appendix 6.5a: habitat model methods · 2017-10-20 · regional cumulative effects assessment –...
Post on 30-May-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – COLONIAL WATERBIRDS – APPENDIX 6.5A
APPENDIX 6.5A:
HABITAT MODEL METHODS
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – COLONIAL WATERBIRDS – APPENDIX 6.5A
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.
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – COLONIAL WATERBIRDS – APPENDIX 6.5A
DECEMBER 2015 6.5A-2
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 0.9 Figure 6.5.3-1, Stantec 2015
Gull Rapids Gulls and Terns 1.4 Figure 6.5.3-1, Stantec 2015
Gull Rapids Gulls and Terns 2.0 Figure 6.5.3-1, Stantec 2015
Gull Rapids Gulls and Terns 0.3 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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – COLONIAL WATERBIRDS – APPENDIX 6.5A
DECEMBER 2015 6.5A-3
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – COLONIAL WATERBIRDS – APPENDIX 6.5B
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – COLONIAL WATERBIRDS – APPENDIX 6.5B
DECEMBER 2015 6.5B-1
Table 6.5B-1: On-system Colonial Waterbird Habitat Pre- and Post-hydroelectric
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.
Table 6.5B-2: On-system Colonial Waterbird Habitat Pre- and Post-hydroelectric
Development in the Terrestrial Regions of the Eastern 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
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
1. Pre-hydroelectric development.
2. Post-hydroelectric development.
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – COLONIAL WATERBIRDS – APPENDIX 6.5B
DECEMBER 2015 6.5B-2
1. Pre-hydroelectric development.
2. Post-hydroelectric development.
Table 6.5B-4: On-system Colonial Waterbird Habitat Pre- and Post-hydroelectric
Development in the Terrestrial Regions of the Hudson Plains 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
Limestone Rapids 40 24 38 18 -25
Deer Island NA NA 3 3 NA
Hudson Plains Ecozone NA NA 41 22
NA
1. Pre-hydroelectric development.
2. Post-hydroelectric development.
Table 6.5B-5: On-system Colonial Waterbird Habitat Pre- and Post-hydroelectric
Development in the Terrestrial Regions of the Coastal Hudson Bay 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
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
1. Pre-hydroelectric development.
2. Post-hydroelectric development.
Table 6.5B-3: On-system Colonial Waterbird Habitat Pre- and Post-hydroelectric
Development in the Terrestrial Regions of the Taiga 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
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
WuskwatimTerrestrial
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
WuskwatimTerrestrial
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)
NisichawayasihkCree Nation
Nelson House (NAC)
Wabowden(NAC)Snow
Lake
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: 1:550,000
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 Wuskwatim Region.mxd
Waterbird Habitat Quality Wuskwatim Terrestrial Region
Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N
0 6.5 13 Kilometers
0 5 10 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-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
NisichawayasihkCree Nation
Nelson House (NAC)
GranvilleLake
LeafRapids
RatTerrestrial
Region
BaldockTerrestrial
Region
PaintTerrestrial
Region
WuskwatimTerrestrial
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
Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N
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
InfrastructureGenerating Station (Existing)
Transmission Line (Existing)
Transmission Line (UnderConstruction)
Highway
Rail
NOTE: Habitat polygons exaggerated slightly to enhance visibility.
Manitoba Hydro; Government of Manitoba; Government of Canada;ECOSTEM Ltd.
LegendTerrestrial Region
RCEA Region of Interest
Waterbird Habitat QualityPrimary Habitat (Off-system)
Primary Habitat (On-system)
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
Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N
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
InfrastructureGenerating Station (Existing)
Transmission Line (Existing)
Transmission Line (UnderConstruction)
Highway
Rail
NOTE: Habitat polygons exaggerated slightly to enhance visibility.
Manitoba Hydro; Government of Manitoba; Government of Canada;ECOSTEM Ltd.
LegendTerrestrial Region
RCEA Region of Interest
Waterbird Habitat QualityPrimary Habitat (Off-system)
Primary Habitat (On-system)
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
York FactoryFirst Nation
Fox LakeCree Nation
War LakeFirst Nation
Ilford (NAC)
TataskweyakCree Nation
Gillam
KeeyaskTerrestrial
Region
DafoeTerrestrial
Region
Waterbird Habitat Quality Keeyask Terrestrial Region
Manitoba Hydro; Government of Manitoba; Government of Canada;ECOSTEM Ltd.
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
Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N
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
Transmission Line (Existing)
HighwayRail
Transmission Line (UnderConstruction)
Note: Habitat polygons exaggerated slightly to improve visibility
LegendTerrestrial Region
RCEA Region of Interest
Waterbird Habitat QualityPrimary Habitat (Off-system)
Primary Habitat (On-system)
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 CottonMiskimmin
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
York FactoryFirst Nation
War LakeFirst Nation
Ilford (NAC)
PimicikamakCross Lake
(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
Manitoba Hydro; Government of Manitoba; Government of Canada;ECOSTEM Ltd.
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
Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N
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
Transmission Line (Existing)
Highway
Rail
Generating Station (Existing)
Transmission Line (Under Construction)
Note: Habitat polygons exaggerated slightly to improve visibility
LegendTerrestrial Region
RCEA Region of Interest
Waterbird Habitat QualityPrimary Habitat (Off-system)
Primary Habitat (On-system)
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
Upper NelsonTerrestrial
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 CottonMiskimmin
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
PimicikamakCross Lake
(NAC)
Norway House Cree NationNorway House(NAC)
ThicketPortage
(NAC)
Wabowden(NAC)
1.0
27-JUN-15
ECOSTEM Ltd.
Created By: snitowski - B S ize Portrait BTB - MAR 2015 Scale: 1:638,000
Manitoba Hydro; Government of Manitoba; Government of Canada;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
Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N
0 7.5 15 Kilometers
0 6 12 Miles
DATA SOURCE:
DATE CREATED:
CREATED BY:
VERSION NO:
REVISION DATE:
QA/QC:
COORDINATE SYSTEM:
Note: Habitat polygons exaggerated slightly to improve visibility
LegendTerrestrial Region
RCEA Region of Interest
Waterbird Habitat QualityPrimary Habitat (Off-system)
Primary Habitat (On-system)
InfrastructureGenerating Station (Existing)
Highway
Rail
Transmission Line (Existing)
Transmission Line (Under Construction)
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
Upper NelsonTerrestrial
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
PimicikamakCross Lake
(NAC)
Norway House Cree NationNorway House (NAC)
Waterbird Habitat Quality Molson Terrestrial Region
Manitoba Hydro; Government of Manitoba; Government of Canada;ECOSTEM Ltd.
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
Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N
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
Transmission Line (Existing)
Highway
Rail
Generating Station (Existing)
Note: Habitat polygons exaggerated slightly to improve visibility
LegendTerrestrial Region
RCEA Region of Interest
Waterbird Habitat QualityPrimary Habitat (Off-system)
Primary Habitat (On-system)
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.
Created By: snitowski - B S ize Portrait BTB - MAR 2015 Scale: 1:750,000
30-OCT-15
Fi le Location: Z:\Workspaces\RCEA\Support\Mammal\Bird \Waterb ird Habitat Bradshaw Region.mxd
Hudson Bay
Thompson
Winnipeg
Churchil l
Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N
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
Transmission Line (Existing)
Transmission Line (UnderConstruction)
Manitoba Hydro; Government of Manitoba; Government of Canada;ECOSTEM Ltd.
Waterbird Habitat Quality Bradshaw Terrestrial Region
NOTE: Habitat polygons exaggerated slightly to enhance visibility.
LegendTerrestrial Region
RCEA Region of Interest
Waterbird Habitat QualityPrimary Habitat (Off-system)
Primary Habitat (On-system)
Map 6.5B-9
Tadoule
280
280
280
280280
280
280
280
KelseyG.S.
LongSpruce
G.S.KettleG.S.
KeeyaskG.S.
Fox LakeCree Nation
York FactoryFirst Nation
War LakeFirst Nation
Ilford (NAC)
TataskweyakCree Nation
BradshawTerrestrial
Region
Upper ChurchillTerrestrial
Region
Southern IndianTerrestrial
Region
1.0
07-OCT-15
ECOSTEM Ltd.
Created By: snitowski - B S ize Portrait BTB - MAR 2015 Scale: 1:900,000
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
Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N
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
Generating Station (Potential)
Highway
Rail
Transmission Line (Existing)
Transmission Line (UnderConstruction)
Manitoba Hydro; Government of Manitoba; Government of Canada;ECOSTEM Ltd.
Waterbird Habitat Quality Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region
RCEA Region of Interest
NOTE: Habitat polygons exaggerated slightly to enhance visibility.
Primary Habitat (Off-system)
Primary Habitat (On-system)
Terrestrial Region Generating Station (UnderConstruction)
Generating Station (Existing)
Map 6.5B-10
Granville
Tadoule
O-Pipon-Na-PiwinCree Nation
South Indian Lake
Upper ChurchillTerrestrial
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.
Created By: snitowski - B S ize Portrait BTB - MAR 2015 Scale: 1:750,000
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
Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N
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
Manitoba Hydro; Government of Manitoba; Government of Canada;ECOSTEM Ltd.
Waterbird Habitat Quality Southern Indian Terrestrial Region
RCEA Region of Interest
NOTE: Habitat polygons exaggerated slightly to enhance visibility.
Terrestrial Region
Primary Habitat (On-system)
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – AQUATIC FURBEARERS – APPENDIX 6.6A
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
Table 6.6A-3: Total Amount of Available Habitat Pre- and Post-hydroelectric Development
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
Table 6.6A-5: Summary of Land Used For Hydroelectric and Non-hydroelectric
Development in the Hudson Plains Ecozone ...................................................... 6.6A-4
Table 6.6A-6: Summary of Land Used For Hydroelectric and Non-hydroelectric
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 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – AQUATIC FURBEARERS – APPENDIX 6.6A
DECEMBER 2015 6.6A-1
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.
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – AQUATIC FURBEARERS – APPENDIX 6.6A
DECEMBER 2015 6.6A-2
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
Table 6.6A-2: Total Amount of Available Habitat Pre- and Post-hydroelectric Development
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
Primary Beaver Habitat (Pre-Hydroelectric Development)
15.96 34.50 96.60 26.04
Primary Habitat Lost Due to Transmission Line Development
0.03 0.03 0.16 0.00
Primary Habitat Lost Due to Other Hydroelectric Development
0.08 0.02 0.38 0.00
Primary Habitat Lost Due to Non-Hydroelectric Development
0.01 0.17 1.91 0.07
Primary Beaver Habitat (Post-Hydroelectric Development)
15.84 34.28 94.15 25.97
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – AQUATIC FURBEARERS – APPENDIX 6.6A
DECEMBER 2015 6.6A-3
Table 6.6A-3: Total Amount of Available Habitat Pre- and Post-hydroelectric Development
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
Primary Habitat Lost Due to Transmission Line Development
0.03 0.00 0.00
Primary Habitat Lost Due to Other Hydroelectric Development
0.00 0.00 0.03
Primary Habitat Lost Due to Non-Hydroelectric Development
0.09 0.00 0.27
Primary Beaver Habitat (Post-Hydroelectric Development)
567.04 143.76 456.79
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – AQUATIC FURBEARERS – APPENDIX 6.6A
DECEMBER 2015 6.6A-4
Table 6.6A-5: Summary of Land Used For Hydroelectric and Non-hydroelectric Development
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
Table 6.6A-6: Summary of Land Used For Hydroelectric and Non-hydroelectric Development
in the Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone
Modeled Primary Beaver Habitat Hudson Coast Warkworth Fletcher
Total Available Habitat 166.67 579.58 501.46
Primary Beaver Habitat (Pre-Hydroelectric Development)
25.53 151.28 208.95
Primary Habitat Lost Due to Transmission Line Development
0.00 0.12 0.17
Primary Habitat Lost Due to Other Hydroelectric Development
0.00 0.00 0.00
Primary Habitat Lost Due to Non-Hydroelectric Development
0.00 0.15 0.34
Primary Beaver Habitat (Post-Hydroelectric Development)
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – AQUATIC FURBEARERS – APPENDIX 6.6A
DECEMBER 2015 6.6A-5
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.
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – AQUATIC FURBEARERS – APPENDIX 6.6A
DECEMBER 2015 6.6A-6
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – AQUATIC FURBEARERS – APPENDIX 6.6B
DECEMBER 2015 6.6B-1
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.
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – AQUATIC FURBEARERS – APPENDIX 6.6B
DECEMBER 2015 6.6B-2
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)
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – AQUATIC FURBEARERS – APPENDIX 6.6B
DECEMBER 2015 6.6B-3
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.
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – AQUATIC FURBEARERS – APPENDIX 6.6B
DECEMBER 2015 6.6B-4
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.
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – AQUATIC FURBEARERS – APPENDIX 6.6B
DECEMBER 2015 6.6B-5
HUDSON PLAINS ECOZONE: BEAVER LODGE ANALYSIS POST-HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT
No data exist to calculate this metric.
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
No data exist to calculate this metric.
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
DECEMBER 2015 6.7A-1
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
Appendix Tables Page
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
DECEMBER 2015 6.8A-1
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
Regional Assessment Area (RAA)
Feature Type
Length (km)
Cape Churchill RAA Area
(km2)
Linear Feature Density
(km/km2)
Percentage of
Development
Non-Hydroelectric 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
Total Non-Hydroelectric Development Disturbance
524 21,915 0.02 100.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – COASTAL CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.8A
DECEMBER 2015 6.8A-2
Table 6.8A-3: Post-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
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
Non-Hydroelectric Development
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
Total Non-Hydroelectric Development Disturbance
1942 162,438 0.01 51.2
Total Linear Features
3792 162,438 0.02 100.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – COASTAL CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.8A
DECEMBER 2015 6.8A-3
Table 6.8A-4: Post-hydroelectric Development Fragmentation Levels in the Cape Churchill
Regional Assessment Area (RAA)
Feature Type
Length (km)
Cape Churchill RAA Area
(km2)
Linear Feature Density
(km/km2)
Percentage of
Development
Hydroelectric 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
Total Hydroelectric Development Disturbance
408 21915 0.02 40.7
Non-Hydroelectric Development
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
Total Non-Hydroelectric Development Disturbance
595 21,915 0.03 59.4
Total Linear Features
1003 21,915 0.05 100.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – COASTAL CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.8A
DECEMBER 2015 6.8A-4
Table 6.8A-5: Disturbance Levels in the Pen Islands Regional Assessment Area (RAA)
Feature Type
Area (km2) Percentage of Disturbance
Hydroelectric Development
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
Total Hydroelectric Development Disturbance
1346 0.8
Non-Hydroelectric Development
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
Total Non-Hydroelectric Development Disturbance
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – COASTAL CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.8A
DECEMBER 2015 6.8A-5
Table 6.8A-6: Disturbance Levels in the Cape Churchill Regional Assessment Area (RAA)
Feature Type
Area (km2) Percentage of Disturbance
Hydroelectric Development
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
Total Hydroelectric Development Disturbance
483 2.2
Non-Hydroelectric Development
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
Total Non-Hydroelectric Development Disturbance
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – COASTAL CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.8B
DECEMBER 2015 6.8B-1
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – COASTAL CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.8B
DECEMBER 2015 6.8B-2
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
DECEMBER 2015 6.9A-1
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU –APPENDIX 6.9B
DECEMBER 2015 6.9B-1
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.
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU –APPENDIX 6.9B
DECEMBER 2015 6.9B-2
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU –APPENDIX 6.9B
DECEMBER 2015 6.9B-3
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU –APPENDIX 6.9B
DECEMBER 2015 6.9B-4
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.
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU –APPENDIX 6.9B
DECEMBER 2015 6.9B-5
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU –APPENDIX 6.9C
DECEMBER 2015 6.9C-I
Appendix Tables Page
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU –APPENDIX 6.9C
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)
Percentage of Disturbance
Area (km2)
Percentage of Disturbance
Hydroelectric Development
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
Non-Hydroelectric Development
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU –APPENDIX 6.9C
DECEMBER 2015 6.9C-2
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)
Percentage of Disturbance
Area (km2)
Percentage of Disturbance
Area (km2)
Percentage of Disturbance
Hydroelectric Development
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
Other Development associated with Hydroelectric Development
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
Non-Hydroelectric Development
Human Footprint Areas (Settlements, Roads, etc.) 272.59 2.31 271.98 2.31 563.14 4.78
Drill Holes (less than 40 years) 64.18 0.54 199.78 1.69 45.93 0.39
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
Total Non-Hydroelectric Development Disturbance 340.91 2.89 483.14 4.10 665.66 5.65
Total Anthropogenic Disturbance 357.01 3.03 737.16 6.25 1113.50 9.45
Natural Disturbance-Fire History (less than 40 years) 1414.25 12.00 1537.63 13.04 1874.37 15.90
Total Natural Disturbance 1414.25 12.00 1537.63 13.04 1874.37 15.90
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
Total Overall Disturbance 1771.25 15.03 2274.79 19.30 2987.87 25.35
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU –APPENDIX 6.9C
DECEMBER 2015 6.9C-3
Table 6.9C-3: Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Disturbance in the Wheadon Range
Wheadon Range
1960 1960 1980 1980 2013 2013
Area (km2)
Percentage of Disturbance
Area (km2)
Percentage of Disturbance
Area (km2)
Percentage of Disturbance
Hydroelectric Development
Transmission Lines 30.07 0.360 40.01 0.48 168.09 2.01
Roads/Rail associated with Hydroelectric Development 18.88 0.23 18.04 0.22 14.75 0.18
Power/Generating Stations 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Development associated with Hydroelectric Development
0.48 0.01 0.43 0.01 0.18 0.002
Total Hydroelectric Development Disturbance 49.44 0.59 58.48 0.70 183.03 2.19
Non-Hydroelectric Development
Human Footprint Areas (Settlements, Roads, etc.) 107.64 1.29 111.83 1.34 378.98 4.54
Drill Holes (less than 40 years) 63.20 0.76 126.73 1.52 40.01 0.48
Mines 0.68 0.008 0.62 0.01 0.96 0.01
Forestry Harvest Areas (less than 40 years) 0 0 0 0 134.19 1.61
Total Non-Hydroelectric Development Disturbance 171.52 2.06 239.18 2.87 554.13 6.64
Total Anthropogenic Disturbance 220.96 2.65 297.66 3.57 737.16 8.84
Natural Disturbance-Fire History (less than 40 years) 1016.02 12.18 1308.43 15.68 2275.19 27.27
Total Natural Disturbance 1016.02 12.18 1308.43 15.68 2275.19 27.27
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
Total Overall Disturbance 1236.97 14.83 1606.09 19.25 3012.35 36.11
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU –APPENDIX 6.9C
DECEMBER 2015 6.9C-4
Table 6.9C-4: Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Disturbance in the Wabowden Range
Wabowden Range
1960 1960 1980 1980 2013 2013
Area (km2)
Percentage of Disturbance
Area (km2)
Percentage of Disturbance
Area (km2)
Percentage of Disturbance
Hydroelectric Development
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
Power/Generating Stations 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Development associated with Hydroelectric Development
0 0 9.51 0.10 8.70 0.09
Total Hydroelectric Development Disturbance 0.00 0.00 438.61 4.68 560.04 5.98
Non-Hydroelectric Development
Human Footprint Areas (Settlements, Roads, etc.) 337.02 3.60 678.85 7.25 1208.47 12.91
Drill Holes (less than 40 years) 17.53 0.19 141.99 1.52 57.35 0.61
Mines 0 0 1.90 0.02 2.25 0.024
Forestry Harvest Areas (less than 40 years) 0 0 69.80 0.75 181.98 1.94
Total Non-Hydroelectric Development Disturbance 354.54 3.79 892.55 9.53 1450.05 15.49
Total Anthropogenic Disturbance 354.54 3.79 1331.15 14.22 2010.09 21.47
Natural Disturbance-Fire History (less than 40 years) 1257.26 13.43 344.91 3.68 921.09 9.84
Total Natural Disturbance 1257.26 13.43 344.91 3.68 921.09 9.84
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
Total Overall Disturbance 1611.80 17.21 1676.07 17.90 2931.17 31.31
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU –APPENDIX 6.9C
DECEMBER 2015 6.9C-5
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)
Percentage of Disturbance
Area (km2)
Percentage of Disturbance
Area (km2)
Percentage of Disturbance
Hydroelectric Development
Transmission Lines 0 0 146.77 4.38 146.77 4.38
Roads/Rail associated with Hydroelectric Development 0 0 2.81 0.08 2.81 0.08
Power/Generating Stations 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Development associated with Hydroelectric Development
0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Hydroelectric Development Disturbance 0.00 0.00 149.58 4.47 149.58 4.47
Non-Hydroelectric Development
Human Footprint Areas (Settlements, Roads, etc.) 77.07 2.30 110.05 3.29 202.41 6.04
Drill Holes (less than 40 years) 0 0 30.65 0.92 19.46 0.58
Mines 0 0 0 0 0 0
Forestry Harvest Areas (less than 40 years) 0 0 0 0 24.35 0.73
Total Non-Hydroelectric Development Disturbance 77.07 2.30 140.71 4.20 246.22 7.35
Total Anthropogenic Disturbance 77.07 2.30 290.29 8.67 395.80 11.82
Natural Disturbance-Fire History (less than 40 years) 511.85 15.29 218.80 6.53 400.37 11.96
Total Natural Disturbance 511.85 15.29 218.80 6.53 400.37 11.96
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
Total Overall Disturbance 588.92 17.59 509.09 15.20 796.16 23.78
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU –APPENDIX 6.9C
DECEMBER 2015 6.9C-6
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)
Percentage of Disturbance
Area (km2)
Percentage of Disturbance
Area (km2)
Percentage of Disturbance
Hydroelectric Development
Transmission Lines 0 0 236.07 2.44 533.16 5.52
Roads/Rail associated with Hydroelectric Development 0 0 5.30 0.05 28.66 0.30
Power/Generating Stations 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Development associated with Hydroelectric Development
1.21 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.002
Total Hydroelectric Development Disturbance 1.21 0.01 241.53 2.50 561.98 5.81
Non-Hydroelectric Development
Human Footprint Areas (Settlements, Roads, etc.) 673.99 6.97 1285.91 13.30 1548.80 16.02
Drill Holes (less than 40 years) 97.69 1.01 216.28 2.24 205.76 2.13
Mines 10.31 0.11 11.10 0.115 9.35 0.10
Forestry Harvest Areas (less than 40 years) 0 0 571.68 5.91 1004.45 10.39
Total Non-Hydroelectric Development Disturbance 781.99 8.09 2084.98 21.57 2768.36 28.64
Total Anthropogenic Disturbance 783.20 8.10 2326.51 24.07 3330.35 34.46
Natural Disturbance-Fire History (less than 40 years) 963.42 9.97 532.03 5.50 1783.08 18.45
Total Natural Disturbance 963.42 9.97 532.03 5.50 1783.08 18.45
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
Total Overall Disturbance 1746.62 18.07 2858.54 29.57 5113.43 52.90
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU –APPENDIX 6.9C
DECEMBER 2015 6.9C-7
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)
Percentage of Disturbance
Area (km2)
Percentage of Disturbance
Area (km2)
Percentage of Disturbance
Hydroelectric Development
Transmission Lines 53.01 0.24 53.01 0.24 53.01 0.24
Roads/Rail associated with Hydroelectric Development 1.18 0.01 66.14 0.30 66.14 0.30
Power/Generating Stations 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Development associated with Hydroelectric Development
0.44 0.00 8.31 0.04 8.31 0.04
Total Hydroelectric Development Disturbance 54.63 0.25 127.46 0.57 127.46 0.57
Non-Hydroelectric Development
Human Footprint Areas (Settlements, Roads, etc.) 687.98 3.09 665.14 2.99 711.31 3.20
Drill Holes (less than 40 years) 4.03 0.02 11.56 0.05 11.70 0.05
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
Total Non-Hydroelectric Development Disturbance 694.15 3.12 678.74 3.05 735.08 3.30
Total Anthropogenic Disturbance 748.78 3.36 806.19 3.62 862.54 3.87
Natural Disturbance-Fire History (less than 40 years) 2160.87 9.71 3636.89 16.34 7812.40 35.10
Total Natural Disturbance 2160.87 9.71 3636.89 16.34 7812.40 35.10
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
Total Overall Disturbance 2909.65 13.07 4443.08 19.96 8674.94 38.97
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU –APPENDIX 6.9C
DECEMBER 2015 6.9C-8
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)
Percentage of Disturbance
Area (km2)
Percentage of Disturbance
Area (km2)
Percentage of Disturbance
Hydroelectric Development
Transmission Lines 0 0 0 0 0 0
Roads/Rail associated with Hydroelectric Development 0 0 0 0 0 0
Power/Generating Stations 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Development associated with Hydroelectric Development
0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Hydroelectric Development Disturbance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Non-Hydroelectric Development
Human Footprint Areas (Settlements, Roads, etc.) 51.76 0.27 51.76 0.27 51.76 0.27
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
Total Non-Hydroelectric Development Disturbance 51.76 0.27 52.47 0.28 52.47 0.28
Total Anthropogenic Disturbance 51.76 0.27 52.47 0.28 52.47 0.28
Natural Disturbance-Fire History (less than 40 years) 2459.47 13.03 2621.09 13.88 5931.40 31.42
Total Natural Disturbance 2459.47 13.03 2621.09 13.88 5931.40 31.42
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
Total Overall Disturbance 2511.23 13.30 2673.56 14.16 5983.87 31.70
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.9D
APPENDIX 6.9D:
DETAILED LINEAR FEATURE INTERSECT
TABLES
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.9D
DECEMBER 2015 6.9D-I
Appendix Tables Page
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
Table 6.9D-15: Intersection of Human Footprint on Primary Modeled Winter and Summer
High Quality Habitat within the Wapisu-Wimapedi Range ................................ 6.9D-11
Table 6.9D-16: Intersection of Human Footprint on Primary Modeled Winter and Summer
High Quality Habitat within the Wheadon Range .............................................. 6.9D-12
Table 6.9D-17: Intersection of Human Footprint on Primary Modeled Winter and Summer
High Quality Habitat within the Wabowden Range ........................................... 6.9D-13
Table 6.9D-18: Intersection of Human Footprint on Primary Modeled Winter and Summer
High Quality Habitat within the William Lake Range ......................................... 6.9D-14
Table 6.9D-19: Intersection of Human Footprint on Primary Modeled Winter and Summer
High Quality Habitat within the Naosap-Reed Range ....................................... 6.9D-15
Table 6.9D-20: Intersection of Human Footprint on Primary Modeled Winter and Summer
High Quality Habitat within the Norway House Range ...................................... 6.9D-16
Table 6.9D-21: Intersection of Human Footprint on Primary Modeled Winter and Summer
High Quality Habitat within the Charron Lake Range ........................................ 6.9D-17
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.9D
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.9D
DECEMBER 2015 6.9D-2
Table 6.9D-3: Linear Features Intersecting the Wheadon Range
Feature Type Linear Feature
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
Limited-use Road 419.42
0.045
Railway 42.52
0.005
Road 114.36
0.012
Transmission Line 204.39
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
Feature Type Linear Feature
Length (km) Wabowden Range
Area (km2) Linear Feature
Density (km/km2)
Ditch 88.17
0.011
Highway 266.34
0.032
Limited-use Road 1137.62
0.136
Railway 128.45
0.015
Road 126.58
0.015
Transmission Line 511.61
0.061
Winter Road 433.05
0.052
Total 2691.82 8343.13 0.323
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.9D
DECEMBER 2015 6.9D-3
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
Limited-use Road 89.76
0.027
Road 44.46
0.013
Transmission Line 186.39
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
Feature Type Linear Feature
Length (km) Naosap-Reed Range
Area (km2) Linear Feature
Density (km/ km2)
Ditch 42.45
0.004
Highway 302.40
0.031
Limited-use Road 840.38
0.087
Railway 274.50
0.028
Road 570.66
0.059
Transmission Line 607.22
0.063
Winter Road 245.61
0.025
Total 2883.23 9665.45 0.298
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.9D
DECEMBER 2015 6.9D-4
Table 6.9D-7: Linear Features Intersecting the Norway House Range
Feature Type Linear Feature
Length (km) Norway House
Range Area (km2) Linear Feature
Density (km/ km2)
Ditch 20.48
0.0009
Highway 95.74
0.004
Limited-use Road 137.45
0.006
Road 155.27
0.007
Transmission Line 52.73
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
Feature Type Linear Feature
Length (km) Charron Lake
Range Area (km2) Linear Feature
Density (km/ km2)
Winter Road 52.29
Total 52.29 18878.63 0.003
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.9D
DECEMBER 2015 6.9D-5
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 Density (km/km2)
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.9D
DECEMBER 2015 6.9D-6
Table 6.9D-10: Linear Feature Intersect (km) and Linear Densities (km2) Within the Wapisu-
Wimapedi Winter and Summer Core Use Areas
Feature Type
Winter Core Use Areas Summer Core Use Area
Linear Feature Intersect (km)
Linear Feature Density (km/km2)
Linear Feature Length (km)
Linear Feature Density(km/km2)
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
Transmission Line 9.47 0.03 1.61 0.00
Winter road 11.42 0.03 17.83 0.03
Range Area 58.79 0.17 26.20 0.05
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.9D
DECEMBER 2015 6.9D-7
Table 6.9D-11: Linear Feature Intersect (km) and Linear Densities (km2) Within the Wheadon
Winter and Summer Core Use Areas
Feature Type
Winter Core Use Areas Summer Core Use Area
Linear Feature Intersect (km)
Linear Feature Density (km/km2)
Linear Feature Length (km)
Linear Feature Density(km/km2)
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
Transmission Line 0.00 0.00 38.03 0.05
Winter road 0.00 0.00 1.09 0.00
Range Area 0.00 0.00 60.98 0.09
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.9D
DECEMBER 2015 6.9D-8
Table 6.9D-12: Linear Feature Intersect (km) and Linear Densities (km2) Within the Wabowden
Winter and Summer Core Use Areas
Feature Type
Winter Core Use Areas Summer Core Use Area
Linear Feature Intersect (km)
Linear Feature Density (km/km2)
Linear Feature Length (km)
Linear Feature Density(km/km2)
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
Transmission Line 9.47 0.03 1.61 0.00
Winter road 11.42 0.03 17.83 0.03
Range Area 58.79 0.17 26.20 0.05
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.9D
DECEMBER 2015 6.9D-9
Table 6.9D-13: Linear Feature Intersect (km) and Linear Densities (km2) Within the Charron
Lake Winter and Summer Core Use Areas
Feature Type
Winter Core Use Areas Summer Core Use Area
Linear Feature Intersect (km)
Linear Feature Density (km/km2)
Linear Feature Length (km)
Linear Feature Density(km/km2)
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
Transmission Line 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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.9D
DECEMBER 2015 6.9D-10
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
Linear Feature Length (km)
Linear Feature Density (km/km2)
Linear Feature Length (km)
Linear Feature Density (km/km2)
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
Transmission Line 48.2 0.57 77.2 0.57
Winter road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 191.60 1.92 436.58 2.16
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.9D
DECEMBER 2015 6.9D-11
Table 6.9D-15: Intersection of Human Footprint on Primary Modeled Winter and Summer High
Quality Habitat within the Wapisu-Wimapedi Range
Feature Type
Summer Habitat Winter Habitat
Linear Feature Length (km)
Linear Feature Density (km/km2)
Linear Feature Length (km)
Linear Feature Density (km/km2)
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
Transmission Line 22.84 0.02 46.78 0.03
Winter road 19.87 0.02 16.50 0.01
Total 84.59 0.08 177.87 0.10
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.9D
DECEMBER 2015 6.9D-12
Table 6.9D-16: Intersection of Human Footprint on Primary Modeled Winter and Summer High
Quality Habitat within the Wheadon Range
Feature Type
Summer Habitat Winter Habitat
Linear Feature Length (km)
Linear Feature Density (km/km2)
Linear Feature Length (km)
Linear Feature Density (km/km2)
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
Transmission Line 13.08 0.03 22.20 0.02
Winter road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 14.25 0.04 23.50 0.03
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.9D
DECEMBER 2015 6.9D-13
Table 6.9D-17: Intersection of Human Footprint on Primary Modeled Winter and Summer High
Quality Habitat within the Wabowden Range
Feature Type
Summer Habitat Winter Habitat
Linear Feature Length (km)
Linear Feature Density (km/km2)
Linear Feature Length (km)
Linear Feature Density (km/km2)
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.9D
DECEMBER 2015 6.9D-14
Table 6.9D-18: Intersection of Human Footprint on Primary Modeled Winter and Summer High
Quality Habitat within the William Lake Range
Feature Type
Summer Habitat Winter Habitat
Linear Feature Length (km)
Linear Feature Density (km/km2)
Linear Feature Length (km)
Linear Feature Density (km/km2)
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
Transmission Line 9.54 0.01 21.40 0.02
Winter road 39.14 0.03 22.11 0.02
Total 66.36 0.05 57.61 0.06
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.9D
DECEMBER 2015 6.9D-15
Table 6.9D-19: Intersection of Human Footprint on Primary Modeled Winter and Summer High
Quality Habitat within the Naosap-Reed Range
Feature Type
Summer Habitat Winter Habitat
Linear Feature Length (km)
Linear Feature Density (km/km2)
Linear Feature Length (km)
Linear Feature Density (km/km2)
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
Transmission Line 23.37 0.02 60.78 0.03
Winter road 45.20 0.04 70.30 0.04
Total 100.75 0.09 215.02 0.10
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.9D
DECEMBER 2015 6.9D-16
Table 6.9D-20: Intersection of Human Footprint on Primary Modeled Winter and Summer High
Quality Habitat within the Norway House Range
Feature Type
Summer Habitat Winter Habitat
Linear Feature Length (km)
Linear Feature Density (km/km2)
Linear Feature Length (km)
Linear Feature Density (km/km2)
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
Transmission Line 18.77 0.01 18.50 0.01
Winter road 76.51 0.03 83.10 0.03
Total 201.99 0.08 207.50 0.09
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU – APPENDIX 6.9D
DECEMBER 2015 6.9D-17
Table 6.9D-21: Intersection of Human Footprint on Primary Modeled Winter and Summer High
Quality Habitat within the Charron Lake Range
Feature Type
Summer Habitat Winter Habitat
Linear Feature Length (km)
Linear Feature Density (km/km2)
Linear Feature Length (km)
Linear Feature Density (km/km2)
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
Transmission Line 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 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10A
DECEMBER 2015 6.10A-1
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.
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10A
DECEMBER 2015 6.10A-2
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10A
DECEMBER 2015 6.10A-3
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10A
DECEMBER 2015 6.10A-4
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10A
DECEMBER 2015 6.10A-5
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 = >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
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10A
DECEMBER 2015 6.10A-6
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 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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10A
DECEMBER 2015 6.10A-7
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.
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10A
DECEMBER 2015 6.10A-8
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
uci Unknown - Cannot be determined from photo/imagery
unt Unknown - Outside of the area that was typed
Shoreline Debris
h,c heavy heavy, more than 75% of segment has debris
h,m heavy heavy, 26%-74% of segment has debris
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10A
DECEMBER 2015 6.10A-9
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
uci Unknown - Cannot be determined from photo/imagery
unt Unknown - Outside of the area that was typed
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.
uci Unknown - Cannot be determined from photo/imagery
unt Unknown - Outside of the area that was typed
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10A
DECEMBER 2015 6.10A-10
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10A
DECEMBER 2015 6.10A-11
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10A
DECEMBER 2015 6.10A-12
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-I
Appendix Tables Page
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-1
Table 6.10B.2-1: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Paint Terrestrial
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-2
Table 6.10B.2-1: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Paint Terrestrial
Region
Moose Habitat Quality
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-3
Table 6.10B.2-2: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Wuskwatim
Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Type Age
6 to 30 Quantity
in 2013 (ha) Percent
Total
Primary Black spruce mixedwood on mineral or thin peatland EITHER 26,307 2.6
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
Broadleaf mixedwood on all ecosites EITHER 44,974 4.5
Broadleaf on all ecosites EITHER 0.0
Broadleaf treed on all ecosites EITHER 17,453 1.7
Marsh EITHER 50,410 5.0
Tall shrub on mineral or thin peatland EITHER 7060 0.7
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 mineral soil YES 9395 0.9
Black spruce treed on shallow peatland YES 16,651 1.7
Black spruce treed on thin peatland YES 9193 0.9
Black spruce treed on wet peatland YES 1055 0.1
Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peatland YES 27,811 2.8
Jack pine treed on outcrop YES 16,437 1.6
Jack pine treed on shallow peatland YES 1 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 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 shallow peatland YES 1024 0.1
Tamarack treed on wet peatland YES 408 0.0
White spruce treed on mineral YES 37 0.0
Young Regeneration YES 145 0.0
Subtotal 291,509 29.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-4
Table 6.10B.2-2: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Wuskwatim
Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Type Age
6 to 30 Quantity
in 2013 (ha) Percent
Total
Secondary Low vegetation on mineral or thin peatland EITHER 882 0.1
Low vegetation on outcrop EITHER 63 0.0
Low vegetation on riparian peatland EITHER 7559 0.8
Low vegetation on shallow peatland EITHER 79 0.0
Low vegetation on wet peatland EITHER 81,489 8.1
Small Island EITHER 345 0.0
Balsam fir treed on mineral soil NO 252 0.0
Black spruce dominant on outcrop NO 2357 0.2
Black spruce mixture on outcrop NO 18,687 1.9
Black spruce treed on mineral soil NO 127,021 12.7
Black spruce treed on shallow peatland NO 221,571 22.1
Black spruce treed on thin peatland NO 58,227 5.8
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 mineral or thin peatland NO 82,379 8.2
Jack pine treed on outcrop NO 12,592 1.3
Jack pine treed on shallow peatland NO 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 58 0.0
Tamarack- black spruce mixture on riparian peatland NO 2216 0.2
Tamarack- black spruce mixture on wet peatland NO 149,698 14.9
Tamarack treed on mineral NO 7 0.0
Tamarack treed on shallow peatland NO 1124 0.1
Tamarack treed on wet peatland NO 7391 0.7
White spruce mixture on shallow peatland NO 27 0.0
White spruce treed on mineral NO 1676 0.2
Young Regeneration NO 405 0.0
Subtotal 803,226 71.0
Total 1,094,736 100.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-5
Table 6.10B.2-3: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Rat Terrestrial
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 25,458 2.8
Black spruce mixedwood on outcrop EITHER 2381 0.3
Black spruce mixedwood on shallow peatland EITHER 20 0.0
Black spruce mixedwood on wet peatland EITHER 91 0.0
Broadleaf mixedwood on all ecosites EITHER 51,179 5.6
Broadleaf on all ecosites EITHER 0.0
Broadleaf treed on all ecosites EITHER 19,049 2.1
Marsh EITHER 41,045 4.5
Tall shrub on mineral or thin peatland EITHER 1023 0.1
Tall shrub on outcrop EITHER 422 0.1
Tall shrub on riparian peatland EITHER 3533 0.4
Tall shrub on shallow peatland EITHER 1309 0.1
Tall shrub on wet peatland EITHER 8 0.0
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
Black spruce treed on shallow peatland YES 85,829 9.4
Black spruce treed on thin peatland YES 62,046 6.8
Black spruce treed on wet peatland YES 509 0.1
Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peatland YES 78,576 8.6
Jack pine treed on outcrop YES 1662 0.2
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 38 0.0
Tamarack- black spruce mixture on wet peatland YES 4315 0.5
Tamarack treed on mineral YES 0.0
Tamarack treed on shallow peatland YES 56 0.0
Tamarack treed on wet peatland YES 95 0.0
White spruce treed on mineral YES 53 0.0
Young Regeneration YES 1951 0.2
Subtotal 464,138 51.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-6
Table 6.10B.2-3: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Rat Terrestrial
Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age
6 to 30
Quantity in 2013
(ha)
Percent Total
Secondary Low vegetation on mineral or thin peatland EITHER 925 0.1
Low vegetation on outcrop EITHER 0.1
Low vegetation on riparian peatland EITHER 1692 0.0
Low vegetation on shallow peatland EITHER 20 0.2
Low vegetation on wet peatland EITHER 10,166 0.0
Small Island EITHER 819 1.1
Balsam fir treed on mineral soil NO 50 0.1
Black spruce dominant on outcrop NO 659 0.0
Black spruce mixture on outcrop NO 6,977 0.1
Black spruce treed on mineral soil NO 101,683 0.8
Black spruce treed on shallow peatland NO 109,964 11.2
Black spruce treed on thin peatland NO 74,252 12.1
Black spruce treed on wet peatland NO 913 8.2
Eastern cedar treed on mineral soil NO 0.1
Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peatland NO 141,402 0.0
Jack pine treed on outcrop NO 661 15.5
Jack pine treed on shallow peatland NO 0.1
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 7924 0.9
Tamarack treed on mineral NO 2 0.0
Tamarack treed on shallow peatland NO 69 0.0
Tamarack treed on wet peatland NO 136 0.0
White spruce mixture on shallow peatland NO 0.0
White spruce treed on mineral NO 1421 0.2
Young Regeneration NO 235 0.0
Subtotal 446,351 49.8
Grand Total 889,024 100.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-7
Table 6.10B.2-4: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Baldock Terrestrial
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 0.0
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 0.0
Broadleaf on all ecosites EITHER 16,770 1.9
Broadleaf treed on all ecosites EITHER 0.0
Marsh EITHER 6,139 0.7
Tall shrub on mineral or thin peatland EITHER 0.0
Tall shrub on outcrop EITHER 0.0
Tall shrub on riparian peatland EITHER 2,001 0.2
Tall shrub on shallow peatland EITHER 0.0
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 0.0
Black spruce treed on shallow peatland YES 0.0
Black spruce treed on thin peatland YES 0.0
Black spruce treed on wet peatland YES 0.0
Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peatland YES 0.0
Jack pine treed on outcrop YES 0.0
Jack pine treed on shallow peatland 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 mineral or thin peatland YES 0.0
Tamarack- black spruce mixture on wet peatland YES 0.0
Tamarack treed on mineral YES 0.0
Tamarack treed on shallow peatland YES 0.0
Tamarack treed on wet peatland YES 0.0
White spruce treed on mineral YES 0.0
Young Regeneration YES 0.0
Subtotal 415,591 46.2
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-8
Table 6.10B.2-4: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Baldock Terrestrial
Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age
6 to 30 Quantity
in 2013 (ha) Percent
Total
Secondary Low vegetation on mineral or thin peatland EITHER 108 0.0
Low vegetation on outcrop EITHER 0.0
Low vegetation on riparian peatland EITHER 0.0
Low vegetation on shallow peatland EITHER 0.0
Low vegetation on wet peatland EITHER 23,876 2.7
Small Island EITHER 10 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
Eastern cedar treed on mineral soil NO 0.0
Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peatland NO 0.0
Jack pine treed on outcrop NO 0.0
Jack pine treed on shallow peatland 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 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 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 mixture on shallow peatland NO 0.0
White spruce treed on mineral NO 0.0
Young Regeneration NO 0.0
Subtotal 483,433 53.77
Grand Total 899,024 100.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-9
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
Western Boreal Shield Ecozone 40219 3902 14616 58737 2.3
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
Western Boreal Shield Ecozone 63749 6185 23167 93101 2.3
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-10
Table 6.10B.2-6: Change in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Paint Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-11
Table 6.10B.2-7: Change in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Wuskwatim Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
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 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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-12
Table 6.10B.2-8: Change in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Rat Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
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 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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-13
Table 6.10B.2-9: Change in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Baldock Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
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 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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-14
Table 6.10B.2-10: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat Affected in the Paint Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Offshore Wetland Habitat Class 1
Before Hydroelectric Development (km)
After Hydroelectric Development (km)
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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-15
Table 6.10B.2-11: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat Affected in the Wuskwatim Terrestrial
Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Offshore Wetland Habitat Class 1
Before Hydroelectric Development (km)
After Hydroelectric Development (km)
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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-16
Table 6.10B.2-12: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat Affected in the Rat Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Offshore Wetland Habitat Class 1
Before Hydroelectric Development (km)
After Hydroelectric Development (km)
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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-17
Table 6.10B.2-13: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat Affected in the Baldock Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Offshore Wetland Habitat Class 1
Before Hydroelectric Development (km)
After Hydroelectric Development (km)
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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-18
Table 6.10B.2-14: Change in Shoreline Debris Levels in the Paint Terrestrial Region
Shoreline Access
Shoreline Debris Habitat Class1
Before Hydroelectric Development (km)
After Hydroelectric Development (km)
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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-19
Table 6.10B.2-15: Change in Shoreline Debris Levels in the Wuskwatim Terrestrial Region
Shoreline Access
Shoreline Debris Habitat Class1
Before Hydroelectric Development (km)
After Hydroelectric Development (km)
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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-20
Table 6.10B.2-16: Change in Shoreline Debris Levels in the Baldock Terrestrial Region
Shoreline Access
Shoreline Debris Habitat Class 1
Before Hydroelectric Development (km)
After Hydroelectric Development (km)
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
Subtotal 0 0.0 2 0.2
Grand Total 102 100.0 1177 100.0
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-21
Table 6.10B.3-1: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Keeyask Terrestrial
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 2854 0.5
Black spruce mixedwood on shallow peatland EITHER 50 0.0
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
Tall shrub on mineral or thin peatland EITHER 315 0.1
Tall shrub on riparian peatland EITHER 3992 0.7
Tall shrub on shallow peatland EITHER 562 0.1
Tall shrub on wet peatland EITHER 213 0.0
Balsam fir treed on mineral soil YES 0.0
Black spruce treed on mineral soil YES 4166 0.7
Black spruce treed on riparian peatland YES 90 0.0
Black spruce treed on shallow peatland YES 69,375 12.4
Black spruce treed on thin peatland YES 20,044 3.6
Black spruce treed on wet peatland YES 169 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- black spruce mixture on wet peatland YES 1792 0.3
Tamarack treed on riparian peatland YES 1 0.0
Tamarack treed on shallow peatland YES 71 0.0
Tamarack treed on wet peatland YES 6 0.0
White spruce treed on mineral YES 0.0
Young Regeneration YES 0.0
Young regeneration on mineral or thin peatland YES 468 0.1
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-22
Table 6.10B.3-1: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Keeyask Terrestrial
Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to
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
Secondary Low vegetation on mineral or thin peatland EITHER 7527 1.3
Low vegetation on riparian peatland EITHER 3011 0.5
Low vegetation on shallow peatland EITHER 11371 2.0
Low vegetation on wet peatland EITHER 9820 1.8
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 20,317 3.6
Black spruce treed on riparian peatland NO 998 0.2
Black spruce treed on shallow peatland NO 273,941 49.0
Black spruce treed on thin peatland NO 79,643 14.2
Black spruce treed on wet peatland NO 3271 0.6
Jack pine mixedwood on mineral or thin peatland NO 208 0.0
Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peatland NO 8121 1.5
Jack pine treed on shallow peatland NO 23 0.0
Tamarack- black spruce mixture on mineral or thin peatland
NO 124 0.0
Tamarack- black spruce mixture on riparian peatland NO 50 0.0
Tamarack- black spruce mixture on wet peatland NO 11,107 2.0
Tamarack treed on riparian peatland NO 9 0.0
Tamarack treed on shallow peatland NO 771 0.1
Tamarack treed on wet peatland NO 256 0.0
White spruce treed on mineral NO 38 0.0
Young Regeneration NO 0.0
Subtotal 751,296 77.0
Grand Total 980,825 100.00
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-23
Table 6.10B.3-2: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Dafoe Terrestrial
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 9613 0.8
Black spruce mixedwood on shallow peatland EITHER 0.0
Broadleaf mixedwood on all ecosites EITHER 12,908 1.1
Broadleaf treed on all ecosites EITHER 6958 0.6
Marsh EITHER 9044 0.7
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
Tall shrub on mineral or thin peatland EITHER 0.0
Tall shrub on riparian peatland EITHER 8776 0.7
Tall shrub on shallow peatland EITHER 0.0
Tall shrub on wet peatland EITHER 0.0
Balsam fir treed on mineral soil YES 0.0
Black spruce treed on mineral soil YES 33,621 2.8
Black spruce treed on riparian peatland YES 0.0
Black spruce treed on shallow peatland YES 200,095 16.5
Black spruce treed on thin peatland YES 60,685 5.0
Black spruce treed on wet peatland YES 0.0
Jack pine mixedwood on mineral or thin peatland YES 0.0
Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peatland YES 46,430 3.8
Jack pine treed on shallow peatland YES 0.0
Tamarack- black spruce mixture on mineral or thin peatland
YES 0.0
Tamarack- black spruce mixture on riparian peatland YES 0.0
Tamarack- black spruce mixture on wet peatland YES 1789 0.1
Tamarack treed on riparian peatland YES 0.0
Tamarack treed on shallow peatland YES 12 0.0
Tamarack treed on wet peatland YES 0.0
White spruce treed on mineral YES 78 0.0
Young Regeneration YES 662 0.1
Young regeneration on mineral or thin peatland YES 0.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-24
Table 6.10B.3-2: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Dafoe Terrestrial
Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to 30
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
Secondary Low vegetation on mineral or thin peatland EITHER 41 0.0
Low vegetation on riparian peatland EITHER 0.0
Low vegetation on shallow peatland EITHER 0.0
Low vegetation on wet peatland EITHER 27,057 2.2
Balsam fir treed on mineral soil NO 32 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 37,473 3.1
Black spruce treed on riparian peatland NO 0.0
Black spruce treed on shallow peatland NO 514,710 42.6
Black spruce treed on thin peatland NO 156,358 12.9
Black spruce treed on wet peatland NO 0.0
Jack pine mixedwood on mineral or thin peatland NO 15 0.0
Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peatland NO 741,11 6.1
Jack pine treed on shallow peatland NO 6 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 7700 0.6
Tamarack treed on riparian peatland NO 0.0
Tamarack treed on shallow peatland NO 134 0.0
Tamarack treed on wet peatland NO 0.0
White spruce treed on mineral NO 1006 0.1
Young Regeneration NO 50 0.0
Subtotal 818,694 67.7
Grand Total 1,209,365 100.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-25
Table 6.10B.3-3: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Upper Nelson
Terrestrial 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 25,454 2.1
Black spruce mixedwood on shallow peatland EITHER 0.0
Broadleaf mixedwood on all ecosites EITHER 51,290 4.3
Broadleaf treed on all ecosites EITHER 31,519 2.6
Marsh EITHER 45,128 3.8
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
Tall shrub on mineral or thin peatland EITHER 7 0.0
Tall shrub on riparian peatland EITHER 17,535 1.5
Tall shrub on shallow peatland EITHER 25 0.0
Tall shrub on wet peatland EITHER 0.0
Balsam fir treed on mineral soil YES 63 0.0
Black spruce treed on mineral soil YES 19,447 1.6
Black spruce treed on riparian peatland YES 0.0
Black spruce treed on shallow peatland YES 81,111 6.8
Black spruce treed on thin peatland YES 23,183 1.9
Black spruce treed on wet peatland YES 0.0
Jack pine mixedwood on mineral or thin peatland YES 0.0
Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peatland YES 29,569 2.5
Jack pine treed on shallow peatland YES 0.0
Tamarack- black spruce mixture on mineral or thin peatland YES 0.0
Tamarack- black spruce mixture on riparian peatland YES 0.0
Tamarack- black spruce mixture on wet peatland YES 7466 0.6
Tamarack treed on riparian peatland YES 0.0
Tamarack treed on shallow peatland YES 36 0.0
Tamarack treed on wet peatland YES 0.0
White spruce treed on mineral YES 2230 0.2
Young Regeneration YES 882 0.1
Young regeneration on mineral or thin peatland YES 0.0
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 334,944 27.9
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-26
Table 6.10B.3-3: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Upper Nelson
Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to 30 Quantity in 2013 (ha)
Percent Total
Secondary Low vegetation on mineral or thin peatland EITHER 446 0.0
Low vegetation on riparian peatland EITHER 87 0.0
Low vegetation on shallow peatland EITHER 0.0
Low vegetation on wet peatland EITHER 573,52 4.8
Balsam fir treed on mineral soil NO 471 0.0
Black spruce dominant on outcrop NO 4 0.0
Black spruce mixture on outcrop NO 15 0.0
Black spruce treed on mineral soil NO 78,028 6.5
Black spruce treed on riparian peatland NO 0.0
Black spruce treed on shallow peatland NO 361,864 30.1
Black spruce treed on thin peatland NO 91,483 7.6
Black spruce treed on wet peatland NO 26 0.0
Jack pine mixedwood on mineral or thin peatland NO 16 0.0
Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peatland NO 93,142 7.8
Jack pine treed on shallow peatland NO 10 0.0
Tamarack- black spruce mixture on mineral or thin peatland NO 2 0.0
Tamarack- black spruce mixture on riparian peatland NO 0.0
Tamarack- black spruce mixture on wet peatland NO 169,437 14.1
Tamarack treed on riparian peatland NO 0.0
Tamarack treed on shallow peatland NO 2872 0.2
Tamarack treed on wet peatland NO 32 0.0
White spruce treed on mineral NO 10,549 0.9
Young Regeneration NO 79 0.0
Subtotal 865,917 72.1
Grand Total 1,209,365 100.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-27
Table 6.10B.3-4: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Molson Terrestrial
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 4847 0.4
Black spruce mixedwood on shallow peatland EITHER 3 0.0
Broadleaf mixedwood on all ecosites EITHER 10,334 0.8
Broadleaf treed on all ecosites EITHER 7524 0.6
Marsh EITHER 2170 0.2
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
Tall shrub on mineral or thin peatland EITHER 0.0
Tall shrub on riparian peatland EITHER 8085 0.6
Tall shrub on shallow peatland EITHER 0.0
Tall shrub on wet peatland EITHER 0.0
Balsam fir treed on mineral soil YES 3 0.0
Black spruce treed on mineral soil YES 96,923 7.4
Black spruce treed on riparian peatland YES 0.0
Black spruce treed on shallow peatland YES 196,938 15.1
Black spruce treed on thin peatland YES 29,529 2.3
Black spruce treed on wet peatland YES 0.0
Jack pine mixedwood on mineral or thin peatland YES 0.0
Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peatland YES 140,079 10.8
Jack pine treed on shallow peatland YES 0.0
Tamarack- black spruce mixture on mineral or thin peatland YES 0.0
Tamarack- black spruce mixture on riparian peatland YES 0.0
Tamarack- black spruce mixture on wet peatland YES 2842 0.2
Tamarack treed on riparian peatland YES 0.0
Tamarack treed on shallow peatland YES 50 0.0
Tamarack treed on wet peatland YES 0.0
White spruce treed on mineral YES 1200 0.1
Young Regeneration YES 751 0.1
Young regeneration on mineral or thin peatland YES 0.0
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 501,279 38.5
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-28
Table 6.10B.3-4: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Molson Terrestrial
Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to 30 Quantity in 2013 (ha)
Percent Total
Secondary Low vegetation on mineral or thin peatland EITHER 1 0.0
Low vegetation on riparian peatland EITHER 0.0
Low vegetation on shallow peatland EITHER 0.0
Low vegetation on wet peatland EITHER 59,316 4.6
Balsam fir treed on mineral soil NO 119 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 109,905 8.4
Black spruce treed on riparian peatland NO 0.0
Black spruce treed on shallow peatland NO 398,669 30.6
Black spruce treed on thin peatland NO 37,301 2.9
Black spruce treed on wet peatland NO 0.0
Jack pine mixedwood on mineral or thin peatland NO 0.0
Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peatland NO 157,350 12.1
Jack pine treed on shallow peatland NO 4 0.0
Tamarack- black spruce mixture on mineral or thin peatland NO 4 0.0
Tamarack- black spruce mixture on riparian peatland NO 0.0
Tamarack- black spruce mixture on wet peatland NO 35,843 2.8
Tamarack treed on riparian peatland NO 0.0
Tamarack treed on shallow peatland NO 507 0.0
Tamarack treed on wet peatland NO 0.0
White spruce treed on mineral NO 2448 0.2
Young Regeneration NO 129 0.0
Subtotal 801,595 61.5
Grand Total 1,302,874 100.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-29
Table 6.10B.3-5: Amount of Moose Habitat Lost to Anthropogenic Development in the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone
Moose Habitat Quality
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 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
Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone
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
Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone
51088 12359 8274 71721 1.5
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-30
Table 6.10B.3-6: Change in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Keeyask Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
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 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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-31
Table 6.10B.3-7: Change in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
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 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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-32
Table 6.10B.3-7: Change in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Shore Zone Wetland Habitat Class 1
Before Hydroelectric Development (km)
After Hydroelectric Development (km)
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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-33
Table 6.10B.3-8: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat in the Keeyask Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Offshore Wetland Habitat Class 1
Before Hydroelectric Development (km)
After Hydroelectric Development (km)
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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-34
Table 6.10B.3-9: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat in the Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Offshore Wetland Habitat Class 1
Before Hydroelectric Development (km)
After Hydroelectric Development (km)
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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-35
Table 6.10B.3-10: Change in Shoreline Debris Levels in the Keeyask Terrestrial Region
Shoreline Access
Shoreline Debris Habitat Class1
Before Hydroelectric Development (km)
After Hydroelectric Development (km)
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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-36
Table 6.10B.3-11: Change in Shoreline Debris Levels in the Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region
Shoreline Access
Shoreline Debris Habitat Class1
Before Hydroelectric Development (km)
After Hydroelectric Development (km)
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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-37
Table 6.10B.3-12: Change in Tall Shrub Density in the Keeyask Terrestrial Region
Shrub Density Tall Shrub Habitat Class 1
Before Hydroelectric Development (km)
After Hydroelectric Development (km)
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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-38
Table 6.10B.3-13: Change in Tall Shrub Density in the Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region
Shrub Density Tall Shrub Habitat Class1
Before Hydroelectric Development (km)
After Hydroelectric Development (km)
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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-39
Table 6.10B.4-1: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the William Terrestrial
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 20 0.2
Black spruce mixedwood on shallow peatland
EITHER 0 0.0
Broadleaf mixedwood on all ecosites EITHER 110 1.3
Broadleaf treed on all ecosites EITHER 78 0.9
Marsh EITHER 76 0.9
Tall shrub on mineral or thin peatland EITHER 3 0.0
Tall shrub on riparian peatland EITHER 87 1.0
Tall shrub on shallow peatland EITHER 23 0.3
Tall shrub on wet peatland EITHER 0 0.0
Black spruce treed on mineral soil YES 47 0.6
Black spruce treed on shallow peatland YES 867 10.4
Black spruce treed on thin peatland YES 27 0.3
Black spruce treed on wet peatland YES 1 0.0
Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peatland YES 611 7.3
Jack pine treed on outcrop YES 1 0.0
Tamarack- black spruce mixture on mineral or thin peatland
YES 0 0.0
Tamarack- black spruce mixture on wet peatland
YES 195 2.3
Tamarack treed on mineral YES 0 0.0
Tamarack treed on shallow peatland YES 4 0.0
Tamarack treed on wet peatland YES 0 0.0
White spruce treed on mineral YES 1 0.0
Young Regeneration YES 6 0.1
Subtotal 2151 25.7
Secondary Low vegetation on mineral or thin peatland EITHER 10 0.1
Low vegetation on riparian peatland EITHER 3 0.0
Low vegetation on shallow peatland EITHER 0 0.0
Low vegetation on wet peatland EITHER 842 10.1
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-40
Table 6.10B.4-1: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the William Terrestrial
Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to
30
Quantity in 2013
(ha
Percent Total
Secondary small island EITHER 0 0.0
Balsam fir treed on mineral soil NO 1 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
Black spruce treed on wet peatland NO 32 0.4
Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peatland NO 738 8.8
Jack pine treed on outcrop NO 0 0.0
Jack pine treed on shallow peatland NO 0 0.0
Tamarack- black spruce mixture on mineral or thin peatland
NO 1 0.0
Tamarack- black spruce mixture on wet peatland
NO 1383 16.6
Tamarack treed on mineral NO 0 0.0
Tamarack treed on shallow peatland NO 27 0.3
Tamarack treed on wet peatland NO 17 0.2
White spruce treed on mineral NO 33 0.4
Subtotal 6194 74.2
Grand Total 8345 100.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-41
Table 6.10B.5-1: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Bradshaw Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-42
Table 6.10B.5-1: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Bradshaw Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-43
Table 6.10B.5-1: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Bradshaw Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to
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
Closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often found around waterbodies.
NO 31541 2.1
Closed needleleaf treed on shallow to thin or wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine or tamarack.
NO 0 0.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-44
Table 6.10B.5-1: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Bradshaw Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to
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
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 26783 1.8
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
NO 1842 0.1
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.
NO 2010 0.1
Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow peatland. Tree canopy jack pine and/or black spruce.
NO 72869 4.8
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.
NO 41735 2.8
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Includes some marsh.
NO 2412 0.2
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often intermediate age fire origin.
NO 3612 0.2
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often recently burned.
NO 4393 0.3
Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with lichen-bedrock understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 274598 18.1
Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 3507 0.2
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-45
Table 6.10B.5-1: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Bradshaw Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to
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
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with shrub-moss understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 96393 6.4
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable tamarack.
NO 46266 3.1
Open to semi-closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
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
Semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with lichen-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 128691 8.5
Semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with moss-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 16391 1.1
Sparse needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with herb-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 20403 1.3
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.
NO 66809 4.4
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-46
Table 6.10B.5-1: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Bradshaw Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to
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
Subtotal 921217 60.7
Total 1,518,948.64 100.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-47
Table 6.10B.5-2: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to 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 4 0.0
Marsh. Considerable proportions of water and black spruce treed on thin peatland. Common near shorelines.
EITHER 390 0.0
Mix of water and black spruce treed on shallow to thin peatland. Almost all is north of the Region of Interest.
EITHER 1199 0.1
Mix of water, marsh and black spruce treed on thin peatland. Considerable proportion is islands.
EITHER 1114 0.1
Closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often found around waterbodies.
YES 12047 0.8
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 225 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 31 0.0
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 13050 0.9
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 414 0.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-48
Table 6.10B.5-2: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to 30 Quantity in
2013 Percent
Total
Primary Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow peatland. Tree canopy jack pine and/or black spruce.
YES 18924 1.3
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 92922 6.2
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Includes some marsh.
YES 649 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 251282 16.8
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often recently burned.
YES 76841 5.1
Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with lichen-bedrock understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 126992 8.5
Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 605 0.0
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 5308 0.4
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with shrub-moss understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 17445 1.2
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable tamarack.
YES 9458 0.6
Open to semi-closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 55625 3.7
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-49
Table 6.10B.5-2: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to 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 6 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 60757 4.1
Semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with moss-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 4467 0.3
Sparse needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with herb-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 26863 1.8
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 14434 1.0
Young regenerating, semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 120 0.0
Subtotal 791172 52.9
Secondary Lichen-sedges, moss low shrub wetland. Almost all is near the Hudson Bay coast
EITHER 0 0.0
Polar grassland, herb-shrub EITHER 58 0.0
Closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often found around waterbodies.
NO 55901 3.7
Closed needleleaf treed on shallow to thin or wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine or tamarack.
NO 225 0.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-50
Table 6.10B.5-2: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to 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 278 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.
NO 10 0.0
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
NO 2883 0.2
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.
NO 0 0.0
Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow peatland. Tree canopy jack pine and/or black spruce.
NO 3352 0.2
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.
NO 14385 1.0
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Includes some marsh.
NO 8413 0.6
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often intermediate age fire origin.
NO 4049 0.3
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often recently burned.
NO 8012 0.5
Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with lichen-bedrock understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 98820 6.6
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-51
Table 6.10B.5-2: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to 30 Quantity in
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
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 632 0.0
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with shrub-moss understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 121039 8.1
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable tamarack.
NO 66391 4.4
Open to semi-closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 98594 6.6
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 75 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.
NO 146912 9.8
Semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with moss-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 36416 2.4
Sparse needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with herb-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 3539 0.2
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.
NO 33924 2.3
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-52
Table 6.10B.5-2: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to 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 150 0.0
Subtotal 704606 47.1
Total 1,495,778 100.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-53
Table 6.10B.5-3: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Southern Indian Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to 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 25 0.0
Marsh. Considerable proportions of water and black spruce treed on thin peatland. Common near shorelines.
EITHER 16,360 1.2
Mix of water and black spruce treed on shallow to thin peatland. Almost all is north of the Region of Interest.
EITHER 891 0.1
Mix of water, marsh and black spruce treed on thin peatland. Considerable proportion is islands.
EITHER 7,589 0.6
Closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often found around waterbodies.
YES 15,599 1.2
Closed needleleaf treed on shallow to thin or wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine or tamarack.
YES 135 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 0 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 1,847 0.1
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 2,312 0.2
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 1,717 0.1
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-54
Table 6.10B.5-3: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Southern Indian Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to 30 Quantity in
2013 Percent
Total
Primary Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow peatland. Tree canopy jack pine and/or black spruce.
YES 6,599 0.5
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 66,020 4.9
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Includes some marsh.
YES 2,623 0.2
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often intermediate age fire origin.
YES 243,060 17.9
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often recently burned.
YES 5,488 0.4
Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with lichen-bedrock understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 57,319 4.2
Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 187 0.0
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 2,165 0.2
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with shrub-moss understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 24,560 1.8
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable tamarack.
YES 20,498 1.5
Open to semi-closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 64,532 4.7
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-55
Table 6.10B.5-3: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Southern Indian Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to 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 147 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 71,900 5.3
Semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with moss-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 19,537 1.4
Sparse needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with herb-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 120,975 8.9
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 38,197 2.8
Young regenerating, semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 1,578 0.1
Subtotal 791,861 58.2
Secondary Lichen-sedges, moss low shrub wetland. Almost all is near the Hudson Bay coast
EITHER 0 0.0
Polar grassland, herb-shrub EITHER 0 0.0
Closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often found around waterbodies.
NO 92,429 6.8
Closed needleleaf treed on shallow to thin or wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine or tamarack.
NO 1,282 0.1
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-56
Table 6.10B.5-3: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Southern Indian Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to 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 216 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.
NO 909 0.1
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
NO 1,762 0.1
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.
NO 7 0.0
Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow peatland. Tree canopy jack pine and/or black spruce.
NO 172 0.0
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.
NO 2,058 0.2
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Includes some marsh.
NO 14,366 1.1
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often intermediate age fire origin.
NO 1,897 0.1
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often recently burned.
NO 593 0.0
Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with lichen-bedrock understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 35,402 2.6
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-57
Table 6.10B.5-3: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Southern Indian Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to 30 Quantity in
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 0 0.0
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 0 0.0
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with shrub-moss understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 49,435 3.6
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable tamarack.
NO 68,807 5.1
Open to semi-closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 46,949 3.5
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 76 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.
NO 119,102 8.8
Semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with moss-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 105,742 7.8
Sparse needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with herb-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 6,190 0.5
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.
NO 21,487 1.6
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-58
Table 6.10B.5-3: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Southern Indian Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to 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 0 0.0
Subtotal 568,880 41.8
Total 1,360,741 100.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-59
Table 6.10B.5-4: Amount of Moose Habitat Los to Anthropogenic Disturbance in the Taiga Shield Ecozone
Moose Habitat Quality
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 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
Upper Churchill TR 0 27 1 28 <0.01
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
Upper Churchill TR 0 58 2 60 <0.01
Southern Indian TR 12,844 255 156 13,255 1.00
Taiga Shield Ecozone 12,844 574 199 13,617 0.32
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-60
Table 6.10B.5-5: Change in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Upper Churchill Terrestrial
Region
Moose Habitat Quality
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 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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-61
Table 6.10B.5-6: Change in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Upper Churchill Terrestrial
Region
Moose Habitat Quality
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 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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-62
Table 6.10B.5-7: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat in the Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Offshore Wetland Habitat Class1
Before Hydroelectric Development (km)
After Hydroelectric Development (km)
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-63
Table 6.10B.5-8: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat in the Southern Indian Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Offshore Wetland Habitat Class 1
Before Hydroelectric Development (km)
After Hydroelectric Development (km)
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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-64
Table 6.10B.5-9: Change in Shoreline Debris Levels in the Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region
Shoreline Access
Shoreline Debris Habitat Class 1
Before Hydroelectric Development (km)
After Hydroelectric Development (km)
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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
Table 6.10B.5-10: Change in Shoreline Debris Levels in the Southern Indian Terrestrial Region
Shoreline Access
Shoreline Debris Habitat Class1
Before Hydroelectric Development (km)
After Hydroelectric Development (km)
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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-65
Table 6.10B.5-11: Change in Tall Shrub Habitat in the Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region
Tall Shrub Density
Shoreline Debris Habitat Class1
Before Hydroelectric Development (km)
After Hydroelectric Development (km)
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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
Table 6.10B.5-12: Change in Tall Shrub Density in the Southern Indian Terrestrial Region
Tall Shrub Density
Tall Shrub Habitat Class 1
Before Hydroelectric Development (km)
After Hydroelectric Development (km)
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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-66
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
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 12 0.0
Marsh. Considerable proportions of water and black spruce treed on thin peatland. Common near shorelines.
EITHER 3267 0.4
Mix of water and black spruce treed on shallow to thin peatland. Almost all is north of the Region of Interest.
EITHER 176 0.0
Mix of water, marsh and black spruce treed on thin peatland. Considerable proportion is islands.
EITHER 27 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 1926 0.3
Closed needleleaf treed on shallow to thin or wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine or tamarack.
YES 185 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 4 0.0
Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peatland. Almost all is north of the Region of Interest
YES 26 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 216 0.0
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 2075 0.3
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 87 0.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-67
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
Primary Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow peatland. Tree canopy jack pine and/or black spruce.
YES 6591 0.9
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 44871 5.8
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Includes some marsh.
YES 683 0.1
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often intermediate age fire origin.
YES 1432 0.2
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often recently burned.
YES 54393 7.1
Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with lichen-bedrock understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 36971 4.8
Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 25 0.0
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 1376 0.2
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with shrub-moss understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 8547 1.1
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable tamarack.
YES 42241 5.5
Open to semi-closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 10980 1.4
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-68
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
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
Semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with lichen-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 15814 2.1
Semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with moss-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 1438 0.2
Sparse needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with herb-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 15899 2.1
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 21737 2.8
Young regenerating, semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 52 0.0
Subtotal 271050 35.1
Secondary Lichen-sedges, moss low shrub wetland. Almost all is near the Hudson Bay coast
EITHER 0.0
Polar grassland, herb-shrub EITHER 9 0.0
Closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often found around waterbodies.
NO 9105 1.2
Closed needleleaf treed on shallow to thin or wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine or tamarack.
NO 1655 0.2
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-69
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
Secondary Closed, young needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine and some aspen.
NO 601 0.1
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 3073 0.4
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
NO 659 0.1
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.
NO 130 0.0
Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow peatland. Tree canopy jack pine and/or black spruce.
NO 30147 3.9
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.
NO 3485 0.5
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Includes some marsh.
NO 10608 1.4
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often intermediate age fire origin.
NO 560 0.1
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often recently burned.
NO 1020 0.1
Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with lichen-bedrock understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 55234 7.2
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-70
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
Secondary Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 243 0.0
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 169 0.0
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with shrub-moss understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 75904 9.8
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable tamarack.
NO 206552 26.8
Open to semi-closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 17517 2.3
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 52 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.
NO 20971 2.7
Semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with moss-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 19647 2.6
Sparse needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with herb-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 1847 0.2
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.
NO 41046 5.3
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-71
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
Secondary Young regenerating, semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 149 0.0
Subtotal 500382 64.9
Grand Total 771432 100.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-72
Table 6.10B.6-2: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Deer Island Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to
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
Marsh. Considerable proportions of water and black spruce treed on thin peatland. Common near shorelines.
EITHER 1860.3 0.3
Mix of water and black spruce treed on shallow to thin peatland. Almost all is north of the Region of Interest.
EITHER 31.0 0.0
Mix of water, marsh and black spruce treed on thin peatland. Considerable proportion is islands.
EITHER 10.2 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 1188.7 0.2
Closed needleleaf treed on shallow to thin or wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine or tamarack.
YES 53.8 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 6.2 0.0
Jack pine treed on mineral or thin peatland. Almost all is north of the Region of Interest
YES 8.4 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 195.9 0.0
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 910.6 0.1
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 6.4 0.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-73
Table 6.10B.6-2: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Deer Island Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to
30 Quantity in
2013 Percent
Total
Primary Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow peatland. Tree canopy jack pine and/or black spruce.
YES 1851.1 0.3
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 7207.2 1.0
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Includes some marsh.
YES 775.8 0.1
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often intermediate age fire origin.
YES 2067.7 0.3
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often recently burned.
YES 14829.6 2.0
Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with lichen-bedrock understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 23877.4 3.3
Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 43 0.0
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 206 0.0
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with shrub-moss understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 7632 1.0
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable tamarack.
YES 7358 1.0
Open to semi-closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 7657 1.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-74
Table 6.10B.6-2: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Deer Island Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to
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 4 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 9277 1.3
Semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with moss-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 1922 0.3
Sparse needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with herb-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 3484 0.5
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 14119 1.9
Young regenerating, semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 219 0.0
Subtotal 106800 14.6
Secondary Lichen-sedges, moss low shrub wetland. Almost all is near the Hudson Bay coast
EITHER 0.0
Polar grassland, herb-shrub EITHER 12 0.0
Closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often found around waterbodies.
NO 8203 1.1
Closed needleleaf treed on shallow to thin or wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine or tamarack.
NO 164 0.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-75
Table 6.10B.6-2: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Deer Island Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to
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 72 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.
NO 12015 1.6
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
NO 319 0.0
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.
NO 181 0.0
Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow peatland. Tree canopy jack pine and/or black spruce.
NO 44274 6.0
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.
NO 14769 2.0
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Includes some marsh.
NO 15630 2.1
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often intermediate age fire origin.
NO 497 0.1
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often recently burned.
NO 1349 0.2
Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with lichen-bedrock understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 58401 8.0
Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 1056 0.1
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-76
Table 6.10B.6-2: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Deer Island Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to
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
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with shrub-moss understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 100344 13.7
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable tamarack.
NO 250601 34.2
Open to semi-closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 14411 2.0
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 40 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.
NO 22461 3.1
Semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with moss-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 30144 4.1
Sparse needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with herb-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 11154 1.5
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.
NO 38249 5.2
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-77
Table 6.10B.6-2: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Deer Island Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to
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 944 0.1
Subtotal 671753 85.4
Grand Total 732178 100.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-78
Table 6.10B.6-3: Estimated Amount of Moose Habitat Lost to Anthropogenic Disturbance in the Hudson Plains Ecozone
Moose Habitat Quality
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 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
Hudson Plains Ecozone 1073 2038 608 3718 0.4
Total Limestone Rapids 1654 3142 780 5576 0.7
Deer Island 0 0 119 119 <0.1
Hudson Plains Ecozone 1654 3142 899 5695 0.4
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-79
Table 6.10B.6-4: Changes in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Limestone Rapids Terrestrial
Region
Moose Habitat Quality
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 NONE 0 0.0 0 0.0
Subtotal 0 0.0 0 0.0
Moderate Dp 0 0.0 1 0.3
Subtotal 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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
Table 6.10B.6-5: Changes in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat in the Deer Island Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
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 None 0 0.0 0 0.0
Subtotal 0 0.0 0 0.0
Moderate None 0 0.0 0 0.0
Subtotal 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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-80
Table 6.10B.6-6: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat in the Limestone Rapids Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Offshore Wetland Habitat Class1
Before Hydroelectric Development (km)
After Hydroelectric Development (km)
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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
Table 6.10B.6-7: Change in Offshore Wetland Habitat in the Deer Island Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Offshore Wetland Habitat Class 1
Before Hydroelectric Development (km)
After Hydroelectric Development (km)
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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-81
Table 6.10B.6-8: Change in Shoreline Debris Levels in the Limestone Rapids Terrestrial Region
Shoreline Access
Shoreline Debris Habitat Class1
Before Hydroelectric Development (km)
After Hydroelectric Development (km)
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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-82
Table 6.10B.6-9: Change in Shoreline Debris Levels in the Deer Island Terrestrial Region
Shoreline Access
Shoreline Debris Habitat Class1
Before Hydroelectric Development (km)
After Hydroelectric Development (km)
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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
Table 6.10B.6-10: Change in Tall Shrub Density in the Limestone Rapids Terrestrial Region
Tall Shrub Density
Tall Shrub Habitat Class 1
Before Hydroelectric Development (km)
After Hydroelectric Development (km)
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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-83
Table 6.10B.6-11: Change in Tall Shrub Habitat in the Deer Island Terrestrial Region
Tall Shrub Density
Shoreline Debris Habitat Class 1
Before Hydroelectric Development (km)
After Hydroelectric Development (km)
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
1. See Appendix 6.10A for explanation of abbreviations
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-84
Table 6.10B.7-1: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Hudson Coast Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to 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 334 0.1
Marsh. Considerable proportions of water and black spruce treed on thin peatland. Common near shorelines.
EITHER 15918 2.4
Mix of water and black spruce treed on shallow to thin peatland. Almost all is north of the Region of Interest.
EITHER 21 0.0
Mix of water, marsh and black spruce treed on thin peatland. Considerable proportion is islands.
EITHER 5781 0.9
Closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often found around waterbodies.
YES 77 0.0
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 0 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 4 0.0
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 61 0.0
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 0 0.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-85
Table 6.10B.7-1: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Hudson Coast Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to 30
Quantity in 2013
Percent Total
Primary Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow peatland. Tree canopy jack pine and/or black spruce.
YES 394 0.1
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 2146 0.3
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Includes some marsh.
YES 50 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 74 0.0
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often recently burned.
YES 31 0.0
Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with lichen-bedrock understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 3420 0.5
Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 0 0.0
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 6 0.0
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with shrub-moss understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 767 0.1
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable tamarack.
YES 2066 0.3
Open to semi-closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 1369 0.2
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 23 0.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-86
Table 6.10B.7-1: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Hudson Coast Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to 30
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
Semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with moss-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 85 0.0
Sparse needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with herb-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 280 0.0
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 5076 0.8
Young regenerating, semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
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
Polar grassland, herb-shrub EITHER 2320 0.3
Closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often found around waterbodies.
NO 3232 0.5
Closed needleleaf treed on shallow to thin or wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine or tamarack.
NO 4710 0.7
Closed, young needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine and some aspen.
NO 929 0.1
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-87
Table 6.10B.7-1: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Hudson Coast Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to 30
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
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
NO 29750 4.4
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.
NO 0 0.0
Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow peatland. Tree canopy jack pine and/or black spruce.
NO 46923 6.9
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.
NO 39941 5.9
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Includes some marsh.
NO 15750 2.3
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often intermediate age fire origin.
NO 136 0.0
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often recently burned.
NO 1121 0.2
Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with lichen-bedrock understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 103544 15.3
Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 3115 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
NO 3699 0.6
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-88
Table 6.10B.7-1: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Hudson Coast Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to 30
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
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable tamarack.
NO 167770 24.7
Open to semi-closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 25980 3.8
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 5956 0.9
Semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with lichen-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 19499 2.9
Semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with moss-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 12915 1.9
Sparse needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with herb-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 8183 1.2
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.
NO 64625 9.5
Young regenerating, semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 6115 0.9
Subtotal 638459 638459
Total 678341 678341
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-89
Table 6.10B.7-2: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Warkworth Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to 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 1063 0.2
Mix of water and black spruce treed on shallow to thin peatland. Almost all is north of the Region of Interest.
EITHER 12 0.0
Mix of water, marsh and black spruce treed on thin peatland. Considerable proportion is islands.
EITHER 43 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 10 0.0
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 0 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 896 0.1
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 247 0.0
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 48 0.0
Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow peatland. Tree canopy jack pine and/or black spruce.
YES 412 0.1
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-90
Table 6.10B.7-2: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Warkworth Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to 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 2280 0.4
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Includes some marsh.
YES 0 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 0 0.0
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often recently burned.
YES 0 0.0
Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with lichen-bedrock understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 1070 0.2
Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 329 0.1
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 301 0.1
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with shrub-moss understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 12 0.0
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable tamarack.
YES 45 0.0
Open to semi-closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 116 0.0
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 48 0.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-91
Table 6.10B.7-2: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Warkworth Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to 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 0 0.0
Sparse needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with herb-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 1309 0.2
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 397 0.1
Young regenerating, semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 516 0.1
Subtotal 9156 1.4
Secondary Lichen-sedges, moss low shrub wetland. Almost all is near the Hudson Bay coast EITHER 0 0.0
Polar grassland, herb-shrub EITHER 1054 0.2
Closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often found around waterbodies.
NO 5153 0.8
Closed needleleaf treed on shallow to thin or wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine or tamarack.
NO 262 0.0
Closed, young needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine and some aspen.
NO 12 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.
NO 25,628 3.9
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
NO 52860 8.0
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.
NO 542 0.1
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-92
Table 6.10B.7-2: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Warkworth Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to 30
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
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.
NO 46144 7.0
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Includes some marsh.
NO 442 0.1
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often intermediate age fire origin.
NO 80 0.0
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often recently burned.
NO 0 0.0
Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with lichen-bedrock understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 161063 24.4
Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 906 0.1
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 10037 1.5
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with shrub-moss understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 5087 0.8
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable tamarack.
NO 12500 1.9
Open to semi-closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 13424 2.0
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 90 0.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-93
Table 6.10B.7-2: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Warkworth Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to 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 12999 2.0
Semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with moss-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 1555 0.2
Sparse needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with herb-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 44684 6.8
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.
NO 40123 6.1
Young regenerating, semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 2192 0.3
Subtotal 650934 98.6
Total 660,090 100.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-94
Table 6.10B.7-3: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Fletcher Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to
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 1402 0.2
Mix of water and black spruce treed on shallow to thin peatland. Almost all is north of the Region of Interest.
EITHER 27 0.0
Mix of water, marsh and black spruce treed on thin peatland. Considerable proportion is islands.
EITHER 68 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 340 0.0
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 0 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 3407 0.4
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 999 0.1
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 2605 0.3
Needleleaf treed on mineral to shallow peatland. Tree canopy jack pine and/or black spruce.
YES 65716 8.3
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-95
Table 6.10B.7-3: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Fletcher Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to
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
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Includes some marsh.
YES 0 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 2305 0.3
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often recently burned.
YES 3286 0.4
Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with lichen-bedrock understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 15378 1.9
Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 221 0.0
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 1290 0.2
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with shrub-moss understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 157 0.0
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable tamarack.
YES 218 0.0
Open to semi-closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 430 0.1
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.
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 1629 0.2
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-96
Table 6.10B.7-3: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Fletcher Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to
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
Sparse needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with herb-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 18537 2.3
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 720 0.1
Young regenerating, semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
YES 76 0.0
Subtotal 123666 15.6
Secondary Lichen-sedges, moss low shrub wetland. Almost all is near the Hudson Bay coast EITHER 0 0.0
Polar grassland, herb-shrub EITHER 1245 0.2
Closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often found around waterbodies.
NO 9245 1.2
Closed needleleaf treed on shallow to thin or wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine or tamarack.
NO 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.
NO 0 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.
NO 25121 3.2
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
NO 26473 3.3
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.
NO 3244 0.4
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-97
Table 6.10B.7-3: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Fletcher Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to
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
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.
NO 11532 1.5
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Includes some marsh.
NO 72 0.0
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often intermediate age fire origin.
NO 32 0.0
Needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine. Often recently burned.
NO 221 0.0
Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with lichen-bedrock understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 223652 28.1
Open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 318 0.0
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 1874 0.2
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to thin peatland with shrub-moss understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 2602 0.3
Open needleleaf treed on shallow to wet peatland. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable tamarack.
NO 5460 0.7
Open to semi-closed needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 3087 0.4
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-98
Table 6.10B.7-3: Proportions of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Fletcher Terrestrial Region
Moose Habitat Quality
Habitat Class Age 6 to
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
Semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with moss-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 518 0.1
Sparse needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral with herb-shrub understorey. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 27606 3.5
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.
NO 4857 0.6
Young regenerating, semi-open needleleaf treed on shallow peatland to mineral. Tree canopy predominantly black spruce but also considerable jack pine.
NO 1060 0.1
Subtotal 671753 84.5
Total 795,419 100.0
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10B
DECEMBER 2015 6.10B-99
Table 6.10B.7-4: Estimated Amounts of Moose Habitat Lost to Anthropogenic Disturbance in the Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone
Moose Habitat Quality
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 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
Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone
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
Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone
0 415 1751 2166 0.1
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10C
APPENDIX 6.10C:
MOOSE REGISTERED TRAPLINE TABLES
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10C
DECEMBER 2015 6.10C-1
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10C
DECEMBER 2015 6.10C-2
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10C
DECEMBER 2015 6.10C-3
Table 6.10C-3: Estimated Wolf 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 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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10C
DECEMBER 2015 6.10C-4
Table 6.10C-4: Estimated White-tailed Deer 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 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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10D
DECEMBER 2015 6.10D-I
Appendix Tables Page
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10D
DECEMBER 2015 6.10D-1
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%
Source: adapted from Howard and Larche (1975)
1. Includes indication of moose harvested in GHA 3a in 1973
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10D
DECEMBER 2015 6.10D-2
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
Source: adapted from Howard and Larche (1975)
1. Includes indication of moose harvested in GHA 3a in 1973
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
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%
Source: adapted from Howard and Larche (1975)
1. Includes indication of moose harvested in GHA 3a in 1973
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10D
DECEMBER 2015 6.10D-3
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
Source: adapted from Howard and Larche (1975)
1. Includes indication of moose harvested in GHA 3a in 1973
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
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%
Source: adapted from Howard and Larche (1975)
1. Includes indication of moose harvested in GHA 3a in 1973
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10D
DECEMBER 2015 6.10D-4
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.
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10D
DECEMBER 2015 6.10D-5
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)
PimicikamakCross Lake
(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
Upper NelsonTerrestrial
Region
WuskwatimTerrestrial
Region
Deer IslandTerrestrial
Region
Limestone RapidsTerrestrial
Region
BradshawTerrestrial
Region
FletcherTerrestrial
Region
WarkworthTerrestrial
Region
Hudson CoastTerrestrial
Region
Upper ChurchillTerrestrial
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
Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N
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 (Existing)
Generating Station (Under Construction)
Generating Station (Potential)
Highway
Rail
Transmission Line (Existing)
Transmission Line (Under Construction)
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10F
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10F
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10G
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10G
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10G
DECEMBER 2015 6.10G-2
Source: Duplicated from MDMNR (1955b)
Figure 6.10G-2: Registered Trapline Sections in Manitoba Circa 1955
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10G
DECEMBER 2015 6.10G-3
Source: Duplicated from Howard and Larche (1975)
Figure 6.10G-3: Moose Habitat Sections in Manitoba
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10G
DECEMBER 2015 6.10G-4
Source: Duplicated from Elliot (1986a)
Figure 6.10G-4: Northern Flood Agreement Resource Areas
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10G
DECEMBER 2015 6.10G-5
Source: Duplicated from Elliot (1986a)
Figure 6.10G-5: Northern Flood Agreement Moose Survey Areas 1983 – 1985
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10G
DECEMBER 2015 6.10G-6
Source: Duplicated from Elliot (1986a)
Figure 6.10G-6: Northen Flood Agreement Moose Population Areas
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10G
DECEMBER 2015 6.10G-7
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
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10G
DECEMBER 2015 6.10G-8
Source: Duplicated from Elliot (1993)
Figure 6.10G-8: Northern Flood Agreement Survey Area 1992/93
REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – MOOSE – APPENDIX 6.10G
DECEMBER 2015 6.10G-9
Source: Duplicated from Jahn (1975)
Figure 6.10G-9: Manitoba Game Hunting Areas C 1974
top related