Type in search terms.
SECTION 18: ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON VISUAL ENVIRONMENT
May 1, 2025
AtkinsRéalis Ref: 661910
Draft Environmental Assessment Report / Impact Statement
SECTION 18: ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON VISUAL ENVIRONMENT

- Assessment of Effects on Visual Environment…………………………………………………………………….. 18-4
- Scope of the Assessment…………………………………………………………………………………………. 18-4
- Existing Conditions……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18-11
Contents (Cont’d)
In Text Figures
Figure 18.1: Visual Environment Study Areas…………………………………………………………………………………… 18-9
Figure 18.2: Potential Receptor Locations…………………………………………………………………………………….. 18-15
Figure 18.3: Winisk Lake Crossing – Pre-Construction – Viewing South……………………………………………….. 18-18
Figure 18.4: Winisk Lake Crossing – Post-Construction – Viewing South……………………………………………… 18-18
Figure 18.5: Winisk Lake Crossing – Post-Construction – Viewing West……………………………………………….. 18-18
Figure 18.6: Winiskisis Channel Crossing – Pre-Construction – Viewing West……………………………………….. 18-19
Figure 18.7: Winiskisis Channel Crossing – Post-Construction – Viewing West………………………………………. 18-19
Figure 18.8: Winiskisis Channel Crossing – Post-Construction – Viewing South……………………………………… 18-19
Figure 18.9: Muketei River Crossing – Pre-Construction – Viewing South……………………………………………… 18-20
Figure 18.10: Muketei River Crossing – Post-Construction – Viewing South……………………………………………. 18-20
Figure 18.11: Muketei River Crossing – Post-Construction – Viewing West…………………………………………….. 18-20
In-Text Tables
Table 18-2: Visual Environment VC – Summary of Indigenous Knowledge and Land and Resource Use Information……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 18-6
Table 18-3: Visual Environment VC – Subcomponents, Indicators, and Rationale……………………………………. 18-6
Table 18-4: Project Interactions with Visual Environment VC and Potential Effects………………………………… 18-10
Table 18-5: Results of Visual Assessment of Major Waterbody Crossings…………………………………………… 18-21
Table 18-6: Visibility Parameters and Outcomes……………………………………………………………………………. 18-23
Table 18-8: Summary of Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Predicted Net Effects for
Visual Environment VC…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18-26
Table 18-10: Summary of Predicted Net Effects on Visual Environment VC……………………………………………. 18-30
18 Assessment of Effects on Visual Environment
The visual environment was identified as one of the valued components (VC) during the VC scoping and selection as part of the Environmental Assessment / Impact Assessment (EA/IA) process. This section describes and assesses the potential effects that the Project may have on the Visual Environment VC. For the purposes of the Environment Assessment Report / Impact Statement (EAR/IS), visual environment or visual landscape refers to the visual qualities or aesthetics of natural and cultural features that comprise the landscape within the project study areas.
Existing conditions for the visual environment have been established through a review of secondary source information and primary data collection which was also informed by information gathered from engagement and consultation activities completed by the Project Team. This includes, but not limited to, background information review, internet research, a visibility analysis, engagement with Indigenous communities and stakeholders, and expert opinion. The potential effects are identified in consideration of the existing conditions summarized in Section 18.2, the potential interactions with the Project, and the results of the Visual Impact Assessment completed by Schollen & Company Inc. (Appendix R).
The assessment of potential effects for the Visual Environment 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.
18.1 Scope of the Assessment
18.1.1 Regulatory and Policy Setting
The Project is subject to the federal Impact Assessment Act and to the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (IAA), and the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (refer to Section 1). The Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines issued by Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC 2020) for the Project and the Terms of Reference (Webequie First Nation 2020), which was approved by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks on October 8, 2021, were used to identify requirements for the assessment of Visual Environment VC. There are no specific Canada or Ontario government policies for the management of visual environment/resources nor are there any regional government or Indigenous visual aesthetics management policy for the project study areas.
18.1.2 Consideration of Input from Engagement and Consultation Activities
Table 18-1 summarizes input related to Visual Environment received during the engagement and consultation for the EA/IA and how the input is addressed in the EAR/IS. This input includes concerns raised by the public, stakeholders and Indigenous communities/groups prior to the formal commencement of the federal IA and provincial EA, during the Planning Phase of the IA and Terms of Reference (ToR) phase of the EA.
Table 18-1: Visual Environment VC – Summary of Input Received During Engagement and Consultation
Comment Theme | How Addressed in this Draft EAR/IS | Indigenous Community or Stakeholder |
Concerns about consideration of assessing impacts related to climate change (mitigation and adaptation), visual/aesthetics and human health in Technical Studies. | Visual/aesthetics are assessed in Appendix R – Visual Impact Assessment and in this section of the EAR/IS (Section 18 – Assessment of Effects on Visual Environment). | Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks |
18.1.3 Incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge and Land and Resource Use Information
To date, the following First Nations have provided Indigenous Knowledge and Land and Resource Use (IKLRU) information to the Project Team:
- Webequie First Nation;
- Marten Falls First Nation; and
- Weenusk First Nation.
Table 18-2 summarizes IKLRU information relating to Visual Environment VC and indicates where the information is incorporated in the EAR/IS.
Table 18-2: Visual Environment VC – Summary of Indigenous Knowledge and Land and Resource Use Information
Topic | Key Information and Concerns | Response and/or Relevant EAR/IS Section |
Information related to “visual aesthetics” factors | Data pertaining to culturally important sites and tourism/outfitter operations | Information on culturally important sites and tourism/outfitter operations were used to characterize the existing visual landscape conditions and potential receptors and to assess potential effects of the Project on the Visual Environment VC – refer to Appendix R (Visual Impact Assessment Report) and this EAR/IS Section 18. Visual effects of the Project on land users are further discussed in the following EAR/IS sections: Section 16 (Assessment of Effects on Non-Traditional Land and Resource Use).Section 19 (Assessment of Effects on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Interests). |
Notes: Names of First Nations and location-specific description are not presented in this table due to potential sensitivity and confidentiality of IKLRU information.
18.1.4 Valued Component and Indicators
Valued components, including the visual environment, have been identified in the Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and by the Project Team and are, in part, based on what Indigenous communities and groups, the public and stakeholders have identified as valuable to them in the EA/IA process to date. Visual landscape quality was selected as the criterion or sub-component on which to focus the assessment of potential effects of the Project on the Visual Environment VC. The assessment of the subcomponent is conducted using the methodology as outlined in Section 5 (Environmental Assessment / Impact Assessment Approach and Methods).
Visual landscape quality is the visual character or condition of the visual resources (i.e., topography, water features, vegetation, cultural features) of a landscape area that is related to the ability of the landscape to provide scenic appeal or value for viewers. In general, the visual environment has value to Indigenous individuals and communities within the project study areas, and particularly to persons involved in recreational, and land and resource use activities. A change to visual landscape quality is the extent to which the aesthetic or scenic value of a landscape is altered compared to the pre-development or natural condition.
“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 baseline conditions may demonstrate a positive or negative effect.
Table 18-3 shows the subcomponent and indicators identified for the Visual Environment VC.
Table 18-3: Visual Environment VC – Subcomponents, Indicators, and Rationale
Subcomponent(s) | Indicators | Rationale |
Visual landscape quality | Visibility of the Project (visual prominence)Scenic quality, viewer sensitivity, and viewer distance ratings relative to the existing visual landscape condition | Important to the general well-being of Indigenous communities and their members.The Project could potentially affect visual landscape quality for land users and recreational visitors. |
18.1.5 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries
The following assessment boundaries have been defined for the Visual Environment VC.
18.1.5.1 Spatial Boundaries
The spatial boundaries for the Visual Environment VC are shown on Figure 18.1 and include the following:
- Project Footprint – the area of direct disturbance (i.e., the physical area required for project construction and operations). The Project Footprint is defined as the 35 m wide Right-of-Way (ROW) of the Webequie Supply Road; and temporary and permanent areas needed to support the Project that include access roads, construction camps, laydown and storage yards, aggregate pits/quarries, and a Maintenance and Storage Facility. For the purposes of the visual environment assessment, direct effects of the Project on the visual aesthetics criteria were characterized and assessed from foreground (less than 1 km) viewing distances.
- Local Study Area (LSA) – the area where most effects of the Project are likely to be measurable and was the focus of data collection to characterize existing conditions. The LSA for visual environment extends approximately 1 km from the Project Footprint or ROW boundary, and 500 m from the boundaries of temporary and permanent supportive infrastructure. For the purposes of the visual environment assessment, local direct and indirect effects of the Project on the visual aesthetics criteria were recorded and assessed from both foreground and middle-ground ranging from greater than 1 km up to 5 km from the ROW. These distances are measured from the ROW boundary, not the centreline of the ROW, to ensure the LSA and Regional Study Area includes the full buffer distance beyond the area of direct disturbance.
- Regional Study Area (RSA) – the area where potential indirect and cumulative effects of the Project may occur in a broader, regional context. For Visual Environment VC, the RSA encompasses the areas outside of the LSA that are used to measure broader-scale existing environment conditions and provide regional context for the predicted geographic extent of direct and indirect effects of the Project (e.g., potential effects of the Project from background viewing distances where changes to the landscape may be visible but are less discernible than at foreground and middle-ground distances). Cumulative effects of the Project in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable developments are typically assessed at this larger spatial scale. The rationale for this spatial boundary is to assess cumulative effects on the visual aesthetics criteria by providing a broader, regional landscape context. For the purposes of the visual environment assessment, effects were recorded and assessed from background (greater than 5 km) distances.
- Local Study Area (LSA) – the area where most effects of the Project are likely to be measurable and was the focus of data collection to characterize existing conditions. The LSA for visual environment extends approximately 1 km from the Project Footprint or ROW boundary, and 500 m from the boundaries of temporary and permanent supportive infrastructure. For the purposes of the visual environment assessment, local direct and indirect effects of the Project on the visual aesthetics criteria were recorded and assessed from both foreground and middle-ground ranging from greater than 1 km up to 5 km from the ROW. These distances are measured from the ROW boundary, not the centreline of the ROW, to ensure the LSA and Regional Study Area includes the full buffer distance beyond the area of direct disturbance.
18.1.5.2 Temporal Boundaries
Temporal boundaries for the assessment address the potential effects of the Project over relevant timescales. The temporal boundaries for the Project consist of the following two main phases:
- Construction Phase: All activities associated with the initial development and construction of the road and supportive infrastructure from the start of the construction to the start of the operation and maintenance of the Project, and is anticipated to be approximately 5 to 6 years in duration.
- Operation Phase: All activities associated with operation and maintenance of the road and permanent supportive infrastructure (e.g., operation and maintenance yard, aggregate extraction and processing areas) that will start after the construction activities are complete, including site restoration and decommissioning of temporary infrastructure (e.g., access roads, construction camps, etc.). The Operations Phase of the Project is anticipated to be 75 years based on the expected timeline when major refurbishment of road components (e.g., bridges) is deemed necessary.
The scale and character of changes to the existing visual environment would be cumulative and reach their full extent at the commencement of operation of the road. Therefore, the visual assessment primarily focuses on the Project effects at the operations and maintenance phase since the visual disturbance during this period would represent the largest extent and long-term viewing conditions likely to be experienced by viewers. Project components and activities, however, may overlap in time for viewers. For example, following construction, temporary construction camps and aggregate source areas will be decommissioned, and reclamation and revegetation will occur in later stage of the construction phase, and during the operations phase. Therefore, the qualitative component of the assessment has considered the net effects of the Project that are anticipated to occur during the construction, and the operation and maintenance phases.
The Project is expected to operate 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).
Figure 18.1: Visual Environment Study Areas
18.1.6 Identification of Project Interactions with Visual Environment
Table 18-4 identifies project activities that may interact with Visual Environment VC to result in a potential effect. The identification of project interactions with the visual landscape quality provides a basis for the subsequent assessment of the potential effects of the Project.
Table 18-4: Project Interactions with Visual Environment VC and Potential Effects
Project Activities | Potential Effects |
Change to Visual Landscape Quality | |
Construction | |
Mobilization of Equipment and Supplies: Transport of equipment, materials and supplies to the Project work areas using the winter road network and airport in the Webequie First Nation Reserve | – |
Surveying: Ground surveys are conducted to stake (physically delineate) the road right-of-way (ROW) and supportive infrastructure components of the Project (i.e., construction camps, access roads, laydown/storage yards, and aggregate pits) | – |
Vegetation Clearing and Grubbing: Clearing and grubbing of vegetation (forest & wetland), including removal, chipping and/or disposal. | ✓ |
Construction and Use of Supportive Infrastructure: This includes access roads, construction camps, laydown/storage yards, and aggregate pits including blasting. | ✓ |
Construction of Road: removal and stockpiling of organics, subgrade excavation, placement of fill and gravel, grading and drainage work (e.g., road ditches, erosion protection, etc.) | ✓ |
Construction of Structures at Waterbody Crossings: Culverts and bridges – foundations (e.g., spread footings, piles, caissons), wing walls, girders, and decks, etc. | ✓ |
Decommissioning / Closure of Temporary Aggregate Pits: Demobilization of extracting and processing equipment, grading and site reclamation/revegetation. This also includes formalizing / re-purposing select pits and quarries as permanent Project components for operations and maintenance. | ✓ |
Decommissioning of Temporary Construction Camps, Access Roads, and Laydown / Storage Areas: Grading and site reclamation/revegetation. This also includes formalizing / re-purposing select access roads to permanent pits and quarries and a construction camp to an operations and maintenance facility as Project components for use during operations. | ✓ |
Emissions, Discharges and Wastes1: Noise, air emissions / greenhouse gases, water discharge, and hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. | – |
Completion of Project-Wide Clean-up, Site Restoration / Reclamation and Demobilization: Clean-up of excess materials, site revegetation and demobilization of equipment and materials. | – |
Potential for Accidents and Malfunctions2: Spills, vehicle collisions, flooding, forest fire and vandalism. | – |
Employment and Expenditures3. | – |
Operations | |
Road Use: Light and heavy vehicles and maintenance equipment with average annual daily traffic volume of less than 500 vehicles. | – |
Operation, Maintenance and Repair of Road: Includes vegetation management and control within the road ROW; repairs/resurfacing of roads; dust control; winter/seasonal maintenance (i.e., snow clearing); road drainage cleanout, repairs of culverts, ditches, and drainage outfalls; rehabilitation and repairs of culverts and bridges; and road inspection. | ✓ |
Project Activities | Potential Effects |
Change to Visual Landscape Quality | |
Operation of Pits, Quarries, and Maintenance Yards/Facilities: Includes periodic extraction and blasting and processing operations (i.e., crushing, screening) and stockpiling of rocks and aggregate materials. Also includes operation and repairs of maintenance yards/facilities and components (office buildings, parking lots, storage of equipment and materials). | – |
Emissions, Discharges and Wastes1: Noise, air emissions / greenhouse gases water discharge, and hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. | – |
Potential for Accidents and Malfunctions2: Spills, vehicle collisions, flooding, forest fire and vandalism. | – |
Employment and Expenditures3. | – |
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.
18.2 Existing Conditions
This section summarizes existing conditions of the visual environment based on the review of secondary source information and primary data collection which was also informed by information gathered from engagement and consultation with Indigenous communities and groups. Detailed descriptions of the methods for characterizing existing conditions and interpretations of the results are provided in Appendix R – Visual Impact Assessment Report.
18.2.1 Methods
This section summarizes methods used to characterize existing conditions of the visual environment in the LSA.
18.2.1.1 Information Sources
Existing conditions of the visual environment were characterized based on the following secondary source information and primary data collection conducted for the Project:
- Geology, Soils and Terrain including detailed terrain mapping;
- Surface Water;
- Vegetation and Wetlands, including using Ontario Ecological Land Classification inventories to identify natural landform and land cover features;
- Socio-economic Environment;
- Surface Water;
- Indigenous Knowledge and land and resource use information, and comments and feedback shared to date as part of the EA/IA process;
- Light detection and ranging (LiDAR) elevation data with a resolution of approximately 0.1 m and approximately 150 m wide area along the road right-of-way (ROW) and aerial and drone imagery for the Project; and,
- Photographic images/inventories during field surveys.
- Light detection and ranging (LiDAR) elevation data with a resolution of approximately 0.1 m and approximately 150 m wide area along the road right-of-way (ROW) and aerial and drone imagery for the Project; and,
The process of characterizing existing visual landscape conditions was also informed by the information gathered to date from engagement and consultation with Indigenous communities to confirm and understand the following:
- Vistas – meaning broad sweeping views from an elevated portion of land;
- Commonly navigated and recreationally-utilized waterbodies and watercourses; and,
- Cultural land travel routes, such as those used to access hunting areas and/or sites of spiritual value or interest.
- Commonly navigated and recreationally-utilized waterbodies and watercourses; and,

Information on potential receptor locations provided through IKLRU program, desktop review and other means was used to characterize the existing conditions and to assess potential effects of the Project on the visual environment.
18.2.1.2 Visibility Analysis
The visibility analysis included a review of the aerial video along the flight line imagery of the proposed preliminary recommended preferred route for the Webequie Supply Road (WSR) to identify areas that are likely to afford views to the WSR. A site-specific assessment of the visual characteristics of each of these areas was completed in order to determine the degree of visibility of the proposed WSR in consideration of vegetation community composition, topography, view angles, viewing distance to the receptor and visual contrast.
18.2.1.3 Identification of Viewsheds from Receptors
Viewsheds and potential receptors were identified based on the visibility analysis and existing visual landscape conditions. A viewshed is a geographical area on the land that is visible from the location of a receptor or a person. For example, this includes all surrounding points that are in line-of-sight from a location but excludes points that are beyond the horizon or obstructed by terrain and other features (e.g., trees).
18.2.2 Results
18.2.2.1 Landscape Characteristics
The landscape that the proposed WSR will traverse is typical of the Hudson Bay Lowland Physiographic Region, which characterized as a low, swampy plain with numerous water bodies, bogs, fens, and subdued glacial features. The topography within the project study area is relatively flat, with a topographic variation of 53 m. Variations of vegetation communities exist throughout the LSA and RSA based on soil type and drainage patterns.
The review of the aerial video along the flight line imagery of the proposed preliminary recommended preferred route observed that approximately 64 km of the western extent of the proposed route is located within coniferous and conifer dominated mixed forest vegetation communities. Approximately 1 km east of Prime Lake (refer to Figure 18.1), the landscape transitions to a mosaic of lakes, swamps, and open water bodies.
The broad vegetation communities within the LSA and RSA include the following:
- Conifer Forest;
- Conifer Swap;
- Deciduous Forest;
- Mixed Forest;
- Thicket Swamp;
- Bog;
- Mixed Swamp;
- Open Bog; and
- Fen.
- Mixed Forest;
Along its total length of approximately 107 km, the proposed WSR will require 31 waterbody crossings, which include 30 watercourses and one lake. To cross these waterbodies, six bridges are proposed to be constructed over the major water bodies and 25 culverts of various types (e.g., open bottom arch culvert and corrugated steel pipes) are proposed to be installed at minor waterbodies. The Muketei River and the Winiskisis Channel are navigable watercourses.
Winisk Lake is a large, open water lake that is navigable. These three water bodies are also well-used routes for Indigenous resource use and recreational activities.
18.2.2.2 Viewsheds and Receptors
Given the density of existing forest along the length of the proposed route from the western terminus to approximately 65 km eastward, the proposed WSR will not be visible from outside of the limit of the LSA. East of this point, where the route is embedded in predominantly wetlands or lowlands (i.e., bogs, fens, treed swamps), the WSR may potentially be visible beyond the limit of the LSA.
At the locations of the proposed crossings of the Muketei River, Winiskisis Channel and Winisk Lake, the WSR may be visible from beyond the limit of the LSA; however, given the anticipated height and size of the proposed bridges at the crossings, it is not anticipated that the WSR will be visible from the area within the full extent of the RSA. Upon approach to community of Webequie, the WSR is proposed to terminate at Webequie Airport, which is located 1.25 km south of the community.
Based upon a review of the arrangement of homes and buildings within the Webequie and given the distance separation between the settlement and the terminus of the proposed WSR at the Webequie Airport, it is anticipated that potential receptors do not exist within the community. Refer to Figure 5.4 in Appendix R – Visual Impact Assessment Report for a map that illustrates the location and composition of buildings and homes within the Webequie.
Based on the characteristics of the existing landscape and the visibility analysis, potential receptors may exist in the following areas that are likely to afford views to the WSR:
- Areas in the vicinity of the proposed crossings of Winisk Lake, the Winiskisis Channel and the Muketei River
(refer to Photograph 18.1, Photograph 18.2, and Photograph 18.3 for illustrations of some areas in the vicinity of these waterbody crossings).
- Cultural sites or areas of value or interest and areas that are located within the LSA, west of the division line between the area that is dominated by coniferous, deciduous and mixed forest communities and the area that comprises predominantly lowland vegetation communities to the east (refer to the description of landscape in Section 18.2.2.1).
- Recreational and land and resource use areas and trails that are located within the LSA that are proximate to water bodies and may afford views across the water to the proposed road ROW.
The potential receptors that were identified are illustrated on Figure 18.2.

Photograph 18.1: Winisk Lake Viewing South

Photograph 18.2: Winiskisis Channel Viewing West

Photograph 18.3: Muketei River Viewing South
Figure 18.2: Potential Receptor Locations
18.3 Identification of Potential Effects, Pathways, and Indicators
As indicated in Table 18-4, some project activities may interact with and impose potential effects on the
Visual Environment VC during the project construction and operations. Potential effects to visual landscape quality from construction activities are considered to be temporary and will be mitigated after the completion of construction activity, the removal of construction equipment, and the decommissioning and restoration of temporary supportive infrastructure. The effects of construction are not expected to have a lasting effect on visual quality in the LSA, with remaining visual changes being represented by constructed project components and subsequent operation and maintenance activities. Therefore, potential effects of construction activities on the Visual Environment VC are not carried forwarded for further assessment.
This section describes the nature of the potential effects, the effect pathways, and the indicators that can be used to assess and measure the effects of the Project on Visual Environment VC during operations. Potential receptors related to the visual environment are described in Section 18.2.2.2. Table 18-7 summarizes the potential effect, effect pathways and indicators for the Visual Environment VC.
The pathways in which a change to visual landscape quality may occur during operations include:
Operations, maintenance, and repair of road and waterbody crossing structures → Visibility of constructed road and waterbody crossing structures → Change to visual landscape quality
As described in Section 18.2.2, given the density of existing forest along the length of the proposed route from the western terminus to approximately 65 km eastward, the proposed WSR will not be visible from outside of the limit of the LSA. East of this point, where the route is embedded in the lowlands, the WSR may potentially be visible beyond the limit of the LSA. The potential visual prominence that is determined for the proposed crossings of Winisk Lake, the Winiskisis Channel, and the Muketei River as described in Section 18.3.3 is considered as a conservative or overestimated assessment of the overall project visibility/prominence.
The WSR is not proposed to be illuminated so the WSR will not be visible from any receptors during the night. The indicators used to characterize changes for the visual landscape quality are described as follows:
- Visibility of the Project: Refers to locations that are related to visual aesthetics and have potential visual prominence or visibility of the Project. These locations are identified through visibility analysis using information sources identified in Section 18.2.1.1. Visibility of the Project also refers to the visible area from key viewpoint locations of potential receptors (e.g., users of the land and waterways). Key viewpoints refer to photo viewpoint locations along the length of the Project and specifically at three (3) locations in the vicinity of the proposed crossings of
Winisk Lake, the Winiskisis Channel and the Muketei River (refer to Section 18.2.2.2) selected as representative viewpoints for the visual effects assessment, including simulations.
- A rating system that considers changes to:
- Scenic Quality – The Scenic Quality Rating (SQR) is determined by examining the changes to the landscape characteristics such as visible landform, vegetation communities, water and shoreline features, and unique natural and cultural heritage elements.
- Viewer Sensitivity – The Viewer Sensitivity Rating (VSR) is determined based upon the input derived from stakeholders and Indigenous consultations and engagement, and primarily was derived from Webequie First Nation.
- Viewing Distance – The Viewing Distance Rating (VDR) is determined for each of the three selective representative waterbody crossing sites utilizing aerial imagery to assess changes to the magnitude of the visual impact of the proposed crossings on the existing landscape from various distances.
The potential effect on the visual environment was determined for each of the three proposed crossings based on 3 dimensional (3D) visualizations, an assessment of the viewshed related to each crossing, as well as on an assessment of the anticipated change in the visual environment in comparison to the SQR, VSR and VDR. A
Composite Rating (or average rating) was then derived that defines the overall magnitude of the effect on the visual environment.
18.3.1 Dimensional Visualizations
To enable the visual effect assessment, 3 dimensional (3D) visualizations of the three proposed crossing structures along the preliminary recommended preferred route were prepared, including the Winisk Lake Crossing
(254 m multi-span bridge), the Winiskisis Channel Crossing (48 m twin-span bridge) and the Muketei River Crossing (33 m single-span bridge). Three dimensional models were prepared for various viewpoints. The 3D visualizations were constructed utilizing the following base information:
- DEM and LIDAR digital files;
- Drone image video;
- Perspective imagery; and
- Aerial imagery.
The 3D visualizations illustrate the constructed water crossing structures at the three crossing locations. Figure 18.3 to Figure 18.11 include representative illustrations for results of the 3D visualizations. Refer to Figures 7.1 to 7.14 in Appendix R – Visual Impact Assessment Report for additional illustrations of the pre-construction and the
post-construction conditions at each of the three waterbody crossing locations.
The installation of the crossing structures will require the following activities that will have implications on the visual environment:
- Removal of trees and vegetation in the vicinity of the proposed bridge abutments;
- Installation of concrete bridge abutments and foundations;
- Installation of the structural steel girders and concrete bridge deck;
- Installation of the concrete barrier walls on deck and asphalt driving surface on deck; and
- Restoration of the areas of disturbance.
Once the area has been restored, it is anticipated that vegetation cover will become re-established in the vicinity of the bridge abutments.

Figure 18.3: Winisk Lake Crossing – Pre-Construction – Viewing South.

Figure 18.4: Winisk Lake Crossing – Post-Construction – Viewing South.

Figure 18.5: Winisk Lake Crossing – Post-Construction – Viewing West.

Figure 18.6: Winiskisis Channel Crossing – Pre-Construction – Viewing West.

Figure 18.7: Winiskisis Channel Crossing – Post-Construction – Viewing West.

Figure 18.9: Muketei River Crossing – Pre-Construction – Viewing South.

Figure 18.10: Muketei River Crossing – Post-Construction – Viewing South.

Figure 18.11: Muketei River Crossing – Post-Construction – Viewing West.
18.3.2 Scenic Quality, Viewer Sensitivity and Distance Ratings
Utilizing the 3D visualization, the visual assessment of the three waterbody crossings associated with the preliminary recommended preferred route was completed. The following three assessment categories were applied to predict impacts to the visual landscape:
Scenic Quality Rating (SQR)
The SQR is determined based upon the physical characteristics of the landscape within the viewshed, under both the pre- and post-construction conditions. The landscape characteristics that were analyzed included visible landform, vegetation communities, water and shoreline features and unique natural and cultural heritage elements.
Viewer Sensitivity Rating (VSR)
The VSR was determined based upon the input derived from consultation and engagement, primarily with the Webequie First Nation.
Viewing Distance Rating (VDR)
The VDR was determined for each of the three waterbody crossings utilizing aerial imagery. The VDR assessed the magnitude of the visual impact of the proposed crossings for the recommended preferred route on the existing landscape from various distances and defined the distances at which the view becomes obstructed, or the impact becomes obsolete.
A Composite Rating is determined based on the SQR, VSR and VDR which defines the degree of change in the visual environment. The magnitude of the visual effect is determined by aggregating the SQR, VSR and VDR to yield a Composite Rating (or average rating) of ‘High’, ‘Moderate’ or ‘Minimal’. The Composite Rating defines the overall magnitude of the effect on the visual environment.
Table 18-5 presents results of the visual assessment for the three proposed waterbody crossings with Winisk Lake, Winiskisis Channel, and Muketei River based on the 3D visualizations and the visual assessment categories SQR, VSR, and VDR described above.
Table 18-5: Results of Visual Assessment of Major Waterbody Crossings
Waterbody Crossing | Visual Assessment Category | ||||
Scenic Quality Rating (SQR) | Viewer Sensitivity Rating (VSR) | Viewing Distance Rating (VDR) | Composite Rating* | ||
Winisk Lake Crossing | Description | Open water with shoreline vegetation dominated by coniferous woodland. | The consultation program did not reveal an increased viewer sensitivity in relation to the other waterbody crossings. | The viewshed extends approximately 1,880 m northward from the site of the proposed crossing and approximately 1,835 m southward from the site of the proposed crossing (refer to Figure 7.15 in Appendix R – Visual Impact Assessment Report) | n/a |
Rating | High | Minimal | High | High | |
Winiskisis Channel Crossing | Description | Narrow channel with rock/cobble banks. The vegetation community is dominated by coniferous woodland. | The consultation did not reveal any increased viewer sensitivity in comparison to other waterbody crossings. | The viewshed extends approximately 427 m west of the site of the crossing and 638 m east of the site of the proposed crossing (refer to Figure 7.16 in Appendix R – Visual Impact Assessment Report) | n/a |
Rating | Moderate | Minimal | Moderate | Moderate |
Waterbody Crossing | Visual Assessment Category | ||||
Scenic Quality Rating (SQR) | Viewer Sensitivity Rating (VSR) | Viewing Distance Rating (VDR) | Composite Rating* | ||
Muketei River Crossing | Description | At the proposed crossing location, the Muketei River is narrow. The banks are well-vegetated and include bedrock, boulders, and cobble. The vegetation community is dominated by coniferous woodland. | The consultation program did not reveal any increased viewer sensitivity in comparison to other water crossings. | The circuitous meander geometry of the Muketei River limits the viewshed distance from the crossing site. The visual distance northward from the site of the crossing is approximately 305 m. The southward viewshed distance is approximately 270 m (refer to Figure 7.17 in Appendix R – Visual Impact Assessment Report) | n/a |
Rating | Moderate | Minimal | Minimal | Minimal |
Notes:
* Composite Rating (or average rating) = Aggregate of SQR, VSR, and VDR that defines overall visual effect.
Source: Schollen & Company Inc. (2024)
Based on the assessment results presented in Table 18-5, the Winisk Lake crossing was determined to have the highest potential to affect a change in the quality of the visual landscape based on the scenic quality of the existing landscape, the length of the proposed crossing structure, and the extent of the viewsheds from which the crossing structure will be visible. The viewsheds to both the Winiskisis Channel and Muketei River crossings are limited and the aquatic areas of the viewsheds are smaller than that of the Winisk Lake Crossing, consequently, the potential for change to the visual landscape is limited.
18.3.3 Project Visibility/Prominence
The potential visual prominence of each of the three proposed crossing structures was determined based on a determination of the distance from which each of the proposed crossing structures would be visible within the limits of the viewshed using the following parameters:
- Thickness of the profile of the proposed crossing structure from the underside of the deck to the top of the barrier wall.
- Height of the underside of the structure above water level.
The visible distance at which the structure would be perceptible within the viewshed was calculated utilizing the intercept theorem detailed in Section 7.1.3 of the Visual Impact Assessment Report (Appendix R).
Table 18-6 provides a summary of the parameters and outcomes of the calculation for visibility within the limits of the viewshed. As presented in Table 18-6, the visual height of the proposed crossing structures at the limit of the viewshed for all three crossing structures is minimal.
Table 18-6: Visibility Parameters and Outcomes
Waterbody Crossing | Parameters | Visual Height of Crossing Structure (Bridge Deck) from Viewer’s Perspective (mm) | ||
Deck Thickness (m) | Height above Water Level (m) | Viewshed Distance (m) | ||
Winisk Lake Crossing | 5.75 | 3.97 | North 1,880 / South 1,835 | North 3.06 / South 3.13 |
Winiskisis Channel Crossing | 3.62 | 3.00 | East 638 / West 427 | East 5.67 / West 8.42 |
Muketei River Crossing | 6.32 | 4.54 | North 305 / South 270 | North 20.72 / South 23.41 |
Source: Schollen & Company Inc. (2024)
Table 18-7: Summary of Potential Effects, Pathways, and Indicators for Visual Environment VC
Potential Effect | Project Phase | Effect Pathway | Effect Indicators | Nature of Interaction and Effect (Direct or Indirect) | Linked Other VCs |
Change to visual landscape quality | Operations | Change to visual landscape quality due to presence of visible project components from operation, maintenance and repair of road and waterbody crossing structures. | Visual prominence.Scenic quality, view sensitivity, and viewer distance ratings. | Direct | Non-Traditional Land and Resource Use (Section 16).Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Interests (Section 19). |
18.4 Mitigation Measures
This section describes proposed mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce the potential effects of the Project on visual environment. A summary of the potential effects, mitigation measures and predicted net effects for Visual Environment VC is provided in Table 18-8. Further measures will be provided in the Construction Environmental Management Plan and the Operation Environmental Management Plan that will be developed for the Project. Refer to Section 4.6 for details of the proposed framework for the development of the Construction Environmental Management Plan and the Operation Environmental Management Plan.
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 Visual Environment VC. |
Mitigation measures to limit effects to visual environment will be incorporated into the project design and will be implemented to minimize negative effects. Mitigation measures considered in the potential effects analysis for visual environment included the following:
- Avoiding new disturbances beyond the Project Footprint to the extent practicable, with particular consideration at waterbody crossing sites.
- Minimizing the extent of vegetation clearing at the three waterbody crossings, and other crossings, that are considered navigable waterbodies will be limited to minimize visual impacts and where necessary meet safety standards.
- Maximizing efforts to retain existing vegetation and landforms, to the extent practicable, to provide screening of activities and project components.
- Reducing the extent of disturbed area within the road ROW. Disturbed areas will be restored and seeded to allow for natural revegetation and its management to support the safe operations of the road.
The following sections in Appendix E (Mitigation Measures) describe mitigation measures to prevent or limit the effect of the Project on the Visual Environment VC:
- Section 5.1 – Clearing and Grubbing; and
- Section 5.21 – Site Decommissioning and Rehabilitation.
Table 18-8: Summary of Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Predicted Net Effects for Visual Environment VC
VC Subcomponent | Indicators | Project Phase | Project Component or Activity | Potential Effect | Key Mitigation and Enhancement Measures | Predicted Net Effect |
Visual Landscape Quality | Visual prominence.Scenic quality, view sensitivity, and viewer distance ratings. | Operations | Operation, maintenance and repair of road and waterbody crossing structures. | Change to visual landscape quality | Avoiding new disturbances beyond the Project Footprint to the extent practicable, with particular consideration at waterbody crossing sites.Minimizing the extent of vegetation clearing at the three waterbody crossings, and other crossings, that are considered navigable waterbodies will be limited to minimize visual impacts and where necessary meet safety standards.Maximizing efforts to retain existing vegetation and landforms, to the extent practicable, to provide screening of activities and project components.Reducing the extent of disturbed area within the road ROW. Disturbed areas will be restored and seeded to allow for natural revegetation and its management to support the safe operations of the road.Refer to Appendix E – Mitigation Measures:Section 5.1 – Clearing and Grubbing; andSection 5.21 – Site Decommissioning and Rehabilitation. | Yes |
18.5 Characterization of Net Effects
Net effects are defined as the effects of the Project that remain after application of proposed mitigation measures. The effects assessment follows the general process described in Section 5 – Environmental Assessment / Impact Assessment Approach. The focus of the effects assessment is on predicted net effects, which are the effects that remain after application of proposed mitigation measures. Potential effects with no predicted net effect after implementation of mitigation measures are not carried forward to the net effects characterization or the cumulative effects assessment. Table 18-9 presents definitions for net effects criteria, developed with specific reference to the Visual Environment VC. These criteria are considered together in the assessment, along with context derived from existing conditions and proposed mitigation measures, to characterize predicted net effects from the Project on the visual environment.
Table 18-9: Criteria for Characterization of Predicted Net Effects on Visual Environment VC
Characterization Criteria | Definition or Description | Categories and Measures |
Direction | Direction relates to the value of the effect in relation to the existing conditions. | Positive – Net gain or benefit; effect is desirable. Neutral – No change compared with existing conditions and trends. Negative – Net loss or adverse effect; effect is undesirable. |
Magnitude | Magnitude is the amount of change in measurable parameters or the VC relative to existing conditions. | Negligible – No measurable change. Low – Average visual impact rating of the Project is low; minimal visual change compared to existing conditions. Moderate – Average visual impact rating of the Project is moderate; evident visual change compared to existing conditions. High – Average visual impact rating of the Project is high; substantial visual change compared to existing conditions. |
Geographic Extent | Geographic extent refers to the spatial area over which a net effect is expected to occur or can be detected within the Project Footprint, Local Study Area (LSA), or Regional Study Area (RSA). | Project Footprint – The effect is confined to the Project Footprint. Local Study Area – The effect is limited to LSA. Regional Study Area – The effect extends beyond the LSA boundary, but is confined within the RSA. |
Timing | Timing criteria indicate the important or sensitive timing of the net effect (e.g., spawning dates or seasons). | Not applicable. |
Duration | Duration is the period of time required for the measurable indicators to returns to their existing conditions, or the net effect can no longer be measured or otherwise perceived. | Short Term – The net effect is restricted to the construction phase (approximately 5 years). Medium Term – The net effect extends through both construction and operation phases (75-year life cycle). Long Term – The net effect extends beyond the operation phase (greater than 75 years). Permanent – The net effect is unlikely to recover to its existing condition. |
Characterization Criteria | Definition or Description | Categories and Measures |
Frequency | Frequency refers to how often an effect occurs during the Project phases. | Infrequent – Rarely occur. Frequent – The effect is expected to occur intermittently. Continuous – The effect is expected to persist continually. |
Context | Context considers sensitivity and resilience of the VC to the project related changes. | Sensitive – Visual quality is a moderately or highly valued component of the LSA and sensitivity is moderate or high to adverse visual change. Resilient – Visual quality is a low valued component of the LSA and sensitivity is low to adverse visual change. |
Input from Indigenous Peoples | Views of the Indigenous communities and groups in assigning the criteria to be used and in characterizing the effects. | Not applicable – No inputs on net effects criteria were received during the engagement and consultation. |
Reversibility | Reversibility refers to whether a measurable indicator can return to its existing condition after the project activity ceases. | Reversible – The net effect is likely to be reversed after activity completion and rehabilitation. Irreversible – The net effect is unlikely to be reversed. |
Likelihood of Occurrence | Likelihood of occurrence refers to how likely a project activity will result in an effect. | Unlikely – The effect is not likely to occur. Possible – The effect may occur. Probable – The effect is likely to occur. Certain – The effect will occur. |
18.5.1 Potential Effect Pathways Not Carried Through for Further Assessment
As noted in Section 18.3, potential effects of construction activities on the Visual Environment VC have not been carried forwarded for further assessment.
18.5.2 Predicted Net Effects
Net effects of the Project on the Visual Environment VC are represented by constructed project components and subsequent operation and maintenance activities. The predicted net effect on the Visual Environment VC is a change to visual landscape quality due to operation, maintenance and repair of road and waterbody crossing structures.
18.5.2.1 Change to Visual Landscape Quality During Operations
The Project’s operation and maintenance activities have the potential to result in long-term and continuous changes to the visual landscape related to the presence of waterbody crossing structures and clearing of vegetation along the ROW. Visual effects will occur only during daylight hours since the WSR is not proposed to be illuminated. The proposed mitigation measures will partially address potential visual effects associated with the Project. Based on the results of the assessment of changes to visual quality as summarized in Table 18-5 and Table 18-6, and with application of mitigation measures, the proposed bridge at the Winisk Lake Crossing will be barely perceptible from the north and south limits of the viewshed. The proposed bridge at the Winiskisis Channel Crossing will be visible but not visually dominant within the landscape when viewed from both the east and west limits of the viewshed. The proposed
bridge at the Muketei River Crossing will be visually dominant within the landscape when viewed from both the north and south limits of the viewshed. None of these crossings will be visible from the community of Webequie or the Webequie Airport.
In the context of the project study areas, direct effects of the three bridges on the visual environment will occur within the Project Footprint. However, only at the proposed Winisk Lake Crossing will visual effects occur within the LSA. These effects extend to the limit of the viewshed (1.88 km north and 1.83 km south of the location of the proposed crossing). None of the three proposed crossings will result in visual effects beyond the LSA.
Views to the proposed crossings at Winisk Lake, Winiskisis Channel, and Muketei River will be limited to the following:
- The navigable open water areas within the viewsheds associated with each proposed crossing as described in
Table 18-5.
- Segments of the shoreline areas that are located around the perimeter of the mapped viewsheds.
Similarly, it is expected that views to crossing structures at other waterbody crossing locations identified for the WSR will be limited to views from open water and shoreline areas within respective viewsheds.
With respect to potential receptors based on cultural/recreational sensitivity, there are potential receptors in the vicinity of the Winisk Lake and Winiskisis Channel Crossings. There are no mapped potential receptors in the viewshed of the proposed Muketei River Crossing. With respect to potential receptors described in Section 18.2.2.2, only receptors that are located within the defined viewsheds associated with each of the proposed crossings of Winisk Lake, the Winiskisis Channel and the Muketei River will be subject to a change in the visual landscape quality. For other viewing locations within the LSA that are not identified as areas with potential receptors, the net effect would be of negligible to low magnitude and confined to the LSA as visibility of the project components including supportive infrastructure for the Project’s operations would be partially or fully obstructed by surrounding vegetation with the existing height and density of the coniferous woodland.
The geographic extent of the net effect would be limited to viewing opportunities in the LSA; however, the Project effects generally would be most discernible within the Project Footprint as vegetation in the project study areas is dominated by coniferous woodland. The net effect of the Project on the Visual Environment VC is expected to have a low to moderate magnitude. The net effect is considered reversible after the road is decommissioned and vegetation becomes re-established in the Project Footprint.
A change to visual landscape quality due to operation, maintenance and repair of road and waterbody crossing structures is likely to occur (probable). The net effect is considered to occur in a resilient context given that vegetation in the project study areas is dominated by coniferous woodland and the Project Footprint would be partially or fully obstructed by surrounding vegetation. Land users who may be hunting, fishing, trapping or gathering in the area and doing recreational activities such as boating, canoeing, hiking, camping, or wildlife viewing are transitory and may temporarily experience a visual effect while they are in vicinity of the project components. Potential sensory disturbance of the project presence on land and resource use activities is assessed in Section 16 (Assessment of Effects on Non- Traditional Land and Resource Use) and in Section 19 (Assessment of Effects on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Interests).
18.5.3 Summary
A summary of the characterization of predicted net effects is provided in Table 18-10.
Table 18-10: Summary of Predicted Net Effects on Visual Environment VC
Predicted Net Effect | Project Phase | Net Effects Characterization | |||||||
Direction | Magnitude | Geographic Extent | Duration | Frequency | Context | Reversibility | Likelihood of Occurrence | ||
Change in visual landscape quality | Operations | Negative | Low | LSA | Long Term | Continuous | Resilient | Reversible | Probable |
Note: Refer to Table 18-9 for definitions of categories for net effects characterization
18.6 Determination of Significance
Several methodologies can be used to determine whether an adverse environmental effect is significant or not significant, as outlined in the Interim Technical Guidance Determining Whether a Designated Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Agency, 2018). A qualitative aggregation method is used for determination of significance based on the sequential interaction among the magnitude, geographic extent, and duration criteria for effects. The following sequential interactions form the basis for determination of significance of adverse net effects on Visual Environment VC:
A predict net effects is considered not significant if the effect is:
- Low to moderate in magnitude, local to regional in extent, and short-term to permanent in duration.
A predict net effects is considered significant if the effect is:
- High in magnitude, local to regional in extent, and long-term to permanent in duration.
With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the magnitude of the predicted net effects for changes to the visual landscape during the construction and operations phases is low to moderate. As a result, the net effects for changes to the visual landscape are assessed as not significant.
18.7 Cumulative Effects
In addition to assessing the net environmental effects of the Project, the assessment for Visual Environment VC also evaluates and assesses the significance of net effects from the Project that overlap temporally and spatially with effects from other past, present and reasonably foreseeable developments (RFDs) and activities (i.e., cumulative effects).
For a valued component that has identified net effects where the magnitude was determined to be higher than negligible, it is necessary to determine if the effects from the Project interact both temporally and spatially with the effects from one or more past, present RFDs or activities, since the combined effects may differ in nature or extent from the effects of individual Project activities. Where information is available, the cumulative effects assessment estimates or predicts the contribution of effects from the Project and other human activities on the criteria, in the context of changes to the natural, health, social or economic environments.
The cumulative effects assessment for the Project is completed at the regional scale (i.e., VC specific RSA). The cumulative effects assessment for each VC is primarily qualitative and describes how the interacting effects of human activities and natural factors are predicted to affect indicators for each VC. The assessment is presented as a reasoned narrative describing the outcomes of cumulative effects for each VC.
For this Visual Environment VC assessment, the net effect in Section 18.5 that are characterized as having a likelihood of occurrence of “probable” or “certain” and magnitude that is higher than low are carried forward to the cumulative effects assessment. Net effects with this characterization are most likely to interact with other RFD and activities.
Consequently, based on the predicted net effects (i.e., low) for the Visual Environment VC and likelihood of occurrence this VC is not carried forward to the cumulative effects assessment.
18.8 Prediction Confidence in the Assessment
The confidence in the net effects assessment for Visual Environment VC is high with the use of reliable data sources and a systematic approach for visual effects assessment as described in Section 18.2 and Section 18.3, and considering that the mitigation measures described in Section 18.4 and Appendix E (Mitigation Measures) are based on industrial best management practices that are well-understood, accepted, and have been applied to typical transportation/road construction projects. Although there are some uncertainties in the assessment, they have been minimized or reduced by making some conservative assumptions about potential receptors and using professional judgements based on past experiences in other transportation projects.
18.9 Predicted Future Condition of the Environment if the Project Does Not Proceed
The predicted future condition of the visual landscape if the Project does not proceed is not expected to differ substantially from the existing condition. The future condition of the visual landscape is largely influenced by vegetation communities which may change due to other potential developments in the project area, by climate change, or by natural processes such as diseases, extreme weather events or wildfires.
18.10 Follow-Up and Monitoring
Follow-up and monitoring activities relevant to Visual Environment VC will be conducted:
- During construction to confirm mitigation measures are being implemented appropriately and net effects are as predicted; and
- During operations to confirm mitigation measures are effective and net effects are as predicted.
Ongoing engagement and consultation with potentially affected Indigenous communities and groups will help identify opportunities to address concerns regarding visual quality throughout construction and operations of the Project.
The Project invites community members to participate in developing and implementing monitoring programs to assess the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures and potential adverse effects to the environment. Where effects are considered unacceptable and/or based on concerns raised by Indigenous community members or other stakeholders, further mitigation options will be considered by the road operator in consultation with Indigenous communities and stakeholders.
18.11 References
Canadian Environmental Assessment (CEA) Agency. 2018. Interim Technical Guidance Determining Whether a Designated Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/impact-assessment- agency/services/policy-guidance/determining-project-cause-significant-environmental-effects-ceaa2012.html
AtkinsRéalis 191 The West Mall Toronto, ON M9C 5L6 Canada 416.252.5315 atkinsrealis.com |
© AtkinsRéalis except where stated otherwise |