Bipole III Transmission Project Adjusted Route Assessment for Boreal Woodland Caribou and Moose

Transcription

1 Bipole III Transmission Project Adjusted Route Assessment for Boreal Woodland Caribou and Moose 1

2 Wabowden AFPR Segment 2

3 Methods - Evaluation of Wabowden Caribou Habitat Modeling Analysis and Constraints; Range-Wide Calving Habitat Suitability Assessment Known Calving Locations Winter and Summer Core Use Areas Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Caribou Cumulative Effects Analysis 3

4 Winter and Summer Core Habitats Wabowden Evaluation Range 4

5 Summary of AFPR on Wabowden Caribou Aspect of Bipole III Transmission Project Potential Effect on Wabowden Caribou Length of Transmission Line Length of Transmission Line The AFPR eliminates the requirement of approximately 49 km of new ROW through the Wabowden evaluation range. The AFPR follows existing ROWs and disturbed areas within the evaluation range, resulting in no new additional fragmentation or access in the area. Length of Transmission Line The total length of ROW which intersects the Wabowden evaluation range has been reduced by approximately 8.85 km. Access The existing forestry buffers along the Provincial Road (PR) 373 provide additional mitigation to any additional effects from the ROW on local caribou movements; Disturbance Use of small core use areas by the Wabowden caribou between PR 373, Wabowden, and Bucko Lake is not expected to change or be affected by this new routing due to the existing disturbance regimes in the local area. 5

6 Wabowden AFPR - Conclusions The AFPR is similar to the original PPR recommend for BWC. Reduces new ROW in the Wabowden BWC Range, follows existing ROW s and disturbed areas. Avoids winter core areas near PTH #6. Reduces scientific uncertainty regarding potential residual effects and conclusions for the FPR. 6

7 Moose Meadows AFPR Segment 7

8 Methods Moose Aerial Survey; Model Verification Distance to Feature Analysis; Habitat Modeling; ATK and EACP; Enhanced Assessment. 8

9 Moose Meadows Survey 9

10 Moose Meadows Survey Results Results for Entire Survey Area Area Elk Bulls Cows Calves Total Moose GHA GHA 13/13a GHA 14 (including Moose Meadows) Total Moose Meadow Area Alone n/a Overall Calves:100 Cows for Survey Area = 51 Calves:100 Cows 10

11 High Quality Moose Habitat in Moose Meadows and Observed Concentrations 11

12 Summary of High Quality Habitat Intersected by the AFPR and FPR FPR AFPR Area of Segment Amount of Modeled Habitat within 3 mile buffer (km 2 and %) Amount of Modeled Habitat within 66m ROW (km 2 and %) Area of Segment Amount of Modeled Habitat within 3 mile buffer (km 2 and %) (4.74%) (0.83%) (21.98%) Amount of Modeled Habitat within 66m ROW (km 2 and %) (1.11%) 12

13 13

14 AFPR Moose Habitat 14

15 AFPR- Shrub 5 15

16 AFPR- Shrub 19 16

17 Main Moose Meadows (2&3) 17

18 Moose Meadows Main 12 18

19 Moose Meadows Main 3 19

20 Moose Meadows Main 14 20

21 Willow Areas (South of MM) 21

22 FRP- Moose Meadows 5 22

23 FRP- Moose Meadows 2 23

24 Moose Observations and Willow Habitat 24

25 Moose Observations Relative to FRI in Moose Meadows 25

26 Bellsite Habitat (5) 26

27 Bellsite- Shrub 8 27

28 Model Verification Two distance to feature analyses were undertaken to characterize moose locations relative to high quality moose habitat and linear features: 1) Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests; 2) Principal Component Analysis. 28

29 Model Verification - Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests Observed Moose Random Moose Wilcoxon Test Evaluation Distribution - Mean Distance to Linear Feature Distribution - Mean Distance to Linear Feature P-Value Minor Roads Closer Forestry Roads Closer Major Roads Closer Transmission Closer Lines Rail Lines Closer Cut Blocks Closer Fire Closer High Quality Habitat < Closer 29

30 GHA 19A and 14A AFPR Segment 30

31 GHA 19A AFPR Survey Area 91 moose observed Note: No previous survey data available for GHA 19A 31

32 High Quality Moose Habitat in GHA 19A and 14A 32

33 Summary of High Quality Habitat Intersected by the AFPR and FPR FPR AFPR Area of Amount of Amount of Area of Amount of Amount of Segment Modeled Habitat Modeled Segment Modeled Habitat Modeled within 3mile Habitat within within 3mile Habitat within buffer (km 2 and 66m ROW (km 2 buffer (km 2 and 66m ROW (km 2 %) and %) %) and %) (36.16%) (1.53%) (33.16%) 1.96 (1.65%) 33

34 Enhanced Assessment 34

35 Introduction Provide a review of temporal, historical, and present day disturbance regimes with respect to moose populations for GHAs in western Manitoba in proximity to the Bipole III Project. Identify (if possible) landscape thresholds of disturbance that explain moose decline in the western region GHA s. 35

36 Methods Natural Disturbance Assessment Comparisons of Historical Moose Density to Disturbance Metrics (Past & Present) Regression Analysis Moose population modelling via Riskman 36

37 Study Area STUDY AREA 37

38 Landscape Cover Data Decade 1960s Available FRI or LCCEB GHA s 12, 13, 14A 1970s GHA s s Current GHA s 13, 14, 18, 19, 19A LCCEB for all areas 38

39 Data Sources Source Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation Name Description Years Manitoba Official Government Road Map, Manitoba Official Road Map, Manitoba Official Highway Map Digitized highways from the hard copy map , 1953, 1959, 1970, , , , 2012 Manitoba Mines Branch Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship (via Manitoba Land Initiative) Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship Drill Holes up to 2008 Drill holes in Manitoba up to Fires up to 2011 Fires in Manitoba up to FRI data 1960s, 1970 s, and 1980 s Tolko Industries Ltd Tolko Harvest Louisiana Pacific Canada Ltd. LP Harvest , LP Planned Harvest Forest Resource Inventory for the 1960's, 1970 s, and 1980 s Historical Tolko Harvest Polygons (used ) Historical LP Harvest Polygons (used ), Future LP Planned Harvest Polygons for 10 year plan 1960, 1970, ,

40 Creation of Common Land Cover Land cover classification LCCEB Land cover classification FRI Habitat Classification Classes Cover Type Codes Contiguous Mature Coniferous Deciduous 220 Broadleaf Mixedwood Shrub Shrub Classes Wetlands Wetland Classes Habitat Classification Sub Type Cutting Class Contiguous Mature Productive Forests Stand Types 01-98, cutting Class 2-5 Shrub Productive Forests Stand Types 01-98, cutting Class 0-1 Willow Alder Classes Wetlands Marsh/Muskeg Classes Treed Wetland Classes

41 FRI Data 41

42 Contiguous Forest Patches 42

43 Landscape Metrics Metric Edge density Mean patch edge Mean patch size Median patch size Definition Amount of edge relative to the landscape area Average amount of edge per patch Average patch size The middle patch size, or 50th percentile. Example: Median Patch size of Conifer Patches Number of patches Total number of patches in the landscape if Analyze by Landscape is selected, or Number of Patches for each individual class, if Analyze by Class is selected 43

44 Summary of Analysis Population Estimates summarized by year in each GHA, per Era of FRI GHA 12 GHA 13 GHA 14 GHA 18 GHA 19 FRI - ERA Years Years Years Years Years to Current

45 Example of linear disturbance over time 45

46 Example: 1980 s Shrubland habitat in GHA 18 46

47 Example: Current Shurbland habitat in GHA 18 47

48 Example: 1980 Fire in Porcupine Mts 48

49 Summary of Data GHA Productive Years of Population Linear Years of Moose Era of Landscape Data Major Density Density Survey Habitat (km 2 ) Burn (moose/km 2 ) (km/km 2 ) 12 2, Estimate (metrics current) 1991, , s , Current 2007, 2010, , Estimate (metrics 1980s) , Current 2002, , s 1983, , Current 2007, 2010, , s metrics from 1980s 1993,

50 Methods Regression Analysis Using all available historical and current FRI, LCCEB, LP, and MIT data, landscape and linear density metrics; Regression analysis was conducted using moose density to test for any significance among landscape and linear density metrics; IE: do any of these variables explain population density? 50

51 Regression Analysis Example: Shrubs Linear regression of relationship of shrubland to moose density per square kilometre. The regression slope is positive but the relationship is nonsignificant with a r 2 = 0.36 and a P- value of

52 Regression Analysis Example: Linear Density Linear regression of relationship of linear feature/road density per square kilometre to moose density per square kilometre. The regression slope is positive but the relationship is nonsignificant with a r 2 = 0.36 and a P- value of

53 Regression Analysis Percent Wetland Linear regression of percent wetland to moose density per square kilometre. Note: Significance 53

54 Wetlands Moose Meadows 54

55 Summary: Regression Analysis The results of single and multi-regression analyses did not yield any potential threshold value or significant correlations that explain moose density. Higher densities of moose are associated with more shrubland, more contiguous mature forest, higher densities of linear feature/roads, and higher total linear feature/road length, however, in all cases these relationships are not significant. 55

56 Summary of future disturbance in the Game Hunting Areas intersected by the Bipole III Project within the Project Study Area (20 Years) GHA Current Linear Density (km/km2) Future Linear Density (including Bipole III AFPR (km/km2) Future Drilling (km2) Future % of Area Forest Harvest A * Linear Density Thresholds Used/Reported in Canada (km/km 2 ) Greater Fundy Ecosystem Research Group (2005) 0.6 Manitoba Model Forest 0.58 Salmo et al. (2004) - Target Threshold 0.4 Salmo et al. (2004) - Critical Threshold

57 Moose Population Modeling 57

58 Modelling Objectives Western Manitoba moose populations Consider likely limiting factors Examine their effects on population growth Candidate limiting factors: diseases; parasites; predation; licensed hunting; and other 58

59 Diseases and parasites Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) Never detected in Manitoba in any species Brain worm (Parelaphostrongylus tenuis) Single verified case in moose in Manitoba near Cromer Verified cases in deer in study area Verified cases in moose across border in Saskatchewan Likely present in study area at times, prevalence likely low Winter tick (Dermacentor albipictus) Occasional outbreaks can yield mass mortality in moose Anecdotal evidence suggests about 1/3 of moose in western Manitoba may have died in

60 Predation Predators in area include black bears and wolves Regional study (RMNP) shows wolves consume 3 times as much elk as moose From other NA studies, wolf and bear predation is highest on moose calves In western MB, surveys show more than 50 calves per 100 cows 60

61 Density (km 2 ) RMNP Saskatchewan56 Saskatchewan57 Saskatchewan59 18,18A,18B,18C 13,13A 14 18,18A 14,14A Moose Population Density of Manitoba Game Hunting Areas, Saskatchewan Wildlife Management Zones, and Riding Mountain National Park 61

62 Western Moose Densities Western Moose Densities 62

63 Model Input Parameters Winter survey data from western Manitoba: Calf:cow ratio = 0.56 (n=12) Bull:cow ratio = 0.66 (n=10) I.e., for every 100 cow moose observed there were 56 calves and 66 bulls observed. Literature: annual adult female survival of 0.88 to 0.92; 50:50 sex ratio at birth. 63

64 Model Input Parameters Annual survival rates Age in May Age Class Female Survival Rate (SE) Male Survival Rate 0 Calves 0.55 (0.05) 0.55 (0.05) 1 Yearlings 0.91 (0.01) 0.85 (0.01) 2-11 Two year olds plus adults (SE) 0.91 (0.01) 0.85 (0.01) Older adults 0.81 (0.02) 0.75 (0.02) The yearling and adult male survival rates were selected to yield the mean bull:cow ratio observed in the surveys conducted after 1990 (66:100) The survival rate was set to 0.0 for males age 15 and for females age 18 64

65 Model Input Parameters Age specific parturition and twinning rates Age in May Age Class Parturition Rate * (SE) Twinning Rate (SE) 1 Yearlings Two year olds 0.30 (0.1) Adults 0.91 (0.1) 0.30 (0.1) Older adults 0.70 (0.1) 0.30 (0.1) Twinning rate is expressed as a proportion of parturient animals. The parturition rate was set to 0.0 for females age

66 Moose - general Model Parameters Age of Maturity 2.5 years 30% at 1.5 years 70% at 2.5 years Pregnancy rate Up to 97% Yearlings 30% 2-11years old 91% 11 year old 70% Twinning rate Up to 80%, Typically 25-50% Yearlings 0% 2 years 30% Fecundity rate (calves born per female) Annual Recruitment rate (calves surviving per female) Adult female survival rate (without hunting) Potential population growth rate (Lambda) Up to Up to 1.00, Highly variable year to year Commonly to 98%, Typically about 90% Up to 1.40 Commonly Weighted: 88%

67 Model Input Parameters - check Winter survey data from western Manitoba: Calf:cow ratio = 0.56 Bull:cow ratio = 0.66 Literature: annual adult female survival of 0.88 to 0.92; 50:50 sex ratio at birth. 67

68 Model Results: GHA 14 Model Type No Harvests Licenced Harvest No Harvests Licenced Harvest Other Mortality No Harvests Licenced Harvest Other Mortality MCWS Initial MCWS Final Annual Licensed Other Annual Modelled Time Span Pop Estimate * Pop Estimate Harvest (%) Mortality Population Result ,560 2, , ,560 2, , , , , , , (329) (329) (329)

69 Model Results: Other Mortality MCWS Initial MCWS Final Annual Licensed Other Annual Modelled Model Type Time Span Pop Estimate * Pop Estimate Harvest (%) Mortality Population Result GHA GHA 13/13A ,118(745) GHA 13/13A , GHA 14/14A , GHA 14/14A (329) GHA 18-18C GHA 18-18C (2044) GHA 18-18C

70 Survey Data & Model Discussion Moose recruitment rate is high (MCWS surveys) High recruitment rates are associated with low predation rates (literature) Given normal adult survival, populations should be growing (model) Observed population decline requires high and persistent additional source (s) of mortality (model) 70

71 Survey data are inconsistent with high predation rates (i.e., recruitment is high) No evidence for disease related mortality Models accounted for winter tick mortality Models accounted for maximum effect of licensed hunting (non-selective harvest model) Unknown other mortality rate is high By process of elimination non-licensed hunting is best working hypothesis Plausible additive effect of access related mortality from Bipole III (hunting or predation) is insignificant by comparison. 71

72 Moose Response The contribution of predation facilitated by increased access resulting in direct moose population decline is limited. several examples of positive moose population response in highly fragmented and accessible habitats are found in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Ontario. Crichton (2004) documented a positive increase in the Happy Lake area moose population following intensive access development and forest harvest through access management and hunting closures. A similar but less dramatic increase was also observed in the Beaver Creek area of eastern Manitoba where access was managed and hunting remained open (MCWS ). 72

73 Moose Response Saskatchewan monitored effectiveness of road management and wildlife refuges in forest harvest areas to protect moose from over hunting and documented increases in local moose populations after both large area and road corridor game preserves were established (pers. comm. E. Kowal, 2013). Rempel et al., 1997 illustrated that moose population rate of increase was positive in unmodified clear-cut areas and remained constant in modified clearcuts, which was thought to be a consequence of hunting. In all examples, hunting of moose was considered to be the main variable in explaining moose response with no documented effects or concern regarding increased predation by wolves as a result of increased access and fragmentation. 73

74 Conclusions Based on the analysis conducted, no threshold of linear density or habitat metric could be determined to explain moose decline. Increase of linear density in GHA s 12, 14 or 19A as a result of Bipole III are minimal and well below linear density thresholds found in the literature for ecosystem maintenance and moose management. I.E. Salmo et al. (2004) - Critical Threshold = 0.9 compared to cumulative effect calculations of 0.14 (GHA 14) and 0.36 (GHA 14A-19A). 74

75 Conclusions Moose Meadows The GHA 14 (Moose Meadows) segment of the AFPR has 35.0 km 2 (21.98%) of high quality moose habitat within the Local Study Area (LSA) 3 mile corridor; km 2 (1.11%) of this moose habitat within the LSA is within the 66 m ROW. Compared to the FPR (6.59 km 2 within the LSA) the AFPR contains considerably more (28 km 2 ) of high quality moose habitat. Based on the results of the aerial survey conducted between December 4 and 6, 2012, the AFPR compared to the FPR will intersect or come in proximity to additional areas of high moose density which are in proximity to existing access. 75

76 Conclusions GHA 19A and 14A The GHA 19A and 14A segment of the AFPR has km 2 of high quality moose habitat within the LSA and 1.96 km 2 within the 66 m ROW. The amount of high quality habitat within the FPR LSA is comparable to the AFPR ( km 2 high quality moose habitat). Based on the results of the aerial survey conducted between February 4 th, 2013, the AFPR compared to the FPR intersects less areas of observed moose. Additional specific mitigation measures for 8 kilometres of the FPR have been identified by Manitoba Hydro to further reduce potential impacts to moose in GHA 19A and 14A. 76

77 Conclusions Based on the results of the enhanced analysis and proposed (and enhanced) mitigation, the conclusions in the EIS remain consistent with those predictions in the original Bipole III EIS, Bipole III Mammal Technical Report, and the Route Adjustment Supplemental Report for the Bipole III Transmission Line Project. The residual effects on moose resulting from the project (AFPR / FPR) are not significant Page