Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis

September 2015

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis

Submitted to: Manitoba Hydro Licensing & Environmental Assessment Department 820 Taylor Ave (3) Winnipeg, Manitoba R3M 3T1

Prepared by: M. Forster Enterprises PO Box 931 Teulon, Manitoba R0C 3B0

Joro Consultants Inc. PO Box 23 Clandeboye, Manitoba

AAE Tech Services Inc. PO Box 1064 LaSalle, Manitoba R0G 1B0

Dillon Consulting Ltd. 1558 Wilson Place Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 0Y4 Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report documents an Environmental Impact Analysis for activities associated with two existing Manitoba Hydro transmission lines that cross through a section of Riding Mountain National Park. It is submitted in response to Section 67 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 (CEAA 2012) as it is being carried out on federal lands. As Parks Canada is the authority administering these lands, it is submitted to Parks Canada following the Guide to Parks Canada Environmental Impact Analysis under CEAA 2012.

The 230 kV V38R and the 115 kV Line 81 transmission lines were constructed in 1964 in a common 34 kilometre long Right-of-Way that enters the park at its northern boundary and continues south through the park to its southern boundary. For almost 50 years the transmission lines and Right-of-Way have been operated and maintained by Manitoba Hydro to provide service to customers outside of the park area, through collaboration with Parks Canada and the Province of Manitoba. The process of collaboration has been undertaken to facilitate mutually agreeable approaches and practices that allow Manitoba Hydro to operate and maintain the transmission lines and Right-of-Way in a manner that protects the environment and the ecological integrity of the park while maintaining a safe and reliable electrical system. A Class Screening Report and Environmental Protection Plan for Operations and Maintenance activities was developed by Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada in 2008, which included a strategy for the development of a long-term Integrated Vegetation Management Plan that would include vegetation management techniques intended to protect, maintain and enhance ecological integrity.

Due to changes in international and national design and operational standards, the transmission lines do not currently meet compliance requirements. The Right-of-Way is too narrow and the presence of tall “danger” trees adjacent to its edges are now assessed as creating conditions that jeopardize public safety and create environmental risks in terms of potential wildfires, in addition to the reliability and integrity of the transmission system. In order to comply with these requirements, Manitoba Hydro has proposed to widen the Right-of-Way by removing 7.8 metres of vegetation on the east side and allowing partial regeneration of 5.2 metres of vegetation on the west side, which will result in a net gain of 2.6 metres of Right-of-Way width.

In addition to the widening of the existing Right-of-Way, improved access is required to allow Manitoba Hydro year-round access to the Right-of-Way for Operations and Maintenance activities. The existing Moon Lake access trail includes wet and boggy areas where machinery can get stuck and cause damage to the ground cover and underlying soils. Through research, consultations and field investigations, Manitoba Hydro assessed several alternatives for improved Right-of-Way access, including construction of new trails, or improvement of the existing trail. Based on this process, the preferred alternative selected was the redevelopment of portions of the existing trail route, using innovative methods designed specifically for use in forest and wetland areas. This approach eliminated the need for additional trail development in the Park, and greatly reduced the potential for adverse effects on fish, wildlife and their habitat, as well as reducing potential adverse effects on cultural resources, visitor experiences and First Nation historical and present-day Traditional activities and uses.

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Based on the above, the Project is defined as the works associated with the widening of the Right-of-Way, redevelopment of the Moon Lake access trail, Manitoba Hydro’s ongoing Operation and Maintenance activities and further development of long-term Integrated Vegetation Management Plan.

Particular care was taken in undertaking the Environmental Impact Analysis, in recognition of the important ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experiences offered by Riding Mountain National Park, and the need to protect and preserve these resources. In addition to field studies and consultation with Parks Canada staff, Manitoba Hydro engaged in communications with the Coalition of First Nations with Interest in Riding Mountain National Park so that First Nations interests, values, knowledge and cultural practices in the park are recognized, maintained and included as part of the Environmental Impact Analysis. Manitoba Hydro developed a number of innovative planning, mitigation and long-term vegetation management approaches to be applied to the Project activities to prevent or minimize potential environmental effects, while addressing the overall goal of reducing risk to the environment and public safety.

With incorporation of the planning, mitigation and management approaches, the Environmental Impact Analysis completed for the Project clearing, construction and Operation and Maintenance activities found that the environmental effects of the Project were not significant. The residual effects of the Project activities are not expected to result in cumulative effects that would increase the overall significance of the residual effects, or result in a significant change now or in the future in the characteristics of the ecological resources, cultural resources or visitor experiences in Riding Mountain National Park.

Manitoba Hydro is committed to continuing to collaborate with Parks Canada and the Coalition of First Nations with Interest in Riding Mountain National Park to share information and ideas, identify and work to resolve all issues and concerns related to the Project, and conduct the required Project activities in a manner that respects, protects and preserves the ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experiences offered by Riding Mountain National Park.

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1. Project Need and Purpose ...... 4 1.2. Project Objectives ...... 4 1.3. Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada Mandates ...... 5 1.4. Scope of the Assessment ...... 7 1.4.1. Scope of the Project ...... 7 1.4.2. Factors and Scope of the Factors ...... 10 1.4.2.1 Factors to be Considered ...... 10 1.4.2.2 Scope of the Factors ...... 11 1.4.2.3 Spatial Scope ...... 12 1.4.2.4 Temporal Scope ...... 12 1.5. Regulatory Framework ...... 12 2. PROJECT AREA AND LOCATION ...... 13 2.1. Project Study Area ...... 13 2.2. Local Study Area ...... 14 2.3. Regional Study Area ...... 14 2.4. Management Zones within RMNP ...... 14 3. PREVIOUS STUDIES ...... 15 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 16 4.1. Overview ...... 16 4.2. Analysis of Alternatives ...... 17 4.3. Project Components and Activities ...... 19 4.3.1. Ongoing Routine Operations ...... 19 4.3.2. Widening of the RoW Along the East Side ...... 21 4.3.3. Periodic Replacement of Poles and Pole Anchor Installations ...... 22 4.3.4. Improved Access to the Center Portion of the RoW ...... 23 4.3.5. Re-growth of the RoW Along the West Side ...... 25 4.3.6. Danger and Hazard Tree Removal ...... 25 4.3.7. Short-Term Intensive Vegetation Management ...... 26 4.3.8. Development of a Long-Term Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IVMP) ...... 26 4.4. Project Clearing or Construction Activities ...... 32 4.4.1. Site Access...... 32 4.4.2. Work Sequence ...... 33 4.4.2.1 Widening of the RoW Along the East Side ...... 33 4.4.2.2 Improved Access to the Center Portion of RoW ...... 34 4.4.2.3 Danger Tree Removal ...... 35

iii

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

4.4.2.4 Short-Term Intensive Vegetation Management ...... 35 4.4.3. Work Activities and Equipment ...... 35 4.4.3.1 Widening of the RoW Along the East Side ...... 35 4.4.3.2 Improved Access to the Center Portion of RoW ...... 37 4.4.3.3 Danger Tree Removal ...... 37 4.4.3.4 Short-Term Intensive Vegetation Management ...... 37 4.5. Project Operations and Maintenance Activities ...... 38 4.5.1. Site Access...... 38 4.5.2. Work Sequence ...... 38 4.5.2.1 Ongoing Routine Operations ...... 38 4.5.2.2 Widening of the RoW Along the East Side ...... 38 4.5.2.1 Improved Access to the Center Portion of RoW ...... 38 4.5.2.2 Periodic Replacement of Poles and Pole Anchor Installations ...... 38 4.5.2.3 Re-growth of the RoW Along the West Side ...... 39 4.5.2.4 Danger and Hazard Tree Removal ...... 39 4.5.2.5 Development of a Long-Term Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IVMP) ...... 39 4.5.3. Work Activities and Equipment ...... 40 4.5.3.1 Ongoing Routine Operations ...... 40 4.5.3.2 Widening of the RoW Along the East Side ...... 40 4.5.3.3 Improved Access to the Center Portion of RoW ...... 40 4.5.3.4 Periodic Replacement of Poles and Pole Anchor Installations ...... 40 4.5.3.5 Re-growth of the RoW Along the West Side ...... 40 4.5.3.6 Danger Tree Removal ...... 41 4.5.3.7 Development of a Long-Term Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IVMP) ...... 41 4.6. Decommissioning ...... 41 4.7. Workforce Requirements...... 41 5. PROJECT SCHEDULE ...... 42 6. EIA METHODS ...... 44 6.1. Overview ...... 44 6.2. Collaboration ...... 44 6.3. Desktop Analysis ...... 44 6.4. Selection of Valued Components ...... 47 6.5. Field Surveys ...... 48 6.6. Environmental Impact Analysis ...... 48 6.7. Project-Environment Interactions and Potential Environmental Effects...... 49 6.8. Mitigation Measures ...... 50 6.9. Residual Effects Assessment ...... 50 6.10. Cumulative Effects Assessment ...... 52

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

7. EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 53 8. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ...... 54 8.1. Overview ...... 54 8.2. Biophysical Environment ...... 57 8.2.1. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 57 8.2.2. Climate ...... 57 8.2.3. Noise ...... 60 8.2.4. Terrain and Soils ...... 61 8.2.5. Vegetation ...... 64 8.2.5.1 Overview ...... 64 8.2.5.2 Invasive Species ...... 68 8.2.5.3 RoW Vegetation ...... 69 8.2.5.4 Moon Lake Trail Vegetation ...... 72 8.2.5.5 Plant Species of Conservation Concern ...... 72 8.2.5.1 Plant Species of Importance to First Nations ...... 75 8.2.6. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 75 8.2.6.1 Mammals ...... 76 8.2.6.2 Birds...... 92 8.2.6.3 Amphibians and Reptiles ...... 94 8.2.7. Wetlands ...... 95 8.2.8. Water Quality ...... 99 8.2.8.1 Groundwater ...... 99 8.2.8.2 Surface Water ...... 99 8.2.9. Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 101 8.2.10. Species at Risk ...... 104 8.3. Socio-Economic Environment ...... 105 8.3.1. Land Use ...... 105 8.3.1.1 Hunting, Trapping and Fishing ...... 105 8.3.1.2 Forestry ...... 105 8.3.1.3 Hydroelectric Transmission Development ...... 106 8.3.1.4 MTS Tower ...... 106 8.3.1.5 Roads and Access ...... 106 8.3.2. Resource Use ...... 107 8.3.3. Historic and Cultural Heritage ...... 107 8.3.4. Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Land Use Activities ...... 109 8.3.5. Local Economy and Visitor Experiences ...... 111

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

9. PARKS CANADA CONSULTATION ...... 112 10. ABORIGINAL ENGAGEMENT ...... 114 11. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...... 114 11.1. Overview ...... 114 11.2. Biophysical Environment ...... 115 11.2.1. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ...... 115 11.2.2. Climate ...... 115 11.2.3. Noise ...... 116 11.2.4. Terrain and Soils ...... 116 11.2.5. Vegetation ...... 117 11.2.5.1 General ...... 117 11.2.5.2 Plant Species of Conservation Concern ...... 120 11.2.5.3 Plant Species of Importance to First Nations ...... 121 11.2.6. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 121 11.2.6.1 General ...... 121 11.2.6.2 Mammals ...... 123 11.2.6.3 Birds...... 127 11.2.6.4 Amphibians and Reptiles ...... 129 11.2.7. Wetlands ...... 130 11.2.8. Water Quality ...... 131 11.2.8.1 Groundwater ...... 131 11.2.8.2 Surface Water ...... 132 11.2.9. Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 133 11.2.10. Species At Risk ...... 134 11.3. Socio-Economic Environment ...... 136 11.3.1. Land Use ...... 136 11.3.2. Resource Use ...... 137 11.3.3. Historic and Cultural Heritage ...... 137 11.3.4. Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Land Use Activities ...... 138 11.3.5. Local Economy and Visitor Experiences ...... 139 12. PROPOSED MITIGATION ...... 140 12.1. Introduction ...... 140 12.2. Overview of Mitigation Measures and Procedures ...... 141 13. RESIDUAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ...... 172 13.1. Summary of Residual Effects ...... 172 13.2. Environmental Effects Summary ...... 182

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

14. ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS ...... 182 15. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ...... 183 15.1. Overview ...... 183 15.2. Air Quality and GHG ...... 184 15.3. Noise...... 185 15.4. Terrain and Soils ...... 185 15.5. Vegetation and Wetlands ...... 186 15.6. Plant Species of Importance to First Nations ...... 186 15.7. Wildlife, Wildlife Habitat, VCs and Species At Risk...... 187 15.8. Surface Water and Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 188 15.9. Land Use and Resource Use ...... 188 15.10. Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Land Use ...... 189 15.11. Visitor Experiences and Local Economy...... 190 15.12. Summary ...... 190 16. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, FOLLOW-UP AND MONITORING ACTIVITIES ...... 191 16.1. Clearing and Construction ...... 191 16.1.1. Environmental Protection Plan...... 191 16.1.2. Construction Monitoring ...... 191 16.1.3. Post-Construction Monitoring ...... 191 16.2. Operations and Maintenance ...... 192 16.2.1. Environmental Protection Plan...... 192 16.2.2. Integrated Vegetation Management Plan ...... 192 17. EFFECT OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT ...... 192 18. PROJECT INNOVATIONS ...... 193 19. CONCLUSIONS ...... 194 20. CLOSURE ...... 196 22. REFERENCES ...... 197

vii

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5-1: Proposed Project Schedule...... 42 Table 5-2: Timing for Activities Within RMNP ...... 43 Table 8-1: Canadian Climate Normals Summary for Wasagaming, Manitoba (1971- 2000)1 ...... 59 Table 8-2: Common Noise Levels and Typical Human Reactions ...... 61 Table 8-3: Summary of Invasive Plant Species Found within RMNP and their Level of Invasiveness and Management Priority ...... 68 Table 8-4: Plant Species Observed and Relative Abundance along the RoW ...... 70 Table 8-5: Plant Species Observed and Relative Abundance along the Moon Lake Access Trail ...... 73 Table 8-6: Observations of Mammal Scat, Tracks and Signs within the LSA during June 2013 wildlife surveys ...... 87 Table 8-7: Observations of mammal sightings and tracks within the LSA during January 2014 winter aerial survey ...... 88 Table 8-8: Summary of Water Crossings for the V38R/Line 81 Transmission Line RoW and the Existing Moon Lake Access Trail ...... 100 Table 8-9: List of Fish Species in the Jackfish Creek Watershed ...... 102 Table 9-1: Summary of the Concerns and Ideas Identified by Parks Canada and Manitoba Hydro Actions and Response...... 112 Table 12-1: Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures for Clearing, Construction and O&M Activities in the Winter Season ...... 145 Table 13-1: Residual Effects and Assessed Environmental Consequence of Residual Effects ...... 173

viii

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

LIST OF MAPS

Map 1: Project Study Area ...... 2 Map 2: Ecological Land Classification ...... 56 Map 3: Surficial Geology ...... 62 Map 4: Soil Classifications ...... 63 Map 5: Regional Study Area LCC ...... 65 Map 6: Local Study Area LCC ...... 67 Map 7: Elk Observations from 2008-2013 within the LSA ...... 78 Map 8: Elk Observations from 2008-2013 and 70% core areas ...... 79 Map 9: Deer Observations from 2008-2013 within the LSA ...... 80 Map 10: Deer Observations from 2008-2013 and 70% core areas ...... 81 Map 11: Beaver Cache Observations from 2005-2010 within the LSA ...... 83 Map 12: Moose Observations from 2008-2013 within the LSA ...... 85 Map 13: Moose Observations from 2008-2013 and 70% core areas ...... 86 Map 14: Mammal Observations and Activities along the RoW during the 2013 summer pedestrian and Argo survey ...... 89 Map 15: Mammal Observations and Activities along the Moon Lake Access Trail Southern Option during the 2013 summer pedestrian and Argo survey ...... 90 Map 16: Mammal Observations and Activities within the LSA during the 2014 winter aerial survey ...... 91 Map 17: Trumpeter Swan Observations from 2003-2013 ...... 93 Map 18: Watercourse, Wetlands and Beaver Flood Crossings along the RoW ...... 97 Map 19: Watercourse, Wetlands and Beaver Flood Crossings on the Moon Lake Access Trail Northern and Southern Options and the Existing Moon Lake Trail ...... 98

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4-1 Illustration of the Current Conditions and Desired Conditions for Long-Term Integrated Vegetation Management of the V38R/Line 81 RoW ...... 28 Figure 4-2 Cross Section Showing Clearing Requirements, Structures 59 to 113 ...... 29 Figure 4-3 Cross Section Showing Clearing Requirements, Structures 113 to 142 ...... 30 Figure 4-4 Cross Section Showing Clearing Requirements, Structures 142 to 277 ...... 31

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: FP Innovations Proposed Moon Lake Trail Redevelopment ...... 206 Appendix B: Vegetation Assessment Technical Report ...... 241 Appendix C: Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Technical Report ...... 300 Appendix D: Jackfish Creek Fish and Fish Habitat Assessment Technical Report ...... 406 Appendix E: Draft Vegetation Management Plan ...... 452 Appendix F: Aboriginal Engagement Workshop Summary ...... 480

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

1. INTRODUCTION This report documents an Environmental Impact Analysis for activities associated with two existing Manitoba Hydro transmission lines that cross through a section of Riding Mountain National Park. It is submitted in response to Section 67 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 (CEAA 2012) as it is being carried out on federal lands. As Parks Canada is the authority administering these lands it is submitted to Parks Canada following the Guide to Parks Canada Environmental Impact Analysis under CEAA 2012 (Parks Canada 2013a).

The V38R and the Line 81 transmission lines were constructed in 1964 in a common 34 kilometre long Right-of-Way (RoW) that enters the park at its northern boundary and continues south through the park to its southern boundary (Map 1). The V38R line is a 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line that runs from the Dauphin-Vermillion station to the Raven Lake station. Line 81 is a 115 kV transmission line that runs from the Dauphin-Vermillion station to the Minnedosa South station, and is currently being operated as a 66 kV sub-transmission line. For almost 50 years they have been operated and maintained by Manitoba Hydro to provide service to customers outside of the park area, through collaboration with Parks Canada and the Province of Manitoba. The process of collaboration has been undertaken to facilitate mutually agreeable approaches and practices that allow Manitoba Hydro to operate and maintain the transmission lines and RoW in a manner that protects the environment and the ecological integrity of the park, while maintaining a safe and reliable electrical system. A Class Screening Report and Environmental Protection Plan for Operations and Maintenance activities was developed by Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada in 2008, which included a strategy for the development of a long-term Integrated Vegetation Management Plan that would include vegetation management techniques intended to protect, maintain and enhance ecological integrity.

Manitoba Hydro is required to operate and maintain the transmission lines and RoW in accordance with the engineering design criteria and operational standards developed by Manitoba Hydro and the power industry. These requirements are outlined in the document “Standard FAC-003-1 — Transmission Vegetation Management Program” found online at http://www.nerc.com/files/fac-003-1.pdf (Accessed September, 2015).

Due to changes in international and national design and operational standards, the transmission lines do not currently meet compliance requirements. The existing RoW is too narrow and the presence of tall “danger” and “hazard” trees adjacent to its edges are now assessed as creating conditions that jeopardize public safety and create environmental risks in terms of potential flash-overs and wildfires, in addition to the reliability and integrity of the transmission system. In order to comply with these requirements, Manitoba Hydro has proposed to widen the RoW by removing 7.8 m of vegetation on the east side and allow partial regeneration of 5.2 m of vegetation on the west side, which will result in a net gain of 2.6 m of RoW width.

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Map 1: Project Study Area

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

In addition to the widening of the existing RoW, improved access is required to allow Manitoba Hydro year-round access to the RoW for operations and maintenance (O&M) activities. Manitoba Hydro currently uses the Moon Lake Manitoba Telecom Services (MTS) tower distribution line trail that is located near the MTS tower off of Provincial Trunk Highway (PTH) 10 (Map 1). However, this trail includes wet and boggy areas where machinery can get stuck and cause damage to the ground cover and underlying soils.

In 2008, a Class Screening Report (CSR) and Operations and Maintenance Environmental Protection Plan (EnvPP-O/M) were prepared to address Manitoba Hydro’s standard O&M activities for the V38/Line 81 transmission lines and RoW, the RoW widening and short- to medium-term intensive vegetation management activities (Manitoba Hydro et al. 2008). The 2008 CSR and EnvPP-O/M also outlined a strategy for the development of a long-term integrated vegetation management plan (IVMP) that would include vegetation management techniques intended to protect, maintain and enhance ecological integrity and incorporate the Wire Zone-Border Zone concept of RoW management (Bramble et al. 1985, 1986). In October 2011, Manitoba Hydro developed the “Manitoba Hydro Transmission Line V38R Hazard Tree Removal And Brush Mowing Proposal” to address the need for an interim agreement between Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada to allow Manitoba Hydro to conduct short-term vegetation management practices such as brush mowing on the existing corridor, and the removal of high priority danger trees (hazard trees) that are a threat to the integrity and safety of the lines. This agreement was developed as a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada.

This 2015 report represents a continuation of the efforts of Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada to complete the Operational Environmental Impact Assessment and Mitigation (Environmental Protection) Plan. The RoW transition, RoW improvements, ongoing vegetation management and other maintenance practices are conducted in a manner that minimizes adverse environmental effects and maintains ecological and cultural resources and visitor experiences in the park, Parks Canada has determined that a Detailed Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) and long-term mitigation plan is appropriate to attain compliance with the February 2013 “Guide to the Parks Canada Environmental Impact Assessment Process Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012” (Parks Canada 2013a). To facilitate the recognition and inclusion of First Nations’ interests, values, knowledge and cultural practices in RMNP in the EIA, Manitoba Hydro has engaged in communications with the Coalition of First Nations with Interest in Riding Mountain National Park (the Coalition).

Based on the above, the Project is defined as the works and activities associated with the widening of the RoW, redevelopment of the Moon Lake access trail, Manitoba Hydro’s ongoing O&M activities and further development of an IVMP. This report includes a vegetation management plan that delineates the habitat types, identifies the different types of vegetation within the RoW and provides guidance to Manitoba Hydro on the vegetation management practices to be applied to each vegetation type in the Wire Zone-Border Zone of the RoW. The information provided in the vegetation management plan can be combined with the information previously produced for the IVMP as part of further development of the IVMP.

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

A Study Team composed of biologists from M. Forster Enterprises, Joro Consultants Inc., Dillon Consulting Inc., and AAE Tech Services Inc. was retained by Manitoba Hydro in May 2013 to conduct desktop and field studies and complete the EIA for the Project. The EIA builds on the information provided in the studies and reports that have been completed since 1999, in particular the 2008 CSR and EnvPP-O/M (Manitoba Hydro et al. 2008) and the document titled “Environmental Impact Analysis - Scope 2013 - Transmission Line V38R/Line 81/Moon Lake Distribution Line Riding Mountain National Park January 2013” (Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada 2013).

1.1. Project Need and Purpose The primary purpose of this Project is to address public safety and environmental risk issues associated with a transmission RoW assessed as being in non-compliance with current international and national design and operation standards. The V38R/Line 81 transmission lines are located in a RoW that is too narrow and poses risks of wildfires. The Project involves widening the ROW along its length to address these risks. In addition, the Project involves improving the existing access trail to reduce ongoing environmental and safety issues. The Project also involves the development of an integrated vegetation management plan that addresses public safety and environmental issues in a manner that meets Parks Canada’s mandate to protect, maintain and/or enhance ecological integrity in RMNP.

1.2. Project Objectives The specific objectives of the Project and for this Detailed Impact Analysis remain as described in the 2008 Class Screening Report and Environmental Protection Plan for Operations and Maintenance (Manitoba Hydro et al. 2008), as follows:

• To meet existing and new Manitoba Hydro reliability and safety standards; • To improve access conditions to the central portion of the Project area for reliability purposes and to reduce the environmental impacts associated with access; • To widen the RoW to meet current operating standards and to minimize the risk of wildfires within the Park; • To remove danger and hazard trees beyond the RoW edges that compromise system reliability; and • To implement long-term integrated vegetation management plan designed to enhance wildlife habitat and ecological integrity within the Project area and the Park.

The 2008 document identified the environmental objectives of the integrated vegetation management plan as follows:

• Protect, maintain and/or enhance ecological integrity:

o Promote diverse native vegetation communities on the RoWs; o Enhance wildlife habitat; o Promote wildlife movement across the RoWs;

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

o Increase protection of aquatic habitats; o Implement measures to limit the introduction and spread of non-native species; • Over time reduce the level of disturbance from operations (frequency, extent and intensity); and • Implement measures to limit the risks of damage to the environment (hazardous materials spills, etc.).

Addressing both sets of objectives provides guidance for Manitoba Hydro’s activities within RMNP in alignment with Manitoba Hydro’s and Parks Canada’s environmental policies, as well as meeting Manitoba Hydro safety standards and requirements.

1.3. Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada Mandates Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada have different mandates, but both recognize that human activities are an inseparable part of the environment and that the ecological and cultural resources of areas such as the RMNP must be protected and/or enhanced where possible. Both parties acknowledge that Parks Canada’s management principles and responsibilities must be maintained as this Project is implemented.

Parks Canada The mandate of the Parks Canada Agency and its employees as per the Parks Canada Charter (Parks Canada 2013b) is:

“On behalf of the people of Canada, we protect and present nationally significant examples of Canada's natural and cultural heritage, and foster public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment in ways that ensure the ecological and commemorative integrity of these places for present and future generations.”

Parks Canada and, more specifically, RMNP staff, are guided in their management philosophy of RMNP by the Canada National Parks Act (Government of Canada 2000), the Guiding Principles and Operational Policies (Parks Canada 1994), the RMNP Ecological Integrity Statement (Parks Canada 2002) and the Riding Mountain National Park Management Plan (Parks Canada 2007a), which states the following:

• “Maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes, shall be the first priority of the Minister when considering all aspects of the management of parks.” • “Protecting ecological integrity and ensuring commemorative integrity takes precedence in acquiring, managing, and administrating heritage places and programs. In every application of policy, this guiding principal is paramount.” • “Native biodiversity is understood, maintained, and where feasible, restored.”

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Manitoba Hydro Manitoba Hydro's mandate is to “provide continuous, reliable, and economical electricity for the people of the province”. The utility is also responsible for determining Manitoba's future electricity requirements and for designing, constructing, maintaining and operating all the facilities needed to meet those requirements (Manitoba Hydro 2013).

Manitoba Hydro’s corporate values are summarized in its Vision and Mission statements as follows (Manitoba Hydro 2013):

• “To be recognized as a leading utility in North America with respect to safety, reliability, rates, customer satisfaction and environmental leadership."”

• “To provide for the continuance of a supply of energy to meet the needs of the province and to promote economy and efficiency in the development, generation, transmission, distribution, supply and end-use of energy.”

The corporation’s Environmental Management Policy (Manitoba Hydro 2014) builds on the above and states:

“Manitoba Hydro is committed to protecting the environment by:

• preventing or minimizing any adverse impacts, on the environment, and enhancing positive impacts

• continually improving our Environmental Management System

• meeting regulatory, contractual and voluntary requirements

• considering the interests and utilizing the knowledge of our customers, employees, communities, and stakeholders who may be affected by our actions

• reviewing our environmental objectives and targets annually to ensure improvement in our environmental performance

• documenting and reporting our activities and environmental performance”

In addition to the above, Manitoba Hydro’s sustainable development policy and principles that were adopted in 1993 link the corporation’s responsibilities for supplying electricity, protecting environmental and human health, and contributing to the competitiveness of Manitoba’s economy (Manitoba Hydro 1993).

In recognition of Parks Canada’s mandate to manage national parks to protect, maintain and enhance ecological integrity, Manitoba Hydro is setting the following goal for vegetation management on its RoWs within RMNP:

“To manage vegetation under a long-term integrated approach that is ecologically beneficial to the Park and within the context of technical, practical, fiscal and regulatory requirements”

6 Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

These mandates, values, policies and goals provide a framework for Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada to work together to minimize the potential effects of on-going anthropogenic activities (as they relate to operations and maintenance of the existing lines) and, where possible, maintain and improve ecosystem health and integrity.

1.4. Scope of the Assessment The scope of the assessment was determined based on the information provided in the 2013 EIA scoping document (Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada 2013), the 2008 CSR/EnvPP-O/M (Manitoba Hydro et al. 2008) and in accordance with the February 2013 “Guide to the Parks Canada Environmental Impact Assessment Process Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012” (Parks Canada 2013a). The scope of the assessment includes the Project components and factors outlined below. The scope of the assessment does not include assessment of the potential environmental effects of the previous or existing works or infrastructure.

1.4.1. Scope of the Project Based on the information provided in the 2013 EIA scoping document (Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada 2013) and the 2008 CSR/EnvPP-O/M (Manitoba Hydro et al. 2008), the Project consists of the following components:

• Ongoing Routine Operations Manitoba Hydro needs to continue to operate and maintain the existing V38R/Line 81 transmission lines and RoW.

• Widening of the RoW Along the East Side Manitoba Hydro is committed to widening the V38R/Line 81 RoW to achieve compliance with current international, national, and Manitoba Hydro operating standards. The widening will involve clearing a 7.8 m area along the east side of the RoW.

• Periodic Replacement of Poles and Pole Anchors Installations To comply with Manitoba Hydro operating standards as well as the Wire Zone-Border Zone concept of RoW management (Bramble et al. 1985, 1986), conductor sag must be limited by installing additional poles or pole anchors and any poles that are in poor condition must be replaced.

• Improving Access to the Center Portion of RoW Improved access to the center portion of the RoW will be achieved by redevelopment of portions of the existing Moon Lake Access Trail. The redevelopment has been designed using low impact techniques for the creation and use of access trails in forests with wetland areas.

• Re-growth of the RoW Along the West Side

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Current operating standards will permit Manitoba Hydro to allow 5.2 m of the west side of the RoW from its original boundary to return to its natural state. Native vegetation will be encouraged to naturally re-establish and grow within the limits of system reliability and safety.

• Danger and Hazard Tree Removal Danger and hazard trees are trees that are high enough or long enough to breach conductor clearance specifications if they fall in the direction of the conductor. Hazard trees are trees with a defect that make them more likely to fall. These trees must be removed in accordance with Manitoba Hydro standards to maintain system reliability and safety. The existing MOU between Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada titled “Manitoba Hydro Transmission Line V38R Hazard Tree Removal And Brush Mowing Proposal”. This MOU was developed to allow Manitoba Hydro to conduct short-term vegetation management practices such as brush mowing on the existing corridor, and the removal of high priority danger trees (hazard trees) that are a threat to the integrity and safety of the lines. The identification and removal of danger and hazard trees will be completed as described in the existing MOU.

• Short-Term Intensive Vegetation Management It is expected that there will be profuse suckering of trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) and balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera) on the RoW immediately following the RoW widening activities. Some areas with high densities of suckering tall species (mainly aspen) will require intensive mechanical treatment for several years. In areas with less density of suckering species, more selective, low impact removal methods (with hand tools) will be preferable. Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada are working together to develop a vegetation management plan that combines traditional mechanical methods with more reliance on hand removal and lower impact methods.

• Development of A Long-Term Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IVMP) Past vegetation management practices on the V38R/Line 81 RoW focused primarily on maintaining separation between vegetation and the transmission line conductors. The objective of the IVMP will be to establish low- to medium-height desirable, stable, native, biologically diverse vegetation communities on the RoWs that provide biological control, habitat values and maintain ecological processes. The IVMP will incorporate the Wire Zone-Border Zone concept of RoW management (Bramble et al. 1985, 1986) and will include long term and site-specific strategies to enhance species richness, wildlife habitat values and ecosystem health and functioning, while reducing the extent, intensity and frequency of disturbance associated with vegetation management activities.

Figure 1-1 provides a summary of the estimated schedule and frequency for the short-term intensive vegetation management activities, and subsequent conversion to the long-term vegetation management activities. Note that the short-term intensive vegetation management activities are limited to the initial clearing of specific sections of the existing RoW, the removal of danger and hazard trees, and the reduction of the proliferation of suckering tree species such as trembling aspen and Balsam poplar.

Without the use of herbicides it is uncertain when, or if, this transition to long-term vegetation management will occur. The presence of suckering species contributes to this uncertainty. years 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 24 25 ongoing

Year 1 Year 3 – Approximately Year 12 Beyond Approximately Year 12 In the winter, conduct initial ROW Short-Term Vegetation Management Long-Term Vegetation Management widening and danger-tree Anticipate heavy regeneration, particularly of suckering Anticipate the eventual re- removal. Establish wire zone - species such as balsam poplar and trembling aspen. colonization of shrubs, wildflowers border zone by selectively Pioneering species will colonize disturbed area. To and grasses. Long-term vegetation identifying and removing hazard manage species that may place the transmission lines at management techniques include: trees and not removing low- risk, multiple techniques are proposed: 1. Mechanical Cutting of growing species. 1. Mechanical mowing of high-density areas (>500 Individual Plants once stem stems/ha). This treatment is anticipated for densities are drastically approximately 43% of the project area lowered. Year 2 2. Selective Manual Cutting of Individual Plants in 2. Hazard tree removal During the second growing low-density areas (<500 stems/ha). This treatment season after initial ROW is anticipated for 21% of the project area. Continue to coordinate with Parks widening, conduct a 3. Hazard Tree Removal. This treatment may be Canada representatives. vegetation survey to monitor required throughout the project areas if hazard and report on re-growth, and trees are identified. inform vegetation The frequency of mechanical mowing and selective management. manual cutting is anticipated to occur frequently (5-8 years), and will be informed by regular vegetation surveys that will record re-growth and identify areas containing tree species and density, and through conversations with Parks Canada representatives.

Figure 1-1. Vegetation Management Over Time. Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

A description of the short-term intensive vegetation management activities is provided in Section 4.3.7.

A description of the long-term integrated vegetation management activities is provided in Section 4.3.8.

A description of the required clearance distances between RoW vegetation, the transmission line structures and transmission line conductors (including scaled drawings) is provided in Section 4.3.8.

The types of vegetation that will be allowed to grow within the Wire Zone include wetland plants, grasses, forbs, low shrubs (willow, hazel) and low trees, to a maximum height of 4.2m. Additional information on the types of vegetation located in the RoW is provided in Section 8 of this report and Appendix B (veg tech report).

The draft Vegetation Management Plan provided as Appendix E includes the classification and delineation of the vegetation types in and along the RoW, as well as recommendations on the vegetation management techniques to be applied to each vegetation type (i.e., mechanical mowing, selective manual cutting, or no treatment in areas where tall shrubs or trees are absent).

1.4.2. Factors and Scope of the Factors

1.4.2.1 Factors to be Considered

As adapted from paragraphs 19(1)(a) through (h) of CEAA 2012 this Detailed Environmental Impact Analysis (DIA) will take into account the following factors:

• the purpose of the Project;

• alternative means of carrying out the Project that are technically and economically feasible and the environmental effects of any such alternative means; and

• any change to the Project that may be caused by the environment;

• the environmental effects of the project, including the environmental effects of malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection with the Project and any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the Project in combination with other physical activities that have been or will be carried out;

• the significance of the effects referred to above;

• comments from the public or any interested party received in accordance with the CEAA, 2012;

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

• community knowledge and Aboriginal traditional knowledge pursuant to subsection 19(3) of CEAA, 2012;

• mitigation measures that are technically and economically feasible and that would mitigate any significant adverse environmental effects of the Project; and

• the requirements of the follow-up program in respect of the Project.

1.4.2.2 Scope of the Factors

The scope of factors considered in the EIA includes the potential effects of the Project within appropriate spatial and temporal boundaries to the biophysical environment (including ecological resources) and socio-economic environment (including cultural resources, visitor experiences, and local economy) within RMNP from the clearing, construction, site reclamation, operation and maintenance activities related to the Project. As such, the EIA considered potential effects on:

• Biophysical Environment:

o Air quality and greenhouse gas emissions o Climate o Noise o Terrain and soils o Vegetation, including plants species of conservation concern and plants of importance to First Nations

o Wildlife (mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles) o Wildlife habitat, including wildlife corridors and habitat fragmentation o Wetlands o Groundwater resources and groundwater quality o Surface water resources and surface water quality o Fish and fish habitat o Species at Risk • Socio-Economic Environment:

o Land use o Resource use o Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Land Use activities o Archaeological resources and historic areas o Visitor experiences (i.e., recreational opportunities, access, aesthetics and views) o Local economy The EIA also included an engagement process with local First Nations to inform and seek involvement with interested First Nations and the Project. Parks Canada requested that public consultation activities be handled by Parks staff. Engagement with local First Nations was

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

achieved through contact with the Coalition by Manitoba Hydro and with the assistance of Parks Canada.

Aboriginal engagement conducted by Manitoba Hydro with respect to the Project sought to achieve understanding of issues and concerns with the Project and any culturally, spiritually and historically important sites within the Local Study Area. This engagement process is separate from any Crown-Aboriginal consultation process to be initiated by the Government with First Nations, Metis and other Aboriginal communities. It should be noted that the Government, not Manitoba Hydro, is responsible for conducting the Crown-Aboriginal consultation.

1.4.2.3 Spatial Scope

The spatial scope for the Project was defined using three different areas for the assessment of potential environmental effects: a Project Study Area (PSA), a Local Study Area (LSA) and a Regional Study Area (RSA). The definition of the spatial limits of these areas is provided in Section 2.

1.4.2.4 Temporal Scope

As per the 2013 EIA scoping document (Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada 2013), for the purposes of assessing potential environmental effects related to the presence of, access to, and regular maintenance of the transmission line facilities, the temporal scope of the assessment will be 20-25 years.

For the purposes of assessing the potential environmental effects related to the RoW widening and subsequent period of intensive vegetation management and maintenance, the temporal scope of the assessment will be approximately 12 years (Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada 2013). This timeframe was selected as it is possible that the vegetation communities on the newly cleared section of RoW will require a lower level of management effort after approximately 12 years, and maintenance will continue with the use of less intensive long-term vegetation management activities. A description of the activities associated with the short-term and long-term vegetation management is provided in Section 4.

1.5. Regulatory Framework Through discussion with Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada, it was determined that the EIA would be conducted in accordance with the February 2013 “Guide to Parks Canada Environmental Impact Analysis Process Under CEAA 2012” (Parks Canada 2013a) and be submitted to Parks Canada for approval. Under CEAA 2012, Parks Canada has a legal obligation to ensure that projects and activities undertaken on the lands it manages do not result in significant environmental effects. As noted in the February 2013 “Guide to Parks Canada Environmental Impact Analysis Process Under CEAA 2012” (Parks Canada 2013a), the EIA process is an important means for Parks Canada to:

• Meet its obligations under CEAA 2012 to ensure that projects carried out on federal lands do not cause significant environmental effects;

12 Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

• Systematically evaluate projects within protected heritage places to ensure that they are as well designed as possible to avoid or reduce adverse impacts; and • Achieve the Agency’s mandate to protect and present nationally significant examples of Canada’s natural and cultural heritage, and foster public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment.

Parks Canada, which was established as an independent Government of Canada Agency in 1998, is responsible for application of the following legislation: the Parks Canada Agency Act; the Canada National Parks Act; the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act; the Historic Sites and Monuments Act; the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act; the Historic Canal Regulations pursuant to the Department of Transport Act; the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act; and the Species at Risk Act (Parks Canada 2013b).

In addition to CEAA 2012 and the legislation applied by Parks Canada, the following federal and provincial legislation, Acts and Regulations may also apply to the Project:

• Canada Wildlife Act; • Canadian Environmental Protection Act; • Fisheries Act and Regulations; • Manitoba Endangered Species Endangered Species and Ecosystems Act; • Manitoba Environment Act; • Manitoba Forest Act; • Manitoba Heritage Resources Act • Manitoba Noxious Weed Act; • Manitoba Water Protection Act; • Manitoba Wildlife Act; • Migratory Birds Convention Act; • Species at Risk Act; and • Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act.

2. PROJECT AREA AND LOCATION The Project area is located within the boundaries of RMNP. Map 1 illustrates the Project Study Area (PSA) and shows the areas defined as the Local Study Area (LSA) and Regional Study Area (RSA). A description of each area is provided in the following sections.

2.1. Project Study Area The Project Stdy Area (PSA) is defined as the areas that will be physically altered by the Project clearing or construction activities, and the areas that will be directly affected by Project Operation and Maintenance (O&M) activities. As such, the PSA is defined as:

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

• The land, trails and infrastructure within the section of the existing V38R/Line 81 RoW that is located within the RMNP boundary; • The existing RoW access routes (Lake Audy Road access point, the Moon Lake Tower access route, the PTH10 access point to the Moon Lake Tower access route, the north and south RMNP boundary access points and any existing by-pass trails); and • The areas immediately adjacent to the RoW where physical disturbance occurs due to the felling of danger and hazard trees and other vegetation management practices.

2.2. Local Study Area A Local Study area (LSA) is selected to include the spatial area in which direct effects from the Project are anticipated to occur. To examine the potential effects of the Project on the ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experience opportunities in the PSA, the LSA was defined as the area located within 5 km of either side of the V38R/Line 81 transmission line (Map 1). This distance from the RoW was selected to:

• Encompass wildlife movements and activities in the area; • Include any affected watercourses, waterbodies or wetlands; • Provide adequate information on the type, size and composition of the vegetation and forest communities; • Examine all access points and routes; • Include any areas of interest to First Nations; and • Determine potential effects on recreational areas or other areas of visitor experiences.

2.3. Regional Study Area A Regional Study Area (RSA) is selected to include the spatial area in which direct and indirect effects from the Project are anticipated to occur. The RMNP boundary was selected as the RSA (Map 1) as the potential effects of the Project are not expected to extend to regions outside of the park. The park boundary delineates the relatively undisturbed natural areas within the park from the urban, rural and agricultural areas that surround the park. The park was designated in 1986 as a biosphere reserve by UNESCO due to its distinctive ecological features, biodiversity and location. Therefore, use of the park boundary as the RSA aids in the ability to separate the potential effects of the Project from the effects of urban, rural and agricultural development and activities that occur outside of the park.

2.4. Management Zones within RMNP As noted in the 2008 CSR/EnvPP-O/M (Manitoba Hydro et al. 2008), RMNP is subject to a management plan. Park management plans set the direction for operational planning and management activities regarding the use and protection of national park lands. The maintenance of ecological integrity is the primary consideration in management planning. The

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

national park zoning system is one part of a variety of management strategies used by Parks Canada to assist in the maintenance of ecological integrity (Parks Canada 2013b).

The national park zoning system consists of five zones: Zone I - Special Preservation; Zone II - Wilderness; Zone III - Natural Environment; Zone IV - Outdoor Recreation; and Zone V - Park Services. These zones represent areas designated for a high level of protection to areas that support concentrated park facilities (Parks Canada 2013b). In certain national parks, not all zones are represented. The national parks zoning system is an integrated approach by which land and water areas are classified according to ecosystem, cultural resource protection requirements, and their capability and suitability to provide opportunities for visitor experiences (Manitoba Hydro et al. 2008). The wilderness zone in RMNP comprises 97% of the total park area (Parks Canada 2007a).

The entire transmission line RoW through the park is classified as a narrow band of Zone III – Natural Environment that is located primarily within the much larger Zone II – Wilderness (Manitoba Hydro et al. 2008). The Zone III classification includes lands able to accommodate a broad range of opportunities for visitors to experience the park’s heritage values in ways that impact the ecological integrity of the park to the smallest extent possible (Manitoba Hydro et al. 2008).

3. PREVIOUS STUDIES Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada have been working together over the last few years to develop mutually agreeable approaches and practices that will allow Manitoba Hydro to maintain the safety and reliability of the V38R/Line 81 transmission lines and RoW while supporting Parks Canada’s goal of protecting and enhancing the ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experience opportunities of the park. A number of studies and reports have been completed in the PSA in support of Manitoba Hydro’s need for ongoing O&M of the transmission line and RoW, and improved access to the RoW. These studies and reports include the following:

• 1999 - Archaeological assessment of the Proposed Jackfish Creek Transmission Line Patrol Bridge, Riding Mountain National Park (Sauvage 1999) • 2000 - Environmental Screening Proposed Jackfish Creek Transmission Line Patrol Bridge - Riding Mountain National Park (Transmission Line V38R/Line 81) (Manitoba Hydro 2000) • 2006 - Final Draft Manitoba Hydro Transmission Line Maintenance Line V38R and Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba CEAR #: 06-01-17699 RMNP Ref#: 000569 June 30, 2006 (Manitoba Hydro, Plus4 Consulting Inc. and MMM Group 2006) • 2008 - Manitoba Hydro Class Screening Report for V38R/Line 81 Transmission Project Environmental Protection Plan For Operations and Maintenance in Riding Mountain National Park; September, 2008 (Manitoba Hydro, Plus4 Consulting Inc. and MMM Group 2008) • 2008 - Manitoba Hydro V38R RoW Timber Assessment and Access Evaluation Within Riding Mountain National Park (Plus4 Consulting Inc. 2008)

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

• 2010 – Moon Lake Tower Wetland Survey Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba. Summer, 2010 (Calyx Consulting 2010) • 2011 – Burn or Slash: Comparing the Vegetative Diversity between Two Management Regimes in Riding Mountain National Park (Watts 2011) • 2013 - Environmental Impact Analysis - Scope 2013 - Transmission Line V38R/Line 81/Moon Lake Distribution Line Riding Mountain National Park January 2013 (Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada 2013)

The information provided in the above noted documents was a key component in the preparation of the EIA. In particular, the 2013 EIA scoping document (Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada 2013) and the 2008 CSR and EnvPP-O/M (Manitoba Hydro et al. 2008) provided valuable background information for the Project, as well as a detailed description of the factors and scope for the environmental assessment.

In recognition of the previous body of work that has been completed, this EIA draws on the information provided in the above noted documents, as well as on other available environmental assessments and studies recently completed within the PSA. This background information was combined with the data obtained during the 2013 field and desktop studies to complete the EIA.

4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

4.1. Overview As noted in Section 1.2, Manitoba Hydro’s overall objective for the Project is to address the safety issue and carry out Project activities in alignment with Parks Canada’s goal of preserving and maintaining the ecological and cultural resources and visitor experiences in RMNP. The Project components and activities were examined by Manitoba Hydro and the Study Team to identify opportunities where potential environmental effects could be eliminated or minimized, in keeping with the goal of respecting, protecting and preserving the exceptional ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experiences offered by Riding Mountain National Park.

As noted in Section 1.4, the Project consists of the following components:

• Ongoing routine operations; • Widening of the RoW along the east side; • Periodic replacement of poles and pole anchor installations; • Improved access to the center portion of RoW; • Re-growth of the RoW along the west side; • Danger and hazard tree removal; • Short-term intensive vegetation management; and • Development of a long-term Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IVMP).

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

A description of each of these Project components and the activities associated with each is provided below. The 2008 CSR and EnvPP-O/M document included the use of herbicides and girdling of potential danger trees. During discussions with Parks Canada biologists and ecologists, it was recognized that these methods might not be suitable for use in RMNP. Parks Canada has indicated that there is no use of herbicides allowed in RMNP except for the management of non-native invasive plant species that threaten ecological integrity (McKillop 2014, pers.comm.). As part of Manitoba Hydro’s commitment to the preservation of ecological integrity in RMNP, herbicide use and girdling have been removed from the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities as a means of vegetation and danger tree control.

The Project activities described below will be carried out in a manner that respects, protects and preserves the exceptional ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experiences offered by RMNP, in keeping with Parks Canada’s goal of preserving and maintaining the ecological and cultural resources and visitor experiences in RMNP.

4.2. Analysis of Alternatives An analysis of various means to carry of the Project considered works associated with the following:

• The widening and re-growth of the RoW; • Improved access to the center portion of the RoW by redevelopment of the Moon Lake access trail; • Manitoba Hydro’s ongoing O&M activities; and • Further development of an IVMP. The alternative to widening the RoW would be to not do any RoW widening. Not widening the RoW was not considered to be a viable option as it would result in Manitoba Hydro being in non- compliance with Manitoba Hydro system and national/international requirements and regulations, and put the reliability and safety of the operation of the V38R/Line 81 transmission lines at increased risk of fire and/or other damage. Manitoba Hydro crews and equipment would not be able to properly and safely access the RoW for routine O&M activities. Not widening the RoW would increase the risk of flashover fires, which could threaten the integrity and safety of the ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experiences within RMNP.

The allowance for re-growth of vegetation on the west side of the RoW is part of the long-term IVMP and Manitoba Hydro’s commitment to work with Parks Canada to protect, maintain and/or enhance biodiversity and ecological integrity in RMNP. Native vegetation will be encouraged to naturally re-establish and grow within the limits of system reliability and safety. The alternative to not allowing the re-growth would be for Manitoba Hydro to resume previous O&M activities, which is not conducive to the long-term IVMP or its goals.

Manitoba Hydro has examined several options for improved RoW access, including construction of new trails, construction of a bridge at the Jackfish Creek crossing or improvement of the existing Moon Lake trail. Three different access routes were evaluated during the June 2013 field surveys to determine the best option for improved access. The three options identified

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

during the Project initiation were referred to as the Northern Moon Lake access trail option, Southern Moon Lake access trail option and the Jackfish Creek access trail option. A brief description of each of these options is provided below:

• Northern Moon Lake Access Trail Option - this trail option was 5,230m in length, with a starting point at PTH10 west of Edwards Creek. This option crossed one cross country ski trail, Hilton Trail, as well as one minor stream crossing. • Southern Moon Lake Access Trail Option - this trail option was 5,035m in length, with a starting point at the MTS Tower site. This option contained a portion of the existing Moon Lake distribution line RoW. This option had three minor stream crossings, two before reaching the existing RoW, and one along the existing RoW. • Jackfish Creek Access Trail Option - this trail option was 1,955m in length with a starting point south of Jackfish Creek along the existing RoW and ending north of Jackfish Creek along the existing RoW. This option would require construction of a bridge over Jackfish Creek and crossing of one minor stream.

Through desktop analyses and field surveys, the three potential access route trail options were assessed for floral and faunal composition, presence of Species At Risk and habitat quality. The Jackfish Creek field surveys also included examination of the water quality, fish species composition, presence of Species At Risk (including molluscs) and fish habitat to provide the information that would be required to assess the potential effects of the bridge construction option.

A comparison of the three access trail route options indicated that all three routes provided habitat for a variety of vegetation and wildlife species, and were similar in terms of vegetation cover, habitat types and wildlife composition. The evaluation of the three trail options showed that all three options would have similar issues with wet areas and therefore present the same problems with equipment access and damage to the ground surface during summer months that Manitoba Hydro currently faces with the existing Moon Lake trail route. Due to the limited number of highly invasive or high management priority exotic species observed along the three proposed routes, it is expected that the amount and extent of the invasive species present should not be a significant or limiting factor in the route selection process. The Jackfish Creek route would require the most significant bridge crossing and requires disturbance near Jackfish Creek, which, in addition to being an area of high quality habitat, is an area of cultural significance to local First Nations. At the time the field surveys were conducted, the existing Moon Lake trail option traversed the least substantial wetland or water crossings and, given that this route is already a cleared RoW with the wildlife adjusted to the presence of the RoW, biologists determined the existing Moon Lake trail route offered the best access option of the routes that were assessed. As such, the consulting team recommended improvement of the existing Moon Lake trail as the selected option based on the overall effects on the environment, practicality and cost to Manitoba Hydro, and the mutual objective of Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada to protect and preserve ecological integrity in RMNP.

Additional information on the three trail options and their evaluation is provided in the “Riding Mountain National Park V38R/Line 81 Environmental Impact Analysis Vegetation Technical

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Report” (Dillon Consulting Ltd. 2013) included as Appendix B to this report, the “Riding Mountain National Park V38R/Line 81: Environmental Impact Analysis - Wildlife Technical Report” (Joro Consulting Inc. 2013) included as Appendix C to this report and the “Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis: Jackfish Creek Aquatic Habitat Assessment” (AAE Tech Services Inc. 2013) included as Appendix D to this report.

Alternatives to Manitoba Hydro’s ongoing O&M activities would be for Manitoba Hydro to not conduct the ongoing O&M activities, or for Manitoba Hydro to adopt new methods to conduct ongoing O&M activities. Not conducting the ongoing O&M activities was not considered to be a viable option, as it would result in Manitoba Hydro being out of compliance with Manitoba Hydro’s system requirements and standards, and put the reliability and safety of the operation of the V38R/Line 81 transmission lines at increased risk of fire and/or other damage. Not conducting the ongoing O&M activities would increase the risk of flashover fires, which could threaten the integrity and safety of the ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experiences within RMNP. By working towards mutually agreeable approaches and practices for ongoing O&M activities and development of a long-term IVMP, Manitoba Hydro is demonstrating that it is willing to adopt new practices for ongoing O&M needs that meet system reliability and safety requirements, as well as the mutual objective of Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada to protect and preserve the ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experiences in RMNP.

Further development of an IVMP is required to provide a long-term plan for Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada to cooperatively manage the RoW areas within RMNP to meet the mandates of both parties. As such, the alternative of not doing further development of the IVMP was not considered to be a viable alternative.

4.3. Project Components and Activities The following descriptions and activities are based on the information provided in the 2013 EIA scoping document (Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada 2013), the 2008 CSR and EnvPP-O/M (Manitoba Hydro et al. 2008), trail redevelopment design information provided by FP Innovations, and discussion with Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada. A detailed description of the approach, methods, construction activities, construction design and follow-up activities proposed by FP Innovations for the Moon Lake trail redevelopment is provided as Appendix A.

4.3.1. Ongoing Routine Operations Manitoba Hydro is required to continue to operate and maintain the existing V38R/Line 81 transmission lines and RoW. The ongoing routine O&M activities include the following:

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

o Use of natural techniques to extent possible; o For travel to and/or from known access points, and other locations deemed appropriate;

o Not intended to create year-round access; o For access to and/or from emergency “bad spots”; • Detailed aerial patrols, detailed climbing patrols, ground patrols, aerial patrols, emergency aerial patrols and task specific aerial patrols; • Pole testing, pole stubbing and/or pole replacement; • Cross-arm replacement; • Bolt tightening; • Repair or replacement of grounding equipment; • Conductor repair, replacement and salvage; • Insulator replacement and cleaning; • Waste management; • Hazardous material handling; • Temporary staging areas; • Equipment cleaning, maintenance and repair; • Equipment refueling; • Long-term RoW vegetation management:

o Manual tree removal and trimming (chainsaws, brush-saws); o Mechanical brush mowing within the RoW; o Removal of danger and hazard trees adjacent to the RoW; o Maintenance of riparian zones; o Maintenance of wildlife corridors and visual buffer zones; o Maintenance of native vegetation communities with low height in the Wire Zone and native vegetation communities with low to medium height in the Border Zone; • Beaver management; • Monitoring activities (data collection); and • Maintenance of the redeveloped sections of the Moon Lake trail. The maintenance required for the redeveloped trail sections of the Moon Lake trail is expected to be very low and infrequently needed. The very low traffic levels along with the low ground pressure of the track machines would not be expected to disturb the aggregate material on the trail surface. It could be expected that additional aggregate (or corduroy) may eventually be needed if there are any localized failures in the trail that would require repair. The low traffic volume and the low travel speeds will serve to reduce the deterioration of the travel surface. A properly sized aggregate that is well graded with a sufficient content of fines is expected to compact through time and after passage of the vehicles. The relatively flat elevation of the trail

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015 will also serve to minimize any potential erosion of the aggregate that may be created during snowmelt or heavy rain conditions.

4.3.2. Widening of the RoW Along the East Side The activities associated with the widening of the RoW on the east side include:

• Access and travel on access routes (e.g. PTH10, Lake Audy Road, north and south park boundaries and Moon Lake access trail); • Access and travel along the existing RoW and existing by-pass trails; • Fording streams, wetlands and rivers; • Waste management; • Hazardous material handling; • Temporary staging areas; • Equipment cleaning, maintenance and repair; • Equipment refueling; • Short-term RoW vegetation management:

o New sucker and tree removal on the RoW; o Timber salvage from RoW widening and danger tree removal; o Removal of danger and hazard trees adjacent to the RoW; o Manual tree removal within the RoW; o Manual tree removal (chainsaws, brush-saws); o Mechanical brush mowing within the RoW; o Vegetation debris disposal (burning, chipping, mulching, piling, etc.); o Establishment of riparian zones; o Establishment of wildlife corridors and visual buffer zones; • Long-term RoW vegetation management:

The O&M activities associated with the widening of the RoW on the east side include:

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

• Access and travel on access routes (e.g. PTH10, Lake Audy road, north and south park boundaries and Moon Lake access trail); • Access and travel along the existing RoW and existing by-pass trails; • Fording streams, wetlands and rivers; • Waste management; • Hazardous material handling; • Temporary staging areas; • Equipment cleaning, maintenance and repair; • Equipment refueling; • Long-term RoW vegetation management:

4.3.3. Periodic Replacement of Poles and Pole Anchor Installations The O&M activities associated with the periodic replacement of poles and pole anchor installations include:

• Access and travel on access routes (e.g. PTH10, Lake Audy Road, north and south park boundaries and Moon Lake access trail); • Access and travel along the existing RoW and existing by-pass trails; • Fording streams, wetlands and rivers; • New sucker and tree removal within the RoW; • Removal of overlying vegetation and/or soils; • Pole removal; • Pole replacement using an auger; • Pole anchor installations using an auger; • Reclaim site by infilling with removed soils; • Waste management; and • Hazardous materials handling.

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

4.3.4. Improved Access to the Center Portion of the RoW As indicated in section 4.2, Manitoba Hydro examined several options for improved RoW access, including construction of new trails, construction of a bridge at the Jackfish Creek crossing, or improvement of the existing Moon Lake trail. Based on the information gathered and assessed for each option, it was proposed that the preferred option for Manitoba Hydro to achieve improved access to the center portion of the RoW would be by redevelopment of portions of the existing Moon Lake trail route. The Forest Operations branch of FP Innovations (http://www.feric.ca) was contacted for assistance with the trail redevelopment. A detailed description of the approach, methods, construction activities, construction design and follow-up activities proposed by FP Innovations for the Moon Lake trail redevelopment is provided as Appendix A.

The redevelopment will be designed to maintain water flow and have a low impact on the environment using methods being developed by FP Innovations specifically for use in forest and wetland areas. Field investigations were carried out by FP Innovations in November 2013 to observe the existing conditions of the Moon Lake Trail and identify an appropriate redevelopment plan. FP Innovations categorized the trail into low, medium and high levels of priority for redevelopment. The majority of the trail (62.3%) (total length of 2,335 m) was considered to be of low priority and does not require any redevelopment. About 2.6% (total length of 97 m) of the trail was considered to be of medium priority and about 35.1% (total length of 1,314 m) was considered to be of high priority. The medium priority areas are sections of the trail that currently permit machine passage but where trail upgrades are recommended to ensure long-term machine access. The high priority areas indicate sections of the trail where immediate upgrades are required to improve machine access and to prevent further site damage.

The construction and other activities associated with the improved access to the center portion of the RoW include:

• Access and travel on access routes (e.g. PTH10 and Moon Lake access trail); • Access and travel along the existing Moon Lake access trail RoW; • Short-term RoW vegetation management:

o Removal of danger and hazard trees adjacent to the RoW; o Manual tree removal within the RoW; o Manual tree removal (chainsaws, brush-saws) within the existing Moon Lake access trail RoW;

o Mechanical brush mowing within the existing Moon Lake access trail RoW; o Vegetation debris disposal (burning, chipping, mulching, piling, etc.); o Establishment of riparian zones; o Establishment of wildlife corridors and visual buffer zones; • FP Innovations Moon Lake trail redevelopment:

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

o Installation, use and removal of erosion and sediment control materials (e.g., silt fence, water control devices);

o Transportation of construction materials (aggregate, corduroy, culverts, geotextile) and equipment;

o Installation of small diameter (450 mm) culverts; o Installation of corduroy logs; o Installation of geotextile materials; o Hauling, dumping and spreading of aggregate for redeveloped sections of the trail surface; • Waste management; • Hazardous material handling; • Temporary staging areas; • Equipment cleaning, maintenance and repair; • Equipment refueling; • Beaver management; and • Monitoring activities (data collection).

The O&M activities associated with the improved access to the center portion of the RoW include:

• Access and travel on access routes (e.g. PTH10 and Moon Lake access trail); • Detailed aerial patrols, ground patrols, aerial patrols, emergency aerial patrols and task specific aerial patrols; • Long-term RoW vegetation management:

o Manual tree removal and trimming (chainsaws, brush-saws); o Mechanical brush mowing within the RoW; o Removal of danger and hazard trees adjacent to the RoW; o Maintenance of riparian zones; • Infrequent (e.g., every 3 to 5 years) maintenance of the redeveloped sections of Moon Lake trail (e.g., additional aggregate or corduroy may eventually be needed if there are any localized failures in the trail that would require repair); • Waste management; • Hazardous material handling; • Beaver management; and • Monitoring activities (data collection).

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

4.3.5. Re-growth of the RoW Along the West Side As part of its commitment to finding innovative approaches to operate and maintain the V38R/Line 81 transmission lines, RoW and access trail, Manitoba Hydro determined that current operating standards will permit Manitoba Hydro to allow 5.2 m of the west side of the RoW from its original boundary to return to its natural state. To promote biodiversity and ecological integrity in RMNP, native vegetation will be allowed to naturally re-establish and grow in the area within the limits of system reliability. As such, there are no clearing or construction activities associated with this Project component. The O&M activities associated with the re-growth of the RoW along the west side include:

• Access and travel on access routes (e.g. PTH10, Lake Audy Road, north and south park boundaries and Moon Lake access trail); • Detailed climbing patrols, ground patrols, aerial patrols, emergency aerial patrols and task specific aerial patrols; • Long-term RoW vegetation management;

4.3.6. Danger and Hazard Tree Removal Danger and hazard trees are located on both sides of all portions of the V38R/Line 81 RoWs and are proposed to be removed at the time of RoW widening and Moon Lake Access trail redevelopment. The activities associated with danger tree removal include:

• Access and travel on access routes (e.g. PTH10, Lake Audy Road, north and south park boundaries and Moon Lake access trail); • Removal of danger and hazard trees adjacent to the RoW; • Manual tree removal (chainsaws, brush-saws); • Timber salvage from danger tree removal; • Waste management; • Hazardous material handling;

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

• Temporary staging areas; • Equipment cleaning, maintenance and repair; • Equipment refueling; and • Monitoring activities (data collection).

4.3.7. Short-Term Intensive Vegetation Management Short-term intensive vegetation management activities will be conducted during the clearing activities of the Project but is not part of ongoing O&M activities. The activities associated with short-term intensive vegetation management include:

o New sucker and tree removal on the RoW; o Manual tree removal within the RoW; o Manual tree removal (chainsaws, brush-saws); o Removal of danger and hazard trees adjacent to the RoW; o Timber salvage from RoW widening and danger tree removal; o Mechanical brush mowing within the RoW; o Vegetation debris disposal (burning, chipping, mulching, piling, etc.); o Establishment of riparian zones; o Establishment of wildlife corridors and visual buffer zones; • Monitoring activities (data collection); • Waste management; • Hazardous material handling; • Temporary staging areas; • Equipment cleaning, maintenance and repair; and • Equipment refueling.

4.3.8. Development of a Long-Term Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IVMP) As part of the innovative approach to conducting the required Project activities, Manitoba Hydro will continue with the development of a long-term IVMP that incorporates Parks Canada’s goal of preserving and maintaining the ecological and cultural resources in RMNP. The development of a long-term IVMP is part of ongoing O&M activities and does not have a clearing or

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

construction component. Figure 4.1 provides an illustration of the current vegetation conditions on the RoW and the desired condition using a long-term IVMP that incorporates the Wire Zone-Border Zone concept of RoW management (Bramble et al. 1985, 1986).

The O&M activities associated with the development of a long-term IVMP include:

• Access and travel on access routes (e.g. PTH10, Lake Audy Road, north and south park boundaries and Moon Lake access trail); • Access and travel along the existing RoW and existing by-pass trails; • Fording streams, wetlands and rivers; • Detailed ground and emergency patrols • Waste management; • Hazardous material handling; • Temporary staging areas; • Equipment cleaning, maintenance and repair; • Equipment refuelling;

27 Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Figure 4-1 Illustration of the Current Conditions and Desired Conditions for Long-Term Integrated Vegetation Management of the V38R/Line 81 RoW

28 Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Figure 4-2 Cross Section Showing Clearing Requirements, Structures 59 to 113

29 Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Figure 4-3 Cross Section Showing Clearing Requirements, Structures 113 to 142

30 Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Figure 4-4 Cross Section Showing Clearing Requirements, Structures 142 to 277

31 Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

• Long-term RoW vegetation management;

o New sucker and tree removal on the RoW; o Removal of danger and hazard trees adjacent to the RoW; o Manual tree removal within the RoW; o Manual tree removal (chainsaws, brush-saws); o Mechanical brush mowing within the RoW; o Vegetation debris disposal (burning chipping, mulching, piling, etc.); o Maintenance of riparian zones; o Maintenance of wildlife corridors and visual buffer zones; o Maintenance of native vegetation communities with low height in the Wire Zone and native vegetation communities with low to medium height in the Border Zone; and, • Beaver management

4.4. Project Clearing or Construction Activities The Project components with clearing or construction activities include the following:

• Widening of the RoW along the east side; • Improved access to the center portion of RoW; • Danger tree removal; and • Short-term intensive vegetation management.

4.4.1. Site Access Access to the RoW will be achieved using one of the four existing access points: access trail at the northern boundary of RMNP; Moon Lake trail from PTH10; Lake Audy Road; or the access trail at the southern boundary of RMNP (Map 1). In the northernmost section of the RoW, access is restricted by the presence of a large ravine associated with Edwards Creek. Crews and equipment will need to enter the RoW at the northern boundary of RMNP access point to complete the required works and activities in the northernmost section of the RoW, exit the RoW at the northern boundary access point and re-enter at a different access point (e.g. Moon Lake trail) to access the areas south of the ravine. Access to the Moon Lake trail is obtained from PTH10 at the MTS tower site.

As noted in the 2008 CSR and EnvPP-O/M, the routes to (e.g. Moon Lake trail) and on the V38R/Line 81 RoW will likely need to be frozen down prior to bringing in heavy equipment. The freezing down process involves the progressive packing of a trail in the winter to encourage frost into the ground (Ortiz 2013, pers. comm.). If snow covers wet spots before they freeze, the snow insulates the ground from the cold and it does not freeze enough to support the weight of heavy equipment travel. Therefore, the trail is packed with snow machines several times and

32 Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

over several days to reduce the insulating effect of the snow. Once that section of the trail “freezes”, then slightly larger tracked equipment is used to further pack the trail, which allows the frost to penetrate farther and provide the support capable of holding up heavier equipment. This process is repeated until there is sufficient frost in the ground to support the required weight. Occasionally corduroy needs to be added for further support. There is no water applied in the process. After having been frozen down, the access routes will be bladed, shaped and dragged to facilitate equipment travel, as required.

All access related work will be conducted in a manner that will minimize soil disturbance as much as possible. Any required temporary stream crossings will utilize clean snow and ice and will be conducted in a manner that will minimize stream bank and/or streambed disturbance. In streams with flowing water, temporary culverts or log and snow bridges may be used. These temporary water control measures will be removed from the stream channel when all work has been completed and before leaving the Project site. Snow bridges will be notched in the middle to allow the snow to melt from the center out, which prevents bank erosion that may occur due to the melt water being forced around the outsides of the ice bridge. As with all works to be conducted in RMNP, these activities will be carried out in a manner that respects, protects and preserves the exceptional ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experiences offered by RMNP.

4.4.2. Work Sequence

4.4.2.1 Widening of the RoW Along the East Side

The clearing activities associated with the widening of the RoW along the east side will take place in the winter of 2015-2016 outside of any fisheries or wildlife restricted activity periods under frozen conditions. Crews and equipment will begin the widening of the RoW from the north end of the park and work towards the south end of the park. Crews and equipment will begin the RoW widening by accessing the northernmost section of the RoW at the access point located near the northern boundary of RMNP (Map 1) and working south to the Edwards Creek ravine or as far south as possible. The next stage of the work will be completed using the Moon Lake trail for access to the RoW. Crews and equipment will continue to work from north to south using the Moon Lake trail, Lake Audy Road access point and/or the access point at the southern boundary of RMNP. The clearing activities are expected to occur in the following sequence:

• Selection of staging areas for equipment, crew and materials; • Freezing down of access routes for heavy equipment use; • Blading and shaping of access trails, as required; • Movement of equipment and crews to the RoW via the selected access point (northern boundary of RMNP, Moon Lake trail, Lake Audy road or southern boundary of RMNP); • Vegetation and tree removal within the RoW; • Removal of danger and hazard trees adjacent to both sides of the RoW; • Timber salvage from RoW widening and danger tree removal;

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

• Manual tree removal (slashing) within the RoW; • Manual tree removal (chainsaws, brush-saws); • Mechanical brush mowing within the RoW; • Vegetation debris disposal (burning, chipping, mulching, piling, etc.); • Establishment of riparian zones; • Establishment of wildlife corridors and visual buffer zones; • Site clean-up and waste management; • Removal of crew and equipment; and • Monitoring activities (data collection).

4.4.2.2 Improved Access to the Center Portion of RoW

The construction activities associated with the improved access to the center portion of the RoW, i.e., the redevelopment of the Moon Lake trail, will take place in the winter of 2015-2016 outside of any fisheries or wildlife restricted activity periods under frozen conditions. Appendix A provides a detailed description of the FP Innovations proposed Moon Lake trail redevelopment. There are no clearing activities associated with the redevelopment of the Moon Lake trail. The construction activities are expected to occur in the following sequence:

• Identification of construction requirements for trail redevelopment; • Selection of staging areas for equipment, crew and materials; • Snow clearing and removal, as required; • Movement of equipment and crews to the Moon Lake trail; • Vegetation and tree removal along the Moon Lake trail RoW; • Removal of danger and hazard trees adjacent to the Moon Lake trail RoW; • Manual tree removal (slashing) within the Moon Lake trail RoW; • Manual tree removal (chainsaws, brush-saws); • Mechanical brush mowing within the Moon Lake trail RoW; • Vegetation debris disposal (burning, chipping, mulching, piling, etc.); • FP Innovations trail redevelopment:

o Installation, use and removal of erosion and sediment control materials (e.g., silt fence, water control devices);

o Transportation of construction materials (aggregate, corduroy, culverts, geotextile) and equipment;

o Installation of small diameter (450 mm) culverts; o Installation of corduroy logs; o Installation of geotextile materials;

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

o Hauling, dumping and spreading of aggregate for redeveloped sections of the trail surface; • Establishment of riparian zones; • Establishment of wildlife corridors and visual buffer zones; • Site clean-up and waste management; • Removal of crew and equipment; and • Monitoring activities (data collection).

4.4.2.3 Danger Tree Removal

Danger tree removal will be carried out as required during the RoW widening and Moon Lake trail redevelopment activities as outlined in Section 4.3.

4.4.2.4 Short-Term Intensive Vegetation Management

The short-term intensive vegetation management activities will take place as part of the RoW widening and Moon Lake trail redevelopment activities and will continue for a period of about 12 years depending on amount of suckering.

4.4.3. Work Activities and Equipment

4.4.3.1 Widening of the RoW Along the East Side

The 2008 CSR and EnvPP-O/M document describes the widening activities as follows:

• All clearing and danger tree removal, where practical, will be done by low ground pressure mounted feller buncher to minimize environmental damage and risk of damage to infrastructure. Experienced operator(s) will be used. • Trees not reachable by feller buncher (ravines, riparian zones, wildlife corridors, visual buffer zones, danger and hazard trees, etc.) will be hand felled and removed. • Damage to low and medium height desirable vegetation will be minimized, particularly in wetlands, riparian zones, wildlife corridors and visual buffer zones. • The following features will be clearly marked by Manitoba Hydro representatives in advance of clearing equipment (distinct colours/marking methods shall be used to avoid confusion):

o The eastern RoW edge; o Visual buffer zones, wildlife corridors and riparian zones; and o Danger and hazard trees on V38R and Line 81. • Danger and hazard trees will be identified and marked by qualified Manitoba Hydro personnel. Methods used to identify danger and hazard trees will include LiDAR technology and in-field measurement methods as required (Line 81 is limited to in-field measurements). If new LiDAR data is obtained, a new assessment will be conducted for V38R prior to conducting the field work during the winter of 2015/16. Using LiDAR allows the incorporation

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

of maximum sag under maximum load scenarios as well as position in the span (i.e. mid span versus at the structure). • In timber salvage areas, danger and hazard trees reachable by feller buncher will be salvaged. Those trees not reachable will be felled by hand to lay perpendicular to the RoW. • In timber salvage areas, the feller buncher will lay bunched trees on the cleared portion of the RoW and place them to lay oriented in line with the RoW. • In timber salvage areas, tree bunches will be skidded to road side staging areas located on high ground. • Trees will be limbed or topped at the stump, and bucked/slashed at the staging areas. • Timber utilization standards shall, at minimum, be equal to Manitoba provincial standards (i.e. stump heights, minimum top diameter, cull, etc.). • All salvaged timber will be hauled out of RMNP by March 30th, 2016. • Destination marshalling yard(s) outside of RMNP for salvaged timber will be decided on by RMNP and the Coalition. Where RMNP and the Coalition do not want all or any of the timber, Manitoba Hydro will make the clearing contractor responsible for disposal of the timber. • Slash and debris from clearing and limbing will be accumulated, and can be placed into portable sloop(s) and burned, to dispose of the debris and minimize the risk of soil scorching. • At the time of RoW widening, Manitoba Hydro will also brushmow and/or hand cut vegetation on the existing ROW. These areas will be identified by Manitoba Hydro after the 2015 growing season and prior to engaging in the work.

Site-specific detailed information regarding RoW widening, danger tree removal, potential danger tree management, wildlife corridors, buffer zones and riparian areas management are provided in the 16 colour photo maps attached to the 2008 EnvPP-O/M. Sensitive sites are clearly identified by number, with corresponding mitigation measures listed on the facing/opposing page. Approximate coordinate values for sensitive site start and end points are also provided; however, these start and end points must be established in the field according to the specifications provided (e.g., 30 meters from the ordinary high water mark).

In addition to the equipment noted above, clearing and construction equipment can include: • Bulldozers with shear blades, dozer blades and rakes; • Skidders (grapple and cable); • Backhoes with mower attachments; and • Various smaller equipment as required.

36 Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

4.4.3.2 Improved Access to the Center Portion of RoW

The work activities and equipment needed for danger tree removal for the Moon Lake trail redevelopment will be the same as described for the RoW widening (Section 4.3). The work activities associated with the Moon Lake trail redevelopment include:

• Installation, use and removal of erosion and sediment control materials (e.g., silt fence, water control devices); • Transportation of construction materials (aggregate, corduroy, culverts, geotextile) and equipment; • Installation of small diameter (450 mm) culverts; • Installation of corduroy logs; • Installation of geotextile materials; and • Hauling, dumping and spreading of aggregate for redeveloped sections of the trail surface. The construction equipment and materials required for the Moon Lake trail redevelopment include:

• Small bulldozer in the 100 horsepower class; • Small- to medium-sized excavator in the 20 ton class; • Chainsaw operator to make any necessary cuts to the corduroy; • Skidder to transport the corduroy to the required locations; • Standard gravel truck to transport the aggregate to the required locations; • Logs in lengths of 4.5 to 5.0 m and with a diameter range of 0.10 to 0.20 m to be installed as corduroy; •h Hig -strength woven geotextile; and • Coarse aggregate with a maximum diameter of 40–80 mm (known as 80-mm minus or 3- inch minus) with a low fines content. Additional information on the work activities, equipment and materials for the Moon Lake trail redevelopment is provided in Appendix A.

4.4.3.3 Danger Tree Removal

The work activities and equipment for danger tree removal are described in Section 4.3 above.

4.4.3.4 Short-Term Intensive Vegetation Management

As noted in Section 4.3, tree and vegetation removal activities for short-term vegetation management activities are carried out using a feller buncher, mechanical brush mower, chainsaws, brushsaws, axes, brush hooks and other hand tools. Where burning of vegetation is used for debris disposal, a portable sloop can be used to accumulate and burn slash and debris. This method helps to prevent scorching of underlying ground cover and/or soils. Mechanical cutting is done using a feller buncher, mechanical brushing equipment, or winter shearing.

37 Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

4.5. Project Operations and Maintenance Activities The Project components that have an O&M phase include the following:

• Ongoing routine operations; • Widening of the RoW along the east side; • Periodic replacement of poles and pole anchor installations; • Improved access to the center portion of RoW; and • Re-growth of the RoW along the west side; • Danger tree removal; and • Development of a long-term Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IVMP).

4.5.1. Site Access Site access for the Project O&M activities will be achieved as described in Section 4.4.1.

4.5.2. Work Sequence

4.5.2.1 Ongoing Routine Operations

Ongoing routine operations and maintenance activities are conducted regularly on an annual basis, or as required. O&M activities are scheduled to take place in the winter months under frozen conditions whenever possible.

4.5.2.2 Widening of the RoW Along the East Side

After the period of clearing and short-term vegetation management activities, management of the RoW along the east side will become part of ongoing O&M activities and the long-term IVMP. Ongoing routine operations and maintenance activities are conducted regularly on an annual basis, or as required. O&M activities are scheduled to take place in the winter months under frozen conditions whenever possible.

4.5.2.1 Improved Access to the Center Portion of RoW

After the trail redevelopment activities, maintenance of the redeveloped areas of the Moon Lake trail will become part of ongoing O&M activities and the long-term IVMP. Ongoing routine operations and maintenance activities are conducted regularly on an annual basis, or as required. O&M activities are scheduled to take place in the winter months under frozen conditions whenever possible.

4.5.2.2 Periodic Replacement of Poles and Pole Anchor Installations

The periodic replacement of poles and pole anchor installations are part of ongoing O&M activities. Ongoing routine operations and maintenance activities are conducted regularly on an

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

annual basis, or as required. O&M activities are scheduled to take place in the winter months under frozen conditions whenever possible. During the O&M activities, poles and pole anchor installations will be examined to determine the number and location of poles or pole anchor installations requiring replacement or other maintenance. The work activities associated with the periodic replacement of poles and pole anchor installations are expected to occur in the following sequence:

• Identification of poles and/or pole anchor installations requiring replacement and/or maintenance; • Tree removal, if required; • Removal of overlying vegetation and/or soils; • Replacement of pole and/or pole anchor installations using an auger, as required; • Reclaim the site by infilling with removed soils.

4.5.2.3 Re-growth of the RoW Along the West Side

As noted in the 2008 CSR and EnvPP-O/M, the allowance for re-growth of native vegetation on a portion of the RoW does not require any physical works by Manitoba Hydro. The re-growth is on-going at this time and will continue for the life of the Project. The re-growth of a section of the RoW is part of the IVMP being developed for the Project and will be incorporated into future IVMPs.

4.5.2.4 Danger and Hazard Tree Removal

Danger and hazard tree removal is conducted as part of ongoing routine O&M activities. Danger and hazard trees are removed as required, subject to RMNP approval. O&M activities are scheduled to take place in the winter months under frozen conditions whenever possible. As noted in Section 4.3, danger and hazard trees will be identified and removed during the RoW widening and Moon Lake trail construction activities.

4.5.2.5 Development of a Long-Term Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IVMP)

As noted in the 2008 CSR and EnvPP-O/M, a number of long-term vegetation management strategies have been identified to achieve the goal of maintaining or enhancing the ecological integrity of the park. The process of long-term IVM implementation will commence following the short-term intensive vegetation management period and be on-going, lasting for the life of the facilities. The intent of the long-term IVMP is to enhance the RoW condition through vegetation management strategies that result in a high degree of biological control and integrate the RoW into the overall park environment.

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

4.5.3. Work Activities and Equipment

4.5.3.1 Ongoing Routine Operations

Section 4.3.1 provides a list of the ongoing routine O&M activities. The equipment used in these activities includes:

• All Terrain Vehicles, snow machines or flex-track machines to access the RoW; • Fixed wing aircraft or helicopters for aerial patrols; • Pole replacement equipment; • Conductor and insulator repair equipment; • Hand cutting trees using chainsaws, brushsaws, axes and brush hooks; • Mechanical cutting of trees with a feller buncher; and • Mechanical brushing equipment.

4.5.3.2 Widening of the RoW Along the East Side

After the period of clearing and short-term vegetation management activities, management of the RoW along the east side will become part of ongoing O&M activities and the long-term IVMP. The equipment needed for the ongoing O&M activities and the long-term IVMP is described in Section 4.5.3.1.

4.5.3.3 Improved Access to the Center Portion of RoW

The O&M activities related to improved access to the center portion of the RoW are limited to infrequent maintenance of the redeveloped sections of Moon Lake trail. For example, additional aggregate or corduroy may eventually be needed if there are any localized failures in the trail that would require repair.

4.5.3.4 Periodic Replacement of Poles and Pole Anchor Installations

The work activities and equipment associated with the periodic replacement of poles and pole anchor installations include:

• Tree removal using chainsaws, if required; • Replacement of pole and/or pole anchor installations, as required (auger, bulldozer, crane, bucket trucks, hand tools); and • Reclaim the site by infilling with removed soils (backhoe, digger truck equipped with an auger, hand tools).

4.5.3.5 Re-growth of the RoW Along the West Side

As noted in the 2008 CSR and EnvPP-O/M, the allowance for re-growth of native vegetation on a portion of the ROW does not require any physical works by Manitoba Hydro. Vegetation within

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

the area of re-growth will be monitored as part of ongoing O&M activities and the long-term IVMP.

4.5.3.6 Danger Tree Removal

The O&M work activities and equipment for danger tree removal are the same as the activities and equipment described in Section 4.3.

4.5.3.7 Development of a Long-Term Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IVMP)

The O&M activities associated with the development of a long-term IVMP are described in Section 4.3.8. The equipment required for the development of a long-term IVMP is described in Section 4.5.3.1.

4.6. Decommissioning The Project has been designed to remain in service for several decades and with regular maintenance could be operated indefinitely. If and when decommissioning of the transmission lines and/or the transmission line RoWs is required, these activities will be completed in accordance with the Federal, Provincial, and municipal regulations in force at the time. The implementation of the long-term IVMP will be on-going, lasting for the life of the facilities.

4.7. Workforce Requirements Workforce requirements for this Project are not anticipated to be substantial. A project of this scale typically requires one operator for the brusher, one for the feller buncher and one for the skidder. It is anticipated that improvement of the access trail would likely require one operator to haul the aggregate, one dozer/grader operator, and two individuals to lay the geotextile. Specific numbers cannot be confirmed until the project is tendered and the contractor confirms specific numbers. Only very minimal hand cutting would typically be required for this type of project, and it would likely require two individuals to flag trees and two or three individuals to hand cut. It should be noted that there are only a few areas that would likely be designated as having trees that could be hand cut and the work would not be necessary for the duration of the widening activity.

In terms of operations, patrols typically consist of two staff and occur annually, with a focus on assessing infrastructure. It involves an inspection of the line components and the RoW, including vegetation clearances. This activity is basically 1-2 days for the area in question and is performed by qualified Transmission Line Patrollers. If vegetation management issues arise (e.g., a wind-blown tree in close proximity to the line) they are typically dealt with immediately (e.g., chainsaw). As the focus is assessing “live wire” transmission infrastructure, a high degree of technical training is required, due to safety issues. Vegetation management maintenance cycles are typically five to seven years and are undertaken by Manitoba Hydro staff.

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

5. PROJECT SCHEDULE The Project schedule includes timing for the submission of the EIA to Parks Canada for review and approval, the Project clearing and construction activities, and the subsequent O&M activities and implementation of the IVMP. Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed Project schedule.

Table 5-1: Proposed Project Schedule

Project Component Proposed Date for Completion Submission of the draft Project EIA and September, 2015 Associated Appendices and Reports to Parks Canada Ongoing Routine Operations Ongoing routine operations will be conducted annually and as required for emergencies Widening of the RoW Along the East Side January 2016 to March 2016 Periodic Replacement of Poles and Pole Ongoing as required for proper O&M Anchor Installations Improved Access to the Center Portion of January 2016 to March 2016 RoW Re-growth of the RoW Along the West Side Ongoing as required for proper O&M Danger and Hazard Tree Removal Ongoing as required for proper O&M Short-Term Intensive Vegetation Management January 2016 to January 2028 Development of a Long-Term Integrated February 2028 and ongoing as required for proper O&M Vegetation Management Plan (IVMP) As noted in the 2008 CSR and EnvPP-O/M, one of the most effective ways to protect the broadest suite of environmental factors that may be at risk of disturbance or damage is to schedule activities during the winter months. Fish and wildlife are generally less active as the majority of their migration, breeding, nesting, rearing of young, growth and feeding take place in the spring and summer periods. Many species of migratory birds and bats are not present in Manitoba during the winter months. Soils are hardened, small watercourses are frozen and vegetation is dormant under the layers of snow and/or ice that occur in winter under frozen conditions, which reduces the risk of disturbance or damage to soils, streambanks and vegetation. Limiting activities between December 1st and March 31st can also reduce the risk of disturbance or interference with traditional, recreational and resource uses as these activities are typically at their lowest annual levels during this period.

Table 5.2 outlines the activity timing windows in which Manitoba Hydro will conduct its activities. Wherever possible (excluding emergency situations), Manitoba Hydro will restrict its patrols, O&M activities of infrastructure and mechanical methods of vegetation control to the winter months. The Project activities will be carried out in a manner that respects, protects and preserves the exceptional ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experiences offered by RMNP, in keeping with Parks Canada’s goal of preserving and maintaining the ecological and cultural resources and visitor experiences in RMNP.

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Table 5-2: Timing for Activities Within RMNP

Month

Activities* Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Access/travel routes:

PTH10 & Lake Audy Road Boundary access points Access along the RoWs & Moon Lake trail Fording fish bearing streams Aerial patrols Ground/Climbing patrols, pole testing Pole stubbing, crossarm replacement; conductor repair, replacement, salvage, joining; insulator replacement/washing Manual/mechanical brushing, trimming; danger tree removal Widening of the RoW on the east side Moon Lake trail redevelopment *Does not include emergency repair related activities, which may be required in the spring, summer of fall periods.

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

6. EIA METHODS

6.1. Overview The undertaking and completion of the EIA included collaboration among Parks Canada biologists and ecologist, the Coalition, Manitoba Hydro and the Study Team; the application of desktop analysis, field surveys, literature reviews, First Nations knowledge, existing regulatory requirements and guidance; and professional knowledge and experience with the ecology of RMNP, EIAs, environmental effects of transmission line and RoW development, mitigation and environmental protection procedures, transmission line O&M activities, and RoW O&M activities. The following sections provide details on the methods used for the undertaking and completion of the EIA.

6.2. Collaboration The completed EIA is a result of the combined efforts of the Parks Canada biologists and ecologists, the people of the Coalition, Manitoba Hydro and the Study Team. Through the information shared by the Parks Canada biologists and ecologists and the people of the Coalition, Manitoba Hydro and the Study Team were able to identify opportunities where potential environmental effects could be eliminated or minimized, in keeping with the goal of respecting, protecting and preserving the exceptional ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experiences offered by RMNP.

6.3. Desktop Analysis A detailed desktop analysis was conducted that included Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis, mapping, data management and information synthesis. The information gathered from the desktop review was used to evaluate the habitat types in the PSA, LSA and RSA, and assist in the selection of specific valued components (VCs) and VC survey sites. Relevant information was extracted from the following data sources:

• The Earth Observation for Sustainable Development of Forests (EOSD); • Satellite imagery Land Cover Classification (LCC); • Forest Resource Inventory (FRI); • Orthoimagery for the V38R/Line 81 RoW provided by Manitoba Hydro; • RMNP habitat layer; • Road and trail inventory; • Resource, recreation and land use layer; • Previous studies completed in the RSA; • Information and reports provided by Parks Canada; • Published and online reports for the RSA; • Plant species and ecosystems listed by the Manitoba Conservation Data Centre (MBCDC);

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

• Plant species and ecosystems listed under the Manitoba Endangered Species Act (MESA), the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) database and the Species at Risk Act (SARA) registry; and • Research and review of information on local species and habitats of interest.

Various spatial analyses of biophysical attribute data relative to the PSA were conducted, including but not limited to an evaluation of high-quality habitat for Valued Components (VCs) and the generation of habitat patch metrics. The modeling and analysis of habitat quality was an important part of the evaluation of the wildlife and vegetation components of the study. Local current and historical wildlife distribution data from Parks Canada for species such as elk (Cervus elaphus), moose (Alces alces) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) were used in combination with the available information gathered through previous studies performed by Manitoba Hydro to conduct spatial analysis used to assess high quality habitat for VC bird, mammal and plant species. These initial analyses were linked to the design of the field work methodology. All necessary mapping, analysis and logistics preparation required for field methods took place prior to field activities.

The following is a summary of the desktop activities undertaken for the assessment of the vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat and the Jackfish Creek crossing fish habitat assessment as part of the EIA for the Project:

Vegetation (Appendix B): • Evaluation of the potential vegetation types, Species At Risk and plant Species of Conservation Concern that could be present in the PSA and/or LSA; • Preparation of a list of all plant species listed under MESA and SARA, plant species considered as a Species of Conservation Concern (i.e. S1, S2, S3 status) by MBCDC, and plant species whose range overlapped with the survey area or RSA. An explanation of the MBCDC species status ranking and codes is provided on page 10 of the Vegetation Technical Report; • Communications with Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada to identify plant species and medicinal or edible plant gathering areas of importance to First Nations; • Investigation of records of previous sightings of listed and/or rare species and the location of habitats where listed and/or rare species occur, including:

o Detailed descriptions and illustrations/photographs; o Identification of preferred habitat and their associated species; o Ecological information including phenology; o Species status within the political jurisdiction where the Project falls; o Data on other known locations; and o Environmental impact assessment reports, rare plant survey reports, and any data available from MBCDC and the Parks Canada species database.

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat (Appendix C):

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

• Evaluation of potential habitat that could be present in the PSA and/or LSA for bird Species At Risk, including all bird species listed under MESA and SARA, and whose range overlapped with the survey area or RSA; • Information on the habitat, breeding, and nesting requirements of listed bird species and a comparison to habitat found within the LSA; • Acquisition of baseline information on VC species from government sources, including historical and current moose, grey wolf (Canis lupus), and elk survey data, and information on white-tailed deer distribution and abundance, and occurrence of brainworm (Parelaphostrongylus tenuis); • Location and abundance of bird and mammal species of concern through review of the MBCDC data and the Manitoba Breeding Bird Atlas (2013); • Acquisition of baseline information on the effects of raptors and increased predation on small mammals and birds in RoWs; • Spatial analyses of biophysical attribute data including evaluation of high quality habitat for VC species; • Generation of habitat patch metrics and RoW access intersection metrics to assess fragmentation effects of an access route; • Communications with Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada to identify hunting or trapping areas, wildlife species and wildlife habitat of importance to First Nations; and • Location of all sensitive areas, wetlands and watercourses within the PSA.

Jackfish Creek Fish and Fish Habitat Assessment (Appendix D): • Examination of the available topographic maps, watershed maps, satellite imagery, aerial photographs, engineering design information, hydraulic information, and fish capture data for Jackfish Creek and other watercourses within the LSA; • Collated information on water quality, fish habitat, and known mussel populations within Jackfish Creek and other watercourses within the LSA; • Communications with Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada to identify fishing areas, fish species and fish habitat of importance to First Nations; and • Identification of fish species with distribution ranges that included the sampling location, including Species At Risk.

Overall: • Collected and collated information on the existing ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experience opportunities in the RSA for inclusion in the EIA as per the “Guide to the Parks Canada Environmental Impact Analysis under CEAA 2012” (Parks Canada 2013a); • Developed a GIS database through acquisition of existing and available information; and • Adhered to Manitoba Hydro’s Data Management Protocol (DMP) and ensured all metadata requirements were met.

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

6.4. Selection of Valued Components Representatives from Manitoba Hydro, Parks Canada and the Study Team met in June and August of 2013 to discuss and identify the Valued Components (VCs) for the EIA. The VCs selected for the Project included:

• Biophysical Components:

o Soils and Terrain o Vegetation . Plants species listed under SARA, MESA as well as MBCDC plant species of conservation concern (S1, S2, S3) . Plants important to First Nations for medicinal and cultural uses (e.g., sage [Artemisia spp.], Seneca root [Polygala senega], sweetgrass [Hierochloe odorata]) and harvestable wild fruits (e.g., plums, berries)

o Wildlife . Species of conservation concern and/or listed under SARA or MESA . Beaver (Castor canadensis) . Black bear (Ursus americanus) . Moose . Suite of Avian Indicator Species - bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Canada warbler (Cardellina canadensis), common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator), whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferus) and yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis)

o Wetlands o Water quality o Fish and Fish Habitat • Socioeconomic Resources: o Cultural Resources/Historic Resources . Plants important to First Nations (e.g., harvestable wild fruits/berries, sage, Seneca root, sweetgrass) . Moose . Traditional Land Use activities (e.g., fishing, hunting and trapping; gathering of medicinal plants; areas of cultural significance) . Historic areas (e.g., Jackfish Creek historic sites, Jackfish Creek canoe route) o Visitor Experiences/Local Economy . Visitor experiences . Local economy

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

The VCs were selected via the following process: • Review of the Project activities by the study team, Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada to determine potential pathways of effects and receptors of those effects; • Examination of the ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experiences in the study area that could be affected by the Project activities; • Evaluation of the provincial and federal conservation and regulatory status of RMNP vegetation and wildlife species, the cultural and traditional significance of these species, their relationship with other species in the ecosystem, and the potential influence that the Project may have on the species population and its habitat within RMNP; • LSA habitat modeling in relation to species conservation status, as well as their ecological importance as an indicator species (i.e., birds); • Consideration of the ecological, cultural and historic features of RMNP that carry importance to society and in particular to First Nations; • Incorporation of Traditional Knowledge and information on Traditional Land Use (TLU) activities as provided by the Coalition to Manitoba Hydro; and • Discussion and finalization of the selected VCs with Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada.

6.5. Field Surveys Field surveys were conducted in the LSA from June 17 - 21, 2013 by the Project study team, which consisted of qualified botanists, ecologists, fisheries biologists and wildlife biologists from M. Forster Enterprises, Dillon Consulting Ltd., Joro Consulting Inc. and AAE Tech Services Inc.

An outline of the methods used in the field surveys is provided in the “Riding Mountain National Park V38R/Line 81 Environmental Impact Analysis Vegetation Technical Report” (Dillon Consulting Ltd. 2013) included as Appendix B to this report, the “Riding Mountain National Park V38R/Line 81: Environmental Impact Analysis - Wildlife Technical Report” (Joro Consulting Inc. 2013) included as Appendix C to this report and the “Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis: Jackfish Creek Aquatic Habitat Assessment” (AAE Tech Services Inc. 2013) included as Appendix D to this report.

6.6. Environmental Impact Analysis The EIA was conducted in accordance with the “Guide to Parks Canada Environmental Impact Analysis Process under CEAA 2012” (Parks Canada 2013a) and use of the following methods and analysis:

• Information on land use, topography and location of watercourses, waterbodies, forests, wetlands, roadways and other infrastructure was determined by a desk-top review and examination of topographic maps, drainage maps, aerial imagery and published information for the PSA, LSA and RSA. • The above-noted features were further examined and ground-truthed by a field survey of the PSA. The field survey provided on-site observations and documentation of the presence and

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

location of the existing and proposed RoW widening and re-growth areas; proposed RoW access routes; existing infrastructure; wetland areas; upland areas; vegetation; potential fish and wildlife habitat; roads and other human made structures or land use practices. • Provincial (MBCDC, MESA) and federal (COSEWIC, SARA) databases and registries were reviewed and cross-referenced to species distribution maps, habitat preferences, breeding periods and migration times to determine the potential for the presence of any species listed as endangered, threatened or of special concern within the PSA. • Review of information provided in the Manitoba Breeding Bird Atlas, Manitoba Herps Atlas, NatureServe Explorer, annual publications released by MBCDC on MBCDC Rare Plant Surveys and Stewardship Activities and recent provincial Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) or federal EIAs completed for projects located within the region. • A request was submitted to the MBCDC for information on the presence of any rare or endangered species in the PSA. • A request was submitted to the Manitoba Historic Resources Branch (MHRB) and Parks Canada for information on the presence of any Heritage Resources in the PSA. • Public consultation information for the Project was provided by Parks Canada. • Information on Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Land Use practices and Aboriginal interests in the PSA, LSA and RSA was obtained by Manitoba Hydro through contact with the Coalition. • Review of applicable municipal, provincial and federal environmental regulations, guidelines and/or policies. • CEAA criteria were used to determine the potential environmental effects, the presence of residual effects once mitigation measures have been considered, if the remaining residual effects will have an environmental consequence, potential cumulative effects and the need for any follow-up or monitoring activities.

6.7. Project-Environment Interactions and Potential Environmental Effects Project-environment interactions and potential environmental effects were identified based on the following: • Review of the Project activities by the study team, Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada to determine potential pathways of effects and receptors of those effects. For example, the clearing activities will require the use of vehicles and equipment in the PSA; these activities could cause potential environmental effects on air quality due to the release of emissions; on noise quality due to the noise of operating vehicles and equipment; on soil quality due to rutting; on water quality and/or fish habitat due to the release of fuel, oil or other deleterious substances; on wildlife due to emissions, noise and habitat disturbance; etc. • Examination of the ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experiences in the study area that could be affected by the Project activities;

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

• Professional knowledge of and experience with the ecology of RMNP; • Previous experience with similar projects; • Professional experience in conducting environmental assessments; and • Knowledge of applicable municipal, provincial and federal environmental regulations, guidelines and/or policies.

6.8. Mitigation Measures Once the various pathways of Project effects were understood, mitigation measures were developed to prevent or minimize any interactions that had the potential for adverse environmental effects. This process was based on the following: • Previous professional knowledge and experience with the local environment and similar types of projects/activities; • Experience with the identification of environmentally sensitive areas and sensitive time periods; • Experience with the application of successful mitigation measures that serve to break the linkages between potential environmental effects and environmental receptors to prevent or minimize the potential effect. For example, the potential environmental effect on water quality and/or fish habitat due to the release of fuel, oil or other deleterious substances can be mitigated by keeping vehicles and equipment properly maintained and leak-free, conducting all fuelling and/or maintenance of vehicles and equipment at least 100 m away from any watercourse, and having appropriate spill prevention and spill clean-up procedures in place prior to construction/clearing; • Experience in on-site construction monitoring and erosion and sediment control measures; • Experience with the development of Environmental Protection Plans (EPPs) that provide response protocols for proactively dealing with effects, and long monitoring plans; and • Knowledge of applicable municipal, provincial and federal environmental regulations, guidelines and/or policies.

6.9. Residual Effects Assessment Residual effects are the anticipated effects that are remaining after consideration of the application of all mitigation measures. The significance of effects criteria are based on guidance materials from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) such as Determining Whether a Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects (https://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=D213D286-1), and review of recently completed EIAs in Manitoba (e.g., Manitoba Hydro’s Bipole III Transmission Project; Manitoba Hydro’s Keeyask Infrastructure Project). Residual effects of the Project were defined by the following criteria:

Direction – the direction of the effect may be positive (a beneficial or desirable effect on the environment), neutral (no measurable change in the environment), or negative (an

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

undesirable effect on the environment) with respect to effects from the Project on the existing environment.

Magnitude – a measure of the degree or intensity of change that can occur as the Project proceeds, which can be low, medium or high. A change of low magnitude may have no definable, detectable or measurable effect; or is below established thresholds of acceptable change; or is within the range of natural variability; or will have minimum impairment of an ecosystem component’s function. A change of medium magnitude may have a measurable effect that could be determined within a normal range of variation with a well-designed monitoring program; or is only marginally beyond guidelines or established thresholds of acceptable change; or is marginally beyond the range of natural variability; or is marginally beyond minimal impairment of an ecosystem component’s function. A change of high magnitude will have effects that are easily observed, measured and described (i.e., readily detectable without a monitoring program) and are well beyond guidelines or established thresholds of acceptable change; are well beyond the range of natural variability; or are well beyond minimal impairment of an ecosystem component’s function.

Geographic extent – refers to the area potentially affected by the effect, whether it is the site (i.e. RoW and work areas within the PSA), locally (the LSA), the region (i.e., within RMNP/the RSA) or beyond regional. Small (limited) geographic extent effects are those that are confined to a small portion of one or more small areas where direct and indirect effects can occur (e.g., rights-of-way and adjacent buffer areas in the PSA). Medium (local) geographic extent effects are those that extend into local surrounding areas (LSA) where direct and indirect effects can occur. Large (regional) geographic extent effects are those that extend into the wider regional area (RSA) where indirect or cumulative effects may occur.

Duration – refers to the length of time that the environmental effect occurs and whether the effect is reversible once the disturbance has been completed (i.e., reclamation of disturbed areas). Duration can be short-term, medium-term or long-term. Short-term effects occur only during the clearing/construction time period (i.e., less than three months), medium-term effects occur over the entire clearing/construction period and extend to the time required for site reclamation and short-term vegetation management, which is estimated as 12 years, and a long-term effect implies that the disturbance occurs beyond the time required for completion of clearing/construction and site reclamation and extends into the period of long-term vegetation management (i.e., greater than 12 years).

Frequency - refers to the number of times the effect occurs over the specified duration. Infrequent effects occur once or seldom over the duration of the disturbance (e.g., initial clearing or ROW). Sporadic/intermittent effects occur only occasionally and without any predictable pattern during the life of the Project (e.g., wildlife – vehicle collisions, bird strikes with transmission lines). Frequent/regular/continuous effects occur continuously or at regular intervals during the life of the Project.

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Likelihood – refers to the probability of occurrence (i.e., the risk of an event occurring) and is described as very unlikely, unlikely, likely and very likely.

The activities associated with the proposed Project were first assessed according to the above criteria, and then evaluated together to predict the overall environmental consequence. Environmental consequence was determined as:

Minimal - effects with a low magnitude, short- to medium-term duration, infrequent to continuous occurrence, and are restricted to the proposed Project area in geographic extent. The potential effect may result in a slight decline in the resource in the Project area during clearing/construction phase, but the resource should return to pre- clearing/pre-construction levels.

Low - effects with a low magnitude, short- to long-term duration, infrequent to continuous occurrence, and are restricted to the proposed Project area in geographic extent. The potential effect may result in a slight decline in the resource in the Project area during the life of the Project. Research, monitoring, and/or recovery initiatives would not normally be required.

Moderate - effects with a medium magnitude, short- to long-term duration, frequent to continuous occurrence, and extend outside the proposed Project area to adjacent areas. Potential effect could result in a decline in resource to lower-than-baseline but stable levels in the Project area after Project closure and into the foreseeable future. Regional management actions such as research, monitoring, and/or recovery initiatives may be required.

High - refers to major effects that are long-term in duration, continuous in occurrence, and extend outside the proposed Project area to adjacent areas. Potential effect could threaten sustainability of the resource and should be considered a management concern. Research, monitoring, and/or recover initiatives should be considered.

The effect is considered to be significant if the environmental consequence is determined to be moderate or high, and the effect is considered to be not significant if the environmental consequence is determined to be minimal or low.

6.10. Cumulative Effects Assessment A cumulative effects assessment (CEA) is conducted to assess the potential cumulative effect of the residual effects of the Project in combination with the environmental effects of past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects or activities within the vicinity of the PSA. In conducting the CEA guidance was provided through a review of the methods outlined in the “Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners' Guide” (Hegmann et al. 1999) and the CEAA 2012 Operational Policy Statement (OPS) on this topic (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 2013). As noted in the OPS, a CEA for a single project under regulatory review should accomplish the following objectives:

• Determine if the Project will have an effect on a VC;

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

• If such an effect can be demonstrated, determine if the incremental effect acts cumulatively with the effects of other actions, either past, existing or future; and • Determine if the effect of the Project, in combination with the other effects, may cause a significant change now or in the future in the characteristics of the VC after the application of mitigation for that project.

7. EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE As shown in Map 1, the existing infrastructure located within the PSA includes: • A section of the V38R/Line 81 transmission lines; • The RoW for the V38R/Line 81 transmission lines; • A portion of the Lake Audy Road, which is a dirt and gravel access road; • A portion of PTH10, which is a paved two-lane provincial highway; • The MTS microwave tower, associated equipment, and dirt and gravel access road; and • The Moon Lake distribution line and RoW.

The following information was duplicated from the 2008 CSR and EnvPP-O/M (Manitoba Hydro et al. 2008):

Throughout RMNP, the V38R and Line 81 transmission lines share the same RoW for the majority of the length of the lines. Both transmission lines originate at the Dauphin-Vermillion Station, located at the City of Dauphin. The V38R 230 kV transmission line connects to the Raven Lake Station located at Shoal Lake southwest of Wasagaming. Line 81, a 115 kV transmission line currently operating at 66 kV, parallels the V38R line on the west side of the RoW through the park, a distance of approximately 36 km. At the south boundary of the park, Line 81 deviates onto a separate RoW and heads in a south-easterly direction before re-entering the park for a short distance at Crawford Park west of Clear Lake. Although the lines parallel each other for most of the way through the Park, the configuration of structures and RoW width specifications vary along the RoWs, with RoW widths ranging from 42.6 m to 50.3 m wide.

The V38R transmission line has a wood pole Gulfport structure design, on which three phase conductors are suspended from insulators connected to cross arms. Two overhead ground wires are positioned above the conductors for lightning protection. The span between structures is approximately 250 m with off-sets required as a result of areas of irregular terrain (e.g. ravines, hills, etc.), resulting in approximately 4 to 5 structures per kilometer. Heavier structures are required to provide the additional strength and support at corners or sharp angles, or to accommodate longer spans (e.g. ravines, stream crossings).

Line 81 is constructed on wood pole “H” frame structures and although constructed as a 115 kV line, Manitoba Hydro currently operates the line at a capacity of 66 kV. Conductor configuration and span are similar to the Gulfport structures of the V38R transmission line.

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

The V38R/Line 81 transmission line RoWs within RMNP traverse a predominantly forested and remote landscape. At the time of construction in 1964 the RoWs were cleared of trees and shrubs, and have since been managed to limit all tall growing woody vegetation. Periodic mechanical brushing of the RoWs maintains vegetation heights ranging from 0.3 meters (newly brushed) to approximately 2 meters, at which time brushing is again prescribed.

As noted in Section 4.3.1, Manitoba Hydro uses existing road and trail systems to access the RoWs. For the V38R/Line 81 RoW, access is gained via municipal roads and road allowances at the northern and southern park boundaries. Within RMNP, access to the RoW is via the Lake Audy Road and the MTS microwave tower access road at Moon Lake via PTH10. The MTS microwave tower access road serves as access to the Moon Lake distribution line RoW, which is used to access the V38R/Line 81 RoW. The Moon Lake trail RoW is about 5 to 6 m wide and consists of mixedwood forest, bogs, wetlands, shrubs, forbs and grasses. On the V38R/Line 81 RoW, access deviations are required in a few instances to circumvent terrain restrictions (e.g. ravines, creek crossings, beaver floods, etc.); however, these deviations are avoided where possible.

8. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

8.1. Overview The RSA is located within the Boreal Plains Ecozone, which extends from the central portion of the Manitoba-Saskatchewan border east to Lake Winnipeg and then south in a narrow band along the Red River (Smith et al. 1998). The LSA lies within the Mid-Boreal Uplands Ecoregion, which encompasses three separate fragments of the Manitoba Escarpment: the Porcupine Hills, Duck Mountains, and RMNP. More specifically, the entire LSA is located within the Riding Mountain Ecodistrict, which is situated in southwestern Manitoba and encompasses most of RMNP, as well as small areas outside of the park on the north and southwest corners (Map 2). This ecodistrict is located in the most southerly portion of the three Mid-Boreal Uplands Ecoregion sections and is bordered by five other ecodistricts in three separate ecoregions: Swan River (709) in the Boreal Transition Ecoregion; Hamiota (753) and Grandview (839) in the Aspen Parkland Ecoregion; and Dauphin (840) and McCreary (844) in the Lake Manitoba Plains Ecoregion (Smith et al. 1998).

RMNP is a remnant island of forest representative of the southern boreal plains and plateau region of Canada that is largely surrounded by agricultural lands. The park marks the transition from the Manitoba Lowlands to the Saskatchewan Plain, and preserves a representative example of the Manitoba Escarpment that sharply rises 475 m from the adjacent lowlands (Briscoe et al. 1979). The physiography of the region consists of hummocky moraine-covered uplands, which are dissected by many channels, gullies, and long steep slopes, particularly on the eastern and northern faces. There are multiple small rivers and creeks draining in various directions from the region. These watercourses belong to one of the two watersheds located within the LSA, the Dauphin Lake watershed and the Little Saskatchewan River watershed. The rivers and creeks within the Dauphin Lake watershed flow northwards (e.g. Edwards Creek, Robinson Creek, Stony Creek, Kinnis Creek) and the rivers and creeks within the Little

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Saskatchewan River watershed flow southwards (e.g., Jackfish Creek, Shoal Lake Creek). RMNP represents an overlap of three ecosystem zones (grasslands, aspen/oak [Quercus macrocarpa], and mixed wood boreal forest) that produce a diverse assemblage of plants and animals.

RMNP is managed by Parks Canada to provide a variety of activities for education, recreation and economic benefits to its stakeholders and visitors. The level of recreational use varies considerably over the vast area of the park, with the highest levels of use occurring around the town of Wasagaming and Clear Lake. Wasagaming in the main community within RMNP and is located approximately 97 km north of Brandon on the south shore of Clear Lake, near the south central border of RMNP. A large portion of the park is identified as a wilderness area to aid in the protection of the ecological integrity of the park.

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Map 2: Ecological Land Classification

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

8.2. Biophysical Environment

8.2.1. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions In Manitoba, the Province of Manitoba and Environment Canada operate air quality monitoring stations in the cities of Brandon, Flin Flon, Thompson and Winnipeg (Government of Manitoba 2014). There are no air quality monitoring stations located in the RSA; however, Environment Canada describes the overall air quality in Manitoba to be generally good, with the exception of localized sources such as proximity to transportation networks and industrial operations such as smelters and/or intensive livestock operations (Environment Canada 2012).

Air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the RSA would be affected by the recreational, agricultural, urban, rural, industrial and transportation activities that occur within RMNP and the surrounding region. There are no major industries in the PSA or LSA that may influence air quality; however, the access road to the Moon Lake distribution line is along a major transportation route (PTH10), which will have a minor, localized influence on ambient air quality. Air quality can also be temporarily affected by smoke from campgrounds and other wood burning appliances in the park, as well as prescribed burns or wildfires. Other potential factors include emissions from equipment, traffic, buildings, wastewater lagoons and activities in the Town of Wasagaming and other areas within Zone 5; boat traffic on Clear Lake, Lake Audy and other area lakes; Parks Canada, MTS, Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation (MIT) and Manitoba Hydro O&M activities; particulate matter from dust from windblown soils; and the burning of crop residues on adjacent agricultural lands.

Given that a large part of the park is designated as wilderness and is mostly undisturbed by human activities in these areas, it is expected that air quality in the PSA falls within the air quality objectives of Environment Canada and the Province of Manitoba. Road vehicles are expected to be the primary contributors to air pollution within the PSA. Pollutants emitted from motor vehicles include oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and to a lesser extent sulphur dioxide and particulate matter (Environment Canada 2012). Concentrations of these pollutants tend to be highest immediately adjacent to a roadway, with a rapid decrease in concentration as one moves away from a roadway (Environment Canada 2012). Similar to tailpipe emissions, re-suspended particulate matter would be highest in concentration immediately adjacent to the highway, with reduced concentrations as the distance from the highway corridor increases.

8.2.2. Climate The PSA is located on the edge of the Boreal Shield region of Canada. Climate within the Boreal Shield ranges from semi-arid to humid continental and is typified by long, cold winters and short, warm summers with variable precipitation. The region experiences variable winds, an abundance of sunshine, and occurrences of severe weather incidences in all seasons. Historical climate data were collected and analyzed for the PSA to characterize typical climate conditions that could be expected for the Project.

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Climate can be defined as the generally prevailing weather conditions of a region throughout the year, and is typically described by variables such as air pressure, cloud cover, humidity, precipitation, hours of sunshine, temperature, wind speed and wind direction. Environment Canada has collected climate data for several areas within Canada from 1971 to 2000. The Environment Canada weather reporting station considered to be closest to the PSA is located in Wasagaming, Manitoba. This station is located at Latitude 50°39’18’’ N and Longitude 99°56’31’’ W at an elevation of 627.40 masl (Environment Canada 2013). Table 8.1 summarizes the Canadian Climate Normals data from 1971 to 2000 for the Wasagaming weather station (Environment Canada 2013). The annual daily mean temperature is 0.1°C with daily mean temperatures ranging from -19.6°C (January) to 16.5°C (July). The daily maximum temperatures range from -12.7°C (January) to 23.7°C (July), and daily minimum temperatures range from - 26.4°C (January) to 9.3°C (July).

The extreme temperature range is from -47.8°C (December) to 36.5°C (August). In general, precipitation falls primarily as snow during the winter months, with the greatest snowfalls occurring in November, December and March. Rainfall dominates during the summer, spring and fall seasons, with overall levels of precipitation peaking in June, July and August. Annually, the average precipitation level is about 521 mm. Average wind speeds recorded at Wasagaming, Manitoba are fairly constant throughout the year, ranging from approximately 8 to 11 km/hour, and are most frequently coming from the northwest (Environment Canada 2013).

Parks Canada has recognized the need for awareness of potential climate change implications on the ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experiences in RMNP. Parks Canada’s Environmental Management System (EMS) Action Plan for RMNP includes setting targets for greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and implementing actions such as: a reduction in the vehicle fleet and establishment of a vehicle pool; use of 10% ethanol fuel blend and biodiesel; use of electric vehicles; and promotion of non-motorized means of travel (Parks Canada 2007a).

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Table 8-1: Canadian Climate Normals Summary for Wasagaming, Manitoba (1971-2000)1

Parameter Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year

Daily Average Temperature (oC) -19.6 -15 -8.7 1.4 9.1 13.8 16.5 15.1 9.2 3.1 -7.2 -15.9 0.1

Daily Maximum (oC) -12.7 -7.7 -1.5 8.6 16.6 20.8 23.7 22.4 15.6 9 -2.2 -9.7 6.9

Daily Minimum (oC) -26.4 -22.2 -15.9 -5.8 1.5 6.7 9.3 7.8 2.5 -2.9 -12.2 -22.1 -6.7

Rainfall (mm) 0.1 0.2 4.1 13.8 52.7 84.5 75.3 72.3 60.9 31.3 2.2 0.6 398

Snowfall (cm) 17.6 17.3 21.1 12.6 1.6 0 0 0 1.1 6.6 22.1 22.2 122.1

Precipitation (mm) 17.6 18 25.3 26.6 54.5 84.5 75.3 72.3 62 38 24.3 22.8 521

Windspeed (km/h) 7.8 8.3 9.3 10.5 10.7 9.7 9.3 9 9.6 10.8 9.5 7.9 9.4

Most Frequent Wind Direction NW NW SE SE SE NW NW SE NW NW NW NW NW 1 Data acquired from Environment Canada’s National Climate Archive

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

8.2.3. Noise Existing noise levels in the PSA are expected to be quite low due to the remote and mostly isolated location. Potential sources of noise identified for the PSA include:

• Traffic on PTH10, Lake Audy Road and roads at or near the north and south park boundaries; • Rural and agricultural activities at or near the north and south park boundaries; • Corona noise emitted from the V38R/Line 81 transmission line; • Manitoba Hydro RoW O&M activities; • MTS Tower O&M activities; • Air traffic travelling overhead; • Human activities in the community of Wasagaming and/or other Zone 5 areas; and • Wildlife migration, nesting and breeding activities.

It is expected that the primary source of noise in the PSA is the noise created by the highway and road traffic that occurs on and near PTH10 and Lake Audy Road. Traffic noise objectives have not been established in Manitoba for provincial highways; however, highway traffic noise is indirectly controlled by Transport Canada under the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (C.R.C., c. 1038) Schedule V.1 – Noise Emissions (Standard 1106) (Transport Canada 2013), which defines maximum permissible sound levels (PSL) for individual categories of vehicles. Common noise levels and typical human reactions are summarized in Table 8.2. As shown in the table, noise levels in the vicinity of a highway can be in the range of 50 to 70 decibels (dB), although actual noise levels would be dependent on the volume of traffic.

The following information on corona noise was obtained from Engel and Wszolek (1996): Corona noise is the most common noise associated with transmission lines and is heard as a crackling or hissing sound. Corona is the breakdown of air into charged particles caused by the electrical field at the surface of conductors. This type of noise varies with both weather and voltage of the line, and most often occurs in conditions of heavy rain and high humidity (typically >80%). An electric field surrounds power lines and causes implosion of ionized water droplets in the air, which produces the sound. During relatively dry conditions, corona noise typically results in continuous noise levels of 40 to 50 dB in close proximity to the transmission line, such as at the edge of the RoW. In many locations, this noise level is similar to ambient noise conditions in the environment. During wet or high humidity conditions, corona noise levels typically increase. Depending on conditions, wet weather corona noise levels could increase to 50 to 60 dB and could even increase to over 60 dB under certain conditions. Corona noise levels are not consistent from location to location because conductor surface defects, damage, dust, and other inconsistencies can influence the corona effect.

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Table 8-2: Common Noise Levels and Typical Human Reactions

Decibels Source Effect (dB) Car horn/propeller aircraft/air raid siren 120 Threshold of pain Amplified rock band 110 Maximum vocal effort Running train 100 Discomfort Heavy truck at 15 m/Busy city street 90 Very annoying - Hearing damage (8 hr) Bulldozer/chainsaw/excavator 81 to 85 - Factory floor 80 Annoying Passenger car at 65 mph at 8 m 70 Telephone use difficult Normal conversation 60 Intrusive Noisy office/Light automobile traffic at 30 m 50 Speech interference Public library 40 Quiet Soft whisper at 5 m 30 Very quiet Rustle of leaves 10 Just audible Threshold of hearing 0 - Sources: Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) 1981; US Department of Transportation 2006

8.2.4. Terrain and Soils The bedrock geology in south-western Manitoba is composed mostly of the Mesozoic strata, made up of Cretaceous and Jurassic rock formations (Map 3). The relief of the area tends to be extreme due to pre-glacial erosion, which resulted in the Cretaceous escarpment along ancient Lake Agassiz. The topography consists of rolling morainic deposits with gray luvisol soil development (Smith et al. 1998). The RSA is located within the Saskatchewan Plain (Briscoe et al. 1979) and is composed of lacustrine deposits, water-worked till, till plains, and moraines, and has an elevation range between 30 and 750 m above sea level (masl) (Briscoe et al. 1979). The LSA lies entirely within the Cretaceous era, which is composed of grey and greenish shale, siliceous shale, and sandstone (Briscoe et al. 1979; Bannatyne and Teller 1984). The soils consist mainly of gray luvisolic soils on calcareous, loamy, to clayey textured glacial till (Smith et al. 1998) (Map 4).

Some areas also contain chernozemic dark gray soils, which are well drained, gleysolic soils that are peaty and poorly drained, as well as mesisols, which are moderately decomposed organic soils (Smith et al. 1998). The soils near Moon Lake and part of the Jackfish Creek area are composed of orthic, dark, and brunisolic gray luvisols as well as orthic humic gleysols (Briscoe et al. 1979). In and around the LSA, the slope of the landscape ranges from 0 - 30%, with a majority of the land slope ranging from 16 - 30% (Briscoe et al. 1979).

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Map 3: Surficial Geology

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Map 4: Soil Classifications

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

8.2.5. Vegetation

8.2.5.1 Overview

The Riding Mountain region is situated at the confluence of several ecosystems: aspen parkland, mixed-grass, rough-fescue prairie, boreal forest and eastern deciduous forest. The complex geography of the region, in combination with natural disturbances, has resulted in a biologically diverse landscape, with habitats of differing age, structure and composition (Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society [CPAWS] 2004). Parks Canada estimates that 764 species of vascular plants are known to occur in RMNP in a wide variety of taxonomic families and genera (Frey 2013, pers. comm.; Parks Canada 2011). In addition, several hundred species of mosses, liverworts, lichens, fungi and algae are found throughout the Park. The distribution of different plant species and the communities they comprise is determined by soil type and texture, and the direction and steepness of slopes. These features determine insolation, moisture and nutrient availability, which in turn influence the microclimates, biodiversity, species abundance and level of vulnerability to disturbance.

Forests are the dominating ecosystems within the park. There are three main forest associations and 10 forest vegetation types (Map 5). The majority of the park is a mixed wood forest dominated by trembling aspen, followed by white spruce (Picea glauca), balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera), and white birch (Betula papyrifera). Black spruce (Picea mariana) and tamarack (Larix laricina) are more abundant on imperfectly drained sites and wetlands, although they have a relatively low presence in the park (Francis and Stewart 2001). Eastern hardwoods occur along the east and northern edges of the park and are characterized by white elm (Ulmus laevis), Manitoba maple (Acer negundo), mountain maple (Acer spicatum), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa). Aspen and oak parkland lies in a zone between the boreal forests and prairies, and is maintained largely by wildfire. Although present, native grasslands occur as very small remnants within RMNP, constituting only about 2.5% of the habitat (Francis and Stewart 2001).

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Map 5: Regional Study Area LCC

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

The entire LSA is located within the Mixedwood Forest (B18a) Section. This area corresponds to the Cretaceous Upland Region, which contains numerous coniferous species. The well-drained soils in this section promote the growth of balsam poplar, trembling aspen, white spruce and balsam fir. In RMNP, the relief of the area tends to be extreme due to the pre-glacial erosion, which resulted in the Cretaceous escarpment along ancient Lake Agassiz. The topography consists of rolling morainic deposits with gray luvisol soil development (Smith et al. 1998).

In recent years, the dominant vegetation cover type in the LSA is a mixed aspen and white spruce, which is the second most widespread cover type in RMNP after the aspen forest type (Francis and Stewart 2001). The Moon Lake area contains mostly aspen, black spruce, white spruce and white birch. By comparison, the area surrounding Jackfish Creek is characterized as containing mostly aspen and white spruce in upland areas and graminoids and black spruce in wetland areas (Briscoe et al. 1979). There are several records of flora species of conservation concern along PTH10 near Moon Lake (CPAWS 2004). A list of the flora of RMNP is provided in Appendix A of the Vegetation Technical Report (Appendix B).

Cover classes used to represent the communities and habitats within the RSA and LSA were obtained from the Land Capability Classification (LCC). The LCC is a national database map layer that has been harmonized across the major federal departments involved in land management and land change detection that includes Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada (AAFC), the Canadian Forest Service (CFS), and the Canadian Centre for Remote Sensing (CCRS). The LCC provides vegetated and non-vegetated land cover classes that identify the primary ecological and vegetation/habitat conditions of an area. The LCC for the RSA is shown in Map 5 and the LCC for the LSA is shown in Map 6. The primary land cover types in RMNP and within the LSA are mixedwood dense and broadleaf open forest, mixed with some wetlands and very little grasslands. A summary of the LCC information for the RSA and LSA is provided in Table 1 of the Vegetation Technical Report (Appendix B).

A total of 84 plant species were identified during the field investigations of the three route options and the east side of the ROW, of which 80 species were native and four were invasive. A listing of all the plant species found during the vegetation assessment is provided in Appendix C of the Vegetation Technical Report (Appendix B).

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Map 6: Local Study Area LCC

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

8.2.5.2 Invasive Species

The invasive species observed during the study included common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), hemp nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit), Kentucky bluegrass (KBG) (Poa pratensis) and tufted bird-vetch (Vicia cracca). Invasive species are those that are not native to the area and tend to reproduce rapidly, displace native plants, and are difficult to control or eradicate. They can threaten the native biodiversity and pose a threat to natural reserves, such as RMNP (Otfinowski et al. 2007). The level of invasiveness of each species depends upon the species’ climatic range, biological traits (e.g. perennial, clonal) and habitat preference (Otfinowski et al. 2007). Otfinowski and Kenkel (2005) have assigned management priority rankings for invasive species in RMNP using species life history, native geographical range, biological traits, provincial weed designation, and distribution and abundance within the park. Table 10.3 summarizes the level of invasiveness and the management priority assigned for each of the four invasive species found during the field surveys.

Table 8-3: Summary of Invasive Plant Species Found within RMNP and their Level of Invasiveness and Management Priority

Level of Management Common Name Scientific Name 1 1 Invasiveness Priority Common Dandelion Taraxacum officinale Moderate High Hemp-Nettle Galeopsis tetrahit Low High Kentucky Bluegrass (KBG) Poa pratensis Very High Very High Tufted Bird-Vetch Vicia cracca Moderate High 1Source: Otfinowski and Kenkel (2005) and Otfinowski et al. (2007)

KBG is considered a very highly invasive clonal species that can establish and proliferate in both disturbed and natural habitats (Otfinowski et al. 2007). As a result, KBG has been assigned a very high management priority (Otfinowski and Kenkel 2005). Common dandelion and tuft bird-vetch are considered moderately invasive species that are non-clonal perennials and more commonly establish in ruderal habitats (i.e., areas that have been disturbed, are of poor quality or contain waste) (Otfinowski et al. 2007). Hemp-nettle is considered a low risk invasive species as it is an annual and tends to proliferate more in ruderal habitats (Otfinowski et al. 2007). Although not considered as highly invasive as KBG, common dandelion, hemp-nettle, and tufted bird-vetch have all been assigned a high management priority within RMNP (Otfinowski and Kenkel 2005).

Although the RoW is a previously disturbed site, native vegetation re-growth has been very successful. There were few invasive species found along the RoW. KBG was found along the entire length of the RoW. Widening the RoW has the potential to promote the spreading of KBG as it quickly establishes in newly cleared areas. Common dandelion, hemp-nettle and tufted bird-vetch occur more frequently along the RoW than within the forest adjacent to the RoW. As such, the RoW widening activities could promote the spread of these plants, although they are not considered to be highly invasive species (Otfinowski and Kenkel 2005).

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Table 8.4 provides a summary of the plant species found within each of the ten sampling plots selected on the RoW. During the RoW habitat delineation activities, common dandelion and KBG were found along the length of the RoW, but these two species were not found within the RoW sampling plots. Within the RoW sampling plots, tufted bird-vetch was observed as a small percentage of the overall species in one plot, and hemp-nettle was found as a small percentage of the overall species in three of the plots (Table 10.4).

A vegetation survey of the Moon Lake trail conducted in 2010 reported the presence of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and common dandelion (Calyx Consulting 2010). The Canada thistle was found near the disturbed area around the MTS Tower (Krindle 2013, pers. comm.). This species was not observed during the 2013 field survey, but may not have been flowering at the time of the 2013 survey. Canada thistle was assigned a management priority of high within RMNP (Otfinowski and Kenkel 2005).

8.2.5.3 RoW Vegetation

The east side of the RoW, where the proposed RoW expansion is to take place, was surveyed over the course of three days on June 18, 20 and 21, 2013. In general, the RoW is contained within a mixedwood forest throughout its entire length within RMNP, although the age and species composition varies slightly. From the south boundary of RMNP to just north of Lake Audy Road, the stand surrounding the RoW is predominantly trembling aspen. As the RoW approaches Jackfish Creek, aspen becomes less abundant and the presence of balsam poplar in the stand increases. Further north along the RoW, the transition continues and the stand becomes predominantly a mix of white spruce and balsam poplar, with few aspen. A few bogs were sited adjacent to the RoW that contained black spruce and tamarack. A total of 55 species were observed, which included a mix of trees, shrub understory and herbaceous plants. Table 10.4 shows the relative abundance of all the species found in each plot during the vegetation assessment along the east side of the RoW. Common wild strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), prickly rose (Rosa acicularis), western Canadian violet (Viola rugulosa) and wild black currant (Ribes americanum) were the most abundant and widespread species.

Within the RoW, the majority of the area had some form of shrub layer growth that varied in extent and density along the entire length. The dominant species along the RoW were beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta) and to a lesser extent, green alder (Alnus viridis). The herbaceous plant composition along the majority of the RoW was similar to that of open woodlands and dry upland meadows containing distinct communities of native species. Common native plant species observed included bedstraw (Galium spp.), blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium montanum), Canada columbine (Aquilegia canadensis), Canadian anemone, common wild strawberry, false Solomon’s seal (Maianthemum racemosum), meadow rues (Thalictrum spp.), prickly rose, violets (Viola spp.), snakeroot (Sanicula marilandica) and yellow lady’s-slippers (Cypripedium calceolus).

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Table 8-4: Plant Species Observed and Relative Abundance along the RoW

Plot Scientific Name Common Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Red and White Actaea rubra 3% 1% 1% 1% 3% Baneberry Agrostis scabra Rough Bentgrass 12%

Alnus viridis Green Alder 3% 17% 15% 6%

Anemone canadensis Canadian Anemone 3% 3% 3% 2% 8%

Anemone virginiana Tall Anemone 17% 12%

Apocynum Spreading Dogbane 3% androsaemifolium Aralia nudicaulis Wild Sarsaparilla 21% 11% 16% 3% 14% 1%

Arenaria lateriflora Blunt Leaved Sandwort 1%

Caltha palustris Marsh Marigold 4% 3%

Cicuta maculata var. Spotted Water Hemlock 6% angustifolia Drooping Wood Cinna latifolia 2% Reedgrass Cornus canadensis Bunchberry 3% 1%

Cornus stolonifera Red-Osier Dogwood 13% 11% 2%

Corylus cornuta Beaked Hazelnut 35% 17% 29% 15%

Elaeagnus commutata Silverberry 6% 6% 8%

Equisetum arvense Common Horsetail 8% 1% 2% 4% 3%

Common Wild Fragaria virginiana 6% 3% 4% 3% 3% 2% 4% 4% 9% Strawberry Galeopsis tetrahit Hemp Nettle1 1% 2% 9%

Galium trifidum Small Bedstraw 1% 1% 3% 2%

Sweet-Scented Galium triflorium 7% 3% 1% 1% Bedstraw Geum rivale Purple Avens 1% 1%

Glyceria striata Fowl Manna Grass 2%

Heracleum maximum Cow Parsnip 2% 9% 2% 3%

Lathyrus ochroleucus Creamy Peavine 7% 3% 3% 1% 1% 2% 1%

Lonicera dioica var. Twining Honeysuckle 11% glaucescens Swamp Fly Lonicera oblongifolia 10% 1% 7% Honeysuckle Lysimachia thyrsiflora Tufted Loosestrife 3% 12% 2% 13% 11%

Maianthemum Two-Leaved Solomon's 1% 1% dilatatum Seal

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Plot Scientific Name Common Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maianthemum False Solomon's Seal 10% 1% 4% 1% racemosum Matteuccia Ostrich Fern 6% struthiopteris Mertensia paniculata Tall Bluebells 3%

Picea glauca White Spruce 6% 33% 14% 6% 2%

Picea mariana Black Spruce 2%

Poa palustris Fowl Bluegrass 3% 4%

Populus balsamifera Balsam Poplar 12% 12%

Populus tremuloides Trembling Aspen 14% 6% 11% 29% 34% 2%

Prunus pennsylvanica Pin Cherry 6%

Common Pink Pyrola asarifolia 1% Wintergreen Small Flowered Ranunculus abortivus 2% 1% 1% Buttercup Rhamnus alnifolia Alder Leaved Buckthorn 3% 18% 8% 18%

Ribes americanum Wild Black Currant 1% 2% 14% 3% 1% 1% 4% 6%

Ribes glandulosum Skunk Currant 6%

Ribes hudsonianum Northern Black Currant 6%

Ribes lacustre Black Gooseberry 2% 4%

Ribes oxyacanthoides Northern Gooseberry 3% 10% 3%

Ribes triste Wild Red Currant 4%

Rosa acicularis Prickly Rose 3% 19% 3% 2% 7% 9% 1% 3%

Rubus acaulis Dwarf Raspberry 1%

Rubus idaeus spp. Wild Red Raspberry 7% 1% 4% Strigosus Salix exigua Sandbar Willow 6% 15%

Sanicula marilandica Snakeroot 1% 1% 1% 2% 2%

Thalictrum Tall Meadow Rue 3% dasycarpum Thalictrum venulosum Veiny Meadow Rue 3%

Vicia cracca Tufted Bird-Vetch1 3%

Western Canadian Viola rugulosa 3% 6% 8% 7% 1% 1% 1% Violet 1 Invasive species

The vegetation surrounding the wetlands and water crossings encountered along the RoW was composed almost entirely of graminoid species such as cattails (Typha spp.), grasses (Poaceae), rushes (Juncaceae) and sedges (e.g., Carex spp.). Some dense areas of sandbar

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

willow (Salix exigua) and yellow willow (Salix lutea) were found along the edges of wetlands and riparian zones of streams. Flowering plants common to these wet areas include arrow-leaved coltsfoot (Petasites sagittatus), fowl manna grass (Glyceria striata), marsh marigold (Caltha palustris), spotted water hemlock (Cicuta maculata var. angustifolia) and water calla (Calla palustris).

8.2.5.4 Moon Lake Trail Vegetation

Review of the LCC for the area (Map 6) shows that from east to west, the trail crosses a series of vegetation types: Mixedwood Dense, Coniferous Open, a large Treed Wetland and an area of Broadleaf Dense and Mixedwood Open cover. A vegetation survey conducted in 2010 by Calyx Consulting reported that the vegetation along the Moon Lake distribution line trail consists mainly of black spruce bogs interspersed with areas of shrubs and sedge meadows (Calyx Consulting 2010). Species found to be present in the wetland and bog areas included trees such as black spruce and tamarack; shrubs such as bog willow (Salix pedicellaris), dwarf birch (Betula pimila), green alder and Labrador tea (Rhododendron groenlandicum); herbs such as bog bean (Menyanthes trifoliata), bunchberry (Cornus canadensis), coltsfoot (Petasites spp.), horsetails (Equisetum spp.), Northern starflower (Trientalis borealis), and sedges (Carex spp.); and sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.) (Calyx Consulting 2010). In drier areas, species found to be present included trees such as balsam fir, maple (Acer spp.) and white spruce; shrubs such as beaked hazelnut and common juniper (Juniperus communis); and herbs such as fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium), goldenrod (Solidago spp.) and yarrow (Achillea millefolium) (Calyx Consulting 2010). Invasive species reported include common dandelion and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) (Calyx Consulting 2010). Canada thistle was not found during the 2013 field investigations.

During the 2013 field investigations, five of the sampling plots for the vegetation survey of the Southern Moon Lake trail were located on or adjacent to the Moon Lake trail (Appendix B). Table 8.5 shows the relative abundance of all the species found in each plot during the vegetation assessment along the Moon Lake trail areas. The four invasive species identified to be present in the PSA in 2013 were found on the western end of the Moon Lake trail near the V38R/Line 81 transmission line RoW.

8.2.5.5 Plant Species of Conservation Concern

Of the 764 plant species found in RMNP, there were no plant species listed under MESA, SARA, or that have a special designation by COSEWIC (Government of Canada 2011; Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship [MCWS] 2013a). However, there were 89 plant species of conservation concern listed by MBCDC with a provincial status of S1, S2 or S3 that have the potential to occur in RMNP. A list of the S1, S2 and S3 species potentially found within the RSA is provided as Appendix B to the Vegetation Technical Report (Appendix B).

A search of the MBCDC database for rare species in the vicinity of the LSA found occurrences of only two species of conservation concern: fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea), with a status of S2,

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Table 8-5: Plant Species Observed and Relative Abundance along the Moon Lake Access Trail

Plot1 Scientific Name Common Name 1 2 3 4 10 Abies balsamea Balsam Fir 3%

Agrostis scabra Rough Bentgrass 3% 3% 2%

Alnus viridis Green Alder 27% 7% 4% 3% 3% Anemone canadensis Canadian Anemone 3% 3% 1%

Anemone virginiana Tall Anemone 7%

Aralia nudicaulis Wild Sarsaparilla 1% 16% 5%

Arenaria lateriflora Blunt Leaved Sandwort 1%

Athyrium spp. Lady Fern 6% 3% 9%

Caltha palustris Marsh Marigold

Carex interior Inland Sedge 3%

Cinna latifolia Drooping Wood Reedgrass 3%

Cornus canadensis Bunchberry 9%

Corylus cornuta Beaked Hazelnut 14% 8% 2%

Disporum trachycarpum Fairybells 1%

Elaeagnus commutata Silverberry 8%

Equisetum arvense Common Horsetail 3% 3%

Eutrochium maculatum Spotted Joe Pye-Weed 1%

Fragaria virginiana Common Wild Strawberry 3% 24% 3%

Galeopsis tetrahit Hemp-Nettle1 3% 1% 5%

Galium boreale Northern Bedstraw

Galium trifidum Small Bedstraw 1% 1% 1% 1%

Galium triflorium Sweet-Scented Bedstraw 5%

Geum aleppicum Yellow Avens 3%

Glyceria striata Fowl Manna Grass

Heracleum maximum Cow Parsnip 1% 3%

Larix laricina Tamarack

Lathyrus ochroleucus Creamy Peavine 8%

Lonicera dioica var. glaucescens Twining Honeysuckle 3%

Lonicera involucrata Bracted Honeysuckle 10%

Maianthemum dilatatum Two-Leaved Solomon's Seal

Maianthemum racemosum False Solomon's Seal 1% 5%

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Plot1 Scientific Name Common Name 1 2 3 4 10 Mentha arvensis Wild Mint 3%

Osmorhiza longistylis Smooth Sweet-Cicely 1% 3%

Petasites sagittatus ArRoW-Leaved Coltsfoot

Picea glauca White Spruce 40% 51%

Picea mariana Black Spruce

Poa palustris Fowl Bluegrass 10% 14% 10%

Poa pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass1 20% 20%

Ranunculus cymbalaria Shore Buttercup

Rhamnus alnifolia Alder Leaved Buckthorn

Ribes americanum Wild Black Currant 3% 4%

Ribes hudsonianum Northern Black Currant

Ribes lacustre Black Gooseberry 3% 3%

Ribes oxyacanthoides Northern Gooseberry 3% 1% 6%

Ribes triste Wild Red Currant 1%

Rosa acicularis Prickly Rose 1% 3% 3%

Rubus acaulis Dwarf Raspberry

Rubus idaeus spp. strigosus Wild Red Raspberry 7%

Salix lutea Yellow Willow 14%

Sanicula marilandica Snakeroot 2% 3%

Symphoricarpos albus Common Snowberry 2%

Taraxacum officinale Common Dandelion1 1% 3% 2%

Thalictrum dasycarpum Tall Meadow Rue 4%

Trillium cernuum Nodding Trillium 1%

Vicia cracca Tufted Bird-Vetch1 1%

Viola pubescens Yellow Violet 1% 1%

Viola rugulosa Western Canadian Violet 1% 4% 3%

1 Invasive

and blunt-fruited sweet cicely (Osmorhiza depauperata), also with a status of S2 (Friesen 2013, pers. comm.). There have been two other rare plant surveys conducted in the LSA since 2010: a rare plant and wetland study conducted along the Moon Lake distribution line (Calyx Consulting 2010); and a vegetation survey adjacent to PTH10 at km 50 of the highway (Golder 2012). It was determined that some areas adjacent to PTH10 contained habitat suitable for blunt-fruited sweet cicely, few-flowered meadow-rue (Thalictrum sparsiflorum) (S2S3 species),

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

and round-leaved pyrola (Pyrola americana) (S2 species) (Golder 2012). However, there were no species of conservation concern found during either of these surveys.

The focus of the 2013 vegetation assessment was placed on the species that had been historically identified in this area, but all plant species of conservation concern that could potentially occur in the Mid-Boreal Uplands Ecoregion (MBCDC 2013) were considered.

There were no federally or provincially listed plant species, or any S1, S2, S3 species of conservation concern found during the 2013 field investigations.

8.2.5.1 Plant Species of Importance to First Nations

First Nations people have a special relationship with the earth and all living things in it. This relationship is based on a profound spiritual connection with Mother Earth that guides indigenous peoples to practice reverence, humility and reciprocity. It is also based on subsistence needs and values extending back thousands of years.

During a March 11, 2014 meeting with the people of the Coalition, the people shared that Labrador tea (also called swamp tea), muskrat root (Acorus calamus, also called sweet flag), sage, Seneca root, sweet grass and willow (Salix spp.) are important to the people as medicinal and edible plants. The people also identified chokecherries (Prunus virginiana), hazelnuts, sand cranberries (Vaccinium spp.) and wild plum (Prunus americana or Amelanchier spp.) as important edible nuts and fruits.

The people gather these plants and berries in various locations within RMNP. The people shared that there are four locations along the existing RoW where medicinal and/or edible plants are gathered. These four areas will be marked as Sensitive Sites in the EnvPP for the Project to prevent any disturbance or effects to the vegetation in these areas. The areas will be marked to prevent disturbance, but the use and significance of these areas will be kept confidential. There were no plant gathering areas identified in the vicinity of the Moon Lake trail.

8.2.6. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat The RSA is composed of plant species that are adapted to the role of colonization and regeneration of surface areas subjected to major disturbances, such as logging or fire (Briscoe et al. 1979). The ability to adapt and occupy forest habitats, at various stages of succession, extends to the wildlife species that inhabit this area. The area is composed of a mosaic of different aged forest stands, plant communities, and floral species that reflect the climate, topography, soils, drainage, disturbance history and forest development of the region. Forests provide a structure in which wildlife lives, and the degree and complexity of this structure within the landscape determines, to some extent, the wildlife inhabiting the forest (Keenan et al. 2009).

The wildlife species in the RSA are important spiritually and aesthetically to both First Nations and the general public of Manitoba. They provide an indication of ecological condition, represent species groups in terms of ecological requirements, and some are listed as species of conservation concern. Species of conservation concern, meaning species that are rare, disjunct, or at risk throughout their range, or those listed under MESA, SARA, or that have a special

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015 designation by COSEWIC, were the focus during the field investigations and literature review. In total, there are approximately 230 bird species and 60 mammal species know to be present in RMNP (CPAWS 2004). This high species diversity is in part due to the varied habitats available in and around the region. Using local current and historical wildlife distribution data from Parks Canada, spatial analyses were conducted to assess high quality habitat and the implication of the preferred access route on the VC bird and mammal species. Observations from these surveys were mapped and analyzed for high use areas. Areas of species concentrations were developed using volume-density kernel estimates using the kernels analysis tool in the Home Range Tools for ArcGIS (ESRI 2011). Prior to creating the kernels, 200 observations (either tracks or individuals) per animal were determined as a minimum number of points per animal, as any less than would create an uneven distribution. The 90% contour was considered to represent the extent of actual core use areas based on the findings of Schindler (2006). However, to ensure high quality habitat, rather than more marginal habitat on the periphery of the core that was being sampled for model development, the 70% contour was used.

8.2.6.1 Mammals

Mammal species typical of the RSA include beaver, bison (Bison bison), black bear, coyote (Canis latrans), elk, ermine (Mustela erminea), fisher (Martes pennanti), grey wolf, least chipmunk (Eutamias minimus), lynx (Lynx canadensis), mink (Neovison vison), moose, otter (Lutra canadensis), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), red squirrel (Tamisciurus hudsonicus), snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), southern red-backed vole (Clethrionomys gapperi) and white-tailed deer. RMNP is unique compared to surrounding areas in that it is home to a captive herd of approximately 40 bison, near Lake Audy (Parks Canada 2013c). However, given that the bison are captive, they are not factored into the ecological considerations of the alterations to the transmission line RoW and access trail for this assessment. Elk were once found in much of central and southwestern Manitoba; however, more recently their populations have been restricted to RMNP, Duck Mountain Provincial Park, Porcupine Hills, the southern Interlake, Spruce Woods, Red Deer River and Swan River Valley areas (MCWS 2014). The population of elk in RMNP is the largest of their range accounting for 40% to 50% of the provincial elk population (MCWS 2014). Aerial surveys were conducted within the park from 2008 to 2013 by Parks Canada for elk. Map 7 represents the observations of elk recorded during the 2008 - 2013 Parks Canada aerial survey. The 70% volume-density kernel for elk indicates that the majority of the western halves of the central and southern areas of the LSA were high use areas for elk (Map 8). The grey wolf is found across Canada in various regions, though they have been extirpated from portions of various provinces and show little preference for habitat types (Banfield 1974). The wolf population estimates in RMNP show a relatively stable wolf population. The current population estimate shows 113 wolves in 2011-2012 (Parks Canada unpubl.). Healthy moose and wolf populations coexist within RMNP.

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

White-tailed deer range across North America and are common in much of southern Manitoba. They inhabit areas with a mix of cover types, edges, swamps, riparian areas and open prairies (Banfield 1974). White-tailed deer represent a concern for wildlife managers as they carry diseases that are transferrable to other species such as moose. Lankester and Samuel (1998) noted that Parelaphostrongylus tenuis (brain worm) had been documented in the south-western corner of Manitoba. Further, RMNP tests for P. tenuis on an ad hoc basis and have found evidence of P. tenuis in white-tailed deer in the park, although no formal report exists on the prevalence of P. tenuis in white-tailed deer in RMNP at this time (T. Sallows, pers. comm.). Waring et al. (1991) demonstrated that white-tailed deer use RoWs to feed, especially when the available forage is more abundant or of better quality than in adjacent landscapes. RoWs have the potential to provide white-tailed deer with increased forage opportunities, given much of their diet consists of browse, grasses, forbs, mast and succulents, many of which grow in RoW edge habitats. Aerial surveys were conducted within the park from 2008 - 2013 by Parks Canada for white-tailed deer. Map 9 represents the observations of deer recorded during the 2008 - 2013 Parks Canada aerial survey. The 70% volume-density kernel for white-tailed deer indicates three areas of deer concentration within the LSA; at the northern and southern park boundary along the LSA and northwest of the Lake Audy road within the LSA (Map 10). The location of deer concentrations indicate high use of the park boundary, likely associated with their use of remnant agricultural food product found on adjacent land while using the park for concealment. A listing of known mammals and their conservation classification is presented in the Wildlife Technical Report found in Appendix C.

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Map 7: Elk Observations from 2008-2013 within the LSA

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Map 8: Elk Observations from 2008-2013 and 70% core areas

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Map 9: Deer Observations from 2008-2013 within the LSA

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Map 10: Deer Observations from 2008-2013 and 70% core areas

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

There were numerous mammal scat, tracks, and signs observed along the existing RoW during the June 2013 ground surveys and the January 2014 aerial multispecies surveys. Specific VC species are discussed in the following sections. During the ground surveys, observations made along the RoW included moose scat, elk scat, bear scat, wolf scat and small mammal dens. Several moose antler sheds were found along the RoW. There were several observations of dens and burrows throughout the LSA. Incidental observations of mammals during the surveys include several black bears, a few deer and one elk along the RoW and the Moon Lake Tower access trail. During the 2014 winter aerial multispecies surveys, observations of tracks and individuals were recorded and included moose, elk, deer, wolves, and other furbearer species.

More detailed information on the summer ground-based mammal surveys is provided in the Wildlife Technical Report in Appendix C.

Beaver The beaver was selected as a VC based on its association with lakes, creeks, and other water bodies. Beavers are important ecosystem engineers and a keystone species that modify drainage regimes by engaging in vegetation-cutting and dam-building activities that have long-term effects on landscapes (Naiman et al. 1994). Beaver habitat occupancy is best explained by the occurrence of woody vegetation, followed by stream gradients (Curtis and Jensen 2004). Beaver are found in abundance in RMNP and are associated with lakes, creeks and other water bodies.

The V38R/Line 81 transmission corridor and Moon Lake Tower access trail traverse a number of small streams, creeks and wetlands. Investigation into potentially high quality beaver damming spots provided valuable information on the possible effects of the Project on beavers and also the effects that beavers may have on the Project.

Aerial surveys were conducted within the park from 2005 - 2010 by Parks Canada for beaver caches. There were not enough observations of beaver caches to create volume-density kernels, but a review of the spatial data indicated that beaver were concentrated in the southwestern corner of the LSA (Map 11). There were also other small clusters of beaver throughout the LSA (Map 11).

Black Bear Black bears were selected as a VC as they are an important linkage species in the LSA due to their effects on moose and elk recruitment and distribution. Black bears are found across most wooded habitats in North America and are relatively common throughout the northern mixed and eastern deciduous forests (Kolenosky and Strathearn 1987). Black bear densities are highest in diverse forests at relatively early stages of development and lowest where soils are thinner and plant growth generally poorer (Kolenosky and Strathearn 1987). Bears are an integral component of the ecosystem given their role in predator/prey relationships.

RMNP has one of the higher densities of black bears within the province, along with Porcupine Hills and the Duck Mountains (MCWS 2013b). Important habitat types for black bears include coniferous or deciduous regions, as well as swamps and berry patches (Banfield 1974).

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Map 11: Beaver Cache Observations from 2005-2010 within the LSA

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

A population estimate in 2007 indicated approximately 900 black bears within RMNP (Parks Canada 2007b). The proposed widening of the existing RoW in combination with the improvement to the Moon Lake Tower access trail may impact black bear denning locations. As a result, the activities outlined for the Project included an investigation of active denning sites in the proposed LSA.

Moose Moose were selected as a VC based on their significance to the ecology of RMNP and their cultural importance to First Nations. Moose are distributed across much of forested Canada (Banfield 1974) and are common within the boreal forest and the RSA (Karns 1998). A population estimate in RMNP in 2012 indicated an estimate of 2,949 moose, which translates to approximately 0.99 moose/km² (Parks Canada unpubl.). Moose are commonly found in forest, shrub, and wetland habitats and occupy much of northern Manitoba (Banfield 1974). In the south, they occupy areas in and adjacent to Duck Mountain and Riding Mountain (Pattie and Hoffmann, 1990). Moose population numbers in Game Hunting Areas (GHAs) 18/18A, 13/13A, 19/19A, and 14/14A (located north of RMNP) have experienced declines over the last decade. Despite this regional decline, moose population numbers are currently healthy in RMNP. Research conducted in RMNP, assessing moose use of RoWs, indicated that moose may be attracted to disturbed landscapes and greater numbers of moose may exist near the RoW (Hill 2003). Additionally, linear developments, such as the RoW, offer succulent vegetation growth and may attract and act as a travel corridor for many types of wildlife and therefore may increase encounters between predator and prey such as bears, wolves, and ungulates (Hill, 2003; Wasser et al. 2011). These effects may be especially concerning during spring and summer during and following calving (Franzmann et al. 1980; Boutin 1992; Zager and Beecham 2006; Garneau et al. 2008). White-tailed deer are also known to use RoWs as travel corridors, which could increase the risk of disease transmission from deer to moose.

Aerial surveys were conducted within the park from 2008 - 2013 by Parks Canada for moose. Map 12 displays the results of the 2008 - 2013 Parks Canada surveys that recorded sightings of moose. The 70% volume-density kernels for moose indicate that the majority of the southern half of the LSA was a high use area for moose, except for areas near Shoal Lake and Jackfish Lake (Map 13). However, moose observations were high in much of the LSA (Map 13).

Field Survey Results There were many signs of the mammalian wildlife VCs observed during the 2013 pedestrian and Argo surveys along the RoW and 2014 winter aerial survey within the LSA. Wildlife activity included individual sightings, tracks and signs, scat, and antlers for various species including beaver, black bear, moose, deer, elk, wolves, and other furbearers (Table 8.6 and Table 8.7 for the June 2013 ground surveys and January 2014 aerial multispecies surveys, respectively). Additional information on the results of the mammal surveys conducted in June 2013 is provided in the Wildlife Technical Report in Appendix C.

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Map 12: Moose Observations from 2008-2013 within the LSA

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Map 13: Moose Observations from 2008-2013 and 70% core areas

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Table 8-6: Observations of Mammal Scat, Tracks and Signs within the LSA during June 2013 wildlife surveys

Observation Moon Lake Access Route Existing Southern Option ROW* Bear Activity 0 0 Bear Scat 4 5 Bear Sighting 1 1 Bear Track 0 3 Beaver Activity 2 4 Beaver Skull 0 0 Bedding 3 0 Browsing 0 8 Deer Scat 1 0 Deer Sighting 0 3 Deer Track 8 3 Elk Scat 10 0 Elk Sighting 1 0 Elk Track 0 1 Fox Carcass 0 1 Furbearer Scat 1 3 Furbearer Track 0 0 Furbearer or Small Mammal Den/Burrow 12 4 Moose Scat 42 13 Moose Shed 1 3 Moose Track 8 11 Porcupine Gnawing 0 0 Tree Scraping 0 1 Wolf Scat 0 3 Wolf Track 0 1

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Table 8-7: Observations of mammal sightings and tracks within the LSA during January 2014 winter aerial survey

Observation Sighting Track Deer 16 30 Elk 31 (1♂, 30Unk) 17 Fisher 0 11 Game trail 0 1 Lynx 0 8 Marten 0 22 Moose 95 (6♂, 7♀, 7C, 75Unk) 235 Otter 0 1 Pileated woodpecker 1 0 Wolf 1 38

Map 14 shows the locations of mammal observations and activities along the RoW recorded in June 2013, and Map 15 shows the locations of mammal observations and activities along the Southern Moon Lake trail option recorded in June 2013. Map 16 shows the locations of mammal observations and activities within the LSA recorded in January 2014.

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Map 14: Mammal Observations and Activities along the RoW during the 2013 summer pedestrian and Argo survey

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Map 15: Mammal Observations and Activities along the Moon Lake Access Trail Southern Option during the 2013 summer pedestrian and Argo survey

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Map 16: Mammal Observations and Activities within the LSA during the 2014 winter aerial survey

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

8.2.6.2 Birds

Bird species that may be present in the RSA include the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), barred owl (Strix varia), boreal chickadee (Poecile hudsonicus), broad-winged hawk (Buteo platypterus), Connecticut warbler (Oporornis agilis), great gray owl (Strix nebulosa), mountain bluebird (Sialia currucoides), northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus), olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus), ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), spruce grouse (Dendragapus canadensis), western wood pewee (Contopus sordidulus) and yellow warbler (Dendroica petechial), among others (Bezener and De Smet 2000; Peterson and Peterson 2002; Manitoba Avian Research Committee 2003; CPAWS, 2004). Based on a wetland habitat classification, the RSA is described as being moderately to severely limited in the production of waterfowl (CPAWS, 2004). Geese, ducks, other waterfowl and upland game birds may be seasonally hunted outside of the national park.

Bird species listed under the MESA, SARA, and COSEWIC that may occur in the RSA include: the Canada warbler - Threatened; common nighthawk - Threatened; golden-winged warbler - Threatened; olive-sided flycatcher - Threatened; red-headed woodpecker - Threatened; short-eared owl - Threatened; trumpeter swan - Endangered (MESA); whip-poor-will - Threatened; and yellow rail - Special Concern.

Using local current and historical trumpeter swan distribution data from Parks Canada, observations were mapped. Surveys for trumpeter swans were conducted from 2003 - 2013 within the RSA by Parks Canada. There were not enough observations to create volume-density kernels; however, the spatial data shows five sightings within the LSA during the 2013 survey (Map 17).

The LSA was surveyed from June 17-21, 2013 for the presence of bird species, with a focus on species of conservation concern. Bird surveys included a waterbird survey, nest searches, heron rookery searches, nocturnal owl surveys and songbird point count surveys within Manitoba Hydro's Environmental Sensitive Sites (most often large wetlands) and habitat transitional zones (transition zones between two or more habitat types such as wetland to upland).

A total of 13 point count surveys were conducted along the V38R/Line 81 transmission line RoW. The most common species heard were the alder flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), American robin (Turdus migratorius), ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) and white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis). The avian species heard and observed are common to RMNP.

There were several trees with nesting cavities observed within the LSA. Many of these nesting cavity trees were recorded along the existing RoW during both the Argo and pedestrian based surveys. Given the age and composition of the older mixed woods, the observations of tree cavity nesting were not surprising along the existing RoW. There were cavity trees with signs of pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) activity. There were no large stick nests, small bird nests or heron rookeries observed during the pedestrian or Argo based surveys.

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Map 17: Trumpeter Swan Observations from 2003-2013

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

There were several small creeks, low-lying wetlands, and beaver floods along the transmission line RoW. The most common waterfowl and waterbird species that were observed within the LSA were mallard ducks (Anas platyrhynchos), marsh wrens (Cistothorus palustris), Wilson's snipe (Gallinago delicata) and red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus).

More detailed information on the bird surveys from 2013 and a listing of all potential bird species and conservation listing for the LSA is provided in the Wildlife Technical Report in Appendix C.

The LSA was also surveyed during the winter aerial multispecies survey from January 20 - 22, 2014 for presence of bird species and stick nests, with a focus on larger stick nests located in the upper canopy. No stick nests were observed during the winter aerial multispecies survey. One pileated woodpecker was recorded during the winter aerial multispecies survey (Map 16).

Birds of Conservation Concern A suite of avian indicator species were selected as VCs for the Project. Species were selected based on their conservation status, as well as their cultural and ecological significance. As noted in Section 8.3, the species identified as VCs included bald eagles, Canada warbler, common nighthawk, golden-winged warbler, great blue herons, olive-sided flycatcher, osprey, short-eared owl, trumpeter swan, whip-poor-will, and yellow rail.

In Manitoba, the golden-winged warbler is listed as threatened under MESA, COSEWIC, and SARA and requires a rather unique habitat consisting of sparse trees and shrubs with an herbaceous understory of grasses and forbs in either upland or wetland settings (Golden- winged Warbler Working Group [GWWG] 2009). There currently exists suitable golden-wing warbler habitat within the LSA that could be affected by the Project activities. Along with the golden-winged warbler, species of conservation concern include: Canada warbler and olive- sided flycatcher, assessed during daytime surveys; and the yellow rail, common nighthawk, whip-poor-will and short-eared owl, assessed during nocturnal bird surveys. Other important avian VCs investigated include birds of cultural and ecological significance such as bald eagles, great blue herons, osprey and trumpeter swan.

VC bird species noted to be present in the LSA included visual observation of a blue heron along the RoW south of the Jackfish Creek trail option, and two observations of an osprey along the RoW to the west of the Jackfish Creek trail option during summer ground and Argo surveys. There were no songbird VC species observed along the RoW, and there were no species of conservation concern or Project VCs heard or seen during the point count surveys. Additional information on the results of the bird surveys conducted in 2013 is provided in the Wildlife Technical Report in Appendix C.

8.2.6.3 Amphibians and Reptiles

There are two species of turtle found in the RSA, the snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) and the western painted turtle (Chrysemys picta belli). Snapping turtles are classified as Schedule 1- Special Concern under COSEWIC and SARA. These species inhabit the shallow areas of many types of permanent water bodies with muddy bottoms (Conant and Collins 1991; Preston 1982).

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Four species of snakes are may be found in or near the RSA, the red-sided garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis), which has the northernmost distribution of any species of snake in North America, the western hognose snake (Heterodon nasicus), which is only located in the area just south of RMNP, the western plains garter snake (Thamnophis radix), and the red-bellied snake (Storeria occipitomaculata) (Preston, 1982; Cook, 1984).

In addition to the above, there are a number of species of frogs and toads that occur within the RSA including: boreal chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata maculata); Canadian toad (Bufo hemiophyrys); gray tree frog (Hyla versicolor); northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens); and wood frog (Rana sylvatica). The northern leopard frog is currently listed as Schedule 1- Special Concern under SARA. These species generally require shallow ponds for breeding and moist environments in shrubby and wooded areas for the rest of the year. The Gray Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma mavortium, formerly known as Ambystoma tigrinum, and also called the Barred Tiger Salamander) is also a potential inhabitant of the RSA (Manitoba Herps Atlas 2013).

A listing of known amphibians and reptiles and their conservation classification is presented in the Wildlife Technical Report for the June 2013 surveys in Appendix C.

There was one observation of a red-sided garter snake or western plains garter snake during the V38R/Line 81 RoW survey. However, there were no observations of snake dens within the LSA. The only amphibian species observed during all surveys within the LSA were wood frogs, which were observed visually and heard along the V38R/Line 81 RoW.

More detailed information on amphibian and reptile incidental observations are found in the Wildlife Technical Report for the June 2013 surveys in Appendix C.

8.2.7. Wetlands RMNP has a wide variety of wetland types and sizes that support a large diversity of vegetation and wildlife. These wetlands also function as groundwater recharge sites, flow-through systems, or groundwater discharge sites, depending on their position on the landscape, the location of the associated water table, the type of underlying substrate, and changes in climate (CPAWS 2004). Of the Park’s 2,969 square kilometers of surface area, 3% is covered by wetlands such as marshes, fens, bogs and wet meadows. The landscape of the region is largely the result of glaciation during the Wisconsin Ice Age, which created a rolling topography dotted with many small depressional wetlands. These areas provide valuable function in terms of habitat and water filtering. Several wetlands were observed in the PSA, both along the V38R/Line 81 RoW, and the Moon Lake Tower access trail. These wetland areas included a large black spruce/tamarack bog, along the east side of the RoW, approximately 3.5 km north of where the RoW intersects with the Moon Lake Tower access trail. The Moon Lake Tower access trail also bisects two wetlands that are both part of a large wetland complex that runs in a north-south direction, perpendicular to the trail. The wetlands are mostly treed peatlands with black spruce as the dominant species (Calyx Consulting 2010). The water table is high, but the understory plant species were consistent with areas of bog interspersed with poor and intermediate conifer swamps and poor fen vegetation. The areas surrounding the dominant cover of black spruce include a number of flooded sedge fens and meadows (Calyx Consulting 2010).

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Map 18 illustrates the locations of the watercourse, wetlands and beaver flood crossings along the RoW, and Map 19 illustrates the locations of the watercourse, wetlands and beaver flood crossings on the Moon Lake Access Trail Northern and Southern options and the existing Moon Lake trail.

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Map 18: Watercourse, Wetlands and Beaver Flood Crossings along the RoW

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Map 19: Watercourse, Wetlands and Beaver Flood Crossings on the Moon Lake Access Trail Northern and Southern Options and the Existing Moon Lake Trail

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

8.2.8. Water Quality

8.2.8.1 Groundwater

The bedrock unit containing fresh groundwater in the RSA is the Odanah Shale aquifer (Betcher 1997). This aquifer is formed by the hard, brittle and fractured siliceous shales of the Odanah Member of the upper Cretaceous Pierre Shale (Betcher 1997). This aquifer extends from the Manitoba Escarpment westward into Saskatchewan and northward into RMNP. The Odanah Shale aquifer forms an important source of groundwater in southwestern Manitoba, particularly in parts of the area where Quaternary sand and gravel aquifers are absent. The groundwater quality in the area of the Manitoba Escarpment varies, ranging from excellent in readily locally charged aquifers to brine in regional flow systems discharge areas (Government of Manitoba 1985).

In level areas near Clear Lake and wetlands, groundwater can be close to the surface, less than two metres in many areas (Parks Canada 2004). Groundwater in Wasagaming generally flows towards Clear Lake and the Ominnik Marsh (Parks Canada 2004). The assessment of contaminated sites has not shown any extensive contamination of groundwater resources in Wasagaming (Parks Canada 2004).

Within the PSA, there are several areas of lakes, rivers, creeks and wetlands. These areas may function as groundwater recharge sites, flow-through systems or groundwater discharge sites. As such, the protection of surface water and wetland areas from contamination due to the transport and/or release of sediments and/or other deleterious substances is needed to preserve groundwater resources and maintain groundwater quality.

8.2.8.2 Surface Water

The RSA includes a number of lakes, rivers, creeks, ponds and wetlands. Within the LSA, these waterbodies and watercourses are part of two watersheds: the Dauphin Lake watershed and the Little Saskatchewan River watershed. Watercourses that cross the RoW from north to south include several tributaries of Edwards Creek, Stony Creek, Robinson Creek, Kinnis Creek, Jackfish Creek, Shoal Lake Creek and an unnamed creek. Edwards Creek and its tributaries flow north and eventually drain to Dauphin Lake. Kinnis Creek, Stony Creek and Robinson Creek flow west and then north where they join with the Vermilion River and also eventually drain to Dauphin Lake. Jackfish Creek, Shoal Lake Creek and the unnamed creek meander south and west, eventually joining up with the Little Saskatchewan River. The divide between the two watersheds is located near and around the Moon Lake trail (National Hydro Network 2013).

Table 8.8 provides a summary of the surface water crossings encountered during the June 2013 field investigations along the RoW and Moon Lake access trail. The RoW includes about 40 creek or wetland crossings and riparian areas ranging from small and ephemeral to permanent in nature.

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Table 8-8: Summary of Water Crossings for the V38R/Line 81 Transmission Line RoW and the Existing Moon Lake Access Trail

Water Crossings Existing RoW Existing Moon Lake Access Trail

Beaver Floods 4 0 Creeks 7 0 Pond/Water Hole 1 0 Wetlands 28 9 Black Spruce Bog 0 1 Total Water Crossings 40 10 The largest creeks include a tributary of Edwards Creek at the north end of the RoW, and Jackfish and Shoal Lake creeks located a few kilometers north of the Lake Audy Road/RoW intersection (Map 18).

There were many low-lying wet areas along the existing RoW and the existing Moon Lake access route. There were seven medium to large-sized creeks that crossed along the existing transmission line RoW (Table 10.8, Map 18). In general, all flowing creeks crossed were between 0.2 m to 1 m deep, 0.6 m to 3 m wide, had sand to cobble substrates, and a riparian zone of grasses, sedges, and alder.

There were four major beaver floods encountered along the existing transmission line RoW (Table 8.8, Map 18). There were also several wet areas classified as ponds or water holes, wetlands, or black spruce bogs along the existing RoW; however, none were substantial in depth or width and were easy to traverse. Along the existing Moon Lake access trail, water in the form of wetlands and bogs was encountered on several occasions, but these areas were also easily crossed.

Given that the majority of the surface water areas in the PSA are remotely located and undisturbed by human activities, it is expected that water quality in these waters is of high quality and typical of boreal forest and aspen parkland waterways that do not receive significant inputs of nutrients, sediments, wastewater or other contaminants. Briscoe et al (1979) notes that Kooyman and Hutchinson (1979) sampled 28 streams in Riding Mountain National Park for total hardness, acidity and turbidity during the summer months. Total hardness was reported as a low of 100 mg/L in Muskrat Creek to a high of 340 mg/L in a tributary of Birdtail Creek and in the Vermilion River. Acidity was reported to range from a pH of 7.3 in Jackfish Creek to a pH of 8.7 in the Wilson River. Turbidity was reported as nil to slight during the summer. Water quality measurements were collected in Jackfish Creek on June 17th, 2013 as part of the access trail route selection activities (Appendix D). The following measurements were recorded: water temperature = 18.25°C; dissolved oxygen = 12.76 mg/l; pH = 7.25; conductivity = 266 μS/cm; turbidity = 2.76 NTU and the water colour was described as medium brown. The high oxygen content, low conductivity and low turbidity found within Jackfish Creek in 2013, and low turbidity reported in 1979, supports the expectation of high water quality in these PSA watercourses.

100

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Watercourse and/or wetland crossings and associated riparian areas are recognized by Parks Canada and Manitoba Hydro as environmentally sensitive and valuable sites. Maintaining stream channel structure and water quality are important to Parks Canada and Manitoba Hydro when considering stream crossings. The potential areas of concern to the aquatic environment include stream crossings, stream bank stability, water quality, aquatic resources, accidental spills and leaks and vegetation control techniques.

8.2.9. Fish and Fish Habitat Fish species known to be present in the waterbodies and watercourses of the RSA include blacknose shiner (Notropis heterolepis), brassy minnow (Hybognathus hankinsoni), brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans), cisco (Coregonus artedi), common shiner (Luxilus cornutus), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), finescale dace (Phoxinus neogaeus), fathead minnow (Pimphales promelas), Iowa darter (Etheostoma exile), Johnny darter (Etheostomi nigrum), longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), Northern pike (Esox lucius), pearl dace (Margariscus margatita), spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius), walleye (Sander vitreus), western blacknose dace (Rhinichthys obtusus), white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) and yellow perch (Perca flavescens), among others (Stewart and Watkinson 2004).

The construction of a bridge crossing at Jackfish Creek was one of the trail options investigated as part of the Project (Section 7). As such, this watercourse was the focus of the fish and fish habitat investigations in the PSA. A total of 37 fish species (Table 8.9) have been identified from the Jackfish Creek watershed, including three introduced species, brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) brown trout (Salmo trutta) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Northern pike, sauger, walleye and yellow perch are the sport fish species noted to inhabit the waters of Jackfish Lake, and it is expected that these species also utilize Jackfish Creek.

During the June 2013 field investigations, a total of seven fish species were collected from Jackfish Creek in the following order of abundance: Blacksided darter, Northern pike, Johnny darter, Iowa darter, white sucker, blacknose shiner, spottail shiner and western blacknose dace. Visual surveys conducted during the study also included multiple occurrences of small-bodied fish of the families Cyprinidae and Percidae.

The assessment included surveys in three separate reaches of the creek. For the purposes of the assessment, fish habitat identified within the three sampled reaches of Jackfish Creek was classified as simple, moderate or complex. Simple habitat was described as having one common substrate type, uniform flow, uniform water depth and moderate cover. Within Jackfish Creek, simple habitat was documented primarily in Reach 3, downstream of the proposed bridge crossing. Substrate within this section of the creek was dominated by silt with the occasional sand outcropping. Aquatic plant life was observed throughout most of the sampling reach. Water depth of the thalweg within Reach 3 averaged 1.04 m. Fish use of this habitat will most likely be as a migration corridor en-route and in search of more suitable spawning and nursery habitats upstream. The habitat described as moderate was similar in nature to the habitat described as simple in Reach 3 with a few alterations. Silt was still the most abundant substrate identified within this reach; however, patches of sand and gravel were also evident.

101

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Table 8-9: List of Fish Species in the Jackfish Creek Watershed

Family Common Names Scientific Names Origin Border of distribution Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus range White Sucker Catostomus commersonii Native Catostomidae Silver Redhorse Moxostoma anisurum Native Moxostoma Shorthead Redhorse Native macrolepidotum Border of distribution Cottidae Slimy Sculpin Cottus cognatus range Border of distribution Brassy Minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni range Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus Native Pearl Dace Margariscus margarita Native Border of distribution Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas range Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides Native Border of distribution Blackchin Shiner Notropis heterodon range Cyprinidae Blacknose Shiner Notropis heterolepis Native Spottail Shiner Notropis hudsonius Native Northern Redbelly Dace Phoxinus eos Native Finescale Dace Phoxinus neogaeus Native Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas Native Longnose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae Native Western Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys obtusus Native Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Native Esocidae Northern Pike Esox lucius Native Gadidae Burbot Lota lota Native Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans Native Gasterosteidae Ninespine Stickleback Pungitius pungitius Native Border of distribution Hiodontidae Goldeye Hiodon alosoides range Iowa Darter Etheostoma exile Native Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum Native Yellow Perch Perca flavescens Native Logperch Percina caprodes Native Percidae Blacksided Darter Percina maculata Native River Darter Percina shumardi Native Sauger Sander canadensis Native Walleye Sander vitreus Native

102

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Family Common Names Scientific Names Origin Percopsidae Troutperch Percopsis omiscomaycus Native Border of distribution Cisco Coregonus artedi range Border of distribution Lake Whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis Salmonidae range Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Introduced Brown Trout Salmo trutta Introduced Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis Introduced Border of distribution Sciaenidae Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens range Border of distribution Umbridae Central Mudminnow Umbra lima range Source: Stewart and Watkinson 2004.

The flow within this reach was also slightly more turbulent than in Reach 3, especially near the meanders in the upper sections of Reach 2. Banks were more undercut within this reach and vegetation was similar in abundance as in Reach 3. Complex habitat for this study was described as having a greater diversity of substrates, cover, and flow regimes.

Although average water depth (0.47 m) was less than identified in Reach 2 and 3, water velocities were greater with a greater diversity of flow. The substrate within Reach 1 was coarse and composed of sand, gravel, cobble and boulders. Woody debris and a diverse boundary layer as a result of the presence of cobble and boulders provided additional habitat for smaller bodied species and juveniles to find refuge (darters, perch and walleye). Dozens of darters were observed within Reach 1 behind the boulders and cobble found on the creek bottom. The habitat within this reach will also likely be used for spawning for many of the species found inhabiting Jackfish Creek.

The fish and fish habitat assessment included searches for freshwater mussels. In total, eight species have distribution ranges that extend to include the area surrounding Jackfish Creek (Morris and McNichols-O’Rourke 2012). These species include Black Sandshell (Ligumia recta), Creek Heelsplitter (Lasigona compressa), Creeper (Strophitus undulatus), Fatmucket (Lampsilis siliquoidea), Giant Floater (Pyganodon grandis), Plain Pocketbook (Lampsilis cardium), Threeridge (Amblema pilcata) and White Heelsplitter (Lasigona complanata). Freshwater mussels were found in relatively high numbers (approximately 100) in the upper sections of Reach 1. The most common mussel collected within the creek was the Creeper. There were no mussels collected in Jackfish Creek in Reach 2 or Reach 3. Mussels were only collected in the upper sections of Reach 1 where the substrates were primarily composed of sand and gravel, with clusters of cobble and boulders present.

There were no fish or mussel species listed under SARA, MESA or COSEWIC, or MBCDC species of conservation concern found in Jackfish Creek. Additional information on the Jackfish Creek fish and fish habitat assessment is found in the Aquatic Technical Report in Appendix D.

103

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

It is expected that other creeks within the LSA that have similar habitat and flow features to Jackfish Creek would also support a number of fish and freshwater mussel species. Smaller creeks with intermittent or ephemeral flows would likely only support small bodied species that are able to tolerate periods of low or no flow (e.g., brook stickleback), or these creeks may only provide habitat for aquatic species during spring and summer peak flow and runoff periods. Small-bodied fish tolerant of standing water conditions may also use wetland and pond areas when they are accessible (e.g., finescale dace).

As noted above, watercourse crossings and associated riparian areas are recognized by both Parks Canada and Manitoba Hydro as environmentally sensitive and valuable sites. Maintaining stream channel structure and water quality are important to Parks Canada and Manitoba Hydro when considering stream crossings. The potential areas of concern to the aquatic environment include stream crossings, stream bank stability, water quality, aquatic resources, accidental spills and leaks and vegetation control techniques.

8.2.10. Species at Risk The review of the SARA, MESA and COSEWIC listings and MCDBC species of conservation concern for the RSA and LSA identified the following:

• Of the 764 plant species found in RMNP, there were no plant species listed under MESA, SARA, or that have a special designation by COSEWIC (Government of Canada 2011; MCWS 2013a). • There were 89 plant species of conservation concern listed by MBCDC with a provincial status of S1, S2 or S3 that have the potential to occur in RMNP. A list of the S1, S2 and S3 species potentially found within the RSA is provided as Appendix B to the Vegetation Technical Report (Appendix B). • Mammal species listed under MESA, SARA, or that have a special designation by COSEWIC that have the potential to occur in RMNP included the bat species little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) and the mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Mule deer were historically found in the area, there are two or three known individuals in the Onanole area, but these individuals have not been seen in a few years (T. Sallows, pers.comm.). These mule deer individuals were suspected to be hybridizing with local white-tailed deer populations; therefore, there is no known viable population of this species in the area (T. Sallows, pers.comm.). • There were a total of 20 bird species listed under MESA, SARA, or that have a special designation by COSEWIC. A complete list of these species is provided in Appendix D of the Wildlife Technical Report (Appendix D). Seven of these species (Canada warbler, common nighthawk, golden-winged warbler, olive-sided flycatcher, short-eared owl, whip-poor-will, and yellow rail) were included as wildlife VCs for the Project. • Amphibian and reptile species listed under MESA, SARA, or that have a special designation by COSEWIC included common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina serpentine), Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) and plains western hognose snake (Heterodon nasicus).

104

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

• There were no fish and mussel species listed under MESA, SARA, or that have a special designation by COSEWIC identified for the RSA.

The identifying features, life cycle and habitat requirements of these species were reviewed by the study team prior to the field surveys to assess the likelihood of encountering these species within the LSA and provide the ability to detect these species and their habitats.

Complete lists of species of conservation concern can be found in the Vegetation Technical Report and Wildlife Technical Report in appendices B and C.

8.3. Socio-Economic Environment

8.3.1. Land Use The entire LSA and PSA are located within RMNP. The park is characterized as having very little anthropogenic development with large tracts of the landscape remaining contiguous and intact. Land use within the park is determined based on the establishment of Management Zones (Section 2.4). The entire transmission line RoW through the park is classified as a narrow band of Zone III – Natural Area that is located primarily within the much larger Zone II – Wilderness (Manitoba Hydro et al. 2008). The Zone III classification includes lands able to accommodate a broad range of opportunities for visitors to experience the park’s heritage values in ways that impact the ecological integrity of the park to the smallest extent possible (Manitoba Hydro et al. 2008).

8.3.1.1 Hunting, Trapping and Fishing

There is no hunting or trapping allowed in RMNP. RMNP is bordered by Game Hunting Area 23 to the north and Game Hunting Area 23A to the south, and is located in Game Bird Hunting Zones 3 and 4 (MCWS 2013c). The area surrounding RMNP is considered Open Trapping Area Zone 2A (MCWS 2012). No hunter harvest of big game or birds occurs within the park through licensed hunting; however, animals (elk, moose, white-tailed deer, bears, wolves, small mammals and birds) that cross the park boundary are subject to both licensed and rights-based hunting. Recreational fishing is permitted on lakes within the park with a valid national park fishing permit. The fishing season for Clear Lake and Lake Audy is May 15 to March 31, while all other lakes are open May 15 to September 30. Catch limits vary from one lake to another throughout the park, with specific regulations outlined in the Summary of Fishing Regulations brochure (Parks Canada 2010). Local First Nations fish in the lakes and streams of RMNP as part of subsistence rights-based activities in the park. Additional information on First Nations Traditional Land Use activities in RMNP is provided in Section 8.3.4 below.

8.3.1.2 Forestry

The LSA is located in Forest Management Unit (FMU) 15 and is bordered by FMUs 5 and 7 to the south and FMU 10 to the north. Forest Management License-3 is located to the north and is currently held by Louisiana-Pacific (Manitoba Conservation 2011). The park has a history of logging, which has been deemed the most significant impact on the park vegetation

105

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

communities (Briscoe et al. 1979). The first documented logging activities were completed by the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1880 and, despite logging activities continuing for another 100 years, the Riding Mountain area became a Forest Reserve in 1895 (Government of Manitoba 2000). The intent was to reduce pressure on timber resources by controlling timber harvest. This designation meant lumbering activities were restricted and permits were only given to small operators and local settlers until 1946 (Government of Manitoba 2000). Currently RMNP is owned by the Government of Canada and designated as part of Riding Mountain UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve. No harvesting of the forest is currently permitted (Parkland Agricultural Resource Co-op [PARC] 2013).

All forestry activity on Crown land must adhere to the Forest Act and Regulations. The province of Manitoba retains the timber rights on leased lands and Crown lands except where specific regulations and/or the Forest Act make an exception. For example, the Manitoba government has recently adopted the "no logging in Parks" position; therefore, the Forest Act has been amended for consistency.

8.3.1.3 Hydroelectric Transmission Development

As noted in Section 7, throughout RMNP, the V38R and Line 81 transmission lines share the same RoW for the majority of the length of the lines. Both transmission lines originate at the Dauphin-Vermillion Station, located at the City of Dauphin. The V38R 230 kV transmission line connects to the Raven Lake Station located at Shoal Lake southwest of Wasagaming. Line 81, a 115 kV transmission line currently operating at 66 kV, parallels the V38R line on the west side of the RoW through the park, a distance of approximately 36 km. At the south boundary of the park, Line 81 deviates onto a separate RoW and heads in a south-easterly direction before re-entering the park for a short distance at Crawford Park west of Clear Lake. Although the lines parallel each other for most of the way through the Park, the configuration of structures and RoW width specifications vary along the RoWs, with RoW widths ranging from 42.6 m to 50.3 m wide. There are smaller distribution lines present near Wasagaming and Clear Lake that supply power to the town and cottage/cabin developments.

8.3.1.4 MTS Tower

MTS operates and maintains a microwave tower that is located at the head of the Moon Lake trail off of PTH10. The infrastructure includes the tower and associated equipment and small buildings. The vegetation within the area of the tower has been cleared and is kept clear for access to the tower, equipment and buildings. The site is accessed from PTH10 via a dirt and gravel road.

8.3.1.5 Roads and Access

Roadways located within the LSA include PTH10 and the Lake Audy Road. PTH10 is a paved two-lane provincial highway, and the Lake Audy Road is a dirt and gravel road. Access to the RoW is achieved using one of four existing access points: access trail at the northern boundary

106

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

of RMNP; Moon Lake trail from PTH10; Lake Audy Road; or the access trail at the southern boundary of RMNP (Map 1).

8.3.2. Resource Use The PSA is within a Parks Canada Zone III – Natural Area, with a Zone V – Park Services area to the southeast and Zone II – Wilderness area to the north, east and west of the PSA. As such, there are no resource extraction activities that occur within the LSA. Resource use within the LSA is limited to fishing and the collection of edible and medicinal plants by local First Nation peoples; recreational fishing; and other recreational activities such as boating, camping, cycling, hiking and cross-country skiing. Public access to the RoW and Moon Lake trail is restricted and there are no recreational activities allowed in these areas, i.e., in the PSA.

8.3.3. Historic and Cultural Heritage The following information was obtained from Parks Canada (2013d):

“When the last glacier retreated northward from southern Manitoba about 10,000 years ago, early hunters and gatherers began moving into the area in search of game. Recent archaeological evidence suggests that Aboriginal peoples have inhabited the area of what is now the park for 6000 years, possibly longer. Today many sites exist within the park that represent habitation, fishing, hunting, tool and pottery making, and burial activities.

To the Aboriginal people, the forests, prairies, rivers and lakes of Riding Mountain provided an abundance of wildlife and plants used for hunting, fishing, foods and medicines. Two hundred years ago, the Cree were in possession of the highlands while their allies, the Assiniboines, also referred to as the Nakota, roamed the prairies in pursuit of the bison. The Nakota are known to have traveled widely and regularly between the Souris, upper Assiniboine, South Saskatchewan and Missouri rivers long before horses played a significant role in their travels. The Nakota shifted west and south due to their declining numbers caused by European diseases, shifting tribal boundaries, declining local bison herds and resources for trading, and a westward shifting of the fur trade establishments, particularly up the Missouri River.

The Ojibwa migrated from eastern regions to inhabit the Riding Mountain area, the previous home of the Nakota (Assiniboine) Nation. The Ojibwa, active suppliers to the fur trade, roamed the Riding Mountain area in pursuit of fur as well as maintaining a traditional lifestyle of hunting, fishing and gathering of foods and medicines.

The creation of Canada necessitated the signing of treaties between the Government of Canada and Aboriginal peoples in the 1870s. These treaties created the reserve system and today there are several First Nation communities around the Park. Additional information on First Nations in and around RMNP is provided in Section 10.3.4 below.

In 1896, a Fishing Reserve was established on the shores of Clear Lake for the Keeseekoowenin Objiwa First Nation at Elphinstone. This Indian reserve was wrongfully removed in 1930 by the Department of the Interior at the time of the establishment of the park. This land was returned to the Keeseekoowenin Objiwa First Nation in 1991 after a land claim by

107

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

the Band. Additional lands in this area, commonly referred to as the 1906 lands, are presently the focus of a land claim by the Keeseekoowenin Objiwa First Nation. Oral histories of various First Nations' elders have added to this archaeological and geographical knowledge. Understanding of the strong spiritual meaning that the mountain provided to Aboriginal people has grown. The sacredness of the mountain is linked to its abundant water.

Settlement by Europeans occurred in the region in the late 1800s. During the depression of the 1930s the park supported a large work camp. Many of the facilities that visitors still enjoy today were constructed at that time. Domestic timber harvest, haying and livestock grazing took place but no longer continue. Grey Owl, a well-known spokesman-advocate for conservation in Canada, lived in the area for a short time. His cabin has been restored for public viewing. In 1994, the East Gate entrance to the park was recognized by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.”

From 1971 to 1973, archaeological investigations were conducted within the park, with artefacts discovered in the area dating back to the 17th and 18th centuries. Any disturbance to park terrain should be done with care as pre-historic artefacts may be present (Briscoe et al. 1979). A study of potential archaeological resources in the vicinity of the V38R/Line 81 RoW and related access routes was conducted by Parks Canada’s Cultural Resource Services in 1999 in response to an application submitted by Manitoba Hydro for a patrol bridge installation over Jackfish Creek (Savauge 1999). The study area included the section of Jackfish Creek located on or adjacent to the RoW, as well as a 22 km length of the RoW. Sauvage (1999) noted the presence of two archaeological sites (assigned as Parks Canada archaeological site numbers 20K125 and 20K126) where isolated artefacts (a lithic fragment, ceramic potsherd and bone fragments) were found. Site 20K125 was located about 400 m north of the Lake Audy Road on the RoW, and site 20K126 was located on a ridge just north of the proposed Jackfish Creek bridge crossing (Sauvage 1999). Sauvage also documented the location and presence of a number of landscape features that have formed as a result of the borrow pits and heavy equipment trails used for the initial construction of the RoW. There were no other archaeological sites or findings noted at the time of the study; however, Sauvage cautioned that the areas around watercourses such as Jackfish Creek and areas being actively eroded such as the ravine at Edwards Creek may contain additional archaeological resources. Sauvage (1999) had also noted that Jackfish Creek may have been used as a transportation corridor. Marilyn Peckett, in her thesis titled “Anishnabe Homeland History: Traditional Land And Resource Use of Riding Mountain, Manitoba” (Peckett 1999) reported that “water was not routinely used as a medium of travel; most travel occurred on foot, horseback, wagons, and then cars. Travel routes, however, did often follow stream and river courses.”

The Manitoba Historic Resources Branch (MHRB) was contacted in July 2013 to request information on historic and cultural resources in the PSA and LSA. The information provided by MHRB (2013) is summarized below:

“There are three archaeological sites along the V38R/Line 81 transmission line RoW. Two of these sites contained isolated findings of lithic artefacts recovered from the back dirt of a rodent

108

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

burrow. All three sites are located within the RoW up to a distance of 200 m from the RoW. One of the sites located within the RoW is approximately 300 m from the Jackfish Creek access trail.

Furthermore, there is one site approximately 700 m away from the closest point of the northern Moon Lake access trail option. The site is located near the Kippens Mill site and contained a stone structure, cribbed well, and cribbed trench; however, the site is located on the east side of Highway 10 and is not in the LSA. There are two archaeological sites within 900 m of the southern Moon Lake access trail option. One of these sites contained a core tool, scrapers, blades, bifaces, and detritus (800 m from the closest point along the trail). Lastly, there was one archaeological site within 1 km of the existing Moon Lake access trail that was a similar distance from the southern Moon Lake access trail option. This site is indicated as being a campsite from the pre-contact era.”

Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada recognize the importance of historic, cultural and archaeological values and endeavour to protect them whenever and wherever they are encountered. The EnvPP for the Project will include the identification of any historic or cultural sites, and mitigation measures to prevent disturbance to these sites.

8.3.4. Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Land Use Activities The following information was obtained from Peckett, 1999:

“The Riding Mountain region has been occupied as a traditional land use area by different Aboriginal societies over time. The Ojibwa migrated into this area circa 1830 (Four Nations Confederacy 1981 In Peckett 1999). In the present, four First Nation communities are located adjacent to or within RMNP on Indian Reserve (IR) lands: Keeseekoowenin (IR 61, 61a and 61b); Waywayseecappo (IR 62, and 62a); Tootinaowaziibeeng (IR 63, and 63a); and Rolling River (IR 67).

From historical records, Assiniboine, Cree and Ojibwa societies occupied the Riding Mountain area as a land use territory at different periods over time. The first were the Assiniboine, who were the most fully acculturated to the plains, followed by the Cree from the western boreal area. For a time, these two groups jointly inhabited this region (Ray 1971, Peers 1987 and Pettipas 1994 In Peckett 1999). During the period from 1763 to 1821, the Assiniboine and Cree abandoned the Red River Valley, the lower Assiniboine River, and the Manitoba Interlake regions (Ray 1971). Peers (1987), states that the Ojibwa began moving westward from the western end of Lake Superior and surrounding regions during the third quarter of the eighteenth century. Motivations for the migration are cited as over-hunting, epidemics, and the draw of westward-moving fur trade opportunities. The region left by the Assiniboine and the Cree was taken up by the Ojibwa (Ray 1971; Peers 1987) who, by 1860, were established as the dominant society of the Riding Mountain region.

In 1871, Treaty #2 was signed near Grand Rapids. Keeseekoowenin First Nation is represented among the signatures and Indian Reserve (IR) lands were provided near Elphinstone. In 1874, Treaty #4 was signed at Fort Ellice. Waywayseecappo, Rolling River, Gamblers and Tootinaowaziibeeng First Nations are included within this treaty. Originally all four Bands were

109

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

placed at the Lizard Point (Waywayseecappo Reserve). Over time, however, independent IR lands were established for the other First Nations near Erickson, Rossburn, and Grandview respectively.”

In her thesis, Peckett provides a description and history of the First Nations’ connection to RMNP as their homeland and a place of sustenance for both physical and spiritual needs. From the oral histories of the Riding Mountain Anishnabe, the word used by the people to describe the Riding Mountain landscape is Wagiiwing. Wagiiwing is a place that holds everything that the Anishnabe people need to survive and during times of strife it is relied upon as a sanctuary for the people.

The lands in and around RMNP have been used over time by First Nations for hunting, trapping, fishing, the gathering of foods and medical plants, and cultural purposes such as burial grounds. The gathering of Seneca root was a long-standing tradition of the First Nations people that became a viable industry for First Nations and local settlers for several years (Peckett 1999). These Traditional Land Use (TLU) activities were conducted freely in RMNP until the area was designated as a National Park in 1930. After that time, some of these activities continued, but were done on a more surreptitious basis to avoid conflict with the Park Wardens and/or the “Indian Agents” (Peckett 1999).

In present times, Parks Canada and the Coalition are working together to provide opportunities for TLU activities within the park. These include activities of spiritual significance and opportunities for limited harvests of traditional medicinal and ceremonial plants. The Keeseekoowenin Sharing Lodge is operated by Anishinaabe Agowidiiwinan (Treaty # 2) and Keeseekoowenin Ojibwa First Nation. The mission of the Keeseekoowenin Sharing Lodge (2013) is to:

“Share our tradition, values and embrace the challenge in a way that we can be full participants within the Riding Mountain area, while still preserving our traditions and culture. The Anishinaabe Sharing Lodge continues to be an important part of the rich history of the Riding Mountain Band and original people of the land and Clear Lake.”

During a March 11, 2014 meeting with Manitoba Hydro, the people of the Coalition shared their knowledge of the places, plants and animals that are special to the people, from historic times to today. This information will be kept sacred and will only be used to prevent environmental effects on these special places, plants and animals. The people expressed concerns about potential harm to these special places, plants and animals from noise disturbance, the use of herbicides and/or other chemicals, and the effects of clearing in the RoW and the works on the Moon Lake trail. Manitoba Hydro will ensure that the EnvPP developed for the Project includes mitigation measures to address the people’s concerns and prevent potential effects on the places, plants and animals of importance to the people. Mitigation measures will include: no use of herbicides for vegetation management; identifying any important areas as Sensitive Sites, avoiding these sites and applying buffer zones to these areas; conducting all clearing and construction activities in the winter; and the inclusion of spill prevention and emergency clean- up materials and procedures in the EnvPP.

110

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Discussions among the Coalition, Parks Canada and Manitoba Hydro are ongoing with the goal of finding mutually agreeable ways to uphold the needs of the Coalition for continued Traditional uses of the park and its resources, maintain the mandate of Parks Canada to protect and preserve the natural and cultural resources of RMNP, and meet Manitoba Hydro’s operational, regulatory and safety standards. The Project activities will be carried out in a manner that respects, protects and preserves the exceptional ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experiences offered by RMNP, in keeping with Parks Canada’s goal of preserving and maintaining the ecological and cultural resources and visitor experiences in RMNP.

8.3.5. Local Economy and Visitor Experiences RMNP is largely a tourist destination, with Wasagaming (the main town site) located in the southern portion of the park. Most visitors use one of three main entrances: two are located at the north (Moon Lake) and south (Wasagaming) entry points on PTH10, with the third entrance located on the east side of the park on PTH 19 (Whirlpool). There are 23 access points to the park, many of which lead to backcountry trails (Parks Canada 2012). As of 2006 the workforce of RMNP consisted of 160 employees. The annual park budget was approximately $10 million and generates annual economic impacts of more than $50 million annually, with the annual budget for Wasagaming being $1.3 million (Parks Canada 2006).

Wasagaming is located along the south shore of Clear Lake along PTH10, and is the closest community to the LSA. There are two main cottage and cabin developments, with 254 residential cottages and 525 seasonal cabins, as well as 510 camping sites that welcome roughly 40,000 visitors a year. A large campground exists within Wasagaming that is visited most often between spring and fall each year (Parks Canada 2000). There are approximately 46 businesses in the commercial area, with three concessions and five not-for-profit organizations. Approximately 125 business licences are issued for those businesses operating in the community although many of these are based outside the park (Parks Canada 2007a). The RMNP Master Plan does not permit expansion of Wasagaming into the surrounding areas, but allows for minor improvements and redevelopment (Parks Canada 2007). The economic base for this town is the seasonal influx of people including accommodations, shops (gifts, clothing, jewellry, groceries, general merchandise, etc.), and restaurants (Parks Canada 2006). A list of businesses can be found on the Wasagaming Chamber of Commerce (2012) website.

The park offers a wide variety of outdoor activities for summer and winter seasons including backpacking, camping, canoeing, cross-country skiing, cycling, fishing, golfing, hiking, kayaking, scuba diving, snowmobiling and wildlife viewing. The park has approximately 400 km of trails, five road accessible campgrounds, 19 backcountry campsites, three group camping sites, and 16 picnic areas (Parks Canada and Friends of Riding Mountain National Park [FRMNP] 2008). Motorized boats are permitted on three lakes: Lake Audy, Clear Lake, and Moon Lake; while non-motorized boats are permitted on Lake Katherine and Whirlpool Lake, as well as all backcountry lakes. Snowmobiling is limited to the surface of Clear Lake to access ice-fishing shacks and groomed trails along the park boundary, which are maintained by Snoman (Parks Canada 2012).

111

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

The PSA is located outside of all publicly accessible recreational areas and is not used for recreation or resource use by park visitors. The RoW is visible to park visitors from the Lake Audy Road at the intersection with the RoW, but is otherwise inaccessible for use or view by the public.

9. PARKS CANADA CONSULTATION Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada have been in discussion for several years in regards to the issues surrounding the operation and maintenance of the V38R/Line 81 transmission lines and RoW, including the need to widen the existing RoW and the need for improved access to the centre of the RoW. Parks Canada has provided valuable information on their concerns regarding the potential Project effects on the ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experiences within RMNP, as well as ideas to prevent or reduce any potential adverse effects on the ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experiences within RMNP (McKillop 2014, pers.comm.). Table 9.1 provides a summary of the concerns and ideas identified by Parks Canada and a description of how these concerns and ideas are being addressed by Manitoba Hydro.

Table 9-1: Summary of the Concerns and Ideas Identified by Parks Canada and Manitoba Hydro Actions and Response

Parks Canada Concerns and Ideas Manitoba Hydro Actions and Response Softening the edges of the RoW, i.e., employing This issue has been addressed by the more of a U-shaped cross-section instead of the implementation of an Integrated Vegetation traditional "square notch" Management Plan that incorporates the Wire Zone- Border Zone concept of RoW management (Bramble et al. 1985, 1986) (as outlined in Section 4 and shown in Figure 4.1), the mitigation measures outlined in the EIA and the vegetation management approaches outlined in the draft Vegetation Management Plan (Appendix E). Identifying areas (through field surveys and Field surveys and vegetation analysis were vegetation analysis) that might be useful as wildlife conducted as part of the EIA and development of a crossings and managing vegetation differently in draft Vegetation Management Plan (Appendix E). A those areas to allow more cover to ease the number of areas were identified where vegetation crossing for wildlife will be managed as “no treatment” zones, i.e., not subjected to manual or mechanical clearing, to allow for increased growth and density in these areas, which will provide additional areas as wildlife crossings. Special treatment around riparian areas and All riparian areas and wetlands are designated as wetlands “no treatment” zones in the draft Vegetation Management Plan (Appendix E). These areas will also be marked as Sensitive Sites in the Project EnvPP to further reduce the potential for

112

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Parks Canada Concerns and Ideas Manitoba Hydro Actions and Response disturbance of these areas by the Project activities. No use of herbicides unless for management of The use of herbicides for vegetation management non-native invasive plant species that threaten in the RoW and access trail has been removed ecological integrity from Manitoba Hydro’s O&M procedures for RMNP. Finding the alternate access routes with the lowest Manitoba Hydro has determined that the possible impact and/or footprint redevelopment of sections of the existing Moon Lake trail is the most environmentally sound solution to improve access to the RoW; there will be no additional trail development in RMNP. Exploring vegetation and maintenance practices These issues have been addressed by the that have lowest possible impact, looking at implementation of an Integrated Vegetation reducing reliance on heavy equipment, perhaps Management Plan that incorporates the Wire Zone- more use of small power tools to manage aspen Border Zone concept, the mitigation measures regeneration, etc. outlined in the EIA and the vegetation management approaches outlined in the draft Vegetation Management Plan (Appendix E). Finding ways to reduce the number of trips up and The number of trips required on the RoW is down the RoW with heavy equipment dependent on the required O&M activities. Manitoba Hydro will endeavour to minimize the use of heavy equipment on the RoW as much as possible by planning the works to take place only in winter and combining O&M activities where feasible to reduce the number of trips. Manitoba Hydro will continue to work with Parks Canada to find ways to reduce the need for heavy equipment use in the RoW. Involving First Nations in terms of traditional Manitoba Hydro has met with the Coalition to knowledge, job opportunities etc., recognizing that identify and address the concerns of First Nations the park is part of traditional territory in regards to potential Project effects in RMNP. The people of the Coalition shared their knowledge on Traditional activities in RMNP, and this information has been incorporated into the EIA. Manitoba Hydro will continue to meet with the Coalition to include First Nations interests and to further discuss job opportunities for the Project. Using prescribed fire to maintain vegetation in This issue was examined by Manitoba Hydro and some sections of the RoW the Study Team, but there were no areas along the V38R/Line 81 RoW identified where prescribed burning was considered to be a viable vegetation management option. This conclusion is based on the potential for flashovers to occur, runaway fires spreading into the adjacent forested lands, damage to the suspended lines and wooden poles from the heat generated by the fire, waiting for the proper

113

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Parks Canada Concerns and Ideas Manitoba Hydro Actions and Response weather conditions (wind, temperature, moisture, etc.) and the inherent danger to personnel working under the lines due to a general lack of expertise to do the job. Mitigation such as the construction of fire breaks to prevent runaway fires and fire retardant paint to protect the transmission structure from flame damage can be costly procedures. In addition, the unpredictability of fire intensity and flame height would be a consideration for safe work procedures under the transmission line (Section 4, Appendix E).

10. ABORIGINAL ENGAGEMENT1 The Riding Mountain region has been occupied as a traditional land use area by different Aboriginal societies over time (Peckett 1999). Many First Nations peoples have a connection to RMNP as their homeland and as a place of sustenance for both physical and spiritual needs (Peckett 1999). To ensure that First Nations interests, values, knowledge and cultural practices in RMNP are recognized, maintained and included as part of the Environmental Impact Analysis for the Project, Manitoba Hydro engaged in communications with the Coalition of First Nations with Interest in Riding Mountain National Park (the Coalition). It is understood that the Coalition includes the following First Nations who consider the National Park to be part of their traditional territory: Ebb and Flow, Gamblers, Keeseekoowenin, Rolling River, Sandy Bay, Waywayseecappo and Tootinawaziibeeng (to be confirmed by Coalition).

Communications with the Coalition included an Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge (ATK) workshop that was conducted by Manitoba Hydro on the afternoon of March 11, 2014 and morning of March 12, 2014 at the Elkhorn Resort in RMNP. In addition to the workshop, four meetings were held with the Coalition between 2013 and 2014 to provide opportunities for engagement and discussion.

A summary of the information, methods, results and discussion of what was shared through stories, mapping and semi-directed questions over the two days is presented in Appendix F.

11. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

11.1. Overview The Project was defined as the works associated with the widening of the RoW, redevelopment of the Moon Lake access trail, Manitoba Hydro’s ongoing O&M activities and further

1 Please note that the information provided in this section and in Appendix F is in a draft format and needs to be verified by the Coalition.

114

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

development of an IVMP. Information included in the assessment draws from past screening documents, meetings and suggestions provided by Parks Canada. The Project works will be carried out using the activities and equipment described in Section 4. The widening of the east side of the RoW will result in a change to about 26.52 hectares (ha) of forested area (7.8 m width by 34 km length); the re-growth of the west side of the RoW will result in a change to about 17.68 ha of forested area (5.2 m width by 34 km length); the improvement of the Moon Lake trail will result in a change to a total length of about 1,411 m of the existing trail; and further development of the long-term IVMP will result in an overall reduction in the frequency of O&M activities and the disturbance to the forested areas and wetland areas on the RoW and Moon Lake trail. The following sections describe the potential effects of the Project activities on the VCs, biological environment, ecological resources, socio-economic environment and cultural resources in the PSA. The measures that will be employed to mitigate the potential effects are discussed in each section and/or provided in Section 13.

11.2. Biophysical Environment

11.2.1. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases As noted in Section 4, the RoW clearing activities, Moon Lake trail construction activities and ongoing O&M activities in these areas will all require the use of a variety of vehicles and equipment in the PSA, occurring through the winter months (November to March). The RoW clearing activities will result in accumulations of slash and debris. The increase in vehicle and equipment use and travel in the PSA will cause a temporary increase in vehicle and equipment emissions in the PSA. The measures proposed to mitigate these potential effects are outlined in Section 13 and include enforcing compliance with vehicle emission standards and minimizing vehicle idling time and salvaging timber to reduce amounts requiring burning and managing burn durations. With the use of appropriate mitigation measures, it is expected that the potential effects of the Project activities on air quality and GHGs will be minimal (Table 13.1).

The long-term IVMP includes measures to reduce the frequency of some ongoing O&M activities (e.g., mechanical brushing), which would result in less vehicle and equipment use and travel on the RoW and Moon Lake trail, and consequently a reduction in GHG emissions in the PSA from these activities over existing levels.

11.2.2. Climate Climate can be defined as the generally prevailing weather conditions of a region throughout the year, and is typically described by variables such as air pressure, cloud cover, humidity, precipitation, hours of sunshine, temperature, wind speed and wind direction.

The RoW clearing, Moon Lake Trail construction, and O&M activities will each be of short-term duration and are not expected to affect air pressure, cloud cover, humidity, precipitation, hours of sunshine, temperature, wind speed or wind direction in the PSA, LSA or RSA. As such, there are no significant effects to climate expected due to these activities.

115

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

In recognition of potential climate change implications on the ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experiences in RMNP, Parks Canada has included several measures in the RMNP EMS to reduce GHG emissions in the Park. Manitoba Hydro will support these efforts by minimizing the use of motorized vehicles in the Park wherever possible, using vehicles and equipment that are well-maintained and meet current emissions standards, and not leaving vehicles or equipment running when not in use.

One of the expected outcomes of the implementation of the IVMP is a reduction in the frequency of some O&M activities. This reduction in O&M activities is expected to result in a reduction in vehicle emissions, which is expected to lead to a reduction in the release of GHG and other compounds that affect air quality and may have climate change implications in the Park.

11.2.3. Noise As noted in Section 4, the RoW clearing, Moon Lake trail construction, and O&M activities will require the use of a variety of vehicles and equipment in the PSA during activities occurring through the winter months (November to March) during daylight hours. Based on evaluation of the linkages between the Project activities and the environmental receptor of noise, during the clearing activities, there will be a temporary increase in noise in areas of the PSA during the winter season due to temporary vehicle and equipment usage. The measures proposed to mitigate these potential effects are outlined in Section 13, and include the timing of these activities, which should reduce potential disturbance effects to fish and wildlife, and all equipment will be fitted with appropriate mufflers and be well maintained. With the use of appropriate mitigation measures, it is expected that the potential effects of the Project activities on noise will be minimal (Table 13.1).

11.2.4. Terrain and Soils As noted in Section 4, the RoW clearing, Moon Lake trail construction, and O&M activities will require the use of a variety of vehicles and equipment in the PSA during the clearing activities occurring through the winter months (November to March) during daylight hours. The RoW clearing activities will also create slash and debris during the clearing activities. Based on evaluation of the linkages between the Project activities and the environmental receptor of terrain and soils, the potential effects on terrain and soils due to the RoW clearing activities that will occur during the winter season include:

• There will be a temporary disturbance of terrain and surface soils due to vehicle and equipment travel and RoW clearing activities within the RoW. • There is the potential for rutting to occur on the existing trails within the RoW due to vehicle and equipment travel. • There is the potential for scorching of surface soils from the burning of woody debris within the RoW. • There is the potential for accidents and/or spills to occur that could release and/or transport deleterious substances such as fuel or oil to the surface soils.

116

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

• There is the potential for increased erosion at the Edwards Creek ravine, which could result in the potential release and/or transport of eroded sediments to Edwards Creek.

The measures proposed to mitigate these potential effects are outlined in Section 13, and include measures such as working in winter during frozen ground conditions, marking and minimizing work areas, reclaiming soils and terrain where possible, placing slash/debris in portable sloops for burning, requiring work crews to be fully trained in spill prevention/clean up measures, and developing an erosion and sediment control plan for work near Edwards Creek. With the use of appropriate mitigation measures, it is expected that the potential effects of the Project activities on terrain and soils will be minimal (Table 13.1).

11.2.5. Vegetation

11.2.5.1 General

As noted in Section 4, the RoW clearing, Moon Lake trail construction, and O&M activities will require the use of a variety of vehicles and equipment in the PSA during the clearing activities. The RoW clearing activities will include the removal of danger trees, hazard trees and tall vegetation in about 26.52 ha of forested area on the east side of the existing RoW. Danger and hazard trees are trees that are high enough or long enough to breach conductor clearance specifications if they fall in the direction of the conductor. Hazard trees are trees with a defect that make them more likely to fall. These trees must be removed in accordance with Manitoba Hydro standards to maintain system reliability and safety. The RoW clearing activities will also create slash and debris during the clearing activities. Based on evaluation of the linkages between the Project activities and the environmental receptor of vegetation, the potential effects on vegetation due to the RoW clearing activities that will occur during the winter season include:

• The removal of danger and hazard trees and tall vegetation (i.e., vegetation with a height that exceeds the desired heights for the Wire Zone-Border Zone concept, as shown in Figure 4.1) is about 26.52 hectares (ha) of forested area on the east side of the existing RoW. Clearing will be focused on the removal of danger and hazard trees and other tall vegetation that does not meet Manitoba Hydro’s requirements. Low shrubs, grasses and forbs will be retained wherever possible to meet the objectives of the Wire Zone-Border Zone concept and long-term IVMP. These activities will result in the permanent removal of trees or other tall vegetation that exceed the desired heights for the Wire Zone-Border Zone concept on the east side of the existing RoW that will be cleared. All other vegetation that does not exceed the desired heights for the Wire Zone-Border Zone concept may be temporarily disturbed during the clearing activities, but will not be permanently removed or altered. Figures 4-2, 4-3 and 4-4 provide three drawings that show the clearing requirements for the different sections of the RoW. Drawing 4-2 illustrates the clearing requirements for the transmission line pole structures numbered 59 to 113; Drawing 4-3 illustrates the clearing requirements for the transmission line pole structures numbered 113 to 142; and Drawing 4- 4 illustrates the clearing requirements for the transmission line pole structures numbered

117

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

142 to 277. The drawings incorporate the clearances and distances among the transmission line structures, the ground, and the vegetation that are required under NERC for safe and reliable operation of the transmission lines. These clearances and distances are based on control method, cycle length, terrain, vegetation growth rates, wind velocities, ambient temperature and conductor and/or line sag during maximum summer loading.

These clearance requirements are identified under R1.2 of the NERC vegetation standard FAC-003-1 that can be found online at http://www.nerc.com/files/fac-003-1.pdf.

The drawings also provide the following information: o the minimum clearance distance from the conductor to the ground (shown as “MIN.GND.CLR” on the drawings); this distance is 5.5m for Line 81 and 6.1m for Line V38R; o the clearance distances required to prevent flashover from vegetation to the conductor (shown as “POWER FREQ. CLR” on the drawings); this distance is 0.52m for Line 81 and 0.75m for Line V38R; o the maximum allowable height for vegetation in the Wire Zone, which is 4.2m (shown as “MAX.VEG.CLR” on the drawings); o the maximum allowable height for vegetation in the Border Zone, which varies by distance from the centerline of the RoW and the structure as shown in the drawings; for Line 81, it varies from a maximum vegetation height of 7m at 10m from the centerline, to a maximum vegetation height of 24m at 28m from the centerline; for Line V38R, it varies from a maximum vegetation height of 11m at 15m from the centerline, to a maximum vegetation height of 24m at 28m from the centerline; and o the height of vegetation considered to be a danger tree outside of the RoW, which varies by distance from the centerline of the RoW and the structure as shown in the drawings; danger trees would include any trees that do not meet the required clearance distances in the Border Zone. o The types of vegetation that will be allowed to grow within the Wire Zone include wetland plants, grasses, forbs and low shrubs (willow, hazel) to a maximum height of 4.2m. Additional information on the types of vegetation located in the RoW is provided in Section 8 of this report and Appendix B (veg tech report). The draft Vegetation Management Plan provided as Appendix E includes the classification and delineation of the vegetation types in and along the RoW, as well as recommendations on the vegetation management techniques to be applied to each vegetation type (i.e., mechanical mowing, selective manual cutting, or no treatment in areas where tall shrubs or trees are absent). • The removal of danger and hazard trees and/or other tall vegetation (i.e., vegetation with a height that exceeds the desired heights for the Wire Zone-Border Zone concept, as shown in Figure 4.1) that does not meet Manitoba Hydro’s requirements in about 17.68 ha of forested area on the west side of the RoW.

118

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

• The use of short-term vegetation management techniques in the above-noted section of the east side of the RoW for a period of approximately 12 years, which includes the activities outlined in Section 4.3.7 and 4.3.8. • The re-growth of about 17.68 ha of forested area on the west side of the RoW, which is expected to result in an increase in the height and density of the vegetation in this section of the RoW. • The implementation of long-term vegetation management techniques in the above-noted section of the east side of the RoW and Moon Lake trail after the period of short-term vegetation management, which includes the activities outlined in Section 4.3.8. • It is expected that there will be a reduced risk for flashover fires with removal of the danger and hazard trees and tall vegetation. • Wildfires may occur from the improper storage, use or handling of gasoline, oil and electronically operated equipment. Gasoline, oil and electronically operated equipment will be used in the PSA during the RoW clearing activities. As such, there is an increased potential for wildfires due to the use of gasoline, oil and electronically operated equipment in the PSA during clearing activities. • There is the potential for wind throw effects to occur on the east side of the RoW if the removal of the danger and hazard trees and tall vegetation exposes adjacent trees that are susceptible to the prevailing winds. Susceptibility to wind throw is assessed based on tree species, soil type and topography (McBride and Leffingwell 2006). Tree species vary in their susceptibility to wind throw based on the shear strength of their wood, their root structure, and their canopy structure. Trees with a large, wide, top-heavy canopy and shallow roots are more susceptible versus trees that are narrower with branches and vegetative weight distributed through the height of the tree, and have a well developed root system. Trees located in shallow soils that are subject to saturation or in sandy soils have less ability to withstand strong winds. Trees located in areas of high winds (e.g., hill tops, ridges) are also more susceptible to wind throw. The RoW vegetation includes a mix of deciduous and coniferous trees of varying heights, widths and canopy structure. The soils in the PSA consist mainly of gray luvisols that are composed of silt, sand and clay that have developed over areas of glacial till (Map 04; Section 8.2.4). The landscape in the RoW varies from steep ravines to rolling hummocks to flat areas of grasses, meadows and watercourses. In and around the LSA, the slope of the landscape ranges from 0 - 30%, with a majority of the land slope ranging from 16 - 30% (Section 8.2.4). Soils in till areas will be well to moderately well-drained, and soils in the flatter areas or areas with organic matter are likely wet for part of the year (The Canadian System of Soil Classification 1998). As such, it is expected that trees adjacent to the RoW that are located in areas of saturated soils that inhibit deep root development, or located on very sandy loose textured soils, that are situated on hills or exposed areas and have a top-heavy canopy, may be susceptible to wind throw effects. • There is the potential for the introduction and/or spread of invasive plant species if the seeds or plants of invasive species are transported to the RoW by crew and/or equipment.

119

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

• There is the potential for the introduction and/or spread of invasive plant species if the clearing activities result in any exposed soil areas and/or removal of the non-invasive species. • There is the potential for changes to species composition and/or species diversity if the clearing activities result in the removal or destruction of significant amounts of the existing plant species, i.e., removal of a high number of individual plants of one species that do not easily recolonize or propagate, or removal of an entire population of the species. • There is the potential for contamination or destruction of vegetation from accidents and/or spills of fuel, oil or other substances deleterious to plant life. • The people of the Coalition shared that there are four locations along the existing RoW where medicinal and/or edible plants are gathered. As such, there is the potential for the contamination, destruction or removal of plants of importance to First Nations in the RoW. These four areas will be marked as Sensitive Sites in the EnvPP for the Project to prevent any disturbance or effects to the vegetation in these areas. The areas will be marked to prevent disturbance, but the use and significance of these areas will be kept confidential. There were no areas along or within the vicinity of the Moon Lake trail that were identified by the people of the Coalition as areas where medicinal and/or edible plants are gathered. • The re-growth of vegetation on the west side of the RoW will allow for the development of taller trees and shrubs that were previously removed and/or disturbed during RoW O&M activities, and also result in an increase in areas of undisturbed vegetation that were previously disturbed during RoW O&M activities. This re-growth will result in the alteration of the existing habitat over time. This alteration is considered to be a positive effect of the Project, as it will create additional areas of taller and denser undisturbed native vegetation. The measures proposed to mitigate these potential effects are outlined in Section 13 and in the Environmental Protection Plan developed for the Project, and will include measures such as clearly marking and minimizing the amount of vegetation removed, marking any sensitive sites, stabilizing and revegetating exposed soils as soon as feasible, limiting vehicle access to the RoW as much as possible, carefully managing controlled burns and having firefighting equipment part of each work crew, training crews in spill prevention/clean up, and storing and disposing of waste and hazardous materials following pertinent legislation. With the use of appropriate mitigation measures, it is expected that the potential effects of the Project activities on vegetation will be minimal to low (Table 13.1).

11.2.5.2 Plant Species of Conservation Concern

Based on the desktop review of available information and reports, the field studies conducted in 2013 and additional studies conducted in the LSA in 2010 and 2012, there were no plant species of conservation concern found to be present within the LSA or PSA. As such, there were no potential effects identified to plant species of conservation concern in the PSA. In the event that plant species of conservation concern are found during the clearing or construction activities, work will be halted, the area around the plants will be marked as a Sensitive Site and the plants will be protected from disturbance.

120

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

11.2.5.3 Plant Species of Importance to First Nations

As noted above, the people of the Coalition shared that there are four locations along the existing RoW where medicinal and/or edible plants are gathered. As such, there is the potential for the contamination, destruction or removal of plants of importance to First Nations in the RoW. These four areas will be marked as Sensitive Sites in the EnvPP for the Project to prevent any disturbance or effects to the vegetation in these areas. The areas will be marked to prevent disturbance, but the uses and significance of these areas will be kept confidential. There were no areas along or within the vicinity of the Moon Lake trail that were identified by the people of the Coalition as areas where medicinal and/or edible plants are gathered. Therefore, there were no potential effects identified for plant species of importance to First Nations on the Moon Lake trail or Moon Lake trail RoW. Based on evaluation of the linkages between the Project activities and the environmental receptor of plant species of importance to First Nations, other potential effects on plant species of importance to First Nations due to the Project activities include: • An increased potential for wildfires due to the use of gasoline, oil and electronically operated equipment in the PSA during the RoW clearing, Moon Lake trail redevelopment and/or Project O&M activities. • Introduction and/or spread of invasive plant species if the seeds or plants of invasive species are transported to the RoW by crew and/or equipment. • Contamination or destruction of vegetation from accidents and/or spills of fuel, oil or other substances deleterious to plant life. The measures proposed to mitigate these potential effects are outlined in Section 13, and include those summarized for the RoW clearing effects, such as marking and protecting sites of concern. With the use of appropriate mitigation measures, it is expected that the potential effects of the Project activities on plant species of importance to First Nations will be minimal to low (Table 13.1).

11.2.6. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

11.2.6.1 General

As noted in Section 4, the RoW clearing, Moon Lake trail construction, and O&M activities will require the use of a variety of vehicles and equipment in the PSA during the clearing activities. The RoW clearing activities will include the removal of danger trees, hazard trees and tall vegetation in about 26.52 ha of forested area on the east side of the existing RoW. The RoW clearing activities will also create slash and debris during the clearing activities. These activities will result in a temporary change and/or disturbance in air emissions, noise and wildlife habitat. Based on evaluation of the linkages between the Project activities and the environmental receptor of wildlife and wildlife habitat, the potential effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat due to the RoW clearing activities that will occur during the winter season include:

121

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

• There will be a temporary disturbance to wildlife and wildlife habitat present in the area during the winter season from the activities of the crews and equipment in the RoW (clearing, piling and burning of slash and debris) and Moon Lake trail. The disturbance is limited to the timeframe needed for the clearing activities, i.e. from January 2016 to March 2016 and one to several days for O&M activities. • With the exception of danger and hazard tree removal, there will be no clearing done on the Moon Lake trail. The clearing activities on the east side of the RoW include the removal of danger and hazard trees and tall vegetation, i.e., vegetation with a height that exceeds the desired heights for the Wire Zone-Border Zone concept, as shown in Figure 4.1. This removal will result in the loss of trees that exceed the desired heights within the distances from the transmission lines and structures as shown in Figure 4.1 and the drawings provided in as Figures 4-2, 4-3 and 4-4. Clearing will be focused on the removal of danger and hazard trees and other tall vegetation that does not meet Manitoba Hydro’s requirements. Low shrubs, grasses and forbs (<4.2m in height) will be retained wherever possible in the Wire Zone to meet the objectives of the Wire Zone-Border Zone concept and long-term IVMP. These activities will result in the permanent removal of trees or other tall vegetation that exceed the desired heights for the Wire Zone-Border Zone concept on the east side of the existing RoW that will be cleared. All other vegetation that does not exceed the desired heights for the Wire Zone-Border Zone concept may be temporarily disturbed during the clearing activities, but will not be permanently removed or altered. Some of the danger or hazard trees to be removed may provide nesting and/or feeding habitat for birds and other wildlife in the PSA. • The re-growth of vegetation on the west side of the RoW will allow for the development of taller trees and shrubs that were previously removed and/or disturbed during RoW O&M activities, and also result in an increase in areas of undisturbed vegetation that were previously disturbed during RoW O&M activities. This re-growth will result in the alteration of the existing habitat over time. This alteration is considered to be a positive effect of the Project for wildlife and wildlife habitat, including VCs, as it will create additional areas of taller and denser undisturbed native vegetation. • There is the potential for changes to the type and quality of wildlife habitat available in the RoWs due to the introduction and/or spread of invasive plant species. • There is an increased potential for wildfires due to the use of gasoline, oil and electronically operated equipment in the PSA during clearing activities. • The cleared areas may temporarily provide improved access and successional vegetation that may be attractive to white-tailed deer, which could result in an increase in disease transmission (e.g., P. tenuis to moose). Access would be improved until the vegetation affected by the clearing activities has re-grown, short-term vegetation management activities are completed, and the long-term vegetation management plans are implemented. • The cleared areas may temporarily provide improved access and improved forage opportunities for black bears, which could result in an increase in incidental predation on ungulates and their calves. Access would be improved until the vegetation affected by the

122

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

clearing activities has re-grown, short-term vegetation management activities are completed, and the long-term vegetation management plans are implemented. • Note that the temporary provision of improved access for foraging for some species could also be perceived as a positive effect of the RoW clearing activities. • There is the potential for accidents and/or spills to occur that could release and/or transport deleterious substances such as fuel or oil to the surface soils or waters. The measures proposed to mitigate these potential effects are outlined in Section 13 and in addition to measures discussed previously, include things such as conducting pre-construction surveys for bids/nests, bear dens and SARA species and marking sensitive locations so efforts can be taken to protect these sites to the extent possible. With the use of appropriate mitigation measures, it is expected that the potential effects of the Project activities on wildlife and wildlife habitat will be minimal to low (Table 13.1).

11.2.6.2 Mammals

Beaver As noted in Section 8.2.6.1 (Map 11) and Section 3.1.5 of the Wildlife Technical Report (Appendix C; Joro Consultants 2013), beaver are found in abundance along watercourses and low lying wetland areas in RMNP. Beavers are important ecosystem engineers and a keystone species that modify drainage regimes by engaging in vegetation-cutting and dam-building activities that have long-term effects on landscapes (Naiman et al. 1994). Beaver habitat occupancy is best explained by the occurrence of woody vegetation, followed by stream gradients (Curtis and Jensen 2004). As indicated in Table 2 in the Wildlife Technical Report (Appendix C; Joro Consultants 2013), there were eight observations of beaver activity recorded during the wildlife surveys conducted in the LSA in 2013 and 2014. Based on the review of the availability of beaver habitat identified in the LSA and RSA (Table 1, Appendix C) and the relatively low amount of beaver activity observed in the PSA, habitat for beaver in the PSA, LSA and RSA was not considered to be a limiting factor for this VC.

Based on evaluation of the linkages between the Project activities and the environmental receptor of beaver and/or beaver habitat, the potential effects to beaver and/or beaver habitat due to the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities that occur mainly in the winter season include:

• There will be a temporary disturbance to beaver and/or beaver habitat located within or immediately adjacent to the RoW and/or Moon Lake trail due to the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities by crew and equipment. This disturbance will occur during the winter season when beaver are less active.

• The redevelopment of the Moon Lake trail will result in some areas of the existing trail located within the existing RoW being covered by logs, small diameter culverts, geotextile and aggregate. However, the existing water flow and flow patterns will be maintained as part of the trail design (Appendix A). As such, there are no permanent changes to beaver or

123

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

beaver habitat within the Moon Lake trail expected as a result of the trail redevelopment activities.

• The RoW clearing, redevelopment of the Moon Lake trail and O&M activities include the removal of danger and hazard trees. This removal could result in the loss of some trees desired by beavers.

• There is an increased potential for wildfires due to the use of gasoline, oil and electronically operated equipment in the PSA during the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities. • There is the potential for accidents and/or spills to occur that could release and/or transport deleterious substances such as fuel or oil to the surface soils, vegetation or waters used by beavers. • There is the potential for the disturbance of beaver activities and/or loss of beavers as part of beaver management actions. The measures proposed to mitigate these potential effects are outlined in Section 13, and include those discussed under the general heading, as well as following management methods used in RMNP such as use of Beaver Baffles, removing dams, tree fencing/wrapping, etc. With the use of appropriate mitigation measures, it is expected that the potential effects of the Project activities on beaver and/or beaver habitat will be minimal to low (Table 13.1).

Black Bear Bears are an integral part of the local ecosystem in RMNP with a population estimate identified in 2007 of approximately 900 bears present in the Park (Parks Canada 2007b). As shown in Table 2 in the Wildlife Technical Report (Appendix C; Joro Consultants 2013), there were seven observations of bear activity, three bear sightings, and five bear tracks recorded during the wildlife surveys conducted in the LSA in 2013 and 2014. The clearing activities will result in a temporary disturbance to bears that may be present in the PSA during the Project activities, but the clearing activities are also expected to create areas where vegetation will be regenerated, which will provide new foraging opportunities for bears.

Based on evaluation of the linkages between the Project activities and the environmental receptor of black bear and/or black bear habitat, the potential effects to black bear and black bear habitat due to the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities that occur mainly in the winter season include:

• There will be a temporary disturbance to black bear, black bear dens and/or black bear habitat located within or immediately adjacent to the RoW and/or Moon Lake trail due to the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities by crew and equipment. This disturbance will occur during the winter season when black bear are less active and using their dens. A pre-construction survey will be conducted in the fall once bears have moved to their winter denning sites to identify and protect any bear den sites that may be located in the PSA.

124

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

• The cleared areas on the east side of the RoW represent a permanent change to this area of forest habitat as the vegetation in the cleared area will be managed as per the Wire Zone- Border Zone concept shown in Figure 4.1. • The cleared areas on the east side of the RoW may temporarily provide improved foraging and hunting opportunities for black bear as a result of improved access to new successional vegetation, and improved access to ungulates attracted to the new successional vegetation. Access would be improved until the vegetation affected by the clearing activities has re- grown, short-term vegetation management activities are completed, and the long-term vegetation management plans are implemented. • There is an increased potential for wildfires due to the use of gasoline, oil and electronically operated equipment in the PSA during the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities. • There is the potential for changes to the type and quality of black bear habitat available in the RoW due to the introduction and/or spread of invasive plant species. • There is the potential for the disturbance and/or destruction of denning areas located within the east side of the RoW to be cleared. A pre-construction survey will be conducted in the fall once bears have moved to their winter denning sites to identify and protect any bear den sites that may be located in the PSA.

• There is the potential for bear cub mortalities caused by clearing activities at denning sites. A pre-construction survey will be conducted in the fall once bears have moved to their winter denning sites to identify and protect any bear den sites and bear cubs that may be located in the PSA. • There is the potential for accidents and/or spills to occur that could release and/or transport deleterious substances such as fuel or oil to the surface soils or waters. The measures proposed to mitigate these potential effects are outlined in Section 13. Undertaking the activity during winter will restrict bears primarily to denning sites, which will be identified, marked and protected prior to clearing activities. With the use of appropriate mitigation measures, it is expected that the potential effects of the Project activities on black bear and/or black bear habitat will be minimal to low (Table 13.1).

Moose Moose are common within the boreal forest and the RSA (Karns 1998). As noted in Section 3.1.5 of the Wildlife Technical Report (Appendix C; Joro Consultants 2013), the population in RMNP is estimated to be 2,949 moose, or 0.99 moose/km (Parks Canada unpubl.). Currently, moose appear to be attracted to the regenerating vegetation and young browse that occurs along the RoW. It is expected that moose will also be attracted to the areas on the east side of the RoW that will be cleared, and that these areas may temporarily provide improved foraging opportunities for moose as a result of improved access to new successional vegetation. As indicated in Table 2 of the Wildlife Technical Report (Appendix C; Joro Consultants 2013), moose were fairly common all along the RoW and potential access routes with 99 tracks and 26 scat observations recorded during wildlife surveys conducted in the LSA in 2013 and 2014. As

125

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

shown in Table 1 of the Wildlife Technical Report (Appendix C; Joro Consultants 2013), habitat is not considered to be limiting for moose in the RSA and LSA, with over 50% of preferred moose habitat (Mixedwood Dense, Broadleaf Open, and Wetland-Shrub cover types) represented within the RSA and LSA (i.e. 1994.46 km2 of total 3089.66 km2 and 246.54 km2 of total 341.51 km2 for the RSA and LSA, respectively).

Based on evaluation of the linkages between the Project activities and the environmental receptor of moose and/or moose habitat, the potential effects to moose and/or moose habitat due to the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities that occur mainly in the winter season include:

• There will be a temporary disturbance during the winter season to moose and/or moose habitat located within or immediately adjacent to the RoW and/or Moon Lake trail due to the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities by crew and equipment.

• There is the potential for moose to avoid the PSA for the duration of the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities by crew and equipment.

• The cleared areas on the east side of the RoW represent a permanent change to this area of forest habitat as the vegetation in the cleared area will be managed as per the Wire Zone- Border Zone concept shown in Figure 4.1. • The cleared areas on the east side of the RoW may temporarily provide improved foraging opportunities for moose as a result of improved access to new successional vegetation. Access would be improved until the vegetation affected by the clearing activities has re- grown, short-term vegetation management activities are completed, and the long-term vegetation management plans are implemented. • The cleared areas may temporarily provide improved access and successional vegetation that may be attractive to white-tailed deer, which could result in an increase in disease transmission (e.g., P. tenuis to moose). Access would be improved until the vegetation affected by the clearing activities has re-grown, short-term vegetation management activities are completed, and the long-term vegetation management plans are implemented. • There is the potential for a temporary increase in predation on moose and particularly moose calves by black bears due to the improved access and attraction to cleared areas.

• There is an increased potential for wildfires due to the use of gasoline, oil and electronically operated equipment in the PSA during the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities. • There is the potential for changes to the type and quality of moose habitat available in the RoW due to the introduction and/or spread of invasive plant species. • There is the potential for accidents and/or spills to occur that could release and/or transport deleterious substances such as fuel or oil to the surface soils or waters. The measures proposed to mitigate these potential effects are outlined in Section 13. Having the Project activities occur during a few months in winter during the day mitigates many potential sensory disturbance effects, and some lost habitat will be offset by areas left to regrow.

126

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

With the use of appropriate mitigation measures, it is expected that the potential effects of the Project activities on moose and/or moose habitat will be minimal to low (Table 13.1).

11.2.6.3 Birds

Birds and Bird Species of Conservation Concern As noted in Section 10.2.6.2 and the Wildlife Technical Report (Appendix C; Joro Consultants 2013), there are a number of bird species known to be present in RMNP, including bird species listed under MESA, SARA, and COSEWIC. These species include Canada warbler, common nighthawk, golden-winged warbler, olive-sided flycatcher, short-eared owl, whip-poor-will and yellow rail. These seven species as well as four other bird species – bald eagle, great blue heron, osprey and trumpeter swan – were selected as VCs for the Project as noted in Section 8.3. Although there were areas observed within the LSA that could provide habitat for the golden-winged warbler and other songbird VCs (i.e., areas of sparse trees and shrubs with an herbaceous understory of grasses and forbs in either upland or wetland settings) there were no songbird VC species or species of conservation concern heard or observed to be present in the LSA during the bird surveys conducted in 2013 (Table 4, Appendix C; Joro Consultants 2013). VC bird species noted to be present in the LSA included visual observation of a blue heron along the RoW south of the Jackfish Creek trail option, and two observations of an osprey along the RoW to the west of the Jackfish Creek trail option during the 2013 summer ground and Argo surveys. There were no songbird VC species observed along the RoW, and there were no species of conservation concern or Project VCs heard or seen during the point count surveys. Additional information on the results of the bird surveys conducted in 2013 is provided in the Wildlife Technical Report in Appendix C.

Based on evaluation of the linkages between the Project activities and the environmental receptor of birds and/or bird habitat, the potential effects to birds and/or bird habitat due to the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities that occur mainly in the winter season include:

• There will be a temporary disturbance during the winter season to birds and/or bird habitat present within or immediately adjacent to the RoW and/or Moon Lake trail due to the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities by crew and equipment.

• Note that many of the bird species in the PSA, LSA and RSA, including the VCs and bird species of conservation concern, are migratory birds that would not be present in the winter season.

• There is the potential for birds to avoid the PSA for the duration of the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities by crew and equipment.

• The cleared areas on the east side of the RoW represent a permanent change to this area of forest habitat as the vegetation in the cleared area will be managed as per the Wire Zone- Border Zone concept shown in Figure 4.1. The removal of danger and hazard trees on the east side of the existing RoW and the Moon Lake trail RoW will result in the permanent removal of trees or other tall vegetation that exceed the desired heights for the Wire Zone-

127

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Border Zone. All other vegetation that does not exceed the desired heights for the Wire Zone-Border Zone concept, including the shrubby, riparian, wetland and mixed vegetation areas that provide habitat for many bird and VC species, may be temporarily disturbed during the clearing activities, but will not be permanently removed or altered. Some of the danger or hazard trees to be removed may provide nesting and/or feeding habitat for birds and other wildlife in the PSA; however, a review of the habitat requirements and preferences of the VC and bird species of conservation concern shows that the majority of the bird VCs and bird species of conservation concern prefer areas of mixed deciduous forest that contain a shrub layer and/or open areas such as floodplains, wetlands and/or meadows (Manitoba Breeding Bird Atlas 2013). As such, it is expected that the removal of danger or hazard trees will not have a significant effect on bird VCs and bird species of conservation concern in the PSA, LSA or RSA. A pre-construction survey will be conducted in the fall concurrent with the bear den survey to ensure that there are no bird VCs and/or bird species of conservation concern located in the PSA. Existing nesting trees identified during the pre-construction survey will be marked as Sensitive Sites and preservation of these sites will be attempted where possible. • There is the potential for the removal of potential and/or existing snags and/or cavity nesting trees that support early nesting owls (barred, barn, saw-whet, boreal and screech) due to the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities by crew and equipment. A pre- construction survey will be conducted in the fall concurrent with the bear den survey to identify existing snags and cavity nesting trees located in the PSA. Existing cavity nesting trees identified during the pre-construction survey found to support early nesting owls will be marked as Sensitive Sites and preservation of these sites will be attempted where possible. The height of cavity nesting trees could be reduced to meet the requirements of the Wire- Border Zone concept while preserving the remainder of the tree that provides nesting cavities. • There is an increased potential for wildfires due to the use of gasoline, oil and electronically operated equipment in the PSA during the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities. • There is the potential for changes to the type and quality of bird habitat available in the RoW due to the introduction and/or spread of invasive plant species.

• There is the potential for accidents and/or spills to occur that could release and/or transport deleterious substances such as fuel or oil to the surface soils or waters.

The measures proposed to mitigate these potential effects are outlined in Section 13. Having the Project activities occur during a few months in winter during the day mitigates many potential sensory disturbance effects, no large stick nests, small bird nests or rookeries were found during surveys, and some lost habitat will be offset by areas left to regrow. With the use of appropriate mitigation measures, it is expected that the potential effects of the Project activities on bird species and/or their habitat, including VCs and bird species of conservation concern, will be minimal to low (Table 13.1).

128

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

11.2.6.4 Amphibians and Reptiles

There are two species of turtle found in Riding Mountain National Park: the snapping turtle and the western painted turtle. Snapping turtles are classified as Special Concern by the COSEWIC and SARA. Two species of snakes are also present within the Park: the red-sided garter snake and western hognose snake. In addition, a number of species of frogs and toads occur including: Canadian toad, gray tree frog, boreal chorus frog, wood frog, and northern leopard frog. The northern leopard frog is listed as Special Concern under SARA. Table 7 in the Wildlife Technical Report (Appendix C; Joro Consultants 2013), indicates that the only amphibian species observed and heard commonly during surveys conducted within the LSA were wood frogs. One observation of red-sided garter snake was recorded, but no observations of snake dens were identified.

Based on evaluation of the linkages between the Project activities and the environmental receptor of amphibians and reptiles and their habitat, the potential effects to amphibians and reptiles and their habitat due to the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities that occur mainly in the winter season include:

• There will be a temporary disturbance during the winter season to overwintering amphibians and/or reptiles and/or amphibian and reptile habitat present within or immediately adjacent to the RoW and/or Moon Lake trail due to the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities by crew and equipment. A pre-construction survey will be conducted in the fall concurrent with the bear den survey to identify existing amphibian overwintering areas or reptile hibernacula in the PSA. Existing amphibian overwintering areas or reptile hibernacula identified during the pre-construction survey will be marked as Sensitive Sites and preservation will be attempted.

• There is the potential for direct mortality of overwintering amphibians and/or reptiles due to the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities by crew and equipment.

• Note that the amphibian and reptile species in the PSA, LSA and RSA migrate to overwintering areas such as burrows, rivers, lakes, ponds or underground hibernacula and are inactive during the winter season.

• Clearing activities on the east side of the RoW may result in a temporary change in microhabitat conditions in the cleared areas, including changes in air and soil temperature, relative humidity, light intensity, leaf litter, and coarse woody debris.

• The cleared areas on the east side of the RoW represent a permanent change to this area of forest habitat as the vegetation in the cleared area will be managed as per the Wire Zone- Border Zone concept shown in Figure 4.1. However, these changes will mostly affect tall trees and shrubs greater than 4.2m in height; ground cover will be disturbed during the clearing activities but not removed. As such, there may be temporary changes in ground cover habitat for amphibians and reptiles in the cleared areas of the RoW.

129

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

• There is an increased potential for wildfires due to the use of gasoline, oil and electronically operated equipment in the PSA during the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities. • There is the potential for changes to the type and quality of amphibian and/or reptile habitat available in the RoW due to the introduction and/or spread of invasive plant species.

• There is the potential for accidents and/or spills to occur that could release and/or transport deleterious substances such as fuel or oil to the surface soils or waters.

The measures proposed to mitigate these potential effects are outlined in Section 13. Having the Project activities occur during a few months in winter during the day mitigates many potential sensory disturbance effects, a pre-construction survey for species at risk will identify any sensitive sites that will be marked and protected, and some lost habitat will be offset by areas left to regrow. With the use of appropriate mitigation measures, it is expected that the potential effects of the Project activities on amphibians and reptiles and their habitat will be minimal (Table 13.1).

11.2.7. Wetlands There are a number of wet depressions and wetland areas located along and within the RoW that could be disturbed during the RoW clearing, Moon Lake trail construction, and O&M activities (Map 06: Appendix A). The main mitigation measure that will be used to prevent disturbance and other potential effects on wetlands will be to mark the wetland areas as Sensitive Sites in the Project EnvPP and instruct the work crews to maintain a buffer zone around these areas. The trail redevelopment activities will require the temporary disturbance of wet and wetland areas located within the RoW, as well as permanent changes to the trail structure with the installation of small diameter culverts, logs, geotextile materials and aggregate (Appendix A; Section 4.2.4). These works are part of the trail redevelopment activities and have been designed to minimize environmental effects by using materials that are non-toxic, easy to maintain and have a low impact on the environment. The trail redevelopment design includes methods to maintain the existing water flows and patterns along the trail, while providing a trail surface that will allow Manitoba Hydro to access and use the Moon Lake trail without damage to the trail or equipment. Based on evaluation of the linkages between the Project activities and the environmental receptor of wetlands, the potential effects on wetlands due to the RoW clearing activities that will occur during the winter season include:

• There will be the temporary disturbance of wet and/or wetland areas within the Moon Lake trail RoW. • There will be the permanent alteration of wet or wetland areas located in the high and medium priority areas of the trail as identified by FP Innovations (Appendix A). These areas will be altered by the installation of small diameter culverts, corduroy logs, geotextile material and aggregate.

130

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

• The installation of the small diameter culverts, corduroy logs, geotextile material and aggregate will be completed in a manner that will not cause changes in water levels or flow patterns within or across the trail. • There is an increased potential for wildfires due to the use of gasoline, oil and electronically operated equipment in the PSA during clearing activities. • There is the potential for the introduction and/or spread of invasive plant species if the seeds or plants of invasive species are transported to the RoW by crew and/or equipment. • There is the potential for the introduction and/or spread of invasive plant species if the clearing activities result in any exposed soil areas and/or removal of the non-invasive species. • There is the potential for changes to species composition and/or species diversity if the clearing activities result in the removal or destruction of significant amounts of the existing plant species, i.e., removal of a high number of individual plants of one species that do not easily recolonize or propagate, or removal of an entire population of the species. • There is the potential for contamination or destruction of wetland vegetation from the release or transport of sediment, accidents and/or spills of fuel, oil or other substances deleterious to plant life. • The people of the Coalition shared that there are four locations along the existing RoW where medicinal and/or edible plants are gathered. Some of these areas are located within or near wetland areas. As such, there is the potential for the contamination, destruction or removal of plants of importance to First Nations in the RoW. These four areas will be marked as Sensitive Sites in the EnvPP for the Project to prevent any disturbance or effects to the vegetation in these areas. The areas will be marked to prevent disturbance, but the use and significance of these areas will be kept confidential. There were no areas along or within the vicinity of the Moon Lake trail that were identified by the people of the Coalition as areas where medicinal and/or edible plants are gathered. The measures proposed to mitigate these potential effects are outlined in Section 13. Having the Project activities occuring during frozen ground conditions in the winter serves to mitigate many effects and, any sensitive sites will be marked and protected. With the use of appropriate mitigation measures, it is expected that the potential effects of the Project activities on wetlands will be minimal to low (Table 13.1).

11.2.8. Water Quality

11.2.8.1 Groundwater

Within the PSA, there are several areas of lakes, rivers, creeks and wetlands. These areas may function as groundwater recharge sites, flow-through systems or groundwater discharge sites. As such, the protection of surface water and wetland areas from contamination due to the transport and/or release of sediments, oils, fuels and/or other deleterious substances is needed to preserve groundwater resources and maintain groundwater quality.

131

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

The protection of groundwater resources in the PSA will be accomplished by establishing buffer zones at surface water and wetland areas and including mitigation measures in the Project EnvPP to prevent or minimize potential effects to groundwater due to the transport of sediment, oils, fuels or other contaminants. These mitigation measures will include erosion and sediment control plans; conducting all equipment cleaning, maintenance or refuelling at least 100 m from any watercourse, waterbody or wetland areas; and providing all work crews with information on how to prevent accidents or spills, emergency spill response procedures and spill clean up kits. These measures will be applied to the RoW clearing activities, Moon Lake trail construction activities, and the RoW and Moon Lake Trail O&M activities. Additional information on mitigation measures to prevent spills and contamination is provided in Section 13.

There is the potential for the Moon Lake trail redevelopment activities to alter the water levels or flow patterns within or across the trail, which could in turn affect flow, recharge or discharge of groundwater in these areas. There will be the permanent alteration of wet or wetland areas located in the high and medium priority areas of the trail as identified by FP Innovations (Appendix A). These areas will be altered by the installation of small diameter culverts, corduroy logs, geotextile material and aggregate. However, the installation of the small diameter culverts, corduroy logs, geotextile material and aggregate will be completed in a manner that will not cause changes in water levels or flow patterns within or across the trail. As such, the potential effect to groundwater resources due to changes in surface water or wetland areas is considered to be not significant.

11.2.8.2 Surface Water

As noted in Section 10.2.8.2, there are a number of watercourses, waterbodies and wetlands in and along the RoW and Moon Lake trail that provide surface water resources in RMNP. Crews and equipment undertaking Project clearing activities will need to cross or conduct work in proximity to some of these surface water areas. Based on evaluation of the linkages between the Project activities and the environmental receptor of surface water, the potential effects on surface water due to the RoW clearing activities that will occur during the winter season include:

• There is the potential for contamination of surface waters from the release and/or transport of sediment, accidents and/or spills of fuel, oil or other deleterious substances due to stream crossing activities or other activities near surface waters. • There is the potential for increased erosion at the Edwards Creek ravine, which could result in the potential release and/or transport of eroded sediments to Edwards Creek. • There is the potential for the Moon Lake trail redevelopment activities to alter the water levels or flow patterns within or across the trail. There will be the permanent alteration of wet or wetland areas located in the high and medium priority areas of the trail as identified by FP Innovations (Appendix A). These areas will be altered by the installation of small diameter culverts, corduroy logs, geotextile material and aggregate. However, the installation of the small diameter culverts, corduroy logs, geotextile material and aggregate will be completed in a manner that will not cause changes in water levels or flow patterns within or across the

132

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

trail. As such, the potential effect to surface water due to changes in water levels or flow patterns within or across the trail is considered to be not significant. The Project EnvPP will include the establishment of buffer zones at surface water areas and implementation of erosion and sediment control plans to prevent or minimize the above noted potential effects. Additional information on proposed mitigation is provided in Section 13. With the use of appropriate mitigation measures, it is expected that the potential effects of the Project activities on surface water will be minimal (Table 13.1).

11.2.9. Fish and Fish Habitat There are a number of fish-bearing streams located within or adjacent to the RoW and Moon Lake trail (Map 06). Crews and equipment operating during RoW clearing, Moon Lake trail construction and/or Project O&M activities will need to cross or conduct work in proximity to some of these fish-bearing streams. Based on evaluation of the linkages between the Project activities and the environmental receptor of fish or fish habitat, the potential effects on fish or fish habitat as a result of the RoW clearing, Moon Lake trail construction and/or Project O&M activities include:

• There will be a temporary disturbance to fish or fish habitat when crews and/or equipment are required to cross a fish-bearing stream. • There is the potential for the alteration of fish habitat (i.e., compaction, alteration or erosion of bed, banks or substrates) at the stream crossings. • There is the potential for changes in water levels or flow patterns in fish-bearing streams as a result of the Moon Lake trail redevelopment activities. • There is the potential for the introduction and/or spread of invasive plant species if the seeds or plants of invasive species are transported to the RoW by crew and/or equipment. • There is the potential for the transportation and/or release of sediment due to the crew and equipment crossings, particularly at Edwards Creek. • There is the potential for the transportation and/or release of oils, fuels or other contaminants as a result of accidents and/or spills. The main mitigation measures that will be used to prevent disturbance and other potential effects on fish or fish habitat will be to:

• Stream crossings will be conducted in accordance with the measures outlined by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO 2014a; 2014b) to prevent serious harm to fish or fish habitat, and the Manitoba Stream Crossing Guidelines for construction activities and temporary crossings (DFO and MNR 1996). Examples of measures indicated by DFO include: • Time work in water to respect timing windows to protect fish, including their eggs, juveniles, spawning adults and/or the organisms upon which they feed. • Ensure that machinery arrives on site in a clean condition and is maintained free of fluid leaks, invasive species and noxious weeds.

133

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

• Whenever possible, operate machinery on land above the high water mark, on ice, or from a floating barge in a manner that minimizes disturbance to the banks and bed of the watercourse. • Limit machinery fording of the watercourse to a one-time event (i.e., over and back), and only if no alternative crossing method is available. If repeated crossings of the watercourse are required, construct a temporary crossing structure. • Use temporary crossing structures or other practices to cross streams or waterbodies with steep and highly erodible (e.g., dominated by organic materials and silts) banks and beds. For fording equipment without a temporary crossing structure, use stream bank and bed protection methods (e.g., swamp mats, pads) if minor rutting is likely to occur during fording. • Wash, refuel and service machinery and store fuel and other materials for the machinery in such a way as to prevent any deleterious substances from entering the water. • Conduct the clearing, construction and O&M activities during the winter when the fish-bearing streams that cross the RoW and/or Moon Lake trail will be frozen to the bottom and fish are not likely to be present. • Establish one location perpendicular to the watercourse for crossing of crews and/or equipment. An area of hard substrates should be selected wherever possible. • The installation of the small diameter culverts, corduroy logs, geotextile material and aggregate for the Moon Lake trail redevelopment will be completed in a manner that will not cause changes in water levels or flow patterns within or across the trail. The Project EnvPP will include the establishment of buffer zones at fish-bearing streams and implementation of erosion and sediment control plans to prevent or minimize the above noted potential effects. Additional information on proposed mitigation is provided in Section 13. With the use of appropriate mitigation measures, it is expected that the potential effects of the Project activities on fish or fish habitat will be minimal (Table 13.1).

11.2.10. Species At Risk Section 10.2.10 outlined the Species At Risk that may be present in the RSA or LSA. There were no plant, fish or mussel Species At Risk identified; therefore, there were no effects identified for these species. There were two mammal Species At Risk, two reptile Species At Risk, one amphibian Species At Risk and 20 bird Species At Risk identified to be potentially present in the RSA or LSA. None of these species have the potential to be present and active in the PSA during the RoW clearing, Moon Lake trail redevelopment or Project O&M activities, but may use areas of the PSA and LSA during spring, summer or fall periods. As such, based on evaluation of the linkages between the Project activities and the environmental receptor of Species At Risk, the potential effects on Species at Risk or their habitat due to the RoW clearing, Moon Lake trail redevelopment or Project O&M activities include:

• Mule deer were historically found in the area; there are two or three known individuals in the Onanole area, but these individuals have not been seen in a few years (T. Sallows,

134

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

pers.comm.). These mule deer individuals were suspected to be hybridizing with local white- tailed deer populations; therefore, there is no known viable population of this species in the area (T. Sallows, pers.comm.). As such, the Project activities are not expected to interact with mule deer and there are no potential effects of the Project identified for this species. • There is the potential for the temporary disturbance of any habitat for Species At Risk that may be present in the PSA or LSA due to the crew and equipment activities. The disturbance is limited to the timeframe needed for the RoW clearing or Moon Lake trail redevelopment activities, i.e. from January 2016 to March 2016, and to the timeframe needed for O&M activities, i.e., short periods (one day to several days) from December to March. • The cleared areas on the east side of the RoW represent a permanent change to this area of forest habitat as the vegetation in the cleared area will be managed as per the Wire Zone- Border Zone concept shown in Figure 4.1. Some of the trees, shrubs and other vegetation affected in this area of the RoW could provide habitat for some of the Species at Risk. • The re-growth of vegetation on the west side of the RoW will allow for the development of taller trees and shrubs that were previously removed and/or disturbed during RoW O&M activities, and also result in an increase in areas of undisturbed vegetation that were previously disturbed during RoW O&M activities. This re-growth will result in the alteration of the existing habitat over time. This alteration is considered to be a positive effect of the Project, as it will create additional areas of taller and denser undisturbed vegetation for Species at Risk and other wildlife. • There is the potential for the removal of potential and/or existing nesting trees and existing nests for Species at Risk due to the removal of danger and hazard trees as part of RoW clearing, Moon Lake trail redevelopment and/or Project O&M activities by crew and equipment. • There is an increased potential for wildfires due to the use of gasoline, oil and electronically operated equipment in the PSA during the of RoW clearing, Moon Lake trail redevelopment and/or Project O&M activities • There is the potential for changes to the type and quality of habitat available for Species At Risk in the PSA due to the introduction and/or spread of invasive plant species. • There is the potential for accidents and/or spills to occur that could release and/or transport deleterious substances such as sediment, fuel or oil to the surface soils or waters used by Species At Risk. • The potential effects noted for wildlife and wildlife habitat (Section 12.2.6), birds of conservation concern (Section 12.2.6.3), and amphibians and reptiles (Section 12.2.6.4) are also applicable to these types of animals that are Species At Risk. The main mitigation measures that will be used to prevent disturbance and other potential effects on Species at Risk or their habitat include:

• Conducting the clearing, construction and O&M activities during the winter when the majority of the Species At Risk are not likely to be present or active.

135

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

• There were no plant or animal Species At Risk observed to be present within the PSA at the time of the field surveys. However, it is recommended that a pre-construction survey be conducted to further evaluate for the presence of Species At Risk in the PSA. Any trees or other habitat found to support Species At Risk identified during the pre-construction survey will be marked as Sensitive Sites and preservation of these sites will be attempted. This pre- construction survey for Species At Risk will be done concurrently with the fall pre- construction bear den survey. Additional information on mitigation measures to prevent or minimize potential effects to Species At Risk or their habitat is outlined in Section 13. Having the Project activities occur during a few months in winter during the day mitigates many potential sensory disturbance effects, a pre-construction survey for species at risk will identify any sensitive sites that will be marked and protected, and some lost habitat will be offset by areas left to regrow. With the use of appropriate mitigation measures, it is expected that the potential effects of the Project activities on Species At Risk will be minimal to low (Table 13.1).

11.3. Socio-Economic Environment

11.3.1. Land Use As noted in Section 4, the RoW clearing, Moon Lake trail construction, and O&M activities will require the use of a variety of vehicles and equipment in the PSA during the clearing activities. Based on evaluation of the linkages between the Project activities and the environmental receptor of land use, the potential effects on land use due to the RoW clearing activities that will occur during the winter season include:

136

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

potential sensory disturbance effects, and measures to manage vehicle exhaust and controlled burns, and site cleanup and restoration are other examples of measures to deal with potential effects. With the use of appropriate mitigation measures, it is expected that the potential effects of the Project activities on land use will be minimal (Table 13.1).

11.3.2. Resource Use As noted in Section 4, the RoW clearing, Moon Lake trail construction, and O&M activities will require the use of a variety of vehicles and equipment in the PSA during the clearing activities. Based on evaluation of the linkages between the Project activities and the environmental receptor of resource use, the potential effects on resource use due to the RoW clearing activities that will occur during the winter season include:

• There will be a temporary increase in the use of PTH10, Lake Audy Road and the northern and southern RMNP boundary access points by vehicles and equipment during the winter. The disturbance is limited to the timeframe needed for the clearing activities, i.e. from January 2016 to March 2016. • There will be a temporary disturbance to resource use in the PSA from increased traffic during the clearing activities. • There is an increased potential for wildfires due to the use of gasoline, oil and electronically operated equipment in the PSA during the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities, which could affect resource use. • Disruption of recreational fishing by visitors to the Park will not be affected as there are no recreational fishing areas in the PSA or LSA. • Disruption of fishing or the gathering of medicinal/edible plants by local First Nations, i.e. TLU activities, will not occur as these activities take place in the spring, summer or fall and not in winter. • Interference with winter recreational resource use, e.g., cross-country skiing, with not occur as public access is not allowed in the RoW and/or Moon Lake trail. The measures proposed to mitigate these potential effects are outlined in Section 13. As indicated for land use effects, having the Project activities occur during a few months in winter during the day mitigates many potential sensory disturbance effects, and measures to manage vehicle exhaust and controlled burns, and site cleanup and restoration are other examples of measures to deal with potential effects. With the use of appropriate mitigation measures, it is expected that the potential effects of the Project activities on resource use will be minimal (Table 13.1).

11.3.3. Historic and Cultural Heritage MHRB indicated that there are three known archaeological sites located within the RoW up to a distance of 200 m from the RoW, and a fourth known archaeological site located approximately 300 m from the Jackfish Creek access trail. In addition, MHRB indicated that there are several known archaeological sites located around Moon Lake and PTH10. There were no sites identified along the Moon Lake trail. As such, there were no potential effects to historic or

137

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

cultural resources identified as a result of the Moon Lake trail redevelopment activities. However, based on evaluation of the linkages between the Project activities and the environmental receptor of historic and cultural heritage resources, some of the sites near Moon Lake and PTH10 are located within the LSA and are in proximity to the access routes that will be used by work crews and equipment.

Based on evaluation of the linkages between the Project activities and the environmental receptor of historic and cultural heritage resources, there is the potential for these sites to be disturbed or destroyed during the RoW clearing activities. To prevent disturbance or destruction of these sites, the sites will be marked and included in the Project EnvPP as Sensitive Sites. The Project EnvPP will also include instructions for the work crew on appropriate measures to be taken if any artefacts or additional historic or cultural resources are discovered during the clearing activities, i.e., stop work and notification of MHRB for further instruction.

Additional information on mitigation measures is provided in Section 13 (Table 13.1). The identification, isolation and protection of these known archaeological sites will mitigate the potential effects of the Project activities on historic and cultural heritage resources in the PSA and LSA. As such, there were no residual effects of the Project activities identified for historic and cultural heritage resources in RMNP, and the effects of the RoW clearing activities on historic and cultural heritage resources in RMNP are expected to be minimal.

11.3.4. Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Land Use Activities As noted in Section 4, the Project activities will require the use of a variety of vehicles and equipment in the PSA during the RoW clearing, Moon Lake trail redevelopment and Project O&M activities, cause a temporary disturbance to the environment in the PSA and a permanent change to some of the vegetation in the PSA. During a March 11, 2014 meeting with Manitoba Hydro, the people of the Coalition shared their knowledge of the places, plants and animals that are special to the people, from historic times to today. The people provided information on fishing and plant gathering activities in the Park, as well as areas that are important burial, travel, gathering or overnighting sites. This information will be kept sacred and will only be used to prevent environmental effects on these special places, plants and animals.

The people expressed concerns about potential harm to these special places, plants and animals from noise disturbance, the use of herbicides and/or other chemicals, and the effects of clearing in the RoW and the works on the Moon Lake trail. Manitoba Hydro will ensure that the EnvPP developed for the Project includes mitigation measures to address the people’s concerns and prevent potential effects on the places, plants and animals of importance to the people. Mitigation measures will include:

• No use of herbicides for vegetation management. Parks Canada has indicated that there is no use of herbicides allowed in RMNP except for the management of non-native invasive plant species that threaten ecological integrity (McKillop 2014, pers.comm.); • Identifying any important areas as Sensitive Sites; • Avoiding these sites and applying buffer zones to these areas;

138

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

• Conducting all clearing and construction activities in the winter outside of fishing and plant gathering activities; and • The inclusion of spill prevention, fire prevention and emergency clean-up materials and procedures in the EnvPP. Additional information on mitigation measures is provided in Section 13. With the use of appropriate mitigation measures, it is expected that the potential effects of the Project activities on Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Land Use Activities will be minimal to low (Table 13.1).

11.3.5. Local Economy and Visitor Experiences In terms of effects to the local economy, these would be proportional to the size of the Project workforce and duration of the Project. As indicated previously, the construction phase of the Project should be occurring for approximately three to five months over the winter period and require approximately five equipment operators (brusher, feller buncher, skidder, aggregate hauler and dozer/grader operator), and two or three individuals for activities such as tree flagging and possibly hand clearing. During the operations phase, a reduced workforce (typically two staff) would be required to conduct annual vegetation infrastructure inspections and vegetation maintenance would typically be undertaken by two staff on a typical cycle of five to seven years, as required.

While present, the workforce may use the commercial facilities available in RMNP, but as indicated, this would be during winter months and consist of very few individuals. Through the Coalition, Manitoba Hydro discussed the possibility of providing First Nation opportunities in terms of training, coordination events and jobs for both the initial clearing work and ongoing maintenance. This could involve:

• Training for relevant participants (safety training, chainsaw training for hand clearing work, tree marking/flagging); and • Jobs related to flagging, hand and mechanical clearing for the initial widening work (experience working around transmission lines is required for any type of mechanical clearing). In summary, it is expected that the potential positive effects of the Project activities on the local economy will be minimal to low.

As noted in Section 4, the Project activities will require the use of a variety of vehicles and equipment in the PSA during the RoW clearing, Moon Lake trail redevelopment and Project O&M activities.

Based on evaluation of the linkages between the Project activities and the environmental receptor of visitor experiences, the potential effects on visitor experiences due to the RoW clearing, Moon Lake trail redevelopment and Project O&M activities that will occur during the winter season include:

• There will be a temporary increase in traffic and noise disturbance.

139

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

• There will be a change in the appearance of the RoW at Lake Audy Road due to the clearing activities on the east side, re-growth of vegetation on the west side, and implementation of the long-term IVMP after completion of the short-term vegetation management activities. • There is an increased potential for wildfires due to the use of gasoline, oil and electronically operated equipment in the PSA during the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities. The RoW and Moon Lake trail are restricted from public access or use; therefore, the temporary disturbance from traffic and noise are not expected to have a significant effect on visitor experiences. Winter visitors may notice an increase in traffic and noise on PTH10 and/or Lake Audy Road, but this increase will be temporary and is not expected to interfere with any visitor experiences. During and after the RoW clearing activities, the appearance of the RoW will be different as visitors pass through on Lake Audy Road due to the clearing activities on the east side, re-growth of vegetation on the west side, and implementation of the long-term IVMP after completion of the short-term vegetation management activities. The area that will be affected and visible to visitors is limited to a small area, relative to the rest of the roadway and park areas that visitors pass through. Manitoba Hydro could provide information materials that give a brief outline of the RoW clearing, Moon Lake trail redevelopment and Project O&M activities, and the objective and need for the works. These information materials could be displayed at the Park Visitor Centre and be posted along PTH10 and Lake Audy Road in the vicinity of the activities. It is expected that Park visitors would understand the need for the works (e.g., prevent fires, maintain reliable service) and recognize that Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada are working together to minimize potential environmental effects and protect the ecological, cultural and historic values of the Park. Additional information on mitigation measures is provided in Section 13. With the use of appropriate mitigation measures, it is expected that the potential effects of the Project activities on visitor experiences will be minimal to low (Table 13.1).

12. PROPOSED MITIGATION

12.1. Introduction Manitoba Hydro supports the need to protect and preserve the natural environment and heritage resources affected by its projects and facilities. This goal can only be achieved with the full commitment of Manitoba Hydro employees, consultants and contractors at all stages of projects, from planning and design through clearing/construction and operational phases.

In keeping with Manitoba Hydro’s Environmental Management Policy (Section 1.3), Manitoba Hydro’s Environmental Protection Program for this Project will include:

• The development of a Project specific Environmental Protection Plan (EnvPP), which will include general environmental protection measures for clearing/construction activities, mitigation measures specific to RoW clearing, and erosion and sediment control plans; • Inspection of work areas and work activities during clearing/construction;

140

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

• Post-construction monitoring, and • Adherence to all applicable federal, provincial and municipal acts and regulations.

The potential environmental effects identified in Section 12 will be mitigated using the measures outlined in Manitoba Hydro’s Project EnvPP and in the following Acts and regulatory guidance documents:

• Canada Wildlife Act; • Canadian Environmental Protection Act; • DFO Measures to Avoid Causing Harm to Fish and Fish Habitat (DFO 2014a); • Fisheries Act and Regulations; • Manitoba Endangered Species Act; • Manitoba Environment Act; • Manitoba Forest Act and associated guidelines; • Manitoba Heritage Resources Act • Manitoba Noxious Weed Act; • Manitoba Restricted Activity Timing Windows for the Protection of Fish and Fish Habitat (DFO 2014b) • Manitoba Stream Crossing Guidelines for the Protection of Fish and Fish Habitat (Manitoba Natural Resources and Department of Fisheries and Oceans 1996); • Manitoba Water Protection Act; • Manitoba Wildlife Act; • Migratory Birds Convention Act; • Species at Risk Act; and • Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. The Project activities will be carried out in a manner that respects, protects and preserves the exceptional ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experiences offered by RMNP, in keeping with Parks Canada’s goal of preserving and maintaining the ecological and cultural resources and visitor experiences in RMNP.

12.2. Overview of Mitigation Measures and Procedures The assessment of potential effects determined that the Project activities (i.e., clearing of the RoW on the east side, the Moon Lake trail redevelopment and O&M activities) will result in a temporary disturbance to vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and wildlife habitat and some TLU areas during the winter season, and a permanent loss of tall trees (i.e., danger and hazard trees) on the east side of the RoW, which equates to a permanent change in the forest habitat in this area of the RoW. Other than the temporary disturbance to wildlife that travel across or through the RoW in winter, the potential environmental effects will be limited to the areas within the existing transmission line RoW, Moon Lake trail RoW and access trails or roads to the RoW (e.g.,

141

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

PTH10, Lake Audy Road). The key mitigation measures that can be employed to prevent or minimize the potential environmental effects identified in Section 12 include:

• Conducting the clearing, trail redevelopment and O&M activities during the winter season outside of fish and wildlife restricted activity periods, and outside of the periods used by local First Nations for fishing and gathering of medicinal/edible plants, nuts and/or fruits. o Deciduous vegetation (grasses, forbs, shrubs and trees) is mainly dormant during the winter season and therefore less affected by disturbance than during growth and reproductive periods. The majority of the bird species (including the identified Species At Risk) are migratory and would not be present in the PSA during the winter season. Many of the wildlife species are less active, in torpor or in hibernation during the winter season (e.g., amphibians, reptiles, beaver, black bear, squirrels) and would be residing in overwintering habitats; these animals would therefore be less affected by disturbance and habitat change in the winter than during breeding, nesting, feeding or growth periods in the spring, summer and fall. o The people of the Coalition indicated that they conduct fishing and gathering of medicinal/edible plants, nuts and/or fruits in some areas of the PSA and LSA in the spring, summer and fall. Some activities continue until snowfall, but are not carried out in the winter season. Conducting the clearing, trail redevelopment and O&M activities during the winter season will avoid interfering with any of the activities conducted by the people of the Coalition in the PSA and LSA. • The introduction or spread of invasive species can affect existing plant species diversity, growth and propagation, and also affect habitat for wildlife and existing TLU activities in the PSA. This potential effect can be mitigated by ensuring that all equipment and footwear entering and being used in RMNP for the clearing, trail redevelopment and O&M activities are clean and free of debris, mud or other materials that could contain seeds, rhizomes or other reproductive parts of invasive plant species. • There is the potential for accidents and/or spills to occur during the clearing, trail redevelopment and O&M activities that could release and/or transport deleterious substances such as fuel or oil to the surface soils, vegetation or waters. An accidental release or spill of a toxic substance could affect the vegetation, wetlands, groundwater, surface water and other habitat used by fish and wildlife in the PSA, as well as affecting the edible/medicinal plants, fish and wildlife used by the people of the Coalition. This potential effect can be mitigated by ensuring that:

o All equipment and vehicles entering and being used in RMNP for the clearing, trail redevelopment and O&M activities are properly maintained and free of leaks.

o All fuelling and maintenance of equipment and vehicles takes place at least 100 m from any watercourse, wetland, TLU sites or other sensitive areas.

o All work crews are provided with information on how to prevent accidents or spills, emergency spill response procedures and spill clean up kits.

142

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

o The clearing, trail redevelopment and O&M activities are conducted during the winter season when the ground and watercourses are frozen, which aids in clean up and helps prevent the spread of any spills to the soil, surface waters or groundwater.

o Storage and disposal of dangerous goods will occur according to Workplace Safety and Health Act and Storage and Handling of Petroleum Products and Allied Products Regulation 188/2001.

o Storage and disposal of all waste generated at the site will adhere to municipal bylaws and applicable provincial regulations.

o All spills will be reported to the appropriate authority and remediation will be in accordance with applicable regulations (i.e., Storage and Handling of Petroleum Products and Allied Products Regulation 188/2001).

o The exhaust and engine systems of equipment and vehicles are in good working condition and free of dried grass and other combustibles.

o Each work crew is carrying firefighting equipment. Parks Canada and other authorities having jurisdiction will be notified immediately if a fire should occur. All equipment and personnel shall be made available to control a fire.

• In recognition of potential climate change implications on the ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experiences in RMNP, Parks Canada has included several measures in the RMNP EMS to reduce GHG emissions in the Park. Manitoba Hydro will support these efforts by minimizing the use of motorized vehicles in the Park wherever possible, using vehicles and equipment that are well-maintained and meet current emissions standards, and not leaving vehicles or equipment running when not in use.

• There is the potential for the release and/or transport of sediment to surface water, wetland areas and/or fish habitat (e.g., Edwards Creek, Jackfish Creek) as a result of the RoW clearing activities, Moon Lake trail construction activities, or the RoW and Moon Lake Trail O&M activities. This potential effect will be mitigated by establishing buffer zones at surface water and wetland areas, and including erosion and sediment control plans in the Project EnvPP. These measures will be applied to the RoW clearing activities, Moon Lake trail construction activities, and the RoW and Moon Lake Trail O&M activities.

• Although there were no large stick nests, small bird nests or heron rookeries observed during the pedestrian or Argo based surveys in June 2013 or during the January 2014 winter aerial multispecies survey, there is the potential for the removal of potential and/or existing nesting trees and nests for raptors, herons, neotropical songbirds (including Species At Risk) due to the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities by crew and equipment. This potential effect may be mitigated by conducting a pre-construction survey for these bird

143

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

species and their nests in the areas of the RoW that will be cleared and the danger and hazard trees to be removed as part of the Moon Lake trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities. Existing nesting trees identified during the pre-construction survey will be marked as Sensitive Sites and preservation of these sites will be attempted where possible.

• There were several trees with snags and/or nesting cavities observed along the existing RoW during both the Argo and pedestrian based surveys in June 2013. As such, there is the potential for the removal of potential and/or existing snags and/or cavity nesting trees that support early nesting owls (barred, barn, saw-whet, boreal and screech) due to the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities by crew and equipment. This potential effect may be mitigated by conducting a pre-construction survey for these bird species and their nests in the areas of the RoW that will be cleared and the danger and hazard trees to be removed as part of the Moon Lake trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities. Existing cavity nesting trees identified during the pre-construction survey found to support early nesting owls will be marked as Sensitive Sites and preservation of these sites will be attempted where possible. The height of cavity nesting trees could be reduced to meet the requirements of the Wire- Border Zone concept while preserving the remainder of the tree that provides nesting cavities.

• There were no black bear denning sites found during the field investigations; however, several black bears and signs of black bear activity were observed during the field investigations, and RMNP has one of the higher densities of black bears within the province (MCWS 2013b). As such, there is the potential for the disturbance and/or destruction of denning areas located within the east side of the RoW to be cleared, as well as the potential for bear cub mortalities caused by clearing activities at denning sites. These potential effects may be mitigated by conducting a pre-construction survey for bear denning sites in the areas of the RoW that will be cleared. Existing denning sites identified during the pre-construction survey will be marked as Sensitive Sites and preserved.

• There were no hibernacula or other overwintering sites for amphibians or reptiles noted during the field investigations. Some of these animals are Species At Risk; as such, the pre- construction survey for bear dens and bird VCs and their habitat will also include identification of any hibernacula or other overwintering sites for amphibian or reptile Species At Risk in the PSA.

In addition to the above noted mitigation measures, Table 13.1 provides a summary of further measures proposed for each environmental component to mitigate the potential environmental effects of the Project with clearing, construction and O&M activities occurring in the winter season.

144

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Table 12-1: Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures for Clearing, Construction and O&M Activities in the Winter Season

Environmental Potential Project Effect Proposed Mitigation Component General Project • Site management, overall • Implementation of the measures outlined in Section 13.2 and Manitoba Mitigation environmental management. Hydro’s EnvPP for the Project, including erosion and sediment control measures. • Compliance with all applicable federal, provincial and municipal legislation, codes and guidelines, including fish and wildlife restricted activity periods. • Isolation of the work areas as needed to prevent the release or transport of deleterious substances (e.g., sediment, fuel, grease, mud) or debris within the PSA. • Safety signage and safe work practices will be used at all work areas for the Project as part of site management practices. • Performance of work inspections and monitoring before, during and after clearing/construction activities. Air Quality and GHG • Temporary increase in • Implementation of the measures outlined in Section 13.2 and Manitoba vehicle/equipment use/ travel in PSA, Hydro’s EnvPP for the Project, including erosion and sediment control causing temporary increase in vehicle measures. and equipment emissions in the PSA. • Compliance with all applicable federal, provincial and municipal legislation, • Piling and burning of slash and debris codes and guidelines, including fish and wildlife restricted activity periods. will cause a temporary increase in the • Mobile and stationary construction equipment will be required to meet amount of smoke and particulate appropriate federal emission standards. matter in the PSA. • Equipment and vehicles will not be left idling whenever possible. • Long-term IVMP includes measures to • Dust control measures such as spraying access roads/areas with water will reduce the frequency of some O&M be implemented as needed. activities (e.g., mechanical brushing), which would result in less vehicle and • The amount of slash and debris to be burned will be minimized by salvaging equipment use and travel on the RoW as much timber as possible from the clearing activities. and Moon Lake trail, and consequently • Burning slash and debris piles will be attended at all times and monitored to a reduction in GHG emissions in the ensure the materials are ignited and burning and not smoldering for long PSA from these activities. periods of time. • Where burning is conducted, fires will be fully controlled at all times and finally extinguished prior to Project shutdown in late winter.

Climate • No effects identified. • None required; however, in recognition of Parks Canada’s efforts to reduce

145

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Potential Project Effect Proposed Mitigation Component GHG emissions in RMNP that may have potential climate change implications on the ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experiences in RMNP, Manitoba Hydro will support these efforts by minimizing the use of motorized vehicles in the Park wherever possible, using vehicles and equipment that are well-maintained and meet current emissions standards, and not leaving vehicles or equipment running when not in use. • One of the expected outcomes of the implementation of the IVMP is a reduction in the frequency of some O&M activities. This reduction in O&M activities is expected to result in a reduction in vehicle emissions, which is expected to lead to a reduction in the release of GHGs and other compounds that affect air quality and may have climate change implications in the Park. Noise • During the RoW clearing, Moon Lake • Implementation of the measures outlined in Section 13.2 and Manitoba trail redevelopment and Project O&M Hydro’s EnvPP for the Project, including erosion and sediment control activities, there will be a temporary measures. increase in noise in areas of the PSA • Compliance with all applicable federal, provincial and municipal legislation, during the winter season due to codes and guidelines, including fish and wildlife restricted activity periods. temporary vehicle and equipment • Work activities will take place in the winter to minimize disturbance to fish usage. and wildlife, TLU activities and visitor experiences. • Project clearing, construction and O&M activities will occur during daytime hours to minimize the effects of noise on stakeholders and local wildlife. Manitoba Hydro will follow all applicable noise bylaws. • All equipment used on site will be fitted with appropriate mufflers and be well maintained to minimize noise levels off the site.

Terrain and Soils • Temporary disturbance of terrain and • Implementation of the measures outlined in Section 13.2 and Manitoba surface soils due to vehicle and Hydro’s EnvPP for the Project, including erosion and sediment control equipment travel and RoW clearing measures. activities within the RoW. • Compliance with all applicable federal, provincial and municipal legislation, • Potential for rutting to occur on the codes and guidelines. existing trails within the RoW due to • The amount of area affected will be minimized as much as possible by vehicle and equipment travel. having the areas required for clearing or trail redevelopment surveyed and • Potential for scorching of surface soils accurately marked prior to clearing or construction activities.

146

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Potential Project Effect Proposed Mitigation Component from the burning of woody debris • In areas where terrain and soils can be reclaimed after trail redevelopment, within the RoW. care will be taken to keep topsoil layers separate from lower layers so that • Potential for accidents and/or spills to the original soils can be restored after construction. occur that could release and/or • Work will be done in winter to minimize rutting. One of the objectives of the transport deleterious substances such Moon Lake trail redevelopment works is to remediate existing trail rutting as fuel or oil to the surface soils. issues and prevent further rutting. • Potential for increased erosion at the • Vehicle and equipment access will be limited to the RoW and existing roads Edwards Creek ravine, which could and paths wherever possible. result in the potential release and/or • Slash and debris from clearing and limbing can be accumulated, placed into transport of eroded sediments to portable sloop(s) and burned, thereby disposing of the debris and Edwards Creek. minimizing the risk of soil scorching. • Where burning is conducted, fires will be fully controlled at all times and finally extinguished prior to Project shutdown in late winter. • All work crews will be trained in spill prevention and spill clean-up measures, and equipped with spill clean up kits. • Storage and disposal of dangerous goods will occur according to Workplace Safety and Health Act and Storage and Handling of Petroleum Products and Allied Products Regulation 188/2001. • Storage and disposal of all waste generated at the site will adhere to municipal by-laws and applicable provincial regulations. • All spills will be reported to the appropriate authority and remediation will be in accordance with applicable regulations (Storage and Handling of Petroleum Products and Allied Products Regulation 188/2001). • All Project material used at the site will be removed and the area will be restored to the pre-existing appearance. • An erosion and sediment control plan will be developed for the works near Edwards Creek, which will include a buffer zone where no machinery is allowed, sediment fencing and any other measures required to prevent the release and/or transport of sediment to Edwards Creek. Conducting the works in winter under frozen conditions will also help to mitigate the release and/or transport of sediment. Vegetation • Removal of danger and hazard trees • Implementation of the measures outlined in Section 13.2 and Manitoba and tall vegetation (i.e., vegetation with Hydro’s EnvPP for the Project, including erosion and sediment control a height that exceeds the desired measures.

147

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Potential Project Effect Proposed Mitigation Component heights for the Wire Zone-Border Zone • Compliance with all applicable federal, provincial and municipal legislation, concept on the east side of the existing codes and guidelines. RoW. Clearing will be focused on the • The amount of vegetation affected by clearing activities will be minimized as removal of danger and hazard trees much as possible by having the areas required to be cleared surveyed and and other tall vegetation that does not accurately marked prior to construction. meet Manitoba Hydro’s requirements. • Vehicle and equipment access will be limited to the RoW and existing roads Low shrubs, grasses and forbs will be and paths wherever possible. retained wherever possible to meet the objectives of the Wire Zone-Border • Manitoba Hydro will discuss the issue of wind throw with Parks Canada to Zone concept and long term IVMP. determine an appropriate mitigation and/or management strategy for this potential effect if it becomes a concern along the ROW. • Use of short-term vegetation management techniques in the above- • Any areas of exposed soils will be stabilized and revegetated with a seed or noted section of the east side of the plant mix approved by Parks Canada. RoW for a period of approximately 12 • All equipment and footwear mobilized from outside RMNP shall arrive at the years, which includes the activities Park in clean condition to minimize the risk of weed or pest introduction. outlined in Section 4.3.7. • Vehicle and equipment access will be limited to the RoW and existing roads • Implementation of long-term and paths wherever possible. vegetation management techniques in • Where burning is conducted, fires will be fully controlled at all times and the above-noted section of the east finally extinguished prior to Project shutdown in late winter. side of the RoW after the period of • Exhaust and engine systems of equipment and vehicles shall be in good short-term vegetation management, working condition and free of dried grass and other combustibles. which includes the activities outlined in Section 4.3.8. • Each work crew shall carry firefighting equipment. The landowners and authorities having jurisdiction shall be notified immediately should a fire • Reduced risk for flashover fires with occur. All equipment and personnel shall be made available to control a removal of the danger and hazard fire. trees and tall vegetation. • All work crews will be trained in spill prevention and spill clean-up • Potential for wind throw effects to measures, and equipped with spill clean up kits. occur on the east side of the RoW in exposed if the removal of the danger • Storage and disposal of dangerous goods will occur according to Workplace and hazard trees and tall vegetation Safety and Health Act and Storage and Handling of Petroleum Products and exposes adjacent trees that are Allied Products Regulation 188/2001. susceptible to the prevailing winds. It is • Storage and disposal of all waste generated at the site will adhere to expected that trees adjacent to the municipal by-laws and applicable provincial regulations. RoW that are located in areas of • All spills will be reported to the appropriate authority and remediation will be saturated soils that inhibit deep root in accordance with applicable regulations (Storage and Handling of development, or located on very sandy Petroleum Products and Allied Products Regulation 188/2001).

148

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Potential Project Effect Proposed Mitigation Component loose textured soils, that are situated • All Project material used at the site will be removed and the area will be on hills or exposed areas and have a restored to the pre-existing appearance. top heavy canopy may be susceptible • There were no federally or provincially listed plant species or any S1, S2, to wind throw effects. S3 species of conservation concern found during the 2013 field • No federally or provincially listed plant investigations. The plant species present in the RoW areas consisted of species or any S1, S2, S3 species of species ranked as S4 and S5, i.e., widespread, abundant and apparently conservation concern found during the secure or secure throughout their range or in the province. As such, it is not field investigations. expected that there will be a significant effect on plant species composition • Potential for the introduction and/or or diversity due to the RoW clearing activities. spread of invasive plant species if the • Locations of the plants of interest to First Nations will be marked as seeds or plants of invasive species are Sensitive Sites in the EnvPP for the Project to prevent any disturbance or transported to the RoW by crew and/or effects to the vegetation in these areas. The areas will be marked to prevent equipment. disturbance, but the use and significance of these areas will be kept • Potential for the introduction and/or confidential. spread of invasive plant species if the RoW clearing activities result in any exposed soil areas and/or removal of the non-invasive species. • Increased potential for wildfires due to the use of gasoline, oil and electronically operated equipment in the PSA during RoW clearing activities. • Potential for contamination or destruction of vegetation from accidents and/or spills of fuel, oil or other substances deleterious to plant life. • Potential for changes to species composition and/or species diversity in the RoW if the clearing activities result in the removal or destruction of significant amounts of the existing plant species, i.e., removal of a high number of individual plants of one

149

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Potential Project Effect Proposed Mitigation Component species that do not easily recolonize or propagate, or removal of an entire population of the species. • Potential for the contamination, destruction or removal of plants of importance to First Nations at four identified locations along the RoW. • No areas along or within the vicinity of the Moon Lake trail that were identified by the people of the Coalition as areas where medicinal and/or edible plants are gathered. • Re-growth of vegetation on the west side of the RoW will allow for the development of taller trees and shrubs that were previously removed and/or disturbed during RoW O&M activities, and also result in an increase in areas of undisturbed vegetation that were previously disturbed during RoW O&M activities. This re-growth is expected to result in the alteration of the existing habitat over time. This alteration is considered to be a positive effect of the Project, as it will create additional areas of taller and denser undisturbed native vegetation. Plant Species of • No plant species of conservation • Mitigation measures cited for vegetation are applicable to all plant species Conservation concern found to be present within the in the PSA. Concern LSA or PSA. As such, there were low • In the event that plant species of conservation concern are found during the potential effects identified to plant clearing or construction activities, work will be halted, the area around the species of conservation concern in the plants will be marked as a Sensitive Site and the plants will be protected PSA. from disturbance.

150

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Potential Project Effect Proposed Mitigation Component Plant Species of • Potential for the contamination, • Implementation of the measures outlined in Section 13.2 and Manitoba Importance to First destruction or removal of plants of Hydro’s EnvPP for the Project. Nations importance to First Nations four • Compliance with all applicable federal, provincial and municipal legislation, locations along the RoW. No areas codes and guidelines. along or within the vicinity of the Moon • Locations of the plants of interest to First Nations will be marked as Lake trail that were identified by the Sensitive Sites in the EnvPP for the Project to prevent any disturbance or people of the Coalition as areas where effects to the vegetation in these areas. The areas will be marked to prevent medicinal and/or edible plants are disturbance, but the use and significance of these areas will be kept gathered. confidential. • There is the potential for the • All equipment and footwear mobilized from outside RMNP shall arrive at the introduction and/or spread of invasive Park in clean condition to minimize the risk of weed or pest introduction. plant species if the seeds or plants of invasive species are transported to the • Vehicle and equipment access will be limited to the RoW and existing roads RoW by crew and/or equipment. and paths wherever possible. • There is an increased potential for • Where burning is conducted, fires will be fully controlled at all times and wildfires due to the use of gasoline, oil finally extinguished prior to Project shutdown in late winter. and electronically operated equipment • Exhaust and engine systems of equipment and vehicles shall be in good in the PSA during the RoW clearing, working condition and free of dried grass and other combustibles. Moon Lake trail redevelopment and/or • Each work crew shall carry firefighting equipment. The landowners and Project O&M activities. authorities having jurisdiction shall be notified immediately should a fire • There is the potential for contamination occur. All equipment and personnel shall be made available to control a or destruction of vegetation from fire. accidents and/or spills of fuel, oil or • All work crews will be trained in spill prevention and spill clean-up other substances deleterious to plant measures, and equipped with spill clean up kits. life. • Storage and disposal of dangerous goods will occur according to Workplace • The re-growth of vegetation on the Safety and Health Act and Storage and Handling of Petroleum Products and west side of the RoW will allow for the Allied Products Regulation 188/2001. development of taller trees and shrubs • Storage and disposal of all waste generated at the site will adhere to that were previously removed and/or municipal by-laws and applicable provincial regulations. disturbed during RoW O&M activities, • and also result in an increase in areas All spills will be reported to the appropriate authority and remediation will be of undisturbed vegetation that were in accordance with applicable regulations (Storage and Handling of previously disturbed during RoW O&M Petroleum Products and Allied Products Regulation 188/2001). activities. This re-growth will result in the alteration of the existing habitat over time. This alteration is considered

151

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Potential Project Effect Proposed Mitigation Component to be a positive effect of the Project, as it is expected to create additional areas of taller and denser undisturbed vegetation for plant species of interest to First Nations. Wildlife and Wildlife • Temporary disturbance to wildlife and • Implementation of the measures outlined in Section 13.2 and Manitoba Habitat wildlife habitat present in the area Hydro’s EnvPP for the Project, including erosion and sediment control during the winter season from the measures. activities of the crews and equipment • Compliance with all applicable federal, provincial and municipal legislation, in the RoW (clearing, piling and codes and guidelines, including fish and wildlife restricted activity periods. burning of slash and debris). • Project clearing, construction and O&M activities will occur during daytime • Clearing activities on the east side of hours to minimize the effects of noise on local wildlife. Manitoba Hydro will the RoW include the removal of follow all applicable noise bylaws. danger and hazard trees and tall • All equipment used on site will be fitted with appropriate mufflers and be vegetation and will result in the loss of well maintained to minimize noise levels off the site. trees that exceed the desired heights within the distances from the • Vehicle and equipment access will be limited to the RoW and existing roads transmission lines and structures to and paths wherever possible. meet the objectives of the Wire Zone- • The 7.8 m area of potential wildlife habitat on the east side of the RoW that Border Zone concept and long term will be permanently altered due to clearing activities will be partially offset by IVMP. Some of these tall trees may the re-growth of 5.2 m of forest habitat on the west side of the RoW. provide nesting and/or feeding habitat • A pre-construction survey for bird species and their cavities and/or nests, for birds and other wildlife. bear denning sites and Species At Risk will be carried out prior to the • Vegetation management activities will clearing activities to avoid Project delays, protect any VCs or Species At improve access and result in Risk that may be present in the PSA, and maintain compliance with temporary changes to foraging, regulatory requirements. Existing cavities, nests, denning sites, hibernacula hunting and predation. These changes or other overwintering habitats found in the PSA during the pre-construction may affect individual animals, but are survey will be marked as Sensitive Sites and preservation of these sites will not expected to affect any of the be attempted, where possible. wildlife species at a population level. • Re-growth of vegetation on the west side of the RoW will allow for the development of taller trees and shrubs that were previously removed and/or disturbed during RoW O&M activities, and also result in an increase in areas

152

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Potential Project Effect Proposed Mitigation Component of undisturbed vegetation that were previously disturbed during RoW O&M activities. This re-growth will result in the alteration of the existing habitat over time. This alteration is considered to be a positive effect of the Project for wildlife and wildlife habitat, including VCs, as it will create additional areas of taller and denser undisturbed native vegetation. • Cleared areas may temporarily provide improved access and successional vegetation that may be attractive to white-tailed deer, which could result in an increase in the potential for disease transmission (e.g., P. tenuis) to moose. • Cleared areas may temporarily provide improved access for foraging by black bears, which could result in an increase in incidental predation on ungulates and their calves. • Temporary provision of improved access for foraging for some species could also be perceived as a positive effect of the RoW clearing activities. Beaver • Temporary disturbance to beaver • Disturbance will be temporary and occur during the winter season when and/or beaver habitat located within or beaver are less active. immediately adjacent to the RoW • Project clearing, construction and O&M activities will occur during daytime and/or Moon Lake trail due to the hours to minimize the effects of noise on local wildlife. Manitoba Hydro will clearing, trail redevelopment and/or follow all applicable noise bylaws. O&M activities by crew and equipment. • All equipment used on site will be fitted with appropriate mufflers and be • Redevelopment of the Moon Lake trail well maintained to minimize noise levels off the site. will result in some areas of the existing • Vehicle and equipment access will be limited to the RoW and existing roads trail located within the existing RoW and paths wherever possible.

153

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Potential Project Effect Proposed Mitigation Component being covered by logs, small diameter • The 7.8 m area of potential wildlife habitat on the east side of the RoW that culverts, geotextile and aggregate. will be permanently altered due to clearing activities will be partially offset by However, existing water flow and flow the re-growth of 5.2 m of forest habitat on the west side of the RoW. patterns will be maintained as part of • Beaver management actions are a required component of the Project the trail design. As such, there are no activities. The beaver management methods used in RMNP by Parks permanent changes to beaver or Canada include the Beaver Baffler, log-pull method and explosives (for beaver habitat within the Moon Lake clearing plugged culverts), dynamiting and manually taking apart dams, tree trail expected as a result of the trail fencing, tree-wrapping, kill trapping and shooting beaver (Menzies 1998). redevelopment activities. Manitoba Hydro will avoid effects on beaver wherever possible. In the event • RoW clearing and loss of the danger that beaver management activities are required, Manitoba Hydro will work and hazard trees in the PSA may together with Parks Canada to implement an appropriate management temporarily affect a few individuals, but strategy. is not considered to be of an extent that would have a significant long-term effect or affect beavers at a population level. There are many other areas in the LSA that provide vegetation for beavers. • RoW clearing, redevelopment of the Moon Lake trail and O&M activities include the removal of danger and hazard trees. This removal could result in the loss of some trees desired by beavers. • RoW clearing activities may result in a temporary increase in access to successional vegetation for beavers to use for feeding and for lodge and dam construction, but also increased potential for hunting and predation. Changes to foraging, hunting or predation due to the Project activities will be temporary. These changes may affect individual animals, but are not expected to affect any of the wildlife species at a population level.

154

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Potential Project Effect Proposed Mitigation Component • Potential for the disturbance of beaver activities and/or loss of beavers as part of beaver management actions. Black bear • Temporary disturbance to black bear, • Disturbance will occur during the winter season when black bear are less black bear dens and/or black bear active and using their dens. habitat located within or immediately • Project clearing, construction and O&M activities will occur during daytime adjacent to the RoW and/or Moon hours to minimize the effects of noise on local wildlife. Manitoba Hydro will Lake trail due to the clearing, trail follow all applicable noise bylaws. redevelopment and/or O&M activities • All equipment used on site will be fitted with appropriate mufflers and be by crew and equipment. well maintained to minimize noise levels off the site. • Cleared areas on the east side of the • Vehicle and equipment access will be limited to the RoW and existing roads RoW represent a permanent change to and paths wherever possible. this area of forest habitat as the vegetation in the cleared area will be • The 7.8 m area of potential wildlife habitat on the east side of the RoW that managed as per the Wire Zone-Border will be permanently altered due to clearing activities will be partially offset by Zone concept. the re-growth of 5.2 m of forest habitat on the west side of the RoW. • Cleared areas on the east side of the • A pre-construction survey for bear denning sites will be conducted prior to RoW may temporarily provide the clearing activities. Existing denning sites will be marked as Sensitive improved foraging and hunting Sites and preserved. opportunities for black bear as a result of improved access to new successional vegetation, and improved access to ungulates attracted to the new successional vegetation. Any changes to foraging, hunting or predation due to the Project activities will be temporary. These changes may affect individual animals, but are not expected to affect any of the wildlife species at a population level. • Potential for the disturbance and/or destruction of denning areas located within the east side of the RoW to be cleared. • Potential for bear cub mortalities

155

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Potential Project Effect Proposed Mitigation Component caused by clearing activities at denning sites. Moose • Temporary disturbance during the • Disturbance will occur during the winter season when moose are less active winter season to moose and/or moose than during spring, summer and fall breeding, feeding and rutting periods. habitat located within or immediately • Project clearing, construction and O&M activities will occur during daytime adjacent to the RoW and/or Moon hours to minimize the effects of noise on local wildlife. Manitoba Hydro will Lake trail due to the clearing, trail follow all applicable noise bylaws. redevelopment and/or O&M activities • All equipment used on site will be fitted with appropriate mufflers and be by crew and equipment. well maintained to minimize noise levels off the site. • Potential for moose to avoid the PSA • Vehicle and equipment access will be limited to the RoW and existing roads for the duration of the clearing, trail and paths wherever possible. redevelopment and/or O&M activities by crew and equipment. • The 7.8 m area of potential wildlife habitat on the east side of the RoW that will be permanently altered due to clearing activities will be partially offset by • Cleared areas on the east side of the the re-growth of 5.2 m of forest habitat on the west side of the RoW. RoW represent a permanent change to this area of forest habitat as the vegetation in the cleared area will be managed as per the Wire Zone-Border Zone concept. • Cleared areas on the east side of the RoW may temporarily provide improved foraging opportunities for moose as a result of improved access to new successional vegetation. Any changes to foraging due to the Project activities will be temporary. These changes may affect individual animals, but are not expected to affect any of the wildlife species at a population level. • Cleared areas may temporarily provide improved access and successional vegetation that may be attractive to white tailed deer, which could result in an increase in disease transmission

156

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Potential Project Effect Proposed Mitigation Component (e.g., P. tenuis to moose). • Potential for a temporary increase in predation on moose and particularly moose calves by black bears and wolves due to the improved access in cleared areas. Any changes to hunting or predation due to the Project activities will be temporary. These changes may affect individual animals, but are not expected to affect any of the wildlife species at a population level. Birds and Bird • Temporary disturbance during the • Many of the bird species in the PSA, LSA and RSA are migratory birds that Species of winter season to birds and/or bird would not be present in the winter season. Conservation habitat present within or immediately • Project clearing, construction and O&M activities will occur during daytime Concern adjacent to the RoW and/or Moon hours to minimize the effects of noise on local wildlife. Manitoba Hydro will Lake trail due to the clearing, trail follow all applicable noise bylaws. redevelopment and/or O&M activities • All equipment used on site will be fitted with appropriate mufflers and be by crew and equipment. well maintained to minimize noise levels off the site. • Potential for birds to avoid the PSA for • Vehicle and equipment access will be limited to the RoW and existing roads the duration of the clearing, trail and paths wherever possible. redevelopment and/or O&M activities by crew and equipment. • The 7.8 m area of potential wildlife habitat on the east side of the RoW that will be permanently altered due to clearing activities will be partially offset by • Cleared areas on the east side of the the re-growth of 5.2 m of forest habitat on the west side of the RoW. RoW represent a permanent change to this area of forest habitat as the • A pre-construction survey for bird species, their cavities and/or nests, and vegetation in the cleared area will be Species At Risk will be carried out prior to the clearing activities to avoid managed as per the Wire Zone-Border Project delays, protect any VCs or Species At Risk that may be present in Zone concept. the PSA, and maintain compliance with regulatory requirements. Existing nesting trees and/or cavity nesting trees found to support migratory birds, • No large stick nests, small bird nests early nesting owls or bird Species At Risk identified during the pre- or heron rookeries were observed in construction survey will be marked as Sensitive Sites and preservation will the RoW or along the Moon Lake trail be attempted. during the pedestrian or Argo based surveys in June 2013 or during the January 2014 winter aerial

157

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Potential Project Effect Proposed Mitigation Component multispecies survey. • Potential for the removal of potential and/or existing nesting trees and existing nests (i.e., raptor nests, heron rookeries, neotropical songbird nests) due to the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities by crew and equipment. • Potential for the removal of potential and/or existing cavity nesting trees that support early nesting owls (barred, barn, saw-whet, boreal and screech) due to the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities by crew and equipment. Amphibians and • Temporary disturbance during the • The amphibian and reptile species in the PSA, LSA and RSA migrate to Reptiles winter season to overwintering overwintering areas such as burrows, rivers, lakes, ponds or underground amphibians and/or reptiles and/or hibernacula and are inactive during the winter season. amphibian and reptile habitat present • Project clearing, construction and O&M activities will occur during daytime within or immediately adjacent to the hours to minimize the effects of noise on local wildlife. Manitoba Hydro will RoW and/or Moon Lake trail due to the follow all applicable noise bylaws. clearing, trail redevelopment and/or • All equipment used on site will be fitted with appropriate mufflers and be O&M activities by crew and equipment. well maintained to minimize noise levels off the site. • Potential for direct mortality of • Vehicle and equipment access will be limited to the RoW and existing roads overwintering amphibians and/or and paths wherever possible. reptiles due to the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities • The 7.8 m area of potential wildlife habitat on the east side of the RoW that by crew and equipment. will be permanently altered due to clearing activities will be partially offset by the re-growth of 5.2 m of forest habitat on the west side of the RoW. • Clearing activities on the east side of the RoW may result in a temporary • Changes to the forest habitat will mainly affect tall trees and shrubs in the change in microhabitat conditions in RoW. This change is not expected to have a significant long-term effect on the cleared areas, including changes the ground surface habitats used by these species. in air and soil temperature, relative • A pre-construction survey for Species At Risk will be carried out prior to the humidity, light intensity, leaf litter, and clearing activities to avoid Project delays, protect any VCs or Species At coarse woody debris. Risk that may be present in the PSA, and maintain compliance with regulatory requirements. Any amphibian overwintering areas or reptile

158

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Potential Project Effect Proposed Mitigation Component • Cleared areas on the east side of the hibernacula identified during the pre-construction survey will be marked as RoW represent a permanent change to Sensitive Sites and preservation will be attempted. this area of forest habitat as the vegetation in the cleared area will be managed as per the Wire Zone-Border Zone concept. However, these changes will mostly affect tall trees and shrubs; ground cover will be disturbed during the clearing activities but not removed. As such, there may be temporary changes in ground cover habitat for amphibians and reptiles in the cleared areas of the RoW. • Changes to microhabitat will be of temporary duration and may temporarily affect a few individuals, but is not expected to have a significant long-term effect or affect any of the amphibian or reptile species at a population level.

Wetlands • Potential for the contamination, • Implementation of the measures outlined in Section 13.2 and Manitoba destruction or removal of plants of Hydro’s EnvPP for the Project, including erosion and sediment control importance to First Nations at four measures. sites identified in the RoW. • Compliance with all applicable federal, provincial and municipal legislation, • No areas along or within the vicinity of codes and guidelines, including fish and wildlife restricted activity periods. the Moon Lake trail were identified by • The main mitigation measure that will be used to prevent disturbance and the people of the Coalition as areas other potential effects on wetlands will be to mark the wetland areas as where medicinal and/or edible plants Sensitive Sites in the Project EnvPP and instruct the work crews to maintain are gathered. a buffer zone around these areas. • Temporary disturbance of wet and/or • Locations of the plants of interest to First Nations will be marked as wetland areas within the Moon Lake Sensitive Sites in the EnvPP for the Project to prevent any disturbance or trail RoW. effects to the vegetation in these areas. The areas will be marked to prevent • Permanent alteration of wet or wetland disturbance, but the use and significance of these areas will be kept areas located in the high and medium confidential.

159

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Potential Project Effect Proposed Mitigation Component priority areas of the Moon Lake trail • Installation of the small diameter culverts, corduroy logs, geotextile material RoW. These areas will be altered by and aggregate in the Moon Lake trail RoW will be completed in a manner the installation of small diameter that will not cause changes in water levels or flow patterns within or across culverts, corduroy logs, geotextile the trail. material and aggregate. • The permanent alteration of the wet and/or wetland areas on the Moon Lake • No federally or provincially listed plant trail are part of the trail redevelopment activities to improve access along species or any species of conservation the trail and prevent further damage to the trail vegetation, terrain and soils. concern were found during the field • All equipment and footwear mobilized from outside RMNP shall arrive at the investigations. As such, it is not Park in clean condition to minimize the risk of weed or pest introduction. expected that there will be a significant • Vehicle and equipment access will be limited to the RoWs and existing effect on plant species composition or roads and paths wherever possible. diversity due to the RoW clearing activities. • Where burning is conducted, fires will be fully controlled at all times and finally extinguished prior to Project shutdown in late winter. • Potential for the introduction and/or spread of invasive plant species if the • Exhaust and engine systems of equipment and vehicles shall be in good seeds or plants of invasive species are working condition and free of dried grass and other combustibles. transported to the RoW or Moon Lake • Each work crew shall carry firefighting equipment. The landowners and trail by crew and/or equipment. authorities having jurisdiction shall be notified immediately should a fire • Potential for the introduction and/or occur. All equipment and personnel shall be made available to control a spread of invasive plant species if the fire. RoW clearing activities result in any • All work crews will be trained in spill prevention and spill clean-up exposed soil areas and/or removal of measures, and equipped with spill clean up kits. the non-invasive species. • Storage and disposal of dangerous goods will occur according to Workplace • Increased potential for wildfires due to Safety and Health Act and Storage and Handling of Petroleum Products and the use of gasoline, oil and Allied Products Regulation 188/2001. electronically operated equipment in • Storage and disposal of all waste generated at the site will adhere to the PSA during RoW clearing municipal by-laws and applicable provincial regulations. activities. • All spills will be reported to the appropriate authority and remediation will be • Potential for contamination or in accordance with applicable regulations (Storage and Handling of destruction of wetland vegetation from Petroleum Products and Allied Products Regulation 188/2001). the release or transport of sediment, • All Project material used at the site will be removed and the area will be accidents and/or spills of fuel, oil or restored to the pre-existing appearance. other substances deleterious to plant life. • Potential for changes to species

160

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Potential Project Effect Proposed Mitigation Component composition and/or species diversity in the RoW if the clearing activities result in the removal or destruction of significant amounts of the existing plant species, i.e., removal of a high number of individual plants of one species that do not easily recolonize or propagate, or removal of an entire population of the species. Groundwater • Potential for the contamination of • Implementation of the measures outlined in Section 13.2 and Manitoba groundwater resources from accidents Hydro’s EnvPP for the Project. and/or spills of fuel, oil or other • Compliance with all applicable federal, provincial and municipal legislation, deleterious substances in areas of codes and guidelines. surface water or wetlands with • The protection of groundwater resources in the PSA will be accomplished groundwater connectivity, i.e., areas by establishing buffer zones at surface water and wetland areas and that may function as groundwater including mitigation measures in the Project EnvPP to prevent or minimize recharge sites, flow-through systems potential effects to groundwater due to the transport of sediment, oils, fuels or groundwater discharge sites. or other contaminants. • Potential for the Moon Lake trail • Mitigation measures will include erosion and sediment control plans; redevelopment activities to alter the conducting all equipment cleaning, maintenance or refuelling at least 100 m water levels or flow patterns within or from any watercourse, waterbody or wetland areas; and providing all work across the trail, which could in turn crews with information on how to prevent accidents or spills, emergency affect flow, recharge or discharge of spill response procedures and spill clean up kits. These measures will be groundwater in these areas. applied to the RoW clearing activities, Moon Lake trail construction activities, and the RoW and Moon Lake Trail O&M activities. • The installation of the small diameter culverts, corduroy logs, geotextile material and aggregate for the Moon Lake trail redevelopment will be completed in a manner that will not cause changes in water levels or flow patterns within or across the trail. Surface Water • Potential for contamination of surface • Implementation of the measures outlined in Section 13.2 and Manitoba waters from the release and/or Hydro’s EnvPP for the Project, including erosion and sediment control transport of sediment, accidents and/or measures. spills of fuel, oil or other deleterious • Compliance with all applicable federal, provincial and municipal legislation, substances due to stream crossing codes and guidelines. activities or other activities near • Stream crossings will be constructed perpendicular to the stream alignment

161

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Potential Project Effect Proposed Mitigation Component surface waters. and where the stream banks are well defined. • Potential for increased erosion at the • Stream crossings will be conducted in accordance with the measures Edwards Creek ravine, which could outlined by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO 2014a; 2014b) to prevent result in the potential release and/or serious harm to fish or fish habitat, including timing windows, and the transport of eroded sediments to Manitoba Stream Crossing Guidelines for construction activities and Edwards Creek. temporary crossings (DFO and MNR 1996). • Potential for the Moon Lake trail • The Project EnvPP will include the establishment of buffer zones at surface redevelopment activities to alter the water areas and implementation of erosion and sediment control plans to water levels or flow patterns within or prevent or minimize potential effects. An erosion and sediment control plan across the trail. There will be the will be developed for the works near Edwards Creek, which will include a permanent alteration of wet or wetland buffer zone where no machinery is allowed, sediment fencing and any other areas located in the high and medium measures required to prevent the release and/or transport of sediment to priority areas of the trail. These areas Edwards Creek. Conducting the works in winter under frozen conditions will will be altered by the installation of also help to mitigate the release and/or transport of sediment. small diameter culverts, corduroy logs, • The installation of the small diameter culverts, corduroy logs, geotextile geotextile material and aggregate. material and aggregate will be completed in a manner that will not cause changes in water levels or flow patterns within or across the trail. • Vehicle and equipment access will be limited to the RoWs and existing roads and paths wherever possible. • All work crews will be trained in spill prevention and spill clean-up measures, and equipped with spill clean up kits. • Storage and disposal of dangerous goods will occur according to Workplace Safety and Health Act and Storage and Handling of Petroleum Products and Allied Products Regulation 188/2001. • Storage and disposal of all waste generated at the site will adhere to municipal by-laws and applicable provincial regulations. • All spills will be reported to the appropriate authority and remediation will be in accordance with applicable regulations (Storage and Handling of Petroleum Products and Allied Products Regulation 188/2001). • All Project material used at the site will be removed and the area will be restored to the pre-existing appearance.

Fish and Fish • Temporary disturbance to fish or fish • Implementation of the measures outlined in Section 13.2 and Manitoba Habitat habitat when crews and/or equipment Hydro’s EnvPP for the Project, including erosion and sediment control

162

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Potential Project Effect Proposed Mitigation Component are required to cross a fish-bearing measures. stream. • Compliance with all applicable federal, provincial and municipal legislation, • Potential for the alteration of fish codes and guidelines, including fish and wildlife restricted activity periods. habitat (i.e., compaction, alteration or • Stream crossings will be constructed perpendicular to the stream alignment erosion of bed, banks or substrates) at and where the stream banks are well defined. the stream crossings. • Stream crossings will be conducted in accordance with the measures • Potential for changes in water levels or outlined by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO 2014a; 2014b) to prevent flow patterns in fish-bearing streams serious harm to fish or fish habitat, including timing windows, and the as a result of the Moon Lake trail Manitoba Stream Crossing Guidelines for construction activities and redevelopment activities. temporary crossings (DFO and MNR 1996). Examples of measures • Potential for the introduction and/or indicated by DFO include: spread of invasive plant species if the o Time any work in water to respect timing windows to protect fish, seeds or plants of invasive species are including their eggs, juveniles, spawning adults and/or the organisms transported to the RoW by crew and/or upon which they feed. equipment. o Ensure that machinery arrives on site in a clean condition and is • Potential for the transportation and/or maintained free of fluid leaks, invasive species and noxious weeds. release of sediment due to the crew o Whenever possible, operate machinery on land above the high water and equipment crossings, particularly mark, on ice, or from a floating barge in a manner that minimizes at Edwards Creek. disturbance to the banks and bed of the waterbody. • Potential for the transportation and/or o Limit machinery fording of the watercourse to a one-time event (i.e., release of oils, fuels or other over and back), and only if no alternative crossing method is contaminants as a result of accidents available. If repeated crossings of the watercourse are required, and/or spills. construct a temporary crossing structure. o Use temporary crossing structures or other practices to cross streams or waterbodies with steep and highly erodible (e.g., dominated by organic materials and silts) banks and beds. For fording equipment without a temporary crossing structure, use stream bank and bed protection methods (e.g., swamp mats, pads) if minor rutting is likely to occur during fording. o Wash, refuel and service machinery and store fuel and other materials for the machinery in such a way as to prevent any deleterious substances from entering the water. • The clearing, construction and O&M activities will be conducted during the winter when the fish bearing streams that cross the RoW and/or Moon Lake trail will be frozen to the bottom and fish are not likely to be present.

163

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Potential Project Effect Proposed Mitigation Component • Establish one location perpendicular to the watercourse for crossing of crews and/or equipment. An area of hard substrates should be selected wherever possible. • The installation of the small diameter culverts, corduroy logs, geotextile material and aggregate for the Moon Lake trail redevelopment will be completed in a manner that will not cause changes in water levels or flow patterns within or across the trail. • The Project EnvPP will include the establishment of buffer zones at fish-bearing streams and implementation of erosion and sediment control plans to prevent or minimize potential effects. An erosion and sediment control plan will be developed for the works near Edwards Creek, which will include a buffer zone where no machinery is allowed, sediment fencing and any other measures required to prevent the release and/or transport of sediment to Edwards Creek. Conducting the works in winter under frozen conditions will also help to mitigate the release and/or transport of sediment. • All equipment and footwear mobilized from outside RMNP shall arrive at the Park in clean condition to minimize the risk of weed or pest introduction. • Vehicle and equipment access will be limited to the RoWs and existing roads and paths wherever possible. • All work crews will be trained in spill prevention and spill clean-up measures, and equipped with spill clean up kits. • Storage and disposal of dangerous goods will occur according to Workplace Safety and Health Act and Storage and Handling of Petroleum Products and Allied Products Regulation 188/2001. • Storage and disposal of all waste generated at the site will adhere to municipal by-laws and applicable provincial regulations. • All spills will be reported to the appropriate authority and remediation will be in accordance with applicable regulations (Storage and Handling of Petroleum Products and Allied Products Regulation 188/2001). • All Project material used at the site will be removed and the area will be restored to the pre-existing appearance.

Species at Risk • Potential for the temporary disturbance • Implementation of the measures outlined in Section 13.2 and Manitoba of any habitat for Species at Risk that Hydro’s EnvPP for the Project, including erosion and sediment control

164

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Potential Project Effect Proposed Mitigation Component may be present in the PSA or LSA due measures. to the crew and equipment activities. • Compliance with all applicable federal, provincial and municipal legislation, The disturbance is limited to the codes and guidelines, including fish and wildlife restricted activity periods. timeframe needed for the RoW • Conducting the clearing, construction and O&M activities during the winter clearing or Moon Lake trail when the majority of the Species At Risk are not likely to be present. redevelopment activities, i.e. from January 2016 to March 2016, and to • Project clearing, construction and O&M activities will occur during daytime the timeframe needed for O&M hours to minimize the effects of noise on local wildlife. Manitoba Hydro will activities, i.e., short periods (one day follow all applicable noise bylaws. to several days) from December to • All equipment used on site will be fitted with appropriate mufflers and be March. well maintained to minimize noise levels off the site. • Cleared areas on the east side of the • Vehicle and equipment access will be limited to the RoW and existing roads RoW represent a permanent change to and paths wherever possible. this area of forest habitat as the • The 7.8 m area of potential wildlife habitat on the east side of the RoW that vegetation in the cleared area will be will be permanently altered due to clearing activities will be partially offset by managed as per the Wire Zone-Border the re-growth of 5.2 m of forest habitat on the west side of the RoW. Zone concept. Some of the trees, • There were no plant or animal Species At Risk observed to be present shrubs and other vegetation affected in within the PSA at the time of the field surveys. However, it is recommended this area of the RoW could provide that a pre-construction survey be conducted to further evaluate for the habitat for some of the Species at presence of Species At Risk in the PSA to avoid Project delays, protect any Risk. Species At Risk that may be present in the PSA, and maintain compliance • Improved access and successional with regulatory requirements. Any trees, hibernacula or other habitat found vegetation results in a temporary to support Species At Risk identified during the pre-construction survey will change to the cleared areas of the be marked as Sensitive Sites and preservation of these sites will be RoW, until the vegetation affected by attempted. the clearing activities has re-grown, • Where burning is conducted, fires will be fully controlled at all times and short-term vegetation management finally extinguished prior to Project shutdown in late winter. activities are completed, and the long- • term vegetation management plans Exhaust and engine systems of equipment and vehicles shall be in good are implemented. As such, any working condition and free of dried grass and other combustibles. changes to foraging, hunting or • Each work crew shall carry firefighting equipment. The landowners and predation due to the Project activities authorities having jurisdiction shall be notified immediately should a fire will be temporary. These changes occur. All equipment and personnel shall be made available to control a may affect individual animals, but are fire. not expected to affect any of the • All equipment and footwear mobilized from outside RMNP shall arrive at the wildlife species at a population level. Park in clean condition to minimize the risk of weed or pest introduction.

165

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Potential Project Effect Proposed Mitigation Component • Re-growth of vegetation on the west • Vehicle and equipment access will be limited to the RoWs and existing side of the RoW will allow for the roads and paths wherever possible. development of taller trees and shrubs • All work crews will be trained in spill prevention and spill clean-up that were previously removed and/or measures, and equipped with spill clean up kits. disturbed during RoW O&M activities, • Storage and disposal of dangerous goods will occur according to Workplace and also result in an increase in areas Safety and Health Act and Storage and Handling of Petroleum Products and of undisturbed vegetation that were Allied Products Regulation 188/2001. previously disturbed during RoW O&M activities. This re-growth will result in • Storage and disposal of all waste generated at the site will adhere to the alteration of the existing habitat municipal by-laws and applicable provincial regulations. over time. This alteration is considered • All spills will be reported to the appropriate authority and remediation will be to be a positive effect of the Project, as in accordance with applicable regulations (Storage and Handling of it will create additional areas of taller Petroleum Products and Allied Products Regulation 188/2001). and denser undisturbed vegetation for • All Project material used at the site will be removed and the area will be Species at Risk and other wildlife. restored to the pre-existing appearance. • Potential for the removal of potential • The mitigation measures listed above for wildlife and wildlife habitat, birds of and/or existing nesting trees and conservation concern, and amphibians and reptiles are also applicable to existing nests for Species at Risk due these types of animals that are Species At Risk (e.g., little brown myotis, to the removal of danger and hazard mule/black-tailed deer, common snapping turtle, Northern leopard frog, trees as part of RoW clearing, Moon Canada warbler, common nighthawk, golden-winged warbler, olive-sided Lake trail redevelopment and/or flycatcher, short eared owl, whip-poor-will, and yellow rail). Project O&M activities by crew and equipment.

• Increased potential for wildfires due to the use of gasoline, oil and electronically operated equipment in the PSA during the of RoW clearing, Moon Lake trail redevelopment and/or Project O&M activities • Potential for changes to the type and quality of habitat available for Species At Risk in the PSA due to the introduction and/or spread of invasive plant species. • Potential for accidents and/or spills to occur that could release and/or

166

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Potential Project Effect Proposed Mitigation Component transport deleterious substances such as sediment, fuel or oil to the surface soils or waters used by Species At Risk. • Potential effects noted for wildlife and wildlife habitat), birds of conservation concern, and amphibians and reptiles are also applicable to these types of animals that are Species At Risk. Land Use • Temporary increase in the use of • Implementation of the measures outlined in Section 13.2 and Manitoba PTH10, Lake Audy Road and the Hydro’s EnvPP for the Project. northern and southern RMNP • Compliance with all applicable federal, provincial and municipal legislation, boundary access points by vehicles codes and guidelines. and equipment during the winter. The • Project clearing, construction and O&M activities will occur during daytime disturbance is limited to the timeframe hours to minimize the effects of noise. Manitoba Hydro will follow all needed for the RoW clearing and applicable noise bylaws. Moon Lake trail redevelopment activities, i.e. from January 2016 to • All equipment used on site will be fitted with appropriate mufflers and be March 2016, and the timeframe well maintained to minimize noise levels off the site. needed for the O&M activities, i.e., • Vehicle and equipment access will be limited to the RoW and existing roads short periods (one day to several days) and paths wherever possible. from December to March. • Where burning is conducted, fires will be fully controlled at all times and • Temporary disturbance to landuse in finally extinguished prior to Project shutdown in late winter. the PSA from increased traffic during • Exhaust and engine systems of equipment and vehicles shall be in good the RoW clearing, trail redevelopment working condition and free of dried grass and other combustibles. and/or O&M activities. • Each work crew shall carry firefighting equipment. The landowners and • Increased potential for wildfires due to authorities having jurisdiction shall be notified immediately should a fire the use of gasoline, oil and occur. All equipment and personnel shall be made available to control a electronically operated equipment in fire. the PSA during the RoW clearing, trail • All Project material used at the site will be removed and the area will be redevelopment and/or O&M activities, restored to the pre-existing appearance. which could affect landuse. • Disruption of recreational fishing by visitors to the Park will not be affected as there are no recreational fishing

167

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Potential Project Effect Proposed Mitigation Component areas in the PSA or LSA. • Disruption of TLU fishing activities will not occur as these activities are not located along the Moon Lake trail and take place other areas of the PSA in the spring, summer or fall and not in winter. • Interference with recreational land use with not occur as public access is not allowed in the RoW and/or Moon Lake trail. Resource Use • Temporary increase in the use of • Implementation of the measures outlined in Section 13.2 and Manitoba PTH10, Lake Audy Road and the Hydro’s EnvPP for the Project. northern and southern RMNP • Compliance with all applicable federal, provincial and municipal legislation, boundary access points by vehicles codes and guidelines. and equipment during the winter. The • Project clearing, construction and O&M activities will occur during daytime disturbance is limited to the timeframe hours to minimize the effects of noise. Manitoba Hydro will follow all needed for the RoW clearing and applicable noise bylaws. Moon Lake trail redevelopment activities, i.e. from January 2016 to • All equipment used on site will be fitted with appropriate mufflers and be March 2016, and the timeframe well maintained to minimize noise levels off the site. needed for the O&M activities, i.e., • Vehicle and equipment access will be limited to the RoW and existing roads short periods (one day to several days) and paths wherever possible. from December to March. • Where burning is conducted, fires will be fully controlled at all times and • Temporary disturbance to resource finally extinguished prior to Project shutdown in late winter. use in the PSA from increased traffic • Exhaust and engine systems of equipment and vehicles shall be in good during the clearing activities. working condition and free of dried grass and other combustibles. • Increased potential for wildfires due to • Each work crew shall carry firefighting equipment. The landowners and the use of gasoline, oil and authorities having jurisdiction shall be notified immediately should a fire electronically operated equipment in occur. All equipment and personnel shall be made available to control a the PSA during the clearing, trail fire. redevelopment and/or O&M activities, • All Project material used at the site will be removed and the area will be which could affect resource use. restored to the pre-existing appearance. • Disruption of recreational fishing by visitors to the Park will not be affected

168

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Potential Project Effect Proposed Mitigation Component as there are no recreational fishing areas in the PSA or LSA. • Disruption of fishing or the gathering of medicinal/edible plants by local First Nations, i.e. TLU activities, will not occur as these activities take place in the spring, summer or fall and not in winter. • Interference with winter recreational resource use, e.g., cross-country skiing, with not occur as public access is not allowed in the RoW and/or Moon Lake trail. Historic and Cultural • Potential for archaeological sites to be • Implementation of the measures outlined in Section 13.2 and Manitoba Heritage disturbed or destroyed during the RoW Hydro’s EnvPP for the Project clearing activities and Moon Lake trail • Compliance with all applicable federal, provincial and municipal legislation, redevelopment activities and access codes and guidelines. routes that will be used by work crews • To prevent disturbance or destruction of these sites, the sites will be marked and equipment. and included in the Project EnvPP as Sensitive Sites. The Project EnvPP will also include instructions for the work crew on appropriate measures to be taken if any artefacts or additional historic or cultural resources are discovered during the clearing activities, i.e., stop work and notification of MHRB for further instruction.

Traditional • Potential harm to special places, • Implementation of the measures outlined in Section 13.2 and Manitoba Knowledge and plants and animals from noise Hydro’s EnvPP for the Project Traditional Land Use disturbance, the use of herbicides • Compliance with all applicable federal, provincial and municipal legislation, and/or other chemicals, and the effects codes and guidelines. of clearing in the RoW and the works • Mitigation measures will include: identifying any important areas as on the Moon Lake trail. Sensitive Sites; avoiding these sites and applying buffer zones to these • Re-growth of vegetation on the west areas; conducting all clearing and construction activities in the winter side of the RoW will allow for the outside of fishing and plant gathering activities; and the inclusion of spill development of taller trees and shrubs prevention, fire prevention and emergency clean up materials and that were previously removed and/or procedures in the EnvPP. disturbed during RoW O&M activities,

169

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Potential Project Effect Proposed Mitigation Component and also result in an increase in areas • All Project material used at the site will be removed and the area will be of undisturbed vegetation that were restored to the pre-existing appearance. previously disturbed during RoW O&M • Herbicides will not be used by Manitoba Hydro in RMNP for vegetation activities. This re-growth will result in management. Parks Canada has indicated that there is no use of herbicides the alteration of the existing habitat allowed in RMNP except for the management of non-native invasive plant over time. This alteration is considered species that threaten ecological integrity (McKillop 2014, pers.comm.). to be a positive effect of the Project, as • No mitigation is required for the re-growth of vegetation on the west side of it is expected to create additional the RoW. areas of taller and denser undisturbed vegetation for plant species of interest to First Nations and wildlife that support TLU activities. Visitor Experiences • Temporary increase in traffic and noise • Implementation of the measures outlined in Section 13.2 and Manitoba and Local Economy disturbance. Hydro’s EnvPP for the Project • Increased potential for wildfires due to • Compliance with all applicable federal, provincial and municipal legislation, the use of gasoline, oil and codes and guidelines. electronically operated equipment in • Project clearing, construction and O&M activities will occur during daytime the PSA during the clearing, trail hours to minimize the effects of noise. Manitoba Hydro will follow all redevelopment and/or O&M activities. applicable noise bylaws. • RoW and Moon Lake trail are • All equipment used on site will be fitted with appropriate mufflers and be restricted from public access or use; well maintained to minimize noise levels off the site. therefore, the temporary disturbance • Vehicle and equipment access will be limited to the RoW and existing roads from traffic and noise are not expected and paths wherever possible. to have a significant effect on visitor experiences. Winter visitors may • Where burning is conducted, fires will be fully controlled at all times and notice an increase in traffic and noise finally extinguished prior to Project shutdown in late winter. on PTH10 and/or Lake Audy Road, but • Exhaust and engine systems of equipment and vehicles shall be in good this increase will be temporary and is working condition and free of dried grass and other combustibles. not expected to interfere with any • Each work crew shall carry firefighting equipment. The landowners and visitor experiences. authorities having jurisdiction shall be notified immediately should a fire • During and after the RoW clearing occur. All equipment and personnel shall be made available to control a activities, the appearance of the RoW fire. will be different as visitors pass • All Project material used at the site will be removed and the area will be through on Lake Audy Road due to the restored to the pre-existing appearance. clearing activities on the east side, • Information materials will be available that provide a brief outline of the RoW re-growth of vegetation on the west

170

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Potential Project Effect Proposed Mitigation Component side, and implementation of the long- clearing, Moon Lake trail redevelopment and Project O&M activities, and the term IVMP after completion of the objective and need for the works. These information materials could be short-term vegetation management displayed at the Park Visitor Centre and be posted along PTH10 and Lake activities. The area that will be affected Audy Road in the vicinity of the activities. It is expected that Park visitors and visible to visitors is limited to a would understand the need for the works (e.g., prevent fires, maintain small area, relative to the rest of the reliable service) and recognize that Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada are roadway and park areas that visitors working together to minimize potential environmental effects and protect the pass through. ecological, cultural and historic values of the Park. • Small opportunities for local First Nations to participate in the local workforce, and workforce may visit RMNP commercial facilities and contribute to local economy, but workforce will only be 5-10 staff during 3-5 months in winter.

171

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park September 2015 Environmental Impact Analysis

13. RESIDUAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

13.1. Summary of Residual Effects Section 12 documented the potential environmental effects of the Project activities on the ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experiences in RMNP. Section 13 summarized the mitigation measures that can be implemented to prevent or minimize the identified potential effects. The residual effects assessment determines the potential environmental effects that may remain after the mitigation measures have been implemented. If mitigation is able to prevent the potential effect (i.e., break the linkage between the potential effect and the receptor of the effect), the potential effect is not brought forward in the residual effects assessment.

Based on the above, residual effects are expected to occur for the following environmental components: Air Quality and GHG; Noise; Terrain and Soils; Vegetation; Plant Species of Importance to First Nations; Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat; Beaver; Black bear; Moose; Birds of Conservation Concern; Amphibians and Reptiles; Wetlands; Surface Water; Fish and Fish Habitat; Species At Risk; Land Use; Resource Use; Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Land Use; and Visitor Experiences and Local Economy.

These residual effects were further assessed using the criteria of direction, magnitude, geographic extent, duration, frequency and likelihood, as described in Section 6.9. After application of the residual effect criteria, the remaining potential effects were then evaluated together to predict the overall environmental consequence, which was ranked as minimal, low, moderate or high (Section 6.9). The effect is considered to be significant if the environmental consequence is determined to be moderate or high, and is considered to be not significant if the environmental consequence is determined to be minimal or low.

Table 14.1 provides a summary of the residual effects and assessed environmental consequence of residual effect for each of the environmental components examined in the environmental impact assessment for the Project.

172

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Table 13-1: Residual Effects and Assessed Environmental Consequence of Residual Effects

Environmental Predicted Residual Effect Direction Magnitude Geographic Duration Frequency Likelihood Environmental Component Extent Consequence Air Quality and During the Project clearing/construction/O&M activities, Negative Low Project work Short-term Frequent Likely to Minimal GHG there will be air emissions due to exhaust and/or dust from areas Very the use of stationary and mobile project equipment. Likely Noise During the RoW clearing, Moon Lake trail redevelopment Negative Low Project work Short-term Frequent Likely to Minimal and Project O&M activities, there will be a temporary areas Very increase in noise in areas of the PSA during the winter Likely season due to temporary vehicle and equipment usage. Terrain and Soils There will be a temporary disturbance of terrain and surface Negative Low Project work Short-term Frequent Likely to Minimal soils due to vehicle and equipment travel and RoW clearing areas Very activities within the RoW. Likely There is the potential for rutting to occur on the existing trails Negative Low Project work Short-term Frequent Likely to Minimal within the RoW due to vehicle and equipment travel. areas Unlikely There is the potential for accidents and/or spills to occur that Negative Low Project work Short-term Infrequent to Likely to Minimal could release and/or transport deleterious substances such areas Frequent Unlikely as fuel or oil to the surface soils. Vegetation The removal of danger and hazard trees and tall vegetation Negative Low Project work Long-term Frequent Likely to Low in about 26.52 ha of forested area on the east side of the areas Very existing RoW. Clearing will be focused on the removal of Likely danger and hazard trees and other tall vegetation that does not meet Manitoba Hydro’s requirements. Low shrubs, grasses and forbs will be retained wherever possible to meet the objectives of the Wire Zone-Border Zone concept and long term IVMP. The use of short-term vegetation management techniques in Negative Low Project work Medium- Frequent Likely to Minimal the above-noted section of the east side of the RoW for a areas term Very period of up to 12 years. Likely The implementation of long-term vegetation management Positive Low Project work Long-term Frequent Likely to Low techniques in the above-noted section of the east side of the areas Very RoW after the period of short-term vegetation management, Likely which includes the activities outlined in Section 4.2.8. It is expected that there will be a reduced risk for flashover Positive Low Project work Long-term Frequent Likely Low fires with removal of the danger and hazard trees and tall areas vegetation.

173

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Predicted Residual Effect Direction Magnitude Geographic Duration Frequency Likelihood Environmental Component Extent Consequence There is the potential for wind throw effects to occur on the Negative Low Project work Long-term Infrequent to Likely to Low east side of the RoW if the removal of the danger and areas Frequent Unlikely hazard trees and tall vegetation exposes adjacent trees that are susceptible to the prevailing winds. It is expected that trees adjacent to the RoW that are located in areas of saturated soils that inhibit deep root development, or located on very sandy loose textured soils, that are situated on hills or exposed areas and have a top heavy canopy may be susceptible to wind throw effects. There is the potential for the introduction and/or spread of Negative Low Project work Short-term Infrequent to Likely to Minimal invasive plant species if the seeds or plants of invasive areas Frequent Unlikely species are transported to the RoW by crew and/or equipment. There is an increased potential for wildfires due to the use of Negative Low Project work Short-term Infrequent to Likely to Minimal gasoline, oil and electronically operated equipment in the areas Frequent Unlikely PSA during RoW clearing activities. There is the potential for contamination or destruction of Negative Low Project work Short-term Infrequent to Likely to Minimal vegetation from accidents and/or spills of fuel, oil or other areas Frequent Unlikely substances deleterious to plant life. The re-growth of vegetation on the west side of the RoW will Positive Low Project work Long-term Frequent to Likely to Low allow for the development of taller trees and shrubs that areas Continuous Very were previously removed and/or disturbed during RoW O&M Likely activities, and also result in an increase in areas of undisturbed vegetation that were previously disturbed during RoW O&M activities. This re-growth will result in the alteration of the existing habitat over time. This alteration is considered to be a positive effect of the Project, as it will create additional areas of taller and denser undisturbed native vegetation. Plant Species of The re-growth of vegetation on the west side of the RoW will Positive Low Project work Long-term Frequent to Likely to Low Importance to allow for the development of taller trees and shrubs that areas Continuous Very First Nations were previously removed and/or disturbed during RoW O&M Likely activities, and also result in an increase in areas of undisturbed vegetation that were previously disturbed during RoW O&M activities. This re-growth will result in the alteration of the existing habitat over time. This alteration is considered to be a positive effect of the Project, as it is expected to create additional areas of taller and denser undisturbed vegetation for plant species of interest to First Nations.

174

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Predicted Residual Effect Direction Magnitude Geographic Duration Frequency Likelihood Environmental Component Extent Consequence There is the potential for the introduction and/or spread of Negative Low Project work Short-term Infrequent to Likely to Minimal invasive plant species if the seeds or plants of invasive areas Frequent Unlikely species are transported to the RoW by crew and/or equipment. There is an increased potential for wildfires due to the use of Negative Low Project work Short-term Infrequent to Likely to Minimal gasoline, oil and electronically operated equipment in the areas Frequent Unlikely PSA during the RoW clearing, Moon Lake trail redevelopment and/or Project O&M activities. Wildlife and There will be a temporary disturbance to wildlife and wildlife Negative Low Project work Short-term Frequent Likely Minimal Wildlife Habitat habitat present in the area during the winter season from the areas activities of the crews and equipment in the RoW (clearing, piling and burning of slash and debris). The removal of danger and hazard trees and tall vegetation Negative Low Project work Long-term Frequent Likely to Low in about 26.52 ha of forested area on the east side of the areas Very existing RoW. Clearing will be focused on the removal of Likely danger and hazard trees and other tall vegetation that does not meet Manitoba Hydro’s requirements. Low shrubs, grasses and forbs will be retained wherever possible to meet the objectives of the Wire Zone-Border Zone concept and long term IVMP. Some of these tall trees may provide nesting and/or feeding habitat for birds and other wildlife. The re-growth of vegetation on the west side of the RoW will Positive Low Project work Long-term Frequent Likely to Low allow for the development of taller trees and shrubs that were areas Very previously removed and/or disturbed during RoW O&M Likely activities, and also result in an increase in areas of undisturbed vegetation that were previously disturbed during RoW O&M activities. This re-growth will result in the alteration of the existing habitat over time. The cleared areas may temporarily provide improved access Negative Low Project work Medium- Frequent Unlikely to Minimal and successional vegetation that may be attractive to areas term Likely white-tailed deer, which could result in an increase in disease transmission (e.g., P. tenuis to moose). The cleared areas may temporarily provide improved access Negative Low Project work Medium- Frequent Unlikely to Minimal for foraging by black bears, which could result in an increase areas term Likely in incidental predation on ungulates and their calves. The temporary provision of improved access for foraging for Positive Low Project work Medium- Frequent Likely Minimal some species could also be perceived as a positive effect of areas term the RoW clearing activities.

175

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Predicted Residual Effect Direction Magnitude Geographic Duration Frequency Likelihood Environmental Component Extent Consequence Beaver There will be a temporary disturbance to beaver and/or Negative Low Project work Short-term Frequent Likely Minimal beaver habitat located within or immediately adjacent to the areas RoW and/or Moon Lake trail due to the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities by crew and equipment. The redevelopment of the Moon Lake trail will result in some Negative Low Project work Long-term Continuous Likely Low areas of the existing trail located within the existing RoW areas being covered by logs, small diameter culverts, geotextile and aggregate. However, the existing water flow and flow patterns will be maintained as part of the trail design (Appendix A). As such, there are no permanent changes to beaver or beaver habitat within the Moon Lake trail expected as a result of the trail redevelopment activities. The RoW clearing, redevelopment of the Moon Lake trail Negative Low Project work Long-term Frequent Unlikely to Low and O&M activities include the removal of danger and areas Likely hazard trees. This removal could result in the loss of some trees desired by beavers. The RoW clearing activities may result in a temporary Positive Low Project work Medium- Frequent Unlikely to Minimal increase in access to successional vegetation for beavers to areas term Likely use for feeding and for lodge and dam construction. There is the potential for the disturbance of beaver activities Negative Low Project work Long-term Frequent Unlikely to Low and/or loss of beavers as part of beaver management areas Likely actions. Black bear There will be a temporary disturbance to black bear, black Negative Low Project work Short-term Frequent Likely Minimal bear dens and/or black bear habitat located within or areas immediately adjacent to the RoW and/or Moon Lake trail due to the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities by crew and equipment. The cleared areas on the east side of the RoW represent a Negative Low Project work Long-term Frequent Likely to Minimal permanent change to this area of forest habitat as the areas Very vegetation in the cleared area will be managed as per the Likely Wire Zone-Border Zone concept shown in Figure 4.1. The cleared areas on the east side of the RoW may Positive Low Project work Medium- Frequent Likely Minimal temporarily provide improved foraging and hunting areas term opportunities for black bear as a result of improved access to new successional vegetation, and improved access to ungulates attracted to the new successional vegetation. There is the potential for the disturbance and/or destruction Negative Low Project work Short-term Infrequent to Unlikely to Minimal of denning areas located within the east side of the RoW to areas Frequent Likely be cleared. There is the potential for bear cub mortalities caused by Negative Low Project work Short-term Infrequent to Unlikely to Minimal RoW clearing activities at denning sites. areas Frequent Likely

176

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Predicted Residual Effect Direction Magnitude Geographic Duration Frequency Likelihood Environmental Component Extent Consequence Moose There will be a temporary disturbance during the winter Negative Low Project work Short-term Frequent Likely Minimal season to moose and/or moose habitat located within or areas immediately adjacent to the RoW and/or Moon Lake trail due to the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities by crew and equipment. There is the potential for moose to avoid the PSA for the Negative Low Project work Short-term Frequent Likely Minimal duration of the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M areas activities by crew and equipment. The cleared areas on the east side of the RoW represent a Negative Low Project work Long-term Frequent Likely to Low permanent change to this area of forest habitat as the areas Very vegetation in the cleared area will be managed as per the Likely Wire Zone-Border Zone concept shown in Figure 4.1. The cleared areas on the east side of the RoW may Positive Low Project work Medium- Frequent Unlikely to Minimal temporarily provide improved foraging opportunities for areas term Likely moose as a result of improved access to new successional vegetation. The cleared areas may temporarily provide improved access Negative Low Project work Medium- Frequent Unlikely to Minimal and successional vegetation that may be attractive to areas term Likely white-tailed deer, which could result in an increase in disease transmission (e.g., P. tenuis to moose). There is the potential for a temporary increase in predation Negative Low Project work Medium- Frequent Unlikely to Minimal on moose and particularly moose calves by black bears and areas term Likely wolves due to the improved access in cleared areas. Birds and Bird There will be a temporary disturbance during the winter Negative Low Project work Short-term Frequent Likely Minimal Species of season to birds and/or bird habitat present within or areas Conservation immediately adjacent to the RoW and/or Moon Lake trail Concern due to the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities by crew and equipment. There is the potential for birds to avoid the PSA for the Negative Low Project work Short-term Frequent Likely Minimal duration of the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M areas activities by crew and equipment. The cleared areas on the east side of the RoW represent a Negative Low Project work Long-term Frequent Likely to Low permanent change to this area of forest habitat as the areas Very vegetation in the cleared area will be managed as per the Likely Wire Zone-Border Zone concept shown in Figure 4.1. Some of the danger or hazard trees to be removed may provide nesting and/or feeding habitat for birds and other wildlife in the PSA.

177

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Predicted Residual Effect Direction Magnitude Geographic Duration Frequency Likelihood Environmental Component Extent Consequence There is the potential for the removal of potential and/or Negative Low Project work Long-term Infrequent Unlikely to Low existing cavity nesting trees that support early nesting owls areas Likely (barred, barn, saw-whet, boreal and screech) due to the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities by crew and equipment. Amphibians and There will be a temporary disturbance during the winter Negative Low Project work Short-term Frequent Unlikely to Minimal Reptiles season to overwintering amphibians and/or reptiles and/or areas Likely amphibian and reptile habitat present within or immediately adjacent to the RoW and/or Moon Lake trail due to the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities by crew and equipment. There is the potential for direct mortality of overwintering Negative Low Project work Short-term Frequent Unlikely to Minimal amphibians and/or reptiles due to the clearing, trail areas Likely redevelopment and/or O&M activities by crew and equipment. Clearing activities on the east side of the RoW may result in Negative Low Project work Medium- Frequent Unlikely to Minimal a temporary change in microhabitat conditions in the cleared areas term Likely areas, including changes in air and soil temperature, relative humidity, light intensity, leaf litter, and coarse woody debris. The cleared areas on the east side of the RoW represent a Negative Low Project work Medium- Frequent Unlikely to Minimal permanent change to this area of forest habitat as the areas term Likely vegetation in the cleared area will be managed as per the Wire Zone-Border Zone concept shown in Figure 4.1. However, these changes will mostly affect tall trees and shrubs; ground cover will be disturbed during the clearing activities but not removed. As such, there may be temporary changes in ground cover habitat for amphibians and reptiles in the cleared areas of the RoW. Wetlands There will be the temporary disturbance of wet and/or Negative Low Project work Short-term Frequent Likely Minimal wetland areas within the Moon Lake trail RoW. areas There will be the permanent alteration of wet or wetland Negative Low Project work Long-term Continuous Very Likely Low areas located in the high and medium priority areas of the areas Moon Lake trail RoW as identified by FP Innovations (Appendix A), which is a total length of 1,411 m or 16% of the trail length. These areas will be altered by the installation of small diameter culverts, corduroy logs, geotextile material and aggregate. There is the potential for the introduction and/or spread of Negative Low Project work Short-term Infrequent to Likely to Minimal invasive plant species if the seeds or plants of invasive areas Frequent Unlikely species are transported to the RoW by crew and/or equipment.

178

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Predicted Residual Effect Direction Magnitude Geographic Duration Frequency Likelihood Environmental Component Extent Consequence There is an increased potential for wildfires due to the use of Negative Low Project work Short-term Infrequent to Likely to Minimal gasoline, oil and electronically operated equipment in the areas Frequent Unlikely PSA during RoW clearing activities. Surface Water There is the potential for contamination of surface waters Negative Low Project work Short-term Infrequent to Likely to Minimal from the release and/or transport of sediment, accidents areas Frequent Unlikely and/or spills of fuel, oil or other deleterious substances due to stream crossing activities or other activities near surface waters. There is the potential for increased erosion at the Edwards Negative Low Project work Short-term Infrequent to Likely to Minimal Creek ravine, which could result in the potential release areas Frequent Unlikely and/or transport of eroded sediments to Edwards Creek. Fish and Fish There will be a temporary disturbance to fish or fish habitat Negative Low Project work Short-term Infrequent to Likely to Minimal Habitat when crews and/or equipment are required to cross a areas Frequent Unlikely fish-bearing stream. There is the potential for the alteration of fish habitat (i.e., Negative Low Project work Short-term Infrequent to Likely to Minimal compaction, alteration or erosion of bed, banks or areas Frequent Unlikely substrates) at the stream crossings. There is the potential for the introduction and/or spread of Negative Low Project work Short-term Infrequent to Likely to Minimal invasive plant species if the seeds or plants of invasive areas Frequent Unlikely species are transported to the RoW by crew and/or equipment. There is the potential for the transportation and/or release of Negative Low Project work Short-term Infrequent to Likely to Minimal sediment due to the crew and equipment crossings, areas Frequent Unlikely particularly at Edwards Creek. There is the potential for the transportation and/or release of Negative Low Project work Short-term Infrequent to Likely to Minimal oils, fuels or other contaminants as a result of accidents areas Frequent Unlikely and/or spills. Species At Risk The predicted residual effects noted for wildlife and wildlife Negative Low Project work Short-term Infrequent to Unlikely to Minimal to Low habitat, birds of conservation concern, and amphibians and areas to Frequent Likely reptiles are also applicable to these types of animals that Long- are Species At Risk. (i.e., little brown myotis, mule deer, term common snapping turtle, Northern leopard frog, Canada warbler, common nighthawk, golden-winged warbler, olive- sided flycatcher, short eared owl, whip-poor-will, and yellow rail). Note that short eared owl does not nest in cavity trees; therefore, there is no predicted residual effect on this species from the removal of cavity trees due to the RoW clearing, Moon Lake trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities.

179

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Predicted Residual Effect Direction Magnitude Geographic Duration Frequency Likelihood Environmental Component Extent Consequence Land Use There will be a temporary increase in the use of PTH10, Negative Low Project work Short-term Frequent Likely Minimal Lake Audy Road and the northern and southern RMNP areas boundary access points by vehicles and equipment during the winter. The disturbance is limited to the timeframe needed for the RoW clearing and Moon Lake trail redevelopment activities, i.e. from January 2016 to March 2016, and the timeframe needed for the O&M activities, i.e., short periods (one day to several days) from December to March. There will be a temporary disturbance to landuse in the PSA Negative Low Project work Short-term Frequent Likely Minimal from increased traffic during the RoW clearing, trail areas redevelopment and/or O&M activities. There is an increased potential for wildfires due to the use of Negative Low Project work Short-term Infrequent to Likely to Minimal gasoline, oil and electronically operated equipment in the areas Frequent Unlikely PSA during the RoW clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities, which could affect landuse. Resource Use There will be a temporary increase in the use of PTH10, Negative Low Project work Short-term Frequent Likely Minimal Lake Audy Road and the northern and southern RMNP areas boundary access points by vehicles and equipment during the winter. The disturbance is limited to the timeframe needed for the RoW clearing and Moon Lake trail redevelopment activities, i.e. from January 2016 to March 2016, and the timeframe needed for the O&M activities, i.e., short periods (one day to several days) from December to March. There will be a temporary disturbance to resource use in the Negative Low Project work Short-term Frequent Likely Minimal PSA from increased traffic during the clearing activities. areas There is an increased potential for wildfires due to the use of Negative Low Project work Short-term Infrequent to Likely to Minimal gasoline, oil and electronically operated equipment in the areas Frequent Unlikely PSA during the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities, which could affect resource use. Traditional During a March 11, 2014 meeting with Manitoba Hydro, the Negative Low Project work Long-term Infrequent to Likely to Low Knowledge and people of the Coalition shared their knowledge of the places, areas Frequent Unlikely Traditional Land plants and animals that are special to the people, from Use historic times to today. The people expressed concerns about potential harm to these special places, plants and animals from noise disturbance, the use of herbicides and/or other chemicals, and the effects of clearing in the RoW and the works on the Moon Lake trail.

180

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Environmental Predicted Residual Effect Direction Magnitude Geographic Duration Frequency Likelihood Environmental Component Extent Consequence The re-growth of vegetation on the west side of the RoW will Positive Low Project work Long-term Frequent to Likely to Low allow for the development of taller trees and shrubs that areas Continuous Very were previously removed and/or disturbed during RoW O&M Likely activities, and also result in an increase in areas of undisturbed vegetation that were previously disturbed during RoW O&M activities. This re-growth will result in the alteration of the existing habitat over time. This alteration is considered to be a positive effect of the Project, as it is expected to create additional areas of taller and denser undisturbed vegetation for plant species of interest to First Nations and wildlife that support TLU activities. There is an increased potential for wildfires due to the use of Negative Low Project work Short-term Infrequent to Likely to Minimal gasoline, oil and electronically operated equipment in the areas Frequent Unlikely PSA during the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities, which could affect resource use. Visitor There will be a temporary increase in traffic and noise Negative Low Project work Short-term Frequent Likely Minimal Experiences disturbance for brief periods during the winter. areas During and after the RoW clearing activities, the appearance Negative Low Project work Long-term Infrequent Likely Low of the RoW will be different as visitors pass through on Lake areas Audy Road; however, the area that will be affected and visible to visitors is limited to a small area, relative to the rest of the roadway and park areas that visitors pass through. There is an increased potential for wildfires due to the use of Negative Low Project work Short-term Infrequent to Likely to Minimal gasoline, oil and electronically operated equipment in the areas Frequent Unlikely PSA during the clearing, trail redevelopment and/or O&M activities. Local Economy Small opportunities for local First Nations to participate in Positive Low Local area Short-term Frequent Likely Positive the local workforce, and workforce may visit RMNP commercial facilities and contribute to local economy, but workforce will only be 5-10 staff during 3-5 months in winter.

181

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

13.2. Environmental Effects Summary The environmental impact assessment found that there are positive and negative residual effects expected to occur as a result of the Project activities. The assessment of potential effects, residual effects and the environmental consequence of the residual effects found that the environmental consequence of the Project activities on the ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experiences in RMNP will be minimal to low. As such, the potential environmental effects of the Project activities on the ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experiences in RMNP were found to be not significant.

It should be noted that this outcome is dependent on the use and implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in Table 13.1, including conducting the Project activities in winter season; performing a pre-construction survey for existing cavities, nests, bear denning sites, hibernacula or other overwintering habitats and Species At Risk; and identifying and isolating all Sensitive Sites, especially the places, plants and animal habitats that are special to the people of the Coalition.

14. ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS Accidents and malfunctions can occur during operation and maintenance activities of transmission facilities such as those located within RMNP. The primary purpose of this Project is to deal with this issue, in terms of risks of flash-overs causing wildfires and risks to public safety and the environment. Manitoba Hydro adheres to strict regulatory requirements for dealing with its construction, operation and maintenance activities so that accidents and malfunctions are avoided, but efficiently dealt with if they occur.

One of the main issues that arise is the risk of spills of hazardous materials. This issue was discussed in the 2008 CSR and EnvPP-O/M and the text is repeated here:

Spills of hazardous materials could occur (e.g. during re-fuelling of equipment, accidental spill or leak) causing soil contamination or entry into a watercourse. Spills into watercourses may create a risk to public health and safety or may potentially effect wildlife populations and habitat. The magnitude and duration of the potential effects of accidental spills are dependent on the nature of the material spilled, the quantity spilled, the location of the spill, and the time of year the incident occurs. Conducting operations and maintenance activities during the winter, under frozen ground conditions, and strict adherence to Manitoba Hydro’s Environmental Protection Measures (EPMs) will minimize the risk of an accidental spill, facilitate the containment and recovery of any spilled material and reduce the potential effects on the environment.

Manitoba Hydro designs and is committed to maintaining its transmission lines to meet or exceed current CSA standards for overhead transmission systems. The failure of structural components (i.e., conductors, insulators, wood poles) can occur during the life of a transmission line. To reduce the risk of malfunctions, transmission lines are regularly patrolled to ensure potential problems are identified and rectified, where possible, in advance of a failure or malfunction. The transmission line components (i.e., structures, insulators, hardware) are routinely inspected, repaired and modified as required.

182

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Manitoba Hydro also has emergency response procedures and protocols in place for responding in the event of accidents and malfunctions. Adherence to Manitoba Hydro’s EPMs will minimize the potential impact of accidents or malfunctions on soils, wildlife and aquatic resources.

The Transmission Line Maintenance Manager (or their delegate) is responsible for inspection and response team leadership. Basic and special emergency equipment as required will be available on site and from standby resources. Project management can obtain support, if necessary, from the services of other Manitoba Hydro projects and facilities, and external agencies such as Manitoba Conservation, the RCMP and Parks Canada. Manitoba Hydro’s Hazardous Material Management Handbook will be made available to the on-site supervisor and contractors. Additional information on Manitoba Hydro’s spill and emergency response procedures will be provided in the EnvPP for the project.

Additional information on Manitoba Hydro’s EPMs is provided in the EnvPP for the Project.

15. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

15.1. Overview The Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) considered the potential cumulative effect of the residual effects of the Project in combination with the environmental effects of past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects or activities within the PSA, LSA and RSA. An overview of the CEA was described previously in the Class Screening Report for this Project (Manitoba Hydro, Plus4 Consulting Inc. and MMM Group 2008), and relevant text has been reproduced where applicable. As noted in this previous document, in general there have been few developments within RMNP over the last 40 years. This has been largely due to park management policy favouring recreation in the Park’s “wilderness” (Parks Canada 2002). This limited development included the establishment of three new campgrounds (at Wasagaming, Moon Lake and Lake Katherine) and development within the town site of Wasagaming, but has included ongoing operations and maintenance activities. In the latter 1970s, extensive cottage and commercial development occurred outside of RMNP, particularly in the Wasagaming/Onanole corridor. Again, these developments require ongoing maintenance activities into the future.

RMNP has been actively involved in managing the resources in the Park, including beaver populations (and flooding issues), elk and deer populations (e.g., for Bovine Tuberculosis), wolf populations, and black bears. Local First Nations have undertaken hunting, trapping, fishing, gathering of plants, travel and other Traditional Use activities in the area. In addition, there has been the development and maintenance of the MTS tower and associated distribution lines and RoW, and the development and maintenance of the V38/Line 81 Transmission lines and associated distribution lines and RoWs. These types of activities have required the installation of culvert and ford crossings on roads and trails, with ongoing maintenance activities.

183

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Activities within the RMNP are managed through the presence of a management plan, as required under the National Parks Act (Parks Canada 2007a). Park management plans set the direction for operational planning and management activities regarding the use and protection of national park lands. The maintenance of ecological integrity is the primary consideration in management planning. In contrast with the scale of development within the park, much of the land around it has been converted to serve agriculture and other economic activities. Cumulative effects from past, present and future developments outside the park may be affecting the park’s ecological integrity within its surrounding region, but there is insufficient information at this time to determine this with any certainty.

• The assessment of potential Project environmental effects found that there were residual effects remaining for the Air Quality and GHG, Noise, Terrain and Soils, Vegetation, Plant Species of Importance to First Nations, Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat, Beaver, Black bear, Moose, Birds of Conservation Concern, Amphibians and Reptiles, Wetlands, Surface Water, Fish and Fish Habitat, Species At Risk, Land Use, Resource Use, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Land Use and Visitor Experiences and Local Economy components. These effects were found to be of a minimal to low environmental consequence and as such were determined to be not significant.

A discussion of the potential interactions of the residual effects with the effects of other past, existing or future actions, as well as expectations for any significant change now or in the future in the characteristics of the VC after the application of mitigation for the Project, is provided below.

15.2. Air Quality and GHG The residual effects assessment found that during the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities, there will be a temporary increase in air emissions due to exhaust and/or dust from the use of stationary and mobile project equipment. These potential effects will be temporary in nature, limited to the PSA and only occur during short periods of time in the PSA. There is the potential for these effects to interact with other vehicle activities in the PSA, e.g., vehicle traffic on PTH10 that may occur at the same time as the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities. However, this interaction would be very limited and is not likely to result in a cumulative effect that would increase the overall significance of the temporary residual effect, or result in a significant change in air quality or GHG emissions in the PSA.

Although there were no effects to climate identified as a result of the Project activities, Manitoba Hydro will support Parks Canada’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions that may have climate

184

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

change implications on the ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experiences in RMNP by minimizing the use of motorized vehicles in the Park wherever possible, using vehicles and equipment that are well-maintained and meet current emissions standards, and not leaving vehicles or equipment running when not in use.

15.3. Noise The residual effects assessment found that during the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities, there will be a temporary increase in noise in areas of the PSA during the winter season due to temporary vehicle and equipment usage. These potential effects will be temporary in nature and only occur during short periods of time in the PSA. There is the potential for these effects to interact with other noise-emitting activities in the PSA, e.g., vehicle traffic on PTH10 that may occur at the same time as vehicle traffic on PTH10 during the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities. However, the likelihood of this interaction is considered to be low, and is not expected to result in a cumulative effect that would increase the overall significance of the temporary residual effect, or result in a significant change in noise in the PSA.

15.4. Terrain and Soils The residual Project effects for terrain and soils were identified as follows:

• A temporary disturbance of terrain and surface soils due to vehicle and equipment travel and RoW clearing activities within the RoW. • Potential for rutting to occur on the existing trails within the RoW due to vehicle and equipment travel. • Potential for accidents and/or spills to occur that could release and/or transport deleterious substances such as fuel or oil to the surface soils. These residual Project effects will be limited to work areas in the RoW in the PSA during the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities. Access to the RoW is limited to Manitoba Hydro staff, Parks Canada staff, local First Nations and Park wildlife. The environmental consequence of the residual effects on terrain and soils was found to be minimal and therefore the potential effects to terrain and soils are not significant. With the application of appropriate mitigation measures, interaction of these residual effects with the past, current or future uses of the RoW are not expected to result in a significant change now or in the future in the characteristics of the terrain and soils in the RoW. As such, the interaction of the residual effects of the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities with the past, current or future activities in the PSA are not expected to result in a cumulative effect that would increase the overall significance of the temporary residual effect, or result in a significant change in terrain and soils in the PSA.

185

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

15.5. Vegetation and Wetlands There were a number of negative and positive residual effects identified for vegetation and wetlands (Table 13.1). The environmental consequence of the residual effects on vegetation and wetlands was found to be minimal to low and therefore the potential effects to vegetation and wetlands are not significant. The vegetation and wetland areas in the RoW and Moon Lake trail were previously disturbed during the original construction of the transmission lines, distribution lines and MTS Tower, as well as by fire, flooding, drought, TLU and wildlife activities.

Access to the RoW vegetation and wetland areas is limited to Manitoba Hydro staff, Parks Canada staff, local First Nations and Park wildlife. Although the initial clearing activities of a 7.8 m section of the east side of the RoW will result in the loss of danger and hazard trees and other tall vegetation in portions of the cleared areas, application of the methods in the IVMP and re-growth of a 5.2m wide section of the west side of the existing RoW will result in the future growth of denser and taller vegetation in additional areas of the RoW as per the Wire-Border concept (Figure 4.1). The redevelopment of the Moon Lake trail will prevent the need for the development of a new access trail, and will be completed in a manner that has no significant effects on wetland functions. Application of mitigation measures such as buffer zones to isolate and protect Sensitive Sites, fire and spill prevention measures, and prevention of the introduction or spread of invasive species, will help preserve existing diversity and ecological integrity of the terrestrial and wetland plant species in the RoW and Moon Lake trail.

The combination of the mitigation measures that will be completed during the clearing, construction and O&M activities, along with the long-term vegetation management plans in the IVMP and Parks Canada’s existing and future ecosystem management plans and activities, are expected to be beneficial to vegetation and wetlands in the RoW and Moon Lake trail over time. As such, the interaction of the residual effects of the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities with the past, current or future activities in the PSA are not expected to result in a cumulative effect that would increase the overall significance of the temporary residual effect, or result in a significant change in vegetation or wetlands in the PSA.

15.6. Plant Species of Importance to First Nations The environmental consequence of the residual effects on plant species of importance to First Nations was found to be minimal to low and therefore the potential effects to plant species of importance to First Nations are not significant. As noted above, the application of mitigation measures such as buffer zones to isolate and protect Sensitive Sites, fire and spill prevention measures, and prevention of the introduction or spread of invasive species, will help preserve existing diversity and ecological integrity of the plant species in the RoW and Moon Lake trail. The combination of the mitigation measures that will be completed during the clearing, construction and O&M activities, along with the long-term vegetation management plans in the IVMP and Parks Canada’s existing and future ecosystem management plans and activities, are expected to be beneficial to vegetation in the RoW and Moon Lake trail over time. As such, the interaction of the residual effects of the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities with

186

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

the past, current or future activities in the PSA are not expected to result in a cumulative effect that would increase the overall significance of the temporary residual effect, or result in a significant change in plant species of importance to First Nations in the PSA.

15.7. Wildlife, Wildlife Habitat, VCs and Species At Risk There were a number of negative and positive residual effects identified for wildlife and wildlife habitat, wildlife VCs and Species At Risk (Table 13.1). The environmental consequence of the residual effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat, wildlife VCs and Species At Risk was found to be minimal to low and therefore the potential effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat, wildlife VCs and Species At Risk are not significant.

There are a number of past and current infrastructure development, transportation, hunting, trapping, ecosystem management and wildlife management activities that have affected or are currently affecting wildlife and wildlife habitat, wildlife VCs and Species At Risk in RMNP. Within the PSA, the main affects to wildlife and wildlife habitat, wildlife VCs and Species At Risk have been the construction and O&M of PTH10 and Lake Audy Road; the construction and O&M of the V38/Line 81 transmission line and RoW; the construction and O&M of the Moon Lake trail, MTS Tower and associated distribution line and RoW; TLU activities; and Parks Canada ecosystem and wildlife management activities. Past hunting, trapping, livestock and wildlife management activities were conducted without adequate knowledge of or concern for the consequences to indigenous wildlife populations, and sometimes resulted in the decimation or extirpation of some species (Parks Canada 2007a). The construction and O&M of roads, trails, RoWs and infrastructure are a concern to Parks Canada as these activities may contribute to habitat fragmentation, habitat loss and/or affect the behaviour and predator-prey relationships of indigenous wildlife. The initial construction and O&M of the roads, trails, RoWs and infrastructure in the PSA was completed prior to the environmental regulations and guidelines used today, and as such, the environmental effects were not considered or mitigated in the same manner as would be done today.

The Project clearing, construction and O&M activities will be carried out using current knowledge of wildlife and wildlife habitat requirements, including Species At Risk, as well as current environmental regulations and guidelines to protect and preserve wildlife and their habitats. Consideration has been given to wildlife issues such as preservation and enhancement of sight lines, ground cover, riparian zones and wildlife corridors; protection of sensitive areas such as breeding areas, hibernacula, wetlands and watercourse crossings; and use of restricted activity periods to protect wildlife during vulnerable life cycle periods.

Although the initial RoW clearing activities will result in a temporary disturbance and potential loss of some wildlife habitat, the implementation of the long-term IVMP will provide additional areas of taller, denser vegetation and undisturbed areas in the transmission line and Moon Lake trail RoWs, and create additional areas of riparian vegetation, wildlife corridors and wildlife habitat over time. The redevelopment of the Moon Lake trail will prevent the need for the development of a new access trail, and will be completed in a manner that has no significant effects on wildlife or wildlife habitat, wildlife VCs or Species At Risk in the PSA. The future

187

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

activities that may affect wildlife and wildlife habitat, wildlife VCs or Species At Risk in the PSA are limited to Manitoba Hydro’s O&M activities, MTS Tower O&M activities, TLU activities and Parks Canada ecosystem and wildlife management, research and monitoring activities. Manitoba Hydro will continue to work together with Parks Canada to identify approaches and methods to minimize the residual effects of the Project activities on wildlife and wildlife habitat, wildlife VCs and Species At Risk, and incorporate Parks Canada wildlife management goals in the IVMP where possible. As such, the interaction of the residual effects of the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities with the past, current or future activities in the PSA are not expected to result in a cumulative effect that would increase the overall significance of the temporary residual effect, or result in a significant change to wildlife or wildlife habitat, wildlife VCs and Species At Risk in the PSA.

15.8. Surface Water and Fish and Fish Habitat The environmental consequence of the residual effects on surface water and fish and fish habitat was found to be minimal and therefore the potential effects to surface water and fish and fish habitat are not significant. Access to and use of the surface water and fish and fish habitat in the PSA is limited to Manitoba Hydro staff, local First Nations and Parks Canada Staff.

Past and existing activities that may interact with the residual effects on surface water and fish and fish habitat in the PSA include previous stream crossings and clearing of riparian vegetation. As noted above, these activities were previously conducted without consideration of the environmental effects. The existing stream crossings in the RoW and Moon Lake trail show some evidence of rutting in soft areas, but the majority of the stream crossings in the RoW were done over hard substrates and/or showed no permanent signs of habitat alteration.

The redevelopment of the Moon Lake trail will repair existing ruts and provide a permanent surface for equipment use such that future use of the trail will not create ruts or damage stream bank or surface water areas. As part of the ongoing and future O&M activities, stream crossings and surface water areas in the RoW will be marked as Sensitive Sites and protected from erosion, contamination and/or habitat alteration by applying buffer zones and retaining riparian zone vegetation along stream banks. As such, the interaction of the residual effects of the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities with the past, current or future activities in the PSA are not expected to result in a cumulative effect that would increase the overall significance of the residual effects, or result in a significant change to surface water or fish and fish habitat in the PSA.

15.9. Land Use and Resource Use The residual effects identified for land use and resource use in the PSA included a temporary disturbance and an increased potential for forest fires due to the use of vehicles and equipment in the PSA. The environmental consequence of the residual effects on land use and resource use was found to be minimal and therefore the potential effects to land use and resource use are not significant. These residual effects are limited to the time required for the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities in the PSA. These residual effects are not expected to interact

188

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

with any past, present or future land use or resources use (e.g., hunting, trapping, fishing, gathering of plants, forestry, development of infrastructure) in the PSA. As such, the interaction of the residual effects of the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities with the past, current or future activities in the PSA are not expected to result in a cumulative effect that would increase the overall significance of the residual effects, or result in a significant change to land use or resource use in the PSA.

15.10. Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Land Use The residual effects on Traditional Knowledge and TLU activities are related to the concern of the people of the Coalition about potential harm to the places, plants and animals special to the people from noise disturbance, the use of herbicides and/or other chemicals, the effects of clearing in the RoW and the works on the Moon Lake trail. There was also a negative residual effect due to an increased potential for forest fires due to the use of vehicles and equipment in the PSA, and a positive residual effect from the re-growth of vegetation in the RoW that supports wildlife and plant species of importance to First Nations. The environmental consequence of the residual effects on Traditional Knowledge and TLU was found to be minimal to low and therefore the potential effects on Traditional Knowledge and TLU are not significant.

The people’s concerns will be addressed by identifying the places, plants and animals special to the people as Sensitive Sites to isolate and protect these places, plants and animals during the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities. The areas will be isolated, but the use and significance of the sites will be kept confidential. Herbicides will not be used in RMNP. Parks Canada has indicated that there is no use of herbicides allowed in RMNP except for the management of non-native invasive plant species that threaten ecological integrity (McKillop 2014, pers.comm.). The negative residual effects are limited to the time required for the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities in the PSA. Although the initial clearing activities of a 7.8 m section of the east side of the RoW will result in the loss of danger and hazard trees and other tall vegetation in portions of the cleared areas, application of the methods in the IVMP and re-growth of a 5.2m wide section of the west side of the existing RoW will result in the future growth of denser and taller vegetation in additional areas of the RoW as per the Wire-Border concept (Figure 4.1). The redevelopment of the Moon Lake trail will prevent the need for the development of a new access trail, and will be completed in a manner that has no significant effects on vegetation, wetlands, wildlife or wildlife habitat. Application of mitigation measures such as buffer zones to isolate and protect Sensitive Sites, fire and spill prevention measures, and prevention of the introduction or spread of invasive species, will help preserve existing diversity and ecological integrity of the plant species and wildlife habitat in the RoW and Moon Lake trail. The combination of the mitigation measures that will be completed during the clearing, construction and O&M activities, along with the long-term vegetation management plans in the IVMP and Parks Canada’s existing and future ecosystem management plans and activities, are expected to be beneficial to vegetation and wildlife that support TLU activities in the RoW and Moon Lake trail over time. As such, the interaction of the residual effects of the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities with the past, current or future activities in the PSA are not expected to result in a cumulative effect that would increase the overall significance

189

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

of the residual effects, or result in a significant change to Traditional Knowledge or TLU in the PSA.

15.11. Visitor Experiences and Local Economy The residual effects identified for visitor experiences in the PSA included a temporary disturbance, an increased potential for forest fires due to the use of vehicles and equipment in the PSA, and a change in the appearance of the RoW at the Lake Audy road where it crosses the RoW. The environmental consequence of the residual effects on visitor experiences was found to be minimal to low, and therefore the potential effects on visitor experiences are not significant. The residual effects of a temporary disturbance and an increased potential for forest fires are limited to the time required for the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities in the PSA.

The potential for the interaction of these residual effects with any past, present or future visitor experiences in the PSA is considered to be not significant as potential interactions would be limited to visitors traveling on PTH10 and/or the Lake Audy road during the Project activities (as there are no Parks visitors or recreational activities allowed in the RoW or Moon Lake trail). The change in the appearance of the RoW at the Lake Audy road where it crosses the RoW is a long-term effect of the Project activities, but is not expected to interact with any other visitor experiences in a significant way. Park visitors are informed of the various areas and activities available in RMNP, and will be able to continue to enjoy the visual and other sensory experiences provided by the large areas of forest, meadows, lakes, rivers and streams that exist outside of the PSA. As such, the interaction of the residual effects of the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities with the past, current or future activities in the PSA are not expected to result in a cumulative effect that would increase the overall significance of the residual effects, or result in a significant change to visitor experiences in the PSA.

The residual effects for local economy involve hiring for the workforce and potential expenditures in Wasagaming. Due to the relatively short Project duration and low numbers of workers required for the Project, the potential positive consequences of the residual effects for the local economy are low and therefore not significant.

15.12. Summary Residual effects associated with the existing transmission facilities through RMNP primarily involve the continuing presence of the lines and the removal of high priority danger trees for safe and reliable operation of the facilities. Project-related environmental effects include minor short-term loss of wildlife habitat and forest resources, temporary increased traffic levels and noise related disruptions. Most of the effects considered are limited to the existing ROWs and immediate adjacent areas. The residual effects of the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities were therefore found to be of a minimal to low environmental consequence and as such were determined to be not significant. The interaction of the residual effects of the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities with the past, current or future activities in the PSA are not expected to result in a cumulative effect that would increase the overall significance of the

190

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015 residual effects, or result in a significant change to the ecological resources, cultural resources, visitor experiences or VCs in the PSA.

The cumulative effects assessment considers the short-term effects of this Project along with the capacity of the local environment to reverse these effects. It also considers Manitoba Hydro’s long-term goals of widening the RoW and implementing integrated vegetation management strategies that will be designed to enhance ecological integrity of the RoWs over the medium- to long-term. Cumulative effects are therefore anticipated to be insignificant in the short-term and positive to the Project area over the long-term.

16. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, FOLLOW-UP AND MONITORING ACTIVITIES

16.1. Clearing and Construction

16.1.1. Environmental Protection Plan Manitoba Hydro will develop a Project-specific EnvPP that will include general environmental protection measures for clearing and construction activities, mitigation measures specific to RoW clearing, and erosion and sediment control plans. The EnvPP will include a series of maps that clearly mark and indicate all areas considered to be Sensitive Sites, i.e., bear dens, hibernacula and/or other VC or SAR habitats; watercourse crossings; riparian zones; wildlife corridors; Historic Resources; erosional areas (Edwards Creek ravine); and areas or sites of importance to First Nations. All Sensitive Sites will be geographically referenced and protected by isolating the site from the clearing or construction activities and implementing a buffer zone around the site.

16.1.2. Construction Monitoring Manitoba Hydro’s Environmental Protection Program for this project will include field inspections during clearing and construction, adherence to all applicable federal, provincial and municipal acts and regulations, and adherence to the environmental protection provisions outlined in the Project EnvPP. The Manitoba Hydro Construction Field Supervisor will act as the environmental inspector for this Project. The Manitoba Hydro Construction Field Supervisor will be responsible for performing inspections of the work site and documenting any deficiencies noted in the environmental protection measures in the inspection reports. The Manitoba Hydro Construction Field Supervisor will inspect the site routinely to facilitate management in accordance with the clearing and construction documentation and the Project EnvPP.

16.1.3. Post-Construction Monitoring The work areas for the Project will be examined by an environmental inspector after completion of the Project activities to confirm that the measures outlined in the Project EnvPP, all Project material used at the site was removed and, with the exception of the required clearing and trail redevelopment, the area was restored to the pre-existing appearance.

191

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

16.2. Operations and Maintenance

16.2.1. Environmental Protection Plan An EnvPP for O&M activities was developed for the Project in 2008. The existing EnvPP will be updated and implemented for the Project.

16.2.2. Integrated Vegetation Management Plan Manitoba Hydro will continue to work with Parks Canada to develop and finalize the long-term IVMP. A draft vegetation management plan is attached as Appendix E to this report. The draft vegetation management plan delineates the habitat types, identifies the different types of vegetation within the RoW and provides guidance to Manitoba Hydro on the vegetation management practices to be applied to each vegetation type in the Wire Zone-Border Zone of the RoW. The information provided in the vegetation management plan can be combined with the information previously produced for the IVMP as part of further development of the IVMP.

17. EFFECT OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT During the clearing, construction and O&M phases of the Project, natural events including ice storms, high wind events, forest fires and flooding can occur threatening the integrity of structures or the safe, reliable delivery of electrical power. These events have the potential to damage the existing transmission facilities and in some cases create emergency situations. Similarly, over time, certain wildlife species can damage poles (i.e., birds, insects, elk, moose, beaver and bear). All of these events could result in an increase in the frequency of certain O&M activities undertaken for the transmission lines within RMNP.

The physical environment also influences the time of year and the type of equipment that can be used to complete clearing, construction or O&M activities (e.g., equipment restrictions in wet areas and in areas vulnerable to erosion; sensitive wildlife stages influencing the time of year some project activities can be undertaken). These types of issues and can be mitigated through flexible scheduling and the application of the measures outlined in Manitoba Hydro’s EnvPP.

These effects have been addressed by:

• Consideration of the condition and use of the landbase in the Project planning and design; • Planning and design of the Project to incorporate existing runoff, flooding and climatic conditions; • Planning clearing, construction and O&M activities to occur during the winter months to access the Project area on frozen ground conditions and minimize environmental effects to flora, fauna, streams, wetlands, soils and sensitive sites; and • Incorporation of the necessary environmental protection measures into Project planning and design, including isolation and marking of Sensitive Sites, erosion and sediment control planning, salvage of soils and vegetation, and water protection and management. As such, the environment is not expected to have any effect on the proposed Project.

192

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

18. PROJECT INNOVATIONS Manitoba Hydro recognizes the distinctive ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experiences offered by RMNP, and the need to protect and preserve these resources. To that end, Manitoba Hydro has developed innovative approaches to be applied to the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities. These approaches include:

• Review of the potential environmental effects of the Project and Parks Canada’s mandate, ecosystem management, wildlife management and EMS needs to confirm that the Project does not result in any effects that will circumvent Parks Canada’s requirements. • Identifying and protecting Traditional Knowledge and TLU activities in RMNP while preserving the sanctity of the sites. • The application of mitigation measures and development of a Project specific EnvPP that will identify all Sensitive Sites, implement buffer zones and erosion and sediment control plans, and use a suite of methods that will prevent or minimize contamination, fire, spills, invasive plants, permanent habitat loss or other potential effects on the environment. • Conducting the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities in the winter months to reduce impacts on terrain and soils, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife (including VCs and Species At Risk), TLU and visitor experiences in RMNP. • Consideration has been given to wildlife issues such as preservation and enhancement of sight lines, ground cover, riparian zones and wildlife corridors; protection of sensitive areas such as breeding areas, hibernacula, wetlands and watercourse crossings; and use of restricted activity periods to protect wildlife during vulnerable life cycle periods. • The redevelopment of the Moon Lake trail will prevent the need for the development of a new access trail or clearing of additional forest areas, and will be completed in a manner that reduces the overall footprint and impact of the trail, and has no significant effects on terrain and soils, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife or wildlife habitat, wildlife VCs or Species At Risk in the PSA. This approach is a much less intensive and environmentally disruptive technique than other methods previously discussed for the Project (e.g., bridge at Jackfish Creek, new trail). • Implementation of the Wire-Border Zone concept as part of the long-term IVMP, which will allow for the re-growth of a 5.2 m width of forested area on the east side of the RoW, and denser and taller vegetation in other areas of the RoW. • Retention of cavity nesting trees versus removal of these trees by reducing the height of these trees to meet the requirements of the Wire-Border Zone concept while preserving the reminder of the tree that provides nesting cavities.

• Although the initial RoW clearing activities will result in a temporary disturbance and potential loss of some wildlife habitat, the implementation of the long-term IVMP will provide additional areas of taller, denser vegetation and undisturbed areas in the transmission line and Moon Lake trail RoWs, and create additional areas of riparian vegetation, wildlife corridors and wildlife habitat over time.

193

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

• Development of a long-term IVMP that incorporates methods to: • Protect terrain and soils and wildlife habitat by not removing low growing plants and ground cover; • Enhance species diversity and existing ecological integrity with the management of invasive plants and preservation of native vegetation, including plants of importance to First Nations; • Provide vegetation buffer zones at stream crossings, wetland areas, archaeological sites, and TLU sites where there is no machinery allowed and the low growing vegetation is not removed or disturbed. • Identify and create additional areas of protected vegetation to serve as wildlife corridors. • Eliminate the use of herbicides as a vegetation management tool. Parks Canada has indicated that there is no use of herbicides allowed in RMNP except for the management of non-native invasive plant species that threaten ecological integrity (McKillop 2014, pers.comm.). • Identify potential areas where a prescribed burn could be used as a vegetation management tool. • Monitor the effectiveness of the above approaches in meeting the mutual goals of Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada. • Application of an adaptive management approach to the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities to allow Manitoba Hydro to incorporate additional methods or Parks Canada requirements as they arise, and integrate future knowledge on ecosystem or wildlife management where it applies to the Project activities. Along with the mandates, values, policies and goals discussed in Section 1.3, these innovations aid in the Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada objective to work together to minimize the potential effects of on-going anthropogenic activities (as they relate to operations and maintenance of the existing lines), maintain and improve ecosystem health and integrity where possible, and preserve the distinctive ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experiences offered by RMNP.

19. CONCLUSIONS The development of a slightly wider V38R/Line 81 ROW as a future Project under the Land Use Agreement will result in a small net additional short-term disturbance to the park environment. The Project location is limited to the RoW limits, immediate areas on both sides of the RoWs (for the removal danger trees and treatment of potential danger trees) and existing access routes.

The environmental impact assessment completed for the Project clearing, construction and O&M activities found that the environmental effects of the Project were not significant. The residual effects of the Project activities are not expected to result in cumulative effects that would increase the overall significance of the residual effects, or result in a significant change

194

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

now or in the future in the characteristics of the ecological resources, cultural resources or visitor experiences in RMNP. Any areas of potential concern with respect to the natural environment will be monitored during operation and maintenance activities by Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada personnel. They will recommend appropriate mitigative measures should unknown effects to the natural environment be discovered (i.e., through a process of adaptive management).

There is no reason to expect that this Project will significantly contribute to any reduction of the park’s natural value. The Project will serve to maintain Manitoba Hydro’s transmission facilities within the RMNP and support the development of a Land Use Agreement for the ROW lands between Parks Canada and Manitoba Hydro. Long-term goals established under the LUA that incorporate integrated vegetation management strategies will support the Parks Canada goal of maintaining and enhancing ecological integrity within RMNP.

This conclusion is dependent on the use and implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in Section 13 and Table 13.1, including conducting the Project activities in winter season; performing a pre-construction survey for existing cavities, nests, bear denning sites, hibernacula or other overwintering habitats and Species At Risk; and identifying and isolating all Sensitive Sites, especially the places, plants and animal habitats that are special to the people of the Coalition.

Based on the evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the Project activities and with consideration of the mitigation and environmental protection measures that will be implemented to prevent or minimize the potential environmental effects, the Project activities is not predicted to:

• have a significant adverse environmental impact on the park and its natural resources; • jeopardize any cultural, historical and archaeological resources; or • pose a danger to public health or public safety. Manitoba Hydro is committed to carrying out the Project activities in a manner that respects, protects and preserves the exceptional ecological resources, cultural resources and visitor experiences offered by RMNP, in keeping with Parks Canada’s goal of preserving and maintaining the ecological and cultural resources and visitor experiences in RMNP.

195

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

20. CLOSURE We trust that the above information meets your present requirements. If you have any questions or require additional details, please contact the undersigned.

Best regards,

Maureen Forster, M.Sc., EP

Report prepared by:

Maureen Forster, M.Sc., EP Scott Gray, B.Sc. Senior Biologist Biologist M. Forster Enterprises Dillon Consulting Inc. [email protected] [email protected]

Doug Schindler, PhD. ABD. Erin McCance, PhD. ABD, M.Env., B.Sc. Principle Sr. Wildlife Ecologist Wildlife Biologist and Ecologist Joro Consultants Inc. Joro Consultants Inc. [email protected] [email protected]

C-Jae Breiter, M.Sc., B.Sc. Honours Mark Lowdon, M.Sc. Wildlife Biologist and Ecologist Senior Aquatic Biologist Joro Consultants Inc. AAE Tech Services Inc. [email protected] [email protected]

196

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

22. REFERENCES AAE Tech Services Inc. 2013. Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis: Jackfish Creek Aquatic Habitat Assessment. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. The Mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press. Toronto, Ontario.

Bannatyne, B.B. and J.T. Teller. 1984. Geology of Manitoba before the Ice Age; In Teller J.T. (editor). Natural Heritage of Manitoba: Legacy of the Ice Age. ISBN 0-920704-14-X. Manitoba Museum of Man and Nature, and Manitoba Nature Magazine. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Betcher, R.N. 1997. Rural groundwater quality surveys: southern and central Manitoba. Manitoba Water Resources Branch.

Bezener, A and K. De Smet. 2000. Manitoba Birds. Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton, AB.

Boutin, S. 1992. Predation and moose population dynamics: A critique. The Journal of Wildlife Management 56:116–127.

Bramble, W.C., W.R. Byrnes and R.J. Hutnik. 1985. Effects of a special technique for right-of- way maintenance on deer habitat. Journal of Arboriculture 11: 278–284.

Bramble, W.C., W.R. Byrnes and M.D. Schuler. 1986. Effects of a special technique for right-of- way maintenance on an avian population. Journal of Arboriculture 12: 219–226.

Briscoe, B.W., B.A, Lee, C. Allan and I. Tempany. 1979. Riding Mountain National Park Resource Description and Analysis. Natural Resource Conservation, Prairie Region, Parks Canada.

Calyx Consulting (Calyx). 2010. Moon Lake Tower Wetland Survey. Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba. Prepared for Manitoba Hydro. Summer 2010.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 2013. Operational Policy Statement: Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Available at: http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca. Accessed September 21, 2013.

Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). 1981. Road and Rail Noise: Effects on Housing. Technical Research Division, National Research Council of Canada. Division of Building Research. p. 118.

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS). 2004. Riding Mountain ecosystem community atlas. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

The Canadian System of Soil Classification. 1998. Canadian Agricultural Services Coordinating Committee. Soil Classification Working Group. NRC Research Press, Jan 1, 1998.

Conant, R. and J.T. Collins. 1991. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, MA.

197

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Cook, F.R. 1984. Introduction to Canadian Amphibians and Reptiles. National Museums of Canada. Ottawa, Ontario.

Curtis, P.D. and Jensen, P.G. 2004. Habitat features affecting beaver occupancy along roadsides in New York State. The Journal of Wildlife Management 68(2): 278-287.

Dillon Consulting Ltd. 2013. Riding Mountain National Park V38R/Line 81 Environmental Impact Analysis Vegetation Technical Report. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Ducks Unlimited Canada. 2013. FP Innovations and Ducks Unlimited Canada partner on innovative roads to protect wetlands. Available at: http://www.ducks.ca/national- news/2012/11/fpinnovations-and-ducks-unlimited-canada-partner-on-innovative-roads-to- protect-wetlands/. Accessed August 10, 2013.

ESRI. 2011. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 9.3. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.

Engel, Z. and T. Wszolek. 1996. Audible noise of transmission lines caused by the corona effect: Analysis, modelling, prediction. Applied Acoustics. Volume 47(2):149-163.

Environment Canada. 2012. Manitoba - Air Quality Services. Available at: http://www.msc- smc.ec.gc.ca/aq_smog/MN/MN_e.cfm. Accessed September 20, 2013.

Environment Canada. 2013. Canadian Climate Normals for Wasagaming, Manitoba 1971 to 2000. Available at: http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?stnID=3562&prov=&lang=e&dC ode=4&dispBack=1&StationName=wasagaming&SearchType=Contains&province=ALL&pro vBut=&month1=0&month2=12. Accessed September 20, 2013.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2014a. Measures to Avoid Causing Harm to Fish and Fish Habitat. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/measures-mesures/index- eng.html. Accessed February 01, 2014.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2014b. Manitoba Restricted Activity Timing Windows for the Protection of Fish and Fish Habitat. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw- ppe/timing-periodes/mb-eng.html. Accessed February 01, 2014.

Four Nations Confederacy (FNC). 1981. Clear Lake Indian Reserve: Synopsis of land claim. Four Nations Confederacy and Keeseekoowenin Band, Winnipeg, Manitoba. As cited in Peckett, 1999.

Francis, G. and C. Stewart. 2001. Riding Mountain Biosphere Reserve. Periodic Review Report, 2000. Canadian Biosphere Reserves Association.

Franzmann, A. W., C. C. Schwartz and R. O. Peterson. 1980. Moose calf mortality in summer on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. The Journal of Wildlife Management 44:764.

Garneau, D. E., T. Boudreau, M. Keech and E. Post. 2008. Black bear movements and habitat use during a critical period for moose calves. Mammalian Biology 73:85–92.

198

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Golden-Winged Warbler Working Group (GWWG). 2009. Golden-Winged Warbler Working Group: Ecology and status [online]. Available at: http://gwwa.org/ecology.html. Accessed: June 6, 2013.

Golder Associates Ltd. 2012. Species at Risk, Migratory Bird and Fish Habitat Assessment. Riding Mountain National Park, Provincial Trunk Highway #10, Kilometre 50. Prepared for Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Government of Canada. 2000. Canada National Parks Act 2000, c. 32. On-line: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/N-14.01/18962.html#rid-19012

Government of Canada. 2011. Species at Risk Public Registry website. Available at: http://sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/index/default_e.cfm (accessed June 2013).

Government of Manitoba. 1985. Hydrogeology of the Manitoba Escarpment Region. Prepared by the Hydrogeology Section, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Government of Manitoba. 2000. The lumber industry in Manitoba. Historic Resources Branch, Government of Manitoba.

Government of Manitoba. 2014. Manitoba Air Quality. Available at: http://web20.gov.mb.ca/EnvistaWeb/Default.ltr.aspx. Accessed January 21, 2014.

Hegmann, G., C. Cocklin, R. Creasey, S. Dupuis, A. Kennedy, L. Kingsley, W. Ross, H. Spaling and D. Stalker. 1999. Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide. Prepared by AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. and the CEA Working Group for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Hull, Quebec.

Hill, L. 2003. Assessing the Relative Contributions Transmission Line Rights-of-Way have on Habitat Utilization by Moose Case Study: Riding Mountain National Park. Master of Science Thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.

Institute of Chartered Foresters. 2008. Wind and Trees Special Issue. Forestry, Vol. 81, No. 3, 2008.

Joro Consultants Inc. 2013. Riding Mountain National Park V38R/Line 81: Environmental Impact Analysis - Wildlife Technical Report. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Karns, P. D. 1998. Chapter 3: Population Distribution, Density and Trends. In Ecology and Management of the North American Moose. A.W. Franzmann and C.C. Schwartz (Eds.).

Keenan, V.T., D. Philippot, J. Fraser, S. Day and J. Lidgett. 2009. Forest Management Licence 01, 2010 – 2029 Forest Stewardship Plan of the Tembec Forest Resource Management, Pine Falls Operations. Tembec Industries Inc. Pine Falls, Manitoba.

Keeseekoowenin Sharing Lodge. 2013. Available at: http://sharinglodge.com/keesee.html. Accessed October 29, 2013.

199

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Kolenosky, G.B. and S.M. Strathearn. 1987. Black Bear; In Novak, M., J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard and B. Malloch. (Eds.). Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Toronto, Ontario. 443-454 pp.

Kooyman, A.H. and R.C. Hutchinson. 1979. The aquatic resources of Riding Mountain National Park, Vol.I: General Summary. Unpublished Report. Canadian Wildlife Service, Winnipeg.

Lankester, M.W and W.M. Samuel. 1998. Pests, Parasites and Diseases. Pages 495-502 in A.W. Franzmann and C.C. Schwartz, editors. Ecology and Management of the North American Moose, 2nd edition. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO.

Manitoba Avian Research Committee. 2003. The Birds of Manitoba. Manitoba Avian Research Committee. Manitoba Naturalists Society. Friesens Printers. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Manitoba Breeding Bird Atlas. 2013. Species At Risk. Available at: http://www.birdatlas.mb.ca/speciesatrisk/master.htm. Accessed May 10, 2013.

Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship (MCWS). 2012. 2012-2013 Trapping Guide. Manitoba Conservation, Wildlife and Ecosystem Protection Branch. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

MCWS. 2013a. Species At Risk. Available at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/wildlife/sar/index.html?print. Accessed May 10, 2013.

MCWS. 2013b. Wild Animals of Manitoba - Black Bear Fact Sheet. Available at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/wildlife/mbsp/fs/blbear.html. Accessed: June 5, 2013.

MCWS. 2013c. 2013 Manitoba Hunting Guide. Manitoba Conservation, Wildlife and Ecosystem Protection Branch. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

MCWS. 2014. Wild Animals of Manitoba - Elk Fact Sheet. Available at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/wildlife/mbsp/fs/elk.html. Accessed February 10, 2014.

Manitoba Conservation Data Centre (MCDC). 2013. Available at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/cdc/ecoreg/midboruplands.html. Accessed May 14, 2013.

Manitoba Conservation. 2011. Manitoba Forest Management Units. Manitoba Conservation, Forestry Branch. Winnipeg, Manitoba. http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/forestry/pdf/manage/fmu_map_april2010.pdf

Manitoba Herps Atlas. 2013. MHA Salamanders. Available at: http://www.naturenorth.com/Herps/MHA_Salamanders.html. Accessed May 14, 2013.

Manitoba Historic Resources Branch (MHRB 2013). Archaeological information for Riding Mountain National Park. Unpublished data. July 2013.

Manitoba Hydro. 1993. Environment, Our Sustainable Development Policy/Principles. Winnipeg, Manitoba. Available at: http://www.hydro.mb.ca/environment/principle.shtml#policy.

Manitoba Hydro. 2000. Environmental Screening Proposed Jackfish Creek Transmission Line Patrol Bridge - Riding Mountain National Park (Transmission Line V38R/Line 81).

200

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Manitoba Hydro. 2003. Manitoba Hydro – Electric Board 52nd Annual Report. Building as One Towards an Exciting Energy Future for All. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Manitoba Hydro. 2011. Manitoba Hydro Transmission Line V38R Hazard Tree Removal And Brush Mowing Proposal. October 2011.

Manitoba Hydro. 2012. Environmental Management Policy. Manitoba Hydro, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Available at: http://www.hydro.mb.ca/environment/policy/ems_policy.pdf.

Manitoba Hydro. 2013. The Hydro Province. Available at: http://www.hydro.mb.ca/corporate/facilities/gi_the_hydro_province.shtml. Accessed October 17, 2013.

Manitoba Hydro and Parks Canada. 2013. Environmental Impact Analysis - Scope 2013 - Transmission Line V38R/Line 81/Moon Lake Distribution Line Riding Mountain National Park. January 2013.

Manitoba Hydro, Plus4 Consulting Inc. and MMM Group. 2006. Final Draft Manitoba Hydro Transmission Line Maintenance Line V38R and Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba CEAR #: 06-01-17699 RMNP Ref#: 000569 June 30, 2006.

Manitoba Hydro, Plus4 Consulting Inc. and MMM Group. 2008. Manitoba Hydro Class Screening Report for V38R/Line 81 Transmission Project Environmental Protection Plan for Operations & Maintenance in Riding Mountain National Park (Draft).

Manitoba Natural Resources (MNR) and Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). 1996. Manitoba Stream Crossing Guidelines for the Protection of Fish and Fish Habitat.

McBride, J. R. and J. Leffingwell. 2006. Assessing Wind thRoW Potential in Urban Forests of Coastal California. Department of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

Menzies, C. 1998. Cooperative Beaver Management in the Riding Mountain Biosphere, Manitoba. Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Morris, T. and McNichols-O’Rourke, K. 2012. Canadian Freshwater Mussel Guide. Available at: www.canadamussels.ca. Accessed March 12, 2012.

Naiman, R.J., G. Pinay, C.A. Johnston, J. Pastor. 1994. Beaver influences on the long-term biogeochemical characteristics of boreal forest drainage networks. Ecology 75(4): 905-921.

National Hydro Network. 2013. Hydrologic Data for the Dauphin Lake watershed and Little Saskatchewan River watershed. Available at: http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/data/nhn. Accessed: October 23, 2013.

Otfinowski, R. and N. Kenkel. 2005. Patterns and Processes of Exotic Plant Invasions in Riding Mountain National Park. Final Report. University of Manitoba. Submitted to Heritage, Parks Canada.

201

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Otfinowski, R., N.C. Kenkel, P. Dixon, and J.F. Wilmshurst. 2007. Integrating Climate and Trait Models to Predict the Invasiveness of Exotic Plants in Canada’s Riding Mountain National Park. Can. J. Plant Sci. 87: 1001-1012.

Parkland Agricultural Resource Co-op (PARC). 2013. Resource Profile, Doing Business, Forestry Resources. http://www.parklandmanitoba.ca/bus_forrestry.php [Accessed April 22, 2013].

Parks Canada and Friends of Riding Mountain National Park (FRMNP). 2008. Riding Mountain National Park Trail Guide. Friends of Riding Mountain National Park Inc., Wasagaming, Manitoba, Canada.

Parks Canada. 1994. Guiding Principles and Operational Policies. Supply and Services Canada. Ottawa, Ont. 125 pp.

Parks Canada. 2002. Ecological Integrity Statement, Riding Mountain National Park of Canada. Wasagaming, Manitoba. On-line: http://www.Parks Canada.gc.ca/pn- np/mb/riding/plan/plan3_e.asp

Parks Canada. 2000. Wasagaming Community Plan: A Framework for Managing Land-Use and Development in Wasagaming, Manitoba Riding Moutain National Park. 44 pp.

Parks Canada. 2004. Model Class Screening for Routine Projects in National Park Communities.

Parks Canada, 2006. An Assessment of the Famework for Managing Land-Use and Development in Wasagaming, Manitoba. Riding Mountain National Park of Canada. 25pp.

Parks Canada. 2007a. Riding Mountain National Park of Canada and Riding Mountain Park East Gate Registration Complex National Historic Site of Canada: Management Plan. Wasagaming, Mb. ISBN 0-662-43469-2 Cat. no.: R64-338/2006E. 77 pp. On-line: http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/mb/riding/plan/pd-mp_e.pdf. Sept. 15, 2008.

Parks Canada. 2007b. Presentation on Riding Mountain National Park of Canada to the WPAT. Wildlife Health Program, Parks Canada.

Parks Canada. 2010. Summary of Fishing Regulations. Riding Mountain National Park, Parks Canada.

Parks Canada. 2011. Biotics Web Explorer. List of Species Considered Present by Protected Heritage Area. Riding Mountain National Park of Canada. Available at: http://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/bos/BOSQ8_E.asp. Accessed June 2013.

Parks Canada. 2012. Riding Mountain National Park, Recreation. http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn- np/mb/riding/activ/activ1.aspx. Accessed May 28, 2013.

Parks Canada 2013a. Guide to the Parks Canada Environmental Impact Assessment Process under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012. February 2013.

202

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Parks Canada. 2013b. Available at: http://www.pc.gc.ca/agen/dp-pd/infosource/index.aspx. Accessed October 17, 2013.

Parks Canada. 2013c. Riding Mountain National Park Visitor Guide 2013. Parks Canada.

Parks Canada. 2013d. Riding Mountain National Park: Historic & Cultural Heritage. Available at: http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/mb/riding/natcul/natcul2.aspx. Accessed October 29, 2013.

Parks Canada. Unpublished. Confidential wildlife count data. Data received from Parks Canada May 2013.

Pattie, D.L. and R.S. Hoffmann. 1990. Mammals of the North American Parks and Prairies. Edmonton, Alberta.

Peckett, M. K. 1999. Anishnabe Homeland History: Traditional Land And Resource Use Of Riding Mountain, Manitoba. Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Peers, L. 1987. An Ethnohistory of the Western Ojibway 1780-1830. M.A. thesis. University of Winnipeg. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Peterson, R.T. and V.M. Peterson. 2002. A Field Guide to the Birds of Eastern and Central North America. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. New York, N.Y

Pettipas, L. 1994. Other Peoples' Heritage: A cross-cultural approach to museum interpretation. Association of Manitoba Museums, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Plus4 Consulting Inc. 2008. Manitoba Hydro V38R RoW Timber Assessment and Access Evaluation Within Riding Mountain National Park.

Preston, W.B. 1982. The Amphibians and Reptiles of Manitoba. Manitoba Museum of Man and Nature. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Ray, A.J. 1971. Indian Exploitation of the Forest-Grassland Transition Zone in Western Canada, 1650-1860: A geographical view of two centuries of change. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin, USA.

Sauvage, S. 1999. Archaeological assessment of the Proposed Jackfish Creek Transmission Line Patrol Bridge, Riding Mountain National Park.

Schindler, D.W. 2006. Home range, core area determination, habitat use and sensory effects of all weather access on boreal woodland caribou, Rangifer tarandus caribou, in eastern Manitoba. M.Env. Thesis, Department of Environment and Geography, University of Manitoba. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Smith R.E., H. Veldhuis, G.F. Mills, R.G. Eilers, W.R. Fraser and G.W. Lelyk. 1998. Terrestrial Ecozones, Ecoregions, and Ecodistricts of Manitoba, An Ecological Stratification of Manitoba’s Natural Landscapes. Technical Bulletin 1998-9E. Land Resource Unit, Brandon Research Centre, Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

203

Manitoba Hydro V38R/Line 81 Riding Mountain National Park Environmental Impact Analysis September 2015

Stewart, K.W. and D.A. Watkinson. 2004. The freshwater fishes of Manitoba. University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Transport Canada. 2013. Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (C.R.C., c.1038) Schedule V.1 – Noise Emissions (Standard 1106). Available at: http://lawslois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._1038/section-sched6.html. Accessed September 15, 2013.

United States (US) Department of Transportation. 2006. Federal Highway Administration. Construction Noise Handbook. FHWA-HEP-06-015.DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02. NTIS No. PB2006-109102. Final Report. August 2006.

Waring, G.H., J.L. Griffis and M.E. Vaughn. 1991. White-tailed deer roadside behavior, wildlife warning reflectors, and highway mortality. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 29(1–4): 215- 223.

Wasagaming Chamber of Commerce. 2012. About the Area, Business Directory. http://discoverclearlake.com/about/member-directory/#.UaepA8KEgiQ. Accessed May 30, 2013.

Wasser, S. K., J. L. Keim, M. L. Taper and S. R. Lele. 2011. The influences of wolf predation, habitat loss, and human activity on caribou and moose in the Alberta oil sands. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9:546–551.

Watts, K. 2011. Burn or Slash: Comparing the Vegetative Diversity between Two Management Regimes in Riding Mountain National Park.

Zager, P. and J. Beecham. 2006. The role of American black bears and bRoWn bears as predators on ungulates in North America. Ursus 17:95–108.

Personal Communications Frey, S. 2013. Geomatics Coordinator. Riding Mountain National Park. Parks Canada, Manitoba.

Friesen, C. 2013. Request for Review of Manitoba Conservation Data Centre Rare Species Database. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Krindle, J. 2013. Senior vegetation biologist. Calyx Consulting. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

McKillop, C. 2014. Ecologist Team Leader. Riding Mountain National Park. Parks Canada, Manitoba.

Ortiz, W. 2013. Chief Forester, Manitoba Hydro - Distribution Asset Maintenance Department. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Sallows, T. 2013. Park biologist, Riding Mountain National Park. Parks Canada, Manitoba.

204

205

Appendix A: FP Innovations Proposed Moon Lake Trail Redevelopment

206

Assessment of the Manitoba Hydro Moon Lake Access Trail in Riding Mountain National Park January 24, 2014

Submitted By:

Prepared for: Manitoba Hydro

fpinnovations.ca 207

FPInnovations is a not-for-profit world Assessment of the Manitoba Hydro Moon leader that specializes in the creation of Lake Maintenance Trail in Riding Mountain scientific solutions in support of the National Park Canadian forest sector’s global Contract Report competitiveness and responds to the CON 862 priority needs of its industry members and . government partners. It is ideally REVIEWERS positioned to perform research, innovate, Glen Légère, M.Eng., F.Eng., and deliver state-of-the-art solutions for Research Leader, Resource Roads every area of the sector’s value chain, Clayton Gillies, R.P.F., R.P.Bio., from forest operations to consumer and Senior Researcher, Resource Roads industrial products. FPInnovations’ staff numbers more than 525. Its R&D CONTACT laboratories are located in Québec City, Mark Partington, R.P.F., M.Sc., EP

Senior Researcher Ottawa, Montréal, Thunder Bay, Resource Roads Edmonton and Vancouver, and it has 514-782-4525 [email protected] technology transfer offices across Canada. For more information about

FPInnovations, visit: www.fpinnovations.ca.

208 Table of contents

Introduction ...... 5 Site description ...... 6 Classification of trail sections ...... 8 Moon Lake Access Trail proposed upgrades ...... 13 Trail design considerations ...... 13 Considered trail upgrade technologies ...... 14 Proposed trail upgrade solutions ...... 15 Option 1: Solution for high priority trail sections with heavy rutting ...... 15 Option 2: Solution for high and medium priority trail sections without heavy rutting ...... 17 Minimizing the impacts to landscape hydrology ...... 19 Alternate trail location ...... 23 Conclusion ...... 24 Reference ...... 25 Appendix A. Map of Moon Lake Access Trail ...... 26 Appendix B. Trail Design Map ...... 28 Appendix C. Overview of Trail Upgrade techniques ...... 32 Corduroy ...... 32 Geosynthetics – woven geotextile ...... 32

List of figures

Figure 1. Land cover classifications for the Moon Lake Access Trail (yellow line)...... 6 Figure 2. Typical trail conditions at the time of the visit by FPInnovations...... 7 Figure 3. The machine trail shows evidence of being widened, likely during the avoidance of a damaged area which would otherwise hinder access...... 7 Figure 4. Examples of high (top), medium (middle) and low (bottom) priority trail sections...... 9 Figure 5. FPInnovations map highlighting the Moon Lake Access Trail upgrade sections...... 11 Figure 6. Option 1 for high priority trail sections with heavy rutting...... 15 Figure 7. Option 2 for high and medium priority trail sections without heavy rutting...... 18 Figure 8. Moon Lake Access Trail stream crossing at the 2.7-km marker...... 20 Figure 9. The view north of the possible stream at the 1.4-km section of the Moon Lake Access Trail. 21 Figure 10. An example of a drainage culvert installed among corduroy...... 22 Figure A-11. Corduroy may be used to increase the bearing capacity of a road or trail...... 32 Figure A-12. A woven geotextile can function as both a separator and as subgrade reinforcement...... 33 Figure A-13. A woven geotextile installed as reinforcement in a forest road...... 33

209

Table 1. Priority levels for trail upgrades for the Moon Lake Access Trail ...... 8 Table 2. Description of priority levels ...... 10 Table 3. Recommended sections of the current right-of-way where trail upgrades are required ...... 12

210 INTRODUCTION

The current unimproved trail crosses through numerous wet areas where the soil bearing capacity is low and, as a result, the passage of Manitoba Hydro maintenance equipment is often impeded when trail use is required in non-frozen conditions. The passage difficulties along the Moon Lake Access Trail can create safety concerns for Manitoba Hydro employees, can impede the completion of emergency line repairs, and creates challenges during planned maintenance activities where larger heavy equipment may require access. This access trail is located within Riding Mountain National Park and there are several culturally and ecologically sensitive areas that must be considered when planning and performing trail upgrades.

As a result of the current challenges on the use of the Moon Lake Access Trail, Manitoba Hydro has requested FPInnovations to present solutions for trail upgrades that would allow for all-season access along the trail specific to Manitoba Hydro maintenance equipment. Specifically, Manitoba Hydro has requested that FPInnovations perform the following:

• Provide recommendations on the location of required trail upgrades on the Moon Lake Access Trail in order to facilitate trail use by Manitoba Hydro maintenance equipment. • Provide trail upgrade or reconstruction solutions that minimize the impacts on the natural environment, principally wetlands, and meet the operational requirements of Manitoba Hydro.

The following sections of the report outline the approach and information gathered by FPInnovations and present proposed trail upgrade solutions for the Moon Lake Access Trail.

211 SITE DESCRIPTION

The trail is primarily located within broadleaf and coniferous forests of the mid-boreal ecoregion. A treed swamp (shown in purple in Figure 1) is located approximately mid-point of the trail where trail conditions are particularly challenging. However, the access trail is characterized by numerous areas where soil moisture levels are high and the soil bearing capacity is low with a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value estimated at less than 2.

Figure 1. Land cover classifications for the Moon Lake Access Trail (yellow line).

The existing access trail has been in use by Manitoba Hydro for approximately 20 years and is principally used during the winter months for scheduled maintenance activities. However, access may occur at any time of the year if emergency repairs or maintenance is required. Use of the access trail is limited to Manitoba Hydro equipment, such as ATVs, snowmobiles and tracked machines. Public access is restricted.

FPInnovations conducted a field visit to the Moon Lake Access Trail on November 12, 2013. The objective of the field visit was to become familiar with the site conditions, evaluate the trail condition and to discuss the need and use of the trail with Manitoba Hydro personnel.

At the time of the site visit by FPInnovations, winter conditions were present on the trail with approximately 5–10 cm of snow present and frozen water depths of approximately 10 cm (Figure 2). These conditions were not ideal in order to assess (visually or other) the poor trail conditions, soil depths and saturated soil moisture conditions throughout the site. However, trail failures such as rutting, deep holes and depressions was still evident throughout its length and challenging sections of the trail could still be delineated despite the early winter conditions.

212

Figure 2. Typical trail conditions at the time of the visit by FPInnovations.

There were many areas along the trail indicating that there are ongoing challenges navigating the trail due to poor soil conditions. On trail sections where firm ground conditions were present, the machine trails were limited to a single machine track that was typically 3–3.5 m wide. Poor soil conditions in certain trail sections have resulted in the formation of deep ruts and holes created by machines that have previously been stuck, and which have broken the surface vegetation layer. In areas where this has occurred, subsequent machine access has moved off the main trail as the machine operator has attempted to avoid these damaged areas (Figure 3). This avoidance of failed sections of the trail and the creation of new trails has resulted in additional areas of the right-of-way being occupied by the machine trails. This has resulted in the right-of-way expanding from its 5–6 m standard width to approximately 15 m at its widest location.

Figure 3. The machine trail shows evidence of being widened, likely during the avoidance of a damaged area which would otherwise hinder access.

213 CLASSIFICATION OF TRAIL SECTIONS

The information collected during the field visit by FPInnovations was combined with satellite and aerial imagery to identify and categorize sections of the Moon Lake Access Trail where upgrades are needed. Each section of the trail right-of-way was assessed to evaluate its current and predicted future performance and ability to allow machine passage while minimizing the impacts on the natural environment.

FPInnovations has categorized sections of the trail that require upgrading as low, medium and high priority (Table 1). An important consideration by FPInnovations in determining the areas that require upgrading is that trail upgrades must only be performed where necessary to minimize the environmental impacts to the site and to discourage unauthorized use of the trail.

Table 1. Priority levels for trail upgrades for the Moon Lake Access Trail

Percentage of total Distance Priority level trail length (m) (%) High priority 1 314 35.1

Medium priority 97 2.6

Low priority 2 335 62.3

The high priority areas indicate sections of the trail where immediate upgrades are required to improve machine access and to prevent further site damage. Many areas along the current trail have been damaged with heavy rutting due to the poor soil bearing capacity of the native soils and the high soil moisture levels present throughout much of the year. At the sections of the trail with the most damage, multiple machine trails have been created as the machine operators attempted to find areas with improved capacity to support the passage of the machine. These areas are in most critical need of upgrades to ensure machine travel and to reduce further environmental impact to the site.

214

Figure 4. Examples of high (top), medium (middle) and low (bottom) priority trail sections.

215 Other sections of the trail have been categorized as medium priority areas. The medium priority areas are sections of the trail that currently permit machine passage but where trail upgrades are recommended to ensure long-term machine access. Single machine trails are typical in these sections but dispersed trails may eventually be created if trail upgrades are not performed.

Low priority trail sections are located on firm ground conditions where upgrades to the trail are not required given the current machine types and traffic levels present on the trail. It is believed that machines may continue to use these sections without causing severe trail or site damage. The low priority trail sections are not recommended for upgrade.

Table 2. Description of priority levels

Number of Average Trail Water Priority Elevation machine Vegetation Drainage trail width surface presence level profile trails failures in trail (m) present Mainly Severe graminoids Wetland or Poor, high Greater Greater rutting and High priority Extensive with low- lowland water table than 5 than 2 holes high shrubs present Mainly Medium graminoids Minor Lowland Fair 3.5 to 5 1 to 2 Limited priority with low- rutting high shrubs Mainly shrubs and Less Low priority Upland Good 1 None None herbaceous than 3.5 vegetation

216 A map of the recommended Moon Lake Access Trail upgrades highlighting the assessed priority levels has been produced by FPInnovations (Figure 5) and detailed information for each of the trail sections is listed in the Table 3. A more detailed map of the Moon Lake Access Trail upgrades is included in Appendix A.

Figure 5. FPInnovations map highlighting the Moon Lake Access Trail upgrade sections.

217 Table 3. Recommended sections of the current right-of-way where trail upgrades are required

a a Total section Start point End point Section length Priority level (m) (m) (m) 1 0 276 276 Low

2 276 316 40 High

3 316 395 79 Low

4 395 690 295 High

5 690 713 23 Low

6 713 771 58 High

7 771 857 86 Low

8 858 886 28 Medium

9 886 956 70 Low

10 956 1082 126 High

11 1082 1307 225 Low

12 1306 1938 632 High

13 1938 2009 71 Low

14 2009 2042 33 High

15 2043 2059 16 Low

16 2060 2081 21 High

17 2081 2163 82 Low

18 2163 2203 40 High

19 2203 2270 67 Low

20 2270 2320 50 Medium

21 2320 2426 106 Low

22 2425 2444 19 Medium

23 2444 2525 81 Low

24 2525 2594 69 High

25 2593 3746 1153 Low a. Distance as measured from the eastern start point of the Moon Lake Access Trail.

218 MOON LAKE ACCESS TRAIL PROPOSED UPGRADES

The trail upgrades proposed by FPInnovations consider many operational and environmental factors that have an impact on the existing Moon Lake Access Trail and its location in Riding Mountain National Park. Improving the safety and access of Manitoba Hydro personnel and equipment is the primary objective of upgrading the trail; reducing damage to the site and the possible negative impacts to the soil and water processes present in the areas of the trail are also important considerations.

Trail design considerations There are numerous design and service criteria provided by Manitoba Hydro that must be considered with respect to the trail upgrade solutions proposed by FPInnovations. Detailed trail design specifications have not been developed; however, there are many details that guide the trail upgrade design:

 Trail upgrades are to be planned for a 20-year service life.  The current Moon Lake Access Trail right-of-way is indicated at 5–6 m in width and planned to be possibly widened to 7–8 m.  The trail upgrades are to consider all-season use. The majority of trail use is in the winter to perform regularly scheduled maintenance to the power lines; however, equipment access to perform emergency repairs can occur at any time.  Vehicles that are permitted access to the Moon Lake Access Trail are limited to Manitoba Hydro maintenance equipment which may include ATV, UTV, snowmobiles, flextrac personnel machines and flextrac bucket vehicles.  The traffic volume of Manitoba Hydro maintenance equipment on the trail is extremely low; it is expected to be less than 20 machine trips per year.  Short-term use of the trail may be required by heavy equipment such as feller-bunchers or skidders, but this would be infrequent and would occur in the winter.  The use of pickup trucks or other similar passenger vehicles is forbidden on the trail.  The width of any upgraded sections of the trail must be able to accommodate the widest Manitoba Hydro maintenance equipment at a machine width of 3.1 m.

 The trail is to be considered as one-lane with passing and/or pullout areas not required. This is to reduce the overall footprint area of the trail and to minimize the amount of required construction material.  The positioning of the machine access trail underneath the current distribution line within the right-of-way is to be minimized.

 Materials or products proposed for use in any trail upgrades should require minimal ongoing maintenance.

219 In addition to the operational and trail use criteria required for consideration for the planned trail upgrades, there are also environmental and site protection issues that must also be recognized, which include the following:

 Trail upgrades must only be performed where deemed necessary to allow for trail usage by Manitoba Hydro equipment. As much as possible, the trail should remain in its current unimproved condition to minimize the environmental impact and to discourage unauthorized use of the trail  Soil and rock material required for proposed construction should not be expected to be obtained from within the right of way or from temporary excavations; no borrow pits will be developed.  Water management is restricted to the use of drainage structures that may be installed within the upgraded trail. Diversion of natural flow patterns, in order to improve the performance of the upgraded trail sections, cannot be achieved through the establishment of trailside ditches, off- take ditches, etc.  Fill or aggregate material that may be used in the upgrade of the trail will require approval by Parks Canada so that any environmental concerns, such as noxious weeds, may be addressed.  The disturbed areas within the current Moon Lake Access Trail right-of-way are to be restricted to the footprint of the upgraded sections of trail. Excavation or dozing of fill material is not to occur outside the planned upgraded trail width.

Considered trail upgrade technologies The construction materials, products and methods that are suitable for the upgrade of the Moon Lake Access Trail have been accepted and implemented in low-volume road designs. These designs have been evaluated by FPInnovations and, in many cases, have been implemented and studied in low- volume roads across Canada. These designs and technologies have been proven in road and operating conditions with higher traffic volume levels and heavier vehicle loads that are much harsher than the conditions experienced on the Moon Lake Access Trail.

The maintenance equipment used by Manitoba Hydro is primarily tracked machines which have low machine ground pressures. The largest of the Manitoba Hydro maintenance equipment is a flextrac bucket truck with a machine ground pressure of approximately 28 kPa (4.0 psi). Manitoba Hydro has also reported to FPInnovations that traffic levels on the trail may be as low as less than 20 machine passes per year.

FPInnovations considered a variety of construction methods and materials for possible use in the upgrades of the Moon Lake Access Trail. These methods and materials are quite familiar to low-volume road construction managers but may be less familiar to Manitoba Hydro. More information on the aspects of the proposed techniques are available in Appendix C.

220 Proposed trail upgrade solutions In addition to the operational and environmental design considerations expressed by Manitoba Hydro, the current condition of the Moon Lake Access Trail also has an important effect on the potential options for upgrading the trail.

Sections of the current Moon Lake Access Trail, specifically trail sections 4 and 12 (as outlined in Figure 5) are heavily rutted and display evidence of deep holes caused by machinery that had become stuck. As a result, there are significant breaks in the native soil layer, root mats and mixing of underlying organic soils. This disturbance is an important determinant in the trail upgrade solutions proposed by FPInnovations as these ruts and holes must be filled or, at the very least, spanned before the trail base can be constructed. The following proposals reflect these conditions.

Option 1: Solution for high priority trail sections with heavy rutting Key points:  Natural soil layers and root mats have been broken and do not offer a suitable platform in which to construct the trail.  Holes and ruts in the organic layers need to be filled so that proper bearing may be achieved for the trail base.  Material used to fill these holes should be significant enough to provide support to the trail base.  Logs (corduroy) would be a suitable material and can be laid perpendicular to the trail to provide a suitable base.  The voids between the logs also offer opportunities for water passage through the trail.  The geotextile, log and aggregate materials offer opportunities for long-term performance with little to no short- to long-term maintenance requirements.

Schematic

Figure 6. Option 1 for high priority trail sections with heavy rutting.

221 Construction details

 Trail construction should be focused during frozen ground conditions due to the poor soil conditions throughout much of the trail.  In advance of trail construction, a small bulldozer will be required to remove the snow and to open a travel path for the equipment. Removing the snow will also remove the insulating layer which will ensure that sufficient frost depths are present to support the construction equipment.  Corduroy with diameters ranging from 0.10–0.20 m should be specified for the trail construction.  Corduroy can be transported by skidder and stockpiled near the required locations.  An excavator can be used to place the corduroy in the designated locations.  Before placing the corduroy, the excavator is required to break through the ice to ensure that the corduroy fills any large holes.  Except where required to fill identified holes, the corduroy can be placed in a single layer.  Corduroy length is recommended to be 4.5–5.0 m, as this would be sufficient to provide for a 4.0 m wide trail surface. However, the corduroy lengths could be adapted to ensure that any significant trail failures are properly spanned.  The required aggregate may also be stockpiled during frozen conditions and may be transported by a standard gravel truck.  After the corduroy has been laid, the geotextile is to be rolled out by two people with the possible aid of the excavator.  Rolls of geotextile are typically available in widths of 4.0–4.5 m. This would provide for a single roll width to be used for this installation  When starting a new roll of geotextile, ensure that the two sections overlap by at least 900 mm (Holtz et al. 1997). Sufficient overlap is required to prevent the loss of aggregate at the joint.  Since the trail is not to be used by wheeled passenger vehicles and has very low traffic levels, a coarser aggregate can be used than would be found on a standard low-volume road. A clean, large-diameter aggregate, with a maximum diameter of 40–80 mm (known as 80-mm minus or 3-inch minus) with low fines content would be recommended as it would allow for good drainage and reduced generation of sediment. As an alternative, screened pitrun with a sand content less than 50% could also be used.  Following the installation of the geotextile, the aggregate may be placed to a minimum thickness of 150–300 mm. Minimum thickness should be at least twice the maximum particle diameter size.  The excavator bucket and blade may be used to spread and level the aggregate material.  The aggregate material is to be spread and levelled to accommodate a 4-m-wide trail running surface.

222  The trail is to be reassessed the following summer to ensure that the aggregate material has been properly placed and levelled. An uneven trail surface may have formed if partially frozen aggregate had been used during construction.

Equipment and materials

 Small bulldozer in the 100 hp class  Small- to medium-sized excavator in the 20 ton class  Chainsaw operator to make any necessary cuts to the corduroy  Skidder to transport the corduroy to the required locations  Standard gravel truck to transport the aggregate to the required locations  Logs in lengths of 4.5–5.0 m and with a diameter range of 0.10–0.20 m to be installed as corduroy  High-strength woven geotextile with the following design requirements (Holtz et al. 1997):

o Grab strength – 1400 N as per ASTM D4632 test method o Puncture resistance – 500 N as per ASTM D4833 test method o Tear strength – 500 N as per ASTM D4533 test method  Coarse aggregate with a maximum diameter of 40–80 mm (known as 80-mm minus or 3-inch minus) with a low fines content or a screened pitrun with a sand content less than 50%  Estimated materials for a 100-m section of trail includes: 2 o 450–500 m of high-strength woven geotextile 3 o 60-120 m of aggregate o 1000–2000 corduroy logs with a length of 4.5–5.0 m

Option 2: Solution for high and medium priority trail sections without heavy rutting Key points

 Natural soil layers and root mats are intact and offer a suitable surface for constructing the trail.  A high-strength woven geotextile may be placed directly on the soil surface to support the trail base.  The geotextile and aggregate materials offer opportunities for long-term performance with little to no short- to long-term maintenance requirements.

223 Schematic

Figure 7. Option 2 for high and medium priority trail sections without heavy rutting.

Construction details

224  The aggregate material is to be spread and levelled to accommodate a 4-m-wide trail running surface.  The trail is to be reassessed the following summer to ensure that the aggregate material has been properly placed and levelled. An uneven trail surface may have formed if partially frozen aggregate had been used during construction.

Equipment and materials

 Small bulldozer in the 100 hp class  Small- to medium-sized excavator in the 20 ton class  Standard gravel truck to transport the aggregate to the required locations  High-strength woven geotextile with the following design requirements (Holtz et al. 1997):

o Grab strength – 1400 N as per ASTM D4632 test method o Puncture resistance – 500 N as per ASTM D4833 test method o Tear strength – 500 N as per ASTM D4533 test method  Coarse aggregate with a 40–80 mm diameter (known as 80-mm minus or 3-inch minus) with a low fines content or a screened pitrun with a sand content less than 50%  Estimated materials for a 100-m section of trail includes: 2 o 450–500 m of high-strength woven geotextile 3 o 60-120 m of aggregate

Minimizing the impacts to landscape hydrology Minimizing the environmental impacts of the planned trail upgrades to the Moon Lake Access Trail is an important consideration to the proposals developed by FPInnovations. The principal negative impact of constructed low-volume roads or trails is the blockage and damming of surface and sub-surface water movement, which have effects ranging from the site level to landscape level. The unintended alteration of natural drainage patterns can result in reduced soil moisture levels in areas downstream of a road or trail crossing, or can cause flooding in areas upstream of the road or trail. These alterations to hydrologic connectivity can impact ground and woody vegetation, tree health and wildlife habitat values. The protection of surface water, in defined water features such as streams or ponds, is also critical to ensure that landscape water features and aquatic and terrestrial wildlife are provided the necessary habitat.

225 The Moon Lake Access Trail does not contain significant surface water features. Through the field survey, FPInnovations identified a permanent stream located at approximately 2.7 km along the trail (Figure 8) and a second possible stream crossing at approximately 1.4 km along the trail. The presence of a defined stream channel at this section of the trail was difficult to discern during the winter conditions present during the field survey by FPInnovations. FPInnovations would advise Manitoba Hydro to verify the presence of a defined stream at this location during the summer months.

Figure 8. Moon Lake Access Trail stream crossing at the 2.7-km marker.

The small stream located at the 2.7 km marker was less than 0.5 m wide at the time of the field survey by FPInnovations. The stream is located in an area of lower elevation with a very gradual slope to the trail along the approach to the stream. The stream and the trail approaches did not appear to show evidence of any machine rutting and the native soil material appears firm. This area of the trail was categorized as having a low priority for upgrading. FPInnovations would, however, recommend that if soil erosion is present on the trail approaches or if significant increases in machine traffic levels are planned during non-frozen conditions, the construction of an armoured ford be considered for this location. An armoured ford is a section of trail in which non-erodible material has been used in its construction. An armoured ford would protect the channel and banks, prevent the creation of rutting on the trail and reduce soil erosion on the trail slope. This reduces the opportunities for sediment generation and further altering of the natural stream flows. The use of an armoured ford as an alternative to a culvert will also reduce any performance and maintenance problems that could be expected with beaver activity which could block flows through a pipe. At this location on the Moon Lake Access Trail, an armoured ford may be achieved by excavating the native soil material and replacing it with clean aggregate fill.

226 The possible stream location at the 1.4-km marker would appear to connect two wetland features (Figure 9). Organic soils are present at this location which has been categorized as a high priority for trail upgrades by FPInnovations.

Figure 9. The view north of the possible stream at the 1.4-km section of the Moon Lake Access Trail.

If, upon further investigation, it appears that a defined water channel does exist at this location then FPInnovations would suggest the installation of a corrugated steel or plastic pipe to manage the water flows. A pipe diameter of 450–600 mm would likely be sufficient for any possible flows present at this location.

High soil moisture levels characterize the sections of the Moon Lake Access Trail that have been categorized as high to medium priority for upgrades by FPInnovations. These sections of the trail show evidence of sub-surface water flows through the presence of deep organic soils and vegetation species frequently found in wetland type environments. Sections 4, 10 and 12 are the largest of these sections that show evidence of wetland features and processes. In these sections, it is important to ensure that the trail upgrades that may occur do not negatively impact the natural subsurface water flows. Certain restrictions regarding the construction of the upgrades to the Moon Lake Access Trail that are in place, such as no ditching, establishment of borrow pits or bulldozing of material outside the footprint area of the trail, will alleviate some of the possible negative impacts to the natural drainage patterns.

227 In addition to these practices, FPInnovations recommends the use of small-diameter culverts to be installed in the trail to aid in the passage of sub-surface water through the trail. These pipes may have a diameter of 450 mm and be installed as frequently as every 50–75 m apart in the longest high priority sections (sections 4, 10 and 12). Since these culverts are not intended to provide for surface flows, they may be embedded to a depth of approximately 50% in and among the corduroy, similar to the installation shown in Figure 10. An engineered foundation is not required for these pipes and a foundation may be prepared by creating a levelled trench or depression through the use of the excavator bucket. Once the pipe has been placed, corduroy should be placed on either side and over top of the pipe. The corduroy will serve to provide support to the culvert from the weight of passing equipment. In addition, the aggregate material may be placed over top of the pipe at a depth of 150– 300 mm, which is the same depth recommended throughout the trail. Further details on the recommended locations for culvert placement along the trail are presented in Appendix B.

Figure 10. An example of a drainage culvert installed among corduroy.

The use of these pipes may also be considered in the other high to medium priority sections, in addition to the previously mentioned sections of 4, 10 and 12, where trail upgrades are to be performed. These other sections of the trail may not have heavy rutting present and the geotextile and aggregate option may be the chosen trail upgrade method. These sections of the trail where upgrades are required are not longer than 70 m in length, and are typically found in low-lying areas where sub-surface water flows may be expected. The pipes installed in these sections are to be installed similar to the method employed in the corduroy sections, except that the geotextile should be continued underneath the pipe. Having the geotextile under the pipe should provide additional foundation support to the pipe. Once the pipe has been placed, the aggregate may be placed to a similar depth as is to be used throughout the trail. Due to the lack of corduroy around these pipes, additional aggregate may be required to ensure a smooth trail surface transition across the pipe.

The implementation of small-diameter culverts and the corduroy, where applicable, to provide for sub- surface cross-trail water movement are solutions that require little long-term maintenance. Since surface flows are not the primary design consideration, blockage of water flows through the pipe by debris, soil or vegetation accumulation or beaver activity are not of concern. The primary long-term

228 maintenance focus would be directed at ongoing trail performance monitoring to evaluate the need for the installation of additional pipes to provide further cross-trail drainage opportunities.

ALTERNATE TRAIL LOCATION

The Moon Lake Access Trail is currently located on the northern side of the right-of-way through most of its length. There are locations where the trail crosses under the distribution line to the southern side of the right-of-way, mainly as a result of the need to avoid obstacles or the machine operators attempting to find firm ground on which to travel. The trail moves to the south near section 18 of the FPInnovations map (Figure 5) to avoid a small pond, and again at distance marker 2.7 km to avoid the small stream that parallels the right of way. The other examples of the trail crossing under the line are in sections 4 and 12 where the trail crosses the wetland and where numerous trails have been created to avoid heavy rutting that had been previously caused.

Manitoba Hydro has indicated that the right-of-way along the trail may be widened from the currently managed 5–6 m to 7–8 m to provide for the proper setbacks of the vegetation from the electrical distribution line. It has also indicated that widening the right-of way may provide an opportunity to relocate the Moon Lake Access Trail to the south side of the right-of-way. Relocating the trail to these previously undisturbed newly widened sections of the right-of-way could provide an opportunity to perform the trail upgrades in areas where the soil bearing capacity may be more conducive to the required machine travel. However, possible concerns were raised that moving the Moon Lake Access Trail to a new section of the widened right-of-way leads to increased total area in which the site damage is broadcast.

As presented in Table 1, 62% of the existing Moon Lake Access Trail has been assessed by FPInnovations as not requiring upgrading. This would indicate that for the majority of the trail network, moving the trail to new areas of the right-of-way would not necessarily create improved trail conditions. The objectives of meeting the requirements to reduce the overall environmental impact of the trail would also not be served by moving the trail from currently undamaged sections.

Benefits could, however, be achieved by moving the trail completely to the southern side of the right-of- way in the sections that are currently the most heavily damaged. These areas of sections 4, 10 and 12 represent 80% of the high priority areas of the trail but just 28% of the total trail length. Moving the trail to the southern side of the right-of-way in these sections would present an opportunity to upgrade the trail to a standard that would provide long-term performance.

The expanded southern side of the right-of-way would offer the opportunity to construct the trail upgrades in an area that is undamaged from deep machine ruts or holes. Constructing the trail in the new location in these sections would allow the trail to be built on an intact root and vegetation mat, thereby increasing the bearing capacity of the trail base. In sections 4, 10 and 12, there are not a lot of large trees to be cut to provide a corduroy base for the trail. However, since the area would be undamaged the use of corduroy could be reduced and trail upgrade Option 2 (Figure 7) could be employed. This would reduce the need to transport logs to the necessary sites.

229 CONCLUSION

Upgrades to the current Manitoba Hydro Moon Lake Access Trail are required to ensure continued access for power line maintenance operations and for emergency repair. The condition of the trail is currently not designed to support the required vehicles and traffic levels for much of its length that use the trail. Being located in Riding Mountain National Park puts extra scrutiny on the construction and environmental protection practices that must be considered in the trail upgrades. FPInnovations conducted a field survey and reviewed aerial and satellite imagery to develop proposed trail upgrade solutions. The following outlines the key findings and recommendations from FPInnovations:

 Two trail upgrade options should be considered when improvements to the Moon Lake Access Trail are performed:

o On trail areas where significant soil rutting and damage is evident, corduroy should be placed to fill the ruts and holes. A geotextile layer is to be installed over the corduroy followed by a properly graded aggregate.

o On trail areas where the current soil damage levels are low, a geotextile may be placed directly on the soil layer. Following the placement of the geosynthetic, a properly graded aggregate may be placed and levelled.  The trail upgrade solutions with corduroy are most applicable to trail sections 2, 4, 6, 10 and 12.  The trail upgrade solutions without corduroy are most applicable to trail sections 8, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22 and 24.  The environmental impact to the site traversed by the Moon Lake Access Trail may be controlled by upgrading those sections only in most critical need of improvement. This strategy results in just 38% of the trail requiring construction to upgraded levels.  The trail upgrade solutions proposed by FPInnovations do not necessitate extensive excavation or ditching of the area surrounding the trail. This ensures protection of the soil and vegetation currently in place at the site.  FPInnovations has evaluated the Moon Lake Access Trail and categorized the trail upgrades into low, medium and high priority levels. The high priority level sections of trail require immediate upgrade as they are approaching a level of impassability in the summer months. The low priority level trail sections indicate areas where upgrades are not required and may never become necessary based on the estimated machine types and traffic levels.  The poorest sections of the Moon Lake Access Trail are located in sections 4, 10 and 12 of the trail and comprise just over 1 km or approximately 28% of the total trail length.  The effects of sub-surface water movement can be mitigated through the use of cross-drain culverts, as well as corduroy which provides cross-trail drainage.

230 REFERENCE

Holtz, R.D.; Christopher, B.R.; Berg, R.R. 1997. Geosynthetic engineering. BiTech Publishers Ltd., Richmond, British Columbia, Canada. 452 p.

231 APPENDIX A. MAP OF MOON LAKE ACCESS TRAIL

232

233 APPENDIX B. TRAIL DESIGN MAP

234

235

236

237 APPENDIX C. OVERVIEW OF TRAIL UPGRADE TECHNIQUES

A brief overview of each of the key technologies and materials is outlined below:

Corduroy Soils of low-bearing capacity have traditionally been crossed using a "corduroy" surface created by laying numerous delimbed logs parallel to one another and perpendicular to the direction of travel. There are various techniques for building corduroy crossings, such as alternating the tops and butts of the logs. Additional corduroy layers may be added to increase the height of the road or trail base, or to increase the ability of the road or trail to float on the soil surface. The logs allow water to flow between them, possibly eliminating the need for any culverts or drainage structures. These corduroy roads tend to settle over time and when used as a road base may periodically require additional material to raise the road back up to the design grade. The corduroy may be covered with geosynthetics to maintain separation of the corduroy and the overlaying fill. The separation may be required to prevent voids between the logs being filled from fine material contained in the road base material.

Figure A-11. Corduroy may be used to increase the bearing capacity of a road or trail.

Geosynthetics – woven geotextile Woven geotextiles are often used to stabilize a road base and to separate the road material from the underlying native soils. Woven geotextiles are fabricated from high-strength strips of fibres that are interwoven at right angles to create a relatively stiff fabric that stretches approximately 15% when under tension.

238

Figure A-12. A woven geotextile can function as both a separator and as subgrade reinforcement.

The primary function of a geosynthetic is to provide separation between two different types of soil. By working as a separator, these materials can increase the stability and improve the performance of weak subgrade soils. Using geotextiles on fine-grained soils can reduce the contamination of the aggregates that arises from intermixing with the subgrade materials; as a result, geotextiles reduce the chances of localized bearing failures, which typically occur when the aggregates are forced into the subgrade by dynamic wheel loads or when the subgrade soil migrates into the aggregate layer. Geosynthetics can also reinforce road embankments created in soils with very low bearing capacity. For a geosynthetic to provide adequate reinforcement, the fabric must be well-anchored, yet still capable of undergoing deformations (stretch). Once under tension, the fabric provides the required reinforcement. The higher- strength woven geotextiles may be used in similar applications as the stiffer geogrid products. Woven geotextiles are available from a wide variety of manufacturers and distributors. Woven geotextiles may range in price from $1.50 to $5 per m2 depending on the product specification.

Figure A-13. A woven geotextile installed as reinforcement in a forest road.

239

Head Office Pointe-Claire 570 Saint-Jean Blvd Pointe-Claire, QC Canada H9R 3J9 T 514 630-4100

Vancouver Québec 2665 East Mall 319 Franquet Vancouver, BC Québec, QC Canada V6T 1Z4 Canada G1P 4R4 T 604 224-3221 T 418 659-2647

240

Appendix B: Vegetation Assessment Technical Report

241

RIDING MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK V38R/LINE 81: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

Northern Portion of ROW Vegetation Technical Report

M. Forster Enterprises/Manitoba Hydro

ENVIRONMENT & WATER 22 | 10 | 2014 REPORT Rev. 1 > Internal ref. 620748

242 NOTICE TO READER

This report has been prepared and the work referred to in this report have been undertaken by SNC-Lavalin Inc. (SNC-Lavalin), for the exclusive use of M. Forster Enterprises and Manitoba Hydro (the Client), who have been party to the development of the scope of work and understand its limitations. The methodology, findings, conclusions and recommendations in this report are based solely upon the scope of work and subject to the time and budgetary considerations described in the proposal and/or contract pursuant to which this report was issued. Any use, reliance on, or decision made by a third party based on this report is the sole responsibility of such third party. SNC-Lavalin accepts no liability or responsibility for any damages that may be suffered or incurred by any third party as a result of the use of, reliance on, or any decision made based on this report.

The findings, conclusions and recommendations in this report (i) have been developed in a manner consistent with the level of skill normally exercised by professionals currently practicing under similar conditions in the area, and (ii) reflect SNC-Lavalin’s best judgment based on information available at the time of preparation of this report. No other warranties, either expressed or implied, are made with respect to the professional services provided to Client or the findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report. The findings and conclusions contained in this report are valid only as of the date of this report and may be based, in part, upon information provided by others. If any of the information is inaccurate, new information is discovered or project parameters change, modifications to this report may be necessary.

This report must be read as a whole, as sections taken out of context may be misleading. If discrepancies occur between the preliminary (draft) and final version of this report, it is the final version that takes precedence. Nothing in this report is intended to constitute or provide a legal opinion.

SNC-Lavalin disclaims any liability to the Client and to third parties in respect of the use of (publication, reference, quoting, or distribution), any decision made based on, or reliance on this report or any of its contents.

243 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ...... 1 1.2 SCOPE OF WORK ...... 1 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...... 2 2.1 STUDY AREA ...... 2

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...... 2 3 VEGETATION SURVEYS ...... 4 3.1 VALUED COMPONENTS ...... 4

3.2 METHODOLOGY ...... 4

3.3 RESULTS ...... 6 3.3.1 General Description...... 6 3.3.2 Valued Components ...... 6 3.3.3 Invasive Species ...... 6 4 HABITAT DELINEATION ALONG THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ...... 12 4.1 METHODOLOGY ...... 12

4.2 RESULTS ...... 12 5 CONCLUSIONS ...... 21 6 REFERENCES...... 23

244 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 : Plant species observed and relative abundance along the right-of-way ...... 8

Table 2: Habitat characterization along the V38R/Line 81 transmission line right-of-way, and vegetation risk levels ...... 17

Table 3 : Summary of vegetation risk levels ...... 18 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 : 2014 Study Area ...... 3

Figure 2 : Vegetation assessment plot locations along the right-of-way ...... 5

Figure 3: Habitat delineation along the right-of-way for the 2014 sampling area, Map 19-100 -V2.15

Figure 4: Habitat delineation along the right-of-way for the 2014 sampling area, Map 19-200-V2 .16

All figures produced by Joro Consultants Inc. LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph 1: Forest edge at plot 4 along the east side of the right-of-way, showing an understory dominated by beaked hazelnut ...... 11

Photograph 2: View looking south at a herbaceous cover with sparse low shrubs along the right-of-way (Habitat Category V53)...... 19

Photograph 3: View looking north at a creek along the right-of-way (Habitat Category C21)...... 19

Photograph 4: View looking north at a dense medium shrub layer along the right-of-way (Habitat Category V40)...... 20

Photograph 5: View looking south at a dense tall shrub layer along the right-of-way (Habitat Category V47)...... 20

245 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Known Plants of Riding Mountain National Park

Appendix B Plant Species of Conservation Concern for the Mid-Boreal Upland Ecoregion

246 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW

Manitoba Hydro operates and maintains the V38R / Line 81 transmission lines and transmission line Right of Way (ROW) located in Riding Mountain National Park (RMNP). Within RMNP, the ROW is 34 kilometres (km) in length and varies in width from 42.6 metres (m) to 50.3 m. To comply with Manitoba Hydro’s operating standards, Manitoba Hydro is proposing to widen the ROW by 7.5 m on the east side of the ROW and allow for partial regeneration of the existing ROW on the west side of the ROW (“the Project”). The Project also includes the redevelopment of the existing access trail to provide year-round access for required operational and maintenance activities. In addition to the Project, an Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IVMP) is being developed by Manitoba Hydro to maintain the vegetation within the ROW at a height and density that meets Manitoba Hydro specifications and requirements to increase the reliability, safety, and integrity of the lines.

Parks Canada determined that the Project will require a Detailed Environmental Impact Analysis as per the February 2013 “Guide to the Parks Canada Environmental Impact Assessment Process under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012” (Parks Canada 2013). Field studies were conducted in RMNP along the ROW and access trails in June 2013 and January 2014 as part of the data collection and assessment activities for the Detailed Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA). A section of the northern portion of the ROW was not assessed in June 2013 due to the presence of a deep gorge that prevented access to the area. The July 2014 vegetation assessment was conducted by SNC-Lavalin Inc. (SNC-Lavalin) to access the area not assessed in 2013 and provide data for this area for the EIA.

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK

SNC-Lavalin was retained by M. Forster Enterprises in 2014 to conduct a vegetation assessment of the northern section of the V38R / Line 81 transmission line ROW that was not previously assessed during the 2013 survey (Dillon Consulting Ltd. 2013a). This report outlines and summarizes the vegetation assessment activities conducted in July 2014. The objectives of the 2014 vegetation assessment were to: 1) Document the existing vegetation in this area of the ROW, with a focus on the Valued Components (VCs) and invasive species identified for the Project (Dillon Consulting Ltd. 2013a) for inclusion in the EIA; and

2) Provide data and delineate the vegetation types for this section of the ROW for inclusion in the draft Vegetation Management Plan prepared by Dillon Consulting Ltd. (Dillon Consulting Ltd. 2013b) for the Project as part of the EIA.

247 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.1 STUDY AREA The study area for the 2014 vegetation assessment refers to the northern portion of the ROW, from the north boundary of the park to the large gorge 7.5 km south of the north boundary (50°57'22.28"N, 100° 6'46.26"W) (Figure 1).

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Riding Mountain National Park is situated at the confluence of several ecosystems: aspen parkland, mixed-grass, rough-fescue prairie, boreal forest and eastern deciduous forest (Dillon Consulting Ltd. 2013a). The majority of the Park is a mixed wood forest dominated by trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides), followed by white spruce (Picea glauca), balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera), and white birch (Betula papyrifera). Black spruce (Picea mariana) and tamarack (Larix laricina) are found on imperfectly drained sites and around wetlands. Eastern hardwoods such as American elm (Ulmus americana), Manitoba maple (Acer negundo), mountain maple (Acer spicatum), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa) are more dominant along the northern boundary of the park. Parks Canada estimates that 764 species of vascular plants occur in RMNP (Dillon Consulting Ltd. 2013a; Appendix A).

248 Figure 1 : 2014 Study Area

2014 Study Area

249 3 VEGETATION SURVEYS

To evaluate the potential effects of the proposed widening of the ROW, a vegetation survey was conducted from July 14 - 16, 2014 in the 2014 study area (Figure 1).

3.1 VALUED COMPONENTS Valued Components (VCs) were identified for the Project in 2013 and included: all 89 plant species of conservation concern listed by MBCDC with a provincial status of S1, S2 or S3 that have the potential to occur in the 2014 study area; and plant species of importance to First Nations for medicinal and cultural uses (e.g., sage [Artemisia spp.], Seneca root [Polygala senega], sweetgrass [Hierochloe odorata]) and harvestable wild fruits (e.g., plums, berries) (Dillon Consulting Ltd. 2013a).

3.2 METHODOLOGY

The methods used for the 2014 vegetation survey were the same as the methods used during the 2013 vegetation study (Dillon Consulting Ltd. 2013a). This method included an interrupted belt transect conducted along the northern portion of the proposed ROW expansion. An SNC-Lavalin biologist identified and recorded all vascular plant species observed, along with the percent cover of each species in all plots.

The existing ROW was traveled by Argo and sample sites were located every 700 m along the proposed ROW expansion to ensure a sufficient sample size of ten plots (Figure 2). A 20 m x 20 m grid was set up at each site, and a 2 m x 4 m rectangular quadrat was placed within the grid. The 20 m x 20 m grid was divided into 2 m x 4 m sections and, by using a random number generator, the placement of the quadrat within the grid was randomly selected. The quadrats were established by placing wooden stakes at each corner of the plot and outlining the quadrat with flagging tape.

All vascular plant species within the quadrats were identified to species and the percent cover of each species observed was recorded. Immature plants or plants missing structures (e.g., fruiting bodies, etc.) that could not be identified to species were identified to genus or family. Additional data collected at each sample site included: soil type, site location and description of the vegetation community. No voucher specimens were collected. Photographs of the plant and identifying characteristics were taken of any species not identifiable in the field. The relative location of each sample site, as with any incidental observations of invasive species, plants of interest to First Nations, or species of conservation concern (S1, S2, S3) outside of the sample sites, were recorded with a handheld GPS and documented as part of the Project information (Dillon Consulting Ltd. 2013a).

250 Figure 2 : Vegetation assessment plot locations along the right-of-way

251 3.3 RESULTS

3.3.1 General Description The northern portion of the proposed ROW, from the park boundary to the deep gorge, falls predominantly within an open broadleaf forest with some pocket of dense stands. Balsam poplar dominates the stands followed next by trembling aspen. A mix of eastern hardwood species was also found in this area, including Manitoba maple, bur oak, and American elm. Further south, as the ROW approaches the gorge, the forest cover becomes more of a dense mixed wood forest with the increased presence of white spruce. The northern section of the ROW crosses a few streams and wetlands that are dominated by graminoids and willows (Salix spp.).

A total of 47 species, including a mix of trees, shrub understory and herbaceous plants, were observed in the plots sampled along the surveyed section of ROW (Table 1). All plots were located in upland areas with a moist soil regime. Large shrub species, predominantly beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta) and mountain maple, dominated the understory cover (Photograph 1). Common wild strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), sweet-scented bedstraw (Galium triflorium), dewberry (Rubus pubescens), wild sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis), smooth sweet-cicely (Osmorhiza longistylis) and snakeroot (Sanicula marilandica) were the most abundant and widespread species within the ground layer. No plots fell within areas surrounding watercourses or wetlands, though based on incidental observations, species adapted to more wet conditions were more prevalent in those areas. These wet area plants included several species of sedges (Carex spp.); grasses such as bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), seaside arrow- grass (Triglochin maritima) and fowl manna grass (Glyceria striata); beaked willow (Salix bebbiana); yellow willow (Salix lutea); sandbar willow (Salix exigua); soft-stem bulrush (Scirpus validus); common spike-rush (Eleocharis palustris); cattails (Typha latifolia); common water-plantain (Alisma trivale); water calla (Calla palustris); marsh marigold (Caltha palustris); and water smartweed (Polygonum amphibium).

3.3.2 Valued Components No federally, provincially, or MBCDC listed plant species were identified during the 2014 field investigation. One plant species of significance to First Nations, common sweetgrass, was observed at two plot locations along the ROW (Plot 3 and 9) (Table 1).

3.3.3 Invasive Species There were no invasive plant species observed in the plots sampled under the forest canopy along the east side of the northern portion of ROW. However, incidental observations made along the existing ROW included several non-native species such as common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), tufted bird-vetch (Vicia cracca), hemp-nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit), Canadian thistle

252 (Cirsium arvense), hedge false bindweed (Calystegia sepium), quack grass (Agropyron repens), timothy (Phleum pretense), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and smooth brome (Bromus inermis). Smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass are considered highly invasive exotic species and have been assigned a very high management priority (Dillon Consulting Ltd. 2013a). Although not considered as invasive as the former two species, quackgrass, timothy, Canadian thistle, hemp- nettle, common dandelion, hedge false bindweed and tufted bird-vetch have been assigned a high management priority within RMNP (Dillon Consulting Ltd. 2013a).

253 Table 1 : Plant species observed and relative abundance along the right-of-way Plot - Plot - Plot - Plot - Plot - Plot - Plot - Plot - Plot - Plot - Scientific name Common name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Acer negundo Manitoba maple 4% Acer spicatum mountain maple 4% 35% 15% 30% 15% 7% 20% red and white Actaea rubra baneberry 1% 2% 1% 3% 1% 1% Alnus viridis green alder 7% Anemone canadensis Canadian anemone 4% 10% Apocynum androsaemifolium spreading dogbane 2% Aralia nudicaulis wild sarsaparilla 21% 3% 25% 8% 1% 4% 20% Athyrium filix-femina lady fern 9% 4% 6% 7% Cornus canadensis bunchberry 5% 7% Corylus cornuta beaked hazelnut 58% 35% 8% 35% 15% 30% 6% 25% 25% 13% Diervilla lonicera bush honeysuckle 1% 2% Disporum trachycarpum fairybells 2% 3% 6% 5% 4% 3% Equisetum arvense common horsetail 1% 1% 1% common wild Fragaria virginiana strawberry 1% 1% 5% 2% 2% 3% 5% 1% Galium trifidum small bedstraw 1% sweet-scented Galium triflorium bedstraw 15% 5% 5% 2% 3% 5% 1% 3% Heracleum maximum cow parsnip 4% 5% 4% Hierochloe odorata common sweet grass 2% 1% Lathyrus ochroleucus creamy peavine 4% 5% 2% Lysimachia thyrsiflora tufted loosetrife 4% Maianthemum dilatatum two-leaved Solomon's 2% 2% 1% 2% 1%

254 Plot - Plot - Plot - Plot - Plot - Plot - Plot - Plot - Plot - Plot - Scientific name Common name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 seal Maianthemum racemosum false Solomon's seal 3% 4% 2% Mentha arvensis wild mint 2% Osmorhiza longistylis smooth sweet-cicely 3% 4% 5% 2% 5% 5% 2% Picea glauca white spruce 3% Populus balsamifera balsam poplar 4% 3% 7% 3% Populus tremuloides trembling aspen 5% 8% 5% common pink Pyrola asarifolia wintergreen 2% 4% Pyrola minor lesser wintergreen 3% 2% Quercus macrocarpa bur oak 7% alder leaved Rhamnus alnifolia buckthorn 6% Ribes americanum wild black currant 1% 1% Ribes glandulosum skunk currant 3% 5% Ribes lacustre black gooseberry 3% 3% Ribes oxyacanthoides northern gooseberry 1% Ribes triste wild red currant 4% 3% 8% 4% 2% Rosa acicularis prickly rose 10% 7% 3% Rubus idaeus wild red raspberry 4% Rubus pubescens dewberry 1% 1% 2% 3% 6% 5% 4% 3% Sanicula marilandica snakeroot 1% 4% 8% 4% 1% 2% 3% Symphoricarpos albus common snowberry 3% 2% 5% 2% 1% 5% 7% Thalictrum dasycarpum tall meadow rue 1% 15% 2% 8% Thalictrum venulosum veiny meadow rue 5%

255 Plot - Plot - Plot - Plot - Plot - Plot - Plot - Plot - Plot - Plot - Scientific name Common name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trillium cernuum nodding trillium 2% Ulmus americana American elm 4% Viola renifolia kidney-leaved violet 2% 1% 4% 1% western Canadian Viola rugulosa violet 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 4% bare ground/litter 1% 1% 4% 2% 2% 3% 18% 10% 0% 6% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

256 Photograph 1: Forest edge at plot 4 along the east side of the right-of-way, showing an understory dominated by beaked hazelnut

257 4 HABITAT DELINEATION ALONG THE RIGHT-OF-WAY

4.1 METHODOLOGY

The habitat along the existing ROW in the 2014 study area was delineated using a combination of vegetation surveys and high resolution (20 cm) ortho-imagery to supplement the portion of the existing ROW that was not assessed during the 2013 vegetation study (Dillon Consulting Ltd. 2013a). A map series of the 2014 study area (Figures 3 and 4) was created by Joro Consultants Inc. (Joro), delineating the habitat, characterizing the vegetation and identifying all wetlands and water crossing. These maps are updated versions of Map 19-100 and Map 19-200 from the Map 19 series provided in the 2013 Vegetation Technical Report (Dillon Consulting Ltd. 2013a) and Vegetation Management Plan (Dillon Consulting Ltd. 2013b), and are provided in this 2014 report as Map 19-100-V2 and Map 19-200-V2. Risk level categories for management of the existing ROW vegetation growth near the transmission line were developed to be added in the Vegetation Management Plan (Dillon Consulting Ltd. 2013b). Incidental observations of plant species along the existing ROW were also documented.

4.2 RESULTS

The majority of the existing ROW had some form of shrub layer growth, dominated by beaked hazelnut, which varied in extent and density along the entire surveyed length. Other tall shrubs present, though not nearly as abundant at hazelnut, included alder-leaved buckthorn (Rhamnus alnifolia) and to a lesser extent, green alder (Alnus crispa). The abundance of shrub layer along this portion of the existing ROW limits tree growth and there were no large trees observed on the existing ROW within the 2014 study area. The herbaceous plant composition along the majority of the existing ROW was similar to that of open woodlands and dry upland meadows containing distinct communities of native species. Near the northern boundary of the 2014 study area, smooth brome dominated the grass cover along with quack grass and timothy. Further south within the 2014 study area, the grass community along the existing ROW transitions from being largely brome dominated into a community dominated by Kentucky bluegrass and fowl bluegrass (Poa palustris).

Some of the common plant species observed along the existing ROW within the 2014 study area included Canadian anemone (Anemone canadensis), purple peavine (Lathyrus venosus), meadow rues (Thalictrum spp.), violets (Viola spp.), common wild strawberry, false Solomon’s seal (Maianthemum racemosum), bedstraw (Galium spp.), blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium montanum), prickly rose (Rosa acicularis), snakeroot, hemp nettle and tufted bird-vetch. The vegetation surrounding the wetlands and water crossings observed along the existing ROW was composed almost entirely of graminoid species such as grasses (bluejoint, reed canary grass, seaside arrow-grass and fowl manna grass), sedges, rushes (soft-stem bulrush and common spike-rush), and cattails. Some dense areas of sandbar, yellow and beaked willows were found along the

258 edges of the wetlands and along the riparian zones of the streams. Some of the flowering plants common to these wet areas include marsh marigold, water calla, common water-plantain, and water smartweed.

Although the existing ROW was previously disturbed from the construction and operation of the V38R/Line 81 tranmission lines, native vegetation regrowth has been fairly successful, mainly in the form of shrubs (1 m - 3 m in height) such as beaked hazelnut, which inhibit the establishment of larger tree species on the existing ROW and help limit the growth and spread of invasive vegetation. However, there were several invasive species within the existing ROW, which included an abundance of smooth brome, quack grass and timothy in the areas located close to the northern park boundary, and an abundance of Kentucky bluegrass in the areas closer to the Edwards Creek gorge. Other invasive species found within the existing ROW included: Canadian thistle and hedge false bindweed, which were more common in the areas located closer to the northern portion of the 2014 study area and were associated with a smooth brome groundcover; and hemp- nettle, common dandelion, and tufted bird-vetch, which were more abundant as the gorge was approached, and were associated with a Kentucky bluegrass groundcover. Smooth brome, quack grass and timothy, which have overtaken Kentucky bluegrass in the most northern portion of the existing ROW near the park boundary, are likely to have blown in from roadside ditches and disturbed areas outside of RMNP. Canadian thistle, hedge false bindweed, hemp-nettle, common dandelion and tufted bird-vetch all are easily transported by wind and/or by wildlife use of the existing ROW as a transportation corridor. All invasive species observed occurred solely along the existing ROW with no invasive species found within the forest along the proposed ROW expansion. The ROW widening activities could promote the spread of these invasive species, as they can quickly establish in newly cleared areas.

During the 2013 vegetation study, the area that was not assessed (2014 study area) was projected to be of dense medium to tall shrub layer with a medium risk level based on observations made up to that point (Dillon Consulting Ltd. 2013a). However, a variety of vegetation cover and habitat types were identified along the existing ROW in the 2014 study area (Figure 3). These habitat types range from wetlands and watercourses to upland sites with a dense, tall shrub layer, and are divided into a series of categories based on the type and height of the vegetation present. Table 2 summarizes the habitat delineation and vegetation mapping results and provides a list of the habitat categories, a description for each habitat category, the area (m2) of each habitat category, the Map number of the habitat category in the Map 19 Series created by Joro, and the level of risk of the vegetation in that habitat category coming in contact with the transmission line. Risk levels were categorized as low, medium or high, depending on the height and growth form of the vegetation. The 2014 results will supplement the information for the area of the existing ROW that was not assessed during the 2013 study (Dillon Consulting Ltd. 2013a and 2013b).

The majority [185,794.26 m2 {18.58 hectares (ha)}] of the 2014 study area’s 7.5 km northern portion of the existing ROW is considered low risk based on the habitat delineation (Table 3). This low risk category includes areas with predominantly herbaceous cover with sparse or dense low shrubs (<1.5 m) (Photograph 2), and areas around creeks and wetlands that are mostly dominated by grasses and sedges with a few low shrubs (e.g., willows) along the edges (Photograph 3).

259 162,348.20 m2 (16.23 ha) of the study area is considered medium risk (Table 3) and includes all areas with a sparse or dense medium shrub layer (1.5 m – 2.5 m) (Photograph 4). These areas are mostly dominated by beaked hazelnut ranging from 2.0 m to 2.5 m in height.

Areas ranked as high risk occupied the least amount [27,795.19 m2 (2.78 ha)] of the existing ROW in the 2014 study area (Table 3) and were concentrated in areas where beaked hazelnut and other shrubs approached 3 m of height or higher (Photograph 5). One area of the existing ROW, categorized as V57 in Table 2, had a relatively steep grade where the shrub layer was taller and encroached closer to the transmission lines. In all of the areas sampled and observed during the 2014 sampling, including the areas ranked as high risk, there was a distance of >3 m between the top of the vegetation and the transmission lines.

260 Figure 3: Habitat delineation along the right-of-way for the 2014 sampling area, Map 19-100-V2

261 Figure 4: Habitat delineation along the right-of-way for the 2014 sampling area, Map 19-200-V2

262

Table 2: Habitat characterization along the V38R/Line 81 transmission line right-of-way, and vegetation risk levels

2 Risk Category Habitat Description Area (m ) Map Level

V41 Dense Medium Shrub Layer (1.5 m - 2.5 m) 12467.04 19-100-V2 Medium C20 Creek - Mainly Graminoids with Willows Along Bank 1631.94 19-100-V2 Low V42 Dense Medium Shrub Layer (1.5 m - 2.5 m) 20571.66 19-100-V2 Medium V54 Herbaceous Cover with Sparse Low Shrubs (<1.5 m) 44664.15 19-100-V2 Low V43 Dense Medium Shrub Layer (1.5 m - 2.5 m) 36670.31 19-100-V2 Medium W43 Wetland - Graminoid Cover with Few Low Shrubs 5175.38 19-100-V2 Low V40 Dense Medium Shrub Layer (1.5 m - 2.5 m) 7620.32 19-100-V2 Medium C19 Creek - Mainly Graminoids with Willows Along Bank 3855.81 19-100-V2 Low V51 Herbaceous Cover with Dense Low Shrubs (<1.5 m) 14482.35 19-100-V2 Low C16 Creek - Few Medium Shrubs Along Banks 413.73 19-100-V2 Low V47 Dense Tall Shrub Layer (>2.5 m) 5140.38 19-100-V2 High V53 Herbaceous Cover with Sparse Low Shrubs (<1.5 m) 19967.11 19-100-V2 Low V57 Steep Grade with Dense High Shrub Layer (> 2.5 m) 22654.80 19-100-V2 High V44 Dense Medium Shrub Layer (1.5 m - 2.5 m) 9927.14 19-100-V2 Medium Herbaceous Cover and Sparse Med. Shrubs (1.5 m - 19-100-V2, V49 9029.57 Medium 2.5 m) 19-200-V2 19-100-V2, C17 335.81 Low Creek - Few Medium Shrubs Along Banks 19-200-V2 Herbaceous Cover and Sparse Med. Shrubs (1.5 m - V50 12751.16 19-200-V2 Medium 2.5 m) V58 Herbaceous Cover with Dense Low Shrubs (<1.5 m) 3486.65 19-200-V2 Low C18 Creek - Few Medium Shrubs Along Banks 399.49 19-200-V2 Low V52 Herbaceous Cover with Dense Low Shrubs (<1.5 m) 36855.64 19-200-V2 Low V46 Dense Medium Shrub Layer (1.5 m - 2.5 m) 11912.27 19-200-V2 Medium C21 Creek - Mainly Graminoids with Willows Along Bank 433.85 19-200-V2 Low V55 Herbaceous Cover with Sparse Low Shrubs (<1.5 m) 44378.04 19-200-V2 Low W24 Wetland- Graminoid Cover with Few Low Shrubs 1097.08 19-200-V2 Low V56 Herbaceous Cover with Sparse Low Shrubs (<1.5 m) 6363.91 19-200-V2 Low W25 Wetland- Graminoid Cover with Few Low Shrubs 2253.31 19-200-V2 Low Herbaceous Cover and Sparse Med. Shrubs (1.5 m - V48 41398.73 19-200-V2 Medium 2.5 m)

Riding Mountain National Park V38R/Line 81: Environmental Impact Analysis – Northern Portion of ROW Vegetation Technical Report M.Forster Enterprises October 22, 2014 © SNC-Lavalin Inc. 2014. All rights reserved Confidential 17 263 Table 3 : Summary of vegetation risk levels

Risk Level Rating Total Area (m2)

Low 185,794.26 Medium 162,348.20 High 27,795.19

264 Photograph 2: View looking south at a herbaceous cover with sparse low shrubs along the right-of-way (Habitat Category V53)

Photograph 3: View looking north at a creek along the right-of-way (Habitat Category C21)

265 Photograph 4: View looking north at a dense medium shrub layer along the right-of-way (Habitat Category V40)

Photograph 5: View looking south at a dense tall shrub layer along the right-of-way (Habitat Category V47)

266 5 CONCLUSIONS

The 2014 vegetation assessment was conducted along the remaining 7.5 km of ROW that was not assessed during the 2013 field survey due to access limitations. Within this study area, multi-aged stands of deciduous trees were identified along the east edge of the ROW. Balsam poplar and trembling aspen dominated the stands followed by a mix of eastern hardwood species including, Manitoba maple, bur oak, and American elm. Wetlands and watercourses were heavily dominated by graminoid and willow species. No species of conservation concern were found during the 2014 vegetation assessment. One plant species of importance to First Nations, common sweet grass, was found within a few plots along the proposed ROW expansion. The locations of this species will be shared with Parks Canada and the Coalition of First Nations with Interest in Riding Mountain National Park (the Coalition) to determine if these areas should be marked as Sensitive Sites and protected during the ROW clearing activities.

The majority of the existing ROW within the 2014 study area had some form of shrub layer growth, which was dominated by beaked hazelnut and varied in extent and density along the entire surveyed length. Based on the habitat delineation, the majority of the vegetation within the existing ROW within the 2014 study area is considered low risk, with a small amount of area of the overall vegetation (2.78 ha) being ranked as high risk. The abundance of shrub layer along this portion of the existing ROW limits tree growth and, as such, there were no large trees observed on the existing ROW within the 2014 study area.

Invasive species within the existing ROW were predominantly grasses, which included smooth brome, quack grass and timothy in the northern portion of the 2014 study area and Kentucky bluegrass in the southern portion. Other invasive species found within the existing ROW included: Canadian thistle and hedge false bindweed, which were associated with the smooth brome groundcover near the northern section of the 2014 study area; and hemp-nettle, common dandelion, and tufted bird-vetch, which were associated with a Kentucky bluegrass groundcover located further south in the 2014 study area. All invasive species observed occurred solely along the existing ROW with no invasive species found within the forest along the proposed ROW expansion. The ROW widening activities could promote the spread of these invasive species, as they can quickly establish in newly cleared areas.

The information from the 2014 vegetation survey will be included as part of the EIA and the draft Vegetation Management Plan being developed for the Project.

267 Should you require further information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Scott Gray at 204-475-4133.

Respectfully submitted,

Prepared by: Reviewed by: Scott Gray, B.Sc., P.Biol. Lyndsey MacBride, M.Sc., P.Geo. Project Biologist Senior Review SNC-Lavalin Inc. SNC-Lavalin Inc.

268 6 REFERENCES

Dillon Consulting Ltd. 2013a. Riding Mountain National Park V38R/Line 81 Environmental Impact Analysis Vegetation Technical Report. Winnipeg, Manitoba. Dillon Consulting Ltd. 2013b. Riding Mountain National Park V38R/Line 81 Environmental Impact Analysis Vegetation Management Plan. Winnipeg, Manitoba. Government of Canada. 2011. Species at Risk Public Registry website. Available at: http://sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/index/default_e.cfm (accessed July 2014). Manitoba Conservation Data Centre (MBCDC). 2014. MBCDC Species of Conservation Concern. Occurrence of Species by Ecoregion. Mid-Boreal Uplands. Available: http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/cdc/ecoreg/midboruplands.html (accessed July 2014). Parks Canada. 2011. Biotics Web Explorer. List of Species Considered Present by Protected Heritage Area. Riding Mountain National Park of Canada. Available at: http://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/bos/BOSQ8_E.asp (accessed July 2014). Parks Canada. 2013. Guide to the Parks Canada Environmental Impact Assessment Process under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012. February 2013.

269 APPENDIX A

Known Plants of Riding Mountain National Park

MBCDC Scientific Name Common Name Status Actaea rubra Red And White Baneberry No Status Abies balsamea Balsam Fir No Status Acer negundo Maple Ash No Status Acer spicatum Mountain Maple No Status Achillea millefolium Common Yarrow No Status Achillea ptarmica White Tansy No Status Achillea sibirica Siberian Yarrow No Status Acorus calamus Sweet Flag No Status Adoxa moschatellina Moschatel S1 Aegopodium podagraria Ground Elder No Status Agastache foeniculum Anise Hyssop No Status Agoseris glauca Prairie Agoseris No Status Agrimonia striata Woodland Grooveburr No Status Agropyron cristatum Crested Wheat Grass No Status Agropyron repens Quack Grass No Status Agropyron smithii Western Wheat Grass No Status Agropyron trachycaulan Slender Wheatgrass No Status Agrostis scabra Rough Bentgrass No Status Agrostis stolonifers Red Top Bent Grass No Status Alisma triviale Water-Plantain No Status Allium schoenoprasum var. sibiricum Wild Chives No Status Allium stellatum Nodding Wild Onion No Status Alnus crispa Green Alder No Status Alnus incana ssp. rugosa Speckled Alder No Status Alopecurus aequalis Foxtail No Status Amaranthus blitoides Prostrate Amaranth No Status Amaranthus graecizans Tumbleweed No Status Amaranthus retroflexus Redroot Amaranth No Status Ambrosia psilostachya Western Ragweed No Status

270 MBCDC Scientific Name Common Name Status Amelanchier alnifolia Saskatoon No Status Amerorchis rotundifolia Roundleaved Orchis No Status Amorpha nana Dwarf Indigo No Status Amphicarpa bracteata Hog Peanut No Status Andromeda glaucophylla Bog Rosemary No Status Andropogon gerardi Bluestem Beardgrass No Status Androsace septentrionalis Pygmy-Flower Rock-Jasmine No Status Anemone canadensis Canada Anemone No Status Anemone cylindrica Candle Anemone No Status Anemone multifida Pacific Anemone No Status Anemone quinquefolia Wood Anemone No Status Anemone virginiana Tall Anemone No Status Antennaria campestris Field Pussy Toes No Status Antennaria howellii Howell's Pussytoe No Status Antennaria neodioica Mountain Everlasting No Status Antennaria parvifolia Nuttall's Pussytoes No Status Anthemis cotula Stinking Chamomile No Status Apocynum androsaemifolium Spreading Dogbane No Status Aquilegia brevistyla Small-Flowered Columbine No Status Aquilegia canadensis Canadian Columbine No Status Arabis divaricarpa Spreadingpod Rockcress No Status Arabis drummondii Drummond's Rockcress No Status Arabis glabra Tower Rockcress No Status Arabis hirsute var. pycnocarpa Creamflower Rockcress No Status Aralia nudicaulis Wild Sarsaparilla No Status Arctium minus Burdock No Status Arctium tomentosum Woolly Burdock No Status Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Bearberry No Status Arnica chamissonis ssp. foliosa Chamisso Arnica No Status Arnica cordifolia Heartleaf Arnica No Status Arnica lonchophylla Longleaf Arnica No Status Artemisia absinthium Common Wormwood No Status Artemisia biennis Biennial Wormwood No Status Artemisia campestris Canada Sagebrush No Status

271 MBCDC Scientific Name Common Name Status Artemisia dracunculus Tarragon No Status Artemisia frigida Pasture Sage No Status Artemisia ludoviciana Prairie Sage No Status Asarum canadense Wild Ginger S3? Asclepias ovalifolia Oval-Leaf Milkweed No Status Asclepias speciosa Showy Milkweed No Status Aster brachyactis Rayless Aster No Status Aster ciliolatus Lindley's Aster No Status Aster ericoides White Aster No Status Aster hesperius Western Willow Aster No Status Aster junciformis Northern Aster No Status Aster laeuis Smooth Aster No Status Aster puniceus Purplestem Aster No Status Aster simplex White Panicle Aster No Status Aster umbellatus var. pubens Flat-Topped Aster No Status Astragalus agrestis Purple Milkvetch No Status Astragalus alpinus Alpine Milkvetch No Status Astragalus bisulcatus Twogrooved Milkvetch No Status Astragalus canadensis Canadian Milkvetch No Status Astragalus crassicarpus Groundplum Milkvetch No Status Astragalus flexuosus Flexile Milkvetch No Status Astragalus striatus Ascending Purple Milkvetch No Status Astragalus tenellus Pulse Milk-Vetch No Status Athyrium filix-femina var. michauxii Lady Fern No Status Atriplex subspicata Saline Saltbush No Status Avena fatua Wild Oats No Status Avena sativa Common Oats No Status Axyris amaranthoides Russian Pigweed No Status Beckmannia syzigachne Slough Grass No Status Betula glandulosa Tundra Dwarf Birch No Status Betula minor Dwarf White Birch No Status Betula papyrifera White Birch No Status Betula pumila var. glandulifera Bog Birch No Status Bidens cernua Nodding Bur-Marigold No Status

272 MBCDC Scientific Name Common Name Status Botrychium lunaria Moonwort No Status Botrychium minganense Mingan Moonwort S1S2 Botrychium multifidum Leathery Grape-Fern S3 Botrychium virginianum Rattlesnake Fern No Status Brassica campestris Field Mustard No Status Bromus anomalus Nodding Brome No Status Bromus ciliates Fringed Brome No Status Bromus inermis Brome No Status Bromus latiglumis Canada Brome No Status Bromus pumpellianus Pumpelly’s Brome No Status Bromus porteri Porter's Chess S3? Bromus pubescens Hairy Woodland Brome SNA Calamagrostis canadensis Bluejoint No Status Calamagrostis inexpansa Slim-Stem Reed Grass No Status Calamagrostis neglecta Northern Reed Grass No Status Calamagrostis stricta Narrow Reed Grass No Status Calla palustris Bog Arum No Status Callitriche palustris Vernal Water-Starwort No Status Caltha palustris Yellow Marsh Marigold No Status Calypso bulbosa Calypso Orchid No Status Calystegia sepium Hedge Bindweed No Status Campanula aparinoides Marsh Bellflower No Status Campanula rotundifolia Harebell No Status Campanula uliginosa Marsh Bellflower No Status Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepherd's-Purse No Status Caragana arborescens Caragana No Status Cardamine parviflora Small-Flowered Bittercrest No Status Cardamine pensyluanica Pennsylvania Bittercress No Status Carex adusta Browned Sedge S3S4 Carex alopecoidea Foxtail Sedge S3S4 Carex assiniboinensis Assiniboia Sedge S3S4 Carex aquatilis Water Sedge No Status Carex atherodes Wheat Sedge No Status Carex aurea Golden Sedge No Status

273 MBCDC Scientific Name Common Name Status Carex backii Back's Sedge No Status Carex bebbii Bebb's Sedge No Status Carex brunnescens Brownish Sedge No Status Carex canescens Hoary Sedge No Status Carex capillaris Hair-Like Segde No Status Carex castanea Chestnut Sedge S3 Carex chordorrhiza Cordroot Sedge No Status Carex communis Fibrous-Rooted Sedge No Status Carex concinna Low Northern Sedge No Status Carex curta White Sedge No Status Carex deflexa Northern Sedge No Status Carex deweyana Dewey Sedge No Status Carex diandra Lesser Panicled Sedge No Status Carex disperma Softleaf Sedge No Status Carex douglasii Douglas Sedge S3? Carex emoryi Emory's Sedge S2? Carex granularis Limestone Meadow Sedge No Status Carex gynocrates Northern Bog Sedge No Status Carex hookeriana Hooker's Sedge No Status Carex houghtoniana Houghton's Sedge No Status Carex hystericina Porcupine Sedge S3? Carex interior Inland Sedge No Status Carex lacustris Lake Sedge No Status Carex lanuginosa Woolly Sedge No Status Carex lasiocarpa var. americana American Woollyfruit Sedge No Status Carex leptalea Bristlystalked Sedge No Status Carex limosa Mud Sedge No Status Carex magellanica Boreal Bog Sedge No Status Carex microptera Thick-Spike Sedge S1S2 Carex normalis Larger Straw Sedge SNA Carex obtusata Obtuse Sedge No Status Carex parryana Parry’s Sedge S3? Carex pauciflora Few -Flowered Sedge S3 Carex peckii Peck's Sedge No Status

274 MBCDC Scientific Name Common Name Status Carex pedunculata Longstalk Sedge S3? Carex pensylvanica Pennsylvania Sedge No Status Carex praegracilis Field Sedge No Status Carex praticola Meadow Sedge No Status Carex prairea Prairie Sedge S4? Carex pseudo-cyperus Cypress-Like Sedge No Status Carex raymondii Black Sedge S2S3 Carex retrorsa Knotsheath Sedge No Status Carex richardsonii Richardson's Sedge No Status Carex rosea Rosy Sedge No Status Carex rossii Ross' Sedge No Status Carex rostrata Beaked Sedge No Status Carex sartwellii Sartwell's Sedge No Status Carex siccata Dryspike Sedge No Status Carex sprengelii Sprengel's Sedge No Status Carex sterilis Dioecious Sedge S2 Carex stipata Awlfruit Sedge No Status Carex sychnocephala Many-Headed Sedge No Status Carex tenera Quill Sedge No Status Carex tenuiflora Sparseflower Sedge No Status Carex torreyi Torrey's Sedge S4 Carex trisperma Carex Trisperma No Status Carex vaginata Sheathed Sedge No Status Carex viridula Little Green Sedge No Status Carex vulpinoidea Fox Sedge S3? Carex xerantica Whitescale Sedge No Status Carum carvi Caraway No Status Castilleja miniata Figwort Family No Status Castilleja pallida var. septentrionalis Indian-Paintbrush No Status Castilleja septentrionalis Labrador Indian-Paintbrush S1? Celastrus scandens American Bittersweet No Status Cerastium arvense Field Chickweed No Status Cerastium nutans Nodding Chickweed No Status Ceratophyllum demersum Hornwort No Status

275 MBCDC Scientific Name Common Name Status Large White-Flowered Ground- No Status Chamaesaracha grandiflora Cherry Chenopodium album Lambsquarters No Status Chenopodium berlandieri ssp. No Status Pitseed Goosefoot zschackei Chenopodium capitatum Blite Goosefoot No Status Chenopodium gigantospermum Maple-Leaved Goosefoot No Status Chenopodium glaucum Oak-Leaved Goosefoot No Status Chenopodium leptophyllum Narrowleaf Goosefoot No Status Chenopodium pratericola Desert Goosefoot No Status Chenopodium rubrum Red Goosefoot No Status Chenopodium strictum var. No Status Oval-Seeded Goosefoot glaucophyllum Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Oxeye Daisy No Status Chrysosplenium alternifolium var. Alternate-Leaved Golden No Status ioense Saxifrage Chrysosplenium iowense Iowa Golden-Saxifrage S1? Cicuta bulbifera Bulb-Bearing Water-Hemlock No Status Cicuta maculate var. angustifolia Spotted Water Hemlock No Status Cinna latifolia Drooping Woodreed No Status Circaea alpina Alpine Enchanter's Nightshade No Status Cirsium arvense Canada Thistle No Status Cirsium drummondii Dwarf Thistle No Status Cirsium flodmanii Flodman's Thistle No Status Cirsium muticum Swamp Thistle No Status Collomia linearis Tiny Trumpet No Status Comandra umbellata Bastard Toadflax No Status Convolvulus sepium Hedge False Bindweed No Status Coptis trifolia Threeleaf Goldthread No Status Corallorhiza maculata Spotted Coralroot No Status Corallorhiza striata Striped Coralroot No Status Corallorhiza trifida Northern Coralroot No Status Corallorhiza striata Striped Coralroot S3S4 Cornus alternifolia Alternate Leaf Dogwood No Status Cornus canadensis Canadian Bunchberry No Status

276 MBCDC Scientific Name Common Name Status Cornus stolonifera Red Osier Dogwood No Status Corydalis aurea Golden Corydalis No Status Corylus americana American Hazelnut No Status Corylus cornuta Beaked Hazel No Status Crataegus chrysocarpa Fireberry Hawthorn No Status Crataegus succulenta Fleshy Hawthorn No Status Crepis tectorum Narrowleaf Hawksbeard No Status Cuscuta campestris Large-Seeded Alfalfa Dodder No Status Cuscuta pentagona var. pentagona Dodder SU Cuscuta megalocarpa Big Fruit Dodder No Status Cypripedium calceolus Lady's-Slipper Orchid No Status Cypripedium arietinum Ram's Head Lady's-Slipper S2S3 Cystopteris fragilis Bladder Fern No Status Dalea candida White Prairie Clover No Status Dalea pupurea Purple Prairie Clover No Status Danthonia intermedia Timber Oat Grass S2? Danthonia spicata Poverty Oatgrass No Status Delphinium glaucum Glaucous Larkspur No Status Deschampsia caespotosa Tufted Hair-Grass No Status Descurainia richardsonii Mountain Tansymustard No Status Descurainia sophia Flixweed No Status Dianthus deltoides Maiden Pink No Status Diervilla lonicera Northern Bush Honeysuckle No Status Disporum trachycarpum Rough-Fruited Fairybells No Status Draba nemorosa var. leiocarpa Woodland Whitlow-Grass No Status Dracocephalum parviflorum American Dragonhead No Status Dracocephalum thymiflorum Thymeleaf Dragonhead No Status Drosera anglica Oblong-Leaved Sundew S3 Spatulate-Leaved/Intermediate No Status Drosera intermedia Sundew Drosera rotundifolia Round-Leaved Sundew No Status Dryopteris carthusiana Wood Fern No Status Dryopteris cristata Crested Fern No Status Dryopteris filix-mas Male Fern No Status

277 MBCDC Scientific Name Common Name Status Echinochloa muricata Rough Barnyardgrass No Status Echinochola wiegandii Western Barnyard Grass No Status Elaeagnus commutata American Silverberry No Status Eleocharis acicularis Needle Spikerush No Status Eleocharis palustris Common Spike-Rush No Status Eleocharis pauciflora Fewflower Spikerush No Status Eleocharis smallii Small's Spike Rush No Status Eleocharis uniglumis Onescale Spikerush No Status Elodea canadensis Waterweed No Status Elymus canadensis Canada Wildrye No Status Elymus diversiglumis Various-Glumed Wild Rye S2? Elymus innovates Hairy Wildrye No Status Elymus repens Quack/Couch Grass No Status Elymus trachycaulus ssp. trachycaulus Slender Wheat Grass No Status Elymus virginicus Virginia Wildrye No Status Empetrum nigrum var. hermaphroditum Black Crowberry No Status Epilobium angustifolium Fireweed No Status Epilobium ciliatum ssp. glandulosum Northern Willowherb No Status Epilobium glandulosum var. No Status Fringed Willowherb adenocaulon Epilobium leptophyllum Bog Willowherb No Status Epilobium palustre Marsh Willowherb No Status Equisetum arvense Field Horsetail No Status Equisetum fluviatile Water Horsetail No Status Equisetum hyemal ssp. Affine Scouring-Rush No Status Equisetum palustre Marsh Horsetail No Status Equisetum pratense Meadow Horsetail No Status Equisetum scirpoides Dwarf Scouring-Rush No Status Equisetum sylvaticum Wood Horsetail No Status Equisetum variegatum Variegated Horsetail No Status Erigeron annuus White-Top Fleabane SNA Erigeron asper Rough Fleabane No Status Erigeron canadensis Canadian Horseweed No Status Erigeron elatus Swamp Boreal-Daisy No Status

278 MBCDC Scientific Name Common Name Status Erigeron glabellus Smooth Fleabane No Status Erigeron lonchophyllus Shortray Fleabane No Status Erigeron philadelphicus Philadelphia Fleabane No Status Erigeron strigosus Prairie Fleabane No Status Eriophorum angustifolium Common Cottongrass No Status Eriophorum chamissonis Chamisso's Cottongrass No Status Eriophorum gracile Slender Cottongrass No Status Eriophorum spissum Tussock Cottongrass No Status Eriophorum viridi-carinatum Thinleaf Cottonsedge No Status Eriophorum callitrix Beautiful Cotton-Grass S2 Erucastrum gallicum Common Dogmustard No Status Erysimum cheiranthoides Treacle-Mustard No Status Erysimum inconspicuum Shy Wallflower No Status Eupatorium maculatum Joe Pye Weed No Status Euphorbia esula Leafy Spurge No Status Euphorbia glyptosperma Ribseed Sandmat Spurge No Status Festuca hallii Plains Rough Fescue S3 Festuca pratensis Meadow Fescue No Status Festuca rubra Red Fescue No Status Festuca saximontana Rocky Mountain Fescue No Status Fragaria vesca ssp. americana Wood Strawberry No Status Fragaria virginiana Wild Strawberry No Status Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash No Status Gaillardia aristata Common Gaillardia No Status Galeopsis tetrahit Common Hemp-Nettle No Status Galium aparine Goosegrass SU Galium boreale Northern Bedstraw No Status Galium labradoricum Northern Bog Bedstraw No Status Galium trifidum Threepetal Bedstraw No Status Galium triflorum Fragrant Bedstraw No Status Gaultheria hispidula Creeping Snowberry No Status Gentiana acuta Autumn Dwarf Gentian No Status Gentiana affinis Pleated Gentian No Status Gentiana andrewsii Closed Bottle Gentian No Status

279 MBCDC Scientific Name Common Name Status Gentiana crinita Fringed Gentian No Status Gentiana linearis Narrow Leaved Gentian No Status Gentiana macounii Fringed Gentian No Status Gentiana rubricaulis Closed Gentian No Status Gentianella amarella ssp. acuta Autumn Dwarf Gentian No Status Gentianopsis procera Fringed Gentian No Status Geocaulon liuidum False Toadflax No Status Geranium bicknellii Bicknell's Cranesbill No Status Geranium carolinianum Carolina Cranesbill No Status Geum aleppicum var. strictum Yellow Avens No Status Geum macrophyllum var. perincisum Largeleaf Avens No Status Geum riuale Purple Avens No Status Geum triflorum Three-Flowered Avens No Status Glechoma hederacea Ground Ivy No Status Glyceria borealis Small Floating Mannagrass No Status Glyceria grandis American Mannagrass No Status Glyceria pulchella Mackenzie Valley Mannagrass S2 Glyceria striata Graceful Manna Grass No Status Goodyera repens Lesser Rattlesnake Plantain No Status Grindelia squarrosa Curly-Cup Gumweed No Status Gymnocarpium drypteris Oak Fern No Status Gypsophila paniculata Baby's Breath No Status Habenaria dilatata Leafy White Orchid No Status Habenaria hyperborea Northern Green Orchid No Status Habenaria obtusata Northern Small Bog-Orchid No Status Habenaria orbiculata Round-Leaved Orchid No Status Habenaria viridis var. bracteata Long-Bracted Orchid No Status Hackelia americana American Stickseed No Status Halenia deflexa American Spurred Gentian No Status Hedysarum alpinum var. americanum Alpine Sweetvetch No Status Helianthus annuus Common Sunflower No Status Helianthus giganteus Giant Sunflower No Status Helianthus laetiflorus var. No Status Showy Sunflower subrhomboideus

280 MBCDC Scientific Name Common Name Status Helianthus maximilianii Maximilian Sunflower No Status Helianthus nuttallii Nuttall's Sunflower No Status Helianthus tuberosus var. No Status Jerusalem Artichoke subcanescens Helictotrichon hookeri Hooker's Alpine Oat Grass No Status Heracleum maximum Common Cowparsnip No Status Hesperis matronalis Dames Rocket No Status Heuchera richardsonii Richardson's Alumroot No Status Hieracium umbellatum Narrowleaf Hawkweed No Status Hierochloe odorata Sweet Grass No Status Hippuris vulgaris Common Mare's-Tail No Status Hordeum jubatum Foxtail Barley No Status Houstonia longifolia Longleaf Summer Bluet No Status Humulus lupulus Common Hop No Status Hypericum uirginicum var. fraseri Marsh St. John's-Wort No Status Impatiens capensis Spotted Touch-Me-Not No Status Impatiens noli-tangere Western Jewelweed S2 Iva xanthifolia Marshelder No Status Juncus alpinus Alpine Rush No Status Juncus balticus var. littoralis Baltic Rush No Status Juncus bufonius Toad Rush No Status Juncus compressus Roundfruit Rush No Status Juncus dudleyi Dudley's Rush No Status Juncus filiformis Thread Rush No Status Juncus nodosus Knotted Rush No Status Juniperus communis var. depressa Common Juniper No Status Juniperus horizontalis Creeping Juniper No Status Koeleria macrantha June Grass No Status Lactuca biennis Tall Blue Lettuce No Status Lactuca tatarica Blue Lettuce No Status Laportea canadensis Wood Nettle No Status Lappula echinata Stickseed No Status Larix laricina Tamarack No Status Lathyrus ochroleucus Cream Pea No Status

281 MBCDC Scientific Name Common Name Status Lathyrus palustris Marsh Pea No Status Lathyrus venosus Veiny Pea No Status Lavatera thuringiaca Tree Lavatera No Status Ledum groenlandicum Bog Labrador Tea No Status Lemna minor Lesser Duckweed SNA Lemna trisulca Ivy Duckweed No Status Lepidium densiflorum Common Pepperweed No Status Leucanthemum vulgare Ox-Eye Daisy No Status Large White-Flowered Ground- Leucophysalis grandiflora S3 Cherry Liatris ligulistylis Rocky Mountain Blazing Star No Status Lilium philadelphicum Wood Lily No Status Linaria vulgaris Common Toadflax No Status Linnaea borealis var. americana Twinflower No Status Linum lewisii Lewis Flax No Status Liparis loeselii Yellow Twayblade S3S4 Listera borealis Northern Twayblade S2 Listera cordata Lesser Twayblade No Status Lithospermum canescens Hoary Puccoon No Status Lobelia kalmii Ontario Lobelia No Status Lolium multiflorum Annual Ryegrass No Status Lolium perenne Rye Grass No Status Lonicera dioica var. glaucescens Limber Honeysuckle No Status Lonicera involucrata Bearberry Honeysuckle No Status Lonicera oblongifolia Swamp Fly Honeysuckle No Status Lonicera tatarica Tatarian Honeysuckle No Status Luzula acuminata Hairy Wood Rush No Status Luzula multiflora Common Woodrush No Status Luzula parviflora Small-Flowered Wood Rush No Status Lychnis chalcedonica Burning Love No Status Lycopodium annotinum Bristly Clubmoss No Status Lycopodium clavatum Wolf's-Foot Clubmoss No Status Lycopodium complanatum Groundcedar No Status Lycopodium lucidulum Shining Clubmoss No Status

282 MBCDC Scientific Name Common Name Status Lycopus americanus Water Horehound No Status Lycopus uniflorus Northern Bugleweed No Status Lyeopus asper Greene Rough Bugleweed No Status Lysimachia ciliata Fringed Loosestrife No Status Lysimachia thyrsiflora Tufted Loosestrife No Status Maianthemum canadense var. interius Canadian May-Lily No Status Maianthemum racemosum False Solomon's Seal No Status Star-Flowered False Solomon's- No Status Maianthemum stellatum Seal Three-Leaved False Solomon's- No Status Maianthemum trifolium Seal Malaxis paludosa Bog Adder's-Mouth S1 Malva pusilla Low Mallow No Status Matricaria maritime var. agrestis Scentless Chamomile No Status Matricaria matricarioides Pineappleweed No Status Matricaria recutita German Chamomile No Status Matteuccia stuthiopteris var. No Status Ostrich Fern pensylvanica Medicago falcata Sickle Alfalfa No Status Medicago lupulina Black Medic No Status Medicago satiua Lucerne No Status Megalodonta beckii Greene Water Marigold No Status Melilotus alba Honey Clover No Status Melilotus officinalis Yellow Sweet Clover No Status Mentha arvensis var. villosa Wild Mint No Status Mentha spicata Spear Mint No Status Menyanthes trifoliata Buckbean No Status Mertensia paniculata Tall Lungwort No Status Milium effusum var. cisatlanticum Millet Grass S2 Minuartia dawsonensis House Bog Sandwort No Status Mitella nuda Naked Bishop's Cap No Status Moehringia lateriflora Bluntleaf Sandwort No Status Monarda fistulosa Wild Bergamot No Status Moneses uniflora One-Flowered Wintergreen No Status Monolepis nuttalliana Nuttall's Povertyweed No Status

283 MBCDC Scientific Name Common Name Status Monotropa hypopithys Dutchman's Pipe No Status Monotropa uniflora Indian Pipe No Status Muhlenbergia andina Foxtail Muhly No Status Muhlenbergia cuspidata Plains Muhly No Status Muhlenbergia glomerata Spiked Muhly No Status Muhlenbergia mexicana Mexican Muhly No Status Muhlenbergia racemosa Green Muhly No Status Muhlenbergia richardsonii Mat Muhly No Status Muhlenbergia andina Foxtail Muhly S1 Myriophyllum exalbescens Water-Milfoil No Status Myriophyllum verticillatum Whorled Water Milfoil No Status Najas flexis Naiad No Status Nassella viridula Green Needle Grass S3 Nuphar microphyllum White Water Lily No Status Nuphar variegatum Variegated Pond-Lily No Status Oenothera biennis Common Evening Primrose No Status Orchis rotundifolia Roundleaf Orchid No Status Orthocarpus luteus Yellow Owl's Clover No Status Oryzopsis asperifolia Roughleaf Ricegrass No Status Oryzopsis canadensis Canada Rice Grass No Status Oryzopsis pungens Indian Rice Grass No Status Osmorhiza depauperata Bluntseed Sweetroot No Status Osmorhiza longistylis Smooth Sweet Cicely No Status Osmorhiza depauperata Blunt-Fruited Sweet Cicely S2 Oxalis stricta Common Yellow Oxalis No Status Oxycoccus microcarpus Bog Cranberry No Status Oxycoccus quadripetalus Small Cranberry No Status Oxytropis campestris var. gracilis Field Locoweed No Status Oxytropis deflexa Reflexed Locoweed S3? Oxytropis monticola Yellow Flowered Locoweed No Status Oxytropis splendens Showy Locoweed No Status Parnassia glauca Fen Grass Of Parnassus No Status Small-Flowered Grass Of No Status Parnassia parviflora Parnassus

284 MBCDC Scientific Name Common Name Status Parnassia palustris var. neogaea Marsh Grass Of Parnassus No Status Parthenocissus inserta False Virginia Creeper No Status Pedicularis canadensis Canadian Lousewort No Status Pedicularis lanceolata Swamp Lousewort No Status Penstemon gracilis Lilac Penstemon No Status Petasites palmatus Sweet Coltsfoot No Status Petasites sagittatus Arrowleaf Sweet Coltsfoot No Status Petasites vitifolius Sweet Coltsfoot No Status Phacelia franklinii Franklin's Phacelia No Status Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canarygrass No Status Phleum pratense Timothy-Grass No Status Phragmites australis Common Reed Grass No Status Phryma leptostachya American Lopseed No Status Physostegia ledinghamii Ledingham's False Dragonhead No Status Physostegia parviflora Dragonhead SU Physostegia virginiana False Dragonhead No Status Picea glauca White Spruce No Status Picea mariana Black Spruce No Status Pinguicula vulgaris Common Butterwort No Status Pinus banksiana Jack Pine No Status Pinus sylvestris Scots Pine No Status Plantago major Greater Plantain No Status Platanthera dilatata White Bog Orchid No Status Platanthera hyperborea Leafy Northern Green Orchid No Status Platanthera obtusata Small Northern Bog Orchid No Status Platanthera orbiculata Round-Leaved Bog Orchid S3 Poa annua Annual Bluegrass No Status Poa arida Plains Bluegrass No Status Poa compressa Canada Bluegrass No Status Poa interior Inland Bluegrass No Status Poa nemoralis Wood Bluegrass No Status Poa palustris Fowl Bluegrass No Status Poa trivialis Rough-Stalked Blue Grass No Status Poa pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass No Status

285 MBCDC Scientific Name Common Name Status Polygala paucifolia Gaywings No Status Polygala senega Seneca Root No Status Polygonum achoreum Leathery Knotweed No Status Polygonum amphibium Longroot Smartweed No Status Polygonum aviculare Common Knotgrass No Status Polygonum cilinode Fringed Black Bindweed No Status Polygonum convolvulus Black Bindweed No Status Polygonum douglasii Douglas's Knotweed No Status Polygonum hydropiper Marshpepper Knotweed No Status Polygonum lapathifolium Curlytop Knotweed No Status Polygonum pensylvanicum Pennsylvania Smartweed No Status Polygonum persicaria Spotted Ladysthumb No Status Polygonum punctatum Dotted Smartweed No Status Polygonum scandens Climbing False Buckwheat No Status Populus balsamifera Balsam Poplar No Status Populus tremuloides Trembling Aspen No Status Portulaca oleracea Common Purslane No Status Potamogeton alpinus var. tenuifolius Alpine Pondweed No Status Potamogeton gramineus Variableleaf Pondweed No Status Potamogeton natans Broad-Leaved Pondweed No Status Potamogeton pectinatus Fennel Pondweed No Status Potamogeton praelongus White-Stem Pondweed No Status Potamogeton richarsonii Richardson's Pondweed No Status Potamogeton vaginatus Sago Pondweed No Status Potamogeton zosteriformis Fern Pondweed No Status Potamogeton strictifolius Straightleaf Pondweed S3 Potentilla anserina Common Silverweed No Status Potentilla arguta Tall Cinquefoil No Status Potentilla fruticosa Shrubby Cinquefoil No Status Potentilla gracilis var. pulcherrima Slender Cinquefoil No Status Potentilla hippiana Woolly Cinquefoil No Status Potentilla noruegica Cinquefoil No Status Potentilla palustris Marsh Cinquefoil No Status Potentilla pensylvanica var. Pennsylvania Cinquefoil No Status

286 MBCDC Scientific Name Common Name Status bipinnatifida Potentilla tridentata Three-Toothed Cinquefoil No Status Prenanthes alba White Rattlesnakeroot No Status Prenanthes racemosa Purple Rattlesnakeroot No Status Prunella vulgaris Common Self-Heal No Status Prunus americana American Plum No Status Prunus nigra Canada Plum No Status Prunus pensyluanica Pin Cherry No Status Prunus virginiana Chokecherry No Status Psoralea argophylla Silver-Leaf Scurf Pea No Status Pteridium aquilinum var. latiusculum Common Bracken No Status Puccinellia distans Weeping Alkali Grass No Status Pulsatilla ludoviciana Prairie Crocus No Status Pyrola americana Round-Leaved Pyrola S2 Pyrola asarifolia Bog Wintergreen No Status Pyrola chlorantha Green-Flowered Wintergreen No Status Pyrola elliptica Waxflower Shinleaf No Status Pyrola minor Lesser Wintergreen No Status Pyrola secunda One-Sided Wintergreen No Status Pyrus malus Wild Apple No Status Quereus macrocarpa Bur Oak No Status Ranunculus abortiuus Little-Leaf Buttercup No Status Ranunculus acris Tall Buttercup No Status Ranunculus aquatilis var. subrigidus Common Water-Crowfoot No Status Ranunculus cymbalaria Alkali Buttercup No Status Ranunculus gmelinii Gmelin's Buttercup No Status Ranunculus lapponicus Lapland Buttercup No Status Ranunculus macounii Macoun's Buttercup No Status Ranunculus pensylvanicus Pennsylvania Buttercup No Status Ranunculus rhomboideus Labrador Buttercup No Status Ranunculus sceleratus Cursed Buttercup No Status Rhamnus alnifolia Alder Leaved Buckthorn No Status Rhus radicans Rhus Radicans No Status Rhynchospora capillacea Horned Beakrush S2

287 MBCDC Scientific Name Common Name Status Ribes americanum Wild Black Currant No Status Ribes glandulosum Skunk Currant No Status Ribes hirtellum Wild Gooseberry No Status Ribes hudsonianum Northern Black Currant No Status Ribes lacustre Prickly Currant No Status Ribes oxyacanthoides Canadian Gooseberry No Status Ribes triste Northern Redcurrant No Status Rorippa islandica Northern Marsh Yellowcress No Status Rosa acicularis Prickly Wild Rose No Status Rosa arkansana Prairie Wild Rose No Status Rosa blanda Wild Rose No Status Rosa woodsii Woods' Rose No Status Rubus acaulis Dwarf Raspberry No Status Rubus chamaemorus Mulberry No Status Rubus pubescens Dwarf Red Raspberry No Status Rubus idaeus spp. strigosus Wild Red Raspberry No Status Rudbeckia hirta Black-Eyed Susan No Status Rudbeckia laciniata Cutleaf Coneflower No Status Rumex crispus Curled Dock No Status Rumex fennicus Field Dock No Status Rumex maritimus var. fueginus Golden Dock No Status Rumex occidentalis Western Dock No Status Rumex orbiculatus Great Water Dock No Status Rumex triangulivalvis White Dock No Status Ruppia cirrhosa Widgeon-Grass S3 Sagittaria cuneata Arumleaf Arrowhead No Status Sagittaria latifolia Broadleaf Arrowhead No Status Salix amygdaloides Peachleaf Willow No Status Salix bebbiana Bebb Willow No Status Salix candida Sageleaf Willow No Status Salix discolor Pussy Willow No Status Salix exigua Sandbar Willow No Status Salix fragilis Crack Willow No Status Salix gracilis Slender Willow No Status

288 MBCDC Scientific Name Common Name Status Salix lucida Shining Willow No Status Salix lutea Yellow Willow No Status Salix maccalliana Maccall's Willow No Status Salix myrtillifolia Blueberry Willow No Status Salix padophylla Mountain Willow No Status Salix pedicellaris var. hypoglauca Bog Willow No Status Salix pellita Satiny Willow No Status Salix petiolaris Meadow Willow No Status Salix planifolia Diamondleaf Willow No Status Salix pyrifolia Balsam Willow No Status Salix serissima Autumn Willow No Status Sanicula marilandica Snakeroot No Status Saponaria officinalis Common Soapwort No Status Sarracenia purpurea Northern Pitcher Plant No Status Saxifraga paniculata White Mountain Saxifrage No Status Saxifraga tricuspidata Three Toothed Saxifrage No Status Scheuchzeria palustris Quaking Fern No Status Schizachne purpurascens False Melic No Status Scirpus cyperinus Woolgrass No Status Scirpus microcarpus Panicled Bulrush No Status Scirpus validus Soft-Stemmed Bulrush No Status Scolochloa festucacea Common Rivergrass No Status Scutellaria galericulata var. pubescens Common Skullcap No Status Scutellaria lateriflora Scutellaria Lateriflora No Status Selaginella densa Blue Skullcap No Status Selaginella selaginoides Northern Spike-Moss S2 Senecio aureus Golden Ragwort No Status Senecio congestus Swamp Ragwort No Status Senecio eremophilus Desert Ragwort No Status Senecio tridenticulatus Three-Toothed Ragwort No Status Senecio vulgaris Common Groundsel No Status Setaria viridis Foxtail No Status Shepherdia canadensis Canada Buffaloberry No Status Silene alba White Campion No Status

289 MBCDC Scientific Name Common Name Status Silene drummondii Drummond's Campion No Status Silene noctiflora Night-Flowering Catchfly No Status Silene vulgaris Bladder Campion No Status Sinapis aruensis Field Mustard No Status Sisymbrium altissimum Tall Tumblemustard No Status Sisyrinchium montanum Strict Blue-Eyed Grass No Status Sisyrinchium campestre Prairie Blue-Eyed Grass SU Sium suave Hemlock Waterparsnip No Status Smilax herbacea var. lasioneuron Carrion Flower No Status Solidago bicolor var. concolor White Goldenrod No Status Solidago canadensi Canada Goldenrod No Status Solidago gigantea graminifolia var. No Status Bushy Goldenrod major Solidago hispida var. hispida Hairy Goldenrod No Status Solidago juncea Early Goldenrod No Status Solidago missouriensis Missouri Goldenrod No Status Solidago rigida Stiff-Leaved Goldenrod No Status Solidago spathulata Mt. Albert Goldenrod No Status Solidago simplex Sticky Goldenrod SU Sonchus aruensis var. glabrescens Corn Sow Thistle No Status Sorbus decora Showy Mountain Ash No Status Sorbus scopulina Green Mountain Ash No Status Sparganium angustifolium Narrowleaf Bur-Reed No Status Sparganium eurycarpum Giant Bur-Reed No Status Sparganium multipedunculatum Bur-Reed No Status Spartina gracilis Alkali Cordgrass No Status Sphenopholis intermedia Slender Wedgescale No Status Spiraea alba Narrowleaf Meadowsweet No Status Spiranthes lacera Northern Slender Lady's Tresses No Status Spiranthes romanzoffiana Hooded Lady's-Tresses No Status Spirodela polyrhiza Greater Duckweed No Status Sporobolus heterolepis Prairie Dropseed No Status Stachys hispida Hairy Hedge Nettle No Status Stachys palustris Marsh Woundwort No Status Stellaria calycantha Northern Starwort No Status

290 MBCDC Scientific Name Common Name Status Stellaria crassifolia Star-Weed No Status Stellaria longifolia Longleaf Starwort No Status Stellaria longipes Longstalk Starwort No Status Stellaria media Chickenwort No Status Stipa richardsonii Richardson's Needle Grass No Status Stipa spartea var. curtiseta Porcupine Grass No Status Stipa viridula Green Needle Grass No Status Symphoricarpos albus Snowberry No Status Symphoricarpos occidentalis Western Snowberry No Status Symphyotrichum robynsianum Robyns's Aster SU Tanacetum vulgare Common Tansy No Status Taraxacum officinale Dandelion No Status Thalictrum dasycarpum Purple Meadow-Rue No Status Thalictrum venulosum Veiny Meadow-Rue No Status Thalictrum sparsiflorum Few-Flowered Meadow-Rue S2S3 Thlaspi aruense Field Penny-Cress No Status Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar No Status Tofieldia glutinosa Sticky Tofieldia No Status Torreyochloa pallida var. fernaldii Pale Manna Grass S2 Tragopogon dubius Western Salsify No Status Triadenum fraseri Marsh St. John's-Wort S3? Tricophorum cespitosum Tufted Bulrush No Status Trientalis borealis Northern Starflower No Status Trifolium hybridum Alsike Clover No Status Trifolium pratense Trifolium Pratense No Status Trifolium repens White Clover No Status Triglochin maritimum Arrow-Grass No Status Triglochin palustre Slender Arrow-Grass No Status Trillium cernuum Whip-Poor-Will Flower No Status Triticum aestiuum Common Wheat No Status Triticum turgidum Miracle Wheat No Status Typha latifolia Cattail No Status Ulmus americana American Elm No Status Urtica dioica ssp. gracilis Stinging Nettle No Status Utricularia cornuta Horned Bladderwort No Status

291 MBCDC Scientific Name Common Name Status Utricularia vulgaris Common Bladderwort No Status Utricularia minor Lesser Bladderwort S3 Vaccinium caespitosum Dwarf Bilberry S2 Vaccinium myrtilloides Common Blueberry No Status Vaccinium oxycoccos Small Cranberry No Status Vaccinium vitis-idaea Lingonberry No Status Valeriana dioica ssp. sylvatica Wood Valarian No Status Valeriana officinalis Valerian No Status Veronica americana American Speedwell No Status Veronica comosa Water Speedwell No Status Veronica peregrine var. xalapensis Neckweed No Status Veronica scutellata Marsh Speedwell No Status Viburnum edule Lowbush Cranberry No Status Viburnum lentago Nannyberry No Status Viburnum rafinesquianum Downy Arrowwood No Status Viburnum trilobum Highbush Cranberry No Status Vicia americana American Vetch No Status Vicia cracca Cow Vetch No Status Viola adunca Western Dog Violet No Status Viola conspersa Dog Violet S3? Viola nephrophylla Northern Bog Violet No Status Viola palustris Marsh Violet No Status Viola pedatifida Prairie Violet No Status Viola pensylvanica var. leiocarpa Smooth Yellow Violet No Status Viola renifolia var. brainerdii White Violet No Status Viola rugulosa Western Canada Violet No Status Viola selkirkii Long-Spurred Violet S2 Viola sororia Common Blue Violet No Status Wolffia columbiana Water-Meal S1 Zizia aptera Columbian Watermeal No Status Zizia aurea Golden Alexanders No Status Zygadenus elegans Elegant Camas No Status Source: (Cody 1988; MBCDC 2013; PC 2011)

292

Manitoba Conservation Data Centre Ranks

Rank Definition 1 Very rare throughout its range or in the province (5 or fewer occurrences, or very few remaining individuals). May be especially vulnerable to extirpation 2 Rare throughout its range or in the province (6 to 20 occurrences). May be vulnerable to extirpation. 3 Uncommon throughout its range or in the province (21 to 100 occurrences). 4 Widespread, abundant, and apparently secure throughout its range or in the province, with many occurrences, but the element is of long-term concern (> 100 occurrences). 5 Demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure throughout its range or in the province, and essentially impossible to eradicate under present conditions. U Possibly in peril, but status uncertain; more information needed. H Historically known; may be rediscovered. X Believed to be extinct; historical records only, continue search. SNR A species not ranked. A rank has not yet assigned or the species has not been evaluated. SNA A conservation status rank is not applicable to the element.

293 APPENDIX B

Plant Species of Conservation Concern for the Mid-Boreal Upland Ecoregion MBCDC Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Requirements Status shade; moist rich hardwood forest, Adoxa moschatellina Moschatel S1 blooms April - May mixed hardwood forest, blooms May Asarum canadense Wild Ginger S3? - June Botrychium minganense Mingan Moonwort S1S2 coniferous forest and marsh areas Botrychium multifidum Leathery Grape-Fern S3 forest and open fields Bromus porteri Porter's Chess S3? alvar Bromus pubescens Canada Brome Grass SNA woodlands dry, acidic, sandy soils of open Carex adusta Browned Sedge S3S4 woods and clearings, moist shores fruiting spring – summer Carex albicans var. acidic, dry soil, woodlands, under SU albicans Douglas Sedge cedar marshes, swales, and wet meadows; Carex alopecoidea Foxtail Sedge S3S4 moist forests and clearings Carex assiniboinensis Assiniboia Sedge S3S4 rich hardwood forests Carex castanea Chestnut Sedge S3 marshes, swales, and wet meadows forest openings, meadows, marsh S3? Carex douglasii Douglas Sedge edge, stream banks Carex emoryi Emory's Sedge S2? wetlands Carex hystericina Porcupine Sedge S3? wetlands Carex microptera Thick-Spike Sedge S1S2 meadows and river banks Carex normalis Larger Straw Sedge SNA wet forests, meadows, marshes alkaline meadows, lake margins, S3? Carex parryana Parry’s Sedge roadsides, ditches Carex pauciflora Few -Flowered Sedge S3 wetlands Carex pedunculata Stalked Sedge S3? hardwood forest calcareous meadows and fens, Carex prairea Prairie Sedge S4? marsh, tamarack and cedar swamps Carex raymondii Black Sedge S2S3 moist soils in woodlands Carex sterilis Dioecious Sedge S2 calcareous fens Carex tetanica Rigid Sedge S2 fens, sedge meadows, shores,

294 MBCDC Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Requirements Status swales Carex torreyi Torrey's Sedge S4 meadows and moist woods moist open ground in swamps, wet Carex vulpinoidea Fox Sedge S3? prairies or near water Carex xerantica White-Scaled Sedge S3? dry grassland Labrador Indian- riverbeds, floodplains, moist soils Castilleja septentrionalis S1? Paintbrush wet to moist streambanks and Chrysosplenium iowense Iowa Golden-Saxifrage S1? marshes, bogs and fens Chrysosplenium Northern Golden- marshy ground, shorelines, mossy S2S3 tetrandrum Carpet seeps, bogs, fens Corallorhiza striata Striped Coralroot S3S4 forest and open woodland Alternate-Leaved forest and woodland S2S3 Cornus alternifolia Dogwood Cuscuta pentagona var. forest parasite Dodder SU pentagona Cyperus schweinitzii Schweinitz's Flatsedge S2 prairie grassland, sandy soils Ram's Head Lady's- forest swamps, bogs or lowlands Cypripedium arietinum S2S3 Slipper Danthonia intermedia Timber Oat Grass S2? wet grassland, forest Oblong- open, wet calcaerous fens, bogs Drosera anglica S3 Leaved Sundew marshes, roadside ditches, wet S3? Eleocharis smallii Small's Spike-Rush meadows Various- moist rich deciduous woods and Elymus diversiglumis S2? Glumed Wild Rye thickets dry prairie, abondend fields, open Erigeron annuus White-Top Fleabane SNA woods Erigeron caespitosus Tufted Fleabane S2 rocky or sandy grasslands Eriophorum callitrix Beautiful Cotton-Grass S2 wet areas, calcareous bogs Euphorbia geyeri Prostrate Spurge S2 dry, open sand prairies Festuca hallii Plains Rough Fescue S3 grassland Galium aparine Cleavers SU moist and grassy sites streamsides, marshes, lakeshores Glyceria pulchella Graceful Manna Grass S2 and ponds Helianthus nuttallii ssp. Tuberous-Rooted gravel and sand soils or eskers and G5T3T5 S2 rydbergii Sunflower moraine ridges moist forests, thickets, swamps, Impatiens noli-tangere Western Jewelweed S2 wetland margins, streamsides.

295 MBCDC Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Requirements Status Lemna minor Lesser Duckweed SNA slow moving streams Large White- dry grassland Leucophysalis Flowered Ground- S3 grandiflora Cherry Liparis loeselii Yellow Twayblade S3S4 fen and bogs shoreline in moist coniferous and Listera borealis Northern Twayblade S2 mixed forest moist meadow depressions and S2S3 Lomatogonium rotatum Marsh Felwort marshy shores Malaxis brachypoda White Adder's-Mouth S2? swamps and bogs Malaxis paludosa Bog Adder's-Mouth S1 swamps and bogs Milium effusum var. cisatl moist open woods and clearings Millet Grass S2 anticum gravel lake shores and moist Muhlenbergia andina Foxtail Muhly S1 meadows Musineon divaricatum Leafy Musineon S2 open flats and slopes in plains Nassella viridula Green Needle Grass S3 dry grassland and open forest open woods, and acid, peaty soil S1 Oryzopsis canadensis Canada Rice-Grass and grassland Oryzopsis hymenoides Indian Rice-Grass S2 grassland sanddune Wooly Or Hairy Sweet part shade, shade; woods, thickets S2 Osmorhiza claytonii Cicely Blunt- open forests and forest margins Osmorhiza depauperata S2 Fruited Sweet Cicely Oxytropis deflexa Reflexed Locoweed S3? boreal forest dry prairie slopes and hilltops and in S2 Panicum wilcoxianum Sand Millet open, sandy pine woods Smooth Blue Beard- open, often grassy hillsides and S2 Penstemon nitidus Tongue plains Physostegia parviflora Dragonhead SU marshes, streams and lake margins periphery of black spruce and Round- Platanthera orbiculata S3 tamarack bogs ; substrate is moist Leaved Bog Orchid but not wet Poa arida Plains Blue Grass S4 prairie, grassland shallow quiet water of protected lake Large-Leaved S2? bays, ponds, and slow-moving Potamogeton amplifolius Pondweed streams shallow quiet water of protected lake S2 Potamogeton illinoensis Illinois Pondweed bays, ponds, and slow-moving

296 MBCDC Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Requirements Status streams shallow quiet water of protected lake Potamogeton strictifolius Straightleaf Pondweed S3 bays, ponds, and slow-moving streams shallow quiet water of protected lake Pyrola americana Round-Leaved Pyrola S2 bays, ponds, and slow-moving streams Rhynchospora capillacea Horned Beakrush S2 dry or moist woods, bogs calcareous bogs in southern boreal Ruppia cirrhosa Widgeon-Grass S3 forest saline or alkaline lakes, ponds or S2S3 Salix brachycarpa Short-Capsuled Willow sloughs Selaginella selaginoides Northern Spike-Moss S2 river banks and sand bars receding shorelines and calcareous Sisyrinchium campestre White-Eyed Grass SU bogs Solidago simplex Sticky Goldenrod SU sandy dry sites Richardson Needle sandy grasslands S1 Stipa richardsonii Grass Symphyotrichum grasslands and open forests Robyns's Aster SU robynsianum Flowering August – September. Wet Few- Thalictrum sparsiflorum S2S3 or damp, open, sandy, gravelly, or Flowered Meadow-Rue rocky grounds, often calcareous meadows, damp thickets, bogs, and S2 coniferous, deciduous, and riparian Thermopsis rhombifolia Golden Bean woods flowers jun-aug Torreyochloa pallida var. dry grasslands Pale Manna Grass S2 fernaldii wet, sandy beaches and shores of Triadenum fraseri Marsh St. John's-Wort S3? marshy or floating sedge-fens. floating marshy sedge fens, open Utricularia minor Lesser Bladderwort S3 quaking bogs Vaccinium caespitosum Dwarf Bilberry S2 low nutrient lakes and peatbog pools Viola conspersa Dog Violet S3? dry to wet forests, bogs, meadows moist deciduous or mixed woods Viola selkirkii Long-Spurred Violet S2 and clearings moist deciduous, mixed, or white Wolffia columbiana Water-Meal S1 spruce wood Source: (MBCDC, 2013)

297 Manitoba Conservation Data Centre Ranks

298

148 Nature Park Way Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3P 0X7 204-475-4133 - 204-786-7934

299

Appendix C: Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Technical Report

300 Riding Mountain National Park

V38R / LINE 81: Environmental Impact Analysis

- Wildlife Technical Report

301 Riding Mountain National Park

V38R / LINE 81: Environmental Impact Analysis

- Wildlife Technical Report

Prepared for:

M.FORSTER ENTERPRISES &

Prepared by:

November, 2013

302

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In an effort to increase the reliability, safety, and integrity of the V38R/Line 81 transmission lines that run north-south through Riding Mountain National Park (RMNP), Manitoba Hydro proposes to widen the existing Right-Of-Way (ROW) on the eastern ROW edge and allow for partial regeneration of the ROW on the western ROW edge. In addition to the widening of the existing ROW, a new access trail is necessary to augment year round access for line operations and maintenance. The following report outlines the wildlife and wildlife habitat assessment related activities conducted within RMNP in support of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for Manitoba Hydro’s proposed V38R/Line 81 transmission line ROW widening and access road upgrade (the Project). The Project also includes the development of an Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IVMP) that will delineate the habitat types, identify the different types of vegetation within the ROW, and provide guidance to Manitoba Hydro on the vegetation management practices to be applied to each vegetation type. During field investigations, numerous wildlife species including mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles were observed along the existing ROW as well as along the proposed and existing access routes. The overall diversity of wildlife identified was comparable along each proposed access route option. Given the age and composition of the forest structure along the existing ROW and the proposed access routes, our observations of a comparable array of healthy and diverse species composition within the Local Study Area (LSA) is not surprising. The overall widening of the existing ROW will remove old growth forest stands, currently supporting numerous nesting cavities; however, habitat of this age class is not limiting in the LSA or Regional Study Area (RSA) and the widening of the ROW is necessary to improve safety and reliability of the line. Caution is suggested, however, with the potential regeneration of the western ROW edge as the current vegetation along the ROW is already encroaching on the transmission line.

Overall, special considerations for this Project relate to the inherent access limitations. Access along the existing ROW is hindered in multiple locations due to the presence of steep gorges, wide creeks, and substantial beaver floods. Further, each of the proposed three potential access routes is associated with several low-lying wetland areas and substantial beaver floods making them difficult to traverse on foot and next to impossible to cross with heavy machinery. Given the water table conditions at the time of this assessment, the existing Moon Lake access trail (near the MTS tower) was the easiest to traverse with the least amount of water access issues. Given that this existing trail is already cleared and the local wildlife have already adapted to the cleared ROW, this route option may be the most viable access route option with the least associated potential effects. However, given that the existing Moon Lake access trail does have low-lying wetland areas, and the degree to which water is present along the existing Moon Lake trail is likely to fluctuate throughout the year and from one year to the next, it is expected that extensive use of

303

this existing trail with heavy machinery will likely result in vegetation changes and water pooling along the ROW.

304

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... II

LIST OF MAPS...... VI

LIST OF TABLES ...... VI

LIST OF PHOTOS ...... VII

LIST OF APPENDICES ...... VII

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 OBJECTIVES...... 1

2.0 DESKTOP REVIEW...... 2

2.1 DATA SOURCES ...... 2

2.2 STUDY LIMITATIONS ...... 2

3.0 STUDY AREA...... 3

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...... 3

3.1.1 Riding Mountain (716) Ecodistrict ...... 4

3.1.2 Surficial Geology and Physiographic Setting ...... 4

3.1.3 Forest Cover and Vegetation ...... 5

3.1.4 Fire History...... 6

3.1.5 Wildlife and Habitat...... 7

3.1.6 Aquatic Environment...... 10

3.2 COMMUNITY PROFILE ...... 11

4.0 VALUED ECOSYSTEM COMPONENTS ...... 11

5.0 LAND AND RESOURCE USE...... 12

5.1 HUNTING, TRAPPING AND FISHING ...... 12

5.2 FORESTRY ...... 13

5.3 HYDRO TRANSMISSION DEVELOPMENT ...... 13

5.4 ARCHAEOLOGY ...... 14

5.5 RECREATIONAL USE AREAS ...... 14

6.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 14

6.1 MAMMALS...... 14

305

6.1.1 Scat and Track Inventories ...... 15

6.1.2 Denning Inventories ...... 17

6.2 BIRDS ...... 19

6.2.1 Songbird Point Count Survey...... 19

6.2.2 Nest Searches ...... 24

6.2.3 Waterbird Survey ...... 26

6.2.4 Nocturnal Bird Surveys ...... 27

6.3 AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES...... 27

6.3.1 Methods ...... 27

6.3.2 Results ...... 27

6.4 HABITAT DELINEATION AND VEGETATION MAPPING ...... 28

6.4.1 Methods ...... 28

6.4.2 Results ...... 29

6.5 ACCESS ROUTE HABITAT COMPARISONS ...... 32

6.5.1 Methods ...... 32

6.5.2 Results ...... 32

6.6 WATER CROSSINGS ...... 34

6.6.1 Methods ...... 34

6.6.2 Results ...... 34

7.0 OVERALL PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS ...... 36

7.1 ACCESS LIMITATIONS ...... 36

7.1.1 Water ...... 36

7.1.2 Gorge ...... 37

7.2 RIGHT-OF-WAY REGENERATION AND WIDENING ...... 37

7.3 EDGE STAND AGE ...... 38

8.0 CONCLUSIONS ...... 38

9.0 REFERENCES...... 39

10.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS ...... 44

306

LIST OF MAPS

(Maps can be found in a separate pdf document)

Map 1: Project Study Area

Map 2: Ecological Land Classification

Map 3: Surficial Geology

Map 4: Soils Classifications

Map 5: Regional Study Area Land Cover Classification Map 6: Local Study Area Land Cover Classification Map 7: Historic Fire Activity Map 8: Game Hunting Areas and Game Bird Hunting Areas

Map 9: Forest Management Units and Forest Management Licenses

Map 10: Mammal Observations and Activity along the V38R/Line 81 Transmission Line ROW Map 11: Mammal Observations and Activity along the Northern Moon Lake Access Trail Option Map 12: Mammal Observations and Activity along the Southern Moon Lake Access Trail Option Map 13: Mammal Observations and Activity along the Jackfish Creek Access Trail Option Map 14: Point Counts and Bird Species Recorded

Map 15: Bird Observations and Activity along the V38R/Line 81 Transmission Line ROW Map 16: Bird Observations and Activity along the Northern Moon Lake Access Trail Option Map 17: Bird Observations and Activity along the Southern Moon Lake Access Trail Option Map 18: Bird Observations and Activity along the Jackfish Creek Access Trail Option Map Series 19 (100-900): Vegetation Management Plan for the V38R/Line 81 Transmission Line ROW Map 20: Watercourse, Wetland, and Beaver Flood Crossings along the V38R/Line 81 Transmission Line ROW

Map 21: Watercourse, Wetland, and Beaver Flood Crossings on the Northern and Southern Moon Lake

Access Trail Options and the Existing Moon Lake Access Trail

Map 22: Watercourse and Wetland Crossings on the Jackfish Creek Access Trail Option

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Land Cover Classification for the Regional Study Area and Local Study Area...... 6

Table 2: Observations of Mammal Scat, Tracks, and Signs within the Local Study Area ...... 16

Table 3: Observations of Denning in the Local Study Area ...... 18

Table 4: List of Bird Species Observed or Heard During Point Count Surveys ...... 21

Table 5: List of Cavity Trees Observed During Nest Searches ...... 25

307

Table 6: List of Waterbirds and Waterfowl Observed During Waterbird Surveys (in Association with

Point Count and Pedestrian Surveys)...... 26

Table 7: Observations of Amphibians and Reptiles in the Local Study Area...... 28

Table 8: Habitat Characterization Along the V38R/Line 81 Transmission Line Right-Of-Way ...... 29

Table 9: Summary of the Length and Area of the Three Potential Access Route Options Crossing Each

LCC Cover Type Within the 8 m ROW and 2 m Buffer (12 m Width) ...... 33

Table 10: Summary of Water Crossings for the V38R/Line 81 Transmission Line ROW, Each Potential

Access Trail Option, and the Existing Moon Lake Access Trail ...... 35

LIST OF PHOTOS

Photo 1: Examples of observations of mammal presence: bear scat (A) (50.92719, -100.05478), moose antler shed (B) (50.82172, -100.10918), porcupine gnawing (C) (50.80815, -100.10487) and carcass of red fox (D) (50.79039, -100.09938)...... 17 Photo 2: Example of large mammal den located along Jackfish access route option (50.81262,

-100.10851)...... 18

Photo 3: Example of small mammal den located along the transmission line ROW (50.83183,

-100.11348)...... 19

Photo 4: Joro biologist performing point count survey along transmission line ROW (50.72031,

-100.11349)...... 20

Photo 5: Rose-breasted grosbeak observed at a point count site along the existing transmission line ROW (50.73938, -100.11355)...... 24 Photo 6: Example of tree snag with potential nesting activity (50.82706, -100.11290)...... 25

Photo 7: Example of creek encountered along existing V38R/Line 81 transmission line right-of-way

(50.78960, -100.09954)...... 35

Photo 8: Beaver flood encountered along the Moon Lake access route northern option (50.91908,

-100.10766)...... 36

Photo 9: Beaver flood encountered along the Moon Lake access route southern option (50.89253,

-100.08891)...... 37

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Known MBCDC listed plants for the Mid-Boreal Upland Ecoregion ...... 45

Appendix B: Known list of mammals for the Project Study Area...... 66

Appendix C: Known list of amphibians and reptiles for the Project Study Area ...... 70

Appendix D: Known list of birds for the Project Study Area ...... 73

308

Appendix E: Known list of fish species in the Project Study Area ...... 82

Appendix F: List of all wildlife observations during field investigations in the Local Study Area ...... 86

309

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The following report outlines the wildlife and wildlife habitat assessment related activities conducted within Riding Mountain National Park (RMNP) in support of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for Manitoba Hydro’s proposed V38R/Line 81 transmission line ROW widening and access road upgrade (the Project). Manitoba Hydro plans to increase the reliability, safety, and integrity of the two transmission lines that run within RMNP by widening the existing Right-Of-Way (ROW) on the east side of the existing ROW and allowing for partial regeneration of the ROW on the west side of the existing ROW. By widening the ROW to comply with Manitoba Hydro’s operating standards and safety and reliability will be improved. The Project also includes the development of an Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IVMP) that will delineate the habitat types, identify the different types of vegetation within the ROW, and provide guidance to Manitoba Hydro on the vegetation management practices to be applied to each vegetation type.

In addition to the widening of the existing ROW, a new access trail is necessary to augment year-round access to the ROW for Manitoba Hydro’s transmission line operations and maintenance activities. Manitoba Hydro currently uses the Moon Lake Manitoba Telecom Services (MTS) tower distribution line trail that is located near the MTS tower off of Provinical Trunk Highway (PTH) 10 to access the ROW for operations and maintenance activities. However, this trail includes wet and boggy areas where machinery can get stuck and cause damage to the ground cover and soils. Manitoba Hydro has proposed three options for the new access trails: two trails near the existing Moon Lake access trail (referred to as the Moon Lake Access Trail Northern Option and the Moon Lake Access Trail Southern Option) and another trail option near Jackfish Creek, referred to as the Jackfish Creek Access Trail Option.

This report provides an assessment of the existing wildlife and wildlife habitat within the affected areas of the ROW and the proposed new access trails, as well as a summary of the habitat delineation completed as part of the development of the IVMP.

1.1 Objectives

The following objectives were outlined with respect to the EIA of the proposed Project:

 determine the existing wildlife and wildlife habitat within the affected areas of the ROW and the proposed new access trails, with specific focus on the identified Valued Ecosystem Component (VEC) species;

Erin D:20140911125847-05'00'9/11/2014 11:58:47 AM ------Accepted set by Erin

310

 determine the best possible all-season access route to service the V38R/Line 81 transmission line

ROW from the three potential access route options; and

 delineate and map the habitat types and identify the different types of vegetation within the ROW

in support of the development of the IVMP.

2.0 DESKTOP REVIEW

2.1 Data Sources

A detailed desktop review was undertaken prior to field work activites and consisted of an assessment of past and ongoing wildlife studies conducted within RMNP and the Riding Mountain Biosphere Reserve. This desktop review was conducted to gain a better understanding of the existing conditions of the Regional Study Area (RSA) and Local Study Area (LSA) (see Section 3.0 for definition of study areas). Although some of these data are accessible through peer-reviewed articles, theses, and general publications, much of these data were provided by Parks Canada directly. Unpublished wildlife classified count data and corresponding spatial data was provided by Parks Canada in spring and fall of 2013.

In order to effectively plan and execute field work and spatial analysis of data, the Project team was provided with 20 centimetre (cm) orthoimagery for portions of the LSA from Manitoba Hydro. The Project team further downloaded 62.5 cm orthoimagery from the Government of Manitoba (2013). All orthoimagery was used for habitat and vegetation assessments. Manitoba Hydro also provided data on important Environmental Sensitive Sites (ESS). Geographic Information System (GIS) polygons within a 50 metre (m) corridor along the V38R/Line 81 transmission line ROW were classified as either riparian, wildlife corridor, or visual corridor. These sites were used to verify potentially sensitive sites (e.g., wetlands) and habitat transitional zones (i.e., transition zones between two or more habitat types such as wetland to upland) that were assessed during field investigations.

2.2 Study Limitations

Given the timeline of the research, there were several study limitations including the timing of the study, limited access within the LSA, and associated safety issues. Field investigations were completed in mid-June 2013 and unfortunately did not overlap with the breeding and vocalization period of several species such as the majority of owls and amphibians. These species generally vocalize between March and May; therefore, the field investigations conducted in June may have underestimated their presence in the LSA. This timing issue may also be true for other species of songbirds that breed earlier in spring and may not vocalize as often or at all during the timing of these field investigations. Despite these study limitations, the work done was adequate to support the EIA.

311

Within the LSA, there are only few points of access to the V38R/Line 81 transmission line ROW, which include the Lake Audy Road and the Moon Lake (MTS tower access) trail. Given the limited access points and the presence of water and wetlands, much of the ROW had to be assessed by an Argo. Along the ROW is a substantial gorge. Due to safety concerns and limitations in the ability to cross the steep gorge, the northern section of the ROW was not assessed directly by the Project team. Since 26 kilometres (km) (76%) of the 34 km ROW was assessed on foot (5.1 km) or by Argo (20.9 km).

3.0 STUDY AREA

The Regional Study Area (RSA) for the Project includes the entire area of RMNP and is delineated by the Park boundary (Map 1). The Local Study Area (LSA) for the Project includes a 5 km buffer on either side of the V38R/Line 81 transmission line and encompasses the three potential options for access routes (Map 1). Close to the LSA, there is one major highway, PTH 10, which runs in a north-south direction. The three potential access route options are located off the PTH 10 or Lake Audy Road, with the northern and southern Moon Lake assess route options occurring between Edwards Lake and Moon Lake off PTH 10 (Map 1). The third potential access route, the Jackfish Creek access route, is located at the intersection of Jackfish Creek and the transmission line ROW (Map 1).

3.1 Environmental Setting

The RSA is located within the Boreal Plains Ecozone, which is not heavily influenced by bedrock. In Manitoba, it extends from the central portion of the Manitoba-Saskatchewan border east to Lake Winnipeg and then south in a narrow band along the Red River (Smith et al., 1998). The ecozone is described as nearly level to gently rolling plains that are underlain by shale, limestone, and dolomites. The surficial geology1 is composed of hummocky to gently rolling morainal till deposits as well as glaciolacustrine sediments. The climate is characterized by cold winters and relatively warm summers. Soils are dominated by luvisols throughout, with dark gray and black chernozems in the south and brunisols and organic soils in the north (Smith et al., 1998). The entire RSA lies south of the permafrost line (Lockery, 1984) and within the Mid-Boreal Uplands Ecoregion, which encompasses the Porcupine Hills, Duck Mountains, and RMNP in three separate fragments of the Manitoba Escarpment. The entire LSA is located within one ecodistrict.

1 Terms that are bolded can be found in Section 10.0- Glossary of Terms

312

3.1.1 Riding Mountain (716) Ecodistrict

The entire LSA is located within the Riding Mountain Ecodistrict, which is situated in southwestern Manitoba and encompasses most of RMNP, as well as small areas outside of the park on the north and south west corners (Map 2). This ecodistrict is located in the most southerly portion of the three Mid-Boreal Uplands Ecoregion sections and is bordered by five other ecodistricts in three separate ecoregions: Swan River (709) in the Boreal Transition Ecoregion; Hamiota (753) and Grandview (839) in the Aspen Parkland Ecoregion; and Dauphin (840) and McCreary (844) Ecodistricts within the Lake Manitoba Plains Ecoregion (Smith et al., 1998). The mean annual temperature is 1.2°C with an average growing season of 173 days. The mean annual precipitation is approximately 500 milimetres (mm), of which roughly one quarter falls as snow (Smith et al., 1998). The physiography of the region consists of hummocky moraine-covered uplands, which are dissected by many channels, gullies, and long steep slopes, particularly on the eastern and northern faces. There are multiple small rivers and creeks draining in various directions from the region, all of which belong to the Hudson Bay drainage basin. The Ochre River includes the area in the northeast, Vermillion River in the north-central, and Birdtail Creek in the south-west are some of the larger watercourses (Smith et al., 1998). The soils consist mainly of gray luvisolic soils on calcareous, loamy, to clayey textures glacial till (Smith et al., 1998). Some areas also contain chernozemic dark gray, which are well drained, gleysolic soils that are peaty and poorly drained, as well as mesisols, which are moderately decomposed organic soils (Smith et al., 1998). The composition of vegetation has changed within the ecodistrict over the years due to the removal of logging practices. Previously there was a mixture of white spruce (Picea glauca) and balsam fir (Abies balsamea) as the dominant tree types, but in the absence of logging, the forest stand has now converted into trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides), balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera), and jack pine (Pinus banksiana) stands, with occasional mixes of white spruce. In some sites, white spruce and trembling aspen may reach diameters up to 90 cm and 30 m high. Wet and poorly drained areas may also contain black spruce (Picea mariana), sometimes in combination with white spruce and trembling aspen on moist sites (Smith et al., 1998). Understory vegetation varies across the region depending on site quality, stand mixture, and position. Heavy moss ground cover can be found under coniferous stands on north facing slopes while the shrub, beaked hazel (Corylus cornuta), is common under mixed forest stands on south and west facing slopes. The western portion of the region tends to be drier and therefore consists more substantially of grasslands, a mix of trembling aspen, and white spruce (Smith et al., 1998).

3.1.2 Surficial Geology and Physiographic Setting

The bedrock geology in south western Manitoba is composed mostly of the Mesozoic strata, made up of

Cretaceous and Jurassic rock formations. The LSA, specifically, is located within the Saskatchewan Plain

313

(Briscoe et al., 1979) and is composed of lacustrine deposits, water-worked till, till plains, and moraines, and has an elevation range between 30 and 750 m above sea level (ASL) (Briscoe et al., 1979) (Map 3).

The LSA lies entirely within the Cretaceous era, which is composed of grey and greenish shale, siliceous shale, and sandstone (Briscoe et al., 1979; Bannatyne and Teller, 1984). The soils near Moon Lake and some of Jackfish Creek are composed of orthic, dark, and brunisolic gray luvisols as well as orthic humic gleysols (Map 4). In and around the LSA, the slope of the landscape ranges from 0 - 30%, with a majority of the land slope ranging from 16 - 30% (Briscoe et al., 1979).

3.1.3 Forest Cover and Vegetation

The LSA is located in the Boreal Forest Region. The Boreal Forest forms a continuous belt from Newfoundland to the Rocky Mountains and comprises the greater part of the forested area of Canada. The Boreal Forest is primarily composed of coniferous tree species with white and black spruce as characteristic species, while balsam fir and jack pine are prominent in the eastern and central portions, with tamarack (Larix laricina) only absent in the far north (Rowe, 1972).

The entire LSA is located within the Mixedwood Forest (B18a) Section. This section corresponds to the Cretaceous Upland, which contains numerous needle-leaved conifers. The well-drained soils in this section lend to the growth of balsam poplar, trembling aspen, white spruce, and balsam fir. In drier till soils, black spruce and jack pine may also occur, appearing on higher hills. In RMNP, the relief of the area tends to be extreme due to the pre-glacial erosion that resulted in the Cretaceous escarpment. The topography consists of rolling morainic deposits with gray luvisol soil development (Rowe, 1972).

As of 1968, the dominant vegetation cover type in the LSA was mixed aspen and white spruce, which was also the second most widespread cover type in RMNP. The Moon Lake area contains mostly aspen, black spruce, white spruce, and white birch (Betula papyrifera), whereas the area surrounding Jackfish Creek is characterized as containing mostly aspen and white spruce in upland areas and graminoids and black spruce in wetland areas (Briscoe et al., 1979). There are several records of flora species of conservation concern along PTH 10, near Moon Lake (CPAWS, 2004).

A listing of the Manitoba Conservation Data Centre (MBCDC, 2013) listed flora for the Mid-boreal

Uplands Ecoregion and flora of RMNP is provided in Appendix A

In an effort to ascertain the local land cover types and to effectively design field methodologies, a habitat analysis was conducted using the Land Cover Classification (LCC). The Federal Government has developed a LCC spatial database, which is a national database map layer that has been harmonized across the major federal departments involved in land management and land change detection. These

314

departments include Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada (AAFC), the Canadian Forest Service (CFS), and the Canadian Centre for Remote Sensing (CCRS). The LCC provides vegetated and non-vegetated land cover classes that identify the primary ecological and vegetation/habitat conditions of an area. The LCC for the RSA and the LSA are provided in Maps 5 and 6 and described in Table 1. The primary land cover types in RMNP and within the LSA are mixedwood dense and broadleaf open forest mixed with some wetlands and very little grasslands (Table 1).

Table 1: Land Cover Classification for the Regional Study Area and Local Study Area

RSA LSA LCC Habitat Habitat Area % Area % of Total Code 2 2 km Total km RSA 231 Mixedwood Dense 780.17 25.25 157.72 5.10 222 Broadleaf Open 988.85 32.01 58.10 1.88 82 Wetland - Shrub 225.44 7.3 30.72 0.99 232 Mixedwood Open 134.53 4.35 25.45 0.82 83 Wetland - Herb 206.55 6.69 20.37 0.66 221 Broadleaf Dense 388.09 12.56 19.69 0.64 212 Coniferous Open 83.78 2.71 9.75 0.32 20 Water 140.41 4.54 8.49 0.27 81 Wetland - Treed 58.6 1.9 5.20 0.17 223 Broadleaf Sparse 28.96 0.94 2.20 0.07 110 Grassland 35.36 1.14 1.28 0.04 51 Shrub Tall 3.49 0.11 1.24 0.04 100 Herb 5.25 0.17 0.83 0.03 33 Exposed Land 4.50 0.15 0.26 0.01 34 Developed 4.14 0.13 0.18 0.01 211 Coniferous Dense 1.31 0.04 0.00 0.00 121 Annual Cropland 0.20 0.01 0.03 0.00 Perennial Cropland and 122 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pasture Total 3,089.66 100 341.51 11.05

3.1.4 Fire History

Natural disturbances, such as forest fires, are important for the health and succession of the boreal forest. Forest fires play an important role in characterizing forest composition, energy cycles, and biochemical processes. In the 1880s, the western portion of RMNP burned (Map 7). West of the Strathclair Trail, circa 1890, there were two large fires which burned over 70% of the area, wiping out the white spruce and many floral elements (Briscoe et al., 1979) (Map 7). One of these fires occurred north-east of the Ochre River Valley and burned approximately 13,000 hectares in 1895. Another major fire occurred south of

315

Highway 19 and east of the Rolling River and burned approximately 1,800 hectares in 1830 (Briscoe et al., 1979). Within RMNP, the following total surface areas burned within the corresponding decades: 1940-1949, 48 fires burned 28,474 hectares; 1950-1959, 27 fires burned 1,252 hectares; 1960-1969, 46 fires burned 9,259 hectares; 1970-1978, 26 fires burned 2,011 hectares (Briscoe et al., 1979), and 1995- 2003, 13 prescribed burns covered 10,000 hectares (Parks Canada, 2007a) (Map 7). Much of the LSA has been burned at one time or another; however, more recent burns have occurred in the northern portion of the transmission line ROW in the late 1870s, in the central portion in the early 1900s, and in the southern portion in the 1930s (Map 7).

3.1.5 Wildlife and Habitat

The RSA is composed of flora species that are adapted to the role of colonization and regeneration of surface areas subjected to major disturbances, such as logging or fire (Briscoe et al., 1979). The ability to adapt and occupy forest habitats, at various stages of succession, extends to the wildlife species that inhabit this area. The area is composed of a mosaic of different aged forest stands, plant communities, and floral species that reflect the climate, topography, soils, drainage, disturbance history, and forest development of the region. Forests provide a structure in which wildlife lives, and the degree and complexity of this structure within the landscape determines, to some extent, the wildlife inhabiting the forest (Keenan et al., 2009).

The wildlife species in the RSA are important spiritually and aesthetically to the people of Manitoba. They provide an indication of ecological condition, represent species groups in terms of ecological requirements, and some are listed as species of conservation concern. Species of conservation concern, meaning species that are rare, disjunct, or at risk throughout their range or those listed under Manitoba Endangered Species Act (MESA), the Species at Risk Act (SARA), or that have a special designation by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), were the focus during the field investigations and literature review. In total, there are approximately 230 bird species and 60 mammal species know to be present in RMNP (CPAWS, 2004). This large diversity of species is in part due to the varied habitats available in and around the region.

Mammal species typical of this area include beaver (Castor canadensis), bison (Bison bison), black bear (Ursus americana), coyote (Canis latrans), elk (Cervus elaphus), ermine (Mustela erminea), fisher (Martes pennanti), grey wolf (Canis lupus), least chipmunk (Eutamias minimus), lynx (Lynx canadensis), mink (Neovison vison), moose (Alces alces), otter (Lutra canadensis), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), red squirrel (Tamisciurus hudsonicus), snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), southern red-backed vole (Clethrionomys gapperi), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Certain species, especially

316

carnivores such as the black bear, grey wolf, and lynx, have been affected by changes in their natural habitat, as have elk and moose as a result of human land-use practices (CPAWS, 2004).

Beaver are found in abundance in RMNP and are associated with lakes, creeks, and other water bodies. Beavers are important ecosystem engineers and are a keystone species that modify drainage regimes by engaging in vegetation-cutting and dam-building activities having long-term effects on landscapes (Naiman et al., 1994). Beaver habitat occupancy is best explained by the occurrence of woody vegetation, followed by stream gradients (Curtis and Jensen, 2004). RMNP has a prevalence of beaver and beaver activity in low-lying wet areas.

RMNP is unique compared to surrounding areas in that it is home to a captive herd of approximately 40 bison, near Audy Lake (Parks Canada, 2013). However, given the bison are captive, they are not factored into the ecological considerations of the alterations to the transmission line ROW for this assessment.

The grey wolf is found across Canada in various regions, though they have been extirpated from portions of various provinces and show little preference for habitat types (Banfield, 1974). The wolf population estimates in RMNP show a relatively stable wolf population. The current population estimate shows 113 wolves in 2011-2012 (Parks Canada, unpubl.). Healthy moose and wolf populations coexist within RMNP. Black bears are found across most wooded habitats in North America and are relatively common throughout the northern mixed and eastern deciduous forests (Kolenosky and Strathearn, 1987). Black bear densities are highest in diverse forests at relatively early stages of development and lowest where soils are thinner and plant growth generally poorer (Kolenosky and Strathearn, 1987). A population estimate in 2007 indicated approximately 900 black bears within RMNP (Parks Canada, 2007b). Bears are an integral component of the ecosystem given their role in predator/prey relationships.

Moose are distributed across much of forested Canada (Banfield, 1974) and are common within the boreal forest and the RSA (Karns, 1998). A population estimate in RMNP in 2012 indicated an estimate of 2,949 moose, which is approximately 0.99 moose/km² (Parks Canada, unpubl.).

White-tailed deer range across North America and are common in much of southern Manitoba. They inhabit areas with a mix of cover types, edges, swamps, riparian areas, and open prairies (Banfield, 1974). White-tailed deer represent concerns as they carry disease, transferrable to other species such as moose. Lankester and Samuel (1998) noted that Parelaphostrongylus tenuis (brain worm) had been documented in the south-western corner of Manitoba. Further, RMNP tests for P. tenuis on an ad hoc basis and have found evidence of P. tenuis in white-tailed deer in the park, although no formal report exists on the prevalence of P. tenuis in white-tailed deer in RMNP at this time (pers. comm. T. Sallows, 2012). Waring et al. (1991) demonstrated that white-tailed deer use ROWs to feed, especially when the available

317

forage is more abundant or of better quality than in adjacent landscapes. ROWs have the potential to provide white-tailed deer with increased forage opportunities, given much of their diet consists of browse, grasses, forbs, mast, and succulents, many of which grow in ROW edge habitats.

A listing of known mammals and their conservation classification is presented in Appendix B.

In addition to the above, there are a number of species of frogs and toads that occur within the RSA including: Canadian toad (Bufo hemiophyrys); gray tree frog (Hyla versicolor); boreal chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata maculata); wood frog (Rana sylvatica); and northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens). The northern leopard frog is currently listed as Schedule 1- Special Concern under SARA. These species generally require shallow ponds and puddles for breeding and moist environments in shrubby and wooded areas for the rest of the year. The grey tiger salamander (Ambystrona tigrinum) is also a potential inhabitant of the RSA (Conant and Collins, 1991).

A listing of known amphibians and reptiles and their conservation classification is presented in

Appendix C.

Bird species that may be present in the RSA include the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), barred owl (Strix varia), boreal chickadee (Poecile hudsonicus), broad-winged hawk (Buteo platypterus), Connecticut warbler (Oporornis agilis), great gray owl (Strix nebulosa), mountain bluebird (Sialia currucoides), northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus), olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus), ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), spruce grouse (Dendragapus canadensis), western wood pewee (Contopus sordidulus), and yellow warbler (Dendroica petechial), among others (Bezener and De Smet, 2000; Peterson and Peterson, 2002; Manitoba Avian Research Committee, 2003; CPAWS, 2004). Based on a wetland habitat classification, the RSA is described as being moderately to severely limited in the production of waterfowl (CPAWS, 2004). Geese, ducks, other waterfowl and upland game birds may

318

be seasonally hunted outside of the national park. Bird species listed under the MESA, SARA, and COSEWIC that occur in the RSA include: the Canada warbler (Cardellina canadensis) – Threatened; common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) – Threatened; golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) - Threatened; olive-sided flycatcher- Threatened; short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) - S3S4B (MBCDC); trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator) - Endangered (MESA); whip-poor-will (Antrostomus vociferus) - Threatened; and yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis) - Special Concern.

A listing of all known bird species and their conservation classification is presented in Appendix D.

3.1.6 Aquatic Environment

There are multiple small rivers and creeks draining in various directions from the region. These watercourses belong to one of the two watersheds located within the LSA, the Dauphin Lake watershed and the Little Saskatchewan River watershed. The rivers and creeks within the Dauphin Lake watershed flow northwards (e.g. Edwards Creek, Robinson Creek, Stony Creek, Kinnis Creek) and the rivers and creeks within the Little Saskatchewan River watershed flow southwards (e.g. Jackfish Creek, Shoal Lake Creek).

The RSA includes a number of lakes, rivers, creeks, ponds, and wetlands. Within the LSA, these waterbodies and watercourses are part of two watersheds: the Dauphin Lake watershed and the Little Saskatchewan River watershed. Watercourses that cross the ROW form north to south include several tributaries of Edwards Creek, Stony Creek, Robinson Creek, Kinnis Creek, Jackfhish Creek, Shoal Lake Creek, and an unnamed creek. Edwards creek and its tributaries flow north and eventually drain to Dauphin Lake. Kinnis Creek, Stony Creek, and Robinson Creek flow weset and then north where they join with the Vermillion River and also eventually drain to Dauphin Lake. Jaskfish Creek, Shoal Lake Creek, and the unnamed creek meander south and west, eventually joining up with the Little Saskatchewan River. The divide between the two watersheds is located near and around the Moon Lake trail (National Hydo Network, 2013).

Fish species that may be present in the LSA include blacknose shiner (Notropis heterolepis), brassy minnow (Hybognathus hankinsoni), brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans), common shiner (Luxilus cornutus), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), finescale dace (Phoxinus neogaeus), fathead minnow (Pimphales promelas), Iowa darter (Etheostoma exile), johnny darter (Etheostomi nigrum), longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), northern pike (Esox lucius), pearl dace (Margariscus margatita), spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius), walleye (Sander vitreus), western blacknose dace (Rhinichthys obtusus), white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), and yellow perch (Perca flavescens), among others (Stewart and Watkinson, 2004).

319

A listing of all known fish species and their conservation classification is presented in Appendix E.

3.2 Community Profile

Wasagaming is located along the south shore of Clear Lake along PTH 10, and is the closest community to the LSA. As of 2000, records indicate that RMNP averages approximately 400,000 visitors per year (Parks Canada, 2000). There are two main cottage and cabin developments, each containing 254 and 525 residences, which welcome roughly 40,000 visitors a year. A large campground exists within Wasagaming that is visited most often between spring and fall each year. The economic base for this town is the seasonal influx of people using the accommodations, shops, and restaurants. A list of businesses can be found on the Wasagaming Chamber of Commerce (2012) website.

4.0 VALUED ECOSYSTEM COMPONENTS

In order to complete a biophysical characterization and assessment for this Project, Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) were chosen, in part based on habitat modeling of the LSA. VECs were selected based on their conservation status, as well as their ecological importance as an indicator (i.e., birds). VECs were selected based on their importance to society and, in particular, to First Nations (such as moose). Based on consultation with Parks Canada and Manitoba Hydro, the wildlife VECs identified for the Project included beaver, black bear, moose, and a suite of avian indicator species.

The beaver was selected as a VEC based on its association with lakes, creeks, and other water bodies. Beavers are important ecosystem engineers and a keystone species that modify drainage regimes by engaging in vegetation-cutting and dam-building activities that have long-term effects on landscapes (Naiman et al., 1994). Beavers select damming sites in stream sections with high shoreline densities of woody vegetation whose diameters range from 1.5 - 4.4 cm. Beaver habitat occupancy is best explained by the occurrence of woody vegetation, followed by stream gradients (Curtis and Jensen, 2004). Several of the proposed trail options traverse small streams, creeks, and wetlands. Investigation into potentially high quality beaver damming hot spots provides valuable information on the possible effects of the Project on beavers and also the implications beavers may have on the Project.

RMNP has one of the higher densities of black bears within the province, along with Porcupine Hills and the Duck Mountains (MCWS, 2013a). Important habitat types for black bears include coniferous or deciduous regions, as well as swamps and berry patches (Banfield, 1974). The proposed widening of the existing ROW in combination with the potential development of the Moon Lake trail/Jackfish Creek trail may impact black bear denning locations. As a result, the activities outlined for this Project included an investigation of active denning sites in the proposed LSA. Black bears are an important linkage species in

320

the LSA in the sense that their actions and behaviour have direct and indirect effects on moose recruitment and distribution.

Moose are commonly found in forest, shrub, and wetland habitats and occupy much of northern Manitoba (Banfield, 1974). In the south, they occupy areas in and adjacent to the Duck Mountains and RMNP (Pattie and Hoffmann, 1990). Moose population numbers in Game Hunting Areas (GHAs) 18/18A, 13/13A, 19/19A, and 14/14A (located north of RMNP) have experienced declines over the last decade. Despite this decline, moose population numbers are currently healthy in RMNP (Parks Canada, unpubl.). Research conducted in RMNP assessing moose use of ROWs indicates that, since moose depend on young vegetation which are often a result of disturbance, greater numbers of moose are more likely to exist along the ROW than the adjacent forest in the summer for travel, food, and bedding (Hill, 2003).

A suite of avian indicator species were selected as VECs for the Project. In Manitoba, the golden-winged warbler is listed as threatened under MESA, COWESIC, and SARA, and requires a rather unique habitat consisting of sparse trees and shrubs with an herbaceous understory of grasses and forbs in either upland or wetland settings (GWWG, 2009). There currently exists suitable golden-wing warbler habitat within the LSA that may be impacted by Project activities. Along with the golden-winged warbler, species of special concern include: the Canada warbler and olive-sided flycatcher, which were assessed during daytime surveys; and the yellow rail, common nighthawk, whip-poor-will, and short-eared owl, which were assessed during nocturnal bird surveys. Other important avian VECs investigated include birds of cultural and ecological significance such as bald eagles, great blue herons (Ardea herodias), and osprey (Pandion haliaetus).

5.0 LAND AND RESOURCE USE

The entire LSA is located within RMNP. The park is characterized by very little anthropogenic development with large tracts of the landscape remaining contiguous and intact.

5.1 Hunting, Trapping and Fishing

RMNP is bordered by Game Hunting Areas 23 to the north and 23A to the south and is located in Game Bird Hunting Zones 3 and 4 (MCWS, 2013b) (Map 8). No hunter harvest of big game or birds occurs within the park through either licensed hunting or subsistence rights-based hunting; however, animals (elk, moose, white-tailed deer, bears, wolves, and birds) that cross the park boundary are subject to both licensed and rights-based hunting. There are no trapping activities that occur within the boundaries of RMNP, although the surrounding area is considered Open Trapping Area Zone 2A (MCWS, 2012) (Map 8). Fishing is permitted on lakes within the park with a valid national park fishing permit. The fishing

321

season for Clear Lake and Lake Audy is May 15 to March 31, while all other lakes are open May 15 to September 30. Catch limits vary from one lake to another throughout the park, with specific regulations outlined in the Summary of Fishing Regulations brochure (Parks Canada, 2010). Historically, the forests, prairies, rivers, and lakes of RMNP provided an abundance of wildlife and plants used for hunting, fishing, foods, and medicines.

5.2 Forestry

The LSA is located in Forest Management Unit (FMU) 15 and is bordered by FMUs 5 and 7 to the south and FMU 10 to the north (Map 9). Forest Management License-3 is located to the north and is currently held by Louisiana-Pacific (Manitoba Conservation, 2011). The park has a history of logging, which has been deemed the most significant impact on the park vegetation communities (Briscoe et al., 1979). The first documented logging activities were completed by Hudson’s Bay Company in 1880 and despite logging activities continuing for another 100 years, the Riding Mountain area became a Forest Reserve in 1895 (Government of Manitoba, 2000). The intent was to reduce pressure on timber resources by controlling timber harvest. This designation meant lumbering activities were restricted and permits were only given to small operators and local settlers until 1946 (Government of Manitoba, 2000). Currently RMNP is owned by the Government of Canada and designated as part of Riding Mountain UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve. No harvesting of the forest is currently permitted (PARC, 2013).

5.3 Hydro Transmission Development

Within RMNP, the V38R / Line 81 transmission lines are associated with a 34 km ROW running in a north-south direction through the park (Map 1). The V38R line is a 230 kV transmission line and Line 81 is a 66 kV sub-transmission line, though the structure is constructed to support a 115 kV transmission line. The width of the ROW varies throughout the park from 42.6 to 50.3 m wide (Map 1). Manitoba Hydro plans to increase the reliability, safety, and integrity of both of these lines by widening the ROW on the east side and allowing for partial regeneration of the existing ROW on the west side. In addition to the widening of the existing ROW, a new access trail is necessary to provide operations and maintenance crews with year-round access. Smaller distribution lines are present near Wasagaming and Clear Lake that supply power to the town and cottage/cabin developments.

322

5.4 Archaeology

From 1971 to 1973, archaeological investigations were conducted within the park, with artifacts discovered in the area dating back to the 17th and 18th centuries. Any disturbance to park terrain should be done with care as pre-historic artifacts may be present (Briscoe et al., 1979).

5.5 Recreational Use Areas

Riding Mountain National Park is largely a tourist destination, with Wasagaming (the main town site) located in the southern portion of the park. Most visitors use one of three main entrances; two are located at the north (Moon Lake) and south (Wasagaming) entry points on PTH 10, while the third is on the east side, on PTH 19, (Whirlpool). There are 23 access points to the park, many of which lead to backcountry trails.

The park offers a wide variety of outdoor activities for both summer and winter seasons including camping, hiking, cycling, canoeing/kayaking, fishing, golfing, scuba diving, wildlife viewing, backpacking, skiing, and snowmobiling, among others. The park has approximately 400 km of trails (Parks Canada and FRMNP, 2008), five road accessible campgrounds, 19 backcountry campsites, three group camping sites, and 16 picnic areas. Motorized boats are permitted on three lakes, Lake Audy, Clear Lake, and Moon Lake, while non-motorized boats are permitted on Lake Katherine and Whirlpool Lake, as well as all backcountry lakes. Snowmobiling is limited to the surface of Clear Lake and groomed trails along the park boundary, which are maintained by Snoman (Parks Canada, 2012).

6.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

A list of all observed (animal observations or signs of their activity) and/or audio identification of wildlife within the LSA including the three access route options can be found in Appendix F. An assessment of the existing wildlife and wildlife habitat will be used to assess the potential effects of access development and the widening of the transmission line ROW, and provide data for any future monitoring activities.

6.1 Mammals

To evaluate the potential effects of the proposed widening of the existing transmission line ROW and the newly proposed access trail route alternatives, mammal surveys were conducted from June 17 - 21, 2013 in the LSA. Mammal, bird, and amphibian and reptile surveys were based on the terrestrial visual encounter surveys passive sampling technique recommended for the detection of multiple species (USDA, 2006).

323

Prior to field work, an assessment of the current and historical wildlife survey data, specifically elk and moose distribution surveys, was conducted within the RSA as a key component to planning field strategies and assessing the effects of the Project on local and regional wildlife populations.

6.1.1 Scat and Track Inventories

6.1.1.1 Methods

Scat and track inventories were conducted along the three proposed access trail options and in sections that were walked by Joro biologists along the existing ROW. Two to three Joro wildlife biologists identified and recorded all mammal scat and tracks observed. With the exception of a deep gorge near the north portion of the ROW that was inaccessible, the entire ROW was assessed by Joro biologists. Portions of the existing ROW were assessed by biologists with an Argo (20.9 km), while selected sections (5.1 km total) of the ROW were assessed by biologists using pedestrian surveys (on-foot surveys). The entire length of the three proposed access routes was assessed by ground pedestrian surveys. Pedestrian survey sites were chosen based on their vegetation composition being consistent and representative of other portions of the existing ROW and/or those representing Manitoba Hydro's Environmentally Sensitive Sites. All tracks and signs of mammal presence (scrapes, rubs, tooth markings, tracks, bedding, and browse activity) were recorded and way-pointed, and notable observations were photographed. All incidental observations of wildlife or signs of activity were recorded on a handheld Garmin GPSMap 76CSX unit and a detailed description written on field data sheets.

6.1.1.2 Results

Scat and track inventories were conducted along the ROW on foot or by Argo and along the three potential access routes on foot between June 17 - 21, 2013. Part of the ROW and the Jackfish Creek trail route were examined on June 17, 2013, between 13h00 and 18h30. Part of the ROW and the Moon Lake access route southern option were examined on June 18, 2013, between 10h00 and 20h00. Part of the ROW and the Moon Lake access route northern option were examined on June 19, 2013, between 10h30 and 17h30. Portions of the ROW were examined on June 20, 2013, between 10h00 and 20h00. The southern section of the ROW (south of Lake Audy Road) was examined June 21, 2013, between 9h30 and 13h30. The average temperature recorded for Wasagaming for June 17 - 21, 2013 was 16.2°C, with clear skies and low wind conditions (0 - 39 km/hr) (Government of Canada, 2013).

There were numerous mammal scat, tracks, and signs observed along the potential access routes as well as along the existing ROW (Table 2; Photo 1; Maps 10-13). The most common observations along the two proposed Moon Lake access routes were moose scat, elk scat, and small mammal dens (Maps 11 and 12). The length of the Jackfish Creek access route is significantly shorter through the mixed woods forest;

324

therefore, fewer overall observations of mammals scat, tracks, and signs of presence were recorded. However, the habitat quality is high along the Jackfish Creek trail route (Map 13). The observations made along the ROW were recorded during both the Argo and the pedestrian survey. The most intensive observations were recorded during the pedestrian surveys; therefore, the observation quantities cannot be directly compared.

Table 2: Observations of Mammal Scat, Tracks, and Signs within the Local Study Area

Moon Lake Access Moon Lake Jackfish Creek Existing Observation Route Northern Access Route Access Route * ROW Option Southern Option Option

Bear Activity 7 0 0 0 Bear Scat 4 4 1 5

Bear Sighting 1 1 0 1 Bear Track 2 0 0 3

Beaver Activity 2 2 0 4 Beaver Skull 1 0 0 0

Bedding 4 3 0 0 Browsing 1 0 0 8

Deer Scat 1 1 5 0 Deer Sighting 0 0 0 3

Deer Track 2 8 7 3 Elk Scat 12 10 0 0

Elk Sighting 0 1 0 0 Elk Track 1 0 0 1

Fox Carcass 0 0 0 1 Furbearer Scat 1 1 2 3

Furbearer Track 1 0 0 0 Moose Scat 31 42 13 13

Moose Shed 0 1 0 3 Moose Track 5 8 2 11

Porcupine Gnawing 0 0 1 0 Tree Scraping 1 0 1 1

Wolf Scat 0 0 0 3 Wolf Track 1 0 0 1 * Of the over 26 km of the ROW that was accessible by Argo, 15% of this ROW section was surveyed by Joro wildlife biologists on-foot as a representative sample of the entire ROW. The entire length of the three proposed access routes was surveyed by foot by Joro wildlife biologists.

325

A B

C D

6.1.2 Denning Inventories

6.1.2.1 Methods

Denning inventories were conducted along the existing ROW and the three proposed access routes. The locations of all large and small mammal dens were recorded during pedestrian surveys using handheld Garmin GPSMap 76CSX units. In addition to the den locations, any mammal activity near the dens was also recorded on handheld Garmin GPSMap 76CSX units and on field data sheets.

6.1.2.2 Results

Denning inventories were conducted along the ROW on foot or by Argo and along the three potential access routes on foot between June 17 - 21, 2013. Part of the ROW and the Jackfish Creek trail route were examined on June 17, 2013, between 13h00 and 18h30. Part of the ROW and the Moon Lake access route southern option were examined on June 18, 2013, between 10h00 and 20h00. Part of the ROW and the Moon Lake access route northern option were examined on June 19, 2013, between 10h30 and 17h30. Portions of the ROW were examined on June 20, 2013, between 10h00 and 20h00. The southern section of the ROW (south of Lake Audy Road) was examined June 21, 2013, between 9h30 and 13h30. The

326

average temperature recorded for Wasagaming for June 17 - 21, 2013 was 16.2°C, with clear skies and low wind conditions (0 - 39 km/hr) (Government of Canada, 2013).

There were several observations of dens, burrows, or nesting cavities throughout the LSA (Table 3; Photo

2 and Photo 3; Maps 10-13). Two of the dens found along the Jackfish Creek access route were large and were most likely coyote or fox (Map 13). A majority of the burrows and dens were located at the base of coniferous trees. There were no live mammals observed to be using these burrows and dens, but signs of their use were obvious with scat and food remnants located near the den openings.

Table 3: Observations of Denning in the Local Study Area

Moon Lake Access Moon Lake Jackfish Creek Existing Observation Route Access Route Access Route * ROW Northern Option Southern Option Option Furbearer or Small 28 12 3 4 Mammal Den/Burrow * Of the over 26 km of the ROW that was accessible by Argo, 6% of this ROW section was surveyed by Joro wildlife biologists on-foot as a representative sample of the entire ROW. The entire length of the three proposed access routes was surveyed by foot by Joro wildlife biologists.

Photo 2: Example of large mammal den located along Jackfish access route option (50.81262, -100.10851).

327

Photo 3: Example of small mammal den located along the transmission line ROW (50.83183, -100.11348).

6.2 Birds

The LSA was surveyed from June 17 - 21, 2013 for the presence of bird species, with a focus on species of conservation concern. Bird species listed under MESA, SARA, and COSEWIC that occur in the LSA include the Canada warbler, common nighthawk, golden-winged warbler, olive-sided flycatcher, short- eared owl, whip-poor-will, and yellow rail. Other important avian VECs that were investigated during field investigations include birds of cultural and ecological significance such as bald eagles, great blue herons, and osprey. Bird surveys included waterbird survey, nest searches, heron rookery searches, nocturnal owl surveys, and songbird point count surveys within Manitoba Hydro's Environmental Sensitive Sites (most often large wetlands) and habitat transitional zones (transition zones between two or more habitat types such as wetland to upland).

6.2.1 Songbird Point Count Survey

6.2.1.1 Methods

Point count surveys provide an idea of songbird presence and their relative habitat use (Ralph et al.,

1993), including bird species of conservation concern such as the golden-winged warbler. Joro biologists worked side-by-side with the vegetation specialist from Dillon Consulting who conducted a detailed habitat assessment of the existing ROW, each new access route option, and the water and wetland areas. Joro biologists conducted coarse scale habitat descriptions at each point count survey site to facilitate bird/habitat association analysis. Methods for breeding bird surveys were consistent with breeding bird

328

inventory procedures using a Point Count Method (Ralph et al., 1993; Welsh, 1995). Surveys were conducted during periods of little wind on a warm morning, early afternoon, or evening.

Point Count survey sites were located at selected sites along the V38R/Line 81 transmission line ROW. Survey sites were selected based on the orthoimagery and LCC layer and were chosen at habitat transition areas and pre-determined sensitive sites as described above. Each site was separated at more than 200 m to reduce overlap of bird calls between sites. UTM coordinates were recorded using handheld Garmin GPSMap 76CSX units at each survey site. After approximately a 1 minute calming period, biologists recorded all birds heard and observed within an approximate 75 m radius at each survey plot center during a 10 minute period. Other birds observed flying overhead or heard in the distance were also recorded. Binoculars were used to help identify birds visually whenever required (Photo 4). The total numbers and species of birds were recorded as well as all other observations of nests, tree cavities, and wildlife signs near or at the survey site. Bird species were identified using standardized visual and song recognition protocols used in North American breeding bird surveys. Audio/video recordings of the bird songs and surrounding habitat were conducted to facilitate verification of bird species identified.

Photo 4: Joro biologist performing point count survey along transmission line ROW (50.72031, -100.11349).

6.2.1.2 Results

Songbird point count surveys were conducted along the ROW coinciding with other surveys on June 17 -

21, 2013 between 9h30 and 16h30. Surveyors either arrived at the point count site on foot or by Argo, and a few minutes were used as a calming period. Further, point count surveys were also conducted at the

329

intersection of the ROW with the Lake Audy Road on June 18 and 19, 2013 between 6h00 and 7h00. On June 20, 2013, a point count survey was conducted at the MTS tower along the Moon Lake Access road between 6h00 and 7h00. The average temperature recorded for Wasagaming for June 17 - 21, 2013 was 16.2°C, with clear skies and low wind conditions (0 - 39 km/hr) (Government of Canada, 2013).

A total of 16 point count surveys were conducted along the V38R/Line 81 transmission line ROW and one point count survey was conducted along the Jackfish Creek access route option (Map 14). The most common species heard were the alder flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), American robin (Turdus migratorius), ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), and white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis) (Table 4; Photo 5). The avian species heard and observed are common to RMNP and there were no species of conservation concern or Project VECs heard or seen during the point count surveys.

Table 4: List of Bird Species Observed or Heard During Point Count Surveys

Point Number of Latitude Longitude Common Name Scientific Name count Individuals

Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus 1

1 50.7896 -100.1000 Alder flycatcher Empidonax alnorum 1

White-throated Zonotrichia 3+ sparrow albicollis White-throated Zonotrichia 2 50.8135 -100.1090 3+ sparrow albicollis

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla 2 3 50.8330 -100.1135 White-throated Zonotrichia 3 sparrow albicollis

Zonotrichia White-throated 3+ 4 50.8783 -100.1135 albicollis sparrow White-throated Zonotrichia 5 50.9203 -100.1135 2 sparrow albicollis

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla 2 White-throated Zonotrichia 6 50.9041 -100.1133 1 sparrow albicollis

Alder flycatcher Empidonax alnorum 2 Red-winged Agelaius 1 blackbird phoeniceus

330 Wilson's snipe Gallinago delicata 1

Alder flycatcher Empidonax alnorum 3 7 50.9324 -100.1134 Northern flicker Colaptes auratus 2 Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla 2 Corvus American crow 3+ brachyrhynchos White-throated Zonotrichia 2

331

Table 4: List of Bird Species Observed or Heard During Point Count Surveys

Point Number of Latitude Longitude Common Name Scientific Name count Individuals sparrow albicollis

American robin Turdus migratorius 1 Bombycilla Cedar waxwing 1 cedrorum Black-and-white Mniotilta varia 1 warbler White-throated Zonotrichia 2 sparrow albicollis

Alder flycatcher Empidonax alnorum 1

American robin Turdus migratorius 1 8 50.9445 -100.1134 Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina 1 Sparrow spp. Unk. 1 Pipilo Eastern towhee 1 erythrophthalmus Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla 1 Warbler spp. Unk. 1 Eastern phoebe Sayornis phoebe 1 White-throated Zonotrichia 1 sparrow albicollis

Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus 1 9 50.7945 -100.1000 Great blue heron Ardea herodias 1 American robin Turdus migratorius 1 Corvus American crow 2 brachyrhynchos Pileated Dryocopos pileatus 1 woodpecker Veery Catharus fuscescens 1 White-throated Zonotrichia 1 10 50.8115 -100.1021 sparrow albicollis

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 1

Common tern Sterna hirundo 5 Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla 2

Perisoreus Gray jay 1 canadensis 11 50.7720 -100.1133 Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata 3

Great grey owl Strix nebulosa 1 Woodpecker Unk. 1 drumming Green-winged teal Anas crecca 1

12 50.7524 -100.1135 Greater scaup Aythya marila 3

332 Common Mergus merganser merganser 1

333

Table 4: List of Bird Species Observed or Heard During Point Count Surveys

Point Number of Latitude Longitude Common Name Scientific Name count Individuals

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 1 American wigeon Anas americana 2

Red-winged Agelaius 3+ blackbird phoeniceus Canada goose Branta canadensis 1

White-throated Zonotrichia 3+ sparrow albicollis Bombycilla Cedar waxwing 2 cedrorum

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 1 Veery Catharus fuscescens 2

Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus 1 Bank swallow Riparia riparia 1

Oreothlypis Nashville warbler 2 ruficapilla Brown-headed Molothrus ater 1 cowbird Wilson's snipe Gallinago delicata 1 Cistothorus Marsh wren 2+ palustris Alder flycatcher Empidonax alnorum 1 White-throated Zonotrichia 3+ sparrow albicollis

13 50.7394 -100.1136 Rose-breasted Pheucticus 2 grosbeak ludovicianus

Bombycilla Cedar waxwing 2 cedrorum White-throated Zonotrichia 3+ sparrow albicollis Red-winged Agelaius 14 50.7203 -100.1135 1 blackbird phoeniceus Woodpecker Unk. 1 drumming

White-throated Zonotrichia 2 sparrow albicollis

15 50.7786 -100.1078 American redstart Setophaga ruticilla 1 Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus 1 Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia 1 White-throated Zonotrichia 1 sparrow albicollis

334 16 50.8969 -100.0547 Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata 1

Corvus American crow 2 brachyrhynchos

335

Table 4: List of Bird Species Observed or Heard During Point Count Surveys

Point Number of Latitude Longitude Common Name Scientific Name count Individuals

Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus 1

Photo 5: Rose-breasted grosbeak observed at a point count site along the existing transmission line ROW (50.73938, -100.11355).

6.2.2 Nest Searches

6.2.2.1 Methods

All three potential access routes were surveyed for the presence of raptor and songbird nests, during both the pedestrian and Argo based surveys. Special attention was focused on the east side of the existing ROW slated to be cleared. Observations of active large stick nests, small bird nests, tree snags, and heron rookeries were way-pointed and recorded on field data sheets.

6.2.2.2 Results

Nest searches were conducted along the ROW on foot or by Argo and along the three potential access routes on foot between June 17 - 21, 2013. Part of the ROW and the Jackfish Creek trail route were examined on June 17, 2013, between 13h00 and 18h30. Part of the ROW and the Moon Lake access route southern option were examined on June 18, 2013, between 10h00 and 20h00. Part of the ROW and the Moon Lake access route northern option were examined on June 19, 2013, between 10h30 and 17h30.

336

Portions of the ROW were examined on June 20, 2013, between 10h00 and 20h00. The southern section of the ROW (south of Lake Audy Road) was examined June 21, 2013, between 9h30 and 13h30. The average temperature recorded for Wasagaming for June 17 - 21, 2013 was 16.2°C, with clear skies and low wind conditions (0 - 39 km/hr) (Government of Canada, 2013).

There were several trees with nesting cavities observed within the LSA (Table 5; Photo 6; Maps 15-18). Many of these nesting cavity trees were recorded along the existing ROW during both the Argo and pedestrian based surveys (Map 15). Given the age and composition of the older mixed woods, the observations of tree cavity nesting were not surprising along the existing ROW. There were also a number of snags with burrows along each of the Moon Lake access route options (Maps 16 and 17). There were three cavity trees with signs of pileated woodpecker activity. There were no large stick nests, small bird nests, or heron rookeries observed during the pedestrian or Argo based surveys.

Table 5: List of Cavity Trees Observed During Nest Searches

Moon Lake Access Moon Lake Jackfish Creek Existing Observation Route Access Route Access Route ROW Northern Option Southern Option Option

Nesting Activity Snags 17 17 10 48

Photo 6: Example of tree snag with potential nesting activity (50.82706, -100.11290).

337

6.2.3 Waterbird Survey

6.2.3.1 Methods

Waterbird and waterfowl surveys were conducted in association with pedestrian surveys and songbird point count surveys along the V38R/Line 81 transmission line ROW. Additional time was spent at wetlands, riparian habitats, and beaver floods to identify the presence of all waterbirds or waterfowl residing within these wet habitats. All observations were way-pointed by handheld Garmin GPSMap 76CSX units and recorded on field data sheets.

6.2.3.2 Results

Waterbird surveys were conducted along the ROW on foot or by Argo and along the three potential access routes on foot between June 17 - 21, 2013. Part of the ROW and the Jackfish Creek trail route were examined on June 17, 2013, between 13h00 and 18h30. Part of the ROW and the Moon Lake access route southern option were examined on June 18, 2013, between 10h00 and 20h00. Part of the ROW and the Moon Lake access route northern option were examined on June 19, 2013, between 10h30 and 17h30. Portions of the ROW were examined on June 20, 2013, between 10h00 and 20h00. The southern section of the ROW (south of Lake Audy Road) was examined June 21, 2013, between 9h30 and 13h30. The average temperature recorded for Wasagaming for June 17 - 21, 2013 was 16.2°C, with clear skies and low wind conditions (0 - 39 km/hr) (Government of Canada, 2013).

There were several small creeks, low-lying wetlands, and beaver floods within each of the potential access routes and along the transmission line ROW. The most common waterfowl and waterbird species that were observed within the LSA were mallard ducks (Anas platyrhynchos), marsh wrens (Cistothorus palustris), Wilson's snipe (Gallinago delicata), and red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) (Table 6; Maps 15-18).

Table 6: List of Waterbirds and Waterfowl Observed During Waterbird Surveys (in Association with Point Count and Pedestrian Surveys)

Common Name Scientific Name American wigeon Anas americana Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Canada goose Branta canadensis Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Common merganser Mergus merganser Great blue heron Ardea herodias Greater scaup Aythya marila Green-winged teal Anas carolinensis Mallard Anas platyrhynchos

338

Common Name Scientific Name Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Wilson's snipe Gallinago delicata

6.2.4 Nocturnal Bird Surveys

6.2.4.1 Methods

Due to the limited access and the safety issues associated with this Project, the nocturnal bird surveys were limited to a late evening survey at Jackfish Creek and night time surveys along the PTH 10 at the entry points of the two potential Moon Lake access routes. Target species included American woodcock (Scolopax minor), common nighthawk, whip-poor-will, and all owl species. All bird species observed or heard, including incidental bird or wildlife observations, were way-pointed with handheld Garmin GPSMap 76CSX units and recorded on field data sheets. All incidental observations made during nocturnal and daytime bird surveys were recorded.

6.2.4.2 Results

Nocturnal bird surveys were conducted along the ROW and at the Moon Lake access trail on HWY 10 in the evenings of June 19 and 20, 2013 before and after sunset. The average temperature recorded for Wasagaming for June 17 - 21, 2013 was 16.2°C, with clear skies and low wind conditions (0 - 39 km/hr) (Government of Canada, 2013).

All species heard and observed during the late evening bird point count surveys are listed in Table 4 under

Point Count Sites 9 and 10.

6.3 Amphibians and Reptiles

6.3.1 Methods

All observations of amphibians and reptiles such as snakes and/or their denning sites were way-pointed using handheld Garmin GPSMap 76CSX units during the denning inventory surveys described in Section 6.1.2, and during daytime bird surveys described in Section 6.2.1 to 6.2.3.

6.3.2 Results

Amphibian and reptile surveys were conducted along the ROW on foot or by Argo and along the three potential access routes on foot between June 17 - 21, 2013. Part of the ROW and the Jackfish Creek trail route were examined on June 17, 2013, between 13h00 and 18h30. Part of the ROW and the Moon Lake access route southern option were examined on June 18, 2013, between 10h00 and 20h00. Part of the

339

ROW and the Moon Lake access route northern option were examined on June 19, 2013, between 10h30 and 17h30. Portions of the ROW were examined on June 20, 2013, between 10h00 and 20h00. The southern section of the ROW (south of Lake Audy Road) was examined June 21, 2013, between 9h30 and 13h30. The average temperature recorded for Wasagaming for June 17 - 21, 2013 was 16.2°C, with clear skies and low wind conditions (0 - 39 km/hr) (Government of Canada, 2013).

All amphibian or reptile species heard and observed during the denning inventories or bird surveys are listed in Table 7. The only amphibian species observed during all surveys within the LSA were wood frogs, which were observed visually and heard in each of the three access route options and along the V38R/Line 81 ROW. There was one observation of a red-sided garter snake or western plains garter snake during the V38R/Line 81 ROW survey (Table 3). However, there were no observations of snake dens.

Table 7: Observations of Amphibians and Reptiles in the Local Study Area

Moon Lake Access Moon Lake Jackfish Creek Existing Observation Route Access Route Access Route ROW Northern Option Southern Option Option

Wood frogs* numerous numerous numerous numerous

Red-sided Garter Snake/ Western Plains Garter 0 0 0 1 Snake

* Wood frogs were observed in all parts of the LSA and were too common to count

6.4 Habitat Delineation and Vegetation Mapping

6.4.1 Methods

The habitat along the existing transmission line ROW was delineated using a combination of methods including field notes taken during wildlife surveys related to habitat or landforms, high resolution (20 cm) orthoimagery that helped verify the field notes, GPS video along the V38R/Line 81 transmission line ROW (captured using a Sony Handycam with GPS capability), and the habitat characterization and vegetation typing completed by the vegetation specialist from Dillon Consulting. Utilizing all of these sources of information, a map series of the entire length of the existing the transmission line ROW was developed that delineated the habitat, characterized the vegetation and identified all wetland and water crossings.

340

6.4.2 Results

The habitat delineation along the existing transmission line ROW indicates a variety of vegetation cover and habitat types (Map 19 Series). These habitat types were divided into a series of categories based on the type and height of the vegetation present. Table 8 summarizes the results of the habitat delineation and vegetation mapping and provides a list of the habitat categories, a description for each habitat category, the area (m2) of each habitat category and the Map number of the habitat category in the Map 19 Series. The IVMP being developed for the Project will include the information in Table 8, along with an assessment of the level of risk to the habitat category and a prescribed vegetation management action. Additional information on the habitat delineation, vegetation mapping map and IVMP can be found in the “Riding Mountain National Park V38R / Line 81: Environmental Impact Analysis – Vegetation Technical Report” (Dillon Consulting Inc. 2013).

Table 8: Habitat Characterization Along the V38R/Line 81 Transmission Line Right-Of-Way

Category Habitat Description Area (m2) Map BF1 Beaver Flood - Graminoid Cover and No Shrubs 3,167.08 19-300,400 BF2 Beaver Flood - Graminoid Cover with Few Low Shrubs 7,104.79 19-900 BF3 Beaver Flood - Graminoid Cover with Few Low Shrubs 9,455.14 19-800,900 BF4 Beaver Flood - Mainly Graminoids and No Shrubs 3,812.47 19-100 BF5 Beaver Flood - Mainly Graminoid Cover 4,207.84 19-300 C1 Creek 201.10 19-700 C2 Creek 198.29 19-700 C3 Creek 297.04 19-600 C4 Creek 2,649.99 19-200 C5 Creek 1,478.82 19-100 C6 Creek 501.22 19-100 C7 Creek - Few Medium Shrubs Along Banks 168.57 19-700 C8 Creek - Gorge with Steep Banks: Tall Shrubs/Trees 2,371.40 19-200, 300 C9 Creek - Gorge with Steep Banks: Tall Shrubs/Trees 3,970.42 19-200 C10 Creek - Graminoid Cover with Shrubs Along Banks 2,341.68 19-300 C11 Creek - Graminoids Along Banks, No Shrubs 315.77 19-500 C12 Creek - Mainly Graminoids Along Banks, No Shrubs 1,099.44 19-400 C13 Creek - Mainly Graminoids with Willows Along Bank 2,121.56 19-500 C14 Creek - Tall Riparian Shrub Layer (>2.5m) 2,909.95 19-400 C15 Creek - Tall Riparian Shrub Layer (>2.5m) 1,472.11 19-400 G1 Gorge- Unclassified 19-200, 300 V1 Dense Low Shrub Layer (<1.5m) 9,584.42 19-800,900 V2 Dense Low Shrub Layer (<1.5m) 27,232.49 19-700,800 V3 Dense Low Shrub Layer (<1.5m) 36,771.36 19-700,800 V4 Dense Low Shrub Layer (<1.5m) 9,042.06 19-800,900

341

Category Habitat Description Area (m2) Map V5 Dense Low Shrub Layer (<1.5m) 12,942.79 19-800,900 V6 Dense Medium Shrub Layer (1.5m-2.5m) 68,668.84 19-800 V7 Dense Medium Shrub Layer (1.5m-2.5m) 31,772.05 19-900 V8 Dense Medium Shrub Layer (1.5m-2.5m) 7,117.51 19-400 V9 Dense Medium Shrub Layer (1.5m-2.5m) 17,213.05 19-300 V10 Dense Medium Shrub Layer (1.5m-2.5m) 6,167.87 19-300 V11 Dense Medium Shrub Layer (1.5m-2.5m) 44,787.53 19-200,300 V12 Dense Medium Shrub Layer (1.5m-2.5m) 45,004.04 19-900 V13 Dense Tall Shrub Layer (>2.5m) 44,193.29 19-400 V14 Herbaceous Cover and Sparse Med. Shrubs (1.5-2.5m) 51,729.22 19-400 V15 Herbaceous Cover and Sparse Med. Shrubs (1.5-2.5m) 27,805.23 19-300 V16 Herbaceous Cover and Sparse Med. Shrubs (1.5-2.5m) 10,568.85 19-600 V17 Herbaceous Cover with Sparse High Shrubs (>2.5m) 13,952.25 19-400 V18 Herbaceous Cover with Sparse Low Shrubs (<1.5m) 35,894.44 19-700 V19 Herbaceous Cover with Sparse Low Shrubs (<1.5m) 3,983.27 19-700 V20 Herbaceous Cover with Sparse Low Shrubs (<1.5m) 3,599.28 19-700 V21 Herbaceous Cover with Sparse Low Shrubs (<1.5m) 13,255.84 19-700 V22 Herbaceous Cover with Sparse Low Shrubs (<1.5m) 30,573.24 19-700 V23 Herbaceous Cover with Sparse Low Shrubs (<1.5m) 54,384.22 19-600 V24 Herbaceous Cover with Sparse Low Shrubs (<1.5m) 13,294.45 19-600 V25 Herbaceous Cover with Sparse Low Shrubs (<1.5m) 6,044.47 19-400 V26 Herbaceous Cover with Sparse Low Shrubs (<1.5m) 17,329.00 19-300,400 V27 Herbaceous Cover with Sparse Low Shrubs (<1.5m) 29,341.69 19-300 V28 Herbaceous Cover with Sparse Low Shrubs (<1.5m) 16,776.40 19-600 V29 Herbaceous Cover with Sparse Low Shrubs (<1.5m) 14,048.90 19-600,700 V30 Herbaceous Cover with Sparse Low Shrubs (<1.5m) 1,994.27 19-600,700 V31 Herbaceous Cover with Sparse Small Shrubs (<1.5m) 3,814.81 19-300 V32 Herbaceous Cover with Sparse Tall Shrubs (>2.5 m) 3,614.89 19-600 V33 Herbaceous Cover with Sparse Tall Shrubs (>2.5m) 64,059.27 19-500,600 V34 Herbaceous Cover with Sparse Tall Shrubs (>2.5m) 11,890.42 19-500 V35 Herbaceous Cover with Sparse Tall Shrubs (>2.5m) 44,354.55 19-500 V36 Herbaceous Cover with Sparse Tall Shrubs (>2.5m) 8,481.65 19-500 V37 Herbaceous Cover with Sparse Tall Shrubs (>2.5m) 46,615.14 19-400,500 V38 Herbaceous Cover with Sparse Tall Shrubs (>2.5m) 37,668.22 19-500 V39 Open Meadow with Herbaceous Cover and No Shrubs 8,010.53 19-700 V40 Projected - Dense Med. to Tall Shrub layer (>1.5m) 201,769.06 19-100,200 V41 Projected - Dense Med. to Tall Shrub layer (>1.5m) 42,156.64 19-100 V42 Projected - Dense Med. to Tall Shrub layer (>1.5m) 8,896.56 19-100 V43 Projected - Dense Med. to Tall Shrub layer (>1.5m) 13,192.78 19-100 V44 Projected - Dense Med. to Tall Shrub layer (>1.5m) 104,694.80 19-100 V45 Steep Grade with Dense High Shrub Layer (> 2.5 m) 17,534.77 19-900 W1 Fen - Graminoid Cover with Few Low Shrubs 735.33 19-700

342

Category Habitat Description Area (m2) Map W2 Fen - Graminoid Cover with Few Low Shrubs 1,072.68 19-700 W3 Fen - Graminoid Cover with Few Low Shrubs 1,167.44 19-700 W4 Fen - Graminoid Cover with Few Low Shrubs 1,681.01 19-700 W5 Jackfish Creek Floodplain - Mainly Graminoids 5,008.72 19-600,700 W6 Jackfish Creek Floodplain - Mainly Graminoids 7,840.78 19-600 W7 Small Pond - Graminoid Cover with Few Low Shrubs 257.47 19-800 W8 Small Pond - Graminoid Cover with Few Low Shrubs 2,541.44 19-800 W9 Small Pond - Mainly Graminoid Cover and No Shrubs 2,513.81 19-600 W10 Small Pond with Graminoid Cover 1,087.26 19-700,800 W11 Small Pond with Graminoid Cover 461.11 19-700 W12 Small Pond with Graminoid Cover 670.83 19-700 W13 Wet Area - Graminoid Cover with Few Low Shrubs 8,516.69 19-700 W14 Wet Area - Graminoid Cover with Few Low Shrubs 9,168.26 19-800,900 W15 Wet Area - Graminoid Cover with Few Low Shrubs 17,103.81 19-800,900 W16 Wet Area - Mainly Graminoid Cover and No Shrubs 1,625.90 19-600,700 W17 Wet Area - Mainly Graminoid Cover and No Shrubs 4,396.77 19-600,700 W18 Wet Meadow with Graminoids and Few Medium Shrubs 33,299.74 19-300 W19 Wetland- Graminoid Cover with Few Low Shrubs 4,405.89 19-800 W20 Wetland - Edge of Black Spruce Bog 1,210.19 19-300 W21 Wetland - Graminoid Cover with Few Low Shrubs 1,422.06 19-700,800 W22 Wetland - Graminoid Cover with Few Low Shrubs 17,607.28 19-600 W23 Wetland - Graminoids with Sparse Medium Shrubs 4,119.28 19-300 W24 Wetland - Mainly Graminoid Cover 1,426.67 19-100 W25 Wetland - Mainly Graminoid Cover 1,515.46 19-100 W26 Wetland - Mainly Graminoid Cover and No Shrubs 767.21 19-700 W27 Wetland - Mainly Graminoid Cover and No Shrubs 954.99 19-700 W28 Wetland - Mainly Graminoid Cover and No Shrubs 918.52 19-700 W29 Wetland - Mainly Graminoid Cover and No Shrubs 673.51 19-600 W30 Wetland - Mainly Graminoid Cover and No Shrubs 445.87 19-600 W31 Wetland - Mainly Graminoid Cover and No Shrubs 1,000.72 19-500 W32 Wetland - Mainly Graminoid Cover and No Shrubs 1,915.43 19-500 W33 Wetland - Mainly Graminoid Cover and No Shrubs 3,274.42 19-500 W34 Wetland - Mainly Graminoid Cover and No Shrubs 907.11 19-500 W35 Wetland - Mainly Graminoid Cover and No Shrubs 555.58 19-500 W36 Wetland - Mainly Graminoid Cover and No Shrubs 2,594.58 19-400 W37 Wetland - Mainly Graminoid Cover and No Shrubs 1,811.41 19-400 W38 Wetland - Mainly Graminoid Cover and No Shrubs 1,611.55 19-400 W39 Wetland - Mainly Graminoid Cover and No Shrubs 2,774.74 19-300,400 W40 Wetland - Mainly Graminoid Cover and No Shrubs 8,765.17 19-300 W41 Wetland - Mainly Graminoid Cover and No Shrubs 1,325.28 19-300 W42 Wetland - Mainly Graminoids with Shrubs Along Edge 1,631.09 19-500

343

6.5 Access Route Habitat Comparisons

6.5.1 Methods

The access trail for Manitoba Hydro’s operations and maintenance of the transmission line ROW needs to be approximately 8 m in width to accommodate the required machinery. As such, the habitat of each access route option was assessed to a width of 12 m to account for the 8 m width of the ROW and allow for a 2 m buffer zone on either side of the trail. The length and area of the route intersecting LCC cover types was calculated. The percentage of area of cover type that the access route traverses was determined based on the overall area of that cover type in the LSA.

6.5.2 Results

All three access route options traversed more mixedwood dense forest than any other cover type and also crossed through large areas of mixedwood open forests (Table 9). The southern Moon Lake access route crossed through more broadleaf dense than the other access route options. Of importance to note is the LCC cover type layer is coarse-scale.

344 DRAFT- RMNP V38R/Line 81- Wildlife Technical Report November 2013

Table 9: Summary of the Length and Area of the Three Potential Access Route Options Crossing Each LCC Cover Type Within the 8 m ROW and 2 m Buffer (12 m Width)

Moon Lake Access Route Moon Lake Access Route Jackfish Creek Access

Covertype Northern Option Southern Option Route Option Length (m) Area (m2) % of LSA Length (m) Area (m2) % of LSA Length (m) Area (m2) % of LSA Mixedwood Dense 4,412.26 105,748.18 0.067 3,484.59 83,581.02 0.053 1,493.38 35,841.66 0.023 Mixedwood Open 526.29 12,597.71 0.050 672.73 16,345.16 0.064 281.40 6,673.07 0.026 Wetland Treed 126.23 3,028.57 0.058 152.59 3,644.48 0.070 0.00 0.00 0.000 Herb 65.59 1,771.64 0.213 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 Broadleaf Open 55.71 1,562.50 0.003 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 Coniferous Open 50.59 1,212.07 0.012 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 Grassland 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 39.79 0.003 2.76 292.05 0.023 Wetland Shrub 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 176.12 4,511.34 0.015 Broadleaf Dense 0.00 158.16 0.001 728.90 17,705.65 0.090 0.00 0.00 0.000 * * * Total 5,236.67 126,078.82 0.037 5,038.81 121,316.11 0.039 1,953.66 47,318.11 0.015 * Total % of LSA will not equal the sum of lines above given the above list of cover types is not comprehensive and the LSA has additional covertypes not crossed along the three potential access routes.

345 33

The comparison between the three access routes indicated that all three routes had sufficient quality habitat and use for a variety of wildlife species. The northern and southern Moon Lake access route options were very similar in terms of vegetation cover, habitat types, and wildlife composition. The Moon Lake access routes traverse thick understory with several areas of low lying wetlands and beaver floods. The Jackfish Creek route traverses older growth forest with little understory and fewer signs of wildlife presence; however, the overall quality of the Jackfish Creek access route is high, including a large wetland site. Additionally, the Jackfish Creek route would likely require the development of a series of bridges to cross several deep creek banks along the existing ROW.

6.6 Water Crossings

6.6.1 Methods

During the wildlife surveys along the existing V38R/Line 81 transmission line ROW and the three potential access route options, all waterbodies traversed that contained flowing water were way-pointed and photos taken of the surrounding habitat, with basic aquatic information collected. This information included width and depth of the stream/creek, flow, substrate base, and surrounding vegetation. Biologists stopped at each of these sites, assessed the surrounding habitat, and conducted randomized searches for signs and observations of wildlife activity. Orthoimagery (20 cm) was used to identify areas of beaver flooding, wetlands, or stream crossings along the transmission line ROW, portions of the existing Moon Lake access trail, the Moon Lake Access Trail Southern Option, and the Jackfish Creek Access Trail Option. In areas not covered by the 20 cm orthoimagery, such as the Moon Lake Access Trail Northern Option and portions of the existing Moon Lake access trail, 62.5 cm orthoimagery was used to identify these same types of landscapes.

6.6.2 Results

There were many low-lying wet areas along each of the existing ROW, the Moon Lake Access Trail Northern and Southern Options, and the existing Moon Lake access route. The Jackfish Creek access route was the driest of all of the access route options with the exception of Jackfish Creek. There were seven medium to large-sized creeks/streams that crossed along the existing transmission line ROW (Photo 7; Map 20); one creek that crossed along the northern option of the Moon Lake access route (Map 21), and one creek that crossed the Jackfish access route (Map 22; Table 10). In general, all flowing creeks crossed were between 0.2 - 1 m deep, 0.6 - 3 m wide, had sand to cobble substrates, and a riparian zone of grasses, sedges, and alder. There was one substantial beaver flood located on each of the potential Moon Lake Access Trail Options and four major beaver floods encountered along the existing transmission line ROW (Table 10; Maps 21 and 22). There were several wet areas classified as ponds or water holes,

346

wetlands, or black spruce bogs along each of the access trail options and existing ROW; however, none were substantial in depth or width and were easy to traverse. Along the existing Moon Lake access trail, water, in the form of wetlands and bogs, was encountered on several occasions, but again they were easily crossed, more so than the beaver floods located along the Moon Lake Access Trail Northern and Southern Options.

Photo 7: Example of creek encountered along existing V38R/Line 81 transmission line right-of-way (50.78960, -100.09954).

Table 10: Summary of Water Crossings for the V38R/Line 81 Transmission Line ROW, Each Potential Access Trail Option, and the Existing Moon Lake Access Trail

Moon Lake Moon Lake Access Jackfish Existing Moon Access Route Water Crossings Existing ROW Route Creek Route Lake Access Northern * Southern Option Trail Option Option

Beaver Floods 4 1 1 0 0 Creeks 7 1 0 1 0 Pond/Water Hole 1 0 1 0 0 Wetlands 28 4 5 2 9 Black Spruce Bog 0 0 0 0 1 Total Water Crossings 40 6 7 3 10 * Although the existing Moon Lake access trail has several small sized wetlands and wet areas, both the Moon Lake Access Trail Northern and Southern Options traverse substantial beaver floods which are impassable (refer to Section 7.1).

347

7.0 OVERALL PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 Access Limitations

7.1.1 Water

Given our understanding that the intended purpose of the proposed three access route options is to provide enhanced year-round access for transmission line ROW maintenance, Joro biologists caution that large water access limitations were encountered on each of the three proposed routes. Each of the route options crosses through mixedwood forests and low lying wetlands. Substantial beaver activity was observed during pedestrian surveys on each of the route options as well as along the existing transmission line ROW. Beaver damming has created large waterbodies along each of the Moon Lake access route options as seen in Photo 8 and Photo 9, creating potential difficulties for access to the transmission line ROW.

Photo 8: Beaver flood encountered along the Moon Lake access route northern option (50.91908, -100.10766).

348

Photo 9: Beaver flood encountered along the Moon Lake access route southern option (50.89253, -100.08891).

7.1.2 Gorge

The purpose of this study was to assess the potential widening of the existing transmission line ROW and the three proposed access route options. Due to the presence of a series of deeply incised gorges along the northern portion of the ROW, an area the width of the existing ROW and approximately 8 km in length was not accessible to field biologists. Based on the habitat observed along the 26 km of the ROW that was surveyed on foot and by Argo, and analysis of the orthoimagery provided to the Project team, the segment of the ROW that could not be accessed is comprised of similar vegetation composition and habitat quality. Given that there is little variation between the extensively surveyed portion of the ROW and the inaccessible 8 km portion of the ROW, it is expected that the wildlife are likely to be consistent with the species identified during the desktop and field investigations.

7.2 Right-of-Way Regeneration and Widening

Manitoba Hydro intends to increase reliability, safety, and integrity of the transmission lines along the existing ROW by widening the existing transmission line ROW by 7.8 m on the east side while reclaiming 5.2 m of the current ROW on the west side. Based on the desktop and field assessment of the existing ROW, Joro biologists suggest caution should be exercised with regeneration of the ROW along

349

the west side, given that the current vegetation is already encroaching under the existing transmission line in several locations along the ROW.

7.3 Edge Stand Age

The habitat assessment along the existing transmission line ROW identified old growth coniferous and deciduous trees along the edge of the ROW. Many of these older trees have noticeable nesting activity. Standing snags are often used for nesting by owls and provide food for woodpeckers and other birds. Widening of the western edge of the existing ROW will remove nesting habitat for several wildlife. However, this habitat is not limiting in the LSA or RSA and widening of the ROW will reduce the risk of old growth trees falling on the line.

8.0 CONCLUSIONS

Along the existing V38R/ Line 81 transmission line ROW, a variety of wildlife species were identified through direct observation, tracks, or signs of presence including amphibians, deer, moose, raptors, reptiles, small mammals, songbirds, and wolves. There were no bird species of conservation concern identified. Overall, access along the existing ROW is limited due to the presence of a number of large creeks, beaver floods, and steep gorges. Widening the existing ROW on the east side of the ROW will remove old growth trees and standing nesting trees; however, this type of habitat is not limiting and widening the ROW will increase safety by removing potentially downed trees from falling on the lines. Reclaiming the west side of the ROW may present hazards given that the current vegetation is in close proximity to the transmission lines, and regeneration along the western edge of the ROW may create additional safety issues.

Each of the three potential access routes is associated with access challenges. While the overall wildlife composition is generally consistent among all three route options, each route presents issues. The proposed Jackfish Creek route would require a number of smaller access bridges to be built along the existing ROW and requires disturbance near Jackfish Creek, which is a sensitive site comprised of high quality habitat. Additionally, the two proposed Moon Lake Access Trail Options both traverse a number of major low-lying wetlands and beaver floods and neither route would be easily travelled. It is recommended that of all the potential access routes, the existing Moon Lake MTS Tower access route connecting with the V38R/ Line 81 transmission lines is the easiest to traverse and would only require a low amount of additional vegetation clearing; therefore, the existing Moon Lake access trail is considered the best present route for access to the V38R/ Line 81 transmission line ROW.

350

9.0 REFERENCES

Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. The Mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press. Toronto, Ontario.

Bannatyne, B.B. and J.T. Teller. 1984. Geology of Manitoba before the Ice Age; in Teller J.T. (editor).

Natural Heritage of Manitoba: Legacy of the Ice Age. ISBN 0-920704-14-X. Manitoba Museum of Man and Nature, and Manitoba Nature Magazine. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Bezener, A and K. De Smet. 2000. Manitoba Birds. Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton, AB.

Boutin, S. 1992. Predation and moose population dynamics: A critique. The Journal of Wildlife

Management 56:116–127.

Briscoe, B.W., B.S. Lee, C. Allan, and I. Tempany. 1979. Riding Mountain National Park Resource Description and Analysis. Parks Canada, Natural Resource Conservation, Prairie Region. 500 pgs.

Cody, W.J. 1988. Plants of Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba. Agriculture Canada, Research

Branch; Canadian Parks Service. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Cook, F.R. 1984. Introduction to Canadian Amphibians and Reptiles. National Museums of Canada.

Ottawa, Ontario.

Conant, R. and J.T. Collins. 1991. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central

North America. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, MA.

COSEWIC. 2013. Canadian Wildlife Species at Risk. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in

Canada. http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct0/rpt/rpt_csar_e.cfm [Accessed May 29, 2013].

CPAWS (Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society). 2004. Riding Mountain ecosystem community atlas.

Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Curtis, P.D., and Jensen, P.G. 2004. Habitat features affecting beaver occupancy along roadsides in New

York State. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 68(2): 278-287.

Dillon Consulting Inc. 2013. Riding Mountain National Park V38R / Line 81: Environmental Impact

Analysis – Vegetation Technical Report. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Dunster, J. and K. Dunster. 1996. Dictionary of Natural Resource Management. ISBN 0-7748-0503-X.

UBC Press. University of British Columbia. Vancouver, B.C.

351

Franzmann, A. W., C. C. Schwartz, and R. O. Peterson. 1980. Moose calf mortality in summer on the

Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. The Journal of Wildlife Management 44:764.

Garneau, D. E., T. Boudreau, M. Keech, and E. Post. 2008. Black bear movements and habitat use during a critical period for moose calves. Mammalian Biology 73:85–92.

Government of Canada. 2013. Daily Data Report for June 2013 for Wasagaming, Manitoba. http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climateData/dailydata_e.html?timeframe=2&Prov=MAN%20&Stati onID=3562&dlyRange=1966-03-01|2013-11-24&Year=2013&Month=6&Day=24 [Accessed: November 25, 2013].

Government of Manitoba. 2000. The lumber industry in Manitoba. Historic Resources Branch, Government of Manitoba.

Government of Manitoba. 2013. GIS in the Classroom. http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/gis/ [Accessed: May 31, 2013].

GWWG (Golden-winged Warbler Working Group). 2009. Golden-winged Warbler Working Group: Ecology and status [online]. Available at: http://gwwa.org/ecology.html [Accessed: June 6, 2013].

Hill, L. 2003. Assessing the Relative Contributions Transmission Line Rights-of-Way have on Habitat Utilization by Moose Case Study: Riding Mountain National Park. Thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.

Karns, P. D. 1998. Chapter 3: Population Distribution, Density and Trends. In Ecology and Management of the North American Moose. A.W. Franzmann and C.C. Schwartz (Eds.). 733 pp.

Keenan, V.T., D. Philippot, J. Fraser, S. Day, and J. Lidgett. 2009. Forest Management Licence 01, 2010

– 2029 Forest Stewardship Plan of the Tembec Forest Resource Management, Pine Falls

Operations. Tembec Industries Inc. Pine Falls, Manitoba.

Kolenosky, G.B. and S.M. Strathearn. 1987. Black Bear; in Novak, M., J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard and B.

Malloch. (eds.). Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America. Ontario

Ministry of Natural Resources. Toronto, Ontario. 443-454 pp.

Lankester, M.W and W.M. Samuel. Pests, Parasites and Diseases. 1998. Pages 495-502 in A.W.

Franzmann and C.C. Schwartz, editors. Ecology and Management of the North American Moose,

2nd edition. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO.

352

Lockery, A.R. 1984. The Post-Glacial Period: Manitoba’s Present Landscape; in Teller J. T. (ed.). Natural Heritage of Manitoba: Legacy of the Ice Age. ISBN 0-920704-14-X. Manitoba Museum of Man and Nature, and Manitoba Nature Magazine. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Manitoba Avian Research Committee. 2003. The Birds of Manitoba. Manitoba Avian Research

Committee. Manitoba Naturalists Society. Friesens Printers. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Manitoba Conservation. 2011. Manitoba Forest Management Units. Manitoba Conservation, Forestry

Branch. Winnipeg, Manitoba. http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/forestry/pdf/manage/

fmu_map_april2010.pdf

MBCDC (Manitoba Conservation Data Centre). 2013. http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/cdc/ecoreg/

midboruplands.html [Accessed May 14. 2013].

MCWS (Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship). 2012. 2012-2013 Trapping Guide. Manitoba

Conservation, Wildlife and Ecosystem Protection Branch. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

MCWS. 2013a. Wild animals of Manitoba black bear fact sheet [online]. Available at http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/wildlife/mbsp/fs/blbear.html. [Accessed: June 5, 2013].

MCWS. 2013b. 2013 Manitoba Hunting Guide. Manitoba Conservation, Wildlife and Ecosystem

Protection Branch. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

MESA (Manitoba Endangered Species Act). 2013. https://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/wildlife/sar/

index.html [Accessed September 16, 2013].

Mills, G.F. 1984. Soils in Manitoba; in Teller J. T. (ed.). Natural Heritage of Manitoba: Legacy of the Ice Age. ISBN 0-920704-14-X. Manitoba Museum of Man and Nature, and Manitoba Nature Magazine. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Naiman, R.J., G. Pinay, C.A. Johnston, J. Pastor. 1994. Beaver influences on the long-term biogeochemical characteristics of boreal forest drainage networks. Ecology, 75(4): pp. 905-921.

PARC (Parkland Agricultural Resource Co-op). 2013. Resource Profile, Doing Business, Forestry

Resources. http://www.parklandmanitoba.ca/bus_forrestry.php [Accessed April 22, 2013].

353

Parks Canada. unpublished. Confidential wildlife count data. Data received from Parks Canada May

2013.

Parks Canada. 2000. Wasagaming Community Plan, A Framework for Managing Land-Use and

Development in Wasagaming, Manitoba. Riding Mountain National Park.

Parks Canada. 2007a. Riding Mountain National Park of Canada and Riding Mountain Park East Gate

Registration Complex National Historic Site of Canada Management Plan. Parks Canada. Pp. 91.

Parks Canada. 2007b. Presentation on Riding Mountain National Park of Canada to the WPAT. Wildlife

Health Program, Parks Canada.

Parks Canada. 2010. Summary of Fishing Regulations. Riding Mountain National Park, Parks Canada.

Parks Canada. 2012. Riding Mountain National Park, Recreation. http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn- np/mb/riding/activ/activ1.aspx [Accessed May 28, 2013].

Parks Canada. 2013. Riding Mountain National Park Visitor Guide 2013. Parks Canada.

Parks Canada and (FRMNP) Friends of Riding Mountain National Park. 2008. Riding Mountain National Park Trail Guide. Friends of Riding Mountain National Park Inc., Wasagaming, Manitoba, Canada.

Pattie, D.L. and R.S. Hoffmann. 1990. Mammals of the North American Parks and Prairies. Edmonton, Alberta. 600 p.

Peterson, R.T. and V.M. Peterson. 2002. A Field Guide to the Birds of Eastern and Central North

America. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. New York, N.Y.

Preston, W.B. 1982. The Amphibians and Reptiles of Manitoba. Manitoba Museum of Man and Nature.

Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Reid, F.A. 2006. A Field Guide to the Mammals of North America. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. New

York, N.Y.

Rowe, J.S. 1972. Forest Regions of Canada. Canadian Forest Service, Dept. of the Environment, Information Canada. Publication No. 1300. Ottawa, Ontario.

SARA (Species at Risk Act). 2013. Species at Risk Public Registry. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/

default_e.cfm

354

Smith R.E., H. Veldhuis, G.F. Mills, R.G. Eilers, W.R. Fraser, and G.W. Lelyk. 1998. Terrestrial Ecozones, Ecoregions, and Ecodistricts of Manitoba, An Ecological Stratification of Manitoba’s Natural Landscapes. Technical Bulletin 1998-9E. Land Resource Unit, Brandon Research Centre, Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Stewart, K. and D. Watkinson. 2004. Freshwater Fishes of Manitoba. University of Manitoba Press. 300 pp.

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2006. Multiple Species Inventory and Monitoring Technical Guide. Gen. Tech. Report WO-73. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/wo_gtr073.pdf [Accessed November 25, 2013].

Waring, G.H., J.L. Griffis, M.E. Vaughn. 1991. White-tailed deer roadside behavior, wildlife warning reflectors, and highway mortality. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 29(1–4): 215-223.

Wasagaming Chamber of Commerce. 2012. About the Area, Business Directory. http://discoverclearlake.com/about/member-directory/#.UaepA8KEgiQ [Accessed May 30, 2013].

Wasser, S. K., J. L. Keim, M. L. Taper, and S. R. Lele. 2011. The influences of wolf predation, habitat loss, and human activity on caribou and moose in the Alberta oil sands. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9:546–551.

Zager, P., and J. Beecham. 2006. The role of American black bears and brown bears as predators on ungulates in North America. Ursus 17:95–108.

Personal communication

Sallows, T. 2012. Park biologist, Riding Mountain National Park. Parks Canada, Manitoba.

355

10.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Black Chernozems+ - Soils which occur on gently sloping landscapes with good drainage and are characterized as the most fertile and productive soil in Manitoba.

Brunisols- Soil formed under forest and is brown in color and may have either clay or aluminum and iron compounds, or both.

Dark Grey Chernozems☼ - Soils which have an irregular leeching of organic matter and clay, and develop a patchy pattern of light and dark grey colors

Glaciolacustrine* – Pertaining to glacial lakes.

Luvisol- Well to imperfectly drained soil in sandy to loamy sites with a layer of silicate clay and are the base saturated parent material under forest vegetation.

Moraines* – A landform that consists of unstratified glacial drift that is usually till or, less commonly, of other drift

Organic+ - Soils which develop from an accumulation of dead vegetation and occur in all areas and climate, with slower development in cooler climates.

Physiography* – Pertains to the factors that influence the development of landforms or a landscape, such as relief and topography, bedrock geology and structure, and geomorphological history.

Surficial Geology* – The geology of surficial materials.

All definitions have been described in *Dunster and Dunster (1996), +Mills (1984), and the remainder as described in Smith et al. (1998).

356

APPENDIX A: KNOWN MBCDC LISTED PLANTS FOR THE MID- BOREAL UPLAND ECOREGION

357

Provincial Federal Global Common Name Scientific Name * + * Listing Listing Listing

Alderleaf Buckthorn Rhamnus alnifolia n/a n/a n/a Alkali Buttercup Ranunculus cymbalaria n/a n/a n/a Alkali Cordgrass Spartina gracilis n/a n/a n/a Alpine Enchanter's Circaea alpina n/a n/a n/a Nightshade Alpine Milkvetch Astragalus alpinus n/a n/a n/a Alpine Pondweed Potamogeton alpinus var. tenuifolius n/a n/a n/a Alpine Rush Juncus alpinus n/a n/a n/a Hedysarum alpinum var. Alpine Sweetvetch n/a n/a n/a americanum

Alsike Clover Trifolium hybridum n/a n/a n/a Alternate Leaf Cornus alternifolia n/a n/a n/a Dogwood Alternate-Leaved Chrysosplenium alternifolium var. n/a n/a n/a Golden Saxifrage ioense

American Bittersweet Celastrus scandens n/a n/a n/a American Dragonhead Dracocephalum parviflorum n/a n/a n/a American Elm Ulmus americana n/a n/a n/a American Hazelnut Corylus americana n/a n/a n/a American Mannagrass Glyceria grandis n/a n/a n/a American Plum Prunus americana n/a n/a n/a American Red Rubus strigosus n/a n/a n/a Raspberry American Silverberry Elaeagnus commutata n/a n/a n/a American Speedwell Veronica americana n/a n/a n/a American Spurred Halenia deflexa n/a n/a n/a Gentian American Stickseed Hackelia americana n/a n/a n/a American Vetch Vicia americana n/a n/a n/a American Woollyfruit Carex lasiocarpa var. americana n/a n/a n/a Sedge Anise Hyssop Agastache foeniculum n/a n/a n/a Aniseroot Osmorhiza longistylis n/a n/a n/a Annual Bluegrass Poa annua n/a n/a n/a Annual Ryegrass Lolium multiflorum n/a n/a n/a Arrow-Grass Triglochin maritimum n/a n/a n/a Arrowleaf Sweet Petasites sagittatus n/a n/a n/a Coltsfoot Arumleaf Arrowhead Sagittaria cuneata n/a n/a n/a Ascending Purple Astragalus striatus n/a n/a n/a 358

Provincial Federal Global Common Name Scientific Name * + * Listing Listing Listing

Milkvetch Assiniboia Sedge Carex assiniboinensis S3S4 n/a G4G5 Autumn Dwarf Gentian Gentiana acuta n/a n/a n/a Autumn Willow Salix serissima n/a n/a n/a Awlfruit Sedge Carex stipata n/a n/a n/a Baby's Breath Gypsophila paniculata n/a n/a n/a Back's Sedge Carex backii n/a n/a n/a Balsam Fir Abies balsamea n/a n/a n/a Balsam Poplar Populus balsamifera n/a n/a n/a Balsam Willow Salix pyrifolia n/a n/a n/a Baltic Rush Juncus balticus var. littoralis n/a n/a n/a Bastard Toadflax Comandra umbellata n/a n/a n/a Beaked Hazel Corylus cornuta n/a n/a n/a Beaked Sedge Carex rostrata n/a n/a n/a Bearberry Arctostaphylos uva-ursi n/a n/a n/a Bearberry Honeysuckle Lonicera involucrata n/a n/a n/a Beautiful Cotton-Grass Eriophorum callitrix S2 n/a G5 Bebb Willow Salix bebbiana n/a n/a n/a Bebb's Sedge Carex bebbii n/a n/a n/a Bicknell's Cranesbill Geranium bicknellii n/a n/a n/a Biennial Wormwood Artemisia biennis n/a n/a n/a Black Bindweed Polygonum convolvulus n/a n/a n/a Empetrum nigrum var. Black Crowberry n/a n/a n/a hermaphroditum

Black Medic Medicago lupulina n/a n/a n/a Black Spruce Picea mariana n/a n/a n/a Black-Eyed Susan Rudbeckia serotina n/a n/a n/a Bladder Campion Silene vulgaris n/a n/a n/a Bladder Fern Cystopteris fragilis n/a n/a n/a Blite Goosefoot Chenopodium capitatum n/a n/a n/a Blue Lettuce Lactuca pulchella n/a n/a n/a Blue Skullcap Selaginella densa n/a n/a n/a Blueberry Willow Salix myrtillifolia n/a n/a n/a Bluejoint Calamagrostis canadensis n/a n/a n/a Bluestem Beardgrass Andropogon gerardii n/a n/a n/a Blunt- Osmorhiza depauperata S2 n/a G5 Fruited Sweet Cicely Bluntleaf Sandwort Moehringia lateriflora n/a n/a n/a Bluntseed Sweetroot Osmorhiza depauperata n/a n/a n/a Bog Arum Calla palustris n/a n/a n/a Betula pumila var. Bog Birch n/a n/a n/a glandulifera

359

Provincial Federal Global Common Name Scientific Name * + * Listing Listing Listing

Bog Cranberry Oxycoccus microcarpus n/a n/a n/a Bog Labrador Tea Ledum groenlandicum n/a n/a n/a Bog Rosemary Andromeda glaucophylla n/a n/a n/a Salix pedicellaris Bog Willow n/a n/a n/a var. hypoglauca

Bog Willowherb Epilobium leptophyllum n/a n/a n/a Bog Wintergreen Pyrola asarifolia n/a n/a n/a Bog Adder's-Mouth Malaxis paludosa S1 n/a G4 Boreal Bog Sedge Carex magellanica n/a n/a n/a Bristly Clubmoss Lycopodium annotinum n/a n/a n/a Bristlystalked Sedge Carex leptalea n/a n/a n/a Broadleaf Arrowhead Sagittaria latifolia n/a n/a n/a Broad-Leaved Potamogeton natans n/a n/a n/a Pondweed Brome Bromus inermis n/a n/a n/a Browned Sedge Carex adusta S3S4 n/a G5 Brownish Sedge Carex brunnescens n/a n/a n/a Buckbean Menyanthes trifoliata n/a n/a n/a Bulb-Bearing Water- Cicuta bulbifera n/a n/a n/a Hemlock Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa n/a n/a n/a Burdock Arctium minus n/a n/a n/a Burning Love Lychnis chalcedonica n/a n/a n/a Bur-Reed Sparganium multipedunculatum n/a n/a n/a Solidago gigantea graminifolia var. Bushy Goldenrod n/a n/a n/a major

Calypso Orchid Calypso bulbosa n/a n/a n/a Canada Anemone Anemone canadensis n/a n/a n/a Canada Bluegrass Poa compressa n/a n/a n/a Canada Buffaloberry Shepherdia canadensis n/a n/a n/a Canada Golden-Rod Solidago canadensis n/a n/a n/a Canada Plum Prunus nigra n/a n/a n/a Canada Rice Grass Oryzopsis canadensis n/a n/a n/a Canada Sagebrush Artemisia canadensis n/a n/a n/a Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense n/a n/a n/a Canada Wildrye Elymus canadensis n/a n/a n/a Canada Brome Bromus latiglumis n/a n/a n/a Canadian Bunchberry Cornus canadensis n/a n/a n/a Canadian Columbine Aquilegia canadensis n/a n/a n/a Canadian Gooseberry Ribes oxyacanthoides n/a n/a n/a Canadian Horseweed Erigeron canadensis n/a n/a n/a Canadian May-Lily Maianthemum canadense var. n/a n/a n/a

360

Provincial Federal Global Common Name Scientific Name * + * Listing Listing Listing

interius Canadian Milkvetch Astragalus canadensis n/a n/a n/a Candle Anemone Anemone cylindrica n/a n/a n/a Caragana Caragana arborescens n/a n/a n/a Caraway Carum carvi n/a n/a n/a Carex Trisperma Carex trisperma n/a n/a n/a Carolina Cranesbill Geranium carolinianum n/a n/a n/a Carrion Flower Smilax herbacea var. lasioneuron n/a n/a n/a Cattail Typha latifolia n/a n/a n/a Chamisso Arnica Arnica chamissonis ssp. foliosa n/a n/a n/a Chamisso's Cottongrass Eriophorum chamissonis n/a n/a n/a Chestnut Sedge Carex castanea S3 n/a G5 Chickenwort Stellaria media n/a n/a n/a Chokecherry Prunus uirginiana n/a n/a n/a Cinquefoil Potentilla noruegica n/a n/a n/a Climbing False Polygonum scandens n/a n/a n/a Buckwheat Closed Gentian Gentiana rubricaulis n/a n/a n/a Columbian Watermeal Zizia aptera n/a n/a n/a Common Bladderwort Utricularia vulgaris n/a n/a n/a Common Blue Violet Viola sororia n/a n/a n/a Common Blueberry Vaccinium myrtilloides n/a n/a n/a Common Bracken Pteridium aquilinum var. latiusculum n/a n/a n/a Common Butterwort Pinguicula vulgaris n/a n/a n/a Common Cottongrass Eriophorum angustifolium n/a n/a n/a Common Cowparsnip Heracleum lanatum n/a n/a n/a Common Dogmustard Erucastrum gallicum n/a n/a n/a Common Evening Oenothera biennis n/a n/a n/a Primrose Common Gaillardia Gaillardia aristata n/a n/a n/a Common Groundsel Senecio vulgaris n/a n/a n/a Common Hemp-Nettle Galeopsis tetrahit n/a n/a n/a Common Hop Humulus lupulus n/a n/a n/a Common Juniper Juniperus communis var. depressa n/a n/a n/a Common Knotgrass Polygonum auiculare n/a n/a n/a Common Mare's-Tail Hippuris vulgaris n/a n/a n/a Common Oats Avena sativa n/a n/a n/a Common Pepperweed Lepidium densiflorum n/a n/a n/a Common Purslane Portulaca oleracea n/a n/a n/a Common Reed Grass Phragmites australis n/a n/a n/a Common Rivergrass Scolochloa festucacea n/a n/a n/a Common Self-Heal Prunella vulgaris n/a n/a n/a

361

Provincial Federal Global Common Name Scientific Name * + * Listing Listing Listing Common Silverweed Potentilla anserina n/a n/a n/a Scutellaria galericulata var. Common Skullcap n/a n/a n/a pubescens Common Soapwort Saponaria officinalis n/a n/a n/a Common Spike-Rush Eleocharis palustris n/a n/a n/a Common Sunflower Helianthus annuus n/a n/a n/a Common Tansy Tanacetum vulgare n/a n/a n/a Common Toadflax Linaria vulgaris n/a n/a n/a Common Water- Ranunculus aquatilis var. subrigidus n/a n/a n/a Crowfoot Common Wheat Triticum aestivum n/a n/a n/a Common Woodrush Luzula multiflora n/a n/a n/a Common Wormwood Artemisia absinthium n/a n/a n/a Common Yarrow Achillea millefolium n/a n/a n/a Common Yellow Oxalis Oxalis stricta n/a n/a n/a Cordroot Sedge Carex chordorrhiza n/a n/a n/a Corn Sow Thistle Sonchus arvensis var. glabrescens n/a n/a n/a Cow Vetch Vicia cracca n/a n/a n/a Crack Willow Salix fragilis n/a n/a n/a Cream Pea Lathyrus ochroleucus n/a n/a n/a Creamflower Rockcress Arabis hirsuta var. pycnocarpa n/a n/a n/a Creeping Juniper Juniperus horizontalis n/a n/a n/a Creeping Snowberry Gaultheria hispidula n/a n/a n/a Crested Wheat Grass Agropyron cristatum n/a n/a n/a Curly-Cup Gumweed Grindelia squarrosa n/a n/a n/a Curlytop Knotweed Polygonum lapathifolium n/a n/a n/a Cursed Buttercup Ranunculus sceleratus n/a n/a n/a Cutleaf Coneflower Rudbeckia laciniata n/a n/a n/a Cypress-Like Sedge Carex pseudo-cyperus n/a n/a n/a Dames Rocket Hesperis matronalis n/a n/a n/a Dandelion Taraxacum officinale n/a n/a n/a Desert Goosefoot Chenopodium pratericola n/a n/a n/a Desert Ragwort Senecio eremophilus n/a n/a n/a Dewey Sedge Carex deweyana n/a n/a n/a Diamondleaf Willow Salix planifolia n/a n/a n/a Dioecious Sedge Carex sterilis S2 n/a G4 Dodder Cuscuta pentagona var. pentagona SU n/a G5T5 Dog Violet Viola conspersa S3? n/a G5 Douglas's Knotweed Polygonum douglasii n/a n/a n/a Downy Arrowwood Viburnum rafinesquianum n/a n/a n/a Dragonhead Physostegia parviflora SU n/a G4G5 Drooping Woodreed Cinna latifolia n/a n/a n/a

362

Provincial Federal Global Common Name Scientific Name * + * Listing Listing Listing

Drummond's Campion Silene drummondii n/a n/a n/a Drummond's Rockcress Arabis drummondii n/a n/a n/a Dryspike Sedge Carex siccata n/a n/a n/a Dudley's Rush Juncus dudleyi n/a n/a n/a Dutchman's Pipe Monotropa hypopithys n/a n/a n/a Dwarf Bilberry Vaccinium caespitosum S2 n/a G5 Dwarf Indigo Amorpha nana n/a n/a n/a Dwarf Raspberry Rubus acaulis n/a n/a n/a Dwarf Red Raspberry Rubus pubescens n/a n/a n/a Dwarf Scouring-Rush Equisetum scirpoides n/a n/a n/a Dwarf Thistle Cirsium drummondii n/a n/a n/a Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis n/a n/a n/a Elegant Camas Zigadenus elegans n/a n/a n/a Emory's Sedge Carex emoryi S2? n/a G5 False Melic Schizachne purpurascens n/a n/a n/a False Toadflax Geocaulon lividum n/a n/a n/a False Virginia Creeper Parthenocissus inserta n/a n/a n/a Fen Grass Of Parnassus Parnassia glauca n/a n/a n/a Fennel Pondweed Potamogeton pectinatus n/a n/a n/a Fern Pondweed Potamogeton zosteriformis n/a n/a n/a Few -Flowered Sedge Carex pauciflora S3 n/a G5 Fewflower Spikerush Eleocharis pauciflora n/a n/a n/a Few- Thalictrum sparsiflorum S2S3 n/a G5 Flowered Meadow-Rue Field Chickweed Cerastium arvense n/a n/a n/a Field Dock Rumex fennicus n/a n/a n/a Field Horsetail Equisetum arvense n/a n/a n/a Oxytropis campestris Field Locoweed n/a n/a n/a var. gracilis

Field Mustard Brassica campestris n/a n/a n/a Field Mustard Sinapis aruensis n/a n/a n/a Field Penny-Cress Thlaspi arvense n/a n/a n/a Field Pussy Toes Antennaria campestris n/a n/a n/a Figwort Family Castilleja miniata n/a n/a n/a Fireberry Hawthorn Crataegus chrysocarpa n/a n/a n/a Fireweed Epilobium angustifolium n/a n/a n/a Flat-Topped Aster Aster umbellatus var. pubens n/a n/a n/a Flexile Milkvetch Astragalus flexuosus n/a n/a n/a Flixweed Descurainia sophia n/a n/a n/a Flodman's Thistle Cirsium flodmanii n/a n/a n/a Fowl Bluegrass Poa palustris n/a n/a n/a Fowtail Alopecurus aequalis n/a n/a n/a

363

Provincial Federal Global Common Name Scientific Name * + * Listing Listing Listing

Fox Sedge Carex vulpinoidea S3? n/a G5 Foxtail Setaria viridis n/a n/a n/a Foxtail Barley Hordeum jubatum n/a n/a n/a Foxtail Muhly Muhlenbergia andina S1 n/a G4 Foxtail Sedge Carex alopecoidea S3S4 n/a G5 Fragrant Bedstraw Galium triflorum n/a n/a n/a Franklin's Phacelia Phacelia franklinii n/a n/a n/a Fringed Black Polygonum cilinode n/a n/a n/a Bindweed Fringed Brome Bromus ciliates n/a n/a n/a Fringed Gentian Gentiana crinita n/a n/a n/a Fringed Gentian Gentiana macounii n/a n/a n/a Fringed Loosestrife Lysimachia ciliata n/a n/a n/a Epilobium glandulosum var. Fringed Willowherb n/a n/a n/a adenocaulon

Giant Bur-Reed Sparganium eurycarpum n/a n/a n/a Glaucous Larkspur Delphinium glaucum n/a n/a n/a Gmelin's Buttercup Ranunculus gmelinii n/a n/a n/a Golden Alexanders Zizia aurea n/a n/a n/a Golden Corydalis Corydalis aurea n/a n/a n/a Golden Dock Rumex maritimus var. fueginus n/a n/a n/a Golden Ragwort Senecio aureus n/a n/a n/a Golden Sedge Carex aurea n/a n/a n/a Goosegrass Galium aparine SU n/a n/a Graceful Manna Grass Glyceria striata S2 G5 Great Sundew Drosera anglica n/a n/a n/a Great Water Dock Rumex orbiculatus n/a n/a n/a Greater Duckweed Spirodela polyrhiza n/a n/a n/a Greater Plantain Plantago major n/a n/a n/a Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica n/a n/a n/a Green Muhly Muhlenbergia racemosa n/a n/a n/a Green Needle Grass Nassella viridula S3 n/a G5 Greene Rough Lycopus asper n/a n/a n/a Bugleweed Greene Water Marigold Megalodonta beckii n/a n/a n/a Green-Flowered Pyrola chlorantha n/a n/a n/a Wintergreen Ground Elder Aegopodium podagraria n/a n/a n/a Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea n/a n/a n/a Groundcedar Lycopodium complanatum n/a n/a n/a Groundplum Milkvetch Astragalus crassicarpus n/a n/a n/a Hair Grass Agrostis scabra n/a n/a n/a

364

Provincial Federal Global Common Name Scientific Name * + * Listing Listing Listing

Hair-Like Segde Carex capillaris n/a n/a n/a Hairy Wildrye Elymus innovatus n/a n/a n/a Hairy Woodland Brome Bromus pubescens n/a n/a n/a Hairy Wood-Rush Luzula pilosa var. americana n/a n/a n/a Harebell Campanula rotundifolia n/a n/a n/a Heartleaf Arnica Arnica cordifolia n/a n/a n/a Hedge False Bindweed Convolvulus sepium n/a n/a n/a Hemlock Waterparsnip Sium suave n/a n/a n/a Highbush Cranberry Viburnum trilobum n/a n/a n/a Hoary Puccoon Lithospermum canescens n/a n/a n/a Hog Peanut Amphicarpa bracteata n/a n/a n/a Honey Clover Melilotus alba n/a n/a n/a Hooded Lady's-Tresses Spiranthes romanzoffiana n/a n/a n/a Hooker's Alpine Oat Helictotrichon hookeri n/a n/a n/a Grass Hooker's Sedge Carex hookeriana n/a n/a n/a Horned Beakrush Rhynchospora capillacea S2 G4 Hornwort Ceratophyllum demersum n/a n/a n/a Houghton's Sedge Carex houghtoniana n/a n/a n/a House Bog Sandwort Minuartia dawsonensis n/a n/a n/a Indian Pipe Monotropa uniflora n/a n/a n/a Indian Rice Grass Oryzopsis pungens n/a n/a n/a Indian-Paintbrush Castilleja pallida var. septentrionalis n/a n/a n/a Inland Sedge Carex interior n/a n/a n/a Iowa Golden-Saxifrage Chrysosplenium iowense S1? n/a G3? Ivy Duckweed Lemna trisulca n/a n/a n/a Jack Pine Pinus banksiana n/a n/a n/a Helianthus tuberosus var. Jerusalem Artichoke n/a n/a n/a subcanescens

Joe Pye Weed Eupatorium maculatum n/a n/a n/a June Grass Koeleria macrantha n/a n/a n/a Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis n/a n/a n/a Knotsheath Sedge Carex retrorsa n/a n/a n/a Knotted Rush Juncus nodosus n/a n/a n/a Labrador Buttercup Ranunculus rhomboideus n/a n/a n/a Labrador Indian- Castilleja septentrionalis S1? n/a G5 Paintbrush Lady Fern Athyrium filix-femina var. michauxii n/a n/a n/a Lady's-Slipper Orchid Cypripedium calceolus n/a n/a n/a Lake Sedge Carex lacustris n/a n/a n/a Lambsquarters Chenopodium album n/a n/a n/a Lapland Buttercup Ranunculus lapponicus n/a n/a n/a

365

Provincial Federal Global Common Name Scientific Name * + * Listing Listing Listing Large White- Flowered Ground- Leucophysalis grandiflora S3 n/a G4 Cherry Largeleaf Avens Geum macrophyllum var. perincisum n/a n/a n/a Larger Straw Sedge Carex normalis SNA n/a G5 Large-Seeded Alfalfa Cuscuta campestris n/a n/a n/a Dodder Leafy Spurge Euphorbia esula n/a n/a n/a Leafy White Orchid Habenaria dilatata n/a n/a n/a Leathery Grape-Fern Botrychium multifidum S3 n/a G5 Leathery Knotweed Polygonum achoreum n/a n/a n/a Ledingham's False Physostegia ledinghamii n/a n/a n/a Dragonhead Lesser Panicled Sedge Carex diandra n/a n/a n/a Lesser Rattlesnake Goodyera repens n/a n/a n/a Plantain Lesser Twayblade Listera cordata n/a n/a n/a Lesser Bladderwort Utricularia minor S3 n/a G5 Lesser Duckweed Lemna minor SNA n/a G5 Lewis Flax Linum lewisii n/a n/a n/a Lilac Penstemon Penstemon gracilis n/a n/a n/a Limber Honeysuckle Lonicera dioica var. glaucescens n/a n/a n/a Limestone Meadow Carex granularis n/a n/a n/a Sedge Lindley's Aster Aster ciliolatus n/a n/a n/a Lingonberry Vaccinium vitis-idaea n/a n/a n/a Little Green Sedge Carex viridula n/a n/a n/a Little-Leaf Buttercup Ranunculus abortivus n/a n/a n/a Long-Bracted Orchid Habenaria viridis var. bracteata n/a n/a n/a Longleaf Arnica Arnica lonchophylla n/a n/a n/a Longleaf Starwort Stellaria longifolia n/a n/a n/a Longleaf Summer Blue t Houstonia longifolia n/a n/a n/a Longroot Smartweed Polygonum amphibium n/a n/a n/a Long-Spurred Violet Viola selkirkii S2 n/a G5? Longstalk Sedge Carex pedunculata n/a n/a n/a Longstalk Starwort Stellaria longipes n/a n/a n/a Low Mallow Malva pusilla n/a n/a n/a Low Northern Sedge Carex concinna n/a n/a n/a Lowbush Cranberry Viburnum edule n/a n/a n/a Lucerne Medicago sativa n/a n/a n/a Maccall's Willow Salix maccalliana n/a n/a n/a Mackenzie Valley Glyceria pulchella n/a n/a n/a

366

Provincial Federal Global Common Name Scientific Name * + * Listing Listing Listing

Mannagrass Macoun's Buttercup Ranunculus macounii n/a n/a n/a Maiden Pink Dianthus deltoides n/a n/a n/a Many-Headed Sedge Carex sychnocephala n/a n/a n/a Maple Ash Acer negundo n/a n/a n/a Maple-Leaved Chenopodium gigantospermum n/a n/a n/a Goosefoot Marsh Bellflower Campanula aparinoides n/a n/a n/a Marsh Bellflower Campanula uliginosa n/a n/a n/a Marsh Cinquefoil Potentilla palustris n/a n/a n/a Marsh Grass Of Parnassia palustris var. neogaea n/a n/a n/a Parnassus Marsh Horsetail Equisetum palustre n/a n/a n/a Marsh Pea Lathyrus palustris n/a n/a n/a Marsh Speedwell Veronica scutellata n/a n/a n/a Marsh St. John's-Wort Hypericum uirginicum var. fraseri n/a n/a n/a Marsh Violet Viola palustris n/a n/a n/a Marsh Willowherb Epilobium palustre n/a n/a n/a Marsh Woundwort Stachys palustris n/a n/a n/a Marsh St. John's-Wort Triadenum fraseri S3? n/a G5 Marshelder Iva xanthifolia n/a n/a n/a Marshpepper Knotweed Polygonum hydropiper n/a n/a n/a Maryland Sanicle Sanicula marilandica n/a n/a n/a Mat Muhly Muhlenbergia richardsonii n/a n/a n/a Meadow Fescue Festuca pratensis n/a n/a n/a Meadow Horsetail Equisetum pratense n/a n/a n/a Meadow Sedge Carex praticola n/a n/a n/a Mexican Muhly Muhlenbergia mexicana n/a n/a n/a Millet Grass Milium effusum S2 n/a G5 Millet Grass Milium effusum var. cisatlanticum S2 n/a G5TNR Mingan Moonwort Botrychium minganense S1S2 n/a G4 Miracle Wheat Triticum turgidum n/a n/a n/a Missouri Goldenrod Solidago missouriensis n/a n/a n/a Moschatel Adoxa moschatellina S1 n/a G5 Mountain Alder Alnus crispa n/a n/a n/a Mountain Everlasting Antennaria dioica n/a n/a n/a Mountain Maple Acer spicatum n/a n/a n/a Mountain Tansymustar d Descurainia richardsonii n/a n/a n/a Mountain Willow Salix podophylla n/a n/a n/a Mt. Albert Goldenrod Solidago spathulata n/a n/a n/a Mud Sedge Carex limosa n/a n/a n/a Mulberry Rubus chamaemorus n/a n/a n/a

367

Provincial Federal Global Common Name Scientific Name * + * Listing Listing Listing

Naiad Najas flexillis n/a n/a n/a Naked Bishop's Cap Mitella nuda n/a n/a n/a Nannyberry Viburnum lentago n/a n/a n/a Narrowleaf Bur-Reed Sparganium angustifolium n/a n/a n/a Narrowleaf Goosefoot Chenopodium leptophyllum n/a n/a n/a Narrowleaf Hawksbeard Crepis tectorum n/a n/a n/a Narrowleaf Hawkweed Hieracium umbellatum n/a n/a n/a Narrowleaf Spiraea alba n/a n/a n/a Meadowsweet Neckweed Veronica peregrina var. xalapensis n/a n/a n/a Needle Spikerush Eleocharis acicularis n/a n/a n/a Night-Flowering Silene noctiflora n/a n/a n/a Catchfly Nodding Bur-Marigold Bidens cernua n/a n/a n/a Nodding Chickweed Cerastium nutans n/a n/a n/a Nodding Locoweed Oxytropis deflexa var. sericea n/a n/a n/a Nodding Wild Onion Allium stellatum n/a n/a n/a Northern Aster Aster junciformis n/a n/a n/a Northern Bedstraw Galium boreale n/a n/a n/a Northern Black Currant Ribes hudsonianum n/a n/a n/a Northern Bog Bedstraw Galium labradoricum n/a n/a n/a Northern Bog Sedge Carex gynocrates n/a n/a n/a Northern Bog Violet Viola nephrophylla n/a n/a n/a Northern Bugleweed Lycopus uniflorus n/a n/a n/a Northern Bush Diervilla lonicera n/a n/a n/a Honeysuckle Northern Coralroot Corallorhiza trifida n/a n/a n/a Northern Green Orchid Habenaria hyperborea n/a n/a n/a Northern Marsh Rorippa islandica n/a n/a n/a Yellowcress Northern Redcurrant Ribes triste n/a n/a n/a Northern Reed Grass Calamagrostis neglecta n/a n/a n/a Northern Sedge Carex deflexa n/a n/a n/a Northern Slender Lady's Spiranthes lacera n/a n/a n/a Tresses Northern Small Bog- Habenaria obtusata n/a n/a n/a Orchid Northern Starflower Trientalis borealis n/a n/a n/a Northern Starwort Stellaria calycantha n/a n/a n/a Northern Spike-Moss Selaginella selaginoides S2 n/a G5 Northern Twayblade Listera borealis S2 n/a G4 Nuttall's Povertyweed Monolepis nuttalliana n/a n/a n/a

368

Provincial Federal Global Common Name Scientific Name * + * Listing Listing Listing Nuttall's Pussytoes Antennaria parvifolia n/a n/a n/a Nuttall's Sunflower Helianthus nuttallii n/a n/a n/a Oak Fern Gymnocarpium dryopteris n/a n/a n/a Oak-Leaved Goosefoot Chenopodium glaucum n/a n/a n/a Oblong-Leaved Sundew Drosera anglica S3 n/a G5 Obtuse Sedge Carex obtusata n/a n/a n/a One-Flowered Moneses uniflora n/a n/a n/a Wintergreen Onescale Spikerush Eleocharis uniglumis n/a n/a n/a One-Sided Wintergreen Pyrola secunda n/a n/a n/a Ontario Lobelia Lobelia kalmii n/a n/a n/a Matteuccia struthiopteris var. Ostrich Fern n/a n/a n/a pensylvanica Oval-Leaf Milkweed Asclepias ovalifolia n/a n/a n/a Chenopodium strictum var. Oval-Seeded Goosefoot n/a n/a n/a glaucophyllum Oxeye Daisy Chrysanthemum leucanthemum n/a n/a n/a Pacific Anemone Anemone multifida n/a n/a n/a Pale Manna Grass Torreyochloa pallida var. fernaldii S2 n/a G5T4Q Panicled Bulrush Scirpus microcarpus n/a n/a n/a Peachleaf Willow Salix amygdaloides n/a n/a n/a Peck's Sedge Carex peckii n/a n/a n/a Pennsylvania Cardamine pensylvanica n/a n/a n/a Bittercress Pennsylvania Buttercup Ranunculus pensylvanicus n/a n/a n/a Pennsylvania Potentilla pensylvanica n/a n/a n/a Cinquefoil var. bipinnatifida Pennsylvania Sedge Carex pensylvanica n/a n/a n/a Philadelphia Fleabane Erigeron philadelphicus n/a n/a n/a Pin Cherry Prunus pensylvanica n/a n/a n/a Pineappleweed Matricaria matricarioides n/a n/a n/a Chenopodium berlandieri ssp. Pitseed Goosefoot n/a n/a n/a zschackei Plains Bluegrass Poa arida n/a n/a n/a Plains Muhly Muhlenbergia cuspidata n/a n/a n/a Plains Rough Fescue Festuca hallii S3 G4 Pleated Gentian Gentiana affinis n/a n/a n/a Porcupine Grass Stipa spartea var. curtiseta n/a n/a n/a Porcupine Sedge Carex hystericina S3? n/a G5 Porter's Chess Bromus porteri S3? n/a G5 Poverty Oatgrass Danthonia spicata n/a n/a n/a Prairie Agoseris Agoseris glauca n/a n/a n/a

369

Provincial Federal Global Common Name Scientific Name * + * Listing Listing Listing Prairie Blue-Eyed Grass Sisyrinchium campestre n/a n/a n/a Prairie Crocus Pulsatilla ludoviciana n/a n/a n/a Prairie Dropseed Sporobolus heterolepis n/a n/a n/a Prairie Sagewort Artemisia frigida n/a n/a n/a Prairie Violet Viola pedatifida n/a n/a n/a Prairie Sedge Carex prairea S4? n/a G5? Prickly Currant Ribes lacustre n/a n/a n/a Prickly Wild Rose Rosa acicularis n/a n/a n/a Pulse Milk-Vetch Astragalus tenellus n/a n/a n/a Pumpelly’s Brome Bromus pumpellianus n/a n/a n/a Purple Avens Geum rivale n/a n/a n/a Purple Meadow-Rue Thalictrum dasycarpum n/a n/a n/a Purple Milkvetch Astragalus agrestis n/a n/a n/a Purple Prairie Clover Petalostemon purpureum n/a n/a n/a Purple Rattlesnakeroot Prenanthes racemosa n/a n/a n/a Purplestem Aster Aster puniceus n/a n/a n/a Pussy Willow Salix discolor n/a n/a n/a Pygmy-Flower Rock- Androsace septentrionalis n/a n/a n/a Jasmine Quack Grass Agropyron repens n/a n/a n/a Quaking Fern Scheuchzeria palustris n/a n/a n/a Quill Sedge Carex tenera n/a n/a n/a Ram's Head Lady's- Cypripedium arietinum S2S3 n/a G3 Slipper Rattlesnake Fern Botrychium virginianum n/a n/a n/a Rayless Aster Aster brachyactis n/a n/a n/a Red Fescue Festuca rubra n/a n/a n/a Red Goosefoot Chenopodium rubrum n/a n/a n/a Red Osier Dogwood Cornus stolonifera n/a n/a n/a Red Top Bent Grass Agrostis stolonifera n/a n/a n/a Redroot Amaranth Amaranthus retroflexus n/a n/a n/a Reed Canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea n/a n/a n/a Reflexed Locoweed Oxytropis deflexa S3? n/a G5 Rhus Radicans Rhus radicans n/a n/a n/a Ribseed Sandmat Euphorbia glyptosperma n/a n/a n/a Spurge Richardson's Alumroot Heuchera richardsonii n/a n/a n/a Richardson's Needle Stipa richardsonii n/a n/a n/a Grass Richardson's Pondweed Potamogeton richardsonii n/a n/a n/a Richardson's Sedge Carex richardsonii n/a n/a n/a Robyns's Aster Symphyotrichum robynsianum SU n/a G4G5

370

Provincial Federal Global Common Name Scientific Name * + * Listing Listing Listing Rocky Mountain Liatris ligulistylis n/a n/a n/a Blazing Star Rocky Mountain Fescu e Festuca saximontana n/a n/a n/a Ross' Sedge Carex rossii n/a n/a n/a Rosy Sedge Carex rosea n/a n/a n/a Rough Fleabane Erigeron asper n/a n/a n/a Rough-Fruited Disporum trachycarpum n/a n/a n/a Fairybells Roughleaf Ricegrass Oryzopsis asperifolia n/a n/a n/a Roundfruit Rush Juncus compressus n/a n/a n/a Roundleaf Orchid Orchis rotundifolia n/a n/a n/a Round-Leaved Orchid Habenaria orbiculata n/a n/a n/a Round-Leaved Sundew Drosera rotundifolia n/a n/a n/a Round- Platanthera orbiculata S3 n/a G5 Leaved Bog Orchid Round-Leaved Pyrola Pyrola americana S2 n/a G5 Russian Pigweed Axyris amaranthoides n/a n/a n/a Rye Grass Lolium perenne n/a n/a n/a Sageleaf Willow Salix Candida n/a n/a n/a Sago Pondweed Potamogeton vaginatus n/a n/a n/a Saline Saltbush Atriplex subspicata n/a n/a n/a Sandbar Willow Salix interior n/a n/a n/a Sartwell's Sedge Carex sartwellii n/a n/a n/a Saskatoon Amelanchier alnifolia n/a n/a n/a Satiny Willow Salix pellita n/a n/a n/a Scentless Chamomile Matricaria maritima var. agrestis n/a n/a n/a Scouring-Rush Equisetum hyemale ssp. Affine n/a n/a n/a Scutellaria Lateriflora Scutellaria lateriflora n/a n/a n/a Sheathed Sedge Carex vaginata n/a n/a n/a Shepherd's-Purse Capsella bursa-pastoris n/a n/a n/a Shining Clubmoss Lycopodium lucidulum n/a n/a n/a Shining Willow Salix lucida n/a n/a n/a Shortray Fleabane Erigeron lonchophyllus n/a n/a n/a Showy Locoweed Oxytropis splendens n/a n/a n/a Showy Milkweed Asclepias speciosa n/a n/a n/a Showy Mountain Ash Sorbus decora n/a n/a n/a Helianthus laetiflorus var. Showy Sunflower n/a n/a n/a subrhomboideus Shrubby Cinquefoil Potentilla fruticosa n/a n/a n/a Shy Wallflower Erysimum inconspicuum n/a n/a n/a Siberian Yarrow Achillea sibirica n/a n/a n/a Sickle Alfalfa Medicago falcata n/a n/a n/a

371

Provincial Federal Global Common Name Scientific Name * + * Listing Listing Listing

Silver-Leaf Scurf Pea Psoralea argophylla n/a n/a n/a Skunk Currant Ribes glandulosum n/a n/a n/a Slender Arrow-Grass Triglochin palustre n/a n/a n/a Slender Cinquefoil Potentilla gracilis var. pulcherrima n/a n/a n/a Slender Cottongrass Eriophorum gracile n/a n/a n/a Slender Wedgescale Sphenopholis intermedia n/a n/a n/a Slender Wheatgrass Agropyron trachycaulum n/a n/a n/a Slender Willow Salix gracilis n/a n/a n/a Slim-Stem Reed Grass Calamagrostis inexpansa n/a n/a n/a Slough Grass Beckmannia syzigachne n/a n/a n/a Small Cranberry Oxycoccus quadripetalus n/a n/a n/a Small Floating Glyceria borealis n/a n/a n/a Mannagrass Small-Flowered Aquilegia brevistyla n/a n/a n/a Columbine Small's Spike Rush Eleocharis smallii n/a n/a n/a Smooth Aster Aster laevis n/a n/a n/a Smooth Fleabane Erigeron glabellus n/a n/a n/a Smooth Yellow Violet Viola pensylvanica var. leiocarpa n/a n/a n/a Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus n/a n/a n/a Softleaf Sedge Carex disperma n/a n/a n/a Soft-Stemmed Bulrush Scirpus validus n/a n/a n/a Sparseflower Sedge Carex tenuiflora n/a n/a n/a Spear Mint Mentha spicata n/a n/a n/a Speckled Alder Alnus incana ssp. rugosa n/a n/a n/a Spiked Muhly Muhlenbergia glomerata n/a n/a n/a Spotted Coralroot Corallorhiza maculata n/a n/a n/a Spotted Ladysthumb Polygonum persicaria n/a n/a n/a Spotted Touch-Me-Not Impatiens capensis n/a n/a n/a Spotted Water Hemlock Cicuta maculate var. angustifolia n/a n/a n/a Spreading Dogbane Apocynum androsaemifolium n/a n/a n/a Spreadingpod Arabis divaricarpa n/a n/a n/a Rockcress Sprengel's Sedge Carex sprengelii n/a n/a n/a Starry Solomon's Plume Smilacina stellata n/a n/a n/a Star-Weed Stellaria crassifolia n/a n/a n/a Stickseed Lappula echinata n/a n/a n/a Sticky Tofieldia Tofieldia glutinosa n/a n/a n/a Sticky Goldenrod Solidago simplex SU n/a G5 Stiff-Leaved Goldenrod Solidago rigida n/a n/a n/a Stinging Nettle Urtica dioica ssp. gracilis n/a n/a n/a Straightleaf Pondweed Potamogeton strictifolius S3 n/a G5

372

Provincial Federal Global Common Name Scientific Name Listing* Listing+ Listing* Strict Blue-Eyed Grass Sisyrinchium montanum n/a n/a n/a S3S4 Striped Coralroot Corallorhiza striata n/a G5 Swamp Boreal-Daisy Erigeron elatus n/a n/a n/a Swamp Fly Lonicera oblongifolia n/a n/a n/a Honeysuckle Swamp Lousewort Pedicularis lanceolata n/a n/a n/a Swamp Ragwort Senecio congestus n/a n/a n/a Swamp Thistle Cirsium muticum n/a n/a n/a Sweet Coltsfoot Petasites palmatus n/a n/a n/a Sweet Coltsfoot Petasites vitifolius n/a n/a n/a Sweet Flag Acorus calamus n/a n/a n/a Sweet Grass Hierochloe odorata n/a n/a n/a Tall Blue Lettuce Lactuca biennis n/a n/a n/a Tall Buttercup Ranunculus acris n/a n/a n/a Tall Cinquefoil Potentilla arguta n/a n/a n/a Tall Lungwort Mertensia paniculata n/a n/a n/a Tall Thimbleweed Anemone virginiana n/a n/a n/a Tall Tumblemustard Sisymbrium altissimum n/a n/a n/a Tamarack Larix laricina n/a n/a n/a Tarragon Artemisia dracunculus n/a n/a n/a Tatarian Honeysuckle Lonicera tatarica n/a n/a n/a Thick-Spike Sedge Carex microptera S1S2 n/a G5 Thinleaf Cottonsedge Eriophorum viridicarinatum n/a n/a n/a Thread Rush Juncus filiformis n/a n/a n/a Three-Flowered Avens Geum triflorum n/a n/a n/a Threeleaf Goldthread Coptis trifolia n/a n/a n/a Three-Leaf Solomon's- Smilacina trifolia n/a n/a n/a Seal Threepetal Bedstraw Galium trifidum n/a n/a n/a Three-Toothed Potentilla tridentata n/a n/a n/a Cinquefoil Thymeleaf Dragonhead Dracocephalum thymiflorum n/a n/a n/a Timber Oat Grass Danthonia intermedia S2? n/a G5 Timothy-Grass Phleum pratense n/a n/a n/a Tiny Trumpet Collomia linearis n/a n/a n/a Toad Rush Juncus bufonius n/a n/a n/a Torrey's Sedge Carex torreyi S4 n/a G4 Tower Rockcress Arabis glabra n/a n/a n/a Treacle-Mustard Erysimum cheiranthoides n/a n/a n/a Tree Lavatera Lavatera thuringiaca n/a n/a n/a Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides n/a n/a n/a Trifolium Pratense Trifolium pratense n/a n/a n/a

373

Provincial Federal Global Common Name Scientific Name * + * Listing Listing Listing Tufted Hair-Grass Deschampsia cespitosa n/a n/a n/a Tufted Loosestrife Lysimachia thyrsiflora n/a n/a n/a Tumbleweed Amaranthus graecizans n/a n/a n/a Tussock Bulrush Scirpus cespitosus ssp. austriacus n/a n/a n/a Tussock Cottongrass Eriophorum spissum n/a n/a n/a Twinflower Linnaea borealis var. americana n/a n/a n/a Twogrooved Milkvetch Astragalus bisulcatus n/a n/a n/a Valerian Valeriana septentrionalis n/a n/a n/a Variableleaf Pondweed Potamogeton gramineus n/a n/a n/a Variegated Horsetail Equisetum variegatum n/a n/a n/a Variegated Pond-Lily Nuphar variegatum n/a n/a n/a Various- Elymus diversiglumis S2? n/a G3G4Q Glumed Wild Rye Veiny Meadow-Rue Thalictrum venulosum n/a n/a n/a Veiny Pea Lathyrus venosus n/a n/a n/a Vernal Water-Starwort Callitriche palustris n/a n/a n/a Virginia Wildrye Elymus virginicus n/a n/a n/a Water Horehound Lycopus americanus n/a n/a n/a Water Horsetail Equisetum fluviatile n/a n/a n/a Water Sedge Carex aquatilis n/a n/a n/a Water Speedwell Veronica comosa n/a n/a n/a Water-Meal Wolffia columbiana S1 n/a G5 Water-Milfoil Myriophyllum exalbescens n/a n/a n/a Water-Plantain Alisma triviale n/a n/a n/a Waterweed Elodea canadensis n/a n/a n/a Waxflower Shinleaf Pyrola elliptica n/a n/a n/a Weeping Alkali Grass Puccinellia distans n/a n/a n/a Western Barnyard Echinochloa muricata n/a n/a n/a Grass Western Canada Violet Viola rugulosa n/a n/a n/a Western Dock Rumex occidentalis n/a n/a n/a Western Dog Violet Viola adunca n/a n/a n/a Western Ragweed Ambrosia psilostachya n/a n/a n/a Western Salsify Tragopogon dubius n/a n/a n/a Western Snowberry Symphoricarpos occidentalis n/a n/a n/a Western Wheat Grass Agropyron smithii n/a n/a n/a Western Willow Aster Aster hesperius n/a n/a n/a Western Jewelweed Impatiens noli-tangere S2 n/a G4G5 Wheat Sedge Carex atherodes n/a n/a n/a Whip-Poor-Will Flower Trillium cernuum n/a n/a n/a White Aster Aster ericoides n/a n/a n/a White Birch Betula papyrifera n/a n/a n/a

374

Provincial Federal Global Common Name Scientific Name * + * Listing Listing Listing

White Campion Silene alba n/a n/a n/a White Clover Trifolium repens n/a n/a n/a White Dock Rumex triangulivalvis n/a n/a n/a White Goldenrod Solidago bicolor var. concolor n/a n/a n/a White Panicle Aster Aster simplex n/a n/a n/a White Rattlesnakeroot Prenanthes alba n/a n/a n/a White Sagebrush Artemisia ludoviciana n/a n/a n/a White Sedge Carex curta n/a n/a n/a White Spruce Picea glauca n/a n/a n/a White Tansy Achillea ptarmica n/a n/a n/a White Violet Viola renifolia var. brainerdii n/a n/a n/a White Water Lily Nuphar microphyllum n/a n/a n/a Whitescale Sedge Carex xerantica n/a n/a n/a White-Stem Pondweed Potamogeton praelongus n/a n/a n/a White-Top Fleabane Erigeron annuus SNA n/a G5 Whorled Water Milfoil Myriophyllum verticillatum n/a n/a n/a Widgeon-Grass Ruppia cirrhosa S3 n/a G5 Wild Apple Pyrus malus n/a n/a n/a Wild Bergamot Monarda fistulosa n/a n/a n/a Wild Black Currant Ribes americanum n/a n/a n/a Wild Chives Allium schoenoprasum var. sibiricum n/a n/a n/a Wild Gooseberry Ribes hirtellum n/a n/a n/a Wild Ginger Asarum canadense S3? n/a G5 Wild Mint Mentha arvensis var. villosa n/a n/a n/a Wild Oats Avena fatua n/a n/a n/a Wild Rose Rosa blanda n/a n/a n/a Wild Sarsaparilla Aralia nudicaulis n/a n/a n/a Wild Strawberry Fragaria virginiana n/a n/a n/a Wolf's-Foot Clubmoss Lycopodium clavatum n/a n/a n/a Wood Anemone Anemone quinquefolia n/a n/a n/a Wood Bluegrass Poa nemoralis n/a n/a n/a Wood Fern Dryopteris carthusiana n/a n/a n/a Wood Horsetail Equisetum sylvaticum n/a n/a n/a Wood Lily Lilium philadelphicum n/a n/a n/a Woodland Grooveburr Agrimonia striata n/a n/a n/a Woodland Whitlow- Draba nemorosa var. leiocarpa n/a n/a n/a Grass Woods' Rose Rosa woodsii n/a n/a n/a Woolgrass Scirpus cyperinus n/a n/a n/a Woolly Burdock Arctium tomentosum n/a n/a n/a Woolly Cinquefoil Potentilla hippiana n/a n/a n/a Woolly Sedge Carex lanuginosa n/a n/a n/a

375

Provincial Federal Global Common Name Scientific Name * + * Listing Listing Listing

Yellow Avens Geum aleppicum var. strictum n/a n/a n/a Yellow Marsh Marigold Caltha palustris n/a n/a n/a Yellow Owl's Clover Orthocarpus luteus n/a n/a n/a Yellow Sweet Clover Melilotus officinalis n/a n/a n/a Yellow Willow Salix lutea n/a n/a n/a Yellow Twayblade Liparis loeselii S3S4 n/a G5 Source: (Cody, 1988; MBCDC, 2013; MESA, 2013; SARA, 2013)

*MBCDC (2013) Definitions for Status Listing:

1 Very rare throughout its range or in the province (5 or fewer occurrences, or very few remaining individuals). May be especially vulnerable to extirpation. 2 Rare throughout its range or in the province (6 to 20 occurrences). May be vulnerable to extirpation. 3 Uncommon throughout its range or in the province (21 to 100 occurrences). 4 Widespread, abundant, and apparently secure throughout its range or in the province, with many occurrences, but the element is of long-term concern (> 100 occurrences). 5 Demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure throughout its range or in the province, and essentially impossible to eradicate under present conditions. U Possibly in peril, but status uncertain; more information needed. H Historically known; may be rediscovered. X Believed to be extinct; historical records only, continue search. SNR A species not ranked. A rank has not yet assigned or the species has not been evaluated. SNA A conservation status rank is not applicable to the element. S#S# Numeric range rank: A range between two of the numeric ranks. Denotes range of uncertainty about the exact rarity of the species. G#G# Numeric range rank: A range between two of the numeric ranks. Denotes range of uncertainty about the exact rarity of the species. * Inexact or uncertain; for numeric ranks, denotes inexactness.

*Manitoba Endangered Species Act (2013) Definitions for Status Listing:

Extinct: species are species that have disappeared completely from earth. Endangered: species are species that are at risk of disappearing throughout all, or most, of their Manitoba range. Threatened: species are species that are likely to become endangered due to low or declining numbers in Manitoba, if the factors affecting them do not improve. Extirpated: species are species that were once native to Manitoba, but have disappeared throughout all of their former range. Extirpated species may still be found elsewhere or in captivity.

+SARA (2013) Definitions for Status Listing:

Schedule 1: is the official list of species that are classified as extirpated, endangered, threatened, and of special concern.

376

Schedule 2: species listed in Schedule 2 are species that had been designated as endangered or threatened, and have yet to be re-assessed by COSEWIC using revised criteria. Once these species have been re-assessed, they may be considered for inclusion in Schedule 1. Schedule 3: species listed in Schedule 3 are species that had been designated as special concern, and have yet to be re-assessed by COSEWIC using revised criteria. Once these species have been re- assessed, they may be considered for inclusion in Schedule 1. Special concern: a wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. Threatened: a wildlife species that is likely to become endangered if nothing is done to reverse the factors leading to its extirpation or extinction. Endangered: a wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction. Extirpated: a wildlife species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, but occurring elsewhere. Not at Risk: a wildlife species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances.

377

APPENDIX B: KNOWN LIST OF MAMMALS FOR THE PROJECT STUDY AREA

378

Provincial Federal Global Common Name Scientific Name Listing* Listing+ Listing*

American Badger Taxidea taxus n/a n/a n/a American Bison Bison bison n/a Threatened n/a American Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus n/a n/a n/a American Water Shrew Sorex palustris n/a n/a n/a Arctic Shrew Sorex arcticus n/a n/a n/a Beaver Castor canadensis n/a n/a n/a Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus n/a n/a n/a Black Bear Ursus americanus n/a n/a n/a Bobcat Lynx rufus S3 n/a G5 Common Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus n/a n/a n/a Coyote Canis latrans n/a n/a n/a Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus n/a n/a n/a Eastern Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger n/a n/a n/a Eastern Grey Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis n/a n/a n/a Eastern Heather Vole Phenacomys ungava n/a n/a n/a Eastern Red Bat Lasiurus borealis n/a n/a n/a Elk Cervus elaphus n/a n/a n/a Ermine Mustela erminea n/a n/a n/a Fisher Martes pennanti n/a n/a n/a Franklin’s Ground Squirrel Spermophilus franklinii n/a n/a n/a Grey Wolf Canis lupus n/a n/a n/a Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus n/a n/a n/a Least Chipmunk Eutamias minimus n/a n/a n/a Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus n/a Endangered n/a Long-Tailed Weasel Mustela frenata S3 n/a n/a Lynx Lynx canadenses n/a n/a n/a Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus n/a n/a n/a Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius n/a n/a n/a Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus n/a n/a n/a Mink Neovison vison n/a n/a n/a Moose Alces alces n/a n/a n/a Mule Or Black-Tailed Deer Odocoileus hemionus Threatened / S3 n/a G5 North American Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum n/a n/a n/a Northern Bog Lemming Synaptomys borealis n/a n/a n/a Northern Myotis Myotis septentrionalis n/a n/a n/a Northern Pocket Gopher Thomomys talpoides n/a n/a n/a Northern Short Tailed Shrew Blarina brevicauda n/a n/a n/a Otter Lutra canadensis n/a n/a n/a Prairie Vole Microtus ochrogaster n/a n/a n/a Pygmy Shrew Sorex hoyi n/a n/a n/a Red Fox Vulpes vulpes n/a n/a n/a Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus n/a n/a n/a Richardson’s Ground Spermophilus n/a n/a n/a Squirrel richardsonii

Silver Haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans n/a n/a n/a

379

Provincial Federal Global Common Name Scientific Name Listing* Listing+ Listing*

Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus n/a n/a n/a Southern Red-Backed Vole Clethrionomys gapperi n/a n/a n/a Star-Nosed Mole Condylura cristata n/a n/a n/a Thirteen-Lined Ground Spermophilus n/a n/a n/a Squirrel tridecemlineatus

Western Jackrabbit Lepus townsendii n/a n/a n/a White-Tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus n/a n/a n/a Woodchuck Marmota monax n/a n/a n/a

Source: (Banfield, 1974; CPAWS, 2004; Reid, 2006; MBCDC, 2013; MESA, 2013; SARA, 2013)

*MBCDC (2013) Definitions for Status Listing:

*Manitoba Endangered Species Act (2013) Definitions for Status Listing:

+SARA (2013) Definitions for Status Listing:

380

Schedule 1: is the official list of species that are classified as extirpated, endangered, threatened, and of special concern. Schedule 2: species listed in Schedule 2 are species that had been designated as endangered or threatened, and have yet to be re-assessed by COSEWIC using revised criteria. Once these species have been re-assessed, they may be considered for inclusion in Schedule 1. Schedule 3: species listed in Schedule 3 are species that had been designated as special concern, and have yet to be re-assessed by COSEWIC using revised criteria. Once these species have been re- assessed, they may be considered for inclusion in Schedule 1. Special concern: a wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. Threatened: a wildlife species that is likely to become endangered if nothing is done to reverse the factors leading to its extirpation or extinction. Endangered: a wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction. Extirpated: a wildlife species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, but occurring elsewhere. Not at Risk: a wildlife species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances.

381