SECTION 9: ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT

Webequie Supply Road Project

May 1, 2025
AtkinsRéalis Ref: 661910

Draft Environmental Assessment Report / Impact Statement

SECTION 9: ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT

Contents

9 Assessment of Effects on Atmospheric Environment 9-7
9.1 Scope of the Assessment 9-7
9.1.1 Regulatory and Policy Setting 9-7
9.1.2 Consideration of Input from Engagement and Consultation Activities 9-13
9.1.3 Incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge and Land and Resource Use Information 9-24
9.1.4 Valued Component and Indicators 9-29
9.1.4.1 Air Quality Basics 9-29
9.1.4.1.1 Air Contaminants of Interest 9-29
9.1.4.1.2 Relevant Air Quality Criteria and Standards 9-29
9.1.4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Basics 9-31
9.1.4.2.1 Greenhouse Gases of Interest 9-31
9.1.4.2.2 Emission Factors Considered in the GHG Emissions
Assessment 9-31
9.1.4.3 Noise and Vibration Basics 9-32
9.1.4.3.1 Noise 9-32
9.1.4.3.2 Vibration 9-36
9.1.4.4 Lighting Basics 9-36
9.1.4.5 Indicators 9-36
9.1.5 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries 9-38
9.1.5.1 Spatial Boundaries 9-38
9.1.5.2 Temporal Boundaries 9-39
9.1.6 Identification of Project Interactions with Atmospheric Environment 9-43
9.2 Existing Conditions 9-45
9.2.1 Methods 9-46
9.2.1.1 Air Quality 9-46
9.2.1.2 Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) 9-49
9.2.1.3 Noise and Vibration 9-49
9.2.1.3.1 Measurements of Background Ambient Sound Levels 9-49
9.2.1.3.2 Identification of Noise Sensitive Areas 9-51
9.2.1.3.3 Background Sound Levels 9-51
9.2.1.4 Vibration 9-52
9.2.1.5 Lighting 9-52
9.2.2 Results 9-52
9.2.2.1 Air Quality 9-52
9.2.2.2 Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) 9-56
9.2.2.3 Noise 9-59
9.2.2.3.1 Noise Monitoring Results 9-59
9.2.2.3.2 Identification of Noise Sensitive Areas 9-60
9.2.2.3.3 Summary of Background Sound Levels Adopted for the
Assessment 9-60
Contents (Cont’d)
9.2.2.4 Vibration 9-61
9.2.2.5 Lighting 9-61
9.3 Identification of Potential Effects, Pathways and Indicators 9-62
9.3.1 Change in Air Quality 9-62
9.3.1.1 Air Dispersion Modelling Approach 9-63
9.3.1.1.1 Air Contaminants 9-63
9.3.1.1.2 Modelling Domain and Sensitive Receptors 9-63
9.3.1.2 Construction Phase 9-64
9.3.1.2.1 Considered Emission Sources for Air Dispersion Modelling 9-64
9.3.1.2.2 Emission Parameters Summary 9-64
9.3.1.2.3 Air Dispersion Modelling Results – Construction Phase 9-65
9.3.1.2.4 Eastern Section of the WSR 9-67
9.3.1.3 Operation Phase 9-74
9.3.1.3.1 Considered Emission Sources for Air Dispersion Modelling 9-74
9.3.1.3.2 Emission Parameters Summary 9-74
9.3.1.3.3 Air Dispersion Modelling Results – Operation Phase 9-75
9.3.1.3.4 Eastern Section of the WSR 9-77
9.3.2 Change in GHGs 9-81
9.3.2.1 Construction Phase 9-82
9.3.2.1.1 GHG Emission Sources During Construction Phase 9-82
9.3.2.1.2 GHG Emissions Calculations for the Construction Phase 9-82
9.3.2.1.3 GHG Emissions Results for the Construction Phase 9-83
9.3.2.2 Operation Phase 9-84
9.3.2.2.1 GHG Emission Sources During Operation Phase 9-84
9.3.2.2.2 GHG Emissions Calculations for the Operation Phase 9-84
9.3.2.2.3 GHG Emissions Results for the Operation Phase 9-84
9.3.3 Change in Sound Levels 9-85
9.3.3.1 Increased Noise During Construction Phase 9-85
9.3.3.1.1 Construction Noise Effects – Blasting 9-85
9.3.3.1.2 Construction Noise Effects – Aggregate Extraction Sites 9-86
9.3.3.1.3 Construction Noise Effects – General Construction Activities 9-92
9.3.3.2 Increased Noise During Operation Phase 9-96
9.3.3.2.1 Applicable Noise Guidelines 9-96
9.3.3.2.2 Road Traffic Data 9-98
9.3.3.2.3 Noise Modelling Methods 9-98
9.3.3.2.4 Operational Noise Modelling Results 9-99
9.3.4 Change in Vibration Levels 9-100
9.3.4.1 Construction Vibration Effects – Blasting 9-101
9.3.4.2 Construction Vibration Effects – General Construction Activities 9-102
Contents (Cont’d)
9.4 Mitigation Measures 9-105
9.4.1 Air Quality 9-105
9.4.2 GHGs 9-106
9.4.3 Noise and Vibration 9-107
9.5 Characterization of Net Effects 9-110
9.5.1 Potential Effect Pathways Not Carried Through for Further Assessment 9-112
9.5.2 Predicted Net Effects 9-113
9.5.2.1 Change in Air Quality 9-113
9.5.2.1.1 Change in Air Quality During Construction Phase 9-113
9.5.2.1.2 Change in Air Quality During Operation Phase 9-116
9.5.2.2 Change in GHGs 9-118
9.5.2.2.1 Change in GHGs During Construction Phase 9-118
9.5.2.2.2 Change in GHGs During Operation Phase 9-118
9.5.2.2.3 Effects of the Project on Canada’s Carbon Footprint and
Carbon Sinks 9-119
9.5.2.3 Change in Sound Levels 9-119
9.5.2.3.1 Change in Sound Levels due to Aggregate Extraction
Operations During Construction Phase 9-119
9.5.2.3.2 Change in Sound Levels due to General Construction
Activities During Construction Phase 9-120
9.5.2.3.3 Change in Sound Levels due to Vehicle Use of the
Proposed Road During Operation Phase 9-120
9.5.3 Summary 9-120
9.6 Determination of Significance 9-122
9.6.1 Air Quality 9-122
9.6.2 Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) 9-122
9.6.3 Noise 9-122
9.7 Cumulative Effects 9-123
9.8 Prediction Confidence in the Assessment 9-124
9.8.1 Air Quality 9-124
9.8.2 Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) 9-124
9.8.3 Noise and Vibration 9-124
9.9 Predicted Future Condition of the Environment if the Project Does Not Proceed 9-125
9.10 Climate Change Resilience 9-125
9.11 Follow-Up and Monitoring 9-126
9.11.1 Air Quality 9-126
9.11.2 Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) 9-126
9.11.3 Noise and Vibration 9-126
9.12 References 9-127

Contents (Cont’d)
In-Text Figures
Figure 9.1: The Leq Concept 9-34
Figure 9.2: Atmospheric Environment Study Areas – Air Quality and Climate Change 9-40
Figure 9.3: Atmospheric Environment Study Areas – Noise and Vibration 9-41
Figure 9.4: Atmospheric Environment Study Areas – Lighting 9-42
Figure 9.5: Location of Climate and Air Quality Monitoring Stations 9-48
Figure 9.6: Relation between mean TSP concentrations measured in air and mean dust deposition
measurements carried out at 12 stations in Quebec City from 1979 to 1982 9-56
Figure 9.7: Air Dispersion Modelling Domain 9-72
Figure 9.8: Air Dispersion Modelling Domain (close-up near Webequie) 9-73
Figure 9.9: Aggregate Extraction Site ARA-2 – Assumed Noise Source Locations 9-90
Figure 9.10: Aggregate Extraction Site ARA-4 – Assumed Noise Source Locations 9-91

In-Text Tables
Table 9-1: Key Regulation, Legislation, Policy Relevant to Air Quality 9-8
Table 9-2: Key Regulation, Legislation, Policy Relevant to GHG Emissions Assessment for the Project 9-10
Table 9-3: Key Regulation, Legislation, Policy Relevant to Noise and Vibration Assessment for the Project 9-11
Table 9-4: Atmospheric Environment VC – Summary of Inputs Received During Engagement and Consultation 9-13
Table 9-5: Atmospheric Environment VC – Summary of Indigenous Knowledge and Land and Resource
Use Information 9-25
Table 9-6: Ambient Air Quality Criteria and Standards for Contaminants of Interest 9-30
Table 9-7: Emission Factors Considered in the GHG Emissions Assessment 9-32
Table 9-8: Range of Sound Levels 9-33
Table 9-9: Subjective Human Perception of Changes in Sound Levels 9-35
Table 9-10: Atmospheric Environment VC – Subcomponents, Indicators, and Rationale 9-37
Table 9-11: Project Interactions with Atmospheric Environment VC and Potential Effects 9-43
Table 9-12: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Stations Reviewed 9-47
Table 9-13: Estimations of Background Sound Levels Using Qualitative Descriptions and Population Densities
of Average Types of Communities (from Health Canada Guidelines) 9-51
Table 9-14: Summary of Background Concentrations for Studied Contaminants 9-54
Table 9-15: Overview of Existing GHG Emission Sources in the Webequie Community 9-57
Table 9-16: Summary of Measured Background Ambient Sound Levels at Monitors M1, M2, and M3 9-59
Table 9-17: Summary of Background Sound Levels for Use in the Assessment 9-61
Table 9-18: Maximum Concentrations for CACs Calculated in Air During the Construction Phase
(without mitigation measures) 9-67
Table 9-19: Maximum Concentrations for Other Contaminants Calculated in Air During the Construction
Phase (without mitigation measures) 9-68
Table 9-20: Maximum Concentrations (with mitigation measures in place) for Contaminants for Which the Construction Phase Generates Substantial Concentrations in Air (without mitigation measures) 9-69
Table 9-21: Maximum Concentration for Contaminants Calculated in Air in Areas of Interest During the Construction Phase (with mitigation measures) 9-70
Table 9-22: Maximum Concentrations for CACs Calculated in Air During the Operation Phase
(without dust control) 9-77

Contents (Cont’d)
In-Text Tables
Table 9-23: Maximum Concentrations for Other Contaminants Calculated in Air During the Operation Phase (without dust control) 9-78
Table 9-24: Maximum Concentrations of Certain Contaminants Calculated in Air During the Operation Phase
(with dust control) 9-79
Table 9-25: Maximum Concentration for Contaminants Calculated in Air in Areas of Interest During the
Operation Phase (with dust control) 9-80
Table 9-26: GHG Emissions per Source and Year of Realization for the Construction Phase 9-83
Table 9-27: Annual GHG Emissions per Source for the Operation Phase 9-84
Table 9-28: Construction Phase Blasting Noise Guidelines 9-86
Table 9-29: Construction Phase Overpressure Sound Level Limits 9-86
Table 9-30: MECP Publication NPC-300 Exclusion Limits for Class 3 Rural Areas 9-87
Table 9-31: Predicted Stationary Sound Levels – Aggregate Extraction Site Operations 9-92
Table 9-32: Construction Phase Noise Guidelines 9-93
Table 9-33: Construction Mitigation Noise Level (MNL) Corrections 9-93
Table 9-34: Construction Equipment 9-94
Table 9-35: Operations Phase Noise Guidelines 9-96
Table 9-36: MTO Environmental Guide for Noise 9-97
Table 9-37: 2041 “Build” Traffic Information at Anticipated Date of Construction 9-98
Table 9-38: Construction Phase Vibration Guidelines 9-101
Table 9-39: Construction Phase Vibration Limits 9-101
Table 9-40: City of Toronto By-Law Vibration Guidelines 9-102
Table 9-41: Summary of Zone of Influence (ZOI) Setback Distances Associated with Construction Activities 9-102
Table 9-42: Potential Effects, Pathways and Indicators for Atmospheric Environment VC 9-104
Table 9-43: Summary of Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Predicted Net Effects for Atmospheric Environment VC 9-108
Table 9-44: Criteria for Characterization of Predicted Net Effects on Atmospheric Environment VC 9-110
Table 9-45: Air Dispersion Modelling Results for the Construction Phase 9-114
Table 9-46: Air Dispersion Modelling Results for the Operation Phase 9-117
Table 9-47: Summary of Predicted Net Effects on Atmospheric Environment VC 9-121

9 Assessment of Effects on Atmospheric Environment
The atmospheric 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 Atmospheric Environment VC which consists of air quality, greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions, noise and vibration, and lighting subcomponents.
Existing conditions for the atmospheric environment 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 measurements of sound levels, engagement with Indigenous communities and stakeholders, and expert opinion. The potential effects are identified in consideration of the existing conditions described in Appendix F – Natural Environment Existing Conditions (NEEC) Report, the potential interactions with the Project, and the results of the following assessments:
 Air Quality Impact Assessment completed by AtkinsRéalis (Appendix G);
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions completed by AtkinsRéalis (Appendix H);
 Climate Change Resilience Review completed by AtkinsRéalis (Appendix I); and
 Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment completed by SLR Consulting Ltd. (Appendix J).
The assessment of potential effects for the Atmospheric 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;
 Climate Change Resilience;
 Follow-up and Monitoring Programs; and
 References.

9.1 Scope of the Assessment
9.1.1 Regulatory and Policy Setting
The Atmospheric Environment VC is assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Impact Assessment Act, the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, the Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines (TISG) for the Project (Appendix A-1), the provincial approved EA Terms of Reference (ToR) (Appendix A-2), and EA/IA guidance documents.

Table 9-1, Table 9-2, and Table 9-3 outline the key regulations, legislation and policies relevant to the assessment of the air quality, GHGs, and noise and vibration subcomponents, respectively, for construction and operations of the Project. There are no specific Canada or Ontario government regulations or policies that set out requirements for controlling light pollution. Therefore, the TISG and the ToR were used to identify requirements for the assessment of lighting subcomponent.
Table 9-1: Key Regulation, Legislation, Policy Relevant to Air Quality
Regulatory Agency Regulation, Legislation, and Policy Project Relevance
Federal
Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) Impact Assessment Act The Project is subject to the federal Impact Assessment Act (refer to Section 1). The Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines (TISG) issued by IAAC (2020) for the Project were used to identify requirements for the assessment of Atmospheric Environment VC.
Health Canada National Ambient Air Quality Objectives (NAAQOs) The NAAQOs (Health Canada, 1994) are benchmarks that can be used to facilitate air quality management on a regional scale and provide goals for outdoor air quality that protect public health, the environment, or aesthetic properties of the environment. The NAAQOs do not set regulatory limits. Their purpose is to serve as an indicator of good air quality and as a comparison benchmark for monitoring data. Monitoring data in Canada periodically exceeds these criteria, objectives, and standards at different locations. This does not result in an immediate effect to human health but serves as guidance for identifying areas where air quality could potentially be improved.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Canadian Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) The CAAQS were implemented to reduce emissions and ground-level concentrations of various air contaminants nationally. Similar to the NAAQOs, the CAAQSs are not regulatory limits, but rather, are used as national targets. Compounds emitted during the construction and operation phases of the Project that have limits under the CAAQS are proposed as indicators of changes to air quality.
Provincial
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Ontario Environmental Assessment Act The Project is subject to the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (refer to Section 1). The Terms of Reference (Webequie First Nation 2020), which was approved by the MECP on October 8, 2021, were used to identify requirements for the assessment of Atmospheric Environment VC.

Regulatory Agency Regulation, Legislation, and Policy Project Relevance
MECP Ontario Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQC) The MECP has issued guidelines related to ambient air concentrations that are summarized in Ontario’s Ambient Air Quality Criteria (MECP, 2020). These guidelines represent indications of good air quality, based on protection against negative effects on health or the environment. The guidelines are not regulatory enforceable limits (MECP, 2020).
MECP Ontario Regulation 419/05 – General Air Quality Ontario Regulation 419/05 is a set of rules related to air pollution and local air quality in Ontario. It is made under the Environmental Protection Act and may be amended from time to time. The regulation sets legal limits for contaminants in air, which are used to assess the contributions of a contaminant to air by a regulated facility. Compounds emitted during the construction and operation phases of the Project that have limits under Ontario Regulation 419/05 – General Air Quality are proposed as indicators of changes to air quality.
Other
Government of Nunavut Nunavut Air Quality standards (NAAQS) At the request of the Mushkegowuk Council, for the assessment of the air quality, a comparison is also made to the Nunavut Air Quality standards (NAAQS) in the cases where these are more stringent than the corresponding CAAQS and/or AAQC.
Webequie First Nation Webequie First Nation draft Community Based Land-Use Plan (Webequie First Nation, 2019) The Webequie First Nation Community Based Land-Use Plan recommends eight land-use areas with land-use designations and activities that are permitted or not permitted in those areas to address community economic and social development goals and community direction for the protection of air, land, water, species habitat, cultural heritage features and community values. The plan identified and considered significant cultural and ecological features and land uses for areas adjacent to the proposed Webeguie land-use areas. The plan informed the identification of sensitive areas that are potentially affected by air emissions from project construction and operation activities.
Webequie First Nation and Ontario have committed to gather baseline environmental data in the Ring of Fire area and track changes in environmental and ecological conditions in the area over time.

Table 9-2: Key Regulation, Legislation, Policy Relevant to GHG Emissions Assessment for the Project
Regulatory Agency Regulation, Legislation, and Policy Project Relevance
Federal
Government of Canada Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (GGPPA) The GGPPA has been established to mitigate climate change through the Pan Canadian application of pricing mechanisms to a broad set of greenhouse gas emission sources. The GGPPA includes a set of minimum national standards for carbon pricing in Canada to meet emission reduction targets under the Paris Agreement. The Act aims to put a price on all GHGs that play a significant role in trapping heat in the atmosphere through binding “minimum national standards” on the federal government and all of the provinces and territories of Canada.
Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) Strategic Assessment of Climate Change (SACC) ECCC published the SACC (ECCC, 2020a) to enable consistent, predictable, efficient and transparent consideration of climate change throughout the federal impact assessment process. The SACC describes the GHG and climate change information that project proponents need to submit at each phase of a federal impact assessment and requires proponents of projects with a lifetime beyond 2050 to provide a credible plan that describes how the project will achieve net- zero emissions by 2050.
ECCC Technical guide related to the SACC: Guidance on quantification of net GHG emissions impact on carbon sinks, mitigation measures, net-zero plan and upstream GHG assessment (ECCC, 2021) This technical guide provides additional details on specific elements of the SACC, including:
 A description of how a project’s GHG emissions are to be estimated throughout the impact assessment process, including upstream emissions and impact on carbon sinks, where applicable;
 A description of the Best Available Technologies / Best Environmental Practices Determination process that all projects are required to complete in the Impact Assessment process; and
 A description of the information required in the net- zero plan for projects with a lifetime beyond 2050.
Other
Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC, 2006 and 2019) The IPCC guidelines provide methodologies for making estimates of national anthropogenic emissions and removals of greenhouse gases. GHG emissions quantification for the Project was based on IPCC’s approach.

Table 9-3: Key Regulation, Legislation, Policy Relevant to Noise and Vibration Assessment for the Project
Regulatory Agency Regulation, Legislation, and Policy Project Relevance
Federal
Health Canada Guidance for Evaluating Human Health Impacts in Environmental Assessment: Noise (2017) Health Canada’s Guidance for Evaluating Human Health Impacts in Environmental Assessment: Noise (2017) is typically used in assessing the potential effects of noise on communities as part of the environmental and social impact assessments of large projects undergoing environmental permitting. The Health Canada Guidance presents criteria related to the change in Percent Highly Annoyed (%HA) for assessing Project-related effects on the acoustic environment in their community.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO’s) document “Guidelines for the Use of Explosives in or Near Canadian Fisheries Waters” (Wright and Hopky, 1998) DFO Guidelines for the Use of Explosives in or Near Canadian Fisheries Waters set criteria for peak overpressure and maximum peak particle velocity (PPV) vibration levels. This is the peak vibration level from an event and is often used in determining the potential for construction impacts on fish and aquatic life.
Provincial
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) MECP Publication NPC‐102 – Instrumentation
MECP Publication NPC‐103 – Procedures
MECP Publication NPC‐233 – Information To Be Submitted For Approval Of Stationary Sources Of Sound
(MOE, 1995) The MECP NPC-102, NPC-103, and NPC-233 guidelines include procedure requirements for conducting ambient sound level measurements, which were used to establish existing background ambient sound levels at representative Noise Sensitive Areas (NSAs) identified for the Project.
MECP MECP Publication NPC‐115 – Construction Equipment (MOE, 1978a);
MECP Publication NPC‐118 –
Motorized Conveyances The MECP NPC-115 and NPC-118 stipulates limits on noise emissions from individual items of equipment, rather than for overall construction noise. Although the MECP does not specify any particular sound level limits for temporary construction sound levels at noise sensitive land uses, the MECP requires the implementation of good practices to limit sound levels and the implementation of reasonable noise mitigation measures to reduce the potential impact of construction noise on nearby noise sensitive land uses.
MECP MECP Publication NPC-119 –
Blasting (MOE, 1978b) The limits specified in the MECP’s NPC-119 are designed to minimize vibration effects due to quarry or mine blasting. Peak overpressure sound levels from blasting should be controlled by the blasting contractor to ensure the criteria are met.
MECP MECP Publication NPC-300 –
Environmental Noise Guideline

• Stationary and Transportation Sources – Approval and Planning (MECP, 2013) The MECP’s NPC-300 guideline’s main objective is to address the proper control of sources of noise emissions to the environment within the province of Ontario. According to
  NPC-300, the exclusionary sound level limits may be adopted to describe the expected sound levels at potential receptors

Regulatory Agency Regulation, Legislation, and Policy Project Relevance
based on a classification system dependent on the existing acoustic environment. The MECP NPC-300 guideline defines four area classifications dependent on the proximity to roads/rail-lines, nature of land uses and activities in the area. The project study area is defined as Class 3, as per the MECP NPC-300 which can be described as “a rural area with an acoustical environment that is dominated by natural sounds having little or no road traffic.”
Ministry of Transportation (MTO) MTO Environmental Guide for Noise (MTO, 2022)
MECP/MTO Joint Noise Protocol, A Protocol for Dealing with Noise concerns during the Preparation, Review and Evaluation of Provincial Highway’s Environmental Assessments (MTO and MECP, 1986) The MTO Environmental Guide for Noise was developed to provide guidance for MTO personnel and consultants in the analysis of highway/freeway noise, its effects, and mitigation options. The MTO Environmental Guide for Noise is used for provincially owned and operated facilities and is the most extensive and up-to-date, while the older Joint Protocol is mainly used for smaller municipal projects. Under these guidelines, the importance of changes from a noise impact perspective is based on the objective level and change from existing conditions.
MTO MTO Provincial Standard Specification (OPSS) 120, General Specification of the Use of Explosives The OPSS 120 provides the requirements for the use of explosives during construction blasting and has been developed for use in provincial and municipal oriented contracts. It is common for OPSS 120 to be referenced for blasting during general construction activities within the province of Ontario.
Other
International Organization for Standardization ISO 1996-2:2007, Acoustics – Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise
Part 2: Determination of sound pressure levels ISO 1996-2:2007 describes how sound pressure levels can be determined by direct measurement, by extrapolation of measurement results by means of calculation, or exclusively by calculation, intended as a basis for assessing environmental noise.
Webequie First Nation Webequie First Nation draft Community Based Land-Use Plan (Webequie First Nation, 2019) The Webequie First Nation Community Based Land-Use Plan recommends eight land-use areas with land-use designations and activities that are permitted or not permitted in those areas to address community economic and social development goals and community direction for the protection of air, land, water, species habitat, cultural heritage features and community values. The plan identified and considered significant cultural and ecological features and land uses for areas adjacent to the proposed Webeguie land-use areas. The plan informed the identification of NSAs that are potentially affected by project construction and operation activities.

9.1.2 Consideration of Input from Engagement and Consultation Activities
Table 9-4 summarizes input related to the Atmospheric Environment VC received during the engagement and consultation for the EA/IA and how inputs are 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 ToR phase of the EA.
Table 9-4: Atmospheric Environment VC – Summary of Inputs Received During Engagement and Consultation

Comment Theme How the Comments are Addressed in this Draft EAR/IS Indigenous Community or Stakeholder
Concerns about impacts of dust (deposition of particulate matter) on caribou alongside its impacts on vegetation. The extent of dustfall (presented as maximum amount of dust per square metres over 30 days period; in g/m2/30- days) during the construction and operation phases of the Project was predicted by using an air dispersion model as summarized in Section 9.3.1 and detailed in the Air Quality Impact Assessment Report (Appendix G). The maximum calculated dustfall at existing residences, institutional buildings, and culturally sensitive areas within 50 m of the centerline of the proposed road right-of-way are 0.49, 0.47, and 3.4 gram per square metres (g/m2) over 30-days of deposition, respectively which are lower than the criteria of 7.0 g/m2 representing the accepted threshold in Ontario for soil and vegetation.
The potential effects of dustfall to vegetation are assessed in Section 11 (Assessment of Effects on Vegetation and Wetlands).
The potential effects of dustfall to caribou and other wildlife are assessed in Section 12 (Assessment of Effects on Terrestrial Habitat and Wildlife) and Section 13 (Assessment of Effects on Species at Risk). Attawapiskat First Nation
Concerns about examining the dustfall from aggregate mining and construction activities as part of the assessment of impacts to air quality as dustfall may be an important factor in driving caribou avoidance of industrial developments. Attawapiskat First Nation requires that the proponent design a rigorous monitoring plan for the dustfall resulting from rock crushing and construction activities on vegetation, snow, and waterways. There must also be a plan in place to monitor impacts of this dustfall to caribou and other wildlife. The extent of dustfall from construction activities including aggregate production at the proposed quarry was predicted by using an air dispersion model as summarized in Section 9.3.1 and detailed in the Air Quality Impact Assessment Report (Appendix G).
The potential effects of dustfall to caribou and other wildlife are assessed in Section 12 (Assessment of Effects on Terrestrial Habitat and Wildlife) and Section 13 (Assessment of Effects on Species at Risk).
An Air Quality and Dust Control Management Plan will be developed and implemented to manage and reduce air contaminant emissions during construction and operation phases. The plan will integrate a monitoring procedure for dustfall effects. Attawapiskat First Nation

Comment Theme How the Comments are Addressed in this Draft EAR/IS Indigenous Community or Stakeholder
Concerns about how climate change during the lifespan of the all-season road will be investigated as part of the EA/IA. A climate change resilience assessment has been conducted for the Project as part of the EA/IA (refer to Section 9.9 and Appendix I – Climate Change Resilience Review Report). This assessment was based on the Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee (PIEVC) Protocol, formerly from Engineers Canada, which respects the requirements from the Strategic Assessment for Climate Change (SACC) and Ontario’s guidelines within the framework of environmental impact assessments. The PIEVC and guidelines in the assessment were used to identify all potential interactions between climate hazards and project components and their impact on the infrastructure but also on the health and safety of users of the proposed road and the natural environment.
The detailed methodology for the climate change resilience assessment is provided in Appendix I (Climate Change Resilience Review Report). Attawapiskat First Nation
Concerned that the EA/IA should address how the project construction will accommodate future climate change realities related to fluctuating seasonal temperatures, rainfall events, wildfires and the potential loss of permafrost conditions. As noted above, a climate change resilience assessment has been conducted for the Project as part of the EA/IA (refer to Appendix I – Climate Change Resilience Review Report). The assessed climate hazards included thick fog conditions, high-intensity short-duration rainfalls, blizzards, freezing rain, freeze-thaw cycles, rain on snow events, extreme winds, permafrost degradation, freshets, riverbank erosion, and wildfires.
Details on projected climate conditions for the region are also provided in Appendix I (Climate Change Resilience Review Report). Constance Lake First Nation
Community members are concerned about climate change through Indigenous Knowledge interviews with Elders and Land Users. A discussion on how the Project could impact global GHG emissions is provided in Appendix H (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report).
A climate change resilience assessment has been conducted for the Project as part of the EA/IA (refer to Appendix I – Climate Change Resilience Review Report). The assessment analyzed risks to the Project due to climate change. Webequie First Nation
Concerns for the proponent to prepare an Air Quality and Dustfall Monitoring Plan with dustfall sampling methods and reporting for review by all impacted Indigenous communities through the suggested terrestrial advisory group. Also, provide sampling An Air Quality and Dust Control Management Plan will be developed and implemented during construction and operation phases (refer to Section 9.4.1). The plan will integrate a monitoring procedure for dustfall effects and measures to control or limit particulate emissions that would mostly come from the passage of vehicles on the road or the handling of soil or aggregates by mobile equipment during construction. Mushkegowuk Council

Comment Theme How the Comments are Addressed in this Draft EAR/IS Indigenous Community or Stakeholder
methodology of air pollutants and compare with existing Nunavut Air Quality standards along with ECCC recommended federal targets. The Air Quality and Dust Control Management Plan will also include a procedure for documenting compliance with applicable standards and required conditions as stipulated in permits, approvals, licenses and/or authorizations.
Recommendation to develop an ecological risk assessment to consider ingestion of contaminants of dust and other air pollutants as a pathway for all wildlife, including the caribou and other species at risk. The extent of air contaminants and dustfall during the construction and operation phases of the Project was predicted by using an air dispersion model as summarized in Section 9.3.1 and detailed in the Air Quality Impact Assessment Report (Appendix G).
The potential effects of air emissions including dustfall to vegetation are assessed in Section 11 (Assessment of Effects on Vegetation and Wetlands).
The potential effects of air emissions including dustfall to caribou and other wildlife are assessed in Section 12 (Assessment of Effects on Terrestrial Habitat and Wildlife) and Section 13 (Assessment of Effects on Species
at Risk).
As part of the Human Health Risk Assessment conducted for the Project, the exposure assessment estimated concentrations of chemicals of potential concern, including dust and other air pollutants within the project study areas for each project phase. Appendix P (Human Health Risk Assessment Report) provides details on the methods and results of the exposure assessment.
The results include a predicted acute (short-term) exposure risks to total suspended particulate (TSP), inferior to 10 (micrometres) µm (PM10) and inferior to
2.5 µm (PM2.5) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) during the construction phase at sensitive receptors located proximate to the proposed road centerline over a short period of 1-2 days given that the emission sources will be moving as road construction progresses. Chronic exposures to hexavalent chromium in TSP during the construction and operation phases of the Project are predicted at two sensitive receptors located within 60 m of the proposed road centreline. However, as noted in Appendix P (Human Health Risk Assessment Report) these results are conservative and have likely overpredicted the exposure risks. It is inferred that there are similar exposure risks to wildlife if present in proximate areas of the proposed road right-of-way.
An Air Quality and Dust Control Management Plan that will be developed and implemented for the Project will integrate a monitoring procedure for dustfall effects and measures to control or limit particulate emissions. Mushkegowuk Council

Comment Theme How the Comments are Addressed in this Draft EAR/IS Indigenous Community or Stakeholder
Concerns about the insufficiency of the instructions to “provide a qualitative description of a project’s positive or negative impacts on carbon sinks, including from the removal and alteration of wetlands,” considering the disproportionate value of the peatland systems in the region for carbon storage.
MECP noted that the proponent should ensure the EAR/IS outlines the specific action(s) they intend to take to limit negative impacts on carbon sinks affected by this Project. As summarized in Section 9.3.2, Section 9.5.2.2, and detailed in Sections 3 and 4 within Appendix H (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report), GHG emissions, including disturbed carbon sinks associated with biomass clearing (during construction) and land-use change emissions (during operations), have been estimated for the Project based on current preliminary engineering design and carbon stock estimates relevant to the general project area.
The methodology followed the guidance from ECCC SACC (2021) which provides instructions on how to calculate the net impact of the project on carbon stocks and sinks as described in detail in Appendix H (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report). The assessment included the removal and disposal of living biomass and dead organic matter (DOM) from the site, as well as the net emissions related to the disturbance of living biomass, mineral soil and peatland due to the Project. Mitigation measures for GHG emissions are described in Appendix H (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report) and outlined in this EAR/IS section (refer to Section 9.4.2).
Section 11 (Assessment of Effects of Vegetation and Wetlands) assesses the potential effects on wetlands and includes proposed mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce the potential effects of the Project on wetlands. Mushkegowuk Council
MECP (Revised Climate Change and Air Quality Work Plan)
Suggestion for the proponent to conduct a climate impact analysis using the information that has been gathered by the Ontario Forest Research Institute and expertise within this research unit. The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report (Appendix H) provides details regarding the calculation methods and inputs used as part of the assessment. Inputs related to the carbon stock and carbon sinks were inferred from site-specific data where available and sourced data from the literature relevant to the project area. Data from the Ontario Forest Research Institute were unavailable.
Uncertainty levels (from very low to very high) were also attributed to inputs based on the assumptions, models, emission factors and other data used to calculate the emission estimates in accordance with the level of planning and understanding of required work at this stage of the Project. This was used to attribute overall uncertainties to the total GHG emissions estimate during construction and operation phases. Mushkegowuk Council

Comment Theme How the Comments are Addressed in this Draft EAR/IS Indigenous Community or Stakeholder
Concerned to know if fugitive dust from vehicle traffic on the road will be quantified (estimate of tons of dust per year) and considered as a main contributor to contaminant emissions, and if not, what would be the reason for that. Fugitive dust emission rates during the construction and operation phases, mainly from the road surface and the handling of soil/aggregates, were estimated based on best information available relevant to construction planning and daily traffic, amongst others. These inputs were used to assess the impact of the Project on particulate concentrations in ambient air but also on dust deposition on the ground using an air dispersion model as summarized in Section 9.3.1, Section 9.5.2.1, and detailed in the Air Quality Impact Assessment Report (Appendix G).
Table 9-46 includes a summary of the estimated dustfall results for the operation phase. The tonnage of dust generated annually during construction and operation of the Webequie Supply Road (WSR) was not specifically calculated. Neskantaga First Nation
Concerned to know how the fugitive dust impacts from runoff from bridges will be addressed. As noted in Table 7-2 in Section 7.1.2, potential impact of fugitive dust will be addressed using typical best management practices to suppress dust such as application of water via tanker truck and use of erosion and sediment control measures (e.g., erosion control blankets on newly graded soil embankments; check dams in drainage ditches/channels). Appendix E (Mitigation Measures) of this EAR/IS outlines measures to control fugitive dust impacts.
The potential impact of runoff from bridges will be addressed through stormwater management designs. Conduits to direct stormwater runoff for treatment, such as stormwater management ponds, will be incorporated into the road design if deemed necessary to minimize the impacts to water quality in watercourses. Neskantaga First Nation
Concerned to know which Ministries would be responsible for fugitive dust compliance and enforcement. Dust (particulate matter) is typically deemed to be primarily an air quality concern, the mandate for which normally lies with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks and Health Canada. During the EA/IA phase, dust deposition effects on vegetation (including country foods) and surface water may also draw in the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada. Following the EA/IA phase, if dustfall effects and mitigation are a component of required permitting and approval for the project implementation, the aforementioned authorities (and others) could become involved in compliance and enforcement of any related conditions of approval, in addition to ensuring compliance with EA/IA phase commitments. Neskantaga First Nation

Comment Theme How the Comments are Addressed in this Draft EAR/IS Indigenous Community or Stakeholder
Concerned that there is no accurate forest or carbon inventory in the region, as accurate inventory data is a prerequisite for determining the “baseline,” for any potential carbon offset project that may be needed to achieve climate change goals Information on carbon sequestration and storage capacity is gleaned primarily from the vegetation and wetland baseline information. Available data on forest and peatlands from many information sources and guidance documents were used to help characterize existing conditions for vegetation, including wetland and riparian environments. Refer to Section 9.2.1 (Review of Background Information Sources) in the NEEC Report (Appendix F) for the list of references.
To gather the information required to support the EA/ IA, vegetation field surveys in accordance with provincial standards for Ecological Land Classification were used to identify and classify vegetative communities in the project study areas (refer to Section 9 in Appendix F – NEEC Report). Ecological Land Classification uses a hierarchical approach to identify recurring ecological patterns on the landscape in order to compartmentalize complex natural variation into a reasonable number of meaningful ecosystem units. The functional units from field assessments followed the Ecosites of Ontario (Operational Draft) – Boreal Region (Banton et al., 2009), which is the current standard arising from the previous Forest Ecosystem and Wetland Ecosystem Classification systems for the northeast and northwest regions of the province. Each sample location survey was conducted in alignment with the guidelines and methodologies outlined in the Ontario Parks Inventory and Monitoring Program Guidelines (Draft, Ver. 1.4, 2012).
Based on a highly accurate vegetation inventory, changes to the landscape that are important in determining potential impacts to carbon sequestration/storage
(i.e., permanent removal of peatland and forested areas) can be readily assessed for capacity loss in terms of carbon stock. Carbon stocks were assessed based on default Tier 1 parameters provided by the IPCC per type of forest, trees, soils, etc. Use of the IPCC guidelines is included as a commitment in Appendix C of the ToR Summary of Commitments Made During Terms of Reference Phase – Item No. 54, PDF page 234. Neskantaga First Nation

Comment Theme How the Comments are Addressed in this Draft EAR/IS Indigenous Community or Stakeholder
Concerned about whether business model for the Project will be compatible with a net-zero economy. The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report (Appendix H) and Section 9.4.2 (GHGs mitigation) outline commitments to reduce GHG emissions and limit adverse impacts to carbon sinks during construction and operation of the WSR, including in the context of how the Project may affect or contribute to Canada’s effort to curb the adverse effects of climate change in compliance with the Paris Agreement (e.g., construction related emissions will be weighted over 25 years and added to the yearly net GHG emissions from the operations phase).
In this respect, it is expected that objectives related to contributing to a net-zero carbon economy will be considered in the business model for construction and operation of the WSR. However, the logistics of the business model, including project ownership and control, have not yet crystallized and Webequie First Nation continues to engage Ontario in attempts to move forward on this front. It is also expected that whichever entity owns and operates the road will be responsible for fulfilling the EA/IA commitments, including any offsetting measures for emissions generated (e.g., replacement tree planting), if applicable. Neskantaga First Nation
Concerns about assessing impacts related to climate change (mitigation and adaptation). The assessment of impacts related to climate change are assessed and presented in the following sections and appendices of the EAR/IS:
 Section 9 (Assessment of Effects on Atmospheric Environment);
 Section 24 (Effects of the Environment on the Project);
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions completed by AtkinsRéalis (Appendix H); and
 Climate Change Resilience Review completed by AtkinsRéalis (Appendix I).
The assessment was based on the Air Quality and Climate Change Study Plan for the Project provided to MECP and IAAC and is based on the Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee (PIEVC) Protocol from Engineers Canada and Natural Resources Canada. The PIEVC Protocol respects the requirements from the SACC and Ontario’s guidelines within the framework of environmental impact assessments. MECP

Comment Theme How the Comments are Addressed in this Draft EAR/IS Indigenous Community or Stakeholder
Concerns about developing an air quality work plan with technical details in consultation with government agencies. An Air Quality and Climate Change Study Plan was prepared at the outset of the EA/IA for MECP and IAAC review and guidance on the detailed field methodologies to be used and specific data that would be collected for the purpose of the EA/IA. Elements of this work plan have informed the methodologies and assessment of air quality impacts as describe in Appendix 7
(Air Quality Impact Assessment Report). MECP
Concerns that the ToR should commit to the EA including a quantitative GHG emission prediction that includes explanation for the calculations. As well the preliminary mitigation measures for GHG emissions should be included in the ToR, with complete mitigation measures identified in the EA. As summarized in Section 9.3.2 and detailed in Sections 3 and 4 within Appendix H (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report), GHG emissions have been quantitatively estimated for the construction and operation phases of the Project based on current preliminary engineering design and vehicle/equipment emission estimates.
The methodology for calculations of GHG emissions was based on the Air Quality and Climate Change Study Plan for the Project, IPCC guidelines, and ECCC SACC guidance and is described in detail in Appendix H (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report). As the construction execution plan may be subject to change and traffic volumes and maintenance work during the operation phase are based on best estimates at this stage of the Project, and the level uncertainty in assessment is provided in Section 4.3 in Appendix H.
Mitigation measures for GHG emissions are described in Appendix H (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report) and outlined in this EAR/IS section (refer to Section 9.4.2).
MECP
Concerns regarding consideration of a carbon and GHG evaluation as part of the EA or a review of literature on-road construction effects on carbon needs to be undertaken for this EA (as a minimum). It is further recommended the project should test the IPCC calculations against data collected along the length of road network. As summarized in Section 9.3.2 and detailed in Sections 3 and 4 within Appendix H (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report), GHG emissions, including disturbed carbon sinks associated with biomass clearing (during construction) and land-use change emissions (during operations), have been estimated for the Project based on current preliminary engineering design, vehicle/equipment estimates and carbon stock estimates relevant to the general project area.
As noted in Section 9.8.2 and detailed in Appendix H (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report), uncertainty levels in inputs for calculating GHG emissions are from very low to very high based on the assumptions, models, emission factors and any other data used to calculate the emission estimates in accordance with the level of planning and understanding of required work at this stage of the Project. Therefore, it is the Project Team’s view that testing the calculated GHG emissions against data collected along the length of road network will not yield a meaningful comparison. MNR

Comment Theme How the Comments are Addressed in this Draft EAR/IS Indigenous Community or Stakeholder
Requirement for details to demonstrate how noise sensitive receptors, as defined in Section
8.1 of the TISG, will be documented, mapped, and evaluated as representative of worst-case locations for noise exposure from Project activities. As summarized in Sections 9.2.1.3.2 and 9.2.2.3.2 and detailed in Appendix J – Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report, the SLR Consulting Ltd. Project Team worked with socio-economic specialists of the AtkinsRéalis Project Team and Webequie First Nation to identify noise sensitive areas (NSAs) which are representative of potential effects from noise and vibration at a group or cluster of receptors. If the applicable guidelines are met at these NSAs which are considered “worst-case locations”, they will be met elsewhere in the study areas.
The NSAs are also summarized in Table 4 in Appendix J – Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report and include the following:
 Permanent residences, including homes within the Webequie community;
 Schools, hospitals, community centres, retirement complexes, or assisted care homes;
 Seasonal residences, such as trapper cabins or hunting and fishing campsites, which are used by members of the Webequie First Nation, other Indigenous communities, and stakeholders;
 Spiritual or sacred spaces which members of the Webequie First Nation, other Indigenous communities, and stakeholders may identify as requiring quiet or being sensitive to disruptions from noise;
 Other locations which members of the Webequie First Nation, other Indigenous communities, and stakeholders and/or other Project disciplines may identify as requiring quiet or being sensitive to disruptions from noise (e.g., wildlife – Caribou), and include for instance locations important for harvesting of country foods; and
 The mine exploration camp at the McFaulds Lake area operated by Wyloo Ring of Fire Limited (formerly Noront Resources). IAAC (Acoustic Environment Study Plan)

Comment Theme How the Comments are Addressed in this Draft EAR/IS Indigenous Community or Stakeholder
Provide details to demonstrate that all applicable sound level adjustments (e.g., for time of-day and tonal and/or impulsive noise as per Health Canada’s guidance (2017)) will be applied in the assessment. Identify the appropriate sound level adjustments that apply to the assessment and provide detail on why they were selected as the appropriate adjustments for the assessment.
Provide details to demonstrate that the data from the noise surveys conducted at the Eagle’s Nest Mine are representative of the project site conditions for the WSR and will be relevant in spatial and temporal coverage to the Project. To address the heightened annoyance caused by night- time noise in a single metric, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created the LDN (Day-Night Average Sound Level) metric. This is a specific type of 24-hour average sound level (Leq) that includes a +10 dB penalty for night-time noise. Health Canada’s Guidelines for evaluating human health impacts in environmental assessments incorporate LDN values. These were considered in development of the valued components (VC) and indicators and in the assessment, as mentioned in Table 9-3 and Section 9.1.4.3.1.
Data from the noise surveys conducted at the Eagle’s Nest Mine are not available for the Project Team to reference in this assessment. However, the exploration camp at the McFaulds Lake area operated by Wyloo Metals (formally Noront Resources) was identified by the Project Team as a noise sensitive area (NSA) and included in the Noise Impact Modelling conducted for the Project. As described in Section 9.2.1.3, the existing sound environment at this NSA is represented by the background ambient sound levels measured at the monitoring location M3 (refer to Figure 9.3).
IAAC (Acoustic Environment Study Plan)
Requirement for details to demonstrate how the proposed monitoring locations are representative of baseline conditions at all sensitive receptor locations, as required in Section
8.1 of the TISG. Provide details regarding the timing of monitoring and how temporal variability will be considered (e.g., seasonal variation in levels and types of community activity) as per Section
8.1 of the TISG. Provide details to demonstrate how current ambient noise levels at all key receptor points will be included in the Impact Statement. Please refer to Section 9.2.1.3 for methodology on measurement of background ambient sound levels, identification of noise sensitive receptors and background sound levels, and Section 9.2.2.3 for results. Ambient sound level measurements were conducted at three representative monitoring locations, as per MECP Publication NPC-233 measurement procedure requirements, and NSAs were identified in consultation with the socio-economic specialists of the AtkinsRéalis Project Team and Webequie First Nation. Background sound levels for use in the assessment were established based on the sound level monitoring results from the three monitoring locations, a review of Health Canada’s Noise Guidelines and applicable provincial noise guidelines including MTO Environmental Guide for Noise, MECP/MTO Joint Protocol, and MECP Publication
NPC-300. IAAC (Acoustic Environment Study Plan)

Comment Theme How the Comments are Addressed in this Draft EAR/IS Indigenous Community or Stakeholder
Provide a description of what activities may cause vibration and sound sources and when they may occur, including activities that are temporary. Provide details regarding activities that will fall under the ‘Guidelines for the Use of Explosives in Canadian Fisheries Waters’.
Provide details to demonstrate how the underwater soundscape and vibration levels will be described, as per the requirement in Section 8.1 of the TISG. Consideration for DFO’s guideline was used for identification of peak particle velocity (PPV) and Peak Overpressure, vibration limits for water, and similar. Please refer to Table 9-3, and Section 9.3.4 for further details. IAAC (Acoustic Environment Study Plan)
Provide details to demonstrate how the expectation of peace and quiet at receptors and community based policies concerning noise will be considered in the development of the “Construction Code of Practice” described in the revised study plan. A Construction Blasting Management Plan and Noise and Vibration Management Plan will be developed and implemented to mitigate the effects of noise from construction activities. These plans will be adapted for continuation throughout the operations phase of the Project. Indigenous communities will have an active role in developing and implementing management plans.
Section 9.4.3 and Appendix E of the EAR/IS outlined mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce potential adverse effects of noise from the project activities. These measures will be incorporated in the Construction Blasting Management Plan and Noise and Vibration Management Plan. These plans are parts of the Construction Environmental Management Plan and the Operation Environmental Management Plan that will be developed for the Project.
Noise complaints, if arise during the project construction and operations, will be investigated and addressed. IAAC (Acoustic Environment Study Plan)
Proponent is reminded that the EA needs to be very clear about the methodology for incorporating the discipline-specific information and selecting preferred alternatives.
Alternatives assessment will include advantages and disadvantages using criteria and indicators for comparison – to be developed in EA. Air quality and climate change impacts have been included as factors of the natural environment in the alternatives assessment and determining the preferred alternatives as described in Section 3 of this Draft EAR/IS (Evaluation of Project Alternatives). The process of assigning scores for factors/screening criteria in the alternatives assessment reflected the values identified through engagement and consultation with Indigenous communities, professional opinions of the Project Team subject matter experts, and feedback from regulatory agencies and other stakeholders. MECP (Revised Climate Change and Air Quality Work Plan)

Comment Theme How the Comments are Addressed in this Draft EAR/IS Indigenous Community or Stakeholder
Concerned about the need to adequately assess impacts of air quality on human health, wildlife and vegetation as a result of exhaust emissions and that a monitoring program needs to be in place to ensure air quality throughout the life span of the Project. Section 9.3.1 identifies the changes in air quality caused by the Project activities in construction and operation phases. Section 5.18 – Dust Control Practices in Appendix E (Mitigation Measures) describes key mitigation measures to prevent or limit the potential effect dust generated by project activities on the air quality. Attawapiskat First Nation – Long Lake #58 First Nation – Mushkegowuk Tribal Council Health Canada – Webequie First Nation
Concerned about the potential for the Project to cause health effects related to noise from road construction and operation. Section 9.3.3 outlines the changes in noise level caused by activities in construction and operation phases of the Project. Section 9.4.3 includes the mitigative measures to limit the potential effect of noise and vibration generated by the Project in construction and operation phases. Health Canada
Concerned about the impacts of ongoing climate change, which includes the breakup of ice and opening up of habitat, needs to be considered to understand the need for the Project and impacts to wildlife. Section 9.3.2 has outlined the potential impacts of the Project on GHG emissions including GHG emissions sources and the expected GHG emissions levels
(in construction and operation phases). Appendix H also elaborates the scope of assessment including the GHG emissions assessment boundary, the identification of activities generating GHG emissions, the considered GHGs, and the results presentation plan as well as discussion on the impact of the project on the Canadian GHG emissions and Canada’s ability to meet its climate change commitment. The impact of the project on carbon reservoirs and sinks will also be assessed along with potential mitigation measures currently considered. Attawapiskat First Nation – Fort Albany First Nation – LiUNA Indigenous Relations

9.1.3 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 9-5 summarizes IKLRU information relating to Atmospheric Environment VC and indicates where the information is incorporated in the EAR/IS.

Table 9-5: Atmospheric Environment VC – Summary of Indigenous Knowledge and Land and Resource Use Information
Common Theme Key Information and Concerns Response and/or Relevant EAR/IS Section
Information on potential receptor locations for air emissions Information Shared
 Potential locations of value that Webequie First Nation, or other Indigenous communities have identified such as community residences and institutions, spiritual or sacred spaces or hunting grounds (and which are allowed to be disclosed), that could be impacted by the Project. 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 air quality – refer to Appendix G
(Air Quality Impact Assessment Report) and this EAR/IS Section 9. Results of the air dispersion modelling indicate that during construction phase, there are potential exceedances of Ontario Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQC) for total suspended particulate (TSP), particulate inferior to 10 (micrometres) µm (PM10) and inferior to 2.5 µm (PM2.5) and Canadian Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) during the construction phase at sensitive receptors located proximate to the proposed road centerline (refer to Table 9-5). These exceedances could only occur over a short period of 1-2 days given that the emission sources will be moving as road construction progresses. During operations phase, except for PM10 at one culturally sensitive area and one future residential plot which are both fairly close to the proposed road (refer to Table 9-46), no AAQC and CAAQS exceedances were calculated at all sensitive receptors when integrating proposed mitigation measures (refer to Section 9.4.1). Potential sensory disturbance of project activities on land and resource use activities is further discussed in the following EAR/IS sections:
 Section 16 (Assessment of Effects on Land and Resource Use).
 Section 19 (Assessment of Effects on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Interests).
An Air Quality and Dust Control Management Plan will be developed and implemented to manage and reduce air contaminant emissions during construction and operation phases. The plan will integrate a monitoring procedure for dustfall effects.
Air quality Information Shared
 To minimize dust pollution, members recommended using tarps to prevent dust from spreading or spraying the roads with a water- based solution to suppress dust.  An Air Quality and Dust Control Management Plan will be developed and implemented to manage and reduce air contaminant emissions during construction and operation phases. Proposed mitigation measures to reduce dust effects include, but are not limited to, use of
water sprays from trucks to increase moisture

Common Theme Key Information and Concerns Response and/or Relevant EAR/IS Section
Concerns
 It was noted that land, water, and air are needed to survive. Community members noted that their traditional territory is vast, the air is clean, and the land is untouched by development and that their identity is connected with their traditional lands and waters.
 Community members are concerned that the proposed roads will result in more pollution in and around their traditional territory. Specifically, they are concerned about water contamination, noise pollution, managing industrial dust, littering, polluting nearby waterways and the groundwater with chemicals, oil, and/or dust.
 Community members are concerned about keeping the water, fish, plants and wildlife safe from dust.
 Some members pointed out that dust may negatively impact sturgeon because they are sensitive to changes in their environment or habitat.
 Community members are concerned that increased dust from projects could make it harder to breathe. levels in active areas during dry days
(e.g., haul/access roads, temporary soil and aggregate stockpiles) and the use of dust suppression systems at quarries.
 The Air Quality and Dust Control Management Plan will integrate a monitoring procedure for dustfall effects and measures to control or limit usage of vehicle or equipment that are the main emission source of particulates.
 Potential effects of project activities on air quality are assessed in this EAR/IS section (Section 9). Table 9-43 summarizes the potential effects, mitigation measures, and predicted net effects on air quality.
 Potential effects of changes to air quality on water, fish, plants, and wildlife and the use of recreational and traditional land and resources are discussed in the following EAR/IS sections: Section 7 (Assessment of Effects on Surface Water Resources), Section 10 (Assessment of Effects on Fish and Fish Habitat), Section 11 (Assessment of Effects on Vegetation and Wetlands), Section 12 (Assessment of Effects on Terrestrial Habitat and Wildlife), Section 13 (Assessment of Effects on Species at Risk), Section 16 (Non-Traditional Land and Resource Use), and Section 19 (Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Interests). Proposed mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce potential effects of changes to air quality on water, fish, plants, and wildlife and the use of recreational and traditional land and resources are outlined in respective EAR/IS sections and in Appendix E – Mitigation Measures.
Climate change / Greenhouse gases Information shared
 Community members noted that the peatlands clean out the air.
 Elders, Knowledge Holders, and community members noted that climate change has resulted in changes to landscapes, weather patterns, ecosystems, and extreme weather events impacting wellbeing of plants and animals, milder winter temperatures and less snowfall in recent years, changes in fish and
wildlife populations, permafrost melt  A discussion on how the Project could impact global GHG emissions that are considered to contribute to climate change, is provided in Appendix H (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report) and summarized in Section 9.5.2.2.
 As summarized in Section 9.3.2 and detailed in Sections 3 and 4 within Appendix H (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report), GHG emissions, including disturbed carbon sinks associated with biomass clearing (during construction) and
land-use change emissions (during operations), have been estimated for the construction phase and operation phase of the Project based on

Common Theme Key Information and Concerns Response and/or Relevant EAR/IS Section
and a shortening winter road season affecting transportation of supplies to their community, less ice build-up on the river making it unsafe for community members to use the river as a travel way for hunting, changes to harvesting patterns and
traditional way of life, access to food and sustenance, and social conditions in their community. current preliminary engineering design and vehicle/equipment estimates.
 Shared information on projected and historic climate change have been considered in the climate change resilience assessment conducted for the Project as part of the EA/IA (refer to Appendix I – Climate Change Resilience Review Report). The assessment analyzed risks to the Project due to climate change.
Information on noise sensitive locations Information Shared
 Noise sensitive locations which Webequie First Nation, or other Indigenous communities have identified as requiring quiet or being sensitive to disruptions from noise, for example spiritual or sacred spaces or hunting grounds (and which are allowed to be disclosed). Information on noise sensitive locations provided through IKLRU program, desktop review and other means was used to characterize the existing conditions and to assess potential effects of noise and vibration from the Project – refer to Appendix J (Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report) and this EAR/IS Section 9. Results of the Noise Impact Modelling indicate that the most affected noise sensitive locations are found within 150 m of the proposed roadway, or 300 m of a waterbody crossing (involving pile driving/bridge construction). Noise impacts from roadway construction are only expected to affect identified noise sensitive locations for approximately one week based on an approximate 100 m/day rate of construction. During operations phase, changes in sound levels resulting from the proposed Project are expected to be negligible for all identified noise sensitive locations and less than the 6.5% threshold established by Health Canada.
Potential sensory disturbance of project activities on land and resource use activities is further discussed in the following EAR/IS sections:
 Section 16 (Assessment of Effects on Land and Resource Use).
 Section 19 (Assessment of Effects on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Interests).
A Noise and Vibration Management Plan will be developed and implemented to mitigate the effects of noise and vibration from construction activities. The plan will be adapted for continuation throughout the operations phase of the Project.

Common Theme Key Information and Concerns Response and/or Relevant EAR/IS Section
Noise effects Concerns
 The project area is naturally quiet, dominated by sounds from wildlife, with minimal external land-use. The area includes remote regions like the Winisk River Provincial Park and other wildlife areas.
 Noise from development can cause distress to both humans and animals, leading to trauma and disrupting peace in the area.
 The noise might scare away animals, impacting the ability of Indigenous community members to hunt and access them as a food source.
 Concerns for noise pollution empowered Indigenous community members to recommend that there be more regulations around noise in the region.
 Acknowledgment that remote Indigenous communities already face health challenges due to isolation. Changes in water, air quality, and noise from the project could worsen those issues.
 Noise pollution is not just an environmental issue but also affects cultural practices like hunting by displacing wildlife.
 Consideration of the existing health challenges in remote Indigenous communities is crucial when assessing the project’s impacts.
 Indigenous community members prefer to harvest in areas where it is quiet. Increased noise in harvesting areas may increase physical disturbance and impact harvesting activities.  Potential effects of noise from project activities are assessed in this EAR/IS section (Section 9). Results of the Noise Impact Modelling indicate that the most affected noise sensitive locations are found within 150 m of the proposed roadway, or 300 m of a waterbody crossing (involving pile driving/bridge construction). Noise impacts from roadway construction are only expected to affect identified noise sensitive locations for approximately one week based on an approximate 100 m/day rate of construction. During operations phase, changes in sound levels resulting from the proposed Project are expected to be negligible for all identified noise sensitive locations and less than the 6.5% threshold established by Health Canada.
 Potential effects of noise (i.e., ‘sensory disturbance’) on wildlife and the use of recreational and traditional land and resource use are discussed in Section 12 (Assessment of Effects on Terrestrial Habitat and Wildlife), Section 13 (Assessment of Effects on Species at Risk), Section 16 (Non-Traditional Land and Resource Use), and Section 19 (Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Interests). Sensory disturbance from changes in noise and vibration levels has the potential to affect human health which is assessed in Section 17 (Assessment of Effects on Human Health).
 Section 9.4.3 and Appendix E of the EAR/IS outlined mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce potential adverse effects of noise from the project activities. A Construction Blasting Management Plan and Noise and Vibration Management Plan will be developed and implemented to mitigate the effects of noise from construction activities. These plans will be adapted for continuation throughout the operations phase of the Project.
 Noise complaints, if arise during the project construction and operations, will be investigated and addressed.
Notes: Names of First Nations and associated location-specific description in some instances are not presented in this table due to potential sensitivity and confidentiality of IKLRU information.

9.1.4 Valued Component and Indicators
Valued components (VC), including the atmospheric environment (noise, air, greenhouse gases), have been identified in the TISG and by the Project Team and are, in part, based on what Indigenous communities and groups, the public and stakeholders have identified as valuable to them in the EA/IA process to date. Subcomponents (or criteria) of the Atmospheric Environment VC are further identified to help inform the report structure and better assess and present the data and assessment results. The assessment of these subcomponents is conducted using the methodology as outlined in Section 5 (Environmental Assessment / Impact Assessment Approach and Methods). The identified subcomponents for Atmospheric Environment VC are:
 Air quality;
 Greenhouse gases (GHGs) / climate change (the two terms are used interchangeably for this subcomponent of the Atmospheric Environment as GHGs contribute to climate change);
 Noise and vibration; and
 Lighting.

9.1.4.1 Air Quality Basics

9.1.4.1.1 Air Contaminants of Interest
Air quality refers to the concentration of pollutants or contaminants in the air. There are many different types of air contaminants including but not limited to particulate matter/dust, ground-level ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), lead, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), soot, smoke, mold, pollen, and carbon dioxide (CO2).
The air quality assessment considered air contaminants potentially associated with the Project that include the common air contaminants (CACs) and specific toxic contaminants from the volatile organic compound (VOC) category and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). The CACs include nitrogen dioxide (NO2), CO, SO2, and particulate matter of different diameter classes (total suspended particulate (TSP), inferior to 10 (micrometres) µm (PM10) and inferior to
2.5 µm (PM2.5)). The complete list of toxic contaminants included in this assessment is presented in Table 9-6 and includes diesel particulate matter (DPM). The extent of dustfall during the construction and operation phases of the Project is also predicted in this assessment.

Indigenous community members are concerned about keeping the water, fish, plants and wildlife safe from dust and that dust from the Project could make it harder to breathe.

9.1.4.1.2 Relevant Air Quality Criteria and Standards
The Ontario Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQC) and the Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for contaminants most relevant to the Project are presented in Table 9-6. The Nunavut Air Quality standards (NAAQS) are also shown for comparison purpose, as requested by the Mushkegowuk Council. As shown, the NAAQS are higher or at least equivalent to corresponding provincial and/or federal limits.

Table 9-6: Ambient Air Quality Criteria and Standards for Contaminants of Interest

Notes:
(1) As the geometric mean of daily measurements over a year.
(2) The 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the daily 24-hr average concentrations.
(3) The 3-year average of the annual average concentrations.
(4) Applicable starting in 2025. The 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the SO2 daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations.
(5) Applicable starting in 2025. The average over a single calendar year of all 1-hour average concentrations.
(6) Applicable starting in 2025. The 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations.
(7) Applicable starting in 2025. The 3-year average of the annual 4th highest of the daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations.
(8) B[a]P is used as a surrogate for the total carcinogenicity of PAHs. While the annual value corresponds to the AAQC annual standard, the
24-hour value corresponds to the daily modelling assessment value (also known as the Upper Risk Threshold for B[a]P) instead of the AAQC daily standard of 0.00005 g/m3 which is applicable to monitored concentration data.

9.1.4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Basics

9.1.4.2.1 Greenhouse Gases of Interest
In the atmosphere, GHGs absorb and re-emit infrared radiation from the planetary surface, thereby introducing the potential effect of warming the lower levels of the atmosphere and acting as a thermal blanket for the planet. Globally, GHGs are emitted from numerous natural and anthropogenic sources and the increased atmospheric concentrations have been associated with climate change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2014).
The greenhouse gases considered in this assessment are those associated with fuel combustion, namely CO2, CH4, and N2O. The emissions for each gas are added as tonnes of « carbon dioxide equivalent » (t CO2e) based on the global warming potentials as set up in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (GGPPA): CO2 = 1; CH4 = 28, and N2O = 265 t CO2e per tonne which were developed in the 5th IPCC assessment report published in 2014 (IPCC, 2014).
The other GHGs from the GGPPA like sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), the hydrofluorocarbons, and the perfluorocarbons are not considered in the assessment because they are not manipulated, produced, or converted on-site or at least in very small amounts, if any.

9.1.4.2.2 Emission Factors Considered in the GHG Emissions Assessment
Table 9-7 lists the GHG emission factors (weight of GHGs generated per fuel volume, presented as grams per litre [g/L]) considered in this assessment per source category presented in Section 9.3.2. They were extracted from the 2023 National Inventory Report (NIR) produced annually by ECCC (2023). For the assessment, diesel fuel and gasoline are set to contain 3% of biodiesel (B3) and 7% of ethanol (E7), respectively. These percentage represent the average found in Canadian fuel stocks in 2021 according to a study prepared annually by Navius Research (2022). Biogenic CO2 from the combustion of biodiesel and ethanol is compiled separately using the following emission factors from the NIR: 2,472 g CO2/L of biodiesel and 1,508 g CO2/L of ethanol.

Table 9-7: Emission Factors Considered in the GHG Emissions Assessment

Notes:
(1) Corresponds to the CO2 emission factor multiplied by 0.97 for diesel and 0.93 for gasoline to consider the presence of biodiesel and ethanol, respectively in Canadian fuel stocks in average.
(2) Corresponds to the CO2 emission factor for biodiesel or ethanol multiplied by 0.03 and 0.07, respectively.
(3) The N2O emission factors for Tier 1-3 and Tier 4 engines were averaged, as the actual equipment fleet is unknown.

9.1.4.3 Noise and Vibration Basics

9.1.4.3.1 Noise
Sound is a dynamic and fluctuating pressure in a fluid medium such as air. Noise is defined as unwanted sound. The standard practice within the acoustical industry is to use these two terms interchangeably.
Sound levels are usually expressed in terms of A-Weighted decibels, also called dBA values, which account for the variation in human frequency response. People do not hear low frequency noise as well as noise in mid or high frequencies. The A-Weighting network was developed to correspond to how humans hear noises such as those typically generated by construction or road traffic.
Unweighted measurements are designated as dBZ values. These measurements are used in investigating impacts from overpressure (blasting) or low frequency noise. Based on the noise sources associated with the proposed Project, low frequency noise impacts are not expected.
People experience a wide range of sound levels in their daily activities. Table 9-8 presents a graphical comparison of “typical” sound levels which might be encountered, and the general human perception of the level. Sound levels from 40 to 65 dBA are considered to be in the faint to moderate range.
Most of the outdoor noise environment, even within the busiest city cores, will lie within this area. Sound levels from 65 to 90 dBA are perceived as loud. This area includes very noisy commercial and industrial spaces. Sound levels greater than 85 dBA are very loud to deafening and may result in hearing damage.

Table 9-8: Range of Sound Levels

At this time, the best available research indicates that long-term human responses to noise are best evaluated using energy equivalent sound exposure levels (Leq values), in A-Weighted decibels (Leq values in dBA)1 including adjustments to account for particularly annoying characteristics of the sounds being analyzed.
Sound levels in the ambient environment vary each instant. In rural environment, the background noise is formed by “the sounds of nature,” composed of noise from wind moving vegetation. As vehicle traffic passes near a noise receptor, the instantaneous sound level may increase as a vehicle approaches, and then decrease as it passes and travels farther away. The energy equivalent sound exposure level Leq is the average sound level over the same period with same acoustical energy as the actual environment (i.e., it is the average of the sound energy measured over a time period T). As a time-average, all Leq values must have a time period associated with them. This is typically placed in brackets beside the Leq tag. For example, a thirty-minute Leq measurement would be reported as an Leq (30 min) value.

Figure 9.1: The Leq Concept

The Leq concept is illustrated in Figure 9.1, showing sound levels beside a small roadway, over a 100 second time period, with two vehicle pass-bys:
In this example, the background “sounds of nature” are between 47 and 53 dBA. A car passes by at 20 seconds. As it approaches, the sound level increases to a maximum, and then decreases as it speeds away. At 45 seconds, a heavy truck passes by. Near 75 seconds, a dog barks three times. The maximum sound level (Lmax) over the period is 80 dBA and the minimum is 47 dBA. For almost 50% of the time, the sound level is lower than 55 dBA.
The Leq (100s) for the example is 67 dBA, which is much higher than the statistical mean sound level of 55 dBA. This illustrates that the Leq value is very sensitive to “loud” events, which contain much more sound energy (as sound is ranked on a logarithmic scale) than the normal background. It is also sensitive to the number of events during the time period, and the duration of those events. If only the truck had passed by during the measurement (no car and no dog

1 ISO 1996:2003(E), Acoustics – Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise – Part 1: Basic quantities and assessment procedures.

barks), the Leq (100s) would be 66 dBA. If only the car and dog barks had occurred, the Leq (100s) would be 61 dBA. This shows that the truck pass-by is the dominant event in our example, due to its level and duration.
The ability of the Leq metric to account for the three factors of level, duration and frequency of events makes it a robust predictor of human response to noise. It is for this reason that the vast majority of noise standards are based on
Leq values.
For transportation noise impact analyses, the following durations are typically used:

 Leq (24h) The sound exposure level over then entire 24-hour day;
 Leq Day Leq (16h), from 7 am to 11 pm;
 LD Leq (15h), from 7 am to 10 pm;
 Leq Night Leq (8h), from 11 pm to 7 am;
 LN Leq (9h), from 10 pm to 7 am; and
 LDN A special Leq (24h) value with a 10 dB night-time penalty applied to overnight sound levels (10 pm to 7 am).

Leq Day values, covering off the AM-peak and PM-peak travel periods, are generally appropriate for examining the impacts of non-freeway roadways such as the Project. Most of the noise associated with these sources is concentrated in the daytime hours. Leq Day and Leq Night values are used in Ontario transportation noise guidelines.
To account for increased annoyance with noise overnight in a single value, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) developed the LDN metric (also known as DNL). It is a special form of an overall Leq (24h) with a +10 dB night-time penalty. LDN values are used in Health Canada’s Guidance for Evaluating Human Health Impacts in Environmental Assessment: Noise (HC Guideline).
Other measures which are sometimes used to characterize sound levels include:
 Lmax values: Maximum sound level measured over an event (pass-by);
 LN% values: The sound level exceeded n% of the time. It is a statistical measure of sound level. For highly varying sounds, the L90 represents the background sound level, L50 represents the median or typical sound level, and
L10 represents the short-term peak sound levels, such as those due to occasional traffic or a barking dog; and
 LLM values: A special measurement of maximum sound level from impulsive sound sources such as hammer hits or metal dropping. These values are designated as “dBAI”.
The human ear does not interpret changes in sound level in a linear manner. The general subjective human perception of changes in sound level is shown in Table 9-9 and is directly applicable to changes in sound level where the sound sources are of the same general character. For example, existing road traffic sound levels can be directly compared to future road traffic sound levels.
In comparing road traffic sound to rural background sound, the different frequency and temporal nature of the sound means that the sound from the road may be more noticeable. Adjustments for the nature of the new sound can be applied to better account for temporal and frequency differences.
Table 9-9: Subjective Human Perception of Changes in Sound Levels

Notes:
Adapted from Bies and Hansen (1988) and MOE Noise Guidelines for Landfill Sites (MOE, 1998). Applies to changes in broadband noise sources only (i.e., increases or decreases in the same noise or same type of noise only). Changes in frequency content or the addition of tonal or temporal changes would affect the perception of the change.

For transportation sound sources, research conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicates that a 5 dB change in sound levels is required to trigger a change in large-scale community response to noise. This correlates to a clearly noticeable increase in sound levels.

9.1.4.3.2 Vibration
Vibration is the repetitive motion of an object, surface, or fluid. Vibration may travel through the ground, through water, or through the air. Vibration is typically considered to be limited to frequencies below 100 Hertz (Hz); above 100 Hz the effects of vibration would be examined as noise.
Vibration may be measured using a number of different metrics. Relevant descriptors include:
 Root-mean-square vibration levels, in millimetres per second (mm/s). This is a measure of “average” vibration levels and is often used in determining human response to vibration; and
 Peak particle velocity (PPV) vibration levels, in mm/s. This is the peak vibration level from an event and is often used in determining the potential for construction damage or impacts on fish and aquatic life.
Many construction activities that generate noise will not generate vibration (e.g., chain saws used for clearing, construction vehicles).

9.1.4.4 Lighting Basics
Lighting or illumination is the deliberate use of light to achieve practical or aesthetic effects. Lighting includes the use of both artificial light sources like lamps and light fixtures, as well as natural illumination by capturing daylight. In general, three lighting attributes are considered to describe existing conditions and assess potential effects:
 Light trespass refers to the transmission of light from fixtures within a facility or community to the environment.
 Glare refers to intense or contrasting lighting conditions associated with incoming light that reduces the ability of humans, birds and other wildlife to see clearly (e.g., headlight from approaching vehicle).
 Sky glow refers to the illumination of the clouds by light sources on the surface of the Earth, such as street lighting, and haze in the atmosphere that replaces the natural night-time sky with a translucent to opaque lighted dome.

9.1.4.5 Indicators
“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 9-10 shows the subcomponents and indicators identified for the Atmospheric Environment VC.

Table 9-10: Atmospheric Environment VC – Subcomponents, Indicators, and Rationale

9.1.5 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries
The following assessment boundaries have been defined for the Atmospheric Environment VC.

9.1.5.1 Spatial Boundaries
The spatial boundaries for the Atmospheric Environment VC are shown on Figure 9.2 (Air Quality and Climate Change), Figure 9.3 (Noise and Vibration) and Figure 9.4 (Lighting) 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 WSR; and temporary and permanent areas needed to support the Project that include access roads, construction camps, laydown and storage yards, aggregate pits/quarries, and a Maintenance and Storage Facility (MSF).
 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.
 For air quality – the LSA extends 1 km from each side of the centreline of the preliminary recommended preferred route, and 500 m from the boundaries of temporary or permanent supportive infrastructure.
 For GHG emissions that contribute to climate change – the LSA includes the geographical area of northern Ontario due to the presence of peatlands.
 For noise – the LSA extends 600 m from each side of the centreline of the preliminary recommended preferred route, and 500 m from temporary or permanent supportive infrastructure, and 1.5 km from known noise sensitive receptors (i.e., community of Webequie).
 For vibration – the LSA extends 200 m from blasting and/or structural pile driving activities associated with construction or operations of the Project.
 For lighting – the LSA extends 500 m from each side of the centreline of the preliminary recommended preferred route and supportive infrastructure.

 Regional Study Area (RSA) – the area where potential largely indirect and cumulative effects of the Project in the broader, regional context may occur.
 For air quality – the RSA includes the LSA and further extends 5 km from each side of the LSA boundaries including all existing residences and institutions from the local community.
 For GHG emissions that contribute to climate change – the RSA includes the provincial boundary of Ontario since regulations and GHG emission reduction targets are set at the provincial and national levels.
 For noise and vibration – there is no RSA proposed for noise and vibration as the effects are not anticipated beyond the boundaries of the LSA. Therefore, the RSA is considered the same as the LSA.
 For lighting – There is no RSA proposed for lighting as the effects are not anticipated beyond the boundaries of the LSA. Therefore, the RSA is considered the same as the LSA.

9.1.5.2 Temporal Boundaries
Temporal boundaries for the assessment address the potential effects of the Project over relevant timescales. The temporal boundaries for the Project consist of two main phases:
 Construction Phase: All activities associated with the initial development 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.
 Operations 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 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).

9.1.6 Identification of Project Interactions with Atmospheric Environment

Table 9-11 identifies the project activities that may interact with the Atmospheric Environment VC to result in a potential effect. The identification of project interactions with the atmospheric environment provides a basis for the subsequent assessment of the potential effects of the Project. The potential effects are described separately for subcomponents of Atmospheric Environment VC including air quality, GHGs, noise and vibration, and lighting. Air contaminants, GHGs, noise and light are generated by most project activities, and may result in a change in air quality, a change in atmospheric GHG content, a change in sound quality and/or a change in light levels. Rather than acknowledging this by placing a “checkmark” for each of these activities, a “checkmark” was included in the “Emissions, Discharges and Wastes” component which was added under each project phase for efficiency of discussion.

Table 9-11: Project Interactions with Atmospheric Environment 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.

9.2 Existing Conditions

This section summarizes existing conditions of the atmospheric environment in the study areas. The purpose is to provide a baseline upon which the potential effects of the Project on the Atmospheric Environment VC are assessed. It also addresses the requirements in Sections 8.1 and 14.1 of the TISG and meeting the requirements of the MECP and other provincial ministries as identified in the ToR for the Project. Detailed descriptions of the methods for characterizing existing conditions and interpretations of the results are provided in Appendix F – Natural Environment Existing Conditions (NEEC) Report and in the following appendices:
 Air Quality Impact Assessment Report completed by AtkinsRéalis (Appendix G);

 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report completed by AtkinsRéalis (Appendix H); and
 Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report completed by SLR Consulting Ltd. (Appendix J).
9.2.1 Methods
9.2.1.1 Air Quality
To characterize and quantify the expected background concentrations of air contaminants within the air quality LSA and RSA, the data of a combination of air quality monitoring stations in remote areas across Canada were mainly used. The following characteristics were considered in selecting representative stations, where possible:
 Monitoring stations used for regional backgrounds (outside of urban areas);
 Monitoring stations located in non-urban remote areas; and
 Monitoring stations located in areas with non-commercial and non-industrial land uses.
Selection of ambient air quality monitoring stations based on these criteria are assumed to provide a conservative estimate of background concentrations of the following contaminants selected as indicators for air quality:
 CACs: SO2, CO, NO2, TSP, PM10, and PM2.5;
 VOCs: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, hexanes, propionaldehyde, toluene, xylenes;
 Benzo(a)pyrene as a surrogate to PAHs; and
 Ground-level O3.
Background concentrations of DPM, which is a subset of total PM2.5 concentrations, could not be defined as there are no existing data about their concentration levels in ambient air (i.e., PM2.5 specific to diesel engine combustion can not be differentiated from total PM2.5).
Local air quality data are not available with the exception of limited data collected from a station operated by the MECP (2019) as part of Ontario’s Ring of Fire Baseline Monitoring Program (2013-2017) providing data on PM2.5 and metals which are excluded from this assessment. For the other contaminants, air quality monitoring stations located in remote areas similar to the Project were favoured to characterize and describe existing air quality conditions in the LSA and RSA. Continuous and intermittent monitoring data were gathered from the National Air Pollution Surveillance Program (NAPS) and the Réseau de surveillance de la qualité de l’air du Québec (RSQAQ) for three recent and consecutive years (e.g., 2017-2019, where available).
Table 9-12 presents the monitoring stations considered for the purpose of characterizing existing air quality conditions. The location of each monitoring station is identified in Figure 9.5. In some cases, stations in small urban areas or southern locations were consulted where remote stations do not include monitoring for selected contaminants
(e.g., VOCs, carbonyls and PAHs).

Table 9-12: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Stations Reviewed

Sources: ECCC (2022); RSQAQ (2022).

9.2.1.2 Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)
Excluding the community within Webequie First Nation reserve lands, the general project area consists of lakes, woodlands, and wetlands where anthropogenetic/human emissions of GHGs are basically non-existent today.
As a small northern settlement, GHG emissions in the community of Webequie can generally be attributed to the energy usage from buildings (residential and commercial), local transportation, air travel, and solid waste disposal. Other direct or indirect emissions related to industrial, or manufacturing activities are not relevant to the project area. Therefore, a high-level description of current GHG emissions in the community of Webequie is provided in Section 9.2.2.2 for context.
Provincial and national annual GHG emission levels published for the most recent year (2022) were obtained from the most recent National Inventory Report, which is for the years 1990 to 2022 and are shown in Section 9.2.2.2.
9.2.1.3 Noise and Vibration

9.2.1.3.1 Measurements of Background Ambient Sound Levels
The existing background ambient sound levels in the noise study area for the Project is dominated by the sounds of nature (wind, leaves rustling, etc.), with little to no man-made sounds.
Near the Webequie community, the existing ambient background sound environment includes:
 Natural background ambient noise, similar to more remote areas;
 Man-made sounds from community activities, such as vehicles and equipment; and
 Noise from the operation of the local airport.
The Webequie airport is located approximately 1.9 km to the southwest of the community and operates in uncontrolled airspace. Current and future flight data were requested from NAV Canada, but specific statistical data was not available. Anecdotally, there are currently a maximum of 1 to 2 flights per day using the facility. This number is not expected to increase due to the construction and operation of the Webequie Supply Road (WSR).
As a result, a specific assessment of the Project’s effects on airport noise is not required. Predicted sound levels from the Webequie airport were not modelled. Existing (and effectively future) airport activities were captured in the background sound level measurements at Monitor M1, discussed above, which was used in assessing potential impacts at the community. Airport noise is not discussed further in this assessment.
The Project Team conducted studies to establish the existing conditions (i.e., the baseline setting) of the acoustic environment to determine the potential effects of the Project.
Existing background ambient sound levels at representative NSAs within the Webequie First Nation community and along the proposed WSR route have been determined through ambient sound level measurements.
Measurements were conducted for the period between October 29 and November 1, 2021. Monitoring was conducted at three locations:
 M1, within the Webequie First Nation community, at the western terminus of the proposed WSR route;
 M2, at a distance of 4.41 km along the proposed route (away from the Webequie First Nation community), which has been used as representative of conditions along the route; and
 M3, at a distance of 10.57 km south-east of the western terminus (away from the Webequie First Nation community); which has been used as representative of “remote” conditions, away from the community.
Monitoring locations are shown in Figure 9.3.

The community monitor at the western terminus (M1) includes noise from community activities (commercial noise, traffic noise, and airport noise). Monitors M2 and M3 are sufficiently removed from these sources and t they capture ambient background sound levels in the rural area, dominated by the sounds of nature and removed from man-made noises.
Monitor M2 received occasional man-made noises due to its proximity to a waste facility to the west. Monitor M3 did not have any human interference throughout the entirety of the measurement period.
The measurements at each location were conducted for a minimum period of 48 hours, in accordance with MECP Publication NPC-233 measurement procedure requirements. The ambient noise measurements were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the following guidelines:
 MECP Publication NPC‐102 – Instrumentation;
 MECP Publication NPC‐103 – Procedures;
 MECP Publication NPC‐104 – Sound Level Adjustments;
 MECP Publication NPC‐233 – Information To Be Submitted For Approval Of Stationary Sources Of Sound;
 Health Canada “Guidance for Evaluating Human Health Impacts in Environmental Assessment: Noise”; and
 ISO 1996-2:2007, Acoustics — Description, measurement, and assessment of environmental noise – Part 2: Determination of environmental noise levels.
Further details on how measurements were conducted at the monitoring locations are included in Appendix J – Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report.
For this assessment, sound level measurements were conducted in October, during the fall period. Given the rural environment, differences in ambient sound levels between the spring, summer and winter periods are not anticipated.
The fall measurements occurred after leaves were down and with insect activity being minimal; thus, the measurements are during naturally quiet periods, and representative of “predictable worst-case conditions” or a conservative approach for assessing potential effects of the Project.
The parameters that were captured include the following:
 Leq (1‐min) values, in dBA, dBC, and dBZ;
 Lmax and Lmin values;
 L1, L10, L50, L90, and L99 values;
 Histograms; and
 Simultaneous audio recordings.
The refined measurement data were then be processed to determine typical sound levels that include the following levels:
 A characterization of the noise sources that contribute significantly to the baseline or background ambient sound environment, by type (e.g., traffic, aircraft, trains, industrial);
 A characterization of the background ambient sound environment, using descriptors such as “continuous, intermittent, regular impulsive, highly impulsive, high-energy impulsive, and continuous tonal and intermittent tonal”, per ISO 1996-2 and Health Canada Guidance;
 Existing Lmin and Lmax sound levels;
 An hourly distribution of background sound levels during the day and night (Leq (1hr) values);
 Leq Day, LD, Leq Night, and LN sound levels; and
 Overall LDN values.

The monitoring data were further supplemented with a review of typical background ambient sound level data for rural areas based on population density, contained in Health Canada’s Noise Guidelines.

9.2.1.3.2 Identification of Noise Sensitive Areas
SLR Consulting Ltd. worked with socio-economic specialists of the AtkinsRéalis Project Team and Webequie First Nation to identify noise sensitive areas (“NSAs”) applicable to the Project, which are points of reception where noise impacts have been predicted.

9.2.1.3.3 Background Sound Levels
Background sound levels for use in the assessment were established based on the sound level monitoring results from Monitors M1, M2, and M3, and a review of Health Canada’s Noise Guidelines and applicable provincial noise guidelines including MTO Environmental Guide for Noise, MECP/MTO Joint Protocol, and MECP Publication NPC-300.
The Health Canada Guideline provides estimations of background sound levels using qualitative descriptions and population densities of average types of communities. The estimations were adapted from research conducted in Alberta by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) and codified in AER Directive 038 – Noise Control. The estimations are reproduced as Table 9-13 for reference below.
Table 9-13: Estimations of Background Sound Levels Using Qualitative Descriptions and Population Densities of Average Types of Communities (from Health Canada Guidelines)

1 Note that a range of values is provided, and that selection of the appropriate estimated value would typically be based on the precautionary principle in the absence of adequate justification for a higher baseline. All day-night sound level (LDN) values, except those of the quiet rural area community type, are based on the US EPA levels document (US EPA 1974).
2 The quiet rural area (LN = 35 dBA) estimated baseline sound level and population density were obtained from AER Directive 038 (revised Feb 16, 2007). The difference between LD and LN was obtained from AER and US EPA, and was approximated as 10 dBA. As such, quiet rural areas are considered to be less than or equal to 45 dBA LDN.

The intent of the table is for situations where background measurement data are not available. The community type over the entire LSA would be qualitative described as “Quiet Rural”. The corresponding conservative estimates of background sound levels are:
 LD – 45 dBA;
 LN – 35 dBA; and
 LDN – 45 dBA.
At Monitor M1, background LD sound levels fall within the range of a “Quiet Rural” area, however LN sound levels exceed 35 dBA on average therefore driving the area into a “Quiet Suburban Residential” category. LDN sound levels exceed the 45 dBA Quiet Rural criteria, this is due to the greater sound levels during the night-time between 10 pm and 7 am.
Monitors M2 and M3 have background sound levels within the range of a “Quiet Rural” area, which is expected given their locations are far from frequent human activity and y travelled roadways.

9.2.1.4 Vibration
To characterize the existing vibration environment, existing vibration levels were established through a desktop study considering expert opinion of the Project Team with experience on previous projects.

9.2.1.5 Lighting
It is anticipated that the WSR will not be illuminated along its entire length; however, lighting may be required at certain locations for safety and security such as the east and west terminus points of the road and at supportive infrastructure sites, such as construction camps, rest and maintenance areas aggregate/rock sites and the MSF. To characterize the existing night sky environment and assess potential effects of illumination from the Project, where applicable, the Project Team reviewed background data sources that include the Model Lighting Ordinance prepared jointly by the Illumination Engineers Society and International Dark Sky Association (2011). In addition, existing light conditions were characterized using satellite observations of the global distribution of artificial light, and assumptions based on the remote nature of the general project area and nearby community of Webequie as a source of night light.

9.2.2 Results
The existing/baseline conditions of the Atmospheric Environment VC established through the desktop studies and field measurements are summarized in the following subsections.

9.2.2.1 Air Quality
The proposed WSR is located in a remote region of northern Ontario away from significant sources of human induced air emissions. For air quality in the LSA and RSA, air emission sources are limited to the community of Webequie of and are summarized with assumptions as follows:
 Electric power station with diesel generator sets having a capacity of 2 MW producing an estimated 3,000 MWh of electricity per year (Government of Canada, 2024). According to the National Pollutant Report Inventory (NPRI), the power plant generates a total of 50 to 70 tonnes of NO2 annually and 1 tonne or less of micro particulates
(PM10 and PM2.5).
 The combustion of wood residues in stoves or equipment alike for heating purposes in Webequie, generating particulates, NO2 and VOCs from combusted wood. Natural gas and propane are not available in the community.

 Mobile vehicles (trucks, snowmobile, all-terrain vehicles, dozers, etc.) are most likely used within the community but the related emissions should be relatively low.
 Solid wastes are disposed in a nearby community landfill which can release GHGs but also an array of VOCs. Given the population number (and organic waste generation rate), the resulting fugitive emissions from the landfill are most likely very small. No open burning of wastes commonly occurs in Webequie.
 The Webequie airport links the community to other regions in Ontario providing air transportation services for the local population, including delivery of goods and services. Aircrafts will generate an array of air contaminants, although mostly in the upper atmosphere.
There are no industrial or mining activities in the study area presently. The closest installations that have reported emissions to the NPRI (and therefore have exceeded the reporting threshold) are other thermal power plants operated by Hydro One (in Kasabonika and Landsdowne House at 100 km from Webequie). The closest active mine (Musselwhite Mine, Goldcorp Canada Ltd.) that have reported emissions to the NPRI are located at over 200 km from Webequie. There are no large-scale agricultural activities, and the commercial forestry industry is not active within the LSA or RSA.
Table 9-14 lists the background concentrations selected as part of this assessment relevant to the AAQC or CAAQS averaging period. They are based on data from existing air quality stations (refer to Section 9.2.1.1) that were presented in the NEEC Report (Appendix F). General remarks on the potential presence of contaminants in the RSA (within 6 km from each side of the centreline of the preliminary recommended preferred route) are as follows:
 Gaseous common air contaminants: The annual average SO2, CO and NO2 background concentrations in remote areas without industrial or manufacturing installations are expected to be low (< 1 ppb for SO2; 200 ppb for CO; and < 3 ppb for NO2) compared to applicable air quality criteria and standards, but can still reach higher values and peaks especially during wildfires (near or from further away due to high atmosphere dispersion), prescribed agricultural or biomass burns in the area, or in the case of Webequie, in the direct vicinity of the diesel power plant.
 Ground-level O3: Concentrations measured at regional background monitoring stations are all similar in range, with no exceedances observed in comparison to the applicable criteria and standards. Annual mean concentrations in Webequie can be expected to be similar to those reported at stations in remote area, that is in the 25 to 30 ppb range.
 Particulate matter: Like for gaseous contaminants, particulate matter in remote areas will come mostly from the combustion of trees and vegetation, from diesel fuel combustion at the power plant and also, depending on location, from wind lifting of naturally or anthropogenically eroded surfaces that tends to generate concentration peaks in the summer months. The use of wood stoves or equivalents is another source of particulates and
micro-particulates that is limited to the community.
 Toxic contaminants: Carbonyls, VOCs and PAHs are also attributed to fuel and wood combustion. Higher concentrations will be observed during the cooler months which may be attributed to wood burning in the area but also by the fact that cooler air and inversions trap contaminants near the ground.
The atmospheric dispersion model provides estimates about the Project’s contribution to contaminant concentrations in ambient air. Background concentrations account for air contaminants already present in the environment or from other sources. The background concentrations presented in Table 9-14 were therefore added to the model results to compare the resulting concentrations with applicable air quality standards and criteria.

Table 9-14: Summary of Background Concentrations for Studied Contaminants

Notes:
AAQC = Ontario Ambient Air Quality Criteria CAAQS = Canadian Air Quality Standards
(1) Although in a non-urban setting without any significant emission sources nearby, data comes from a station located in southern Ontario which most likely over-estimate the actual background concentration of VOCs in the study area.
(2) Background 1-hour concentration multiplied by 1.65 for the 10-minute averaging period or 1.2 for 30-minute averaging period.

Dustfall
The TISG for the Project requires a description of background dust deposition conditions in the RSA, but like air contaminants, no local measurements are available. Background dustfall (in t/km2/30-days) can be broadly estimated by associating TSP concentrations in air with dust deposition on the ground at a same location. A study was carried out in the past (Roche, 1983) which presented average dustfall rates and TSP concentrations for several years at multiple stations within the City of Quebec. Figure 9.6 illustrates the almost linear relationship between these two variables over several years. Assuming the average TSP concentration in the RSA is 4.0 µg/m³ (Table 9-14), then it would be expected according to this correlation that dustfall would approach 0.40 t/km²/30-day. This value is therefore considered as background dustfall in this assessment.

Figure 9.6: Relation between mean TSP concentrations measured in air and mean dust deposition measurements carried out at 12 stations in Quebec City from 1979 to 1982

Shaded: 95% confidence interval for average estimations Red line: 95% confidence interval for single estimations

9.2.2.2 Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)
Table 9-15 provides a high-level assessment of current GHG emissions in the Webequie community for each GHG source category suggested by the IPCC which is normally used in developing national or regional inventories. Provincial and national annual GHG emission levels for the year 2022 were reported to be approximately 157 megatonnes (Mt) CO2e and 708 Mt, respectively (ECCC, 2024).
Besides naturally-occurring GHG emissions, the natural environment (vegetation and soil) also represents a large carbon (CO2) sink compensating part if not all the GHG emissions (CH4 and CO2) emanating from wet soils. Vegetation in the LSA and RSA include wetland and upland ecosystems (to a lesser degree). Section 9 in the NEEC report (Appendix F) details those present, which include undrained bog, fen, swamps, floodplains and conifer forests, as well a few other vegetation types. Wetlands are said to be able to hold more carbon than upland forests. The quantity of carbon sequestered and stored in biomass, dead organic matter (DOM), and soil is substantial given the LSA being comprised of approximately 80% wetlands, and primarily swamps and bogs for which the carbon sequestration potential is high in comparison to other wetland types (fen and marshes). The total amount of carbon currently stored in the
LSA and RSA is unknown. However, the changes in currently sequestrated carbon and carbon sequestration potential, brought upon changes in land-use due to the Project is assessed in Section 11 – Vegetation and Wetlands in this Draft EAR/IS.

Table 9-15: Overview of Existing GHG Emission Sources in the Webequie Community

Notes:
(1) Order-of-magnitude annual GHG emissions from the electric power plant estimated as follows: 3,000 MWh / 30% [represents efficiency] / 38,3 MJ/L diesel x 0,002766 t CO2e/L diesel x 3,600 = 2,600 tCO2eq
(2) Order-of-magnitude annual GHG emissions from aircrafts estimated as follows: 0,13 kg CO2eq/passenger-km x 1,000 km (assuming round- trip between Webequie and Thunder Bay) x 700 passengers (equivalent to the population) / 1,000 = 84 t CO2eq per year + 0,87 kg CO2eq/tonne-km x 250,000 tonne-km (50 trips from Thunder Bay with 10 t payload of merchandise) / 1,000 = 220 t CO2eq per year
(3) Order-of-magnitude annual GHG emissions from the landfill estimated as follows: 0,3 tonne of solid waste per capita x 700 of population x 60 kg CH4 generated per tonne of solid waste / 1,000 x 25 t CO2e/t CH4 = 315 t CO2eq (from fugitive methane emissions). As a hypothesis, no biogas collection and flaring are considered.

9.2.2.3 Noise

9.2.2.3.1 Noise Monitoring Results
The following subsections and Table 9-16 summarize the background ambient sound levels measured at the monitoring locations M1, M2, and M3. The raw and processed measurement data for these sound level monitoring locations are included in Appendix N3 and Appendix N4 respectively within Appendix J – Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report.
Results at Monitor Location M1
The sound environment at monitoring location M1 is dominated during the daytime by the sounds of people, including occasional traffic noise, dogs barking, and airport activity.
Human-made sounds are generally intermittent. During breaks in activity and during the majority of the night-time period, the sound environment is dominated by the continuous “sounds of nature”, including the noise of leaves rustling vegetation, etc. There is intermittent traffic noise, and airport activity throughout the night-time period.
No tonal noise sources were identified at Monitor M1. Similarly, no regular impulsive, highly impulsive, high-energy impulsive noise sources, as described in ISO 1996-2 and Health Canada Guidelines, were identified at Monitor M1.
Results at Monitor Location M2
The sound environment at monitoring location M2 is dominated at all times by the continuous “sounds of nature”, including the noise of leaves rustling vegetation, etc. There was chainsaw activity near the monitor during periods of the daytime, but sound levels were omitted from the summarized results. Vehicle activity along the road was intermittent and mostly during the daytime period between 7 am and 11 pm.
No tonal noise sources were identified at Monitor M2. Similarly, no regular impulsive, highly impulsive, high-energy impulsive noise sources, as described in ISO 1996-2 and Health Canada Guidelines, were identified at Monitor M2.
Results at Monitor Location M3
The sound environment at monitoring location M3 is dominated at all times by the continuous “sounds of nature”, including the noise of leaves rustling vegetation, bird calls, water movement etc. There are intermittent periods of airport activity including helicopter noise, but sound levels are not as high as at M1.
No tonal noise sources were identified at Monitor M3. Similarly, no regular impulsive, highly impulsive, high-energy impulsive noise sources, as described in ISO 1996-2 and Health Canada Guidelines, were identified at Monitor M3.
Table 9-16: Summary of Measured Background Ambient Sound Levels at Monitors M1, M2, and M3

9.2.2.3.2 Identification of Noise Sensitive Areas

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 noise and vibration from the Project.

Noise sensitive areas (NSAs) which are representative of potential effects from noise and vibration at a group or cluster of receptors have been identified and are used in the assessment. The representative NSAs used in the assessment are shown in Figures N6 to N16 in Appendix J – Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report. If the applicable guidelines are met at these NSAs which are considered “worst-case locations”, they will be met elsewhere in the study areas.
The NSAs are also summarized in Table 4 in Appendix J – Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report and include the following:
 Permanent residences, including homes within the Webequie community;
 Schools, hospitals, community centres, retirement complexes, or assisted care homes;
 Seasonal residences, such as trapper cabins or hunting and fishing campsites, which are used by members of the Webequie First Nation, other Indigenous communities, and stakeholders;
 Spiritual or sacred spaces which members of the Webequie First Nation, other Indigenous communities, and stakeholders may identify as requiring quiet or being sensitive to disruptions from noise;
 Other locations which members of the Webequie First Nation, other Indigenous communities, and stakeholders and/or other Project disciplines may identify as requiring quiet or being sensitive to disruptions from noise
(e.g., wildlife – Caribou), and include for instance locations important for harvesting of country foods; and
 The mine exploration camp at the McFaulds Lake area operated by Wyloo Ring of Fire Limited (formerly Noront Resources).

9.2.2.3.3 Summary of Background Sound Levels Adopted for the Assessment
Table 9-17 summarizes the background sound levels for use in the assessment based on the sound level monitoring results from Monitors M1, M2, and M3, and a review of Health Canada’s Noise Guidelines and applicable provincial noise guidelines including MTO Environmental Guide for Noise, MECP/MTO Joint Protocol, and MECP Publication NPC-300.

Table 9-17: Summary of Background Sound Levels for Use in the Assessment

Notes:
All values are in dBA, except Percent Highly Annoyed (%HA)
M# – background limits established from noise monitoring location
RP## Permanent residence, retirement complexes, assisted care homes
RPF## Future permanent residence, per Webequie First Nation On-Reserve Land-Use Plan May 31, 2019.
RS## Hotels, seasonal residence, trapper’s cabin, hunting and fishing campsites (and which are allowed to be disclosed) CHL## Cultural Heritage Landscapes identified in draft Cultural Heritage Report–Webequie Supply Road March, 2022
I## Noise sensitive institutional receptors such as schools, hospitals, clinics, etc.
O## Other noise sensitive locations which Webequie First Nation, or other Stakeholders have identified as requiring quiet or being sensitive to disruptions from noise, for example spiritual or sacred spaces or hunting grounds (and which are allowed to be disclosed)
C## Construction Camps (long-term)

9.2.2.4 Vibration
Based on a desktop review and previous project experiences, existing baseline vibration levels are expected to be negligible or minimal, similar to other areas across Canada for those potential receptors within the remote or rural land uses.

9.2.2.5 Lighting
Based on the review of background sources (Model Lighting Ordinance) to characterize ambient light levels (both sky glow and light trespass), the existing night sky conditions in the LSA for the Project are considered a dark, rural environmental that meets the criteria for Zone LZ-0 as specified in the Model Lighting Ordinance. In this zone, there are essentially limited to no existing sources of artificial light contributing to the existing ambient light environment. The sky glow levels in this range are representative of an unpolluted starry sky, where, on clear nights with no haze, many thousands of stars would be visible and the Milky Way would be clearly visible. Incidental light levels are not sensitive to seasonal variation, and sky glow would typically be dominated by celestial objects (e.g., the moon) and meteorological conditions (e.g., cloud cover).

9.3 Identification of Potential Effects, Pathways and Indicators
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. The descriptions of the potential effects in this section are structured based on the construction and operation phases since many project activities involve use of equipment and vehicles resulting in air and noise emissions as noted in Section 9.1.6. Table 9-11 summarizes the potential effect pathways and effect indicators for the Atmospheric Environment VC.
It is anticipated that the WSR will not be illuminated along its entire length. However, lighting may be required at certain locations for safety and security such as the east and west terminus points of the road and at supportive infrastructure sites, such as construction camps, rest and maintenance areas, aggregate/rock sites and MSF. Illumination is expected to be limited to low level light fixtures. In addition, as noted in Section 18 – Assessment of Effects on Visual Environment, 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. Therefore, potential lighting effects of the Project are predicted to be negligible and are not carried forward for further assessment.

The assessment of potential effects for the Atmospheric Environment VC was completed to fulfil the commitment to avoid or minimize adverse effects to nearby receptors (residential homes) and culturally sensitive areas of value and interest to Indigenous Peoples (e.g., spiritual sites, fish and hunting areas).

9.3.1 Change in Air Quality
The air emission sources associated with the Project come essentially from the combustion of diesel fuel or gasoline from land mobile equipment, heavy-duty trucks and light-duty vehicles during the construction and operation phases of the WSR. As noted in Section 9.1.6, emissions of air contaminants are generated by most project activities and may result in a change in air quality. The main pathways in which a change to air quality may occur are illustrated as follows:
 Use of vehicles, machinery, and equipment for construction of the proposed road → Fuel combustion and dust uplifting → Increased air contaminant emissions during construction phase.
 Vehicle use of the proposed road once constructed and use of vehicles, machinery, and equipment for road maintenance → Fuel combustion and dust uplifting → Increased air contaminant emissions during operation phase.
Potential effects of air quality on surface water resources, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife, and the use of recreational and traditional land and resource use, and human health are discussed in Section 7 (Assessment of Effects on Surface Water Resources), Section 11 (Assessment of Effects on Vegetation and Wetlands), Section 12 (Assessment of Effects on Terrestrial Habitat and Wildlife), Section 13 (Assessment of Effects on Species at Risk), Section 16 (Non-Traditional Land and Resource Use), Section 19 (Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Interests), and Section 17 (Assessment of Effects on Human Health).
The following subsections include an assessment of potential effects from project construction and operation activities on air quality and whether there is risk of exceeding a CAAQS or AAQC applicable in the province of Ontario. The assessment included the use of the American Meteorological Society and Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Air Dispersion Model (AERMOD version 22112, the most recent adopted by MECP) to predict concentrations of air contaminants resulting from the project activities. The MECP guide (MECP, 2017) designates AERMOD as the preferred model for dispersion studies at the close or local scale (< 50 km). Further description of the AERMOD model, modelling methodology, parameters and inputs, including meteorological parameters used to predict emissions of air contaminants is provided in Appendix G (Air Quality Impact Assessment Report).

9.3.1.1 Air Dispersion Modelling Approach
9.3.1.1.1 Air Contaminants
Assessed air contaminants include all CACs as well as toxic contaminants like aldehydes, specific VOCs, and PAHs with an AAQC that can be found in exhaust gases from vehicles and mobile equipment. The AAQC dustfall limit is considered as a guideline in this assessment to inform the reader of the extent of dust deposition associated with the Project on the surrounding environment. As required by the TISG, DPM was modelled representing all PM2.5 generated by engines. No criteria or standard is associated with DPM, but since it is recognized as carcinogenic, annualized
(long-term effect) concentrations were simulated.
9.3.1.1.2 Modelling Domain and Sensitive Receptors

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 air quality.

Given the relatively long distance of the proposed WSR, the modelling domain was restricted within an area of about 30 km by 30 km that covers approximately 41 km of the 107 km road from the community of Webequie to the point on the road where it intersects with the ARA-4 aggregate pit access road (refer to Figure 9.7). This modelling domain was selected to focus on the impacts within a corridor along the road but also on sensitive receptors (i.e., residences, institutional buildings, and culturally sensitive areas) that are more sizeable in this area. In fact, the majority of sensitive receptors are located in the modelling domain and the impacts along the road are expected to be similar for the remaining length (i.e., ~66 km not included in the model). In addition, the computational time required to assess the full length of the road at the proposed resolution would have been prohibitive (i.e., modelling a shorter length allows for a better resolution and understanding of local impacts).
For the construction and operation phases, the receptors, or points of impingement, for contaminant concentrations in ambient air, were arranged along the road with the resolution as follows (1,649 receptors):
 Every 100 m at 50 m distance from the road centreline on either side; and,
 Every 100 m at 150 m distance from the road centreline on either side.
This configuration provides means to generate lateral concentration profile within a distance of 150 m from the road centerline where the bulk of emissions will occur. Extra arrays of receptors along the road further away would have not provided further informative details giving that the road is located in a remote area. That said, the impact of the project emissions at specific points of impingement outside the 150 m corridor was verified. Discrete receptors (146) were placed at the NSAs identified for the Project (refer to Section 9.2.2.3.2), which are also considered sensitive in terms of air quality and dustfall. These locations include the following:
 Twenty-four (24) existing residences or group of residences (RP) including mostly homes within the community of Webequie.
 Six (6) institutional buildings (I) including two schools, a nursing station, a church, a community building, and business center.
 Twenty-one (21) culturally sensitive areas (CHL) including spiritual or sacred spaces for members of the Webequie First Nation and other Indigenous communities and/or stakeholders. It includes locations important for harvesting country-food/plans or hunting. Since being areas, receptors were placed at intervals along the closest edge of these areas to the WSR to assess potential impacts. The modelling results discussion will focus on the impacts at these discrete receptor groups and along the road.

 Sixty-six (66) locations for future residences (RPF) per the Webequie First Nation On-Reserve Land-Use Plan of 2019 distributed amongst four areas (Site A; Site West; Site C and Site D).
The receptors locations as part of the air quality assessment are illustrated in Figure 9.7 and Figure 9.8.
9.3.1.2 Construction Phase
9.3.1.2.1 Considered Emission Sources for Air Dispersion Modelling

Based on the information provided in the Planning & Construction Input for Road & Supportive Infrastructure report completed by Sigfusson Northern Ltd. (2023) for the Project, an emission scenario was developed for the first year of construction which was selected amongst all years as a conservative approach for the following reasons:
 Year 1 will operate the greatest number of mobile equipment (bulldozers, excavators, loaders, cranes, etc.) in terms of month-equipment on-site.
 The majority of activities during Year 1 will be focused between the western terminus (Webequie) and the ARA-2 quarry which is close to the WC-3 water crossing, down to the access road/WSR intersection which represents the eastern point of the modelling domain. This area regroups the great majority of sensitive receptors (existing residences and institutional buildings, culturally sensitive areas, and future residences planned by the Webequie First Nation).
 Aggregates trucking from ARA-2 and ARA-4 quarries will be more intensive during Year 2 compared to Year 1. However, a great majority of Year 2 trucks will travel east of the access road/WSR intersection (outside the modelling domain). Trucking along the modelling domain would remain slightly higher during Year 2 but not to a great extent. For that reason, Year 2 trucking was combined in the emission scenario along with the other Year 1 emission sources, as a cautious approach.
The impact of Year 2 to 5 activities during the construction phase was not assessed as they involve the same emission sources as modelled for Year 1 only at different locations and different extents (i.e., varying number of trucks, different number of equipment to carry out the work based on Sigfusson’s planning). Since the emissions are limited along the road 35-m wide ROW, the concentrations in air will be of similar profile whether being on the western or eastern portion of the road.
Details of the emission sources included in the model for the construction phase of the Project are provided in Table 3-12 and Table 3-13 within the Air Quality Impact Assessment Report (Appendix G).

9.3.1.2.2 Emission Parameters Summary
Table 3-12, Table 3-13, and Table 3-14 in the Air Quality Impact Assessment Report (Appendix G) list the emission sources and parameters included in the model for the construction phase of the Project. The tables also provide an overview of emission rates for NOX and TSP applicable to 1-hour, 24-hour, 30-day, and annual exposure periods, where applicable. The emission rates for the other contaminants and other parameters that needs to be specified in the model are available in Appendix A within the Air Quality Impact Assessment Report (Appendix G).
Section 3.3 in the Air Quality Impact Assessment Report (Appendix G) describes in detail how emission rates are calculated for each contaminant included in the model. Emissions from the following types of vehicle/equipment and project activities were estimated using different calculation methods:
 Mobile and stationary equipment (engines);
 Surface dust emissions from the use of dozers and graders;
 Trucking (engines);
 Road dust emissions from trucking;

 Aggregate crushing plant (engines and dust);
 Aggregate loading at the quarry and unloading on construction site (dust); and
 Blasting at the quarry.

9.3.1.2.3 Air Dispersion Modelling Results – Construction Phase

Results of the air dispersion modelling shows that construction activities could cause levels of airborne particles of various sizes and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) to exceed Ontario and Canada standards at sensitive receptors located proximate to the proposed road centerline (refer to Table 9-45). These exceedances could only occur over a short period of 1-2 days given that project construction activities will be moving as road construction progresses.

Table 9-18 and Table 9-19 summarize air dispersion modelling results for the construction phase for contaminants identified as indicators of the air quality effects assessment in comparison to applicable AAQC and CAAQS. The tables present the maximum concentration calculated in air (or on ground for dustfall) anywhere along the WSR at 50 m on either side of the road centerline (RCL) based on the 5-year meteorological dataset and without consideration of emission control measures. The tables include the results for the Project’s contribution alone and with the background concentrations presented in Section 9.2.2.1. Concentrations that are greater than the corresponding AAQC or CAAQS are denoted in bold.
Table 9-20 presents the results when integrating the control/mitigation measures outlined in Section 9.4.1.
The results presented in Table 9-21 focus on maximum concentrations calculated at sensitive receptors for contaminants which are meaningfully impacted by the Project according to Table 9-18 and Table 9-19 (>50% of applicable standard at 50 m of the RCL). Given the large number of sensitive receptors, only the ones which are closest to the RCL are presented in Table 9-21. It includes existing residences, institutional buildings, and Indigenous culturally sensitive areas. Note that future residences are not analyzed since they will not exist during the construction phase.
The results for the other receptors which are lower than the ones presented in Table 9-21 are available in Appendix B within the Air Quality Impact Assessment Report (Appendix G) for reference.
The following subsections discuss the results presented in Table 9-18 to 9-21. Common Air Contaminants
As presented in Table 9-18, the predicted maximum concentrations for SO2 and CO at 50 m distance from the RCL are low (<5% of applicable standards). The predicted maximum concentrations of NO2 exceed the applicable CAAQS (233% of the 1-h limit value including background concentration) and AAQC (275% of the 24-h limit value including background concentration) at 50 m distance from the RCL in the case where all machinery operates Tier 3 engines (scenario without control measures). As presented in Table 9-20, when considering a control measure that at least 80% of machinery should operate Tier 4 engines, exceedances remain at 50 m distance from the RCL, but at much lower extent (146% of CAAQS instead of 233%; and 128% of AAQC instead of 275%). The NO2 CAAQS could also be exceeded up to 150 m distance from the RCL, which include one culturally sensitive area located within 150 m from the road (Table 9-21). For the NO2 AAQC, no exceedances are noted at 150 m distance and beyond (Table 9-21).
Construction activities have the potential to create conditions that would exceed the standards for particulate matter (of all size). When integrating the road dust control measure (use of water trucks), the results do not change significantly (i.e., max of 1,528 g/m3 at 50 m distance for TSP (Table 9-20) vs. 1,597 g/m3 without controls
(Table 9-18), meaning that road emissions are not the predominant source. Dust emissions at the construction site due to bulldozing, road grading and aggregates unloading are actually the main cause of these high concentrations.
A drawback of air dispersion modelling when dealing with road construction is the fact that it is impossible to define the exact combination and space distribution of equipment and activities that will occur at individual sections of the road. All

potential emissions relevant to road construction were therefore combined together in a single source at regular interval along the road as a simplified and conservative approach. Hence, all three dozers and graders available on-site were considered in operation in the same close area which would probably not be the case in reality (or at least there would be some distance between each equipment). The results therefore represent clear maximum concentrations that could occur in theory but would not in most likelihood due to normal work organization on-site.
The exceedances noted in Table 9-18, Table 9-20, and Table 9-21 relate to standards with a 1-hour or 24-hour averaging period but not for annual standards for which the Project has low impact (<10% of applicable standard). It is tied to the fact that construction activities and associated emissions will not remain at a single location for long periods which greatly dilute the impact of emissions on the annual averages. Similarly, the frequency of exceedances calculated at one location (receptor) for the 1-hour and 24-hour standards would be limited to one or a couple of days over the entire construction phase, as the construction activities move along the road.
Toxic Contaminants
Exceedances were calculated for acrolein (24-hour) and benzene (24-hour) at 50 m distance of the RCL for the emission scenario using emission factors for Tier 3 engines (212% and 141% of the applicable AAQC, respectively including the background concentration). When considering the emission scenario with 80% of Tier 4 engines, exceedance is obtained only for acrolein, at much reduced extent (101% and 80% of applicable AAQC for acrolein and benzene, respectively; Table 9-20). Otherwise, no exceedances were calculated for all toxic contaminants at sensitive receptors, including existing residences, institutional buildings, and culturally sensitive areas (Table 9-21).
This excludes benzo(a)pyrene (B[a]P) (annual period) since the selected background concentration is equal to the AAQC as part of this assessment (Table 9-19). Otherwise, without the background concentration, the maximum B[a]P concentration calculated in air represents 11% of the AAQC at 50 m distance from the RCL and will actually be much lower when considering the scenario with 80% of Tier 4 engines.
Ground-Level Ozone
Construction activities are not anticipated to emit O3 but could still have the potential to add ground-level O3 in air given that NOx and VOCs, which are the precursors to O3 along with sunlight, will be emitted by engines. CAAQS and AAQC exists for O3 (60 ppb (8-hour average) and 80 ppb (1-hour average), respectively) and therefore, the potential for O3 formation due to the Project was examined. Table 7-13 in the NEEC Report (Appendix F) established the background O3 concentration at 28 ppb (or 58% of the 8-h AAQC).
According to the Empirical Kinetic Modelling Approach of the US EPA (1983), O3 formation depends greatly on the relative concentration of VOCs (as carbon content; in ppmC) and NOx (NO + NO2 in ppm) in air. It suggests that in the absence of large transport of O3 in the region, a VOC/NOx concentration ratio of about 8:1 would be optimal for generating O3 in air. A ratio that is much lower or much higher than this value should not generate O3, or at least in
non-negligible amount (also known as VOC-limited and NOx-limited formation). When calculating the ratio of the sum of all 1-hour total hydrocarbons (which is a surrogate to VOC) emission rates with the sum of all 1-hour NOx emission rates from off-road equipment and vehicles, a VOC/NOx ratio lower than 0.1 is obtained. Although all emissions obviously do not occur at the same location together, it outlines the relative input of VOCs and NOx into the atmosphere from the Project’s perspective.
Being in a remote area, the background NOx and VOC concentrations in air are already low and not favourable to O3 formation. For example, as noted in Section 9.2.2.1, the background concentration for NO2 was established at 12 ppb (0.012 ppm). When adding all indicator VOCs, the background concentration is less than 7 ppbC, although it could be higher since not all potential VOCs in air were considered. All put together, it is predicted that construction
activities will not create conditions that would increase the ground-level O3 concentration in ambient air or if it becomes the case, it would be short-lived since the emissions will be diluted in time and space along the road.

Dust Deposition
A maximum dust deposition or dustfall value of 12 g/m2 over 30-days (including background dust deposition) was calculated at 50 m distance from the RCL (corresponding to 166% of the AAQC) without the dust control measure (water trucks on-road). Like for particulate matter concentrations, the impact of water control on the results remains low, bringing the dust deposition value down to 10 g/m2 over 30-days (or 143% of the AAQC). However, given the depletion effect, dust surficial concentration on ground decreases systematically beyond 50 m from the RCL reaching at maximum 5.4 g/m2 (including background) at 150 m distance. In fact, maximum calculated dustfall at existing residences, institutional buildings, and culturally sensitive areas are 0.49, 0.47, and 3.4 g/m2 over 30-days of deposition, respectively which are lower than the criteria of 7.0 g/m2 representing the accepted threshold in Ontario for soil and vegetation.

9.3.1.2.4 Eastern Section of the WSR
As described in Section 9.3.1.1.2, the modelling domain is restricted to the western section of the WSR covering approximately 41 km of the 107 km road. The focus of the assessment and modelling on this area was due to the proximity of Webequie and the fact that a majority of culturally sensitive areas and land uses (including fishing areas, country-food harvesting areas) are located in this portion of the study area for the Project.
However, there is a culturally sensitive area in the east part of the road that is not covered in the modelling domain (at about chainage 70-71 km from Webequie corresponding to a hunting area at 1,000 m from the WSR at its closest
location). Based on calculated results, TSP and PM10 concentrations are not expected to exceed the respective AAQC at this distance (1,000 m) from the RCL, even when considering the very conservative dust emissions calculations. The same conclusion can be drawn for the other CACs, the toxic contaminants and dust deposition for this particular culturally sensitive area since the impact of road construction activities are expected to be of similar nature along the way albeit most likely some differences with regard to planning of activities along the way to the east terminus of the road.

Table 9-18: Maximum Concentrations for CACs Calculated in Air During the Construction Phase (without mitigation measures)

Notes:
AAQC = Ontario Ambient Air Quality Criteria CAAQS = Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards
Concentrations that are greater than the corresponding AAQC or CAAQS are denoted in bold.
(1) Maximum concentration calculated at 50 m from the road centerline.
(2) Background concentrations as presented in Section 9.2.2.1.
(3) The results represent the 1st highest 1-hour concentration and not the 88th highest 1-hour concentration as required from the CAAQS.

Table 9-19: Maximum Concentrations for Other Contaminants Calculated in Air During the Construction Phase (without mitigation measures)

Notes:
AAQC = Ontario Ambient Air Quality Criteria CAAQS = Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards
Concentrations that are greater than the corresponding AAQC or CAAQS are denoted in bold.
(1) Maximum concentration calculated at 50 m from the road centerline.
(2) Background concentrations as established in Section 9.2.2.1.

Table 9-20: Maximum Concentrations (with mitigation measures in place) for Contaminants for Which the Construction Phase Generates Substantial Concentrations in Air (without mitigation measures)

Notes:
AAQC = Ontario Ambient Air Quality Criteria CAAQS = Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards
Concentrations that are greater than the corresponding AAQC or CAAQS are denoted in bold.
(1) Maximum concentration calculated at 50 m from the road centerline.
(2) Background concentrations as established in Section 9.2.2.1.

Table 9-21: Maximum Concentration for Contaminants Calculated in Air in Areas of Interest During the Construction Phase (with mitigation measures)

Notes:
AAQC = Ontario Ambient Air Quality Criteria CAAQS = Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards
Concentrations that are greater than the corresponding AAQC or CAAQS are denoted in bold.
(1) Closest receptor of this category from the road centerline (RCL) at 1,350 m. Results for other receptors located further away are in Appendix B within the Air Quality Impact Assessment Report (Appendix G).
(2) Closest receptor of this category from the RCL at 1,800 m. Results for other receptors located further away are in Appendix B within the Air Quality Impact Assessment Report (Appendix G).
(3) Only the results for culturally sensitive receptors located within 400 m of the RCL are presented. Results for other receptors located further away are in Appendix B within the Air Quality Impact Assessment Report (Appendix G).

9.3.1.3 Operation Phase
9.3.1.3.1 Considered Emission Sources for Air Dispersion Modelling

The operation phase of the WSR includes the vehicular traffic on the road as well as maintenance activities during this period, generating both exhaust gas emissions and fugitive dust emissions. A permanent MSF will be located near the WSR with the purpose of storing the equipment and materials used for inspection, maintenance, and repair activities. Activities occurring at the MSF will mainly include equipment maintenance and repair mostly inside garages.
Inspections and maintenance work will be conducted to ensure the road meets the minimum operational standards for roadside safety.
The main air emission sources during operation phase include the regular daily passages of vehicles mainly from Webequie (less than 500 vehicles) to the eastern terminus of the road where proposed mineral exploration and developments are located and the proposed planned Northern Road Link to the south will connect with the WSR. In addition to vehicular traffic from and to Webequie, the types of vehicles using the road will also include heavy-duty trucks that will be used as part of maintenance activities like visual patrols, snow clearing, and aggregate hauling as part of road repairs. Although the road is expected to be surfaced with asphalt or chipseal, the emission scenario considers an aggregate/gravel-surface as it is expected that part of the road will not be fully surfaced from the start. As a result, a second source is modelled to capture road grading and maintenance activities, and associated air quality concerns. This represents a conservative approach with regard to dust emissions. The application of asphalt or chip seal would obviously result in lower TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations in air and dustfall on the ground in the immediate area of the road.
Other air emission sources associated with isolated road maintenance activities such as brush and vegetation removal/control within the ROW, and specific road, culvert, and bridge repairs requiring an excavator, and a couple of graders for snow clearing are excluded considering that these activities are unspecific to a single location and will occur infrequently. Other emission sources that are excluded include the following:
 Diesel generator set(s) that will be installed at the MSF; however, the size and location are unknown at this time. The MSF is expected (although not confirmed) to be built near rehabilitated ARA-2 quarry adjacent to an area with no nearby sensitive receptors.
 Crushing and screening activities will occur at the ARA-4 quarry during a typical year in the operation phase for the Project. The impact of quarrying activities at higher production rate is covered in the assessment within the construction phase although at another location, and therefore adverse are anticipated to be minimal and below applicable air quality standards (AAQC and CAAQS). It is also important to note that the ARA-4 quarry is located at more than 2,500 m from the closest culturally sensitive area (refer to Figure 9.7) while receptors located at more than 1,000 m from the RCL did not undergo any AAQC or CAAQS exceedances for the construction phase.

9.3.1.3.2 Emission Parameters Summary
The emission scenario is composed of a linear volume source within the modelling domain (refer to Section 9.3.1.1.2) between Webequie and the intersection of the WSR with ARA-4 quarry access road. Although emissions will also occur on the eastern part of the WSR, the concentration profile from road center will be very similar. The exhaust gas from vehicles and fugitive dust emissions from the road and grading activities were modelled separately since they have different emission parameters. Also, for simplification, the fugitive dust emissions from both sources were combined in a single source.
Results were calculated based on a scenario without particular emission control measures and a similar scenario with control measures which, for the operation phase, concern fugitive road dust control with a water truck.

Tables 4-1 to 4-7 in the Air Quality Impact Assessment Report (Appendix G) summarize the emission sources and parameters included in the model for the operation phase of the Project. The tables provide an overview of emission parameters and emission rates for NOX and TSP applicable to 1-hour, 24-hour, 30-day, and annual exposure periods, where applicable. The emission rates for the other contaminants and other parameters that needs to be specified in the model are available in Appendix A within the Air Quality Impact Assessment Report (Appendix G).
Section 4.2 in the Air Quality Impact Assessment Report (Appendix G) describes in detail how emission rates are calculated for each contaminant included in the model. Emissions from the following types of sources were estimated using different calculation methods in the model:
 Vehicular traffic (road engines);
 Vehicular traffic dust emissions; and
 Grading dust emissions.

9.3.1.3.3 Air Dispersion Modelling Results – Operation Phase

Results of the air dispersion modelling show that during operation phase, air contaminants are expected to meet Ontario and Canada standards at sensitive locations. There is one exception for inhalable particulate matter (PM10) concentrations at one culturally sensitive area and one future residential plot located close to the proposed road (refer to Table 9-46).

Table 9-22 and Table 9-23 summarize air dispersion modelling results for the operation phase for contaminants identified as indicators of the air quality effects assessment in comparison to applicable AAQC and CAAQS. The tables present the maximum concentration calculated in air (or on ground for dustfall) anywhere along the WSR at 50 m on either side of the road centerline (RCL) based on the 5-year meteorological dataset and without consideration of the emission control measures.
Table 9-24 presents the results when integrating the control measures which applies to particulate matter and dustfall only. This table also presents the results for the Project’s contribution alone and with the background concentrations presented in Section 9.2.2.1. Concentrations that are greater than the corresponding AAQC or CAAQS are denoted in bold.
The results presented in Table 9-25 focus on maximum concentrations calculated at sensitive receptors for contaminants which are meaningfully impacted by the Project according to Table 9-22, Table 9-23, and Table 9-24 (>5% of applicable standard at 50 m of the RCL). Given the large number of sensitive receptors, only the ones which are closest to the RCL are presented in Table 9-25. It includes existing residences, institutional buildings, culturally sensitive areas, and future residence plots. The results for the other receptors which are lower than the ones presented in Table 9-25 are available in Appendix B within the Air Quality Impact Assessment Report (Appendix G) for reference.
The following subsections discuss the results presented in Tables 9-22 to 9-25. Common Air Contaminants
Daily vehicular traffic and maintenance grading activities on the road will generate dust emissions mostly from the road surface. Maximum expected daily traffic on the road (less than 500 vehicles), may lead to TSP and PM10 concentrations based on 24-hour average that would exceed the applicable AAQC if no dust control measures are in place (Table 9-22). The maintenance crew will have a water-spraying truck readily available to be used when needed, especially during dry summer months. Emissions of TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 in air comes almost exclusively from road dust emissions and less from exhaust gases (representing <1% of particulates in this scenario).

When considering a low 30% control factor on emission rates during dry summer months (for details on emission rate calculations, refer to Section 4.2 within Appendix G – Air Quality Impact Assessment Report), the maximum TSP concentration would decrease enough to fall below the corresponding AAQC at 50 m distance from the RCL and beyond. The PM10 (24-hour) AAQC could still be exceeded by 39% (Table 9-24), although there remains a margin to improve the control level by increasing the number of passages during days with high dust uplift and dispersion potential that would most likely mitigate such exceedances. With respect to sensitive receptors, PM10 concentrations calculated in air do-not-exceed the AAQC. In fact, there are no exceedances noted at these receptors for all CACs. The road traffic is not expected to increase gaseous CACs (NO2, SO2, and CO including PM2.5) concentrations higher than 5% of the corresponding AAQC or CAAQS at 50 m distance from the RCL. This percentage is obviously lower at greater distances where sensitive receptors are located at different distances. When adding background concentrations, the results remained below air quality standards.
Toxic Contaminants
Based on maximum expected traffic, concentrations of VOCs at 50 m distance from the RCL will remain very low (<1% of the applicable AAQC) and are therefore not a concern for sensitive receptors with regard to air quality (Table 9-23). No exceedances were calculated with or without background concentration at existing residences,
institutional buildings, culturally sensitive areas, and future residence plots except for benzo(a)pyrene which background concentration already represents 100% of the AAQC (Table 9-24). However, this background concentration was inferred from a monitoring station in Simcoe, Ontario, which is not located in a remote area such as Webequie but is considered the most representative from all available data located in a non-urban setting that are not impacted by any significant emission sources nearby. Webequie has however a much smaller population than Simcoe, and there is little
(e.g., temporary or short-term land-use for traditional activities) or no human interaction along the WSR route, and potential emission sources are more limited. As such, the average B[a]P concentrations are expected to be significantly lower than those observed in Simcoe and thus, the background concentration may be over-estimated. However, exceedances may be still possible in areas during winter with wood burning from remote communities in the region and meteorological conditions offering poor dispersion, or in the event of wildfires.
Ground-Level Ozone
The vehicles will not emit O3 but could still have the potential to add ground-level O3 in air given that NOx and VOCs, which are the precursors to O3 along with sunlight, will be emitted. CAAQS and AAQC exists for O3 (60 ppb (8-hour average) and 80 ppb (1-hour average), respectively) and therefore, the potential for O3 formation due to the Project was examined. The Table 7-13 in the NEEC Report (Appendix F) established the background O3 concentration at 28 ppb.
According to the Empirical Kinetic Modelling Approach of the US EPA (1983), O3 formation depends greatly on the relative concentration of the VOCs (as carbon content; in ppmC) and NOx (NO + NO2 in ppm) in air. It suggests that, in the absence of large transport of O3 in the region, the VOC/NOx concentration ratio of about 8:1 would be optimal for generating O3 in air. A ratio that is much lower or much higher than this value should not generate O3, or at least in non-negligible amount (also known as VOC-limited and NOx-limited formation). When considering the total hydrocarbons (which is a surrogate to VOC) and NOx emission rates from vehicles on the road, a VOC/NOx ratio of
0.065 is obtained.
In a remote area where the proposed WSR is located, the background NOx and VOC concentrations in air are already low and not favourable to O3 formation. For example, as noted in Section 9.2.2.1, the background concentration for NO2 was established at 12 ppb (0.012 ppm). When adding all studied VOCs, the background concentration is less than 7 ppbC, although it could be higher since not all potential VOCs in air were studied. Collectively, it is predicted that vehicular traffic will not create conditions that would increase the ground-level O3 concentration in ambient air.

Dust Deposition

Indigenous community members would like to know if fugitive dust from vehicle traffic on the road will be quantified (estimate of tons of dust per year) and considered as a main contributor to contaminant emissions.

A maximum dust deposition value of 8.4 g/m2 over 30-days (including background dust deposition) was calculated at 50 m of the RCL (correspond to 120% of the AAQC) without the dust control measure (water trucks). Given the depletion effect, dust surficial concentration decreases systematically outside 50 m reaching at maximum, 2.7 g/m2 at 150 m distance for example.
With the control measure in place, the results show a slightly improved maximum dust deposition value of 6.0 g/m2 over 30-days (including background dust deposition) at 50 m of the RCL (correspond to 85% of the AAQC). Maximum calculated dustfall concentrations at existing residences, institutional buildings, culturally sensitive areas, and future residences plots are 0.50, 0.48, 3.8 and 4.0 g/m2 over 30-days of deposition, respectively which are lower than the criteria of 7.0 g/m2 representing the accepted threshold in Ontario for soil and vegetation.

9.3.1.3.4 Eastern Section of the WSR
As described in Section 9.3.1.1.2, the modelling domain is restricted to the western section of the WSR covering 42 km of the 107 km road. The focus of the assessment and modelling on this area was due to the proximity of Webequie and the fact that a majority of culturally sensitive areas and land uses (including fishing areas, country-food) are located in this portion of the study area for the Project.
For the eastern section of the WSR, a culturally sensitive area is located in the eastern side (at about chain 70-71 km from Webequie) corresponding to a hunting area at 1,000 m from the WSR at its closest location. Given that maximum concentrations calculated in air do-not-exceed the corresponding standard at any of the sensitive receptors, it is safe to assume the same conclusion for this receptor (except for B[a]P (annual) for the reasons explained above). In fact, given the absence of collector or distributor roads along the WSR (except for the future proposed Northern Road Link to the south that will link the WSR at its eastern terminus), the same traffic load is to be expected during an hour, day, or a year whether on the western or eastern section of the road. The impact of road dust and vehicular emissions are therefore expected to be of similar for the eastern and western section albeit minor differences due to road alignment and local topography.

Table 9-22: Maximum Concentrations for CACs Calculated in Air During the Operation Phase (without dust control)

Notes:
AAQC = Ontario Ambient Air Quality Criteria CAAQS = Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards
Concentrations that are greater than the corresponding AAQC or CAAQS are denoted in bold.
(1) Maximum concentration calculated at 50 m from the road centerline.
(2) Background concentrations as established in Section 9.2.2.1.
(3) The results represent the 1st highest 1-hour concentration and not the 88th highest 1-hour concentration as required from the CAAQS.

Table 9-23: Maximum Concentrations for Other Contaminants Calculated in Air During the Operation Phase (without dust control)

Notes:
AAQC = Ontario Ambient Air Quality Criteria CAAQS = Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards
Concentrations that are greater than the corresponding AAQC or CAAQS are denoted in bold.
(1) Maximum concentration calculated at 50 m from the road centerline.
(2) Background concentrations as established in Section 9.2.2.1.

Table 9-24: Maximum Concentrations of Certain Contaminants Calculated in Air During the Operation Phase (with dust control)

Notes:
AAQC = Ontario Ambient Air Quality Criteria CAAQS = Canadian Air Quality Standards
(1) Maximum concentration calculated at 50 m from the road centerline.
(2) Background concentrations as established in Section 9.2.2.1.

Table 9-25: Maximum Concentration for Contaminants Calculated in Air in Areas of Interest During the Operation Phase (with dust control)

Notes:
AAQC = Ontario Ambient Air Quality Criteria CAAQS = Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards
Concentrations that are greater than the corresponding AAQC or CAAQS are denoted in bold.
(1) Closest receptor of this category from the road centerline (RCL) at 1,350 m. Results for other receptors located further away are in Appendix B
within the Air Quality Impact Assessment Report (Appendix G).
(2) Closest receptor of this category from the RCL at 1,800 m. Results for other receptors located further away are in Appendix B within the Air Quality Impact Assessment Report (Appendix G).
(3) Only the results for culturally sensitive receptors located within 400 m of the RCL are presented. Results for other receptors located further away are in Appendix B within the Air Quality Impact Assessment Report (Appendix G).
(4) Only the results for the receptors closest to the RCL for each future residence areas are provided.

9.3.2 Change in GHGs
The GHG emission sources associated with the Project come essentially from the combustion of diesel fuel or gasoline from land mobile equipment, heavy-duty trucks and light-duty vehicles during the construction and operation phases of the WSR. As noted in Section 9.1.6, emissions of GHGs are generated by most project activities, and may result in a change in atmospheric GHGs. The pathways in which GHG emissions may occur are illustrated as follows:
 Use of vehicles, machinery, and equipment for construction of the proposed road → Fuel combustion →
Release of GHGs during construction phase
 Vegetation clearing activities → Removal of biomass/carbon stock → Release of GHGs during construction phase
 Vehicle use of the proposed road once constructed and use of vehicles, machinery, and equipment for road maintenance → Fuel combustion → Release of GHGs during operation phase
 Peatland ecosystem alteration during construction → Net variation of sequestered CO2 and naturally- occurring CO2 and CH4 → Variation of GHGs during operation phase
Estimated GHG emissions from the Project were compared to provincial and national GHG emissions since global GHG emissions are aggregated from inventories that fall under these jurisdictions.

Representatives of Indigenous communities raised a concern about the lack of the instructions to assess a project’s impact – positive and negative – on carbon sinks, especially given the value of the peatlands in the region for carbon storage.
Following the technical guide related to the Strategic Assessment for Climate Change (ECCC, 2021a), GHG emissions, including disturbed carbon sinks associated with biomass clearing (during construction) and land- use change emissions (during operations), have been estimated for the Project based on current preliminary engineering design and carbon stock estimates relevant to the general project area (refer to Section 9.3.2.1, Section 9.3.2.2, and Sections 3 and 4 within Appendix H – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report).

9.3.2.1 Construction Phase
9.3.2.1.1 GHG Emission Sources During Construction Phase
The assessment covered direct GHG emission sources occurring on-site during the construction phase for the WSR including the aggregate pits and the access road. The assessment includes emissions related to fuel combustion but also from the removal of carbon stock from vegetation clearing activities.
The estimation of GHG emissions during the construction phase will include a period of five years and will include the mobilization/demobilization of workers to Webequie and their daily commute from the construction camps to the work area. The mobilization of construction equipment and consumables and demobilization of equipment and disposable materials at the end of the construction phase is also accounted for in this estimation. For the purpose of this estimation, mobilization and demobilization include travelling from the last point of departure or first point of arrival.
For the construction phase, the GHG emissions from the following sources/activities were estimated for a period of five years:
 Mobile land equipment including excavators, bulldozers, graders, rubber tire loaders, cranes, compactors, forklifts, and off-road service trucks not used for transportation purpose;
 Stationary fuel combustion equipment namely all internal combustion engines used to operate the generator sets, the crushing and screening plant, the concrete batching plant, the tower lights, and the water pumps. Heating systems used during winter are included in this category;
 Crew vehicles used to transport workers, mainly from construction camps to their work area;
 Heavy-duty transport trucks used to haul materials on-site including filling materials and aggregates from quarries to site. Geotextile and geogrids transportation to location are included in this category;
 Land mobilization and demobilization including the shipment of equipment and consumables via a winter road linking Pickle Lake to Webequie;
 Air travel for mobilizing and demobilizing workers living outside the Webequie community. A helicopter will be used to transport camp supplies and personnel to and from Webequie during summer. It will also be used to support the movement of personnel and material to the area where the WC-26 bridge crossing of the Muketei River will be constructed; and
 Carbon stock removal from living biomass (trees, shrubs) and the management of DOM. It also includes related CH4 and N2O from the controlled burning of these biogenic material.

9.3.2.1.2 GHG Emissions Calculations for the Construction Phase
Section 3.1 in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report (Appendix H) provides details about the methods, inputs, and assumptions considered for the calculation of annual emissions of GHGs for the construction phase. Based on their different emission factors as summarized in Section 9.1.4.2.2, GHG emissions from the construction equipment and activities listed in Section 9.3.2.1.1 were estimated using different calculation methods (refer to Section 3.1 in Appendix H – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report).

9.3.2.1.3 GHG Emissions Results for the Construction Phase
Table 9-26 summarizes the GHG emissions expected during the construction phase subdivided amongst the planned five years of activities according to the method detailed in Section 3 in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report (Appendix H). The total GHG emissions (CO2, CH4 and N2O) presented in CO2-equivalent (CO2e) are provided, as well as the biogenic CO2 emissions, presented separately, linked to either the combustion of biofuel (ethanol, biodiesel) in fuel stocks but most importantly from biomass (living and dead) clearing and burning. The total emissions per gas are also available in Appendix A within the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report (Appendix H).
A total of 52,493 t CO2e was calculated with the second year showing the highest emissions (15,605 t CO2/a) with about 80% coming from on-site fossil-fuel combustion (mobile, stationary, and trucking) and most of the remaining 20% coming from the burning of biomass and DOM generating CH4 and N2O. Overall, the GHG emissions are expected to come from, in order of importance: land mobile equipment (38%), heavy-duty trucks (33%), DOM combustion (12%), and others (17%).
A total of 57,602 tonnes of biogenic CO2 is also expected coming mostly from the carbon stock in biomass (living and dead) that will be removed from site mainly by combustion but also in part from salvaged timber (wood logs) that may be provided for use by Webequie community members. From this total, 33% would come from the removal of living vegetation during clearing activities, 13% from dead trees, but most importantly 51% from litter as natural boreal forests with conifers tend to accumulate a lot of such material (needles, decomposing wood, foliage, etc.). This assessment considers that all litter/low-lying brush will be piled and burned although there will be some litter that will remain to decompose on-site, the extent of which is difficult to determine.
A discussion on the GHG emissions estimated for the construction phase of the Project with respect to the provincial and national emissions is provided in Section 9.5.2.2.

Table 9-26: GHG Emissions per Source and Year of Realization for the Construction Phase

Notes:
(1) Includes the combined emissions of fossil-related CO2, CH4 and N2O. Individual gas emissions are available in Appendix A within the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report (Appendix H).

9.3.2.2 Operation Phase

9.3.2.2.1 GHG Emission Sources During Operation Phase
For the operation phase, the GHG emissions from following sources were estimated on an annual basis:
 Private / commercial and heavy-duty vehicles travelling on the road on a daily basis;
 Road maintenance equipment (mobile, truck);
 Generator sets used at the aggregate pit (ARA-4) and the MSF for power supply; and
 Net GHG emissions changes from mineral soil and peatland due to disturbances caused by the Project.

9.3.2.2.2 GHG Emissions Calculations for the Operation Phase
Section 3.2 in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report (Appendix H) provides details about the methods, inputs, and assumptions considered for the calculation of annual emissions of GHGs for the operation phase. Based on their different emission factors as summarized in Section 9.1.4.2.2, GHG emissions from the following types of operation activities were estimated using different calculation methods (refer to Section 3.2 in Appendix H – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report):
 Vehicular traffic;
 Road maintenance equipment; and
 Land-use change emissions.

9.3.2.2.3 GHG Emissions Results for the Operation Phase
Table 9-27 summarizes the annual GHG emissions for the operation phase which amount to 8,927 t CO2e/a with 51% coming from projected road traffic. The power diesel generator set at the new MSF is the second largest source representing 43% of the total according to the assessment. On the other hand, the net GHG emissions due to land-use changes reach 1,875 t CO2e per year combining the net CH4 and CO2 emissions from disturbed soil, the loss of living biomass and peatlands backfilling. The oxidation of carbon from disturbed soil into CO2 is the main source.
A discussion on the GHG emissions estimated for the operation phase of the Project with respect to the provincial and national emissions is provided in Section 9.5.2.2.

Table 9-27: Annual GHG Emissions per Source for the Operation Phase

Notes:
(1) Includes the combined emissions of fossil-related CO2, CH4 and N2O. Individual gas emissions are available in Appendix A within the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report (Appendix H).

9.3.3 Change in Sound Levels
The project construction and operation activities that involve blasting and use of vehicle, machinery and equipment will increase noise. The pathways in which such changes may occur are illustrated as follows:
 Blasting activities → Increased noise during the construction and operation phases
 Use of vehicles, machinery, and equipment at aggregate extraction sites → Increased noise during construction and operation phases
 Use of vehicles, machinery and, equipment for construction of the proposed roadway and waterbody crossings → Increased noise during the construction phase
 Traffic noise from vehicle use of the proposed road once constructed → Increased noise during the
operation phase
Potential effects of noise (i.e., ‘sensory disturbance’) on wildlife and the use of recreational and traditional land and resource use are discussed in Section 12 (Assessment of Effects on Terrestrial Habitat and Wildlife), Section 13 (Assessment of Effects on Species at Risk), Section 16 (Non-Traditional Land and Resource Use), and Section 19 (Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Interests). Sensory disturbance from changes in noise and vibration levels has the potential to affect human health which is assessed in Section 17 (Assessment of Effects on Human Health).
The following subsections include assessments of noise effects due to blasting and use of vehicle, machinery and equipment during construction and operation phases on noise sensitive areas (“NSAs”) applicable to the Project.

Indigenous community members prefer to harvest in areas where it is quiet. Increased noise in harvesting areas may increase physical disturbance and impact harvesting activities.
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 noise and vibration from the Project.

In establishing the potential operational and construction noise impacts of a project such as the WSR, comparisons are made of the following:
 Noise from construction and operations of the roadway, versus various applicable guidelines; and
 The change from existing conditions, which results from the construction and operations of the Project.
9.3.3.1 Increased Noise During Construction Phase
9.3.3.1.1 Construction Noise Effects – Blasting
Blasting of rocks with explosives is required to create desired road profiles and to extract rocks and granular for construction and maintenance/operations of the WSR. Blasting of rock is expected to be limited to ARA-2 for extraction and processing rock and aggregate and one small rock outcrop along the preliminary recommended preferred route for the WSR. Based on the relatively low volumes of rock needed for the Project, blasting of rock requiring the use of explosives during construction and operation activities is expected to occur on an infrequent basis when aggregate and/or rock materials are required for construction and maintenance activities. Exact locations and the blast designs for the Project’s blasting activities are currently unknown. Noise generated by blasting is expected to be temporary and the potential effects will be centered around blasting locations. To address the potential noise effects from blasting, it is proposed that a Construction Blasting Management Plan for the Project will be prepared by applicable contractor(s) prior to initiation of blasting activities. The plan will include a requirement for controlling peak overpressure sound levels to meet the blasting noise guidelines and criteria outlined in Table 9-28 and Table 9-29.

Table 9-28: Construction Phase Blasting Noise Guidelines

Table 9-29: Construction Phase Overpressure Sound Level Limits
Criteria Medium Limit

9.3.3.1.2 Construction Noise Effects – Aggregate Extraction Sites
Construction of the WSR will require aggregates, which will be obtained from two aggregate extraction sites, located along the WSR route (referred to as aggregate resource areas ARA-2 and ARA-4). Locations of ARA-2 and ARA-4 are shown in Figure 9.3. ARA-2 will be fully used for construction of the Project over a five to six year period, and the site will be progressively rehabilitated (restored to its previous condition) during the construction phase. ARA-4 will be developed to provide material for construction of the road and will also serve as a source of aggregate to maintain and operate the road on an annual basis for the assumed 75-year operation and maintenance life cycle period for the Project.
Noise modelling was conducted by SLR Consulting Ltd. to predict sound levels from the aggregate extraction sites, in accordance with the requirements of MECP Publication NPC-300 Stationary Source Noise Guidelines. Predicted sound levels were modelled at the closest NSAs to ARA-2 and ARA-4. Where there were no noise sensitive receptors within
1.5 km of the boundary of the aggregate resource areas, the point of reception used in the assessment was a 1.5 km radius from ARA-2 or ARA-4 as per AER Directive 038/Health Canada Guidelines2. The following subsections summarize the guideline requirements and modelling results. Details of the noise modelling are provided in Appendix J – Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report.
MECP Publication NPC-300 Stationary Source Noise Guidelines
Noise from the aggregate extraction sites were modelled as a “stationary” sources of sound, in accordance with the requirements of MECP Publication NPC-300. The guideline sets out sound level limits for two main types of noise sources:
 Non-impulsive, “continuous” noise sources such as ventilation fans, mechanical equipment, and vehicles while moving within the property boundary of an industry. Continuous noise is measured using 1-hour average sound exposures (Leq (1-hr) values), in dBA; and
 Impulsive noise, which is a “banging” type noise characterized by rapid rise time and decay. Impulsive noise is measured using a logarithmic mean (average) level (LLM) of the impulses in a one-hour period, in dBAI.

2 From Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) Directive 038: Noise Control, which is referenced in the Health Canada Guidelines.

Furthermore, the guideline requires an assessment, and provides separate guideline limits for:

 Outdoor points of reception (e.g., back yards, communal outdoor amenity areas); and
 Façade points of reception such as the plane of windows on the outdoor façade which connect onto noise sensitive spaces, such as living rooms, dens, eat-in kitchens, dining rooms and bedrooms.
The applicable sound level limits at a point of reception are the higher of:
 The existing background ambient sound levels, or
 The exclusion limits set out in the guideline.
The guidelines define four area classifications dependent on the proximity to roads/rail-lines, nature of land uses and activities in the area. The four classifications are as follows:
 Class 1 means an area with an acoustical environment typical of a major population centre, where the background sound level is dominated by the activities of people, usually road traffic, often referred to as “urban hum.”
 Class 2 means an area with an acoustical environment that has qualities representative of both Class 1 and Class 3 areas:
 sound levels characteristic of Class 1 during daytime (07:00 to 19:00 or to 23:00 hours); and;
 low evening and night background sound level defined by natural environment and infrequent human activity starting as early as 19:00 hours (19:00 or 23:00 to 07:00 hours).
 Class 3 means an area which can be described as “a rural area with an acoustical environment that is dominated by natural sounds having little or no road traffic.”
 Class 4 means an area or specific site that would otherwise be defined as Class 1 or 2 and which:
 is an area intended for development with new noise sensitive land-use(s) that are not yet built;
 is in proximity to existing, lawfully established stationary source(s); and
 has formal confirmation from the land-use planning authority (e.g., Webequie Community Based Land-Use Plan) with the Class 4 area classification which is determined during the land-use planning process.
Additionally, areas with existing noise sensitive land-use(s) cannot be classified as Class 4 areas.
The noise study area for the Project is considered a rural area and is defined as Class 3. Table 9-30 outlines the exclusion limits set out in the guidelines for Class 3.
Table 9-30: MECP Publication NPC-300 Exclusion Limits for Class 3 Rural Areas

Noise Impact Modelling Methods – Aggregate Extraction Site Operations

Operations at the aggregate extraction sites were modelled using Cadna/A, a computerized version of the internationally recognized ISO 9613-2 noise propagation algorithms. This is the preferred noise modelling methodology of the MECP. Detailed descriptions of the inputs and assumptions for the model parameters are included in Appendix 10 – Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report.
The aggregate extraction sites are assumed to be in operation during the daytime between 7 am and 7 pm. To represent a worst-case simulation of the noise emissions, the crusher/screener, stackers, and front-end loaders were assumed to be in operation continuously throughout the daytime. A total of ten (10) heavy shipping trucks were assumed to enter and exit the aggregate extraction sites during each hour.
Assumed Noise Sources
The detailed design of the aggregate extraction sites has not progressed to the point where actual equipment selections have been made. Based on the information provided in the Planning & Construction Input for Road & Supportive Infrastructure report completed by Sigfusson Northern Ltd. (2023) for the Project, assumptions have been made for equipment used at each site.
The following key noise sources are assumed:
 One (1) primary crusher with associated screener;
 Six (6) stackers;
 Three (3) front-end loaders;
 Movement of material through conveyors; and
 Movement of heavy trucks throughout the aggregate extraction sites carrying material.

The assumed locations of the key noise sources at the aggregate extraction sites ARA-2 and ARA-4 for the Noise Impact Modelling are shown in Figure 9.9 and Figure 9.10 (same as Figure N4 and Figure N5 in Appendix J – Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report), respectively. The sound levels for the noise sources listed above were assumed based on SLR Consulting Ltd.’s in-house database for similar types of equipment. The data used in the Noise Impact Modelling are provided in Appendix N5 of the Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report (Appendix J of this EAR/IS).

Noise Impact Modelling Results – Aggregate Extraction Site Operations

The predicted sound levels at each receptor are summarized in Table 9-31 for continuous noise from the aggregate extraction sites ARA-2 and ARA-4. The Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report (Appendix J) includes more details of the results from the Noise Impact Modelling such as predicted sound level contours and a sample modelling output file for the noise sensitive area C06 (Construction Camp 2A).
Table 9-31: Predicted Stationary Sound Levels – Aggregate Extraction Site Operations

As noted in Table 9-31, the predicted sound levels exceed NPC-300 guideline limits at Construction Camp 2A located near ARA-2, by a maximum of 4 dB. Given workers will be in the field during the daytime, the exceedances are minor and considered negligible. The overall sound levels are not excessive and would meet the NPC-300 guideline limits in a suburban or semi-rural area (50 dBA). Noise mitigation beyond best management practices for construction is not warranted.

9.3.3.1.3 Construction Noise Effects – General Construction Activities

Results of the Noise Impact Modelling indicate that the most affected noise sensitive locations are found within 150 m of the proposed roadway, or 300 m of a waterbody crossing (involving pile driving/bridge construction). Noise impacts from roadway construction are only expected to affect identified noise sensitive locations for approximately one week based on an approximate 100 m/day rate of construction.

As construction of the roadway proceeds along the route, there will be a number of different activities taking place, including clearing of vegetation, removal of overburden, compaction of subgrades, addition and compaction of base course and final courses of aggregate, and construction of bridges for waterbody crossings.
Noise modelling was conducted by SLR Consulting Ltd. to predict sound levels from roadway construction and bridge construction. The following subsections summarize the applicable guidelines and modelling results. Details of the noise modelling are provided in Appendix J – Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report.

Applicable Guidelines
Table 9-32 outlines noise guidelines that have been considered in the assessment of construction noise impacts. The following subsections provide an overview of the criteria and limits set out by these guidelines.
Table 9-32: Construction Phase Noise Guidelines

Health Canada Noise Guidelines
Health Canada considers two separate scenarios for evaluating construction noise, based on predicted LD and LN sound levels.
Short-Term Construction Noise (Less than 1 Year)
Health Canada suggests that for construction activities lasting less than a year, the construction noise assessment should follow approaches recommended by the U.S. EPA document Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (1974). This technique is based on estimating a Mitigation Noise Level (MNL) based on community type and baseline sound level. Correction factors are then applied based on the type of construction, duration, etc.
For rural environments, Health Canada recommends using a base MNL of 47 dBA. Table 9-33 describes correction factors considered for short-term construction noise.

Table 9-33: Construction Mitigation Noise Level (MNL) Corrections

Long-Term Construction Noise (More than 1 Year)
Health Canada suggests that for construction activities longer than 1 year, mitigation be implemented when sound levels during long-term construction result in a greater than 6.5% increase in %HA. Community consultation is recommended if sound levels continue to exceed a 6.5% increase in %HA (Percent Highly Annoyed) even with mitigation installed.
MECP Publication NPC-115 and NPC-118 Construction Equipment Noise Emission Limits
MECP stipulates limits on noise emissions from individual items of equipment, rather than for overall construction noise. In the presence of persistent noise complaints, sound emission standards for the various types of construction equipment used on the project should be checked to ensure that they meet the specified limits contained in
MECP Publication NPC-115 – Construction Equipment, and MECP Publication NPC-118 – Motorized Conveyances.

Table 9-34 summarizes maximum noise emission levels for typical construction equipment as specified in MECP Publication NPC-115 and NPC-118.

Table 9-34: Construction Equipment

Notes:
1 Maximum permissible sound levels presented here are for equipment manufactured after Jan. 1981.
2 Excavation equipment includes bulldozers, backhoes, front-end loaders, graders, excavators, steam rollers and other equipment capable of being used for similar applications.
3 Pneumatic equipment includes pavement breakers.

Noise Impact Modelling Methods – General Construction Activities (Roadway and Bridge Construction)
Noise generated by construction activities were modelled using Cadna/A, a computerized version of the internationally recognized ISO 9613-2 noise propagation algorithms. This is the preferred noise modelling methodology of the MECP. Detailed descriptions of the inputs and assumptions for the model parameters are included in Appendix J – Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report.
Assumed Noise Sources
Based on the information provided in the Planning & Construction Input for Road & Supportive Infrastructure report completed by Sigfusson Northern Ltd. (2023), assumptions have been made for equipment used for the construction of the WSR and associated waterbody crossings. Road construction equipment and activities are expected to consist of the following:
 Roadway Construction
 Removal of Overburden

• Excavator: one unit on a single day, assumed to operate 40% of the daytime;
• Haul Trucks: up to 3 units on a single day, assumed to operate 100% of the daytime;
• Dozer: one unit on a single day, assumed to operate 40% of the daytime; and
• Scraper: one unit on a single day, assumed to operate 40% of the daytime.
   Compaction of Subgrade
• Compactor: up to 2 units on a single day, assumed to operate 20% of the daytime.
   Base Course
• Front-end loaders: up to 2 units on a single day, assumed to operate 40% of the daytime;
• Dozer: one unit on a single day, assumed to operate 40% of the daytime; and
• Haul trucks: up to 4 units on a single day, assumed to operate 100% of the daytime.
   Compaction of Base Course
• Compactor: one unit on a single day, assumed to operate 20% of the daytime; and
• Grader: one unit on a single day, assumed to operate 40% of the daytime.

 Surface Course

• Backhoe: up to 2 units on a single day, assumed to operate 40% of the daytime;
• Haul Trucks: up to 3 units on a single day, assumed to operate 100% of the daytime; and
• Roller: one unit on a single day, assumed to operate 20% of the daytime.
   Bridge Construction
   Construction of Embankments
• Backhoe: one unit on a single day, assumed to operate 40% of the daytime;
• Haul Trucks: up to 3 units on a single day, assumed to operate 100% of the daytime;
• Excavator: one unit on a single day, assumed to operate 40% of the daytime;
• Dozer: one unit on a single day, assumed to operate 40% of the daytime;
• Scraper: one unit on a single day, assumed to operate 40% of the daytime; and
• Compactor: one unit on a single day, assumed to operate 20% of the daytime.
   Construction of Bridge
• Backhoe: one unit on a single day, assumed to operate 40% of the daytime;
• Man Lift: one unit on a single day, assumed to operate 20% of the daytime;
• Haul Trucks: up to 3 units on a single day, assumed to operate 100% of the daytime;
• Impact Pile Driver: one unit on a single day, assumed to operate 20% of the daytime; and
• Crane: one unit on a single day, assumed to operate 16% of the daytime.
  The Noise Impact Modelling predicted sound levels at the surrounding NSAs for construction related noise from bridge construction activities at waterbody crossings: WB-1 at Winisk Lake (Six Span Composite Steel Bridge), WC-3 at Winiskisis Channel (Twin-Span Steel Bridge), and WC-13 at a tributary of the Ekwan River (Single Span Composite Steel Bridge) of the WSR. These two bridge locations were selected as the locations within 1.5 km of an NSA as per AER Directive 038/Health Canada Guidelines.
  Noise Impact Modelling Results – Predicted Stationary Sound Levels for Roadway Construction
  The assessment of short-term community annoyance is based on the MNL. An investigation into noise mitigation is warranted if the LDN predicted is above 47 dBA. The highest predicted sound levels at the culturally sensitive areas CHLs 5, 7, 17, and 25 are between 49 and 57 dBA, exceeding the MNL threshold of 47 dBA (LDN). The predicted sound levels at the surrounding NSAs from the construction of the WSR are provided in Table 17 in the Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report (Appendix J). The most affected NSAs are found within 150 m of the roadway. There are no exceedances predicted for the existing permanent residences within the Webequie community.
  Noise impacts from roadway construction are only expected to affect noise sensitive receptors for approximately one week based on an approximate 100 m/day rate of construction. As such, noise mitigation beyond best management practices for construction is not warranted.
  Noise Impact Modelling Results – Predicted Stationary Sound Levels for Bridge Construction
  The assessment of short-term community annoyance is based on MNL. An investigation into noise mitigation is warranted if the LDN predicted is above 47 dBA. The predicted sound levels at the surrounding NSAs for construction related noise from bridge construction activities at representative waterbody crossings are provided in Table 18 in the Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report (Appendix J).

Noise impacts from the bridge construction are expected to exceed the 47 dBA threshold at the culturally sensitive area CHL-7 and Construction Camp 1A site C05. The sound levels are moderate (53 dBA and 48 dBA respectively). The most affected NSAs are found within 300 m of a waterbody crossing (involving pile driving/bridge construction). There are no exceedances predicted for the existing permanent residences within the Webequie community. As such, noise mitigation beyond best management practices for construction is not warranted.

9.3.3.2 Increased Noise During Operation Phase
For transportation projects, operational noise is of primary importance. This section provides an analysis of operational noise impacts from road traffic noise related to the Project. It is expected that infrequent blasting at aggregate extraction site ARA-4 may be required to maintain stockpiles of rock for road maintenance and repairs; however, this would not be considered a routine activity associated with the operations and maintenance phase. Regardless, blasting mitigation presented for application during the construction phase would also apply to the blasting activities during the operation and maintenance phase.

9.3.3.2.1 Applicable Noise Guidelines
There are a number of applicable noise guidelines addressing the potential for environmental noise and vibration impacts from the Project. The guidelines which have been considered for operational noise in this assessment are outlined in Table 9-35 and described in the following subsections.

Table 9-35: Operations Phase Noise Guidelines

MTO Environmental Guide for Noise and MECP/MTO Joint Protocol
Ontario has two guidelines and documents related to assessing road traffic noise impacts. These documents and policies include:
 The MTO Environmental Guide for Noise; and
 The MECP/MTO Joint Protocol.

The MTO Environmental Guide for Noise is used for provincially owned and operated facilities and is the most extensive and up-to-date, while the older Joint Protocol is mainly used for smaller municipal projects. Under these guidelines, the importance of changes from a noise impact perspective is based on the objective level and change from existing conditions. Cumulative sound levels are assessed. The MTO Environmental Guide for Noise is based on:
 The change from existing “no-build” background sound levels, and the “future build” sound levels with the project in place (background sound levels plus project sound levels 3); as well the Provincial Objective for outdoor sound levels of 55 dBA. Changes greater than 5 dBA require an investigation of noise mitigation.
 The maximum “future build” sound levels. Sound levels in excess of 65 dBA require an investigation of noise mitigation.
Table 9-36 summarizes the requirements for investigation of noise mitigation measures.

Table 9-36: MTO Environmental Guide for Noise

Health Canada Noise Guidelines

Health Canada’s Noise Guidelines for operational noise are based on three main parameters:
 The change in “Percent Highly Annoyed” (%HA) due to project operations. This is calculated based on the change from existing “no-build” background sound levels, and the “future build” sound levels with the project in place (background sound levels plus project sound levels).
 Indoor night-time average sound levels should not exceed 30 dBA (10 pm to 7 am); and
 Maximum indoor sound levels from individual events should not exceed 45 dBA and the number of events occurring during the overnight period should not exceed 10 to 15 events (10 pm to 7 am).
Health Canada assesses annoyance based on the concept of Percent Highly Annoyed (%HA), which is an aggregate measure of community annoyance, based on sound levels received, the types of noise, and other aggregating factors. The calculated %HA provides information on how an average community responds to a sound level. It is important to emphasize that these annoyance responses are not applicable to a particular individual or group but represent an average community.

3 Project noise will include noise from roadway operations and noise from the aggregate extraction site.

The Health Canada Guidelines use the dose-response relationship between sound levels and annoyance, as per ISO 1996-1:2003, based on measured and/or predicted LDN values, in dBA.
The %HA value for the existing background ambient sound levels (i.e., the “no-build” situation) is calculated, as is the
%HA for cumulative sound level with the Project in operation (the “build” scenario). Health Canada identifies a change in %HA of greater than 6.5% as being indicative of a noise impact. Noise mitigation measures should be investigated in this situation.
Health Canada required that mitigation be investigated for “build scenario” LDN sound levels in excess of 75 dBA, regardless of the change in %HA.
The relationship between noise and %HA is non-linear in nature. At higher sound levels, there can be a substantial increase in the %HA, with relatively small changes in the noise environment; correspondingly, at lower sound levels far greater changes in sound levels may be required to substantially change the estimated %HA. At moderate sound levels, a 6.5% change in %HA corresponds to a 5 dB change, equivalent to the mitigation thresholds in the MTO Environmental Guide for Noise. In situations where greater expectation for, and value placed on, “peace and quiet”, such as in rural areas, Health Canada recommends that a +10 dB adjustment be placed in project sound levels to avoid underpredicting impacts.
In evaluating indoor night-time sound levels, a conservative adjustment of -15 dBA will be applied as appropriate to account for attenuation through open windows in accordance with the Health Canada Guidelines.

9.3.3.2.2 Road Traffic Data
The evaluation of noise impacts is determined by the change in cumulative sound levels from the 2041 “no-build” scenario to the future “build” scenario. Assessments are based on a mature state of development or at the start of construction. Accordingly, a design year of 2041 applies to this Project.
Traffic information for the 2041 “no-build” and “build” scenario for multiple roadways was provided by AtkinsRéalis. The data were further summarized in Table 9-37. Traffic data were provided as Average Annual Daily Traffic, with the percentage of commercial vehicles, day/night traffic split and posted speeds.

Table 9-37: 2041 “Build” Traffic Information at Anticipated Date of Construction

Notes: 1 Daytime/Night-time traffic volume split of 90% daytime (7 am to 11 pm) and 10% night-time was assumed based on traditional day/night breakdown for low-volume Ontario roadways.

9.3.3.2.3 Noise Modelling Methods
Noise modelling was completed to predict noise generated from the operations of the WSR.
Roadway Noise Model
Sound levels from the proposed roadway was predicted using Cadna/A, a noise computer modelling package produced by Datakustik GmbH. Cadna/A includes a computerized implementation of the internationally recognized ISO 9613 noise propagation algorithms, and accounts for:
 Source and receiver geometries and distances;
 Source directivity;

 Screening from terrain and purpose-built noise barriers;
 Attenuation from woods and heavily forested areas;
 Ground attenuation due to soft terrain;
 Atmospheric absorption; and
 Worst-case meteorological conditions.
The WSR traffic near the identified NSAs was modelled as a “moving point source” of sound.4 “Future Build” sound levels (i.e., with the WSR in operation) will be predicted at the NSAs. The following levels will be determined:
 Overall sound levels during the daytime (7 am to 11 pm) and night-time (11 pm to 7 am) periods; and,
 Overall “day-night” sound levels over the entire day (LDN values).
These will be compared to the “no-build” background ambient sound levels previously determined (see Table 9-16), as well as against the corresponding applicable and/or relevant noise guidelines.
The model uses the following vehicle classifications:
 Automobiles – Two axles and four wheels designed primarily for the transportation of nine or fewer passengers, or transportation of cargo (light trucks). This classification includes motorcycles. Generally, the gross vehicle weight is less than 4,500 kilograms.
 Heavy trucks – Three or more axles and designed for the transportation of cargo. Generally, the gross vehicle weight is greater than 12,000 kilograms.
As inputs into the noise model, the noise emission levels of automobiles and heavy trucks travelling over a gravel road were measured to develop a series of maximum pass-by sound levels at a number of different vehicle speeds. As a conservative assumption, the maximum posted speed of 80 km/h was assumed for all locations on the road. The maximum pass-by sound levels measured from the gravel road exceeded those predicted for a standard roadway consisting of stone mastic asphalt or similar pavement types typically used.

9.3.3.2.4 Operational Noise Modelling Results

Results of the Noise Impact Modelling indicate that during operations phase, changes in sound levels resulting from the proposed Project are expected to be negligible for all identified noise sensitive locations.

MECP/MTO Joint Noise Protocol, MTO Environmental Guide for Noise
Table 30 in the Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report (Appendix J) presents a comparison of predicted “no- build” versus future “build” sound levels at NSAs in the noise study area, during the 16-hour daytime period, per the MECP/MTO Joint Protocol and the MTO Environmental Guide for Noise, respectively.
The maximum predicted sound level (Leq – Daytime) is 44 dBA which is equal to the measured background ambient sound level within the Webequie community. For the future residential area, the maximum change in sound level is predicted to be 3 dB. The predicted maximum overall sound level is 47 dBA.

4 Roadway noise models require a minimum traffic volume of 40 vehicles per hour for the roadway to be considered a “line source” of noise, equating to a minimum traffic volume of 960 vehicles per day. That threshold is not met here, making the use of a “moving point source model” the most appropriate method for predicting noise from the new road.

The changes in sound levels predicted at some of the culturally sensitive areas are expected to exceed the 5 dB threshold outlined in the MECP/MTO Joint Noise Protocol. Overall “Build” sound levels are predicted to be less than or equal to 45 dBA which is considered appropriate for a quiet rural environment.
NSAs including CHL-7, CHL-8, CHL-13, CHL-14, CHL-15 CHL-17, and CHL-25 are predicted to exceed the 5 dB change outlined in the MECP/MTO Joint Noise Protocol.
Health Canada Guidelines – Long-term Community Annoyance (%HA)
Table 31 in the Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report (Appendix J) presents a comparison of the background sound levels and the predicted “total operational” sound levels to Health Canada’s Guidelines.
The maximum predicted sound level (LDN) is 54 dBA with a maximum predicted change in %HA (Percent Highly Annoyed) of 4.5%.
For the future residential area in the Webequie community, sound levels will be a maximum of 47 dBA with a maximum change in %HA of 2.3%, which is dependent on the final location of the residences. Locations at this time have been estimated based on information provided by Webequie First Nation.
The maximum change in %HA is 4.5% at CHL-25 (Fishing Area) which is below the 6.5% threshold. The results indicate that the operational noise impacts are not expected to cause long-term community annoyance based on Health Canada Guidelines.

9.3.4 Change in Vibration Levels
Some project construction activities that involve blasting and use of machinery and equipment will cause vibration. The pathways in which such changes may occur are illustrated as follows:
 Blasting activities → Increased vibration during the construction phase
 Use of machinery and equipment for construction of the proposed roadway and waterbody crossings →
Increased vibration during the construction phase
There are no significant sources of vibration associated with the operation phase of the Project. As noted in
Section 9.3.3.2, it is expected that infrequent blasting at aggregate extraction site ARA-4 may be required to maintain stockpiles of rock for road maintenance and repairs; however, this would not be considered a routine activity associated with the operations phase. Regardless, blasting mitigation presented for application during the construction phase would also apply to the blasting activities during the operation and maintenance phase. Vibration effects from the operations phase of the Project are considered negligible, and therefore an assessment of vibrations from operations is not required under the provincial EA ToR or the federal TISG for the IA.
Potential effects of vibration (i.e., ‘sensory disturbance’) on wildlife and the use of recreational and traditional land and resource use are discussed in Section 12 (Assessment of Effects on Terrestrial Habitat and Wildlife), Section 13 (Assessment of Effects on Species at Risk), Section 16 (Non-Traditional Land and Resource Use), and Section 19 (Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Interests). The potential effects of the vibration from blasting on fish due to compressive shock waves generated from blasting are assessed in Section 10 (Assessment of Effects on Fish and Fish Habitat). Sensory disturbance from changes in noise and vibration levels has the potential to affect human health which is assessed in Section 17 (Assessment of Effects on Human Health).
The following subsections include assessments of vibration effects due to blasting and use of machinery and equipment during the construction phase on sensitive receptors which were also referred to as NSAs (see Sections 9.2.1.3.2 and 9.2.2.3.2).

9.3.4.1 Construction Vibration Effects – Blasting
Blasting of rocks with explosives is required to create desired road profiles and to extract rocks and granular for construction and maintenance/operations of the WSR. Blasting of rock is expected to be limited to ARA-2 for extraction and processing rock and aggregate and one small rock outcrop along the preliminary recommended preferred route for the WSR. Based on the relatively low volumes of rock needed for the Project, blasting of rock requiring the use of explosives during construction and operation activities is expected to occur on an infrequent basis when aggregate and/or rock materials are required for construction and maintenance activities. Exact locations and the blast designs for the Project’s blasting activities are currently unknown. Vibration generated by blasting is expected to be temporary and the potential effects will be centered around blasting locations. To address the potential effects of vibration from blasting, it is proposed that a Construction Blasting Management Plan for the Project will be prepared by applicable contractor(s) prior to initiation of blasting activities. The plan will include a requirement for controlling vibration levels to meet the blasting guidelines and criteria outlined in Table 9-38 and Table 9-39. These guidelines are not based on background ambient vibration levels – rather they are from the activity itself, which will dominate over background levels. Vibration levels are controlled through blast design and confirmed through monitoring.

Table 9-38: Construction Phase Vibration Guidelines

Table 9-39: Construction Phase Vibration Limits

9.3.4.2 Construction Vibration Effects – General Construction Activities
As construction proceeds along the WSR route, vibration from construction activity will occur. An assessment has been completed to examine the extent of vibration away from the construction area.
Construction Vibration Guidelines – City of Toronto By-Law 514-2008
While not directly applicable, the City of Toronto By-Law 514-2008 provides useful criteria and assessment methods for examining the potential for vibration effects from construction activity. The by-law specifies “Do-Not-Exceed” threshold limits as listed in Table 9-40 to address structural concerns for nearby/adjacent structures.

Table 9-40: City of Toronto By-Law Vibration Guidelines

Note: 1 While the threshold limit is 8 mm/s for frequencies below 4 Hz, 62.5% of the threshold limit, i.e., 5 mm/s, is given as an appropriate cautionary threshold for most structures and typically serves as the industry best practice for defining the Zone of Influence.

Zone of Influence of Construction Vibration
The City of Toronto By-Law requires determination of a “zone of influence” or ZOI associated with construction activities. Chapter 363 of The City of Toronto Municipal Code defines this as follows:
“The area of land within or adjacent to a construction site, including any buildings or structures, that potentially may be impacted by vibrations emanating from a construction activity where the peak particle velocity measured at the point of reception is equal to or greater than five (5) mm/sec at any frequency or such greater area where specific site conditions are identified by the professional engineer in a preliminary vibration study.”
For this assessment, the model recommended by the Federal Transit Administration in the United States has been applied for prediction of vibration impacts during construction and to establish the extent of the ZOI. The source vibration levels associated with the equipment planned for excavation were specified based on data in the
Federal Transit Administration document, as well as SLR Consulting Ltd.’s own measurement data collected on construction projects.
The ZOI was determined based on a numerical model described in detail in Section 9.2 of the Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report (Appendix J). Estimation of the ZOI was completed for each anticipated equipment type to establish the maximum (worst-case) offset of the ZOI from the extent of the construction activities. A summary of associated ZOI setback distances for each equipment type is provided in Table 9-41.
Table 9-41: Summary of Zone of Influence (ZOI) Setback Distances Associated with Construction Activities

Predicted Construction Vibration Levels
The predicted peak particle velocity vibration levels for the receptors during the roadway and bridge construction activities range from 0.002 to 0.7 mm/s and are less than the 3 mm/s PPV target level criteria as presented in Table 23 (Roadway Construction) and Table 24 (Bridge Construction) in the Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report (Appendix J). Therefore, vibration effects from general construction activities are not anticipated.

Table 9-42: Potential Effects, Pathways and Indicators for Atmospheric Environment VC

9.4 Mitigation Measures
This section describes proposed mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce the potential effects of the Project on the atmospheric environment. A summary of the potential effects, mitigation measures and predicted net effects for Atmospheric Environment VC is provided in Table 9-43. 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 environmental 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 Atmospheric Environment VC.

9.4.1 Air Quality
An Air Quality and Dust Control Management Plan will be developed and implemented during construction that will include typical mitigation measures such as the use of water sprays from trucks to increase moisture levels in active areas during dry days (e.g., haul/access roads, temporary soil and aggregate stockpiles), the use of environmentally certified equipment (e.g. Tier 4 engines), the use of dust suppression systems at quarries, truck speed limitations, vehicle and heavy equipment movement limitations to designated areas, minimizing idling and so forth. As part of the air quality impact assessment, the following quantifiable control measures were integrated into the emission scenario:
 Water-spraying on-road surface mitigating dust uplifting from heavy-duty trucks.
 The use of at least 80% of mobile and stationary equipment having a Tier 4F engine, when the base scenario only considered Tier 3 engines.

To minimize dust pollution, Indigenous community members recommended using tarps to prevent dust from spreading or spraying the roads with a water-based solution to suppress dust.

During operation, while it is not feasible to have a direct control on emissions from vehicle engines, it is possible to work on dust emissions from the road surface. Considering that part of the road will not be fully surfaced with asphalt or chip seal from the start, the maintenance crew will operate a truck that will spray water over the gravel-surface road from May to November, or when needed.

Mushkegowuk Council recommends the proponent prepare an Air Quality and Dustfall Monitoring Plan with dustfall sampling methods and reporting for review by all impacted Indigenous communities through the suggested terrestrial advisory group. Also, provide sampling methodology of air pollutants and compare with existing Nunavut Air Quality standards along with ECCC recommended federal targets.

Section 5.18 – Dust Control Practices in Appendix E (Mitigation Measures) describes key mitigation measures to prevent or limit the potential effect dust generated by project activities on the air quality. The Air Quality and Dust Control Management Plan will integrate a monitoring procedure for dustfall effects and measures to control or limit particulate emissions that would mostly come from the passage of vehicles on the road or the handling of soil or aggregates by mobile equipment during construction.

The Air Quality and Dust Control Management Plan will also include a procedure for documenting compliance with applicable standards and required conditions as stipulated in permits, approvals, licenses and/or authorizations.

9.4.2 GHGs
The GHG emissions were estimated without consideration of mitigation measures that would reduce the overall carbon footprint of the Project. For the construction phase, electrification of mobile equipment, vehicles or trucks will not be possible nor recommended given that electricity would be produced from diesel powered generator sets. Therefore, while assuming that the construction planning from the Planning & Construction Input for Road & Supportive Infrastructure report completed by Sigfusson Northern Ltd. (2023) remain valid (excluding optimization measures in logistics and planning reducing fuel usage), available mitigation measures are the ones typical for road construction projects, such as the following:
 Eco-driving that could lead to fuel savings within the 2-5% bracket depending on drivers. Contractors would need to demonstrate that their operators have followed a training session or have been sensitized to eco-driving.
 Optimized equipment maintenance program to make sure that the alignment, tires, and other mechanized features that could impact fuel economy is optimal, so to mitigate the fuel usage by a couple of percent compared to poorly maintained equipment.
 Minimize equipment and vehicles idling or unnecessary operation (i.e., tower light, gen set) that could potentially help save up to a couple of percent of fuel over the course of the Project.
The proponent for the construction phase of the Project, which is unknown at this time, is recommended to select contractors that consider the above practices, if not already implemented by them, to minimize fuel consumption and costs.
The main GHG reduction potential comes from the combustion of living biomass (i.e., wood logs and branches) that will generate important quantities of CH4 and N2O along with biogenic CO2. A commitment to mitigate these emissions by using the biomass for other purposes like the production of roundwood and timber that would be used in Webequie for construction projects or woodchips used as mulch for landscaping, erosion control or other application will be analyzed further by the proponent. At this time, there is an objective to burn no greater than 10% of all cleared living biomass. In such a case, the GHG emissions from burning would be reduced by at least 19,000 t CO2e (2,500 t CO2e of CH4 and N2O prevented from combustion and 16,500 t emitted as biogenic CO2). Although timber and mulch can eventually be released as CO2, not all of the carbon in wood would be released as such. These avoided emissions represent 17% of total emissions during construction and 6% of total emissions when including the operation phase for the first 20 years.
For the operation phase, the main mitigation measure that the proponent can control is the design and operation of the MSF that will be powered by a dedicated generator set. At this point, the MSF design is unknown, but the proponent is committed to discuss and consider designs that would help minimize electric power requirements. It will include energy efficiency measures during operation that could be implemented by the maintenance team. An Energy Management Plan will be developed and will include guidance to reduce operational GHG emissions associated with the MSF.

9.4.3 Noise and Vibration

Indigenous community members prefer to harvest in areas where it is quiet. Increased noise in harvesting areas may increase physical disturbance and impact harvesting activities.

To limit the potential effect of noise and vibration generated by the project construction and operation activities, it is recommended that provisions be written into the construction and operational contract documentation for applicable contractor(s), including but not be limited to the following:
 Construction should be limited to the daytime period, where possible, especially near residences.
 All equipment should be properly maintained to limit noise emissions. As such, all construction equipment should be operated with effective muffling devices that are in good working order.
 In the presence of persistent noise complaints, all construction equipment should be verified to comply with MOE NPC-115 guidelines.
 In the presence of persistent complaints and subject to the results of a field investigation, alternative noise control measures may be required, where reasonably available. In selecting appropriate noise control and mitigation measures, consideration should be given to the technical, administrative, and economic feasibility of the various alternate measures.
 A Construction Blasting Management Plan for the Project will be prepared and submitted by applicable contractor(s) after contract award prior to initiation of blasting activities. The plan will outline best practices and regulatory requirements for the safe transportation, handling, storage and use of explosives. Storage facilities for explosives at quarry sites will meet the federal standards and licensing requirements as specified in the Explosives Act as well as provincial standards and licensing requirements as specified in the Ontario Regulation 213/91 – Construction Projects, under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Blasting restriction “windows” for the protection of aquatic and terrestrial species described in the EAR/IS will also be addressed in the plan. Blast operations, where applicable, will be carried out in accordance with Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) guidelines and Ontario Provincial Standard Specification 120 General Specification for the Use of Explosives.
 Use of appropriate personal protective equipment (including hearing protection) and coordinating the timing of blasting with the period of fewest on-site workers, when possible.
 A Noise and Vibration Management Plan will be developed and implemented to mitigate the effects of noise and vibration from construction activities. The plan will be adapted for continuation throughout the operations phase of the Project.
The following sections in Appendix E (Mitigation Measures) describe key mitigation measures to prevent or limit the effect of noise and vibration generated from the Project’s construction and operation activities:
 Section 5.4 – Noise Control; and
 Section 5.12 – Blasting Near a Watercourse.

Table 9-43: Summary of Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Predicted Net Effects for Atmospheric Environment VC

9.5 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 9-44 presents definitions for net effects criteria, developed with specific reference to the Atmospheric 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 Atmospheric Environment VC.

Table 9-44: Criteria for Characterization of Predicted Net Effects on Atmospheric Environment VC

9.5.1 Potential Effect Pathways Not Carried Through for Further Assessment
The following potential effects are expected to be eliminated through the implementation of mitigation measures:
 Increased noise and vibration levels due to blasting activities during construction and operation phases. Noise generated by blasting is expected to be temporary and infrequent. Vibration effects will be centered around blasting locations. Exact locations and the blast designs for the Project’s blasting activities are currently unknown. Based on the relatively low volumes of rock needed for the Project, blasting of rock requiring the use of explosives during construction and operation activities is expected to occur on an infrequent basis when aggregate and/or rock materials are required for construction and maintenance activities. The Construction Blasting Management Plan that will be prepared for the Project prior to initiation of blasting activities will include a requirement for controlling noise and vibration levels to meet the blasting guidelines and criteria guidelines set out by MECP, MTO, Health Canada, and DFO.

 Increased vibration during the construction phase due to the use of machinery and equipment for construction of the proposed roadway and waterbody crossings. The predicted peak particle velocity vibration levels for the NSAs during the roadway and bridge construction activities range from 0.002 to 0.7 mm/s and are less than the 3 mm/s PPV target level criteria.

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

Potential effects that remain following the implementation of mitigation measures are considered net effects and carried forward for further assessment (Section 9.5.2).

9.5.2 Predicted Net Effects
An effect on the Atmospheric Environment VC may remain after the implementation of mitigation measures. The predicted net effects include:
 Change in air quality during construction and operation phases;
 Change in GHGs during construction and operation phases; and
 Change in sound levels due to aggregate extraction operations and general construction activities (construction of the proposed road, including waterbody crossings) during the construction phase and due to vehicle use of the proposed road during the operation phase.

9.5.2.1 Change in Air Quality

9.5.2.1.1 Change in Air Quality During Construction Phase
An Air Quality and Dust Control Management Plan will be developed and implemented during construction that will include typical mitigation measures such as the use of water sprays from trucks to increase moisture levels in active areas during dry days (e.g., haul/access roads, temporary soil and aggregate stockpiles), the use of environmentally certified equipment (e.g. Tier 4 engines), the use of dust suppression systems at quarries, truck speed limitations, vehicle and heavy equipment movement limitations to designated areas, minimizing idling and so forth. As part of the air quality impact assessment, the following quantifiable control measures were integrated into the emission scenario:
 Water-spraying on-road surface mitigating dust uplifting from heavy-duty trucks.
 The use of at least 80% of mobile and stationary equipment having a Tier 4F engine, when the base scenario only considered Tier 3 engines.
The impact of these measures on the maximum concentrations calculated at 50 and 150 m distance from the road centerline, as well as at the closest point on the periphery of five (5) culturally sensitive areas is provided in Table 9-45. It covers all contaminants and averaging periods for which the Project could potentially add (at 50 m distance) the equivalent of at least 50% of the corresponding AAQC or CAAQS based on results without the mitigation measures. For other contaminants and averaging periods, the mitigation measures would only improve the situation that is already not problematic with regard to air quality. The outcomes are as follows:
 Dust control over road surfaces would have a limited impact on the maximum TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations, meaning that road emissions are not the predominant source. Dust emissions at the construction site due to bulldozing and road grading are actually the main causes of these high concentrations.
 The maximum dust deposition reduces to 10 g/m2 from 12 g/m2 over 30-days at 50 m distance from the road centerline corresponding to 143% of the AAQC (7 g/m2). The maximum dust deposition stays below the AAQC for

all receptors at 150 m distance and beyond including existing residences, institutional buildings, and culturally sensitive areas.
 The use of Tier 4F equipment helps undermine the impact of exhaust emissions on short-term NO2 concentrations, but it does not eliminate the potential of exceedance of the 1-hour CAAQS at culturally sensitive areas up to 150 m from the road centerline instead of up to 600 m without mitigation measures. The 24-hour NO2 AAQC is also exceeded based on calculations at 50 m distance, but the impact of the Project would be cut in half (128% of AAQC instead of 275%).
 In a similar way, the use of Tier 4F equipment would help reduce the maximum concentrations of toxic contaminants (acrolein, benzene, propionaldehyde) in air and would alleviate any exceedance potential for acrolein at culturally sensitive areas and reduce the maximum concentration at 50 m distance for benzene.
Table 9-45: Air Dispersion Modelling Results for the Construction Phase

Notes:
AAQC = Ontario Ambient Air Quality Criteria CAAQS = Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards
Concentrations that are greater than the corresponding AAQC or CAAQS are denoted in bold.
(1) Closest location from the road centerline (RCL) for culturally sensitive areas (CHL).

As shown in Table 9-45, exceedances of Ontario AAQC for TSP, PM10, and PM2.5 and CAAQS for NO2 remain a possibility at some culturally sensitive areas, even with the application of mitigation measures specified above. That said, there are other elements to consider when analyzing the impact of the construction phase on air quality. For example:
 The potential exceedances only concern short-term AAQC (24-hours and less) and could only occur over a short period (i.e., 1-2 days) at each receptor given that the emission sources will be moving as road construction progresses.

 There will be no long-term health impact based on AAQCs. Ground and vegetation soiling from dust deposition over the government set threshold would also be limited to the road ROW and slightly beyond. No exceedance of the AAQC for dustfall was calculated at culturally sensitive areas even though high particulate matter concentrations were obtained. The dust build-up would also be of limited time given the short period of dust emissions in an area which deposition would most likely be washed away with precipitations and other natural phenomenon after a while.
 The AERMOD modelling tool integrates local topography into calculations, but it does not consider the presence of vegetation and trees that can act as physical barriers, especially against particulates dispersion further down-wind.
 It is not possible to define the exact combination and space distribution of equipment and activities that will occur at individual sections of the road, and so all potential emissions (dozers, excavators, loaders, etc.) were combined in a single source as a simplified but conservative approach. For example, all three dozers and graders available on-site were considered in operation at the same time and same close area which results in higher localized concentrations but would probably not be the case in reality (or at least there would be some distance between each equipment).
The Air Quality and Dust Control Management Plan will not limit itself to the measures considered in this assessment as there are many other options to mitigate dust uplifting and exhaust emissions. Most of these options like idling minimization, limitation of unnecessary vehicle and heavy equipment movement, and the wetting of soil and aggregate during dry days cannot however be properly translated into the dispersion model and so their potential impact was not calculated here. Moreover, mitigation measures for dozers and graders, which are the main source of particulates near culturally sensitive areas, could include watering but it would not be practical. The management plan could therefore integrate a monitoring procedure with the intent of mitigating the impact of these emissions by controlling (limiting) their usage during unfavorable weather conditions such as high winds.
Finally, it is important to note that no AAQC exceedances were calculated at existing residences and institutional buildings (school, band office, community centre) in the Webequie area (where people are mostly present in the area) with and without mitigation measures in place.
The net effects on air quality during the construction phase are adverse, as the project construction results in a predicted increase of ambient concentrations compared to existing conditions. The magnitude of net effects is conservatively predicted to be moderate to high (with a cautious approach taken in identifying emission sources for the air dispersion model). The geographic extent for change in air quality is limited to the LSA, and the net effects will be short-term (i.e., limited to the approximated five-year construction period) and is predicted to be infrequent as it is expected that construction activities will progress along the proposed road ROW.
For ecological and social context, the net effects are categorized as moderate resilience as the air quality LSA is considered an area that is somewhat affected by human activity. The net effects are predicted to be reversible as the predicted increase in ambient concentrations would return to existing conditions after the end of the construction phase. The likelihood of project construction activities resulting in change to air quality is certain.

9.5.2.1.2 Change in Air Quality During Operation Phase
While it is impossible to have a direct control on emissions from vehicle engines during the operations phase, it is possible to work on dust emissions from the road surface. Considering that part of the road will not be fully surfaced with asphalt or chip seal from the start, the maintenance crew will operate a truck that will spray water over the gravel- surface part of the road from May to November, or when needed. Note that particulate matter in air comes almost exclusively from road dust emissions and less from exhaust gases (representing <1% of total particulates).
The impact of this mitigation measure on the maximum concentrations of TSP and PM10 along with dustfall calculated at 50 and 150 m distance from the road centerline, as well as at the closest existing residence, institution, culturally sensitive area and future residence plot is provided in Table 9-46. For other contaminants like gaseous CACs and toxic

contaminants, this mitigation measure has no impact but as mentioned in Section 9.3.1.2, their maximum concentrations are already low, below any applicable AAQC and CAAQS. The outcome are as follows:
 Road watering during non-winter months slightly helps reduce TSP concentrations in air, enough to be below the AAQC at 50 m distance from the road centerline. PM10 concentrations would however still exceed the applicable AAQC at this distance (140%). The limited impact on maximum concentrations is due to the fact that road watering was not considered during freezing months and that maximum concentrations can occur during this time period.
 The maximum dust deposition reduces to 6.0 g/m2 from 8.4 g/m2 over 30-days at 50 m distance from the road centerline corresponding to 85% of the AAQC (7 g/m2). The maximum dust deposition stays below the AAQC for all receptors at 150 m distance and beyond including existing residences, institutional buildings, culturally sensitive areas and future residential plots.
 Except for PM10 at one culturally sensitive area (CHL25) and one future residential plot (RFP42) which are both fairly close to the road, no AAQC and CAAQS exceedances were calculated at all sensitive receptors when integrating the mitigation measure. When the road will be fully surfaced with asphalt or chipseal, it will result in much lower TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations in air and dustfall on the ground in the immediate area of the road. The impact of a pavement on particulate emissions was not calculated as part of this assessment but based on calculated emission factors provided in Table 7-3 within the Air Quality Impact Assessment Report (Appendix G) for a paved surface compared to the gravel road, the maximum TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations in air should reduce by at least 50% and more if the surface is kept relatively clean, which would be enough to eliminate the exceedance of PM10 concentrations at both sensitive receptors noted above.
Table 9-46: Air Dispersion Modelling Results for the Operation Phase