SECTION 12. ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT

WEBEQUIE SUPPLY ROAD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT / IMPACT STATEMENT

June 9, 2025
AtkinsRéalis Ref: 661910

SECTION 12:
Assessment of Effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

Contents

12. Assessment of Effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 12-19
    12.1 Scope of the Assessment 12-19
    12.1.1 Regulatory and Policy Setting 12-19
    12.1.2 Consideration of Input from Engagement and Consultation Activities 12-23
    12.1.3 Incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge and Land and Resource Use Information 12-28
    12.1.4 Valued Component and Indicators 12-29
    12.1.4.1 Selection of Key Species and Species Groups 12-29
    12.1.5 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries 12-34
    12.1.5.1 Spatial Boundaries 12-34
    12.1.5.2 Temporal Boundaries 12-39
    12.1.6 Identification of Project Interactions with Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 12-39
    12.2 Existing Conditions 12-43
    12.2.1 Methods 12-43
    12.2.1.1 Resource Selection Function (RSF) Modelling 12-44
    12.2.1.2 Mammals 12-45
    12.2.1.3 Birds 12-46
    12.2.1.4 Herpetofauna 12-51
    12.2.2 Results 12-52
    12.2.2.1 Mammals 12-52
    12.2.2.2 Birds 12-62
    12.2.2.3 Bird Valued Components 12-68
    12.2.2.4 Reptiles and Amphibians 12-74
    12.3 Identification of Potential Effects, Pathways and Indicators 12-77
    12.3.1 Threat Assessment Approach 12-77
    12.3.2 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 12-79
    12.3.2.1 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-79
    12.3.2.2 Injury or Death 12-80
    12.3.3 Moose 12-80
    12.3.3.1 Habitat Loss 12-81
    12.3.3.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-84
    12.3.3.3 Alteration in Movement 12-89
    12.3.3.4 Injury or Death 12-90
    12.3.3.5 Threat Assessment 12-92
    12.3.4 Furbearers (American Marten) 12-93
    12.3.4.1 Habitat Loss 12-93
    12.3.4.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-96
    12.3.4.3 Alteration in Movement 12-101
    12.3.4.4 Injury or Death 12-102
    12.3.4.5 Threat Assessment 12-104
    12.3.5 Furbearer (North American beaver) 12-105
    12.3.5.1 Habitat Loss 12-105
    12.3.5.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-108
    12.3.5.3 Alteration in Movement 12-111
    12.3.5.4 Injury or Death 12-112
    12.3.5.5 Threat Assessment 12-114
    12.3.6 Bats 12-115
    12.3.6.1 Bat Habitat Loss 12-115
    12.3.6.2 Bat Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-118
    12.3.6.3 Alteration in Bat Movement 12-121
    12.3.6.4 Bat Injury or Death 12-121
    12.3.6.5 Summary of Bats Threat Assessment 12-123
    12.3.7 Forest Songbirds (Orange-crowned Warbler, Tennessee Warbler) 12-124
    12.3.7.1 Habitat Loss 12-124
    12.3.7.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-129
    12.3.7.3 Alterations in Movement 12-133
    12.3.7.4 Injury or Death 12-134
    12.3.7.5 Threat Assessment 12-136
    12.3.8 Wetland Songbirds (Palm Warbler, Alder Flycatcher) 12-137
    12.3.8.1 Habitat Loss 12-137
    12.3.8.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-142
    12.3.8.3 Alterations in Wetland Bird Movement 12-147
    12.3.8.4 Wildlife Injury or Death 12-148
    12.3.8.5 Threats Assessment 12-150
    12.3.9 Waterfowl (Canada Goose, Mallard) 12-152
    12.3.9.1 Habitat Loss 12-152
    12.3.9.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-157
    12.3.9.3 Alterations in Movement 12-163
    12.3.9.4 Wildlife Injury or Death 12-164
    12.3.9.5 Threat Assessment 12-166
    12.3.10 Shorebirds (Greater Yellowlegs) 12-168
    12.3.10.1 Habitat Loss 12-168
    12.3.10.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-170
    12.3.10.3 Alterations in Movement 12-175
    12.3.10.4 Injury or Death 12-176
    12.3.10.5 Threat Assessment 12-178
    12.3.11 Raptors (Red-tailed Hawk, Great Grey Owl) 12-179
    12.3.11.1 Habitat Loss or Destruction 12-179
    12.3.11.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-181
    12.3.11.3 Alteration in Movement 12-183
    12.3.11.4 Injury or Death 12-184
    12.3.11.5 Threat Assessment 12-186
    12.3.12 Reptiles and Amphibians 12-187
    12.3.12.1 Habitat Loss 12-188
    12.3.12.2 Habitat Alteration and Degradation 12-194
    12.3.12.3 Alteration in Movement 12-200
    12.3.12.4 Injury or Death 12-201
    12.3.12.5 Threat Assessment 12-203
    12.4 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures 12-216
    12.4.1 Habitat Availability and Key Mitigation Measures 12-216
    12.4.2 General Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Mitigation 12-218
    12.4.2.1 Wildlife Habitat Loss 12-218
    12.4.2.2 Wildlife Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-220
    12.4.2.3 Alteration in Wildlife Movement 12-229
    12.4.2.4 Wildlife Injury or Death 12-231
    12.4.3 Moose-Specific Mitigation 12-241
    12.4.3.1 Loss of Moose Habitat 12-241
    12.4.3.2 Habitat Alteration of Degradation (Moose) 12-242
    12.4.3.3 Alteration in the Movement of Moose 12-244
    12.4.3.4 Injury or Death of Moose 12-245
    12.4.4 Furbearers 12-252
    12.4.4.1 Loss of Furbearer Habitat 12-252
    12.4.4.2 Alteration or Degradation of Furbearer Habitat 12-255
    12.4.4.3 Alteration in Furbearer Movement 12-257
    12.4.4.4 Furbearer Injury or Death 12-258
    12.4.5 Bats-Specific Mitigation 12-268
    12.4.5.1 Habitat Loss 12-268
    12.4.5.2 Alteration or Degradation of Bat Habitat 12-270
    12.4.5.3 Alteration in Bat Movement 12-274
    12.4.5.4 Injury or Death of Bats 12-274
    12.4.6 Birds-Specific Mitigation 12-280
    12.4.6.1 Loss of Bird Habitat 12-280
    12.4.6.2 Alteration or Degradation of Bird Habitat 12-282
    12.4.6.3 Alteration in Movement 12-286
    12.4.6.4 Injury or Death of Birds 12-288
    12.4.7 Reptiles and Amphibians 12-301
    12.4.7.1 Habitat Loss for Amphibians and Reptiles 12-301
    12.4.7.2 Alteration or Degradation of Habitat for Amphibians and Reptiles 12-303
    12.4.7.3 Alteration in Amphibian and Reptile Movement 12-307
    12.4.7.4 Injury or Death of Reptiles and Amphibians 12-308
    12.5 Characterization of Net Effects 12-316
    12.6 Potential Effect Pathways Not Carried Through for Further Assessment 12-318
    12.6.1 All Species 12-318
    12.6.2 Moose 12-318
    12.6.3 Furbearers (American Marten) 12-319
    12.6.4 Furbearers (North American Beaver) 12-319
    12.6.5 Forest Songbirds (Orange-crowned Warbler, Tennessee Warbler) 12-319
    12.6.6 Wetland Songbirds (Tennessee Warbler and Orange-crowned Warbler) 12-320
    12.6.7 Shorebirds (Greater Yellowlegs) 12-320
    12.6.8 Waterfowl (Canada Goose, Mallard) 12-320
    12.6.9 Raptors (Red-tailed Hawk, Great Grey Owl) 12-321
    12.7 Predicted Net Effects 12-321
    12.7.1 Moose 12-321
    12.7.1.1 Habitat Loss 12-321
    12.7.1.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-323
    12.7.1.3 Alteration in Movement 12-327
    12.7.1.4 Injury or Death 12-330
    12.7.2 Furbearers (American Marten) 12-338
    12.7.2.1 Habitat Loss 12-338
    12.7.2.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-339
    12.7.2.3 Alteration in Movement 12-344
    12.7.2.4 Injury or Death 12-348
    12.7.3 Furbearers (North American Beaver) 12-357
    12.7.3.1 Habitat Loss 12-357
    12.7.3.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-358
    12.7.3.3 Alteration in Movement 12-360
    12.7.3.4 Injury or Death 12-362
    12.7.4 Bats 12-371
    12.7.4.1 Habitat Loss 12-371
    12.7.4.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-372
    12.7.4.3 Alteration in Movement 12-377
    12.7.4.4 Injury or Death 12-380
    12.7.5 Forest Songbirds (Tennessee Warbler and Orange-crowned Warbler) 12-389
    12.7.5.1 Habitat Loss 12-389
    12.7.5.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-390
    12.7.5.3 Alteration in Movement 12-394
    12.7.5.4 Injury or Death 12-398
    12.7.6 Wetland Songbirds (Palm Warbler and Alder Flycatcher) 12-405
    12.7.6.1 Habitat Loss 12-405
    12.7.6.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-407
    12.7.6.3 Alteration in Movement 12-412
    12.7.6.4 Injury or Death 12-415
    12.7.7 Shorebirds (Greater Yellowlegs) 12-423
    12.7.7.1 Habitat Loss 12-423
    12.7.7.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-424
    12.7.7.3 Alteration in Movement 12-430
    12.7.7.4 Injury or Death 12-433
    12.7.8 Waterfowl (Canada Goose, Mallard) 12-441
    12.7.8.1 Habitat Loss 12-441
    12.7.8.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-443
    12.7.8.3 Alteration in Movement 12-448
    12.7.8.4 Injury or Death 12-452
    12.7.9 Raptors (Red-tailed Hawk, Great Grey Owl) 12-461
    12.7.9.1 Habitat Loss 12-461
    12.7.9.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-462
    12.7.9.3 Alteration in Movement 12-466
    12.7.9.4 Injury or Death 12-468
    12.7.10 Reptiles and Amphibians 12-475
    12.7.10.1 Habitat Loss 12-475
    12.7.10.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-476
    12.7.10.3 Alteration in Movement 12-482
    12.7.10.4 Injury or Death 12-485
    12.8 Determination of Significance 12-494
    12.8.1 Moose 12-495
    12.8.1.1 Habitat Loss 12-495
    12.8.1.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-495
    12.8.1.3 Alterations in Movement 12-496
    12.8.1.4 Injury or Death 12-497
    12.8.2 Furbearers (American Marten) 12-501
    12.8.2.1 Habitat Loss 12-501
    12.8.2.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-501
    12.8.2.3 Alterations in Movement 12-502
    12.8.2.4 Injury or Death 12-502
    12.8.3 Furbearers (North American Beaver) 12-507
    12.8.3.1 Habitat Loss 12-507
    12.8.3.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-507
    12.8.3.3 Alteration in movement 12-507
    12.8.3.4 Injury or Death 12-508
    12.8.4 Bats 12-511
    12.8.4.1 Habitat Loss 12-511
    12.8.4.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-511
    12.8.4.3 Alteration in Movement 12-512
    12.8.4.4 Injury or Death 12-512
    12.8.5 Forest Songbirds (Tennessee Warbler and Orange-crowned Warbler) 12-517
    12.8.5.1 Habitat Loss 12-517
    12.8.5.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-517
    12.8.5.3 Alteration of Movement 12-517
    12.8.5.4 Injury/Death 12-517
    12.8.6 Wetland Songbirds (Palm Warbler and Alder Flycatcher) 12-522
    12.8.6.1 Habitat Loss 12-522
    12.8.6.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-522
    12.8.6.3 Alteration in movement 12-523
    12.8.6.4 Injury or Death 12-523
    12.8.7 Shorebirds (Greater Yellowlegs) 12-527
    12.8.7.1 Habitat Loss 12-527
    12.8.7.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-527
    12.8.7.3 Alteration in Movement 12-528
    12.8.7.4 Injury or Death 12-528
    12.8.8 Waterfowl (Canada Goose, Mallard) 12-532
    12.8.8.1 Habitat Loss 12-532
    12.8.8.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-532
    12.8.8.3 Alteration in Movement 12-533
    12.8.8.4 Injury or Death 12-533
    12.8.9 Raptors (Red-tailed Hawk, Great Grey Owl) 12-537
    12.8.9.1 Habitat Loss 12-537
    12.8.9.2 Alteration and Degradation of Habitat 12-537
    12.8.9.3 Alteration of Movement 12-538
    12.8.9.4 Injury or Death 12-538
    12.8.10 Reptiles & Amphibians 12-541
    12.8.10.1 Habitat Loss 12-541
    12.8.10.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 12-541
    12.8.10.3 Alteration in Movement 12-541
    12.8.10.4 Injury or Death 12-541
    12.9 Cumulative Effects 12-546
    12.10 Prediction Confidence in the Assessment 12-547
    12.10.1 Moose 12-547
    12.10.2 Furbearers (American Marten) 12-548
    12.10.3 Furbearers (North American Beaver) 12-548
    12.10.4 Bats 12-548
    12.10.5 Birds 12-549
    12.10.5.1 Forest Songbirds (Tennessee Warbler and Orange-crowned Warbler) .12-549
    12.10.5.2 Wetland Songbirds (Palm Warbler and Alder Flycatcher) 12-549
    12.10.5.3 Shorebirds (Greater Yellowlegs) 12-550
    12.10.5.4 Waterfowl (Canada Goose, Mallard) 12-550
    12.10.5.5 Raptors (Red-tailed Hawk, Great Grey Owl) 12-550
    12.10.6 Reptiles and Amphibians 12-551
    12.11 Predicted Future Condition of the Environment if the Project Does Not Proceed 12-551
    12.12 Follow-up and Monitoring 12-553
    12.12.1 Pre-Construction Monitoring 12-554
    12.12.2 Construction Monitoring 12-554
    12.12.3 Operations Monitoring 12-556
    12.13 References 12-558

In Text Figures
Figure 12.1: Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Study Areas 12-36
Figure 12.2: Moose and Gray Wolf Study Areas 12-37
Figure 12.3: RSF Modeling for Moose based on Probability of Use Under Existing Conditions 12-83
Figure 12.4: RSF Modeling for Moose based on Probability of Use Under Future Conditions 12-87
Figure 12.5: RSF Modeling for American marten based on Probability of Use Under Existing Conditions 12-95
Figure 12.6: RSF Modeling for American marten based on Probability of Use Under Future Conditions 12-99
Figure 12.7: Habitat Suitability Modeling for North American beaver Under Existing Conditions 12-107
Figure 12.8: RSF Modeling for All Bat Species Based on Counts Under Existing Conditions 12-117
Figure 12.9: RSF Modeling for All Bat Species Based on Counts Under Future Conditions 12-120
Figure 12.10: RSF Modeling Based on Probability of Use for Tennessee Warbler Under Existing Conditions 12-127 Figure 12.11: RSF Modeling for Orange-crowned Warbler based on Probability of Use Under Existing
Conditions 12-128
Figure 12.12: RSF Modeling Based on Probability of Use for Tennessee Warbler Under Future Conditions 12-131
Figure 12.13: RSF Modeling for Orange-crowned Warbler based on Probability of Use Under Future
Conditions 12-132
Figure 12.14: RSF Modeling for Palm Warbler based on Probability of Use Under Existing Conditions 12-140
Figure 12.15: RSF Modeling for Alder Flycatcher based on Probability of Use Under Existing Conditions 12-141
Figure 12.16: RSF Modeling for Palm Warbler based on Probability of Use Under Future Conditions 12-144
Figure 12.17: RSF Modeling for Alder Flycatcher based on Probability of Use Under Future Conditions 12-145
Figure 12.18: RSF Modeling for Canada Goose based on Probability of Use Under Existing Conditions 12-155

In Text Figures (Cont’d)
Figure 12.19: RSF Modeling for Mallard based on Probability of Use Under Existing Conditions 12-156
Figure 12.20: RSF Modeling for Canada Goose based on Probability of Use Under Future Conditions 12-161
Figure 12.21: RSF Modeling for Mallard based on Probability of Use Under Future Conditions 12-162
Figure 12.22: RSF Modeling for Greater Yellowlegs based on Probability of Use Under Existing Conditions 12-169
Figure 12.23: RSF Modeling for Greater Yellowlegs based on Probability of Use Under Future Conditions 12-173
Figure 12.24: RSF Modeling for American Toad based on Probability of Use Under Existing Conditions 12-190
Figure 12.25: RSF Modeling for Boreal Chorus Frog based on Probability of Use Under Existing Conditions .12-191 Figure 12.26: RSF Modeling for Spring Peeper based on Probability of Use Under Existing Conditions 12-192
Figure 12.27: RSF Modeling for Wood Frog based on Probability of Use Under Existing Conditions 12-193
Figure 12.28: RSF Modeling for American Toad based on Probability of Use Under Future Conditions 12-196
Figure 12.29: RSF Modeling for Boreal Chorus Frog based on Probability of Use Under Future Conditions 12-197
Figure 12.30: RSF Modeling for Spring Peeper based on Probability of Use Under Future Conditions 12-198
Figure 12.31: RSF Modeling for Wood Frog based on Probability of Use Under Future Conditions 12-199
In-Text Tables
Table 12-1: Key Regulation, Legislation, Policy Relevant to Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 12-20
Table 12-2: Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat – Summary of Inputs Received During Engagement and
Consultation 12-23
Table 12-3: Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat VC – Summary of Indigenous Knowledge and Land and
Resource Use Information 12-28
Table 12-4: Representative Species for VC Species Groups 12-33
Table 12-5: Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat VC – Subcomponents, Indicators, and Rationale 12-34
Table 12-6: Spatial Boundaries and Rationale for Selection 12-38
Table 12-7: Project Interactions with Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat VC and Potential Effects 12-40
Table 12-8: North American beaver Suitability Ratings for Landcover Types 12-54
Table 12-9: Mammals Known or Expected to Occur within the WSR RSA 12-59
Table 12-10: Changes to Available Habitat for Moose by Study Area 12-81
Table 12-11: Moose Probability of Habitat Use Percent Change by Study Area 12-85
Table 12-12: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Moose 12-92
Table 12-13: Changes to Available Habitat for American Marten by Study Area based on RDF Modeling 12-94
Table 12-14: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on American Marten 12-104
Table 12-15: North American beaver Changes in Habitat Suitability by Study Area 12-106
Table 12-16: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on North American beaver 12-114
Table 12-17: Bat Species High-Use Habitat by Study Area 12-116
Table 12-18: Bat Species Group Habitat Use Percent Change by Study Area 12-118
Table 12-19: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Bats 12-124
Table 12-20: Changes to Available Habitat for Tennessee Warbler by Study Area 12-125
Table 12-21: Changes to Available Habitat for Orange Crowned Warbler by Study Area 12-125
Table 12-22: Migratory Forest Songbird Species Probability of Habitat Use Percent Change by Study Area 12-130
Table 12-23: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Forest Songbirds 12-137
Table 12-24: Changes to Available Habitat for Palm Warbler by Study Area 12-138
Table 12-25: Changes to Available Habitat for Alder Flycatcher by Study Area 12-138
Table 12-26: Wetland Songbird Probability of Habitat Use Percent Change by Study Area 12-143

Table 12-27: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Alder Flycatcher 12-150
Table 12-28: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Palm Warbler 12-151
Table 12-29: Changes to Available Habitat for Canada Goose by Study Area 12-153
Table 12-30: Changes to Available Habitat for Mallard by Study Area 12-153
Table 12-31: Waterfowl Species Probability of Habitat Use Percent Change by Study Area 12-158
Table 12-32: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Waterfowl 12-167
Table 12-33: Shorebird Species High-Use Habitat by Study Area 12-168
Table 12-34: Greater Yellowlegs Probability of Habitat Use Percent Change by Study Area 12-171
Table 12-35: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Greater Yellowlegs 12-178
Table 12-36: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Raptors 12-186
Table 12-37: Amphibian Species High-Use Habitat by Study Area 12-188
Table 12-38: Amphibian Species Probability of Habitat Use Percent Change by Study Area 12-195
Table 12-39: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Reptiles and Amphibians 12-204
Table 12-40: Summary Table for Potential Effects, Pathways and Indicators for Wildlife and
Wildlife Habitat VC 12-205
Table 12-41: Summary of Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Predicted Net Effects for Wildlife VC 12-234
Table 12-42: Summary of Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Predicted Net Effects for
Moose Sub VC 12-248
Table 12-43: Summary of Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures, and Predicted Net Effects for
Furbearers Sub VC 12-262
Table 12-44: Summary of Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures, and Predicted Net Effects for
Bat Sub VC 12-276
Table 12-45: Summary of Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
VC – Birds 12-292
Table 12-46: Summary of Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures, and Predicted Net Effects for Reptiles
and Amphibians Sub VC 12-311
Table 12-47: Net Effects Assessment Criteria Definitions 12-316
Table 12-48: Criteria Results for the Loss of Moose Habitat from Clearance Activities – Construction 12-322
Table 12-49: Criteria Results for the Loss of Moose Habitat from Clearance Activities – Operations 12-323
Table 12-50: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Moose Habitat Due to Changes in
Vegetation Structure – Construction 12-324
Table 12-51: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Moose Habitat Due to Hydrological
Changes – Construction 12-325
Table 12-52: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Moose Habitat Due to Sensory
Disturbance – Construction 12-326
Table 12-53: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Moose Habitat Due to Sensory
Disturbance – Operations 12-327
Table 12-54: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Moose Due to Loss of Connectivity –
Construction 12-328
Table 12-55: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Moose Due to Loss of Connectivity – Operations 12-328
Table 12-56: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Moose Due to Sensory Disturbance –
Construction 12-329

Table 12-57: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Moose Due to Sensory Disturbance – Operations 12-330
Table 12-58: Criteria Results for Moose Injury or Death Due to Collisions – Construction 12-331
Table 12-59: Criteria Results for Moose Injury or Death Due to Collisions – Operations 12-331
Table 12-60: Criteria Results for Moose Injury or Death Due to Increased Access – Construction 12-332
Table 12-61: Criteria Results for Moose Injury or Death Due to Increased Access – Operations 12-333
Table 12-62: Criteria Results for Moose Injury or Death Due to Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics – Construction 12-334
Table 12-63: Criteria Results for Moose Injury or Death Due to Changes in Predator-Prey Dynamics – Operations 12-335
Table 12-64: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Moose During the Construction Phase 12-336
Table 12-65: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Moose During the Operations Phase 12-337
Table 12-66: Criteria Results for Loss of American Marten Habitat from Clearance Activities – Construction 12-338 Table 12-67: Criteria Results for Loss of American Marten Habitat from Clearance Activities – Operations 12-339
Table 12-68: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of American Marten Habitat Due to
Changes in Vegetation Structure – Construction 12-340
Table 12-69: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of American Marten Habitat Due to
Changes in Vegetation Structure – Operations 12-341
Table 12-70: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of American Marten Habitat Due to
Hydrological Changes – Construction 12-342
Table 12-71: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of American Marten Habitat Due to
Sensory Disturbance – Construction 12-343
Table 12-72: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of American Marten Habitat Due to
Sensory Disturbance – Operations 12-344
Table 12-73: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of American Marten Due to Loss of Connectivity – Construction 12-345
Table 12-74: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of American Marten Due to Loss of Connectivity – Operations 12-345
Table 12-75: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of American Marten Due to Sensory Disturbance – Construction 12-346
Table 12-76: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of American Marten Due to Sensory Disturbance – Operations 12-347
Table 12-77: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of American Marten Due to Collisions with Vehicles
Construction 12-348
Table 12-: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of American Marten Due to Collisions with Vehicles

• Operations 12-349
  Table 12-79: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of American Marten Due to Incidental Take –
  Construction 12-350
  Table 12-80: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of American Marten Due to Incidental Take – Operations 12-350
  Table 12-81: Criteria Results for American Marten Injury or Death Due to Changes to Predator-Prey
  Dynamics – Construction 12-351

Table 12-82: Criteria Results for American Marten Injury or Death Due to Changes in Predator-Prey
Dynamics – Operations 12-352
Table 12-83: Criteria Results for American Marten Injury or Death Due to Increased Access –
Construction 12-353
Table 12-84: Criteria Results for American Marten Injury or Death Due to Increased Access – Operations 12-353
Table 12-85: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for American Marten During the
Construction Phase 12-355
Table 12-86: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for American Marten During the
Operations Phase 12-356
Table 12-87: Criteria Results for Loss of North American Beaver Habitat from Clearance Activities –
Construction 12-357
Table 12-88: Criteria Results for Loss of North American Beaver from Clearance Activities – Operations 12-358
Table 12-89: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of North American Beaver Habitat
Due to Changes in Vegetation Structure – Construction 12-359
Table 12-90: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of North American beaver Habitat
Due to Changes in Vegetation Structure – Operations 12-360
Table 12-91: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of North American Beaver Due to Loss of
Connectivity – Construction 12-361
Table 12-92: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of North American Beaver Due to Loss of
Connectivity – Operations 12-361
Table 12-93: Criteria Results for North American beaver Injury or Death Due to Collisions – Construction 12-362
Table 12-94: Criteria Results for North American Beaver Injury or Death Due to Collisions – Operations 12-363
Table 12-95: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of North American beavers Due to Incidental Take –
Construction 12-364
Table 12-96: Criteria Results for North American Beaver Injury or Death Due to Changes to
Predator-Prey Dynamics – Construction 12-365
Table 12-97: Criteria Results for North American Beaver Injury or Death Due to Changes in
Predator-Prey Dynamics – Operations 12-366
Table 12-98: Criteria Results for North American Beaver Injury or Death Due to Increased Access –
Construction 12-367
Table 12-99: Criteria Results for North American Beaver Injury or Death Due to Increased Access – Operations 12-367
Table 12-100: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for North American Beaver During the
Construction Phase 12-369
Table 12-101: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for North American Beaver During the
Operations Phase 12-370
Table 12-102: Criteria Results for Loss of Bat Habitat – Construction 12-371
Table 12-103: Criteria Results for Loss of Bat Habitat – Operations 12-372
Table 12-104: Criteria Results for Bat Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Habitat Structural Change – Construction 12-373
Table 12-105: Criteria Results for Bat Habitat Alteration or Degradation from Habitat Structural Change – Operations 12-373

Table 12-106: Criteria Results for Bat Habitat Alteration or Degradation- Due to Sensory Disturbance – Construction 12-374
Table 12-107: Criteria Results for Bat Habitat Alteration or Degradation Due to Sensory Disturbance – Operations 12-375
Table 12-108: Criteria Results for Bat Habitat Alteration or Degradation- Due to Hydrological Changes – Construction 12-376
Table 12-109: Criteria Results for Bat Habitat Alteration or Degradation Due to Hydrological Changes – Operations 12-377
Table 12-110: Criteria Results for Alteration in Bat Movement Due to Loss of Connectivity – Construction 12-378
Table 12-111: Criteria Results for Alteration in Bat Movement Due to Loss of Connectivity – Operations 12-378
Table 12-112: Criteria Results for Alteration in Bat Movement Due to Sensory Disturbance – Construction 12-379
Table 12-113: Criteria Results for Alteration in Bat Movement Due to Sensory Disturbance – Operations 12-380
Table 12-114: Criteria Results for Bat Injury or Death Due to Collisions with Vehicles – Construction 12-381
Table 12-115: Criteria Results for Bat Injury or Death Due to Collisions with Vehicles – Operations 12-381
Table 12-116: Criteria Results for Bat Injury or Death Due to Incidental Take – Construction 12-382
Table 12-117: Criteria Results for Bat Injury or Death Due to Incidental Take – Operations 12-383
Table 12-118: Criteria Results for Bat Injury or Death Due to Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics –
Construction 12-384
Table 12-119: Criteria Results for Bat Injury or Death Due to Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics – Operations 12-384
Table 12-120: Criteria Results for Bat Injury or Death Due to Increased Energy Expenditure – Construction 12-385
Table 12-121: Criteria Results for Bat Injury or Death Due to Increased Energy Expenditure – Operations 12-386
Table 12-122: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Bats During the Constructions Phase 12-387
Table 12-123: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Bats During the Operations Phase 12-388
Table 12-124: Criteria Results for Loss of Forest Songbird Habitat – Construction 12-389
Table 12-125: Criteria Results for Loss of Forest Songbird Habitat – Operations 12-390
Table 12-126: Criteria Results for Forest Songbird Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Habitat
Structural Change- Construction 12-391
Table 12-127: Criteria Results for Migratory Forest Songbirds Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to
Habitat Structural Change – Operations 12-392
Table 12-128: Criteria Results for Migratory Forest Songbird Habitat Alteration or Degradation Due to
Sensory Disturbance – Construction 12-393
Table 12-129: Criteria Results for Migratory Forest Songbird Habitat Alteration or Degradation Due to
Sensory Disturbance – Operations 12-394
Table 12-130: Criteria Results for Alteration in Migratory Forest Songbird Movement Due to Habitat
Fragmentation – Construction 12-395
Table 12-131: Criteria Results for Alteration in Migratory Forest Songbird Movement Due to Habitat
Fragmentation – Operations 12-395
Table 12-132: Criteria Results for Alteration in Migratory Forest Songbird Movement Due to Sensory
Disturbance – Construction 12-396
Table 12-133: Criteria Results for Alteration in Migratory Forest Songbird Movement Due to Sensory
Disturbance – Operations 12-397

Table 12-134: Criteria Results for Migratory Forest Songbird Injury or Death Due to Collisions –
Construction 12-398
Table 12-135: Criteria Results for Migratory Forest Songbird Injury or Death Due to Collisions – Operations 12-399
Table 12-136: Criteria Results for Migratory Forest Songbird Injury or Death Due to Incidental Take –
Construction 12-400
Table 12-137: Criteria Results for Migratory Forest Songbird Injury or Death Due to Incidental Take – Operations 12-400
Table 12-138: Criteria Results for Migratory Forest Songbird Injury or Death Due to Changes in
Predator-Prey Dynamics – Construction 12-401
Table 12-139: Criteria Results for Migratory Forest Songbird Injury or Death Due to Changes in
Predator-Prey Dynamics – Operations 12-402
Table 12-140: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Forest Songbirds During the
Construction Phase 12-403
Table 12-141: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Forest Songbirds During the
Operations Phase 12-404
Table 12-142: Criteria Results for Loss of Wetland Songbird Habitat from Clearance Activities –
Construction 12-405
Table 12-143: Criteria Results for Loss of Wetland Songbird Habitat from Clearance Activities – Operations 12-406
Table 12-144: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Wetland Songbird Habitat Due to
Changes in Vegetation Structure – Construction 12-407
Table 12-145: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Wetland Songbird Habitat Due to
Changes in Vegetation Structure – Operations 12-408
Table 12-146: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Wetland Songbird Habitat Due to Hydrological Changes – Construction 12-409
Table 12-147: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Wetland Songbird Habitat Due to Hydrological Changes – Operations 12-409
Table 12-148: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Rusty Blackbird Habitat Due to
Sensory Disturbance – Construction 12-410
Table 12-149: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Wetland Songbirds Habitat Due to
Sensory Disturbance – Operations 12-411
Table 12-150: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Wetland Songbirds Due to Loss of
Connectivity – Construction 12-412
Table 12-151: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Wetland Songbirds Due to Loss of
Connectivity – Operations 12-413
Table 12-152: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Wetland Songbirds Due to Sensory
Disturbance – Construction 12-414
Table 12-153: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Wetland Songbird Due to Sensory
Disturbance – Operations 12-415
Table 12-154: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Wetland Songbirds Due to Collisions with Vehicles – Construction 12-416

Table 12-155: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Wetland Songbird Due to Collisions with Vehicles – Operations 12-416
Table 12-156: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Wetland Songbird Due to Incidental Take –
Construction 12-417
Table 12-157: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Wetland Songbirds Due to Incidental Take – Operations 12-418
Table 12-158: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Wetland Songbirds Due to Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics – Construction 12-419
Table 12-159: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Wetland Songbirds Due to Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics – Operations 12-420
Table 12-160: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Wetland Songbirds During the
Construction Phase 12-421
Table 12-161: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Wetland Songbirds During the
Operations Phase 12-422
Table 12-162: Criteria Results for Loss of Shorebird Habitat – Construction 12-423
Table 12-163: Criteria Results for Loss of Shorebird Habitat – Operations 12-424
Table 12-164: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Shorebird Habitat Due to Changes
in Vegetation Structure – Construction 12-425
Table 12-165: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Shorebird Habitat Due to Changes
in Vegetation Structure – Operations 12-426
Table 12-166: Criteria Results for Shorebird Habitat Alteration or Degradation Due to Hydrological Changes – Construction 12-426
Table 12-167: Criteria Results for Shorebird Habitat Alteration or Degradation Due to Hydrological
Changes – Operations 12-427
Table 12-168: Criteria Results for Shorebird Habitat Alteration or Degradation Due to Sensory
Disturbance – Construction 12-428
Table 12-169: Criteria Results for Shorebird Habitat Alteration or Degradation Due to Sensory
Disturbance – Operations 12-429
Table 12-170: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Shorebirds Due to Sensory Disturbance –
Construction 12-430
Table 12-171: Criteria Results for Alteration in Shorebird Movement Due to Sensory Disturbance – Operations 12-431
Table 12-172: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Shorebirds Due to Changes in Connectivity – Construction 12-432
Table 12-173: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Shorebirds Due to Changes in Connectivity – Operations 12-432
Table 12-174: Criteria Results for Shorebird Injury or Death Due to Collisions – Construction 12-433
Table 12-175: Criteria Results for Shorebird Injury or Death Due to Collisions – Operations 12-434
Table 12-176: Criteria Results for Shorebird Injury or Death Due to Incidental Take – Construction 12-435
Table 12-177: Criteria Results for Shorebird Injury or Death Due to Incidental Take – Operations 12-436
Table 12-178: Criteria Results for Shorebird Injury or Death Due to Altered Predator-Prey Dynamics –
Construction 12-437
Table 12-179: Criteria Results for Shorebird Injury or Death Due to Altered Predator-Prey Dynamics – Operations 12-437

Table 12-180: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Shorebirds During the Construction Phase 12-439
Table 12-181: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Shorebirds During the Operations Phase 12-440
Table 12-182: Criteria Results for Loss of Waterfowl Habitat – Construction 12-441
Table 12-183: Criteria Results for Loss of Waterfowl Habitat – Operations 12-442
Table 12-184: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Waterfowl Habitat Due to Changes
in Vegetation Structure – Construction 12-443
Table 12-185: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Waterfowl Habitat Due to Changes
in Vegetation Structure – Operations 12-444
Table 12-186: Criteria Results for Waterfowl Habitat Alteration or Degradation Due to Hydrological
Changes – Construction 12-445
Table 12-187: Criteria Results for Waterfowl Habitat Alteration or Degradation Due to Hydrological
Changes – Operations 12-446
Table 12-188: Criteria Results for Waterfowl Habitat Alteration or Degradation Due to Sensory
Disturbance – Construction 12-447
Table 12-189: Criteria Results for Waterfowl Habitat Alteration or Degradation Due to Sensory
Disturbance – Operations 12-448
Table 12-190: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Waterfowl Due to Sensory Disturbance –
Construction 12-449
Table 12-191: Criteria Results for Alteration in Waterfowl Movement Due to Sensory Disturbance – Operations 12-449
Table 12-192: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Waterfowl Due to Changes in Connectivity – Construction 12-450
Table 12-193: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Waterfowl Due to Changes in Connectivity – Operations 12-451
Table 12-194: Criteria Results for Waterfowl Injury or Death Due to Collisions – Construction 12-452
Table 12-195: Criteria Results for Waterfowl Injury or Death Due to Collisions – Operations 12-453
Table 12-196: Criteria Results for Waterfowl Injury or Death Due to Incidental Take – Construction 12-454
Table 12-197: Criteria Results for Waterfowl Injury or Death Due to Incidental Take – Operations 12-454
Table 12-198: Criteria Results for Waterfowl Injury or Death Due to Altered Predator-Prey Dynamics –
Construction 12-455
Table 12-199: Criteria Results for Waterfowl Injury or Death Due to Altered Predator-Prey Dynamics – Operations 12-456
Table 12-200: Criteria Results for Waterfowl Injury or Death Due to Increased Access – Construction 12-457
Table 12-201: Criteria Results for Waterfowl Injury or Death Due to Increased Access – Operations 12-458
Table 12-202: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Waterfowl During the Construction Phase 12-459
Table 12-203: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Waterfowl During the Operations Phase 12-460
Table 12-204: Criteria Results for Loss of Raptor Habitat Due to Clearance Activities – Construction 12-461
Table 12-205: Criteria Results for Loss of Raptor Habitat Due to Clearance Activities – Operations 12-462
Table 12-206: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Raptor Habitat Due to Hydrological
Changes – Construction 12-463
Table 12-207: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Raptor Habitat Due to Sensory
Disturbance – Construction 12-463
Table 12-208: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Raptor Habitat Due to Sensory
Disturbance – Operations 12-464

Table 12-209: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Raptor Habitat Due to Changes in
Vegetation Structure – Construction 12-465
Table 12-210: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Raptor Habitat Due to Changes in
Vegetation Structure – Operations 12-466
Table 12-211: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Raptors Due to Sensory Disturbance –
Construction 12-466
Table 12-212: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Raptors Due to Sensory Disturbance – Operations 12-467
Table 12-213: Criteria Results for Injury or death of Raptors Due to Collisions – Construction 12-468
Table 12-214: Criteria Results for Injury or death of Raptors Due to Collisions – Operations 12-469
Table 12-215: Criteria Results for Injury or death of Raptors Due to Incidental Take – Construction 12-469
Table 12-216: Criteria Results for Injury or death of Raptors Due to Incidental Take – Operations 12-470
Table 12-217: Criteria Results for Injury or death of Raptors Due to Predation – Construction 12-471
Table 12-218: Criteria Results for Injury or death of Raptors Due to Predation – Operations 12-471
Table 12-219: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Raptors During the Construction Phase 12-473
Table 12-220: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Raptors During the Operations Phase 12-474
Table 12-221: Criteria Results for Loss of Reptile and Amphibian Habitat – Construction 12-475
Table 12-222: Criteria Results for Loss of Reptile and Amphibian Habitat – Operations 12-476
Table 12-223: Criteria Results for Alteration in Reptile and Amphibian Habitat Due to Change in Habitat
Structure – Construction 12-477
Table 12-224: Criteria Results for Alteration in Reptile and Amphibian Habitat Due to Change in Habitat
Structure – Operations 12-478
Table 12-225: Criteria Results for Reptile and Amphibian Habitat Alteration or Degradation Due to
Hydrological Changes – Construction 12-479
Table 12-226: Criteria Results for Reptile and Amphibian Habitat Alteration or Degradation Due to
Hydrological Changes – Operations 12-479
Table 12-227: Criteria Results for Reptile and Amphibian Habitat Alteration or Degradation Due to Sensory Disturbance – Construction 12-480
Table 12-228: Criteria Results for Reptile and Amphibian Habitat Alteration or Degradation Due to Sensory Disturbance – Operations 12-481
Table 12-229: Criteria Results for Alteration in Reptile and Amphibian Movement Due to Physical Barriers – Construction 12-482
Table 12-230: Criteria Results for Alteration in Reptile and Amphibian Movement Due to Physical Barriers – Operations 12-483
Table 12-231: Criteria Results for Alteration in Reptile and Amphibian Movement Due to Sensory
Disturbance – Construction 12-483
Table 12-232: Criteria Results for Alteration in Reptile and Amphibian Movement Due to Sensory
Disturbance – Operations 12-484
Table 12-233: Criteria Results for Reptile and Amphibian Injury or Death Due to Collisions – Construction 12-485
Table 12-234: Criteria Results for Reptile and Amphibian Injury or Death Due to Collisions – Operations 12-486
Table 12-235: Criteria Results for Reptile and Amphibian Injury or Death Due to Changes in Predator-Prey Dynamics – Construction 12-487
Table 12-236: Criteria Results for Reptile and Amphibian Injury or Death Due to Changes in Predator-Prey Dynamics – Operations 12-488

Table 12-237: Criteria Results for Reptile and Amphibian Injury or Death Due to Disease – Construction 12-488
Table 12-238: Criteria Results for Reptile and Amphibian Injury or Death Due to Disease – Operations 12-489
Table 12-239: Criteria Results for Reptile and Amphibian Injury or Death Due to Incidental Take –
Construction 12-490
Table 12-240: Criteria Results for Reptile and Amphibian Injury or Death Due to Incidental Take – Operations 12-491
Table 12-241: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Amphibians and Reptiles During the
Construction Phase 12-492
Table 12-242: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Amphibians and Reptiles During the
Operations Phase 12-493
Table 12-243: Scores Assigned for Key Criteria (Categories) of the Predicted Net Effects 12-494
Table 12-244: Key Criteria and Scores for Determining the Significance of the Predicted Net Adverse
Effects on Moose 12-498
Table 12-245: Key Criteria and Scores for Determining the Significance of the Predicted Net Adverse
Effects on American Marten 12-504
Table 12-246: Key Criteria and Scores for Determining the Significance of the Predicted Net Adverse
Effects on North American Beaver 12-509
Table 12-247: Key Criteria and Scores for Determining the Significance of the Predicted Net Adverse
Effects on Bats 12-513
Table 12-248: Key Criteria and Scores for Determining the Significance of the Predicted Net Adverse
Effects on Forest Songbirds 12-519
Table 12-249: Key Criteria and Scores for Determining the Significance of the Predicted Net Adverse
Effects on Wetland Songbirds 12-524
Table 12-250: Key Criteria and Scores for Determining the Significance of the Predicted Net Adverse
Effects on Shorebirds 12-529
Table 12-251: Key Criteria and Scores for Determining the Significance of the Predicted Net Adverse
Effects on Waterfowl 12-534
Table 12-252: Key Criteria and Scores for Determining the Significance of the Predicted Net Adverse
Effects on Raptors 12-539
Table 12-253: Key Criteria and Scores for Determining the Significance of the Predicted Net Adverse
Effects on Reptiles and Amphibians 12-543

12. Assessment of Effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
    The Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat valued component (VC) was identified during the VC scoping and selection process as part of the Environmental Assessment / Impact Assessment (EA/IA) process and is described and assessed in this section. For the purpose of this section, wildlife includes mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. The Project Team conducted studies to establish the existing conditions for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat and determined the potential effects of the Project. The existing conditions studies were based on a review of literature, internet searches, engagement and consultation, field surveys, and expert opinion, and are documented in detail in Appendix F of this EAR/IS – Natural Environment Existing Conditions [NEEC] Report).
    The assessment of the Project’s potential effects on the Wildlife and Wildlife 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.

12.1 Scope of the Assessment
12.1.1 Regulatory and Policy Setting
The Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat VC is assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Impact Assessment Act (IAA), the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (EA), 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 12-1 outlines the key regulations, legislation, and policies relevant to the assessment of the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat VC for construction and operations of the Project.

Table 12-1: Key Regulation, Legislation, Policy Relevant to Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

12.1.2 Consideration of Input from Engagement and Consultation Activities
Table 12-2 summarizes feedback related to the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat VC received during the engagement and consultation for the EA/IA and how the inputs and comments are addressed in the EAR/IS. This feedback includes concerns raised by Indigenous communities/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. This input helped to define the data collection objectives of the desktop and field programs and guide the effects assessment.
Table 12-2: Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat – Summary of Inputs Received During Engagement and Consultation

12.1.3 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 (IKLRU) information to the Project Team:
 Webequie First Nation;
 Marten Falls First Nation; and
 Weenusk First Nation.
Table 12-3 summarizes key information and concerns relating to Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat VC and indicates where this input is incorporated in the EAR/IS.
Table 12-3: Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat VC – Summary of Indigenous Knowledge and Land and Resource Use Information

12.1.4 Valued Component and Indicators
Valued Components including Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat, were identified in the TISG and by the Project Team and are, in part, based on what Indigenous communities and groups, the public, government agencies, and stakeholders have identified as valuable to them in the EA/IA process to date. Subcomponents (or criteria) of the Wildlife and Wildlife 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 is conducted using the methodology outlined in
Section 5 (Environmental Assessment / Impact Assessment Approach and Methods). The identified subcomponents for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat VC are:
 Wildlife Habitat including Identified Significant Wildlife Habitat:
 Wildlife Habitat Loss; and
 Wildlife Habitat Alteration or Degradation.
 Wildlife Populations:
 Alteration in Wildlife Movement; and
 Wildlife Injury or Death.

12.1.4.1 Selection of Key Species and Species Groups
 Nine species and species groups were used for the assessment of the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat VC:
 Moose;
 Furbearers;
 Bats;
 Migratory Songbirds (Forest and Wetland);
 Waterfowl;
 Shorebirds;
 Raptors; and
 Herpetofauna (Reptiles and Amphibians).
These key species and species groups were selected because they represent wildlife use in the range of habitats found in the “Project area”, represent use of the “Project area” at wide range of spatial scales, and use the “Project area” at a range of temporal scales including summer, winter, and spring/fall migration. As a result, it is expected that effects to one of these key species would likely affect other similar species in a similar fashion. Additional consideration was given to species that were deemed regionally important based on either regulatory or community feedback and to species that were known to be sensitive (responding positively or negatively) to linear development. The TISG also designated certain key species to be included in the effects assessment. Species at Risk (SAR) are considered separately in Section 13 of this document.

For species groups where effects would be similar for multiple species, a representative species was selected as the criterion to reduce redundancy. When a species group utilizes several ecosystem types (upland, riparian, aquatic) multiple representative species were selected. Based on background information, field work and input from Indigenous communities and stakeholders the following species were chosen.
Ungulate – Moose (Alces americanus)
The moose is North America’s largest ungulate. It eats mostly deciduous leaves and aquatic plants in the growing season, and twigs primarily of coniferous trees in the winter in the eastern boreal (Brassard et al. 1974). Moose are stressed more easily than other ungulates by high temperatures and modify their habitat use in both winter and summer. Use of aquatic habitats and taller forest stands increases with increasing temperatures (Street et al. 2015). Moose also use more densely forested areas in the winter that provide shelter from snow, particularly those near edges with abundant food (Dussault et al., 2005). On the landscape scale, moose avoid areas in the winter with low snowfall to reduce wolf predation (Dussault et al., 2005).
Furbearer – American Marten (Martes americana)
The American marten is a medium-sized terrestrial furbearer whose primary habitat is mature coniferous forest, although it also utilizes other treed vegetation communities, especially those with structure (coarse woody debris [CWD] and snags). Open habitats like open bogs, fens and recent burns are not used to any great extent. American martens are opportunistic predators feeding on small mammals including other furbearers such as Snowshoe Hare. American martens are also a prey source for other furbearers including fisher (Martes pennanti), Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), and wolves. (Suffice et al. 2017).
Furbearer – North American beaver (Castor canadensis)
The North American beaver is a medium-sized aquatic furbearer. North American beavers inhabit aquatic habitats including rivers, ponds, streams and smaller lakes (Allen, 1983). North American beavers are adaptable to human environments and are not considered sensitive to anthropogenic disturbance like road construction, or linear features (Mumma et al. 2018). The North American beaver is an important prey source for other furbearers including fisher, wolves, Canada lynx, bears and wolverine with river otters occasionally predating on kits (Reid, 1984).
Bats – Big Brown Bat (Eptesicus fuscus), Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus), and Silver-haired Bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans)
For the purpose of the effects assessment, bats are treated as one species group since they share many similarities, between roosting and foraging habitats and other life history traits, and background data collection, scientific literature, and field data are not always sufficient to provide individual species accounts.
Big Brown Bats are the most encountered bat species in Ontario. Natural roosts for this species include tree cavities, such as woodpecker holes, rot holes, and knot holes, as well as caves, but Big Brown Bats also take advantage of anthropogenic structures like attics and outbuildings. This species typically migrates short distances from their summer range to overwinter (hibernate) (Thorne, 2017).
Hoary Bats exclusively roost in trees by hanging among the foliage and roosting on the surface of the bark. They migrate south to warmer climates for the winter, departing around October and returning in April (Thorne, 2017).
Silver-haired Bats roost in small colonies in cracks or hollows in tree bark. They move roosts frequently and typically require mature habitats with a high availability of roosts (Thorne, 2017). This species migrates south to warmer climates for the winter, departing by November and returning in April (Thorne, 2017).

On January 27, 2025, Hoary Bat and Silver-haired Bat were listed as Endangered under the Endangered Species Act, 2007. The present assessment considers the factors involved in the species’ decline in Ontario and how the Project may affect the survival of the species and their populations in the RSA.
Forest Songbirds – Orange-crowned Warbler (Vermivora celata) and Tennessee Warbler (Leiothlypis peregrina)
In Canada, Orange-crowned Warblers breed in brushy and open deciduous woodlands, shrub thickets, mixedwoods, and coniferous forest edges where low growth is present (Gilbert et al., 2020). Foraging habitats can be variable, typically reflecting fluctuations in breeding habitat vegetation, but these birds usually forage in dense green foliage and along the bark and outer branches of trees (Gilbert et al., 2020).
Tennessee Warblers are associated with open areas that contain grasses, dense shrubs, and scattered clumps of young deciduous trees. In the boreal forests of Ontario, this species has been found in successional stages grading from three-year-old lowland and upland timber harvest areas to mature (60–220-year-old) lowland and upland boreal forests (Rimmer and McFarland, 2020). During the breeding season, this species primarily gleans invertebrates from the outer foliage of trees and shrubs. In Northern Ontario, it primarily forages in aspen (Populus species), followed by birch (Betula species), white spruce (Picea alba), alder (Alnus species), balsam fir (Abies balsamea), and black spruce (Picea mariana) (Rimmer and McFarland, 2020).
Wetland Songbirds – Palm Warbler (Setophaga palmarum)
The Palm Warbler is associated with black spruce bog environments but also uses other peatlands with scattered trees and regenerating burnt areas (Taylor, 2018). Due to its nesting habitat being in remote areas, knowledge of its breeding biology is lacking. Since it prefers peatlands for nesting, this warbler is less likely to suffer from habitat fragmentation than other species (BSI, 2024). Palm Warblers can also use drier areas and habitat structure. Open areas with small trees appear to be more important than species composition (Welsh, 1987).
Wetland Songbirds – Alder Flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum)
A relatively new species, only being separated from Willow Flycatcher in 1974, Alder Flycatchers feed preferentially on insects caught in the air or gleaned from trees and shrubs (BSI, 2024). This species prefers shrubby early seral growth including wet thickets, riparian areas of swamps, bogs and North American beaver ponds. In the project area nesting habitat would include forest edges, willow (Salix species) and alder swales and creek margins, as well as early successional forest regenerating after fires (Lowther 1999). Alder flycatchers are moderately tolerant of human effects, as they can also be found nesting along road edges.
Waterfowl – Canada Goose (Branta canadensis)
The Canada Goose breeds in a broad range of habitats, including treeless and forested areas, a variety of managed refuge conditions, and among areas of human habitation. In remote areas, this species will nest both individually and semi-colonially, with a preference for sites that provide a clear view in all directions and nearby permanent waterbodies such as lakes, ponds, marshes, and muskeg (Mowbray et al., 2020).
Waterfowl – Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos)
Mallards in the Boreal region of Canada breed on vegetated and fertile wetlands that have some open water. This species will usually nest in uplands close to water, using a wide variety of habitats with dense cover such as marshes, bogs, riverine floodplains, forests, and roadside ditches (Drilling et al., 2020).

Shorebirds – Greater Yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca)
The Greater Yellowlegs is a Boreal obligate and breeds throughout the Boreal zone in muskegs, wet bogs with small, wooded islands, and coniferous forests with abundant clearings. These areas generally have many small ponds or lakes, scattered tall trees that are used as perches, and are characterised by wet, hummocky ground covered with mosses, lichens, and sedges interspersed with slightly higher and drier areas of low shrubs and grasses (Elphick and Tibbitts, 2020).
Raptor – Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)
Red-tailed Hawks are found in a broad range of habitats that offer sufficient open space. In the Boreal Forest, dense forest habitats are restricted, but Red-tailed Hawks may still use the edges next to open environments. Scattered large trees are still required in open areas as Red-tailed Hawks are sit and wait predators. Red-tailed Hawks nest close to habitat edges and openings in the canopy, with nest sites often being in taller trees than surrounding areas (Moorman and Chapman, 1996). In general, Red-tailed Hawks use areas during foraging which provide less cover and more prey vulnerability (Leyhe and Ritchison, 2004). Red-tailed Hawks have a high tolerance of humans, nesting and foraging in human environments (Demarchi and Bentley, 2005).
Raptor – Great Grey Owl (Strix nebulosa)
In the Boreal Forest, Great Grey Owls are associated with extensive areas of mature coniferous forest that border on more open areas such as bogs, fens and meadows. The most important habitat features for this species are the availability of nest sites and suitable foraging habitat (COSEWIC, 1996). While mature dense coniferous forest or mixed forest is preferred for nesting, Great Grey Owl foraging areas are often open treed habitats, bogs, fens and meadows with some tree structure as these owls are primarily perching hunters (Duncan, 1987). Great Grey Owls do not build their own nests, instead using old raptor or raven nests, or placing their eggs in the broken tops of large trees, or snags. Great Grey Owls have a moderate tolerance of humans but require large tracks of habitat (Demarchi and Bentley, 2005).
Herpetofauna – Eastern Gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis), American Toad (Anaxyrus americanus), Boreal Chorus Frog (Pseudacris maculata), Spring Peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), and Wood Frog (Lithobates sylvaticus)
Eastern Gartersnakes occupy a wide variety of habitats such as wetland edges, mixed forests, and rocky areas. During the winter they move below the frost line, using rock crevices, other natural underground cavities, and mammal burrows (Ontario Nature, 2024).
American Toads breed in a wide range of permanent and temporary shallow aquatic features. Outside of the breeding season, they can be found in a variety of terrestrial habitats including deciduous and mixed forests, forest clearings, rock barrens, and muskegs. During the winter, they move below the frost line by burrowing in sandy soils or using mammal burrows, crevices in bedrock, or other underground cavities (Ontario Nature, 2024).
Boreal Chorus Frogs breed in open wetlands that are small, shallow, and fish-free. Outside of the breeding season they remain close to their breeding sites, occupying deciduous and mixed Boreal coniferous forests. During the winter they use mammal burrows or tree root cavities, burrow under logs or rocks, or bury under leaf litter (Ontario Nature, 2024).
Spring Peepers breed in several different shallow, open aquatic habitats that are typically temporary and fish-free. Outside of the breeding season they inhabit forests near their breeding sites and can be found several metres off the ground in trees and vegetation. During the winter they move into mammal burrows, tree root cavities, under logs, or bury under leaf litter (Ontario Nature, 2024).

Wood Frogs are closely associated with deciduous and Boreal Forest, inhabiting open and forested muskegs and wet meadows. They breed in shallow, fish-free ephemeral wetlands within or near forests. During the winter they bury themselves under shallow leaf litter (Ontario Nature, 2024).
Table 12-4 shows the representative species for each or species group, associated ecosystem and summarizes the rationale for their selection.
Table 12-4: Representative Species for VC Species Groups

The Project has the potential to result in changes in wildlife habitat, mortality risk, reproduction, and movement. Therefore, Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat, including Significant Wildlife Habitat and Migratory Birds are considered in this assessment. 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 12-5 shows the VC subcomponents and indicators identified for the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat assessment.
Table 12-5: Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat VC – Subcomponents, Indicators, and Rationale

12.1.5 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries
The following subsections describe the assessment boundaries that have been defined for the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat VC.

12.1.5.1 Spatial Boundaries
The spatial boundaries for the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat VC are shown on Figure 12.1 and include the following:
 Project Footprint – the area of direct disturbance (i.e., the physical area required for project construction and operations). The Project Footprint is defined as the 35-metre wide Webequie Supply Road Right-of-Way (ROW); and temporary or permanent areas needed to support the Project that include laydown yards, storage yards, construction camps, access roads and aggregate extraction sites.

 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 extends from the centreline of the preliminary recommended preferred route and from the boundary of the temporary and permanent supportive infrastructure. The extent of the LSA is specific to each Species at Risk/Guild and is selected in consideration of the geographic extent of potential effects on the given Species at Risk/Guild. (Table 12-6).
 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 from each side of the LSA boundaries to include the geographical extent to which potential effects from the Project may be expected on the given Species at Risk/Guild (Table 12-6).
Based on the specific study assessment requirements for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat, the above noted study areas have been modified to meet study objectives. Specifically, the LSA for moose includes the standard LSA (1 km buffer from the Project Footprint) plus a 10-km buffer and will be spatially applied beyond the preliminary recommended preferred route for the road. This expanded LSA has also been applied for caribou, which is addressed in Section 13 (Species at Risk).

 Indigenous community members noted that the proposed study area considerations described in the Terms of Reference are inadequate for considering ecological (e.g., caribou, wolverine, lake sturgeon, migratory birds, freshwater fish biodiversity, eskers, peatlands) and social (e.g., eskers, transportation, cultural and sacred sites, traditional land use) impacts.

Based on the baseline information assembled to date, and the Project Team’s experience on the assessment of roads in similar northern environments, the proposed study areas are currently deemed adequate for assessing potential effects to the ecological and social valued components under
consideration.
The spatial boundaries for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat are defined in Table 12-6 and presented in Figure 12.1. Modified spatial boundaries for moose as defined in Table 12-6, are presented in Figure 12.2.

12.1.5.2 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 the activities associated with the initial development of the road and supportive infrastructure from the start of construction to the start of the operation of the Project, which is estimated to be approximately five to six years in duration; and
 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 the decommissioning of temporary infrastructure (e.g., access roads). 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).

12.1.6 Identification of Project Interactions with Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Table 12-7 identifies the Project activities that may interact with the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat VC to result in a potential effect.

Table 12-7: Project Interactions with Wildlife and Wildlife 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) are 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 generated by 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.

12.2 Existing Conditions
This section summarizes the existing conditions for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat found within the study areas, as identified in Section 12.1.5.1 (Spatial Boundaries), based on the review of background information sources and field investigations. The purpose is to provide baseline condition upon which the potential effects of the Project on the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat VC are assessed. Detailed descriptions of the methods for characterizing existing conditions and interpretations of the results for wildlife are provided in Appendix F – Natural Environment Existing Conditions Report (NEEC Report) of this EAR/IS.
For the purpose of this section, the term wildlife is inclusive of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians, and provides a characterization of species diversity and composition within the study areas, as well as identifying and quantifying terrestrial wildlife habitat therein.
As an overview, the objectives of the baseline study were to identify and characterize the wildlife of ecological, economic, or human importance (particularly to Indigenous Peoples) within the study areas as well as to identify important terrestrial features related to wildlife usage, critical life cycle activities, and issues, including:
 Identify wildlife species and/or communities/guilds;
 Identify the presence, distribution, and abundance of terrestrial wildlife occurring within the study areas;
 Identify and characterize provincially significant terrestrial wildlife habitat within the study areas;
 Identify and characterize critical habitat for provincial and federal species at risk (SAR); and
 Support the determination of habitat of species of special concern.
The assessment of effects on Species at Risk and their habitat and the data collected for these species are presented separately in Section 13.

12.2.1 Methods

 Indigenous community members are concerned that the existing data from breeding bird surveys has little coverage of the study area and therefore a poor ability to detect trends for most species. The description of bird survey techniques in the draft Terms of Reference makes no mention of the number of stations that will be visited in the planned breeding bird survey.

The scope and intensity of the field studies, and associated data collection methodologies have been established during the EA/IA process through consultation with Indigenous communities, federal/provincial agencies and stakeholders. This included the development of a Birds Study Plan at the outset of the EA/IA, including the opportunity for federal and provincial agencies to review the plan and provide guidance.
Section 12.2.1.3 outlined the baseline studies on Breeding Birds count and acoustic surveys as well as
Waterfowl and Shorebird migration surveys. Potential effects to waterfowl are described in Section 12.3.9.

Wildlife surveys were conducted between 2018 and 2023 and included: winter aerial tracking surveys; breeding bird point count surveys, three-season bird acoustic surveys, aerial waterfowl and shorebird migration surveys, bat habitat assessment, and bat acoustic surveys. Baseline surveys were designed with the purpose of gathering information on wildlife diversity and composition within the LSA, the presence of Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH; MNRF, 2000) supporting critical wildlife life processes, as well as investigating the presence of provincial and federal SAR and species of Special Concern and their specialized habitat (refer to Section 13 – Assessment of Effects on Species at Risk). The availability and distribution of wildlife habitat was estimated as part of the baseline characterization. A summary of each survey methodology is provided in subsequent sections. Detailed methodology for all wildlife surveys,

the sources for background information review, description of survey site selection, and habitat typing can be found in Appendix F – NEEC Report.
Significant Wildlife Habitat
As a Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) Ecoregional Criteria Schedule has not been developed for the study areas (i.e., Project Footprint, LSA and RSA) the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (MNRF, 2000) was used as the primary guidance document for the Project, along with the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide Criteria
Schedules for Ecoregions 3E, and 3W (MNRF 2015a, 2017a) which are the set of criteria developed for the Ecoregions geographically closest to the study areas.
These two guides were used to identify the following 12 SWH types for mammals:

 Moose Late Winter Cover;
 Moose Calving Areas;
 Bat Hibernacula;
 Bat Maternity Colonies;
 Seeps and Springs;
 Aquatic Feeding Habitat;
 Denning Sites for mink, otter, gray wolf, eastern wolf, Canada lynx, American marten, fisher, black bear;
 Wolf Rendezvous Sites;
 Mast Producing Areas;
 Cervid Movement Corridors;
 Furbearer Movement Corridors; and
 Forest areas providing a high diversity of habitats.
The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide Criteria Schedules identify Ecological Land Classification (ELC) ecosite types that are indicative of each type of SWH. Areas containing suitable vegetation communities for a given SWH type are referred to as candidate SWH. As there is no schedule for region 2W adjustments, we made changes based on specific conditions of local geographically; these are noted in individual sections where appropriate.
A candidate SWH becomes a confirmed SWH once defining criteria, as outlined in the criteria schedules, have been met. Summaries of the criteria used to identify candidate SWH and confirm SWH are provided in Appendix F – NEEC Report.

12.2.1.1 Resource Selection Function (RSF) Modelling
Observational data was used to locally estimate resource selection and produce Resource Selection Function (RSF) models for select species from the following wildlife groups: Amphibians, Mammals, Wetland Breeding Birds, and Waterbirds. RSF modelling provides a probability of use and allow for the determination of areas of high functional habitat value. Species selection and modelling methodology is presented in detail in Section 9.4.4.2 and Section 9.4.4.3 in Appendix F – NEEC Report.
These values were summarized to the ELC polygon level for all species except for moose, which uses the Far North Land Cover (FNLC) (MNR, 2014) as the ELC does not completely cover the moose LSA. A quantile classification was applied to derive an aggregated functional habitat use value for each species analyzed. Five quantile categories were used and divided into High (top 20%), Moderate (middle 40%) and Low usage (bottom 40%).

Change in Use
Changes in wildlife species distribution following construction of the road was modelled by estimating probability of use (pUse) based on resource selection functions (RSFs) across the study areas (Project Footprint, LSA and RSA). Details of modelling methods are discussed in Section 11.2.1.2 (Baseline Characterization Collection Methods, Assessment of Effects on Vegetation and Wildlife) and further details are provided in the Natural Environment and Existing Conditions (NEEC) report (Appendix F). RSFs were developed using a boosted-regression tree approach, with data from the FNLC and other environmental variables, including Landsat TM. Future disturbance effects were modelled by overlaying the Project Footprint with existing disturbances, including roads and aggregate sources on the FNLC map, and then reassigning wetland and upland values in the 3-ha hexagons underlying the anthropogenic layer as an upland anthropogenic disturbance. This modeling was done for the nine species/species groups used as Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat VC subcomponents.
Interpretation of these results is complicated by the fact that no roads are currently present in the RSA so current wildlife response to existing roads can not be included in the model. To overcome this limitation, the Project Footprint was changed to an “anthropogenic disturbance” landcover type which represents a wide range of anthropogenic habitats. These disturbance habitats include the community, ice roads, and other clearings.

12.2.1.2 Mammals

12.2.1.2.1 Winter Aerial Surveys
Winter aerial surveys were conducted in 2018, 2019, and 2021 for mammals within the project area. These surveys were recommended by the MNR Nipigon District primarily to inventory caribou and caribou habitat, inventory moose and moose wintering habitat; and inventory the presence of furbearers and other wildlife, such as gray wolf,
Canada lynx, fisher, American marten, river otter (Lontra canadensis), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), snowshoe hare
(Lepus americanus), and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus). Additional wildlife habitat was recorded if present, for example, bat roosting and hibernacula areas. As noted in Section 12.1.5.1 (Spatial Boundaries) the Missisa and Ozhiski Caribou Ranges were used as the boundaries for the moose and gray wolf RSA due to the influence of these species on Caribou movement and habitat utilization.
Winter aerial surveys for mammals were conducted on consecutive days between February 1 and March 15 in 2018, 2019, and 2021. To the extent possible, they were completed according to standardized survey methodology for identifying and delineating caribou winter habitat provided by the MNR (Select Wildlife and Habitat Features: Inventory Manual, Ranta, 1997). The aerial survey consisted of flying a grid of parallel transects oriented in a north-south direction, using a helicopter. During this survey, biologists recorded large mammal species that were encountered (e.g., moose, wolf). The standardized parallel transect spacing of 2 km was used, as suggested in the MNR protocol. Detailed information and figures regarding the transects that were surveyed in each year of this study are presented in Appendix F – NEEC Report.
All wildlife observations made during the survey were recorded immediately on a data sheet along with the date, time, transect number, Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates, species name, number of individuals, and habitat type. When possible, moose sex (i.e., male, female, unknown) and age (i.e., adult, yearling, calf) was noted, unless undue stress on the animals would result from the determination of these details. Other signs of moose or other wildlife presence were also recorded, including tracks of gray wolf or their kills. Fresh tracks were distinguished from old tracks and digital photographs of wildlife were taken whenever possible.

12.2.1.2.2 Bat Hibernacula Screening
Refer to Section 13.2 (Existing Conditions, Assessment of Effects on Species at Risk).

12.2.1.2.3 Bat Maternity Roost Habitat Screening
Refer to Section 13.2.1.1 (Existing Conditions, Mammals, Assessment of Effects on Species at Risk).

12.2.1.2.4 Bat Acoustic Surveys
Refer to Section 13.2.1.1 (Existing Conditions, Mammals, Assessment of Effects on Species at Risk).

12.2.1.2.5 Bat Activity Modelling
Refer to Section 13.2.1.1 (Existing Conditions, Mammals, Assessment of Effects on Species at Risk).

12.2.1.3 Birds
The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide Criteria Schedules for Ecoregions 3E, and 3W (MNRF 2015a, 2017a) were used to identify the following 14 SWH types for birds:
 Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Areas (Terrestrial);
 Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Areas (Aquatic);
 Shorebird Migration Stopover Areas;
 Colonial-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Cliff);
 Colonial-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Tree/Shrubs);
 Colonial-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Ground);
 Rare Vegetation Communities: Marshes;
 Waterfowl Nesting Areas;
 Bald Eagle and Osprey Nesting, Foraging, and Perching Habitat;
 Woodland Raptor Nesting Habitat;
 Sharp-tailed Grouse Leks;
 Marsh Bird Breeding Habitat;
 Open Country Breeding Bird Habitat;
 Shrub/Early Successional Bird Breeding Habitat; and
 Special Concern and Rare Wildlife Species.
The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide Criteria Schedules include descriptions of wildlife habitat, wildlife species and the criteria for determining SWH based on science and expert knowledge. The schedules include lists of ELC ecosite codes associated with each type of wildlife habitat. An area comprised of suitable vegetation communities for a given SWH type is referred to as candidate SWH. A candidate SWH becomes a confirmed SWH once defining criteria, as outlined in the criteria schedules, have been met. Since an Ecoregional Criteria Schedule has not been developed for the study areas identified in the Project, the Significant Wildlife guide was the primary guidance document that was used. Summaries of the criteria used to identify candidate SWH and confirm SWH are provided in Appendix F – NEEC Report.

12.2.1.3.1 Breeding Bird Point Count Surveys
Point count surveys followed the principles of the Forest Bird Monitoring Program, as well as the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (OBBA) survey protocols. These protocols are described in the MNR’s publication Wildlife Monitoring Programs and Inventory Techniques (Konze and McLaren 1997), the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Participants Guide (OBBA, 2001) and more generally in Appendix 1 of the TISG.

Surveys were conducted between one half hour before sunrise until five hours after sunrise between June 1 and July 10, and the data collected included:
 Species;
 Number of individuals;
 Estimated distance from viewer (i.e., 0-50m, 50-100m, 100+ m);
 Minute interval first detected (i.e., 1, 2, 3….10);
 Breeding evidence (i.e., suitable habitat, singing male, pair, nest with eggs, nest with young, etc.); and
 Survey weather conditions (temperature, wind [Beaufort Scale], precipitation, cloud cover [%]).
Any incidental observations of non-target wildlife species or bird species observed between point counts were also recorded.
Each sample location was surveyed by a qualified biologist skilled in visual and aural identification of Ontario bird species. Surveys were conducted by qualified biologists using a standardized 10-minute point count and recorded. Each species encountered were recorded at one-minute intervals with distance estimates recorded between 0-50 m, 50-100 m and >100 m. Vegetation classification within 100 m of each sample were also assessed.
Point Count Site Selection
In 2019, breeding bird point counts were conducted at 113 pre-determined stations. In 2020, 186 breeding bird point counts were conducted. Of these, 86 were repeated from 2019 and 100 were new stations. In total, 258-point count stations were sampled; 122 stations were positioned within the bird LSA, while 136 stations were positioned within the bird RSA. Survey stations were positioned at least 300 m apart, and spread across six distinct habitat types, including:
 Hardwood Forest;
 Coniferous Forest;
 Mixed Forest;
 Disturbed Lands;
 Treed Wetland (swamp, treed bog/fen); and
 Open Wetland (bog/fen, marsh).
Efforts were made to position at least ten survey points in each of these habitat types to generate adequate species lists. In the instances where counts bordered on multiple vegetation communities (e.g., riparian areas, lake shorelines), field staff indicated on the data sheet which vegetation community each bird was located in.
Sample Representation
To demonstrate whether the number of breeding bird count locations were representative of the habitat in the LSA, a chi-squared (χ2) test was performed comparing the number of survey stations in each habitat type to the expected number of survey stations in each habitat type within the LSA. The expected number of survey stations in each habitat type was calculated based on the proportion of each habitat type within the LSA. Statistically significant differences (i.e., p-value < 0.05) indicate under- or over-sampling of a habitat type.
The number of breeding bird survey stations that were surveyed were significantly different than the expected number of survey stations based on the proportion of habitat within the LSA (χ2 = 113.67, p‑value < 0.01). According to this test, no habitat types were sampled in a manner representative of the habitat composition within the LSA. Conifer forest, mixed forest, disturbed habitat, and open wetland were over-sampled, while treed wetland habitat was under-sampled. Lake and river habitats were not considered as functional habitat types for the majority of species sampled during point counts. Vegetation communities along the shoreline of open water habitats were classified according to the other major

habitat types. Forest habitats were over-sampled due to capturing greater diversity of species as well as uncommon species that could be expected in these habitat types, and the diversity of habitat structures and age classes that could be found with these habitat types.
Paired Acoustic Recording
In 2020, during each point count survey, observers deployed high-quality portable acoustic recording devices
(i.e., with 360-degree recording in WAV format, selectable sampling rate, and adjustable microphone gain), mounted on a tripod. This survey type is suitable for sampling a representative species composition for the Project Footprint, LSA, and RSA including forest and bog/fen birds, as well as for locating most diurnal avian SAR that occur in the region.
Data recorded using ARUs during the morning breeding bird point counts was used to normalize data recorded during these counts and data recorded by ARU only.

12.2.1.3.2 Bird Acoustic Surveys
ARUs were deployed to survey bird presence in 2020 and 2021. Deployment of ARUs was used to augment data collection conducted during point count surveys, obtain data to support the abundance and distribution modelling process, and capture temporal variations in bird species presence, abundance, and distribution across a broad range of dates (including seasons) and times of day. ARUs were placed at least 500 m apart and proportionately sampled all major habitat types present within the LSA and RSA, as was done with the point count surveys. The recording schedule programmed into each ARU adhered to protocols prescribed in the federal TISG for the Project, recording daily, with a morning and evening schedule.
In 2020, a total of 55 Song Meter SM4 Mini (Wildlife Acoustics Inc.) recording devices were deployed across representative habitats for data collection. ARUs recorded until the batteries died or memory cards were filled. Batteries and memory cards in all 55 detectors were replaced between mid and late June of 2020 and 16 detectors were moved to secondary supplemental locations to record for the rest of the avian breeding season (i.e., late July), or until either the batteries or memory card capacity was exhausted. In total, 70 survey locations were sampled through the core avian breeding season through remote ARU use. Following this, ARUs were left at their location to record during the fall migration period (August 1 through September 30, 2020) and during the winter (December 1, 2020, through to
March 31, 2021) (i.e., collectively, Fall/Winter Recordings).
In 2021, an additional 21 ARUs were deployed in habitats that were underrepresented in the initial deployment and in areas that had poor spatial coverage. Nine ARUs were also removed from habitats that were over-represented, namely conifer swamp and conifer forests. In total, 82 survey locations were sampled through the core avian breeding season in 2021 through remote ARU use. Batteries and memory cards in all 82 detectors were replaced in mid‑late July of 2021. Once the breeding season ended, ARUs were left at their location to record during the fall migration period.
In total, 49 ARUs were positioned within the LSA and 33 were located within the RSA. At the end of the fall migration period ARU’s were collected from the field, and no winter data collection was conducted.
All acoustic files were analysed according to methodologies described in the TISG for the Project.

Acoustic Subsampling
The amount of annual data gathered by each ARU was extensive: up to 12,000 recordings were collected at each station, providing over 600 hours of audio data. To reduce the data to a manageable amount for acoustic processing, a random subsampling process was conducted using RStudio software (RStudio Team, 2020).
Acoustic data was first divided into three time periods: breeding season (May 1 through July 10), fall migration (August 1 through September 30) and winter season (November 1 through March 31). For each of these seasons a separate subsampling process was conducted. The seasonal datasets were further subdivided into dawn (one hour before sunrise to five hours after), dusk (half an hour before sunset to two hours after sunset), and nighttime

(midnight to one hour before sunrise). Days with heavy precipitation (>10mm) were removed from the sample by importing Environment Canada historical weather data using the R package WeatherCan (LaZerte and Albers, 2018).
Using these filtered lists, a pre-determined number of files were randomly selected using the dplyr package (Wickham et al., 2021) within RStudio. For the breeding season, eight samples for the dawn period, four for the dusk period and for the nighttime period were selected. For the fall and winter season, eight samples were taken only from the dawn period. Under normal conditions the subsampling process only selected one random file per day from a given ARU station to reduce temporal correlation; however, due to weather conditions and short recording timeframes of some ARUs, up to two recordings were analyzed on the same day in a small percentage of cases (0.71%).
Prior to full acoustic interpretation, a short segment of each recording was listened to in order to determine if the recordings were suitable for analysis. Files with substantial wind, rain or other environmental noise were excluded. A minimum of four samples were required for analysis in dawn periods and two for evening and dusk periods. If multiple samples were excluded, leaving an insufficient number of recordings, additional subsampling was conducted until enough samples were available for each station. In some environments (riparian, open wetlands) background noise was always present to some degree, so files with some noises were included in the final subsample. This higher level of noise will have to be accounted for in the analysis.
Avian Modelling
Avian Modeling was conducted using the 405 total breeding bird plots sampled in 2019 and 2020. The suggested statistical analysis of bird distribution and abundance, as described in the Project’s TISG, is rigorous and requires accounting for observational bias and modelling habitat-specific abundance and density estimates. The following were calculated using data and are further detailed in Appendix F – NEEC Report:
 Observational Bias Correction;
 Species Abundance and Distribution Models;
 Boosted Regression Tree;
 Generalized Linear Models;
 Spatial Analyses Layer (applied to all models);
 Simulation and Assessment of Survey Design and Precision;
 Simulation Study Area and Methods; and
 Resource Selection Function Modelling.

12.2.1.3.3 Waterfowl Migration Surveys
Survey timing and locations for waterfowl were informed by a background information review along with coordination with Webequie First Nation hunters and community members. Surveys typically bookended the local goose hunt as not to disturb the traditional hunting practices and critical food-gathering period for the Webequie First Nation. Spring surveys were conducted between mid-May and early June, while fall surveys were conducted between early September and mid-October.
Each survey consisted of flying the entire length of the proposed route alternatives and circling over each lake or open wetland within 1 km of the alternative routes, paying particular attention to those areas identified during the background data review and from the consultation. The field crew included two biologists experienced in the identification of waterfowl: one primary observer and one secondary observer/recorder. Surveys followed national and provincial standards for presence/not detected (United States Fish and Wildlife Service and CWS 1987; RIC 1999a; Ducks Unlimited Canada 2003), although abundance data were also recorded. Three helicopter flights took place over 10 days to account for daily variations and were dependent on weather conditions. Each flight was accompanied by a Webequie First Nation community member. Data collected included:

 Date;
 Time started and time ended;
 Weather conditions;
 Species observed;
 GPS location, and
 Number of individuals.
A total of 119 wetlands/waterbodies were visited during the surveys. While the surveys were intended to focus on migrating waterfowl, all wildlife observed during the flights were recorded.

12.2.1.3.4 Shorebird Migration Surveys
In northern Ontario, spring shorebird migration typically peaks later than waterfowl migration (late May) and occurs during a relatively short time period (mid–May to early June). Conversely, fall shorebird migration typically begins and peaks earlier than waterfowl migration, yet spans up to four months (late July – October). Overall, timing of waterbird surveys did not coincide well with peak shorebird migration in Ontario; however, it is expected that shorebird migration across the LSA for the Project is minimal. This assumption is based on the limited extent of suitable shoreline habitat present within the LSA as well as the fact that shorebirds are well-known to stage and migrate along the shoreline of James Bay from which they travel to the Atlantic coast or to fall staging locations along the Great Lakes.
In 2019 and 2020, shorebirds were recorded when observed during waterbird migration and staging flight surveys within the LSA, as well as during surveys of a reference route along the Winisk River – extending 50 km north from Winisk Lake. This additional survey route was identified as having the potential to provide the best shoreline habitat in proximity to the Project and provided a possible movement route for northbound migrant shorebirds. This route was identified through consultation with Webequie First Nation. The survey consisted of flying 50 km of the Winisk River north of Winisk Lake.
Shorebird data collected included:
 Date;
 Time started and time ended;
 Weather conditions;
 Species observed;
 GPS location; and
 Number of individuals.
As per the James Bay Shorebird Project (2019) methodology, shorebirds observed were identified to the extent possible; however, similar species were typically grouped depending on their similarities. For the purpose of the survey, determining shorebird numbers was deemed more important than absolute species identification.

12.2.1.3.5 Raptors
Raptor nests were noted when they were observed during winter aerial surveys (see Section 12.2.1.2.1) and during surveys for waterfowl and shorebirds (see Section 12.2.1.3.3 and Section 12.2.1.3.4). During these survey flights, particular attention was given to stick nest searches in the vicinity of rivers and lake shorelines, and unburned mature hardwood/conifer stands. The classification of nest type was determined through a combination of staff knowledge, habitat type, stick and nest size, nest placement, and raptor sightings, and photos when possible. If the species associated with the nest could not be determined, the nest was simply recorded as a stick nest. Typically, stick nests are most readily found during leaf-off.

Stick nests were also recorded when they were found during breeding bird point count surveys (see Section 12.2.1.3.1). Data recorded for each raptor nest included GPS location, associated species (if possible), relative size and characteristics (if species cannot be determined), tree species used, and a description of surrounding vegetation community and structure.

12.2.1.4 Herpetofauna
The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide Criteria Schedules for Ecoregions 3E and 3W identify five SWH types for herptiles that include:
 Turtle Wintering Areas;
 Turtle Nesting Areas;
 Reptile Hibernacula;
 Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Wetland and Woodland); and
 Amphibian Movement Corridors.
The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide Criteria Schedules provide ELC ecosite types that are indicative of SWH. Areas comprised of suitable vegetation communities for a given SWH type are referred to as candidate SWH. A candidate SWH becomes a confirmed SWH once defining criteria, as outlined in the criteria schedules, have been met. The Significant Wildlife guide was the primary guidance document for the project, as a SWH Ecoregional Criteria Schedule has not been developed for the area containing the Project Footprint. Summaries of the criteria used to identify candidate SWH and confirm SWH are provided in Appendix F – NEEC Report.

12.2.1.4.1 Frog Acoustic Surveys
Amphibians were surveyed using ARUs that were deployed in 2020 and 2021 as described in Section 12.2.1.3.2 for Bird Acoustic Surveys. Song Meter SM4 Mini (Wildlife Acoustics Inc.) were deployed to record wildlife acoustic data that included frog vocalizations as well as birds.
Amphibian data were collected at the 63 stations established for the bird monitoring program in the spring of 2020. For transcription each station had 3-minute recordings randomly selected that had been collected during the dusk period (30 minutes before to two hours after local sunset) and night period (midnight to one hour before sunrise). Only the dusk and night recordings were used in the analysis due to the higher probability of amphibians being detected. As identified during the background review, transcription of the ARU recordings focused on identifying the presence of five amphibian species. Ordinal date was recorded as breeding period varies between each species; weather was also recorded.
The initial dataset consisted of amphibian detections recorded opportunistically during the bird acoustic program and the goal was to have four recordings at each station. To account for species differences in generalized breeding periods, selected recordings were spaced throughout the breeding period in the RSA (end of May to the beginning of July).
Processing additional recordings were required at several stations due to bird listening conditions being different from those required for amphibians (too early or too late in season, warm dry conditions, recordings not spaced throughout season). Additionally, several stations were eliminated from analysis either due to failure early in the season or because they were established too late in the season. Overall, a total of 48 stations were used in the analysis for Wood Frogs (Lithobates sylvatica), Boreal Chorus Frogs (Pseudacris maculata), and Spring Peepers (Pseudacris crucifer); and
46 stations were used in the analysis for American Toads (Anaxyrus americanus).

The data was collapsed into either presence or not observed per station, and this data was used to create a presence – absence model using logistic regression for each species similar to the process used by the Environmental Monitoring Committee of Lower Athabasca amphibian monitoring report (Bayne, E. and T. Muhly, 2015). The model included habitat proportions based on the FNLC. Due to the large number of habitat categories, the habitats were simplified into more general categories:
 SWAMP: including all swamp ecosites;
 BOGS: consisting of all Bog ecosites;
 FENS: consisting of all Fen ecosites; and
 UPLAND: consisting of all non-wetland categories.
The model also included distance to open water and the number of recordings that were listened to at each station was included as a covariate.

12.2.1.4.2 Reptiles
No targeted surveys were conducted for reptiles. Incidental detections of reptiles were recorded as they were observed.

12.2.2 Results
A summary of survey results from the baseline studies conducted for wildlife and wildlife habitat is provided in subsequent sections. Detailed results for all wildlife surveys can be found in Appendix F – NEEC Report.

12.2.2.1 Mammals

12.2.2.1.1 Background Information Review
A review of background information sources indicates that 41 mammal species may potentially occur within the RSA for the Project. A compiled list of all species known or anticipated to occur within the RSA can be found in Appendix F – NEEC Report. A review of Bat Conservation International (BCI, 2018) species ranges indicates that up to six bat species may occur along the WSR preliminary proposed corridor (BCI, 2018). The Noront Eagle’s Nest Project EA (2013) reported the potential for 36 mammal species to occur within their local study area (Noront, 2013). Results of the background information review with regards to mammalian SAR (four species) are described in Section 13 (Assessment of Effects on Species at Risk).
Wildlife surveys were conducted in 2017, as reported in the Baseline Environmental and Geotechnical Studies Report – Webequie Community Supply Road (TPA1B) and Nibinamik-Webequie Community Road (TPA1A) (2018). The results of these surveys produced records of ten mammal species, of which four were seen or heard, and six were recorded based only on the presence of sign, such as tracks, scat, gnaw marks, and houses. Nine mammal species were recorded across the TPA1A route, while three species were recorded across the TPA1B route. All recorded species recorded have been reported by the Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario (Dobbyn, 1994) and were accounted for through winter tracking surveys, with the exception of Caribou (Boreal population).

12.2.2.1.2 Winter Aerial Surveys
A total of 16 species, including ten mammal species, were recorded during winter aerial surveys.

RSF Modelling
Sufficient data was collected during winter aerial surveys to support winter RSF modelling for American marten, moose, caribou, river otter, snowshoe hare, and fox (typically red fox). Modelling results can be found in Appendix F – NEEC Report. Modelling results and resulting mapping is presented for each target species, provided in the following sections. Caribou is addressed separately in Section 13 (Assessment of Effects on Species at Risk).
Moose
A total of 38 moose were recorded during the 2018 winter aerial survey across 27 sightings. Group size ranged from one to three individuals. Areas with fresh tracks were briefly searched for individuals; however, some moose may have been missed during aerial search efforts possibly due to dense vegetation obscuring views.
In general, moose were observed throughout the entire survey area but were more prevalent west of Webequie. In this area, new regeneration of mixed hardwood and coniferous forests was present from a prescribed burn 40 years ago. Moose tracks were often observed at the sides of lakes or rivers providing evidence of browsing. Additionally, moose were commonly observed browsing, lying down, or walking within open forested areas.
In 2018, it was possible to identify the sex of 22 individuals, which were 15 cows (68%) and seven bulls (32%). Of all Moose observations (38), two yearlings (5.3%) and two calves (5.3%) were identified with a cow.
In 2019, evidence of moose was found extensively throughout the survey grid, with observations made on 40 of the
48 transects. A total of 33 individual moose were recorded across 19 locations. Of the moose that the survey team were able to identify by sex and age, seven were cows, 12 were bulls, and seven were calves.
In 2021, only two moose were recorded across the survey area.
RSF probability modelling for this species, based on winter aerial survey data, indicates that areas of high moose occurrence are distributed evenly across the moose LSA and that these areas follow rivers and other waterbodies. It stands to reason that riparian forest stands would provide suitable late winter cover for moose, as trees in these areas are typically taller than in surrounding areas. Maps detailing RSF modelling mapping for moose can be found in Section 12.3.1 (Threat Assessment Approach).
Gray Wolf
The 2018 winter aerial survey recorded two packs of wolves (two and seven, respectively), totalling nine individuals. The pack of two individuals was observed on Winisk Lake southeast of the Webequie garbage dump, while the pack of seven individuals was observed farther southeast of Webequie along the shore of a forested peninsula. Additionally, wolf tracks were observed at four locations to the south and southeast of Webequie and near the southeastern perimeter of the survey area. Typically, tracks were detected on or beside lakes or rivers, or in open forested areas where tracks were not obstructed by dense vegetation.
In 2019, Gray Wolf observations were uncommon and sporadic; however, two packs of 11 and 13 individuals were observed, and tracks were recorded at an additional four locations. Locations of wolf tracks and observations can be found in Appendix F – NEEC Report.
No wolves were observed during the 2021 winter aerial survey; however, tracks were observed at ten locations across the survey area. Similar to previous years, tracks were concentrated around the Webequie garbage dump.

Furbearers
Other mammal species recorded during this survey included American marten, red fox, North American river otter, lynx, snowshoe hare, American mink, and weasel species (Mustela sp.). American marten was typically the most abundant and widely occurring furbearer across the LSA. Locations of furbearer observations made during winter aerial surveys in 2018, 2019, and 2021 can be found in Appendix F – NEEC Report.
Mammal observational data were used to estimate local resource selection and produce RSF models for three furbearer species, American marten, otter and red fox. RSF modelling provides a probability of use and allow for the determination of areas of high functional habitat value. These values are then summarized to the ELC polygon level, and a quantile classification was applied to derive an aggregated functional habitat use value (high-medium-low) for each species analyzed. Species selection and modelling methodology is presented in detail in Section 9.4.8 of the NEEC Report (Appendix F). Maps detailing RSF modelling mapping for American marten can be found in
Section 12.3.4 (Identification of Potential Effects, Pathways and Indicators).

12.2.2.1.3 North American beaver
The wildlife crews were not required to note North American beaver lodges as part of the methodology for winter aerial surveys; however, the aquatic field survey personnel recorded the presence of North American beaver lodges within the waterbodies assessed and the findings are documented in the Fish and Fish Habitat section of Appendix F – NEEC Report. Additionally, North American beaver lodges were documented during the 2020 waterfowl surveys. The locations of North American beaver dams and lodges are shown in Figure 10.14 of the NEEC Report with 31 unique observations within the LSA. As aquatic surveys were concentrated within the LSA, no observations of North American beaver dams or lodges were made within the RSA.
North American Beaver Habitat Suitability Model
As North American beaver was not specifically targeted by field studies, a Habitat Suitability Index Model (HSI) was developed to map high value North American beaver habitats in the RSA. Habitat suitability rankings were developed for the RSA based on known habitat requirements that have been identified in literature and through expert review. The model was developed using the vegetation layers developed as part of vegetation surveys, through the process described in Section 11 (Assessment of Effects on Vegetation and Wetlands). Rankings and model development are described in Appendix F – NEEC Report. Baseline model results for the habitat suitability model are found in
Table 12-8. While the LSA and RSA have similar distributions of North American beaver habitat with just over 5% of the RSA being high quality North American beaver habitat the Project Footprint has a much lower percentage of 1.5%.
Maps detailing Beaver Habitat Suitability can be found in Section 12.3.3 (Identification of Potential Effects, Pathways and Indicators).

Table 12-8: North American beaver Suitability Ratings for Landcover Types

12.2.2.1.4 Muskrat
Muskrats generally inhabit freshwater marshes, marshy areas of lakes, and slow-moving streams, using partially dried and decayed plant material as building materials to construct houses for shelter (Aleksiuk and Parker, 1986). Muskrats can also dig burrows in firm banks of mossy soil or clay when vegetation is sparse, allowing them to access deep waters, escape from predators, and access food supply under the ice during winter.
No targeted surveys for muskrat were conducted, but observations of muskrat were recorded during aerial surveys as incidental data. A review of these data indicated no muskrat houses were recorded in these surveys. The lack of muskrat records may be due to the incidental nature of these records, the smaller size of muskrat house vs North American beaver lodges (North American beaver was recorded incidentally multiple times within the same surveys), the use of burrows instead of houses in northern areas, which are less visible during aerial surveys and the small number of marsh habitats.

12.2.2.1.5 Incidental Observations
Trail cameras were deployed at 25 stations as part of a Wolverine Occupancy Study (refer to Section 13 – Species at Risk). These resulted in the capture of 31,037 wildlife photos, which documented 11 mammal species.

12.2.2.1.6 Bat Hibernacula Screening
Refer to Section 13.2.2 (Results, Assessment of Effects on Species at Risk).

12.2.2.1.7 Bat Acoustic Surveys
Refer to Section 13.2.2 (Results, Assessment of Effects on Species at Risk).

12.2.2.1.8 Significant Wildlife Habitat
Moose Late Winter Cover
Background Information Review: Neither the LSA nor RSA for moose occurs within a provincial Management Unit, thus existing late winter habitat data for moose was not available from the MNR. Candidate moose late winter habitat areas were mapped based on available vegetation communities within the LSA. These candidate areas can be found in Appendix F – NEEC Report. These data indicate that 110 moose late winter habitat areas are located within the LSA, covering a total area of 18.9 ha. Across the moose RSA, 320 candidate late winter habitat areas are present, which cover a total of 84.3 ha. According to vegetation community distribution across the moose LSA, late winter habitat is concentrated at both the western and eastern termini of the WSR Project.
Field Survey Results: Moose track and animal occurrence was recorded across three winter aerial surveys. Probability modelling for this species, based on winter aerial survey data, indicates that areas of high moose occurrence are distributed evenly across the moose LSA and that these areas follow rivers and other waterbodies. Riparian forest stands provide suitable late winter cover for moose, as trees in these areas are typically taller than in surrounding areas.
Moose Calving Areas
Background Information Review: No data indicating the location of moose calving sites were found during the background information review.
Field Survey Results: No formal surveys for this habitat type were conducted due to the complexity in finding such habitat features.

Bat Hibernacula

Refer to Section 13.2.2 (Results, Assessment of Effects on Species at Risk).
Bat Maternity Roost Habitat

Refer to Section 13.2.2 (Results, Assessment of Effects on Species at Risk).

Seeps and Springs
Background Information Review: No data indicating the location of seeps or springs were found during the background information review.
Field Survey Results: No seeps or springs were found during field surveys. No formal surveys for this habitat type were conducted due to the complexity in finding such habitat features.
Aquatic Feeding Habitat
Background Information Review: No candidate aquatic feeding habitat areas were identified within the LSA from the review of background information sources.
Field Survey Results: No aquatic feeding habitat areas were confirmed within the LSA. No targeted searches for aquatic feeding habitat were completed. Aquatic feeding habitats were noted during the waterfowl surveys by incidental observation; however, these surveys took place earlier than the recommended window for targeted aquatic feeding habit surveys.
Mineral Licks
Background Information Review: No data indicating the location of mineral licks were identified during the background information review.
Field Survey Results: No formal surveys for mineral licks were conducted during baseline field investigations due to the complexity in finding such habitat features.
Denning Sites for Mink, Otter, Gray wolf, Eastern wolf, Canada lynx, American marten, Fisher, Black bear
Background Information Review: Information regarding den sites was either identified during the background information search or through Indigenous Knowledge gathering.
Field Survey Results: No denning sites were noted during field investigations. A Black Bear den was identified by Webequie community members. The den was described as being 24 km northwest of Webequie; however, the coordinates provided could not be verified.
Rendezvous Sites for Gray Wolves
Background Information Review: No data indicating the location of rendezvous sites for Gray Wolves were found during the background information review.
Field Survey Results: No formal surveys for rendezvous sites for Gray Wolves were conducted due to the complexity in finding such habitat features. No rendezvous sites were confirmed during field surveys.

Mast Producing Areas
Background Information Review: No data indicating the location of mast producing sites (i.e., where trees and shrubs produce nuts, seeds and fruits that provide critical food source for wildlife) were found during the background information review.
Field Survey Results: No formal surveys for this habitat type were conducted due to the complexity in finding such habitat features.
Cervid Movement Corridors
Background Information Review: No information regarding cervid (hooved mammals) movement corridors, aquatic feeding habitats, or mineral licks within the moose LSA or RSA was obtained through either the background information review or through Indigenous Knowledge consultation. Inspection of satellite imagery indicates that areas of physical geography (e.g., ravines and ridges) are absent from the LSA. Eskers are present along the eastern and western termini of the proposed corridor.
Field Survey Results: The presence of moose within the LSA and RSA was confirmed through field surveys; however, no movement corridors, aquatic feeding habitats, or mineral licks were determined with certainty. Moose were recorded on wildlife cameras deployed at Wolverine Occupancy Study stations, which were situated in riparian forests along expected movement corridors for Wolverine. Moose were recorded occasionally, and this data is difficult to attribute to intentional movement along the waterways sampled.
Winter occurrence modelling for moose within the LSA indicated that moose are most likely to occur along riparian habitats. While riparian habitats provide a tall forest structure for winter movement and protection from the elements, this habitat type typically runs adjacent to shrubby shoreline, which provides a readily available year-round food source and access to aquatic feeding habitat. It is anticipated that riparian zones within the RSA are used favourably year- round by moose to move efficiently across the landscape and access preferred foraging areas.
Furbearer Movement Corridors
Background Information Review: No data indicating or confirming the location of furbearer movement corridors was found during the background information review.
Candidate furbearer movement corridor SWH were identified by mapping riparian areas within 30 m of waterbodies within the LSA and RSA. Candidate corridors can be found in Appendix F – NEEC Report. This mapping exercise indicates that 301 sites covering a total of 3,656 ha occur within the LSA and that 653 sites covering 20,595 ha are present across the RSA.
Field Survey Results: No data confirming the location of furbearer movement corridors was found during field surveys. While aerial surveys were conducted to survey mammal tracks and sign, no formal surveys for this habitat type were conducted due to the complexity in finding such habitat features. The presence of many furbearer species within the LSA was confirmed through winter aerial surveys in 2018, 2019, and 2022 and through incidental observations during other field surveys. Furbearers noted included gray wolf, American marten, Canada lynx, river otter.
Forest Areas Providing a High Diversity of Habitats
Background Information Review: Hardwood and mixedwood sites that meet the requirements for candidate bat maternity roost habitat also may meet the requirements for candidate forest stands providing a diversity of habitats: these areas can be seen in Appendix F – NEEC Report. Stands containing the identified bird of prey nests may also be candidate forest areas with a high diversity of habitats. Additional areas with super canopy trees and ground structure are likely present within the LSA but were not identified during the background information review.

Field Survey Results: No formal surveys for this habitat type were conducted due to the complexity in finding such habitat features. No high diversity of habitats was confirmed during field surveys.

12.2.2.1.9 Summary of Field Results
A total of 23 mammal species were recorded during the natural environment field surveys conducted between 2018 and 2021. These field studies included three aerial caribou surveys conducted in 2018, 2019, and 2021, which were also used to capture data on furbearers (moose, Gray Wolf and Wolverine etc.) and larger avian species within the LSA and RSA. This data also included all incidental observations made during the execution of all field programs conducted in support of the EA/IA (e.g., Breeding bird, Waterfowl, Vegetation, Aquatic etc.). A compiled list of mammals encountered within the RSA is presented below in Table 12-9.

Table 12-9: Mammals Known or Expected to Occur within the WSR RSA

Notes:

• Status ranks from NatureServe Explorer https://explorer.natureserve.org/AboutTheData/Statuses (Accessed: 27 July 2023) ESA – Environmental Site Assessment
  S1 – Critically Imperiled— At very high risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to very restricted range, very few populations or occurrences, very steep declines, severe threats, or other factors. S2- Imperiled— At high risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to restricted range, few populations or occurrences, steep declines, severe threats, or other factors.
  S3 – Vulnerable— At moderate risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to a fairly restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, threats, or other factors.

S4 – Apparently Secure— At a fairly low risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to an extensive range and/or many populations or occurrences, but with possible cause for some concern as a result of local recent declines, threats, or other factors.
S5 – Secure— At very low or no risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to a very extensive range, abundant populations or occurrences, with little to no concern from declines or threats. SU – Unrankable due to lack of information.
SNR – Unranked, status not yet assessed.
B – Breeding—Conservation status refers to the breeding population of the species in the province.
N – Non-breeding—Conservation status refers to the non-breeding population of the species in the province.
M – Migrant—Migrant species occurring regularly on migration at particular staging areas or concentration spots where the species might warrant conservation attention. Conservation status refers to the aggregating transient population of the species in the province.

12.2.2.2 Birds

12.2.2.2.1 Background Information Review
Regional Context
The area in which the WSR is proposed falls within the boundary of two distinct Bird Conservation Regions (BCR); these are BCR 7 – Taiga Shield and Hudson Plains and BCR 8 – Boreal Softwood Shield.
Most of the bird species present in BCR 7 ON are migratory. Consequently, the conservation of birds and their habitats in BCR 7 ON is of critical importance not only for Ontarians, but for countries throughout the Western Hemisphere. A total of 196 bird species occurs in this region and 66 qualify as priority species (based on criteria developed by the North American Bird Conservation Initiative). All bird groups were represented, with 36% of the priority species list consisting of land birds, 32% shorebirds, 18% waterfowl and 14% waterbirds.
Within BCR 8 ON, 229 species of birds breed, overwinter, reside year-round or pass through during their migration. Of these, 71 species are identified as priorities in this BCR, a list that is dominated by landbirds (65% of the priority list). Other birds include waterfowl (17%), waterbirds (12%), and shorebirds (6%).
Regional Data
A review of the citizen science database eBird.org (eBird, 2018), run by the Cornell University Laboratory of Ornithology, focussed on county/district, natural areas, and “hotspot” occurrences along the preliminary recommended route for the WSR. Overall, limited eBird data are available for the project area. Species summaries generated for Nipigon District (termed “County” using eBird filters), in which the Project is located, indicated that at least 303 bird species have been recorded across this area (eBird, 2018). According to eBird (2019) data, the median annual
species total in the last five years (between 2014 and 2018) for this district is 214. Between 2014 and 2018, the median number of bird species reported during June and July (months constituting Ontario’s bird breeding season) was
181 (eBird, 2019); however, this number likely includes many species in the process of migrating further north to their coastal breeding sites.
Limited information is available for birds and their habitat in the RSA and adjacent region (Phoenix, 2013); however, two publications that have focused on much larger regions and have included the Project RSA are the Atlas of the
Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001-2005 (Cadman et al., 2007) and Population Trend Status of Ontario’s Forest Birds (Blancher et al., 2009).
The 2001-2005 OBBA divides Ontario into five regions, of which the Northern Shield and Hudson’s Bay Lowlands regions are similar in geographic extent to Ontario BCRs 8 and 7, respectively. According to OBBA (Cadman et al., 2007), 220 species were recorded across the Northern Shield and 192 species were confirmed breeders. A total of 199 species were recorded across the Hudson’s Bay Lowlands, of which 140 were confirmed breeders. Data from seven OBBA squares (each 10 km x 10 km in size) that occur in close proximity to Winisk Lake and Webequie First Nation confirmed 85 species were recorded in proximity to the RSA. SAR recorded in these squares included Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia), Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica), Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), Olive-sided
Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus), and Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus). SAR birds are further discussed in Section 13 (Assessment of Effects on Species at Risk). The average number of species recorded per Atlas square (10 km x 10 km) in the Northern Shield was 68 (Cadman et al., 2007). According to the OBBA, species with the highest probability of observations in the Northern Shield included White-throated Sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), Red-eyed Vireo (Vireo olivaceus), Yellow-rumped Warbler (Setophaga coronata),
Swainson’s Thrush (Catharus ustulatus) and Winter Wren (Troglodytes hiemalis).

In 2010, the Northeast Science and Information Section of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources conducted studies in and near the RSA as part of their Far North Terrestrial Biodiversity study from early June to mid-July (Phoenix, 2013). Ninety-six breeding species were detected across 42 stations, including three species that were listed as Special Concern at that time: Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Common Nighthawk, and Olive-sided Flycatcher
(Phoenix pers. comm., 2013).

Previous Studies in the Vicinity of the Project
In 2009, AECOM (2010) conducted a preliminary baseline bird survey around the Noront Eagle’s Nest mine site and recorded 31 species. Purple Sandpiper (Calidris maritima) was the only species detected via ArcGIS analysis that was not documented in any other surveys for the area, including Birds Canada’s OBBA. Birds Canada concluded that the probability of Purple Sandpiper breeding in Ontario is low due to limited suitable habitat. As such, it was most likely that this species was observed while migrating to its Arctic breeding grounds and that it was not breeding in the RSA.
Studies conducted in support of the Noront Eagle’s Nest Project EA (2013), consisting of the Eagle’s Nest Mine and associated infrastructure, tallied 130 bird species during the field studies, which spanned multiple seasons across three years. Noront breeding bird point count surveys were conducted in 2011 and 2012 to identify and characterize baseline existing conditions in support of the Eagle’s Nest Project EA. Of the five study areas where point counts were conducted, only those conducted at the mine site are considered close enough to be relevant to the Project. Although a portion of the mine transportation corridor is similar to the east-west segment of the preliminary proposed WSR corridor, the closest representative bird data location was at Dearden Lake on the east-central section of the mine transportation corridor, southwest of Webequie. Overall, a total of 64 bird species were detected during point count surveys at the mine site. Across the three major habitat types, more bird species were detected in the non-woody wetlands
(bogs; 55 species) than at the forest sites (44 species) or woody wetland sites (30 species). The Noront Eagle’s Nest Project EA (2013) notes that increased diversity recorded in wetland sites could be at least partly due to there being more bog plots and the fact that the bog sites were sampled over the course of two field seasons (2011 and 2012), whereas all other plots at the mine site were sampled only during 2011.
Three SAR were found in the mine site area: Common Nighthawk, Olive-sided Flycatcher and Rusty Blackbird. Bird species richness (64 species) was the highest at the mine site of all infrastructure locations.

12.2.2.2.2 Breeding Bird Point Count Survey
2019 Breeding Bird Point Count Survey
Point count surveys conducted in 2019 recorded a total of 83 species across 113-point count stations. All species, that were identified during the breeding bird point count surveys have a provincial S-rank status of either S4 (Apparently Secure) or S5 (Secure). Across all survey sites, the most widely occurring species included Ruby-crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendula; 80.5%), White-throated Sparrow (62.8%), Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus; 56.6%), Palm Warbler (50.4%), and Yellow-rumped Warbler (42.5%). Similarly, the most abundant species recorded across all survey points included Ruby-crowned Kinglet (0.920 birds/count), White-throated Sparrow (0.655 birds/count), Hermit Thrush
(0.496 birds/count), Palm Warbler (0.482 birds/count), and Lincoln’s Sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii; 0.372 birds/count). Ruby-crowned Kinglet (80.5%), White-throated Sparrow (62.8%) were dominant species across all habitat types, except non-woody wetlands.
Overall, upland forested sites exhibited the greatest overall diversity of breeding birds despite a much lower number of survey areas. The greatest avian diversity was recorded within coniferous forest, where 55 species were noted. Despite only having surveyed by 15-point count stations, biologists detected 52 species in the mixed forests. The greater diversity at upland sites, compared to the prevalent treed/open wetland habitat types (44 species) can perhaps be attributed to the variety and increased complexity of habitat structure in those communities, which includes a greater variety of trees, large-diameter cavity trees, and snags. Indeed, some of this increased diversity may be attributed to transition zones at the edges of these habitats, which were captured in the point count results.

2020 Breeding Bird Point Count Survey
In 2020, point count surveys were conducted within the LSA for the Project at 186 different stations and a total of
91 species were recorded. All species that were identified during the breeding bird point count surveys have a provincial S-rank status of either S4 (Apparently Secure) or S5 (Secure). Two species observed during the point counts are listed federally and provincially as Species at Risk. The Olive-sided Flycatcher is listed as Threatened federally and Special Concern provincially. The Rusty Blackbird is listed as Special Concern both federally and provincially. The most common and abundant species was Ruby-crowned Kinglet (66.13% and 0.83 birds/count, respectively). The next most common species were White-throated Sparrow (53.23%), Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis) (39.25%), Palm Warbler (29.03%), and Hermit Thrush (27.96%). These most common species are similar to those from 2019, the only
difference being Dark-eyed Junco occurring more often in 2020 than 2019.
The most abundant species after Ruby-crowned Kinglet were: White-winged Crossbill (Loxia leucoptera) at
0.66 birds/count, Dark-eyed Junco at 0.45 birds/count, Palm Warbler at 0.4 birds/count, and Hermit Thrush at
0.35 birds/count. Although White-winged Crossbills were abundant when observed during a point count, this species did not occur at many point counts (4.3%).
Summary and Species of Conservation Concern
A total of 95 species were recorded across the 2019 and 2020 breeding bird point counts. A total of 38 Species of Conservation Concern were recorded, including four SAR and 38 BCR 8 priority species. The most frequently occurring BCR 8 priority species was the Ruby-crowned Kinglet, while other widely occurring BCR 8 species included
White-throated Sparrow, Yellow-bellied Flycatcher (Empidonax flaviventris), Alder Flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum) and Swamp Sparrow (Melospiza georgiana).
SAR observed during breeding bird point count surveys included Canada Warbler (Cardellina canadensis), Olive-sided Flycatcher, Evening Grosbeak (Coccothraustes vespertinus), and Rusty Blackbird. SAR Birds are further discussed in Section 13 (Assessment of Effects on Species at Risk).

12.2.2.2.3 Breeding Bird Point Acoustic Surveys
Breeding Season – Dawn Phase
A total of 87 bird ARU stations were sampled during the 2020 and 2021 breeding bird seasons (May 24 to July 10). A subsample of 808 acoustic recordings during the dawn recording phase was analyzed manually. A subsample of
292 recordings were analyzed for 2020 and 516 recordings were analyzed for 2021. Recordings were analyzed for each of the 87 stations that recorded viable data, where between 4 and 11 recordings were analyzed per station, with an average of 4.29 recordings per station in 2020 and 6.88 recordings per station in 2021.
Across all survey sites, the most widely occurring species included Hermit Thrush (85.1%), White-throated Sparrow (82.8%), Dark-eyed Junco (78.2%), Ruby-crowned Kinglet (77.0%), Common Loon (Gavia immer; 72.4%), and Swainson’s Thrush (59.8%). Overall, species composition was similar between ARU and point count data. Species which were notably more likely to be detected through ARU sampling included Common Redpoll (Acanthis flammea, 37.9% vs 2.5%), Common Nighthawk (41.3% vs 0%), and Connecticut Warbler (Oporornis agilis, 16.1% vs 1.77%).
Habitats within the combined LSA and RSA supported an average of 54.8 species. The greatest diversity of species was recorded within hardwood/mixedwood forest, which disturbed sites supported 35 species. Disturbed sites were limited across the LSA and RSA and the sample size for this habitat type was small.
Diversity results for the ARU sampling was similar to results compiled for the point count sampling. Mixed forest was the second most diverse habitat (52 species) and disturbed habitat supported the lowest diversity (20 species).

Breeding Season – Dusk Phase
A total of 136 dusk recordings were analyzed. Recordings were analyzed for each of 68 stations that recorded viable data and between one and three recordings were analyzed per station, with an average of two recordings per station.
Crepuscular species of note that were recorded included Common Nighthawk (18 stations), Wilson’s Snipe (Gallinago delicata, 12 stations), and Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa, one station).
Breeding Season – Night Phase
A total of 145 night-phase recordings were analyzed. Recordings were analyzed for each of 68 stations that recorded viable data and between two and five recordings were analyzed per station, with an average of 2.13 recordings per station.
Crepuscular species of note that were recorded included Common Nighthawk (16 stations), Wilson’s Snipe (8 stations), American Bittern (Botaurus lengtiginosus, one station) and Boreal Owl (Aegolius funereus, one station). These 2020 records of American Bittern and Boreal Owl were the first field records of these species for the WSR baseline study.
Fall Migration Season
A total of 148 fall acoustic recordings were analyzed from 2020, and another 393 recordings were analysed from 2021. Of those stations that recorded viable data, recordings were analyzed for 30 stations from 2020 and 68 stations in 2021. For 2022, between one and five recordings were analyzed per station, with an average of 4.9 recordings per station.
For 2021 between four and eight recordings were analyzed per station, with an average of 5.8 recordings per station. Analysis of Fall Migration Data ARU data yielded a total 839 detections of 54, with 34 species detected in 2020 and 49 species detected in 2021; 25 species were detected in both years. Sixteen percent of recordings processed from 2020 and 15% of recordings processed from 2021 had no identifiable species.
Across all survey sites, the most widely occurring species included Canada Jay (Perisoreus canadensis) (69.3%), Common Loon (59.2%), Dark-eyed Junco (59.2%), White-throated Sparrow (43.9%), Common Raven (Corvus corax) (33.7%), Common Redpoll (32.7%), and Sandhill Crane (Antigone canadensis) (30.6%). Most of these species were common in both years except for Common Redpoll, which was only detected at 13.3% of stations in 2020 and 41.2% of stations in 2021. Other species of note that were recorded included Common Nighthawk (nine stations), Black-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus erythropthalmus, five stations), Gray Catbird (Dumetella carolinensis, two stations), Great Grey Owl (two stations), and Wilson’s Snipe (one station). These 2021 records of Black-billed Cuckoo and Gray Catbird are the first field records for the WSR baseline study.
The Noront Eagle’s Nest Project EA (Noront, 2013) conducted fall bird surveys at two locations close to the WSR. Although the data analysis for the WSR Project detected 54 species, the Noront’s Eagle’s Nest Project EA only recorded 19 of these. Notable terrestrial species detected on the acoustic recordings for WSR that were not recorded by the Noront project included: Orange-crowned Warbler (Leiothlypis celata), White-winged Crossbill, Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus), Great Horned Owl (Bubo viginianus), Boreal Owl, and Northern Hawk Owl (Surnia ulula). The owl species may have been missed due to only dawn recordings being processed for the Fall Migration period.
Habitat
The number of species detected in the major habitat types found within the RSA across both years of study for the Project ranged from 18 to 35. Open wetland habitats had the highest number of species detected (35 species) followed by mixedwood forest (34 species). Only 18 species were record in disturbed areas, but this is likely reflective of the low sampling effort as only four plots were located within that habitat type. Looking at the number of species identified on each recording, disturbed areas had the highest number of species identified on individual recordings with 3.05 species identified on average. In comparison, treed wetlands only had an average of 1.31 species identified on individual

recordings. Overall, the ARU data suggest fall species richness in treed wetlands is lower than other habitats, particularly mixedwood forests, riparian areas, and open wetlands, based on the small number of individuals detected on each recording and the relatively low total number of species detected despite the highest number of sampling locations.
All 53 species of birds were classified based on the frequency of detection within the major habitat types. Several BCR priority species were detected:
 White-throated Sparrow, a generalist species, was the third most commonly detected bird in the fall. Although it was detected in all habitat types, few recordings made in coniferous forests or wetlands included this species.
 Alder Flycatcher, a facultative wetland species, was most detected on recordings made in disturbed areas (15% of recordings) followed by riparian habitats (11.9%). It was not detected at all in coniferous forest.
 Greater Yellowlegs, another facultative wetland species, was detected in all non-forested habitats, with the highest detection rate (8.9%) occurring in open wetlands.
 Olive-sided Flycatcher, which is considered threatened federally and special concern provincially, was detected in all habitats except disturbed sites and hardwood/mixedwood forests. The highest detection levels were in open wetlands (7.3%), followed by riparian communities (4.8%).
 Ruby-crowned Kinglet is a coniferous forest breeder but was not heard on recordings made in coniferous habitat during the fall migration period. Instead, recordings made in riparian communities most frequently detecting
Ruby-crowned Kinglets (8.3%), followed by hardwood/mixedwood forests and disturbed areas. Based on ARU data, treed and open wetlands were also not generally used in the fall migration season by Ruby-crowned Kinglets, with only one detection occurring within these habitats.
 The high levels of detection for Common Loon in all habitats (11.4-60.0% of recordings) is reflective of the long carrying distance of the call of the loon and also the need to consider variation in detectability when utilizing ARU data, as all of the recorded calls would have been coming from adjacent aquatic habitats.
Winter Season
A total of 80 winter recordings collected during November were analyzed. Recordings were analyzed for each of 17 stations that recorded viable data (14 stations in 2020 and three stations in 2021) and between four and five recordings were analyzed per station, with an average 4.7 recordings per station.
Analysis of winter ARU data yielded a total of seven species; there also were also an additional five stations that recorded a bird that could not be identified to species. Only 36% of recordings analyzed contained a detected bird, with four stations having no bird detections.
Comparing these results to expected winter bird species is difficult as none of the background studies, either regionally or locally, have conducted winter data collection. The Thunder Bay Field Naturalists’ Northwestern Ontario Winter Bird Count List (Thunder Bay Field Naturalists, 2021) encompasses the RSA and lists a total of 131 species in Northwestern Ontario, with 57 species recorded every year of the project (2014-2021).
The small number of species detected by ARU in the present study is likely a result of several factors. The short collection time frame and small number of operational stations provided limited coverage across the RSA. Additionally, the habitat found within the RSA is more limiting than that found across Northwestern Ontario as a whole, for example waterfowl species described in the bird count require open water, which is not present in the RSA during the winter.
Finally, many bird species are not vocal during the winter, especially the early winter, so many species documented by the Northwestern Ontario Winter Bird Count were likely located visually, especially larger species such as, hawks, owls, woodpeckers and eagles.

Species of note that were recorded included Sandhill Crane (one station) which was likely a result of the data being collected in near the tail end of the fall migration season; however, Sandhill Crane was also recorded in the Northwestern Ontario Winter Bird Count List indicating it is not unknown for Cranes to remain in the area until late in the year.

12.2.2.2.4 Avian Distribution and Abundance Modelling
Canonical Correspondence Analysis
A constrained Canonical Correspondence Analysis revealed 14.3% of variance explained by explanatory variables, with permutation test on first axis significant (pseudo-F=12.8, P=0.002). Species relationships interpreted from the results include an association between Ovenbird and Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius) with hardwood forest, Blackburnian Warbler (Setophaga fusca) and Golden-crowned Kinglet (Regulus satrapa) with mixedwoods and Palm Warbler, Greater Yellowlegs, Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis), and Lincoln Sparrow with open and treed fens. Complete results and data visualizations can be found in Appendix F – NEEC Report.
Estimated Bird Density – BRT Model
Boosted Regression Tree (BRT) models were developed to predict density for 45 species that had greater than 20 observations. A strong relationship with habitat was observed at a scale of 60 ha, based on correlation of predicted use with observed use, and as such this scale was selected for modelling. Complete model performance statistics for all species and receptor of concern plots for all species can be found in Appendix F – NEEC Report.
Mapped Distribution by ELC Type
Model predictions from the BRT model were applied to all hexagons across the RSA and LSA. Polygons for winter survey area, RSA, LSA, and the Project Footprint areas were overlayed onto the 3-ha hexagon map of predicted density, and density of the 45 common species summarized for each area. In addition, the ELC vegetation map was linked to the mapped density surface and predicted mean densities for each species summarized by area and ELC. Alder Flycatcher most frequently occurred in River Shore Fen, Open Shore Fen, and Sparse Treed Swamp in both the LSA and RSA. Alder Flycatcher was also common in River Marsh in the RSA which is absent in the LSA. Due to the small area of the Project Footprint, may ELC classes are absent, so River Shore Fen was the single class with high density in the Project Footprint. While most classes are similar in predicted density, there are some differences: for example, Burn/Shrub had a 39% higher predicted density for Alder Flycatcher in the LSA compared to the RSA. Complete details and BRT density for each ELC community type for all applicable species can be found in
Appendix F – NEEC Report.

Habitat Selection – Generalizes Linnear Model
Generalized Linnear Model regression coefficients help in understanding the habitat types driving model predictions for the BRT model. For example, Cedar Waxwing (Bombycilla cedorum) and Common Raven both select Open Shore Shrub Fen, while Winter Wren, White-Winged Crossbill, and Yellow-bellied Flycatcher select Conifer Swamp. Mixed Forest is important for Common Raven, Magnolia Warbler (Setophaga magnolia), and White-Winged Crossbill. For Cedar Waxwing, Open Shore Fen is avoided. Shoreline edge is important for Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), Canada Jay, Swamp Sparrow, and Greater Yellowlegs. A fulsome explanation of the model with complete results can be found in Appendix F – NEEC Report.
Density of Low Abundance Species
For 77 low abundance species (<= 22 observations) where sample size was insufficient to estimate habitat specific models, a simple regression model using % forest as the sole explanatory variable was created. Full results can be found in Appendix F – NEEC Report.

Assessment of Survey Design and Power (Simulation Results)
Avian Modelling was conducted using the 338 total breeding bird plots sampled in 2019 – 2021. The random stratified bird surveys began before the final TISG design was specified, so the design was assessed through simulation modelling to evaluate possible biases that might arise from the non-random systematic TISG design and the SNC implemented design. The assessment of the design can be found in Section 10.2.4.4 of Appendix F – NEEC Report.
RSF Modelling
RSF modelling was conducted for the breeding habitat of 18 bird species using breeding bird point count and ARU survey data. Detailed results can be found in Appendix F – NEEC Report.

12.2.2.3 Bird Valued Components
Section 8.9 of the TISG indicates that the following groups of migratory and non-migratory birds should be considered as VCs:
 Forest birds;
 Raptors;
 Waterfowl;
 Shorebirds; and
 Bog/fen birds, and other wetland birds.

The following subsections summarize baseline findings for each VC.

12.2.2.3.1 Forest Birds
Forest communities comprised a small area of the LSA and RSA, when compared to wetland habitats. Mixed and hardwood stands were exceptionally limited across the RSA and, as a result, far fewer study stations occurred in these habitats compared to more widespread habitats. Species that notably selected for forested habitat, as interpreted from the results of the Generalized Linear Model regression coefficients, included White-winged Crossbill, Red-eyed Vireo, Blue-headed Vireo (Vireo solitarius), Golden-crowned Kinglet, and American Robin (Turdus migratorius). Species rarely recorded in forested habitats, which are otherwise known to prefer forests, included Ruffed Grouse, Bay-breasted Warbler (Setophaga castanea), Cape May Warbler (Setophaga tigrine), Black-throated Green Warbler (Setophaga virens), Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla), Downy Woodpecker (Dryobates pubescens), Pileated Woodpecker
(Dryocopus pileatus), Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, Brown Creeper, and Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis).
Based on the results of the Generalized Linear Modelling, Tennessee Warbler selected for mixed forests, deciduous forests and open water areas while open wetlands. Orange-crowned Warbler selected for mixed forests and coniferous swamps while avoiding open wetlands and burns. Details of the probability modelling (in the RSA) for Tennesse Warbler and Orange-crowned Warbler can be found in Appendix F – NEEC Report.

12.2.2.3.2 Raptors
Eight raptor species were detected during bird surveys and incidentally which included:

 Bald Eagle;
 Rough-legged Hawk (Buteo lagopus);
 Red-tailed Hawk;
 Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus);
 American Goshawk (Astur atricapillus);

 Great Gray Owl;
 Boreal Owl; and
 Long-eared Owl (Asio otus).
Raptors and raptor nesting habitat is further addressed in Section 12.2.2.3.6 (Significant Wildlife Habitat – Birds).

12.2.2.3.3 Waterfowl
Waterfowl Migration Survey
A total of 22 waterfowl species (including Common Loon), were identified during the Waterfowl Stopover Surveys. Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) are typically the most abundant species observed; however, Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), Common Merganser (Mergus merganser), and Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) can also be abundant during migration.
Overall, larger bodies of water within the LSA typically held large numbers of staging waterfowl. Large lakes, such as Winisk Lake, Bender Lake, Odobass Lake, and the Winiskisis Channel tended to be used in late fall by large aggregations of diving ducks, such as Bufflehead, Common Merganser and, to a lesser extent, Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus) and Ring-necked Duck (Aythya collaris).
Survey data indicate that these larger waterbodies sustain aggregations of 100 or more individuals of waterfowl species for seven days, which results in > 700 waterfowl use days during either the spring or fall of each year, confirming presence of aquatic stopover and staging SWH. No terrestrial stopover and staging features were identified as a result of field studies.
Sufficient data for Canada Goose were collected such that statistically robust density modelling (in the RSA) could be produced for this species, which can be found in Appendix F – NEEC Report.

12.2.2.3.4 Shorebirds
Shorebird Breeding
Breeding bird point count surveys in 2019 and 2020 recorded four shorebird species: Greater Yellowlegs, Solitary Sandpiper (Tringa solitaria), Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularius), and Wilson’s Snipe. ARU recordings further detected Lesser Yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes).
Overall, Greater Yellowlegs were the most common breeding shorebird across the LSA. This species was detected at 30.9% of ARU stations and between 17.7-22.1% of point count stations. Sufficient data for Greater Yellowlegs was collected via breeding bird point counts and ARU recordings that statistically robust probability of occurrence
(in the LSA) and density modelling (in the RSA) were produced for this species, which can be found in Appendix F – NEEC Report.
ARU data indicate that Wilson’s Snipe is also a common breeding species; however, point count surveys did not frequently detect this species. This is likely due to the crepuscular nature of the species, which could not be captured during helicopter-access site visits. Sufficient data for Wilson’s Snipe was collected such that statistically robust density modelling (in the RSA) could be produced for this species, which can be found in Appendix F – NEEC Report.
The other three breeding shorebird species occurred in low numbers, as neither point count surveys, nor ARU data captured these species beyond a handful of detections. Insufficient data was collected to generate statistically robust probability of occurrence modelling for these shorebird species.
Shorebird migration and shorebird migration stopover areas are addressed in Section 12.2.2.3.6 (Significant Wildlife Habitat – Birds), below.

12.2.2.3.5 Bog/Fen Birds and Other Wetland Birds
Wetland communities comprise the vast majority of vegetation communities, at 92% of terrestrial communities in the RSA. The largest communities are Low Treed Bog (23.6%), Conifer Swamp (20.5%) and Poor Conifer Swamp (17.0%). Species that notably selected for forested habitat, as interpreted from the results of the Generalized Linear Model regression coefficients, included for Low Treed Bog are Wilson’s Snipe, White-winged Crossbill and Common Redpoll. For Conifer Swamps Wilson’s Snipe, Chestnut-sided Warbler (Dendroica pensylvanica) and Blue-headed Vireo were positively associated.
Based on the results of the Generalized Linear Modelling, Palm Warbler selected for sparse treed fen and sparse treed bogs while avoiding the upland esker areas. Alder Flycatcher selected for edge communities and river/fen communities while avoiding conifer forests and open bogs. Details of the probability modelling (in the RSA) for Tennesse Warbler and Orange-crowned Warbler can be found in Appendix F – NEEC Report.
Bog/Fen birds and waterbirds, particularly Sharp-tailed Grouse (Typmanuchus phasianellus), open country species, and marsh obligate species are further addressed in Section 12.2.2.3.6 (Significant Wildlife Habitat – Birds).

12.2.2.3.6 Significant Wildlife Habitat – Birds
Waterfowl Stopover and Staging (Aquatic)
Background Information Review: Waterfowl stopover and staging SWH identified by the MNR is typically presented in Forest Management Plans for each Forest Management Unit; however, a search through the Wildlife Value Areas data available on Geohub found that there are no existing data available in regard to waterfowl stopover and staging SWH for the LSA or RSA for birds. Candidate aquatic waterfowl stopover and staging SWH were mapped, based on available vegetation communities within the LSA. These data indicate that 152 candidate aquatic waterfowl stopover and staging SWH are located within the LSA, covering a total area of 829 ha. Across the bird RSA, 446 candidate aquatic waterfowl stopover and staging SWH are present, which cover a total of 4,060 ha. According to vegetation community distribution across the bird LSA, candidate aquatic waterfowl stopover and staging SWH is distributed widely and closely follows the paths of watercourses and lake shorelines across the LSA.
Field Survey Results: Overall, larger bodies of water within the LSA typically held large numbers of staging waterfowl. Large lakes, such as Winisk Lake, Bender Lake, Odobass Lake, and the Winiskisis Channel tended to be used in late fall by large aggregations of diving ducks, such as Bufflehead, Common Merganser and, to a lesser extent, Common Goldeneye, Hooded Merganser and Ring-necked Duck.
Survey data indicate that these larger waterbodies sustain aggregations of 100 or more individuals of waterfowl species for seven days, resulting in > 700 waterfowl use days during either the spring or fall of each year, which confirms presence of this SWH type in the LSA.
Waterfowl Stopover and Staging (Terrestrial)
Background Information Review: Candidate terrestrial waterfowl stopover and staging SWH were mapped, based on available vegetation communities within the LSA. The data indicate that four candidate terrestrial waterfowl stopover and staging SWH are located within the LSA, covering a total area of 85 ha. Across the bird RSA, nine candidate terrestrial waterfowl stopover and staging SWH are present, which cover a total of 188 ha. This assessment indicates that terrestrial waterfowl stopover and staging SWH is very rare if present at all within the LSA and RSA.
Field Survey Results: Field survey results indicate that no terrestrial stopover and staging features are present within the WSR LSA.

Shorebird Migration Stopover Areas
Background Information Review: A review of ELC vegetation communities available within the LSA and RSA for the Project indicates that no candidate SWH of this type is present. A review of satellite imagery of the LSA largely agrees with this assessment, as little shoreline habitat in the form of beaches, gravel bars, marshes, or possible mudflats appear to be present.

Field Survey Results: Overall, shorebird occurrence across the survey route was low and shorebirds were not observed in great numbers at any particular staging feature. No staging features, such as beaches or mudflats were particularly notable within the LSA. Even in the fall of 2020, when water levels were very low and shoreline was exposed along larger lakes and river in the area, overall shorebird occurrence was low.
Colonial-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Cliff)
Background Information Review: OBBA data indicate that the Cliff Swallow does not occur in proximity to the proposed preliminary recommended route for the WSR. The closest records are along the Winisk and Attawapiskat rivers, both more than 100km away from the RSA. OBBA data also indicate that Bank Swallow does not occur in proximity to the proposed preliminary recommended preferred route for the WSR. The closest records are along the Winisk river approximately 75 km north of the RSA.
Confirmed Colonially – Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Bank/Cliff) has not been previously identified in the area of the LSA or RSA. No candidate SWH of this type was identified using ELC data for either the bird LSA or RSA.
Field Survey Results: No formal surveys were conducted specifically to detect the presence of Colonially nesting Bird Habitat (Cliff/Bank), but any Cliff/Bank Swallow habitat observed during avian field surveys were recorded. No cliff-nesting colonial bird species were anticipated to occur within the LSA, as rocky cliff habitat is absent from the landscape therein. No Cliffs Swallows were recorded during breeding bird surveys, nor were any incidental observations of this species made.
Colonial-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Tree/Shrubs)
Background Information Review: Confirmed Colonially nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Tree/Shrub) has not been previously identified in either the LSA or RSA. ELC data indicate the presence of 227 candidate SWH of this type, covering 11,105 ha across the LSA and 757 sites covering 46,966 ha across the RSA.
Field Survey Results: No formal surveys were conducted specifically to detect the presence of Colonially Nesting Bird Habitat (Tree/Shrub), but any Tree/Shrub habitat observed during avian field surveys were recorded. Only Bonaparte’s Gull was recorded within the LSA and RSA during field studies; however, no colonies on the species were identified.
Colonial-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Ground)
Background Information Review: Confirmed Colonially nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Ground) has not been previously identified in either the LSA or RSA. ELC data indicate the presence of 152 candidate SWH of this type covering 829 ha across the LSA and 446 sites covering 4063 ha across the RSA. While suitable ELC types may be present, few, if any suitable nesting islands for colonial waterbirds are present. The range for Brewer’s Blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus) does not extend into either the LSA or RSA; thus, this species is not expected to occur.
Field Survey Results: No formal surveys were conducted specifically to detect the presence of Colonially nesting Bird Habitat (Ground), but any ground habitat observed during avian field surveys were recorded. Herring and Ring- billed Gulls (Larus argentatus and L. delawarensis) are often observed standing on exposed rocks within local lakes; however, no breeding colonies or suitable islands have been observed during countless flights over the LSA by the Project Team.

The LSA and RSA occur outside of the accepted range for Brewers’s Blackbird in Ontario and no rocky islands are present within the RSA.
Waterfowl Nesting Areas
Background Information Review: ELC data indicate the presence of 217 candidate SWH of this type covering 6,754 ha across the LSA and 587 sites covering 26,303 ha across the RSA.
Field Survey Results: No targeted surveys were done to identify or confirm Waterfowl Nesting Areas as SWH. Some migration surveys were completed later in the season and stretched into the beginning of the nesting period. Waterfowl were also detected during point counts and on ARU recordings. Field data indicate that a variety of waterfowl nesting within the LSA and RSA, including Canada Goose, Mallard, American Wigeon (Mareca americana), Ring-necked Duck, Common Merganser, and Hooded Merganser. While this identified nesting species, the data did not allow for the confirmation of any nesting area as SWH within either the LSA or RSA.
Bald Eagle and Osprey Nesting, Foraging, and Perching Habitat
Background Information Review: Data from the Noront Eagle’s Nest EA study indicates that aggregations of Bald Eagles may occur in proximity to the preferred route for the WSR during migration. ELC data indicates the
presence of 111 candidate SWH of this type covering 1,659 ha across the LSA and 301 sites covering 6,557 ha across the RSA.
Field Survey Results: Formal surveys for Bald Eagle and Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) nests were not completed; however, raptor nests were noted when encountered. Extensive use of helicopters to access summer survey locations, as well as during the spring waterfowl, winter aerial, and caribou calving surveys, contributed to a rigorous census of Bald Eagle and Osprey nests across the RSA. At least 29 Bald Eagle nests have been recorded during field studies.
Bald Eagle nests are located primarily along the expansive shoreline of Winisk Lake and among the many lakes west of Webequie. No Bald Eagle nests were observed within 1 km of the route for the WSR. Bald Eagles are further discussed in Section 13 (Assessment of Effects on Species at Risk). To date, at least 20 Osprey nests have been recorded, with 19 of these located to the west and southwest of the RSA. No Osprey nests were identified within the LSA and only one was found within the RSA. Seven unidentified hawk nests were recorded, with only one located within the LSA and the rest outside of the RSA.
Woodland Raptor Nesting Habitat
Background Information Review: The existing information review revealed that 11 woodland-nesting raptor species have been recorded in proximity to the Project, including Sharp-shinned Hawk, Cooper’s Hawk, Northern Goshawk, Broad-winged Hawk, Red-tailed Hawk, Merlin, Barred Owl, Boreal Owl, Great Horned Owl, Long-eared Owl, and Northern Hawk-Owl. Based on the Noront Baseline Terrestrial Studies: Birds report (Noront 2013), coniferous forest, mixed forest, and hardwood forest covered a combined 33% (542,791 ha) of their regional study area. Hardwood and mixed forest, which are most likely to provide large diameter trees (typically Populus sp.) suitable for supporting
stick-nests or large cavities for cavity-nesting species comprised 8% (126,937 ha). No records of woodland raptor nesting were reported.
Field Survey Results: Compared to the Noront mine study area, upland areas of coniferous forest, mixed forest, and hardwood forest covered a much smaller percentage of the RSA, with a combined percentage of 6.7% (8,939 ha).
Hardwood and mixed forest, which are the most suitable for supporting stick-nests or large cavities for cavity-nesting species, are extremely rare making up only 0.4% (537 ha) of the RSA.

Formal surveys for raptor nests were not completed; however, raptor nests were noted when encountered. Extensive use of helicopters to access summer survey locations, as well as complete the spring waterfowl, winter aerial, and caribou calving surveys, contributed to a rigorous census stick nests across the LSA and RSA. Nests of other raptor species (i.e., hawks, owls, ravens) were noted as encountered.
In total, one confirmed Great Gray Owl nest, two confirmed Common Raven (Corvus corax) nests (including one within the Webequie community), and five additional nests of unknown origin were observed. Based on the criteria found in schedule 3W, the Great Grey Owl nest and a buffer of 400 m should be considered as SWH.
Sharp-tailed Grouse Leks
Background Information Review: Sharp-tailed Grouse is widely distributed in suitable habitat across northern Ontario (Cadman et al, 2007; Ebird, 2022). Confirmed Sharp-tailed Grouse Lek SWH has not been previously identified within either the LSA or RSA. ELC data indicates the presence of 195 candidate SWH of this type covering 11,896 ha across the LSA and 505 sites covering 57,216 ha within the RSA.
Field Survey Results: Sharp-tailed Grouse was not recorded at any breeding bird point count stations but were recorded at a total of 11 ARU stations. This species was recorded year-after-year at three stations. Of these, two were in open wetland and one was in treed wetland habitats. Regular use of these sites may suggest proximity to a lekking site.
No formal surveys for lekking sites were conducted due to the complexity in finding such habitat features; however, incidental observations of Sharp-tailed Grouse and potential leks were recorded during avian surveys. No suitable candidate lek habitat was found during other survey activities.
Marsh Bird Breeding Habitat
Background Information Review: ELC data indicates the presence of 695 candidate SWH of this type covering 7,280 ha within the LSA and 1,660 sites covering 28,920 ha within the RSA. Presence of this habitat type was not otherwise confirmed during the background information review.
Field Survey Results: The results of the breeding bird point count surveys in marsh habitats were used to determine whether an area is a SWH. Marsh obligate species recorded during passive ARU surveys included American Bittern and Sora (Porzana carolina). American Bittern was recorded at a single station in 2020 and at two stations in 2021. Sora was recorded at two stations in 2021 only. Both species were never recorded at the same station. Yellow Rail and Black Tern were not recorded during breeding bird point counts or by ARUs.
Field surveys did not confirm the presence of any marsh breeding bird SWH.

Rare Vegetation Communities: Marshes
Background Information Review: ELC data indicates marshes are regionally rare vegetation communities in the RSA with only eight polygons totaling 13.1 ha or 0.01% of the RSA. Only three of these areas are larger than one hectare in size. In addition, there are numerous small marsh areas that are mosaiced into other ELC polygons but are not large enough to be independently mapped.
Field Survey Results: Although there were marshes within the RSA, their rarity within the environment resulted in no marsh ELC polygons being assessed during field studies (refer to Section 9 in Appendix F: NEEC). All marsh ELC polygons were considered candidate SWH.

Open Country Breeding Bird Habitat
Background Information Review: ELC data indicates the presence of four candidate SWH of this type covering 85 ha across the LSA and six sites covering 103 ha across the RSA. All open country habitat in the RSA is associated with human settlement and infrastructure (airports and clearings).
Field Survey Results: Savannah Sparrow was readily observed at large expanses open bog and fen habitat. Analysis of ARU data indicates that a single LeConte’s Sparrow (Ammospiza leconteii) was recorded in 2021. Field surveys did not confirm the presence of any open country breeding bird SWH.
Shrub/Early Successional Bird Breeding Habitat
Background Information Review: Very few shrub/early successional habitat communities of appreciable area are present within the LSA. ELC data indicates the presence of 70 candidate SWH of this type covering 412 ha across the LSA and 141 sites covering 1,259 ha within the RSA. The background information review did not indicate that his habitat type has been confirmed in the RSA.
Field Survey Results: Field surveys did not confirm the presence of any shrub/early succession breeding bird SWH.
Special Concern and Rare Wildlife Species
Habitat for species of Special Concern are addressed along with other SAR in Section 13 (Assessment of Effects on Species at Risk).

12.2.2.4 Reptiles and Amphibians

12.2.2.4.1 Background Information Review
Background information sources indicate that five amphibians and one reptile may occur within the RSA. Baseline studies conducted in support of the proposed Noront Eagle’s Nest Mine (Noront 2013) did not include formal reptile or amphibian surveys; however, five anuran species were recorded, including American Toad (Anaxyrus americanus), Boreal Chorus Frog (Pseudacris maculata), Northern Leopard Frog (Lithobates pipiens), Spring Peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), and Wood Frog (Lithobates sylvaticus). Eastern Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis) was also recorded along each study section of the transportation corridor (Noront 2013). These species all have the potential to occur within the LSA and have a provincial S-rank status of S5 (Secure) and none are listed either federally or provincially
as SAR.
Data from the Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas (ORAA, 2019) indicate that Western Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta bellii) and Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) do not occur farther north than Woodland Caribou Provincial Park, while Midland Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta marginata) does not occur farther north than Pukaskwa National Park, on the eastern shoreline of Lake Superior. As a result, it is unlikely that turtles and turtle SWH, such as
Turtle Wintering Areas and Turtle Nesting Areas, occur within the LSA.

12.2.2.4.2 Frog Acoustic Surveys
Acoustic surveys in 2020 detected four anuran species: American Toad, Boreal Chorus Frog, Spring Peeper, and Wood Frog. For each species, the probability of detection per recording was calculated, i.e., the product of whether the species was present and produced a call that the observer detected. The four amphibian species were detected within the recordings in the following decreasing rank order of detection: Spring Peeper (71.8%), Wood Frog (30%), American Toad (24.6%), and Boreal Chorus Frog (8.6%).

Collapsed by station, Spring Peepers were recorded at 48 of 49 stations (97.9%), Wood Frogs were recorded at 44 of 49 stations (89,6%), American toads at 38 of 46 stations (82.6%), and Boreal Chorus Frogs at 17 of 48 stations
(35.4%).
Spring Peepers were detected at all but one station and on 201 unique recordings with the earliest detection occurring on May 18 and the latest on June 30, 2020. The only station (CF9) that didn’t record the presence of Spring Peepers only had two recordings included due to the early end of its operation on May 24th, however, it was included in the analysis for Spring Peepers as they were detected at other stations at similar and earlier dates. Almost every station recorded the presence of Spring Peepers on multiple occasions, with one station recording their presence on all seven recordings that were analyzed.
Due to the ubiquitous nature of Spring Peepers, the logistic model had a poor fit, no habitat classes were statistically significant, and all habitat classes were predicted to have a 100% probability of observing Spring Peepers. While observers noted the distance based on sound levels in recording, no distance variable was used in the modeling and all calls were included in the model. As a full chorus of Spring Peppers can be heard over a kilometre away (Ontario Nature, 2021), the detection of Spring Peepers on a recording is not indicative of local habitat use and likely influenced the habitat estimates as many calls on the recordings were more distant in nature.
Wood Frogs were heard on 84 unique recordings with the earliest detection occurring on May 18 and the latest on June 30, 2020. Wood Frogs were recorded up to five times at a station; however, most stations only recorded their presence once or twice (72% of stations). None of the habitat classes were statistically significant predictors of Wood Frog, nor was the distance to open water or the number of recordings processed at each station. While not
statistically significant, Wood Frog was least likely to be heard in upland areas and most likely to be observed in bogs and swamps.

American Toads were heard on 69 unique recordings with the earliest detection occurring on May 24th and the latest on June 25, 2020. American Toads were recorded up to four times at a station; however, at the majority of the stations American Toads were detected only once (50%) or twice (26%). None of the habitat classes were not statistically significant predictors of American Toad, nor was the number of recordings processed at each station. The distance to open water was significant. American Toads were most common in areas near open water and the probability of observation dropped as the distance increased, especially after 500 meters. While not statistically significant, American Toad was less likely to be heard in upland areas and most likely to be observed in fens with all three wetland classes having a high probability.
Boreal Chorus Frogs (BCFR) were only detected at 17 out of 48 stations and heard on 23 unique recordings, with the earliest detection occurring on May 25th and the latest on June 21, 2020. BCFR were recorded up to three times at a station; however, this species was recorded only one time at 70.5% of the stations. None of the habitat classes were statistically significant predictors of Wood Frog, nor was the distance to open water or the number of recordings processed at each station. While not statistically significant, BCFR was most likely to be heard in fens and least likely to be heard in bogs. The relatively low numbers of recorded BCFR may be due in part to the overlapping frequency of BCFR and Spring Peepers, with the high decibel levels of Spring Peepers in full chorus masking the presence of BCFR. When recordings were specifically listened to for amphibian presence, BCFR were detected in 16 out of 47 recordings, i.e., 34% of the time, which is similar to the overall detection rate of Wood Frog. Comparatively, BCFR were only detected in seven of the 233 recordings (3%) processed for the bird acoustic study where amphibians were noted incidentally.

12.2.2.4.3 Incidental Observations
Four amphibian species were identified incidentally during the field survey programs in June, July, and August 2019, including American Toad, Boreal Chorus Frog, Spring Peeper, and Wood Frog. All four species were identified visually and by call during daytime breeding bird, vegetation, and caribou nursery surveys.

Boreal Chorus Frogs were the most widely occurring species and were documented across the extent of LSA. The majority of observations for the remaining species occurred east of Webequie First Nation. Frog calls were generally heard as individuals, without calls overlapping. Wood Frogs were observed exclusively in August.
Evidence of one reptile species was documented in August 2019. A shed snakeskin was found, likely belonging to a local subspecies of the Common Gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis), which is the most northerly ranging snake in North America. The Eastern Gartersnake has been recorded near Webequie in Summer Beaver (Nibinamik), while the Red-sided Gartersnake (T. sirtalis parietalis) has been detected slightly further southwest near Pipestone River Provincial Park (Ontario Nature, 2019).

12.2.2.4.4 Significant Wildlife Habitat – Herpetofauna
Turtle Wintering Areas
Background Information Review: The LSA is north of the range of all eight of Ontario’s turtle species; therefore, no turtle wintering areas or nesting areas are expected within the LSA.
Field Survey Results: No formal surveys for this habitat type were conducted as the LSA is north of the range of Ontario’s turtle species.
Turtle Nesting Areas

Background Information Review: The LSA is north of the range of all eight of Ontario’s turtle species.
Field Survey Results: No formal surveys were conducted as the LSA is north of the range for Ontario’s turtle species.
Reptile Hibernacula
Background Information Review: The Eastern Garter Snake is the only reptile species known to occur within the LSA. This species may hibernate, often communally, in a wide variety of sites including mammal burrows, fractures in rock outcrops, talus slopes, and anthropogenic sites such as cisterns or fencepost holes (Yagi, 2020).
No data indicating the location of reptile hibernacula along the proposed WSR were found during the background information review.
Field Survey Results: Reptile hibernacula were not detected during field surveys conducted along the preferred route. No formal surveys for this habitat type were conducted due to the complexity in finding such habitat features. No snakes or other reptiles were observed during the 2019-2021 field surveys; however, an incidental snakeskin observation was made in June 2020 and August 2021, indicating the presence of snakes within the LSA.
Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Wetland and Woodland)
Background Information Review: ORAA (2019) data indicate five frog species are known to occur in proximity to the Project. ELC data indicates the presence of 22 candidate SWH of this type covering 183 ha across the LSA and
36 sites covering 539 ha across the RSA.
No additional data indicating the location of amphibian movement corridors between amphibian breeding habitats were found during the background information review.
Field Survey Results: All 49 ARU stations sampled during the spring calling period recorded at least one frog species and 47 of 49 ARU stations sampled recorded two or more species. While results indicate that frogs of at least four species occur widely across the LSA, total numbers of frogs occurring within sampled habitats were not determined with confidence using the ARU survey method. As such, the presence of this habitat type was unable to be confirmed during field studies.

Amphibian Movement Corridors
Background Information Review: A large portion of the LSA may contain amphibian movement corridors between potential breeding habitats. No additional data indicating the location of amphibian movement corridors between amphibian breeding habitats were found during the background information review.
Field Survey Results: No data indicating the location of amphibian movement corridors between amphibian breeding habitats were found during the baseline field surveys. Targeted surveys for amphibian movement corridors were not conducted.

12.3 Identification of Potential Effects, Pathways and Indicators
In accordance with Section 13 (Effects Assessment) of the TISG, the effects assessment for the Project must describe in detail the potential adverse and positive effects in relation to the construction and operation phases of the WSR. For the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat VC, potential environmental effects and measurable parameters were selected based on a review of similar environmental assessments for linear projects (such as roadways, transmission lines, and pipelines) in Ontario and within Canada, feedback received during the engagement and consultation process, and professional judgement. While potential effects may be similar across the different wildlife criteria, each of the key species and species groups are evaluated individually.
The primary potential effects of the Project on the Wildlife and Wildlife VC include:

 Habitat Loss;
 Habitat Alteration or Degradation;
 Alteration in Movement; and
 Injury or Death.
Potential effects, indicators, nature of the interactions, and threat assessments for the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat VC are described in the following subsections and are summarized in Table 12-40.

12.3.1 Threat Assessment Approach
As required in the TISG (Section 13) the methodology for the effects assessment for wildlife and wildlife habitat is a staged approach involving an initial assessment of the effects of the Project or “Threat Assessment”, followed by an assessment of the predicted net effects following the application of mitigative measures as presented in Section 12.5. These two assessments differ in that the Threat Assessment is limited to the physical direct removals or alteration of wildlife habitat, while the predicted net effects assessment incorporates either a qualitative or quantitative description of the effects using criteria to quantify or qualify adverse effects, taking into account any important contextual factors. For the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat VC, the criteria proposed for the Threat Assessment are defined below; they are Scope, Severity, Irreversibility (Permanence), Magnitude, which is determined using Scope and Severity), and Degree of Effect, which is determined using Magnitude and Irreversibility (Permanence).
 Scope – defined spatially as the proportion of the valued component’s occurrence or population within the study areas (Project Footprint, LSA and RSA) that can reasonably be expected to be affected by the predicted effect within 10 years:
 pervasive: the effect is likely to be pervasive in its scope, affecting the valued component across all or most (71-100%) of its occurrence or population within the study areas;

 large: the effect is likely to be widespread in its scope, affecting the valued component across much (31-70%) of its occurrence or population within the study areas;
 restricted: the effect is likely to be restricted in its scope, affecting the valued component across some (11-30%) of its occurrence or population within the study areas; and
 small: the effect is likely to be very narrow in its scope, affecting the valued component across a small proportion (1-10%) of its occurrence or population within the study areas.
 Severity – defined as, within the scope, the level of damage to the valued component from the effect that can reasonably be expected; typically measured as the degree of destruction or degradation within the scope or the degree of reduction of the population within the scope:
 extreme: within the scope, the effect is likely to destroy or eliminate the valued component or reduce its population by 71-100% within ten years or three generations;
 serious: within the scope, the effect is likely to seriously degrade/reduce the valued component or reduce its population by 31-70% within ten years or three generations;
 moderate: within the scope, the effect is likely to moderately degrade/reduce the valued component or reduce its population by 11-30% within ten years or three generations; and
 slight: within the scope, the effect is likely to only slightly degrade/reduce the valued component or reduce its population by 1-10% within ten years or three generations.
 Irreversibility (or permanence) – defined as the degree to which the effect can be reversed and the valued component restored, if the effect no longer existed:
 very high: the effects cannot be reversed, and it is very unlikely the valued component can be restored, and/or it would take more than 100 years to achieve this (e.g., wetlands converted to a shopping center);
 high: the effects can technically be reversed and the valued component restored, but it is not practically affordable and/or it would take 21-100 years to achieve this (e.g., wetland converted to agriculture);
 medium: the effects can be reversed and the valued component restored with a reasonable commitment of resources and/or within 6-20 years (e.g., ditching and draining of wetland); and
 low: the effects are easily reversible, and the valued component can be easily restored at a relatively low cost and/or within 0-5 years (e.g., off-road vehicles trespassing in wetland).
 Magnitude – Magnitude of the effect is determined using Scope and Severity values as follows (Magnitude = scope x severity):

• Degree of effect – Degree of effect is determined using Magnitude and Irreversibility values as follows (Degree of effect = magnitude):

12.3.2 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
The following potential effects are common to all Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat criteria. Additionally, with the implementation of mitigation measures, described in Section 12.4 the effects are adequately mitigated and are not expected to cause net effects and were therefore not carried forward for further assessment.

12.3.2.1 Habitat Alteration or Degradation
Accidental Spills
Chemical or hazardous materials stored on or spills of such materials in the Project Footprint could affect wildlife survival and reproduction. Spills, should they occur, are predicted to be generally localized in nature. Given the types of activities that will be associated with the Project, the most likely types of spills would be fuel and/or oil-based products from machinery and equipment.
Deposition of Dust and Other Airborne Particles
Construction and operation of the Project is predicted to generate air and dust emissions such as carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of sulphur (SOx), including sulphur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter (e.g., PM2.5) and total suspended particulate matter (SPM). Air emissions such as SOx and NOx will result from the use of fossil fuels in generators, vehicles, and equipment during the Project. Air emission, and subsequent deposition, can affect upland, riparian and wetland ecosystems through changes to soil quality by altering soil pH, nutrient content and soil composition.
Accumulation of dust produced from the Project may result in localized changes to vegetation in the LSA. Changes in plant community structure may affect habitat use by many species of wildlife. Dust resulting from the disturbance, transport and stockpiling of earth materials and vehicle and equipment movement on the road during construction and operations have the potential to affect vegetation through direct interaction (e.g., smothering over time), and/or transport of harmful chemicals or nutrients which alter soil and water conditions (Forman and Alexander, 1998). While road dust can fertilize nutrient-limited peatlands and affect their plant assemblages and ecosystem functions, these alterations are general found only along roadways with high traffic and dust deposition levels (Li et al., 2023).
The modelling results for the Assessment of Effects on the Atmospheric Environment are found in Section 9. During construction, the results of the modelling indicate a maximum dust deposition value of 10 g/m2, 143% greater than the provincial ambient air quality criteria (AAQC) even with dust controls. However, due to the intermittent and localized nature of these potential effects during the construction phase their impact is anticipated to be low. These values drop during operations to 4.3 g/m2 (61% of the AAQC) over 30 days at 50 m of the road centerline. Additionally, dust depositions during the operations phase will only be present for the first three years as the road is forecasted to be paved at that point.

Invasive Plant Species
The introduction and spread of invasive plant species can affect vegetation community structure and composition, which can affect the habitat availability and distribution. Invasive plants could structurally affect habitats that function as shelter, while composition changes could alter the availability of forage. Invasive plant species could be brought into the Project Footprint during construction along with equipment and supplies. Road construction and associated infrastructure may also create abiotic conditions in which invasive species thrive, allowing them to spread from temporary areas of disturbance (e.g., construction camps, staging areas).

 Indigenous community members noted about the need to adequately assess impacts to birds and bird habitat, including the utilization of best available resources and models, as well as Indigenous Knowledge.

Sections 12.3.7 through 12.3.11 outline the potential effects of the Project on birds, including shorebirds, waterfowl, raptors and migratory wetland songbirds. Table 12-3 includes a summary of Indigenous
Knowledge received from Indigenous communities.

12.3.2.2 Injury or Death
Wildlife Attractants
Human-wildlife interactions may increase during the construction phase if wildlife, or their predators are attracted to the Project Footprint by such things as food waste, sewage, or petroleum-based products. These materials can also change predator-prey relationships, which can affect survival and abundance of wildlife.
During operations phase, attractants could also increase human-wildlife interactions and change predator-prey relationships, thereby affecting the survival and reproduction of wildlife. One example of an operational attractant would be roadkill, which, if not removed, could attract scavengers to the ROW and lead to collisions, incidental take, or changes to predator-prey relationships.

 Indigenous community members raised concerns about animals which will end up travelling and foraging along the road(s).

Section 12.4 outlines proposed mitigation measures to address potential effects of the Project on wildlife including the risk of injury and death of wildlife during the construction and operations phases of the Project.

12.3.3 Moose

 Indigenous community members are concerned about the current moose population, having observed local declines in population that may be exacerbated by increased human traffic and tourism in the North.

Indigenous community members noted that the planes already scare moose in the Project area(s) and that additional vehicle traffic could scare the moose even more.
Existing conditions of Moose in the project study areas are described in the NEEC Report (Appendix F of the EAR/IS) and summarized in Section 12.2. Potential project effects on Moose are assessed in Section 12.3.3 and Section 21 (Cumulative Effects Assessment). With the implementation of proposed mitigation measures outlined in Section 12.4, the net effects of the Project on Moose are predicted to be not significant (refer to
Sections 12.7.1 and 12.8.1).

12.3.3.1 Habitat Loss
Moose Habitat Loss is described as a reduction in total habitat available for moose within the study areas. There will be moose habitat loss resulting from vegetation clearing, hydrological changes and disturbance during construction. The pathways that may result in loss or destruction of moose habitat include the following:
Site preparation and vegetation clearing and ground disturbance → Removal of vegetation → Loss of moose habitat.
Construction of roadbed and crossing structures → Hydrological changes to ground or surface water → Loss of moose habitat.
Construction

Clearing Activities

Site preparation and construction activities will reduce the availability of suitable moose habitat in the Project Footprint, most areas in the Project Footprint will be permanently removed during construction of the road.
Moose utilization was modelled by estimating probability of use based on resource selection functions (RSFs) across the moose LSA. For moose, RSF modeling was done using the Far North Land Cover (FNLC) as vegetation mapping at the ELC level was only available for part of the moose LSA (See Section 11.2.1: Methods, Assessment of Effects on Vegetation and Wetlands) for the use of FNLC in vegetation modeling. Based on the results of RSF habitat modeling, the Project will result in the removal of 163.95 ha of high winter use moose habitat from the standard LSA and 235.76 ha of high use moose habitat from the Moose LSA due to construction activities (refer to Table 12-10 and Figure 12.3). This represents 2.34% of high rated moose habitat in the standard LSA and 0.47% of high moose habitat in the moose LSA. Modeled probability of use ranged from 0.0 to 0.97 with the highest quantile (highest 20%) starting at 0.189.
Table 12-10: Changes to Available Habitat for Moose by Study Area

Based on the assessment of habitat ELC mapping, 147.48 ha of moose late winter cover (Upland Conifer Forest) is estimated to be removed during construction activities, this represents 8.38 % of moose late winter cover in the project LSA (1 km buffer of the proposed ROW). While ELC mapping does not exist for the full extent of the moose LSA, FNLC can be used to provide a similar estimate. Using FNLC, 74.5 ha of moose late winter cover is estimated to be removed during construction activities, this represents 0.77% of moose late winter cover in the moose LSA.

Hydrological Changes

Construction activities have the potential to cause the destruction of moose habitat through changes to groundwater and surface water flows. As described in Section 11.2.2 (Results, Assessment of Effects on Vegetation and Wetlands), most of the Project RSA is wetlands, primarily peatlands susceptible to changes in the flow of surface and subsurface water resulting from the bisection of these features by roads. Changes in surface water conditions can also occur with

the installation of crossing structures. Such changes are generally concentrated downstream of the effect but can also take place on the upstream side if channel restriction causes water impoundment which can cause death of vegetation (Bocking et al., 2017). While likely small in scale, long term impoundment of conifer forests could lead to loss of moose winter habitat. Change in hydrology could lead to loss of seasonally inundated habitats that are commonly used by moose (Morris, 2014)

Operations

Clearance Activities

Operation of the roadway is unlikely to result in additional loss of habitat through vegetation removal. Most maintenance activities will be involve managing re-growth of vegetation along the ROW within the Project Footprint and losses are accounted for in the construction phase. There is a very low probability that reclaimed temporary laydown areas and clearings may need to be reused during operations, but it is predicted that these effects would be short-term and of limited size. Quarries will remain operational following construction as additional material may be needed for maintenance activities; however, no additional habitat loss or destruction is anticipated to occur as the Project Footprint will not be expanded during operations. 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 riparian moose habitat may occur.

Hydrological Changes

Moose habitat loss through changes to hydrology could also potentially occur during the operations phase due to culvert and crossing structure maintenance but is unlikely. Culverts and other crossings could become partially or fully blocked from either sediment or beaver activity. If culvert maintenance is ignored, given sufficient time, death of vegetation and loss of habitat could occur near the roadway (Bocking et al., 2017).

12.3.3.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation
There could be alterations to moose habitat resulting from vegetation clearing, hydrological changes and sensory disturbance during construction and throughout operations. The pathways or activities which may result in alteration or degradation of moose habitat include the following:
Accidental spill during construction or operations activities → Transportation of material into wetland → Alteration and degradation of moose habitat.
Construction of roadbed and crossing structures → Hydrological changes to ground or surface water → Alteration and degradation of moose habitat.
Construction and operations activities cause sensory disturbances (light, noises, dust) → Sensory disturbances effect on adjacent areas → Alteration and degradation of moose habitat.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Structural differences between cleared and remaining vegetation create edge effect → Alteration and degradation of moose habitat.
Construction and maintenance activities → Introduction of invasive species → Alteration and degradation of moose habitat.
Construction

Accidental Spills

Accidental spills and releases that occur during construction phase may result in moose habitat degradation. Boreal wetlands are often hydrologically connected through subsurface flows (Smerdon et al., 2005), resulting in large watersheds throughout which pollutants can spread. Depending on concentrations and material spilled, an accidental spill could cause death of vegetation, lower productivity and alter the vegetation community (Hutchinson and Freedman, 2011; Lednev et al., 2023). Accidental spills would more likely affect moose Aquatic Feeding Habitat than Wintering Habitat as they could be hydrologically connected through subsurface flows (Smerdon et al., 2005).

Hydrological Changes

It is widely accepted that roads can alter the hydrologic function and characteristics of peatland communities (Saraswati et al., 2020). Changes in wetland drainage patterns, resulting in lower or higher water levels, can alter the plant community (Miller et al. 2015), which could locally affect browse availability for moose. These changes can be extensive: a study within boreal fens in Alberta found pronounced differences in canopy cover up to 250 m from road edges in both rich and poor treed fens (Willier et al., 2022). As described in Section 11.3.2.3 (Indirect Effect Pathways on Vegetation and Wetlands), for the purpose of the habitat alteration assessment the project team used this distance value, with high effects occurring within 20 m, moderate effects within 60 m and minimal effects at 250 m. Potential changes in surface water drainage patterns and increases or decreases in flows and surface water levels in waterbodies, as well as changes to groundwater, are described in detail in Section 7 (Assessment of Effects on Surface Water Resources) and Section 8 (Assessment of Effects on Groundwater Resources).
Sensory Disturbance
Sensory disturbances resulting from road construction, including movement of equipment and vehicles, noise, lighting, and other human activities may degrade habitat for moose adjacent to the Project Footprint. Sensory disturbance may be especially high during construction when activities such as blasting, quarrying, hauling and clearing may occur during all hours causing moose to avoid the ROW and supportive infrastructure. Construction noise is less continuous and more impulsive than traffic noise; however, moose have been shown to habituate to it. The presence of workers may stimulate a large avoidance response (Andersen et al., 1996). Industrial noise has also been shown to reduce ungulate use of areas with higher levels of noise (Landon et al., 2003).

Habitat Structural Change

Changes to vegetation structure during road construction activities may either alter or degrade moose habitat near the Project Footprint due to vegetation clearing activities and removals. These vegetation removals may lead to edge effects, including abiotic, direct biotic, and indirect biotic effects on the habitat after the implementation of mitigation measures. It is anticipated that restoration of laydown areas and access roads will reverse some of the habitat alteration or degradation caused by road construction, but most areas will remain free of tall vegetation.
The effect of habitat structural change on moose is likely relatively low due to their use of early seral communities for foraging. Clearing of the Project Footprint will promote vegetative growth which can provide optimal moose foraging habitat (Tanner and Leroux, 2015). The conversion of areas of mature conifer forest into early seral communities could lead to the degradation of the Moose Late Winter Habitat as the areas would be more fragmented and reduced in size.
Figure 12.4 shows the probability of use under future conditions. For moose, the RSF modeling based on anticipated habitat change predicts moose utilization of the Project Footprint to decrease by 25.3%, use of the LSA to decrease 8.7% and use of the moose LSA to decrease 1.2% (Table 12-11). Given the use of the disturbance habitat category as the representative for the road ROW in the RSF modeling, the results can be interpreted to indicate that moose would use the vegetated areas of the ROW at a lower rate than the existing vegetation communities that were removed.
Table 12-11: Moose Probability of Habitat Use Percent Change by Study Area

This probability of use also carries over to a negative change in the LSA. Changes in the RSA, while negative are small and given the uncertainty in the model can be interpreted as no significant change. The negative response of moose to conversion of the Project Footprint is likely based on the use of the anthropogenic upland disturbance class to represent the areas of removed which are not necessarily representative of the temporary construction related disturbances that would be regenerating with early seral vegetation that can attract moose as many of the cleared areas will be lowland habitats.

Introduction of Invasive Species

Construction activities have the potential to introduce invasive plant species to the wetland habitats used by moose. One of the pathways of spread for invasive plants is through construction equipment. Improperly cleaned construction equipment has the potential to transport and spread invasive plants, with cleared areas, including roads sides being susceptible to invasion (Hanen and Clevenger, 2005). Once established, invasive plant species can affect multiple ecosystem aspects including structure, diversity and function (CFIA, 2008). Moose can also act as conduit for invasive plant introduction through dispersal of propagules (Rose and Hermanutz, 2004); however, while invasive plants are known to spread along transportation corridors, few invasive species have been found in naturally occurring boreal wetland habitats used by moose (Langor et al. 2014) with most invasive wetland species found well to the south of the RSA (EDDMAps, 2024).

Operations

Accidental Spills

Similar to the effects during the construction phase, there could be effects to moose habitat quality during the operations phase from accidental spills, which may result in moose habitat degradation, especially aquatic feeding habitats. Spills during operations would most likely originate from accidental releases from vehicles traveling to and from the community. The road is forecasted to have low traffic volumes, and traffic along the roadway will be primarily personal and commercial vehicles and transport trucks associated with the community. While estimate frequency of spills is low (0.00000019 spills per mile, or 0.00000012 spills per kilometer [Harwood and Russell, 1990]), its predicted that minor spills and release are possible.
Sensory disturbances

Road operations may affect moose habitat through sensory disturbance. High traffic roads have been found to cause avoidance of the area due to the associated noise and light (Niemi et al., 2017). Laurian (2010) found that moose avoided areas that were within 500 m of a road but 20% of moose still visited areas close to highways. Shanley and Pyrare (2011) found the road effect zone to be at least 500 m for male moose and greater than 1 km for female moose on rural roads. Along roads with less traffic this response is diminished but moose still use the area at lower than expected values (Laurian et al., 2010). Local concentrations of moose may still occur if high value habitats like salt licks or high sodium vegetation is present near the road (Grosman, et al., 2011; Laurian et al., 2010). While lighting along roads may act as sensory disturbance for moose, the WSR road will not have lighting except near the community limiting its effect.
Habitat Structural Change

Changes to vegetation structure during operations will have similar effects on moose and their habitat as during the construction phase. While it is anticipated that restoration of laydown areas and access roads will reverse some of the habitat alteration or degradation caused by road construction, maintenance activities, including removal of roadside vegetation during road operations, will create periodic disturbances and sustain edge effects along the ROW. Roadside vegetation cutting aimed at maintaining line of site could have the consequence of attracting moose to the roadside to feed on new vegetative growth and the continuous maintenance of these areas will prevent succession from occurring maintaining optimal moose foraging habitat (Rea, 2003).
Introduction of Invasive Species

The introduction and spread of noxious and invasive plant species could also occur during operations and will have similar potential effects on moose habitat as during construction. Transportation corridors are avenues of dispersal for invasive plants (Langor et al. 2014), and given the longer timeframe, operation of the road has a greater chance for introduction of invasive plant species; however, while the timeframe is longer, introductions of plants into moose habitat are likely limited in the ability to spread beyond disturbed areas of the road ROW (Kent et al., 2018).

12.3.3.3 Alteration in Movement
There may be alterations in moose movement stemming from construction activities and operation of the road. The pathways or activities which may result in changes in wildlife movement include the following:
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Structural differences between cleared and natural vegetation act as a barrier → Alteration in movement of moose.
Construction and operations activities cause sensory disturbances (light, noises, dust) → Disturbances cause avoidance response → Alteration in movement of moose.
Construction

Loss of Connectivity

Vegetation clearing, earth grading activities and the use of fencing to demarcate construction areas are likely to create short-term negative physical barriers to moose movement similar to highway exclusion fencing that has been found to act as a barrier to moose movement (Olsson, 2009). Construction activities may limit movement. Horejsi (1979) found that moose were less likely to cross seismic lines when exploration activity was being conducted on the line.
The creation of the ROW may also act as a soft barrier during construction, effecting habitat connectivity. Moose may avoid risky habitats such as open areas as they are more likely to encounter a predator (landscape of fear). While moose have been found to avoid crossing large linear openings (Joyal et al, 1984), crossing rates of more narrow ROWs, like the 35 m ROW proposed for the Project, were not found to be affected (Bartzke et al., 2015).

Sensory Disturbance

Noise, lighting and other human actions during construction activities such as blasting, clearing, hauling and grading will create disturbances that could alter movement of moose as they avoid the Project ROW and supportive infrastructure. Unlike sensory disturbances in the operations phase, many of these disturbances will be abrupt, and occur randomly and at different locations. While little direct information exists on the effect of construction noise on moose, they are known to respond to noise stimuli. Sound stimuli have been used to change moose behavior with recording of human voices causing moose to move away from the source of noise (Almas, 2021). Moose have also shown to have shorter flushing distances in response to vehicles as compared to humans, likely as recognition of humans as a threat (Anderson, et al. 1996). In terms of mechanical stimuli, helicopter overflights elicited the greatest flight response (Anderson, et al. 1996). Moose were also shown to move out of areas when seismic line operations were underway and in open terrain were likely to leave the immediate area if a vehicle came within 250 m (Horejsi, 1979).
Operations

Loss of Connectivity

Similar to the construction phase, alteration in moose movement due to loss of connectivity may occur during road operation. Maintenance activities will maintain vegetation the openness of the ROW. During the winter snow clearing along the road may create barriers to crossing, although moose may use the road as a travel corridor once on the road due to reduced snow cover (Collins and Helm, 1997). Moose are known to be reluctant to move across roads and while some of the reluctance is due to the adjacent structure of the forest (Forman et al. 2003) and their visibility from the road (Montgomery et al., 2012). Moose may alter their travel trajectory as they approach the road and travel parallel to the road instead of crossing (Bartzke et al., 2015). Sensory disturbance from traffic is known to contribute and is discussed in the next section.

Sensory Disturbance

Vehicle noise is anticipated to be the primary sensory impact on moose during operations. Disturbance from traffic is known to reduce moose crossings (Alexander et al. 2005). Moose are also more likely to move parallel to the road as they get closer to the road (Bartzke et al., 2015). Traffic levels are also known to influence moose movement as multiple studies have found road avoidance increases with increased disturbance (Bartzke et al., 2015; Wattles et al. 2018).
Moose may also change their travel speed as they approach or cross a road. Studies have both found increases in speed (Dulssault et al., 2010) and decreases (McDonald, 2024). The difference in reaction could be dependent on local condition such as predator avoidance or structural differences in adjacent habitat. Human presence may also alter moose movement if the human activity increase along the roadside, for example male moose may avoid the road during the hunting season (Mumma et al., 2019) While lighting along roads can be a sensory disturbance for moose, the WSR road will not have lighting except near the community limiting its effect.

12.3.3.4 Injury or Death
The Project may lead to both direct and indirect mortality to moose. There could be increases in either injury or death stemming from vehicle traffic during both construction and operation of the road, indirect mortalities arising from increased energy expenditures and habitat change, and mortality due to increased human access. The pathways or activities that may result in moose injury or death include the following:
Equipment and vehicles moving within Project Footprint → Collisions with moose within Project Footprint → Injury or Death of moose.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Increased access for moose predators → Injury or Death of moose.
Construction of Road → Increased access to moose habitat by hunters → Injury or Death of moose.
Construction of Road → Increased access to area by infected white-tailed deer → Spread of Brainworm into moose population → Injury or Death of moose.
Construction

Collisions with Vehicles

Movement of construction equipment and vehicles within Project Footprint could result in increased death and injury of moose. Vehicles will be travelling between camps and construction locations; these trips could occur at all hours and encounters with moose would not be unexpected. Due to their size and center of gravity, during collisions moose often contact the passenger compartment, often killing the moose and resulting in extensive damage to the vehicle and passengers. Road edges often create early seral vegetation that can attract moose, leading to higher numbers of collisions especially as they are more likely to use roadsides during the night (Elegard et al., 2012). Behavior factors also influence collision rates for moose, for example collision rates are higher during the rut due to higher movement rates (Laliberte and St-Laurent, 2019).

Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

Effects on moose survival from improved predator access and movement rates is possible during the construction phase. Linear features are known to facilitate predator movement in the boreal (Dickie et al., 2017; Benoit-Pepin et al., 2024) and creation of new roads connected to human activity is known to spread predators into previously unoccupied areas (Lantham et al. 2011). In northwestern Ontario wolves are the primary predator of moose (Found et al., 2018)., although black bears will often prey on moose calves. For wolves, roads act as high-speed travel corridors that allow

wolves to move large distances across their home range (Bojarska et al., 2020) while spending relatively little time on them, especially on those with high traffic levels, the minimizing of time spent on roads allows wolves to minimize human encounters (Zimmermann et al., 2014). The use of roads also allows wolves to have higher kill rates of moose (Vander Vennen et al., 2016). Selection of roads by wolves has been found to be dependant on the existing road density in Northwestern Ontario with increased selection for roads with increasing road density (Newton et al., 2017).

Increased Access

The development of the Project could result in a negative effect on the abundance of moose through increased human access to habitats where populations are present. Opening up new areas to human development can often result in increased hunting (Courtois and Beaumont, 1999). Access to previously undisturbed areas introduces opportunity for increased harvesting for recreational hunting and by Indigenous communities and groups. Construction and other temporary workers may contribute to increased harvest during construction of the Project. These workers may exploit the local area to hunt during their time-off or post-shift, and hunting pressure is influenced by distance from communities (Courtois and Beaumont, 1999).
Introduction of Disease
Brainworm is a roundworm often found in the brain of white-tailed deer. While brainworm is non-fatal in deer, in moose the infection is usually fatal (MNR, 2025). While brainworm is found in moose populations in northwestern Ontario, it is not currently found in the project area. Brainworm is forecasted to shift its range northward into the boreal ecoregion (Pickles et al., 2013). The expansion of Brainworm is linked to the range expansion of its host, white-tailed deer (Dawe and Boutin, 2016). Anthropogenic alterations to the landscape increase interactions between white-tailed deer and other ungulates like moose. The geographic spread of brainworm is important for moose as moose population declines have been linked to higher rates of infection (Lankester, 2010)
Operations

Collisions with Vehicles

Vehicles traveling along the road during operations could collide with moose causing injury or death. During operations, the predicted maximum vehicles travelling on the road is 500 per day, with the majority of travel anticipated to take place during daylight hours. This may mitigate the number of collisions as the highest level of vehicle collisions with moose occur during the first couple hours after sunset and before dawn (Borowik et al., 2021). Moose collisions are often related to greater speed limits and the lower levels of control along the road during the operations phase may lead to higher numbers of moose collisions (Neumann et al. 2012).

Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

Effects on moose from predator encounters are predicted to be long-term in duration as predators are known to use linear features well beyond their operational lifetime. Maintenance clearing during operations will maintain openness along the ROW which will allow predators increased access to moose habitat exposing moose to increased predation. Conversely the road may act as refuge for moose from predation as predators often avoid areas of high human activity (Berger, 2007) however the low traffic levels along the road may decrease the human shielding effect.

Increased Access

Access to moose habitat will continue during operations, potentially leading to increased harvest of moose along the corridor. Creation of roads in previously inaccessible areas can often lead to increased use by hunters (Crichton et al., 2004; Boston 2016). For moose, the construction of new roads is linked to increased hunting mortality (Timmerman and Gollat, 1982) as most hunting takes place within a few hundred meters of a road (Boer, 1990). Increased browse along

the ROW may act as an attractant for moose and correspondingly lead to higher moose harvest (Remple et al., 1997). The potential for harvest is also likely greater during the operations phase as it will operate over a long period of time and access will not be controlled unlike the construction phase.

12.3.3.5 Threat Assessment
Each of the four potential effects categories were evaluated based on the threats assessment criteria outlined in the TISG and is based on IUCN-CMP (International Union for the Conservation of Nature–Conservation Measures Partnership) unified threat classification system, referenced from NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk (Natureserve, 2012). Threats are assessed prior to any mitigative measures being applied. The threat assessment process is generally done at the population level but can be done at a more regional level. Moose can have large home ranges in northwestern Ontario 6-90 km2 in size, based on the potentially large size of the home range they were evaluated at the RSA level.
Scope is small for all threats to moose as the percent of the population affected is less than 10% of the available habitat and population within the LSA.
Moose have threat severity ratings ranging from slight to serious. The threat related to Clearance Activities is serious for moose, as within the scope based on the high degree of habitat loss. Moose has a severity rating of moderate for sensory disturbances for both habitat alteration and for movement as moose is known to change use and behavior around roads. Injury or death related to collisions with vehicles, changes to predator-prey dynamics and increased access are also all moderate severity as they are known to locally affect moose populations. All other severity ratings are slight. Magnitude is rated as low for all threats.
Irreversibility is high for hydrological changes and very high for vegetation removal as the roadbed will likely never be removed and such changes are challenging to reverse in short time, if ever. irreversibility is also high for spills, loss of connectivity, invasive species, increased access and predation because while the effects can technically be reversed it would take time and considerable effort. The rest of the threats were deemed low and can be easily reversed. The degree of effect was low for all except habitat loss due to clearance activities, which was moderate.
A summary of the threat assessment for moose habitat loss, alteration or degradation of habitat, alteration in movement, and injury or death prior to the consideration of mitigation measures, is presented in Table 12-12.
Table 12-12: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Moose

12.3.4 Furbearers (American Marten)
12.3.4.1 Habitat Loss
American marten was chosen based on its importance to the indigenous community, ecological importance and its range of habitat use. American marten (marten) habitat loss is described as a reduction in total habitat available for marten within the study areas. There will be marten habitat loss resulting from vegetation clearing, hydrological changes and other disturbance during construction. The pathways which may result in loss or destruction of marten habitat include the following:
Site preparation and vegetation clearing and ground disturbance → Removal of vegetation → Loss of American marten habitat.
Construction of roadbed and crossing structures → Hydrological changes to ground or surface water → Loss of American marten habitat.
Construction

Clearing Activities

Removal of vegetation during site preparation, clearing, quarrying and placement of roadbed materials would reduce the availability of suitable furbearer habitat in the Project Footprint, most areas in the Project Footprint will be permanently removed during the construction phase for the road. Based on an understanding of marten habitat preferences, the results of habitat modelling for Ecological Land Classification (refer to Section 11: Assessment of Effects on Vegetation and Wetlands), were used to estimate removals of preferred habitat during construction.
Predicted construction activities will result in the removal of 60.68 ha (1.13%) of Low Treed Bog, 120.42 ha (2.03%) of Conifer Swamp, 81.53 ha (4.3%) of Conifer Forest, and 4.21 ha (3.32%) of Mixedwood Forest in the LSA, representing approximately 2.0% of the most suitable American marten habitat in the LSA. Overall, suitable marten habitat is common throughout the study areas with 48.42% of the LSA and 51.78% of the RSA consisting of these vegetation communities. These estimates are likely an overestimation as age class and height information for forests is limited in the area and marten are less likely to use younger forests and smaller forests (Buskirk and Ruggiero, 1994).

Resource Selection Functions (RSFs) modelling was also done for probability of use for marten using ARU data. Figure 12.5 show the probability of use for marten within the RSA under existing conditions for marten. When the Project Footprint is overlayed it shows a loss of approximately 1.90% of highest-use habitat in the LSA and a loss of 0.46% of high-use habitat in the RSA due to road construction (Table 12-13). Modeled probability of use ranged from
0.0 to 0.834 % with the highest quantile (highest 20%) starting at 0.596.

Table 12-13: Changes to Available Habitat for American Marten by Study Area based on RDF Modeling

Operations

Clearing Activities
Operation of the roadway is unlikely to result in additional loss of habitat through vegetation removal. Most maintenance activities will be involve managing re-growth of vegetation along the ROW within the Project Footprint and losses are accounted for in the construction phase. There is a very low probability that reclaimed temporary laydown areas and clearings may need to be reused during operations, but it is predicted that these effects would be short-term and of limited size. These regenerating areas are also poorer habitat in general due to the lack of vertical structure and CWD. While aggregate (sand, gravel) and rock material will be required for road maintenance and repair activities, and vegetation clearing will occur. Progressive rehabilitation will occur within the quarry footprint and activities will only occur within the maximized quarry footprint delineated during the construction phase; however, no additional habitat loss or destruction is anticipated to occur as the footprints will not be expanded during operations.

12.3.4.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation
There could be alterations to American marten habitat resulting from vegetation clearing, hydrological changes and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. The pathways or activities which may result in alteration or degradation of furbearer habitat include the following:
Accidental spill during construction or operations activities → Transportation of material into wetland → Alteration and degradation of American marten habitat.
Construction of roadbed and crossing structures → Hydrological changes to ground or surface water → Alteration and degradation of American marten habitat.
Construction and operations activities cause sensory disturbances (light, noises, dust) → Sensory disturbances effect on adjacent areas → Alteration and degradation of American marten habitat.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Structural differences between cleared and remaining vegetation create edge effect → Alteration and degradation of American marten habitat.
Construction and maintenance activities → Introduction of invasive species → Alteration and degradation of American marten habitat.
Construction

Accidental Spills

Accidental spills and releases that occur during construction phase may result in American marten habitat degradation. Depending on concentrations and material spilled, an accidental spill could cause death of vegetation, lower productivity and alter the vegetation community (Hutchinson and Freedman, 2011; Lednev et al., 2023). While spills in uplands may cause local soil contamination and vegetation degradation these upland areas and associated wildlife species are likely less effected than lowland areas that are often hydrologically connected through subsurface flows (Smerdon et al., 2005).

Hydrological Changes

It is widely accepted that roads can alter the hydrologic function and characteristics of peatland communities (Saraswati et al., 2020). Changes in wetland drainage patterns, resulting in lower or higher water levels, can alter the plant community (Miller et al. 2015). These changes can be extensive: a study within boreal fens in Alberta found pronounced differences in canopy cover up to 250 m from road edges in both rich and poor treed fens

(Willier et al., 2022). For marten hydrological changes could affect habitat quality either through loss of denning sites or through reduced canopy cover which is an important habitat characteristic (Woolard et al. 2024); however, marten can adapt to a wide range of forest types and some disturbance can benefit marten through the creation of habitat structures like snags and CWD (Chapin et al., 1997). Potential changes in surface water drainage patterns and increases or decreases in flows and surface water levels in waterbodies, as well as changes to groundwater, are described in detail in Section 7 (Assessment of Effects on Surface Water Resources) and Section 8 (Assessment of Effects on Groundwater Resources).
Sensory Disturbances
Sensory disturbances resulting from road construction, including movement of equipment and vehicles, noise, lighting, and other human activities may degrade habitat for American marten adjacent to the Project Footprint. Sensory disturbance may be especially high during construction when activities such as blasting, quarrying, hauling and clearing may occur during all hours causing marten to avoid the ROW and supportive infrastructure.
The effects of construction disturbance such as noise and lighting has not been studied on American marten, but industrial disturbance has been shown to impact on a range of mammal guilds (Benitez-Lopez et al., 2010). Movement of construction vehicles may cause sensory disturbance as marten have been shown to reduce use of areas around low traffic roads (Robitaille and Aubry 1990); however, Zielinski et al. (2008) found that low level disturbance by OHV did not alter marten space and time use of their home ranges. Additionally, Jung and Slough (2021) found that marten will use human occupied structures for rest and den sites in the Yukon indicating marten are adaptable to some human disturbance.

Habitat Structural Change

Changes to vegetation structure during road construction activities may alter or degrade American marten habitat near the Project Footprint due to vegetation clearing activities and removals. These vegetation removals may lead to edge effects, including abiotic, direct biotic, and indirect biotic effects on the habitat after the implementation of mitigation measures. It is anticipated that restoration of laydown areas and access roads will reverse some of the habitat alteration or degradation caused by road construction, but most areas will remain free of tall vegetation.
For American marten, in terms of habitat degradation, most of the effect is associated with removal of mature upland forests and replacement with early seral communities in these temporary areas and with road ROW. If the proportion of good quality mature forest habitat declines, marten abundance could decline (Lavoie et al., 2019). While the camps, laydowns and access roads are scheduled for restoration, regrowth of forests in the boreal is slow and any subsequent disturbance could take time to recover. American marten are likely to avoid these cleared areas due to a number of factors including low canopy cover and low levels of CWD, which can affect both prey availability and predation risk (Potvin et al. 2000; Potvin and Breton, 1997; Andreuskiw et al., 2008).

Figure 12.6 shows the probability of winter use under future conditions. For marten the RSF modeling based on anticipated habitat change predicts marten utilization of the Project Footprint to increase by 62.6%, use of the LSA to increase 18.1% and use of the RSA to increase 4.2%. Given the use of the disturbance habitat category as the representative for the road ROW in the RSF modeling, the results can be interpreted as marten would use the vegetated areas of the ROW at a higher rate than the existing vegetation communities that were removed. The predictions of higher use for American marten in the Project Footprint are counter intuitive and may be a result of the model using the disturbances category to model projected use of the ROW. The disturbance category includes young forests that some studies have shown to be viable habitat for marten in the winter if there is sufficient structure and prey (Proulx, 2006).

Introduction of Invasive Species

Construction activities have the potential to introduce invasive plant species to the forested habitats used by American marten. One of the pathways of spread for invasive plants is through construction equipment. Improperly cleaned construction equipment has the potential to transport and spread invasive plants, with cleared areas, including roads sides being susceptible to invasion (Hanen and Clevenger, 2005); however, while invasive plants are known to spread along transportation corridors, few invasive species have been found in naturally occurring boreal forest habitats used by American marten and when established often only spread a few meters into the adjacent forest (Langor et al. 2014).

Operations

Accidental Spills

Similar to the effects during construction, accidental spills could occur during the operations phase, which may result in American marten habitat degradation. Spills during operations would most likely originate from accidental releases from vehicles. Accidental spills and releases during road operations may occur due to mechanical failure, human error, poor visibility or slippery road conditions. The road is forecasted to have low traffic volumes, and traffic along the roadway will be primarily personal and commercial vehicles and transport trucks associated with the community. While estimate frequency of spills is low (0.00000019 spills per mile, or 0.00000012 spills per kilometer, (Harwood and Russell, 1990), its predicted that minor spills and release are possible but likely limited in effect.
Hydrological Changes

Changes to hydrology could also occur during the operations phase due to culvert and crossing structure maintenance. Localized changes to hydrology could occur if culvert maintenance along the road is ignored, either in terms of repairs to the structure or removal of accumulated debris. The area effected would be dependent on the amount of time the culvert remains blocked as well as the size of the impounded area. Effects are expected to be relatively small in scale and therefore have limited effect on individual American marten given their large home ranges.

Sensory Disturbance

Road operations may affect American marten habitat. During operations, most sensory effects will be related to traffic noise, as road lighting will not be used outside of the community. Marten tend to use areas with roads less than areas without roads (Aylward et al., 2018; Robitaille and Aubry, 1990) and home ranges tend to be larger in areas with higher road density suggesting these areas are lower in quality (Godbout and Ouelett, 2008); however, this avoidance may not be due to noise disturbance as Zielinski et al. (2008) found that American marten tolerate noise disturbance from recreational off-highway vehicle use.

Habitat Structural Change

Habitat structural change during operations will have similar effects on American marten and their habitats. While it is anticipated that restoration of laydown areas and access roads will reverse some of the habitat alteration or degradation caused by road construction, maintenance activities, including removal of roadside vegetation during road operations, will create periodic disturbances and sustain edge effects along the ROW. These open areas with their low structural complexity and higher predation risk (Tignor et al., 2015) are likely to continue as areas with low use by marten.

Introduction of Invasive Species

The introduction and spread of noxious and invasive plant species could also occur during operations and will have similar potential effects on American Marten habitat as during construction. Transportation corridors are avenues of dispersal for invasive plants (Langor et al. 2014), and given the longer timeframe, operation of the road has the potential to have larger effects than construction in terms of habitat alteration/degradation from introduction of invasive species; however, the spread of invasive plants along transportation corridors in the boreal forest has been found to be limited beyond the ROW (Langor et al. 2014).

12.3.4.3 Alteration in Movement
There may be alterations in American marten movement stemming from construction activities and operation of the road. The pathways or activities which may result in changes in wildlife movement include the following:
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Structural differences between cleared and natural vegetation act as a barrier → Alteration in movement of American marten.
Construction and operations activities cause sensory disturbances (light, noises, dust) → Disturbances cause avoidance response → Alteration in movement of American marten.
Construction

Loss of Connectivity

For American marten, the Project Footprint is likely to act as a soft barrier during construction affecting connectivity. American marten has been found to avoid open areas including linear features like road ROWs, and while larger openings may act as a greater barrier, narrow feature can cause avoidance (Robitaille and Aubry 2000;
Tigner et al. 2015). Avoidance of crossing frozen rivers wider than 15 m was found in southeastern Manitoba
(Raine, 1983). Avoidance of these areas may be due to risk of predation (Wollard et al., 2024) and while some studies have found that marten can use younger regenerating areas (Poole et al., 2004), these areas generally have structural complexity like CWD, which is often not present in anthropogenically cleared areas. Depending on the area removed within an individual’s home range, clearing can cause shifts in their home range or abandonment of the home range (Poole et al., 2004). While vegetation clearing and windrowing, earth grading activities and the use of fencing to demarcate construction areas are likely to create short-term negative physical barriers to movement for some wildlife species, fencing and windrows will likely not be a barrier to marten due to their climbing ability and windrows potential acting as refuge sites from predators.

Sensory Disturbance

Sensory impacts may also lead to America marten actively avoiding and moving out of the area around the Project Footprint. During construction activities such as blasting, clearing, hauling and grading will create disturbances that could cause American marten to move out and avoid the immediate area. Construction noises, which can often be unpredictable, may cause wildlife to flee an area or alter when they use an area (Francis and Barber, 2013). While marten often avoid areas of high human activity, marten will continue to use areas with motorized vehicle activity suggesting noise is not the primary driver for avoidance (Zielinski et al. 2010); however, human voices have been found to reduce locomotor activity in mink (Mustela lutreola) suggesting the presence of humans outside of vehicles may alter movement behavior of marten around construction areas due to the voice being perceived as a predator (Ortiz-Jimenez et al., 2022).
Operations

Loss of Connectivity

Similar to the construction phase, alteration in movement due to loss of connectivity may occur during road operation. Maintenance activities will maintain vegetation the openness of the ROW. American martens have been found to avoid areas around roads (Wasserman et al. 2012) while other studies have found they still use the areas around secondary roads but move more quickly through the landscape likely related to road traffic (Robitaille and Aubry 2000). Other studies have found that gene flow in American marten is negatively affected by major roads suggesting they limit the ability of American marten to cross these linear features (Howell et al. 2016).

Sensory Disturbance

Vehicle noise is anticipated be the primary sensory impact on marten during operations. While traffic levels are expected to be low some marten may still alter their movement temporally or to avoid the road altogether; however, marten can continue to use areas with low levels of motorized vehicle activity (Zielinski et al. 2010). Human presence may also alter marten movement if the human activity increase along the roadside (Ortiz-Jimenez et al., 2022), but marten can tolerate humans in some circumstances (Jung and Slough, 2021), which may be related to resource availability (Viau et al., 2024). While lighting along roads may be a sensory disturbance for marten, the WSR will not have lighting except near the community limiting its effect on marten.

12.3.4.4 Injury or Death
The Project may lead to both direct and indirect American marten mortality. There could be increases in wildlife injury or death stemming from increased vehicle traffic during both construction and operation of the road, indirect mortalities arising from increased predator access and mortality due to increased human access. The pathways or activities which may result in American marten injury or death include the following:
Equipment and vehicles moving within Project Footprint → Collisions with American marten within Project Footprint → Injury or Death of American marten.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Incidental encounters with individuals or dens → Injury or Death of American marten.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Increased access for American marten predators → Injury or Death of American marten.
Construction of Road → Increased access to American marten habitat by trappers → Injury or Death of American marten.
Construction

Collisions with Vehicles
Movement of construction equipment and vehicles within the Project Footprint could result in increased death and injury of American marten. Vehicles will be travelling between camps and construction locations; these trips could occur at all hours and encounters with marten would not be unexpected. Roads and traffic affect a wide range of species and species groups, with mortality effecting on populations, demographic structure and connectivity (Coffin et al., 2007; Moore et al., 2023). Travel speed and traffic volume are known to increase collision risk (Gunson et al., 2011), as does the behavior of the animal around the road and how the species reacts to the threat (Jacobsen et al., 2016). While few records of American marten deaths by vehicles exists, small mammal deaths are known to be underreported due to lack of vehicular damage. In a three-year study in US National Park in Michigan, one out of 35 collared marten was killed by a vehicle (Belant et al., 2007).

Incidental Take

Vegetation clearing in American marten habitat during road construction, and/or movement of equipment/vehicles though vegetated areas, may result in marten death or injury if management of vegetation is carried out, especially during the denning season, even after mitigation measures have been applied. Marten use large caliber CWD, tree cavities and red squirrel middens as dens, and marten will use multiple maternal dens throughout the breeding season. These dens are well concealed to avoid predation making them difficult to spot and may be incidentally removed during clearing activities. Occupancy of the dens will from parturition until weening and the recommend protection window federally is from April 1 to June 30 (GOC, 2025).

Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

Effects on American marten survival from improved predator access and movement rates is also possible within the Project Footprint during the construction phase. Linear features are known to facilitate predator movement in the boreal (Dickie et al., 2017; Benoit-Pepin et al., 2024). Fishers, lynx, fox and raptors such as Great horned Owls are known predators of marten (COSEWIC, 2007) and may use the ROW and secondary access roads for movement/hunting.
Avoidance of roads and other openings by marten has often been tied to avoidance of an increased predation risk, but there are limits on the functional response to avoid these areas and beyond a threshold declines in marten populations may occur (Wollard et al., 2024). The avoidance of roads may also be seasonal in marten and marten may use areas closer to roads when resources are more limiting (Viau et al., 2024) exposing them to higher predation risk.

Increased Access

The development of the Project could result in a negative effect on the abundance of American marten through increased human access to habitats where marten populations are present. The American marten is a heavily trapped furbearer, in Canada it accounts for about 20% of fur sales (Lavoie et al., 2019). American martens are also potentially vulnerable to over trapping due to commercial logging and development in some areas, and this increase in harvest is often associated with better access (Weibe et al. 2012). Opening new areas to human development can often result in increased hunting and trapping (COSEWIC, 2022). Access to previously undisturbed areas introduces opportunity for recreational hunting and/or increased harvesting by Indigenous communities and groups. Distance from a road is a common predictor for presence of a trapline (Wiebe et al., 2012). Construction and other temporary workers may contribute to increased harvest during construction of the Project as these workers may exploit the local area to hunt or trap during their time-off or post-shift.
Operations

Collisions with Vehicles

Vehicles traveling along the road during operations could collide with American marten causing injury or death. During operations, the predicted maximum vehicles travelling on the road is 500 per day, with the majority of travel anticipated to take place during daylight hours. While marten often avoid roads, dispersing juveniles may be more at risk of crossing a road and colliding with a vehicle (COSEWIC, 2022). Lower levels of control along the road during the operations phase may lead to higher numbers of marten collisions due to higher speeds.

Incidental Take

Vegetation clearing in American marten habitat during road operations, and/or movement of equipment/vehicles though vegetated areas is less likely to effect on marten and cause injury or death. Den sites are often located in large logs, large snags, and large, live trees (Ruggio, 1998), which would be removed during clearing activities. In areas that are expected to undergo maintenance clearing these habitat structures would not be present.

Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

Effects on American marten from predator encounters are predicted to be long-term in duration as predators are known to use linear features well beyond their operational lifetime. Maintenance clearing during operations will maintain openness along the ROW which will allow predators increased access to marten habitat exposing marten to increased predation. Clearing of the ROW also exposes marten to increased predation risk in these areas by removing escape cover. Roadkill may attract marten predators and also attract marten which can feed on carcass of large animals like deer (Carlson et al., 2014) potentially exposing marten to greater predation risk.

Increased Access

Access to American marten habitat will continue during operations, potentially leading to increased harvest of marten along the corridor. Linear structures like roads are inherently risky environments to marten as they provide opportunity for trappers to operate easily (Viau et al. 2024). While temporary access roads will be closed and restored these areas may still be exploited by trappers as linear features take a long time to regenerate and repeated use by trappers or other users may maintain their openness. The potential for harvest is also likely greater during the operations phase as it will operate over a long period of time and access will not be controlled unlike the construction phase.

12.3.4.5 Threat Assessment
Each of the four potential effects categories were evaluated based on the threats assessment criteria outlined in the TISG and is based on IUCN-CMP (International Union for the Conservation of Nature–Conservation Measures Partnership) unified threat classification system, referenced from NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk (Natureserve, 2012). Threats are assessed prior to any mitigative measures being applied. The threat assessment process is generally done at the population level but can be done at a more regional level. American marten can have large home ranges in ranging from 2-45km2 in size, based on the potentially large size of the home range they were evaluated at their RSA level.
Scope is small for all threats to marten as the percent of the population affected is less than 10% of the available habitat and population within the RSA.
Marten have threat severity ratings ranging from slight to serious. The threat related to Clearance Activities is serious for marten, as within the scope based on the high degree of habitat loss. Marten has a severity rating of moderate for sensory disturbances for both habitat alteration and for movement as marten is known to change use and behavior around roads. Habitat alteration related to habitat structural change and alteration in movement related to connectivity are also moderate severity as marten are known to reduce use and avoid open and early seral areas. Injury or death related to increased access is also moderate severity as trappers are known to establish traplines based on accessibility. All other severity ratings are slight. Magnitude is rated as low for all threats.
Irreversibility is high for hydrological changes and very high for vegetation removal as the roadbed will likely never be removed and such changes are challenging to reverse in short time, if ever. Irreversibility is also high for spills, loss of connectivity, invasive species, increased access and predation because while the effects can technically be reversed it would take time and considerable effort. The rest of the threats were deemed low and can be easily reversed. The degree of effect was low for all except habitat loss due to clearance activities, which was moderate.
A summary of the threat assessment for American marten habitat loss, alteration or degradation of habitat, alteration in movement, and injury or death prior to the consideration of mitigation measures, is presented in Table 12-14.
Table 12-14: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on American Marten

12.3.5 Furbearer (North American beaver)
12.3.5.1 Habitat Loss
For North American beaver, the principal drivers of North American beaver populations are habitat loss and habitat degradation (Boyle and Owens, 2007). Loss of habitat resulting from the construction and operations phases of the project are largely expected to be limited in geographic extent to the Project Footprint, apart from hydrological changes which may extend to the LSA. The pathways which may result in loss or destruction of marten habitat include the following:
Site preparation and vegetation clearing and ground disturbance → Removal of vegetation → Loss of North American beaver habitat.
Construction of roadbed and crossing structures → Hydrological changes to ground or surface water → Loss of North American beaver habitat.
Construction

Clearing Activities

Removal of vegetation during site preparation, clearing, quarrying and placement of roadbed materials would reduce the availability of suitable furbearer habitat in the Project Footprint, most areas in the Project Footprint will be permanently removed during the construction phase. Based on an understanding of beaver habitat preferences a habitat suitability model was developed.
For North American beaver there is a predicted net effect of habitat loss after implementation of mitigation measures. Construction activities would result in the direct loss of 7.81 ha of high suitability habitat, 1.67 ha of moderate suitability habitat and 20.4 ha of low suitability habitat in the LSA (See Figure 12.7). For the LSA this would represent a loss of 0.57% of high and moderate suitability habitat. Within the RSA a total of 9.78 ha of high and moderate suitability habitat is removed, this represents 0.12% of the high and moderate suitability habitat in the LSA. Overall high and moderate

suitability habitat for beaver is avoided by the Project Footprint in the LSA, with only 2.1% of the habitat removed being high and moderate suitability compared to 6.0% in the LSA.
Table 12-15: North American beaver Changes in Habitat Suitability by Study Area

Hydrological Changes

Construction activities have the potential to cause the destruction of North American beaver habitat through changes to groundwater and surface flows. As described in Section 11.2.2 (Results, Assessment of Effects on Vegetation and Wetlands) most of the Project RSA is wetlands, primarily peatlands susceptible to changes in the flow of surface and subsurface water resulting from the bisection of these features by roads. Changes in surface water conditions can also occur with the installation of crossing structures. Beavers can affect both groundwater and surface water due to their bio-engineering abilities. In areas where drought is occurring, beavers can maintain areas of open water up to 9-fold compared to areas where they are absent (Hood and Bayley, 2007). Beavers can also raise water tables, stabilize water temperature and maintain baseflow in areas that are drying (Dittbrenner et al., 2022), as well as in peatland areas (Karran et al., 2017). The ability to stabilize and maintain hydrology will minimize any habitat loss.
Operations
Clearing Activities
Operation of the Project is unlikely to result in additional loss of habitat through vegetation removal. Most maintenance activities will be involve managing re-growth of vegetation along the ROW within the Project Footprint and losses are accounted for in the construction phase. The loss or destruction of North American beaver habitat will persist past the operations phase of the project as it will be generally difficult to reverse due to the permanent nature of the roadway. Expansion of the quarry and any borrow pits are already accounted for as part of the construction phase, additionally these areas may become additional beaver habitat as inundated borrow pits in the boreal forest can be used extensively by beavers as foraging and overwintering sites (Scrafford et al., 2020)

Hydrological Changes

Beaver habitat loss through changes to hydrology could also potentially occur during the operations phase due to culvert and crossing structure maintenance but is unlikely. Most changes in hydrology during the operations phase will be related to culvert maintenance which in many cases will originate from beaver activity and the attempt of beavers to ameliorate or create beaver habitat which can be described as a positive hydrological change from the viewpoint of the beaver.

12.3.5.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation
There could be alterations to North American beaver habitat resulting from vegetation clearing, hydrological changes and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. The pathways or activities which may result in alteration or degradation of beaver habitat include the following:
Accidental spill during construction or operations activities → Transportation of material into wetland → Alteration and degradation of North American beaver habitat.
Construction of roadbed and crossing structures → Hydrological changes to ground or surface water → Alteration and degradation of North American beaver habitat.
Construction and operations activities cause sensory disturbances (light, noises, dust) → Sensory disturbances effect on adjacent areas → Alteration and degradation of North American beaver habitat.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Structural differences between cleared and remaining vegetation create edge effect → Alteration and degradation of North American beaver habitat.
Construction and maintenance activities → Introduction of invasive species → Alteration and degradation of North American beaver habitat.

Construction

Accidental Spills

Accidental spills and releases that occur during construction phase may result in North American beaver habitat degradation. Direct toxic exposure can lead to lethal consequences for wildlife in aquatic ecosystems (Peterson and Schulte, 2016). As ecosystem engineers influencing water flow and nutrient cycling, beavers can both diminish or exasperate the flow of pollutants in the aquatic environment (Peterson and Schulte, 2016). Boreal wetlands are often hydrologically connected through subsurface flows (Smerdon et al., 2005), resulting in large watersheds throughout which pollutants can spread. Depending on concentrations and material spilled, an accidental spill could cause death of vegetation or directly affect beaver health (Hutchinson and Freedman, 2011; Zalewski et al., 2012).

Hydrological Changes

It is widely accepted that roads can alter the hydrologic function and characteristics of peatland communities (Saraswati et al., 2020). Changes in wetland drainage patterns, resulting in lower or higher water levels, can alter the plant community (Miller et al. 2015) which could locally affect browse availability for North American beavers. As mentioned in the previous section, beavers have the ability to modify their hydrological environment including both groundwater and surface water due to their bio-engineering abilities (Hood and Bayley, 2007; Dittbrenner et al., 2022). While roads can alter the hydrologic function and characteristics of peatland communities (Saraswati et al., 2020), beavers have the ability to accomplish the same in effects peatland areas (Karran et al., 2017).
Sensory Disturbance
Sensory disturbances resulting from road construction, including movement of equipment and vehicles, noise, lighting, and other human activities may degrade habitat for moose adjacent to the Project Footprint. Sensory disturbance may be especially high during construction when activities such as blasting, quarrying, hauling and clearing may occur during all hours causing beaver to avoid the ROW and supportive infrastructure. Beavers show little response to sensory impacts from anthropogenic sources and easily adapt to industrial and urban environments where noise and light are present (Bailey et al., 2019) including the most heavily urban centres (O’Connor, 2007). While beavers do show some avoidance of humans this is primarily done by being primarily active during the crepuscular period which may be affected by construction if activities are conducted at night.

Habitat Structural Change

Changes to vegetation structure during road construction activities may alter or degrade North American beaver habitat near the Project Footprint due to vegetation clearing activities and removals. These vegetation removals may lead to edge effects, including abiotic, direct biotic, and indirect biotic effects on the habitat after the implementation of mitigation measures. It is anticipated that restoration of laydown areas and access roads will reverse some of the habitat alteration or degradation caused by road construction, but most areas will remain free of tall vegetation. Early seral vegetation associated with clearance activities can provide quality habitat for beavers (Landriault et al., 2009) due to the early dominance of deciduous shrubs and trees in many cleared riparian areas. Clear cut logging, which can be considered similar to the clearing activities for the ROW, can often results in higher densities of beaver colonies (Brunelle et al., 1989) due to preferred beaver forage.

Introduction of Invasive Species

Construction activities have the potential to introduce invasive plant species to the wetland habitats used by the North American beaver. One of the pathways of spread for invasive plants is through construction equipment. Improperly cleaned construction equipment has the potential to transport and spread invasive plants, with cleared

areas, including roads sides being susceptible to invasion (Hanen and Clevenger, 2005). Beavers through their clearing activities can increase the spread of invasive plants by opening gaps that invasive plants can take advantage of
(Velicer and Lesser, 2024). Beavers can make use of invasive plants such as phragmites for construction (Kiviat, 2013); however, while invasive plants are known to spread along transportation corridors, few invasive species have been found in naturally occurring boreal wetland habitats (Langor et al. 2014).
Operations

Accidental Spills

Similar to the effects during the construction phase, there could be effects on North American beaver habitat quality during the operations phase of the Project from accidental spills. Spills during operations would most likely originate from accidental releases from vehicles traveling to and from the community. The fate of any spill will be dependant on the volatility and viscosity of the spilled material and the soil conditions but the majority of expected spills during operations would be petrochemicals. Gasoline and diesel are lighter than water and in peatlands can be restricted in their mobility due to the properties of peatland soils (Gharedaghloo and Price, 2017) The road is forecasted to have low traffic volumes, and traffic along the roadway will be primarily personal and commercial vehicles and transport trucks associated with the community.
Hydrological Changes

Beaver habitat loss through changes to hydrology could also potentially occur during the operations phase due to culvert and crossing structure maintenance but is unlikely. The area affected would be dependent on the amount of time the culvert remains blocked as well as the size of the impounded area. Most changes in hydrology during the operations phase will be related to culvert maintenance which in many cases will originate from beaver activity and the attempt of beavers to ameliorate or create beaver habitat which can be described as a positive hydrological change from the viewpoint of the beaver.

Sensory Disturbance

Road operations may affect North American beaver habitat. During operations, most sensory impacts will be related to traffic noise, as road lighting will not be used outside of the community; however, beavers show little avoidance of roads or noise associate with roads and are not expected to alter their use of an area to avoid roads, in fact the presence of the road or culvert has been found in some studies to have a positive relationship with beaver dam locations
(Tremblay et al. 2017).

Habitat Structural Change

Habitat structural change during operations will have similar effects on North American beaver and their habitats. Maintenance activities, including removal of roadside vegetation during road operations, will create periodic disturbances and sustain edge effects along the ROW. The maintenance of early seral woody vegetation adjacent to the road will serve as food source for beavers.
Introduction of Invasive Species
The introduction and spread of noxious and invasive plant species could also occur during operations and will have similar potential effects on North American beaver habitat as during construction. While the spread of invasive plants along transportation corridors in the boreal forest has been found to be limited beyond the ROW (Langor et al. 2014), given the longer timeframe, operation of the road has the potential to have larger effects than construction in terms of habitat alteration/degradation from introduction of invasive species as repeated disturbance can maintain invasive plant populations in the boreal (Seitz et al., 2024).

12.3.5.3 Alteration in Movement
There may be alterations in North American beaver movement stemming from construction activities and operation of the road. The pathways or activities which may result in changes in wildlife movement include the following:
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Structural differences between cleared and natural vegetation act as a barrier → Alteration in movement of North American beaver.
Construction and operations activities cause sensory disturbances (light, noises, dust) → Disturbances cause avoidance response → Alteration in movement of North American beaver.
Construction

Loss of Connectivity

During construction vegetation clearing, grading activities and the use of fencing to demarcate construction areas are likely to create short-term negative physical barriers to North American beaver movement. For beaver, temporary in water works such as cofferdams for water diversion during construction of bridges and culverts could act as barriers for beaver in watercourses. Open areas such as those cleared for construction can deter beaver movement and use due to the lack of food sources and increased predation risk, although the removed area must be relatively wide at 100 m to completely deter beaver use (Curtis and Jensen, 2004). Beavers may also not cross paths/areas used by humans due to odor (Loeb et al., 2014)

Sensory Disturbance

During construction activities such as blasting, clearing, hauling and grading will create disturbances that could cause North American beaver to move out and avoid the immediate area; However, beavers show little response to sensory impacts from anthropogenic sources and easily adapt to industrial and urban environments where noise and light are present (Bailey et al., 2019). The direct presence of humans may cause beavers to alter their movements (Loeb et al., 2014) but this alteration in movement is only short-term and will stop if humans leave the area.
Operations

Loss of Connectivity

The road ROW can act as a soft barrier during operations affecting connectivity. Beavers tend to forage close to water in order to reduce predation risk. At 35 m wide the ROW will likely have some impact on the number of road crossings, but beavers will still use areas over 50 m from water. Similar to wildlife crossing structures, beavers may also use culverts to cross under the road; however, North American beavers show little avoidance of roads and are not expected to alter their movements to avoid roads. Mumma et al. (2017) found that roads and seismic lines did not impact on the distribution of beavers.

Sensory Disturbance

Road operations may affect North American beaver movement due to sensory disturbance from traffic; however, beavers have not been found to be affected by sensory disturbances like noise and light from vehicle traffic, often establishing dams and lodges near the roadbed (Jensen et al., 2001). Additionally, as nocturnal animals’ road traffic would be minimal while beavers are active.

12.3.5.4 Injury or Death
The creation of the road may lead to both direct and indirect North American beaver mortality. There could be increases in wildlife injury or death stemming from increased vehicle traffic during both construction and operation of the road, indirect mortalities arising from increased predator access and mortality due to increased human access. The pathways or activities which may result in beaver injury or death include the following:
Equipment and vehicles moving within Project Footprint → Collisions with North American beaver within Project Footprint → Injury or death of North American beaver.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Incidental encounters with Individuals or dens → Injury or death of North American beaver.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Increased access for American marten Predators → Injury or death of North American beaver.
Construction of Road → Increased access to American marten habitat by trappers → Injury or death of North American beaver.
Construction

Collisions with Vehicles
Movement of construction equipment and vehicles within the Project Footprint could result in increased death and injury of North American beaver. Roads and traffic affect a wide range of species and species groups, with mortality affecting populations, demographic structure and connectivity (Coffin et al., 2007; Moore et al., 2023). Vehicles will be travelling between camps and construction locations and encounters with beavers would not be unexpected. North American beaver may cross the road occasionally but will stay in aquatic environments if waterflow is maintained at crossings.

Incidental Take

For North American beaver, lodges and dams could be damaged during temporary in water activities associated with the construction of bridges and culvert at waterbody crossing such as dewatering or flow diversion. Dams and lodges may also need to be removed or damaged as part of clearance activities for construction of the roadbed. Unlike most other animal dwellings, beaver dams and lodges are conspicuous and are unlikely to be damaged accidentally. Beaver dwellings are covered under the Ontario Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act that prohibits damaging or destroying the den of a furbearing animal.

Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

Effects on North American beaver survival from improved predator access and movement rates is also possible within the Project Footprint during the construction phase. Linear features are known to facilitate predator movement in the boreal (Dickie et al., 2017; Benoit-Pepin et al., 2024). While predators like grey wolves often avoid areas of high human use, which will be true during construction, it is still probable that predators may use the linear features, especially more tolerant species such as bears (Ursus sp.), coyotes (Canis latrans) and lynx (Lynx canadensis), or in periods of low human use. Predators seem to have little impact on North American beaver populations, a study in the southern boreal region found wolves eliminated 40% of North American beavers from the area every year yet had little impact on North American beaver population (Gable, 2021). Similar results were found using data from Minnesota (Johnson-Bice, 2019) and Algonquin Park (Theberge and Therberge, 2004).

Increased Access

The development of the Project could result in a negative effect on the abundance of North American beaver through increased human access to habitats where beaver populations are present. Historically North American beaver have been the most trapped furbearer in North America and human activity continues to be the most important mortality factor for adults through trapping, hunting and nuisance North American beaver control (Wilson and Ruff 1999; Payne, 1984). Opening new areas to human development can often result in increased hunting and trapping (COSEWIC, 2022). Access to previously undisturbed areas introduces opportunity for increased harvesting for recreational purposes and by Indigenous communities and groups. Construction and other temporary workers may
contribute to increased harvest during construction of the Project as these workers may exploit the local area to hunt or trap during their time-off or post-shift. During construction beaver-human conflict may occur if beavers attempt to build on or near the roadbed or near crossing locations. While non-lethal trapping and relocation does occur, lethal trapping of beavers still occurs.
Operations

Collisions with Vehicles

Vehicles traveling along the road during operations could collide with North American beaver causing injury or death. During operations, the predicted maximum vehicles travelling on the road is 500 per day, with most travel anticipated to take place during daylight hours. Lower levels of control along the road during the operations phase may lead to higher numbers of beaver collisions due to higher speeds; however, collisions with beavers are relatively rare. A 20-month study in Nova Scotia along two highways recorded one beaver death (Fudge et al., 2007), while a year long study in northern New York state recorded one beaver collision (Barthelmess and Brooks, 2010), this compares to 108 and 50 porcupine collisions (Erethizon dorsatum) recorded in the same studies.

Incidental Take

Vegetation clearing in North American beaver during road operations, and/or temporary in water activities are less likely to impact on beaver and cause injury or death. While beavers may use areas adjacent to the ROW, and the ROW and water crossings may be incorporated into beaver related structures removal and damage to these structures is not considered incidental but incorporated into the section describing injury or death due to increased access.

Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

Effects on North American beaver from predator encounters are predicted to be long-term in duration as predators are known to use linear features well beyond their operational lifetime. Maintenance clearing during operations will maintain openness along the ROW which will allow predators increased access to beaver habitat exposing beaver to increased predation. While predation may increase due to improved access, predation has not been shown to influence North American beaver populations, with populations quickly responding to predation.

Increased Access

Access to North American beaver habitat will continue during operations, potentially leading to increased harvest of beaver along the corridor. Linear structures like roads are inherently risky environments to beaver as they provide opportunity for trappers to operate easily (Viau et al. 2024). The potential for harvest is also likely greater during the operations phase as it will operate over a long period of time and access will not be controlled unlike the construction phase. The issue of problem beavers is also more likely during the operations phase. Damming may flood roads and interfere with water flow through culverts and stream crossings (Curtis and Jensen, 2004). Damage to anthropogenic structures leads to the need for beaver removal which often involve lethal removal of the beavers (Taylor et al., 2017).

12.3.5.5 Threat Assessment
Each of the four potential effects categories were evaluated based on the threats assessment criteria outlined in the TISG and is based on IUCN-CMP (International Union for the Conservation of Nature–Conservation Measures Partnership) unified threat classification system, referenced from NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk (Natureserve, 2012). Threats are assessed prior to any mitigative measures being applied. The threat assessment process is generally done at the population level but can be done at a more regional level. North American beaver can have large home ranges in ranging from 10-20 ha in size, or 0.5 to
1.0 km of stream length (Touihri et al., 2018). Based on the potentially large size of the home range beaver was evaluated at the RSA level.
Scope is small for all threats to beaver as the percent of the population affected is less than 10% of the available habitat and population within the RSA.
Beaver has threat severity ratings ranging from slight to serious. The threat related to clearance activities is serious for beaver within the scope based on the high degree of habitat loss. Beaver has a severity rating of serious for accidental spills based on its semi-aquatic lifestyle and spills which can spread more easily within aquatic environments. All other severity ratings are slight. Magnitude is rated as low for all threats.
Irreversibility is high for hydrological changes and very high for vegetation removal as the roadbed will likely never be removed and such changes are challenging to reverse in short time, if ever. Irreversibility is also high for spills, loss of connectivity, invasive species, increased access and predation because while the effects can technically be reversed it would take time and considerable effort. The rest of the threats were deemed low and can be easily reversed. The degree of effect was low for all except habitat loss due to clearance activities, which was moderate.
A summary of the threat assessment for beaver habitat loss, alteration or degradation of habitat, alteration in movement, and injury or death prior to the consideration of mitigation measures, is presented in Table 12-16.
Table 12-16: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on North American beaver

12.3.6 Bats
For the purpose of the effects assessment, bats are treated as one species group as they share many similarities between roosting and foraging habitats and other life history traits, and both background data collection, scientific literature, and field data were not always sufficient to provide individual species accounts. In Northern Ontario, the bat active season, which includes the maternity roosting (breeding) period, is generally understood to occur between May 1 and August 31, after which species will either migrate or move to hibernation sites (hibernacula) (MECP, 2023).
Big Brown Bats are the most commonly encountered bat species in Ontario. Natural roosts for this species include tree cavities, such as woodpecker holes, rot holes, and knot holes, as well as caves, but also take advantage of anthropogenic structures like attics and outbuildings. This species typically migrates short distances from their summer range to overwinter (hibernate) (Thorne, 2017).
Hoary Bats exclusively roost in trees by hanging among the foliage and roosting on the surface of the bark. They migrate south to warmer climates for the winter, departing around October and returning in April (Thorne, 2017).
Silver-haired Bats roost in small colonies in cracks or hollows in tree bark. They move roosts frequently and typically require mature habitats with a high availability of roosts (Thorne, 2017). This species migrates south to warmer climates for the winter, departing by November and returning in April (Thorne, 2017).

12.3.6.1 Bat Habitat Loss
Bat habitat loss, including maternity roosting habitat and foraging habitat, may result from vegetation clearing and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. The pathway or activity which may result in loss or destruction of bat habitat during the construction and operations phases are described below.
Site preparation, vegetation clearing and roadbed construction → Permanent removal of vegetation → Loss of bat maternity roosting habitat and foraging habitat
Construction
Site preparation and construction activities would reduce the availability of suitable bat maternity roosting and foraging habitat in the LSA and Project Footprint, and most areas in the Project Footprint will be permanently removed for the duration of road operations. Quarry creation may result in destruction of bat habitat when roosting and foraging habitat is removed. The results of habitat modelling via Ecological Land Classification (refer to Section 11: Assessment of Effects on Vegetation and Wetlands), and an understanding of the Project Footprint, estimate construction activities will result in the removal of 9.22 ha of high use bat habitat in the LSA, comprised of Mixedwood Swamps (2.45 ha), Open Shore Fen/Thicket Swamp (0.02 ha), Open Shore Shrub Fen (0.83 ha) and River/Open Water (0.92 ha).
Mixedwood Swamp is rare in the RSA, typically occurring in very small pockets within a Conifer Swamp mosaic.

RSF modelling was done for bats as a species group. Figure 12.8 shows the predicted use of the RSA under existing conditions for bats. The Project Footprint was overlayed, and the underlying habitat removed. For bats, this represents a loss of approximately 1.58% of high-use habitat in the LSA and a loss of 0.34% of high-use habitat in the RSA due to road construction and operations (Table 12-17).
Table 12-17: Bat Species High-Use Habitat by Study Area

Operations
Road operations are unlikely to result in additional loss of Bat maternity roosting habitat and foraging habitat, as regular maintenance will involve managing re-growth of vegetation along the ROW within the Project Footprint. There is a very low probability that reclaimed temporary laydown areas and clearings may need to be reused during operations. While the quarries are expected to remain operational following construction, the footprints will not be expanded and as such no additional habitat loss or destruction is anticipated to occur during operations.

12.3.6.2 Bat Habitat Alteration or Degradation
Alteration or degradation of bat maternity roosting habitat and foraging habitat may result from vegetation clearing and disturbances during construction and throughout operations. Bat activity, which reflects habitat utilization, was modelled with a Poisson regression, rather than a presence/absence RSF, using the daily average number of detections
(i.e., bat activity). Details of the modelling methods are provided in the Baseline report. Poisson regression based on anticipated future disturbance effects predicts bat utilization to decrease 30.4% in the Project Footprint, decrease 11.8% in the LSA, and decrease 0.5% in the RSA (Table 12-18). Figure 12.8 shows the predicted use of the RSA under existing conditions for all bats. Figure 12.9 shows the predicted of use under future conditions. Overall, the change in habitat utilization can be attributed to habitat loss (discussed in the Habitat Loss and Destruction subsection above) and resulting habitat alteration and degradation. The pathways or activities which may result in alteration or degradation of bat habitat are described below.
Construction and operations require vegetation removal, clearing, and maintenance → Changes in moisture levels, sunlight exposure, temperature, and other abiotic and biotic habitat elements in adjacent habitats affecting vegetation height, density, and community composition → Habitat structural changes alter or degrade bat habitat
Construction activities and road operations generate noise, light, and other sensory disturbances → noise and light impair echolocation and changes prey availability → Sensory disturbances alter or degrade bat habitat
Construction of road and vegetation removals change drainage and alter soil moisture regimes → Hydrological changes to ground or surface water → Alteration and degradation of bat wetland and riparian foraging habitat
Table 12-18: Bat Species Group Habitat Use Percent Change by Study Area

Construction

Habitat Structural Change
Vegetation removals, creation of the ROW and construction of the paved and gravel road surfaces may alter or degrade bat habitat near the Project Footprint, extending into the LSA by generating edge effects that change vegetation height, density, and community composition. The ROW will be 35 m wide with a road surface spanning 12 m composed of gravel (eastern half) and asphalt or chip seal treatment (western half) (refer to Section 4.3.1: Project Description, Roadway). Edge effects from construction of the road include abiotic, direct biotic, and indirect biotic effects on the habitat.
Silver-haired Bat and Big Brown Bat have been found to have decreased activity near roads, with the effect dependent on temperature, suggesting that the construction of roads can degrade habitat for these species (Kitzes and Merenlender, 2014). In Boreal upland mixed forests, road edge effects on forest plant communities and environmental variables can be measured at the immediate edge, and changes to species composition are also evident
(Buss et al., 2024).

Sensory Disturbance
During construction, activities such as blasting at quarries/pits, earth hauling and vegetation clearing, and the use of construction lighting, may reduce the ability of bats to use habitat along the ROW and supportive infrastructure due to sensory disturbances. Noise generated by construction equipment (e.g., generators, pumps, and other motors), if occurring between dusk and dawn during the bat active season, may mask the lower frequency components of

echolocation calls (Altringham and Kerth, 2016). Construction lighting may draw insects out of woodland resulting in less prey availability for woodland-adapted bats near habitat edges (Altringham and Kerth, 2016).
Habitat Alteration/Degradation Due to Hydrological Changes
Hydrological changes during road construction from activities such as grading, installation of drainage features, and construction of the roadbed could alter soil moisture regime, and shift or alter bat wetland and riparian foraging habitat. Changes may occur to both surface and groundwater, causing flooding or drying of vegetation communities. As described in Section 11.3.3.3 (Loss or Alteration of Wetland Function), 91.82% of the project RSA is wetlands, primarily peatlands susceptible to changes in the flow of surface and subsurface water resulting from the bisection of these features by roads. The effects of roads on hydrology and bat habitat can occur up to 250 m from the ROW; the habitat alteration assessment uses the same values as those shown in Section 11.3.3.3, with high effects expected within
20 m, moderate effects within 60 m and minimal effects experienced at 250 m.

Operations
Habitat Structural Change
The edge effects on Bat habitat alteration and degradation initiated during the construction phase from vegetation clearing and changes to vegetation community structure is expected to continue during the operations phase. These vegetation changes will be maintained during road operations, but no new edge effects are expected to be generated as a result.
Sensory Disturbance
Noise and light from vehicles travelling on the road during operations may affect habitat along the ROW and supportive infrastructure. Siemers and Schaub (2011) found that traffic noise can decrease the foraging efficiency of bats by approximately 50%, decreasing proportionally with increasing proximity to highway noise.
Hydrological Changes
Operation of the road is not anticipated to result in further changes to hydrology than those initiated during the construction phase. It is possible that changes to hydrology may occur during the operations, such as accumulation of debris affecting culverts and drainage that results in localized flooding and drying of areas.

12.3.6.3 Alteration in Bat Movement
Alteration in bat movement may result from vegetation clearing and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. The pathways or activities which may result in alteration in bat movement include those described below.
Vegetation removal and clearing during construction fragments vegetated habitats → Bats avoid crossing large gaps during construction and operations → Loss of habitat connectivity alters bat movement
Construction activities and road operations generate noise, light, and other sensory disturbances → Sensory disturbances result in avoidance of area → Sensory disturbances alter bat movement
Construction

Loss of Connectivity

Bat movement is likely to be altered by construction of the road due to the fragmentation of forest habitat. It is acknowledged that forest fragmentation has been found to positively affect the abundance of Eastern Red Bat
(L. borealis) potentially due to increased access to both foraging and roosting sites (Ethier and Fahrig, 2011); however, this has not been studied in the context of Boreal Forest or roads, nor for all species such as those present in the RSA.
Sensory Disturbance
Bat movement is also likely to be altered by sensory disturbances. Noise, lighting and other human actions during construction activities such as blasting, clearing, hauling and grading will create disturbances that could alter movement of bats as they avoid the ROW and supportive infrastructure areas. Construction lighting used during the bat active season may result in woodland-adapted bats avoiding these areas, as they have been found to avoid both
high-pressure sodium and white LED lights (Stone et al. 2009, 2012; Altringham and Kerth, 2016).

Operations

Loss of Connectivity

Changes in bat movement will occur in the Project Footprint due to vegetation clearing initiated during road construction that results in habitat fragmentation and reduced connectivity. These vegetation changes will be maintained during road operations, but no new habitat fragmentation is expected to be generated as a result.
Sensory Disturbance
Bat movement will be affected by road operations due to sensory disturbances generated from road use. Bats, including Big Brown Bat and Eastern Red Bat, are less likely to fly across a road as traffic noise increases and display anti- predator behaviour in response to vehicles (Bennett and Zurcher, 2013; Zurcher et al., 2010).

12.3.6.4 Bat Injury or Death
The creation of the road may lead to both direct and indirect bat mortality. There could be increases in bat injury or death stemming from increased vehicle traffic during both construction and operation of the road, with indirect mortalities arising from increased energy expenditures and habitat change. The pathways or activities which may result in bat injury or death are described below.
Equipment and vehicles move within Project Footprint → Collisions with bats within Project Footprint → Injury/Death of bats

Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Incidental encounters with roosting bats → Injury/Death of bats
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Increased access for bat predators → Injury/Death of bats
Construction and operations of road changes habitat structure and availability and alters movement of bats → Bats increase energy expenditures to move to and from roosting and foraging habitats → Injury/Death of bats
Construction

Collisions with Vehicles
Bat injury and death may occur during construction due to collisions with construction vehicles and equipment that operate between dusk and dawn during the bat active season.
Incidental Take
Vegetation clearing in bat habitat and nearby quarry activities during road construction may result in injury or death to bats if conducted during the active season. Bats have very small body sizes, ranging from just a few centimeters to 15 cm, and can roost individually in leaf clusters, knot holes, loose bark, and cracks and crevices of trees, making them difficult to detect in their habitats. Bats roost during daylight hours, when work activities such as vegetation clearing and blasting are typically conducted. Vegetation clearing of roosting habitat has the potential to directly harm roosting bats. 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: Project Description). 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 injury or death to bats from uncontrolled projectiles if conducted in or adjacent to bat roosting habitat.
Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics
Effects on bat survival from improved predator access and movement rates created during construction is possible. Owls are recognized as predators of bats, including Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus) and Barred Owl (Strix varia); however, geographic variation of prey species in diet exists; therefore, it is unknown to what extent owls may prey on bats in the RSA. According to a meta-analysis conducted by Bishop & Brogan (2013), owls comprise the second-largest number of road-killed birds after passerines in North America, which may serve as an indication that they are not deterred from roads and may be attracted to them.
Increased Energy Expenditures
The cumulative effects of habitat loss, alteration and degradation, and alteration of movements on bats during construction will likely lead to increased efforts to travel between roosting and foraging habitats and also to successfully forage for food in habitats near the Project Footprint. Bats are known to experience oxidative damage while migrating (Constantini et al., 2019), which may be experienced to a lesser degree during the active season if nightly travel distances between habitats increases.
Operations

Collisions with Vehicles
During operations, the predicted maximum vehicles travelling on the road is 500 per day, with the majority of travel anticipated to take place during daylight hours. Mortality during the operational phase is expected to occur throughout the bat active season where flyways cross the road, such as near watercourses and upland forest habitat, in the event

that vehicles travel between dusk and dawn. In one study along a 4 km stretch of highway that bisected bat travel routes between roosts and foraging areas, it was estimated that annual highway mortality could approach 5% of the roost colony (Russel et al. 2009).
Incidental Take
Vegetation trimming in bat habitat during road operation may result in injury or death to bats if conducted during the active season. Bats have very small body sizes, ranging from just a few centimeters to 15 cm, and can roost individually in leaf clusters, knot holes, loose bark, and cracks and crevices of trees, making them difficult to detect during vegetation management.
Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics
Operation of the road may provide resources that attract predators (Hill et al., 2020), such as increased rodent populations attracting raptors. Use of the ROW during road operations by raptors can alter encounter rates with bats and lead to increased predation, directly affecting bat injury and mortality.
Increased Energy Expenditures
Bats may experience increased energy expenditures during road operations as a result of other effects such as alteration in movement due to road avoidance, improved predator access, and sensory disturbances generated by road operations.

12.3.6.5 Summary of Bats Threat Assessment
Each of the four potential effects categories were evaluated based on the threats assessment criteria outlined in the TISG and is based on IUCN-CMP unified threat classification system, referenced from NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk (NatureServe, 2012). Threats are assessed prior to any mitigative measures being applied. The threat assessment process is generally done at the population level but can be done at a more regional level. Big Brown Bat has been found to travel between 0.3 and 4.4 km between day roosts and foraging areas (Brigham, 1991), which is similar to Silver-haired Bat which may switch roosts between
0.1 and 3.4 km apart (Campbell et al., 1996). Hoary Bat, on the other hand, may have very restricted home ranges of
0.5 ha or less, sometimes using the same roost for several weeks at a time (Veilleux et al., 2009; Klug et al. 2012; Willis and Brigham, 2005). Due to the relatively small ranges maintained during the roosting period, these species were evaluated at the LSA level. These species were evaluated together as they also share many similarities in life processes and habitat requirements.
Scope is small for all threats to bats as the percent of the population effected is less than 10% of the available habitat and population within the LSA. Threat severity ratings for these species range from slight to serious. One threat related to hydrological change resulting in habitat alteration or degradation is serious because bats rely on aquatic habitats to produce much of their aerial insect prey. Clearance activities, habitat structural change, and sensory disturbances are rated as moderate, while loss of connectivity, collisions with vehicles, incidental take, changes to predator-prey dynamics, and increased energy expenditure are assessed has having slight severity. Magnitude is rated as low for all threats. Irreversibility is very high for clearance activities and high for hydrological changes as the roadbed will likely never be removed and such changes are challenging to reverse in short time, if ever. Irreversibility is also high for habitat structural change, loss of connectivity, and changes to predator-prey dynamics, as the effects can technically be reversed but would take time and considerable effort. The rest of the threats are deemed medium or low and can be more easily reversed. The degree of effect is low for all except habitat loss and destruction due to vegetation removal, which is moderate.

A summary of the threat assessment for bat habitat loss, alteration or degradation of habitat, alteration in movement, and injury or death prior to the consideration of mitigation measures, is presented in Table 12-19.
Table 12-19: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Bats

12.3.7 Forest Songbirds (Orange-crowned Warbler, Tennessee Warbler)
While each forest songbird species occupies its own ecological niche within the LSA and RSA, potential effect pathways will be similar in the context of proposed project activities for Orange-crowned Warbler and Tennessee Warbler, which are both part of the forest bird guild (i.e., “Forest Songbirds”).

12.3.7.1 Habitat Loss
Migratory Forest Songbird habitat loss, including breeding habitat and foraging habitat, may result from vegetation clearing and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. The pathway or activity which may result in loss or destruction of bird habitat during the construction and operations phases are described below.
Site preparation, vegetation clearing and roadbed construction → Permanent removal of vegetation → Loss/destruction of Migratory Forest Songbird breeding habitat and foraging habitat

Site preparation and construction activities would reduce the availability of suitable Migratory Forest Songbird breeding and foraging habitat in the LSA and Project Footprint, and most areas in the Project Footprint will be permanently removed for the duration of road operations. Quarry creation may result in destruction of Migratory Forest Songbird breeding habitat. The results of habitat modelling via Ecological Land Classification (refer to Section 11: Assessment of Effects on Vegetation and Wetlands), and an understanding of the Project Footprint, estimate construction activities will result in the removal of 81.15 ha (4.3%) of Conifer Forest, 4.21 ha (3.32%) of Mixed Forest and 1.60 ha (3.13%) of hardwood Forest in the LSA, representing approximately 4.21% of available forest songbird habitat in the LSA. Overall, suitable forest songbird habitat is uncommon throughout the study areas with 7.58% of the LSA and 7.66% of the RSA consisting of these vegetation communities.
RSF modelling was done for probability of use by both the Tennessee Warbler and Orange-crowned Warbler using ARU data. Figure 12.10 and Figure 12.11 show the predicted use in the RSA under existing conditions for Tennessee Warbler and Orange-crowned Warbler, respectively. To calculate habitat loss the Project Footprint was overlayed to the underlying habitat removed.
For Tennessee Warbler, it shows a loss of approximately 2.32% of highest-use habitat in the LSA and a loss of 0.82% of high-use habitat in the RSA due to road construction (Table 12-20). Modeled probability of use ranged from 0.0 to 0.781 with the highest quantile (highest 20%) starting at 0.101.
Table 12-20: Changes to Available Habitat for Tennessee Warbler by Study Area

For Orange-crowned Warbler, it shows a loss of approximately 2.47% of highest-use habitat in the LSA and a loss of 0.63% of high-use habitat in the RSA due to road construction (Table 12-21). Modeled probability of use ranged from
0.0 to 0.811 with the highest quantile (highest 20%) starting at 0.149.
Table 12-21: Changes to Available Habitat for Orange Crowned Warbler by Study Area

Road operations are unlikely to result in additional loss of Migratory Forest Songbird breeding habitat and foraging habitat, as regular maintenance will involve managing re-growth of vegetation along the ROW within the Project Footprint. There is a very low probability that reclaimed temporary laydown areas and clearings may need to be reused during operations. While the quarries are expected to remain operational following construction, the footprints will not be expanded and as such no additional habitat loss or destruction is anticipated to occur during operations.

12.3.7.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation
Migratory Forest Songbird habitat alteration or degradation may result from vegetation clearing and sensory disturbance during construction and throughout operations.

The pathways or activities which may result in alteration or degradation of Migratory Forest Songbird Habitat are described below:
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Structural differences between cleared and remaining vegetation create edge effect and increased early seral vegetation → Alteration and degradation of Forest Songbird habitat
Construction and operations activities cause sensory disturbances (light, noises, dust) → Sensory disturbances effect on adjacent areas → Alteration and degradation of Forest Songbird habitat
Construction activities and road operations generate barrier effects and collisions with insects increase → Insect abundance and diversity declines → Alteration and degradation of Forest Songbird foraging habitat
Construction

Habitat Structural Change

Vegetation removals, creation of the ROW and construction of the paved and gravel road surfaces may alter or degrade Migratory Forest Songbird habitat near the Project Footprint, extending into the LSA by generating edge effects that change vegetation height, density, and community composition. The ROW will be 35 m wide with a road surface spanning 12 m composed of gravel (eastern half) and asphalt or chip seal treatment (western half) (refer to
Section 4.3.1 (Project Description – Roadway). Edge effects from construction of the road include abiotic, direct biotic, and indirect biotic effects on the habitat. Forest interior neotropical migrant birds have been found to decrease in relative abundance in the presence of a 16-m wide paved road corridor (Rich et al., 1994), and even unpaved road corridors 8-10 m in width affect the distribution of forest songbirds, resulting in reduced relative abundance (Ortega and Capen, 2002), which may be attributed to alteration or degradation of habitat.

The alteration of certain areas into early successional habitat, such as construction of temporary camps, access roads and laydown areas undergoing restoration, and within the ROW during the operations phase, may create high quality habitat for some migratory forest songbird species. Hagan et al. (1997) found that early successional species will increase in managed forest landscapes; similarly, Drapeau et al. (2000) found that the abundance of bird species that occupy early successional habitats found in current and historic industrial forest landscapes is higher than in intact forest dominated by natural disturbances. Successional habitats resulting from natural regeneration or restoration of disturbed areas in conjunction with larger, natural landscapes have also been recognized as important for post-fledgling birds (Saracco et al., 2022).
RSF modeling based on future disturbance was used to predict change in use from clearing the ROW and changing existing habitat features into early seral communities (see Section 12.2.1.1 for details). For Tennessee Warbler, the project is predicted to result in a 7.8% increase of use within the Project Footprint (Table 12-22). The use of the LSA is predicted to increase while use of the RSA is expected to decrease, both small non-significant amounts. Figure 12.12 shows the probability of use for Tennessee Warbler within the RSA under future disturbance conditions.
For Orange-crowned Warbler, the Project is predicted to result in a 24.7% decrease of use within the Project Footprint.
The use of the LSA is predicted to decrease 11.4% while use of the RSA is also expected to have a small
non-significant decrease in use. Figure 12.13 shows the probability of use for Orange-crowned Warbler within the RSA under future disturbance conditions

Table 12-22: Migratory Forest Songbird Species Probability of Habitat Use Percent Change by Study Area

Sensory Disturbance

During construction, activities such as blasting at quarries/pits, earth hauling and vegetation clearing, and the use of construction lighting, may reduce the ability of Migratory Forest Songbirds to use habitat along the ROW and supportive infrastructure due to sensory disturbances. Noise generated by construction equipment (e.g., generators, pumps, and other motors), if occurring during the migratory forest songbird active season (April 1 through September 30), may degrade foraging habitat via reduced foraging efficiency (Ware et al. 2015).

Decreased Insect Availability

Construction of the road may degrade foraging habitat for migratory forest songbirds via reduced insect availability as roads are known to negatively affect the abundance and diversity of insects due to collision mortalities and barrier effects (Muñoz et al. 2015).
Operations
Habitat Structural Change
The edge effects on Migratory Forest Songbird habitat alteration and degradation initiated during the construction phase from vegetation clearing and changes to vegetation community structure is expected to continue during the operations phase. These vegetation changes will be maintained during road operations, but no new edge effects are expected to be generated as a result.
The early successional habitat created during the construction phase from vegetation clearing and regeneration is also expected to continue during the operations phase. These vegetation changes will be maintained during road operations, but no new effects are expected to be generated as a result.
Sensory Disturbance
Noisy vehicles travelling on the road during operations may affect habitat along the ROW and supportive infrastructure, if occurring during the migratory forest songbird active season (April 1 through September 30), may degrade foraging habitat via reduced foraging efficiency (Ware et al. 2015). Acoustic modeling places the 50db zone of influence at approximately 125 m beyond the Project Footprint (See Appendix J), and 50 dB is the noise level Environment and Climate Change Canada uses in their guidelines to avoid harm to migratory birds (EEEC, 2023).

Decreased Insect Availability

Operation of the road may degrade foraging habitat for migratory forest songbirds via reduced insect availability as roads are known to negatively affect the abundance and diversity of insects due to road mortality and barrier effects (Muñoz et al. 2015).

12.3.7.3 Alterations in Movement
Alteration in Migratory Forest Songbird movement may result from vegetation clearing and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. The pathways or activities which may result in alteration in Migratory Forest Songbird movement include those described below.
Vegetation removal and clearing during construction fragments vegetated habitats → Forest Songbirds avoid crossing large gaps during construction and operations → Loss of habitat connectivity alters Forest Songbird movement

Construction activities and road operations generate noise, light, and other sensory disturbances → Sensory disturbances result in avoidance of area → Sensory disturbances alter Forest Songbird movement
Construction

Loss of Connectivity
Migratory Forest Songbird movement is likely to be altered by construction of the road due to the fragmentation of forest habitat. Forest songbird species considered to be habitat generalists, such as White-throated Sparrow and Dark-eyed Junco may be less affected, but forest gaps 25-40 m wide have been demonstrated to reduce the probability of forest bird species of crossing in response to territorial intruders including Swainson’s Thrush, Golden-crowned Kinglet and Black-throated Green Warbler (Rail et al., 1997). Gaps in the Boreal Forest affect forest songbirds variably, impeding movement of some species, such as Yellow-rumped Warbler, while facilitating the movement of others, such as
Red-breasted Nuthatch, which may be more disturbance tolerant (Bélisle and St. Clair, 2001).

Sensory Disturbance
Migratory Forest Songbird movement is also likely to be altered by sensory disturbances. Noise, lighting and other human actions during construction activities such as blasting, clearing, hauling and grading may create disturbances that could alter movement of Migratory Forest Songbirds as they avoid the ROW and supportive infrastructure areas. For example, traffic noise playback has been found to reduce abundance of forest songbirds (McClure et al., 2013) which may indicate they avoid areas with anthropogenic disturbances.
Operations
Loss of Connectivity
Changes in Migratory Forest Songbird movement may occur in the Project Footprint due to vegetation clearing initiated during road construction that results in habitat fragmentation and reduced connectivity. These vegetation changes will be maintained during road operations, but no new habitat fragmentation is expected to be generated as a result.
Sensory Disturbance
Migratory Forest Songbird movement may be affected by road operations due to sensory disturbances generated from road use. Some migratory boreal forest songbird species have been found to be attracted to traffic noise playback
(7 to 40 vehicles per minute) during the breeding season over spatial scales of 20 to 40 m (Hennigar et al. 2019), while traffic noise playback (12 vehicles per minute) during the migratory period has been found to significantly reduce abundance of forest songbirds (McClure et al. 2013).

12.3.7.4 Injury or Death
The creation of the road may lead to both direct and indirect Migratory Forest Songbird mortality. There could be increases in injury or death stemming from increased vehicle traffic during both construction and operation of the road, with indirect mortalities arising from increased energy expenditures and habitat change. The pathways or activities which may result in Migratory Forest Songbird injury or death are described below.
Equipment and vehicles move within Project Footprint → Collisions with Migratory Forest Songbirds within Project Footprint → Injury/Death of Migratory Forest Songbirds
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Incidental encounters with Migratory Forest Songbird nests → Injury/Death of Migratory Forest Songbirds

Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Increased access for Migratory Forest Songbird predators → Injury/Death of Migratory Forest Songbirds
Construction

Collisions with Vehicles
Migratory Forest Songbird injury and death may occur during construction due to collisions with construction vehicles and equipment that operate during the bird active season. Collisions between birds and vehicles are common in Canada, with passerines accounting for 65.1% of mortalities (Bishop and Brogan, 2013).
Incidental Take
Vegetation clearing in Migratory Forest Songbird habitat and nearby quarry activities during road construction may result in injury or death to birds, hatchlings, and/or eggs, if conducted during the active season. Vegetation clearing of breeding habitat has the potential to directly harm nests with eggs or hatchlings. Tennessee Warblers typically build small (8 cm diameter) nests on the ground in Sphagnum moss hummocks or at the base of small trees (Rimmer and McFarland, 2020), while Orange-crowned Warblers build similarly sized nests on or near the ground in small crevices or depressions on shady slopes, sheltered by overhanging vegetation, or in shrubby bushes, ferns, or trees (Gilbert et al. 2020). The characteristics of migratory forest songbird nests can make them difficult to detect. Additionally, 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: Project Description). 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 injury or death to Migratory Forest Songbirds from uncontrolled projectiles if conducted in or adjacent to breeding habitat.
Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics
Effects on Migratory Forest Songbird survival from improved predator access and movement rates created during construction is possible. Possible nest predators of Tennessee Warblers include Canada Jay, Red Squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), American Marten, weasels (Mustela sp.), Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis) and Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) (Rimmer and McFarland, 2020). Canada Jay (Perisoreus canadensis) is well
documented as a major nest predator in boreal forest, commonly taking eggs and nestlings from both ground and tree nesting songbirds (Strickland and Oullet, 2020). Ibarzabal and Desrochers (2004) found that during the egg and nestling period of most songbirds, Canada Jays were closely associated with forest edges, and they spent more time searching along forest edges than the interior. Sharp-shinned Hawks, known to prey on Orange-crowned Warblers (Gilbert et al. 2020), will hunt from forest edges (Bildstein et al., 2020).
Operations

Collisions with Vehicles
During operations, the predicted maximum vehicles travelling on the road is 500 per day, with the majority of travel anticipated to take place during daylight hours. Mortality during the operational phase is expected to occur throughout the bird active season, particularly near breeding and foraging habitat. Collisions with vehicles is among the top three causes of bird mortalities in Canada (Calvert et al., 2013). In coniferous-dominated Canadian landscapes with
low-volume roads, it has been estimated that more than 14,000 birds are killed annually due to collisions with vehicles, or approximately one bird every 3 km per year (Bishop and Brogan, 2013). Passerines by far comprise the largest order of avian casualties attributed to collisions with vehicles in Canada, at 65.1% of mortalities (Bishop and Brogan, 2013). Woodland birds that forage on the bark and in foliage of trees and shrubs have been found to be most vulnerable to road mortality (Santos et al., 2016).

Incidental Take
Vegetation trimming in Migratory Forest Songbird habitat during road operation may result in injury or death to birds, hatchlings, and/or eggs if conducted during the active season. The characteristics of migratory forest songbird nests can make them difficult to detect during vegetation management.
Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics
Operation of the road may provide resources that attract predators (Hill et al., 2020), such as increased rodent populations attracting raptors. Use of the ROW during road operations by raptors can alter encounter rates with Migratory Forest Songbirds and lead to increased predation, directly affecting injury and mortality.

12.3.7.5 Threat Assessment
Each of the four potential effects categories were evaluated based on the threats assessment criteria outlined in the TISG and is based on IUCN-CMP (International Union for the Conservation of Nature–Conservation Measures Partnership) unified threat classification system, referenced from NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk (Natureserve, 2012). Threats are assessed prior to any mitigative measures being applied. The threat assessment process is generally done at the population level but can be done at a more regional level. No quantitative data exists on territory size for Tennessee Warbler but territories may be closely packed. For Orange-Crowned Warbler territory size is small, around 2 ha. Based on this, the LSA was deemed the most appropriate scale for the assessment.
Scope is small for all threats except sensory disturbance as the percent of the population effected is less than 10% of the available habitat and population within the LSA. For sensory disturbances, the disturbance can affect a considerable proportion of the LSA.
Severity of the threats ranges from slight to serious: threats related to loss by vegetation removals are serious as within the scope based on the high degree of habitat loss; sensory disturbances are rated as moderate due to the avoidance of roads by forest songbirds as are changes to habitat structure and incidental take; all other threats are rated slight.
Magnitude is rated as low for all threats except sensory disturbance.
Irreversibility is high for structural changes and very high for vegetation remove as the roadbed will likely never be removed but structural changes could be restored but it would take time and considerable effort. Incidental take, collisions and changes to predator prey dynamics could be restored with a reasonable commitment of resources so are rated medium. The rest of the threats were deemed low and can be easily reversed. The degree of effect was low for all except habitat loss through clearing activities which was moderate.
A summary of the threat assessment for forest songbird habitat loss, alteration or degradation of habitat, alteration in movement, and injury or death prior to the consideration of mitigation measures, is presented in Table 12-23.

Table 12-23: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Forest Songbirds

12.3.8 Wetland Songbirds (Palm Warbler, Alder Flycatcher)
While each species occupies its own ecological niche within the LSA and RSA, potential effect pathways will be similar in the context of proposed project activities for Alder Flycatcher and Palm Warbler, which are both part of the Bog, Fen and Other Wetland Birds guild (i.e., “Wetland Songbirds”).

12.3.8.1 Habitat Loss
Wetland songbird habitat loss may result from vegetation clearing vegetation clearing, hydrological changes and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. These losses could be to both foraging and breeding habitats. The pathways or activities which may result in loss or destruction of wetland songbird habitat include the following:
Site preparation and vegetation clearing and ground disturbance → Loss of wetland songbird habitat.
Construction of roadbed and crossing structures → Hydrological changes to ground or surface water → Loss of wetland songbird habitat.
Construction

Habitat Loss due to Clearance Activities

The construction of the road has the potential for direct and indirect effects that could cause the loss of wetland songbird habitat through physical alteration and removal of suitable habitat.

In the eastern and northern boreal, Palm Warbler is heavily associated with black spruce habitats, including sparse treed bogs and fens along with shrubby semi-open environments (BSI, 2024). Based on an understanding of Palm Warbler habitat preferences, the results of habitat modelling for Ecological Land Classification (refer to Section 11: Assessment of effects on Vegetation and Wetlands), were used to estimate removals of preferred habitat during construction. Predicted construction activities will result in the removal of 60.68 ha (1.13%) of Low Treed Bog, 29.62 ha (1.04%) of Sparse Treed Bog, 43.47 ha (1.55%) of Sparse Treed Fen, and 1.38 ha (0.25%) of Organic Poor Fen in the LSA, representing approximately 1.16% of the most suitable Palm Warbler habitat in the LSA. Overall, suitable Palm Warbler habitat is common throughout the study areas with 42.02% of the LSA and 48.50% of the RSA consisting of these vegetation communities.
Resource Selection Functions (RSFs) modelling was also done for probability of use for Palm Warbler using ARU data. Figure 12.14 show the probability of use for Palm Warbler within the RSA under existing conditions. When the Project Footprint is overlayed it shows a loss of approximately 0.94% of highest-use habitat in the LSA and a loss of 0.16% of high-use habitat in the RSA due to road construction (Table 12-24). Modeled probability of use ranged from 0.0 to 0.834 % with the highest quantile (highest 20%) starting at 0.596.
Table 12-24: Changes to Available Habitat for Palm Warbler by Study Area

In the northern boreal, Alder Flycatcher is associated with riparian habitats, including the edges of swamps bogs and ponds and creeks in alder and birch thickets (BSI, 2024). Based on an understanding of Alder Flycatcher habitat preferences, the results of habitat modelling for Ecological Land Classification (refer to Section 11), were used to estimate removals of preferred habitat during construction. Predicted construction activities will result in the removal of,
6.88 ha (0.84%) of Riparian/Shore Communities, and 1.98 ha (4.14%) of Thicket Swamp in the LSA, representing approximately 1.01% of the most suitable Alder Flycatcher habitat in the LSA. Overall, the most suitable Alder Flycatcher habitat is somewhat rare throughout the study areas with 3.14% of the LSA and 3.78% of the RSA consisting of these vegetation communities.
Resource Selection Functions (RSFs) modelling was also done for probability of use for the Alder Flycatcher using ARU data. Figure 12.15 show the probability of use for Alder Flycatcher within the RSA under existing conditions. When the Project Footprint is overlayed it shows a loss of approximately 1.41% of highest-use habitat in the LSA and a loss of 0.26% of high-use habitat in the RSA due to road construction (Table 12-25). Modeled probability of use ranged from
0.0 to 0.922 with the highest quantile (highest 20%) starting at 0.478.

Table 12-25: Changes to Available Habitat for Alder Flycatcher by Study Area

Hydrological Changes

Construction activities have the potential to cause the destruction of wetland songbird habitat through changes to groundwater and surface flows. In terms of groundwater, project construction may lead to changes in the local hydrogeological environment by increasing, decreasing or redirecting groundwater flows. Road construction in particular can alter subsurface flows in peatlands changing the hydrology long-term (Waddington et al. 2014). Changes in surface water conditions can also occur with the installation of crossing structures. Such changes are generally concentrated downstream of the effect but can also take place on the upstream side if channel restriction causes water impoundment which can cause death of vegetation (Bocking et al., 2017). Both Alder Flycatcher and Palm Warbler could be affected by hydrological changes. Given Alder Flycatcher’s preference for habitats near water, death of riparian vegetation could lead to loss of nesting habitat. For Palm Warbler, as a ground nester changes in water table levels could lead to the loss of nesting habitat.
Operations

Clearing Activities

Operation of the roadway is unlikely to result in additional loss of Alder Flycatcher and Palm Warbler habitat through vegetation removal. Most maintenance activities will be involve managing re-growth of vegetation along the ROW within the Project Footprint and are accounted for in the construction phase. There is a very low probability that reclaimed temporary laydown areas and clearings may need to be reused during operations, but it is predicted that these effects would be short-term and of limited size. Quarries will remain operational following construction as additional material may be needed for maintenance activities; however, no additional habitat loss or destruction is anticipated to occur as the footprints will not be expanded during operations.

Hydrological Changes

Alder Flycatcher and/or Palm Warbler habitat loss through changes to hydrology could also potentially occur during the operations phase due to culvert and crossing structure maintenance. Culverts and other crossings could become partially or fully blocked from sediment or beaver activity. If culvert maintenance is ignored, given sufficient time,
death of vegetation and loss of habitat could occur near the roadway (Bocking et al., 2017). Alder Flycatcher are known to nest near roads (OBBA, 2005) and have a roadside bias (Matsuoka et al. 2011) which may make them more susceptible to habitat loss than Palm Warblers, which are more likely encountered away from roads (Matsuoka et al. 2011).

Legend:
• Project Footprint
Wildlife Local Study Area (LSA 1km from Preferred Route)
Wildlife Regional Study Area (RSA 5km from either

NOTES

WEB,EOUIE
SUPPLY ROAD

Webequie Supply Road

side of LSA boundary) Relative Probability of Use
0.000 – 0.295
0.295 – 0.379

1 C0¢1�Sl’$IClm t-u\O 198�UTM ZCl’lt UIN
2 Ced.!stral�OOBiJ19S8f9IOJin10JTIIMOOIIIP’JIJ)058S�l!!l�shouklnoll:,eC0flSlderedSllC!lbklioileoal,

;,.���OCl&lnedfN,rtiCMl\/&e.vl2Dd.!IIM4lt.,t-lllll.Jrl!IIRl!IMlta�CMl!ldal:;illllliflnd
�M-StelorC..-itiu fi;a-TopQg11!1f1111C1•rnnl.ll;a’l,,r,rld.lllllid ll’1ormi,111ion0nl(J�(\JO)Wor�O.,.., Oilll)
(hU,p-51/990001:i 11o poo.cai), Oritaoo Ml115lrl’ ol f-lE..llrat Re:sot.-ar.i 1111d F<ns.11’1′ {OWIRFJ
,4 Saf’ne• L8� CtddU f;M\h�IM ��

DISCLAIMER

RSF Modeling for Palm Warbler based on Probability of Use Under Existing Conditions

Figure Number: 12-14 REV: PA

12.3.8.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation
There may be alterations to wetland bird habitat resulting from vegetation clearing, hydrological changes and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. The pathways or activities which may result in alteration or degradation of wetland bird habitat include the following:
Accidental spill during construction or operations activities → Transportation of material into wetland → Alteration and degradation of Alder Flycatcher and/or Palm Warbler habitat.
Construction of roadbed and crossing structures → Hydrological changes to ground or surface water → Alteration and degradation of Alder Flycatcher and/or Palm Warbler habitat.
Construction and operations activities cause sensory disturbances (light, noises, dust) → Sensory disturbances effect on adjacent areas → Alteration and degradation of Alder Flycatcher and/or Palm Warbler habitat.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Structural differences between cleared and remaining vegetation create edge effect and increased early seral vegetation → Alteration and degradation of Alder Flycatcher and/or Palm Warbler habitat.
Construction and maintenance activities → Introduction of invasive species → Alteration and degradation of Alder Flycatcher and/or Palm Warbler habitat.
Construction

Accidental Spills

Accidental spills and releases that occur during construction phase may result in Alder Flycatcher or Palm Warbler habitat degradation. Boreal wetlands are often hydrologically connected through subsurface flows (Smerdon et al., 2005), resulting in large watersheds throughout which pollutants can spread. Depending on concentrations and material spilled, an accidental spill could cause death of vegetation, lower productivity and alter the vegetation community (Hutchinson and Freedman, 2011; Lednev et al., 2023).

Hydrological Changes

It is widely accepted that roads can alter the hydrologic function and characteristics of peatland communities (Saraswati et al., 2020). Potential changes in surface water drainage patterns and increases or decreases in flows and surface water levels in waterbodies, as well as changes to groundwater, are described in detail in Sections 7 and 8.
Peatlands, which make up the majority of vegetative communities in the Project Area are susceptible to changes in the flow of surface and subsurface water resulting from the bisection of these features by roads. These changes can be extensive: a study within boreal fens in Alberta found pronounced differences in canopy cover up to 250 m from road edges in both rich and poor treed fens (Willier et al., 2022). Changes in wetland drainage patterns, resulting in lower or higher water levels, can alter the plant community (Miller et al. 2015). Drying areas can have increases in tree and shrub biomass while flooded areas may have corresponding losses (Miller et al. 2015). In areas where ground water levels rise, the availability of nesting locations for ground nesters, like Palm Warbler, may decrease.
Sensory Disturbance
Sensory disturbances resulting from road construction, including movement of equipment and vehicles, noise, lighting, and other human activities may degrade habitat for Alder Flycatcher or Palm Warbler adjacent to the Project Footprint, reducing utilization of the area or masking vocalizations related to courtship or alarm calling (Zhou et al. 2024).
Construction noise is less continuous and more impulsive than traffic noise so habituation to the noise would not be

likely in most cases. While direct research on wetland bird response to impulsive noise is lacking, research on shorebird response to impulsive noise showed area abandonment by birds at high decibel levels (Wright et al. 2010). While human disturbance effects on Alder Flycatcher have not specifically been measured, noise disturbance has been shown to reduce abundance in some species of flycatcher (Francis et al., 2021), and reproductive success in others (Mulholland et al., 2018). Light pollution can alter songbird singing occurrence (Da Silva et al., 2015) and egg laying (Senszaki et al., 2020), which may alter reproductive success; this is species and habitat dependant with species in open habitats more effected than those in forested habitats. Insectivorous species with good lowlight eyesight could be using artificial light to hunt more effectively (Senszaki et al., 2020) and while Alder Flycatcher has not been specifically studied, other flycatcher species have been found to use artificial light for foraging (Frey, 1993).

Habitat Structural Change

Changes to vegetation structure during road construction activities may alter or degrade wetland songbird habitat near the Project Footprint due to vegetation clearing activities and removals. These vegetation removals may lead to edge effects, including abiotic, direct biotic, and indirect biotic effects on the habitat after the implementation of mitigation measures. It is anticipated that restoration of laydown areas and access roads will reverse some of the habitat alteration or degradation caused by road construction, but most areas will remain free of tall vegetation.
The edge effect on Alder Flycatcher and Palm Warbler is likely relatively low due vegetation structure of their preferred wetland communities. Alder Flycatchers use habitat edges where riparian communities meet swamps, bogs and waterbodies (BSI, 2024) and can be found using shrub communities adjacent to roads (OBBA, 2005). Alder Flycatchers can often benefit from increased disturbance, with higher densities in more disturbed areas (Mahon et al. 2019).
Palm Warbler have been found to use shrubby and early seral vegetation found along wider linear features (Kalukapuge et al. 2024) but this may not hold for roadsides as Palm Warbler have been shown to have some avoidance (Matsuoka et al., 2011).
RSF modeling based on future disturbance was used to predict change in use from clearing the ROW and changing existing habitat features into early seral communities (see Section 12.2.1.1 for details). For Palm Warbler, the Project is predicted to result in a 29.62% increase of use within the Project Footprint. The use of the LSA is predicted to increase 10.49% while use of the RSA is expected to increase a small amount. Figure 12.16 shows the probability of use for Palm Warbler within the RSA under future disturbance conditions. For Alder Flycatcher, the Project is predicted to result in a 18.49% increase of use within the Project Footprint. The use of the LSA is predicted to increase 4.66% while use of the RSA is also expected to have a small increase in use. Figure 12.17 shows the probability of use for Alder Flycatcher within the RSA under future disturbance conditions.
Table 12-26: Wetland Songbird Probability of Habitat Use Percent Change by Study Area

Introduction of Invasive Species

Construction activities have the potential to introduce invasive plant species to the wetland habitats used by Alder Flycatcher or Palm Warbler. One of the pathways of spread for invasive plants is through construction equipment. Improperly cleaned construction equipment has the potential to transport and spread invasive plants, with cleared areas, including roads sides being susceptible to invasion (Hanen and Clevenger, 2005). The use of contaminated seed mixes in restoration efforts is also a pathway for invasive plants to establish in an area (Houghen et al. 2012). Once established in a new habitat, most invasive species are nearly impossible to eradicate (Pimentel et al. 2005).
Once established, invasive plant species can affect multiple ecosystem aspects including structure, diversity and function (CFIA, 2008); however, while invasive plants are known to spread along transportation corridors, few invasive species have been found in naturally occurring boreal wetland habitats used by Alder Flycatcher and Palm Warbler (Langor et al. 2014) with most invasive wetland species found well to the south of the project area (EDDMAps, 2024).
Operations

Accidental Spills

Similar to the effects during the construction phase, there could be effects to wetland songbird habitat quality during the operations phase of the Project from accidental spills, which may result in Alder Flycatcher and Palm Warbler habitat degradation. Spills during operations would most likely originate from accidental releases from vehicles traveling to and from the community. The road is forecasted to have low traffic volumes, and traffic along the roadway will be primarily personal and commercial vehicles and transport trucks associated with the community. While estimate frequency of spills is low (0.00000019 spills per mile, or 0.00000012 spills per kilometer [Harwood and Russell, 1990]), its predicted that minor spills and release are possible.

Hydrological Changes

Changes to hydrology could also occur during the operations phase due to culvert and crossing structure maintenance. Localized changes to hydrology could occur if culvert maintenance along the road is ignored, either in terms of repairs to the structure or removal of accumulated debris. The area affected would be dependent on the amount of time the culvert remains blocked as well as the size of the impounded area. Given sufficient time, Alder Flycatcher and
Palm warbler habitat could be altered or degraded.

Sensory Disturbance

Road operations may affect Olive-sided Flycatcher and Rusty Blackbird habitat. During operations, most sensory effects will be related to traffic noise, which has been found to degrade bird habitat either through complete avoidance of areas near roads or decreased habitat value (Ware et al. 2015; Summers et al. 2011). Declines in densities of some songbird species have been shown to occur at a threshold around 45-48 dB (Sadlowski, 2011). Acoustic modeling places the 50db zone of influence at approximately 125 m beyond the Project Footprint (See Appendix J), and 50 dB is the noise level Environment and Climate Change Canada uses in their guidelines to avoid harm to migratory birds (EEEC, 2023). Noise from vehicles has been found to reduce bird vocalization, which could affect behaviour related to foraging, mating and predator avoidance (Cretois et al., 2023). While Palm Warbler has been found at lower densities near roads compared to areas away from roads (Matsuoka et al., 2011), Alder Flycatcher is known to use areas near roads (OBBA, 2005). While lighting along roads is a major sensory disturbance for birds, the WSR road will not have lighting except near the community limiting its effects.

Habitat Structural Change

Habitat structural change during operations will have similar effects on Alder Flycatcher, Palm Warbler and their habitats. While it is anticipated that restoration of laydown areas and access roads will reverse some of the habitat alteration or degradation caused by road construction, maintenance activities, including removal of roadside vegetation during road operations, will create periodic disturbances and sustain edge effects along the ROW. For Alder Flycatcher especially this could have positive effects as they are known to have positive habitat relationships with transportation corridors (ABMI, 2023)

Introduction of Invasive Species

The introduction and spread of noxious and invasive plant species could also occur during operations and will have similar potential effects on Alder Flycatcher and Palm habitat. Transportation corridors are avenues of dispersal for invasive plants (Langor et al. 2014), and given the longer timeframe, operation of the road has the potential to spread aquatic as well as terrestrial invasive plants into the project area. The introduction of riparian species such as Phragmites australis australis (European Common Reed) could potentially alter Alder Flycatcher habitat but given the current northern range limits of most invasive plants in Ontario, the potential for establishment could be limited.

12.3.8.3 Alterations in Wetland Bird Movement
There may be alterations in wetland songbird movement stemming from construction activities and operation of the road. The pathways or activities which may result in changes in wildlife movement include the following:
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Structural differences between cleared and natural vegetation act as a barrier → Alteration in movement of wetland Alder Flycatcher and/or Palm Warbler.
Construction and operations activities cause sensory disturbances (light, noises, dust) → Disturbances cause avoidance response → Alteration in movement of Alder Flycatcher and/or Palm Warbler.
Construction

Loss of Connectivity

Gaps in cover created by anthropogenic activities are known to impede movement of birds but is species- and habitat- dependant (Desrochers and Hannon, 1997; Grubb and Doherty, 1999). Bird species that have shown reluctance to cross gaps like those created by roads are generally forest species where the road creates a distinctive edge between the road and preferred habitats, with larger gaps acting as a greater barrier (Grubb and Doherty, 1999). While wetland songbirds have not been studied to the same degree, birds in treed swamps and bogs are likely to respond similarly. Lack of gap crossing is especially true for small birds which are more likely to be impeded by the changes in vegetation structure (Johnson et al. 2017). While Palm Warbler uses shrubby semi-open areas like road verges, there is the potential for fragmented areas by roads to act as a barrier to movement as some avoidance of roads has been detected. For Alder Flycatcher fragmentation likely has a low effect as the species commonly uses habitat edges and gaps including roadsides (OBBA, 2005).

Sensory Disturbance

Alder Flycatcher and Palm Warbler movement is likely to be altered by sensory disturbances associated with Project construction and operations activities. Noise, lighting and other human actions during construction activities such as blasting, clearing, hauling and grading will create disturbances that could alter movement of Alder Flycatcher and Palm Warbler as they avoid the project ROW and supportive infrastructure. Unlike sensory disturbances in the operations phase, many of these disturbances will be abrupt, and occur randomly and at different locations. While no studies

specifically examining wetland songbirds were found, multiple bird species have been found to respond behaviourally to sudden, loud noises by abandoning the area near the disturbance and varied in their rate of return (Wright et al. 2010; Delaney et al. 2011). Anthropogenic light may also affect bird movement as evidence shows it can be both a deterrent (Read, 1999) and an attractant (Gauthreux et al., 2006), especially for insectivores that may forage for insects around the artificial lights (Lebbin et al., 2007).
Operations

Loss of Connectivity

As was the case during the construction phase, alteration in movement due to loss of connectivity may occur during road operation. Maintenance activities will maintain vegetation in an early seral state; however, like during the construction phase, avoidance of these areas may be minimal for Alder Flycatcher as they prefer more open habitats including anthropogenically disturbed sites while Palm Warbler may show some crossing avoidance.

Sensory Disturbance

Vehicle noise is anticipated be the primary sensory effect on Olive-sided Flycatcher and/or Rusty Blackbird during operations. Traffic noise has been found to lower abundance and promote avoidance in many in many bird species (McClure et al. 2013). High-traffic roads have been shown to affect bird distribution when noise exceeded 56 dB (Hirvonen, 2001). While lighting along roads is a major sensory disturbance for birds, the Project will not have lighting except near the community, limiting its effect.

12.3.8.4 Wildlife Injury or Death
The construction of the road may lead to both direct and indirect wetland bird mortality. There may be increases in wetland bird injury or death stemming from increased vehicle traffic during both construction and operation of the Project, with indirect mortalities arising from increased energy expenditures and habitat change. The pathways or activities that may result in wetland songbird injury or death include the following:
Equipment and vehicles moving within Project Footprint → Collisions with wetland songbirds within Project Footprint → Injury or Death of Alder Flycatcher and/or Palm Warbler.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Incidental encounters with Individuals or nests → Injury or Death of Alder Flycatcher and/or Palm Warbler.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Increased access for wetland songbirds predators → Injury or Death of Alder Flycatcher and/or Palm Warbler.
Construction

Collisions with Vehicles
Movement of construction equipment and vehicles within Project Footprint could result in increased death and injury of Alder Flycatcher and Palm Warbler. Collisions with vehicles is among the top three causes of bird mortalities in Canada (Calvert et al., 2013). Vehicles will travel between camps and construction locations; these trips could occur at all hours and encounters with birds would not be unexpected. Bird mortality from vehicle collisions is often related to travel speed of the vehicle as birds use distance as a threat estimate and can misjudge the closing distance between themselves and the vehicle, resulting in collision (DeVault et al. 2016). Wetland songbirds that forage and fly low from shrub to shrub have been found to be highly vulnerable to road mortality (Santos et al., 2016). Both Alder Flycatcher and Palm Warbler catch insects on the flight. Palm Warbler may be more susceptible to collisions as it spends more time foraging on the ground compared to the Alder Flycatcher.

Incidental Take

Vegetation clearing in Alder Flycatcher and Palm Warbler habitat during road construction, and/or movement of equipment/vehicles though vegetated areas, may result in injury or death to birds, hatchlings, and/or eggs if management of vegetation is carried out during the breeding season, even after mitigation measures have been applied. The characteristics of wetland songbird nests can make them difficult to detect. Alder Flycatcher typically place their nest low in thick shrubs, typically around 60cm off the ground (OBBA, 2005; Lowther, 2020). Palm Warbler are ground nesting with their nest concealed under small conifers or shrubs (Peck and James 1987). Given the cryptic nature of their nests, incidental take is possible.

Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

Effects on Rusty blackbird and Olive-sided Flycatcher survival from improved predator access and movement rates is possible during the construction phase. Linear features are known to facilitate predator movement in the boreal (Dickie et al., 2017; Benoit-Pepin et al., 2024) and creation of new roads connected to human activity is known to spread predators into previously unoccupied areas (Lantham et al. 2011). Little information exists on predators for
Alder flycatcher, although Red Squirrel is documented and predation by hawks and corvids is likely, many of which use edge habitats (Ibarzabal and Desrochers, 2004; Robertson and Hutto, 2007; Bildstein et al., 2020). For Palm Warblers, Gray Jays and Short-tailed Weasels have been reported as predators (Wilson 2013) although little is known. Both Palm Warblers and Alder flycatchers are sometimes parasitized by Brown-headed Cowbirds (Stoleson, 2010; Wilson 2020); however, no Brown-headed Cowbirds (Molothrus ater) were recorded during the baseline studies.
Operations

Collisions with Vehicles

Vehicle travel during operations will likely cause injury or death to Alder Flycatcher and Palm Warbler as collisions with vehicles is among the top three causes of bird mortalities in Canada (Calvert et al., 2013). Along low-volume forest roads in Canada, it has been estimated that more than 14,000 birds are killed annually due to collisions with vehicles, or approximately one bird every 3 km per year (Bishop and Brogan, 2013), this number is likely vastly underreported for small birds due to their size and scavenging. As in the construction phase, if present near the road, Palm Warbler are more likely to suffer a collision than Alder Flycatcher because of their foraging behaviours; however, they have shown some road avoidance which may make their presence less likely near the road.

Incidental Take

Vegetation clearing in Alder Flycatcher and Palm Warbler habitat is also scheduled to occur during operations as both species use habitat openings and edges. Though smaller in scale, periodic clearing of the ROW may occur during operations as part of line-of-sight maintenance or infrastructure repairs. If maintenance occurs during the breeding season, nests, eggs and individuals could be injured, destroyed, or killed. Rusty Blackbird nests are usually well concealed in small trees which would make them vulnerable to maintenance activities. Both Alder Flycatcher and Palm Warbler nest in early seral habitat which would make them vulnerable to maintenance activities.
Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics
Effects on from predator encounters are predicted to be long-term in duration as predators are known to use linear features well beyond their operational lifetime. Maintenance clearing during operations will maintain openness along the ROW which will allow predators increased access to wetland areas near the road exposing Alder Flycatcher and
Palm Warbler to increased predation. While some studies have found a positive effect on bird survival due to roads and resulting predator avoidance of roads, it is often attributed to higher levels of human presence (Singer et al. 2020), which given the low traffic levels is unlikely for this Project.

12.3.8.5 Threats Assessment
Each of the four potential effects categories were evaluated based on the threats assessment criteria outlined in the TISG and is based on IUCN-CMP (International Union for the Conservation of Nature–Conservation Measures Partnership) unified threat classification system, referenced from NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk (Natureserve, 2012). Threats are assessed prior to any mitigative measures being applied. The threat assessment process is generally done at the population level but can be done at a more regional level. Alder Flycatcher have small territories 0.2-3 ha in size and Palm Warbler have breeding territories that are approximately 4 ha in size, based on this the LSA was deemed the most appropriate scale for the assessment.
Scope is small for all threats to both Alder Flycatcher and Palm Warbler except for hydrological and sensory effects where the scope is restricted.
Both species have threat severity ratings ranging from slight to serious. The two threats related to vegetation removals are serious for both species as well, as within the scope based on the high degree of habitat loss and alteration, hydrologic loss is rated as severe for Palm Warbler because of its ground nesting behavior while Alder Flycatcher rates as moderate.
Hydrologic alteration, predation and spills are rated as moderate for both Olive-sided Flycatcher and Rusty Blackbird. Palm Warbler has a severity rating of moderate for sensory disturbances and connectivity while Alder Flycatcher has a rating of slight. The difference is based on the evidence of road avoidance for Rusty Blackbird. All other severity ratings are slight. Magnitude is rated as low for all threats except for hydrological loss and alteration.
For both Alder Flycatcher and Palm Warbler the irreversibility ratings are the same. Irreversibility is high for hydrological changes and very high for vegetation removal as the roadbed will likely never be removed and such changes are challenging to reverse in short time, if ever. Irreversibility is also high for spills, edge effects, invasive species, and predation because while the effects can technically be reversed it would take time and considerable effort. The rest of the threats were deemed low and can be easily reversed. The degree of effect was low for all except habitat loss due to clearance activities and hydrological changes, both of which were moderate.
A summary of the threat assessment for Alder Flycatcher habitat loss, alteration or degradation of habitat, alteration in movement, and injury or death prior to the consideration of mitigation measures, is presented in Table 12-27, and the summary for Palm Warbler is presented in Table 12-28.
Table 12-27: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Alder Flycatcher

Table 12-28: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Palm Warbler

12.3.9 Waterfowl (Canada Goose, Mallard)
12.3.9.1 Habitat Loss
There may be waterfowl habitat loss resulting from vegetation clearing, hydrological changes and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. The pathways or activities which may result in loss or destruction of waterfowl habitat include the following:
Site preparation and vegetation clearing and ground disturbance → Loss/destruction of waterfowl habitat.
Construction of roadbed and crossing structures → Hydrological changes to ground or surface water → loss/destruction of waterfowl habitat.
Construction

Clearance Activities

The construction of the Project has the potential to cause a loss of habitat used by waterfowl in the area. In particular, site preparation and construction activities would reduce the availability of suitable habitat (such as wetlands and watercourses) in the LSA and Project Footprint. Within the Project Footprint, most areas of natural habitat will be permanently replaced by the road and associated infrastructure. These features would be replaced by surfaces generally unsuitable for waterfowl breeding (although they still may utilize the areas for other life stages). Waterfowl generally select nesting habitats near marshes and graminoid fens, and peatlands (Dyson et al 2022; Johnston 2021) which will be reduced where road infrastructure is placed. For Mallard and Canada Goose specifically, most nest within 100 m of water (Hickie, J., 1985).
Outside of the direct footprint of the road, vegetation clearing and ground disturbance to establish work areas, temporary storage areas, and access roads may cause loss/destruction of habitat, including nesting and foraging locations. Previous studies have shown that roads may increase the likelihood of waterfowl nesting nearby, albeit not directly on the road surface (Dyson et al 2024 and Dyson et al 2024).
Using the results of habitat modelling via Ecological Land Classification (refer to Section 11: Assessment of Effects on Vegetation and Wetlands), and based on an understanding waterfowl habitat preferences and the Project Footprint, estimate construction activities will result in the removal of 155.58 ha (0.65%) of Conifer Swamp, 80.04 ha (2.01%) of Poor Conifer Swamp, 29.62 ha (1.04%) of Sparse Treed Bog, 43.47 ha (1.55%) of Sparse Treed Fen, 1.98 ha (3.68%) of Thicket Swamp, 6.87 ha (0.83%) of shore communities and 3.38 ha (33.69%) of Rock Barren in the LSA, representing approximately 1.73% of the most suitable waterfowl breeding habitat in the LSA. Overall, suitable waterfowl habitat is common throughout the study areas with 59.7% of the LSA and 55.1% of the RSA consisting of these vegetation communities.
The Project will also remove 1.86 ha of open water within the LSA which represents only 0.07% of the open water available in the LSA. Overall, open water habitat is common throughout the study areas with 10.1% of the LSA and 26.29% of the RSA consisting of these aquatic communities.
RSF modelling was done for both Canada Goose and mallard. Figure 12.18 and Figure 12.19 show the predicted use of the RSA under existing conditions for Canada Goose and mallard, respectively. The Project Footprint was overlayed, and the underlying habitat removed. For Canada Goose, this represents a loss of approximately 2.34% of high-use habitat in the LSA and a loss of 1.19% of high-use habitat in the RSA (Table 12-29). Modeled probability of use ranged from 0.0 to 0.714 with the High Use quantile (highest 20%) starting at 0.079.

For mallard, approximately 0.86% of high-use habitat will be removed from the LSA, and 0.16% of high-use habitat will be removed from the RSA due to road construction and operations (Table 12-30). Modeled probability of use ranged from 0.04 to 0.879 birds/ha with the High Use quantile (highest 20%) starting at 0.219.
Table 12-29: Changes to Available Habitat for Canada Goose by Study Area

Habitat Use LSA RSA

Table 12-30: Changes to Available Habitat for Mallard by Study Area

Hydrological Changes

It is widely accepted that roads can alter the hydrologic function and characteristics of peatland communities (Saraswati et al., 2020). Changes in wetland drainage patterns, resulting in lower or higher water levels, can alter the plant community (Miller et al. 2015). Hydrological changes during road construction could result in the destruction of aquatic foraging habitat and other suitable habitat of waterfowl. Specifically, roads can impound or drain water, thus reducing the available habitat for waterfowl (Hagy et al. 2014). The stability of the water table will influence the amount, structure and diversify of aquatic vegetation which can dictates waterfowl habitat quality and productivity
(Markham, 1982). Higher water levels may destroy ground-nesting sites or nesting trees (Poiani, 2006). Lower water levels can reduce nesting sites for overwater nesters (Markham, 1982)
Operations

Clearing Activities

Operation of the roadway is unlikely to result in additional loss of waterfowl habitat as maintenance activities will involve managing re-growth of vegetation along the ROW within the Project Footprint. There is a very low probability that reclaimed temporary laydown areas and clearings may need to be reused during operations, but it is predicted that these effects would be short-term and of limited size. While the quarries are expected to remain operational following construction, the footprints will not be expanded and as such no additional habitat loss or destruction is anticipated to occur during operations. Additionally, these areas may become waterfowl habitat as inundated borrow pits in the boreal forest can mimic natural wetlands (Johnstone et al., 2023)

Hydrological Changes

Hydrological changes may continue during the operations stage of the project. Improper culvert maintenance or blockages may lead to additional changes in habitat due to flooding or improper drainage. Given sufficient time, death of vegetation and small losses of habitat for waterfowl could occur (Bocking et al., 2017); however, creation of flooded habitat could be a positive as ponds created by plugged culverts are similar to beaver ponds which are often
high-quality habitat for waterfowl.

12.3.9.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation
There could be alterations to waterfowl habitat resulting from vegetation clearing, hydrological changes and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. The pathways or activities which may result in alteration or degradation of waterfowl habitat include the following:
Accidental spill during construction or operations activities → Transportation of material into wetland → Alteration and degradation of Waterfowl habitat.
Construction of roadbed and crossing structures → Hydrological changes to ground or surface water → Alteration and degradation of Waterfowl habitat.
Construction and operations maintenance activities cause sensory disturbances (light, noises, dust) → Sensory disturbances effect on adjacent areas → Alteration and degradation of Waterfowl habitat.
Construction and operations maintenance activities → Clearing of vegetation → Structural differences between cleared and remaining vegetation create edge effect → Alteration and degradation of Waterfowl habitat.
Construction and operations maintenance activities → Introduction of invasive species → Alteration and degradation of Waterfowl habitat.
Construction

Accidental Spills

Fuel or other spills could affect water quality, wetlands and other waterbodies, as well as upland areas which in turn may affecting waterfowl habitat. Evidence from previous major spills show that some waterfowl avoid habitats affected by releases, although only in a temporary nature. The range of this avoidance differs from species to species but generally has a negative impact on habitat availability (Day et al. 1997). Spills may cause temporary avoidance by waterfowl in the case of a large release, but generally waterfowl do not avoid waterbodies that may be hazardous to their health or survival (Read 1999). This in turn may lead to wildlife injury or death, discussed in Section 12.3.10.4.

Hydrological Changes

Hydrological changes may occur as a result of impoundment or drainage, in turn causing alterations in wetlands or waterbodies/watercourses. Impoundments may occur both from changes caused by the road, but also those caused by beavers which may create small-to-moderate impoundments where they build dams. These effects will begin during the construction phase but will persist into the operations stage so long as the road and culvert structures exist. These drainages and impoundments may degrade available nesting and foraging habitats, while simultaneously they also may increase open-water habitat that waterfowl may use. Waterfowl generally are dependent on an abundance of small wetlands and watercourses, so hydrologically changes may reduce their abundance where hydrological changes
occur. Studies have shown that anthropogenic modification of habitats reduces available habitat and can result in a reduction of waterfowl production (Johnsgard 1956). Waterfowl will use large man-made lakes as well as smaller impoundments as resting, foraging, and predator-avoidance areas so may benefit from hydrological changes (Reitan and Thingstad 1999).

Sensory Disturbances

Construction, loud noises, dust, and other human activity may reduce the habitat suitability for waterfowl around the Project Footprint as they may avoid areas due to sensory disturbance. Roads can have a negative impact that cause habitats to be less appealing and may will be greater during the construction phase during the more intensive habitat disturbance. Both human and vehicle presence can cause habitat avoidance, with humans outside of vehicles creating

additional avoidance behaviours (Pease et al. 2010). As such, it is expected that this effect will be greater during construction than during roadway operations. Since many birds (waterfowl included) rely heavily on acoustic communication, noise is suspected to have a widespread impact on many species (Kociolek et al., 2015). For waterfowl, loud noises from blasting, clearing and grading during construction could disrupt communication and cause stress; however, the severity of the impact depends on the frequency and amplitude of road noise compared to their vocalizations.

Habitat Structural Change

During construction, vegetation clearing and ground disturbance may alter waterfowl habitat composition, including increased edge effects. Vegetation may need to be cut or mowed, and natural habitats may be modified which may cause waterfowl to alter locations for nest selection, foraging, or staging. Dyson et. al., (2022) found that upland waterfowl tend to avoid seismic lines and pipelines but may be attracted to borrow pits and roads. Kemink et al (2019) also found that waterfowl generally avoid areas of disturbance, although only to a minor extent and the preservation of appropriate wetland habitat is likely most important. Singer et. al., (2022) modelled anthropogenic disturbance and found that seismic lines and pipelines (and likely roads) reduce breeding pair abundance, indicating habitat avoidance or increased mortality. Bashuk (2007) found that waterfowl did not appear to be deterred from roads, despite roads reducing the overall available nesting habitat and increasing the amount of edge habitat present. Conversely, timber harvesting effects tend to positively influence local populations of some waterfowl, such as Canada Geese and Green- winged teal (Lemelin et al. 2007). These attractions may also bring in additional predators, which is discussed in Section 12.3.10.4 (Wildlife Injury and Death).
Deposition of dust and other airborne particles during construction degrade nearby aquatic and foraging habitats for waterfowl. Walker and Everett (1987) found that roadways produce dust that increases the rate of snow melt with 30 to 100 m of roadways. This concentrates waterfowl along roadways due to it often being one of the few ice-off locations. This is likely to begin during construction as earth is moved and construction vehicles produce dust.
RSF modeling based on future disturbance was used to predict change in use from clearing the ROW and changing existing habitat features into early seral communities (see Section 12.4.2.1 for details). For Canada Goose, the Project is predicted to result in a 14.53% decrease of use within the Project Footprint. The use of the LSA is predicted to decrease 13.45% while use of the RSA is expected to decrease 4.54%. Figure 12.16 shows the probability of use for Canada Goose within the RSA under future disturbance conditions. For Mallard, the Project is predicted to result in a 19.31% increase of use within the Project Footprint. The use of the LSA is predicted to increase 1.35% while use of the RSA is expected to increase 0.28%. Figure 12.17 shows the probability of use for Mallard within the RSA under future disturbance conditions. Overall, waterfowl as a group are predicted to have a 7.33% decrease in habitat utilization in the Project Footprint; a 6.69% increase in the LSA; and a 6.46% increase in habitat utilization in the RSA (Table 12-31).
The predictions of higher use for Mallard in the Project Footprint area are counterintuitive and may be a result of the model using existing disturbances to predict future habitat use (refer to Section 12.4.2.1.1). As there are no existing permanent roads, existing disturbances in the RSA (winter road, cutlines, old camps, pads) are vegetated and may serve as waterfowl habitat for upland nesting species. Additionally, these areas are not used by humans most of the time and may be used by species that are known to otherwise avoid human activities.
Table 12-31: Waterfowl Species Probability of Habitat Use Percent Change by Study Area

Habitat Alteration or Degradation because of the Introduction of Invasive Species

During construction, invasive vegetation may be introduced that may modify the habitat for waterfowl; however, studies are mixed on the results. Thompson et al. (2012) found that encroaching woody vegetation did not have an effect on waterfowl nest success. Grosholz (2010) found that grazing geese avoid habitat with invasive hybrid cordgrasses.
Some dabbling and diving ducks prefer open wetlands and an increase in robust hydrophytes (Typha spp.) may cause these birds to avoid areas where they are introduced (Kantrud et al. 1986). Conversely, areas where these are removed to do vegetation clearing may increase waterfowl abundance.

Operations

Accidental Spills

Similar to the construction phase, spills during the operational stages may cause temporary avoidance by waterfowl in the case of a large release, but generally waterfowl do not avoid waterbodies that may be hazardous to their health or survival (Read 1999). It is expected that spills during the operational stages will be generally of low volume and are unlikely to have a major effect on waterfowl.

Hydrological Changes

Changes to hydrology could also occur during the operations phase due to culvert and crossing structure maintenance. Localized changes to hydrology could occur if culvert maintenance along the road is ignored, either in terms of repairs to the structure or removal of accumulated debris. Small impoundments caused by culvert blockages may act as habitat for ducks and other waterfowl but also lead to drying of other areas. The area affected would be dependent on the amount of time the culvert remains blocked as well as the size of the impounded area. Inundation of borrow pits could lead to an increase of waterfowl habitat.

Sensory Disturbances

Both human and vehicle presence can cause habitat avoidance, with humans outside of vehicles creating additional avoidance behaviours (Pease et al. 2010). The avoidance may occur during operations although it is likely to be of a lesser magnitude compared to construction. A review of human disturbance on waterbirds found that some species are disturbed by driving, although walking and human powered vehicles (kayaks, bicycles, etc.) generally cause more disturbance (Borgman et al 2011). Slowing or stopping vehicles increased this response compared to those that continued on. This often led to flushing or otherwise retreating from the location. Acoustic modeling places the 50db zone of influence at approximately 125 m beyond the Project Footprint (See Appendix J), and 50 dB is the noise level Environment and Climate Change Canada uses in their guidelines to avoid harm to migratory birds (EEEC, 2023). With multiple active vehicles expected per day, the roadway may cause sensory disturbances in mores sensitive species.
This may be exacerbated by locations where humans may exit vehicles along the roadway.

Habitat Structural Change

Maintenance related to clearing of adjacent riparian vegetation could alter waterfowl habitat composition including increased edge effects and altering nesting preferences. Voorhees and Cassel (1980) found that there was little difference in preference for un-mowed vegetation or mowed vegetation, but nesting success generally declined in un- mowed areas. Oetting and Cassel (1971) found the opposite in a different study, indicating that un-mowed vegetation was a preferred nesting site, and also led to increased nest success. This may suggest that reducing mowing (especially during the early breeding season) may reduce effects to ground-nesting waterfowl, assuming it does not negatively affect the safety of the roadway.

The deposition of dust and other airborne particles caused by vehicles on the road can change soil and water quality and alter vegetation which can result in the degradation of waterfowl habitat. Cruezer et al (2016) found that dust deposition immediately adjacent to roadways in North Dakota had increased dust loading, with the degree of increase decreasing from distance to the roadway. They also found that this increased loading only had a minimal effect on wetlands. Deposition of dust and other airborne particles during construction degrade nearby aquatic and foraging habitats for waterfowl. The effects described by Walker and Everett (1987) on increased melting speed would continue during operations as vehicles utilize the roadway.

Introduction of Invasive Plant Species

During the operational phase of the Project, invasive vegetation may be introduced from passing vehicles, or from users entering watercourses or upland areas and accidentally introducing invasive plants. These in turn may modify the habitat for waterfowl. Much like the effects during construction the effects on waterfowl are expected to be minor and could be both positive and negative in nature, depending on the species affected.

12.3.9.3 Alterations in Movement
There could be alterations in waterfowl movement stemming from construction activities and operation of the road. The pathways or activities which may result in changes in waterfowl movement include the following:
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Structural differences between cleared and natural vegetation act as a barrier → Alteration in movement of Waterfowl.
Construction and operations activities cause sensory disturbances (light, noises, dust) → Disturbances cause avoidance response → Alteration in movement of Waterfowl.
Construction

Loss of Connectivity

Roads can affect the movement of birds in different ways. They can result in habitat fragmentation, making it difficult for waterfowl to move freely between areas on either side of the road (Kociolek et al., 2011; Pell and Jones, 2015; Soanes et al., 2024). Ducks, for example, will avoid crossing open areas to reduce the risk of predation, instead preferring to remain in areas with more structurally complex and higher in available cover (Holopainen), such as wetlands containing tall grasses and shrubs.
Vegetation clearing for the WSR may decrease the availability of natural camouflage within the Project Footprint, thereby reducing the ability of waterfowl to travel safely between feeding, nesting and resting areas. Canada Geese prefer more open nesting locations and have shown some positive response to clear cuts (Lemielin et al. 2007); therefore, clearing for the WSR may act as a positive effect on the species. Barriers to movement can also impact seasonal migration and dispersal. The restriction of such movements can result in the functional isolation of populations and decreased their long-term persistence.

Sensory Disturbance

Waterfowl movement is likely to be altered by sensory disturbances associated with the construction phase. Noise, artificial light and other sensory disturbances can have substantial effects on birds relative to other effects and taxonomic groups (Kociolek et al., 2011). Auditory deterrents are used in the mining industry to keep waterfowl off of tailing ponds, the sudden random noises produced by these deterrents can be similar to some construction activities; however, habituation to these random noises has been shown (Ronconi and St. Clair, 2005).
Waterfowl such as Canada Goose and Mallard have adapted to urban environments throughout their respective ranges, but their boreal-nesting counterparts may not exhibit the same tolerance. Canada Goose are known to flush from their nest when approached by a human at a distance of 20-22 m (Miller et al., 2013) and flush from the water when approached by a kayak at a distance of 54 m (Avocet Research Associates, 2007); Mallards have been demonstrated to flush from the water when approached by a kayak at a distance of 18 m (Avocet Research Associates, 2007).
Additionally, mallards have a higher nest desertion rate than other waterfowl due to human activity (Drilling et al., 2020). Since waterfowl in the RSA are not accustomed to the kinds of disturbance that would accompany road construction, the degree that they will avoid the WSR is uncertain.
Operations

Loss of Connectivity
During the operations phase, management activities will maintain roadside vegetation in an early seral state, with an anticipated 35 m width opening (clearing) being retained. Gaps in cover created by anthropogenic activities are known to impede movement of certain birds; however, the level of interference is species and habitat-dependent

(Desrochers and Hannon, 1997; Grubb and Doherty, 1999). Few Studies directly have examined the effects of roads and water crossings on waterfowl in terms of locally limiting movement. For roads the lack of direct research may be due to the presumption that waterfowl are relatively large-bodied birds which are known to be less affected by the barrier effect of roads (Johnson et al. 2017) and due to waterfowl often seen on or near roads. For water crossings, they have been found to have no effect (Vance et al., 2012) or a small negative effect (Takeshige et al., 2023) on waterfowl movement along a river. Culverts may also provide an opportunity to cross under the roadway as waterfowl have been recorded using the structures to move between habitats.
Sensory Disturbance
Noise will be the primary sensory effect on waterfowl during operations. Traffic noise has been found to lower abundance and promote avoidance in many in many bird species (McClure et al. 2013). Traffic noise could interfere with their ability to communicate or could change their vigilance behavior. Waterfowl may move away from roads and use more distant areas more frequently due to traffic noise (Veon and McClung, 2023). Disturbance is species dependant with some species of geese changing spatial patterns of use in an area with traffic levels as low as
10 vehicles a day (Korschegen and Dahlgren, 1992). While Canada Goose and Mallards are generally tolerant of anthropogenic activity this tolerance is mainly know within urban dwelling individuals and local populations may not exhibit the same tolerance. Although artificial lighting from roads can interfere with natural behaviours, such as foraging and migration, the WSR will not be lit outside of the community, thereby reducing potential sensory impacts on waterfowl.

12.3.9.4 Wildlife Injury or Death
The construction of the road may lead to both direct and indirect waterfowl mortality. There may be increases in waterfowl injury or death due to collisions with vehicles and equipment during construction and operation of the WSR, with incidental take also occurring. Increased access into the LSA will provide opportunities for predation that did not exist prior to road construction, as well as increased chances of hunting, poaching and/or human-wildlife conflicts that lead to injury or death. The pathways or activities that may result in waterfowl injury or death include the following:
Equipment and vehicles moving within Project Footprint → Collisions with Waterfowl within Project Footprint
→ Injury or Death of Waterfowl.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Incidental Encounters with Individuals or nests → Injury or Death of Waterfowl.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Increased access for Waterfowl Predators → Injury or Death of Waterfowl.
Construction of Road → Increased access to Waterfowl habitat by poachers → Injury or Death of Waterfowl Construction
Collisions with Vehicles

Movement of construction equipment and vehicles within Project Footprint may result in increased injury or death of waterfowl. Vehicles will be travelling between camps and construction locations, with human/vehicle-bird encounters not unexpected. Collisions with vehicles is one of the top three causes of bird mortality in Canada (Calvert et al., 2013).
Although birds are typically perceived as being able avoid impacts by flying away from, or above vehicles and equipment, this is not always the case. According to Kociolek et al. (2015), birds bigger home ranges, larger body sizes, and lower flying heights are typically more susceptible to road impacts. Waterfowl are often seen crossing roads by walking as walking is less energetically costing than flying short distances (Bautista et al., 2001).

In coniferous-dominated Canadian landscapes with low-volume roads, it has been estimated that more than
14,000 birds are killed annually due to collisions with vehicles, or approximately one bird for every 3 km of road annually (Bishop and Brogan, 2013). Waterfowl comprise a relatively small number of avian casualties attributed to collisions with vehicles in Canada, at 1.06% of mortalities (Bishop and Brogan, 2013). Bird mortality related to vehicle collisions is often related to travel speed of the vehicle as birds use distance as a threat estimate and can misjudge the closing distance between themselves and the vehicle resulting in collision (DeVault et al. 2016). For ducks and geese, roads can be particularly challenging during certain times of the year. During moulting season, adult geese lose their flight feathers and are unable to fly, making them more likely to walk across roads. Additionally, goslings (young geese) cannot fly until they are older, so they must walk across roads to follow their parents. Collisions with helicopters are also possible when they are being used to ferry people and equipment. Canada Goose ranks second among birds in strike risk across the US for aircraft (DeVault et al., 2018).

Incidental Take

Vegetation clearing in waterfowl habitat during road construction may result in injury or death of birds, hatchlings, or eggs if the activity is conducted during the breeding season. Canada Goose typically nest on drier, slightly elevated sites near water such as on islands, muskrat lodges, or beaver lodges (Mowbray et al., 2020), while mallards usually nest on the ground in upland areas near water, with the nest placed under overhanging cover or in dense vegetation for concealment (Drilling et al., 2020). Mallards have a higher nest desertion rate than other waterfowl due to human activity (Drilling et al., 2020), which can result in the total abandonment and failure of the nest.
While some birds are known to move away from roads, others are attracted to early successional areas that form in ROWs. Waterfowl are generally not attracted to roads; however, if their natural habitats (e.g., ponds, wetlands) are in proximity, they may use the ROW to forage on grasses and young herbaceous plants, leading to increased opportunities for incidental take during construction.
Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics
Effects on waterfowl survival from increased predator access and movement rates is probable. Predators of Canada Goose eggs and goslings include red fox and gulls (Larus sp.) (Mowbray et al., 2020). Red fox is also a predator of nesting female mallards and their eggs, while American mink (Neovision vison) will prey on adults and ducklings alike (Drilling et al., 2020). Corvids, including American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and common raven (Corvus corax) will also depredate nests of both species (Mowbray et al., 2020; Drilling et al., 2020). Foxes, mink and corvids all may directly increase pressure on waterfowl populations because of new access routes created by the WSR. Adult Canada Goose predators include Bald Eagles, black bears and coyotes (CWF, 2024).
Waterfowl predators may also be attracted to construction camps, laydowns and worksites due to improper garbage storage and disposal. Unsecured garbage is particularly attractive because it provides an easy food source for
many predators. Increased numbers of predators attracted to the Project Footprint would have probable direct effects on waterfowl inhabiting the area; however, nest success for ducks has often been found to be higher near roads with the hypothesis that roads may create refuges from nest predators because some duck predators avoid them (Pasitschniak-Arts et al. 1998; Dyson et al., 2024).

Increased Access

Project development could result in a negative effect on the abundance of waterfowl by permitting increased human access to habitats where populations are present. Mallards and Canada Geese are the most harvested duck and goose species in Canada (Canadian Wildlife Service Waterfowl Committee, 2023). By permitting humans to access to previously undisturbed areas, construction of the Project introduces novel opportunities for recreational hunting and increased harvesting by Indigenous communities and groups. Construction and other temporary workers may contribute to increased harvest during construction of the Project. These workers may exploit the local area to hunt during their time-off or post-shift.

Increased access to waterfowl habitat may also result in an increase in illegal harvest (poaching). Data and statistics on waterfowl poaching in Ontario and Canada are not readily available; however, enforcement actions are taken every year by the Wildlife Enforcement Directorate (WED) of ECCC’s Enforcement Branch for violations under the
Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (ECCC, 2024). For example, in between 2018 and 2019, the WED confiscated 32 green-winged teal (Anas carolinensis) carcasses illegally harvested in Quebec (ECCC, 2019).
Operations

Collisions with Vehicles
During operations, the potential for vehicle-bird collisions will likely continue as cars, equipment and machinery move between residences and operational areas (e.g., Webequie First Nation and locations such as quarries, pits). Although traffic volume is anticipated to be low, collisions along the ROW will likely continue to have a negative effect on waterfowl fitness and survival, particularly for young birds, or moulting birds that are unable to react quickly to approaching vehicles.
Incidental Take
Vegetation management is proposed as part of the Operational Phase to maintain roadside vegetation in order to permit infrastructural repairs and/or promote driver safety (i.e., line of sight). Road maintenance may result in injury or death of birds, hatchlings, or eggs if vegetation clearing and/or management activities are conducted during the breeding season. Ground nesting waterfowl are the most likely affected group during the operations phase as large trees are unlikely to be removed which may contain cavity nesters and aquatic habitats which contain on water nesters are unlikely to be affected.
Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics
Effects on from predator encounters are predicted to be long-term in duration as predators are known to use linear features well beyond their operational lifetime. Maintenance clearing during operations will maintain openness along the ROW which will allow predators increased access to wetland areas near the road exposing waterfowl to increased predation from species such as red fox and American mink, corvids, and other species. Opportunistic species that are also waterfowl predators may also be attracted to operational areas if waste in improperly managed, leading to changes in predator-prey dynamics from pre-construction conditions.
Increased Access
During operations, human access along the WSR will be maintained, thereby potentially affecting the abundance of waterfowl by permitting increased opportunities to hunt, trap and poach wildlife in areas that were not easily accessible prior to road construction. Hunting pressure will be dependant on how local communities view hunting conditions and access. Local hunters often view short trips with easy access as the most preferred type of hunting trip (Sainsbury et al., 2024), this may put more pressure on areas close to the community.

12.3.9.5 Threat Assessment
Each of the four potential effects categories were evaluated based on the threats assessment criteria outlined in the TISG and is based on IUCN-CMP unified threat classification system, referenced from NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk (NatureServe, 2012). Threats are assessed prior to any mitigative measures being applied. Assessments are generally done at the population level, and for Canada goose and Mallard, which can have territories that can range in size from 0.8 to 4 hectares, and 0.2 to 0.6 hectares, respectively, the evaluation was made at the LSA level.

Scope is small for most threats as the percent of the population affected is less than 10% of the available habitat and population within the LSA. Scope is moderate for increased access as areas immediately adjacent to the road and supportive infrastructure will be affected. Scope is also moderate for Hydrological alteration as effects may be felt up to 250 m from the road. Severity of the threats ranges from slight to serious: threats related to loss of habitat by vegetation removals and hydrological changes are serious as within the scope based on the degree of habitat loss; sensory disturbances are rated as moderate due to the avoidance of transportation corridors by waterfowl as are collisions with vehicles and increased access; all other threats are slight. Magnitude is medium for increased access, as once undisturbed areas are entered, it will take time for succession to occur and reestablish natural barriers. Magnitude is rated low for all other threats.
Irreversibility is high for hydrological changes and very high for vegetation removal as the roadbed will likely never be removed but hydrological mitigations could be done. Irreversibility is also high for spills, edge effects, invasive species, and predation because while the effects can technically be reversed it would take time and considerable effort. Hunting and loss of connectivity could be restored with a reasonable commitment of resources. The rest of the threats were deemed low and can be easily reversed.
A summary of the threat assessment for waterfowl habitat loss, alteration or degradation of habitat, alteration in movement, and injury or death prior to the consideration of mitigation measures, is presented in Table 12-32.
Table 12-32: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Waterfowl

12.3.10 Shorebirds (Greater Yellowlegs)
12.3.10.1 Habitat Loss
There may be shorebird habitat loss resulting from vegetation clearing, hydrological changes and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. These losses could be to both foraging and breeding habitats. The pathways or activities that may result in loss or destruction of wildlife habitat include the following:
Site preparation and vegetation clearing and ground disturbance → Loss/destruction of Shorebird habitat.
Construction of roadbed and crossing structures → Hydrological changes to ground or surface water → loss/destruction of Shorebird habitat.
Construction

Clearing Activities

The construction of the Project has the potential for direct and indirect effects that could cause the loss of Shorebird habitat through physical alteration and removal of suitable habitat. Greater Yellowlegs in the eastern Canadian boreal nest primarily in open wetlands, specifically large open fens with open waterbodies (COSEWIC, 2020). They also nest in raised open areas like regenerating burns that retain their wetland features (Cadman et al. 2007).
Using the results of habitat modelling via Ecological Land Classification (refer to Section 11: Assessment of Effects on Vegetation and Wetlands), and based on an understanding Greater Yellowlegs habitat preferences and the Project Footprint, estimate construction activities will result in the removal of 29.62 ha (1.04%) of Sparse Treed Bog, 43.47 ha (1.55%) of Sparse Treed Fen, 0.33 ha (032%) of Open Shore Fen, 5.92 ha (1.11%) of River/Fen, 1.38 ha (0.25%) of Poor Fen, and 0.05 ha (0.03%) of Open Bog in the LSA, representing approximately 1.15% of the most suitable Greater Yellowlegs habitat in the LSA. Overall, suitable Greater Yellowlegs habitat is common throughout the study areas with 25.4% of the LSA and 26.29% of the RSA consisting of these vegetation communities.
RSF modelling was done for Greater Yellowlegs using Point Count and ARU data. Figure 12.22 shows the predicted use of the RSA under existing conditions for Greater Yellowlegs. The Project Footprint was overlayed, and the underlying habitat removed. For Greater Yellowlegs, this represents a loss of approximately 0.63% of high-use habitat in the LSA and a loss of 0.14% of high-use habitat in the RSA due to road construction and operations (Table 12-33). Modeled probability of use ranged from 0.0 to 0.828 with the High Use quantile (highest 20%) starting at 0.337.
Table 12-33: Shorebird Species High-Use Habitat by Study Area

Habitat Use LSA RSA

Hydrological Changes

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 Section 7 (Assessment of Effects on Surface Water Resources) and Section 8 (Assessment of Effects on Groundwater Resources). 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. Changes in surface water conditions can also occur with the installation of crossing structures. While changes are generally concentrated downstream of the effect, they can also take place on the upstream side if channel restriction causes changes to water impoundment. Extreme changes, such as those due to poor road design or large fluctuations in water levels, can lead to death of vegetation and loss of Greater Yellowlegs habitats, including nesting as they are converted to open water habitats (Bocking et al., 2017).
Operations

Clearing Activities

Operation of the roadway is unlikely to result in additional loss of Greater Yellowlegs habitat as maintenance activities will involve managing re-growth of vegetation along the ROW within the Project Footprint. There is a very low probability that reclaimed temporary laydown areas and clearings may need to be reused during operations, but it is predicted that these effects would be short-term and of limited size. While the quarries are expected to remain operational following construction, the footprints will not be expanded and as such no additional habitat loss or destruction is anticipated to occur during operations.

Hydrological Changes

Greater Yellowlegs habitat loss through changes to hydrology could also occur during the operations phase due to culvert and crossing structure maintenance. Habitat loss could occur if culvert maintenance is ignored, either in terms of repairs to the structure or removal of accumulated debris. Given sufficient time, death of vegetation and loss of habitat could occur (Bocking et al., 2017).

12.3.10.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation
There may be alterations or degradation to Shorebird habitat resulting from vegetation clearing, hydrological changes and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. Alteration of habitat is defined as a modification in the habitat type or quality of the habitat, this change could be either positive or negative (Fuller, 2017). Habitat degradation is defined similarly as decline in the quality of the habitat resulting in reduced capacity to support the target species.
The pathways or activities which may result in alteration or degradation of shorebird habitat include the following:
Accidental spill during construction or operations activities → Transportation of material into wetland → Alteration and degradation of Shorebird habitat.
Construction of roadbed and crossing structures → Hydrological changes to ground or surface water → Alteration and degradation of Shorebird habitat.
Construction and operations activities cause sensory disturbances (light, noises, dust) → Sensory disturbances effect on adjacent areas → Alteration and degradation of Shorebird habitat.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Structural differences between cleared and remaining vegetation create edge effect → Alteration and degradation of Shorebird habitat.

Construction and maintenance activities → Introduction of invasive species → Alteration and degradation of Shorebird habitat.
Construction

Habitat Structural Change

Changes to vegetation structure during road construction activities may alter or degrade shorebird habitat near the Project Footprint due to vegetation clearing activities and removals. These vegetation removals may lead to edge effects, including abiotic, direct biotic, and indirect biotic effects on the habitat after the implementation of mitigation measures. It is anticipated that restoration of laydown areas and access roads will reverse some of the habitat alteration or degradation caused by road construction, but most areas will remain free of tall vegetation.
RSF modeling based on future disturbance was used to predict change in use from clearing the ROW and changing existing habitat features into early seral communities (see Section 12.4.2.1 for details). The Project is predicted to result in a 5.69% decrease of use by Greater Yellowlegs within the Project Footprint. Small positive changes are predicted within the LSA and RSA but are l within modeling margins of error and can be interpreted as no significant change. Figure 12.23 shows the probability of habitat use for Alder Flycatcher within the RSA under future disturbance conditions.
Table 12-34: Greater Yellowlegs Probability of Habitat Use Percent Change by Study Area

Shorebird species from multiple families have been found to rely on bare, wet ground for thermoregulation when experiencing high ambient temperatures (Ryeland et al. 2020), and such microhabitat features may experience edge effects if they occur adjacent to the ROW. The edge effect on Greater Yellowlegs is likely relatively low due to the more open and lower vegetation structure of its preferred wetland communities compared to forested habitats which undergo large changes in structure and composition due to edge effects (Frankin et al. 2020) in addition to its ability to use disturbed habitats like areas cleared for forestry (OBBA, 2005).

Accidental Spills

Accidental spills and releases that occur during construction phase may result in shorebird habitat degradation. Boreal wetlands are often hydrologically connected through subsurface flows (Smerdon et al., 2005), resulting in large watersheds throughout which pollutants can spread. Depending on concentrations and material spilled, an accidental spill could cause death of vegetation, lower productivity and alter the vegetation community (Hutchinson and Freedman, 2011; Lednev et al., 2023). These changes in habitat could degrade Greater Yellowlegs foraging and nesting habitat.

Hydrological Changes

It is widely accepted that roads can alter the hydrologic function and characteristics of the landscapes they traverse. While destruction of habitat can result in extreme cases, alteration and degradation of shorebird habitat can occur in many others (Bocking et al., 2017). Flooding events during construction may result in erosion of the ROW and deposition of granular materials into adjacent wetlands and waterways. Conversely, hydrological changes associated with construction may affect wetland drainage patterns, resulting in lower or higher water levels and altering the plant community (Miller et al. 2015). These changes can be extensive, a study within boreal fens in Alberta found pronounced

differences in canopy cover up to 250 m from road edges in both rich and poor treed fens (Willier et al., 2022). Lowering of the water table could result in a decreased number of small ponds and wetlands near the roadbed used by Greater Yellowlegs. 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 Section 7 (Assessment of Effects on Surface Water Resources) and Section 8 (Assessment of Effects on Groundwater resources), respectively.

Sensory Disturbance

Sensory disturbances resulting from road construction, including movement of equipment and vehicles, noise, lighting, and other human activities may degrade habitat for Greater Yellowlegs adjacent to the Project Footprint, reducing utilization of the area or masking vocalizations related to courtship or alarm calling (Zhou et al. 2024). While sensory disturbance effects on Greater Yellowlegs have not specifically been measured, human disturbance has been shown to reduce shorebird abundance and site fidelity (Gibson et al., 2017; Placidos et al., 2021).
Sensory disturbance may be especially high during construction when activities such as blasting, quarrying, hauling and clearing may occur during all hours causing wetland birds to avoid the ROW and supportive infrastructure. Construction noise is less continuous and more impulsive than traffic noise so habituation to the noise would not be likely in most cases. Research on shorebird response to impulsive noise, such as occurs during construction, showed area abandonment by birds at high decibel levels (Wright et al. 2010). Light pollution can have a major effect on shorebirds. Shorebirds may avoid roosting at artificially lit roosts and a lack of unlit roost areas mat cause shorebirds to avoid using otherwise suitable feeding grounds (Gaston et al., 2013).

Introduction of Invasive Species

The introduction and spread of noxious and invasive plant species have the potential to affect aquatic and terrestrial habitats used by Greater Yellowlegs. Invasive plant species can affect multiple ecosystem aspects including structure, diversity and function (CFIA, 2008). One of the pathways of spread for invasive plants is through construction activities and associated equipment use. Construction equipment has the potential to transport and spread invasive plants, with cleared areas including roadsides being susceptible to invasion (Hanen and Clevenger, 2005). The use of contaminated seed mixes in restoration efforts is also a pathway for invasive plants to establish in an area (Houghen et al. 2012).
Once established in a new habitat, most invasive species are nearly impossible to eradicate (Pimentel et al. 2005). While invasive plants are known to spread along transportation corridors, few invasive species have been found in naturally occurring open habitats such as the wetland habitats used by Greater Yellowlegs (Langor et al. 2014).

Operations

Accidental Spills

Similar to the effects of construction, there could be effects to water quality during the operations phase of the Project from accidental spills which may result in Greater Yellowlegs habitat degradation. Boreal wetlands are often hydrologically connected through subsurface flows (Smerdon et al., 2005), resulting in large watersheds throughout which pollutants can spread. Spills during operations would most likely originate from accidental releases from vehicles. The road is forecasted to have low traffic volumes, and traffic along the roadway will be primarily personal and commercial vehicles and transport trucks associated with the community. While estimated frequency of spills is low (0.00000019 spills per mile, or 0.00000012 spills per kilometer, (Harwood and Russell, 1990), its predicted that minor spills and release are possible.

Hydrological Changes

Changes to hydrology could also occur during the operations phase due to culvert and crossing structure maintenance. Localized changes to hydrology could occur if culvert maintenance along the road is ignored, either in terms of repairs to the structure or removal of accumulated debris. The area affected would be dependent on the amount of time the culvert remains blocked as well as the size of the impounded area.

Sensory Disturbance

Sensory disturbances resulting from road operations may degrade habitat for Greater Yellowlegs adjacent to the Project Footprint, reducing utilization of the area or masking vocalizations of individuals that remain. Most sensory effects during operations will be related to traffic noise which has been found to degrade bird habitat either through complete avoidance of areas near roads or decreased habitat value (Ware et al. 2015; Summers et al. 2011). Sensory disturbance has been found to lower abundance of birds near roads, especially at high traffic densities (Husby, 2017).
Studies on Greater Yellowlegs have shown that abundance decreases in areas around transportation corridors
(ABMI, 2023). Acoustic modeling places the 50db zone of influence at approximately 125 m beyond the Project footprint (See Appendix J), and 50 dB is the noise level Environment and Climate Change Canada uses in their guidelines to avoid harm to migratory birds (EEEC, 2023). While lighting along roads is a major sensory disturbance for shorebirds, the WSR will not have lighting except near the community limiting its effects.

Habitat Structural Change

Edge effects associated with structural changes to habitat during operations will have similar effects on Greater Yellowlegs and their habitat. While it is anticipated that restoration of laydown areas and access roads will reverse some of the habitat alteration or degradation caused by road construction, maintenance activities, including removal of roadside vegetation during road operations, will create periodic disturbances and sustain edge effects along the ROW.

Introduction of Invasive Species

The introduction and spread of noxious and invasive plant species could also occur during operations and will have similar potential effects on Greater Yellowlegs habitat. Road operations could have larger effects than construction in terms of introduction, particularly of invasive aquatic plants. Aquatic plants can be introduced to waterbodies when recreational boats are moved, and improper cleaning and decontaminating procedures are used on the boat or equipment (Cole et al. 2019). While recreational boating has been found to be responsible for movement invasive species throughout the Great Lakes region (Cole et al. 2019), currently the spread of invasive aquatic plants into the boreal has only occurred in a few isolated pockets (iNaturalist, 2024). Given that transportation corridors are avenues of

dispersal for invasive plants (Langor et al. 2014), operation of the road has the potential to spread aquatic as well as terrestrial invasive plants into the project area.

12.3.10.3 Alterations in Movement
There may be alterations in shorebird movement stemming from construction activities and operation of the road. The pathways or activities which may result in changes in wildlife movement include the following:
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Structural differences between cleared and natural vegetation act as a barrier → Alteration in movement of shorebirds.
Construction and operations activities cause sensory disturbances (light, noises, dust) → Disturbances cause avoidance response → Alteration in movement of shorebirds.
Construction

Loss of Connectivity

Gaps in cover created by anthropogenic activities are known to impede movement of certain birds; however, the level of interference is species and habitat-dependent (Desrochers and Hannon, 1997; Grubb and Doherty, 1999). Bird species that have shown reluctance to cross gaps, like those created by roads, are generally forest species where the road creates a distinctive edge between the road and preferred habitats, with larger gaps acting as a greater barrier
(Grubb and Doherty, 1999). The project ROW, at 35 m, is smaller than the gap size (50 m) found to limit crossings for some boreal birds (St Clair et al., 1998), although some laydown and temporary clearings will exceed this limit.
Greater Yellowlegs prefer more open habitats where the road ROW would present as less of a barrier as it is more structurally similar to wetland habitats; however, Greater Yellowlegs are known to use linear disturbances, including transportation corridors, at lower levels (ABMI, 2023). Additionally, no studies were found that indicated shorebirds respond to road gaps as a barrier.

Sensory Disturbance

Greater Yellowlegs may alter their movement in response to sensory disturbances that are associated with Project construction. Noise, lighting and other human actions during construction activities such as blasting, clearing, hauling and grading will create disturbances that could alter movement of Greater Yellowlegs as they avoid the project ROW and supportive infrastructure. Some shorebird species, when roosting, have been found to respond behaviourally to sudden, loud noises by flying away and abandoning their roost site (Wright et al. 2010). Human activity can increase the amount of time that shorebirds spend moving, increasing energy expenditure and decreasing the amount of time available for foraging (Murchison et al., 2016).
Operations

Loss of Connectivity

As was the case during the construction phase, alteration in movement due to loss of connectivity may occur during road operation. Maintenance activities will maintain vegetation in an early seral state; however, like during the construction phase, movement of Greater Yellowlegs within these areas may be minimally affected by the fragmentation as Greater Yellowlegs prefer more open habitats including some anthropogenically disturbed sites.

Sensory Disturbance

Noise will be the primary sensory effect on Greater Yellowlegs during operations. Traffic noise has been found to lower abundance and promote avoidance in many in many bird species (McClure et al. 2013). High traffic roads have been shown to affect shorebird distribution when noise exceeded 56 dB (Hirvonen, 2001). Greater Yellowlegs may also be affected by the visual presence and movement of vehicles. Shorebirds have been found to increase their time away from the nest, change their use patterns and spend increased time in flight when exposed to nearby off-highway vehicles (OHV) (Defeo et al. 2009; Schlacher et al., 2013). Cole et al. (2019) found that in a highly regulated OHV trail system, which is more similar to a road network, these responses did not occur, and overall, some habituation may be possible (Schlacher et al., 2013). Given Greater Yellowlegs avoidance of transportation corridors, some avoidance of the area may occur (ABMI, 2023).

12.3.10.4 Injury or Death
The construction of the Project may lead to both direct and indirect shorebird mortality. There may be increases in wildlife injury or death stemming from increased vehicle traffic or clearing activities during both construction and operation of the road, with indirect mortalities arising from increased predator encounters and human access. The pathways or activities that may result in shorebird injury or death include the following:
Equipment and vehicles moving within Project Footprint → Collisions with Shorebirds within Project Footprint
→ Injury or Death of Shorebirds.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Incidental encounters with Individuals or nests → Injury or Death of Shorebirds.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Increased access for Shorebird Predators → Injury or Death of Shorebirds.
Construction of Road → Increased access to Shorebird habitat by poachers → Injury or Death of Shorebirds. Construction
Collisions with Vehicles

Movement of construction equipment and vehicles within Project Footprint could result in increased death and injury of shorebirds. Collisions with vehicles is among the top three causes of bird mortalities in Canada (Calvert et al., 2013). Vehicles will be travelling between camps and construction locations; these trips could occur at all hours and encounters with birds would not be unexpected. Bird mortality from vehicle collisions is often related to travel speed of the vehicle as birds use distance as a threat estimate and can misjudge the closing distance between themselves and the vehicle, resulting in collision (DeVault et al. 2016). Shorebirds comprise a relatively small number of avian casualties attributed to collisions with vehicles in Canada, at 0.9% of mortalities (Bishop and Brogan, 2013). Shorebird collisions with vehicles can occur when they move between feeding areas (Buchanan, 2011).

Incidental Take

Vegetation clearing in Greater Yellowlegs habitat during road construction, and/or movement of equipment/vehicles though vegetated areas, may result in injury or death to birds, hatchlings, and/or eggs if management of vegetation is carried out during the breeding season. Greater Yellowlegs nest on the ground at the base of short (1-2 m) coniferous trees and placed in or next to a moss or shrub-covered hummock (Elphick and Tibbitts, 2020). The characteristics of shorebird nests can make them difficult to detect. Additionally, nesting adult Greater Yellowlegs can be reticent and stay on their nest when approached by humans (Elphick and Tibbitts, 2020).

Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

Effects on Greater Yellowlegs survival from improved predator access and movement rates is possible during the construction phase. Linear features are known to facilitate predator movement in the boreal (Dickie et al., 2017;
Benoit-Pepin et al., 2024) and creation of new roads connected to human activity is known to spread predators into previously unoccupied areas (Lantham et al. 2011). Effects on shorebirds from predator encounters are predicted to be long term in duration as predators are known to use linear features well beyond their operational lifetime. Possible predators of Greater Yellowlegs include a variety of raptor species, such as Bald Eagle, Northern Harrier, Merlin, and Peregrine Falcon (Elphick and Tibbitts, 2020). Nest predators are not well documented for Greater Yellowlegs
(Elphick and Tibbitts, 2020) but likely include mammals such as red fox which can incorporate roads into their home ranges to increase travel distance and penetration into wetlands (Frey and Conover, 2006).

Increased Access

The development of the Project could result in a negative effect on the abundance of shorebird species through increased human access to habitats where populations are present. Access to previously undisturbed areas introduces opportunity for recreational hunting and increased harvesting by Indigenous communities and groups. Construction and other temporary workers may contribute to increased harvest during construction of the Project. These workers may exploit the local area to hunt during their time-off or post-shift. While hunting of shorebirds was extensive in the 19th and early 20th century, Greater Yellowlegs has not been legally harvested in Canada, except by First Nation Peoples, since the introduction of the Migratory Bird Act in 1918. Data and statistics on shorebird poaching in Ontario and Canada are not readily available; however, enforcement actions are taken every year by the Wildlife Enforcement Directorate (WED) of ECCC’s Enforcement Branch for violations under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (ECCC, 2024). Currently hunting by Indigenous communities is thought to be negligible (COSEWIC, 2020).
Operations

Collisions with Vehicles

Vehicles traveling along the road during operations could collide with Greater Yellowlegs causing injury or death. Collisions with vehicles is among the top three causes of bird mortalities in Canada (Calvert et al., 2013). In coniferous- dominated Canadian landscapes with low-volume roads, it has been estimated that more than 14,000 birds are killed annually due to collisions with vehicles, or approximately one bird every 3 km per year (Bishop and Brogan, 2013).
Shorebirds comprise a relatively small number of avian casualties attributed to collisions with vehicles in Canada, at 0.9% of mortalities (Bishop and Brogan, 2013) but are likely under-reported due to their small size. For Greater Yellowlegs in particular, the effect of collisions on populations is unknown.

Incidental Take

Vegetation clearing in Greater Yellowlegs habitat is also scheduled to occur during operations as they use open habitats, including cleared areas. Though smaller in scale, periodic clearing of the ROW may occur during operations as part of line-of-sight maintenance or infrastructure repairs. If maintenance occurs during the breeding season, nests, eggs, and individuals could be injured or killed, as the cryptic behavior of Greater Yellowlegs during breeding will be unchanged, presenting the same potential for incidental take.

Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

Effects on Greater Yellowlegs from predator encounters are predicted to be long-term in duration as predators are known to use linear features well beyond their operational lifetime. Maintenance clearing during operations will maintain openness along the ROW which will allow predators increased access to wetland areas near the road exposing ground

nesters, like Greater Yellowlegs, to increased predation. While some studies have found a positive effect on bird survival due to roads and resulting predator avoidance of roads, it is often attributed to higher levels of human presence and traffic (Pescador and Peris, 2007; Singer et al. 2020), which given the low traffic levels are unlikely for this Project.

Increased Access

Access to Greater Yellowlegs Habitat will continue during operations, potentially leading to harvest of Greater Yellowlegs. Creation of roads in previously inaccessible areas can often lead to increased use by hunters (Crichton et al., 2004; Boston 2016). The potential for harvest is also likely greater during the operations phase as it will operate over a long period of time and access will not be controlled unlike the construction phase.

12.3.10.5 Threat Assessment
Each of the four potential effects categories were evaluated based on the threats assessment criteria outlined in the TISG and is based on IUCN-CMP unified threat classification system, referenced from NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk (NatureServe, 2012). Threats are assessed prior to any mitigative measures being applied. Assessments are generally done at the population level, and for Greater Yellowlegs, which can range up to 13 km from the nest to forage during the incubation and brood-rearing periods (Elphick and Tibbitts, 2020). Based on this the RSA was deemed the most appropriate scale for the assessment.
Scope is small for all threats as the percent of the population affected is less than 10% of the available habitat and population within the RSA. Severity of the threats ranges from slight to serious: threats related to loss by vegetation removals and hydrological changes are serious as within the scope based on the high degree of habitat loss; sensory disturbances are rated as moderate due to the avoidance of transportation corridors by Greater yellowlegs as are changes to predator-prey dynamics and hydrological alteration of habitat; all other threats are slight. Magnitude is rated as low for all threats.
Irreversibility is high for hydrological changes and very high for vegetation remove as the roadbed will likely never be removed but hydrological mitigations could be done. Irreversibility is also high for spills, edge effects, invasive species, and predation because while the effects can technically be reversed it would take time and considerable effort. Hunting and loss of connectivity could be restored with a reasonable commitment of resources. The rest of the threats were deemed low and can be easily reversed. The degree of effect was low for all except vegetation loss which was moderate.
A summary of the threat assessment for Greater Yellowlegs habitat loss, alteration or degradation of habitat, alteration in movement, and injury or death prior to the consideration of mitigation measures, is presented in Table 12-35.
Table 12-35: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Greater Yellowlegs

12.3.11 Raptors (Red-tailed Hawk, Great Grey Owl)
12.3.11.1 Habitat Loss or Destruction
Raptor habitat loss may result from vegetation clearing and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. The pathways or activities which may result in loss or destruction of Raptor habitat include the following:
Site preparation and vegetation clearing and ground disturbance → Loss of Raptor habitat.
Construction of roadbed and crossing structures → Hydrological changes to ground or surface water → Loss of Raptor habitat.
Construction

Clearing Activities

The construction of the road has the potential for direct and indirect effects that could cause the loss of Raptor habitat through physical alteration and removal of suitable habitat.
Red-tailed hawk occupies a wide range of habitats, only avoiding areas with dense forests and large treeless expanses (Preston and Beane 2009). For nesting tall trees are preferred. Deciduous and Mixedwood forest containing large aspen are frequently used but tall conifers are also potential nest sites. Red-tailed hawk will also use nest platforms and transmission towers.
Great Grey Owls hunt in bogs, treed swamps and edges of forests where suitable perching habitat exists. Great Grey Owls don’t build their owl nests either using the broken top of snags or re-using stick nests from other species such as hawks, crows and ravens. While commonly associated with conifer forests Great Gray Owl will use all forest types where other large birds build stick nests. Great Gray Owl will also use nest platforms if available.
Based on an understanding of raptor habitat preferences, the results of habitat modelling for Ecological Land Classification (refer to Section 11: Assessment of Effects on Vegetation and Wetlands) were used to estimate removals of preferred breeding habitat during construction. Predicted construction activities will result in the removal of 81.15 ha (4.3%) of Conifer Forest, 1.60 ha (3.13%) of Hardwood Forest, and 4.21 ha (3.32%) of Mixed Forest, representing

approximately 7.58% of available potential high quality raptor nesting habitat in the LSA. Some swamps with large trees may be used but are not considered as the highest quality sites. Overall, suitable raptor breeding habitat is somewhat uncommon throughout the study areas with 8.34% of the LSA and 7.66% of the RSA consisting of these vegetation communities.
Raptor Nests (i.e., stick nests) were recorded during aerial surveys near but not within the Project Footprint. A total of one Great Gray Owl ness was recorded and no red-tailed hawk nests although five nests of unknown origin were recorded; none were within 1 km of the WSR route alternatives. Nests are often reused year after year, therefore there is a low likelihood that any nests will be removed as a result of construction.
Both species use open areas but as perch hunters required trees or other structures nearby. In the boreal suitable foraging habitat for Great Gray Owls would include treed bogs, fens burns and roadside clearances (Kirk and Duncan, 1996). (insert) Red-tailed hawks may use similar sites but often in more open environments, knowledge of Red-tailed hawk habitat use in boreal wetlands is sparse. Creation of openings may increase available foraging habitat, particularly for Red-tailed hawk which often use open areas adjacent to forested areas (Smith et al., 2003). Using the results of habitat modelling for Ecological Land Classification 213.79 ha of Great Gray Owl foraging habitat (sparse treed fens and bogs, poor fen, low treed bog and poor swamp) will be removed during construction and 74.87 ha of Red-tailed hawk foraging habitat (sparse treed fens and bogs, poor fen, open bog and shore fens). These represent approximately 1.37% and 1.15% of available potential high-quality habitat in the LSA, respectively. Not all construction activities are expected to be habitat losses, Both Red-tailed hawk and Great Grey Owl may use disturbed areas like clearings, laydowns and pipelines. Temporary clearings will provide additional Red-tailed hawk and Great Grey Owl foraging habitat, at least in the short-term. Overall, suitable forging habitat is common throughout the study areas with 24.22% and 57.33% of the RSA suitable foraging habitat for Red-tailed hawk and Great Gray Owl respectively.

Hydrological Changes

Raptor could be affected by hydrological changes causing habitat loss. Construction activities have the potential to cause the destruction of raptor habitat through changes to groundwater and surface flows. Road construction in particular can alter subsurface flows in peatlands changing the hydrology long-term (Waddington et al. 2014). Changes in surface water conditions can also occur with the installation of crossing structures. Such changes are generally concentrated downstream of the effect but can also take place on the upstream side if channel restriction causes water impoundment, which can cause death of vegetation (Bocking et al., 2017). While Red-tailed hawks generally nest in upland super-canopy trees, these are can be located near water. Great Gray Owl will reuse any large stick nest including nests in wetlands or near water. Extreme hydrological changes due to poor road design or water level fluctuations may lead to death of vegetation and loss of raptor nesting habitats as they are converted to open water habitats (Bocking et al., 2017).
Operations

Clearing Activities

Operation of the roadway is unlikely to result in additional loss of raptor habitat as maintenance activities will involve managing re-growth of vegetation along the ROW within the Project Footprint. A small chance exists that large trees adjacent to the roadway may be removed if they pose safety concerns these may contain raptor nest as snags can be used by both Red-tailed hawks (Preston and Beane, 2009) and Great Gray Owl (Kirk and Duncan, 1996). There is a very low probability that reclaimed temporary laydown areas and clearings may need to be reused during operations; therefore, in the short- to medium-term, no trees used by Red-tailed hawks or Great Gray Owls for nesting are likely to be impacted. While the quarries are expected to remain operational following construction, the footprints will not be expanded and as such no additional habitat loss or destruction is anticipated to occur during operations.

Habitat Loss due to Hydrological Changes

Habitat loss for raptors through changes to hydrology is unlikely to occur during the operations phase. Changes to hydrology could potentially occur during the operations phase due to culvert and crossing structure maintenance. Culverts and other crossings could become partially or fully blocked from sediment or beaver activity. Hydrological changes during operations are likely to affect a much smaller area and are unlikely to affect large diameter canopy trees which would be more likely located in drier areas.

12.3.11.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation
Raptor habitat alteration or degradation may result from vegetation clearing and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. The pathways or activities which may result in alteration or degradation of raptor habitat include the following:
Accidental spill during construction or operations activities → Transportation of material into wetland → Alteration or degradation of Raptor habitat.
Construction of roadbed and crossing structures → Hydrological changes to ground or surface water → Alteration or degradation of Raptor habitat.
Construction and operations activities cause sensory disturbances (light, noises, dust) → Sensory disturbances impact on adjacent areas → Alteration or degradation of Raptor habitat.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Structural differences between cleared and remaining vegetation create edge effect → Alteration or degradation of Raptor habitat.
Construction and maintenance activities → Introduction of invasive species → Alteration or degradation of Raptor habitat.
Construction

Accidental Spills

Accidental spills and releases that occur during construction phase may result in raptor habitat degradation. Depending on concentrations and material spilled, an accidental spill could cause death of vegetation, lower productivity and alter the vegetation community (Hutchinson and Freedman, 2011; Lednev et al., 2023). While spills in uplands may cause local soil contamination and vegetation degradation these upland areas and associated wildlife species are likely less affected than lowland areas that are often hydrologically connected through subsurface flows (Smerdon et al., 2005). If large caliber trees die due to contamination some nest site locations may be lost in the long-term. Snags may still be used as nest sites by some raptors including Great Grey Owl and Red-tailed hawk.

Hydrological Changes

It is widely accepted that roads can alter the hydrologic function and characteristics of peatland communities (Saraswati et al., 2020). Peatlands, which make up the majority of vegetative communities in the RSA, are susceptible to changes in the flow of surface and subsurface water resulting from the bisection of these features by roads. Changes in wetland drainage patterns, resulting in lower or higher water levels, can alter the plant community (Miller et al. 2015) including the tree canopy. These changes can be extensive: a study within boreal fens in Alberta found pronounced differences in canopy cover up to 250 m from road edges in both rich and poor treed fens (Willier et al., 2022); however, tree loss, which would impact on raptor nesting sites, would be confined to the area closest to the road (Saraswati et al., 2020).

Changes can take decades to appear, and if a road is constructed without consideration of drainage these effects can extend hundreds of meters (Juglum, 1975).

Habitat Structural Change

Changes to vegetation structure during road construction activities, such as vegetation clearing and removal, may alter or degrade raptor habitat near the Project Footprint. These vegetation removals may also lead to edge effects, including abiotic, direct biotic, and indirect biotic effects on the habitat. For both Red-tailed hawk and Great Grey Owl, in terms of habitat degradation, a large component of the effect is associated with removal of mature forests that may serve as nest sites and replacement with early seral communities in temporary supportive infrastructure areas and within the road ROW. While temporary camps, laydowns, and access roads are scheduled for restoration, regrowth of forests in the boreal is slow.
In terms of foraging, Red-tailed hawks are unlikely to be affected by the edge creation as they often preferentially chose edges and forest fragmentation can be a gain in habitat (La Sorte et al., 2004). For Great Grey Owls, their preference for large tracts of forest for nesting may be affected by cutting the ROW but Great Grey Owls often use of open edges of forest for foraging (Johnsgard, 1988).

Sensory Disturbance

Sensory disturbances resulting from road construction and operations, including movement of equipment and vehicles, noise, vibration, and other human activities may degrade habitat for raptors adjacent to the Project Footprint, reducing utilization of the area. Noise and light may degrade raptor habitat by reducing utilization of the area, this may be especially true during construction when activities such as blasting at quarries and pits, hauling and clearing may occur causing raptors to avoid areas around the road ROW and supportive infrastructure areas. Construction noise is less continuous and more impulsive than traffic noise, raptors responding negatively to loud sporadic noise such as excavating, blasts or helicopter overflights using the areas less during noise events (Schuenk et al. 2001), this is especially true of raptors that have not previously been exposed to anthropogenic noise (Andersen and Rongstad, 1989). Some habituation may occur at least for Great Grey Owl as owls have been found to use sites industrial noise (Shonfield and Bayne, 2017) while Red-tailed hawks were found to nest farther from coal-bed natural gas development (Carlisle et al., 2018). Both raptor species are known to use urban environments (Poppleton, 2016).
Operations

Accidental Spills

Raptor habitat degradation from accidental spills could also occur during the operations phase. Spills during operations would most likely originate from accidental releases from vehicles traveling to and from the community. Accidental spills and releases during road operations may occur due to mechanical failure, human error, poor visibility or slippery road conditions. While estimate frequency of spills is low (0.00000019 spills per mile, or 0.00000012 spills per kilometer [Harwood and Russell, 1990]), its predicted that minor spills and release are possible and like during construction, the primary concern for raptors would be spills in or adjacent to nesting habitats where large canopy trees are impacted.

Hydrological Changes

Alterations to hydrology during the operations could also impact on raptor habitat. The primary pathway would be alterations due to culvert and crossing structure maintenance. Localized changes to hydrology could occur if culvert maintenance along the road is ignored, either in terms of repairs to the structure or removal of accumulated debris. The area affected would be dependent on the amount of time the culvert remains blocked as well as the size of the impounded area. The area impacted would likely be limited compared to the construction phase as blockages would affect individual road crossings.

Sensory Disturbance

Sensory disturbances resulting from road operations may degrade habitat for raptors adjacent to the Project Footprint. During the operations phase, most sensory effects will be related to traffic noise as lighting will be limited along the road and human activity outside of driving will be limited and primarily related to maintenance activities. Traffic noise has been found to degrade bird habitat either through complete avoidance of areas near roads or decreased habitat value (Ware et al. 2015; Summers et al. 2011). Foraging efficiency in owls has been found to decline with increasing traffic noise levels, with the effects of acoustic masking (disrupting prey detection) extending more than 120 m away from a road, even at low levels of traffic noise (40 dB [Amplitude]) (Senzaki et al., 2016). Red-tailed hawks can often be found near higher traffic roads suggesting they are less sensitive to traffic levels which have the highest noise levels
(Watson and Simpson, 2014) adapt well to noisy human environments (Poppleton, 2016; Stout et al., 2006).

Habitat Structural Change

Changes to vegetation structure during operations will have similar effects on raptors and their habitat as during the construction phase. While it is anticipated that restoration of laydown areas and access roads will reverse some of the habitat alteration or degradation caused by road construction, maintenance activities, including removal of roadside vegetation during road operations, will create periodic disturbances and sustain edge effects along the ROW. Both Red_tailed Hawks and Great Grey Owls would be expected to continue using trees along any created edge if suitable perching trees are available. Fragmentation can cause increased windthrow, which may cause the loss of super canopy trees near the ROW. Increased windthrow has generally been reported in forestry where openings between forested areas are much larger than the 35 m width of the WSR ROW (Scott and Mitchell, 2005).

12.3.11.3 Alteration in Movement
Alteration in raptor movement may result from vegetation clearing and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. The pathways or activities which may result in alteration in raptor movement include the following:
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Structural differences between cleared and natural vegetation act as a barrier → Alteration in movement of Raptor.
Construction and operations activities cause sensory disturbances (light, noises, dust) → Disturbances cause avoidance response → Alteration in movement of Raptor.
Construction

Loss of Connectivity

Alteration of raptor movement may occur due to changes in habitat connectivity due to construction activities. The construction of the road will fragment terrestrial and wetland habitats, including temporary access roads, laydown areas, and quarries. Raptor movement is unlikely to be altered by fragmentation of habitat due to clearing of the ROW. Great Grey Owl can be affected by larger clearcuts (>100 m wide) which have no hunting perches and are of little use but respond favourably to smaller openings (Niemi and Hanowski, 1997). Avoidance due to predation concerns are unlikely for Red-tailed hawks as healthy adults are rarely at risk of predation. Great Grey Owls avoid hunting in large openings as they can be more vulnerable to predators like Northern Goshawks and Great Horned Owls (Duncan, 1997).

Sensory Disturbance

Raptor movement may be altered by sensory disturbances. Construction activities such as noise, lighting and other human actions during construction activities such as blasting, clearing, hauling and grading will create disturbances that could alter movement of raptors, including shifts in territories, as they avoid the project ROW and supportive infrastructure. Construction noise is less continuous and more impulsive than traffic noise, raptors responding negatively to loud sporadic noise such as excavating, blasts or helicopter overflights using the areas less during noise events (Schuenk et al., 2001). While Red-tailed hawk and Great Grey Owl may leave areas when exposed to anthropogenic noise, both have been shown to return to habitats once human activity stops (Anderson and Rongstad, 1989; van Ripper et al., 2013). For chronic noise, owls have been found to use sites with background industrial noise (Shonfield and Bayne, 2017) while Red-tailed hawks can use areas with high traffic levels and noise (Watson and Simpson, 2014). Owls may also be attracted to light sources used during construction activities as they could attract prey and lighting improves predation success (Canario et al., 2012; Rodreguez et al., 2020).
Operations

Loss of Connectivity

Similar to the construction phase, during operations alteration in movement due to changes in habitat connectivity is unlikely for Red-tailed hawk or Great Grey Owl. Maintenance activities will maintain vegetation in an early seral state along the road; however, while it has been demonstrated that small birds are affected by gaps and cross less frequently, larger birds such as raptors continue to fly over roads only at higher elevations (Johnson et al. 2017; Husby, 2017). Additionally, many raptors have been found to show little response to roads especially with low to moderate traffic (Planillo et al. 2015).

Sensory Disturbance

Vehicle noise is anticipated be the primary sensory impact on raptors during operations. Traffic noise has been found to lower abundance and promote avoidance in many bird species (McClure et al. 2013). High traffic roads have been shown to affect bird distribution when noise exceeded 56 dB (Hirvonen, 2001). Birds have also been shown to shift in their use seasonally around roads (Wiacek and Polak, 2015). However, Red-tailed hawks are often seen along noisy roadsides and show little alteration in behavior. For owls, while evidence suggest reduced foraging success in noisy environments (Senzaki et al., 2016), they still use areas with traffic noise (Shonfield and Bayne, 2017).

12.3.11.4 Injury or Death
The construction of the Project may lead to both direct and indirect raptor mortality. There could be increases in raptor injury or death stemming from increased vehicle traffic or clearing activities during both construction and operation of the road, with indirect mortalities arising from increased predator encounters. The pathways or activities which may result in raptor injury or death include the following:
Equipment and vehicles moving within Project footprint → Collisions with raptors within Project Footprint → Injury or Death of raptors.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Incidental encounters with Individuals or nests → Injury or Death of raptors.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Increased access for raptor predators → Injury or Death of raptors.

Construction

Collisions with Vehicles

Movement of construction equipment and vehicles within Project Footprint could result in increased death and injury of raptors. Collisions with vehicles is among the top three causes of bird mortalities in Canada (Calvert et al., 2013).
Vehicles will be travelling between camps and construction locations; these trips could occur at all hours and encounters with birds would not be unexpected. In Canada, Accipitriforme birds (hawks, vultures and eagles) are very rarely counted as casualties of vehicle collisions (Bishop and Brogan, 2013). Raptors can be susceptible to collisions due to their feeding behaviors, either through hunting near roads or feeding on roadkill (Croston, 2021). Red-tailed hawks, while they generally hunt small mammals and birds, will feed on carrion (Preston and Beane, 2024). Owls can be particularly susceptible due to their low flying hunting behavior (Grilo et al., 2012). Collisions with helicopters are also possible when they are being used to ferry people and equipment (Washburn et al., 2013).

Incidental Take

Vegetation clearing in raptor habitat during road construction and operations may result in injury or death to birds, hatchlings, and/or eggs if management of vegetation is carried out during the breeding season, even after mitigation measures have been applied. Red-tailed hawks use large stick nests that are relatively conspicuous on the landscape, in the tallest trees (Moorman and Chapman, 1996) making accidental removal unlikely, while Great Grey Owls use stick nests built by other raptors or broken tops of large snags. Indirect raptor mortality could occur if construction activities take place close to the nest as the probability of nest abandonment increases with intensity and proximity to human activities (Richardson and Miller, 1997).

Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

Effects on raptor injury or death from improved predator access and movement rates is possible during the construction phase. Linear features are known to facilitate predator movement in the boreal (Dickie et al., 2017; Benoit-Pepin et al., 2024) and creation of new roads connected to human activity is known to spread predators into previously unoccupied areas (Lantham et al. 2011). Adult Red-tailed hawks have few predators while Great Grey Owls can be predated by Great Horned Owls and lynx (Hayward and Verner, 1994). Nestlings and eggs from both species can be predated by Great Horned Owls, Northern Goshawks, Ravens (Preston and Beane, 1983; Bull and Ducan, 1983) and predation by terrestrial predators like black bear and fisher may also occur (Morrison et al., 2006) but little information is known. A small increase is possible as great horned owls have been found to select for linear features due to these types of disturbances creating suitable hunting habitat (Shonfield and Bayne, 2023).
Operations

Collisions with Vehicles

Vehicles traveling along the road during operations could collide with raptors causing injury or death where the road intersects breeding, roosting and foraging habitats. Collisions with vehicles is among the top three causes of bird mortalities in Canada (Calvert et al., 2013). Raptors can be susceptible to collisions due to their feeding behaviors, either through hunting near roads or feeding on roadkill (Croston, 2021). Loos and Kerlinger (1993) estimated 25 raptors a year were killed on a 145 km route driven every weekday over a 10-year period with most being smaller owls.
Traffic speed is of particular importance with higher speeds resulting in increased deaths for hawks and owls (Gagne et al., 2015; Dwyer et al. 2018).

Incidental Take

Vegetation clearing in raptor habitat is also scheduled to occur during operations. Though smaller in scale, periodic clearing of the ROW may occur during operations as part of line-of-sight maintenance or infrastructure repairs. Most clearing during operations will consist of removal of small vegetation and is unlikely to affect preferred raptor habitat but a small chance exists that large trees adjacent to the roadway may be removed due to safety concerns. Indirect death of eggs and nestlings may occur if nest abandonment occurs due to maintenance activities occur near occupied nests.

Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

Effects on Red-tailed hawks and Great Grey Owls from predators during operations are a continuation of the same impacts as described for the construction phase. Maintenance clearing during operations will maintain openness along the ROW which will maintain predator access to areas near the road and facilitate movement.

12.3.11.5 Threat Assessment
Each of the four potential effects categories were evaluated based on the threats assessment criteria outlined in the TISG and is based on IUCN-CMP (International Union for the Conservation of Nature–Conservation Measures Partnership) unified threat classification system, referenced from NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk (Natureserve, 2012). Threats are assessed prior to any mitigative measures being applied. The threat assessment process is generally done at the population level but can be done at a more regional level. Home range for Great Grey Owl is between 1.5-6 km2, and males have been found hunting up to 3 km from their nest. For Red-tailed Hawk territory size is large, around 2-5 km2. Based on this, the RSA was deemed the most appropriate scale for the assessment.
Scope is small for all threats as the percent of the population affected is less than 10% of the available habitat and population within the RSA.
Severity of threats ranges from slight to serious. Threats related to vegetation removals are serious within the scope based on the high degree of habitat loss and alteration, and spills are rated as moderate as they are less likely to occur but would be damaging if they happened. Collisions are also rated as moderate due to both Red-tailed Hawk and Great Gray Owl behavior around roads, and all other threats as slight. Magnitude is rated as low for all threats.
Irreversibility is high for hydrological changes and very high for vegetation removal as the roadbed will likely never be removed but hydrological mitigations could be done. Irreversibility is also high for spills, habitat structural change, invasive species, and predation because while the effects can technically be reversed it would take time and considerable effort. The rest of the threats were deemed low and can be easily reversed. The degree of effect was low for all except vegetation loss which was moderate.
A summary of the threat assessment for raptors habitat loss, alteration or degradation of habitat, alteration in movement, and injury or death prior to the consideration of mitigation measures, is presented in Table 12-36.
Table 12-36: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Raptors

12.3.12 Reptiles and Amphibians
Eastern Gartersnakes occupy a wide variety of habitats such as wetland edges, mixed forests, and rocky areas. During the winter they move below the frost line, using rock crevices, other natural underground cavities, and mammal burrows (Ontario Nature, 2024).

American Toads breed in a wide range of permanent and temporary shallow aquatic features. Outside of the breeding season, they can be found in a variety of terrestrial habitats including deciduous and mixed forests, forest clearings, rock barrens, and muskeg. During the winter they move below the frost line by burrowing in sandy soils or using mammal burrows, crevices in bedrock, or other underground cavities (Ontario Nature, 2024).

Boreal Chorus Frogs breed in open wetlands that are small, shallow, and fish-free. Outside of the breeding season they remain close to their breeding sites, occupying deciduous and mixed Boreal coniferous forests. During the winter they use mammal burrows, tree root cavities, burrow under logs or rocks, or bury under leaf litter (Ontario Nature, 2024).

Spring Peepers breed in a number of different shallow, open aquatic habitats that are typically temporary and fish-free. Outside of the breeding season they inhabit forests near their breeding sites and can be found several metres off the ground in trees and vegetation. During the winter they move into mammal burrows, tree root cavities, under logs, or bury under leaf litter (Ontario Nature, 2024).

Wood Frogs are closely associated with deciduous and Boreal Forest, inhabiting open and forested muskeg and wet meadows. They breed in shallow, fish-free ephemeral wetlands within or near forests. During the winter they bury themselves under shallow leaf litter (Ontario Nature, 2024).

In Northern Ontario, the reptile and amphibian active season is generally understood to occur between May 1 and September 30. The overwintering period for reptiles and amphibians in Northern Ontario typically occurs between October 1 and April 30; however, this time period may vary depending on fluctuation in seasonal temperatures such as an early spring thaw or warm fall weather.

12.3.12.1 Habitat Loss
Reptile and amphibian habitat loss, including overwintering habitat, thermoregulation habitat and breeding habitat, may result from vegetation clearing, hydrological changes and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. The pathway or activity which may result in loss or destruction of reptile and amphibian habitat during the construction and operations phases are described below.
Site preparation, vegetation clearing and roadbed construction → Permanent removal of vegetation and hydrological changes → Loss of reptile and amphibian habitat
Construction

Clearing Activities

Reptile and amphibian habitat loss and destruction is expected due to site preparation and construction activities, such as vegetation clearing and quarry creating, as well as hydrological changes resulting from road construction. Creation of the Project Footprint will directly and permanently remove habitat suitable for reptiles and amphibians to overwinter, breed, and thermoregulate for the duration of road operations. The results of habitat modelling via Ecological Land Classification (Refer to Section 11: Assessment of Effects on Vegetation and Wetlands), and an understanding of the Project Footprint, estimate construction activities will result in the removal of 380.34 ha of wetland habitat in the Project Footprint.
RSF modelling was done for American Toad and three frog species: Boreal Chorus Frog, Spring Peeper and Wood Frog. To calculate habitat loss the Project Footprint was overlayed, and the underlying habitat removed.
Pre-construction amount of amphibian high-use habitat (ha) in the LSA and RSA and the percent proposed for removal due to road construction and operations are presented in Table 12-37. Figure 12.24 through Figure 12.27 show the predicted use of the RSA under existing conditions for amphibians.
Table 12-37: Amphibian Species High-Use Habitat by Study Area

Species LSA RSA

Quantification of reptile habitat change in use has not been calculated due to the cryptic nature of Eastern Garter Snake and low detectability across the RSA. Habitat loss has been found to have a negative effect on Eastern Garter Snake occupancy probability within a 10 km by 10 km area (Paterson et al. 2021). Eastern Garter Snake is considered a habitat generalist, similar to American Toad, occurring in a variety of terrestrial habitats that include field and forest. As such, Eastern Garter Snake high-use habitat area and percent removed is anticipated to be the same as that of the American Toad (Table 12-37).

Operations

Clearing Activities

Road operations are unlikely to result in additional loss of reptile and amphibian overwintering, breeding, and thermoregulation habitats, as regular maintenance will involve managing re-growth of vegetation along the ROW within the Project Footprint. There is a very low probability that reclaimed temporary laydown areas and clearings may need to be reused during operations. While the quarries are expected to remain operational following construction, the footprints will not be expanded and as such no additional habitat loss or destruction is anticipated to occur during operations.

12.3.12.2 Habitat Alteration and Degradation
Reptile and amphibian habitat alteration or degradation may result from vegetation clearing, hydrological changes and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. The pathways or activities which may result in alteration or degradation of reptile and amphibian habitat are described below.
Construction of road and vegetation removals change drainage and alter soil moisture regimes → Hydrological changes to ground or surface water → Alteration and degradation of reptile and amphibian habitat
Construction activities and road operations generate noise, light, and other sensory disturbances → Noise masks amphibian breeding calls → Sensory disturbances alter or degrade reptile and amphibian habitat
Construction and operation requires vegetation removal, clearing, and maintenance → Changes to habitat structure, size, and connectivity → Alteration and degradation of reptile and amphibian habitat
Accidental spills or releases occur during construction or road operations → Harmful substances enter habitat adjacent to the road or worksite → Alteration and degradation of reptile and amphibian habitat

Construction

Hydrological Changes

Herpetofaunal habitat may be altered hydrologically, with construction activities such as grading for road installation resulting in changes to both surface water and groundwater causing flooding or drying of vegetation communities. As described in Section 11.3.3.3 (Loss or Alteration of Wetland Function) 91.82% of the Project RSA is wetlands, primarily peatlands susceptible to changes in the flow of surface and subsurface water resulting from the bisection of these features by roads. The effects of roads on hydrology and herpetofaunal habitat can occur up to 250 m from the ROW; the habitat alteration assessment uses the same values as those shown in Section 11.3.3.3, with high effects expected within 20 m, moderate effects within 60 m and minimal effects experienced at 250 m.

Sensory Disturbance

During construction, activities such as blasting at quarries and pits, earth hauling and vegetation clearing may reduce the ability of Reptiles and Amphibians to use habitat along the ROW and supportive infrastructure due to sensory disturbances. Traffic noise is known to mask the calls of amphibians (Duarte et al. 2003; Schou et al. 2021; and Tennessen et al. 2014), which may be similar to noise generated by construction vehicles and equipment.

Change in Habitat Structure

Road construction may result in a change in reptile and amphibian habitat structure, such as reduced connectivity (movement corridors) between overwintering habitat and breeding habitat, or a reduction in size of overwintering and breeding habitats due to loss of vegetation, changes in vegetation community structure, hydrological changes, and construction of the roadbed.
Changes in amphibian distribution following construction of the Project was modelled by estimating probability of use (pUse) based on RSFs across the RSA. Details of the modelling methods are discussed in Section 11.2.1 (Methods) and further details are provided in the Baseline report. Figure 12.28 through Figure 12.31 show the probabilities of use under future conditions. It should be noted that the model used current disturbances to predict future habitat use (refer to Section 12.2.1.1: Resource Selection Function Models). As there are no existing permanent roads, current types of disturbance in the RSAs (i.e., winter road, cutlines, old camps, pads) are not used by humans for most of the time and may therefore be used by species that are known to otherwise avoid human activities/presence. RSF based on future disturbance effects predicts amphibian utilization to decrease 40.6% in the Project Footprint, decrease 16.6% in the

LSA, and to decrease 3.0% in the RSA. This has also been calculated for the four amphibian (anuran) species detected during the baseline studies (Table 12-38) with net habitat utilization change in the Project Footprint ranging from -21.5% (Wood Frog) to -80.4% (Boreal Chorus Frog). One species, Spring Peeper, is predicted to have a small gain of 2.2% habitat utilization at the RSA level. Overall, amphibians as a group are predicted to have a 40.6% decrease in habitat utilization in the Project Footprint; a 16.6% decrease in the LSA; and a 3.0% decrease in the RSA. Overall, the change in habitat utilization can be attributed to habitat loss (discussed in Section 12.3.12.1 above) and due to the net effects resulting in habitat alteration and degradation.
Table 12-38: Amphibian Species Probability of Habitat Use Percent Change by Study Area

Species % Change

Accidental Spills

Accidental spills and releases that occur during the construction phase may result in reptile and amphibian habitat degradation. Boreal wetlands are often hydrologically connected through subsurface flows (Smerdon et al., 2005), resulting in large watersheds through which pollutants can spread. Such pollutants may alter water quality and vegetation (i.e., die-off, growth rate, community composition) making areas uninhabitable.
Operations

Hydrological Changes

Operation of the road is not anticipated to result in further changes to hydrology than those initiated during the construction phase. It is possible that changes to hydrology may occur during the operations, such as accumulation of debris affecting culverts and drainage that results in localized flooding and drying of areas.

Sensory Disturbance

Noise and light from vehicles travelling on the road during operations may affect reptile and amphibian habitat along the ROW and supportive infrastructure. There is evidence that traffic noise can affect anurans in a variety of ways, such as through masking calls and increasing stress responses (Duarte et al. 2003; Schou et al. 2021; and Tennessen et al.
2014). Traffic is expected to be relatively low, with a maximum of 500 vehicles a day, and some anuran species such as Wood Frog have demonstrated an ability to adapt to traffic noise levels (Tennessen et al. 2018). Less research has been conducted on the effects of relevant sensory disturbances on reptiles such as Eastern Garter Snakes; however, road-related vibrations are not believed to influence the use of a road-adjacent hibernaculum by garter snakes (Patching et al.,2015).

Habitat Structural Change

Habitat alteration or degradation due to change in habitat structure initiated during the construction phase from vegetation clearing and changes to vegetation community structure is expected to continue during the operations phase. These vegetation changes will be maintained during road operations, but no new changes to habitat structure are expected to be generated as a result.

Accidental Spills

Accidental spills and releases that occur during the operations phase may result in reptile and amphibian habitat degradation. Boreal wetlands are often hydrologically connected through subsurface flows (Smerdon et al., 2005), resulting in large watersheds through which pollutants can spread. Such pollutants may alter water quality and vegetation (i.e., die-off, growth rate, community composition) making areas uninhabitable, including roadside ditches which may be used as refugia by amphibians when containing standing water. Accidental spills and releases during road operations may occur due to mechanical failure (e.g., tire blow-out), human error (e.g., distracted or tired driver), poor visibility or slippery road surface, for example. In Ontario, between 2021 and 2022 (the most recent data available; no data reported between 2015 and 2020) there were 172 spills in water (surface water and groundwater) with confirmed environmental effects recorded by the MECP, which were caused by accidents/collisions, intentional discharge, dumping, human/operator error, truck or trailer overturn, and other transport accidents (MECP, 2025). Most spills (121; 70%) during that two year period consisted of fuels (gasoline, diesel, aviation) and oils (hydraulic, motor, engine, transmission, transformer, petroleum-based) (MECP, 2025). Michel and Rutherford (2014) found that oil spills in marshes in cold climates have the longest recovery periods (>10 years), even with intense treatment.

12.3.12.3 Alteration in Movement
Alteration in reptile and amphibian movement may result from vegetation clearing and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. The pathways or activities which may result in alteration in reptile and amphibian movement are described below.
Construction of the road surface creates physical barriers → Reptiles and amphibians avoid crossing large gaps and using paved and gravel surfaces during construction and operations → Alteration in reptile and amphibian movement
Construction activities and road operations generate noise, light, and other sensory disturbances → sensory disturbances result in avoidance of area → Sensory disturbances alter reptile and amphibian movement
Construction

Loss of Connectivity

Herptile movement is likely to be altered by the road due to the open space, and due to paved and gravel substrates acting as deterrents. Garter snakes are less abundant near roads (Gigeroff and Blouin-Demers, 2023) and have also been found to avoid gravel roads, potentially due to the lower substrate temperature (Shine et al. 2004).

Sensory Disturbance

Herptile movement is likely to be altered by sensory disturbances generated during construction. Noise, lighting and other human actions during construction activities such as blasting, clearing, hauling and grading will create disturbances that could alter movement of herptiles as they avoid the project ROW and supportive infrastructure.

Operations

Loss of Connectivity

Changes in reptile and amphibian movement will occur in the Project Footprint due to physical barriers created by the construction of the road, such as paved and gravel surfaces acting as deterrents. The paved and gravel surfaces will be maintained during road operations, but no new physical barriers are expected to be generated as a result.

Sensory Disturbance

Herptile movement is likely to be altered by sensory disturbances generated during operations. Amphibian abundance has been found to decrease with increasing traffic intensity (Fahrig et al. 1994), with effects on abundance experienced up to 1 km from the road (Hamer et al. 2021).

12.3.12.4 Injury or Death
The creation of the road may lead to both direct and indirect reptile and amphibian mortality. There could be increases in reptile and amphibian injury or death stemming from increased vehicle traffic during both construction and operation of the road, with indirect mortalities arising from increased energy expenditures and habitat change. The pathways or activities which may result in reptile and amphibian injury, or death are described below.
Equipment and vehicles move within Project Footprint → Collisions with reptiles and amphibians within Project Footprint → Injury/Death of reptiles and amphibians
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Increased access for predators of reptiles and amphibians → Injury/Death of reptiles and amphibians
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Incidental encounters with reptiles and amphibians
→ Injury/Death of reptiles and amphibians
Vehicles and equipment moving through the Project Footprint and LSA transfer disease (ranavirus) from other areas to aquatic habitat → Ranavirus infects reptiles and amphibians in aquatic habitat → Injury/Death of reptiles and amphibians
Construction

Collisions with Vehicles

Reptile and amphibian injury and death may occur during construction due to collisions with construction vehicles and equipment (i.e., getting run over) during the active season.

Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

Effects on herptile survival from improved predator access and movement rates due to the construction of the road are probable. Both mammalian and avian predators of reptiles and amphibians are drawn to linear features for movement and foraging opportunities (Hill et al., 2020; Towerton et al., 2016; Kuskemoen 2020; Knight and Kawashima, 1993).

Introduction of Disease

Increased anthropogenic activity during road construction may result in the introduction of ranavirus to reptiles and amphibians and their aquatic habitats. Indirect transmission of ranavirus can occur through spread of water and sediment transferred from areas where ranavirus is prevalent (Harp & Petranka, 2006), which may happen if

construction vehicles and equipment have previously been used in areas with ranavirus. St-Amour et al. (2008) found that proximity to human activities such as construction or industry is associated with higher prevalence of ranavirus in amphibian populations. In Ontario, ranavirus was first reported in amphibians in 2004, and since has been documented as causing mass-mortality events with rates in local populations as high as 90-100% (Greer et al., 2005; Duffus et al., 2008; Duffus and Andrews, 2013).

Incidental Take

Vegetation clearing in reptile and amphibian habitat during road construction may result in injury or death to these species groups. Species such as Spring Peepers and Boreal Chorus Frogs are capable of climbing vegetation and may be located up to 1 m above the ground, camouflaged among foliage or in cracks, crevices and knot holes. These two species, as well as recently metamorphosed American Toads and Wood Frogs are very small (2-4 cm in body length) making them inconspicuous in vegetated areas. Overwintering amphibians are very challenging to detect and may be present in wetlands during construction activities such as vegetation clearing.

Accidental Spills

Accidental spills and releases of harmful chemicals and substances during road construction may result in injury or death to reptiles and amphibians. Amphibians are particularly sensitive to environmental releases as their skin is moist and absorptive for oxygen exchange.
Operations

Collisions with Vehicles

During operations, the predicted maximum vehicles travelling on the road is 500 per day, with the majority of travel anticipated to take place during daylight hours. Mortality during the operations phase is expected to occur throughout the reptile and amphibian active season, primarily: at nighttime during the sensitive spring breeding period for amphibians, during seasonal dispersal or migration, and after periods of heavy rain (Gunson & Schueler, 2019); and in areas where wetlands occur on both sides of the road (Lagen et al. 2009) in the Project Footprint. American Toad mortality is also known to increase with increasing traffic intensity, while Wood Frog mortality can be greatest at moderate traffic intensities (i.e., 10-18 vehicles per hour) (Mazerolle, 2004). Hels and Buchwald (2001) found that a traffic load of 3,200 vehicles per day annually killed approximately 10% of the adult population of three frog species living within 250 m of the highway: when scaled to 500 vehicles per day, this annual number is reduced to 1.6%.

Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

Operation of the road may provide resources that attract predators (Hill et al., 2020), such as increased rodent populations attracting carnivores. Red Foxes (Vulpes vulpes) have been documented taking advantage of roads for movement (Towerton et al., 2016; Kuskemoen 2020) and may also be drawn to forage at the roadside as well (Silva et al., 2009). Ravens (Corvus corax) have also been found to be more abundant along highways due to automobile-generated carrion (Knight and Kawashima, 1993).

Introduction of Disease

Increased anthropogenic activity during road operations may result in the introduction of ranavirus to reptiles and amphibians and their aquatic habitats. Indirect transmission of ranavirus can occur through spread of water and sediment transferred from areas where ranavirus is prevalent (Harp & Petranka, 2006), which may happen if vehicles travelling on the road shed contaminated sediments into adjacent habitats, or recreational vehicles (i.e., all-terrain vehicle, utility terrain vehicle) and boats are brought from areas with ranavirus and used in adjacent habitats.

Incidental Take

Vegetation management activities in reptile and amphibian habitat during road operations may result in injury or death to these species groups. Species such as Spring Peepers and Boreal Chorus Frogs are capable of climbing vegetation and may be located up to 1 m above the ground, camouflaged among foliage or in cracks, crevices and knot holes.
These two species, as well as recently metamorphosed American Toads and Wood Frogs are very small (2-4 cm in body length) making them inconspicuous in vegetated areas. Overwintering amphibians are very challenging to detect and may be present in wetlands and ditches during vegetation management.

Accidental Spills

Accidental spills and releases of harmful chemicals and substances during road operations may result in injury or death to reptiles and amphibians. Accidental spills and releases during road operations may occur due to mechanical failure (e.g., tire blow-out), human error (e.g., distracted or tired driver), poor visibility or slippery road surface, for example.
Amphibians are particularly sensitive to environmental releases as their skin is moist and absorptive for oxygen exchange. For example, sodium chloride (NaCl), a major component of road run-off when used as a de-icing agent, results in low survivorship, decreased time to metamorphosis, reduced wet and activity, and increased physical abnormalities in Wood Frog tadpoles (Sanzo, 2004). In Ontario, between 2021 and 2022 (the most recent data available; no data reported between 2015 and 2020) there were 172 spills in water (surface water and groundwater) with confirmed environmental impacts recorded by the MECP, which were caused by Accidents/Collisions, Intentional Discharge, Dumping, Human/Operator Error, Truck or Trailer Overturn, and Other Transport Accidents (MECP, 2025). Most spills (121; 70%) during that two year period consisted of fuels (gasoline, diesel, aviation) and oils (hydraulic, motor, engine, transmission, transformer, petroleum-based) (MECP, 2025). Wood Frog larvae (i.e., tadpoles) are often selected as amphibian models for toxicological studies and have been found to be resilient when exposed to a variety of oil spill scenarios/concentrations for a 3-week period (Patterson et al., 2022). This species may not be representative of other amphibian genera, however, such as Anaxyrus and Pseudacris which are found in the RSAs. Krutzweiser et al. (2013) identified the scarcity of empirical studies on amphibians in the boreal zone and little has changed in the
years since.

12.3.12.5 Threat Assessment
Each of the four potential effects categories was evaluated based on the threats assessment criteria outlined in the TISG (refer to Section 12.3.1) and is based on the IUCN-CMP unified threat classification system (NatureServe, 2012). These assessments (refer to Table 12-39) are made prior to the application of mitigation measures, considering each of the threats posed to reptiles and amphibians during the construction and operations phases as outlined in the previous subsections.
Scope is either small or restricted for all threats, as the percentage of the population affected is less than 10% (i.e., for clearance activities, sensory disturbances, habitat structural change, loss of connectivity, collisions, changes to predator prey relationships or incidental take) or between 11 and 30% (i.e., for hydrological changes, accidental spills and disease). Severity of threats range from slight to serious: threats related to habitat loss and hydrological change are serious based on the degree of habitat loss; incidental take is slight as most herpetofauna will remain in habitats less likely to be affected by construction or operational activities; the remainder are moderate. Magnitude is rated as either low or medium for all threats.
Irreversibility very high for clearance activities and disease as the roadbed is unlikely to be removed, and once ranavirus has been introduced to the population, it will remain for numerous years. Irreversibility is high for hydrological change, structural change and loss of connectivity because measures to mitigate for such changes to habitat require adequate time for vegetation to reestablish itself and successional processes to advance. Sensory disturbances, collisions with vehicles and incidental take are considered low because the threat is removed when operational

activities cease. The remaining threats could be reversed with a reasonable commitment of time and resources. The degree of effect is high for disease, and moderate for habitat loss, hydrological changes and accidental spills.
Remaining threats were deemed to have a low degree of effect.
Table 12-39: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Reptiles and Amphibians

Table 12-40 summarizes the potential effects, pathways and indicators for each representative species within the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat VC.

Table 12-40: Summary Table for Potential Effects, Pathways and Indicators for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat VC

12.3                 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures

This section presents the proposed mitigation measures to eliminate, reduce, control, or offset potential adverse effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat during the construction and operations phases of the Project (as described in

Section 12.3). In Section 11.4 (Mitigation and Enhancement Measures for Vegetation and Wetlands) approaches designed to ameliorate or eliminate the potential effects of the Project on vegetation, wetlands and riparian areas were discussed. Many of these measures can minimize habitat loss or alteration of habitat in the short-term (e.g., Vegetation and Invasive Species Management Plan, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Wildlife Management Plan). Other measures, such as the restoration of non-permanent worksites and the implementation of environmental monitoring and inspection programs during operation, will facilitate habitat enhancement in the long-term.

The Project Team has strived to avoid potential effects to the natural environment. (Refer to Section 3, which describes the evaluation process that was used to identify the preliminary preferred route). When complete avoidance was not practicable, mitigation measures have been proposed, including aspects of Project design that reduced negative (adverse) effects prior to the onset of construction. These measures are expected to reduce the resulting adverse net effects on wildlife habitat quality and quantity, survival and reproduction, and injury or death.

Certain adverse effects (including net effects) cannot be fully avoided or mitigated. Such cases are often compensated for by undertaking positive environmental activities, including measures that involve habitat restoration or habitat

off-setting. This section and the following sections in Appendix E (Mitigation Measures) outline key mitigation and enhancement measures to reduce potential adverse effects on the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat VC. Additional measures will be provided in the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and Operations Environmental Management Plan (OEMP) that will be developed for the Project.

Indigenous community members will have an active role in developing and implementing management plans.

An Environment Committee will be established to facilitate communication and engagement during construction and operations of the Project. Committee members will include Webequie First Nation Elders and Knowledge Holders, other Indigenous Nations, and appropriate project representatives, to: facilitate communication and engagement during construction and operations of the Project; facilitate use of Indigenous Knowledge in project activities; facilitate evaluation of land use information; and facilitate development of appropriate monitoring programs, protocols and management plans as it relates to Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat VC.

Section 12.4.2 describes mitigation and enhancement measures that are appliable across species groups; however, some potential effects are either species-specific or specific to a group of species and measures to address these potential effects are described in the following sections: Moose (12.4.3), Furbearers (12.4.4), Bats (12.4.5), Birds (12.4.6), and Reptiles and Amphibians (12.7). The effectiveness of mitigation during construction and operations will be evaluated as part of the follow-up monitoring program for the Project, and measures will be modified or enhanced as necessary through an adaptive management process.

12.3.1             Habitat Availability and Key Mitigation Measures

In this draft EAR/IS, the term ‘habitat availability’ refers to the amount of habitat that is available to a species or species group prior to, during or after Project implementation. This represents habitat that is likely to be used without negative consequences to survival, reproduction, or population of wildlife. Habitat availability will be reduced through direct habitat loss, and indirectly through habitat alteration and degradation. Direct habitat loss is a quantitative measure, and

an example of this would be from the physical development footprint of the Project. Habitat can also become unavailable to species indirectly through avoidance. An example of this is habitat degradation from sensory disturbances, such as noise, light, and scent, which often deter wildlife. Further, altered habitat that has been reduced in quality might continue to be used by species at their own detriment; for example, increasing habitat edges can attract predators which put their prey species at higher risk of injury or death.

The Project Team has taken steps to during the planning and development phase to limit potential adverse effects on habitat availability, particularly for sensitive species or wildlife habitat. Baseline studies for species and species groups that were conducted have been used to inform the recommended mitigation measures and follow-up monitoring program which will be implemented during the Construction and Operational Phases of the Project. Environmental management plans will also be developed for each respective phase. The frameworks for the Construction Environmental Management Plan and Operation Environmental Management Plan are described in Appendix E (Mitigation Measures).

During the construction phase, the following key mitigation measures, in addition to those described in Sections 12.4.2 – 12.4.7(Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat, Moose, Furbearers, Bats, Birds, and Reptiles and Amphibians) and those specified in Appendix E, will be applied and monitored:

• Habitat delineation and mapping activities will be used to develop accurately located protective measures. This will include construction fencing installed to clearly delineate the boundaries of work areas and prevent habitat damage and loss beyond the limits of the work area. Delineation and fencing will also restrict human access to sensitive habitats.
• Restrictions will be put in place to reduce the stopping of vehicles and equipment along the roadway. Maps will be created identifying no-go zones and the importance of these zones will be shared during environmental training and awareness program for workers.
• Vegetation clearing will be undertaken using appropriate equipment to minimize and avoid effects outside of the clearing zone (Project Footprint). Cleared vegetation will be disposed of according to best practices, such as chipping, spreading, compacting and/or transporting logs or timber to Webequie First Nation for community use.
• The CEMP that will be prepared and implemented for the Project will identify the protocols and procedures for the stockpiling and management of vegetation and soils, including how disturbed areas will be stabilized and monitored.
• Petroleum handling and storage procedures have been developed, including spills prevention and emergency response to avoid effects to soil, groundwater, surface water, vegetation and wildlife. (Refer to Section 5.2 and 5.3 of Appendix E: Mitigation Measures).
• Timing for construction activities will be established to reduce the potential effect on wildlife species and their habitat. The timing windows2 for construction activities (e.g., vegetation clearing) have been determined in consultation with the MNR and Canadian Wildlife Service – Environment and Climate Change Canada (CWS-ECCC).
• Site-specific erosion and sediment control and construction staging plans, along with air and dust control measures will be developed and approved prior to construction to address potential deposition of dust and/or sediment that can change soil quality, alter vegetation and wetlands, which can adversely influence wildlife habitat. Water will be used to control dust from exposed excavations, disturbed ground surfaces, pits, quarries and traffic areas. Erosion and sediment control measures may include use of sediment fencing, silt curtains, and temporary erosion control cover (e.g., straw mulch, wood chips, erosion control blanket, etc.) to prevent the migration of sediment off-site. (Please refer to Section 5.16 and 5.18 of Appendix E: Mitigation Measures).

²  In wildlife biology, timing windows are specific periods of the year when certain activities can be conducted with minimal impact on wildlife. Timing windows vary based on the ecological needs of certain species (or species groups) and are often tied to life cycles, with stages that involve breeding, nesting or young often being considered the most important to avoid.

The effectiveness of mitigation measures will be evaluated during construction and operations, with measures being modified or enhanced as necessary through adaptive management.

12.3.2             General Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Mitigation

The following section outlines key measures that are applicable to mitigate potential effects on wildlife habitat, inclusive of habitat loss, habitat alteration or degradation, wildlife movement patterns and wildlife injury or death. A summary of the potential effects, mitigation measures, and predicted net effects of the Project on wildlife is presented in Table 12-41.

12.3.2.1         Wildlife Habitat Loss

12.3.2.1.1             Construction

Clearance Activities

Vegetation clearing and ground disturbances during the construction phase will result in the loss of structures that provide shelter to wildlife, reduce sources of foraging material, and change other environmental attributes that wildlife depend on for survival and reproduction. Mitigation measures designed to eliminate or minimize the potential effect of the Project on vegetation communities and plant species are described in Section 11.4 (Mitigation and Enhancement Measures for Vegetation and Wetlands) and Appendix E (Mitigation Measures). The loss of wildlife habitat will be minimized by:

• Developing a Vegetation and Invasive Species Management Plan, Wildlife Management Plan and Site Restoration and Monitoring Plan in advance of construction. These plans will form subcomponents of the CEMP and will be implemented following Project initiation. To the extent possible, restoration and management plans will be developed in cooperation with Webequie First Nation and other Indigenous communities and groups, Local Rights Holders, relevant Federal and/or Provincial Agencies and other Stakeholders.
  • During Project planning, where practicable, construction camps, laydown yards, and other temporary areas of disturbance were placed in strategic locations that avoided habitat identified as being important to wildlife (e.g., beaver lodges and dams, known raptor nests).
    • To the extent practicable, temporary construction areas were also placed outside of areas identified as being of high use for wildlife (e.g., those identified through Resource Selection Functions/RSF habitat models). For additional information about mitigation measures for specific species or species group, please refer to Sections 12.4.3 – 12.4.7 (Moose, Furbearers, Bats, Birds, and Reptiles and Amphibians).
    • Using existing roads, trails, and other areas of disturbance to access to Project Footprint, to the extent possible, thereby minimizing habitat loss through the creation of new access roads.
    • Qualified project personnel will identify sensitive habitats that are important to wildlife prior to and during construction (e.g., significant wildlife habitat, areas of high use). Should any be found, they will be assessed by a qualified biologist or resource specialist and an appropriate course of action will be determined, in consultation with regulatory agencies (e.g., CWS-ECCC, MECP, MNR) as required. This may involve receiving approvals or permissions from appropriate regulatory agencies.
    • Limiting the Project Footprint where practicable and minimizing the extent of clearing near areas known to be sensitive (for example, areas where suitable maternity roosting habitat for bats have been identified). Project components have been sited to provide buffer zones around such areas.
    • Engaging and receiving approval from the appropriate agencies (e.g., MECP, MNR, CWS-ECCC) prior to the removal of any identified SWH, high-use areas, or other sensitive ecological features that have been identified as being important to wildlife.

• Using construction fencing to clearly define and delineate the boundaries of work areas to prevent habitat loss or damage beyond the limits of the Project Footprint. Clearing and grubbing activities shall be limited to the permanent development area and any associated supportive infrastructure during the construction phase.
  • Delineating and marking construction boundaries and restricting the clearing of vegetation outside of species-specific, or group-specific timing windows.
    • If adherence to the timing windows and restrictions is not possible, the proponent’s contractor will develop site specific mitigation and monitoring in consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., MNR, CWS-ECCC).
    • Retaining compatible wildlife trees, shrubs, and coarse woody debris (CWD) in environmentally sensitive areas where it is safe to do so. Known sensitive ecological features will be clearly marked and have associated setbacks to prevent their loss.
    • To the extent practicable, progressively reclaiming areas during construction and restoring it to a functional stage. All non-permanent worksites will be restored as soon as feasible after work has been completed. The restoration work will include the removal of construction debris, decompaction and amendments to soils, and the revegetation of disturbed areas.
    • Restoration approaches will be designed to permit natural regeneration of vegetation, and, where necessary, the establishment of self-sustaining species that are indigenous to the area via transplanting, use of root or stem cuttings, planting of area-appropriate native stock supplies or the application of approved seed mixes (for groundcover).
    • Enhancing existing wildlife habitat, where appropriate, by planting and seeding self-sustaining species that are indigenous to the area. All planting and/or seeding must be carried out under appropriate weather conditions (e.g., low or no wind, low or no rainfall, soft, thawed ground).
    • Having qualified personnel conduct site visits and inspections to verify that site-specific environmental protection measures have been implemented correctly, maintained and, as necessary, repaired, until the vegetation has been re-established (e.g., erosion and sediment control).
    • Prioritizing on-site restoration (i.e., Project Footprint) opportunities, while also utilizing suitable off-site compensation opportunities (e.g., disturbed lands within or near the community of Webequie and the western end of the LSA in the vicinity of the Noront camp) where on-site options are limited. WSR Natural Heritage Baseline data and input from Local Rights Holders, Federal and/or Provincial Agencies and other Stakeholders was reviewed when identifying restoration objectives and sites. If insufficient area is available for restoration in the LSA, other mechanisms such as cash-in-lieu and research may be considered. For additional information, refer to Section 11.4 (Mitigation and Enhancement Measures for Vegetation and Wetlands).
    • Conducting ecological monitoring to verify restoration efforts have been successful (e.g., for upland habitats, a minimum 70-75% success rate in terms of species richness and density for trees/shrubs and minimum 50% establishment of healthy reproducing populations from the herbaceous seed mixes).

The effectiveness of mitigation will be evaluated during construction and operations, with measures being modified or enhanced as necessary; however, it is anticipated that these measures will only partially mitigate the potential effects of vegetation clearance on wildlife habitat. As a result, this topic has been carried forward to Section 12.7 (Predicted Net Effects).

12.3.2.2         Wildlife Habitat Alteration or Degradation

12.3.2.2.1             Construction

Habitat Structural Change

Vegetation clearing and ground disturbances during the construction phase may alter the structure of wildlife habitat and increase the short-term availability of early successional habitat. Mitigation measures to reduce changes to vegetation communities and species compositions are described in Section 11.4 (Mitigation and Enhancement Measures for Vegetation and Wetlands) and Appendix E (Mitigation Measures). The effectiveness of mitigation will be evaluated during construction and operations, with measures being modified or enhanced as necessary (i.e., through adaptive management). The alteration or degradation of wildlife habitat will be minimized by:

• Following approval conditions, authorizations or permits issued for the Project, including those from MNR, CWS-ECCC and MECP.
  • Retaining wildlife trees, shrubs, and coarse woody debris (CWD) in environmentally sensitive areas where it is safe to do so. Known sensitive ecological features will be clearly marked and have associated setbacks to minimize the likelihood of habitat change.
    • To the extent possible, progressively reclaiming areas during construction and restoring the habitat to resemble pre-construction conditions. Ideally, this would mean that all non-permanent worksites are restored as soon as possible after work in each area has been completed. The restoration work would include the removal of construction debris, decompaction and amendments to soils, and revegetating disturbed areas.
    • Restoration activities will incorporate approaches designed to permit natural regeneration of vegetation, and, when necessary, the establishment of self-sustaining species that are indigenous to the area by transplanting individuals or using root or stem cuttings. Where transplanting species from within the LSA is not practicable, native species will be obtained from a reputable supplier based on approved lists. All planting and seeding must be carried out under appropriate weather conditions (e.g., low or no wind, low or no rainfall, soft or thawed ground).
    • Having qualified personnel conduct site visits and inspections to verify that site-specific environmental protection measures have been implemented correctly, maintained and, as necessary, repaired, until the vegetation has been re-established (e.g., erosion and sediment control).
    • Conducting follow-up monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation and enhancement measures.

It is anticipated that the potential effects of habitat structural change will be reduced through these measures but not eliminated. Therefore, additional discussion has been carried forward to Predicted Net Effects (Section 12.7).

Hydrological Changes

Hydrological changes in surface and/or groundwater quantity or quality may cause an alteration in wetlands or riparian areas, potentially degrading wildlife habitat. During development, the Project Team considered consolidation and compression processes of the peat layers associated with placement of fill for road construction, which could reduce the permeability of the peatlands and thus alter groundwater directions and pathways. Mitigation measures to reduce changes to hydrology and drainage patterns are provided in Section 7.4 (Mitigation Measures for Effects on Surface Water Resources), Section 8.4 (Mitigation Measures for Effects on Groundwater Resources), and Appendix E (Mitigation Measures). The effectiveness of mitigation will be evaluated during construction and operations, with measures being modified or enhanced as necessary. These measures include:

• Development of a Surface Water and Storm Water Management and Monitoring Plan as part of the CEMP and implementing it during the construction phase.
  • Development of Erosion and Sediment Control Plans as part of the CEMP and implementation during the construction phase.

• Ensuring that any short-term water takings from surface water and/or groundwater sources for construction purposes are carried out in accordance with O. Reg. 387/04, as amended by O. Reg. 64/16 under the Ontario Water Resources Act and industry best standards. Appropriate permits (e.g., permit to take water) and registrations (e.g., Environmental Activity Sector Registry registration) will be obtained prior to the commencement of work.
  • Following any conditions, permits or authorizations relating to environmental approvals for the Project, including those from ECCC, MNR and MECP, during the construction phase of the Project.
    • Minimizing areas where site grading or ground hardening occurs. This can include designing areas used for temporary infrastructure, including access roads and storage yards, efficiently, and incorporating the use of coarse materials (i.e., with the same or higher permeability compared to surrounding native soils) in the base of permanent roads to permit infiltration and groundwater recharge.
    • Utilizing industry Best Management Practices (BMPs) to assist in ensuring that dewatering (pumping) volumes are minimal.
    • Restoring disturbed areas (from temporary support infrastructure) through the decompaction of and replacement with similar native soils, prior to planting or seeding self-sustaining indigenous vegetation as part of site remediation.
    • Timing construction of permanent and/or temporary waterbody crossing structures with low-flow conditions to minimize diversions of surface water and including temporary flow diversions or bypass pumping during construction to minimize environmental effects (including flow volumes) upstream and downstream of the site. These measures will allow Moose, furbearers, herpetofauna and other species groups continued access to their source of surface water.
    • Further minimizing potential changes to water quantity by designing permanent waterbody crossings with bridges or culverts whenever possible. The use of single-span elements will limit the encroachment of structures into stream channels and thus minimize their effect(s) on discharge.
    • Installing localized drainage cross-culverts at regular intervals in low-lying areas to prevent water from ponding on either side of the roadway, instead maintaining existing hydrological flow paths.
    • Designing the roadway and swales with Low Impact Development procedures in mind. The designs include permanent swales that are designed to convey, treat, and attenuate stormwater runoff from the road, thereby improving the removal of contaminants over traditional channel roadside ditch designs.
    • Ensuring all mitigation measures implemented during the construction phase comply with relevant federal and provincial regulations and guidelines regarding the collection and storage of explosives and solid waste

(e.g., federal Explosives Act).

• Testing discharge water quality to verify that it meets Ontario Provincial Water Quality Objectives, with detailed plans in place for monitoring and contingency measures recommended. Construction workers may be required to temporarily stop their work so contingency measures can be employed.
  • Avoiding the use of herbicides during the construction phase and avoiding the use of road salt or sand on the road for de-icing.

It is anticipated that the potential effects of hydrological change will be sufficiently mitigated such that they are not expected to cause net effects on most wildlife habitat in the LSA or RSA; however, potential effects on some species, such as North American beaver, may still occur. As a result, discussion of hydrological change has been carried forward to Predicted Net Effects (Section 12.7).

Sensory Disturbance

The Project is expected to generate airborne contaminants, dust emissions and/or depositions during the construction and operations phases. The deposition of contaminants could result in changes to soil and surface water quality; thus, altering the composition, structure and diversity of plant communities. Airborne dust produced from the Project could cause direct, localized changes to vegetation by interfering blocking sunlight and directly interfering with

photosynthesis, also causing changes to the structure and composition of plant communities. Mitigation measures designed to minimize the risk of air and dust emissions and depositions, which can impact wildlife habitat, are described in Section 9.4 (Mitigation of Effects on Atmospheric Environment) and Appendix E (Mitigation Measures). The effectiveness of mitigation will be evaluated during construction and operations, with measures being modified or enhanced as necessary. These measures include:

• Developing an Air Quality and Dust Control Management Plan as part of the CEMP. Recommendations from this plan will be implemented during construction. Typical mitigation measures include using environmentally certified equipment to conduct the work, ensuring the equipment is maintained regularly, minimizing the idling of equipment, and setting speed limits within the Project Footprint and LSA.
  • Incorporating emission and pollution control equipment on vehicles, equipment and machinery operating in the Project Footprint, and ensuring that all vehicles.
    • Regularly inspecting equipment and machinery to verify they are in good working order.
    • Following industry best management practices and adhering to relevant federal and/or provincial thresholds regarding the deposit of acidifying compounds on plants.
    • Where practicable, using multi-passenger vehicles to transport personnel to the job site and limit vehicle emissions.
    • Turning off vehicles and equipment when not in use and minimizing idling unless weather and/or safety conditions require them to remain turned on.
    • When practicable, retaining compatible vegetation on steep slopes, drainage ways, areas prone to wind erosion and adjacent to waterbodies and waterways.
    • Minimizing the burning of wooden logs, branches and other vegetation that has been removed from the Project Footprint (current objective is ≤ ten percent). Verify any slash pile burning from clearing operations has been approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies and complies with O. Reg. 207/96, subject to agreements with nearby Indigenous communities and groups.
    • Minimizing dust-generating activities during periods of high wind to limit dust emissions.
    • Where necessary, implementing dust control measures, such as water sprays or dust control solutions that can be applied on the road surface. The use of chloride containing compounds will be minimized to the extent possible. Sprays may also be used to increase moisture levels in the air on dry days. Water application rates shall be carefully monitored to assist in eliminating the erosion of sediments, or pooling and/or runoff of water.
    • Should magnesium chloride, or other chemical dust suppressants be required, they will not be applied within 100 m of a water crossing or beyond the footprint of the road. In general, the use and application of dust suppressants, where applicable, will be conducted in accordance with MTO OPSS – Construction Specification for Dust Suppressants.
    • Using temporary cover on soil and fill stockpiles (e.g., wood chips, straw, tarps) or alternately, keeping stockpiles moist during construction (i.e., by applying water) to minimize drifting of soils.
    • Within the more upland western half of the Project Footprint, where more stable soil conditions are found, using a chip seal treatment on the road, which is similar to asphalt pavement, and consists of a tar slurry and gravel.
    • Within the eastern portion of the LSA, where there are peatlands with relatively poor soil conditions, using a granular A-type gravel on the driving surface.

It is anticipated that application of these measures will effectively mitigate potential effects to wildlife habitat from the deposition of dust and other airborne particles on the Project Site. Since are not expected to cause net effects in either the LSA or RSA, the topic ‘Deposition of Dust and Other Airbourne Particles’ has not been carried forward to

Section 12.7 (Predicted Net Effects).

Accidental Spills

Chemical or hazardous materials stored on the Project site or spills of such materials in the Project Footprint could affect wildlife survival and reproduction. Spills, should they occur, are predicted to be generally localized in nature. Given the types of activities that will be associated with the Project, the most likely types of spills would be fuel and/or oil-based products from machinery and equipment. Mitigation measures designed to minimize the potential risks of accidental spills and contingency measures for appropriate rapid response in the event of a spill are described in Section 6.4 (Mitigation of the Effects on Geology, Terrain and Soils) Section 23.5 (Accidents and Malfunctions) and Appendix E (Mitigation Measures). The effectiveness of mitigation will be evaluated during construction and operations, with measures being modified or enhanced as necessary via adaptive management. These measures include:

• Development of a Petroleum Handling and Storage Plan as part of the CEMP to minimize the chance of accidental spills or leaks in the Project Footprint or LSA, and a Spill Prevention and Emergency Response Plan to assist with effective and efficient clean-up response should any spills or leaks occur. This plan will be developed in accordance with all applicable contract specifications, environmental legislation, permits and authorizations.
  • Handling and storing all petroleum products in compliance with the Ontario Gasoline Handling Act and transporting all petroleum products in accordance with the federal Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and Ontario Dangerous Goods Transportation Act.Making Project personnel aware of the Petroleum Handling and Storage Plan and the Spill Prevention and Emergency Response Plan. Educating personnel to appropriately handle and store all products in compliance with provincial and federal legislation and guidelines.Storing and maintaining all vehicles and equipment at least 30 m from waterbodies and operating them in a way that prevents the release of deleterious substances into waterbodies or waterways, which could negatively effect wildlife habitat.Storing, transferring and dispensing fuels in areas well set back from waterbodies (e.g., 100 m setback from the ordinary high watermark) in designated areas at temporary construction camps and laydown areas along the road.Transporting fuel and hazardous materials in approved containers in licenced vehicles. Such containers will be routinely inspected for leaks.Incorporating signage and reduced speed limits within the LSA to reduce the risk of vehicle accidents and spills.Delaying construction during heavy precipitation or run-off events, to minimize the extent spilled substances may travel.Maintaining on-site spill kits that can be used to manage and adsorb any spilled material that is visible on the water’s surface. Such kits will be provided in fuel and hazardous materials storage and handling facilities, in on-site work areas and/or in vehicles and equipment. All personnel will be trained in spill response practices and procedures.Reporting any major spill of petroleum or other hazardous material to the MECP Spill Action Centre, immediately after occurrence of the environmental accident (as per Ontario Regulation 675/98).Containing and immediately cleaning up any spill that is identified as “non-reportable” under subsection 6(2) of Ontario Regulation 224/07 in accordance with the onsite Emergency Response Plan.Removing any contaminated soil and/or vegetation from the local area and subsequently replacing the soils that have been exposed to spilled material as soon as possible.Allowing indigenous vegetation to regenerate local areas where soil and/or vegetation removal has occurred, occasionally enhancing re-establishment by planting or seeding programs that use self-sustaining species indigenous to the area.

It is anticipated that these measures will effectively mitigate any potential effects to wildlife habitat from chemical or hazardous materials on the Project site. As a result, the topic Accidental Spills has not been carried forward to Section 12.7 (Predicted Net Effects).

Sensory Disturbance

Loud noises, lights, smells and other sensory disturbances associated with human activity have the potential to cause the displacement of wildlife, loss of wildlife habitat, and changes in predator-prey relationships. Atmospheric environmental conditions, including vibration and noise are discussed in Section 9, while visual environmental conditions, including light, are discussed in Section 18. Mitigation measures designed to minimize sensory disturbances in the project area are discussed in Section 9.4 (Mitigation Measures for Effects on Atmospheric Environment),

Section 18.4 (Mitigation Measures for Effects on Visual Environment), and Appendix E (Mitigation Measures). Additional measures will be provided in the CEMP and OEMP for the Project. The effectiveness of mitigation will be evaluated during construction and operations, with measures being modified or enhanced as necessary. These measures include:

• Developing a Noise and Vibration Management Plan that includes guidance to mitigate the effects of noise and vibration from construction activities, a Light Management Plan that will describe procedures and BMPs to control light emissions from construction activities, and a Construction Blasting Management Plan with protocols to reduce sensory effects from blasting on wildlife.
  • Following the conditions, permits or authorizations relating to environmental approvals that were issued for the Project, including those from ECCC, MNR, and MECP.
    • Avoiding new disturbances (e.g., clearing and grubbing) beyond the Project Footprint to the extent practicable, particularly at waterbody crossing sites.
    • Minimizing the extent of vegetation cleared at all navigable waterbody crossings within the Project Footprint to reduce sensory effects (both visual and auditory).
    • To the extent practicable, maximizing efforts to retain vegetation and landforms along the ROW to provide screening (buffering) of Project activities and components on adjacent lands.
    • Ensuring any temporarily disturbed habitats within the Project Footprint are allowed to regenerate (or, as necessary, planted or seeded to permit self-sustaining native vegetation to establish itself) as soon as possible following construction activities in that part of the Project Footprint have been completed.
    • Adhering to timing windows and restrictions to avoid sensitive life-cycle periods (e.g., nesting, hibernation).
    • If adherence to the timing windows and restrictions is not possible, the proponent’s contractor will develop site specific mitigation measures and effectiveness monitoring programs in consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., MECP, CWS-ECCC).
    • Requiring the Contractor to comply with noise by-laws, and, where applicable, use other noise control measures as agreed to by the adjacent Indigenous communities and municipal authorities.
    • Requiring all vehicles and equipment supplied by the Contractor for use on the Project to be effectively

‘sound-reduced’ though the use of noise abatement equipment such as silencers, mufflers, and acoustic shields. Noise abatement equipment will be maintained in good working order.

• Where practicable, turning off vehicles and equipment when not in use.
  • To the extent possible, having construction activities typically occur during daylight hours, typically within one (1) 10-hour shift per day, with normal working hours of 7:00 to 19:00, unless otherwise regulated by adjacent Indigenous communities or municipal authorities with a written exemption that can be provided to the proponent upon request.
    • Enforcing speed limits for vehicles and prohibiting the recreational use of vehicles (e.g., snowmobiles, ATVs) by Project personnel in the Project Footprint.

• Preparing and Submitting a Construction Blasting Management Plan for the Project to the Contractor prior to the initiation of blasting activities. Blasting restriction ‘windows’ for the protection of aquatic and wildlife species will be addressed in the plan.
  • Carrying out blast operations in accordance with Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) guidelines, where applicable, and Ontario Provincial Standard Specification 120 General Specification for the Use of Explosives.
    • Blasting will be completed as quickly as possible to shorten the duration of disturbance.

It is anticipated that these measures will only partially mitigate potential effects from sensory effects on wildlife habitat at the Project site. As a result, the topic ‘Sensory Disturbance’ has been carried forward to Section 12.7 (Predicted Net Effects).

Introduction of Invasive Species

The construction of roads produces edge environments that can influence adjacent habitat not only by changing abiotic conditions (e.g., increased light, chemical changes in the soil or water), but also by introducing noxious or exotic species to an area (i.e., via new access pathways). Further, materials used in construction of roads often create environmental conditions that are more easily tolerated by invasive species. Mitigation measures designed to minimize the introduction and/or spread of invasive plant species are discussed in Section 11.4 (Mitigation and Enhancement Measures for Vegetation and Wetlands) and Appendix E (Mitigation Measures). The effectiveness of mitigation will be evaluated during construction and operations, with measures being modified or enhanced as necessary. These measures include:

• Developing an Invasive Species Management and Monitoring Plan as part of the Vegetation and Invasive Species Management Plan in the CEMP and implementing the plan during construction. This plan would include measures to detect, control (i.e., remove) and monitor areas containing exotic species.
  • Following all environmental approval conditions, authorizations or permits issued for the Project, including those from ECCC, MNR and MECP.
    • Holding information sessions, producing education materials, and/or installing signage to familiarize Project personnel with potential invasive species, as well as what they should do when invasive species are encountered in the LSA (i.e., appropriate reporting procedures). Such sessions or materials should be delivered prior to the start of construction and repeated whenever new personnel become engaged in Project-related construction activities.
    • Prohibiting the recreational use of motorized vehicles by contractors and limiting the use of of-road vehicles during construction.
    • Reducing the potential of introducing invasive plans by including visual inspections (of vehicles, machinery and equipment) as part of standard operating procedures during construction. Particular attention should be paid to undersides, wheels, wheel arches, guards, radiator grills and other attachments as applicable.
    • Removing any invasive materials found, including seeds or other plant materials, by scraping or washing the exterior surfaces of vehicles and equipment. Removal activities will be conducted at least 30 m away from any watercourse, waterbody or vegetation community, with the material being isolated until it can be safely removed from the LSA.
    • Such measures are aimed at ensuring construction machinery and vehicles arrive on the site in a clean condition, free of mud and debris that could harbor seeds of invasive vegetation species.
    • Minimizing soil disturbance to the extent practicable, to reduce the loss of topsoil and preserving a base layer that is sufficient to permit natural regeneration. Disturbed areas shall be contoured to minimize soil erosion and encourage the growth of native vegetation. Where necessary, these areas may be enhanced by planting self-sustaining indigenous species and/or seeding a combination of self-sustaining native species and cover crop (mixture) as soon as possible following disturbance.

• Confirming imported fill or soil is free of contaminants, including seeds or materials from invasive species, to reduce the potential of their introduction or spread in the LSA.
  • Where practicable, using local soil banks from grading operations for re-vegetation and restoration treatments, and when not practical, using an approved plant species of importance to Indigenous communities and/or native seed mix that has been sourced from a reputable supplier. Seed mixes will be checked for the presence of invasive plants prior to use in restoration treatments.
    • Targeting invasive non-native species for removal through manual, mechanical and/or chemical methods. To the extent possible, mechanical methods of control such as mowing, tilling, digging or pulling will be used before chemical methods.
    • Using herbicides only when other control methods have proven ineffective in weed management: (Should herbicide application be selected as a method of invasive plant control, all herbicides must be applied by a licensed applicator in accordance with Ontario regulations).

It is anticipated that these measures will mitigate potential effects from invasive or noxious plants on wildlife habitat at the Project site. As a result, the topic of ‘Invasive Plant Species’ has not been carried forward to Section 12.7 (Predicted Net Effects).

12.3.2.2.2             Operations

Habitat Structural Change

Repairs to the roadway and clearing of the ROW will periodically be required during the operations phase of the Project; however, it is expected that these activities will not result in disturbance beyond the area affected by construction, and will therefore cause no, or negligible, additional changes to the structure of wildlife habitat. Aggregate (sand, gravel) and rock material will be required for road maintenance and repair activities, and may involve additional vegetation clearing; however, these areas will be progressively rehabilitated during the construction and operation phases of the Project. A Vegetation Management and Monitoring Plan and a Wildlife Management and Monitoring Plan will also be updated

and implemented as part of the OEMP. It is anticipated that these measures will only partially mitigate the potential effects of habitat structural change at the Project site. As a result, this topic has been carried forward to Section 12.7 (Predicted Net Effects).

Hydrological Changes

It is not anticipated that the operations phase of the Project will result in hydrological changes beyond the area affected during the construction phase. As a result, the mitigation measures that have been described in Section 12.4.2.2.1 (Construction) will serve to ameliorate habitat degradation (from hydrological change) in the long term. In addition, the following will occur:

• Review, revise as necessary, and implement mitigation measures from the Surface Water and Stormwater Management and Monitoring Plan as part of the OEMP. They will subsequently be implemented.
  • Adherence to any conditions, permits or authorizations relating to environmental approvals, including those from ECCC, MNR and MECP, during the operations phase of the Project.
    • Road maintenance activities will regularly check culverts and other crossings for blockages to flow. If found, they will be removed appropriately.
    • Neither sand, nor salt will be used on the WSR for winter maintenance activities (i.e., de-icing).
    • Herbicides will only be used when other control methods (e.g., mechanical, manual) for invasive plants have proven ineffective. If the application of herbicides is required, it will be done by licensed applicator in accordance with provincial regulations).

It is anticipated that the potential effects of hydrological change will be sufficiently mitigated such that they are not expected to cause net effects on most wildlife habitat in the LSA or RSA; however, this is not true for all wildlife. As a result, discussion of hydrological change has been carried forward to the Predicted Net Effects section under specific species groups (Section 12.7).

Sensory Disturbance

The operations phase of the WSR will involve vehicles regularly travelling along the road from Webequie to the eastern terminus of the supply road. In addition to the anticipated passage of vehicles (estimated to be less than 500 vehicles each day) from Webequie to the job site, machinery and equipment (e.g., heavy-duty trucks for visual patrols, snow clearing, road maintenance and aggregate hauling) will use the roadway. These vehicles, machinery and equipment will result in the generation of gas exhaust and/or dust emissions; however, it is anticipated that any associated disturbance would be limited to the area affected during the construction phase of the Project. Some of the measures recommended to minimize effects to wildlife because of dust and other airborne emissions include:

• Reviewing and updating (when necessary) the Air Quality and Dust Control Management Plan as part of the OEMP. The plan will include a procedure for documenting compliance with applicable standards and conditions (as identified in authorizations, permits and licences for the site).
  • Integrating a monitoring program (as described in the Air Quality and Dust Control Management Plan) and measures to control or limit particulate emissions that result from handling of soil or aggregates by mobile equipment, or from passenger vehicles.
    • Placing a permanent Maintenance Storage Facility (MSF) near the WSR for the storage of equipment and materials (i.e., for inspection, maintenance and repair activities).
    • Installing of a dedicated diesel generator set(s) at the MSF that will include energy efficiency measures.
    • Regularly inspecting and maintaining the road to confirm it meets minimum operational standards for roads.
    • Having a water-spraying truck readily available for use by the maintenance crew on an ‘as needed’ basis during Operations, particularly between the months of May to November.
    • Training members of the Webequie community involved in the operations phase in techniques that would facilitate eco-driving and encouraging them to follow recommended practices to minimize fuel use (e.g., avoidance of vehicle idling).
    • Ensuring equipment is well maintained to mitigate fuel usage (e.g., tires, alignment, mechanized features are optimized).
    • To the extent practicable, using logs, branches, and other biomass for purposes such as the production of timber or roundwood that could be used in Webequie for landscaping, erosion control or construction projects, rather than burning them. An objective of burning no more than 10% of cleared living biomass has been incorporated into Project plans.

It is anticipated that implementation of these measures will effectively mitigate potential effects to wildlife habitat from the deposition of dust and other airborne particles on the Project Site during operations. Since it is not expected to cause net effects in either the LSA or RSA, the topic ‘Deposition of Dust and Other Airbourne Particles’ has not been carried forward to Section 12.7 (Predicted Net Effects).

Accidental Spills

Spilling contaminants along the road could occur during the operations phase as vehicles and equipment travel along the WSR. Should they occur, such spills are predicted to be generally localized in nature and are unlikely to result in disturbance beyond the area affected by the construction phase of the Project. In addition, there will be a Spill Prevention and Emergency Response Management component in the OEMP. The mitigation measures that have been described in

Section 12.4.2.2.1 (Construction) will also be effective in minimizing the potential risks of accidental spills during the operations phase of the Project. This topic has not been carried forward to Section 12.7 (Predicted Net Effects).

Sensory Disturbance

Sources of artificial light, noise and other sensory disturbances have the potential to cause the loss of wildlife habitat, changes in predator-prey relationships and the displacement of individuals. It is not anticipated that the WSR will be illuminated along its entire length; however, lighting may be required at certain locations for safety and security, such as at the eastern and western terminus points of the road, and at supportive infrastructure sites, such as construction camps, rest and maintenance areas, aggregate (rock) sites and the MSF. Mitigation measures designed to minimize effects include:

• To the extent practicable, limiting the use of lighting during operations of the Project while still allowing for safety.
  • Using light shields for illumination fixtures on a site-specific basis to minimize and reduce light trespass where this is a concern to wildlife. A Noise Management Plan will also form a portion of the OEMP.

Effects from other sources of sensory disturbance are expected to be minimal during the operations phase of the Project. With the predicted low volume of vehicular traffic on the road, operational sensory disturbance is expected to have little effect on wildlife habitat beyond what occurs during the construction phase. Net effects will remain for wildlife in the LSA and additional discussion of ‘Sensory Disturbance’ has been carried forward to Predicted Net Effects (Section 12.7).

Invasive Plant Species

The distance that invasive species will be able to travel beyond the ROW will, in part, vary with the conditions of the adjacent habitats. It will also depend on how similar those habitat conditions are to where the species originated from. For example, a waterway may permit seeds to be carried well downstream of its intersection with the road (i.e., adjacent to a bridge or culvert), allowing invasive species to establish a new population providing there are similar conditions to their point of origin (i.e., roadside edge). Conversely, a nutrient poor, acidic environment (such as a bog) has been known to reduce the success of invasive species surviving much beyond their source (i.e., parent plant). Many species native to northern Ontario have never been exposed to significant landscape change, and while they may be more tolerant of cold conditions, they are generally less tolerant of sudden changes in temperature or moisture levels when compared to plants in southern Ontario.

During the operations phase of the Project, repairs to the roadway and occasional clearing of the ROW will be required; however, it is expected that these activities will not result in disturbance beyond the area that was affected by the construction phase. They are unlikely to cause additional habitat alteration. Some of the mitigation measures described in Section 12.4.2.2.1 (Construction) can also be effectively applied during the operations phase of the Project. These include:

• Reviewing and updating (as necessary) the Invasive Species Monitoring and Management Plan that was prepared for the construction phase (i.e., as part of the OEMP) and implementing it during the operations phase.
  • Holding information sessions, and/or circulating education materials that will familiarize individuals that travel the road with harmful invasive species and/or introducing BMPs to prevent the introduction or spread of exotic species within the LSA. Signage placed near major river crossings will assist in raising awareness of invasive aquatic plants.
    • Conducting visual inspections of equipment and vehicles that travel the WSR, paying particular attention to wheels, wheel arches, undersides and other attachments to which invasive species may adhere.

• Removing components of invasive species (e.g., seeds, buds, cuttings) by washing vehicles and equipment prior to moving them from one portion of the LSA to another. Such components should be isolated until they can be safely removed from the site.
  • Targeting invasive species that establish themselves along the WSR for removal through manual, mechanical and/or chemical methods. Mechanical methods of removal, such as mowing, tilling, digging or pulling of vegetation is preferred over chemical methods.
    • Monitoring areas where invasive species were removed the year following remediation. The effectiveness of measures will be modified or enhanced, as necessary through adaptive management.

It is anticipated that these measures will effectively mitigate any potential effects from invasive or noxious plants on wildlife habitat at the Project site. As a result, additional discussion about the potential effects of invasive plant species not been carried forward to Section 12.7 (Predicted Net Effects).

12.3.2.3         Alteration in Wildlife Movement

12.3.2.3.1             Construction

Loss of Connectivity

Wildlife movement patterns are expected to change as habitat conditions are altered. Equipment, installation of fencing, and berming of soil can create short-term physical barriers to wildlife movement. Barriers can cause habitat fragmentation (i.e., division of habitats into smaller, isolated patches), reduce gene flow between isolated populations, change behaviour and disrupt migration and/or movement routes (e.g., to avoid predators). Mitigation measures to reduce changes to vegetation communities and species compositions are described in Section 11.4 (Mitigation and Enhancement Measures for Vegetation and Wetlands), Section 12.4.2.2 (Wildlife Habitat Alteration or Degradation) and Appendix E (Mitigation Measures). The effectiveness of mitigation will be evaluated during construction and operations, with measures being modified or enhanced as necessary. These measures include:

• Phasing construction to create segments of low or no activity to permit unimpeded wildlife passage through those areas.
  • Minimizing the size of the construction footprint to the extent possible and restricting vegetation removal near sensitive habitats. (For more information, please refer to Sections 12.4.3 – 12.4.7: Moose, Furbearers, Bats, Birds, Amphibians and Reptiles, respectively).
    • Progressively restoring areas that are no longer being actively used for construction. Progressive restoration or reclamation will minimize the effect of recontoured or cleared areas that are acting as a barrier to movement.
    • Incorporating wildlife crossings and passages in the road design, where practicable, and installing these features as part of road construction.
    • Removal of any windrowed (slash) materials that have been unintentionally piled in a manner that creates barriers.

It is anticipated that these measures will only partially mitigate potential effects from barriers to wildlife movement at the Project site. As a result, additional discussion about ‘Loss of Connectivity’ can be found in Section 12.7 (Predicted Net Effects).

Sensory Disturbance

Sensory disturbances from equipment, vehicles, and other aspects of construction can also cause certain species of wildlife to avoid the LSA in the short-term. Conversely, other wildlife species may be attracted to portions of the LSA that they may not previously have inhabited because such areas provide novel opportunities for feeding (foraging) or shelter (e.g., camps or areas that are converted to early successional habitat). The effectiveness of mitigation will be

evaluated during construction and operations, with measures being modified or enhanced as necessary. These measures include:

• Designing and implementing plans to manage artificial light, noise and vibrations as Part of the CEMP (i.e., Light Management Plan, Noise and Vibration Management Plan).
  • Designing and Implementing a Construction Waste Management Plan (including hazardous, contaminated and controlled materials) as part of the CEMP. The Waste Management Plan will include procedures to verify that wastes have been collected, stored, transported and disposed of in an environmentally responsible manner. It is recommended that:
    • Areas of human activity (e.g., camps, rest areas) be kept clear of refuse (e.g., gray water, sewage) to avoid attracting wildlife (particularly carnivores and omnivores).
    • Food wastes be collected on site, temporarily stored in wildlife-proof containers, and transported out of the Project Footprint to be recycled or deposed of at a licenced disposal facility.
    • Petroleum-based products and other materials that could attract wildlife be stored in a secure area that wildlife cannot access.
    • Informing all personnel associated with the Project of the hazards of feeding wildlife and littering. Prohibiting such activities should reduce nuisance wildlife in and around work and camp sites.
    • Avoiding activities that are likely to disturb wildlife during sensitive periods in their life cycle (e.g., activities such as blasting or heavy machinery use). Species specific and group specific timing windows are described in

Sections 12.4.3 – 12.4.7 (Moose, Furbearers, Bats, Birds, Reptiles and Amphibians).

• Lighting only those areas required for worker safety and angling or shielding lights so that they illuminate only targeted areas.

It is anticipated that these measures will only be partially effective in mitigating potential sensory effects on wildlife at the Project Site during the construction phase, net effects will remain in the LSA. As a result, this topic has been carried forward to Section 12.7 (Predicted Net Effects).

12.3.2.3.2             Operations

Loss of Connectivity

Should appropriate mitigation measures not be incorporated, creation of the road could cause long-term effects to wildlife by fragmenting habitat and disrupting movement patterns. Efforts to mitigate these effects may include creating wildlife corridors, maintaining wildlife crossings, or implementing other infrastructural approaches that are more conducive to the movement and/or migration of wildlife. Recommendations include:

• Maintaining posted lower speed limits in sensitive habitats and identified crossing areas.
  • Ensuring maintenance activities occur outside of sensitive life cycle periods (e.g., nesting season, calving season).
    • Ensuring snow removal activities (i.e., plowing) do not create continuous barriers to wildlife movement.
    • Maintaining any wildlife passes or corridors that were built during the construction phase. Where practicable, create new ones where a need is identified (e.g., areas identified during construction monitoring, or areas with high concentrations of roadkill).

It is anticipated that these measures will only partially mitigate against the potential loss of habitat connectivity at the Project site during the operations phase. As a result, the topic of ‘Loss of Connectivity’ has been carried forward to Section 12.7 (Predicted Net Effects).

12.3.2.4         Wildlife Injury or Death

12.3.2.4.1             Construction

Increased Access

The construction of the Project provides more opportunities for humans to access the area, which could result in increased injury or death of wildlife. To address the potential effects of increased human access to the LSA, the following measures will be implemented:

• Restricting road access restrictions during the construction phase (i.e., so that only Project personnel are permitted to enter the Project Footprint).
  • Personal firearms will be prohibited from construction camps.
    • Developing and implementing a Construction Waste Management Plan for the construction phase. The plan will include procedures to check that the collection, storage, transportation and disposal of all wastes generated will be conducted in a safe, environmentally responsible manner that complies with federal and provincial legislation.
    • Keeping camps and rest areas clean, with food waste being stored appropriately to avoid human-wildlife conflicts (i.e., that may occur because such waste may attract scavengers that are omnivorous).
    • Storing petroleum-based products and other toxic materials that can attract wildlife in secured areas.
    • Providing educational (informational) sessions to all Project personnel to make them aware wildlife have the right-of-way (barring circumstances in which there is imminent risk to the health and safety of workers and/or the public).
    • Fencing, or otherwise blocking, temporary access roads, laydowns and construction areas until vegetation has re-established itself in disturbed areas.

It is anticipated that the potential effects of increased access will be reduced through these measures but not eliminated entirely; therefore, additional discussion has been carried forward to Predicted Net Effects (Section 12.7).

Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

Increased encounters with predators may occur because linear features are known to facilitate access, and increase travel speeds for predators (Stein, 2000; Dickie et al. 2022). During construction, predators will likely avoid the Project Footprint but nevertheless, measures that will be employed to minimize these encounters include:

• During detailed design, incorporating techniques that reduce the movement rates of large predators, such as curves or bends in temporary access roads.
  • Where practicable, incorporating wildlife crossings or ecopasses into the road design and implementing them during construction.

It is anticipated that these measures will partially mitigate potential injury and/or death of wildlife during the construction phase but will not eliminate the effects completely. As a result, the pathway ‘Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics’ has been carried forward to Section 12.7 (Predicted Net Effects).

Collisions with Vehicles

To minimize the potential for wildlife injury or death from collisions with Project vehicles and equipment, during construction the following measures are recommended:

• Enforcing speed limits on the ROW and access roads.
  • Enforcing restricted access to the road during the construction phase.

• Integrating safe road travel protocols in the Health and Safety Management Plan including wildlife awareness training and reporting protocols.
  • If movement corridors are identified during monitoring, posting and enforcing reduced speeds at the locations of those corridors.

It is anticipated that these measures will partially mitigate potential injury and/or death of wildlife during the construction phase but will not eliminate the effects completely. As a result, the pathway ‘Collisions with Vehicles’ has been carried forward to Section 12.7 (Predicted Net Effects).

12.3.2.4.2             Operations

Increased Access

The creation of the WSR provides increased opportunities for humans to access the area, which have the potential to result in increased wildlife mortality. To limit public access during the operations phase, the following measures will be implemented:

• Regular inspections of the road and rest areas during operations (e.g., 1-2 times per week), with litter being collected when found, and waste in receptacles being appropriately disposed of.
  • Removal of roadkill from the ROW and appropriately disposal it (e, g., to brush areas adjacent to the Project Footprint) within 48 hours of detection.
    • Limiting the number of rest areas and pull-off areas along road (i.e., to those required for the safety of WSR users). It is recommended that each of these rest areas contain a wildlife-proofed waste receptacle.
    • Fencing maintenance turnaround areas (used by operations personnel only) to restrict public access.
    • Fencing and/or gating access roads to aggregate areas and other operational infrastructure.
    • As necessary, implementing other road access restrictions to reduce hunting, trapping or poaching opportunities in sensitive wildlife habitats and during sensitive periods throughout the operations phase.

It is anticipated that these measures will only partially mitigate potential effects from increased human access to the Project site. As a result, additional discussion about potential effects from ‘Increased Access’ is found in Section 12.7 (Predicted Net Effects).

Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

Although predators will likely avoid the Project Footprint during the construction phase; however, during operations, they may use the WSR to gain access to previously unreachable areas. The WSR could also facilitate higher movement rates, which could lead to higher encounter rates. Measures that will be employed to mitigate these encounters include:

• Maintaining any wildlife corridors that were identified during construction. Adding signage or other markers when new corridors are identified that cross the ROW.
  • Reclaiming temporarily disturbed areas, including access roads, and removing any barriers to wildlife movement (not intentionally placed).

It is anticipated that potential effects of the Project on predator-prey dynamics will be reduced through these measures but not eliminated entirely; therefore, additional discussion has been carried forward to Predicted Net Effects

(Section 12.7).

Collisions with Vehicles

Mitigation measures that can be implemented during operations to minimize potential injury to or death of wildlife include:

• Ensuring maintenance activities take place away from sensitive habitats during critical life cycle periods (e.g., denning season, nesting season).
  • Lowering the posted speed limit in known wildlife areas and movement corridors.
    • Maintaining line of site for drivers.
    • Control of roadside vegetation,
    • Implementing wildlife sighting and incident reporting procedures.
    • Maintaining any wildlife corridors or signage installed during the construction phase. Where practicable, installing new markers in areas where a need is identified (e.g., wildlife reporting procedures document an area where wildlife are regularly crossing).

It is anticipated that these measures will only partially mitigate potential wildlife injury and/or death during the operations phase. As a result, this topic has been carried forward to Section 12.7 (Predicted Net Effects).

Table 12-41:      Summary of Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Predicted Net Effects for Wildlife VC