Vegetation Interim Report Project 6 March 16 2017 · VEGETATION CHARACTERIZATION AND EFFECTS...

VEGETATIONCHARACTERIZATIONANDEFFECTSASSESSMENT

OFTHEPROPOSEDALL-SEASONROADPROJECT6

INTERIMREPORT

MantoSipiCreeNation,BunibonibeeCreeNationandGod’sLakeFirst

Nation

Preparedfor:

ManitobaEastSideRoadAuthority

Preparedby:

SzwalukEnvironmentalConsultingLtd.

KarinNewman

and

CalyxConsulting

January2017

i

SUMMARY

Thisreportprovidesacharacterizationofvegetationandanassessmentofeffectsforthe

proposedP6All-SeasonRoadProjectconnectingMantoSipiCreeNation,BunibonibeeCree

Nation and God’s Lake First Nation. The characterization of vegetation included a

description of ecological land classification, physical environment, landscape level

vegetation,localflora,andAboriginaltraditionalknowledge.

TheproposedProjectislocatedintheHayesRiverUplandEcoregion,andalmostentirely

intheGod’sLakeandKneeLakeEcodistricts.Thelandscapeconsistslargelyofconiferous

forestsonbothuplandandorganicsites.Areasofrockyoutcropssupportjackpine,while

mixed standsof conifer anddeciduous species are generally restricted to favorable sites

alonglakesandrivers.Lowgrowingblackspruceoccursinbogsandtamarackisfoundin

fens.

Valued Components for the study included plant species of conservation concern (those

listedbythefederalSpeciesatRiskAct,theManitobaEndangeredSpeciesandEcosystems

Act,theCommitteeontheStatusofEndangeredWildlifeinCanada,andthoselistedasvery

raretorarebytheManitobaConservationDataCentre)andkeycommunityharvestareas/

plantspeciesofinterest(thoseidentifiedthroughtraditionalknowledgestudiesandother

engagementactivities).

There are an estimated 14 species of conservation concern that occur within the P6

regionalassessmentareaandsurroundings.Informationonplantspeciesimportanttothe

people in the region for sustenance and cultural practices are identified. Common food

plants include blueberry, raspberry, strawberry, cloudberry, cranberry, cherry and

Saskatoon. Medicinal plants including black spruce, sweet flag and Labrador tea were

identified.

PotentialenvironmentaleffectsoftheproposedProjectonvegetationandsoilsincludethe

following:

• Lossofspeciesofconservationconcern.

• Disturbance to or removal of key community harvest areas of plant species of

interest(medicinalandculturalspecies).

• Disturbancetoorremovalofnativevegetation.

• Disturbanceorlosstospeciescompositionandecologyofwetlands(bogsandfens).

• Fragmentationofthelocalandregionalvegetationcommunities.

• Modification of vegetation composition and structure adjacent to the disturbance

zone.

• Introductionandspreadofinvasiveandnon-nativespecies.

ii

• Loss/impairment of vegetation from accidental releases of fuels or hazardous

substances.

• Loss/impairmentofdesirableplantspeciesfromherbicideapplication.

• Impairmentofvegetationintheprojectassessmentareafromdust.

• Increasedriskofforestfirefromclearingandconstruction.

• Increasedaccesstobotanicalresourcesusedbynon-communitymembers.

• Reducedfloristicdiversityimmediatelyadjacenttotheroad.

• Lossofsoilfromclearing,strippingandconstruction.

• Compactionofsoilduringconstruction.

• Lossofsoilduetoerosionofclearedsitesandstockpiles.

• Modificationofsoilmoistureregime.

• Impairedsoilqualityfromaccidentalreleasesoffuelsandhazardoussubstances.

• Impairedsoilqualityfromherbicideapplication.

Measures to address potential effects are discussed. The assessment found no likely

significanteffectstovaluedvegetationcomponentsinthisstudy.

Additional information gathered on vegetation and soils in the assessment area from

fieldworkcompletedin2016willbeprovidedintheProjectFieldReport.

iii

TABLEOFCONTENTS

Page.No.1.0 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1

1.1 Background..........................................................................................................................................1

1.2 ProjectOverview................................................................................................................................1

2.0 STUDYAREA................................................................................................................................3

2.1 SpatialBoundaries............................................................................................................................3

3.0 METHODS......................................................................................................................................4

3.1 DesktopMethods...............................................................................................................................4

4.0 EXISTINGENVIRONMENT........................................................................................................6

4.1 EcologicalLandClassification......................................................................................................6

4.2 PhysicalEnvironment......................................................................................................................6

4.2.1 GeologyandSurficialGeology.....................................................................................6

4.2.2 Soils........................................................................................................................................7

4.2.3 TopographyandDrainage............................................................................................8

4.2.4 Climate..................................................................................................................................9

4.3 FireandtheBorealForest.............................................................................................................9

4.3.1 FireHistory.........................................................................................................................9

4.4 LandscapeLevelVegetation.......................................................................................................10

4.4.1 LandCoverClassification...........................................................................................11

4.4.2 QuarryandBorrowAreas..........................................................................................12

4.4.3 Wetlands...........................................................................................................................16

4.5 LocalFlora.........................................................................................................................................18

4.5.1 NativeSpecies.................................................................................................................18

4.5.2 IntroducedSpecies.......................................................................................................19

4.5.3 SpeciesofConservationConcern...........................................................................20

4.6 TraditionalKnowledge.................................................................................................................21

4.6.1 PlantsofCulturalImportance..................................................................................22

4.6.2 MantoSipiCreeNation...............................................................................................24

4.6.3 BunibonibeeCreeNation...........................................................................................25

iv

4.6.4 God’sLakeFirstNation...............................................................................................26

4.6.5 God’sLakeNorthernAffairsCommunity............................................................27

5.0 POTENTIALEFFECTSASSESSMENT....................................................................................28

5.1 EnvironmentalIssues...................................................................................................................32

5.2 ValuedComponents.......................................................................................................................32

5.3 EffectsAnalysis................................................................................................................................34

5.3.1 Vegetation.........................................................................................................................34

5.3.2 Soils.....................................................................................................................................43

6.0 ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION.........................................................................................47

6.1 EnvironmentalProtectionMeasures.....................................................................................47

6.2 FieldInvestigation..........................................................................................................................48

7.0 CUMULATIVEEFFECTS...........................................................................................................49

7.1 Scoping................................................................................................................................................49

7.2 EffectsAnalysis................................................................................................................................51

7.3 IdentificationofMitigation.........................................................................................................52

7.4 EvaluationofSignificance...........................................................................................................52

7.5 Follow-up...........................................................................................................................................52

8.0 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................53

APPENDIXI. DefinitionsofSelectedTechnicalTerms.

APPENDIXII. PreliminarySpeciesList.

APPENDIXIII. EnvironmentalComponentInteractionMatrixandLinkageDiagram.

APPENDIXIV. ReportMaps.

v

TABLES

Table4.1. Area(km2)andpercentoflandwithinecodistrictsamongassessmentareas.

Table4.2.2. Area(km2)andpercentofsoilclassesamongassessmentareas.

Table4.2.3. Watercrossingsintheprojectassessmentarea.

Table4.3. Area(km2)andpercentoflandburnedbydecadeamongassessmentareas.

Table4.4.1a.Area(km2)andpercentcoverofvegetationclassesbyassessmentarea.

Table4.4.1b.Percent(%)ofvegetationremovalfromlocalandregionalassessmentareas

duetoclearingontheRoW.

Table4.4.2a.Area(km2)andpercentoflandcoverclassesforpotentialquarrysiteswithin

allassessmentareas.

Table4.4.2b Percent(%)ofvegetationremovalfrompotentialquarriesforallassessment

areas.

Table4.4.2c. Area(km2)andpercentoflandcoverclassesforpotentialaccessroads

withinallassessmentareas.

Table4.4.2d.Vegetationremoval(%)fromallassessmentareasonpotentialaccessroads.

Table4.4.3. Area(km2)andpercentofwetlandtypesamongassessmentareas.

Table4.5.2. PotentialintroducedspeciesfoundintheHayesRiverUplandEcoregion.

Table4.5.3. SpeciesofconservationconcernpreviouslyrecordedintheGod’sLakearea

andsurroundingHayesRiverUplandEcoregion.

Table4.6.1a. PlantsofsustenanceandculturalvalueidentifiedbymembersoftheManto

SipiCreeNation(MS),BunibonibeeCreeNation(BB),God'sLakeFirstNation

(GL),andGod’sLakeNorthernAffairsCommunity(GLNAC),withinthe

regionalassessmentarea.

Table4.6.1b. Totalmappedareaforplantsofsustenanceandculturalvalueidentifiedby

communitymembers,byassessmentarea.

Table4.6.2. MantoSipiCreeNationAboriginalTraditionalKnowledgesummaries:Areas

(km2)forvaluedplantsbyassessmentarea.

Table4.6.3. BunibonibeeCreeNationAboriginalTraditionalKnowledgesummaries:

Areas(km2orkm)forvaluedplantsbyassessmentarea.

Table4.6.4a. God'sLakeFirstNationAboriginalTraditionalKnowledgesummaries:Areas

(km2orkm)forvaluedplantsbyassessmentarea.

Table4.6.4b. God'sLakeFirstNationAboriginalTraditionalKnowledge:Numberof

locationsforvaluedfoodandmedicineplants,intheregionalassessment

area.

Table5.0. Descriptionofsignificancecriteriausedfortheresidualeffectsassessment.

Table5.2. VegetationValuedComponents.

Table5.3.1. Vegetationeffectsanalysis.

Table5.3.2. Soilseffectsanalysis.

Table7.1. Potentialcumulativeeffectsidentification.

Table7.2. Potentialcumulativeenvironmentaleffectsanalysis.

vi

MAPS

Map1. SpatialBoundariesofAssessmentAreasintheProject6StudyArea.

Map2. EcologicalLandClassificationintheProject6StudyArea.

Map3. SoilClassificationintheProject6StudyArea.

Map4. RiverandStreamCrossingsintheProject6StudyArea.

Map5. FireHistoryintheProject6StudyArea.

Map6. LandCoverClassificationintheProject6StudyArea.

Map7. WetlandClassificationintheProject6StudyArea.

ConfidentialCover–tobeviewedonlywithwrittenpermissionfromrespectivecommunity

Map8a. MantoSipiAboriginalTraditionalKnowledgeintheProject6StudyArea.

Map8b. BunibonibeeAboriginalTraditionalKnowledgeintheProject6StudyArea.

Map8c. God’sLakeAboriginalTraditionalKnowledgeintheProject6StudyArea.

Map8d. GodsLakeNorthernAffairsCommunityTraditionalKnowledgeintheProject

6StudyArea.

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank Manitoba Infrastructure for providing all background

informationrequiredtoconductthisstudy,EcologicEnvironmentalforgeneratingtheGIS

analysis and developing the map products, and the Manitoba Museum for use of their

herbarium.

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The First Nation communities of Manto Sipi Cree Nation, Bunibonibee Cree Nation and

God’sLakeFirstNationrelyprimarilyonwinterroadandairtraveltotransportpeopleand

goods. In 2008, the Government ofManitoba announced a strategic initiative to provide

improved, safer and more reliable transportation services to connect the remote

communitiesontheeastsideofLakeWinnipegwith therestofManitoba.ManitobaEast

SideRoadAuthority(MESRA),formerlyManitobaFloodwayandEastSideRoadAuthority

(MFESRA), was established as a provincial Crown Agency to manage the East Side

Transportation Initiative with the intent of increasing transportation opportunities for

communities on the east side of LakeWinnipeg. This task has since been transferred to

ManitobaInfrastructure(MI).

AspartoftheEastSideTransportationInitiative,MESRAisproposingtheconstructionof

an all-season road northeast of Lake Winnipeg between Manto Sipi Cree Nation,

BunibonibeeCreeNationandGod’sLakeFirstNation,Project6(P6).TheproposedP6All-

SeasonRoadwilloccuratthenortheasternextentoftheTransportationInitiativenetwork.

1.2 ProjectOverview

TheproposedP6All-SeasonRoadwillconsistofapproximately137kmoftwo-lanegravel

highwayonnewright-of-way(ROW)onprovincialCrownland,connectingMantoSipiCree

Nation,BunibonibeeCreeNationandGod’sLakeFirstNation(Map1).

TheP6All-SeasonRoadwillbeagravel-surfacepublichighway,withadesignwidthof10

m.TheP6All-SeasonRoadwill intersecttwomajorwatercrossingsoverGod’sRiverand

MagillCreek.ThecomponentsoftheProjectincludethefollowing:

• All-SeasonRoadonnewROW;

• Uptotwobridgesatwatercrossings(bridgereplacementatGod’sRiver,possible

bridgeconstructionatMagillCreek);

• Culvertsforstreamcrossingsanddrainageequalization;

• Rockquarriesandgranularborrowareas;and

• Temporaryaccesstrails,bridges,stagingareasandcamps.

The portion of the Project located on Provincial Crown Land requires an Environmental

Impact Assessment under theManitoba Environment Act as a Class II development and

undertheCanadianEnvironmentalAssessmentAct.

2

Thespecificobjectivesestablishedforthisstudywere:

• provide an understanding of the baseline vegetation conditions to support the

effectsassessmentandprojectplanning;

• contribute to the identification of the potential environmental effects of road

developmentonvegetationspeciesandcommunities;and

• contribute to the identification and implementation of environmental protection

measures to avoid or minimize effects to vegetation, particularly species of

conservationconcernandkeycommunityharvestareas(plantspeciesofinterest).

3

2.0 STUDYAREA

The proposed P6 All-Season Road Project is located northeast of Lake Winnipeg, near

Manto Sipi Cree Nation, Bunibonibee Cree Nation and God’s Lake First Nation,

approximately 950 km northeast ofWinnipeg (by air). The P6 All-Season Road extends

from Bunibonibee Cree Nation southeast to God’s Lake First Nation, and approximately

midwayisintersectedtoextendnortheasttoMantoSipiCreeNation.Thetotaldistanceis

approximately137kmofproposedAll-SeasonRoad.Forthisstudy, theP6segmentfrom

BunibonibeeCreeNationtoGod’sLakeFirstNationisreferredtoasP6aandthesegment

fromthejunctiontoMantoSipiCreeNationasP6b.

2.1 SpatialBoundaries

Thespatialboundariesfortheassessmentconsistofproject,localandregionalassessment

areasandaredescribedbelow,andillustratedinMap1.

ProjectAssessmentArea(PAA)–FootprintoftheproposedP6All-SeasonRoadProject,

includingrockquarries,borrowareasandaccessroads.TheproposedP6All-SeasonRoad

will be centered on a 100m ROWwith a typical clearingwidth of 60m and additional

clearingasrequiredathorizontalcurvestomaintainsightdistances.

Local Assessment Area (LAA) – One km on either side of the proposed P6 All-Season

RoadProject,includingrockquarries,borrowareasandaccessroads.

RegionalAssessmentArea(RAA)–FivekmoneithersideoftheproposedP6All-Season

RoadProject.

4

3.0 METHODS

3.1 DesktopMethods

Existingbiophysical information(e.g.,GeologyofManitoba2016;MatileandKeller2006;

Smithetal.1998)wasusedtodescribetheenvironment,regionallyandacrossallareasof

assessmentfortheP6All-SeasonRoad,includingavailableinformationprovidedbyMESRA

(e.g.,projectimageryandshapefiles).Literaturesearchesforrelevantstudiesinthevicinity

of the Project (e.g., Terraform Environmental Consulting 1999a and 1999b; Manitoba

Hydro2000aand2000b)andenvironmentalassessments (e.g.,MFESRA2010and2011;

MESRA2016aand2016b)werealsocompleted.

DataSources

The National Stratification Working Group ecological framework database (Smith et al.

1998)wasusedtoidentifyanddescribetheecologicallandclassification,totheecodistrict

scale. Within the P6 assessment areas (project, local, regional), the Land Cover

Classification (LCC) was used to determine vegetation cover classes (Natural Resources

Canada,through2000).TheLCCisanationalvectordatabasemappinglayerthathasbeen

harmonized across themajor federal departments involved in landmanagement or land

change detection (Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada, Canadian Forest Service, and

Canadian Centre for Remote Sensing). The LCC consists of remotely sensed imagery

(Landsat data) as part of the Earth Observation for Sustainable Development of Forests

Program.

The burn history of the area was determined from provincial fire data (Manitoba

Conservation2014).Otheravailabledatasourcesusedincludedsoils(AgricultureandAgri-

Food Canada 2013), water crossings (Natural Resources Canada 1999 to 2010) and

wetland features (Halsey et al. 1997). Key community harvest areas (plant species of

interest) as identified through traditional knowledge studies and engagement activities

wereprovidedbyMESRAthroughshapefiles.

Theavailabledatasetswereclippedtothethreeassessmentareas,andforeachresulting

shapefile,theareaofpolygonswascalculated.Intersectingstreamandrivercrossingswere

buffered at 10 m, to account for width. Values calculated for water crossings and

waterbodieswereapproximate.

SpeciesofConservationConcern

MESRAhasstatedthatplantspeciesofconcernrelevanttotheproposedP6projectare:

• SpecieslistedasSchedule1undertheSpeciesatRiskAct(SARA),

5

• Species listed as extirpated, endangered, threatened, or of special interest by The

CommitteeontheStatusofEndangeredWildlifeinCanada(COSEWIC),

• Species listed as extirpated, endangered, or threatened under the Endangered

SpeciesandEcosystemsactofManitoba(ESEA),and

• SpeciesrankedasVeryRare(S1)andRare(S2)bytheManitobaConservationData

Centre(MBCDC).

A database search of the MBCDC provincial records for known locations of species of

conservationconcerninthevicinityoftheProjectwasrequestedinMarch2016.

Theglobal(G)andsub-national(S)rarityrankingofspeciesusedbytheMBCDC,according

toa standardizedprocedureusedbyallConservationDataCentresandNaturalHeritage

Programsisasfollows:

1:Veryrarethroughoutitsrangeorintheprovince(5orfeweroccurrences,orveryfew

remainingindividuals).Maybeespeciallyvulnerabletoextirpation.

2:Rarethroughoutitsrangeorintheprovince(6to20occurrences).Maybevulnerableto

extirpation.

3:Uncommonthroughoutitsrangeorintheprovince(21to100occurrences).

4:Widespread,abundant,andapparentlysecure throughout its rangeor in theprovince,

withmanyoccurrences,buttheelementisoflong-termconcern(>100occurrences).

5:Demonstrablywidespread,abundant,andsecurethroughoutitsrangeorintheprovince,

andessentiallyimpossibletoeradicateunderpresentconditions.

An element with a range between two numeric ranks (e.g., S2S3) denotes a range of

uncertaintyabouttheexactrarityofthespecies.Aquestionmarkfollowingtherank(e.g.,

S2?)denotesinexactnessoruncertaintyofthenumericrank.

TheconservationstatuscategoriesforESEA,SARAandCOSEWICareasfollows:

• SpecialConcern:Aspeciesthatmaybecomethreatenedorendangeredbecauseofa

combinationofbiologicalcharacteristicsandidentifiedthreats.

• Threatened:Aspecieslikelytobecomeendangeredifnothingisdonetoreversethe

factorsleadingtoitsextirpationorextinction.

• Endangered:Aspeciesfacingimminentextirpationorextinction.

• Extirpated:AspeciesnolongerexistinginthewildinCanadabutexistselsewhere.

• Extinct:Aspeciesthatnolongerexists.

Plantnomenclature forspeciesdiscussed in this reportwill followtheMBCDCprovincial

specieslist.

6

4.0 EXISTINGENVIRONMENT

4.1 EcologicalLandClassification

Ecological classification in Canada is a hierarchical designation describing ecologically

distinctareasbasedoninterrelationshipsofgeology,landform,soil,water,vegetation,and

human factors, with the ecozone at the coarsest level. The Boreal Shield Ecozone, the

largestinCanada,stretchesfromnorthernSaskatchewantoNewfoundland,andalsocovers

much of Manitoba (Smith et al. 1998). Within this ecozone, the Hayes River Upland

Ecoregion extends from the Grass River Basin in east-centralManitoba to northwestern

Ontario.TheproposedAll-SeasonRoadProjectconnectingthecommunitiesofMantoSipi

CreeNation,BunibonibeeCreeNationandGod’sLakeFirstNationoccursmainlywithinthe

God’s Lake Ecodistrict and the Knee Lake Ecodistrict, see Map 2. The Island Lake

Ecodistrictoccursatthenortheasternportionofthestudyarea.Inabsenceofspecificand

detailedvegetationandsoilstudiesfortheP6studyarea,theecodistrictisusedhereasa

detailedlevelofecologicalreference,todescribetheexistingenvironment.

Amongassessmentareas(project, localandregional),theGod’sLakeEcodistrictoccupies

the greatest area as identified in Table 4.1. The Knee Lake Ecodistrict occupies much

smallerareas,andtheIslandLakeEcodistrictonlyoccursattheregionallevel.

Table4.1.Area(km2)andpercentoflandwithinecodistrictsamongassessmentareas.

Project Local Regional

Ecodistrict Area(km2) % Area(km2) % Area(km2) %

God’sLake 22.8 80.8 228.9 80.6 1,150.2 80.4

KneeLake 5.4 19.2 55.2 19.4 277.5 19.4

IslandLake - - - - 2.9 0.3

Source:Smithetal.1998.

4.2 PhysicalEnvironment

4.2.1 GeologyandSurficialGeology

The geology of the area consists of Precambrian rock from the Archean era (Geology of

Manitoba2016).IntheOxfordLakearea,thelithotecconsistsoflatemetasedimentaryand

metavolcanic rocks (OxfordLakeGroup, IslandLake Series, SanAntonio formation). The

unit consists of greywacke, conglomerate, arkose and arenite, aswell asmafic and felsic

fragmental volcanic rocks, and porphyritic mafic to felsic flows. In the vicinity are late

intrusive rocks of granodiorite,minor tonalite,migmatite and granite. In the God’s Lake

area, the lithotec dominantly consists of metamorphosed early intrusive rocks, gneisses

andmigmatites.Earlymetavolcanicandmetasedimentaryrocks (RiceLakeGroup,Hayes

River Group) occur at the north and south ends of the lake. The unit consists of basalt,

minor andesite, minor sedimentary and mafic intrusive rocks, ultra mafic rocks and

7

differentiated ultramafic/mafic intrusions. Metamorphic supracrustal rocks with

amphibolitealsooccur(GeologyofManitoba2016).

The surficial geology of the area is characterized by discontinuous till deposits over

bedrockoutcrops,organicdepositsandglaciolacustrinesediments(Smithetal.1998).Till

depositsareofsiltdiamicton, largelyderivedfromPhanerozoiccarbonaterocksfromthe

HudsonBayLowland,andaregenerallyoflow-relief.Organicdeposits,inlow-lyingareas,

are from <1 – 5 m thick and accumulate in fen, bog, swamp and marsh settings. In

permafrost areas, patterned ground and peat palsas are common. The glaciolacustrine

sediments are low relief, massive and laminated deposits of clay, silt and minor sand,

deposited by deep water of glacial Lake Agassiz. Deposits were commonly scoured and

homogenizedbyicebergs.Glaciofluvialsedimentsrangefromfinesand,minorgravel,thin

siltandclayinterbedsdepositedassubaqueousoutwashfanstosandandgravelcomplex

deposits with esker ridges and kames. The bedrock outcrops are generally subglacially

eroded and unweathered intrusive, metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks with a

glacially scoured irregular surface with high local relief. In areas of permafrost, frost

shattered,angularboulderfieldsoccur(MatileandKeller2006).

4.2.2 Soils

Soilsaresimilaracrossecodistricts,withmineralsoilsdevelopedontill,glaciolacustrineor

glaciofluvial sediments and non-frozen and frozen organic soils found in peatlands and

depressions. In the God’s Lake Ecodistrict, mineral soils are characterized as being

dominantlywelltoimperfectlydrainedEluviatedEutricBrunisolsthathavedevelopedon

loamytosandytilldepositsandGrayLuvisolsthathavedevelopedonbothloamytosandy

till deposits and upland clayey glaciolacustrine deposits. Vast areas of peat filled

depressionsformapoorlydrainedbogandfencomplex.Soilsfoundinpoorlydrainedbogs

arecharacterizedasFibrisols,withslightlydecomposedsphagnumandfeathermosspeat

andMesisolswithmoderatelydecomposedmossandforestpeat.Soils foundinfensvary

with slightly decomposed to moderately well decomposed peat, with deeper peat more

decomposed that peat found at the surface. Organic Cryosols are found in the northern

section of the ecodistrict and in peatlands where permafrost is present. To the north

within the Knee Lake Ecodistrict, dominant soils are Organic which include Organic

Cryosolsgenerallyfoundinpeatlandareasthatcontainpermafrost.Organicsoilsthatare

non-frozenincludebothFibrisolsandMesisolsfoundinshallowbogs,andpatternedfens

comprised of woody, forest peat and sedge peat. Mineral soils found in the ecodistrict

includeEluviatedEutricBrunisols thathavedevelopedon loamy to sandy calcareous till

and sandygravelly fluvioglacialdeposits, andGrayLuvisols foundonwell to imperfectly

drainedclayeydeposits(Smithetal.1998).

8

ThegeneraldistributionofthemainsoilclassificationtypesforthegreaterregionoftheP6

study area is shown inMap3. The area (km2) andpercent cover of soil typeswithin all

assessment areas is shown in Table 4.2.2. Brunisols are the dominant soils among the

assessmentareas,followedbyCryosolsandOrganics.

Table4.2.2.Area(km2)andpercentofsoilclassesamongassessmentareas.

SoilClassification


Area(km2) % Area(km2) % Area(km2) %

Brunisolic 13.6 48.2 135.2 47.6 695.8 48.6

Cryosolic 8.8 31.1 89.6 31.6 460.6 32.2

Luvisolic 1.4 4.8 14.4 5.1 58.3 4.1

Organic 4.5 15.8 44.8 15.8 210.6 14.7

Unclassified - - - - 5.3 0.4

Source:NationalSoilsDatabase,AgricultureandAgri-foodCanada2013.

4.2.3 TopographyandDrainage

Topography of the area ranges from undulating to ridged morainal plain comprised of

sandy to loamy till deposits. In areas of lower slopes and depressions, bogs and fens

comprised of both shallow and deep peat material are found overlying clayey

glaciolacustrinedeposits.Inclusionsofkettledfluvioglacialdeposits,intheformofeskers

andeskeraprons,canalsobefound.Elevationsrangefrom150mabovesealevel(masl),

to274masl(Smithetal.1998).

Twodrainage systems, theNelsonRiver andHayes are found in the area, and themany

small, medium and large sized lakes drain north-northeastward through a network of

riversandsecondarystreams.

Themajor lakes in thearea includeGod’sLake,OxfordLakeandKneeLakewhilemajor

riversoftheareaincludetheHayesandGod’sRivers.Basedonexistingdata,theP6project

assessmentareais intersectedbynumerousstreams,creeks,andrivers,showninMap4.

The water crossings and bodies of water account for roughly 1% of the total project

assessmentarea,ofwhichriversandstreamcrossings(bufferedby10m)accountfor0.24

km2,or0.9%,whileotherwaterbodiesaccountforapproximately0.03km2,or0.1%,shown

inTable4.2.3.North/SouthConsultants report54watercourse crossings in theirproject

assessment.

Table4.2.3.Watercrossingsintheprojectassessmentarea.

Category Crossings Area(km2) %

Riversandstreams 44 0.24 0.9

Waterbody 2 0.03 0.1

Nowatercrossingactivity - 27.95 99.0

Source:NaturalResourcesCanada1999-2010.

9

4.2.4 Climate

This area fallswithin both thewarmer andmore humid, and colder subdivisions of the

HighBoreal EcoclimaticRegion (Smith et al. 1998). Short, cool summers and long, very

coldwintersarecharacteristicofthisecoclimaticregion. Localclimatenormalsrecorded

fromtheIslandLakestation(1981-2010)tothesouth,showameanannualtemperatureof

-0.7˚C, with a July mean of 17.9˚C and a January mean of -21.5˚C. The average annual

precipitationis555mm,onethirdofwhichfallsassnow(EnvironmentCanada2015).

4.3 FireandtheBorealForest

In the boreal forest, fire is an important natural disturbance that drives vegetation

dynamics at the landscape, stand and species levels. Forest diversity is a result of the

variationoffiresinfrequency, intensity,severity,size,shapeandseasonofburn(Natural

ResourcesCanada2016).Theareaburnedvariesgreatly,andfireactivityisinfluencedby

weatherandclimate,fuels,ignitionagents,andhumans(Brandtetal.2013).Highintensity

firerejuvenatesborealecosystems,andisthemajorstandrenewingagent,affectingstand

lifecycles,patchinessandregeneration(Stocksetal.2003).Firesimprovesoilconditions

for germination by releasing nutrients andminerals into soils, removing live vegetation

and littermatter, and increasing availability of sunlight at the forest floor (Brandt et al.

2013;Stocksetal.2003).Amosaicofvegetationatdifferentstagesofsuccessionfromfire

intheecosystemresultsingreaterlandscapediversityandprovidesanarrayofhabitatsfor

floraandfauna(Perry1994).

Seasons play a role in fire frequency and intensity and can affect re-growth of the

ecosystem,while temperaturechangesandsoilmoisturecontentalsoaffect fire intensity

(Weber and Flannigan 1997). The boreal forest fire season is April through October.

Lightning firesoccurgenerally in latespring/summer,whilehumancaused fires tendto

occur in early spring and fall (Stocks et al. 2003). In the boreal forest, lightning strikes

account forabout35%of fires, althoughare responsible forabout85%of the total area

burned(Brandtetal.2013).

4.3.1 FireHistory

The boreal forest tends to burn at different intervals. The fire cycle for jack pine is

approximately 15 to 35 years,while spruce stands cycle every 50 to 100 years (Natural

ResourcesCanada2016).Stand-destroyingcrown firesoccuratapproximately50 to200

year intervals, and can reach 500 years on verymoist sites. The coniferous forests (e.g.,

spruce, pine) of this region experience more frequent crown fires than deciduous

dominatedforests(Perry1994).

10

TheprovincialfirehistorydataavailablefortheP6studyareadatesbacktothe1940s.Fire

history shown is calculated for each decade by area (km2) and percent of land, within

project,local,andregionallevelsofassessment,inTable4.3.

Table4.3.Area(km2)andpercentoflandburnedbydecadeamongassessmentareas.

FiresbyDecade


Area(km2) % Area(km2) % Area(km2) %

1940-1949 0.6 2.2 5.2 1.8 8.3 0.61950-1959 4.8 17.2 42.7 15.0 181.1 12.71960-1969 0.4 1.6 2.5 0.9 15.0 1.01970-1979 0.6 2.0 3.2 1.1 18.5 1.3

1980-1989 <0.001 <0.01 0.4 0.2 11.7 0.8

1990-1999 0.4 1.6 3.8 1.3 54.8 3.8

2000-2009 - - 0.1 <0.1 2.2 0.2

2010-2014 - - <0.01 <0.01 0.2 <0.1

Source:ManitobaConservationandWaterStewardship,through2014.

The greatest fire activity in this areaoccurredduring the1950s,with12.7%of the land

withintheregionalassessmentareacumulativelyburnedbetween1950and1959.During

the same time period, cumulative fire activity appears slightlymore concentrated in the

local (15.0%) and project (17.2%) assessment areas. From the 1960s to the present,

comparativelylessfireactivityhasbeendocumented,withfiresaffectingbetween0-2%of

thelandbaseintheproject,local,andregionalassessmentareas.Anexceptionistheslight

riseinfireactivity(to3.8%seenattheregionalscaleduringthe1990s.Althoughafterthe

year2000,thereisamarkedreductioninfireactivityacrosstheproject,local,andregional

assessment areas, according to available information. The history of fire distribution by

decadeisshowninMap5.

4.4 LandscapeLevelVegetation

ThevegetationacrossthisregionofManitobaisprimarilyblackspruceonbothuplandand

organic sites. Canopies are often more open, and of medium height compared to areas

further south. Forest fire has replaced some upland spruce with jack pine, often the

dominantspeciesonregeneratingsites,whiletremblingaspenoccursoccasionally.Mixed

stands of white spruce, balsam fir, trembling aspen and balsam poplar are generally

restricted to favorable sites along lakes and rivers. Areas of rocky outcrops favour jack

pine,withanunderstoryofericaceousshrubs,herbsandmossesandlichens.Lowgrowing

blackspruceinopencanopiesgrowinbogs,alongwithericaceousshrubsandsphagnum

andothermosses.Tamarackisfoundinfens,andismixedwithblackspruceintransitional

peatlands(Smithetal.1998).

11

4.4.1 LandCoverClassification

The Land Cover Classification, generated from Landsat satellite data, details twenty-one

vegetationclasses,rangingindatesfrom1999to2000(NaturalResourcesCanada,through

2000).Elevenvegetationclasses(plusoneunclassifiedclass)occurwithintheproject,local

and regional assessment areas, including tall shrub, wetlands, and coniferous, broadleaf

and mixedwood forests. The water class includes lakes and rivers and streams. Map 6

illustratesthedistributionofthelandcoverclassesfortheP6studyareaandsurrounding

region.

Thearea(km2)andpercentageoflandcoverclassesfoundintheproject,local,andregional

assessmentareasisshownbelowinTable4.4.1a.MuchoftheP6studyareaisrepresented

by coniferous growth, covering82.8%of theRoW. Stand canopy cover is predominantly

dense (38.1%)oropen (31.8%),withsparsecanopiesoccurringover12.9%of theRoW.

Coniferouscover figuresaresimilarat the localandregionalassessmentscales,although

thepercentcoversareslightlyless.

Wetlandsoccurover12.4-19.2%of theproject, local,andregionalassessmentareas,and

supportprimarilyshrubbyvegetationgrowth.Densehardwoodormixedwoodstandsare

relatively rare, occurring over 0.1-1.2% of all assessment areas.Water features, such as

lakesandstreamsarepresentovertheregionalassessmentarea(19.8%)andlocal(8.9%)

assessmentareas,althoughlessfrequentwatercoverisseenontheROW(0.6%).

Table4.4.1a.Area(km2)andpercentcoverofvegetationclassesbyassessmentarea.

LandCoverClassification


Area(km2)

% Area(km2)

% Area(km2)

%

Water 0.2 0.6 25.3 8.9 283.9 19.8ExposedLand 0.7 2.5 7.3 2.6 16.9 1.2ShrubTall - - 0.8 0.3 23.0 1.6WetlandTreed 0.4 1.3 5.4 1.9 24.9 1.7WetlandShrub 3.0 10.6 46.2 16.3 193.5 13.5WetlandHerb 0.2 0.5 2.8 1.0 12.1 0.8ConiferousDense 10.7 38.1 82.6 29.1 382.4 26.7ConiferousOpen 9.0 31.8 81.8 28.8 351.4 24.6ConiferousSparse 3.6 12.9 29.4 10.4 126.1 8.8BroadleafDense 0.4 1.2 1.7 0.6 9.2 0.6MixedwoodDense <0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 6.8 0.5Unclassified 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 <0.1Source:NaturalResourcesCanada,through2000.

The anticipated percent of vegetation removal from the local and regional assessment

areas, due to project clearing of the ROW, is shown for each vegetation class, in Table

4.4.1b. Figures presented are calculated based on the overall percent cover for each

12

vegetation class that occurs directly on the ROW, as a percentage of the local and the

regionalassessmentareas.Areasofopenwaterandexposedlandareaalsoincluded,asan

indicationofdisturbancethroughconstructionactivities,ratherthanvegetationremoval.

Table4.4.1b.Percent(%)ofvegetationremovalfromlocalandregionalassessmentareasduetoclearingontheROW.

LandCoverClassification Localremoval(%) Regionalremoval(%)

Water 0.7 0.1

ExposedLand 9.7 4.2

WetlandTreed 6.5 1.4WetlandShrub 6.5 1.5WetlandHerb 5.4 1.3ConiferousForestDense 13.0 2.8ConiferousForestOpen 11.0 2.6ConiferousForestSparse 12.4 2.9BroadleafForestDense 21.1 3.8MixedwoodForestDense 10.8 0.7TallShrub - -Unclassified 37.2 22.2

Within the local assessment area, the effect of clearing will result in a removal of an

estimated total of 18.4% of local area wetland vegetation, from shrubby (6.5%), treed

(6.5%) and herbaceous (5.4%) wetlands that occur on the ROW. An estimated total of

36.3% of the coniferous forest vegetation cover (dense, open and sparse) in the local

assessmentareawillberemovedduetoclearingoftheROW.Anestimated21.1%ofdense

broadleaf forests and 10.8% of densemixedwood forests at the local scale occur on the

projectRoW.Thetallshrubvegetationcoverclassdoesnotoccurintheprojectassessment

area.

Within the regional assessment area, an anticipated 4.2% of wetland vegetation will be

removedbyprojectclearingoftheROW.Oftheregionalforesttypes,anestimated8.2%of

theconiferousforests(dense,openandsparsecover),3.8%ofdensebroadleafforests,and

0.7%ofdensemixedwoodforestsattheregionalassessmentscaleoccurontheRoW,and

wouldberemovedduringprojectclearing.

4.4.2 QuarryandBorrowAreas

TheconstructionoftheP6All-SeasonRoadwillrequireadditionalaggregatethatisbeyond

whatwillbeobtainedfromcutsfromwithinthealignment/projectfootprint.Twenty-nine

potentialrockquarryandborrowsiteshavebeenidentifiedalongthealignment,rangingin

sizefrom0.01km2to0.47km2.Quarrysiteswillbepreferentiallydevelopedinoradjacent

totheROW,withinapproximately500mofcentreline(MESRA2016c).Atotalof2.51km2

13

willbecleared forquarrydevelopment,primarilywithin the localassessmentarea (2.49

km2), including0.70km2intheprojectarea,andanadditional0.03km2beyondthelocal

assessment area. The area and percent of land cover classes that occurwithin potential

quarriesareshownforalllevelsofassessment,inTable4.4.2a.

Table4.4.2a.Area(km2)andpercentoflandcoverclassesforpotentialquarrysiteswithinallassessmentareas.


LandCoverClassArea(km2)

%Area(km2)

%Area(km2)

%

ExposedLand - - 0.09 3.71 0.09 3.67

Water - - 0.01 0.33 0.01 0.35

WetlandTreed <0.01 0.64 <0.01 0.19 <0.01 0.19

WetlandShrub 0.01 1.45 0.15 5.98 0.15 5.91

WetlandHerb - - 0.01 0.27 0.01 0.26

ConiferousDense 0.49 70.44 1.45 58.05 1.45 57.43

ConiferousOpen 0.12 17.51 0.58 23.34 0.59 23.26

ConiferousSparse <0.01 0.65 0.03 1.32 0.05 2.17

BroadleafDense 0.06 9.18 0.17 6.76 0.17 6.69

MixedwoodDense <0.001 0.14 <0.01 0.07 <0.01 0.06

Totalquarryclearing

(km2) 0.70 100% 2.49 100% 2.52 100%

Clearingforquarrydevelopmentwilloccurprimarilyinthelocalassessmentarea,covering

2.49km2,orapproximately0.88%ofthetotallocalassessmentarea.Quarrydevelopment

at the project scale amounts to 0.70 km2, or approximately 2.49% of the total project

assessmentarea.Denseconiferousforestisthedominantlandcoverthroughout,andatthe

local scale accounts for 58.05%. Other prominent land covers are open coniferous

(23.34%)anddensebroadleaf(6.76%)forests.Theseremainthedominantforesttypesat

all assessment scales. Exposed land accounts for <4.0% across all scales, while water

accountsfor<0.4%ofpotentialquarryareasatboththelocalandregionalscale.

Thedevelopmentofpotentialquarrysiteswillgenerallyrequiretheremovalofvegetation.

Theanticipatedpercentageofvegetationremovalforquarrydevelopmentisshownbyland

cover class, as a percentage of total assessment area, in Table 4.4.2b. The overall

percentageofexposed landandwater thatwillbealteredbyquarrydevelopment isalso

included,forlocalandregionalassessmentareas.

14

Table4.4.2bPercent(%)ofvegetationremovalfrompotentialquarriesforallassessmentareas.

VegetationRemoval(%)

LandCoverClass Project Local Regional

ExposedLand - 1.27 0.55

Water - 0.03 <0.01

WetlandTreed 1.26 0.09 0.02

WetlandShrub 0.34 0.32 0.08

WetlandHerb - 0.23 0.05

ConiferousDense 4.59 1.75 0.38

ConiferousOpen 1.37 0.71 0.17

ConiferousSparse 0.13 0.11 0.04

BroadleafDense 18.31 10.14 1.82

MixedwoodDense 2.09 0.39 0.02

Totalquarryclearing(%) 2.49% 0.88% 0.18%

Inconsultingbothtables4.4.2aand4.4.2b,notethat inproposedquarryareas,whilethe

dominantforestcoverisconiferous,thegreatestpercentofvegetationremovaloccursfor

dense broadleaf forest. For example, for dense coniferous forests at the local scale, 1.45

km2clearedrepresents1.75%ofalllocalareadenseconiferousforests.However,fordense

broadleaf forests, 0.17 km2 cleared represents 10.14% of all dense broadleaf forest that

occursinthelocalassessmentarea.

Due to the nature of wetland soils, this land cover class will be minimally affected by

clearing for quarry purposes. Within the local assessment area, half of the wetlands in

potentialquarryareasareshrubby(0.32%),withherbaceous(0.23%)andtreed(0.09%)

wetlandsmakinguptheremainderofwetlandcover.Withintheregionalassessmentarea,

0.59%oftheconiferousforests(primarilydense,0.38%),1.82%ofdensebroadleafforests,

and 0.02% of densemixedwood forests occurwithin potential quarry areas. Regionally,

0.15%ofwetlandsoccurwithinpotentialquarrysites.

AccessRoads

Forelevenpotentialquarries(38%)situateddirectlyontheROW,additionalaccessisnot

required.Access to18potentialquarries(62%) isbetweenapproximately27and797m

(meandistance309m)fromcenterline.Allaccessroadsarelocatedwhollywithinthelocal

assessmentarea.Straightlineaccesswasassumedwitharoadwidthof30m.Theareaand

percentoflandcoverclassesaffectedbypotentialaccessroads,isshowninTable4.4.2c,by

levelofassessment.

15

Table4.4.2c.Area(km2)andpercentoflandcoverclassesforpotentialaccessroadswithinallassessmentareas.

Project Local

LandCoverClass Area(km2) % Area(km2) %

ExposedLand <0.001 1.58 <0.01 0.93

Water - - <0.001 0.38

WetlandTreed - - - -

WetlandShrub <0.01 5.63 0.01 6.47

WetlandHerb - - - -

ConiferousDense 0.04 66.00 0.10 55.53

ConiferousOpen 0.02 26.79 0.06 31.54

ConiferousSparse - - <0.01 4.34

BroadleafDense - - <0.01 0.81

MixedwoodDense - - - -

Totalaccessroadclearing(km2) 0.06 100% 0.18 100%

As few potential access road sites occur on exposed land (<2%),most access roadswill

require further vegetation removal. Clearing for quarry access road development (0.06

km2) in the project assessment area will generally overlap clearing for the ROW. Most

access roadsoccurwithin the local assessmentarea (0.18km2),primarily in locationsof

coniferous forest with dense (55.53%) and open (31.54%) cover. Shrubby wetland

accounts for 6.47% of access road area, and 4.34% is represented by sparse coniferous

forestcover.

The anticipated vegetation removal for potential access roads by land cover class, as a

percentoftotallandcoverforeachassessmentareaisshowninTable4.4.2d.Theoverall

percentageofexposed landandwaterthatwillbealteredbyaccessroaddevelopment is

alsoincluded.Noaccessroadsareplacedbeyondthelocalassessmentarea.

Withinthelocalassessmentarea,0.22%oftheconiferousforests(primarilydense,0.12%),

and0.09%ofthedensebroadleafforestsoccurwithinpotentialaccessroadsites.Shrubby

wetlandsaccountfor0.03%ofpotentialaccessroads,atthelocalscale.

16

Table4.4.2d.Vegetationremoval(%)fromallassessmentareasonpotentialaccessroads.

VegetationRemoval(%)

LandCoverClass Project Local

ExposedLand 0.13 0.02

Water - <0.01

WetlandTreed - -

WetlandShrub 0.11 0.03

WetlandHerb - -

ConiferousDense 0.35 0.12

ConiferousOpen 0.17 0.07

ConiferousSparse - 0.03

BroadleafDense - 0.09

MixedwoodDense - -

Totalaccessroadclearing(%) 0.20% 0.06%

4.4.3 Wetlands

In Canada, approximately 85% of wetlands are located in the boreal forest (Ducks

UnlimitedCanada2015). InManitoba,Halseyetal. (1997)estimates thatwetlandscover

233,340km2or43%of the terrestrial landscape,withpeatlandsrepresenting90%ofall

wetlands. It iswelldocumentedthatborealwetlandsareecologically important(Bondet

al.1992,Lockyetal.2005,DucksUnlimitedCanada2015).Fosteretal. (2004)notedthe

importance of calcareous wetlands (e.g., fens) and their potential to support species of

conservation concern. Threats towetlands include agricultural runoff, drainage, forestry

activities,off-roadvehicles,peatextraction,andright-of-wayactivities(Fosteretal.2004).

AccordingtotheCanadianWetlandClassificationSystem(CWCS),wetlandsareseparated

into fiveclasses includingbog, fen,marsh, swampandshallowwater (NationalWetlands

WorkingGroup1997).DucksUnlimitedCanada(2015)furtheridentifies19minorwetland

classes based on an enhanced wetland classification system of the five major wetland

classes, which considers moisture, water movement and nutrients, as well as plant

structure and cover (e.g., trees, shrubs, grasses, sedges, and mosses) to differentiate

wetlandsitesusingfield-collecteddata.

The CWCS defines fens as peatlands with a fluctuating water table, rich in dissolved

mineralsduetogroundandsurfacewatermovement.Thegreaternutrientavailability in

fenssupportsuniquevegetation,relatedtothedepthofthewatertable.Thevegetationof

nutrientpoor fens,withwaters low indissolvedminerals, is characterizedbySphagnum

mossesandericaceousshrubs,andblackspruceareoccasionallypresent.Moderatelyrich

fensaredominatedbygraminoids(e.g.,sedges)andbrownmosses.Drier,richfenssupport

shrubs(birch,willowandtamarack),andtrees(blackspruce, tamarack)canbe foundon

17

moss hummocks up to 20cm above the water table (NationalWetlandsWorking Group

1997).

Bogs are characterizedby an accumulation of peat,with a surface that is raised or level

with the surrounding terrain. Precipitation and snowmelt are primary water sources,

resultinginacidicbogwaterslowindissolvedminerals,enhancedbythedecompositionof

acidic Sphagnum moss leaves. Vegetation largely consists of Sphagnum-dominated peat

mosses, ericaceous shrubs (Labrador tea, leather leaf and bog cranberry) and where

present,blackspruceinsparsetoclosedstands(NationalWetlandsWorkingGroup1997).

Thedistributionofwetlandsacrosstheregion(showninMap7andTable4.4.3),isbased

ondigitizeddatafromastudyonwetlandtypesandtheirdistributioninManitoba(Halsey

et al. 1997).Here,wetlands aredistinguishedbywetland class (bog, fen,marsh, swamp,

shallowwater), the presence/absence of a tree canopy (open, wooded, forested), and a

landformmodifier(e.g.,patterned,non-patterned).Forthesakeofmappingatthisscale,in

many cases wetland complexes, rather than individual wetlands were identified. In the

wetlandcomplexclass,30to70%oflandiscomprisedofamosaicoffenandboghabitats,

(whileuplandhabitatoccupies the inverselyremaining30-70%)ofagivenpolygon.This

methodresultsinaslightoverestimationofwetlandhabitatareaacrossthelandscape,due

totheinclusionofsmallmineraluplandpocketswithinthewetlandcomplexareas.

This roughly corresponds to the wetland cover classes of the Land Cover Classification

(LCC) described earlier in Section 4.4.1, which are differentiated solely on the basis of

vegetation structure (e.g., vegetation height). ‘Treedwetlands’ encompass treed bog and

fen complexes; ‘tall shrub wetlands’ include shrubby bogs and fens; and ‘herbaceous

wetlands’ includeopen fens (bothpatternedandnon-patterned).Becausebothdata sets

wereoriginallycompileddifferentlyandatdifferentscales,theareacalculationsofclasses

arenotnecessarilydirectlycomparableinthisregion.

Non-patterned open fens lack the presence of linear hummocky ridges and hollow

depressions,andarecharacterizedbythepresenceofacontinuoussedgecoverandsparse

tonotrees.Fenscanbepoor,ormoderatelytoextremelyrichindissolvednutrients.Birch

andwillowshrubsmaybepresent,thegroundcoverinwetpoorfensisSphagnummosses.

Non-patterned open fens can occur as collapse scars in association with peat plateaus,

associatedwithbogislands,orassmallisolatedbasins(Halseyetal.1997).

Non-patterned treed fenshave a variable range in tree cover (i.e.,wooded>6 to70% to

forested >70%) in some combination of black spruce/ tamarack, with a common shrub

understoryofbirchandwillow,groundmossesareSphagnumorbrownmosses.Thesefens

canbepoor,ormoderatelytoextremelyrichindissolvedminerals.

18

The distribution of wetlands types in the P6 study area includes primarily bog and fen

complexes, with occasional non-patterned fens classed as shrubby, or with an open

(<10%),ortreed(>10%)canopy,showninTable4.4.3.Patternedfens(asdistinguishedby

thepresenceoflinearhummockyridgesandhollowdepressions),marshes,andtreedbogs

are present over the greater landscape, although not found within the P6 regional

assessmentarea,seeMap7.

Table4.4.3.Area(km2)andpercentofwetlandtypesamongassessmentareas.


WetlandTypes Area(km2)

%Area(km2)

%Area(km2)

%

Bog-FenComplex,30-70%wetland 15.6 55.3 156.0 54.9 646.4 45.2

Fennon-patterned,open-shrubby 1.0 3.7 1.6 0.6 12.3 0.9

Fennon-patterned,treed - - 11.4 4.0 45.0 3.1

Mineralsoils,<30%wetland 11.6 41.0 115.1 40.5 726.9 50.8

Marsh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Patterned,openfen 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Source:Halseyetal.1997.

Thepercentcoverforbog-fencomplexareroughlycomparableacrossallassessmentarea

scales.Themosaicbogandfenwetlandcomplexesaccountfor55.3%,54.9%and45.2%in

theproject,localandregionalassessmentareas,respectively.

The next dominant class,mineral soils,may have awetland component present over no

morethan30%oftheareagiven.Thisdominantlyuplandclassaccountsfor41.0%,40.5%

and50.8%oftheproject,localandregionalassessmentareas,respectively.

Fen habitats are minimally represented within the P6 assessment areas. Non-patterned

treed fensoccur in3.1-4.0%of the localandregionalscales(absentat theprojectscale),

whereasopenandshrubbynon-patternedfenscover<1.0%ofthelocalandregionalscales,

and3.7%ofthelandbaseattheprojectscale.

4.5 LocalFlora

4.5.1 NativeSpecies

AlistofpotentialplantspeciesexpectedtooccurwithintheP6studyareaandthroughout

the region was compiled from available data sources including provincial data (MBCDC

2016), herbarium records from The Manitoba Museum and the University of Manitoba

herbaria,regionalflora(e.g.,Cody1989;FloraofNorthAmerica1993+;Scoggan1957),and

existing literature (e.g., Manitoba Hydro 2000a and 2000b; Terraform Environmental

Consulting1999aand1999b).Thispreliminaryfloralistcontainsallspeciesthathavebeen

previouslycollectedorrecordedintheP6studyarea,including241vascularspeciesfrom

19

60families,whichoccurinterrestrial,wetlandandaquatichabitats.Aspecieslistfromthe

fieldcomponentof thisstudy(June2016) isexpected to includespecies identified in the

preliminaryspecieslist,seeAppendixII.

4.5.2 IntroducedSpecies

Anumberofintroduced(non-native)andinvasivespeciesareexpectedtooccuracrossthe

greaterP6studyarea.Althoughnotnaturallyfoundinundisturbedborealforesthabitats,

many of these species are introduced along roads, rivers and streams, often following

human activities. The boreal shield has a relatively high number of invasive plants,

compared to other ecozones in Canada (CFIA 2008). Introduced species are those that

growoutsideoftheirregionoforigin,andgenerallythriveondisturbedsites,theyareoften

prolific seed producers, and can tolerate poor or disturbed soils (Langor et al. 2014).

Invasive species compete with native species, forming dense populations that may

subsequently spread to other areas. Invasive species have been cited as risk factors for

species of conservation concern (Canadian Food and Inspection Agency 2008). Where

established,non-nativeandinvasiveplantscanimpactecosystemdiversity,structure,and

function.Theresultingdisplacementofnativespecieschangesthefloristiccompositionof

anecosystem, andpotentially endangers the survival of speciesof conservation concern.

Non-native and invasive plants in boreal habitats are commonly perennial herbs and

grasses, particularly from among the Asteraceae (composites), Fabaceae (legumes), and

Poaceae(grasses)plantfamilies,(Langoretal.2014).

Ofthe241preliminaryspeciesexpectedtooccurinthegreaterP6studyarea,thereare13

introducedspecies, rankedSNA(conservationstatusrank isnotapplicable)byManitoba

Conservation Data Centre (2016), Table 4.5.2. The Invasive Species Council ofManitoba

(ISCM)liststwoofthesespecies(ArctiumminusandSonchusarvensis)asinvasivecapable

of further spread, with pathways for further spread present (ISCM 2016). Of the

preliminary species previously recorded for this area, none are listed with the Global

InvasiveSpeciesDatabase(GISD2015).

20

Table4.5.2.PotentialintroducedspeciesfoundintheHayesRiverUplandEcoregion.

Family ScientificName CommonName SRank

Asteraceae Arctiumminus CommonBurdock SNA*

Asteraceae Artemisiaabsinthimum Wormwood SNA

Asteraceae Sonchusarvensis FieldSow-thistle SNA*

Asteraceae Sonchusasper Spiny-leavedSow-thistle SNA

Asteraceae Taraxacumofficinale CommonDandelion SNA

Brassicaceae Erysimumcheiranthoides WormseedMustard SNA

Caryophyllaceae Stellariamedia CommonChickweed SNA

Fabaceae Trifoliumrepens WhiteClover SNA

Plantaginaceae Plantagomajor CommonPlantain SNA

Poaceae Agrostisstolonifera CreepingBent SNA

Poaceae Elymusrepens Quackgrass SNA

Polygonaceae Fagopyrumesculentum Buckwheat SNA

Polygonaceae Fallopiaconvolvulus BlackBindweed SNA

*Invasivespecies(ISCM2016).

4.5.3 SpeciesofConservationConcern

TherearecurrentlynovascularspeciesatrisklistedintheHayesRiverUplandEcoregion,

with either the Manitoba Endangered Species and Ecosystems Act (ESEA), the federal

Species at Risk Act (SARA), or the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in

Canada(COSEWIC).NovascularspeciesatriskareexpectedtooccurwithintheProject6

assessment area, as the Project is beyond known ranges for all vascular species at risk

currentlylisted.

Asinglenon-vascularspecies,thefloodedjellyskinlichen(Leptogiumrivulare)isfederally

listedthroughSARA(threatened),andwithCOSEWIC(specialconcern).Floodedjellyskin

growsonperiodically inundated surfaces, and is usually foundon thebarkof deciduous

trees (e.g., ash, red maple, silver maple, American elm), along the banks of ponds and

waterways,andinswampyforeststhatfloodannuallyinthespring(GovernmentofCanada

2016).According to theEnvironmentCanadaRecovery Strategy for the flooded jellyskin

lichen,rockyshorelinesofpermanentlakeswereidentifiedascriticalhabitatfortheeight

extantpopulationsinManitoba.While15criticalhabitatlocationswithinthesepopulations

havebeenidentifiedinnorthwesternManitoba(EnvironmentCanada2013),allareoutside

oftheregionalassessmentareafortheP6All-SeasonRoadProject.Althoughunlikely,any

occurrencesofthefloodedjellyskinlichenduringfieldstudies(June2016)willbenoted.

There are an estimated 14 species of conservation concern that occur within the P6

regional assessment area and surroundings, based on records from the Manitoba

ConservationDataCentre,georeferencedspecimenshousedintheManitobaMuseumand

theUniversityofManitobaherbaria,aswellasliteraturedataavailable,Table4.5.3.

21

Table4.5.3.SpeciesofconservationconcernpreviouslyrecordedintheGod’sLakeareaandsurroundingHayesRiverUplandEcoregion.

Family ScientificName CommonName SRank Record

Balsaminaceae Impatiensnoli-tangere WesternJewelweed S1 -

Cyperaceae Carexloliacea Rye-grassSedge S2? HRU

Cyperaceae Carexmaritima SeasideSedge S2? HRU

Cyperaceae Carexmicroglochin FalseUncinaSedge S2? HRU

Dryopteridaceae Woodsiaalpina NorthernWoodsia S2 GL/HRU

Fabaceae Astragalusbodinii Bodin’sMilkvetch S1 HRU

Fabaceae Oxytropisborealis BorealLocoweed S1S2 -

Lycopodiaceae Diphasiastrumsitchense Ground-fir S1 HRU

Lycopodiaceae Huperziaselago MountainClub-moss S2S3 HRU

Ophioglossaceae Botrychium

matricariifolium Daisy-leafMoonwort S1 HRU

Orchidaceae Platantherahookeri Hooker’sOrchid S2S3 HRU

Poaceae Glyceriapulchella GracefulMannaGrass S2S3 HRU

Potamogetonaceae Potamogetonrobbinsii Robbin’sPondweed S2S3 HRU

Potamogetonaceae Potamogetonstrictifolius StraightleafPondweed S2S3 HRU

Twelvespecieshavebeencollected fromthe largerHayesRiverUplandEcoregion,while

additionalspeciesofconservationconcernhavebeencollectedfromtheGod’sLakeareaor

wereobservedinpreviousstudies(e.g.,ManitobaHydro2000aand2000b).

4.6 TraditionalKnowledge

Aboriginalpeoplehavebeensustainablygatheringandharvestingplants fromtheboreal

forestinCanadaforthousandsofyears,andinthattimehaveaccumulatedabodyoflocal,

culturalandtraditionalknowledge.Aboriginal traditionalknowledgecanbeconsidereda

dynamic process of learning fromelders and observing fromnature,while adapting this

knowledgetoenhancethequalityoflife(Marlesetal.2000).

Agreatdealofaboriginaltraditionalknowledgeisrelatedtoplantuseasfood,medicines,

forhandicrafts,andtechnology.Countryfoodsandmedicinesincreasedietaryqualityand

generallyconsistofanimals(e.g.,moose,fish,deer,rabbit,birds),wildberriesornuts,and

wildplants (FieldhouseandThompson2012).Theability toharvest, shareandconsume

traditionalcountryfoodsiscentraltothefoodsecuritiesofaboriginalpeople.

Historically,manyplants including trees, shrubs, flowers,mosses, lichensand fungihave

beenimportantasfoodandmedicinesources(Davidson-Huntetal.2012).Asanoutcome

of a study on indigenous plants, the Poplar River Anishinabek Plant Guide (Bruce et al.

Compilers 2002, In: Asatiwisipe Aki Management Plan 2011) was produced to describe

Aboriginalvaluesandusesforlocalplants.Theplantguidedocumentsfiftydifferenttrees,

22

shrubs,herbsgrasses,mossesand lichensthatareused forsustenanceand in traditional

culturalpractices.

Primarily preserved by oral traditions passed down through generations, the

documentation of aboriginal traditional knowledge, particularly when led by individual

Aboriginal communities, can help further preserve local knowledge and culture for

generations to come. The repertory of traditional uses for plantsmay bewidely known

acrosscommunitiesoruniquetoaspecificlocale(Marlesetal.2000),andusesforagiven

speciesmayvaryfromonecommunityorregiontoanother.

4.6.1 PlantsofCulturalImportance

A traditional knowledge study was carried out in collaboration with local community

members using workshops and one-on-one interviews byMESRA in 2016. Local elders,

resourceusersandotherknowledgeholderswere invited to takepart inworkshopsand

interviews.Topicsincludedcommunityknowledgeofvegetation,wildlifeandfishhabitats;

landusebycommunitymembers;andareasthatareparticularlyimportantorsensitivefor

cultural, historical, or other reasons. Each community was further involved during the

study through regular and open communication with local leaders, and the use of local

coordinatorsandtranslators,whererequired.

Asaresultofworkshopsandpersonalinterviews,morethan17plants,pluswood,lumber

andfirewoodresourceswereidentifiedbyparticipantsfromthecommunitiesofMantoSipi

CreeNation,BunibonibeeCreeNation,God’sLakeFirstNation, andGod’sLakeNorthern

AffairsCommunity(NAC)asimportantforsustenanceandculturalpractices.Commonfood

plants include blueberry, raspberry, strawberry, cloudberry, cranberry, cherry and

Saskatoon.Oversixmedicinalplantswereidentified,includingblackspruce,sweetflagand

Labrador tea. Wood cutting, and firewood and willow stick collection was also valued,

shown in Table 4.6.1a. Actual numbers of plants valued are considered minimums as

severalplantsarerepresentedintheregionbymorethanonerelatedspecies(e.g.multiple

species of blueberries, gooseberries, and Labrador tea). In addition, general descriptions

suchas‘plantsfortea’,or‘medicineplants’mayrefertomultiplespecies.Exactspellingand

plantsnamesusedbyparticipantsarepreserved.

Results showed little shared land use between communities, as participants identified

primarilythelandadjacenttotheirowncommunities,seeMaps8a-d.

23

Table4.6.1a.PlantsofsustenanceandculturalvalueidentifiedbymembersoftheMantoSipiCreeNation(MS),BunibonibeeCreeNation(BB),God'sLakeFirstNation(GL),andGod’sLakeNorthernAffairsCommunity(GLNAC),withintheregionalassessmentarea.

Community LocalName ScientificName

FoodPlants

GL Weekes Acorusamericanus

MS Saskatoon Amelanchieralnifolia

MS Strawberries Fragariavirginiana

MS Cherry Prunusspp.

GL SwampGooseberries Ribesspp.

BB Cloudberries Rubuschamaemorus

MS Headberries(Mistegonemina) Rubuschamaemorus

MS,BB,GL Raspberries Rubusidaeus

GL Mossberries Vacciniumoxycoccus

MS,GL Blueberries Vacciniumspp.

BB,GL Cranberries Vacciniumvitis-idaea

GL Medicines various,unspecified

BB Historicberrypickingarea various,unspecified

MedicinalPlantsMS,BB,GL,GLNAC Wihkes,Weekis Acorusamericanus

GL WaterCalla Callapalustris

GL Juniper Juniperusspp.

GL BlackSpruceBark Piceamariana

MS Spruce Piceaspp.

MS,GL,GLNAC LabradorTea Rhododendronspp.

MS,GL GingerRoot unknown

BB MedicinalPlantGatheringLocation various,unspecified

BB PlantsforTea various,unspecified

GL Berries various,unspecified

GL MuskegLeaves various,unspecified

GL MedicinalPlants various,unspecified

GLNAC Poplarsap Populusspp.

OtherUses

GL Strawberries Fragariavirginiana

GL LabradorTea Rhododendronspp.

GL Raspberries Rubusidaeus

GL,GLNAC WillowSticks Salixspp.

GL GingerRoot unknown

BB FirewoodHarvest various

MS Woodcutting various

GLNAC Birch Betulaspp.

24

Thetotalmappedarea(withnooverlap)includingharvestedareasforplantsofsustenance

and cultural importance to all communities covered 31.6%, 31.9% and 25.7% of the

project,localandregionalassessmentareas,respectively(Table4.6.1b).

Table4.6.1b.Totalmappedareaforplantsofsustenanceandculturalvalueidentifiedbycommunitymembers,byassessmentarea.


CommunityArea(km2)

%Area(km2)

%Area(km2)

%

God'sLakeFirstNation 6.0 21.3 58.5 20.6 235.5 16.5

BunibonibeeCreeNation 0.2 0.7 4.5 1.6 27.6 1.9

MantoSipiCreeNation 2.7 9.7 27.3 9.6 100.8 7.0

God’sLakeNAC 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 3.8 0.3

Total 8.9 31.6 90.5 31.9 367.6 25.7

Notably,participantsfromeachcommunityproducedauniquelistofvaluedplantspecies

for edible berries,medicines and other plant uses. Although, therewas common use of

some edible berries, (i.e. blueberries, raspberries), as well aswihkes used formedicinal

purposes.Theplantspeciesandtheirusesarediscussedseparatelyforeachcommunity.

Theareaforeachplantorgroupsofplantswasquantifiedbymarkingknownlocationsof

plant occurrences, by area (km2) or along a linear feature (km). In few cases, a point

provides location information only, with nomeasure of the area occupied by a plant or

plantgroup,asshowninthefollowingsectionsforeachcommunity.

4.6.2 MantoSipiCreeNation

Asaresultofworkshopsandpersonalinterviews,participantsfromMantoSipi,identified

at least 10 plant species used for food, medicine and other uses. Food berries include

blueberries, raspberries, strawberries, Saskatoons, cherries and cloudberries. Medicinal

plants include plant parts (e.g. leaves, roots) of several plants including Labrador tea,

spruceandwihkes.Areasofoccupancy(km2)forvaluedplantspeciesareshowninTable

4.6.2. In addition, two point locations for blueberry harvest were identified within the

regionalassessmentarea,seeMap8a.Theregionalassessmentareawasimportantforall

species,whilemedicinalplantsandwoodcuttingwerefoundatallscalesofassessment.

25

Table4.6.2.MantoSipiCreeNationAboriginalTraditionalKnowledgesummaries:Areas(km2)forvaluedplantsbyassessmentarea.

PlantSpeciesValued:Area(km2) PlantUse Project Local Regional

Blueberries Food - 0.05 4.20

Blueberries,Raspberries Food - - 0.09

Blueberries,Strawberries Food - - 8.75

Blueberry,Saskatoon,Cherry,Raspberry Food - - 6.62

Headberries(Mistegonemina) Food - 0.03 0.03

Raspberries Food - - 1.59

Raspberry,Blueberry Food - - 1.71

Saskatoon,Blueberries,Strawberries Food - - 0.54

Saskatoon,Raspberries,Strawberries Food - - 5.18

LabradorTea Medicine 0.03 0.77 0.83

LabradorTea,GingerRoot Medicine 1.22 16.76 62.31

Spruce Medicine 1.53 9.89 12.69

Wihkes Medicine 0.07 0.28 0.28

Firewood Other - - <0.001

Woodcutting Other 0.001 0.55 4.35

4.6.3 BunibonibeeCreeNation

Community participants in workshops and personal interviews identified areas (km2 or

km) for more than five valued food and medicinal plants. Edible berries include

cloudberries, cranberries, and raspberries. Medicinal plants include wihkes, and other

unspecified plant species used for medicinal teas. Further areas of historical berry

gathering,medicinalplantgathering,and firewoodharvestwerealso identified,see table

4.6.3. and Map 8b. All plants were found within the regional area, while collection of

raspberries,wihkes,andfirewoodharvestalsooccurredinthelocalandprojectareas.

Table4.6.3.BunibonibeeCreeNationAboriginalTraditionalKnowledgesummaries:Areas(km2orkm)forvaluedplantsbyassessmentarea.


Cloudberries Food - - 0.72

Cranberries Food - - 4.99

Raspberries Food 0.01 1.17 5.98

Historicberrypickingarea Food - - 0.01

PlantsforTea Medicine - - 4.20

Wihkes Medicine 0.19 3.49 7.08

MedicinalPlantGatheringLocation Medicine - - 0.70

FirewoodHarvest Other - 0.11 5.61

PlantSpeciesValued:Linear(km) PlantUse Project Local Regional

FirewoodHarvest Other 3.25 27.64 42.99

26

4.6.4 God’sLakeFirstNation

Communityparticipantsinworkshopsandpersonalinterviewsidentifiedatleast14valued

plants.Allplantswerelocatedattheregionallevel,withtheoccurrenceofsomemedicinal

plantsalsoidentifiedattheprojectandlocal levels.Sixfoodplants, includingberriesand

oneroot;theberries,bark,rootsandleavesofatleasteightplantsusedformedicine;and

fiveplantsusedforotherpurposes,areshownwithareas(km2orkm)inTable4.6.4a,and

Map8c. In addition, point locationswereprovided for certainplantswithin the regional

assessmentarea.Threelocationswereidentifiedasimportantareasforraspberrypicking.

Areasknownforharvestingthreemedicinalplantswereidentified:Labradortea(2areas);

Gingerroot(2areas)andJuniper(1area),seeTable4.6.4b.

Table4.6.4a.God'sLakeFirstNationAboriginalTraditionalKnowledgesummaries:Areas(km2orkm)forvaluedplantsbyassessmentarea.


Blueberries Food - - 3.83

Blueberries&SwampGooseberries Food - - 0.12

Cranberries Food - - 0.73

Medicines,weekes Food - - 0.02

Berries Medicine - - 0.02

BlackSpruceBark,LabradorTea&MuskegLeaves Medicine 5.87 56.58 223.51

LabradorTea Medicine 5.57 53.35 205.74

MedicinalPlants Medicine - - 0.56

WaterCalla Medicine - - 0.84

Gingerrootandwihkes Medicine - - 0.33

Wihkes Medicine - 0.004 0.88

LabradorTea&GingerRoot Other 0.65 8.65 33.79

Raspberries&Strawberries Other - - 0.30

PlantSpeciesValued:Linear(km) PlantUse Project Local Regional

Mossberries Food 0.59 12.29 29.10

LabradorTea Medicine - - 2.70

WillowSticks Other - - 2.67

Table4.6.4b.God'sLakeFirstNationAboriginalTraditionalKnowledge:Numberoflocationsforvaluedfoodandmedicineplants,intheregionalassessmentarea.

PlantSpecies PlantUse PointLocations

Raspberries Food 3

LabradorTea Medicine 2

GingerRoot Medicine 2

Juniper Medicine 1

27

4.6.5 God’sLakeNorthernAffairsCommunity

InaworkshopheldinJune2016,participantsfromGod’sLakeNorthernAffairsCommunity

shared their knowledge ofmedicinal and cultural plants aswell as harvesting locations.

TheworkshopidentifiedseveralvaluedplantspeciesincludingLabradorteawhichisused

totreatsorethroats,poplartreesapforhealingwounds,andweekisfortreatingalltypesof

ailments.Otherplantspeciesharvestedbycommunitymembers includediamondwillow

and birch trees, used for crafts and other purposes. Only collection of Labrador tea is

showninthelocalassessmentarea(0.22km2),seeMap8d.

28

5.0 POTENTIALEFFECTSASSESSMENT

The identification of potential effects of the proposed P6 All-Season Road Project was

carried out based on information provided by MESRA, information from the MBCDC,

literatureandinternetsearches.Environmentalassessmentsconductedonotherrecentall-

season roadprojects inManitobawere also reviewed.RequirementsofTheEnvironment

Act(Manitoba)andtheCanadianEnvironmentalAssessmentAct(2012)andregulationsand

guidelines were considered in the preparation of the effects assessment for the Road

Project. This assessment report conforms to Manitoba Conservation and Water

Stewardship’s guideline for preparing an Environment Act Proposal Report (Manitoba

ConservationandWaterStewardship2015).

TheenvironmentaleffectsoftheproposedP6All-SeasonRoadProjectwereidentifiedfrom

reviewofenvironmentalassessmentreportsconductedonotherall-seasonroadprojects,

east of LakeWinnipeg, an interactionmatrix and linkage diagram (Appendix III) and by

using professional judgement. Community concerns will be considered in the effects

assessment, where information is available. For the purpose of this assessment

environmentaleffectsaredefinedasapredictedchangeintheenvironmentcausedbythe

projectandmitigationasmeasurestoavoid,prevent,andminimizeadverseenvironmental

effects. Additionally, residual effects are defined as environmental effects predicted to

remain after the application of mitigation measures. Valued Components (VCs) refer to

elementsofanecosystemthatareidentifiedashavingscientific,social,cultural,historical,

archaeologicaloraestheticimportancethatmaybeimpactedbyaproject.

ThesignificanceoftheresidualenvironmentaleffectsfortheproposedP6All-SeasonRoad

Projectwas evaluated using criteria provided by theManitobaEast SideRoadAuthority

(Table5.0.).

29

Table5.0.Descriptionofsignificancecriteriausedfortheresidualeffectsassessment.

VEC/OtherVegetationComponent

DirectionofChange(typeofeffect)

Duration(periodoftimetheeffectoccurs)

Magnitude(degreeorintensityofthechange)

Extent(spatialboundary) Frequency(howoftentheeffectoccurs)

Reversibility(thedegreeofpermanence)

EcologicalandSocialContext(whetheraVCisparticularlysensitivetodisturbanceandcanadapttochange)

VEC-SpeciesofConservationConcern

NeutralorNegligible:Nomeasurablechangeontheenvironment.

Negative:Netloss(adverseorundesirablechange)ontheVC.

Positive:Netbenefit(ordesirablechange)ontheVC.

Short-Term(LevelI):Thepotentialeffectresultsfromshort-termeventsoractivitiessuchasthetimerequiredtocompleteadiscretecomponent,seasonalorannualconstruction,maintenanceorrehabilitationactivities(i.e.,atimeframeofseveralmonths).

Medium-Term(LevelII):Thepotentialeffectislikelytopersistuntilthecompletionofconstructionandrehabilitationactivities(i.e.,atimeframeof8to10years).

Long-Term(LevelIII):ThepotentialeffectislikelytopersistbeyondthecompletionofconstructionandrehabilitationactivitiesintotheoperationsandmaintenancephaseoftheProject(i.e.,atimeframeofgreaterthan10years).

NegligibleorLow(LevelI):Achangethatisnotlikelytohaveadefinable,detectableormeasurablepotentialeffectabovebaseline(i.e.,potentialeffectiswithinanormalrangeofvariation)orisbelowestablishedthresholdsofacceptablechange(e.g.,minimalriskoflossofspeciesofconservationconcern).

Moderate(LevelII):Achangethatwillhaveapotentialmeasurableeffectthatcanbedetectedwithawell-designedmonitoringprogram;butisonlymarginallybeyondstandards/guidelinesorestablishedthresholdsofacceptablechange(e.g.,lossofspeciesofconservationconcernbutnotpredictedtochangethestateoftheplantcommunityorpopulation).

High(LevelIII):Achangethatwillhavepotentialeffectsthatareeasilyobserved,measuredanddescribed(i.e.,readilydetectablewithoutamonitoringprogram)andarewellbeyondguidelinesorestablishedthresholdsofacceptablechange(e.g.,lossofspeciesofconservationconcernandispredictedtochangethestateoftheplantcommunityorpopulation).

ProjectFootprint(LevelI):ThephysicalspaceordirectlyaffectedareaonwhichProjectcomponentsoractivitiesarelocatedand/orimmediatelyadjacentareawhichiswithinthedefinedlimitsoftheP6ASRROW(i.e.,100m)andpermanentandtemporaryfacilities(e.g.,temporaryaccessroutesandquarries)withinwhichpotentialeffectsarelikelytobemeasurable.

LocalAssessmentArea(LevelII):AreawithinwhichpotentialprojecteffectsaremeasurableandextendingbeyondtheProjectFootprintto,butnotbeyond,theLocalAssessmentArea.

RegionalAssessmentArea(LevelIII):AreabeyondtheLocalAssessmentAreawithinwhichmostpotentialindirectandcumulativeeffectswouldoccur.

Infrequent(LevelI):ThepotentialeffectoccursonceorseldomduringthelifeoftheProject(e.g.,initialclearingoftheROW).

Sporadic/Intermittent(LevelII):ThepotentialeffectoccursonlyoccasionallyandwithoutanypredictablepatternduringthelifeoftheProject(e.g.,blastingatquarries;site-specificconstructionequipmentnoise;potentialwildlife-vehiclecollisions).

Regular/Continuous(LevelIII):ThepotentialeffectoccursatregularandfrequentintervalsduringtheProjectphaseinwhichtheyoccuroroverlifeoftheProject(e.g.,constructiontraffic;operationstraffic).

Reversible(short-term)(LevelI):Potentialeffectisreadilyreversibleoverarelativelyshortperiodoftime(i.e.,≤totheProjectconstructionphaseofapproximately8years).

Reversible(long-term)(LevelII):Potentialeffectispotentiallyreversiblebutoveralongperiodoftime(i.e.,manyyearsintotheProjectoperationsphase).

Irreversible(LevelIII):Project-specificpotentialeffectsarepermanent.

Low(LevelI):TheVCisnotrareoruniqueandisresilienttoimposedchange(e.g.,haslittletonouniqueattributesandisofminorimportancetoecosystemsfunctionsorrelationship).

Moderate(LevelII):TheVCismoderately/seasonallyfragileandhassomecapacitytoadapttoimposedchange(e.g.,hassomeuniqueattributesandissomewhatimportanttoecosystemfunctionsorrelationship).

High(LevelIII):TheVCisaprotected/designatedspeciesorfragilewithlowresistancetoimposedchangeorpartofaveryfragileecosystem(e.g.,isconsideredtobeuniqueandinvolvesprovinciallyorfederallyprotectedspecies).

30









VEC–KeyCommunityHarvestAreas(PlantSpeciesofInterest)


Negative:Netloss(adverseorundesirablechange)ontheVC.

Positive:Netbenefit(ordesirablechange)ontheVC.




NegligibleorLow(LevelI):Achangethatisnotlikelytohaveadefinable,detectableormeasurablepotentialeffectabovebaseline(i.e.,potentialeffectiswithinanormalrangeofvariation)orisbelowestablishedthresholdsofacceptablechange(e.g.,noorminimallossofkeycommunityharvestareas).

Moderate(LevelII):Achangethatwillhaveapotentialmeasurableeffectthatcanbedetectedwithawell-designedmonitoringprogram;butisonlymarginallybeyondstandards/guidelinesorestablishedthresholdsofacceptablechange.(e.g.,lossofkeycommunityharvestareasbutnotpredictedtochangethestateoftheplantcommunity).

High(LevelIII):Achangethatwillhavepotentialeffectsthatareeasilyobserved,measuredanddescribed(i.e.,readilydetectablewithoutamonitoringprogram)andarewellbeyondguidelinesorestablishedthresholdsofacceptablechange.(e.g.,lossofkeycommunityharvestareasandispredictedtochangethestateoftheplantcommunity).










Low(LevelI):TheVCisnotrareoruniqueandisresilienttoimposedchange(e.g.,haslittletonouniqueattributesandisofminorimportancetoecosystemsfunctionsorrelationship).

Moderate(LevelII):TheVCismoderately/seasonallyfragileandhassomecapacitytoadapttoimposedchange(e.g.,hassomeuniqueattributesandissomewhatimportanttoecosystemfunctionsorrelationship).

High(LevelIII):TheVCisaprotected/designatedspeciesorfragilewithlowresistancetoimposedchangeorpartofaveryfragileecosystem(e.g.,isconsideredtobeuniqueandinvolvesprovinciallyorfederallyprotectedspecies).

31









OtherVegetationandSoilComponents


Negative:Netloss(adverseorundesirablechange)

Positive:Netbenefit(ordesirablechange)




NegligibleorLow(LevelI):Achangethatisnotlikelytohaveadefinable,detectableormeasurablepotentialeffectabovebaseline(i.e.,potentialeffectiswithinanormalrangeofvariation).

Moderate(LevelII):Achangethatwillhaveapotentialmeasurableeffectthatcanbedetectedwithawell-designedmonitoringprogram;butisonlymarginallybeyondstandards/guidelinesofacceptablechange.

High(LevelIII):Achangethatwillhavepotentialeffectsthatareeasilyobserved,measuredanddescribed(i.e.,readilydetectablewithoutamonitoringprogram)andarewellbeyondguidelinesofacceptablechange.










Low(LevelI):Thecomponentisnotrareoruniqueandisresilienttoimposedchange(e.g.,haslittletonouniqueattributesandisofminorimportancetoecosystemsfunctionsorrelationship).

Moderate(LevelII):Thecomponentismoderately/seasonallyfragileandhassomecapacitytoadapttoimposedchange(e.g.,hassomeuniqueattributesandissomewhatimportanttoecosystemfunctionsorrelationship).

High(LevelIII):Thecomponentisaprotected/designatedspeciesorfragilewithlowresistancetoimposedchangeorpartofaveryfragileecosystem(e.g.,isconsideredtobeuniqueandinvolvesprovinciallyorfederallyprotectedspecies).

32

5.1 EnvironmentalIssues

RegionalissuesofconcernfortheassessmentoftheproposedP6All-SeasonRoadProjectwere determined from literature and professional experience; any concerns identifiedthrough future traditional knowledge workshops will be considered. Regional issues ofconcernincludethefollowing:

CountryFoods

In remotenorthern regions, country food is an importantpartof theAboriginalpeople’straditional diet.ManyAboriginal people consumeadiet of foods that are fished, hunted,trappedandgatheredlocally.Today, foodsareexpensivetoimportandmanypeoplestillrelyoncountryfoodsasaportionoftheirdiet.Plantsascountryfoodsmayincludeberries,herbs,nuts,wildrice,andlocallygrowngardenvegetables.

SpreadofInvasivePlantSpecies

Invasiveplantspeciesareplantsthatout-competenativespecieswhenintroducedoutsideof their natural setting. Invasive speciesmay establish and proliferate as a result of theProject.Thesespeciesareproblematicbecausetheyarecapableofgrowingunderawiderange of climatic and soil conditions, produce abundant seeds, and often have vigorousgrowth.

5.2 ValuedComponents

ValuedComponents(VCs)refertoelementsofanecosystemthatare identifiedashavingscientific, social, cultural, historical, archaeological or aesthetic importance that may beimpacted by a project. The value of a component not only relates to its role in theecosystem, but also to the value people place on it. The value of a component may bedeterminedonthebasisofscientific,social,cultural,economic,historical,archaeological,oraesthetic importance. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Guidelines (CEAA2015)fortheproposedProjectwerealsoreviewedforincludingpotentialVCs.

Information on importance, environmental indicators, measurable parameters, andrationale are provided on the VCs. Environmental indicators are aspects of VCs or theenvironmentthataresubjecttochangebyaprojectactivity,whilemeasurableparametersarevariablesused toexpresschanges in theenvironmental indicators.VCs thathave thepotential to be adversely affected by project activities aftermitigation has been appliedreceive special consideration in the assessmentof cumulative environmental effects.VCsidentified for theproposedP6All-SeasonRoadProject assessment include the following(seealsoTable5.2.):

33


Species of conservation concern are valued because these are plants that exist in lownumbers, play a role in helping to preserve species diversity, their distribution is oftenrestricted, and some species are protected. These include species listed by the federalSpeciesatRiskAct(SARA),underSchedule1,TheEndangeredSpeciesandEcosystemsAct– Manitoba (ESEA), the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada(COSEWIC),andthosespecies listedby theManitobaConservationDataCentre(MBCDC)rankedveryraretorare.

KeyCommunityHarvestAreas

Keycommunityharvestareas(plantspeciesof interest)are important to thecommunityandvaluedforfood,ceremonies,incomeormedicinalpurposes.Theseplantsandareasareoften identified through traditional knowledge studies and other engagement activities.Key community harvest areas (plant species of interest) may include blueberries,cranberries, raspberries, strawberries, saskatoons, cloudberries andwild rice, andmanyothermedicinalplantsandherbs(NorthernLightsHeritageServices2000).

Table5.2.VegetationValuedComponents.

VCs Group Importance EnvironmentalIndicator

MeasurableParameter Rationale


VariousPlants

• Government• Other1

Speciesoccurrence

Presence/absence

• Regulatoryimportance(SARAunderSchedule1;COSEWIC;ESEA;MBCDCspecieslistedveryraretorare)

• Ecologicalandenvironmentalimportance

KeyCommunityHarvestAreas(PlantSpeciesofInterest)

VariousPlants

• FirstNation2• Government• Other1

Speciesoccurrence;areaofresourceuse

Presence/absence;hectares

• Culturalimportance

• Regulatoryimportance

• Ecologicalandenvironmentalimportance

1Other(e.g.,science).2FirstNations(GodsLake,BunibonibeeandMantoSipi).

34

5.3 EffectsAnalysis

ThefollowingidentifiestheeffectsonvegetationandsoilsfortheproposedP6All-SeasonRoadProject.

5.3.1 Vegetation

EffectsofroadsonvegetationandterrestrialecosystemshavebeenreportedonbyAngold(1997), FormanandAlexander (1998),TrombulakandFrissell (1999),Hui et al. (2003),Noss(2002),Watkinsetal.(2003),Lietal.(2014)andothers.Effectsincludehabitatloss,altering interior forest conditions, destroying natural vegetation along sides of the road,reductioninbiomass,introductionofnon-nativeplantspecies,increasederosionpotential,and increased abundance of grass species near roads. Road dust affects vegetation bycoveringplantsurfaces,affectingphotosynthesis,respirationandtranspiration,resultingindecreasedproductivity(Farmer,1993).Brown(2009)foundthatfugitivedustinforestedroadsidesinfluencedplantspecieswiththegreatesteffectclosesttotheroadway.

Potentialenvironmentaleffectsofsimilarall-seasonroadprojectshavebeenreportedonto include the loss of vegetation and other culturally important species in the projectassessmentareaduringconstruction;increasedriskofinvasivespeciesspread,impairmentofvegetationduringconstructionandmaintenanceactivities,and increasedriskof forestfire (e.g., MESRA 2016a; MESRA 2016b; Szwaluk Environmental Consulting et al. 2015;ManitobaFloodwayandEastSideRoadAuthority2010and2011;CanadianEnvironmentalAssessmentAgency2011).

PredicatedeffectsfromotherlineardevelopmentprojectsinManitoba’sborealforesthavebeenreportedonbyCalyxConsulting(2012)andSzwalukEnvironmentalConsultingetal.(2011)andincludelossofnativeforestvegetation, introductionofinvasiveplantspecies,potentiallossofhabitatandplantsusedbyAboriginalpeople,disruptionofriparianareasandwetlands,increasedfragmentation,andincreasedriskofwildfire.

The proposed P6All-SeasonRoad Projectmay affect vegetation and botanical resourcesduring construction, operation and maintenance stages. Potential environmental effectspriortomitigationincludethefollowing:

1. Loss of species of conservation concern in the project assessment area due toclearingduringconstruction.TheseplantsincludespecieslistedbySARA,ESEA,andCOSEWIC,andplants listedbytheMBCDCasveryraretorare,howeverprotectedvascular plant species listed by SARA and ESEA are not expected to occur as thestudy area is beyond the geographic range of the listed species. Flooded jellyskin(Leptogium rivulare) lichen listed by SARA and COSEWIC does not occur in theecoregionandwasnotfoundduringthe2016fieldstudies.

35

2. Disturbance to or removal of key community harvest areas of plant species ofinterest (medicinal and cultural) in the project assessment area due to clearingduringconstruction.Thelocalcommunitiesuseanumberofplantsinthearea,andtheP6All-SeasonRoadProjectwill result in removalof approximately8.9km2ofvegetation, from road construction, that is locally valued. A potential beneficialeffectfromtheP6All-SeasonRoadProjectwillbeincreasedaccesstonewbotanicalresourceareasbylocalcommunitymembers.

3. Disturbancetoorremovalofnativevegetationintheprojectassessmentareaduetoclearing during construction. The P6 All-Season Road Project will result in theremoval of approximately 27.3 km2 of native vegetation (excluding exposed landand water) from road construction; additionally 1.9 km2 will be removed fromquarriesandaccessroads.

4. Disturbanceorlosstospeciescompositionandecologyofwetlands(bogandfen)inthe project assessment area due to clearing during construction. The Projectwillresultinthelossofapproximately3.5km2ofwetland(bogandfen)areafromroadconstruction; another 0.1 km2 will be removed from quarries and access roads.Wetlandsintheborealforestarehighlyconnectedsystemsthattransportwaterandnutrientsacrossthe landscape.Waterbalancesthathavebeenaltered inwetlandsmay result in increased drainage (drier moisture regime) or flooding that couldaffect species abundance and composition (Ecological Land Surveys Ltd. 1999).Road development has the potential to impedewater flow resulting in long-termvegetationchanges(DucksUnlimitedCanadaetal.2014).

5. Fragmentation of the local and regional vegetation communities due to clearingduringconstruction.TheP6All-SeasonRoad,quarriesandaccessroadswillresultindiscontinuityinthespatialdistributionofnativevegetation,resultinginfragmentsand ecosystem patches. A consequence of fragmentation is the isolation ofvegetation communities that may result in reduced pollen quantity andreproduction. The continued fragmentation of an area can cause long-termreduction in species diversity and suitable habitat (Public Service Commission ofWisconsin2009).

6. Modification of vegetation composition and structure adjacent to the disturbancezoneduetoclearingduringconstruction.Theremovalofnativevegetationandthecreationofnewforestedgesalongadisturbancezonemayresultinchangestothevegetation. Increasedsolarradiationexposureandachange inmicroclimatealongthese edges may cause changes in structure and species composition (EcologicalLandSurveysLtd.1999).Alongnewlycreatedforestedges,windfallmayresultduetoextremeweatherevents(e.g.,highwinds).

36

7. Introduction and spread of invasive and non-native species in the projectassessment area during construction, operation and maintenance. Constructionequipment and granular material used for construction can be a source of non-nativeandinvasiveplantspecieswhichcanbecomeproblematicforthenativeplantspeciesinthearea.Whereroaddevelopmentoccurs,achangeinplantcompositionadjacent to the road is generally a result non-native and invasive speciesintroduction.Alargenumberofinvasivespecieshavethepotentialtobeintroducedduringprojectactivities.

8. Loss/impairment of vegetation in the project assessment area from accidentalreleasesof fuelsorhazardoussubstancesduringroadconstruction,andoperationand maintenance. In a past study that examined the effects of oil spills andvegetation,non-vascularplantsandmostdicotplantsshowednorecoveryafteroilwasspilledonselectedplantcommunities(Walkeretal.1978).

9. Loss/impairment of desirable plant species in the project assessment area fromherbicide application during road operation and maintenance. Unfortunately,herbicidesnotonlyinhibitthegrowthofundesirablespeciesbutcanalsonegativelyaffectdesirablespeciesbycausingstressandpossiblemortalityofvegetation thatmaybeconsideredimportantforwildlife,traditionaluses,orbotanicalvalue.

10. Impairment of vegetation in the project assessment area from dust during roadconstruction,operationandmaintenance.Dustcanhaveapotentialnegativeeffectontheenvironmentcausingstresstoadjacentvegetation.Acoveringofdustonleafsurfacesincreasessolarheatabsorptionanddecreasestranspirationratesresultinginareductionofcarbonuptake(Succarieh1992).

11. Increased risk of forest fire in the local and regional assessment area duringconstruction,andoperationandmaintenance.Wildfirehasthepotentialtodevelopfromtheaccumulationofslashduringclearingandconstructionactivities,andfromhumanrelatedcausesasaresultofnewaccessduringroadoperation.

12. Increased access to botanical resources used by non-communitymembers duringroadoperation.TheP6All-SeasonRoadProjectwillattractpeopleandallowaccesstoareasthatwerepreviouslyunreachable.Thiscanresult inthepotentialadverseeffects on local botanical resources. The local aboriginal people have longestablishedtraditionalusesrelatedtobotanicalresources, includingberrypicking,medicinegatheringandharvestingplants.

13. Reduced floristic diversity immediately adjacent to the road due to clearing andconstruction. The P6 All-Season Road will be centered on a 100 m ROW with a

37

typical clearing width of 60 m and additional clearing as required in horizontalcurvestomaintainsightdistances;theroadwaywillbeconstructedwitharoadtopwidth of 10m (MESRA 2016c). As a result, the florawill be temporarily reducedalongtheAll-SeasonRoadintheclearedRoW.Anyrehabilitationplantingsusuallyconsistofalimitedmixofgraminoids,forbsandshrubs.

Mitigationmeasures forvegetationeffectshavebeenreportedbyFormanandAlexander(1998), Daigle (2010), Ducks Unlimited Canada et al. (2014), Szwaluk EnvironmentalConsultingetal.(2015),andMESRA(2016aand2016b).BestpracticesandenvironmentalprotectionmeasuresidentifiedtomitigateadverseenvironmentaleffectsonvegetationasaresultoftheproposedP6All-SeasonRoadProjectinclude:limitclearingtodesignatedareawithin the ROW, undertake construction activities during winter months to the extentpossible,grubbingactivitiestoend2mfromstandingtimbertoavoiddisturbingtherootsystemofstanding trees, identifyplantspeciesofconservationconcernprior toclearing,adjust the road alignment, where possible, to avoid loss of important harvest areas asidentified by communities; design road and construction practices to avoid adverselyaffecting the functionality of bogs and fens; implement design measures to maintainexisting moisture conditions that support localized vegetative communities as per theOperationalGuidetoForestRoadWetlandCrossings(DucksUnlimitedCanadaetal.2014),cleanconstructionequipmentandvehicles(wherepossible)priortobringingthemintotheconstruction area, adhere to permit terms and conditions for herbicide use, undertakeburningofslashpilesduringthewintermonthstotheextentpossible,andrestoregroundcovervegetationusingnaturalmeansaugmentedwithplantingandseedingasrequired.

The range of evaluation criteria for potential residual effects on vegetation weredeterminedtobeadverseindirectionofchange,lowtohighecologicalandsocietalcontext,medium to long-term duration, low to moderate magnitude, extent ranging from theproject footprint to the regional assessment area, frequencyof infrequent to continuous,andlong-termreversibilityofeffects.

Follow-upactionsidentifiedincludeinspectionstoensurethatmitigationis implementedand effective. The residual effects on VCs (i.e., species of conservation concern, keycommunityharvestareas/plantspeciesofinterest)weredeterminedtohaveminimalriskof loss/mortality in the project assessment area. The environmental effects analysis forvegetationissummarizedinTable5.3.1.

38

Table5.3.1.Vegetationeffectsanalysis.NatureofPotential

EffectsEvaluation

(BeforeMitigation) MitigationMeasures ResidualEffects Evaluation(AfterMitigation)

Lossofspeciesofconservationconcernintheprojectassessmentareaduetoclearingduringconstruction

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–moderateDuration–long-termMagnitude–moderateExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–infrequentReversibility–long-term

• Identify/surveyplantspeciesofconservationconcernpriortoclearing• Adjustroadalignmentwherepossibletoavoidlossofplantspeciesofconservationconcern• Prohibitequipmentandvehicleuseoutsidethedesignatedclearedarea

Minimalriskoflossofplantspeciesofconcern;nospeciesofconservationconcernwerefoundduring2016fieldstudies

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–moderateDuration–long-termMagnitude–lowExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–infrequentReversibility–long-term

Lossoffloodedjellyskin(Leptogiumrivulare)lichenintheprojectassessmentareaduetoclearingduringconstruction

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–highDuration–long-termMagnitude–moderateExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–infrequentReversibility–long-term

• Identifyandflagplantspeciesoflocationspriortoclearing• Adjustroadalignmentwherepossibletoavoidlossofspecieslocations• Prohibitequipmentandvehicleuseoutsidethedesignatedclearedarea• Limitclearingtodesignatedareaswithintheprojectassessmentarea

Minimalriskoflosstofloodedjellyskinlichen;floodedjellyskinwasnotobservedduring2016fieldstudies

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–highDuration–long-termMagnitude–lowExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–infrequentReversibility–long-term

Disturbancetoorremovalofkeycommunityharvestareasofplantspeciesofinterest(medicinal,cultural)intheprojectassessmentareaduetoclearingduringconstruction


• Identifyareasofculturalimportancepriortoclearing• Identifyimportantmedicinalandculturalplantsandharvestingareas• Adjustroadwherepossibletoavoidtothelossofimportantharvestingarea• Limitclearingtodesignatedareawithintheprojectassessmentarea• Prohibituseofequipmentand

Minimallossofvegetationandlossconfinedtoprojectassessmentarea

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–moderateDuration–long-termMagnitude–lowExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–infrequentReversibility–long-term

39


EffectsEvaluation


vehiclesoutsidethedesignatedclearedarea

Disturbancetoorremovalofnativevegetationintheprojectassessmentareaduetoclearingduringconstruction

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–lowDuration–long-termMagnitude–highExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–infrequentReversibility–long-term

• Limitclearingtodesignatedareaswithintheprojectassessmentarea• Prohibitequipmentandvehicleuseoutsidethedesignatedclearedarea• Grubbingactivitiestoend2mfromstandingtimbertoavoiddisturbingtherootsystemofstandingtrees• Restoregroundcovervegetationalongroadshouldersusingnaturalmeansaugmentedwithplantingandseedingofnativespeciesasrequired

Removalofnativevegetationconfinedtotheprojectassessmentarea

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–lowDuration–long-termMagnitude–moderateExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–infrequentReversibility–long-term

Disturbanceorlosstospeciescompositionandecologyofwetlands(bogsandfens)intheprojectassessmentareaduetoclearingduringconstruction

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–moderateDuration–long-termMagnitude–highExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–infrequentReversibility–long-term

• Designroadandconstructionpracticestoavoidadverselyaffectingthefunctionalityofbogsandfens(i.e.,equalizationculvertstomaintainbog/fenhydraulics)• Undertakeconstructionactivitiesinbog/fensduringwintermonthstoextentpossible• ImplementdesignmeasurestomaintainexistingmoistureconditionsthatsupportlocalizedvegetativecommunitiesaspertheOperationalGuidetoForestRoadWetlandCrossings(Ducks

Wetland(bogandfen)lossconfinedtotheprojectassessmentarea


40


EffectsEvaluation


UnlimitedCanadaetal.2014)Fragmentationofthelocalandregionalvegetationcommunitiesduetoclearingduringconstruction

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–lowDuration–long-termMagnitude–highExtent–localandregionalassessmentareaFrequency–infrequentReversibility–long-term

• Undertakeclearingactivitiesduringwintermonthstoextentpossible• Limitclearingtodesignatedareawithintheprojectassessmentarea• Prohibitequipmentandvehicleuseoutsidethedesignatedclearedarea

Fragmentationconfinedtotheprojectassessmentarea


Modificationofvegetationcompositionandstructureadjacenttothedisturbancezoneduetoclearingduringconstruction

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–lowDuration–medium-termMagnitude–moderateExtent–localassessmentareaFrequency–infrequentReversibility–long-term

• Undertakeclearingactivitiesduringwintermonthstoextentpossible• Limitclearingtodesignatedareawithintheprojectassessmentarea• Prohibitequipmentandvehicleuseoutsidethedesignatedclearedarea

Minimalmodificationofvegetationadjacenttodisturbancezone

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–lowDuration–medium-termMagnitude–lowExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–infrequentReversibility–long-term

Introductionandspreadofinvasiveandnon-nativespeciesintheprojectassessmentareaduringconstruction,operationandmaintenance

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–lowDuration–long-termMagnitude–highExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–continuousReversibility–long-term

• Cleanconstructionequipmentandvehiclespriortobringingthemintotheconstructionsite(wherepossible)• Undertakeconstructionactivitiesduringwintermonthstotheextentpossible

Minimalriskofinvasiveandnon-nativespeciesintroduction

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–lowDuration–long-termMagnitude–moderateExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–continuousReversibility–long-term

Loss/impairmentofvegetationintheprojectassessmentareafromaccidentalreleasesoffuelsorhazardoussubstancesduringroadconstruction

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–moderateDuration–long-termMagnitude–moderateExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–intermittent

• Constructionsitestohaveanapprovedemergencyresponseplanthatincludesfuelspills• Storefuelinapprovedcontainersprovidedwithsecondarycontainment

Minimalriskofvegetationmortality

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–moderateDuration–long-termMagnitude–lowExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–intermittent

41


EffectsEvaluation


andoperationandmaintenance

Reversibility–long-term • Driptrays,blanketsorpadstobeusedwhentransportingfuel

Reversibility–long-term

Loss/impairmentofdesirableplantspeciesintheprojectassessmentareafromherbicideapplicationduringroadoperationandmaintenance

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–lowDuration–long-termMagnitude–moderateExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–intermittentReversibility–long-term

• Applyherbicidesinaccordancewithmanufacturersguidelinesandadheretopermittermsandconditions• Limitherbicideapplicationbeyondroadshoulder


Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–lowDuration–long-termMagnitude–lowExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–intermittentReversibility–long-term

Impairmentofvegetationintheprojectassessmentareafromdustduringroadconstruction,operationandmaintenance

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–lowDuration–long-termMagnitude–moderateExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–intermittentReversibility–short-term

• Undertakeconstructionactivitiesduringwintermonthstoextentpossible• Usewaterorapproveddustsuppressionagentsthatwillnotnegativelyaffectplants


Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–lowDuration–long-termMagnitude–lowExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–intermittentReversibility–short-term

Increasedriskofforestfireinthelocalandregionalassessmentareaduringconstructionandoperationandmaintenance

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–lowDuration–long-termMagnitude–highExtent–regionalassessmentareaFrequency–intermittentReversibility–long-term

• Undertakeconstructionandburningduringthewintermonthstotheextentpossible• Prohibitburningofslashpilesduringhighforestfireconditions

Minimalriskofforestfires Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–lowDuration–long-termMagnitude–moderateExtent–regionalassessmentareaFrequency–intermittentReversibility–long-term

Increasedaccesstobotanicalresourcesusedbynon-communitymembersduringroadoperation

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–lowDuration–long-termMagnitude–lowExtent–localassessmentareaFrequency–intermittentReversibility–long-term

• Non-mitigable Minimallossofbotanicalresources

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–lowDuration–long-termMagnitude–lowExtent–localassessmentareaFrequency–intermittentReversibility–long-term

Reducedfloristicdiversityimmediatelyadjacentto

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–low

• Limitclearingtodesignatedareaswithintheprojectassessment

Reducedfloristicdiversityconfinedtotheproject

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–low

42


EffectsEvaluation


theroadduetoclearingandconstruction

Duration–medium-termMagnitude–moderateExtent–localassessmentareaFrequency–infrequentReversibility–long-term

area• Prohibitequipmentandvehicleuseoutsidethedesignatedclearedarea• Restoregroundcovervegetationalongroadshouldersusingnaturalmeansaugmentedwithplantingandseedingofnativespeciesasrequired

assessmentarea Duration–medium-termMagnitude–moderateExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–infrequentReversibility–long-term

43

5.3.2 Soils

Acloserelationshipbetweensoilsandvegetationdevelopassoilsbegintoform.Vegetationhelpsbreakdownsolidmaterialsandprovidesorganicmatterbuildingsoil.Inreturn,soilsareimportanttovegetationforseveralreasonsincludingprovidingamediumforgrowthandthestoringofnutrients.AccordingtoHironakaetal. (1990),soilsandvegetationaremutuallyassociatedwitheachotherwhenreviewingbasicconceptsofdevelopment,bothinfluenced by the same environmental variables. The relationship between soils andvegetationgrowthhasbeenresearchedbyseveralauthors(e.g.,TwardyandCorns1980;StrongandLaRoi1983;Klinkaetal.1994;SzwalukandStrong2003).

Effectsofroadconstructiononthesoilenvironmenthasbeendocumentedbyavarietyofauthors (Bilby et al. 1989;Brown2009;Daigle 2010;Noss 2002; SenesConsultants Ltd.2005;Swift1988;andTrombulakandFrissell1999).Effectsofroadconstructiononsoilsinclude contamination from a variety of pollutants, loss of productivity, erosion,compaction,and lossofbiomass.Brown(2009) foundthatsoilchemistrywas influencedfromroadsidedustinforestedenvironmentsanddustfromlimestoneroadshadagreatereffectonsoilsthatledtoanincreaseinroadsideinvasivespecies.

Potentialenvironmentaleffectsofsimilarall-seasonroadprojectshavebeenreportedontoincludethelossofsoilsfromconstructionactivities,compaction,erosion,modificationofthesoilmoistureregime,and impairedsoilquality fromaccidentalreleasesofhazardousmaterials (e.g., MESRA 2016a; MESRA 2016b; Szwaluk Environmental Consulting et al.2015; Manitoba Floodway and East Side Road Authority 2010 and 2011; CanadianEnvironmentalAssessmentAgency2011).

TheproposedP6All-SeasonRoadProjectmayaffect soilsduringconstruction,operationandmaintenance stages. Potential environmental effects prior tomitigation include thefollowing:

1. Loss of soil in the project assessment area due to clearing, stripping andconstruction.

2. Compaction of soil in the project assessment area due to heavy equipment useduringconstruction.

3. Loss of soil in the project assessment area due to erosion of cleared sites duringconstruction.

4. Lossofsoil in theprojectassessmentareaduetoerosionofsoilstockpilesduringconstruction.

44

5. Modificationofsoilmoistureregimeinthelocalassessmentareaduringoperationandmaintenance.

6. Impairedsoilqualityintheprojectassessmentareafromaccidentalreleasesoffuelsandhazardoussubstancesduringconstruction,operationandmaintenance.

7. Impaired soil quality in the project assessment area from herbicide applicationduringoperationandmaintenance.

Measuresidentifiedtomitigateadverseenvironmentaleffectsonsoilsincludestockpilingsoils that are stripped for use in re-vegetation,minimize the amount of soil stripped inconstructionsites,minimizecompactionofsoilsbyheavyequipmentinconstructionareas,provideerosionprotectionandsedimentcontrol,managesurfacedrainageatconstructionsites, minimize the loss of soil by covering stockpiles (i.e., impervious layer such asgeotextile fabric); minimize the amount of soil stockpiled on site if possible; remove orspread excess material as soon as work is completed to minimize erosion, providehydraulic equalization culverts to prevent ponding of water at upstream locations anddryingatdownstreamlocations,storefuelsandotherhydrocarboncontainingsubstancesinapprovedcontainers,usedriptrayswhenfuellingconstructionequipmentandvehicles,constructionsitestohaveanapprovedemergencyresponseplanthat includesfuelspills,andadheretoherbicidepermittermsandconditions.

Therangeofevaluationcriteriaforpotentialresidualeffectsonsoilsweredeterminedtobeadverseindirectionofchange,lowtomoderateecologicalandsocietalcontext,shorttolong-termduration, lowtomoderatemagnitude,extentrestrictedtotheproject footprintandlocalassessmentarea,frequencyofinfrequenttointermittent,andshorttolong-termreversibility of effects. Follow-up actions identified include inspections to ensure thatmitigation is implemented and effective. The environmental effects analysis for soils issummarizedinTable5.3.2.

45

Table5.3.2.Soilseffectsanalysis.NatureofPotential

EffectsEvaluation

(BeforeMitigation)MitigationMeasures ResidualEffects Evaluation

(AfterMitigation)Lossofsoilintheprojectassessmentareaduetoclearing,strippingandconstruction


• Stockpilesoilstrippedfromtheproposedroadbedforre-vegetationpurposes• Minimizeamountofsoilstrippedinconstructionsites

Minimallossofsoils Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–lowDuration–long-termMagnitude–lowExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–infrequentReversibility–long-term

Compactionofsoilintheprojectassessmentareaduetoheavyequipmentuseduringconstruction

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–lowDuration–medium-termMagnitude–moderateExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–infrequentReversibility–short-term

• Carryoutconstructionduringthewintermonthstotheextentpossible• Minimizecompactionofsoilsbyheavyequipmentinconstructionareas

Minimalcompactionofsoils Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–lowDuration–medium-termMagnitude–lowExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–infrequentReversibility–short-term

Lossofsoilintheprojectassessmentareaduetoerosionofclearedsitesduringconstruction

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–lowDuration–medium-termMagnitude–moderateExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–infrequentReversibility–short-term

• Provideerosionprotectionandsedimentcontrolasrequired• Managesurfacedrainageatconstructionsites

Minimalriskofsoilerosion Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–lowDuration–medium-termMagnitude–lowExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–infrequentReversibility–short-term

Lossofsoilintheprojectassessmentareaduetoerosionofsoilstockpilesduringconstruction

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–lowDuration–short-termMagnitude–moderateExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–infrequentReversibility–short-term

• Minimizethelossofsoilbycoveringstockpiles(i.e.,imperviouslayersuchasgeotextilefabric)• Minimizetheamountofsoilstockpiledonsiteifpossible• Removeorspreadexcessmaterialassoonasworkiscompletedtominimizeerosion• Provideerosionprotection

Minimalriskofsoilerosion Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–lowDuration–short-termMagnitude–lowExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–infrequentReversibility–short-term

46

Table5.3.2.Soilseffectsanalysis.NatureofPotential

EffectsEvaluation

(BeforeMitigation)MitigationMeasures ResidualEffects Evaluation

(AfterMitigation)andsedimentcontrolasrequired

Modificationofsoilmoistureregimeinthelocalassessmentareaduringoperationandmaintenance

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–lowDuration–long-termMagnitude–moderateExtent–localassessmentareaFrequency–infrequentReversibility–short-term

• Providehydraulicequalizationculvertstopreventpondingofwateratupstreamlocationsanddryingatdownstreamlocations

Minimalimpairmenttosoilmoistureregime

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–lowDuration–long-termMagnitude–lowExtent–localassessmentareaFrequency–infrequentReversibility–short-term

Impairedsoilqualityintheprojectassessmentareafromaccidentalreleasesoffuelsandhazardoussubstancesduringconstruction,operationandmaintenance

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–moderateDuration–long-termMagnitude–moderateExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–intermittentReversibility–long-term

• Storefuelsandotherhydrocarboncontainingsubstancesinapprovedcontainers• Usedriptrays,padsorsheetswhenfuellingconstructionequipmentandvehicles• Constructionsitestohaveanapprovedemergencyresponseplanthatincludesfuelspills

Minimalriskofimpairedsoilquality

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–moderateDuration–long-termMagnitude–lowExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–intermittentReversibility–long-term

Impairedsoilqualityintheprojectassessmentareafromherbicideapplicationduringoperationandmaintenance

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–lowDuration–long-termMagnitude–moderateExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–intermittentReversibility–long-term

• Applyherbicideinaccordancewithmanufacturersguidelines• Adheretoherbicidepermittermsandconditions

Minimalriskofimpairedsoilquality

Direction–negativeEcologicalandsocietalcontext–lowDuration–long-termMagnitude–lowExtent–projectfootprintFrequency–intermittentReversibility–long-term

47

6.0 ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION

6.1 EnvironmentalProtectionMeasures

Environmental protectionmeasures identified in this assessment report include specificmitigationmeasurestoavoidorminimizepotentialadverseeffectsonvegetationandsoilsarising from the Project. The environmental protection measures are based on bestpractices and guidancematerials from other development projects, and are summarizedfromtheEffectsAssessment(Section5.0).

VegetationMitigationMeasures

• Limitclearingtodesignatedareaswithintheprojectassessmentarea.• Prohibitequipmentandvehicleuseoutsidethedesignatedclearedarea.• Restore ground cover vegetation along road shoulders using natural means

augmentedwithplantingandseedingofnativespeciesasrequired.• Grubbingactivitiestoend2mfromandstandingtimbertoavoiddisturbingtheroot

systemofstandingtrees.• Designroadandconstructionpracticestoavoidadverselyaffectingthefunctionality

ofbogsandfens.i.e.,installationofequalizationculverts• Implementdesignmeasures tomaintainexistingmoistureconditions thatsupport

localized vegetative communities as per the Operational Guide to Forest RoadWetlandCrossings(DucksUnlimitedCanadaetal.2014).

• Undertakeconstructionactivitiesduringwintermonthstoextentpossible.• Identifyareasofculturalimportancepriortoclearing.• Identifyimportantmedicinalandculturalplantsandharvestingareas.• Identifyspeciesofconservationconcernpriortoclearing.• Adjust road alignment where warranted to avoid loss of key community harvest

areas.• Wash construction equipment and vehicles prior to bringing them into the

constructionsite.• Constructionsitestohaveanapprovedemergencyresponseplanthatincludesfuel

spills.• Storefuelinapprovedcontainersprovidedwithsecondarycontainment.• Usedriptrays,blanketsorpadswhentransportingfuel.• Apply herbicides in accordance with manufacturer’s guidelines and adhere to

permittermsandconditions.• Limitherbicideapplicationbeyondroadshoulder.• Usewaterorapproveddustsuppressionagentsthatwillnotnegativelyaffectplants.• Undertake construction and burning during the winter months to the extent

possible.

48

• Prohibitburningofslashpilesduringhighforestfireconditions.

SoilMitigationMeasures

• Stockpilesoilstrippedfromtheproposedroadbedforrevegetationpurposes.• Minimizeamountofsoilstrippedinconstructionsites.• Minimizecompactionofsoilsbyheavyequipmentinconstructionareas.• Provideerosionprotectionandsedimentcontrolasrequired.• Managesurfacedrainageatconstructionsites.• Minimize the loss of soil by covering stockpiles (i.e., impervious layer such as

geotextilefabric).• Minimizetheamountofsoilstockpiledonsite,ifpossible.• Remove or spread excess material as soon as work is completed to minimize

erosion.• Provide hydraulic equalization culverts to prevent ponding of water at upstream

locationsanddryingatdownstreamlocations.• Storefuelsandotherhydrocarboncontainingsubstancesinapprovedcontainers.• Usedriptrays,padsorsheetswhenfuellingconstructionequipmentandvehicles.• Constructionsitestohaveanapprovedemergencyresponseplanthatincludesfuel

spills.• Apply herbicides in accordance with manufacturer’s guidelines and adhere to

permittermsandconditions.• Limitherbicideapplicationbeyondroadshoulder.

6.2 FieldInvestigation

VegetationandsoilsurveyswereconductedwithintheproposedP6roadalignmentinthespring/early summer of 2016. The field investigation gathered additional data for theProject assessment including vegetation types, forest resource information, speciescomposition, and presence/absence of species of conservation concern and species ofinterest,suchasthosetraditionallyusedformedicine,subsistenceandculturalpurposes.Surveys were also conducted to characterize and classify the associated soils. Detailedvegetationandsoilsfieldinformationcollectedin2016isprovidedintheP6ProjectFieldReport.

49

7.0 CUMULATIVEEFFECTS

Cumulativeeffectsaretheenvironmentaleffectsthatarelikelytoresultfromaprojectincombinationwith theenvironmentaleffectsofotherpast, existingand futureprojectsoractivities. The environmental assessment process for cumulative environmental effectsincludes:scoping,analysisofeffects,identificationofmitigation,evaluationofsignificance,andfollow-up.

7.1 Scoping

Regional Issues:Regionalvegetation issuesofconcern for theassessmentofcumulativeeffectsfortheP6All-SeasonRoadProjectconnectingMantoSipiCreeNation,BunibonibeeCreeNationandGod’sLakeFirstNationweredeterminedtoinclude:

• Countryfoods,and

• Spreadofinvasiveplantspecies

RegionalissuesarediscussedinSection5.1ofthevegetationreport.

Regional Valued Components: Regional VCs relevant to the cumulative effectsassessment for the P6 All-Season Road Project connecting Manto Sipi Cree Nation,BunibonibeeCreeNationandGod’sLakeFirstNationweredeterminedtobe:

• Speciesofconservationconcern,and• Keycommunityharvestareas(plantspeciesofinterest)

VCsarediscussedinSection5.2ofthevegetationreport.

Spatial and Temporal Boundaries: Spatial and temporal boundaries for a cumulativeeffectsassessmentgenerallyoccuroverawideareaandextendbeforeandaftertheprojectboundaries.Thespatialboundaryidentifiedforthecumulativeeffectsassessmentincludesthe regional assessment area,while the temporal boundarywas determined to be long-term(beyond10yearsofoperation).

OtherActions:OtheractionsthatmayaffecttheVCsweredeterminedtoinclude:

Past:• CommunityDevelopment• ResourceUse

Existing:• WinterRoads

50

• TransmissionLineMaintenance• ResourceUse

• Off-roadVehicles

Future:• TransmissionLineMaintenance• TransmissionLineConstructionProjects• RoadConstructionandMaintenanceProjects• ResourceUse• Off-roadVehicles• CommunityDevelopment• Mining

PotentialEffects:ThepotentialenvironmentaleffectsonVCsduetotheproposedP6All-SeasonRoadProjectandotherprojectsandactivitiesinthecumulativeeffectsassessmentareafortheforeseeablefutureareshownasinteractionsinTable7.1.

Table7.1.Potentialcumulativeeffectsidentification.

ProjectsandActivities

ValuedComponents RegionalIssuesSpeciesofConservationConcern


CountryFoods

SpreadofInvasivePlantSpecies

ProposedProject Projectconstruction X X X XProjectoperation X X X XPastProjectsandActivities Communitydevelopmentprojects

X X X X

Resourceuse X X X XExistingProjectsandActivities

Winterroads X X X XTransmissionmaintenance X X X XResourceuse X X X XOff-roadvehicles X X X XFutureProjectsandActivities

Transmissionprojects X X X XRoadprojects X X X XMiningprojects X X X XCommunitydevelopmentprojects

X X X X

51

7.2 EffectsAnalysis

Elevendifferentcovertypeswererecognizedintheregionalassessmentarea.Coniferousdense forest and coniferous open forest are the dominant cover types and account for382.4km2and351.4km2, respectively.Otherabundant types includeopenwater (283.9km2),wetlandshrub(193.5km2)andconiferoussparseforest(126.2km2).Theremainingcovertypesaredividedamongbroadleafforest,mixedwoodforest,wetlandtreedandherb,shrublands,andexposedland.

In theregionalassessmentarea,more than17plants,pluswoodand firewoodresourceswere identifiedby the communitiesofMantoSipiCreeNation,BunibonibeeCreeNation,God’s Lake First Nation, and God’s Lake Northern Affairs Community as important forsustenanceandculturalpractices.Mappedareaofoccupancyforplantsofsustenanceandculturalvalueidentifiedbycommunitymemberstotaled367.6km2.

Upto14speciesofconservationconcernmayoccur,ofwhichfiveareveryrare(S1)andninearerare(S2)orrare/uncommon(S2S3),asrankedbytheMBCDC.

ThepotentialcumulativeeffectsoftheproposedP6All-SeasonRoadProjectincombinationwith the effects of other Projects and activities in the assessment area are summarizedbelow:

SpeciesofConservationConcernandKeyCommunityHarvestAreas(PlantSpeciesofInterest):Theeffectsof constructionandoperationof theproposedP6All-SeasonRoadProjectmayactcumulativelywiththeeffectsoftheexistingwinterroads,transmissionlinemaintenance, resource use, and off-road vehicles. Future activities such as transmissionline construction projects, road construction andmaintenance projects, mining projects,andcommunitydevelopmentmayadverselyaffect theVCs identified.Pastactivitieshaveincludedcommunitydevelopmentprojectsandresourceuse,butpasteffectsonVC’sareanticipatedtobesmall.

The potential cumulative effects of the proposed P6 All-Season Road Project effects incombinationwith the effects of other projects and activities in the assessment area areevaluated inTable 7.2. The range of evaluation criteria (seeTable 5.0.) for the potentialcumulative effect categories include an adverse direction of change,moderate ecologicaland societal context, long-term duration, low magnitude, a project footprint extent orspatial boundary, frequency of infrequent to intermittent, and reversible over the long-term.AnypotentialcumulativeenvironmentaleffectsfortheProjectwouldbeverysmall.

52

Table7.2.Potentialcumulativeenvironmentaleffectsanalysis.PotentialCumulativeEffectCategories

EvaluationCriteriaandRating

DirectionofChange

Ecologicaland

SocietalContext

Duration

Magnitude

Extent

Frequency

Reversibility


Negative Moderate Long-term

Low Project Infrequent Long-term


Negative Moderate Long-term

Low Project Intermittent Long-term

7.3 IdentificationofMitigation

No additional mitigation measures are required for any potential cumulativeenvironmental effects beyond thosemitigationmeasures to be implemented as a part oftheP6projectasdescribedinsections5.3.1and5.3.2,andtables5.3.1and5.3.2.

7.4 EvaluationofSignificance

No significant cumulative environmental effectswere identified for the proposedP6All-Season Road Project, connecting Manto Sipi Cree Nation, Bunibonibee Cree Nation andGod’s Lake FirstNation, in combinationwith the environmental effects of other projectsandactivitiesintheassessmentareacurrently,orforthereasonablyforeseeablefuture.

7.5 Follow-up

Noadditionalfollow-upisrequiredforanypotentialcumulativeenvironmentaleffects.

53

8.0 REFERENCES

AgricultureandAgri-FoodCanada.2013.NationalSoilDatabase.

Angold, P.G. 1997. The impact of a road upon adjacent heathland vegetation: effects onplantspeciescomposition.JournalofAppliedEcology.No.34,409-417.

AsatiwisipeAkiManagementPlan.2011.PoplarRiverFirstNation.URL:https://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/lands_branch/pdf/pfrn_management_plan_18may2011.pdf

Bilby, R.E., K. Sullivan, and S.H. Duncan. 1989. The generation and fate of road-surfacesediment in forestedwatersheds in southwesternWashington. Journal of Forest Science,Vol35,No.2,453–468.

Brandt, J.P., M.D. Flannigan, D.G. Maynard, I.D. Thompson, and W.J.A. Volney. 2013. Anintroduction to Canada’s boreal zone: ecosystem processes, health, sustainability, andenvironmentalissues.Environ.Rev.21:207–226.

Brown,W.E.2009.Impactsofdirtandgravelroaddustonroadsideorganicforestsoilsandroadsidevegetation.M.Sc.Thesis.PennsylvaniaStateUniversity.

Bond,W.K.,K.W.Cox,T.Heberlein,E.W.Manning,D.R.WittyandD.A.You.1992.WetlandEvaluationGuideIssuesPaper,No.1992–1.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency. 2008. Invasive Alien Plants in Canada. CFIA. Ottawa,Ontario.72pp.

Cauboue,M.,W.L Strong, L. Archambault andR.A. Sims. 1996. Terminology of EcologicalLand Classification in Canada. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service –Quebec.Sainte-Foy,Quebec.InformationReportLAU-X-114E.

Calyx Consulting. 2012. LakeWinnipeg East System Improvement Transmission Project.VegetationTechnicalReport.PreparedforManitobaHydro.

CanadianEnvironmentalAssessmentAct.2012.URL:www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-15.21/index.html.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 2011. Comprehensive Study Report LakeWinnipegEastSideRoad(ProvincialRoad304 toBerensRiverAll-SeasonRoadProject).URL:http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/documents/50022/50022E.pdf

54

CanadianEnvironmentalAssessmentAgency. 2015. DraftGuidelinesforthepreparationof an Environmental Impact Statement (P4). URL: www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/document-eng.cfm?document=100900.Accessed2016.

Cody, W.J. 1989. Ferns and fern allies of Canada. Research Branch Agriculture Canada.PublicationNo.1829/E.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2016. URL:www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct6/index_e.cfm.Accessed2016.

Daigle, P. 2010. A Summary of the Environmental Impacts of Roads, ManagementResponses, and Research Gaps: A literature review. BC Journal of Ecosystems andManagementVol.10No.3,65–89.

Davidson-Hunt, I.,N.DeutschandA.M.Miller.2012.PimachiowinAkiCulturalLandscapeAtlas:LandthatGivesLife.PimachiowinAkiCorporation,Winnipeg,Canada.154pp.

Ducks Unlimited Canada, Louisiana Pacific, FP Innovations, Spruce Products Ltd. andWeyerhaeuser. 2014. Operational Guide, Forest RoadWetland Crossings, Learning fromFieldTrials in theBoreal Plains Ecozone ofManitoba and Saskatchewn, Canada. Version1.0.44pp.

Ducks Unlimited Canada. 2015. Field Guide, BorealWetland Classes in the Boreal PlainsEcozoneofCanada.FirstEdition,Version1.1.92pp.

EcologicalLandSurveysLtd.1999.Botanical,VegetationandEcologicalResourceSurveyoftheProposedCoalValleyIIMineExtension.PreparedforLuscarLtd.Calgary,Alberta.

EnvironmentCanada.2013.RecoveryStrategyfortheFloodedJellyskinLichen(Leptogiumrivulare)inCanada.SpeciesatRiskActRecoveryStrategySeries.EnvironmentCanada.Ottawa.

Environment Canada. 2015. Canadian Climate Normals 1981-2010 Station Data. URL:climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_1981_2010_e.html?stnID=3721&autofwd=1.Accessed2016.

Farmer,A.M.1993.Theeffectsofdustonvegetation.EnvironmentalPollution.No.79,63-75.

Fieldhouse,P.andS.Thompson.2012.TacklingFoodSecurityIssuesinIndigenousCommunitiesinCanada:TheManitobaExperience.NutritionandDietetics69(3):217–221.

55

FloraofNorthAmericaEditorialCommittee,eds.1993+.FloraofNorthAmericaNorthofMexico.19+vols.NewYorkandOxford.URL:http://www.efloras.org.Accessed2016.

Forman,R.T.T.andL.E.Alexander.1998.RoadsandtheirMajorEcologicalEffects.AnnualReviewofEcology,EvolutionandSystematics.No.29,207–31.

Foster, C., C.Hamel andE.Reimer. 2004.Occurrencesof rare anduncommoncalcareouswetland plants surveyed by the Manitoba Conservation Data Centre in 2003. MS04-02.ManitobaConservationDataCentre,Winnipeg,MB.32pp.

GeologyofManitoba.2016.URL:www.manitoba.ca/iem/mrd/index.html.Accessed2016.

GlobalInvasiveSpeciesDatabase(GISD)2015.URL:http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/search.php.Accessed2016.

GovernmentofCanada.2016.SpeciesatRiskAct.URL:www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/s-15.3.Accessed2016.

GovernmentofCanada.2016.SpeciesatRiskPublicRegistry,FloodedJellyskin.URL:http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=812.Accessed2016.

GovernmentofManitoba.2016.ManitobaEndangeredSpeciesandEcosystemsAct.URL:web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/e111e.php.Accessed2016.

GovernmentofManitoba.2016.TheEnvironmentAct(Manitoba).URL:web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/e125e.php.Accessed2016.

Halsey,L.A.,D.H.VittandS.C.Zoltai.1997.ClimateandphysiographiccontrolsonwetlandtypeanddistributioninManitoba,Canada.Wetlands,17(2):243-262.

Hironaka,M.,M.A.FosbergandK.E.Neiman, Jr.1990.The relationship between soilsand vegetation. PaperpresentedattheSymposiumonManagementandProductivityofWestern-Montane Forest Soils, Boise, ID, April 10-12, 1990. URL:http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/smp/solo/documents/GTRs/INT_280/Hironaka_INT-280.php

Hui, C., L. Shuang-cheng and Z. Yi-li. 2003. Impact of road construction on vegetationalongsideQinghai-XizangHighwayandRailway.ChineseGeographicalScience.Vol.13,No.4,340-346.

InvasiveSpeciesCouncilofManitoba.2016.URL:http://invasivespeciesmanitoba.comAccessed2016.

56

Klinka, K., Q. Wang and G.J. Kayahara. 1994. Quantitative characterization of nutrientregimesinsomeborealforestsoils.Can.J.SoilSci.74:29-38.

Langor,D.W.,E.K.Cameron,C.J.K.MacQuarrie,A.McBeath,A.McClay,B.Peter,M.Pybus,T.Ramsfield,K.Ryall,T.Scarr,D.Yemshanov, I.DeMerchant,R.FoottitandG.R.Pohl.2014.Non-nativespeciesinCanada’sborealzone:diversity, impacts,andrisk.Environ.Rev.22:372–420.

Li,Y.,J.Yu,K.Ning,S.Du,G.Han,F.Qu,G.Wang,Y.FuandC.Zhan.2014.EcologicaleffectsofroadsontheplantdiversityofcoastalwetlandintheYellowRiverdelta.TheScientificWorldJournal.Vol.2014,8pp.

Locky, D.A., S.E. Bayley and D.H. Vitt. 2005. The vegetational ecology of black spruceswamps,fens,andbogsinsouthernborealManitoba,Canada.Wetlands25(3):564-582.

Manitoba Conservation. Through 2014. Fire history information, accessed throughManitobaLandInitiative.

ManitobaConservationandWaterStewardship.2015.InformationBulletin–EnvironmentActProposalReportGuidelines.EnvironmentalAssessmentandLicensingBranch.

ManitobaConservationDataCentre.2016.URL:www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/cdc.Accessed2016.

Manitoba Floodway East Side Road Authority. 2010. PR 304 to Berens River All-SeasonRoadEnvironmentalImpactAssessment.PreparedbySNC-Lavalin,AECOMandJ.D.MollardandAssociatesLtd.

Manitoba Floodway East Side Road Authority. 2011. Bloodvein Community All-SeasonAccessRoadEnvironmentalImpactAssessment.

ManitobaEast SideRoadAuthority. 2016a. EnvironmentalAssessmentReport: ProposedAll-SeasonRoadLinkingPauingassiFirstNationandLittleGrandRapidsFirstNationtotheLittleGrandRapidsAirport(ProjectP7a).

ManitobaEastSideRoadAuthority.2016b.Project4–All-SeasonRoadConnectingBerensRivertoPoplarRiverFirstNation,EnvironmentalImpactStatement.

ManitobaEastSideRoadAuthority.2016c.ProjectDescription,Project6–All-SeasonRoadLinking Manto Sipi Cree Nation, Bunibonibee Cree Nation and God’s Lake First Nation.83pp.

57

Manitoba Hydro. 2000a. An Evaluation of Stream Crossings and Riparian EcosystemsIntersected by Hydro Rights-of-Way in North Central Manitoba.Report No.2. TerraformEnvironmentalConsultingandCalyxConsulting.89pp.[Maps]

Manitoba Hydro. 2000b. An Assessment of Post-Construction Natural Re-Vegetation onHydro Rights-of-Way in North Central Manitoba. Report No.3. Terraform EnvironmentalConsultingandCalyxConsulting.78pp.

Marles,R.J.,C.Clavelle,L.Monteleone,N.TaysandD.Burns.2000.AboriginalPlantUseinCanada’sBorealForest.NaturalResourcesCanada,UBCPress,Vancouver.368pp.

Matile,G.L.D.andG.R.Keller.2006.SurficialgeologyoftheOxfordHousemapsheet(NTS53L), Manitoba; Manitoba Science, Technology, Energy and Mines, Manitoba GeologicalSurvey,SurficialGeologyCompilationMapSeries,SG-53L,scale1:250,000.

NationalWetlandsWorkingGroup.1997.CanadianWetlandClassificationSystem.EdsB.G.Warner and C.D.A. Rubec. Wetlands Research Center, University of Waterloo, OntarioCanada.

NaturalResourcesCanada.1999 to2010.1:50,000scalemapsused forwatercourseandwaterbodyanalysis.

Natural Resources Canada. Through 2000. Land Cover Classification, Earth and SciencesSector.

NaturalResourcesCanada.2016.FireEcology.URL:http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/fire/13149Accessed2016.

Northern Lights Heritage Services. 2000. Ecoregion 90 Traditional Land Use andOccupancyStudy.PoplarRiver,LittleGrandRapidsandPauingassiFirstNation.

Noss, R. 2002. The ecological effects of roads. URL: http://www.eco-action.org/dt/roads.html

Perry,D.A.1994.ForestEcosystems.TheJohnHopkinsUniversityPressLtd.,London.

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin. 2009. Environmental Impacts of TransmissionLines.Madison,Wisconsin.

Scoggan,H.J.1957.FloraofManitoba.BulletinNo.140,BiologicalSeriesNo.47.NationalMuseumofCanadaDepartmentofNorthernAffairsandNationalResources.Ottawa.619pp.

58

SenesConsultantsLimited. 2005. NWTEnvironmentalAudit Statusof theEnvironmentReport. Chapter6.0Permafrost,Ground Ice andSnowCover. URL: http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/DAM/DAM-INTER-NWT/STAGING/texte-text/soep_1316619744666_eng.pdf

SmithR.E.,H.Veldhuis,G.F.Mills,R.G.Eilers,W.R.FraserandG.W.Lelyk.1998.TerrestrialEcozones, Ecoregions, and Ecodistricts of Manitoba, An Ecological Stratification ofManitoba’sNaturalLandscapes.TechnicalBulletin.1998-9E.LandResourceUnit,BrandonResearchCentre,ResearchBranch,AgricultureandAgri-FoodCanada.Winnipeg,Manitoba.

Stocks,B.J.,J.A.Mason,J.B.Todd,E.M.Bosch,B.M.Wotton,B.D.Amiro,M.D.Flannigan,K.G.Hirsch,K.A.Logan,D.L.MartellandW.R.Skinner.2003.LargeforestfiresinCanada,1959–1997.JournalofGeophysicalResearch108:FFR5-1-12.

Strong, W.L and G.H. La Roi. 1983. Rooting depths and successional development ofselectedborealforestcommunities.Can.J.For.Res.13:577-588.

Succarieh,M.1992.ControlofDustEmissions fromUnpavedRoads.Prepared forAlaskaCooperative Transportation and Public Facilities Research Program. Report No.INE/TRC/QRP-92.05.

Swift,L.W.,Jr.1988.Forestaccessroads:design,maintenance,andsoilloss.InW.T.SwankandD.A.Crossley, Jr. (eds.).ForestHydrologyandEcologyatCoweeta.EcologicalStudies66.Springer-Verlag,NewYork,313–324.

Szwaluk Environmental Consulting Ltd., Calyx Consulting and MMM Group Ltd. 2011.TerrestrialEcosystemsandVegetationAssessmentoftheBipoleIIITransmissionProject.PreparedforManitobaHydro.

SzwalukEnvironmentalConsultingLtd.,K.NewmanandCalyxConsulting.2015.VegetationcharacterizationandeffectsassessmentoftheproposedBerensRivertoPoplarRiverFirstNationAll-SeasonRoad(Project4).PreparedforManitobaEastSideRoadAuthority.

Szwaluk,K.S.andW.LStrong.2003.Near-surfacesoilcharacteristicsandunderstoryplantsas predictors of Pinus contorta site index in southwestern Alberta, Canada. For. Ecol.Manage.176,13–24.

Terraform Environmental Consulting. 1999a. North Central Project EnvironmentalAssessmentofRe-VegetationfortheRights-of-Way.ManitobaHydro115pp.

TerraformEnvironmentalConsulting.1999b.Bipole1and2EnvironmentalAssessmentofRe-VegetationfortheRights-of-Way.ManitobaHydro52pp.

59

Trombulak,S.C.andC.A.Frissell.1999.Reviewofecologicaleffectsofroadsonterrestrialandaquaticcommunities.ConservationBiology.Vol.14,No.1,18-30.

Twardy,A.G.andI.G.W.Corns.1980.SoilsurveyandinterpretationoftheWapitimaparea,Alberta.AlbertaResearchCouncil,Edmonton,AB,Alta.Inst.Pedol.Rep.No.39.

University of Manitoba Herbarium (WIN) from University of Manitoba. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.5886/2fva5p4rAccessed2016.

Walker,D.A.,P.J.Webber,K.R.EverettandJ.Brown.1978.Effectsofcrudeoilanddieseloilspills on plant communities at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, and the derivation of oil spillsensitivitymaps.Arctic.Vol.31,No.3:242-259.

Watkins, R. Z., J. Chen, J. Pickens and K.D. Brosofske. 2003. Effects of Forest Roads onUnderstoryPlantsinaManagedHardwoodLandscape.ConservationBiology,Vol.17,No.2,411-419.

Weber, M.G. and M.D. Flannigan. 1997. Canadian boreal forest ecosystem structure andfunctioninachangingclimate:Impactsonfireregimes.Environ.Rev.5,145–166.

APPENDIXI. DefinitionsofSelectedTechnicalTerms1.

Bog–Ombrotrophicpeatlandsgenerallyunaffectedbynutrient-richgroundwaterthatareacidicandoftendominatedbyheathshrubsandSphagnummossesandthatmay includeopen-growing,stuntedtrees.

Boreal – Pertaining to the north; a climatic and ecological zone that occurs south of thesubarctic, but north of the temperate hardwood forests of eastern North America, theparklandoftheGreatPlainsregion,andthemontaneforestsoftheCanadiancordillera.

Canopy–Themoreorlesscontinuouscoverofbranchesandfoliageformedbythecrownsoftrees.

CanopyClosure–Thedegreeofcanopycoverrelativetoopenings.

Classification – The systematic grouping and organization of objects, usually in ahierarchicalmanner.

Community-Type – A group of vegetation stands that share common characteristics, anabstractplantcommunity.

Coniferous–Acone-bearingplantbelongingtothetaxonomicgroupGymnospermae.

Cover–Theareaofgroundcoveredwithplantsofoneormorespecies,usuallyexpressedasapercentage.

Deciduous–Referstoperennialplantsfromwhichtheleavesabsciseandfalloffattheendofthegrowingseason.

Ecoregion – An area characterized by a distinctive regional climate as expressed byvegetation.

Family–Taxonomicgroupingofplantsthatarerelatedataparticularhierarchicallevel.

Fen – Wetland with a peat substrate, nutrient-rich waters, and primarily vegetated byshrubsandgraminoids.

Flora–Alistoftheplantspeciespresentinanarea.

Forest–Arelativelylargeassemblageoftree-dominatedstands.

Graminoid–Aplant that isgrass-like; the termrefers tograssesandplant that look likegrasses, i.e., onlynarrow-leavedherbs; in thestrictest sense, it includesplantsbelongingonlytothefamilyGraminaceae.

Habitat – The place in which an animal or plant lives; the sum of environmentalcircumstancesintheplaceinhabitedbyanorganism,populationorcommunity.

Invasive–Invasivespeciesareplantsthataregrowingoutsideoftheircountryorregionoforiginandareout-competingorevenreplacingnativeplants(InvasiveSpeciesCouncilofManitoba).

Mitigation – Often the process or act of minimizing the negative effects of a proposedaction.

Mixedwood – Forest stands composed of conifers and angiosperms each representingbetween25and75%ofthecover.

Riparian–Referstoterrain,vegetationorsimplyapositionadjacenttoorassociatedwithastream,floodplain,orstandingbodyofwater.

Shrub – A perennial plant usually with a woody stem, shorter than a tree, oftenwith amulti-stemmedbase.

Species–Agroupoforganismshavingacommonancestrythatareabletoreproduceonlyamongthemselves;ageneraldefinitionthatdoesnotaccountforhybridization.

Stand–Acollectionofplantshavingarelativelyuniformcompositionandstructure,andageinthecaseofforests.

Terrestrial–Pertainingtolandasopposedtowater.

Understory–Vegetationgrowingbeneathtallerplantssuchastreesortallshrubs.

Vascular–Havingtissuesthattransportwater,sap,nutrients;referstoplantsthatarenotmosses,lichensandalgae.

Vegetation–Thegeneralcoverofplantsgrowingonalandscape.

VegetationType–Inphytosociology,thelowestpossibleleveltobedescribed.

Wetland–Landthatissaturatedwithwaterlongenoughtopromotehydricsoilsoraquaticprocessesasindicatedbypoorlydrainedsoils,hydrophyticvegetation,andvariouskindsofbiologicalactivitythatareadaptedtowetenvironments.

1AllreferencesCauboueetal.1996,unlessotherwisenoted.

APPENDIXII. PreliminarySpeciesList.

Apreliminary listof floraexpected tooccur in theProject6All-SeasonRoadstudyarea,organized taxonomically by family. MBCDC provincial ranks are included, SNA speciesmarkedwithanasterisk(*)indicatespeciesinvasivestatus(ISCM2016).

ScientificName CommonName Rank

FernsandAllies

DRYOPTERIDACEAE WOODFERNFAMILY

Gymnocarpiumdryopteris CommonOakFern S4S5

Gymnocarpiumjessoense NorthernOakFern S3S4Dryopteriscarthusiana SpinuloseWoodFern S5Woodsiaalpina NorthernWoodsia S2EQUISETACEAE HORSETAILFAMILY

Equisetumarvense FieldHorsetail S5Equisetumfluviatile SwampHorsetail S5Equisetumpratense MeadowHorsetail S4S5Equisetumscirpoides DwarfScouring-rush S4S5Equisetumsylvaticum WoodlandHorsetail S5

LYCOPODIACEAE CLUB-MOSSFAMILY

Diphasiastrumsitchense Ground-fir S1Diphasiastrum×zeilleri Zeiller’sGroundCedar SNA

Huperziaselago MountainClub-moss S2S3Lycopodiumannotinum StiffClub-moss S5Lycopodiumlagopus RunningPine S3

OPHIOGLOSSACEAE ADDER’STONGUEFAMILY

Botrychiummatricariifolium Daisy-leafMoonwort S1Botrypusvirginianus RattlesnakeFern S4

SELAGINELLACEAE SPIKE-MOSSFAMILY Selaginellarupestris RockSpike-moss S4

Gymnosperms

CUPRESSACEAE CYPRESSFAMILY

Juniperuscommunis CommonJuniper S5Juniperushorizontalis CreepingJuniper S5

PINACEAE PINEFAMILY Abiesbalsamea BalsamFir S5Larixlaricina Tamarack S5Piceaglauca WhiteSpruce S5

Piceamariana BlackSpruce S5Pinusbanksiana JackPine S5

Angiosperms-Monocotyledons ACORACEAE SWEETFLAGFAMILY Acorusamericanus SweetFlag S4S5ALISMATACEAE ARROWHEADFAMILY Sagittariacuneata Arum-leavedArrowhead S5ARACEAE ARUMFAMILY Callapalustris Water-arum S5CYPERACEAE SEDGEFAMILY Carexaquatilis WaterSedge S5Carexatherodes AwnedSedge S5Carexaurea GoldenSedge S5Carexbebbii Bebb'sSedge S5Carexbrunnescens BrownishSedge S5Carexcanescens HoarySedge S5Carexcapillaris Hair-likeSedge S5Carexchordorrhiza ProstrateSedge S4S5Carexdeflexa BentSedge S4S5Carexdiandra Two-stamenedSedge S4S5Carexdisperma Two-seededSedge S5Carexgynocrates NorthernBogSedge S5Carexhoughtoniana SandSedge S5Carexleptalea Bristle-stalkedSedge S5Carexlimosa MudSedge S5Carexloliacea Rye-grassSedge S2?Carexmagellanica BogSedge S5Carexmaritima SeasideSedge S2?Carexmedia IntermediateSedge S4S5Carexmicroglochin FalseUncinaSedge S2?Carexpauciflora Few-floweredSedge S3Carexpellita WoollySedge S5Carexretrorsa TurnedSedge S5Carexsiccata Dry-spikeSedge S4S5Carexutriculata BeakedSedge S5Carexvaginata SheathedSedge S5Eleocharispalustris CreepingSpike-rush S5Eriophorumgracile SlenderCotton-grass S4S5Eriophorumvaginatum TussockCotton-grass S5Eriophorumviridicarinatum Thin-leavedCotton-grass S4Schoenoplectustabernaemontani Soft-stemBulrush S5

Trichophorumalpinum AlpineCotton-grass S5

JUNCACEAE RUSHFAMILY Juncusalpinoarticulatus AlpineRush S5Juncusbufonius ToadRush S5

Luzulaparviflora Small-floweredWoodrush S4S5

JUNCAGINACEAE ARROW-GRASSFAMILY Scheuchzeriapalustris Pod-grass S3S4

LILIACEAE LILYFAMILY Alliumschoenoprasum Chives S3S4Maianthemumcanadense Two-leavedSolomon’s-seal S5

Maianthemumtrifolium Three-leavedSolomon’s-seal S5

ORCHIDACEAE ORCHIDFAMILY Calypsobulbosa Calypso S4Corallorhizatrifida EarlyCoral-root S5

Galearisrotundifolia Round-leavedOrchis S5

Goodyerarepens LesserRattlesnakePlantain S4S5

Platantheradilatata BogCandle S3S4

Platantherahookeri Hooker'sOrchid S2S3Platantherahuronensis HuronFringedOrchid S4S5

Platantheraobtusata SmallNorthernBogOrchid S5

Platantheraorbiculata Round-leavedBogOrchid S3S4Spiranthesromanzoffiana HoodedLadies’-tresses S5

POACEAE GRASSFAMILY Agrostisscabra Ticklegrass S5

Agrostisstolonifera CreepingBentGrass SNA

Alopecurusaequalis Short-awnedFoxtail S5Beckmanniasyzigachne SloughGrass S5

Bromusciliatus FringedBrome S5

Calamagrostiscanadensis MarshReedGrass S5

Calamagrostisstricta NorthernReedGrass S5Elymusrepens Quack-grass SNA

Glyceriaborealis NorthernMannaGrass S4S5

Glyceriagrandis TallMannaGrass S5

Glyceriapulchella GracefulMannaGrass S2S3Hordeumjubatum WildBarley S5

Oryzopsisasperifolia White-grainedMountainRiceGrass S5

Poaglauca GlaucousBluegrass S4S5

Poapalustris FowlBluegrass S5

POTAMOGETONACEAE PONDWEEDFAMILY Potamogetonfriesii FriesPondweed S4Potamogetongramineus Various-leavedPondweed S5Potamogetonnatans CommonFloatingPondweed S5Potamogetonrichardsonii Clasping-leavedPondweed S5Potamogetonrobbinsii Robbin'sPondweed S2S3Potamogetonstrictifolius StraightleafPondweed S2S3SPARGANIACEAE BURR-REEDFAMILY Sparganiumangustifolium Narrow-leavedBur-reed S4S5Angiosperms-Dicotyledons

ACERACEAE MAPLEFAMILY Acerspicatum MountainMaple S5APIACEAE CARROTFAMILY Cicutabulbifera Bulb-bearingWater-hemlock S5Cicutamaculata SpottedWater-hemlock S4S5Siumsuave Water-parsnip S5ARALIACEAE GINSENGFAMILY Aralianudicaulis WildSarsaparilla S5ASTERACEAE ASTERFAMILY Achilleaalpina Many-floweredYarrow S4S5Achilleamillefolium CommonYarrow S5Anaphalismargaritacea PearlyEverlasting S3S4Antennarianeglecta FieldCat’s-foot S5Arctiumminus CommonBurdock SNA*Artemisiaabsinthium Wormwood SNADoellingeriaumbellata Flat-toppedWhiteAster S5Erigeronhyssopifolius Hyssop-leavedFleabane S4Euthamiagraminifolia Flat-toppedGoldenrod S5Hieraciumumbellatum UmbellateHawkweed S5Petasitesfrigidusvar.palmatus Palmate-leavedColt’s-foot S5Petasitesfrigidusvar.sagittatus Arrow-leavedColt’s-foot S5Petasitesfrigidusvar.xvitifolius Vine-leavedColt’s-foot SNASolidagohispida HairyGoldenrod S5Solidagomissouriensis MissouriGoldenrod S5Solidagomultiradiata AlpineGoldenrod S4S5Sonchusarvensis FieldSow-thistle SNA*Sonchusasper Spiny-leavedSow-thistle SNASymphyotrichumciliolatum Lindley’sAster S5Symphyotrichumlanceolatum PanicledAster S4S5

Taraxacumofficinale CommonDandelion SNABALSAMINACEAE TOUCH-ME-NOTFAMILY Impatiensnoli-tangere WesternJewelweed S1BETULACEAE BIRCHFAMILY Alnusincanassp.rugosa SpeckledAlder S5Alnusviridis GreenAlder S5Betulapapyrifera WhiteBirch S5Betulapumila DwarfBirch S5BORAGINACEAE BORAGEFAMILY Hackeliadeflexassp.americana Beggar’sLice S4S5Mertensiapaniculata TallLungwort S5BRASSICACEAE MUSTARDFAMILY Erysimumcheiranthoides WormseedMustard SNARorippapalustris BogYellowcress S4S5CAMPANULACEAE BELLFLOWERFAMILY Campanulaaparinoides MarshBellflower S5CAPRIFOLIACEAE HONEYSUCKLEFAMILY Diervillalonicera Bush-honeysuckle S5Linnaeaborealis Twinflower S5Loniceradioica LimberorTwiningHoneysuckle S5Loniceravillosa Mountain-Fly-Honeysuckle S5CARYOPHYLLACEAE PINKFAMILY Moehringialateriflora GroveSandwort S5Stellariacrassifolia FleshyStitchwort S3S4Stellarialongifolia Long-leavedStitchwort S5Stellarialongipes Long-stalkedStitchwort S5Stellariamedia CommonChickweed SNACHENOPODIACEAE GOOSEFOOTFAMILY Blitumcapitatum StrawberryBlite S4S5CLUSIACEAE MANGOSTEENFAMILY Triadenumfraseri MarshSt.John's-wort S3CORNACEAE DOGWOODFAMILY Cornuscanadensis Bunchberry S5Cornusrugosa Round-leavedDogwood S3Cornusstolonifera Red-osierDogwood S5DROSERACEAE SUNDEWFAMILY Droseraanglica Oblong-leavedSundew S3S4Droserarotundifolia Round-leavedSundew S4S5ELAEAGNACEAE OLIVEFAMILY

Shepherdiacanadensis CanadaBuffaloberry S5ERICACEAE HEATHFAMILY Andromedapolifolia Bog-rosemary S5Arctostaphylosuva-ursi CommonBearberry S5Arctousalpina AlpineBearberry S3S4Chamaedaphnecalyculata Leatherleaf S5Gaultheriahispidula CreepingSnowberry S4S5Kalmiapolifolia BogLaurel S5Rhododendrongroenlandicum LabradorTea S5Vacciniumcaespitosum DwarfBilberry S3Vacciniummyrtilloides Velvet-leafBlueberry S5Vacciniumoxycoccos SmallCranberry S5Vacciniumuliginosum BogWhortleberry S5Vacciniumvitis-idaea BogCranberry S5FABACEAE PEAFAMILY Astragalusbodinii Bodin’sMilkvetch S1Astragaluscanadensis CanadaMilkvetch S5Lathyrusochroleucus PaleVetchling S5Oxytropisborealis BorealLocoweed S1S2Trifoliumrepens WhiteClover SNAFUMARIACEAE FUMITORYFAMILY Corydalisaurea GoldenCorydalis S5Capnoidessempervirens PinkCorydalis S5GERANIACEAE GERANIUMFAMILY Geraniumbicknellii Bicknell'sGeranium S5GROSSULARIACEAE CURRANTFAMILY Ribesglandulosum SkunkCurrant S5Ribeshudsonianum NorthernWildBlackCurrant S5Ribeslacustre BristlyBlackCurrant S4Ribesoxyacanthoides CanadaWildGooseberry S5HALORAGACEAE WATER-MILFOILFAMILY Myriophyllumsibiricum SpikedWater-milfoil S5HIPPURIDACEAE MARE'S-TAILFAMILY Hippurisvulgaris CommonMare's-tail S5LAMIACEAE MINTFAMILY Dracocephalumparviflorum AmericanDragon-head S5Lycopusasper WesternWater-horehound S4Lycopusuniflorus NorthernBugleweed S4S5Scutellariagalericulata HoodedSkullcap S5Stachyspalustris MarshHedge-nettle S5

LENTIBULARIACEAE BLADDERWORTFAMILY Utriculariacornuta HornedBladderwort S3S4MENYANTHACEAE BUCKBEANFAMILY Menyanthestrifoliata BogBean S5MYRICACEAE WAX-MYRTLEFAMILY Myricagale SweetGale S5NYMPHACEAE WATER-LILYFAMILY Nupharvariegata YellowPond-lily S5ONAGRACEAE EVENINGPRIMROSEFAMILY Epilobiumciliatumssp.glandulosum Willowherb S5

Epilobiumciliatumssp.watsonii Willow-herb SUEpilobiumleptophyllum Linear-leafWillowherb S4S5PLANTAGINACEAE PLANTAINFAMILY Plantagomajor CommonPlantain SNAPOLYGONACEAE SMARTWEEDFAMILY Fagopyrumesculentum Buckwheat SNAFallopiaconvolvulus BlackBindweed SNAPersicariaamphibia WaterSmartweed S5Persicarialapathifolia PaleSmartweed S5Rumexoccidentalis WesternDock S4S5PRIMULACEAE PRIMROSEFAMILY Lysimachiathyrsiflora TuftedLoosestrife S5PYROLACEAE WINTERGREENFAMILY Orthiliasecunda One-sidedWintergreen S5Pyrolaasarifolia PinkPyrola S5RANUNCULACEAE CROWFOOTFAMILY Anemonecanadensis CanadaAnemone S5Anemonemultifida Cut-leavedAnemone S5Anemoneparviflora SmallWoodAnemone S4Aquilegiabrevistyla Small-floweredColumbine S4Calthapalustris MarshMarigold S5Ranunculusaquatilis WhiteWaterCrowfoot S5Ranunculusflammula CreepingSpearwort S4S5Ranunculuspensylvanicus BristlyCrowfoot S5Ranunculussceleratus CursedCrowfoot S5RHAMNACEAE BUCKTHORNFAMILY Rhamnusalnifolia Alder-leavedBuckthorn S5ROSACEAE ROSEFAMILY

Amelanchieralnifolia Saskatoon S5Comarumpalustre MarshCinquefoil S5Fragariavirginiana SmoothWildStrawberry S5Geumaleppicum YellowAvens S5Potentillanorvegica RoughCinquefoil S5Prunuspensylvanica PinCherry S5Prunusvirginiana Chokecherry S5Rosaacicularis PricklyRose S5Rubusarcticusssp.acaulis StemlessRaspberry S5Rubuschamaemorus Cloudberry S5Rubusidaeus WildRedRaspberry S5Rubuspubescens Dewberry S5Sibbaldiopsistridentata Three-toothedCinquefoil S5Sorbusdecora Mountain-ash S4RUBIACEAE MADDERFAMILY Galiumlabradoricum Ladie’sBedstraw S4S5Galiumtrifidum Three-petalBedstraw S5SALICAEAE WILLOWFAMILY Populusbalsamifera BalsamPoplar S5Populustremuloides TremblingAspen S5Salixbebbiana Bebb’sWillow S5Salixcandida HoaryWillow S5Salixexigua SandbarWillow S5Salixhumilis GrayWillow S4Salixmaccalliana Velvet-fruitedWillow S4Salixpedicellaris BogWillow S5Salixpellita SatinWillow S3S4Salixpetiolaris BasketWillow S4S5Salixplanifolia Plane-leavedWillow S5SANTALACEAE SANDALWOODFAMILY Geocaulonlividum NorthernComandra S5SARRACENIACEAE PITCHERPLANTFAMILY Sarraceniapurpurea PitcherPlant S4S5SAXIFRAGACEAE SAXIFRAGEFAMILY Mitellanuda Mitrewort S5Parnassiapalustris Grass-of-Parnassus S5Saxifragatricuspidata Three-toothedSaxifrage S4S5SCROPHULARIACEAE FIGWORTFAMILY Rhinanthusminor LittleYellowRattle S4

APPENDIXIII.EnvironmentalComponentInteractionMatrixandLinkageDiagram

Pre-Construction ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕Construction ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕Operation/Maintenance ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕Decommissioning ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕

Acc

essi

ng

Sur

veyi

ng/F

lagg

ing

Cle

arin

g Ve

geta

tion

Rem

ovin

g Tr

ees

Win

drow

ing

Bur

ning

Exc

avat

ing

Cru

shin

g R

ock

Sor

ting

Agg

rega

te

Fillin

g

Sto

ckpi

ling

Mat

eria

ls

Gra

ding

/Con

tour

ing

Layi

ng A

ggre

gate

Com

pact

ing

Dril

ling

Usi

ng E

xplo

sive

s

Ope

ratin

g E

quip

men

t

Ope

ratin

g Ve

hicl

es/A

TVs

Ope

ratin

g G

ener

ator

s

Est

ablis

hing

Cam

ps

Hou

sing

Wor

kers

Est

ablis

hing

Sta

ging

Are

as

Ere

ctin

g Fe

nces

Tran

spor

ting

Equ

ip, S

uppl

Tra

nspo

rting

Mat

eria

ls

Tran

spor

ting

Fuel

Sto

ring

Fuel

Dis

pens

ing

Fuel

Cro

ssin

g S

tream

s

Cof

ferd

amm

ing

Con

trolli

ng E

rosi

on

Bat

chin

g C

oncr

ete

Pou

ring

Con

cret

e

Dem

obili

zing

Dis

man

tling

Fac

ilitie

s

Dis

man

tling

Brid

geD

ispo

sing

Sol

id W

aste

Dis

posi

ng H

az. W

aste

Dis

posi

ng L

iqui

d W

aste

Res

torin

g

Pla

ntin

g/S

eedi

ng

Con

trolli

ng D

ust

Ere

ctin

g S

igns

Plo

win

g S

now

De-

icin

g C

ulve

rts

Rem

ovin

g B

eave

r Dam

s

De-

icin

g R

oad

Con

trolli

ng V

eget

atio

n

Soil Soil Quantity ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ Soil Quality ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕Vegetation Trees ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ Shrubs ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ Herbs ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ Wetlands ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ Plant Species of Interest ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ Species of Conservation Concern ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕

Project Activity - Environmental Component Interaction Matrix

Project Activities

Environmental Components

Proposed P6 ASR Project

Soil Quantity Soil Quality Trees

Shrubs Herbs Wetlands

Linkage Diagram: Direct and Indirect Soil and

Vegetation Effects

Plants Species of

Interest

Species of Conservation

Concern

Soil Quantity Soil Quality Trees Shrubs Herbs Wetlands Plants of Special Interest

Species of Conservation

Concern

APPENDIXIV.ReportMaps.

Vegetation Interim Report Project 6 March 16 2017 · VEGETATION CHARACTERIZATION AND EFFECTS...

Documents

Transcript of Vegetation Interim Report Project 6 March 16 2017 · VEGETATION CHARACTERIZATION AND EFFECTS...