Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment - Phase II Part VI Land - … · 2017-10-20 · regional cumulative effects assessment – phase ii land – table of contents december 2015

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II DECEMBER 2015

LAND

PART VI

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECEMBER 2015 6-I

TABLE OF CONTENTS 6.0 LAND ............................................................................................................. 6.1-1

6.1 Introduction and Background .......................................................................... 6.1-1

6.1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6.1-1

6.1.1.1 Terrestrial Ecosystems in the Region of Interest .......................................... 6.1-1

6.1.1.2 Hydroelectric Development and Terrestrial Ecosystems .............................. 6.1-2

6.1.2 Approach ....................................................................................................................... 6.1-5

6.1.2.1 Regional Study Components ......................................................................... 6.1-5

6.1.2.2 Description of Assessment Areas ................................................................. 6.1-8

6.1.2.3 Selection of Indicators and Metrics ............................................................... 6.1-9

6.1.2.4 Selection of Benchmarks and Thresholds ................................................... 6.1-12

6.1.2.5 Pathways of Effects ..................................................................................... 6.1-15

6.1.2.6 Summary of Approach to Land Assessments ............................................. 6.1-16

6.1.3 Organization of Part VI ................................................................................................ 6.1-19

6.1.4 Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 6.1-20

6.1.4.1 Literature Cited and Data Sources .............................................................. 6.1-20

6.2 Intactness ....................................................................................................... 6.2-1

6.2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6.2-1

6.2.1.1 Pathways of Effects ....................................................................................... 6.2-2

6.2.1.2 Indicators and Metrics ................................................................................... 6.2-4

6.2.1.3 Benchmarks ................................................................................................... 6.2-4

6.2.1.4 Approach and Methods ................................................................................. 6.2-5

6.2.1.5 Data Limitations ........................................................................................... 6.2-10

6.2.2 Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................................................................. 6.2-11

6.2.2.1 Changes in the Indicators over Time .......................................................... 6.2-15

6.2.2.2 Cumulative Effects of Hydroelectric Development ...................................... 6.2-25

6.2.3 Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone .................................................................................. 6.2-29



6.2.4 Boreal Plains Ecozone ................................................................................................ 6.2-49


DECEMBER 2015 6-II



6.2.5 Taiga Shield Ecozone ................................................................................................. 6.2-61



6.2.6 Hudson Plains Ecozone .............................................................................................. 6.2-79



6.2.7 Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone .................................................................................... 6.2-93


6.2.7.2 Cumulative Effects of Hydroelectric Development .................................... 6.2-105

6.2.8 Effects of Hydroelectric Development in the Region of Interest on Intactness ......... 6.2-108

6.2.8.1 Changes in the Indicators over Time ........................................................ 6.2-108

6.2.8.2 Summary of Cumulative Effects of Hydroelectric Development in the Region of Interest on Intactness................................................................ 6.2-117

6.2.9 Bibliography .............................................................................................................. 6.2-120

6.2.9.1 Literature Cited and Data Sources ............................................................ 6.2-120

6.3 Terrestrial Habitat ........................................................................................... 6.3-1

6.3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6.3-1

6.3.1.1 Terrestrial Habitat Focal Subcomponents ..................................................... 6.3-1


6.3.1.3 Indicators and Metrics ................................................................................. 6.3-10

6.3.1.4 Benchmarks ................................................................................................. 6.3-12

6.3.1.5 Approach and Methods ............................................................................... 6.3-13


6.3.1.7 Ecological Overview of the Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment Region of Interest ........................................................................................ 6.3-36




6.3.3 Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................................................................ 6.3-156



DECEMBER 2015 6-III


6.3.4 Boreal Plains Ecozone .............................................................................................. 6.3-243



6.3.5 Taiga Shield Ecozone ............................................................................................... 6.3-257



6.3.6 Hudson Plains Ecozone ............................................................................................ 6.3-326



6.3.7 Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone .................................................................................. 6.3-365



6.3.8 Effects of Hydroelectric Development in the Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment Region of Interest on Terrestrial Habitat .............................................. 6.3-406

6.3.8.1 Regional Cumulative Effects Assessments ............................................... 6.3-406

6.3.8.2 Large River System Cumulative Effects Assessments ............................. 6.3-409

6.3.8.3 Summary of Cumulative Effects of Hydroelectric Development in the Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment Region of Interest on Terrestrial Habitat ...................................................................................... 6.3-453

6.3.9 Bibliography .............................................................................................................. 6.3-457


6.4 Waterfowl ....................................................................................................... 6.4-1

6.4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6.4-1



6.4.1.3 Benchmarks ................................................................................................... 6.4-7


6.4.1.5 Data Limitations ............................................................................................. 6.4-8

6.4.2 Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................................................................... 6.4-9

6.4.2.1 Changes in the Indicators over Time ............................................................ 6.4-9




DECEMBER 2015 6-IV















6.4.8 Effects of Hydroelectric Development in the Region of Interest on Waterfowl ........... 6.4-74

6.4.9 Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 6.4-77


6.4.9.2 Personal Communications .......................................................................... 6.4-84

6.5 Colonial Waterbirds ........................................................................................ 6.5-1

6.5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6.5-1



6.5.1.3 Benchmarks ................................................................................................... 6.5-7



6.5.2 Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................................................................... 6.5-9

6.5.2.1 Changes in Indicators over Time................................................................... 6.5-9



6.5.3.1 Changes in Indicators over Time................................................................. 6.5-17



DECEMBER 2015 6-V













6.5.8 Effects of Hydroelectric Development in the Region of Interest on Colonial Waterbirds ................................................................................................................... 6.5-55

6.5.9 Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 6.5-57


6.6 Aquatic Furbearers ......................................................................................... 6.6-1

6.6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6.6-1



6.6.1.3 Benchmarks ................................................................................................... 6.6-6













DECEMBER 2015 6-VI










6.6.8 Effects of Hydroelectric Development in the Region of Interest on Aquatic Furbearers ................................................................................................................... 6.6-78

6.6.9 Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 6.6-80



6.7 Barren-ground Caribou ................................................................................... 6.7-1

6.7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6.7-1


6.7.1.2 Indicators, Metrics, and Benchmarks ............................................................ 6.7-6



6.7.2 Before Hydroelectric Development ............................................................................. 6.7-11

6.7.3 After Hydroelectric Development ................................................................................ 6.7-13

6.7.4 Cumulative Effects of Hydroelectric Development ...................................................... 6.7-17

6.7.4.1 Regional Effects .......................................................................................... 6.7-17

6.7.4.2 Local Effects ................................................................................................ 6.7-20

6.7.5 Effects of Hydroelectric Development in the Region of Interest on Barren-ground Caribou ........................................................................................................................ 6.7-21

6.7.6 Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 6.7-22



6.8 Coastal Caribou .............................................................................................. 6.8-1

6.8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6.8-1


DECEMBER 2015 6-VII



6.8.1.3 Benchmarks ................................................................................................. 6.8-18



6.8.2 Before Hydroelectric Development ............................................................................. 6.8-20

6.8.2.1 Population .................................................................................................... 6.8-20

6.8.2.2 Fragmentation ............................................................................................. 6.8-20

6.8.2.3 Disturbance ................................................................................................. 6.8-21

6.8.3 After Hydroelectric Development ................................................................................ 6.8-25

6.8.3.1 Population .................................................................................................... 6.8-25

6.8.3.2 Fragmentation ............................................................................................. 6.8-27

6.8.3.3 Disturbance ................................................................................................. 6.8-31

6.8.4 Cumulative Effects of Hydroelectric Development ...................................................... 6.8-38


6.8.4.2 Local Effects ................................................................................................ 6.8-41

6.8.5 Effects of Hydroelectric Development in the Region of Interest on Coastal Caribou ........................................................................................................................ 6.8-43

6.8.6 Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 6.8-44


6.9 Boreal Woodland Caribou .............................................................................. 6.9-1

6.9.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6.9-1



6.9.1.3 Benchmarks ................................................................................................. 6.9-13



6.9.2 Indicators: Before Hydroelectric Development ........................................................... 6.9-16

6.9.2.1 Population .................................................................................................... 6.9-16

6.9.2.2 Core Areas .................................................................................................. 6.9-17

6.9.2.3 Habitat ......................................................................................................... 6.9-17

6.9.2.4 Fragmentation ............................................................................................. 6.9-17


DECEMBER 2015 6-VIII

6.9.2.5 Disturbance ................................................................................................. 6.9-19

6.9.2.6 Parasites ...................................................................................................... 6.9-19

6.9.3 Indicators: After Hydroelectric Development .............................................................. 6.9-28

6.9.3.1 Population .................................................................................................... 6.9-28

6.9.3.2 Core Area .................................................................................................... 6.9-32

6.9.3.3 Habitat ......................................................................................................... 6.9-37

6.9.3.4 Fragmentation ............................................................................................. 6.9-43

6.9.3.5 Disturbance ................................................................................................. 6.9-46

6.9.3.6 Parasites ...................................................................................................... 6.9-47

6.9.4 Cumulative Effects of Hydroelectric Development on Boreal Woodland Caribou ...... 6.9-56


6.9.4.2 Local Effects ................................................................................................ 6.9-60

6.9.5 Effects of Hydroelectric Development in the Region of Interest on Boreal Woodland Caribou ...................................................................................................... 6.9-62

6.9.6 Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 6.9-63



6.10 Moose ........................................................................................................... 6.10-1

6.10.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 6.10-1


6.10.1.2 Indicators and Metrics ............................................................................... 6.10-10

6.10.1.3 Benchmarks ............................................................................................... 6.10-14

6.10.1.4 Approach and Methods ............................................................................. 6.10-15

6.10.1.5 Data Limitations ......................................................................................... 6.10-16

6.10.2 Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ............................................................................... 6.10-18

6.10.2.1 Changes in Indicators over Time............................................................... 6.10-20


6.10.3 Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................................................................ 6.10-57

6.10.3.1 Changes in Indicators over Time............................................................... 6.10-59


6.10.4 Boreal Plains Ecozone .............................................................................................. 6.10-98

6.10.4.1 Changes in Indicators over Time............................................................. 6.10-100


DECEMBER 2015 6-IX

6.10.4.2 Cumulative Effects of Hydroelectric Development .................................. 6.10-114

6.10.5 Taiga Shield Ecozone ............................................................................................. 6.10-119



6.10.6 Hudson Plains Ecozone .......................................................................................... 6.10-158



6.10.7 Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone ................................................................................ 6.10-184



6.10.8 Effects of Hydroelectric Development in the Region of Interest on Moose ............ 6.10-205

6.10.9 Bibliography ............................................................................................................ 6.10-211

6.10.9.1 Literature Cited and Data Sources .......................................................... 6.10-211

6.10.9.2 Personal Communications ...................................................................... 6.10-222

6.11 Polar Bear..................................................................................................... 6.11-1

6.11.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 6.11-1



6.11.1.3 Benchmarks ............................................................................................... 6.11-11

6.11.1.4 Approach and Methods ............................................................................. 6.11-11

6.11.1.5 Data Limitations ......................................................................................... 6.11-11

6.11.2 Western Hudson Bay Polar Bear Range: Changes in Indicators over Time ............ 6.11-13

6.11.2.1 Before Hydroelectric Development............................................................ 6.11-13

6.11.2.2 After Hydroelectric Development ............................................................... 6.11-15

6.11.3 Cumulative Effects of Hydroelectric Development .................................................... 6.11-27

6.11.3.1 Regional Effects ........................................................................................ 6.11-27

6.11.3.2 Local Effects .............................................................................................. 6.11-28

6.11.4 Effects of Hydroelectric Development in the Region of Interest on Polar Bears ...... 6.11-29

6.11.5 Bibliography .............................................................................................................. 6.11-30


6.11.5.2 Personal Communications ........................................................................ 6.11-39

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – LIST OF TABLES

DECEMBER 2015 6-X

LIST OF TABLES Page Table 6.1.2-1: List of Regional Study Components for Land ......................................................... 6.1-7 Table 6.1.2-2: Indicators and Metrics Used to Assess the Condition of Land Regional Study

Components (RSCs) ............................................................................................ 6.1-13 Table 6.2.1-1: Indicators and Metrics for the Intactness Regional Study Component .................. 6.2-4 Table 6.2.1-2: Human Footprint Types and What They Include .................................................... 6.2-7 Table 6.2.2-1: Human Footprints in the Terrestrial Regions of the Western Boreal Shield

Ecozone, by Development Period as a Percentage of Total Footprint Area ........ 6.2-16 Table 6.2.2-2: Linear Feature Length and Density in the Terrestrial Regions of the Western

Boreal Shield Ecozone, by Development Period ................................................. 6.2-18 Table 6.2.2-3: Core Area in the Terrestrial Regions of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone,

by Development Period ........................................................................................ 6.2-19 Table 6.2.2-4: Regional Cumulative Effects on Intactness in the Terrestrial Regions of the

Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ........................................................................... 6.2-26 Table 6.2.3-1: Human Footprints in the Terrestrial Regions of the Eastern Boreal Shield

Ecozone, by Development Period as a Percentage of Total Footprint Area ........ 6.2-34 Table 6.2.3-2: Linear Feature Length and Density in the Terrestrial Regions of the Western

Boreal Shield Ecozone, by Development Period ................................................. 6.2-36 Table 6.2.3-3: Core Area in the Terrestrial Regions of the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone,

by Development Period ........................................................................................ 6.2-38 Table 6.2.3-4: Regional Cumulative Effects on Intactness in the Terrestrial Regions of the

Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone ............................................................................ 6.2-45 Table 6.2.4-1: Human Footprints in the William Terrestrial Region of the Boreal Plains

Ecozone, by Development Period (as a Percentage of Total Footprint Area) ..... 6.2-53 Table 6.2.4-2: Linear Feature Length and Density in the William Terrestrial Region of the

Boreal Plains Ecozone, by Development Period .................................................. 6.2-54 Table 6.2.4-3: Core Area in the William Terrestrial Region of the Boreal Plains Ecozone, by

Development Period ............................................................................................. 6.2-55 Table 6.2.4-4: Regional Cumulative Effects on Intactness in the William Terrestrial Region

of the Boreal Plains Ecozone ............................................................................... 6.2-59 Table 6.2.5-1: Human Footprints in the Terrestrial Regions of the Taiga Shield Ecozone, by

Development Period as a Percentage of Total Footprint Area............................. 6.2-66 Table 6.2.5-2: Linear Feature Length and Density in the Terrestrial Regions of the Taiga

Shield Ecozone, by Development Period ............................................................. 6.2-67 Table 6.2.5-3: Core Area in the Terrestrial Regions of the Taiga Shield Ecozone, by

Development Period ............................................................................................. 6.2-68 Table 6.2.5-4: Regional Cumulative Effects on Intactness in the Terrestrial Regions of the

Taiga Shield Ecozone ........................................................................................... 6.2-76


DECEMBER 2015 6-XI

Table 6.2.6-1: Human Footprints in the Terrestrial Regions of the Hudson Plains Ecozone, by Development Period as a Percentage of Total Footprint Area ........................ 6.2-84

Table 6.2.6-2: Linear Feature Length and Density in the Terrestrial Regions of the Hudson Plains Ecozone, by Development Period ............................................................. 6.2-85

Table 6.2.6-3: Core Area in the Terrestrial Regions of the Hudson Plains Ecozone, by Development Period ............................................................................................. 6.2-86

Table 6.2.6-4: Regional Cumulative Effects on Intactness in the Terrestrial Regions of the Hudson Plains Ecozone ....................................................................................... 6.2-90

Table 6.2.7-1: Human Footprints in the Terrestrial Regions of the Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone, by Development Period as a Percentage of Total Footprint Area ........ 6.2-98

Table 6.2.7-2: Linear Feature Length and Density in the Terrestrial Regions of the Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone, by Development Period ................................................... 6.2-99

Table 6.2.7-3: Core Area in the Terrestrial Regions of the Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone, by Development Period ........................................................................................... 6.2-100

Table 6.2.7-4: Regional Cumulative Effects on Intactness in the Terrestrial Regions of the Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone ............................................................................ 6.2-106

Table 6.2.8-1: Summary of Cumulative Effects on Intactness in the Terrestrial Regions of the RCEA Region of Interest .............................................................................. 6.2-110

Table 6.2.8-2: Summary of Cumulative Effects on Intactness in each Terrestrial Region overlapping the RCEA Region of Interest .......................................................... 6.2-114

Table 6.3.1-1: Indicators and Metrics for the Terrestrial Habitat Regional Study Component (RSC) and Its Subcomponents ............................................................................. 6.3-11

Table 6.3.1-2: Benchmark Ranges for Magnitude of Adverse Cumulative Effects for Selected Terrestrial Habitat Metrics. .................................................................... 6.3-12

Table 6.3.1-3: Attributes Included in the Detailed Regional Terrestrial Habitat Mapping ............ 6.3-17 Table 6.3.1-4: Attributes Included in the Regulated System Shore Zone Mapping .................... 6.3-28 Table 6.3.1-5: Surface Material Composition of the Ecozones ................................................... 6.3-38 Table 6.3.1-6: Parent Material Composition of the Ecozones ..................................................... 6.3-39 Table 6.3.1-7: Soil Composition of the Ecozones ........................................................................ 6.3-40 Table 6.3.1-8: Fire Regime Metrics for the Terrestrial Regions Aggregated by Ecozone

Based on the 44-Year Period from 1970 to 2013 ................................................. 6.3-47 Table 6.3.1-9: Percentage of Total Terrestrial Region Land Area, Aggregated by Ecozone,

that was Burned in a Particular Year .................................................................... 6.3-49 Table 6.3.1-10: Influence of Period Length on Average Annual Area Burned Percentage and

Fire Cycle for the Terrestrial Regions Aggregated by Ecozones ......................... 6.3-51 Table 6.3.1-11: Fire Regime Metrics for the Terrestrial Regions Based on the 44-Year Period

from 1970 to 2013 ................................................................................................ 6.3-53 Table 6.3.2-1: Pre-Development and Existing Environment Surface Deposits in the

Terrestrial Regions of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................. 6.3-56 Table 6.3.2-2: Pre-Development and Existing Environment Land Cover and Coarse Habitat

Composition in the Terrestrial Regions of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone .. 6.3-58


DECEMBER 2015 6-XII

Table 6.3.2-3: Priority and Other Broad Habitat Types in the Paint Terrestrial Region of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ........................................................................... 6.3-61

Table 6.3.2-4: Pre-Hydroelectric Development Wetlands in the Terrestrial Regions of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ........................................................................... 6.3-63

Table 6.3.2-5: Waterbody Type along the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Shorelines in the Paint Terrestrial Region of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ..................................................................................................... 6.3-66

Table 6.3.2-6: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines of the Paint Terrestrial Region ............................................................ 6.3-66

Table 6.3.2-7: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines of the Paint Terrestrial Region ........................................... 6.3-68

Table 6.3.2-8: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines of the Paint Terrestrial Region ........................................... 6.3-68

Table 6.3.2-9: Shoreline Debris Accumulation and Distribution along the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Paint Terrestrial Region for Overlapping Areas ............................................................. 6.3-70

Table 6.3.2-10: Land Cover Composition of Flooded Areas in the Terrestrial Regions of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ........................................................................... 6.3-72

Table 6.3.2-11: Wetland Types in Flooded Areas Prior to Hydroelectric Development in the Terrestrial Regions of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................. 6.3-73

Table 6.3.2-12: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Paint Terrestrial Region System for Overlapping Areas.............................................................................. 6.3-75

Table 6.3.2-13: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Paint Terrestrial Region System for Overlapping Areas.............................................................................. 6.3-78

Table 6.3.2-14: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Paint Terrestrial Region System for Overlapping Areas.............................................................................. 6.3-81

Table 6.3.2-15: Priority and Other Broad Habitat Types in the in the Wuskwatim Terrestrial Region of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone .................................................... 6.3-86

Table 6.3.2-16: Waterbody Types for the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Shorelines in the Wuskwatim Terrestrial Region of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ......................................................................................... 6.3-90

Table 6.3.2-17: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines of the Wuskwatim Terrestrial Region ................................................. 6.3-92

Table 6.3.2-18: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines of the Wuskwatim Terrestrial Region ................................. 6.3-93

Table 6.3.2-19: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines of the Wuskwatim Terrestrial Region ................................. 6.3-93


DECEMBER 2015 6-XIII

Table 6.3.2-20: Shoreline Debris Accumulation and Distribution along the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Wuskwatim Terrestrial Region for Overlapping Areas ......................................... 6.3-95

Table 6.3.2-21: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Wuskwatim Terrestrial Region System for Overlapping Areas ................................................................. 6.3-99

Table 6.3.2-22: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Wuskwatim Terrestrial Region System for Overlapping Areas ............................................................... 6.3-102

Table 6.3.2-23: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Wuskwatim Terrestrial Region System for Overlapping Areas ............................................................... 6.3-103

Table 6.3.2-24: Priority and Other Broad Habitat Types in the in the Rat Terrestrial Region of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................................................... 6.3-109

Table 6.3.2-25: Waterbody Types for the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Shorelines in the Rat Terrestrial Region of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................................................................................... 6.3-112

Table 6.3.2-26: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines of the Rat Terrestrial Region ............................................................ 6.3-114

Table 6.3.2-27: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines of the Rat Terrestrial Region. .......................................... 6.3-115

Table 6.3.2-28: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines of the Rat Terrestrial Region ........................................... 6.3-117

Table 6.3.2-29: Shoreline Debris Accumulation and Distribution along the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Rat Terrestrial Region for Overlapping Areas ........................................................... 6.3-118

Table 6.3.2-30: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Rat Terrestrial Region System for Overlapping Areas............................................................................ 6.3-122

Table 6.3.2-31: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Rat Terrestrial Region System for Overlapping Areas............................................................................ 6.3-125

Table 6.3.2-32: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Rat Terrestrial Region System for Overlapping Areas............................................................................ 6.3-128

Table 6.3.2-33: Priority and Other Broad Habitat Types in the in the Baldock Terrestrial Region of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone .................................................. 6.3-133

Table 6.3.2-34: Waterbody Types for the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Shorelines in the Baldock Terrestrial Region of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ....................................................................................... 6.3-134


DECEMBER 2015 6-XIV

Table 6.3.2-35: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines in the Baldock Terrestrial Region of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone .............................................................................................................. 6.3-137

Table 6.3.2-36: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines in the Baldock Terrestrial Region of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................................................................................... 6.3-138

Table 6.3.2-37: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines in the Baldock Terrestrial Region of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................................................................................... 6.3-140

Table 6.3.2-38: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines in the Baldock Terrestrial Region of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ............................................................... 6.3-144

Table 6.3.2-39: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines in the Baldock Terrestrial Region of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ............................................................... 6.3-147

Table 6.3.2-40: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines in the Baldock Terrestrial Region of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ............................................................... 6.3-149

Table 6.3.2-41: Shoreline Debris Accumulation and Distribution along the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines in the Baldock Terrestrial Region of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................. 6.3-150

Table 6.3.3-1: Surface Deposits in the Terrestrial Regions of the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone .............................................................................................................. 6.3-158

Table 6.3.3-2: Coarse Habitat Composition in the Terrestrial Regions of the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone in 2005 from Classified Satellite Imagery ................................. 6.3-159

Table 6.3.3-3: Estimated Pre-Development Land Cover and Coarse Habitat Composition in the Terrestrial Regions of the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone Based On Detailed Habitat Mapping ................................................................................... 6.3-164

Table 6.3.3-4: Priority and Other Broad Habitat Types in the in the Keeyask Terrestrial Region of the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................................... 6.3-167

Table 6.3.3-5: Pre-Development Wetlands in the Terrestrial Regions of the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone in the Detailed Habitat Mapping Area ...................................... 6.3-170

Table 6.3.3-6: Waterbody Type along the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Shorelines in the Keeyask Terrestrial Region of the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone ....................................................................................... 6.3-171

Table 6.3.3-7: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines in the Keeyask Terrestrial Region of the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone .............................................................................................................. 6.3-173

Table 6.3.3-8: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines in the Keeyask Terrestrial Region of the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................................................................................... 6.3-174


DECEMBER 2015 6-XV

Table 6.3.3-9: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines in the Keeyask Terrestrial Region of the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................................................................................... 6.3-176

Table 6.3.3-10: Shoreline Debris Accumulation and Distribution along the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Keeyask Terrestrial Region for Overlapping Areas ........................................................... 6.3-176

Table 6.3.3-11: Coarse Ecosite Composition of Flooded Areas Where Mapping was Available in the Keeyask Terrestrial Region of the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone .............................................................................................................. 6.3-178

Table 6.3.3-12: Wetland Types in the Mapped Portions of Flooded Areas Prior to Hydroelectric Development in the Keeyask and Upper Nelson Terrestrial Regions of the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................................. 6.3-179

Table 6.3.3-13: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Keeyask Terrestrial Region System for Overlapping Areas............................................................................ 6.3-181

Table 6.3.3-14: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Keeyask Terrestrial Region System for Overlapping Areas............................................................................ 6.3-184

Table 6.3.3-15: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Keeyask Terrestrial Region System for Overlapping Areas............................................................................ 6.3-186

Table 6.3.3-16: Priority and Other Broad Habitat Types in the in the Dafoe Terrestrial Region of the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................................................ 6.3-191

Table 6.3.3-17: Waterbody Type along the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Shorelines in the Dafoe Terrestrial Region of the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................................................................................... 6.3-193

Table 6.3.3-18: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines of the Dafoe Terrestrial Region of the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone .............................................................................................................. 6.3-193

Table 6.3.3-19: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines of the Dafoe Terrestrial Region of the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................................................................................... 6.3-194

Table 6.3.3-20: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines of the Dafoe Terrestrial Region of the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................................................................................... 6.3-194

Table 6.3.3-21: Shoreline Debris Accumulation and Distribution along the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Dafoe Terrestrial Region for Available Mapping ........................................................... 6.3-195

Table 6.3.3-22: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Dafoe Terrestrial Region System for Available Mapping ............................................................................ 6.3-200


DECEMBER 2015 6-XVI

Table 6.3.3-23: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Dafoe Terrestrial Region System for Available Mapping ............................................................................ 6.3-200

Table 6.3.3-24: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Dafoe Terrestrial Region System for Available Mapping ............................................................................ 6.3-201

Table 6.3.3-25: Priority and Other Broad Habitat Types in the in the Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region of the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................................... 6.3-208

Table 6.3.3-26: Waterbody Type along the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Shorelines in the Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region of the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone .......................................................................... 6.3-211

Table 6.3.3-27: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines of the Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region of the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................................................................................... 6.3-213

Table 6.3.3-28: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines of the Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region of the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone ....................................................................................... 6.3-215

Table 6.3.3-29: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines of the Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region of the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone ....................................................................................... 6.3-217

Table 6.3.3-30: Shoreline Debris Accumulation and Distribution along the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region for Overlapping Areas............................................... 6.3-218

Table 6.3.3-31: Land Cover Composition of Flooded Areas in the Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region of the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................................... 6.3-220

Table 6.3.3-32: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region System for Overlapping Areas ............................................................... 6.3-223

Table 6.3.3-33: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region for Overlapping Areas ............................................................................ 6.3-226

Table 6.3.3-34: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region for Overlapping Areas ............................................................................ 6.3-230

Table 6.3.3-35: Priority and Other Broad Habitat Types in the Molson Terrestrial Region of the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone .................................................................... 6.3-235

Table 6.3.4-1: Surface Materials in the William Terrestrial Region of the Boreal Plains Ecozone .............................................................................................................. 6.3-246

Table 6.3.4-2: Pre-Development and Existing Environment Land Cover and Coarse Habitat Composition in the William Terrestrial Region of the Boreal Plains Ecozone .... 6.3-247

Table 6.3.4-3: Pre-Hydroelectric Development Wetlands in the William Terrestrial Region of the Boreal Plains Ecozone ................................................................................. 6.3-251


DECEMBER 2015 6-XVII

Table 6.3.4-4: Land Cover and Coarse Habitat Composition of the William Terrestrial Region of the Boreal Plains Ecozone in 2013 .................................................... 6.3-253

Table 6.3.5-1: Surface Material Composition Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development in the Terrestrial Regions of the Taiga Shield Ecozone ......................................... 6.3-259

Table 6.3.5-2: Coarse Habitat Composition Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development in the Terrestrial Regions of the Taiga Shield Ecozone ............................................... 6.3-261

Table 6.3.5-3: Waterbody Type along the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Shorelines in the Bradshaw Terrestrial Region of the Taiga Shield Ecozone ................................................................................................... 6.3-264

Table 6.3.5-4: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Large River Shorelines of the Bradshaw Terrestrial Region for Overlapping Areas ........................................................... 6.3-269

Table 6.3.5-5: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Large River Shorelines of the Bradshaw Terrestrial Region for Mapped Areas ................................................................. 6.3-271

Table 6.3.5-6: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Large River Shorelines of the Bradshaw Terrestrial Region for Overlapping Areas ........................................................... 6.3-271

Table 6.3.5-7: Shoreline Debris Accumulation and Distribution along the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Large River Shorelines of the Bradshaw Terrestrial Region for Overlapping Areas .................................... 6.3-271

Table 6.3.5-8: Land Cover and Coarse Habitat Composition Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development in the Upper Churchill and Southern Indian Terrestrial Regions of the Taiga Shield Ecozone............................................................................... 6.3-278

Table 6.3.5-9: Broad and Priority Habitat Types in the Available Detailed Mapping Areas in the Terrestrial Regions of the Taiga Shield Ecozone ......................................... 6.3-279

Table 6.3.5-10: Pre-Development Wetlands in the Upper Churchill and Southern Indian Terrestrial Regions of the Taiga Shield Ecozone in the Available Detailed Habitat Mapping Area ......................................................................................... 6.3-281

Table 6.3.5-11: Waterbody Type along the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Shorelines in the Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region of the Taiga Shield Ecozone ......................................................................................... 6.3-282

Table 6.3.5-12: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines in the Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region of the Taiga Shield Ecozone .............................................................................................................. 6.3-285

Table 6.3.5-13: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines in the Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region of the Taiga Shield Ecozone ................................................................................................... 6.3-285

Table 6.3.5-14: Offshore wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines in the Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region of the Taiga Shield Ecozone ................................................................................................... 6.3-287


DECEMBER 2015 6-XVIII

Table 6.3.5-15: Shoreline Debris Accumulation and Distribution along the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines in the Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region of the Taiga Shield Ecozone, for Overlapping Areas .................................................................................................................. 6.3-287

Table 6.3.5-16: Composition of Dewatered Areas in the Upper Churchill and Southern Indian Terrestrial Regions of the Taiga Shield Ecozone in 1982 .................................. 6.3-289

Table 6.3.5-17: Composition of Land Cover 100 metres Inland of Dewatered Areas in the Upper Churchill and Southern Indian Terrestrial Regions of the Taiga Shield Ecozone in 1982 ................................................................................................. 6.3-291

Table 6.3.5-18: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Large River Shorelines of the Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region for Overlapping Areas ............................................ 6.3-294

Table 6.3.5-19: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Large River Shorelines of the Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region for Overlapping Areas ............................................ 6.3-297

Table 6.3.5-20: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Large River Shorelines of the Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region System for Overlapping Areas ............................... 6.3-297

Table 6.3.5-21: Waterbody Type along the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Shorelines in the Southern Indian Terrestrial Region of the Taiga Shield Ecozone ......................................................................................... 6.3-304

Table 6.3.5-22: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines in the Southern Indian Terrestrial Region of the Taiga Shield Ecozone .............................................................................................................. 6.3-304

Table 6.3.5-23: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines in the Southern Indian Terrestrial Region of the Taiga Shield Ecozone ................................................................................................... 6.3-307

Table 6.3.5-24: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines in the Southern Indian Terrestrial Region of the Taiga Shield Ecozone ................................................................................................... 6.3-309

Table 6.3.5-25: Shoreline Debris Accumulation and Distribution along the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Southern Indian Terrestrial Region for Overlapping Areas ................................ 6.3-309

Table 6.3.5-26: Pre-Development Land Cover Composition of Flooded Areas in the Southern Indian Terrestrial Region of the Taiga Shield Ecozone ...................................... 6.3-311

Table 6.3.5-27: Pre-Development Land Cover and Coarse Habitat Composition of Flooded Areas in the Southern Indian Terrestrial Region of the Taiga Shield Ecozone…... ....................................................................................................... 6.3-312

Table 6.3.5-28: Wetland Coarse Ecosite Types in Flooded Areas Pre-Hydroelectric Development in the Southern Indian Terrestrial Region of the Taiga Shield Ecozone .............................................................................................................. 6.3-313


DECEMBER 2015 6-XIX

Table 6.3.5-29: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Southern Indian Terrestrial Region System for Overlapping Areas ............................................................... 6.3-315

Table 6.3.5-30: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Southern Indian Terrestrial Region System for Overlapping Areas ............................................................... 6.3-318

Table 6.3.5-31: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Southern Indian Terrestrial Region System for Overlapping Areas ............................................................... 6.3-320

Table 6.3.6-1: Surface Material Composition Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development in the Terrestrial Regions of the Hudson Plains Ecozone ...................................... 6.3-328

Table 6.3.6-2: Coarse Habitat Composition in the Limestone Rapids and Deer Island Terrestrial Regions of the Hudson Plains Ecozone in 2005 ............................... 6.3-329

Table 6.3.6-3: Estimated Pre-Development Land Cover and Coarse Habitat Composition in the Limestone Rapids and Deer Island Terrestrial Regions of the Hudson Plains Ecozone ................................................................................................... 6.3-333

Table 6.3.6-4: Pre-Development Land Cover Composition of Flooded Areas in the Limestone Rapids Terrestrial Region of the Hudson Plains Ecozone................ 6.3-336

Table 6.3.6-5: Pre-Development Wetlands in the Limestone Rapids and Deer Island Terrestrial Regions of the Hudson Plains Ecozone in the Detailed Habitat Mapping Area ..................................................................................................... 6.3-337

Table 6.3.6-6: Waterbody Type along the Pre-hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Shorelines in the Limestone Rapids Terrestrial Region of the Hudson Plains Ecozone ..................................................................................... 6.3-339

Table 6.3.6-7: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines in the Limestone Rapids Terrestrial Region of the Hudson Plains Ecozone .............................................................................................................. 6.3-339

Table 6.3.6-8: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines in the Limestone Rapids Terrestrial Region of the Hudson Plains Ecozone ..................................................................................... 6.3-341

Table 6.3.6-9: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines in the Limestone Rapids Terrestrial Region of the Hudson Plains Ecozone ..................................................................................... 6.3-343

Table 6.3.6-10: Shoreline Debris Accumulation and Distribution along the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Limestone Rapids Terrestrial Region for Overlapping Areas ............................. 6.3-343

Table 6.3.6-11: Wetland Coarse Ecosite Types in Flooded Areas Prior to Hydroelectric Development in the Limestone Rapids Terrestrial Region of the Hudson Plains Ecozone ................................................................................................... 6.3-346

Table 6.3.6-12: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Limestone Rapids Terrestrial Region system for Overlapping Areas .............................................. 6.3-348


DECEMBER 2015 6-XX

Table 6.3.6-13: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Limestone Rapids Terrestrial Region system for Overlapping Areas .............................................. 6.3-351

Table 6.3.6-14: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Limestone Rapids Terrestrial Region System for Overlapping Areas .............................................. 6.3-351

Table 6.3.6-15: Waterbody Type along the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Shorelines in the Deer Island Terrestrial Region of the Hudson Plains Ecozone ................................................................................................... 6.3-357

Table 6.3.6-16: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines in the Deer Island Terrestrial Region of the Hudson Plains Ecozone .............................................................................................................. 6.3-357

Table 6.3.6-17: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines in the Deer Island Terrestrial Region of the Hudson Plains Ecozone ................................................................................................... 6.3-358

Table 6.3.6-18: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines in the Deer Island Terrestrial Region of the Hudson Plains Ecozone ................................................................................................... 6.3-358

Table 6.3.6-19: Shoreline Debris Accumulation and Distribution along the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment classified shorelines of the Deer Island Terrestrial Region for overlapping Areas ................................................. 6.3-358

Table 6.3.6-20: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Deer Island Terrestrial Region System for Overlapping Areas ............................................................... 6.3-361

Table 6.3.6-21: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Deer Island Terrestrial Region System for Overlapping Areas ............................................................... 6.3-361

Table 6.3.6-22: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Deer Island Terrestrial Region System for Overlapping Areas ............................................................... 6.3-361

Table 6.3.7-1: Surface Material Composition Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development in the Terrestrial Regions of the Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone ............................ 6.3-367

Table 6.3.7-2: Coarse Habitat Composition Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development in the Terrestrial Regions of the Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone .................................. 6.3-368

Table 6.3.7-3: Waterbody Type along the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Shorelines in the Hudson Coast Terrestrial Region of the Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone ............................................................................ 6.3-372

Table 6.3.7-4: Composition of Dewatered Areas in the Terrestrial Regions of the Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone in 1982 ............................................................................ 6.3-375

Table 6.3.7-5: Composition of Land Cover 100 metres Inland of Dewatered Areas in the Terrestrial Regions of the Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone in 1982 ..................... 6.3-376


DECEMBER 2015 6-XXI

Table 6.3.7-6: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Large River Shorelines of the Hudson Coast Terrestrial Region for Overlapping Areas ........................................................... 6.3-379

Table 6.3.7-7: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Large River Shorelines of the Hudson Coast Terrestrial Region for Overlapping Areas ........................................................... 6.3-379

Table 6.3.7-8: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Large River Shorelines of the Hudson Coast Terrestrial Region for Overlapping Areas ........................................................... 6.3-382

Table 6.3.7-9: Shoreline Debris Accumulation and Distribution along the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Hudson Coast Terrestrial Region for Overlapping Areas ................................................ 6.3-382

Table 6.3.7-10: Waterbody Type along the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Shorelines in the Warkworth Terrestrial Region of the Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone ......................................................................................... 6.3-386

Table 6.3.7-11: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Warkworth Terrestrial Region for Overlapping Areas ............................................................................ 6.3-391

Table 6.3.7-12: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Warkworth Terrestrial Region for Mapped Areas................................................................................... 6.3-393

Table 6.3.7-13: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Warkworth Terrestrial Region for Overlapping Areas ............................................................................ 6.3-395

Table 6.3.7-14: Shoreline Debris Accumulation and Distribution along the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Warkworth Terrestrial Region for Overlapping Areas ........................................ 6.3-395

Table 6.3.7-15: Waterbody Type along the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Shorelines in the Fletcher Terrestrial Region of the Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone ......................................................................................... 6.3-399

Table 6.3.7-16: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Fletcher Terrestrial Region for Overlapping Areas ......................................................................................... 6.3-401

Table 6.3.7-17: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Fletcher Terrestrial Region for Mapped Areas ............................................................................................... 6.3-402

Table 6.3.7-18: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Fletcher Terrestrial Region for Overlapping Areas ......................................................................................... 6.3-402

Table 6.3.7-19: Shoreline Debris Accumulation and Distribution along the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Fletcher Terrestrial Region for Overlapping Areas ........................................................... 6.3-402


DECEMBER 2015 6-XXII

Table 6.3.8-1: Summary of Cumulative Effects on Selected Terrestrial Habitat, Ecosystem Diversity and Shoreline Ecosystem Metrics in the Terrestrial Regions Overlapping the Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment Region of Interest ....... 6.3-407

Table 6.3.8-2: Waterbody Types for the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines of the Rat-Burntwood System .......................................................... 6.3-411

Table 6.3.8-3: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines of the Rat-Burntwood System .......................................................... 6.3-412

Table 6.3.8-4: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines of the Rat-Burntwood System .......................................... 6.3-414

Table 6.3.8-5: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines of the Rat-Burntwood System .......................................... 6.3-415

Table 6.3.8-6: Shoreline Debris Accumulation and Distribution along the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Rat-Burntwood System for Overlapping Areas ......................................................... 6.3-416

Table 6.3.8-7: Waterbody Types for the Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Rat-Burntwood System ....................................................................................... 6.3-418

Table 6.3.8-8: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Rat-Burntwood System for Overlapping Areas .............................................................................................. 6.3-420

Table 6.3.8-9: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Rat-Burntwood System for Overlapping Areas .............................................................................................. 6.3-423

Table 6.3.8-10: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Rat-Burntwood System for Overlapping Areas .............................................................................................. 6.3-425

Table 6.3.8-11: Waterbody Types for the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines of the Lower Churchill River System ................................................ 6.3-428

Table 6.3.8-12: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines of the Lower Churchill River System ................................................ 6.3-428

Table 6.3.8-13: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines of the Lower Churchill River System ............................... 6.3-429

Table 6.3.8-14: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines of the Lower Churchill River System ............................... 6.3-430

Table 6.3.8-15: Waterbody Types for the Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Lower Churchill River System. ........................................................................... 6.3-432

Table 6.3.8-16: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Lower Churchill River System for Overlapping Areas. .......................................................................... 6.3-433

Table 6.3.8-17: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Lower Churchill River System for Overlapping Areas. .......................................................................... 6.3-434


DECEMBER 2015 6-XXIII

Table 6.3.8-18: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Lower Churchill River System for Overlapping Areas............................................................................ 6.3-435

Table 6.3.8-19: Waterbody Types for the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines of the Nelson River System .............................................................. 6.3-437

Table 6.3.8-20: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines of the Nelson River System .............................................................. 6.3-438

Table 6.3.8-21: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines of the Nelson River System ............................................. 6.3-440

Table 6.3.8-22: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development Classified Shorelines of the Nelson River System ............................................. 6.3-441

Table 6.3.8-23: Waterbody Types for the Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Nelson River System .......................................................................................... 6.3-443

Table 6.3.8-24: Bank Material Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Nelson River System for Overlapping Areas .............................................................................................. 6.3-444

Table 6.3.8-25: Shore Zone Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Nelson River System for Overlapping Areas .............................................................................................. 6.3-448

Table 6.3.8-26: Offshore Wetland Composition of the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Nelson River System for Overlapping Areas .............................................................................................. 6.3-450

Table 6.3.8-27: Shoreline Debris Accumulation and Distribution along the Pre-Hydroelectric Development and Existing Environment Classified Shorelines of the Nelson River System for Overlapping Areas .................................................................. 6.3-452

Table 6.4.2-1: Regional Waterfowl Habitat Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development in the Terrestrial Regions of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................. 6.4-12

Table 6.4.3-1: Regional Waterfowl Habitat Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development in the Terrestrial Regions of the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone .................................. 6.4-30

Table 6.4.4-1: Regional Waterfowl Habitat Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development in the Boreal Plains Ecozone ......................................................................................... 6.4-41

Table 6.4.5-1: Regional Waterfowl Habitat Pre and Post-Hydroelectric Development in the Taiga Shield Ecozone ........................................................................................... 6.4-49

Table 6.4.6-1: Regional Waterfowl Habitat Pre and Post-Hydroelectric Development in the Terrestrial Regions of the Hudson Plains Ecozone .............................................. 6.4-59

Table 6.4.7-1: Regional Waterfowl Habitat Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development in the Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone .............................................................................. 6.4-69

Table 6.4.8-1: Regional Waterfowl Habitat Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development in the Ecozones in the Region of Interest ...................................................................... 6.4-76

Table 6.5.2-1: Regional Colonial Waterbird Habitat Pre- and Post-hydroelectric Development in the Terrestrial Regions of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................................................................................................ 6.5-11


DECEMBER 2015 6-XXIV

Table 6.5.3-1: Regional Colonial Waterbird Habitat Pre- and Post-hydroelectric Development in the Terrestrial Regions of the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................................................................................................ 6.5-19

Table 6.5.5-1: Regional Colonial Waterbird Habitat Pre- and Post-hydroelectric Development in the Terrestrial Regions of the Taiga Shield Ecozone ................. 6.5-35

Table 6.5.6-1: Regional Colonial Waterbird Habitat Pre and Post-hydroelectric Development in the Terrestrial Regions of the Hudson Plains Ecozone .................................... 6.5-42

Table 6.5.7-1: Regional Colonial Waterbird Habitat Pre and Post-hydroelectric Development in the Terrestrial Regions of the Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone .......................... 6.5-50

Table 6.5.8-1: Modeled Colonial Waterbird Habitat Pre- and Post-hydroelectric Development in the Ecozones in the RCEA Region of Interest ........................... 6.5-56

Table 6.6.1-1: Indicators and Metrics for Beaver ........................................................................... 6.6-4 Table 6.6.2-1: Post-hydroelectric Active Beaver Lodge Densities in the Wuskwatim

Terrestrial Region ................................................................................................. 6.6-14 Table 6.6.2-2: Regional Modeling of Primary Beaver Habitat Pre- and Post-hydroelectric

Development in the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone .......................................... 6.6-21 Table 6.6.2-3: Modeled On-system Primary Beaver Habitat Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ... 6.6-22 Table 6.6.3-1: Summary of Post-hydroelectric Active Beaver Lodge Densities in the

Keeyask Terrestrial Region .................................................................................. 6.6-29 Table 6.6.3-2: Summary of Modeled On-system Primary Beaver Habitat Pre- and Post-

hydroelectric Development in the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone ...................... 6.6-37 Table 6.6.5-1: Regional Modeling of Primary Beaver Habitat Pre- and Post-hydroelectric

Development in the Taiga Shield Ecozone .......................................................... 6.6-55 Table 6.6.5-2: Modeled On-system Primary Beaver Habitat Taiga Shield Ecozone ................... 6.6-56 Table 6.6.6-1: Regional Modeling of Primary Beaver Habitat Pre- and Post-hydroelectric

Development in the Hudson Plains Ecozone ....................................................... 6.6-64 Table 6.6.6-2: Modeled On-system Primary Beaver Habitat Hudson Plains Ecozone ............... 6.6-64 Table 6.6.7-1: Regional Modeling of Primary Beaver Habitat Pre- and Post-hydroelectric

Development in the Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone ............................................. 6.6-75 Table 6.7.1-1: Summary of Indicators, Metrics and Associated Thresholds and Benchmarks

that were used to Assess Barren-ground Caribou Health ...................................... 6.7-8 Table 6.7.2-1: Qamanirjuaq Barren-ground Caribou Herd Survey Information ........................... 6.7-11 Table 6.7.2-2: Summary of Disturbance Regime for the Qamanirjuaq Barren-ground

Caribou Winter Range Pre-Hydroelectric Development ....................................... 6.7-12 Table 6.7.3-1: Qamanirjuaq Barren-ground Caribou Herd Survey Information ........................... 6.7-14 Table 6.7.3-2: Summary of Disturbance Regimes through Time in the Qamanirjuaq Barren-

ground Caribou Winter Range .............................................................................. 6.7-16 Table 6.8.1-1: Indicators, Metrics, and Benchmarks for Coastal Caribou Populations ............... 6.8-16 Table 6.8.2-1: Fragmentation in Coastal Caribou Regional Assessment Areas Prior to

Hydroelectric Development .................................................................................. 6.8-21 Table 6.8.3-1: Population Estimates for the Pen Islands Coastal Caribou Herd ......................... 6.8-26


DECEMBER 2015 6-XXV

Table 6.8.3-2: Population Estimates for the Cape Churchill Coastal Caribou Herd .................... 6.8-27 Table 6.8.3-3: Fragmentation Within the Coastal Caribou Regional Assessment Areas

Post-Hydroelectric Development .......................................................................... 6.8-28 Table 6.8.3-4: Levels of Disturbance for the Pen Islands and Cape Churchill Caribou Herds

in the Regional Assessment Areas ...................................................................... 6.8-31 Table 6.8.3-5: Number of Radio-Collared Pen Islands Caribou Occurring near Generating

Stations (GS) on the Lower Nelson River during the Winter Season (December 1–March 31) from 2010 to 2014 ........................................................ 6.8-37

Table 6.8.3-6: Number of Radio-Collared Pen Islands Caribou Occurring near Generating Stations (GS) on the Lower Nelson River during the Summer Season (May 1-August 15) from 2010 to 2014 .................................................................. 6.8-37

Table 6.9.1-1: Indicators, Metrics, Associated Thresholds, and Benchmarks for Boreal Woodland Caribou ................................................................................................ 6.9-10

Table 6.9.1-2: Available Boreal Woodland Caribou Telemetry Data for Ranges within the Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment Region of Interest .............................. 6.9-13

Table 6.9.2-1: Percent of Overall Disturbance Regime for Boreal Woodland Caribou Pre-Hydroelectric Development in 1960 ............................................................... 6.9-19

Table 6.9.3-1: Boreal Woodland Caribou Observations in the Harding Lake Range Post-Hydroelectric Development .......................................................................... 6.9-29

Table 6.9.3-2: Boreal Woodland Caribou Observations in the Wapisu-Wimapedi Range Post-Hydroelectric Development .......................................................................... 6.9-30

Table 6.9.3-3: Boreal Woodland Caribou Observations in the Wabowden Range Post-Hydroelectric Development .......................................................................... 6.9-31

Table 6.9.3-4: Core Areas for Boreal Woodland Caribou ............................................................ 6.9-33 Table 6.9.3-5: Modeled Winter Habitat for Boreal Woodland Caribou ........................................ 6.9-37 Table 6.9.3-6: Modeled Summer Habitat for Boreal Woodland Caribou ..................................... 6.9-38 Table 6.9.3-7: Linear Feature Intersect in Summer Boreal Woodland Caribou Core Areas in

the Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment Region of Interest ........................ 6.9-43 Table 6.9.3-8: Linear Feature Intersect in Winter Boreal Woodland Caribou Core Areas in

the Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment Region of Interest ........................ 6.9-44 Table 6.9.3-9: Linear Feature Intersect on all Boreal Woodland Caribou Ranges in the

Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment Region of Interest .............................. 6.9-44 Table 6.9.3-10: Linear Feature Intersect in High Quality Summer Boreal Woodland Caribou

Habitat in the Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment Region of Interest ........ 6.9-45 Table 6.9.3-11: Linear Feature Intersect in High Quality Winter Boreal Woodland Caribou

Habitat in the Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment Region of Interest ........ 6.9-45 Table 6.9.3-12: Amount of Disturbance, by Type, in the Boreal Woodland Caribou Ranges in

1980 ...................................................................................................................... 6.9-46 Table 6.9.3-13: Amount of Disturbance, by Type, in the Existing Environment in the Boreal

Woodland Caribou Ranges .................................................................................. 6.9-47 Table 6.10.1-1: Indicators and Metrics for the Moose Regional Study Component .................... 6.10-15


DECEMBER 2015 6-XXVI

Table 6.10.2-1: Moose Densities in Different Habitats Sampled in the Northern Resource Area of the Northern Flood Agreement Moose Study Area ............................... 6.10-30

Table 6.10.2-2: Moose Densities in Different Habitats Sampled in the Southern and Northern Resource Areas of the Northern Flood Agreement Moose Study Area ............. 6.10-31

Table 6.10.2-3: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................................................................................... 6.10-32

Table 6.10.2-4: Regional Effects of Hydroelectric Development on Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ...................................... 6.10-39

Table 6.10.2-5: Potential Impact of Hydroelectric Development on the Moose Regional Study Component in the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ........................................... 6.10-50

Table 6.10.3-1: Availability of Moose Habitat in the West Channel (Jenpeg Reservoir Area) .... 6.10-62 Table 6.10.3-2: Moose Densities in Different Habitats Sampled in the Southern and Northern

Resource Areas of the Northern Flood Agreement Moose Study Area ............. 6.10-71 Table 6.10.3-3: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Eastern Boreal

Shield Ecozone ................................................................................................... 6.10-73 Table 6.10.3-4: Regional Effects of Hydroelectric Development on Primary and Secondary

Moose Habitat in the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone ....................................... 6.10-80 Table 6.10.3-5: Potential Impact of Hydroelectric Development on the Moose Regional Study

Component in the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone ............................................ 6.10-92 Table 6.10.4-1: Regional Effects of Hydroelectric Development on Primary and Secondary

Moose Habitat in the William Terrestrial Region of the Boreal Plains Ecozone ..... 6.10-110 Table 6.10.4-2: Potential Impact of Hydroelectric Development on Moose Regional Study

Component in the Boreal Plains Ecozone ........................................................ 6.10-115 Table 6.10.5-1: Moose Densities in Different Habitats Sampled in the Northern Resource

Areas within the Northern Flood Agreement Moose Study Area ..................... 6.10-130 Table 6.10.5-2: Moose densities in Different Habitats Sampled in the Southern and Northern

Resource Areas in the Northern Flood Agreement Moose Study Area ........... 6.10-131 Table 6.10.5-3: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Taiga Shield

Ecozone ............................................................................................................ 6.10-132 Table 6.10.5-4: Regional Effects of Hydroelectric Development on Primary and Secondary

Moose Habitat in the Taiga Shield Ecozone .................................................... 6.10-138 Table 6.10.5-5: Potential Impact of Hydroelectric Development on the Moose Regional Study

Component in the Taiga Shield Ecozone ......................................................... 6.10-151 Table 6.10.6-1: Moose Densities by Habitat Strata Sampled in GHA 3 Inside the York

Factory Resource Management Area (modified from Hedman 2000) ............. 6.10-168 Table 6.10.6-2: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Hudson Plains

Ecozone ............................................................................................................ 6.10-168 Table 6.10.6-3: Regional Effects of Hydroelectric Development on Primary and Secondary

Moose Habitat in the Hudson Plains Ecozone ................................................. 6.10-170 Table 6.10.6-4: Potential Impact of Hydroelectric Development on the Moose Regional Study

Component in the Hudson Plains Ecozone ...................................................... 6.10-179


DECEMBER 2015 6-XXVII

Table 6.10.7-1: Moose Densities by Habitat Strata Sampled in Game Hunting Area 3 Inside the York Factory Resource Management Area (modified from Hedman 2000) ..... 6.10-193

Table 6.10.7-2: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone .................................................................................................... 6.10-193

Table 6.10.7-3: Regional Effects of Hydroelectric Development on Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat in the Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone ....................................... 6.10-196

Table 6.10.7-4: Potential Impact of Hydroelectric Development on the Moose Regional Study Component in the Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone ........................................... 6.10-200

Table 6.10.8-1: Proportion of Primary and Secondary Moose Habitat within the Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment Region of Interest ......................................... 6.10-208

Table 6.10.8-2: Amount of Moose Habitat Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development in Ecozones in the Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment Region of Interest ..... 6.10-209

Table 6.10.8-3: Linear Feature Density Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development in Ecozones in the Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment Region of Interest ..... 6.10-210

Table 6.11.1-1: Indicators, Metrics, and Benchmarks for the Western Hudson Bay Polar Bear Subpopulation ..................................................................................................... 6.11-11

Table 6.11.2-1: Human Footprint in Western Hudson Bay Polar Bear Denning Areas ............... 6.11-19

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – LIST OF FIGURES

DECEMBER 2015 6-XXVIII

LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 6.1.2-1: Land – Pathways of Effects for Hydroelectric Development and Other

Projects and Activities .......................................................................................... 6.1-18 Figure 6.2.1-1: Pathways of Effect for Hydroelectric Development on Terrestrial Ecosystem

Intactness ............................................................................................................... 6.2-3 Figure 6.3.1-1: Shore Zone Water Depth Duration Zones, Vegetation Bands and Wetland

Classes in an Off-System Waterbody .................................................................... 6.3-4 Figure 6.3.1-2: Water Depth Duration Zones, Vegetation Bands and Wetland Classes in a

Back Bay in the Gull Reach of the Nelson River when the Water Level was Very Low ................................................................................................................. 6.3-5

Figure 6.3.1-3: Hierarchical Relationships of Inland and Shore Zone Ecological Zones ............... 6.3-6 Figure 6.3.1-4: Hierarchical Relationships of Upland and Wetland Ecological Zones ................... 6.3-6 Figure 6.3.1-5: Pathways of Effect for Hydroelectric Development on Terrestrial Habitat ............. 6.3-9 Figure 6.3.1-6: Percentage of Land Area Burned Annually .......................................................... 6.3-48 Figure 6.4.1-1: Potential Pathways of Effects of Hydroelectric Developments and Other

Factors on Waterfowl .............................................................................................. 6.4-2 Figure 6.4.2-1: Average Waterfowl Numbers and 95% Confidence Intervals in Stratum 24

from 1955 to 2014 (USFWS 2014) ....................................................................... 6.4-18 Figure 6.4.2-2: Average Diver Waterfowl Numbers and 95% Confidence Intervals in Stratum

24 from 1955 to 2014 (USFWS 2014) .................................................................. 6.4-19 Figure 6.4.2-3: Average Dabbler Waterfowl Numbers and 95% Confidence Intervals in

Stratum 24 from 1955 to 2014 (USFWS 2014) .................................................... 6.4-20 Figure 6.4.2-4: Average Canada Goose Numbers and 95% Confidence Intervals in Stratum

24 from 1955 to 2014 (USFWS 2014) .................................................................. 6.4-21 Figure 6.4.2-5: Average Ring-Necked Duck Numbers and 95% Confidence Intervals in

Stratum 24 from 1955 to 2014 (USFWS 2014) .................................................... 6.4-22 Figure 6.4.2-6: Average Mallard Numbers and 95% Confidence Intervals in Stratum 24 from

1955 to 2014 (USFWS 2014) ............................................................................... 6.4-23 Figure 6.4.2-7: Average Scaup (Greater and Lesser) Numbers and 95% Confidence

Intervals in Stratum 24 from 1955 to 2014 (USFWS 2014) .................................. 6.4-24 Figure 6.5.1-1: Potential Pathways of Effects of Hydroelectric Developments on Colonial

Waterbirds .............................................................................................................. 6.5-2 Figure 6.5.3-1: Islands and Reefs Supporting Colonial Waterbirds in the Gull Rapids Area of

the Keeyask Terrestrial Region (Stantec 2015) ................................................... 6.5-24 Figure 6.5.6-1: Gull and Tern Nesting Colonies in the Hudson Plains Ecozone Post-

hydroelectric Development (Stantec 2014a) ........................................................ 6.5-45 Figure 6.6.1-1: Potential Effects Pathways of Hydroelectric Developments on Beaver ................. 6.6-3


DECEMBER 2015 6-XXIX

Figure 6.6.1-2: Historic RTLs in the Province of Manitoba circa 1950s .......................................... 6.6-9 Figure 6.7.1-1: Barren-ground Caribou Pathways of Effects Diagram ........................................... 6.7-7 Figure 6.8.1-1: Potential Pathways of Effects of Environmental Effects on Coastal Caribou ......... 6.8-7 Figure 6.9.1-1: Pathways of Effects Diagram for Hydroelectric Development on Boreal

Woodland Caribou .................................................................................................. 6.9-9 Figure 6.10.1-1: Potential Pathways of Effects of Hydroelectric and Other Development on

Moose ................................................................................................................... 6.10-3 Figure 6.10.2-1: Estimated Calf:Cow Ratios based on Aerial Surveys Conducted in the Game

Hunting Area 7 and 7A from 1973/74 to 1989/90 ............................................... 6.10-28 Figure 6.10.2-2: Changes in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat Quality Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric

Development in the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ........................................ 6.10-41 Figure 6.10.2-3: Changes in Offshore Wetland Habitat Quality Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric

Development in the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ........................................ 6.10-42 Figure 6.10.2-4: Changes in Moose Access due to Shoreline Debris Pre- and Post-

Hydroelectric Development in the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone .................. 6.10-43 Figure 6.10.3-1: Changes in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat Quality Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric

Development in the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone ......................................... 6.10-82 Figure 6.10.3-2: Changes in Offshore Wetland Habitat Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric

Development in the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone ......................................... 6.10-83 Figure 6.10.3-3: Changes in Moose Access due to Shoreline Debris Pre- and Post-

Hydroelectric Development in the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone ................... 6.10-84 Figure 6.10.3-4: Changes in the Density of Tall Shrub Communities Pre- and Post-

Hydroelectric Development in the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone ................... 6.10-85 Figure 6.10.4-1: Estimated Calf:Cow Ratios based on Aerial Surveys Conducted in the Game

Hunting Area 7 and 7A from 1973/74 to 1989/90 ............................................. 6.10-105 Figure 6.10.4-2: Estimated Calf:Cow Ratios based on Aerial Surveys Conducted in the Game

Hunting Area 10 from 1973/74 to 1982/83 ....................................................... 6.10-106 Figure 6.10.5-1: Changes in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat Quality Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric

Development in the Taiga Shield Ecozone ...................................................... 6.10-144 Figure 6.10.5-2: Changes in Offshore Wetland Habitat Quality Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric

Development in the Taiga Shield Ecozone ...................................................... 6.10-145 Figure 6.10.5-3: Changes in Moose Access due to Shoreline Debris Pre- and Post-

Hydroelectric Development in the Taiga Shield Ecozone ................................ 6.10-146 Figure 6.10.5-4: Changes in Density of Tall Shrub Communities Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric

Development in the Taiga Shield Ecozone ...................................................... 6.10-147 Figure 6.10.6-1: Changes in Shore Zone Wetland Habitat Quality Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric

Development in the Hudson Plains Ecozone ................................................... 6.10-172 Figure 6.10.6-2: Changes in OffShore Wetland Habitat Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric

Development in the Hudson Plains Ecozone ................................................... 6.10-173 Figure 6.10.6-3: Changes in Moose Access due to Shoreline Debris Pre- and Post-

Hydroelectric Development in the Hudson Plains Ecozone ............................. 6.10-174


DECEMBER 2015 6-XXX

Figure 6.10.6-4: Changes in Density of Tall Shrub Communities Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development in the Hudson Plains Ecozone ................................................... 6.10-175

Figure 6.11.1-1: Potential Pathways of Effects of Hydroelectric Development on Polar Bear ....... 6.11-4 Figure 6.11.1-2: Polar Bear Denning Areas in Northern Manitoba as Documented in the 2013

Polar Bear Park Background Information and Consultation Package ................. 6.11-8 Figure 6.11.2-1: Owl River and Cape Tatnum (now known as Kaskatamagan) Maternity

Denning Areas in Manitoba and General Direction of Movement to Sea During March ...................................................................................................... 6.11-16

Figure 6.11.2-2: Sampled and Other Known Polar Bear Den Locations in Manitoba .................. 6.11-17 Figure 6.11.2-3: Location of Six Suspected Polar Bear Dens near Cape Tatnum, Manitoba ...... 6.11-18 Figure 6.11.2-4: Kaskatamagan Polar Bear Den Area and Movement Corridor Study Area,

Coastal Hudson Bay Area .................................................................................. 6.11-18

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – LIST OF MAPS

DECEMBER 2015 6-XXXI

LIST OF MAPS Page Map 6.1.1-1: Ecozones in the RCEA Region of Interest ............................................................. 6.1-4 Map 6.1.2-1: Ecozones and Terrestrial Regions for RCEA ....................................................... 6.1-10 Map 6.1.2-2: Ecozones and Hydraulic Zones in the RCEA Region of Interest ......................... 6.1-11 Map 6.2.2-1: Western Boreal Shield Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones ...... 6.2-12 Map 6.2.2-2: Human Footprints Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Western Boreal Shield

Ecozone ................................................................................................................ 6.2-13 Map 6.2.2-3: Human Footprints Post-Hydroelectric Development – Western Boreal Shield

Ecozone ................................................................................................................ 6.2-14 Map 6.2.3-1: Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones ....... 6.2-30 Map 6.2.3-2: Human Footprints Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Eastern Boreal Shield

Ecozone ................................................................................................................ 6.2-31 Map 6.2.3-3: Human Footprints Post-Hydroelectric Development – Eastern Boreal Shield

Ecozone ................................................................................................................ 6.2-32 Map 6.2.4-1: Boreal Plains Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones..................... 6.2-50 Map 6.2.4-2: Human Footprints Pre-Hydroelectric Development – William Terrestrial

Region .................................................................................................................. 6.2-52 Map 6.2.4-3: Human Footprints Post-Hydroelectric Development – William Terrestrial

Region .................................................................................................................. 6.2-57 Map 6.2.5-1: Taiga Shield Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones ...................... 6.2-62 Map 6.2.5-2: Human Footprints Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Bradshaw Terrestrial

Region .................................................................................................................. 6.2-63 Map 6.2.5-3: Human Footprints Post-Hydroelectric Development – Bradshaw Terrestrial

Region .................................................................................................................. 6.2-64 Map 6.2.5-4: Human Footprints Post-Hydroelectric Development – Upper Churchill

Terrestrial Region ................................................................................................. 6.2-71 Map 6.2.5-5: Human Footprints Post-Hydroelectric Development – Southern Indian

Terrestrial Region ................................................................................................. 6.2-74 Map 6.2.6-1: Hudson Plains Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones .................. 6.2-80 Map 6.2.6-2: Human Footprints Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Limestone Rapids and

Deer Island Terrestrial Regions ............................................................................ 6.2-81 Map 6.2.6-3: Human Footprints Post-Hydroelectric Development – Limestone Rapids and

Deer Island Terrestrial Regions ............................................................................ 6.2-82 Map 6.2.7-1: Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones ......... 6.2-94 Map 6.2.7-2: Human Footprints Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Coastal Hudson Bay

Ecozone ................................................................................................................ 6.2-95


DECEMBER 2015 6-XXXII

Map 6.2.7-3: Human Footprints Post-Hydroelectric Development – Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone ................................................................................................................ 6.2-96

Map 6.2.8-1: Human Footprints Pre-Hydroelectric Development – RCEA Region of Interest ...... 6.2-109 Map 6.2.8-2: Human Footprints Post-Hydroelectric Development – RCEA Region of

Interest ................................................................................................................ 6.2-116 Map 6.3.1-1: Habitat Mapping Detail Post-Hydroelectric Development – Overall Regional

Cumulative Effects Assessment Terrestrial Mapping Area .................................. 6.3-16 Map 6.3.1-2: Elevation Post-Hydroelectric Development – Regional Cumulative Effects

Assessment Region of Interest ............................................................................ 6.3-37 Map 6.3.1-3: Organic Soil Cover Post-Hydroelectric Development – Regional Cumulative

Effects Assessment Region of Interest ................................................................ 6.3-41 Map 6.3.1-4: Bedrock Outcrop Cover Post-Hydroelectric Development – Regional

Cumulative Effects Assessment Region of Interest ............................................. 6.3-42 Map 6.3.1-5: Mixedwood Forest Cover Post-Hydroelectric Development – Regional

Cumulative Effects Assessment Region of Interest ............................................. 6.3-43 Map 6.3.1-6: Needleleaf Forest Cover Post-Hydroelectric Development – Regional

Cumulative Effects Assessment Region of Interest ............................................. 6.3-44 Map 6.3.1-7: Fire History Post-Hydroelectric Development – Regional Cumulative Effects

Assessment Region of Interest ............................................................................ 6.3-52 Map 6.3.2-1: Western Boreal Shield Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones ...... 6.3-55 Map 6.3.2-2: Coarse Habitat Pre and Post-Hydroelectric Development – Paint Terrestrial

Region .................................................................................................................. 6.3-60 Map 6.3.2-3: Bank Material Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Paint Terrestrial Region .......... 6.3-65 Map 6.3.2-4: Shore Zone Wetland Type Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Paint Terrestrial

Region .................................................................................................................. 6.3-69 Map 6.3.2-5: Bank Material Post-Hydroelectric Development – Paint Terrestrial Region ......... 6.3-76 Map 6.3.2-6: Shore Zone Wetland Type Post-Hydroelectric Development – Paint

Terrestrial Region ................................................................................................. 6.3-79 Map 6.3.2-7: Shoreline Debris Post-Hydroelectric Development – Paint Terrestrial Region .... 6.3-82 Map 6.3.2-8: Coarse Habitat Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development – Wuskwatim

Terrestrial Region ................................................................................................. 6.3-85 Map 6.3.2-9: Bank Material Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Wuskwatim Terrestrial

Region .................................................................................................................. 6.3-91 Map 6.3.2-10: Shore Zone Wetland Type Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Wuskwatim

Terrestrial Region ................................................................................................. 6.3-94 Map 6.3.2-11: Bank Material Post-Hydroelectric Development – Wuskwatim Terrestrial

Region ................................................................................................................ 6.3-100 Map 6.3.2-12: Shore Zone Wetland Type Post-Hydroelectric Development – Wuskwatim

Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................... 6.3-104 Map 6.3.2-13: Shoreline Debris Post-Hydroelectric Development – Wuskwatim Terrestrial

Region ................................................................................................................ 6.3-105


DECEMBER 2015 6-XXXIII

Map 6.3.2-14: Coarse Habitat Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development – Rat Terrestrial Region ................................................................................................................ 6.3-108

Map 6.3.2-15: Bank Material Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Rat Terrestrial Region ........... 6.3-113 Map 6.3.2-16: Shore Zone Wetland Type Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Rat Terrestrial

Region ................................................................................................................ 6.3-116 Map 6.3.2-17: Bank Material Post-Hydroelectric Development – Rat Terrestrial Region ......... 6.3-123 Map 6.3.2-18: Shore Zone Wetland Type Post-Hydroelectric Development – Rat Terrestrial

Region ................................................................................................................ 6.3-127 Map 6.3.2-19: Shoreline Debris Post-Hydroelectric Development – Rat Terrestrial Region ..... 6.3-129 Map 6.3.2-20: Coarse Habitat Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development – Baldock

Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................... 6.3-131 Map 6.3.2-21: Bank Material Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Baldock Terrestrial Region .... 6.3-136 Map 6.3.2-22: Shore Zone Wetland Type Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Baldock

Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................... 6.3-139 Map 6.3.2-23: Bank Material Post-Hydroelectric Development – Baldock Terrestrial Region .. 6.3-145 Map 6.3.2-24: Shore Zone Wetland Type Post-Hydroelectric Development – Baldock

Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................... 6.3-148 Map 6.3.2-25: Shoreline Debris Post-Hydroelectric Development – Baldock Terrestrial

Region ................................................................................................................ 6.3-151 Map 6.3.3-1: Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones ..... 6.3-157 Map 6.3.3-2: Coarse Habitat Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development – Eastern Boreal

Shield Ecozone ................................................................................................... 6.3-161 Map 6.3.3-3: Coarse Habitat Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development – Keeyask

Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................... 6.3-162 Map 6.3.3-4: Bank Material Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Keeyask Terrestrial Region ... 6.3-172 Map 6.3.3-5: Shore Zone Wetland Type Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Keeyask

Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................... 6.3-175 Map 6.3.3-6: Bank Material Post-Hydroelectric Development – Keeyask Terrestrial Region . 6.3-182 Map 6.3.3-7: Shore Zone Wetland Type Post-Hydroelectric Development – Keeyask

Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................... 6.3-185 Map 6.3.3-8: Shoreline Debris Post-Hydroelectric Development – Keeyask Terrestrial

Region ................................................................................................................ 6.3-187 Map 6.3.3-9: Coarse Habitat Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development – Dafoe Terrestrial

Region ................................................................................................................ 6.3-189 Map 6.3.3-10: Bank Material Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Dafoe Terrestrial Region ....... 6.3-196 Map 6.3.3-11: Shore Zone Wetland Type Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Dafoe

Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................... 6.3-197 Map 6.3.3-12: Bank Material Post-Hydroelectric Development – Dafoe Terrestrial Region ..... 6.3-202 Map 6.3.3-13: Shore Zone Wetland Type Post-Hydroelectric Development – Dafoe

Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................... 6.3-203 Map 6.3.3-14: Shoreline Debris Post-Hydroelectric Development – Dafoe Terrestrial Region ....... 6.3-204


DECEMBER 2015 6-XXXIV

Map 6.3.3-15: Coarse Habitat Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development – Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................... 6.3-207

Map 6.3.3-16: Bank Material Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region ................................................................................................................ 6.3-212

Map 6.3.3-17: Shore Zone Wetland Type Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................... 6.3-216

Map 6.3.3-18: Bank Material Post-Hydroelectric Development – Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region ................................................................................................................ 6.3-225

Map 6.3.3-19: Shore Zone Wetland Type Post-Hydroelectric Development – Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................... 6.3-228

Map 6.3.3-20: Shoreline Debris Post-Hydroelectric Development – Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region ................................................................................................................ 6.3-231

Map 6.3.3-21: Coarse Habitat Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development – Molson Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................... 6.3-233

Map 6.3.4-1: Boreal Plains Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones................... 6.3-244 Map 6.3.4-2: Coarse Habitat Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development – William

Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................... 6.3-249 Map 6.3.5-1: Taiga Shield Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones .................... 6.3-258 Map 6.3.5-2: Coarse Habitat Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development – Bradshaw

Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................... 6.3-263 Map 6.3.5-3: Bank Material Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Bradshaw Terrestrial Region 6.3-265 Map 6.3.5-4: Shore Zone Wetland Type Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Bradshaw

Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................... 6.3-266 Map 6.3.5-5: Bank Material Post-Hydroelectric Development – Bradshaw Terrestrial

Region ................................................................................................................ 6.3-270 Map 6.3.5-6: Shore Zone Wetland Type Post-Hydroelectric Development – Bradshaw

Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................... 6.3-272 Map 6.3.5-7: Shoreline Debris Post-Hydroelectric Development – Bradshaw Terrestrial

Region ................................................................................................................ 6.3-273 Map 6.3.5-8: Coarse Habitat Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development – Upper Churchill

Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................... 6.3-275 Map 6.3.5-9: Coarse Habitat Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development – Taiga Shield

Ecozone .............................................................................................................. 6.3-277 Map 6.3.5-10: Bank Material Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Upper Churchill Terrestrial

Region ................................................................................................................ 6.3-284 Map 6.3.5-11: Shore Zone Wetland Type Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Upper Churchill

Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................... 6.3-286 Map 6.3.5-12: Bank Material Post-Hydroelectric Development – Upper Churchill Terrestrial

Region ................................................................................................................ 6.3-295 Map 6.3.5-13: Shore Zone Wetland Type Post-Hydroelectric Development – Upper

Churchill Terrestrial Region ................................................................................ 6.3-298


DECEMBER 2015 6-XXXV

Map 6.3.5-14: Shoreline Debris Post-Hydroelectric Development – Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................... 6.3-299

Map 6.3.5-15: Coarse Habitat Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development – Southern Indian Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................... 6.3-302

Map 6.3.5-16: Bank Material Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Southern Indian Terrestrial Region ................................................................................................................ 6.3-305

Map 6.3.5-17: Shore Zone Wetland Type Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Southern Indian Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................... 6.3-308

Map 6.3.5-18: Bank Material Post-Hydroelectric Development – Southern Indian Terrestrial Region ................................................................................................................ 6.3-316

Map 6.3.5-19: Shore Zone Wetland Type Post-Hydroelectric Development – Southern Indian Terrestrial Region .................................................................................... 6.3-319

Map 6.3.5-20: Shoreline Debris Post-Hydroelectric Development – Southern Indian Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................... 6.3-321

Map 6.3.6-1: Hudson Plains Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones ................ 6.3-327 Map 6.3.6-2: Coarse Habitat Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development – Limestone and

Deer Island Terrestrial Regions .......................................................................... 6.3-331 Map 6.3.6-3: Coarse Habitat Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development – Limestone and

Deer Island Terrestrial Regions .......................................................................... 6.3-332 Map 6.3.6-4: Bank Material Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Limestone Rapids and Deer

Island Terrestrial Regions................................................................................... 6.3-340 Map 6.3.6-5: Shore Zone Wetland Type Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Limestone

Rapids and Deer Island Terrestrial Regions ...................................................... 6.3-342 Map 6.3.6-6: Bank Material Post-Hydroelectric Development – Limestone Rapids and

Deer Island Terrestrial Regions .......................................................................... 6.3-349 Map 6.3.6-7: Shore Zone Wetland Type Post-Hydroelectric Development – Limestone

Rapids and Deer Island Terrestrial Regions ...................................................... 6.3-352 Map 6.3.6-8: Shoreline Debris Post-Hydroelectric Development – Limestone Rapids and

Deer Island Terrestrial Regions .......................................................................... 6.3-353 Map 6.3.7-1: Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones ....... 6.3-366 Map 6.3.7-2: Coarse Habitat Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development – Coastal Hudson

Bay Ecozone ...................................................................................................... 6.3-370 Map 6.3.7-3: Shore Zone Wetland Type Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Hudson Coast

Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................... 6.3-373 Map 6.3.7-4: Bank Material Post-Hydroelectric Development – Hudson Coast Terrestrial

Region ................................................................................................................ 6.3-380 Map 6.3.7-5: Shore Zone Wetland Type Post-Hydroelectric Development – Hudson Coast

Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................... 6.3-381 Map 6.3.7-6: Shoreline Debris Post-Hydroelectric Development – Hudson Coast

Terrestrial Region ............................................................................................... 6.3-383 Map 6.3.7-7: Bank Material Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Warkworth and Fletcher

Terrestrial Regions ............................................................................................. 6.3-387


DECEMBER 2015 6-XXXVI

Map 6.3.7-8: Shore Zone Wetland Type Pre-Hydroelectric Development – Warkworth and Fletcher Terrestrial Regions ............................................................................... 6.3-388

Map 6.3.7-9: Bank Material Post-Hydroelectric Development – Warkworth and Fletcher Terrestrial Regions ............................................................................................. 6.3-392

Map 6.3.7-10: Shore Zone Wetland Type Post-Hydroelectric Development – Warkworth and Fletcher Terrestrial Regions ............................................................................... 6.3-394

Map 6.3.7-11: Shoreline Debris Post-Hydroelectric Development – Warkworth and Fletcher Terrestrial Regions ............................................................................................. 6.3-396

Map 6.3.8-1: Large River Systems Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development – RCEA Region of Interest. .............................................................................................. 6.3-410

Map 6.4.2-1: Western Boreal Shield Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones ...... 6.4-10 Map 6.4.2-2: Waterfowl Habitat Quality Post-Hydroelectric Development – Western Boreal

Shield Ecozone ..................................................................................................... 6.4-16 Map 6.4.2-3: United States Fish and Wildlife Service/Canadian Wildlife Service – Annual

Breeding Waterfowl Survey – Stratum 24 ............................................................ 6.4-17 Map 6.4.3-1: Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones ....... 6.4-29 Map 6.4.3-2: Waterfowl Habitat Quality Post-Hydroelectric Development – Eastern Boreal

Shield Ecozone ..................................................................................................... 6.4-35 Map 6.4.4-1: Boreal Plains Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones..................... 6.4-40 Map 6.4.4-2: Waterfowl Habitat Quality Post-Hydroelectric Development – Boreal Plains

Ecozone ................................................................................................................ 6.4-43 Map 6.4.5-1: Taiga Shield Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones ...................... 6.4-46 Map 6.4.5-2: Waterfowl Habitat Quality Post-Hydroelectric Development – Taiga Shield

Ecozone ................................................................................................................ 6.4-53 Map 6.4.6-1: Hudson Plains Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones .................. 6.4-58 Map 6.4.6-2: Waterfowl Habitat Quality Post-Hydroelectric Development – Hudson Plains

Ecozone ................................................................................................................ 6.4-62 Map 6.4.7-1: Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones ......... 6.4-66 Map 6.4.7-2: Waterfowl Habitat Quality Post-Hydroelectric Development – Coastal Hudson

Bay Ecozone ........................................................................................................ 6.4-71 Map 6.5.2-1: Western Boreal Shield Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones ...... 6.5-10 Map 6.5.2-2: Waterbird Habitat Quality – Western Boreal Shield Ecozone .............................. 6.5-12 Map 6.5.3-1: Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones ....... 6.5-18 Map 6.5.3-2: Waterbird Habitat Quality – Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone ............................... 6.5-21 Map 6.5.3-3: Islands in Stephens Lake Area – Pre- and Post-Hydroelectric Development –

Keeyask Terrestrial Region .................................................................................. 6.5-22 Map 6.5.4-1: Boreal Plains Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones..................... 6.5-29 Map 6.5.4-2: Waterbird Habitat Quality – Boreal Plains Ecozone ............................................. 6.5-31 Map 6.5.5-1: Taiga Shield Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones ...................... 6.5-34 Map 6.5.5-2: Waterbird Habitat Quality – Taiga Shield Ecozone .............................................. 6.5-36 Map 6.5.6-1: Hudson Plains Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones .................. 6.5-41


DECEMBER 2015 6-XXXVII

Map 6.5.6-2: Waterbird Habitat Quality – Hudson Plains Ecozone ........................................... 6.5-43 Map 6.5.7-1: Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones ......... 6.5-49 Map 6.5.7-2: Waterbird Habitat Quality – Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone ................................. 6.5-51 Map 6.6.2-1: Western Boreal Shield Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones ...... 6.6-11 Map 6.6.2-2: Primary Beaver Habitat – Paint Terrestrial Region – Pre- and Post-

Hydroelectric Development .................................................................................. 6.6-15 Map 6.6.2-3: Primary Beaver Habitat – Wuskwatim Terrestrial Region – Pre- and Post-

Hydroelectric Development .................................................................................. 6.6-17 Map 6.6.2-4: Primary Beaver Habitat – Rat Terrestrial Region – Pre- and Post-

Hydroelectric Development .................................................................................. 6.6-18 Map 6.6.2-5: Primary Beaver Habitat – Baldock Terrestrial Region – Pre- and Post-

Hydroelectric Development .................................................................................. 6.6-20 Map 6.6.3-1: Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones ....... 6.6-26 Map 6.6.3-2: Primary Beaver Habitat – Keeyask Terrestrial Region –Pre- and Post-

Hydroelectric Development .................................................................................. 6.6-31 Map 6.6.3-3: Primary Beaver Habitat – Dafoe Terrestrial Region – Pre- and Post-

Hydroelectric Development .................................................................................. 6.6-32 Map 6.6.3-4: Primary Beaver Habitat – Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region – Pre- and Post-

Hydroelectric Development .................................................................................. 6.6-34 Map 6.6.3-5: Primary Beaver Habitat – Molson Terrestrial Region –Pre- and Post-

Hydroelectric Development .................................................................................. 6.6-35 Map 6.6.4-1: Boreal Plains Ecozone – Terrestrial Region and Hydraulic Zones ...................... 6.6-42 Map 6.6.4-2: Primary Beaver Habitat – William Terrestrial Region – Pre- and Post-

Hydroelectric Development .................................................................................. 6.6-44 Map 6.6.5-1: Taiga Shield Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones ...................... 6.6-48 Map 6.6.5-2: Primary Beaver Habitat – Bradshaw Terrestrial Region – Pre- and Post-

Hydroelectric Development .................................................................................. 6.6-51 Map 6.6.5-3: Primary Beaver Habitat – Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region – Pre- and Post-

Hydroelectric Development .................................................................................. 6.6-53 Map 6.6.5-4: Primary Beaver Habitat – Southern Indian Terrestrial Region – Pre- and

Post-Hydroelectric Development .......................................................................... 6.6-54 Map 6.6.6-1: Hudson Plain Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones .................... 6.6-59 Map 6.6.6-2: Primary Beaver – Habitat Hudson Plains Ecozone – Pre- and Post-

Hydroelectric Development .................................................................................. 6.6-62 Map 6.6.7-1: Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones ......... 6.6-68 Map 6.6.7-2: Primary Beaver Habitat – Hudson Coast Terrestrial Region – Pre- and Post-

Hydroelectric Development .................................................................................. 6.6-71 Map 6.6.7-3: Primary Beaver Habitat – Warkworth Terrestrial Region – Pre- and Post-

Hydroelectric Development .................................................................................. 6.6-73 Map 6.6.7-4: Primary Beaver Habitat – Fletcher Terrestrial Region – Pre- and Post-

Hydroelectric Development .................................................................................. 6.6-74


DECEMBER 2015 6-XXXVIII

Map 6.7.1-1: Qamanirjuaq Caribou Winter and Summer Ranges ............................................... 6.7-4 Map 6.7.3-1: Disturbance in the Existing Environment – Qamanirjuaq Caribou Winter

Range ................................................................................................................... 6.7-15 Map 6.8.1-1: Pen Islands and Cape Churchill Coastal Caribou – Ranges .................................. 6.8-2 Map 6.8.1-2: Pen Islands and Cape Churchill Caribou – Regional Assessment Areas .............. 6.8-3 Map 6.8.2-1: Human Footprints in 1956 – Pen Islands Caribou – Regional Assessment

Area ...................................................................................................................... 6.8-23 Map 6.8.2-2: Human Footprints in 1965 – Cape Churchill Caribou Regional Assessment

Area ...................................................................................................................... 6.8-24 Map 6.8.3-1: Human Footprints in 2013 – Pen Islands Caribou – Regional Assessment

Area ...................................................................................................................... 6.8-29 Map 6.8.3-2: Human Footprints in 2013 – Cape Churchill Caribou – Regional Assessment

Area ...................................................................................................................... 6.8-30 Map 6.8.3-3: Disturbance in 2013 – Pen Islands Caribou – Regional Assessment Area ......... 6.8-32 Map 6.8.3-4: Disturbance in 2013 – Cape Churchill Caribou – Regional Assessment Area .... 6.8-33 Map 6.8.3-5: Fire History in 2013 – Pen Islands Caribou – Regional Assessment Area .......... 6.8-34 Map 6.8.3-6: Fire History in 2013 – Cape Churchill Caribou – Regional Assessment Area ..... 6.8-35 Map 6.9.1-1: Provincial Boreal Woodland Caribou Ranges and Management Units in the

Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment Region of Interest ................................ 6.9-4 Map 6.9.2-1: Core Areas of Boreal Woodland Caribou Pre-Construction – Wuskwatim

Transmission Project Area ................................................................................... 6.9-18 Map 6.9.2-2: Disturbance in 1960 – Harding Lake Caribou Range ........................................... 6.9-20 Map 6.9.2-3: Disturbance in 1960 – Wapisu-Wimapedi Caribou Range ................................... 6.9-21 Map 6.9.2-4: Disturbance in 1960 – Wheadon Caribou Range ................................................. 6.9-22 Map 6.9.2-5: Disturbance in 1960 – Wabowden Caribou Range .............................................. 6.9-23 Map 6.9.2-6: Disturbance in 1960 – William Lake Caribou Range ............................................ 6.9-24 Map 6.9.2-7: Disturbance in 1960 – Naosap-Reed Caribou Range .......................................... 6.9-25 Map 6.9.2-8: Disturbance in 1960 – Norway House Caribou Range ........................................ 6.9-26 Map 6.9.2-9: Disturbance in 1960 – Charron Lake Caribou Range .......................................... 6.9-27 Map 6.9.3-1: Core Areas of Boreal Woodland Caribou Post-Construction – Wuskwatim

Transmission Project Area ................................................................................... 6.9-34 Map 6.9.3-2: Boreal Woodland Caribou – Summer and Winter Cores – 2007–2014

Telemetry .............................................................................................................. 6.9-35 Map 6.9.3-3: Boreal Woodland Caribou – Summer and Winter Cores – 2007–2014

Telemetry – Charron Lake Caribou Range .......................................................... 6.9-36 Map 6.9.3-4: Boreal Woodland Caribou – Winter Predicted Habitat – Harding Lake,

Wapisu-Wimapedi, Wheadon, Wabowden, William Lake and Naosap-Reed Ranges ................................................................................................................. 6.9-39

Map 6.9.3-5: Boreal Woodland Caribou – Summer Predicted Habitat – Harding Lake, Wapisu-Wimapedi, Wheadon, Wabowden, William Lake and Naosap-Reed Ranges ................................................................................................................. 6.9-40


DECEMBER 2015 6-XXXIX

Map 6.9.3-6: Boreal Woodland Caribou – Winter Predicted Habitat – Charron Lake and Norway House Caribou Ranges ........................................................................... 6.9-41

Map 6.9.3-7: Boreal Woodland Caribou – Summer Predicted Habitat – Charron Lake and Norway House Caribou Ranges ........................................................................... 6.9-42

Map 6.9.3-8: Disturbance in the Existing Environment – Harding Lake Caribou Range ........... 6.9-48 Map 6.9.3-9: Disturbance in the Existing Environment – Wapisu-Wimapedi Caribou Range ... 6.9-49 Map 6.9.3-10: Disturbance in the Existing Environment – Wheadon Caribou Range ................. 6.9-50 Map 6.9.3-11: Disturbance in the Existing Environment – Wabowden Caribou Range .............. 6.9-51 Map 6.9.3-12: Disturbance in the Existing Environment – William Lake Caribou Range ............ 6.9-52 Map 6.9.3-13: Disturbance in the Existing Environment – Naosap-Reed Caribou Range .......... 6.9-53 Map 6.9.3-14: Disturbance in the Existing Environment – Norway House Caribou Range ........ 6.9-54 Map 6.9.3-15: Disturbance in the Existing Environment – Charron Lake Caribou Range .......... 6.9-55 Map 6.10.2-1: Western Boreal Shield Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones .... 6.10-19 Map 6.10.2-2: Game Hunting Areas Western – Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................... 6.10-26 Map 6.10.2-3: Moose Habitat Quality – Western Boreal Shield Ecozone ................................. 6.10-33 Map 6.10.2-4: Moose Habitat Quality – Paint Terrestrial Region .............................................. 6.10-34 Map 6.10.2-5: Moose Habitat Quality – Wuskwatim Terrestrial Region .................................... 6.10-35 Map 6.10.2-6: Moose Habitat Quality – Rat Terrestrial Region ................................................. 6.10-36 Map 6.10.2-7: Moose Habitat Quality – Baldock Terrestrial Region ......................................... 6.10-37 Map 6.10.3-1: Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones ..... 6.10-58 Map 6.10.3-2: Game Hunting Areas – Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone .................................... 6.10-67 Map 6.10.3-3: Moose Habitat Quality – Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone .................................. 6.10-74 Map 6.10.3-4: Moose Habitat Quality – Keeyask Terrestrial Region ........................................ 6.10-75 Map 6.10.3-5: Moose Habitat Quality – Dafoe Terrestrial Region ............................................. 6.10-76 Map 6.10.3-6: Moose Habitat Quality – Upper Nelson Terrestrial Region ................................ 6.10-77 Map 6.10.3-7: Moose Habitat Quality – Molson Terrestrial Region ........................................... 6.10-78 Map 6.10.4-1: Boreal Plains Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones................... 6.10-99 Map 6.10.4-2: Game Hunting Areas – Boreal Plains Ecozone ............................................... 6.10-104 Map 6.10.4-3: Moose Habitat Quality – Boreal Plains Ecozone .............................................. 6.10-109 Map 6.10.5-1: Taiga Shield Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones .................. 6.10-120 Map 6.10.5-2: Game Hunting Areas – Taiga Shield Ecozone ................................................. 6.10-127 Map 6.10.5-3: Moose Habitat Quality – Taiga Shield Ecozone ............................................... 6.10-133 Map 6.10.5-4: Moose Habitat Quality – Bradshaw Terrestrial Region .................................... 6.10-134 Map 6.10.5-5: Moose Habitat Quality – Upper Churchill Terrestrial Region ........................... 6.10-135 Map 6.10.5-6: Moose Habitat Quality – Southern Indian Terrestrial Region ........................... 6.10-136 Map 6.10.6-1: Hudson Plains Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones .............. 6.10-159 Map 6.10.6-2: Game Hunting Areas – Hudson Plains Ecozone.............................................. 6.10-166 Map 6.10.6-3: Moose Habitat Quality – Hudson Plains Ecozone ............................................ 6.10-169 Map 6.10.7-1: Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone – Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones ..... 6.10-185 Map 6.10.7-2: Game Hunting Areas – Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone .................................... 6.10-191 Map 6.10.7-3: Moose Habitat Quality – Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone .................................. 6.10-194


DECEMBER 2015 6-XL

Map 6.10.7-4: Moose Habitat Quality – Warkworth and Fletcher Terrestrial Regions ............ 6.10-195 Map 6.11.1-1: Western Hudson Bay Polar Bear Range – Hudson Bay Area ............................. 6.11-3 Map 6.11.2-1: Polar Bear Denning Areas and Human Footprints Post-Hydroelectric

Development – Hudson Bay Area ...................................................................... 6.11-21

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – LIST OF PHOTOS

DECEMBER 2015 6-XLI

LIST OF PHOTOS Photo 6.3.1-1: Example Photo for the Clay on Low Bedrock Bank Material Class...................... 6.3-30 Photo 6.3.1-2: Example Photo for the Clay on Bedrock Bank Material Class ............................. 6.3-30 Photo 6.3.1-3: Example Photo for the Peat Bank Material Class ................................................ 6.3-31 Photo 6.3.1-4: Example Photo for the Sunken Marsh Shore Zone Wetland Class ..................... 6.3-31 Photo 6.3.1-5: Example Photo for the Peatland Shore Zone Wetland Class .............................. 6.3-32 Photo 6.3.1-6: Example Photo for the Disintegrating Peatland Offshore Wetland Class ............ 6.3-32 Photo 6.3.1-7: Example Photo for the Heavy Density, Continuous Cover Shoreline Debris

Class ..................................................................................................................... 6.3-33 Photo 6.3.1-8: Example Photo for the Moderate Density, Moderate Cover Shoreline Debris

Class ..................................................................................................................... 6.3-33 Photo 6.3.1-9: Example Photo for the Light Density, Continuous Cover Shoreline Debris

Class ..................................................................................................................... 6.3-34 Photo 6.3.5-1: Examples of Vegetation Development in Dewatered Areas in the Upper

Churchill Terrestrial Region of the Taiga Shield Ecozone in 2015 ..................... 6.3-290 Photo 6.3.5-2: Example of Disintegrating Peatland Shore Zone Wetlands in the Southern

Indian Lake Terrestrial Region of the Taiga Shield Ecozone ............................. 6.3-320 Photo 6.4.2-1: Example of the Wide Marsh Habitat Type used by Waterfowl ............................. 6.4-13 Photo 6.4.2-2: Example of the Marsh on Sunken Peat Habitat Type used by Waterfowl ........... 6.4-13 Photo 6.4.3-1: Tundra Swans and Canada Geese in the Nelson River during Spring

Migration ............................................................................................................... 6.4-34 Photo 6.4.5-1: Eroded Shorelines and Standing Dead Trees along Southern Indian Lake

Post-Hydroelectric Development .......................................................................... 6.4-49 Photo 6.4.5-2: De-watered Habitat along the Churchill River Post-Hydroelectric

Development ........................................................................................................ 6.4-50 Photo 6.5.1-1: Example of Bare-Rock Island used by Nesting Colonial Waterbirds ..................... 6.5-6 Photo 6.6.1-1: Typical Active Beaver Lodge in the RCEA ROI...................................................... 6.6-5 Photo 6.8.1-1: Pen Islands Coastal Caribou .................................................................................. 6.8-5 Photo 6.8.1-2: Cape Churchill Coastal Caribou ............................................................................. 6.8-5 Photo 6.8.3-1: Radio-Collared Pen Islands Coastal Caribou ....................................................... 6.8-36 Photo 6.10.1-1: Moose Browsing on Vegetation in Upland Habitat ............................................... 6.10-2 Photo 6.10.2-1: Example of Heavy Continuous Debris and Difficult Shoreline and Water

Access for Moose ............................................................................................... 6.10-44 Photo 6.10.3-1: Example of High Quality Tall Shrub On-system Shoreline for Moose................ 6.10-86 Photo 6.10.3-2: Example of Low Quality Tall Shrub On-system Shoreline for Moose ................ 6.10-86 Photo 6.10.5-1: Example of Shoreline Debris and Erosion on Southern Indian Lake ............... 6.10-140 Photo 6.10.5-2: Example of Eroding Island in South Indian Lake ............................................. 6.10-141

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – LIST OF PHOTOS

DECEMBER 2015 6-XLII

Photo 6.10.5-3: Example of the Lower Churchill River Shorelines Following the Churchill River Diversion ................................................................................................. 6.10-141

Photo 6.10.5-4: Example of Moose Habitat in an Off-system Area ........................................... 6.10-142 Photo 6.10.5-5: Example of Moose Habitat in an Off-system Lake ........................................... 6.10-142 Photo 6.11.1-1: Polar Bear on the Bank of the Nelson River......................................................... 6.11-2 Photo 6.11.1-2: Polar Bear Loafing on Bank of Hayes River ......................................................... 6.11-7 Photo 6.11.2-1: Polar Bear Den South of Wapusk National Park, Manitoba ............................... 6.11-20 Photo 6.11.2-2: Polar Bear Swimming Across the Nelson River ................................................. 6.11-25

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – APPENDICES

DECEMBER 2015 6-XLIII

APPENDICES Note: Any table, figure or map with a letter in its number is located in an appendix. The numbering of tables, figures and maps within the Land appendices is based on the number of that appendix; for example, the first table in Appendix 6.4A is Table 6.4A-1.

INTACTNESS APPENDIX 6.2A: INTACTNESS MAPPING EFFORT

TERRESTRIAL HABITAT APPENDIX 6.3A: TERRESTRIAL HABITAT CLASSIFICATIONS

APPENDIX 6.3B: HABITAT ANALYSIS RESULTS

APPENDIX 6.3C: WATERBODY LIMIT MAPS

WATERFOWL APPENDIX 6.4A: WATERFOWL HABITAT MODEL METHODS

APPENDIX 6.4B: WATERFOWL HABITAT MODEL RESULTS

APPENDIX 6.4C: WATERFOWL HABITAT MAPS

COLONIAL WATERBIRDS APPENDIX 6.5A: HABITAT MODEL METHODS

APPENDIX 6.5B: HABITAT MODEL RESULTS

AQUATIC FURBEARERS APPENDIX 6.6A: PRIMARY BEAVER HABITAT MODELS: REGIONAL AND ON-SYSTEM

APPENDIX 6.6B: BEAVER CENSUS CALCULATION METHODS

BARREN-GROUND CARIBOU APPENDIX 6.7A: DISTURBANCE ANALYSIS

COASTAL CARIBOU APPENDIX 6.8A: MODEL CALCULATIONS

APPENDIX 6.8B: MODEL DESCRIPTIONS

BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU APPENDIX 6.9A: CORE AREA IDENTIFICATION METHODS

APPENDIX 6.9B: SUMMARY OF RESOURCE SELECTION FUNCTION METHODS

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – APPENDICES

DECEMBER 2015 6-XLIV

APPENDIX 6.9C: DETAILED DISTURBANCE TABLES

APPENDIX 6.9D: DETAILED LINEAR FEATURE INTERSECT TABLES

MOOSE APPENDIX 6.10A: HABITAT MODELS

APPENDIX 6.10B: HABITAT MODEL RESULTS

APPENDIX 6.10C: MOOSE REGISTERED TRAPLINE TABLES

APPENDIX 6.10D: MOOSE GHA DATA

APPENDIX 6.10E: SPLIT LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA MOOSE SURVEY RESULTS

APPENDIX 6.10F: DISTRIBUTION OF MOOSE IN REGION OF INTEREST BASED ON 2011 BIPOLE III AERIAL SURVEY RESULTS

APPENDIX 6.10G: ADDITIONAL FIGURES

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS AND UNITS

DECEMBER 2015 6-XLV

ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS AND UNITS

Acronym/Abbreviation Term/Unit

ATK Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge

ATV all-terrain vehicle

BQCMB Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board

c. circa

CA correspondence analysis

CCA canonical correspondence analysis

cfs cubic feet per second

CI confidence interval

cms cubic metre per second

CNP Cree Nation Partners

COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada

CRD Churchill River Diversion

CS Control Structure

CWS Canadian Wildlife Service

DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada

DU Designatable Unit

e.g. example

EC Environment Canada

EE existing environment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

et al. and others

etc. et cetera

ft feet

FLCN Fox Lake Cree Nation

FLI Forest Lands Inventory

FRI Forest Resource Inventory

GHA Game Hunting Area

GIS Geographic Information Systems


DECEMBER 2015 6-XLVI


GP Generation Project

GPS Global Positioning System

GS Generating Station

ha hectare(s)

HBR Hudson Bay Railway

HZ Hydraulic Zone

i.e. in other words; that is

IHA Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

KHLP Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership

km kilometre(s)

km2 square kilometre(s)

km/km2 kilometre(s) per square kilometre

LCI lower confidence interval

LDA linear discriminant analysis

LWCNRSB Lake Winnipeg, Churchill and Nelson Rivers Study Board

LWR Lake Winnipeg Regulation

m metre(s)

MB Manitoba

MBWCMC Manitoba Boreal Woodland Caribou Management Committee

MCWS Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship

MDMNR Manitoba Department of Mines and Natural Resources

MEICE MacLaren Engineers Inc. and InterGroup Consulting Economics Ltd.

MESEA Manitoba Endangered Species and Ecosystems Act

MHNCN Manitoba Hydro and Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation

MMU moose management unit

MSES Management and Solutions in Environmental Science

MTLCC Multi-temporal Land Cover Classification of Canada

n = sample size equals

n.d. no date

N/A not applicable

NAC Northern Affairs Community

NAD North American Datum


DECEMBER 2015 6-XLVII


NCN Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation

NFA Northern Flood Agreement

NRO Natural Resources Officer

NTS National Topographic System

NWMB Nunavut Wildlife Management Board

pers. comm. personal communication

PPER Post-Project Environmental Review

PR Provincial Road

PVA population viability analysis

RAA Regional Assessment Area

RCEA Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment

RDA redundancy analysis

RMA Resource Management Area

ROI Region of Interest

RoW or ROW right-of-way

RSC Regional Study Component

RSF Resource Selection Function

RTL Registered Trapline

SARA Species At Risk Act

SIL Southern Indian Lake

SLC Soil Landscapes of Canada

SLCMHJS Split Lake Cree-Manitoba Hydro Joint Studies

sq mi square mile(s)

Stantec Stantec Consulting Ltd.

TCN Tataskweyak Cree Nation

TetrES TetrES Consultants Inc.

TL Trapline

TR Terrestrial Region

UCI upper confidence interval

UD utilization distribution

unpubl. data unpublished data

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

UTM Universal Transverse Mercator


DECEMBER 2015 6-XLVIII


VHF very high frequency

WH Western Hudson Bay (polar bear subpopulation)

WLFN War Lake First Nation

WRCS Wildlife Resource Consulting Services MB Inc.

y year(s)

YFFN York Factory First Nation

= equal to

> greater than

< less than

% percent

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

DECEMBER 2015 6.1-1

6.0 LAND

6.1 Introduction and Background

6.1.1 Introduction This part of the report provides an assessment of the cumulative effects of hydroelectric development on selected components of the terrestrial environment (referred to as Regional Study Components or RSCs). The Land RSCs include:

· terrestrial habitat; · intactness;

· birds; · aquatic furbearers; · caribou (Rangifer tarandus spp.);

· moose (Alces alces); and · polar bear (Ursus maritimus).

The rationale for the selection of these RSCs, and any subcomponents, is presented in Section 6.1.2. The Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment (RCEA) focuses on the effects of hydroelectric development within the RCEA Region of Interest (ROI); however, the effects of other developments (e.g., mines) and activities (e.g., forestry) are incorporated where relevant to provide context for the assessment. The condition of each RSC is described chronologically, beginning with the earliest available information to the most recent (generally to December 2013), including technical material and Aboriginal traditional knowledge (ATK). For the Keeyask Generation Project and the Bipole III Transmission Project that are currently under construction, relevant monitoring data collected to December 2013 (or more recently in some instances) may be incorporated where available, and where they can improve an assessment.

The general methods for the terrestrial assessments are provided in Section 6.1.2.6, while detailed methods for the assessment of particular RSCs are provided in appendices to those chapters. The introductory sections for each of the Land RSCs identify any differences from the general RCEA methods, due to information constraints, specific geographic features that need to be addressed, or the specific nature of a given RSC. The effects of hydroelectric development on each Land RSC are discussed first by terrestrial region or population range, and then for the RCEA ROI as a whole, in Chapters 6.2 to 6.11.

6.1.1.1 Terrestrial Ecosystems in the Region of Interest An ecosystem-based approach has been used to understand the terrestrial environment and to evaluate the effects of hydroelectric development within the RCEA ROI. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency defines an ecosystem as “a dynamic complex of plant, animal and microorganism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit” (Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1999). In applying this concept to the Land assessments, the ecosystem-based approach recognized that


DECEMBER 2015 6.1-2

the aquatic and terrestrial environments are complex, integrated, hierarchically organized systems in which changes to one component directly or indirectly affect many other components.

The ecosystem-based approach considered the direct and indirect effects of past and current developments and activities at multiple spatial and temporal scales. Anticipated effects on ecosystem components, including wildlife species, would extend varying distances from the development footprints and for varying lengths of time, depending on the ecosystem components, impact type and local conditions.

A key step in the ecosystem-based approach was identifying the ecosystem components in the RCEA ROI that are particularly important for maintaining terrestrial ecosystem health. The approach focused on those ecosystem components and processes that are especially important to maintaining ecosystem functions. Since people are also part of an ecosystem, the approach incorporated human components, including non-hydroelectric developments and activities.

For the assessment of the Land RSCs, six ecozones were identified in the RCEA ROI (Map 6.1.1-1). The Western and Eastern Boreal Shield ecozones defined for this report are underlain by a massive rolling plain of ancient bedrock. These two ecozones are generally characterized by broadly rolling uplands with Precambrian granitic bedrock outcrops, as well as by areas covered with glacial debris and numerous lakes and rivers. They have long, cold winters and short, warm summer conditions. Forests are generally evergreen or mixed evergreen-deciduous. In general, colder conditions occur in the areas of the RCEA ROI immediately to the north and east of these ecozones. The Taiga Shield Ecozone is found in the north-central portion of the RCEA ROI. Terrain is typically flat or with rolling hills with thousands of depressions carved by glacial retreat now infilled, forming lakes, ponds, wetlands and other water features. The shallow soils remain damp or saturated year-round, and regularly freeze and thaw without drainage. Discontinuous permafrost is common, with open evergreen-deciduous forest. The Hudson Plains Ecozone within the RCEA ROI stretches inland from the Hudson Bay coast. Sedimentary deposits overlay the bedrock, forming a wide and level plain characterised by raised beaches and river deltas in a relatively flat landscape with relatively poor drainage, numerous wetlands, and some discontinuous permafrost. This ecozone is transitional, evident as it transforms from barren tundra in the north to open taiga forests in the south. For the purposes of this report, and to reflect the ecological differences within the ecozone, it has been divided along its internal ecoregion boundary, and separate reporting will be done for the Hudson Plains Ecozone and Coastal Hudson Bay Ecozone. A small portion of the Boreal Plains Ecozone is found in the extreme southwest of the RCEA ROI. It is characterized by mixed evergreen-deciduous forests, as well as a smaller percentage of wetlands and peat bogs.

Further explanation of the attributes of the ecozones can be found in the ecological overview of the RCEA ROI provided in the Terrestrial Habitat chapter (Ecological Overview of the Region of Interest, Section 6.3.1.6), including information on the relief, surface material, soil composition, and forest cover of the 17 terrestrial regions found within these ecozones.

6.1.1.2 Hydroelectric Development and Terrestrial Ecosystems A history of hydroelectric developments in the RCEA ROI is presented in Part 2.0. From a terrestrial habitat perspective, it is immediately apparent that hydroelectric developments are not evenly spread


DECEMBER 2015 6.1-3

across this vast landscape, nor evenly within each ecozone. As such, the alterations resulting from hydroelectric development have not been the same, region to region. These alterations include areas that were flooded (e.g., Southern Indian Lake), areas that were dewatered (e.g., the Churchill River), or areas that were affected by the reversal of flow patterns with higher flows during winter months than in the open water season (e.g., Cross Lake). Many of the areas affected by hydroelectric water regime changes have also been affected by the construction of transmission lines, or by linear developments such as access roads, and other infrastructure. To aid in understanding the effects on the Land RSCs, a description of the relevant hydroelectric developments by ecozone is presented in the Intactness chapter (Chapter 6.2), as well as more detailed consideration by terrestrial region within those ecozones.

HUDSONBAY

LAKEWINNIPEG

Wabowden (NAC)

Pikwitonei (NAC)

Fox Lake Cree NationFox Lake (Bird)

Fox Lake Cree Nation A Kwis Ki Mahka Reserve

Thicket Portage (NAC)

Herb Lake Landing (NAC)

Tataskweyak Cree Nation Tataskweyak (Split Lake)

York Factory First NationYork Landing (Kawechiwasik)

PimicikamakCross Lake (NAC)

War Lake First NationIlford (NAC)

Norway House Cree NationNorway House (NAC)

Nisichawayasihk Cree NationNelson House (NAC)

O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree NationSouth Indian Lake

Gillam

Thompson

Churchill

Snow Lake

File

Loc

atio

n: J

:\MY

P\M

H_R

CE

A\5

_Ter

rest

rial\E

E\M

xd\2

0151

110_

RC

EA

_Pha

seII_

TER

_Eco

zone

sInT

heR

CE

AR

egio

nOfIn

tere

st_c

p.m

xdC

reat

ed B

y: c

park

er -

B S

ize

Land

scap

e S

TD -

MA

R 2

015

S

cale

: 1:2

,500

,000

2.0

15-MAY-15

North/South Consultants

10-NOV-15

Province of Manitoba, Government of Canada, Manitoba Hydro

Ecozones in the RCEA Region of Interest

NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N

DATA SOURCE:

COORDINATE SYSTEM: DATE CREATED:

CREATED BY:

VERSION NO:

REVISION DATE:

QA/QC:

Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment

0 20 40 Miles

0 30 60 Kilometres

LegendRCEA Region of Interest

EcozonesBoreal Plains

Coastal Hudson Bay

Eastern Boreal Shield

Hudson Plains

Taiga Shield

Western Boreal Shield

InfrastructureRail

Highway

Manito

baOnta

rio

Note: Northern Affairs Community (NAC)

Map 6.1.1-1


DECEMBER 2015 6.1-5

6.1.2 Approach

6.1.2.1 Regional Study Components Regional Study Components have been selected to represent the overall effects of hydroelectric development on the terrestrial environment in the RCEA ROI.

The selection of RSCs was based on one or more of the following: · overall importance/value to people as identified by residents in the RCEA ROI through various forums

(e.g., Clean Environment Commission Hearings, ATK reports from First Nations, Northern Flood Agreement Claims, etc.);

· umbrella indicator (an indicator that represent changes for a broad group of species and one or more ecological pathways);

· importance/value to overall ecosystem function; and

· known to be susceptible to the direct or indirect effects from hydroelectric developments.

A preliminary list of RSCs for the Land component was selected to focus the RCEA Phase I report. Following review of the Phase I list of RSCs by Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro, it was determined that two of the proposed Land RSC subcomponents would not be pursued as a part of the Phase II effects assessment: forest birds and terrestrial furbearers (see below for rationale). The other RSC subcomponents proposed for the birds and furbearers RSCs in the Phase I report remain part of the Phase II assessment.

The Land RSCs selected were as follows: · Terrestrial Habitat, as it affects people and other organisms in fundamental economic and ecological

ways and since it is a key pathway for effects on the entire terrestrial ecosystem; · Intactness, as it serves as an overall indicator of cumulative effects on ecosystems and on wildlife

habitat in environmental assessment and monitoring; · Birds (with waterfowl and colonial waterbirds as subcomponents), as some species are

culturally important to First Nation members, may be favoured domestic food items, and are sensitive to hydroelectric development;

· Aquatic Furbearers (with beaver as a focal species), due to their importance as a source of income and food to local communities and since they are affected by hydroelectric development;

· Caribou (with barren-ground caribou, coastal caribou, and boreal woodland caribou as subcomponents), as they can be sensitive to disturbance of the landscape, are a symbol of Canadian wilderness, important to Aboriginal peoples, and a species of conservation concern;

· Moose, as they are important to local First Nations, and are sensitive to habitat fragmentation and increased access to an area by predators and hunters; and

· Polar Bear, as they are an iconic species for Canadians, with considerable local economic value through tourism, and a species of conservation concern.


DECEMBER 2015 6.1-6

Forest birds were not assessed as an RSC for a number of reasons. First, long-term population data are unavailable for forest bird populations in the RCEA ROI. Where information regarding some local populations exists, these data are relatively recent, since the period of hydroelectric development. Secondly, effects on their habitat in most of the RCEA ROI have been quite limited, and the terrestrial habitat and intactness RSCs provide an adequate proxy for effects on this group. Additionally, as a group, these species are of lesser concern to local communities than the bird RSCs that were assessed. It is clear that forest bird habitat has been affected by hydroelectric development, but given the overall level of terrestrial intactness (Intactness, Chapter 6.2), the greatest impacts to birds in general have likely occurred within the riparian zones affected by flooding or dewatering. Therefore, given their importance to local people, the RCEA will evaluate the effects to waterfowl and colonial waterbirds – which are dependent on these riparian zones – in focusing the assessment on birds.

With further research, it has become evident that there are few to no population data available for terrestrial furbearers in Manitoba, and limited information regarding their distribution within the RCEA ROI. Historical accounts from Natural Resource Officers and from trappers provide some indication of general trends; however, given the number of other factors that can also influence trapping catches (such as price), the trapping record is not a reliable information source on which to base a quantitative assessment. Furthermore, a habitat-based approach would be challenging for terrestrial furbearers across the breadth of the RCEA ROI, given the paucity of information regarding their distribution and ranges. While some terrestrial habitat has been affected by hydroelectric development, given the overall level of terrestrial intactness (Intactness, Chapter 6.2), the greatest impacts on furbearers have likely resulted within the riparian zones affected by flooding or dewatering. Therefore, the effects assessment for furbearers will focus on aquatic furbearers, using beaver as the focal species.

It was noted by Manitoba that while the linkages between hydroelectric development and polar bear were tenuous, the species should be included and discussed due to its importance to some of the affected communities and to the people of Manitoba as a whole. A list of the terrestrial RSCs selected and the rationale for their selection is provided in Table 6.1.2-1.

For the purposes of this report, the Birds RSC will be presented in two sections representing its subcomponents: 6.4 Waterfowl, and 6.5 Colonial Waterbirds.

The Caribou RSC will also be presented in several sections, given the different ecotypes of caribou found within the RCEA ROI: barren-ground (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus), migratory coastal (or forest-tundra) (Rangifer tarandus caribou), and boreal woodland (or forest-dwelling) caribou (also Rangifer tarandus caribou). These ecotypes are studied and managed in different manners because of their ecological differences, although at times their ranges can overlap within the RCEA ROI. Barren-ground caribou (Chapter 6.7) are highly migratory in nature, with vast annual ranges. The Qamanirjuaq herd moves into the RCEA ROI during the winter months. Coastal caribou (Chapter 6.8) are also considered migratory, move seasonally within their range, generally calve en masse, and may spend all or a portion of their year within the RCEA ROI. The ranges of two coastal populations intersect the RCEA ROI: the Pen Islands and Cape Churchill herds. Boreal woodland caribou (Chapter 6.9) are more sedentary in nature, calve separately in isolated areas, and are protected as a Threatened species. Eight ranges of boreal woodland caribou herds designated by Manitoba intersect the RCEA ROI.


DECEMBER 2015 6.1-7

Table 6.1.2-1: List of Regional Study Components for Land

Major Ecosystem

Regional Study Component

Rationale and Criteria for Selection

Land

Terrestrial Habitat

Some terrestrial habitat types are especially important for social and ecological reasons. Human-induced changes to terrestrial habitat are a key pathway for effects on the entire terrestrial ecosystem. Criteria: Value to people: yes; Umbrella indicator: yes; Ecosystem Function: yes; Susceptible to hydroelectric effects: yes.

Intactness

Intactness is often used as an overall indicator of cumulative effects on ecosystems and on wildlife habitat in environmental assessment and monitoring. Reducing intact areas can weaken ecological connections, and reduce biodiversity and resilience. Criteria: Value to people: yes; Umbrella indicator: yes; Ecosystem Function: yes; Susceptible to hydroelectric effects: yes.

Birds (Waterfowl and Colonial waterbirds)

Waterfowl are important to resource harvesters and are linked to the health of wetland habitats and lower food chain levels. They can be substantially affected by hydroelectric development through the flooding of habitat, water level fluctuations, line strikes, and increased predation along rights-of-way. Criteria: Value to people: yes; Umbrella indicator: no; Ecosystem Function: no; Susceptible to hydroelectric effects: yes. Colonial waterbirds use rare or uncommon environmental features for breeding and protection from predators; they are also good indicators of aquatic ecosystem health. Flooding and water level fluctuations can result in population and habitat effects; some species are also vulnerable to collisions with human-made structures (e.g., line strikes). Criteria: Value to people: yes; Umbrella indicator: some species; Ecosystem Function: no; Susceptible to hydroelectric effects: yes.

Aquatic Furbearers (Beaver)

Aquatic furbearers are important to the people who live in the area as a source of income and food. They are negatively affected by hydroelectric development (e.g., flooding, water level fluctuations, and stream crossings). Criteria: Value to people: yes; Umbrella indicator: no; Ecosystem Function: some species; Susceptible to hydroelectric effects: yes.

Caribou

Caribou are an important symbol of Canadian wilderness, important to Aboriginal peoples and can be sensitive to disturbance of the landscape. Their specialized habitat needs may not be well captured by other land RSCs. They are a species of conservation concern and can be affected particularly by loss of primary habitat (e.g., for calving and rearing). Criteria: Value to people: yes; Umbrella indicator: no; Ecosystem Function: no; Susceptible to hydroelectric effects: yes.

Moose

Moose are important to local First Nations, and are sensitive to habitat fragmentation and increased access to an area by predators and hunters. Criteria: Value to people: yes; Umbrella indicator: yes; Ecosystem Function: yes; Susceptible to hydroelectric effects: yes.

Polar Bear

Polar bear are an iconic species that support commercial tourism operations and have a high, intrinsic value to Manitobans. Polar bear is also a species of conservation concern. However, direct linkages to effects from hydroelectric developments are limited. Criteria: Value to people: yes; Umbrella indicator: no; Ecosystem Function: yes; Susceptible to hydroelectric effects: yes.


DECEMBER 2015 6.1-8

6.1.2.2 Description of Assessment Areas Assessment areas for the Land component of the Phase II report have been determined from an ecological basis. While four standard geographic areas (Areas 1 to 4) were used to divide the RCEA ROI in the Phase I report – principally determined by the boundaries of Resource Management Areas and Registered Trapline sections – terrestrial ecosystems and terrestrial wildlife are not readily represented or understood within such boundaries. Therefore, two ecologically-based approaches have been used to define assessment areas for the various Land RSCs:

· Regional assessment areas for most of the Land RSCs are regional terrestrial ecosystems (identified as ‘terrestrial regions’).

· Regional assessment areas for wide-ranging populations that move well beyond the boundaries of the RCEA ROI (e.g., barren-ground caribou) are based on the population’s range.

Each approach seeks to identify regional assessment areas that are ecologically relevant and that will be large enough to capture the cumulative effects of hydroelectric development, but at the same time, recognizes the need not to mask the effects by diluting the apparent impact in an unreasonably large area.

ECOZONES AND TERRESTRIAL REGIONS

Ecozones were used to provide an initial, coarse subdivision of ecosystems in the RCEA ROI. The ecozones used for the RCEA were revised from the Ecozones of Canada (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1996) using recent, local data. The Ecozones of Canada outline broad regions of the country with similar climate, vegetation, soils, geology and landforms. Ecozones provide an ecological context, but at a scale too large to appropriately assess the effects of development. Therefore, the RCEA ecozones have been subdivided into terrestrial regions that serve as regional cumulative effects assessment areas.

Terrestrial regions were used to evaluate the importance of the cumulative effects on Land components that are not wide-ranging species. These terrestrial regions (the effective regional assessment areas) have the following characteristics:

· are relatively homogenous (in terms of climate, surface materials, topography, dominant vegetation mosaic, and wildfire regime);

· are large enough to encompass a relatively stable habitat composition as large wildfires occur over time;

· are large enough to provide alternative habitat for animals to move to when large fires occur (needed to support a self-sustaining population over the long term); and

· are around 12,000 km2 in size (varying with climate and surface materials).

This approach has been used for the habitat and intactness RSCs, as well as for most wildlife RSCs with relatively limited summer or population ranges (e.g., birds, moose, and beaver). The ecozones and terrestrial regions used in the assessment are shown in Map 6.1.2-1. To demonstrate how the terrestrial ecozones relate to changes in the water regime within the RCEA ROI, Map 6.1.2-2 shows how the


DECEMBER 2015 6.1-9

hydraulic zones (used for the Physical Environment [Part 4.0] and Water [Part 5.0] analyses) overlap spatially with the terrestrial ecozones.

POPULATION RANGES

Wide-ranging species such as caribou require a different approach to defining regional assessment areas, since their seasonal migratory movements are much wider than a single terrestrial region or ecozone. Long-term observations and more recent movement studies undertaken by collaring of animals have allowed governments and management boards to delineate the areas that such populations occupy over the course of their annual cycles. These ranges will be used, in whole or in part, to define appropriate regional assessment areas for these RSCs. Rationale for, and maps of, the regional assessment areas used for barren-ground, coastal, and boreal woodland caribou can be found in Chapters 6.7, 6.8, and 6.9, respectively, and for polar bear in Chapter 6.11.

6.1.2.3 Selection of Indicators and Metrics Environmental indicators have been used for several decades to assist in determining the health of the environment. The definition of an “environmental indicator” has been provided in numerous reports (e.g., the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [1994] and the United Nations Environment Programme [1997]). Environment Canada’s current website (2011) defines an indicator as “signs or symptoms of changes in the health of an individual or community”.

In a similar manner, the indicators selected for the RSCs aim to describe, in a measurable way, the state of that RSC. In most cases, no single indicator is sufficient; rather, a number of indicators are used to provide complementary information that can suggest the overall state of the RSC. In doing so, the RCEA aims to meet its key objectives of assessing the effects of hydroelectric development and of determining the current quality of the environment.

During the selection of indicators, the following criteria were considered:

· whether the indicator assists in determining the health or condition of the RSC;

· whether the indicator is measureable; · whether there is sufficient information available on the indicator to make it useful in determining the

condition of the RSC; and · whether the indicator is easy to understand and meaningful to the general public.

The number, range, and duration of studies on terrestrial components within the RCEA ROI are considerably less than that available for many aquatic components. Where it does exist, such information generally has been collected for specific project development purposes (e.g., the environmental impact statement for the Wuskwatim Generation Project). Consequently, and in keeping with current environmental assessment practice, habitat indicators are used extensively — though usually not exclusively — to investigate the effects on wildlife RSCs as a part of the assessment of their status.

HUDSONBAY

LAKEWINNIPEG

Thompson

Churchill

Jenpeg G.S.

Kettle G.S.

Kelsey G.S.

Wuskwatim G.S.

Limestone G.S.

Long Spruce G.S.

Keeyask G.S.

Conawapa G.S.

Southern IndianTR

Upper ChurchillTR

Bradshaw TR

Upper Nelson TR

Molson TR

Dafoe TR

Keeyask TRRat TR

Baldock TR

Wuskwatim TR

Paint TR

William TR

FletcherTR

Limestone Rapids

TRDeer Island TR

Hudson Coast

TR

Warkworth TRFi

le L

ocat

ion:

J:\M

YP

\MH

_RC

EA

\5_T

erre

stria

l\EE

\Mxd

\201

5102

6_R

CE

A_P

hase

II_TE

R_E

cozo

nesA

ndTe

rres

tria

lReg

ions

For

RC

EA

_cp.

mxd

Cre

ated

By:

cpa

rker

- B

Siz

e La

ndsc

ape

STD

- M

AR

201

5

Sca

le: 1

:2,5

00,0

00

3.0

15-MAY-15


26-OCT-15

Province of Manitoba, Government of Canada,ECOSTEM and Manitoba Hydro

Ecozonesand Terrestrial Regions

for RCEA


DATA SOURCE:


CREATED BY:

VERSION NO:

REVISION DATE:

QA/QC:


0 20 40 Miles

0 30 60 Kilometres

LegendTerrestrial Region (TR)

RCEA Region of Interest


Coastal Hudson Bay


Hudson Plains

Taiga Shield


InfrastructureGenerating Station (Existing)

Generating Station (Under Construction)

Generating Station (Potential)

Rail

Highway

Manito

baOnta

rio

Map 6.1.2-1

HUDSONBAY

LAKEWINNIPEG

Wabowden (NAC)

Pikwitonei (NAC)

Fox Lake Cree NationFox Lake (Bird)

Fox Lake Cree Nation A Kwis Ki Mahka Reserve

Thicket Portage (NAC)

Herb Lake Landing (NAC)

Tataskweyak Cree Nation Tataskweyak (Split Lake)

York Factory First NationYork Landing

(Kawechiwasik)

PimicikamakCross Lake (NAC)

War Lake First NationIlford (NAC)

Norway House Cree NationNorway House (NAC)

Nisichawayasihk Cree NationNelson House (NAC)

O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree NationSouth Indian Lake

Gillam

Thompson

Churchill

Snow Lake

HZ 4HZ 5

HZ 2

HZ 3

HZ 1

HZ 6

HZ 9

HZ 10

HZ 11

HZ 7

HZ 12

HZ 8

File

Loc

atio

n: J

:\MY

P\M

H_R

CE

A\5

_Ter

rest

rial\E

E\M

xd\2

0151

021_

RC

EA

_Pha

seII_

TER

_Eco

zone

sAnd

Hyd

raul

icZ

ones

InTh

eRC

EA

Reg

ionO

fInte

rest

_cp.

mxd

Cre

ated

By:

cpa

rker

- B

Siz

e La

ndsc

ape

STD

- M

AR

201

5

Sca

le: 1

:2,5

00,0

00

2.0

15-MAY-15


24-NOV-15

Province of Manitoba, Government of Canada, Manitoba Hydro, North/SouthConsultants

Ecozones and Hydraulic Zones in the



DATA SOURCE:


CREATED BY:

VERSION NO:

REVISION DATE:

QA/QC:


0 20 40 Miles

0 30 60 Kilometres

LegendRCEA Hydraulic Zone (HZ)


Flow Direction


Coastal Hudson Bay


Hudson Plains

Taiga Shield


InfrastructureRail

Highway

Manito

baOnta

rio

Note: Northern Affairs Community (NAC)

Map 6.1.2-2


DECEMBER 2015 6.1-12

For the terrestrial assessments, indicators have been designated as driver or response indicators. Response indicators directly evaluate the status of, or trends in, the RSC or RSC subcomponent over time. Driver indicators serve either as a proxy for responses that are not feasible to measure or provide a good indication of future trends in the RSC status. Driver indicators have been used for at least three reasons:

· They provided information on why the RSC changed, and the possible pathways for these changes. This knowledge was critical for understanding the contribution of hydroelectric development to changes in the RSCs and ecosystem health.

· They were used for situations where information for response indicators was either unavailable or deficient.

· When considering current trends in RSC condition and ecosystem health, response indicators are typically “lagging” indicators, whereas driver indicators are typically “leading” indicators. For example, population size typically lags behind large changes in available habitat.

Metrics were also identified to assist in determining changes to the indicators. Metrics were defined as the “attributes used to measure changes in the indicators”. For example, range disturbance is an indicator for caribou, and percent disturbance is one of the metrics used to measure changes to the indicator over time. Generally, more than one metric was used to determine the status of an indicator. The indicators and metrics for each terrestrial RSC are presented in Table 6.1.2-2.

6.1.2.4 Selection of Benchmarks and Thresholds The Terms of Reference for the RCEA (Appendix 1.1A) state that the current quality of the environment will consider “available thresholds and benchmarks”. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s Practitioner’s Guide (Hegmann et al. 1999) describes thresholds as:

…limits beyond which cumulative change becomes a concern, such as extensive disturbance to a habitat resulting in the rapid collapse of a fish population, or when contaminants in soil suddenly appear in potable water sources. Thresholds may be expressed in terms of goals or targets, standards and guidelines, carrying capacity, or limits of acceptable change, each term representing different combinations of scientific data societal values.

Hegmann et al. (1999) also state that:

There is not … always an objective technique to determine appropriate thresholds, and professional judgement must usually be relied upon. When an actual capacity level cannot be determined, analysis of trends can assist in determining whether goals are likely to be achieved or patterns of degradation are likely to persist.

Given that there are currently almost no established thresholds for the RSCs specific to the RCEA ROI, and that development of such thresholds could not be completed within the timeline of the RCEA, Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro agreed that the assessment would, where applicable, focus on comparison to benchmarks.



Table 6.1.2-2: Indicators and Metrics Used to Assess the Condition of Land Regional Study Components (RSCs)

RSC RSC Subcomponent or Focal Species

Indicators Metrics

Terrestrial Habitat

Total native habitat Percentage of historical terrestrial habitat area in the terrestrial region that is native habitat

Habitat composition Area (ha) of each habitat type Age class structure Size and spatial distribution by habitat type

Fire regime Average annual area burned Fire size distribution

Human development Area (ha) of human footprint and/or proportion of region that is human footprint, by footprint type

Ecosystem Diversity Priority habitat types Number of native habitat types extirpated Area (ha) of each priority habitat type Size and spatial distribution by habitat type

Wetland Function Wetland quality Area (ha) of each wetland type rated according to typical functions and wetland condition (does not include shoreline wetlands)

Shoreline Ecosystems

Shore zone habitat composition

Length (km) of each shore zone and habitat type, with emphasis on priority types (e.g., marsh, beach meadow, floodplain) Length (km) of shoreline with a tall shrub band, by width Bank stability Inland habitat type

Human alteration

Waterbody morphology Dominant flow and fetch Bank and beach zone characteristics Percentage of shoreline length altered Percentage of shoreline length in human features, by type Shoreline debris accumulation

Intactness Connectivity Core Area Ecological Flows

Core area Core area as a percentage of land area Spatial distribution of large core areas

Linear density Length (km) of linear feature per km2 of land area, by linear feature type Spatial distribution of linear features, by feature type

Human infrastructure footprint size

Area (km2) of human footprint and/or proportion of region that is human footprint, by footprint type Percentage of terrestrial region that is human footprint, by footprint type

Birds Waterfowl Wetland habitat Area (km2) of high quality habitat

Distribution of high quality habitat by type

Colonial Waterbirds Habitat Area (ha) of high quality nesting habitat availability Distribution of high quality nesting habitat



Table 6.1.2-2: Indicators and Metrics Used to Assess the Condition of Land Regional Study Components (RSCs)

RSC RSC Subcomponent or Focal Species

Indicators Metrics

Aquatic Furbearers Beaver

Habitat Area (km2) of high quality habitat Length (km) of primary shoreline habitat on the regulated system

Population size Number of beaver lodges

Caribou

Barren-ground Population size Total population estimates Disturbance Percent disturbance on winter range

Coastal (Pen Islands and Cape Churchill)

Population size Population estimates Disturbance Percent disturbance Fragmentation km/km2 of linear features

Boreal Woodland

Population size Population estimates, trends Core area Size (km2) of core area Habitat Area (km2) of high quality habitat Fragmentation km/km2; linear intersect distance of human-made features Disturbance Percentage of all natural and human disturbance Parasites Spatial distribution of white-tailed deer range expansion

Moose

Population size Total population estimates, density Number of calves per female surviving to adulthood and recruited into the population

Habitat Area (ha) of high quality habitat by type Percentage on-system high quality riparian habitat

Harvest Changes in harvest pressure Fragmentation km/km2 of linear features Disease and parasites Distribution of white-tailed deer

Polar Bear Habitat Area (km2) of human footprint within denning area Mortality from human activity Number of bears killed annually Population size Population estimates



Benchmarks form a standard or point of reference against which things may be assessed. In general, benchmarks are set in relation to changes or levels of metrics that could be indicative of negative effects. The selection of the appropriate benchmark depends on the intent of the assessment. In the case of the RCEA, benchmarks were selected to provide an index of the degree of change as a result of hydroelectric development as well as an index of environmental quality (e.g., are there large intact blocks of habitat remaining?). The selected benchmarks were developed based on one or more of the following: · the degree of change that has occurred between pre-hydroelectric conditions and post-hydroelectric

conditions;

· use of models/scientific literature to determine relative condition for key parameters; · the federal recovery strategy for boreal woodland caribou in Canada (Environment Canada 2012); · whether an RSC (e.g., moose) population was increasing, decreasing, or stable;

· changes outside the limits of natural variation;

· how the RSC compared to an RSC in a non-affected region in a similar geographical area; and · professional judgement.

In a number of instances, benchmarks for particular terrestrial RSCs are not readily available in the literature. In such cases, the benchmarks that have been applied are taken from relevant literature or methods used previously elsewhere, and are precautionary in nature (e.g., the percentage habitat disturbance benchmarks used for the Waterfowl RSC). While defensible and reasonable, it should be noted that such benchmarks are not universally defined or recognized.

6.1.2.5 Pathways of Effects The RCEA ROI has been affected by multiple hydroelectric developments (see Hydroelectric Development Project Description in the Region of Interest, Chapter 2.2), such as generating stations, diversions, control structures, transmission lines, and converter stations, as well as by their affiliated works (e.g., borrow pits, roads, and rail spurs). The effects of these developments vary widely depending on the type of development, methods of construction and operation, the affected environment, and the RSC. In many cases, the effects are from more than one project. The cumulative effects of these projects can be additive (e.g., clearing of terrestrial habitat for generating stations and clearing for transmission lines) or in some cases, subtractive (e.g., the Wuskwatim Generation Project has reduced water level fluctuations on Wuskwatim Lake that were caused by the Churchill River Diversion).

The types of effects, direct and indirect, from hydroelectric development vary among areas of the RCEA ROI. For example, some of the effects experienced on Cross Lake, where water levels decreased, are different than the effects experienced on Southern Indian Lake, where water levels increased.

In general, the primary pathways of effects to terrestrial RSCs include: · land clearing for project infrastructure, including roads;

· right-of-way clearing for transmission lines, with associated permanent structures and access roads;

· increased access due to new linear corridors; · borrow area excavation and use;



· flooding of terrestrial habitat and subsequent waterbody expansion over time;

· water regime changes, including changes to water depth and velocity, reversal of the timing of flows, or water level fluctuations;

· increases in erosion and sediment deposition; · ice regime changes;

· loss of habitat due to the physical presence of the facilities and noise; and · increased debris in the water and along the shorelines.

In some cases, the pathways lead to the effects directly (e.g., improved access results in increased mortality through increased predation or hunting). In other instances, indirect effects may result (e.g., clearing trees causes loss of forest habitat, which leads to warming of the ground and permafrost melting, which can result in changes to vegetation, and potentially to a subsequent alteration in population of some animal species).

As noted previously, in addition to the effects of hydroelectric development, the RCEA ROI is also affected by other projects and activities as well as changes in the natural environment. For example:

· Other projects such as mines can have direct effects on habitat and indirect effects on animal populations due to the influx of people into the area.

· Other linear developments such as roads can provide increased access into areas and may put additional stress on the resources. In some cases, road access has facilitated trapping by providing a more economical way of travel to a trapline, and in other cases has resulted in disturbance of trapped species.

· Other human activities such as hunting and fishing can have large effects on RSCs. · The introduction of foreign species (e.g., white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus) into a region can

affect other species through competition or the introduction of parasites or disease. · Periodic natural disturbances, severe weather, and climate change can affect the ecosystem. In

particular, the boreal forest can be affected by an increased level and intensity of wildfires that can result from changes in temperature and precipitation.

· Climate change has had, and will continue to have, an effect on the natural biota in the RCEA ROI (e.g., the treeline shifts over time as climatic conditions alter).

Figure 6.1.2-1 shows the pathways of effects for hydroelectric and other development projects, activities, and factors. It should be noted that the other projects and activities can overlap with hydroelectric development in ways that can be synergistic, additive, or subtractive. Specific pathways of effects diagrams for individual terrestrial RSCs are provided in Chapters 6.2 to 6.11.

6.1.2.6 Summary of Approach to Land Assessments In summary, an ecosystem-based approach has been applied to understand how the cumulative effects of hydroelectric developments within the RCEA ROI have affected the web of ecological relationships that support key elements (RSCs) of the terrestrial environment. Cause-and-effect relationships between the hydroelectric developments and the terrestrial ecosystem were identified (linkages) which have been used to trace how effects have occurred. Measureable ecosystem components (indicators) have been



selected as well as reference points (benchmarks) used to identify and evaluate the nature of the changes caused by these developments. Aboriginal traditional knowledge, where available publicly, has also been used in conjunction with such indicators to conduct the evaluations.

For the majority of the Land RSCs, terrestrial regions within the broader ecozones were used as the regional assessment areas in which the analyses were conducted, since it is at this ecological level that assessment of the sustainability of an ecosystem component or a population is made. These results were assessed by terrestrial region for each ecozone, and the cumulative effects of hydroelectric development within the ecozone are summarized for each RSC.

For RSCs that are wide-ranging species, population ranges were used to define the regional assessment areas for which analyses were conducted.

The focus of the Land assessments was on effects to habitat, ecosystem functions, and wildlife populations. This was conducted on a regional basis, which considered, for example, whether the populations were healthy and self-sustaining. Such a regional assessment, hypothetically, might conclude that a particular wildlife species was sustainable on a regional basis across the terrestrial landscape, despite the cumulative effects from development. However, at a local scale, communities situated along waterways that have been highly affected by changes to the water regime (and where people encounter the altered environment on a daily basis) may have experienced substantial effects with respect to those animals. Given the strong links between habitat, wildlife populations and resource use by community members, each RSC assessment examines effects at both the regional and local scales so that effects identified and experienced by communities are not apparently overlooked while assessing the health of regional ecosystems and wildlife populations.



Figure 6.1.2-1: Land – Pathways of Effects for Hydroelectric Development and Other Projects and Activities



6.1.3 Organization of Part VI The cumulative effects assessment of hydroelectric development on each Land RSC is presented in the following chapters: intactness (Chapter 6.2); terrestrial habitat (Chapter 6.3); waterfowl (Chapter 6.4); colonial waterbirds (Chapter 6.5); aquatic furbearers (Chapter 6.6); barren-ground caribou (Chapter 6.7); coastal caribou (Chapter 6.8); boreal woodland caribou (Chapter 6.9); moose (Chapter 6.10); and polar bear (Chapter 6.11).

The following will be provided for each RSC where available: · dates relevant to the analysis of the data (e.g., which time periods were considered pre- and post-

hydroelectric development);

· changes over time in the indicators for each RSC; · a summary of the major changes that have occurred to each RSC and if/how those changes were

related to hydroelectric development at both a regional and local scale;

· the identification of data limitations that affected the understanding of the cumulative effects of hydroelectric development on the RSCs; and

· a summary of the effects of hydroelectric development within the RCEA ROI as a whole on the RSC.



6.1.4 Bibliography

6.1.4.1 Literature Cited and Data Sources Ecological Stratification Working Group. 1996. A National Ecological Framework For Canada. Centre for

Land and Biological Resources Research, Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; State of the Environment Directorate, Environment Conservation Service, Environment Canada.

Environment Canada, Canadian Environmental Protection Act. 1999. [online]. Available from http://www.ec.gc.ca/lcpe-cepa/default.asp?lang=En&n=CC0DE5E2-1&toc=hide [accessed 2015].

Environment Canada. 2011. Glossary. [online]. Available from https://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=7EBE5C5A-1 [accessed 2015].

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.

Hegmann, G., Cocklin, C., Creasey, R., Dupuis, S., Kennedy, A., Kingsley, L., Ross, W., Spaling, H., Stalker, D., and AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. 1999. Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide. 71 pp + Appendices.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 1994. OECD Key Environmental Indicators. OECD Environment Directorate. Paris, France.36 pp.

United Nations Environment Programme. 1997. UNEP Environmental Indicators for North America. 158 pp.

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II LAND – INTACTNESS

DECEMBER 2015 6.2-1

6.2 Intactness

6.2.1 Introduction Intactness is the degree to which an ecosystem remains unaltered by human infrastructure development and other activities that alter ecological patterns and flows through impacts such as removing habitat, changing hydrology, or fragmenting native ecosystems and habitat. Fragmentation is a landscape-level process in which human features (such as roads and transmission lines) progressively subdivide habitat blocks into smaller and more isolated fragments. Among other things, fragmentation reduces the size of large unaltered areas (i.e., core areas), creates edges, isolates habitat and reduces connectivity. Some wildlife species that are sensitive to human disturbance require large core areas.

In the Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment (RCEA), the intactness Regional Study Component (RSC) evaluates effects arising from physical alterations to the land due to relatively recent human infrastructure development. It does not include any changes to the land traditionally made by the Aboriginal people who have lived on the land for thousands of years. As Aboriginal people have been part of natural ecosystems for millennia, their traditional activities on the land were considered a natural effect on intactness. Additionally, the combined area of traditional changes such as trails and clearings was likely negligible relative to regional land area.

Intactness was selected as an RSC because it is an umbrella indicator for many ecosystem processes and wildlife species, and provides a good indication for overall effects on regional ecosystem health. Reduced intactness affects ecosystem functions and species in many ways, such as weakening ecological connections (e.g., forest songbirds not crossing wide roads), or increasing opportunities for invasive species and changing predator-prey dynamics (e.g., wolves using trails and rights-of-way to hunt moose more effectively). Biodiversity and ecosystem resilience can be compromised when human development reduces intactness. Intactness also provides an indicator for effects on wildlife species that are not included as RSCs. Intactness also partially represents species and genetic diversity.

Having the land remain undisturbed by major development is important to local First Nations people:

Specifically, our lands and waters should be whole and healthy, both of which are the prerequisites of a peaceful existence. This concept of wholeness is expressed in one simple sentence, “everything is connected”. (Fox Lake Cree Nation [FLCN] 2012).

There is concern among First Nations members that the construction of roads, camps, and transmission lines has disrupted the habitat and migratory paths of wildlife (I.D. Systems Ltd. 1984; Tataskweyak Cree Nation [TCN] 2002; FLCN 2012; Split Lake Cree-Manitoba Hydro Joint Study Group 1996a). The Cree Nation Partners (CNP) have described the interconnectedness of life as the following:

The Cree worldview identifies us, as a group and individually, as Members of the natural world. Through our beliefs, values, practices and traditions, we have established relationships and obligations with all other parts of the natural world as an integral part of that world. The foundation of the Cree relationship is spiritual. We believe that all parts of nature, animate and inanimate, have a spirit or a soul and are worthy of respect. Thus, when one part of nature is impacted all the other parts are also impacted, which creates an imbalance that must be remedied. (CNP 2012).


DECEMBER 2015 6.2-2

Intactness is an umbrella concept for several highly interrelated components of biodiversity, resilience, and interconnectedness. Focal subcomponents were selected for this RSC to more specifically address issues that are of concern for any large project or regional cumulative effects assessment in terms of the potential effects on terrestrial ecosystem health and ecosystem components of particular interest. Connectivity, core area, and ecological flows were the focal subcomponents.

6.2.1.1 Pathways of Effects Hydroelectric development reduces intactness in a number of ways. Hydroelectric development impacts that affect intactness include the following: · land clearing;

· infrastructure construction (roads can alter surface and subsurface hydrology); · borrow area excavation and usage, including associated access roads;

· right-of-way clearing, permanent structures and access roads and borrow areas associated with transmission line development and operation;

· flooding;

· waterbody expansion due to mineral bank erosion and peatland disintegration; · changes in the water regime; and

· changes in the ice regime.

Figure 6.2.1-1 illustrates the primary pathways from these impacts, and how they lead to effects on intactness.


DECEMBER 2015 6.2-3

Figure 6.2.1-1: Pathways of Effect for Hydroelectric Development on Terrestrial Ecosystem Intactness


DECEMBER 2015 6.2-4

6.2.1.2 Indicators and Metrics Key indicators and associated metrics for effects on intactness were selected following the approach described in Section 6.1.2.3 (Land Introduction and Background). The key indicators for the connectivity, core area, and ecological flow components of intactness were human infrastructure footprint size, linear feature density, and core area abundance. The three indicators collectively represent all three of the intactness subcomponents since these components are too highly interrelated to be separated. Table 6.2.1-1 identifies the metrics used for each indicator.

Table 6.2.1-1: Indicators and Metrics for the Intactness Regional Study Component

RSC1 Subcomponent Indicator Metrics

Connectivity Core area Ecological flows

Human infrastructure footprint size

Size of human footprint (km2), by footprint type Percentage of terrestrial region that is human footprint, by footprint type

Linear density Length of linear features (km) per km2 of land area, by linear feature type Spatial distribution of linear features, by feature type

Core area Core area as a percentage of land area Spatial distribution of large core areas

1. Regional Study Component.

6.2.1.3 Benchmarks As described in Section 6.1.2.4 (Land Introduction and Background), benchmarks for some terrestrial indicators and metrics are not readily available in the literature. In such cases, the benchmarks that have been applied were taken from relevant literature or methods recently used elsewhere, and are precautionary in nature.

For the Land RCEA, the magnitude ranges used to evaluate the ecological importance of adverse effects in the intactness metrics for a terrestrial region were those used in recent environmental assessments of the Keeyask Generation and Transmission Projects. The ranges for each metric were as follows: · human footprint size: small for values less than 10% of regional land area; moderate for values

between 10% and 25% of regional land area; and high for values higher than 25% of regional land area;

· total linear feature density: small for regional values below 0.40 km/km2; moderate for regional values between 0.40 km/km2 and 0.60 km/km2; and high for regional values greater than 0.60 km/km2; and

· core area percentage of land area: small for regional values greater than 65% of land area; moderate for regional values between 40% and 65%; and high for regional values lower than 40% of land area.


DECEMBER 2015 6.2-5

6.2.1.4 Approach and Methods As described in Section 6.1.2.2 (Land Introduction and Background), ecological regions were the appropriate level to evaluate the ecological significance of cumulative effects on intactness. Ecologically-based terrestrial regions were identified, and those that overlapped hydroelectric development in the RCEA Region of Interest (ROI) were included in the RCEA.

The overall approach to assessing the effects of hydroelectric development on intactness within the terrestrial regions overlapping the RCEA ROI was to collect the available data, analyze the information for each selected metric, and present the information on each metric for relevant periods. Results for the period before hydroelectric development are presented, and compared with results for the hydroelectric development period (i.e., inclusive of the year when hydroelectric development started and continuing up to the end of 2013). Results from the period before all human infrastructure development started are also presented to characterize the natural condition of each terrestrial region just prior to any form of infrastructure development.

The RCEA of hydroelectric development on intactness follows the presentation of historical change in the intactness indicators. While being ecologically appropriate, the regional perspective on cumulative effects can appear to diminish the importance of some local effects. Therefore, the RSC assessment includes an evaluation of areas where hydroelectric development impacts were more concentrated, such as along the large river systems.

6.2.1.4.1 Literature Review

Recent approaches to evaluating the status of and trends in intactness have used human footprint size, linear feature density, and core area abundance as indicators for intactness. Road density (i.e., km of roads per km2 of study area) is often used as a single, synthetic indicator of fragmentation effects on plant and animal populations (Forman 1995). Among other things, higher road density improves access, which can lead to increased resource harvesting, collision mortality, habitat disturbance, and fire frequency. Trails, cutlines, and other linear features can also contribute to fragmentation, but to a lesser degree. In the RCEA ROI, the terrain highly limits access activity for extended distances along cutlines and trails in the winter and severely in the summer. Other assessments or land use management guidelines omit cutlines and light-use trails from linear density calculations.

Core area abundance was included as an indicator because linear feature density metrics ignore the spatial distribution of linear features. For example, most of the linear features may be either concentrated in a single corridor or dispersed throughout a study area. These two situations have very different implications for intactness and regional ecosystem health, as demonstrated by the debate as to whether a single large or several small conservation areas are more effective at maintaining biodiversity and natural ecological processes.


DECEMBER 2015 6.2-6

6.2.1.4.2 Data Analyses

HUMAN INFRASTRUCTURE FOOTPRINT MAPPING

An overall RCEA terrestrial mapping area was defined, which included the 17 terrestrial regions overlapping the RCEA ROI, as well as the portions of the wildlife Regional Assessment Areas that extended beyond the terrestrial regions. The addition of the coastal and barren-ground caribou Regional Assessment Areas increased the size of the overall RCEA terrestrial mapping area from 198,300 km2 (for the 17 terrestrial regions) to approximately 585,000 km2.

Existing linear and polygonal human features in the overall RCEA terrestrial mapping area were mapped at a 1:15,000 scale from recent remote sensing (i.e., information about objects or areas obtained from a distance), which included digital orthorectified imagery (orthoimagery), stereo air photos, SPOT 4 or 5 panchromatic imagery, Landsat 7 or 8 panchromatic imagery, Bing imagery or Google Earth imagery. The remote sensing data source with the best detail for a particular geographic area was used, with the exception that air photos were used sparingly given the time required to process this type of data. Where SPOT or Landsat imagery was the best available data source (which was generally limited to terrestrial regions with relatively small human footprints), other information sources were used to corroborate the presence or location of a feature. One of the other information sources used is commonly referred to as National Topographic Survey (NTS) maps (official names for the sequence of datasets used changed from 1972 to 2015). The source data were acquired for various years between 1972 and 2015.

The remote sensing for a terrestrial region was systematically searched for all types of land clearing and infrastructure, except for cutlines and trails. All footprints were heads-up digitized in a geographic information system (GIS). Other information sources (e.g., digital NTS data, historical highway maps archived by Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation) were used as a cross-check to ensure features were not being missed, particularly in areas where SPOT or Landsat imagery were the only data sources.

Digitized human features were classified into one of the types shown in Table 6.2.1-2. Features in close proximity to each other were mapped separately if they were different feature types. For example, a transmission line, road and railway line all running through a common cleared corridor were mapped as separate features. Transmission line conductors were mapped as a single feature per cleared right-of-way (that is, two or more conductors were mapped as separate linear features where they were separated by an uncleared band of vegetation). For linear features, the cleared vegetation width was recorded by segment in a dataset field and used to map the cleared footprint.

The source of the footprint was classified as being from either hydroelectric or non-hydroelectric development, and the year when construction started was added to the dataset where this could be readily determined based on the feature type or from other available information. A feature was classified as a hydroelectric development footprint if it was initially constructed to facilitate such a development. As an example, roads constructed to towns such as Gillam were classified as hydroelectric development footprints.


DECEMBER 2015 6.2-7

Table 6.2.1-2: Human Footprint Types and What They Include

Type Includes

Airport Runways and terminal buildings

Borrow area Active and inactive borrow pits, quarries

Clearing Areas where vegetation has been cleared, but not excavated

Control structure Water flow control structures (e.g. Missi Falls Control Structure)

Dewatered Area Land area that was under water prior to hydroelectric development

Dyke Any artificial structure acting as a barrier to flooding

Excavated Material Placement Area Active or inactive area where excavated materials are stockpiled

Flooded Area Pre-hydroelectric development land area lost to waterbody expansion

Generating station Hydroelectric generating station including powerhouse, spillway, construction camps and other associated buildings

Highway Provincial all-weather transportation route (e.g., Provincial Road [PR] 6)

Limited-Use Road Low traffic or temporary roads used primarily for resource or construction access

Mine Mining infrastructure, including all buildings and camps

Railway Rail tracks and stations

Road All-weather transportation corridor

Settlement Cities, towns, clusters of houses, camps

Transmission Line Any transmission line right-of-way (e.g. Bipole III Transmission Project)

Transmission station Any transmission station (e.g. Radisson)

Weir Passive water elevation control structures (e.g. Churchill Weir)

Winter Road Winter only transportation corridors, access roads for communities, forestry, hydroelectric development or other resource development

Initially, cutlines and trails were also included in the human footprint searches and mapping. However, these elements were dropped as it quickly became evident that these features could not be mapped for all of the terrestrial regions in the time available to complete the RCEA. Non-RCEA studies provided cutline and trail mapping for the Keeyask Terrestrial Region and much of the Limestone Rapids and Deer Island terrestrial regions.

The lack of cutline and trail mapping was not viewed as a serious limitation for the cumulative effects assessments for terrestrial regions where the existing human footprint was relatively small. It was unlikely that the addition of cutlines and trails would substantively change total linear density in these regions. Additionally, the effects of cutlines and trails on intactness are typically less than other types of features in the RCEA ROI, which is also relevant for core area effects. In terms of access, they are low-use features compared with roads and railway lines, because they are not constructed to support traffic and because the prevalence of wet peatlands in these terrestrial regions generally limits their use to the winter along


DECEMBER 2015 6.2-8

much of their length. Their limited use as a form of access also means that sensory disturbance is relatively low. Compared with other types of linear features, cutlines and trails are also less likely to alter other ecological flows. Since they typically only involve clearing or trampling a narrow band of vegetation and the vegetation is often altered when the ground is frozen (i.e., during winter), effects on ecological flows such as groundwater movement and animals crossing openings are usually less than that associated with transportation (or other wider) features. Additionally, tall and dense vegetation can regenerate naturally on portions of cutlines or trails that are no longer used. A recent study (ECOSTEM 2013) that included the Keeyask Terrestrial Region as well as portions of some adjacent regions found that that approximately 35% of 883 km of cutlines older than 10 years had regenerated to the degree that they likely no longer functioned as travel corridors.

Given the available time, the entire overall RCEA terrestrial mapping area could not be searched to the same level of effort as was used for the terrestrial regions. Other areas searched to the same level of effort as the terrestrial regions included all of the boreal woodland caribou ranges and the portions of the coastal and barren-ground caribou Regional Assessment Areas that were adjacent to the terrestrial regions.

For the remainder of the overall RCEA terrestrial mapping area, NTS maps and other publicly available human footprint mapping identified locations where there might be human features that typically have relatively high effects on intactness, and then the remote sensing for these areas was searched for features. A lower level of digitizing effort was also applied in these areas. Either an existing digital object from a publicly available source (e.g., NTS maps) was used, or the feature was quickly heads-up digitized. Map 6.2A-11 identifies the areas where both levels of mapping effort were applied.

Using a lower level of mapping effort for portions of the overall RCEA terrestrial mapping area was not considered to be a serious limitation for the intactness assessment, because this less intensive method was used in what essentially were wilderness areas. A few additional human footprints having relatively low intactness effects were unlikely to alter regional intactness substantively.

Another limitation of the intactness dataset was that any winter roads that had regenerated to the stage of not being visible in the remote sensing imagery would be missing from the pre-hydroelectric development data. The extent to which this occurred was likely limited because these features usually leave traces in peatlands for decades after abandonment. Additionally, this limitation would cause the results to overstate the magnitude of change caused by hydroelectric development.

INTACTNESS ANALYSIS METHODS

All highways, portions of roads outside of settlements, railway lines, transmission lines, and dykes were included in the total linear feature length calculations. Adjacent transmission lines were tallied as separate linear features if their cleared rights-of-way were separated by areas of uncleared vegetation (e.g., two conductors placed on one pole were treated the same as two conductors on two narrowly separated poles). Some features, such as smaller transmission lines that occurred within the footprint of a road, did

1 Tables, figures, and maps with a letter in their numbers (e.g., A) can be found in the appendices for this chapter.


DECEMBER 2015 6.2-9

not appear as distinct features in the mapping as often they are hard to detect within the more distinct feature of the road in the remote sensing imagery. In these situations, only the feature type with relatively high intactness effects was included in the results.

Human footprints, defined by feature type, were created by combining polygonal features such as borrow areas or settlements with the linear feature cleared corridors into a new dataset as separate polygons. These features were later combined in various types of human footprint, linear feature, and core area analyses. For the purposes of the intactness assessment, the datasets created for the shoreline ecosystem assessment (see Terrestrial Habitat, Section 6.3.1.5.5) provided rough estimates of the losses in land area due to flooding and subsequent shoreline recession or the gains in land area due to dewatering. The adopted approach for the terrestrial assessment illustrates the broad locations where land area change occurred.

For each terrestrial region, total linear feature density, in kilometres per square kilometre (km/km2), was measured as the total length of all linear features divided by the total land area in the region. Transportation density was the combined density of roads and railway lines.

Core areas were mapped as the residual areas left after applying a disturbance and ecological flow alteration buffer to linear features and other human footprints. Three key considerations when determining buffers sizes that delineated core area were: (i) which human features to include; (ii) the buffer width for various types of human features; and, (iii) the minimum size and shape before a patch is considered to be a core area. Based on these considerations, low-use linear features (transmission lines, trails, dykes and cutlines) were buffered by 200 m (see Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership 2012 for rationale). High-use linear features (railways and all types of roads) and settlements were buffered by 500 m. Core areas were the residual polygons remaining after the following areas were removed: (i) human features and their prescribed buffers; and (ii) polygons smaller than 200 ha in size. Since some ecosystem processes or species sensitive to human disturbance may require larger core areas, a second variation of the core area metrics used a 1,000 ha minimum core area size. A qualitative evaluation considered effects on the largest core areas.

The spatial distribution effects of linear features and human footprints on intactness were qualitatively evaluated. Potential effects on connectivity within a terrestrial region are discussed in the assessments below where they may have created effects not fully captured by the intactness metrics.

For the pre-development state (i.e., before all human infrastructure development), it was assumed that linear feature density and the human feature footprint were virtually nil. Thus, the linear features included in the current conditions map captured historical changes that were not subsequently removed by natural vegetation regeneration or waterbody expansion due to flooding and water regulation.

Based on the approach taken, the human footprint mapping used for the intactness analysis did not include the following conditions:

· Cutline and trail mapping for most of the terrestrial regions.

· Some smaller, older features because no attempts were made to map these from historical aerial photographs.



· Older, ephemeral features such as winter roads that were abandoned and have revegetated to the degree they are no longer apparent in remote sensing imagery.

· Some human footprints may have been allocated to the incorrect development period due to an incorrect or missing development start date.

6.2.1.5 Data Limitations The principal data limitations for the intactness assessments included: · Availability of published Aboriginal traditional knowledge (ATK) or local knowledge regarding effects

on intactness was limited. · Some winter roads or ephemeral older features may be missing from the pre-hydroelectric

development data because they had regenerated to the stage of not being visible in the remote sensing.

· Some smaller or ephemeral older features may be missing from the existing environment data because they were too small to detect in the remote sensing.

· Availability of recent high-quality digital orthorectified images was limited for some areas, which likely meant some very small or very narrow footprints were missed. The primary areas were:

· Land loss due to hydroelectric development flooding and subsequent shoreline recession could not be mapped for the some reaches of the Nelson River system

· Land loss due to hydroelectric development flooding and subsequent shoreline recession, or land gain due to dewatering, was not reliably mapped for some reaches of the regulated system because the georectification of the digital waterbody data was poor.

· Cutlines and trails were not mapped.

As is the case in all long-term assessments (in this case covering more than forty-five years), limitations in available information inevitably place constraints on the analysis possible. Despite these limitations, as outlined above in the Approach and Methods section, sufficient information exists to provide data for the selected indicators and a reasonably robust assessment of the impacts of hydroelectric development on intactness within the RCEA ROI. The assessments provided below discuss these limitations for those terrestrial regions where there was potential for them to substantively alter any conclusions regarding regional cumulative effects.



6.2.2 Western Boreal Shield Ecozone The Western Boreal Shield Ecozone includes the Paint, Wuskwatim, Rat, and Baldock Terrestrial Regions (Map 6.2.2-1). This ecozone overlaps all of Hydraulic Zones 6, 7 and 8 as well as portions of Hydraulic Zones 4 and 9.

Human infrastructure first appeared in the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone as early as 1911 with construction of the Hudson Bay Railway (HBR) line, which entered the ecozone from the south. The next infrastructure development did not appear until 1957, with the construction of several developments related to the new Inco mine (Map 6.2.2-2). These developments included construction of: (i) the HBR line spur to the planned Thompson town site; (ii) the Thompson town site; and (iii) the Inco mine site.

In 1958, the construction of a transmission line from the Kelsey Generating Station (GS) to Thompson, which entered the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone from the east (Map 6.2.2-3), marked the start of the hydroelectric development period in this ecozone. Highway construction continued in the ecozone in 1959 when Provincial Road (PR) 39 entered from the south. The next developments did not occur until 1965, which was when construction of the Thompson to Ponton transmission line began. At the same time, other mining development was taking place in the ecozone. In 1969, PR 391 was constructed in the ecozone, originating from Thompson.

Hydroelectric development was most intense during the 1970s, primarily with the development of several transmission lines throughout the ecozone, as well as infrastructure and access related to the Churchill River Diversion (CRD). This continued until 1976 when full supply-level flooding occurred along the diversion route. Non-hydroelectric developments during this time included construction of a road connecting South Bay Camp to PR 391, and construction of PR 280 from Thompson starting in 1977.

Most of the development in the 1980s and 1990s was non-hydroelectric, primarily limited-use roads and clearings. In 1996, a transmission line connecting Herblet to Cliff Lakes was constructed. A road connecting South Bay camp to the community of South Indian Lake was constructed in 2004. The last major hydroelectric development was the construction of the Wuskwatim Generation Project (GP) and associated transmission lines, initiated in 2006.

The following subsections describe human infrastructure changes in each of the four terrestrial regions, and evaluate regional cumulative effects on intactness.

Flin FlonSnow Lake

LeafRapids

Thompson

RatTerrestrial

Region

BaldockTerrestrial

Region

PaintTerrestrial

RegionWuskwatimTerrestrial

Region

Notigi Lake

GranvilleLake

ThreepointLake

Burntwood R.

WekuskoLake

Rat Lake MynarskiLakes

SouthernIndian Lake

BaldockLakeRat

River

HighrockLake

WaskaiowakaLake

SettingLake

Kelsey G.S.

Jenpeg G.S.

WuskwatimG.S.

HZ 10

HZ 3

HZ 2

HZ 1

HZ 4

HZ 7

HZ 8

HZ 9

HZ 6

HZ 5T a i g a S h i e l d E c o z o n e

B o r e a l P l a i n sE c o z o n e

E a s t e r n B o r e a lS h i e l d E c o z o n e

W e s t e r n B o r e a lS h i e l d E c o z o n e

Kiskitto InletControl Structure

ManasanControl Structure

Notigi Control Structure

Missi FallsControl Structure

Cross LakeWeir

File

Loc

atio

n: J

:\M

YP

\MH

_RC

EA

\5_T

err

est

rial

\EE

\Mxd

\20

1510

26_R

CE

A_P

has

eII_

TER

_W

est

ern

Bor

eal

Shi

eldE

cozo

neT

err

estri

alR

egi

ons

And

Hyd

rau

licZo

nes_

cp.m

xd

2.0

15-OCT-15


24-NOV-15



DATA SOURCE:


CREATED BY:

VERSION NO:

REVISION DATE:

QA/QC:


0 10 20 Miles

0 10 20 Kilometres

LegendEcozone

Terrestrial Region

Hydraulic Zone (HZ)


Flow Direction


Rail

Highway

Manit

oba

Sask

atche

wan

Western Boreal ShieldEcozone

Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones

Hudson Bay

Thompson

Winnipeg

Churchil l

NOTE: Not all hydroelectric footprints are shown.

Map 6.2.2-1

SnowLake

LeafRapids

Thompson

ThicketPortage

(NAC)

Pikwitonei(NAC)

Herb LakeLanding

(NAC)

NisichawayasihkCree Nation

Nelson House (NAC)

Wabowden(NAC)

LLaurie

Lake

Lake

Granville

Highrock

Lake

Wekusko

Rat

Lake

Mynarski

Lakes

BaldockLake Lake

Waskaiowaka

RatTerrestrial

Region

BaldockTerrestrial

Region

PaintTerrestrial

Region

WuskwatimTerrestrial

Region

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

ECOSTEM Ltd.

1.0

19-JUN-15 25-NOV-15

Cre

ated

By:

sni

tow

ski -

B S

ize

Land

scap

e B

TB -

MA

R 2

015

S

cale

: 1:1

,208

,000



0 10 20 Miles

0 10 20 Kilometres

File

Loc

atio

n: Z

:\Wor

kspa

ces\

RC

EA

\Inta

ctne

ss\M

ap 6

.2 1

- H

uman

foot

prin

ts in

the

terr

estri

al r

egio

ns o

f the

Wes

tern

Bor

eal S

hiel

d E

cozo

ne b

efor

e hy

droe

lect

ric d

evel

opm

ent.m

xd

DATA SOURCE:

DATE CREATED:

CREATED BY:

VERSION NO:

REVISION DATE:

QA/QC:

COORDINATE SYSTEM:

Hudson Bay

Thompson

Winnipeg

Churchill

NOTE: Footprint polygons exaggerated slightly to enhance visibility. Footprintsoutside of Western Boreal Shield Ecozone Terrestrial Regions not mapped.The footprint used for the City of Thompson is existing environment rather thanpre-development since the pre-footprint was not available when the analysis was completed.

Human Footprints Pre-Hydroelectric Development

Western Boreal Shield Ecozone

Legend

Human FootprintsAirport

Borrow Area

Clearing

Dyke

Highway

Limited-use Road

Railway

Road

Settlement

Winter Road

RCEA Region of InterestTerrestrial Region

Map 6.2.2-2

GranvilleLake

SnowLake

LeafRapids

Thompson

O-Pipon-Na-PiwinCree Nation

South Indian Lake

ThicketPortage

(NAC)

Pikwitonei(NAC)

Herb LakeLanding

(NAC)

NisichawayasihkCree Nation

Nelson House (NAC)

Wabowden(NAC)

LLaurie

Lake

Lake

Granville

Highrock

Lake

Wekusko

Rat

Lake

Mynarski

Lakes

BaldockLake Lake

Waskaiowaka

RatTerrestrial

Region

BaldockTerrestrial

Region

PaintTerrestrial

Region

WuskwatimTerrestrial

Region

ECOSTEM Ltd.

1.0

19-JUN-15 25-NOV-15

Cre

ated

By:

sni

tow

ski -

B S

ize

Land

scap

e B

TB -

MA

R 2

015

S

cale

: 1:1

,208

,000



0 10 20 Miles

0 10 20 Kilometres

File

Loc

atio

n: Z

:\Wor

kspa

ces\

RC

EA

\Inta

ctne

ss\M

ap 6

.2 2

- H

uman

foot

prin

ts in

the

terr

estri

al r

egio

ns o

f the

Wes

tern

Bor

eal S

hiel

d E

cozo

ne in

201

3.m

xd

DATA SOURCE:

DATE CREATED:

CREATED BY:

VERSION NO:

REVISION DATE:

QA/QC:

COORDINATE SYSTEM:

Hudson Bay

Thompson

Winnipeg

Churchill

LegendTerrestrialRegion

RCEA Regionof Interest

Human FootprintsAirport

Borrow Area

Clearing

ControlStructure

Dyke

Flooded Area

Highway

Limited-useRoad

Mine

Railway

Road

Settlement

TransmissionLine

TransmissionStation

Winter Road

NOTE: Footprint polygons exaggerated slightly to enhance visibility. Footprintsoutside of Western Boreal Shield Ecozone Terrestrial Regions not mapped.

Manitoba Hydro; Government of Manitoba; Government of Canada;ECOSTEM Ltd. Human Footprints Post-

Hydroelectric Development Western Boreal Shield Ecozone

Map 6.2.2-3



6.2.2.1 Changes in the Indicators over Time

6.2.2.1.1 Paint Terrestrial Region

The development periods for the Paint Terrestrial Region were as follows: · the pre-development period ended in 1911 with construction of the HBR; · the pre-hydroelectric development period was from 1911 to 1958; and

· the hydroelectric development period was from 1958 to 2013, beginning with the Kelsey GS to Thompson transmission line.

BEFORE HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT

The human infrastructure footprint in this terrestrial region grew from nothing in 1911 to 9,017 ha in 1958 (Table 6.2.2-1). Compared with the other terrestrial regions, this region had the largest footprint change/increase by far in absolute and percentage terms. This was largely due to the mining development and forestry activities concentrated around Thompson, and to the portions of the HBR extending through the region (Map 6.2.2-2).

The human footprint included approximately 264 km of linear features (Table 6.2.2-2), yielding a total linear feature density of 0.03 km/km2. All of these were transportation features, primarily rail, as well as some highways and roads.

Prior to the first human infrastructure development around 1911, five core areas larger than 200 ha accounted for approximately 100% of regional land area (Table 6.2.2-3). Two large core areas (> 50,000 ha; 720,481 ha in the south and 297,170 ha in the north), separated by the Burntwood River system, dominated this region, and accounted for approximately 100% of regional land area on their own. Larger islands in lakes provided some smaller core areas. By 1958, infrastructure development had reduced core area percentage from approximately 100% to 96% and fragmented the five core areas into 15 core areas. The large core area in the south was fragmented into two large core areas, with the largest portion remaining in the southeast of the region, leaving three core areas larger than 50,000 ha, accounting for 83% of the land area.



Table 6.2.2-1: Human Footprints in the Terrestrial Regions of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone, by Development Period as a Percentage of Total Footprint Area

Footprint Type

Paint Wuskwatim Rat Baldock

Pre-hydro 1

Post-hydro 2

Pre-hydro

Post-hydro

Pre-hydro

Post-hydro

Pre-hydro

Post-hydro

Hydroelectric:

Highway - 0 - - - - - -

Road - 1 - 2 0 0 - -

Limited-use Road - 0 - 1 - 0 - -

Winter Road - 0 - 0 - - - -

Transmission Line - 11 - 12 - 3 - 0

Dyke - - - 0 - - - -

Settlement - - - 0 - 0 - -

Transmission station - 0 - 0 - - - -

Control structure - - - - - 0 - -

Borrow area - 0 - 2 - 0 - -

Clearing - 0 - 0 - 0 - -

Flooded Area - 22 - 67 - 87 - 90

Subtotal for hydroelectric - 34 - 84 0 91 - 90

Non-hydroelectric:

Highway - 7 19 5 63 3 77 3

Road 0 5 14 2 1 0 3 0

Limited-use Road 0 5 - 1 0 1 - 0

Winter Road - 1 - 1 - 0 - 0



Table 6.2.2-1: Human Footprints in the Terrestrial Regions of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone, by Development Period as a Percentage of Total Footprint Area

Footprint Type


Pre-hydro 1

Post-hydro 2

Pre-hydro

Post-hydro

Pre-hydro

Post-hydro

Pre-hydro

Post-hydro

Railway 10 4 - - - - - -

Dyke - - 0 0 0 0 - -

Settlement 79 33 63 4 0 1 - 1

Airport 0 2 - 0 - - - 1

Mine - 0 - 1 - 3 - 1

Borrow area 2 4 3 2 8 0 20 3

Clearing 8 6 0 1 29 1 - 1

Subtotal for non-hydroelectric 100 66 100 16 100 9 100 10

Size of human footprint (ha) 9,017 23,488 701 12,882 1,246 34,363 195 22,528

Size of human footprint (% of land area) 0.9 2.3 0.1 1.2 0.1 3.8 0.02 2.5 Notes: Values of “0” indicate a number that rounds to zero, “-“ indicates an absence. Subtotals for hydroelectric and non-hydroelectric sources may not appear to reflect sum due to rounding. 1. Pre-Hydroelectric Development. 2. Post-Hydroelectric Development.



Table 6.2.2-2: Linear Feature Length and Density in the Terrestrial Regions of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone, by Development Period

Linear Feature Type


Length (km) Density (km/km2) Length (km) Density

(km/km2) Length (km) Density (km/km2) Length (km) Density

(km/km2) Pre-

Hydro 1 EE 2 Pre-Hydro EE Pre-

Hydro EE Pre-Hydro EE Pre-


Hydro EE Pre-Hydro EE

Hydroelectric: Highway - 0 - 0.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - Road - 15 - 0.00 - 34 - 0.00 - 2 0.00 0.00 - 10 - 0.00 Limited-Use Road - 241 - 0.02 - 84 - 0.01 - 105 0.00 0.01 - 2 - 0.00

Winter Road - 4 - 0.00 - 2 - 0.00 - 1 - 0.00 - 17 - 0.00 Transmission Line - 689 - 0.07 - 215 - 0.02 - 224 - 0.02 - 41 - 0.00

Dyke - - - - - 0 - 0.00 - 0 0.00 0.00 - - - - Subtotal - 950 - 0.09 - 335 - 0.03 - 333 0.00 0.04 - 70 - 0.01 Non-hydroelectric: Highway - 259 - 0.03 20 97 0.00 0.01 123 143 0.01 0.02 33 97 0.00 0.01 Road 2 395 0.00 0.04 7 69 0.00 0.01 - 14 - 0.00 - 18 - 0.00 Limited-Use Road 2 1,311 0.00 0.13 - 245 - 0.02 - 189 - 0.02 - 68 - 0.01

Winter Road - 152 - 0.01 - 84 - 0.01 - 49 - 0.01 - 100 - 0.01 Railway 260 260 0.03 0.03 - - - - - - - - - - - - Dyke - - - - - 0 - 0.00 - - - - - - - - Subtotal 264 2,378 0.03 0.23 27 496 0.00 0.05 123 395 0.01 0.04 33 283 0.00 0.03 All linear features 264 3,328 0.03 0.33 27 831 0.00 0.08 123 728 0.01 0.08 33 353 0.00 0.04

Terrestrial Region land area (km2) 10,226 10,175

11,073 10,987

9,521 9,221

9,253 9,053

Notes: Values of “0” indicate a number that rounds to zero, “-“ indicates an absence. Subtotals for hydroelectric and non-hydroelectric sources may not appear to reflect sum due to rounding. Note that hydroelectric development generally began in a different year in each terrestrial region. Therefore, the same feature can appear as pre-hydroelectric in one region and as post-hydroelectric in another. The terrestrial region rather than the ecozone was the spatial level for the regional cumulative effects assessment. 1. Pre-Hydroelectric Development. 2. Existing Environment.



Table 6.2.2-3: Core Area in the Terrestrial Regions of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone, by Development Period

Terrestrial Region

Core Area Minimum Size

(ha)

Total area (ha) Core Area Percentage Number

Pre-Dev 1 Pre-Hydro 2 EE 3 Pre-

Dev Pre-

Hydro EE Pre-Dev

Pre-Hydro EE

Paint 200 1,018,693 981,509 849,962 100 96 84 5 15 109

1,000 1,017,651 979,882 825,824 100 96 81 2 11 52 50,000 1,017,651 848,347 463,178 100 83 46 2 3 3

Wuskwatim 200 1,105,884 1,099,794 1,050,744 100 99 96 7 12 32

1,000 1,104,116 1,095,644 1,043,216 100 99 95 3 5 16 50,000 1,103,095 1,089,385 939,086 100 98 85 2 2 4

Rat 200 946,097 932,438 871,407 99 98 94 18 20 45

1,000 942,070 928,182 863,655 99 97 94 7 9 26 50,000 901,287 870,348 572,857 95 91 62 3 4 5

Baldock 200 922,541 919,801 876,436 100 99 97 12 16 27

1,000 918,097 914,032 867,747 99 99 96 2 2 8 50,000 918,097 914,032 776,863 99 99 86 2 2 2

1. Pre-Development. 2. Pre-Hydroelectric Development. 3. Existing Environment.



AFTER HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT

Between 1958 and 2013, the size of the human infrastructure footprint in the Paint Terrestrial Region increased from 9,017 ha to 23,488 ha (Table 6.2.2-1, Map 6.2.2-3). The non-hydroelectric developments were the largest contributors to this increase, primarily highways, roads, limited-use roads and their associated borrow areas and clearings. Hydroelectric development accounted for 55% of this increase, most of which was flooding and transmission lines.

As of 2013, there were approximately 3,328 km of linear features in the Paint Terrestrial Region (Table 6.2.2-2), yielding a total linear feature density of 0.33 km/km2 and a transportation density of 0.26 km/km2. Limited-use roads accounted for the highest proportion of linear feature density by far (0.15 km/km2), followed by transmission lines (0.07 km/km2) and roads (0.04 km/km2). This region had the highest increases in linear feature density during the hydroelectric development period, most of which was due to transportation development and forestry activity.

Approximately 29% of all linear features in the region were related to hydroelectric development contributing 0.09 km/km2 of the total density, most of which were transmission lines and limited-use roads. Other features, including roads and winter roads associated with hydroelectric development added up to less than 20 km in total, and did not substantially contribute to the overall linear feature density in the region. Most of the linear features were concentrated in the central areas surrounding Thompson, and in the southeast of the region where much of the forestry activity was concentrated (Map 6.2.2-3). Much of the transmission line length followed pre-existing highways and railway lines, with the remaining transmission lines bisecting the region from the northeast to southwest.

By 2013, human development reduced total core area in blocks of at least 200 ha from 96% of regional land area just prior to hydroelectric development to 84% (Table 6.2.2-3; corresponding percentages similar for blocks larger than 1,000 ha). As of 2013, there were 109 core areas larger than 200 ha accounting for 84% of the land area, and 52 core areas larger than 1,000 ha accounting for approximately 81% of the land area (Table 6.2.2-3). Three large core areas (> 50,000 ha) remained in the region, but they were reduced in size, and accounted for only 46% of regional land area in 2013. The two largest remaining core areas (201,315 ha and 192,962 ha) were located in the southwest and northwest portions of the terrestrial region, where the least human development occurred (Map 6.2.2-3).

Non-hydroelectric footprints were responsible for most of the reduction in core area during the hydroelectric development period. The large core area in the south was subdivided by transportation development (rail) and development surrounding the community of Thompson. Hydroelectric footprints, including the Wuskwatim to Herblet Lake and Kelsey GS to Mystery Lake transmission lines fragmented two large core areas, in the southwest and northeast, respectively.

6.2.2.1.2 Wuskwatim Terrestrial Region

The development periods for the Wuskwatim Terrestrial Region were as follows: · the pre-development period ended in 1929 with development at Nelson House; · the pre-hydroelectric development period was from 1929 to 1965; and



· the hydroelectric development period was from 1965 to 2013, beginning with transmission line construction.


The human infrastructure footprint in the Wuskwatim Terrestrial Region had grown from nothing to 701 ha by 1965 (Table 6.2.2-1). This footprint was mostly confined to the southern extent of the region (Map 6.2.2-2), and associated with PR 392 leading to the community of Snow Lake. There were some smaller human features associated with the community of Nelson House as well.

The human footprint included approximately 74 km of linear features (Table 6.2.2-2), yielding a total linear feature density of 0.01 km/km2. All of these were transportation features, including an even mixture of highways and roads.

Prior to the first human infrastructure development, seven core areas larger than 200 ha, three core areas larger than 1,000 ha, and two core areas larger than 50,000 ha accounted for approximately 100% of regional land area (Table 6.2.2-3). The two large core areas (796,058 ha in the south and 307,037 ha in the north) were separated by the Burntwood River system. Larger islands in lakes provided smaller core areas.

By 1965, infrastructure development slightly reduced native core area percentage to 99% (Table 6.2.2-3) and fragmented the seven core areas larger than 200 ha into 12. The two large core areas were reduced in size slightly (783,463 ha in the south and 305,922 ha in the north), but still accounted for 98% of the land area. Development around the community of Snow Lake fragmented the large core area in the south.


The size of the human infrastructure footprint increased from 701 ha to 12,882 ha between 1965 and 2013. Approximately 84% of the footprint was associated with hydroelectric development (Table 6.2.2-1). Most of the increase in footprint area was due to the CRD flooding and transmission lines. The major non-hydroelectric contributors were transportation, including highways, roads, limited-use roads and associated borrow areas.

As of 2013, there were approximately 831 km of linear features in the Wuskwatim Terrestrial Region yielding a total linear feature density of 0.08 km/km2 and a transportation density of 0.06 km/km2 (Table 6.2.2-2). Limited-use roads accounted for the highest proportion of linear feature density in 2013 (0.03 km/km2), followed by transmission lines (0.02 km/km2). Since just prior to hydroelectric development, the length of highways doubled, and the length of other roads more than tripled.

Approximately 40% (0.03 km/km2) of the linear feature density in 2013 was attributed to hydroelectric infrastructure, most of which were transmission lines. Access roads related to the construction of the Wuskwatim GP were the other substantive contributor. Most of the hydroelectric and non-hydroelectric linear features were concentrated in the northern and southern extents of the terrestrial region (Map 6.2.2-3).



By 2013, human development reduced total core area in blocks larger than 200 ha from just 99% of regional land area just prior hydroelectric development to 96% (95% for blocks larger than 1,000 ha; Table 6.2.2-3). As of 2013, there were 32 core areas larger than 200 ha in size, and 16 core areas larger than 1,000 ha. Large core areas (> 50,000 ha) increased from two to four smaller core areas ranging from 97,822 ha to 474,679 ha, and accounted for 85% of the regional land area.

Hydroelectric development was responsible for the fragmentation of some of the larger core areas within the region. The Wuskwatim to Herblet Lake and Ponton to Stall Lake transmission lines were responsible for fragmenting the large southern core area in the region. The Wuskwatim access road isolated a small portion of the region at the eastern boundary south of PR 391.

6.2.2.1.3 Rat Terrestrial Region

The development periods for the Rat Terrestrial Region were as follows: · the pre-development period ended in 1969 with construction of PR 391; · the pre-hydroelectric development period was from 1969 to 1970; and

· the hydroelectric development period was from 1970 to 2013, beginning with the Thompson to Laurie River Transmission Line.


Of the four terrestrial regions, the Rat Terrestrial Region had the second largest human footprint prior to hydroelectric development (Table 6.2.2-1). This region included a portion of PR 391, which was a post-hydroelectric feature in the other two regions. Just prior to 1970, which was when hydroelectric development began in the Rat Terrestrial Region, the human infrastructure footprint had grown from nothing to 1,246 ha (Table 6.2.2-1). This was almost entirely due to the highway and associated borrow areas.

The human footprint included approximately 123 km of linear features (Table 6.2.2-2), yielding a total linear feature density of 0.01 km/km2, all of which were transportation features. PR 391, which began construction in 1969 just prior to hydroelectric development in the area, contributed most of the linear feature length (Map 6.2.2-2).

Prior to the first permanent human development, 18 native core areas larger than 200 ha and seven core areas larger than 1,000 ha each accounted for approximately 99% of the regional land area (Table 6.2.2-3). Three large core areas (597,305 ha, 166,295 ha, and 137,686 ha), separated by the Burntwood River system in the east and the upper Churchill River system in the west, accounted for 95% of the regional area. Larger islands in lakes provided the smaller core areas. Many large waterbodies with large islands produced the relatively large number of core areas in this region. Starting around 1969, infrastructure development reduced core area percentage for blocks larger than 200 ha from 99% to 98%, and fragmented the 18 core areas into 20 core areas. Large core areas increased from two to four, subdivided by PR 391, and accounted for 91% of the regional land area just prior to hydroelectric development.




Between 1970 and 2013, the size of the human infrastructure footprint increased from 1,246 ha to 34,363 ha (Table 6.2.2-1; Map 6.2.2-3). Hydroelectric flooding was by far the major contributors to this increase and accounted for 87% of the human footprint in 2013. Mining and transmission lines were the other major contributors to the increase in footprint size.

As of 2013, there were approximately 728 km of linear features in the Rat Terrestrial Region (Table 6.2.2-2), yielding a total linear feature density of 0.08 km/km2 and a transportation density of 0.06 km/km2. Limited-use roads accounted for the highest proportion of linear feature density (0.03 km/km2), followed by transmission lines (0.02 km/km2). Since just prior to hydroelectric development, the length of highways and roads increased only a small amount, and winter roads appeared in the region.

Approximately 39% of all linear features in the region were related to hydroelectric development contributing to 0.03 km/km2 of the total density, most of which were transmission lines. Limited-use roads associated with hydroelectric development also contributed to the overall density in the region. Most of the linear features were concentrated near PR 391, curving from the eastern to northern boundaries of the region (Map 6.2.2-3). Transmission lines and associated limited-use roads bisect the entire region from east to west.

By 2013, human development reduced the total core area in blocks of at least 200 ha from 98% of the regional land area just prior to hydroelectric development to 94% (Table 6.2.2-3; corresponding percentages similar for blocks larger than 1,000 ha). As of 2013, there were 45 core areas larger than 200 ha accounting for 94% of the land area, and 26 core areas larger than 1,000 ha accounting for approximately 94% of the land area (Table 6.2.2-3). The number of large core areas increased to five, ranging from 116,525 ha to 192,120 ha as of 2013, which were located in the south and northeast portions of the region. By this time, large core areas accounted for 62% of the regional land area.

One hydroelectric feature, the Thompson to Laurie River transmission line, was responsible for fragmenting the large core areas in the western portions of the region. The transmission line tap to the Ruttan Mine site contributed to the fragmentation of the core area between PR 391 and the Rat River.

6.2.2.1.4 Baldock Terrestrial Region

The development periods used for the Baldock Terrestrial Region were as follows: · the pre-development period ends in 1969 with construction of PR 391;

· the pre-hydroelectric development period runs from 1969 to 1970; and · the hydroelectric development period runs from 1971 to 2013 with construction of the winter road to

Missi Falls.


Prior to 1971, which was when hydroelectric development began in the Baldock Terrestrial Region, the human infrastructure footprint had grown from nothing to 195 ha (Table 6.2.2-1), making this the least



developed region in the ecozone just prior to hydroelectric development. The footprint consisted of roads associated with mining in the Leaf Rapids area.

The human footprint included approximately 24 km of linear features (Table 6.2.2-2), yielding a total linear feature density of less than 0.01 km/km2. All of these features were roads. Most of the linear feature length was comprised of PR 391, which began construction in 1969 just prior to hydroelectric development in the area (Map 6.2.2-2).

Prior to the first human development around 1969, 12 core areas larger than 200 ha accounted for approximately 100% of the regional land area (Table 6.2.2-3). Two large core areas (720,481 ha in the east and 297,170 ha in the west) separated by the upper Churchill River system accounted for 99% of the land area. Some of the smaller core areas were the larger islands within the many lakes in the region. By the start of hydroelectric development in 1971, Infrastructure development had reduced core area percentage from approximately 100% to 99%, and fragmented the 12 core areas into 16 core areas. The number of large core areas remained the same and still accounted for 99% of the land area. The development of PR 391 reduced the size of the smaller pre-development core area in the west.


Between 1971 and 2013, the human footprint increased to 22,528 ha (Table 6.2.2-1, Map 6.2.2-3). The vast majority of this area was due to the CRD flooding, which comprised 90% of the human footprint as of 2013. This was the main hydroelectric development contributing to the increase in footprint. Highways, borrow areas and the relocation of the community of South Indian Lake contributed most of the non-hydroelectric increase.

As of 2013, there were approximately 353 km of linear features in the Baldock Terrestrial Region (Table 6.2.2-2), yielding a total linear feature density of 0.04 km/km2 almost all of which remains transportation density. Highways, winter roads and limited-use roads accounted for most of linear feature density (0.01 km/km2 each).

Less than 20% of all linear features in the region were related to hydroelectric development, most of which were transmission lines, winter roads and roads. Most of the linear features were concentrated at the western end of the region along PR 391 and the access road to the Ruttan Lake mine site and the community of South Indian Lake (Map 6.2.2-3). The Bipole III Transmission Project corridor, which makes up most of the transmission features, extends through the eastern end of the region.

By 2013, human development reduced total core area in blocks of at least 200 ha from 99% of the regional area just prior to hydroelectric development, to 97% (Table 6.2.2-3; corresponding percentages similar for blocks larger than 1,000 ha). There were 27 core areas larger than 200 ha accounting for 97% of the land area, and eight core areas larger than 1,000 ha accounting for approximately 96% of the land area. Two large core areas remained in the region, but were reduced in size, accounting for 86% of the regional land area. The terrestrial region remained dominated one large core area (702,166 ha) covering the eastern three-quarters of the region, as most development was concentrated in the west. Most of the fragmentation of core areas was due to non-hydroelectric development in this region.



6.2.2.2 Cumulative Effects of Hydroelectric Development

6.2.2.2.1 Regional Effects

INDICATOR RESULTS

The human footprint in all of the terrestrial regions of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone was relatively small in every development period. Prior to any hydroelectric development in the ecozone, most of the approximately 9,500 ha of human development (Table 6.2.2-4) on the 4,007,400 ha of pre-development land area was concentrated between Thompson and Thicket Portage in the Paint Terrestrial Region. The human footprint in the Paint Terrestrial Region comprised 0.9% of land area, while the corresponding percentage in the remaining three terrestrial regions ranged from 0.0% to 0.1%.

Relative to what was there just prior to the start of hydroelectric development, large increases in the human footprint size occurred during the hydroelectric development period. By 2013, the human footprint had increased to between approximately 22,500 ha and 34,400 ha in the four terrestrial regions. Hydroelectric development was the largest contributor to these increases, accounting for 55% of the increase in the Paint Terrestrial Region and between 85% and 94% in the remaining regions.

Linear feature density increased from nil to below 0.33 km/km2 in all terrestrial regions (Table 6.2.2-4). In all terrestrial regions, limited-use roads and transmission lines were the largest contributors to the increase, with other transportation development making up the remainder.

Core area percentage (in blocks > 1,000 ha) declined from near 100% to above 81% in all terrestrial regions (Table 6.2.2-4). Changes to large core areas (i.e., larger than 50,000 ha) were limited to reductions in area, or the subdivision of a large core area into two large core areas. No large core areas were completely removed from the ecozone since human infrastructure development began. In all terrestrial regions except Paint, waterbody expansion created by hydroelectric development flooding (i.e., initial flooding and subsequent shoreline recession) was the largest contributor to reductions in core area percentage. In the Paint Terrestrial region, settlements were the largest contributor, followed by waterbody expansion. Transportation development, primarily limited-use roads, and transmission lines were the largest contributors to fragmentation of core areas, except for in the Baldock Terrestrial Region, where transportation development was the largest contributor.

Land loss due to hydroelectric development flooding and subsequent shoreline recession (i.e., waterbody expansion) was the largest component of the hydroelectric development footprint in all terrestrial regions. Waterbody expansion comprised 36% of the increase in the hydroelectric development footprint size in the Paint region and between 70% and 91% in the remaining regions.



Table 6.2.2-4: Regional Cumulative Effects on Intactness in the Terrestrial Regions of the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone

Terrestrial Region Source

Human Footprint (ha) Human Footprint (%) 3

Linear Feature Density (km/km2)

Core Area Percentage (>1,000 ha; >50,000 ha)

Large Core Areas

(>50,000ha)

Pre-Hydro 4 EE 5 Pre-


Hydro EE Pre-Hydro EE

Paint Hydro 1 - 7,921 - 0.8 - 0.09 - - - - Non-Hydro 2 9,017 15,567 0.9 1.5 0.03 0.23 - - - -

Both 9,017 23,488 0.9 2.3 0.03 0.33 96; 83 81; 46 3 3

Wuskwatim

Hydro - 10,782 - 1.0 - 0.03 - - - -

Non-Hydro 701 2,100 0.1 0.2 0.00 0.05 - - - -

Both 701 12,882 0.1 1.2 0.00 0.08 99; 98 95; 85 2 4

Rat

Hydro - 31,120 - 3.3 - 0.03 - - - -

Non-Hydro 1,246 3,244 0.1 0.3 0.01 0.05 - - - -

Both 1,246 34,363 0.1 3.6 0.01 0.08 97; 91 94; 62 4 5

Baldock

Hydro - 20,262 - 2.2 - 0.01 - - - -

Non-Hydro 195 2,267 0.0 0.2 0.00 0.03 - - - -

Both 195 22,528 0.0 2.4 0.00 0.04 99; 99 96; 86 2 2

1. Hydroelectric development. 2. Non-hydroelectric development. 3. Human footprint as a percentage of pre-development land area. 4. Pre-hydroelectric development. 5. Existing environment.



EVALUATION OF EFFECTS

Despite the relatively large increases in the human development footprint due to all forms of development, the cumulative effects of human development on regional intactness were still relatively low in all of the terrestrial regions in 2013. By this year, the human footprint covered only 3.6% of historical land area in the Rat Terrestrial Region and between 1.2% and 2.4% in the remaining terrestrial regions. All of these percentages were near the low end of the low magnitude range for cumulative effects on intactness (Section 6.2.1.3) using this metric alone. Linear feature density was below 0.09 km/km2 in all terrestrial regions except for Paint (Table 6.2.2-4), which was well within the benchmark range of 0.00 km/km2 to 0.40 km/km2 for low magnitude cumulative effects on intactness (Section 6.2.1.3) using this metric alone. Core area percentage remained above 81% in all terrestrial regions (Table 6.2.2-4), which was well within the benchmark range of 66% to 100% for low magnitude cumulative effects on intactness (Section 6.2.1.3) using this metric alone. Effects on large core areas were limited to relatively small reductions in area, or subdivision of a large core area into two large core areas. No large core areas were completely removed from the ecozone since human development began.

It was expected that the actual values of the regional intactness metrics were slightly more adverse than reported due to the method limitations listed in Section 6.2.1.4.2. With the exception of the Paint Terrestrial Region, these limitations were adequately addressed by two factors: the large gap between the reported values and the moderate magnitude benchmark range; and, the precautionary way the moderate magnitude range was set (see Section 6.2.1.4.2). For the Paint Terrestrial Region, the addition of cutlines could push linear density into the lower end of the moderate magnitude range.

Given that the existing environment values for all metrics are in the low end of their benchmark ranges for low magnitude effects, cumulative effects on regional intactness have been low in all of the terrestrial regions with the possible exception of Paint. Regional cumulative effects on intactness have been low primarily because the human infrastructure footprint remains small. Additionally, many features were situated near other existing human features or near or on the large rivers that had already naturally fragmented the regions. The main exceptions for hydroelectric development were the excavation of the South Bay Diversion Channel, several transmission lines and the access road to the Wuskwatim GP.

Hydroelectric development was the largest contributor to the small reductions to regional intactness, with transmission lines being the largest linear component. The fragmentation effects of transmission line features are less than some other linear feature and human footprint types. In terms of access, transmission line rights-of-way are low use features compared with roads because they are not constructed to support traffic and because the terrain in these terrestrial regions generally limit their use to the winter along much of their length. Other lesser effects include less habitat disturbance and fewer opportunities for invasive plant colonization because impacts were limited to vegetation clearing along much of their length. Transmission line effects were further reduced where they followed other linear features such as roads and railway lines. This included the Thompson to Ponton transmission line.



REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS CONCLUSION

While the cumulative effects of human development, including hydroelectric development, on the intactness of the terrestrial regions in the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone have been adverse, these effects remained within an ecologically acceptable range as of 2013. This was the case primarily because the cumulative human footprint remained relatively small. Additionally, most of these footprints were located in proximity to each other or on or near natural features that naturally altered ecological flows and habitat.

6.2.2.2.2 Local Effects

This section focuses on locations where hydroelectric development impacts were concentrated. As described above, hydroelectric development impacts were concentrated on or near the Churchill-Rat-Burntwood River System in the Western Boreal Shield Ecozone. The shoreline ecosystem subcomponent of the terrestrial habitat RSC (Section 6.3.1.5.5) evaluates potential local effects on the intactness of shore zone and offshore wetland ecosystems. The wildlife RSCs evaluate how localized changes to ecological flows and habitat affected wildlife.

The majority of flooding due to the CRD occurred in the Issett Lake, Rat Lake, and Notigi reservoir area (Water Regime, Section 4.3.3) in the Baldock and Rat terrestrial regions. This created a strong sense of dislocation for the people of the area, fracturing their traditional sense of the organization and structure of the landscape. Areas that had been well known and travelled became unrecognizable and difficult to navigate because of extensive flooding and stands of drowned trees (e.g., Rat River and Karsakuwigamak Lake).

Our navigable roads from here to South Indian Lake are already affected and also from here to Thompson and the Burntwood and Rat Rivers. This winter the normal travel route that we have always enjoyed over the past thousand years will be even more affected and more dangerous to travel (J. Spence in Interchurch 1975).

Off-system hydroelectric development impacts and effects were generally dispersed in the ecozone. The exception was near the Wuskwatim GP, where there was a concentration of infrastructure, roads and borrows areas. Even here, the concentration was relatively low.

The Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation people have indicated that increased access for non-community members may increase stresses on key plant and animal populations, and potentially lead to over-harvesting (Summary of Community Information, Section 3.5.9.4).



6.2.3 Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone The Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone includes the Keeyask, Dafoe, upper Nelson and Molson terrestrial regions (Map 6.2.3-1). This ecozone overlaps all of Hydraulic Zones 1, 2, 3 and 10 as well as the upstream portion of Hydraulic Zone 11.

Human infrastructure first appeared in the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone between 1916 and 1917 with construction of the HBR line, which entered the ecozone from the west (Map 6.2.3-2). No further infrastructure development occurred in the ecozone until hydroelectric development began. The start of the hydroelectric development period in this ecozone was marked by the construction of a rail spur to the Kelsey GS from the HBR in 1957.

In 1957, the construction of a rail spur from the HBR line to the site of the Kelsey GS (Map 6.2.3-3) marked the start of the hydroelectric development period in the Eastern Boreal Shield Ecozone. Hydroelectric flooding from the Kelsey GS occurred upstream to Sipiwesk Lake in 1960. Transportation development in the ecozone continued with the construction of PR 373, which provided access to the Jenpeg GS site and later the communities of Cross Lake and Norway House. This road was built in stages — between 1967 and 1971 to Jenpeg, GS and completed to the communities by 1981.

The Bipoles I and II transmission lines were built in 1969, bisecting the ecozone from the Kettle GS in the northeast to the southwest. This was followed by the construction of the Kelsey GS to Radisson transmission line in 1973.

Hydroelectric development was most active in the ecozone in the 1970s. Construction of structures and bypass channels for Lake Winnipeg Regulation (LWR) continued from 1971 to 1976. This included flooding of Kiskittogisu Lake and the west Nelson River channel to Cross Lake. Large portions of Cross Lake were dewatered.

Transportation development continued in the 1980s with construction of PR 280 from Thompson to the Long Spruce GS site, and PR 374 to Cross Lake.

A weir was built at the outlet of Cross Lake in 1991, increasing water elevation to slightly above pre-LWR levels, resulting in some flooding and area expansion of that lake. Other transmission line development during the 1990s included the North Central Project, connecting Kelsey GS to Oxford House, and a line connecting Kelsey GS to the community of Split Lake.

The last major hydroelectric development in the ecozone began in 2012 with the Keeyask Infrastructure Project, including construction of an access road to the future Keeyask GP site at Gull Rapids, a start-up camp and the first phase of the main construction camp. Construction impacts from the Keeyask GP are not included in the intactness assessment since relevant monitoring results were not as yet available.

The following subsections describe human infrastructure changes in each of the four terrestrial regions and evaluate regional cumulative effects on intactness.

Thompson

LAKEWINNIPEG

Playgreen

SipiweskLake

Cross Lake

MolsonLake

WalkerLake

SplitLake

StephensLake

Lake IslandLake

GodsLake

Nelso

nRiv

er

KeeyaskG.S.

Kelsey G.S.

Long SpruceG.S.

LimestoneG.S.Kettle

G.S.

Jenpeg G.S.

WuskwatimG.S.

T a i g a S h i e l d E c o z o n e

B o r e a l P l a i n s

E c o z o n e

E a s t e r n B o r e a l S h i e l d E c o z o n e

H u d s o n P l a i n sE c o z o n e

W e s t e r n B o r e a l S h i e l d E c o z o n e

KeeyaskTerrestrial Region

DafoeTerrestrial Region

MolsonTerrestrial Region

Upper NelsonTerrestrial Region

HZ 11

HZ 10

HZ 3

HZ 2

HZ 1

HZ 5

HZ 7

HZ 8

HZ 9

HZ 6

HZ 12

Kiskitto InletControl Structure

ManasanControlStructure

Cross LakeWeir

NotigiControlStructure

File

Loc

atio

n: J

:\M

YP

\MH

_RC

EA

\5_T

err

est

rial

\EE

\Mxd

\20

1511

24_

RC

EA

_P

hase

II_T

ER

_Ea

ster

nB

ore

alS

hiel

dE

cozo

neT

err

estr

ialR

egi

ons

And

Hyd

rau

licZ

one

s_cp

.mxd

3.0

15-OCT-15


24-NOV-15



DATA SOURCE:


CREATED BY:

VERSION NO:

REVISION DATE:

QA/QC:


0 10 20 Miles

0 20 40 Kilometres

LegendEcozone

Terrestrial Region

Hydraulic Zone (HZ)


Flow Direction


Generating Station (Under Construction)

Rail

Highway

Manito

baOnta

rio

Eastern Boreal ShieldEcozone

Terrestrial Regions and Hydraulic Zones

Hudson Bay

Thompson

Winnipeg

Churchil l

NOTE: Not all hydroelectric footprints are shown.

Map 6.2.3-1

Documents

Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment - Phase II Part VI Land - … · 2017-10-20 · regional cumulative effects assessment – phase ii land – table of contents december 2015