draft environmental study report for the phase 2...

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT FOR THE PHASE 2 CONNECTING 17 REMOTE FIRST NATION COMMUNITIES PROJECT SECTION 3.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

November 2018 Report No. 18102677 GAL-005-REP-V1

APPENDIX 3.11B Access Roads Refinement Analysis

APPENDIX 3.11B Analysis of Access Plan Refinements

November 2018 Report No. 18102677 GAL-005-REP-V1 i

Table of Contents

3.11B-1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 1

3.11B-2.0 METHOD FOR THE ANALYSIS OF ACCESS PLAN REFINEMENTS ........................................................... 1

3.11B-3.0 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................ 2

3.11B-3.1 Red Lake Subsystem ..................................................................................................................................... 3

3.11B-3.1.1 Red Lake Transmission Line Extension ...................................................................................................... 3

3.11B-3.1.2 Connection from Pikangikum Transformer Station to Deer Lake Junction Switching Station (Segment Q-

T) ................................................................................................................................................................ 5

3.11B-3.1.3 Connection to Poplar Hill First Nation (Segment S-R) .............................................................................. 10

3.11B-3.1.4 Connection from Deer Lake Junction Switching Station to Sandy Lake Junction Switching Station

(Segment T-Z) .......................................................................................................................................... 15

3.11B-3.1.5 Connection to Deer Lake First Nation (Segment U-T) .............................................................................. 20

3.11B-3.1.6 Connection to McDowell Lake First Nation (Segment V-X) ...................................................................... 24

3.11B-3.1.7 Connection to Keewaywin First Nation (Segment V-Y) ............................................................................. 28

3.11B-3.1.8 Connection to North Spirit Lake First Nation (Segment Z-V) .................................................................... 33

3.11B-3.1.9 Connection to Sandy Lake First Nation (Segment Z-W) ........................................................................... 37

3.11B-3.2 Pickle Lake Subsystem ................................................................................................................................ 43

3.11B-3.2.1 Connection to Ebane/Pipestone Junction Switching Station (Segment B-C) ............................................ 43

3.11B-3.2.2 Connection to North Caribou Lake First Nation (Segment C-D) ............................................................... 45

3.11B-3.2.3 Connection to Kingfisher Lake First Nation (Segment C-J) ...................................................................... 50

3.11B-3.2.4 Connection to Muskrat Dam First Nation (Segment D-E) ......................................................................... 55

3.11B-3.2.5 Connection to Bearskin Lake First Nation (Segment E-F) ........................................................................ 60

3.11B-3.2.6 Connection to Sachigo Lake First Nation (Segment E-G) ......................................................................... 64

3.11B-3.2.7 Connection to Wunnumin Lake First Nation (Segment J-I) ....................................................................... 69

3.11B-3.2.8 Connection to Wawakapewin First Nation (Segment J-K) ........................................................................ 73

3.11B-3.2.9 Connection to Kasabonika First Nation (Segment K-L) ............................................................................ 77


November 2018 Report No. 18102677 GAL-005-REP-V1 ii

3.11B-3.2.10 Connection to Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug and Wapekeka First Nation (Segment K-M-N) ............... 81

REFERENCES 86

TABLES

Table 3.11B-2: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection from Pikangikum Transformer Station to Deer Lake Junction Switching Station (Segment Q-T) .................................................................................................. 5

Table 3.11B-3: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to Poplar Hill First Nation (Segment S-R) ...................... 10

Table 3.11B-4: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection from Deer Lake Junction Switching Station to Sandy Lake Junction Switching Station (Segment T-Z) ................................................................................................ 15

Table 3.11B-5: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to Deer Lake First Nation (Segment U-T) ...................... 20

Table 3.11B-6: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to McDowell Lake First Nation (Segment V-X) .............. 24

Table 3.11B-7: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to Keewaywin First Nation (Segment V-Y) .................... 28

Table 3.11B-8: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to North Spirit Lake First Nation (Segment Z-V) ............ 33

Table 3.11B-9: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to Sandy Lake First Nation (Segment Z-W) ................... 37

Table 3.11B-10: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to Ebane/Pipestone Junction Switching Station (Segment B-C) ........................................................................................................................................................... 44

Table 3.11B-11: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to North Caribou Lake First Nation (Segment C-D) ....... 46

Table 3.11B-12: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to Kingfisher Lake First Nation (Segment C-J) .............. 50

Table 3.11B-13: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to Muskrat Dam First Nation (Segment D-E) ................. 55

Table 3.11B-14: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to Bearskin Lake First Nation (Segment E-F) ................ 59

Table 3.11B-15: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to Sachigo First Nation (Segment E-G) ......................... 64

Table 3.11B-16: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to Wunnumin Lake First Nation ..................................... 69

Table 3.11B-17: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to Wawakapewin First Nation (Segment J-K) ............... 73

Table 3.11B-18: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to Kasabonika First Nation (Segment K-L) .................... 77

Table 3.11B-19: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug and Wapekeka First Nation (Segment K-M-N) ........................................................................................................................... 82

ANNEXES

ANNEX A Metric Tables

ANNEX B Revised Access Plan Figures



App3.11B-1

3.11B-1.0 INTRODUCTION

The access plan assessed in the Draft Environmental Study Report (ESR) described the development of new

access roads and upgrades to existing access roads to facilitate the construction and operation and maintenance

phases of the Project. It was predicted in the Draft ESR that up to 70% of all access roads defined for the Project

would be permanent. Section 3.11 Project Refinements from Draft ESR discusses improvements made to the

Project since the Draft ESR was issued, including refinements to the access roads (i.e., access plan) across the

Project. As part of the refinements, Wataynikaneyap is proposing a revised access plan for the Project that only

includes a permanent footprint. This permanent footprint has been minimized by emphasizing access within the

Project’s transmission line right-of-way (ROW; i.e., 40-m-wide corridor alignment), and by maximizing the

utilization of existing winter and all-season access roads in their current condition. The revised access plan also

better aligns with existing winter roads that are visible on imagery recently acquired via LiDAR and the most current

information shared on plans for First Nation community roads. The revised access plan also avoids wet areas that

are better understood through the analysis of recently acquired LiDAR information. Off-ROW access is still defined

as part of the refined access plan but only when on-ROW access is inhibited by large waterbodies and where the

installation of water crossings is not practical, or where physical obstacles such as steep slopes exist. There are

also some sections of the ROW where access is only possible during winter time, unless helicopters are used for

access.

This appendix provides an analysis of the changes to the access plan for the Project, compared with the access

plan assessed in the Draft ESR. This comparative analysis uses the metrics defined for consideration of corridor

alternatives described in Appendix 3.10A, which correlates the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF)

Class EA screening criteria with the environmental criteria defined for this environmental assessment (see

Section 4.0 of the Final ESR), including consideration of results of engagement with First Nation communities,

land use planning, and available baseline environmental spatial data.

3.11B-2.0 METHOD FOR THE ANALYSIS OF ACCESS PLAN REFINEMENTS

The objectives of this section is to discuss the rationale for the refinement of the access plan for the Project defined

in the Draft ESR, provide an analysis of environmental metrics for the areas of the refined Project access plan

compared with an equivalent section of the Project access plan identified in the Draft ESR, and characterize any

differences in the potential environmental effects of the change compared with the assessment provided in the

Draft ESR.

The following five key factors were considered in the analysis of the corridors:

natural environment;

land use and resource management;

socio-economic and cultural;

Aboriginal interest; and

technical, including constructability and relative cost which is derived primarily from technical constraints.

Cost was not considered as the sole or overriding justification.



App3.11B-2

The metrics that were considered in the analysis are presented in Annex A. The reported metrics represent publicly

available datasets and datasets collected for the Project relevant to the study areas for the analysis of the access

plan refinements, consistent with the assessment of corridor alternatives presented in Section 3.10 and

Appendix 3.10A of the Final ESR.

Mitigation measures summarized for the Project in Section 9.0 Environmental and Social Management Plan of the

Final ESR are applicable in all work areas for the Project.

3.11B-3.0 RESULTS

This section presents the comparative analysis for each segment of the Project for which the access plan has

been revised with an equivalent section of the access plan assessed in the Draft ESR. Specifically, this includes

the following areas:

Red Lake Subsystem

Red Lake Transmission Line Extension

Connection from Pikangikum Transformer Station to Deer Lake Junction Switching Station

(Segment Q-T)

Connection to Poplar Hill First Nation (Segment S-R)

Connection from Deer Lake Junction Switching Station to Sandy Lake Junction Switching Station

(Segment T-Z)

Connection to Deer Lake First Nation (Segment U-T)

Connection to McDowell Lake First Nation (Segment V-X)

Connection to Keewaywin First Nation (Segment V-Y)

Connection to North Spirit Lake First Nation (Segment Z-V)

Connection to Sandy Lake First Nation (Segment Z-W)

Pickle Lake Subsystem

Connection to Ebane/Pipestone Junction Switching Station (Segment B-C)

Connection to North Caribou Lake First Nation (Segment C-D)

Connection to Kingfisher Lake First Nation (Segment C-J)

Connection to Muskrat Dam First Nation (Segment D-E)

Connection to Bearskin Lake First Nation (Segment E-F)

Connection to Sachigo Lake First Nation (Segment E-G)

Connection to Wunnumin Lake First Nation (Segment J-I)

Connection to Wawakapewin First Nation (Segment J-K)



App3.11B-3

Connection to Kasabonika First Nation (Segment K-L)

Connection to Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug and Wapekeka First Nation (Segment K-M-N)

The revised access plan for the Project is shown in Annex B (Figures 3.11B-1 to 3.11B-93). The metric tables

used to support the access plan refinement analysis are presented in Annex A. The access plan footprints were

evaluated by comparing the presence of features within or where applicable, adjacent to the access roads, and

by highlighting discernable differences between them.

The modified access plan for the Project may be further refined during detailed design in an effort to avoid sensitive

features, through use existing access roads, to the extent practical. Efforts will be made to reduce environmental

effects associated with the preferred access plan for the Project, and Wataynikaneyap with their contractor(s) will

commit to implementing mitigation measures identified in the ESR and adhere to all permits and approvals required

for the Project.

3.11B-3.1 Red Lake Subsystem

3.11B-3.1.1 Red Lake Transmission Line Extension

Access roads had not been identified specifically for the Red Lake transmission line extension as part of the Draft

ESR. As part of the Final ESR, an access plan has been defined for Red Lake transmission line extension which

consists of an additional 15.7 km of proposed new access roads (see Annex B, Figure 3.11B-1 and 3.11B-2).

However, this access plan includes primarily an access road within the 40-m-wide ROW (i.e., 15.2 km of the

access road is on-ROW). Only 0.5 km of the access plan is comprised of proposed new access roads outside of

the ROW.

The high-level baseline characterization for the access road footprint for the Red Lake transmission line extension

is presented in Table 3.11B-1. Since an access road footprint had not been defined as part of the Draft ESR for

the Red Lake transmission line extension, a metrics comparison between access road footprints cannot be

presented for this segment of the Project. Instead, Table 3.11B-1 only presents metric values for the access road

footprint defined for the Final ESR. The full set of analysis metrics that were considered for the high-level baseline

characterization of the access plan for the Red Lake transmission line extension are presented in Annex A. No

bald eagle nests, potential bat hibernacula features, or potential wolverine den habitat were observed in the access

road footprint during field surveys in 2016 and 2017.

Since most of the access plan for the Red Lake transmission line extension identified in the Final ESR includes a

proposed on-ROW access road, it is important to note that the any disturbance effects associated with the on-

ROW access road are bounded by the disturbance effects that were assessed in the Draft ESR for the 40-m-wide

ROW for this segment of the Project. Although the ROW alignment has been refined slightly in areas along this

segment of the Project for the Final ESR, this ROW re-alignment was minimal. The proposed off-ROW access

roads for this segment of the Project span over a short distance (i.e., 0.5 km) and are located adjacent to or near

the ROW. It is predicted that the disturbance effects predicted for the ROW will also bound the potential

disturbance effects associated with the off-ROW access roads. On and off-ROW access roads required for the

Project in this area connects to a network of existing access roads including the Nungesser Road, opening new

access in some areas.



App3.11B-4

The potential effects of the Project that includes the revised access plan for the Red Lake transmission line

extension is predicted to reach the same conclusions for the EA criteria in Sections 5.0 to 8.0; and in consideration

of implementation of the of the commitments and monitoring in Section 12.0 and the environmental and social

management plan in Section 9.0. Therefore, Wataynikaneyap will be implementing the revised access plan

discussed herein for the Red Lake transmission line extension.

Table 3.11B-1: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Red Lake Transmission Line Extension

Key Factors

Access Plan Refinements

Red Lake Transmission Line Extension Refined Access Plan

Technical Size

Access roads are 15.7 km in length:

▪ 15.2 km of access roads within the ROW

▪ 0.5 km of access roads outside of the ROW

The access road footprint has an area of 9.4 ha.

Existing Infrastructure

The access road footprint crosses one existing road.

Existing roads cross the access road footprint once.

The access road footprint crosses one other linear corridor.

Natural Environment Wetlands(a)

Area of mapped wetlands in the access road footprint is 0.7 ha.

Waterbodies and Watercourses(b)

The access road footprint crosses seven watercourses.

Vegetation(c)

The access road footprint crosses:

▪ 6.7 ha of natural landcover (terrestrial);

▪ 0.2 ha of anthropogenic disturbance; and

▪ 0.0 ha of natural disturbance

Wildlife

The access road footprint crosses 5.6 ha of potential suitable moose habitat.

The access road footprint crosses 6.2 ha of potential suitable bald eagle habitat.

The access road footprint crosses 5.5 ha of potential suitable Canada warbler habitat.

The access road footprint crosses 0.2 ha of potential suitable common nighthawk habitat.

The access road footprint crosses 6.1 ha of potential suitable olive-sided flycatcher habitat.

The access road footprint crosses 0.1 ha of mapped potential habitat supporting provincially tracked wildlife species.

Threatened and endangered species or their Habitat (Caribou (Boreal population))

There is 9.4 ha of Category 3 habitat in the access road footprint.

Threatened and endangered species or their Habitat (Wolverine)

The access road footprint crosses 7.0 ha of potential suitable habitat for wolverine.

Threatened and endangered species or their Habitat (Little brown myotis)

The access road footprint crosses 5.3 ha of potential suitable maternity roosting habitat for little brown myotis.



App3.11B-5

Table 3.11B-1: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Red Lake Transmission Line Extension

Key Factors


Red Lake Transmission Line Extension Refined Access Plan

Land Use, Resource Management

Land Designations

There are 10 non-OTN trails crossed by the access road footprint for a total length of 192.1 m.

The access road footprint crosses seven mining claims for a total area of 3.0 ha

Socio-Economic Tourism and Recreation

The access road footprint crosses two bait harvesting areas (BHA) for a total area of 9.4 ha.

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

The access road footprint crosses 0.2 ha of land with archaeological potential.

Aboriginal considerations

Traditional Land and Resource Use (TLRU)

No TLRU features classified as “avoid” were identified within the access road footprint based on currently available data.

a) All wetlands are understood to be unevaluated.

b) In employing a conservative approach, this assessment assumes that all waterbodies and watercourses have the potential to support fish and fish habitat.

c) Natural landcover (terrestrial) includes bedrock, bog-open, bog-treed, fen-open, fen-treed, forest-dense deciduous, forest-dense coniferous, forest-dense mixed, forest-regenerating depletion, and forest-sparse landcover types. Anthropogenic disturbance includes forest depletion-cuts and settlement/infrastructure. Natural disturbance includes forest depletion-burns.

3.11B-3.1.2 Connection from Pikangikum Transformer Station to Deer Lake Junction Switching Station (Segment Q-T)

This segment of the Project extends from the Pikangikum Transformer Station to the Deer Lake Junction Switching

Station. The revised access plan for this segment of the Project is shown in Annex B (Figures 3.11B-8 to 3.11B-

11 and Figures 3.11B-14 to 3.11B-17). The high-level baseline characterization for the revised access road

footprint for the connection from Pikangikum Transformer Station to the Deer Lake Junction Switching Station

(Segment Q-T) is presented in Table 3.11B-2. Changes made in the access plan for this segment of the Project

between the Draft and Final ESR includes changes to the on-ROW access due to realignments made to the 40-

m-wide ROW, and also include defining additional off-ROW access around wet areas or obstacles such as steep

slopes or large waterbodies where the installation of crossings is not practical. The metrics for the access road

footprint initially identified for this segment in the Draft ESR, the metrics for the access road footprint proposed in

the Final ESR, and a comparison between the two are also presented in Table 3.11B-2. The full set of analysis

metrics that were considered are presented in Annex A. Generally, habitat for wildlife criteria is similarly abundant

and distributed along both access road footprints. No bald eagle nests, potential bat hibernacula features, or

potential wolverine den habitat were observed along either of the access road footprints during field surveys in

2016 and 2017.

It should be noted that much of this Project segment follows an approved forestry road under the Whitefeather

Forest Management Plan. Should any portion of that forestry road be constructed, Project access will be re-

evaluated so that it is in proximity to the forestry road. North of the boundary of the Whitefeather Forest, there are

no existing roads in the vicinity of the Project, so more areas of off-ROW access around wet areas and obstacles

are identified.



App3.11B-6

Table 3.11B-2: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection from Pikangikum Transformer Station to Deer Lake Junction Switching Station (Segment Q-T)

Key Factors

Road Refinements

Access Plan Comparison


(Segment Q-T)

QT1 (Refined Access Plan)

QT2 (Preliminary Access Plan)

Technical Size

Access roads are 131.7 km in length.


Size



QT1 is longer and has a larger area compared to QT2.

Technical (cont'd) Existing Infrastructure


Existing roads cross the access road footprint twice.



Existing roads cross the access road footprint 14 times.

The access road footprint for QT1 is crossed fewer times by existing roads than QT2.


The access road footprint crosses 6.6 ha of mapped wetlands.

Wetlands(a)


No discernable difference between QT1 and QT2, although QT1 intersects a slightly smaller area of mapped wetlands than QT2.


The access road footprint crosses 46 mapped watercourses.

The access road footprint crosses five mapped waterbodies(c) for an area of 0.1 ha.



The access road footprint crosses five mapped waterbodies(c) for an area of 0.3 ha.

No discernable difference between QT1 and QT2

Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI)

The access road footprint crosses 3.7 ha of Candidate ANSI.



No discernable difference between QT1 and QT2; although QT1 crosses a slightly larger area of candidate ANSI.

Vegetation(d)




▪ 10.3 ha of natural disturbance.

Vegetation(d)





No discernable difference between QT1 and QT2 but QT1 intersects slightly more natural landcover (terrestrial) than QT2.



App3.11B-7


Key Factors

Road Refinements



(Segment Q-T)



Natural Environment (cont'd)

Wildlife Habitat


The access road footprint crosses 0.2 ha of potential suitable horned grebe habitat.






Wildlife








No discernable difference between QT1 and QT2; however, Q1 crosses slightly larger areas of potential suitable habitat for moose, bald eagle, common nighthawk, and olive-sided flycatcher, and mapped potential habitat supporting provincially tracked wildlife species. Q1 crosses slightly smaller areas of potential suitable habitat for horned grebe and Canada warbler.



App3.11B-8


Key Factors

Road Refinements



(Segment Q-T)



Natural Environment (cont’d)


The access road footprint crosses 4.8 ha of mapped Category 1 (nursery) habitat.

The access road footprint crosses 31.9 ha of mapped Category 2 habitat.


The access road footprint crosses 4.2 ha of caribou (Boreal population) travel corridors (Spring – April).

The access road footprint crosses 5.2 ha of mapped caribou (Boreal population) travel corridors (Fall – November).





The access road footprint crosses 4.2 ha of mapped caribou (Boreal population) travel corridors (Spring – April).


No discernable difference between QT1 and QT2, although QT2 crosses a smaller area of mapped Category 1 and 3 habitat.


The access road footprint crosses 77.5 ha of suitable wolverine habitat.



No discernable difference between QT1 and QT2.


The access road footprint crosses 9.0 ha of suitable maternity roosting habitat for little brown myotis


The access road footprint crosses 7.0 ha of suitable maternity roosting habitat for little brown myotis

No discernable difference between QT1 and QT2, although QT2 crosses a slightly smaller area of suitable maternity roosting habitat compared to QT1.



App3.11B-9


Key Factors

Road Refinements



(Segment Q-T)




Land Designations

The access road footprint crosses two non-OTN trails for a total length of 12.6 m.

Land Designations



Socio-Economic Tourism and Recreation

The access road footprint crosses one BHA for a total area of 9.5 ha.

Tourism and Recreation

The access road footprint crosses one BHA for a total area of 13.6 ha















c) Waterbodies not including watercourses. d) Natural landcover (terrestrial) includes bedrock, bog-open, bog-treed, fen-open, fen-treed, forest-dense deciduous, forest-dense coniferous, forest-dense mixed, forest-regenerating depletion, and forest-sparse landcover types. Anthropogenic disturbance includes forest depletion-cuts and settlement/infrastructure. Natural disturbance includes forest depletion-burns.

As shown in Table 3.11B-3, the refined access plan proposed in the Final ESR (QT1) presents a similar key factor

metrics when compared with the preliminary access plan (QT2) presented in the Draft ESR; however, the access

road footprint for QT1 is larger than the footprint for QT2. The increased size in the access road footprint for QT1

has a slight increase in the key factor metrics presented in relation to QT2 (e.g., potential suitable habitat for some

wildlife criteria, as noted above), but not enough for the differences in metrics to be discernable. The revised

access road footprint for QT1 mainly includes on-ROW access similar to QT2; however, the 40-m-wide ROW

alignment for QT1 has been shifted in areas as design of the Project has evolved since the Draft ESR. This re-

alignment of the ROW is minimal and located within the limits of work assessed for the ROW in the Draft ESR. In

the Draft ESR, upgrades to existing access roads were defined as part of the primary access plan for QT2, where

the Project is located in proximity to existing roads. For QT1 this is no longer the case with primary access along

the ROW instead. Where off-ROW access is defined to connect to existing roads or to avoid wet areas or

obstacles, the access road segments are adjacent to or in close proximity to the ROW, so the potential effects



App3.11B-10

associated with disturbance off-ROW are predicted to be bound by the disturbance effects predicted for the ROW

itself.

Overall, the changes in the access road footprint has resulted in SR1 to cross a smaller area of mapped wetlands,

potential suitable habitat for horned grebe and Canada warbler, and mapped Category 2 habitat for caribou (Boreal

population). The changes also result in SR1 to cross a slightly larger area of candidate ANSI, natural landcover

(terrestrial), potential suitable habitat for moose, bald eagle, common nighthawk, and olive-sided flycatcher,

mapped potential habitat supporting provincially tracked wildlife species, and mapped Category 1 and 3 habitat

for caribou (Boreal population).

The potential effects of the Project that include the revised access footprint are predicted to reach the same

conclusions for the EA criteria in Sections 5.0 to 8.0; and in consideration of implementation of the commitments

and monitoring in Section 12.0 and the environmental and social management plan in Section 9.0. Therefore,

Wataynikaneyap will be implementing the QT1 access road footprint for the connection from the Pikangikum

Transformer Station to the Deer Lake Junction Switching Station (Segment Q-T).

3.11B-3.1.3 Connection to Poplar Hill First Nation (Segment S-R)

This segment of the Project extends from the Poplar Hill Junction Switching Station to the Transformer Station in

Poplar Hill First Nation. The revised access plan for this segment of the Project is shown in Annex B

(Figure 3.11B-11 to 3.11B-13). The high-level baseline characterization for the revised access road footprint for

the connection to Poplar Hill First Nation (Segment S-R) is presented in Table 3.11B-3. Changes made in the

access plan for this segment of the Project between the Draft and Final ESR includes changes to the on-ROW

access due to realignments made to the 40-m-wide ROW, and include defining additional off-ROW access around

wet areas or obstacles such as steep slopes or large waterbodies where the installation of crossings is not

practical. The metrics for the access road footprint initially identified for this segment in the Draft ESR, the metrics

for the access road footprint proposed in the Final ESR, and a comparison between the two are also presented in

Table 3.11B-3. The full set of analysis metrics that were considered are presented in Annex A. Generally, habitat

for wildlife criteria is similarly abundant and distributed along both access road footprints. No bald eagle nests or

potential wolverine den habitat features were observed along either of the access road footprints during field

surveys in 2016 and 2017.

It should be noted that much of this Project segment follows an approved forestry road under the Whitefeather

Forest Management Plan. Should any portion of that forestry road be constructed, Project access will be re-

evaluated so that it is in proximity to the forestry road.



App3.11B-11

Table 3.11B-3: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to Poplar Hill First Nation (Segment S-R)

Key Factors

Road Refinements

Access Plan Comparison Connection to Poplar Hill First Nation

(Segment S-R)

SR1 (Refined Access Plan)

SR2 (Preliminary Access Plan)

Technical Size

Access roads are 41.7 km in length. Of this length, 8 km include new off-ROW access. The rest is on-ROW access.


Size

Access roads are 32.4 km in length. All the access roads are on-ROW.


SR1 has longer access roads and the access road footprint is larger than SR2.


The access road footprint crosses two existing roads.



The access road footprint does not cross any existing roads.

SR2 does not cross any existing roads.

Natural Environment

Wetlands(a)


Wetlands(a)


No discernable difference between SR1 and SR2





No discernable difference between SR1 and SR2





No discernable difference between SR1 and SR2 although SR1 intersects slightly more area of ANSIs than SR2.

Vegetation(c)





Vegetation(c)





No discernable difference between SR1 and SR2 although SR1 intersects slightly more natural landcover (terrestrial) than SR2.



App3.11B-12


Key Factors

Road Refinements


(Segment S-R)




Wildlife







Wildlife







No discernable difference between SR1 and SR2, although SR2 crosses a slightly smaller area of potential suitable habitat for moose, bald eagle, Canada warbler, common nighthawk, olive-sided flycatcher and mapped habitat supporting provincially tracked wildlife species.



App3.11B-13


Key Factors

Road Refinements


(Segment S-R)










No discernable difference between SR1 and SR2, although SR1 intersects slightly more mapped Category 2 and 3 habitat than SR2.

Threatened and endangered species or their habitat (Wolverine)


Threatened and endangered species or their habitat (Wolverine)


No discernable difference between SR1 and SR2, although SR2 crosses a slightly smaller area of suitable wolverine habitat.

Threatened and endangered species or their habitat (Little brown myotis)

The access road footprint crosses 6.8 ha of suitable little brown myotis maternity roosting habitat.

The access road footprint is in close proximity to one potential bat hibernacula feature that was observed during the 2016 and 2017 field programs.

Threatened and endangered species or their habitat (Little brown myotis)

The access road footprint crosses 5.4 ha of suitable little brown myotis maternity roosting habitat.

No potential bat hibernacula features were observed within the access road footprint.

No discernable difference between SR1 and SR2, although SR1 is in close proximity to one potential bat hibernacula feature and crosses a slightly larger area of potential suitable maternity roosting habitat.

Socio-Economic Archaeology and Cultural Heritage




No discernable difference between PH1 and PH2.



App3.11B-14


Key Factors

Road Refinements


(Segment S-R)



Aboriginal Considerations


Poplar Hill

▪ One trapline and a natural feature (rapids) are crossed by the access road footprint.

▪ A fish spawning area and a trapping area are crossed by the access road footprint.


Poplar Hill

▪ One trapline and a natural feature (rapids) are crossed by the access road footprint.

▪ A fish spawning area and a trapping area are crossed by the access road footprint.

No discernable difference between SR1 and SR2.




As shown in Table 3.11B-11, the refined access plan proposed in the Final ESR (SR1) presents a slight increase

in the key factor metrics presented when compared with the preliminary access plan (SR2) presented in the Draft

ESR. This is attributed to the larger access road footprint for SR1, which has increased in comparison to SR2 due

to the additional off-ROW access defined for SR1. Although the metrics increased slightly across all key factors

for SR1, the difference in metrics is not considered to be discernable in relation to SR2. However, it is noted that

SR1 is in close proximity to a potential bat hibernacula feature, specifically an access road defined off-ROW.

The revised access road footprint for SR1 mainly includes on-ROW access similar to SR2; however, the 40-m-

wide ROW alignment for SR1 has been shifted in areas as design of the Project has evolved since the Draft ESR.

This re-alignment of the ROW is minimal and primarily located within the limits of work assessed for the ROW in

the Draft ESR. The additional off-ROW access that has been identified for SR1 is adjacent to or in close proximity

to the ROW, so the potential effects associated with disturbance off-ROW are predicted to be bound by the

disturbance effects predicted for the ROW itself. Overall, the changes in the access road footprint has resulted in

SR1 to cross a slightly larger area of candidate ANSI, natural landcover (terrestrial), potential suitable and mapped

habitat for all wildlife criteria, and mapped potential habitat supporting provincially tracked wildlife species.

Although there are slight increases in key factor metrics, the potential effects of the Project that include the revised

access footprint are predicted to reach the same conclusions for the EA criteria in Sections 5.0 to 8.0; and in

consideration of implementation of the commitments and monitoring in Section 12.0 and the environmental and

social management plan in Section 9.0. This includes applying mitigation in relation to bat hibernacula (e.g., timing

restrictions for Project construction). Therefore, Wataynikaneyap will be implementing the SR1 access road

footprint for the connection to Poplar Hill First Nation (Segment S-R).



App3.11B-15

3.11B-3.1.4 Connection from Deer Lake Junction Switching Station to Sandy Lake Junction Switching Station (Segment T-Z)

This segment of the Project extends from the Deer Lake Junction Switching Station to the Sandy Lake Junction

Switching Station. The revised access plan for this segment of the Project is shown in Annex B (Figures 3.11B-8

to 3.11B-11, Figure 3.11B-17, Figure 3.11B-19 and Figure 3.11B-20). The high-level baseline characterization for

the revised access road footprint for the connection to the Sandy Lake Junction Switching Station (Segment T-Z)

is presented in Table 3.11B-4. Changes made in the access plan between the Draft and Final ESR includes

primary access within the 40-m-wide ROW rather than via nearby existing winter roads, and off-ROW spur roads

to connect the on-ROW access to the existing winter road. In some locations, additional off-ROW access includes

diversions around wet areas or obstacles such as steep slopes or large waterbodies where the installation of

crossings is not practical also. The metrics for the access road footprint initially identified for this segment in the

Draft ESR, the metrics for the access road footprint proposed in the Final ESR, and a comparison between the

two are also presented in Table 3.11B-4. The full set of analysis metrics that were considered are presented in

Annex A. Generally, habitat for wildlife criteria is similarly abundant and distributed along both access road

footprints. No bald eagle nests, potential wolverine den habitat or potential bat hibernacula features were observed

along either of the access road footprints during field surveys in 2016 and 2017.

Table 3.11B-4: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection from Deer Lake Junction Switching Station to Sandy Lake Junction Switching Station (Segment T-Z)

Key Factors

Road Refinements



(Segment T-Z)

TZ1 (Refined Access Plan)

TZ2 (Preliminary Access Plan)

Technical Size



Size

Access roads are 28 km in length.


TZ2 has shorter access roads and covers a smaller area.


The access road crosses one existing road.


There is one other linear corridor that crosses the access road footprint.


The access road crosses four existing roads.


There is one other linear corridor that crosses the access road footprint.

No discernable difference between TZ1 and TZ2.



App3.11B-16


Key Factors

Road Refinements



(Segment T-Z)





Wetlands(a)


TZ1 crosses a smaller area of mapped wetlands.


The access road footprint crosses five mapped watercourses.

The access road footprint does not cross any mapped waterbodies(c).


The access road footprint crosses seven mapped watercourses.

The access road footprint crosses two mapped waterbodies(c) for an area of 0.1 ha.


Vegetation(d)





Vegetation(d)





No discernable difference between TZ1 and TZ2, although TZ2 crosses a slightly smaller area of natural landcover (terrestrial).



App3.11B-17


Key Factors

Road Refinements



(Segment T-Z)




Wildlife


The access road footprint does not habitat potential suitable for horned grebe.






Wildlife







The access road footprint crosses 12.1 ha of mapped potential habitat supporting provincially tracked wildlife species

No discernable difference between TZ1 and TZ2, although TZ2 crosses a slightly smaller area of suitable habitat for moose, bald eagle, common nighthawk, olive-sided flycatcher and potential habitat supporting provincially tracked wildlife species.



App3.11B-18


Key Factors

Road Refinements



(Segment T-Z)










No discernable difference between TZ1 and TZ2, although TZ2 crosses a slightly smaller area of Category 3 habitat.


The access road footprint crosses 19.4 ha of potential suitable wolverine habitat.



No discernable difference between TZ1 and TZ2, although TZ2 crosses a slightly smaller area of suitable wolverine habitat.







Land Designations

The access road footprint crosses one non-OTN trail for a total length of 10.0 m.

Land Designations

The access road footprint crosses one non-OTN trail for a total length of 10.0 m.









App3.11B-19


Key Factors

Road Refinements



(Segment T-Z)





Deer Lake First Nation

▪ The access road footprint crosses one trapline, a fish spawning area and moose hunting area is crossed by the access footprint.

Sandy Lake First Nation

▪ A community hunting area is crossed by the access road footprint.

North Spirit Lake First Nation

▪ A summer trail and trapping area is crossed by the access road footprint.



▪ The access road footprint crosses one trapline, a fish spawning area and moose hunting area is crossed by the access footprint.


▪ A community hunting area is crossed by the access road footprint.


▪ A summer trail and trapping area is crossed by the access road footprint.





As shown in Table 3.11B-4, the refined access plan proposed in the Final ESR (TZ1) presents a minor increase

in some key factor metrics presented when compared with the preliminary access plan (TZ2) presented in the

Draft ESR. It should be noted that the 40-m-wide transmission line alignment of this segment of the Project

generally runs parallel to the existing winter road between Deer Lake First Nation and North Spirit Lake First Nation

and parallel to the existing winter road to Sandy Lake First Nation. Access along these existing winter roads was

included in the preliminary access plan presented in the Draft ESR; it was therefore captured in the access footprint

of TZ2, explaining the relatively similar technical key factor metrics presented in Table 3.11B-4. Overall, the

changes in the access road footprint has resulted in TZ1 to cross less area of mapped wetlands, fewer

watercourses, and slightly less area with archaeological potential. TZ1 crosses a slightly larger area of natural

landcover (terrestrial), mapped potential habitat supporting provincially tracked wildlife species, potential suitable

habitat for most wildlife species, and mapped Category 3 habitat for caribou (Boreal population). However, since

most of the access plan for TZ1 includes on-ROW access, the disturbance required for TZ1 will overlap with the



App3.11B-20

disturbance required for the ROW and therefore decrease the size of the overall Project footprint for this segment

of the Project.

Although there are increases in some key factor metrics, the potential effects of the Project that include the revised



social management plan in Section 9.0. Therefore, Wataynikaneyap will be implementing the TZ1 access road

footprint for the connection from Deer Lake Junction Switching Station to Sandy Lake Junction Switching Station

(Segment T-Z).

3.11B-3.1.5 Connection to Deer Lake First Nation (Segment U-T)

This segment of the Project extends from the Deer Lake Junction Switching Station to the Transformer Station in

Deer Lake First Nation. The revised access plan for this segment of the Project is shown in Annex B (Figures

3.11B-17 and 3.11B-18). The high-level baseline characterization for the revised access road footprint for the

connection to the Deer Lake First Nation Transformer Station (Segment U-T) is presented in Table 3.11B-5.

Changes made in the access plan between the Draft and Final ESR includes access within the 40-m-wide ROW

rather than via nearby existing winter roads as well as defining additional off-ROW access spurs between the

ROW and the existing winter road, and around wet areas or obstacles such as steep slopes or large waterbodies

where the installation of crossings is not practical. The metrics for the access road footprint initially identified for

this segment in the Draft ESR, the metrics for the access road footprint proposed in the Final ESR, and a

comparison between the two are also presented in Table 3.11B-5. The full set of analysis metrics that were

considered are presented in Annex A. Generally, habitat for wildlife criteria is similarly abundant and distributed

along both access road footprints. No bald eagle nests or potential bat hibernacula features were observed along

either of the access road footprints during field surveys in 2016 and 2017.

Table 3.11B-5: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to Deer Lake First Nation (Segment U-T)

Key Factors

Road Refinements

Access Plan Comparison Connection to Deer Lake First Nation

(Segment U-T)

UT1 (Refined Access Plan)

UT2 (Preliminary Access Plan)

Technical Size



Size



No discernable difference between UT1 and UT2




The access road crosses one other linear corridor.




The access road crosses two other linear corridor.

No discernable difference between UT1 and UT2.



App3.11B-21


Key Factors

Road Refinements


(Segment U-T)





Wetlands(a)





The access road footprint crosses four mapped watercourses.

The access road footprint does not cross any waterbodies(c).


The access road footprint crosses six mapped watercourses.

The access road footprint crosses four mapped waterbodies(c) for an area of 0.3 ha.

UT1 intersects fewer watercourses and waterbodies than UT2.

Vegetation(d)





Vegetation(d)




▪ 4.1 ha of natural

disturbance.


Wildlife







Wildlife




The Projec0.0t footprint crosses 4.8 ha of potential suitable Canada warbler habitat.



No discernable difference between UT1 and UT2, although UT2 crosses a slightly smaller area of potential suitable habitat for moose, bald eagle and olive-sided flycatcher.

UT1 crosses a slightly smaller area of potential suitable habitat for horned grebe and Canada warbler.



App3.11B-22


Key Factors

Road Refinements


(Segment U-T)





The access road crosses 9.6 ha of mapped Category 2 habitat.








One area representing potential den habitat was observed in proximity to the access road footprint during 2016 and 2017 field surveys.



No areas representing potential den habitat were observed within the access road footprint during 2016 and 2017 field surveys.

No discernable difference between UT1 and UT2. However, UT1 is proximity to an area representing potential den habitat for wolverine.


The access road footprint crosses 0.3 ha of suitable maternity roosting habitat for little brown myotis.








UT1 crosses a smaller area of land that has archaeological potential compared to UT2.



App3.11B-23


Key Factors

Road Refinements


(Segment U-T)






▪ The access footprint crosses two traplines, fish spawning areas, moose hunting and crossing areas and plant harvesting areas.



▪ The access footprint crosses two traplines, fish spawning areas, moose hunting and crossing areas and plant harvesting areas.





As shown in Table 3.11B-5, the refined access plan proposed in the Final ESR (UT1) presents very similar key

factor metrics when compared with the preliminary access plan (UT2) presented in the Draft ESR. It should be

noted that the 40-m-wide transmission line alignment of this segment of the Project generally runs parallel to the

existing winter road between the Deer Lake Junction Switching Station and Deer Lake First Nation. This existing

winter road was included in the preliminary access plan presented in the Draft ESR; it was therefore captured in

the access footprint of UT2, explaining the relatively similar technical key factor metrics presented in Table 3.11B-

5. Overall, the changes in the access road footprint has resulted in UT1 to cross less area of mapped wetlands,

fewer watercourses, a smaller area of suitable moose habitat, a smaller area of Category 2 caribou (Boreal

population) habitat and slightly smaller area with archaeological potential. UT1 crosses a slightly larger area of

natural landcover (terrestrial), Category 3 caribou (Boreal population) habitat, and habitat suitable for wolverine.

However, since most of the access plan for UT1 includes on-ROW access, the disturbance required for UT1 will

overlap with the disturbance required for the ROW and therefore decrease the size of the overall Project footprint

for this segment of the Project. Moreover, one area representing potential den habitat for wolverine was observed

in proximity to the access road footprint during 2016 and 2017 field surveys




social management plan in Section 9.0. This includes applying mitigation to limit disturbance to active wolverine

dens if active den sites are observed during Project construction. Therefore, Wataynikaneyap will be implementing

the UT1 access road footprint for the connection to Deer Lake First Nation (Segment U-T).



App3.11B-24

3.11B-3.1.6 Connection to McDowell Lake First Nation (Segment V-X)

This segment of the Project extends from the North Spirit Lake Transformer Station to the Transformer Station in

McDowell Lake First Nation. The revised access plan for this segment of the Project is shown in Annex B

(Figures 3.1B1-28 to 3.11B-31). The high-level baseline characterization for the revised access road footprint for

the connection to the McDowell Lake First Nation Transformer Station (Segment V-X) is presented in Table 3.11B-

6. The few changes made in the access plan for this segment of the Project between the Draft and Final ESR

includes access within the 40-m-wide ROW as well as defining additional off-ROW access around wet areas or

obstacles such as steep slopes or large waterbodies where the installation of crossings is not practical. The metrics

for the access road footprint initially identified for this segment in the Draft ESR, the metrics for the access road

footprint proposed in the Final ESR, and a comparison between the two are also presented in Table 3.11B-6. The

full set of analysis metrics that were considered are presented in Annex A. Generally, habitat for wildlife criteria is

similarly abundant and distributed along both access road footprints. No bald eagle nests or potential hibernacula

habitat features were observed along either of the access road footprints during field surveys in 2016 and 2017.

Table 3.11B-6: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to McDowell Lake First Nation (Segment V-X)

Key Factors

Road Refinements

Access Plan Comparison Connection to McDowell Lake First Nation

(Segment V-X)

VX1 (Refined Access Plan)

VX2 (Preliminary Access Plan)

Technical Size



Size



No discernable difference between VX1 and VX2.


There are 5 existing roads that cross the access road footprint.





VX1 crosses fewer existing roads than the VX2 assessed in the Draft ESR.


Area of mapped wetlands within the access road footprint is 4.8 ha.

Wetlands(a)


No discernable difference between VX1 and VX2



The access road footprint crosses one mapped waterbody(c) for an area of 0.0 ha







App3.11B-25


Key Factors

Road Refinements


(Segment V-X)





The access road footprint 14.0 ha of Candidate ANSI.


The access road footprint intersects 11.1 ha of Candidate ANSI.


Vegetation(d)





Vegetation(d)






Wildlife

The access road footprint crosses 4.8 ha of potential suitable moose habitat

The access road footprint crosses 5.4 ha of potential suitable bald eagle habitat

The access road footprint crosses 7.4 ha of potential suitable Canada warbler habitat

The access road footprint crosses 20.6 ha of potential suitable common nighthawk habitat

The access road footprint crosses 5.9 ha of potential suitable olive-sided flycatcher habitat

Wildlife






VX1 crosses a smaller area of potential suitable habitat for moose.

VX2 crosses a smaller area of potential suitable habitat for bald eagle and olive-sided flycatcher.

No discernable difference in area of potential suitable habitat intersected for Canada warbler and common nighthawk between VX1 and VX2.



App3.11B-26


Key Factors

Road Refinements


(Segment V-X)





The access road footprint crosses 2.3 ha of mapped Category 1 (nursery) habitat




The access road footprint crosses 9.0 ha of mapped caribou (Boreal population) travel corridors (Fall – November)










One area representing potential den habitat was observed within the access road footprint during 2016 and 2017 field surveys.




No discernable difference between VX1 and VX2.



App3.11B-27


Key Factors

Road Refinements


(Segment V-X)








VX1 crosses a smaller area of suitable maternity roosting habitat for little brown myotis.








McDowell Lake First Nation

▪ The access footprint crosses, one trapline and a fish spawning area.


▪ The access footprint crosses one trapline a fish spawning area and an area of cultural significance.


McDowell Lake First

Nation

▪ The access footprint crosses, one trapline and a fish spawning area.


▪ The access footprint crosses, one trapline a fish spawning area and an area of cultural significance.




c) Waterbodies not including watercourses.

d) Natural landcover (terrestrial) includes bedrock, bog-open, bog-treed, fen-open, fen-treed, forest-dense deciduous, forest-dense coniferous, forest-dense mixed, forest-regenerating depletion, and forest-sparse landcover types. Anthropogenic disturbance includes forest depletion-cuts and settlement/infrastructure. Natural disturbance includes forest depletion-burns.



App3.11B-28

As shown in Table 3.11B-6, the refined access plan proposed in the Final ESR (VX1) presents very similar key

factor metrics when compared with the preliminary access plan (VX2) presented in the Draft ESR. It should be

noted that there are limited existing access roads within this segment of the Project, as primarily new off-ROW

access roads, which would access short (>1 km) sections of the ROW, was proposed in the access plan presented

in the Draft ESR, whereas the access plan proposed for the Final ESR would rely primarily on-ROW access,

explaining the slight increases in some key factor metrics presented in Table 3.11B-6. Overall, the changes in the

access road footprint has resulted in VX1 to cross less area of mapped wetlands, fewer watercourses, and a

smaller area of suitable maternity roosting habitat for little brown myotis. VX2 crosses a slightly smaller area of

suitable habitat for bald eagle, olive-sided flycatcher and wolverine. For all the other metrics, there were minor

variations in the areas crossed by each of the access road footprints, leading to no discernable differences

between the two.






the VX1 access road footprint for the connection to McDowell Lake First Nation (Segment V-X).

3.11B-3.1.7 Connection to Keewaywin First Nation (Segment V-Y)

This segment of the Project extends from the North Spirit Lake Transformer Station to the Transformer Station in

Keewaywin First Nation. The revised access plan for this segment of the Project is shown in Annex B

(Figure 3.11B-28 and Figures 3.11B-32 to 3.11B-36). The high-level baseline characterization for the revised

access road footprint for the connection to the Keewaywin First Nation Transformer Station (Segment V-Y) is

presented in Table 3.11B-7. Changes made in the access plan for this segment of the Project between the Draft

and Final ESR includes access within the 40-m-wide ROW rather than via nearby existing winter roads/high ground

winter roads. The metrics for the access road footprint initially identified for this segment in the Draft ESR, the

metrics for the access road footprint proposed in the Final ESR, and a comparison between the two are also

presented in Table 3.11B-7. The full set of analysis metrics that were considered are presented in Annex A.

Generally, habitat for wildlife criteria is similarly abundant and distributed along both access road footprints. No

bald eagle nests, potential bat hibernacula features, or potential wolverine den habitat were observed along either

of the access road footprints during field surveys in 2016 and 2017.

Table 3.11B-7: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to Keewaywin First Nation (Segment V-Y)

Key Factors

Road Refinements

Access Plan Comparison Connection to Keewaywin First Nation

(Segment V-Y)

VY1 (Refined Access Plan)

VY2 (Preliminary Access Plan)

Technical Size



Size



VY1 has longer roads and a larger footprint than VY2.



App3.11B-29


Key Factors

Road Refinements


(Segment V-Y)







The access road footprint crosses four existing roads.

Existing roads cross the access road footprint 8 times

Existing roads cross VY1 more times than VY2.



Wetlands(a)


No discernable difference between VY1 and VY2






The access road footprint crosses one mapped waterbodies(c) for an area of 0.1 ha.

No discernable difference between VY1 and VY 2. However, VY1 crosses slightly fewer watercourses and waterbodies than VY2.






Vegetation(d)



▪ 0.2 ha of anthropogenic disturbance;

▪ 4.8 ha of natural disturbance; and

▪ 0.9 ha of mapped occurrences of provincially tracked vegetation species.

Vegetation(d)





▪ 0.0 ha of mapped occurrences of provincially tracked vegetation species

No discernable difference between VY1 and VY2. However, VY1 intersects slightly more natural landcover (terrestrial) than VY2.



App3.11B-30


Key Factors

Road Refinements


(Segment V-Y)




Wildlife








Wildlife








No discernable difference between VY1 and VY2, although VY2 crosses a smaller area of habitat potential suitable for moose, bald eagle, common nighthawk, olive-sided flycatcher and a smaller area of potential habitat supporting provincially tracked wildlife species.



App3.11B-31


Key Factors

Road Refinements


(Segment V-Y)






The access road footprint crosses 14.0 ha of mapped Category 3 habitat




No discernable difference between VY1 and VY2, although VY2 crosses less mapped Category 2 and Category 3 caribou (Boreal population) habitat.





No discernable difference between VY1 and VY2.







Land Designations

The access road footprint crosses two non-OTN trails for a total length of 0.1 km.

Land Designations

The access road footprint does not cross any non-OTN trails.









App3.11B-32


Key Factors

Road Refinements


(Segment V-Y)





Keewaywin First Nation

▪ The access footprint crosses winter and summer trails, gardening areas, moose calving and feeding areas, trapping areas and waterfowl areas.


▪ The access footprint crosses winter and summer trails, frequently used land use areas, gardening areas, a moose feeding area, and trapping areas.


Keewaywin First Nation

▪ The access footprint crosses winter and summer trails, gardening areas, moose calving and feeding areas, trapping areas and waterfowl areas.


▪ The access footprint crosses winter and summer trails, frequently used land use areas, gardening areas, a moose feeding area, and trapping areas.






As shown in Table 3.11B-7, the refined access plan proposed in the Final ESR (VY1) presents a moderate

increase to key factor metrics when compared with the preliminary access plan (VY2) presented in the Draft ESR.

It should be noted that the 40-m-wide transmission line alignment of this segment of the Project generally runs

within the vicinity of a high-ground winter road development between North Spirit Lake First Nation and

Keewaywin First Nation. Limited existing access roads were identified in the access plan for this segment of the

Project in the Draft ESR, and new off-ROW access roads were proposed instead which would access short (i.e.,

less than 1 km) sections of the ROW. For the Final ESR, the revised access plan would rely primarily on on-ROW

access, which explains the moderate increase in key factor metrics presented in Table 3.11B-7. Table 3.11B-7.

Overall, the changes in the access road footprint has resulted in VY1 to cross a slightly larger area of mapped

wetlands, fewer watercourses, a larger area of natural landcover (terrestrial), and a slightly larger area of potential

suitable habitat for all wildlife criteria. However, since most of the access plan for VY1 includes on-ROW access,

whereas most of the access plan for VY2 included new off-ROW access, the disturbance required for VY1 will

overlap with the disturbance required for the ROW and therefore decrease the size of the overall Project footprint

for this segment of the Project.



App3.11B-33




social management plan in Section 9.0. Therefore, Wataynikaneyap will be implementing the VY1 access road

footprint for the connection to Keewaywin First Nation (Segment V-Y).

3.11B-3.1.8 Connection to North Spirit Lake First Nation (Segment Z-V)

This segment of the Project extends from the Sandy Lake Junction Switching Station to the Transformer Station

in North Spirit Lake First Nation. The revised access plan for this segment of the Project is shown in Annex B

(Figures 3.11B-17, 3.11B-19, 3.11B-20, 3.11B-27 and 3.11B-28). The high-level baseline characterization for the

revised access road footprint for the connection to the North Spirit Lake First Nation Transformer Station (Segment

Z-V) is presented in Table 3.11B-8. Changes made in the access plan for this segment of the Project between the

Draft and Final ESR includes access within the 40-m-wide ROW rather than via nearby existing winter roads, as

well as defining additional off-ROW access around wet areas or obstacles such as steep slopes or large

waterbodies where the installation of crossings is not practical. The metrics for the access road footprint initially

identified for this segment in the Draft ESR, the metrics for the access road footprint proposed in the Final ESR,

and a comparison between the two are also presented in Table 3.11B-8. The full set of analysis metrics that were


along both access road footprints. No bald eagle nests, potential bat hibernacula features, or potential wolverine

den habitat were observed along either of the access road footprints during field surveys in 2016 and 2017.

Table 3.11B-8: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to North Spirit Lake First Nation (Segment Z-V)

Key Factors

Road Refinements



ZV1 (Refined Access Plan)

ZV2 (Preliminary Access Plan)

Technical Size



Size



ZV2 is shorter with a smaller access road footprint compared to ZV1.



Existing roads crosses the access road footprint one time.




Existing roads cross the access road footprint five times.

The access road footprint crosses four other linear corridors.

No discernable difference between ZV1 and ZV2.


Mapped area of wetlands in the access road footprint is 2.4 ha.

Wetlands(a)


No discernable difference between ZV1 and ZV2, although ZV1 crosses a smaller area of mapped wetland.



App3.11B-34


Key Factors

Road Refinements








The access road footprint crosses two mapped waterbodies(c) for an area of 0.0 ha.


The access road footprint crosses five mapped watercourses.

The access road footprint does not cross any mapped waterbodies(c).

ZV1 intersects more waterbodies and watercourses than ZV2.




The access road footprint does not intersect any area of Candidate ANSI.

ZV2 intersects a smaller area of Candidate ANSI compared to ZV1.

Vegetation(d)





Vegetation(d)





ZV2 intersects a smaller area of natural landcover (terrestrial) than ZV1.

Wildlife






Wildlife






No discernable difference between ZV1 and ZV2, although ZV2 crosses a smaller area of habitat potential suitable for moose, bald eagle, Canada warbler, common nighthawk and olive-sided flycatcher.



App3.11B-35


Key Factors

Road Refinements












No discernable difference between ZV1 and ZV2, although ZV2 crosses a smaller area of mapped Category 2 and Category 3 habitat.





ZV2 crosses a smaller area of potential suitable wolverine habitat.





No discernable difference, although ZV2 crosses a smaller area of potential suitable maternity roosting little brown myotis habitat.





No discernable difference between ZV1 and ZV2.



App3.11B-36


Key Factors

Road Refinements








▪ The access footprint crosses winter and summer trails, a trapline, trapping areas, waterfowl hunting areas, fishing areas, fish spawning areas, plant harvesting areas and a wild rice area.


▪ The access footprint crosses a hunting area.



▪ The access footprint crosses winter and summer trails, a trapline, trapping areas and plant harvesting areas.

No discernable difference between ZV1 and ZV2, although ZV2 does not cross any identified traditional land use features from Sandy Lake First Nation.





As shown in Table 3.11B-8, the refined access plan proposed in the Final ESR (ZV1) presents a moderate increase

in key factor metrics presented when compared with the preliminary access plan (ZV2) presented in the Draft

ESR. It should be noted that the 40-m-wide transmission line alignment of this segment of the Project generally

runs parallel to the existing winter road between Deer Lake First Nation and North Spirit Lake First Nation. The

entirety of the access plan proposed for ZV2 included the use of the existing winter road (identified as “to be

upgraded” in the Draft ESR), and therefore was captured in the access footprint of ZV2. The revised access road

footprint of ZV1 includes on-ROW access where the alignment presented in the Final ESR deviates from the

existing winter road, which explains the increases in the key factor metrics presented in Table 3.11B-8. Overall,

the changes in the access road footprint has resulted in ZV1 to cross less area of mapped wetlands, a moderate

increase in the number of watercourses, and slight increases in natural landcover (terrestrial) and a slightly larger

area of potential suitable habitat for all wildlife criteria. However, since most of the access plan for ZV1 includes

on-ROW access, the disturbance required for ZV1 will overlap with the disturbance required for the ROW and

therefore decrease the size of the overall Project footprint for this segment of the Project.





App3.11B-37


social management plan in Section 9.0. Therefore, Wataynikaneyap will be implementing the TZ1 access road

footprint for the connection to North Spirit Lake First Nation (Segment T-Z).

3.11B-3.1.9 Connection to Sandy Lake First Nation (Segment Z-W)

This segment of the Project extends from the Sandy Lake Junction Switching Station to the Transformer Station

in Sandy Lake First Nation. The revised access plan for this segment of the Project is shown in Annex B

(Figures 3.11B-20 to 3.11B-26). The high-level baseline characterization for the revised access road footprint for

the connection to the Sandy Lake First Nation Transformer Station (Segment Z-W) is presented in Table 3.11B-9.

Changes made in the access plan for this segment of the Project between the Draft and Final ESR includes

primary access within the 40-m-wide ROW, with off-ROW access spurs defined to connect to existing winter roads,

rather than primary access via nearby existing winter roads. The metrics for the access road footprint initially

identified for this segment in the Draft ESR, the metrics for the access road footprint proposed in the Final ESR,

and a comparison between the two are also presented in Table 3.11B-9. The full set of analysis metrics that were


along both access road footprints. No bald eagle nests, potential bat hibernacula features, or potential wolverine

den habitat were observed along either of the access road footprints during field surveys in 2016 and 2017.

Table 3.11B-9: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to Sandy Lake First Nation (Segment Z-W)

Key Factors

Road Refinements

Access Plan Comparison Connection to Sandy Lake First Nation

(Segment Z-W)

ZW1 (Refined Access Plan)

ZW2 (Preliminary Access Plan)

Technical Size



Size



ZW2 is shorter and has a smaller footprint.



Existing roads cross the access road footprint five times.



The access road footprint crosses three existing road crosses.

Existing roads cross the access road footprint 11 times

The access road footprint crosses six other linear corridors.

ZW1 is crossed fewer times by existing roads and other linear corridors than ZW2.



Wetlands(a)


ZW1 intersects less mapped wetlands than ZW2.



App3.11B-38


Key Factors

Road Refinements


(Segment Z-W)





The access road footprint crosses six mapped watercourses.



ZW1 intersects fewer watercourses than SL2.

Vegetation(c)






Vegetation




▪ 0.4 ha of natural disturbance;

▪ 4.0 ha of mapped occurrences of provincially tracked vegetation species

No discernable difference between ZW1 and ZW2.



App3.11B-39


Key Factors

Road Refinements


(Segment Z-W)




Wildlife


The access road footprint crosses 0.1 ha of potential suitable horned grebe habitat






Wildlife








No discernable difference between ZW1 and ZW2, although ZW1 crosses a smaller area of potential suitable Canada warbler and common nighthawk habitat.

ZW2 crosses a smaller area of potential suitable habitat for moose, bald eagle, and olive-sided flycatcher.



App3.11B-40


Key Factors

Road Refinements


(Segment Z-W)






The access road footprint crosses 0.7 ha of mapped Category 1 (winter use) habitat.







The access road footprint crosses 3.4 ha of mapped Category 1 (winter use) habitat.





No discernable difference between ZW1 and ZW2, although ZW1 crosses a smaller area of Category 2 habitat, and Spring travel corridors.





No discernable difference between ZW1 and ZW2



App3.11B-41


Key Factors

Road Refinements


(Segment Z-W)








ZW2 crosses a smaller area of potential suitable maternity roosting little brown myotis habitat.


Land Designations


The access road footprint crosses 12 mining claims for a total area of 2.7 ha

Land Designations

The access road footprint crosses four non-OTN trails for a total length of 262.6 m.

The access road footprint crosses 10 mining claims for a total area of 3.3 ha.









App3.11B-42


Key Factors

Road Refinements


(Segment Z-W)






▪ The access footprint crosses one trapline, a fish spawning area and a moose hunting area.


▪ The access footprint crosses winter and summer trails and trapping areas.


▪ The access footprint crosses five traplines, a caribou crossing, a winter wood cutting area, and trapping and hunting areas.



▪ The access footprint crosses one trapline, a fish spawning area and a moose hunting

area.


▪ The access footprint crosses winter and summer trails and trapping areas.


▪ The access footprint crosses five traplines, a caribou crossing, a ski-doo route, a winter wood cutting area, and trapping and hunting areas.





As shown in Table 3.11B-9, the refined access plan proposed in the Final ESR (ZW1) presents similar key factor

metrics when compared with the preliminary access plan (ZW2) presented in the Draft ESR. However, the access

road length and footprint for ZW1 is shorter and smaller. ZW1 has more existing road crossings within the access

road footprint, and this is attributed to the fact that the proposed access road for ZW1 is mostly on-ROW and

primarily follows the existing winter road from the Sandy Lake Junction Switching Station to Sandy Lake First

Nation, and the ROW crosses the existing winter road in several instances along its length. On the other hand, a

large proportion of the access plan proposed for ZW2 included the use of the existing winter road (identified as “to

be upgraded” in the Draft ESR). This resulted in less existing road crossings for ZW2. Overall, the changes in

the access road footprint has resulted in ZW1 crossing a smaller area of mapped wetlands, fewer watercourses

and waterbodies, a smaller area of natural landcover (terrestrial), and a smaller area of potential suitable habitat

for most wildlife species (besides moose, bald eagle, olive-sided flycatcher and maternity roosting habitat for little

brown myotis). For all the other metrics, there were minor variations in the areas crossed by each of the access

road footprints, leading to no discernable differences between the two.



App3.11B-43

Although there are some increases in key factor metrics, the potential effects of the Project that include the revised



social management plan in Section 9.0. Therefore, Wataynikaneyap will be implementing the ZW1 access road

footprint for the Connection to Sandy Lake First Nation (Segment Z-W).

3.11B-3.2 Pickle Lake Subsystem

3.11B-3.2.1 Connection to Ebane/Pipestone Junction Switching Station (Segment B-C)

This portion of the Project originates at the Phase 1 Pickle Lake Transformer Station in Central Patricia and follows

the existing NORT Road (former Highway 808; referred to herein as NORT Road) and the Goldcorp M1M

transmission line to the Ebane/Pipestone Junction Switching Station at the Musselwhite Mine turn-off. Access

roads had not been identified for Segment B-C as part of the Draft ESR, assuming that the NORT Road (an all-

season road) would provide the primary access, with an access route/track along the ROW used when required

only. As part of the Final ESR, an access plan has been defined for Segment B-C which consists of an additional

145.6 km of proposed new access roads. However, this access plan includes primarily an access road within the

40-m-wide ROW (i.e., 140.8 km of the access roads is on-ROW). Only 5.0 km of the access plan is comprised of

proposed new access roads outside of the ROW.

The revised access plan for this segment of the Project is shown in Annex B (Figures 3.11B-37 to 3.11B-45). The

high-level baseline characterization for the access road footprint for the connection to Ebane/Pipestone Junction

Switching Station (Segment B-C) is presented in Table 3.11B-10. Since an access road footprint had not been

defined as part of the Draft ESR for Segment B-C, a metrics comparison between access road footprints cannot

be presented for this segment of the Project. Instead, Table 3.11B-10 only presents metric values for the access

road footprint defined for the Final ESR. The full set of analysis metrics that were considered for the high-level

baseline characterization of Segment B-C are presented in Annex A. No bald eagle nests, potential bat hibernacula

features, or potential wolverine den habitat were observed access road footprint during field surveys in 2016

and 2017.

Since most of the access plan for Segment B-C identified in the Final ESR includes a proposed on-ROW access

road, it is important to note that the any disturbance effects associated with the on-ROW access road are bounded

by the disturbance effects that were assessed in the Draft ESR for the 40-m-wide ROW for this segment of the

Project. Although the ROW alignment has been refined slightly in areas along this segment of the Project for the

Final ESR, this ROW re-alignment was completed within the limits of work assessed in the Draft ESR. The

proposed off-ROW access roads for this segment of the Project span over a relatively short distance (i.e., 5.0 km)

and are located adjacent to or near the ROW. It is predicted that the disturbance effects predicted for the ROW

will also bound the potential disturbance effects associated with the off-ROW access roads.

The potential effects of the Project that include the revised access footprint for Segment B-C are predicted to reach

the same conclusions for the EA criteria in Sections 5.0 to 8.0; and in consideration of implementation of the

commitments and monitoring in Section 12.0 and the environmental and social management plan in Section 9.0.

Therefore, Wataynikaneyap will be implementing the revised access plan discussed herein for the connection to

Ebane/Pipestone Junction Switching Station (Segment B-C).



App3.11B-44

Table 3.11B-10: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to Ebane/Pipestone Junction Switching Station (Segment B-C)

Key Factors


Connection to Ebane/Pipestone Junction Switching Station (Segment B-C) Refined Access Plan

Technical Size

Access roads are 145.6 km in length:

▪ 140.8 km of access roads within the ROW

▪ 5.0 km of access roads outside of the ROW

The access road footprint is 87.5 ha.


Two existing roads crossed by the access road footprint.


Two other linear corridors cross the access road footprint.


8.7 ha of mapped wetlands in the access road footprint


Seven watercourses cross the access road footprint.

Two waterbodies cross the access road footprint across an area of 0.0 ha


2.9 ha of ANSI in the access road footprint

Vegetation(c)





Wildlife Habitat


















App3.11B-45

Table 3.11B-10: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to Ebane/Pipestone Junction Switching Station (Segment B-C)

Key Factors


Connection to Ebane/Pipestone Junction Switching Station (Segment B-C) Refined Access Plan

Natural Environment (con'd)



Land and Resource Use Land Designations

The access road footprint crosses 17 mining claims, for an area of 11.4 ha.

Socio-economic Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

The access road footprint crosses of 9.1 ha of land with archaeological potential.


The access road footprint crosses one BHA with an area of 38.7 ha.

Aboriginal Considerations Traditional Land and Resource Use (TLRU)

Kingfisher Lake First Nation

▪ The access road footprint crosses one trapline

Mishkeegogamang First Nation and Eabametoong First Nation

▪ A potential grave site identified by community members of Mishkeegogamang First Nation is crossed by the access road footprint. Wataynikaneyap will work with Mishkeegogamang First Nation to confirm the location of the burial site and to avoid or minimize potential effects to the burial site, as required.

▪ The access footprint also crosses areas where hunting/spade cabins locations have been identified by Mishkeegogamang First Nation and Eabametoong First Nation community members.




3.11B-3.2.2 Connection to North Caribou Lake First Nation (Segment C-D)

This segment of the Project extends from the Ebane/Pipestone Junction Switching Station to the Transformer

Station in North Caribou Lake First Nation. The revised access plan for this segment of the Project is shown in

Annex B (Figures 3.11B-68 to 3.11B-75). The high-level baseline characterization for the revised access road

footprint for the connection to North Caribou Lake First Nation (Segment C-D) between segment C and segment

D of the Project is presented in Table 3.11B-11. The changes made in the access plan for this segment of the

Project between the draft and final ESR includes access within the 40-m-wide ROW rather than via nearby existing

winter roads and all-season roads as well as defining additional off-ROW access around wet areas or obstacles

such as steep slopes or large waterbodies where the installation of crossings is not practical. The metrics for the

access roads footprint initially identified for this segment of the Project in the Draft ESR, the metrics for the access

roads footprint proposed in the Final ESR, and a comparison between the two are also presented in

Table 3.11B-11. The full set of metrics considered are presented in Annex A. Generally, habitat for wildlife criteria

is similarly abundant and distributed along both access road footprints. No bald eagle nests or potential



App3.11B-46

bat hibernacula features were observed along either of the access road footprints during field surveys in 2016

and 2017.

Table 3.11B-11: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to North Caribou Lake First Nation (Segment C-D)

Key Factors


Access Plan Comparison Connection to North Caribou Lake First Nation

(Segment C-D)

CD1 (Refined Access Plan)

CD2 (Preliminary Access Plan)

Technical Size



Size



The access roads length and area of CD1 are longer and larger than CD2.


There are 2 existing roads crossed by the access road footprint.



There are 2 existing roads crossed by the access road footprint.


Existing roads cross CD1 more often than CD2.



Wetlands(a)


No discernable difference between CD1 and CD2.


The access road footprint crosses 10 watercourses.

The access road footprint crosses 4 waterbodies(c) for an area of 0.0 ha


2 watercourses cross the access road footprint

The access road footprint does not cross any waterbodies(c).

CD1 intersects more watercourses and waterbodies than CD2.


There is 27.8 ha of mapped Candidate ANSI’s within the access road footprint


There is 6.3 ha of mapped Candidate ANSI’s within the access road footprint

The access road footprint of CD2 intersects less area of mapped Candidate ANSI than CD1.

Vegetation(d)





Vegetation(d)





The access road footprint of CD2 intersects less natural landcover (terrestrial), anthropogenic disturbance, and natural disturbance than CD1.



App3.11B-47


Key Factors



(Segment C-D)




Wildlife Habitat








Wildlife Habitat


The access road footprint does not cross any habitat potential suitable for horned grebe.






The access road footprint of CD2 crosses less potential suitable habitat for moose, horned grebe, bald eagle, Canada warbler, common nighthawk and olive-sided flycatcher than CD1.

The access road footprint for CD2 crosses a smaller area of mapped potential habitat supporting provincially tracked wildlife species.



App3.11B-48


Key Factors



(Segment C-D)





There is 32.0 ha of mapped Category 2 habitat in the access road footprint

There is 42.0 ha of mapped Category 3 habitat in the access road footprint.





The access road footprint does not cross any mapped caribou (Boreal population) travel corridors.

The access road footprint for CD2 crosses fewer mapped caribou travel corridors and less mapped Category 2 and Category 3 caribou (Boreal population) habitat.



No boulder fields or blowdown areas representing potential den habitat were observed within the access road footprint during 2016 and 2017 field surveys.




The access road footprint for CD2 crosses less mapped potential suitable wolverine habitat.

One area representing potential den habitat was observed within the access road footprint of NC2.





The access road footprint for CD2 crosses less mapped potential suitable little brown myotis habitat.





The access road footprint for CD2 crosses a smaller area of land with archaeological potential.



App3.11B-49


Key Factors



(Segment C-D)






▪ The access road footprint crosses one trapline and trapping areas.

North Caribou Lake First Nation

▪ The access road footprint crosses seven traplines, trapping areas, unknown burial sites and a sensitive cultural site.



▪ The access road footprint crosses four traplines, unknown burial sites and a sensitive cultural site.

The access road footprint for CD1 crosses additional Kingfisher Lake TLRU features and 3 additional North Caribou Lake traplines compared to CD2.




As shown in Table 3.11B-11, the refined access plan proposed in the Final ESR (CD1) presents a moderate

increase in the key factor metrics presented when compared with the preliminary access plan (CD2) presented in

the Draft ESR. It should be noted that the 40-m-wide transmission line alignment of this segment of the Project

generally follows the existing NORT Road and the current high-ground winter road to North Caribou Lake First

Nation and existing roads which does not require upgrades for utilization; it was therefore not captured in the

access footprint of CD2. The revised access road footprint of CD1 includes on-ROW access where the alignment

presented in the Final ESR deviates from NORT Road, which, in conjunction with the omission of the existing

NORT Road access in the footprint of CD2, explains the increases in the key factor metrics presented in Table

3.11B-11. In addition, an area representing potential wolverine den habitat was observed within the access road

footprint of CD2 during 2016 and 2017 field surveys; the access road footprint for CD1 is now routed away from

this area.

Although there are increases in key factor metrics, the potential effects of the Project that include the revised






App3.11B-50


the CD1 access road footprint for the connection to North Caribou Lake First Nation (Segment C-D).

3.11B-3.2.3 Connection to Kingfisher Lake First Nation (Segment C-J)

This segment of the Project extends from the Ebane/Pipestone Junction Switching Station to the Transformer

Station in Kingfisher Lake First Nation. The revised access plan for this segment of the Project is shown in Annex B


the connection to Kingfisher Lake First Nation (Segment C-J) is presented in Table 3.11B-12. Changes made in

the access plan for this segment of the Project between the Draft and Final ESR included the definition of access

within the 40-m-wide ROW rather than via the nearby all-season NORT road where it is paralleled by the line, as

well as defining additional off-ROW access around wet areas or obstacles such as steep slopes or large

waterbodies where the installation of crossings is not practical. The metrics initially identified for this segment of

the Project in the Draft ESR, the metrics for the access roads footprint proposed in the Final ESR, and a

comparison between the two are also presented in Table 3.11B-12. The full set of metrics considered are

presented in Annex A. Generally, habitat for wildlife criteria is similarly abundant and distributed both access road

footprints. No bald eagle nests, potential bat hibernacula features, or potential wolverine den habitat were

observed along either of the access road footprints during field surveys in 2016 and 2017.

Table 3.11B-12: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to Kingfisher Lake First Nation (Segment C-J)

Key Factors


Access Plan Comparison Connection to Kingfisher Lake First Nation

(Segment C-J)

CJ1 (Refined Access Plan)

CJ2 (Preliminary Access Plan)

Technical Size



Size



The access roads length and area of CJ1 are longer and larger than CJ2.


There is 1 existing road crossed by the access road footprint.


There are 2 other linear corridors that cross the access road footprint.




There are no other linear corridors that cross the access road footprint.

Existing roads cross CJ1 more often than CJ2.



Wetlands(a)

Area of mapped wetlands in the access road footprint is 9.0 ha

No discernable difference between CJ1 and CJ2.



App3.11B-51


Key Factors



(Segment C-J)






The access road footprint crosses 5 waterbodies(c) for an area of 0.1 ha.



The access road footprint crosses 5 waterbodies(c) for an area of 0.2 ha.



There is 1.9 ha of mapped Candidate ANSI’s within the access road footprint.




Vegetation(d)





Vegetation(d)





No discernable difference between CJ1 and CJ2, although CJ1 intersects slightly more natural landcover (terrestrial), anthropogenic disturbance, and natural disturbance than CJ2.



App3.11B-52


Key Factors



(Segment C-J)




Wildlife Habitat








Wildlife Habitat







The access road footprint does not cross any area of mapped potential habitat supporting provincially tracked wildlife species

The access road footprint of CJ2 crosses less potential habitat suitable for moose, horned grebe, bald eagle, common nighthawk and olive-sided flycatcher than CJ1.

The access road footprint of CJ1 crosses less potential suitable habitat for Canada warbler.

The access road footprint for CJ2 does not cross any mapped potential habitat supporting provincially tracked wildlife species.



App3.11B-53


Key Factors



(Segment C-J)





The access road footprint crosses 47.4 ha of Category 2 habitat





The access road footprint of CJ2 intersects less Category 2 and Category 3 habitat than CJ1.





The access road footprint of CJ2 intersects less wolverine habitat than CJ1.





The access road footprint of CJ2 intersects less little brown myotis habitat than CJ1.

Land and Resource Use

Land Designations

The access road footprint intersects 17 mining claims for an area of 4.8 ha

Land Designations

The access road footprint intersects 17 mining claims for an area of 4.2 ha

No discernable difference between CJ1 or CJ2


The access road footprint intersects 1.2 ha of land with archaeological potential


The access road footprint intersects 1.1 ha of land with archaeological potential.




App3.11B-54


Key Factors



(Segment C-J)






▪ The access road footprint crosses seven traplines, crosses areas defined to include sensitive hunting areas, fur trapping areas, fish spawning areas, goose hunting areas and sensitive community areas.



▪ The access road footprint crosses six traplines, crosses areas defined to include sensitive hunting areas, fur trapping areas, fish spawning areas, goose hunting areas and sensitive community areas.





As shown in Table 3.11B-12, the refined access plan proposed in the Final ESR (CJ1) presents a moderate

increase in the key factor metrics presented when compared with the preliminary access plan (CJ2) presented in

the Draft ESR. .CJ1 has more existing road crossings within the access road footprint, and this is attributed to the

fact that the proposed access road for CJ1 is mostly on-ROW and primarily follows the existing road from

Ebane/Pipestone Switching Station Junction to its end near Musselwhite Mine, and the ROW crosses the existing

road in several instances along its length. On the other hand, a large proportion of the access plan proposed for

CJ2 included the use of the existing road (identified as “to be upgraded” in the Draft ESR). This resulted in less

existing road crossings for JK2. In addition, the access JK1 crosses less watercourses than JK2, as the revised

access plan avoids wet areas that were better understood through the analysis of recently acquired LiDAR

information. Between Musselwhite Mine and Kingfisher Lake First Nation, both the Draft and Final ESR define

primarily on-ROW access.

Although there are increases in key factor metrics, the potential effects of the Project that include the revised

access plan are predicted to reach the same conclusions for the EA criteria in Sections 5.0 to 8.0; and in


social management plan in Section 9.0. Therefore, Wataynikaneyap will be implementing the CJ1 access plan for

the connection to Kingfisher Lake First Nation (Segment C-J).



App3.11B-55

3.11B-3.2.4 Connection to Muskrat Dam First Nation (Segment D-E)

This segment of the Project extends from the North Caribou Lake First Nation Transformer Station to the Muskrat

Dam Transformer Station. The revised access plan for this segment of the Project is shown in Annex B


the connection to Muskrat Dam First Nation (Segment D-E) is presented in Table 3.11B-13. Changes made in the

access plan for this segment of the Project between the Draft and Final ESR included the definition of access

within the 40-m-wide ROW rather than via nearby existing winter roads as well as defining additional off-ROW

access around wet areas or obstacles such as steep slopes or large waterbodies where the installation of

crossings is not practical. The metrics initially identified for this segment of the Project in the Draft ESR, the metrics

for the access roads footprint proposed in the Final ESR, and a comparison between the two are also presented

in Table 3.11B-13. The full set of metrics considered are presented in Annex A. Generally, habitat for wildlife

criteria is similarly abundant and distributed both access road footprints. No bald eagle nests, potential

bat hibernacula features, or potential wolverine den habitat were observed along either of the access road

footprints during field surveys in 2016 and 2017.

Table 3.11B-13: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to Muskrat Dam First Nation (Segment D-E)

Key Factors


Access Plan Comparison Connection to Muskrat Dam First Nation

(Segment D-E)

DE1 (Refined Access Plan)

DE2 (Preliminary Access Plan)

Technical Size



Size



No discernable difference between DE1 and DE2


There are 2 existing road crossed by the access road footprint.


There is 1 other linear corridor that crosses the access road footprint.




There are 3 other linear corridors that crosses the access road footprint




Wetlands(a)


DE1 intersects less area of mapped wetlands than DE2



App3.11B-56


Key Factors



(Segment D-E)





The access road footprint crosses 3 waterbodies for an area of 0.1 ha(c).



The access road footprint crosses 2 waterbodies for an area of 0.0 ha(c).

DE1 intersects fewer watercourses than DE2






No discernable difference between DE1 and DE2, however DE2 intersects slightly less mapped Candidate ANSI’s than DE1. No discernable difference between DE1 and DE2

Vegetation(d)





Vegetation(d)





No discernable difference between DE1 and DE2. However, DE1 intersects slightly less natural landcover (terrestrial) than DE2.



App3.11B-57


Key Factors



(Segment D-E)



Wildlife Habitat








Wildlife Habitat








DE2 crosses less habitat suitable for moose, bald eagle, common nighthawk and potential habitat supporting provincially tracked wildlife species.

No discernable difference between DE1 and DE2 in regard to horned grebe, Canada warbler, and olive-sided flycatcher potential suitable habitat.



App3.11B-58


Key Factors



(Segment D-E)










The access road footprint crosses 3.3 ha of Category 3 habitat.


No discernable difference between DE1 and DE2. However, DE1 intersects slightly less Category 2 habitat and fewer caribou travel corridors while intersecting slightly more Category 3 habitat than DE2.





No discernable difference between DE1 and DE2.





DE2 crosses less suitable maternity habitat for little brown myotis than DE1.








App3.11B-59


Key Factors



(Segment D-E)





Muskrat Dam First Nation

▪ The access road footprint crosses community aggregate sites, fishing areas, and duck hunting areas.


▪ The access road footprint crosses two traplines.

Sachigo Lake First Nation

▪ The access road footprint crosses a fishing area.



▪ The access road footprint crosses community aggregate sites and duck hunting areas.


▪ The access road footprint crosses two traplines.

No discernable difference between DE1 and DE2. However, DE2 does not cross any TLRU features identified by land users from Sachigo Lake First Nation.




As shown in Table 3.11B-13, the refined access plan proposed in the Final ESR (DE1) presents similar key factor

metrics when compared with the preliminary access plan (DE2) presented in the Draft ESR. The DE2 access road

footprint was planned to follow existing winter roads removed from the ROW by several kilometres with

connections to the ROW to facilitate access, while the DE1 footprint now includes on-ROW access throughout this

segment. The ROW has been defined to align with the location of a planned future community all-season road.

Both access road footprints cross comparable areas of natural land cover and wildlife habitat, although DE1 does

cross a slightly larger area of suitable habitat for moose and suitable maternity roosting habitat for little brown

myotis. However, with the realignment away from existing winter roads and analysis of LiDAR information collected

in this area identifying the potential for wet conditions, DE1 crosses a smaller area of wetlands and total

watercourses, supporting the realignment of the DE1 access road footprint. Following future development of the

planned all-season road by the community, the current winter road corridor could be allowed to re-establish

vegetation. Aligning Project access with the ROW and the planned all-season road would be beneficial to reducing

the total number of linear corridors present in this area in the longer-term.



App3.11B-60

The potential effects of the Project that include the revised access plan are predicted to reach the same



Wataynikaneyap will be implementing the DE1 access plan for the connection to Muskrat Dam First Nation

(Segment D-E).

3.11B-3.2.5 Connection to Bearskin Lake First Nation (Segment E-F)

This segment of the Project extends from the Muskrat Dam First Nation Transformer Station to the Bearskin Lake

First Nation Transformer Station. The revised access plan for this segment of the Project is shown in Annex B


access road footprint for the connection to Bearskin Lake First Nation (Segment E-F) is presented in Table 3.11B-

14. Changes made in the access plan for this segment of the Project between the Draft and Final ESR included

the definition of access within the 40-m-wide ROW rather than via nearby existing winter roads as well as defining

additional off-ROW access around wet areas or obstacles such as steep slopes or large waterbodies where the

installation of crossings is not practical. The metrics initially identified for this segment of the Project in the Draft

ESR, the metrics for the access roads footprint proposed in the Final ESR, and a comparison between the two are

also presented in Table 3.11B-14. The full set of metrics considered are presented in Annex A. Generally, habitat

for wildlife criteria is similarly abundant and distributed both access road footprints. No bald eagle nests, potential



Table 3.11B-14: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to Bearskin Lake First Nation (Segment E-F)

Key Factors


Access Plan Comparison Connection to Bearskin Lake First Nation

(Segment E-F)

EF1 (Refined Access Plan)

EF2 (Preliminary Access Plan)

Technical Size



Size



No discernable difference between EF1 and EF2.


There are 2 existing road crossed by the access road footprint.





Existing roads cross the access road footprint 1 time.


EF1 is crossed more times by existing roads than EF2.



Wetlands(a)


EF1 intersects less area of mapped wetlands than EF2



App3.11B-61


Key Factors



(Segment E-F)






The access road footprint crosses 5 waterbodies(c) are intersected by the access road footprint withfor an area of 0.1 ha



The access road footprint crosses 5 waterbodies(c) are intersected by the access road footprint withfor an area of 0.2 ha






No discernable difference between EF1 and EF2 butBL2, however EF1 intersects slightly less area of ANSIs than EF2.

Vegetation(d)





Vegetation(d)








App3.11B-62


Key Factors



(Segment E-F)




Wildlife Habitat








Wildlife Habitat








EF1 crosses a smaller area of suitable habitat for horned grebe, Canada warbler, and mapped potential habitat supporting provincially tracked wildlife species.

EF2 crosses a smaller area of suitable habitat for moose, bald eagle, common nighthawk and olive-sided flycatcher.



App3.11B-63


Key Factors



(Segment E-F)










No discernable difference between EF1 and EF2.No discernable difference between EF1 and EF2, however EF2 crosses slightly less Category 2 caribou (boreal population) habitat.










No discernable difference between EF1 and EF2, however EF2 crosses slightly less suitable maternity roosting habitat for little brown myotis.


The access road footprint intersects 2.8 ha of land with archaeological potential in the access road footprint.



No discernable difference between EF1 and EF2. EF1 intersects a smaller area of land with archaeological potential than EF2.



App3.11B-64


Key Factors



(Segment E-F)





Bearskin Lake First Nation

▪ The access road footprint crosses one trapline, a trapping area and a fish spawning area.

Muskrat Dam

▪ The access road footprint crosses a community aggregate resource.


▪ The access road footprint crosses a trapline and a watershed protection area.


Bearskin Lake First Nation

▪ The access road footprint crosses one trapline, a trapping area and a fish spawning area.


▪ The access road footprint crosses a community aggregate resource.


▪ The access road footprint crosses a trapline and a watershed protection area.





As shown in Table 3.11B-14, the refined access plan proposed in the Final ESR (EF1) presents similar key factor

metrics when compared with the preliminary access plan (EF2) presented in the Draft ESR. EF1 indicated more

crossings of existing mapped roads within the access road footprint, and this is attributed to the fact that the

proposed access road for EF1 is mostly on-ROW and primarily follows the mapped existing winter roads from

Muskrat Dam First Nation to Bearskin Lake First Nation, and the ROW crosses the existing winter roads in several

instances along its length. On the other hand, a large proportion of the access plan proposed for EF2 included the

use of the existing winter road (identified as “to be upgraded” in the Draft ESR). This resulted in less existing road

crossings for EF2. Both Project footprints cross comparable areas of natural land cover and wildlife habitat,

although EF1 does cross a slightly larger area of suitable habitat for moose and suitable maternity roosting habitat

for little brown myotis. However, with the alignment of access within the 40-m-wide ROW rather than via nearby

existing winter roads/all season roads as well as defining additional off-ROW access around wet areas, EF1

intersects a moderately smaller area of wetlands compared to EF2.



App3.11B-65




Wataynikaneyap will be implementing the EF1 access plan for the connection to Bearskin Lake First Nation

(Segment E-F).

3.11B-3.2.6 Connection to Sachigo Lake First Nation (Segment E-G)

This segment of the Project extends from the Muskrat Dam Transformer Station to the Transformer Station in

Sachigo Lake First Nation. The revised access plan for this segment of the Project is shown in Annex B


the connection to Sachigo Lake First Nation (Segment E-G) is presented in Table 3.11B-15. Changes made in the

access plan for this segment of the Project between the Draft and Final ESR included the definition of access

within the 40-m-wide ROW rather than aligning where possible with existing winter roads. The metrics for the

access road footprint initially identified for this segment in the Draft ESR, the metrics for the access road footprint

proposed in the Final ESR, and a comparison between the two are also presented in Table 3.11B-15. The full set

of analysis metrics that were considered are presented in Annex A. Generally, habitat for wildlife criteria is similarly

abundant and distributed along both access road footprints. No bald eagle nests or potential bat hibernacula

features were observed along either of the access road footprints during field surveys in 2016 and 2017.

Table 3.11B-15: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to Sachigo First Nation (Segment E-G)

Key Factors


Access Plan Comparison Connection to Sachigo First Nation

(Segment E-G)

EG1 (Refined Access Plan)

EG2 (Preliminary Access Plan)

Technical Size



Size



No discernable difference between EG1 and EG2.


Three existing roads are crossed by the access road footprint.


One other linear corridor crosses the access road footprint.


Three existing roads are crossed by the access road footprint.

Existing roads cross the access road footprint four times.

Four other linear corridors cross the access road footprint.

EG1 has more existing road crossings than EG2.


24.1 ha of mapped wetlands in the access road footprint.

Wetlands(a)


EG1 crosses less area of mapped wetlands.



App3.11B-66


Key Factors



(Segment E-G)






One waterbody(c) is intersected by the access road footprint over an area of 0.1 ha



One waterbody(c) is intersected by the access road footprint over an area of 0.0 ha

EG1 intersects fewer watercourses than EG2.

No discernable difference in relation to waterbody(c) crossings.

Vegetation

The access road footprint crosses(d):




The access road footprint crosses 0.9 ha of mapped occurrences of provincially tracked vegetation species.

Vegetation

The access road footprint crosses(d):




The access road footprint crosses 1.2 ha of mapped occurrences of provincially tracked vegetation species.

No discernable difference between EG1 and EG2; however, EG1 crosses a slightly larger area of natural landcover (terrestrial) and a slightly smaller area of mapped occurrences of provincially tracked vegetation species.



App3.11B-67


Key Factors



(Segment E-G)




Wildlife Habitat


The access road footprint does not cross any potential suitable horned grebe habitat

The access road footprint rosses 17.2 ha of potential suitable bald eagle habitat





Wildlife Habitat








EG1 crosses less area of potential suitable habitat for all wildlife criteria (not threatened or endangered), except for moose.

No discernable difference between EG1 and EG2 in relation to mapped potential habitat supporting provincially tracked wildlife species within the access road footprint; however, EG1 crosses a slightly larger area.



App3.11B-68


Key Factors



(Segment E-G)








The access road footprint does not cross any mapped caribou (Boreal population) travel corridors.






No discernable difference between S1 and S2; however, EG1 crosses a slightly larger area of mapped Category 1 (nursery) habitat for caribou (Boreal population).



One boulder field or blowdown area representing potential den habitat was observed within the access road footprint during 2016 and 2017 field surveys.




EG1 crosses one observed area representing potential den habitat for wolverine, but overall crosses a slightly smaller area of potential suitable habitat for wolverine.





No discernable difference between EG1 and EG2; however, EG1 crosses a slightly smaller area of potential suitable maternity roosting habitat for little brown myotis.


0.7 ha of land with archaeological potential in the access road footprint



No discernable difference between S1 and S2.



App3.11B-69


Key Factors



(Segment E-G)






▪ The access footprint crosses an old tractor trail, traplines, a campground, a caribou crossing area, a watershed protection area, and a sensitive area.



▪ The access footprint crosses an old tractor trail, traplines, a campground, a caribou crossing area, a watershed protection area, and a sensitive area.

No discernable difference between EG1 and EG2.




As shown in Table 3.11B-15, the refined access plan proposed in the Final ESR (EG1) presents similar key factor

metrics presented when compared with the preliminary access plan (EG2) presented in the Draft ESR. However,

one area of potential wolverine den habitat was observed within the access road footprint for EG1 during the 2016

and 2017 field surveys. The length of the access roads and the size of the access road footprint for both EG1 and

EG2 are relatively the same. EG1 has more existing road crossings within the access road footprint, and this is

attributed to the fact that the proposed access road for EG1 is mostly on-ROW and generally follows the existing

winter road to Sachigo Lake First Nation where the ROW approaches the community, and the ROW crosses the

existing winter road in several instances along its length. On the other hand, a large proportion of the access plan

proposed for EG2 included the use of existing access roads to upgrade, including the existing winter road to

Sachigo Lake First Nation. This resulted in less existing road crossings for EG2. Overall, the changes in the

access road footprint has resulted in EG1 to cross less area of mapped wetlands, fewer watercourses, slightly

less area of mapped occurrences of provincially tracked vegetation species, slightly less area of potential suitable

habitat for all wildlife criteria (except for moose and caribou (Boreal population)), and slightly less area with

archaeological potential. EG1 crosses a slightly larger area of natural landcover (terrestrial), mapped potential

habitat supporting provincially tracked wildlife species, potential suitable habitat for moose, and mapped Category

1 (nursery) habitat for caribou (Boreal population). However, since most of the access plan for EG1 includes on-

ROW access, the disturbance required for EG1 will overlap with the disturbance required for the ROW and

therefore decrease the size of the overall Project footprint for this segment of the Project.



and monitoring in Section 12.0 and the environmental and social management plan in Section 9.0. This includes

applying mitigation to limit disturbance to active wolverine dens if active den sites are observed during Project



App3.11B-70

construction. Therefore, Wataynikaneyap will be implementing the EG1 access road footprint for the connection

to Sachigo Lake First Nation (Segment E-G).

3.11B-3.2.7 Connection to Wunnumin Lake First Nation (Segment J-I)

This segment of the Project extends from the Kingfisher Lake Transformer Station to the Transformer Station in

Wunnumin Lake First Nation. The revised access plan for this segment of the Project is shown in Annex B

(Figures 3.11B-52 to 3.11B-55). The high-level baseline characterization for the revised access road footprint

between segment J and segment I of the Project is presented in Table 3.11B-16. Changes made in the access

plan for this segment of the Project between the draft and final ESR includes adjustment of the access plan to

align with refinements to the ROW, and defining additional off-ROW access around wet areas or obstacles such

as steep slopes or large waterbodies where the installation of crossings is not practical. The metrics for the access

roads footprint initially identified for this segment of the Project in the Draft ESR, the metrics for the access roads

footprint proposed in the Final ESR, and a comparison between the two access road segments are also presented

in Table 3.11B-16. The full set of metrics considered are presented in Annex A. Generally, habitat for wildlife

criteria is similarly abundant and distributed along both corridors. No bald eagle nests or potential bat hibernacula

features were observed along either of the access road footprints during field surveys in 2016 and 2017.

Table 3.11B-16: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to Wunnumin Lake First Nation

Key Factors


Access Plan Comparison Connection to Wunnumin Lake First Nation

(Segment J-I)

JI1 (Refined Access Plan)

JI2 (Preliminary Access Plan)

Technical Size



Size



No discernable difference between JI1 and JI2.


There are 6 existing roads crossed by the access road footprint




There are 6 existing roads that crossed by the access road footprint.


There are 3 other linear corridors crossed by the access road footprint.




Wetlands(a)





App3.11B-71


Key Factors



(Segment J-I)






The access road footprint does not cross any waterbodies.



The access road footprint crosses six waterbodies for an area of 0.2 ha

JI1 intersects fewer watercourses and waterbodies than JI2.

Vegetation(c)





Vegetation(c)






Wildlife

The access road footprint crosses 7.7 ha of suitable moose habitat

The access road footprint crosses 0.0 ha of suitable horned grebe habitat

The access road footprint crosses 7.7 ha of suitable bald eagle habitat

The access road footprint crosses 4.3 ha of Canada warbler habitat

The access road footprint crosses 7.4 ha of suitable common nighthawk habitat

The access road footprint crosses 8.1 ha of olive-sided flycatcher habitat

Wildlife







JI1 crosses a smaller area of suitable habitat for common nighthawk.

JI2 crosses a smaller area of suitable habitat for moose, bald eagle and olive-sided flycatcher.



App3.11B-72


Key Factors



(Segment J-I)
















Two boulder fields or blowdown areas representing areas representing potential den habitat were observed within the access road footprint during the 2016 and 2017 field surveys.

No discernable difference in habitat crossed by JI1 or JI2, however, two areas representing potential den habitat were observed within the access road footprint of JI2.













App3.11B-73


Key Factors



(Segment J-I)






▪ The access road footprint crosses a public works yard, winter and summer trails, five traplines, and fur trapping areas.

Wunnumin Lake First Nation

▪ The access road footprint crosses one trapline and a trail.



▪ The access road footprint crosses winter and summer trails, five traplines, and fur trapping areas.

Wunnumin Lake First Nation

▪ The access road footprint crosses one trapline and a trail.

JI1 intersects one more TLRU feature than JI2.



c) Waterbodies not including watercourses. d) Natural landcover (terrestrial) includes bedrock, bog-open, bog-treed, fen-open, fen-treed, forest-dense deciduous, forest-dense coniferous, forest-dense mixed, forest-regenerating depletion, and forest-sparse landcover types e) Anthropogenic disturbance includes forest depletion-cuts and settlement/infrastructure f) Natural disturbance includes forest depletion-burns

As shown in Table 3.11B-16, the refined access plan proposed in the Final ESR (JI1) presents similar key factor

metrics when compared with the preliminary access plan (JI2) presented in the Draft ESR. Both Project footprints

cross comparable areas of natural land cover and wildlife habitat, although two potential wolverine den habitats

were observed within the access road footprint of JI2. In addition, through alignment with the refinements made to

the 40 m wide ROW to avoid wet areas, as well as defining additional off-ROW access to avoid wet areas, JI1

intersects a smaller area of wetlands and fewer waterbodies and watercourses compared to JI2.





construction. Therefore, Wataynikaneyap will be implementing the JI1 access plan for the connection to Wunnumin

Lake First Nation (Segment J-I).



App3.11B-74

3.11B-3.2.8 Connection to Wawakapewin First Nation (Segment J-K)

This segment of the Project extends from the Kingfisher Lake Transformer Station to the Transformer Station in

Wawakapewin First Nation. The revised access plan for this segment of the Project is shown in Annex B


access road footprint for the connection to Wawakapewin First Nation (Segment J-K) is presented in Table 3.11B-

17. Changes made in the access plan for this segment of the Project between the draft and final ESR includes

access within the 40-m-wide ROW rather than via the nearby existing winter road as well as defining access spurs

between the ROW and nearby existing winter road, as well as additional off-ROW access around wet areas or



footprint proposed in the Final ESR, and a comparison between the two are also presented in Table 3.11B-17.

The full set of analysis metrics that were considered are presented in Annex A. Generally, habitat for wildlife criteria

is similarly abundant and distributed along both access road footprints. No bald eagle nests, potential



Table 3.11B-17: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to Wawakapewin First Nation (Segment J-K)

Key Factors




JK1 (Refined Access Plan)

JK2 (Preliminary Access Plan)

Technical Size



Size



The length of access roads for JK1 is shorter. JK1 has a smaller access road footprint.


Two existing roads cross the access road footprint.



Three existing roads cross the access road footprint.


JK1 has more existing road crossings than JK2.



Wetlands(a)


No discernable difference between JK1 and JK2.



Two waterbodies(c) are crossed by the access road footprint over an area of 0.0



Four waterbodies(c) are crossed by the access road footprint over an area of 0.1 ha

JK1 crosses fewer mapped watercourses and waterbodies.



App3.11B-75


Key Factors











No discernable difference between JK1 and JK2

Vegetation(d)





Vegetation(d)





JK1 crosses a smaller area of natural landcover (terrestrial)

Wildlife Habitat


The access road footprint does not cross any potential suitable horned grebe habitat.

The access road footprint rosses 5.7 ha of potential suitable bald eagle habitat




Wildlife Habitat







No discernable difference between JK1 and JK2; however, JK1 avoids potential suitable habitat for horned grebe, and crosses slightly less potential suitable habitat for moose, Canada warbler and common nighthawk, and slightly more potential suitable habitat for bald eagle.



App3.11B-76


Key Factors








4.3 ha of Category 1 (nursery) habitat

20.2 ha of Category 2 habitat





3.7 ha of Category 1 (nursery) habitat





No discernable difference between JK1 and JK2; however, JK1 crosses a slightly smaller area of mapped caribou (Boreal population) travel corridors (Fall – November)





JK1 crosses a smaller area of potential suitable habitat for wolverine





No discernable difference between JK1 and JK2; however, JK1 crosses a slightly larger area of potential suitable maternity roosting habitat for little brown myotis.








App3.11B-77


Key Factors









▪ The access footprint crosses summer and winter use trails, traplines, fish spawning areas, fur trapping areas, hunting areas and moose calving areas.



▪ The access footprint crosses summer and winter use trails, traplines, fish spawning areas, fur trapping areas, hunting areas and moose calving areas.





As shown in Table 3.11B-17, the refined access plan proposed in the Final ESR (JK1) presents similar key factor

metrics when compared with the preliminary access plan (JK2) presented in the Draft ESR; however, the access

road footprint for JK1 is smaller. JK1 has more existing road crossings within the access road footprint, and this is

attributed to the fact that the proposed access road for JK1 is mostly on-ROW and primarily follows the existing

winter road from Kingfisher Lake First Nation to Wawakapewin First Nation, and the ROW crosses the existing

winter road in several instances along its length. On the other hand, a large proportion of the access plan proposed

for JK2 included the use of the existing winter roads (identified as “to be upgraded” in the Draft ESR). This resulted

in less existing road crossings for JK2. Overall, the changes in the access road footprint has resulted in JK1

crossing fewer watercourses and waterbodies, a smaller area of natural landcover (terrestrial), and a smaller area

of potential suitable habitat for wolverine. For all the other metrics, there were minor variations in the areas crossed

by each of the access road footprints, leading to no discernable differences between the two.




Wataynikaneyap will be implementing the JK1 access road footprint for the connection to Wawakapewin First

Nation (Segment J-K).



App3.11B-78

3.11B-3.2.9 Connection to Kasabonika First Nation (Segment K-L)

This segment of the Project extends from the Wawakapewin First Nation Transformer Station to the Transformer

Station in Kasabonika Lake First Nation. The revised access plan for this segment of the Project is shown in

Annex B (Figures 3.11B-60 to 3.11B-62). The high-level baseline characterization for the revised access road

footprint for the connection to Kasabonika Lake First Nation (Segment K-L) is presented in Table 3.11B-18.

Changes made in the access plan for this segment of the Project between the draft and final ESR includes access

within the 40-m-wide ROW rather than via the nearby existing winter road, off-ROW access spurs between the

ROW and the nearby existing winter road, as well as defining additional off-ROW access around wet areas or



footprint proposed in the Final ESR, and a comparison between the two are also presented in Table 3.11B-18.

The full set of analysis metrics that were considered are presented in Annex A. Generally, habitat for wildlife criteria

is similarly abundant and distributed along both access road footprints. No bald eagle nests or potential

bat hibernacula features were observed along either of the access road footprints during field surveys in 2016

and 2017.

Table 3.11B-18: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to Kasabonika First Nation (Segment K-L)

Key Factors


Access Plan Comparison Connection to Kasabonika First Nation

(Segment K-L)

KL1 (Refined Access Plan)

KL2 (Preliminary Access Plan)

Technical Size



Size



No discernable difference between KL1 and KL2






There are 3 existing roads cross the access road footprint.


There are 2 other linear corridors that cross the access road footprint

KL1 is crossed more times by existing roads than KL2



Wetlands(a)





App3.11B-79


Key Factors



(Segment K-L)





The access road footprint is not intersected by any waterbodies.



The access road footprint intersects 1 waterbody for an area of 0.0 ha

KL1 intersects fewer watercourses and waterbodies than KL2.


Vegetation(c)





Vegetation(c)





No discernable difference between KL1 and KL2.

Wildlife


The access road footprint does not cross any suitable horned grebe habitat.

The access road footprint rosses 4.6 ha of suitable bald eagle habitat




Wildlife










App3.11B-80


Key Factors



(Segment K-L)








The access road footprint crosses 3.2 ha of caribou (Boreal population) travel corridors (Fall – November)





















App3.11B-81


Key Factors



(Segment K-L)






The access road footprint intersects 1 Bait Harvest Area for an area of 16.1 ha




The access road footprint intersects 1 Bait Harvest Area for an area of 15.1 ha

No discernable difference between KL1 and KL2.



Kasabonika Lake First Nation

▪ The access road footprint crosses one trapline and a proposed landfill area.

Wawakapewin First Nation

▪ The access road footprint crosses one trapline and a firewood collection area.


Kasabonika Lake First Nation

▪ The access road footprint crosses one trapline and a proposed landfill area.


▪ The access road footprint crosses one trapline and a firewood collection area.







App3.11B-82

As shown in Table 3.11B-18, the refined access plan proposed in the Final ESR (KL1) presents similar key factor

metrics when compared with the preliminary access plan (KL2) presented in the Draft ESR. JK1 has more existing

road crossings within the access road footprint, and this is attributed to the fact that the proposed access road for

JK1 is mostly on-ROW and primarily follows the existing winter roads from Wawakapewin First Nation to

Kasabonika Lake First Nation, and the ROW crosses the existing winter roads in several instances along its length.

On the other hand, a large proportion of the access plan proposed for JK2 included the use of the existing winter

roads (identified as “to be upgraded” in the Draft ESR). This resulted in less existing road crossings for JK2. JK1

has significantly less watercourse crossings compared to KL2. This is primarily due to the realignment of access

plan for KL1 within the 40-m-wide ROW rather than via the nearby existing winter road, as well as additional off-

ROW access which has been included to link between the ROW and existing winter road, as well as to avoid wet

areas. For all the other metrics, there were minor variations in the areas crossed by each of the access road

footprints, leading to no discernable differences between the two.





construction. Therefore, Wataynikaneyap will be implementing the JK1 access road footprint for the Connection

to Kasabonika Lake First Nation (Segment K-L).

3.11B-3.2.10 Connection to Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug and Wapekeka First Nation (Segment K-M-N)

This segment of the Project extends from the Wawakapewin First Nation Transformer Station to the transformer

stations in both Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug and Wapekeka First Nation. The revised access plan for this

segment of the Project is shown in Annex B (Figure 3.11B-60 and Figures 3.11B-63 to 3.11B-67). The high-level

baseline characterization for the revised access road footprint for the connection to Kitchenuhmaykoosib

Inninuwug and Wapekeka First Nation (Segment K-M-N) is presented in Table 3.11B-19. Changes made in the

access plan for this segment of the Project between the Draft and Final ESR includes adjustment of the access

plan to align with refinements to the ROW, and as well as defining additional off-ROW access around wet areas

or obstacles such as steep slopes or large waterbodies where the installation of crossings is not practical. Within

the Draft ESR, the access road between Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug and Wapekeka was defined as a

potential existing winter road to be upgraded by the Project. Within the Final ESR, it is defined that this road could

be used in its current condition if required. As noted in Section 4.0, there is an ongoing project, the Proposed DGS

Upgrade and Micro Grid Connection (DGS Upgrade and Micro Grid Connection) to connect the two communities

with a 25 kV connection. Based on the current status of the Project, it is likely that the Phase 2 project will connect

to this project at the KI/Wapekeka junction switching Station, rather than requiring extension to both communities,

The metrics for the access road footprint initially identified for this segment in the Draft ESR, the metrics for the

access road footprint proposed in the Final ESR, and a comparison between the two are also presented in

Table 3.11B-19. The full set of analysis metrics that were considered are presented in Annex A. Generally, habitat

for wildlife criteria is similarly abundant and distributed along both access road footprints. No bald eagle nests or

potential bat hibernacula features were observed along either of the access road footprints during field surveys in

2016 and 2017.



App3.11B-83

Table 3.11B-19: Access Plan Refinement Analysis – Connection to Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug and Wapekeka First Nation (Segment K-M-N)

Key Factors



Connection to Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug and Wapekeka First Nation

(Segment K-M-N)

KMN1 (Refined Access Plan)

KMN2 (Preliminary Access Plan)

Technical Size



Size



KMN1 has shorter access roads and covers less area than KMN2.






There are 6 existing roads cross the access road footprint.


There are 8 other linear corridors cross the access road footprint

KMN1 is crossed fewer times by existing roads than KMN2.



Wetlands(a)


No discernable difference between KMN1 and KMN2.



The access road footprint intersects 2 waterbodies for an area of 0.0 ha



The access road footprint intersects 7 waterbodies for an area of 0.2 ha

KMN1 intersects fewer watercourses and waterbodies than KMN2.

Vegetation(c)






Vegetation(c)






No discernable difference between KMN1 and KMN2. However, KMN1 intersects less area of natural landcover (terrestrial) and area of mapped occurrences of provincially tracked vegetation species than KMN2.



App3.11B-84


Key Factors




(Segment K-M-N)




Wildlife

The access road footprint crosses 5.2 ha of suitable moose habitat.

The access road footprint crosses 0.0 ha of suitable horned grebe habitat.

The access road footprint rosses 5.2 ha of suitable bald eagle habitat.

The access road footprint crosses 3.3 ha of Canada warbler habitat.

The access road footprint crosses 2.9 ha of suitable common nighthawk habitat.

The access road footprint crosses 6.4 ha of olive-sided flycatcher habitat.


Wildlife

The access road footprint crosses 4.1 ha of suitable moose habitat.

The access road footprint crosses 0.1 ha of suitable horned grebe habitat.

The access road footprint crosses 7.3 ha of suitable bald eagle habitat.

The access road footprint crosses 7.1 ha of Canada warbler habitat.

The access road footprint crosses 5.5 ha of suitable common nighthawk habitat.

The access road footprint crosses 6.0 ha of olive-sided flycatcher habitat.

The access road footprint does not cross any mapped potential habitat supporting provincially tracked wildlife species.

KMN1 crosses less habitat suitable for bald eagle, Canada warbler and common nighthawk.

KMN2 crosses less habitat suitable for moose and area of mapped potential habitat supporting provincially tracked wildlife species.

There is no discernable difference between the area of suitable habitat crossed for horned grebe and olive-sided flycatcher between KMN1 and KMN2.



App3.11B-85


Key Factors




(Segment K-M-N)








The access road footprint crosses 12.9 ha pf caribou (Boreal population) travel corridors (Fall – November).






No discernable difference between KM1 and KM2







KMN1 crosses less habitat suitable for wolverine and no potential den habitat was observed within the access road footprint during 2016 and 2017 field surveys.







App3.11B-86


Key Factors




(Segment K-M-N)






The access road footprint does not cross any Bait Harvest Areas.




The access road footprint intersects 4 Bait Harvest Areas for an area of 15.1 ha

KMN1 intersects a smaller area of archaeological potential and no BHAs.



K.I. First Nation

▪ The access footprint crosses one trapline, and a general hunting area.

Wapekeka First Nation

▪ The access footprint crosses a ski-doo trail, a trapline and an active hunting area,


▪ The access footprint crosses a firewood collection area an active fishing area.


K.I. First Nation

▪ The access footprint crosses one trapline, a harvesting wood/picnic area, a blueberry harvesting area, and a general hunting area.

Wapekeka First Nation

▪ The access footprint crosses a trapline and an active hunting area,


▪ The access footprint crosses an active fishing area.

KM1 intersects fewer TLRU lines and polygons than KM2






App3.11B-87

As shown in Table 3.11B-19, the refined access plan proposed in the Final ESR (KMN1) presents a moderate

decrease on the key factor metrics presented when compared with the preliminary access plan (KMN2) presented

in the Draft ESR. KMN1 intersects fewer existing roads, waterbodies and watercourses, while disturbing smaller

areas of suitable species at risk habitat and natural land cover. This decrease in footprint for the KMN1 access

plan can be attributed to minimizing the access road footprint through on-ROW access and utilization of the

existing winter roads between Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug and Wapekeka not anticipated to require upgrades.





construction. Therefore, Wataynikaneyap will be implementing the KMN1 access road footprint for the Connection

to Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug and Wapekeka First Nation (Segment K-M-N).

REFERENCES

MNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2003. Class Environmental Assessment for MNR Resource

Stewardship and Facility Development Projects.

MNRF (Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry). 2015. Land Information Ontario. Electronic data.

https://www.ontario.ca/page/land-information-ontario

MNRF. 2017. Land Information Ontario. Electronic data. https://www.ontario.ca/page/land-information-ontario

NHIC (Natural Heritage Information Centre). 2015. Natural Heritage Information Centre: Get Natural Heritage

Information. Electronic data. https://www.ontario.ca/page/get-natural-heritage-information.

NHIC. 2017. Natural Heritage Information Centre: Get Natural Heritage Information. Electronic data.

https://www.ontario.ca/page/get-natural-heritage-information.

NRCan (Natural Resources Canada). 2016. Earth Sciences Sector, GeoGratis, CanVec Data Product.

Electronic data. http://www.geogratis.gc.ca.

NRCan. 2017. Earth Sciences Sector, GeoGratis, CanVec Data Product. Electronic data.

http://www.geogratis.gc.ca.

draft environmental study report for the phase 2...

Documents