4965 recs. 308 Wilhelm, S.I. et al. 2011. Colonial Waterbird Database. Canadian Wildlife Service, Sackville, 2698 sites, 9718 recs (8192 obs). 302 Hicks, Andrew. 2009. Coastal Waterfowl Surveys Database, 2000-08. Canadian Wildlife Service, Sackville, 46488 recs (11149 non-zero). 259 Amirault, D.L. & Stewart, J. 2007. Piping Plover Database 1894-2006. Canadian Wildlife Service, Sackville, 3344 recs, 1228 new. 259 Neily, T.H. 2017. Nova Scotia lichen records. Mersey Tobeatic Research Institute. 209 Benjamin, L.K. (compiler). 2007. Significant Habitat & Species Database. Nova Scotia Dept Natural Resources, 8439 recs. 193 Blaney, C.S.; Mazerolle, D.M.; Hill, N.M. 2011. Nova Scotia Crown Share Land Legacy Trust Fieldwork. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre, 5022 recs. 180 Belliveau, A.G. 2018. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre Fieldwork 2017. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre. 156 Belliveau, A.G. 2016. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre Fieldwork 2016. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre, 10695 recs. 144 Blaney, C.S & Spicer, C.D.; Popma, T.M.; Basquill, S.P. 2003. Vascular Plant Surveys of Northumberland Strait Rivers & Amherst Area Peatlands. Nova Scotia Museum Research Grant, 501 recs. 137 Newell, R.E. 2000. E.C. Smith Herbarium Database. Acadia University, Wolfville NS, 7139 recs. 133 Blaney, C.S.; Mazerolle, D.M. 2012. Fieldwork 2012. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre, 13,278 recs. 116 Klymko, J. 2018. Maritimes Butterfly Atlas database. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre. 101 Blaney, C.S. 2016. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre Fieldwork 2016. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre, 6719 recs. 101 Newell, R.E. 2005. E.C. Smith Digital Herbarium. E.C. Smith Herbarium, Irving Biodiversity Collection, Acadia University, Web site: http://luxor.acadiau.ca/library/Herbarium/project/. 582 recs. 96 Klymko, J.J.D. 2012. Insect fieldwork & submissions, 2011. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre. Sackville NB, 760 recs. 93 Mazerolle, D.M. 2016. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre Fieldwork 2017. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre. 81 Pronych, G. & Wilson, A. 1993. Atlas of Rare Vascular Plants in Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax NS, I:1-168, II:169-331. 1446 recs. 80 Cameron, R.P. 2011. Lichen observations, 2011. Nova Scotia Environment & Labour, 731 recs.

# recs CITATION 80 Toms, B. 2018. Bat Species data from www.batconservation.ca for Nova Scotia. Mersey Tobeatic Research Institute, 547 Records. 76 Staicer, C. & Bliss, S.; Achenbach, L. 2017. Occurrences of tracked breeding birds in forested wetlands. , 303 records. 68 Blaney, C.S.; Mazerolle, D.M. 2010. Fieldwork 2010. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre. Sackville NB, 15508 recs. 63 Klymko, J.J.D.; Robinson, S.L. 2012. 2012 field data. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre, 447 recs. 58 MacDonald, E.C. 2018. Piping Plover nest records from 2010-2017. Canadian Wildlife Service. 56 Pulsifer, M.D. 2002. NS Freshwater Mussel Fieldwork. Nova Scotia Dept Natural Resources, 369 recs. 54 Scott, F.W. 2002. Nova Scotia Herpetofauna Atlas Database. Acadia University, Wolfville NS, 8856 recs. 49 Manthorne, A. 2014. MaritimesSwiftwatch Project database 2013-2014. Bird Studies Canada, Sackville NB, 326 recs. 48 Neily, T.H. & Pepper, C.; Toms, B. 2015. Nova Scotia lichen location database [as of 2015-02-15]. Mersey Tobeatic Research Institute, 1691 records. 46 MacDonald, E.C. 2018. CWS Piping Plover Census, 2010-2017. Canadian Wildlife Service. 44 Amirault, D.L. & McKnight, J. 2003. Piping Plover Database 1991-2003. Canadian Wildlife Service, Sackville, unpublished data. 7 recs. 44 Benjamin, L.K. 2012. NSDNR fieldwork & consultant reports 2008-2012. Nova Scotia Dept Natural Resources, 196 recs. 43 Mazerolle, D.M. 2018. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre botanical fieldwork 2018. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre, 13515 recs. 42 Belliveau, A.G. 2018. E.C. Smith Herbarium and Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre Fieldwork 2018. E.C. Smith Herbarium, 6226 recs. 42 Pepper, C. 2013. 2013 rare bird and plant observations in Nova Scotia. , 181 records. 41 Cameron, R.P. 2009. Erioderma pedicellatum database, 1979-2008. Dept Environment & Labour, 103 recs. 35 Benjamin, L.K. 2009. D. Anderson Odonata Records for Cape Breton, 1997-2004. Nova Scotia Dept Natural Resources, 1316 recs. 35 Munro, Marian K. Tracked lichen specimens, Nova Scotia Provincial Museum of Natural History Herbarium. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre. 2019. 34 Canadian Wildlife Service, Dartmouth. 2010. Piping Plover censuses 2007-09, 304 recs. 33 Nova Scotia Nature Trust. 2013. Nova Scotia Nature Trust 2013 Species records. Nova Scotia Nature Trust, 95 recs. 32 iNaturalist. 2018. iNaturalist Data Export 2018. iNaturalist.org and iNaturalist.ca, Web site: 11706 recs. 32 Quigley, E.J. & Neily, P.D,. 2012. Botanical Discoveries in Inverness County, NS. Nova Scotia Dept Natural Resources. Pers. comm. to C.S. Blaney, Nov. 29, 141 rec. 30 Munro, Marian K. Nova Scotia Provincial Museum of Natural History Herbarium Database. Nova Scotia Provincial Museum of Natural History, Halifax, Nova Scotia. 2013. 29 Benjamin, L.K. (compiler). 2001. Significant Habitat & Species Database. Nova Scotia Dept of Natural Resources, 15 spp, 224 recs. 24 Benjamin, L.K. 2011. NSDNR fieldwork & consultant reports 1997, 2009-10. Nova Scotia Dept Natural Resources, 85 recs. 24 Neily, T.H. 2013. Email communication to Sean Blaney regarding Listera australis observations made from 2007 to 2011 in Nova Scotia. , 50. 24 Porter, C.J.M. 2014. Field work data 2007-2014. Nova Scotia Nature Trust, 96 recs. 24 Zinck, M. & Roland, A.E. 1998. Roland's Flora of Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia Museum, 3rd ed., rev. M. Zinck; 2 Vol., 1297 pp. 23 Neily, T.H. 2017. Maritmes Lichen and Bryophyte records. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre, 1015 recs. 21 Chapman, C. 2018. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre botanical fieldwork 2018. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre, 11171 recs. 21 Neily, T.H. 2010. Erioderma Pedicellatum records 2005-09. Mersey Tobiatic Research Institute, 67 recs. 20 Neily, T.H. 2012. 2012 Erioderma pedicellatum records in Nova Scotia. 19 Brunelle, P.-M. (compiler). 2009. ADIP/MDDS Odonata Database: data to 2006 inclusive. Atlantic Dragonfly Inventory Program (ADIP), 24200 recs. 17 Adams, J. & Herman, T.B. 1998. Thesis, Unpublished map of C. insculpta sightings. Acadia University, Wolfville NS, 88 recs. 17 Blaney, C.S.; Spicer, C.D. 2001. Fieldwork 2001. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre. Sackville NB, 981 recs. 17 Roland, A.E. & Smith, E.C. 1969. The Flora of Nova Scotia, 1st Ed. Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax, 743pp. 16 Mazerolle, D.M. 2017. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre Fieldwork 2017. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre. 15 Neily, T.H. 2019. Tom Neily NS Bryophyte records (2009-2013). T.H. Neily, Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre, 1029 specimen records. 14 Cameron, R.P. 2009. Cyanolichen database. Nova Scotia Environment & Labour, 1724 recs. 14 Robinson, S.L. 2011. 2011 ND dune survey field data. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre, 2715 recs. 13 e-Butterfly. 2016. Export of Maritimes records and photos. Maxim Larrivee, Sambo Zhang (ed.) e-butterfly.org. 13 Hill, N.M. 1994. Status report on the Long's bulrush Scirpus longii in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, 7 recs. 12 WIlliams, M. Cape Breton University Digital Herbarium. Cape Breton University Digital Herbarium. 2013. 11 Cameron, R.P. 2017. 2017 rare species field data. Nova Scotia Environment, 64 recs. 11 Robinson, S.L. 2015. 2014 field data. 10 Archibald, D.R. 2003. NS Freshwater Mussel Fieldwork. Nova Scotia Dept Natural Resources, 213 recs. 10 Cameron, R.P. 2012. Rob Cameron 2012 vascular plant data. NS Department of Environment, 30 recs. 10 Downes, C. 1998-2000. Breeding Bird Survey Data. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, 111 recs. 10 Knapton, R. & Power, T.; Williams, M. 2001. SAR Inventory: Fortress Louisbourg NP. Parks Canada, Atlantic, SARINV01-13. 157 recs. 10 Layberry, R.A. & Hall, P.W., LaFontaine, J.D. 1998. The Butterflies of Canada. University of Toronto Press. 280 pp+plates. 9 Gilhen, J. 1984. Amphibians & Reptiles of Nova Scotia, 1st Ed. Nova Scotia Museum, 164pp. Newell, R.E. 2004. Assessment and update status report on the New Jersey Rush 9 (Juncus caesariensis) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, 15 recs. 9 Whittam, R.M. 1999. Status Report on the Roseate Tern (update) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, 36 recs. 8 Oldham, M.J. 2000. Oldham database records from Maritime provinces. Oldham, M.J; ONHIC, 487 recs. 7 Blaney, C.S.; Mazerolle, D.M.; Oberndorfer, E. 2007. Fieldwork 2007. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre. Sackville NB, 13770 recs. 7 Cameron, R.P. 2013. 2013 rare species field data. Nova Scotia Department of Environment, 71 recs. 7 Chaput, G. 2002. Atlantic Salmon: Maritime Provinces Overview for 2001. Dept of Fisheries & Oceans, Atlantic Region, Science Stock Status Report D3-14. 39 recs.

# recs CITATION 7 Munro, Marian K. Nova Scotia Provincial Museum of Natural History Herbarium Database. Nova Scotia Provincial Museum of Natural History, Halifax, Nova Scotia. 2014. 7 Robinson, S.L. 2014. 2013 Field Data. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre. 7 Taylor, B.R., and Tam, J.C. 2012. Local distribution of the rare plant Triosteum aurantiacum in northeastern Nova Scotia, Canada. Rhodora, 114(960): 366-382. 6 Benjamin, L.K. 2009. Boreal Felt Lichen, Mountain Avens, Orchid and other recent records. Nova Scotia Dept Natural Resources, 105 recs. 6 Cameron, R.P. 2005. Erioderma pedicellatum unpublished data. NS Dept of Environment, 9 recs. 6 Popma, T.M. 2003. Fieldwork 2003. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre. Sackville NB, 113 recs. 6 Powell, B.C. 1967. Female sexual cycles of Chrysemy spicta & Clemmys insculpta in Nova Scotia. Can. Field-Nat., 81:134-139. 26 recs. 5 anon. 2001. S.. H.. NS Freshwater Mussel Fieldwork. Nova Scotia Dept Natural Resources, 76 recs. 5 Basquill, S.P. 2003. Fieldwork 2003. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre, Sackville NB, 69 recs. 5 Cameron, R.P. 2014. 2013-14 rare species field data. Nova Scotia Department of Environment, 35 recs. 5 Cameron, R.P. 2018. Degelia plumbea records. Nova Scotia Environment. 5 Power, T. 2019. Cape Breton Wood Turtle records. NS Lands and Forestry. 5 Whittam, R.M. 1997. Status Report on the Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, 5 recs. 4 Basquill, S.P. 2012. 2012 rare vascular plant field data. Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources, 37 recs. 4 Blaney, C.S.; Mazerolle, D.M. 2008. Fieldwork 2008. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre. Sackville NB, 13343 recs. 4 Blaney, C.S.; Mazerolle, D.M. 2011. Fieldwork 2011. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre. Sackville NB. 4 Blaney, C.S.; Mazerolle, D.M.; Belliveau, A.B. 2013. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre Fieldwork 2013. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre, 9000+ recs. 4 Ferguson, D.C. 1954. The Lepidoptera of Nova Scotia. Part I, macrolepidoptera. Proceedings of the Nova Scotian Institute of Science, 23(3), 161-375. 4 Neily, T.H. & Pepper, C.; Toms, B. 2018. Nova Scotia lichen database Update. Mersey Tobeatic Research Institute, 14 recs. 4 NS DNR. 2017. Black Ash records from NS DNR Permanent Sample Plots (PSPs), 1965-2016. NS Dept of Natural Resources. 4 O'Neil, S. 1998. Atlantic Salmon: Northumberland Strait Nova Scotia part of SFA 18. Dept of Fisheries & Oceans, Atlantic Region, Science. Stock Status Report D3-08. 9 recs. 4 Plissner, J.H. & Haig, S.M. 1997. 1996 International piping plover census. US Geological Survey, Corvallis OR, 231 pp. 4 Rousseau, J. 1938. Notes Floristiques sur l'est de la Nouvelle-Ecosse in Contributions de l'Institut Botanique de l'Universite de Montreal. Universite de Montreal, 32, 13-62. 11 recs. 3 Belland, R.J. Maritimes moss records from various herbarium databases. 2014. 3 Blaney, C.S. 2000. Fieldwork 2000. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre. Sackville NB, 1265 recs. 3 Chapman, C.N. (Cody). 2019. Nova Scotia Black Ash (Fraxinus nigra) field observations by Confederacy of Mainland Mi'kmaq. Forestry Program, Confederacy of Mainland Mi'kmaq, 7 records. 3 e-Butterfly. 2018. Selected Maritimes butterfly records from 2016 and 2017. Maxim Larrivee, Sambo Zhang (ed.) e-butterfly.org. 3 Edsall, J. 2007. Personal Butterfly Collection: specimens collected in the Canadian Maritimes, 1961-2007. J. Edsall, unpubl. report, 137 recs. 3 Neily, T.H. 2016. Email communication (May 6, 2016) to Sean Blaney regarding Fissidens exilis observations made in 2016 in Nova Scotia. Pers. Comm., 3 recs. 3 O'Neil, S. 1998. Atlantic Salmon: Eastern Shore Nova Scotia SFA 20. Dept of Fisheries & Oceans, Atlantic Region, Science. Stock Status Report D3-10. 4 recs. 3 Ogden, J. NS DNR Butterfly Collection Dataset. Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources. 2014. 2 Basquill, S.P. 2012. 2012 Bryophyte specimen data. Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources, 37 recs. 2 Blaney, C.S. Miscellaneous specimens received by ACCDC (botany). Various persons. 2001-08. 2 Cameron, B. 2005. C. palmicola, E. pedicellatum records from Sixth Lake. Pers. comm. to C.S. Blaney. 3 recs, 3 recs. 2 Cameron, R.P. 2006. Erioderma pedicellatum 2006 field data. NS Dept of Environment, 9 recs. 2 Frittaion, C. 2012. NSNT 2012 Field Observations. Nova Scotia Nature Trust, Pers comm. to S. Blaney Feb. 7, 34 recs. 2 Gillis, J. 2007. Botanical observations from bog on Skye Mountain, NS. Pers. comm., 8 recs. 2 Gillis, J. 2015. Rare plant records from Cape Breton gypsum sites. Pers. comm., 25 rare plant records. 2 Hill, N. 2003. Floerkea proserpinacoides at Heatherdale, Antigonish Co. 2002. , Pers. comm. to C.S. Blaney. 2 recs. 2 Klymko, J.J.D. 2018. 2017 field data. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre. 2 LaPaix, R.W.; Crowell, M.J.; MacDonald, M. 2011. Stantec rare plant records, 2010-11. Stantec Consulting, 334 recs. 2 Ogden, K. Nova Scotia Museum butterfly specimen database. Nova Scotia Museum. 2017. 2 Sollows, M.C,. 2008. NBM Science Collections databases: mammals. New Brunswick Museum, Saint John NB, download Jan. 2008, 4983 recs. 2 Whittam, R.M. et al. 1998. Country Island Tern Restoration Project. Canadian Wildlife Service, Sackville, 2 recs. 1 Benjamin, L.K. 2009. NSDNR Fieldwork & Consultants Reports. Nova Scotia Dept Natural Resources, 143 recs. 1 Blaney, C.S. 2003. Fieldwork 2003. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre. Sackville NB, 1042 recs. 1 Blaney, C.S.; Spicer, C.D.; Rothfels, C. 2004. Fieldwork 2004. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre. Sackville NB, 1343 recs. 1 Boyne, A.W. & Grecian, V.D. 1999. Tern Surveys. Canadian Wildlife Service, Sackville, unpublished data. 23 recs. 1 Christie, D.S. 2000. Christmas Bird Count Data, 1997-2000. Nature NB, 54 recs. 1 Clayden, S.R. 1998. NBM Science Collections databases: vascular plants. New Brunswick Museum, Saint John NB, 19759 recs. 1 Crowell, M. 2013. email to Sean Blaney regarding Listera australis at Bear Head and Mill Cove Canadian Forces Station. Jacques Whitford Environmental Ltd., 2. 1 Daury, R.W. & Bateman, M.C. 1996. The Barrow's Goldeneye (Bucephala islandica) in the Atlantic Provinces and Maine. Canadian Wildlife Service, Sackville, 47pp. 1 Doucet, D.A. 2009. Census of Globally Rare, Endemic Butterflies of Nova Scotia Gulf of St Lawrence Salt Marshes. Nova Scotia Dept of Natural Resources, Species at Risk, 155 recs. 1 Haughian, S.R. 2018. Description of Fuscopannaria leucosticta field work in 2017. New Brunswick Museum, 314 recs. 1 Klymko, J. 2019. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre zoological fieldwork 2018. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre. 1 Klymko, J. Henry Hensel's Butterfly Collection Database. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre. 2016. 1 Klymko, J.J.D. 2016. 2015 field data. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre. 1 McNeil, J.A. 2016. Blandings Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii), Eastern Ribbonsnake (Thamnophis sauritus), Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta), and Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) sightings, 2016. Mersey Tobeatic

# recs CITATION Research Institute, 774 records. 1 Neily, P.D. Plant Specimens. Nova Scotia Dept Natural Resources, Truro. 2006. 1 Neily, T.H. & Pepper, C.; Toms, B. 2019. Boreal Felt Lichen Observation, April 2019. Mersey Tobeatic Research Institute. 1 Neily, T.H. & Pepper, C.; Toms, B. 2019. Boreal Felt Lichen Observation, January 2019. Mersey Tobeatic Research Institute, 1 rec. 1 Neily, T.H. 2013. Email communication to Sean Blaney regarding Agalinis paupercula observations made in 2013 in Nova Scotia. , 1 rec. 1 Newell, R.B.; Sam, D. 2014. 2014 Bloodroot personal communication report, Antigonish, NS. NS Department of Natural Resources. 1 Newell, R.E. 2001. Fortress Louisbourg Species at Risk Survey 2001. Parks Canada, 4 recs. 1 Olsen, R. Herbarium Specimens. Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Truro. 2003. 1 Parker, G.R., Maxwell, J.W., Morton, L.D. & Smith,G.E.J. 1983. The ecology of Lynx , Lynx canadensis, on Cape Breton Island. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 61:770-786. 51 recs. 1 Pepper, Chris. 2012. Observations of breeding Canada Warbler's along the Eastern Shore, NS. Pers. comm. to S. Blaney, Jan. 20, 28 recs. 1 Porter, K. 2013. 2013 rare and non-rare vascular plant field data. St. Mary's University, 57 recs. 1 Quigley, E.J. 2006. Plant records, Mabou & Port Hood. Pers. comm. to S.P. Basquill, Jun. 12. 4 recs, 4 recs. 1 Robinson, C.B. 1907. Early intervale flora of eastern Nova Scotia. Transactions of the Nova Scotia Institute of Science, 10:502-506. 1 rec. 1 Standley, L.A. 2002. Carex haydenii in Nova Scotia. , Pers. comm. to C.S. Blaney. 4 recs. 1 Webster, R.P. Atlantic Forestry Centre Insect Collection, Maritimes butterfly records. Natural Resources Canada. 2014. 1 Whittam, R.M. 2000. Senecio pseudoarnica on Country Island. , Pers. comm. to S. Gerriets. 1 rec.