APPENDIX 6.5A: HABITAT MODEL METHODS · 2017-10-20 · REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – COLONIAL WATERBIRDS – APPENDIX 6.5A DECEMBER 2015 6.5A-1 COLONIAL

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – COLONIAL WATERBIRDS – APPENDIX 6.5A

APPENDIX 6.5A:

HABITAT MODEL METHODS


DECEMBER 2015 6.5A-1

COLONIAL WATERBIRDS

The habitat model for colonial waterbirds is a professional judgement model largely based on the size and

habitat structure of known colonial waterbird colonies in the Keeyask and Wuskwatim regions

(see Table 6.5A-1 below) and literature. Gulls and terns prefer to nest on rocky islands or reefs with

mineral substrates that contain sparse to no vegetation; treed islands are avoided. Known nesting

colonies are occasionally found on rocks or reefs as small as, or smaller than 0.01 ha in size. Because

the minimum size of islands that could be mapped in the National Topographic System (NTS) dataset

was 0.01 ha, this value was used as the lower limit of nesting island size. The literature on gull nesting

island size is sparse with only one instance that reported ring-billed gulls nesting on a 5.1 ha island in

Presqu'ile Provincial Park near Brighton, Ontario (Kirkham and Morris 1979). However, in the Nelson

River near the Keeyask Generation Project site, known gull and tern nesting and loafing islands at Gull

Rapids and Birthday Rapids are less than 3.6 ha in size. For these reasons, colonial waterbird habitat is

characterized as bare islands, or islands with limited tree cover, greater than 0.01 ha and less than 3.6 ha

in size, located in lakes and large rivers.

A colonial waterbird habitat model (regional model) was developed using both on- and off-system habitat

data to determine the potential impacts of hydroelectric development throughout the ecozone. On-system

habitat data were also examined to determine the potential impacts of hydroelectric development in

waterbodies regulated by Manitoba Hydro. The on- and off-system habitat data used in the regional

habitat model were derived from the National Topographic System. For the regional habitat model,

islands less than 3.6 ha in size were selected from these data to represent potential nesting islands for

colonial waterbirds. The state of vegetation and soil type on these islands were unknown.

Examples of small (about 0.1 ha) and slightly larger islands (about 2.2 ha) are shown in Photos 6.5A-1

and 6.5A-2 respectively. An example of an island where vegetation has eroded to bare rock is presented

in Photo 6.5.A-3.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kirkham, I. R., and Morris, R. D. 1979. Feeding ecology of ring-billed gull (Larus delawarensis) chicks.

Canadian Journal of Zoology 57 (5): 1086–1090 pp.

Stantec. 2014a. Conawapa generation project — Avian 2013 field studies report. Environmental studies

program report # TERR-13-01. Stantec Consulting Ltd., Winnipeg, MB. 144 pp.

Stantec. 2015. Keeyask Generation Project monitoring program Gull Rapids 2014 colonial waterbird

summary. Report #14-01. Prepared for Manitoba Hydro by Stantec Consulting Ltd., Winnipeg,

MB. 23 pp.



Table 6.5A-1: Island Size (ha) of Known Waterbird Nesting Colonies in the Nelson River

Location Species Observed

Area (ha) Reference

Gull Rapids Gulls and Terns 0.6 Figure 6.5.3-1, Stantec 2015





Gull Rapids Gulls and Terns 0.1–1.0 1 Figure 6.5.3-1, Stantec 2015

Limestone GS tailrace Gulls and Terns 0.5 Figure 6.5.6-1, Stantec 2014a

Lower Nelson River Gulls and Terns 1.9 Figure 6.5.6-1, Stantec 2014a

Lower Nelson River Gulls and Terns 1.5 Figure 6.5.6-1, Stantec 2014a

1. Refers to the numerous small islands/reefs located in Gull Rapids for which area data were not available.

Source: Unmanned Aerial Imaging Solutions, July 2015

Photo 6.5A-1: Small Island (0.01 ha) used by Nesting Colonial Waterbirds at Gull Rapids



Source: Wildlife Resource Consulting Services MB Inc., July 2015

Photo 6.5A-2: Larger Island (2.2 ha) used by Nesting Colonial Waterbirds at Gull Rapids

Source: Wildlife Resource Consulting Services MB Inc., July 2015

Photo 6.5A-3: Example of Potential Colonial Waterbirds Nesting Island on Split Lake Formed

by Erosion and Ice Scour

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – COLONIAL WATERBIRDS – APPENDIX 6.5B

APPENDIX 6.5B:

HABITAT MODEL RESULTS


DECEMBER 2015 6.5B-I

Appendix Tables and Maps Page

Tables

Table 6.5B-1: On-system Colonial Waterbird Habitat Pre- and Post-hydroelectric

Development in the Terrestrial Regions of the Western Boreal Shield

Ecozone ............................................................................................................... 6.5B-1 Table 6.5B-2: On-system Colonial Waterbird Habitat Pre- and Post-hydroelectric

Development in the Terrestrial Regions of the Eastern Boreal Shield

Ecozone ............................................................................................................... 6.5B-1 Table 6.5B-3: On-system Colonial Waterbird Habitat Pre- and Post-hydroelectric

Development in the Terrestrial Regions of the Taiga Shield Ecozone ................ 6.5B-2 Table 6.5B-4: On-system Colonial Waterbird Habitat Pre- and Post-hydroelectric

Development in the Terrestrial Regions of the Hudson Plains Ecozone ............ 6.5B-2 Table 6.5B-5: On-system Colonial Waterbird Habitat Pre- and Post-hydroelectric

Development in the Terrestrial Regions of the Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone ... 6.5B-2

Maps

Map 6.5B-1: Waterbird Habitat Quality – Paint Terrestrial Region .......................................... 6.5B-3 Map 6.5B-2: Waterbird Habitat Quality – Wuskwatim Terrestrial Region ................................ 6.5B-4 Map 6.5B-3: Waterbird Habitat Quality – Rat Terrestrial Region ............................................. 6.5B-5 Map 6.5B-4: Waterbird Habitat Quality – Baldock Terrestrial Region ...................................... 6.5B-6 Map 6.5B-5: Waterbird Habitat Quality – Keeyask Terrestrial Region ..................................... 6.5B-7 Map 6.5B-6: Waterbird Habitat Quality – Dafoe Terrestrial Region ......................................... 6.5B-8 Map 6.5B-7: Waterbird Habitat Quality – Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region ............................ 6.5B-9 Map 6.5B-8: Waterbird Habitat Quality – Molson Terrestrial Region ...................................... 6.5B-10 Map 6.5B-9: Waterbird Habitat Quality – Bradshaw Terrestrial Region ................................. 6.5B-11 Map 6.5B-10: Waterbird Habitat Quality – Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region ......................... 6.5B-12 Map 6.5B-11: Waterbird Habitat Quality – Southern Indian Terrestrial Region ........................ 6.5B-13


DECEMBER 2015 6.5B-1


Development in the Terrestrial Regions of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone

Terrestrial Region or Ecozone

Number of Islands Pre-

Hydro1

Area (ha) of Islands Pre-

Hydro

Number of Islands Post-

Hydro2

Area (ha) of Islands Post-

Hydro

% Change in Island Area

Paint 27 28 68 54 93

Wuskwatim 91 69 265 161 133

Rat 171 111 475 400 260

Baldock 257 187 337 296 58

Western Boreal Shield Ecozone 546 395 1,145 911 130

1. Pre-hydroelectric development.

2. Post-hydroelectric development.


Development in the Terrestrial Regions of the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone


Number of Islands

Pre-Hydro1

Area (ha) of Islands Pre-Hydro

Number of Islands

Post-Hydro2

Area (ha) of Islands

Post-Hydro

% Change in Island

Area

Keeyask 511 353 738 541 53

Dafoe 264 169 288 202 20

Upper Nelson 6,098 2,997 7,950 3,491 16

Molson 6 2 6 2 0

Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone 6,879 3,521 8,982 4,237 20








Development in the Terrestrial Regions of the Hudson Plains Ecozone


Number of Islands

Pre-Hydro1


Pre-Hydro

Number of Islands

Post-Hydro2


Post-Hydro


Limestone Rapids 40 24 38 18 -25

Deer Island NA NA 3 3 NA

Hudson Plains Ecozone NA NA 41 22

NA




Development in the Terrestrial Regions of the Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone


Number of Islands

Pre-Hydro1


Pre-Hydro


Hydro2


Post-Hydro


Hudson Coast 55 19 28 16 -16

Warkworth 158 119 71 81 -32

Fletcher 4 6 45 28 366

Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone 217 143 144 126 -12




Development in the Terrestrial Regions of the Taiga Shield Ecozone


Number of Islands

Pre-Hydro1


Pre-Hydro


Hydro2


Post-Hydro


Bradshaw 55 23 28 26 13

Upper Churchill 356 204 270 206 1

Southern Indian 1,033 829 930 770 -7

Taiga Shield Ecozone 1,444 1,056 1,228 1,002 -5

WuskwatimTerrestrial

Region

Dunlop

Pipun

Odhill

PaintLake

La Pérouse

Jenpeg

MoakLake

Sipiwesk

Leven

Pikwitonei

Arnot

Kelsey

Stitt

Jenpeg G.S.

WuskwatimG.S.

391

375

373

391

6

6

391

373

391

280

374

6

6

280

6

391

6

280

373

Rosenberry

Davis

OsikL

Lake

KinwawLake

Lakes

L

Macheewin

Fold

Leftrook

ThreepointLake

Ck

FergussonFiveMile

Lake

Setting

Lake

PakwaLL

LakeKiski

LakeGormley

Waskik L

ClarkeLake

ConlinLake

Lake

Fish

LakeLake

LakeTullibee

LakeWuskwatim

Lake

LRidge

LivingstonLake

LHarding Tetroe

OdeiLNile

LakeOpegano

Ospwagan

LJoey

River

River

PhillipsLake

Halfway

Scatch

Duck

Lake

River

LakeGreenaway

Island

Bear

Paint

L

L

TreeBirch

Lake

Hunter RL

MuskegoLake

L

LakeBarnes

Roe Lake

Warnews

R

Meridian

LRock

Strong

Moak

Lake

Apussigamasi

Lake

Lake

Burntwood

Wintering

Lake

Sipiwesk

Lake

Cross

Pipestone

Lake

Lake

Lake

WhiteRabbit

Lake

Bulger

Landing

Sabomin L

CuthbertL

Lake

CropPartridge

LakeOrr

Odei

Lake

LPearson

Blank

R

Clay

R

LakeBrannigan

GrassNatawahunan

LakeBegg

Lake

PikwitoneiLake

Lake

River

Lake CottonMiskimmin

Lake

GiffinL

Lake

Walker

Lake

Lake

Lawford

Walker

River

Carrot

BlackRabbit

L

Hermon

Unwin

Lake

HancockLake

Lake

LPrud'homme

Midnight

LakeWitchai

River

AsseanLake

River

LakeHunting

River

Hunting

PimicikamakCross Lake

(NAC)

ThicketPortage

(NAC)

Pikwitonei(NAC)

NisichawayasihkCree Nation

Nelson House (NAC)

Wabowden(NAC)

Thompson

RatTerrestrial

Region

BaldockTerrestrial

Region

PaintTerrestrial

Region


Region

LegendTerrestrial Region

RCEA Region of Interest

Waterbird Habitat QualityPrimary Habitat (Off-system)

Primary Habitat (On-system)

InfrastructureGenerating Station (Existing)

Transmission Line (Existing)

Transmission Line (UnderConstruction)

Highway

Rail

1.0

17-JUN-15

ECOSTEM Ltd.

Created By: snitowski - B S ize Portrait BTB - MAR 2015 Scale: 1:606,000

Manitoba Hydro; Government of Manitoba; Government of Canada;ECOSTEM Ltd.

29-OCT-15

Fi le Location: Z:\Workspaces\RCEA\Support\Mammal\Bird \Waterb ird Habitat Paint Region.mxd

Waterbird Habitat Quality Paint Terrestrial Region

Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment

NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N

0 7 14 Kilometers

0 5.5 11 Miles

DATA SOURCE:

DATE CREATED:

CREATED BY:

VERSION NO:

REVISION DATE:

QA/QC:

COORDINATE SYSTEM:

NOTE: Habitat polygons exaggerated slightly to enhance visibility.

Hudson Bay

Thompson

Winnipeg

Churchil l

Map 6.5B-1

ChiselLake

CotesLanding

Notigi

Tyrrell

Dunlop

Pipun

Wabowden

Odhill

PaintLake

RatTerrestrial

Region

BaldockTerrestrial

Region

PaintTerrestrial

Region


Region

WuskwatimG.S.

392

375

6

395

6

6

39

393

39

373

391

391

392

6

391391

6

39

6

373

391

Costello

Lake

Suwannee

Lake

Nelson

Lake

Wheadon

R

Snow

Lake

Grass

Lake

Lake

Wekusko

Ck

Lake

Herblet

Dowling

Lake

Lake

Wimapedi

L

Lake

Riel

Ck

Osborn

DriftwoodParent

River

Apeganau

Hall

Lake

River

LakeGoodwin

Rat

PemichigamauLake

Rat

Lake

Apeganau

Lake

Burntwood

Wimapedi

R

Missipisew

LakeNiblockRiver

DionLake

LindsayLake

Grass

Rosenberry

Davis

River

R

Lake

WapisoLake

Notigi

OsikLMisinagu

Lake

Lake

Mynarski

KinwawLake

Lakes

L

Macheewin

Fold

Leftrook

ThreepointLake

Ck

FergussonFiveMile

Lake

Setting

Lake

PakwaL

L

LakeKiski

LakeGormley

ClarkeLake

ConlinLake

Lake

Fish

Lake

Lake

LakeTullibee

LakeWuskwatim

Lake

LHarding Tetroe

OdeiLNile

LakeOpegano

Ospwagan

LJoey

River

River

PhillipsLake

Halfway

Scatch

Duck

Lake

LakeGreenaway

Island

Bear

Paint

L

L

TreeBirch

Lake

HunterL

MuskegoLake

L

Herb LakeLanding

(NAC)


Nelson House (NAC)

Wabowden(NAC)Snow

Lake








Highway

Rail

1.0

17-JUN-15

ECOSTEM Ltd.



29-OCT-15

Fi le Location: Z:\Workspaces\RCEA\Support\Mammal\Bird \Waterb ird Habitat Wuskwatim Region.mxd

Waterbird Habitat Quality Wuskwatim Terrestrial Region



0 6.5 13 Kilometers

0 5 10 Miles

DATA SOURCE:

DATE CREATED:

CREATED BY:

VERSION NO:

REVISION DATE:

QA/QC:

COORDINATE SYSTEM:


Hudson Bay

Thompson

Winnipeg

Churchil l

Map 6.5B-2

Herriot

Hone

Jetait

Pukatawagan

Rafter

Takipy

LaurieRiver

Highrock

RuttanMine

Notigi

WuskwatimG.S. 375

493

391

6

Kamuchawie

Lake

RussickLake

Kipahigan

DeyGesturL

Lake

L

Siers

Barnett

Sisipuk L

Loon

L

Lake

Runner

Loon

Lake

Britton

Lake

River

McCallum

Lake

Matheson

Russell

Lake

LBear

Running

LakeKadeniuk

Churchill

Lake

Lake

Pukatawagan

Lake Morin

GirouardLake

Lake

TaitLake

CrowL

Kississing

Wright

Evans

Lake

McKnight

Pearson

L

Ck

Lake

Lake

Kaykayk

Mounteney

Lake

Glasspole

WattL

Elvyn L

Flatrock

River

Lake

LakeTakipy

Guthrie

Lake

Burntwood

Lake

Suwannee

Lake

Lake

Lake

Granville

Beaucage

LBridal

LStag Leaf

Rapids

BissettIs

Granville

Costello

Lake

Falls Suwannee

Lake

Nelson

Highrock

Lake

Ck

Driftwood

River

Apeganau

HallLake

River

LakeGoodwin

Rat

Pemichigamau

Karsakuwigamak

Lake

LRuttan

Lake

Rat

Lake

Apeganau

Lake

Burntwood

River

R

Lake

WapisoLake

Notigi

OsikL

R

Misinagu

LakeLake

Mynarski

Rat

KinwawLake

Lakes

L

Macheewin

Fold

Leftrook

ThreepointLake

LakeWuskwatim

Lake

LRidge

LivingstonLake

LHarding Tetroe

OdeiLNile

LakeOpegano

Ospwagan

LJoey

RiverL

L

TreeLake

Hunter

MuskegoLake

L

LakeBarnes

Roe Lake


Nelson House (NAC)

GranvilleLake

LeafRapids

RatTerrestrial

Region

BaldockTerrestrial

Region

PaintTerrestrial

Region


Region

Waterbird Habitat Quality Rat Terrestrial Region

ECOSTEM Ltd.

1.0

16-JUN-15 29-OCT-15

Cre

ated

By:

sn

itow

ski -

B S

ize

Land

scap

e B

TB

- M

AR

201

5

Sca

le: 1

:618

,000



0 6 12 Mi les

0 7 14 Kilometres

File

Loc

atio

n: Z

:\W

ork

spac

es\

RC

EA

\Sup

port\

Ma

mm

al\B

ird\W

ate

rbird

Hab

itat

Ra

t Reg

ion

.mxd

DATA SOURCE:

DATE CREATED:

CREAT ED BY:

VERSION NO:

REVISION DATE:

QA/QC:

COORDINATE SYSTEM:

Hudson Bay

Thompson

Winnipeg

Churchil l




Highway

Rail







Map 6.5B-3

York FactoryFirst Nation

O-Pipon-Na-PiwinCree Nation

South Indian Lake

TataskweyakCree Nation

KelseyG.S.

280

391

493

Lake

Melvin

L

Barrington

Barrington

Lake

River

LakeAdam

LeafRapids

Eden

Lake

BissettIs

Granville

CostelloLake

Falls Suwannee

Lake

Highrock

River

LakeGoodwin Rat

Pemichigamau

Karsakuwigamak

River

Lake

River

Lake

MacBride

Opachuanau

McfaddenFraser

GrandmotherLake

Enatik

Lake

L

Lake

RustyLake

Lake

LRuttan

Lake

Rat

Lake

OsikL

R

Misinagu

LakeLake

Mynarski

Rat

IssettL

Is

Lemay

LakeMulcahy

NumakoosL

Pine

Indian

Lake

Lake

SouthBay

Bay

River

KinwawLake

Lakes

L

Macheewin

Fold

Leftrook

Lake

LRidge

LivingstonLake

Swan

Cousins

Uhlman

Lake

BaySandhill

LongPoint

IsLoon

TorranceLake

LakeChapman

Gauer

Lake

BroughtonL

LHarding Tetroe

OdeiL Nile

Hunter RL

MuskegoLake

L

LakeBarnes

Roe Lake

Baldock

Lake

Lake

Thorsteinson

Gauer

River

Lake

LakeJensen

Warnews

R

Meridian

LRock

Strong

Moak

Lake

LakeOrr

Odei

Lake

LPearson

Blank

R

LakeStone

Campbell

White

Lake

Lake

KiaskL

Handle

LakeWernham

HoodLake

Lake

Fidler

Lake

SetteeLake

ChristieL

LakePelletier

Clay

R

LakeWitchai

River

AsseanLake

River

LakeHunting

River

Hunting

Lake

Lake

BissetCaldwell

Lake

Thomas

LHolmes

Churchill

River

R

Bieber

Assaikwatamo

Hale

Lake

Waskaiowaka

River

Lake

BaySinclair

Aiken

Split

FoxL

LakeCrying

L

Lake

EmbletonBillard

LeafRapids

RatTerrestrial

Region

BaldockTerrestrial

Region

PaintTerrestrial

RegionWuskwatimTerrestrial

Region

Waterbird Habitat Quality Baldock Terrestrial Region

ECOSTEM Ltd.

1.0

16-JUN-15 29-OCT-15

Cre

ated

By:

sn

itow

ski -

B S

ize

Land

scap

e B

TB

- M

AR

201

5

Sca

le: 1

:679

,000



0 6.5 13 Mi les

0 7.5 15 Kilometres

File

Loc

atio

n: Z

:\W

ork

spac

es\

RC

EA

\Sup

port\

Ma

mm

al\B

ird\W

ate

rbird

Hab

itat

Bal

dock

Re

gio

n.m

xd

DATA SOURCE:

DATE CREATED:

CREAT ED BY:

VERSION NO:

REVISION DATE:

QA/QC:

COORDINATE SYSTEM:

Hudson Bay

Thompson

Winnipeg

Churchil l




Highway

Rail







Map 6.5B-4

WeirRiver

Stitt

PitSiding

Wivenhoe

Willbeach

Luke

Jacam

Bird

Amery

KelseyG.S.

LongSpruce

G.S.

LimestoneG.S.

KettleG.S.

KeeyaskG.S.

ConawapaG.S.

290

280

LakeWitchai

River

AsseanLake

LakeHunting

River

Hunting

Lake

Lake

Bisset

Hale

Lake

Waskaiowaka

River

Lake

BaySinclair

Gunn

Aiken

Split

FoxL

LakeCrying

L

Little

LimestoneLake

Nelson BirthdayRapids

War

River

Cyril

DafoeLake

HubleyRiver

Kettle

River

Lake

LakeButnau

Lake

Jean

GullLake

Wasagamow L

Limestone

Stephens

Hill

River

Hawes

Atkinson

Lake

L

KettleLake

Wilson

R

Lake

River

Kettle

LongSpruce

Angling

Rapids

Creek

Rapids

North

R

Fox

River

Angling

Angling

L

River

MerrickLake

LakeFifer

River

Fox LakeCree Nation


Fox LakeCree Nation

War LakeFirst Nation

Ilford (NAC)


Gillam

KeeyaskTerrestrial

Region

DafoeTerrestrial

Region

Waterbird Habitat Quality Keeyask Terrestrial Region


ECOSTEM Ltd.

1.0

27-JUL-15 30-OCT-15

Cre

ated

By:

sn

itow

ski -

B S

ize

Land

scap

e B

TB

- M

AR

201

5

Sca

le: 1

:500

,000



0 4.5 9 Mi les

0 5.5 11 Kilometres

File

Loc

atio

n: Z

:\W

ork

spac

es\

RC

EA

\Sup

port\

Ma

mm

al\B

ird\W

ate

rbird

Hab

itat

Kee

yas

k R

egio

n.m

xd

DATA SOURCE:

DATE CREATED:

CREAT ED BY:

VERSION NO:

REVISION DATE:

QA/QC:

COORDINATE SYSTEM:

Hudson Bay

Thompson

Winnipeg

Churchil l

Generating Station (Potential)

Infrastructure


HighwayRail


Note: Habitat polygons exaggerated slightly to improve visibility





Generating Station (UnderConstruction)

Generating Station (Existing)

Map 6.5B-5

UpperNelson

Wuskwatim

Ponton

Tyrrell

Nonsuch

Willbeach

Wivenhoe

Dunlop

Pipun

Medard

Odhill

Earchman

Lyddal

La Perouse

MoakLake

Parlee

Johnson

Hockin

Leven

Matago

Sipiwesk

Bridgar

Wilde

Arnot

Boyd

PitSiding

Stitt

Munk

OxfordHouse

Gods LakeNarrows

GodsLake

GodsRiver

KelseyG.S.

Jenpeg G.S.

WuskwatimG.S.

391

391

373

375

280

6

374

L

MacheewinLeftrook

ThreepointLake

Ck

FergussonFiveMile

Lake

Setting

Lake

PakwaLL

LakeKiski

LakeGormley

ClarkeLake

ConlinLake

Lake

Fish

Lake Lake

LakeTullibee

LakeWuskwatim

Lake

OdeiLNile

LakeOpegano

Ospwagan

LJoey

River

RiverPhillipsLake

Halfway

Scatch

Duck

Lake

River

LakeGreenaway

Island

Bear

Paint

L

L

TreeBirch

Lake

Hunter RL

LRock

Strong

Moak

Lake

ApussigamasiLake

Lake

Burntwood

Wintering

Lake

Sipiwesk

Lake

Cross

Pipestone

Lake

LakeWhiteRabbit

Lake

Bulger

Landing

SabominL

CuthbertL

LakeCropPartridge

LakeOrr

OdeiR

LakeBrannigan

GrassNatawahunan

LakeBegg

Lake

PikwitoneiLake

Lake

River


Lake

GiffinL

Lake

Walker

Lake

Lawford

WalkerRiver

Carrot

BlackRabbit

L

Hermon

Unwin

Lake

HancockLake

Lake

LPrud'homme

Midnight

LakeWitchai

River

River

BaySinclair

DafoeL

Gunn

Lake

L

Cauchon

Lake Goulet

Allbright

LakeWilkinsLake

LakeBjornson

Porcupine

Hill

River

Ck

BrelandLake

Lake

McKechnie L

Bear

Lake

ThomL

BearHead

Lake

Joy

Aiken

War

River

Cyril

Dafoe

HighLake

WhitleyLake

Hackland

L

Lake

Silsby

Cuddle

UtikLake

LakePowstick

DobbsL

Semple

WindyR

Max

Lake

Lake

LakeOpiminegoka

Aswapiswanan

LaidlawLake

LakeRat

Oxford

LakeRiver

Lake

LakeCalifornia

Semple

LakeBigstone

Lake

Lake

L

Annesley

Ransom

LakeHubley

River

Kettle

RiverLake

Lake

Hill

High

Bigstone

SchwatkaLake

Mattson

Lake

LakeLake

Peemow

Whitemud

Michikinabish

LakeLake

Lakes

MunroLake

ColenTouchwood

Lake

Wanless Lake

LakeMagill Hawkins

Brown

Cinder

LakeLake

Knee

LakeParker

River

Gowan

Sipanigo

River

Hawes

Atkinson

Lake

L

Lake

R

River

Stupart

Richardson

LakeSetter

LakeBayly

Lake

Elk

Gods

LakeSemmens

LakeLakePaull

Lake

KarloskeLake

Wilsie

LakeStupart

Fox

River

River

Swampy

Semmens

LakeFish

Is

KnifeLake

Webber



Ilford (NAC)


(NAC)

ThicketPortage

(NAC)

Pikwitonei(NAC)

NisichawayasihkCree NationNelson House (NAC)

Wabowden(NAC)

Thompson

KeeyaskTerrestrial

Region

DafoeTerrestrial

Region

Molson TerrestrialRegion

Upper NelsonTerrestrial

Region

Waterbird Habitat Quality Dafoe Terrestrial Region


ECOSTEM Ltd.

1.0

27-JUL-15 29-OCT-15

Cre

ated

By:

sn

itow

ski -

B S

ize

Land

scap

e B

TB

- M

AR

201

5

Sca

le: 1

:820

,000



0 7.5 15 Mi les

0 9.5 19 Kilometres

File

Loc

atio

n: Z

:\W

ork

spac

es\

RC

EA

\Sup

port\

Ma

mm

al\B

ird\W

ate

rbird

Hab

itat

Da

foe

Reg

ion

.mxd

DATA SOURCE:

DATE CREATED:

CREAT ED BY:

VERSION NO:

REVISION DATE:

QA/QC:

COORDINATE SYSTEM:

Hudson Bay

Thompson

Winnipeg

Churchil l

Infrastructure


Highway

Rail


Transmission Line (Under Construction)






Map 6.5B-6

LAKE

Tyrrell

WINNIPEG

Lake

Cypress

LimestoneLittle

Huzyk

Ck

Hargrave

River

Lake

LJoey

River

WINNIPEG

Paint

L Wintering

CuthbertL

Lake

Nanowin

Lake

LPrud'homme

Midnight

L

Cauchon

LakeGoulet

Allbright

LakeWilkins

Lake

Bjornson

Porcupine

Lake

Robinson

Pakatawacun

Beach

Nest

PonaskLake

Lake

River

Gunisao

Lake

Lone

Lake

Hill

ThomL

Tyrrell

PaintLake

Sipiwesk

Pikwitonei(NAC)

Dunlop

Pipun

Odhill

La Pérouse

WhiskeyJackLanding

WarrenLanding

Kinusisipi

Rossville

Leven

DafoeTerrestrial

Region

MolsonTerrestrial

Region


Region

Jenpeg G.S.

6

373

6

373

6

6

6

373

6

374

373

373

Ck

FergussonFiveMile

Lake

Setting

Lake

PakwaLL

LakeKiski

LakeGormley

RiverHill

Lake

LimestoneBay

EagleIsland

LAKE

KiskittoLake

Lake

BlackDuck

Waskik L

ClarkeLake

ConlinLake

Lake

Fish

Lake Lake

LakeTullibee

L

River

PhillipsLake

Halfway

Scatch

Duck

Lake

River

HorsfallIsland

Lake

Kiskittogisu

Playgreen L

Island

LakePlaygreen

I

RossMetchanais

LakeGreenaway

Island

Bear

Lake

Sipiwesk

Lake

Cross

Pipestone

R

Nelson

HiltonLake

Belanger

Mclaughlin R

Gunisao

LWabisi

Ridge

Paimusk

HairyLake

Lake

Lake

Lake

WhiteRabbit

Lake

Bulger

Landing

Sabomin L

Lake

River


Lake

GiffinL

Lake

Walker

Echimamish

ButterflyLake

MolsonLake

Ck

Molson

L

L

Costes

LakeLebrix

River

River

Lake

LakeMercer

R

Lake

HayesR

Lake

Lawford

Walker

River

Carrot

BlackRabbit

L

Hermon

HancockLake

Allbright

LakeWilkins

LakeBjornson

Robinson

PakatawacunLake


(NAC)

Norway House Cree NationNorway House(NAC)

ThicketPortage

(NAC)

Wabowden(NAC)

1.0

27-JUN-15

ECOSTEM Ltd.



30-OCT-15

Fi le Location: Z:\Workspaces\RCEA\Support\Mammal\Bird \Waterb ird Habitat Upper Nelson Region.mxd

Hudson Bay

Thompson

Winnipeg

Churchil l

Waterbird Habitat Quality Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region



0 7.5 15 Kilometers

0 6 12 Miles

DATA SOURCE:

DATE CREATED:

CREATED BY:

VERSION NO:

REVISION DATE:

QA/QC:

COORDINATE SYSTEM:







Highway

Rail



Map 6.5B-7

WINNIPEG

Cypress

Limestone

Minago

Ck

Grass

Pakwa L

LakeKiski

Island

ClarkeLake

ConlinLake

Lake Scatch

Duck

Lake

LakeGreenaway

IslandCross

Lake

Walker

Nanowin

Mukutawa

Walker

River

Carrot

LakeBjornson

River

River

Hill

River

Ck

HudwinLake

Rat

LakeMichikinabish

LakeLake

Cobham

Wanless Lake

LakeMagill Hawkins

Brown

Lake

Lake

Goose

Murray

Lake

LakeAnkle

R

Makepeace

NeilsonLakeLake

Banksian

River

Krolman

BayChapin

Lake

Rochon

Dunlop

Pipun

Big BlackRiver

GardenHill

Island Lake

Gods LakeNarrows

DafoeTerrestrial

Region

MolsonTerrestrial

Region


Region

LimestoneBay

EagleIsland LAKE

KiskittoLake

Lake

BlackDuck

Waskik L

ClarkeLake

River

HorsfallIsland

Lake

Kiskittogisu

Playgreen L

Island

LakePlaygreen

I

RossMetchanais

Pipestone

R

Nelson

HiltonLake

Belanger

Mclaughlin R

Gunisao

LWabisi

Ridge

Paimusk

HairyLake

Lake

Lake

Echimamish

ButterflyLake

MolsonLake

Ck

Molson

L

L

Costes

Washahigan

LakeLebrix

River

River

Lake

LakeMercer

R

Lake

HayesR

Lake

Lawford

Walker Carrot

Porcupine

Lake

Robinson

Pakatawacun

Beach

Lake

Nest

PonaskLake

Lake

Bennett

Gunisao

Lake

Lake

Lake

StevensonLake

Lone

LakeLittleBolton

LakeLogan

HillWindy

R

Max

Lake

Lake

LakeOpiminegoka

BoltonL

L

Pelican

Bigstone

Gunisao

R

Mainland

Lake

Kalliecahoolie

LakeKennedy

Lake

Aswapiswanan

LaidlawLake

LakeRat

Lakes

MunroLake

Colen

LakeJoint

Lake

Willow

FairyRock

Lake

Lake

LakeBeggR

LakeWass

CantinLake

CordeauLake

BeaverHill

Lake

Rapids

TouchwoodLake

Wanless Lake

Lake

Kanuchuan

Island

R

IsbisterLake

Dunlop

WhiskeyJack

WarrenLanding

Kinusisipi

Rossville

Waasagomach

St. TheresaPoint

JenpegG.S.

6

373

374


(NAC)

Norway House Cree NationNorway House (NAC)

Waterbird Habitat Quality Molson Terrestrial Region


ECOSTEM Ltd.

1.0

27-JUL-15 29-OCT-15

Cre

ated

By:

sn

itow

ski -

B S

ize

Land

scap

e B

TB

- M

AR

201

5

Sca

le: 1

:698

,000



0 6.5 13 Mi les

0 8 16 Kilometres

File

Loc

atio

n: Z

:\W

ork

spac

es\

RC

EA

\Sup

port\

Ma

mm

al\B

ird\W

ate

rbird

Hab

itat

Mol

son

Re

gio

n.m

xd

DATA SOURCE:

DATE CREATED:

CREAT ED BY:

VERSION NO:

REVISION DATE:

QA/QC:

COORDINATE SYSTEM:

Hudson Bay

Thompson

Winnipeg

Churchil l

Infrastructure


Highway

Rail







Map 6.5B-8

BradshawTerrestrial

Region

Upper ChurchillTerrestrial

Region

Long Spruce G.S.

LimestoneG.S.

Kettle G.S.

280

290280280

280Jacam

WeirRiver

Lawledge

Herchmer

Amery

Lake

Indian

KnifeheadLake

Knife

Drift

R

Lake

LakeLovat

TraerLake

Beganili

AllanLake

Lake

PisewLake

EtawneyLake

Little

Naykow

River

Lake

Fidler

Lake

SetteeLake

ChristieL

LakePelletier

Lake

Lake

BissetCaldwell

LakeThomas

LHolmes

Lake

Churchill

Solmundsson

Lake

LakeKotchapaw

Buckland

KnifeSouth

Lake

North

Fabas

L

Lake

Thousin

LakeNichol

NaresLake

Condie

EinarsonLake

Lake

GylesLake

MinikwakunisLake

Beaver

LakeFreeman

R

Bieber

Assaikwatamo

Hale

Lake

Waskaiowaka

LakeCrying

L

Little

RecluseLake

R

LakeLake

Embleton

LHogg

MountainRapids

TheFours

River

LakeComeau

Gersham

Creek

Matonabee

Skromeda

Knife

Creek

South

KnightLake

Mack

Braden

L

Lake

RapidsSwallow

Churchill

LimestoneLake

Wasagamow

L

River

Lakes

Bradshaw

Rapids

ChurchillRiver

Lake Cache

KilnabadRapids

LakeWise

Herriot

Knife

DickensLake

TeepeeFalls

Langille

River

Creek

Nowell

River

Lake

LakeLofthouse

Heppell

Creek

BishopLake

Munk

LRankine

Laforte

Crosswell

Bad

Lake

TurcotteDeer L

Deer

Whiting

MistakeL

L

Lake

Whitecap

Cygnet

CygnetLittle

LL

Limestone

Stephens

Lake

River

LMyre

Strobus LWeir

Lake

LongLake

L

LakeOwl

Fly

River

River

LandingHead

Ck

RedPlaceRapids

Running

Rapids

RiverCreek

HolcraftL

BayL

L

Farnworth

Warkworth

Creek

Alston

LimestoneRapids

River

Dog

Ck

Moose

Horn

Lost

Cooper

Weir

LongSpruce River

Creek

Silcox

Owl

Creek

Hoot

Beale

Kelsey

Lake

Creek

Fletcher

Warkworth

LakeRitchie

TwinLakes

Fox Lake Cree Nation

1.0

07-OCT-15

ECOSTEM Ltd.


30-OCT-15

Fi le Location: Z:\Workspaces\RCEA\Support\Mammal\Bird \Waterb ird Habitat Bradshaw Region.mxd

Hudson Bay

Thompson

Winnipeg

Churchil l



0 8.5 17 Kilometers

0 7 14 Miles

DATA SOURCE:

DATE CREATED:

CREATED BY:

VERSION NO:

REVISION DATE:

QA/QC:

COORDINATE SYSTEM:

InfrastructureHighway

Rail




Waterbird Habitat Quality Bradshaw Terrestrial Region






Map 6.5B-9

Tadoule

280

280

280

280280

280

280

280

KelseyG.S.

LongSpruce

G.S.KettleG.S.

KeeyaskG.S.

Fox LakeCree Nation



Ilford (NAC)


BradshawTerrestrial

Region


Region

Southern IndianTerrestrial

Region

1.0

07-OCT-15

ECOSTEM Ltd.


30-OCT-15

Fi le Location: Z:\Workspaces\RCEA\Support\Mammal\Bird \Waterb ird Habitat Upper Church ill Region.mxd

Hudson Bay

Thompson

Winnipeg

Churchil l



0 10 20 Kilometers

0 8 16 Miles

DATA SOURCE:

DATE CREATED:

CREATED BY:

VERSION NO:

REVISION DATE:

QA/QC:

COORDINATE SYSTEM:

Legend

Waterbird Habitat Quality

Infrastructure


Highway

Rail




Waterbird Habitat Quality Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region



Primary Habitat (Off-system)


Terrestrial Region Generating Station (UnderConstruction)


Map 6.5B-10

Granville

Tadoule

O-Pipon-Na-PiwinCree Nation

South Indian Lake


RegionSouthern Indian

TerrestrialRegion

493

493

391

493

391

Ck

ChartrandL

LakeKustra

LakeJordan

LakeUnagimau

MelvinL

Barrington

Barrington

Lake

LakeAdam

LeafRapids

Eden

Lake

CostelloLake

Suwannee LakeGoodwin

Rat

Pemichigamau

Karsakuwigamak

River

Lake

River

Lake

MacBrideOpachuanau

McfaddenFraser

GrandmotherLake

MaxwellLake

Sprott

LKiask

River Lake Lake

Lake

LakeMorand

Big

Lake

Sand

Denison

LakeHurst

Lake

McphersonLake

Enatik

Lake

L

Lake

RustyLake

Lake

LRuttan

Lake

RatMynarski

Rat

IssettL

Is

Lemay

LakeMulcahy

MacKerracherMuskwesi

Lake

LSedgwick

LakeWolfLakeSamson

Commemoration

LakesCheyne

Lake

KinsmanLake

LakeGeddes

Lake

SouthTrout

SandbergL

Lake

Moss

River

Southern

Lake

NumakoosL

Pine

Indian

Lake

Lake

SouthBay

Bay

River

KinwawLake

LRidgeLivingston

Lake

Swan

Cousins

Uhlman

Lake

BaySandhill

LongPoint

IsLoon

L

SandL

Little

OtterL

Lake

LoonL

ChipewyanLake

BenoitGimby Lake

SiouxLake

RapidsRiverPorcupine

Lake

Davenport

Seal

Fox

Rapids

LakeCederland

Namaypin

TorranceLake

LakeChapman

Gauer

Lake

BroughtonL

LHarding Tetroe

MuskegoLake

L

LakeBarnes

Roe Lake

Baldock

Lake

BreastPartridge

L

Lake

LakeAshley

Starrett

LakePennie

LakeLifebuoy

Legary

Paragon

Lake

WalfordLake

Lake

Wishart

Lake

Oldman

Currie

Lake

Wood

Northern

Lake

Lake

Thorsteinson

Gauer

River

Lake

LakeJensen

Warnews

R

Meridian

RockLake

LPearson

Blank

R

LakeStone

Campbell

White

Lake

Lake

KiaskL

Handle

LakeWernham

HoodLake

Lake

Indian

LakeSmall

HibbertLake

KnifeheadLake

LakeLake

Blyth

North

Knife

Drift

L R BeganiliLake

Lake

River

Fidler

Lake

Clay

LeafRapids

1.0

07-OCT-15

ECOSTEM Ltd.


30-OCT-15

Fi le Location: Z:\Workspaces\RCEA\Support\Mammal\Bird \Waterb ird Habitat Souther n Indian Region.mxd

Hudson Bay

Thompson

Winnipeg

Churchil l



0 8.5 17 Kilometers

0 7 14 Miles

DATA SOURCE:

DATE CREATED:

CREATED BY:

VERSION NO:

REVISION DATE:

QA/QC:

COORDINATE SYSTEM:

Legend

Waterbird Habitat Quality

InfrastructureHighway


Waterbird Habitat Quality Southern Indian Terrestrial Region



Terrestrial Region


Primary Habitat (Off-system)

Map 6.5B-11

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – AQUATIC FURBEARERS – APPENDIX 6.6A

APPENDIX 6.6A:

PRIMARY BEAVER HABITAT MODELS:

REGIONAL AND ON-SYSTEM


DECEMBER 2015 6.6A-I

Appendix Tables Page

Tables

Table 6.6A-1: Total Amount of Available Habitat Pre- and Post- Hydroelectric and Non-

hydroelectric Development within the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ............. 6.6A-2

Table 6.6A-2: Total Amount of Available Habitat Pre- and Post-hydroelectric Development

within the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone .......................................................... 6.6A-2


within the Boreal Plains Ecozone ........................................................................ 6.6A-3

Table 6.6A-4: Summary of Land Used For Hydroelectric and Non-hydroelectric

Development in the Taiga Shield Ecozone ......................................................... 6.6A-3


Development in the Hudson Plains Ecozone ...................................................... 6.6A-4


Development in the Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone ............................................ 6.6A-4

Table 6.6A-7: Summary of On-system Primary Beaver Habitat Modeling ................................. 6.6A-6



REGIONAL HABITAT MODELING PARAMETERS USING TERRESTRIAL HABITAT DATA

BEAVER HABITAT MODEL PRE-HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT

Beaver — Coarse Scale Model:

"CoarseHabi" = 'Broadleaf mixedwood on all ecosites' OR "CoarseHabi" = 'Broadleaf treed on all ecosites'

OR "CoarseHabi" = 'Marsh' OR "CoarseHabi" = 'Tall shrub on mineral or thin peatland' AND

‘LAKE_AREA” <= “8”, “Ha” AND ‘water’ IF “Distance_m” <= “200”

Habitat types from the Coarse Habitat stratification were selected to match preferred beaver feeding and

habitat preferences. All of the habitat that was within 200 m of small waterbodies and all rivers were

queried. For the period pre-hydroelectric development, all of these areas were summed, excluding those

areas where fires occurred since 1960.

BEAVER HABITAT MODEL POST-HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT

Beaver — Coarse Scale Model:

"CoarseHabi" = 'Broadleaf mixedwood on all ecosites' OR "CoarseHabi" = 'Broadleaf treed on all ecosites'

OR "CoarseHabi" = 'Marsh' OR "CoarseHabi" = 'Tall shrub on mineral or thin peatland' AND

(‘LAKE_AREA” <= “8”, “Ha” AND ‘water’ IF “Distance_m” <= “200”)

Habitat types from the Coarse Habitat stratification (broadleaf mixed wood on all eco-sites, broadleaf

treed on all eco-sites, marsh and tall shrub on mineral on thin peat land) were selected. All of the selected

habitat that was within 200 m of small waterbodies and all rivers were included within the query and

identified as modeled beaver habitat. For post-hydroelectric development, the same habitat types were

queried, but also all habitat within fires less than 40 years of age was excluded from the query. All

development (including all transmission lines, roads constructed due to hydroelectric development as well

as all linear features due to non-hydroelectric development) was buffered by 50 m to replicate the 100 m

cleared right-of-way (ROW) (average ROW width of linear features used) where habitat was removed.



Table 6.6A-1: Total Amount of Available Habitat Pre- and Post- Hydroelectric and Non-

hydroelectric Development within the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone

Regional Modeled Primary Beaver Habitat Paint (km2) Wuskwatim

(km2) Rat (km2)

Baldock (km2)

Total Available Habitat 10245.49 11217.62 9305.95 9297.69

Primary Beaver Habitat (Pre-Hydroelectric Development)

603.14 694.94 546.06 79.13

Primary Habitat Lost Due to Transmission Line Development

0.27 0.19 0.04 -

Primary Habitat Lost Due to Other Hydroelectric Development

0.02 0.27 0.00 -

Primary Habitat Lost Due to Non-Hydroelectric Development

1.80 2.76 0.32 0.19

Primary Beaver Habitat (Post-Hydroelectric Development)

601.06 691.71 545.71 78.94


within the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone

Modeled Primary Beaver Habitat Keeyask

(km2) Dafoe (km2)

Upper Nelson (km2)

Molson (km2)

Total Available Habitat 93 199.5 831.28 179.34


15.96 34.50 96.60 26.04


0.03 0.03 0.16 0.00


0.08 0.02 0.38 0.00


0.01 0.17 1.91 0.07


15.84 34.28 94.15 25.97




within the Boreal Plains Ecozone

Modeled Primary Beaver Habitat William Lake (km2)

Total Available Habitat 309.33

Primary Beaver Habitat (Pre-Hydroelectric Development) 62.49

Primary Habitat Lost Due to Transmission Line Development 0.12

Primary Habitat Lost Due to Other Hydroelectric Development 0.12

Primary Habitat Lost Due to Non-Hydroelectric Development 1.3

Primary Beaver Habitat (Post-Hydroelectric Development) 60.95

Table 6.6A-4: Summary of Land Used For Hydroelectric and Non-hydroelectric Development

in the Taiga Shield Ecozone

Modeled Primary Beaver Habitat Bradshaw Upper

Churchill Southern Indian

Total Available Habitat 1068.90 379.58 1303.14

Primary Beaver Habitat (Pre-Hydroelectric Development) 567.15 143.76 457.10


0.03 0.00 0.00


0.00 0.00 0.03


0.09 0.00 0.27


567.04 143.76 456.79




in the Hudson Plains Ecozone

Modeled Primary Beaver Habitat Limestone Rapids

(km2) Deer Island

(km2)

Total Available Habitat 203.3 162.3

Primary Beaver Habitat (Pre-Hydroelectric Development) 92.54 74.07

Primary Habitat Lost Due to Transmission Line Development 0.01 0.00

Primary Habitat Lost Due to Other Hydroelectric Development 0.00 0.00

Primary Habitat Lost Due to Non-Hydroelectric Development 0.03 0.14

Primary Beaver Habitat (Post-Hydroelectric Development) 92.50 73.93


in the Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone

Modeled Primary Beaver Habitat Hudson Coast Warkworth Fletcher

Total Available Habitat 166.67 579.58 501.46


25.53 151.28 208.95


0.00 0.12 0.17


0.00 0.00 0.00


0.00 0.15 0.34


25.53 151.01 208.44

METHODS FOR ON-SYSTEM HABITAT EVALUATION

Evaluation of on-system beaver habitat was conducted using coarse scale shoreline mapping data

provided, as part of the overall terrestrial assessment provided by ECOSTEM Ltd. These data included

both pre-hydroelectric development and EE shorelines and wetland characterization using available

historical aerial photography, current aerial photography, and high resolution satellite imagery for the

regulated systems within the Hydraulic Zones in the ROI. There are 16 fields that contain numerous

attributes that describe physical characteristics of shoreline and adjacent terrestrial and aquatic habitat.

Primary beaver habitat was modeled using these data based on the identification of attributes that best

describe high quality components required to complete their life history including food (hardwood trees

and shrubs), and cover (building material for lodges), and shoreline conditions. The model does not



include any attributes related to the water regime (e.g., degree of drawdown). However, the final

evaluation includes a qualitative review of available data from the Water Regime RSC.

In assessing habitat, it was necessary to select data fields and attributes that were consistent between

overlapping pre- and post-hydroelectric segments within the terrestrial region being assessed. Due to the

mapping constraints, attributes that potentially describe primary habitat are not consistently available for

all terrestrial regions due to the variability of the imagery used to interpret the physical shoreline

characteristics.

The modeling approach relied on the use of fields and attributes that were common within the overlapping

data sets. The modeling conducted was an attribute selection process, selecting shoreline attributes that

had characteristics that could be drawn from the available data for the terrestrial region being assessed.

The main attributes include adjacent terrestrial vegetation (suitable tree species), adjacent marsh and

wetlands, and back bays that exclude large lakes and fast moving rivers.

Overlapping (pre-hydroelectric development and EE) mapping and attribute data for shoreline segments

were not available for the entire shoreline lengths within the terrestrial regions assessed. Therefore, the

portion of the area with data available for pre- hydroelectric development and EE was evaluated to

provide assessments of available primary habitat. The total length of shoreline pre- and post-hydroelectric

development within each terrestrial region was calculated to provide context on the proportion of

shoreline assessed to provide an index of change as no extrapolation of the results from the assessed

area was possible as unclassified sections are likely not representative of the variety of shoreline

conditions present.

The modelling provided quantitative outputs illustrating pre- and post-hydroelectric length of primary

habitat for the overlapping sections on the regulated system for various waterbodies within the terrestrial

region. The values were subsequently ranked to provide a measure of the degree of change

(length of shoreline added or lost) from pre- to post-hydroelectric development. The interpretations

included positive, negative and neutral change terrestrial region. These results were then pooled and

summarized for the ecozone.

Additional qualitative assessment of these modelled results was then undertaken to integrate information

from the Physical Environment portion of the report (Water Regime, Chapter 4.3) and IHA regarding

known flooding, water flows, reversals and drawdown. Where available, local knowledge was also used to

compare and verify outputs.



Table 6.6A-7: Summary of On-system Primary Beaver Habitat Modeling

Ecozone 1 TerrestrialRegion

Pre–Hydroelectric Development

Total Shoreline

Length (km)

Post–Hydroelectric Development

Total Shoreline

Length (km)

Pre-Hydroelectric Development Overlapping

Shoreline (km)

Existing Environment Overlapping

Shoreline (km)

Proportion Of Pre In

Overlapping (%)

Proportion Of EE In

Overlapping (%)

Pre-Hydroelectric Development

Shoreline Habitat (km)

Post-Hydroelectric Development

Shoreline Habitat (km)

Change

(km)

Change

Index

WBS Baldock 1301.24 1656.65 913.99 2188.73 70.24 75.69 12.47 0 -12.47 Negative

WBS Paint 655.54 889.73 609.78 939.23 93.02 94.73 8.79 5.78 -3.01 Neutral

WBS Rat 1231.59 2819.82 1231.59 2820.10 100 99.99 32.53 4.98 -27.55 Negative

WBS Wuskwatim 751.25 1106.59 344.52 1159.58 45.86 95.43 2.94 0.32 -2.62 Neutral

EBS Dafoe 1359.28 1480.4 0.00 undefined 0 0 0 83.29 83.29 Positive

EBS Keeyask 1714.29 1903.58 730.12 4872.23 42.59 39.07 0 3.14 3.14 Neutral

EBS Upper Nelson

9598.86 10175.91 3315.45 27848.69 34.54 36.54 87.88 49.15 -38.73 Negative

HP Deer Island 156.04 157.14 26.64 161.72 17.07 97.17 0.84 0.33 -0.51 Neutral

HP Limestone Rapids

267.48 271.85 267.48 271.85 100 100 3.08 5.51 2.43 Neutral

TS Bradshaw 287.54 292.51 0.00 undefined 0 0 0 0 0.00 Neutral

TS Southern Indian

4650.64 4754.74 1642.14 13450.47 35.31 35.35 10.36 0 -10.36 Negative

TS Upper Churchill

1256.78 1100.83 268.70 4749.05 21.38 23.18 0.22 0.23 0.01 Neutral

CHB Fletcher 142.78 159.6 0.00 undefined 0 0 0 0 0.00 Neutral

CHB Hudson Coast

112.03 121.84 0.00 undefined 0 0 0 0 0.00 Neutral

CHB Warkworth 254.11 232.33 0.00 undefined 0 0 0 0 0.00 Neutral

1. WBS = Western Boreal Shield; EBS = Eastern Boreal Shield; HP = Hudson Plains, TS = Taiga Shield; CHB = Coastal Hudson Bay.

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – AQUATIC FURBEARERS – APPENDIX 6.6B

APPENDIX 6.6B:

BEAVER CENSUS CALCULATION

METHODS



WESTERN BOREAL SHIELD ECOZONE: BEAVER LODGE ANALYSIS PRE-HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT

The number of beaver lodges was characterized in the Wuskwatim Terrestrial Region using the beaver

records between 1948 and 1953 contained in historic reports from the Nelson House RTL of Manitoba

Department of Mines.

The total area of the Split Lake RTL section and the Keeyask Terrestrial Regions was calculated using

Geographic Information System (GIS). The pre-hydroelectric development beaver lodge density/km2

(obtained from historical Manitoba Mines and Natural Resources reports) was determined by the total

beaver lodge census within the RTL sections and divided by the total area. This beaver lodge density was

applied to all terrestrial regions in the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone.

WESTERN BOREAL SHIELD ECOZONE: BEAVER LODGE ANALYSIS POST-HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT

A series of boat-based beaver surveys were conducted in 2001 and 2009, the total area surveyed was

442 km2. The total number of active beaver lodges in 2001 was 68 and 41 in 2009. Two thousand and

nine spring and fall aerial surveys covered 1,098 km2. The spring survey enumerated 147 active beaver

lodges whereas the fall survey enumerated 125. In 2010 and 2011, this same area was again surveys

and found 127 active beaver lodges in 2010 and 189 active beaver lodges in 2011. These surveys took

place to create a baseline of beaver activity and quantify aspects of beaver ecology on waterways in

proximity to the Wuskwatim Generation Station.

A number of surveys were conducted between the years of 2001 to 2011 to determine beaver lodge

densities in the Wuskwatim Generation Project study area. These surveys characterized the number of

active beaver lodges over the predetermined study area. The number of active beaver lodges was then

divided by the total area surveyed to give a final beaver lodge density in the study area. These beaver

lodge densities were then assigned to the entirety of the Wuskwatim Terrestrial Region. Figures 6.6B-1

and 6.6B-2 show the areas surveyed for both aerial and boat surveys.



Source: Kelly et al. 2012

Figure 6.6B-1: Survey Area for 2001 and 2003 Fall Aerial Surveys (Three Areas Combined

Equal 1098.67 km2)



Source: Berger and Blouw 2007

Figure 6.6B-2 Survey Area for the Boat-based Beaver Lodge Counts for the Years of 2001 and

2009

EASTERN BOREAL SHIELD ECOZONE: BEAVER LODGE ANALYSIS PRE-HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT

The number of beaver lodges was characterized in the Keeyask Terrestrial Region using the beaver

records between 1949 and 1958 contained in reports from the Split Lake RTL section of Manitoba

Department of Mines.

The total area of the Split Lake RTL section and the Keeyask Terrestrial Regions was calculated using

GIS. The pre-hydroelectric development beaver lodge density/km2 (obtained from historical Manitoba

Mines and Natural Resources reports) was determined by the total beaver lodge census within the RTL

sections and divided by the total area. This beaver lodge density was applied to all terrestrial regions in

the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone.



EASTERN BOREAL SHIELD ECOZONE: BEAVER LODGE ANALYSIS POST-HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT

A series of aerial surveys were conducted in the fall of 2001 and 2003 to enumerate active beaver lodges

in the area of interest for the Keeyask GS (KHLP 2012). From these data, beaver lodge densities were

determined. These density estimates for the Keeyask GS study area were then applied to the entire

Keeyask Terrestrial Region.

Beaver lodge densities were calculated based on post-hydroelectric development beaver lodge surveys.

There were 97 active beaver lodges in 2001 and 52 lodges in 2002 in Zone 4, which encompasses

221,509 ha. Surveys found 39 active beaver lodges in 2001 and 16 lodges in 2003 in Zone 3, which

encompasses 41,966 ha (KHLP 2012).

BOREAL PLAINS ECOZONE: BEAVER LODGE ANALYSIS PRE-HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT

The beaver lodge density for the William Terrestrial Region was calculated using historic beaver census

data from 1947 through 1955. An average was taken from these census data and divided by the total

area of the historic trapline section (West Central Section), to produce a beaver lodge density, which was

applied to the William Terrestrial Region.

TAIGA SHIELD ECOZONE: BEAVER LODGE ANALYSIS PRE-HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT

The number of beaver lodges was characterized in the terrestrial regions of the Taiga Shield Ecozone

using the beaver records from 1955 and 1958. These annual reports contained the historic Split Lake and

South Indian RTL sections of Manitoba Department of Mines. An effort was made to use five consecutive

years of census data for the population density estimates.

The total area of the historic Split Lake and South Indian Lake RTL sections was calculated using GIS.

The pre-hydroelectric development beaver lodge density/km2 (obtained from historical MDMNR reports)

was determined by the total beaver lodge census within the RTL sections and divided by the total area.

TAIGA SHIELD ECOZONE: BEAVER LODGE ANALYSIS POST-HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT

No data exist to calculate this metric.

HUDSON PLAINS ECOZONE: BEAVER LODGE ANALYSIS PRE-HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT

The number of beaver lodges was characterized in the Limestone Rapids Terrestrial Region using the

beaver records between 1951 and 1955 contained in annual reports from the historic Limestone RTL

section of Manitoba Department of Mines.

The total area of the Limestone RTL section was calculated using GIS. The pre-hydroelectric

development beaver lodge density/km2 (obtained from historical MDMNR reports) was determined by the

total beaver lodge census within the RTL sections and divided by the total area.



HUDSON PLAINS ECOZONE: BEAVER LODGE ANALYSIS POST-HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT


COASTAL HUDSON BAY ECOZONE: BEAVER LODGE ANALYSIS PRE-HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT

The number of beaver lodges was characterized in the terrestrial regions using the beaver records from

1955 to 1957 contained in annual reports from the historic Churchill and York-Shamattawa RTL section of

Manitoba Department of Mines. An effort was made to use five consecutive years of census data for the

population density estimates; however, in the case of the Churchill RTL section only three years of

consecutive data could be located.

The total area of the Churchill and York RTL sections was calculated using GIS. The pre-hydroelectric

development beaver lodge density/km2 (obtained from historical MDMNR reports) was determined by the

total beaver lodge census within the RTL sections and divided by the total area of each of the respective

terrestrial regions.

COASTAL HUDSON BAY ECOZONE: BEAVER LODGE ANALYSIS POST-HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berger, R., and Blouw, C. 2007. Mammal EIS support document 1: existing terrestrial habitat and

mammals. Wuskwatim Generation Project Report # 07-03. A report prepared for Wuskwatim

Power Limited Partnership by Wildlife Resource Consulting Services MB Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 89

pp.

Kelly, J., Berger, R., and Hettinga, P. 2012. Aquatic furbearer aerial survey baseline report 2009–2011.

Wuskwatim Generation Project Report # 12-03. A report prepared for Wuskwatim Power Limited

Partnership by Wildlife Resource Consulting Services MB Inc. 63 pp.

KHLP (Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership). 2012. Keeyask Generation Project Environmental

Impact Statement — Terrestrial Supporting Volume. Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership,

Winnipeg MB.

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BARREN-GROUND CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.7A

APPENDIX 6.7A:

DISTURBANCE ANALYSIS

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BARREN-GROUND CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.7A


Disturbance Analysis was conducted using geographic information systems (GIS) with layers provided by

Manitoba Hydro. The following is the order of hierarchy with the first having the highest level of hierarchy,

erasing all underneath:

· Transmission lines;

· Roads (associated with hydroelectric development);

· Power/Generating Stations;

· Other Development associated with hydroelectric development;

· Human footprint data (settlements, roads, etc.);

· Drill Holes (less than 40 years);

· Mines;

· Forestry harvest areas (less than 40 years); and

· Natural disturbance for existing environment only included fire history (less than 40 years).

All human disturbance features were buffered by 500 m, which represented the area disturbed by the

feature. However, drill holes were only buffered by 250 m (Environment Canada 2012). All buffered

features that overlapped the 1:50,000 water layer were removed.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Environment Canada. 2012. Recovery strategy for the woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou),

boreal population, in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment

Canada, Ottawa. xi + 138 pp.

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – COASTAL CARIBOU - APPENDIX 6.8A

APPENDIX 6.8A:

MODEL CALCULATIONS

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – COASTAL CARIBOU - APPENDIX 6.8A

DECEMBER 2015 6.8A-I


Tables

Table 6.8A-1: Pre-hydroelectric Development Fragmentation Levels in the Pen Islands

Regional Assessment Area (RAA) ...................................................................... 6.8A-1 Table 6.8A-2: Pre-hydroelectric Development Fragmentation Levels in the Cape Churchill

Regional Assessment Area (RAA) ...................................................................... 6.8A-1 Table 6.8A-3: Post-hydroelectric Development Fragmentation Levels in the Pen Islands

Regional Assessment Area (RAA) ...................................................................... 6.8A-2 Table 6.8A-4: Post-hydroelectric Development Fragmentation Levels in the Cape Churchill

Regional Assessment Area (RAA) ...................................................................... 6.8A-3 Table 6.8A-5: Disturbance Levels in the Pen Islands Regional Assessment Area (RAA) ......... 6.8A-4 Table 6.8A-6: Disturbance Levels in the Cape Churchill Regional Assessment Area (RAA) .... 6.8A-5

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – COASTAL CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.8A


Table 6.8A-1: Pre-hydroelectric Development Fragmentation Levels in the Pen Islands

Regional Assessment Area (RAA)

Feature Type

Length (km) Pen Island RAA Area

(km2)

Linear Feature Density

(km/km2)

Percentage of

Development

Non-Hydroelectric Development

Highway

2 < 0.01 0.4

Railway

370 < 0.01 70.1

Road

13 < 0.01 2.5

Winter road

< 1 < 0.01 0.1

Ditch

142 < 0.01 26.9

Total Non-Hydroelectric Development Disturbance

528 162,438 < 0.01 100.0

Table 6.8A-2: Pre-hydroelectric Development Fragmentation Levels in the Cape Churchill


Feature Type

Length (km)

Cape Churchill RAA Area

(km2)


(km/km2)

Percentage of

Development


Highway

2 < 0.01 0.4

Railway

343 0.02 65.6

Road

8 < 0.01 1.6

Winter road

20 < 0.01 3.8

Ditch

150 < 0.01 28.7


524 21,915 0.02 100.0



Table 6.8A-3: Post-hydroelectric Development Fragmentation Levels in the Pen Islands


Feature Type

Length (km) Pen Island RAA Area

(km2)


(km/km2)

Percentage of

Development

Hydroelectric Development

Highway

236 < 0.01 6.2

Limited-use Road

60 < 0.01 1.6

Railway

30 < 0.01 0.8

Road

97 < 0.01 2.6

Transmission Line

1274 < 0.01 33.6

Winter road

53 < 0.01 1.4

Ditch

79 < 0.01 2.1

Dyke

21 < 0.01 0.6

Total Hydroelectric Development Disturbance

1850 162,438 0.01 48.8


Highway

40 < 0.01 1.1

Limited-use Road

59 < 0.01 1.6

Railway

370 < 0.01 9.7

Road

262 < 0.01 6.9

Winter road

1023 < 0.01 27.0

Ditch

188 < 0.01 5.0


1942 162,438 0.01 51.2

Total Linear Features

3792 162,438 0.02 100.0



Table 6.8A-4: Post-hydroelectric Development Fragmentation Levels in the Cape Churchill


Feature Type

Length (km)

Cape Churchill RAA Area

(km2)


(km/km2)

Percentage of

Development


Highway 34 < 0.01 3.4

Limited-use Road 18 < 0.01 1.8

Railway

7 < 0.01 0.7

Road

38 < 0.01 3.8

Transmission Line

301 0.01 30.0

Winter road

0 0 0.0

Ditch

10 < 0.01 1.0

Dyke

0 < 0.01 0.0


408 21915 0.02 40.7


Highway

6 < 0.01 0.6

Limited-use Road

8 < 0.01 0.8

Railway

343 0.02 34.2

Road

30 < 0.01 3.0

Winter road

36 < 0.01 3.6

Ditch

172 < 0.01 17.2


595 21,915 0.03 59.4

Total Linear Features

1003 21,915 0.05 100.0



Table 6.8A-5: Disturbance Levels in the Pen Islands Regional Assessment Area (RAA)

Feature Type

Area (km2) Percentage of Disturbance


1) Transmission Lines

971 0.6

2) Roads associated with Hydroelectric Development

309 0.2

3) Power/Generating Stations

5 < 0.1

4) Other Development associated with Hydroelectric Development

62 < 0.1


1346 0.8


5) Human Footprint Areas (Settlements, Roads, etc.)

1452 0.9

6) Drill Holes (less than 40 y)

56 < 0.1

8) Forestry Harvest Areas (less than 40 y)

2 < 0.1


1511 0.9

Total Anthropogenic Disturbance

2857 1.8

9) Natural Disturbance — Fire History (less than 40 y)

31,847 19.4

Total Natural Disturbance

31,847 19.4

Area of Pen Islands RAA

162,438

Area of Pen Islands RAA (including water)

179,698

Total Overall Disturbance

34,344 21.1



Table 6.8A-6: Disturbance Levels in the Cape Churchill Regional Assessment Area (RAA)

Feature Type

Area (km2) Percentage of Disturbance


1) Transmission Lines

357 1.6

2) Roads associated with Hydroelectric Development

115 0.5

3) Power/Generating Stations

0 0.0

4) Other Development associated with Hydroelectric Development

11 < 0.1


483 2.2


5) Human Footprint Areas (Settlements, Roads, etc.)

783 3.6

6) Drill Holes (less than 40 y)

1 < 0.1

7) Mines 0 0.0

8) Forestry Harvest Areas (less than 40 y)

0 0.0


784 3.6

Total Anthropogenic Disturbance

1267 5.8

9) Natural Disturbance — Fire History (less than 40 y)

5186 23.7

Total Natural Disturbance

5186 23.7

Area of Cape Churchill RAA

21,915

Area of Cape Churchill RAA (including water)

24,969

Total Overall Disturbance

6453 29.5

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – COASTAL CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.8B

APPENDIX 6.8B:

MODEL DESCRIPTIONS



Fragmentation Analysis

The fragmentation of RAAs was assessed based on the presence of non-overlapping linear features.

These calculations followed those which occurred in the Intactness, Section 6.2.1.2. In addition to those

human footprint types identified in Table 6.2.1-2, the ditch habitat feature was also used for mapping of

linear features. Based on the calculated length of non-overlapping linear features, linear feature density

was calculated by dividing this quantity by the size of the RAA. Waterbodies were excluded from the area

calculation.

Disturbance Analysis

The disturbance analysis conducted on the Pen Islands and Cape Churchill RAAs followed the use of the

EC (2011, 2012) Critical Habitat Model for boreal woodland caribou populations. Quantities of

anthropogenic disturbance were assessed based on available geographic information system (GIS)

layers that showed quantities of disturbance attributable to different sources. In this way, it was possible

to identify what portion of anthropogenic disturbance occurred as a result of hydroelectric development or

other development.

The following list provided is the order in which anthropogenic disturbance layers were mapped in

ArcMAP. Areas of overlap between disturbance layers were erased with the layer appearing higher on the

following list being the one that contributed to disturbance levels for completed calculations.

o transmission lines;

o roads (associated with hydroelectric development);

o power/generating stations;

o other development associated with hydroelectric development;

o human footprint data (settlements, roads, etc.); o drill holes (less than 40 y);

o mines;

o forestry harvest areas (less than 40 y); and

o natural disturbance for existing environment only included fire history (less than 40 y).

All human disturbance features were buffered by 500 m, which represented the area disturbed by the

feature. However, drill holes were only buffered by 250 m (EC 2012). All buffered features that

overlapped the 1:50,000 water layer were removed

Sensory Disturbance

Sensory disturbance calculations were based on available radio-collar information from the Pen Islands

caribou herd between 2010 to 2014. More information on the type of radio-collars and the dates they

were active is available within Appendix 6-9A.

Using available radio-collar information, it was determined whether collared Pen Islands moved within

500 m or 3 km of the major hydroelectric developments during the seasons being considered and for the

years when radio-collars were active. Hydroelectric developments of interest included the operational

Kelsey, Limestone, and Long Spruce GSs. These distances were selected based on indicated levels of

reduced habitat suitability when considering the effects of anthropogenic disturbance on boreal woodland



caribou (< 500 m) (EC 2012) and the avoidance of a hydroelectric generating station during construction

period by a migratory caribou herd in Newfoundland (< 3 km) (Mahoney and Schaefer 2002).

For assessing sensory disturbance, two time periods were considered based on summer and winter

range use characteristics. The winter period was identified as December 1st to March 31st and the

summer period from May 1st to August 15th. These dates were consistent with those used for the boreal

woodland caribou core area calculations (Boreal Woodland Caribou, Chapter 6.9). For radio-collared

caribou to be considered as part of this analysis, they had to have had active radio-collars for at least

75% of the days within each season. This was done to avoid biasing the sensory disturbance results

where it is assumed that if a radio-collar is active for less time then there is a reduced likelihood for the

animal to migrate and/or move to occur in different areas.

Bibliography

EC (Environment Canada). 2011. Scientific assessment to inform the identification of critical habitat for

woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), boreal population, in Canada: 2011 update.

Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON. 102 pp.

EC. 2012. Recovery strategy for the woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), boreal population, in

Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON.

138 pp.

Mahoney, S. P., and Schaefer, J. A. 2002. Hydroelectric development and the disruption of migration in

caribou. Biological Conservation 107: 147–153 pp.

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU –APPENDIX 6.9A

APPENDIX 6.9A:

CORE AREA IDENTIFICATION METHODS

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU –APPENDIX 6.9A


CORE AREA IDENTIFICATION

Core use area identification is based on methods developed for moose by Van der Wal (2004) in

determining core range for collared moose and adapted for boreal woodland caribou in eastern Manitoba

(Schindler 2006). The utilization distribution (UD) isopleth contour representing the area where animals

spend the greatest amount of time in the least amount of area was determined as the isopleth value at

which the first derivative of the exponential model (Eq. 1) equals one (Van der Wal, 2004). This method

was used by Schindler (2006) in assessing the effects of a logging road on winter habitat use by boreal

woodland caribou in eastern Manitoba. Using this method, adaptive kernel analysis for each animal by

winter month and all animals by winter month were conducted using the Home Range Extension (HRE) in

ArcGIS (Rogers and Carr 1998). The monthly winter kernel polygons were amalgamated (merged in GIS)

and mapped. This resulted in overall winter UD isopleths generated at 10% volume intervals. To identify

the UD isopleth that best describes current core use areas, an exponential regression fit model was used

to determine the relationship between UD isopleths denoting time and area used (home range), both

expressed as proportions. The following general equation was solved: (Eq. 1) yi =beb2

xi where b

1 and b

2

are coefficients found by a least-squares fit to the observed data. Exponential regressions were

conducted separately for each winter month using proportion of area used (y-axis) in each 10% isopleth

denoting time (x-axis). This analysis resulted in the isopleth value of 70% being the contour that

represented the area where animals spent the greatest amount of time in the least amount of area. We

also found that by replicating this analysis on individual animals and by pooled samples for all winter

months, the results remained consistently within one or two percentages of this value. This approach to

defining core areas in Manitoba was further adopted by the Eastern Region Boreal Woodland Caribou

Committee in determining management zones and boreal caribou habitat management objectives. Based

on the above approach, boreal woodland caribou core use areas in the Project Study Area were updated

from data collected from GPS collars used to monitor caribou from January 2010 to October of 2014.

These data were used to generate updated volume-based density kernels to map the core use areas of

caribou during winter and summer seasons.

Bibliography

Rodgers, A. R., and Carr, A. P. 1998. HRE, the home range extension for ArcView (Beta Test Version

July 1998). User’s Manual. Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research, Ontario Ministry of

Natural Resources. 27 pp.

Schindler, D. 2006. Home range and core area determination, habitat use and sensory effects of all-

weather access on boreal woodland caribou, Rangifer tarandus caribou, in eastern Manitoba.

M.Env. thesis, Department of Environment and Geography, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg,

MB. 130 pp.

Van der Wal, E. 2004. Core areas of habitat use: The influence of spatial scale of analysis on interpreting

summer habitat selection by moose (Alces alces). M.Sc., Department of Biology, Lakehead

University, Thunder Bay, Ontario. 96 pp.

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU –APPENDIX 6.9B

APPENDIX 6.9B:

SUMMARY OF RESOURCE SELECTION

FUNCTION METHODS



TELEMETRY DATABASE

Radio telemetry data collected for 20 boreal woodland caribou in the Harding Lake population ranges

from January 2010 to June 2014 (winter and summer locations), consisting of 11,200 relocation points,

were used to develop a boreal caribou RSF model (for a comprehensive discussion of the methods see

Manly et al. 2002; details pertinent to the RCEA application will be described here). A Minimum Convex

Polygon was generated for the relocations and buffered by a movement potential distance to define the

extent of the landscape used in the model (following Gustine et al. 2006). A 200 ha hexagon grid covering

the buffered Minimum Convex Polygon was developed and each hexagon where one or more caribou

was located during the study was marked as "USED" (selected) and assigned a value of 1, and those with

no observed animal use were assigned a value of zero. Because habitat selection can change

seasonally, the variable USED was further divided into a winter period (WINTER, December–March) and

a summer period (SUMMER, May–August).

RESOURCE DATABASE

The land cover layer, developed for Manitoba Hydro and provided by ECOSTEM, was used as the

primary database for all landscape structure and vegetation cover statistics. Landscape structure

statistics were obtained using the analysis by region option in the ESRI (Environmental Systems

Research Institute, Redlands, California 2010) ArcGIS 10 Extension Patch Analyst (Rempel et al. 2012)

and calculated on a 200 ha hexagon fabric built using the Geospatial Modeling Environment. In total there

were 13 landscape structure metrics calculated summarizing fragmentation, patch edge and shape

complexity, and diversity (see Table 6.9B-1). Cover types provided in the land cover layer were

reclassified into broader categories to better represent specific caribou usage of habitat (Table 6.9B-2).

For each hexagon, the percentage cover of 17 Land Use/Landcover types was calculated from a cover

map and an estimated stand/landscape age based on existing fire records was determined. Both the

landscape, cover and age data were combined, and all RSFs were developed using this as the reference

database.

Where areas are calculated, intermediate and final units are expressed in square km. All spatial statistics

were calculated by an analysis by region using the landscape option within a hexagon grid.



Table 6.9B-1: Summary of Patch Metrics used to Calculate RSF for Winter and Summer

Primary Habitat

Variable Abbreviation

Patch Metric Description

NumP Number of Patches Number of patches in a hexagon

MPS Mean Patch Size Mean patch size of all patches

MePS Median Patch Size Median (50th percentile) patch size of all patches

PSCoV Patch Size Coefficient of Variance

Coefficient of Variation of all patches

PSSD Patch Size Standard Deviation Patch Size Standard Deviation of all patch areas.

MSI Mean Shape Index

Total patch perimeter divided by the square root of patch area (hectares) for all patches and expressed as an index relative to a circle (most compact polygon shape), divided by the number of patches

AWMSI Area Weighted Mean Shape Index

Area weighted mean shape index to adjust the values based on patch size, which can bias estimates. Representation of small patches in databases are necessarily simpler in form because of generalization used in vector GIS database construction. Calculated for all patches

MPAR Mean Perimeter-Area Ratio Mean perimeter-area ratio (shape complexity) of all patches

MPFD Mean Patch Fractal Dimension

Shape complexity measure based on a power-law relationship between perimeter and area. Simple shapes (approaching a smooth circular form) have low fractal dimension relative to convoluted forms. Calculated for all patches.

AWMPFD Area Weighted Mean Patch Fractal Dimension

Area weighted fractal dimension to adjust the values based on patch size, which can bias estimates. Representation of small patches in databases are necessarily simpler in form because of generalization used in vector GIS database construction. Calculated for all patches.

TE Total Edge Total Edge (perimeter) of all patches

ED Edge Density Total amount of edge relative to the landscape area for all patches

MPE Mean Patch Edge Mean perimeters of all patches



Table 6.9B-2: Summary of the Original Coarse Habitat Types and the Reclassified Coarse

Habitat Types

Coarse Habitat Reclassified Habitats

Black spruce mixed wood on mineral or thin peat land

Black Spruce on Mineral Black spruce mixture on outcrop

Black spruce treed on mineral soil

Black spruce treed on shallow peat land Black spruce treed on shallow peat land

Black spruce treed on thin peat land Black spruce treed on wetter peat land

Black spruce treed on wet peat land

Broadleaf mixed wood on all eco-sites Broadleaf and mixed woods on all eco-sites

Broadleaf treed on all eco-sites

Human Feature Human Feature

Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peat land

Low vegetation on wet peat land Low vegetation on wet peat land

Marsh

Small Island Small Island

Tall shrub on mineral or thin peat land Tall shrub on mineral or thin peat land

Tall shrub on riparian peat land Tall shrub on riparian peat land

Tall shrub on shallow peat land Tall shrub on shallow peat land

Tamarack-black spruce mixture on wet peat land

Tamarack Tamarack treed on shallow peat land

Tamarack treed on wet peat land

Water Water

White spruce treed on mineral White spruce treed on mineral

PARAMETERIZING RESOURCE SELECTION FUNCTIONS

RSF Models must be biologically relevant and reflect the existing relationship between populations and

the landscape (Manly et al. 2002). This requires careful selection of parameters for use in analysis. To

evaluate the ecological relationships and statistical properties of potential model parameters, multivariate

methods were used to explore trends in the landscape structure metrics and landcover data relative to

overall and seasonal use by boreal woodland caribou.

To examine relationships in the landscape structure variables and the vegetation layers (see

Table 6.9D-1) extensive prescreening and summary analyses were performed. These analyses included

Redundancy Analysis (RDA) and Canonical Correspondence (CCA) as well as Linear Discriminant

Analysis (LDA). For Harding Lake, all methods were used with very consistent results in terms of the



variable trends and relationships elucidated among the analyses with LDA proving the most robust. For

the remaining ranges, LDA was the primary method of analytical prescreening performed.

RDA is an extension of multiple regression that allows multiple explanatory variables to constrain multiple

response variable. This analysis treated both overall and seasonal use as binary factor explanatory

variables and landscape structure as response variables. An ordination biplot of response and

explanatory variables was constructed to examine relationships. This analysis was used for descriptive

and exploratory purposes and to identify potential landscape structure parameters, as biplots are very

effective in data visualization (Legendre and Legendre 1998).

To examine relationships in the landcover variables relative to use, a CCA (described in Legendre and

Legendre 1998) was performed in CRAN R (R Core Team 2014). This method is based on

Correspondence Analysis (CA), an ordination method designed to work with variables that have unimodal

distributions, as is commonly observed with species or landcover parameters. CA maximizes the

chi-squared contingency between observations (often species measured at sample sites). CCA is a

canonical form of CA very similar to RDA, where the CA solution (the response set) is constrained by a

series of linear explanatory variables (Legendre and Legendre 1998). For descriptive and exploratory

purposes, a CCA triplot was constructed to visualize landcover trends (CA response set) as a function of

overall and seasonal use as binary factor explanatory variables. Landcover relationships on the triplot

were interpreted and a subset of potential variables for use in constructing RSFs were identified.

LDA (described in Legendre and Legendre 1998), and also performed in CRAN R (R Core Team 2014),

was used to elucidate relationships between structure and cover variables and the use of habitat by

caribou. LDA is also a method often employed directly in resource selection studies as the primary

method for developing resource selection relationships (see Manly et al. 2002, Chapter 10), but used

here as part of variable selection and model parameterization. Because of its theoretical and

mathematical relationships to RSF, it was used as the primary means of parameter prescreening in the

majority of caribou ranges.

RESOURCE SELECTION FUNCTION

The variables identified to be of biological and statistical importance to boreal woodland caribou resource

selection were used in construction of candidate models for RSF models in CRAN R

(R Core Team 2014). The RSF developed for boreal caribou utilized Logistic Regression with a logit link

function, although probit and loglog were also examined (see Manly et al. 2002) and using the glm

function in the CRAN core package ‘stats’. Four alternate RSF models for each season were developed

using parameters trending strongly with RDA/CCA and LDA. Models were assessed using the Akaike

Information Criterion (AIC), and the most parsimonious model for each season was selected for use in

mapping. The selected Summer and Winter RSF models were used as predictors in GIS by taking the

coefficients from the logistic regression as exponent weights (Eq. 1) and rescaling them (Eq.2; following

Johnson et al. 2004) before using these in the Field Calculator in ArcGIS. As RSF predictions are often

log normally distributed (positively skewed and leptokurtic) a log transform was performed to obtain final

values. The resultant maps indicates hexagons where boreal caribou are most likely to occur based on

the habitat available.



Bibliography

Gustine, D. D., Parker, K. L., Lay, R. J., Gillingham, M. P., and Heard, D. C. 2006. Interpreting resource

selection at different scales for woodland caribou in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management,

70(6): 1601–1614 pp.

Johnson, C. J., Seip, D. R., and Boyce, M. S. 2004. A quantitative approach to conservation planning:

using resource selection functions to map the distribution of mountain caribou at multiple spatial

scales. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41(2): 238–251 pp.

Legendre, P., and Legendre, L. 1998. Numerical ecology, 2nd English edition. Elsevier Science,

Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 852 pp.

Manly, B. F. J., McDonald, L. L., Thomas, D. L., McDonald, T. L., and Erickson, W.P. 2002. Resource

Selection by Animals: Statistical Design and Analysis for Field Studies, second edition. Kluwer

Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, USA, 240 pp.

R Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical

Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2012.

Rempel, R. S., Kaukinen, D., and Carr, A. P. 2012. Patch Analyst and Patch Grid. Ontario, Ontario

Ministry of Natural Resources, Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research.

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU –APPENDIX 6.9C

APPENDIX 6.9C:

DETAILED DISTURBANCE TABLES


DECEMBER 2015 6.9C-I


Tables Table 6.9C-1: Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Disturbance in the Harding Lake Range ................ 6.9C-1 Table 6.9C-2: Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Disturbance in the Wapisu-Wimapedi Range ........ 6.9C-2 Table 6.9C-3: Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Disturbance in the Wheadon Range ...................... 6.9C-3 Table 6.9C-4: Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Disturbance in the Wabowden Range ................... 6.9C-4 Table 6.9C-5: Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Disturbance in the William Lake Range ................. 6.9C-5 Table 6.9C-6: Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Disturbance in the Naosap-Reed Range ............... 6.9C-6 Table 6.9C-7: Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Disturbance in the Norway House Range .............. 6.9C-7 Table 6.9C-8: Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Disturbance in the Charron Lake Range ............... 6.9C-8


DECEMBER 2015 6.9C-1

Table 6.9C-1: Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Disturbance in the Harding Lake Range

Harding Lake Range

1960 1960 1980 1980 2013 2013

Area (km2)

Percentage of Disturbance

Area (km2)


Area (km2)



Transmission Lines 38 0.25 271 1.80 382 2.5

Roads associated with Hydroelectric Development 0 0 50.84 0.34 99.2 0.66

Power/Generating Stations 0 0 0.02 0.0001 0.40 0.003

Other Development associated with Hydroelectric Development

0 0 2.53 0.02 8.8 0.06

Total Hydroelectric Development Disturbance 38 0.25 325 2.15 490.56 3.25


Human Footprint Areas (Settlements, Roads, etc.) 237 1.57 848 5.62 1057 7.00

Drill Holes (less than 40 years) 60.24 0.40 157.07 1.04 23.60 0.16

Mines 0 0 0 0 0 0

Forestry Harvest Areas (less than 40 years) 0 0 0 0 68.22 0.45

Total Non-Hydroelectric Development Disturbance 297.82 1.97 1006.01 6.66 1149.32 7.61

Total Anthropogenic Disturbance 336.04 2.22 1330.94 8.81 1639.88 10.86

Natural Disturbance-Fire History (less than 40 years) 133.69 0.89 1743.66 11.54 4595.42 30.43

Total Natural Disturbance 133.69 0.89 1743.66 11.54 4595.42 30.43

Area of Harding Lake Range 15103 0 15103 0 15103 0

Area of Harding Lake Range (including water) 16806 0 16806 0 16806 0

Total Overall Disturbance 469.72 3.11 3074.61 20.36 6235.31 41.28



Table 6.9C-2: Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Disturbance in the Wapisu-Wimapedi Range

Wapisu-Wimapedi Range

1960 1960 1980 1980 2013 2013

Area (km2)


Area (km2)


Area (km2)



Transmission Lines 4.16 0.04 233.31 1.98 415.82 3.53

Roads/Rail associated with Hydroelectric Development 11.68 0.10 19.55 0.17 27.64 0.23

Power/Generating Stations 0 0 0 0 0.31 0.003


0.26 0.002 1.16 0.01 4.06 0.03

Total Hydroelectric Development Disturbance 16.09 0.14 254.02 2.15 447.84 3.80


Human Footprint Areas (Settlements, Roads, etc.) 272.59 2.31 271.98 2.31 563.14 4.78


Mines 4.15 0.04 5.22 0.04 5.82 0.05

Forestry Harvest Areas (less than 40 years) 0 0 6.16 0.05 50.77 0.43





Area of Wapisu-Wimapedi Caribou Range 11788.19 0 11788.19 0 11788.19 0

Area of Wapisu-Wimapedi Caribou Range (including water)

12590.03 0 12590.03 0 12590.03 0




Table 6.9C-3: Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Disturbance in the Wheadon Range

Wheadon Range

1960 1960 1980 1980 2013 2013

Area (km2)


Area (km2)


Area (km2)





Power/Generating Stations 0 0 0 0 0 0


0.48 0.01 0.43 0.01 0.18 0.002





Mines 0.68 0.008 0.62 0.01 0.96 0.01






Area of Wheadon Caribou Range 8343.13 0 8343.13 0 8343.13 0

Area of Wheadon Caribou Range (including water) 9231.52 0 9231.52 0 9231.52 0




Table 6.9C-4: Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Disturbance in the Wabowden Range

Wabowden Range

1960 1960 1980 1980 2013 2013

Area (km2)


Area (km2)


Area (km2)



Transmission Lines 0 0 364.83 3.90 482.91 5.16

Roads/Rail associated with Hydroelectric Development 0 0 64.27 0.69 68.42 0.73



0 0 9.51 0.10 8.70 0.09





Mines 0 0 1.90 0.02 2.25 0.024






Area of Wabowden Caribou Range 9363.19 0 9363.19 0 9363.19 0

Area of Wabowden Caribou Range (including water) 10129.00 0 10129.00 0 10129.00 0




Table 6.9C-5: Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Disturbance in the William Lake Range

William Lake Range

1960 1960 1980 1980 2013 2013

Area (km2)


Area (km2)


Area (km2)







0 0 0 0 0 0




Drill Holes (less than 40 years) 0 0 30.65 0.92 19.46 0.58

Mines 0 0 0 0 0 0






Area of William Lake Caribou Range 3348.70 0 3348.70 0 3348.70 0

Area of William Lake Caribou Range (including water) 3733.26 0 3733.26 0 3733.26 0




Table 6.9C-6: Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Disturbance in the Naosap-Reed Range

Naosap-Reed Range

1960 1960 1980 1980 2013 2013

Area (km2)


Area (km2)


Area (km2)







1.21 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.002





Mines 10.31 0.11 11.10 0.115 9.35 0.10






Area of Naosap-Reed Caribou Range 9665.45 0 9665.45 0 9665.45 0

Area of Naosap-Reed Caribou Range (including water) 12241.84 0 12241.84 0 12241.84 0




Table 6.9C-7: Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Disturbance in the Norway House Range

Norway House Range

1960 1960 1980 1980 2013 2013

Area (km2)


Area (km2)


Area (km2)







0.44 0.00 8.31 0.04 8.31 0.04





Mines 2.14 0.010 2.03 0.009 1.65 0.007

Forestry Harvest Areas (less than 40 years) 0.00 0 0 0 10.42 0.05





Area of Norway House Caribou Range 22259.98 0 22259.98 0 22259.98 0

Area of Norway House Caribou Range (including water)

26225.14 0 26225.14 0 26225.14 0




Table 6.9C-8: Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Disturbance in the Charron Lake Range

Charron Lake Range

1960 1960 1980 1980 2013 2013

Area (km2)


Area (km2)


Area (km2)



Transmission Lines 0 0 0 0 0 0

Roads/Rail associated with Hydroelectric Development 0 0 0 0 0 0



0 0 0 0 0 0




Drill Holes (less than 40 years) 0 0 0.71 0.004 0.71 0.004

Mines 0 0 0 0 0 0

Forestry Harvest Areas (less than 40 years) 0 0 0 0 0 0





Area of Charron Lake Caribou Range 18878.63 0 18878.63 0 18878.63 0

Area of Charron Lake Caribou Range (including water) 20103.97 0 20103.97 0 20103.97 0


REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.9D

APPENDIX 6.9D:

DETAILED LINEAR FEATURE INTERSECT

TABLES


DECEMBER 2015 6.9D-I


Tables

Table 6.9D-1: Linear Features Intersecting the Harding Lake Range ...................................... 6.9D-1

Table 6.9D-2: Linear Features Intersecting the Wapisu-Wimapedi Range ............................... 6.9D-1

Table 6.9D-3: Linear Features Intersecting the Wheadon Range ............................................ 6.9D-2

Table 6.9D-4: Linear Features Intersecting the Wabowden Range .......................................... 6.9D-2

Table 6.9D-5: Linear Features Intersecting the William Lake Range ....................................... 6.9D-3

Table 6.9D-6: Linear Features Intersecting the Naosap-Reed Range ...................................... 6.9D-3

Table 6.9D-7: Linear Features Intersecting the Norway House Range .................................... 6.9D-4

Table 6.9D-8: Linear Features Intersecting the Charron Lake Range ...................................... 6.9D-4

Table 6.9D-9: Linear Feature Intersect (km) and Linear Densities (km2) Within the Harding

Lake Winter and Summer Core Use Areas ......................................................... 6.9D-5

Table 6.9D-10: Linear Feature Intersect (km) and Linear Densities (km2) Within the Wapisu-

Wimapedi Winter and Summer Core Use Areas ................................................. 6.9D-6

Table 6.9D-11: Linear Feature Intersect (km) and Linear Densities (km2) Within the

Wheadon Winter and Summer Core Use Areas ................................................. 6.9D-7

Table 6.9D-12: Linear Feature Intersect (km) and Linear Densities (km2) Within the

Wabowden Winter and Summer Core Use Areas ............................................... 6.9D-8

Table 6.9D-13: Linear Feature Intersect (km) and Linear Densities (km2) Within the Charron

Lake Winter and Summer Core Use Areas ......................................................... 6.9D-9

Table 6.9D-14: Intersection of Human Footprint on Primary Modeled Winter and Summer

High Quality Habitat within the Harding Lake Range ........................................ 6.9D-10


High Quality Habitat within the Wapisu-Wimapedi Range ................................ 6.9D-11


High Quality Habitat within the Wheadon Range .............................................. 6.9D-12


High Quality Habitat within the Wabowden Range ........................................... 6.9D-13


High Quality Habitat within the William Lake Range ......................................... 6.9D-14


High Quality Habitat within the Naosap-Reed Range ....................................... 6.9D-15


High Quality Habitat within the Norway House Range ...................................... 6.9D-16


High Quality Habitat within the Charron Lake Range ........................................ 6.9D-17


DECEMBER 2015 6.9D-1

Table 6.9D-1: Linear Features Intersecting the Harding Lake Range

Feature Type Linear Feature Length (km) Linear Feature Density (km/km2) *

Cutline 2735.5 0.16

Ditch 21.19 0.00

Dyke 1.87 0.00

Highway 223.6 0.01

Limited-use Road 1011.69 0.06

Path 17.36 0.00

Railway 103.82 0.01

Road 379.09 0.02

Transmission Line 381.18 0.02

Winter road 166 0.01

Total 5041.31 0.30

*Table calculations are based on the Harding Lake Range area 16,806.15km2

Table 6.9D-2: Linear Features Intersecting the Wapisu-Wimapedi Range

Feature Type Linear Feature

Length (km) Wapisu-Wimapedi Range Area (km2)

Linear Feature Density (km/km2)

Ditch 56.75

0.005

Dyke 3.06

0.000

Highway 186.86

0.016

Limited-use Road 535.39

0.045

Railway 112.66

0.010

Road 151.28

0.013

Transmission Line 443.07

0.038

Winter Road 121.12

0.010

Total 1610.20 11788.19 0.137



Table 6.9D-3: Linear Features Intersecting the Wheadon Range


Length (km) Wheadon Range

Area (km2) Linear Feature

Density (km/km2)

Ditch 10.20

0.001

Dyke 1.18

0.0001

Highway 32.67

0.003


0.045

Railway 42.52

0.005

Road 114.36

0.012


0.022

Winter Road 60.27

0.006

Total 885.02 9363.19 0.095

Table 6.9D-4: Linear Features Intersecting the Wabowden Range


Length (km) Wabowden Range


Density (km/km2)

Ditch 88.17

0.011

Highway 266.34

0.032


0.136

Railway 128.45

0.015

Road 126.58

0.015


0.061

Winter Road 433.05

0.052

Total 2691.82 8343.13 0.323



Table 6.9D-5: Linear Features Intersecting the William Lake Range

Feature Type Linear Feature Length

(km) William Lake

Range Area (km2) Linear Feature

Density (km/km2)

Ditch 17.17

0.005

Highway 150.35

0.045


0.027

Road 44.46

0.013


0.056

Winter Road 143.35

0.043

Total 631.48 3348.70 0.189

Table 6.9D-6: Linear Features Intersecting the Naosap-Reed Range


Length (km) Naosap-Reed Range


Density (km/ km2)

Ditch 42.45

0.004

Highway 302.40

0.031


0.087

Railway 274.50

0.028

Road 570.66

0.059


0.063

Winter Road 245.61

0.025

Total 2883.23 9665.45 0.298



Table 6.9D-7: Linear Features Intersecting the Norway House Range


Length (km) Norway House


Density (km/ km2)

Ditch 20.48

0.0009

Highway 95.74

0.004


0.006

Road 155.27

0.007


0.002

Winter Road 522.29

0.02

Total 983.94 22259.98 0.04

Table 6.9D-8: Linear Features Intersecting the Charron Lake Range


Length (km) Charron Lake


Density (km/ km2)

Winter Road 52.29

Total 52.29 18878.63 0.003



Table 6.9D-9: Linear Feature Intersect (km) and Linear Densities (km2) Within the Harding

Lake Winter and Summer Core Use Areas

Feature Type

Winter Core Use Areas Summer Core Use Area

Linear Feature Intersect (km)


Linear Feature Length (km)

Linear Feature Density(km/km2)

Cutline 42.90 0.08 51.55 0.05

Ditch 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00

Dyke 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Highway 0.00 0.00 2.03 0.2

Limited-use Road 4.56 0.01 0.74 0.00

Path 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Railway 0.00 0.00 4.44 0.01

Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Transmission Line 2.84 0.01 4.76 0.01

Winter road 9.05 0.02 8.55 0.01

Range Area 59.35 0.11 72.49 0.08



Table 6.9D-10: Linear Feature Intersect (km) and Linear Densities (km2) Within the Wapisu-

Wimapedi Winter and Summer Core Use Areas

Feature Type






Cutline 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ditch 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dyke 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Highway 11.28 0.03 1.40 0.00

Limited-use Road 23.04 0.07 0.98 0.00

Path 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Railway 0.00 0.00 4.38 0.01

Road 2.83 0.01 0.00 0.00


Winter road 11.42 0.03 17.83 0.03

Range Area 58.79 0.17 26.20 0.05



Table 6.9D-11: Linear Feature Intersect (km) and Linear Densities (km2) Within the Wheadon

Winter and Summer Core Use Areas

Feature Type






Cutline 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ditch 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dyke 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Highway 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Limited-use Road 0.00 0.00 21.86 0.03

Path 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Railway 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


Winter road 0.00 0.00 1.09 0.00

Range Area 0.00 0.00 60.98 0.09



Table 6.9D-12: Linear Feature Intersect (km) and Linear Densities (km2) Within the Wabowden

Winter and Summer Core Use Areas

Feature Type






Cutline 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ditch 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dyke 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Highway 11.28 0.03 1.40 0.00

Limited-use Road 23.04 0.07 0.98 0.00

Path 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Railway 0.00 0.00 4.38 0.01

Road 2.83 0.01 0.00 0.00


Winter road 11.42 0.03 17.83 0.03

Range Area 58.79 0.17 26.20 0.05



Table 6.9D-13: Linear Feature Intersect (km) and Linear Densities (km2) Within the Charron

Lake Winter and Summer Core Use Areas

Feature Type






Cutline 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ditch 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dyke 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Highway 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Limited-use Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Path 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Railway 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


Winter road 12.61 0.01 1.70 0.00

Range Area 12.61 0.01 1.70 0.00



Table 6.9D-14: Intersection of Human Footprint on Primary Modeled Winter and Summer High

Quality Habitat within the Harding Lake Range

Feature Type

Summer Habitat Winter Habitat





Cutline 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ditch 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dyke 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Highway 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Limited-use Road 131.6 0.69 332.8 0.96

Path 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Railway 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Road 11.8 0.66 26.58 0.63


Winter road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 191.60 1.92 436.58 2.16




Quality Habitat within the Wapisu-Wimapedi Range

Feature Type






Cutline 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ditch 0.80 0.00 1.18 0.00

Dyke 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Highway 1.50 0.00 7.95 0.00

Limited-use Road 31.30 0.03 87.10 0.05

Path 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Railway 8.10 0.01 18.17 0.01

Road 0.18 0.00 0.19 0.00


Winter road 19.87 0.02 16.50 0.01

Total 84.59 0.08 177.87 0.10




Quality Habitat within the Wheadon Range

Feature Type






Cutline 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ditch 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dyke 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Highway 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Limited-use Road 0.98 0.00 1.11 0.00

Path 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Railway 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Road 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.00


Winter road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 14.25 0.04 23.50 0.03




Quality Habitat within the Wabowden Range

Feature Type






Cutline 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ditch 6.70 0.00 9.97 0.00

Dyke 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Highway 5.30 0.00 17.73 0.01

Limited-use Road 49.19 0.02 99.65 0.04

Path 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Railway 9.40 0.00 18.69 0.01

Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Transmission Line

16.50 0.01 41.79 0.02

Winter road 120.20 0.05 95.67 0.04

Total 207.29 0.09 283.50 0.12




Quality Habitat within the William Lake Range

Feature Type






Cutline 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ditch 4.90 0.00 8.00 0.01

Dyke 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Highway 2.68 0.00 6.10 0.00

Limited-use Road 10.10 0.01 0.00 0.00

Path 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Railway 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


Winter road 39.14 0.03 22.11 0.02

Total 66.36 0.05 57.61 0.06




Quality Habitat within the Naosap-Reed Range

Feature Type






Cutline 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ditch 0.00 0.00 2.50 0.00

Dyke 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01

Highway 1.93 0.00 13.04 0.01

Limited-use Road 25.06 0.02 44.35 0.00

Path 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Railway 3.78 0.00 9.02 0.01

Road 1.41 0.00 15.03 0.01


Winter road 45.20 0.04 70.30 0.04

Total 100.75 0.09 215.02 0.10




Quality Habitat within the Norway House Range

Feature Type






Cutline 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ditch 10.10 0.00 10.40 0.00

Dyke 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Highway 32.20 0.01 27.50 0.01

Limited-use Road 27.03 0.01 28.20 0.01

Path 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Railway 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Road 37.38 0.01 39.80 0.02


Winter road 76.51 0.03 83.10 0.03

Total 201.99 0.08 207.50 0.09




Quality Habitat within the Charron Lake Range

Feature Type






Cutline 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ditch 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dyke 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Highway 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Limited-use Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Path 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Railway 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


Winter road 22.74 0.01 24.24 0.01

Total 22.74 0.01 24.24 0.01

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10A

APPENDIX 6.10A:

HABITAT MODELS



Regional Habitat Model The moose terrestrial habitat model was used to identify the quantity of primary and secondary moose

habitat available within each ecozone and terrestrial region in the RCEA ROI. This was done so the ratio

of primary to secondary habitat could be applied to the size of the human development footprint in

assessing overall quantities of habitat loss affecting moose populations.

Primary habitat was considered based on those habitat areas suitable of maintaining high moose

densities. For the moose terrestrial habitat model this was apparent based on the consideration of

forested areas affected by forest fire in the previous 6 to 30 years. This was in keeping with that modelling

which was done in the NFA area by Elliot (1988) and based on other published accounts of moose habitat

use. Secondary habitat consisted of everything that was not otherwise considered as primary habitat with

the understanding that these areas are limited in their ability to support moose. This included the

consideration of forested areas that had not been burnt in the previous 30 years but, if affected by forest

fires, could transition into becoming primary habitat. Habitat classes interpreted as having been affected

by human development or being barren of all vegetation were treated as non-habitat. This was based on

these areas having no capability of supporting moose. Non-habitat was not considered in the ratio that

was applied to the calculated human development footprints in as there was a potential for these areas to

prevent the double counting of these areas based on the available habitat dataset.

As the RCEA ROI is varied in its geography, there was a need to apply two different datasets for use in

deriving terrestrial habitat model values. Areas where forestry activities have been ongoing, notably the

Western and Eastern Boreal Shield and the Boreal Plains ecozones, Forest Land Inventory and Forest

Resource Inventory data which could be applied in evaluating moose habitat. For ecozones where

forestry activities were limited, namely through these areas being unsuitable based on limited tree size

and growth, an alternate habitat dataset was applied. This resulted in the Taiga Shield, Hudson Plains

and Coastal Hudson Bay ecozone having available primary and secondary moose habitat modelled using

the Multi-temporal Land Cover Classification of Canada dataset. For the purpose of identifying habitat

areas affected by forest fires in the 6 to 30 years previous, fire shapefiles available through MCWS were

applied and used to supplement available habitat data sources.

Forest Land Inventory and Forest Resource Inventory based regional habitat model For select ecozones, the moose habitat model was constructed through the use of coarse habitat type

information developed by ECOSTEM. The ecozone where this habitat dataset was considered included

the Western Boreal Shield, Eastern Boreal Shield and Boreal Plains ecozones. The details of this dataset

are available in Terrestrial Habitat Section, 6.3.1.5.1. It should be noted that the use of multiple source

dataset, using varying mapping stands and photo years, were consolidated into a single dataset for use in

assessing primary and secondary habitat available for moose. Due to this, there is expected to be

inconsistencies in habitat mapping where some issues relating to missing habitat information or abrupt

(non-natural) spatial changes in habitat type occurred.



By supplementing the Forest Land and Forest Resource Inventory dataset with fire-age polygons,

available from MCWS, the issue of data inconsistencies was somewhat mitigated. This occurred based on

the terrestrial moose habitat model relying substantively on the assessment of areas burned in the 6 to 30

years previous as being of primary quality for moose and which was the “habitat” most represented in the

final modelling numbers. Those quantities of habitat that were not considered as primary habitat based on

available fire age information i.e. deciduous, marsh and tall shrub categories would have been the most

susceptible to data inconsistencies, but also did not occur substantially on the landscape.

Terrestrial Habitat Model - Habitat Types of Primary Importance to Moose

Deciduous = broadleaf treed on all ecosites

Marsh = Marsh

Regenerating stands/Young Mixedwood= Black spruce mixed-wood on mineral or thin peatland, black

spruce mixed-wood on outcrop, black spruce mixed-wood on shallow peatland, black spruce mixed-wood

on wet peatland, broadleaf mixed-wood on all ecosites, Young regen AND Age class of vegetation = 6 to

30 years

Tall shrub = Tall shrub on mineral or thin peatland, tall shrub on outcrop, tall shrub on riparian peatland,

tall shrub on shallow peatland, tall shrub on wet peatland

Terrestrial Habitat Model - Habitat types of Secondary Importance to Moose

Conifer = Balsam fir treed on mineral soil, black spruce dominant on outcrop, black spruce mixture on

outcrop, black spruce treed on mineral soil, black spruce treed on shallow peatland, black spruce treed on

thin peatland, black spruce treed on wet peatland, Eastern cedar treed on mineral soil, jack pine treed on

mineral or thin peatland, jack pine treed on outcrop, jack pine treed on shallow peatland, tamarack-black

spruce mixture on mineral or thin peatland, tamarack-black spruce mixture on wet peatland, tamarack

treed on shallow peatland, tamarack treed on wet peatland, white spruce mixture on shallow peatland,

tamarack treed on mineral, white spruce treed on mineral AND Age class of vegetation = >30 years

Recently burnt = Balsam fir treed on mineral soil, black spruce dominant on outcrop, black spruce mixture

on outcrop, black spruce treed on mineral soil, black spruce treed on shallow peatland, black spruce treed

on thin peatland, black spruce treed on wet peatland, Eastern cedar treed on mineral soil, jack pine treed

on mineral or thin peatland, jack pine treed on outcrop, jack pine treed on shallow peatland, tamarack-

black spruce mixture on mineral or thin peatland, tamarack-black spruce mixture on wet peatland,

tamarack treed on shallow peatland, tamarack treed on wet peatland, white spruce mixture on shallow

peatland, tamarack treed on mineral, white spruce treed on mineral AND Age class of vegetation = < 6

years

Small island = small island

Low vegetation = low vegetation on mineral or thin peatland, low vegetation on outcrop, low vegetation on

riparian peatland, low vegetation on shallow peatland, low vegetation on wet peatland



Terrestrial Habitat Model - Habitat types of No Importance to Moose

Barren = Barren on all ecosites, Human feature = Human, and Water = Water

Multi-Temporal Land Cover Classification of Canada based regional habitat model For ecozones located outside of the area where forestry practices are ongoing, an alternate data set was

used. Consideration of this dataset including the Taiga Shield, Hudson Plains and Coastal Hudson Bay

ecozones. The details of this dataset are available in Terrestrial Habitat Chapter, 6.3.

Terrestrial Habitat Model - Habitat Types of Primary Importance to Moose

Deciduous = Broadleaf treed mixedwood. Considerable proportions of broadleaf treed, jack pine treed on

mineral to thin peatland and black spruce treed on shallow peatland.

Marsh = Marsh. Considerable proportions of water and black spruce treed on thin peatland. Common

near shorelines, Mix of water and black spruce treed on shallow to thin peatland. Almost all is north of the

Region of Interest., Mix of water, marsh and black spruce treed on thin peatland. Considerable proportion

is islands.

Regenerating stands/Young Mixedwood = Closed needleleaf treed on shallow to thin or wet peatland.

Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine or tamarack; Closed, young

needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also

considerable jack pine and some aspen; Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peatland. Almost all is north of

the Region of Interest; Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow peatland with herb-shrub-lichen-bare

understorey. Tree canopy jack pine and/or black spruce. Considerable proportion is open lichen

woodland; Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow peatland with shrub-herb-lichen-bare understorey. Tree

canopy jack pine and/or black spruce. Almost all is north of the Region of Interest; Needleleaf treed on

mineral to shallow peatland. Tree canopy is predominantly jack pine but also considerable proportion of

black spruce. Almost all is north of the Region of Interest; Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow

peatland. Tree canopy jack pine and/or black spruce; Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with

herb-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.

Includes poorly regenerating burns; Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy

predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Includes some marsh; Needleleaf treed on

shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often

intermediate age fire origin; Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly

black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often recently burned; Open needleleaf treed on shallow

peatland to mineral with lichen-bedrock understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also

considerable jack pine; Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with shrub understorey.

Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine; Open needleleaf treed on

shallow to thin peatland with lichen-shrub-herb understorey. Tree canopy black spruce and/or jack pine.

Almost all is north of the Region of Interest; Open needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with shrub-

moss understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine; Open



needleleaf treed on shallow to wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also

considerable tamarack; Open to semi-closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree

canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine; Open to semi-closed needleleaf

treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack

pine. Often near marsh or water; Semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with lichen-

shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine; Semi-open

needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with moss-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly

black spruce but also considerable jack pine; Sparse needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with

herb-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine; Young

regenerating, needleleaf treed on shallow to thin or wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black

spruce but also considerable jack pine or tamarack. Includes considerable low vegetation on wet

peatland; Young regenerating, semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy

predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Age class of vegetation is = 6 to 30 years.

Terrestrial Habitat Model - Habitat types of Secondary Importance to Moose

Conifer = Closed needleleaf treed on shallow to thin or wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black

spruce but also considerable jack pine or tamarack; Closed, young needleleaf treed on shallow to thin

peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine and some aspen; Jack

pine treed on mineral or thin peatland. Almost all is north of the Region of Interest; Needleleaf treed on

mineral to shallow peatland with herb-shrub-lichen-bare understorey. Tree canopy jack pine and/or black

spruce. Considerable proportion is open lichen woodland; Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow

peatland with shrub-herb-lichen-bare understorey. Tree canopy jack pine and/or black spruce. Almost all

is north of the Region of Interest; Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow peatland. Tree canopy is

predominantly jack pine but also considerable proportion of black spruce. Almost all is north of the Region

of Interest; Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow peatland. Tree canopy jack pine and/or black spruce;

Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with herb-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly

black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Includes poorly regenerating burns; Needleleaf treed on

shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.

Includes some marsh; Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black

spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often intermediate age fire origin; Needleleaf treed on shallow to

thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often recently

burned; Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with lichen-bedrock understorey. Tree

canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine; Open needleleaf treed on shallow

peatland to mineral with shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also

considerable jack pine; Open needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with lichen-shrub-herb

understorey. Tree canopy black spruce and/or jack pine. Almost all is north of the Region of Interest;

Open needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with shrub-moss understorey. Tree canopy

predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine; Open needleleaf treed on shallow to wet

peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable tamarack; Open to semi-closed

needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also

considerable jack pine; Open to semi-closed needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy

predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often near marsh or water; Semi-open

needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with lichen-shrub understorey. Tree canopy



predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine; Semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow

peatland to mineral with moss-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also

considerable jack pine; Sparse needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with herb-shrub

understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine; Young




predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Age class of vegetation is = >30 years.

Recent Burn = Closed needleleaf treed on shallow to thin or wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly

black spruce but also considerable jack pine or tamarack; Closed, young needleleaf treed on shallow to

thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine and some aspen;

Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peatland. Almost all is north of the Region of Interest; Needleleaf treed

on mineral to shallow peatland with herb-shrub-lichen-bare understorey. Tree canopy jack pine and/or

black spruce. Considerable proportion is open lichen woodland; Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow

peatland with shrub-herb-lichen-bare understorey. Tree canopy jack pine and/or black spruce. Almost all

is north of the Region of Interest; Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow peatland. Tree canopy is

predominantly jack pine but also considerable proportion of black spruce. Almost all is north of the Region

of Interest; Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow peatland. Tree canopy jack pine and/or black spruce;

Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with herb-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly

black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Includes poorly regenerating burns; Needleleaf treed on

shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.

Includes some marsh; Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black

spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often intermediate age fire origin; Needleleaf treed on shallow to

thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often recently

burned; Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with lichen-bedrock understorey. Tree

canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine; Open needleleaf treed on shallow

peatland to mineral with shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also

considerable jack pine; Open needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with lichen-shrub-herb

understorey. Tree canopy black spruce and/or jack pine. Almost all is north of the Region of Interest;

Open needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with shrub-moss understorey. Tree canopy

predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine; Open needleleaf treed on shallow to wet

peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable tamarack; Open to semi-closed

needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also

considerable jack pine; Open to semi-closed needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy

predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often near marsh or water; Semi-open

needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with lichen-shrub understorey. Tree canopy

predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine; Semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow

peatland to mineral with moss-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also

considerable jack pine; Sparse needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with herb-shrub

understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine; Young






predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Age class of vegetation is = <6 years

Low vegetation = Lichen-sedges, moss low shrub wetland. Almost all is near the Hudson Bay coast; Polar

grassland, herb-shrub

Terrestrial Habitat Model - Habitat types of No Importance to Moose

Barren = Snow/Ice and Human feature = Human feature



On-System Habitat Model Evaluation of the on-system moose habitat was based on the assessment of different shoreline attributes

modelled for riparian areas in the RCEA ROI. While various shoreline attributes were modelled, only four

were selected for use in assessing changes in moose habitat. Those attributes used included changes in

shore zone wetlands, offshore wetlands, shoreline debris and tall shrub communities which occurred in

the comparison of the pre- and post hydroelectric development time periods. To this extent, not all lake

and river systems within the RCEA ROI were modelled as to the availability of these attributes. Instead

only select portions of lake and river systems which have potentially been affected through hydroelectric

development were modelled. For example, off-system lakes such as Wekusko and Setting lakes, within

the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone, were not considered in on-system habitat calculations, but portions

of the Rat-Burntwood river system were.

The attribute data available for on-system habitat mapping were based on the description of available

habitat attributes made available by Ecostem Ltd. (Table 6.10A-1). Based on these definitions, or a

combination thereof, shore zone wetland habitat was assessed as being of high, moderate or low quality

(Table 6.10A-2); offshore wetland habitat as being of high, moderate or low quality (Table 6.10A-3);

shoreline debris levels as resulting in easy, moderate or difficult access to shorelines (Table 6.10A-4);

and tall shrub communities as being of high or low habitat quality (Table 6.10A-5). Habitat of an unknown

quality was not considered in modelling based on the uncertainty of these areas for supporting moose

populations. Based on a tabulation of shoreline lengths associated with each habitat category

(e.g., “high”) it was possible to assess differences in the proportion of modelled shoreline areas pre- and

post hydroelectric development and infer on how hydroelectric development affected riparian habitat.



Table 6.10A-1: Shoreline Attribute Legend and Description

Attribute Code Class Criteria

Shore Zone Wetland

p Peatland inland peat extends onto beach. No floating fringe

m Marsh ≥ 10% cover, less than 10m wide.

mm Wide marsh ≥ 10% cover, 10 to 50m wide.

mmm Very wide marsh ≥ 10% cover, >50m wide.

om Occasional marsh intermittent marsh (patches) along the shoreline

rp Riparian peatland peatland isn't breaking down, similar to peatlands on off-system

sm Marsh on sunken peat usually has peat along shoreline;

emergents growing on sunken dp Distintegrating peatland

z Submerged island island that is under water much of the time

w Water

h Human any type of human feature

uci Unknown - Cannot be determined from photo/imagery

unt Unknown - Outside of the area that was typed

Offshore Wetland

n none

dp Distintegrating peatland

rp Riparian peatland

z Delta

p Peatland

m Marsh

mm Wide marsh

mmm Very wide marsh

pw Pondweed



Shoreline Debris

h,c heavy heavy, more than 75% of segment has debris

h,m heavy heavy, 26%-74% of segment has debris



Table 6.10A-1: Shoreline Attribute Legend and Description

Attribute Code Class Criteria

Shoreline Debris

h,l heavy heavy, up to 25% of segment has debris

m,c moderate moderate, more than 75% of segment has debris

m,m moderate moderate, 26%-74% of segment has debris

m,l moderate moderate, up to 25% of segment has debris

l,c light light, more than 75% of segment has debris

l,m light light, 26%-74% of segment has debris

l,l light light, up to 25% of segment has debris

n none



Tall Shrub Zone

n none <25% cover

t Present ≥ 25% cover, less than 10m wide.

tt Wide ≥ 25% cover, 10 to 50m wide.

ttt Extensive ≥ 25% cover, >50m wide.





Table 6.10A-2: Shore Zone Wetland Habitat Classifications Used in the Typing of Moose

Habitat Quality in the Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment Region of

Interest

Habitat Quality for Moose

High Moderate Low Unknown

mm dp w unt

mm,rp m h uci

mmm m,rp w-dp u-w

rp om w-h w-u

rp,m dp-mm w-mm

rp,mm dp-p w-om

rp,mmm dp-rp w-p

rp-m dp-w w-rp

rp-mm m-dp h,w

rp-mmm m-w w,h

mm-dp p n,rp

mmm-dp p-dp w,rp

rp-dp p-dp-mm wn

rp-p p-mm

rp-p-w p-mmm

rp-rp-w p-w

rp-w p-m

rp,om p-rp

mmm,rp

mm-rp

rp,w

mm-mmm

sm



Table 6.10A-3: Offshore Wetland Habitat Classifications Used in the Typing of Moose Habitat

Quality in the Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment Region of Interest

Habitat Quality for Moose

High Moderate Low Unknown

mm m n unt

mmm om n-mm uci

pw dp n-pw n-u

mm,pw m,pw n,pw u-n

mmm,pw dp-m n,m

pw,m m-dp n,dp

pw,mmm m-dp-n

rp m-n

mm-dp m-rp

mmm-dp om-dp

mmm-sm p

rp-m dp,m

rp-n m,n

sm

sm-p-mm

mmm,pw,rp

z

mm,n



Table 6.10A-4: Shoreline Debris Habitat Classifications Used in the Typing of Moose Shoreline

Accessibility in the Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment Region of Interest

Moose Shoreline Acessibility

Easy Moderate Difficult Unknown

n h,l h,c unt

l,c m,c h,m uci

l,l m,l l,u

l,m m,m n-u

l-m,c l,m-h,c u-n

l-m,m m-h,m

l-m,l l-h,l

m-h,c

l-h,m

m-h,l

Table 6.10A-5: Tall Shrub Habitat Classifications Used in Assessing the Density of Tall Shrub

Communities in the Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment Region of

Interest

Density of Tall Shrub Communities

High Low Unknown

tt n unt

ttt t uci

tt-n t-tt n-u

ttt-n n-t

ttt,n n-tt

ttt,tt n-ttt

tt,n t-n

n,t

n,tt

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B

APPENDIX 6.10B:

HABITAT MODEL RESULTS


DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-I


Tables

Table 6.10B.2-1: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Paint Terrestrial

Region ............................................................................................................... 6.10B-1 Table 6.10B.2-2: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Wuskwatim

Terrestrial Region .............................................................................................. 6.10B-3 Table 6.10B.2-3: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Rat Terrestrial

Region ............................................................................................................... 6.10B-5 Table 6.10B.2-4: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Baldock

Terrestrial Region .............................................................................................. 6.10B-7 Table 6.10B.2-5: Amount of Moose Habitat Lost to Anthropogenic Development in the Western

Boreal Shield Ecozone ...................................................................................... 6.10B-9 Table 6.10B.2-6: Change in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Paint Terrestrial Region ......... 6.10B-10 Table 6.10B.2-7: Change in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Wuskwatim Terrestrial Region6.10B-11 Table 6.10B.2-8: Change in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Rat Terrestrial Region ........... 6.10B-12 Table 6.10B.2-9: Change in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Baldock Terrestrial Region .... 6.10B-13 Table 6.10B.2-10: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat Affected in the Paint Terrestrial Region 6.10B-14 Table 6.10B.2-11: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat Affected in the Wuskwatim Terrestrial

Region ............................................................................................................. 6.10B-15 Table 6.10B.2-12: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat Affected in the Rat Terrestrial Region .. 6.10B-16 Table 6.10B.2-13: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat Affected in the Baldock Terrestrial

Region ............................................................................................................. 6.10B-17 Table 6.10B.2-14: Change in Shoreline Debris Levels in the Paint Terrestrial Region ................ 6.10B-18 Table 6.10B.2-15: Change in Shoreline Debris Levels in the Wuskwatim Terrestrial Region ...... 6.10B-19 Table 6.10B.2-16: Change in Shoreline Debris Levels in the Baldock Terrestrial Region ........... 6.10B-20 Table 6.10B.3-1: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Keeyask

Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................ 6.10B-21 Table 6.10B.3-2: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Dafoe Terrestrial

Region ............................................................................................................. 6.10B-23 Table 6.10B.3-3: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Upper Nelson

Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................ 6.10B-25 Table 6.10B.3-4: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Molson Terrestrial

Region ............................................................................................................. 6.10B-27 Table 6.10B.3-5: Amount of Moose Habitat Lost to Anthropogenic Development in the Eastern

Boreal Shield Ecozone .................................................................................... 6.10B-29 Table 6.10B.3-6: Change in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Keeyask Terrestrial Region ... 6.10B-30 Table 6.10B.3-7: Change in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Upper Nelson Terrestrial

Region ............................................................................................................. 6.10B-31 Table 6.10B.3-8: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat in the Keeyask Terrestrial Region ........ 6.10B-33 Table 6.10B.3-9: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat in the Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region 6.10B-34


DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-II

Table 6.10B.3-10: Change in Shoreline Debris Levels in the Keeyask Terrestrial Region .......... 6.10B-35 Table 6.10B.3-11: Change in Shoreline Debris Levels in the Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region .. 6.10B-36 Table 6.10B.3-12: Change in Tall Shrub Density in the Keeyask Terrestrial Region ................... 6.10B-37 Table 6.10B.3-13: Change in Tall Shrub Density in the Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region ........... 6.10B-38 Table 6.10B.4-1: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the William

Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................ 6.10B-39 Table 6.10B.5-1: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Bradshaw

Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................ 6.10B-41 Table 6.10B.5-2: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Upper Churchill

Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................ 6.10B-47 Table 6.10B.5-3: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Southern Indian

Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................ 6.10B-53 Table 6.10B.5-4: Amount of Moose Habitat Los to Anthropogenic Disturbance in the Taiga

Shield Ecozone ................................................................................................ 6.10B-59 Table 6.10B.5-5: Change in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Upper Churchill Terrestrial

Region ............................................................................................................. 6.10B-60 Table 6.10B.5-6: Change in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Upper Churchill Terrestrial

Region ............................................................................................................. 6.10B-61 Table 6.10B.5-7: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat in the Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region6.10B-62 Table 6.10B.5-8: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat in the Southern Indian Terrestrial

Region ............................................................................................................. 6.10B-63 Table 6.10B.5-9: Change in Shoreline Debris Levels in the Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region 6.10B-64 Table 6.10B.5-10: Change in Shoreline Debris Levels in the Southern Indian Terrestrial Region 6.10B-64 Table 6.10B.5-11: Change in Tall Shrub Habitat in the Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region ......... 6.10B-65 Table 6.10B.5-12: Change in Tall Shrub Density in the Southern Indian Terrestrial Region ....... 6.10B-65 Table 6.10B.6-1: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Limestone

Rapids Terrestrial Region ................................................................................ 6.10B-66 Table 6.10B.6-2: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Deer Island

Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................ 6.10B-72 Table 6.10B.6-3: Estimated Amount of Moose Habitat Lost to Anthropogenic Disturbance in

the Hudson Plains Ecozone ............................................................................ 6.10B-78 Table 6.10B.6-4: Changes in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Limestone Rapids Terrestrial

Region ............................................................................................................. 6.10B-79 Table 6.10B.6-5: Changes in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Deer Island Terrestrial

Region ............................................................................................................. 6.10B-79 Table 6.10B.6-6: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat in the Limestone Rapids Terrestrial

Region ............................................................................................................. 6.10B-80 Table 6.10B.6-7: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat in the Deer Island Terrestrial Region ... 6.10B-80 Table 6.10B.6-8: Change in Shoreline Debris Levels in the Limestone Rapids Terrestrial

Region ............................................................................................................. 6.10B-81 Table 6.10B.6-9: Change in Shoreline Debris Levels in the Deer Island Terrestrial Region ...... 6.10B-82


DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-III

Table 6.10B.6-10: Change in Tall Shrub Density in the Limestone Rapids Terrestrial Region .... 6.10B-82 Table 6.10B.6-11: Change in Tall Shrub Habitat in the Deer Island Terrestrial Region ............... 6.10B-83 Table 6.10B.7-1: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Hudson Coast

Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................ 6.10B-84 Table 6.10B.7-2: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Warkworth

Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................ 6.10B-89 Table 6.10B.7-3: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Fletcher

Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................ 6.10B-94 Table 6.10B.7-4: Estimated Amounts of Moose Habitat Lost to Anthropogenic Disturbance in

the Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone ................................................................... 6.10B-99




Region

Moose Habitat Quality

Habitat Class Age

6 to 30 Quantity in 2013 (ha)

Percent Total

Primary Black spruce mixedwood on mineral or thin peatland EITHER 26,182 2.7

Black spruce mixedwood on outcrop EITHER 0.0

Black spruce mixedwood on shallow peatland EITHER 0.0

Black spruce mixedwood on wet peatland EITHER 0.0

Broadleaf mixedwood on all ecosites EITHER 44,159 4.5

Broadleaf on all ecosites EITHER 0.0

Broadleaf treed on all ecosites EITHER 20,430 2.1

Marsh EITHER 53,712 5.5

Tall shrub on mineral or thin peatland EITHER 89 0.0

Tall shrub on outcrop EITHER 0.0

Tall shrub on riparian peatland EITHER 7,317 0.8

Tall shrub on shallow peatland EITHER 850 0.1

Tall shrub on wet peatland EITHER 0.0

Black spruce dominant on outcrop YES 0.0

Black spruce mixture on outcrop YES 0.0

Black spruce treed on mineral soil YES 4831 0.5

Black spruce treed on shallow peatland YES 55,781 5.7

Black spruce treed on thin peatland YES 13,784 1.4

Black spruce treed on wet peatland YES 0.0

Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peatland YES 2,174 0.2

Jack pine treed on outcrop YES 0.0

Jack pine treed on shallow peatland YES 0.0

Needleleaf on all ecosites YES 0.0

Needleleaf on shallow peatland YES 0.0

Needleleaf on thin peatland YES 0.0

Needleleaf on wet peatland YES 0.0

Tamarack- black spruce mixture on mineral or thin peatland YES 0.0

Tamarack- black spruce mixture on wet peatland YES 159 0.0

Tamarack treed on mineral YES 0.0

Tamarack treed on shallow peatland YES 18 0.0

Tamarack treed on wet peatland YES 0.0

White spruce treed on mineral YES 45 0.0

Young Regeneration YES 0.0

Subtotal 229,529 23.4




Region


Habitat Class Age

6 to 30 Quantity in 2013 (ha)

Percent Total

Secondary Low vegetation on mineral or thin peatland EITHER 111 0.0

Low vegetation on outcrop EITHER 0.0

Low vegetation on riparian peatland EITHER 125 0.0

Low vegetation on shallow peatland EITHER 0.0

Low vegetation on wet peatland EITHER 28,810 2.9

Small Island EITHER 570 0.1

Balsam fir treed on mineral soil NO 73 0.0

Black spruce dominant on outcrop NO 47 0.0

Black spruce mixture on outcrop NO 255 0.0

Black spruce treed on mineral soil NO 91,941 9.4

Black spruce treed on shallow peatland NO 378,836 38.6

Black spruce treed on thin peatland NO 151,357 15.4

Black spruce treed on wet peatland NO 2288 0.2

Eastern cedar treed on mineral soil NO 0.0

Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peatland NO 88,978 9.1

Jack pine treed on outcrop NO 115 0.0

Jack pine treed on shallow peatland NO 4 0.0

Needleleaf on all ecosites NO 0.0

Needleleaf on shallow peatland NO 0.0

Needleleaf on thin peatland NO 0.0

Needleleaf on wet peatland NO 0.0

Tamarack- black spruce mixture on mineral or thin peatland NO 0.0

Tamarack- black spruce mixture on riparian peatland NO 0.0

Tamarack- black spruce mixture on wet peatland NO 33,680 3.4

Tamarack treed on mineral NO 0.0

Tamarack treed on shallow peatland NO 286 0.0

Tamarack treed on wet peatland NO 342 0.0

White spruce mixture on shallow peatland NO 0.0

White spruce treed on mineral NO 3093 0.3

Young Regeneration NO 0 0.0

Subtotal 751,296 76.6

Grand Total 980,825 100.0



Table 6.10B.2-2: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Wuskwatim

Terrestrial Region


Habitat Type Age

6 to 30 Quantity

in 2013 (ha) Percent

Total


Black spruce mixedwood on outcrop EITHER 1020 0.1

Black spruce mixedwood on shallow peatland EITHER 139 0.0

Black spruce mixedwood on wet peatland EITHER 22 0.0






Tall shrub on outcrop EITHER 411 0.0

Tall shrub on riparian peatland EITHER 2592 0.3

Tall shrub on shallow peatland EITHER 25,706 2.6

Tall shrub on wet peatland EITHER 235 0.0

Black spruce dominant on outcrop YES 150 0.0

Black spruce mixture on outcrop YES 9406 0.9



Black spruce treed on thin peatland YES 9193 0.9

Black spruce treed on wet peatland YES 1055 0.1


Jack pine treed on outcrop YES 16,437 1.6

Jack pine treed on shallow peatland YES 1 0.0





Tamarack- black spruce mixture on mineral or thin peatland YES 43 0.0

Tamarack- black spruce mixture on wet peatland YES 23,419 2.3

Tamarack treed on mineral YES 4 0.0


Tamarack treed on wet peatland YES 408 0.0


Young Regeneration YES 145 0.0

Subtotal 291,509 29.0



Table 6.10B.2-2: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Wuskwatim

Terrestrial Region


Habitat Type Age

6 to 30 Quantity


Total


Low vegetation on outcrop EITHER 63 0.0


Low vegetation on shallow peatland EITHER 79 0.0





Black spruce mixture on outcrop NO 18,687 1.9




Black spruce treed on wet peatland NO 27,058 2.7

Eastern cedar treed on mineral soil NO 63 0.0


Jack pine treed on outcrop NO 12,592 1.3

Jack pine treed on shallow peatland NO 0.0





Tamarack- black spruce mixture on mineral or thin peatland NO 58 0.0

Tamarack- black spruce mixture on riparian peatland NO 2216 0.2


Tamarack treed on mineral NO 7 0.0



White spruce mixture on shallow peatland NO 27 0.0



Subtotal 803,226 71.0

Total 1,094,736 100.0



Table 6.10B.2-3: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Rat Terrestrial

Region


Habitat Class Age

6 to 30

Quantity in 2013

(ha)

Percent Total


Black spruce mixedwood on outcrop EITHER 2381 0.3


Black spruce mixedwood on wet peatland EITHER 91 0.0






Tall shrub on outcrop EITHER 422 0.1




Black spruce dominant on outcrop YES 102 0.0

Black spruce mixture on outcrop YES 5769 0.6

Black spruce treed on mineral soil YES 77,616 8.5





Jack pine treed on outcrop YES 1662 0.2






Tamarack- black spruce mixture on mineral or thin peatland YES 38 0.0







Subtotal 464,138 51.0



Table 6.10B.2-3: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Rat Terrestrial

Region


Habitat Class Age

6 to 30

Quantity in 2013

(ha)

Percent Total









Black spruce mixture on outcrop NO 6,977 0.1















Tamarack- black spruce mixture on wet peatland NO 7924 0.9







Subtotal 446,351 49.8




Table 6.10B.2-4: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Baldock Terrestrial

Region


Habitat Class Age

6 to 30 Quantity


Total

Primary Black spruce mixedwood on mineral or thin peatland EITHER 0.0

Black spruce mixedwood on outcrop EITHER 0.0


Black spruce mixedwood on wet peatland EITHER 0.0

Broadleaf mixedwood on all ecosites EITHER 0.0

Broadleaf on all ecosites EITHER 16,770 1.9

Broadleaf treed on all ecosites EITHER 0.0


Tall shrub on mineral or thin peatland EITHER 0.0

Tall shrub on outcrop EITHER 0.0


Tall shrub on shallow peatland EITHER 0.0


Black spruce dominant on outcrop YES 0.0

Black spruce mixture on outcrop YES 0.0

Black spruce treed on mineral soil YES 0.0

Black spruce treed on shallow peatland YES 0.0

Black spruce treed on thin peatland YES 0.0


Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peatland YES 0.0

Jack pine treed on outcrop YES 0.0


Needleleaf on all ecosites YES 133,219 14.8

Needleleaf on shallow peatland YES 157,544 17.5

Needleleaf on thin peatland YES 99,604 11.1

Needleleaf on wet peatland YES 313 0.0


Tamarack- black spruce mixture on wet peatland YES 0.0


Tamarack treed on shallow peatland YES 0.0


White spruce treed on mineral YES 0.0


Subtotal 415,591 46.2



Table 6.10B.2-4: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Baldock Terrestrial

Region


Habitat Class Age

6 to 30 Quantity


Total



Low vegetation on riparian peatland EITHER 0.0




Balsam fir treed on mineral soil NO 0.0

Black spruce dominant on outcrop NO 0.0

Black spruce mixture on outcrop NO 0.0

Black spruce treed on mineral soil NO 0.0

Black spruce treed on shallow peatland NO 0.0

Black spruce treed on thin peatland NO 0.0

Black spruce treed on wet peatland NO 0.0


Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peatland NO 0.0

Jack pine treed on outcrop NO 0.0


Needleleaf on all ecosites NO 118,965 13.2

Needleleaf on shallow peatland NO 227,794 25.3

Needleleaf on thin peatland NO 136,409 15.2

Needleleaf on wet peatland NO 265 0.0



Tamarack- black spruce mixture on wet peatland NO 0.0

Tamarack treed on mineral NO 0.0

Tamarack treed on shallow peatland NO 0.0

Tamarack treed on wet peatland NO 0.0


White spruce treed on mineral NO 0.0

Young Regeneration NO 0.0

Subtotal 483,433 53.77




Table 6.10B.2-5: Amount of Moose Habitat Lost to Anthropogenic Development in the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone

Moose Habitat

Terrestrial Region or Ecozone Area Lost to Flooding (ha)

Area Lost to Hydro Infrastructure (ha)

Area Lost to non-Hydro

Infrastructure (ha)

Total Area Lost

(ha)

Total Percentage of Habitat

Affected (%)

Primary Paint 1203 667 3641 5510 2.3

Wuskwatim 2485 644 609 3738 1.2

Rat 15283 566 1654 17503 3.6

Baldock 9278 4 1047 10330 2.4

Western Boreal Shield Ecozone 23530 2283 8551 34364 2.3

Secondary Paint 3939 2182 11917 18039 2.3

Wuskwatim 6074 1573 1490 9137 1.2

Rat 14695 545 1590 16830 3.6

Baldock 10792 5 1218 12014 2.4


Total Paint 5142 2849 15558 23549 2.3

Wuskwatim 8559 2217 2099 12875 1.2

Rat 29978 1111 3244 34333 3.6

Baldock 20070 9 2265 22344 2.4




Table 6.10B.2-6: Change in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Paint Terrestrial Region


Shore Zone Wetland Habitat Class 1

Before Hydroelectric Development (km)

After Hydroelectric Development (km)

km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

High mm 32 5.4 0 0.0

mmm 30 5.0 0 0.0

mmm,rp 0 0.0 0 0.0

mm-mmm 2 0.3 0 0.0

rp 47 7.8 24 2.8

rp-m 1 0.2 0 0.0

rp-mm 5 0.8 0 0.0

sm 0 0.0 42 5.0

Subtotal 117 19.4 66 7.8

Moderate m 77 12.7 72 8.5

om 62 10.3 0 0.0

om-m 3 0.6 0 0.0

p 0 0.0 130 15.4

Subtotal 142 23.5 201 23.9

Low h 1 0.2 0 0.0

w 323 36.5 933 74.6

Subtotal 325 36.6 933 74.6

Grand Total 890 100.0 1252 100.0

1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations



Table 6.10B.2-7: Change in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Wuskwatim Terrestrial Region





km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

High

mm 5 1.0 0 0.0

mmm 1 0.2 0 0.0

rp 146 26.6 16 1.5

sm 0 0.0 197 18.8

Subtotal 152 27.7 213 20.3

Moderate

dp 2 0.3 0 0.0

p,rp 0 0.0 3 0.3

m 31 5.6 2 0.2

om 4 0.7 0 0.0

p 14 2.5 57 5.4

Subtotal 50 9.1 62 5.9

Low

h 10 1.9 14 1.3

n,rp 5 1.0 0 0.0

w 318 58.0 760 72.4

w,rp 11 1.9 0 0.0

wn 2 0.4 0 0.0

Subtotal 347 63.2 773 73.8

Grand Total 548 100.0 1049 100.0




Table 6.10B.2-8: Change in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Rat Terrestrial Region





km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

High mm 115 9.4 0 0.0

mm,rp 43 3.5 0 0.0

mmm 61 4.9 0 0.0

mmm,rp 35 2.9 0 0.0

rp 36 2.9 16 0.6

rp-mm 1 0.1 0 0.0

sm 0 0.0 26 0.9

Subtotal 290 23.6 43 1.5

Moderate m 30 2.5 28 1.0

m,rp 24 1.9 0 0.0

om 88 7.2 0 0.0

om,mm 4 0.3 0 0.0

om,mmm 2 0.2 0 0.0

om,rp 4 0.3 0 0.0

p 0 0.0 45 1.6

p,sm 0 0.0 17 0.6

Subtotal 152 12.4 89 3.2

Low h,w 0 0.0 1 0.0

h 788 64.1 2669 94.7

w,h 0 0.0 15 0.6

Subtotal 788 64.1 2685 95.3

Grand Total 1230 100.0 2817 100.0




Table 6.10B.2-9: Change in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Baldock Terrestrial Region





km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

High mm 78 8.8 0 0.0

mm,rp 89 10.0 0 0.0

mmm 43 4.8 0 0.0

mmm,rp 44 5.0 0 0.0

mm-rp 0 0.0 0 0.0

rp 96 10.8 0 0.0

rp,w 0 0.0 16 1.3

Subtotal 349 39.4 16 1.3

Moderate m 29 3.3 4 0.4

m,rp 72 8.2 0 0.0

om 111 12.5 0 0.0

om,rp 1 0.1 0 0.0

p 0 0.0 294 23.4

p,sm 0 0.0 5 0.4

Subtotal 213 24.0 303 24.2

Low h 1 0.2 0 0.0

w 323 36.5 933 74.6

Subtotal 325 36.6 933 74.6

Grand Total 890 100.0 1252 100.0




Table 6.10B.2-10: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat Affected in the Paint Terrestrial Region


Offshore Wetland Habitat Class 1



km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

High mm 25 4.1 0.0

mmm 9 1.4 0.0

pw 5 0.8 0.0

rp 0 0.1 2 0.2

z 0.0 5 0.5

Subtotal 38 6.3 7 0.8

Moderate dp 0.0 136 16.2

dp,m 0.0 4 0.5

m 40 6.7 63 7.5

p 0.0 1 0.1

Subtotal 40 6.7 204 24.3

Low n 526 87.0 631 74.9

n,m 0.0 0 0.1

Subtotal 526 87.0 632 75.0

Grand Total 605 100.0 843 100.0




Table 6.10B.2-11: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat Affected in the Wuskwatim Terrestrial

Region





km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

High mm 7 1.4 0 0.0

rp 2 0.3 17 1.6

z 0 0.0 10 0.9

Subtotal 9 1.7 27 2.6

Moderate dp 0 0.0 239 22.8

m 62 11.7 5 0.5

m,n 3 0.6 0 0.0

p 2 0.4 3 0.3

Subtotal 67 12.6 247 23.6

Low n 450 83.9 739 70.5

n,dp 0 0.0 36 3.5

n,m 10 1.9 0 0.0

Subtotal 460 85.8 775 73.9

Grand Total 536 100.0 1049 100.0




Table 6.10B.2-12: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat Affected in the Rat Terrestrial Region





km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

High mm 24 2.0 0 0.0

mm,n 2 0.2 0 0.0

mm,pw 13 1.1 0 0.0

mmm 21 1.7 0 0.0

mmm,pw 9 0.7 0 0.0

pw 171 13.9 0 0.0

rp 0 0.0 6 0.2

Subtotal 239 19.5 6 0.2

Moderate dp 0.0 147 5.2

dp,m 6 0.5 5 0.2

m 2 0.1 6 0.2

p 1 0.1 28 1.0

Subtotal 9 0.7 186 6.6

Low n 967 78.6 2616 92.9

n,dp 0 0.0 10 0.4

n,pw 15 1.2 0 0.0

Subtotal 981 79.8 2625 93.2

Grand Total 1230 100.0 2817 100.0




Table 6.10B.2-13: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat Affected in the Baldock Terrestrial Region





km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

High mm 58.5 6.8 0.0 0.0

mm,pw 13.7 1.6 0.0 0.0

mmm 50.1 5.8 0.0 0.0

mmm,pw 58.5 6.8 0.0 0.0

mmm,pw,rp 11.8 1.4 0.0 0.0

pw 121.4 14.1 0.0 0.0

rp 2.3 0.3 0.0 0.0

Subtotal 316.2 36.8 0.0 0.0

Moderate dp 0.0 0.0 324.8 25.9

m 6.2 0.7 3.5 0.3

om 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0

p 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.1

Subtotal 7.2 0.8 329.6 26.3

Low n 534.5 62.1 922.4 73.7

n,pw 2.3 0.3 0.0 0.0

Subtotal 536.8 62.4 922.4 73.7

Grand Total 860.1 100.0 1252.0 100.0




Table 6.10B.2-14: Change in Shoreline Debris Levels in the Paint Terrestrial Region

Shoreline Access

Shoreline Debris Habitat Class1



km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

Easy l,c 0 0.0 13 1.6

l,l 14 2.4 0 0.0

l,m 0 0.0 136 16.3

l-m,c 0 0.0 19 2.2

l-m,m 0 0.0 134 16.1

n 581 97.4 299 35.8

Subtotal 595 99.8 601 71.9

Moderate h,l 0 0.0 0 0.1

l-h,l 0 0.0 6 0.7

m,c 0 0.0 0 0.0

m,l 0 0.0 11 1.3

m,m 1 0.1 33 3.9

m-h,c 0 0.0 90 10.8

Subtotal 1 0.2 32 3.9

Difficult h,c 0 0.0 172 20.6

h,m 0 0.0 55 6.6

Subtotal 0 0.0 7 0.9

Grand Total 596 100.0 836 100.0




Table 6.10B.2-15: Change in Shoreline Debris Levels in the Wuskwatim Terrestrial Region

Shoreline Access




km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

Easy l,m 0 0.0 4 0.4

l-m,c 0 0.0 57 5.4

l-m,m 0 0.0 10 1.0

n 712 100.0 335 31.9

Subtotal 712 100.0 406 38.7

Moderate h,l 0 0.0 94 8.9

l-h,l 0 0.0 8 0.8

m,c 0 0.0 153 14.6

m,l 0 0.0 113 10.8

m,m 0 0.0 69 6.6

m-h,c 0 0.0 139 13.2

m-h,m 0 0.0 53 5.0

Subtotal 0 0.0 628 59.9

Difficult h,c 0 0.0 4 0.3

h,m 0 0.0 11 1.1

Subtotal 0 0.0 15 1.4

Grand Total 712 100.0 1048 100.0




Table 6.10B.2-16: Change in Shoreline Debris Levels in the Baldock Terrestrial Region

Shoreline Access

Shoreline Debris Habitat Class 1



km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

Easy l,m 0 0.0 351 29.8

l-m,c 0 0.0 112 9.5

l-m,m 0 0.0 7 0.6

n 102 100.0 321 27.3

Subtotal 102 100.0 791 67.2

Moderate m,m 0 0.0 222 18.8

m-h,m 0 0.0 162 13.8

Subtotal 0 0.0 384 32.6

Difficult h,c 0 0.0 2 0.2


Grand Total 102 100.0 1177 100.0




Table 6.10B.3-1: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Keeyask Terrestrial

Region


Habitat Class Age 6 to

30

Quantity in 2013

(ha)

Percent Total

Primary Black spruce mixedwood on mineral or thin peatland EITHER 2854 0.5


Broadleaf mixedwood on all ecosites EITHER 2161 0.4

Broadleaf treed on all ecosites EITHER 1534 0.3

Marsh EITHER 9637 1.7

Nelson River marsh EITHER 4 0.0

Nelson River shrub and/or low vegetation on sunken peat

EITHER 236 0.0

Nelson River shrub and/or low vegetation on upper beach

EITHER 1018 0.2

Off-system marsh EITHER 203 0.0





Balsam fir treed on mineral soil YES 0.0


Black spruce treed on riparian peatland YES 90 0.0




Jack pine mixedwood on mineral or thin peatland YES 252 0.0

Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peatland YES 9040 1.6

Jack pine treed on shallow peatland YES 62 0.0

Tamarack- black spruce mixture on mineral or thin peatland

YES 32 0.0

Tamarack- black spruce mixture on riparian peatland YES 6 0.0


Tamarack treed on riparian peatland YES 1 0.0



White spruce treed on mineral YES 0.0


Young regeneration on mineral or thin peatland YES 468 0.1



Table 6.10B.3-1: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Keeyask Terrestrial

Region



30

Quantity in 2013

(ha)

Percent Total

Primary Young regeneration on riparian peatland YES 3 0.0

Young regeneration on shallow peatland YES 266 0.0

Young regeneration on wet peatland YES 19 0.0

Subtotal 128,641 23.0




Low vegetation on wet peatland EITHER 9820 1.8

Balsam fir treed on mineral soil NO 0.0




Black spruce treed on riparian peatland NO 998 0.2




Jack pine mixedwood on mineral or thin peatland NO 208 0.0

Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peatland NO 8121 1.5



NO 124 0.0

Tamarack- black spruce mixture on riparian peatland NO 50 0.0


Tamarack treed on riparian peatland NO 9 0.0




Young Regeneration NO 0.0

Subtotal 751,296 77.0

Grand Total 980,825 100.00



Table 6.10B.3-2: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Dafoe Terrestrial

Region


Habitat Class Age 6 to 30

Quantity in 2013

(ha)

Percent Total






Nelson River marsh EITHER 0.0

Nelson River shrub and/or low vegetation on sunken peat

EITHER 0.0

Nelson River shrub and/or low vegetation on upper beach

EITHER 0.0

Off-system marsh EITHER 0.0





Balsam fir treed on mineral soil YES 0.0


Black spruce treed on riparian peatland YES 0.0




Jack pine mixedwood on mineral or thin peatland YES 0.0




YES 0.0

Tamarack- black spruce mixture on riparian peatland YES 0.0


Tamarack treed on riparian peatland YES 0.0





Young regeneration on mineral or thin peatland YES 0.0



Table 6.10B.3-2: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Dafoe Terrestrial

Region



Quantity in 2013

(ha)

Percent Total

Primary Young regeneration on riparian peatland YES 0.0

Young regeneration on shallow peatland YES 0.0

Young regeneration on wet peatland YES 0.0

Subtotal 390,671 32.3









Black spruce treed on riparian peatland NO 0.0








NO 0.0


Tamarack- black spruce mixture on wet peatland NO 7700 0.6

Tamarack treed on riparian peatland NO 0.0





Subtotal 818,694 67.7

Grand Total 1,209,365 100.0



Table 6.10B.3-3: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Upper Nelson

Terrestrial Region


Habitat Class Age 6 to 30 Quantity in 2013 (ha)

Percent Total







Nelson River shrub and/or low vegetation on sunken peat EITHER 0.0

Nelson River shrub and/or low vegetation on upper beach EITHER 0.0






Balsam fir treed on mineral soil YES 63 0.0


















Young regeneration on riparian peatland YES 0.0



Subtotal 334,944 27.9



Table 6.10B.3-3: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Upper Nelson

Terrestrial Region



Percent Total







Black spruce mixture on outcrop NO 15 0.0















White spruce treed on mineral NO 10,549 0.9


Subtotal 865,917 72.1

Grand Total 1,209,365 100.0



Table 6.10B.3-4: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Molson Terrestrial

Region



Percent Total







Nelson River shrub and/or low vegetation on sunken peat EITHER 0.0

Nelson River shrub and/or low vegetation on upper beach EITHER 0.0






Balsam fir treed on mineral soil YES 3 0.0


















Young regeneration on riparian peatland YES 0.0



Subtotal 501,279 38.5



Table 6.10B.3-4: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Molson Terrestrial

Region



Percent Total













Jack pine mixedwood on mineral or thin peatland NO 0.0











Subtotal 801,595 61.5

Grand Total 1,302,874 100.0



Table 6.10B.3-5: Amount of Moose Habitat Lost to Anthropogenic Development in the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone



Area Lost to Flooding (ha)



Infrastructure (ha)

Total Area Lost

(ha)


Affected (%)

Primary Keeyask 6625 1090 299 8014 3.5

Dafoe 1165 705 263 2133 0.5

Upper Nelson 5202 1499 1469 8170 2.4

Molson 10 25 345 380 0.1

Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone

16209 3921 2625 22756 1.5

Secondary Keeyask 22178 3647 1000 26825 3.5

Dafoe 2441 1478 550 4469 0.5

Upper Nelson 13450 3876 3796 21122 2.4

Molson 17 39 552 608 0.1


34879 8438 5649 48965 1.5

Total Keeyask 28803 4737 1299 34839 3.5

Dafoe 3606 2183 813 6602 0.5

Upper Nelson 18652 5375 5265 29292 2.4

Molson 27 64 897 988 0.1


51088 12359 8274 71721 1.5



Table 6.10B.3-6: Change in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Keeyask Terrestrial Region





km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

High mm 1 0.1 34 4.6

mm,rp 1 0.2 0 0

mmm 7 0.9 36 4.8

rp 16 2.2 46 6.1

rp,m 2 0.3 0 0

rp,mm 1 0.1 0 0

rp,mmm 1 0.1 0 0

rp-m 0 0 2 0.2

rp-mm 0 0 6 0.8

rp-mmm 0 0 8 1.1

Subtotal 29 4 131 17.7

Moderate dp 0 0 4 0.6

m 32 4.4 20 2.7

m,rp 34 4.7 0 0

om 5 0.7 313 42.3

Subtotal 71 9.8 337 45.5

Low w 629 86.3 273 36.8

Subtotal 629 86.3 273 36.8

Grand Total 729 100.0 741 100.0




Table 6.10B.3-7: Change in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region





km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

High mm 310 9.4 139 3.9

mm-dp 0 0 1 0

mmm 194 5.9 56 1.6

mmm-dp 0 0 2 0

rp 767 23.2 139 3.9

rp-dp 0 0 1 0

rp-m 0 0 1 0

rp-mm 6 0.2 0 0

rp-mmm 3 0.1 5 0.1

rp-p 0 0 4 0.1

rp-p-w 0 0 4 0.1

rp-rp-w 0 0 2 0.1

rp-w 0 0 16 0.5

Subtotal 1280 38.7 370 10.3

Moderate dp 3 0.1 321 9

dp-mm 1 0 0 0

dp-p 0 0 3 0.1

dp-rp 0 0 0 0

dp-w 0 0 13 0.4

m 210 6.4 84 2.3

m-dp 0 0 1 0

m-w 0 0 1 0

om 720 21.8 400 11.2

p 9 0.3 42 1.2

p-dp 0 0 2 0.1

p-dp-mm 0 0 8 0.2

p-mm 0 0 10 0.3

p-mmm 0 0.0 5 0.1

p-w 0 0.0 2 0.0

Subtotal 942 28.5 890 24.8



Table 6.10B.3-7: Change in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region





km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

Low h 1 0.0 30 0.8

w 1083 32.7 2248 62.7

w-dp 0 0.0 17 0.5

w-h 0 0.0 1 0.0

w-mm 0 0.0 1 0.0

w-om 0 0.0 3 0.1

w-p 0 0.0 3 0.1

w-rp 0 0.0 22 0.6

Subtotal 1084 32.8 2324 64.8

Grand Total 3306 100.0 3584 100.0




Table 6.10B.3-8: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat in the Keeyask Terrestrial Region





km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

High mm 4 0.6 60 8.1

mm,pw 1 0.1

mmm 85 11.5

mmm,pw 1 0.1

pw 144 19.7

pw,m 1 0.2

pw,mmm 1 0.1

rp 0 0.1

Subtotal 151 20.8 146 19.6

Moderate dp 3 0.4

m 10 1.4 30 4.1

m,pw 5 0.6

Subtotal 18 2.4 30 4.1

Low n 560 76.8 566 76.3

Subtotal 560 76.8 566 76.3

Grand Total 729 100.0 741 100.0




Table 6.10B.3-9: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat in the Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region





km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

High mm 342 10.4 203 5.7

mm-dp 2 0.1

mmm 381 11.6 271 7.6

mmm-dp 1 0

mmm-sm 1 0

pw 95 2.6

rp 2 0.1 3 0.1

rp-m 4 0.1

rp-n 4 0.1

sm 2 0

sm-p-mm 1 0

Subtotal 725 22.1 584 16.3

Moderate dp 9 0.3 32 0.9

dp-m 8 0.2

m 228 6.9 85 2.4

m-dp 5 0.1

m-dp-n 1 0

m-n 10 0.3

m-rp 2 0.1

om 0 0 7 0.2

om-dp 2 0.1

p 3 0.1

Subtotal 237 7.2 155 4.3

Low n 2326 70.7 2831 79

n-mm 2 0.1

n-pw 10 0.3

Subtotal 2326 70.7 2842 79.4

Grand Total 3289 100.0 3581 100.0




Table 6.10B.3-10: Change in Shoreline Debris Levels in the Keeyask Terrestrial Region

Shoreline Access




km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

Easy l,c 2 0.2 0.0

l,l 0 0.0 0.0

l,m 1 0.1 2 0.2

n 728 99.6 742 99.8

Subtotal 730 100.0 743 100.0

Moderate NONE

Subtotal

Difficult NONE

Subtotal

Grand Total 730 100.0 743 100.0




Table 6.10B.3-11: Change in Shoreline Debris Levels in the Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region

Shoreline Access




km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

Easy l,c 0.0 5 0.1

l,m 0.0 30 0.9

n 3311 100.0 3206 94.4

Subtotal 3311 100.0 3241 95.4

Moderate l,m-h,c 0.0 2 0.1

m,c 0.0 15 0.4

m,l 0.0 74 2.2

m,m 0.0 42 1.2

Subtotal 0.0 133 3.9

Difficult h,m 0.0 23 0.7

Subtotal 0.0 23 0.7

Grand Total 3311 100.0 3396 100.0




Table 6.10B.3-12: Change in Tall Shrub Density in the Keeyask Terrestrial Region

Shrub Density Tall Shrub Habitat Class 1



km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

High tt 22 3.0 8 1.1

ttt 1 0.2 1 0.2

Subtotal 23 3.1 9 1.2

Low n 670 91.8 700 94.4

t 37 5.1 33 4.4

Subtotal 707 96.9 732 98.8

Grand Total 730 100.0 741 100.0




Table 6.10B.3-13: Change in Tall Shrub Density in the Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region

Shrub Density Tall Shrub Habitat Class1



km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

High

tt 91 2.7 155 4.3

tt-n 0 11 0.3

ttt 52 1.6 167 4.7

ttt-n 0 4 0.1

Subtotal 143 4.3 337 9.4

Low

n 2817 85.2 3018 84.4

n-t 0 6 0.2

n-tt 0 21 0.6

n-ttt 0 29 0.8

t 346 10.5 162 4.5

t-n 0 2 0.1

Subtotal 3163 95.7 3237 90.6

Grand Total 3306 100 3574 100




Table 6.10B.4-1: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the William Terrestrial

Region



30

Quantity in 2013

(ha

Percent Total

Primary Black spruce mixedwood on mineral or thin peatland

EITHER 20 0.2

Black spruce mixedwood on shallow peatland

EITHER 0 0.0

Broadleaf mixedwood on all ecosites EITHER 110 1.3


Marsh EITHER 76 0.9






Black spruce treed on shallow peatland YES 867 10.4

Black spruce treed on thin peatland YES 27 0.3


Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peatland YES 611 7.3

Jack pine treed on outcrop YES 1 0.0


YES 0 0.0

Tamarack- black spruce mixture on wet peatland

YES 195 2.3

Tamarack treed on mineral YES 0 0.0





Subtotal 2151 25.7




Low vegetation on wet peatland EITHER 842 10.1



Table 6.10B.4-1: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the William Terrestrial

Region



30

Quantity in 2013

(ha

Percent Total

Secondary small island EITHER 0 0.0


Black spruce treed on mineral soil NO 188 2.3

Black spruce treed on shallow peatland NO 2805 33.6

Black spruce treed on thin peatland NO 125 1.5


Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peatland NO 738 8.8




NO 1 0.0

Tamarack- black spruce mixture on wet peatland

NO 1383 16.6





Subtotal 6194 74.2

Grand Total 8345 100.0



Table 6.10B.5-1: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Bradshaw Terrestrial Region



30 Quantity in

2013 Percent

Total

Primary Broadleaf treed mixedwood. Considerable proportions of broadleaf treed, jack pine treed on mineral to thin peatland and black spruce treed on shallow peatland.

EITHER 0 0.0

Marsh. Considerable proportions of water and black spruce treed on thin peatland. Common near shorelines.

EITHER 467 0.0

Mix of water and black spruce treed on shallow to thin peatland. Almost all is north of the Region of Interest.

EITHER 1053 0.1

Mix of water, marsh and black spruce treed on thin peatland. Considerable proportion is islands.

EITHER 30 0.0

Closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often found around waterbodies.

YES 8275 0.5

Closed needleleaf treed on shallow to thin or wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine or tamarack.

YES 0 0.0

Closed, young needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine and some aspen.

YES 0 0.0

Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peatland. Almost all is north of the Region of Interest

YES 46 0.0

Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow peatland with herb-shrub-lichen-bare understorey. Tree canopy jack pine and/or black spruce. Considerable proportion is open lichen woodland.

YES 3606 0.2

Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow peatland with shrub-herb-lichen-bare understorey. Tree canopy jack pine and/or black spruce. Almost all is north of the Region of Interest

YES 10002 0.7

Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow peatland. Tree canopy is predominantly jack pine but also considerable proportion of black spruce. Almost all is north of the Region of Interest.

YES 9156 0.6






30 Quantity in

2013 Percent

Total

Primary Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow peatland. Tree canopy jack pine and/or black spruce.

YES 43546 2.9

Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with herb-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Includes poorly regenerating burns.

YES 84039 5.5

Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Includes some marsh.

YES 121 0.0

Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often intermediate age fire origin.

YES 123739 8.2

Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often recently burned.

YES 46485 3.1

Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with lichen-bedrock understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.

YES 97620 6.4

Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.

YES 7088 0.5

Open needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with lichen-shrub-herb understorey. Tree canopy black spruce and/or jack pine. Almost all is north of the Region of Interest

YES 7626 0.5

Open needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with shrub-moss understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.

YES 5872 0.4

Open needleleaf treed on shallow to wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable tamarack.

YES 13082 0.9

Open to semi-closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.

YES 18175 1.2






30 Quantity in

2013 Percent

Total

Primary Open to semi-closed needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often near marsh or water.

YES 0 0.0

Semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with lichen-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.

YES 34003 2.2

Semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with moss-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.

YES 1071 0.1

Sparse needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with herb-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.

YES 66837 4.4

Young regenerating, needleleaf treed on shallow to thin or wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine or tamarack. Includes considerable low vegetation on wet peatland.

YES 15687 1.0

Young regenerating, semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.

YES 105 0.0

Subtotal 597732 39.4

Secondary Lichen-sedges, moss low shrub wetland. Almost all is near the Hudson Bay coast

EITHER 0 0.0

Polar grassland, herb-shrub EITHER 934 0.1


NO 31541 2.1


NO 0 0.0






30 Quantity in

2013 Percent

Total

Secondary Closed, young needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine and some aspen.

NO 0 0.0


NO 26783 1.8


NO 1842 0.1


NO 2010 0.1

Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow peatland. Tree canopy jack pine and/or black spruce.

NO 72869 4.8


NO 41735 2.8


NO 2412 0.2


NO 3612 0.2


NO 4393 0.3


NO 274598 18.1


NO 3507 0.2






30 Quantity in

2013 Percent

Total

Secondary Open needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with lichen-shrub-herb understorey. Tree canopy black spruce and/or jack pine. Almost all is north of the Region of Interest

NO 857 0.1


NO 96393 6.4


NO 46266 3.1


NO 77235 5.1

Open to semi-closed needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often near marsh or water.

NO 0 0.0


NO 128691 8.5


NO 16391 1.1


NO 20403 1.3


NO 66809 4.4






30 Quantity in

2013 Percent

Total

Secondary Young regenerating, semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.

NO 1935 0.1


Total 1,518,948.64 100.0



Table 6.10B.5-2: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region


Habitat Class Age 6 to 30 Quantity in

2013 Percent

Total


EITHER 4 0.0


EITHER 390 0.0


EITHER 1199 0.1


EITHER 1114 0.1


YES 12047 0.8


YES 0 0.0


YES 0 0.0


YES 225 0.0


YES 31 0.0


YES 13050 0.9


YES 414 0.0






2013 Percent

Total


YES 18924 1.3


YES 92922 6.2


YES 649 0.0


YES 251282 16.8


YES 76841 5.1


YES 126992 8.5


YES 605 0.0


YES 5308 0.4


YES 17445 1.2


YES 9458 0.6


YES 55625 3.7






2013 Percent

Total


YES 6 0.0


YES 60757 4.1


YES 4467 0.3


YES 26863 1.8


YES 14434 1.0


YES 120 0.0



EITHER 0 0.0



NO 55901 3.7


NO 225 0.0






2013 Percent

Total


NO 278 0.0


NO 10 0.0


NO 2883 0.2


NO 0 0.0


NO 3352 0.2


NO 14385 1.0


NO 8413 0.6


NO 4049 0.3


NO 8012 0.5


NO 98820 6.6






2013 Percent

Total

Secondary Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.

NO 548 0.0


NO 632 0.0


NO 121039 8.1


NO 66391 4.4


NO 98594 6.6


NO 75 0.0


NO 146912 9.8


NO 36416 2.4


NO 3539 0.2


NO 33924 2.3






2013 Percent

Total


NO 150 0.0


Total 1,495,778 100.0



Table 6.10B.5-3: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Southern Indian Terrestrial Region



2013 Percent

Total


EITHER 25 0.0


EITHER 16,360 1.2


EITHER 891 0.1


EITHER 7,589 0.6


YES 15,599 1.2


YES 135 0.0


YES 0 0.0


YES 0 0.0


YES 1,847 0.1


YES 2,312 0.2


YES 1,717 0.1






2013 Percent

Total


YES 6,599 0.5


YES 66,020 4.9


YES 2,623 0.2


YES 243,060 17.9


YES 5,488 0.4


YES 57,319 4.2


YES 187 0.0


YES 2,165 0.2


YES 24,560 1.8


YES 20,498 1.5


YES 64,532 4.7






2013 Percent

Total


YES 147 0.0


YES 71,900 5.3


YES 19,537 1.4


YES 120,975 8.9


YES 38,197 2.8


YES 1,578 0.1

Subtotal 791,861 58.2


EITHER 0 0.0



NO 92,429 6.8


NO 1,282 0.1






2013 Percent

Total


NO 216 0.0


NO 909 0.1


NO 1,762 0.1


NO 7 0.0


NO 172 0.0


NO 2,058 0.2


NO 14,366 1.1


NO 1,897 0.1


NO 593 0.0


NO 35,402 2.6






2013 Percent

Total


NO 0 0.0


NO 0 0.0


NO 49,435 3.6


NO 68,807 5.1


NO 46,949 3.5


NO 76 0.0


NO 119,102 8.8


NO 105,742 7.8


NO 6,190 0.5


NO 21,487 1.6






2013 Percent

Total


NO 0 0.0

Subtotal 568,880 41.8

Total 1,360,741 100.0



Table 6.10B.5-4: Amount of Moose Habitat Los to Anthropogenic Disturbance in the Taiga Shield Ecozone






Infrastructure (ha)

Total Area Lost

(ha)


Affected (%)

Primary Bradshaw TR 0 103 16 119 0.02

Upper Churchill TR 0 31 1 32 <0.01

Southern Indian TR 7474 148 91 7713 1.00

Taiga Shield Ecozone 6401 286 99 6787 0.32

Secondary Bradshaw TR 0 158 25 183 0.02


Southern Indian TR 5370 107 65 5542 1.00

Taiga Shield Ecozone 6443 288 100 6830 0.32

Total Bradshaw TR 0 261 41 302 0.02


Southern Indian TR 12,844 255 156 13,255 1.00

Taiga Shield Ecozone 12,844 574 199 13,617 0.32



Table 6.10B.5-5: Change in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Upper Churchill Terrestrial

Region





km of shoreline

% of total km of

shoreline % of total

High rp 43 17.1 24 13.9

rp-m 1 0.4 0 0.0

rp-mm 9 3.5 2 1.3

Subtotal 53 21.0 26 15.2

Moderate m 0 0.1 0 0.0

P 0 0.0 114 66.5

p-m 0 0.0 1 0.7

p-rp 0 0.0 0 0.3

Subtotal 0 0.1 116 67.4

Low w 200 79.0 30 17.4

Subtotal 200 79.0 30 17.4

Grand Total 253 100.0 171 100.0




Table 6.10B.5-6: Change in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Upper Churchill Terrestrial

Region





km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

High mm 29 1.9 0 0.0

mmm 9 0.6 0 0.0

rp 33 2.1 3 0.2

rp,om 0 0.0 1 0.1

rp-m 15 1.0 0 0.0

rp-mm 22 1.4 0 0.0

rp-mmm 16 1.1 0 0.0

Subtotal 125 8.0 4 0.3

Moderate dp 0 0.0 42 2.7

dp,m 0 0.0 1 0.0

dp-mmm 0 0.0 1 0.0

dp-w 0 0.0 1 0.1

m 23 1.5 1 0.1

om 39 2.5 6 0.4

p 0 0.0 23 1.5

p-dp 0 0.0 2 0.1

p-w 0 0.0 1 0.0

Subtotal 62 4.0 76 4.8

Low n 1377 88.0 1494 94.9

Subtotal 1377 88.0 1494 94.9

Grand Total 1564 100.0 1574 100.0




Table 6.10B.5-7: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat in the Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region


Offshore Wetland Habitat Class1



km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

High mm 7 4.1

mmm 3 1.8

pw 18 7.0 -

Subtotal 18 7.0 10 6.0

Moderate m 1 0.3 21 12.1

om - 6 3.4

Subtotal 1 0.3 27 15.5

Low n 234 92.7 135 78.5

Subtotal 234 92.7 135 78.5

Grand Total 253 100.0 171 100.0

1. See Appendix 10A for explanation of abbreviations



Table 6.10B.5-8: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat in the Southern Indian Terrestrial Region





km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

High mm 2 0.1

pw 42 2.7 18 1.1

Subtotal 45 2.8 18 1.1

Moderate dp 19 1.2

m 3 0.2

p 1

Subtotal 3 0.2 20 1.3

Low n 1516 97.0 1537 97.6

Subtotal 1516 97.0 1537 97.6

Grand Total 1564 100.0 1575 100.0




Table 6.10B.5-9: Change in Shoreline Debris Levels in the Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region

Shoreline Access




km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

Easy n 253 100.0 170 100.0

Subtotal 253 100.0 170 100.0

Moderate none

Subtotal

Difficult none

Subtotal

Grand Total 253 100.0 170 100.0


Table 6.10B.5-10: Change in Shoreline Debris Levels in the Southern Indian Terrestrial Region

Shoreline Access




km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

Easy l,c 0.0 39 2.4

l,m 0.0 86 5.4

n 1560 100.0 988 62.5

Subtotal 1560 100.0 1112 70.4

Moderate h,l 0.0 1 0.1

m,c 0.0 77 4.9

m,l 0.0 126 7.9

m,m 0.0 133 8.4

Subtotal 0.0 337 21.3

Difficult h,c 0.0 75 4.8

h,m 0.0 57 3.6

Subtotal 0.0 132 8.3

Grand Total 1560 100.0 1581 100.0




Table 6.10B.5-11: Change in Tall Shrub Habitat in the Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region

Tall Shrub Density




km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

High tt 22 3.0 8 1.1

ttt 1 0.2 1 0.2

Subtotal 23 3.1 9 1.2

Low n 670 91.8 700 94.4

t 37 5.1 33 4.4

Subtotal 707 96.9 732 98.8

Grand Total 730 100.0 741 100.0


Table 6.10B.5-12: Change in Tall Shrub Density in the Southern Indian Terrestrial Region

Tall Shrub Density

Tall Shrub Habitat Class 1



km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

High tt 10 3.9 10 5.8

ttt 1 0.3 0.0

Subtotal 11 4.3 10 5.8

Low n 196 77.6 104 60.3

t 46 18.2 58 33.8

Subtotal 242 95.7 162 94.2

Grand Total 253 100.0 171 100.0




Table 6.10B.6-1: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Limestone Rapids Terrestrial Region

Moose Habitat Quality Habitat Class Age 6 to 30 Quantity in

2013 Percent

Total


EITHER 12 0.0


EITHER 3267 0.4


EITHER 176 0.0


EITHER 27 0.0


YES 1926 0.3


YES 185 0.0


YES 4 0.0


YES 26 0.0


YES 216 0.0


YES 2075 0.3


YES 87 0.0





2013 Percent

Total


YES 6591 0.9


YES 44871 5.8


YES 683 0.1


YES 1432 0.2


YES 54393 7.1


YES 36971 4.8


YES 25 0.0


YES 1376 0.2


YES 8547 1.1


YES 42241 5.5


YES 10980 1.4





2013 Percent

Total


YES 0.0


YES 15814 2.1


YES 1438 0.2


YES 15899 2.1


YES 21737 2.8


YES 52 0.0



EITHER 0.0



NO 9105 1.2


NO 1655 0.2





2013 Percent

Total


NO 601 0.1


NO 3073 0.4


NO 659 0.1


NO 130 0.0


NO 30147 3.9


NO 3485 0.5


NO 10608 1.4


NO 560 0.1


NO 1020 0.1


NO 55234 7.2





2013 Percent

Total


NO 243 0.0


NO 169 0.0


NO 75904 9.8


NO 206552 26.8


NO 17517 2.3


NO 52 0.0


NO 20971 2.7


NO 19647 2.6


NO 1847 0.2


NO 41046 5.3





2013 Percent

Total


NO 149 0.0





Table 6.10B.6-2: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Deer Island Terrestrial Region



30 Quantity in

2013 Percent

Total


EITHER 0.0


EITHER 1860.3 0.3


EITHER 31.0 0.0


EITHER 10.2 0.0


YES 1188.7 0.2


YES 53.8 0.0


YES 6.2 0.0


YES 8.4 0.0


YES 195.9 0.0


YES 910.6 0.1


YES 6.4 0.0






30 Quantity in

2013 Percent

Total


YES 1851.1 0.3


YES 7207.2 1.0


YES 775.8 0.1


YES 2067.7 0.3


YES 14829.6 2.0


YES 23877.4 3.3


YES 43 0.0


YES 206 0.0


YES 7632 1.0


YES 7358 1.0


YES 7657 1.0






30 Quantity in

2013 Percent

Total


YES 4 0.0


YES 9277 1.3


YES 1922 0.3


YES 3484 0.5


YES 14119 1.9


YES 219 0.0



EITHER 0.0



NO 8203 1.1


NO 164 0.0






30 Quantity in

2013 Percent

Total


NO 72 0.0


NO 12015 1.6


NO 319 0.0


NO 181 0.0


NO 44274 6.0


NO 14769 2.0


NO 15630 2.1


NO 497 0.1


NO 1349 0.2


NO 58401 8.0


NO 1056 0.1






30 Quantity in

2013 Percent

Total

Secondary Open needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with lichen-shrub-herb understorey. Tree canopy black spruce and/or jack pine. Almost all is north of the Region of Interest

NO 89 0.0


NO 100344 13.7


NO 250601 34.2


NO 14411 2.0


NO 40 0.0


NO 22461 3.1


NO 30144 4.1


NO 11154 1.5


NO 38249 5.2






30 Quantity in

2013 Percent

Total


NO 944 0.1





Table 6.10B.6-3: Estimated Amount of Moose Habitat Lost to Anthropogenic Disturbance in the Hudson Plains Ecozone



Area Lost to Flooding

(ha)

Area Lost to Hydro

Infrastructure (ha)

Area Lost to non-Hydro Infrastructure

(ha)

Total Area Lost (ha)


Affected (%)

Primary Limestone Rapids 581 1104 274 1959 0.7

Deer Island 0 0 17 17 <0.12

Hudson Plains Ecozone 581 1104 291 1977 0.4

Secondary Limestone Rapids 1073 2038 506 3617 0.7

Deer Island 0 0 102 102 <0.1


Total Limestone Rapids 1654 3142 780 5576 0.7

Deer Island 0 0 119 119 <0.1




Table 6.10B.6-4: Changes in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Limestone Rapids Terrestrial

Region





km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

High NONE 0 0.0 0 0.0


Moderate Dp 0 0.0 1 0.3


Low h 0 0.0 6 3.1

w 175 100.0 199 96.9

Subtotal 175 100.0 205 100.0

Grand Total 175 100.0 206 100.0


Table 6.10B.6-5: Changes in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Deer Island Terrestrial Region





km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

High None 0 0.0 0 0.0


Moderate None 0 0.0 0 0.0


Low w 152 100.0 152 100.0

Subtotal 152 100.0 152 100.0

Grand Total 152 100.0 152 100.0




Table 6.10B.6-6: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat in the Limestone Rapids Terrestrial Region


Offshore Wetland Habitat Class1



km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

High pw 0 0.1

Subtotal 0 0.1

Moderate NONE

Subtotal

Low n 175 100.0 206 99.9

Subtotal 175 100.0 206 99.9

Grand Total 175 100.0 206 100.0


Table 6.10B.6-7: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat in the Deer Island Terrestrial Region





km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

High NONE

Subtotal

Moderate NONE

Subtotal

Low n 152 100.0 152 100.0

Subtotal 152 100.0 152 100.0

Grand Total 152 100.0 152 100.0




Table 6.10B.6-8: Change in Shoreline Debris Levels in the Limestone Rapids Terrestrial Region

Shoreline Access




km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

Easy l,c 0.0 1 0.2

l,l 0.0 5 1.7

l,m 268 100.0 214 80.2

n 268 100.0 219 82.0

Subtotal 0.0 0 0.1

Moderate h,l 0.0 2 0.7

m,c 0.0 14 5.1

m,l 0.0 6 2.2

m,m 0.0 21 7.9

Subtotal 0.0 23 8.6

Difficult h,c 0.0 4 1.4

h,m 0.0 27 10.0

Subtotal 268 100.0 267 100.0

Grand Total 0.0 1 0.2




Table 6.10B.6-9: Change in Shoreline Debris Levels in the Deer Island Terrestrial Region

Shoreline Access




km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

Easy n 152 100.0 152 100.0

Subtotal 152 100.0 152 100.0

Moderate NONE

Subtotal

Difficult NONE

Subtotal

Grand Total 152 100.0 152 100.0


Table 6.10B.6-10: Change in Tall Shrub Density in the Limestone Rapids Terrestrial Region

Tall Shrub Density

Tall Shrub Habitat Class 1



km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

High ttt 13 6.2

Subtotal 13 6.2

Low n 268 100.0 193 93.8

Subtotal 268 100.0 193 93.8

Grand Total 268 100.0 206 100.0




Table 6.10B.6-11: Change in Tall Shrub Habitat in the Deer Island Terrestrial Region

Tall Shrub Density




km of shoreline

% of total

km of shoreline

% of total

High tt 10 6.6 0.0

ttt 2 1.3 0.0

Subtotal 12 7.8 0.0

Low n 117 77.1 141 93.2

t 20 13.4 10 6.8

t-tt 3

Subtotal 140 92.2 152 100.0

Grand Total 152 100.0 152 100.0




Table 6.10B.7-1: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Hudson Coast Terrestrial Region



Quantity in 2013

Percent Total


EITHER 334 0.1


EITHER 15918 2.4


EITHER 21 0.0


EITHER 5781 0.9


YES 77 0.0


YES 0 0.0


YES 0 0.0

Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peatland. Almost all is north of the Region of Interest YES 0 0.0


YES 4 0.0


YES 61 0.0


YES 0 0.0






Quantity in 2013

Percent Total


YES 394 0.1


YES 2146 0.3


YES 50 0.0


YES 74 0.0


YES 31 0.0


YES 3420 0.5


YES 0 0.0


YES 6 0.0


YES 767 0.1


YES 2066 0.3


YES 1369 0.2


YES 23 0.0






Quantity in 2013

Percent Total

Primary Semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with lichen-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.

YES 915 0.1


YES 85 0.0


YES 280 0.0


YES 5076 0.8


YES 985 0.2

Subtotal 39882 5.9

Secondary Lichen-sedges, moss low shrub wetland. Almost all is near the Hudson Bay coast EITHER 31000 4.6



NO 3232 0.5


NO 4710 0.7


NO 929 0.1






Quantity in 2013

Percent Total

Secondary Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow peatland with herb-shrub-lichen-bare understorey. Tree canopy jack pine and/or black spruce. Considerable proportion is open lichen woodland.

NO 10136 1.5


NO 29750 4.4


NO 0 0.0


NO 46923 6.9


NO 39941 5.9


NO 15750 2.3


NO 136 0.0


NO 1121 0.2


NO 103544 15.3


NO 3115 0.5


NO 3699 0.6






Quantity in 2013

Percent Total

Secondary Open needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with shrub-moss understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.

NO 31107 4.6


NO 167770 24.7


NO 25980 3.8


NO 5956 0.9


NO 19499 2.9


NO 12915 1.9


NO 8183 1.2


NO 64625 9.5


NO 6115 0.9

Subtotal 638459 638459

Total 678341 678341



Table 6.10B.7-2: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Warkworth Terrestrial Region



Quantity in 2013

Percent Total


EITHER 0 0.0


EITHER 1063 0.2


EITHER 12 0.0


EITHER 43 0.0


YES 10 0.0


YES 0 0.0


YES 0 0.0



YES 896 0.1


YES 247 0.0


YES 48 0.0


YES 412 0.1






Quantity in 2013

Percent Total

Primary Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with herb-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Includes poorly regenerating burns.

YES 2280 0.4


YES 0 0.0


YES 0 0.0


YES 0 0.0


YES 1070 0.2


YES 329 0.1


YES 301 0.1


YES 12 0.0


YES 45 0.0


YES 116 0.0


YES 0 0.0


YES 48 0.0






Quantity in 2013

Percent Total

Primary Semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with moss-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.

YES 0 0.0


YES 1309 0.2


YES 397 0.1


YES 516 0.1

Subtotal 9156 1.4




NO 5153 0.8


NO 262 0.0


NO 12 0.0


NO 25,628 3.9


NO 52860 8.0


NO 542 0.1






Quantity in 2013

Percent Total

Secondary Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow peatland. Tree canopy jack pine and/or black spruce.

NO 214098 32.4


NO 46144 7.0


NO 442 0.1


NO 80 0.0


NO 0 0.0


NO 161063 24.4


NO 906 0.1


NO 10037 1.5


NO 5087 0.8


NO 12500 1.9


NO 13424 2.0


NO 90 0.0






Quantity in 2013

Percent Total

Secondary Semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with lichen-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.

NO 12999 2.0


NO 1555 0.2


NO 44684 6.8


NO 40123 6.1


NO 2192 0.3


Total 660,090 100.0



Table 6.10B.7-3: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Fletcher Terrestrial Region



30 Quantity in 2013

Percent Total


EITHER 0 0.0


EITHER 1402 0.2


EITHER 27 0.0


EITHER 68 0.0


YES 340 0.0


YES 0 0.0


YES 0 0.0



YES 3407 0.4


YES 999 0.1


YES 2605 0.3


YES 65716 8.3






30 Quantity in 2013

Percent Total

Primary Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with herb-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Includes poorly regenerating burns.

YES 4844 0.6


YES 0 0.0


YES 2305 0.3


YES 3286 0.4


YES 15378 1.9


YES 221 0.0


YES 1290 0.2


YES 157 0.0


YES 218 0.0


YES 430 0.1


YES 0 0.0


YES 1629 0.2






30 Quantity in 2013

Percent Total

Primary Semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with moss-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.

YES 12 0.0


YES 18537 2.3


YES 720 0.1


YES 76 0.0





NO 9245 1.2


NO 0 0.0


NO 0 0.0


NO 25121 3.2


NO 26473 3.3


NO 3244 0.4






30 Quantity in 2013

Percent Total

Secondary Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow peatland. Tree canopy jack pine and/or black spruce.

NO 312097 39.2


NO 11532 1.5


NO 72 0.0


NO 32 0.0


NO 221 0.0


NO 223652 28.1


NO 318 0.0


NO 1874 0.2


NO 2602 0.3


NO 5460 0.7


NO 3087 0.4


NO 0 0.0






30 Quantity in 2013

Percent Total

Secondary Semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with lichen-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.

NO 11438 1.4


NO 518 0.1


NO 27606 3.5


NO 4857 0.6


NO 1060 0.1


Total 795,419 100.0



Table 6.10B.7-4: Estimated Amounts of Moose Habitat Lost to Anthropogenic Disturbance in the Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone






Infrastructure (ha)

Total Area Lost

(ha)


Affected (%)

Primary Hudson Coast TR 0 3 77 80 0.2

Warkworth TR 0 1 2 3 <0.1

Fletcher TR 0 42 51 92 0.1

Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone

0 33 139 172 0.1

Secondary Hudson Coast TR 0 45 1229 1274 0.2

Warkworth TR 0 99 116 215 <0.1

Fletcher TR 0 225 276 502 0.1


0 382 1612 1994 0.1

Total Hudson Coast TR 0 48 1306 1354 0.2

Warkworth TR 0 100 118 218 <0.1

Fletcher TR 0 267 327 594 0.1


0 415 1751 2166 0.1

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10C

APPENDIX 6.10C:

MOOSE REGISTERED TRAPLINE TABLES



Table 6.10C-1: Estimated harvest rates and census figures for Registered Trapline Sections in the Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment Region of Interest 1950–1955

REGISTERED TRAPLINE SECTION

Size (km2)

1950/51 1951/52 1952/53 1953/54 1954/55

Crop Census Density

(moose/km2) Crop Census

Density (moose /km2)

Crop Census Density

(moose /km2) Crop Census

Density (moose /km2)

Crop Census Density

(moose /km2)

Norway House 21,121 39 294* 0.014 57 391* 0.019 30 316* 0.015 49 387 0.018 - - -

Oxford House 19,425 - 363* 0.019 - 537* 0.028 79 371* 0.019 92 463 0.024 - - -

Cross Lake 14,535 5 340* 0.023 17 - - 29 330 0.023 8 302 0.021 70 800 0.055

East Central District 23,214 - - - - - - - 1703 0.073 45 2109 0.091 - - -

Nelson House 24,605 100 - - - 547 0.022 74 482 0.020 51 631 0.026 69 738 0.030

South Indian Lake 38,850 45 - - 84 1033 0.027 75 1343 0.035 150 1499 0.029 68 1450 0.037

York/Shamattawa 46,420 - - - - - - 104 331* 0.007 106 165* 0.004 105 283 0.006

Split Lake 47,096 - - - 4 264 0.006 - - - - - - - - -

*Census figures likely underestimate numbers based on incomplete trapline reports



Table 6.10C-2: Estimated Moose Abundance and Density based on East Central Trapline

District Reporting 1949–1952 (MNDNR 1953a)

Group Size (km2) Year Population Estimate

Density Estimate (animals per km2)

Cormorant 2071.99

1949 50 0.024

1950 127 0.061

1951 140 0.068

1952 230 0.111

Average 136.75 0.066

Herb Lake 4597.32

1949 315 0.069

1950 201 0.044

1951 339 0.073

1952 456 0.100

Average 327.75 0.071

Wabowden 5796.40

1949 330 0.057

1950 362 0.062

1951 305 0.052

1952 468 0.081

Average 366.25 0.063

Thicketoni 10,745.87

1949 467 0.043

1950 500 0.047

1951 435 0.040

1952 502 0.047

Average 476 0.044

All East Central District 23,211.49

1949 1134 0.049

1950 1166 0.050

1951 1241 0.053

1952 1703 0.073

Average 1311 0.056



Table 6.10C-3: Estimated Wolf Abundance and Density based on East Central Trapline District

Reporting 1949-1952 (MNDNR 1953a)



Cormorant 2071.99

1949 205 0.099

1950 25 0.012

1951 42 0.020

1952 90 0.043

Average 90.50 0.044

Herb Lake 4597.32

1949 356 0.077

1950 160 0.035

1951 97 0.021

1952 102 0.022

Average 178.75 0.039

Wabowden 5796.40

1949 286 0.049

1950 208 0.036

1951 149 0.026

1952 140 0.024

Average 195.75 0.034

Thicketoni 10,745.87

1949 1068 0.099

1950 832 0.077

1951 709 0.066

1952 719 0.048

Average 782 0.073

All East Central District 23,211.49

1949 1942 0.084

1950 1219 0.053

1951 950 0.041

1952 825 0.036

Average 1234 0.053



Table 6.10C-4: Estimated White-tailed Deer Abundance and Density based on East Central

Trapline District Reporting 1949-1952 (MNDNR 1953a)



Cormorant 2071.99 1952 265 0.128

Herb Lake 4597.32 1952 96 0.021

Wabowden 5796.40 1952 56 0.010

Thicketoni 10,745.87 1952 27 0.003

*Estimate for all groups combined not calculated based on unequal distribution (East Central District 1955)

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10D

APPENDIX 6.10D:

MOOSE GHA DATA


DECEMBER 2015 6.10D-I


Tables

Table 6.10D-1: Estimated number of moose harvested by resident hunters in northern Game

Hunting Areas 1968–1973 ................................................................................. 6.10D-1 Table 6.10D-2: Percentage of moose harvest in northern Game Hunting Areas based on

total estimated levels of resident moose harvest in Manitoba 1968–1973 ....... 6.10D-1 Table 6.10D-3: Estimated number of moose harvested by non-resident hunters in northern

Game Hunting Areas 1968–1973 ...................................................................... 6.10D-2 Table 6.10D-4: Percentage of moose harvest in northern Game Hunting Areas based on

total estimated levels of non-resident moose harvest in Manitoba 1968–1973 6.10D-2 Table 6.10D-5: Estimated number of moose harvested by resident and non-resident hunters

in northern Game Hunting Areas 1968–1973.................................................... 6.10D-3 Table 6.10D-6: Percentage of moose harvest in northern Game Hunting Areas based on

total estimated levels of resident and non-resident moose harvest in

Manitoba 1968–1973 ......................................................................................... 6.10D-3



Table 6.10D-1: Estimated number of moose harvested by resident hunters in northern Game

Hunting Areas 1968–1973

Game Hunting Area

1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973

1 85 73 61 110 73 61

2 43 12 37 73 45

31 28 44 73 110 59 137

7 99 87 184 293 73 76

9 128 204 98 165 132 166

10 57 29 98 15 91

All 2513 2271 2873 3664 2054 3501

Source: adapted from Howard and Larche (1975)

1. Includes indication of moose harvested in GHA 3a in 1973

Table 6.10D-2: Percentage of moose harvest in northern Game Hunting Areas based on total

estimated levels of resident moose harvest in Manitoba 1968–1973

Game Hunting Area

1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973

1 3.4% 3.2% 2.1% 3.0% 3.6% 1.7%

2 1.7% 0.0% 0.4% 1.0% 3.6% 1.3%

31 1.1% 1.9% 2.5% 3.0% 2.9% 3.9%

7 3.9% 3.8% 6.4% 8.0% 3.6% 2.2%

9 5.1% 9.0% 3.4% 4.5% 6.4% 4.7%

10 2.3% 1.3% 3.4% 0.0% 0.7% 2.6%

All 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%





Table 6.10D-3: Estimated number of moose harvested by non-resident hunters in northern

Game Hunting Areas 1968–1973

Game Hunting Area

1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973

1 5 5

2 26 16 31 44 56 57

31 - 11 - 5 34 43

7 42 60 5 60 73 50

9 31 38 - - 28 28

10 26 22 5 82 80 43

All 333 510 332 682 595 447




estimated levels of non-resident moose harvest in Manitoba 1968–1973

Game Hunting Area

1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973

1 - - 1.5% 0.7% - -

2 7.8% 3.1% 9.3% 6.5% 9.4% 12.8%

31 - 2.2% - 0.7% 5.7% 9.6%

7 12.6% 11.8% 1.5% 8.8% 12.3% 11.2%

9 9.3% 7.5% - - 4.7% 6.3%

10 7.8% 4.3% 1.5% 12.0% 13.5% 9.6%

All 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%





Table 6.10D-5: Estimated number of moose harvested by resident and non-resident hunters in

northern Game Hunting Areas 1968–1973

Game Hunting Area

1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973

1 85 73 66 115 73 61

2 69 16 43 81 129 102

31 28 55 73 115 93 180

7 141 147 189 353 146 126

9 159 242 98 165 160 194

10 83 51 103 82 95 134

All 2846 2781 3205 4346 2649 3948




estimated levels of resident and non-resident moose harvest in Manitoba 1968–

1973

Game Hunting Area

1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973

1 3.0% 2.6% 2.1% 2.7% 2.8% 1.6%

2 2.4% 0.6% 1.3% 1.9% 4.9% 2.6%

31 1.0% 2.0% 2.3% 2.7% 3.5% 4.6%

7 5.0% 5.3% 5.9% 8.1% 5.5% 3.2%

9 5.6% 8.7% 3.1% 3.8% 6.0% 4.9%

10 2.9% 1.8% 3.2% 1.9% 3.6% 3.4%

All 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%





Summary of changes in Game Hunting Areas 1936–2013 A review of Manitoba's hunting guides from 1936 to 2013 highlighted changes in the number and/or

boundaries of GHAs in northern Manitoba, the length of hunting seasons, and the age and sex of moose

to be harvested. From 1936 to 1952, there were no GHAs in Manitoba and moose were harvested north

of the 53rd parallel. In 1953, Moose Hunting Areas 1 and 2 were delineated north of the 53rd parallel. In

1965 Sub-Area 2A was identified in the Cedar Lake/Snow Lake region. In 1966, the area was divided into

Areas 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, and 10. There were no further changes to the northern Manitoba areas until 1979,

when GHA 7A was added. In 1988, GHAs 3A and 9A were added, and the number of GHAs in northern

Manitoba has since remained the same. The boundaries of GHAs, however, have changed over the

years and the current numbers and boundaries do not necessarily match those of the past.

From 1936, the first year for which a hunting guide is available, to 1944, the fall resident moose season

began in early October and was two weeks long. A winter season beginning in late November and lasting

10 to 16 days was in effect from 1936 to 1953; from 1945 until 1955 there was no fall season. The winter

season was increased to 23 days in 1954 and began in early December. The following year the season

was increased to 32 days but began approximately a week later. A fall season was added in some areas

in 1955, and was opened in all areas in 1957, beginning in late September and lasting 26 days. From

1956 to 1960, the winter season lasted 42 to 47 days and began in mid-November. The fall season was

decreased to 15 to 29 days depending on the area in 1963. In 1968, the fall season was considerably

lengthened, opening in early September and closing at the end of November. The winter season was also

extended to 53 days in some areas. The following year there was a single season from early September

to late January in some areas, and a long fall and shorter winter season in others. Seasons were similar

until 1987, when the winter season was extended to 40 days in GHA 3. During the same period, the fall

season in GHA 3 was approximately 60 to 70 days and was 26 or 27 days long in the other northern

GHAs. From the 1980s to 2013 the winter season in some GHAs generally opened in late November or

early December and was between 12 and 19 days long, with the exception of GHA 3, whose winter

season was occasionally 40 days long, from early November to mid-December. Archery seasons have

varied since 1936.

The non-resident fall moose season in northern Manitoba was 14 days long in 1936; it began in early

October and ended mid-month. A winter season from late November to early December lasted 10 days.

The fall season was similar until 1956, when it opened in late September and increased to 26 days. The

winter season was intermittent until 1957, when it opened in late November and closed at the end of

December, lasting approximately 45 days, until 1961. The fall season closed in some areas in the early

1960s, and was between 15 and 29 days long in the other areas until 1968, when it increased to 70 to 84

days, depending on the area. The longer season closed later than in previous years, in late November.

The winter season decreased in length the same year, to 19 days. Beginning in 1974 there was no winter

season and the fall season was shortened to 20 to about 50 days, depending upon the area. A longer fall

season beginning earlier was introduced in some GHAs in 1986. After 1987 the fall season was 26 to 50

days in all GHAs, opening in late August or early September and closing in mid-October. The winter

season was 20 to 36 days long from 1963 until 1968, when it decreased to 19 days, closing earlier in

December than in previous years. There has been no winter season since 1974.



From 1936 to 1958, one bull or one adult moose could be harvested by residents in the fall and winter

seasons. In 1959, a bag limit of one bull in fall and one moose in winter was implemented. One moose

could be harvested in the fall season in some areas beginning in 1963. In 1979, one bull or one moose

could be harvested in winter, depending upon the area, until 1995, when bag limits changed in some

areas to one bull or one calf. The final year in which cows could be harvested was 1993. Non-residents

could harvest one bull per season from 1936 to 1957, when one adult moose could be harvested in

winter. The bag limit for the fall season was generally one bull from 1967 to 2013, and was one moose in

winter from 1959 until 1973, after which there was no winter season. The harvest of cows was only

permitted during the 1992 to 1997 archery seasons.

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10E

APPENDIX 6.10E:

SPLIT LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

AREA MOOSE SURVEY RESULTS

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10E

DECEMBER 2015 6.10E-1

Table 6.10E-1: Survey results for Moose Management Units in the Split Lake Resource Management Area

Moose Management Unit

Area (km2)

Population estimate Recruitment Wolf Predation Harvest Mortality

# Moose per

km2 Calves per 100

cows # Moose

Killed % of Moose Population

Domestic Harvest

Resident Licensed Harvest

Non-resident Licensed Harvest

Total Harvest*

% of Moose Population

Manteosippi 8961 410 0.046 38.5 33 8.1 5 2 5 14 3.4

Oopawaha 5152 235 0.046 43.0 31 13.2 24 4 10 44 18.7

Numaykoosani 5919 190 0.032 44.9 17 9.0 1 2 5 9 4.7

Kakwasanseesi 5820 502 0.086 32.1 51 10.2 10 9 5 28 5.6

Wasekanoosees 4270 369 0.086 31.3 24 6.5 4 3 5 14 3.8

Askekosani 7580 557 0.073 32.3 42 7.5 13 6 10 33 5.9

Kitchisippi 6208 337 0.053 37.6 19 5.6 24 9 0 38 11.3

Source: adapted from Cree Nation Partners (2013)

*-Total harvest includes number of moose harvested through domestic, resident and non-resident licenses as well as wounding losses (not shown)

Southern

Indian

Lake

LakeShethanei

CrossLake

LakeWalker

EdmundLake

O-Pipon-Na-PiwinSouth IndianLake (NAC)


(NAC)

Churchill

RCEAArea 2

RCEAArea 3

BorealPlains

EcozoneEastern

Boreal ShieldEcozone

CoastalHudson Bay

EcozoneTaigaShield

Ecozone

Eastern BorealShield Ecozone

HudsonPlains

Ecozone

WesternBoreal Shield

Ecozone

KelseyG.S.

LongSpruceG.S.

LimestoneG.S.

KettleG.S.

KeeyaskG.S.

ConawapaG.S.

KeeyaskTerrestrial

Region

DafoeTerrestrial

Region

BaldockTerrestrial

Region

PaintTerrestrial

Region


Region


Region

Deer IslandTerrestrial

Region

Limestone RapidsTerrestrial

Region

BradshawTerrestrial

Region

FletcherTerrestrial

Region

WarkworthTerrestrial

Region

Hudson CoastTerrestrial

Region


RegionSouthern Indian

TerrestrialRegion

1

2

3

45

67

1.0

ECOSTEM Ltd.

Created By: snitowski - B Size Portrait BTB - MAR 2015 Scale: 1:1,250,000

07-OCT-15

File Location: Z:\Workspaces\RCEA\Support\Mammal\Moose Management Units in the Split Lake RMA.mxd

Hudson Bay

Thompson

Winnipeg

Churchill



0 10 20 Kilometers

0 10 20 Miles

DATA SOURCE:

DATE CREATED:

CREATED BY:

VERSION NO:

REVISION DATE:

QA/QC:

COORDINATE SYSTEM:

Manitoba Hydro; Government of Manitoba; Government of Canada;ECOSTEM Ltd.; WRCS.

Moose Management Units in the Split Lake Resource Management Area

07-OCT-15

Legend


Generating Station (Under Construction)


Highway

Rail



Infrastructure

Moose Management UnitsUnit 1, Manteosippi (Churchill River)

Unit 2, Oopawaha (Little Churchill River)

Unit 3, Numaykoosani (Myre Lakes)

Unit 4, Kakwasanseesi (Pelletier Lake)

Unit 5, Wasekanoosees (Limestone River)

Unit 6, Askekosani (Kettle Lakes)

Unit 7, Kitchisippi (Nelson River)

Terrestrial Region

Ecozone

Map 6.10E-1

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10F

APPENDIX 6.10F:

DISTRIBUTION OF MOOSE IN REGION OF

INTEREST BASED ON 2011 BIPOLE III

AERIAL SURVEY RESULTS


DECEMBER 2015 6.10F-1

To provide additional context into changes in the distribution of moose through the ROI, survey results

from a 2011 aerial survey along the Bipole III Transmission Project route were assessed. This survey was

originally performed on February 12, 13 and 16th 2011, for that portion of the surveyed transmission line

occurring within the RCEA ROI. Further information on the survey can be found in Joro Consultants Inc.

and Wildlife Resource Consulting Services MB Inc. (2011).

The number of moose track sets identified were divided based on the terrestrial region boundaries in

ArcMAP with the length of survey line (in km) which occurred in each. This information was used in

calculating moose track density (Table 6.10F-1). The order in which the terrestrial regions occur in

Table 6.10F-1 is based on their northeastern progression with the Bipole III Transmission Project, 2011

survey route which intersect 6 out of the 17 terrestrial regions in the Region of Interest. The linear feature

density estimates from each of the terrestrial regions, calculated as per the Intactness Chapter 6.2, where

the Bipole III Transmission Project survey flight took place have been included for comparison purposes.

An additional comparison of moose track and linear feature density estimates by terrestrial region is

available as Figure 6.10F-1.

Table 6.10F-1: Number of moose track sets observed during Bipole III Transmission Project

Aerial Survey

Ecozone Terrestrial Region

Track sets

(#)

Distance

(km)

Moose Track Density

(#/km)

Linear Feature Density1

(km/km2)

Boreal Plains William 36 92 0.39 0.27

Eastern Boreal Shield

Upper Nelson 14 68 0.21 0.21

Western Boreal Shield

Paint 32 167 0.19 0.29

Western Boreal Shield

Baldock 27 41 0.66 0.03

Eastern Boreal Shield

Keeyask 89 98 0.91 0.11

Hudson Plains Limestone Rapids

38 42 0.90 0.05

All 236 508 0.46 -

1. Values obtained from Intactness section


DECEMBER 2015 6.10F-2

Figure 6.10F-1: Comparison of Observed Moose Tracks During Survey Flight of Proposed

Bipole Transmission Line Route in 2011 to 2013 Linear Feature Density

Estimates

William

Upper Nelson

Paint

Baldock

Keeyask

Limestone Rapids

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Line

ar F

eatu

re D

ensi

ty

Moose Track Density

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10G

APPENDIX 6.10G:

ADDITIONAL FIGURES


DECEMBER 2015 6.10G-I

Appendix Figures Page

Figures

Figure 6.10G-1: Distribution of Moose and Densities in Northern Manitoba in the 1950s .......... 6.10G-1 Figure 6.10G-2: Registered Trapline Sections in Manitoba Circa 1955 ...................................... 6.10G-2 Figure 6.10G-3: Moose Habitat Sections in Manitoba ................................................................. 6.10G-3 Figure 6.10G-4: Northern Flood Agreement Resource Areas ..................................................... 6.10G-4 Figure 6.10G-5: Northern Flood Agreement Moose Survey Areas 1983 – 1985 ........................ 6.10G-5 Figure 6.10G-6: Northen Flood Agreement Moose Population Areas ......................................... 6.10G-6 Figure 6.10G-7: Northern Flood Agreement Survey Area 1986/87 ............................................. 6.10G-7 Figure 6.10G-8: Northern Flood Agreement Survey Area 1992/93 ............................................. 6.10G-8 Figure 6.10G-9 Manitoba Game Hunting Areas C 1974 ............................................................ 6.10G-9


DECEMBER 2015 6.10G-1

Source: Duplicated from Bryant (1955)

Figure 6.10G-1: Distribution of Moose and Densities in Northern Manitoba in the 1950s



Source: Duplicated from MDMNR (1955b)

Figure 6.10G-2: Registered Trapline Sections in Manitoba Circa 1955



Source: Duplicated from Howard and Larche (1975)

Figure 6.10G-3: Moose Habitat Sections in Manitoba



Source: Duplicated from Elliot (1986a)

Figure 6.10G-4: Northern Flood Agreement Resource Areas




Figure 6.10G-5: Northern Flood Agreement Moose Survey Areas 1983 – 1985




Figure 6.10G-6: Northen Flood Agreement Moose Population Areas



Source: Duplicated from Elliot (1987)

NH – SL Represent Nelson House – Split Lake Moose Population and CL Represents Cross Lake Moose Population

Figure 6.10G-7: Northern Flood Agreement Survey Area 1986/87



Source: Duplicated from Elliot (1993)

Figure 6.10G-8: Northern Flood Agreement Survey Area 1992/93



Source: Duplicated from Jahn (1975)

Figure 6.10G-9: Manitoba Game Hunting Areas C 1974

Documents

APPENDIX 6.5A: HABITAT MODEL METHODS · 2017-10-20 · REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – COLONIAL WATERBIRDS – APPENDIX 6.5A DECEMBER 2015 6.5A-1 COLONIAL