SECTION 13: ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON SPECIES AT RISK

WEBEQUIE SUPPLY ROAD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT / IMPACT STATEMENT

June 9, 2025
AtkinsRéalis Ref: 661910

SECTION 13: Assessment of Effects on Species at Risk

Contents

13. Assessment of Effects on Species at Risk 13-18
    13.1 Scope of the Assessment 13-18
    13.1.1 Regulatory and Policy Setting 13-18
    13.1.2 Selection of Key Species and Species Groups 13-21
    13.1.2.1 Species at Risk Not Included in Assessment 13-21
    13.1.2.2 Species at Risk Included in Assessment 13-22
    13.1.3 Consideration of Input from Engagement and Consultation Activities 13-36
    13.1.4 Incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge and Land and Resource Use Information 13-41
    13.1.5 Valued Component and Indicators 13-41
    13.1.6 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries 13-44
    13.1.6.1 Spatial Boundaries 13-44
    13.1.6.2 Temporal Boundaries 13-48
    13.1.7 Identification of Project Interactions with Species at Risk 13-48
    13.1.7.1 Terrestrial Species at Risk 13-48
    13.1.7.2 Aquatic Species at Risk 13-48
    13.2 Existing Conditions 13-55
    13.2.1 Methods 13-55
    13.2.1.1 Mammals 13-56
    13.2.1.2 Birds 13-68
    13.2.1.3 Lake Sturgeon 13-71
    13.2.2 Results 13-73
    13.2.3 Mammals 13-74
    13.2.3.2 Birds 13-89
    13.2.3.3 Lake Sturgeon 13-91
    13.3 Identification of Potential Effects, Pathways and Indicators 13-92
    13.3.1 Threat Assessment Approach 13-92
    13.3.2 SAR and SAR Habitat 13-93
    13.3.2.1 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 13-94
    13.3.2.2 Injury or Death 13-94
    13.3.3 Caribou (Boreal population) 13-95
    13.3.3.1 Habitat Loss 13-95
    13.3.3.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 13-96
    13.3.3.3 Alteration in Movement 13-99
    13.3.3.4 Injury or Death 13-101
    13.3.3.5 Threat Assessment 13-104
    13.3.4 Wolverine 13-105
    13.3.4.1 Habitat Loss 13-105
    13.3.4.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 13-107
    13.3.4.3 Alteration in Movement 13-111
    13.3.4.4 Injury or Death 13-113
    13.3.4.5 Threat Assessment 13-115
    13.3.5 Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis 13-116
    13.3.5.1 Habitat Loss 13-116
    13.3.5.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 13-119
    13.3.5.3 Alteration in Movement 13-121
    13.3.5.4 Injury or Death 13-122
    13.3.5.5 Threat Assessment 13-123
    13.3.6 Evening Grosbeak 13-125
    13.3.6.1 Habitat Loss 13-125
    13.3.6.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 13-126
    13.3.6.3 Alterations in Movement 13-128
    13.3.6.4 Injury or Death 13-129
    13.3.6.5 Threats Assessment 13-130
    13.3.7 Wetland Songbirds (Olive-sided Flycatcher, Rusty Blackbird) 13-131
    13.3.7.1 Habitat Loss 13-132
    13.3.7.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 13-135
    13.3.7.3 Alteration in Movement 13-137
    13.3.7.4 Injury or Death 13-139
    13.3.7.5 Threats Assessment 13-140
    13.3.8 Lesser Yellowlegs 13-142
    13.3.8.1 Habitat Loss 13-142
    13.3.8.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 13-143
    13.3.8.3 Alterations in Movement 13-146
    13.3.8.4 Injury or Death 13-147
    13.3.8.5 Threat Assessment 13-149
    13.3.9 Common Nighthawk 13-150
    13.3.9.1 Habitat Loss 13-150
    13.3.9.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 13-155
    13.3.9.3 Alteration in Movement 13-157
    13.3.9.4 Injury or Death 13-158
    13.3.9.5 Threats Assessment 13-160
    13.3.10 Bald Eagle 13-161
    13.3.10.1 Habitat Loss 13-161
    13.3.10.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 13-162
    13.3.10.3 Alteration in Movement 13-165
    13.3.10.4 Injury or Death 13-166
    13.3.10.5 Threats Assessment 13-168
    13.3.11 Short-eared Owl 13-169
    13.3.11.1 Habitat Loss 13-169
    13.3.11.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 13-170
    13.3.11.3 Alteration in Movement 13-173
    13.3.11.4 Injury or Death 13-174
    13.3.11.5 Threats Assessment 13-176
    13.3.12 Lake Sturgeon (Hudson Bay – James Bay Population) 13-177
    13.3.12.1 Changes to Quantity and Quality of Fish Habitat 13-177
    13.3.12.2 Changes to Lake Sturgeon Populations 13-184
    13.3.12.3 Threats Assessment 13-185
    13.4 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures 13-201
    13.4.1 Habitat Availability and Key Mitigation Measures 13-202
    13.4.2 SAR and SAR Habitat 13-203
    13.4.2.1 SAR Habitat Alteration or Degradation 13-203
    13.4.2.2 Alteration in the Movement of SAR 13-212
    13.4.2.3 Injury or Death of SAR 13-214
    13.4.3 Caribou 13-226
    13.4.3.1 Caribou Habitat Loss 13-226
    13.4.3.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 13-228
    13.4.3.3 Alteration in Caribou Movement 13-230
    13.4.3.4 Injury or Death 13-231
    13.4.4 Wolverine 13-237
    13.4.4.1 Habitat Loss 13-237
    13.4.4.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 13-239
    13.4.4.3 Alteration in Movement 13-240
    13.4.4.4 Injury or Death 13-242
    13.4.5 SAR Bats 13-249
    13.4.5.1 Habitat Loss 13-249
    13.4.5.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 13-251
    13.4.5.3 Alteration in Movement 13-255
    13.4.5.4 Injury or Death 13-255
    13.4.6 SAR Birds 13-260
    13.4.6.1 Habitat Loss 13-260
    13.4.6.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 13-264
    13.4.6.3 Alteration in Movement 13-266
    13.4.6.4 Injury or Death 13-267
    13.4.7 Lake Sturgeon (Hudson Bay – James Bay population) 13-280
    13.4.7.1 Changes to Quantity and Quality of Fish Habitat 13-280
    13.4.7.2 Destruction/Loss of Fish Habitat 13-280
    13.4.7.3 Harmful Alteration and Disruption of Fish Habitat 13-282
    13.4.7.4 Change in Fish Access to Habitats 13-287
    13.4.8 Changes to Fish Populations 13-288
    13.4.8.1 Injury or Death of Fish 13-288
    13.4.8.2 Changes to Public Access to Fish Habitats 13-290
    13.5 Characterization of Net Effects 13-312
    13.5.1 Potential Effect Pathways Not Carried Through for Further Assessment 13-312
    13.5.1.1 All Species 13-312
    13.5.1.2 Caribou 13-312
    13.5.1.3 Olive-sided Flycatcher 13-313
    13.5.1.4 Rusty Blackbird 13-313
    13.5.1.5 Lesser Yellowlegs 13-313
    13.5.1.6 Common Nighthawk 13-313
    13.5.1.7 Bald Eagle 13-314
    13.5.1.8 Short-eared Owl 13-314
    13.5.1.9 Lake Sturgeon 13-315
    13.5.2 Predicted Net Effects 13-315
    13.5.2.1 Caribou (Boreal Population and Eastern Migratory Population) 13-317
    13.5.2.2 Wolverine 13-336
    13.5.2.3 Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis 13-356
    13.5.2.4 Evening Grosbeak 13-377
    13.5.2.5 Olive Sided Flycatcher 13-393
    13.5.2.6 Rusty Blackbird 13-412
    13.5.2.7 Lesser Yellowlegs 13-428
    13.5.2.8 Common Nighthawk 13-446
    13.5.2.9 Bald Eagle 13-459
    13.5.2.10 Short-eared Owl 13-475
    13.5.2.11 Lake Sturgeon (Hudson Bay – James Bay population) 13-489
    13.6 Determination of Significance 13-500
    13.6.1 Caribou (Boreal Population) 13-501
    13.6.1.1 Habitat Loss 13-501
    13.6.1.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 13-502
    13.6.1.3 Alteration in Movement 13-502
    13.6.1.4 Injury or Death 13-502
    13.6.2 Wolverine 13-507
    13.6.2.1 Habitat Loss 13-507
    13.6.2.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 13-507
    13.6.2.3 Alteration in Movement 13-507
    13.6.2.4 Injury or Death 13-507
    13.6.3 Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis 13-512
    13.6.3.1 Habitat Loss 13-512
    13.6.3.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 13-512
    13.6.3.3 Alteration in Movement 13-513
    13.6.3.4 Injury or Death 13-513
    13.6.4 Evening Grosbeak 13-516
    13.6.4.1 Habitat Loss 13-516
    13.6.4.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 13-516
    13.6.4.3 Alteration in Movement 13-516
    13.6.4.4 Injury or Death 13-517
    13.6.5 Olive-sided Flycatcher 13-520
    13.6.5.1 Habitat Loss 13-520
    13.6.5.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 13-520
    13.6.5.3 Alteration in Movement 13-521
    13.6.5.4 Injury or Death 13-521
    13.6.6 Rusty Blackbird 13-524
    13.6.6.1 Habitat Loss 13-524
    13.6.6.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 13-524
    13.6.6.3 Alteration in Movement 13-525
    13.6.6.4 Injury or Death 13-525
    13.6.7 Lesser Yellowlegs 13-528
    13.6.7.1 Habitat Loss 13-528
    13.6.7.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 13-528
    13.6.7.3 Alteration in Movement 13-529
    13.6.7.4 Injury or Death 13-529
    13.6.8 Common Nighthawk 13-532
    13.6.8.1 Habitat Loss 13-532
    13.6.8.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 13-532
    13.6.8.3 Alteration in Movement 13-532
    13.6.8.4 Injury or Death 13-533
    13.6.9 Bald Eagle 13-536
    13.6.9.1 Habitat Loss 13-536
    13.6.9.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 13-536
    13.6.9.3 Alteration in Movement 13-537
    13.6.9.4 Injury or Death 13-537
    13.6.10 Short-eared Owl 13-541
    13.6.10.1 Habitat Loss 13-541
    13.6.10.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation 13-541
    13.6.10.3 Alterations in Movement 13-542
    13.6.10.4 Injury or Death 13-542
    13.6.11 Lake Sturgeon (Hudson Bay – James Bay population) 13-545
    13.6.11.1 Destruction of Lake Sturgeon Habitat 13-545
    13.6.11.2 Harmful Alteration and Disruption of Lake Sturgeon Habitat 13-545
    13.6.11.3 Barriers to Lake Sturgeon Passage 13-546
    13.6.11.4 Injury or Death of Lake Sturgeon 13-546
    13.6.11.5 Changes in Public Access 13-546
    13.7 Cumulative Effects 13-549
    13.8 Prediction Confidence in the Assessment 13-551
    13.8.1 Caribou 13-551
    13.8.2 Wolverine 13-551
    13.8.3 Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis 13-551
    13.8.4 Evening Grosbeak 13-552
    13.8.5 Olive-sided Flycatcher 13-552
    13.8.6 Rusty Blackbird 13-552
    13.8.7 Lesser Yellowlegs 13-553
    13.8.8 Common Nighthawk 13-553
    13.8.9 Bald Eagle 13-553
    13.8.10 Short-eared Owl 13-554
    13.8.11 Lake Sturgeon (Hudson Bay – James Bay population) 13-554
    13.9 Predicted Future Condition of the Environment if the Project Does Not Proceed 13-555
    13.10 Follow-Up and Monitoring 13-558
    13.10.1 Pre-Construction Monitoring 13-558
    13.10.2 Construction Monitoring 13-558
    13.10.3 Operations Monitoring 13-560
    13.12 References 13-562

In Text Figures
Figure 13.1: Species at Risk VC Study Areas 13-47
Figure 13.2: Probability of use by Caribou for the winter season in the ranges overlaying the WSR
study areas 13-78
Figure 13.3: Probability of use by Caribou for the fall season in the ranges overlaying the WSR
study areas 13-79
Figure 13.4: Probability of use by Caribou for the spring season in the ranges overlaying the WSR
study areas 13-80
Figure 13.5: Probability of use by Caribou for the summer season in the ranges overlaying the WSR
study areas 13-81
Figure 13.6: Shows the predicted use of the RSA under current conditions for wolverine. 13-109
Figure 13.7: Shows the predicted use of the RSA by wolverine under future conditions 13-110
Figure 13.8: Predicted SAR Bat Utilization of RSA Under Current Conditions 13-117
Figure 13.9: Predicted Bat Utilization of RSA Under Future Conditions 13-118
Figure 13.10: BRT Density Modeling for Olive-sided Flycatcher 13-133

In Text Figures (Cont’d)
Figure 13.11: BRT Density Modeling for Common Nighthawk 13-152
Figure 13.12: Estimated density of Common Nighthawk within the RSA under current conditions 13-154
Figure 13.13: Estimated density of Olive-sided Flycatcher within the RSA under current conditions 13-394
In-Text Tables
Table 13-1: Key Regulation, Legislation, Policy Relevant to Species at Risk Assessment for the Project 13-19
Table 13-2: Caribou Habitat Categories within the Caribou Local Study Area and Regional Study Area 13-25
Table 13-3: List the SAR Species their Current Status and Summarizes the Rationale for their Selection 13-35
Table 13-4: Species at Risk – Summary of Inputs Received During Engagement and Consultation 13-36
Table 13-5: Species at Risk VC – Summary of Indigenous Knowledge and Land and Resource Use
Information 13-41
Table 13-6: Species at Risk VC – Subcomponents, Indicators, and Rationale 13-43
Table 13-7: Local and Regional Study Areas for SAR 13-45
Table 13-8: Project Interactions with Terrestrial Species at Risk VC and Potential Effects 13-49
Table 13-9: Project Interactions with Fish and Fish Habitat VC and Potential Effects 13-52
Table 13-10: Terrestrial Vertebrate SAR Potentially Present in the Vicinity of the Project 13-73
Table 13-11: Bat Species Group Probability of Habitat Use Percent Change by Study Area 13-89
Table 13-12: Olive-sided Flycatcher Habitat availability in the LSA and RSA 13-89
Table 13-13: Common Nighthawk Habitat availability in the LSA and RSA 13-90
Table 13-14: Details of Categorized Caribou Habitat Loss in the LSA and RSA 13-96
Table 13-15: Details of Categorized Caribou Habitat Alteration or Degradation 13-97
Table 13-16: Seasonal Use of Habitats within 500 m Buffered Area of Disturbance 13-97
Table 13-17: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Caribou (Boreal population) 13-105
Table 13-18: Wolverine High-Use Habitat by Study Area 13-106
Table 13-19: Wolverine Probability of Habitat Use Percent Change by Study Area 13-108
Table 13-20: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Wolverine 13-115
Table 13-21: Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis High-Use Habitat by Study Area 13-116
Table 13-22: Bat Species Group Probability of Habitat Use Percent Change by Study Area 13-120
Table 13-23: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Little Brown Myotis and
Northern Myotis 13-124
Table 13-24: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Evening Grosbeak 13-131
Table 13-25: Olive-sided Flycatcher High-Density Habitat by Study Area 13-132
Table 13-26: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Olive-sided Flycatcher 13-141
Table 13-27: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Rusty Blackbird 13-142
Table 13-28: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Lesser Yellowlegs 13-150
Table 13-29: Common Nighthawk High-Density Habitat by Study Area 13-151
Table 13-30: Summary of Threat Assessment For Potential Effects on Common Nighthawk 13-161
Table 13-31: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Bald Eagle 13-168
Table 13-32: Summary of Threat Assessment For Potential Effects on Short-eared Owl 13-176
Table 13-33: Structure Types and Spans that may affect Lake Sturgeon 13-178
Table 13-34: Summary of Threat Assessment For Potential Effects on Lake Sturgeon 13-185
Table 13-35: Potential Effects, Pathways and Indicators for Species at Risk VC 13-187
Table 13-36: Summary of Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Predicted Net Effects for
Species at Risk VC 13-217

Table 13-37: Summary of Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures, and Predicted Net Effects for
Species At Risk Sub VC – Caribou 13-233
Table 13-38: Summary of Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Predicted Net Effects for
Species at Risk VC – Wolverine 13-245
Table 13-39: Summary of Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Predicted Net Effects for
Species at Risk VC – SAR Bats 13-257
Table 13-40: Summary of Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures for Species at Risk VC – SAR Birds 13-272
Table 13-41: Summary of Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Predicted Net Effects for
Species at Risk VC – Lake Sturgeon 13-292
Table 13-42: Net Effects Assessment Criteria Definitions 13-315
Table 13-43: Criteria Results for Loss of Caribou Habitat – Construction 13-317
Table 13-44: Criteria Results for Loss of Caribou Habitat – Operations 13-318
Table 13-45: Criteria Results for Caribou Habitat Alteration or Degradation from Habitat Structural
Change – Construction 13-319
Table 13-46: Criteria Results for Caribou Habitat Alteration or Degradation from Habitat Structural
Change – Operations 13-320
Table 13-47: Criteria Results for Caribou Habitat Alteration or Degradation Due from Hydrological
Changes – Construction 13-320
Table 13-48: Criteria Results for Caribou Habitat Alteration or Degradation from Hydrological Changes – Operations 13-321
Table 13-49: Criteria Results for Caribou Habitat Alteration or Degradation from Sensory Disturbance – Construction 13-322
Table 13-50: Criteria Results for Caribou Habitat Alteration or Degradation from Sensory Disturbance – Operations 13-323
Table 13-51: Criteria Results for Alteration in Caribou Movement from Sensory Disturbance –
Construction 13-324
Table 13-52: Criteria Results for Alteration in Caribou Movement from Sensory Disturbance – Operations 13-325
Table 13-53: Criteria Results for Alteration in Caribou Movement Due to Loss of Connectivity –
Construction 13-326
Table 13-54: Criteria Results for Alteration in Caribou Movement Due to Loss of Connectivity – Operations 13-327
Table 13-55: Criteria Results for Caribou Injury or Death Due to Collisions with Vehicles – Construction 13-327
Table 13-56: Criteria Results for Caribou Injury or Death Due to Collisions with Vehicles – Operations 13-328
Table 13-57: Criteria Results for Caribou Injury or Death Due to Increased Access – Construction 13-329
Table 13-58: Criteria Results for Caribou Injury or Death Due to Increased Access – Operations 13-330
Table 13-59: Criteria Results for Caribou Injury or Death from Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics –
Construction 13-331
Table 13-60: Criteria Results for Caribou Injury or Death Due to Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics – Operations 13-331
Table 13-61: Criteria Results for Caribou or Death Due to Increased Energy Expenditures – Construction 13-332
Table 13-62: Criteria Results for Caribou Injury or Death Due to Increased Energy Expenditures – Operations 13-333
Table 13-63: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Caribou During the Construction Phase 13-334

Table 13-64: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Caribou During the Operations Phase 13-335
Table 13-65: Criteria Results for Loss of Wolverine Habitat – Construction 13-336
Table 13-66: Criteria Results for Loss of Wolverine Habitat – Operations 13-337
Table 13-67: Criteria Results for Wolverine Habitat Alteration or Degradation from Habitat Structural
Change – Construction 13-338
Table 13-68: Criteria Results for Wolverine Habitat Alteration or Degradation from Habitat Structural
Change – Operations 13-338
Table 13-69: Criteria Results for Wolverine Habitat Alteration or Degradation Due from Hydrological
Changes – Construction 13-339
Table 13-70: Criteria Results for Wolverine Habitat Alteration or Degradation from Hydrological
Changes – Operations 13-340
Table 13-71: Criteria Results for Wolverine Habitat Alteration or Degradation from Sensory Disturbance – Construction 13-341
Table 13-72: Criteria Results for Wolverine Habitat Alteration or Degradation from Sensory Disturbance – Operations 13-342
Table 13-73: Criteria Results for Alteration in Wolverine Movement Due to Loss of Connectivity –
Construction 13-343
Table 13-74: Criteria Results for Alteration in Wolverine Movement Due to Loss of Connectivity – Operations 13-344
Table 13-75: Criteria Results for Alteration in Wolverine Movement from Sensory Disturbance –
Construction 13-345
Table 13-76: Criteria Results for Alteration in Wolverine Movement from Sensory Disturbance – Operations 13-346
Table 13-77: Criteria Results for Wolverine Injury or Death Due to Collisions with Vehicles – Construction 13-347
Table 13-78: Criteria Results for Wolverine Injury or Death Due to Collisions with Vehicles – Operations 13-347
Table 13-79: Criteria Results for Wolverine Injury or Death from Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics – Construction 13-348
Table 13-80: Criteria Results for Wolverine Injury or Death Due to Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics – Operations 13-349
Table 13-81: Criteria Results for Wolverine or Death Due to Increased Energy Expenditure –
Construction 13-350
Table 13-82: Criteria Results for Wolverine Injury or Death Due to Increased Energy Expenditure – Operations 13-351
Table 13-83: Criteria Results for Wolverine Injury or Death Due to Increased Access – Construction 13-352
Table 13-84: Criteria Results for Wolverine Injury or Death Due to Increased Access – Operations 13-353
Table 13-85: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Wolverine During the Construction Phase 13-354
Table 13-86: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Wolverine During the Operations Phase 13-355
Table 13-87: Criteria Results for Loss of Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis Habitat – Construction 13-356
Table 13-88: Criteria Results for Loss of Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis Habitat – Operations 13-357
Table 13-89: Criteria Results for Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis Habitat Alteration or
Degradation from Habitat Structural Change – Construction 13-358
Table 13-90: Criteria Results for Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis Habitat Alteration or
Degradation from Habitat Structural Change – Operations 13-358

Table 13-91: Criteria Results for Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis Habitat Alteration or
Degradation from Sensory Disturbance – Construction 13-359
Table 13-92: Criteria Results for Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis Habitat Alteration or
Degradation from Sensory Disturbance – Operations 13-360
Table 13-93: Criteria Results for Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis Habitat Alteration or
Degradation Due from Hydrological Changes – Construction 13-361
Table 13-94: Criteria Results for Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis Habitat Alteration or
Degradation from Hydrological Changes – Operations 13-362
Table 13-95: Criteria Results for Alteration in Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis Movement Due
to Loss of Connectivity – Construction 13-363
Table 13-96: Criteria Results for Alteration in Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis Movement Due
to Loss of Connectivity – Operations 13-364
Table 13-97: Criteria Results for Alteration in Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis Movement from
Sensory Disturbance – Construction 13-365
Table 13-98: Criteria Results for Alteration in Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis Movement from
Sensory Disturbance – Operations 13-366
Table 13-99: Criteria Results for Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis Injury or Death Due to
Collisions with Vehicles – Construction 13-367
Table 13-100: Criteria Results for Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis Injury or Death Due to
Collisions with Vehicles – Operations 13-368
Table 13-101: Criteria Results for Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis Injury or Death from Incidental
Take – Construction 13-369
Table 13-102: Criteria Results for Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis Injury or Death from Incidental
Take – Operations 13-370
Table 13-103: Criteria Results for Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis Injury or Death from Changes
to Predator-Prey Dynamics – Construction 13-371
Table 13-104: Criteria Results for Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis Injury or Death Due to Changes
to Predator-Prey Dynamics- Operations 13-372
Table 13-105: Criteria Results for Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis Injury or Death Due to
Increased Energy Expenditure – Construction 13-373
Table 13-106: Criteria Results for Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis Injury or Death Due to
Increased Energy Expenditure – Operations 13-374
Table 13-107: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis
During the Construction Phase 13-375
Table 13-108: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis
During the Operations Phase 13-376
Table 13-109: Criteria Results for Destruction of Evening Grosbeak Habitat Due to Clearance Activities – Construction 13-377
Table 13-110: Criteria Results for Destruction of Evening Grosbeak Habitat Due to Clearance Activities – Operations 13-378
Table 13-111: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Evening Grosbeak Habitat Due to
Sensory Disturbance – Construction 13-379

Table 13-112: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Evening Grosbeak Habitat Due to
Sensory Disturbance – Operations 13-380
Table 13-113: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Evening Grosbeak Habitat Due to
Changes in Vegetation Structure – Construction 13-381
Table 13-114: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Evening Grosbeak Habitat Due to
Changes in Vegetation Structure – Operations 13-381
Table 13-115: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Evening Grosbeak Due to Loss of
Connectivity – Construction 13-382
Table 13-116: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Evening Grosbeak Due to Loss of
Connectivity – Operations 13-383
Table 13-117: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Evening Grosbeak Due to Sensory
Disturbance – Construction 13-384
Table 13-118: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Evening Grosbeak Due to Sensory
Disturbance – Operations 13-385
Table 13-119: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Evening Grosbeak Due to Collisions – Construction 13-386
Table 13-120: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Evening Grosbeak Due to Collisions – Operations 13-387
Table 13-121: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Evening Grosbeak Due to Incidental Take –
Construction 13-388
Table 13-122: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Evening Grosbeak Due to Incidental Take – Operations 13-388
Table 13-123: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Evening Grosbeak Due to Changes to Predator-Prey
Dynamics – Construction 13-389
Table 13-124: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Evening Grosbeak Due to Changes to Predator-Prey
Dynamics – Operations 13-390
Table 13-125: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Evening Grosbeak During the
Construction Phase 13-391
Table 13-126: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Evening Grosbeak During the Operations Phase13-392 Table 13-127: Olive-sided Flycatcher High-Density Habitat by Study Area 13-393
Table 13-128: Criteria Results for Destruction of Olive-Sided Flycatcher Habitat from Clearance Activities – Construction 13-395
Table 13-129: Criteria Results for Destruction of Olive-Sided Flycatcher from Clearance Activities – Operations 13-396
Table 13-130: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Olive-sided Flycatcher Habitat Due
to Hydrological Changes – Construction 13-397
Table 13-131: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Olive-sided Flycatcher Habitat Due
to Hydrological Changes – Operations 13-397
Table 13-132: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Olive-sided Flycatcher Habitat Due
to Sensory Disturbance – Construction 13-398
Table 13-133: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Olive-sided Flycatcher Habitat Due
to Sensory Disturbance – Operations 13-399
Table 13-134: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Olive-sided Flycatcher Due to Loss of
Connectivity – Construction 13-400

Table 13-135: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Olive-sided Flycatcher Due to Loss of
Connectivity – Operations 13-401
Table 13-136: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Olive-sided Flycatcher Due to Sensory
Disturbance – Construction 13-402
Table 13-137: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Olive-sided Flycatcher Due to Sensory
Disturbance – Operations 13-403
Table 13-138: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Olive-sided Flycatcher Due to Collisions with
Vehicles – Construction 13-404
Table 13-139: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Olive-sided Flycatcher Due to Collisions with
Vehicles – Operations 13-405
Table 13-140: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Olive-sided Flycatcher Due to Incidental Take –
Construction 13-406
Table 13-141: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Olive-sided Flycatcher Due to Incidental Take – Operations 13-406
Table 13-142: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Olive-sided Flycatcher Due to Changes to
Predator-Prey Dynamics – Construction 13-407
Table 13-143: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Olive-sided Flycatcher Due to Changes to
Predator-Prey Dynamics – Operations 13-408
Table 13-144: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Olive-Sided Flycatcher During the
Construction Phase 13-410
Table 13-145: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Olive-sided Flycatcher During the
Operations Phase 13-411
Table 13-146: Criteria Results for Destruction of Rusty Blackbird Habitat from Clearance Activities –
Construction 13-412
Table 13-147: Criteria Results for Destruction of Rusty Blackbird from Clearance Activities – Operations 13-413
Table 13-148: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Rusty Blackbird Habitat Due to
Hydrological Changes – Construction 13-414
Table 13-149: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Rusty Blackbird Habitat Due to
Hydrological Changes – Operations 13-414
Table 13-150: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Rusty Blackbird Habitat Due to
Sensory Disturbance – Construction 13-415
Table 13-151: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Rusty Blackbird Habitat Due to
Sensory Disturbance – Operations 13-416
Table 13-152: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Rusty Blackbird Due to Loss of Connectivity – Construction 13-417
Table 13-153: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Rusty Blackbird Due to Loss of Connectivity – Operations 13-418
Table 13-154: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Rusty Blackbird Due to Sensory Disturbance – Construction 13-419
Table 13-155: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Rusty Blackbird Due to Sensory Disturbance – Operations 13-420
Table 13-156: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Rusty Blackbird Due to Collisions with Vehicles –
Construction 13-421

Table 13-157: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Rusty Blackbird Due to Collisions with Vehicles – Operations 13-421
Table 13-158: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Rusty Blackbird Due to Incidental Take – Construction 13-422
Table 13-159: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Rusty Blackbird Due to Incidental Take – Operations 13-423
Table 13-160: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Rusty Blackbird Due to Changes to Predator-Prey
Dynamics – Construction 13-424
Table 13-161: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Rusty Blackbird Due to Changes to Predator-Prey
Dynamics – Operations 13-425
Table 13-162: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Rusty Blackbird During the Construction
Phase 13-426
Table 13-163: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Rusty Blackbird During the Operations
Phase 13-427
Table 13-164: Criteria Results for Destruction of Lesser Yellowlegs Habitat Due to Clearance Activities – Construction 13-428
Table 13-165: Criteria Results for Destruction of Lesser Yellowlegs Habitat Due to Clearance Activities – Operations 13-429
Table 13-166: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Lesser Yellowlegs Habitat Due To
Changes in Vegetation Structure – Construction 13-430
Table 13-167: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Lesser Yellowlegs Habitat Due To
Changes in Vegetation Structure – Operations 13-430
Table 13-168: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Lesser Yellowlegs Habitat Due to Hydrological Changes – Construction 13-431
Table 13-169: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Lesser Yellowlegs Habitat Due to Hydrological Changes – Operations 13-432
Table 13-170: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Lesser Yellowlegs Habitat Due to
Sensory Disturbance – Construction 13-433
Table 13-171: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Lesser Yellowlegs Habitat Due to
Sensory Disturbance – Operations 13-434
Table 13-172: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Lesser Yellowlegs Due to Sensory Disturbance
– Construction 13-435
Table 13-173: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Lesser Yellowlegs Due to Sensory Disturbance
– Operations 13-436
Table 13-174: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Lesser Yellowlegs Due to Changes in
Connectivity – Construction 13-437
Table 13-175: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Lesser Yellowlegs Due to Changes in
Connectivity – Operations 13-438
Table 13-176: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Lesser Yellowlegs Due to Collisions – Construction 13-439
Table 13-177: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Lesser Yellowlegs Due to Collisions – Operations 13-439
Table 13-178: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Lesser Yellowlegs Due to Incidental Take –
Construction 13-440
Table 13-179: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Lesser Yellowlegs Due to Incidental Take – Operations 13-441
Table 13-180: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Lesser Yellowlegs Due to Predation – Construction 13-442

Table 13-181: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Lesser Yellowlegs Due to Predation – Operations 13-442
Table 13-182: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Lesser Yellowlegs During the Construction
Phase 13-444
Table 13-183: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Lesser Yellowlegs During the Operations
Phase 13-445
Table 13-184: Criteria Results for Destruction of Common Nighthawk Habitat Due to Clearance Activities – Construction 13-446
Table 13-185: Criteria Results for Destruction of Common Nighthawk Habitat Due to Clearance Activities – Operations 13-447
Table 13-186: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Common Nighthawk Habitat Due to Hydrological Changes – Construction 13-448
Table 13-187: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Common Nighthawk Habitat Due to Hydrological Changes – Construction 13-449
Table 13-188: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Common Nighthawk Habitat Due to
Sensory Disturbance – Construction 13-450
Table 13-189: Criteria Results for Alteration of Common Nighthawk Movement Due to Sensory Disturbance
– Construction 13-451
Table 13-190: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Common Nighthawk Due to Collisions – Construction 13-452
Table 13-191: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Common Nighthawk Due to Collisions – Operations 13-452
Table 13-192: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Common Nighthawk Due to Incidental Take –
Construction 13-453
Table 13-193: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Common Nighthawk Due to Incidental Take – Operations 13-454
Table 13-194: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Common Nighthawk Due to Predation – Construction 13-455
Table 13-195: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Common Nighthawk Due to Predation – Operations 13-456
Table 13-196: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Common Nighthawk During the Construction
Phase 13-457
Table 13-197: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Common Nighthawk During the Operations
Phase 13-458
Table 13-198: Criteria Results for Destruction of Bald Eagle Habitat Due to Clearance Activities –
Construction 13-459
Table 13-199: Criteria Results for Destruction of Bald Eagle Habitat Due to Clearance Activities – Operations 13-460
Table 13-200: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Bald Eagle Habitat Due to
Hydrological Changes – Construction 13-461
Table 13-201: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Bald Eagle Habitat Due to
Hydrological Changes – Construction 13-462
Table 13-202: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Bald Eagle Habitat Due to
Sensory Disturbance – Construction 13-463
Table 13-203: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Bald Eagle Habitat Due to
Sensory Disturbance – Operations 13-464
Table 13-204: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Bald Eagle Habitat Due to
Changes in Vegetation Structure – Construction 13-465

Table 13-205: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Bald Eagle Habitat Due To
Changes in Vegetation Structure – Operations 13-465
Table 13-206: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Bald Eagle Due to Sensory Disturbance –
Construction 13-466
Table 13-207: Criteria Results for Alteration in Movement of Bald Eagle Due to Sensory Disturbance – Operations 13-467
Table 13-208: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Bald Eagle Movement Due to Collisions –
Construction 13-468
Table 13-209: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Bald Eagle Due to Collisions – Operations 13-469
Table 13-210: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Bald Eagle Due to Incidental Take – Construction 13-470
Table 13-211: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Bald Eagle Due to Incidental Take – Operations 13-470
Table 13-212: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Bald Eagle Due to Predation – Construction 13-471
Table 13-213: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Bald Eagle Due to Predation – Operations 13-472
Table 13-214: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Bald Eagle During the Construction Phase 13-473
Table 13-215: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Bald Eagle During the Operations Phase 13-474
Table 13-216: Criteria Results for Destruction of Short-eared Owl Habitat Due to Clearance Activities – Construction 13-475
Table 13-217: Criteria Results for Destruction of Short-eared Owl Habitat Due to Clearance Activities – Operations 13-476
Table 13-218: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Short-eared Owl Habitat Due to
Hydrological Changes – Construction 13-477
Table 13-219: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Short-eared Owl Habitat Due to
Hydrological Changes – Operations 13-478
Table 13-220: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Short-eared Owl Habitat Due to
Sensory Disturbance – Construction 13-479
Table 13-221: Criteria Results for Habitat Alteration or Degradation of Short-eared Owl Habitat Due to
Sensory Disturbance – Operations 13-480
Table 13-222: Criteria Results for Alteration of Short-eared Owl Movement Due to Sensory Disturbance – Construction 13-481
Table 13-223: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Short-eared Owl Due to Collisions – Construction 13-482
Table 13-224: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Short-eared Owl Due to Collisions – Operations 13-482
Table 13-225: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Short-eared Owl Due to Incidental Take – Construction 13-483
Table 13-226: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Short-eared Owl Due to Incidental Take – Operations 13-484
Table 13-227: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Short-eared Owl Due to Predation – Construction 13-485
Table 13-228: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Short-eared Owl Due to Predation – Operations 13-485
Table 13-229: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Short-eared Owl During the Construction
Phase 13-487
Table 13-230: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Short-eared Owl During the Operations
Phase 13-488
Table 13-231: Structure Types and Spans that may affect Lake Sturgeon 13-489
Table 13-232: Criteria Results for Destruction of Fish Habitat – Construction 13-490
Table 13-233: Criteria Results for Harmful Alteration and Disruption – Construction 13-491
Table 13-234: Criteria Results for Harmful Alteration and Disruption – Operations 13-492
Table 13-235: Criteria Results for Barriers to Fish Passage – Construction 13-493

Table 13-236: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Fish – Construction 13-494
Table 13-237: Criteria Results for Injury or Death of Fish – Operations 13-495
Table 13-238: Criteria Results for Increased Harvest – Operations 13-496
Table 13-239: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Lake Sturgeon During the Construction
Phase 13-498
Table 13-240: Summary Table of the Predicted Net Effects for Lake Sturgeon During the Operations
Phase 13-499
Table 13-241: Scores Assigned for Key Criteria (Categories) of the Predicted Net Effects 13-500
Table 13-242: Key Criteria and Scores for Determining the Significance of the Predicted Net Adverse
Effects on Caribou 13-504
Table 13-243: Key Criteria and Scores for Determining the Significance of the Predicted Net Adverse
Effects on Wolverine 13-509
Table 13-244: Key Criteria and Scores for Determining the Significance of the Predicted Net Adverse
Effects on Myotis Bats 13-514
Table 13-245: Key Criteria and Scores for Determining the Significance of the Predicted Net Adverse
Effects on Evening Grosbeak 13-518
Table 13-246: Key Criteria and Scores for Determining the Significance of the Predicted Net Adverse
Effects on Olive-sided Flycatcher 13-522
Table 13-247: Key Criteria and Scores for Determining the Significance of the Predicted Net Adverse
Effects on Rusty Blackbird 13-526
Table 13-248: Key Criteria and Scores for Determining the Significance of the Predicted Net Adverse
Effects on Lesser Yellowlegs 13-530
Table 13-249: Key Criteria and Scores for Determining the Significance of the Predicted Net Adverse
Effects on Common Nighthawk 13-534
Table 13-250: Key Criteria and Scores for Determining the Significance of the Predicted Net Adverse
Effects on Bald Eagle 13-538
Table 13-251: Key Criteria and Scores for Determining the Significance of the Predicted Net Adverse
Effects on Short-eared Owl 13-543
Table 13-252: Key Criteria and Scores for Determining the Significance of the Predicted Net Adverse
Effects on Lake Sturgeon 13-547

13. Assessment of Effects on Species at Risk
    The Species at Risk (SAR) valued component (VC) was identified during the VC scoping and selection process as part of the EA/IA process. This section describes and assesses the potential effects that the Project may have on the Species at Risk VC.
    Existing conditions for SAR have been established through the field work programs, desktop studies and engagement and consultation activities completed by the Project Team. This includes, but not limited to, background information review, internet research, field surveys, engagement with Indigenous communities and stakeholders, and expert opinion. The existing conditions are being used as baseline conditions to assess and determine the potential effects of the Project. The results of the baseline studies are provided in Appendix F –Natural Environment Existing Conditions (NEEC) Report.
    The assessment of potential effects on the Species at Risk 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.

13.1 Scope of the Assessment
13.1.1 Regulatory and Policy Setting
The Species at Risk VC is assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Impact Assessment Act (IA Act), the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act, 1990), the Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines (TISG) for the Project, dated February 24, 2020 (IA Act, 2020), the provincial approved Environmental Assessment (EA) Terms of Reference, dated October 8, 2021 (ToR), and EA/IA guidance documents. Concordance tables for the TISG and the ToR are provided in Appendix A-1 and Appendix A-2, respectively. The concordance tables indicate where the requirements and commitments of the TISF and the ToR are addressed in the EAR/IS.
Table 13-1 outlines the key regulations, legislation and policies relevant to the assessment of the Species at Risk VC for construction and operations of the Project.

Table 13-1: Key Regulation, Legislation, Policy Relevant to Species at Risk Assessment for the Project
Regulatory Agency Regulation, Legislation, or Policy Project Relevance

a Species at Risk in Ontario (Government of Ontario, 2024)

b Species at Risk Act (Government of Canada, 2002)

c Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC, 2024)

13.1.3 Consideration of Input from Engagement and Consultation Activities
Table 13-4 summarizes the input related to SAR and SAR Habitat received during the engagement and consultation for the EA/IA and how inputs are addressed in the EAR/IS. This input includes key concerns raised by Indigenous communities and groups, the public, government agencies, and stakeholders prior to the formal commencement of the federal IA and provincial EA, during the Planning Phase of the IA and ToR phase of the EA.
Table 13-4: Species at Risk – Summary of Inputs Received During Engagement and Consultation

13.1.4. 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
 Weenusk First Nation
Table 13-5 summarizes key information and concerns relating to Species at Risk VC and indicates where inputs from consultation and engagement are incorporated in the EAR/IS.
Table 13-5: Species at Risk VC – Summary of Indigenous Knowledge and Land and Resource Use Information

13.1.5 Valued Component and Indicators
VCs, including SAR Habitat and Wildlife, were identified in the TISG and by the Project Team and are, in part, based on what Indigenous communities and groups, the public, government agencies, and stakeholders have identified as valuable to them in the EA/IA process to date. Subcomponents are used in this VC assessment to provide structure and facilitate the assessment. Subcomponents are assessed using the same methodology outlined in Section 5 (Environmental Assessment / Impact Assessment Approach and Methods) of this EAR/IS. The identified subcomponents of the Species at Risk VC are:
 Terrestrial SAR Populations;

 Terrestrial SAR Habitat;
 SAR Fish habitat quantity and quality:
 Harmful Alteration and Disruption, and/or Destruction of Instream Fish Habitat;
 Harmful Alteration and Disruption, and/or Destruction of Riparian Habitat; and
 Changes in Fish Access to Habitat.
 SAR Fish populations:
 Injury or Death of Fish; and
 Changes to Public Access to Fish Habitats.
The Project has the potential to result in changes in SAR habitat, injury and mortality risk, reproduction, and movement. Therefore, both terrestrial and aquatic SAR and SAR habitat are considered in this assessment.

As discussed in section 13.1.2, the following species and species groups were considered in the SAR Habitat and Wildlife assessment:

Terrestrial Species at Risk

 Caribou (Boreal Population);
 Wolverine;
 Bats:
 Northern Myotis;
 Little Brown Myotis.
 Upland Forest Songbirds:
 Evening Grossbeak;
 Wetland Songbirds:
 Olive-sided Flycatcher;
 Rusty Blackbird;
 Shorebirds:
 Lesser Yellow Legs;
 Nightjars:
 Common Nighthawk;
 Raptors:
 Short-eared Owl; and
 Bald Eagle.

Aquatic Species at Risk

 Lake Sturgeon (Hudson Bay – James Bay population)

The Project has the potential to result in changes in SAR wildlife habitat, mortality risk, reproduction, and movement. “Indicators” are used to assess potential effects to a VC. In general, indicators represent a resource, feature or issue related to a VC that if changed from the existing conditions may demonstrate a positive or negative effect. Table 13-6 shows the subcomponents and indicators identified for the Species at Risk VC.

 Indigenous community members are concerned that the indicators provided for Federal or Provincial Species at Risk, Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat and Migratory Birds in the draft ToR do not seem to capture disturbance, avoidance, changes to movement corridors, and species distribution. Indicators for

the assessment of potential effects on SAR have been refined and are outlined in Table 13-5.

Table 13-6: Species at Risk VC – Subcomponents, Indicators, and Rationale

13.1.6 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries
The following assessment boundaries have been defined for the Species at Risk VC.

13.1.6.1 Spatial Boundaries
The spatial boundaries for the Species at Risk VC are shown on Figure 13.1 and include the following study areas:
 Project Footprint – the area of direct disturbance (i.e., the physical area required for project construction and operations). The Project Footprint is defined as the 35-metre wide Webequie Supply Road Right-of-Way (ROW); and temporary or permanent areas needed to support the Project that include laydown yards, storage yards, construction camps, access roads and aggregate extraction sites.
 Local Study Area (LSA) – the area where potential largely direct and indirect effects of the Project are likely to occur and can be predicted or measured for assessment. The LSA, which is specific to each Species at Risk/Guild, extends from the Project Footprint and is selected in consideration of the geographic extent of potential effects on the given Species at Risk/Guild. (refer to Table 13-7).
 Regional Study Area (RSA) – the area where potential largely indirect and cumulative effects of the Project in the broader, regional context may occur. The RSA includes the LSA and further extends on either side of the LSA to include the geographical extent to which potential effects from the Project may be expected on the given Species at Risk/Guild (refer to Table 13-7).

 Indigenous community members noted that the assessment area must be large enough to assess the accumulated environmental conditions and to capture stressors from actions other than the proposed Project. For example, this will require an assessment of impacts on caribou based on the entire herd ranges. As noted in Table 13-7, the Regional Study Area for the assessment of potential effects of the Project on

Caribou is defined as the Missisa and Ozhiski Caribou Ranges.

Table 13-7: Local and Regional Study Areas for SAR

13.1.6.2 Temporal Boundaries
Temporal boundaries for the assessment address the potential effects of the Project over relevant timescales. The temporal boundaries for the Project consist of two main phases:
 Construction Phase: All the activities associated with the initial development of the road and supportive infrastructure from the start of construction to the start of operation and maintenance of the Project, which is estimated to be approximately five to six years in duration; and
 Operations Phase: All activities associated with operation and maintenance of the road and permanent supportive infrastructure (e.g., operations and maintenance yard, aggregate extraction, and processing areas) that will start after construction activities are complete, including site restoration and the decommissioning of temporary infrastructure (e.g., access roads). The operations phase of the Project is anticipated to be 75 years based on the expected timeline for when major refurbishment of road components (e.g., bridges) is deemed necessary.
The Project is proposed to be operated for an indeterminate period; therefore, future suspension, decommissioning and eventual abandonment is not evaluated in the EA/IA (refer to Project Description, Section 4.4).

13.1.7 Identification of Project Interactions with Species at Risk
13.1.7.1 Terrestrial Species at Risk
Table 13-8 identifies the project activities that may interact with the Terrestrial Species at Risk VC to result in a potential effect.

13.1.7.2 Aquatic Species at Risk
Table 13-9 identifies the project activities that may interact with the Aquatic Species at Risk VC to result in a potential effect.

AtkinsRéalis – DRAFT May 20, 2025 13-48

Table 13-8: Project Interactions with Terrestrial Species at Risk VC and Potential Effects

Notes:

✓ = Potential interaction – = No interaction

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

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

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

Table 13-9:       Project Interactions with Fish and Fish Habitat VC and Potential Effects

Notes:

✓ = Potential interaction – = No interaction

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

² Accidents and Malfunctions including spills, vehicle collisions, flooding, forest fire and vandalism may occur at any time during construction and operations of the Project. Rather than acknowledging this by placing a checkmark against each of these activities, “Potential for Accidents and Malfunctions” is an additional component under each project phase. The potential effects of accidental spills are assessed in Section 23 – Accidents and Malfunctions.³ Project employment and expenditures are related to most project activities and components and are the main drivers of many socio-economic effects. Rather than acknowledging this by placing a checkmark against each of these activities, “Employment and Expenditures” is an additional component under each project phase.

13.2 Existing Conditions
This section summarizes the existing conditions for Species at Risk and their habitats found within the Project Footprint. The baseline assessment focused on the supply road conceptual alternatives within the proposed preliminary corridor, as identified in Section 3 of this draft EAR/IS.
Briefly, the objectives of the studies are to identify and characterize Species at Risk within the Project Footprint as well as to identify important terrestrial features related to SAR habitat, critical life cycle activities, including:
 Identify SAR;
 Identify the presence, distribution, and abundance of SAR occurring within the Project study areas (i.e., Project Footprint, LSA, RSA);
 Identify and characterize critical habitat for provincial and federal species at risk (SAR); and
 Support the determination of habitat of species of special concern.
The assessment of effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat and the data collected for those species are presented separately in Section 12. Species at Risk are addressed separately from the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat section, because of the unique biology of each SAR and the unique ways in which each such VC may experience impacts resulting from Project activities. The NEEC Report can be reviewed in its entirety in Appendix F of this EAR/IS.

13.2.1 Methods
Wildlife surveys, including those for Species at Risk, were conducted between 2018 and 2024. Baseline surveys were designed using standard methodologies to identify and assess for the presence of provincial and federal SAR and species of Special Concern and their specialized habitat. Field surveys were designed to provide comprehensive coverage at the appropriate time of year, optimize detectability, and represent temporal sources of variation among seasons. Areas of high sensitivity associated with various life processes were particularly targeted. Detailed field data collection combined with a background information review allowed for ecological components to be described and characterized in terms of habitat suitability for SAR and species of special concern. It also allows for the identification of any federal and provincial critical habitat, residences, and provincial Significant Wildlife Habitat in the study area. A summary of each survey methodology is provided in subsequent sections. Detailed methodology for all SAR surveys, the sources for background information review, description of survey site selection, and habitat typing can be found in Appendix F of this EAR/IS – NEEC Report.

 Indigenous community members prefer the EA to rely on knowledge and information provided by hunters and other land users for establishing population trends. It was also suggested that the use of aerial photography together with land cover mapping from the MNRF's Far North Land Cover Dataset to identify suitable habitat types in the study area. Section 13.2 includes a summary of data collection methods, including: aerial surveys (developed with input from MNR and MECP biologists), WSR collaring data, MNR collaring data, NHIC caribou occurrence data, caribou habitat mapping, Far North Land Cover Data, aerial photography and Indigenous Knowledge. Detailed description of data collection methods is provided in

Appendix F of this EAR/IS – Natural Environment Existing Conditions Report (NEEC Report).

13.2.1.1 Mammals

13.2.1.1.1 Winter Aerial Surveys – Caribou
Winter, aerial surveys were conducted in 2018, 2019, and 2021 within the Project study areas (i.e., the Project Footprint, LSA and RSA). These surveys were initially recommended by the Nipigon District Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) primarily to inventory the presence of Caribou and identify Caribou winter habitat in proximity to the proposed route.
Caribou occurring within the LSA and RSA may belong to each of two populations of interest: the Boreal and Eastern Migratory populations. The Boreal population is sedentary, and may occur in the LSA throughout the year, while the Eastern Migratory population is known to range south from their typical ranges closer to Hudson Bay into the study areas. The aerial surveys were designed to spot signs of Caribou presence within the study areas, and, as such, it was not possible to determine the specific population observed. Therefore, collaring studies were also conducted
(see Section 13.2.1.1.3) to help confirm which populations were using the LSA and surroundings.
Winter aerial surveys were conducted between February 22 and 28, 2018, February 9 and 13, 2019 and February 24 – March 1, 2021, according to standardized survey methodology for identifying and delineating Caribou winter habitat provided by the MNR (Select Wildlife and Habitat Features: Inventory Manual, Ranta, 1998), to the extent possible. The aerial survey consisted of flying a grid of parallel transects oriented in a north-south direction using a Bell 206 Long Ranger helicopter. The standardized parallel transect spacing of 2 km was used, as suggested in the MNR protocol.
Refer to Appendix F of this EAR/IS – NEEC Report for detailed information and figures regarding the transects surveyed in each year of this study.
Surveys were typically conducted by a three-person team experienced in aerial wildlife surveys to maximize detection of wildlife. In 2018 and 2019 the survey team was joined by Eric Jacob, a member of Webequie First Nation and local trapper, throughout the entirety of the surveys.
All wildlife observations made during the survey were recorded immediately on a data sheet along with the date, time, transect number, Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates, species name, number of individuals, and habitat type. When possible, Caribou sex (male, female, unknown) and age (adult, yearling, calf) was noted, unless undue stress on the animals would result from the determination of these details. Other signs of Caribou or other wildlife presence were also recorded, including tracks, beds, cratering, slushing, or Gray Wolf kills. Fresh tracks were distinguished from old tracks and digital photographs of wildlife were taken whenever possible.

13.2.1.1.2 Caribou Nursery Habitat Survey
To assess the presence and distribution of Caribou nursery areas, nursery habitat surveys were conducted in 2019 according to methodology detailed in the MNR Select Wildlife and Habitat Features: Inventory Manual (Ranta, 1998). Information provided in the General Habitat Description (GHD) for the Forest-dwelling Caribou (Rangifer tarandus Caribou) (MNR 2013a) was also used to narrow down areas to be searched. A desktop analysis to determine which candidate sites would be included in the survey was completed prior to the start of field work. Landforms that were recognized as candidate calving or nursery habitats, such as islands and peninsulas, were prioritized for surveys.
Candidate nursery habitats that were within, or closer to, the preliminary preferred corridor were also prioritized for surveys.
Caribou nursery habitat surveys were conducted between June 12 and 17 and July 2 and 9, 2019. Field biologists were joined by two members of the Webequie First Nation, Eric Jacob and Vincent Jacob, both of whom are local hunters and are knowledgeable in ungulate tracking and sign. Data recorded included:
 Date;
 Time;

 Surveyor names;
 UTM coordinates;
 Transect number (if applicable);
 Species name;
 Number of individuals;
 Habitat type; and
 Type of observation (sign or presence).
Adjustments were made to the methods detailed in the MNR survey protocol due to the size of the project study areas (i.e., LSA, RSA) and the inability to access many of the sites using the recommended methodology. An aerial survey approach was undertaken because waterbodies accessible by boat are only available on the western side of the Caribou LSA; however, in many instances, islands could not be accessed because there was a lack of landing sites (i.e., due to tall vegetation, narrow shorelines, and uneven ground). In total, 74 candidate habitats were surveyed within 10 km of project route alternatives; however, only 18 could be accessed on the ground.
For the aerial only survey locations, recognized limitations included:

 A reduced ability to see and differentiate between pellet groups;
 A reduced ability to differentiate between moose and Caribou tracks and age animals; and
 A reduced ability to find signs of use in denser habitats.
Given these limitations, it was recognized that the nursery habitat surveys alone would not identify woodland Caribou calving and nursery sites within the Caribou LSA. As such, the surveys were used to supplement and identify Caribou nursery habitat, rather than confirm the distribution and presence or absence of Caribou nursery areas. As discussed in Section 13.2.1.1.3 (below), the nursery habitat surveys were later supplemented by a Caribou collaring study.

13.2.1.1.3 Caribou Collaring Study
In a meeting on February 28, 2020, MECP Species at Risk Branch (SARB) staff indicated that the Caribou aerial surveys conducted in 2018 and 2019 were insufficient to inform the characterization of baseline conditions for the EA/IA on their own. As such, MECP recommended the initiation of a Caribou collaring program to provide information for the Project.
The Caribou collaring program informs many aspects of Caribou occurrence, demographics, and behaviour at various scales across the RSA. It will also inform the effectiveness of mitigation actions taken to avoid or minimize adverse effects to Caribou during the construction and operations phases of the Project. Specific objectives fulfilled via Caribou collaring include:
 Optimize detectability and comprehensive coverage at the appropriate time of year (e.g., nursery habitat during calving season, winter habitat usage);
 Collect data to represent the following temporal sources of variation: among years; within and among seasons; and within the 24-hour daily cycle;
 Use existing data and literature as well as at least two years of data collected via field surveys to provide information that reflects the natural interannual and seasonal variability of Caribou;
 Describe the distribution and abundance of Caribou in relation to the Project Footprint, LSA and RSA;
 Provide data and summary lists for each species at risk ranked according to abundance, distribution across survey sites (i.e., percentage of survey stations at which they were recorded), and abundance in each habitat type. Map areas with the highest concentrations (or use by Caribou);
 Identify and map critical habitat and residences within the Project Footprint and LSA;

 Document baseline conditions within the LSA and RSA to support the evaluation of alternatives and effects analysis of the Project in the EAR/IS;
 Describe Boreal Caribou use (e.g., distribution, movement) of the study areas over time;
 Complement existing data, if information within the study areas is insufficient or unavailable, to better understand how Caribou use the habitat;
 Describe the type and spatial extent of biophysical attributes present in the study areas; and
 Conduct surveys to complement existing data if data within the study areas are insufficient or unavailable, to be able to understand where the biophysical attributes occur.
To inform the characterization of baseline conditions for Caribou at the subrange scale and assess potential impacts, it was proposed that a sample size of 30 female Caribou be collared. MECP initially recommended a sample size of
20 female Caribou be maintained for the duration of the study, which would have required additional collars be deployed following collar failures or the death of Caribou. The sample size of 30 was deemed adequate to account for 15-20% mortality annually and still maintain a minimum sample size of 20 animals over the course of a three-year study. Between February 25 and March 6, 2021, 29 female Caribou were successfully collared. The 30th collar did not pass the pre-deployment check, and a decision was made to proceed without it. The collaring program was conducted with all necessary permits and approvals, including: a Section 17(2)(b) Species at Risk permit under the Ontario ESA, approval from MNR’s Wildlife Animal Care Committee (WACC), a Wildlife Scientific Collectors Permit under the 1997; and a federal SARA permit for capture of Caribou on federal lands.
The program followed methods detailed in the approved protocol provided by the MNR (WACC, 2020). Prior to capturing individuals, a scouting survey via Bell 206 Long Ranger helicopter was completed by AtkinsRéalis biologists to locate candidate individuals for collaring. The scouting flights were conducted according to winter aerial transect surveys described in Selected Wildlife and Habitat Features: Inventory Manual (Ranta, 1997). A primary search area was defined by the boundary of the Caribou LSA (1 km + 10km from the centre of the preliminary preferred corridor) and a secondary search area was defined that extended 25 km (11 km to 36 km from the centre of the preliminary preferred corridor) from outer boundary of the Caribou LSA.
A specialized wildlife capture team captured healthy, adult female Caribou using a net gun from a Eurocopter AS350 helicopter. All captures occurred in-situ and no Caribou were transported or relocated from the original site of capture. Collars were deployed in mid-winter (i.e., between mid and late February) to avoid disturbance to Caribou cows during late pregnancy. Caribou were fitted with satellite GPS collars that transmit data wirelessly and contain drop-off mechanisms to permit collar retrieval upon study completion. G5-2D Iridium/GPS Collars (Advanced Telemetry Systems Inc.) with drop-off mechanisms were used and programmed to transmit fixes eight (8) times per day or every three (3) hours. These collars include a built-in mechanical release system called “SureDrop” to facilitate the collar release on a pre-programmed date. The proposed collar release date for this study was March 1, 2024, based on the MECP recommendation that a minimum study duration of three (3) years would be required to appropriately characterize baseline conditions and inform the EA/IA effects assessment. Collars were removed and collected in the between February 19 and March 1, 2025.
The following data gathered from collared Caribou helps assess potential impacts on this species and its habitat:

 Annual home range size;
 Calving areas;
 Calving events;
 Calf mortality;
 Parturition dates and locations;
 Distance travelled to calving sites;

 Calf recruitment;
 Wintering ranges;
 Travel routes and corridor crossing points;
 Seasonal movement timeframes;
 Fidelity to critical habitat features;
 Lands used and time spent in proximity to the preliminary preferred road corridor; and
 Mortality and mortality assessment to determine cause of mortality.

Biological Sampling

In addition to collar deployment, each captured Caribou had blood, pellet, and hair samples taken to assess pregnancy status using blood progesterone, to determine presence of parasites and/or potential genetic analysis, for potential genetic analysis, and/or assessment of chronic stress using cortisol levels [Macbeth 2013]), respectively. Samples were dispatched for laboratory analyses. Molar wear was also assessed for each animal to estimate age.

Mortality

Mortality events are identified when a collar signals that no movement has been detected after a pre-programmed period. However, the detection of mortality signal does not necessarily indicate a death; a collar can break or fall off an animal. As a result, continued monitoring of collar signals was required to ensure no further movement occurred.
Mortality investigations were conducted after a minimum of three collars signalled the death of a Caribou, or at least once per year, to a maximum of twice per year. They were conducted between collar deployment and March 2025.
Depending on the location, timing, and crew availability, mortality investigations were conducted by the Project team, or when available, the MNR. Upon arrival at the collar location, the site and the Caribou remains (when present) were inspected to collect evidence of the cause of death. Inspection of the site followed guidance provided in Stonehouse et al. (2016) and other similar studies. Digital photos were taken of the carcass (when present) and the site. At times, cause of death can be difficult to determine, particularly if the carcass has been scavenged. Mortality investigations did not include a detailed analysis by a veterinarian or pathologist (e.g., organ biopsy, tissue samples, or parasites are not collected).

Survivorship and Recruitment

Survivorship of collared Caribou was determined based on records of mortality events. Recruitment surveys were also conducted as part of the collar study by locating collared females during the winter. The collar of each Caribou was tracked until it was located, and individuals were confirmed through visual identification (i.e., of the collar, any photographs of the Caribou cow or Caribou calves present). Recruitment surveys were conducted in 2022, 2023
and 2024.

Detection of Nursery Locations and Calf Mortality Events

Assessment for the presence and distribution of Caribou nursery areas is required as part of the EA process. A movement-based approach was used to determine parturition and early calf mortality events. Movement data were used to infer parturition and survival of neonatal Caribou calves (DeMars et al., 2013, Bonar et al. 2018), with abrupt drops in movement associated with parturition, and early calf mortality associated with a quick resumption in movement. This kind of data has been used for both sedentary boreal Caribou and migratory Caribou (Bonar et al. 2018). Identified parturition locations were used to guide follow-up nursery habitat surveys.

Seasonal Movement Rates and Migrations

Travel Corridors are generalized habitat features that Caribou may use to move between Nursery Areas and Winter Use Areas (MNR, 2014 (GHD)). For Boreal Caribou, these movements are less distinct than those of Eastern Migratory Caribou. Collar data was used to determine whether distinct travel corridors existed within the Project Footprint.
Particular attention was paid to any telemetry that suggested Caribou travel corridors, either Boreal or Eastern Migratory, crossed the preferred road alignment. Movement analysis focused on the periods during April and/or November because MNR has adopted the use of animal movements during these periods to inform their delineation of Travel Corridors (MNR, 2014 (GHD)). Movement direction and step-length derived from GPS collar data were used to delineate migratory movements.

Site Fidelity

Depending on the season, both Eastern Migratory and Boreal Caribou make use of different areas of their range
(Pond et al., 2016) and often return to the same areas in consecutive years. Caribou are known to exhibit site fidelity to Nursery Areas, Winter Use Areas and Travel Corridors over multiple years, with fidelity being higher in the spring and summer than the early and late winter (Bergerud 1990, Schaefer et al. 2007). Fidelity to areas can also be maintained even in the event of disturbances like fire, especially for calving areas (Dalerum et al., 2007, Silva et al., 2020). Using Seasonal home ranges for each individual and year, the overlap in utility distributions (UD) were used to explore similarity in space use over time.
General Habitat Description Category 2 and 3 Analysis
As mentioned in Section 13.1.2.2.1, (SAR Species included in the assessment – Caribou (Boreal population)), under the General Habitat Description, Category 1 areas include nursery habitat, winter use habitat and travel corridors; Category 2 habitat represents seasonal ranges for Caribou, and Category 3 refers to remaining areas that are used within the Caribou’s range (MNRF 2013). MECP took a Resource Selection Probability Functioning (RSPF)2 approach to mapping Category 2 habitat by mapping each of the four (4) seasonal ranges. This approach mapped potential habitat value based on modelling associations of observed Caribou use with land cover, linear features, and other environmental variables. This methodology is briefly described in the State of the Woodland Caribou Resource Report: Part 3 (MNRF, 2014). Additional details are available in Hornseth and Rempel (2016) and Rempel and Hornseth (2017).
The Category 2 (RSPF) model was based on seven (7) classes from the Landsat based Provincial Forest Classification (PLC) as well as esker lines, mapped forest fires, and anthropogenic linear features. Calculations were conducted in the specialized GIS program, Landscape Scripting Language (LSL) (Kushneriuk and Rempel 2011), which allowed for multiple scale modeling using spatial averaging of hexagons. For Caribou Category 2 maps, an intersection of 3 ha hexagons with landscape variables was conducted first, and then spatial averages generated at the 5,000-ha scale were used for the RSPF analysis. This scale was chosen because it resulted in the highest performance relative to all other scales that were assessed (Hornseth and Rempel 2016).
GHD Category 2 and 3 regional range Caribou habitat was based on the selective use of landscape features across all four seasons. The RSPF models probability of use for each season, and a threshold value for the continuous probability of use is determined above which the habitat is categorized as high use, therefore contributing to Category 2 habitat. A location that has predicted high use for any season is labelled Category 2, otherwise in is labelled Category 3. A total of 202,882 ha of Category 2 habitat was delineated within the Caribou LSA and 7,858,915 ha in the Caribou RSA; meanwhile, a total of 48,755 ha of Category 3 habitat was delineated within the LSA and 2,203,180 ha within the RSA.

2 RSPFs are statistical models that are used to understand how animals, like Caribou, select their habitat based on available resources. They provide the actual probability of a resource being used. They are used to obtain a precise measure of the likelihood of resource use.

For additional details, refer to Appendix 11E (GHD Category 2 and 3 Mapping Report for Baseline Conditions in Ozhiski and Missisa Caribou Ranges 2024) in Appendix F (Natural Environmental Existing Conditions Report) of this EAR/IS.

Seasonal Patterns of Habitat Use

Seasonal patterns of habitat use are an important piece of background information for the WSR assessments. Although the report on GHD Category 2 critical habitat provides helpful information to assess the prevalence of important Caribou habitat, it was developed based on Resource Selection Function (RSF)3 that used older collaring data, and an inadequate number of locations in the Ozhiski range. Additionally, since neither the Missisa nor Ozhiski range have permanent disturbance, any RSF developed with data only from these locations would not be able to predict changes in patterns of use based on new development proposals.

Analytical Approach

Early movement data indicated that 27 of the 29 Caribou collared by AtkinsRéalis as part of the WSR study were members of the Eastern Migratory population; only two individuals were the target boreal Caribou ecotype. As a result, development of the analytical approach for the collar program was paused until other data sources were acquired. The intention of the study was to have an approach to Caribou analysis that was consistent with the Marten Falls First Nation (MFFN) Community Access Road (CAR) and Northern Road Link (NRL) projects.
Missisa and Ozhiski were the primary ranges of interest for the NRL and WSR projects. However, neither of these ranges had any permanent roads, and other anthropogenic disturbances were minimal. To create an RSF that would be responsive to anthropogenic disturbance, it was necessary to include data from other Caribou ranges that have significant areas of disturbance. The Nipigon and Pagwachuan ranges were selected because they were contiguous with the northern ranges, the southern parts of these ranges have significant anthropogenic disturbance, and the ranges also encompass the Marten Falls Community Access Road project.
The paragraphs that follow provide a summary of the data integration, data processing, RSF model building processes, and movement visualization. For detailed information, please refer to Appendix 11F (Report on Caribou Seasonal Patterns of Habitat Use in the NRL and WSR Study Areas) in Appendix F (Natural Environmental Existing Conditions Report) of this EAR/IS.

Additional Information Sources and Data Integration

In addition to the GPS collaring data that was collected by AtkinsRéalis as part of the WSR program, five (5) additional sources information were used to develop an RSF suitable for describing seasonal patterns of habitat use by Caribou:
 Data from AtkinsRéalis on 14 adults collared as part of the NRL project, which is located between the eastern extent of the WSR Project Footprint and MFFN between February and December of 2023.
 Data from the MNR on 58 animals collared within the Ozhiski range between February 2020 and March 2023.
 Data from the MNR on 101 animals collared in the Missisa range between March 2019 and March 2023.
 Data from the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) on 166 animals collared as part of the Far North Monitoring Program between 2009 and 2012 (Missisa, Ozhiski, Nipigon and Pagwachuan ranges).

3 RSFs also are statistical models that are used to understand how animals select their habitat based on available resources. They estimate relative probability of a resource being used and are often used to identify and quantify the importance of different habitat features or resources based on their use relative to availability.

 Data from the NHIC on animals that were collared as part of the Collaborative Provincial Caribou Research Program between 2010 and 2015.
The collar data from the different datasets was combined into a common database, with data fields converted into consistent formats.

Data Processing

All data was sorted according to season: winter (December 22 – April 14), spring (April 15 – June 21), summer (June 22 to September 21) and fall (September 22 to December 21). Subsequently, filtering was used to remove duplicate records, and records with assumed errors (Fullman et al. 2021). A software package (animal movement tool or ‘amt’) was then used to create movement tracks and filter location data. Movement tracks were identified using periods of sequential movement (i.e., track bursts), with sampling being optimized for each source of data (i.e., WSR, NRL, MNR, NHIC). Step lengths between sequential locations were created to help with filtering
(a step length of greater than 150 m avoids sleeping animals, dead animals, dropped collars and GPS accuracy errors).
A kernel density approach in ‘amt’ was used to define a population-level season home range based on individual animal tracks, and a random set of points were generated. Coding was written to ensure that points from the same animal stayed together and that the same proportion of points were selected. To create and save shapefiles (mapping) of home ranges in each season, geographic coordinates were kept. Shapefiles (maps) were connected to environmental data using a specialized GIS software program (LSL), which overlaid them placed over the provincial landcover raster map, mapped forest fires, human-made features, and eskers. Details of this process can be found in the Biophysical Attributes report that is appended to Appendix F (Natural Environmental Existing Conditions Report). Seasonal data sets were subsequently used for RSF model building.

RSF Modelling

The RSF model is useful for evaluating the net effects of future development proposals. The RSF developed for this Project uses biophysical attributes reported in FERIT, February 7, 2024 (refer to Appendix F, Natural Environmental Existing Conditions Report) although additional scales of analysis were considered in developing the RSF. A
gradient-boosted regression tree approach (BRT) was used to model resource selection. BRT involves the creation of a simple model (i.e., one that makes basic predictions), followed by a series of newer models, each of which correct the errors of the previous one (i.e., various iterations). The final model is a combination of all of the previous iterations, with each contributing to the overall prediction. The BRT approach was appropriate for this Project because many variables existed across six (6) spatial scales, and there was limited knowledge of variables or interactions of variables would best predict presence/absence. The R package gbm (Generalized Boosted Regression Model) was used to estimate the BRT. The gbm package is particularly useful for creating predictive models and is widely used in statistics and machine building to handle complex data sets and improve model accuracy.
In order to develop a strong model, the original data was set into a training set and a testing set. The training data comprised 80% of the full data set. The training data set was applied to the model prior to the test data. The approach involved a 10-fold cross variation. Model performance was evaluated on both the training and testing data set based on 11 performance measures. To understand the model, and how it was making predictions for probability of sue, variable influence and response diagrams were created. Plots of the top eight (8) variables indicated by the variable influence analysis were created. The seasonal models were then applied to the four Caribou ranges (Missisa, Ozhiski, Nipigon and Pagwachuan), with the former two occurring in the WSR study areas.

Movement Visualization

Caribou patterns of movement across seasons were visualized by creating temporal variables in QGIS4. This permitted the viewing and inspection of patterns of Caribou activity within seasons, as well as migration patterns between seasons.

13.2.1.1.4 Wolverine Occupancy Study
Wolverine is a Threatened species under the Ontario Endangered Species Act and Special Concern under the federal Species at Risk Act. A two (2) year occupancy study will inform many aspects of wolverine occurrence, abundance, demographics, and behaviour at various scales across the LSA and RSA. Specific objectives fulfilled via the wolverine program include:
 Using existing data and literature as well as surveys to collect field data for two years to provide current field data that reflects the natural interannual and seasonal variability;
 Collecting data to represent the following temporal sources of variation: among years; within and among seasons; and within the 24-hour daily cycle;
 Describing the distribution and abundance of wolverine in relation to the ultimate Project Footprint, LSA and RSA;
 Describing abundance; distribution across survey sites (i.e., percentage of survey stations at which they were recorded); abundance in each habitat type; and map areas of highest concentrations or areas of use by species;
 Documenting demographics for individuals in the LSA, including sex, age, genetic identity, and presence of reproductive females;
 Identifying and mapping critical habitat and residences within the study areas; and
 Documenting baseline conditions within the study areas to support the effects analysis in the EAR/IS.
The Wolverine Occupancy Study consisted of integrated camera traps and hair snare sampling; a conventional method used across North America and was proposed to augment baseline data collection for wolverine for the WSR Project.
Study planning, including overall study design and run pole construction and implementation, was developed through consultation with wolverine researchers Mirjam Barrueto (University of Calgary), Dr. Matthew Scrafford (Wildlife Conservation Society and Ontario Boreal Wolverine Project), and Dr. Justina Ray (Wildlife Conservation Society and Ontario Boreal Wolverine Project).
Deployment and maintenance of run poles, hair snares, and remote cameras were deemed as unlikely to have any negative or undue impacts to wolverine by the MNR Animal Care Committee. Prior to study commencement, a Wildlife Scientific Collectors Permit under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 was acquired and a Section 17(2)(b) Species at Risk permit under the Ontario Endangered Species Act, 2007 was also acquired from MECP.
Federal guidance provided in the TISG indicates that an appropriate scale for field sampling for wolverine is represented by a Local Study Area that extends 10 km from the outer boundary of the Project Footprint. As such, the WSR Wolverine LSA is 2,513 km2. Sampling protocols for hair snare and trail camera sampling described in Koen et al. (2008) suggest establishing a grid of 100 km2 tessellating hexagon sampling units across the study area and systematically placing a minimum of one sampling stations per 100 km2 sampling unit. A sample unit area of 100 km2 represents the accepted minimum home range area for female wolverines (Koen et al., 2008). COSEWIC (2014) gives home range sizes of 50 – 400 km2 for females and 230 – 1,580 km2 for males. A study by Dawson et al. (2010) near Red Lake, Ontario, found an average male wolverine home range size of 2,563 km2 between December and October.

4 QGIS, or Quantum Geographic Information System, is a software that allows users to create, edit, visualize, analyze and publish geospatial information.

A study area of 25 complete sampling units (totalling 2,500 km2) centered over the Wolverine LSA was established. One (1) integrated sampling station was installed per unit. Pseudo-replication was addressed by separating stations by a minimum of 3 linear km, a method that has been used in other studies (Hurlbert, 1984; Fisher 2004).
Protocols suggested by Koen et al. (2008) allow for trap positioning within each sampling unit that maximizes the likelihood that sampling stations will be visited by a wolverine. Koen et al. (2008) noted that the Ontario Boreal Wolverine Project had greater success detecting wolverines in coniferous riparian corridors left behind following logging which appeared to funnel wolverines through the landscape, making detection more probable. Woods et al. (1999) note that, at a local scale, riparian sites should be targeted for sampling. Studies using cameras setup in locations that maximized the probability of detection within grid cells, such as along high-travel routes, have been used for Snow Leopard (Panthera uncia) and Coyote (Canis latrans) (Jackson et al. 2006, Larrucea et al. 2007).
The Wolverine Occupancy Study was initiated in mid-winter (February 10-20, 2021) to take advantage of frozen conditions, which improves ease of access by helicopter or snow machine to remote sampling sites. A study duration of two (2) years was determined to be appropriate based on consultation with regulatory agencies. It is recommended that, for the purposes of baseline/preconstruction data collection, sampling occurs over a minimum of two (2) winters (2020/2021 and 2021/22) and at least between January and May of each winter. Wolverines do not shed hair easily until late spring; thus, wolverine hair was not expected to be collected until late winter (mid-late February; Magoun et al. 2007). Nonetheless, earlier deployment of integrated run pole structures allowed wolverines to find and become comfortable with the structures. Annual monitoring continued until the snow melted from the study area, ending the use of any den sites present.

Hair Snares

The Project Team used an adapted run pole structure based on the design presented in Magoun et al. (2011; refer to Appendix 11-A1 of Appendix F of this EAR/IS – NEEC Report) and that are depicted in Barrueto (2019). Photos of run pole station setups used in this study are also presented in the same appendix. This sampling technique provides the greatest amount of data and makes best use of the effort required to access remote locations across the RSA. Run pole stations were typically baited with chunks of frozen moose meat provided by Webequie First Nation community members. In rare instances, frozen moose broth was substituted when meat was not available. Frozen bait was securely hung 1-2 feet above and in front of the run pole from a cable running between two (2) trees. In addition to the moose meat bait, a trapping scent lure (Caven’s – Gusto Long Distance Lure) was smeared on the bait and atop the run pole. The scent lure was used to widen the area of attraction for passing wolverines.
Loops of barbed wire were wrapped loosely around the base of the run pole, close to where the run pole is anchored to the tree (as depicted in Appendix 11-A1). Two (2) vertical hair snare posts were integrated on to the run pole. Six (6) alligator clips were attached to each post via cable lanyards and were held in an open position to grab hair from wolverines that climbed the run pole structure to inspect the bait (refer to Appendix 11-A1).
Hair samples collected from the alligator clips or barbed wire hair snares may contain follicles, which provide DNA. Genetic analysis can identify the species (via mitochondrial DNA; Schwartz and Monfort 2008) and genetic ‘fingerprints’ can be detected that identify individuals (using microsatellite analysis of nDNA; Mowat et al. 2003; Fisher, 2004). Site access aside, hair trapping can yield low-cost and high-return data on distribution, relative abundance, and home range estimates (Fisher, 2004). Detection of known individuals through genetic analysis of hair follicles collected at multiple sample sites can act as a mark-recapture survey. Hair samples were screened for the presence of hair follicles and samples containing follicles were submitted for genetic analysis to the Natural Resources DNA Profiling and Forensic Centre (NRDPFC) at Trent University.
Each sampling station was visited every four (4) weeks to examine the wrapped barbed wire and run pole hair snares at each site. Collectors wore latex gloves to remove hair samples and deposited samples into paper coin envelopes for each site. Envelopes were labelled with the station ID, date of collection, and name of collector. The bait at each sampling station was replaced during each visit.

Species Identification

Hair samples were analyzed by the NRDPFC at Trent University. Hair samples were analyzed for species identification, sexing, and individual identification (DNA profiling). Methodologies used for these analyses are described in detail.

Remote Cameras

While hair snares may provide DNA samples, camera photos may capture unique pelage markings that are unique to individual wolverines. In particular, the light markings on a wolverine’s chest (known as the ventral pattern or chest blaze) can be used for individual identification. As such, remote cameras can also be used as mark-recapture sampling for this species and add redundancy to sampling at each station. Photos may also provide additional details such as age, sex, and body condition. Reproductive characteristics of males and females, notably those of lactating females, may be documented using a run pole structure. The presence of lactating females is indicative of denning activity in the area.
An additional advantage to pairing camera traps with hair snares is to inform non-detection. Non-detection at a given sampling site does not mean that the site was not visited if hair was not sampled. Camera traps were positioned as to capture as many identifying features as possible for any animal accessing a baited hair snare. The study team deployed Reconyx Hyperfire 2 Professional Series remote cameras. Reconyx cameras are known to operate well in very cold environments and have very efficient battery use. Two (2) cameras were deployed at each sampling station. One (1) camera (the White LED Flash model) directly faced the front of the run pole to capture the chest and underside of wolverines inspecting the hanging bait. A second camera (the Infrared Flash model) was installed at an angle to the run pole to capture wildlife movement around the run pole, should wolverines visit the station but do not climb the run pole or are not captured by the other camera. All cameras were set to record date, time, station ID and temperature along the bottom of each frame.
The station ID was labelled on the front of each run pole to ensure proper station categorization. Each sampling station was visited every four weeks to check the remote cameras, replace SD cards and batteries, ensure proper camera functioning, and replace the bait. Upon collection, photos from each station were screened for Wolverine presence. For each Wolverine detected, details were recorded including ID number, chest blaze pattern, sex, height, and age (when possible).
Stations were deployed and maintained between January – May 2021 (refer to Table 11-4) and were deployed again between January and May 2022. This field program concluded in May 2022.

Population Estimate

A simple estimation of population size for this Mark-Recapture study was calculated using the Lincoln Index:
P = µ(N1 x N2)/R

Where:

P = total size of population
N1 = size of first sample (number of individual wolverines identified)

N2 = size of second sample (recapture: number of individual wolverines identified) R = number of marked (identified) individuals recaptured in second sample

The Lincoln Index makes several assumptions that must be met if the estimate is to be accurate. These assumptions are:
 The population of organisms must be closed, with no immigration or emigration;
 The time between samples must be very small compared to the life span of the organism being sampled; and
 The marked organisms must mix completely with the rest of the population during the time between the two samples.
The current study meets assumption 2 and likely assumption 3. The Lincoln index was calculated for each month-long interval between replacing bait and photo card/hair sample collection. A total of 7 intervals were calculated: three (3) from 2021 (February-March, March-April, April-May) and four (4) from 2022 (January-February, February-March, March-April, April-May).

Home Range Calculations

Home range was calculated, to the extent possible, for individual wolverines that were recorded at more than two (2) locations. Home range was calculated using two (2) methods: minimum convex polygon (MCP) and kernel density.
Calculation of MCP consisted of drawing a 2-dimensional polygon all the known locations from an individual. This method would provide a conservative, likely underestimated, home range area for suitable individuals.
Kernel densities were generated in R using the package AdehabitatHR (Calenge, 2006). The Utilization Distribution (UD) was generated using the ad hoc method as the bandwidth (smoothing) parameter which supposes that the UD is bivariate normal. The smoothing factor is the distance over which a data point influences the utilization distribution and is influenced by the number of relocations. This method also tends to estimate a larger home range than other methods. Following generation of the kernels home ranges were generated for the 95% extrapolated isopleth as the home range contour. Given the small number of relocations (6-42) the resulting distributions for most of the wolverines are very large and potentially oversmoothed, and they are presented as an exploratory examination of wolverine utilization within the RSA. Additionally, environmental factors such as barriers have not been accounted for in the estimates.

13.2.1.1.5 Bat Hibernacula Screening
The presence and distribution of natural features supporting bat hibernacula was assessed by screening features potentially used as hibernacula by bats including natural caves, abandoned mines, talus slopes, and rock cliffs with crevices (Fenton 1969; COSEWIC 2013). The following sources of information were used to screen for bat hibernacula:
 Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines (ENDM) Abandoned Mine Information System (AMIS) (ENDM, 2016);
 ELC vegetation community data for the Project Footprint (Rock Barrens and Cliffs);
 2020 J.D. Mollard and Associates report; and
 Reconnaissance helicopter flight along the proposed preferred alternative for the Project in May 2019.

13.2.1.1.6 Bat Maternity Roost Habitat Screening
Existing vegetation communities that support bat maternity roost habitat within the LSA were screened using Ontario Land Information wetland and Far North Landcover vegetation community data with ArcGIS software, which identified 19 mixedwood forest stands and 14 deciduous forest stands. Methodology to screen for candidate bat maternity roosting habitat was taken from Bats and Bat Habitats: Guidelines For Wind Power Projects (MNR, 2011) and Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules for Ecoregions 3E and 3W (MNR 2015a, 2017a).

Screening for age showed that all appropriate ecosite classes within the RSA were over 80 years old. All
larger-diameter cavity trees were used to identify highest quality forest tracts and select acoustic detection locations for acoustic monitoring; the EA/IA will consider all potential maternity roosting habitat as defined using the ELC communities.
A reconnaissance helicopter flight along the proposed preferred alternative for the Project was flown on May 27 and 28, 2019, which provided further visual assessment and confirmation of locations where mature deciduous and mixed forest with trees and snags of with large diameter at breast-height (DBH) occurred.

13.2.1.1.7 Bat Acoustic Surveys
The results of the Bat Maternity Roost Habitat screening further informed positioning of acoustic detection surveys in 2019 and 2020. Four (4) stations were established in 2019 with surveys conducted between June 12 and July 5 for a total of 85 recording nights across all 4 stations. In 2020, the survey was expanded to nine (9) sites during the maternity roosting season, including three (3) stations from 2019 and six (6) novel stations, with surveys were conducted between June 7 and October 15 to include both the breeding and migration/swarming periods. One station (BAT2) failed soon after deployment in 2020, resulting in data being collected at 8 stations in total. Overall, in 2020, eight (8) stations were sampled during the maternity roosting period for sampling periods ranging from 16 to 36 nights, totalling 203 nights.
Seven (7) stations were sampled during the fall migration/swarming season with periods ranging between 27 and 50 nights.
Acoustic recordings were collected concurrently at the stations in 2019 and 2020 using acoustic full-spectrum, ultrasonic recording units (ARU, Song Meter SM4BAT [Wildlife Acoustics Inc.]). Each ARU was paired with a Wildlife Acoustics SMM-U2 ultrasonic, omnidirectional microphone with a 3 metre (m) microphone cord. Each ARU setup was installed on site using an extension pole to raise the microphone approximately 2.5 m above the ground. ARUs were powered with four D-cell alkaline batteries. Microphones were positioned approximately 10 m from the forest edge so that recordings occurred in a low-clutter environment; maximizing the clarity and quality of echolocation calls for more accurate species identification. ARU schedules were set to record thirty (30) minutes before sunset until thirty (30) minutes after sunrise.
Additional surveys were conducted in 2023 based on feedback from MECP and IAAC that surveys should be conducted in wider range of potential bat maternity habitats including coniferous forests and swamps. A spatially dispersed random stratified survey design using ELC as the stratification variable was employed to select an additional 30 sampling locations. Five stations collected no data after deployment due to equipment failure (4 units) and one unit going missing, resulting in data being collected at 25 stations in total. ARUs monitored bat activity between May and October 2023 with collection periods ranging from 27 to 147 nights, totaling 2521 nights.
Bat recordings were analyzed using the acoustic analysis program Kaleidoscope Pro 5.1.9 (Kaleidoscope, Wildlife Acoustics). Bat recordings were run through the auto-identification function in Kaleidoscope, then examined by a qualified biologist experienced in the analysis of bat acoustics and trained in the use of Kaleidoscope software. Files where the biologist disagreed with the recognizer were vetted through comparison of call parameters to North American acoustic identification keys (i.e., O’Farrell et al., 1999; O’Farrell and Gannon, 1999; Britzke and Murray, 2000).
Complete details of the acoustic analysis process are provided in Appendix F – NEEC Report.

13.2.1.1.8 Bat Maternal Activity Modeling

Current Habitat Use

Activity Models were developed for bat activity (habitat use) during the maternity period (June – early July) in the WSR study area. Models were developed to understand the relationship between bat activity (habitat use) and habitat types, and to support net effects analysis to predict the impact of disturbance on bat activity for specific land cover/habitat types. The analysis was focused on counts of activity, not counts of individuals.
Data used for this analysis included the bat acoustic data collected in 2019, 2020 and 2023 along with habitat data from the Far North Land Cover (FNLC) and the modelled ELC layer developed for the study areas (see Section 11).
Selection of habitat variables was done using a boosted regression tree (BRT) model and those variables that were considered the most important and were selected for further analysis using Poisson Generalized Linear Models (GLM). Predicted activity for the models were summarized by ELC class at the RSA level to reveal relative expected activity levels among ELC classes. Complete details of the modeling process are provided in Appendix F – NEEC Report.

Changes to habitat Use due to Future Disturbance

Future disturbance effects were modelled by overlaying the Project Footprint including access-roads, aggregate sources, and laydown areas on the FNLC map, and then reassigning wetland and upland values in the 3-ha hexagons underlying the anthropogenic layer as disturbance. The original habitat model for each species was then loaded in R and applied to the modified landscape to create new probability of use values expected under future disturbance conditions. Percent change in probability of use was calculated as:
(𝑝𝑈𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑑 − 𝑝𝑈𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑐 )
⁄𝑝𝑈𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑐 ∗ 100
where 𝑝𝑈𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑑 is probability of use under future disturbance (fd) conditions, and 𝑝𝑈𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑐 is probability of use under current conditions (cc). The % change in functional value represents the net effect of all proposed disturbances on the pUse values. Complete details of the modeling process are provided in Appendix F – NEEC Report.

13.2.1.2 Birds

13.2.1.2.1 Breeding Bird Point Count Surveys
Point count surveys followed the principles of the Forest Bird Monitoring Program, as well as the OBBA survey protocols. These protocols are described in the MNR’s publication Wildlife Monitoring Programs and Inventory Techniques (Konze and McLaren 1997), the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Participants Guide (OBBA, 2001) and generally in Appendix 1 of the TISG.
Surveys were conducted between one half hour before sunrise until five (5) hours after sunrise between June 1 and July 10, and data collected include:
 Species;
 Number of individuals;
 Estimated Distance from viewer (0-50m, 50-100m, 100+ m);
 Minute interval first detected (1, 2, 3….10);
 Breeding evidence (i.e., suitable habitat, singing male, pair, nest with eggs, nest with young, etc.); and
 Survey weather conditions (temperature, wind [Beaufort Scale], precipitation, cloud cover [%]).

Any incidental observations of non-target wildlife species or bird species observed between point counts was also recorded.
Each sample location was surveyed by a qualified biologist skilled in visual and aural identification of Ontario bird species. Surveys were conducted by qualified biologists using a standardized 10-minute point count. Each species encountered were recorded at 1-minute intervals with distance estimates recorded between 0-50m, 50-100m and

100m. Vegetation classification within 100m of each sample was also assessed.
In 2020, during each point count survey, observers deployed high quality portable acoustic recording (ARU) devices (i.e., with 360-degree recording in WAV format, selectable sampling rate, and adjustable microphone gain), mounted on a tripod. This survey type is suitable for sampling a representative species composition for the Project Footprint, LSA, and RSA including forest and bog/fen birds, as well as for locating most diurnal avian SAR that occur in the region.
Data recorded using ARUs during the morning breeding bird point counts was used to aid in normalizing data recorded during these counts and data recorded by ARU only.
Methodologies for sample selection and data analysis and modelling are further described in Appendix F – NEEC Report.

13.2.1.2.2 Bird Acoustic Surveys
ARUs were deployed to survey bird presence in 2020 and 2021. Deployment of ARUs was used to augment data collection conducted during point count surveys and obtain data to support the abundance and distribution modelling process and capture temporal variations in bird species presence, abundance, and distribution across a broad range of dates (including seasons) and times of day. ARUs were placed at least 500 m apart and proportionately sampled all major habitat types present within the LSA and RSA, as done with the point count surveys. The recording schedule programmed into each ARU adhered to protocols prescribed in the TISG for the WSR Project, recording daily, with a morning and an evening schedule.
In 2020, a total of 55 Song Meter SM4 Mini (Wildlife Acoustics Inc.) were deployed across representative habitats for data collection. ARUs recorded until the batteries died or memory cards were filled. Batteries and memory cards of all 55 detectors were replaced in mid‑late June of 2020 and 16 detectors were moved to secondary supplemental locations to record for the rest of the avian breeding season (late July), until the batteries or memory card capacity was exhausted. In total, 70 survey locations were sampled through the core avian breeding season through remote ARU use. Following this, ARUs were left at their location to record during the fall migration period (August 1 through September 30, 2020) and during the winter (December 1, 2020, through to March 31, 2021) (i.e., collectively, Fall/Winter Recordings).
In 2021, an additional 21 ARUs were deployed in habitats which were underrepresented in the initial deployment and in areas which had poor spatial coverage. Nine (9) ARUs were also removed from habitats which were over-represented, namely conifer swamp and conifer forests. In total, 82 survey locations were sampled through the core avian breeding season in 2021 through remote ARU use. Batteries and memory cards of all 82 detectors were replaced in mid‑late July of 2021. Once the breeding season ended, ARUs were left at their location to record during the fall migration period. In total, 49 ARUs were positioned within the LSA and 33 were located within the RSA. At the end of the fall migration period ARU’s were collected from the field, and no winter data collection was conducted.
Acoustic files were analysed according to methodologies described in the TISG. Methodologies for sample selection and data analysis and modelling are further described in Appendix F – NEEC Report.

13.2.1.2.3 Shorebird Migration Studies
Shorebird migration studies were done in conjunction with waterfowl aerial surveys done in 2019 and 2020. The survey consisted of flying the entire length of the proposed route alternatives and circling over each lake or open wetland within 1 km of the alternative routes, with particular attention to those areas identified during the background data review and from the consultation undertaken to date. Additional surveys were undertaken along the Winisk River – extending 50 km north from Winisk Lake. This additional survey route has the potential to provide the best shoreline habitat in proximity to the Project and provided a possible movement route for northbound migrant shorebirds. This route was identified through consultation with Webequie First Nation. The survey consisted of flying 50 km of the Winisk River north of Winisk Lake.
In northern Ontario, spring shorebird migration typically peaks later than waterfowl migration (late May) and occurs during a relatively short time period (mid May to early June). Conversely, fall shorebird migration typically begins and peaks earlier than waterfowl migration, yet spans up to four months (late July – October). Overall, timing of waterbird surveys did not coincide well with peak shorebird migration in Ontario; however, it is expected that shorebird migration across the LSA is minimal. This preliminary assessment is based on the limited extent of suitable shoreline habitat present within the study areas as well as the fact that shorebirds are well known to stage and migrate along the shoreline of James Bay from which they travel to the Atlantic coast or to fall staging locations along the Great Lakes.
Shorebird data collected included:
 Date;
 Time started and time ended;
 Weather conditions;
 Species observed;
 GPS location; and
 Number of individuals.
Methodologies for sample selection and data analysis and modelling are further described in Appendix F – NEEC Report.

13.2.1.2.4 Raptors
Raptor nests were noted when they were observed during winter aerial surveys (see Section 12.2.1.1.1) and during surveys for waterfowl and shorebirds (see Section 12.2.1.2.4). During these flight activities, particular attention was given to stick nest searches in the vicinity of rivers and lake shorelines, and unburned mature Hardwood/conifer stands. The classification of nest type was determined through a combination of staff knowledge, habitat type, stick and nest size, nest placement, and raptor sightings, and photos when possible. If the species associated with the nest could not be determined, the nest was simply recorded as a stick nest. Typically, stick nests are most readily found during leaf-off.
Stick nests were also recorded when they were found during breeding bird point count surveys (see Section 12.2.1.2.1). Data recorded for each raptor nest included GPS location, associated species (if possible), relative size and characteristics (if species cannot be determined), tree species used, and a description of surrounding vegetation community and structure.

13.2.1.3 Lake Sturgeon

13.2.1.3.1 Desktop Review
A desktop review of background information was conducted to obtain information on the existing conditions for Lake Sturgeon. This included a review of the following primary and secondary information sources:

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

13.2.1.3.2 Field Surveys
Existing conditions surveys for Lake Sturgeon were completed as part of the fish and fish habitat survey program. The survey methodologies included detailed field assessments of large, medium sized and small waterbodies or lotic habitat and also lakes/ponds or lentic habitat. Aerial assessments of waterbodies were conducted in areas where access was not safe or possible due to the difficult and wet terrain conditions. The fish and fish habitat field program that relates to Lake Sturgeon includes the following surveys:
 Fish habitat and fish community surveys;
 Spawning surveys; and
 Environmental DNA (eDNA) Surveys.

13.2.1.3.3 Fish Habitat and Fish Community Surveys
A waterbody crossing list was developed for the proposed preliminary corridor for the WSR using GIS, Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), and digital elevation model. This list was further refined after route alternatives were considered and an initial reconnaissance survey of the waterbody crossings was conducted. Each of the identified waterbody and watercourse crossings were assigned a unique site ID that consisted of a common, two-letter code (specifically “WC” for watercourse crossing, or “WB” for waterbody crossing [i.e., a lake]), and a unique number (e.g., WC-26).
The Project is located entirely within the Southwestern Hudson Bay Primary Watershed. All waterbodies in this watershed generally flow northeast towards Hudson Bay. Major rivers in the watershed in Ontario include the Severn River, Winisk River, Ekwan River, and the Attawapiskat River. The RSA extends into three secondary watersheds including the Ekwan River – Coast, Winisk River – Coast, and Attawapiskat River – Coast. The RSA for the Project extends into four tertiary watersheds (Figure 10.2):

1. Upper Winisk Watershed;
2. Middle Winisk Watershed;
3. Upper Ekwan Watershed; and
4. Lower Attawapiskat Watershed.

In the LSA and RSA, there are many different waterbodies, including streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, and wetlands that provide direct habitat and support many different fish species. Several large rivers are located in the RSA including the Winisk, Ekwan, Attawapiskat, Fishbasket and the Muketei Rivers. A notable large lake includes Winisk Lake that provides year-round fish habitat. There are 31 large watercourses or waterbodies that are projected to be crossed by the roadway. There is also a network of smaller connected headwater streams, ponds, and lakes, many of which are part of open fens. There are 10 of these smaller connected streams that have also been identified along the proposed roadway. These smaller, shallower lakes and wetlands may dry over the course of the summer but still offer suitable fish habitat for seasonal rearing and feeding, usually in early spring.
Aquatic field surveys were completed at water crossing locations that met one or more of the following criteria:
 Watercourses and/or waterbodies displayed the ability to support fish at the time of the field survey (dry water crossings were not assessed);
 Watercourses and/or waterbodies were likely to contain a criterion species, defined as a species of importance to Indigenous Peoples for recreation, commercial and/or food source purposes and are also identified in the TISG; and/or
 Watercourses and/or waterbodies where no specific aquatic (instream) habitat field data of sufficient detail were available from the review of background information sources.
Watercourses and/or waterbodies that did not meet any of these criteria were not sampled. Waterbody crossing sites that did meet the above criteria, but could not be sampled, were photographed from the air.
Fish community sampling was conducted concurrently with the fish habitat assessment surveys to determine fish presence, relative abundance and assemblages per sampling effort at 15 of the 31 waterbody crossings. Field survey methods followed standard practices for fish and fish habitat surveys, including those methods contained in the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (Stanfield, 2017). Additional methods based on the TISG (IAAC, 2020) were incorporated. Not all sites were sampled due to high-water levels, which prevented safe access to additional sites.
Fish communities were assessed using minnow traps, dip nets, and gill nets. Observations of uncaptured fish were also recorded. Minnow traps were of uniform size, but gill nets had panels with mesh measuring 25 mm to 127 mm so that fish of all body sizes could be captured where deployed. Seine netting and electrofishing using a backpack electrofisher were planned but could not be completed safely due to site conditions. Fish community sampling was completed as close to the planned road crossing locations as possible.

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

13.2.1.3.5 Environmental DNA (eDNA) Sampling
Environmental DNA (eDNA) refers to DNA present in aquatic or terrestrial environments, which organisms shed into their surroundings. By sampling eDNA, it is possible to identify what animals are using a habitat based on the
DNA signatures found in the sample. To support the fisheries program, eDNA samples were collected between August 17-20, 2023, from watercourses that had not been previously assessed, as well as from major watercourses that had been examined in earlier conventional sampling efforts.

The Project team collected eDNA samples from nine sites, including four previously sampled locations: Winisk Lake, Winiskisis Channel, Ekwan River, and Muketei River. The eDNA kits and sampling protocols were provided by NatureMetrics.
eDNA samples were collected using a NatureMetrics vampire pump, which drew water directly from the waterbody crossing site and passed it through an eDNA collection filter. The vampire pump consists of a peristaltic pump that creates a vacuum which draws water up a silicone hose and passes it through the collection filter. In order to obtain enough eDNA for a sample, each filter required a minimum of 1.5 L of water to be passed through it. At each site, three samples were taken.

13.2.2 Results
A background review of SAR that are protected provincially and federally (i.e., those that are Endangered or Threatened on the Species at Risk lists in Ontario or Canada) was conducted, and taxa with potential to inhabit the LSA and RSA were identified. Background reviews and data gathered from field studies were used to determine whether potential habitat for species at risk exists within the LSA and RSA. Table 13-10 summarizes all provincially listed terrestrial SAR and taxa assessed by COSEWIC that have the status of extirpated, endangered, threatened, or of special concern and that may be directly or indirectly affected by the Project. Two (2) species listed in Table 13-10 (Canada Warbler and Yellow Rail) are not discussed in this section due to an absence of local information in the background review and also not being detected during field programs.
A summary of survey results is provided in subsequent sections. Detailed results for all wildlife surveys can be found in Appendix F of this EAR/IS – NEEC Report. Detailed descriptions of the populations and habitats of each species considered in the EAR/IS is provided in Section 13.1.2.2.
Table 13-10: Terrestrial Vertebrate SAR Potentially Present in the Vicinity of the Project

13.2.3 Mammals
13.2.3.1.1 Winter Aerial Survey Results – Caribou
Winter aerial Caribou surveys were conducted in 2018, 2019, and 2021. These surveys were specifically conducted to detect evidence (or confirm sightings) of Caribou, though observations of all wildlife were recorded to support other species datasets.
In 2018, a total of 45 Caribou were recorded across seven (7) locations. Seven groups, each having between one (1) and 13 individuals, were observed. Sixteen (16) Caribou cows and 15 Caribou bulls were identified, with the sex of the remaining 16 being unconfirmed.
Eighty-seven (87) Caribou tracks were observed throughout the survey area east of Webequie, illustrating the geographic distribution of Caribou within their range and indicating that more were present within the surveyed area. In general, Caribou were only observed east and southeast of Webequie where there were mature upland black spruce forests interspersed with lakes. Caribou groups and tracks were generally observed on lakes or in open forested areas leading into denser stands of forest.
No evidence of Caribou was observed west of Webequie, which was burned by a forest fire approximately 40 years ago. The forest cover has regenerated, but the habitat is currently unlikely to support the species. According to the GHD habitat mapping provided by MECP, this area is largely considered Category 2 and Category 3 habitat.
In 2019, a total of 13 Caribou were recorded across four (4) locations, with groups that ranged in size from three (3) to six (6) individuals. Six Caribou bulls, five Caribou cows, and two calves were identified. Although only four groups of Caribou were observed, Caribou tracks were identified at 70 locations throughout the survey area. As was the case in 2018, Caribou were observed primarily east and southeast of Webequie. They were found mainly in habitat consisting of mature upland jack pine and black spruce forests interspersed with small to mid-sized lakes.
Caribou activity, as determined by track and animal observations, was concentrated in a band that extended between five km and 30 km east of Webequie (i.e., 93% of the observations were made in this band). Few tracks and no Caribou observations were recorded west of Webequie.
The area where Caribou were recorded in 2018 and 2019, and where track densities have been moderate to high, is considered Category 2 habitat according to GHD habitat mapping provided by MECP. Based on the data collected in 2018 and 2019, upland conifer habitat within this area may merit a reassignment to Category 1 (Wintering Area) in future impact analyses to Caribou with regards to this Project. It is anticipated that the habitat mapping will be updated following a review from MECP SARB of relevant information. AtkinsRéalis is committed to include and consider this updated information for the draft Environmental Impact Statement.
In 2021, a marked increase in Caribou presence was observed compared to 2018 and 2019. A total of 552 animals were recorded within the Caribou LSA, in addition to 573 track observations. Caribou tracks were observed along
40 transects while Caribou were directly observed along 22 transects. Cratering observations (i.e., areas where Caribou use their hooves to dig through the snow) were also much higher with 191 instances of cratering recorded. A total of 171 locations were recorded as high density.

The reasons for an increase in 2021 is unclear at this juncture. Inter-year movement and range utilization may have affected numbers; however, this kind of analysis is beyond the scope of this study which was localized in scale. In terms of the influence of study methodology introducing bias into observed numbers of Caribou, methodology of the aerial surveys remained the same across survey years. Surveys were conducted systematically from west to east, with the same number of observers and flight patterns.
Winter aerial data was analyzed to produce winter probability of occurrence mapping for this species. Lands across the standard WSR RSA were categorized into High, Medium, and Low likelihood of occurrence.

13.2.3.1.2 Caribou Nursery Surveys
Caribou nursery habitat surveys were conducted between June 12 and 17, and July 2 and 9, 2019. In total, 74 candidate nursery and calving habitats were surveyed within 10 km of the alternative routes: 18 sites were surveyed on foot, while 56 were surveyed by helicopter only. No Caribou were observed during the formal calving surveys; however, Caribou sign was identified in nine (9) habitat features. Evidence of Caribou calf occurrence was present at five (5) sites; however, these sites could not be definitively identified as calving or nursery habitat. Further details and a summary of observations across all sites surveyed are available in Appendix F of this EAR/IS – NEEC Report.

13.2.3.1.3 Caribou Collaring Study

 Indigenous community members recommend the completion of analysis of caribou crossing data to determine appropriate mitigation measures and design criteria for the road. As with other caribou- related data, the caribou collaring study results are included in Section 13.2.2 for review by Indigenous communities as part of the draft and final EAR/IS. Input from those reviews will help inform Detail

Design of the WSR, as appropriate.

Collar Deployment

Between February 25, 2021, and March 6, 2021, 29 collars were deployed on female Caribou. All collars were deployed within the primary search area within the Caribou LSA. One collar did not pass the pre-deployment check and was not deployed. Collars were retrieved between February 19 and March 1, 2025.
Females collared ranged in age from two and a half (2.5) to ten (10) years and were captured from groups that ranged in size from 1 to 33. Photographs and capture information are provided in Appendix F of this EAR/IS – NEEC
Report. Collar data was downloaded monthly.

Biological Sampling

Analysis of blood serum samples taken during capture confirmed that all 29 collared individuals were pregnant at the time of capture.
Hair samples were analyzed by the laboratory at the Toronto Zoo. Three (3) animals had cortisol levels below the detection limit and were removed from analysis. Cortisol levels in hair samples from the remaining 26 captured
Caribou averaged 2.04 pg/mg and ranged from 1.04 to 4.41. Bondo et al. (2019) reported average hair cortisol levels of
1.52 pg/mg (range 0.95 to 2.63) for 162 adult female Boreal Caribou in northeastern BC. Macbeth (2013) reported a mean of 2.21 pg/mg, range 0.60-6.90 pg/mg, for 94 free-ranging Barren-ground Caribou in West Greenland. An analysis has not been conducted on potential factors influencing cortisol levels of Caribou in the RSA; however, disturbance by anthropogenic activities has been found to explain variation in Caribou cortisol concentrations (Ewacha et a. 2017). The values collected assist with establishing a baseline for comparison during any sampling that may take place post-construction.

Fecal and hair samples were submitted to the MNRF Science and Research Branch in Thunder Bay for future analyses, if deemed necessary. No results of any nature have been reported to AtkinsRéalis, regarding these samples.

Mortality

Across four (4) total years of movement tracking, ending March 1, 2025, ten (10) mortalities of collared Caribou were confirmed, and four (4) collars released prematurely. One (1) mortality resulted from capture, while nine (9) others resulted from natural causes – most likely predation by wolves. It is not thought that incidental mortality occurred because of any other anthropogenic impacts. Mortality rates in years one to three (1-3) of the collaring study were 7.4%, 17.4%, and 21.3%, respectively. No mortalities were confirmed in year four (4). Average mortality rate over the four (4) years of study was 12.5%.

Survivorship and Recruitment

Recruitment surveys were conducted for individuals that were determined or expected to be members of the Boreal population. Individuals determined to be from the Eastern Migratory population were omitted from recruitment surveys since that population is not designated as Threatened or Endangered (and thus not protected under the ESA).
Furthermore, wintering grounds for members of this population were shown to vary greatly year to year and study animals were prone to overwinter great distances from the defined Caribou search areas.
Overall, two study members were determined to part of the Boreal population, 049128 and 049132. Caribou 049128 may have had a calf in 2022, but did not have a calf in 2023 and 2024. This individual was too far outside of the study area in 2024 to pursue. Caribou 049132 did not have a calf-at-heel in 2022 and perished prior to the 2023 recruitment survey.

Calf Mortality Events

No Caribou were observed during the formal calving surveys, and no carcases were found. Evidence of Caribou calf occurrence was present at five (5) sites; however, these sites could not be definitively identified as calving or nursery habitat.

Spatial Movements and Ecotype Evaluations

Analysis of Caribou movements by Pond et al. (2016) indicated that percent calving locations within the Hudson’s Bay lowland and mean distance to treeline calving season were variables which showed the best discriminatory power between members of the Boreal and Eastern Migratory populations. Early movement data clearly indicated that 26 of the 29 Caribou collared were members of the Eastern Migratory population, based on the long-distance movements that these individuals made to the Hudson’s Bay coastline in the spring of 2021. Two (2) individuals did not make the aforementioned spring movement and remained within the forested Missisa Range throughout the majority of 2021.
These two (2) individuals were considered members of the Boreal population. One (1) collared Caribou was not assigned to a population as it did not survive the winter.

General Habitat Description Category 2 and 3 Analysis

GHD Category 2 and 3 regional range Caribou habitat was based on the selective use of landscape features across all four (4) seasons. The RSPF modelled probability of use for each season, and a threshold value for the continuous probability of use was determined above which the habitat is categorized as high use and therefore contributes to Category 2 habitat. A location that has predicted high use for any season is labelled Category 2, otherwise in is labelled Category 3. A total of 202,882 ha of Category 2 habitat was delineated within the Caribou LSA and 7,858,915 ha in the Caribou RSA; meanwhile, a total of 48,755 ha of Category 3 habitat was delineated within the LSA and 2,203,180 ha within the RSA. For additional details, please refer to Appendix 11E (GHD Category 2 and 3 Mapping Report for

Baseline Conditions in Ozhiski and Missisa Caribou Ranges 2024) in Appendix F (Natural Environmental Existing Conditions Report) of this EAR/IS.

Seasonal Patterns of Habitat Use

The following paragraphs present a summary of the results of seasonal modelling, for additional details, please refer to Appendix 11-F (Report on Caribou Seasonal Patterns of Habitat Use in the NRL and WSR Study Areas) in Appendix F – NEEC Report.

The seasonal models performed well, with AUC model performance (overall model accuracy) on the training data ranging from 0.810 to 0.874, and 0.709 to 0.745 on the model testing data. As expected, model performance was higher for the training data, but overall, the performance was good, and the model was useful for projecting spatial patterns of use. In general, model sensitivity was higher than model specificity. As a result, the model is more successful at predicting where Caribou are likely to be found than predicting where they are likely to be absent. Among the seasons, the model performed better for the Spring, Summer, and Fall than for Winter.

The importance of variables differed among seasons, with importance identified in the variable influence diagrams and table of all variables with influence > 1(refer to Appendix 11-F in Appendix F – NEEC Report). In the summer, water, conifer, open peatland, mixed wood, natural disturbance, and eskers are some of the most important variables, and all of these were at the 10,000-ha scale. The total density of linear features was also included in the top variable list. The response of Caribou to these variables was estimated by plotting the response of a single variable while holding all other variables constant, and these plots revealed that caribou respond positively to conifer, water, and open peatland, but negatively to natural disturbance.

The seasonal models were applied to the full landscape to visualize the relative probability of use across the landscape. This can also be interpreted as spatial patterns in relative carrying capacity or habitat quality among seasons. Patterns for probability of use differ among seasons, but in general, the Missisa range is used more heavily than the Ozhiski range. Probability of use for all seasons are given in Figure 13.2, Figure 13.3, Figure 13.4 and Figure 13.5.

13.2.3.1.4 Wolverine Survey Results
Winter Aerial Results

Winter aerial surveys for wolverine were conducted concurrently with Caribou surveys in 2018, 2019 and 2021. When fresh tracks were observed, they were followed until an animal was observed or until tracks were lost. Typically, trails were lost in areas of dense cover.
In 2018, wolverine tracks were recorded at 20 locations across the winter aerial survey area, but no animals were observed. Tracks were observed to the southwest, south, and southeast of Webequie. These tracks were commonly situated along rivers or lakes.
The 2019 survey resulted in the observation of one (1) live wolverine, in addition to 38 track occurrences. The single individual was observed briefly within 5 km of the preliminary proposed corridor. Wolverine tracks were observed extensively east of Webequie, predominantly within the north-eastern quadrant of the survey area (67% of track observations, 44% of transects). Twenty-seven per cent (27%; 10) of the track observations were recorded south of the alignment. Wolverine track occurrences were typically associated with riverine habitats within large tracts of peatland and were spread across the western half of the survey area. In one instance, wolverine tracks were observed moving back and forth to a moose carcass, likely the result of a Wolf-kill.
In 2021, only three (3) Wolverine track observations were made during the winter aerial surveys, and no individuals were observed within the LSA. Transects surveyed in 2021 were greatly reduced in overall area, compared to those flown in 2018 (reduced by 52%) and 2019 (reduced by 29%) and included only the Wolverine LSA. This reduction in survey area likely contributed to the overall reduction of wolverine track encounters, compared to 2018 and 2019.

Wolverine Occupancy Study

Trail Cameras

In 2021, trail cameras deployed to each of the 25 run pole stations resulted in the capture of 31,037 wildlife photos. A total of 4,151 photos of wolverine were taken, across 13 stations. Wolverines made 29 distinct appearances at run pole stations and were documented on 25 camera days. When photos were analyzed for the presence of distinct individuals, at least seven (7) unique individuals were identified in 2021. Not all wolverine visits to run pole stations resulted in the wolverine climbing the run pole or sampling the bait. Wolverines climbed the run pole on 56% of visits.
In 2022, a total of 26,758 photos of wolverine were taken, across 20 stations. Wolverines made 145 distinct appearances at run pole stations and were documented on 120 camera days. Wolverines climbed the run pole on 73% of visits. When photos were analyzed for the presence of distinct individuals, at least 11 unique individuals were identified in 2022. All individuals identified in 2021 we recaptured in photographs in 2022, with the exception of W06. In total, a minimum of 12 individual wolverines have been identified during this two-year investigation.
A wolverine den was serendipitously found on March 3, 2021, by the Project Team’s biologists while maintaining bird ARUs. Following discussion with wolverine experts and an MECP biologist, two (2) additional trail cameras were deployed approximately 2 km from the den site to document wolverine movements. A total of five (5) wolverine passes were documented between the two (2) cameras. Only one (1) pass showed identifying features of the individual with chest markings confirming it as W04, which had been viewed at run pole stations but did not present enough data to have its sex confirmed.

Confirmed Individuals

At least 12 unique individuals were identified from photos that provided views of distinct markings. All individuals that were identified as unique eventually climbed at least one run pole; however, some individuals were identified prior to climbing a run pole. Of the twelve (12) unique individuals recorded, five (5) were confirmed as females and four (4) were confirmed as male. Three (3) were unable to have their sex determined.
The five (5) female wolverines included W02, W06, W07, W08, and W09. Due to the visibility of teats on individuals W02 and W07 between late March and early May, it is assumed that these were adult, lactating females which had established dens within or in proximity to the wolverine LSA. W07 was recorded in both 2021 and 2022. W06 was recorded four times at the same camera in 2021 and was determined to be a female through genetic analysis. She was presumed to be a young animal based on an absence of visible sexual characteristics, despite being well photographed. W06 was not recorded in 2022 and is presumed to have dispersed or perished. W09 was determined to be a female via photo-documentation, only because she bathed in a puddle in front of run pole. She showed no evidence of lactation and is presumed to have been immature. She is presumed to have a territory adjacent to the LSA and may occasionally cross into the LSA where their ranges overlap with the core population of the LSA.
A total of four (4) males were confirmed via photo and genetic evidence. Of the four (4), sex for W05 was determined through genetic testing only in 2021. As such W05 is presumed to be a younger male of perhaps 2-4 years old. Males W01, W03, and W10 are presumed adults.
W04 had an extensive ventral pattern that that was readily identified. This individual was recorded a total of 9 times, yet only climbed a run pole once and did not leave hair on the snares for DNA analysis. No sex has been confirmed for W04.
No sex was determined for W11 and W12. W11 was recorded three (3) times and W12 twice (2). Both of these individuals are expected to have home ranges within the RSA that are adjacent to, and slightly overlap with, the LSA.

Hair Snares

2021 Hair Snare Results

In 2021, a total of 51 hair samples were collected from nine (9) stations. Hair collection yielded between 1 and 7 samples at each sampling station. When hair snare samples were compared to photo documented wolverine visits, hair verifiably sampled during 52.9% of occasions when a wolverine climbed a run pole. If repeated visits (i.e., visits where a single wolverine returns to run pole multiple times) are excluded, then 69.2% of run pole visits resulted in the collection of hair samples.
Overall, 49 samples could be processed by the laboratory, 36 of which were sufficient to confirm wolverine presence. Of these, 14 samples from eight (8) separate wolverine occurrences were robust enough to undergo genotyping.
Genetic analysis resulted in the determination or confirmation of sex for each of the five (5) wolverines known to have climbed the run poles. Sex was correctly determined via photo analysis for individuals W02, W03, W06 and W07 and genetic analysis identified W05 as a male and W06 as a female.
The 2021 report of genetic analysis conducted by the NTDPFC team at Trent University can be found in Appendix F – NEEC Report.
The results of the 2021 aerial survey indicate that track levels observed from the air do not necessarily provide a true indication of the level of wolverine activity in the area, as wolverines regularly visited wolverine run pole stations.

2022 Hair Snare Results

In 2022, a total of 146 hair samples were collected from 20 stations. Hair collection yielded between 1 and 12 samples at sampling stations. Overall, 132 samples could be processed by the laboratory and 120 samples could be sufficiently confirmed as wolverine. Of these, 79 samples from eight (8) separate wolverine occurrences were robust enough to undertake genotyping.
Genetic analysis resulted in the determination or confirmation of sex for six (6) wolverines known to have climbed the run poles.
A full report produced by the NTDPFC team at Trent University for the 2022 results is included in Appendix F – NEEC Report.

Abundance and Distribution

A total of twelve (12) individual wolverines were distinguished by way of the occupancy study conducted between 2021 and 2022. Of the individuals recorded, six (6), (three (3) males [W03, W05, W10], two (2) females [W02, W08] and one
(1) undetermined [W04]) were recorded repeatedly; therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that much of their winter home range falls within the LSA. Of these individuals, five (5) were recorded in both 2021 and 2022. One additional female (W07) was recorded on one occasion, during both years. This individual was determined to be lactating in 2021. Based on this evidence, it is assumed that the home range of this female covers enough area within the LSA that she regularly occurs therein. While male wolverines are known to have large ranges that overlap with the ranges of multiple females, there is evidence that denning females establish ranges away from other wolverines (COSEWIC, 2014). This may be the case with W07. Conversely, female W02 occupies a range that overlaps greatly with two (2) males
(W03, W05).
An additional five (5) individuals were recorded between 1 and 4 times. W06 was recorded four (4) times at the same camera in 2021 and was determined to be a female through genetic analysis. She is presumed to be a young animal, based on an absence of visible sexual characteristics despite being well photographed. W06 was not recorded in 2022 and is presumed to have dispersed or perished. W09, W11, and W12 are presumed to have territories adjacent to the LSA and may occasionally cross into the LSA where their ranges overlap with the core population of the LSA. A proportion of the population, typically yearlings, is transient at any given time. Yearling females tend to establish home ranges nearer their natal ranges than do yearling males, although both sexes are capable of long-distance movements (COSEWIC, 2014).
A simple estimation of population size for this Mark-Recapture study was calculated using the Lincoln Index
(see Appendix F– NEEC Report for details). Through qualitative analysis and use of the Lincoln Index, the population of wolverines using the LSA can be interpreted to range between seven (7) and twelve (12) wolverines. An average of these estimations is 9.4 wolverines. This translates to a range of wolverine densities between 2.7 to 4.7 per 1,000 km2, with an average density of 3.6 per 1,000 km2.
Wolverine density across the LSA is high, compared to other study areas in Ontario and within the southern Boreal ecological area. This result is in agreement with probability of occurrence modelling produced by Ray et al. (2018), where a band of higher probability of occurrence (0.51-1.00) was present in the region of the Wolverine LSA. While abundance and probability of occurrence are not synonymous, Ray et al. (2018) surmise that their distribution model of wolverines in northern Ontario likely reflects the relative abundance patterns of wolverines in the same study area.
The WSR is located across a transition zone at the boundary of Ecoregions 2W and 2E: upland, mixed and coniferous forested lands in the west give way to expansive wetlands in the eastern portion of the LSA. Wolverine activity at run pole stations was notably concentrated across the western portion of the wolverine LSA, where six (6) Wolverines had overlapping territories in addition to three (3) individuals. Additionally, two (2) wolverines were recorded that had ranges

in more easterly portions of the LSA, east of Bender Lake, based on the data collected during the occupancy study. This pattern of occurrence also agrees with the pattern of occurrence shown by modelling done by Ray et al. (2018), where wolverine occurrence was shown to be high in the centre of northern Ontario and then decreased as it approached the boundary between the Northern Shield Ecozone and the Hudson Bay Lowlands Ecozone.

Home Range

Home range was calculated to the extent possible for six (6) individuals, where enough occurrences were recorded, using Minimum Convex Polygons (MCP) as well as 95% kernel density. Average winter home range for males in the LSA and RSA was estimated at 397.1 km2 using MCP and 1,445.0 km2 using kernel density. This average home range size falls well below the average of 2,563 km2 calculated by Dawson et al (2010). Average winter home range for females was estimated at 125.1 km2 using MCP and 586.8 km2 using kernel density, which is similar to the home range area of 428 km2 for females that was calculated by Dawson et al. (2010). Scrafford et al. (2022) calculated 95% MCP using GPS data from 39 collared wolverines in the Red Lake area of Ontario and found the average home range size for males was 1,409 km2 (n = 25) and for females was 713 km2 (n=14). The average home range for males estimated by Scrafford et al. by way of MCP is similar to our estimated average male home range calculated via kernel density.

Wolverine Habitat

A single wolverine den, identified as a reproductive den, was discovered in March 2021, under the root ball of a fallen spruce. By nature, denning sites are secretive locations. For a species so wide-ranging in nature, identification of microhabitat features such candidate denning sites is challenging. Scrafford et al. (2022) used GPS telemetry to find reproductive den sites of five (5) females and indicated that in certain years microhabitats may not be suitable as den sites because of lower snowfall. Research into female denning behaviour in the Red Lake area indicates that females will continue to den year-after-year within the same small area in the center of their ranges and that den sites used may all occur as close as within 1-2 km of each other (Scrafford et al. 2022).
Data from wolverine run pole station occurrences and winter aerial survey data are indicative of preferred habitat in the more upland, densely wooded, and varied habitats present in the west of the Wolverine LSA.

Survival and Reproduction

Camera evidence indicates that up to four (4) females have winter-spring territories that occur or extend into the LSA. Of these, one (1) individual is likely to be transient or her territory borders the LSA, such that she infrequently occurs within it. Evidence of lactation was noted for two (2) of the three (3) females whose territories are expected to overlap more widely across the LSA, indicating that two (2) reproductive females are present. Both females were recorded in 2021 and 2022.
If reproductive rates reported by Magoun (1985) and Copeland (1996) are averaged, then the reproductive rate of females (n=4) within the LSA would be 3.16 kits per year.

Threats and Survival

In the Project Footprint, natural predators of wolverine are likely limited to gray wolves.
Traditional Knowledge gathered from members of Webequie First Nation indicate that wolverines are rarely encountered and seldom trapped. Only one (1) modern-day record of a trapped wolverine was communicated to the WSR project team. Overall interest and participation in trapping activities by Webequie First Nation members is low as is the current risk to the local wolverine population from trapping or hunting pressure.

13.2.3.1.5 Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis

Bat Hibernacula Screening

Background Information Review
A review of the ENDM AMIS (ENDM, 2016) did not identify any mining infrastructure within 100 km of proposed project alternatives.
A review of the ELC vegetation community data indicates that there are 14 sites (covering a total of 9.1 ha) of candidate bat hibernacula habitat that occur within the LSA. When expanded to the RSA, 18 candidate sites are present. These areas total 13.4 ha in size.
J.D. Mollard (2020) detailed one (1) location where there were areas of bedrock at the surface, based on the topography described in the report there were no vertical rock faces, and no large cracks were described. Given the reports description these areas were not visited on foot for the purpose locating bat hibernacula but were flown over during the reconnaissance helicopter flights.
Field Survey Results
Reconnaissance helicopter flights along the proposed preferred route and alternative routes did not yield any observation of landforms that indicated the presence of bat hibernacula. No such features were observed during subsequent extensive field studies by the Project Team during other field survey types between 2019-2021.
Additionally, a report detailing the underlying geology only identified one (1) location in the RSA where underlying bedrock met the surface, and there were no vertical rock faces or large cracks indicating the feature contained a potential bat hibernaculum.

2019 Bat Acoustic Surveys – Maternity Roosting Period

In 2019, a total of 693 bat passes were recorded at the four (4) acoustic detection stations. Bats were recorded at each detection station. Of the 693 total recordings obtained using passive monitoring equipment, 507 were identified as bat recordings by Kaleidoscope software. Manual vetting identified 76 additional non-bat recordings. As such, a total of
431 bat passes were recorded. Auto-identification and manual vetting concluded that a total of four (4) bat species were recorded during the 2019 acoustic survey.
Overall, bat activity at all four (4) detection stations was relatively low. The four (4) stations averaged 5.1 bat passes per night, which is well below averages of 44.4 and 37.9 bat passes per night for stationary recorders deployed by MECP along the Pickle Lake and Ear Falls routes in 2016 and 2017 (M. Karam, pers. comm., 2020). Low-frequency bat species accounted for the majority (n=338) of bat recordings identified to species during the survey period. Big Brown Bat (n=90), Silver-haired Bat (n=90), Hoary Bat (n=37), and other low frequency bat recordings (n=121) comprised 67% of the total classified passes. Big-brown and Silver-haired Bats were detected at all stations, while Hoary Bat was detected at stations BAT1, BAT3 and BAT4. Little brown myotis was identified at two stations (BAT 1 and BAT 2); however, only a single recording was confirmed to species-level identification at station BAT 2. Myotis sp. and High Frequency bat calls were recorded that could not be attributed to any species with certainty. It is expected that these recordings are indeed little brown myotis. Confirmed little brown myotis recordings accounted for 18% (85 passes) of all bat passes.

2020 Bat Acoustic Surveys – Maternity Roosting Period

In 2020, a total of 1,599 bat passes were recorded at the eight (8) acoustic detection stations. Bats were recorded at each detection station. Of the total recordings obtained using passive monitoring equipment, 528 were confirmed as bat recordings through manual vetting. Auto-identification and manual vetting concluded that a total of five (5) bat species were recorded during the 2020 acoustic survey.
Overall, bat activity at all eight (8) detection stations was relatively low. Only two (2) stations (BAT7 and BAT8) recorded more than ten bat passes. Low-frequency bat species accounted for the majority (n=371) of bat recordings identified to species during the survey period. big brown bat (n=2), silver-haired bat (n=16), hoary bat (n=272), and other low frequency bat recordings (n=77) comprised 70% of the total classified passes. Big-brown bat, silver-haired bat, and hoary bat were all detected at three (3) of the stations. Low-frequency species were detected at stations BAT3, BAT4, BAT5, BAT6, BAT7, and BAT8. Little brown myotis was identified at a single station, BAT 7. Myotis sp. and High Frequency bat calls were recorded that could not be attributed to any species with certainty were recorded at stations BAT7 and BAT8. It is expected that these recordings include, in part, Little Brown Myotis calls. Eastern Red Bat (Lasiurus borealis), another high-frequency species was recorded at BAT7. Confirmed little brown myotis recordings accounted for 3.7% (20 passes) of all bat passes.
Few files contained detections of little brown myotis in 2020, possibly reflecting one or a combination of factors such as:
 The LSA’s position near the northern limits of the species’ range in Ontario;
 Lack of high-suitability roosting habitat in the LSA; and
 Low numbers of the species due to WNS-induced mortality.

2020 Bat Acoustic Surveys – Migration Period

Bat acoustic surveys conducted during the swarming and migration period recorded bats at three (3) of seven (7) survey stations. A total of 1,559 bat passes were recorded. Four (4) species (Hoary Bat, Big Brown Bat, Eastern Red Bat, and Little Brown Myotis) were recorded during this survey.

2023 Bat Acoustic Surveys

In 2023, a total of 22,237 bat passes were recorded at the twenty-five (25) acoustic detection stations. Bats were recorded at each detection station. Auto-identification indicated 18,179 of these recordings as noise leaving 4,058 recordings possible bat recordings. Manual review took place for 3,120 recordings. Of the total recordings obtained using passive monitoring equipment, 3285 were determined as bat recordings through manual vetting and Auto- identification. Auto-identification and manual vetting concluded that a total of five (5) bat species were recorded during the 2023 acoustic survey.
Overall, bat activity was highly variable. Two stations (WSR06 and WSR33) had no recorded bat passes while
13 stations had less than 10. Conversely, nine stations had more than 100 bat passes, with the highest number being 474 recorded at WSR27. Low-frequency bat species accounted for the majority (n=2,579) of bat recordings identified to species or species groups during the survey period. Big Brown Bat (n=71), Silver-Haired Bat (n=1,720), Hoary Bat (n=457), Big Brown/Silver-haired Bat (n=126) and other low frequency bat recordings (n=225) comprised 78.5% of the total classified passes. High-frequency bat species accounted for 706 of bat recordings identified to species or species groups during the survey period. Little Brown Myotis (n=459), Eastern Red Bat (n=74), Eastern Red Bat/Little Brown Myotis (n=8), Myotid Bat (n=86) and other high frequency bat recordings (n=79) comprised 21.5% of the total classified passes. Myotis sp. and High Frequency bat calls were recorded that could not be attributed to any species with certainty were recorded at eight (8) stations. It is expected that these recordings include, in part, Little Brown Myotis

calls. Silver-Haired Bat, and Hoary Bat were all detected at the most stations (19) with Eastern Red Bat only recorded at four (4) stations.

Bat Maternity Roost Habitat

Background Information Review
Hardwood and mixed treed ecosites older than 80 years, which are most likely to contain the best candidate sites, account for a total of 180.44 ha of suitable bat maternity roost habitat within the LSA. When expanded to the RSA, bat maternity roost habitat with these characteristics totals an area of 355.92 ha. Given the preferred characteristics of the mixedwood and hardwood areas, these were classified as suggested bat maternity roost habitat. Given the small stature of coniferous trees in lowland areas, only upland areas of coniferous forest were classified as candidate habitat.
A review of vegetation data following the 2020 vegetation field program indicates a total of 1,932.36 ha of candidate habitat occurs within the LSA and an area of 7,013.61 ha occurs within the RSA (LSA – 6.99%, RSA – 6.59% of respective study areas). Based on these results, it was determined that mature hardwood and mixed forest were not present in sufficient amounts (LSA – 0.66%, RSA – 0.33% of respective study areas) to merit habitat assessment surveys. This view was expressed to bat specialists with MECP, who agreed that such surveys were not necessary.
Field Survey Results
No bat maternity colony SWH was confirmed during baseline field studies.

Bat Maternal Activity Modeling

Current Habitat Use
The data from all identified bat species or species groups was first used to develop a general bat habitat use BRT model. The application of cross-validation to the BRT model resulted in an optimal number of iterations of 125, where models more complex than this did not improve model performance. The five (5) most important habitat variables were conifer forest, the edge between water and land, hard edges, shoreline treed fen, and treed fen and bog. These variables were then selected as candidate variables in a Poisson GLM model. Model coefficients were almost all highly significant, suggesting meaningful selection of variables through the BRT modelling process, however due to issues with overfitting the GLM models were limited to the to the top four variables.
Species specific models were then explored for Little Brown Myotis, Silver-haired Bat, and Hoary Bat. The Little Brown Myotis model was unstable, so it was dropped from the process. Predicted activity for the all-bats model, Silver-haired Bat, and Hoary Bat were summarized by ELC class at the RSA level to reveal relative expected activity levels among ELC classes. The highest levels of predicted activity occurred for ELC classes Mixed wood swamps (MS), Open Shore Fen/Thicket Swamp (OSF/TS), Open Shore Shrub Fen (OSSF), and River Open Water (Riv/OW). The all-bats model was then used to predict changes in habitat use due to future disturbance.
Changes To Habitat Use Due to Future Disturbance
As expected, the largest change in functional values occurred within the Project Footprint scale, as the entire 35 m wide footprint is changed to an “anthropogenic disturbance” landcover type (Table 13-11). The reason the use of the Project Footprint does not drop to zero is because the RSF models include variables estimated across broader spatial extents. The Project Footprint is 35 m across, while the 3-ha hexagons used in modeling are approximately 200 m across. In contrast, the LSA is approximately 2-3 km wide, and is a very relevant scale for assessing local net effects. For the general bat model the decrease in use in the LSA is 11.84%. The RSA is approximately 13 km wide and as expected had the weakest response to future disturbance.

Table 13-11: Bat Species Group Probability of Habitat Use Percent Change by Study Area

13.2.3.2 Birds

13.2.3.2.1 Evening Grosbeak

Survey Results

One (1) Evening Grosbeak was heard flying over a count site, during point count surveys conducted for the Project in 2019. One (1) additional Evening Grosbeak detection was recorded during 2021 ARU surveys.
Overall, Evening Grosbeak was rarely encountered within the LSA and insufficient data on this species was collected to produce BRT density or Resource Selection Function (RSF) occurrence modelling for this species.

13.2.3.2.2 Olive-sided Flycatcher

Survey Results

Twenty-six (26) Olive-sided Flycatcher detections were recorded during 2019 point-count surveys. Most of those detections (21) were recorded in either coniferous forest or woody wetland habitats.
Sufficient detections of Olive-sided Flycatcher were collected across baseline breeding bird point counts and ARU recordings, such that Boosted Regression Tree (BRT) density modelling could be produced for this species. The values were then summarized to the ELC polygon level, and a five-class quantile classification was applied to derive an aggregated functional habitat use value. The top quantile is rated as high (top 20% of values), next two quantiles as moderate and bottom two quantiles as low. Based on the model the LSA contains 6,285.66 ha (22.7%) of high suitability habitat while the RSA contains 26,285.6 ha (19.6%) of high suitability habitat (Table 13-12).
Table 13-12: Olive-sided Flycatcher Habitat availability in the LSA and RSA

Density mapping for this species across the RSA can be found in Appendix F of this EAR/IS – NEEC Report and
Section 13.3.9.1.

13.2.3.2.3 Rusty Blackbird

Survey Results

Six detections of Rusty Blackbird were recorded on four plots during 2019 breeding bird surveys. All four (4) of the plots where the detections were made were classified as woody or non-woody wetlands. One Rusty Blackbird was also recorded on May 28 during a 2019 waterfowl stopover survey. Seven detections of Rusty Blackbird were recorded on six plots during 2020 breeding bird point counts. All detections were recorded within fen, swamp, or riparian habitats.
Overall, Rusty Blackbird was uncommonly encountered across the LSA and insufficient data on this species was collected to produce BRT density or RSF occurrence modelling for this species.

13.2.3.2.4 Lesser Yellowlegs

Survey Results

One Lesser Yellowlegs was detected in the aerial waterbird survey on September 1, 2020. During the breeding bird point acoustic surveys, Lesser Yellowlegs were detected at one station in 2020 and twelve stations in 2021.
Insufficient data on Lesser Yellowlegs were collected to produce BRT density or RSF occurrence modelling.

13.2.3.2.5 Common Nighthawk

Survey Results

Common Nighthawk was not searched for formally during 2019 field surveys due to constraints with accessing remote habitat during dusk and dawn hours. None were recorded incidentally during breeding bird surveys or flushed accidentally. This species is assumed to be present in suitable habitat across the Project Footprint.
Analysis of dawn ARU data indicated that Common Nighthawk was notably more likely to be detected through ARU sampling than point count survey (20.6% vs 0%). Analysis of dusk ARU data yielded Common Nighthawk occurrence at 18 stations.
Common Nighthawk is a common breeder across open habitats across the LSA. Sufficient detections of Common Nighthawk were collected across baseline breeding bird point counts and ARU recordings, such that Boosted Regression Tree (BRT) density modelling could be produced for this species. The values were then summarized to the ELC polygon level, and a five-class quantile classification was applied to derive an aggregated functional habitat use value. The top quantile is rated as high (top 20% of values), next two quantiles as moderate and bottom two quantiles as low. Based on the model the LSA contains 4333.32 ha (15.7%) of high suitability habitat while the RSA contains 32781.12 ha (24.5%) of high suitability habitat (Table 13-13).
Table 13-13: Common Nighthawk Habitat availability in the LSA and RSA

13.2.3.2.6 Bald Eagle Background Information Review Survey Results
A total of 23 Bald Eagle nests have been recorded during field studies for the Project. Bald Eagle nests were located primarily along the expansive shoreline of Winisk Lake and among the many lakes west of Webequie. No Bald Eagle nests have been located within 1 km of the route alternatives for the WSR.
Overall, Bald Eagle is a regular breeding species along shoreline habitat across the LSA; however, insufficient data on this species was collected to produce BRT density or RSF occurrence modelling for this species.

13.2.3.2.7 Short-eared Owl

Survey Results

Short-eared Owl were not detected during field studies for the Project, incidentally or otherwise. No Short-eared Owls were detected at any point count locations and given that Short-eared Owls are a relatively non-vocal species, no detections were made on ARUs during the breeding season and fall. Additionally, due to battery and SD card failure, no recordings were available for processing from late winter (February-April).

13.2.3.3 Lake Sturgeon

13.2.3.3.1 Field Surveys
In general, waterbodies in the LSA and RSA were considered to support a variety of cool and cold-water fish. The large rivers support populations of Walleye, Lake Sturgeon, Brook Trout, Lake Whitefish, and other fish species. Many lower energy watercourses connected to these rivers provide habitat for Walleye and Northern Pike. Typically, Yellow Perch, White Sucker, and other small forage fish species are present with these larger bodied fish. Smaller streams and lakes in the area also support a variety of smaller-bodied fish, including cyprinid species, Brook Stickleback, and Mottled Sculpin. Fish habitat sensitivity ratings were determined for all waterbodies. Of the 31 waterbodies, three (3) were determined to be “rare”, 23 were determined to be “moderate”, and one (1) was “low”.

No Lake Sturgeon were captured during fish community sampling program for the Project and no eggs were identified during the spring spawning surveys. However, Webequie First Nation community members caught Lake Sturgeon from the Winiskisis Channel confirming their presence in that waterbody in 2020 as part of traditional food collection.
Results of the eDNA surveys did not identify any Lake Sturgeon at time of sampling in any watercourses assessed as well. Due to the current limited information, a precautionary approach will be used, and it will be assumed that Lake Sturgeon is present in Winisk Lake, Winisk River, the Muketei River, the Winiskisis Channel and major tributaries to these systems within the LSA and RSA for fish and fish habitat.

13.3 Identification of Potential Effects, Pathways and Indicators
In accordance with TISG Section 13 (Effects Assessment), the effects assessment must describe in detail the project’s potential adverse and positive effects in relation to each phase of the Project. For the WSR, this includes the construction and operation of the road. For the Species at Risk VC, potential environmental effects and measurable parameters were selected based on review of similar environmental assessments for linear projects (such as roadways, transmission lines, and pipelines) in Ontario and within Canada, comments provided during the engagement process, and professional judgement. While Potential Effects may be similar across the different wildlife criteria, each of the key species and species groups are evaluated individually.
The primary potential effects of the Project on the SAR and SAR Habitat VC are:

 Species at Risk Habitat Loss;
 Species at Risk Habitat Alteration or Degradation;
 Alteration in the Movement of Species at Risk; and
 Injury or Death of Species at Risk.
Potential effects, indicators, nature of the interactions, and threat assessments for the SAR and SAR Habitat VC are described in the following subsections and are summarized in Table 13-14.

13.3.1 Threat Assessment Approach
As required for the Effect Assessment, the potential effects were also evaluated for overall threat impact using the following criteria:
 Scope – defined spatially as the proportion of the valued component’s occurrence or population within the study areas (Project Footprint, LSA, and RSA) that can reasonably be expected to be affected by the predicted effect within 10 years:
 pervasive: the effect is likely to be pervasive in its scope, affecting the valued component across all or most (71-100%) of its occurrence or population within the study areas (i.e., Project Footprint, LSA, RSA);
 large: the effect is likely to be widespread in its scope, affecting the valued component across much (31-70%) of its occurrence or population within the study areas;
 restricted: the effect is likely to be restricted in its scope, affecting the valued component across some (11-30%) of its occurrence or population within the study areas; and
 small: the effect is likely to be very narrow in its scope, affecting the valued component across a small proportion (1-10%) of its occurrence or population within the study areas.
 Severity – defined as, within the scope, the level of damage to the valued component from the effect that can reasonably be expected; typically measured as the degree of destruction or degradation within the scope or the degree of reduction of the population within the scope:
 extreme: within the scope, the effect is likely to destroy or eliminate the valued component or reduce its population by 71-100% within ten years or three generations;
 serious: within the scope, the effect is likely to seriously degrade/reduce the valued component or reduce its population by 31-70% within ten years or three generations;
 moderate: within the scope, the effect is likely to moderately degrade/reduce the valued component or reduce its population by 11-30% within ten years or three generations; and

 slight: within the scope, the effect is likely to only slightly degrade/reduce the valued component or reduce its population by 1-10% within ten years or three generations.
 Irreversibility (or permanence) – defined as the degree to which the effect can be reversed and the valued component restored, if the effect no longer existed:
 very high: the effects cannot be reversed, and it is very unlikely the valued component can be restored, and/or it would take more than 100 years to achieve this (e.g., wetlands converted to a shopping center);
 high: the effects can technically be reversed and the valued component restored, but it is not practically affordable and/or it would take 21-100 years to achieve this (e.g., wetland converted to agriculture);
 medium: the effects can be reversed and the valued component restored with a reasonable commitment of resources and/or within 6-20 years (e.g., ditching and draining of wetland); and
 low: the effects are easily reversible, and the valued component can be easily restored at a relatively low cost and/or within 0-5 years (e.g., off-road vehicles trespassing in wetland).
 Magnitude – magnitude = scope x severity, as follows:

SEVERITY SCOPE
Magnitude – magnitude = scope x severity, as follows:

• Degree of effect – degree of effect = magnitude x irreversibility, as follows:

A Summary of the Threats Assessment is included at the end of the potential effects assessment for each of the SAR species. The evaluation criteria within the net effects section (Section 13.5) uses additional evaluation criteria, but the criteria used in the threats assessment are accounted for through the use of magnitude and irreversibility within the net effects evaluation. Similarly, the degree of effect found in the threat assessment is a component of the evaluation of significance completed in Section 13.6.

All potential effects, indicators, nature of the interactions, and threat assessments for the SAR and SAR Habitat VC are described in Section 13.3.2 through 13.3.12.

13.3.2 SAR and SAR Habitat
The following potential effects are common to all SAR and SAR Habitat criteria. Additionally, with the implementation of mitigation measures, described in Section 13.4 the effects are adequately mitigated and are not expected to cause net effects and were therefore not carried forward for further assessment.

13.3.2.1 Habitat Alteration or Degradation

Accidental Spills
Chemical or hazardous materials stored on or spills of such materials in the Project Footprint could affect wildlife survival and reproduction. Spills, should they occur, are predicted to be generally localized in nature. Given the types of activities that will be associated with the Project, the most likely types of spills would be fuel and/or oil-based products from machinery and equipment.

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

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

13.3.2.2 Injury or Death

Wildlife Attractants
Human-wildlife interactions may increase during the construction phase if SAR, or their predators are attracted to the Project Footprint by such things as food waste, sewage, or petroleum-based products. These materials can also change predator-prey relationships, which can affect SAR survival and abundance.

During Operations, attractants could also increase human-wildlife interactions and change predator-prey relationships, thereby affecting the survival and reproduction of Species at Risk. One example of an operational attractant would be roadkill, which, if not removed, could attract scavengers to the ROW and lead to collisions, incidental take, or changes to predator-prey relationships.

13.3.3 Caribou (Boreal population)

 Indigenous community members expressed concerns about the impacts of the Project on caribou migration routes. To assess the movement of caribou (Boreal and Eastern Migratory populations), the Project Team has reviewed background studies and Indigenous Knowledge shared by communities and conducted field investigations that include aerial surveys and caribou collaring. The results of the assessment of the Project’s potential impacts to caribou are described in Section 13.3.3. Proposed mitigation measures and monitoring approach to address potential effects of the Project to Caribou are

outlined in Section 13.4 and Section 13.10.

13.3.3.1 Habitat Loss
Caribou habitat loss may result from vegetation clearing activities and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. The pathways or activities which may result in loss of Caribou habitat are described below:
Site preparation, vegetation clearing activities, quarry creation and roadbed construction → Permanent removal of vegetation → Loss of Caribou habitat.

Construction

Habitat Loss Due to Clearing Activities
The Missisa Caribou Range is approximately 70,000 km2 in size while the Ozhiski Caribou Range covers 38,700 km2 (MNRF, 2014a; 2014b; 2014c). In northeastern Ontario, female Caribou were found to have mean annual home range sizes of 4,026 km² (Brown et al., 2003); however, these ranges are used variably throughout the year, and from year to year. Caribou (Boreal population) use habitat at different spatial scales, as described and categorized in the General Habitat Description (MECP, 2020). A total of 486,857 ha or 4.6% of the combined Missisa and Ozhiski Caribou Ranges are classified as Category 1. Category 2 encompass the majority of current Caribou distribution during all seasons within the range, with 71.79% or approximately 7.6 million ha classified as Category 2 within the Missisa and Ozhiski Caribou Ranges. Category 3 areas within the Missisa and Ozhiski Caribou Ranges total 23.6% of the range or 2.5 million ha.
Habitat loss is recognized as one of the contributing factors to Caribou range recession in Ontario (Ontario Woodland Caribou Recovery Team, 2008). Provincial mapping indicates that two (2) Category 1 features, both Nursery Areas, are present in the Caribou LSA, totaling 759 ha, or 0.3%. Approximately 80.4%, or 202,882 ha, of the Caribou LSA is classified as Category 2. The remaining 19.3% of the Caribou LSA is classified as Category 3. Details of the categorized caribou habitat areas potentially impacted, and hectares removed by the Project in the Caribou LSA and RSA are presented in Table 13-14. Overall, the results of habitat modeling estimate the removal of 232.4 ha of Category 1 Nursery Areas and 98,483.57 ha of Category 2 Seasonal Ranges. Category 3 Remaining Areas in the Range will increase by 98,797.34 ha from construction activities due to the conversion of Category 1 and Category 2 habitats, representing an increase of 202.6% of Category 3 in the Caribou LSA.

The 232.40 ha of Category 1 Nursery Areas estimated to be removed during construction activities represents 0.1% of the known Nursery Areas in the Missisa and Ozhiski Caribou Ranges (RSA). The 98,483.57 ha of Category 2 Seasonal Ranges to be removed during construction activities represents approximately 1.30% of the known Category 2 habitat in the Missisa and Ozhiski Caribou Ranges (RSA). Category 3 Remaining Areas in the Ranges will increase in the RSA by 102,096.69 ha or 4.6%.
Table 13-14: Details of Categorized Caribou Habitat Loss in the LSA and RSA

Operations

Habitat Loss Due to Clearing Activities

Road operations are unlikely to result in additional loss of Caribou habitat, including Category 1 High Use Areas, Category 2 Seasonal Ranges, and Category 3 Remaining Areas in the Range habitat areas, as regular maintenance will involve managing re-growth of vegetation along the ROW within the Project Footprint. There is a very low probability that reclaimed temporary laydown areas and clearings may need to be reused during operations. While the quarries are expected to remain operational following construction, the footprints will not be expanded and as such no additional habitat loss or destruction is anticipated to occur during operations.

13.3.3.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation
There may be alterations to caribou habitat resulting from vegetation clearing, hydrological changes and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. The pathways or activities which may result in alteration or degradation of caribou habitat include the following:
Construction and operations require vegetation removal, clearing activities, and maintenance → Changes in vegetation height, density, and community composition → Habitat structural changes alter or degrade Caribou habitat.
Construction activities and road operations generate noise, light, and other sensory disturbances → Habitat becomes less suitable, and Caribou use less frequently → Sensory disturbances alter or degrade Caribou habitat.
Construction of road and vegetation removals change drainage and alter soil moisture regimes → Hydrological changes to ground or surface water change wetland complexes within Nursery Areas and Seasonal Ranges → Alteration and degradation of Caribou habitat.

The federal recovery strategy (ECCC, 2020) describes Caribou (Boreal population) habitat alteration as changes to the landscape that “adversely impact the ecosystem, either temporarily or permanently, reducing the overall function of habitat within the range”. Project-related Caribou habitat alteration or degradation may result from vegetation clearing and disturbance during construction and throughout operations.

Alteration or degradation of Caribou habitat, including Category 1 High Use Areas, Category 2 Seasonal Ranges, and Category 3 Remaining Areas in the Range, may result from vegetation clearing and disturbances during construction and throughout operations. The area of disturbance is delineated as the Project Footprint surrounded by a 500 m buffer. Areas of sub-range classified habitat within 500 m that will potentially be impacted by the Project can be found in
Table 13-15.

Seasonal use of habitats within the 500 m buffered Project Footprint (i.e., area of disturbance), as determined under existing conditions, is presented in Table 13-16. Caribou seasonal use was modelled with a presence/absence RSF based collaring data with MNRF data. In general, the Missisa Range is used more heavily than the Ozhiski Range, with heightened use in areas throughout the Caribou LSA. Details of the modelling methods are provided in the Baseline report. Overall, the buffered area of disturbance contains moderate-use Caribou habitat in the spring (approximately 56.7% of the area) and in the winter (47.8% of the area) as identified in the existing conditions; only 0.1% of the buffered area of disturbance is considered high-use spring habitat, and 10.7% is high-use winter habitat in the existing conditions.

The pathways or activities which may result in alteration or degradation of Caribou habitat are described below.

Table 13-15:      Details of Categorized Caribou Habitat Alteration or Degradation

Table 13-16:      Seasonal Use of Habitats within 500 m Buffered Area of Disturbance

Construction

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Habitat Structural Change
The Woodland Caribou Recovery Strategy (Woodland Caribou Recovery Team, 2008) identifies alteration of vegetative cover as an activity that may result in adult female Caribou selecting higher risk environments for calving, i.e., Nursery Areas. Category 1 habitats, including Nursery Areas, have the lowest tolerance to alteration before their function in supporting Caribou is compromised (MECP, 2020). Range condition informs the relative tolerance of the range to alteration: where range condition is sufficient, there is an increased tolerance to alteration in all three (3) habitat categories (MNRF, 2014c). Based on the Integrated Range Assessment for Woodland Caribou and their Habitat: Far North Ranges (MNRF, 2014d), it is uncertain if the Missisa Range condition is sufficient to sustain Caribou, while the Ozhiski Range is sufficient to sustain Caribou; however, additional population trend data was identified as a requirement for the Ozhiski Range. The federal Recovery Strategy (ECCC, 2020) recognizes that highly disturbed Caribou ranges will take decades to recover from habitat alteration as Caribou (Boreal population) rely on mature boreal forest ecosystems that have evolved over centuries.
Vegetation removals, creation of the ROW and construction of the paved and gravel road surfaces may alter or degrade Caribou habitat near the Project Footprint, extending into the LSA by changing habitat structure, including vegetation height, density, and community composition. The ROW will be 35 m wide with a road surface spanning 12 m composed of gravel (eastern half) and asphalt or chip seal treatment (western half) (refer to Section 4.3.1). Edge effects from construction of the road include abiotic, direct biotic, and indirect biotic effects on the habitat that may influence changes to habitat structure. In Boreal upland mixed forests, road edge effects on forest plant communities and environmental variables can be measured at the immediate edge, and changes to species composition are also evident (Buss et al., 2024). Additionally, temporary construction facilities such as laydown areas and access roads that are reclaimed and revegetated will undergo succession as the habitats mature. Beauchesne et al. (2013) found female Caribou were less likely to be found within clearcuts as stands aged, gaining only a temporary benefit from young, regenerating habitats until other species such as moose and wolf increase in those areas (Courtois et al., 1998;
Nielsen et al., 2005).

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Sensory Disturbance

In Ontario, the impacts of sensory disturbances and their effects on Caribou are not well studied and are therefore a source of uncertainty (ECCC, 2024a). Anthropogenic disturbance in the Missisa Range is prevalent compared to the other Far North ranges and is primarily associated with high levels of mineral exploration activity (MNRF, 2014d). At a minimum, the application of a 500 m buffer on anthropogenic disturbance in Caribou habitat is recommended by ECCC, as 500 m represents an estimated zone of influence imparted by human-caused disturbance (ECCC, 2024a; ECCC, 2020; EC, 2011). Within this buffer, approximately 4.68% of existing Category 2 Seasonal Ranges would be altered in the Caribou LSA, and 5.41% of Category 3 habitat; in the Caribou RSA, this reflects an addition of 12,124 ha or 0.12% new anthropogenic disturbance to the area. During construction, activities such as blasting at quarries/pits, earth hauling and vegetation clearing, and the use of construction lighting, may reduce the ability of Caribou to use habitat in the LSA along the ROW and supportive infrastructure due to sensory disturbances.

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Hydrological Changes

While Caribou (Boreal population) rely on mature conifer forest cover, other biophysical features are important in composing the different types of habitats used throughout their lifecycle (MECP, 2020). Nursery Areas, considered as Category 1 High Use Areas, include wetland complexes dominated by fens and bogs interspersed with peninsulas and upland islands (Carr et al., 2011), while Seasonal Ranges (Category 2 habitat) are typically large tracts of undisturbed, mature forest interspersed with wetlands and lakes (MECP, 2020). Hydrological changes during road construction from activities such as grading, installation of drainage features, and construction of the roadbed could alter soil moisture regime, and shift or alter Nursery Areas and Seasonal Ranges. Changes may occur to both surface and groundwater,

causing flooding or drying of vegetation communities. As described in Section 11.3.3.3, 91.82% of the project RSA is wetlands, primarily peatlands susceptible to changes in the flow of surface and subsurface water resulting from the bisection of these features by roads. The effects of roads on hydrology and Caribou habitat can occur up to 250 m from the ROW; the habitat alteration assessment uses the same values as those shown in Section 11.3.3.3, with significant effects expected within 20m, moderate effects within 60m and minimal effects experienced at 250 m.

Operations

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Habitat Structural Change

The habitat structural changes that result in Caribou habitat alteration and degradation initiated during the construction phase from vegetation clearing and changes to vegetation community structure is expected to continue during the operations phase. These vegetation changes will be maintained during road operations, but no new structural changes to habitat are expected to be generated as a result. Operation of the roadway is unlikely to result in additional physical habitat alteration or degradation. Roadway repairs will be generally made to the roadway surface which may require short-term clearing of vegetation, but not beyond the original footprint of the road. Some additional clearing of gravel or borrow pits may occur which may result in small amounts of habitat alteration or degradation

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Sensory Disturbance

Sustained or repeated disturbance, such as regular road use by vehicles, can result in the reduction in use of suitable habitat (Sapolsky, 1992; Creel et al., 2002). Several studies have demonstrated that Caribou do not use suitable habitat in the vicinity of industrial activities and other human developments (Dyer et al., 2001; Mahoney and Schaefer, 2001; Dyer et al., 2002) indicating sensory disturbances such as noise, light, and scent may contribute to alteration or degradation of habitat. Overall, sensory disturbance effects to Caribou habitat in Ontario are poorly understood
(ECCC, 2024a) and the Caribou disturbance analysis used in the integrated risk assessment for the Missisa and Ohziski Ranges (MNRF, 2014d) may underestimate the effects of sensory disturbances on habitat (MNRF, 2014a). It is possible that noise, light, scent, and visual disturbances from vehicles travelling on the road during operations may impact Caribou habitat along the ROW and supportive infrastructure.

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Hydrological Changes

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

13.3.3.3 Alteration in Movement
Caribou (Boreal population) move between high use areas and seasonal ranges depending on their needs throughout the year, with individual mean annual home ranges of 4,000 km2 (Brown et al., 2003) The ability of Caribou to move long distances through the landscape to evade predators and access nursery areas and foraging opportunities, is likely critical to their fitness. Alteration in Caribou movement may result from vegetation clearing and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. The pathways or activities which may result in alteration in Caribou movement include the following:
Vegetation removal and clearing during construction fragments vegetated habitats and vehicle use during road operations creates a barrier → Caribou avoid crossing the road corridor during construction and operations → Loss of habitat connectivity alters Caribou movement.
Construction activities and road operations generate noise, light, scent, and other sensory disturbances → Sensory disturbances result in avoidance of area → Sensory disturbances alter Caribou movement.

Construction

Alteration in Movement due to Loss of Connectivity

Caribou movement is also likely to be altered by construction of the road due to the fragmentation of forest habitat, resulting in a loss of connectivity. The ROW will be 35 m wide with a road surface spanning 12 m composed of gravel (eastern half) and asphalt or chip seal treatment (western half) (refer to Section 4.3.1). The road corridor itself will extend approximately 70 km east-west across the Missisa Range, effectively reducing the width of the range by approximately 45% near the middle of the range and potentially causing Caribou to move large distances east
(into the Ozhiski Range) or west around the full extent of the road, which may be sub-optimal habitat. A study tracking 53 GPS-collared Caribou (Boreal population) in the Laurentides Wildlife Reserve (7250 km2), Quebec, before, during and after a highway expansion project found that 77% of the caribou did not cross the highway during the 6-year study period, and the presence of active construction sites (up to 7 km in length) elicited strong behavioural reactions by caribou (Leblond et al., 2013). The width of corridors can influence the barrier effect as well. When the highway in the Laurentides Wildlife Reserve was expanded from 25 m to 90 m, Caribou that had once used the highway prior to the expansion modified their home range as the modifications progressed and exhibited stronger avoidance behaviour (Leblond et al., 2013). Barrier effects on Caribou (Boreal population) may be more pronounced due to their sedentary or non-migratory nature making them less inclined to cross disturbance corridors (Klein, 1980; Dyer et al., 2002).

Alteration in Movement due to Sensory Disturbance

Caribou movement is likely to be altered by sensory disturbances generated during the construction phase. Noise, lighting, scent, and other human actions during construction activities such as blasting, clearing, hauling and grading will create disturbances that could alter movement of Caribou as they avoid the ROW and supportive infrastructure areas. In Ontario, the impacts of sensory disturbances and their effects on Caribou behaviour are not well studied and are therefore a source of uncertainty (ECCC, 2024a). It is generally understood that adult female Caribou avoid suitable locations when selecting Nursery Areas due to sensory disturbances from development or recreational activities
(Carr et al., 2007; Schaefer and Mahoney, 2007; Vors et al., 2007; Vistnes and Nellmann, 2008), with a potential critical threshold for pregnant cows identified as 10 to 15 km from the disturbance (Carr et al., 2011; MECP, 2020). In disturbed landscapes, Caribou (Boreal population) have been found to increase the size of their home ranges and reduce fidelity to seasonal and annual home ranges, likely to avoid disturbed habitat (Courtois et al., 2007). While Caribou (Boreal population) in Ontario have been found to demonstrate plasticity in migration, with facultative migration observed in forest-dwelling ecotypes, this plasticity was positively correlated with snow depth and had no relationship with human disturbance (Pereira et al., 2024).

Operations

Alteration in Movement due to Loss of Connectivity

Alteration in Caribou movement will occur in the Project Footprint due to vegetation clearing initiated during road construction that results in habitat fragmentation and loss of habitat connectivity. These vegetation changes will be maintained during road operations, but no new habitat fragmentation is expected to be generated as a result. Vehicles using the road during operations are expected to produce additional barrier effects resulting in a loss of connectivity across Caribou habitat. Temporally, roads may pose as a greatest barrier to Caribou during late winter or periods of the year when traffic levels are higher during operations. Dyer et al. (2002) found Caribou (Boreal population) in Alberta crossed actual roads six (6) times less frequently in late winter than control roads in their study, and also less frequently compared to other seasons (calving, summer, rut), although road use was higher in the winter than the other seasons. As such, it may actually be the level of traffic that creates the barrier effect, which was the result of a similar study conducted by Smith and Johnson (2023).

Alteration in Movement due to Sensory Disturbance

Caribou movement will be affected by road operations due to sensory disturbances noise, light, scent, and visual disturbances from vehicles travelling on the road. While the impacts of sensory disturbances and their effects on Caribou behaviour are not well studied in Ontario (ECCC, 2024a), Caribou behaviour is known to be altered by sensory disturbances from human developments and recreational activities, such as avoiding suitable Nursery Areas affected by sensory disturbances or increasing home range size to avoid disturbed habitats (Carr et al., 2007; Schaefer and Mahoney, 2007; Vors et al., 2007; Vistnes and Nellmann, 2008; MECP, 2020; Courtois et al., 2007). A potential critical threshold for pregnant cows was identified by Carr et al. (2011) as 10 to 15 km from the disturbance. Sensory disturbances generated by road operations may also elicit anti-predator behaviour in Caribou. The risk-disturbance hypothesis suggests displacement of wildlife by roads is because wildlife perceives roads, and associated human activity, as a predation risk (Frid and Dill 2002). Caribou (Boreal population) also move more quickly when near roads with increased traffic density (Leblond et al., 2013).

13.3.3.4 Injury or Death
The mean annual survival of adult female Caribou in the Missisa Range based on collaring data from 2008-2011 was 80% (MNRF, 2014d), which was below the assumed average adult female survival of 85% (EC, 2008). There was insufficient data collected for collared individuals in the Ozhiski Range to determine mean annual survival (MNRF, 2014d); however, based on recruitment data the population is either stable or declining (MNRF, 2014d). Survival of Caribou in a logged landscape was found by Fryxell et al. (2020) to be significantly lower than Caribou in an unlogged landscape (mean annual survival rate of 0.76 vs 0.90). The creation of the road may lead to both direct and indirect Caribou mortality. There could be increases in Caribou injury or death stemming from increased vehicle traffic during both construction and operation of the road, with indirect mortalities arising from increased energy expenditures, habitat changes, and increased presence of other ungulates carrying disease. The pathways or activities which may result in Caribou injury or death are described below.
Equipment and vehicles move within Project Footprint → Collisions with Caribou within Project Footprint → Injury or Death of Caribou.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Increased access for Caribou predators → Injury or Death of Caribou.
Construction and operations of road changes habitat structure and availability and alters movement of Caribou
→ Caribou increase energy expenditures to move to and from roosting and foraging habitats → Injury or Death of Caribou.
Construction of Road → Increased access to Caribou habitat by humans → Injury or Death of Caribou.
Construction and operation activities create linear corridor and change habitat structure and availability → Increased access for ungulates (e.g., white-tailed deer) carrying disease (e.g., brainworm [Parelaphostongylus tenuis], chronic wasting disease]) → Injury or Death of Caribou.

Construction

Injury or Death due to Collisions with Vehicles

Caribou injury and death may occur during construction due to collisions with construction vehicles and equipment. Generally, Caribou are known to avoid human disturbance, including roads. Wildlife species capable of sensing and avoiding risk from afar are typically at low risk of mortality from roads because they are rarely near roads (Rytwinski and Fahrig 2012; Jacobson et al. 2016).

Injury or Death Due to Increased Access

The development of the Webequie Supply Road could result in a negative effect on the abundance of Caribou through increased human access to Caribou habitat. Across most of the Caribou (Boreal population) distribution, including ranges in Ontario’s Far North Region, the extent of hunting and its effect on local Caribou populations is largely unknown (ECCC, 2020), including from poaching (COSEWIC, 2014). Caribou (Boreal population) have not been legally harvested in Ontario, except by First Nation Peoples, since 1929 (MECP, 2020). Creation of roads in previously inaccessible areas can often lead to increased use by hunters (Crichton et al., 2004; Boston 2016), which may also include increased harvesting by First Nation Peoples. Construction and other temporary workers may contribute to Caribou mortality via poaching during construction and exploit the local area to hunt during their time-off or post-shift.
The COSEWIC (2014) status assessment for Boreal Caribou across Canada indicates that adult female annual survival is approximately 75% (thus 25% mortality). Schmelzer (2013) determined that mean survival of females increased by 6% when hunting-related mortality was excluded from survival calculations. For certain Boreal populations in Quebec, a 3% decrease in female survival was observed in areas where hunting effects were present (Rudolph et al. 2012). As the mean annual adult female survival in the Missisa Range has been recognized as being below the 85% average annual survival rate (MNRF, 2014d; EC, 2008), additional pressure from hunting may jeopardize the recovery of the species in this range, and potentially the Ozhiski Range as well.

Injury or Death due to Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

The primary cause of Caribou (Boreal population) decline in Ontario is widely recognized as habitat disturbance that indirectly results in changes to predator-prey dynamics and increased predation rates (COSEWIC, 2014). Effects on Caribou survival from improved predator access and movement rates created during construction is likely. Grey Wolf is recognized as the primary predator of Caribou (Boreal population) (Ontario Woodland Caribou Recovery Team, 2008). In the context of the collaring study conducted to describe the baseline conditions, nine (9) of twenty-nine (29) collared caribou tracked over four (4) years died, presumed to have been due to wolf predation, with an annual mortality rate of 12.5%. Fryxell et al. (2020) found that Caribou mortality from predation was 7% in an unlogged landscape (Pickle Lake) and 14% in a logged landscape (Nakina) in Ontario, with the majority of predation events attributed to Grey Wolf. Grey Wolves and other predators use linear corridors to facilitate movement, which also increases hunting efficiency by these species as a result (Dickie et al., 2020, 2022; McKay et al., 2021; Pigeon et al., 2016). In the Nipigon Caribou Range, where there was 41 km of road per 100 km2 (Thompson et al., 2014) and the minimum caribou abundance was 0.50/100 km2 (MNRF, 2014d), Found et al. (2017) found that caribou made up only 3.1% of Grey Wolf diet. Mortality sites of radio-collared caribou killed by wolves were found to be closer to linear corridors than the locations of live animals (James and Stuart-Smith, 2000). Habitat disturbance may also create movement corridors and suitable habitat for alternate ungulate prey species (Cumming, 1992), which in turn results in increased wolf numbers (Ballard et al., 2000).

Injury or Death due to Increased Energy Expenditures

The cumulative effects of habitat loss, alteration and degradation, and alteration of movements on Caribou during construction will likely lead to increased efforts to travel throughout their home ranges, forage for food, and evade predators in the RSA. Female Caribou that avoid crossing roads have the potential to become trapped in sub-optimal habitats which can disrupt crucial biological activities and deplete energy as more time is spent foraging (Beauchesne et al., 2013; Frid and Dill, 2002; Zollner and Lima, 2005). Greater postpartum movement rates and increased use of lowland habitats have been associated with a higher risk of neonatal mortality (Walker et al., 2020), both of which may result from a combination of effects generated by the construction phase. Caribou in Ontario have seasonal differences in activity levels and relating to vegetation abundance (Mosser et al., 2014). They are typically more active in the winter
in areas with intermediate vegetation, with the opposite relationship observed in the summer, and activity levels are also higher in deeper snow, presumably due to cratering behaviour (Mosser et al., 2014). Caribou in Ontario were also observed by Mosser et al. (2014) to have significantly higher levels of activity at the lowest temperatures, suggesting the use of behavioural thermoregulation. In Alberta, Bradshaw et al. (1998) calculated the energy cost of a single

disturbance event to Caribou (Boreal population) as 3.46-5.81 megajoules (MJ). To lose >20% of autumn mass over the winter, which can reduce calf production (Cameron and Ver Hoef, 1994; Bradshaw et al., 1998), Caribou would have to encounter 41 to 137 disturbance events (mean = 89), highlighting the importance of modelling cumulative influences of disturbance during the winter on Caribou energy loss (Bradshaw et al., 1998). Modelling by Plante et al. (2020) on Caribou (Boreal population) in Quebec and Labrador suggest that cumulative effects of non-industrial (roads, villages) and industrial (mines, mining exploration) human disturbances impact early life (1 to 7 years) mortality risk during the winter for Caribou using warmer areas, with the mortality risk increasing by a factor of 6.5 for each 1°C increase. This suggests that Caribou displaced by roads into sub-optimal winter habitats may experience higher mortality rates, which may also be exacerbated by warmer temperatures.

Injury or Death Due to Disease

Construction of the road corridor may create suitable conditions for Moose and White-tailed Deer populations to increase, which may result in the proliferation of ungulate pathogens and disease in the Missisa and Ozhiski Caribou ranges. White-tailed Deer are the natural host of the parasitic meningeal worm or brainworm (Parelaphostrongylus tenuis), which is shed in the deer’s feces and taken up by gastropods (i.e., snails, slugs) and then incidentally consumed by ungulates browsing on vegetation (Cornell Wildlife Health Lab, 2025). While not fatal to White-tailed Deer, brainworm in Moose and Caribou migrates through the brain and spinal cord, causing severe neurological disease and death (Cornell Wildlife Health Lab, 2025; Anderson and Strelive, 1968). Another fatal disease carried by wild cervids is chronic wasting disease (CWD), which has been detected in jurisdictions bordering Ontario (Manitoba; Quebec; New York, U.S.A.) (MNR, 2024). CWD has been actively monitored in the province since 2002 and has not been detected to date (MNR, 2024). At this time, climate, snow depth, and winter severity are recognized as the greatest limiting factors to the expansion of White-tailed Deer into new northern environments in Ontario (Kennedy-Slaney et al., 2018;
Dickie et al., 2024) with habitat alteration contributing to a lesser degree (Dickie et al., 2024), likely limiting the ability of this species to spread disease to naïve Caribou populations in Ontario’s Far North in the medium-term.

Operations

Injury or Death due to Collisions with Vehicles

During operations, the predicted maximum vehicles travelling on the road is 500 per day, with the majority of travel anticipated to take place during daylight hours while Caribou are active. Generally, Caribou are known to avoid human disturbance, including roads, making them lower risk for road mortality; however, Caribou mortality due to collision with vehicles or trains, often involving groups of live animals, has been documented in several Canadian provinces, including Ontario (Cumming, 1992; Johnson, 1985; Brown and Ross, 1994).

Injury or Death Due to Increased Access

Effects on Caribou from increased access during operations are a continuation of the same impacts as described for the construction phase. The potential for harvest is also likely greater during the operations phase as it will operate over a long period of time with complete public access and provide new areas for hunters and harvesters to access habitat.

Injury or Death due to Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics
Effects on Caribou from predators during operations are a continuation of the same impacts as described for the construction phase. Maintenance clearing during operations will maintain openness along the ROW which will maintain predator access to areas on and near the road and facilitate movement. During the winter months, wolves have difficulty moving in snow deeper than 40 to 50 cm (Formozov, 1946) which typically prevents them from accessing
low-density Caribou populations (Jung et al., 2019) such as those in the Missisa and Ozhiski ranges. In unaltered environments, wolves will travel in areas of low snow, including existing wildlife trails, creeks, lakes, coniferous forests,

and windswept ridges (Mech, 1970; Paquet et al., 1996; Kuzyk and Kuzyk, 2002). During operations, the road will be kept clear of snow during the winter (refer to Section 4.3.1.5) which may allow for wolves to travel along the road or shoulder and access previously inaccessible Caribou habitat; for example, wolves in Denali National Park, Alaska, used plowed roads to hunt Dall sheep (Ovis dalli) in areas that were difficult to access (Murie, 1944). Paquet et al. (2010) also found that wolves used compacted trails, such as plowed roads and snowmobile trails, to travel areas where deep snow would otherwise impede movements. As such, wolves may use the plowed ROW to access both anthropogenic and natural movement corridors that may have otherwise been inaccessible and infiltrate further into the caribou RSA. Additionally, Caribou predators may be attracted to the active road due to roadside foraging opportunities, including hunting (e.g., hare, rodents, berries) and scavenging (e.g., roadkill) (Grilo et al., 2015).

Injury or Death due to Increased Energy Expenditures

Effects on Caribou from increased energy expenditures during road operations are largely a continuation of the same impacts as described for the construction phase. While some sensory disturbances may be minimized, the presence of the road corridor and daily use by vehicles will generate continuous effects. Murphy and Curatolo (1987) found that, near roads, Caribou reduce their food acquisition and increase their energy expenditure, and they tend to have higher movement rates and increased vigilance. Leblond et al. (2013) also found Caribou exhibited higher movement rates within 5 km of roads, especially when traffic density was high. The sensory disturbances generated by road traffic may lead to increased vigilance behaviour and movement, which can compromise fitness (Frid and Dill, 2002; Cameron
et al., 2005).

Injury or Death Due to Disease

Effects on Caribou from disease during operations are a continuation of the same impacts as described for the construction phase. The use of the road by vehicles is unlikely to generate additional opportunities for transmission of disease vectors to Caribou.

13.3.3.5 Threat Assessment
Each of the four potential effects categories were evaluated based on the threats assessment criteria outlined in the TISG and is based on IUCN-CMP unified threat classification system, referenced from NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk (NatureServe, 2012). Threats are assessed prior to any mitigative measures being applied. The threat assessment process is generally done at the population level but can be done at a more regional level. Caribou (Boreal population) were assessed at the range level
(i.e., Missisa and Ozhiski) in the RSA.
Scope for all threats to Caribou ranges from small to large as certain effects will be experienced more widely in the RSA. Threat severity ratings for these species range from slight to moderate. Loss of connectivity, sensory disturbances altering movement, and changes to predator-prey dynamics are serious as Caribou avoid crossing roads and avoid areas of human activity, and Caribou predators such as wolves and bears are likely to use the corridor to facilitate movement through Caribou habitat, especially during winter when the cleared road would be free of deep snow.
Caribou are known to be impacted by roads and human disturbances, which will likely result in Caribou being unable to use habitat in the LSA, including nursery areas, and avoiding areas entirely. Loss of connectivity will mainly occur across the Missisa range as the road will partially bisect the range east-west and may result in Caribou moving through sub-optimal habitat. Magnitude is rated as low to medium, with loss of connectivity, sensory disturbances that alter movement, and changes to predator-prey dynamics rated as medium. Irreversibility is very high for clearance activities and disease; high for habitat structural change, hydrological changes, loss of connectivity, and changes to predator- prey dynamics; medium for increased access and increased energy expenditure; and low for sensory disturbances and collisions with vehicles. Many of the effects relate to the fact that returning the corridor to baseline conditions would take decades or longer. Relating to injury and death of Caribou, changes to predator-prey dynamics and disease are highly

irreversible due to several factors, including reducing predator use of the ROW; eradication of disease; and the apparent lower annual survival and recruitment rate of the Missisa and Ozhiski ranges, which could take decades to recover from the loss of reproductively mature adults. The degree of effect is medium for clearance activities, loss of connectivity, changes to predator-prey dynamics, and disease, and low for all others.
A summary of the threat assessment for Caribou habitat loss, alteration or degradation of habitat, alteration in movement, and injury or death prior to the consideration of mitigation measures, is presented in Table 13-17.
Table 13-17: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Caribou (Boreal population)

13.3.4 Wolverine
13.3.4.1 Habitat Loss
Wolverine habitat loss is described as a reduction in total available habitat for the species during one or more stages of their life cycle. Wolverines are a far-ranging species that has been detected at survey sites across the Wolverine LSA. As such, the entire Wolverine LSA and project footprint is considered wolverine habitat, with the possible exception of deep lakes (although these are also utilized as travel paths during the winter). Given that much of the landscape is mature boreal forest, there are likely multiple areas of downed trees that may be suitable for wolverine denning.
Wolverine habitat loss, including suitable denning habitat, movement, and foraging habitat, may result from vegetation clearing activities and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. The pathways or activities which may result in loss of wolverine habitat are described below:
Site preparation, vegetation clearing activities, quarry creation and roadbed construction → Permanent removal of vegetation → Loss of Wolverine habitat.

Construction

Habitat Loss due to Clearing Activities

Wolverines select habitat at multiple spatial scales to meet their life history requirements, ranging from thousands of square-kilometres to the den site (Wolverine Recovery Team, 2013; ECCC, 2024b). Male wolverines establish their own territories and will travel long distances, crossing large areas of low-quality habitat (Packila et al., 2017; Carroll et al., 2020). Adult females exhibit a high fidelity to their territories and re-use their dens, which are typically taken over by a daughter when their mother dies (Aronsson and Persson, 2018; Vangen et al., 2001; Glass et al., 2022). Females have smaller home ranges than males and do not typically travel far from their natal home ranges, and they also prefer to den as far away from roads as possible (May et al., 2012; Sawaya et al., 2019; ECCC, 2024b). In a study conducted in Idaho and Alaska, almost all reproductive dens were located many kilometres from the closest road (Magoun and Copeland, 1998) which may indicate that the construction of roads, even several kilometers from a den site, may result in functional habitat loss through indirect effects.
As a result of their wide-ranging and diverse habitat preferences, wolverine habitat loss, including suitable denning, movement, and foraging habitat, will result from any permanent vegetation clearing, quarry creation, and related disturbance during construction and for the duration of operations. Habitat loss is recognized as the primary driver of wolverine range contraction from the historic southern extent of their range, which has been permanently converted and fragmented by human infrastructure (urban centres, settlement and associated linear corridors) (Wolverine Recovery Team, 2013; van Zyll de Jong, 1975; and Dawson, 2000; ECCC, 2024b). The placement of a road and its associated infrastructure would make the areas of removed habitat unusable to wolverines and have indirect effects to dens within several kilometres of the road. One den site discovered during baseline studies is known to occur within 400 m of the preferred alternative and will likely lose habitat function due to the construction of the road.
The results of habitat modelling via Ecological Land Classification (refer to Section 11), and an understanding of the Project Footprint, estimate construction activities will result in the removal of 546.57 ha of wolverine habitat in the LSA (Table 13-18), comprised of all ecotypes as Wolverine are wide-ranging and may use even low-quality habitat for movement purposes.
Table 13-18: Wolverine High-Use Habitat by Study Area

Operations

Habitat Loss due to Clearing Activities

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

13.3.4.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation
Alteration or degradation of wolverine habitat, including suitable denning habitat, may result from vegetation clearing and disturbances during construction and throughout operations. The pathways or activities which may result in alteration or degradation of wolverine habitat are described below.
Construction and operations require vegetation removal, clearing activities, and maintenance → Changes in vegetation height, density, and community composition → Habitat structural changes alter or degrade wolverine habitat.
Construction activities and road operations generate noise, light, and other sensory disturbances → Habitat becomes less suitable, and wolverine use less frequently → Sensory disturbances alter or degrade wolverine habitat.
Construction of road and vegetation removals change drainage and alter soil moisture regimes → Hydrological changes to ground or surface water reduce beaver habitat and riparian corridors → Alteration and degradation of wolverine foraging habitat and movement habitat.

Construction

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Habitat Structural Change

Vegetation removals, creation of the ROW and construction of the paved and gravel road surfaces may alter or degrade wolverine habitat near the Project Footprint, extending into the LSA by changing habitat structure, including vegetation height, density, and community composition. The ROW will be 35 m wide with a road surface spanning 12 m composed of gravel (eastern half) and asphalt or chip seal treatment (western half) (refer to Section 4.3.1). Edge effects from construction of the road include abiotic, direct biotic, and indirect biotic effects on the habitat that may influence changes to habitat structure. In boreal upland mixed forests, road edge effects on forest plant communities and environmental variables can be measured at the immediate edge, and changes to species composition are also evident (Buss et al., 2024).
Scrafford et al. (2017) found that wolverines were strongly attracted to logging areas during the active logging period as well as the following summer: slash piles and log decks in logging areas can provide suitable denning structures.
Disturbed forest sites also create early seral vegetation and edge habitats, which may provide foraging opportunities, and borrow pits may provide additional wolverine foraging habitat as suitable beaver habitat (Scrafford et al., 2017). However, temporal characteristics of such disturbances should be put into context, as attraction can result in negative consequences (e.g., road mortalities) and differ between age classes and sexes (Scrafford et al. 2017).
Wolverine activity was modelled with a presence/absence RSF. Details of the modelling methods are provided in the Baseline report. RSF modeling based on anticipated habitat loss predicts wolverine utilization of the Project Footprint to increase by 5.10%, use of the LSA to decrease 1.96% and use of the RSA to decrease 0.32% (Table 13-19).
Figure 13.6 shows the predicted use of the RSA under current conditions for wolverine. Figure 13.7 shows the predicted use under future conditions. The predictions of higher use in the Project Footprint are counterintuitive and may be a result of the model using the disturbances category to model projected use of the ROW. Given the use of the disturbance category as the representative for the ROW in the RSF modeling, the results can be interpreted as wolverine would use the new vegetated areas within the ROW at a higher rate than the vegetation communities that were removed; however, this only considers habitat structure, and not other effects that influence wolverine habitat selection, such as sensory disturbance.

Table 13-19: Wolverine Probability of Habitat Use Percent Change by Study Area

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Sensory Disturbance

During construction, activities such as blasting at quarries or pits, earth hauling and vegetation clearing, and the use of construction lighting, may reduce the ability of wolverine to use habitat along the ROW and supportive infrastructure due to sensory disturbances. Wolverine is identified as an excellent indicator of ecosystem integrity as it is one of the first species to disappear with the onset of human disturbance (Wolverine Recovery Team, 2013). Spatial studies of wolverine by Krebs et al. (2007) suggests that they negatively respond to human disturbance (such as helicopter activity and backcountry skiing) within occupied habitat.
Along the Trans-Canada Highway in Yoho National Park and Banff National Park, wolverines preferred areas more than
1.1 km from the highway (Austin, 1998). Studies have also indicated that wolverines are sensitive to forestry activities (e.g., Krebs et al., 2007, Bowman et al., 2010, Fisher et al., 2013) which include road building and would be similar to the activities undertaken by heavy machinery to clear vegetation and move earthen materials during the construction phase. Noise and light generated by construction may degrade wolverine habitat by reducing utilization of the area: this may be especially true during activities such as blasting, quarrying, hauling and clearing.

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Hydrological Changes
Hydrological changes during road construction from activities such as grading, installation of drainage features, and construction of the roadbed could alter soil moisture regime, and shift or alter wolverine wetland and riparian foraging and movement habitat. Changes may occur to both surface and groundwater, causing flooding or drying of vegetation communities. Beavers comprise an important part of wolverine diet in Ontario (Wolverine Recovery Team, 2013; COSSARO, 2014) and may be negatively affected by drying of wetland areas. As described in Section 11.3.3.3, 91.82% of the project RSA is wetlands, primarily peatlands susceptible to changes in the flow of surface and subsurface water resulting from the bisection of these features by roads. The effects of roads on hydrology and wolverine habitat can occur up to 250 m from the ROW; the habitat alteration assessment uses the same values as those shown in Section 11.3.3.3, with significant effects expected within 20 m, moderate effects within 60 m and minimal effects experienced at 250 m.

Operations

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Habitat Structural Change
The habitat structural changes that result in wolverine habitat alteration and degradation initiated during the construction phase from vegetation clearing and changes to vegetation community structure is expected to continue during the operations phase. These vegetation changes will be maintained during road operations, but no structural changes to habitat are expected to be generated as a result. Operation of the roadway is unlikely to result in additional physical habitat alteration or degradation. Roadway repairs will be generally made to the roadway surface which may require short-term clearing of vegetation, but not beyond the original footprint of the road. Some additional clearing of gravel or borrow pits may occur which may result in small amounts of habitat alteration or degradation
Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Sensory Disturbance
Noise, light, and visual disturbances from vehicles travelling on the road during operations may impact habitat along the ROW and supportive infrastructure. Previous studies indicate that roads generally reduce habitat suitability for wolverines (Scrafford et al. 2018) and both males and females have negative associations with active roads (Hornocker and Hash, 1981; Krebs et al., 2007). During the denning period, wolverines are particularly sensitive and select remote, undeveloped areas to establish their dens (Copeland, 1996; Krebs and Lewis, 2000; Copeland et al., 2007; Krebs et al., 2007; May, 2007). In Norway, the mean distance of 50 wolverine dens from public roads was 7.46 km and 3.06 km from private, less used roads (May, 2007), indicating road traffic may broadly alter adjacent habitats.
Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Hydrological Change
Operation of the road is not anticipated to result in further changes to hydrology than those initiated during the construction phase. It is possible that temporary changes to hydrology may occur during the operations, such as accumulation of debris affecting culverts and drainage that results in localized flooding and drying of areas.

13.3.4.3 Alteration in Movement
The ability of wolverines to move long distances across the landscape to detect scavenging and foraging opportunities, as well as to patrol territories, is likely critical to their fitness. These biological traits make wolverines especially sensitive to the effects of roads (Rytwinski and Fahrig 2012). Alteration in wolverine movement may result from vegetation clearing and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. The pathways or activities which may result in alteration in wolverine movement include the following:
Vegetation removal and clearing during construction fragments vegetated habitats → wolverines avoid crossing large gaps during construction and operations → Loss of habitat connectivity alters wolverine movement.

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

Construction

Alteration in Movement Due to Loss of Connectivity

Wolverine movement is likely to be altered by construction of the road because of the fragmentation of forest habitat, which results in a loss of connectivity. The ROW will be 35 m wide and have a road surface that spans 12 m and is composed of gravel (on the eastern half) and asphalt or chip seal treatment (on the western half) (refer to Section 4.3.1: Project Description, Project Components: Roadway). Wolverines are known to avoid crossing roads, which therefore act as a barrier and result in a loss of habitat connectivity that will extend into the operations phase. In a study that identified wolverine winter travel routes and responses to the Trans-Canada Highway in British Columbia, wolverines rarely approached the highway. Over a two-year period, they only crossed three (3) times, while also approaching the highway and not crossing an additional three (3) times (Austin, 1998). Where the three crossings occurred, the mean right-of-way width was significantly shorter (68 m) than where no crossings occurred (165 m) (Austin, 1998). Squires et al. (2006) also found that in Montana, Wolverine crossings of major roads occurred in areas with the narrowest distance between forest cover on each side of the road.

Alteration in Movement Due to Sensory Disturbance

Wolverine movement is also likely to be altered by sensory disturbances generated during the construction phase. Noise, lighting and other human actions during construction activities such as blasting, clearing, hauling and grading will create disturbances that could alter movement of wolverines as they avoid the ROW and supportive infrastructure areas. In Norway, wolverines were found to avoid areas with human structures such as houses, cabins, and settlements at the home range level, and this was attributed to human activities resulting in disturbance (May et al., 2006). Human disturbance has been found to be a major driver of wolverine distribution in British Columbia, with wolverines particularly avoiding areas with mechanized human disturbance (Kortello et al., 2019). Wolverines have also been found to abandon their dens when disturbed by human activities (Myrberet, 1968; Copeland, 1996).

Operation

Alteration in Movement Due to Loss of Connectivity

Alteration in wolverine movement will occur in the Project Footprint because of vegetation clearing, initiated during road construction, that results in habitat fragmentation and loss of habitat connectivity. These vegetation changes will be maintained during road operations, but the generation of new habitat fragmentation is not anticipated.

Alteration in Movement Due to Sensory Disturbance
Wolverine movement will be affected by road operations due to sensory disturbances generated from road use. Regular road use by vehicles and human use may create sensory disturbances that alter wolverine movement (Barrueto, 2025). Scrafford et al. (2018) found that wolverines in Alberta avoid roads and move quickly when in proximity to roads.
Wolverines are thought to perceive roads and surrounding areas as high-risk and are likely to spend less time in proximity to them (Scrafford et al., 2018). Wolverine displacement increases as traffic volume increases, and high-traffic roads are more likely to displace wolverines than low-traffic roads (Scrafford, 2017). The risk-disturbance hypothesis suggests displacement of wildlife by roads is because wildlife perceives roads, and associated human activity, as a predation risk (Frid and Dill 2002). This behaviour may be linked to a fear of being exposed to predators while crossing resource roads — particularly wolves, which may use the roads to hunt (Scrafford et al. 2018).

13.3.4.4 Injury or Death
The creation of the road may lead to both direct and indirect wolverine mortality. There could be increases in wolverine injury or death stemming from increased vehicle traffic during both construction and operation of the road, with indirect mortalities arising from increased energy expenditures and habitat change. The pathways or activities which may result in wolverine injury or death are described below.
Equipment and vehicles move within Project Footprint → Collisions with wolverine within Project Footprint → Injury or Death of wolverine.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Increased access for wolverine predators → Injury or Death of wolverine.
Construction and operations of road changes habitat structure and availability and alters movement of wolverine → wolverines increase energy expenditures to move to and from denning and foraging habitats → Injury or Death of wolverine.
Construction of Road → Increased access to wolverine habitat by humans → Injury or Death of wolverine. Construction
Injury or Death Due to Collisions with Vehicles

Wolverine injury and death may occur during construction due to collisions with construction vehicles and equipment. Wolverines are largely nocturnal but can be active at any time of day. Generally, wolverine are known to avoid human disturbance, including roads. Wildlife species capable of sensing and avoiding risk from afar are typically at low risk of mortality from roads because they are rarely near roads (Rytwinski and Fahrig 2012; Jacobson et al. 2016). Wolverines use both speed and avoidance to reduce their residency time in roadside habitats, which should ultimately reduce their mortality from roads (Scrafford et al. 2018).

Injury or Death Due to Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

Effects on wolverine survival from improved predator access and movement rates created during construction is possible. Predators of wolverine include Black Bear (Ursus americanus) and Grey Wolf (COSSARO, 2014). These species can use linear corridors to facilitate movement, which also increases hunting efficiency as a result (Dickie et al., 2019, 2022; McKay et al., 2021; Pigeon et al., 2016). In a study that tracked 56 wolverines near Red Lake, ON, between 2018 and 2022, one (1) of two (2) predator deaths was by wolf and located near a road/trail (Scrafford et al.,
2024). It is suggested that increased predator populations following habitat changes, such as the construction of a road, may negatively impact wolverine through competition or predation if wolf population density increases (Wolverine Recovery Team, 2013). Competition for prey may also increase if the range of Eastern coyote (Canis latrans) expands as a result of the constructed road (Chow-Fraser et al., 2022; ECCC, 2024b). Wolverine prey, including moose and caribou, area also affected by roads and avoid areas with dense corridors and heavy traffic (Beazley et al., 2004; Boulanger et al., 2020; ECCC, 2024b).

Injury or Death Due to Increased Energy Expenditures

The cumulative effects of habitat loss, alteration and degradation, and alteration of movements on wolverine during construction will likely lead to increased efforts to travel throughout their home ranges, forage for food, and access denning habitat in the RSA. Females are known to have high energetic demands while rearing young, and female body condition is thought to be a critical factor in successful reproduction (Banci, 1987; Persson, 2003; Rauset, 2013). Efforts to avoid construction-related disturbance, including increasing speed when near the corridor (Scrafford et al. 2018), may result in increased energy expenditures that can affect wolverine survival and reproduction.

Injury or Death Due to Increased Access

The development of the Webequie Supply Road could result in a negative effect on the abundance of wolverine through increased human access to wolverine habitat. Creation of roads in previously inaccessible areas can often lead to increased use by hunters (Crichton et al., 2004; Boston 2016), which may also include increased harvesting by
First Nation Peoples. Of 239 wolverines tracked by radio telemetry between 1972 and 2001, 22 of the 62 mortalities recorded were the result of trapping or hunting (Krebs et al., 2004). During the same period, in populations where trapping occurred, human-influenced mortality accounted for 46% of wolverine mortalities, while none occurred in
un-trapped populations (Krebs et al., 2004). In a study conducted in northwestern Ontario beginning in 2003, two (2) of seven (7) radio-collared wolverines were killed by incidental trapping 13 months after being collared (Dawson et al., 2010). Furthermore, a study near Red Lake, ON found that incidental trapping killed 6 of 56 individual wolverines between 2018 and 2022 (Scrafford et al. 2024). In 2009, the season for wolverine was closed to non-Indigenous trappers in Ontario (Wolverine Recovery Team, 2013); however, licenced trappers may apply to the MNR to possess incidentally trapped and killed wolverine as per Section 23.19 of Ontario Regulation (O. Reg.) 242/08 under the ESA and Part II of O. Reg. 666/98 under the FWCA.

Operations

Injury or Death Due to Collisions with Vehicles

During operations, the predicted maximum vehicles travelling on the road is 500 per day, with most of the travel anticipated to take place during daylight hours. Generally, wolverine are known to avoid areas of human disturbance, including roads, making them lower risk for road mortality. Less than 5% of radio-collared wolverines were killed by vehicles in North American between 1972 and 2001 (Krebs et al., 2004). In a study conducted in Red Lake, ON, that tracked 56 wolverines by radio-collar from 2018 through 2022, two (2) mortalities were by caused by vehicles (Scrafford et al., 2024).

Injury or Death Due to Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

Effects on wolverines from predators during operations are a continuation of the same impacts as described for the construction phase. Maintaining roadside vegetation during operations will sustain open conditions along the ROW, maintaining predator access to areas near the road and facilitating their movement. Predators such as wolves and bears may be attracted to the active road due to roadside foraging opportunities, including hunting (e.g., rodents, berries) and scavenging (e.g., roadkill) (Grilo et al., 2015).

Injury or Death Due to Increased Energy Expenditures

Effects on wolverine from increased energy expenditures during road operations are a continuation of the same impacts as described for the construction phase. While some sensory disturbances may be minimized, the presence of the road corridor and daily use by vehicles will generate effects that cause wolverines to avoid the ROW or increase their movement rate (speed). For example, one study found that the wider the road and the more traffic there is, the less likely Wolverines will cross it (Austin, 1998). When wolverine movement across the land is restricted, that makes it difficult to find food, suitable shelter, and find mates, leading to lowered health and genetic drift (ECCC, 2024b).

Injury or Death Due to Increased Access

Effects on wolverine from increased access during operations are a continuation of the same impacts as described for the construction phase. The potential for harvest is also likely greater during the operations phase as it will operate over a long period of time with complete public access and provide new areas for trappers to deploy traplines, which may result in intentional or incidental harvest of wolverine.

13.3.4.5 Threat Assessment
Each of the four potential effects categories were evaluated based on the threats assessment criteria outlined in the TISG and is based on IUCN-CMP unified threat classification system, referenced from NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk (NatureServe, 2012). Threats are assessed prior to any mitigative measures being applied. The threat assessment process is generally done at the population level but can be done at a more regional level. Wolverine, which have home ranges averaging 428 km2 (females) and
2,563 km2 (males), were evaluated at the LSA level.
Scope for all threats to wolverine ranges from small to large as certain effects will be experienced in the LSA and affect the population widely. Threat severity ratings for these species range from slight to serious. Clearance activities, sensory disturbances leading to habitat alteration or degradation, and sensory disturbances altering movement, are serious as wolverines are known to be impacted by roads and human activities, including mechanical disturbances, and will likely result in wolverines being unable to use habitat in the LSA, including denning habitat, and avoiding areas entirely. Injury or death associated with collisions with vehicles is also serious, as the risk will be present nearly constantly with vehicles travelling the road daily and the population of wolverines in the study areas is only thought to be six (6), so any mortality will have long-lasting impacts. Hydrological changes, loss of connectivity, increased access, and changes to predator-prey dynamics are moderate in severity, and clearance activities, habitat structural change, and increased energy expenditure are slight.
Magnitude is rated as low to high, with clearance activities, sensory disturbances that cause habitat alteration or degradation and sensory disturbances that alter movement rated as high. Irreversibility is very high for clearance activities and high for the remaining effects, apart from habitat structural change, which is medium, and sensory disturbances resulting in alteration of movement, which is low. Many of the effects relate to the fact that returning the corridor to baseline conditions would take decades or longer. Relating to injury and death of wolverine, collisions, increase access, changes to predator-prey dynamics, and increased energy expenditure are highly irreversible due to the low population number and low reproduction rate of this species, which could take decades to recover from the loss of reproductively mature adults. The degree of effect is low for clearance activities, and medium for all others except for the two effects related to sensory disturbances, which is high, and clearance activities, which is very high.
A summary of the threat assessment for wolverine habitat loss, alteration or degradation of habitat, alteration in movement, and injury or death prior to the consideration of mitigation measures, is presented in Table 13-20.
Table 13-20: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Wolverine

13.3.5 Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis
13.3.5.1 Habitat Loss
Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis habitat loss, including maternity roosting habitat and foraging habitat, may result from vegetation clearing and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. The pathways or activities which may result in loss or destruction of Myotis bats habitat are described below.
Site preparation, vegetation clearing activities, quarry creation and roadbed construction → Permanent removal of vegetation → Loss of Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis maternity roosting habitat and foraging habitat.

Construction

Habitat Loss due to Clearing Activities

Site preparation and construction activities would reduce the availability of suitable Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis maternity roosting and foraging habitat in the LSA and Project Footprint, and most areas in the Project Footprint will be permanently removed for the duration of road operations. Quarry creation may result in destruction of Myotis bats habitat when roosting and foraging habitat is removed. The results of habitat modelling via Ecological Land Classification (refer to Section 11), and an understanding of the Project Footprint, estimate construction activities will result in the removal of 9.22 ha of high use bat habitat in the LSA, comprised of Mixedwood Swamps (2.45 ha), Open Shore Fen/Thicket Swamp (0.02 ha), Open Shore Shrub Fen (0.83 ha) and River/Open Water (0.92 ha). Mixedwood Swamp is rare in the study areas, typically occurring in very small pockets within a Conifer Swamp mosaic.
RSF modelling was done for bats as a species group. Figure 13.8 shows the predicted use of the RSA under current conditions for bats. The Project Footprint was overlayed, and the underlying habitat removed. For Myotis bats, this represents a loss of approximately 1.91% of high-use habitat in the LSA and a loss of 0.71% of high-use habitat in the RSA due to road construction and operations (Table 13-21).
Table 13-21: Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis High-Use Habitat by Study Area

Habitat Loss due to Vegetation Clearing Activities

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

13.3.5.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation
Alteration or degradation of Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis maternity roosting habitat and foraging habitat may result from vegetation clearing and disturbances during construction and throughout operations. The pathways or activities which may result in alteration or degradation of bat habitat are described below.
Construction and operations require vegetation removal, clearing activities, and maintenance → Changes in moisture levels, sunlight exposure, temperature, and other abiotic and biotic habitat elements in adjacent habitats affecting vegetation height, density, and community composition → Habitat structural changes alter or degrade Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis habitat.
Construction activities and road operations generate noise, light, and other sensory disturbances → Noise and light impairs echolocation and changes prey availability → Sensory disturbances alter or degrade Little Brown Myotis and northern myotis habitat.
Construction of road and vegetation removals change drainage and alter soil moisture regimes → Hydrological changes to ground or surface water → Alteration and degradation of Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis wetland and riparian foraging habitat.

Construction

Habitat Alteration or Degradation Due to Habitat Structural Change
Vegetation removals, creation of the ROW and construction of the paved and gravel road surfaces may alter or degrade Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis habitat near the Project Footprint, extending into the LSA by generating edge effects that change habitat structure, including vegetation height, density, and community composition. The ROW will be 35 m wide with a road surface spanning 12 m composed of gravel (eastern half) and asphalt or chip seal treatment (western half) (refer to Section 4.3.1). Edge effects from construction of the road include abiotic, direct biotic, and indirect biotic effects on the habitat. In Boreal upland mixed forests, road edge effects on forest plant communities and environmental variables can be measured at the immediate edge, and changes to species composition are also evident (Buss et al., 2024).
Bat activity (SAR and non-SAR) was modelled with a Poisson regression, rather than a presence/absence RSF, using the daily average of number of detections (i.e., bat activity). Details of the modelling methods are provided in
Appendix F – NEEC Report). Poisson regression based on anticipated future disturbance effects predicts bat utilization to decrease 30.4% in the Project Footprint, decrease 11.8% in the LSA, and decrease 0.5% in the RSA (Table 13-22). Figure 13.8 shows the predicted use of the RSA under current conditions for all bats. Figure 13.9 shows the predicted use under future conditions. Overall, the change in habitat utilization can be attributed to habitat alteration from clearing the ROW and changing existing habitat features into early seral communities.

Habitat Alteration or Degradation Due to Sensory Disturbance
During construction, activities such as blasting at quarries/pits, earth hauling and vegetation clearing, and the use of construction lighting, may reduce the ability of Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis to use habitat along the ROW and supportive infrastructure due to sensory disturbances. Noise generated by construction equipment
(e.g., generators, pumps, and other motors), if occurring between dusk and dawn during the active season, may mask the lower frequency components of echolocation calls (Altringham and Kerth, 2016). Construction lighting may draw insects out of woodland habitats resulting in less prey availability for woodland-adapted bats near habitat edges (Altringham and Kerth, 2016).

Habitat Alteration or Degradation Due to Hydrological Changes
Hydrological changes during road construction from activities such as grading, installation of drainage features, and construction of the roadbed could alter soil moisture regime, and shift or alter bat wetland and riparian foraging habitat. Changes may occur to both surface and groundwater, causing flooding or drying of vegetation communities.
Little Brown Myotis foraging habitat is strongly associated with surface water features (Thorne, 2017). Additionally, many of the insect prey species of Little Brown Myotis and other bats originate from rivers, streams, ponds, and lakes (Clare et al., 2011). As described in Section 11.3.3.3, 91.82% of the project RSA is wetlands, primarily peatlands susceptible to changes in the flow of surface and subsurface water resulting from the bisection of these features by roads. The effects of roads on hydrology and bat habitat can occur up to 250 m from the ROW; the habitat alteration assessment uses the same values as those shown in Section 11.3.3.3, with significant effects expected within 20 m, moderate effects within 60 m and minimal effects experienced at 250 m.

Operations

Habitat Alteration or Degradation Due to Habitat Structural Change
The habitat structural changes that result in Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis habitat alteration and degradation initiated during the construction phase from vegetation clearing and changes to vegetation community structure is expected to continue during the operations phase. These vegetation changes will be maintained during road operations, but no new edge effects are expected to be generated as a result.

Habitat Alteration or Degradation Due to Sensory Disturbance
Noise and light from vehicles travelling on the road during operations may impact habitat along the ROW and supportive infrastructure. Siemers and Schaub (2011) found that traffic noise can decrease the foraging efficiency of bats by approximately 50%, decreasing proportionally with increasing proximity to highway noise.

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

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

Construction

Alteration in Movement Due to Loss of Connectivity
Myotis bats movement is likely to be altered by construction of the road due to the fragmentation of forest habitat. The ROW will be 35 m wide with a road surface spanning 12 m composed of gravel (eastern half) and asphalt or chip seal treatment (western half) (refer to Section 4.3.1). It is acknowledged that forest fragmentation has been found to positively affect the abundance Little Brown Myotis potentially due to increased access to both foraging and roosting sites (Ethier and Fahrig, 2011); however, this has not been studied in the context of boreal forest or roads, nor for all species such as those present in the RSA. Additionally, the Ethier & Fahrig (2011) study was conducted in 2009 prior to the discovery of White-nose Syndrome in Ontario in 2010 (MNRF, 2015b) and may not be reflective of present populations and their behaviours.

Alteration in Movement Due to Sensory Disturbance
Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis movement is also likely to be altered by sensory disturbances. Noise, lighting and other human actions during construction activities such as blasting, clearing, hauling and grading will create disturbances that could alter movement of bats as they avoid the ROW and supportive infrastructure areas.
Construction lighting used during the bat active season may result in woodland-adapted bats avoiding these areas, as they have been found to avoid both high-pressure sodium and white LED lights (Stone et al. 2009, 2012; Altringham and Kerth, 2016).

Operations

Alteration in Movement Due to Loss of Connectivity
Changes in Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis movement will occur in the Project Footprint due to vegetation clearing initiated during road construction that results in habitat fragmentation and reduced connectivity. These vegetation changes will be maintained during road operations, but no new habitat fragmentation is expected to be generated as a result.

Alteration in Movement Due to Sensory Disturbance
Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis movement will be affected by road operations due to sensory disturbances generated from road use. Bats, including Myotis bats, are less likely to fly across a road as traffic noise increases and display anti-predator behaviour in response to vehicles (Bennett and Zurcher, 2013; Zurcher et al., 2010).

13.3.5.4 Injury or Death
The creation of the road may lead to both direct and indirect Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis mortality. There could be increases in Myotis bats injury or death stemming from increased vehicle traffic during both construction and operation of the road, with indirect mortalities arising from increased energy expenditures and habitat change. The pathways or activities which may result in Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis injury or death are described below.
Equipment and vehicles move within Project Footprint → Collisions with Myotis bats within Project Footprint
→ Injury or Death of Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Incidental encounters with roosting little brown myotis and northern myotis → Injury or Death of little brown myotis and northern myotis.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Increased access for little brown myotis and northern myotis predators → Injury or Death of little brown myotis and northern myotis.
Construction and operations of road changes habitat structure and availability and alters movement of little brown myotis and northern myotis → little brown myotis and northern myotis increase energy expenditures to move to and from roosting and foraging habitats → Injury or Death of little brown myotis and northern myotis.

Construction

Injury or Death Due to Collisions with Vehicles
Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis injury and death may occur during construction due to collisions with construction vehicles and equipment that operate between dusk and dawn during the active season.

Injury or Death Due to Incidental Take
Vegetation clearing in Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis habitat and nearby quarry activities during road construction may result in injury or death to bats if conducted during the active season. Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis have very small body sizes, ranging from just a few centimetres to 10 cm in length, and can roost individually in leaf clusters, knot holes, loose bark, and cracks and crevices of trees, making them difficult to detect in their habitats. They roost during daylight hours, when work activities such as vegetation clearing and blasting are typically conducted. Vegetation clearing of roosting habitat has the potential to directly harm roosting Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis. Explosives will be used at aggregate source areas (i.e., ARA-2 and ARA-4) as part of the extraction/mining of bedrock rock material needed for the construction and operation phases of the Project (refer to Section 4). Based on the relatively low volumes of rock needed for the Project (5,500 m3) the blasting of rock using explosives during construction and operation activities is expected to occur on an infrequent basis. Blasting has the potential to cause injury or death to Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis from impact of uncontrolled projectiles if conducted in or adjacent to roosting habitat.

Injury or Death Due to Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics
Effects on Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis survival from improved predator access and movement rates created during construction is possible. Owls are recognized as predators of Myotis bats, including Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus) and Barred Owl (Strix varia); however, geographic variation of prey species in diet exists, therefore it is unknown to what extent owls may prey on bats in the RSA. According to a meta-analysis conducted by Bishop & Brogan (2013), owls comprise the second-largest number of road-killed birds after passerines in North America, which may serve as an indication that the bats are not deterred from roads and may be attracted to them.

Injury or Death Due to Increased Energy Expenditures
The cumulative effects of habitat loss, alteration and degradation, and alteration of movements on Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis during construction will likely lead to increased efforts to travel between roosting and foraging habitats and also to successfully forage for food in habitats near the Project Footprint. Bats are known to experience oxidative damage while migrating (Constantini et al., 2019), which may be experienced to a lesser degree during the active season if nightly travel distances between habitats increases. Foraging flight has been calculated as accounting for the largest proportion of the daily metabolized energy for female Little Brown Myotis during pregnancy (61%) and lactation (66%) (Kurta et al., 1989). Little Brown Myotis at higher latitudes may have lower daily energy expenditures than conspecifics at lower latitudes, however this may be explained by shorter summer periods coupled with behavioural strategies such as targeting different prey groups/species that provide different energetic benefits
(Boyles et al., 2016).

Operations

Injury or Death Due to Collisions with Vehicles
During operations, the predicted maximum vehicles travelling on the road is 500 per day, with the majority of travel anticipated to take place during daylight hours. Mortality during the operational phase is expected to occur throughout the Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis active season where flyways cross the road, such as near watercourses and upland forest habitat, in the event that vehicles travel between dusk and dawn. In one study along a 4 km stretch of highway that bisected Myotis bat travel routes between roosts and foraging areas, it was estimated that annual highway mortality could approach 5% of the roost colony (Russel et al. 2009). Additionally, Little Brown Myotis have been observed flying less than 2 m above the ground above open field (Russel et al. 2009), which would be low enough to encounter vehicles along a road, and these bats are documented suffering from vehicle-caused mortality (Russel et al. 2009).

Injury or Death Due to Incidental Take
Vegetation trimming in Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis habitat during road operation may result in injury or death to bats if conducted during the active season. Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis have very small body sizes, ranging from just a few centimetres to 10 cm in length, and can roost individually in leaf clusters, knot holes, loose bark, and cracks and crevices of trees, making them difficult to detect during vegetation management.

Injury or Death Due to Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics
Operation of the road may provide resources that attract predators (Hill et al., 2020), such as increased rodent populations attracting raptors. Use of the ROW during road operations by raptors can alter encounter rates with Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis and lead to increased predation, directly affecting Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis injury and mortality.

Injury or Death Due to Increased Energy Expenditures
Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis may experience increased energy expenditures during road operations as a result of other effects such as alteration in movement due to road avoidance, improved predator access, and sensory disturbances generated by road operations.

13.3.5.5 Threat Assessment
Each of the four potential effects categories were evaluated based on the threats assessment criteria outlined in the TISG and is based on IUCN-CMP unified threat classification system, referenced from NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk (NatureServe, 2012). Threats are assessed prior to any mitigative measures being applied. The threat assessment process is generally done at the population level

but can be done at a more regional level. Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis, which have home ranges encompassing roosting and foraging habitats that are at minimum 90 ha and 17.7 ha, respectively in size (Owen et al., 2003; Yates et al., 2011), were evaluated at the LSA level. These species were evaluated together as they share many similarities in life processes and habitat requirements.
Scope is small for all threats to both Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis as the percent of the population affected is less than 10% of the available habitat and population within the LSA. Threat severity ratings for these species range from slight to serious. One (1) threat related to hydrological change resulting in habitat alteration or degradation is serious because these bats rely on aquatic habitats to produce much of their aerial insect prey, and Little Brown Myotis foraging habitat is strongly associated with surface water features. Clearance activities, habitat structural change, sensory disturbances, and changes to predator-prey dynamics are rated as moderate, while loss of connectivity, incidental take and increased energy expenditure are assessed has having slight severity. Magnitude is rated as low for all threats. Irreversibility is very high for clearance activities and high for hydrological changes as the roadbed will likely never be removed and such changes are challenging to reverse in short time, if ever. Irreversibility is also high for edge effects and habitat fragmentation, as the effects can technically be reversed but would take time and considerable effort. Relating to injury and death of Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis, collisions, incidental take and changes to predator-prey dynamics are highly irreversible due to the low population numbers and low reproduction rate of these species, which could take decades to recover from the loss of reproductively mature adults. The rest of the threats are deemed medium or low and can be more easily reversed. The degree of effect is low for all except habitat loss and destruction due to vegetation removal, which is moderate.
A summary of the threat assessment for Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis habitat loss, alteration or degradation of habitat, alteration in movement, and injury or death prior to the consideration of mitigation measures, is presented in Table 13-23.
Table 13-23: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis

13.3.6 Evening Grosbeak
In general, reviews of available scientific literature indicate that the construction and presence of roads are detrimental to birds through a series of interconnected effects (Kociolek et al., 2011). The ECCC (2022) Management Plan for the Evening Grosbeak, lists roads and railroads as one of three primary threats to the species in Canada, yet considers the impact as ‘low’ overall. However, the ECCC threat assessment does not discuss many of the indirect or habitat loss effects of roads on the species. The following sections discuss both the direct and indirect impacts of road construction and operation on the Evening Grosbeak, under four broad effect categories.

13.3.6.1 Habitat Loss
Project activities will include vegetation removal and soil disturbance, which will cause the physical removal of potential habitat across the Project Footprint – this directly results in upland forest habitat removal. There may be additional upland forest habitat loss resulting from hydrological changes and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. Removal of forest habitat within the Project Footprint will be a permanent impact, as long as the road is used and maintained.
The pathways or activities which may result in loss or destruction of wildlife habitat include the following:
Site preparation vegetation clearing and ground disturbance within upland forest areas → loss of Evening Grosbeak breeding and foraging habitat.

Construction

Habitat Loss due to Clearance Activities
The construction of the road has the potential for direct and indirect effects that could cause the loss of Evening Grosbeak habitat through physical alteration and removal of suitable habitat.
Evening Grosbeak distribution is closely associated with old, mixed wood forests with high percentages of
Fir (Abies sp.), White Spruce (Picea glauca), or Trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) as well as conifer forests. Based on an understanding of Evening Grosbeak habitat preferences, the results of habitat modelling for Ecological Land Classification (refer to Section 11), were used to estimate removals of preferred habitat during construction. Predicted construction activities will result in the removal of 4.21 ha (3.32%) of mixedwood forest and
81.15 ha (4.29%) of Conifer Forest in the LSA, representing approximately 4.23% of the most suitable Evening Grosbeak habitat in the LSA. Overall, suitable Evening Grosbeak habitat is somewhat uncommon throughout the study area with 7.29% of the LSA and 7.5% of the total study areas (Project Footprint, LSA and RSA combined) consisting of these vegetation communities.
However, according to the Boreal Avian Modeling Project (2020) and Birds Canada (2018), the RSA is located at the very northern extent of the boreal distribution range for Evening Grosbeak (COSEWIC, 2016). Therefore, given the limited removal percentages of upland conifer forest in the RSA, and the limited distribution of the species in the region, the effect of habitat loss is likely minimal.

Operations

Habitat Loss due to Clearance Activities
Ongoing vegetation clearing during roadway operations are likely to be limited to overgrowth at road edges. The Project footprint is not expected to expand during operations. Since Evening Grosbeak require mature, diverse, forested habitats it is unlikely that operation of the roadway will result in additional habitat losses from vegetation removal.

13.3.6.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation
There may be alterations to Evening Grosbeak habitat resulting from vegetation clearing, introduction or pollution of invasive species and disturbances during construction and throughout operations. The pathways or activities which may result in alteration or degradation of upland forest bird habitat include the following:
Accidental spill during construction or operations activities → Transportation of material into wetland → Alteration or degradation of Evening Grosbeak habitat.
Construction and operations activities cause sensory disturbances (light, noises, dust) → Sensory disturbances impact on adjacent areas → Alteration or degradation of Evening Grosbeak habitat.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Structural differences between cleared and remaining vegetation create edge effect → Alteration or degradation of Evening Grosbeak habitat.
Construction and maintenance activities → Introduction of invasive species → Alteration or degradation of Evening Grosbeak habitat.

Construction

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

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Sensory disturbances
Sensory disturbances resulting from road construction, including movement of equipment and vehicles, noise, lighting, and other human activities may degrade habitat for Evening Grosbeak adjacent to the Project Footprint, reducing utilization of the area or masking vocalizations related to courtship or alarm calling (Zhou et al. 2024). Noise generated by construction equipment and vehicles during the construction phase may degrade habitat, resulting in reduced body condition (Ware et al. 2015). Sensory disturbance may be especially high during construction when activities such as blasting, quarrying, hauling and clearing may occur during all hours causing wetland birds to avoid the ROW and supportive infrastructure. Construction noise is less continuous and more impulsive than traffic noise so habituation to the noise would not be likely in most cases. Light pollution can alter songbird singing occurrence (Da Silva et al., 2015) and egg laying (Senszaki et al., 2020) which may alter reproductive success. Species with good lowlight eyesight could be using artificial light to hunt more effectively (Senszaki et al., 2020).

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Habitat Structural Change
Changes to vegetation structure during road construction activities may alter or degrade upland songbird habitat near the Project Footprint due to vegetation clearing activities and removals. These vegetation removals may lead to edge effects, including abiotic, direct biotic, and indirect biotic effects on the habitat after the implementation of mitigation measures. It is anticipated that restoration of laydown areas and access roads will reverse some of the habitat alteration or degradation caused by road construction, but most areas will remain free of tall vegetation. Edge effects from road construction and operation have not been specifically studied for Evening Grosbeak populations; however, unpaved road corridors 8 to 10 m in width have been found to affect the distribution of forest songbirds, resulting in reduced relative abundance (Ortega and Capen, 2002). Evening Grosbeak typically breeds in second growth and mature coniferous woodland and mixed forest and has not been reported in peer reviewed literature as benefitting from or

commonly interacting with early successional habitat. However, successional habitats resulting from regenerating clearcuts in conjunction with larger, natural landscapes have been recognized as important for post-fledgling bird species that nest in mature forest (Chandler et al., 2012).

Habitat Alteration or Degradation from introduction of invasive plant species
Construction activities have the potential to introduce invasive plant species to the forested habitats used by Evening Grosbeak. One of the pathways of spread for invasive plants is through construction equipment. Improperly
cleaned construction equipment has the potential to transport and spread invasive plants, with cleared areas, including roads sides being susceptible to invasion (Hanen and Clevenger, 2005). Once established in a new habitat, most invasive species are nearly impossible to eradicate (Pimentel et al. 2005). Invasive plant species can impact on multiple ecosystem aspects including structure, diversity and function (CFIA, 2008). However, while invasive plants are known to spread along transportation corridors, few invasive species have been found in naturally occurring boreal forest habitats used by Evening Grosbeak and when established often only spread a few meters into the adjacent forest (Langor et al. 2014). For Evening Grosbeak density is closely tied to Spruce Budworm (C. occidentalis) and is unlikely to be affected by any change in understory plant composition.

Operations

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Accidental Spills
Similar to the effects during the construction phase, there could be effects to Evening Grosbeak habitat quality during the operations phase of the Project from accidental spills, which may result in Evening Grosbeak habitat degradation. Spills during operations would most likely originate from accidental releases from vehicles traveling to and from the community. The road is forecasted to have low traffic volumes, and traffic along the roadway will be primarily personal and commercial vehicles and transport trucks associated with the community. While estimate frequency of spills is low (0.00000019 spills per mile, or 0.00000012 spills per kilometer [Harwood and Russell, 1990]), its predicted that minor spills and release are possible. However, given the upland environment for Evening Grosbeak any spills are likely to be small and contained to the local environment.

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Sensory disturbances
Road operations may impact Evening Grosbeak habitat. During operations, most sensory impacts will be related to traffic noise, which has been found to degrade bird habitat either through complete avoidance of areas near roads or decreased habitat value (Ware et al. 2015; Summers et al. 2011). Declines in densities of some songbird species have been shown to occur at a threshold around 45-48 dB (Sadlowski, 2011). Acoustic modeling places the 50 db zone of influence at approximately 125 m beyond the Project footprint (See Appendix J – Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report), and 50 dB is the noise level Environment and Climate Change Canada uses in their guidelines to avoid harm to migratory birds (EEEC, 2023). Noise from vehicles has been found to reduce bird vocalization, which could affect behaviour related to foraging, mating and predator avoidance (Cretois et al., 2023). While road sensory disturbance has not been specifically studied for Evening Grosbeak populations, road corridors 8 to 10 m in width have been found to affect the distribution of forest songbirds, resulting in reduced relative abundance (Ortega and Capen, 2002), which may be attributed to alteration or degradation of habitat. However, at the regional scale, Evening Grosbeak abundance was not found to correlate with local background noise levels at banding stations across the
U.S. (Ng et al., 2020). While lighting along roads is a major sensory disturbance for birds, the WSR road will not have lighting except near the community limiting its impact.

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Habitat Structural Change
Changes to vegetation structure during operations will have similar impacts on Evening Grosbeak and their habitat as during the construction phase. While it is anticipated that restoration of laydown areas and access roads will reverse some of the habitat alteration or degradation caused by road construction, maintenance activities, including removal of

roadside vegetation during road operations, will create periodic disturbances and sustain edge effects along the ROW. The sustained early seral vegetation along the ROW will continue to not be viable as Evening Grosbeak habitat.
Regenerating areas may become viable in the long-term if they remain undisturbed.

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

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

Construction

Alteration in Movement due to Loss of Connectivity
Gaps in cover created by anthropogenic activities are known to impede movement of birds but is species- and habitat- dependent (Desrochers and Hannon, 1997; Grubb and Doherty, 1999). Forest specialist species that have shown reluctance to cross gaps like those created by roads where the road creates a distinctive edge between the road and preferred habitats, with larger gaps acting as a greater barrier (Grubb and Doherty, 1999). The project ROW, at 35 m, is smaller than the gap size (50 m) found to limit crossings for some boreal birds (St Clair et al., 1998), although some laydown and temporary clearings will exceed this limit. While Evening Grosbeak has been shown to be area sensitive, this was at the landscape level and not at the local level where gaps along forest edges may affect movement (Desrochers et al., 2010). No studies have shown that Evening Grosbeaks are limited in their movement by narrow gaps between forest patches. Evening grosbeaks are highly mobile and migratory based on food availability.

Alteration in Movement due to Sensory Disturbance
Upland forest bird movement is also likely to be altered by sensory disturbances. Noise, lighting and other human actions during construction activities such as blasting, clearing, hauling and grading will create disturbances that could alter movement of upland forest birds as they avoid the project ROW and supportive infrastructure. While no studies specifically examining noise effects on Evening Grosbeak were found, multiple bird species have been found to respond behaviourally to sudden, loud noises by abandoning the area near the disturbance and varied in their rate of return (Wright et al. 2010; Delaney et al. 2011). This behavior of abandonment of locations due to loud noise has been use in some locations like airports to prevent birds from occupying the area. Light pollution is a top sensory disturbance for birds during migration often disorienting them during migration. Light pollution can also attract insectivorous birds due to increased foraging opportunities (Lebbin et al., 2007).

Operations

Alteration in Movement due to Loss of Connectivity

Similar to the construction phase, during operations alteration in movement due to loss of connectivity may occur. Maintenance activities will maintain vegetation in an early seral state, however like during the construction phase, avoidance of these areas may be minimal. While some forest species have show to avoid gaps, including road gaps this has generally been found along much wider gaps than the 35 m project ROW.

Alteration in Movement due to Sensory Disturbance

Noise will be the primary sensory impact on Evening Grossbeak during operations as the road will not have lighting. Traffic noise has been found to lower abundance and promote avoidance in many in many bird species (McClure et al. 2013). High-traffic roads have been shown to affect bird distribution when noise exceeded 56 dB (Hirvonen, 2001).
Sensory disturbance by roads has not been directly measured for Evening Grosbeak.

13.3.6.4 Injury or Death
The creation of the road may lead to both direct and indirect Evening Grosbeak mortality. There may be increases in upland forest SAR bird injury or death stemming from increased vehicle traffic during both construction and operation of the road, with indirect mortalities arising from increased energy expenditures and habitat change. The pathways or activities that may result in upland forest SAR bird injury or death include the following:
Equipment and vehicles moving within Project footprint → Collisions with Evening Grosbeak within Project Footprint → Injury or Death of Evening Grosbeak.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Incidental encounters with Individuals or nests → Injury or Death of Evening Grosbeak.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Increased access for Evening Grosbeak Predators → Injury or Death of Evening Grosbeak.

Construction

Injury or Death due to Collisions with Vehicles

Movement of construction equipment and vehicles within Project Footprint could result in increased death and injury of Evening Grosbeak. Collisions with vehicles is among the top three causes of bird mortalities in Canada (Calvert et al., 2013). Vehicles will be travelling between camps and construction locations; these trips could occur at all hours and encounters with birds would not be unexpected. Bird mortality from vehicle collisions is often related to travel speed of the vehicle as birds use distance as a threat estimate and can miss-judge the closing distance between themselves and the vehicle, resulting in collision (DeVault et al. 2016). Evening Grosbeaks are attracted to roads, particularly outside of the breeding season, for the ingestion of grit and road salt and suffer mortality as a result of collisions with vehicles (ECCC, 2022). For example, more than 2,000 Evening Grosbeaks were found dead along a 16-km stretch of highway in British Columbia in a single count conducted in 1981 (Smith, 1981).

Injury or Death due to Incidental Take

As Special Concern species under the SARA and the ESA, Evening Grosbeak habitats are not protected. However, under the Migratory Birds Convention Act (GOC, 1994), it is prohibited to disturb their nests during the breeding season. Vegetation clearing in Evening Grosbeak habitat during road construction, and/or movement of equipment/vehicles

though vegetated areas, may result in injury or death to birds, hatchlings, and/or eggs if management of vegetation is carried out during the breeding season, even after mitigation measures have been applied. The characteristics of songbird nests can make them difficult to detect. Evening Grosbeaks typically build medium (13 cm diameter) nests in tall trees at least 5 m above the ground typically close to the trunk (Gillihan and Byers, 2020). The nests are usually in dense foliage and are rarely located (OBBA, 2005) making incidental take is possible.

Injury or Death due to Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

Effects on Evening Grosbeak survival from improved predator access and movement rates is possible during the construction phase. Creation of new roads connected to human activity is known to spread predators into previously unoccupied areas (Lantham et al. 2011). Possible nest predators of Evening Grosbeak include Common Raven (Corvus corax), and Sharp-shinned Hawk (Astur striatus), Cooper’s Hawk (Astur cooperii), and Northern Goshawk (Astur gentilis) are known to prey on young birds and adults (Gillihan and Byers, 2020). Sharp-shinned Hawks will hunt from forest edges (Bildstein et al., 2020). Nest parasitism by Brown-headed Cowbirds (Molothrus ater) has also been reported (Gillihan and Byers, 2020), however no Brown-headed Cowbirds were recorded during the baseline studies and Brown-headed Cowbird range is outside the RSA (OBBA, 2005).
Operations

Injury or Death due to Collisions with Vehicles

As in the construction phase, Evening Grosbeak are likely to suffer from vehicle collisions because of their roadside foraging behaviours. Collisions with vehicles is among the top three causes of bird mortalities in Canada (Calvert et al., 2013). Along low-volume forest roads in Canada, it has been estimated that more than 14,000 birds are killed annually due to collisions with vehicles, or approximately one (1) bird every 3 km per year (Bishop and Brogan, 2013), this number is likely vastly underreported for small birds due to their size and scavenging. The number of collisions will vary over the lifetime of the road as collisions are related to periods of Spruce Budworm outbreaks.

Injury or Death due to Incidental Take

Vegetation clearing in Evening Grosbeak habitat is also scheduled to occur during operations. Though smaller in scale, periodic clearing of the ROW may occur during operations as part of line-of-sight maintenance or infrastructure repairs. Most clearing during operations will consist of removal of small vegetation and is unlikely to affect preferred Evening Grosbeak habitat but a small chance exists that large trees adjacent to the roadway may be removed due to safety concerns.

Injury or Death due to Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

Effects on Evening Grosbeak from changes to predator-prey dynamics during operations are a continuation of the same impacts as described for the construction phase. Maintenance clearing during operations will maintain openness along the ROW which will maintain predator access to areas near the road and facilitate movement.

13.3.6.5 Threats Assessment
Each of the four potential effects categories were evaluated based on the threats assessment criteria outlined in the TISG and is based on IUCN-CMP (International Union for the Conservation of Nature–Conservation Measures Partnership) unified threat classification system, referenced from NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk (Natureserve, 2012). Threats are assessed prior to any mitigative measures being applied. The threat assessment process is generally done at the population level but can be done at a

more regional level. Evening Grosbeaks, which is highly nomadic, with little site fidelity, dispersing up to 950 km between breeding seasons was evaluated at the RSA level.
Scope is small for all threats to both Evening Grosbeaks as the percent of the population affected is less than 10% of the available habitat and population within the RSA. Severity of the threats ranges from slight to serious: threats related to vegetation removals are serious within the scope based on the high degree of habitat loss and alteration; changes to habitat structure, collisions with vehicles and changes in predator-prey dynamics were all rated as moderate due to measurable population changes within the scope; and all other threats are slight. Magnitude is rated as low for all threats.
Irreversibility is very high for vegetation remove as the roadbed will likely never be removed but hydrological mitigations could be done. Irreversibility is high for spills, habitat structural change, invasive species, and predation because while the effects can technically be reversed it would take time and considerable effort. Hunting and loss of connectivity could be restored with a reasonable commitment of resources. The rest of the threats were deemed low and can be easily reversed. The degree of effect was low for all except vegetation loss which was moderate.
A summary of the threat assessment for Evening Grosbeak habitat loss, alteration or degradation of habitat, alteration in movement, and injury or death prior to the consideration of mitigation measures, is presented in Table 13-24.
Table 13-24: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Evening Grosbeak

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

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

Habitat Loss due to Clearance Activities
The construction of the road has the potential for direct and indirect effects that could cause the loss of wetland songbird habitat through physical alteration and removal of suitable habitat.
In the eastern and northern boreal, Olive-sided Flycatcher is heavily associated with open wetland habitats, including bogs and swamps with a high ratio of forest edges and wetlands (COSEWIC 2020). Based on an understanding of Olive-sided Flycatcher habitat preferences, the results of habitat modelling for Ecological Land Classification (refer to Section 11), were used to estimate removals of preferred habitat during construction. Predicted construction activities will result in the removal of 201.02 ha (2.02%) of Conifer Swamp communities, 44.85 ha (1.33%) of Fen Communities,
90.36 ha (1.07%) of Bog Communities, 6.88 ha (0.84%) of Riparian/Shore Communities, and 81.15 ha (4.29%) of Conifer Forest in the LSA, representing approximately 1.73% of the most suitable Olive-sided Flycatcher habitat in the LSA. Overall, suitable Olive-Sided Flycatcher habitat is common throughout the study area with 64.58% of the LSA and 60.77% of the Full Study Area consisting of these vegetation communities.
Gradient BRT modelling was also done to estimate density for the Olive-Sided Flycatcher using ARU data.
Figure 13.10 show the estimated density of Olive-Sided Flycatcher within the RSA under current conditions for the Olive-Sided Flycatcher. When the Project Footprint is overlayed it shows a loss of approximately 1.11% of highest-use habitat in the LSA and a loss of 0.27% of high-use habitat in the RSA due to road construction (Table 13-25). Modeled densities ranged from 0.0 to 0.584 birds/ha with the highest quantile (highest 20%) starting at 0.319.
Table 13-25: Olive-sided Flycatcher High-Density Habitat by Study Area

On its breeding grounds, Rusty Blackbird prefers wet ecosites including fens, bogs, and ponds. In the Hudson Bay Lowlands, it occurs along creeks with dense riparian vegetation (OBBA, 2005). Nesting occurs in trees or shrubs near water, relatively low down with dense vegetation preferred (COSEWIC, 2017). Based on an understanding of Rusty Blackbird habitat preferences the results of habitat modelling for Ecological Land Classification (refer to Section 11), were used to estimate removals of preferred habitat during construction. Predicted construction activities will result in the removal of 201.02 ha (2.02%) of Conifer Swamp communities, 44.85 ha (1.33%) of Fen Communities, 90.31 ha (1.09%) of Treed Bog Communities, 6.55 ha (0.91%) of Shrubby Riparian/Shore Communities, representing approximately 1.53% of the most suitable Rusty Blackbird habitat in the LSA. Overall, suitable Rusty Blackbird habitat is common throughout the study area with 64.58% of the LSA and 60.77% of the Full Study Area consisting of these vegetation communities.
Given the wide availability of suitable habitat for both Olive-sided Flycatcher and Rusty Blackbird, the effect of habitat loss is likely minimal.

Habitat Loss due to Hydrological Changes
Construction activities have the potential to cause the destruction of wetland songbird habitat through changes to groundwater and surface flows. In terms of groundwater, project construction may lead to changes in the local hydrogeological environment by increasing, decreasing or redirecting groundwater flows. Road construction in particular can alter subsurface flows in peatlands changing the hydrology long-term (Waddington et al. 2014). Changes in surface water conditions can also occur with the installation of crossing structures. Such changes are generally concentrated downstream of the effect but can also take place on the upstream side if channel restriction causes water impoundment which can cause death of vegetation (Bocking et al., 2017). Both Olive-sided Flycatcher and Rusty Blackbird could be affected by hydrological changes. For Rusty Blackbird, shallow water (≤ 6 cm deep) is an important driver of habitat selection (COSEWIC, 2017), therefore small changes in water levels could destroy feeding habitats. For Olive-sided Flycatcher, given its preference for nesting in forest edge trees near water, death of vegetation could lead to loss of nesting habitat, but the creation of snags could add perching habitat.
Operations

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

Habitat Loss due to Hydrological Changes
Olive-sided Flycatcher or Rusty Blackbird habitat loss through changes to hydrology could also potentially occur during the operations phase due to culvert and crossing structure maintenance. Culverts and other crossings could become partially or fully blocked from sediment or beaver activity. If culvert maintenance is ignored, given sufficient time, death of vegetation and loss of habitat could occur (Bocking et al., 2017).

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

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

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Hydrological Changes
It is widely accepted that roads can alter the hydrologic function and characteristics of peatland communities (Saraswati et al., 2020). Potential changes in surface water drainage patterns and increases or decreases in flows and surface water levels in waterbodies, as well as changes to groundwater, are described in detail in Sections 7 and 8.
While destruction of habitat can result in extreme cases, alteration and degradation of Olive-sided Flycatcher or Rusty Blackbird habitat could occur in many others (Bocking et al., 2017). Hydrological changes associated with construction may affect wetland drainage patterns, resulting in lower or higher water levels and altering the plant community (Miller et al. 2015). For Rusty Blackbird, shallow water (≤ 6 cm deep) is an important driver of habitat selection (COSEWIC, 2017), therefore small changes in water levels could easily alter feeding habitats as depth to water table is a primary driver of habitat suitability (Bale et al., 2019). Thes changes can be extensive; a study within
boreal fens in Alberta found pronounced differences in canopy cover up to 250 m from road edges in both rich and poor treed fens (Willier et al., 2022).

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Sensory disturbances
Sensory disturbances resulting from road construction, including movement of equipment and vehicles, noise, lighting, and other human activities may degrade habitat for Olive-sided Flycatcher or Rusty Blackbird adjacent to the Project Footprint, reducing utilization of the area or masking vocalizations related to courtship or alarm calling (Zhou et al.
2024). There is evidence that Rusty Blackbirds respond negatively to disturbance and avoid changes in their

environment (IRBTG, 2009) including lower abundance near roads (Wildlife Resources Consulting Services, 2020). While human disturbance effects on Olive-sided Flycatcher have not specifically been measured, noise disturbance has been shown to reduce abundance in some species of flycatcher (Francis et al., 2021), and reproductive success in others (Mulholland et al., 2018). Light pollution can alter songbird singing occurrence (Da Silva et al., 2015) and egg laying (Senszaki et al., 2020) which may alter reproductive success; this is species and habitat dependant with species in open habitats more effected than those in forested habitats. Insectivorous species with good lowlight eyesight could be using artificial light to hunt more effectively (Senszaki et al., 2020) and while Olive-sided Flycatcher has not been specifically studied, other flycatcher species have been found to use artificial light for foraging (Frey, 1993).

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Habitat Structural Change
Changes to vegetation structure during road construction activities may alter or degrade wetland songbird habitat near the Project Footprint due to vegetation clearing activities and removals. These vegetation removals may lead to edge effects, including abiotic, direct biotic, and indirect biotic effects on the habitat after the implementation of mitigation measures. It is anticipated that restoration of laydown areas and access roads will reverse some of the habitat alteration or degradation caused by road construction, but most areas will remain free of tall vegetation.
The edge effect on Olive-sided Flycatcher and Rusty Blackbird is likely relatively low due vegetation structure of their preferred wetland communities. Olive-sided Flycatcher prefers habitats with high heterogeneity and high contrast edges like where forest meets bogs, fens and other open habitats (Altman and Sallabanks, 2012). Small openings like roads may be a positive effect for Olive-sided Flycatcher as they often have higher densities (Norris et al., 2021) Rusty Blackbirds also use high contrast habitats, especially the edge between forest and riparian areas (Larue et al., 1995), although given their avoidance of human disturbance, an edge effect for roads may be expected.

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

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

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Hydrological Changes
Olive-sided Flycatcher and Rusty Blackbird habitat could also be impacted by changes to hydrology may occur during the operations phase. Localized changes to hydrology could occur if culvert maintenance along the road is ignored, either in terms of repairs to the structure or removal of accumulated debris. The area affected would be dependent on the amount of time the culvert remains blocked as well as the size of the impounded area.

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Sensory disturbances
Road operations may impact Olive-sided Flycatcher and Rusty Blackbird habitat. During operations, most sensory impacts will be related to traffic noise, which has been found to degrade bird habitat either through complete avoidance of areas near roads or decreased habitat value (Ware et al. 2015; Summers et al. 2011). Declines in densities of some songbird species have been shown to occur at a threshold around 45-48 dB (Sadlowski, 2011). Noise from vehicles has been found to reduce bird vocalization, which could affect behaviour related to foraging, mating and predator avoidance (Cretois et al., 2023). Acoustic modeling places the 50db zone of influence at approximately 125 m beyond the Project footprint (See Appendix J – Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report), and 50 dB is the noise level Environment and Climate Change Canada uses in their guidelines to avoid harm to migratory birds (EEEC, 2023). Rusty Blackbird has been shown to have lower abundance near roads in some boreal studies (Wildlife Resources Consulting Services, 2020) but has not been shown to have an impact in other areas (Powell et al. 2014). While lighting along roads is a major sensory disturbance for birds, the WSR road will not have lighting except near the community limiting its impact.

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Habitat Structural Change
Edge effects during operations will have similar impacts to Olive-sided Flycatcher and Rusty Blackbird and their habitats. While it is anticipated that restoration of laydown areas and access roads will reverse some of the habitat alteration or degradation caused by road construction, maintenance activities, including removal of roadside vegetation during road operations, will create periodic disturbances and sustain edge effects along the ROW.

Habitat Alteration or Degradation from introduction of invasive species
The introduction and spread of noxious and invasive plant species could also occur during operations and will have similar potential impacts on Olive-sided Flycatcher and Rusty Blackbird habitat. Transportation corridors are avenues of dispersal for invasive plants (Langor et al. 2014), and given the longer timeframe, operation of the road has the potential to spread aquatic as well as terrestrial invasive plants into the RSA. Aquatic plants can be introduced to waterbodies when recreational boats are moved, and improper cleaning and decontaminating procedures are used on the boat or equipment (Cole et al. 2019). The introduction of riparian species such as Phragmites australis australis (European Common Reed) could potentially alter both Olive-sided Flycatcher and Rusty Blackbird habitat but given the current northern range limits of most invasive plants in Ontario, the potential for establishment could be limited.

13.3.7.3 Alteration in Movement
There may be alterations in wetland songbird movement stemming from construction activities and operation of the road. The pathways or activities which may result in changes in wildlife movement include the following:
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → structural differences between cleared and natural vegetation act as a barrier → Alteration in movement of wetland Olive-sided Flycatcher and/or Rusty Blackbird.
Construction and operations activities cause sensory disturbances (light, noises, dust) → Disturbances cause avoidance response → Alteration in movement of Olive-sided Flycatcher and/or Rusty Blackbird.

Construction

Alteration in Movement due to Loss of Connectivity
Gaps in cover created by anthropogenic activities are known to impede movement of birds but is species- and habitat- dependant (Desrochers and Hannon, 1997; Grubb and Doherty, 1999). Bird species that have shown reluctance to cross gaps like those created by roads are generally forest species where the road creates a distinctive edge between the road and preferred habitats, with larger gaps acting as a greater barrier (Grubb and Doherty, 1999). While wetland songbirds have not been studied to the same degree, birds in treed swamps and bogs are likely to respond similarly. Lack of gap crossing is especially true for small birds which are more likely to be impeded by the changes in vegetation structure (Johnson et al. 2017). Fragmentation likely has a low impact on Olive-sided Flycatcher as it commonly uses fragmented areas and gaps, including abrupt edges (COSEWIC, 2018). While Rusty Blackbird uses forest openings, there is the potential for areas fragmented by roads to act as a barrier to movement as some avoidance of roads has been detected.

Alteration in Movement due to Sensory Disturbance
Noise, lighting and other human actions during construction activities such as blasting, clearing, hauling and grading will create disturbances that could alter movement of wetland songbirds as they avoid the project ROW and supportive infrastructure. Unlike sensory disturbances in the operations phase, many of these disturbances will be abrupt, and occur randomly and at different locations. While no studies specifically examining wetland songbirds were found, multiple bird species have been found to respond behaviourally to sudden, loud noises by abandoning the area near the disturbance and varied in their rate of return (Wright et al. 2010; Delaney et al. 2011). The abandonment of locations due to loud noise has been use in some locations like airports to prevent birds from occupying the area. Rusty Blackbird in particular are known to be neophobic and may alter movement to avoid construction noise and other activities (IRBTG, 2005). Anthropogenic light may also affect bird movement as evidence shows it can be both a deterrent
(Read, 1999) and an attractant (Gauthreux et al., 2006), this may be particularly true for Olive-sided Flycatcher which may forage for insects around the artificial lights (Lebbin et al., 2007).
Operations

Alteration in Movement due to Loss of Connectivity
Similar to the construction phase, during operations alteration in Olive-sided Flycatcher and/or Rusty Blackbird movement due to loss of connectivity may occur. Maintenance activities will maintain vegetation in an early seral state; however, as was the case during the construction phase, avoidance of these areas may be minimal as both Olive-sided Flycatcher and Rusty Blackbird use edge habitats. Intraspecific competition might cause crossing avoidance: roads are often used as territory boundaries, and territorially aggressive species such as the Olive-sided Flycatcher could prevent conspecifics, or in some cases other species, from crossing (Johnson et al., 2017).

Alteration in movement due to Sensory Disturbance
Vehicle noise is anticipated be the primary sensory impact on Olive-sided Flycatcher and/or Rusty Blackbird during operations. Traffic noise has been found to lower abundance and promote avoidance in many in many bird species (McClure et al. 2013). High-traffic roads have been shown to affect bird distribution when noise exceeded 56 dB (Hirvonen, 2001). One study that directly examined sensory disturbance of roads by the Keeyask Generation Project (WRCS, 2020) found Olive-sided flycatcher activity appeared to be similar at disturbed and reference sites while there was less activity by Rusty Blackbird at disturbed sites; however, the results are preliminary.

13.3.7.4 Injury or Death
The creation of the road may lead to both direct and indirect Olive-sided Flycatcher and/or Rusty Blackbird mortality. There could be increases in wetland bird injury or death stemming from increased vehicle traffic or clearing activities during both construction and operation of the road, with indirect mortalities arising from increased predator encounters. The pathways or activities which may result in wetland songbird injury or death include the following:
Equipment and vehicles moving within Project footprint → Collisions with Olive-sided Flycatcher and/or Rusty Blackbird within Project Footprint → Injury or Death of Olive-sided Flycatcher and/or Rusty Blackbird.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Incidental encounters with Individuals or nests → Injury or Death of Olive-sided Flycatcher and/or Rusty Blackbird.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Increased access for Olive-sided Flycatcher and/or Rusty Blackbird Predators → Injury or Death of Olive-sided Flycatcher and/or Rusty Blackbird.
Construction

Injury or Death due to Collisions with Vehicles
Movement of construction equipment and vehicles within the Project Footprint could result in increased death and injury of Olive-sided Flycatcher and Rusty Blackbird. Collisions with vehicles is among the top three causes of bird mortalities in Canada (Calvert et al., 2013). Vehicles will be travelling between camps and construction locations; these trips could occur at all hours and encounters with birds would not be unexpected. Bird mortality from vehicle collisions is often related to travel speed of the vehicle as birds use distance as a threat estimate and can miss-judge the closing distance between themselves and the vehicle, resulting in collision (DeVault et al. 2016). Wetland songbirds that forage and fly low from shrub to shrub have been found to be highly vulnerable to road mortality (Santos et al., 2016). Rusty Blackbirds, which forage in shallow water and perch in low vegetation, would likely be more vulnerable than Olive-sided Flycatchers, which forage from perches at the top of trees.

Injury or Death due to Incidental Take
As Special Concern species under the SARA and the ESA, Rusty Blackbird and Olive-sided Flycatcher habitats are not protected. However, under the Migratory Birds Convention Act (GOC, 1994), it is prohibited to disturb their nests during the breeding season. Vegetation clearing in Olive-sided Flycatcher and Rusty Blackbird habitat during road construction, and/or movement of equipment/vehicles though vegetated areas, may result in injury or death to birds, hatchlings, and/or eggs if management of vegetation is carried out during the breeding season, even after mitigation measures have been applied. The characteristics of songbird nests can make them difficult to detect. Rusty Blackbird place well concealed nests in small trees or dense shrubs often close to water (OBBA, 2005). Olive-sided Flycatcher are often high in coniferous trees in dense clusters of needles and twigs. Given the cryptic nature of their nests, incidental take
is possible.

Injury or Death due to Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics
Effects on Rusty blackbird and Olive-sided Flycatcher survival from improved predator access and movement rates is possible during the construction phase. Linear features are known to facilitate predator movement in the boreal (Dickie et al., 2017; Benoit-Pepin et al., 2024) and creation of new roads connected to human activity is known to spread predators into previously unoccupied areas (Lantham et al. 2011). Rusty Blackbird and Olive-sided Flycatcher have a number of common predators including Canada Jay, Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus), Common Raven and Red Squirrel (COSEWIC 2017 and 2018). These species have been document to use forest edges like a road
ROW to increase their predation success (Ibarzabal and Desrochers, 2004; Robertson and Hutto, 2007; Bildstein et al., 2020). While nest parasitism is often discussed as an outcome of edge creation, no Brown-headed Cowbirds

(Molothrus ater) were recorded during the baseline studies. As such, nest parasitism related to the project is unlikely as reported Brown-headed Cowbird range is outside the RSA (OBBA, 2005).
Operations

Injury or Death due to Collisions with Vehicles
Vehicle travel during operations will likely cause injury or death to Olive-sided Flycatcher and Rusty Blackbird as collisions with vehicles is among the top three causes of bird mortalities in Canada (Calvert et al., 2013). Along low-volume forest roads in Canada, it has been estimated that more than 14,000 birds are killed annually due to
collisions with vehicles, or approximately one (1) bird every 3 km per year (Bishop and Brogan, 2013), this number is likely vastly underreported for small birds due to their size and scavenging. As in the construction phase, if present near the road, Rusty Blackbirds are more likely to suffer a collision than Olive-sided Flycatcher because of their foraging behaviours. However, they have shown some road avoidance which would make their presence less likely near the road.

Injury or Death due to Incidental Take
Vegetation clearing in Olive-sided Flycatcher and Rusty Blackbird habitat is also scheduled to occur during operations as both species use habitat openings and edges. Though smaller in scale, periodic clearing of the ROW may occur during operations as part of line-of-sight maintenance or infrastructure repairs. If maintenance occurs during the breeding season, nests, eggs and individuals could be injured or killed; Rusty Blackbird nests are usually well concealed in small trees which would make them vulnerable to maintenance activities. Olive-sided Flycatcher placement of nests high in mature trees would make them less vulnerable in the operations phase.

Injury or Death due to Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics
Effects on Olive-sided Flycatcher and Rusty Blackbird from predators during operations are a continuation of the same impacts as described for the construction phase. Maintenance clearing during operations will maintain openness along the ROW, which will allow predators increased access to wetland areas near the road, exposing Olive-sided Flycatcher and Rusty Blackbird to increased predation. Nest predation is the most common source of nest failure for both birds (COSEWIC, 2017; COSEWIC 2018). The predator impact in some cases could be species specific as with American Marten (Martes americana) for Rusty Blackbirds and Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) for Olive-sided Flycatcher (COSEWIC 2017 and 2018). While some studies have found a positive effect on bird survival due to roads and resulting predator avoidance of roads, it is often attributed to higher levels of human presence (Singer et al. 2020), which given the low traffic levels are unlikely for this project.

13.3.7.5 Threats Assessment
Each of the four potential effects categories were evaluated based on the threats assessment criteria outlined in the TISG and is based on IUCN-CMP (International Union for the Conservation of Nature–Conservation Measures Partnership) unified threat classification system, referenced from NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk (Natureserve, 2012). Threats are assessed prior to any mitigative measures being applied. The threat assessment process is generally done at the population level but can be done at a more regional level. Olive-sided Flycatchers and Rusty Blackbirds, which have breeding territories that are approximately 10 to 20 ha in size, were evaluated at the LSA level.
Scope is small for all threats to both Olive-sided Flycatcher and Rusty Blackbird as the percent of the population affected is less than 10% of the available habitat and population within the LSA. Both species have threat severity ratings ranging from slight to serious. The two (2) threats related to vegetation removals are serious for both species as well, as within the scope based on the high degree of habitat loss and alteration, hydrologic loss is rated as severe for Rusty Blackbird because of its requirement for specific water depths while Olive-sided Flycatcher rates as moderate.

Hydrologic alteration, predation and spills are rated as moderate for both Olive-sided Flycatcher and Rusty Blackbird. Rusty Blackbird has a severity rating of moderate for sensory disturbances and connectivity while Olive-sided Flycatcher has a rating of slight. The difference is based on the evidence of road avoidance for Rusty Blackbird. All other severity ratings are slight. Magnitude is rated as low for all threats.
For both Olive-sided Flycatcher and Rusty Blackbird the ratings are the same. Irreversibility is high for hydrological changes and very high for vegetation removal as the roadbed will likely never be removed and such changes are challenging to reverse in short time, if ever. Irreversibility is also high for spills, edge effects, invasive species, and predation because while the effects can technically be reversed it would take time and considerable effort. The rest of the threats were deemed low and can be easily reversed. The degree of effect was low for all except habitat loss and destruction due to vegetation removal, which was moderate.
A summary of the threat assessment for Olive-sided Flycatcher habitat loss, alteration or degradation of habitat, alteration in movement, and injury or death prior to the consideration of mitigation measures, is presented in Table 13-26, and the summary for Rusty Bird is presented in Table 13-27.
Table 13-26: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Olive-sided Flycatcher

Table 13-27: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Rusty Blackbird

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

Habitat Loss due to Clearing Activities
The construction of the road has the potential for direct and indirect effects that could cause the loss of Lesser Yellowlegs habitat through physical alteration and removal of suitable habitat. Lesser Yellowlegs in the eastern Canadian boreal nest primarily in drier areas surrounded by open wetlands, specifically large open fens with open waterbodies (COSEWIC, 2020). They also nest in raised open areas like regenerating burns that retain their wetland features (Cadman et al. 2007).

Using the results of habitat modelling via Ecological Land Classification (refer to Section 11), and based on an understanding Lesser Yellowlegs habitat preferences and the Project Footprint, estimate construction activities will result in the removal of 29.62 ha (1.04%) of Sparse Treed Bog, 43.47 ha (1.55%) of Sparse Treed Fen, 0.33 ha (032%) of Open Shore Fen, 5.92 ha (1.11%) of River/Fen, 1.37 ha (0.25%) of Poor Fen, and 0.05 ha (0.03%) of Open Bog in the LSA, representing approximately 1.15% of the most suitable Lesser Yellowlegs habitat in the LSA. Overall, suitable Lesser Yellowlegs habitat is common throughout the study area with 28.33% of the LSA and 30.20% of the combined Project Footprint and RSA (i.e., full study area) consisting of these vegetation communities.

Habitat Loss due to Hydrological Changes
Potential changes in surface water drainage patterns and increases or decreases in flows and surface water levels in waterbodies, as well changes to groundwater, are described in detail in Sections 7 and 8. Construction activities have the potential to locally influence the contribution of groundwater discharge to the baseflow of waterbodies. Specifically, Project construction may lead to changes in the local hydrogeological environment by increasing, decreasing or redirecting groundwater flows. Changes in surface water conditions can also occur with the installation of crossing structures. While changes are generally concentrated downstream of the effect, they can also take place on the upstream side if channel restriction causes changes to water impoundment. Extreme changes, such as those due to poor road design or large fluctuations in water levels, can lead to death of vegetation and loss of Lesser Yellowlegs habitats as they are converted to open water habitats (Bocking et al., 2017).
Operations

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

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

13.3.8.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation
There may be alterations or degradation to Lesser Yellowlegs habitat resulting from vegetation clearing, hydrological changes and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. Alteration of habitat is defined as a modification in the habitat type or quality of the habitat, this change could be either positive or negative (Fuller, 2017). Habitat degradation is defined similarly as decline in the quality of the habitat resulting in reduced capacity to support the target species.
The pathways or activities which may result in alteration or degradation of shorebird habitat include the following:
Accidental spill during construction or operations activities → transportation of material into wetland → Alteration and degradation of Lesser Yellowlegs habitat.

Construction of roadbed and crossing structures → Hydrological changes to ground or surface water → Alteration and degradation of Lesser Yellowlegs habitat.
Construction and operations activities cause sensory disturbances (light, noises, dust) → Sensory disturbances impact on adjacent areas → Alteration and degradation of Lesser Yellowlegs habitat.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Structural differences between cleared and remaining vegetation create edge effect → Alteration and degradation of Lesser Yellowlegs habitat.
Construction and maintenance activities → Introduction of invasive species → Alteration and degradation of Lesser Yellowlegs habitat.
Construction

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Accidental Spills
Accidental spills and releases that occur during construction phase may result in Lesser Yellowlegs habitat degradation. Boreal wetlands are often hydrologically connected through subsurface flows (Smerdon et al., 2005), resulting in large watersheds throughout which pollutants can spread.

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Hydrological Changes
It is widely accepted that roads can alter the hydrologic function and characteristics of the landscapes they traverse. While destruction of habitat can result in extreme cases, alteration and degradation of shorebird habitat can occur in many others (Bocking et al., 2017). Flooding events during construction may result in erosion of the ROW and deposition of granular materials into adjacent wetlands and waterways. Conversely, hydrological changes associated with construction may affect wetland drainage patterns, resulting in lower or higher water levels and altering the plant community (Miller et al. 2015). Thes changes can be extensive, a study within boreal fens in Alberta found pronounced differences in canopy cover up to 250 m from road edges in both rich and poor treed fens (Willier et al., 2022). Potential changes in surface water drainage patterns and increases or decreases in flows and surface water levels in waterbodies, as well changes to groundwater, are described in detail in Sections 7 and 8 respectively.

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

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Habitat Structural Change
Changes to vegetation structure during road construction activities may alter or degrade shorebird habitat near the Project Footprint due to vegetation clearing activities and removals. These vegetation removals may lead to edge effects, including abiotic, direct biotic, and indirect biotic effects on the habitat after the implementation of mitigation

measures. It is anticipated that restoration of laydown areas and access roads will reverse some of the habitat alteration or degradation caused by road construction, but most areas will remain free of tall vegetation. Shorebird species from multiple families have been found to rely on bare, wet ground for thermoregulation when experiencing high ambient temperatures (Ryeland et al. 2020), and such microhabitat features may experience edge effects if they occur adjacent to the ROW. However, the edge effect on Lesser Yellowlegs is likely relatively low due to the more open and lower vegetation structure of its preferred wetland communities compared to forested habitats which undergo large changes in structure and composition due to edge effects (Frankin et al. 2020) in addition to its ability to use disturbed habitats like cleared areas (MECP, 2024).

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

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

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

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

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

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to introduction of invasive species
The introduction and spread of noxious and invasive plant species could also occur during operations and will have similar potential impacts on Lesser Yellowlegs habitat. Road operations could have larger impacts than construction in terms of introduction, particularly of invasive aquatic plants. Aquatic plants can be introduced to waterbodies when recreational boats are moved, and improper cleaning and decontaminating procedures are used on the boat or equipment (Cole et al. 2019). While recreational boating has been found to be responsible for movement of invasive species throughout the Great Lakes region (Cole et al. 2019), currently the spread of invasive aquatic plants into the boreal has only occurred in a few isolated pockets (iNaturalist, 2024). Given that transportation corridors are avenues of dispersal for invasive plants (Langor et al. 2014), operation of the road has the potential to spread aquatic as well as terrestrial invasive plants into the RSA.

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

Alteration in Movement due to Loss of Connectivity
Gaps in cover created by anthropogenic activities are known to impede movement of birds but is species and habitat dependent (Desrochers and Hannon, 1997; Grubb and Doherty, 1999). Bird species that have shown reluctance to cross gaps like those created by roads are generally forest species where the road creates a distinctive edge between the road and preferred habitats, with larger gaps acting as a greater barrier (Grubb and Doherty, 1999). The project ROW, at 35 m, is smaller than the gap size (50 m) found to limit crossings for some boreal birds (St Clair et al., 1998), although some laydown and temporary clearings will exceed this limit. Lesser Yellowlegs prefer more open habitats where the road ROW would present as less of a barrier as it is more structurally similar its wetland habitats, and Lesser Yellowlegs are known to use disturbed anthropogenic areas (COSEWIC, 2020). Additionally, no studies were found that indicated shorebirds respond to road gaps as a barrier.

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

Operations

Alteration in Movement due to Loss of Connectivity
As was the case during the construction phase, alteration in movement due to loss of connectivity may occur during road operation. Maintenance activities will maintain vegetation in an early seral state; however, like during the construction phase, avoidance of these areas may be minimal as Lesser Yellowlegs prefer more open habitats including anthropogenically disturbed sites.

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

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

Injury or Death due to Collisions with Vehicles
Movement of construction equipment and vehicles within the Project Footprint could result in increased death and injury of Lesser Yellowlegs. Vehicles will be travelling between camps and construction locations; these trips could occur at all hours and encounters with birds would not be unexpected. Bird mortality related to vehicle collisions is often related to travel speed of the vehicle as birds use distance as a threat estimate and can misjudge the closing distance between themselves and the vehicle resulting in collision (DeVault et al. 2016).

Injury or Death due to Incidental Take

Vegetation clearing in Lesser Yellowlegs habitat during road construction, and/or movement of equipment/vehicles though vegetated areas, may result in injury or death to birds, hatchlings, and/or eggs if management of vegetation is carried out during the breeding season. Lesser Yellowlegs nest on the ground in sheltered sites under shrubs, trees or next to logs, these sites are also typically close to water (BSI, 2024). The characteristics of shorebird nests can make them difficult to detect. Additionally, like many shorebirds, nesting adult Lesser Yellowlegs stay on their nest when approached by humans and their young either remain still or run into thick vegetation (Tibbitts and Moskoff, 2020).

Injury or Death due to Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

Effects on Lesser Yellowlegs survival from improved predator access and movement rates is possible during the construction phase. Linear features are known to facilitate predator movement in the boreal (Dickie et al., 2017;
Benoit-Pepin et al., 2024) and creation of new roads connected to human activity is known to spread predators into previously unoccupied areas (Lantham et al. 2011). Nest predators are not well documented for Lesser Yellowlegs, but ground-nesting shorebirds are particularly vulnerable to mammal predators like Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) and coyote which are known to spread via human infrastructure like roads (MECP, 2024). Other known predators of Lesser Yellowlegs include a variety of avian species, including Bald Eagle, Northern Harrier (Circus hudsonius), Merlin
(Falco columbarius), American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and Peregrine Falcon, that prey on nests and young (SIMoN, 2024). These avian predators may have increased success along the road edge as avian predators can take advantage of increased prey viability along the road edge (Degregorio et al., 2014).

Injury or Death due to Increased Access

The development of the Webequie Supply Road could result in a negative effect on the abundance of shorebird species through increased human access to habitats where populations are present. Access to previously undisturbed areas introduces opportunity for increased harvesting by First Nation Peoples and recreational hunting. Construction and other temporary workers may contribute to increased harvest during construction of the Project. These workers may exploit the local area to hunt during their time-off or post-shift. While hunting of shorebirds was extensive in the 19th and early 20th century, Lesser Yellowlegs has not been legally harvested in Canada, except by First Nation Peoples, since the introduction of the Migratory Bird act in 1918. Currently hunting by Indigenous communities is thought to be negligible (COSEWIC, 2020).
Operations

Injury or Death due to Collisions with Vehicles

Vehicles traveling along the road during operations could collide with Lesser Yellowlegs causing injury or death. Collisions with vehicles is among the top three causes of bird mortalities in Canada (Calvert et al., 2013). In coniferous- dominated Canadian landscapes with low-volume roads, it has been estimated that more than 14,000 birds are killed annually due to collisions with vehicles, or approximately one bird every 3 km per year (Bishop and Brogan, 2013).
Shorebirds comprise a relatively small number of avian casualties attributed to collisions with vehicles in Canada, at 0.9% of mortalities (Bishop and Brogan, 2013) but are likely under-reported due to their small size. For Lesser Yellowlegs in particular the impact of collisions on populations is unknown (MECP, 2024).

Injury or Death due to Incidental Take

Lesser Yellowlegs and their nests are protected under the SARA which prohibits the damage or destruction of nests for bird species listed as threatened (GOC, 2025). Lesser Yellowlegs and its habitat are also protected under Ontario’s ESA (GOO, 2007). Vegetation clearing in Lesser Yellowlegs habitat is also scheduled to occur during operations.

Though smaller in scale, periodic clearing of the ROW may occur during operations as part of line-of-sight maintenance or infrastructure repairs. If maintenance occurs during the breeding season, nests, eggs, and individuals could be injured or killed, as the cryptic behavior of Lesser Yellowlegs during breeding will be unchanged, presenting the same potential for incidental take.

Injury or Death due to Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

Effects on Lesser Yellowlegs from predator encounters are predicted to be long-term in duration as predators are known to use linear features well beyond their operational lifetime. Maintenance clearing during operations will maintain openness along the ROW which will allow predators increased access to wetland areas near the road exposing ground nesters, like Lesser Yellowlegs, to increased predation. While some studies have found a positive effect on bird survival due to roads and resulting predator avoidance of roads, it is often attributed to higher levels of human presence
(Singer et al. 2020), which given the low traffic levels are unlikely for this project.

Injury or Death due to Increased Access

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

13.3.8.5 Threat Assessment
Each of the four potential effects categories were evaluated based on the threats assessment criteria outlined in the TISG and is based on IUCN-CMP unified threat classification system, referenced from NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk (NatureServe, 2012). Threats are assessed prior to any mitigative measures being applied. Assessments are generally done at the population level, and for Lesser Yellowlegs, which can range up to 100 km2 during the incubation and brood-rearing periods (COSEWIC, 2020), the evaluation was made at the RSA level.
Scope is small for all threats as the percent of the population affected is less than 10% of the available habitat and population within the RSA. Severity of the threats ranges from slight to serious: threats related to vegetation removals and hydrological changes are serious as within the scope based on the high degree of habitat loss and alteration; sensory disturbances are rated as moderate; and all other threats are slight. Magnitude is rated as low for all threats.
Irreversibility is high for hydrological changes and very high for vegetation remove as the roadbed will likely never be removed but hydrological mitigations could be done. Irreversibility is also high for spills, edge effects, invasive species, and predation because while the effects can technically be reversed it would take time and considerable effort. Hunting and loss of connectivity could be restored with a reasonable commitment of resources. The rest of the threats were deemed low and can be easily reversed. The degree of effect was low for all except vegetation loss which was moderate.
A summary of the threat assessment for Lesser Yellowlegs habitat loss, alteration or degradation of habitat, alteration in movement, and injury or death prior to the consideration of mitigation measures, is presented in Table 13-28.

Table 13-28: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Lesser Yellowlegs

13.3.9 Common Nighthawk
13.3.9.1 Habitat Loss
There may be Common Nighthawk habitat loss resulting from vegetation clearing, hydrological changes and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. The pathways or activities which may result in loss or destruction of wildlife habitat include the following:
Site preparation and vegetation clearing and ground disturbance → Loss of Common Nighthawk habitat.
Construction of roadbed and crossing structures → Hydrological changes to ground or surface water → loss of Common Nighthawk habitat.
Construction

Habitat Loss due to Clearing Activities

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

In terms of habitat loss, breeding and foraging habitat can be described separately for Common Nighthawk. In the boreal, Common Nighthawks are often disturbance specialists using post-burn habitats as well as rocky outcrops, dry bogs and pine forests for breeding (COSEWIC, 2018). In terms of foraging habitat, Common Nighthawks are more generalists, congregating in areas where large numbers of aerial insects are available such as riparian areas and large wetlands (Brigham et al. 2011).
Based on an understanding of Common Nighthawks habitat preferences, the results of habitat modelling for Ecological Land Classification (refer to Section 11) were used to estimate removals of preferred breeding habitat during construction. Predicted construction activities will result in the removal of 0.77 ha (2.36%) of Burn-Cut habitat, 0.21 ha (0.68%) of Burn-Cut Mixedwood habitat, 5.26 ha (6.2%) of disturbed habitat, and 3.38 ha (37.22%) of Rock Barren Communities in the LSA, representing approximately 6.1% of the most suitable Common Nighthawk breeding habitat in the LSA. Preferred Common Nighthawk habitat is relatively rare in the study area only making up only 157 ha or 0.12% of the total study area (Project Footprint and RSA combined).
Gradient BRT modelling was also done to estimate density for the Common Nighthawk using ARU data. Figure 13.11 show the estimated density of Common Nighthawk within the RSA under current conditions for the Common Nighthawk. When the Project Footprint is overlayed it shows a loss of approximately 1.02% of highest-use habitat in the LSA and a loss of 0.13% of high-use habitat in the RSA due to road construction (Table 13-29). However, modeled densities ranged from 0.07536 to 0.08987 birds/ha with the highest quantile (highest 20%) starting at 0.08316. The limited predicted density range likely reflects the generalist nature of Common Nighthawk during foraging and not the more limited breeding habitat. This makes BRT modeling limited in its use for the impacts of breeding habitat loss but emphasizes the availability of foraging habitats.
Table 13-29: Common Nighthawk High-Density Habitat by Study Area

Not all construction activities are expected to be habitat losses: Common Nighthawk use disturbed areas like gravel roads, gravel pits, laydowns and pipelines (Brigham et al. 2011). Temporary clearings will provide additional Common Nighthawk habitat, at least in the short-term, and creation of the quarries will likely add habitat in the long-term.

Habitat Loss due to Hydrological Changes

Construction activities have the potential to cause the destruction of Common Nighthawk habitat through changes to groundwater and surface flows. Common Nighthawk could be affected by hydrological changes causing habitat loss. For Common Nighthawk, while upland nesting sites are preferred, in wetland-dominated areas like the Study Area, other open areas like fens and bogs are likely being used as nesting sites. In these areas, changes in hydrology could lead to losses of nesting habitat. In terms of groundwater, project construction may lead to changes in the local hydrogeological environment by increasing, decreasing or redirecting groundwater flows. Road construction in particular can alter subsurface flows in peatlands changing the hydrology long-term (Waddington et al. 2014). Changes in surface water conditions can also occur with the installation of crossing structures, changes are generally concentrated downstream of the effect but can also take place on the upstream side if channel restriction causes water impoundment which can cause death of vegetation (Bocking et al., 2017).

Operations

Habitat Loss due to Clearance Activities

Operation of the roadway is unlikely to result in additional loss of Common Nighthawk habitat through vegetation removal. There is a very low probability that reclaimed temporary laydown areas and clearings may need to be reused during operations, but it is predicted that these impacts would be short-term and of limited size. Most maintenance activities will involve managing re-growth of vegetation along the ROW within the Project Footprint and are accounted for in the construction phase. Quarries will remain operational following construction as additional material may be needed for maintenance activities. Given the use of rocky areas by Common Nighthawk, these areas will likely be used by Common Nighthawk when the quarry is not actively being mined.

Habitat Loss due to Hydrological Changes

Operation of the roadway is unlikely to result in additional loss of Common Nighthawk habitat through hydrologic changes. Changes to hydrology could potentially occur during the operations phase due to culvert and crossing structure maintenance. Culverts and other crossings could become partially or fully blocked from sediment or Beaver activity. If culvert maintenance is ignored and given sufficient time, death of vegetation and loss of habitat could occur (Bocking et al., 2017).

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

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Accidental Spills

Accidental spills and releases that occur during the construction phase may result in Common Nighthawk habitat degradation. Boreal wetlands are often hydrologically connected through subsurface flows (Smerdon et al., 2005), resulting in large watersheds throughout which pollutants can spread. Depending on concentrations and material spilled, an accidental spill could cause death of vegetation, lower productivity and alter the vegetation community (Hutchinson and Freedman, 2011; Lednev et al., 2023). Accidental spills could also impact Common Nighthawk foraging areas, as spills have the potential impact on the insect communities which Common Nighthawk rely on as insectivorous birds (Pennings, 2014; Reiber 2021).

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Hydrological Changes

Hydrological changes may result in degradation of Common Nighthawk habitat. Construction activities such as grading for road installation resulting in changes to both surface and groundwater water causing flooding or drying of vegetation communities. Peatlands, which make up the majority of vegetative communities in the RSA are susceptible to changes in the flow of surface and subsurface water resulting from the bisection of these features by roads. These changes can be extensive: a study within boreal fens in Alberta found pronounced differences in canopy cover up to 250 m from road edges in both rich and poor treed fens (Willier et al., 2022). Changes in wetland drainage patterns, resulting in lower or higher water levels, can alter the plant community (Miller et al. 2015). Nesting sites may also be lost due to flooding (Brigham et al., 2011).

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Sensory Disturbances

Sensory disturbances resulting from road construction and operations, including movement of equipment and vehicles, noise, vibration, and other human activities may degrade habitat for Common Nighthawk adjacent to the Project Footprint, reducing utilization of the area or masking vocalizations. Acoustic modeling places the 50 db zone of influence at approximately 125 m beyond the Project footprint (See Appendix J – Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report), and 50 dB is the noise level Environment and Climate Change Canada uses in their guidelines to avoid harm to migratory birds (EEEC, 2023). Disturbance will be especially true during construction when activities such

as blasting, quarrying, hauling and clearing may occur during all hours causing Common Nighthawk to avoid the ROW and supportive infrastructure. Light during construction may act as an enhancement to Common Nighthawk habitat as insects could be attracted to lighting. Foraging nightjars have been shown to fly long distances to forage under lights suggesting these areas provide high quality foraging habitats especially in areas with minimal anthropogenic light (Adams et al. 2024). Human presence during construction may disturb Common Nighthawk. While Common Nighthawk use anthropogenic areas frequently it has been found that areas with a high human presence can have lower densities for European nightjars (Lowe et al., 2014).

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Habitat Structural Change

Changes to vegetation structure during road construction activities may alter or degrade Common Nighthawk habitat near the Project Footprint due to vegetation clearing activities and removals. These vegetation removals may lead to edge effects, including abiotic, direct biotic, and indirect biotic effects on the habitat after the implementation of mitigation measures.
The edge effect on Common Nighthawk is likely relatively low due vegetation structure of their preferred open communities. Common Nighthawk use disturbed habitats; gravel roads, oil and gas clearances, pipeline ROWs are all known to be used by Common Nighthawk (COSEWIC, 2020). Areas currently used for breeding adjacent to the road ROW will be structurally similar to the cleared areas unlike forested habitats which undergo large changes in structure and composition due to edge effects (Franklin et al. 2020).

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Introduction of Invasive Species

Invasive plant species can impact on multiple ecosystem aspects including structure, diversity and function (CFIA, 2008). Once established in a new habitat, most invasive species are nearly impossible to eradicate
(Pimentel et al. 2005). Construction activities have the potential to introduce invasive plant species to the habitats used Common Nighthawk. One of the pathways of spread for invasive plants is through construction equipment. Improperly cleaned construction equipment has the potential to transport and spread invasive plants, with cleared areas, including roads sides being susceptible to invasion (Hanen and Clevenger, 2005). For roads, construction of the road embankments, especially if open habitats are adjacent, has been shown to facilitate spread and establishment of invasive plants (Meunier and Lavoie, 2017). The use of contaminated seed mixes in restoration efforts is also a pathway for invasive plants to establish in an area (Houghen et al. 2012). While no direct studies have looked at the impact of invasive plants on Common Nighthawk, conversion of open habitats to shrublands by invasive shrub species, such as buckthorn (Rhamnus sp.), could degrade Common Nighthawk habitat.
However, while invasive plants are known to spread along transportation corridors, few invasive species have been found in naturally occurring boreal habitats used by Common Nighthawk (Langor et al. 2014) with most invasive plant species found well to the south of the RSA (EDDMAps, 2024).
Operations

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Accidental Spills

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

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Hydrological Changes

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

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Sensory Disturbances

During the operations phase, most sensory impacts will be related to traffic noise as lighting will be limited along the road and human activity outside of driving will be limited and primarily related to maintenance activities. Traffic noise has been found to degrade bird habitat either through causing avoidance of areas near roads; decreasing habitat value by altering bird behaviour by masking vocalizations; or increasing vigilance (Ware et al. 2015; Summers et al. 2011; Zhou et al., 2018). Sensory disturbance has been found to lower the abundance of birds near roads, especially at high traffic densities (Husby, 2017).

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Habitat Structural Change

Edge effects during operations will have similar impacts on Common Nighthawk and their habitat as during construction. Maintenance activities, including removal of roadside vegetation during road operations, will create periodic disturbances and sustain edge effects along the ROW. In the preferred habitats of Common Nighthawk, such as open areas with short vegetation, maintenance activities will result in a minimal edge effect as the early seral vegetation maintained along the ROW will be structurally similar to adjacent vegetation.

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to introduction of invasive species

The introduction and spread of noxious and invasive plant species could also occur during operations and will have similar potential impacts on Common Nighthawk habitat as during construction. Transportation corridors are avenues of dispersal for invasive plants (Langor et al. 2014), and given the longer timeframe, operation of the road has the potential to have larger impacts than construction in terms of habitat Alteration or Degradation from introduction of invasive species. While the timeframe is longer, introductions of plants into Common Nighthawk habitat are likely still limited by the climate of the RSA and limited in the ability to spread beyond disturbed areas of the road ROW
(Kent et al., 2018).

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

Alteration in Movement due to Loss of Connectivity

Common Nighthawk could alter their movement in response to road construction reducing connectivity. Gaps in cover created by anthropogenic activities are known to impede movement of birds but is species and habitat dependant (Desrochers and Hannon, 1997; Grubb and Doherty, 1999). Bird species that have shown reluctance to cross gaps like those created by roads are generally forest species where the road creates a distinctive edge between the road and preferred habitats, with larger gaps acting as a greater barrier (Grubb and Doherty, 1999). Lack of gap crossing is especially true for small birds which are more likely to be impeded by the changes in vegetation structure
(Johnson et al. 2017). Larger birds will also increase flight height to cross active roads (Husby, 2017). The connectivity of Common Nighthawk habit is not expected to be affected as they prefer open habitats and are known to use anthropogenic habitats like road ROWs.

Alteration in Movement due to Sensory Disturbance

Common Nighthawk movement is likely to be altered by sensory disturbances associated with Project construction. Noise, vibration and other human actions during construction activities such as blasting, clearing, hauling and grading will create disturbances that could alter movement of Common Nighthawks, including shifts in territories, as they avoid the project ROW and supportive infrastructure. Noise disturbance may extend up to 125 m into the LSA. Lighting effects may have the opposite effect, attracting Common Nighthawks, as they have been recorded flying up to 6.4 km to forage under lighted areas (Adams et al. 2024). While some Common Nighthawks may shift their breeding territories during construction in response to noise others may use the area for foraging if night activities take place.
Operations

Alteration in Movement due to Loss of Connectivity

During operations Common Nighthawk is expected to have the same response to changes in habitat connectivity as seen during the construction phase. Maintenance activities will maintain vegetation in an early seral state. Similar to the construction phase, avoidance of these areas may be minimal as Common Nighthawk prefer more open habitats, including anthropogenically disturbed sites, and are unlikely to treat changes as a barrier to movement.

Alteration in Movement due to Sensory Disturbance

Vehicle noise is anticipated be the primary sensory impact on Common Nighthawk during operations. Traffic noise has been found to lower abundance and promote avoidance in many in many bird species (McClure et al. 2013). High traffic roads have been shown to affect distribution when noise exceeded 56 dB (Hirvonen, 2001). Birds have also been shown to shift in their use seasonally around roads (Wiacek and Polak, 2015). Studies have not shown a response to vehicle traffic by Common Nighthawk which is known to tolerate human disturbances and use roadways as foraging areas.

13.3.9.4 Injury or Death
The creation of the road may lead to both direct and indirect Common Nighthawk mortality. There could be increases in wildlife injury or death stemming from increased vehicle traffic during both construction and operation of the road, with indirect mortalities arising from increased energy expenditures and habitat change. The pathways or activities that may result in Common Nighthawk injury or death include the following:
Equipment and vehicles moving within Project footprint → Collisions with Common Nighthawk within Project Footprint → Injury or Death of Common Nighthawk.

Injury or Death of Common Nighthawk.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Increased access for Common Nighthawk Predators
→ Injury or Death of Common Nighthawk. Construction
Injury or Death due to Collisions with Vehicles

Movement of construction equipment and vehicles within Project Footprint could result in increased death and injury of Common Nighthawk. Collisions with vehicles is among the top three causes of bird mortalities in Canada (Calvert et al., 2013). Vehicles will be travelling between camps and construction locations; these trips could occur at all hours and encounters with birds would not be unexpected. For Common Nighthawks, particularly males, collisions can be of particular importance as they often rest on gravel roads at night (Brigham et al.2011). Collisions can also be frequent in areas where Common Nighthawks congregate in insect eating aggregations (Stevenson and Anderson 1994). Offroad vehicle use can also lead to Common Nighthawk loss of nests and young (Bender and Brigham, 1995).

Injury or Death due to Incidental Take

As Special Concern species under the SARA and the ESA, Common Nighthawk habitats are not protected; however, under the Migratory Birds Convention Act (GOC, 1994) it is prohibited to disturb their nests during the breeding season. Vegetation clearing in Common Nighthawk habitat during road construction may result in injury or death to birds, hatchlings, and/or eggs if management of vegetation clearing is carried out during the breeding season. Common Nighthawks nest on the ground in open sites using a slight depression, and these sites are also typically close to a source of shade like logs, shrubs or trees (COSEWIC, 2018). The cryptic characteristics of Common Nighthawks physical appearance can make them difficult to detect while on nests. Additionally, as their camouflage is their primary defense, Common Nighthawks stay on their nest when approached by humans and their young either remain still (Sandilands, 2008). While less likely to be impacted outside of nesting season, Common Nighthawks can roost on the ground and remain still as camouflage is their primary defense.

Injury or Death due to Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

Effects on Common Nighthawk survival from improved predator access and movement rates is possible during the construction phase. Linear features are known to facilitate predator movement in the boreal (Dickie et al., 2017; Benoit-Pepin et al., 2024) and creation of new roads connected to human activity is known to spread predators into previously unoccupied areas (Lantham et al. 2011). As ground nesting birds, Common Nighthawks are particularly susceptible to predators. Their eggs and young are susceptible to several boreal species including foxes, coyotes, crows, ravens, gulls, owls and raptors (Brigham et al. 2011). Nesting success rates have been reported from 43% to
93% with most losses attributed to predation (COSEWIC, 2018) Predators of adult Nighthawks are less well known, but records exist for predation by American Kestrels (Falco sparverius) and Peregrine Falcons. While nest parasitism is often discussed as an outcome of edge creation, nest parasitism is not known in Common Nighthawks.
Operations

Injury or Death due to Collisions with Vehicles

Mortality from collisions during the operational phase is expected to occur throughout Common Nighthawk active season where the road intersects breeding, roosting and foraging habitats. Birds are more likely to collide with vehicles if they forage, roost or nest near the road (Kociolek et al. 2011). It has been estimated that more than 14,000 birds are killed annually due to collisions with vehicles, or approximately one bird every 3 km per year (Bishop and Brogan,

2013). Deaths rates for Common Nighthawk could change during the operations phase as the gravel surface is expected to become paved during the 3rd season of operations eliminating the possibility of males roosting on the road.

Injury or Death due to Incidental Take

Vegetation clearing in Common Nighthawk habitat is also scheduled to occur during operations and may cause injury or death as Common Nighthawk use habitat openings and edges. Though smaller in scale, periodic clearing of the ROW may occur during operations as part of line-of-sight maintenance or infrastructure repairs. If maintenance occurs during the breeding season nest and individuals could be injured or killed, Common Nighthawk nest sites are usually well camouflaged on the ground which would make them vulnerable to maintenance activities. If Quarrying is restarted during the breeding season individuals could be injured or killed as Common Nighthawk use old quarries as nesting sites (Brigham et al. 2011).

Injury or Death due to Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

Effects on Common Nighthawk from predators during operations are a continuation of the same impacts as described for the construction phase. Maintenance clearing during operations will maintain openness along the ROW which will allow predators increased access to wetland areas near the road exposing Common Nighthawk to increased predation. While some studies have found a positive effect on bird survival due to roads and resulting predator avoidance of roads, it is often attributed to higher levels of human presence (Singer et al. 2020), which given the low traffic levels are unlikely for this project.

13.3.9.5 Threats Assessment
Each of the four potential effects categories were evaluated based on the threats assessment criteria outlined in the TISG and is based on IUCN-CMP unified threat classification system, referenced from NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk (NatureServe, 2012). Threats are assessed prior to any mitigative measures being applied. The threat assessment process is generally done at the population level but can be done at a more regional level. Common Nighthawks, which have breeding territories that are up to 10 ha in size and with breeding and foraging areas separated up to 6 km (COSEWIC, 2020), were evaluated at the RSA level.
Scope is small for all threats as the percent of the population affected is less than 10% of the available habitat and population within the RSA. Severity of threats range from slight to serious: threats related to vegetation removals are serious as within the scope based on the high degree of habitat loss; alteration, hydrologic changes and spills are rated as moderate; and all other threats as slight. Magnitude is rated as low for all threats.
Irreversibility is high for hydrological changes and very high for vegetation remove as the roadbed will likely never be removed but hydrological mitigations could be done. Irreversibility is also high for spills, edge effects, invasive species, and predation because while the effects can technically be reversed it would take time and considerable effort. The rest of the threats were deemed low and can be easily reversed. The degree of effect was low for all except vegetation loss which was moderate.
A summary of the threat assessment for Common Nighthawk habitat loss, alteration or degradation of habitat, alteration in movement, and injury or death prior to the consideration of mitigation measures, is presented in Table 13-30.

Table 13-30: Summary of Threat Assessment For Potential Effects on Common Nighthawk

13.3.10 Bald Eagle
Bald Eagle is an apex predator, specializing in fishing, that utilizes riparian forest habitat for nesting and large waterways for foraging/hunting. Nests are built in the canopy of mature, high DBH trees, which differentiate them from the majority of SAR birds considered in this EAR/IS.

13.3.10.1 Habitat Loss
Bald Eagle habitat loss may result from vegetation clearing and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. The pathways or activities which may result in loss or destruction of Bald Eagle habitat include the following:
Site preparation and vegetation clearing and ground disturbance → Loss of Bald Eagle habitat.
Construction of roadbed and crossing structures → Hydrological changes to ground or surface water → Loss of Bald Eagle habitat.
Construction

Habitat Loss due to Clearance Activities

The construction of the road has the potential for direct and indirect effects that could cause the loss of Bald Eagle habitat through physical alteration and removal of suitable habitat. Bald Eagles breed in forested areas adjacent to large bodies of water or large rivers; the nest tree is typically one of the largest in the habitat that has limbs capable of supporting a nest. In Northwestern Ontario, nests are typically between 6 and 200 m from the water’s edge, averaging 23 to 65 m from the shoreline (Hackl, 1994; Jones, 1995).

Based on an understanding of Bald Eagle habitat preferences, the results of habitat modelling for Ecological Land Classification (refer to Section 11) were used to estimate removals of preferred breeding habitat during construction. Predicted construction activities will result in the removal of 81.15 ha (4.3%) of Conifer Forest, 1.60 ha (3.13%) of Hardwood Forest, and 4.21 ha (3.32%) of Mixed Forest, representing approximately 7.58% of available potential high quality Bald Eagle nesting habitat in the LSA. Some swamps with large trees may be used but are not considered as the highest quality sites. Overall, suitable Bald Eagle habitat is somewhat uncommon throughout the study area with 8.34% of the LSA and 7.66% of the total study areas (Project Footprint and RSA combined) consisting of these vegetation communities.
Raptor Nests (i.e., stick nests) were recorded during aerial surveys near but not within the project footprint. A total of 23 Bald Eagle nests were recorded; however, none were within 1 km of the WSR route alternatives. Nests are often reused year after year, therefore there is a low likelihood that any nests will be removed as a result of construction.

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

Habitat Loss due to Clearance Activities
Operation of the roadway is unlikely to result in additional loss of Bald Eagle habitat as maintenance activities will involve managing re-growth of vegetation along the ROW within the Project Footprint. There is a very low probability that reclaimed temporary laydown areas and clearings may need to be reused during operations, therefore in the short- to medium-term, no trees used by Bald Eagles for nesting are likely to be impacted unless nests are established in the future. While the quarries are expected to remain operational following construction, the footprints will not be expanded and as such no additional habitat loss or destruction is anticipated to occur during operations. A small chance exists that large trees adjacent to the roadway may be removed if they pose safety concerns.

Habitat Loss due to Hydrological Changes
Habitat loss for Bald Eagle through changes to hydrology is unlikely to occur during the operations phase. Changes to hydrology could potentially occur during the operations phase due to culvert and crossing structure maintenance.
Culverts and other crossings could become partially or fully blocked from sediment or beaver activity. Hydrological changes during operations are likely to affect a much smaller area, and unlikely to affect super-canopy trees in upland areas.

13.3.10.2 Habitat Alteration or Degradation
Bald Eagle habitat alteration or degradation may result from vegetation clearing and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. The pathways or activities which may result in alteration or degradation of Bald Eagle habitat include the following:
Accidental spill during construction or operations activities → Transportation of material into wetland → Alteration or degradation of Bald Eagle habitat.

Construction of roadbed and crossing structures → Hydrological changes to ground or surface water → Alteration or degradation of Bald Eagle habitat.
Construction and operations activities cause sensory disturbances (light, noises, dust) → Sensory disturbances impact on adjacent areas → Alteration or degradation of Bald Eagle habitat.
Construction and operations activities clear vegetation → Structural differences between cleared and remaining vegetation create edge effect → Alteration or degradation of Bald Eagle habitat.
Construction and maintenance activities → Introduction of invasive species → Alteration or degradation of Bald Eagle habitat.
Construction

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Accidental Spills

Accidental spills and releases that occur during the construction phase may result in Bald Eagle habitat degradation. Boreal wetlands are often hydrologically connected through subsurface flows (Smerdon et al., 2005), resulting in large watersheds throughout which pollutants can spread. Accidental spills of chemical or hazardous materials
(e.g., petroleum products, ammonium nitrate) during construction has the potential to enter nearby waterbodies along the WSR. Changes to fish habitat and water quality from spills of fuel or other materials can negatively affect fish populations directly, or cause changes to their habitat. Bald Eagle in most regions prefer fish as their major food source, making up to 90% of their diet (Armstrong, 2014).

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Hydrological Changes

Hydrological changes may result in degradation of Blad Eagle habitat. Bald Eagle aquatic habitat used for foraging may be altered hydrologically, with construction activities such as grading for road installation resulting in changes to both surface and groundwater water causing flooding or drying of aquatic communities. As described in Section 11.3.3.3, 91.82% of the project RSA is wetlands, primarily peatlands susceptible to changes in the flow of surface and subsurface water resulting from the bisection of these features by roads. The effects of roads on hydrology and wetland habitat can occur up to 250 m from the ROW. Bald Eagle nesting habitat may also be affected through the death of trees: while nesting tree loss can occur, and in some areas can be as high as 10% per year, Bald Eagles may not breed for a year following loss of a nest tree (Armstrong, 2014). Availability of suitable shoreline trees can be a key factor in the distribution of Bald Eagles along the shore of lakes (Chandler et al. 1995).

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Sensory Disturbances

Sensory disturbances resulting from road construction and operations, including movement of equipment and vehicles, noise, vibration, and other human activities may degrade habitat for Bald Eagles adjacent to the Project Footprint, reducing utilization of the area. Bald Eagles may be sensitive to human activity during the breeding season. Even
low-impact activity, such as camping, at a distance of 100 m from nests has been found to result in adult Bald Eagles decreasing the amount of time they preen, sleep, maintain their nests, and feed themselves and their nestlings, compared to humans camping 500 m from nests which did not result in a change of behaviours (Steidl and Anthony, 2000). Studies have also demonstrated that eagles in areas of high human activity levels can habituate to human presence (Russel, 1980; Knight and Knight, 1984; Steidl and Anthony, 1996). Once a nesting pair of Bald Eagles has successfully bred, they show increased nest site fidelity and may be more tolerant of human disturbance (Bricker and Hoar 2010). It has been hypothesized that, as Bald Eagles have recovered from their population decline, they have experienced generational habituation and are increasingly more likely to nest in areas with human activities that do not harm the eagles or their nests (Guinn, 2013).

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Habitat Structural Change

Changes to vegetation structure during road construction activities, such as vegetation clearing and removal, may alter or degrade Bald Eagle habitat near the Project Footprint. These vegetation removals may also lead to edge effects, including abiotic, direct biotic, and indirect biotic effects on the habitat. Bald Eagles do not use early seral areas but may perch or nest on large canopy trees near edges which can be more productive (Goulet et al., 2021) so the effect of edge creation and structural changes may be dependent on local conditions after clearing has taken place.
Fragmentation can cause increased windthrow, which may cause the loss of super canopy trees near the ROW. However, increased windthrow has generally been reported in forestry where openings between forested areas are much larger than the 35 m width of the WSR ROW (Scott and Mitchell, 2005).
Operations

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Accidental Spills

Bald Eagle habitat degradation from accidental spills could also occur during the operations phase. Spills during operations would most likely originate from accidental releases from vehicles. Accidental spills and releases during road operations may occur due to mechanical failure, human error, poor visibility or slippery road conditions. Like during construction, the primary concern for Bald Eagle would be spills in or adjacent to aquatic habitats where Bald Eagle food sources are impacted.

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Hydrological Changes

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

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Sensory Disturbances

During operations, Bald Eagle habitat may be degraded through sensory disturbances. During the operations phase, most sensory impacts will be related to traffic noise as lighting will be limited along the road and human activity outside of driving will be limited and primarily related to maintenance activities. Traffic noise has been found to degrade bird habitat, either through causing avoidance of areas near roads, or decreasing habitat value by masking vocalizations or increasing vigilance, which alters behaviour (Ware et al. 2015; Summers et al. 2011; Zhou et al., 2018). Sensory disturbance has been found to lower abundance of Bald Eagles near roads, especially at high traffic densities (Stalmaster and Newman, 1978). Human presence along watercourses or waterways may also reduce Bald Eagle use of feeding areas (Stalmaster and Newman, 1978).

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Habitat Structural Change

Changes to vegetation structure during operations will have similar impacts on Bald Eagles and their habitat as during the construction phase. While it is anticipated that restoration of laydown areas and access roads will reverse some of the habitat alteration or degradation caused by road construction, maintenance activities, including removal of roadside vegetation during road operations, will create periodic disturbances and sustain edge effects along the ROW. Eagles would be expected to continue using trees along any created edge if suitable perching trees are available.

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

Alteration in Movement due to Loss of Connectivity

Alteration of Bald Eagle movement may occur due to changes in habitat connectivity due to construction activities. The construction of the road will fragment terrestrial and wetland habitats, including temporary access roads, laydown areas, and quarries. However, Bald Eagle movement is unlikely to be altered by the road due to the fragmentation of habitat.
While it has been demonstrated that small birds are affected by gaps and cross less frequently, larger birds such as raptors continue to fly over roads only at higher elevations (Johnson et al. 2017; Husby, 2017). Additionally, many raptors have been found to show little response to roads especially with low to moderate traffic (Planillo et al. 2015). Avoidance due to predation concerns are unlikely as healthy adult and immature Bald Eagles are practically invulnerable to predation (Buehler, 2022).

Alteration in Movement due to Sensory Disturbance

Bald Eagle movement may be altered by sensory disturbances. Noise, lighting and other human actions during construction activities such as blasting, clearing, hauling and grading will create disturbances that could alter movement of Bald Eagles as they avoid the project ROW and supportive infrastructure. Bald Eagle movement responses to stimuli vary greatly depending on a variety of factors including time of day, weather, season, noise level, whether the disturbance is moving (fast or slow) or stationary, and whether the disturbance is close to a nest or foraging area (Anthony et al., 1995). Prolonged disturbances may result in displacement from preferred habitats (Anthony et al., 1995). Flushing of Bald Eagles can occur in response to sudden loud noises like blasting, clearing or drilling (Stalmaster and Newman, 1978).
Operations

Alteration in Movement due to Loss of Connectivity

Similar to the construction phase, during operations alteration in movement due to changes in habitat connectivity is unlikely for Bald Eagles. Maintenance activities will maintain vegetation in an early seral state along the road, however like during the construction phase, avoidance of these areas may be minimal as Bald Eagles show little movement response to roads except for flight height.

Alteration in Movement due to Sensory Disturbance

Vehicle noise is anticipated be the primary sensory impact on Bald Eagles during operations. Traffic noise has been found to lower abundance and promote avoidance in many in many bird species (McClure et al. 2013). High traffic roads have been shown to affect bird distribution when noise exceeded 56 dB (Hirvonen, 2001). Birds have also been shown to shift in their use seasonally around roads (Wiacek and Polak, 2015). Bald Eagles have shown to avoid busy

roads when alternative habitat is available (Stalmaster and Newman, 1978). Bald Eagles that nest in proximity to human disturbance have shown the ability to habituate, but this varies between individuals (Armstrong, 2014). Use of waterways by people fishing or hunting may also disturb Bald Eagles as visible humans elicit a high level of response; eagles may flush or temporarily leave areas while humans are present (Grub and King, 1991).

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

Movement of construction equipment and vehicles within Project Footprint could result in increased death and injury of Bald Eagles. Collisions with vehicles is among the top three causes of bird mortalities in Canada (Calvert et al., 2013). Vehicles will be travelling between camps and construction locations; these trips could occur at all hours and encounters with birds would not be unexpected. In Canada, Accipitriforme birds (hawks, vultures and eagles) are very rarely counted as casualties of vehicle collisions (Bishop and Brogan, 2013); Bald Eagles are particularly susceptible to injury or death from impact with motor vehicles because they often scavenge carcasses along highways
(Buehler, 2022). During the construction phase, collisions with helicopters are also possible when they are being used to ferry people and equipment (Washburn et al., 2015).

Injury or Death due to Incidental Take

Vegetation clearing in Bald Eagle habitat during road construction and operations may result in injury or death to birds, hatchlings, and/or eggs if management of vegetation is carried out during the breeding season, even after mitigation measures have been applied. Bald Eagles use large stick nests that are relatively conspicuous on the landscape, in the tallest trees (Buehler, 2022) making accidental removal unlikely. Indirect Bald Eagle mortality could occur if construction activities take place close to the nest as the probability of nest abandonment increases with intensity and proximity to human activities (USFWS, 2007).

Injury or Death due to Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

Effects on Bald Eagles injury or death from improved predator access and movement rates is possible during the construction phase. Linear features are known to facilitate predator movement in the boreal (Dickie et al., 2017;
Benoit-Pepin et al., 2024) and creation of new roads connected to human activity is known to spread predators into previously unoccupied areas (Lantham et al. 2011). Healthy adult and immature Bald Eagles are practically invulnerable

to predation (Buehler, 2022). While there is little documentation on Bald Eagle nest predators, boreal species reportedly taking eggs or nestlings include ravens, hawks, owls, crows, ravens, black bear, and wolverine (Buehler, 2022).
Fledglings on the ground are also vulnerable to mammalian predators.

Injury or Death due to Increased Access

The development of the Webequie Supply Road could result in a negative effect on the abundance of Bald Eagles, through increased human access to habitats where populations are present. While illegal under the Ontario Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 (Government of Ontario, 1997), shooting or trapping of Bald Eagles may occur. Access to previously undisturbed areas introduces opportunity for shooting and trapping. In Ontario no summary for shooting or trapping of Bald Eagle exists. In the United States, 38% of individual Bald Eagles recovered between 1982 and 2013 had been shot trapped or poisoned (Russel and Franson, 2014); in the Maritime Provinces between 1991 and 2016, 13% of Bald Eagle deaths were attributed to trapping and gunshots. In the western USA, illegal shooting was found be the leading cause of death of raptors near powerlines (Thomason et al., 2023).
Operations

Injury or Death due to Collisions with Vehicles

Vehicles traveling along the road during operations could collide with Bald Eagles causing injury or death where the road intersects breeding, roosting and foraging habitats. Raptors can be susceptible to collisions due to their feeding behaviors, either through hunting near roads or feeding on roadkill (Croston, 2021). A study of mortality of Bald Eagles in the Maritime Provinces between 1991 and 2016 found 14% of Bald Eagle deaths attributable to vehicle collisions (Mathieu et al., 2020). Bird mortality related to vehicle collisions is often related to travel speed of the vehicle as birds use distance as a threat estimate and can misjudge the closing distance between themselves and the vehicle resulting in collision (DeVault et al. 2016).

Injury or Death due to Incidental Take

Vegetation clearing in Bald Eagle habitat is also scheduled to occur during operations. Though smaller in scale, periodic clearing of the ROW may occur during operations as part of line-of-sight maintenance or infrastructure repairs. Most clearing during operations will consist of removal of small vegetation and is unlikely to affect preferred Bald Eagle habitat but a small chance exists that large trees adjacent to the roadway may be removed due to safety concerns.
While no existing nests occur near the road, during the lifetime of the road new nests could be built that may be impacted by maintenance activities. Indirect death of eggs and nestlings may occur if nest abandonment occurs due to maintenance activities occur near occupied nests.

Injury or Death due to Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

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

Injury or Death due to Increased Access

Effects on Bald Eagle from poachers during operations are a continuation of the same impacts as described for the construction phase. Increased access to previously undisturbed areas introduces opportunity for shooting and trapping. While killing of Bald Eagles was more common in the past, illegal shooting or trappings still occur in the province.

13.3.10.5 Threats Assessment
Each of the four potential effects categories were evaluated based on the threats assessment criteria outlined in the TISG and is based on IUCN-CMP unified threat classification system, referenced from NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk (NatureServe, 2012). Threats are assessed prior to any mitigative measures being applied. The threat assessment process is generally done at the population level but can be done at a more regional level. As Bald Eagles have breeding territories that are between 1 and 2 km2 (COSEWIC, 2020), the evaluation was made at the RSA level.
Scope is small for all threats as the percent of the population affected is less than 10% of the available habitat and population within the RSA.
Severity of threats ranges from slight to serious. Threats related to vegetation removals are serious within the scope based on the high degree of habitat loss and alteration, and spills are rated as moderate as they are less likely to occur but would be damaging if they happened. Sensory disturbance is rated as moderate as Bald Eagles show some aversion to disturbance. Collisions are also rated as moderate due to the number of reported injuries in Ontario from vehicle collisions, and all other threats as slight. Magnitude is rated as low for all threats.
Irreversibility is high for hydrological changes and very high for vegetation removal as the roadbed will likely never be removed but hydrological mitigations could be done. Irreversibility is also high for spills, edge effects, invasive species, and predation because while the effects can technically be reversed it would take time and considerable effort. The rest of the threats were deemed low and can be easily reversed. The degree of effect was low for all except vegetation loss which was moderate.
A summary of the threat assessment for Bald Eagle habitat loss, alteration or degradation of habitat, alteration in movement, and injury or death prior to the consideration of mitigation measures, is presented in Table 13-31.
Table 13-31: Summary of Threat Assessment for Potential Effects on Bald Eagle

Threat Scope Severity Magnitude Irreversibility Degree of Effect
Injury or Death – Collisions with Vehicles Small Moderate Low Low Low
Injury or Death – Increased Access Small Slight Low Medium Low

13.3.11 Short-eared Owl
13.3.11.1 Habitat Loss
Short-eared Owl habitat loss may result from vegetation clearing and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. The pathways or activities which may result in loss or destruction of Short-eared Owl habitat include the following:
Site preparation and vegetation clearing and ground disturbance → Loss of Short-eared Owl habitat.
Construction of roadbed and crossing structures → Hydrological changes to ground or surface water → Loss of Short-eared Owl habitat.
Construction

Habitat Loss due to Clearance Activities

The construction of the road has the potential for direct and indirect effects that could cause the loss of Short-eared Owl habitat through physical alteration and removal of suitable habitat.
Short-eared Owls favour open habitats for nesting and hunting including fens, bogs and burns, and as such the limiting habitat feature would be nesting locations on dry ground near taller vegetation. Additionally, conifers adjacent to open areas are used during the winter for roosting adjacent to open areas (COSEWIC, 2021).
Using the results of habitat modelling via Ecological Land Classification (refer to Section 11), and based on an understanding Short-eared Owl habitat preferences and the Project Footprint, estimate construction activities will result in the removal of 0.98 ha (1.54%) of burned areas, 0.33 ha (0.32%) of Open Shore Fen, 0.33 ha (0.35%) of Open Shore Shrub Fen, 5.92 ha (1.11%) of River/Fen, 1.37 ha (0.25%) of Poor Fen, and 0.05 ha (0.03%) of Open Bog in the LSA, representing approximately 0.54% of the most suitable Short-eared Owl habitat in the LSA. Overall, suitable
Short-eared Owl habitat is somewhat uncommon throughout the study area with only 6.46% of the LSA and 30.20% of the Full Study Area consisting of these vegetation communities. Not all construction activities are expected to be habitat losses, Short-eared Owl may use disturbed areas like clearings, laydowns and pipelines. Temporary clearings will provide additional Short-eared Owl habitat, at least in the short-term.

Habitat Loss due to Hydrological Changes

Construction activities have the potential to cause the destruction of Short-eared Owl habitat through changes to groundwater and surface flows. Short-eared Owl Open Shore Fen and Open Bog habitat may be altered hydrologically, with construction activities such as grading for road installation resulting in changes to both surface and groundwater water causing flooding or drying of vegetation communities. Open wetland areas of the boreal are used by Short-eared Owls both for hunting and breeding, with nest sites located on dry spots within large wetland areas (COSEWIC, 2021). As described in Section 11.2.2.2, 91.03% of the terrestrial ecosites within the standard RSA are wetlands, primarily peatlands susceptible to changes in the flow of surface and subsurface water resulting from the bisection of these features by roads. Project construction may lead to changes in the local hydrogeological environment by increasing,

decreasing or redirecting groundwater flows. Changes in surface water conditions can also occur with the installation of crossing structures, changes are generally concentrated downstream of the effect but can also take place on the upstream side if channel restriction causes changes to water impoundment. If these changes are extreme due to poor road design or water level fluctuations, they can lead to death of vegetation and loss of Short-eared Owl habitats, including nest sites.
Operations

Habitat Loss due to Clearance Activities

Operation of the roadway is unlikely to result in additional loss of Short-eared Owl habitat as maintenance activities will involve managing re-growth of vegetation along the ROW within the Project Footprint and accounted for in the construction phase, with areas maintained as early seral habitats a net benefit for Short-eared Owls. There is a very low probability that reclaimed temporary laydown areas and clearings may need to be reused during operations, however creation of these areas would potentially create habitat for Short-eared Owls. While the quarries are expected to remain operational following construction, the footprints will not be expanded and as such no additional habitat loss or destruction is anticipated to occur during operations.

Habitat Loss due to Hydrological Changes

Short-eared Owl habitat loss through changes to hydrology could also occur during the operations phase due to culvert and crossing structure maintenance. This could be especially true if nest sites are located near the ROW. Habitat loss could occur if culvert maintenance is ignored, either in terms of repairs to the structure or removal of accumulated debris. Given sufficient time, death of vegetation and loss of habitat could occur (Bocking et al., 2017).

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

Construction

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Accidental Spills

Accidental spills and releases that occur during construction phase may result in Short-eared Owl habitat degradation. Depending on concentrations and material spilled, an accidental spill could cause death of vegetation, lower productivity and alter the vegetation community (Hutchinson and Freedman, 2011; Lednev et al., 2023). Accidental spills could impact on the small mammal population that Short-eared Owl prey on. Small mammals on reclaimed oils sands sites were found to have higher contaminant levels and reduced body condition (Roderiguez-Estival and Smits, 2016) and bioaccumulation has been known to impact Short-eared Owls (COSEWIC, 2021).

Habitat Alteration or Degradation from Hydrological Changes

While destruction of habitat can result in extreme cases, it is more probable that alteration and degradation of
Short-eared Owl habitat may occur from hydrological changes (Bocking et al., 2017). Hydrological changes associated with construction may affect wetland drainage patterns, resulting in lower or higher water levels and altering the plant community (Miller et al. 2015). As described in Section 11.3.3.3, 91.82% of the project RSA is wetlands, primarily peatlands susceptible to changes in the flow of surface and subsurface water resulting from the bisection of these features by roads with the effects extending up to 250 m from the ROW. Based on the Groundwater assessment (Section 8.5) these changes are certain in the RSA, expected to be low in magnitude and moderate in context, but also permanent, occurring infrequently. Effects on Short-eared Owl habitat could include the loss of nesting locations if the water-table rises, while death of the tree canopy due to higher water tables could make some areas more suitable for Short-eared Owl use.

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Sensory Disturbances

Sensory disturbances generated during construction activities such as blasting, quarrying, hauling and clearing may occur during all hours, degrading Short-eared Owl habitat causing avoidance of the ROW and adjacent areas of the LSA. High levels of noise may cause acoustic masking (disrupting prey detection) reducing the forage efficiency of Short-eared Owls (Senzakiet et al. 2016). Construction noise may also be less continuous and more impulsive than traffic noise, initiate a startle response (Francis and Barber, 2013) and limit the ability to acclimatize to the disturbance. Human presence can also disturb Short-eared Owls during nesting, incubation or roosting (COSEWIC, 2021). Light pollution may provide some benefit to Short-eared Owls as predation attempts on songbirds attracted to artificial lights have been recorded: in those instances, the artificial lights provided improved hunting conditions as the lights illuminated passing songbirds making them easier to detect (Canario et al., 2012).

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Habitat Structural Change

Changes to vegetation structure during road construction activities will alter Short-eared Owl habitat near the Project Footprint due to vegetation clearing activities and removals. It is anticipated that restoration of laydown areas and access roads will reverse some of the habitat alteration or degradation caused by road construction, but most areas will remain free of tall vegetation. The conversion of certain areas into early successional habitat, such as construction access roads and laydown areas undergoing restoration, and along the road corridor during the operations phase, may create foraging habitat for Short-eared Owl. The value of this habitat will be linked to the availability of prey. Presence of voles in successional habitats appear to be related to the availability of downed woody debris (Craig et al., 2016;
Le Borgne and Fortin, 2020; Vanderwel et al., 2010), and as such, the amount of downed woody debris will be a determining factor whether the successional habitats are suitable for voles and therefore also Short-eared Owls. The creation of open habitats next to forested conifer ecosites may provide roosting habits for Short-eared Owls.

The introduction and spread of noxious and invasive plant species have potential to affect open habitats used by Short-eared Owls. Invasive plant species can impact on multiple ecosystem aspects including structure, diversity and function (CFIA, 2008). Once established in a new habitat, most invasive species are nearly impossible to eradicate (Pimentel et al. 2005). One of the pathways of spread for invasive plants is construction activities and equipment.
Construction equipment has the potential to transport and spread invasive plants, with cleared areas, including roads sides being susceptible to invasion (Hansen and Clevenger, 2005). While invasive plants are known to spread along transportation corridors, few invasive species have been found in naturally occurring open boreal habitats used by Short-eared Owls (Langor et al. 2014). In some cases, Short-eared Owls have been found to roost in tall invasive wetland plants such as European Common Reed and Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea).

Operations

Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Accidental Spills
Accidental spills that occur during the operations phase could result in the degradation or alteration of by Short-eared Owl habitat. Spills during operations would most likely originate from accidental releases from vehicles, and accidental spills and releases during road operations may occur due to mechanical failure, human error, poor visibility or slippery road conditions. The road is forecasted to have low traffic volumes, and traffic along the roadway will be primarily personal and commercial vehicles and transport trucks associated with the community. While estimate frequency of spills is low (0.00000019 spills per mile, or 0.00000012 spills per kilometer [Harwood and Russell, 1990]), its predicted that minor spills and release are possible. While by Short-eared Owls occupy all open habitat types, wetlands are the primary open habitats in the RSA. Boreal wetlands are often hydrologically connected through subsurface flows (Smerdon et al., 2005), resulting in large watersheds throughout which pollutants can spread.
Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Hydrological Changes

Alterations to Short-eared Owl habitat due to changes to hydrology could also occur during the operations phase due to culvert and crossing structure maintenance. Localized changes to hydrology could occur if culvert maintenance along the road is ignored, either in terms of repairs to the structure or removal of accumulated debris. The area affected would be dependent on the amount of time the culvert remains blocked as well as the size of the impounded area.
Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Sensory Disturbances
Sensory disturbances resulting from road operations may degrade habitat for Short-eared Owls adjacent to the Project Footprint, reducing utilization of the area or masking vocalizations of individuals that remain or noise from prey. Most sensory impacts during operations will be related to traffic noise, which has been found to degrade bird habitat either through complete avoidance of areas near roads or decreased habitat value (Ware et al. 2015; Summers et al. 2011). Foraging efficiency of Short-eared Owls has been found to decline with increasing traffic noise levels, with the effects of acoustic masking (disrupting prey detection) extending more than 120 m away from a road, even at low levels of traffic noise (40 dB [Amplitude]) (Senzaki et al., 2016). The predicted maximum vehicles travelling on the proposed road during the operations phase is 500 per day, largely taking place during daylight hours. Short-eared Owls may hunt during the day and night but are considered to be crepuscular (COSEWIC, 2021; Wiggins et al. 2020).
Habitat Alteration or Degradation due to Habitat Structural Change
Edge effects during operations will have similar impacts of Short-eared Owl and their habitat. Open early seral habitats are preferred by Short-eared Owl. Maintenance activities, including removal of roadside vegetation during road operations, will maintain these open habitats. In areas of existing Short-eared Owl maintenance activities will result in a minimal edge effect as the early seral vegetation maintained along the ROW will be structurally similar to adjacent vegetation. In areas where tall vegetation is removed use by Short-eared Owls may increase use.

The introduction and spread of noxious and invasive plant species could also occur during operations and will have similar potential impacts on Short-eared Owl habitat. Transportation corridors are avenues of dispersal for invasive plants (Langor et al. 2014), and given the longer timeframe, operation of the road has the potential to have larger impacts than construction in terms of habitat Alteration or Degradation from introduction of invasive species. A number of potential invasive plants, including Reed Canary Grass and European Common Reed, may be used by Short-eared Owls for roosting (COSEWIC, 2021). While the timeframe is longer, introductions of plants into Short-eared Owl habitat are likely still limited by the climate of the RSA, and limited ability to spread beyond disturbed areas of the road ROW (Kent et al., 2018).

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

Construction

Alteration in Movement due to Loss of Connectivity

The connectivity of Short-eared Owl habitat is not expected to be affected as they prefer open habitats and are known to use anthropogenic habitats like road ROWs. Gaps in cover created by anthropogenic activities are known to impede movement of birds, but the effect is species- and habitat-dependant (Desrochers and Hannon, 1997; Grubb and Doherty, 1999). Bird species that have shown reluctance to cross gaps like those created by roads are generally forest species where the road creates a distinctive edge between the road and preferred habitats, with larger gaps acting as a greater barrier (Grubb and Doherty, 1999). Larger birds such as raptors continue to fly over roads only at higher elevations (Johnson et al. 2017; Husby, 2017). Additionally, many raptors have been found to show little response to roads especially with low to moderate traffic (Planillo et al. 2015). Short-eared Owl is known to be sensitive to fragmentation; however, Open Bog and Open Shore Fen habitats will be minimally affected and may use trees along the corridor as hunting perches (ECCC, 2018).

Alteration in Movement due to Sensory Disturbance

Short-eared Owl movement may be altered by sensory disturbances. Construction activities such as noise, lighting and other human actions during construction activities such as blasting, clearing, hauling and grading will create disturbances that could alter movement of Short-eared Owls, including shifts in territories, as they avoid the project ROW and supportive infrastructure. While Short-eared Owls breed in habitats largely void of human disturbances (Kämpfer et al., 2023), they are known to perch along roads and also hunt in open habitats at airports, which generate significant amounts of noise (Fajardo et al. 1994; COSEWIC, 2021). Other boreal forest owl species have been found to be unaffected by the presence of noise sources on the landscape and do not alter site occupancy as a result
(Shonfield and Bayne, 2017). Short-eared Owls may also be attracted to light sources used during construction activities as they could attract avian prey and lighting improves predation success (Canario et al., 2012).

Operations

Alteration in Movement due Habitat Structural Change

Short-eared Owl is expected to have the same response to changes in habitat connectivity during operations as during construction phase. Maintenance activities will maintain vegetation in an early seral state; however, as in the construction phase, avoidance of these areas is unlikely as Short-eared Owl prefer more open habitats including anthropogenically disturbed sites and are unlikely to treat changes as a barrier to movement.

Alteration in Movement due to Sensory Disturbance

Vehicle noise is anticipated be the primary sensory impact on Short-eared Owl during operations. Traffic noise has been found to lower abundance and promote avoidance in many in many bird species (McClure et al. 2013) and high traffic roads have been shown to affect distribution when noise exceeded 56 dB (Hirvonen, 2001). Short-eared Owl can often be seen perching along roadsides and may use the road ROW for hunting between maintenance activities (Fajardo et al. 1994; Martinez et al., 1998).

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

Injury or Death due to Collisions with Vehicles

Movement of construction equipment and vehicles within Project Footprint could result in increased death and injury of Short-eared Owl. Collisions with vehicles is among the top three causes of bird mortalities in Canada (Calvert et al., 2013). Vehicles will be travelling between camps and construction locations; these trips could occur at all hours and encounters with birds would not be unexpected. Collisions can be of particular importance for Short-eared Owls as they often fly low across roads while hunting (Fajardo et al. 1994). In Ontario between 1970-2018, 80% of Short-eared Owls admitted to the Owl Foundation for treatment had injuries either confirmed or likely sustained from collision with a vehicle (COSEWIC, 2021). Traffic speed is of particular importance with higher speeds resulting in increased deaths for owls (Gagné et al., 2015).

Injury or Death due to Incidental Take

Short-eared Owls and their nests are protected under the SARA which prohibits the damage or destruction of nests for bird species listed as threatened (GOC, 2025). Short-eared Owls and its habitat are also protected under Ontario’s ESA. Vegetation clearing in Short-eared Owl habitat during road construction, and/or movement of equipment/vehicles

though vegetated areas, may result in injury or death to birds, hatchlings, and/or eggs if management of vegetation is carried out during the breeding season, even after mitigation measures have been applied. Short-eared Owls nest on the ground, usually on small knolls or hummocks with adjacent vegetation 0.6 m in height or less to provide cover for the female and nestlings, formed as a scraped-out bowl lined with grasses and downy feathers (Wiggins et al., 2020). The female generally is reluctant to flush, and nests are often only found by flushing the female (Holt and Leasure, 1993).

Injury or Death due to Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

Linear features are known to facilitate predator movement in the boreal (Dickie et al., 2017; Benoit-Pepin et al., 2024) and creation of new roads connected to human activity is known to spread predators into previously unoccupied areas (Lantham et al. 2011). As ground nesting birds Short-eared Owls are particularly susceptible to predators. Their eggs and young are susceptible, and predation of nests has been identified as the most significant source of reproductive failure in both Scotland and Alaska (COSEWIC, 2021). Possible nest predators include corvids and Red Fox, and adults are additionally preyed upon by other raptors (e.g., Red-tailed Hawk [Buteo jamaicensis], Great Horned Owl and Northern Harrier) (Wiggins et al., 2020; COSEWIC, 2021). Red Foxes have been documented taking advantage of roads for movement (Towerton et al., 2016; Kuskemoen, 2020) and may also be drawn to forage at the roadside as well (Silva et al., 2009). Great Horned Owls have also been found to select for linear features due to these types of disturbances creating suitable hunting habitat (Shonfield and Bayne, 2023).

Operations

Injury or Death due to Collisions with Vehicles

Vehicles traveling along the road during operations could collide with Short-eared Owl causing injury or death. Birds are more likely to collide with vehicles if they forage, roost or nest near the road (Kociolek et al. 2011). It has been estimated that more than 14,000 birds are killed annually due to collisions with vehicles, or approximately one bird every 3 km per year (Bishop and Brogan, 2013). Traffic speed is of particular importance with higher speeds resulting in increased deaths for owls (Gagné et al., 2015), given the lower level of control in the operations phase, collision numbers may be higher than during construction. Collisions with vehicles will likely occur due to Short-eared Owl behavior which includes flying low over roads, with the highest levels during the spring and summer as recently fledged juvenile raptors and breeding adults are generally more susceptible to road-based mortality (Hanmer and Robinson, 2021). Low traffic levels (maximum 500 a day) traveling mostly during the day and speed controls should mitigate but not eliminate the effect.

Injury or Death due to Incidental Take

Injury or death of Short-eared Owl may occur during the operations phase as vegetation clearing related to maintenance is also scheduled to occur during operations. Though smaller in scale, periodic clearing of the ROW may occur during operations as part of line-of-sight maintenance or infrastructure repairs. If maintenance occurs during the breeding season nest and individuals could be injured or killed, Short-eared Owl nest sites are usually well camouflaged on the ground which would make them vulnerable to maintenance activities. Short-eared Owl behavior may reduce the likelihood of incidental take as this species typically nests more than 200 m from road edges (Meyer et al., 2016).

Injury or Death due to Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

Effects on Short-eared Owl from predators during operations are a continuation of the same impacts as described for the construction phase. Maintenance clearing during operations will maintain openness along the ROW which will allow predators increased access to open areas near the road exposing Short-eared Owl to increased predation. While some studies have found a positive effect on bird survival due to roads and resulting predator avoidance of roads, it is often

attributed to higher levels of human presence (Singer et al. 2020); given the low traffic levels, positive effects are unlikely for this project. The placement of nests more than 200 m from road edges may reduce this effect (Meyer et al., 2016).

13.3.11.5 Threats Assessment
Each of the four potential effects categories were evaluated based on the threats assessment criteria outlined in the TISG and is based on IUCN-CMP unified threat classification system, referenced from NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk (NatureServe, 2012). Threats are assessed prior to any mitigative measures being applied. The threat assessment process is generally done at the population level but can be done at a more regional level. Short-eared Owls, which have breeding territories that are between 50 and 100 ha in size (COSEWIC, 2020), were evaluated at the RSA level.
Scope is small for all threats as the percent of the population affected is less than 10% of the available habitat and population within the RSA. Severity ranges from serious to slight for the threats, threats related to vegetation removals are serious as within the scope based on the high degree of habitat loss and alteration, hydrologic changes and spills are rated as moderate which are less likely to occur but would be damaging. Degradation of habitat by sensory disturbance is rated as moderate as Short-eared Owls show some aversion to disturbance. Collisions are also rated as moderate due to the number of reported injuries in Ontario from vehicle collisions, and all other Threats as slight.
Magnitude is rated as low for all threats.
Irreversibility is high for hydrological changes and very high for vegetation remove as the roadbed will likely never be removed but hydrological mitigations could be done. Irreversibility is also high for spills, edge effects, invasive species, and predation because while the effects can technically be reversed it would take time and considerable effort. The rest of the threats were deemed low and can be easily reversed. The degree of effect was low for all except vegetation loss which was moderate.
A summary of the threat assessment for Short-eared Owl habitat loss, alteration or degradation of habitat, alteration in movement, and injury or death prior to the consideration of mitigation measures, is presented in Table 13-32.
Table 13-32: Summary of Threat Assessment For Potential Effects on Short-eared Owl

13.3.12 Lake Sturgeon (Hudson Bay – James Bay Population)
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 13-35 summarizes the potential effects, effects pathways, and effect indicators for the Lake Sturgeon and Lake Sturgeon Habitat VC. The potential effects of accidental spills on Lake Sturgeon and Lake Sturgeon habitat are discussed in this section and are further assessed in Section 23 – Accidents and Malfunctions.

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

13.3.12.1.1 Destruction or Loss of Fish Habitat
Construction of permanent structures (culverts and bridges) at waterbody crossings → Loss of instream and riparian habitat → Reduction in total available habitat for Lake Sturgeon
Similar to the Fish and Fish Habitat Section (Section 10), Lake Sturgeon potential effects and indicators were selected based on review of similar environmental assessments for linear projects (such as roadways, transmission lines, and pipelines) in Ontario and within Canada, comments provided during the engagement process, and professional judgement. The potential effects fall within five categories:
 Destruction of Fish Habitat;
 Harmful Alteration or Disruption of Fish Habitat;
 Barriers to Fish Passage;
 Injury or Death of Fish; and
 Increased Harvest.
The destruction of Lake Sturgeon fish habitat is described as a reduction in total available habitat for the species, as defined by the Fisheries Act. This loss renders the habitat no longer suitable for fish to utilize during any stage of their life cycle. Indigenous communities have identified the loss of fish habitat as a concern related to the roadway construction and have emphasized that fish habitat loss should be avoided, especially in spawning areas
(Bikowski, V.A. and Saddique 2024, in draft). Lake Sturgeon habitat loss may result from vegetation clearing and construction of wetland and watercourse crossings. The pathways or activities which may result in loss or destruction of Lake Sturgeon habitat include the following:

Construction

The most significant impacts on Lake Sturgeon habitat are expected during the construction phase, as the WSR project will span multiple watercourses and waterbodies. Additional services roads, such as those to aggregate pits, are also expected to impact watercourses and waterbodies. Impacts will include fish habitat loss due to placement of infrastructure (e.g., bridge footings or embankments) rendering the habitat unusable for fish and other aquatic species.
The road width is expected to be 11.5 m along the route alignment, expanding to 17 m in watercourses or waterbody crossings where an embankment is required. Bridges will be approximately the same width as the roadway (11.5 m). Based on these dimensions, the direct placement of the road would total approximately 9,150 square meters of fish habitat destruction, considering the bankfull width of the waterbodies that will be crossed. However, the actual destruction will be considerably less as there are a proposed total of six (6) bridge structures, 19 steel box culverts (steel plate arches) and six (6) large diameter corrugated steel pipe culverts identified.
Only of portion of these watercourses and waterbodies have the potential to support Lake Sturgeon based on their habitat characteristics. All of these locations have been identified to be crossed using bridge structures. These watercourses and waterbodies are:
 Winisk Lake (WB-1);
 Winiskesis Channel (WC-3);
 Muketei River (WC-26); and
 WC-27 (inferred based on direct connection to WC-3 and Winisk Lake).
As a result, the only direct impact to Lake Sturgeon aquatic habitat will be where footings/piers in the water for bridges are required. Bridge footings will have a small individual footprint approximately 12.5 m x 5 m in size (62.5m2 / footing). With approximately 11 in-water footings/piers, there is an expected destruction of 562.5 m2 of aquatic Lake Sturgeon habitat. This will result in a small loss of fish habitat where bridge footings are placed. These crossing structures are summarized in Table 13-33. Additional fish habitat destruction will occur from clearing riparian vegetation in buffer areas that surround watercourses. This is anticipated at 1,285 m2 of riparian habitat associated with watercourse where Lake Sturgeon may be present.
Table 13-33: Structure Types and Spans that may affect Lake Sturgeon

Operation

Operation of the roadway is unlikely to result in significant loss of fish habitat (Lake sturgeon or otherwise), as repairs will be generally made to the roadway surface which are unlikely to cause fish habitat loss. Should major repairs be required that necessitate in-water works, minor losses of fish habitat may occur.

13.3.12.1.2 Harmful Alteration and Disruption of Fish Habitat
Lake Sturgeon habitat alteration or degradation may result from vegetation clearing and construction of wetland and watercourse crossings. The pathways or activities which may result in alteration or degradation of Lake Sturgeon habitat include the following:
Placement of materials for construction of roadway and waterbody crossings (bridges) → Alteration and disruption of Lake Sturgeon habitat
Construction and maintenance activities → Erosion, deposition and transportation of sediment into waterbodies → Reduction in surface water quality → Alteration and disruption of Lake Sturgeon habitat
Accidental spills and air contaminant/GHG emissions during construction and maintenance activities → Reduction in surface water quality → Alteration and disruption of Lake Sturgeon habitat
Construction of permanent or temporary structures (bridges) at waterbody crossings → Change in hydrology (change to surface water drainage patterns and flows) → Alteration and disruption of Lake Sturgeon habitat
Construction of permanent or temporary structures (bridges) at waterbody crossings → Change to riparian habitat → Alteration and disruption of Lake Sturgeon habitat
Construction and maintenance activities → Introduction of invasive species → Alteration and disruption of Lake Sturgeon habitat

Construction

Habitat Alteration/Disruption Due to Placement of Materials

Materials such as rip-rap, boulder, or other armouring materials may be placed in the waters along watercourse banks or shoreline area of lakes (i.e., Winisk Lake) during construction to prevent erosion of the road embankment or provide scour protection near culverts and bridge crossings. These materials may be eventually covered in-water once the construction is complete and may continue to function as fish habitat. However, these will likely be a change from the baseline conditions and may change how Lake Sturgeon utilize these areas.

Habitat Alteration/Disruption Due to Erosion or Sedimentation

Increases in the concentration of suspended sediment can result directly from soil disturbance and grading activities during construction of the road, re-suspension of bed materials at water crossings and/or indirectly from site run-off. This could increase total suspended solids and turbidity in the downstream aquatic ecosystems and result in a negative effect on surface water quality. These suspended sediments might be naturally occurring and released due to disturbance or may be deposited from construction activities (in-fill for road embankment). Site run-off, caused by an increase in relatively non-permeable road surfaces may also increase suspended sediment concentrations and cause deposition downstream. These released sediments can affect fish species at all stages of their life cycles
(Anderson et al., 1996; Kemp et al., 2011). Fine sediment can result in downstream sediment deposition that alters substrate composition or channel morphology and modifies the suitability of habitat for spawning, overwintering, foraging, and rearing. The availability of food, such as benthic invertebrates or vegetation, may also be affected due to smothering and/or substrate changes caused by deposited sediments (Jones et al., 2011). Effects could also include changes in invertebrate abundance and/or community structure (Rosenberg and Wiens, 1978). Increases in suspended and settled sediments may also interfere with gas exchange, such as reduction of available dissolved oxygen level that may be intolerable to some aquatic life, or in certain instances cause fish death. These effects may extend beyond the initial construction and can last several years before the systems are flushed of sediments (Taylor and Roff, 1986).

Overall, past studies have documented that deposited sediment from erosion and sedimentation can modify the availability and suitability of fish habitat through (CCME 1999):
 Changes in-water clarity: reduced visibility due to turbid waters and available light penetration can create behavioral changes in local aquatic biota. Changes may be observed as alteration in movement patterns (i.e., migration) and foraging success, ultimately leading to reduction of habitat quality and/or quantity (Cavanagh et al. 2014; Wood and Armitage 1997). Some turbidity is tolerable by Lake Sturgeon as they can use moderately turbid environments (MNRF, 2010)
 Potential effects on available forage species: increases in suspended and settled sediments may lead to a reduction of available dissolved oxygen to levels intolerable by some benthic invertebrates and forage species and may clog gills of zooplankton (Chapman et al. 2017). This may affect Lake Sturgeon as they are primarily benthic feeders (Golder, 2011)
 Deposited sediments: suspended sediments mobilized by construction activities are ultimately deposited downstream from the point of release/mobilization. Deposition of such material can have direct effects on habitat quality and Lake Sturgeon such as:
 Reduced specialized habitat areas such as a decrease in distinction between riffle-run-pool habitat types in a stream which reduces habitat quality and species richness;
 Filling of interstitial spaces used by forage and benthic dwelling species (i.e., benthic invertebrates) (Lenat et al. 1981); and
 Decreased reproduction success by reduction of spawning areas, smothering of eggs and emergence of fish fry (Kempinger,1988)

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

Accidental spills of chemical or hazardous materials (e.g., petroleum products, ammonium nitrate) during construction has the potential to enter nearby waterbodies along the WSR. Changes to fish habitat and water quality from spills of fuel or other materials can negatively affect fish populations directly, or cause changes to their habitat. Release from spills may also affect food sources, such as plants or benthic invertebrate populations used as food sources
(Kajpust, 2022; Barton and Wallace, 1979). As chemical and hazardous materials often accumulate in the benthos, Lake Sturgeon may be exposed to high levels of contaminants and pollutants.
Changes in-water quality (and thus fish habitat quality) due to air contaminant and fugitive dust emissions, including greenhouse gas emissions, may also occur as result of the Project. Dust emissions during construction are predicted to be localized but have the potential to change water quality which may influence fish habitat availability. Fossil fuel emissions from vehicles, construction equipment and generators can release sulfite and nitrate species which can induce acidification and/or eutrophication of waterbodies (Environment Canada 1994; Schindler, 1998). The effects of air contaminants are unlikely to be localized and caused exclusively by the Project but will be additive with increased greenhouse gas emissions.

Habitat Alteration Due to Changes in Hydrology or Groundwater

Potential changes in surface water drainage patterns and increases or decreases in flows and surface water levels in waterbodies, as well changes to groundwater, are described in detail in Sections 7 and 8 of the Draft EAR/IS. The installation of bridge structures and embankments, along with associated culverts, may change hydrology near the roadway beyond the natural range of variation and lead to changes in fish habitat quantity and quality. Culverts typically have a greater impact on fish habitat (Wellman et al., 2000) than bridges, but bridges also cause changes in fish habitat (Belcher, 2022). These disturbances generally are concentrated downstream of the effect but can also take place on the upstream side if channel restriction causes changes to water impoundment. This impoundment may flood or alter

habitat outside of the typical watercourse boundaries and floodplains. In addition, these structures can reduce flow rates both upstream and downstream of the crossing. Changes to water levels and flow can affect spawning, rearing, feeding, migration, and overwintering habitat of fish-bearing waterbodies as well as affect waterbody productivity and food availability. Changes to water levels and flow can also alter the presence of macrophytes, which provide cover, spawning material or food for fish.
Groundwater inputs are seasonally important to the baseflow of local waterbodies and natural environment features (e.g., vegetation, fish and fish habitat, and wetlands). Construction activities have the potential to locally influence the contribution of groundwater discharge to the baseflow of waterbodies. Specifically, Project construction may lead to changes in the local hydrogeological environment by increasing, decreasing or redirecting groundwater flows.
These changes in groundwater flow can result in local groundwater table lowering or raising and alteration of flow pathways. These potential changes in groundwater flow pathways are potentially linked to surface water quantity (i.e., water levels) and subsequently fish habitat quantity and quality

Habitat Alteration Due to Removal of Riparian Vegetation

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

Introduction of Invasive Species

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

Operations

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

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

Introduction of Invasive Species

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

13.3.12.1.3 Changes in Fish Access to Habitats
Alteration in Lake Sturgeon movement may result from the installation of water control structures and disturbance during construction and throughout operations. Linear features, such as roadways, that cross streams have the potential to impede fish movement by creating barriers to fish passage (Januchowski-Hartley et al. 2014). A barrier to fish passage is considered any structure or activity that would make it more difficult (or impossible) for a fish to traverse. The pathways or activities which may result in alteration in Lake Sturgeon movement include the following:
Installation of temporary flow isolation structures for instream construction of bridges → Localized temporary barriers to Lake Sturgeon access to habitats

Construction

Road construction will require either bridge footings or embankment structures to cross watercourses and waterbodies, while allowing water to flow past the road. Temporary obstructions to fish passage will occur during construction, particularly if work must be completed in isolation, as fish would be unable to pass unless a properly maintained flow channel is provided.
These effects will occur at all sites where embankments are constructed. Sites with bridge construction may also need temporary embankments for bridge footing construction. Construction will occur within dry, isolated streambeds, with temporary barriers in place. While downstream flow will be maintained during construction, there may be brief interruptions in flow during construction to facilitate works.

Operation

Bridge footings are not expected to restrict fish passage (Cocchiglia et al., 2012), as fish can generally pass bridge footings. This is because bridge footings occupy only a small portion of the available fish habitat at a crossing. Since bridges are planned at all watercourses and waterbodies where Lake Sturgeon are expected to be present, there are no expected operational effects on Lake sturgeon passage.

13.3.12.1.4 Changes in Public Access to Fish Habitats
The development of the WSR could result in a negative effect on the abundance of Lake Sturgeon, through increased access to waterbodies where populations are present. Access to previously undisturbed areas introduces opportunity for increased harvesting by First Nations and public recreational fishing in populations that have not previously experienced such pressure. This potential effect could be amplified where other proposed roads in the region
(i.e., Northern Road Link and Marten Falls Community Access Road) are constructed and connect the WSR to the provincial highway system (refer to Section 21 – Cumulative Effects). The introduction of the WSR ROW and additional access road to aggregate source area ARA-4 will increase land quantity and access for harvesting, including potential expansion of outdoor tourism and recreational land use, which are currently limited within the LSA. The primary potential effect identified by increased access is pressure on historically in inaccessible or remote waterbodies from an increase in harvesting/fishing. Increased harvest is described as increased mortality and removal of fish from waterbodies and watercourses caused by recreational or commercial fishing. Indigenous harvesting may also occur with increased access for First Nations traditional harvesting. Potential for increased harvesting is likely to come from a number of different groups including; recreational and tourism outfitters, workers during the construction and operations

phases of the Project, and local Indigenous community members. The pathways in which project activities may result in a change in public access to fish/fish habitat are described below.
Project construction → Increased access to fish habitat for work crews → Increased harvest of Lake Sturgeon

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

Construction

Construction and temporary workers may contribute to increased harvest during construction. These workers may exploit the local watercourses to capture fish during their time-off or post-shift. Harvest of Lake Sturgeon is not expected to be significant by construction workers due to the limited number of locations where they occur, and the difficulty in capturing them with recreational fishing gear.

Operations

The majority of potential effects of excessive harvesting as result of an increase in access to fish habitats are expected to occur during the operations phase of the Project. The road itself and access road to aggregate source area ARA-4 are in previously undisturbed and inaccessible areas which could cause effects to the local fish populations through additional harvest (Hunt and Lester, 2009). Studies suggest that the higher quality road, the more pressure is expected on a fishery (Hunt, 2011). A lake trout study in Ontario showed reduction of a lake trout population by approximately 72% in only a few months once a new forestry access road was built that was able to access Michaud Lake
(Gunn and Sein, 2000). Road density, and associated overfishing also was shown to be a contributing factor on salmon habitats in British Columbia (Bradford and Irvine, 2000). Lake Sturgeon is very susceptible to overfishing as it is slow growing. In Ontario populations of Lake Sturgeon that were overfished in the late 1800s and early 1900s have still not recovered (Velez–Espino and Koops 2008).

First Nations communities are most likely to utilize the area and in particular Webequie First Nation, being in close proximity to the road. However, many community members of First Nations have raised concerns regarding a potential influx of southern Ontario fishers reducing their ability to harvest fish (Bikowski and Saddique, 2024, in draft;
Stantec 2024, in draft).

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

The roadway may also increase the opportunity for new business or development opportunities (such as the tourism outfitters or lake-side development) which could have negative effects on the fish population (Hunt and Lester, 2009). Many remote fish lodges are currently fly-in only and some could be established relatively close on lakes that display suitable fish populations.
Recreational fishing, although not present in the LSA could also place additional pressure on the more frequently edible sport-fish species found in the area. While First Nations have identified Walleye and Whitefish as the primary country food source that is routinely consumed by community members in the area, Lake Sturgeon are also eaten occasionally when captured.

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

13.3.12.2 Changes to Lake Sturgeon Populations

13.3.12.2.1 Injury or Death
The Injury or Death effect is defined as physical injury to fish (fatal or non-fatal) as a result of the proposed works. This includes injuries or death to ‘fish’ as defined by the Fisheries Act. The pathways in which project activities may result in an injury or death effect to Lake Sturgeon are described below.
Placement of materials for construction of roadway and instream construction of waterbody crossings (bridges and culverts) → Injury or death of Lake Sturgeon
Blasting (i.e., use of explosives) of rocks → Shockwaves/overpressure from explosion, chemical residues from explosives entering waterbodies → Injury or death of fish
Dewatering, fish salvage from areas isolated for in-water work prior to construction → Injury or death of Lake Sturgeon
Maintenance activities that require in-water work → Injury or death of Lake Sturgeon
Accidental spills → overland flow with surface run-off → Reduction in surface water quality→ Injury or death of Lake Sturgeon

Construction

There may be multiple causes of Lake Sturgeon Injury or Death during construction, including but not limited to:
 Physical injury or mortality of Lake Sturgeon caused by placement of materials in watercourses or equipment maneuvering in watercourses.
 Blasting near waterbodies could potentially cause the death of fish (Dunlop, 2009). Blasting work is currently not expected within waterbodies but will be required during construction for the extraction of bedrock to process aggregate at locations near waterbodies.
 Pumps will be used to dewater locations for construction, and these could potentially cause Lake Sturgeon to be impinged or otherwise trapped on pump intakes or screens if not properly designed.
 Fish salvage operations during construction aims to prevent death/injury to the majority of Lake Sturgeon, but there is potential for Injury or Death of Lake Sturgeon during salvage operations as well.
Blasting operations required to break-up aggregate materials from bedrock may be required for construction. Blasting has the potential to cause the death or injury of fish if completed in-water or adjacent to water. This occurs from the release of shockwaves that can cause internal damage to the fish (Wright and Hopky 2008) or fish eggs (Faulkner et al 2006). The effects and their magnitude can be variable, and is based on the distance, type of explosive, and amount of explosive used in detonation but even relatively small charges can cause fish death if placed close to water (Hubbs and Rechnitzer 1952).

Impact avoidance and mitigation measures will be implemented to avoid/prevent the injury and/or death of fish. However, the potential for death and/or injury to fish exists, particularly in watercourses and waterbodies within Project Footprint and immediately outside the Project Footprint in the LSA. Risk of injury and/or death of fish is expected to be highest during in-water works conducted as part of the construction phase of the Project.

Operation

During operations, there are a small number of pathways where Injury or Death of Lake Sturgeon may occur. These include:
 Accidental releases of substances (oils, fuels, etc.) causing the death of Lake Sturgeon during both the construction and operation phases of the Project.
 Embankment/Culvert Repairs where in-water work is required.

13.3.12.3 Threats Assessment
Each of the four potential effects categories were evaluated based on the threats assessment criteria outlined in the TISG and is based on IUCN-CMP unified threat classification system, referenced from NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk (NatureServe, 2012). Threats are assessed prior to any mitigative measures being applied. The threat assessment process is generally done at the population level but can be done at a more regional level. Lake Sturgeon, which can travel hundreds of kilometers as part of their reproduction (COSEWIC, 2020), were evaluated at the tertiary watershed level which is the Lake Sturgeon specific RSA level.
Scope is small for all threats as the percent of the population affected is less than 10% of the available habitat and population within the RSA. Severity of the threats ranges from slight to serious: threats related to construction of permanent structures, materials placement, surface water quality and accidental spills are serious within the scope based on the high degree of habitat loss and alteration; Increased harvest is serious within the scope based on the high potential for population impacts; changes in hydrology are rated as moderate; and all other threats are slight. Magnitude is rated as low for all threats.
Irreversibility is high for construction of permanent structures and for materials placement as the bridges could technically be removed at the end of operations, but footings and armouring may be left in place due to cost. Irreversibility is also high for accidental spills, change in hydrology, and invasive species, because while the effects can technically be reversed it would take time and considerable effort. Increased access could be reversed with a large commitment of resources but may not be practical. The rest of the threats were deemed moderate or low and can be reversed with reasonable commitment of resources. The degree of effect was low for all threats. A summary of the threat assessment for Short-eared Owl habitat loss, alteration or degradation of habitat, alteration in movement, and injury or death prior to the consideration of mitigation measures, is presented in Table 13-34.
Table 13-34: Summary of Threat Assessment For Potential Effects on Lake Sturgeon

Table 13-35 summarizes the potential effects, pathways and indicators for each species within the SAR and SAR Habitat VC.

Table 13-35 summarizes the potential effects, pathways and indicators for each species within the SAR and SAR Habitat VC.

.

Table 13-35:      Potential Effects, Pathways and Indicators for Species at Risk VC

13.1                 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures

This section presents the proposed mitigation measures to eliminate, reduce, control, or offset potential adverse effects to Species at Risk (SAR) and SAR habitat during the construction and operations phases of the Project (as described in Section 13.3 (Potential Effects, Pathways and Indicators). In Section 11.4 (Mitigation and Enhancement Measures for Vegetation and Wetlands), approaches designed to ameliorate or eliminate the potential impact of the Project on vegetation, wetlands and riparian areas were discussed. Many of these measures can minimize SAR habitat loss or alteration of in the short-term (e.g., Vegetation and Invasive Species Management Plan, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Wildlife Management Plan). Other measures, such as the restoration of non-permanent worksites and the implementation of environmental monitoring and inspection programs during operation, will facilitate the enhancement of SAR habitat in the long-term.

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

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

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

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

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

Section Error! Reference source not found. (Wildlife SAR and SAR Habitat) describes mitigation and enhancement measures that are appliable across species groups. However, some potential effects are either species-specific or specific to a group of species. Measures to address such potential effects are described in the in the Sections that follow; those being Caribou (13.4.3), Wolverine (13.4.4), SAR bats (13.4.5), SAR birds (13.4.6) and Lake Sturgeon (13.4.7). The effectiveness of mitigation will be evaluated during construction and operations, as part of the follow-up monitoring program for the Project, and measures will be modified or enhanced as necessary through adaptive management.

13.1.1       Habitat Availability and Key Mitigation Measures

In this draft EAR/IS, the term habitat availability refers to the amount of habitat that is available to a species or species group during, or after Project implementation, that is, habitat likely to be used without negative consequences to survival, reproduction, or population of wildlife. Habitat availability is reduced through direct habitat loss, or indirectly through habitat alteration and degradation. Direct habitat loss and destruction are a quantitative measure, and an example of this would be from the physical development footprint of the Project. Habitat can also become unavailable to species indirectly through avoidance. An example of this is habitat degradation from sensory disturbances, such as noise, light, and scent, which often deter SAR wildlife. Further, altered habitat that has been reduced in quality might continue to be used by SAR at their own detriment; for example, increasing habitat edges can attract predators which put their prey species at higher risk of injury or death.

The Project has taken steps to limit potential adverse effects on habitat availability, particularly for sensitive habitats, during the construction and operations phases. Baseline studies for species and species’ groups that were conducted have been used to inform the recommended mitigation measures and follow-up monitoring program to be implemented during the construction and operational phases of the Project. Environmental management plans will also be developed for each respective phase. The frameworks for the Construction Environmental Management Plan and Operation Environmental Management Plan are described in Appendix E.

During construction, the following key mitigation measures, in addition to those described in Sections Error! Reference source not found. – 13.4.7 (Mitigation and Enhancement Measures for SAR and SAR Habitat, Caribou, Wolverine, SAR bats, SAR birds and Lake Sturgeon) and those specified in Appendix E, will be applied and monitored:

• Habitat delineation and mapping activities will work as precautionary protective measures. This will include construction fencing being installed to clearly delineate the boundaries of the work areas. The goal of the fencing is to prevent habitat damage and destruction beyond the limits of the work area. Delineation and fencing will also restrict human access to sensitive habitats.
• Restrictions will be put in place to reduce the stopping of vehicles and equipment along the roadway. Maps will be created identifying no-go zones and the importance of these zones will be shared during environmental training and awareness program for workers.
• All vegetation clearing will be undertaken using the appropriate equipment to minimize and avoid impacts outside of the work zone (Project Footprint). Cleared vegetation will be disposed of according to best management practices, such as chipping, spreading, compacting or transporting logs or timber to Webequie First Nation for community use.
• The CEMP to be prepared and implemented for the Project will identify the protocols and procedures for the stockpiling and management of vegetation and soils, including how disturbed areas will be stabilized and monitored.
• Additionally, petroleum handling and storage procedures have been developed, including spills prevention and emergency response to avoid impacts to soil, groundwater, surface water, vegetation and SAR (refer to Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of Appendix E: Mitigation Measures).
• Timing for construction activities will be established to reduce the potential impact on wildlife species and their habitat. The timing windows5 for construction activities (e.g., vegetation clearing) have been determined in consultation with the MECP and CWS-ECCC.

Site-specific erosion and sediment control and construction staging plans, along with air and dust control measures will be developed and approved prior to construction to address potential deposition of dust and/or sediment that can change soil quality, alter vegetation and wetlands, which can adversely influence wildlife habitat. Water will be used to

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

control dust from exposed excavations, disturbed ground surfaces, pits, quarries and traffic areas. Erosion and sediment control measures may include use of sediment fencing, silt curtains, and temporary erosion control cover (e.g., straw mulch, wood chips, erosion control blanket, etc.) to prevent the migration of sediment off-site. (Please refer to Sections 5.16 and 5.18 of Appendix E: Mitigation Measures).

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

13.1.2       SAR and SAR Habitat

The following section outlines key measures that are applicable to mitigate potential effects on SAR (wildlife) habitat, inclusive of habitat loss/destruction, habitat Alteration or Degradation, SAR movement patterns and SAR injury/mortality. A summary of the potential effects, mitigation measures, and predicted net effects of the Project on SAR are presented in Table 13-36. For more detailed descriptions of proposed mitigations measures to prevent or limit the effect of construction and operations on specific species or species groups, please refer to Sections 13.4.3 (Caribou), 13.4.4 (Wolverine), 13.4.5 (SAR bats), 13.4.6 (SAR birds) and 13.4.7 (Lake Sturgeon).

13.1.2.1         SAR Habitat Alteration or Degradation

13.1.2.1.1             Construction

Habitat Structural Change

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

• Following approval conditions, authorizations or permits issued for the Project, including those from CWS-ECCC and MECP.
  • Retaining trees, shrubs, and coarse woody debris (CWD) in environmentally sensitive areas where it is safe to do so. Known sensitive ecological features will be clearly marked and have associated setbacks to minimize the likelihood of habitat change.
    • To the extent possible, progressively reclaiming areas during construction and restoring the habitat to resemble pre-construction conditions. Ideally, this would mean that all non-permanent worksites are restored as soon as possible after work in a certain area has been completed. The restoration work would include the removal of construction debris, decompaction and amendments to soils, and revegetating disturbed areas.
    • Restoration activities will incorporate approaches designed to permit natural regeneration of vegetation, and, when necessary, the establishment of self-sustaining species that are indigenous to the area by transplanting individuals or using root or stem cuttings. All planting must be carried out under appropriate weather conditions (e.g., low or no wind, low or no rainfall, soft or thawed ground).
    • Having qualified personnel conduct site visits and inspections to verify that site-specific environmental protection measures have been implemented correctly, maintained and, as necessary, repaired, until the vegetation has been re-established (e.g., erosion and sediment control).
    • Conducting follow-up monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation and enhancement measures.

Although these measures will be implemented to mitigate against the impacts of structural changes on SAR habitat at the Project site during the construction phase, net effects are anticipated to remain in the LSA. As a result, additional discussion on the topic of ‘Habitat Structural Change’ has been carried forward to Section 13.5 (Characterization of Net Effects).

Hydrological Changes

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

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

(e.g., federal Explosives Act).

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

Although these measures will be implemented to mitigate against hydrological changes to SAR habitat at the Project site during the construction phase, net effects are anticipated to remain in the LSA. As a result, additional discussion about the subject of ‘Hydrological Changes’ has been carried forward to Section 13.5 (Characterization of Net Effects).

Deposition of Dust and Other Airborne Particles

The Project is expected to generate airborne contaminants, dust emissions and/or depositions during the construction and operations phases of the Project. Mitigation measures designed to minimize the risk of air and dust emissions and depositions, which can cause chemical changes to the environment and impact SAR habitat, are described in

Section 9.4 (Mitigation of Effects on Atmospheric Environment) and Appendix E (Mitigation Measures). The effectiveness of mitigation will be evaluated during construction and operations, with measures being modified or enhanced as necessary. These measures include:

• Developing an Air Quality and Dust Control Management Plan as part of the CEMP. Recommendations from this plan will be implemented during construction. Typical mitigation measures include using environmentally certified equipment to conduct the work, ensuring such equipment is maintained regularly, minimizing the idling of equipment, and setting speed limits within the Project Footprint and LSA.
  • Incorporating noise abatement, emission and pollution control equipment on vehicles, equipment and machinery operating in the Project Footprint, and ensuring that all vehicles, equipment and machinery are regularly inspected to ensure they are in good working order.
    • Following industry best management practices and adhering to relevant federal and/or provincial thresholds regarding the deposit of acidifying compounds on plants.
    • Where practicable, using multi-passenger vehicles to transport personnel to the job site and limit vehicle emissions.
    • Turning off vehicles and equipment when not in use and minimizing idling unless weather and/or safety conditions require they remain turned on.
    • When practicable, retaining compatible vegetation on steep slopes, drainage ways, areas prone to wind erosion and adjacent to waterbodies and waterways.
    • Minimizing the burning of wooden logs, branches and other vegetation that has been removed from the LSA (current objective is ≤ ten percent). Ensure any slash pile burning from clearing operations has been approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies and complies with O. Reg. 207/96, subject to agreements with nearby First Nations.
    • Minimizing dust-generating activities during periods of high wind to limit dust emissions.
    • Where necessary, implementing dust control measures, such as water sprays or dust control solutions that can be applied on the road surface. The use of chloride containing compounds will be minimized to the extent possible. Sprays may also be used to increase moisture levels in the air on dry days. Water application rates shall be carefully monitored to ensure there is no erosion of sediments, or pooling and/or runoff of water.
    • Should magnesium chloride, or other chemical dust suppressants be required, they will not be applied within 100 m of a water crossing or beyond the road footprint. In general, the use and application of dust suppressants, where applicable, will be conducted in accordance with MTO OPSS – Construction Specification for Dust Suppressants.
    • Using temporary cover on soil and fill stockpiles (e.g., wood chips, straw, tarps) or alternately, keeping them moist during construction (i.e., by applying water) to minimize drifting of soils.

• Within the western half of the WSR Project Footprint, where more stable soil conditions are found, using a chip seal treatment on the road, which is similar to asphalt pavement, and consists of a tar slurry and gravel.
  • Within the eastern portion of the LSA, where there are peatlands with relatively poor soil conditions, using a granular A-type gravel on the driving surface.

It is anticipated that implementation of these measures will effectively mitigate potential impacts to SAR habitat from the deposition of dust and other airborne particles during the construction phase. As a result, the topic ‘Deposition of Dust and Other Airborne Particles’ has not been carried forward to Section 13.5 (Characterization of Net Effects).

Accidental Spills

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

• Development of a Petroleum Handling and Storage Plan as part of the CEMP to minimize the chance of accidental spills or leaks in the Project Footprint or LSA, and a Spill Prevention and Emergency Response Plan to ensure an effective and efficient clean-up response should any spills or leaks occur. This plan will be developed in accordance with all applicable contract specifications, environmental legislation, permits and authorizations.
  • Handling and storing all petroleum products in compliance with the Ontario Gasoline Handling Act and transporting all petroleum products in accordance with the federal Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and Ontario Dangerous Goods Transportation Act.Making personnel aware of the Petroleum Handling and Storage Plan and the Spill Prevention and Emergency Response Plan; educating them to appropriately handle and store all products in compliance with provincial and federal legislation and guidelines.Storing and maintaining all vehicles and equipment at least 30 m from waterbodies and operating them in a way that prevents the release of deleterious substances into waterbodies or waterways, which could negatively impact SAR habitat.Storing, transferring and dispensing fuels in areas well set back from waterbodies (e.g., 100 m setback from the ordinary high watermark) in designated areas at temporary construction camps and laydown areas along the road.Only transporting fuel and hazardous materials in approved containers in licenced vehicles. Such containers will be routinely inspected for leaks.Incorporating signage and reduced speed limits within the LSA to reduce the risk of vehicle accidents and spills.Delaying construction during heavy precipitation or run-off events, to minimize the extent spilled substances may travel.Maintaining on-site spill kits that can be used to manage and adsorb any spilled material that is visible on the water’s surface. Such kits will be provided in fuel and hazardous materials storage and handling facilities, in on-site work areas and/or in vehicles and equipment. All personnel will be trained in spill response practices and procedures.Reporting any major spill of petroleum or other hazardous material to the MECP Spill Action Centre, immediately after occurrence of the environmental accident (as per Ontario Regulation 675/98).

• Containing and immediately cleaning up any spill that is identified as “non-reportable” under subsection 6(2) of Ontario Regulation 224/07 in accordance with the Emergency Response Plan developed for the site.
  • Removing any contaminated soil and/or vegetation from the local area and subsequently replacing the soils that have been exposed to spilled material as soon as possible.
    • Allowing indigenous vegetation to regenerate local areas where soil and/or vegetation removal has occurred, occasionally enhancing re-establishment by planting or seeding programs that use self-sustaining species indigenous to the area.

It is anticipated that the implementation of these measures will effectively mitigate any potential effects to SAR habitat from accidental spills at the Project site during construction. As a result, the topic of ‘Accidental Spills’ has not been carried forward to Section 13.5 (Characterization of Net Effects).

Sensory Disturbance

Loud noises, lights, smells and other sensory disturbances associated with human activity have the potential to cause the displacement of individuals, loss of habitat, and changes in predator-prey relationships. Atmospheric environmental conditions, including vibration and noise are discussed in Section 9, while visual environmental conditions, including light, are discussed in Section 18. Mitigation measures designed to minimize sensory disturbances in the RSA are discussed in Section 9.4 (Mitigation Measures – Effects on Atmospheric Environment), 18.4 (Mitigation Measures – Effects on Visual Environment), and Appendix E (Mitigation Measures). Additional measures will be provided in the CEMP and OEMP for the Project. The effectiveness of mitigation will be evaluated during construction and operations, with measures being modified or enhanced as necessary. These measures include:

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

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

• Where practicable, turning off vehicles and equipment when not in use.
  • To the extent possible, having construction activities typically occur during daylight hours, typically within one (1) 10-hour shift per day, within the hours of 7:00 to 19:00, unless otherwise regulated by adjacent Indigenous communities or municipal authorities with a written exemption that can be provided to the proponent upon request.
    • Enforcing speed limits for vehicles and prohibiting the recreational use of vehicles (e.g., snowmobiles, ATVs) by Project personnel on the Project Footprint.
    • Preparing and Submitting a Construction Blasting Management Plan for the Project to the Contractor prior to the initiation of blasting activities. Blasting restriction ‘windows’ for the protection of aquatic and wildlife species will be addressed in the plan.
    • Carrying out blast operations in accordance with Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) guidelines (where applicable) and Ontario Provincial Standard Specification 120 General Specification for the Use of Explosives.
    • Blasting will be completed as quickly as possible to shorten the duration of disturbance.

Although these measures will be implemented to mitigate against the potential sensory impacts during the construction phase, net effects will remain for SAR in the LSA and RSA. Therefore, additional discussion about the topic ‘Sensory Disturbance’ has been carried forward to the net effect characterization (Section 13.5).

Invasive Plant Species

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

• Developing an invasive species management and monitoring plan as part of the Vegetation and Invasive Species Management Plan in the CEMP and implementing the plan during construction. This plan would include measures to detect, control (i.e., remove) and monitor areas containing exotic species.
  • Following all environmental approval conditions, authorizations or permits issued for the Project, including those from ECCC, MNR and MECP.
    • Holding information sessions, producing education materials and/or installing signage to familiarize workers with potential invasive species, as well as what they should do when invasive species are encountered in the LSA (i.e., appropriate reporting procedures). Such sessions or materials should be delivered prior to the start of construction and repeated whenever new personnel become engaged in Project-related construction activities.
    • Reducing the potential of introducing invasive plants by including visual inspections (of vehicles, machinery and equipment) as part of standard operating procedures during construction. Particular attention should be paid to the undersides, wheels, wheel arches, guards, radiator grills and other attachments as applicable.
    • Removing any invasive materials found, including seeds or other plant materials, by scraping or washing the exterior surfaces of vehicles and equipment. Removal activities will be conducted at least 30 m away from any watercourse, waterbody or vegetation community, with the material being isolated until it can be safely removed from the RSA.
    • Such measures are aimed at ensuring construction machinery and vehicles arrive on the site in a clean condition, free of mud and debris that could harbor seeds of invasive vegetation species.

• Prohibiting the recreational use of motorized vehicles by Contractors and limiting the use of off-road vehicles during construction.
  • Minimizing soil disturbance to the extent practicable, to reduce the loss of topsoil and preserving a base layer that is sufficient to permit natural regeneration. Disturbed areas shall be contoured to minimize soil erosions and encourage the growth of native vegetation. Where necessary, these areas may be enhanced by planting and/or seeding self-sustaining indigenous species as soon as possible following disturbance.
    • Where practicable, using local soil banks from grading operations for re-vegetation and restoration treatments, and when not practical, incorporating transplants from the RSA, and/or using an approved plant species of importance to Indigenous communities and/or native seed mix that has been sourced from a reputable supplier.
    • Confirming imported fill or soil is free of contaminants, including seeds or materials from invasive species, to reduce the potential of their introduction or spread in the LSA.
    • Targeting invasive non-native species for removal through manual, mechanical and/or chemical methods. To the extent possible, mechanical means such as mowing, tilling, digging or pulling will be used for vegetation rather than chemical methods.
    • Using herbicides only when other control methods have proven ineffective in weed management: (Should herbicide application be selected as a method of invasive plant control, all herbicides must be applied by a licensed applicator in accordance with Ontario regulations).

It is anticipated that the implementation of these measures will mitigate potential effects from invasive or noxious plants on SAR habitat at the Project site. As a result, the topic ‘Introduction of Invasive Plants’ has not been carried forward to Section 13.5 (Characterization of Net Effects).

13.1.2.1.2             Operations

Habitat Structural Change

During the operations phase of the Project, repairs to the roadway and clearing of the ROW will periodically be required. However, it is expected that these activities will not result in disturbance beyond the area impacted because of construction, and will therefore cause no, or negligible, additional change in the composition of SAR habitat. Aggregate (sand, gravel) and rock material will be required for road maintenance and repair activities, and may involve additional vegetation clearing; however, these areas will be progressively rehabilitated during the construction and operation phases of the Project. A Vegetation Management and Monitoring Plan and a Wildlife Management and Monitoring Plan will also be developed and implemented as part of the OEMP. It is anticipated that these measures will only partially mitigate the potential effects of habitat structural change at the Project site. As a result, this topic has been carried forward to Section 12.5 (Characterization of Net Effects).

Hydrological Changes

It is not anticipated that the operations phase of the Project will result in hydrological changes beyond the area impacted because of the construction phase. As a result, the discussion of net effects in Section 13.5 is applicable to both phases of the Project. In addition, the following will occur:

• Mitigation measures from the Surface Water and Stormwater Management and Monitoring Plan will be reviewed and updated as necessary as part of the OEMP. They will subsequently be implemented.
  • Any conditions, permits or authorizations relating to environmental approvals, including those from ECCC, MNR and MECP, will be adhered to during the operations phase of the Project.
    • Neither road salt, nor sand will be used on the WSR for winter maintenance activities (i.e., de-icing).

• Herbicides will only be used when other control methods (e.g., mechanical, manual) for invasive plants have proven ineffective. If the application of herbicides is required, it will be done by licensed applicator in accordance with provincial regulations).

It is anticipated that the potential effects of hydrological change on SAR will be reduced but not eliminated. Therefore, discussion of hydrological change has been carried forward to the net effect characterization (Section 12.5).

Deposition of Dust and Other Airborne Particles

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

• Reviewing and updating (as necessary) the Air Quality and Dust Control Management Plan as part of the OEMP.

This plan will include a procedure for documenting compliance with applicable standards and conditions (as identified in authorizations, permits and licences for the site).

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

It is anticipated that implementation of these measures will effectively mitigate potential impacts to SAR habitat from the deposition of dust and other airborne particles on the Project Site during operations. Since it is not expected to cause net effects in either the LSA or RSA, the topic ‘Deposition of Dust and Other Airborne Particles’ has not been carried forward to Section 13.5 (Characterization of Net Effects).

Accidental Spills

The spill of contaminants along the road could occur during the operations phase as vehicles and equipment travel along the WSR. Should they occur, spills are predicted to be generally localized in nature and are unlikely to result in disturbance beyond any area impacted during the construction phase of the Project. In addition, there will be a Spill Prevention and Emergency Response Management component in the OEMP. Therefore, the mitigation measures that were described in Section 13.4.2.2 (Construction) will also be effective in minimizing the potential risks of accidental spills during the operations phase of the Project, and this topic has not been carried forward to Section 13.5 (Characterization of Net Effects).

Sensory Disturbance

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

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

Impacts from other sources of sensory disturbance are expected to be minimal during the operations phase of the Project. With the predicted low volume of vehicular traffic on the road, operational sensory disturbance is expected to have little effect on SAR beyond what occurs during the construction phase. However, net effects will remain for SAR in the LSA and RSA, and additional discussion about potential impacts from sensory disturbance during the operations phase has been carried forward to the net effect characterization (Section 13.5).

Invasive Plant Species

The distance that invasive species will be able to travel outside of the ROW will, in part, vary with the conditions of adjacent habitats. It will also depend on how similar habitat conditions are to where the species originated from. Many plant species that are native to northern Ontario have never been exposed to significant landscape change. Although they may be more tolerant of cold conditions, they are generally less tolerant of sudden changes in temperature or moisture levels compared to plants in southern Ontario.

During the operations phase of the Project, occasional clearing of the ROW will be required, as will road maintenance activities. These activities are unlikely to result in disturbance beyond the footprint that was impacted during the construction phase, and will likely cause no, or negligible, additional habitat alteration. Some of the mitigation measures described in Section 13.4.2.2 (Construction) can also be effectively applied during the operations phase of the Project. These include:

• Reviewing, updating as necessary, and implementing the Invasive Species Monitoring and Management Plan that was prepared for the construction phase. This plan will include a reporting system for the operations phase.
  • Holding information sessions, circulating education materials that will familiarize individuals that travel the road with harmful invasive species, and/or introducing BMPs to prevent the introduction or spread of exotic species within the LSA. Signage placed near major river crossings will assist in raising awareness of invasive aquatic plants.

• Conducting visual inspections of equipment and vehicles that travel along the WSR, paying particular attention to wheels, wheel arches, undersides and other attachments to which invasive species, or their components

(e.g., seeds, buds, sprouts) may adhere.

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

It is anticipated that the application of these measures will effectively mitigate against any potential impacts to SAR habitat from invasive or noxious plants at the Project site from the operations phase. As a result, additional discussion about potential impacts of invasive species on SAR habitat has not been carried forward to Section 13.5 (Characterization of Net Effects).

13.1.2.2         Alteration in the Movement of SAR

13.1.2.2.1             Construction

Loss of Connectivity

The movement patterns of SAR are expected to change as habitat conditions are altered by equipment, installation of fencing, recontouring of the land and berming of soil, thereby creating short-term physical barriers to SAR movement. Depending on the species, barriers can cause habitat fragmentation (i.e., division of habitats into smaller, isolated patches), reduce gene flow between isolated populations, change behaviour and disrupt migration and/or movement routes (e.g., to avoid predators). Mitigation measures to reduce changes to vegetation communities and species compositions are described in Section 11.4 (Mitigation of Effects on Vegetation and Wildlife Management),

Section 13.4.2.2 (SAR Habitat). and Appendix E (Mitigation Measures). The effectiveness of mitigation will be evaluated during construction and operations, with measures being modified or enhanced as necessary. These measures include:

• Phasing construction to create segments of low or no activity to permit unimpeded wildlife passage through those areas.
  • Minimizing the size of the construction footprint to the extent possible and restricting vegetation removal near sensitive habitats (refer to Sections 13.4.3 – 13.4.7 for additional information).
    • Progressively restoring areas that are no longer being actively used for construction. Progressive restoration or reclamation will minimize the effect of recontoured or cleared areas that are acting as a barrier to movement.
    • Incorporating wildlife crossings and passages in the road design and, where practicable, progressively installing these features during the construction phase. While wolverine themselves are not well known to use wildlife overpasses or underpasses, some of their prey do.
    • Removing any windrowed/slash materials that have been unintentionally piled in a manner that creates barriers.

Although these measures will be implemented to mitigate against potential loss of connectivity during the construction phase, net effects will remain for SAR (and SAR habitat) in the LSA and RSA. Therefore, additional discussion about the subject ‘Loss of Connectivity’ has been carried forward to the net effect characterization (Section 13.5).

Sensory Disturbance

Sensory disturbances from equipment, vehicles, and other aspects of construction can also cause certain SAR to avoid the LSA in the short-term. Conversely, other SAR species may be attracted to portions of the LSA that they did not previously inhabit because such areas provide novel opportunities for feeding (foraging) or shelter (e.g., camps or areas that are converted to early successional habitat). The effectiveness of mitigation will be evaluated during construction and operations, with measures being modified or enhanced as necessary6.

These measures include:

• Designing and implementing plans to manage artificial light, noise and vibrations as Part of the CEMP.
  • Avoiding activities (such as heavy machinery use) that are likely to disturb SAR wildlife during sensitive periods in their life cycle. Species specific and group specific timing windows are described in Sections 13.4.3 – 13.4.7.
    • Designing and Implementing a Construction Waste Management Plan (including hazardous, contaminated and controlled materials) as part of the CEMP. The Waste Management Plan will include procedures to verify that wastes have been collected, stored, transported and disposed of in an environmentally responsible manner. It is recommended that:
      • Areas of human activity (e.g., camps, rest areas) be kept clear of refuse (e.g., gray water, sewage) to avoid attracting wildlife (particularly carnivores and omnivores).
      • Food wastes be collected on site, temporarily stored in wildlife-proof containers, and transported out of the RSA to be recycled or deposed of at a licenced disposal facility.
      • Petroleum-based products and other materials that could attract wildlife be stored in a secure area that wildlife cannot access.
    • Informing all Project personnel about the hazards of feeding wildlife and prohibiting such activity.
    • Lighting only those areas required to ensure worker safety, and angling or shielding lights so that they illuminate only targeted areas.

Although these measures will be implemented to mitigate against potential sensory impacts to SAR habitat at the Project Site during the construction phase, net effects will remain in the LSA. Therefore, additional discussion about the topic ‘Sensory Disturbance’ has been carried forward to the net effect characterization (Section 13.5).

13.1.2.2.2             Operations

Loss of Connectivity

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

• Maintaining posted lower speed limits in sensitive habitats and identified crossing areas.
  • Ensuring maintenance activities occur outside of sensitive life cycle periods (e.g., nesting season for SAR birds, roosting season for SAR bats).
    • Ensuring snow removal activities (i.e., plowing) do not create continuous barriers to the movement of SAR.

⁶       Traffic can cause Caribou to avoid roads and cross more often at night (Laurian et al. 2008; Seilers and Helldin 2005). However, this barrier effect is related to traffic levels with secondary roads not found to act as a barrier (Loosen et al., 2021). With the low volume of vehicular traffic on the road (~500 vehicles/day), the WSR is expected to have little effect on Caribou usage of the area because of sensory disturbances.

• Maintaining any wildlife corridors or passages that were created during construction of the road. Where practicable, creating new ones in areas where a need is identified (e.g., a ‘new’ wildlife crossing area that was identified through construction monitoring, or other reporting procedures).

Although these measures will be implemented to mitigate against the potential loss of habitat connectivity for SAR at the Project site due to the operations phase, net effects will remain in the LSA and RSA. As a result, additional discussion about the topic ‘Loss of Connectivity’ has been carried forward to Section 13.5 (Characterization of Net Effects).

13.1.2.3         Injury or Death of SAR

13.1.2.3.1             Construction

Increased Access

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

• Road access restrictions will be implemented during construction to prevent individuals that are not Project personnel from entering the Project Footprint.
  • Personal firearms will be prohibited from construction camps.
    • A Construction Waste Management Plan will be developed prior to construction and implemented during the construction phase. The plan will include procedures to check that the collection, storage, transportation and disposal of all wastes generated will be conducted in a safe, environmentally responsible manner that complies with federal and provincial legislation.
    • Camps and rest areas will be kept clean, with food waste being stored appropriately to avoid wildlife conflicts (i.e., because food waste can attract carnivores and omnivores).
    • Petroleum-based products and other toxic materials that can attract wildlife will be stored in secured areas.
    • Educational (informational) sessions shall be provided to all Project personnel that makes them aware wildlife have the right-of-way (barring circumstances in which there is imminent risk to the health and safety of workers and/or the public).
    • Temporary access roads, laydowns and construction areas will be fenced, or otherwise blocked, until vegetation has re-established itself.
    • A Construction Blasting Management Plan will be included as part of the CEMP and implemented during the construction phase. The Blasting Management Plan will include policies and actions to minimize the risk of SAR being struck by fly rock.
    • Open excavations and blasting areas will be fenced off when left unattended to avoid injury to, or death of SAR.

Although these measures will be implemented to mitigate against potential impacts from increased access to the Project site during the construction phase, net effects will remain in the LSA. As a result, additional discussion about impacts on SAR from increased access to the Project site has been carried forward to Section 13.5 (Characterization of Net Effects).

Collisions with Vehicles and Equipment

To minimize the potential for the injury or death of SAR from collisions with project vehicles and equipment, during construction the following measures will be implemented:

• Enforcing speed limits on the ROW and access roads.
  • Enforcing access restrictions to the road during the construction phase.
    • Integrating safe travel protocols in the Health and Safety Management Plan. These protocols will include wildlife and SAR awareness training and reporting protocols.
    • Should movement corridors be identified during monitoring, posting and enforcing reduced speeds at the location(s) of the corridor(s).
    • Incorporating wildlife crossings and passages in the road design and, where practicable, progressively installing these features as part of the construction phase.

It is anticipated that the implementation of these measures will partially mitigate potential injury and/or death to SAR at the Project site during the construction phase but will not eliminate the threat completely. As a result, the topic ‘Collisions with Vehicles’ has been carried forward to Section 13.5 (Characterization of Net Effects).

13.1.2.3.2             Operations

Increased Access

The creation of the WSR provides increased opportunities for humans to access the area. This may result higher levels of injury or death of SAR. To limit public access during the operations phase, the following measures will be implemented:

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

Although these measures will be implemented to mitigate against potential increased access to the Project site during the operations phase, net effects will remain in the LSA. As a result, additional discussion about the topic ‘Increased Access’ has been carried forward to Section 13.5 (Characterization of Net Effects).

Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

Linear features are known to facilitate access for predators (Stein, 2000; Dickie et al. 2022), which means the WSR could increase predator-prey encounters. Although predators will likely avoid the Project Footprint during construction, they could use the WSR to gain access to previously inaccessible areas during the operations phase. The WSR could also facilitate increased travel speeds for predators and prey, also resulting in higher rates of encounter. Measures that will be employed to mitigate these encounters will involve:

• Temporarily disturbed areas and access roads will be reclaimed. During this process any barriers to movement will be removed unless they were intentionally placed.
  • Maintaining ROWs with reduced forage, which may attract herbivores.

• Where practicable, incorporating measures that reduce the effectiveness of predators during detailed design. These measures may include

Although these measures will be implemented to mitigate against potential changes to predator-prey relationships in the LSA during the operations phase, net effects will remain. As a result, additional discussion about the topic ‘Increased Access’ has been carried forward to Section 13.5 (Characterization of Net Effects).

Collisions with Vehicles and Equipment

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

• Ensuring maintenance activities take place away from sensitive habitats during critical life cycle time periods (e.g., nesting season, calving season).
  • Lowering the posted speed limit in known areas with SAR habitat and/or movement corridors.
    • Maintaining line of site for drivers.
    • Controlling roadside vegetation.
    • Implementing wildlife sighting and incident reporting procedures.
    • Maintaining any wildlife passages that were created, or signage that was erected to identify wildlife corridors during the construction phase.

It is anticipated that these measures will partially mitigate against potential SAR injury and/or death at the Project site during the operations phase but will not eliminate the risk completely. As a result, the topic of ‘Collisions’ has been carried forward to Section 13.5 (Characterization of Net Effects).

Table 13-36:      Summary of Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Predicted Net Effects for Species at Risk VC

13.1.1       Caribou

Indigenous community members asked about mitigation for impacts to Caribou for design and operation of the road, e.g., to prevent mortality from drivers, allow caribou to crossroad corridor. Sections 13.4.3.2 and 13.4.3.4 outline proposed mitigation measures to reduce the risk of injury and death of Caribou during the construction and operations phases of the Project.

The following subsections outline key mitigation measures that will be implemented to mitigate potential effects on Caribou habitat loss, habitat alteration or degradation, alteration in Caribou movement patterns and Caribou injury or death. A summary of the potential effects, mitigation measures, and predicted net effects for Caribou are in

Table 13-37. For more detailed descriptions of proposed mitigations measures to prevent or limit the effect of construction and operations on Caribou, refer to the following sections in Appendix E (Mitigation Measures):

• Section 5.1 – Clearing and Grubbing;
• Section 5.2 – Petroleum Handling and Storage;
• Section 5.3 – Spill Prevention and Emergency Response;
• Section 5.4 – Noise Control;
• Section 5.7 – Temporary Watercourse Crossings;
• Section 5.11 – Bridge and Culvert Installation;
• Section 5.12 – Blasting Near a Watercourse;
• Section 5.14 – Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat;
• Section 5.16 – Erosion and Sediment Control;
• Section 5.18 – Dust Control Practices;
• Section 5.19 – Aggregate Pit Decommissioning;
• Section 5.20 – Quarry Site Selection and Development;
• Section 5.21 – Site Decommissioning and Rehabilitation; and
• Section 5.23 – Prevention of the Transfer of Invasive Species.

For descriptions of additional measures to mitigate the effects of the Project on other SAR and SAR habitat, please refer to 13.4.4 (Wolverine), 13.4.5 (little brown myotis and northern myotis), 13.4.6 (SAR Birds) and 13.4.7

(Lake Sturgeon). Section Error! Reference source not found. discusses mitigation measures for SAR and SAR (wildlife) habitat more generally. Section 12.4 describe mitigation measures for potential Project effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat.

13.1.1.1         Caribou Habitat Loss

13.1.1.1.1             Construction and Operations

Clearance Activities

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

Avoiding the loss of Caribou habitat started prior the project design stage with the identification of critical Caribou habitat during the baseline studies. Based on the results of habitat modelling, areas of high use by Caribou were avoided during route selection where practicable. Calving and winter habitat areas are considered the most important habitat features for Caribou because they are critical for foraging and protection during sensitive periods. Aquatic feeding and calving areas were not identified during baseline studies due to the complexity in finding such habitat features, but areas of Late Winter Cover were identified during the baseline and the route avoided these areas to the extent practicable

Permanent habitat loss will be minimized during the construction phase by:

1. Developing a Vegetation and Invasive Species Management Plan, Wildlife Management Plan and Site Restoration and Monitoring Plan in advance of construction. These plans will form subcomponents of the CEMP and will be implemented following Project initiation. To the extent possible, restoration and management plans will be developed in cooperation with Local Rights Holders, relevant Federal and/or Provincial Agencies and other Stakeholders.
2. Reviewing and updating, as necessary, the Vegetation and Invasive Species Management Plan, Wildlife Management Plan and Site Restoration and Monitoring Plan prior to the operations phase.
3. Where practicable, placing construction camps, laydown yards and other temporary construction areas in strategic locations that avoid habitat identified as of high use, or otherwise critical for caribou.
4. Using existing roads, trails and other areas of disturbance to access the Project Footprint to the extent practicable, thereby minimizing the loss of habitat to create new access roads.
5. Reducing the extent of clearings at quarries, borrow pits and other temporary areas.
6. Installing construction fencing to clearly delineate the boundaries of the work areas to prevent habitat damage and destruction beyond the limits of the work area. Suitable setbacks will be established based on the Wildlife Management Plan.
7. It is recommended that vegetation clearing in the vicinity of potential aquatic feeding or calving areas occur outside species-specific timing windows. For example, vegetation in suitable aquatic feeding areas will be removed in winter when Caribou are less likely to be using areas.
8. If adherence to these windows is not possible, specific mitigation and monitoring measures will be developed in cooperation with MECP, CWS-ECC, or other appropriate regulatory agencies.
9. Having qualified project personnel search for aquatic feeding areas, calving areas, and areas of high use for Caribou prior during Construction.
10. Should any potential habitat be found, work in the area will cease, the boundaries of the area will be delineated, and the habitat will be assessed by a qualified biologist or resource specialist.
11. Subsequently, an appropriate course of action will be determined, in consultation with regulatory agencies (e.g., MECP, CWS-ECCC) if required. It may be necessary to apply for and receive permits, authorizations or approvals from the appropriate regulatory agencies prior to the removal of Caribou habitat.
12. Areas of temporary disturbance will be reclaimed during the construction phase, with vegetation expected to regenerate naturally over time. These areas will be restored to a functional state as soon as possible following the completion of work.
13. Restoration activities will include the removal of debris, soil decompaction and amendment, and other techniques to promote the re-establishment of self-sustaining vegetation native to the area.
14. Where necessary, reclamation efforts may involve vegetation being enhanced by transplanting species from within the RSA, and/or seeding or planting self-sustaining native species from approved stock and a reputable supplier. Species of importance to Indigenous communities will be included along with species from pre-construction conditions.
15. Reclamation activities will be carried out under appropriate environmental conditions.

1. Qualified personnel will carry out site visits and inspections to verify environmental protection measures have been correctly implemented and are maintained until vegetation has re-established itself.
2. On-site restoration opportunities will be prioritized. Where appropriate, off-site restoration will be investigated and implemented (i.e., should insufficient area be available in the LSA).

The effectiveness of mitigation will be evaluated during construction and operations, with measures being modified or enhanced as necessary. Although it is anticipated that these measures will mitigate against the impacts of clearance activities on Caribou during construction and operations, net effects will remain. As a result, additional discussion about the topic ‘Clearance Activities’ has been carried forward to Section 13.5 (Characterization of Net Effects).

13.1.1.2         Habitat Alteration or Degradation

13.1.1.2.1             Construction and Operations

Habitat Structural Change

Vegetation clearing and ground disturbances during the construction phase may alter the structure of Caribou habitat and increase the short-term availability of early successional species. Mitigation measures to reduce changes to vegetation communities and species compositions are described in Section 11.4 (Mitigation and Enhancement Measures for Vegetation and Wetlands) and Appendix E (Mitigation Measures). The effectiveness of mitigation will be evaluated during construction and operations, with measures being modified or enhanced as necessary (through adaptive management). In addition to the measures discussed in Section Error! Reference source not found. (Mitigation of Effects of Habitat Structural Change on SAR and SAR Habitat), alteration or degradation of Caribou habitat will be minimized by:

• Following all approval conditions for the Project, including any issued by MECP or CWS-ECCC.
  • Keeping construction footprints as small as possible and minimizing or restricting vegetation clearing near sensitive areas, particularly if known to be of high use to Caribou. Key ecological features will be clearly marked

(e.g., flagged or fenced) and a vegetation buffer will be established between them and the work area.

• To the extent practicable, temporary work areas will be reclaimed, and natural vegetation will be allowed to natural regenerate. When necessary, reclamation may involve augmenting vegetation by transplanting vegetation from the RSA, or planting or seeding native self-sustaining species from approved stock and a reputable supplier. The goal of reclamation is to restore habitats to pre-construction conditions, incorporating species of importance to Indigenous communities as appropriate.
  • Completing restoration and reclamation activities under appropriate environmental conditions.
    • Having qualified staff carry out site visits to ensure environmental protection measures have been correctly implemented. They will also complete ecological monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of habitat retention, reclamation and restoration efforts.

The creation of early successional habitat may benefit Caribou as this will create areas of browse in construction clearances and near the road during both construction and operations phases. However, the use of less palatable species may reduce Caribou being attracted to the area, instead continuing to browse in the areas they used

pre-construction. Although these measures will be implemented to mitigate against the impacts of habitat structural change on Caribou during the construction and operations phases, potential effects will not be eliminated entirely. As a result, additional discussion about this subject has been carried forward to Section 13.5 (Characterization of Net Effects).

Hydrological Changes

Hydrological changes in surface and/or groundwater levels may cause alteration or degradation of Caribou habitat. During development, the Project Team considered the consolidation and compression processes of the peat layers associated with placement of fill for road construction, which could reduce the permeability of the peatlands and thus alter groundwater directions and pathway. Mitigation measures to reduce changes to hydrology and drainage patterns are provided in Section 7.4 (Mitigation Measures – Effects on Surface Water Resources), Section 8.4 (Mitigation Measures – Effects on Groundwater Resources), and Appendix E (Mitigation Measures). Mitigation measures designed to reduce the effects of hydrological changes on SAR and SAR Habitat are listed in Section Error! Reference source not found.. Additional measures to reduce potential impacts of hydrological changes on Caribou calving habitat during road construction include:

• Designing and construction temporary and permanent waterbody crossings to accommodate anticipated water flows during their lifespan.
  • Installing cross-culverts at regular intervals in lowland areas to prevent water from ponding on either side of the roadway.
    • Avoiding the use of road salt or sand for winter maintenance activities during the construction and operations phases.

The effectiveness of mitigation will be evaluated during construction and operations, with measures being modified or enhanced as necessary. Although measures will be implemented to mitigate against the impacts of hydrological changes on Caribou habitat, it is anticipated that net effects will remain. As a result, additional discussion about the topic ‘Hydrological Changes’ has been carried forward to Section 13.5 (Characterization of Net Effects).

Sensory Disturbance

Loud noises, lights, smells, dust, and human activity could potentially cause displacement of individuals and loss of foraging or resting habitat. During road construction, activities such as blasting, grading, and vegetation clearing could cause Caribou to avoid the ROW. Mitigation measures designed to minimize sensory disturbances in the RSA are discussed in Section 9.4 (Mitigation Measures – Effects on Atmospheric Environment), 18.4 (Mitigation Measures – Effects on Visual Environment), and Appendix E (Mitigation Measures). Additional measures will be provided in the CEMP and OEMP for the Project. On top of the measures described in Section Error! Reference source not found. (Mitigation Measures – Effects of Sensory Disturbance on SAR and SAR Habitat), potential effects from sensory disturbance during construction will be mitigated by:

• Implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Noise and Vibration Management Plan, the Light Management Plan and the Construction Blasting Plan (all of which form parts of the CEMP).
  • Prohibiting the recreational use of personal motorized vehicles (e.g., snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles) by Project personnel and enforcing speed limits in the Project Footprint.
    • Adhering to recommended construction timing “windows” for Caribou.
    • If adherence to timing windows or restrictions is not possible, having the Contractor develop site-specific mitigation and monitoring plans in consultation with qualified biologists and the appropriate regulatory agencies.
    • The Contractor will be responsible for obtaining any permits or authorizations required to implement the plans.

It is anticipated that these measures will effectively mitigate any potential short-term changes to the movement of Caribou caused by sensory disturbance at the Project site (i.e., during the construction phase). As a result, the topic of ‘Sensory Disturbance’ has not been carried forward to Section 12.5 (Characterization of Net Effects).

Invasive Plant Species

An Invasive Plant Management Plan will be developed to reduce the potential for invasive plant species to be introduced into terrestrial and aquatic habitats; however, there is little indication that invasive plants have negative effects on Caribou in Ontario and no Net Effect is predicted. It is therefore anticipated that the measures described in Section Error! Reference source not found. (Mitigation Measures – Effects of Invasive Plant Species on SAR and SAR Habitat) will effectively mitigate any potential effects from invasive plants during construction or operations on Caribou. As such, invasive plant species are not discussed in relation to Caribou in Section 13.5 (Characterization of Net Effects).

13.1.1.3         Alteration in Caribou Movement

13.1.1.3.1             Construction and Operations

Loss of Connectivity

To minimize potential effects on Caribou from barriers being developed by equipment, recontouring and berming of soil, installation of fencing, etc., the mitigation measures identified in Section Error! Reference source not found. (Measures to Mitigate Against Potential Effects in the Movement of SAR) will be implemented. The effectiveness of these measures will be evaluated during the construction phase and modified or enhanced if necessary. Although it is anticipated that these measures will reduce impacts, they will not eliminate them entirely. As a result, the topic ‘Loss of Connectivity’ has been carried forward to Section 13.5 (Characterization of Net Effects).

Sensory Disturbance

To minimize the potential effects of sensory disturbance during construction on the Caribou movement, in addition to the measures described in Section 9.4 (Mitigation Measures – Effects on Atmospheric Environment), Section Error! Reference source not found.. (Mitigation Measures – Effects of Sensory Disturbance on SAR Movement), Section 18.4 (Mitigation Measures – Effects on Visual Environment), and Appendix E (Mitigation Measures) the following measures will be implemented:

• Noise abatement equipment shall be installed on machinery. Project personnel will ensure such equipment is correctly installed and maintained.
  • Where practicable, vehicles and equipment will be turned off when not in use (i.e., to minimize unnecessary noise).
    • The use of artificial lighting will be minimized, being employed only where necessary to ensure health and safety of Project personnel and the public.
    • Lighting will be directed, or light shields will be used to reduce the amount of light outside of the ROW.
    • Vegetation protection zones (i.e., buffers or setbacks) will be maintained to reduce sensory impacts.

To minimize the potential effects of sensory disturbance on Caribou during the operations phase, the following will supplement the measures identified in Section Error! Reference source not found. (Mitigation Measures for the Potential Effects of Sensory Disturbance on SAR Movement)

• Speed limits will be posted in areas where high use is known, or key habitat for Caribou has been identified.
  • Maintenance activities will occur outside of critical life cycle periods, such as calving season for Caribou.

It is anticipated that these measures, along with those described in Section Error! Reference source not found. (Measures to Mitigate Against Potential Effects of Sensory Disturbance on SAR Movement) and those in Appendix E (Mitigation Measures) will effectively alleviate potential changes to Caribou movement caused by sensory disturbance

during the construction phase. This topic has therefore not been carried forward to Section 13.5 (Characterization of Net Effects).

13.1.1.4         Injury or Death

13.1.1.4.1             Construction and Operations

Increased Access

The creation of the WSR provides additional opportunities for humans to access the area, which could result in increased injury or death of Caribou during both the construction and operations phases. The measures described in Section Error! Reference source not found.. (Mitigation of Effects on SAR and SAR Habitat) will be implemented to reduce the risk of injury and death of Caribou during the construction and operations phases. The effectiveness of mitigation will be evaluated during construction and operations, with measures being modified or enhanced as necessary. Although measures will be implemented to mitigate against the impacts of increased access on Caribou, it is anticipated that net effects will remain in the LSA. As a result, additional discussion about the topic ‘Increased Access’ has been carried forward to Section 13.5 (Characterization of Net Effects).

Changes to Predator-Prey Dynamics

Increased encounters with predators may occur since linear features are known to facilitate access and boost the travel speeds of both predators and prey (Stein, 2000; Dickie et al. 2022). During the construction phase, it is likely that Caribou predators (wolves) will avoid the LSA. During operations, however, predators could use the ROW to enter regions that were previously less accessible to them. In addition, the WSR will facilitate higher movement rates, which could lead to higher encounter rates between predators and prey.

Mitigation measures described in Section Error! Reference source not found. (Mitigation of Effects of Altered Predator- Prey Relationships on SAR and SAR Habitat) will be implemented to reduce injury or death of Caribou. These include:

• Blocking off temporarily areas of disturbance until restoration or reclamation activities have been successfully completed.
  • During detailed design, including measures that reduce the effectiveness of predators (e.g., wolves) such as incorporating switchbacks or bends in temporary access routes.
    • Maintaining ROWs with reduced or less palatable forage for Caribou and other ungulates.

The effectiveness of mitigation will be evaluated during construction and operations, with measures being modified or enhanced as necessary. Although measures will be implemented to mitigate against potential changes to predator-prey dynamics, it is anticipated that net effects will remain in the LSA. As a result, additional discussion about potential impacts from altered predator-prey dynamics has been carried forward to Section 13.5 (Characterization of Net Effects).

Collisions with Project Vehicles

WSR traffic volumes are expected to be relatively low (less than 500 vehicles per day) reducing the likelihood of Caribou-vehicle collisions. The mitigation measures described in Section Error! Reference source not found. (Mitigation of Effects of Collisions on SAR) will be also used to minimize potential impacts on Caribou in the Project Footprint. In addition,

• The use of road salt will be avoided during winter maintenance activities to reduce attracting Caribou to the Project Footprint.

• During the growing season, the ROW will be maintained in a manner that reduces forage attractive to Caribou or other ungulates.
  • Road maintenance activities will not occur during sensitive life cycle periods, such as calving season.
    • Speed limits will be enforced in known Caribou crossing areas and other sensitive habitats.

The effectiveness of mitigation will be evaluated during the construction and operations phases, with measures being modified or enhanced as necessary. That said, there remain potentially negative effects on Caribou from increased vehicles in the Project Footprint. As a result, the topic of collisions has been carried forward to the net effects characterization (Section 13.5).

Introduction of Disease

Improved access may also introduce disease though the spread of new species into the area. For Caribou the potential spread of white-tailed deer is important because white-tailed deer may introduce brain worm (P. tenuis) to the RSA. While white-tailed deer are expected to spread north in Ontario (Kennedy-Slaney et al. 2018) and have been found to use linear features to expand in boreal forests (Darlington et al. 2022) currently no records of deer have been confirmed north of Lake Nipigon and deer not expected to move into the project at densities which would transmit the disease to the Caribou population in the foreseeable future. This topic is not further discussed in Section 13.5 (Characterization of Net Effects). Table 13-37 provides summaries of the potential effects and mitigation measures for Species at Risk VC – caribou during the construction and operations phases.

Table 13-37:      Summary of Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures, and Predicted Net Effects for Species At Risk Sub VC – Caribou

13.1.2       Wolverine

The following Section outline key mitigation measures that will be implemented to mitigate potential effects on wolverine and their habitat, including habitat loss, habitat alteration or degradation, wolverine movement patterns and wolverine injury or death. For more detailed descriptions of proposed mitigations measures to prevent or limit the effect of construction and operations on wolverine, refer to the following sections in Appendix E (Mitigation Measures):

• Section 5.1 – Clearing and Grubbing;
• Section 5.3 – Spill Prevention and Emergency Response;
• Section 5.4 – Noise Control;
• Section 5.7 – Temporary Watercourse Crossings;
• Section 5.8 – Temporary Watercourse Diversions;
• Section 5.11 – Bridge and Culvert Installation;
• Section 5.12 – Blasting Near a Watercourse;
• Section 5.14 – Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat;
• Section 5.16 – Erosion and Sediment Control;
• Section 5.18 – Dust Control Practices;
• Section 5.19 – Aggregate Pit Decommissioning;
• Section 5.20 – Quarry Site Selection and Development;
• Section 5.21 – Site Decommissioning and Rehabilitation; and
• Section 5.23 – Prevention of the Transfer of Invasive Species.

For descriptions of additional measures to mitigate the effects of the Project on the habitat of other SAR and SAR habitats, please refer to 13.4.3 (Caribou), 13.4.5 (little brown myotis and northern myotis), 13.4.6 (SAR birds) and

13.4.7 (Lake Sturgeon). Section Error! Reference source not found. discusses mitigation measures for SAR and SAR (wildlife) habitat more generally, and Section 12.4 describes measures to mitigate potential Project effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat.

13.1.2.1         Habitat Loss

13.1.2.1.1             Construction and Operations