esrd appendix 136a.3 oct2013 final - impact assessment … · appendix 136a.3: vegetation alternate...

Frontier Oil Sands Mine ProjectIntegrated ApplicationSupplemental Information Request, Round 2

ESRD and CEAA ResponsesAppendix 136a.3: Vegetation Alternate Assessment

October 2013

Appendix 136a.3 Vegetation Alternate Assessment


Frontier Oil Sands Mine ProjectIntegrated Application

Supplemental Information Request, Round 2

October 2013



October 2013 ESRD/CEAA Page 136a.3-i

Table of Contents

APPENDIX 136A.3 VEGETATION ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT

136a.3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................136a.3-1

136a.3.2 Landscape Diversity ....................................................................................................136a.3-2

136a.3.2.1 Effects Classification..............................................................................136a.3-2

136a.3.2.2 Environmental Consequence ..................................................................136a.3-2

136a.3.2.3 Prediction Confidence ............................................................................136a.3-2

136a.3.2.4 Summary.................................................................................................136a.3-9

136a.3.3 Community Diversity ..................................................................................................136a.3-9

136a.3.3.1 Reference Conditions and Base Case .....................................................136a.3-9

136a.3.3.1.1 Land Units and Old Growth .........................................136a.3-9

136a.3.3.1.2 Rare Ecological Communities......................................136a.3-9

136a.3.3.2 Base Case..............................................................................................136a.3-15

136a.3.3.2.1 Land Units and Old Growth .......................................136a.3-15

136a.3.3.2.2 Rare Ecological Communities....................................136a.3-15

136a.3.3.3 Application Case ..................................................................................136a.3-15



136a.3.3.4 Planned Development Case ..................................................................136a.3-15



136a.3.3.5 Effects Classification............................................................................136a.3-16



136a.3.3.6 Environmental Consequence ................................................................136a.3-16

136a.3.3.7 Prediction Confidence ..........................................................................136a.3-16

136a.3.4 Species Diversity........................................................................................................136a.3-18

136a.3.4.1 Reference Conditions and Base Case ...................................................136a.3-18








ESRD/CEAA Page 136a.3-ii October 2013


136a.3.4.7 Summary...............................................................................................136a.3-23

136a.3.5 Air Emissions and Vegetation Health and Diversity..............................................136a.3-25

136a.3.5.1 Base Case..............................................................................................136a.3-25

136a.3.5.1.1 SO2 Fumigation ..........................................................136a.3-25

136a.3.5.1.2 NO2 Fumigation..........................................................136a.3-25

136a.3.5.1.3 Nitrogen Deposition ...................................................136a.3-25


136a.3.5.2.1 SO2 Fumigation ..........................................................136a.3-25

136a.3.5.2.2 NO2 Fumigation..........................................................136a.3-29



136a.3.5.3.1 SO2 Fumigation ..........................................................136a.3-29

136a.3.5.3.2 NO2 Fumigation..........................................................136a.3-29



136a.3.5.4.1 SO2 Fumigation ..........................................................136a.3-33

136a.3.5.4.2 NO2 Fumigation..........................................................136a.3-33




136a.3.5.7 Summary...............................................................................................136a.3-35

136a.3.6 Conclusions ................................................................................................................136a.3-35

136a.3.7 References ..................................................................................................................136a.3-35

List of Tables

Table 136a.3-1 Changes in Landscape Diversity in the RSA (Refined Table 3-12)................. 136a.3-3

Table 136a.3-2 Effects Classification and Environmental Consequence Ranking forLandscape Diversity ......................................................................................... 136a.3-8

Table 136a.3-3 Changes in Community Diversity (Alternate Table 3-14) ............................. 136a.3-10

Table 136a.3-4 Changes in Community Diversity in the RSA – Land Units(Alternate Table 3-16a) .................................................................................. 136a.3-13

Table 136a.3-5 Changes in Community Diversity in the RSA – Structural Stages(Alternate Table 3-16b) .................................................................................. 136a.3-14



October 2013 ESRD/CEAA Page 136a.3-iii

Table 136a.3-6 Effects Classification and Environmental Consequence Ranking forCommunity Diversity (Alternate Table 3-17) ................................................ 136a.3-17

Table 136a.3-7 Changes in Rare Species in the Revised Terrestrial LSA (AlternateTable 3-18) ..................................................................................................... 136a.3-19

Table 136a.3-8 Changes in Rare Species in the RSA (Alternate Table 3-19)......................... 136a.3-21

Table 136a.3-9 Effects Classification and Environmental Consequence Ranking forSpecies Diversity (Alternate Table 3-21) ....................................................... 136a.3-24

Table 136a.3-10 Area above SO2 Critical Levels by Cover Class – Base Case andApplication Case (Alternate Table 3-24) ....................................................... 136a.3-26

Table 136a.3-11 Area above NO2 Critical Levels by Cover Class – Base Case andApplication Case (Alternate Table 3-25) ....................................................... 136a.3-27

Table 136a.3-12 Area above N-Deposition Critical Loads by Cover Class – Base Caseand Application Case (Alternate Table 3-26)................................................. 136a.3-28

Table 136a.3-13 Area above SO2 Critical Levels by Cover Class – Base Case andPDC (Alternate Table 3-27) ........................................................................... 136a.3-30

Table 136a.3-14 Area above NO2 Critical Levels by Cover Class – Base Case andPDC (Alternate Table 3-28) ........................................................................... 136a.3-31

Table 136a.3-15 Area above N-Deposition Critical Loads by Cover Class – Base Caseand PDC (Alternate Table 3-29) .................................................................... 136a.3-32

Table 136a.3-16 Effects Classification of Emissions on Vegetation (Alternate Table3-30) ............................................................................................................... 136a.3-34

Table 136a.3-17 Environmental and Prediction Consequence for AlternateAssessment (Alternate Table 3-31) ................................................................ 136a.3-35




ESRD/CEAA Page 136a.3-iv October 2013



October 2013 ESRD/CEAA Page 136a.3-1

136a.3.1 Introduction

This appendix provides an alternate assessment to Volume 6, Section 3 (vegetation

assessment) of the Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Integrated Application. The alternate

assessment removes from the Base Case and Application Case:

the Pierre River Mine (PRM)

other developments applied for but not yet approved as of July 18, 2012 (for a

detailed listing of this alternate development inclusion list (DIL), see the response to

ESRD/CEAA Round 1 SIR 308a)

In addition to changes in the DIL, several revisions have been integrated into the alternate

assessment, including:

removal of the south development area (SDA)

removal of the main development area (MDA)-SDA corridor

removal of the 500-m buffer around the above areas

removal of progressive reclamation for regional developments considered in the Base

Case and Application Case (i.e., all developments and associated linear features are

considered at maximum build-out)

changes to air modelling and associated predictions of nitrogen dioxide (NO2),

sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen-deposition using ESRD MM5 as input data

instead of the more detailed Weather and Research Forecasting (WRF) data used in

the Integrated Application

A revised vegetation assessment is provided in ESRD/CEAA Round 2 Appendix 136a.1

and is used to compare against the alternate assessment provided here.

The alternate assessment examines:

landscape diversity

community diversity

species diversity

effects from air emissions associated with NO2 and SO2 concentrations and nitrogen-

deposition

Excepting the information discussed, the alternate assessment approach follows that of

the Integrated Application.




ESRD/CEAA Page 136a.3-2 October 2013

136a.3.2 Landscape Diversity

The detailed methods used for the alternate assessment of landscape diversity follow

those used in the Integrated Application except for the DIL, which follows the response

to ESRD/CEAA Round 1 SIR 308a. For completeness, an assessment of cover classes

and structural stages is provided (see Table 136a.3-1).

136a.3.2.1 Effects Classification

A summary of the effects classification for vegetation cover class and structural stage

patch metrics at the regional scale is provided (see Table 136a.3-2). Some details have

changed relative to the Integrated Application, the response to ESRD/CEAA Round 1

SIR 196, and the revised assessment where progressive reclamation was included

(see ESRD/CEAA Round 2 Appendix 136a.1) and progressive reclamation was not

included (see ESRD/CEAA Round 2 Appendix 136a.2). However, the general effects

classifications remain similar with patch metrics for vegetation cover class and structural

stage being of moderate to high magnitude. As indicated in the Integrated Application

(see Volume 6, Section 3.5.7, Pages 3-40 to 3-42), change to patch metrics is considered

to be long-term but reversible through a combination of reclamation and reestablishment

of natural landscape processes.

136a.3.2.2 Environmental Consequence

The environmental consequence ranking (see Table 136a.3-2) (i.e., low to moderate

environmental consequence) remains the same for the existing conditions, Base Case,

Application Case and Planned Development Case (PDC) across the:

alternate assessment without reclamation and with an alternate DIL relative to the

Integrated Application (see Volume 6, Section 3.7.8, Pages 3-98 to 3-99)

revised assessment that considered the revised terrestrial LSA (see ESRD/CEAA

Round 2 Appendix 136a.1)

refined assessment that considered the revised terrestrial LSA and no progressive

reclamation (see ESRD/CEAA Round 2 Appendix 136a.2, Table 136a.2-2)

136a.3.2.3 Prediction Confidence

As in the Integrated Application, a moderate level of confidence is given to the methods

and results used to assess effects of the Project on landscape diversity.




Table 136a.3-1 Changes in Landscape Diversity in the RSA (Refined Table 3-12)

Vegetation CoverClass

Predevelop-ment

ExistingCondition

Changefrom

Predevelop-ment toExisting

(%)

BaseCase

Changefrom

Predevelop-ment to

Base Case(%)

ApplicationCase

Changefrom

Predevelop-ment to

ApplicationCase(%)

PDC

Changefrom

Predevelop-ment to

PDC(%)

Vegetation Cover Class Patch Number

Coniferous – jack pine 10,091 11,877 17.7 12,299 21.9 11,808.0 17.0 11,517 14.1

Coniferous – whitespruce

9,201 9,393 2.1 9,121.0 -0.9 8,437.0 -8.3 8,341 -9.3

Coniferous – blackspruce

1,341 1,514 12.9 1,380.0 2.9 1,370.0 2.2 1,373 2.4

Mixedwood– jack pine 10,237 11,931 16.5 10,318.0 0.8 9,723.0 -5.0 9,551 -6.7

Mixedwood– whitespruce

13,905 15,083 8.5 14,351.0 3.2 12,951.0 -6.9 12,537 -9.8

Deciduous/mixedwood– deciduous

15,078 18,919 25.5 16,510.0 9.5 15,151.0 0.5 14,830 -1.6

Upland shrubland 5,157 5,697 10.5 5,258.0 2.0 4,804.0 -6.8 4,801 -6.9

Upland grassland 6,596 7,539 14.3 5,781.0 -12.4 4,862.0 -26.3 4,770 -27.7

Shrubby bog 8,303 8,825 6.3 8,146.0 -1.9 7,484.0 -9.9 7,353 -11.4

Wooded bog 14,350 16,629 15.9 15,547.0 8.3 15,061.0 5.0 14,638 2.0

Wooded poor fen 11,921 13,059 9.5 12,169.0 2.1 11,755.0 -1.4 11,447 -4.0

Rich wooded fen 9,103 10,078 10.7 9,083.0 -0.2 8,845.0 -2.8 8,708 -4.3

Shrubby fen 8,891 9,701 9.1 8,192.0 -7.9 7,752.0 -12.8 7,378 -17.0

Open fen 8,954 10,502 17.3 9,068.0 1.3 8,301.0 -7.3 7,961 -11.1

Wooded swamp 17,651 20,711 17.3 20,737.0 17.5 19,094.0 8.2 18,836 6.7

Shrubby swamp 16,807 19,295 14.8 17,304.0 3.0 16,055.0 -4.5 15,351 -8.7

Marsh/wet meadow 4,488 4,531 1.0 4,155.0 -7.4 3,764.0 -16.1 3,704 -17.5





Table 136a.3-1 Changes in Landscape Diversity in the RSA (Refined Table 3-12) (cont’d)


Predevelop-ment

ExistingCondition

Changefrom


(%)

BaseCase

Changefrom

Predevelop-ment to

Base Case(%)

ApplicationCase

Changefrom

Predevelop-ment to

ApplicationCase(%)

PDC

Changefrom

Predevelop-ment to

PDC(%)

Vegetation Cover Class Mean Patch Area (ha)

Coniferous – jack pine 11.8 9.6 -18.1 9.3 -21.2 9.2 -22.0 7.0 -41.1


3.7 3.3 -11.2 3.1 -14.9 3.1 -17.2 3.1 -17.1


4.1 4 -2.3 1.5 -64.5 1.5 -64.3 1.5 -64.5

Mixedwood– jack pine 7 5.6 -20.5 5.1 -26.6 5.2 -25.1 5.2 -25.2


4.8 4.2 -13.2 4.2 -11.8 4.4 -8.3 4.5 -7.1


11.3 7.9 -29.9 8.1 -28.0 7.7 -32.2 7.8 -31.4

Upland shrubland 3.6 2.4 -35.4 2.8 -23.3 2.7 -24.7 2.7 -24.9

Upland grassland 4.2 2.1 -50.1 2.4 -43.3 2.2 -48.8 2.2 -48.2

Shrubby bog 5.9 5.1 -12.4 5.3 -9.9 5.5 -6.9 5.5 -6.7

Wooded bog 10 8.4 -15.6 8.5 -15.0 8.6 -13.6 8.8 -12.4

Wooded poor fen 3.7 3.3 -12.0 3.4 -8.5 3.4 -7.9 3.4 -8.6

Rich wooded fen 4.6 3.9 -14.8 3.9 -14.5 4.0 -13.8 3.9 -14.7

Shrubby fen 3 2.5 -18.0 2.5 -15.3 2.5 -17.2 2.6 -14.8

Open fen 5.4 4.1 -24.0 4.7 -12.2 4.5 -16.1 4.5 -16.8

Wooded swamp 12 9.8 -18.6 9.1 -24.2 9.2 -23.4 8.7 -27.7

Shrubby swamp 5 4 -19.3 4.2 -16.9 4.0 -20.2 4.0 -20.0

Marsh/wet meadow 2.6 2 -20.5 2.0 -24.7 1.7 -36.5 1.7 -36.2






Predevelop-ment

ExistingCondition

Changefrom


(%)

BaseCase

Changefrom

Predevelop-ment to

Base Case(%)

ApplicationCase

Changefrom

Predevelop-ment to

ApplicationCase(%)

PDC

Changefrom

Predevelop-ment to

PDC(%)

Vegetation Cover Class Total Patch Edge (km)

Coniferous – jack pine 13,946 15,084 8.2 13,032 -6.6 12,580 -9.8 6,931 -50.3


8,647 81,200 839.1 7,663 -11.4 7,011 -18.9 801 -90.7


1,195 1,106 -7.4 801 -33.0 799 -33.1 9,259 674.8

Mixedwood– jack pine 11,430 11,777 3.0 10,020 -12.3 9,511 -16.8 11,725 2.6


13,810 13,750 -0.4 13,230 -4.2 12,066 -12.6 19,216 39.1


25,079 24,923 -0.6 22,272 -11.2 19,518 -22.2 3,915 -84.4

Upland shrubland 5,155 4,141 -19.7 4,348 -15.7 3,927 -23.8 3,145 -39.0

Upland grassland 6,733 4,885 -27.4 4,111 -38.9 3,189 -52.6 7,737 14.9

Shrubby bog 9,248 9,014 -2.5 8,481 -8.3 7,878 -14.8 20,823 125.2

Wooded bog 22,230 23,362 5.1 21,687 -2.4 21,268 -4.3 10,118 -54.5

Wooded poor fen 11,304 11,350 0.4 10,789 -4.6 10,446 -7.6 8,536 -24.5

Rich wooded fen 9,982 9,857 -1.3 8,925 -10.6 8,733 -12.5 5,546 -44.4

Shrubby fen 7,634 7,108 -6.9 6,114 -19.9 5,715 -25.1 7,256 -5.0

Open fen 9,399 8,766 -6.7 8,533 -9.2 7,614 -19.0 28,201 200.0

Wooded swamp 33,409 34,202 2.4 32,041 -4.1 29,650 -11.3 15,578 -53.4

Shrubby swamp 19,747 19,630 -0.6 17,995 -8.9 16,312 -17.4 2,308 -88.3

Marsh/wet meadow 3,455 3,055 -11.6 2,783 -19.4 2,340 -32.3 897 -74.1







Predevelop-ment

ExistingCondition

Changefrom


(%)

BaseCase

Changefrom

Predevelop-ment to

Base Case(%)

ApplicationCase

Changefrom

Predevelop-ment to

ApplicationCase(%)

PDC

Changefrom

Predevelop-ment to

PDC(%)

Vegetation Structural Stage Patch Number

0: Non-vegetated 1,727 143,900 8,232.4 2,018 16.9 1,989 15.2 1,698 -1.7

1: Sparse or bryoid 449 454 1.1 125,047 27,750.1 120,909 26,828.5 106,761 23,677.5

2: Herb 16,249 19,681 21.1 17,099 5.2 16,616 2.3 15,067 -7.3

3a: Low shrub 16,434 17,880 8.8 15,787 -3.9 15,632 -4.9 14,261 -13.2

3b: Tall shrub 17,014 22,195 30.5 18,054 6.1 17,794 4.6 16,013 -5.9

4: Pole or sapling 5,960 5,791 -2.8 9,527 59.8 9,363 57.1 9,232 54.9

5: Young forest 6,216 20,436 228.8 12,471 100.6 12,335 98.4 11,808 90.0

6: Mature forest 8,991 22,376 148.9 12,820 42.6 12,523 39.3 11,424 27.1

7: Old-growth forest 10,093 6,252 -38.1 15,258 51.2 14,704 45.7 13,245 31.2

Vegetation Structural Stage Mean Patch Area (ha)

0: Non-vegetated 13.4 0.8 -94.1 91.8 585.3 106.6 695.8 167.6 1,150.5

1: Sparse or bryoid 0.9 0.3 -65.6 0.1 -94.4 0.0 -94.7 0.0 -94.9

2: Herb 5.4 3.5 -35.2 4.0 -26.7 4.0 -26.2 3.7 -31.6

3a: Low shrub 4.6 3.9 -15.6 4.1 -11.8 4.1 -11.8 4.2 -9.5

3b: Tall shrub 10 4.1 -59.0 9.6 -4.1 9.6 -4.1 9.9 -0.6

4: Pole or sapling 48.8 29.4 -39.8 31.4 -35.7 31.7 -35.1 31.5 -35.5

5: Young forest 27.7 17.1 -38.4 13.1 -52.7 12.9 -53.4 12.9 -53.5

6: Mature forest 22.8 13.1 -42.3 12.1 -47.1 11.4 -50.1 11.0 -51.6

7: Old-growth forest 16.9 6.2 -63.5 5.4 -68.2 5.4 -68.2 4.8 -71.8



October 2013 ESRD/CEAA 6a.3-7



Predevelop-ment

ExistingCondition

Changefrom


(%)Base Case

Changefrom

Predevelop-ment to

Base Case(%)

ApplicationCase

Changefrom

Predevelop-ment to

ApplicationCase(%)

PDC

Changefrom

Predevelop-ment to

PDC(%)

Vegetation Structural Stage Total Patch Edge (km)

0: Non-vegetated 2,777 24,542 783.9 5,957 114.5 5,965 114.8 6,413 130.9

1: Sparse or bryoid 190 117 -38.3 13,866 7,197.9 13,144 6,817.9 11,203 5,796.2

2: Herb 17,857 15,597 -12.7 16,033 -10.2 15,757 -11.8 13,606 -23.8

3a: Low shrub 16,591 15,916 -4.1 14,417 -13.1 14,263 -14.0 13,125 -20.9

3b: Tall shrub 23,406 22,771 -2.7 24,440 4.4 24,086 2.9 21,662 -7.5

4: Pole or sapling 17,508 17,125 -2.2 22,957 31.1 22,756 30.0 22,434 28.1

5: Young forest 16,450 41,359 151.4 21,416 30.2 21,080 28.1 19,986 21.5

6: Mature forest 21,080 37,855 79.6 19,873 -5.7 18,515 -12.2 16,208 -23.1

7: Old-growth forest 20,874 7,426 -64.4 14,725 -29.5 14,098 -32.5 11,731 -43.8

NOTE:1

Snapshot represents maximum build-out (2057). The Project is considered not reclaimed with other developments, including progressive reclamation, up to2057.





Table 136a.3-2 Effects Classification and Environmental Consequence Ranking for Landscape Diversity

KeyIndicator Duration Frequency

Ability toRecover

Percent Magnitude Change

EnvironmentalConsequence

FromPredevelopment

to ExistingConditions

1

FromPredevelopment

to Base Case1

FromPredevelopmentto Application

Case1

FromPredevelopment

to PDC1

Vegetation Cover Class

Patchnumber

Long Isolated Reversible 25.5% (deciduousand mixedwooddeciduous) –moderate

21.9% (coniferousjackpinedominated) –moderate

-26.3% (uplandgrassland) –moderate

-27.7% (uplandgrassland) –moderate

Low

Mean patcharea

Long Isolated Reversible -50.1% (uplandgrassland) – high

-64.5% (coniferousblack spruce) –high



Moderate

Total patchedge

Long Isolated Reversible 839.1%(coniferous whitespruce) – high

-33.0% (coniferousblack spruce) –moderate

-33.1% (coniferousblack spruce) –moderate

200.0% (openfen) – high

Moderate

Structural Stage (Vegetated Patches)

Patchnumber

Long Isolated Reversible 228.8% (youngforest) – high

100.6% (youngforest) – high



Moderate

Mean patcharea

Long Isolated Reversible -63.5% (old growthforest) – high

-68.2% (old growthforest) – high


-71.8% old growthforest) – high

Moderate

Total patchedge

Long Isolated Reversible 151.4% (youngforest) – high

31.1% (polesapling)– high



Moderate

NOTE:1

Magnitude of change for patch metrics follows percolation theory and includes a low magnitude of change (<20%), moderate magnitude of change (20% to40%) and high magnitude change (>40%). Change is relative to predevelopment (2057).




136a.3.2.4 Summary

The environmental consequence ranking (see Table 136a.3-2) for changes in landscape

diversity remains the same (i.e., low to moderate environmental consequence) for

existing conditions, Base Case, Application Case and PDC for the:

alternate assessment (i.e., without progressive reclamation and with an alternate DIL)


revised assessment (see ESRD/CEAA Round 2 Appendix 136a.1)

refined assessment (see ESRD/CEAA Round 2 Appendix 136a.2, Table 136.2-2)

The results remain similar as reversibility is still considered in the development of

assessment conclusions. If the concept of reversibility is removed and a worst-case

scenario is considered, the environmental consequence rankings for existing conditions,

Base Case, Application Case and PDC would range from moderate to high.

136a.3.3 Community Diversity

The detailed methods used for the alternate assessment for community diversity follow

those used in the Integrated Application. Data for the revised terrestrial local study area

(LSA) is provided in Table 136a.3-3. Data for the vegetation and wildlife RSA is

provided in Table 136a.3-4 (for vegetation cover classes) and Table 136a.3-5 (for

structural stage).

136a.3.3.1 Reference Conditions and Base Case

136a.3.3.1.1 Land Units and Old Growth

Reference conditions remain the same for the alternate assessment as the revised

assessment because progressive reclamation was not included. The large decline in old

growth forest from predevelopment to existing conditions is a function of existing

disturbance as well as a change in forest age structure related to the snapshot used (for

details, see the response to ESRD/CEAA Round 1 SIR 199a).

136a.3.3.1.2 Rare Ecological Communities

One occurrence of the rare ecological community Alnus incana ssp. tenuifolia/Matteuccia

struthiopteris shrubland is present in the revised terrestrial LSA for predevelopment and

existing conditions.





Table 136a.3-3 Changes in Community Diversity (Alternate Table 3-14)

Measureable ParameterPredevelop

ment(ha)

Existing(ha)

Changefrom

Existing toPredevelop-

ment(%)

Base CaseMaximumBuild-out

(ha)

Changefrom Base

Case toPredevelop-

ment(%)

ApplicationCase

ProjectMaximumBuild-out

(ha)

Change fromApplication

Case toPredevelop-

ment(%)

PDC(ha)

Changefrom PDC toPredevelop-

ment(%)

Land Unit

a1: Jack pine/lichen 2,726.4 2,693.1 -1.2 2,693.1 -1.2 1,731.5 -36.5 1,676.2 -38.5

b1: Jack pine –aspen/blueberry

2,231.3 2,190.7 -1.8 2,190.7 -1.8 2,233.4 0.1 2,208.1 -1.0

b2: aspen–white birch/blueberry

357.9 355.1 -0.8 355.1 -0.8 219.2 -38.8 218.8 -38.9

b3: aspen–whitespruce/blueberry

189.8 187.6 -1.2 187.6 -1.2 961.0 406.3 960.8 406.2

b4: white spruce–Jackpine/blueberry

270.6 268.1 -0.9 268.1 -0.9 904.0 234.1 893.4 230.2

c1: mesic Jack pine–blackspruce/Labrador tea

82.1 80.7 -1.7 80.7 -1.7 1,167.6 1,321.7 1,167.6 1,321.7

d1: aspen/low-bush cranberry 5,241.1 5,139.4 -1.9 5,139.4 -1.9 3,949.2 -24.6 3,923.3 -25.1

d2: aspen-white spruce/low-bush cranberry

718.7 709.0 -1.3 709.0 -1.3 3,651.8 408.1 3,637.6 406.2

d3: white spruce-aspen/lowbush cranberry

1,259.1 1,211.1 -3.8 1,211.1 -3.8 772.7 -38.6 758.9 -39.7

e1: balsam poplar–aspen/dogwood

3,467.0 3,392.1 -2.2 3,392.1 -2.2 3,029.5 -12.6 3,029.5 -12.6

e2: balsam poplar–whitespruce/dogwood

921.3 911.0 -1.1 911.0 -1.1 4,057.4 340.4 4,057.4 340.4

e3: white spruce/dogwood 257.1 252.6 -1.7 252.6 -1.7 110.8 -56.9 110.8 -56.9

f1: balsam poplar-aspen/horsetail

1,194.9 1,165.9 -2.4 1,165.9 -2.4 341.0 -71.5 341.0 -71.5

f2: balsam poplar-whitespruce/horsetail

272.9 269.0 -1.4 269.0 -1.4 140.0 -48.7 136.9 -49.8

f3: white spruce/horsetail 49.4 49.1 -0.7 49.1 -0.7 42.0 -15.1 42.0 -15.1

g1: subhygric black spruce–Jack pine/Labrador tea

326.5 322.1 -1.3 322.1 -1.3 1,429.2 337.8 1,415.8 333.7

h1: white spruce-blackspruce/Labrador tea

278.2 272.6 -2.0 272.6 -2.0 1,191.8 328.4 1,174.7 322.3




Table 136a.3-3 Changes in Community Diversity (Alternate Table 3-14) (cont’d)


ment(ha)

Existing(ha)

Changefrom


ment(%)


(ha)

Changefrom Base

Case toPredevelop-

ment(%)

ApplicationCase


(ha)


Case toPredevelop-

ment(%)

PDC(ha)


ment(%)

Land Unit (cont'd)

Upland graminoid 2.3 2.3 0.0 2.3 0.0 1.3 -45.7 0.0 -100.0

Upland shrubland 330.3 322.3 -2.4 322.3 -2.4 160.9 -51.3 160.9 -51.3

Subtotal Upland 20,176.9 19,793.9 -1.9 19,793.9 -1.9 26,094.2 29.3 25,913.6 28.4

Forested bogs withoutinternal lawns (BFNN)

25.1 24.6 -2.0 24.6 -2.0 19.5 -22.5 18.5 -26.4

Wooded bogs without internallawns (BTNN)

820.6 810.1 -1.3 810.1 -1.3 320.6 -60.9 279.8 -65.9

Nonpatterned, open,graminoid-dominated fens(FONG)

484.8 479.8 -1.0 479.8 -1.0 94.1 -80.6 91.2 -81.2

Nonpatterned, open, shrub-dominated fens (FONS)

2,495.7 2,465.4 -1.2 2,465.4 -1.2 685.3 -72.5 610.0 -75.6

Patterned, open fen (FOPN) 57.9 55.7 -3.7 55.7 -3.7 55.6 -3.9 32.8 -43.4

Nonpatterned, wooded fenswith no internal lawns (FTNN)

1,632.0 1,600.7 -1.9 1,600.7 -1.9 558.9 -65.8 493.8 -69.7

Marshes (MONG) 526.3 521.1 -1.0 521.1 -1.0 391.6 -25.6 391.6 -25.6

Shrubby swamps (SONS) 2,289.2 2,254.9 -1.5 2,254.9 -1.5 4,929.0 115.3 4,928.5 115.3

Forested and woodedswamps- coniferous(SFNNcs/ STNNcs)

4,311.2 4,196.9 -2.7 4,196.9 -2.7 665.0 -84.6 620.0 -85.6

Forested and woodedswamps- hardwood (SFNNhs/STNNhs)

4,751.4 4,615.8 -2.9 4,615.8 -2.9 1,016.9 -78.6 1,016.9 -78.6

Forested and woodedswamps- mixedwood(SFNNms/ STNNms)

105.6 104.2 -1.4 104.2 -1.4 66.4 -37.1 66.4 -37.1

Shallow open water (WONN) 252.6 250.8 -0.7 250.8 -0.7 101.2 -59.9 99.9 -60.5

Subtotal Wetland 17,752.4 17,380.0 -2.1 17,380.0 -2.1 8,904.2 -49.8 8,649.4 -51.3





Table 136a.3-3 Changes in Community Diversity (Alternate Table 3-14) (cont’d)


ment(ha)

Existing(ha)

Changefrom


ment(%)


(ha)

Changefrom Base

Case toPredevelop-

ment(%)

ApplicationCase


(ha)


Case toPredevelop-

ment(%)

PDC(ha)


ment(%)

Land Unit (cont'd)

Water and littoral 217.7 217.7 0.0 217.7 0.0 2,946.0 1,253.1 2,946.0 1,253.1

Mineral soil 2.8 2.8 0.0 2.8 0.0 1.2 -58.9 1.2 -58.9

Cutblocks 0.0 32.98 N/A 32.98 N/A 33.0 N/A 33.0 N/A

Disturbed land 0.0 722.44 N/A 722.44 N/A 171.3 N/A 606.7 N/A

Total 38,150 38,150 0 38,150 0 38,150 0 38,150 0

Structural Stage

0: Nonvegetated/Water 470.3 1,191.0 470.3 1,191.0 470.3 3,228.4 586.5 3,662.5 678.7

1: Sparse or bryoid 3.1 2.8 3.1 2.8 3.1 1.2 -63.2 1.2 -63.2

2: Herb 1,017.1 1,007.4 1,017.1 1,007.4 1,017.1 509.7 -49.9 482.9 -52.5

3a: Low shrub 4,855.4 4,794.7 4,855.4 4,794.7 4,855.4 1,679.3 -65.4 1,369.7 -71.8

3b: Tall shrub 4,795.1 4,693.3 4,795.1 4,693.3 4,795.1 17,202.1 258.7 17,428.0 263.5

4: Pole or sapling 30.2 29.3 30.2 29.3 30.2 2,888.0 9,448.4 2,887.9 9448.0

5: Young forest 6,606.9 6,476.5 6,606.9 6,476.5 6,606.9 4,873.8 -26.2 4,751.5 -28.1

6: Mature forest 16,770.8 16,412.1 16,770.8 16,412.1 16,770.8 5,753.5 -65.7 5,577.5 -66.7

7: Old-growth forest 3,600.8 3,542.8 3,600.8 3,542.8 3,600.8 2,013.8 -44.1 1,988.7 -44.8

Total 38,150 38,150 0 38,150 0 38,149.8 0 38,150 0

NOTE:

N/A = Not applicable




Table 136a.3-4 Changes in Community Diversity in the RSA – Land Units (Alternate Table 3-16a)

Vegetation Cover ClassPredevelop-

mentExisting

Condition

Change fromPredevelop-

ment toExisting

(%)Base Case

Change fromPredevelop-ment to Base

Case(%)

ApplicationCase


ment toApplication

Case(%)

PDC

Change fromPredevelop-ment to PDC

(%)

Coniferous – jack pine 118,757.4 114,423.7 -3.6 85,366.2 -28.1 85,203.8 -28.3 80,101.5 -32.6

Coniferous – white spruce 34,440.0 31,227.2 -9.3 28,715.5 -16.6 27,779.8 -19.3 25,581.2 -25.7

Coniferous – black spruce 2,807.4 2,374.6 -15.4 2,011.8 -28.3 2,008.0 -28.5 2,000.2 -28.8

Mixedwood – jack pine 71,888.5 66,639.6 -7.3 53,006.1 -26.3 52,768.3 -26.6 50,014.4 -30.4

Mixedwood – white spruce 66,610.2 62,683.5 -5.9 60,735.7 -8.8 57,805.0 -13.2 55,912.5 -16.1

Deciduous/ mixedwood–deciduous

170,504.6 149,929.6 -12.1 134,376.9 -21.2 122,416.2 -28.2 114,967.4 -32.6

Upland shrubland 18,805.5 13,413.8 -28.7 14,529.1 -22.7 14,200.5 -24.5 12,984.5 -31.0

Upland grassland 28,022.6 16,676.5 -40.5 13,767.1 -50.9 13,475.3 -51.9 10,370.4 -63.0

Subtotal Upland 511,836.2 457,368.3 -10.6 392,508.4 -23.3 375,656.9 -26.6 351,932.2 -31.2

Shrubby bog 48,570.4 45,232.2 -6.9 43,280.8 -10.9 42,910.6 -11.7 40,472.9 -16.7

Wooded bog 143,333.0 140,250.4 -2.2 132,107.9 -7.8 131,443.3 -8.3 128,244.2 -10.5

Wooded poor fen 44,452.7 42,877.0 -3.5 41,198.6 -7.3 41,184.4 -7.4 38,727.1 -12.9

Rich wooded fen 41,522.3 39,159.9 -5.7 35,729.0 -14.0 35,721.4 -14.0 34,175.8 -17.7

Shrubby fen 26,588.7 23,788.6 -10.5 20,807.3 -21.7 20,544.5 -22.7 18,868.3 -29.0

Open fen 48,101.8 42,895.1 -10.8 42,983.9 -10.6 42,567.3 -11.5 35,783.1 -25.6

Wooded swamp 212,105.7 202,372.1 -4.6 188,620.6 -11.1 183,703.4 -13.4 163,349.4 -23.0

Shrubby swamp 84,065.4 77,928.5 -7.3 71,933.9 -14.4 69,854.9 -16.9 61,411.9 -26.9

Marsh/wet meadow 11,460.8 9,201.3 -19.7 8,140.5 -29.0 6,474.2 -43.5 6,143.5 -46.4

Subtotal Wetland 660,200.9 623,705.1 -5.5 584,802.5 -11.4 574,404.0 -13.0 527,176.1 -20.1

Water 23,102.6 21,451.5 -7.1 21,966.2 -4.9 21,727.6 -6.0 21,267.2 -7.9

Mineral soil 420.1 146.2 -65.2 146.2 -65.2 139.3 -66.8 133.6 -68.2

Cutblock 0.0 12,922.6 N/A 23,893.9 N/A 23,864.7 N/A 23,685.7 N/A

Disturbed land 0.0 79,966.1 N/A 172,242.80 N/A 199,767.5 N/A 271,365.2 N/A

Total 1,195,560 1,195,560 0 1,195,560 0 1,195,560 0 1,195,560 0

NOTE:






Table 136a.3-5 Changes in Community Diversity in the RSA – Structural Stages (Alternate Table 3-16b)

Structural StagePredevelop-

mentExisting

Condition


ment toExisting

(%)

RNVCorrection

(%)

RNVCorrected


ment toExisting

(%) Base Case

Change fromPredevelop-ment to Base

Case(%)

RNVCorrection

(%)

RNV CorrectedChange fromPredevelop-

ment to BaseCase(%)

0: Nonvegetated 23,102.6 101,417.6 339.0 N/A 339.0 185,299.4 702.1 N/A 702.1

1: Sparse or bryoid 420.1 146.2 -65.2 N/A -65.2 6,249.3 1,387.58 N/A 1,387.58

2: Herb 87,585.20 68,772.90 -21.5 N/A -21.5 67,698.0 -22.7 N/A -22.7

3a: Low shrub 75,159.10 69,020.90 -8.2 N/A -8.2 64,088.0 -14.7 N/A -14.7

3b: Tall shrub 170,873.40 104,264.90 -39.0 N/A -39.0 173,188.0 1.4 N/A 1.4

4: Pole or sapling 290,797.00 170,193.80 -41.5 4.8 -36.7 298,920.6 2.8 4.8 2.8

5: Young forest 172,378.20 349,150.10 102.5 6.6 95.9 163,536.7 -5.1 6.6 -5.1

6: Mature forest 204,846.90 294,033.60 43.5 -1.7 41.8 154,625.1 -24.5 -1.7 -22.8

7: Old-growth forest 170,397.10 38,560.00 -77.4 -4.0 -73.4 81,954.9 -51.9 -4.0 -47.9

Total 1,195,560 1,195,560 0 0 0 1,195,560 0 0 0

Structural Stage

0: Nonvegetated 23,102.60 212,094.2 818.1 N/A 818.1 284,510.3 1,131.5 N/A 1,131.5

1: Sparse or bryoid 420.1 5,844.6 1,291 N/A 1,291.2 4,904.4 1,067.4 N/A 1,067.4

2: Herb 87,585.20 66,212.6 -24.4 N/A -24.4 55,648.3 -36.5 N/A -36.5

3a: Low shrub 75,159.10 63,455.1 -15.6 N/A -15.6 59,341.2 -21.0 N/A -21.0

3b: Tall shrub 170,873.40 170,595.8 -0.2 N/A -0.2 159,180.3 -6.8 N/A -6.8

4: Pole or sapling 290,797.00 296,711.9 2.0 4.8 2.0 290,607.4 -0.1 4.8 -0.1

5: Young forest 172,378.20 159,220.1 -7.6 6.6 -1.0 152,173.5 -11.7 6.6 -5.1

6: Mature forest 204,846.90 142,485.0 -30.4 -1.7 -28.7 126,051.7 -38.5 -1.7 -36.8

7: Old-growth forest 170,397.10 78,940.8 -53.7 -4.0 -49.7 63,143.0 -62.9 -4.0 -58.9

Total 1,195,560 1,195,560 0 0 0 1,195,560 0 0 0

NOTES:

RNV = Range of natural variability





136a.3.3.2 Base Case


With the removal of the PRM from the Base Case, there are no additional developments

in the revised terrestrial LSA other than the Project. Consequently, the distribution of

land units for existing conditions and Base Case are the same (see Table 136a.3-3).

For the vegetation and wildlife RSA, all vegetation types decline relative to

predevelopment as do structural stages. The exception is structural stage 3b and 4, which

increase, reflecting regrowth of existing and simulated cutblocks.


One occurrence of the rare ecological community Alnus incana ssp. tenuifolia/Matteuccia

struthiopteris shrubland is present in the revised terrestrial LSA for Base Case.

136a.3.3.3 Application Case


There is a decline in all vegetated cover classes and shrubby and forested structural stages

when compared with the revised assessment for the Application Case when progressive

reclamation is not considered (see ESRD/CEAA Round 2 Appendix 136a.1).


Consistent with the original assessment, the occurrence of the rare ecological community

Alnus incana ssp. tenuifolia/Matteuccia struthiopteris shrubland is not expected to be

affected by the Project. For details, see the response to ESRD/CEAA Round 1 SIR 202.

136a.3.3.4 Planned Development Case


There is a decline in vegetated cover classes and shrubby and forested structural stages

when compared with the revised assessment for the Application Case when progressive

reclamation is not considered (see ESRD/CEAA Round 2 Appendix 136a.1). The

alternate assessment values for the PDC are the same as for the refined assessment PDC

(see ESRD/CEAA Round 2 Appendix 136a.2).


Consistent with the original assessment, the occurrence of the rare ecological community

Alnus incana ssp. tenuifolia/Matteuccia struthiopteris shrubland is not expected to be

affected by the Project in conjunction with operating, approved and planned

developments. For details, see the response to ESRC/CEAA Round 1 SIR 202.






For a summary of effects classification for changes in community diversity,

see Table 136a.3-6.


Although the details related to the percent change of various cover classes have changed

without the inclusion of progressive reclamation and the alternate Base Case and

Application Case DIL, the effects classification for community diversity remains the

same as those presented in the Integrated Application, the revised assessment

(see ESRD/CEAA Round 2 Appendix 136a.1) and the refined assessment (see

ESRD/CEAA Round 2 Appendix 136a.2).

Details for old growth forest have not changed from the revised assessment when

progressive reclamation is removed. None of the reclaimed forested land was old enough

to meet the old growth definitions used in the assessment for the snapshot (2057).


No rare or special ecological communities will be affected by the Project in conjunction

with operating, approved or planned developments based on known information.


The environmental consequence ranking (i.e., high environmental consequence) for

community diversity remains the same for the Base Case, Application Case and PDC

across the:

alternate assessment (see Table 136a.3-6)




refined assessment that considered the revised terrestrial LSA and no progressive

reclamation (see ESRD/CEAA Round 2 Appendix 136a.2, Table 136a.2-2)


As in the Integrated Application, a moderate level of confidence is given to the methods

and results used to assess effects of the Project on community diversity.




Table 136a.3-6 Effects Classification and Environmental Consequence Ranking for Community Diversity(Alternate Table 3-17)

KeyIndicator Duration Frequency

Ability toRecover



FromPredevelopment

to ExistingConditions

1

FromPredevelopment

to Base Case1

FromPredevelopmentto Application

Case1

FromPredevelopment

to PDC1

Uplandcoverclasses

Long Isolated Reversible -40.5% (uplandgrassland) – high

-50.9% (uplandgrassland) – high



Moderate

Wetlandcoverclasses

Long Isolated Reversible -19.7% (marsh/wetmeadow) –moderate

-21.7% (shrubbyfen) – high



Moderate to high

Structuralstagecorrected forRNV

Long Isolated Reversible -73.4% (oldgrowth) – high

-47.9 (oldgrowth) – high



Moderate

NOTES:1

Magnitude of change for patch metrics follows Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Framework (TEMF) criteria and includes a low magnitude of change (<10%),moderate magnitude of change (10% to 20%) and high magnitude change (>20%).

RNV = Range of natural variability





136a.3.4 Species Diversity

The detailed methods used for the alternate assessment for species diversity follow those

used in the Integrated Application. Data for the revised terrestrial LSA is provided in

Table 136a.3-7. Data for the vegetation and wildlife RSA is provided in Table 136a.3-8.

136a.3.4.1 Reference Conditions and Base Case

With the removal of the PRM from the Base Case, there are no additional developments

in the revised terrestrial LSA other than the Project. Consequently, the distribution of rare

plants for existing conditions and Base Case are the same (see Table 136a.3-7).


The effects on rare species for the alternate assessment Application Case are the same as

in the revised assessment (see ESRD/CEAA Round 2 Appendix 136a.1). The effects are

the same because the one rare plant occurrence that is affected by the PRM is in Project

assessment area (PAA), specifically the aerodrome.

The Project will result in a decline in seven of the nine rare vascular plant species, with

five of the rare vascular plant species being eliminated from the revised terrestrial LSA

based on known occurrences (see Table 136a.3-7). The Project will result in a decline in

all 19 rare bryophytes species, with 14 of the rare bryophyte species being eliminated

from the revised terrestrial LSA based on known occurrences (see Table 136a.3-7).


Five of the nine rare vascular plant species are eliminated from the revised terrestrial

LSA by the Project based on known data. Of the five species eliminated from the revised

terrestrial LSA, four are tracked species (Carex umbellata, Dryopteris cristata, Elodea

canadensis and Sparganium glomeratum) (see Table 136a.3-8). Regionally, the Project

will eliminate three species (Carex umbellata, Dryopteris cristata and Sparganium

glomeratum) from the vegetation and wildlife RSA (see Table 136a.3-8), with results

similar to the Integrated Application.

All 19 rare bryophytes examined will decline, with 14 rare bryophyte species eliminated

from the revised terrestrial LSA as a result of the Project based on known data. Of the 14

rare bryophyte species eliminated from the revised terrestrial LSA, all but one are on the

tracking list. These species include: Blasia pusilla, Buxbaumia aphylla, Dicranella

cerviculata, Gymnocolea inflate, Hypnum pallescens, Lophozia guttulata, Lophozia laxa,

Riccia fluitans, Scapania glaucocephala, Sphagnum fallax, Splachnum ampullaceum,

Splachnum rubrum and Splachnum vasculosum (see Table 136a.3-8). Regionally, the

Project will eliminate three species (Buxbaumia aphylla, Dicranella cerviculata and

Splachnum vasculosum) from the vegetation and wildlife RSA (see Table 136a.3-8).




Table 136a.3-7 Changes in Rare Species in the Revised Terrestrial LSA (Alternate Table 3-18)

Species and Authority

Provincial/Global

Rank/List

ReferenceCondition

BaseCase

Change from ReferenceCondition to Base Case

ApplicationCase

Change from ReferenceCondition to Application

Case

Predevelopmentand Existing

MaximumBuild-out

MaximumBuild-out

ProjectMaximumBuild-out/Closure

Project MaximumBuild-out/Closure

Number Number Number % Number Number %

Vascular Plants

Artemisia tilesii Ledeb. S3/G5/W 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -100

Carex umbellata Schkuhr exWilld.

S2/G5/T 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -100

Chrysosplenium iowense Rydb. S3?/G3?/T1

4 4 0 0 1 -3 -75

Cypripedium acaule Ait. S3/G5/T 6 6 0 0 2 -4 -66

Dryopteris cristata (L.) A. Gray S1/G5/T 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -100

Elodea canadensis Rich. inMichx.

SU/G5/T1

1 1 0 0 1 -1 -100

Physostegia ledinghamii (Boivin)Cantino

S3/G3G4/W

14 4 0 0 4 0 0

Sparganium glomeratumLaestad. ex Beurling

S1/G4?/T1

1 1 0 0 0 -1 -100

Spiranthes lacera (Raf.) Raf S1/G5/T 1 1 0 0 1 0 0

Bryophytes

Anastrophyllum helleranum(Nees) Schust.

S2/G5/T 5 5 0 0 1 -4 -80

Blasia pusilla L. S1/G5/T 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -100

Buxbaumia aphylla Hedw. S2/G4G5/T 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -100

Campylium polygamum (Schimp.in B.S.G.) C. Jens.

S3/G5/W 7 7 0 0 0 -7 -100

Dicranella cerviculata (Hedw.)Schimp.

S1/G5?/Y 2 2 0 0 0 -2 -100





Table 136a.3-7 Changes in Rare Species in the Revised Terrestrial LSA (Alternate Table 3-18) (cont'd)


Provincial/Global

Rank/List

ReferenceCondition

BaseCase

Change from ReferenceCondition to Base Case

ApplicationCase

Change from ReferenceCondition to Application

Case


MaximumBuild-out

MaximumBuild-out


Project MaximumBuild-out/Closure

Number Number Number % Number Number %

Bryophytes (cont’d)

Gymnocolea inflate (Huds.) Dum. S1/G5/T 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -100

Herzogiella turfacea (Lindb.)lwats.

S3/G4G5/W 18 18 0 0 5 -13 -72

Hypnum pallescens (Hedw.) P.Beauv.

S2/G5/T 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -100

Lophozia guttulata (Lindb. et H.Arnell) Evans

S2/G4G5/T 4 4 0 0 0 -4 -100

Lophozia heterocolpos (Thed.)M.A. Howe

S2/G5/T 5 5 0 0 2 -3 -60

Lophozia laxa (Lindb.) Grolle S1/G4/T 1 1 0 0 1 -1 -100

Riccia fluitans L. S2/G5/T 1 1 0 0 1 -1 -50

Scapania glaucocephala (Tayl.)Aust.

S2/G4G5/T 3 3 0 0 0 -3 -100

Sphagnum fallax (Klinggr.)Klinggr.

S2/G5/T 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -100

Sphagnum fimbriatum Wils. inWils. & Hook. f. in Hook. f.

S2/G5/T 9 9 0 0 1 -8 -89

Sphagnum subsecundum Neesin Sturm

S3/G5/W 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -100

Splachnum ampullaceum Hedw. S2/G5/T 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -100

Splachnum rubrum Hedw. S3/G4/T1

1 1 0 0 0 -1 -100

Splachnum vasculosum Hedw. S2/G3G5/T 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -100

NOTES:1

Change in provincial or global ranking relative to the Integrated Application (ACIMS 2013).




Table 136a.3-8 Changes in Rare Species in the RSA (Alternate Table 3-19)


Provincial/GlobalRank

ReferenceCondition Base Case

Changefrom

ReferenceCondition toBase Case

ApplicationCase

Change fromReference

Condition toApplication

Case PDC


Condition toPDC


MaximumBuild-out

MaximumBuild-out





Number Number % Number % Number %

Vascular Plants

Carex umbellata Schkuhrex Willd.

S2/G5 2 1 -50 0 -100 0 -100

Dryopteris cristata (L.) A.Gray

S1/G5 1 1 0 0 -100 0 -100

Elodea canadensis Rich.in Michx.

Notranked/G5

2 2 0 2 0 2 0

Sparganium glomeratumLaestad. ex Beurling

S1/G4 1 1 0 0 -100 0 -100

Bryophytes

Blasia pusilla L. S1/G5 5 4 -20 3 -40 3 -40

Buxbaumia aphyllaHedw.

S2/G4G5 1 1 0 0 -100 0 -100

Dicranella cerviculata(Hedw.) Schimp.

S1/G5? 2 2 0 0 -100 0 -100

Gymnocolea inflate(Huds.) Dum.

S1/G5 3 3 0 2 -33 2 -33

Hypnum pallescens(Hedw.) P. Beauv.

S2/G5 4 4 0 2 -50 2 -50

Lophozia guttulata(Lindb. et H. Arnell)Evans

S2/G4G5 6 6 0 1 -83 1 -83

Lophozia laxa (Lindb.)Grolle

S1/G4 3 1 -67 1 -67 1 -67





Table 136a.3-8 Changes in Rare Species in the RSA (Alternate Table 3-19) (cont’d)


Provincial/GlobalRank

ReferenceCondition Base Case

Changefrom

ReferenceCondition toBase Case

ApplicationCase


Condition toApplication

Case PDC


Condition toPDC


MaximumBuild-out

MaximumBuild-out





Number Number % Number % Number %

Riccia fluitans L. S2/G5 2 1 -50 1 -50 1 -50

Scapania glaucocephala(Tayl.) Aust.

S2/G4G5 17 12 -29 7 -59 7 -59

Sphagnum fallax(Klinggr.) Klinggr.

S2/G5 15 8 -47 7 -53 7 -53

Splachnum ampullaceumHedw.

S2/G5 10 8 -20 7 -30 7 -30

Splachnum rubrumHedw.

S3/G3 6 5 -17 5 -17 5 -17

Splachnum vasculosumHedw.

S2/G3G5 1 1 0 0 -100 0 -100





For a summary of the effects classification for species diversity, see Table 136a.3-9.

Although fewer rare species are affected by the revised terrestrial LSA, the effects

classification remains the same as in the Integrated Application and revised assessment

for the Application Case and PDC.


The environmental consequence ranking (i.e., high environmental consequence) for the

Application Case and PDC is the same across the:

alternate assessment (see Table 136a.3-9)




refined assessment that considered the revised terrestrial LSA without regional

progressive reclamation for other developments (see ESRD/CEAA Round 2

Appendix 136a.2)


As in the Integrated Application, overall prediction confidence associated with changes in

species diversity is low. Confidence in the quality and quantity of baseline information is

considered low because:

rare species are difficult to locate and, as a result, are imperfectly detected

many rare species are considered rare because of under collection or uncertain

taxonomy and might be more common than considered

understanding of factors that control species, and particularly rare species, is poor

Confidence in the analyses is high because effects from the Project were easily

quantified. Confidence in mitigation is low, as mitigation options (i.e., transplants) are

considered to be experimental.

136a.3.4.7 Summary

Effects on species diversity are expected to be of high environmental consequence

because rare species are eliminated from the vegetation and wildlife RSA as a result of

the Project (i.e., Application Case) and effects are considered irreversible. This is the

same conclusion reached in the Integrated Application, though some details (i.e., number

of bryophyte species eliminated from the vegetation and wildlife RSA) have changed.

Project effects on rare plants are expected to persist beyond closure and be irreversible.

Effects are considered irreversible because the ability to successfully mitigate rare

species by propagating or transplanting is still being developed or is unknown for many

species, particularly bryophytes.





Table 136a.3-9 Effects Classification and Environmental Consequence Ranking for Species Diversity(Alternate Table 3-21)

Key Indicator Duration FrequencyAbility toRecover



From Predevelopmentto Existing Conditions

From Predevelopmentto Base Case

Magnitude of Changefrom Predevelopment

Rare plants Long Isolated Irreversible N/A N/A -100% High

NOTE:

N/A = Not applicable.




136a.3.5 Air Emissions and Vegetation Health and Diversity

The detailed methods used for the alternate assessment for air emissions effects follow

those used in the Integrated Application.

136a.3.5.1 Base Case

136a.3.5.1.1 SO2 Fumigation

About 993 ha (0.1%) of highly sensitive and moderately sensitive vegetation cover

classes fall within defined critical levels of SO2 for the Base Case (see Table 136a.3-10).

This includes 915 ha (0.1%) of vegetation cover classes with a high potential to support

traditional use berry species.

136a.3.5.1.2 NO2 Fumigation

Critical levels of NO2 on vegetation are surpassed in 321,619 ha (33%) when the

30 g/m3 critical level is applied (see Table 136a.3-11). This includes 245,017 ha (31%)

of vegetation cover classes with a high potential to support traditional use berry species.

136a.3.5.1.3 Nitrogen Deposition

Critical loads of nitrogen deposition on vegetation are surpassed in 73,416 ha (8%)

(see Table 136a.3-12). This includes 54,503 ha (7%) of vegetation cover classes with a

high potential to support traditional use berry species. No individual vegetation cover

classes are predicted to be surpass critical loads by more than 20%.



The Project is predicted to slightly increase the area of highly and moderately sensitive

cover classes exposed to critical levels of SO2 relative to the Base Case

(see Table 136a.3-10). The area of vegetated land affected by SO2 fumigation increases

by 9 ha (less than 0.1%) relative to Base Case owing to Project emissions. This includes

an increase of 8 ha (less than 0.1%) of vegetation cover classes with a high potential to

support traditional use berry species. No areas of vegetation cover classes considered

moderately sensitive to SO2 emissions were over 20 µg/m3 at (i.e., value over 20 µg/m3

are limited to mine pits).





Table 136a.3-10 Area above SO2 Critical Levels by Cover Class – Base Case and Application Case (Alternate Table 3-24)

Cover ClassTotal AreaBase Case

(ha)

Area aboveSO2 Critical

Levels –Base Case

(ha)

Percent aboveSO2 Critical

Levels –Base Case

Total AreaApplication

Case(ha)

Area aboveSO2 Critical

Levels –Application

Case(ha)

Percent aboveSO2 Critical


Case

PercentChange

above SO2

Critical Levelsfrom Base

Case toApplication

Case

Coniferous – jack pine leading1 85,366.2 520.1 0.6 27,779.8 523.0 1.9 1.3

Coniferous – white spruce leading1 28,716 0.0 0.0 2,008.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Coniferous – black spruce leading1 2,011.8 0.2 <0.1 85,203.8 0.2 <0.1 0.0

Mixedwood – jack pine leading1 53,006.1 0.0 0.0 52,768.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mixedwood – white spruce leading1 60,735.7 0.0 0.0 57,805.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Deciduous and Mixedwood – deciduousleading1

134,376.9 0.0 0.0 122,416.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Upland shrubland1 14,529.1 0.0 0.0 14,200.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Upland grassland 13,767.1 0.2 <0.1 13,475.3 0.3 <0.1 0.0

Shrubby bogs1 43,280.8 0.0 0.0 42,910.6 0.0 0 0.0

Wooded bogs1 132,107.9 314.0 0.2 131,443.3 318.2 0.2 0.0

Wooded poor fen1 41,198.6 80.6 0.2 41,184.4 81.3 0.2 0.0

Wooded rich fen 35,729.0 77.8 0.2 35,721.4 78.8 0.2 0.0

Shrubby fen 20,807.3 0.0 0.0 20,544.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Open fen 42,983.9 0.0 0.0 42,567.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Wooded swamp1 188,620.6 0.0 0.0 183,703.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Shrubby swamp 71,933.9 0.4 <0.1 69,854.9 0.4 <0.1 0.0

Marsh/wet meadow 8,140.5 0.0 0.0 6,474.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Vegetated Berry-Supporting Land 783,949 915 0.1 761,423 923 0.1 <0.1

Total Vegetated Land 977,311 993 0.1 950,061 1,002 0.1 <0.1

NOTES:1 Vegetation cover classes with a high potential to support traditional use berry species





Table 136a.3-11 Area above NO2 Critical Levels by Cover Class – Base Case and Application Case (Alternate Table 3-25)


(ha)

Area aboveNO2 Critical

Levels – BaseCase(ha)

Percent aboveNO2 Critical

Levels – BaseCase


Case(ha)

Area aboveNO2 Critical


Case(ha)

Percent aboveNO2 Critical


Case

PercentChange

above NO2

Critical Levelsfrom Base

Case toApplication

Case

Coniferous – jack pine leading1 85,366.2 32,445.3 38.0 27,779.8 85,203.8 33,119.6 38.9

Coniferous – white spruce leading1 28,716 12,705.0 44.2 2,008.0 27,779.8 13,291.4 47.8

Coniferous – black spruce leading1 2,011.8 738.0 36.7 85,203.8 2,008.0 756.5 37.7

Mixedwood – jack pine leading1 53,006.1 31,874.2 60.1 52,768.3 52,768.3 32,484.5 61.6

Mixedwood – white spruce leading1 60,735.7 9,630.8 15.9 57,805.0 57,805.0 11,283.3 19.5

Deciduous and Mixedwood – DeciduousLeading1

134,376.9 56,664.8 42.2 122,416.2 122,416.2 60,477.8 49.4

Upland shrubland 14,529.1 6,404.7 44.1 14,200.5 14,200.5 6,860.8 48.3

Upland grassland 13,767.1 9,698.6 70.4 13,475.3 13,475.3 9,873.8 73.3

Shrubby bogs1 43,280.8 6,550.9 15.1 42,910.6 42,910.6 6,610.0 15.4

Wooded bogs1 132,107.9 22,400.6 17.0 131,443.3 131,443.3 22,680.0 17.3

Wooded poor fen1 41,198.6 4,891.1 11.9 41,184.4 41,184.4 5,096.8 12.4

Wooded rich fen 35,729.0 6,928.2 19.4 35,721.4 35,721.4 7,127.6 20.0

Shrubby fen 20,807.3 9,683.6 46.5 20,544.5 20,544.5 10,022.4 48.8

Open fen 42,983.9 13,837.2 32.2 42,567.3 42,567.3 14,368.5 33.8

Wooded swamp1 188,620.6 60,711.1 32.2 183,703.4 183,703.4 64,358.1 35.0

Shrubby swamp 71,933.9 34,575.2 48.1 69,854.9 69,854.9 35,557.8 50.9

Marsh/wet meadow 8,140.5 1,879.4 23.1 6,474.2 6,474.2 2,104.4 32.5

Total Vegetated Berry Supporting Land 783,949 245,017 31 761,423 761,423 257,019 34

Total Vegetated Land 977,311 321,619 33 950,061 950,061 336,073 35







Table 136a.3-12 Area above N-Deposition Critical Loads by Cover Class – Base Case and Application Case (AlternateTable 3-26)


(ha)2

Area aboveN-DepositionCritical Loads

Base Case(ha) 2

Percent aboveN-DepositionCritical Loads

Base Case2


Case(ha) 2

Area aboveN-DepositionCritical Loads

ApplicationCase(ha) 2


LevelsApplication

Case2

PercentChangeabove

N-DepositionCritical Loads

from BaseCase to

ApplicationCase2

Coniferous – jack pine leading1 85,366.2 19,724.5 23.1 85,203.8 20,399.1 23.9 0.8


Coniferous – black spruce leading1 2,011.8 6.0 0.3 2,008.0 7.7 0.4 0.1

Mixedwood – jack pine leading1 53,006.1 5,240.5 9.9 52,768.3 5,250.0 9.9 0.1


Deciduous and Mixedwood –DeciduousLeading1

134,376.9 5,552.4 4.1 122,416.2 5,605.1 4.6 0.4

Upland shrubland 14,529.1 734.1 5.1 14,200.5 784.7 5.5 0.5

Upland grassland 13,767.1 1,642.3 11.9 13,475.3 1,735.0 12.9 0.9

Shrubby bogs1 43,280.8 2,761.0 6.4 42,910.6 3,302.2 7.7 1.3

Wooded bogs1 132,107.9 9,531.6 7.2 131,443.3 9,875.9 7.5 0.3

Wooded poor fen1 41,198.6 2,743.5 6.7 41,184.4 2,986.4 7.3 0.6

Wooded rich fen 35,729.0 4,246.2 11.9 35,721.4 4,533.2 12.7 0.8

Shrubby fen 20,807.3 3,652.9 17.6 20,544.5 3,964.7 19.3 1.7

Open fen 42,983.9 5,098.1 11.9 42,567.3 5,289.0 12.4 0.6

Wooded swamp1 188,620.6 6,848.5 3.6 183,703.4 7,140.7 3.9 0.3

Shrubby swamp 71,933.9 4,272.9 5.9 69,854.9 4,437.7 6.4 0.4

Total Vegetated Berry Supporting Land 783,949 54,503 7 761,423 56,891 7 1

Total Vegetated Land 969,170 73,416 8 943,587 76,851 8 1

NOTES:1 Vegetation cover classes with a high potential to support traditional use berry species2 Includes a small area of land outside the vegetation and wildlife RSA





The Project is predicted to slightly increase the area exposed to critical levels of NO2

relative to Base Case (see Table 136a.3-11). The area of vegetated land affected by NO2

fumigation increases by 14,455 ha (2%) relative to Base Case as a result of Project

emissions. This includes an increase of 12,002 ha (3%) of vegetation cover classes with a

high potential to support traditional use berry species. No individual vegetation cover

classes are predicted to be surpassed by more than 20%.


The Project is predicted to slightly increase the area of cover classes exposed to critical

loads of nitrogen (N)-deposition relative to Base Case (see Table 136a.3-12). The area of

vegetated land affected by N-deposition increases by 1%) relative to Base Case as a result

of Project emissions. This includes a 1% increase in vegetation cover classes with a high

potential to support traditional use berry species (see Table 136a.3-12).



Emissions from PDC are predicted to slightly increase the area of highly and moderately

sensitive cover classes exposed to critical levels of SO2 relative to Base Case

(see Table 136a.3-13). No areas of vegetation cover classes considered moderately

sensitive to SO2 emissions were surpassed as all values over 20 µg/m3 are located in

disturbed land (e.g., mine pits) following predictions made in the Integrated Application

when WRF was used as an input variable to air modelling.


Emissions from PDC sources are predicted to increase the area exposed to critical levels

of NO2 relative to the Base Case (see Table 136a.3-14).


Emissions from PDC sources are predicted to slightly increase the area of cover classes

exposed to critical loads of N-deposition relative to Base Case (see Table 136a.3-15).

Some cover classes are exposed by more than 20%.





Table 136a.3-13 Area above SO2 Critical Levels by Cover Class – Base Case and PDC (Alternate Table 3-27)


(ha)

Area aboveSO2 CriticalLevels Base

Case(ha)

Percentabove SO2

CriticalLevels – Base

Case(%)

Total AreaPDC(ha)

Area aboveSO2 CriticalLevels PDC

(ha)

Percentabove SO2

CriticalLevels – PDC

(%)

PercentChange

above SO2

CriticalLevels from

Base Case toPDC(%)

Coniferous – jack pine leading1 85,366.2 520.1 0.6 25,581.2 468.7 1.8 <0.1


Coniferous – black spruce leading1 2,011.8 0.2 <0.1 80,100.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1

Mixedwood – jack pine leading1 53,006.1 0.0 0.0 55,912.5 0.0 0.0 0.0



134,376.9 0.0 0.0 10,370.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Upland shrubland 14,529.1 0.0 0.0 20,595.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Upland grassland 13,767.1 0.2 <0.1 6,142.1 0.7 <0.1 <0.1

Shrubby bogs1 43,280.8 0.0 0.0 18,866.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

Wooded bogs1 132,107.9 314.0 0.2 34,174.4 380.0 1.1 0.9

Wooded poor fen1 41,198.6 80.6 0.2 40,472.8 89.1 0.2 <0.1

Wooded rich fen 35,729.0 77.8 0.2 163,346.6 89.1 0.1 <0.1

Shrubby fen 20,807.3 0.0 0.0 61,408.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Open fen 42,983.9 0.0 0.0 38,725.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

Wooded swamp1 188,620.6 0.0 0.0 272,052.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Shrubby swamp 71,933.9 0.4 <0.1 12,984.5 1.0 <0.1 <0.1

Marsh/wet meadow 8,140.5 0.0 0.0 143.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Vegetated Berry-Supporting Land 783,949 915 0.1 708,861 938 0.1 <0.1

Total Vegetated Land 977,311 993 0.1 991,612 1,029 0.1 <0.1


N/A = not applicable




Table 136a.3-14 Area above NO2 Critical Levels by Cover Class – Base Case and PDC (Alternate Table 3-28)


(ha)

Area aboveNO2 CriticalLevels Base

Case(ha)

Percentabove NO2

CriticalLevels Base

CaseTotal Area

PDC(ha)

Area aboveNO2 CriticalLevels PDC

(ha)

Percentabove NO2

CriticalLevels PDC

PercentChange

above NO2

CriticalLevels FromBase Case to

PDC


Coniferous – white spruce leading1 28,716 12,705.0 44.2 25,581.2 12,910.0 50.5 6.2

Coniferous – black spruce leading1 2,011.8 738.0 36.7 2,000.2 938.5 46.9 10.2

Mixedwood – jack pine leading1 53,006.1 31,874.2 60.1 55,912.5 12,359.7 22.1 -38.0

Mixedwood – white spruce leading1 60,735.7 9,630.8 15.9 35,771.4 10,002.4 28.0 12.1


134,376.9 56,664.8 42.2 10,370.4 7,447.9 71.8 29.7

Upland shrubland 14,529.1 6,404.7 44.1 20,595.2 12,453.1 60.5 16.4

Upland grassland 13,767.1 9,698.6 70.4 6,142.1 2,074.8 33.8 -36.7

Shrubby bogs1 43,280.8 6,550.9 15.1 18,866.8 9,860.1 52.3 37.1

Wooded bogs1 132,107.9 22,400.6 17.0 34,174.4 7,438.3 21.8 4.8

Wooded poor fen1 41,198.6 4,891.1 11.9 40,472.8 5,556.1 13.7 1.9

Wooded rich fen 35,729.0 6,928.2 19.4 163,346.6 61,499.8 37.6 18.3

Shrubby fen 20,807.3 9,683.6 46.5 61,408.2 33,355.5 54.3 7.8

Open fen 42,983.9 13,837.2 32.2 38,725.6 5,148.2 13.3 -18.9

Wooded swamp1 188,620.6 60,711.1 32.2 272,052.3 252,351.5 92.8 60.6

Shrubby swamp 71,933.9 34,575.2 48.1 12,984.5 6,972.2 53.7 5.6

Marsh/wet meadow 8,140.5 1,879.4 23.1 143.6 40.0 27.9 4.8

Total Vegetated Berry-Supporting Land 783,949 245,017 31 595,897 366,193 61 30


NOTE:1 Vegetation cover classes with a high potential to support traditional use berry species





Table 136a.3-15 Area above N-Deposition Critical Loads by Cover Class – Base Case and PDC (Alternate Table 3-29)

Cover ClassTotal Area2

Base Case(ha)

Area2 above N-Deposition

Critical LoadsBase Case

(ha)

Percent2

above N-Deposition

Critical LoadsBase Case

Total Area2

PDC(ha)

Area2 aboveN-DepositionCritical Loads

PDC(ha)


PDC

PercentChange aboveN-DepositionCritical Loads

from BaseCase to PDC


Coniferous – white spruce leading1 28,716 805.6 2.8 25,581.2 1,682.1 6.6 3.8

Coniferous – black spruce leading1 2,011.8 6.0 0.3 114,964.5 17.0 0.0 -0.3

Mixedwood – jack pine leading1 53,006.1 5,240.5 9.9 55,912.5 3,797.2 6.8 -3.1


Deciduous and Mixedwood –Deciduous Leading1

134,376.9 5,552.4 4.1 10,370.4 5,017.2 48.4 44.2

Upland shrubland 14,529.1 734.1 5.1 20,595.2 885.6 4.3 -0.8

Upland grassland 13,767.1 1,642.3 11.9 6,142.1 1,056.6 17.2 5.3

Shrubby bogs1 43,280.8 2,761.0 6.4 18,866.8 3,688.1 19.5 13.2

Wooded bogs1 132,107.9 9,531.6 7.2 34,174.4 14,075.9 41.2 34.0

Wooded poor fen1 41,198.6 2,743.5 6.7 40,472.8 5,161.0 12.8 6.1

Wooded rich fen 35,729.0 4,246.2 11.9 163,346.6 6,913.4 4.2 -7.7

Shrubby fen 20,807.3 3,652.9 17.6 61,408.2 5,117.4 8.3 -9.2

Open fen 42,983.9 5,098.1 11.9 38,725.6 3,454.4 8.9 -2.9

Wooded swamp1 188,620.6 6,848.5 3.6 272,052.3 8,800.9 3.2 -0.4

Shrubby swamp 71,933.9 4,272.9 5.9 12,984.5 6,092.7 46.9 41.0

Total Vegetated Berry-SupportingLand

783,949 54,503 7 708,861 62,941 9 2


NOTES:1 Vegetation cover classes with a high potential to support traditional use berry species2 Includes a small area of land outside the vegetation and wildlife RSA






The Project will result in a small, incremental increase to overall emissions effects in the

vegetation and wildlife RSA. No individual vegetation cover classes are predicted to be

surpassed by more than 20%. This represents a low-magnitude change for existing

conditions as well as the Base Case, Application Case and PDC (see Table 136a.3-16).


The Project will result in a small, incremental increase to overall emissions effects in the

vegetation and wildlife RSA. As there are some cover classes that are greater than 20%

within the critical level for Base Case, Application Case and PDC, a high magnitude

effect is predicted.


The Project is predicted to result in an overall change in area of vegetated land affected of

1% for the Application Case relative to the Base Case when the critical loads are

considered. The combined cumulative effect from background values to Base Case,

Application Case and PDC represents an effect that is greater than 20% for some cover

classes. This represents a high magnitude effect.


Although the area of vegetation affected by SO2, NO2 and N-deposition vary in their

details, the cumulative effects from the Project in conjunction with operating, approved

and planned developments remains the same as in the Integrated Application when WRF

is used as an input variable to air modelling and likely-to-be approved developments are

removed from the Base Case and Application Case. The exception is NO2 fumigation,

which is now considered a high magnitude effect.

Localized effects from air emissions are expected as a result of operating, approved and

planned developments. Effects are considered generally reversible in the long-term.

Following these assumptions, effects of SO2 fumigation on vegetation are considered of

low environmental consequence for all assessment cases (see Table 136a.3-16). This

conclusion is the same as the Integrated Application.

For NO2 fumigation and nitrogen deposition, Base Case, Application Case and PDC

effects are ranked as a moderate environmental consequence since some cover classes

surpass 20% by proportion (see Table 136a.3-16). This assessment conclusion is the same

as in the Integrated Application for nitrogen deposition and different for NO2, which was

ranked a low environmental consequence previously.





Table 136a.3-16 Effects Classification of Emissions on Vegetation (Alternate Table 3-30)

Key Indicator Duration FrequencyAbility toRecover

Environmental Consequence

From Predevelopment toBase Case

1From Predevelopment to

Application Case1

From Predevelopment toPDC

1

SO2 fumigation Long Continuous Reversible1

Low Low Low

NO2 fumigation Long Continuous Reversible1

Moderate Moderate Moderate

Nitrogen deposition Long Continuous Reversible1

Moderate Moderate Moderate

NOTE:1

Effects are considered generally reversible, yet some species may not recover





For the assessment of air emissions effects on vegetation, prediction confidence remains

the same as the Integrated Application and is considered moderate.

136a.3.5.7 Summary

The alternate assessment results in the same assessment conclusions as in the Integrated

Application.

136a.3.6 Conclusions

For a summary of the environmental consequence and prediction confidence for

vegetation, based on the alternate assessment, see Table 136a.3-17. These environmental

consequence rankings remain the same as in the:




refined assessment that considered the revised terrestrial LSA without regional

progressive reclamation for other developments (see ESRD/CEAA Round 2

Appendix 136a.2) except for effects from NO2, which change from a low to moderate

environmental consequence.

Table 136a.3-17 Environmental and Prediction Consequence for Alternate Assessment(Alternate Table 3-31)

Key Issue Environmental Consequence Prediction Confidence

Change in landscape diversity Low to moderate Moderate

Change in community diversity Moderate to high Moderate

Change in species diversity High Low

Air emissions effects and vegetation health Low to moderate Moderate

136a.3.7 References

ACIMS (Alberta Conservation Information Management System). 2013. Tracking and

Watch List. Available at: http://albertaparks.ca/albertaparksca/management-land-

use/alberta-conservation-information-management-system-(acims)/tracking-

watch-lists.aspx. Accessed August 2013.

esrd appendix 136a.3 oct2013 final - impact assessment … · appendix 136a.3: vegetation alternate...

Documents