Red Wine Mountain Caribou Habitat Suitability Modeling
Caribou Yesterday s presentation by Nalcor outlined extensive work that was completed: involvement in the Labrador Woodland Caribou Recovery Team; 20 years of telemetry data were available; extensive data used in modeling that will be described later; mapped river crossings; and completed an extensive literature review. 2
Caribou Several points of agreement: effects of the project due to inundation may actually benefit caribou; area outside of the Forest Inventory area is providing alternate habitat; and there is an excellent database on Red Wine Caribou. 3
Landscape Simulation Modeling Modeling is the process of creating a simplified representation of a more complex system for the purpose of understanding or prediction. Computer landscape modeling allows for potentially complex simulations over very large areas. A Geographic Information System (GIS) is used to combine landscape data with modeled processes to produce area summaries and maps of results. Landscape modeling is an essential tool for landscape management. 4
Habitat Suitability Modeling A habitat suitability model uses landscape variables to estimate the amount and distribution of preferred habitat types. Very useful for predicting the effects of landscape change on the quality and distribution of wildlife habitat. Mapping created with model output aids in communicating the potential effects of changes to the landscape. Habitat suitability models should be validated to evaluate their reliability. 5
Resource Selection Function (RSF) RSF models use species location data to estimate relative probabilities of use. Through the use of multivariate statistics and actual data, RSFs are able to capture complex, site specific relationships between wildlife and habitat. RSFs are the preferred approach for estimating habitat effects when abundant data are available, which is why they were produced and applied for this assessment. 6
RWM Caribou RSF Model: Creation Two land cover data sets were available: Extensive, coarse EOSD data derived from satellite imagery ; and Provincial Forest Inventory (FI) data derived from aerial photography, which is high resolution but limited in extent. After detailed analysis, Provincial Forest Inventory (FI) data showed the strongest correlations with RWM caribou habitat selection patterns. 7
RWM Caribou RSF Model: Creation The decision was made to use a reduced study area (i.e., the FI extent) to maximize model accuracy, rather than modelling the entire RWM range at low accuracy. The FI area encompasses most of the Project footprint and infrastructure. As shown by validation results, enough RWM caribou collar observations were available to produce reliable models. 8
RWM Range and the FI Area 9
RWM Caribou RSF Model: Collar Data 10
RWM Caribou RSF: Validation Models were validated to evaluate reliability and establish credibility, as detailed in JRP# IR. 93. Validation results indicates that the reliability of the seasonal models ranges from strong to very strong. 11
RWM Caribou RSF Results Inundation affects < 1% of RWM caribou seasonal ranges. In keeping with known caribou ecology, the models predict that, depending on the season, 91 99% of the habitat affected by inundation is not primary habitat. 12
RWM Caribou RSF: Calving 13
RWM Caribou RSF: Post Calving 14
RWM Caribou RSF: Winter 15
Season Calving Post Calving Winter Breakdown of Habitat Affected by Inundation within the Forest Inventory Area Habitat Suitability Class Muskrat Falls Gull Island Reservoir Total Reservoir km 2 % km 2 % km 2 % primary 2 2 1 1 3 2 secondary 14 19 5 5 19 11 tertiary 54 78 95 93 149 87 total 69 100 102 100 171 100 primary 2 3 0 0 2 1 secondary 13 19 22 22 35 21 tertiary 54 78 80 78 134 78 total 69 100 102 100 171 100 primary 9 14 6 5 15 9 secondary 34 49 32 31 66 38 tertiary 26 38 64 63 90 53 total 69 100 102 100 171 100 16
RWM Caribou RSF Results The assertions made that 30% of the primary habitat in the RWM winter range is affected by the Project is incorrect. Within the FI area, disturbance zones of influence (ZOIs) due to Project construction affect 5% of the primary habitat in the calving range, <1% in the postcalving range and 12% in the winter range. ZOIs were estimated using collar data to range from 2km 4km, which is consistent with the literature (Mahoney and Schaefer 2002; 3km at Star Lake, NL). 17
Change in Primary Habitat Within Disturbance Zones of Influence in the Forest Inventory Area Habitat Present at Baseline in the FI Area In Disturbance ZOI at Baseline Change From Baseline Due to Construction Change From Baseline Due to Operations km 2 km 2 % km 2 % km 2 % Calving primary Post Calving primary Winter primary 4,994 482 10 244 5 51 1 4,480 7 <1 12 <1 8 <1 5,519 539 10 654 12 39 <1 18
RWM Caribou Conclusions The vast majority of the Lower Churchill River Valley is poor habitat for RWM caribou. Beyond the FI area, the Project footprint is primarily confined to inundation in the river valley. Modelling the full RWM range is not needed to predict with a high level of certainty that little primary habitat is affected by the Project. 19
RWM Caribou Conclusions It is accepted that the RWM herd is limited by predation and hunting, but not habitat. It is predicted that the Project will not result in increased moose density, or increased predation pressure on RWM caribou (p. 5 69, Vol. IIB). The residual effects of the Project on caribou can be effectively mitigated as described in Table 7 1, Vol. IIB and as mentioned yesterday by the Province. The effects of the transmission line are mitigated by following existing right of ways where possible. 20
RWM Caribou Conclusions The uncertainties raised regarding the effects of habitat loss and alteration, roads, increased access and changes in predator prey dynamics have all been thoroughly addressed. The effects of the Project on the RWM herd are predicted to be not significant, with a high level of certainty (Table 5 30, Vol. IIB). 21
George River Caribou Conclusions Only a small portion of the GRCH overlaps with the Project area. Individuals from this Herd may periodically occupy the watershed during winter. Therefore, we used the same RWM Assessment Area and description of habitat effects. 22
George River Caribou Conclusions While we cannot predict when the GRCH will winter in this area, we can predict the amount of habitat available and the influence of the Project. The environmental assessment for the GRCH concluded with a high level of certainty that the residual effects of the Project were not significant (Table 5 29 Vol. IIB) 23
Road Decommissioning 25
RWM Disturbance Zones of Influence 26