SECTION 11: ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON VEGETATION AND WETLANDS

Contents

11.        Assessment of Effects on Vegetation and Wetlands. 11-8

11.1      Scope of the Assessment 11-8

11.1.1      Regulatory and Policy Setting. 11-8

11.1.2      Consideration of Input from Engagement and Consultation Activities. 11-12

11.1.3      Incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge and Land and Resource Use Information. 11-18

11.1.4      Valued Subcomponents and Indicators. 11-25

11.1.5      Spatial and Temporal Boundaries. 11-27

11.1.5.1      Spatial Boundaries. 11-27

11.1.5.2      Temporal Boundaries. 11-27

11.1.6      Identification of Project Interactions with Vegetation and Wetlands. 11-30

11.2      Existing Conditions. 11-32

11.2.1      Methods. 11-32

11.2.1.1      Desktop Review of Background Information Sources. 11-33

11.2.1.2      Baseline Characterization Collection Methods. 11-33

11.2.1.3      Vegetation and Wetland Communities Mapping. 11-34

11.2.1.3.1     Riparian Areas. 11-34

11.2.1.3.2     Designated Plant Species at Risk, Species and Vegetation Communities of Conservation Concern and Locally Rare/(Underrepresented Vegetation Communities) 11-35

11.2.1.3.3     Areas and Plants of Traditional Importance to
Indigenous Peoples. 11-35

11.2.1.3.4     Species and Community Biodiversity. 11-36

11.2.1.4      Wetland Functional Assessment 11-37

11.2.1.4.1     Geophysical 11-38

11.2.1.4.2     Biophysical Functions. 11-38

11.2.1.4.3     Socio-economic Functions. 11-39

11.2.1.4.4     Aggregated Wetland Function and Diversity. 11-40

11.2.2      Results. 11-40

11.2.2.1      Regional Context 11-40

11.2.2.2      Vegetation and Wetland Communities Mapping. 11-47

11.2.2.2.1     Field Survey Results. 11-47

11.2.2.2.2     Vegetation Classification. 11-47

11.2.2.2.3     Upland Ecosystems. 11-51

11.2.2.2.4     Wetland Ecosystems. 11-52

11.2.2.2.5     Riparian Ecosystems. 11-53

11.2.2.3      Species and Community Biodiversity/Fragmentation. 11-54

11.2.2.4      Plant Species at Risk and Plant Species and Communities of
Conservation Concern 11-57

Contents (Cont’d)

11.2.2.5      Areas and Plants of Traditional Importance to Indigenous Peoples. 11-58

11.2.2.6      Wetland Function Assessment Results. 11-61

11.2.2.6.1     Geophysical Wetland Functions. 11-61

11.2.2.6.2     Biophysical Wetland Functions. 11-65

11.2.2.6.3     Socio-Economic Functions. 11-67

11.2.2.6.4     Aggregated Wetland Function. 11-67

11.3      Identification of Potential Effects, Pathways, and Indicators. 11-69

11.3.1      Threat Assessment Approach. 11-69

11.3.2      Loss or Alteration of Vegetation Communities, Species and Biodiversity. 11-71

11.3.2.1      Vegetation Clearing and Grubbing. 11-71

11.3.2.1.1     Direct Vegetation Losses. 11-71

11.3.2.1.2     Loss Or Alteration of Vegetation Species and Community Biodiversity. 11-76

11.3.2.1.3     Vegetation Community Fragmentation. 11-78

11.3.2.1.4     Area Metrics 11-79

11.3.2.1.5     Edge Metrics. 11-83

11.3.2.1.6     Core Metrics. 11-86

11.3.2.1.7     Landscape Diversity Metrics. 11-88

11.3.2.2      Water Crossing Structures. 11-88

11.3.2.3      Indirect Effect Pathways on Vegetation and Wetlands. 11-90

11.3.2.3.1     Grading and Soil Disturbance. 11-90

11.3.2.3.2     Introduction of Invasive Species. 11-91

11.3.2.3.3     Chemical or Hazardous Material Spills and Waste. 11-92

11.3.2.3.4     Dust and Air Emissions, and Subsequent Deposition. 11-93

11.3.2.3.5     Changes to Microclimate Conditions. 11-94

11.3.2.3.6     Increased Risk of Fire. 11-94

11.3.2.3.7     Indirect Road Edge Effect Zones for Community and
Species Diversity and Composition. 11-95

11.3.2.3.8     Indirect Effects to Community/Species Diversity and
Composition. 11-96

11.3.2.4      Summary of Threat Assessment 11-100

11.3.3      Loss or Alteration of Wetland Function. 11-101

11.3.3.1      Geophysical Function. 11-101

11.3.3.2      Biophysical Function. 11-101

11.3.3.3      Socio-Economic Function. 11-103

11.3.3.4      Modelling Effects to Wetland Function. 11-103

11.3.3.5      Summary of Threat Assessment 11-105

Contents (Cont’d)

11.3.4      Loss or Alteration of Plant Species at Risk and Plant Species and Communities
of Conservation Concern 11-106

11.3.4.1      Plant Species at Risk. 11-106

11.3.4.2      Plant Species and Communities of Conservation Concern. 11-106

11.3.4.3      Summary Threat Assessment 11-107

11.3.5      Loss or Alteration Vegetation Plant Species and Communities of Traditional
Importance to Indigenous Peoples. 11-108

11.3.5.1      Plant Species and Communities of Traditional Importance to
Indigenous Peoples. 11-108

11.3.5.2      Summary Threat Assessment 11-109

11.3.6      Effects Summary. 11-110

11.4      Mitigation and Enhancement Measures. 11-116

11.4.1      Loss or Alteration to Vegetation Species, Communities and Biodiversity. 11-117

11.4.1.1      Vegetation Clearing and Grubbing. 11-118

11.4.1.2      Water Crossing Structures and Changes to Hydrology. 11-119

11.4.1.3      Indirect Effects Pathways. 11-120

11.4.1.3.1     Grading and Soil Disturbance. 11-120

11.4.1.3.2     Introduction of Invasive Species. 11-121

11.4.1.3.3     Chemical or Hazardous Material Spills and Waste. 11-121

11.4.1.3.4     Dust and Air Emissions, and Subsequent Deposition. 11-123

11.4.1.3.5     Changes to Microclimate Conditions. 11-123

11.4.1.3.6     Increased Risk of Fire. 11-124

11.4.2      Loss or Alteration of Wetland Function. 11-124

11.4.3      Loss or Alteration of Plant Species at Risk and Plant Species and Communities of Conservation Concern. 11-125

11.4.4      Loss or Alteration of Plant Species and Communities of Traditional Importance
to Indigenous Peoples. 11-125

11.4.5      Off-setting Activities – Upland, Wetland and Riparian Vegetation. 11-125

11.4.6      Mitigation Measures Summary. 11-126

11.5      Characterization of Net Effects. 11-129

11.6      Potential Effect Pathways Carried Through for Further Assessment 11-131

11.7      Predicted Net Effects. 11-131

11.7.1      Loss or Alteration of Vegetation Communities, Species and Diversity. 11-131

11.7.1.1      Construction. 11-132

11.7.1.2      Operations. 11-134

11.7.2      Loss or Alteration of Wetland Function. 11-135

11.7.2.1      Construction. 11-135

11.7.2.2      Operations. 11-137

Contents (Cont’d)

11.7.3      Loss of Alteration of Plant Species and Communities of Conservation Concern 11-137

11.7.3.1      Construction. 11-137

11.7.3.2      Operations. 11-139

11.7.4      Loss of Alteration of Plant Species and Communities of Traditional Importance
to Indigenous Peoples. 11-140

11.7.4.1      Construction. 11-140

11.7.4.2      Operations. 11-141

11.8      Summary of Net Effects. 11-142

11.9      Determination of Significance. 11-144

11.9.1      Methodology. 11-144

11.9.2      Results. 11-145

11.9.2.1      Loss or Alteration of Vegetation Communities, Species and
Biodiversity. 11-148

11.9.2.2      Loss or Alteration of Wetland Function. 11-148

11.9.2.3      Loss of Alteration of Plant Species and Communities of
Conservation Concern. 11-148

11.9.2.4      Loss or Alteration Rare or Traditionally Important Vegetation Species
and Communities. 11-148

11.10    Cumulative Effects. 11-149

11.11    Prediction Confidence in the Assessment 11-149

11.12    Predicted Future Condition of the Environment if the Project Does Not Proceed. 11-150

11.13    Follow-Up and Monitoring. 11-150

11.14    References. 11-151

In Text Figures

Figure 11.1:    Vegetation and Wetlands VC Study Areas. 11-29

Figure 11.2:    Project Area EcoRegion, EcoDistricts, and Designated Sensitivities. 11-42

Figure 11.3:    Webequie Supply Road (WSR): Secondary and Tertiary Watersheds. 11-44

Figure 11.4:    2019, 2020, and 2021 Vegetation Classification and Survey Locations. 11-48

Figure 11.5:    2019, 2020, and 2021 Vegetation Classification and Survey Locations. 11-49

Figure 11.6:    2019, 2020, and 2021 Vegetation Classification and Survey Locations. 11-50

Figure 11.7:    Biodiversity Values Across Study Area. 11-56

Figure 11.8:    Wetland Function Ratings Across Study Area. 11-68

Figure 11.9:    Example of Variable Estimated Road Edge Effect Zone of Potential Indirect Effects. 11-96

Contents (Cont’d)

In-Text Tables

Table 11-1:     Key Regulation, Legislation, Policy Relevant to Vegetation and Wetlands Assessment for
the Project 11-9

Table 11-2:   Vegetation and Wetlands – Summary of Input Received During Engagement and Consultation. 11-13

Table 11-3:     Vegetation and Wetlands VC – Summary of Indigenous Knowledge and Land and Resource
Use Information. 11-19

Table 11-4:     Vegetation and Wetlands VC – Subcomponents, Indicators and Rationale. 11-26

Table 11-5:     Project Interactions with Vegetation and Wetlands VC 11-30

Table 11-6:     Waterbody Functional Value Buffers. 11-39

Table 11-7:     Designated Sensitive Areas within 30 km of the Webequie Supply Road. 11-41

Table 11-8:     Watershed Hierarchy and Relative Percentage of Wetland Based on Far North Land Cover 11-45

Table 11-9:     Percentage of Wetland, Upland, And Open Water Within the LSA and RSA. 11-46

Table 11-10:   Percentage of Upland/Wetland Ecosystems in the LSA and RSA. 11-47

Table 11-11:   Upland Ecosystems Availability in the LSA and RSA Areas. 11-51

Table 11-12:   Summary of 2019-2021 Field Program Upland Ecosite Sampling Plots. 11-51

Table 11-13:   Wetland Type and Abundance Within LSA and RSA. 11-52

Table 11-14:   Riparian Areas in LSA and RSA by nourVegetation Class. 11-54

Table 11-15:   Plants of Traditional Importance and associated Habitat Types. 11-59

Table 11-16:   Summary of Wetland Geophysical Function Values by Wetland Class. 11-63

Table 11-17:   Method to Determine e Magnitude of Effect Using Scope and Severity Values. 11-70

Table 11-18:   Method to Determine the Degree of Effect Using Irreversibility and Magnitude Values. 11-71

Table 11-19:   Permanent Vegetation Losses Within Project Footprint 11-72

Table 11-20:   Permanent Vegetation Losses Within Project Footprint by Vegetation Classification. 11-74

Table 11-21:   Percentage of Permanent Vegetation Losses Within Study Areas. 11-75

Table 11-22:   Percent Change in Inverse Simpsons Diversity Following Construction. 11-77

Table 11-23:   Vegetation Patches Intersected. 11-80

Table 11-24:   Area Metrics for Baseline Conditions and for Affected Vegetation from the Project in LSA. 11-81

Table 11-25:   Area Metrics for Baseline Conditions and for Affected Vegetation from the Project in the RSA. 11-82

Table 11-26:   Edge Metrics for Baseline Conditions and for Affected Vegetation from the Project in RSA. 11-84

Table 11-27:   Core Metrics for Baseline Conditions and for Affected Vegetation in RSA. 11-87

Table 11-28:   Shannon’s Diversity and Evenness Indexes at the Regional Landscape Level 11-88

Table 11-29:   Riparian Area Losses within LSA and RSA. 11-89

Table 11-30:   Indirect Road Edge Effect Zones to Community/Species Diversity and Composition. 11-95

Table 11-31:   Road Edge Indirect Effect Zones by Broad Vegetation Type. 11-96

Table 11-32:   Potential Areas of Indirect Effects by Vegetation Class. 11-97

Table 11-33:   Vegetation Community/Diversity Loss Threat Assessment Prior to Application of Mitigation. 11-100

Table 11-34:   Current and Future Aggregate Index of 50 Functional Values for Each Wetland Vegetation
ELC Type. 11-104

Table 11-35:   Wetland Function Preliminary Threat Assessment Prior to Application of Mitigation. 11-105

Table 11-36:   Locally Rare Vegetation Community Losses. 11-107

Table 11-37:   Preliminary Effects to SAR Plants and Plants/Communities of Conservation Concern Prior to
Application of Mitigation. 11-108

Table 11-38:   Removals Percentages of Vegetation Class Containing Species of Traditional Importance to
Indigenous Peoples. 11-109

Contents (Cont’d)

In-Text Tables (Cont’d)

Table 11-39:   Preliminary Effects to Plant Species and Communities of Traditional Importance to
Indigenous Peoples Prior to Application of Mitigation. 11-110

Table 11-40:   Potential Effects, Pathways, and Indicators for the Vegetation and Wetlands VC. 11-111

Table 11-41:   Summary of Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Predicted Net Effects for Vegetation
and Wetlands VC. 11-127

Table 11-42:   Criteria for Characterization of Predicted Net Effects on Vegetation and Wetlands VC. 11-129

Table 11-43:   Characterization of Loss or Alteration of Vegetation Communities, Species and Diversity
During Construction. 11-133

Table 11-44:   Characterization of Loss or Alteration of Vegetation Communities, Species and Diversity
During Operations. 11-134

Table 11-45:   Characterization of Net Effects on Loss or Alteration of Wetland Function during Construction. 11-136

Table 11-46:   Characterization of Net Effects on Loss or Alteration of Wetland Function during Operations. 11-137

Table 11-47:   Characterization of Net Effects on Loss or Alteration of Plant Species and Communities of
Conservation Concern During Construction. 11-138

Table 11-48:   Characterization of Net Effects on Loss or Alteration of Communities of Conservation Concern
During Operations. 11-139

Table 11-49:   Characterization of Net Effects on Loss or Alteration of Rare or Traditionally Important
Vegetation Species and Communities During Construction. 11-140

Table 11-50:   Characterization of Net Effects on Loss or Alteration of Rare or Traditionally Important
Vegetation Species and Communities During Operations n. 11-141

Table 11-51:   Summary of Predicted Net Effects on the Vegetation and Wetlands VC. 11-143

Table 11-52:   Scores Assigned for Key Criteria (Categories) of the Predicted Net Effects. 11-144

Table 11-53:   Key Criteria and Scores for Determining the Significance of the Predicted Net Adverse
Effects on Vegetation and Wetlands VC. 11-146

11.              Assessment of Effects on Vegetation and Wetlands

Vegetation and wetlands, which include wetlands that are broadly considered peatlands and/or muskeg, were identified as one of the valued components (VC) during the VC scoping and selection as part of the Environmental Assessment / Impact Assessment (EA/IA) process. This section describes and assesses the potential effects that the Project may have on the Vegetation and Wetlands VC.

Existing conditions for the Vegetation and Wetlands VC have been established through fieldwork, desktop studies, and engagement and consultation activities completed by the Project Team. These activities include, but are not limited to, background information review, internet research, mapping of existing vegetation and wetland types, engagement with Indigenous communities and stakeholders, and expert opinion. The existing conditions are being used as baseline conditions to assess and determine the potential effects of the Project. The results of the baseline studies are provided in Appendix F – Natural Environment Existing Conditions (NEEC) Report.

The assessment of potential effects for the Vegetation and Wetlands 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.

11.1            Scope of the Assessment

11.1.1         Regulatory and Policy Setting

The Vegetation and Wetlands VC is assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Impact Assessment Act
(IA Act), the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act), the TISG for the Project (Appendix A-1), the provincial approved EA ToR (Appendix A-2), and EA/IA guidance documents.

Table 11-1 outlines the key regulations, legislation, and policies relevant to the assessment of the Vegetation and Wetlands VC for construction and operations of the Project.

Table 11-1:    Key Regulation, Legislation, Policy Relevant to Vegetation and Wetlands

11.1.2         Consideration of Input from Engagement and Consultation Activities

The socio-economic baseline study (refer to Appendix L) and the country foods (traditional foods) assessment (refer to Appendix R) completed for the Project, including Indigenous Knowledge and Land and Resource Use shared by First Nations have all contributed to identifying plants species of nutritional, medicinal or spiritual importance to Indigenous communities in study area for the Project.

Based on the studies completed to date and engagement and consultation with Webequie First Nation, the following plants are used for nutritional (i.e., food source), medicinal or spiritual use in the project study area: blueberries (Vaccinum sp.), gooseberries (Ribes sp.), Northern Sweetflag (Acorus americanus), White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis), Labrador Tea (Rhododendron groenlandicum), and Crowberry (Empetrum nigrum). The TISG for the Project also provides a list of species that have known cultural importance to Indigenous communities. These include black spruce, white spruce, tamarack, balsam poplar, cedar, dwarf birch, red willow, trembling aspen, cottongrass, moss, black crowberry, blueberries, raspberries, reindeer moss, sphagnum moss, northern Labrador tea, caribou lichen, bearberry, dogwood, small cranberry, sage, sweetgrass, and lily pads.

Table 11-2 summarizes input related to Vegetation and Wetlands VC received during the engagement and consultation and how inputs are addressed in the EAR/IS. This input includes concerns raised by Indigenous communities and groups, the public, government agencies, and stakeholders prior to the formal commencement of the federal IA and provincial EA and during the Planning Phase of the IA and ToR phase of the EA.

Table 11-2:    Vegetation and Wetlands – Summary of Input Received During Engagement and Consultation

11.1.3         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 11-3 summarizes IKLRU information relating to the Vegetation and Wetlands VC and indicates where the information is incorporated in the EAR/IS.

Table 11-3:    Vegetation and Wetlands VC – Summary of Indigenous Knowledge and Land and Resource Use Information

11.1.4         Valued Subcomponents and Indicators

Valued components, including vegetation and wetlands, have been identified in the TISG and by the Project Team and are, in part, based on what Indigenous communities and groups, the public and stakeholders have identified as valuable to them in the EA/IA process to date. Subcomponents (or criteria) of the Vegetation and Wetlands 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 being conducted using the methodology as outlined in Section 5 (Environmental Assessment / Impact Assessment Approach and Methods). The identified subcomponents for the Vegetation and Wetlands VC are:

• Vegetation Communities, Species and Biodiversity:
  • Upland Ecosystems;
  • Wetland Ecosystems; and
  • Riparian Ecosystems.
• Wetland Functions:
  • Geophysical Functions;
  • Biophysical Functions; and
  • Socio-economic Functions.
• Plant Species and Communities at Risk, of Conservation Concern, or Locally Underrepresented.
• Plant Species and Communities of Traditional Importance to Indigenous Peoples.

“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. To determine the appropriate effects indicators, a thorough assessment of Project activities resulting in pathways that have the potential to affect vegetation was conducted. Table 11-4.shows the subcomponents and indicators identified for the Vegetation and Wetlands VC.

Table 11-4:    Vegetation and Wetlands VC – Subcomponents, Indicators and Rationale

11.1.5         Spatial and Temporal Boundaries

The following assessment boundaries have been defined for the Vegetation and Wetlands VC.

11.1.5.1         Spatial Boundaries

The spatial boundaries for the Vegetation and Wetlands VC are shown on Figure 11.1 and include the following:

• Project Footprint (PF) – the area of direct disturbance (i.e., the physical area required for project construction and operations). The Project Footprint is defined as the 35-m wide right-of-way (ROW) of the WSR; and temporary or permanent areas needed to support the Project that include access roads, construction camps, laydown and storage yards, aggregate pits/quarries, and a Maintenance and Storage Facility.
• Local Study Area (LSA) – the area where potential largely direct, and indirect effects of the Project are likely to occur and can be predicted or measured for assessment. The LSA extends 1 km from the centreline of the preliminary recommended preferred route and 500 m from the boundary of the temporary and permanent supportive infrastructure.
• Regional Study Area (RSA) – the area where potential largely indirect and cumulative effects of the Project in the broader, regional context may occur. The RSA includes the LSA and further extends 5 km from each side of the LSA boundaries to include the geographical extent to which potential effects from the Project may be expected. 

11.1.5.2         Temporal Boundaries

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

• Construction Phase: All activities associated with the initial development of the road and supportive infrastructure from the start of construction to the start of operation and maintenance of the Project and is estimated to be approximately 5 to 6 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 decommissioning of temporary infrastructure (e.g., construction camps). The Operations Phase of the Project is anticipated to be 75 years based on the expected timeline for when major refurbishment of road components (e.g., bridges) is deemed necessary.

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

Figure 11.1:      Vegetation and Wetlands VC Study Areas

11.1.6         Identification of Project Interactions with Vegetation and Wetlands

Table 11-5 identifies the Project activities that may interact with the Vegetation and Wetland VC and result in a potential effect.

Table 11-5:    Project Interactions with Vegetation and Wetlands 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 fires 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.

11.2            Existing Conditions

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

11.2.1         Methods

The following sections describe the methods used to characterize existing vegetation and wetlands within the study areas for the Project.

11.2.1.1         Desktop Review of Background Information Sources

Background information was reviewed from a variety of sources including publicly available data sets, relevant legislation, field guides, technical manuals, previous studies, and peer-reviewed publications. In addition, Indigenous Knowledge obtained from Webequie First Nation and other First Nations provided information on traditional use of plants in the Project study areas.

Datasets from both the Land Information Ontario (LIO) and the Far North Land Cover (FNLC) were used to characterize vegetation and wetlands, but when discrepancies were identified, the LIO data took precedence due to its increased accuracy. In addition, aerial imagery, LiDAR, and background data collected from existing topographic and geological data sources were examined. Modelling of vegetation was rejected in favour of visual delineation and typing of vegetation communities by experienced biologists conducting the field programs, or with extensive experience typing vegetation in the region. Background data sources and the results from field surveys were extrapolated to delineate vegetation units using an iterative approach.

11.2.1.2         Baseline Characterization Collection Methods

Field data collection to characterize the baseline conditions for vegetation and wetlands as detailed in Appendix F (Natural Environment Existing Conditions Report) were conducted based on Ontario Parks Inventory and Monitoring Program Guidelines (OPIAM) allowing for consistency and direct comparisons across programs. Modifications were made to align with the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) system for the Boreal region. At each sampling location three separate surveys were conducted to assess vegetation diversity, density, dominance, and community structure as well as composition of soils (substrate). The data collected from the surveys was used to drive the assignment of the appropriate ecosite code to each unit. In some heterogenous units, additional sampling efforts were conducted to gather supplementary data on ecotone transitions, inclusions, and complex vegetation communities.

Sites sampled for field surveys were selected manually in 2019 by Project Team vegetation specialists. This approach was amended in the 2020 field program, following the receipt of the TISG, in favour of a stratified random sampling selection process. The selection process was modified to consider locally underrepresented vegetation classes and landforms that are found in in the RSA. Based on the sampling methods used in 2019 and 2020, there were concerns about balancing spatial dispersion and sampling estimation. Subsequently, the Project team engaged the services of a Biostatistician (Rob Rempel, Ph.D.) to model the 2021 sampling program using the R-package for Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified (GRTS) sampling.

The GRTS approach spatially balances sample sites by evenly distributing them over the landscape, thereby ensuring specific landcover types are neither over-sampled, nor under-sampled. In addition, when creating sampling points three factors were considered: the overall relative distribution of FNLC classes with the overall project RSA, the distribution of FNLC classes surveyed in 2019/2020, and the intentional over-sampling of relatively rare FNLC classes in the RSA. Over sampling of rare sites is required to calibrate the model. Results from the 2019-2020 field program were incorporated into the mapping before applying GRTS for accuracy.

A list of all vascular plants observed at each sampling point was completed and the field data for each site was assigned an ecosite classification according to the Boreal manual. These sampled sites (units or polygons) were compared to the current mapped vegetation classifications to calculate the level of certainty between known and projected classifications. Results were used to develop the vegetation classification that would be used for assessment of effects across the study areas.

Upland ecosystems were surveyed using Ontario Parks datasheets for Vegetation Plot Layers and Groundcover / Substrate Plot Information. During these surveys, biologists assessed vegetation dominance by height class, characterized the soils, and made notes on potential wildlife habitat and community structure. The quadrats assessed percent cover of each species, with new quadrats added until no new species were found, to create a species area curve. Wetland and riparian ecosystems were surveyed similarly, though they also included measurements for water pH and water table depth, where applicable. Sample selections and surveys were also targeted in areas where Species at Risk (SAR) or rare communities were likely to occur.

11.2.1.3         Vegetation and Wetland Communities Mapping

Upland, wetland, and riparian ecosystems were mapped for the LSA and RSA in accordance with the Boreal Ecological Land Classification System. The Canadian National Vegetation Classification System (CNVC) and Canadian Wetland Classification System (CWCS) were also reviewed during this process. Given the extent of the study areas, it was considered slightly misleading to attempt to extrapolate the more detailed ELC Ecosite classification derived from the field program across the study area given the increasing lack of definitive soils, moisture regime and detailed vegetation composition as you move further from the sample locations. As a result, the ELC Community Class level was used for vegetation community mapping across the landscape, with ELC Community Series designations applied where applicable. A combination of Land Information Ontario (LIO) wetland data and Far North Land Cover (FNLC) was used the starting point for the wetland and upland vegetation mapping. Further delineation and typing of vegetative units (polygons) were completed using aerial imagery/LiDAR, as well as topographic and surficial geology data sets. The results of the vegetation delineation (and typing) were also used to support various wildlife field programs including the placement of autonomous recording units.

Wetland unit identification was initially done using wetland data found in the LIO data sets. The LIO types wetlands are marsh, fen, swamp, bog, or treed peatland based on Section 1.1.2 of the Ontario Wetlands Evaluation System (OWES) manual, but it should be noted that a number of these types (e.g., fen, bog and treed peatland) correspond to the definitions of both peatlands and muskeg. Following the field programs, typing of wetlands was assigned using the boreal ELC protocol at the Community Series level. As such, the vegetation classifications that are described as either fen or bog can also be considered peatlands or muskeg.

Vegetation units selected for sampling were assessed for species dominance according to height class, biodiversity (determined by a species-area curve), and abiotic factors including soil and substrate information. Data collected from the surveys were used to drive the assignment of appropriate ecosite codes for each unit. For improved context and clarity within complex heterogeneous or transitional ecotones additional surveys were conducted.

11.2.1.3.1         Riparian Areas

Riparian habitat is a transition zone between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (Austin et al. 2008) and is defined as areas adjacent to rivers and lakes, or ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial streams that differ from surrounding uplands in plant and wildlife diversity and productivity (Environment Canada 2013). A combination of mapped riparian areas and buffers to water features were used to provide an estimate of the available riparian environments found within the Project study areas.

During the baseline mapping process, delineation of riparian areas was difficult to execute because of the small size and mosaiced nature of these vegetation assemblages. Delineation was particularly challenging along watercourses and lakes adjacent to treed uplands and wetlands. To address this challenge, buffers representing estimated riparian habitat were applied to both lakes and watercourses. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (MNR 2010a) and the Forest Management Guide for Conserving Biodiversity at the Stand and Site Scales (MNR 2010b) recommend a minimum distance of 15 to 30 m of naturally vegetated cover be retained adjacent to fish habitat to maintain ecosystem function. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has also indicated that the riparian zone is influenced by various biophysical processes, such as erosion, filtration, and shading (Collison & Gromack 2022). As such, the application of a standardized buffer might not reflect the true area of riparian habitat, and in some cases riparian habitat wider than 30 m may be required to protect the movement corridors for certain wildlife species.

Based on available literature, riparian areas have been estimated adjacent to watercourses and lakes as part of this assessment, including for the wetlands function assessment summarized in Section 11.2 (Existing Conditions). Therefore, for this assessment, a 30 m buffer is assumed to represent an appropriate riparian zone width from the edges of watercourses and riparian buffer of 40 m has been applied to lakes. Potential riparian habitat was mapped across the LSA and RSA using available data and applying 30 m and 40 m buffers, as described above. The buffer zone was then overlaid onto the LSA and RSA ELC mapping. All naturally vegetated ecosites (both upland and wetland) within the riparian areas/zones were classified as having riparian habitat potential and were use in riparian calculations.

11.2.1.3.2         Designated Plant Species at Risk, Species and Vegetation Communities of Conservation Concern and Locally Rare/(Underrepresented Vegetation Communities)

In addition to mapping of vegetation, wetlands and riparian areas as described above, the biologists conducted field surveys to identify any SAR plant designated as either Endangered or Threatened under the Ontario Endangered Species Act (ESA) and/or the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA). The surveys were also intended to record any plant species of conservation concern (SOCC). Plant SOCC include those listed as: Special Concern on the Species at Risk Ontario (SARO) list under the ESA, as Special Concern under SARA, and/or as provincially rare (i.e., having a subnational rank of S1, S2 or S3). The habitat associated with Special Concern and/or provincially rare species with the following subnational ranks (SRANKs).

• S1 – Extremely rare in Ontario with fewer than five (5) occurrences in the province, or very few remaining hectares.
• S2 – Very rare in Ontario with between five and twenty (5 – 20) occurrences in the province, or few remaining hectares.
• S3 – Rare to Uncommon in Ontario with between twenty and one hundred occurrences (20 –100) in the province, or which may have fewer occurrences but still have some extensive examples remaining.

Communities that are assigned lower ranks, such as S4 and S5, are considered common and widespread in Ontario. A rank of S4 denotes a community that is apparently secure in the province, with many occurrences, while S5 indicates it is demonstrably secure in the province.

Prior to conducting field surveys, a list of potential plant SAR and plant SOCC present in the study areas was compiled to inform the fieldwork. This list was based on a review of previous studies, available provincial and national databases (Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC), Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)), and relevant legislation (ESA, SARA). Specific sample locations were chosen within vegetation communities likely to support SOCC or SAR. If any species were found, photos, GPS coordinates, and environmental site descriptions were recorded.

No Locally Rare vegetation classifications have been officially designated by either the provincial NHIC, or local municipal planning authorities within the LSA or RSA. That said, as part of the vegetation assessment, the Project Team examined some of the more uncommon vegetation classifications encountered during the field programs that were considered underrepresented in the study areas.

11.2.1.3.3         Areas and Plants of Traditional Importance to Indigenous Peoples

To determine areas and plants of traditional importance to Indigenous Peoples (e.g., for cultural or medicinal use, or as a source of country foods) the Project Team relied on information that was gathered during from background information sources, the country foods assessment completed for the Project, Indigenous knowledge and outcomes of the engagement and consultation with Indigenous communities. Particular attention was given to the feedback received from Webequie First Nation. The information obtained through engagement activities and review of background information aided the field surveys and the assessment for vegetation and wetlands. Additionally, the Project Team also considered the list of species in the TISG for the Project that have known cultural importance to Indigenous Peoples. These were further investigated during the surveys and assessment.

11.2.1.3.4         Species and Community Biodiversity

The objectives of the biodiversity component for characterization of baseline conditions were to assess the abundance and distribution of species and ecological units at several scales across the landscape, as well as to assess fragmentation of the landscape within the LSA and the RSA. This analysis was used to support the assessment of effects on upland, wetland and riparian abundance and diversity as well as plant species biodiversity.

The biodiversity indicators, selected for characterizing the baseline vegetation biodiversity within the study areas, were based on a review of existing published data and field data collected during the 2019, 2020 and 2021 field programs. Baseline biodiversity was characterized at three levels: Species, Community, and Landscape.

Diversity and richness values were derived from calculations of Shannon’s Diversity ( )) and Pielou’s Evenness (J’ = H’ / lnS) indices that were used as the measure of both species and landscape level biodiversity.

Species richness (S) were calculated using Menhinick’s index (D = s /√N), for vascular species only. Data collected as part of the baseline vegetation and wetland field surveys were used to calculate these indices.

The Shannon Diversity Index was used at a landscape level to provide a useful metric by substituting species with vegetation classes. The Shannon Evenness Index was also used to calculate class evenness at the landscape level. The formulae used to calculate the Shannon Diversity and Evenness Indices at the landscape level are as follows:

H=−∑[(pi)×ln(pi)]

Where:

• H = the Shannon Diversity Index;
• pi = n/N (n = patches of a given type/class; divided by N = total number of patches in the study area); and,
• ln(pi) = the log of pi.

The Shannon Evenness Index was calculated by using the formulae:

E = H / ln(k)

Where:

• H is the Shannon Diversity Index; and,
• k is the number of patch classes.

Data from all survey plots within each sampled ecosite polygon were treated as replicates and analysed to develop an overall species richness value for the site. Site values from similar ecosite classes were then combined to form a representative of the average range of species richness and abundance for the whole community class within the LSA and RSA. Field survey data were also used to estimate the biodiversity potential by identifying rare or unique species occurrences or non-native (invasive) species.

The community level assessment focused on several community classes within the LSA, as well as the biodiversity potential of each. Biodiversity potential entailed an assessment of the ability of each ecosite or community to support a variety of self-sustaining plant and animal populations. This assessment was done by comparing the structure and composition of each ecosite or community, along with the rarity of the community at a landscape level. The purpose of this exercise was to ensure that underrepresented, relatively rare communities are given more weight, since their loss would affect landscape biodiversity more than those of more common sites.

The number and type of community classes in the LSA and RSA were used to assess biodiversity at the landscape level. Information on the number and type of community classes in the LSA and RSA were derived from those utilized during the biodiversity assessment and were based on the dominant ecosite, or community class assigned to each polygon during the LSA and RSA mapping process.

The landscape level diversity information included the size, shape, number, and distribution of vegetation class patches within the LSA and RSA along with the following defined metrics:

• Number of Patches – the number of patches within the LSA and RSA belonging to each class.
• Class Area – the amount of the LSA and RSA belonging to each patch class in hectares. 
• Mean Patch Size – the average (mean) size of patches within each class. 
• Perimeter Length – measures the total area of the perimeter of all patches in each class. 
• Mean Perimeter to Area Ratio – the mean edge density (m/ha) for each class.

In addition to the landscape patch classes, a separate set of metrics was calculated for ‘core areas’, which are defined as areas more than 50 m from another patch. Core areas are considered to have minimal edge or transitional effects from neighbouring patch or habitat types. 

• Number of Core Patches – the number of core patches within the LSA and RSA by class. Of note, the 50 m buffer can result in a single contiguous patch being split into multiple core patches depending on the original patch complexity and configuration.
• Core Area – the area of core patch for each class.
• Mean Core Patch Size – the mean size of each core patch within a class. 
• Core Area Index – the proportion of each class that is Core Area represented as a percentage. 

The results of these landscape level biodiversity metrics created a holistic understanding of the existing mosaic of vegetation types and classes within the LSA and RSA.

To further describe and characterize the baseline landscape and distribution of the vegetation classes within the study area a Nearest Neighbour Analysis was conducted. A Nearest Neighbour Analysis measures the spread or distribution of spatially identifiable landscape features over a defined geographical area and provides a numerical value that describes the extent to which a set of features are clustered or uniformly spaced. These values can then be used to compare future landscape changes to the existing conditions and assist in the determination of the effects of the proposed WSR (potential fragmentation) on habitat connectivity within the environment.

11.2.1.4         Wetland Functional Assessment

The Project Team determined the wetland functional assessment approach through analysis of the criteria described in Wetland Ecological Functions Assessment: An Overview of Approaches (Hanson et al., 2008). A modified landscape level (Tier 1) Wetlands Function Assessment methodology was chosen as the most appropriate approach to determining the functional value of wetlands within the WSR study areas. This determination was based on the unique Project landscape and an extensive review of the currently accepted methodologies, as described in Section 9.2.6. of the NEEC Report (Appendix F).

The Project area is almost entirely composed of vast wetland complexes (81.78% of LSA and 80.29% of RSA) interspersed with upland areas and waterbodies. This overall wetland: upland relationship makes the area incompatible with wetland function evaluation systems that target small, discrete wetlands in an upland matrix with identifiable flow inputs and outputs. As a result, a modified landscape level (Tier 1) assessment was adopted, and functional indices were grouped into three categories:

• Geophysical;
• Biophysical; and
• Socio-economic.

11.2.1.4.1         Geophysical

Given the large number of wetlands involved, functional assessments were not conducted on discrete individual wetlands. Instead, a review of existing scientific studies and papers provided general functional values for hydrology (flood attenuation and erosion protection), hydrogeology (recharge and discharge), biochemical nutrient cycling, water quality, carbon sequestration, and climate regulation based on the wetland types within the study areas.

In addition to qualitative descriptions of relative geophysical functional values, landscape level (Tier 1), semi-quantitative assessments (i.e., based on ordinal values) were modelled using logistic regression in R to assess specific wetland geophysical functions in terms of probability that specific wetlands (ELC polygons) provide functional value. The relative probability values used were based on a review of published literature and other environmental assessments, and were assigned to wetland types, ranging from 0 to 1.

As part of the field surveys, the Project Team collected information on geophysical indicators of wetland function where possible. The indicators included:

• Erosion Protection;
• Flood Attenuation Potential;
• Discharge Potential;
• Recharge Potential;
• Water Quality;
• Nutrient Cycling;
• Carbon Sequestration; and
• Climate Regulation.

11.2.1.4.2         Biophysical Functions

For the analysis of the biophysical wetland functions, the Project Team retained Dr. Rob Rempel, of FERIT Environmental Consulting to determine (define) the functional use or “Functional Habitat” of each wetland type with respect to plant and wildlife species for the following indicators:

• Maintenance of Vegetative Diversity/Integrity;
• Maintenance of Characteristic Breeding Bird Habitat;
• Maintenance of Characteristic Waterfowl Habitat;
• Maintenance of Characteristic Mammal Habitat; and
• Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat.

In the Wetland Function Assessment, functional habitats were considered those resource areas or wetland types that provide for the life history needs of a plant or animal, and the functional assessment is the process by which the value of resources is estimated. A statistical modelling technique termed the Resource Selection Function (RSF) that uses logistic regression was used to provide the ability to quantify the absolute or relative probability that a plant or animal uses a specific resource (e.g., wetland or landcover type) (Manly, 2002; Johnson et al., 2006, Lele et al., 2013).

The modelling technique was used to quantify the importance of various environmental factors, such as wetland types, conifer forest, or eskers, and to predict the distribution and importance of habitat and how that functional habitat supports biodiversity. Such habitat models were then incorporated into a GIS database to produce distributional maps of species as a function of resource types. This approach supports the wetland function and biodiversity analysis of flora and fauna within the study areas. These RSF predictions of high/low value habitat (at a species level) constitute one of the metrics used for the assessment of existing biodiversity functional value and eventually in estimating potential future adverse effects on these values.

The maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat focused on those wetlands proximal to open waterbodies (lakes/rivers) with the potential for direct access to support the life processes of fish. As several wetland functions that support fish habitat are already accounted for in other categories of the functional assessment noted above, the functional value of wetlands to support critical life processes of fish focused on the potential for supporting spawning, nursery, and feeding habitat.

To account for these specific fish habitat functions, all open-wetland types adjacent to open waterbodies (e.g., rivers, large lakes, and ponds) were considered to have a high potential for the maintenance of characteristic fish habitat. Other wetland types adjacent to waterbodies were considered to provide some function through the provision of cover, temperature regulation, and habitat during periods of inundation. To account for these less direct, but important functions, buffers representing High, Medium, and Low fish critical-life-process functional values were applied to all waterbodies (seeTable 11-6, Waterbody Functional Value Buffers). The size of these buffers was derived from DFO guidelines and accepted literature. Most of the available literature relates to forestry and construction activities, but these are still considered relevant, because they assess changes in fish density around both headwater and larger-order streams. Adjacent to waterbodies, most sources state that 30 m – 60 m is sufficient for maintaining fish habitat but given the extremely low gradients in the study areas, larger buffers were selected to facilitate a conservative approach.

Table 11-6:    Waterbody Functional Value Buffers

11.2.1.4.3         Socio-economic Functions

Given the remote nature of the study areas, the social and economic uses of the wetlands within the PF, LSA and RSA are severely limited, and access is restricted to areas within a reasonable proximity to Indigenous communities with existing access route so particularly the community of Webequie. Other than localized fuel harvesting, no forestry activities are being conducted within the study areas. Traplines are known to be situated within the study areas, but information on the levels of activity (use) is not known at this time. Consultation with Indigenous communities is ongoing, but when the wetlands functional evaluation for the Project was conducted there was not enough context-specific data available to adequately apply a socio-economic value to the Wetlands Function Assessment in the RSA.

Indigenous Knowledge and Land and Resource Use (IKLRU) data available was used (e.g., polygons of burial sites, hunting, fishing and gathering areas, trails, known habitat) to derive a distinct stand-alone socio-economic functional rating. To address the limited information, it was determined that Indigenous communities view these wetlands in a holistic ecological manner and the socio-economic roles of these wetland environments are intertwined with their ecological characteristics. As a result, the typical grouping of ecological indicators to derive a single aggregated ecological wetland function are not applied. Instead, each of the ecological indicators (Waterfowl, Breeding Birds, Mammals, Vegetation, and Fish/Amphibian Habitat Maintenance) have been considered separately, with equal weight in determining their final wetland functional values. This approach increases the weight of these functions to account for the dual role as both an ecological function and a socio-economic function. Therefore, the socio-economic function is considered to be the combination of the specific socio-economic values derived from the available IKLRU information and a portion of the increased weight of the other ecological functions acting as surrogate values attributable to potential aesthetics, recreation, education, and commercial uses of wetlands by First Nations and the public.

11.2.1.4.4         Aggregated Wetland Function and Diversity

The three broad functional categories (geophysical, biophysical and socio-economic) were modelled using ordinal values derived from published literature, field survey results and consultation with Indigenous communities. The model was used to assign the probability that different wetland community types have in providing specific geophysical, biophysical, and socio-economic functions. The ordinal values derived from the model are based on a simple relationship that was established between qualitative value and relative probability of the specific wetland type providing high functional value: i.e., high (1), moderate/high (0.8), moderate (0.6), low/moderate (0.4), and low (0.2). An aggregate index was created using multi-variate factor analysis and weighted values to summarize the overall results.

The wetland functional assessment also involved the calculation of a diversity index to rank the relative value of ELC types in terms of diversity in predicted use. The RSF modelling of the biotic functions resulted in maps quantifying probability of use for each plant and wildlife species, which were then used to estimate diversity in use.

11.2.2         Results

The following sections summarizes the existing (baseline) conditions for the Vegetation and Wetlands VC. Details of the results are described in Section 9 of Appendix F – NEEC Report. 

11.2.2.1         Regional Context

According to the National Ecological Framework for Canada (Ecological Stratification Working Group, 1995), the majority of LSA (100%) and RSA (97.5%) fall within the Big Trout Lake Ecoregion (2W) of the Boreal Shield Ecozone. A small portion of the RSA (2.5%) extends approximately 4 km east into the James Bay Ecoregion (2E) of the Hudson Plain Ecozone (see Figure 11.2). Landscapes within the Big Trout Lake Ecoregion are relatively flat, alternating between peatlands in low-lying areas and low ridges of mineral material on well-drained upland sites (Crins et al., 2009). Sparse coniferous and mixed forests cover close to half of the ecoregion, and small pockets of hardwood forest grow in river valleys. Open water and bog complexes are the next most prevalent land cover classes in Ecoregion 2W. The James Bay Ecoregion is flat and poorly drained, with numerous shallow lakes and ponds interspersed among peatlands (typically fen and bog complexes). Coniferous forest is common on well-drained sites, and both coniferous and mixed forests can occur in sheltered river valleys.

At the Ecodistrict level, the majority of the LSA and RSA (88.9% and 84.5% respectively) are found within the Kasabonika Lake Ecodistrict (2W-2), with portions of the western LSA and RSA (11.1% and 13% respectively) found within the Wunnummin Lake Ecodistrict (2W-3), and part of eastern RSA (2.5%) within the Albany Ecodistrict (2E-1). More specifically, a 94.3 km section of the WSR passes through the northeastern portion of Ecodistrict 2W-2, which is dominated by wetlands (primarily bog and fen complexes) (Wester et al., 2018). The relative landcover percentages for Ecodistrict 2W-2 are bog complex (40%), sparse forest (20%), coniferous forest (19%), fen complex (10%), other natural (6%), and burn (5%). A 12.2 km section of the WSR ROW extends into the western portion of Ecodistrict 2W-3 at Winisk Lake. Landcover within the northern half of this ecodistrict is dominated by sparse forests, while coniferous forests are most prevalent in the south. The relative landcover percentages for Ecodistrict 2W-3 are sparse forest (26%), coniferous forest (25%), mixed forest (12%), bog complex (12%), burn (11%), regenerating depletion (7%), fen complex (5%), and other natural (2%). The easternmost portion of the RSA (excluding the WSR road) extends approximately 4 km into Ecodistrict 2E-1. This ecodistrict is characterized by flat topography and poor drainage, resulting in a landscape dominated by wetlands (primarily bog and fen complexes). The relative landcover percentages for Ecodistrict 2E-1 are bog complex (46%), fen complex (36%), coniferous forest (7%), sparse forest (6%), and other natural (5%).

Multiple provincially designated sensitive areas were identified during the background information review, including provincial and federal parks, Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI), and Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW). A total of six provincially designated areas are located within 30 km of the proposed WSR (Figure 11.2;
Table 11-7). Of these, only the Winisk River Provincial Park is within the RSA. This provincial park is located approximately 2.3 km from the WSR and borders the Webequie First Nation Reserve lands. No federally designated sensitive areas or national parks occur within 30 km of the WSR.

Table 11-7:    Designated Sensitive Areas within 30 km of the Webequie Supply Road

Note: No designated sensitive areas fall within the LSA

Figure 11.2:      Project Area EcoRegion, EcoDistricts, and Designated Sensitivities

Regional Hydrological functions

The Hudson’s Bay-James Bay Lowlands were previously covered by glaciers, compressing the landmass, which was then flooded with their retreat forming the Tyrell Seas 7,000-8,000 years ago. The landmass has been rising through isostatic rebound at approximately 1 m every 100 years. The retreat of the Tyrell Sea due to this rebound left behind a layer of marine silty clay which forms the uppermost horizon of mineral soil throughout the region. As a result of the retreating ice sheet, all waterbodies flow into the James Bay coastline creating variation in otherwise flat landscape. The region is dominated by muskeg (bog/fen) terrain, except near rivers, major creeks, beach ridge complexes and scattered glaciofluvial features. Bog and fen areas contain organic soils that overlay the marine silty clay layer. Fen areas exhibit a low profile and are typically highly saturated, often with a pronounced, directional seepage, deriving their water supply from sources in contact with mineral soil. Bog areas are slightly raised compared with fens, and therefore slightly drier, receiving most of their water supply from rain (Hanson et al, 2008).

Regional Wetland Composition (Watersheds)

The Hudson Bay lowlands are situated within the primary Southwestern Hudson Bay watershed and comprises 53% of the watershed. The remainder of the Southwestern Hudson Bay watershed is occupied by the Severn and Abitibi Uplands. Sixteen (16) secondary watersheds are found within the Southwestern Hudson Bay watershed and the Project Areas intersects with three (3) of these. These include the Attawapiskat River – Coast, Ekwan River – Coast, and Winisk River – Coast secondary watersheds. Four (4) tertiary watersheds intersecting the RSA area are found within these secondary watersheds. These include the: Missisa River – Lower Attawapiskat River, Upper Ekwan River, Middle Winisk River, and Upper Winisk River watersheds. Figure 11.3 shows the location and extent of the watersheds and Table 11-8 and Table 11-9 describe the relative percentages of each watershed occupied by the RSA and the percentage of wetland, upland, and open water within the LSA and RSA within each watershed.

Figure 11.3:      Webequie Supply Road (WSR): Secondary and Tertiary Watersheds

Table 11-8:    Watershed Hierarchy and Relative Percentage of Wetland Based on Far North Land Cover

Note: Percentage calculations are based on Baseline data collection study area boundaries which include all alternatives.

When viewed as the percentage of wetland, upland, or open water in the area that the Project occupies within the watershed, it becomes apparent that wetlands are the dominant vegetation classification affecting the hydraulic processes within the study areas. Table 11-9 shows percentage of wetland, upland, and open water within the portion that the LSA and RSA represents within the watershed.

Table 11-9:    Percentage of Wetland, Upland, And Open Water Within the LSA and RSA

Note: Percentage calculations are based on Baseline data collection study area boundaries which include all alternatives.

11.2.2.2         Vegetation and Wetland Communities Mapping

11.2.2.2.1         Field Survey Results

In total, 101 sites were sampled on the ground and 20 from the air as part of the 2019, 2020 and 2021 programs (See Figure 11.5, Figure 11.6 and Figure 11.7), representing 30 different ecosites (refer to Appendix 9-A, Field Data Sheets, of the NEEC Report Appendix F). The majority (81%) of the sites were wetland ecosites, while the remaining sites (19%) were categorized as upland forest ecosites. These were further categorized into coniferous and hardwood ecosite types for the upland forest sites, and treed or open sites for the wetlands. A detailed list of species identified as part of the 2019, 2020, and 2021 field surveys is presented in the NEEC Report (Appendix F).

Nine non-native species were identified during the field programs including: Dwarf Snapdragon (Chaenorhinum minus), Oxeye Daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), White Sweet-clover (Meliotus alba), Common Sow-thistle (Sonchus oleraceus), Common Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), Red Clover (Trifolium pratense), White Clover (Trifolium repens), Tufted Vetch (Vicia cracca), and Pineappleweed (Matricaria discoidea). These species were not noted in any sampled plots and their distribution was restricted to areas within the community of Webequie where there is on-going human activity such as airports, roads, and drainage ditches.

11.2.2.2.2         Vegetation Classification

The following subsections describe the mapped classes derived from the field sampling program and mapping process outlined in the NEEC Report and Section 11.2.1.3 (Vegetation and Wetland Communities Mapping). The vegetation classes are divided into upland ecosystems, wetland ecosystems and riparian ecosystems for organizational purposes. Of the 5,749 vegetation units mapped within the LSA and RSA, 4,666 are considered wetland ecosystems (see Figure 11.4, Figure 11.5 and Figure 11.6). More detailed mapping is contained in Appendix 9D of the NEEC Report (Appendix F). As shown in Table 11-10, wetland ecosystems account for 81.78% and 80.29% of all mapped classifications within the LSA and RSA, respectively. Uplands occupy 8.11% of the LSA and 7.25% of the RSA, and open water accounts for 10.11% of the LSA and 12.46% of the RSA. Riparian areas make up a very small percentage of both the LSA and RSA at 0.07% each.

Table 11-10:  Percentage of Upland/Wetland Ecosystems in the LSA and RSA

• *Note: Area calculations and percentages are calculated using baseline data collection study areas.

**Note: Area values for riparian habitat represent a double counting since they encompass portions of both upland and wetland environments adjacent to watercourses and waterbodies. (% = percent; ha = hectare)

Figure 11.4:      2019, 2020, and 2021 Vegetation Classification and Survey Locations

Figure 11.5:      2019, 2020, and 2021 Vegetation Classification and Survey Locations

Figure 11.6:      2019, 2020, and 2021 Vegetation Classification and Survey Locations

11.2.2.2.3         Upland Ecosystems

Upland ecosystems are relatively rare within the study areas, generally occurring in the western and eastern portions of the study areas (Figure 11.1). Twenty-two (22) of the 101 total plots sampled during the baseline vegetation assessment were classified as upland ecosites, which occupy approximately 8.18% of the LSA and 7.25% of the RSA (See Table 11-11 below). These sites generally occur at the western and eastern terminuses of the WSR, near the community of Webequie and the Wyloo Metals Exploration Camp, or along major river systems. The upland ecosystem sites to the west are primarily found on till and glacial lake clay mineral soils. In contrast, the central and eastern portions of the study areas were dominated by alluvial floodplain mineral soils. Only one soil core sampled near the eastern terminus of the proposed WSR was of glacial origin.

Table 11-11:  Upland Ecosystems Availability in the LSA and RSA Areas

Note: Area calculations and percentages are calculated using Baseline data collection Study Areas.

Four different upland ecosite categories were identified from the field surveys: conifer forest, hardwood forest, open rock, and shrub (Table 11-12). Coniferous forest was the most commonly occurring category, representing 13 of the 22 upland plots and 12.75% of all plots sampled. A total of seven different upland ecosites were identified.

Table 11-12:  Summary of 2019-2021 Field Program Upland Ecosite Sampling Plots

11.2.2.2.4         Wetland Ecosystems

Wetland ecosystems are abundant within the study areas, which is primarily comprised of a vast matrix of interconnected wetlands and waterbodies. The majority oft wetland types are peatlands/muskeg such as bogs, fens, thicket swamps and treed swamps. Wetlands occurring on mineral substrates are rarer within the study area and are concentrated along the edges of lakes, streams and rivers. Seventy-nine of the 101 total ground plots sampled during the baseline vegetation assessment were classified as wetland ecosites which occupy 81.78% of the LSA and 80.29% of the RSA (Table 11-9).

Three broad wetland were identified from the field survey: swamps, tree bogs/fens and marshes
(Table 11-13). Swamps were the most abundant category sampled representing 32 of 79 wetland plots and 31.68% of all plots sampled. A total of nineteen different wetland ecosites were identified.

Table 11-13:  Wetland Type and Abundance Within LSA and RSA

• Note: Area calculations and percentages are calculated using baseline data collection study areas.

11.2.2.2.5           Riparian Ecosystems

Riparian areas were comprised of a total of seventeen different ecosites. As discussed in Section 11.2.1.3.1 (Riparian Areas) these riparian ecosystems were challenging to accurately map based solely on ELC vegetation class. Riparian areas made up a very small percentage of the overall study areas, with an estimated 0.07% coverage of both the LSA and the RSA.

Table 11-14 shows the riparian estimates that include both the visually delineated and buffer estimated areas, whichever was larger. It is important to note that area values for riparian habitat represent a double counting since they encompass portions of both upland and wetland environments adjacent to watercourses and waterbodies.

Table 11-14:  Riparian Areas in LSA and RSA by Vegetation Class

*Note: River and Lake riparian values are based on mapped areas. All others are based on buffered estimates.

11.2.2.3         Species and Community Biodiversity/Fragmentation

Since the study areas for the Project are located in an undisturbed natural area, they generally exhibited high biodiversity. The diversity results based on the data from the 2019 to 2021 surveys are presented in Section 9.5.2 of the NEEC, Tables 9.31 and 9.32 (Appendix F). The mapped results are shown in Figure 11.7 Illustrated by the gradient in colour. Biodiversity was shown to be higher in forest units (hardwood or coniferous) and areas of transition such as rivers, while the lowest results were found in bog or fen classes.

In summary, the highest levels of species richness (# of species) were found in the Conifer Swamp and Sparse Treed Fen ecosite types while the lowest levels were found in Open Bog and Treed Bog ecosite types. Simpson’s Index of Diversity was highest in Open Fen and Conifer Swamp ecosite types and lowest in Open Bog and Treed Bog ecosite types. Inverse Simpson’s Dominance was highest in Open Fen and Sparse Treed Fen ecosite types and lowest in Open Bog and Treed Bog ecosite types. Generally, the highest modeled average diversity values are found in Open Water Marsh. 

Landscape diversity and habitat fragmentation was assessed through analysis of the size, shape, number, and distribution of patches, and core areas (area remaining inside of 50m from patch edge). The landscape-level diversity assessment looked at existing vegetation class metrics in the baseline data collection RSA. The results of this analysis are found in Section 9.5.3 and Table 9.33 of the NEEC REPORT (Appendix F). Generally, the most commonly identified patches within the mapping included Low-Treed Bog (955), Poor Conifer Swamp (839), and Conifer Swamp (633). The class area calculations totals follow closely with the number of patches with the highest being Low-Treed Bog, Conifer Swamp and Poor Conifer Swamp. The highest values for mean patch size were found for Conifer Swamp class, with the next two highest being Burn/Shrubland and Low-Treed Bog. The lowest totals for this metric were Meadow Marsh, Rock Barren, and Hardwood Swamp. The highest number of core patches were found in Low-Treed Bog (1987), Poor Conifer Swamp (1555), and Conifer Swamp (1489). The lowest number of core patches were River/Floating Marsh, and Open Water Marsh.

The nearest neighbour analysis concluded that fragmentation by anthropogenic activity is virtually absent from the LSA and RSA, outside of the two noted areas of human activity in Webequie, and habitat is only split by natural succession of vegetation classes or other natural breaks such as lakes or rivers. The results of the nearest neighbour analysis indicate that there is significant clustering across all vegetation classifications within the study area resulting from non-random processes such as topographic, hydrologic, hydrogeologic, soils conditions. The results of this analysis are found in Section 9.5.3.3 of the NEEC REPORT (Appendix F).

Figure 11.7:      Biodiversity Values Across Study Area

11.2.2.4         Plant Species at Risk and Plant Species and Communities of Conservation Concern

Plant Species

Field surveys conducted in 2019, 2020, and 2021 identified 302 plant species. Vascular plants (trees, shrubs, and graminoids) accounted for 273 species and the remaining 29 species were non-vascular plants such as bryophytes and lichens. The full species list for the field surveys in 2019, 2020, and 2021 is presented in the NEEC Report (Appendix F).

Based on desktop research, two species of vascular plants and four lichens of conservation concern were identified in the project region and within the range of the study areas but were not observed during field surveys. Other species of conservation concern identified during the desktop review included: McCalla’s Willow (Salix maccalliana- S3), near the Webequie community, and Quill Spikerush (Eleocharis nitida – S2), Lathagrium undulatum var. granulosum ((Degel.) M. Schulz & McCune – S4), and Ephebe hispidula ((Ach.) Horw – SU) near the Attawapiskat River, and two species, Chaenothecopsis marcineae (Selva – S4) and Epilichen scabrosus ((Ach.) Clem. ex Hafellner – SU) located near the Muketei River. The area around the Webequie community was not available for surveys for two years during the COVID-19 pandemic and as a result their presence was not able to be confirmed and none of the species identified near the Attawapiskat or Muketei were observed in the field.

No federally or provincial listed plant species at risk (SARA, ESA) were observed within the Project study area from the field surveys conducted, but two Provincially rare (SOCC) mosses were identified during the field surveys: Yellow Moosedung Moss (Splachnum luteum – S1) and Cruet Collar Moss (Splachnum ampellaceum – S3). However, data for these species in the boreal region of Ontario are lacking and their actual abundance could be greater than currently known.

Vegetation Communities

None of the surveyed ecosites are considered provincially rare according to NHIC and no vegetation communities ranked S3 or higher were identified. Based on our field sessions and mapping, locally rare or uncommon communities include: Hardwood Forest (14 sites), Mixed Forest (21 sites), Meadow Marsh (4 sites), Open Water Marsh (2 sites), Rock Barren (3 sites). These were the only occurrences identified at a mappable scale across the 5,686 mapped features within the LSA and RSA. The combined area of these communities occupies approximately 558 total ha (or 0.42%) of the 133,921.55 ha found within the LSA/RSA. These communities may occur in greater quantities but are difficult to map as they may be complexed with other larger vegetation communities (e.g., Conifer forests or Swamps, and shoreline fen/swamp/bog complexes).

It should be noted that from a global perspective the Ramsar Convention[1] has repeatedly stated that peatlands are one of the most important wetland types on the planet due to their support of biodiversity as well as the regulation of natural processes. These wetland types, and the Hudson’s /James Bay Lowlands in particular, have also been singled out for increased consideration by both the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 

11.2.2.5         Areas and Plants of Traditional Importance to Indigenous Peoples

Given the remote nature of the study areas, and based Indigenous knowledge received, Country Foods Assessment and engagement with Indigenous communities to date, First Nation’s use of discrete vegetation communities within the study areas is spatially limited to areas within a reasonable access and proximity to Indigenous communities, and particularly the community of Webequie. The harvesting of plants of traditional importance to Indigenous Peoples for cultural or medicinal use or as a source of country foods are also being assessed part of the Country Food Assessment (Appendix O), Assessment of Effects on Cultural Heritage and Archaeological Resources (Section 20) and Assessment of Effects on Indigenous Peoples and the Exercise of Aboriginal and/or Treaty Rights (Section 19) These assessments have produced some data on location of harvesting areas and plant species specific to the community of Webequie, but data from other communities is limited at this time.

From the engagement and consultation activities with Webequie First Nation members to date, and IKLRU information received, the plants of traditional importance identified for cultural or medicinal use or as a source of country foods include: blueberries (Vaccinum sp.), gooseberries (Ribes sp.), Northern Sweetflag (Acorus americanus), White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis), Labrador Tea (Rhododendron groenlandicum), and Crowberry (Empetrum nigrum). Common Juniper (Juniperus communis) was also identified as part of the IKLRU data provided by the community of Webequie. The TISG for the Project also provides a list of species that have known cultural importance to Indigenous Peoples in the region. These include black spruce, white spruce, tamarack, balsam poplar, cedar, dwarf birch, red willow, trembling aspen, cottongrass, moss, black crowberry, blueberries, raspberries, reindeer moss, sphagnum moss, northern Labrador tea, caribou lichen, bearberry, dogwood, small cranberry, sage, sweetgrass, and lily pads. Table 11-15 below provides a list of the species identified and the vegetation classes in which they were observed during the vegetation field sampling program. Note that this list is derived from vegetation classes that were sampled during the field program, based on the random sampling requirements outlined in the TISG, and therefore some classifications (i.e., Mixed Forest) are not represented.

Table 11-15:  Plants of Traditional Importance and associated Habitat Types

11.2.2.6         Wetland Function Assessment Results

From the mapping and baseline characterization of vegetation within the LSA and RSA the results indicate that, of the 5,685 discreet vegetation patches mapped, 4,591 of the vegetation units are considered wetland, comprising 80.76% of the total classifications. From a spatial perspective, these wetland areas comprise 80.29% of the total area encompassed by the vegetation characterization in the RSA.

Given the values indicating the dominant role wetlands play in the ecology of the study areas for the Project, a Wetlands Function Assessment was conducted to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the role and function of wetlands on a regional scale. A summary of the results of the baseline wetland functional assessment is presented in the following subsections with discussion on:

• Geophysical Wetland Functions;
• Biophysical Wetland Functions; and
• Socio-Economic Functions.

A detailed description of the wetland function assessment, including methods used can be found in the NEEC Report in Appendix F.

11.2.2.6.1         Geophysical Wetland Functions

Wetlands provide vital geophysical functions that are essential for environmental stability and resilience. One of their primary roles is water regulation, as wetlands act as natural sponges, absorbing excess water during floods and slowly releasing it during dry periods, thus regulating local hydrological cycles (Mitsch & Gosselink, 2015). Groundwater recharge is affected by topography, soil permeability and composition of the bedrock. Wetlands are also effective in trapping sediments and filtering pollutants, which helps improve water quality and prevents the degradation of surrounding ecosystems (Zedler & Kercher, 2005). Wetland vegetation plays a role in these functions by slowing the rate of flow, which allows for the filtering of sediment and pollutants and the incorporation of excess nutrients into leaf and stem growth. In addition, abiotic factors such as temperature and water saturation influence the cycling of nutrients spatially and temporally. Additionally, wetlands contribute significantly to carbon sequestration, storing large amounts of carbon in their waterlogged soils, which helps mitigate the effects of climate change (Mitsch et al., 2013). These geophysical functions underscore the importance of wetlands in supporting biodiversity, protecting water resources, and buffering communities against the impacts of climate-related events. The following sections highlight the unique geophysical functions provided by the broad wetland classes found within the LSA and RSA.

Below are brief descriptions of the geophysical functions of each wetland type in the study area. A summary table of the results of the relative probability of geophysical wetland function values is shown in the Table 11-16 Based on the review of published literature and use of a modelling tool relative probability ordinal values ranging from 0 to 1 were assigned to each wetland type. These ordinal values were derived from a simple relationship that was established between qualitative value and relative probability of the specific wetland type providing functional value expressed as: high (1), moderate/high (0.8), moderate (0.6), low/moderate (0.4), and low (0.2). The rationale for the ordinal values is discussed in detail in Sections 9.4.2 to 9.4.6 of the NEEC Report in Appendix F. The assessment of ordinal values was then modelled in a regression analysis, a simple linear regression is a model that describes the relationship between one dependent and one independent variable using a straight line, to assess specific wetland geophysical functions in terms of probability that specific wetlands provide in terms of functional geophysical value.

Fens

Two categories of fen were identified within the study area: organic poor fens and sparse treed fens. Organic poor fens displayed the most variety of structural types including string fens, ladder fens, channel fens and water track fens while sparse treed fens were typically horizontal fens. Fens maintain high groundwater tables and consistent runoff rate throughout the year, provide drainage for bogs, and have an increased rate of evapotranspiration compared to bogs (Verry and Boelter, 1975; Sjörs, 1963; Lafleur and Roulet, 1992). Fens provide moderate protection from local flooding, stream bed scouring, sediment loading and temperature stabilization for cold-water species.

Swamps

Swamps in the study area were composed of two broad categories: those in higher elevation with occasional pockets of mixed wood forest (intermediate or organic rich conifer swamps) and low elevation, transitional area swamps (poor conifer and thicket swamps). Hydrologic flow through swamps is dynamic with flow through groundwater and overland during inundation events (Smith et. al., 2007). The hydrological function of riparian swamps decreases with higher elevation and most swamps within the study area were positioned on mid to upper slopes, reducing their function in comparison to their size (Hanson et al., 2008).

Swamps can exhibit a high degree of biochemical function and productivity in relation to other wetland classes. These can vary greatly according to local factors such as climate, temperature, water chemistry, vegetative community, geology, topography, and drainage. For example, stagnant forested swamps can act as carbon sinks due to the abundance of organic matter and slow decomposition rates. In contrast, riparian swamps excel at phosphorus absorption via deposition of dissolved and suspended solids. Due to the dynamic hydrology and position of swamps within the landscape they can act as a nutrient exporter to other ecosystems (Hanson et al., 2008).

Floodplain and Lacustrine Wetlands

Wetlands associated with rivers and waterbodies have been grouped into two main categories: Lacustrine (Open/Open Shore/Fen/Marsh/Thicket Swamp); and Floodplain (River Shore Open – Marsh/Fen/Bog, Low/Sparse/Treed/Fen, Bog, Thicket/Treed Swamp). These wetlands are typically small in scale and form complexes within the transition zones to open water. The position of these wetlands within the landscape allows them to moderate stormwater flow, streambed sedimentation, channel modification and erosion more effectively compared to other wetland classes (Hanson et al., 2008).

The biochemical function of marsh wetlands is high, but the effectiveness of these functions is subject to similar local physical factors as swamps described above. Marshes facilitate the cycling of nitrogen, absorption of phosphorus and reduce sulphates making floodplain marsh complexes important for water quality. Marshes act as both carbon sinks and carbon sources depending on the wetland condition. The status is determined by whether it is in a stage of active vegetative growth, or in decline and drying out through natural successional processes (Hanson et al., 2008).

Shallow open water wetlands are dynamic systems, and their productivity and biochemical function is dependent on external factors such as flow rates, composition, and existing capacity. The variation leads to periods of oxygenated substrate increasing decomposition and can result in fluctuating nutrient supplies and irregular organic matter export. In slow moving waters they can facilitate sediment settling but it is limited by their size within the landscape (Hanson et al., 2008).

Table 11-16:  Summary of Wetland Geophysical Function Values by Wetland Class

* Erosion Protection values only apply to wetlands adjacent to waterbodies or watercourses

Note: Ordinal values were assigned as follows high (1), moderate/high (0.8), moderate (0.6), low/moderate (0.4), and low (0.2)

11.2.2.6.2         Biophysical Wetland Functions

Wetlands play crucial biophysical roles in ecosystems by providing essential services to support biodiversity. The diverse habitat structure of wetlands supports a wide variety of species, contributing to high levels of biodiversity and providing essential breeding, feeding, and nesting sites for numerous animals (Barton et al., 2007). The following subsections highlight the distinct biophysical functions performed by each of the broad wetland classes in the study area. These biological functions underscore the ecological importance of bogs in maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem services. A general qualitative assessment of biophysical functions of each wetland type in the study area is presented below.

Six major biophysical functions were examined. These include maintenance of habitat for: common and SAR vegetation, breeding birds, waterfowl, mammals, amphibian, and fish. In order to quantify the biophysical functional values for the various wetland types within the baseline study areas, a statistical modelling technique termed the Resource Selection Function (RSF) was used to quantity the absolute or relative probability that a plant or animal uses a specific resource (e.g., wetland or landcover type) (Manly, 2002; Johnson et al., 2006; Lele et al., 2013). These quantitative analysis results for the biophysical wetland functions analysis were written to a GIS attribute file and linked to the equivalent hexagon shapefile, allowing mapping of species-specific probability of use and areas of high biophysical functional habitat value. The results of this quantitative analysis are presented in Section 9.4 of Appendix F (NEEC Report).

Bogs

Bogs, a type of wetland characterized by waterlogged, acidic conditions and nutrient-poor soils, perform several unique biological functions that are crucial to ecosystem health. Bogs support specialized plant and animal communities adapted to their harsh conditions. For instance, the presence of carnivorous plants like sundews and pitcher plants, which obtain nutrients from insects, reflects the nutrient-poor environment and the unique biological adaptations in these ecosystems (Schmidt et al., 2011). Bogs also provide habitat for unique species of birds, insects, and amphibians, which rely on these habitats for breeding and foraging (Sweeney et al., 2014). In addition, bogs can remove metals from rainwater and groundwater sources by converting them into inorganic compounds and storing them within the soil.

One of the most distinctive roles of bogs is their ability to act as long-term carbon sinks. The slow decomposition of plant material in bogs, due to anaerobic conditions, leads to the accumulation of peat, which stores significant amounts of carbon. This carbon sequestration function is vital for mitigating climate change by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (Gorham, 1991). It is believed that the enormous carbon accumulation in northern peatlands is the consequence of a discrepancy between plant biomass production and litter/peat decay (Loisel et al., 2014; Yu et al., 2010). Both processes, plant growth and subsequent decomposition are affected by the availability of critical nutrients such as nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) (Schillereff et al., 2016). This process is common in peatlands, which typically have limited nutrient contributions from the underlying mineral substrates and atmosphere. This is especially applicable to ombrotrophic peatlands that receive nutrients virtually exclusively from the atmosphere (Xiaoyu Li et.al.,2023). Disturbance to these systems can lead to an acceleration in the rate of decomposition, mitigating its capacity for carbon storage.

Fens

Fens are a type of wetland characterized by waterlogged, nutrient-rich conditions, and they perform several unique biological functions that differentiate them from other wetlands like bogs. One of the primary biological functions of fens is their role in nutrient cycling. Unlike bogs, fens are often nutrient-rich due to groundwater inputs, which supply essential minerals and nutrients like calcium and magnesium. This results in higher plant productivity and supports diverse plant communities, including sedges, grasses, and herbaceous plants, which thrive in these environments (Ramsar Convention, 2015). Fens also contribute to maintaining biodiversity by providing habitats for a wide range of species, including rare and specialized plants such as the fen orchid (Liparis loeselii) and animals like waterfowl, amphibians, and invertebrates, many of which are adapted to the moist, nutrient-rich conditions (Mitsch & Gosselink, 2015).

Fens also contribute to the global carbon cycle, though not to the same extent as bogs, by accumulating organic material in their peat layers, which can store carbon for long periods, thus mitigating the effects of climate change (Aurela et al., 2005).

Additionally, fens help regulate water quality and hydrology in surrounding ecosystems. Their ability to filter and absorb nutrients from surrounding areas prevents the eutrophication of downstream waterbodies by trapping excess nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus (Tóth et al., 2008).). These unique functions underscore the importance of fens in maintaining ecosystem health, biodiversity, and water quality.

Swamps

Swamps, a type of wetland characterized by standing water and often dominated by woody vegetation such as trees and shrubs, perform several unique biological functions that are vital to both local and global ecosystems. These functions include water filtration, biodiversity support, carbon sequestration, and flood regulation.

Swamps are home to a wide variety of plant and animal species, including many that are specialized to thrive in wet, low-oxygen environments. The complex structure of swamp ecosystems, with their varying levels of vegetation and water depth, creates a variety of niches for different species. This makes swamps important habitats for amphibians, birds, mammals, insects, and aquatic organisms, many of which rely on swamps for breeding, feeding, and shelter (Mitsch & Gosselink, 2015). Additionally, swamps are critical stopover points for migratory bird species. The abundant food sources and sheltered environments make swamps ideal habitats for migratory waterfowl and other bird species that use them as resting and feeding grounds during long-distance migrations (Horton et al., 2015).

Due to their ability to accumulate organic material in waterlogged, anaerobic soils, where decomposition rates are slow, the peat in swamps can become a considerable carbon sink. The carbon sequestration capacity of swamps helps mitigate climate change by reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels (Whiting and Chanton, 2001).

Swamps play a crucial role in water purification by filtering out pollutants, excess nutrients (such as nitrogen and phosphorus), and sediments from surrounding water sources. The dense vegetation in swamps, including submerged and emergent plants, traps pollutants and helps to maintain water quality by removing harmful substances before they enter larger water bodies (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2015).

Floodplain and Lacustrine Wetlands

Floodplain and lacustrine wetlands are two distinct wetland types that provide essential biological functions, each with unique ecological roles that support biodiversity, water quality, and carbon cycling.

Floodplain wetlands occur along rivers and streams, where they are periodically inundated by floodwaters. These wetlands perform critical biological functions, particularly in nutrient cycling and water purification. Floodplain wetlands act as natural filters, trapping and processing nutrients and sediments carried by floodwaters, which helps to preserve downstream water quality in aquatic ecosystems (Tockner et al., 2000). During periods of flooding, these wetlands provide temporary habitat for many species, particularly migratory birds and amphibians, which rely on the rich resources available in floodplain habitats (Junk et al., 2013). Additionally, these wetlands help regulate hydrology by slowing the flow of water, reducing the severity of floods, and allowing groundwater recharge (Zedler and Kercher, 2005).

Lacustrine wetlands are found along the edges of lakes and are characterized by their deeper waters compared to other wetland types. These wetlands are important for their role in maintaining biodiversity, as they provide critical habitats for aquatic plants, fish, and other wildlife (Stewart and Kantrud, 1971). The plant communities in lacustrine wetlands, such as cattails and bulrushes, help stabilize lake shorelines and reduce erosion (Dahl, 2011). Similar to Floodplain wetlands, Lacustrine wetlands also contribute to nutrient cycling, acting as buffers that reduce nutrient and pollutant inputs into lakes, thus maintaining water quality (Robertson et al., 1993). Lacustrine wetlands are particularly valuable for their role in providing breeding, feeding, and nesting habitats for a variety of waterfowl and other aquatic species.

Floodplain and Lacustrine wetlands are also considered carbon sinks due to the accumulation of organic matter in the waterlogged soils (Bunn et al., 2007). Specifically, Lacustrine wetlands help regulate carbon cycles by storing carbon in their sediment layers, although their ability to sequester carbon is influenced by the type of vegetation present (Chmura et al., 2003).

11.2.2.6.3         Socio-Economic Functions

As previously described in Section 11.2.1.4.3 (Socio-economic Functions) there was not enough context-specific data available to adequately apply a value in the wetland functions assessment for the socio-economic functions of wetlands, which consist of aesthetics, recreation, education, and commercial uses by First Nations and the public. Since Indigenous community’s value wetlands in an ecologically holistic way, it is not possible to confidently extricate socio-economic functions from the overall biophysical functions of these environments. Therefore, for the socio-economic component of the wetland function assessment, the Project Team used available UKLRU information provided by communities, along with supplemental data from other VC specific assessments (e.g., wildlife and wildlife habitat, cultural heritage resources) to assess functional value. Using these data sources, socio-economic functions were applied by increasing the weight of the other ecological functions to provide surrogate values attributable to potential aesthetics, recreation, education, and commercial uses of wetlands by First Nations and the public.

11.2.2.6.4         Aggregated Wetland Function

The Wetland Function Ratings Across Study Area map (Figure 11.8) was derived by enumerating the values of all functional indices to provide a numeric scale for the final determination of the aggregated functional values as follows; high (1), moderate/high (0.8), moderate (0.6), low/moderate (0.4), and low (0.2). To normalize the values of the modelled indices, weighted values for classes were created based on multi-variate factor analysis, values for each factor summed, and then a quantile classification applied to develop the final functional rating.

Figure 11.8:      Wetland Function Ratings Across Study Area

11.3            Identification of Potential Effects, Pathways, and Indicators

Roads and other linear disruptions are influential geographical elements that have the potential to substantially impact the landscapes surrounding them (Jana Müllerová, et.al., 2011). They can affect both the abiotic and the biotic mechanisms of the ecological landscape by altering the dynamics of native plant populations; altering hydraulic flows; transporting both biotic (e.g., invasive species) and abiotic materials (e.g., sediments, dust); and changing the availability of resources, such as nutrients, water, light, and heat (Angold, 1997; Coffin, 2007; Hill and Pickering, 2006; Spellerberg, 1998). The level, intensity and persistence of these effects are variable and dependent on the position of the road in relation to the slope, hydrologic position, prevailing winds and surrounding vegetation systems (Forman and Alexander, 1998).

The following four primary indicators of effects of the Project on the Vegetation and Wetlands VC were identified as a result of the Project Construction and Operations Phases:

1. Loss or alteration of upland, wetland and riparian vegetation communities/assemblages, species and biodiversity.
2. Loss or alteration of wetland functions. Disruption of the geophysical, biophysical, and socio-economic functions of wetlands.
3. Loss or alteration of species at risk plants and species of conservation concern (Plant Species at Risk (SAR), Plant Species and Communities of Conservation Concern (SOCC) Locally Rare/ Underrepresented Vegetation Classes.
4. Loss or alteration plant species and communities of traditional importance to Indigenous Peoples for cultural or medicinal purposes or as a source of country foods.

This section describes the nature of the potential effects, the pathways that link the project activities and the effects, and the indicators that can be used to assess and measure the effects. Table 11-40 summarizes the potential effects, effects pathways, and effect indicators for the Vegetation and Wetlands VC. Indicators are identified and briefly discussed as a qualitative or quantitative measure used to assess potential effects to the Vegetation and Wetlands VC in the study area.

11.3.1         Threat Assessment Approach

As required by Section 13 of the TISG, the methodology for the effects assessment involves a staged approach. This approach includes an initial assessment of the pre-mitigation effects, known as the ‘Threat Assessment,’ followed by an evaluation of the final anticipated net effects after implementing mitigative measures. These two assessments differ in scope: the Threat Assessment is limited to physical removals or the loss of vegetation communities and/or species. In contrast, the full effects assessment provides a more quantitative description of the effects, using criteria and indicators to quantify or qualify adverse effects while considering important contextual factors. The criteria proposed in the TISG for the initial Threat Assessment, as outlined below, focus specifically on biological effects.

The criteria defined in the TISG include Scope, Severity, Irreversibility (Permanence), Magnitude (determined by Scope and Severity), and Degree of Effect (determined by Magnitude and Irreversibility). Scope, Severity and Irreversibility, as defined in the TISG, along with the rating scales used are described in detail below.

• Scope – defined spatially as the proportion of the valued component’s occurrence or population within the study areas (PF, 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 within the scope as 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).

Following determination of the above values, the combination of Scope and Severity can be used to provide the Magnitude of an effect as illustrated in Table 11-17. Subsequently, Magnitude and Irreversibility values can be used to determine the Degree of the effect as illustrated in Table 11-18.

Table 11-17:  Method to Determine e Magnitude of Effect Using Scope and Severity Values

Table 11-18:  Method to Determine the Degree of Effect Using Irreversibility and Magnitude Values

11.3.2         Loss or Alteration of Vegetation Communities, Species and Biodiversity

Loss and alterations to vegetation communities, species and biodiversity will be incurred both directly and indirectly during the Construction and Operation Phases of the Project. These aspects of the local vegetation ecology are inherently intertwined and were assessed holistically. The primary effects pathways associated with the Project are: clearing and grubbing; installation of water crossing structures; and indirect, long-term effects on vegetation. The indirect effect pathways include grading and soil disturbance; the introduction of invasive species; chemical and hazardous material spills; dust and air emissions; changes to microclimates; and potential increased risk of fires associated with construction and operation activities. The pathways through which loss and harmful alteration of vegetation communities, species and biodiversity may occur are summarized and described below.

11.3.2.1         Vegetation Clearing and Grubbing

There will be a direct loss of vegetation communities and individual species within the Project footprint. These direct losses will occur during clearing, grubbing, and earth grading activities of the Project. Within the road right-of-way (ROW) and select supportive infrastructure (e.g. maintenance and storage facility at aggregate sources are ARA-2) these losses will constitute a permanent loss. Vegetation removals during the Operation Phase are predicted to be negligible and localized and therefore and excluded from calculation of direct vegetation losses. Clearing and grubbing will be largely limited to the initial stages of the Construction Phase, with some limited occurrences potentially occurring later in construction during the development of aggregate sources, camps and laydown areas. The pathways in which loss or harmful alteration of upland, wetland and riparian vegetation communities may occur are summarized and described below.

Construction activities → Clearing and grubbing of vegetation → Direct loss or alteration of all, or part of, upland, wetland and riparian vegetation within the landscape.

Construction activities → Clearing and grubbing of vegetation → Loss or alteration of vegetation species and community diversity.

Construction activities → Clearing and grubbing of vegetation → Vegetation community fragmentation.

11.3.2.1.1         Direct Vegetation Losses

Temporary disturbances for camps/laydown areas, aggregate sources, and the associated access roads, will be progressively rehabilitated during the Construction Phase. However, these temporarily disturbed areas, even with rehabilitation, are likely take a significant period before they replicate the existing vegetation communities impacted during construction. Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment the losses within the Project Footprint, outlined in Table 11-19 below, will be considered a permanent direct loss of vegetation.

Table 11-19:  Permanent Vegetation Losses Within Project Footprint

Overall, approximately 548.5 ha of vegetation loss is expected to occur during clearing, grubbing and grading activities for construction of the road and supportive infrastructure. Most of these losses will occur within the road ROW (372.12 ha), with the aggregate source areas requiring the next highest removals requirements (ARA-4 101.53 ha, and ARA-2 34.38 ha). The total losses for each vegetation community class are outlined in Table 11-20 below.

Table 11-20:  Permanent Vegetation Losses Within Project Footprint by Vegetation Classification

The largest individual vegetation community class losses will occur in Conifer SwampOrganic Rich Conifer Swamp (155.58 ha). These classifications have been combined due to the naturally mosaiced nature of conifer swamp and organic rich conifer swamp communities, which were typically encountered within the study area as a mix of large areas of conifer swamp interspersed with pockets of organic rich conifer swamp. Conifer forest has the next largest losses at 150.8 ha, followed by poor conifer swamp, low treed bog, sparse treed fen, and sparse treed bog with removals of 80.04, 61.12, 43.47, and 29.62 ha respectively. The remaining vegetation class removals range from 0.2 ha to 5.92 ha.

The majority of the overall vegetation losses represent less than 6.5% of the respective availability of these classes within the LSA, and less than one percent of both the LSA and RSA as a whole (see Table 11-21 below). One notable exception is the Rock Barren classification, which has removals that constitute 38% and 25% of the Rock Barren patches identified in the RSA and LSA respectively. These elevated effects could be the result of the mosaiced nature of the Rock Barren sites within the landscape, and the small size (less than mappable scales for ELC), typically observed for this vegetation class.

Table 11-21:  Percentage of Permanent Vegetation Losses Within Study Areas

11.3.2.1.2         Loss Or Alteration of Vegetation Species and Community Biodiversity

The loss or alteration of vegetation resulting from Project clearing and grubbing activities and soil disturbance has the potential to affect biodiversity within the study area.

As documented in the NEEC Report (Appendix F), existing species biodiversity was examined in two ways. The first was a simple measure of species richness, as defined by the number of species found within a given sampled unit. This measure, though useful for the development of monitoring programs designed to capture local changes in diversity, is inadequate for quantifying effects to species diversity from the Project.

A second approach, using Resource Selection Function (RSF) models was used to determine the effects to species diversity from the construction of the Project at the community level. Using the RSF modelling, maps were generated to quantify the probability of use for each species, and these values were then used to estimate diversity of prior to and after construction of the Project. This approach builds on the concept of Simpson’s Diversity Index (SDI) where diversity calculations can optionally use percent area covered as the measured metric (Brower, Zar, and von Ende 1990). When a binary regression is used to estimate the probability of use in an RSF design, it then corresponds to the definition of probability of occupancy (Lele et al. 2013), which can also be interpreted as Percent Area Occupied (PAO). Likewise, in the case of RSF models, probability of use is a relative index of PAO. In either case, the calculation of a diversity index based on PAO by individual species provides an index of relative diversity of use among vegetation ELC types to allow ranking of the functional Simpson’s Inverse Dominance (SID) value of each ELC type. As part of the modeling process PAO values were developed for breeding birds, waterbirds, mammals, and vegetation class.

Using the vegetation class PAO, the Simpson’s Inverse Dominance was calculated for each ELC type and summarized at the ELC map polygon level. Simpson’s diversity values were all generally > 0.8, so greater discrimination can be revealed using the related Simpson’s Inverse Dominance (SID) measure (Brower, Zar, and von Ende 1990), calculated as:

𝜆 = ∑𝑖 𝑛𝑖(𝑛𝑖) /𝑁(𝑁)

𝛿𝑠 = 1/ 𝑙,

Where 𝑛𝑖 is the PAO for each species 𝑖 within a 3-ha hexagon and 𝑁 is the total PAO. Because analysis is for every hexagon (not a random sample), the finite formula applicable for an entire census was used (see Appendix K-1).

By applying the model to a modified shapefile that incorporated landcover change as a result of predicted development activities, the change in probability of use and resulting percent change in Inverse Simpsons Diversity was calculated and is presented in Table 11-22 below. According to the results there is a potential for 25 of the 30 vegetation classes identified to experience a slight decrease in diversity, with only 5 classes showing an increase. These increases range between 1% and 9% of the original SDI value, and the decreases between 1% and 2%.

Table 11-22:  Percent Change in Inverse Simpsons Diversity Following Construction

* Negative Values = Decreased Diversity, Positive Values = Increased Diversity

** Inverse Simpson’s Diversity Values have been calculated based on the baseline data collection study areas.

11.3.2.1.3         Vegetation Community Fragmentation

The installation of linear infrastructure such as roads can result in fragmentation of upland, wetland, and riparian vegetation communities. Fragmentation of vegetation communities has multiple simultaneous effects that are interwoven in complex ways and that operate over potentially long-time scales. Some of these effects include, but are not limited to, changes to community composition, a decrease in biodiversity and an impairment of key ecosystem functions (Haddad et al., 2015). These complex effects of fragmentation were assessed through the analysis of the size, shape, number, and distribution of vegetation class patches within the LSA and RSA along with the following associated metrics. Refer to Section 11.2.1.3.4: Species and Community Biodiversity for descriptions of these metrics:

• Area Metrics
  • Number of Patches;
  • Class Area (ha); and
  • Mean Patch Size (ha).
• Edge Metrics
  • Total Edge (m);
  • Edge Density; and
  • Mean Patch Edge (m/ha).
• Core Metrics
  • Core Area (more than 50 m from a patch edge) (ha);
  • Number of Core Patches;
  • Mean Core Patch Size (ha); and
  • Median Core Patch Size.
• Landscape Level Diversity Metrics
  • Shannon’s Diversity and Evenness Indices; and
  • Nearest Neighbour (clustering/dispersal).

The analyzed metrics across the removal classes are further described in the following subsections and the results are presented in Table 11-24, Table 11-25, and Table 11-26 below.

11.3.2.1.4         Area Metrics

As described in Section 11.3.2.1 (Vegetation Clearing and Grubbing) the implementation of the Project will result in removals within multiple vegetation class patches. It was determined that 404 discrete vegetation patches are intersected by the proposed Project Footprint. In most cases, these removals will only affect portions of these patches to various degrees, resulting in the division of the patch into two or more discrete patches. The creation of a new patch is the result of fragmentation of the existing vegetation patches by the Project Footprint. Table 11-24 outlines the results of the removals analysis of the affected patches within the LSA.

The highest fragmentation occurrences include Conifer Swamp (97), Poor Conifer Swamp (70), Low Treed Bog (59), Conifer Forest (41), Sparse Treed Fen (34), Sparse Treed Bog (38), and River/Fen (Open/Sparse Treed/Thicket)/Swamp (25). Apart from four small Rock Barren sites within aggregate source ARA-2, the remaining affected patches will be subject to varying degrees of partial removals.

Within the LSA, the highest increases in discrete patch creation (i.e. fragmentation) include Conifer Swamp (143), Poor Conifer Swamp (91), Low Treed Bog (79), Sparse Treed Fen (56), Conifer Forest (44), Sparse Treed Bog (38), and River/Fen (Open/Sparse Treed/Thicket)/Swamp (25). The remaining vegetation patch classes demonstrate increases between 0 and 5, apart from Rock Barren, which shows a reduction of 2, due to the removal of 4 entire patches within ARA-2 as described earlier (Section 11.3.2.1: Vegetation Clearing and Grubbing). These values are not unexpected, given the high values of patch creation that correspond to the number of patches intersected, and the general availability of these vegetation classes within the environment.

The overall losses of vegetation due to fragmentation represent between 0.002% to 0.4% loss of all habitat types within the LSA. The exception is Rock Barren with a loss of 0.37%. The Mean Patch metric shows more significant losses to the mean patch size of the respective vegetation class patches within the Project Footprint, with reductions of 35% for Burn-Cut, 34% to Conifer Swamp, 30% to Conifer Forest. Mean patch losses to River/Fen (Open/Sparse Treed/Thicket)/Swamp, Rock Barren, Poor Conifer Swamp Thicket Swamp, Low Treed Bog, Sparse Treed Fen, Mixed Forest, Hardwood Forest, Sparse Treed Bog range from 18% to 28%, with the remainder in the range of 0% to 7%.

Minor changes were observed when these metrics were used within the RSA, Table 11-25 outlines the results of the removals analysis of the affected patches within the RSA.

When examined for the RSA, the highest increases in discrete patch creation include Conifer Swamp (156), Poor Conifer Swamp (97), Low Treed Bog (81), Sparse Treed Fen (57), Conifer Forest (49), Sparse Treed Bog (38), and River/Fen (Open/Sparse Treed/Thicket)/Swamp (25). The remaining vegetation patch classes demonstrate increases in patch creation between 0 and 7, except for Rock Barren and Conifer Swamp. Rock Barren shows a reduction of 2, due to the removal of 4 entire patches within ARA-2 noted above. These values are not unexpected since the high values of patch creation corresponds to the number of patches intersected, and the general availability of these vegetation classes within the environment. Conifer swamp will have an increase of 13 new patches, when compared to patch creation in the LSA alone.

Within the RSA, there will be a further loss of 69.7 ha of Conifer Forest, 35.2 ha of Conifer Swamp, 1.4 ha of Poor Conifer Swamp, 0.44 ha of Hardwood Forest, and 0.23 ha of Open Shore Shrub Fen. The remaining vegetation classes will experience no additional losses. When the percentage of vegetation class loss in relation to the amount of each class within the study area is examined, there is an expected reduction for most classes. For example, the losses to Conifer Forest represent 4.3% of that available class within the LSA, but when the calculation is applied at the RSA scale these losses only represent 1.8% of the available Conifer Forest, which represents a decrease in the loss versus the availability of that class by 2.5%. There is also a similar decrease in the loss percentage in relation to the availability across all classes within the RSA ranging from 0.04% to 2.5%. The exception is Rock Barren which increases by 12% due to the greater abundance of Rock Barren within the RSA.

The relationship for the area metrics is also true for the mean patch size metric related to the assessment of fragmentation. For the RSA mean patch sizes also increase by 0% to 17%, depending on the vegetation class. The mean patch size metric for the RSA still shows considerable losses, with reductions of 32% for Burn-Cut, 22% to Thicket Swamp, and 20% to Conifer Swamp. Mean patch size losses to Rock Barren, Conifer Forest, Mixed Forest, River/Fen (Open/Sparse Treed/Thicket/Swamp, Poor Conifer Swamp), and Sparse Treed Fen range from 10% to 16%. The remaining vegetation class patches show losses between 0% to 8%.

The overall vegetation class losses represent between 0.002% to 0.8% of these habitat types within the RSA. The exceptions include Rock Barren (25.2%), Thicket Swamp (3.5%), Burn-Cut (2%), and Conifer and Mixed Forest at 1.8% and 1.2% respectively.

Table 11-23:  Vegetation Patches Intersected

Table 11-24:  Area Metrics for Baseline Conditions and for Affected Vegetation from the Project in LSA

Note: ** All Patch analysis has been calculated based on the baseline data collection in the study areas.

Table 11-25:  Area Metrics for Baseline Conditions and for Affected Vegetation from the Project in the RSA

Note: ** All Patch analysis has been calculated based on the baseline data collection in the study areas.

11.3.2.1.5         Edge Metrics

An edge is defined as the border between two patches of vegetation classes. Edge density equals all edges of a given class in relation to the total study area. Mean patch edge is a measure of the average length of edge habitat for each vegetation class patch. These edge metrics were used to measure and analyze changes to the perimeter of all patches of each vegetation class affected by the development of the Project and how they may contribute to fragmentation. An increase in edge habitat is typically the result of increased landscape fragmentation and can result in changes to biodiversity within a patch and within the broader ecosystem (Willmer et al., 2022). Table 11-26 below outlines the results of the edge analysis of the affected patches.

There is a net gain of 153,986 metres (153.9 km) of edge habitat across all vegetation patch classes within the RSA. This increase is the result of newly created edge communities along both sides to the proposed road and ancillary facilities. Most edge habitat gains occur in the Conifer Swamp (44,846 m), Poor Conifer Swamp (36,207 m), Low Treed Bog (26,205 m), Conifer Forest (18,396 m), Sparse Treed Fen (15,664 m), Sparse Treed Bog (15,664 m), and River/Fen (Open/Sparse Treed/Thicket)/Swamp (1332 m). The Hardwood Forest, Organic Poor Fen, Mixed Forest, and Open Shore Shrub Fen show gains ranging of 839 m, 324 m, 195 m, and 139 m respectively. Most of the remaining classes show minor decreases in edge habitat lengths between 21 m and 72 m, which represent less than a 1% loss for each patch class. These edge length losses correlate directly with the observed reductions in patch size of bisected patches. The exceptions to these losses are in the Thicket Swamp (-566 m), and Rock Barren (-1,553), which lose considerably more edge habitat 21.34%, and 2.04%, respectively. As discussed earlier, the results for the lesser represented patch classes, such as Rock Barren, and Thicket Swamp could be misleading due to the small size and mosaiced distribution of these patch types within the broader landscape. Hence, the challenge of mapping these small inclusions can potentially result in under-reporting effects to these classes.

Overall, there is a marked increase in the amount of edge habitat created by the Project. Most vegetation classes also showed an increase in edge density, apart from Burn Cut and Burn Cut – Mixed Wood, which had marginal decreases. Additionally, the mean patch edge values show a reduction across all patch vegetation classes, ranging from a 0.01% for Open Bog to 31% for Burn-Cut.

Table 11-26:  Edge Metrics for Baseline Conditions and for Affected Vegetation from the Project in RSA

Note: **  All Patch analysis has been calculated based on the baseline data collection in the study areas.

11.3.2.1.6       Core Metrics

In addition to the landscape patch classes, a separate set of metrics was calculated for ‘core areas’, which are defined as areas more than 50 m from another patch. Core, or interior, areas are considered to have minimal edge or transitional effects from neighbouring patch or habitat types, resulting in an undisturbed/unaltered representation of patch characteristics. These core areas serve to buffer susceptible species from the potentially negative edge effects of plant or wildlife species populations in adjacent patches. This is particularly important when adjacent patches are disturbed by human induced developments, which can result in increased predation risk, interspecific competition, and/or parasitism (Mark et al., 2018; Pérez-Rodríguez et al., 2018; Ries et al., 2004; Tscharntke et al., 2012). Table 11-27 below outlines the results of the Core analysis of the affected patches.

Due to the linear nature of the road, a considerable number (404) of existing vegetation patches will be encroached upon and/or bisected (See Table 11-23). Of these affected vegetation patches, 256 are large enough to retain a core area when the 50 m-edge buffer is applied. Generally, there is a net gain to the number of core patches across all vegetation classes. For example, Conifer Swamp, Low Treed Bog, and Poor Conifer Swamp exhibit core patch increases of 38, 29, and 27, respectively. These gains are the result of the bisection of larger baseline core areas into smaller areas. The exception to this trend is Rock Barren and Thicket Swamp, each of which lose 1 core patch, due to their naturally small patch sizes within the landscape.

Though the number of core patches will generally increase, there will be considerable losses in Core Area for some patch classifications such as Conifer Swamp (187.75 ha), Conifer Forest (160.36 ha), Poor Conifer Swamp (142.89 ha), Low Treed Bog (91.35 ha), Sparse Treed Fen (50.61), and Sparse Treed Bog (41.53 ha). The remaining classes show decreases in Core Area between 0.0001 and 3.32 ha. These losses represent less than a 10% loss of Mean Core Patch Size for each patch class, with the exception of Thicket Swamp and Rock Barren, which show Mean Core Patch Size gains of 10.9%, and 100%, respectively. These increases in Mean Core Patch Size for the Thicket Swamp, and Rock Barren patch classes, could be misleading due to the loss of an entire core area for each class.

Overall, within the RSA, Core Area losses are small (0.01 and 0.0001 ha, respectively). This leaves the larger core areas intact, which subsequently increases the mean size of the remaining core areas.

Table 11-27:  Core Metrics for Baseline Conditions and for Affected Vegetation in RSA

Note: **  All Patch analysis has been calculated based on the baseline data collection study areas.

11.3.2.1.7         Landscape Diversity Metrics

When applied at the landscape level, the Shannon Diversity Index provides an estimate of how diverse given vegetation patch classes are within the study area. These diversity and evenness values rise along with the number of classes present and the evenness of their abundance. Generally, when applied to real-world ecological data, the Shannon diversity index’s range of values is usually 1.5 – 3.5, and the evenness index from 0.0 to 1.0 (Rain, R. Shannon, 2024). In the diversity index, higher values indicate lower diversity values and in the evenness index, higher numbers indicate higher levels of evenness. As shown in Table 11-28, the existing baseline landscape diversity within the RSA is slightly above average, and with the implementation of the Project will result in a 0.09% reduction in both diversity and evenness.

Table 11-28:  Shannon’s Diversity and Evenness Indexes at the Regional Landscape Level

Note:  All diversity and evenness analysis has been calculated based on the baseline data collection study areas.

11.3.2.2         Water Crossing Structures

The direct effects related to the installation of bridge and culvert crossings is the loss of all, or part of local riparian vegetation communities and potential changes to surface and groundwater hydrology. There is a potential for watercourses to be altered both upstream and downstream of installed bridges and culverts. The pathways in which loss or harmful alteration of riparian vegetation classes may occur are summarized and described below.

Construction activities → Construction of permanent or temporary structures (culverts and bridges) at waterbody crossings → Direct loss of riparian vegetation.

Construction activities → Construction of permanent or temporary structures (culverts and bridges) at waterbody crossings → Direct losses and alteration of upstream and downstream riparian vegetation.

Construction activities → Construction of permanent or temporary structures (culverts and bridges) at waterbody crossings → Changes to surface and groundwater hydrology→ Indirect losses and alteration of riparian vegetation.

The proposed road will require 31 waterbody crossings, which include 30 watercourses and 1 lake. To cross the waterbodies, 6 bridges are proposed to be constructed over major waterbodies and 25 culverts of various types (e.g., open bottom arch culverts and corrugated steel pipes) are proposed to be placed at minor waterbodies.

Riparian vegetation communities are considered those vegetation assemblages bordering watercourses, lakes and wetlands with open water. The mapping and calculations for riparian areas in the RSA, consisted of delineating riparian zones where visible on aerial maps, and including a standard 30 m buffer in areas, where aerial delineation was not possible. These riparian areas were all classified as “River/Fen (Open/Sparse Treed/Thicket)/Swamp/Marsh)” in earlier tables, yet are composed of small, unmappable units of various vegetation classes. To assess the riparian removals in the road ROW specifically, a detailed assessment of the affected vegetation classes within these riparian zones was conducted using a combination of field observations and detailed aerial imagery.

Using this methodology, it was determined that approximately 16.33 ha of riparian vegetation will be either removed or permanently altered during construction of the road and associated water crossing structures. Of this total, the maximum loss of riparian habitat occurs in the unbuffered River Riparian areas (5.9 ha), followed by Conifer Swamp (4.16 ha), Sparse Treed Fen (1.83 ha), Conifer Forest (1.63), and mapped Lake Riparian (1.18 ha) classes. Potential removals in all other riparian classes are less that 1 ha. These removals represent 0.85% of the available riparian habitat found within the LSA, dropping to 0.17% when extended out to the RSA. Table 11-29 below provides an accounting of the riparian removals from the construction of water crossing structures as well as the totals by vegetation class.

Due to the variability of aquatic, hydrological and geomorphological process at water crossings, there is no definitive estimate as to the extent to which extended indirect effects (e.g., changes to hydrologic flows, invasive species sedimentation etc.) may occur. It is assumed that major effects will occur near the water crossing structure with decreasing severity further from the structure. For the purposes of this assessment, as per the findings of a study by Caitlin et.al. (2022), we have assumed that higher impact effects may occur within 20 m and moderate impact effects up to 60 m. We have also assumed that some minimal effects may occur up to 250 m from the Project. The potential impacts and extent estimates related to these pathways are discussed further in Sections 11.3.2.3.1 to 11.3.2.3.8 (Loss or Alteration of Vegetation Communities, Species and Biodiversity).

Table 11-29:  Riparian Area Losses within LSA and RSA

11.3.2.3         Indirect Effect Pathways on Vegetation and Wetlands

The following sections outline the indirect pathways that can lead to losses or alteration of vegetation species, communities and diversity during the construction and operations of the Project. Though less obvious and more difficult to quantify, indirect effect pathways can often have more widespread and long-lasting impacts on vegetation than direct effect pathways (Coffin, 2007; Didham et al., 1998; Forman and Alexander, 1998; Laurance et al., 2009; Trombulak & Frissell, 2000).

The following pathways summarize the indirect effects on vegetation and wetlands that may as result of the Project:

Construction and operation → Grading and soil disturbance → Alterations to local topography and drainage patterns → Reduction in soil quantity and quality through changes to physical, chemical or biological properties of soil → Increase of erosion and sedimentation → Potential impacts to vegetation growth, survival, composition and distribution beyond the vegetation removal limits.

Construction and operation → Introduction of invasive species → Spread of invasive species through improper cleaning of machinery or use of non-local soil supplies → Localized growth of invasive species → Changes in local community vegetative composition.

Construction and operation → Chemical or hazardous material spills and waste → Contact with water, soil and/or vegetation→ Direct vegetation losses or alterations to soil pH, soil nutrient levels and water quality → Potential impacts to growth, survival, composition and distribution beyond the vegetation removal limits.

Construction and operation → Air and dust emissions and subsequent deposition → Smothering of vegetation or alterations to soil composition and water quality → Potential impacts to growth, survival, composition and distribution beyond the vegetation removal limits.

Construction and operations → Increased temperature and the availability of light, in the vicinity of the roadway resulting from changes in canopy/shade conditions → Alterations in plant community composition and diversity within and near the ROW.

Construction and operations → Increased, access-related human fire ignition and increased fuel supply conditions → Potential for increased fires in the Project area → Alteration of natural ecosystem processes and intensification of climate change through a disruption of carbon cycling and storage.

11.3.2.3.1         Grading and Soil Disturbance

Grading and other construction activities may result in changes to local topography and drainage patterns, which may reduce soil and water quantity and quality through changes to their physical, chemical or biological properties. Consequently, this may lead to impacts to vegetation growth, survival, composition and distribution beyond the vegetation removal limits.

Losses to soil quality and quantity from grading and soil disturbance can be caused by compaction, erosion, and chemical contamination of soils. As soil quality deteriorates, its capacity to hold water, sustain plant life, and recycle nutrients is impaired, resulting in ongoing soil loss due to erosion (Ramady, et al, 2014; Lal, 2015). The eroded sediments can then end up washing into ditches and other watercourses, leading to changes in soil and vegetation community composition downstream (Bilby, 1989).

Compaction of soils can further lead to impacts on soil densities, soil permeability, rates of infiltration, soil erosion and soil moisture, all which can affect individual plants or whole vegetation communities. Areas most prone to compaction are low lying, poorly drained areas, which represent 80.29% of the study area, and that exhibit saturated or near saturated soils. When compacted, these soils have limited permeability and drainage capacity and may inhibit and/or block drainage passages and groundwater flows. This can result in raising the upslope water table and causing vegetation mortality through root inundation, while at the same time decreasing the water table downslope, resulting in further damage to vegetation (Stoeckeler,1965; Swanson et.al., 1988). In most cases, these effects will likely be localized to the margins of the proposed roadway and the support facilities (Forman and Alexander, 1998).

Changes to drainage patterns through grading can lead to increases in flooding or drying of vegetation communities (Stoeckeler, 1965). Prolonged flooding or drying eliminates some plant species while favouring others because of changes in soil oxygen levels, nutrients, and the abilities of different species to tolerate saturated or dry soil conditions (Casanova and Brock, 2000). This can lead to changes in vegetation community composition and biodiversity.

Assessing how far the effects of grading extend from areas of active soil disturbance to nearby vegetation is complex due to numerous influencing factors. However, a study by Caitlin N. Willier et al. (2022) provided valuable insights by investigating the extent and impact of edge effects on woody vegetation along roads that cut through treed peatlands in Alberta’s Boreal Plains ecozone. The study utilized airborne laser scanning technologies and GIS systems to analyze 22 poor fens and 26 rich fens and to estimate the extent that changes in the flow of surface and subsurface water, resulting from the bisection of these features by roads. They concluded that the edge effects studied (flooding and drying), in road-bisected fens produced pronounced differences in canopy cover within 100 to 250 m of road edges in both rich and poor treed fens. The scale of edge effects due to changes in hydrology observed in the study, which included alterations in canopy cover of up to 40%, are also likely to affect tree and shrub structure, and understory composition.

For the purposes of this assessment, we have assumed the highest magnitude of effects on vegetation loss and alteration from soil disturbance and changes in hydrology would be within 20 m of the road edge, with moderate to high effects up to 40 m, moderate effects at 60 m, and minimal effects up to 250 m, as per Caitlin et.al. (2022).

Overall, it is expected that the alterations to drainage patterns and associated surface and groundwater flows from grading and other construction activities will have a limited, localized (< 250 m) effect on general vegetation community diversity. The primary effects will likely be localized to areas adjacent to the roadway or Project facilities and will likely only affect those portions of the adjacent vegetation patches in proximity to these areas.

11.3.2.3.2         Introduction of Invasive Species

Construction and operation activities for the Project have the potential to introduce non-native invasive plant species into the study area, where they are currently absent. Equipment and personnel involved in construction and operations may transport seeds or plant parts on their equipment or clothing, potentially spreading invasive species to new locations. The introduction of these species can disrupt plant communities and decrease habitat quality by affecting plant community structure and species diversity through competition and alterations to soil microorganisms, nutrients, and soil moisture (Mack et al. 2000; Carlson and Shepherd 2007; Truscott et al. 2008).

The construction of roads, and linear features in general, produce edge environments that can influence adjacent interior habitat by allowing for increased light infiltration, alteration of temperature regimes, increased exposure to chemicals and increased dust and trash, thus altering the naturally occurring biophysical conditions of these areas and increasing the competitiveness of invasive species (Emma, 2015, Findlay and Bourdages, 2000; James and Stuart-Smith, 2000; Laurance, 2000; Laurance et al., 2007; Dubé et al., 2011). In these ways, roads are well known to be vectors for the spread of invasive plants, particularly in nutrient poor environments, which can increase pH and nutrient levels near the road, and result in edge conditions more suited to invasive species (Jodoin et al., 2008; Johnston and Johnston, 2004; Müllerová et al., 2011).

The distance that invasive species can penetrate beyond the immediate area of the disturbed road edge is variable, and dependent on the conditions present in the surrounding vegetation. However, this distance is the key to understanding the magnitude of these effects on the overall health and diversity of local or regional vegetation communities. To derive estimates of the potential effect zones affected by invasive species, several studies in similar environments were reviewed.

Studies conducted by Wolf and Croft (2014) determined that data trends showed that road effects on species composition primarily occur from 15 m to 50 m from the road edge. For example, Arevalo et al. (2008) determined that the pattern of plant species richness was shown to rapidly stabilize towards the interior (> 10 m) of vegetation patches. Another study on road effects by McDonald and Urban (2006) indicated that marked differences in vegetation species composition between forest edges and the interior spaces only penetrated approximately 5 m into the forest.

A study by Jennifer Buss et.al., (2023), comparing edge effects of well pads and industrial roads on mixed upland boreal forest vegetation in Alberta found that understory species richness was lower at the disturbance edge and was dominated by introduced species and species with lighter seeds and with medium-distance dispersal mechanisms. Disturbance edges were characterized as having higher soil moisture content, higher soil temperature, and a thinner organic matter layer compared to the forest interior (> 10 m). They concluded that alterations in soil moisture, temperature, organic matter depth or vegetation community composition was likely a driver for introduced species at disturbance edges (< 10 m).

Given the variability of vegetation communities within the study area, it is challenging to precisely estimate the impact of invasive species. However, based on the referenced studies, it is assumed that the most pronounced effects will occur in close proximity to the road ROW, with decreasing severity as distance increases. By extrapolating the findings of these studies to the vegetation communities within the Project Footprint, it is estimated that the greatest impact on vegetation community diversity will occur within 20 meters of the road ROW and other supportive infrastructure areas, moderate effects within 40 meters, and minimal effects at 60 meters similar to Section 11.3.2.3.1 (Grading and Soil Disturbance). Preventing the introduction of invasive species is often more efficient and cost-effective than their removal once established, and this will be the primary focus of the mitigation efforts to address their potential introduction in the study area.

11.3.2.3.3         Chemical or Hazardous Material Spills and Waste

When introduced to natural ecosystems, chemical or hazardous spills (e.g., petroleum products) from vehicles and equipment, or improper storage and handling of waste, can affect soil quality and in turn effect upland, wetland, and riparian ecosystems. Direct contact of spills on plants (e.g., SAR, SOCC, species of traditional use) can also result in injury or mortality and the growth and health of Plant SAR, plant SOCC and traditional use plants. Consequently, spills can adversely influence the landscape, affecting plant health, diversity and community composition. Studies on the effects of road development on the environment have determined that these projects have the potential to alter the surrounding chemical environment through direct and indirect modifications of the chemical properties in both water and soil (Müllerová et.al., 2011). These can include alterations to soil pH, soil nutrient levels and groundwater quality.

There have been many studies related to impacts from the release of chemical or hazardous material spills from roadsides associated with vehicles and equipment, but the impacts of the materials used in road construction have seen few investigations on potential impacts to the environment. The impact of road materials can be markedly profound if alkaline gravel is utilized for road construction in largely nutrient-poor environments dominated by stress tolerant plants (Hill and Pickering, 2006). The use of these types of materials can increase local soil pH and increase the rate of organic matter breakdown. They can also increase the availability of the basic nutrient cations such as Calcium and Magnesium, raise the solubility of Molybdenum and Phosphorus and elevate the quantity of Nitrates- in the soil (Bertrand et al., 2007; Bolan et al., 2003; Schimel et al., 1996;). Potential alterations in soil conditions can also enable the establishment of more competitive, frequently non-native species (Dulière et al., 1999; Hobbs and Huenneke, 1992; Chapin, 1987). The direct vegetative responses to unnaturally elevated pH in soil substrates may be faint (Mackun et al., 1994), but studies have shown that acidophilic vegetation is negatively influenced over longer time periods (Brown, 1988). Based on the conclusions of the above noted studies, there is potential for Project-related substrate changes that may affect soil quality such as a reduced organic horizon, higher bulk density, increased nutrient availability and increased pH levels in sites near the road.

The potential chemical changes to soil quality due to road construction and operations activities, and specifically spills are predicted to be limited and localized within the ROW and near the Project Footprint, similar to the identified effect zones of invasive species (Section 11.3.2.3.2: Introduction of Invasive Species). These effect zones may be expanded in areas where waterbodies act as vectors of further spread, such as near stream crossings (Forman and Deblinger, 2000). Overall, the magnitude of the effect of roads on soil chemistry and corresponding vegetation community composition is determined by proximity from the road, the microtopography within the ROW, traffic volume and the area cleared for the ROW (Deboah et al., 2013).

11.3.2.3.4         Dust and Air Emissions, and Subsequent Deposition

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., PM_2.5) 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. Changes to soil from atmospheric inputs are determined by several complex geochemical factors, which include nutrient uptake by plants, decomposition of vegetation, cation and anion exchange in soil, soil sensitivity to acidification and duration and quantity of atmospheric inputs (Jung et al. 2011; Turchenek et al., 1998).

Accumulation of dust produced from the Project may result in localized changes to vegetation in the LSA. 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). Dust that falls on plants could directly damage vegetation and lead to death, and/or may alter the chemical composition of soils, nutrient availability, and pH affecting local vegetative growth, and community composition (Santelman and Gorham, 1988). Direct effects of dust deposition are predicted to be localized to areas adjacent to the roadway (approximately 10 to 20 m), apart from watercourse locations where potential dispersal extents would be significantly larger (up to 200 m) depending on the watercourse characteristics (Angnold, 1997). The chemical transport capacity of dust is directly related to the quantity of sediment released from the road and surrounding soils which is in turn dependant on sediment supply and transport capability (Anderson and Simons, 1983). Sediment quantities are determined by road geometry, soil exposure, slope, length, width, surface area, and maintenance procedures (Anderson B, Simons DB. 1983, Grayson RB, et.al., 1993), as well as soil properties and adjacent vegetation composition (Horner and Mar, 1983). Rates of dust deposition and accumulation are dependent on the rate of supply from the source, wind speed, precipitation events, topography and vegetation cover (Rusek and Marshall, 2000; Liu et al., 2011).

A study conducted on a tundra ecosystem adjacent to the Dalton Highway in northern Alaska (Auerbach et.al., 1997) with a gravel surfaced highway that been operational for 15 years and subject to persistent road traffic and dust disturbance found that the indirect effects of dust (i.e., alteration of soil chemical composition) on vegetation were more notable in acidic tundra soils. In low pH areas they found that the soils adjacent (~2 m) to the road had lower nutrient levels, altered organic horizon depth, higher bulk density, and lower moisture. Most taxa vegetation biomass was found to be reduced near the road at both sites showing a reduction of ~80% adjacent to the roadway at distances of 5 m vs 100 m from the road in acidic sites and ~ 50% at non-acidic sites. Species richness in acidic tundra next to the road was less than half of that at 100 m away from the road. It was also noted that community structure was altered most noticeably in acidic tundra, with Sphagnum mosses, dominant in acidic low arctic tussock tundra, virtually eliminated near the road.

The findings from studies by others are consistent with the modelling results and conclusions of the Project Team found in Section 9 (Assessment of Effects on the Atmospheric Environment) and Appendix G (Air Quality Impact Assessment Report). During construction, the results of the modelling indicate a maximum dust deposition value of 12 g/m² over 30‑days at 50 m distance from the road center line without dust control (water trucks) and 10 g/m² over 30-days with controls. These values represent 166% and 143% respectively of the provincial ambient air quality criteria (AAQC). Given the depletion effects, dust surficial concentration on ground decreases beyond 50 m from the road centerline is predicted to reach a maximum 5.4 g/m² (including background) at 150 m distance from the road which is lower than the 7.0 g/m² AAQC limit value. These values drop dramatically during operations to 4.3 g/m² (61% of the AAQC) over 30‑days at 50 m of the road centerline decreasing systematically outside 50 m reaching at maximum, 3.7 g/m² at 150 m distance.

Therefore, we have predicted that potential effects from dust that may result in the alteration or loss of vegetation will occur up to 50 m from the road centerline, with moderate and minor effects occurring at distances up 100 and 150 m respectively.

11.3.2.3.5         Changes to Microclimate Conditions

It is expected that there will be some localized alterations in microclimate conditions during construction and operations of the Project, such as increased temperature and the availability of light, in the vicinity of the roadway resulting from changes in canopy/shade conditions due to removals (Chen et al., 1992, 1993). These microclimate changes may influence plant community diversity within the ROW and near road.

Increased light infiltration and altered temperature regimes have been found to detrimentally alter the biophysical conditions required by sensitive interior native plant species and increase the competitiveness of exotic species (Emma C Bocking. 2015, Findlay & Bourdages, 2000; James & Stuart-Smith, 2000; Laurance, 2000; Laurance et al., 2007; Dubé et al., 2011). These deviations in temperature and light, as well as changes to wind speed and humidity at the forest edge affect vegetation as well as adjacent vegetation assemblages (Spellerberg, 1998).

A study by Garcia et al. (2007) showed that the vegetation and microclimate change abruptly within the first 5-10 m of the forest-road edges, leaving the interior spaces undisturbed. However, a similar study by Ewers and Banks-Leite (2013) showed that these changes in temperature near forest edges extended up to 20 m inside the forest.

Therefore, we have conservatively predicted that microclimate effects may result in vegetation alteration or loss within 10 m of the road ROW limits, moderate effects within 20 m and minimal effects at 50 m.

11.3.2.3.6         Increased Risk of Fire

Wildfires are a normal and necessary component of natural forest ecosystems in the study area. That said, excessive wildfire occurrences, specifically wildfires resulting from human activities, can upset natural ecosystem processes and intensify the rate of climate change through a disruption of carbon cycling and storage (Vera Kuklina et.al., 2023, Mack et al. 2011; Pan et al. 2011; Gibson et al. 2018; Chen et al. 2021). Key environmental elements affecting the frequency, configuration and intensity of wildfires include the local landform structure, fuel combustibility and availability, vegetation classes, overall climatic and weather conditions (e.g., wind), as well as the frequency and likelihood of natural and human sources of ignition (Hessl, 2011, Hessl et al., 2004, Kernan and Hessl, 2010, Kellogg et al., 2008, Lutz et al., 2009, Perry et al., 2011, Syphard et al., 2008). A number of studies have shown that fires originating from human activities are typically found in close proximity to human infrastructure such as roads, resource extraction, and settlements (Brosofske et.al., 2007; Maingi and Henry, 2007; Syphard et al., 2007; 2008; 2009; Vega Garcia et.al.,1995; Yang et.al., 2007, 2008).

The initiation of human caused wildfires can be either deliberate or accidental. A number of human activities, such as the discard of unextinguished cigarette butts, the incomplete burning of carbon particles from automobile exhaust pipes, vehicle accidents, improperly managed and extinguished campfires, controlled burns that get out of control, and house/camp fires due to insufficient heating or electrical systems, can result in wildfires given the correct environmental conditions such as droughts and adequate fuel supply. It is well established that road edges can support and act as corridors to propagate the spread of invasive plant species (Parendes and Jones, 2000; Trombulak and Frissell, 2000, Spellerberg, 1998; Stoner & Adams, 2004). These species are often more combustible resulting in a fuel source that is more prone to ignition than interior native species (Arienti et al., 2009; D’Antonio and Vitousek, 1992), contributing to an increased probability of human and natural ignitions in the vicinity of roadways (Arienti et al., 2009; Syphard et al., 2007, 2008; Yang et al., 2007, 2008). In forested areas, wind induced mortality of trees in forest edges, along with temperature and humidity alterations, can influence the availability of fuels and fuel combustibility (Chen et. al., 1992, 1993). A study on the influence of forest roads on human- and lightning-caused wildfire ignitions found that human-caused ignitions were concentrated close to roads, in high road density, and in developed areas (Narayanaraj and Wimberly, 2012). In contrast, lightning-caused ignitions were concentrated in low road density areas, away from urban areas. The study also found that though a high percentage of minor fires occurred in areas with greater road densities, these fires only made up a minor ratio of the overall burned area.

There are assertions in some studies that roads may minimize the spread of fires by serving as fire breaks and allowing quicker access for fire suppression activities (Price & Bradstock, 2010; Narayanaraj & Wimberly, 2011). However, this potential positive effect is counteracted by increased access-related human fire ignition and increased fuel supply conditions (Syphard et al., 2007).

Due to the unpredictable nature of fires, there is no way to accurately quantify the distance from the Project that this effect pathway may affect local vegetation. Therefore, we have predicted a distance of approximately 250 m, in keeping with the farthest distance used in assessing the other indirect effect pathways.

11.3.2.3.7         Indirect Road Edge Effect Zones for Community and Species Diversity and Composition

As discussed in the previous sections, the distance these effect pathways could potentially penetrate into the natural environment beyond the road edge varies depending on the source volumes (e.g., exhaust fumes, leaks/ spills, etc.), the movement vector (air, dust, topography, waterbody), and the vegetation class found next to the roadway. The predicted ‘Road Edge Effect Zone’ for the Project is based on the literature reviews of the effects pathways discussed above and is presented in Table 11-30 below. For pathways where the literature was not as clear on the ‘Road Edge Effect Zone’, the most conservative effect zones were used.

Table 11-30:  Indirect Road Edge Effect Zones to Community/Species Diversity and Composition

As noted in earlier sections, the distance from the road edge that these effects extend is also dependent on the characteristics of the adjacent vegetation classes. The studies conducted in the Canadian boreal upland forests, found that edge effects do not typically extend past 60 m (Dabros and Higgins 2023; Echiverri et al. 2022; Harper et al. 2015). Therefore, in upland forested areas proposed values of 20 m, 40 m, 60 m and 250 m were used to assess indirect effects in upland forested areas within the study area. However, the open vegetation classes within the study area are almost exclusively wetland environments. There is agreement throughout the studies reviewed, that most localized effects to wetlands will occur within close proximity to the road. That said, both windblown and waterborne effects have a potential to extend further into vegetation classes. Therefore, for wetlands the proposed impact zone distances of 20 m, 40 m, 60 m, and 250 m from the road were used, as presented in Table 11-31.

Table 11-31:  Road Edge Indirect Effect Zones by Broad Vegetation Type

Note: for open wetlands an additional zone (Moderate to Low) has been added to capture increased transport potential.

11.3.2.3.8         Indirect Effects to Community/Species Diversity and Composition

When the above generalized, localized effect zone assumptions are applied to the landscape found within the study area, it was found that an asymmetric area with convoluted boundaries outlined the estimated limits of potential negative effects. These boundaries generally reflect the sequence of unequal effect-distances for ecological and geophysical variables from which the quantitative estimates were derived as illustrated in Figure 11.9.

Figure 11.9:    Example of Variable Estimated Road Edge Effect Zone of Potential Indirect Effects

As a result, is it predicted that approximately 464.9 ha of various vegetation classes, adjacent to the roadway and associated infrastructure, could be subject to indirect effects within the LSA and RSA. These areas represent approximately 1.6% of the LSA and 0.3% of the RSA. The remaining effect zones affect similar percentages of the vegetation classes found within the LSA and RSA (i.e., potential Moderate effects 0.6% and 0.3%, Moderate to Low of 1.6% and 0.3%, and Low of 7% and 2%). A breakdown of these affected areas by vegetation class, and percentage of the available area of the respective classes within both the LSA and broader RSA can be found in Table 11-32.

Table 11-32:  Potential Areas of Indirect Effects by Vegetation Class

11.3.2.4         Summary of Threat Assessment

From the assessment of the effects on, or threat to, existing vegetation and wetlands in the study area, it is estimated that permanent removals as result of the Project are well under 10% of the available habitat within the LSA and RSA. This results in a relatively small scope and slight severity of effects according to the metrics for characterization of effects as supplied in the TISG. The exception is Rock Barren which has removals that constitute 37% of the Rock Barren patches identified in the RSA. These elevated effects could be the result of the mosaiced nature of the Rock Barren sites within the landscape, and the small size (less than mappable scales for ELC), typically observed for this vegetation class. Irreversibility of the effect is high, and the magnitude and degree of effects are low and medium, respectively. The definition of the criteria used to characterize the effects of: Scope, Severity, Irreversibility (Permanence), Magnitude, and Degree were previously described in Section 11.3.1 (Threat Assessment Approach) and the results of the assessment are presented in Table 11-33.

Table 11-33:  Vegetation Community/Diversity Loss Threat Assessment Prior to Application of Mitigation

11.3.3         Loss or Alteration of Wetland Function

Road construction can disrupt the geophysical, biophysical, and socio-economic functions of wetlands, leading to long-lasting ecological and human-related consequences. In general, the pathways leading to direct and indirect effects on wetland functions are equivalent to those discussed in Section 11.3.1 (Threat Assessment Approach) and include clearing and grubbing; grading and soil disturbance activities; installation of new water crossing structures; introduction of invasive species; chemical and hazardous material spills; and dust and air emission and subsequent depositions. These effect pathways can also lead to loss or alteration of wetland functions by disrupting hydrological processes; causing habitat fragmentation; changing microclimatic conditions; increased risk of fire; altering soil chemistry and composition; and disrupting species movement or vegetation succession.

The following sections outline the results of the qualitative assessment and quantitative modeling on the potential effects to wetland functions due to the construction and operations of the Project.

11.3.3.1         Geophysical Function

Construction and operations → Grading and soil disturbance → Changes to natural hydrology → Loss or alternation of geophysical wetland function.

Construction and operations → Grading and soil disturbance → Changes to soil structure, density and composition → Loss or alternation of geophysical wetland function.

Wetlands are highly sensitive to changes in their geophysical characteristics, and road construction can lead to alterations in these functions.

Wetlands depend on a delicate balance of water inflow and outflow. Roads built through or near these wetlands can alter the natural hydrology by blocking or redirecting water flow and increasing surface runoff to these features. Roads can also act as physical barriers, changing the flow of surface and groundwater, which can lead to changes in water levels and flow paths, and result in the drying out of certain areas of wetlands (O’Neill et al., 2004). This can reduce wetland functionality, affecting plant and animal species dependent on specific hydrological conditions.

Soil compaction from construction activities can reduce its permeability and affect the soil’s ability to retain water. This increases runoff rates, causing potential erosion and sedimentation that can degrade the wetland ecosystems (Forman & Alexander, 1998). Furthermore, roads built through wetlands often alter the natural deposition of nutrients and organic material, reducing soil fertility and adversely effecting plant growth and health.

Project related alterations to these geophysical processes can affect wetland function during both construction and throughout the Operations Phase of the Project.

11.3.3.2         Biophysical Function

Construction and operations → Creating a physical barrier between habitat areas → Alterations in plant community composition and diversity → Alterations in biophysical wetland function.

Construction and operations → Changes to wildlife and human movements → Impacts to plant populations and seed dispersal → Alterations in biophysical wetland function.

Construction and operations → Changes to speed and composition of runoff → Alteration and degradation of plant and animal communities and contribute to the spread of invasive species → Alterations in biophysical wetland function.

Construction and operations → Clearing and grubbing of peatlands and changes to topography, hydrology and critical atmospheric intakes → Loss of carbon sequestration ability → Loss or alterations in biophysical wetland function.

Wetlands are integral to several biophysical processes, such as carbon sequestration, biodiversity support, and water filtration and the Project construction can impact these functions in a variety of ways.

The WSR has the potential to act as a physical barrier, fragmenting wetland habitats and isolating species populations. The isolation of wetland areas can prevent genetic exchange between populations, reduce species diversity, and make species more vulnerable to environmental stressors (Trombulak and Frissell, 2000). Additionally, many plant and animal species that rely on wetlands to carry out their specialized life processes may become displaced, leading to population declines. (Pomezanski and Zietara, 2025; Rytwinski and Fahrig, 2012).

In general, roads also pose a threat to wildlife through vehicle collisions, noise, light pollution, and the presence of humans. For example, birds may abandon nesting sites due to noise or human presence, and amphibians may be disturbed during their breeding cycles. Amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals are particularly vulnerable, especially in wetlands, where they may be forced to crossroads during seasonal migrations or daily movement. Wildlife mortality from roads contributes to major population declines in some species and these declines can have a direct effect on plant populations that rely on animal-led seed dispersal (Triay-Limonta, O. et al., 2024).

Construction of the road and its long-term effects during operations will also likely alter the volume and rates of surface runoff. This runoff may carry pollutants such as petroleum products from potential vehicle and equipment leaks; spill events and dust and/or air emissions with metals, nutrients or chemicals that can enter nearby wetlands, leading to eutrophication, soil degradation, and the contamination of water resources. Increased sedimentation from potential soil erosion may also smother aquatic vegetation, disrupt the growth of plant life, and harm aquatic species (Forman & Alexander, 1998). In the case of wetlands, where the vegetation and water chemistry are sensitive, even low levels of pollution can have considerable effects. This alteration can lead to the degradation of plant and animal communities and contribute to the spread of invasive species (Chakraborty, S.K. et al., 2023; Lazaro-Lobo and Ervin, 2021).

Additionally, according to a study by Beaulne et al. (2021) on the carbon sequestration of peatlands in northern Canadian boreal environments, both forested and non-forested peatlands showed considerable carbon storage capabilities. Effects on the ability of the local environment to sequester carbon are expected to be impacted by direct vegetation removals for the road development. In addition, impacts to carbon sequestration could also occur as a result of Project related changes to topography, hydrology and critical atmospheric intakes, causing further changes to, or loss of, peatland functions.

In general, most untouched peatlands throughout the boreal zone are Nitrogen limited (Vitt, 2006), and that the introduction of atmospheric Nitrogen and Phosphorous through human activity has the potential to change peatlands from Nitrogen limited to Phosphorous limited (Aerts et al., 1992; Bragazza et al., 2012; Penuelas et al., 2013). It is well established relationship that the availability of Phosphorous can act as an important regulator of Nitrogen fixation in the production of plant biomass, microbial breakdown of plant matter and subsequent sequestration of carbon and Nitrogen (Hill et al., 2014; Schillereff et. al., 2021; Tatjana et al. 2017, Toberman et al., 2015; Xiaoyu Li et.al.,2023). The subsequent potential changes in vegetation distribution and composition caused by the addition of nutrients and base cations present in potential dust deposition could have an acute impact on plant production and microbial decomposition resulting in changes to carbon accumulation in the peatlands. Available literature indicates that temporary localized accumulations of Phosphorous rich dust encourages carbon accretion in peatlands (Ratcliffe et al., 2020; Sjostrom et. al., 2022), but extended deposition can trigger a net carbon deficit in extensive deep peat deposits through acceleration of decomposition processes (Schillereff et al., 2021).

It is through these complex biophysical processes that Project construction and operations can have both a direct and indirect effect on wetland function.

11.3.3.3         Socio-Economic Function

Construction → Disruption to access and availability of resources for Indigenous Peoples → Loss or alteration of socio-economic wetland function.

Construction and operations → Increased access to previously remote areas → Potential for over-harvesting, illegal hunting, and unregulated development → Further indirect stress and damage to wetlands → Loss or alteration of socio-economic wetland function.

Wetlands contribute to a variety of socio-economic functions and values to the public and Indigenous Peoples such as aesthetics, recreation, education, and commercial and traditional use within a local, regional, national and global context. The Project construction may affect these wetland functions both directly and indirectly.

Indigenous Peoples rely on wetlands in study area for traditional activities such as fishing, hunting, and gathering. According to Webequie’s three key land use documents (the draft Community Based Land Use Plan, Comprehensive Community Plan and On-Reserve Land Use Plan), recreation and outdoor activities are integral their way of life. As the Wellness Coordinator from Webequie First Nation expressed, “The land defines us. Our physical health and strength are derived from it. To preserve our connection to the land, we must actively engage with it.” (Webequie First Nation, 2023). The disruption caused by road construction could reduce accessibility and availability of these resources, affecting the livelihoods and cultures of local communities (Khanani, R.S. et al., 2021). Installation of roads in broader context of the region could also lead to increased access to previously remote areas, by non-indigenous people, causing over-harvesting, illegal hunting, and unregulated development, further stressing wetlands.

Boreal wetlands have the potential to serve as important sites for ecotourism and recreational activities such as bird watching, fishing, and hiking. Road construction can both positively and negatively affect tourism. On the one hand, roads can improve access to these areas, potentially increasing tourism and local revenue. On the other hand, the degradation of the wetland ecosystem due to road construction and increased access to remote areas, may lead to reduced biodiversity or increased pollution, and diminishing the natural beauty and ecological value that attract tourists (Benett, V.J., 2017). This could have negative consequences for local economies that depend on tourism.

Although the construction of roads is often seen as a driver of economic development that provides access to natural resources, the long-term economic benefits may not outweigh the detrimental social, ecological and social values of wetland ecosystems if they are adversely affected. Wetland loss or alterations can lead to the loss of the ecosystem services they provide such as water filtration, flood regulation, and carbon sequestration, which may in turn result in increased costs for flood management, water treatment, and climate change mitigation (Taylor and Druckenmiller, 2021). Furthermore, road construction can open up lands to further development, leading to increased urbanization and the loss of more natural habitats.

In general, road construction projects, along with consideration of other proposed resources development in the region may have a profound and wide-ranging effects on all major wetland functions. However, the extent of effects to socio-economic functions of wetlands in study area due the Project are difficult to predict with certainty and confidence based on the limited available information.

11.3.3.4         Modelling Effects to Wetland Function

To more quantitatively determine the potential effects of the Project on wetland functions, models were developed using existing baseline conditions and then applied under the proposed future development scenario to measure changes. The methodology for this approach is detailed in Appendix F – NEEC Report. The following section summarizes the results of the modelling.

In the context of the models, biotic and abiotic factors are what make up upland, riparian and wetland ecosystems. Biotic factors are living things within an ecosystem; such as plants, animals, people and bacteria, while abiotic are non‑living components; such as water, soil and atmosphere. The way these components interact is critical in how an ecosystem functions.

In total, there were 50 biotic and abiotic functional values calculated in the wetland function assessment. Once the normalized weights for the 50 functional values were obtained, an aggregate index of functional values was generated by calculating a weighted sum for each of the 18,140 records in the data set. These were then summarized by ELC type to determine the relative importance of each wetland vegetation class type in terms of functional value.

The analysis was repeated for both the current condition and the proposed future disturbance within the Project Footprint. The results of the modelling as presented in Table 11-34, show very slight changes (+/- < 5%) in the aggregate wetland function index across all wetland vegetation classes. The expected margin of error for the model is +/- 2.2%.

A number of these changes reflect a positive increase in functional values in reaction to the proposed road. This is due to a number of factors, including a mix of positive and negative responses in the biotic models. For example, if model coefficients for an upland bird species were negative for wetland habitat, then converting wetland to upland would elicit a positive response for that species. From an indigenous land-use perspective, the road development will generally increase access for harvesting and hunting, which is also considered a positive response.

Based on the functional modeling that was completed for the potential Project effects, the overall changes to wetland function are anticipated to be minimal.

Table 11-34:  Current and Future Aggregate Index of 50 Functional Values for Each Wetland Vegetation ELC Type

11.3.3.5         Summary of Threat Assessment

The results of the assessment of the potential effects on, or threat to, the existing wetland functions within the LSA and RSA indicate that while permanent wetland removals are anticipated during the development of the Project, these removals are well under 10% of the available habitat within the LSA and RSA. This results in a relatively small scope and slight ‘Severity’ rating, according to the metrics for characterization of effects as identified in the TISG. The ‘Irreversibility’ of the effects are considered high, and the’ Magnitude’ and ‘Degree’ of the effects are considered low and medium (refer to Table 11-35 below).

The changes in wetland function do not align neatly with the TISG metrics for characterizing effects. While most wetland types are expected to experience negligible adverse changes in functional values, the remaining wetland functional values either show no change or an increase of up to 5%. These values do not account for indirect effects as outlined in Section 11.3.2.3, which could potentially impact wetland functions. However, these indirect effects are not expected to affect enough wetland areas to reach or exceed a 10% change, thus the characterization for Scope and Severity effects remains at the levels of Restricted and Moderate, respectively. The definitions of the criteria used to characterize the effects of: Scope, Severity, Irreversibility (Permanence), Magnitude, and Degree have been previously described in Section 11.3.1 (Threat Assessment Approach) and the results of the assessment of effect to wetland function are presented in Table 11-34 above.

Table 11-35:  Wetland Function Preliminary Threat Assessment Prior to Application of Mitigation

11.3.4         Loss or Alteration of Plant Species at Risk and Plant Species and Communities of Conservation Concern

This section describes the potential effects to plant SAR designated as either Endangered or Threatened under the Ontario ESA and the federal SARA, including plant SOCC identified as Special Concern in the SARO list under the ESA; protected federally under SARA; provincially listed as rare (i.e., provincial/subnational rank of S1, S2 or S3); and/or species considered regionally or locally rare as previously described in Section 11.2.2.4 (Results). The potential effects to plant species at risk and plant species and communities of conservation concern are related to the same direct and indirect pathways of effects discussed in Section 11.3.2 (Loss or Alteration of Vegetation Communities, Species and Biodiversity) and the associated sub-sections. It is nearly impossible to quantify potential indirect effects of only plant species or communities at risk in the PF, LSA or RSA. Therefore, we have only attempted to quantify the potential direct losses in the following sections.

11.3.4.1         Plant Species at Risk

Based on the review of background information sources and results of field surveys, there were no federally or provincially listed plant species at risk (SARA, ESA) documented or observed in the study area for the Project. Consequently, there are no potential effects expected to impact federal and provincial plant species at risk.

11.3.4.2         Plant Species and Communities of Conservation Concern

Two provincially designated rare mosses were identified during the field surveys to support the EA/IA: Yellow Moosedung Moss (Splachnum luteum – S1) and Cruet Collar Moss (Splachnum ampellaceum – S3). These rare moss species were documented in the LSA but were not found within the Project Footprint and are not anticipated to experience impacts from the Project. However, background data on the presence of these species in the boreal region within the Project study area is lacking and their actual abundance may be greater than is currently documented from the field surveys completed to date. Therefore, the spatial extent of any adverse effects to these provincially listed SOCC cannot be predicted with certainty.

Results from field surveys also identified five locally uncommon vegetation communities. Locally uncommon communities were identified as community types that were underrepresented within the LSA and RSA (refer to Section 11.2.2.4). The five rare vegetation communities include: Hardwood and Mixedwood forests; Meadow and Open Marshes; and Rock Barrens. Two of these vegetation communities are directly affected by the Project.

Vegetation clearing and grubbing activities for the Project will result in the removal of 1.6 ha of Hardwood Forest and 4.2 ha of Mixedwood Forest. These removals represent 3.53% of the available Hardwood and 3.35% of the available Mixedwood forest communities found within the LSA. When extended to the RSA, the percentages lost of these communities are 0.84% and 1.22%, respectively.

The potential effects to these species and communities of concern are summarized in Table 11-36.

Table 11-36:  Locally Rare Vegetation Community Losses

The assessment of indirect effect pathways (Section 11.3.2.3: Indirect Effects Pathways on Vegetation and Wetlands) indicated that although largely mitigated, the indirect effects that do remain will be localized to within 250 m for open wetlands. Using these effect zones, there is the potential for low level effects to 95% of the locally rare Meadow Marsh available within the LSA. It should be noted that the patches/polygons of this vegetation classification are thought to be more common within the study areas than the project mapping suggests since they commonly exist in very small un-mappable areas, mosaiced into shoreline ecosystems.

11.3.4.3         Summary Threat Assessment

The assessment of the effects on, or threat to, existing vegetation and wetlands indicate that while there are no anticipated removals of any provincially or federally listed plant SAR or plant species of conservation concern, there are permanent removals of vegetation classes that have been identified as locally rare in the study areas. These removals are well under 10% of the available habitat within both the LSA and RSA, resulting in a relatively small Scope and slight Severity according to the metrics used to characterize effect as specified in the TISG. Irreversibility of the effect is considered medium, and the Magnitude and Degree are of effects are both considered low, as presented in
Table 11-37.

Table 11-37:  Preliminary Effects to SAR Plants and Plants/Communities of Conservation Concern Prior to Application of Mitigation

Overall, the effect on locally rare species and communities of conservation concern are low and include the loss of some rare communities from the landscape. No known locally rare plants species will be removed based on the direct vegetation removals required for the Project.

11.3.5         Loss or Alteration Vegetation Plant Species and Communities of Traditional Importance to Indigenous Peoples

11.3.5.1         Plant Species and Communities of Traditional Importance to Indigenous Peoples

Based on available Indigenous Knowledge information shared by communities and feedback from community members most Project interactions with the harvesting of plants for cultural or medicinal use or as a source of country foods occur at known sites and at features along portages or historic travel routes. To assess potential effects on culturally important plant communities, portages or historic travel route features were mapped as vector lines, and the Project Team conservatively assumed 100 m to either side of the line was potentially in use by Indigenous Peoples. Using this assumption approximately 9.3 ha of buffered portage or historic travel route areas and 89 ha of area described as a Juniper plant source at the ARA-4 aggregate source site will be removed during construction.

It is assumed that plant species of traditional importance to Indigenous Peoples, as identified in Section 11.2.2.5, are present in most vegetation patches at levels similar to comparable vegetation assemblages. For example, Mixed Forest is likely similar to Conifer Forest in Indigenous use plant species presence, and Poor Conifer Swamp is similar to Conifer Swamp. As a result, these classes have been aggregated to determine the level of potential effect from Project construction and operations. Table 11-38 below shows the amount of each vegetation class removed and the percentages that these removals represent in both the LSA and RSA.

Table 11-38:  Removals Percentages of Vegetation Class Containing Species of Traditional Importance to Indigenous Peoples

Overall, the effect on species of traditional importance to Indigenous Peoples is expected to be low. Losses of vegetation classes with the potential to support plants of importance to Indigenous Peoples are less than 5% within the LSA, with the exception of Conifer/Mixedwood Forest at 7.3% and Rock Barren at 37%. These values are reduced further at the RSA scale with the majority at less than 1% (see Table 11-38 above). There is the potential for an increase in harvesting of plants within previously inaccessible areas by non-Indigenous gatherers, but this is expected to be opportunistic with minimal impact on supply and use of plants of importance to Indigenous peoples. The increased access provided by the road to potential gathering sites in the study areas may also serve to offset any losses from non-Indigenous gatherers.

11.3.5.2         Summary Threat Assessment

The assessment of the effects on, or threat to, existing vegetation and wetlands indicate that there are permanent removals of vegetation classes that have been identified as containing potential plant species of traditional importance to Indigenous Peoples in the area. These removals are well under 10% of the available habitat within the LSA and RSA resulting in a relatively small scope and slight severity according to the metrics used to characterize effects as specified in the TISG. Irreversibility of the effect is considered medium, and the magnitude and degree effects are low and low as summarized in Table 11-39.

Table 11-39:  Preliminary Effects to Plant Species and Communities of Traditional Importance to Indigenous Peoples Prior to Application of Mitigation

11.3.6         Effects Summary

Table 11-40 below summarizes the potential effects, effects pathways, effect indicators, the nature of the interaction (direct or Indirect) with the other VC’s which could be linked and/or influenced by these effects for the Vegetation and Wetlands VC.

Table 11-40:  Potential Effects, Pathways, and Indicators for the Vegetation and Wetlands VC 

11.4            Mitigation and Enhancement Measures

This section presents the proposed mitigation and enhancement measures to eliminate, reduce, control, or offset (compensate) potential adverse effects to the Vegetation and Wetlands VC during the Construction and Operation Phases of the Project, as detailed in Section 11.3 (Identification of Potential Effects, Pathways and Indicators). Mitigation measures are described and presented for each of the following four primary effects identified:

• Loss or alteration of all or part of vegetation communities, species and biodiversity:
  • Upland Ecosystem;
  • Riparian Ecosystems; and
  • Wetland Ecosystems.
• Loss or alteration of wetland function.
• Loss or alteration of plant species at risk and plant species and communities of conservation concern.
• Loss or alteration of plant species or communities of traditional importance to Indigenous Peoples.

A three-tiered hierarchical approach to mitigation and enhancement, involving avoidance, reduction and control (minimize), and compensation or habitat offsetting, has been taken to address potential effects to vegetation and wetlands. This reflects the generally accepted principle that it is preferred to avoid affects to vegetation communities first followed by measures to control and reduce effects or implement compensation. Restoration or reclamation will be utilized to mitigate direct losses to vegetation and wetlands. These restoration activities will occur on two fronts. The first, will involve the immediate restoration of disturbed areas and the second approach will be to utilize accepted habitat restoration techniques to apply habitat off setting to compensate for the direct loss and alteration to upland, riparian and wetland ecosystems as a result of Project. At this stage in the project’s development, the specifics of these activities are uncertain, but an overview of the potential compensation requirements and approach is provided in Section 11.4.5, with details contained in Appendix K-3.

Site specific management plans that describe protocols and procedures to mitigate potential effects to vegetation and wetlands will be developed and implemented as outlined in Section 4.6 (Management Plans) of this EAR/IS. During the Construction Phase, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be implemented and during operations an Operation Environment Management Plan (OEMP) will be implemented. Management plans will be consistent with the requirements of the Project’s permits and authorizations to minimize the potential effects of construction and operations activities on vegetation and wetlands. Management Plans will guide the proponent contractors in complying with applicable environmental legislation by providing criteria, standard protocols, and mitigation measures to eliminate, reduce, and/or offset potential adverse effects to vegetation and wetlands. Additional details of the proposed framework for developing the CEMP and the OEMP are provided in Appendix E. During construction and/or operations, the following key environmental management plans relevant to vegetation and wetlands within the broader CEMP and OEMP will be developed and implemented.

• Vegetation and Invasive Species Management Plan;
• Soil Management Plan;
• Waste Management Plan (including Hazardous, Contaminated and Controlled Materials);
• Air Quality and Dust Control Management Plan;
• Surface Water and Storm Water Management Plan;
• Erosion and Sediment Control Plan;
• Site Restoration and Monitoring Plan; and
• Spill Prevention and Emergency Response Management Plan.

A summary of the key mitigation measures to address potential adverse effects of the Project to the Vegetation and Wetland VC as outlined in this section and Appendix E of the EAR/IS are presented in Table 11-41.

11.4.1         Loss or Alteration to Vegetation Species, Communities and Biodiversity

It is generally not feasible to fully avoid or eliminate the removal of vegetation during the development of a roadway. However, the effects have been controlled, minimized and reduced by employing the following key standard mitigation and best management practices during the planning and design stage, and Construction and Operation Phases of the Project:

Planning and Design Measures

• The project components (i.e., roadway, structures, camps/laydown areas, access roads, and aggregate extraction) have been designed to minimize the footprint area and reduce impermeable surfaces.
• Where possible, flexibility in design standards has been applied to reduce Project Footprint and removals requirements (e.g., limit size of in roadside ditches).
• New bridges and culverts at waterbody crossing have been designed at right angles where possible to reduce the footprint of the structures and thereby limit the vegetation removals required in riparian areas.
• Mitigation measures have been included in the Project design to limit changes in hydrology and include installing culverts or temporary bridges using best management practices and following environmental approval conditions.
• Develop and implement applicable management plans in the CEMP and OEMP related to the protection of vegetation and wetlands. One of the important plans to develop is an Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Plan to control run-off, minimize erosion on exposed slopes and substrates, and prevent introduction of sediment or other deleterious materials from adversely affecting vegetation and watercourses. The ESC Plan will describe the applicable permits and best management practices and will follow existing guidelines as appropriate to limit erosion and sediment/soil transport from wind and water. The CEMP and OEMP will also include a Soil Management Plan to provide direction on topsoil stripping, stockpiling, salvage and prioritized areas for restoration/reclamation, which is expected to mitigate changes to soil quality and quantity.
• Clearing activities at wetland/peatland areas will be planned to occur during the winter, where possible, to avoid unnecessary disturbance of soils and vegetations as well as minimize compaction of soils.
• Construction and Operations
• Clearing and grubbing will be limited to the permanent development area and associated temporary supportive infrastructure during construction (i.e., access roads, camps, aggregate areas) and those areas within road ROW requiring vegetation management during operation of the Project.
• Restoration/reclamation and clean-up activities will occur progressively throughout the construction of the Project. These activities will include, but not be limited to, removing refuse, grading disturbed areas, contouring disturbed slopes to a stable profile, re-establishing natural drainage patterns and seeding to re-establish vegetation. Temporary disturbance areas will be restored to a natural state under the direction of qualified professionals.
• The Project Footprint (road ROW, camps/laydown areas, aggregate sources, and access roads) removals limits will be flagged/fenced restricting all vehicle, and worker activities to the footprint area, to prevent direct vegetation alteration and loss outside of the designated clearing areas.
• Mitigation measures outlined in Appendix E (Mitigation Measures) and plans to be developed in the CEMP and OEMP (e.g., Soil Management Plan, Site Restoration and Monitoring Plan, etc.) will be implemented to address items such as re-grading, soil compaction, and final restoration/reclamation of disturbed areas.
• Vegetation control during the Operations Phase will be limited to mechanical method involve cutting, trimming or removal of trees, brush/shrubs and/or groundcover (grass) during the late fall to improve visibility for driver safety or minimize risk of hazard trees falling onto the roadway or supportive facilities. Various types of cutting and mowing equipment will be used including chainsaws, riding mowers and weed eaters.

The standard mitigation measure and best management practices described above will serve to limit the effects on species diversity, and composition of vegetative species from the Project. The development of the CEMP and OEMP will also include specifics of within applicable management plans to minimize effects to species diversity and composition.

The following subsections outline the further mitigation measures for project-specific to address potential effects during the Construction and Operation Phases of the Project, with the objective to reduce, control or minimize the direct and indirect loss or alteration of species, communities and biodiversity within upland, riparian and wetland ecosystems.

11.4.1.1         Vegetation Clearing and Grubbing

Mitigation measure to address the potential effects of clearing and grubbing activities on vegetation and wetlands include the following:

• All vehicles and heavy equipment will remain within designated clearing limits.
• Implement tree felling and grubbing procedures to minimize risk of damage to adjacent vegetation.
• Ensure procedures outlined in the ESC Plan are adhered to control run-off, minimize erosion on exposed slopes and substrates, and prevent introduction of sediment or other deleterious materials from entering into vegetation assemblages and watercourses.
• Clearing and grubbing will be progressively completed as the of road construction activities are advanced, where practicable, to limit erosion and sedimentation.
• When feasible, all equipment, materials, supplies for clearing and grubbing activities will be stored in designated areas when not in use. Designated areas” during construction include for example construction camp(s); including laydown area(s); stockpiling and waste storage area(s); and fuel storage and refueling area(s).
• Vegetation is to be primarily removed by mechanical means, except within 10 m of a waterbody. In these areas, vegetation will be removed manually, using chain saws and other hand-held equipment, while leaving the under growth and duff layer undisturbed to prevent erosion, until such time as construction of foundations for bridges and culverts is initiated.
• Designated areas for brush, timber and mulch will be located a minimum of 50 m from any waterbody, with the exception of the aggregate/rock source area ARA-2 which will include an existing vegetation buffer zone of a minimum of 100 m in width from the unnamed lake.
• Within the clearing limits all brush and trees, except those determined to be saved, are to be cut level with the ground, and all surface debris, fallen timber, slash limbs and brush is to be disposed as directed or permitted and may involve: burning, spreading and compacting, chipping, or transport of merchantable or unmerchantable timber to Webequie First Nation for community use.
• No burning of cleared and grubbed material will occur deep in areas with organic soils.
• All areas with the potential for presence of rare plant species will be surveyed for occurrences prior to removals, and any rare specimens identified will be transplanted by qualified personnel prior to clearing.
• Section 5.1 in Appendix E (Mitigation Measures) provides further detail on mitigation measures related to clearing and grubbing activities. Further guidance on mitigation measures will also be provided in the Vegetation and Invasive Species Management Plan as part of the CEMP and OEMP to be developed and implemented for the Project.

11.4.1.2         Water Crossing Structures and Changes to Hydrology

The direct effect of the installation of bridge and culvert crossings for the road is the loss or alteration of riparian vegetation communities and potential changes to surface water and groundwater. Mitigation measures to address potential effects include:

• All waterbody crossings will be designed with single-span elements (bridges or culverts), where possible, to limit the encroachment of structures into stream channels in order to minimize the effect on water flow and levels under variable flow conditions and thereby potential effects to riparian vegetation.
• All watercourse crossings will be constructed in accordance with DFO’s Measures to Protect Fish and Fish Habitat (2022) and applicable Codes of Practice (DFO, 2024) and MNR’s Environmental Guidelines for Access Roads and Water Crossings.
• Temporary watercourse diversions will be constructed under low flow conditions and will be designed to accommodate flows to prevent upstream flooding and mimic downstream flow conditions to avoid alteration or impacts to vegetation during the temporary works. While the watercourse crossing worksite is isolated during construction of temporary crossings (culverts, bailey bridges, etc.), flow to downstream vegetated areas of the watercourse will be maintained at all times.
• When pumped diversions are required, water will be drawn from near surface of the waterbody to minimize turbidity. The pumping system will be sized to accommodate expected watercourse flow required to maintain both upstream and downstream vegetation during the lifetime of the diversion. Pumps will be discharged onto geofabric, filter bag or an alternate approved by the Proponent to dissipate the energy of discharge, mitigate erosion of channel bank vegetation and provide water quality treatment.
• Groundwater dewatering and pumping activities to allow for installation or repair of structures is regulated through a permitting process (e.g., Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR), or Permit to Take Water (PTTW)). As part of the supporting the PTTW or EASR applications, hydrogeological studies will be undertaken to detail the dewatering impacts on groundwater levels and any indirect effects to vegetation near the dewatering sites. Site specific discharge plans, mitigation measures and monitoring plans to protect water quality and vegetation will be further developed as part of the permitting process and industry best management practices will be implemented to minimize potential temporary groundwater drawdown, manage dewatering volumes and treat dewatering effluent.
• Crushed stones (rockfill) and/or equalization culverts will be used at wetland and peatland crossings at intervals of 100 m to 250 m to maintain or enhance hydraulic connections between the upgradient and downgradient sides of the road to allow groundwater to flow naturally through the road.
• In cut areas, groundwater seepage (if any) will be controlled and managed through roadside drainage systems (e.g., roadside ditches), allowing groundwater can infiltrate and recharge back to the local groundwater regime.
• All culverts and bridge structures will be monitored on a scheduled basis to prevent obstructions from causing flooding/drought conditions in vegetation communities adjacent to the road. Particular attention will be applied during the spring freshet.
• Further details on mitigation measures to address potential adverse effects can be found in Appendix E (Mitigation), Section 5.7 – Temporary Watercourse Crossings, Section 5.8 – Temporary Watercourse Diversions, and Section 5.11 – Bridge and Culvert Installations.

11.4.1.3         Indirect Effects Pathways

The following sections outline the mitigation measure applicable to the indirect pathways that can lead to losses or alteration of vegetation species, communities and diversity during the construction and operations of the Project.

11.4.1.3.1         Grading and Soil Disturbance

Grading and soil disturbance from excavations and earth moving activities can alter topography and drainage patterns that may affect soil quantity and quality and increase erosion/sedimentation that in tum could impact vegetation growth, survival, composition and distribution. Changes to drainage patterns from grading and soil disturbance can also increase or decrease drainage flows and surface water levels causing flooding or drying of vegetation communities as well as changes to groundwater flow through wetlands.

Mitigation measures to address potential effects from grading and soil disturbance activities include Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) measures (e.g., OPSS 805, Construction Specification for Temporary ESC Measures) that will be developed in the detail design phase of the Project and implemented during construction to prevent erosion and migration of soils from disturbed areas from rainfall events and wind. Further details on the ESC measures to prevent and reduce potential effects on vegetation from grading and soil disturbance are provided in Appendix E (Mitigation Measures), Section 5.16 (Erosion and Sediment Control). Project guidance on mitigation measures will also be provided in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan as part of the CEMP and OEMP to be developed and implemented for the Project. Key mitigation measures include the following:

• Erosion and sediment control measures will be inspected by the proponent’s Contractor on a regular basis and after every major rain or spring melt event; and necessary repairs will be made immediately after deficiencies are identified. Inspections will be confirmed by the proponent’s Contractor, including opportunities for Indigenous Monitors to participate in the monitoring program.
• Ensure procedures outlined in the ESC Plan are adhered to control run-off, minimize erosion on exposed slopes and substrates, and prevent introduction of sediment or other deleterious materials from entering into vegetation assemblages and watercourses.
• Vegetation cover shall be preserved for as long as possible and will be removed as construction of the road advances where practicable, and site grading and disturbance activities will be halted during heavy rainstorms and exceedingly wet conditions.
• The Project will provide direction on topsoil stripping, stockpiling, salvage and prioritized placement on the landscape, which is expected to mitigate changes to soil quality and quantity. This guidance with protocols and procedures will be documented in the Soil Management Plan to be developed and implemented as part of the CEMP and OEMP for the Project.
• Machines and equipment used for site grading will be selected, where practicable, to minimize impacts on soil disturbance and soil compaction. Compacted areas will be ripped or otherwise treated to loosen soil and facilitate natural revegetation.
• In order to maintain existing drainage flow paths through the flat floodplains and peatlands in the east-west segment of the road, equalization culverts (approximately 1 m diam.) will be placed at regular intervals along the road to maintain localized minor flow paths across the road.
• To prevent barrier effects from the road, and ensure the maintenance of existing groundwater flows, materials selected for road construction, especially the portion below the existing ground surface / groundwater table, will have the same or higher permeability compared to the surrounding native soils. 
• Underlying crushed stones (rockfill) and/or equalization culverts will be used for road, if needed, in the wetlands/peatlands to maintain natural hydraulic connections between the upgradient and downgradient sides of the road to allow groundwater to flow naturally through the road. 
• The road design has considered consolidation and compression processes of the peat layers associated with road construction (loading), which may result in reduced permeability of the peat, and thus alter natural groundwater flow directions and pathways. This aspect of the road design will be further evaluated in the detail design phase for the Project.
• All banks/shoreline areas that are disturbed will be restored to their original conditions as soon as practicable, including re-vegetation if necessary.

11.4.1.3.2         Introduction of Invasive Species

Construction and operation activities have the potential to introduce invasive (non-native) plant species into study area for the Project, which can disrupt plant communities and decrease habitat quality by affecting plant community structure and species diversity directly through competition.

A Vegetation and Invasive Species Management Plan will be prepared as part of the CEMP and OEMP to describe the procedures to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species. The proposed measures to prevent the introduction of invasive species are described in Appendix E (Mitigation Measures), Section 5.23. In summary, some of the key preventative measures include:

• All construction equipment and vehicles that arrive on the site will be visually inspected to confirm they are in clean condition, free of mud and debris that could harbor seeds of invasive vegetation species. All inspections of equipment and vehicles destined for the Project will adhere to the Clean Equipment Protocol for Industry (2016) and requirements of the Canada-Ontario Invasive Species Centre and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (ontarioinvasiveplants.ca).
• Qualified environmental monitors will identify and document all invasive species occurrences observed.
• If imported fill/soil are used outside of the study area for the Project, the proponent’s contractor will confirm the materials are free of contaminants, including weed and seeds that may contain invasive of plant species.
• All disturbed work areas for restoration will be seeded with a native species tree or groundcover seed mix.
• Identified invasive species are found present and established they will be targeted for removal through manual, mechanical and/or chemical methods. The use of herbicides will only be considered where other control methods have proven ineffective, and all herbicides will be applied by a licensed applicator in accordance with Ontario regulations.
• Education and training programs will be implemented to familiarize workers with potential invasive species, with associated reporting procedures.

11.4.1.3.3         Chemical or Hazardous Material Spills and Waste

Chemical or hazardous spills (e.g., petroleum products) from vehicles and equipment, or improper storage and handling of waste or fuel, can affect soil quality and in turn effect upland, wetland, and riparian ecosystems, including mortality, growth and health of plants.

The transport and handling of hazardous materials or chemicals will be carefully managed by the proponent’s contractor. Procedures for the transportation, storage, and handling chemicals and fuels will be implemented for the Project to avoid spills or release of contaminants to the environment. A Waste Management Plan and Fuel Storage and Handling Plan for construction and operations will be prepared as part of the CEMP and OEMP to describe the procedures for the handling and storage of fuels and waste, and the disposal of wastes such as used oil, filter and grease cartridges, lubrication containers, construction-related debris and surplus materials, and domestic garbage and camp wastes (e.g., food and grey water). The proposed mitigation and protection measures are described in Appendix E (Mitigation Measures), Sections 5.2., 5.5, and 5.17. In summary, some of the key measures include:

• All hazardous materials products will l be transported in accordance with the federal Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, Ontario Dangerous Goods Transportation Act and Ontario Gasoline Handling Act and will include tanker trucks, in drums, or other approved container.
• All employees involved in the handling and storage of fuels and hazardous materials will l be qualified to handle these materials and have a Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) training.
• Designated fuel storage areas will be established at temporary construction camps and permanent Maintenance and Storage Facility (MSF), with barricaded double-walled above-ground storage tanks (ASTs) or other suitable fuel tanks with secondary containment measures (e.g., berm system) for safety. A fuelling truck may also be used for refuelling vehicles and equipment on-site and filling fuel tanks in temporary construction camps.
• Fuelling and storage areas will include appropriate drainage controls including secondary containment with a storage capacity of at least 110% of the fuel tank. Drainage will be retained in a sump where hydrocarbons can be captured and separated prior to the release of any rainwater run‐off, as appropriate.
• Equipment with reduced mobility, such as heavy lift cranes and excavators, will have fuel delivered by a mobile tank and re‐fuelling will take place on site, following safety procedures. Where fuelling of vehicles and other mobile or heavy equipment is required at sites along the road then fuelling will not be permitted within 50 m of a permanent waterbody.
• Explosives are to be used for blasting activities at aggregate source areas (i.e., ARA-2 and ARA-4) for rock and aggregate materials and will be stored in a secured container. Siting of these storage areas will meet the provincial standards and licensing requirements as specified in the Mines and Mining Plants Regulation of the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act.
• Solid waste (hazardous and non-hazardous) and liquid waste (oils, lubricants) generated during the Construction Phase will be stored at temporary construction camps, and during the Operations Phase at the permanent MSF. Solid waste handling and storage areas at camps and the MSF will include a waste recycling area to reduce the amount of solid waste generated. Liquid industrial waste such a waste oils, lubricants and other used oil will be stored in drums at camps and the MSF and will be regularly shipped for disposal. Organic solid waste at the camps and MSF will be temporarily stored in bear-proof containers before being transported to a waste disposal site.
• All collected sewage shall be managed on-site through use of sewage treatment plant and discharged according to permit and/or authorization requirements; or shall be removed for off-site disposal at an existing, approved sewage disposal facility.
• To avoid potential impacts to vegetation, surface water and groundwater from winter operations of the road, no storage, handling or application of sand or salt is proposed for de-icing of the WSR during the winter season based on MTO specifications for similar types of roads in Northwest Ontario that are considered Class 4 provincial highways.
• If chemical or hazardous material spills occur as result of the Project, the proponent’s contractor will implement the procedures in the Spill Prevention and Emergency Response Management Plan to be prepared as part of the CEMP and OEMP. The proposed mitigation and protection measures to manage spills should they occur are described in Appendix E (Mitigation Measures), Section 5.2. In summary, some of the key measures include:
  • The proponent’s contractor will designate a qualified supervisor as the on-site spills and emergency response coordinator. The emergency response coordinator will have the authority to redirect manpower and equipment in order to respond in the event of a spill.
  • Individuals working on-site and handling hazardous materials and waste will be trained and aware of the procedures in the Spill Prevention and Emergency Response Management Plan.
  • Emergency spill kits will be available near fuel and hazardous materials handling locations (e.g., spill kits at temporary laydown areas and/or temporary construction camps) and in vehicles.
  • Construction equipment and vehicles will be regularly maintained to minimize leak.
  • Absorbent pads, or other precautions, such as a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) groundsheet, will be used to contain the fuel and prevent fuel from being spilled onto the ground surface.
  • All spills of petroleum products or other hazardous substances will be reported to the MECP Spill Action Centre, immediately after occurrence of the incident and the Contractor will follow any instructions given by the MECP regarding spill response.

11.4.1.3.4         Dust and Air Emissions, and Subsequent Deposition

Construction and operation of the Project is predicted to generate air and dust emissions and subsequent deposition that can affect upland, riparian and wetland ecosystems through changes to soil quality, as well as in some cases dust that falls on plants could directly damage vegetation and lead to death.

An Air Quality and Dust Control Management Plan will be prepared as part of the CEMP and OEMP to describe the procedures to minimize air quality and dust emissions during construction and operations of the Project. Dust control practices are described in Appendix E (Mitigation Measures), Section 5.18. In summary, some of the key measures to reduce and control air and dust emission include the following which are detailed in Section 9 of this EAR/IS (Assessment of Effects on the Atmospheric Environment):

• Engine idling policies and procedures will be implemented to reduce fuel consumption of vehicles and equipment, and to limit GHG emissions.
• The Project will use energy efficient, lower-emission vehicles and equipment, where practical.
• The proponent’s contractor will implement effective dust suppression techniques, such as on-site watering, as necessary to minimize fugitive dust from the road, earth stockpiles and disturbed areas as required. Should chemical dust suppressants, such as magnesium chloride, be required, they will not be applied within 100 m of a water crossing or beyond the road footprint. In general, the use and application of dust suppressants, where applicable, will be conducted in accordance with Ministry of Transportation Ontario Provincial Standard Specification 506 – Construction Specification for Dust Suppressants.
• A Construction Blasting Management Plan will be prepared as part of the CEMP and OEMP to describe the procedures to limit the amount of chemical residue in the environment that may harm vegetation. The Blasting and Communication Management Plan will include measures to address stakeholder and Indigenous community notification, storage, transport and use of explosives, environmentally significant areas, and waterbodies. Prior to blasting, terrestrial surveys will be conducted to identify environmentally sensitive features within 250 m from the blasting location and where required mitigation measures will be modified or enhanced, if needed.

11.4.1.3.5         Changes to Microclimate Conditions

There will be some localized alterations in microclimate conditions during construction and operations of the Project, such as increased temperature and the availability of light, in the vicinity of the roadway that may result in changes to canopy/shade conditions due to the vegetation removals and grading and drainage associated with the road. To address potential changes to microclimate conditions that may influence plant community diversity within the ROW and in close proximity road the following mitigation measures are proposed:

• The design of culverts and roadside drainage systems, including final grading within the road ROW will to the extent practicable minimize potential changes to local microclimatic conditions (e.g., increased drifting and local albedo effects).
• The use of vegetation wind-breaks and snow fencing will be considered along stretches of the roadway where cleared areas for the road have created increased wind conditions affecting adjacent vegetation.

11.4.1.3.6         Increased Risk of Fire

Wildfires are a normal and necessary component of natural forest ecosystems in the study area. However, the Project and human activities associated with its construction and operations could increase the risk of forest fires in the study area. Mitigation measures to be implemented to avoid and/or minimize the increased risk of fire include:

• No fires shall be started without first taking sufficient precautions to ensure that the fire can be kept under control.
• To the extent possible, burning of brush and wood from vegetation clearing activities will be avoided during the dry season. In northern Ontario the dry seasons typically occurs during the peak summer months (July/August) of a given year.
• In the event that burning is required for disposal of biomass, a Burn Permit under the Ontario Forest Fire Prevention Act will be obtained from the MNR. All conditions imposed by the Burn Permit will be adhered to.
• In the event that burning is required, any active fires shall be monitored by the proponent’s contractor for the duration of the burning activities. No fires shall be left unattended. A primary control zone will be established around burn sites. In the event that a wildfire occurs, it will be immediately reported by the proponent and to the MNR.
• All reasonable steps will be taken in order to prevent a fire from burning out of control or spreading from land owned or occupied for construction purposes.
• In the event that a wildfire is identified where construction or operation activities are taking place, all reasonable attempts will be made to extinguish the wildfire using available equipment, services and workers on-site.
• Signage indicating current fire hazard potential, updated regularly, will be posted along all road at adequate intervals during construction and operations.
• No fires will be permitted at designated rest areas for use by the public during operations of the Project.

11.4.2         Loss or Alteration of Wetland Function

There will be a direct loss of wetland function within the Project Footprint removal areas, but the extent of loss will be directly dependent on the ability to appropriately design and mitigate for potential losses. Understanding the key functional features of each wetland class encountered and altered, mostly from a geophysical context, and maintaining how they interact (baseline conditions) with neighboring classes as much as possible will provide the best solutions to limit the extent of loss or impact to the function of each class of wetland as result of the Project.

The mitigation measures listed in Section 11.4.1 (Loss or Alteration to Vegetation Species, Communities and Biodiversity) are all applicable to the goal of mitigating the loss or alteration of wetland functions from the Project. However, it is recommended that a wetland function monitoring program be further developed and implemented as part of the follow-up monitoring for the Project (refer to Section 11.13) to help fully understand and confirm predicted effects of the roadway on wetland functions, including if supplemental mitigation measures or adaptive management actions are warranted. Section 11.13 provides an overview of the proposed wetland function program, and the details of the program are described in Appendix K-4. The wetland function monitoring program is based on a detailed Level 3 Wetland Functions Assessment protocol with the objective to capture and assess various observable wetland functions through future field surveys results on hydrologic and hydrogeologic, soils, water quality, vegetation, and wildlife characteristics.

Other than a direct accounting of wetland losses, the method used in the baseline and Section 11.4.4 (Loss or Alteration of Plant Species at Risk and Plant Species and Communities of Conservation Concern) to determine initial impacts to wetland function uses a regional approach. This is considered adequate for the determination of effects in this document, but to capture localized wetland functional changes during construction and operations, more detailed information is required which can be acquired through the development and execution of a Wetlands Function Monitoring Program as described in Appendix K-4.

11.4.3         Loss or Alteration of Plant Species at Risk and Plant Species and Communities of Conservation Concern

As no Federally or Provincially listed plant species at risk or Communities of Conservation Concern were documented or found from field surveys conducted in the study area for the Project, there are no predicted effects. There are also no predicted effects on the two Provincially rare mosses identified during field surveys as they were observed well outside of the proposed vegetation removal’s areas.

As described in Section 11.3.4, there will be some direct losses of underrepresented vegetation communities (Hardwood and Mixedwood Forests), and some potential low level indirect effects to Meadow Marsh
(See Section 11.3.4). These vegetation classes are considered locally rare, but the mitigation measures listed above in Section 11.4.1 and those in Appendix E are all applicable to the goal of minimizing potential direct and indirect adverse effects to these areas during the Construction and Operation Phases of the Project.

11.4.4         Loss or Alteration of Plant Species and Communities of Traditional Importance to Indigenous Peoples

As described in Section 11.3.5 (Loss or Alteration to Vegetation Species and Communities of Traditional Importance to Indigenous Peoples), there will be some direct loss of vegetation communities known to contain plant species of traditional importance to Indigenous Peoples in the study area.

The mitigation measures listed above in Section 11.4.1 (Loss or Alteration to Vegetation Species, Communities and Biodiversity) and those in Appendix E (Mitigation Measures) are all applicable to the goal of minimizing the potential localized adverse effects to vegetation communities and species of traditional importance to Indigenous Peoples during the construction and operations of the Project.

11.4.5         Off-setting Activities – Upland, Wetland and Riparian Vegetation

Restoration or reclamation of disturbed areas and clean up activities will occur progressively throughout the Construction Phase of the Project. These activities will include, but not be limited to, removing refuse, grading disturbed areas, contouring disturbed slopes to a stable profile, re-establishing natural drainage patterns and seeding to establish vegetation. Native seed mixes and approaches will be used to allow for natural regeneration to achieve the desirable groundcover, trees and/or shrubs with the goal to stabilize disturbed soils and minimize erosion potential within the road ROW and other areas, where applicable. Details of the restoration activities, along with guidance to the proponent’s contractor, will be documented in the Site Restoration and Monitoring Plan to be developed and implemented as part of the CEMP for the Project.

For permanent losses to upland, wetland and riparian areas, it is proposed that an Ecological Restoration Plan (the Plan) be developed in consultation with First Nations, Federal/Provincial agencies, and stakeholders with the goal of providing in-kind compensation for the losses to the vegetation classes described in Section 11.3.2.1.1 (Direct Vegetation Losses). The Plan will employ scientific Ecological Restoration (ER) Templates as a proven approach to the design and implementation of successful ecological restoration. The ER Templates are proposed to be based on ecological land classification (ELC) models and/or site-specific reference (SSR) models, as determined on a site-specific basis. ER Templates allow for the design and implementation of restoration projects in a systematic and efficient manner yet provide a practical and adaptive approach for implementing successful restoration of complex ecological systems. Although each of the Off‑setting Restoration Plans developed within the Ecological Restoration Plan will be site-specific, the general proposed approach for upland and wetland restoration is included in Appendix K-3. Note that the restoration plans to be developed for riparian areas have not been included since they will be a combination of the upland and wetland processes depending on the status of the lands adjacent to the waterbody. The process for development of the Off‑setting Restoration Plans will include the following key steps:

• Background Information Gathering/Review – consultation with First Nations, government agencies and stakeholders and collect and review relevant background information;
• Field Investigations/Site Assessment – Conduct comprehensive baseline surveys on reference and candidate restoration sites;
• Conceptual Restoration Plan – Based on field investigations, background review, and consultation with First Nations, Federal/Provincial agencies, and stakeholders, a Conceptual Restoration Plan will be developed;
• Detailed Restoration Plan – Preparation of the Detailed Restoration Plan will follow approval of the Conceptual Plan. It will build on the Conceptual Plan and specify the comprehensive restoration strategy for the site;
• Implementation/Construction Oversight – Oversight of the restoration activities will be highly dependent on the overall construction schedule, including remediation activities, soil treatments, and other facets of the project. This will constitute an overall strategy to oversee contractor’s activities on-site during key phases of the program; and,
• Management and Monitoring – The management and monitoring programs will be developed based on Adaptive Management principles.

11.4.6         Mitigation Measures Summary

The key mitigation measures to address potential adverse effects of the Project on the Vegetation and Wetland VC as outlined in this section and Appendix E of the EAR/IS are presented in Table 11-41.

Table 11-41:  Summary of Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Predicted Net Effects for Vegetation and Wetlands VC

11.5            Characterization of Net Effects

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

Table 11-42 presents definitions for net effects criteria, developed with specific reference to the Vegetation and Wetlands VC. These criteria are considered together in the assessment, along with context derived from existing conditions and proposed mitigation measures, to characterize predicted net effects from the Project on the Vegetation and Wetlands VC.

Table 11-42:  Criteria for Characterization of Predicted Net Effects on Vegetation and Wetlands VC

11.6            Potential Effect Pathways Carried Through for Further Assessment

Potential effects as outlined in Table 11-41 of Section 11.4.6 (Mitigation Measures Summary) cannot be entirely mitigated given that the Project crosses a large geographical area with minimal human impacts or infrastructure. As such none of the potential effect pathways can be completely eliminated with implementation of the of mitigation measures and are carried forward for further assessment (Section 11.7: Predicted Net Effects).

11.7            Predicted Net Effects

Net effects are defined as the effects of the Project that remain after application of proposed mitigation measures. The following section provide an assessment of the net effects to the Vegetation and Wetlands VC, including characterization of the net effects using the criteria in Table 11-42, and following the application of mitigative measures identified in Section 11.3 (Predicted Net Effects). The four predicted net effects on the Vegetation and Wetlands VC are:

1. Loss or alteration of all or part of vegetation communities, species and biodiversity.
2. Loss or alteration of Wetland Function.
3. Loss or alteration of species at risk plants and species and communities of conservation concern.
4. Loss or alteration of plant species and communities of traditional importance to Indigenous Peoples.

11.7.1         Loss or Alteration of Vegetation Communities, Species and Diversity

Loss and alterations to vegetation communities, species and diversity will be incurred both directly and indirectly during the Construction and Operation Phases of the Project. These aspects of the local vegetation ecology are inherently intertwined and were assessed holistically. The primary pathways associated with direct losses and alterations to vegetation by the Project are clearing and grubbing; soil grading and excavation and installation of water crossing structures in the road ROW.

11.7.1.1         Construction

The direct losses or alterations to vegetation communities are limited to the construction period during the clearing, grubbing, grading for: the road, temporary construction camps, aggregate extraction areas (ARA-2 and ARA-4) and installation of water crossing structures. The vegetation removals will be permanent, and with the application of the mitigation measures outlined in Section 11.4 will be limited to the removal limits required for the construction of the road and supportive infrastructure facilities. There may be some opportunities for minor reductions in predicted vegetation removals, such as the aggregate extraction areas if material estimates versus actual volumes needed during construction differ and consequently result in the reduction in clearing requirements, however this is not considered significant.

Approximately 548.49 ha of vegetation loss is expected to occur during the clearing, grubbing and grading activities for construction of the Project. Most of the vegetation losses represent less than 6.5% of the available vegetation classes within the LSA, and less than 1% in the RSA (see Table 11-21, Section 11.3.2: Loss or Alteration of Vegetation Communities, Species and Biodiversity).

Some permanent fragmentation is also expected due to the linear nature of the development. A considerable number of existing vegetation patches (404) will be encroached upon and/or bisected, resulting in removals within a number of identified vegetation classes. In most cases these removals will only affect portions of any discreet individual vegetation patch to various degrees, resulting in the division of the patch into two or more discrete patches and result in a net gain of vegetation patches. This increase in discreate patch numbers, typically an increase of 1 to 7 for most vegetation classes, and up to 156 new patches for more common classes such as Conifer Swamp, corresponds to a reduction in mean patch size between a 0.002% to 0.8% for most affected vegetation classes within the RSA. This fragmentation also affects the availability of edge habitat, which will result in a net gain of 153,986 metres (153.9 km) across all vegetation classes within the study area. This increase is the result of newly created edge communities along both sides to the proposed road and supportive infrastructure facilities.

Of the total vegetation patches encroached upon or bisected, 256 are large enough to have a core area. Core Areas are defined as interior areas of a contiguous vegetation patch that are free of edge effects. In this study an interior buffer of 50m was applied to each vegetation patch, the areas remaining were considered to be core areas. Generally, there is a net gain to the number of core area patches across all vegetation classes. For example, Conifer Swamp, Low Treed Bog, and Poor Conifer Swamp exhibit core area patch increases of 38, 29, and 27, respectively. The exception to this trend is Rock Barren and Thicket Swamp, each of which lose 1 core area patch. These gains are the result of the bisection of existing larger core areas into smaller core areas. Though the number of core patches will generally increase, there will be significant losses in total core area for some patch classifications such as Conifer Swamp (187.75 ha), Conifer Forest (160.36 ha), Poor Conifer Swamp (142.89 ha), Low Treed Bog (91.35 ha), Sparse Treed Fen (50.61), and Sparse Treed Bog (41.53 ha). The remaining classes show minor decreases between 0.0001 and 3.32 ha. These losses, though sizeable, represent less than a 10% loss of Mean Core Patch Size for each patch class, with the exception of Thicket Swamp, and Rock Barren which show Mean Patch Size Gains of 10.9%, and 100%, respectively.

Approximately 16.33 ha of riparian vegetation will be removed during the construction of the roadway and associated water crossing structures. Of this total, the maximum loss of riparian habitat occurs in the mapped River Riparian areas (5.9 ha), followed by Conifer Swamp (4.16 ha), Sparse Treed Fen (1.83 ha), Conifer Forest (1.63), and mapped Lake Riparian (1.18 ha). Potential removals in all other riparian classes are less that 1 ha. These removals represent 0.85% of the available riparian habitat found within the LSA, dropping to 0.17% when extended out to the RSA.

The effects to species diversity across the RSA, was assessed through a calculation of a diversity index that ranked the relative value of ELC types in terms of diversity in predicted use. The results suggest that there is a potential for 25 of the 30 vegetation classes identified to experience a slight decrease in diversity, with only 5 classes showing an increase. These increases range between 1% and 9% of the original SDI value, with decreases between 1% and 2%.

Indirect losses or alterations to vegetation are more difficult to quantify, as there are numerous variables that could affect these outcomes. However, the assessment of indirect effect pathways indicated that although largely mitigated, the effects that do remain will be localized to within 60m of the Project Footprint for upland forests and swamps, and 250 m for open wetlands, The range of areas where indirect effects could affect vegetation units are shown on
Figure 11.9 and described in Table 11-29. These are considered minimal ranging from 0.1% to 4% of the available vegetation classification within the LSA, with the exception of Meadow Marsh and Open Shore Fen/Thicket Swamp, where 95% and 32% respectively fall within these potential effect zones. It should be noted that the patches/polygons of these two classifications are located within the lowest anticipated indirect effect zone. They are also more common within the study areas than the project mapping suggests since they commonly exist in very small un-mappable areas, mosaiced into shoreline ecosystems. Following the implementation of mitigation measures these indirect effects are anticipated to be either completely eliminated or minimized to negligible levels resulting in no significant loss or alteration of vegetation classes within the study area.

Overall, the assessment results suggest that although there are some vegetation losses due to the removal of portions of vegetative patches, there is a minimal net effect on loss or alteration of vegetation communities, species and diversity, with implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in Section 11.4.1 (Loss or Alteration to Vegetation Species, Communities and Biodiversity).

The characterization of net effects for the loss or alteration of vegetation communities, species and diversity from construction of the Project are summarized inTable 11-43.

Table 11-43:  Characterization of Loss or Alteration of Vegetation Communities, Species and Diversity During Construction

11.7.1.2         Operations

During the Operations Phase of the Project, the only effect to vegetation and wetlands anticipated are those indirect effects associated with operation activities for the road and water crossing structures which may be required over time, such as repairs to bridges, culverts, ditches, road surfaces, as well as snow and vegetation management. No direct loss of vegetation units is anticipated, and following the implementation of mitigation measures indirect effects are anticipated to be either completely eliminated or minimized to negligible levels resulting in no significant alteration of vegetation classes within the study area. The characterization of predicted net effects for the loss or alteration of vegetation and wetlands during operations of the Project is summarized in Table 11-44.

Table 11-44:  Characterization of Loss or Alteration of Vegetation Communities, Species and Diversity During Operations

11.7.2         Loss or Alteration of Wetland Function

The potential effects of the Project on wetland functions were modelled for both biotic (living) and abiotic (non-living) environments. Biotic functional values were modelled using a resource selection function (RSF) approach to estimate probability of use for selected species of birds, amphibians, mammals, and wetland vegetation, while abiotic and Indigenous values using a semi-quantitative approach, and values were assigned to each wetland type based on literature and other information sources. In total, there were 50 individual functional values calculated in the assessment. A regional assessment of effects on wetland function was conducted and the results predicted minimal effects on functional values, of less than 1%, for all wetland classes within the LSA and RSA.

11.7.2.1         Construction

There will be a direct net loss of wetlands during construction from vegetation removal due to clearing and grubbing activities. There may also be a localized effect on the functions of the wetlands adjacent to the Project Footprint that are bisected by the development. The net effects are predicted to be minimal following the implementation of mitigation measures. The wetland function model process described in Section 11.3.3 (Loss or Alteration of Wetland Function) shows very slight changes in the aggregate wetland function index across all wetland classes (0% to 2.2% – within the expected margin of error for the model). In some cases, these changes reflect a positive increase in functional values in reaction to the road development, which could be due to increases in some of the biotic models resulting from positive changes such as increased access, increases in edge habitat etc.

Some negative changes to the function of the various wetland vegetation patches within close proximity to the road are expected via potential indirect effects (i.e., potential changes to water regimes, invasive species, sediment deposition, spills etc.). Though largely mitigated, the indirect effects that do remain will be localized to within 60 m of the Project Footprint for upland forests and swamps, and 250 m for open wetlands as shown in Figure 11.9. As described in
Table 11-32, the areas affected are predicted to be minimal for all vegetation classes affected, ranging from 0.1% to 4% of the available vegetation classification within the LSA. The exceptions are Meadow Marsh and Open Shore Fen/Thicket Swamp of which 95% and 32% respectively, could experience negative indirect effects. It should be noted that these two wetland classes are only potentially affected indirectly at the lowest anticipated level, and they are more common within the study areas than the project mapping suggests since these vegetation classes exist in very small un-mappable areas mosaiced into shoreline ecosystems. Following the implementation of mitigation measures these indirect effects to wetland functions are anticipated to be either completely eliminated or minimized to negligible levels. A summary of the net effects of destruction of vegetation assemblages caused by operations activities based on the characterization criteria is presented in Table 11-45.

Table 11-45:  Characterization of Net Effects on Loss or Alteration of Wetland Function during Construction

11.7.2.2         Operations

During the Operations Phase of the Project the only effect to wetland function anticipated are those indirect effects associated with operation activities for the road and water crossing structures. No further loss of vegetation units are anticipated during operations, and following the implementation of mitigation measures indirect effects are anticipated to be either completely eliminated or minimized to negligible levels resulting in no significant alteration to the function of the wetlands within the study area. A summary of the characterization of net effects on wetland functions during the Operations Phase is presented in Table 11-46.

Table 11-46:  Characterization of Net Effects on Loss or Alteration of Wetland Function during Operations

11.7.3         Loss of Alteration of Plant Species and Communities of Conservation Concern

11.7.3.1         Construction

Two locally rare upland vegetation communities (Hardwood and Mixedwood) are affected by vegetation clearing and grubbing activities for the Project. The removals represent 3.13% (Hardwood) and 3.32% (Mixedwood) of these vegetation communities found within the LSA and 0.85% and 1.24% respectively within the RSA (see Table 11-34, Section 11.4.5: Offsetting Activities). Following removals the remaining portions of these locally rare communities could potentially be affected by indirect effects (e.g., changes to hydrology, sedimentation, dust deposition etc.) from construction activities such as grading, crossing structure construction, and general movement of materials and machinery. The areas proposed for removals are minimal at all identified levels of effect ranging from 1% to 4% of the available vegetation classification within the LSA (See Table 11-29). Meadow Marsh, is also a locally rare vegetation class but it is found almost completely within the Low indirect zone as illustrated in Figure 11.9 and Table 11-29. Following the implementation of mitigation measures these indirect effects are anticipated to be either completely eliminated or minimized to negligible levels resulting in no significant loss or alteration of vegetation plant species or communities of conservation concern within the study area. A summary of the characterization of net effects on plant species and communities of conservation concern during the Construction Phase is presented in Table 11-47.

Table 11-47:  Characterization of Net Effects on Loss or Alteration of Plant Species and Communities of Conservation Concern During Construction

11.7.3.2         Operations

During the Operations Phase of the Project the only effect to locally rare vegetation communities are those indirect effects associated with repairs to the roadway and water crossing structures which may be required over time. No direct loss of vegetation units of conservation concern are anticipated, and following the implementation of mitigation measures indirect effects are anticipated to be either completely eliminated or minimized to negligible levels resulting in no significant loss or alteration of communities of conservation concern within the study area. A summary of the characterization of net effects on plant species and communities of conservation concern during the Operations Phase is presented in Table 11-48.

Table 11-48:  Characterization of Net Effects on Loss or Alteration of Communities of Conservation Concern During Operations

11.7.4         Loss of Alteration of Plant Species and Communities of Traditional Importance to Indigenous Peoples

Given the remote nature of the study areas, the First Nation uses of discrete vegetation communities within the study areas are severely limited, and access is restricted to areas within a reasonable proximity to Indigenous communities in the area, particularly the community of Webequie. Available data was used to make aerial assumptions of use (e.g., a hundred-meter use buffer was applied to travel routes). The details of the assumptions are found in Section 11.2.1.3.3.

11.7.4.1         Construction

Using the assumptions described in Section 11.2.1.3.3, it was determined that approximately 89 ha of area described as a Juniper source at the ARA-4 aggregate source site, and 9.3 ha of various portage or historic travel route areas will be removed during construction. Note Juniper is a very common plant throughout the upland vegetation classes within the study area, and the actual removals within travel routes include the buffered areas to either side of the actual travel r routes. The net effects ratings for this effect pathway are described below in Table 11-49 below.

Table 11-49:  Characterization of Net Effects on Loss or Alteration of Rare or Traditionally Important Vegetation Species and Communities During Construction

11.7.4.2         Operations

During operations the only effect to vegetation classes that are known to support plant species of importance to Indigenous peoples are those indirect effects associated with repairs to the roadway and water crossing structures which may be required over time. No further loss of vegetation units are anticipated, and following the implementation of mitigation measures these indirect effects are anticipated to be either completely eliminated or minimized to negligible levels. A summary of the net effects on wetland vegetation assemblages that are known to support plant species of importance to local Indigenous Peoples caused by operations activities based on the characterization criteria is presented in Table 11-50.

Table 11-50:  Characterization of Net Effects on Loss or Alteration of Rare or Traditionally Important Vegetation Species and Communities During Operations n

11.8            Summary of Net Effects

A summary of the characterization of net effects for the Vegetation and Wetlands VC is provided in Table 11-51.

Table 11-51:  Summary of Predicted Net Effects on the Vegetation and Wetlands VC

11.9            Determination of Significance

11.9.1         Methodology

Several methodologies can be used to determine whether an adverse environmental effect is significant or not. One of the methodologies recommended by The Draft Technical Guidance Determining Whether a Designated Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Agency, 2018) is quantitative aggregation assessment, which involves attributing a scale ranking (score) to each key criterion (category) and applying a decision rule to inform the determination of the significance. Each key criterion (category) is assigned an effect-level definition and a score based on the degree of the adverse effect (see Table 11-52 below).

Table 11-52:  Scores Assigned for Key Criteria (Categories) of the Predicted Net Effects

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

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

11.9.2         Results

• The quantitative aggregation assessment for the Vegetation and Wetlands VC are presented in Table 11-53. Although net effects on vegetation and wetlands are expected to occur, with project planning design and the proposed mitigation measures, the Project’s net effects are predicted to be not significant (negligible to low scores for significance) as presented in Table 11-51 (Section 11.8). Discussions regarding the individual scores are presented below.

Table 11-53:  Key Criteria and Scores for Determining the Significance of the Predicted Net Adverse Effects on Vegetation and Wetlands VC