14.10 Terrestrial Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

The community findings from Melgund Township show strong alignment with several key themes in the IAAC Summary of Issues (SOI), particularly regarding the adequacy of baseline data and the potential for adverse effects on terrestrial wildlife. The IAAC’s section on "Species at Risk and their habitat" explicitly notes concerns regarding "insufficient information" and the need for better data on "direct and indirect pathways of effects." This aligns directly with Melgund’s observation that the proponent’s eDNA methods for reptiles were not optimized and that invertebrate data is nearly four decades old. By identifying these specific technical gaps, the community assessment provides the evidentiary support needed to validate the IAAC’s broader concern that the current baseline is insufficient for a modern, risk-informed impact assessment.

Furthermore, the community’s focus on the low calf-to-cow ratio in local moose populations provides a critical localized context to the IAAC’s "Current use of lands and resources" and "Terrestrial Wildlife and their Habitat" sections. While the IAAC flags general concerns about "disturbance, displacement, or harm" to wildlife, Melgund Township identifies a specific demographic vulnerability—low productivity—that could make the local population less resilient to project-related stressors like noise and habitat fragmentation. This finding supports the IAAC’s identified need to understand how project effects might impact Indigenous harvesting and hunting rights, as a declining moose population would directly interfere with the "Current use of lands and resources" for traditional purposes.

A notable gap exists regarding the social and health implications of tick expansion. While the IAAC SOI includes a broad category for "Human Health and Well-Being," it does not explicitly mention vector-borne diseases or how project-induced habitat changes (such as increased forest edge) might affect public health. Melgund Township’s analysis identifies that the proponent has dismissed community concerns regarding ticks by treating them only as an ungulate stressor. This community finding suggests that the IAAC’s "Human Health" and "Socio-Economic Impacts to Land Use" sections should be expanded to include pathway analyses for how land-use changes might influence host-pest dynamics and, consequently, community health.

Finally, there is a clear alignment regarding the "Consideration of Indigenous Knowledge" and "Physical and cultural heritage." The IAAC SOI highlights concerns about how Indigenous culture and practices are reflected in project planning. Melgund’s observation that the proponent lacks a transparent process for screening species of "cultural value" beyond moose validates the IAAC’s concern. The community’s finding suggests that the proponent’s current prioritization is too narrow and may overlook species that are regionally significant to Indigenous groups, thereby failing to meet the IAAC’s expectation for meaningful incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge.

Recommendations

The working group recommends that the proponent initiate a multi-year, comprehensive population health study for moose to identify the underlying drivers of the current low calf-to-cow ratio. This study must be designed to assess the cumulative impacts of project-related noise, dust, and habitat fragmentation on this vulnerable demographic. To ensure the study meets the standards of both the IAAC and the community, it must integrate Indigenous Knowledge with western science. This approach will ensure that "community importance" is not just a label, but a foundation for robust, culturally relevant mitigation strategies that protect traditional harvesting rights.

Additionally, it is recommended that the proponent modernize its environmental baseline by re-running eDNA and field surveys for reptiles and invertebrates using optimized, contemporary methods. The reliance on 40-year-old data is a significant technical deficiency that prevents an accurate assessment of biodiversity loss. The proponent should also be required to provide a formal pathway analysis regarding tick abundance. This analysis must move beyond ungulate health to address community concerns about human health, specifically examining how changes in forest edge habitat and white-tailed deer distribution—driven by project activities—might influence the prevalence of ticks in the region. These steps are essential to addressing the uncertainties and data gaps identified in the IAAC Summary of Issues.