Webequie Supply Road Project

May 1, 2025

AtkinsRéalis Ref: 661910

Draft Environmental Assessment Report / Impact Statement

SECTION 10: ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON FISH AND FISH HABITAT

Contents

1. Assessment of Effects on Fish and Fish Habitat………………………………………………………………….. 10-6
   1. Scope of the Assessment…………………………………………………………………………………………. 10-6
      1. Regulatory and Policy Setting………………………………………………………………………. 10-6
      1. Consideration of Input from Engagement and Consultation Activities…………………….. 10-9
      1. Incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge and Land and Resource Use Information…… 10-17
      1. Valued Component and Indicators………………………………………………………………. 10-24
      1. Spatial and Temporal Boundaries……………………………………………………………….. 10-26
         1. Spatial Boundaries…………………………………………………………………… 10-26
         1. Temporal Boundaries……………………………………………………………….. 10-26
      1. Identification of Project Interactions with Fish and Fish Habitat…………………………… 10-28
   1. Existing Conditions……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10-31
      1. Methods………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10-31
         1. Desktop Review of Background Information…………………………………… 10-31
         1. Field Surveys…………………………………………………………………………. 10-31
            1. Fish Habitat and Fish Community Surveys…………………….. 10-32
            1. Spawning Surveys…………………………………………………… 10-35
            1. Benthic Invertebrate Surveys……………………………………… 10-35
            1. Environmental DNA (eDNA) Sampling………………………….. 10-36
         1. Species at Risk……………………………………………………………………….. 10-36
      1. Results…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10-37
         1. Fish Habitat and Fish Community Surveys…………………….. 10-37
         1. Spawning Surveys…………………………………………………… 10-46
         1. Benthic Invertebrate Surveys……………………………………… 10-46
         1. Environmental DNA (eDNA) Sampling………………………….. 10-46
   1. Identification of Potential Effects, Pathways and Indicators……………………………………………… 10-46
      1. Changes to Quantity and Quality of Fish Habitat…………………………………………….. 10-46
         1. Destruction/Loss of Fish Habitat………………………………………………….. 10-47
         1. Harmful Alteration and Disruption of Fish Habitat…………………………….. 10-49
         1. Changes in Fish Access to Habitats…………………………………………….. 10-52
      1. Changes to Fish Populations……………………………………………………………………… 10-54
         1. Injury/Death of Fish………………………………………………………………….. 10-54
         1. Change in Public Access to Fish/Fish Habitat………………………………… 10-55
   1. Mitigation and Enhancement Measures……………………………………………………………………… 10-61
      1. Changes to Quantity and Quality of Fish Habitat…………………………………………….. 10-62
         1. Destruction/Loss of Fish Habitat………………………………………………….. 10-62
            1. General Avoidance Measures and Project Planning

and Design…………………………………………………………….. 10-62

1. Habitat Offsetting and Enhancement……………………………. 10-63

Contents (Cont’d)

1. Harmful Alteration and Disruption of Fish Habitat……………………………. 10-64
   1. Temporary Watercourse Crossings…………………………….. 10-64
      1. Project Planning and Design……………………………………… 10-64
      1. Vegetation Clearing…………………………………………………. 10-65
      1. Storage and Handling of Materials………………………………. 10-66
      1. Erosion and Sediment Control……………………………………. 10-66
      1. Spill Prevention and Response………………………………….. 10-67
      1. Dewatering Activities……………………………………………….. 10-68
      1. Air Contaminants and Dust Emissions…………………………. 10-69
      1. Change in Fish Access to Habitats……………………………………………… 10-69
         1. Project Planning and Design……………………………………… 10-69
         1. Culvert Maintenance and Monitoring…………………………… 10-70
   1. Changes to Fish Populations…………………………………………………………………….. 10-70
      1. Injury/Death of Fish…………………………………………………………………. 10-71
         1. Blasting Restrictions………………………………………………… 10-71
         1. Restricted Activity Periods / Timing Windows………………… 10-71
         1. Work Isolation and Fish Rescue…………………………………. 10-72
      1. Changes to Public Access to Fish Habitats…………………………………… 10-72
         1. Project Planning and Design……………………………………… 10-72
         1. Employee Wildlife Orientations and Restrictions…………….. 10-72
         1. Public Access Restrictions……………………………………….. 10-73
   1. Characterization of Net Effects……………………………………………………………………………….. 10-96
      1. Potential Effect Pathways Not Carried Through for Further Assessment………………. 10-97
      1. Predicted Net Effects………………………………………………………………………………. 10-98
         1. Changes to Quantity and Quality of Fish Habitat……………………………. 10-98
            1. Destruction/Loss of Fish Habitat…………………………………. 10-98
            1. Harmful Alteration and Disruption of Fish Habitat………….. 10-100
            1. Fish Access to Habitats………………………………………….. 10-103
         1. Changes to Fish Populations…………………………………………………… 10-105
            1. Injury/Death of Fish……………………………………………….. 10-105
            1. Changes in Public Access to Fish Habitats………………….. 10-107
      1. Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10-109
   1. Determination of Significance………………………………………………………………………………… 10-111
      1. Methodology……………………………………………………………………………………….. 10-111
      1. Results……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10-112

Contents (Cont’d)

1. Destruction/Loss of Fish Habitat……………………………………………….. 10-115
   1. Harmful Alteration and Disruption of Fish Habitat………………………….. 10-115
      1. Change to Fish Access to Habitats……………………………………………. 10-115
      1. Injury/Death of Fish……………………………………………………………….. 10-115
      1. Change in Public Access to Fish Habitat…………………………………….. 10-116
   1. Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10-116
   1. Cumulative Effects……………………………………………………………………………………………… 10-116
   1. Prediction Confidence in the Assessment…………………………………………………………………. 10-117
   1. Predicted Future Condition of the Environment if the Project Does Not Proceed……………….. 10-117
   1. Follow-up and Monitoring……………………………………………………………………………………… 10-117
   1. References……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10-119

In Text Figures

Figure 10.1:  Spatial Study Boundaries………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10-27

Figure 10.2:  Tertiary Watersheds………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10-33

Figure 10.3:  Fish and Fish Habitat Assessment Locations………………………………………………………………… 10-34

In-Text Tables

Table 10-1: Key Regulation, Legislation, Policy Relevant to Fish and Fish Habitat…………………………………….. 10-7

Table 10-2: Fish and Fish Habitat VC – Summary of Inputs Received During Engagement and Consultation…… 10-9

Table 10-3: Fish and Fish Habitat VC – Summary of Indigenous Knowledge and Land and Resource

Use Information……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10-18

Table 10-4: Fish and Fish Habitat VC – Subcomponents, Indicators, and Rationale…………………………………. 10-25

Table 10-5: Project Interactions with Fish and Fish Habitat VC and Potential Effects……………………………….. 10-29

Table 10-6: Summary of Habitat Characteristics for Waterbodies………………………………………………………… 10-38

Table 10-7: Waterbody Fish Presence and Restricted Activity Timing Windows………………………………………. 10-40

Table 10-8: Fish Species Capture Summary…………………………………………………………………………………… 10-42

Table 10-9: Fish Habitat Covered by Watercourse/Waterbody Crossing……………………………………………….. 10-44

Table 10-10: Waterbody Crossing Structure Types and Spans…………………………………………………………….. 10-47

Table 10-11: Potential Effects, Pathways and Indicators for Fish and Fish Habitat VC……………………………….. 10-58

Table 10-12: Summary of Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Predicted Net Effects for Fish and

Fish Habitat VC……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10-74

Table 10-13: Criteria for Characterization of Predicted Net Effects on Fish and Fish Habitat VC…………………… 10-96

Table 10-14: Criteria Results for Destruction of Fish Habitat – Construction…………………………………………….. 10-99

Table 10-15: Criteria Results for Destruction of Fish Habitat – Operations………………………………………………. 10-99

Table 10-16: Criteria Results for Harmful Alteration and Disruption of Fish Habitat– Construction……………….. 10-101

Table 10-17: Criteria Results for Harmful Alteration and Disruption of Fish Habitat – Operations…………………. 10-102

Table 10-18: Criteria Results for Change to Fish Access to Habitats – Construction………………………………… 10-103

Table 10-19: Criteria Results for Change to Fish Access to Habitats – Operations…………………………………… 10-104

Table 10-20: Criteria Results for Injury/Death of Fish – Construction……………………………………………………. 10-105

Table 10-21: Criteria Results for Injury/Death of Fish – Operations………………………………………………………. 10-106

Contents (Cont’d)

In-Text Tables (Cont’d)

Table 10-22: Criteria Results for Change to Public Access to Fish Habitats – Construction………………………… 10-107

Table 10-23: Criteria Results for Change to Public Access to Fish Habitats – Operations…………………………… 10-109

Table 10-24: Summary of Predicted Net Effects on Fish and Fish Habitat VC…………………………………………. 10-110

Table 10-25: Scores Assigned for Key Criteria (Categories) of the Predicted Net Effects…………………………… 10-111

Table 10-26: Key Criteria and Scores for Determining the Significance of the Predicted Net Adverse

Effects on Fish and Fish Habitat VC…………………………………………………………………………….. 10-113

10.                    Assessment of Effects on Fish and Fish Habitat

Fish and fish habitat was identified as one of the valued components (VC) during the VC scoping and selection as part of the Environmental Assessment / Impact Assessment (EA/IA) process. This section describes and assesses the potential effects that the Project may have on the Fish and Fish Habitat VC.

Existing conditions for fish and fish habitat have been established through the field work programs, desktop studies and engagement and consultation activities completed by the Project Team. This includes, but not limited to, background information review, internet research, fish habitat surveys, fish sampling, engagement with Indigenous communities and stakeholders, and expert opinion. The existing conditions are being used as baseline conditions to assess and determine the potential effects of the Project. The results of the baseline studies are provided in Appendix F – Natural Environment Existing Conditions (NEEC) Report.

The assessment of potential effects on the Fish and Fish Habitat VC is presented in the following manner:

• Scope of the Assessment;
• Existing Conditions Summary;
• Potential Effects, Pathways and Indicators;
• Mitigation and Enhancement Measures;
• Characterization of Net Effects;
• Determination of Significance;
• Cumulative Effects;
• Prediction of Confidence in the Assessment;
• Predicted future Condition of the Environment if the Project Does Not Proceed;
• Follow-up and Monitoring Programs; and
• References.

10.1                 Scope of the Assessment

10.1.1             Regulatory and Policy Setting

The Fish and Fish Habitat VC is assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Impact Assessment Act (IAA), the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, the Fisheries Act, the Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines (TISG) for the Project (Appendix A-1), the provincial approved EA Terms of Reference (ToR) (Appendix A-2), and EA/IA guidance documents.

Table 10-1 outlines the key regulations, legislation and policies relevant to the assessment of the Fish and Fish Habitat VC for the construction and operation of the Project.

Table 10-1:    Key Regulation, Legislation, Policy Relevant to Fish and Fish Habitat

10.1.2             Consideration of Input from Engagement and Consultation Activities

Table 10-2 summarizes the input related to Fish and Fish Habitat received during the engagement and consultation for the EA/IA and how inputs are addressed in the EAR/IS. This input includes key concerns raised by Indigenous communities and groups, the public, government agencies, and stakeholders prior to the formal commencement of the federal IA and provincial EA, during the Planning Phase of the IA and ToR phase of the EA.

Table 10-2:    Fish and Fish Habitat VC – Summary of Inputs Received During Engagement and Consultation

10.1.3             Incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge and Land and Resource Use Information

To-date, the following First Nations have provided Indigenous Knowledge and Land and Resource Use information to the Project Team:

• Webequie First Nation;
• Marten Falls First Nation; and
• Weenusk First Nation.

Indigenous Knowledge and Land and Resource Use (IKLRU) reports provided information on fish and fish habitat that generally overlapped with information on groundwater and surface water resources. Surface water quality and fish and fish habitat, and their interaction and interconnectedness, have been identified as an essential element for foods and for the health and well-being of Indigenous communities and groups.

Table 10-3 summarizes IKLRU information relating to Fish and Fish Habitat and indicates where the information is incorporated in the EAR/IS.

Table 10-3:    Fish and Fish Habitat VC – Summary of Indigenous Knowledge and Land and Resource Use Information

Notes: Names of First Nations and associated location-specific description for some instances are not presented in this table due to potential sensitivity and confidentiality of IKLRU information.

10.1.4             Valued Component and Indicators

For the assessment, ‘fish’ is defined per the Fisheries Act (1985), which specifies fish to include:

• parts of fish,
• shellfish, crustaceans, marine animals and any parts of shellfish, crustaceans or marine animals, and
• the eggs, sperm, spawn, larvae, spat and juvenile stages of fish, shellfish, crustaceans and marine animals.

Similarly, ‘fish habitat’ is defined per the Fisheries Act to mean water frequented by fish and any other areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly to carry out their life processes, including spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas.

Therefore, fish habitat, per this assessment, considers:

• Reproduction (spawning), nursery, and rearing areas;
• Access to food;
• Shelter and cover; and
• Access to other habitats (i.e., transit and migratory corridors).

Valued components, including fish and fish habitat, have been identified in the TISG and by the Project Team and are based, in part, on what Indigenous communities and groups, the public, and stakeholders have identified as valuable to them in the EA/IA process to-date. Subcomponents (or criteria) of the Fish and Fish Habitat VC are further identified to help inform the report structure and better assess and present the data and assessment results. The assessment of these subcomponents was conducted using the methodology as outlined in Section 5 (Environmental Assessment / Impact Assessment Approach and Methods). Subcomponents of the Fish and Fish Habitat VC were selected as these were projected to be where the effects of the Project are likely to be observed. The identified subcomponents for the Fish and Fish Habitat VC are:

• Fish habitat quantity and quality:
  • Harmful Alteration and Disruption, and/or Destruction of Instream Fish Habitat;
  • Harmful Alteration and Disruption, and/or Destruction of Riparian Habitat; and
  • Changes in Fish Access to Habitat.
• Fish populations:
  • Injury/Death of Fish; and
  • Changes to Public Access to Fish Habitats.

The following fish species were considered as part of the EA/IA process:

• Brook Trout;
• Lake Whitefish;
• Chain Pickerel;
• Yellow Perch;
• Cisco;
• Burbot;
• Longnose Sucker;
• White sucker;
• Lake Chub;

• Northern Pike;
• Walleye; and
• Lake Sturgeon (Detailed in EAR/IS Section 13 – Species at Risk).

Chain Pickerel were identified in the TISG as being a species that should be considered in the EA/IA; however, this species is unlikely to be found (and were not found) within the project area so further assessments regarding this species were not completed.

“Indicators”, are used to assess potential effects to a VC. In general, indicators represent a resource, feature or issue related to a VC that, if changed from the existing conditions, may demonstrate a positive or negative effect.

Table 10-4 shows the subcomponents and indicators identified for the Fish and Fish Habitat VC.

Table 10-4:    Fish and Fish Habitat VC – Subcomponents, Indicators, and Rationale

10.1.5             Spatial and Temporal Boundaries

The following assessment boundaries have been defined for the Fish and Fish Habitat VC, and reflect the ones identified in the Aquatic Habitat Study Plan prepared at the onset for the EA/IA.

10.1.5.1              Spatial Boundaries

The spatial boundaries for the Fish and Fish Habitat VC are shown on Figure 10.1 and include the following:

• Project Footprint (PF) – the area of direct disturbance (i.e., the physical area required for project construction and operations). The PF is defined as the 35 m wide right-of-way (ROW) of the Webequie Supply Road (WSR); and temporary and permanent areas needed to support the Project that include access roads, construction camps, laydown and storage yards, aggregate pits/quarries, and a maintenance and storage facility.
• Local Study Area (LSA) – the area where potential largely direct and indirect effects of the Project are likely to occur and can be predicted or measured for assessment. The LSA for fish and fish habitat extends 1 km from the centreline of the preliminary recommended preferred route and 500 m from temporary or permanent support infrastructure.
• Regional Study Area (RSA) – the area where potential largely indirect and cumulative effects of the Project in the broader, regional context may occur. The RSA includes the LSA and further extends on each side of the LSA boundaries to include area of the tertiary watersheds crossed by the recommended preferred route.

10.1.5.2              Temporal Boundaries

Temporal boundaries for the assessment address the potential effects of the Project over relevant timescales. The temporal boundaries for the Project consist of two main phases:

• Construction Phase: All activities associated with the initial development of the road and supportive infrastructure from the start of Project construction to the start of operation and maintenance of the Project and is estimated to be approximately 5 to 6 years in duration.
• Operations Phase: All activities associated with operation and maintenance of the road and permanent supportive infrastructure (e.g., operations and maintenance yard, aggregate extraction, and processing areas) that will start after construction activities are complete, including site restoration and decommissioning of temporary infrastructure (e.g., construction camps). The Operations Phase of the Project is anticipated to be 75 years based on the expected timeline for when major refurbishment of road components (e.g., bridges) is deemed necessary.

The Project is proposed to be operated for an indeterminate period; therefore, future suspension, decommissioning and eventual abandonment is not evaluated in the EA/IA (refer to Project Description, Section 4.4).

10.1.6             Identification of Project Interactions with Fish and Fish Habitat

Table 10-5 identifies the project activities that may interact with the Fish and Fish Habitat VC to result in a potential effect. The identification of project interactions with fish and fish habitat provides a basis for the subsequent assessment of the potential effects of the Project. The potential effects are described separately for subcomponents of Fish and Fish Habitat VC including fish habitat quantity and quality and fish populations.

Table 10-5:    Project Interactions with Fish and Fish Habitat VC and Potential Effects

Notes:

✓ = Potential interaction – = No interaction

¹ Emissions, Discharges, and Wastes (e.g., air, noise, light, solid wastes, and liquid effluents) can be generated by many project activities. Rather than acknowledging this by placing a checkmark against each of these activities, “Wastes and Emissions” is an additional component under each project phase.

² Accidents and Malfunctions including spills, vehicle collisions, flooding, forest fire and vandalism may occur at any time during construction and operations of the Project. Rather than acknowledging this by placing a checkmark against each of these activities, “Potential for Accidents and Malfunctions” is an additional component under each project phase. The potential effects of accidental spills are assessed in Section 23 – Accidents and Malfunctions.

³ Project employment and expenditures are related to most project activities and components and are the main drivers of many socio-economic effects. Rather than acknowledging this by placing a checkmark against each of these activities, “Employment and Expenditures” is an additional component under each project phase.

10.2                 Existing Conditions

This section summarizes the existing conditions of fish and fish habitat based on desktop review and field investigations conducted for the Project. Detailed descriptions of the methods for desktop review and field investigations and interpretations of the results are provided in Appendix F – NEEC Report.

10.2.1             Methods

The characterization of existing fish and fish habitat conditions involved a review of relevant background information sources including other environmental impact assessments in the project area, satellite imagery, aerial photography, and scientific literature. This information was used to develop a list of potential waterbody crossings, including those to be crossed by the proposed route and alternatives, as well as a list of aquatic species that may be affected by the Project. Field studies to characterize fish and fish habitat were conducted in 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2023 to assess the waterbodies that will potentially be crossed by the proposed WSR. These locations were targeted for field studies as water crossings are where potential effects to fish and fish habitat are most likely to occur. Results from the background information review and field studies were used for characterization of the existing aquatic environment.

10.2.1.1              Desktop Review of Background Information

A desktop review of background information was conducted to obtain information on the existing conditions of fish and fish habitat within the Fish and Fish Habitat LSA and RSA and for the development of field survey methods. This included a review of the following primary and secondary information sources:

• Noront Resources Ltd. Eagle’s Nest Project Environmental Impact Assessment and relevant Fish and Fish Habitat and Aquatic environment studies;
• MECP Ring of Fire Baseline Data (MECP 2019a);
• Federal (DFO, SARA, COSEWIC) and Provincial Databases and species lists (MECP, MNR);
• Existing satellite imagery and aerial photography for the PF, LSA, and RSA (Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community), 2020;
• Project Light detection and ranging (LiDAR) imagery and elevation data gathered by J.D. Mollard and Associates (JDMA); 20 cm resolution (2016);
• Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) reports and databases;
• The Species at Risk in Ontario List;
• Indigenous Knowledge and feedback received during engagement and consultation with Indigenous communities and stakeholders; and
• Webequie First Nation Community Based Land Use, (Draft, V4.3, 2019).

10.2.1.2              Field Surveys

The survey methodologies included detailed field assessments of large, medium-sized and small waterbodies or lotic habitat and also lakes/ponds or lentic habitat. Aerial assessments of waterbodies were conducted in areas where access was not safe or possible due to the difficult and wet terrain conditions. The fish and fish habitat field program included the following surveys:

• Fish habitat and fish community surveys;
• Spawning surveys;

• Benthic invertebrate surveys; and
• Environmental DNA (eDNA) surveys.

1. Fish Habitat and Fish Community Surveys

A waterbody crossing list was developed for the proposed preliminary corridor and alternative routes for the WSR using GIS, LiDAR, and digital elevation model. This list was further refined during the assessment of route alternatives and an initial reconnaissance survey of the waterbody crossings was conducted. Each of the identified waterbody and watercourse crossings were assigned a unique site ID that consisted of a common, two-letter code (specifically “WC” for watercourse crossing, or “WB” for waterbody crossing [i.e., a lake]), and a unique number (e.g., WC-26).

The Project is located entirely within the Southwestern Hudson Bay Primary Watershed. All waterbodies in this watershed generally flow northeast towards Hudson Bay. Major rivers in the watershed in Ontario include the Severn River, Winisk River, Ekwan River, and the Attawapiskat River. The RSA extends into three secondary watersheds including the Ekwan River – Coast, Winisk River – Coast, and Attawapiskat River – Coast. The RSA for the Project extends into four tertiary watersheds and presented in Figure 10.2:

• Upper Winisk Watershed;
  • Middle Winisk Watershed;
    • Upper Ekwan Watershed; and
    • Lower Attawapiskat Watershed.

In the LSA and RSA, there are many different waterbodies, including streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, and wetlands that provide direct habitat and support many different fish species. Several large rivers are located in the project area including the Winisk, Ekwan, Attawapiskat, Fishbasket and the Muketei Rivers. A notable large lake includes Winisk Lake that provides year-round fish habitat. There are total of 31 watercourses or waterbodies that are projected to be crossed by the roadway. There is also a network of smaller connected headwater streams, ponds, and lakes, many of which are part of open fens in the peatlands. There are 10 of these smaller connected streams that have also been identified along the proposed roadway. These smaller, shallower lakes and wetlands may dry over the course of the summer but still offer suitable fish habitat for seasonal rearing and feeding, usually in early spring.

Aquatic field surveys were completed at water crossing locations that met one or more of the following criteria:

• Watercourses and/or waterbodies displayed the ability to support fish at the time of the field survey (dry water crossings were not assessed);
  • Watercourses and/or waterbodies were likely to contain a criterion species, defined as a species of importance to Indigenous peoples for recreation, commercial and/or food source purposes and are also identified in the TISG; and/or
    • Watercourses and/or waterbodies where no specific aquatic (instream) habitat field data of sufficient detail were available from the review of background information sources.

Watercourses and/or waterbodies that did not meet any of the above criteria were not sampled. Waterbody crossing sites that did meet the criteria, but could not be sampled, were photographed from the air.

A total of 31 waterbody crossings were assessed as part of the field program. A total of 30 of these were watercourses and a single crossing was over a lake (Winisk Lake). Each waterbody crossing was assigned an overall fish habitat sensitivity rating based on the species sensitivity, species’ dependence on habitat, rarity (the relative strength of a species and prevalence of a certain habitat type), and habitat resiliency. The assessed waterbodies are presented in Figure 10.3. Flow regime, thermal regime and bankfull width data for each waterbody is shown in Table 10-4.

Fish community sampling was conducted concurrently with the fish habitat assessment surveys to determine fish presence, relative abundance and assemblages per sampling effort at 15 of the 31 waterbody crossings. Field survey methods followed standard practices for fish and fish habitat surveys, including those methods contained in the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (Stanfield, 2017). Additional methods based on the TISG (IAAC, 2020) were incorporated. Not all sites were sampled due to high-water levels, which prevented safe access to additional sites.

Fish communities were assessed using minnow traps, dip nets, and gill nets. Observations of uncaptured fish were also recorded. Minnow traps were of uniform size, but gill nets had panels with mesh measuring 25 mm to 127 mm so that fish of all body sizes could be captured where deployed. Seine netting and electrofishing using a backpack electrofisher were planned but could not be completed safely due to site conditions. Fish community sampling was completed as close to the planned road crossing locations as possible. The assessed waterbodies are presented in Figure 10.3.

In general, waterbodies in the LSA and RSA were considered to support a variety of cool and cold-water fish. The large rivers support populations of Walleye, Lake Sturgeon, Brook Trout, Lake Whitefish, and other fish species. Many lower energy watercourses connected to these rivers provide habitat for Walleye and Northern Pike. Typically, Yellow Perch, White Sucker, and other small forage fish species are present with these larger bodied fish. Smaller streams and lakes in the area also support a variety of smaller-bodied fish, including cyprinid species, Brook Stickleback, and Mottled Sculpin. Fish habitat sensitivity ratings were determined for all waterbodies. Of the 31 waterbodies, three were determined to be “rare”, 28 were determined to be “moderate”, and one was “low” as defined in the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol.

A total of seventeen (17) species were captured during field sampling efforts. The most common species sampled were Northern Pike and White Sucker. Other species with a wide distribution included Walleye and Yellow Perch. Species such as Blacknose Shiner (Notropis heterolepis), Cisco, Ninespine Stickleback (Pungitius pungitius), and an unidentifiable Sculpin species were only caught at one location. Notable fish species that were not captured include Brook Trout and Lake Sturgeon. The fish community sampling program did not target either of those species, as Lake Sturgeon are bottom feeders typically found in deeper water below falls or large riffles. Brook Trout is typically found in deep, cold lake environments and the fish sampling program concentrated on the river and stream habitats.

1. Spawning Surveys

Spring spawning surveys were conducted to determine the presence of Walleye and Lake Sturgeon and the extent of spawning habitat within the LSA of the proposed corridor for the WSR. Spawning surveys using egg mats were conducted at three (3) locations; two (2) within the LSA at Sites WB-1 and WC-26, and one (1) outside of the RSA approximately 15 km north of WB-1 near the mouth of the Winisk River where Lake Sturgeon had been historically found (Site WC-1). The spawning surveys consisted of the deployment of artificial substrate egg mats in suitable habitat. Artificial substrate egg mats were used as a proxy to confirm spawning by Walleye and Lake Sturgeon since it was not feasible to conduct typical visual spawning surveys due to health and safety reasons as well as accessibility (no helicopter flights permitted after sunset). The assessed waterbodies, including the location of spawning surveys, are presented in Figure 10.2.

1. Benthic Invertebrate Surveys

Benthic invertebrate surveys were conducted at four crossings along the preliminary preferred route for the WSR in 2020, specifically at Sites WB-1, WC-3, WC-16, and WC-26. The intention of the sampling program was to sample at least one site in each tertiary watershed that had a waterbody crossing for the roadway. The benthic community samples were collected using either the near shore travelling-kick-and-sweep, grab sampling, or jab-and-sweep methods. A 500-micron D-net was used when the kick-and-sweep and jab-and-sweep collection methods were used, and an Ekman grab sampler was used for grab sampling. The near shore jab-and-sweep method was used in lakes and large rivers that had water depth that prevented wading, had limited access for a boat, and/or soft silty clay or muck type substrate that limited the opportunity to conduct the travelling kick-and-sweep transect method across the entire

river width. Where a boat could be used in non-wadable streams, the jab-and-sweep method or an Ekman grab sampler was used. The assessed waterbodies, and locations where benthic invertebrate surveys were conducted, are presented in Figure 10.2.

All samples were field reduced through a 500-micron sieve to remove unnecessary silt and sand. Where Ekman grab sampling was conducted, a total of three samples were collected to ensure sufficient organisms for identification. These three grab samples were pooled together to make a single composite sample and a portion of that sample formed a replicate. Replicates were placed into labeled sample bottles with 95% ethanol for preservation. Only one or two replicates were completed upstream and downstream of each proposed waterbody crossing, regardless of the sampling method used.

1. Environmental DNA (eDNA) Sampling

Environmental DNA (eDNA) refers to DNA present in aquatic or terrestrial environments, which organisms shed into their surroundings. By sampling eDNA, it is possible to identify what animals are using a habitat based on the

DNA signatures found in the sample. To support the fisheries program, eDNA samples were collected between August 17-20, 2023, from waterbodies that had not been previously assessed, as well as from major waterbodies that had been examined in earlier conventional sampling efforts.

The Project Team collected eDNA samples from nine sites, including four previously sampled locations: Winisk Lake, Winiskisis Channel, Ekwan River, and Muketei River. The eDNA kits and sampling protocols were provided by NatureMetrics.

eDNA samples were collected using a NatureMetrics vampire pump, which drew water directly from the waterbody crossing site and passed it through an eDNA collection filter. The vampire pump consists of a peristaltic pump that creates a vacuum which draws water up a silicone hose and passes it through the collection filter. In order to obtain enough eDNA for a sample, each filter required a minimum of 1.5 L of water to be passed through it. At each site, three samples were taken, with the exception of site WC-MR, where a duplicate sample of WC-MR-E1 was collected for Quality Assurance/ Quality Control (QA/QC) purposes for a total of 28 samples. The assessed waterbodies, including locations where eDNA sampling was conducted are presented in Figure 10.2.

10.2.1.3              Species at Risk

Lake Sturgeon is the only species at risk identified in the project study areas. Lake Sturgeon have been previously identified in watersheds within the Regional Study Area, belonging to the Southern Hudson Bay – James Bay Population (COSEWIC 2006). Lake Sturgeon is classified as Special Concern by the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) and the provincial Endangered Species Act. However, this designation does not grant the species additional protection beyond what is already afforded to other fish species in the area.

No Lake Sturgeon were captured during any field sampling programs; however, Indigenous Knowledge did provide information on locations where Lake Sturgeon have previously been captured, including Winisk Lake (WB-1) and the Winiskisis Channel (WC-3). Lake Sturgeon have also been detected in the Muketei River, although downstream from the WSR Project where it empties into the Attawapiskat River (Haxton et al., 2017). Details on existing conditions with respect to Lake Sturgeon, including the assessment of effects as a result of the Project, are presented in Section 13 (Assessment on the Effects to Species at Risk) of the Draft EAR/IS.

10.2.2             Results

1. Fish Habitat and Fish Community Surveys

Fish habitat sensitivity ratings, fish community sampling results, waterbody restricted activity timing windows, waterbody tertiary watersheds, and predicted fish habitat that may be impacted by the road are summarized in Table 10-6,

Table 10-7, Table 10-8 and Table 10-9, respectively.

Table 10-6: Summary of Habitat Characteristics for Waterbodies

Table 10-7:    Waterbody Fish Presence and Restricted Activity Timing Windows

Notes:

1. – Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), 2013. In-Water Work Timing Window Guidelines. 2 pp.
2. – Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), 2013. Ontario Restricted Activity Timing Windows for the Protection of Fish and Fish Habitat.
3. – (p) meaning probable as suitable habitat is present, but no Northern Pike, Walleye, or Brook Trout were caught or observed.

Table 10-8:    Fish Species Capture Summary

Notes:

^(a)     Noront Resources Ltd. (Noront EA, 2013). Eagle’s Nest: A Federal/Provincial Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Assessment Report.

^(b)     Golder, 2013a. Cliffs Chromite Project Environmental Assessment. Additional fish captures to the south, outside the LSA.

^(c)     Holm, E., Mandrak, N., and Burridge, M. 2009. The ROM Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of Ontario. Royal Ontario Museum. + 462 pp.

^(d)     One unidentifiable sculpin (Cottus sp.) was sampled by SNC-Lavalin in August 2019.

^(e)     Sampled using minnow traps.

^(f)      Sampled using eDNA.

Table 10-9:    Fish Habitat Covered by Watercourse/Waterbody Crossing

Note: m² = square metres

1. Spawning Surveys

Walleye and Lake Sturgeon fish eggs were not identified by DNA analysis in any of the samples of eggs collected during spawning surveys. This was likely due to the water temperature being in the upper limits or higher than the preferred spawning temperatures of Walleye during egg mat gang deployment. Additionally, more favourable spawning habitat for Lake Sturgeon may be elsewhere (notably downstream of the Winisk River Provincial Park boundary that was not accessible), or the population may have declined. Many of the eggs collected were identified as Shorthead Redhorse, Trout-perch, Iowa Darter, Sculpin sp., and Yellow Perch.

1. Benthic Invertebrate Surveys

Benthic invertebrate survey results showed species diversity typical of the region, with an even distribution of individuals across sites, and no dominance by a single species. This suggests that the waterbodies surveyed are relatively intact and unimpacted (Lydy et al., 2000; Rios and Bailey, 2006).

The Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera Index indicated that most sites had a high percentage of species and individuals from these Ontario Benthic Biomonitoring Network groups. Because these species are sensitive to disturbance and habitat degradation, higher percentages typically reflect better ecosystem health, suggesting relatively unimpacted aquatic environments along the WSR route (Gazendam et al., 2011).

Overall, the benthic invertebrate communities suggest that the aquatic environments are unimpaired, characterized by low to moderate currents and mixed substrates ranging from boulders to fine-textured organic sediments.

1. Environmental DNA (eDNA) Sampling

Environmental DNA sampling was conducted in 2023 and the results identified fish species that had been captured during conventional sampling efforts, along with additional fish species. This method proved to be a valuable supplement to conventional sampling, especially given the challenging conditions that limited some traditional methods. The number of species identified by eDNA at each sample varied, but on average nine fish species were detected at each sample location. This ranged from a low of a single species detection at one of the WC-27 sampling locations, to a high of 18 species identified at a Muketei River sample. No species at risk (e.g., Lake Sturgeon) or Brook Trout were detected during the eDNA sampling.

10.3                 Identification of Potential Effects, Pathways and Indicators

As indicated in Table 10-3, some project activities may interact with and impose potential effects on the Fish and Fish Habitat VC during the project construction and operations. This section describes the nature of the potential effects, the pathways that link the project activities and the effects, and the indicators that can be used to assess and measure the effects. Table 10-10 summarizes the potential effects, effects pathways, and effect indicators for the Fish and Fish Habitat VC. The potential effects of accidental spills on fish and fish habitat are discussed in this section and are further assessed in Section 23 – Accidents and Malfunctions.

10.3.1             Changes to Quantity and Quality of Fish Habitat

The following potential effects to Quantity and Quality of Fish Habitat may occur as a result of project construction and operations.

10.3.1.1               Destruction/Loss of Fish Habitat

The destruction of fish habitat is described as a reduction in total available habitat for fish, as defined by the Fisheries Act. This loss renders the habitat no longer suitable for fish to utilize during any stage of their life cycle. This may include both instream habitat as well as riparian habitat. The pathways in which such effects may occur during construction and operations of the Project are described below.

Construction of permanent structures (culverts and bridges) at waterbody crossings → Loss of instream and riparian habitat → Reduction in total available habitat for fish

Construction

The construction of the road has the potential for direct and indirect effects that could cause negative changes to fish and fish habitat quantity and quality through the physical alteration of waterbodies. To construct the road and supportive infrastructure, 31 waterbody/watercourse crossing structures are required for the WSR. These water crossings have the potential to directly affect fish habitat quantity and quality in each of the waterbodies. The road width is expected to be

11.5 m along the route alignment, expanding up to 17 m at waterbody crossings where a fill embankment is required. Bridges will be approximately the same width as the roadway (11.5 m). Based on these dimensions, the direct placement of the road would result in a total approximately 9,150 square metres (m2) of fish habitat destruction/loss, considering the bankfull width of the waterbodies that will be crossed. However, the actual destruction or loss will be considerably less as there are a proposed total of six (6) bridge structures, 19 steel box culverts (steel plate arches) and six (6) large diameter (greater than 4 m width) corrugated steel pipe culverts identified that will accommodate or span the bankfull width of a waterbody. For example, steel box culvert crossings are designed so that the bankfull width of each stream crossed is fully preserved within the footprint of each culvert. All of the proposed bridge crossings structures will maintain fish habitat underneath the bridge deck. Indigenous communities have identified the loss of fish habitat as a concern related to the project construction and have emphasized that fish habitat loss should be avoided, especially in spawning areas (Bikowski, V.A. and Saddique 2024, in draft).

Temporary access roads will be required for the construction phase of the Project. During construction, a temporary access road/trail will be constructed within the ROW for WSR, along its length, to allow for vegetation clearing; to advance construction of culverts and bridges at select water crossings; and for earth movement/haulage. For the most part this access road will coincide with the footprint of the ultimate preferred route for the WSR, or in some cases may be located outside the road footprint but within the 35 m wide ROW. WC-27 is a watercourse crossing that is included for access to ARA-4, which will be used to source aggregate for the project.

As a result, the only direct impact or loss to the portion of streams within the bankfull width or below the high-water mark of waterbodies will be to the riparian areas and the locations where bridges have piers and associated footings in the water. Bridge footings will have a small individual footprint of approximately 12.5 m x 5 m in size (62.5 m2 / footing). With approximately a total of 11 in-water footings/piers for the Project, there is an expected destruction of 687.5 m2 of aquatic habitat. Overall, this impact represents a small loss of available fish habitat at select bridge sites where in-water piers and footings are required. The waterbody crossing structures for the Project are summarized in Table 10-10.

Table 10-10: Waterbody Crossing Structure Types and Spans

Additional fish habitat destruction will occur from clearing riparian vegetation in buffer areas that are beside each waterbody crossing. It is anticipated that approximately 27,640 m2 of riparian habitat will require removal to accommodate the road and cleared ROW at each crossing.

Most impacts on fish and fish habitat are expected to occur during the construction phase, as the WSR will span multiple habitats, including waterbodies. Additionally, the construction of a permanent access road to aggregate source area ARA-4 is also expected to impact one (1) large waterbody (WC-27).

A total of 250 m2 of potential spawning habitat (gravel/cobble substrates) for Brook Trout, Walleye, Longnose Sucker, White Sucker, Lake Sturgeon, Yellow Perch, and Lake Chub is expected to be lost at waterbody crossing sites WC-3, WC-10, WC-25, and WC-27. In addition, approximately 500 m2 of spawning habitat (dominated by a silty substrate with abundant riparian vegetation) for Northern Pike is expected to be lost at waterbody crossing sites at WC-6A and WB-1. Flooded riparian areas, of which 27,640 m2 are expected to be cleared would also be good spawning and rearing habitats for Northern Pike during flooded conditions. Losses of spawning habitat for Burbot, Lake Whitefish and Cisco is predicted to be unlikely to occur. Winisk Lake does contain deeper substrates and suitable habitat for Burbot, Lake Whitefish and Cisco, but not at the proposed crossing location.

Operations

Operation of the roadway is unlikely to result in additional loss of fish habitat, as repairs will be generally made to the roadway surface which are unlikely to cause any direct fish habitat loss. Should repair or rehabilitation of bridges and/or culverts be required that necessitate in-water works, it is predicted that only minor losses or temporary alterations of fish habitat may occur.

10.3.1.2              Harmful Alteration and Disruption of Fish Habitat

The harmful alteration of fish habitat is defined as a change in the physical, chemical, or biological conditions in an aquatic system that could impair the ability for fish to complete one of more of its life processes (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 1986). This could include changes in flow, substrate type, aquatic vegetation, and/or water quality that may affect the quantity or quality of fish habitat. The disruption of fish habitat is defined similarly but generally refers to short- term effects that might impair a fish’s ability to complete one or more of its life processes, whereas alteration is a more permanent or long-term effect.

Roadway construction that is predicted to last up to 4 years is likely to result in alteration and disruption of fish habitat which could result in changes to fish community structure, abundance and distribution near the project (Woodcock, 2002; Taylor and Roff, 1986). Although fish may be able to utilize these altered and/or disrupted habitats, it is possible that the habitats will not provide the same habitat value or functionality when compared to undisturbed habitats such as those observed during existing conditions studies. The pathways in which harmful alteration and disruption of fish habitat may occur during construction and operations of the Project are summarized and described below.

Placement of materials for construction of roadway and waterbody crossings (bridges and culverts) →

Alteration and disruption of fish habitat

Construction and maintenance activities → Erosion, deposition and transportation of sediment into

waterbodies → Reduction in surface water quality → Alteration and disruption of fish habitat

Accidental spills and air contaminant/GHG emissions during construction and maintenance activities → Reduction in surface water quality → Alteration and disruption of fish habitat

Construction of permanent or temporary structures (culverts and bridges) at waterbody crossings → Change

in hydrology (change to surface water drainage patterns and flows) → Alteration and disruption of fish habitat

Construction of permanent or temporary structures (culverts and bridges) at waterbody crossings → Change to riparian habitat → Alteration and disruption of fish habitat

Construction and maintenance activities → Introduction of invasive species → Alteration and disruption of fish

habitat

Construction

Habitat Alteration/Disruption Due to Placement of Materials

Materials such as rip-rap, boulder, or other armouring materials may be placed in the waters along watercourse banks or shoreline area of lakes (i.e., Winisk Lake) during construction to prevent erosion of the road embankment or provide scour protection near culverts and bridge crossings. These materials may be eventually covered in-water once the construction is complete and may continue to function as fish habitat; however, these will likely be a change from the baseline conditions and may change how fish utilize these areas. This effect is generally negative (Massey et al., 2017), but in instances where the habitat was relatively uniform (mudbanks, etc.), rip-rap and other engineered habitats may increase fish species diversity and abundance (White et al., 2010).

Habitat Alteration/Disruption Due to Erosion or Sedimentation

Increases in the concentration of suspended sediment can result directly from soil disturbance and grading activities during construction of the road, re-suspension of bed materials at water crossings and/or indirectly from site run-off. This could increase total suspended solids and turbidity in the downstream aquatic ecosystems and result in a negative effect on surface water quality. These suspended sediments might be naturally occurring and released due to disturbance or may be deposited from construction activities (in-fill for road embankment). Site run-off, caused by an increase in relatively non-permeable road surfaces may also increase suspended sediment concentrations and cause deposition downstream. These released sediments can affect fish species at all stages of their life cycles (Anderson

et al., 1996; Kemp et al., 2011). Fine sediment can result in downstream sediment deposition that alters substrate composition or channel morphology and modifies the suitability of habitat for spawning, overwintering, foraging, and rearing. The availability of food, such as benthic invertebrates or vegetation, may also be affected due to smothering and/or substrate changes caused by deposited sediments (Jones et al., 2011). Effects could also include changes in invertebrate abundance and/or community structure (Rosenberg and Wiens, 1978). Increases in suspended and settled sediments may also interfere with gas exchange, such as reduction of available dissolved oxygen level that may be intolerable to some aquatic life, or in certain instances cause fish death. These effects may extend beyond the initial construction and can last several years before the systems are flushed of sediments (Taylor and Roff, 1986).

Lachance et al. (2011) found that the effects of increased sediment deposition, which can reduce fish spawning and rearing habitat quality, can extend between 358 to 1,442 m downstream of culvert crossings. These effects were most pronounced within the first year after construction but begin to subside after 2-3 years once the area stabilizes.

Overall, past studies have documented that deposited sediment from erosion and sedimentation can modify the availability and suitability of fish habitat through (CCME, 1999):

• Changes in-water clarity: reduced visibility due to turbid waters and available light penetration can create behavioral changes in local aquatic biota. Changes may be observed as alteration in movement patterns

(i.e., migration) and foraging success, ultimately leading to reduction of habitat quality and/or quantity (Cavanagh et al. 2014; Wood and Armitage, 1997).

• Potential effects on available forage species: increases in suspended and settled sediments may lead to a reduction of available dissolved oxygen to levels intolerable by some benthic invertebrates and forage species, and may clog gills of zooplankton (Chapman et al., 2017). Coarse sediment transport may reduce the quantity of periphyton on substrates, and decreased light penetration may reduce phytoplankton, which has potential to cause trophic level changes in an ecosystem (Henley et al., 2000).

• Deposited sediments: suspended sediments mobilized by construction activities are ultimately deposited downstream from the point of release/mobilization. Deposition of such material can have direct effects on habitat quality and fish such as:
  • Primary production of macrophytes may be reduced as a result of diminished light penetration or smothering, reducing food availability for herbivore species (mainly forage for fish), and oxygen production;
  • Reduced specialized habitat areas such as a decrease in distinction between riffle-run-pool habitat types in a stream which reduces habitat quality and species richness;
  • Filling of interstitial spaces used by forage and benthic dwelling species (i.e., benthic invertebrates) (Lenat et al., 1981); and
  • Decreased reproduction success by reduction of spawning areas, smothering of eggs and emergence of fish fry (Bilotta and Brazier, 2008; Henley et al., 2000; Kjelland et al., 2015).

Water Quality Changes due to Accidental Spills and Emission of Air Contaminant, Fugitive Dust and Greenhouse Gases

Accidental spills of chemical or hazardous materials (e.g., petroleum products, ammonium nitrate) during construction has the potential to enter nearby waterbodies along the WSR. Changes to fish habitat and water quality from spills of fuel or other materials can negatively affect fish populations directly, or cause changes to their habitat. Release from spills may also affect food sources, such as plants or benthic invertebrate populations used as food sources

(Kajpust, 2022; Barton and Wallace, 1979). These effects can be varied but are generally detrimental to fish and fish habitat (DeBofsky et al., 2020).

Changes in-water quality (and thus fish habitat quality) due to air contaminant and fugitive dust emissions, including greenhouse gas emissions, may also occur as result of the Project. Dust emissions during construction are predicted to be localized but have the potential to change water quality which may influence fish habitat availability. Fossil fuel emissions from vehicles, construction equipment and generators can release sulfite and nitrate species which can induce acidification and/or eutrophication of waterbodies (Environment Canada, 1994; Schindler, 1998). The effects of air contaminants are unlikely to be localized and caused exclusively by the Project but will be additive with increased greenhouse gas emissions.

Habitat Alteration Due to Changes in Hydrology or Groundwater

Potential changes in surface water drainage patterns and increases or decreases in flows and surface water levels in waterbodies, as well changes to groundwater, are described in detail in Sections 7 and 8 of the Draft EAR/IS. The installation of bridge structures and embankments, along with associated culverts, may change hydrology near the roadway beyond the natural range of variation and lead to changes in fish habitat quantity and quality. Culverts typically have a greater impact on fish habitat (Wellman et al., 2000) than bridges, but bridges also cause changes in fish habitat (Belcher, 2022). These disturbances generally are concentrated downstream of the effect but can also take place on the upstream side if channel restriction causes changes to water impoundment. This impoundment may flood or alter habitat outside of the typical watercourse boundaries and floodplains. In addition, these structures can reduce flow rates both upstream and downstream of the crossing. Changes to water levels and flow can affect spawning, rearing, feeding, migration, and overwintering habitat of fish-bearing waterbodies as well as affect waterbody productivity and food availability. Changes to water levels and flow can also alter the presence of macrophytes, which provide cover, spawning material or food for fish.

Groundwater inputs are seasonally important to the baseflow of local waterbodies and natural environment features (e.g., vegetation, fish and fish habitat, and wetlands). Construction activities have the potential to locally influence the contribution of groundwater discharge to the baseflow of waterbodies. Specifically, Project construction may lead to changes in the local hydrogeological environment by increasing, decreasing or redirecting groundwater flows. These changes in groundwater flow can result in local groundwater table lowering or raising and alteration of flow pathways.

These potential changes in groundwater flow pathways are potentially linked to surface water quantity (i.e., water levels) and subsequently fish habitat quantity and quality

Habitat Alteration Due to Removal of Riparian Vegetation

The removal of riparian vegetation adjacent to fish habitat is required for construction of the road. Removal of riparian zones is linked to changes in fish abundance and distribution (Jones III et al., 1999). The removal of vegetation could cause changes in-water temperature due to reduced shading potential (McGurk, 1989). This in turn could make habitats less suitable for spawning or feeding if temperatures exceed the tolerance range of cold or cool-water fish species or invertebrate species (MacDonald et al., 2003). Habitat structure of watercourses may also change if overhead cover or terrestrial inputs (such as the input of woody debris) into watercourses are reduced, decreasing the amount of available habitat for fish. Removal of riparian vegetation may also result in changes in food supply (plants and organic debris that fall into the waterbody and terrestrial insects.)

Dust emissions caused by construction of the roadway may also affect riparian vegetation by changing plant communities that may alter habitat structure, channel stability and overhead cover and a result adversely affect fish habitat.

Introduction of Invasive Species

The introduction and spread of aquatic invasive plants during construction have the potential to reduce the suitability and availability of fish habitat as plant species may not be conducive to native fish or can change water quality form acidification and nutrient enrichment. The introduction of invasive plant species could occur as result of stowaways accidentally brought to the site. One example is construction equipment that is transported from outside the region that is not properly cleaned/disinfected may transfer invasives plants to the study area.

Operations

Water Quality Changes due to Accidental Spills and Emission of Air Contaminant, Fugitive Dust and Greenhouse Gases

Similar to the effects of construction, there could be effects to water quality during the operations phase of the Project from accidental spills and emission of air contaminant, fugitive dust and greenhouse gases. Although the exact frequency of spills is difficult to calculate, estimates show accident rates for trucks and releases at 1.9 x10-7 spills per mile travelled for mine trucks (0.00000019 spills per mile, or 0.00000012 spills per kilometer), (Harwood and Russell, 1990). These estimates are also not developed strictly for the Project but show that spills over the course of the operation of the roadway are likely to occur. Although the initial usage of the roadway will be primarily personal and commercial vehicles and transport trucks with low traffic volumes, its predicted that minor spills and release are probable over the lifetime of the Project. In addition, similar to construction, vehicles and equipment during operations will release air contaminants and also fugitive dust emission in areas where the road has a gravel surface.

Introduction of Invasive Species

The introduction of invasive plants during operation will have similar potential effect that may reduce the availability and quality of fish habitat as plant species not conducive to fish become prevalent in areas. Road access also increases the likelihood of introduction of invasive fish species (Kaufman et al., 2009).

10.3.1.3              Changes in Fish Access to Habitats

Placement of water crossing structures in waterbodies can potentially cause changes in fish accessibility to habitat through the introduction of obstructions or barriers to fish passage. Obstructions are identified by the Fisheries Act (1989) as an introduced impediment to the “free passage of fish”. Reduction of accessibility or elimination of fish passage can have adverse implications throughout the aquatic system, particularly where there is more than one

crossing in the waterbody, or if there are multiple crossings in a small watershed. Linear features, such as roadways, that cross streams have the potential to impede fish movement by creating barriers to fish passage (Januchowski- Hartley et al., 2014). A barrier to fish passage is considered any structure or activity that would make it more difficult (or impossible) for a fish to traverse. Improperly installed or maintained culverts at waterbodies may prevent fish from passing through the structure, and limit fish access to habitat (Gibson et al., 2011; Price et al., 2011). The pathways in which changes in fish access to habitats from barriers to fish passage may occur during construction and operations of the Project are described below.

Installation of temporary flow isolation structures for instream construction of bridges and culverts →

Localized temporary barriers to fish access to habitats

Constructed culverts at waterbody crossings may become visual barriers or clogged with debris → Barriers to fish access to habitats

Constructed culverts at waterbody crossings with associated roadway embankments → Potential habitats for beavers to build beaver dams → Local temporary barriers to fish access to habitats

Construction

Road construction will require either bridge footings or culvert structures to cross waterbodies, while allowing water to flow past the road. Temporary obstructions, such as cofferdams, flume pipes, or pump systems would be required to complete construction in dry conditions. These temporary obstructions could result in restrictions to fish passage and will occur during construction.

Sites with bridge construction may also need temporary embankments for bridge footing construction. Construction will occur within dry, isolated streambeds, with temporary barriers in-place. While downstream flow will be maintained during construction, there may be brief interruptions in flow during construction to facilitate works.

Operations

Installing temporary or permanent culverts in waterbodies can lead to habitat fragmentation in aquatic ecosystems (Fagan, 2002), which can also disrupt fish communities by isolating populations and their supporting habitats upstream and downstream of road crossings (Perkin and Gido, 2012). This effect is well understood with large, impassable barriers such as hydropower dams and roadways (Brown et al., 2013; Pess et al., 2005; Berglund, 2007). These barriers can lead to declines in species abundance and richness (Nislow et al., 2011) and isolation of habitats that are significant to specific life cycle processes (migration to spawning, rearing and overwintering areas) and can disrupt the stability of self-sustaining populations.

Culverts can become perched due to improper installation during construction or from road settlement over time or may become damaged or blocked through natural or human disturbances. Even appropriately installed culverts may become clogged with debris, restricting fish passage, if not appropriately maintained (Ottburg and Blank, 2015). This effect is most pronounced downstream of the culvert, as generally fish can move downstream of culverts but not upstream (Nislow et al., 2011). Fish passage barriers that change access to habitats are more likely to affect fish species with longer migration routes more severely, such as Lake Sturgeon (Wishingrad et al., 2014); however, even fish that do not migrate and use localized habitat in a waterbody may still be adversely affected as they may not be able to access nearby critical habitat (i.e., spawning, rearing).

Culverts in waterbodies if not designed and constructed appropriately can also restrict fish passage if the flow rate through the culvert is higher than fish are capable of swimming through (MacPherson et al., 2012). Culverts may also create low flows conditions with inadequate water depth that may also restrict fish passage, with some studies suggesting 76-85% of culverts may cause fish passage issues (Blank et al. 2005) to improper embedment of culverts below a streambed. When fish are not able to pass through the culverts, it effectively isolates certain populations and

can cause habitat fragmentation (Diebel et al., 2014). Culverts may also present visual barriers that will cause fish to avoid passing through the culverts even if they are physically capable of passing through. Beavers also tend to exploit the habitats created by waterbody crossing structures and associated roadway embankments, which may increase the effects of the barriers to fish passage or increase the rate at which they accumulate (Jensen et al., 2001).

Spatially the effects of changes to fish access of habitats through potential barriers to fish passage are most likely to occur at waterbody crossings where culvert structures are proposed to facilitate the passage of water. There are 25 culverts of various types (e.g., open bottom arch culverts and corrugated steel pipes) proposed to be placed at small to medium size waterbody crossings. Changes to fish access from barriers to fish passage are not predicted to occur at large waterbodies where six (6) bridges are proposed. These include the following waterbody crossings:

• Winisk Lake (WB-1);
• WC-19 (Unnamed Tributary to Muketei River);
• Winiskisis Channel (WC-3);
• Muketei River (WC-26);
• Ekwan River (WC-10); and
• WC-27 Crossing.

Bridge footings, which support piers that are in the water, are not expected to restrict fish passage (Cocchiglia et al., 2012), as bridge footings occupy only a small portion of the available fish habitat at a bridge crossing.

The long-term effects of barriers to fish passage could be significant, as the roadway is expected to operate indefinitely. Without regular maintenance and monitoring during operations, the effects of fish barriers are likely to increase over time as culverts become plugged or modified due to beaver activity, ground movement, culvert damage, and/or sedimentation.

10.3.2             Changes to Fish Populations

10.3.2.1              Injury/Death of Fish

The injury/death effect is defined as physical injury to fish (fatal or non-fatal) as a result of the proposed works. This includes injuries or death to ‘fish’ as defined by the Fisheries Act. The pathways in which construction and operations of the Project may result in an injury or death effect to fish are described below.

Placement of materials for construction of roadway and instream construction of waterbody crossings (bridges and culverts) → Injury or death of fish

Blasting (i.e., use of explosives) of rocks → Shockwaves/overpressure from explosion, chemical residues from explosives entering waterbodies → Injury or death of fish

Dewatering, fish salvage from areas isolated for in-water work and from beaver dam removal prior to construction → Injury or death of fish

Maintenance activities that require in-water work → Injury or death of fish

Accidental spills → overland flow with surface run-off → Reduction in surface water quality→ Injury or death of

fish

Accidental releases of contaminant substances (oils, fuels, etc.) may cause the death of fish during both the construction and operation phases of the Project. The potential effects of spills are assessed in Section 23 – Accidents and Malfunctions.

Construction

There may be multiple causes of potential fish injury/death during construction, including but not limited to:

• Physical injury or mortality of fish caused by placement of materials in watercourses or equipment maneuvering in watercourses.
• Blasting near waterbodies could potentially cause the death of fish (Dunlop, 2009). Blasting work is currently not expected within waterbodies but will be required during construction for the extraction of bedrock to process aggregate at locations near waterbodies.
• Pumps will be used to dewater locations for construction of waterbody crossing structures, and this could potentially cause fish to be impinged or otherwise trapped on pump intakes or screens if not properly designed.
• Fish salvage operations during construction are proposed to prevent death/injury to the majority of fish, but there is potential for injury/death of fish during salvage operations as well.

During instream construction of the water crossings, there is the potential for physical injury or mortality of fish to occur. This can occur from the operation of heavy machinery in the water or the placement of fill or other materials in the waterbody where fish are present. The use of intakes or pumps can also cause entrainment or impingement of fish.

Entrainment occurs when a fish is drawn into a water intake and cannot escape. Impingement occurs when an entrapped fish is held in contact with the intake screen and is unable to free itself.

Explosives will be used at aggregate source areas (i.e., ARA-2 and ARA-4) as part of the extraction/mining of bedrock rock material needed for the construction and operation phases of the Project (refer to Section 4). Based on the relatively low volumes of rock needed for the Project (5,500 m3) the blasting of rock using explosives during construction and operation activities is expected to occur on an infrequent basis. Blasting has the potential to cause the death or injury of fish if completed in-water or adjacent to water. This occurs from the release of shockwaves that can cause internal damage to the fish (Wright and Hopky, 1998) or fish eggs (Faulkner et al., 2006). The effects and their magnitude can be variable, and is based on the distance, type of explosive, and amount of explosive used in detonation but even relatively small charges can cause fish death if placed close to water (Hubbs and Rechnitzer, 1952). Blast residues can also cause changes in nutrient concentrations and contaminant concentrations in the watercourse that may harm fish.

Mitigation measures will be implemented to avoid/prevent the injury and/or death of fish. However, the potential for death and/or injury to fish exists, particularly in waterbodies within Project Footprint and LSA. Risk of injury and/or death of fish is expected to be highest during in-water works for installation of waterbody crossing structures conducted during the construction phase of the Project.

Operations

Similar to the construction phase, during operations injury/death of fish may occur during bridge and/or culvert repairs and/or other maintenance activities where in-water work are required.

10.3.2.2              Change in Public Access to Fish/Fish Habitat

The development of the WSR could result in a negative effect on the abundance of fish species, through increased access to waterbodies where populations are present. Access to previously undisturbed areas introduces opportunity for increased harvesting by First Nations and public recreational fishing in populations that have not previously experienced such pressure. This potential effect could be amplified where other proposed roads in the region (i.e.,

Northern Road Link and Marten Falls Community Access Road) are constructed and connect the WSR to the provincial highway system (refer to Section 21 – Cumulative Effects). The introduction of the WSR ROW and additional access road to aggregate source area ARA-4 will increase land quantity and access for harvesting, including potential expansion of outdoor tourism and recreational land use, which are currently limited within the LSA. The primary potential effect identified by increased access is pressure on historically inaccessible or remote waterbodies to an increase in harvesting/fishing. Increased harvest is described as increased mortality and removal of fish from waterbodies and watercourses caused by recreational or commercial fishing. Indigenous harvesting may also occur with increased access for First Nations traditional harvesting. Potential for increased harvesting is likely to come from a number of different groups including; recreational and tourism outfitters, workers during the construction and operations phases of the Project, and local Indigenous community members. The pathways in which construction and operations of the Project may result in a change in public access to fish/fish habitat are described below.

Project construction → Increased access to fish habitat for work crews → Increased harvest of fish

Project operations → Increased public and First Nations access to fish habitat for the public → Increased harvest of fish

Construction

Construction and other temporary workers may contribute to increased harvest during construction of the Project. These workers may exploit the local waterbodies to capture fish during their time-off or post-shift. This may result in increase in angling pressure near waterbody crossings that may result in detrimental effect on fish populations.

Operations

The majority of potential effects of excessive harvesting as result of an increase in access to fish habitats are expected to occur during the operations phase of the Project. The road itself and access road to aggregate source area ARA-4 are in previously undisturbed and inaccessible areas which could cause effects to the local fish populations through additional harvest (Hunt and Lester, 2009). Studies suggest that the higher quality road, the more pressure is expected on a fishery (Hunt, 2011). A lake trout study in Ontario showed reduction of a lake trout population by approximately 72% in only a few months once a new forestry access road was built that was able to access Michaud Lake (Gunn and Sein, 2000). Road density, and associated overfishing also was shown to be a contributing factor on salmon habitats in British Columbia (Bradford and Irvine, 2000). Small lakes in the LSA are especially susceptible to over-harvesting, such as oligotrophic lakes <50 ha that often support a smaller population of fish. First Nations communities are most likely to utilize the area and in particular Webequie First Nation, being in close proximity to the road. However, many community members of First Nations have raised concerns regarding a potential influx of southern Ontario fishers reducing their ability to harvest fish (Bikowski and Saddique, 2024, in draft; Stantec 2024, in draft).

Spatially, it is expected that effects from increased harvesting will not be evenly spread throughout the waterbodies crossed by the road. Studies have shown that angling effort increases based on the type and proximity of the road to waterbodies and watercourses (Kaufman et al., 2009). In addition, the proximity of a population centre greatly increases the pressure on fish, with fish stocks generally being more highly exploited near these centers (de Kerckhove et al., 2015). Therefore, it is conceivable that the greatest pressure on the waterbodies will be in proximity to Webequie First Nation, and any other developments that may occur along the roadway in the future.

The roadway may also increase the opportunity for new business or development opportunities (such as the tourism outfitters or lake-side development) which could have negative effects on the fish population (Hunt and Lester, 2009). Many remote fish lodges are currently fly-in only and some could be established relatively close on lakes that display suitable fish populations.

Recreational fishing, although not currently present in the LSA could also place additional pressure on the more frequently edible sport-fish species found in the area. First Nations have identified Walleye and Whitefish as the primary country food source that is routinely consumed by community members in the area.

Overall, access to previously undisturbed areas that may increase harvesting could include any of the following fish species (which have been identified as species generally taken by Indigenous peoples in the area):

• Northern Pike;
• Walleye
• Brook Trout;
• Lake Whitefish;
• Yellow Perch;
• Cisco;
• Burbot;
• White Sucker;
• Longnose Sucker; and
• Lake Sturgeon.

The proposed WSR current straddles two Ontario Fisheries Management Zones (FMR 2 and FMR 3). Beyond the fisheries limits typical of the zone, none of the waterbodies within the project area are subject to any current fishing restrictions or enforcement and it acknowledged that First Nations actively exercise their Aboriginal and Treaty Rights to harvest fish. The potential for an increase in harvesting of fish is expected to be limited to the Project Footprint and the LSA, as additional roads would be required for recreational anglers to access and harvest fish in the RSA.

Table 10-11: Potential Effects, Pathways and Indicators for Fish and Fish Habitat VC

Note: m² = square metres

10.4                 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures

This section describes the proposed mitigation measures to eliminate, reduce, control, or offset potential adverse effects to fish and fish habitat during construction and operations of the Project as detailed in Section 10.3. Many potential effects on Fish and Fish Habitat VC can be successfully mitigated to reduce the effects of the Project. In addition to the mitigation measures described in this section, the preliminary recommended preferred route selected through the alternatives evaluation process (refer to Section 3 – Evaluation of Project Alternatives) has minimized the number of waterbody crossings, including avoiding large lakes and watercourses that support fish and fish habitat, where possible. However, complete avoidance of waterbodies is not feasible due to the numerous waterbodies in the study area and the length of the WSR.

Enhancement measures are not currently proposed for the Project. However, it is anticipated that the Project will result in the harmful habitat alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat or may cause death to fish, as defined under the Fisheries Act, and an authorization under Act will be required for the Project. It is expected that habitat offsetting measures (including habitat enhancement) will be required as a result of this authorization process and the proponent is committed to engaging First Nations in the future development, implementation and monitoring of habitat offsetting measures.

This section and the following sections in Appendix E (Mitigation Measures) outline the key mitigation measures to reduce potential adverse effects of the Project on fish and fish habitat. These mitigation measures reflect environmental protection guidelines to protect “Environmentally Sensitive Areas” as described in the Webequie First Nation On- Reserve Land Use Plan (Webequie First Nation, 2019a). Further measures will be provided in the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and the Operation Environmental Management Plan (OEMP) that will be developed for the Project. Refer to Section 4.6 for details of the proposed framework for the development of the CEMP and the OEMP.

• Section 5.1 – Clearing and Grubbing;
• Section 5.2 – Petroleum Handling and Storage;
• Section 5.3 – Spill Prevention and Emergency Response;
• Section 5.5 – Materials Handling and Storage;
• Section 5.6 – Working Within or Near Fish-Bearing Watercourses;
• Section 5.7 – Watercourse Crossings;
• Section 5.8 – Temporary Watercourse Diversions;
• Section 5.9 – Fish Passage;
• Section 5.10 – Fish Salvage;

• Section 5.11 – Culvert Maintenance and Installation;
• Section 5.12 – Blasting Near a Watercourse;
• Section 5.16 – Erosion and Sediment Control;
• Section 5.17 – Concrete Washout Management Practices;
• Section 5.18 – Dust Control Practices;
• Section 5.19 – Aggregate Pit Decommissioning;
• Section 5.20 – Quarry Site Selection and Development Requirements;
• Section 5.21 – Site Decommissioning and Rehabilitation;
• Section 5.22 – Water Quality Monitoring; and
• Section 5.23 – Prevention of the Transfer of Invasive Species.

10.4.1             Changes to Quantity and Quality of Fish Habitat

The following mitigation and enhancement measures are recommended to reduce the potential changes to Quantity and Quality of Fish Habitat. A summary of all the recommended mitigation and enhancement measures are presented in Table 10-12.

10.4.1.1              Destruction/Loss of Fish Habitat

During road construction and operations, the following key mitigation measures will be implemented to avoid and minimize the reduce the destruction/loss of fish habitat. Each of these measures will help reduce one or more of the potential effects of the Project on the quantity and/or quality of fish habitat.

1. General Avoidance Measures and Project Planning and Design

Potential effects to fish and fish habitat were avoided to the extent possible during the planning phase and through the alternate route evaluation and preferred route selection process. Key avoidance and project planning measures proposed to reduce or eliminate effects on fish habitat include:

• Applicable best management strategies, avoidance and mitigation measures will be applied using the practices within the MNR Environmental Guidelines for Access Roads and Water Crossings (MNR, 1990), MNR and DFO protocol for the review and approval of forestry water crossings (MNR and DFO, 2021), DFO’s Measures to Protect Fish and Fish Habitat (DFO, 2022a) and applicable Codes of Practice (DFO, 2022c), and standard mitigation measures presented in the Ministry of Transportation/Fisheries and Oceans/Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MTO/DFO/MNR) Protocol for Protecting Fish and Fish Habitat on Provincial Transportation

Undertakings (MTO/DFO/MNR, 2020).

• The preferred route has been selected with consideration to minimize the number of waterbody crossings for the road, where feasible, as well as the Project Footprint will be minimized to the extent possible.
  • Permanent culverts and bridge crossings have been designed to accommodate the complete existing bankfull channel width of a watercourse, preserving and minimizing impacts to fish habitat.
    • For culverts (i.e., open bottom steel arch) at 17 watercourse crossing locations, the design mitigation will include the infilling of the culvert with material (i.e., aggregate) that resembles the natural substrate present at the watercourse, as well as the creation of a low flow channel that mimics the existing stream channel. The same will be done for corrugated steel culverts found at the remaining eight crossings requiring culverts. The purpose is to minimize habitat loss by enabling the channel to function as “naturally” as possible to convey flow; maintain channel form and function; and retain fish passage.

• For larger waterbody crossings, bridges have been selected for design and construction which are expected to reduce the total fish habitat loss. These locations are:
  • Winisk Lake crossing (WB-1);
    • Unnamed Tributary to Muketei River crossing (WC-19);
    • Winiskisis Channel crossing (WC-3);
    • Muketei River crossing (WC-26);
    • Ekwan River crossing (WC-10); and
    • Unnamed watercourse crossing (WC-27).
    • Fish habitat delineation and mapping, Standards, and specifications for protection of fish/fish habitat will be developed in the CEMP and OEMP for implementation to limit accidental disturbances (habitat loss) beyond the Project Footprint. These measures include:
      • Construction and/or silt fencing will be installed to clearly delineate the boundaries of the work areas to prevent habitat damage and destruction beyond work area boundaries. Where feasible, 30 m buffers will be established around riparian areas.
      • Construction personnel and equipment will be directed to avoid entering and crossing any watercourses or areas not required for construction.
      • Work vehicles and equipment will be restricted to designated work areas and access roads.
      • Maps identifying fish habitat, riparian buffers and no-go zones will be created and distributed to construction and operation personnel.
      • Signage and setbacks will be used to identify fish habitat and communicate restrictions for entering riparian areas.
    • Channel realignments/infilling will be avoided through Project planning and design to the extent practicable. Channel realignments/infilling will only be undertaken in locations where specific conditions are met and/or where required based on the detail design for each permanent waterbody crossing structure to be determined in the future developed stage of the Project. If required, DFO/MNR permitting and consultation will be undertaken to reduce the risk of negatively impacting the aquatic environment.
    • Sensitive habitats will be avoided (e.g., SAR/SOCC habitats, spawning areas, groundwater upwellings, etc.) where permit conditions apply and through project planning and design.
    • All temporary construction camps and temporary laydown areas and aggregate source areas (i.e., ARA-2 and ARA-4) and permanent supportive infrastructure (e.g., maintenance and storage facility, rest areas and maintenance

turn-around areas) will be located a minimum of 100 m back from the ordinary high-water mark (HWM) of a waterbody through detailed planning.

• Refuelling, service, and maintenance of construction and operation vehicles and equipment will generally be carried out in designated areas at temporary construction camps, temporary laydown areas, and operations and maintenance facility located a minimum of 100 from waterbodies. These areas will be designed and constructed to collect and contain minor leaks and spills. If refuelling within 100 of a waterbody cannot be avoided, enhanced spill containment measures will be used. There may be locations where this is not possible due to the prevalence of wetlands (i.e., peatland areas); however, in these locations enhanced spill containment measures will be used.
  • The number of temporary water crossings required for the Project will be minimized, where possible.

1. Habitat Offsetting and Enhancement

The number of temporary and permanent water crossings for the Project will be minimized, where possible; however, even with this avoidance strategy, it is understood that the Project will result in death of fish and HADD of fish habitat within the Project Footprint. As a result, waterbodies where HADD and/or death of fish occur will require habitat

offsetting in order to comply with the Fisheries Act and conditions anticipated in the Fisheries Act authorization(s). Once the Project design is finalized, any net effects to fish/fish habitat will be offset through habitat creation or habitat enhancement to achieve no net loss of fish habitat and/or productive capacity. Habitat offsetting and enhancement requirements will be determined in consultation with DFO and First Nations during the detail design permitting phase of the Project.

10.4.1.2              Harmful Alteration and Disruption of Fish Habitat

During road construction and operations, the following key mitigation measures will be implemented and monitored to reduce the harmful alteration and/or disruption of fish habitat. Each of these measures will help reduce one or more of the potential effects of the road.

1. Temporary Watercourse Crossings

Where temporary watercourse crossings within road ROW are identified to facilitate construction of structures or for haulage of earth/fill for the construction of the WSR, they will be designed and constructed using best management practices and guidance, along with proposed mitigation measures for permanent watercourse crossings identified as part of this EA/IA. Where temporary waterbody crossings are required, these will be minimized to the extent where appropriate. Waterbody crossings may involve temporary bridges (i.e., clear-span bridges, rig mats), ice bridges/snow fills (for winter construction); and may potentially include culverts. As appropriate, some waterbody crossings may use a very short-term rig mat to facilitate clearing and access equipment, before being immediately replaced with a temporary bridge. Where temporary waterbody crossing structures are proposed, the primary preferred structures to be used in order of preference are clear-span bridges, ice bridges/snow fills (for winter construction), culverts, and rig mats.

Where in-water work is required to install a temporary waterbody crossing structure, such as a culvert, water management may include the use of cofferdams, diversion channels or by-pass pumps to isolate the work zone. Fish within the isolated work zone will be rescued (i.e., safely relocated) by qualified professionals prior to construction under the conditions of a MNR Licence to Collect Fish for Scientific Purposes.

The proponent, or its contractor, will incorporate best management practices for temporary watercourse crossings in the MNR Environmental Guidelines for Access Roads and Water Crossings (MNR 1990), and DFO’s Measures to Protect Fish and Fish Habitat (DFO, 2022) and applicable Interim Codes of Practice for Temporary Stream Crossings.

To avoid any permanent loss or alteration of fish habitat, temporary crossing materials, if used, will be removed immediately following the completion of construction activities. Upon removal of the crossing materials, the waterbody bed and banks will be returned to their original conditions if needed and disturbed areas will be stabilized, as necessary, to prevent soil erosion.

1. Project Planning and Design

Several water crossings have design mitigation that is proposed to reduce and or eliminate effects of alteration and disruption of fish habitat. Specifically, these will limit the placement of materials in water and/or project clearing that will be required, reducing alteration of substrates or vegetation. These include:

• Culverts and bridges are designed to match or exceed expected flow rates to provide capacity for expected water levels and water volumes. This includes consideration of site-specific discharge rates at crossing to inform on the appropriate sizing of the water crossing structures.
  • Bridge designs have been adopted for larger watercourse crossings which are expected to reduce harmful alteration and/or disruption of fish habitat by spanning over the waterbody and minimizing the placement of the structures in-water.

• Similar to the mitigation identified in Section 10.4.2.1 for habitat loss, culvert design criteria have been used to replicate existing functions at watercourse including the minimum and maximum water levels in culverts for fish passage, erosion control and the proper hydraulic conveyance. Culverts will be embedded by 10% to consider low flow conditions and aligned parallel to the waterbody channel on a straight section of uniform gradient. Culverts will be designed for fish passage at the lowest trophic levels of each system and will meet DFO’s species specific passage requirements. This will aid in the ability to reduce the risk of the culvert installation introducing velocities which surpass swimming abilities of a waterbody’s fishery (MNR and DFO, 2021). Open bottom culverts (i.e., steel arch structure culverts with no bottom that do not disturb the bed of a waterbody) have been considered for

17 water crossings that has been determined to be sensitive in the fish/fish habitat assessment. Additional mitigation options may also be implemented for culverts to minimize net habitat alteration or loss and optimize usage and passage by fish such use of baffles, gradient pools, keyed stones, etc., where required. For proposed open bottom culverts and closed culverts (e.g., corrugated steel pipes), substrates will be placed inside the culvert to mimic the existing substrates upstream of the crossing to reduce habitat alteration.

• Culvert length will be minimized to reduce habitat alteration and disruption, where possible.
  • Materials placed in-water will be erosion-resistant, or covered with such materials, to reduce erosion and sedimentation and limit downstream habitat alteration and disruption.
    • During the construction phase a CEMP will be implemented and during operations an OEMP will be implemented. Management plans will be consistent with the requirements of the Project’s permits and authorizations to minimize the potential effects of construction and operations activities on fish and fish habitat. Management Plans will guide the proponent and its contractors in complying with applicable environmental legislation by providing criteria, standard protocols, and commitments to mitigation measures in the EA/IA to eliminate, reduce, and/or offset potential adverse effects to fish and fish habitat. During construction and/or operations, the following key environmental management plans relevant to the Fish and Fish Habitat VC within the broader CEMP and OEMP will be developed and implemented.
      • Erosion and Sediment Control Plan;
      • Fish and Fish Habitat Management Plan;
      • Surface Water and Storm Water Management and Monitoring Plan;
      • Air Quality and Dust Control Management Plan;
      • Construction Blasting Management Plan; and
      • Vegetation and Invasive Species Management Plan.
    • The CEMP and OEMP will include the environmental monitoring requirements during the construction and operation phases of the Project to confirm and document compliance with the provisions of the CEMP and OEMP and conditions of applicable permits and approvals. During the construction phase, Environmental Monitor(s) and/or Indigenous Monitor(s) will be on-site to observe and document/log the implementation of mitigation measures implemented to minimize the potential effects of construction on fish and fish habitat. The documentation log will identify any deficiencies and record the actions taken to correct any issues of concern.

1. Vegetation Clearing

A vegetation clearing standard will be established to limit the potential effects of the Project on riparian and in-water vegetation (i.e., aquatic plants) that it important for fish and fish habitat and thereby minimizing the alteration of fish habitat. Key mitigation measures to be implemented include the following:

• Vegetation clearing will be conducted using appropriate equipment to prevent tree dragging and minimal earth disturbance in riparian areas of waterbodies.
  • Clearing of riparian habitat will be minimized, where possible, as riparian habitat provides a buffer to fish habitat, regulates water levels, and controls erosion and sediment.

• Vegetation removal within the ROW will be limited to the footprint of structures placed at water crossing and where feasible to retain a 30 m riparian buffer upstream and downstream of the structure crossings to limit habitat alteration and disruption.
  • Allow for compatible vegetation to grow back within the ROW, including riparian areas, to heights compatible with safe operation of the road.
    • Develop and implement a Vegetation and Invasive Species Management Plan detailing that includes details on vegetation restoration/reclamation and riparian area stabilization using native riparian/wetland seed mixes, if applicable, to stabilize soils/banks to pre-construction condition or better.
    • Use of only approved seed mix species and/or plant species of importance to Indigenous communities for site restoration of riparian areas.
    • Details on implementation of a post-construction monitoring plan, which will include activities such as examining and documenting the success of revegetation and restoration measures.
    • An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be developed and implemented to contain, manage site drainage and run-off.

Unless prompt revegetation is required for erosion control, most riparian areas will be left to naturally revegetate following grading and stabilizing activities. However, restoration may include site‐specific measures to promote the natural revegetation of disturbed areas, where feasible. Erosion control during construction will be maintained until the disturbed ground has been adequately stabilized with vegetation.

1. Storage and Handling of Materials

Standards and procedures for the storage, handling and stockpiling of non-hazardous materials will be established to reduce the potential for erosion and accidental deposition of materials that may impair surface water quality and impact fish or fish habitat. This will reduce/limit the effects of accidental spills and/or changes to water quality. These measures will also limit the introduction of invasive species during construction or operations. Key mitigation measures will include, but are not limited to, the following:

• The temporary storage, handling and disposal of materials used or generated (e.g., organics, soils, woody debris, temporary earth stockpiles, construction debris, etc.) during site preparation, construction and clean-up will be located a minimum 30 m from waterbodies to reduce the risk of that sediment or deleterious substances entering a waterbody.
  • Excess material will be managed and monitored to prevent sediment-laden water from entering watercourses and/or waterbodies and affecting fish habitat.
    • Materials stored long-term will be covered and stabilized to reduce erosion and sedimentation.
    • Waste materials will be hauled off-site for disposal or placed in environmentally stable locations.
    • An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be developed and implemented to contain, manage site drainage and run-off.

1. Erosion and Sediment Control

An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be developed as part of the CEMP and OEMP. This plan will be prepared prior to construction and will include site-specific erosion and sediment control (ESC) drawings and specifications to control erosion and sedimentation from construction and operation activities. The ESC measures as set out in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (and approved by relevant regulators) will be installed prior commencing work with the objective to reduce erosion and sediment deposition in fish habitat, and potential habitat alteration or degradation. This will reduce/limit the potential effects of accidental spills and/or changes to water quality. The ESC measures and procedures will include, but are not limited to:

• Sediment fencing, silt curtains, and erosion control stabilization materials (e.g., straw mulch, wood chips, erosion control blanket, etc.) will be installed to limit the migration of sediment or release of deleterious substances into fish habitat.
  • Work will be restricted during high precipitation or run-off events to reduce erosion potential to the extent practicable and in-water work associated with water crossing will be conducted in the dry season or ice-on conditions to minimize risk to negatively impact fish habitat.
    • Temporary and/or permanent erosion control measures such as rip-rap or other materials will be placed along road where it interacts with water, to reduce erosion potential.
    • Seeding and revegetation will be completed as soon as the final surfaces are prepared to control erosion and help promote establishment of native vegetation. A healthy native vegetation community will also limit the introduction of invasive species.
    • Sediment-laden water generated on-site will be pumped into a well-vegetated area at least 30 m from fish habitat to prevent infiltration into fish habitat.
    • ESC measures will be installed, monitored, and managed as appropriate to reduce the risk of sediment reaching a waterbody prior to and during construction.
    • Disturbed areas will be re-contoured to restore drainage patterns to the approximate pre-construction conditions, where practicable.
    • Complete instream construction in isolation of flowing water (i.e., use isolation methods where surface water exists at the time of construction). Isolation measures will follow the DFO Interim Standard for In-water Site Isolation (DFO, 2023a).
    • Environmental Monitor(s) will be on-site during construction to monitor the installation, use and removal of temporary water crossing structures and during installation of permanent water crossing structures.
    • Temporary ESC measures must be:
      • Installed according to the plan;
      • Installed before or immediately after initial disturbance; and
      • Monitored and effectively maintained (e.g., repaired, replaced or supplemented with functional materials) throughout construction until permanent erosion control is established, or restoration is complete.

1. Spill Prevention and Response

Spills during construction and operations that occur in high enough concentrations could negatively affect water and sediment quality and cause direct acute/chronic toxicity to fish, affect reproduction survival, and as a result changes in abundance and diversity of fish and/or fish habitat. Spills, should they occur, are predicted to be generally local in nature; however, literature suggest that the introduction of deleterious materials into a waterbody can have acute and chronic impacts on the aquatic environment. Considering the nature of work associated with the Project, the most plausible types of spills have been identified as petroleum hydrocarbons (i.e., fuel and/or oil) products from machinery and equipment, and potential release of cementitious materials for concrete work at waterbody crossings that may increase water pH and cause mortality or long-term health issues to fish.

Mitigation measures to prevent and respond to accidental spills and protect fish and fish habitat are summarized below and further described in Appendix E (Section 5.2 – Petroleum Handling and Storage, Section 5.3 – Spill Prevention and Emergency Response, Section 5.5 – Material Handling and Storage, Section 5-17 Concrete Washout Management Practices). A Spill Prevention and Emergency Response Management Plan will be developed and implemented during construction. After construction is complete, this plan will be adapted for the operations phase of the Project. Spill prevention and emergency response management measures will include, but not be limited to:

• All vehicles and equipment will be stored at least 30 m from waterbodies and operated in a way that prevents the release of deleterious substances into a waterbody, irrespective of their fish-bearing status.

• Re-fueling, service and maintenance of equipment and vehicles will generally be caried out in designated areas at temporary construction camps, and laydown areas along the road, and will be located at least 100 m away from waterbodies, and outside of fish habitat.
  • Any vehicle or equipment that enters a waterbody must be free of fluid leaks and externally cleaned and degreased.
    • Storage of above ground fuel storage tanks and other hazardous materials will be located at least 100 m from waterbody, irrespective of their fish-bearing status.
    • Fuel and hazardous materials will be transported in approved containers in licensed vehicles and stored in such a way to reduce the risk of any deleterious substances from entering a waterbody.
    • Vehicles and equipment will not be permitted to work in-water, unless required. In these cases, works will be conducted under observation by a qualified environmental monitor.
    • Concrete truck washout areas will be located a minimum of 100 m away from the ordinary high-water mark of a waterbody and in a non-porous soil location and will be cleaned be cleaned up at the end of the construction activities.
    • Fuels and other liquid contaminants will be stored in containers with secondary containment able to store 110% of the capacity of the container.
    • Containers will be routinely inspected for leaks.
    • Spill mitigation measures (spill kits) will be present on-site in all laydown areas, vehicles, equipment, and other designated locations. In the event of a spill/leak, the following precautions will be implemented:
      • The spill/leak will be contained and either disposed of through site waste handling systems or removed for disposal in approved facilities;
      • Reportable spills (as defined under O.Reg. 675/98) of potentially deleterious materials will be reported to the MECP Spills Action Centre; and
      • If the spill is in fish-bearing water or where potential for harm to fish or fish habitat is likely, the MNR, DFO and Webequie Forst Nation and other select Fist Nations will also be contacted.
    • Construction will be modified or delayed during heavy precipitation or run-off events.
    • Signage or reduced speed limits will be considered for implementation over bridges to reduce the risk of vehicle accidents and spills.
    • Individuals working on-site and handling petroleum or other hazardous materials will be trained in best practices related to the transportation and handling of dangerous goods.

1. Dewatering Activities

Dewatering refers to the process of removing groundwater or surface water from a construction site in order to create a dry, stable work environment for excavation, temporary stream flow diversion and/or structural foundation work at waterbody crossings. Dewatering has the potential to change local hydrology and groundwater conditions and may negatively impact the quality and quantity of fish habitat. Dewatering measures to prevent potential harm to fish and fish habitat will include but not be limited to:

• All dewatering will be conducted in compliance with the Ontario Provincial Standard Specification (OPSS) 517 – Construction Specifications for Control of Water from Dewatering Operations, and OPSS 518 – Construction Specification for Dewatering of Pipeline, Utility, and Associated Structure Excavation.
  • Dispersal mechanisms (e.g., tarping, filter bags) will be used to minimize risk of erosion, as required.
    • Existing stream flows will be maintained without interruption or diminishment during construction, where feasible.
    • Fish screens to prevent impingement or entrainment will be utilized to reduce fish mortality. DFO guidance for fish screens (2020) will be followed.

• Complete instream activity in the shortest timeframe practical to minimize the duration and reduce the risk of severe disturbance from dewatering activities.
  • Manage temporary flows, withdrawal, and discharge, including all water from dewatering operations to reduce the risk of erosion and/or release of sediments to a waterbody.
    • Monitor turbidity and total suspended solids according to permit requirements.

1. Air Contaminants and Dust Emissions

Construction and operations of the Project are expected to generate air contaminants and fugitive dust emissions that could lead to changes in-water quality, which could affect fish habitat quantity and quality. The air quality measures in Section 9 of the Draft EAR/IS include the development and implementation of a Dust and Air Quality Management Plan prior to construction and for this plan to be updated for the operations phase of the Project. Section 9 described the specific measures in detail and the following key mitigation measures will be applied to minimize impacts to fish habitat:

• Limit vehicle emissions;
  • Vehicles and equipment will be regularly serviced, maintained and inspected to ensure they are good working order per manufacturer specifications;
    • Obey all speed limits to limit fugitive dust;
    • Exposed excavations, disturbed ground surfaces and the road surface will be sprayed with water as a dust control practice, where deemed necessary;
    • Slash pile burning from clearing operations will be subject to permits and approvals by appropriate regulatory agencies and in compliance with O. Reg. 207/96;
    • Minimize dust-generating activities, where required, during periods of high wind to limit dust emissions and spread;
    • Restore disturbed areas as soon as reasonably possible to minimize duration of soil exposure; and
    • Multi‐passenger vehicles will be used to transport construction personnel to the job site, where practicable.

10.4.1.3              Change in Fish Access to Habitats

Placement of water crossing structures in waterbodies can potentially cause changes in fish accessibility to habitat through the introduction of obstructions or barriers to fish passage during construction and operations, the following key mitigation measures will be implemented and monitored to limit the creation of barriers to fish passage and resulting potential changes in fish access to habitats.

1. Project Planning and Design

As part of the project planning and design mitigation is proposed to reduce or eliminate potential changes to access to fish habitat from the placement of water crossing structures in waterbodies, associated with effects of the introduction of barriers to fish passage. Mitigation measures will reduce the effects of both temporary flow isolation structures, as well as those caused by permanent culvert/bridge installations. These design mitigation measures include, but are not limited to:

• Larger watercourse crossings will incorporate bridge designs that span the waterbody and avoid the potential for creation of barriers to fish passage.
  • Bridges will be installed at up to six of the larger watercourses along the roadway to reduce barriers to fish passage. The specific locations include:
    • Winisk Lake (WB-1);
    • WC-19 (Unnamed Tributary to Muketei River);
    • Winiskisis Channel (WC-3);

• Muketei River (WC-26);
  • Ekwan River (WC-10); and
    • WC-27 Crossing.
    • Flow and migratory fish passage routes will be maintained at all crossings including bridges and culverts.
    • Culvert inlets, outlets, and substrates at water crossings will be designed to replicate existing habitat conditions and characteristics of the watercourse channel upstream and downstream of the crossing.
    • Culverts will be appropriately sized to allow fish passage and will maintain the flow and water depth characteristics observed during existing conditions studies.
    • Similar to the mitigation identified in Section 10.4.2.1 culverts will be embedded by 10% to consider low flow conditions and aligned parallel to the watercourse on a straight section of uniform gradient. Culverts will be designed for fish passage at the lowest trophic levels of each system and will meet DFO’s species specific passage requirements. This will aid in the ability to reduce the risk of the culvert installation introducing velocities which surpass swimming abilities of a waterbody’s fishery (MNR and DFO, 2021). Open bottom culverts (i.e., steel arch structure culverts with no bottom that do not disturb the bed of a waterbody) have been considered for 17 water crossings that has been determined to be sensitive in the fish/fish habitat assessment. Additional mitigation options may also be implemented for culverts to minimize and avoid the introduction of barrier to fish passage and facilitate passage by fish such use of baffles, gradient pools, keyed stones, etc., where required.
    • Where possible, culverts will be oversized to prevent affects associated with beaver activity.

1. Culvert Maintenance and Monitoring

A regular culvert inspection, maintenance program and monitoring will be implemented during the construction and operation phases of the Project. These programs will reduce the effects of culverts being clogged with debris, which could present visual of physical barriers to fish passage. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Culverts will be regularly monitored and maintained during construction and operation to allow for fish passage. Debris removal activities will follow DFO’s Code of Practice: Culvert Maintenance (2023) (i.e., gradual removal such that flooding downstream, extreme flows downstream, release of suspended sediment, and avoidance of fish stranding).
  • Implement the fish and fish habitat protection procedures for culvert maintenance as documented in the Ministry of Transportation Fisheries – Best Management Practices Manual (MTO, 2020).
    • Adjusting maintenance and inspection schedules according to how quickly culverts fill with debris.
    • Implementing a beaver dam removal plan to minimize potential effects on fish habitat availability. Where beaver dam removals are required to facilitate the installation or maintenance/repair of water crossing structures, the activity will be completed in consideration of best management practices and environmental permit/approval conditions (once available), including MNR guidelines for access roads (MNR 1990, 2010a,b), DFO’s Measures to Protect Fish and Fish Habitat (DFO, 2022a), Code of Practice for Beaver Dam Removal (DFO, 2022c) and Fisheries – Best Management Practices Manual (MTO, 2020).

10.4.2             Changes to Fish Populations

The following mitigation and enhancement measures are recommended to reduce the potential changes to fish populations:

10.4.2.1              Injury/Death of Fish

During instream construction of water crossing structures and or where blasting (i.e. use of explosives) occurs in or near a waterbody there is the potential for physical injury or death of fish. During project construction and operations, the following key mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce the unintentional injury/death of fish.

1. Blasting Restrictions

Where blasting in or near water is proposed to support road construction or in bedrock for aggregate during operations, additional mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce the potential for Injury/Death of fish. These measures include but are not limited to:

• Follow the general avoidance measures and project planning in Section 10.4.2.1 such as reducing the risk of fish death through applying restricted activity periods (timing windows). Conducting fish rescues/relocations and avoiding blasting in or near water, unless absolutely necessary.
  • A Blasting Management Plan will be prepared and implemented by the proponent or their contractor(s) for the Project that describes specific measures that would be implemented if blasting is required.
    • Use blasting mats to reduce the percussive, or risk of fly rock, injures to fish, and /or death of fish.
    • Establishing setbacks from fish-bearing waters that are protective of fish.
    • When blasting in unavoidable, following the DFO Blasting Guidance (Wright and Hopky, 2008) and Ontario Provincial Standard Specification 120 General Specifications for the Use of Explosives (Ontario Provincial Standards 2019).
    • Permitting all blasting works appropriately, including applying for Fisheries Act authorization where the potential for HADD and/or death of fish exists.
    • Limiting blasting to areas where other methods, such as drilling and standard excavation, are not possible.
    • Preparing site-specific blasting plans when blasting is likely to be required.
    • No ammonium nitrate-fuel oil mixtures will be used, due to the production of toxic byproducts (i.e., ammonia).

1. Restricted Activity Periods / Timing Windows

Activities with the potential to impact fish and fish habitat (e.g., in-water work) or cause risk of injury/death to fish during the construction and operation phases of the Project will be conducted within the appropriate restricted activity period or commonly referred to as in-water timing window, as determined by the MNR and DFO. Timing in-water work to avoid sensitive life stages is typically considered an effective means of reducing the risk of negative effects to fish. The typical periods when in-water work should be avoided (i.e., restricted activity periods/timing windows) are identified for each waterbody in Table 10-5. The following measures will be implemented:

• Restricted activity periods will include both Spring and Fall windows to protect fish populations during their spawning, rearing and migratory periods. Based on the species present in the study area, these windows are estimated to typically be:
  • April 1 to June 30 (spring window);
    • September 1 to June 15 (fall/winter window); and
    • Restricted activity periods will be based on the species discovered in each specific waterbody.
    • Construction of watercourse crossings will occur outside of restricted activity periods to minimize or avoid risk of injury or death to fish.
    • Where fish sampling has not been conducted, the most restrictive activity period will be applied to each individual watercourse to protect fish and fish habitat.

• For waterbody crossings, the proposed restricted activity periods will be applicable to:
  • Any work below the high-water mark (installation of culverts, construction of bridge piers in-water);
    • Temporary water crossings where an ice bridge, fording or snow fill is proposed; and
    • Where beaver dam removals are required.

1. Work Isolation and Fish Rescue

To complete in-water works associated with waterbody crossings, isolation of the work site and fish rescue operations will be conducted. The following measures will be implemented:

• In-water work to allow for construction and repair of waterbody crossing structures will be isolated (i.e., will occur in the dry) from surrounding fish habitat using cofferdams, aquadams, or other methods acceptable the MNR and DFO such as the requirements in the Interim Code of Practice: Temporary Coffer Dams and Diversion Channels [DFO 2023b].
  • Submission of appropriate notification and acquisition of necessary permits/approvals from regulatory agencies.
    • Temporary dam structures to isolate the work zone will be constructed using clean materials that minimize suspended sediment generation.
    • Flow will be maintained during in-water works at a level sufficient to sustain aquatic life and prevent upstream impoundment.
    • Fish rescues will be conducted to relocate fish prior to in-water work, dewatering or conducting works in wetted channels or wetlands. Fish within the isolated workspaces will be rescued (i.e., salvaged and relocated) by qualified professionals under the conditions of a MNR License to Collect Fish for Scientific Purposes to be acquired, and in accordance with requirements in the DFO Interim Standard for In-water Site Isolation.
    • Fish handling will be minimized, including limiting time spent weighing and measuring fish.
    • For diversions during isolations, appropriately screened pumps will be used to reduce the risk of entrainment or impingement of fish following the guidance within the interim DFO Code of Practice for end-of-pipe fish protection screens for small water intakes in freshwater (DFO 2020).

10.4.2.2              Changes to Public Access to Fish Habitats

The development of the WSR could result in a negative effect on the abundance and distribution of species, through increased public access to waterbodies where fish populations are present. During project construction and operations, the following key mitigation and monitoring measures will be implemented to reduce the effect of increased harvest on fish populations from changes in access.

1. Project Planning and Design

Project planning and design will incorporate measures to prevent and/or minimize public access that may lead to increased harvest, including, but not limited to, the following:

• Installing restrictive fencing and/or barricades near waterbody crossing sites, including on bridge structures to deter fishing.
  • Siting designated rest areas along the road as far as practical from potential fishing locations.

1. Employee Wildlife Orientations and Restrictions

The following restrictions will be implemented for employees and visitors at the project site to limit the increase in fish harvesting:

• Employees or visitors on-site in temporary construction camps or at the permanent maintenance and storage facility will be prohibited from hunting, fishing, or harvesting wildlife.
  • Temporary access routes, especially those at or approaching waterbody crossings as well as temporary construction camps and laydowns areas will be revegetated as soon as possible.
    • Firearms and angling gear will be prohibited on-site.
    • Wildlife orientation and education programs will be delivered on-site to inform personnel about best environmental practices for fish and wildlife in the area.

1. Public Access Restrictions

To reduce public access to waterbodies and limit the potential increase in fish harvesting, the following mitigation measures will be implemented:

• Temporary access routes, construction camps and laydown areas that are not required for operation of the roadway will be reclaimed (i.e., revegetated and blocked from public access as soon as feasible).
  • Public access to the road route and supportive infrastructure areas (camps, etc.) will be prohibited during construction unless authorized by the proponent.
    • Stopping on the roadway during its operations will be prohibited, except in designated rest areas and in emergency situations.
    • Fencing or other barricades will be installed near watercourses and on bridges to deter fishing.
    • Increased access may require regulatory changes, such as restrictions on fishing in certain locations or changes to harvesting by First Nation community members to prevent additional fishing pressure. However, these legislative changes or changes to First Nation exercise of their rights to harvesting of fish are beyond the direct control the Project.

Table 10-12: Summary of Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Predicted Net Effects for Fish and Fish Habitat VC

10.5                 Characterization of Net Effects

Net effects are defined as the effects of the Project that remain after application of proposed mitigation measures. The effects assessment follows the general process described in Section 5 – Environmental Assessment / Impact Assessment Approach. The focus of the effects assessment is on predicted net effects, which are the effects that remain after application of proposed mitigation measures. Potential effects with no predicted net effect after implementation of mitigation measures are not carried forward to the net effects characterization or the cumulative effects assessment.

Table 10-13 presents definitions for net effects criteria, developed with specific reference to Fish and Fish Habitat VC. These criteria are considered together in the assessment, along with context derived from existing conditions and proposed mitigation measures, to characterize predicted net effects from the Project on Fish and Fish Habitat VC.

Table 10-13: Criteria for Characterization of Predicted Net Effects on Fish and Fish Habitat VC

10.5.1             Potential Effect Pathways Not Carried Through for Further Assessment

The potential effects outlined in Table 10-11 cannot be entirely mitigated; even with mitigation measures some effects are expected in each of the identified effects categories. Effects that remain following the implementation of mitigation measures are carried forward for further assessment (Section 10.5.2).

10.5.2             Predicted Net Effects

Although potential effects will be reduced with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures outlined in Section 10.4, net effects on Fish and Fish Habitat VC may remain. Predicted net effects on the Fish and Fish Habitat VC are:

• Changes to Quantity and Quality of Fish Habitat:
  • Destruction/Loss of fish habitat;
  • Harmful alteration and disruption of fish habitat;
  • Changes to fish access to habitats;
• Changes to Fish Populations:
  • Injury/death of fish; and
  • Changes to public access resulting in increased harvest of fish.

10.5.2.1              Changes to Quantity and Quality of Fish Habitat

The following net effects to Quantity and Quality of Fish Habitat may occur as a result of project construction and operations.

1. Destruction/Loss of Fish Habitat

The destruction of fish habitat refers to a reduction in the overall available fish habitat, making it unsuitable for fish to use during any stage of their life cycle. Despite mitigation efforts, destruction of fish habitat caused by construction activities is an expected net effect on fish and fish habitat. This section describes destruction of fish habitat across relevant project phases.

Construction

The road width is expected to be 11.5 m throughout the route, expanding to 17 m at waterbody crossings with culverts and higher fill embankments for the road are required. Bridges will be approximately the same width as the roadway (11.5 m). After mitigation through project planning and design, the fish habitat will be preserved in most locations, with arch open bottom culverts spanning the entire bankfull width of the watercourses where proposed. However, some destruction of fish habitat will be unavoidable during construction of bridge pier footings in-water that will have a small individual footprint of approximately 12.5 m x 5 m in size (62.5m2 / footing). With approximately 11 in-water footings for piers, there is an expected destruction of 687.5 m2 of aquatic habitat lost. Fish habitat provided by the adjacent riparian areas of a waterbody are also expected to be destroyed along the road alignment. Approximately 27,640 m2 of riparian habitat is predicted to lost based on the proposed road width and riparian width at each water crossing.

A spatial analysis indicated that, within the LSA for the preliminary recommended preferred route, the total water coverage or area (primarily waterbodies) is approximately 1.6×108 m2. This estimate includes waterbodies but does not include the footprint of select small ephemeral or poorly defined streams as they did not appear in the waterbody data layer or from aerial imagery but are likely abundant. Based on the assessment its estimated that 687.5 m2 of in-water fish habitat (below the HWM) and 27,640 m2 of riparian habitat will be lost or destroyed, which represents approximately 0.017% of the available fish habitat in the LSA. A summary of the net effects of destruction of fish habitat caused by construction based on the characterization criteria is presented in Table 10-14.

Table 10-14: Criteria Results for Destruction of Fish Habitat – Construction

Operations

Destruction of fish habitat is not expected as a result of roadway operations. Repairs to the roadway and water crossing structures may be required over time, but these are not expected to result in destruction of fish habitat. Where in-water work may be required to complete repairs of culverts and bridges, no new destruction of fish habitat is predicted at that time. A summary of the net effects of destruction of fish habitat caused by operations activities based on the characterization criteria is presented in Table 10-15.

Table 10-15: Criteria Results for Destruction of Fish Habitat – Operations

1. Harmful Alteration and Disruption of Fish Habitat

The harmful alteration of fish habitat is defined as a change in the physical, chemical, or biological conditions in an aquatic system that could impair the ability for fish to complete one of more of its life processes. The disruption of fish habitat is defined similarly but generally refers to short-term effects that might impair a fish’s ability to complete one or more of its life processes, whereas alteration is a more permanent/or long-term effect. Despite mitigation efforts, harmful alteration and/or disruption of fish habitat caused by construction activities is an expected net effect on fish and fish habitat. This section describes harmful alteration and/or disruption of fish habitat across relevant project phases.

Construction

Habitat Alteration/Disruption Due to Material Placement

Habitat alteration due to material placement is expected to be restricted to armouring (e.g., rock) at bridge abutments, bridge pier footings and inlet and outlet areas of culverts. This armouring is itself a mitigation measures to reduce erosion and sedimentation (and maintain road integrity) but will still act as a modified habitat. However, natural shorelines and streambeds generally tend to function as habitat better than armoured shorelines (Happel et al., 2023). The armouring is expected at all bridge footings (11 footings) as well as bridge abutments with road embankment fill and culverts.

Riparian Vegetation Clearing

The loss of riparian vegetation that may be utilized by fish species is expected to be minimal once mitigation measures are implemented. Any temporarily cleared riparian vegetation within the ROW beyond the road footprint will be allowed to regrow so the loss of riparian vegetation is predicted to be limited to the permanent footprint associated with the road.

Habitat Alteration Due to Changes in Hydrology

Changes to hydrology or groundwater are not expected to significantly alter fish habitat. Mitigation measures implemented will ensure sufficient flow of both surface and groundwater through existing streams. Flow rates or water depths should not be significantly affected, and fish should be able to utilize the same locations as habitat once construction is completed. There may be temporary effects if culverts become blocked, but maintenance programs should ensure these effects would be temporary.

Habitat Alteration Due to Erosion or Sedimentation

Is it expected that some increased sediment accumulation may be expected as a result of construction. Wellman et al. (2000) found that sediment accumulation increased downstream and immediately at culvert entrances (inlet and outlet areas). This effect did not appear to have a significant effect on the fish presence. Wellman et al. also found that this accumulation was not detected at locations with bridge crossings. Project design has planned for bridge crossings at the locations (such as WC-3) where Lake Sturgeon spawning habitat may be present, so the effect on rare species is expected to be negligible. The effect on other species in the area may be present, but the availability of habitat nearby is high so effects are predicted to be minimal.

The distance at which culverts will affect the environment is dependent on many factors; however, studies have found these effects are generally (and as expected) concentrated downstream of watercourse crossings. A study by Lachance et al. (2011) found these effects (especially increased sediment deposition, which can reduce fish spawning and rearing habitat quality) can extend between 358 to 1,442 m downstream of culvert crossings. The study also found that these effects are most pronounced up to a year after construction has completed but begin to reduce after 2-3 years once the area begins to stabilize. Using the maximum of 1,442 m as the conservative potential for sediment deposition downstream of each culvert water crossing its predicted that approximately 254,000 m2 of downstream fish habitat may be affected by increased sedimentation. This applies only to those water crossings where culverts are proposed with associated fill for road embankments. However, many of these watercourses are slow moving and have finely sedimented bottoms already so the actual effect to fish habitat is expected to be relatively small.

Habitat Alteration Due to Introduction of Invasive Species

The introduction of invasive species, and the effect it will have on fish habitat is expected to be negligible once mitigation measures are implemented. Vehicles will arrive on site clean and free from invasives, and those that do get introduced will be monitored and eradicated during construction and operations.

Table 10-16: Criteria Results for Harmful Alteration and Disruption of Fish Habitat– Construction

Operations

Harmful alteration and disruption of fish habitat is not expected as a result of roadway operations. Repairs to the roadway and crossing structures may be required over time, but these are not expected to result in measurable net effects. There may however be temporary effects due to erosion and/or sedimentation or clearing of riparian vegetation habitat during maintenance events. The pathways will be the same as those in the construction phase, but of smaller scope when road maintenance is required.

Table 10-17: Criteria Results for Harmful Alteration and Disruption of Fish Habitat – Operations

1. Fish Access to Habitats

Construction

Temporary barriers to fish passage for instream construction

During construction, there will be temporary restrictions to fish passage during the installation of culverts and bridge piers, but this is expected to be very short in duration. In order to install culverts in-water and work in the dry, the work area will need to be isolated and flow alteration may temporarily restrict fish access to habitats.

Major watercourses will have bridges and are not predicted to limit fish passage. Corrugated steel pipe type of culverts may restrict fish passage, but these are generally proposed over smaller watercourses that will have fewer or no long- distance migratory fish species, such as Brook Trout or Lake Sturgeon. For Lake Sturgeon, where the fish have been documented (Winisk Lake, Winiskisis Channel, and the Muketei River), the planned bridge structures will significantly reduce the effects on this species. A summary of the net effects relating to changes in access to fish habitat as a result of potential creation of barriers to fish passage during the construction phase based on the characterization criteria is presented in Table 10-18.

Table 10-18: Criteria Results for Change to Fish Access to Habitats – Construction

Operations

Barriers to Fish Passage due to visual barriers, clogged culverts, or increased beaver activity

It is expected that there will be some net effects related to fish access to habitats from potential barriers to fish passage as a result of the Project. Previous studies have shown that road crossings with appropriately installed flow-through structures can have a minimal impact on fish abundance and diversity (Pluym and Eggleston, 2008). Mitigation and monitoring measures should reduce the barriers to fish passage, but it is possible that passages may become blocked due to natural erosion, fluvial processes in watercourses, beaver dams, and collection of debris (trees, brush, etc.).

These effects will be generally limited to locations with culverts. Sensitive species with longer migration routes, like Lake Sturgeon, and expected to only be found in locations with bridge structures, which are not expected to reduce the ability for fish to navigate and access upstream and downstream habitats from the road. It is expected that the net effects from barriers to fish passage are probable to occur, and where applicable the duration of this effect would be short-term and may arise frequently during the operations; however, a monitoring and maintenance program will reduce the duration of the effect. A summary of the net effects of changes in access to fish habitat as a result of the creation of barriers to fish passage during the operations phase based on the characterization criteria is presented in Table 10-19.

Table 10-19: Criteria Results for Change to Fish Access to Habitats – Operations

10.5.2.2              Changes to Fish Populations

The following net effects to fish populations are expected as result of project construction and operations:

1. Injury/Death of Fish

Construction

Injury/Death of Fish due to material placement, blasting, dewatering, and fish salvage

It is expected that some injury or mortality to fish will occur during construction that have potential to effect fish populations. This will include effects from works in-water and at riparian areas from equipment movement and use, material placement, blasting, and pump impingement and entrainment during dewatering activities. The magnitude is expected to be low and will be limited to the Project Footprint and the Local Study Area. The effect will be negative, but the expected changes to fish abundance or distribution are predicted to be negligible. For timing, the work will occur outside the timing windows. The duration of the effect is expected to be short-term, with effects only occurring during the construction period. The frequency of the effect will be frequent. The effect is irreversible once a fish is injured or killed. The likelihood of occurrence is probable.

Although the best efforts to remove fish via fish rescues will be completed, it is expected that some fish will be missed during these salvages, despite using multiple capture strategies. It is likely that small numbers of fish will also be killed even if successfully recovered, as not all fish captured through any method survive. Some estimates place mortality rates at approximately 7-10% for electrofishing (Habera et al., 1996). However, survival rates of greater than 95% of northern pike can be expected through proper fish capture and handling methods (Arlinghaus et al., 2008). It is difficult to estimate the number of fish lost or injured, but the number is expected to be low and not cause significant impacts to local populations. A summary of the net effects of injury/death of fish during the construction phase based on the characterization criteria is presented in Table 10-20.

Table 10-20: Criteria Results for Injury/Death of Fish – Construction

Operations

Injury/Death of Fish du to material placement, blasting, dewatering, and fish salvage

Injury and fish death are likely to be minimal during operations. Road crossing maintenance which requires isolation may result in the occasional injury/death to fish via similar pathways as construction but these will be very infrequent and short-term. Other than in emergency situations, these will be planned outside spawning windows. Accidents and releases may occur but are not considered during the scope of this assessment. A summary of the net effects of injury/death of fish during the construction phase based on the characterization criteria is presented in Table 10-21.

Table 10-21: Criteria Results for Injury/Death of Fish – Operations

1. Changes in Public Access to Fish Habitats

Construction

Increased harvest due to increased access to fish habitat for work crews

The net effect of a change to public access that may increase harvesting or pressure on fish populations during construction is expected to be minimal. Mitigation measures, such as the prohibition on fishing from construction workers, and access restrictions for the public (until construction is completed) will be implemented and therefore it is expected that the magnitude of the net effects will be low during construction of the Project. Pressure from increased harvest is likely limited to those who are fishing in contravention of construction site procedures.

A summary of the net effects of changes to public access to fish habitat that could increase harvest of fish during the construction phase based on the characterization criteria is presented in Table 10-22.

Table 10-22: Criteria Results for Change to Public Access to Fish Habitats – Construction

Operations

Increased harvest due to increased access to fish habitat for the public

The exact number of fish that will be harvested as a result of road operations is difficult to quantify and predict. Previous studies do exist that show how roadways can cause substantial effects on the fish populations due to increased harvest from road access. The effects of potential increased harvest will likely be concentrated at larger lakes and rivers with larger fish populations. As a result, it will be critical to monitor and enforce the mitigation and monitoring measure aimed at minimizing harvest to fish species utilized by Indigenous communities. This would likely include waterbodies such as Winisk Lake, Winiskisis Channel, the Muketei River, and the Ekwan River. The greatest fishing pressure is likely to occur at Winisk Lake, where the local Webequie community member already use the lake for recreation and harvesting of fish as a food source (Hopper and Power, 1991). Webequie First Nation community members (and many other First Nations in the area) generally harvest game fish species such as:

• Northern Pike;
• Brook Trout;
• Lake Whitefish;
• Yellow Perch;
• Cisco;
• Burbot;
• White Sucker;
• Longnose Sucker; and
• Lake Sturgeon.

The remote nature of the WSR area is likely to limit the number anglers willing to travel for access to this fishery. A past study by Hunt (2011) also noted improved road quality and network caused increases in fishing pressure, but that distance (and especially costs to travel) from a community reduced the overall fishing pressure. The non-local population is unlikely to be utilizing the remote project area due to the excessive distance from existing population centers and a lack of available accommodations and services. The presence of more easily accessible productive fisheries much closer to the populations centers also means that increased pressure would likely be moderate at its

highest. There are no commercial fisheries operations ongoing in the region. Recreational fishing lodges are also not present in the area, with the closest lodges being located on the Albany River well south of the proposed roadway.

A summary of the net effects regarding change to public access to fish habitats that could increase harvest of fish during the operations phase based on the characterization criteria is presented in Table 10-23.

Table 10-23: Criteria Results for Change to Public Access to Fish Habitats – Operations

10.5.3             Summary

A summary of the characterization of net effects is provided in Table 10-24. These effects are predicted after the implementation of all mitigation measures.

Table 10-24: Summary of Predicted Net Effects on Fish and Fish Habitat VC

10.6                 Determination of Significance

10.6.1             Methodology

Several methodologies can be used to determine whether an adverse environmental effect is significant or not. One of the methodologies recommended by The Draft Technical Guidance Determining Whether a Designated Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Agency, 2018) is quantitative aggregation assessment, which involves attributing a scale ranking (score) to each key criterion (category) and applying a decision rule to inform the determination of the significance. Each key criterion (category) is assigned an effect-level definition and a score based on the degree of the adverse effect (Table 10-25).

Table 10-25: Scores Assigned for Key Criteria (Categories) of the Predicted Net Effects

The scores for key criteria are then aggregated to provide an overall determination of significance:

• Negligible (not significant): 0 to 5;
• Low (not significant): 6 to 10;
• Moderate (not significant): 11 to 15; and
• High (significant): 16 or greater.

10.6.2             Results

The quantitative aggregation assessment for the Fish and Fish Habitat VC are presented in Table 10-26. Although net effects on fish and fish habitat are expected to occur, with project planning design and the proposed mitigation measures, the Project’s net effects are predicted to be not significant (negligible to low scores for significance as presented in Table 10-26. Discussions regarding the individual scores are presented below.

Table 10-26: Key Criteria and Scores for Determining the Significance of the Predicted Net Adverse Effects on Fish and Fish Habitat VC

10.6.2.1              Destruction/Loss of Fish Habitat

The significance score for the effects of destruction or loss of fish habitat is 5 and 0 for construction phase and operations phase of the Project, respectively. These scores indicate a negligible significance of predicted effects. These determinations are expected as the destruction of fish habitat primarily occur during the construction phase of the Project. There is an expected destruction of 687.5 m2 of aquatic habitat lost, all caused by construction of culverts and bridge pier footings in locations where structures are required to cross waterbodies. In addition, fish habitat provided by the riparian areas surrounding waterbodies is expected to be lost along the road ROW at water crossing locations. It is estimated that 27,640 m2 of riparian habitat will be destroyed based on the proposed road width and documented riparian width at each water crossing. This habitat, while important, is abundant throughout the LSA and RSA and the effect of the road is not expected to cause a significant effect on the availability of fish habitat.

10.6.2.2              Harmful Alteration and Disruption of Fish Habitat

The significance score for the effects of harmful alteration and disruption of fish habitat has either a negligible score or low score for both the construction phase and operations phase of the Project, respectively. These scores indicate a negligible significance of predicted effects for the construction phase, and a low significance effect for the operations phase. Material placement has the highest score, as there are likely some substrate changes that will occur as part of the Project, and will be long-term in nature, and will occur during the construction phase.

Increased sedimentation and erosion are also expected to occur downstream for a short period of time (2-3 years) post-construction, which may cause some temporary habitat avoidance (disruption), but this will resolve once the site conditions are stabilized with vegetation. Potential erosion and sedimentation effects may temporarily disrupt up to

25.4 hectares of downstream aquatic habitat.

10.6.2.3              Change to Fish Access to Habitats

The significance score for the effects change to fish access to habitats from the potential introduction of barriers to fish passage is 5 and 7 for the construction phase and operations phase of the Project, respectively. These indicate a negligible significance of predicted effects for both the construction and operations phases. Barriers to fish passage will temporarily occur during construction but will be very short in duration as culverts are installed. Bridges over larger waterbody crossings will eliminate the potential for creation of barriers to fish passage at the six waterbody crossings for the Project. For the remaining waterbodies, open bottom arch culverts will reduce the potential for establishment of barriers to fish passage. Where CSP culverts are required, their installation and operation will be monitored to reduce any changes to fish access to habitats. It is expected however, that temporary barriers may be established as these crossings become clogged by debris or beaver activity. This potential effect will be reduced with the implementation of regular culvert inspection and maintenance programs during the operations phase of the Project.

10.6.2.4              Injury/Death of Fish

The significance score for injury/death of fish is 5 for the construction phase and operations phase of the Project. These indicate a negligible significance score for both the construction and operations phases. It is expected that a small number of fish will be killed as a result of construction, as fish salvage efforts are never 100% effective. However, the mitigation measures selected will likely limit this effect to fish on an individual and will not affect the local or regional populations of fish species.

10.6.2.5              Change in Public Access to Fish Habitat

The significance score for the effects of change in public access to fish habitat, which may increase the harvest of fish is 5 and 9 for the construction phase and operations phase of the Project, respectively. These scores indicate a negligible significance of predicted effects for construction phase and low for the operations phase. The net effects regarding increased harvest are considered of low significance within the LSA and RSA.

All of the species documented within the project area are widespread in the greater James Bay Lowlands and Boreal Forest. Most of the waterbodies in the LSA and RSA for the Project will remain generally inaccessible. Although there may be low to moderate changes to population abundance for sport-fish species within some waterbodies where access is improved, the long travel distance between the Project and major population centers will limit this effect.

10.6.3             Summary

As noted in Table 10-24, out of the five predicted net adverse effects for the construction phase, four are negligible and one is considered low for the construction phase. For the operations phase, four effects are predicted as negligible and one is considered low. With the implementation of proposed mitigation measures and monitoring programs (refer to Section 10.10), the predicted net effects are considered not significant as per the criteria defined in Section 10.6.1.

10.7                 Cumulative Effects

In addition to assessing the net environmental effects of the Project, the assessment for Fish and Fish Habitat VC also evaluates and assesses the significance of net effects from the Project that overlap temporally and spatially with effects from other past, present and reasonably foreseeable developments (RFDs) and activities (i.e., cumulative effects).

For a VC that has identified net effects where the magnitude was determined to be higher than low, it is necessary to determine if the effects from the Project interact both temporally and spatially with the effects from one or more past, present RFDs or activities, since the combined effects may differ in nature or extent from the effects of individual Project activities. Where information is available, the cumulative effects assessment estimates or predicts the contribution of effects from the Project and other human activities on the criteria, in the context of changes to the natural, health, social or economic environments.

For this Fish and Fish Habitat VC assessment, the net effects described in Section 10.5.2 that are characterized as having a likelihood of occurrence of “probable” or “certain” and a “low ” to “high” magnitude have been carried forward to the cumulative effects assessment. Net effects with this characterization are most likely to interact with other RFD and activities.

The predicted net effects of the Project on the Fish and Fish Habitat VC that are carried forward for the assessment of cumulative effects within the Fish and Fish Habitat RSA include:

• Changes to Quantity and Quality of Fish Habitat:
  • Destruction/Loss of fish habitat;
  • Harmful alteration and disruption of fish habitat; and
  • Changes to fish access to habitats;
• Changes to Fish Populations:
  • Changes to public access resulting in increased harvest of fish.

Results of the cumulative effects assessment for the Fish and Fish Habitat VC with consideration of RFDs and activities are presented in Section 21.

10.8                 Prediction Confidence in the Assessment

The overall confidence in the assessment of net effects on fish and fish habitat is high as the destruction of fish habitat is relatively well known (the area of the project components that completely cover surface water bodies). Although there may be future refinements to the project design (such as pier footings for bridges or specific orientations of culverts) as the Project proceeds to the Detail Design Phase, the effects are expected to be similar as assessed in this Draft EAR/IS. The level of confidence for fish habitat disruption/alteration assessment is also considered high.

The confidence in the assessment of net effects of changes to fish access to habitats as a result barriers to fish passage and injury/death of fish is also considered high, as the effects of roads are generally well documented and understood and can be effectively mitigated with best management practices and proposed mitigation measures outlined in

Section 10.4. The exact maintenance schedule for maintaining fish passage will need to be determined based on how quickly water crossings become blocked, but monitoring programs will determine this once the road is constructed.

The confidence in the assessment of net effects of change in public access that may lead to increased harvest is moderate. There are some unknowns in how recreational fisheries from outside of the Indigenous communities in the area will exploit this new access. The location is still quite distance from significant population centers, so it is expected that the increase in harvest pressure will not be significant at this time. However, this assumption relies on what typical recreational fisherman are likely to do and may be subject to change over time if increasing access to the north brings additional residents/workers. The ongoing developments that may result from the Project are also not currently known and may affect the rates of harvest as well.

10.9                 Predicted Future Condition of the Environment if the Project Does Not Proceed

If the Project does not proceed, the future condition of fish and fish habitat in the area is likely to be unchanged from existing conditions. Long-term impacts due to climate change may occur regardless of whether the Project proceeds. In addition, extreme weather events in the region may increase over time may cause a reduction or creation of fish habitat as certain areas flood and others experience drought.

10.10          Follow-up and Monitoring

The purposes of the follow-up and monitoring programs are to:

• Verify environmental effects predictions made during the EA/IA for the Project;
• Provide data with which to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures and modify or enhance these measures, where necessary;
• Provide data with which to implement adaptive management measures for improving future environmental protection activities;
• Document additional measures of adaptive measures to improve future environmental protection activities; and
• Document compliance with required conditions as stipulated in permits, approvals, licenses and/or authorizations.

The Project invites community members to participate in developing and implementing monitoring programs to assess the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures and potential adverse effects to the environment. Where effects are considered unacceptable and/or based on concerns raised by Indigenous community members or other stakeholders, further mitigation options will be considered by the road operator in consultation with Indigenous communities and stakeholders.

The recommended monitoring program related to Fish and Fish Habitat VC will include:

• Monitoring will be conducted by qualified individual(s) during instream construction (e.g., installation of culverts or bridges) or where active water taking and discharge occurs to observe implementation and report on the effectiveness of the construction procedures and mitigation measures for minimizing potential effects to fish and fish habitat. Monitoring will occur during installation works and be ongoing for the duration of the Project.
• Regular inspections and monitoring of installed ESC measures to ensure they are effective and identify corrective action, where applicable.
• Culvert monitoring programs to remove debris, prevent fish passage interruptions, and assess blockages and/or ponding.
• Monitoring streamflow, turbidity, total suspended solids and other related water quality parameters during construction to confirm effectiveness of ESC measures.
• Periodic fish community and habitat surveys to detect changes in fish assemblages.
• Pre- and post-construction downstream fish habitat assessments to evaluate habitat alterations, including monitoring changes to stream morphology and substrate caused by increased sediment loads or changes in streamflow.
• Where a DFO Fisheries Act authorization is required, a qualified fisheries specialist will also conduct the following construction monitoring tasks, in addition to the conditions specified in the authorization:
  • Review existing plans for the Project, including but not limited to, ESC plans, temporary flow management, dewatering plans and environmental management plans, to ensure these are being followed with the appropriate measures in-place.
  • Confirm the mitigation measures identified in the EA/IA are being installed/implemented and maintained as designed including providing field advice and necessary corrective actions for non-compliance, and documents whether these measures are protecting fish and fish habitat effectively throughout construction.
  • Undertake monitoring of offsetting measures outlined in the authorization, including that offsetting measures were constructed as designed.
  • Undertake post-construction monitoring and prepare annual reporting to confirm that the offsetting measures are functioning as designed and successful in providing fish habitat.
• Additional details on the proposed follow-up and monitoring for the Project are described in Section 22 of the Draft EAR/IS, Follow-up and Compliance Monitoring Programs.

10.11          References

Anderson, P.G., Taylor, B.R., and Balch, G.C. 1996. Quantifying the Effects of Sediment Release on Fish and Their Habitats. Canadian Manuscript Report of the Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 2346. Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Arlinghaus, A., Klefoth, T., Kobler, A., and Cooke, S.J. 2008. Size Selectivity, Injury, Handling Time, and Determinants of Initial Hooking Mortality in Recreational Angling for Northern Pike: The Influence of Type and Size of Bait. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 28:123-134.

Barton, D.R., and Wallace, R.R., 1979. Effects of eroding oil sand and periodic flooding on benthic macroinvertebrate communities in a brown-water stream in Northeastern Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology.

57: 533-541.

Belcher, D.L. 2022. Effect of Bridges on Low Order Stream Fish Assemblages, South Georgia, USA. Georgia Journal of Science. 80(2), Article 11.

Berglund, E.K. 2007. The Influence of Culverts on Small Stream Fish Communities in Northwestern Ontario.

M.Sc. Thesis. Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario.

Bikowski, V.A. Saddique, Q. 2024 (in draft). Marten Falls First Nation Indigenous Knowledge, Land Use, and Occupancy Study for the North Access Roads for the Proposed Webequie Supply Project. Draft Report 20-Mar-2024.

Blank, M., Cahoon, J., Burford, D., McMahon, D.T. and Stein O. 2005. Studies of fish passage through culverts in Montana. UC Davis: Road Ecology Center.

Bradford, M.J., and Irvine, J.R. 2000. Land use, fishing, climate changes, and the decline of Thomson River, British Columbia, Coho salmon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 57: 13-16.

Brown, J.J., Limburg, K.E., Waldman, J.R., Stephenson, K., Glenn, E.P., Juanes, F, and Jordaan, A. 2013. Fish and hydropower on the U.S. Atlantic coast: failed fisheries policies from half-way technologies. Conservation Letters. 280-286.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) Agency. 2018. Interim Technical Guidance Determining Whether a Designated Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/impact-assessment- agency/services/policy-guidance/determining-project-cause-significant-environmental-effects-ceaa2012.html

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC).2006. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Lake Sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens in Canada. Ottawa. Xi + 107 pp. URL: www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm

Cocchiglia, L., Purcell, P.J., and Kelly-Quinn, M. 2012. A critical review of the effects of motorway river-crossing construction on the aquatic environment. Freshwater Reviews. 5: 141-168.

Cott, P.A., Schein, A., Hanna, B.W., Johnston, T.A., MacDonald, D.D., and Gunn, J.M. 2015. Implications of linear developments on northern fishes. Environmental Reviews. 23: 1-14.

Cott, P.A. Sibley, P.K., Somers, W.M., Lilly, M.R. and Gordon, A.M. 2008. A review of water level fluctuations on aquatic biota with an emphasis on fishes in ice-covered lakes. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 44: 328-359.

DeBofsky, A., Xie, Y., Grimard, C., Alcaraz, A.J., Brinkmann, M., Hecker, M., and Giesy, J.P. 2020. Differential responses of gut microbiota of male and female fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) to a short-term environmentally-relevant, aqueous exposure to benzo[a]pyrene. Chemosphere, Volume 252, 252:126461.

de Kerckhove, D.T., Minns, C.K., and Chu, C. 2015. Estimating Fish Exploitation and Aquatic Habitat Loss across Diffuse Inland Recreational Fisheries. PLoS ONE 10(4): e0121895. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121895.

Diebel, M.W., Fedora, M., Cogswell, S., and O’Hanley, J.R. 2014. Effects of Road Crossings on Habitat Connectivity for Stream-Resident Fish. River Research and Applications. 31(10): 1251-1261.

Dunlop, K. 2009. Blasting bridges and culverts: water overpressure and vibration effects on fish and habitat.

Master’s thesis. University of Alaska Fairbanks, Juneau, AK.

Environment Canada. 1994. Modelling the global climate system. Ottawa (Canada): Minister of Supply and Services.

Climate Change Digest Report no. 94-01.

Fagan, W.F. 2002. Connectivity, fragmentation, and extinction risk in dendritic metapopulations. Ecology.

83: 3243-3249.

Faulkner, S.G., Tonn, W.M., Welz, M., and Schmitt, D.R. 2006. Effects of Explosives on Incubating Lake Trout Eggs in the Canadian Arctic. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 26(4): 833-842.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2023. Code of Practice: Culvert Maintenance. September 2022.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2013. Ontario Restricted Activity Timing Windows for the Protection of Fish and Fish Habitat. URL: https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/timing-periodes/on-eng.html

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2020. Interim code of practice: End-of-pipe fish protection screens for small water intakes in freshwater URL: https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/codes/screen-ecran-eng.html

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2020. Interim code of practice: temporary stream crossings. URL: https://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/codes/temporary-crossings-traversees-temporaires-eng.html

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 1986. Summary – Fish Habitat Management Policy. DFO/3209. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Gazendam, E., Gharabaghi, B., Jones, F.C., & Whiteley, H. 2011. Evaluation of the Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index as a planning and design tool for restoration of rural Ontario waterways. Canadian Water Resources

Journal, 36 (2), 149-158.

Gibson, R.J., Haedrich, R.L., and Wernerheim, C.M. 2011. Loss of Fish Habitat as a Consequence of Inappropriately Constructed Stream Crossings. Fisheries. 30: 10-17.

Gunn, J.M., and Sein, R. 2000. Effects of forestry roads on reproductive habitat and exploitation of lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) in three experimental lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 57(Supplement 2). 97-104.

Gunter, R.A. 2017. The Impact of Road Dust on Arctic Aquatic Ecosystems, Northwest Territories, Canada. M.Sc.

Thesis. Brock University, St. Catharines, ON.

Habera, J.W., Strange, R.J., Carter, B.D., and Moore, S.E. 1996. Short-Term Mortality and Injury of Rainbow Trout Caused by Three-Pass AC Electrofishing in a Southern Appalachian Stream. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 16(1): 192-200.

Happel A., Lederman, N., and Snyder C. 2023. Natural shorelines support greater diversity and abundances of fishes than armoured shores along Chicago’s waterways. Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 34:5.

Harwood, D.W. and Ruseel, E.R. 1990. Present Practices of Highway Transportation of Hazardous Materials,

August 86 – November 89. Midwest Research Institute. Kansas City, Missouri. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

Haxton, T., Friday, M., and Gillespie, M. 2017. Dynamics of Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) in a ‘pristine river’.

Journal of Applied Ichthyology. 2017:1-12.

Hopper, M., and Power, G., 1991. The Fisheries of an Ojibwa Community in Northern Ontario. Arctic. 44(4): 267-274. Hubbs, C.L., and Rechnitzer A.B., 1952. Report on the Experiments Designed to Determine Effects of Underwater

Explosions on Fish Life. California Fish and Game. 38(3): 333-366.

Hunt, L.M. Camp, E., van Poorten, B., and Arlinghaus, R. 2019. Catch and Non-Catch-related determinants of Where Anglers Fish: A Review of Three Decades of Site Choice Research in Recreational Fisheries. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture. 27: 261-286.

Hunt, L.M. 2011. The Effects of Road Quality and Other Factors on Water-Based Recreation Demand in Northern Ontario, Canada.

Hunt, L.M., and Lester, N. 2009. The Effect of Forestry Roads on Access to Remote Fishing Lakes in Northern Ontario, Canada. North America Journal of Fisheries Management. 29: 586-597.

Januchowski-Hartley, S.R., Diebel, M., Doran, P.J., and McIntyre, P.B. 2014. Predicting road culvert passability for migratory fishes. Biodiversity Research. 20(12): 1414-1424.

Jensen, P.G., Curtis, P.D., Lehnert, M.E., Hamelin, D.L. 2001. Habitat and structural factors influencing beaver interference with highway culverts. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 29(2): 654-664.

Jones, M.J., and Hale, R. 2020. Using knowledge of behaviour and optic physiology to improve fish passage through culverts. Fish and Fisheries. 21(3): 557-569.

Jones, J.I., Murphy, J.F. Collins, A.L., Sear, D.A., Naden, P.S., and Armitage, P.D. 2011. The Impact of Fine Sediment on Macro-Invertebrates. River Research and Applications. 28(8): 1055-1071.

Jones III, E.B.D.J., Helfman, G.S., Harper, J.O., and Bolstad, P.V. 1999. Effects of Riparian Forest Removal on Fish Assemblages in Southern Appalachian Streams. Conservation Biology. 13(6): 1454-1465.

Kajpust, H. 2022. The Effects of simulated spills of oil and secondary cleanup methods on macroinvertebrates in a freshwater Boreal lake. M.Sc. Thesis. University of Manitoba.

Kaufman, S.D., Snucins, E., Gunn, J.M., and Selinger, W. 2009. Impacts of road access on lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) populations: regional scale effects of overexploitation and the introduction of smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 66: 212-223.

Kemp, P., Sear, D., Collins, A., Naden, P., and Jones, I. 2011. The impacts of fine sediment on riverine fish.

Hydrological Processes. 25: 1800-1821.

Kravitz, M. and Blair, G. 2019. On Assessing Risks to Fish Habitats and Populations Associated with a Transportation Corridor for Proposed Mine Operations in a Salmon-rich Watershed. Environmental Management. 64(1):

107–126.

Lachance, S., Dube, M., Dostie, R., Berube, P. 2011. Temporal and Spatial Quantification of Fine-Sediment Accumulation Downstream of Culverts in Brook Trout Habitat. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 137(6): 1826-1838.

Lydy, M.J., Crawford, C.G. and Frey, J.W. 2000. A Comparison of Selected Diversity, Similarity, and Biotic Indices for Detecting Changes in Benthic-Invertebrate Community Structure and Stream Quality. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 469-479.

MacDonald, J.S., MacIsaac, E.A., and Herunter, H.E. 2003. The effect of variable-retention riparian buffer zones on water temperatures in small headwater streams in sub-boreal forest ecosystems of British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 33(8): 1371-1382.

MacPherson, L.M., Sullivan, M.G., Lee Foote, A., and Stevens, C.E., 2012. Effects of Culverts on Stream Fish Assemblages in the Alberta Foothills. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 32: 480-490.

Massey, W., Biron, P.M., and Chone, G. 2017. Impacts of riverbank stabilization using riprap on fish habitat in two contrasting environments. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 42(4): 635-646.

McGurk, B.J. 1989. Predicting Stream Temperature after Riparian Vegetation Removal. United States Department of Agriculture: Forest Service General Technical Report. PSW-110. 1989.

Nislow, K.H. Hudy, M., Letcher, B.H., and Smith, E.P. 2011. Variation in local abundance and species richness of stream fishes in relation to dispersal barriers: implications for management and conservation. Freshwater Biology. 56(10): 2135-2144.

Ontario Provincial Standards for Roads and Public Works (OPS). 2019. General Specification for the Use of Explosives.

OPSS.MUNI 120. Published November 2019.

Ottburg, F., and Blank, M. 2015. Solutions to the Impacts of Roads and Other Barriers on Fish and Fish Habitat. Handbook of Road Ecology, Chapter 45. Editors: Rodney Van der Ree, Daniel J. Smith, and Clara Grilo. Copyright: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. Print ISBN: 9781118568187.

Perkin, J.S., and Gido, K.B. 2012. Fragmentation alters stream fish community structure in dendritic ecological network.

Ecological Applications. 22(8): 2176-2187.

Pess, G. Morley, S., and Roni, P. 2005. Evaluating Fish Response to Culvert replacement and Other Methods for Reconnecting Isolated Aquatic Habitats. Monitoring stream and watershed restoration. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, Maryland (2005). 267-276.

Price, D.M., Quinn, T., and Barnard, R.J. 2011. Fish Passage Effectiveness of Recently Constructed Road Crossing Culverts in the Puget Sound Region of Washington State. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 30: 1110-1125.

Vander Pluym, J.L., Eggleston, D., and Levine, J.F. 2008. Impacts of Road Crossings on Fish Movement and Community Structure. Journal of Freshwater Ecology. 23(4): 565-574.

Rios, S.L., and Bailey, R.C. 2006. Relationship between riparian vegetation and stream benthic communities at three spatial scales. Hydrobiologia. 553: 153-160.

Rosenberg, D.M., and Wiens, A.P. 1978. Effects of sediment addition on microbenthic invertebrates in a Northern Canadian River. Water Research. 12(10): 753-763.

Schindler, D.W. 1998. A Dim Future for Boreal Waters and Landscapes. BioScience. 48(3): 157-164.

Taylor, B.R., and Roff, J.C. 1986. Long-term effects of highway construction on the ecology of a Southern Ontario stream. Environmental Pollution Series A, Ecological and Biological. 40(4): 317-344.

Trombulak, S.C., & Frissell, C.A. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities.

Conservation Biology. 14: 18-30.

Turbelin, A.J., Diagne, C., Hudgins, E.J., Moodley, D., Kourantidou, M., Novoa, A., Haubrock, P.J., Bernery, C., Gozlan, R.E., Francis, R.A. and Courchamp, F. 2022. Introduction pathways of economically costly invasive alien species. Biological Invasions. 24(7): 2061-2079.

Stantec Consulting Ltd. 2024 (in draft). Webequie First Nation Traditional Land and Resource Use Study for the Webequie Supply Road.

Webequie First Nation. 2019a. Webequie First Nation On-reserve Land Use Plan.

Webequie First Nation. 2019b. Webequie First Nation Community Based Land Use Plan. Draft Version 4.3. Wellman, J.C., Combs, D.L., and Cook, S.B. 2000. Long-Term Impacts of Bridge and Culvert Construction or

Replacement on Fish Communities and Sediment Characteristics of Streams. Journal of Freshwater Ecology.

15(3): 317-328.

White, K., Gerken, J, Paukert, C., and Makinster, A. 2010. Fish community structure in natural and engineered habitats in the Kansas River. River Research and Applications. 26(7): 797-805.

Wishingrad, V., Carr, M.K., Pollock, M.S., Ferrari, M.C.O. and Chivers, D.P. 2014. Lake Sturgeon Geographic Range, Distribution, and Migration Patterns in the Saskatchewan River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 143: 1555-1561.

Woodcock, T.S. 2002. Effects of Roadway-Related Physical and Chemical Habitat Alteration on Stream Ecosystems.

M.Sc. Thesis. The University of Maine, August 2022.

Wright, D.G., and Hopky, G.E. 1998. Guidelines for the Use of Explosives in or Near Canadian Fisheries Waters.

Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2107.