DOCSLIB.ORG

Integrated Range Assessment for Woodland Caribou and Their Habitat Kesagami Range 2010

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Integrated Range Assessment for Woodland Caribou and Their Habitat Kesagami Range 2010 Integrated Range Assessment for Woodland Caribou and their Habitat Kesagami Range 2010 Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Species at Risk Branch. December 2014. Version 1.1. Cite as: MNRF. 2014. Integrated Range Assessment for Woodland Caribou and their Habitat: Kesagami Range 2010. Species at Risk Branch, Thunder Bay, Ontario xi + 83pp. For a copy of the Integrated Assessment Protocol for Woodland Caribou Ranges in Ontario (2014) and/or Delineation of Woodland Caribou Ranges in Ontario (2014), please email [email protected] i Table of Contents List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... viii Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... ix 1.0 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Range Description and Delineation ....................................................................................... 1 3.0 Background Information and Data ......................................................................................... 5 3.1 Land management history and management direction ...................................................... 5 3.2 Caribou occupancy history and assessment .................................................................... 17 3.3 Probability of occupancy survey and analysis .................................................................. 23 3.4 Caribou ecology and range narrative ............................................................................... 29 3.5 Influence of current management direction ...................................................................... 33 3.6 Major data and analysis uncertainties .............................................................................. 35 3.7 Special considerations within the range ........................................................................... 37 3.7.1 Quebec ..................................................................................................................... 38 3.8 Other wildlife .................................................................................................................... 39 3.9 Results of past range assessments ................................................................................. 44 4.0 Integrated Range Assessment Framework ......................................................................... 45 5.0 Quantitative Lines of Evidence Methods and Results .......................................................... 46 5.1 Population state: size and trend ....................................................................................... 46 5.1.1 Population state methods ......................................................................................... 47 5.1.2 Population state results ............................................................................................ 48 5.2 Habitat state: disturbance and habitat .............................................................................. 53 5.2.1 Disturbance assessment .......................................................................................... 53 5.2.2 Disturbance analysis results ..................................................................................... 54 5.2.3 Disturbance analysis summary ................................................................................. 61 5.2.4 Disturbance considerations related to water ............................................................. 63 5.2.5 Habitat state: habitat assessment ............................................................................. 65 5.2.6 Habitat assessment results ....................................................................................... 65 6.0 Interpretation of Lines of Evidence ...................................................................................... 72 6.1 Interpretation of the population state ................................................................................ 72 6.2 Interpretation of habitat state ........................................................................................... 73 7.0 Integrated Risk Analysis ...................................................................................................... 74 7.1 Population size................................................................................................................. 74 7.2 Population trend ............................................................................................................... 74 7.3 Disturbance analysis ........................................................................................................ 76 7.4 Risk assessment process ................................................................................................ 76 7.5 Range condition ............................................................................................................... 76 8.0 Involvement of First Nation Communities ............................................................................ 77 9.0 Comparison with the Federal Generalized Approach .......................................................... 77 10.0 Literature Cited .................................................................................................................... 79 ii List of Figures Figure 1. Location of the Kesagami Range within the Continuous Distribution in Ontario. ........... 3 Figure 2. The Kesagami Range and associated ecodistricts and protected areas. ...................... 4 Figure 3. Dates and locations of significant historical natural and anthropogenic disturbances that have occurred within the Kesagami Range. .......................................................................... 6 Figure 4. Human infrastructure and historical developments occurring within the Kesagami Range. .......................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 5. Caribou occurrence across Ontario summarized by date of most recent observation as of June 2013. Assessment activities within the Kesagami Range have been variable. Absence of observations may reflect low survey effort, lack of reporting, or the absence of caribou. ....................................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 6. Historical caribou observations1,2 within the Kesagami Range and surrounding area including observations from aerial surveys, collared caribou locations, research projects, and casual observations as of August 2013. ..................................................................................... 21 Figure 7. Caribou observations in the Kesagami Range1 during February and March from all observation sources (i.e. aerial surveys, collared caribou locations, and casual observations) as of August 2013. ...................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 8. Fixed-wing aerial survey transects on the Kesagami Range following the hexagon sampling grid as well as survey transects from moose aerial inventory surveys flown on a linear grid during the winter of 2010. Observations of caribou and their sign are also shown from the surveys; any evidence of caribou presence from either survey contributes to the probability of occupancy calculation. .......................................................................................... 24 Figure 9. Probability of occupancy across the Kesagami Range conditional on detection (i.e. ψ = 1) where caribou were confirmed to be present from data collected during the winter 2010 aerial survey. .............................................................................................................................. 25 Figure 10. Probability of occupancy derived using habitat covariates acoss the Kesagami Range using the best predictive model based on the winter 2010 aerial surveys. ...................... 27 Figure 11. Probability of occupancy derived using habitat covariates across the Kesagami Range overlaid with caribou observations from the winter 2010 aerial surveys. ......................... 28 Figure 12. Probability of occupancy determined using habitat covariates from data collected during the winter 2010 aerial survey as well as historical natural and anthropogenic disturbances within the Kesagami Range. .................................................................................. 28 Figure 13. Dynamic caribou habitat schedule (DCHS) for the Kesagami Range as reflected within contemporary Forest Management Plans (FMPs). ........................................................... 34 Figure 14. Wildlife Management Units with moose and wolf sightings or sign observed during the winter 2010 aerial surveys in the Kesagami Range. ............................................................. 40 Figure 15. Moose density estimates with 90% confidence intervals for WMUs 24, 26, 27, and 30 from 1981-2010. ...................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Kap Community Final Version
    COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN 2016-2020 Photo by User: P199 at Wikimedia Commons Table of Contents Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................... 5! 1.0 Introduction and Background .................................................................................................... 6! 1.1 Developing the Community Vision and Mission Statements ................................................. 6! 1.2 Vision Statement ..................................................................................................................... 6! 1.3 Mission Statement .................................................................................................................. 6! 2.0 Communications and Consultation ............................................................................................ 7! 2.1 Steering Committee ................................................................................................................ 8! 2.2 On-line Survey ........................................................................................................................ 8! 2.3 Focus Groups .......................................................................................................................... 9! 2.4 Interviews ............................................................................................................................... 9! 2.5 Public Consultation ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Report Ivanhoe River
    Draft Environmental Report Ivanhoe River - The Chute and Third Falls Hydroelectric Generating Station Projects Revised May 2013 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 Insert “Foreword” i The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Waterpower in Ontario ................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Introduction to Project .................................................................................................. 1 1.2.1 Zone of Influence .................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Overview of the Environmental Screening Process ........................................................ 4 1.4 Approach to the Environmental Screening Process ........................................................ 5 1.4.1 Legal Framework ................................................................................................... 6 1.4.2 Characterize Local Environment of Proposed Development ................................... 7 1.4.3 Identify Potential Environmental Effects ................................................................. 8 1.4.4 Identify Required Mitigation, Monitoring or Additional Investigations ................... 8 1.4.5 Agency and Public Consultation and Aboriginal Communities Engagement ............ 8 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Health Conditions in Ontario, 2011 Forest Health Conditions in Ontario, 2011
    Forest Health Conditions in Ontario, 2011 Forest Health Conditions in Ontario, 2011 Edited by: T.A. Scarr1, K.L. Ryall2, and P. Hodge3 1 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forests Branch, Forest Health & Silviculture Section, Sault Ste. Marie, ON 2 Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Great Lakes Forestry Centre, Sault Ste. Marie, ON 3 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Science and Information Branch, Inventory, Monitoring and Assessment Section, Sault Ste. Marie, ON © 2012, Queen’s Printer for Ontario For more information on forest health in Ontario visit the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources website: www.ontario.ca/foresthealth You can also visit the Canadian Forest Service website: www.glfc.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca Telephone inquiries can be directed to the Natural Resources Information Centre: English/Français: 1-800-667-1940 Email: [email protected] 52095 ISSN 1913-6164 (print) ISBN 978-1-4435-8489-0 (2011 ed., print) ISSN 1913-617X (online) ISBN 978-1-4435-8490-6 (2011 ed., pdf) Front Cover Photos: Circular photos top to bottom – Diplodia tip blight (W. Byman), Snow damage (S. Young), Emerald ash borer galleries (P.Hodge), Spruce budworm (W. Byman), Forestry workshop in Algonquin Park (P.Hodge). Background: Severe defoliation caused by forest tent caterpillar in Bancroft District (P. Hodge). Banner: Hardwood forest in autumn (P.Hodge). Forest Health Conditions in Ontario, 2011 Dedication We are proud to dedicate this report to the memory of our friend, colleague, and mentor, Dr. Peter de Groot, 1954-2010. Peter was a long-time supporter of forest health, forest entomology, and forest management in Ontario and Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontario Aboriginal Waterpower Case Studies Ontario 3
    Footprints to Follow Ontario Aboriginal Waterpower Case Studies Ontario 3 9 8 6 5 4 2 1 7 Welcome – Aaniin, Boozhoo, Kwey, Tansi, She:kon A core tenet of the Ontario Waterpower Association’s (OWA’s) approach to achieving its objectives has always been working in collaboration with those who have an interest in what we do and how we do it. The OWA has long recognized the importance of positive and productive relationships with Aboriginal organizations. An emergent good news story, particularly in waterpower development, is the growth of the participation of Aboriginal communities. Aboriginal communities have moved from being partners in a waterpower project to the proponent of the project. Waterpower projects are long-term ventures and investments. Projects can take years to bring into service and a decade or more to show a simple payback. However, once in service, a waterpower facility literally lasts forever. Aboriginal partners and proponents taking this long-term view are realizing the multigenerational opportunity to support local capacity development, training, job creation and community growth. Revenue generated from waterpower development can be reinvested in the project to increase the level of ownership, used for other community needs such as housing and infrastructure development, or investing in other economic opportunities. Ontario is fortunate to have significant untapped waterpower potential. In the north in particular realizing this potential will undoubtedly involve the participation of Aboriginal communities. Importantly, a successful industry/First Nations relationship can help establish a business foundation for further expansion. This catalogue aims to share first hand stories in proven Aboriginal communities’ waterpower developments.
    [Show full text]
  • Smoky Falls Generating Station Was Put in Service in 1931, the Little Long Station in 1963, the Harmon Station in 1965 and the Kipling Station in 1966
    Hydro One Networks Inc. 8th Floor, South Tower Tel: (416) 345-5700 483 Bay Street Fax: (416) 345-5870 Toronto, Ontario M5G 2P5 Cell: (416) 258-9383 www.HydroOne.com [email protected] Susan Frank Vice President and Chief Regulatory Officer Regulatory Affairs BY COURIER June 29, 2009 Ms. Kirsten Walli Secretary Ontario Energy Board Suite 2700, 2300 Yonge Street P.O. Box 2319 Toronto, ON. M4P 1E4 Dear Ms. Walli: EB-2009-0078 – Hydro One Networks' Section 92 Bruce – Lower Mattagami Transmission Reinforcement Project– Interrogatory Responses I am attaching three (3) copies of the Hydro One Networks' interrogatory responses to questions from OEB Staff and from the Métis Nation of Ontario. An electronic copy of the responses has been filed using the Board's Regulatory Electronic Submission System (RESS) and the proof of successful submission slip is attached. Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY SUSAN FRANK Susan Frank Attach. c. Mr. Jason Madden Filed: June 29, 2009 EB-2009-0078 Page 1 of 2 1 Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO) INTERROGATORY #1 List 1 2 3 Interrogatory 4 5 Reference: Exhibit B, Tab 6, Sch. 1, p. 2, lines 13 to 19. 6 7 Preamble: The application states that “An Environmental Assessment Report was 8 submitted to the Ministry of the Environment for the predecessor “Hydroelectric 9 Generating Station Extensions Mattagami River” and approved in 1994. There was no 10 expressed opposition to the project and all concerns were satisfactorily resolved. There 11 are no requirements under the Environmental Assessment Act for the current project; 12 however, Hydro One is undertaking an environmental screening for due diligence 13 purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide Des Entreprises Et Du Tourisme Du Corridor Du Nord
    FREE / GRATUIT Northern Corridor BUSINESS LE GUIDE DES ENTREPRISES du Corridor du Nord GUIDEwww.kapchamber.ca ÉDITION 2016 EDITION Chambre de commerce de Kapuskasing et du district 1 HEARSTwww.kapchamber.ca | MATTICE / VAL CÔTÉ | OPASATIKA | VAL RITA / HARTY | KAPUSKASING Le |Guide MOONBEAM des entreprises | FAUQUIER du / STRICKLAND Corridor du | SMOOTHNord ROCK FALLS Jobsat Tembec We’re looking for great people to fill attractive career positions. Newsprint mill • Tembec’s Kapuskasing newsprint mill, with 350 employees, produces a range of newsprint and controlled bulk paper grades. • The mill also produces and sells green electricity generated by a turbine driven by a boiler fueled with waste biomass (e.g. bark, shavings, sawdust). Softwood lumber sawmill and wood chip operation • Tembec’s Kapuskasing sawmill mill, with 125 employees, produces softwood (spruce, pine and fir) lumber as well as wood chips. • The sawmill produces stud lumber, used mainly Tembec has 575 Kapuskasing employees in our in construction. newsprint mill, sawmill and wood chip operation, and forest resource management group. And we Forest Resource Management expect nearly half of these employees to retire over • Tembec has 100 Forest Resource Management the next five years – so that means opportunity for employees at Kapuskasing. job hunters. • The group is responsible for forest management planning and forestry operations in the Gordon Cosens Forest. Details at jobs.tembec.com/kapuskasing Follow us on A WORD FROM THE MAYOR A WORD FROM THE PRESIDENT UN MOT DU MAIRE UN MOT DU PRÉSIDENT On behalf of Kapuskasing Council and the citizens of the “Model Town On behalf of the KDCC Board of Directors, staff and members, I am of the North”, it is a pleasure to welcome you to Kapuskasing.
    [Show full text]
  • Mantle to Pacific
    Canada Mantle to Pacific The National Wau This is a reproduction of a book from the McGill University Library collection. Title: Canada, Atlantic to Pacific : “the National way” Publisher, year: [S.l.] : Canadian National Railways, [1923?] The pages were digitized as they were. The original book may have contained pages with poor print. Marks, notations, and other marginalia present in the original volume may also appear. For wider or heavier books, a slight curvature to the text on the inside of pages may be noticeable. ISBN of reproduction: 978-1-926846-88-0 This reproduction is intended for personal use only, and may not be reproduced, re-published, or re-distributed commercially. For further information on permission regarding the use of this reproduction contact McGill University Library. McGill University Library www.mcgill.ca/library CANADA ATLANTIC TO PACIFIC "THE NATIONAL WAY" CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS ft, Carvou^,^, hJoWruaL RaJoooo.^5, Co.c\ado, , fyttanuc. tto Pacific ' "TKe. CONTENTS PAGE CANADA—ITS ATTRACTIONS AND RESOURCES --------- 5 ATLANTIC TO THE PACIFIC—TRANSCONTINENTAL SERVICE HALIFAX TO TRURO --------------- 10 TRURO TO SACKVILLE ------ ___ ___ 25 SACKVTLLE TO MONCTON -- ___ ____ 30 MONCTON TO MONTREAL - - - - - - - - 34 QUEBEC TO MONTREAL --------------- 48 MONTREAL TO WINNIPEG - --__-_____-- 58 TORONTO TO WINNIPEG VIA PORT ARTHUR AND FORT WILLIAM - 103 TORONTO TO WINNIPEG VIA NORTH BAY AND COCHRANE - - - - 124 WINNIPEG TO VANCOUVER - _ _ _ _____ 130 SYDNEY TO TRURO -- __ __________ 14 HALIFAX TO YARMOUTH ------
    [Show full text]
  • Open House Presented Information
    Public Information Centre Lower Mattagami River Project Comprehensive Study Report 2009 LOWER MATTAGAMI RIVER HYDROELECTRIC COMPLEX PROJECT PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE Background Location What is OPG Proposing to Do? The Mattagami River is located in the Moose River Basin in northeastern Smoky Falls GS is smaller than the other three stations and as r e r v Ontario. It flows in a northerly direction from its headwaters at Mesomikenda a result is required to pass water without generating electricity. OPG would e i iv R R i Lake and is approximately 418 km long, covering a drainage basin area like to replace the existing powerhouse at Smoky Falls GS with a new one i m a ib g a a of 35,612 km2. The Mattagami River is generally a shallow and slow-flowing with a capacity of 264 MW (270 MW installed turbine capacity) that could n tt si a is M river with a seasonal flow regime, characteristic of rivers in the Moose use all of the available water efficiently. New manmade structures such M River basin. as an approach channel, intake and tailrace would also be constructed. The old dams and spillways for the station would remain. OPG is also Grand About 85 km southwest of Moosonee, the Missinaibi and Mattagami Rivers proposing to add a third unit to Little Long GS, Harmon GS, and Kipling Rapids join to form the Moose River, which flows northeast to James Bay. Major GS increasing installed capacity to 200, 235 and 235 MW respectively for tributaries of the Mattagami River include the Groundhog River, and the a total of approximately 450 MW of additional Power.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring 2006 Ii
    Spring 2010 Vol. 37 No. 1 Quarterly Journal of the Wilderness Canoe Association The Spirits of Chapleau-Nemegosenda Text by Gary Storr Photos by Gary Storr and Graham Bryan “Have you ever read Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness? ” It was past midnight when our vehicle lurched into the I deadpan when people ask me how the trip went. Of course Chapleau Crown Game Preserve east of Lake Superior, there was no Kurtz, no embodiment of mystery and evil for towing a rickety trailer laden with packs and canoes. We whom we were being sent—there was only the river itself. peered out the windshield searching for a sign that would There were no ivory traders whose exploits sullied hu - point us to Racine Lake. The plan was to camp there and in mankind’s lofty moral expectations. We had only the spirits. the morning meet up with our driver who would shuttle us to the river. No sign. Above the forest single-minded intent was to blast the campsite. It was a tame creature, canopy the sky was starlit yet inky through as much whitewater as we completely without guile and it filled black; below it, our headlights deep - could, maybe spot a lynx, and enjoy me with a sense of optimism. The nat - ened the shadows—trees leapt at us eight uninterrupted days on the river. ural expression of a fox is a smile. from every bend. We stopped on the We figured on four days to Elsas, a This was our charm, a sign of good road to discuss our options and from former mill town on the Canadian things to come.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of a Pit Lake at Agrium Kapuskasing Phosphate Operations – an Integrated Geotechnical, Geochemical and Biological Approach
    Mine Closure 2011 — A.B. Fourie, M. Tibbett and A. Beersing (eds) © 2011 Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, ISBN 978-0-9870937-1-4 doi:10.36487/ACG_rep/1152_57_Renaud The development of a pit lake at Agrium Kapuskasing Phosphate Operations – an integrated geotechnical, geochemical and biological approach K.G. Munnoch Agrium Kapuskasing Phosphate Operations, Canada S.E. Renaud Agrium Kapuskasing Phosphate Operations, Canada K. Connors Minnow Environmental Inc., Canada Abstract Agrium’s Kapuskasing Phosphate Operations (KPO) is an open pit mining facility located approximately 40 km southwest of the town of Kapuskasing, Ontario. In operation since 1999, three contiguous pits have been developed (North, Centre, and South) with mining activities expected to be complete in 2013. As part of the rehabilitation strategy the open pits will be transformed into a freshwater lake. Agrium KPO has had previous success in constructing and establishing a lake ecosystem. In 2006, in order to further access ore deposits, a small boreal lake was relocated which included the transplantation of fish, benthic invertebrates, plankton and aquatic vegetation. This paper will discuss Agrium KPO’s integrative planning approach based on geotechnical, geochemical, and biological specifications, including lessons learned from the previous lake relocation, to ensure the successful establishment of the pit lake. After closure, the pit will be flooded to approximately 239 masl in the North and South pits while backfill placed in the Centre pit will rise above the projected lake elevation. Geotechnical reports indicate that the safety factor of pit slopes will increase over time due to the stabilising force of the water weight on the slopes.
    [Show full text]
  • Xeneca Power Development Inc. Project Description Report Kapuskasing River Hydroelectric Project
    Xeneca Power Development Inc. Project Description Report Kapuskasing River Hydroelectric Project 336542-0000-07-124-0001 Rev. A November 2010 Xeneca Power Development Inc. - Kapuskasing River Hydroelectric Project Project Description Report Disclaimer This report has been prepared by Hatch Ltd. for the sole and exclusive use of Xeneca Power Development Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Xeneca” or the “Proponent”) for the purpose of assisting the management of Xeneca in making decisions with respect to the proposed development of a waterpower project and shall not be (a) used for any other purpose, or (b) provided to, relied upon or used by any third party. This report contains opinions, conclusions and recommendations made by Hatch Ltd. (Hatch), using its professional judgment and reasonable care. Any use of or reliance upon this report and estimate by the Proponent is subject to the following conditions: • the report being read in the context of and subject to the terms of the agreement between Hatch and Xeneca including any methodologies, procedures, techniques, assumptions and other relevant terms or conditions that were specified or agreed therein; • the report being read as a whole, with sections or parts hereof read or relied upon in context; • the conditions of the site may change over time (or may have already changed) due to natural forces or human intervention, and Hatch takes no responsibility for the impact that such changes may have on the accuracy or validity of the observations, conclusions and recommendations set out in this report; and • the report is based on information made available to Hatch by Xeneca and/or by certain third parties; and unless stated otherwise in the Agreement, Hatch has not verified the accuracy, completeness or validity of such information, makes no representation regarding its accuracy and hereby disclaims any liability in connection therewith.
    [Show full text]
  • Clay-Howells Alkalic Complex, Ontario; Unpub Lished B.Se
    THESE TERMS GOVERN YOUR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT Your use of this Ontario Geological Survey document (the “Content”) is governed by the terms set out on this page (“Terms of Use”). By downloading this Content, you (the “User”) have accepted, and have agreed to be bound by, the Terms of Use. Content: This Content is offered by the Province of Ontario’s Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM) as a public service, on an “as-is” basis. Recommendations and statements of opinion expressed in the Content are those of the author or authors and are not to be construed as statement of government policy. You are solely responsible for your use of the Content. You should not rely on the Content for legal advice nor as authoritative in your particular circumstances. Users should verify the accuracy and applicability of any Content before acting on it. MNDM does not guarantee, or make any warranty express or implied, that the Content is current, accurate, complete or reliable. MNDM is not responsible for any damage however caused, which results, directly or indirectly, from your use of the Content. MNDM assumes no legal liability or responsibility for the Content whatsoever. Links to Other Web Sites: This Content may contain links, to Web sites that are not operated by MNDM. Linked Web sites may not be available in French. MNDM neither endorses nor assumes any responsibility for the safety, accuracy or availability of linked Web sites or the information contained on them. The linked Web sites, their operation and content are the responsibility of the person or entity for which they were created or maintained (the “Owner”).
    [Show full text]