lake winnipeg regulation - appendix 6 · july 2014 lake winnipeg regulation page appendix 6 i this...

Appendix 6

Lake Winnipeg Regulation

LAKE WINNIPEG REGULATION

REPORT TO THE

CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION

APPENDIX 6:

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

DOWNSTREAM OF LAKE WINNIPEG

2014

JULY 2014

LAKE WINNIPEG REGULATION PAGE APPENDIX 6 i

This report has been prepared for the Clean Environment Commission by Manitoba Hydro with the assistance of North/South Consultants Inc.

JULY 2014

LAKE WINNIPEG REGULATION PAGE APPENDIX 6 II

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1

2.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................... 3

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA .......................................... 5

4.0 SCOPE OF THE REPORT ................................................................. 7

5.0 PATHWAYS OF EFFECTS ................................................................ 10

6.0 INFORMATION SOURCES .............................................................. 12

6.1 Lake Winnipeg Churchill and Nelson Rivers Study Board 1971-1975 ........ 12

6.2 Cross Lake Environmental Impact Assessment Study 1982-1986 .............. 14

6.3 Manitoba Ecological Monitoring Program 1985-1989 ................................ 15

6.4 Federal Ecological Monitoring Program 1986-1992 ................................... 16

6.5 Post-Project Assessment of Kelsey and LWR Impacts on Wabowden 1990 .............................................................................................................. 17

6.6 The Split Lake Cree Post-Project Environmental Review 1996 ................. 18

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS ............................................. 19

7.1 Water Quality .............................................................................................. 19

7.2 Fish Populations ......................................................................................... 19

7.3 Mercury ....................................................................................................... 20

7.4 Waterfowl .................................................................................................... 21

7.5 Aquatic Furbearers ..................................................................................... 22

7.6 Ungulates (Moose and Caribou) ................................................................ 22

8.0 BIOPHYSICAL EFFECTS OF LWR ................................................. 23

8.1 Outlet Lakes Area ....................................................................................... 23

8.1.1 Summary of Physical Changes from Regulation ............................ 23

8.1.2 Water Quality .................................................................................. 26

8.1.2.1 Community Concerns .................................................................. 27

8.1.2.2 Current Conditions ...................................................................... 27

8.1.2.3 Project Effects ............................................................................. 33

JULY 2014

LAKE WINNIPEG REGULATION PAGE APPENDIX 6 III

8.1.2.4 Summary ...................................................................................... 38

8.1.3 Fish Populations ............................................................................. 38



8.1.3.3 Project Effects .............................................................................. 41

8.1.3.4 Summary ...................................................................................... 44

8.1.4 Mercury ........................................................................................... 45



8.1.4.3 Project Effects ............................................................................. 46

8.1.4.4 Summary ...................................................................................... 49

8.1.5 Waterfowl ......................................................................................... 49



8.1.5.3 Project Effects ............................................................................. 50

8.1.5.4 Summary ...................................................................................... 52

8.1.6 Aquatic Furbearers .......................................................................... 52



8.1.6.3 Project Effects ............................................................................. 52

8.1.6.4 Summary ...................................................................................... 53

8.1.7 Ungulates (Moose and Caribou) ..................................................... 53



8.1.7.3 Project Effects ............................................................................. 54

8.1.7.4 Summary ...................................................................................... 55

8.2 Upper Nelson River Area ........................................................................... 55


8.2.2 Water Quality .................................................................................. 58



8.2.2.3 Project Effects ............................................................................. 60

8.2.2.4 Summary ...................................................................................... 65

JULY 2014

LAKE WINNIPEG REGULATION PAGE APPENDIX 6 IV




8.2.3.3 Project Effects ............................................................................. 67

8.2.3.4 Summary ...................................................................................... 74

8.2.4 Mercury ........................................................................................... 75



8.2.4.3 Project Effects ............................................................................. 76

8.2.4.4 Summary ...................................................................................... 79

8.2.5 Waterfowl ......................................................................................... 79



8.2.5.3 Project Effects ............................................................................. 80

8.2.5.4 Summary ....................................................................................... 81


8.2.6.1 Community Concerns ................................................................... 81

8.2.6.2 Current Conditions ....................................................................... 81

8.2.6.3 Project Effects ............................................................................. 82

8.2.6.4 Summary ...................................................................................... 83

8.2.7 Ungulates (Moose and Caribou) ..................................................... 83



8.2.7.3 Project Effects ............................................................................. 84

8.2.7.4 Summary ...................................................................................... 85

8.3 Kelsey GS to Gull Rapids ............................................................................ 85


8.3.2 Water Quality .................................................................................. 87



8.3.2.3 Project Effects ............................................................................. 90

8.3.2.4 Summary ....................................................................................... 91


JULY 2014

LAKE WINNIPEG REGULATION PAGE APPENDIX 6 V



8.3.3.3 Project Effects ............................................................................. 92

8.3.3.4 Summary ...................................................................................... 95

8.3.4 Mercury ........................................................................................... 95



8.3.4.3 Project Effects ............................................................................. 96

8.3.4.4 Summary ...................................................................................... 98

8.3.5 Waterfowl ......................................................................................... 98



8.3.5.3 Project Effects ............................................................................. 99

8.3.5.4 Summary ...................................................................................... 99




8.3.6.3 Project Effects ............................................................................ 100

8.3.6.4 Summary ..................................................................................... 100

8.3.7 Ungulates (Moose and Caribou) .................................................... 101

8.3.7.1 Community Concerns ................................................................. 101

8.3.7.2 Current Conditions ..................................................................... 101

8.3.7.3 Project Effects ............................................................................ 102

8.3.7.4 Summary ..................................................................................... 102

9.0 ONGOING MONITORING ............................................................ 103

10.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................. 105

10.1 Literature Cited ......................................................................................... 105

10.2 Personal Communications ........................................................................ 116

JULY 2014

LAKE WINNIPEG REGULATION PAGE APPENDIX 6 VI

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1: Key dates in environmental legislation in Manitoba since 1960 .............................................. 1 Table 2: Water quality summary: Upper Nelson River area ................................................................... 28 Table 3: Summary of temporal changes in selected water quality parameters in the outlet

lakes area: Nelson River near Norway House. ......................................................................... 37 Table 4: Mean arithmetic mercury concentration (ppm) for Lake Whitefish, Northern

Pike, and Walleye captured from Playgreen Lake and Little Playgreen Lake from 1970-2010. ...................................................................................................................................... 48

Table 5: Summary of temporal changes in selected water quality parameters in the upper Nelson River area: Cross Lake. ................................................................................................... 61

Table 6: Summary of temporal changes in selected water quality parameters in the upper Nelson River area: Sipiwesk Lake and the Nelson River. ....................................................... 63

Table 7: Water quality summary: Kelsey GS to Gull Rapids. ................................................................ 89

JULY 2014

LAKE WINNIPEG REGULATION PAGE APPENDIX 6 VII

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1: Key features and Manitoba Hydro infrastructure in the outlet lakes area ............................. 6 Figure 2: Delineation of study reaches ......................................................................................................... 8 Figure 3: Summary of pathways of effects from operation of LWR ..................................................... 11 Figure 4: Location of LWCNRSB study areas ........................................................................................... 13 Figure 5: Map showing waterbodies and adjacent terrestrial areas sampled as part of key

pre- and post-LWR studies in the outlet lakes area. ................................................................ 25 Figure 6: Mean (±SE) total phosphorus in waterbodies sampled as part of CAMP, 2008-

2010. ................................................................................................................................................ 30 Figure 7: Mean (±SE) aluminum concentrations measured in waterbodies sampled as part

of CAMP, 2008-2010. ................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 8: Mean (±SE) iron concentrations measured in waterbodies sampled as part of

CAMP, 2008-2010. ........................................................................................................................ 32 Figure 9: Two representative landsat MSS images of Playgreen Lake: (a) July 28, 1973; and

(b) November 7, 1974 ................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 10: Example satellite image illustrating spatial variability in water clarity in Playgreen

Lake and Lake Winnipeg. ............................................................................................................. 35 Figure 11: Mean CPUE for all fish species captured by standard gang index gill nets in

waterbodies sampled as part of CAMP, 2008-2010. ................................................................ 40 Figure 12: Comparison of annual catch-per-unit-effort (CUE) values from index gill nets set

in Playgreen Lake prior to (1971) and after LWR (1987-2010). ............................................ 43 Figure 13: Length-standardized mean (+95% confidence limit) mercury concentration of

selected fish species from CAMP waterbodies in 2010 .......................................................... 47 Figure 14: Boreal woodland caribou population ranges within Management Units in

Manitoba ......................................................................................................................................... 54 Figure 15: Map showing waterbodies and adjacent terrestrial areas sampled as part of key

pre- and post-LWR studies along the upper Nelson River. ................................................... 57 Figure 16: Comparison of annual catch-per–unit-effort (CUE) values from index gill nets set

in the east basin of Cross Lake prior to (1965, 1973) and after LWR before (1980-1988) and after construction of the weir (1992-2007). ............................................................ 70

Figure 17: Comparison of annual catch-per-unit-effort (CUE) values from index gill nets set in the west basin of Cross Lake prior to (1965, 1973) and after LWR before (1980-1988) and after construction of the weir (1992-2011) .................................................. 71

Figure 18: Comparison of annual catch-per-unit-effort (CUE) values from index gill nets set in Sipiwesk Lake prior to (1965, 1973) and after LWR (1983-2011).. .................................. 73

Figure 19: Mean length standardized muscle mercury concentrations of Northern Pike, Walleye, and Lake Whitefish from Cross Lake from 1971 to 2010. ..................................... 78

JULY 2014

LAKE WINNIPEG REGULATION PAGE APPENDIX 6 VIII

Figure 20: Map showing waterbodies and adjacent terrestrial areas sampled as part of key pre- and post-LWR studies along the Nelson River from Kelsey GS to Gull Rapids. ............................................................................................................................................. 86

Figure 21: Comparison of annual catch-per-unit-effort (CUE) values from index gill nets set in Split Lake prior to (1966, 1973) and after LWR (1983-2011). ........................................... 94

Figure 22: Mean standardized mercury concentrations of Northern Pike, Walleye, and Lake Whitefish from Split Lake from 1970 to 2010. ......................................................................... 97

JULY 2014

LAKE WINNIPEG REGULATION PAGE APPENDIX 6 IX

LIST OF MAPS

Page

Map 1. The Nelson River showing the three study regions: the outlet lakes (Warren Landing to Jenpeg); the upper Nelson (Jenpeg to the Kelsey GS); and the Kelsey GS to Gull Rapids ........................................................................................................ Back Cover

JULY 2014

LAKE WINNIPEG REGULATION PAGE APPENDIX 6 X

GLOSSARY

The first time a glossary word appears in the text it has been bolded.

Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge (ATK): Knowledge that is held by, and unique to, Aboriginal peoples. It is a living bit of knowledge that is cumulative and dynamic and adapted over time to reflect changes in the social, economic, environmental, spiritual and political spheres of the Aboriginal knowledge holders. It often includes knowledge about the land and its resources, spiritual beliefs, language, mythology, culture, laws, customs and medicines (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency).

Adverse: Unfavourable or antagonistic in purpose or effect.

Alkaline: A pH value of greater than 7.0 (pH is a way to measure the acidity or alkalinity of a solution).

Anthropogenic: Involving the impact of humans on nature; induced, caused, or altered by the presence and activities of man, as in water and air pollution.

Aquatic: Living or found in water.

Backwater effect: In hydrologic terms, the effect that a dam or other obstruction has in raising the surface of the water upstream from it

Basin: A distinct section of a lake, separated from the remainder of the lake by a constriction.

Bedrock: A general term for any solid rock, not exhibiting soil-like properties, that underlies soil or other surficial materials.

Benthic invertebrate: An animal lacking a backbone that lives on or in the bottom sediments of a waterbody (e.g., mayfly, clam, aquatic earthworm, crayfish).

Benthic: Relating to the bottom of a waterbody (e.g., lake).

Bioaccumulation: The accumulation of substances, such as methylmercury, in an organism or part of an organism. Bioaccumulation occurs when a substance is absorbed by an organism at a greater rate than it is lost.

Boreal: Of or relating to the cold, northern, circumpolar area just south of the tundra, dominated by coniferous trees such as spruce, fir, or pine. Also called taiga.

Catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE/CUE): The number or weight of fish caught in a given time period with a specific equipment.

JULY 2014

LAKE WINNIPEG REGULATION PAGE APPENDIX 6 XI

Churchill River Diversion (CRD): The diversion of water from the Churchill River to the Nelson River via the Rat River and the impoundment of water in Southern Indian Lake as authorized by the CRD Licence.

Chlorophyll: A group of green pigments present in plant cells that are essential in the trapping of light energy during photosynthesis.

Colour: The colour of water is the result of backscattering of light upward from a water body after it is selectively absorbed at various depths.

Community: In ecology, a community is an ecological unit composed of a group of organisms or a population of different species occupying a particular area, usually interacting with each other and their environment. For people, a community is a social group of any size, whose members reside in a specific locality.

Concentration: The density or amount of a material suspended or dissolved in a fluid (aqueous) or amount of material in a solid (e.g., sediments, tissue).

Conductivity: A measure of the ability of a solution to conduct electrical flow; units are microSiemens per centimetre.

Cumulative effect: The effect on the environment, which results when the effects of a project combine with those of the past, existing, and future projects and; the incremental effects of an action on the environment when the effects are combined with those from other past, existing and future actions.

Debris: Any material, including floating or submerged items (e.g., driftwood, plants), suspended sediment or bed load, moved by flowing water.

DELT: Acronym for the presence of Deformities (physical blemishes or distortions), Erosion (wearing away of a structure to reduce the size and effectiveness of that structure), Lesions (abnormal changes in a structure due to injury or disease, not including injuries due to predation or fishing), and Tumours (abnormal benign or malignant mass of tissue that does not arise from inflammation) in fish.

Deposition: Settling of sediment particles on the river/lake bottom.

Ecoregion: An area of land or water containing a geographically distinct assemblage of species, communities, and environmental conditions.

Ecosystem: A dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living components of the environment interacting as a functional unit (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency).

Effect: Any change that a project may cause in the environment. More specifically, is a direct or indirect consequence of a particular project impact. The impact-effect terminology is a statement of a cause-effect

JULY 2014

LAKE WINNIPEG REGULATION PAGE APPENDIX 6 XII

relationship. A terrestrial habitat example would be 10 ha of vegetation clearing (i.e., the impact) leads to habitat loss, permafrost melting, soil conversion, edge effects, etc. (i.e., the direct and indirect effects).

Endangered: A species facing imminent extirpation or extinction (COSEWIC).

Environment: The components of the Earth, including a) land, water and air, including all layers of the atmosphere, b) all organic and inorganic matter and living organisms, and c) the interacting natural systems that include components referred to in a) and b) (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency).

Environmental assessment (EA): Process for identifying project and environment interactions, predicting environmental effects, identifying mitigation measures, evaluating significance, reporting and following-up to verify accuracy and effectiveness leading to the production of an EA report. Environmental Assessment is used as a planning tool to help guide decision-making, as well as project design and implementation (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency).

Environmental effect: In respect of a project, a) any change that the project may cause in the environment, including any change it may cause to a listed wildlife species, its critical habitat or the residences of individuals of that species, as those terms are defined in subsection 2(1) of the Species at Risk Act.

Environmental impact assessment (EIA): See Environmental Assessment.

Environmental impact statement (EIS): A document that presents the findings of an environmental assessment (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency).

Environmental monitoring: Periodic or continuous surveillance or testing, according to a predetermined schedule, of one or more environmental components. Monitoring is usually conducted to determine the level of compliance with stated requirements, or to observe the status and trends of a particular environmental component over time (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency).

Erosion: A process, which is either naturally occurring or anthropogenic in origin, by which the Earth's surface is worn away by the actions of water and wind.

Eutrophic: Having waters or soils rich in phosphates, nitrates and organic nutrients that promote a proliferation of plant life, including algae.

Forage fish: Small, schooling fish that are typically eaten by larger fish. Typically less than 150 mm as adults (e.g., minnows, darters, sculpins, stickleback).

Forebay: Impoundment area immediately upstream from a dam or hydro-electric plant intake structure that forms the downstream portion of the reservoir.

Fragmentation: Refers to the extent to which an area is broken up into smaller areas by human features and how easy it is for animals, plant propagules and other ecological flows such as surface water to move

JULY 2014

LAKE WINNIPEG REGULATION PAGE APPENDIX 6 XIII

from one area to another. Fragmentation can isolate habitat and create edges, which reduces habitat for interior species and may reduce habitat effectiveness for other species. OR The breaking up of contiguous blocks of habitat into increasingly smaller blocks as a result of direct loss and/or sensory disturbance (i.e., habitat alienation). Eventually, remaining blocks may be too small to provide usable or effective habitat for a species.

Furbearer: Refers to those mammal species that are trapped (e.g., marten, fox, etc.) for the useful or economic value of their fur.

Glacial till: Glacial till is that part of glacial drift which was deposited directly by the glacier. Its content may vary from clays to mixtures of clay, sand, gravel, and boulders. This material is mostly derived from the subglacial erosion and entrainment by the moving ice of the glaciers of previously available unconsolidated sediments.

Habitat loss: Conversion of terrestrial habitat into human features or aquatic areas.

Habitat: The place where a plant or animal lives; often related to a function such as breeding, spawning, feeding, etc.

Hardness: The presence of dissolved minerals, generally expressed as calcium carbonate.

Hydraulic: 1) of or relating to liquid in motion; and, 2) of or relating to the pressure created by forcing a liquid through a relatively small orifice, pipe, or other small channel.

Hydro-electric: Electricity produced by converting the energy of falling water into electrical energy (i.e., at a hydro generating station).

Hydro-electric generating station: A generating station that converts the potential energy of elevated water or the kinetic energy of flowing water into electricity.

Ice regime: A description of ice on a water body (i.e., lake or river) with respect to formation, movement, scouring, melting, daily fluctuations, seasonal variations, etc.

Impact: Essentially, a statement of what the Project is in terms of the ecosystem component of interest while a project effect is a direct or indirect consequence of that impact (i.e., a statement of the cause effect relationship). A terrestrial habitat example would be 10 hectares of vegetation clearing (i.e., the impact) leads to habitat loss, permafrost melting, soil conversion, edge effects, etc. (i.e., the direct and indirect effects). Note that while Canadian Environmental Assessment Act requires the proponent to assess project effects, Manitoba legislation uses the terms impact and effect interchangeably. See also Effect.

Impoundment: The containment of a body of water by a dam, dyke, powerhouse, spillway or other artificial barrier.

JULY 2014

LAKE WINNIPEG REGULATION PAGE APPENDIX 6 XIV

Infrastructure: Permanent or temporary structures or features required for the construction of the principal structures, including access roads, construction camps, construction power, batch plant and cofferdams.

Invertebrate: An animal with no backbone, e.g., an insect.

Key person interview (KPI): Interview with an individual whose knowledge, creativity, inspiration, reputation, and/or skills are critical to the credibility of a study.

Lacustrine: Of or having to do with lakes, and also used in reference to soils deposited as sediments in a lake.

Larva (ae; al): The young, immature form of an insect or animal.

Limnology: It is the study of inland waters.

Macrophyte: multi-celled aquatic and terrestrial plants.

Mainstem: The unimpeded, main channel of a river.

Marsh: A class in the Canadian Wetland Classification System which includes non-peat wetlands having at least 25% emergent vegetation cover in the water fluctuation zone.

Mesotrophic: Description of a waterbody, typically a lake, characterized by moderate concentrations of nutrients (i.e., nitrogen and phosphorus) and resulting significant productivity.

Meso-eutrophic: Moderately eutrophic (see eutrophic).

Methylation: The addition of a methyl group to a metal or organic compound (e.g., conversion of inorganic mercury to methylmercury); in the natural environment, this occurs most often by microbial action.

Methylmercury: An organic form of mercury that is able to concentrate in animal tissue.

Migration: The movement of an individual or group of individuals from one area to another.

Mitigation: A means of reducing adverse Project effects. Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and in relation to a project, mitigation is the elimination, reduction or control of the adverse environmental effects of a project, and includes restitution for any damage to the environment caused by such effects through replacement, restoration, compensation or any other means.

Monitoring: Measurement or collection of data to determine whether changes are occurring to a component of interest such as fish populations. The primary goal of long-term monitoring of lakes and rivers is to understand how aquatic communities and habitats respond to natural processes and to be able to distinguish differences between human-induced disturbance effects to aquatic ecosystems and those

JULY 2014

LAKE WINNIPEG REGULATION PAGE APPENDIX 6 XV

caused by natural processes; a continuing assessment of conditions at and surrounding the action. This determines if effects occur as predicted or if operations remain within acceptable limits, and if mitigation measures are as effective as predicted.

Off-system Waterbody: Lakes and areas of rivers sampled in the Coordinated Aquatic Monitoring Program where water levels and flows are either entirely or largely unaffected by Manitoba Hydro’s hydraulic system.

Organic: The compounds formed by living organisms.

Outflow: The water flowing out of a water body (lake, reservoir, etc.).

Overburden: Soil (including organic material) or loose material overlaying bedrock.

Peat: Material consisting of non-decomposed and/or partially decomposed organic matter, originating predominantly from plants.

pH: Method of expressing acidity or basicity of a solution. pH is the logarithm of the reciprocal of the hydrogen ion concentration, with a pH of 7.0 indicating neutral conditions. Ph values of less than seven are acidic.

Plume: A column of one fluid moving through another (e.g., effluent in a stream or lake).

Population: A group of interbreeding organisms of the same species that occupy a particular area or space.

Primary production: The production of organic compounds from atmospheric or aquatic carbon dioxide, principally through the process of photosynthesis by plants, with chemosynthesis being much less important. All life on earth is directly or indirectly reliant on primary production.

Productivity: Rate of formation of organic matter over a defined period; this can include the production of offspring.

Reach: A section, portion or length of stream or river.

Recruitment: New juvenile fish successfully being recruited into the population. Or New juvenile fish reaching a size/age where they represent a viable target for the commercial, subsistence or sport fishery for a given species.

Region of Interest: The main areas directly affected by Manitoba Hydro developments associated with the Lake Winnipeg Regulation (LWR), Churchill River Diversion (CRD) and associated transmission projects.

JULY 2014

LAKE WINNIPEG REGULATION PAGE APPENDIX 6 XVI

Reservoir: A body of water impounded by a dam and in which water can be stored for later use. The reservoir includes the forebay.

Resident: With respect to wildlife, resident refers to a dwelling-place, such as a den, nest or other similar area or place, that is occupied or habitually occupied by one or more individuals during all or part of their life cycles, including breeding, rearing, staging, wintering, feeding or hibernating (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency).

Resource use: Subsistence and economic activities that make use of the resources derived from the natural environment.

Riparian: Along the banks of rivers and streams.

Secchi Disk: a ¼ m diameter disc, divided into alternating black and white quadrants. The depth in the water at which the disc disappears from view is used as a measure of water’s transparency or turbidity.

Sediment(s): Material, usually soil or organic detritus, which is deposited in the bottom of a waterbody.

Sedimentation: A combination of processes, including erosion, entrainment, transportation, deposition and the compaction of sediment.

Siltation: The increase in concentration and/or deposition of waterborne silt in a body of water.

Species: A group of organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring.

Staging: The tendency of migratory organisms to stop temporarily (stage) at a site during migration; staging areas are stop-over sites where, for example, fish will rest and occasionally forage in preparation for imminent spawning or migratory birds will rest, forage, and/or moult along the course of a migration route.

Stocking program: Fish that are raised in captivity (generally from eggs and sperm collected from wild fish [brood stock]) are released into a designated water body to meet one or more specific management objectives. These management objectives can include population restoration, population enhancement, and/or establishment of a fishery.

Terrestrial habitat: The land areas where plants and animals live. The terrestrial habitat section classifies and maps habitat based on plants, standing and fallen dead trees, soils, ground ice, groundwater, surface water, topography and disturbance (e.g., fire) conditions.

Terrestrial: Belonging to, or inhabiting the land or ground.

Total suspended solids (TSS): Solids present in water that can be removed by filtration consisting of suspended sediments, phytoplankton and zooplankton.

JULY 2014

LAKE WINNIPEG REGULATION PAGE APPENDIX 6 XVII

Tributary(ies): A river or stream flowing into a lake or a larger river or stream.

Trophic: In ecology, trophic level describes an organism’s position in the food chain.

Turbidity (Tu): The cloudiness in water due to suspended particles. This is generally correlated to the Total Suspended Solids (TSS).

Upland: A land ecosystem where water saturation at or near the soil surface is not sufficiently prolonged to promote the development of wetland soils and vegetation.

Velocity: A measurement of speed.

Water clarity: Is a measure of how far down light penetrates in the water column.

Water quality: Measures of substances in the water such as nitrogen, phosphorus, oxygen and carbon.

Water regime: A description of water body (i.e., lake or river) with respect to water levels, flow rate, velocity, daily fluctuations, seasonal variations, etc.

JULY 2014

LAKE WINNIPEG REGULATION PAGE APPENDIX 6 XVIII

ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS AND UNITS

Acronym/Abbreviation Term/Unit

° degrees

> greater than

" inch

< less than

± plus or minus

Ag silver

Al aluminum

C Celsius

CAMP Coordinated Aquatic Monitoring Program

CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

CEC Clean Environment Commission

CEPA Canadian Environmental Protection Act

COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada

CPUE catch-per-unit-effort (fish/100 m of net/24 hours)

CRD Churchill River Diversion

CS control structure

CUE catch-per-unit-effort (fish/100 m of net/overnight set)

DELT deformities, erosion, lesions, and tumours

DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada (formerly known as Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada)

DIC dissolved inorganic carbon

DO dissolved oxygen

DOC dissolved organic carbon

EARP Environmental Assessment and Review Process

EC Environment Canada

e.g. example

et al. and others

JULY 2014

LAKE WINNIPEG REGULATION PAGE APPENDIX 6 XIX


etc. and other things

Fe iron

FEMP Federal Ecological Monitoring Program

FLCN Fox Lake Cree Nation

GHA Game Hunting Area

GS generating station

Hg mercury

hr hour

i.e. that is

kg Kilogram

km kilometre

km2 square kilometre

LWCNRSB Lake Winnipeg, Churchill and Nelson River Study Board

LWR Lake Winnipeg Regulation

m metre

MCWS Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship

MDNR Manitoba Department of Natural Resources

MEARA Manitoba Environment Assessment and Review Agency

MEMP Manitoba Ecological Monitoring Program

mg/L milligram per litre

mi mile

mi2 square miles

mm millimetre

MWS Manitoba Water Stewardship

MSS multi-spectral scanner

MWQSOG Manitoba Water Quality Standards, Objectives, and Guidelines

n sample size

N nitrogen

NC no change

NFA Northern Flood Agreement

NFC Northern Flood Committee

JULY 2014

LAKE WINNIPEG REGULATION PAGE APPENDIX 6 XX


P phosphorus

PAB Program Advisory Board

PAL Protection of Aquatic Life

pers. comm. personal communication

PIT Passive Integrated Transponder

ppb parts per billion

PPER Post-Project Environmental Review

ppm parts per million

RCEA Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment

RMA Resource Management Area

RTL Registered Trapline

SARA Species At Risk Act

SE standard error

TCN Tataskweyak Cree Nation

TDN total dissolved nitrogen

TDS total dissolved solids

TEMA Tataskweyak Environmental Monitoring Agency

TIC total inorganic carbon

TKN total Kjeldahl nitrogen

TN total nitrogen

TOC total organic carbon

TP total phosphorus

TSS total suspended solids

µg/L micrograms per litre

µmhos/cm micromhos per centimetre

unpubl. unpublished

USFW US Fish and Wildlife Service

WLFN War Lake First Nation

WPA Water Power Act

YFFN York Factory First Nation

JULY 2014

LAKE WINNIPEG REGULATION PAGE APPENDIX 6 XXI

LIST OF SPECIES

Group Common Name Species Name

Fish Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis

Cisco Coregonus artedi

Common Carp Cyprinus carpio

Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides

Goldeye Hiodon alosoides

Lake Sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens

Lake Whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis

Longnose Sucker Catostomus catostomus

Mooneye Hiodon tergisus

Northern Pike Esox lucius

Rainbow Smelt Osmerus mordax

Sauger Sander canadensis

Spottail Shiner Notropis hudsonius

Troutperch Percopsis omiscomaycus

Walleye Sander vitreus

White Sucker Catostomus commersonii

Yellow Perch Perca flavescens

Birds American wigeon Anas americana

Canada goose Branta canadensis

Common goldeye Bucephala clangula

Common merganser Mergus merganser

Lesser scaup Aythya affinis

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos

White-winged scoter Melanitta fusca

Mammals Beaver Castor canadensis

Mink Mustela vison

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus

Otter Lontra canadensis

JULY 2014

LAKE WINNIPEG REGULATION PAGE APPENDIX 6 XXII

Group Common Name Species Name

Barren-ground caribou Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus

Moose Alces alces

Woodland caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou

JULY 2014

LAKE WINNIPEG REGULATION PAGE APPENDIX 6 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This appendix focuses on the environmental effects of LWR downstream of Lake Winnipeg to Gull Rapids after mitigation. An exception to this is Cross Lake where the primary mitigation work (the Cross Lake weir) was constructed in 1991. In this case, the effects prior to and following construction of the weir are discussed.

Manitoba Hydro, in cooperation with the Manitoba Government, is also conducting a Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment (RCEA) for all Manitoba Hydro projects and associated infrastructure in the Churchill, Burntwood and Nelson River systems. The information contained in this appendix will undergo further analysis during the preparation of the RCEA report..

When reviewing this document it should be noted that environmental legislation and environmental assessment requirements in the 1970s were significantly different than they are today. A brief summary of these changes over the past 45 years is provided below.

Associated with the changes in the regulatory framework noted above, societal and regulatory expectations about the level of detail in environmental reviews has also changed with both: 1) greater granularity expected in terms of parameters sampled as well as interactions between those parameters; and 2) assessments of ecosystem health, biodiversity and cumulative effects.

In conclusion, while it is important to note that the assessment done in the 1970s exceeded the standard of the day, it does not meet the standards that a new generating station would have to meet with today’s regulatory environment.

Table 1: Key dates in environmental legislation in Manitoba since 1960

Federal Provincial

1970 Canada Water Act 1968 Clean Environment Act

1971 Department of the Environment

1978 Manitoba Environment Assessment and Review Agency (MEARA)

1982 Section 35 of the Constitution Act

1984 Environmental Assessment and Review Process Orders (EARP)

1986 DFO’s Fish Habitat Management Policy

1987 Federal Water Policy

1988 Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) 1988 Environment Act

1995 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA)

1997 Sustainable Development Act

JULY 2014


1998 Canada-Manitoba Agreement for Environmental Assessment Harmonization

2008 Sustainable Development Act

2012 Amendments to Fisheries Act

Repeal and replacement of CEAA

JULY 2014


2.0 BACKGROUND

From an environmental perspective, the effects of LWR on Lake Winnipeg itself were expected to be small and the majority of the pre-LWR environmental assessment studies and the post-LWR environmental monitoring studies (e.g., the Lake Winnipeg Churchill and Nelson Rivers Study Board [LWCNRSB], the Federal Ecological Monitoring Program [FEMP], and the Manitoba Ecological Monitoring Program [MEMP]) focused on the areas downstream of Lake Winnipeg and the areas affected by the Churchill River Diversion (CRD). A description of the studies relevant to LWR is provided in Section 6.0.

The LWCNRSB was initiated in 1971 by the governments of Canada and Manitoba to determine the effects of the Project and to make recommendations for enhancing the overall benefits with due consideration for the protection of the environment. The overall purpose of the study was:

“to determine the effects that regulation of Lake Winnipeg, diversion from the Churchill River and development of hydro-electric potential of the Churchill River Diversion route are likely to have on other water and related resource uses and to make recommendations for enhancing the overall benefits with due consideration for the protection of the environment.”

The LWCNRSB made a number of recommendations, one of which related to long-term monitoring:

“That appropriate government agencies develop and implement a long-term coordinated ecological monitoring and research program to allow impact evaluation and to assist in the ongoing management of the affected area.”

In 1977, the Northern Flood Agreement (NFA) was signed between Canada, Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro, and the Northern Flood Committee (NFC). The five First Nations represented by the NFC were the Cross Lake First Nation (Pimicikimak); Nelson House First Nation (Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation); Norway House Cree Nation; Split Lake First Nation (Tataskweyak Cree Nation); and York Factory First Nation.

In December 1981, the NFC filed Claim 18, which alleged that Canada, Manitoba, and Manitoba Hydro had failed to meet several contractual obligations of the NFA, including the implementation of specific recommendations of the LWCNRSB (1975). One of the recommendations was that:

“appropriate government departments and agencies develop and implement a long-term coordinated ecological monitoring and research program to allow impact evaluation and assist in the ongoing management of the affected area.”

In response to Claim 18, a four-party (NFC, Canada, Manitoba, and Manitoba Hydro) Program Advisory Board (PAB) was established in September 1986, to coordinate the ecological monitoring and research programs.

JULY 2014


The Manitoba Ecological Monitoring Program was initiated by the Fisheries Branch of the Manitoba Department of Natural Resources in the Rat-Burntwood and Nelson River systems starting in 1985, just slightly before the formation of PAB. The MEMP focused on the fish species important to the commercial, domestic, and sport fisheries of the NFA communities.

The Federal Ecological Monitoring Program was initiated in February 1986 by Environment Canada [Department of the Environment] and Fisheries and Oceans Canada [Department of Fisheries and Oceans]. The objectives and projects were influenced by discussions with PAB members, in particular the NFC. To avoid duplication of effort, the lakes sampled intensively by the MEMP (Cross, Sipiwesk, Stephens, Split, Rat, and Threepoint) were not investigated under FEMP. Numerous scientific studies have been conducted following completion of the FEMP and a long term, ecosystem based monitoring program (the Coordinated Aquatic Monitoring Program or CAMP) was initiated in 2008.

A more detailed description of the studies conducted from 1971 to present is provided in Section 6.0.

JULY 2014


3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE DOWNSTREAM AREA

The Downstream Area for this appendix includes the Nelson River and its tributaries starting at the outlet of Lake Winnipeg and ending at Gull Rapids (Map 1: back cover).

The Downstream Area has a continental climate that is characterized by short, cool summers and long, cold winters. The mean annual temperature is less than 0°C, with a large range in annual temperature in the order of 39 to 42°C. Precipitation is moderate to light with the mean annual amounts ranging between 406 and 457 mm, and the majority falling as rain between May and October.

The Nelson River flows along the boundary between the Bear-Slave-Churchill Uplands and Superior Upland provinces of the Canadian Shield and through the Hudson Bay Lowland in its most downstream 150 km (93.2 mi). The upper Nelson River and a portion of the lower Nelson River flows through the Midwestern Canadian Shield forests terrestrial ecoregion and the lower portion flows through the Southern Hudson Bay Taiga ecoregion. The region was heavily glaciated and is covered by thin (< 2 m [6. 6 feet]) glacial till overburden and poorly drained peat-based wetlands. Vegetation is characterized by black spruce, aspen, and willows.

The Nelson River mainstem originates at the outflow of Lake Winnipeg and flows in a north to northeasterly direction for 680 km (422.5 mi), eventually emptying into Hudson Bay. It drains an area of approximately 100,000 km2 (37,000 mi2); however, since the Nelson River is the only outflow from Lake Winnipeg, its total watershed is approximately 1,100,000 km2 (425,000 mi2).

The Nelson River divides into two channels in its most upper headwaters: the East Channel conveys water past the community of Norway House and into Cross Lake; and the West Channel directs water through a series of smaller lakes, often referred to as the outlet lakes, past Jenpeg, and into Cross Lake where it meets with the East Channel. Playgreen Lake is the first in the series of outlet lakes. Several channels (see Figure 1) were constructed by Manitoba Hydro to increase the outflow capacity from Lake Winnipeg (i.e., Two-Mile Channel, Eight-Mile Channel and the Ominawin Bypass Channel). Downstream of Cross Lake, the next major lake on the route is Sipiwesk Lake. The water level of Sipiwesk Lake was increased following the construction of the Kelsey GS in 1960.

The lower Nelson River runs fairly straight from Split Lake to its mouth on Hudson Bay in a single channel over a series of rapids. The most downstream 150 km (93 mi) of river is part of the marine intrusion zone that has rebounded above sea level since the glaciation. Prior to dam construction and reservoir creation, Split Lake was the only substantial lacustrine waterbody on the entire lower Nelson River. There are currently three hydro-electric generating stations located on the river: the Kettle GS, the Long Spruce GS, and the Limestone GS.

JULY 2014


Figure 1: Key features and Manitoba Hydro infrastructure in the outlet lakes area

JULY 2014


4.0 SCOPE OF THE REPORT

This appendix consists of the compilation and synthesis of existing, documented information in support of the plain language report. Although a large-scale environmental monitoring program (CAMP), as well as a number of environmental assessment studies for potential future hydro-electric developments,are being conducted, no new research or data collection was conducted specifically for this document.

The study area starts at the outlet of Lake Winnipeg and ends at Gull Rapids. Aside from LWR (which includes Jenpeg), this area has been affected by other hydro-electric developments including the Kelsey GS and the Churchill River Diversion (starting at Split Lake).

The Nelson River watershed has also been affected by other anthropogenic activities within its 1,100,000 km2 (425,000 mi2) watershed including: agricultural and industrial run-off; cottages and municipal developments; commercial and domestic fishing; commercial and domestic trapping; domestic hunting and gathering; sport and recreational hunting and fishing. This report does not attempt to describe changes caused by these activities unless required to provide context.

The Downstream Area has been divided into three areas (see Figure 2) generally based on the effects of LWR and other hydro-electric developments on the water regime (Appendix 3):

The outlet lakes area which includes the waterbodies between the outlet of Lake Winnipeg and Jenpeg (Playgreen Lake, Little Playgreen Lake, Kiskitto Lake, Kiskittogisu Lake, the East and West channels of the Nelson River);

The upper Nelson River area which includes the waterbodies between Jenpeg and the Kelsey GS (Cross Lake, Walker Lake, Pipestone Lake, Sipiwesk Lake, and the upper Nelson River); and

The reach of the lower Nelson River between the Kelsey GS and Gull Rapids.

JULY 2014


Figure 2: Delineation of study reaches

The temporal scope of the assessment includes both the pre- and post-LWR periods. The report synthesizes approximately 50 years of site-specific and regional environmental assessments as described in Section 6.0. Although there is an extensive body of information, there are some limitations to its use including:

a lack of pre-LWR scientific data which precludes the ability to conduct a quantitative assessment of post-LWR changes for some components and/or some areas;

while care was taken to ensure the accurate portrayal of information provided by the scientific studies, no attempt has been made to ascertain the correctness of the original scientific information which, in some cases, is contradictory;

comparisons of pre- and post-LWR data are often hindered by analytical or equipment changes that occur over time (e.g., changes in soil or water quality detection limits);

short-term effects (1976 to 1990) are known for some waterbodies but in some cases, the long-term effects have not been documented. For some waterbodies, there are no data from 1990 until 2008 when the CAMP was initiated by Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro; and

JULY 2014


differences in the “types” of studies conducted can make comparisons difficult (e.g., resource management studies often target key fish species to monitor their abundance at specific locations over time while impact assessment studies set nets randomly to determine habitat use by the broader fish community.

Quantifying the effects of hydro-electric developments on components that are harvested either commercially (e.g., aquatic furbearers) or domestically or for sport (e.g., moose) is difficult as populations will reflect the level of harvest which is often linked to economics (e.g., fur prices) or resource management decisions (e.g., changes in harvest quotas).

Other factors not related to hydro-electric development (e.g., climate change; introduction of invasive species; agricultural and industrial run-off; waste-water inputs; mining) have also affected the environment. In most cases, it is not possible to separate the effects of LWR from other projects or activities (e.g., in some areas the introduction of Rainbow Smelt into the LWR study area has resulted in major changes to fish populations).

While the above limits the ability to quantify impacts on some components, these types of limitations are common in studies covering a broad region and a long timeframe.

JULY 2014


5.0 PATHWAYS OF EFFECTS

This appendix notes the general effects of LWR on the specific waterbody but the overall effects downstream of Cross Lake that are included in this report are sometimes more attributable to other hydro-electric developments rather than LWR itself. In many cases, the effects of these developments can only be considered collectively and not individually.

The types of effects vary between waterbodies as the pathways of effects are different. As illustrated in Figure 3, each pathway leads to one or more effects. In some cases, the pathways lead to the effects directly (e.g., the physical presence of Jenpeg blocked upstream fish movements). In other cases, the pathways lead to the effects indirectly (e.g., decreased water levels may negatively affect aquatic habitat; changes in aquatic habitat affect lower trophic level components such as benthic invertebrates; changes in benthic invertebrates which are an important food source negatively affect fish populations; and decreased fish populations lead to reduced harvests by fishers).

In general, the primary pathways of effects in areas with increased water levels include: changes in water depth and velocity; changes in water level fluctuations; changes in suspended sediment levels and sediment deposition; loss of aquatic habitat due to the physical presence of the facilities; the blockage of upstream fish movements; flooding of terrestrial habitat; loss of terrestrial habitat from roads/construction sites etc.; and habitat fragmentation.

In general, the primary pathways of effects in areas that experienced decreased water levels include: dewatering; changes in water depth and velocity; changes in water level fluctuations; changes in sedimentation and/or sediment re-suspension; changes in ice cover/slush ice and timing of freezing; loss of habitat due to the physical presence of the facilities; and the blockage of upstream fish passage; loss of terrestrial habitat from roads/construction sites etc.; and habitat fragmentation.

Regulated flows may also result in a daily and seasonal flows modifications (e.g., increased winter flows and decreased summer flows). This can affect the amount of habitat available and the transport of nutrients which may affect ecosystem productivity.;

Upstream of Jenpeg, the management of water is intended to keep Lake Winnipeg between 711 and 715 feet to provide drought protection and power production. The primary change was to increase water levels from a negligible amount in Playgreen Lake to a more substantial amount in the Jenpeg forebay and to provide a stabilizing effect on the range of water levels so extremes were minimized. Downstream of Jenpeg, the seasonal timing of discharges is reversed for low to average flow conditions associated with the peak of power production need in the winter. This modifies ecosystem function and trophic efficiency via reduced summer flows and associated delivery at the time of year when ecosystem productivity is greatest. During high flows water is released in a fashion that reduces upstream water levels while attempting to minimize the downstream impacts of increased flow releases.

JULY 2014


Figure 3: Summary of pathways of effects from operation of LWR

Aquatic Environment

ProjectEffects Pathways Linkages

Hydraulic Regime

Water Levels & Flows

Increase

Decrease

Seasonal Reversal

Project Footprint

Depth

Velocity

Ice Regime

Suspended Sediment Levels

Sediment Deposition

Water Level Fluctuations

Structures

Effluents, Runoff, Accidental Spills &

Releases

Access to Fisheries/Wildlife

Water Quality

Aquatic Habitat

Lower Trophic Levels

Fish

Terrestrial Environment

Type

Quantity

Algae

Aquatic Plants

Zooplankton

Benthic Invertebrates

Populations

Movements

Mercury

Terres -trial

Habitat

Type

Quantity

Lower Trophic Levels

Terrestrial/Riparian Plants

Insects

Wildlife

Reptiles/Amphibians

Birds

Mammals

Mercury

Flooding

Dewatering

JULY 2014


6.0 INFORMATION SOURCES

A number of baseline and environmental impact assessment studies were conducted prior to and during the construction of LWR. Several post-Project Environmental Reviews (PPERs) also have been conducted along with site-specific studies to address the specific effects of LWR. These studies will be used to describe the impacts of LWR on the aquatic and terrestrial environments in Section 8.0 of this appendix. The major studies undertaken include the studies described below.

6.1 LAKE WINNIPEG CHURCHILL AND NELSON RIVERS

STUDY BOARD 1971-1975

The “Canada-Manitoba Agreement for Lake Winnipeg and the Churchill and Nelson Rivers” was signed by representatives of Canada and Manitoba in 1971. Work under the Agreement was to be completed by 1974 (it was subsequently extended to 1975). The budget for the study was in excess of $2,000,000 (approximately $12,154,000 in 2014$). Government agencies that participated included:

Manitoba Environmental Protection Branch;

Manitoba Surveys, Mapping and Lands Branch;

Manitoba Water Resources Branch;

Manitoba Mines Branch;

Manitoba Department of Tourism, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs;

Manitoba Department of Mines, Resources and Environmental Management (Forestry Inventory Section); and

Environment Canada (Freshwater Institute).

Numerous experts also were involved from universities and consulting companies.

As a result of the Agreement, a comprehensive study was undertaken by the Lake Winnipeg, Churchill, and Nelson Rivers Study Board. The purpose of the study was:

“to determine the effects that regulation of Lake Winnipeg, diversion from the Churchill River and development of hydro-electric potential of the Churchill River Diversion route are likely to have on other water and related resource uses and to make recommendations for enhancing the overall benefits with due consideration for the protection of the environment.”

JULY 2014


The Terms of Reference for the study stated that:

“The study of probable effects of Manitoba Hydro’s projects must be sufficiently broad so as to include all important effects on the water regime and on related resource uses and it must be adapted to provide reliable data on present natural conditions and the conditions arising from the operation of the controls and diversion as designed and constructed.”

The study area was divided into six main areas (Figure 4) and a broad range of studies were conducted including physical, biological, heritage, resource use, and socio-economic studies. By the end of 1971, erosion, sedimentation, and recreation studies had been initiated and studies on the majority of the other components were initiated by 1972.

Figure 4: Location of LWCNRSB study areas (reproduced from Figure 3.2 of the

LWCNRSB Technical Report)

The results of these studies were provided in the following reports:

Technical report

App. 1 - Background documents and interim reports

App. 2 - Hydrologic, hydraulic, geomorphologic studies

JULY 2014


App. 3 - Biophysical, forestry, and geological studies

App. 4 - Existing works and services

App. 5 - Fisheries and limnology

App. 6 - Wildlife studies

App. 7 - Recreation and archaeological studies

App. 8 - Social and economic studies

Summary report.

The reports totaled over 9,000 pages plus background documents and the assessment was considered one of the most comprehensive studies of its time. The summary report provided a list of 47 recommendations for the entire LWCNRSB study area.

6.2 CROSS LAKE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

STUDY 1982-1986

In 1982, the Arbitrator for the Northern Flood Agreement ordered (Interim Order 11-2) that an environmental impact assessment be conducted to determine the effects of LWR on the “community life and environment of Cross Lake”. The study was to “identify the distribution of all significant quantifiable and qualitative impacts within the community” and “evaluate the effectiveness of proposed and study derived mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts”. Interim Order 11-2 also requested that an environmental impact statement be prepared.

The study was conducted by “The Nelson River Group” which worked closely with the community (both the First Nation and the Community Council) as well as the Cross Lake Fishermen’s Association, the Cross Lake Trapper’s Association, Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro, and Canada. The study team produced a comprehensive three volume environmental impact assessment study (Nelson River Group 1986 a, b, c):

Volume I: Key Issues and Impacts

Volume II: Evaluation of Mitigation Options

Volume III: Environmental Impact Statement.

JULY 2014


The reports covered the following broad range of topics and, where possible, compared pre-LWR and post-LWR conditions:

description of the Cross Lake communities;

socio-cultural values, employment, and recreation;

water quality and community health;

land exchange and hold areas;

land use and internal/external access;

description of LWR;

physical environment (e.g., water regime/slush ice);

fish, ungulates (moose and caribou), furbearers, and forestry; and

compensation and remedial programs.

The report provides a large amount of information on the effects of LWR shortly after it was in place and is particularly relevant due to the participation of the community and the comparison of pre-LWR and post-LWR conditions.

6.3 MANITOBA ECOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM

1985-1989

In 1981, Claim 18 was filed (following the process set out in the Northern Flood Agreement) by the five Northern Flood Agreement communities and the NFC which alleged that Canada, Manitoba, and Manitoba Hydro had not met recommendation number 10 of the LWCNRSB Report (1975) which stated that:

“appropriate government departments and agencies develop and implement a long-term coordinated ecological monitoring and research program to allow impact evaluation and assist in the ongoing management of the affected area.”

In response to this claim, the Manitoba Ecological Monitoring Program was developed by Manitoba and the Federal Ecological Monitoring Program was developed by Canada. A Program Advisory Board (PAB) was established in 1986 to coordinate the ecological monitoring and research programs being conducted in response to Claim 18 and received input from all parties.

Lakes that were studied by MEMP in the area affected by LWR included Cross Lake, Sipiwesk Lake, Split Lake, and Stephens Lake. Parameters

JULY 2014


studied included water quality, limnology, and fish populations. A large number of individual reports were produced and published as a result of MEMP (e.g., Green 1988b; Hagenson 1987a; Kirton 1986; etc.).

It should be noted that Playgreen Lake was not included under MEMP as detailed studies were being conducted on the lake by Manitoba Hydro (MacLaren Plansearch Inc. 1985) and by FEMP.

6.4 FEDERAL ECOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM 1986-1992

In response to Claim 18 (see above), Canada initiated the Federal Ecological Monitoring Program. FEMP conducted work on the areas affected by LWR but focused their work more on areas affected by CRD. The studies were initiated in 1986 and were conducted for a five year period at a cost of $1.8 million (approximately $3,467,000 in 2014$).

The results of these studies were provided in the following reports:

Series of annual reports;

Final report, two volumes (EC and DFO 1992a);

Summary report (EC and DFO 1992b); and

Technical appendices, two volumes.

The primary objectives of the program were:

determine pre-project conditions to the extent possible;

measure post-project conditions;

determine the cause of the change between pre-and post-project conditions;

assess viability of remedial and mitigation measures;

increase knowledge of factors that could affect future conditions; and

provide the results of the studies to the public.

The program included studies on “water quantity and quality, sediment s and morphology, mercury, fish and aquatic life, waterfowl, and resource harvesting”. The spatial scope of the studies “was the immediate vicinity of the six native communities”.

Although FEMP focused on CRD, a number of studies were conducted in the LWR area including:

benthic invertebrate surveys in Playgreen Lake;

whitefish genetic studies in Playgreen Lake and Lake Winnipeg;

JULY 2014


waterfowl surveys in the Norway House area;

resource harvesting by the residents of Cross Lake and Norway House; and

mercury methylation rates in Sipiwesk Lake.

As part of FEMP, Baker and Davies (1991) compiled all available information on the physical, chemical, and biological effects of LWR and CRD on aquatic ecosystems. The physical and chemical parameters included: water levels and flows; lake and river shorelines; erosion, sediment transport and deposition; debris; ice; and water quality. The biological parameters included: lower trophic levels; fish populations; fish movements; fish habitat; and mercury. The report provided a summary of the effects as well as a qualitative assessment of the extent pre-Project and post-Project effects and identified data gaps.

6.5 POST-PROJECT ASSESSMENT OF KELSEY AND LWR

IMPACTS ON WABOWDEN 1990

In 1990, the Mayor of Wabowden wrote Manitoba Hydro requesting compensation for the effects of Manitoba Hydro’s activities on the community. In his letter, Mayor Dram stated, in part “Changing water levels has adversely affected not only the commercial fishing industry but also tourism, hunting, sport fishing and camping”.

In response to the Mayor, Manitoba Hydro contracted a study team of independent experts to produce a report (MacKay et al. 1990) that:

organized the facts regarding the environmental impacts caused by LWR and the Kelsey GS;

drew conclusions regarding the extent of the biophysical impacts in terms of magnitude, prevalence, timing and controllability;

provided judgments regarding impacts on health and safety, traditional livelihoods, lifestyles and the use of recreational, aesthetic, education and historic features; and

estimated the value of the impacts and compared them to the value of impact management programming (mitigation/compensation) undertaken by Manitoba Hydro.

The study reviewed all available literature and conducted key person interviews in the community including interviews with affected fishers and trappers. The report provided information on the following: demographics; income and lifestyles; community services and infrastructure; water regime; navigation; ice; debris; commercial fishing (including fish populations and mercury); domestic fishing; sport fishing; commercial trapping (with a focus on aquatic furbearers); hunting (with a focus on waterfowl and ungulates).

JULY 2014


6.6 THE SPLIT LAKE CREE POST-PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 1996

The 1992 Split Lake NFA Implementation Agreement included a commitment to conduct a comprehensive post-Project environmental review (PPER) of the effects of hydro-electric development in the Split Lake Resource Management Area (RMA). The Split Lake Cree Post-Project Environmental Review was completed in 1996. The study was a unique undertaking where Manitoba Hydro and the Split Lake Cree worked jointly using both Traditional Knowledge and technical science to review the “context, nature, extent, and importance of the effects of existing Manitoba Hydro projects” including LWR on the Split Lake Cree. The results of the study were provided in a series of five reports (Split Lake Cree First Nation 1996; Manitoba Hydro-Split Lake Cree Joint Studies 1996; Split Lake Cree-Manitoba Hydro Joint Studies Group 1996a, b, c):

The five volumes included:

Volume 1: Analysis of Change: Split Lake Cree First Nation

Volume II: History and First Order Effects

Volume III: Environmental Matrices

Volume IV: Environmental Baseline Evaluation

Volume V: Summary and Conclusions.

Following the release of these documents the Split Lake Cree formed the Tataskweyak Environmental Monitoring Agency (TEMA) and continued to monitor water quality, sedimentation, invertebrates, fish, and fish habitat in the Split Lake area for an additional two years.

JULY 2014


7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS

The assessment of environmental effects in this appendix is focused on select environmental components that are considered important to the local communities and that were materially affected by LWR. These include:

water quality;

fish populations;

mercury;

waterfowl;

aquatic furbearers; and

ungulates (moose and caribou).

It should be noted, however, that the effects of the Project on other parts of the environment are linked to and reflected in the components listed above. For example, large decreases in benthic invertebrates (which are a major food source for fish) would be reflected in a charge or decrease in the fish populations.

The components listed above were selected for reasons described below.

7.1 WATER QUALITY

Water quality is important as it affects the ability of the aquatic environment to support aquatic life. It is also important to the people who live in the area who use the water for drinking purposes, transportation, recreation, and a variety of other uses. Water quality also was selected as a key component as it often represents pathways that link the direct effects of a project to the effects on the aquatic environment.

7.2 FISH POPULATIONS

Fish were selected as a key component due to their importance to domestic and commercial resource harvesters in the area affected by LWR. Fish also act a good indicator of the level of effects that a project has on the environment as they occupy different positions in the food web and a range of habitats in the aquatic ecosystem.

Lake Sturgeon are culturally important to First Nation members and are particularly sensitive to many human activities including hydro-electric development. Due to this, and their current designation as endangered in the Nelson River system by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) and their potential listing as endangered under The Species at Risk Act, they will receive special attention in this document.

JULY 2014


Source: North/South Consultants Inc.

Lake Whitefish

It should be noted that fish populations respond to habitat changes caused by hydro-electric development over several generations and it is expected that changes were still occurring to fish communities in some areas in response to previous hydro-electric developments when LWR became operational. Moreover, the fish community also has been affected by commercial and domestic fisheries, and, post-LWR, by the arrival of Rainbow Smelt c.1996.

7.3 MERCURY

Mercury was selected as a key component due to the importance of fish to the commercial and domestic fisheries in the impacted communities and the effect of mercury on the suitability of fish for consumption (due to the risk to human health). Mercury became a key issue in the late 1970s due to increased mercury levels caused by flooding (particularly CRD) and, although levels have generally declined since flooding, and in most cases have reached pre-LWR/CRD levels, it remains a concern in many communities.


Lake Sturgeon

JULY 2014


7.4 WATERFOWL

Waterfowl includes birds like diving ducks (e.g., scaup, scoter), dabbling ducks (e.g., mallards), and Canada goose. Waterfowl were selected due to their importance to resource harvesters in the area and, to some extent, can also act as a surrogate for other shorebirds. Waterfowl are affected by hydro-electric developments in several ways with the flooding of habitat and water level fluctuations often being primary pathways to effects.

Canada Goose Scaup

MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT

Mercury is naturally found in small amounts in rocks, soils, and plants, as well as in all lakes, streams, and oceans. Mercury enters aquatic systems directly through effluents and atmospheric deposition, and from weathering of rock and flooding of land. Once in the water, this inorganic mercury may be converted to the more toxic methylmercury form by bacteria. The increase of methylmercury after flooding results from the introduction of inorganic mercury and organic nutrients to the water and the subsequent increase in the activity of the methylating bacteria.

The primary way that animals and people take up methylmercury is through their diet. Mercury concentrations in water are generally far too low to have any material effect on human health. Once in the water, tiny plants and animals (plankton) take up the methylmercury and pass it to bugs or small fish that eat them which are eaten by larger fish which are eaten by people (concentration increases with each level of the food chain).

Methylmercury in fish in hydro-electric reservoirs generally shows an initial increase and then decreases over time, with maximum mean levels usually occurring within 10 years after flooding and declining to pre-impact levels after about 20-30 years. In northern Manitoba reservoirs, maximum mean methylmercury concentrations in species such as whitefish have not substantially exceeded the recommended concentration of 0.2 ppm in fish muscle to be consumed by people who regularly eat fish domestically, whereas jackfish and pickerel have commonly exceeded 0.5 ppm, the commercial sale limit instituted by Health Canada. Methylmercury concentrations generally increase with fish age or body size, such that the largest/oldest individuals have concentrations that are much higher than the average for the species.

JULY 2014


7.5 AQUATIC FURBEARERS

Aquatic furbearers include animals like beaver, otter, mink, and muskrat. Aquatic furbearers were selected due to the importance to trapping by the affected communities. Aquatic furbearers also are more likely to be affected by flooding and water level fluctuations (particularly in winter) than terrestrial furbearers.

Beaver Muskrat

7.6 UNGULATES (MOOSE AND CARIBOU)

Ungulates are large hoofed animals. Moose were selected due to their importance to domestic harvesters (moose meat is often the largest single source of country food in northern communities). Woodland caribou were selected due to their low population numbers and their sensitivity to disturbance. In Manitoba, woodland caribou are listed as “threatened” under Manitoba’s The Endangered Species Act and the federal Species at Risk Act.

Source: Wildlife Resource Consulting Services MB Inc.

Moose Caribou

JULY 2014


8.0 BIOPHYSICAL EFFECTS OF LWR

The discussion of biophysical effects presents some of the impacts as separate pathways and some will be presented as collective impacts generated by several pathways.

8.1 OUTLET LAKES AREA

The outlet lakes area extends from Warren Landing northward to Jenpeg and includes the East and West channels of the Nelson River, several lakes (Playgreen Lake, Little Playgreen Lake, Kiskitto Lake, and Kiskittogisu Lake), and connecting streams. A map of the outlet lakes area showing the general locations of key studies that occurred in the periods both before and after regulation is illustrated in Figure 5.

8.1.1 SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL CHANGES FROM REGULATION

The physical effects of LWR on water levels and flows in the outlet lakes area are described in greater detail in Appendix 3. Prior to regulation, the only natural outflow from Lake Winnipeg was Warren Landing, a narrow, rocky constriction at the outlet of Lake Winnipeg. Flows naturally exited Playgreen Lake through the East Channel and through Whiskey Jack Narrows in the north basin of the lake, where it entered Kiskittogisu Lake. The drainage pattern of the area was altered by LWR with the excavation of three diversion channels whose purpose was to bypass natural constrictions in the Nelson River and increase flows out of Lake Winnipeg.

Flows and water levels in Playgreen Lake are primarily a function of the water level on the north basin of Lake Winnipeg but are also influenced by the operation of LWR. The construction of Two-Mile Channel between Lake Winnipeg and Playgreen Lake improved flow capacity out of Lake Winnipeg and improved the efficiency with which the upper Nelson River could be controlled. Eight-Mile Channel was excavated between the south basin of Playgreen Lake and Kiskittogisu Lake to divert a large proportion of the flow through Kiskittogisu Lake and increase discharge from Playgreen Lake. Channel improvements downstream of Kiskittogisu Lake (the Ominawin Bypass Channel) increased outflow capacity. Operations at Jenpeg (see Figure 5) regulate the release of water from the West Channel of the Nelson

Two-Mile Channel

JULY 2014


River into Cross Lake. Water levels in the Nelson River upstream of Jenpeg were impounded during its construction. Water levels and flows in the forebay are dependent on Jenpeg operations.

To prevent water in the West Channel from backing up into Kiskitto Lake under regulation, the Kiskitto Dam and Inlet Control Structure was built to regulate inflows, while outflows were diverted by way of an outflow diversion channel and a control structure into the Black Duck Creek. The control structures are operated to keep water levels on Kiskitto Lake within the lake’s natural range.

Kiskitto Dam

Black Duck Control Structure

JULY 2014


Figure 5: Map showing waterbodies and adjacent terrestrial areas sampled as part

of key pre- (symbol outline) and post-LWR (solid symbol) studies in the outlet lakes area. The studies are grouped such that programs that occurred over multiple years are depicted by a single symbol for each waterbody sampled (e.g., a study of whitefish stocks by Cann 1993 that

JULY 2014


occurred from 1982-1990 in Playgreen is represented by a single fish symbol).

8.1.2 WATER QUALITY

Potential pathways of effects to the water quality of Playgreen, Little Playgreen, Kiskitto, and Kiskittogisu lakes due to LWR would primarily have been related to changes in flow rates and patterns due to the construction of Two-Mile, Eight-Mile, and Ominawin Bypass channels and regulation of flows. Changes in locations and rates of inflows from Lake Winnipeg into Playgreen Lake could have affected spatial water quality patterns due to differences between Lake Winnipeg and Playgreen Lake water quality conditions, notably in relation to localized shoreline erosion along the north shore of Lake Winnipeg.

The LWCNRSB (1975) predicted the following effects of LWR on the outlet lakes, in relation to water quality:

“The chemical, bacteriological and physical composition of the water flowing through the outlet lakes is not anticipated to change substantially as a result of the construction and operation of works to regulate discharges from Lake Winnipeg. Lake Winnipeg is the prime source of water for the outlet lakes and with regulation it will continue to be the primary source. An increase in suspended sediments due to channel excavation has occurred during construction and it will continue to increase.”

“The works that are under construction to regulate the discharges from Lake Winnipeg are expected to affect the transparency values of the outlet lakes. It is anticipated that during periods of strong onshore winds in the vicinity of the Two-Mile Channel entrance, a greater load of suspended sediment material will be transported into Playgreen Lake than that which now enters via Warren Landing…The north shore [of Lake Winnipeg] deposits produce a very pronounced local turbidity during onshore winds. This effect, augmented by such shore drift as may exist at the Two-Mile Channel entrance, will presumably provide sediment-laden water for delivery through the new channel into Playgreen Lake. This will occur during the ice-free period when winds are southerly. The magnitude of this predicted sediment transport phenomenon has not been estimated but it will probably be most noticeable in Playgreen Lake between the Two-Mile and Eight-Mile channels, and perhaps in Little Playgreen Lake and the East Channel.”

Eight-Mile Channel

JULY 2014


“There will also be a reduction of winter oxygen concentrations [in the north basin of Playgreen Lake] which are already lowest in this part of the Playgreen-Kiskittogisu system; however this effect is unlikely to be of significance.”

“There will be a significant decrease in the annual heat transport from Lake Winnipeg into the outlet lakes due to increased discharge in winter when Lake Winnipeg is cold, and decreased discharge in summer when Lake Winnipeg is warm.”

“A direct result of Eight-Mile Channel will be an increase in the flushing rate of the main south basin of Kiskittogisu Lake…This should provide a more favourable loading regime of nutrients, algae and allochthonous organic matter from Lake Winnipeg… Kiskittogisu Lake may be cleared of some of its internally-induced turbidity generated during the open water season.”

8.1.2.1 COMMUNITY CONCERNS

Water quality is one of the most common issues raised by the affected communities downstream of Lake Winnipeg. The main concerns expressed to Manitoba Hydro by the Norway House community related to increased turbidity due to increased erosion through Two-Mile Channel, increased algae during the open water period, the presence of mercury in the water, and the overall quality of the water for drinking and recreation. Members of the Norway House community have stated that the quality of the water has been affected by LWR but also by a number of other factors including sewage from the City of Winnipeg.

8.1.2.2 CURRENT CONDITIONS

Playgreen Lake and Little Playgreen Lake are monitored on a three-year rotational basis under Manitoba/Manitoba Hydro’s CAMP, which was initiated in 2008. Monitoring of water quality – specifically, conditions with respect to protection of aquatic life – is a major component of CAMP. Information on water quality conditions and its suitability for aquatic life gathered over the period of 2008-2010 from this area is summarized below.

Water quality of the upper Nelson River waterbodies monitored under CAMP in 2008-2010, including Playgreen and Little Playgreen lakes, can be generally described as moderately nutrient-rich to nutrient-rich, slightly alkaline, moderately hard to hard, and well-oxygenated. Playgreen and Little Playgreen lakes did not stratify in the years sampled (Table 2).

JULY 2014


Table 2: Water quality summary: Upper Nelson River area (from CAMP 2014)

Metric Waterbody

Playgreen

Lake

Little Playgreen

Lake Cross Lake Walker

Lake Setting Lake

Thermal Stratification (Y/N) No No No Yes (spring 2010)

Yes (spring, summer, fall 2008; and spring and summer 2009)

TP - Whole year (mg/L) 0.041 0.042 0.040 0.025 0.027

TP - Open-water season (mg/L) 0.041 0.041 0.033 0.029 0.022

TP Trophic Status - Whole year

- Eutrophic Eutrophic Eutrophic Meso-eutrophic

Meso-eutrophic

TP Trophic Status - Open-water season

Eutrophic Eutrophic Meso-eutrophic

Meso-eutrophic

Meso-eutrophic

TN - Whole year (mg/L) 0.45 0.66 0.59 0.55 0.54

TN - Open-water season (mg/L) 0.42 0.71 0.57 0.57 0.51

TN Trophic Status - Whole year

Mesotrophic Eutrophic Mesotrophic Mesotrophic Mesotrophic

TN Trophic Status - Open-water season

Mesotrophic Eutrophic Mesotrophic Mesotrophic Mesotrophic

Secchi Disk Depth (m) 0.81 0.73 1.00 2.53 1.77

DO Lower than MWQSOGs for PAL

(Y/N) No No Yes (at depth; some

winters)

Yes (at depth; winter)

Yes (at depth; winter, some

summers)

Conductivity (µmhos/ cm)

316.9 312.3 292 138.8 157

TSS (mg/L) 11.2 9.4 7.8 1.5 2.7

DOC (mg/L) 8.5 9.6 10.4 10.2 13.8

Hardness (mg/L) 126.1 117.8 115 72.2 82

pH - 8.22 8.3 8.16 8.13 8.07

Metals > MWQSOGs for PAL - Al, Fe Al, Fe Al, Fe - Al, Ag

Chlorophyll a - Whole year (µg/L) 5.83 3.57 7.04 3.84 3.33

Chlorophyll a - Open-water season

(µg/L) 7.33 4.06 8.96 4.73 4.15

Chlorophyll a Trophic Status - Whole year

- Mesotrophic Mesotrophic Mesotrophic Mesotrophic Mesotrophic

Chlorophyll a Trophic Status - Open-water season

- Mesotrophic Mesotrophic Eutrophic Mesotrophic Mesotrophic

JULY 2014


Most water quality parameters were within Manitoba Water Quality Standards, Objectives and Guidelines (MWQSOGs) for the protection of aquatic life (PAL) in Playgreen and Little Playgreen lakes including dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, nitrate, ammonia, and most metals. Total phosphorus concentrations, which on average indicate eutrophic conditions, exceeded the Manitoba narrative guideline for nutrients (0.025 mg/L for lakes, reservoirs, and ponds) in both lakes. In addition, aluminum concentrations were above the MWQSOG PAL in all samples collected from both lakes. Although the average concentrations of iron were within the PAL guideline, the PAL guideline was exceeded in 25% and 50% of samples collected in Playgreen and Little Playgreen lakes, respectively.

Exceedances of the narrative guideline for TP and the PAL guidelines for aluminum and iron are relatively common in Manitoba waterbodies, including lakes and rivers not affected by Manitoba Hydro’s hydraulic system (Figures 6, 7, and 8).

Nutrients and their effects on primary production (e.g., phytoplankton) are a common issue in aquatic ecosystems around the world. TP and chlorophyll a measured under CAMP along the upper and lower Nelson River and in nearby off-system waterbodies from 2008 to 2012 were summarized to examine potential changes in these key parameters along the river as water flows through various lakes and reservoirs (Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership 2013). Chlorophyll a concentrations were generally similar along the Nelson River, though higher measurements have been periodically measured in lakes downstream of Lake Winnipeg, including Playgreen Lake, during CAMP.

Collectively, this information indicates that there are no substantive changes in either parameter from Playgreen Lake to Gull Rapids. That is, based on this dataset, phytoplankton abundance does not successively increase in lakes and reservoirs along the Nelson River.

The similar levels of chlorophyll a observed between the on-system waterbodies and the off-system Setting Lake indicates that primary productivity is not notably higher in lakes located downstream of Lake Winnipeg than a nearby waterbody outside of the Lake Winnipeg drainage basin and unaffected by Manitoba Hydro’s hydraulic system. Further, TP concentrations are actually significantly lower in Setting Lake than Cross or Split lakes (Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership 2013) suggests that algal growth is limited by factors other than phosphorus in on-system lakes and reservoirs.

JULY 2014


Figure 6: Mean ±Standard Error (SE) total phosphorus in waterbodies sampled as part of CAMP, 2008-2010 (modified from CAMP 2014). Dashed lines indicate the Manitoba narrative guideline for TP. Off-system waterbodies are indicated in green1.

1 Walker Lake is considered an off-system waterbody by CAMP; however, it is recognized that water levels on the lake are affected by regulation when water levels on Cross Lake are greater than 207.57 m (681 feet). See discussion in Section 8.2.1.

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

Playgreen L. Little Playgreen L. Cross L. Walker L. Setting L. Split L. Assean L.

Tota

l pho

spho

rus

(mg/

L)

Guideline for streams

Guideline for lakes, ponds, reservoirs and streams near the point of entry to these waterbodies

Outlet Lakes Upper Nelson River Below Kelsey

JULY 2014


Figure 7: Mean (±SE) aluminum concentrations in waterbodies sampled as part of CAMP, 2008-2010 (modified from CAMP 2014). Off-system waterbodies are indicated in green. The dashed line indicates the MWQSOG for PAL2.


0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Playgreen L. Little PlaygreenL.

Cross L. Walker L. Setting L. Split L. Assean L.

Tota

l alu

min

um (

mg/

L)


JULY 2014


Figure 8: Mean (±SE) iron concentrations measured in waterbodies sampled as part of CAMP, 2008-2010 (modified from CAMP 2014). Off-system waterbodies are indicated in green. The dashed line indicates the MWQSOG for PAL3.


0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

Playgreen L. Little PlaygreenL.

Cross L. Walker L. Setting L. Split L. Assean L.

Tota

l iro

n (m

g/L)


JULY 2014


8.1.2.3 PROJECT EFFECTS

Several studies have examined the effects of LWR on water quality in Playgreen and Little Playgreen lakes, though the conclusions were not always consistent. These differences may reflect the specific data sets examined, differences in sampling site locations used for the analysis, and/or differences in time frames examined.

Some water quality parameters varied between Playgreen Lake and Lake Winnipeg (some constituents were higher in Playgreen Lake prior to LWR), and water quality varied spatially in Playgreen Lake, prior to LWR. A representative satellite image of Playgreen Lake prior to LWR is presented in Figure 9. Construction of Two-Mile Channel altered the flow patterns and spatial variability in water quality within Playgreen Lake through creation of a new inflow location. Although construction of Two-Mile Channel resulted in the introduction of suspended sediments from shoreline erosion along the north shore of Lake Winnipeg and in Two-Mile Channel, “significant mineral plumes” existed in the south basin of Playgreen Lake prior to LWR due to shoreline erosion in the lake itself (MacLaren Plansearch 1985). This general spatial variability both pre- and post-LWR can be seen in representative satellite images presented in Figures 9 and 10.

I.D. Systems Ltd. (1993) suggested that spatial variability in the water quality of Playgreen Lake likely reflects the presence of Two-Mile Channel, but that the lake is also affected by high levels of erosion along the south shore. However, the authors also concluded that water clarity in Playgreen Lake was not affected by LWR.

A study conducted to determine the effects of Two-Mile and Eight-Mile channels found that pH, chloride, and true colour increased after LWR near Two-Mile Channel (MacLaren Plansearch Inc. 1985). The authors also found some parameters (hardness, sodium, soluble nitrogen, iron, suspended carbon, and total suspended solids [TSS]) increased along a gradient from Lake Winnipeg into the south basin of Playgreen Lake, which they postulated may be due to erosion along the north shore of Lake Winnipeg. Conversely, waters around Two-Mile Channel were found to be somewhat more “dilute” after LWR during some periods.

Water temperature also appears to have been affected by LWR in Playgreen Lake, though the effects vary seasonally. MacLaren Plansearch Inc. (1985) reported that a colder plume occurred downstream of Two-Mile Channel in spring after LWR and indicated that this area should be warmer in fall, relative to other areas of the lake.

JULY 2014


Figure 9: Two representative landsat MSS images of Playgreen Lake: (a) July 28,

1973; and (b) November 7, 1974

JULY 2014


Figure 10: Example satellite image illustrating spatial variability in water clarity in

Playgreen Lake and Lake Winnipeg. Image was taken on September 26, 2011 and was obtained from Noetix Research (2012)

JULY 2014


There have been two studies that have statistically evaluated water quality data in the vicinity of Norway House by comparing data collected before and after LWR (Table 3; Playle and Williamson 1986; Williamson and Ralley 1993). This monitoring site is on the East Channel of the Nelson River, which carries less flow (15%) than the West Channel (85% of the flow) and is more affected by inflows at Warren Landing than Two-Mile Channel. Both studies indicated no changes to colour, hardness, conductivity, pH, alkalinity, calcium, sodium, chloride, and total coliform bacteria. The conclusions regarding other water quality parameters examined differ between the two studies, likely due to the specific breakdown in time periods that were compared. The more recent study (Williamson and Ralley 1993) was conducted using a longer-term of record (up to 1992) and specifically excluded data collected in 1976 (included in the earlier study) to omit potential short-term construction effects. The more recent analysis indicated an increase in phosphorus and organic carbon and a decrease in nitrogen (measured as total Kjeldahl nitrogen which is the sum of organic nitrogen and ammonia), nitrate/nitrite nitrogen (a form of inorganic nitrogen), and inorganic carbon; water clarity was not significantly different pre- and post-LWR at this site.

An assessment of long-term trends in nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) in Manitoba streams indicated that phosphorus decreased in the East Channel of the Nelson River at Norway House over the period of 1975 to 1999, while nitrogen showed no trend (Jones and Armstrong 2001). Potential reasons for the observed change in phosphorus were not discussed.

Williamson and Ralley (1993) stated that “The greatest probable source of water quality changes in the surface water near Norway House was the construction of various channels and control structures in relation to [LWR]. Increases of phosphorus and total organic carbon, coincident with [LWR] construction, could potentially increase the productivity of lakes in this area”. This area includes Playgreen Lake, Little Playgreen Lake, and the Nelson River.

Water quality was also studied under FEMP and included sampling of the Nelson River below Sea River Falls (i.e., East Channel of the Nelson River downstream of Norway House; Ramsey 1991a). Quantitative (i.e., statistical) comparisons of water quality before and after LWR could not be undertaken due to inadequate pre-LWR data. However, Ramsey (1991a) concluded “Qualitative comparison indicates no marked change in physical and chemical water quality.”

An assessment of changes in metals due to LWR is hampered by the limited quantity of pre-LWR data and notably, by changes in analytical methods.

While water quality sampling has been conducted in Kiskitto and Kiskittogisu lakes and the West Channel of the Nelson River, an assessment of effects of LWR on these areas has not been undertaken to date.

JULY 2014


Table 3: Summary of temporal changes in selected water quality parameters in the outlet lakes area: Nelson River near Norway House. Increases and decreases are noted where they are statistically significant. NC = no change; “-” = not analyzed.

Parameter Playle and Williamson (1986)

Williamson and Ralley (1993)

Pre-June 30 1976 vs. post-July 1 1976

1972-1975 vs. 1977-1984

1972-1975 vs. 1987-1992

1977-1984 vs. 1987-1992

TSS - NC NC NC

Turbidity increase NC NC NC

Colour NC NC NC NC

TP increase increase increase NC

TIC increase decrease increase increase

TOC increase increase NC decrease

TKN decrease decrease decrease NC

Nitrate/nitrite - decrease decrease NC

Hardness NC NC NC NC

Conductivity NC NC NC NC

pH NC NC NC NC

Alkalinity NC NC NC NC

Calcium NC NC NC NC

Magnesium NC NC increase increase

Sodium NC NC NC NC

Potassium NC - - -

Chloride NC NC NC NC

Sulphate decrease NC NC NC

Faecal coliform bacteria

NC NC increase increase

Total coliform bacteria

NC NC - -

JULY 2014


8.1.2.4 SUMMARY

Not all studies reached the same conclusions regarding the nature of the effects of LWR in this area, but it has been noted that some water quality parameters were affected near Two-Mile and Eight-Mile channels (i.e., pH, chloride, and true colour).

Within Playgreen Lake, construction of Two-Mile Channel altered the flow patterns and spatial variability in water quality within the lake through creation of a new inflow location. It has also been suggested that erosion along the north shore of Lake Winnipeg, coupled with the construction of Two-Mile Channel, may have affected water quality in at least a portion of Playgreen Lake. Thermal patterns also appear to have been altered in Playgreen Lake.

Effects of LWR on water quality in the East Channel of the Nelson River (near Norway House) included an increase in phosphorus, a temporary increase in organic carbon, and a decrease in nitrogen. Williamson and Ralley (1993) stated that “The greatest probable source of water quality changes in the surface water near Norway House was the construction of various channels and control structures in relation to [LWR]. Increases of phosphorus and total organic carbon, coincident with [LWR] construction, could potentially increase the productivity of lakes in this area”. Ramsey (1991a) concluded “Qualitative comparison indicates no marked change in physical and chemical water quality” in the Nelson River below Sea River Falls.

An assessment of the effects of LWR on water quality of Kiskitto and Kiskittogisu lakes has not been undertaken to date.

8.1.3 FISH POPULATIONS

Effects to the fish community of Playgreen Lake, Little Playgreen Lake, and Kiskittogisu Lake due to LWR would primarily have been related to changes in flow rates due to the excavation of the Two-Mile, Eight-Mile, and Ominawin Bypass channels and regulation of water levels by Jenpeg. Effects to the fish community of Kiskitto Lake differ from the other outlet lakes in that the outlet of Kiskitto Lake was dammed to prevent increased flows down the West Channel from backing up into the lake. Here, effects to the fish community would be primarily related to increased and more stable water levels and the blockage of access to other waterbodies that the fish may have required to fulfill their life history requirements.

The LWCNRSB (1975) predicted that LWR would result in a decline in the fish production capacity of Playgreen Lake over the short-term (five years) due to a reduction in benthic production as a result of increases in sedimentation. Sedimentation was also predicted to reduce the spawning habitat available to Lake Sturgeon in the south basin of Playgreen Lake and reduce the spawning success of Lake Whitefish in the East Channel and Little Playgreen Lake. It was unknown whether the construction of Two-Mile Channel would alter migration patterns between Lake Winnipeg and Playgreen Lake. Changes to the water regime in Kiskittogisu Lake resulting from the construction of Eight-Mile Channel was expected to result in an increase in fish production over the long-term, and, in particular, improve condition for Lake

JULY 2014


Whitefish by increasing the standing crops of benthic invertebrates. The loss of the Kiskittogisu River as a result of the excavation of Eight-Mile Channel was anticipated to reduce Walleye populations by eliminating important spawning and rearing habitat. Increased water levels on Kiskittogisu Lake and the north basin of Playgreen Lake were not thought to have any effect on fish populations as levels would be within the natural ranges. However, the greater fluctuations in water levels could have adverse effects on incubating Walleye eggs.

Creation of the Jenpeg forebay would benefit Northern Pike populations due to the flooding of terrestrial habitat, but water level fluctuations resulting from the operation of Jenpeg were expected to reduce the reproductive success of fall-spawning species such as Lake Whitefish. The LWCNRSB felt that unless fish passage was provided, Jenpeg would block any upstream fish migrations that occurred in this section of the Nelson River.

Increased water level stability on Kiskitto Lake under regulation was predicted to result in an increase in fish production, notably of Walleye, Northern Pike, and Goldeye. However, it was also speculated that the blockage of fish movements by the Kiskitto dam could have detrimental effects to fish populations if fish stocks in the lake were dependent on production from other areas (Kiskitto Lake Regulation Committee 1977). Erosion and sediment in Black Duck Creek and Drunken Lake could have adverse effects on Northern Pike and Walleye stocks.


The main concerns expressed to Manitoba Hydro by the Norway House community related to the commercial fishery in Playgreen Lake and the domestic fishery in Little Playgreen Lake. The primary effects of LWR on the commercial fishery were reported to be increased debris in gill nets (resulting in increased work, loss of nets, and decreased catch), reduced fish populations, and a re-distribution of fish due to flow changes caused by Two-Mile Channel. The primary effects related to the domestic fishery were reported to be reduced fish populations, increased debris, and a decrease in the quality (taste, texture, and mercury) of the fish.


Fish populations in Playgreen Lake and Little Playgreen Lake are currently monitored every three years as part of Manitoba Hydro and Manitoba’s CAMP (CAMP 2014). The fish assemblage in both lakes is dominated by White Sucker, Northern Pike, and Walleye. Spottail Shiner is the dominant forage fish species in both lakes. However, Playgreen Lake has a much higher proportion of Emerald Shiner and Rainbow Smelt than Little Playgreen Lake. The catch-per-unit-effort using standard gang index gill nets in Playgreen and Little Playgreen lakes is among the highest as compared to lakes along the upper Nelson River and the Nelson River downstream of Kelsey that are monitored as part of CAMP (Figure 11).

JULY 2014


Figure 11: Mean CPUE for all fish species captured by standard gang index gill nets in waterbodies sampled as part of CAMP, 2008-2010 (modified from Figure 6.5-3 in CAMP 2014). Off-system waterbodies are indicated in green, and on-system indicated in blue4.

In Playgreen Lake, strong year classes were observed for Northern Pike each year from 2001 to 2004 and for Walleye in 2001, 2002, and 2005. Strong cohorts of Northern Pike were observed in Little Playgreen Lake from 2004 to 2007 and of Walleye in 2002, 2003, and 2005. The incidence of external abnormalities (collectively referred to as DELTs) observed in these lakes is considered to be low (<3%).

Of the outlet lakes, all but Little Playgreen Lake currently support a commercial fishery. For the period of 2008/09 to 2010/11 (FFMC unpubl. data), Kiskitto Lake produced an annual average of 11,207 kg (round weight) of quota species (Walleye and Northern Pike), Kiskittogisu Lake produced 11,200 kg (Walleye and Northern Pike), and Playgreen Lake 128,368 kg (Walleye, Lake Whitefish, and Sauger). Commercial fishers marketed an annual average of 66,715 kg of export-grade Lake Whitefish from Playgreen Lake and 2,036 kg from Kiskittogisu Lake during this period (FFMC unpubl. data).


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Tota

l CP

UE

(fis

h/24

hr/

100

m)


JULY 2014



While published information on the fish community of the outlet lakes area, particularly for Playgreen Lake, is available from both the pre- and post-LWR periods, differences in methodology between these studies limits the ability to assess the effects of LWR. Moreover, many of the fisheries studies sampled commercial catches, which are also affected by socio-economic factors (e.g., fish prices, fishing effort). The effect of the commercial and domestic fisheries, combined with the arrival of Rainbow Smelt in the early 1990s (Remnant et al. 1997) also have the potential to cause changes in the fish community structure that is not related to LWR. The following sections summarize the information contained in the scientific literature.

KISKITTOGISU, PLAYGREEN, AND LITTLE PLAYGREEN LAKES

Gillnetting surveys were conducted in Kiskittogisu and Playgreen lakes in 1970-1972 (Koshinsky 1973), but no pre-LWR information appears to have been collected on Little Playgreen Lake or the West Channel. After LWR, experimental gillnetting studies were conducted periodically on the fish community of Playgreen Lake since 1981 (O’Connor 1982; MacLaren Inc. 1985; MacLaren Plansearch Inc. and Beak Consultants Ltd. 1988; Cann 1993; Davies et al. 1998b). Of these studies, only Davies et al. (1998b) sampled Little Playgreen Lake, which is an important domestic fishing area for the Norway House community. There have been no studies of Kiskittogisu Lake in the post-Project period. Playgreen and Little Playgreen lakes are currently sampled every three years under CAMP (2009 and 2010, respectively). Much of the available post-regulation information is focused on the effects to Lake Whitefish as this species is extremely important to local resource harvesters.

Sopuck (1978) concluded that an increase in commercial Lake Whitefish catches in Playgreen Lake in the late-1970s was not the result of an influx of whitefish from Lake Winnipeg due to the construction of Two-Mile Channel since this trend had started in the late-1960s, prior to the construction of the channel. Observed decreases in the growth rate of Lake Whitefish in Playgreen Lake in the period immediately following regulation were not conclusively linked to regulation (Sopuck 1978; O’Connor 1982).

MacLaren Plansearch Inc. (1985) concluded that commercial catches of Lake Whitefish did not appear to have been affected by regulation. The authors also noted that the population showed characteristics of being overexploited. In contrast, a long-term monitoring program by Manitoba Fisheries Branch found that the whitefish population in Playgreen Lake was relatively stable from 1982 to1990 and did not appear to have been affected by the rate of exploitation (Cann 1993). The author noted that the general increase in catch–per-unit-effort observed over the 1984 to 1990 period supported predictions by the LWCNRSB that harvest levels would be lower for a five year period following construction of Jenpeg, but would return to pre-regulation levels thereafter.

MacLaren Plansearch Inc. and Beak Consultants Ltd. (1989) concluded that LWR had not reduced stock abundance in the Norway House Resource Management Area and speculated that the changes experienced on Playgreen Lake as a result of regulation were not of the magnitude or nature that would have resulted in measurable adverse effects to the fish community.

JULY 2014


As has been noted by MacLaren Plansearch Inc. and Beak Consultants Ltd. (1988), an analysis of long-term trends to the Playgreen Lake fish community is confounded by the use of a variety of sampling gear. While it is possible that temporal trends in the abundance and composition of the fish community in Playgreen Lake can be assessed by comparing catch-per-unit-effort among index gillnetting programs, it must be cautioned that such comparisons are limited due to differences in methodology between sampling programs (e.g., mesh sizes used, time of year, duration of sets) and the limited number of pre- and post-project datasets. The selection of sampling locations can also make comparisons difficult as some studies select sites to monitor commercial species while others select sites to monitor fish usage of the various types of habitat in the lake). To compare pre- and post-LWR catch-per-unit-effort (CUE) data, the CUE values for gill nets comprising similar mesh sizes (i.e., 1.5 to 5.5 inch mesh) were standardized to a net length of 100 m and were expressed as overnight sets (i.e., assumed 16-24 hours set durations). CUEs measured as part of CAMP studies in 2009 and 2010 were the highest on record (Figure 12). There appears to have been a shift in the species composition, with decreases in the CUEs of Lake Whitefish and Cisco and increases in the CUE of Walleye, White Sucker, Yellow Perch, and Rainbow Smelt. In contrast, a study of the domestic fishery by Davies et al. (1998b) found that the species composition in Playgreen Lake in 1994 was similar to that observed in the early 1970s, noting that the primary difference was a greater abundance of Longnose Sucker and White Sucker in the earlier study.

Studies of population genetics showed that there were at least two distinct populations of Lake Whitefish in Playgreen Lake and Lake Winnipeg prior to regulation, and that these populations had remained genetically distinct since LWR became operational (Bodaly et al. 1988; Kristofferson and Clayton 1990; Mavros and Bodaly 1992). Lake Whitefish continued to move extensively between Lake Winnipeg and Playgreen Lake after regulation, particularly during the spring and fall (Mavros and Bodaly 1992; Davies et al. 1998b).

Lake Sturgeon were historically found throughout the outlet lakes area, but are now rare or absent (Houston 1987). Lake Sturgeon populations were substantially depleted by overexploitation prior to hydro-electric development (primarily for the harvest of isinglass which was used as a clarifying material for wine and beer). It has been estimated that over 8,000 kg of isinglass, which is primarily prepared from the air bladder of Lake Sturgeon, was harvested from the Norway House area over a 60 year period in the 1800s (Petch 1992). By the 1950s, only a remnant population of Lake Sturgeon remained (Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship Fisheries Branch 2012). Some evidence suggests that habitat changes resulting from LWR, including the construction of Jenpeg and Ominawin Bypass Channel in spawning areas and increased sediment transportation to spawning reefs in Playgreen Lake, may have affected this remnant population (Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship Fisheries Branch 2012). The Playgreen Lake stocks of the Nelson River Lake Sturgeon are likely extirpated (Manitoba Department of Natural R esources 1994 cited in COSEWIC 2006).

JULY 2014


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1971 1971 1987 2009 2010

CU

E (#

fish

/10

0 m

/ove

rnig

ht s

et)

Lake Whitefish Walleye Northern Pike Other

Figure 12: Comparison of annual catch-per-unit-effort (CUE) values from index gill nets set in Playgreen Lake prior to (1971) and after LWR (1987-2010). CUE values were standardized to 100 m gill nets set overnight, but no corrections were made to differences in sampling location, duration, season, net mesh composition5.

KISKITTO LAKE

Baseline gillnetting surveys were conducted in Kiskitto Lake in 1972 (Koshinsky 1973). Fish community studies were not conducted again until repair works were necessitated in 2001 on the Kiskitto dam. Monitoring was conducted between 2004-2006 to confirm that fish were using the spawning habitat created in the inlet channel as compensation for a harmful alteration of fish habitat during the repair works (Shipley 2005; Dyck and Lawrence 2005, 2006). However, no experimental gillnetting has been done in the lake itself since regulation.

5 1971 studies by the province in August using five panels of 3-5.25" mesh and by Manitoba Hydro July-October using seven panels of 1.5-5" mesh (Koshinsky 1973); 1987 study by MacLaren Plansearch and Beak Consultants Ltd. (1988) in July using six panels of 1.5-5" mesh; and 2009-2010 study by CAMP in June using five panels of 2-5" mesh (CAMP 2014).

JULY 2014


NELSON RIVER CHANNELS

No published information about the fish community of the West Channel of the Nelson River was located for either the pre- or post-Project periods. Creation of the forebay upstream of Jenpeg would likely have resulted in a shift in the fish community towards species adapted to lacustrine conditions as has been observed at the generating stations on the lower Nelson River.

A gillnetting survey was conducted in the East Channel of the Nelson River downstream of Sea River Falls in 1973 (Ayles 1974), but no information appears to have been collected on the fish community in the East Channel after LWR became operational. Macdonald (1998) reported that Lake Sturgeon were known to occur in the East Channel after regulation, but in very low numbers. Since 1994, more than 35,000 Lake Sturgeon fingerlings and 1,000 yearlings have been stocked in the Sea River Falls area (Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship Fisheries Branch 2012). A recent study conducted by Manitoba Hydro captured 91 Lake Sturgeon at Sea River Falls, of which 67 (74%) had been PIT tagged, indicating that they had been stocked as yearlings by the Nelson River Sturgeon Management Board (McDougall and Pisiak 2012). Growth chronology interpretation suggests that a very high proportion of the remaining 26% of the fish were also stocked as yearlings.

8.1.3.4 SUMMARY

Fish communities in the outlet lakes area responded differently to regulation depending on the effects to the water regime. While post LWR water levels are slightly higher than pre LWR levels, this is a function of increased precipitation and resultant flows in the Nelson River watershed. Scientific studies indicate that changes in flows and flow patterns and an increase in water levels under regulation did not have a measurable effect on fish stocks of Playgreen Lake or Little Playgreen Lake. However, residents at Norway House have expressed concerns related to the effects of increased debris in their nets, the re-distribution of fish due to flow changes caused by Two-Mile Channel, and the quantity and quality of the fish (e.g., a change in the taste and texture of the fish). Currently, the catch-per-unit-effort in Playgreen Lake, as well as Little Playgreen Lake, is among the highest observed for all on-system waterbodies monitored as part of CAMP. There is no information on the post-LWR fish community of Kiskittogisu Lake, which was similarly affected by regulation. Playgreen Lake and Kiskittogisu Lake continue to support a commercial fishery for Walleye, Northern Pike, and export-grade Lake Whitefish.

The effects of relatively stable water levels due to the construction of the Kiskitto dam to fish communities in Kiskitto Lake are unknown. The lake continues to support a commercial fishery for Northern Pike and Walleye. In the West Channel of the Nelson River, fish populations likely responded to impoundment at Jenpeg with a shift in the community composition towards species adapted to lacustrine conditions as has been observed in other hydro-electric impoundments in Manitoba.

Lake Sturgeon were rare in the outlet lakes area prior to LWR as a result of overexploitation. Stocking efforts on the East Channel of the Nelson River appear to be contributing to sturgeon populations in the area.

JULY 2014


8.1.4 MERCURY

At the time of the publication of the LWCNRSB report (1975), little was known about the linkage between reservoir impoundment, mercury methylation, and its subsequent bioaccumulation in biota. Elevated mercury levels in fish from impoundments in the Churchill-Nelson river systems were first published in 1979, soon after the closures of the commercial fisheries of several lakes along the Churchill River Diversion route (Issett, Notigi, Mynarski, Rat, and Wapisu) from 1977-1978 due to observed high mercury levels (Bodaly and Hecky 1979). Since this time, a substantial amount of research has been conducted to study the evolution of mercury in hydro-electric reservoirs.


Although scientific studies have shown that there was no significant increase in the mercury content of fish from Playgreen Lake since LWR, residents of Norway House have frequently expressed concerns regarding the level of mercury in fish. As there was no Cree word for “mercury”, some of the information provided by government sources to the affected communities shortly after LWR, used the word “poison” which increased the level of concern regarding mercury in fish in all areas regardless of whether mercury levels increased or not.


Mercury concentrations in fish muscle tissues are currently monitored in Playgreen Lake and Little Playgreen Lake in concert with fish population studies as part of Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro’s CAMP (CAMP 2014). Mean length-standardized concentrations (standard means) for all fish species sampled from Playgreen and Little Playgreen lakes in 2010 were well below 0.5 ppm (Figure 13), which is the Health Canada standard for commercial marketing of freshwater fish in Canada (Health Canada 2007a, b) and the Manitoba aquatic life tissue residue guideline for human consumers (Manitoba Water Stewardship 2011). Standard means of Northern Pike from both lakes, and Walleye from Little Playgreen Lake marginally exceeded the guideline6 of 0.2 ppm that is generally considered the “safe consumption limit” for people eating “large quantities of fish” domestically (Wheatley 1979). For Lake Whitefish, the standard mean for Playgreen Lake and the normal mean for Little Playgreen Lake were substantially below 0.1 ppm. Standard means of Northern Pike and Walleye from Setting Lake, which is not affected by LWR, were generally higher than those of Northern Pike and Walleye from Playgreen and Little

6 This guideline was originally instituted as a “safe consumption limit” for people eating “large quantities of fish” for subsistence purposes (Wheatley, 1979) and has been used unofficially by Health Canada in the past. Currently, Health Canada may no longer recommend the value of 0.2 ppm but has not provided an alternative guideline for subsistence purposes. Nevertheless, no major international health agency has been identified which provides formal consumption restriction recommendations for subsistence use when fish mercury concentrations are less than 0.2 ppm (Wilson pers. comm. 2013). In the following text, 0.2 ppm will be referred to as “subsistence guideline”.

JULY 2014


Playgreen lakes. Normal means of Lake Whitefish were similar in these three lakes. Overall, the upper

Nelson River area was one of the CAMP regions that had relatively low fish mercury concentrations.


MERCURY IN FISH

Two studies have directly addressed the effects of LWR on fish mercury levels in the outlet lakes area. Baker and Davies (1991) summarized the physical, chemical, and biological effect of LWR on aquatic ecosystems and concluded (based on unpubl. DFO data for 1970-1982) that there was “no significant trend or increase in mercury content of fish from Playgreen Lake since LWR”.

Baker and Davies (1991) referred to mercury levels in Northern Pike and Walleye from Playgreen Lake listed in Derksen (1978b) as “elevated” (0.25-0.5 ppm). However, Derksen (1978b) considered the concentrations in commercial samples of Northern Pike (0.21-0.47 ppm) and Walleye (0.08-0.39 ppm) collected from Playgreen Lake (and Little Playgreen Lake) in 1970-1972 low compared to other lakes such as Cross Lake and Sipiwesk Lake which had naturally higher levels due to the geology of the area.

The second study was conducted in response to a claim under the NFA (Davies et al. 1998a) and included an assessment of mercury concentrations in Lake Whitefish, Northern Pike, and Walleye from Little Playgreen and Playgreen lakes. The authors reported that concentrations in all Lake Whitefish from (mainly) survey and commercial samples taken from 1970 to 1994 from both lakes were equal to or less than 0.2 ppm, the subsistence guideline. Davies et al. (1998a) further concluded that the much higher mercury content of individual Walleye (range: 0.02-0.56 ppm) and Northern Pike (range: 0.05-0.85 ppm) from Playgreen Lake and Little Playgreen Lake (Walleye range: 0.13-0.50 ppm; Northern Pike range: 0.33-1.02 ppm) compared to Lake Whitefish from the two lakes was usual, and that concentrations in the two piscivores were similar pre-LWR and post-LWR and were comparable to “un-impacted areas in Manitoba”.

Mean arithmetic mercury concentrations of fish from Playgreen and Little Playgreen lakes for all available sampling years are listed in Table 4. No information was collected on fish mercury levels from the area between 1995 and 2009. Considering that these data have not yet been standardized and include a only few small samples of relatively large fish, they indicate that fish mercury concentrations for Playgreen Lake and (with less certainty) Little Playgreen Lake have not changed much over the almost 40 years since LWR.

JULY 2014


Figure 13: Length-standardized mean (+95% confidence limit) mercury concentration of selected fish species from CAMP waterbodies in 2010 (modified from Figures 6.6-2, -3, and -4 from CAMP 2014). Dashed line indicates the 0.5 ppm Health Canada standard for retail fish and the 0.2 ppm subsistence guideline.

Northern Pike

Playgreen L

Lt. Playg

reen L

Cross L

Setting L

Split L

Assean L

Mer

cury

(pp

m)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Walleye

Playgreen L

Lt. Playg

reen L

Cross L

Setting L

Split L

Assean L

Mer

cury

(pp

m)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Lake Whitefish

Playgreen L

Lt. Playg

reen L

Cross L

Setting L

Split L

Assean L

Mer

cury

(pp

m)

0.0

0.1

0.2

Outlet Lakes Upper Nelson Below Kelsey



JULY 2014


Mercury concentrations in fish from Kiskitto and Kiskittogisu lakes have been reported in Derksen (1978a, b, 1979), who provided concentrations in Lake Whitefish (a few commercial samples only) and Northern Pike and Walleye (large numbers of commercial and survey samples) for 1970-1972. The authors commented that the high mercury levels in pike (>1 ppm in some individuals) are unlikely the result of the migration of fish from Lake Winnipeg (which had high mercury levels due to contamination from chlor-alkali plants and pulp and paper facilities), but may have been caused by natural sources of mercury in local bedrock. Derksen (1979) reported that at least until March 1971, all predatory species commercially captured from Kiskitto and Kiskittogisu lakes were retained due to mercury concentrations above 0.5 ppm, the standard that limits the commercial sale of fish in Canada (Health Canada 2007a, b). Data compiled by DFO (1987) show that out of the 841 kg of Northern Pike from commercial landings at Kiskitto Lake in 1978, 163 kg were rejected because of elevated mercury levels. No data from other years are presented and the results are not commented on by the author. Rannie and Punter (1987) reported more recent (up to 1982) mercury concentrations in commercial and survey samples of Lake Whitefish, Northern Pike, and Walleye from Kiskitto and Kiskittogisu lakes. Test statistics include mean, minimum, and maximum concentrations as well as the percent of samples exceeding 0.5 or 1.0 ppm. This compilation is, however, of limited use because, when data from multiple years were available, the data were pooled rather than presenting each year separately, different sample types were pooled, and the means were not standardized to fish length.

Table 4: Mean arithmetic mercury concentrations (ppm) for Lake Whitefish, Northern Pike, and Walleye captured from Playgreen Lake and Little Playgreen Lake from 1970-2010. Data for 1970-71 and 1978 for Lake Whitefish are from 2-14 commercial samples, all other means are from survey samples of 5-86 individual fish.

Species Year

1970- 1978 1981 1985 1986 1994 2010

Playgreen Lake

Lake Whitefish 0.106 0.035 0.033 - - 0.053 0.018

Northern Pike 0.346 0.230 0.221 0.208 0.320* 0.193 0.242

Walleye 0.225 0.211 0.195 0.165 0.264* 0.152 0.181

Little Playgreen Lake

Lake Whitefish - - 0.031 - - 0.060 0.058

Northern Pike - - 0.313 - - 0.627* 0.227

Walleye - - 0.212 - - 0.247 0.265

* Small sample (n=3-5) of relatively large fish

JULY 2014


MERCURY IN HUMANS

Mercury concentrations in humans are only available from hair samples and cord blood samples of community residents at Norway House and Cross Lake (Kiskitto Lake is partially included in the Cross Lake Registered Trapline Area). Between 1977 and 1984, adult residents of Norway House had lower blood mercury concentrations (converted from hair concentrations) than people living in four other northern Manitoba communities: South Indian Lake, Nelson House, Split Lake, York Landing (Wheatley 1979; Health and Welfare Canada 1984, 1987; Environment Canada and Department of Fisheries and Oceans 1992a). All 43 cord blood concentrations were below 10 ppb (Health and Welfare Canada 1987). For all years combined, 94% of the almost 800 hair samples had blood-equivalent mercury concentrations below 20 ppb and were within the acceptable range. The remaining samples were in the “increasing risk” category with concentration between 20 and 99 ppb. No time trend was observed in the hair-based concentrations (Health and Welfare Canada 1987). The author concluded that the observed mercury concentrations pose no health risk but qualified the results because of the small number of cord blood samples and the participation of only 25% of the residents over the 10 year sampling period.

Hair was again obtained from community residents in 1989/90, at which time 97% of the 775 samples had less than 20 ppb blood-equivalent mercury and, again, no residents were in the “at risk” category of 100 ppb and higher (Environment Canada and Department of Fisheries and Oceans 1992a).

8.1.4.4 SUMMARY

Scientific studies indicate that mercury concentrations in fish species in the outlet lakes area are comparable to un-impacted areas in Manitoba. With the exception of the Jenpeg forebay which flooded an area of about 65 km2 (25 mi2), an increase in mercury concentrations would not be expected since the amount of flooding in the area under regulation was minimal. Currently, mercury concentrations in fish sampled from Playgreen and Little Playgreen lakes are among the lowest levels observed in waterbodies monitored as part of CAMP. None of the Norway House residents tested for mercury have fallen into the “at risk” category.

8.1.5 WATERFOWL

Where waterfowl harvests have been impacted in the outlet lakes area, they are generally associated with access problems for hunters (related to water levels) or changes in the suitability of local waterbodies as stopover points for migrating birds.

Prior to LWR, Webb (1973) predicted that regulation would result in the loss of some waterfowl habitat in the outlet lakes area. Some marsh habitat was expected to be completely or partially flooded upstream of Jenpeg, some marshes downstream of the GS could dry up, and much of the marsh habitat along the West Channel and north end of Kiskittogisu Lake would be destroyed by alternate flooding and drawdown. The Study Board predicted there would be a reduction in the number of waterfowl using Playgreen Lake for staging in the fall and that there would be a reduction in available nesting habitat due to a reduction in size or inundation of small islands throughout the lake. Likewise, fluctuations in water

JULY 2014


levels could result in the displacement of migrating waterfowl from the southern part of Kiskittogisu Lake, and the loss of numerous nesting islands. As well, increased access to the outlet lakes as a result of LWR infrastructure was expected to result in higher harvest rates. In contrast, water levels on Kiskitto Lake were regulated to optimize habitat conditions for wildlife. The stabilization of water levels on the lake during spring was predicted to promote waterfowl nesting along shorelines and on islands. The reduction in water levels after the nesting season was expected to promote vegetation growth and improve fall staging habitat (Kiskitto Lake Regulation Committee 1977).


In 1987, seven waterfowl hunters from Norway House were interviewed by the Canadian Wildlife Service to determine: how the fall waterfowl hunt had been after LWR; where the traditional hunting locations were prior to LWR; current hunting success at those locations; and the types of waterfowl hunted. One of the areas noted as being impacted the most was the Warren Landing area where a large amount of hunting had historically taken place. They also noted that there was a substantial reduction of waterfowl in the Sepastik Channel area. The report noted that hunters would often harvest 10 to 15 ducks an hour but in 1983, they had harvested only three ducks in three evenings. The hunters felt that the number of ducks and geese was substantially lower after LWR which resulted in lower numbers being harvested. The hunters also stated that although the fall hunt had been substantially affected, that the spring hunt had not materially changed at that time and that Canada geese populations seemed similar.


Breeding bird and habitat surveys conducted annually by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in collaboration with the Canadian Wildlife Service indicated that North American duck populations reached an all-time high in 2012 due to wet conditions in the Canadian Prairies (Zimpfer et al. 2012). The estimated abundance of ducks was similar in 2013, with populations showing a 6% decline from 2012, but is still 33% above the 1955-2012 long-term average (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2013).


Several aerial surveys of waterfowl populations have been conducted in the outlet lakes area. The first surveys in 1972 and 1973 (Webb 1973) were conducted for the LWCNRSB. The 1986 and 1987 studies were conducted under FEMP (Environment Canada and Department of Fisheries and Oceans 1992a; I.D. Systems Ltd. 1991) due to concerns raised by Norway House residents who felt that waterfowl populations had significantly declined post-LWR. The FEMP report found that: a) densities of diving ducks in the outlet lakes had declined by approximately 96%; b) that the reductions were not related to general decreases in regional populations; and c) there were insufficient data to estimate changes in the populations of dabbling ducks or Canada Geese. A study conducted as part of FEMP concluded that the low numbers of ducks, particularly diving ducks, observed during the 1986-1987 survey compared to the 1972-1973 survey was likely a result of habitat changes following regulation rather than a regional decline (Environment Canada and Department of Fisheries and Oceans 1992a; I.D. Systems Ltd. 1991).

JULY 2014


In 1992, Manitoba Hydro funded a multi-disciplinary study (I.D. Systems Ltd. 1993) to test two hypotheses:

i. increased water levels resulting from LWR reduced benthic invertebrates (which are a food source for diving ducks) and resulted in fewer diving ducks using the area; and

ii. increased water levels resulting from LWR changed the landscape and habitat and thereby reduced the attractiveness of the lake to diving ducks.

The study looked at lake morphometry, hydrology, water chemistry, shoreline changes, aquatic macrophytes, benthic invertebrates, and distribution and abundance of waterfowl. The study found that the densities of diving ducks in Playgreen Lake were higher in 1992 than in 1986-1987, but were still substantially lower (84% to 89%, depending on location) than the 1972-1973 surveys. The study did not find any definitive reasons for the decline and stated that migration shifts in scaup (the most abundant species of diving ducks) may have occurred resulting in lower numbers in Playgreen Lake. Breeding waterfowl surveys conducted annually by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) show that scaup have been in decline since the 1980s, but the cause for these declines is not known (Austin et al. 2000). The study by I.D. Systems Ltd. (1993) also showed that the density of diving and dabbling ducks had increased between 1972-1973 and 1992 on Kiskitto Lake by 648% and 386%, respectively, and on Kiskittogisu Lake by 276% and 320%.

Habitat conditions throughout the North American flyways have a great influence on settling patterns of breeding waterfowl as they migrate north from their overwintering habitats. Zimpfer et al. (2012) indicates a substantial amount of variability in the annual total duck population estimates generated by the joint USFW and Canadian Wildlife Service Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Surveys over their history (1955-2012). The report indicates that from a continental perspective, total estimated duck numbers dropped from approximately 40 million birds in 1955 to slightly more than 25 million birds less than 10 years later, then recovered to greater than 40 million birds by the early 1970s. Another, less substantial but similarly precipitous decline, was documented over the course of four years (1971-1975), prior to another recovery in 1976, which was then followed by a greater decline over a more extended period during the early to mid-1980s.

From a regional perspective, this variability is evident in the data for Strata 21-24, which represent the survey area for northern Saskatchewan, northern Manitoba, and northwestern Ontario. In this region of the annual breeding waterfowl survey, the total estimated number of ducks rose from 1.6 million in 1955 to 4.8 million by 1970, followed by a downward trend to 2.4 million birds in 1975 before rebounding 4.0 million birds in 1978. Similar variability has been observed since the mid-1980s to present. Currently (2012), the total estimate of ducks in the survey strata encompassing northern Saskatchewan, northern Manitoba, and northwestern Ontario (Strata 21-24) is 2.7 million ducks, 21% below the long term average of 3.5 million ducks for this survey region.

JULY 2014


8.1.5.4 SUMMARY

Scientific studies indicate that LWR may have affected the distribution of waterfowl populations (particularly diving ducks) in the outlet lakes area. However, despite several studies that focused on waterfowl in the outlet lakes area, the link to LWR remains unclear due to the confounding effect of natural variation in regional populations.

8.1.6 AQUATIC FURBEARERS

The LWCNRSB predicted that some aquatic furbearer habitat would be lost through flooding of the West Channel of the Nelson River due to impoundment at Jenpeg and in Playgreen Lake and the north end of Kiskittogisu Lake due to an increase in mean water levels. While species such as beaver were expected to adapt to higher mean water levels, species such as muskrat would be reduced until new marshes form. The Study Board also predicted that LWR-related declines in water levels during late winter (i.e., drawdowns) on Kiskittogisu Lake and Playgreen Lake could result in an increase in muskrat mortality as a result of freeze out. In contrast, water levels on Kiskitto Lake were regulated to optimize habitat conditions for aquatic furbearers by reducing annual water level fluctuations (Kiskitto Lake Regulation Committee 1977).


The concerns expressed by Norway House trappers (as described in Claim 31 and 31A under the NFA) included: loss of furbearer habitat; decreased productivity of remaining habitat; and loss of cabins, trails, and trapline improvements.


No current information on furbearer populations was located. Although trapping records do exist for Manitoba, there is not a particularly close correlation in the amount of fur harvested and furbearer populations; trapping levels are often more closely related to current fur prices.


Information on aquatic furbearer populations in the outlet lakes area is very limited. While information is available from trapping records, determining population trends based these records is difficult as an analysis cannot fully account for socio-economic effects including changes in trapping effort and fur prices. Prior to regulation, Webb (1973) described the distribution and habitat requirements of aquatic furbearers of the outlet lakes for the LWCNRSB. Important shoreline habitat was identified in lower Playgreen Lake and Little Playgreen Lake for muskrat, and the East Channel for beaver, and the East and West channels for mink.

Although quantitative studies of aquatic furbearers in the outlet lakes area are not available, the changes in seasonal water level patterns due to winter drawdown associated with LWR probably had some

JULY 2014


negative impacts, especially to muskrat and beaver that are susceptible to the effects of fluctuations in water level.

8.1.6.4 SUMMARY

Information on aquatic furbearer populations in the outlet lakes area is limited. It is possible that increased water levels due to increased precipitation and flows, and winter drawdown under LWR have negatively impacted local populations of muskrat and beaver along the shorelines of Kiskittogisu, Playgreen, and Little Playgreen lakes. Aquatic furbearers on Kiskitto Lake would not have been similarly affected since water levels were not affected by a winter drawdown due to the presence of a series of control structures .

8.1.7 UNGULATES (MOOSE AND CARIBOU)

The LWCNRSB (1975) predicted that flooding of the West Channel as a result of impoundment by Jenpeg would result in the loss of 96.9 km2 (37.4 mi2) of moose habitat and approximately 20-48 moose from the population. Additional moose could be lost in other areas of the outlet lakes depending on the amount of flooding. It was anticipated that LWR could affect the movement of woodland caribou populations in the outlet lakes area due to the construction of Two-Mile Channel.


The concerns expressed by Norway House included: a reduction in moose populations; spending less time on traplines due to trapping impacts which reduced the overall amount of time harvesting other resources; increased costs during the open water season due to damages to boats and motors from debris; and increased access by non-residents which led to increased competition for resources.


Moose populations in northern Manitoba, both pre- and post LWR, are relatively low (approximately five to 10 moose per 100 km2), as compared to more southern areas do not seem to have decreased (Knudsen et al. 2010). Between 2002 and 2007 (the last years for which there are data) the area between the Outlet Lake and Thompson (Manitoba Game Hunting Area 9A), an area of approximately 25,000 km2 (9,700 mi2), received approximately 10% of the provincial general moose hunting pressure (approximately 300 hunters and 50 moose taken). No reliable estimates of the provincial moose harvest taken by Aboriginal hunters were located.

The western Canadian population of boreal woodland caribou is currently listed as threatened under the federal Species at Risk Act and the provincial Endangered Species Act. The range of woodland caribou populations is shown in Figure 14; of note, the area affected by LWR only intersects with the Wabowden herd. The population of boreal woodland caribou in Manitoba is estimated to range from 1,500 to 3,100 animals (Manitoba Conservation 2006 cited in Manitoba Boreal Woodland Caribou Management Committee 2014).

JULY 2014



Population estimates for ungulates are generally restricted to regional surveys and are not specific to areas affected by LWR. Prior to regulation, Webb (1973) conducted an aerial survey of the outlet lakes area to survey moose populations for the LWCNRSB. The author also reported that woodland caribou occurred in the outlet lakes area and used islands in Kiskitto, Kiskittogisu, and Playgreen lakes for calving. Post-LWR information pertaining to ungulates is limited to a few regional moose surveys conducted by Manitoba Department of Natural Resource between 1983-1987 (Elliott 1988; Knudsen and Didiuk 1985) and again in 2000 (Elliott and Hedman 2001).

The effects to ungulate population in the outlet lakes area due to regulation would largely have been restricted to shoreline areas where shallow water wetlands are affected by LWR operation. As such, regulation would have had little effect on caribou distribution in the area.

Figure 14: Boreal woodland caribou ranges within Management Units in Manitoba

(from Manitoba Boreal Woodland Caribou Management Committee 2014)

Some moose habitat would have been lost through flooding of the West Channel of the Nelson River due to impoundment at Jenpeg. Local knowledge indicates that moose became less abundant after Jenpeg

JULY 2014


was constructed (Nelson River Group 1986c). However, the survey by Knudsen and Didiuk (1985) showed that good quality habitat close to travel routes or close to population centers was under-utilized by moose, suggesting that factors other than habitat changes due to regulation contributed to the reduction in moose (Nelson River Group 1986a). Elliott (1988) suggested that the pattern of increasing moose densities with increasing distance from human population centers and with decreasing ease of access was indicative of overexploitation. Elliott and Hedman (2001) reported that changes in the distribution of moose since the 1950s was primarily related to forest succession and fire history. The authors noted that fire prevention and suppression efforts in the area were preventing the rejuvenation of forest habitat as good quality moose habitat.

8.1.7.4 SUMMARY

Scientific studies indicate that impoundment at Jenpeg would have reduced habitat for localized populations of moose. It is also expected that increased road access would have resulted in increased harvest in some areas resulting in lower ungulate populations in the region.

8.2 UPPER NELSON RIVER AREA

This area extends from Jenpeg to the Kelsey GS and includes the Nelson River and its major lakes (Cross Lake, Drunken Lake, Walker Lake, Pipestone Lake, Duck Lake, Sipiwesk Lake). The Kelsey GS has regulated flows in the upper Nelson River since it began operating in 1960. The impoundment of the Nelson River at Kelsey caused extensive flooding that extended 150 km (93.2 mi) upstream to Sipiwesk Lake and raised the lake level. A map of the area between Jenpeg and the Kelsey GS showing the general locations of key studies that occurred in the periods both before and after regulation is illustrated in Figure 15.


The effects of LWR on water levels and flows in the area are described in greater detail in Appendix 3. Jenpeg, located on the West Channel of the Nelson River has regulated the outflow of water from Lake Winnipeg into Cross Lake and altered the natural flow regime of Cross Lake and downstream waterbodies since 1976. Historically, water levels and flows were highest in mid-summer and lowest during late winter. Under regulation, the seasonal water regime is reversed such that water levels and flows are highest during winter and lowest during the summer under low to average flow conditions.

A weir was constructed at the outlet of Cross Lake between May and October 1991 to raise the mean water level on the lake and reduce the range of water levels. Changes in the frequency, duration, and timing of high water level events on Cross Lake

Cross Lake Weir

JULY 2014


due to LWR have affected the water regime on connected lakes.

Water levels continue to fluctuate on Pipestone Lake with those on Cross Lake in the post-regulation era. Water levels on Walker Lake are affected by regulation when water levels on Cross Lake are greater than 207.6 m (681 feet).

The effects of regulation on Sipiwesk Lake and the reach of the Nelson River between Kelsey and the lake are superimposed on the impacts of the Kelsey GS. While Duck Lake was isolated from the effect of the Kelsey GS backwater by Duck Lake Falls, water levels on the lake are impacted by LWR.

JULY 2014


Figure 15: Map showing waterbodies and adjacent terrestrial areas sampled as part of key pre- (symbol outline) and post-LWR (solid symbol) studies along the upper Nelson River. The studies were grouped such that programs that occurred over multiple years are depicted by a single symbol for each major waterbody in which it occurred (e.g., the MEMP study in Cross Lake that occurred from 1983-1989 is represented by a single fish symbol).

JULY 2014


8.2.2 WATER QUALITY

The LWCNRSB (1975) predicted the following effects of LWR on the outlet lakes, including Cross Lake, in relation to water quality:

“The chemical, bacteriological and physical composition of the water flowing through the outlet lakes is not anticipated to change substantially as a result of the construction and operation of works to regulate discharges from Lake Winnipeg. Lake Winnipeg is the prime source of water for the outlet lakes and with regulation it will continue to be the primary source. An increase in suspended sediments due to channel excavation has occurred during construction and it will continue to increase.” (p. 6-16)

“The works that are under construction to regulate the discharges from Lake Winnipeg are expected to affect the transparency values of the outlet lakes.”

“The forecast reversal of seasonal regimes and the greater month to month fluctuations in water levels for Cross Lake are of considerable concern. However, the new regime will be established well within the historic elevations and since the lake is very shallow, the limnological benefits of higher winter levels will tend to compensate for the limnological disruptions due to fluctuations.”

The LWCNRSB (1975) excluded Sipiwesk Lake from their assessment of LWR impacts “because it has already been affected by the hydro-electric development at Kelsey. The water level regime on Sipiwesk Lake depends primarily on the operation of the Kelsey generating station and to a lesser extent on Lake Winnipeg outflow rates” (p. 35 Summary Report).

Physical effects of LWR on Cross Lake differed from upstream outlet lakes, as the water regime was affected by Jenpeg. The range of water level fluctuations on Cross Lake increased with LWR and the lake experienced a seasonal reversal of flow patterns during low to average flow conditions. Potential effects of these physical changes on water quality in Cross Lake could have included changes in lake limnology, including alterations in DO, temperature, and light conditions, as well as effects related to changes in water residence times. Effects of LWR on the water quality of upstream lakes could also have affected water quality in Cross Lake. Similar downstream transfer of effects could have occurred for Sipiwesk Lake.


The effect of LWR on water quality has been a major concern expressed by Cross Lake residents. The primary concerns expressed to Manitoba Hydro have included: increased turbidity resulting from erosion and re-suspension of sediment from the mudflats (particularly prior to construction of the Cross Lake weir in 1991); the effect of decreased oxygen in winter which has caused fish kills; and increased mercury/toxins in the water. The community has also expressed concerns regarding the presence of swimmer’s itch in some parts of the lake including swimming areas near the community.

JULY 2014



Water quality has been monitored under CAMP on an annual basis at Cross Lake and on a three-year rotational basis in Walker Lake (which only affected by regulation when water levels on Cross Lake are greater than 207.57 m (681 feet) and Sipiwesk Lake and the Nelson River upstream of the Kelsey GS. Results of monitoring for the first three years of CAMP (i.e., the Pilot phase; 2008-2010), which included monitoring of Cross and Walker lakes, have been analyzed in detail and are summarized below. Sipiwesk Lake was recently added to CAMP and water quality was first sampled in 2011; these data are currently being analyzed for inclusion in subsequent CAMP reports.

Water quality of the upper Nelson River waterbodies monitored under CAMP in 2008-2010, including Cross and Walker lakes, can be generally described as moderately nutrient-rich to nutrient-rich, slightly alkaline, moderately hard, and typically well-oxygenated. Cross Lake was not stratified during the sampling periods in 2008 through 2010, whereas Walker Lake was stratified during the spring sampling period in the year of monitoring (Table 2).

Most water quality parameters were within MWQSOGs for the protection of aquatic life (PAL) in Cross and Walker lakes including pH, nitrate, ammonia, and most metals. Dissolved oxygen was below MWQSOGs for PAL at depth in some winters in Cross Lake and in the single winter that monitoring was conducted in Walker Lake. Total phosphorus concentrations, which on average indicate eutrophic and meso-eutrophic conditions in Cross and Walker lakes, respectively, exceeded the Manitoba narrative guideline for nutrients (0.025 mg/L for lakes, reservoirs, and ponds) in both lakes (Figure 6). In addition, the majority of, and average, aluminum concentrations were above the MWQSOG PAL in Cross Lake. Iron was, on average, below the PAL guideline but about one third of measurements collected over 2008-2010 exceeded the PAL guideline in Cross Lake. Conversely, all metals were within MWQSOGs for PAL in Walker Lake.

Exceedances of the narrative guideline for TP and the PAL guidelines for aluminum and iron are relatively common in Manitoba waterbodies, including lakes and rivers not affected by Manitoba Hydro’s hydraulic system (Figures 6, 7, and 8). Additionally, depletion of DO, notably in late winter, is not uncommon in northern aquatic ecosystems that experience long periods of ice cover and periodic exceedances of PAL objectives were observed in a number of waterbodies under CAMP, including off-system sites such as Setting Lake.


Cross Lake

JULY 2014


As noted in Section 8.1.2.2, nutrients and their effects on primary production (e.g., phytoplankton) are a common issue in aquatic ecosystems around the world. TP and chlorophyll a measured under CAMP along the upper and lower Nelson River and in nearby off-system waterbodies from 2008 to 2012 were summarized to examine potential changes in these key parameters along the river as water flows through various lakes and reservoirs (Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership 2013). Chlorophyll a concentrations were generally similar along the upper and lower Nelson rivers, though higher measurements have been periodically measured in lakes downstream of Lake Winnipeg, including Cross Lake, during CAMP.

Collectively, this information indicates that there are no substantive changes in either parameter from Playgreen Lake to the lower Nelson River downstream of all Manitoba Hydro generating stations. That is, based on this dataset, phytoplankton abundance does not successively increase in lakes and reservoirs along the upper and lower Nelson River.

The similar levels of chlorophyll a observed between the on-system waterbodies and the off-system Setting Lake indicates that primary productivity is not notably higher in lakes located downstream of Lake Winnipeg than a nearby waterbody outside of the Lake Winnipeg drainage and unaffected by Manitoba Hydro’s hydraulic system. Further, that TP concentrations are actually significantly lower in Setting Lake than Cross or Split lakes suggests that algal growth is limited by factors other than phosphorus in on-system lakes and reservoirs.


CROSS LAKE

There are pre- and post-LWR water quality data for Cross Lake and there have been a number of studies and assessments of water quality changes in Cross Lake, most notably Ramsey et al. (1989), Playle and Williamson (1986), and Williamson and Ralley (1993).

The conclusions of Playle and Williamson (1986) and Williamson and Ralley (1993) regarding effects of LWR on water quality in Cross Lake were largely in agreement (Table 5). These assessments, which were based on a similar data set but slightly different time periods, concluded no changes to a number of parameters including TSS, hardness, conductivity, pH, alkalinity, calcium, magnesium, sulphate, and coliform bacteria, increases in total inorganic and organic carbon, and chloride, and decreases total Kjeldahl nitrogen.. The conclusions regarding nitrate/nitrite, turbidity, TP, and sodium differ between the two studies, likely due to the specific breakdown in time periods that were compared. The more recent study (Williamson and Ralley 1993) was conducted using a longer-term of record (up to 1992) and specifically excluded data collected in 1976 (included in the earlier study) to omit potential short-term construction effects. Williamson and Ralley (1993) concluded that there was no change in turbidity in Cross Lake, but TP and sodium increased near the community of Cross Lake after LWR.

JULY 2014


Table 5: Summary of temporal changes in selected water quality parameters in the upper Nelson River area: Cross Lake. Increases and decreases are noted where they are statistically significant. NC = no change; “-” = not analysed.

Parameter Playle and Williamson (1986)

Williamson and Ralley (1993)


1972-1975 vs. 1977-1984

1972-1975 vs. 1987-1992

1977-1984 vs. 1987-1992

TSS NC NC NC NC

Turbidity increase NC NC NC

Secchi - - - -

Colour decrease decrease decrease NC

TP NC increase increase NC

Suspended P - - - -

Dissolved P - - - -

Orthophosphorus - - - -

TIC increase increase increase NC

DIC - - - -

TOC increase increase NC decrease

DOC - - - -

TKN decrease decrease decrease NC

Suspended N - - - -

TDN - - - -

Nitrate/nitrite NC decrease decrease NC

Hardness NC NC NC NC

Conductivity NC NC NC NC

TDS - - - -

pH NC NC NC NC

Alkalinity NC NC NC NC

Calcium NC NC NC NC

Magnesium NC NC NC NC

Sodium NC increase NC decrease

Potassium increase - - -

Chloride increase increase NC decrease

Sulphate NC NC NC NC

Feacal coliform bacteria

NC NC increase increase

Total coliform bacteria

NC NC NC NC

Reactive silica - - - -

JULY 2014


Several authors have stated that LWR increased turbidity/reduced water clarity in Cross Lake (Gaboury and Patalas 1981; Nelson River Group 1986a; MacLaren Plansearch Inc. 1989; Ramsey et al. 1989). It has been suggested turbidity increased due to decreases in water levels/depths and the subsequent increase in wind-induced re-suspension of sediments. These effects appear to be restricted to the east basin (Gaboury and Patalas 1981).

Others have speculated that LWR may have caused or contributed to low DO in some areas of Cross Lake due to the proliferation and subsequent winter die-off of aquatic plants after LWR (Gaboury and Patalas 1981). However, oxygen depletion was also observed in Cross Lake prior to LWR (Koshinsky 1973). Water temperature also reportedly increased post-LWR (Bodaly et al. 1984).

Available information indicates that the key water quality changes in Cross Lake after LWR included a decrease in one critical nutrient (nitrogen), a temporary increase in some major ions, and a decrease in colour. Other changes are less clear as there is no consensus in the scientific literature; some authors reported increases in turbidity and decreases in dissolved oxygen in at least some areas of the lake but not all literature support these conclusions. Similarly results of two statistical assessments differed for TP; one study (Playle and Williamson 1986) reported no change while the other (Williamson and Ralley 1993) reported an increase in this nutrient. Overall, Williamson and Ralley (1993) indicated changes in water quality following LWR were of “small magnitude and should not have significantly affected water uses.”

WALKER AND PIPESTONE LAKES

As there are no pre-LWR water quality data for Walker and Pipestone lakes, effects of LWR on these waterbodies are unknown.

SIPIWESK LAKE TO THE KELSEY GS

Similar to Cross Lake, several studies have evaluated water quality changes in Sipiwesk Lake using water quality data collected prior to and following LWR (Ramsey et al. 1989; Ramsey 1991a; Playle and Williamson 1986; Williamson and Ralley 1993). Key data sources and studies include the MEMP, LWCNRSB studies, and monitoring conducted by Environment Canada and Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship.

Collectively, the results of two studies (Playle and Williamson 1986; Williamson and Ralley 1993) indicated that water quality changes observed after LWR in Sipiwesk Lake included a reduction in colour and increases in some major ions (chloride, sodium, and potassium), carbon (inorganic and organic forms), and fecal coliform bacteria (Table 6). Unlike Cross Lake, phosphorus concentrations were unchanged after LWR but like Cross Lake, nitrogen (measured as TKN) decreased. Williamson and Ralley (1993) suggested that the increased concentrations of phosphorus observed in Cross Lake after LWR may have been attenuated by Sipiwesk Lake due to assimilation by aquatic plants. The authors also noted that the observed decrease in nitrogen in Sipiwesk Lake may have been unrelated to LWR as similar changes were observed in the reference waterbody (Granville Lake).

JULY 2014


Table 6: Summary of temporal changes in selected water quality parameters in the upper Nelson River area: Sipiwesk Lake and the Nelson River Increases and decreases are noted where they are statistically significant. NC = no change; “-” = not analysed.

Parameter Sipiwesk Lake outlet area Nelson River downstream of Sipiwesk

Lake

Playle and Williamson (1986)

Williamson and Ralley (1993) Ramsey (1991) - FEMP


1972-1975 vs. 1977-1984

1972-1975 vs. 1987-1992

1977-1984 vs. 1987-1992

1972/73 vs. 1987-1989

TSS - NC NC NC decrease

Turbidity NC NC decrease NC -

Secchi - -

Colour decrease decrease decrease NC -

TP NC NC NC decrease -

Suspended P - NC

Dissolved P - decrease

Orthophosphorus - -

TIC increase increase increase NC -

DIC - NC

TOC increase increase NC decrease -

DOC - NC

TKN NC decrease decrease NC -

Suspended N - NC

TDN - decrease

Nitrate/nitrite NC NC decrease NC -

Hardness NC NC NC NC -

Conductivity increase NC NC NC NC

JULY 2014


Parameter Sipiwesk Lake outlet area Nelson River downstream of Sipiwesk

Lake

Playle and Williamson (1986)

Williamson and Ralley (1993) Ramsey (1991) - FEMP


1972-1975 vs. 1977-1984

1972-1975 vs. 1987-1992

1977-1984 vs. 1987-1992

1972/73 vs. 1987-1989

TDS - NC

pH NC NC NC NC decrease

Alkalinity NC NC NC NC -

Calcium NC NC NC NC NC

Magnesium NC NC NC NC NC

Sodium NC increase NC decrease NC

Potassium increase - - - decrease

Chloride increase increase NC decrease NC

Sulphate NC NC NC NC NC

Feacal coliform bacteria increase - - - -

Total coliform bacteria NC NC - - -

Dissolved copper - - - - -

Dissolved iron - - - - NC

Dissolved lead - - - - -

Dissolved manganese - - - - decrease

Dissolved zinc - - - - -

Reactive silica - - - - increase

Chlorophyll a - - - - NC

JULY 2014


Williamson and Ralley (1993) concluded that water quality changes in Sipiwesk Lake after LWR “probably had little effect on vegetation and aquatic organisms since all statistically significant changes were below the Manitoba Surface Water Quality Objectives.” They further suggested that the observed increases in carbon may have been indicative of increased primary production in the lake.

Water quality changes have also been evaluated downstream of Sipiwesk Lake under the FEMP (Ramsey 1991a). Comparisons were made between pre-LWR (1972-1973) and post-LWR (1987-1989) water quality data collected on the Nelson River near the Kelsey GS. Few changes in water quality were noted through this analysis; reactive silica increased, and pH decreased marginally, whereas TSS, dissolved phosphorus and nitrogen, and dissolved potassium decreased more notably after LWR in this area. Ramsey (1991a) concluded that “there is no clear relationship between these changes in water quality and LWR” and that “none of these changes could be directly attributed to LWR.” It was also noted that the FEMP study was conducted during a drought year and the Nelson River experienced very low flows which may have limited the ability to evaluate changes in water quality.

8.2.2.4 SUMMARY

Available information indicates that the key water quality changes in Cross Lake after LWR included a decrease in a one important nutrient (nitrogen), a temporary increase in some major ions, and a decrease in colour. Other changes are less clear as there is no consensus in the scientific literature; some authors reported increases in turbidity and decreases in dissolved oxygen in at least some areas of the lake but not all literature support these conclusions. Phosphorus was reported as unchanged in one study and increased in a second study. Overall, Williamson and Ralley (1993) indicated changes in water quality following LWR were of “small magnitude and should not have significantly affected water uses.”

As there are no pre-LWR water quality data for Walker and Pipestone lakes, effects of LWR on these waterbodies are unknown.

Changes observed in Sipiwesk Lake after LWR included a decrease in nitrogen and colour, and increases in some major ions (chloride, sodium, and potassium), carbon (inorganic and organic forms), and fecal coliform bacteria. Unlike Cross Lake, phosphorus concentrations were unchanged after LWR. Williamson and Ralley (1993) concluded that water quality changes in Sipiwesk Lake after LWR “probably had little effect on vegetation and aquatic organisms since all statistically significant changes were below the Manitoba Surface Water Quality Objectives.”


The effects of LWR on the fish community of the upper Nelson River lakes (Cross Lake, Pipestone, and Drunken lakes) are primarily related to the alteration of seasonal flows and an increase in the amplitude of water level fluctuations. The LWCNRSB predicted there would be a reduction in the reproductive success of Northern Pike and Lake Whitefish in Cross Lake due to the increase in the frequency and severity in water level declines during the spring and fall. Sipiwesk Lake fish populations are affected by

JULY 2014


both the Kelsey GS (which increased water levels on the lake) and LWR. The LWCNRSB did not include Sipiwesk Lake in its impact assessment of the effects of LWR since the Board felt that the water regime was primarily affected by the operation of the Kelsey GS and to a lesser extent on outflow rates on Lake Winnipeg.


The Cross Lake community has expressed a number of concerns regarding fish populations and their domestic and commercial fisheries to Manitoba Hydro. The primary concerns expressed by Cross Lake residents were related to decreased fish populations (particularly Lake Whitefish which were the preferred fish for domestic consumption by the Elders), decreased access in summer and winter (particularly before the construction of the Cross Lake weir in 1991), fish kills in winter (mainly prior to construction of the Cross Lake weir), and fish quality (taste, texture, and mercury).


Fish populations in Cross Lake (west basin) and Walker Lake are currently monitored on an annual and rotational basis, respectively, as part of Manitoba Hydro and Manitoba’s CAMP. Results of monitoring for the first three years of the program (i.e., the Pilot Program; 2008-2010) have been analyzed in detail and are summarized below (CAMP 2014). It should be noted that Sipiwesk Lake was recently added to CAMP and fish populations were first sampled in 2011; these data are currently being analyzed for inclusion in subsequent CAMP reports which are published every three years.

The fish assemblage in both Cross and Walker lakes is dominated by Northern Pike and White Sucker. Walleye were also common in Cross Lake and Cisco in Walker Lake. Yellow Perch and Spottail Shiner were the dominant forage species in both lakes. Rainbow Smelt were uncommon in Cross Lake and were not detected in Walker Lake. The catch-per-unit-effort using standard gang index gill nets in Cross and Walker lakes were similar but were considerably lower than observed in upstream outlet lakes (see Figure 11).

In Cross Lake, strong classes were observed for Northern Pike each year from 2003 to 2006 and for Walleye in 2001 to 2005. Strong cohorts of Northern Pike were observed in Walker Lake from 2004 to 2006. The incidence of external abnormalities (collectively referred to as DELTs) observed in these lakes is considered to be low (<3%).

For the period 2008/09 to 2010/11, the east basin of Cross Lake continued to support a commercial fishery producing an annual average of 13,333 kg (round weight) of quota species (Walleye). An annual average of 687 kg of export-grade Lake Whitefish was also marketed from commercial catches on Cross Lake. During this period Pipestone Lake produced 6,499 kg (Walleye) and Walker Lake produced 34,533 kg (Walleye and Northern Pike). Sipiwesk Lake produced an average of 20,045 kg annually of quota species (Walleye and Lake Whitefish) and Duck Lake 2,894 kg (Walleye, Lake Whitefish, and Goldeye). The upper Nelson River downstream of Sipiwesk Lake has produced an average of 9,474 kg (Walleye and Lake Whitefish). Drunken Lake is not fished commercially.

JULY 2014



While published information on the fish community of this reach, particularly for Cross Lake, is available for both the pre- and post-LWR periods, differences in methodology between these studies limits the ability to assess the effects of regulation. Moreover, the fish communities in many of the study area waterbodies are affected by commercial and domestic fisheries, and, post-LWR, by the introduction of Rainbow Smelt in the early 1990s (Remnant et al. 1997). These factors have the potential to cause a substantial change in the fish community structure that is not related to LWR. The following sections summarize the effects of LWR, as described in the scientific literature.

CROSS LAKE TO WHITEMUD FALLS

Prior to regulation, gillnetting surveys of the Cross Lake fish community were conducted by the province in 1965 (Driver and Doan 1972) and by LWCNRSB in 1973 (Ayles et al. 1974). In 1973, the production of commercially important species in Cross Lake, by weight, was approximately four fold higher than in either Split or Sipiwesk lakes. Walleye production had decreased by approximately 30% compared to the 1965 survey (Ayles et al. 1974). No pre-LWR data were located for Pipestone, Drunken, or Walker lakes. Lake Sturgeon stocks in Cross Lake were likely near extirpation prior to LWR by overexploitation (McCart 1992; MDNR 1994 cited in COSEWIC 2006). Subsistence fishing for Lake Sturgeon occurs by Cross Lake First Nation members in Eves Rapids and the Jenpeg tailrace, but the level of fishing pressure is not considered high enough by Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship Fisheries Branch (2012) to significantly affect recovery.

Post-LWR gillnetting studies were first conducted on the fish community of Cross and Pipestone lakes in 1980 and 1981 by the province (Gaboury and Patalas 1981, 1982) and, again, in 1985-1989 under MEMP (Mohr and Kirton 1986; Mohr 1987; Green 1988a, b, 1990a; Sopuck 1987). Monitoring of the fish community has been conducted annually (with the exception of 1999) in Cross and Pipestone lakes since the Cross Lake weir was constructed in 1991 (Kroeker and Bernhardt 1993; Bernhardt and Schneider-Vieira 1994; Bernhardt 1995, 1996; Kroeker and Bernhardt 1997; Kroeker and Graveline 1998, 1999; Barth et al. 2001; MacDonell and Graveline 2002; MacDonald and


Pipestone Lake

JULY 2014


MacDonell 2003, 2004; Johnson et al. 2005; Neufeld et al. 2006; Gallagher and MacDonell 2008; Richardson and MacDonell 2007; Caskey and MacDonell 2010). The west basin of Cross Lake continues to be sampled annually under CAMP (2009-ongoing; CAMP 2014).

Comparisons of catch–per-unit-effort among index gillnetting studies to discern temporal trends in the abundance and composition of the fish communities must be made cautiously because of differences in methodology between sampling programs (e.g., mesh sizes used, sampling locations, time of year, duration of sets) and the limited number of datasets in the pre-development period. For the purposes of this report, comparisons of pre- and post-LWR data were made by standardizing CUE values for index gillnet sets using gangs comprising similar mesh sizes (i.e., 1.5 to 5.5 inch mesh) to a net length of 100 m and CUE values were expressed as overnight sets (i.e., assumed 16-24 hour set durations). In east Cross Lake, the mean CUE is approximately 25% lower for the post-LWR/pre-weir period (55.7 fish/100 m/overnight set) compared to the pre-LWR period (74.4) (Figure 16). In contrast, CUE values in west Cross Lake were similar over these two periods (52.9 and 52.6 fish/100 m/overnight set; Figure 17). In both basins, CUE values were approximately a quarter lower for the post-weir period compared to the post-LWR/pre-weir period (43.2 and 40.7 fish/100 m/overnight set in east and west basins, respectively). This could have resulted from a number of factors including an increase in domestic harvest through the Cross Lake Domestic Fishing Program, a resumption of commercial fishing on East Cross Lake, and/or differences in methodologies among the various studies.

Although fish populations immediately post-LWR may have initially been more concentrated due to lower water levels, overall fish productivity and fish populations declined. Observed declines in the abundance of fish in Cross Lake post-LWR were attributed to water level drawdowns under regulation that reduced fish habitat during summer, reduced the spawning success and recruitment of fall spawning Lake Whitefishhrough dewatering of spawning areas and desiccation of eggs, and prevented spring spawners from accessing spawning habitat (Gaboury and Patalas 1984; Bodaly et al. 1984; Nelson River Group 1986a). Gaboury and Patalas (1984) also felt that the decrease in the standing stock would have been greater than shown by the catch-per-unit-effort values, or density, as a result of the substantial decrease in size of the lake during summer drawdowns. Moreover, an unusually early and rapid drawdown in March of 1981 resulted in a severe winterkill in Cross Lake (Gaboury and Patalas 1984).

To mitigate the effects of regulation on fish populations in Cross Lake, a weir was constructed in 1991 to raise the mean water level on the lake and reduce the range of water levels. Post-weir monitoring has shown that the overall fish populations in Cross Lake have remained relatively stable since the weir was constructed in 1991 (Figures 16 and 17). Lake Whitefish populations showed a marginal increase in both east and west cross Lake in 1996-1998, but otherwise have generally remained at levels observed immediately following completion of the weir. Significant reductions in Lake Whitefish in the east Cross Lake occurred immediately following the re-opening of the commercial fishery in 1998. In west Cross Lake, coregonine production has increased in the middle basin since 1995, and may indicate that habitat conditions have improved in this area since construction of the weir or lower domestic fishing activity than in other areas of the lake. Walleye in east Cross Lake declined sharply in 1997, and catches have remained low. These declines may be attributable to poor reproduction of weak 1991 and 1992 year

JULY 2014


classes combined with the re-opening of the Walleye fishery on east Cross Lake in 1995. By comparison, catches in west Cross Lake have been relatively stable over the period of monitoring.

Gaboury and Patalas (1981, 1982) speculated that declines in fish abundance in Pipestone Lake would have occurred during the early post-LWR period, but to a lesser extent than observed at Cross Lake. Coregonine populations declined in Pipestone Lake from 1980 through to 1986; whereas, Northern Pike and White Sucker populations increased during this time (Sopuck 1987). Species composition in Pipestone Lake has shown little annual variation since construction of the weir. The abundance of Cisco in Pipestone Lake was substantially higher in fall samples compared to summer samples, indicating that the lake continues to provide important spawning habitat. The fish community of Walker Lake does not appear to have been materially affected by regulation (Gaboury and Patalas 1982).

Stocking was conducted following the construction of the Cross Lake weir to supplement natural recruitment. Lake Whitefish were stocked annually from 1992 (except 1995 and 2002) to 2004 and Walleye were stocked in 1991 and 1992. In total, 163.67 million whitefish fry, 30.45 million eyed whitefish eggs, and 16.5 million Walleye fry were introduced into Cross Lake. The continued low capture rate of whitefish suggests that the stocking program has not measurably increased their population.

The commercial fisheries on Cross and Pipestone lakes produced an average of 43,600 kg of quota species (Walleye, Lake Whitefish, Goldeye, and Northern Pike) and 8,500 kg (Lake Whitefish, Walleye, and Goldeye), respectively, between 1962 and 19767. The commercial fisheries were closed in 1983 and re-opened in 1995, after which (to 2013) they have produced an average of 11,500 and 4,700 kg of quota species, respectively. It should be noted that Walleye was the only quota species for Cross Lake after the fishery was re-opened until 2013, when Lake Whitefish and Northern Pike were added. The commercial fishery on Walker Lake was not closed and has produced an average of 29,000 kg of quota species since 1963. Lake Whitefish and Walleye were the quota species until 1992, after which it was Walleye and Northern Pike.

7 unpubl. data from Manitoba Fisheries Branch. Note production was recorded as delivered weight prior to 1978 and as round weight thereafter.

JULY 2014


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1965

1973

1980

1981

1985

1986

1987

1988

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

CU

E (#

fish

/10

0 m

/ove

rnig

ht s

et)


Figure 16: Comparison of annual catch-per–unit-effort (CUE) values from index gill nets set in the east basin of Cross Lake prior to (1965, 1973) and after LWR before (1980-1988) and after construction of the weir (1992-2007). CUE values were standardized to 100 m gill nets set overnight, but no corrections were made to differences in sampling location, duration, season, net mesh composition8.

81965 study by the province in June and July using 5 panels of 3.75-5.25" mesh; 1973 study by LWCNRSB in July using nine panels of 1.5-5.25" mesh; 1980-1981 study by the province in July-August using seven panels of 1.5-5.25" mesh; 1985-1989 studies by the province under MEMP.in July-August using seven panels of 1.5-5.25" mesh; 1992-2007 studies by Manitoba Hydro in August (except for 2004, 2006, and 2007 in September or October) using seven panels of 1.5-5.25" mesh.

JULY 2014


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1965

1973

1980

1981

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

CU

E (#

fish

/10

0 m

/ove

rnig

ht s

et)


Figure 17: Comparison of annual catch-per-unit-effort (CUE) values from index gill nets set in the west basin of Cross Lake prior to (1965, 1973) and after LWR before (1980-1988) and after construction of the weir (1992-2011). CUE values were standardized to 100 m gill nets set overnight, but no corrections were made to differences in sampling location, duration, season, net mesh composition9.

91965 study by the province in June and July using five panels of 3.75-5.25" mesh; 1973 study by LWCNRSB in July using nine panels of 1.5-5.25" mesh; 1980-1981 study by the province in July using seven panels of 1.5-5.25" mesh; 1985-1989 studies by the province under MEMP.in July-August using seven panels of 1.5-5.25" mesh; 1992-2007 studies by Manitoba Hydro in August (except for 2004, 2006, and 2007 in September-October) using seven panels of 1.5-5.25" mesh; 2009-2011 studies by Manitoba Hydro/the province under CAMP in August-September using five panels of 2-5" mesh.

JULY 2014


SIPIWESK LAKE TO KELSEY GS

Much of the published information on the fish community in Sipiwesk Lake prior to regulation focuses on the commercial fishery, particularly the Lake Sturgeon fishery (Schlick 1968a; Kooyman 1955; Sunde 1961). Prior to LWR, Ayles et al. (1974) attributed an increase in fish production (particularly of Northern Pike and Walleye) in Sipiwesk Lake between the 1966 and 1973 surveys to a combination of changes from impoundment at the Kelsey GS and a decrease in exploitation. Post-LWR gillnetting studies were first conducted on the fish community of Sipiwesk Lake from 1983-1989 under MEMP (Patalas 1984; Mohr and Kirton 1986; Mohr 1987; Green 1988a, b, 1990a). MacLaren Plansearch Inc. (1989) speculated that fluctuations in the annual abundance of fish populations in Sipiwesk Lake in the post-LWR period may have been related to differences in water levels. Sipiwesk Lake is one of lakes sampled every three years under CAMP (2011; CAMP 2014).

Comparisons of catch-per-unit-effort among index gillnetting studies to discern temporal trends in the abundance and composition of the fish communities must be made cautiously because of differences in methodology between sampling programs (e.g., mesh sizes used, sampling locations, time of year, duration of sets) and the limited number of datasets in the pre-development period. For the purposes of this report, comparisons of pre- and post-LWR data were made by standardizing CUE values for index gillnet sets using gangs comprising similar mesh sizes (i.e., 1.5 to 5.5 inch mesh) to a net length of 100 m and CUE values were expressed as overnight sets (i.e., assumed 16-24 hour set durations). The mean CUE in the post-LWR period (1983-2011) is approximately 20% higher than measured in pre-LWR studies (1966, 1973) (Figure 18). Mooneye, Lake Whitefish, and Cisco are virtually absent from the most recent survey (2011) as compared to the earlier studies.

The population of Lake Sturgeon in Sipiwesk Lake likely occupies the reach of the Nelson River from Whitemud Falls, which is an impassable barrier to upstream fish movement (Cleator et al. 2010) to the Kelsey GS (McCart 1992). Prior to LWR, construction of the Kelsey GS flooded several rapids in the reach of the Nelson River between Sipiwesk Lake and the Kelsey GS that were used as spawning habitat (Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship Fisheries Branch 2012; Macdonald 1998).

Historically, the Lake Sturgeon population in the Sipiwesk Lake to the Kelsey GS area was depleted by overexploitation, which necessitated the closure of the commercial fishery from 1960-1970 (Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship Fisheries Branch 2012). Lake Sturgeon numbers continued to decline, resulting in the closure of the commercial fishery in 1992 and a Conservation Closure in 1994 to all harvesting during the spawning period, as well as a year round closure of a 16 km (9.9 mi) reach of the Landing River (Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship Fisheries Branch 2012). Sturgeon populations in the area were estimated to have declined by 80-90% between 1987 and 2000, and by more than 90% since 1960 (COSEWIC 2006). Between 1998 and 2003, approximately 16,500 Lake Sturgeon fingerlings from Landing River stocks have been stocked in this area. Since 2007, studies have shown the sturgeon population is increasing which, based on the dominance of smaller fish in the catches, is indicative that recruitment is occurring (Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship Fisheries Branch 2012).

JULY 2014


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1966 1973 1983 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 2011

CU

E (#

fish

/10

0 m

/ove

rnig

ht s

et)


Figure 18: Comparison of annual catch-per-unit-effort (CUE) values from index gill nets set in Sipiwesk Lake prior to (1965, 1973) and after LWR (1983-2011). CUE values were standardized to 100 m gill nets set overnight, but no corrections were made to differences in sampling location, duration, season, net mesh composition10.

Patalas (1988) attributed an increase in sturgeon growth rates in the late 1980s compared to the 1950s to a reduction in density. McCart (1992) suggested that it may have been a response to an increase in the area of suitable feeding habitat and a greater production of benthic organisms resulting from an increase in the size of the lake and the stabilization of the water levels. In contrast, Macdonald (1998) found no obvious differences in the growth of sturgeon sampled in the 1990s compared to those sampled in the 1955 by Sunde (1961).

Upstream of Sipiwesk Lake, reductions in flow due to the operation of Jenpeg results in a reduction in the amount of aquatic habitat available during spring to early summer, but these drawdowns occur prior to the Lake Sturgeon spawning, hatch, or larval periods. During these critical times, water levels are relatively stable (Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship Fisheries Branch 2012). Macdonald

101965 study by the province in July using four panels of 3.-5.25" mesh; 1973 study by LWCNRSB in June using nine panels of 1.5-5.25" mesh; 1983 study by Canada-Manitoba Mercury Monitoring Program in July-October and 1985-1989 studies by the province under MEMP in June-August using six panels of 1.5-5" mesh; 2011 studies by Manitoba Hydro/the province under CAMP in June using five panels of 2-5" mesh.

JULY 2014


(1998) concluded that regulation caused large-scale habitat changes in the upper Nelson River, but that habitat availability was not a limiting factor due to the low Lake Sturgeon populations in the area.

8.2.3.4 SUMMARY

Cross Lake was one of the lakes most negatively affected by LWR prior to construction of the weir. Scientific studies indicate that decreased water levels and increased water level fluctuations on Cross Lake following LWR resulted in substantial declines in fish stocks, particularly Lake Whitefish and Cisco. The fish communities of Pipestone Lake were also negatively affected by LWR, but to a lesser extent. Construction of the weir at the outlet of Cross Lake in 1991 increased average water levels and reduced the hydrological effects of LWR on Cross Lake. The overall fish community in Cross Lake has stabilized, although Lake Whitefish and Cisco populations are still very low and have not returned to historic levels. Cross Lake currently supports both domestic and commercial fisheries (primarily Walleye and Northern Pike) although there continues to be a shortage of Lake Whitefish in Cross Lake for domestic consumption. Although mitigation efforts have not measurably contributed to a recovery of Lake Whitefish stocks, they may be contributing to the maintenance of stocks in the face of continued fishing pressure.

The fish communities of Walker Lake do not appear to have been directly affected by regulation. Currently, the fish assemblage in Walker Lake is dominated by Northern Pike, White Sucker, and Cisco. The lake continues to support a productive commercial fishery.

It is difficult to determine the effects of LWR on Sipiwesk Lake fish populations as the effects of LWR would largely be masked by the habitat changes caused by the Kelsey GS in 1960. Scientific studies indicate that there may have been a decline in fish stocks in the mid-1980s, but catches appear to have returned to pre-LWR levels. Sipiwesk Lake and the upper Nelson River below Sipiwesk Lake continue to support commercial fisheries as they did previously.

Prior to regulation, Lake Sturgeon populations in Cross Lake were near extirpation as a result of overharvesting. Lake Sturgeon continue to be harvested occasionally by Cross Lake First Nation members in Eves Rapids and in the Jenpeg tailrace. Likewise, sturgeon populations downstream of Whitemud Falls, including those of Sipiwesk Lake, were depleted by commercial harvesting prior to LWR. Stocking efforts on the Landing River appear to be resulting in recruitment and increases to local populations.

JULY 2014


8.2.4 MERCURY



Although scientific studies have shown that there was no significant increase in the mercury content of fish from Cross Lake since LWR, residents of Cross Lake have frequently expressed concerns regarding the level of mercury in fish. As there was no Cree word for “mercury”, some of the information provided by government sources to the affected communities shortly after LWR, used the word “poison” which increased the level of concern regarding mercury in fish in all areas regardless of whether mercury levels

Kelsey Generating Station

JULY 2014


increased or not. There is a strong perception in the community that fish from other lakes such as Utik Lake (and others) are preferable to fish from Cross Lake.


Mercury concentrations in fish muscle tissues are currently monitored in Cross Lake in concert with fish population studies as part of Manitoba Hydro and Manitoba’s CAMP (CAMP 2014). Results of monitoring for the first three years of the program (i.e., the Pilot Program; 2008-2010) have been analyzed and are summarized below. It should be noted that Sipiwesk Lake is also sampled for fish mercury under CAMP and concentrations were first measured in 2011; these data are currently being analyzed for inclusion in subsequent CAMP reports which are published every three years.

Length-standardized concentrations (standard means) for all fish species sampled from Cross Lake in 2010 were well below 0.5 ppm, which is the Health Canada standard for commercial marketing of freshwater fish in Canada (Health Canada 2007a, b) and the Manitoba aquatic life tissue residue guideline for human consumers (Manitoba Water Stewardship 2011) (Figure 13). Moreover, standard means of Northern Pike and Walleye did not exceed the subsistence guideline of 0.2 ppm. Lake Whitefish (which do not feed primarily on fish) could not be collected in sufficient numbers from Cross Lake: normal means of 1-year old Yellow Perch were substantially below 0.2 ppm. Standard means of Northern Pike and Walleye from Setting Lake, which is not affected by LWR, were significantly higher than those of Northern Pike and Walleye from Cross Lake. Overall, the upper Nelson River Region was one of the CAMP regions that had relatively low fish mercury concentrations.


MERCURY IN FISH

Two studies have examined the effects of hydro-electric development and flow regulation on fish mercury levels in the area. Baker and Davies (1991) summarized the physical, chemical, and biological effect of LWR on aquatic ecosystems. The authors concluded, based on unpublished DFO data for 1970-1982, that there were “no significant increases in fish mercury from Cross Lake since LWR”. The second study (MacKay et al. 1990) was more limited in scope as it assessed LWR and Kelsey GS effects on the commercial fishery at Wabowden. The authors stated that the commercial viability of the Sipiwesk Lake fishery (and, to a lesser extent, of other lakes such as Duck and Bruneau) was impacted by the full or partial (i.e., Northern Pike and Walleye could not be marketed or only with fish of smaller size) closure from 1970-1977, 1979, and 1985 due to elevated mercury concentrations. Citing Derksen (1978b; see below), MacKay et al. (1990) concluded that it was “doubtful that LWR resulted in the elevated mercury levels”, which were likely increased by flooding (approximately 164.5 km2 [63.5 mi2]) related to the Kelsey GS (also see Ramsey 1991b).

Derksen (1978a, b, 1979) first reported mercury concentrations in commercial and survey samples of Northern Pike, Walleye, Lake Whitefish, Lake Sturgeon, Goldeye, and unidentified sucker species captured from Sipiwesk, Cross, Pipestone, Drunken, and Walker lakes in 1970-1972. Mean

JULY 2014


concentrations (not standardized for length) in commercially caught Northern Pike and Walleye from Sipiwesk Lake ranged from 0.69-0.90 ppm and 0.78-0.88 ppm, respectively, and individual Northern Pike had concentrations as high as 2.4 ppm (Derksen 1978b). These mercury levels were substantially higher than those measured in the Grand Rapids area of Lake Winnipeg, and Derksen (1978b) concluded that the “mercury contamination of the Nelson River [including Sipiwesk and Pipestone, Duck, and Cross lakes] is largely if not totally natural in origin” (i.e., due to the occurrence of volcanic rock).

Derksen (1979) reported that until March 1971 (the end of the reporting period) all predatory species commercially captured from Drunken and Pipestone lakes were detained due to mercury concentrations above 0.5 ppm. Data compiled by DFO (1987), which include mercury in commercial samples from Drunken and Sipiwesk lakes for 1973/74-1985, show that out of the 4,971 kg of Northern Pike from commercial landings at Drunken Lake in 1981, 136 kg were rejected because of elevated mercury levels. Similar results were found for Northern Pike and Walleye from Sipiwesk Lake for 1978-1984 and 1981, respectively.

DFO (1987) stated that the mercury concentrations in Northern Pike and Walleye from Sipiwesk Lake “were seriously high at the outset of our sampling programs and have not appeared to have exhibited any significant increase or decrease”, a conclusion supported by Derksen and Green (1987). Northern Pike captured from Sipiwesk Lake between 1983 and 1989 had mean mercury concentrations (standardized to 550 mm length) between 0.48 and 0.64 ppm, while mean concentrations in Walleye (standardized to 400 mm length) ranged from 0.61-0.86 ppm over the same time period (Green 1990b). These levels were still largely above the standard that limits the commercial sale of fish in Canada (Health Canada 2007a, b) and were substantially higher than the 0.2 ppm subsistence guideline. Derksen and Green (1987) and Bodaly et al. (2007) included data for Sipiwesk Lake in their model calculation of the effect of flooding by northern Manitoba reservoirs on mercury concentration in Northern Pike and Walleye. Both studies reported a significant relationship between the amount (% increase) of flooding and mercury concentrations in the two species.

In 2010, Jansen (2010) summarized the mercury data available at the time (i.e., excluding years 2000 and 2003, see below) for fish from Cross Lake. The author concluded that mercury concentrations of Northern Pike and Walleye have been relatively stable over the entire 36 year record, particularly if the samples of only 5-6 fish from 1979 and 1982 are excluded (Figure 19). The means of Northern Pike and Walleye for 2007 were the lowest of the 11 available samples, and, for Northern Pike, were significantly lower than the means for 1971 that predate the implementation of the LWR (Jansen 2010). Since the analysis by Jansen (2010), mercury concentrations in Northern Pike and Walleye from the west basin of Cross Lake have been collected under CAMP in 2010 (CAMP 2014). The results for 2010 support the conclusion by Jansen (2010) and indicate that fish mercury concentrations in Cross Lake have not increased since the implementation of LWR.

JULY 2014


Cross Lake

Year1970

19751980

19851990

19952000

20052010

Mus

cle

mer

cury

(pp

m)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Pike Walleye Whitefish

Start of LWR

Figure 19: Mean length standardized muscle mercury concentrations of Northern

Pike, Walleye, and Lake Whitefish from Cross Lake from 1971 to 2010. Data for 1987 onward are from the west basin only. Data for 1979 and 1982 with samples of 5-6 fish and very large confidence limits have been omitted.

JULY 2014


MERCURY IN HUMANS

No published data on mercury concentrations in people residing in the area that pre-date LWR are available. Hair and cord blood mercury concentrations were measured in community members at Cross Lake after LWR (Wheatley 1979; Health and Welfare Canada 1984, 1987; Environment Canada and Department of Fisheries and Oceans 1992a).

On average, 92% of the hair samples taken from residents of Cross Lake between 1977 and 1985 had blood-equivalent mercury concentrations within the acceptable range (i.e., <20 ppb; Health and Welfare Canada 1987). The percentage of samples in the “increasing risk” category of 20-99 ppb decreased from 1977 and 1980 (17%) to the 1981-1985 period (0-8%). All seven cord blood concentrations were below 10 ppb (Health and Welfare Canada 1987). The author concluded that the observed mercury concentrations posed no health risk, but qualified the results because of the small number of cord blood samples and the only 40% participation of residents over the 10 year sampling period. Cross Lake (together with Norway House) had the lowest mercury concentrations in humans of all six northern communities sampled, with York Landing and Split Lake being intermediate and Nelson House and South Indian Lake having the highest levels (Health and Welfare Canada 1987). Hair from community residents was again tested in 1989 and 1990, at which time 98% of the 494 samples had less than 20 ppb blood-equivalent mercury and, again, no residents were in the “at risk” category of 100 ppb and higher (Environment Canada and Department of Fisheries and Oceans 1992a).

8.2.4.4 SUMMARY

Scientific studies indicate that LWR did not result in increased mercury concentrations in fish species in the area. An increase in mercury concentrations would not be expected since the amount of flooding in the area under regulation was minimal (65 km2 [25 mi2]). Elevated concentrations in fish that resulted in the closure of the Sipiwesk Lake fishery have been attributed to Kelsey-related flooding (164.5 km2 [63.5 mi2]). Currently, mercury concentrations in fish sampled from Cross Lake are among the lowest levels observed in waterbodies monitored as part of CAMP. None of the Cross Lake residents tested for mercury by Health and Welfare Canada were in the “at risk” category.

8.2.5 WATERFOWL

The LWCNRSB predicted that the water regime on Cross Lake under regulation would maintain or enhance the lake’s suitability for waterfowl. Increased fall water levels on Cross Lake under regulation could improve feeding conditions for waterfowl by flooding new marsh growth and that an increase in the size of nesting islands on Cross Lake due to reduced spring water levels under regulation could improve habitat for Canada geese, but that some nest losses would occur under extreme summer high water levels. As well, increased access to the area as a result of LWR infrastructure was expected to result in higher harvest rates. The LWCNRSB did not include Sipiwesk Lake in its impact assessment of the effects of LWR since the Board felt that the water regime was primarily affected by the operation of the Kelsey GS and to a lesser extent on outflow rates on Lake Winnipeg.

JULY 2014



Community concerns expressed to Manitoba Hydro primarily related to reduced access to traditional hunting areas (particularly prior to construction of the Cross Lake weir in 1991). Cross Lake residents have also stated that post-weir access to some traditional waterfowl hunting sites have been lost due to the presence of expansive plant growth in the lake which makes it difficult to access the areas during certain times of the year.


Breeding bird and habitat surveys conducted annually by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in collaboration with the Canadian Wildlife Service indicated that duck populations reached an all-time high in 2012 due to wet conditions in the Canadian Prairies (Zimpfer et al. 2012). The estimated abundance of ducks was similar in 2013, with populations showing a 6% decline from 2012, but is still 33% above the 1955-2012 long-term average (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2013).


Prior to regulation, Webb (1973) reported on an aerial survey of waterfowl populations for the outlet lakes, including Cross Lake and Duck Lake, for the LWCNRSB. The post-LWR information pertaining to bird populations is limited to regional surveys of breeding birds conducted by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

In their assessment of the effects of LWR on the community of Cross Lake prior to the weir, Nelson River Group (1986a) reported that reduced water levels on Cross Lake during the spring and summer had exposed shorelines and mudflats and resulted in an increase in the growth of aquatic macrophytes and that these plants, particularly pondweed, milfoil, and bulrushes, represented an increase of food and shelter for ducks. It should be noted, however, that the reported increase in macrophytes could, in some areas, have been a displacement of marsh habitat rather than an increase. Other authors have also noted that when drawdown exposes shorelines and mudflats that predation of newly hatched waterfowl often increases when they try to access the water.


Spring Flight of Canada Geese

JULY 2014


MacKay et al. (1990) concluded that waterfowl production on Duck Lake had been reduced by the alteration of seasonal flows under regulation. High water levels in the fall and reduced water levels in the spring had a “severe” impact on waterfowl habitat by converting productive marsh habitat into mud flats. Effects to waterfowl populations on Pipestone Lake have not been assessed in the existing literature, but are likely similar to those experienced on Cross Lake since water levels on Pipestone Lake generally follow those on Cross Lake (Appendix 3).

It is expected that the Cross Lake weir improved conditions for waterfowl during the nesting period by reducing the range of water levels and increasing minimum water levels.

8.2.5.4 SUMMARY

Scientific studies indicate that changes in the flows and flow patterns resulting from LWR may have affected populations of diving ducks and Canada geese in the Cross Lake area by reducing the amount or suitability of habitat. However, construction of the weir in 1991 likely improved conditions by reducing the range of water levels and increasing minimum levels. Productive waterfowl habitat on Duck Lake was severely impacted, resulting in a reduced numbers of waterfowl at Duck Lake. The effects of Manitoba Hydro’s operation on waterfowl populations on Sipiwesk Lake, if any, are unknown.


The LWCNRSB predicted that higher mean water levels on Cross Lake in winter under regulation would result in the flooding of muskrat and beaver houses constructed at low fall water levels and that the resultant loss to the populations would be high. The Board did not include Sipiwesk Lake in its impact assessment of the effects of LWR since the Board felt that the water regime was primarily affected by the operation of the Kelsey GS and to a lesser extent on outflow rates on Lake Winnipeg.


The Cross Lake commercial and domestic trappers have expressed a number of concerns to Manitoba Hydro. The most frequently expressed concerns include: difficulty accessing traplines particularly in winter due to slush ice conditions; damage to equipment (e.g., snow machines); loss of equipment (e.g., traps freezing in); reduced number of furbearers (particularly beaver and muskrat and, to a lesser extent, mink and otter); and a reduced quality of the furs harvested.


No current information on furbearer populations in this area was located. Although trapping records do exist for Manitoba, there is not a particularly close correlation in the amount of fur harvested and furbearer populations; trapping levels are often more closely related to current fur prices.

JULY 2014



Prior to LWR, aquatic furbearer populations in much of this area were affected by the Kelsey GS. However, because of the lack of baseline data, the effects of LWR in some areas are difficult to separate from the effects of the Kelsey GS. While information is available from trapping records, determining population trends based on those records is difficult as an analysis cannot fully account for socio-economic effects including changes in trapping effort and fur prices. This is further complicated by the fact that although furbearer populations may not have been negatively affected in some areas, access to those areas due to slush or hanging ice, affected the ability of trappers to access their traplines. In some cases, this could have resulted in an increase in furbearer numbers, but a decrease in trapping success.

Information on aquatic furbearer populations in the Cross Lake and Sipiwesk Lake areas is very limited. Prior to regulation, Webb (1973) described the distribution and habitat requirements of aquatic furbearers for the LWCNRSB. Important shoreline habitat was identified on Cross Lake for muskrat, beaver, and mink.

The only quantitative assessment of furbearer populations comes from a comparison of the number of beaver houses observed during a 1950s survey with the results of a survey conducted in 1982 on affected traplines in the Cross Lake RTL. Assuming the census methodologies were comparable, the data show a 50% decline in the beaver population (Nelson River Group 1986a). However, it has been suggested that this decline was part of a regional trend underway during the 1950s.

Although quantitative studies of aquatic furbearers are limited, anecdotal evidence suggests that changes in seasonal water level patterns due to LWR had negative impacts to species such as muskrat and beaver that are particularly susceptible to the effects of fluctuations in water level. In January 1982, a Manitoba Hydro field officer report indicated that the ice had dropped three feet on Sipiwesk Lake since freeze up, which appeared to have resulted in beaver becoming frozen out (Nelson River Group 1986a).

In their assessment of the effects of hydro-electric development on Wabowden, MacKay et al. (1990) concluded that although both Kelsey and LWR had had negative impacts on furbearer habitat in affected RTLs, the greatest impact to beaver and muskrat populations occurred in 1960, the first year of operation of the Kelsey GS. The Cross Lake Trappers Association, in claims for trapping losses, has identified the traplines that have been affected by LWR and it is expected that aquatic furbearer populations would have been negatively affected on those traplines.

It is expected that the weir likely improved habitat conditions for beaver and muskrat on Cross Lake by reducing the amplitude of water level fluctuations.

JULY 2014


8.2.6.4 SUMMARY

Information on aquatic furbearer populations in the Cross Lake and Sipiwesk Lake areas is limited. It is likely that changes in the flows and flow patterns under LWR, particularly increased winter water levels on Cross Lake, negatively impacted local populations of muskrat and beaver. Construction of the weir in 1991 likely improved conditions on Cross Lake by reducing the range of water levels. The effects of LWR on aquatic furbearer populations on Sipiwesk Lake are not clearly understood.

However, it should be noted that as stated previously, access to trapping areas has been expressed as one of the key factors affecting trappers. In some cases, trapping areas within the Registered Traplines have not been affected by water level and flow changes but access to those areas has been affected by LWR.


The LWCNRSB predicted that the movements of woodland caribou in the Cross Lake area could be affected by the construction of Two-Mile Channel and changes in the ice regime on Cross Lake due to winter water releases from Jenpeg. The number of moose that would be affected by regulation was not known. The Board did not include Sipiwesk Lake in its impact assessment of the effects of LWR since the Board felt that the water regime was primarily affected by the operation of the Kelsey GS and to a lesser extent on outflow rates on Lake Winnipeg.


The Cross Lake community has expressed several concerns to Manitoba Hydro regarding moose including: decreased access to traditional hunting areas; increased access (via road) into other areas which has increased non-Aboriginal hunting; and reduced moose populations. Woodland caribou populations are relatively small in the area and the authors are not aware of any specific concerns expressed to Manitoba Hydro by Cross Lake residents.


Moose populations in northern Manitoba, which have always existed at lower densities t(approximately 5 to 10 moose per 100 km2) than in southern areas, do not seem to have decreased (Knudsen et al. 2010). Between 2002 and 2007 (the last years for which there are data) the area between the outlet lakes and


Cross Lake

JULY 2014


Thompson (Manitoba Game Hunting Area 9A), an area of approximately 25,000 km2 (9,700 mi2), received approximately 10% of the provincial general moose hunting pressure (approximately 300 hunters and 50 moose taken). No reliable estimates of the provincial moose harvest taken by Aboriginal hunters were located.

The western Canadian population of boreal woodland caribou is currently listed as threatened under the federal Species at Risk Act and the provincial Endangered Species Act. The area affected by LWR only intersects with the range of the Wabowden herd (Figure 14). The population of boreal woodland caribou in Manitoba is estimated to range from 1,500 to 3,100 animals (Manitoba Conservation 2006 cited in Manitoba Boreal Woodland Caribou Management Committee 2014).


Prior to regulation, Webb (1973) conducted an aerial survey of the outlet lakes, including the southern-most portion of Cross Lake, to survey moose populations for the LWCNRSB. Cross Lake was described as having habitat with better than average capacity for moose (Witty et al. 1973). Post-LWR, information pertaining to ungulates is limited to a few regional moose surveys conducted by MDNR between 1983 and 1987 (Elliott 1988; Knudsen and Didiuk 1985) and again in 2000 (Elliott and Hedman 2001), and a survey of the use of calving habitat by boreal woodland caribou in the Wabowden area (Hirai 1998).

The effects of regulation on ungulates along the Nelson River between Jenpeg and the Kelsey GS would largely have been restricted to shoreline areas where shallow water wetlands were adversely affected by the reversal of seasonal flow pattern under low to average flow conditions. As such, regulation would have had little effect on caribou distribution in the area.

The range of the Wabowden herd of boreal woodland caribou, which has been listed as Threatened by COSEWIC (2002) and SARA (2003), includes the area to the west of Cross Lake and the southwestern-most portion of the Sipiwesk Lake area (Manitoba Conservation 2006). Manitoba Conservation has identified previous linear developments (e.g., provincial highways and roads, rail lines, transmission lines, and logging roads) and current and potential future industrial activities (e.g., timber harvesting and mineral exploration) as the key threats facing the Wabowden herd (Manitoba Conservation 2006).

MacKay et al. (1990) concluded that 140 km2 (54 mi2) of moose habitat had been flooded by the Kelsey GS or negatively affected by LWR, noting that most of this impact occurred as a result of the Kelsey GS. Local knowledge indicates that moose became less abundant after Jenpeg was constructed (Nelson River Group 1986c). The post-project assessments conducted for Cross Lake (Nelson River Group 1986a, b, c) and Wabowden (MacKay et al. 1990) both concluded that lower moose populations were due to overharvesting rather than LWR-related habitat loss. However, both studies noted that overharvesting was, in part, facilitated by enhanced access as a result of LWR infrastructure.

Surveys by MDNR similarly found evidence of overharvesting based on the distribution of moose. Knudsen and Didiuk (1985) observed that good quality habitat close to travel routes or close to human settlements was under-utilized by moose, while Elliott (1988) suggested that the pattern of increasing

JULY 2014


moose densities with increasing distance from human population centers and with decreasing ease of access was indicative of overexploitation. The weir likely did not have a direct impact to moose or caribou habitat on Cross Lake, but may have contributed to a reduction in moose populations by improving access to the area to hunters.

Changes in the distribution of moose since the 1950s have been linked primarily to forest succession and fire history (Elliott and Hedman 2001).

8.2.7.4 SUMMARY

It is difficult to determine the effect of LWR on ungulates as moose and caribou populations would be more closely related to harvest pressure than effects from LWR (less than 1% of the land base was affected by LWR). Scientific studies indicate that changes in the flows and flow patterns resulting from LWR would have had a minimal impact to ungulate populations downstream of Jenpeg. It is expected that increased road access may have increased moose harvests which would negatively affect moose populations a decreased access in other area due to ice conditions (slush ice/ice ridges) may have decreased hunting pressure in other areas. It is known, however, that habitat fragmentation would have occurred through the construction of linear features by Manitoba Hydro which would have had a negative effect on ungulate populations.

8.3 KELSEY GS TO GULL RAPIDS

This area extends from the Kelsey GS to Gull Rapids. A map of the area downstream of the Kelsey GS showing the general locations of key studies that occurred in the periods both before and after regulation is illustrated in Figure 20.


The physical effects of LWR on water levels and flows in the area are described in greater detail in Appendix 3. The effects of LWR on Split Lake are superimposed on the impacts of CRD.

The operations of CRD and LWR have affected water levels on Split Lake and downstream on the Nelson River to Gull Rapids. CRD has increased average flows, while both CRD and LWR can affect the seasonal flow pattern. Winter flows and levels are generally higher because of CRD and LWR. Also, the seasonal pattern of water levels was reversed after CRD/LWR. Flows in this area are generally well within the ranges experienced previously.

JULY 2014


Figure 20: Map showing waterbodies and adjacent terrestrial areas sampled as part of key pre- (symbol outline) and post-LWR (solid symbol) studies along the Nelson River from the Kelsey GS to Gull Rapids. The studies were grouped such that programs that occurred over multiple years are depicted by a single symbol for each major waterbody in which it occurred (e.g., surveys in Split Lake that occurred from 2009-2011 under CAMP is represented by a single fish symbol).

JULY 2014


8.3.2 WATER QUALITY

Potential linkages between LWR and water quality are primarily related to alterations in the relative discharge of the Nelson River and Burntwood River, as well as potential effects related to erosion. Some water quality conditions vary between these two systems and changes in the relative flows of these rivers conceptually could affect water quality in Split Lake and downstream. Additionally, any effects of LWR on water quality in the upper Nelson River could affect water quality in downstream waterbodies on the lower Nelson River, including the Split Lake to Gull Rapids area.

The LWCNRSB (1975) predicted the following combined effects of CRD and LWR on water quality in the lower Nelson River system:

“Diversion of the Churchill River flows into the Nelson River system and regulation of flows from Lake Winnipeg will cause a substantial temporary lowering of the quality of water in the lower Nelson River primarily as a result of soil erosion and associated leaching of minerals along the Diversion Route, and to a lesser extent due to shoreline erosion on Split Lake and the channel sections of the Nelson River.”

“Upon completion of the channel and shoreline adjustments a modest improvement in the quality of the water may be anticipated by virtue of the dilution effect as the higher quality Churchill River water is added to the lower quality Nelson River water.”

“The changes may be summarized by noting that the suspended sediment content of the water might increase initially to roughly 300 percent of its present value and then decrease to approximately 75 percent of the present value. The increase in suspended sediment is anticipated to diminish in a downstream direction and to persist for a period of about 10 years…The significance of the increased sediment load in the Burntwood River might be placed in perspective by noting that the anticipated concentration of sediment in the Burntwood River at Split Lake (approximately 210 mg/L) is roughly one-half of the annual mean concentration in the Red River (approximately 340 mg/L).”


A number of concerns regarding water quality have been expressed to Manitoba Hydro by members of Tataskweyak Cree Nation (TCN), York Factory First Nation (YFFN), and Fox Lake Cree Nation (FLCN). The primary concerns have related to: increased turbidity; increased green slime (algae); increased metals in the water including mercury; and the general ability of the water to support aquatic life and to be used for drinking water and recreation. Members from all three communities have told Manitoba Hydro that they no longer drink water from the river as they feel it is unsafe.

In addition to this, YFFN has expressed specific concerns related to the variable quality of water at their potable water intake. The intake is situated in a location that draws water from the Aiken River when water levels on Split Lake are low but draws Split lake water when water levels are high. This effect is

JULY 2014


compounded by the ferry which churns up the water which is sometimes drawn into the water intake. YFFN has also reported the occurrence of swimmer’s itch near the community.


Water quality has been monitored on an annual basis under CAMP in the Burntwood River (at the inlet to Split Lake) since 2009, Split Lake (near the community) since 2009, and Assean Lake (off-system lake) since 2009. Results of monitoring for the first three years of CAMP (i.e., the pilot phase; 2008-2010) have been analyzed in detail and are summarized below.

Water quality of the lower Nelson River, including the Split Lake to Gull Rapids area, can be generally described as moderately to highly nutrient-rich, slightly alkaline, moderately hard to hard, and well-oxygenated (Table 7). Split and Assean lakes did not stratify and maintained DO concentrations above MWQSOGs for PAL across depth over the monitoring period, except on one anomalous occasion in Split Lake.

Most water quality parameters, including pH, ammonia, nitrate, and most metals, were within the MWQSOGs for PAL in the Kelsey GS to Gull Rapids area. Key exceptions included TP, aluminum, and iron. Total phosphorus concentrations exceeded the Manitoba narrative nutrient guideline on average and in the majority of samples collected in Split Lake. Concentrations of aluminum were notably above the PAL guideline at all sites, with the highest concentrations occurring in the Burntwood River at the inlet to Split Lake. Average iron concentrations also exceeded the PAL guideline in the Burntwood River, Split Lake and Assean Lake. As previously noted, exceedances of Manitoba guidelines for aluminum, iron, and TP were observed in a number of CAMP waterbodies, including off-system lakes. Mercury and silver marginally exceeded PAL guidelines in the Burntwood River on one occasion each. Similarly low frequency and magnitude exceedances for these metals were also observed at other CAMP waterbodies, including off-system sites.

JULY 2014


Table 7: Water quality summary: Kelsey GS to Gull Rapids (from CAMP 2014)

Metric

Waterbody

Burntwood River Split Lake Assean Lake

Thermal Stratification

(Y/N) No No No

TP - Whole year (mg/L) 0.037 0.038 0.020TP - Open-water (mg/L) 0.038 0.041 0.020TP Trophic Status - Whole year

- Eutrophic Eutrophic Mesotrophic/

Meso-eutrophic

TP Trophic Status - Open-water season

- Eutrophic Eutrophic Mesotrophic/

Meso-eutrophic

TN - Whole year (mg/L) 0.46 0.49 0.45TN - Open-water (mg/L) 0.48 0.47 0.43TN Trophic Status - Whole year

- Oligotrophic Mesotrophic Mesotrophic

TN Trophic Status - Open-water season

- Oligotrophic Mesotrophic Mesotrophic

Secchi Disk Depth (m) 0.35 0.44 0.84DO Lower than MWQSOGs for PAL

(Y/N) No Yes2 No

Conductivity (µmhos/cm) 122 295 237TSS (mg/L) 18.7 11.2 6.8DOC (mg/L) 9.3 9.2 11.2Hardness (mg/L) 65 120 134pH - 8.10 8.27 8.34Metals > MWQSOGs for PAL

- Al, Fe, Ag2, Hg2 Al, Fe Al, Fe

Chlorophyll a - Whole year

(µg/L) 1.42 3.47 1.63

Chlorophyll a - Open-water season

(µg/L) 1.90 4.44 1.82

Chlorophyll a Trophic Status - Whole year

- Oligotrophic Mesotrophic Oligotrophic

Chlorophyll a Trophic Status - Open-water season

- Oligotrophic Mesotrophic Oligotrophic

1. Summer 2010 across depth - suspected measurement error.

2. Measurements were at or near analytical detection limits and are associated with relatively high uncertainty such that there is low confidence that an actual exceedance of a PAL guideline has occurred.

JULY 2014


As noted in Section 8.1.2.2, nutrients and their effects on primary production (e.g., phytoplankton) are a common issue in aquatic ecosystems around the world. Total phosphorus and chlorophyll a measured under CAMP along the upper and lower Nelson River and in nearby off-system waterbodies from 2008 to 2012 were summarized to examine potential changes in these key parameters along the river as water flows through various lakes and reservoirs (Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership 2013). Chlorophyll a concentrations were generally similar along the upper and lower Nelson rivers, though higher measurements have been periodically measured in lakes downstream of Lake Winnipeg during CAMP.

Collectively, this information indicates that there are no substantive changes in either parameter from Playgreen Lake to the lower Nelson River downstream of all Manitoba Hydro generating stations. That is, based on this dataset, phytoplankton abundance does not successively increase in lakes and reservoirs along the upper and lower Nelson River.

The similar levels of chlorophyll a observed between the on-system waterbodies and the off-system Setting Lake indicates that primary productivity is not notably higher in lakes located downstream of Lake Winnipeg than a nearby waterbody outside of the Lake Winnipeg drainage and unaffected by Manitoba Hydro’s hydraulic system. Further, that TP concentrations are actually significantly lower in Setting Lake than Cross or Split lakes suggests that algal growth is limited by factors other than phosphorus in on-system lakes and reservoirs.


Not all studies have reached the same conclusions regarding changes in the water quality of Split Lake following the construction of the Kelsey GS, CRD, or LWR. Discrepancies between studies may be due to one or more factors including differences in the time periods examined, changes in analytical or sampling methods, and/or differences in the dataset used for the pre-LWR/CRD period.

Numerous studies have examined water quality conditions in relation to TSS. Overall, the loading of TSS to Split Lake from the Burntwood River increased post-CRD (Vitkin and Penner 1979; NHC 1988). Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. (1987) concluded that the main source of suspended sediment along the CRD route was lakeshore and riverbank erosion in the Rat/Burntwood River system. Ramsey (1991a) indicated the majority of the suspended sediment load is deposited in Split Lake near the inflow of the Burntwood River.

Within Split Lake, studies have reported that water clarity (as defined by TSS, turbidity, and/or Secchi disk depth) had increased (Ramsey et al. 1989), decreased (Playle and Williamson 1986; Manitoba Hydro-Split Lake Cree Joint Studies 1996; Split Lake Cree-Manitoba Hydro Joint Studies 1996a), or remained unaffected (Williamson and Ralley 1993; Ramsey 1991a) by LWR/CRD. With one exception, comparisons of water quality conditions pre- to post-LWR/CRD have indicated nutrients, including phosphorus and nitrogen parameters, either decreased or were unchanged over the time intervals examined. The exception was reported by Williamson and Ralley (1993) who noted a temporary increase in TP near the lake outlet. Two studies (Williamson and Ralley 1993; Playle and Williamson 1986)

JULY 2014


reported that total organic carbon increased post LWR/CRD, though the more recent study indicated the increase was temporary.

Despite discrepancies in the available literature, all comparative studies (i.e., pre- vs post-LWR/CRD comparisons) reported either decreases or no changes in conductivity, total dissolved solids (TDS), hardness, pH, alkalinity and major ions near the outlet of Split Lake (Ramsey et al. 1989; Ramsey 1991a; Playle and Williamson 1986; Williamson and Ralley 1993). Overall, the most consistently noted changes in Split Lake water quality (measured near the outlet) following LWR/CRD were reductions in hardness, major ions (cations and anions), and conductivity, though there were some differences in conclusions regarding some of the major ions (Ramsey 1991a; Playle and Williamson 1986; Williamson and Ralley 1993).

The observed decreases in conductivity, hardness, and major ions have been primarily attributed to the increased flows of the Burntwood River due to CRD (and ultimately due to diversion of the Churchill River), as Burntwood River water is softer, more dilute, and contains lower concentrations of major ions than the Nelson River upstream of Split Lake (Ramsey 1991a). Further, major ions (excepting potassium), hardness, and conductivity did not differ pre- and post-LWR on the Nelson River upstream of Split Lake indicating that changes observed in these parameters near the outlet of Split Lake were due to CRD and not LWR (Ramsey 1991a).

Some changes in water quality were noted pre- and post-LWR in the Nelson River upstream of Split Lake including decreases in potassium and pH. The observed reductions in pH near the outlet of Split Lake have been attributed to reduced pH of Nelson River water. Similarly, the decrease in potassium observed in the Nelson River may have contributed to observed decreases in potassium in Split Lake (Ramsey 1991a). However, the author concluded that there was no clear relationship between the observed changes in water quality of the Nelson River and LWR. Potential causes identified included changes in analytical methods, and evolution of conditions in the area impounded by the Kelsey GS.

An assessment of changes in metals due to LWR/CRD is hampered by the limited quantity of pre-LWR/CRD data and notably, by changes in analytical methods. Therefore, assessments have been based upon modeling or inference to identify potential changes. Ramsey (1991a) suggested that extractable iron and manganese were increased and dissolved arsenic was decreased near the outlet of Split Lake by CRD.

8.3.2.4 SUMMARY

Despite the existence of a comprehensive database, the effects of LWR on water quality downstream of the Kelsey GS are difficult, if not impossible, to separate from the effects of the CRD. While it is clear that numerous effects did occur (e.g., decreased conductivity in Split Lake) the effects are much more closely related to the effects of CRD than LWR and cannot be separated.

JULY 2014



The LWCNRSB (1975) predicted that during the first 10 years of operation of CRD/LWR could result in a silting effect in Split Lake due to erosion of minerals along the diversion route and, to a lesser, extent shoreline erosion on Split Lake. Siltation could result in a decrease in benthos production for fish species such as Lake Whitefish, Cisco, and Walleye in Split Lake as well as a decrease in reproductive success for species such as Walleye and Northern Pike. An increase in turbidity in Split Lake was also expected to reduce the feeding abilities of juvenile fish such as Cisco, Walleye, and Lake Whitefish.


Residents of Split Lake and York Factory First Nation have expressed several concerns to Manitoba Hydro regarding fish populations and fishing (particularly domestic fishing). Primary concerns include: decreased fish populations; increased debris in their gill nets; decreased access in both summer (deadheads in the water and lack of shoreline access) and winter (slush ice and hanging ice conditions); loss of camping sites used when fishing; and a decrease in the quality of the fish (taste, texture, and increased mercury).


Fish populations in Split Lake are currently monitored on an annual basis as part of Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro’s CAMP (CAMP 2014). The fish assemblage in this region is dominated by Walleye and Northern Pike. White Sucker are common in Split Lake. Spottail Shiner, Rainbow Smelt, and Troutperch are the dominant forage fish species in these waterbodies. The catch-per-unit-effort using standard gang index gill nets in waterbodies along the lower Nelson River was the lowest for all on-system waterbodies monitored as part of CAMP (Figure 11).

In Split Lake, strong classes were observed for Northern Pike each year from 2005 to 2007 and for Walleye in 2002 to 2004. The incidence of external abnormalities (collectively referred to as DELTs) observed in these waterbodies is low (< 3%).

The only waterbody along the lower Nelson River that currently supports a commercially is Split Lake. For the period 2008/09 to 2010/11, Split Lake produced an annual average of 22,060 kg (round weight) of quota species (Walleye, Goldeye, Sauger, Lake Whitefish, and Northern Pike). No catch was marketed in 2009/10.


It is difficult to determine the effects of LWR on fish population downstream of the Kelsey GS because this area was affected concomitantly by CRD, and previously by the construction of the Kelsey GS. Because fish populations require several generations to adapt to habitat changes caused by hydro-electric development, it is expected that changes were still occurring to fish communities in response to previous hydro-electric development when LWR became operational. Moreover, the fish community in the area is

JULY 2014


affected by commercial and domestic fisheries, and, post-LWR, by the arrival of Rainbow Smelt in the early 1990s (Remnant et al. 1997). These factors have the potential to cause a significant change in the fish community structure that is not related to LWR.

Several studies have examined catch-per-unit-effort values based either on counts or weights from standard gang gillnetting surveys of fish populations in Split Lake since the 1960s (e.g., Schlick 1968b; Ayles et al. 1974; Derksen et al. 1988; Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership 2012a); however, comparison between datasets is hindered by methodological differences. For example, gillnet mesh sizes varied between years and the weights of the whole catch or of specific groups were not recorded in some years. Due to this, it is often difficult to quantify the effect of LWR on a specific waterbody.

As part of baseline studies for the LWR/CRD, Ayles et al. (1974) compared the results of a gillnetting survey conducted in 1973 to one conducted in 1966 and concluded that there had been a 70% increase in Walleye and Lake Whitefish production in Split Lake during the ten year period leading up to LWR/CRD. The authors attributed this change in the fish community, at least partially, to a reduction in fishing pressure during the 1971 to 1976 closure of the commercial fishery due to elevated mercury levels from industrial developments in upstream areas. Around this period of time, fish in the area were likely also being affected by changes caused by the operation of the Kelsey GS, which began in 1961. Operation of the Kelsey GS has been linked to increased parasites in whitefish and defects in Walleye and pike and a reduction in the number of Lake Sturgeon moving into Split Lake from the upper Nelson River (Split Lake Cree-Manitoba Hydro Joint Studies 1996a).

The first post-LWR index gillnetting surveys on Split Lake were conducted about seven years after operation of LWR (Patalas 1984; Kirton 1986; Hagenson 1987a, b, 1988, 1989, 1990). Monitoring has subsequently been conducted on Split Lake as part of TEMA (1997-1998; Fazakas and Lawrence 1998; Fazakas 1999), baseline studies for the Keeyask GS (2001-2002; Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership 2012a), and annually under CAMP (2009-2011; CAMP 2014). The reach of the Nelson River between Split Lake and Gull Rapids was similarly surveyed in 2001-2003, and again in 2009, as part of the monitoring program for the Keeyask GS (Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership 2012a; Holm 2010).

Comparisons of catch-per-unit-effort among index gillnetting studies to discern temporal trends in the abundance and composition of the fish communities must be made cautiously because of differences in methodology between sampling programs (e.g., mesh sizes used, sampling locations, time of year, duration of sets) and the limited number of datasets in the pre-development period. For the purposes of this report, comparisons of pre- and post-LWR data were made by standardizing CUE values for index gillnet sets using gangs comprising similar mesh sizes (i.e., 1.5 to 5.5 inch mesh) to a net length of 100 m and CUE values were expressed as overnight sets (i.e., assumed 16-24 hour set durations). Total CUE over the post-LWR period (1983-2011) is approximately 42% higher than for the pre-LWR period (1966, 1973; Figure 21). Since regulation, CUE has declined since the 1980s (Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership 2012a). The catch composition of the most recent studies (post-1997) has a decrease in the representation of species such as Cisco and Lake Whitefish, and an increased proportion of Walleye, Northern Pike, and Rainbow Smelt. Whether these differences are due to changes in the fish population resulting from hydro-electric development or differences in sampling methodologies are unknown.

JULY 2014


Although the fishing gear was comparable, the surveys had different sampling strategies, with the Keeyask GS studies being focused on habitat-based replicates (i.e., nets were set to cover various habitat types some of which are known to be poor fish habitat while other studies set nets in areas that they felt would yield the highest catches).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1966 1973 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1997 1998 2001 2002 2009 2010 2011

CU

E (#

fish

/100

m/o

vern

ight

set

)


Figure 21: Comparison of annual catch-per-unit-effort (CUE) values from index gill nets set in Split Lake prior to (1966, 1973) and after LWR (1983-2011). CUE values were standardized to 100 m gill nets set overnight, but no corrections were made to differences in sampling location, duration, season, net mesh composition11.

111966 study by the province in July using four panels of 3-5.25" mesh; 1973 study by LWCNRSB in August using nine panels of 1.5-5.25" mesh; 1983-1984 studies under Canada-Manitoba Mercury Monitoring Program in June-August and 1985-1989 studies by the province under MEMP.in July-August using six panels of 1.5-5" mesh; 1997-1998 studies by Manitoba Hydro under TEMA and 2001-2002 under Keeyask in August using six panels of 1.5-5" mesh; 2009-2011 studies by Manitoba Hydro/the province under CAMP in June using five panels of 2-5" mesh.

JULY 2014


COSEWIC (2006) has cited habitat degradation and fragmentation caused by hydro-electric dams as the primary threat to the Nelson River Lake Sturgeon populations, which were designated as endangered by COSEWIC in 2005-2006. Historically, Lake Sturgeon populations were depleted by the commercial fisheries that operated from 1907 to 1991. Lake Sturgeon continue to be harvested by local First Nation members. It is likely that increased flows and erosion on the Burntwood River due to CRD contributed to the alteration of fish habitat and fish community in Split Lake (Split Lake Cree-Manitoba Hydro Joint Studies 1996a). While the quality of Lake Sturgeon spawning habitat at First Rapids was likely altered by CRD, at least some Lake Sturgeon from the upper Split Lake population continue to use habitat below First Rapids to spawn (Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership 2012a).

8.3.3.4 SUMMARY

Despite the existence of a comprehensive database, the effects of LWR on fish populations downstream of the Kelsey GS are difficult, if not impossible, to separate from the effects of other hydro-electric developments in the area. The present-day fish assemblage in the region is dominated by Walleye and Northern Pike, and White Sucker. Currently, catch-per-unit-effort in waterbodies along the lower Nelson River is the lowest for all for all on-system waterbodies monitored as part of CAMP. Split Lake continues to support a commercial fishery. Lake Sturgeon continue to be harvested throughout the region by local First Nations.

8.3.4 MERCURY



Residents of Split Lake and York Landing have frequently expressed concerns regarding the level of mercury in fish. As noted previously, as there was no Cree word for “mercury”, some of the information provided by government sources to the affected communities shortly after LWR, used the word “poison” which increased the level of concern regarding mercury in fish in all areas regardless of whether mercury levels increased or not. There is also a strong perception that the quality of the fish, in terms of taste and texture, has declined since LWR.


Mercury concentrations in fish muscle tissues are currently monitored in Split Lake in concert with fish population studies as part of Manitoba Hydro and Manitoba’s CAMP (CAMP 2014) and in Gull Lake as

JULY 2014


part of the Keeyask Environmental Studies (KHLP 2012a). Length-standardized concentrations (standard means) for all fish species sampled are currently (Gull Lake: 2002-2006; Split Lake 2010) well below 0.5 ppm (Figure 13), which is the Health Canada standard for commercial marketing of freshwater fish in Canada (Health Canada 2007a, b) and the Manitoba aquatic life tissue residue guideline for human consumers (Manitoba Water Stewardship 2011). The standard means of Northern Pike and Walleye from both lakes were equal to or slightly exceeded the subsistence guideline of 0.2 ppm. In contrast, the standard means of Lake Whitefish, a species that mainly feeds on aquatic invertebrates, from Split and Gull lakes were much lower than the guideline value, and also were significantly lower than the standard means of the above two (fish) predatory species from each lake. Standard means of Northern Pike and Walleye from Assean Lake, an off-system lake, were similar than those of the same two species from Split and Gull lakes, and were significantly lower in Lake Whitefish. Overall, the lower Nelson River Region, is one of three of the seven CAMP regions that has relatively low fish mercury concentrations .


MERCURY IN FISH

Split Lake has one of the longest and the most complete records on fish mercury concentrations in the Manitoba (see summary in Jansen and Strange 2007). Total mercury content of muscle tissue of Northern Pike and Walleye has been recorded for 23 and 26 years, respectively, between 1970 and 2010; corresponding data for Lake Whitefish are available for 14 years since 1983 (Bodaly et al. 2007; Jansen and Strange 2007; Jansen 2010; CAMP 2014). Several historic studies have assessed the effects of hydro-electric development and flow regulation on fish mercury levels in the area (summarized in Canada and Manitoba 1987; Environment Canada and Department of Fisheries and Oceans 1992a), but the focus was on the effects of the CRD, not the LWR.

The Split Lake commercial fishery was partially closed (i.e., Northern Pike and Walleye were not accepted for sale, but Lake Whitefish was; Ayles et al. 1974) for the period between 1971 and 1976 (Baker and Davies 1991). Just prior to this closure, high mercury concentrations (>1 ppm) had been measured in fish in the Saskatchewan and Winnipeg rivers (Bligh 1971). These high levels were associated with the operation of chlor alkali plants and since very little was known about mercury in the environment at this time, the Manitoba government temporarily stopped issuing commercial fishing licenses for waterbodies with fish mercury concentrations exceeding 0.5 ppm in some individuals (Bligh 1971). The Split Lake Cree have expressed concerns regarding high mercury levels in fish from Split Lake (Split Lake Cree-Manitoba Hydro Joint Studies 1996a). Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership (2012a) concluded that mean mercury concentrations in Northern Pike and Walleye, both piscivorous species, from Split Lake have fluctuated greatly over the 20-year period from 1970-1990 (Figure 22) without showing any trends that could be attributed to the operation of either LWR or CRD (also see Baker and Davies 1991; Bodaly et al. 2007). Maximum length standardized means for individual fish (i.e., excluding commercial samples) were observed in 1982 for both Northern Pike (0.52 ppm) and Walleye (0.75 ppm). These maxima were not significantly different from means recorded between 1973 and 1988. Starting in 1989, mercury concentrations began to decrease and by 1996 concentrations reached the range of values that were recorded until 2010: 0.18-0.40 ppm in Northern Pike and 0.12-0.33 ppm in Walleye.

JULY 2014


Lake Whitefish, which mainly feed on invertebrates, showed a much smaller overall range in standard concentrations than the two piscivorous species (Walleye and Northern Pike), but mercury levels also decreased substantially from maximum values of 0.10 ppm in 1986 and 0.11 ppm in 1998 to a range of 0.03- 0.07 ppm from 2001-2010. Mean mercury concentrations in most species of domestic and commercial importance are currently well below the 0.5 ppm standard for commercial marketing of freshwater fish in Canada (Health Canada 2007a, b) and are mainly close to (Northern Pike and Walleye) or substantially lower (Lake Whitefish) than the 0.2 ppm subsistence guideline.

Split Lake

Year1970

19751980

19851990

19952000

20052010

Mus

cle

mer

cury

(pp

m)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

PikeWalleyeWhitefish

Start of LWR

Figure 22: Mean standardized mercury concentrations of Northern Pike, Walleye, and Lake Whitefish from Split Lake from 1970 to 2010. Confidence limits are not shown for the sake of clarity.

Mercury concentrations in fish from several other waterbodies in the area, both on-system and off-system, and for additional species, have been periodically measured over the past 30 years (Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership 2012a; Jansen 2010). Some of these data confirm the findings for Split Lake that recent mean concentrations in Northern Pike, Walleye, and Lake Whitefish are substantially lower compared to those recorded in the 1980s in on-system waterbodies.

JULY 2014


MERCURY IN HUMANS

Mercury concentrations in humans residing in the area are available from hair samples of community members at Split Lake and York Landing from 1976-85. The effects of LWR were not assessed, but Health and Welfare Canada (1984, 1987) reported that, out of the four communities within the impact zone of CRD and two communities on the upper Nelson River that were not impacted by CRD, residents of Split Lake and York Landing had intermediate mercury concentrations. No trend in concentrations was observed for the 1976-1985 time period (Health and Welfare Canada 1987) and as of 1985, no individual results were in the “at risk” category (>30 ppm in hair, >100 ppb in blood).

8.3.4.4 SUMMARY

Scientific studies indicate that LWR did not result in increased mercury concentrations in fish species in Split Lake. Currently, mercury concentrations in fish sampled from Split Lake are among the lowest levels observed in waterbodies monitored as part of CAMP.

8.3.5 WATERFOWL

The LWCNRSB anticipated that any effects of CRD/LWR to waterfowl habitat along shorelines along the lower Nelson River and consequently to populations would be minor and temporary.


Split Lake residents have stated that LWR affected waterfowl hunting in a number of ways including: a reduction in the number of waterfowl; change in waterfowl distribution patterns (some residents have stated that waterfowl have recently started to return to historic areas); loss of traditional hunting areas; loss of campsites and trails; and reduced access due to debris in the water and changing water conditions. Waterfowl hunting by York Landing residents (which is a major activity in the community) has also been affected but potentially to a lesser extent as a large amount of the waterfowl hunt takes place near the community or in non-impacted areas along the Hudson Bay coast.


Waterfowl in Split Lake and the lower Nelson River to Gull Rapids were recently monitored as part of Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed Keeyask GS (Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership 2012c). Common waterfowl in the area include Canada goose, mallard, American wigeon, common goldeneye, lesser scaup, common merganser, and white-winged scoter. Waterbodies along the lower Nelson River provide important staging habitat for waterfowl during the migrations seasons. As well, inland lakes, creeks, and wetlands provide key breeding habitat for many duck species. Canada goose and mallard continue to be harvested by the local First Nations.

JULY 2014



There is a general lack of quantitative information pertaining to pre-LWR bird populations, including waterfowl, inhabiting the shoreline areas in the Key GS to Gull Rapids area. Post-LWR, waterfowl studies have been conducted along the lower Nelson River since 2001 as part of studies in support of the Keeyask GS (TetrES Consultants Inc. 2004, 2005a, b, c, 2006, 2007, 2008).

First Nation members have stated that plants were uprooted along the shoreline of Split Lake and Gull Lake due to ice build-up, and that shoreline plants, such as willows, have been washed away as a result of hydro-electric development (Split Lake Cree-Manitoba Hydro Joint Studies 1996a). As well, nesting habitat for ducks and geese was described as having been destroyed and migration routes and staging areas as having been disrupted.

In addition to the effects of hydro-electric development, waterfowl populations in the area have been affected by numerous other factors (summarized in Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership 2012b). It should also be noted that populations of scaup have been in decline since the 1980s, but the cause for these declines is not known.

8.3.5.4 SUMMARY

The effects of LWR on waterfowl from the Kelsey GS to Gull Rapids are difficult, if not impossible, to separate from the effects of other hydro-electric developments such as CRD.


The LWCNRSB anticipated that any effects of CRD/LWR to aquatic furbearer habitat along shorelines along the lower Nelson River and consequently to populations would be minor and temporary.


Split Lake and York Landing residents have stated that hydro-electric developments have substantially affected aquatic furbearers (beaver, muskrat, mink and otter) in a number of ways including: a reduction in the number of furbearers (particularly beaver and muskrat that are affected by water level changes in the winter); loss of habitat; a decrease in the quality of furs; loss of campsites and trails; and reduced access to traplines in the winter due to hanging ice and slush ice.


Aquatic furbearers in Split Lake and along the Nelson River to Gull Rapids have recently been monitored as part of Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed Keeyask GS (Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership 2012c). Common species in the area include beaver, muskrat, mink, and river otter. None of the aquatic furbearers in the area are classified as rare by the Manitoba Conservation Data Centre. Muskrats are commonly observed on streams and along the perimeter of inland lakes. Ponds and

JULY 2014


streams provide important habitat to beavers. Mink and river otter are common near lake and riparian shorelines; whereas otter were frequently observed in upland areas, mink are not. Aquatic furbearer populations continue to support commercial and domestic trapping activity by the KCNs.


There is a general lack of quantitative information pertaining to aquatic furbearer populations inhabiting the shoreline areas of the lower Nelson River and its associated waterbodies. Post-LWR, mammal studies, including studies on aquatic furbearers, have been conducted on Split and Assean lakes and the Nelson River to Gull Rapids from 2001-2003 as part of studies in support of the Keeyask GS (Patenaude and Berger 2004a, b; Patenaude et al. 2005; Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership 2012b; Kibbins and Berger 2007). While information is also available from trapping records, determining population trends based these records is difficult as an analysis cannot fully account for socio-economic effects such as changes in trapping effort and fur prices.

Although quantitative studies of aquatic furbearers inhabiting the shoreline areas of the Split Lake are not available, the changes in seasonal water level patterns due primarily to LWR would have negatively affected muskrat and beaver that are particularly susceptible to the effects of fluctuations in water level (Split Lake Cree-Manitoba Hydro Joint Studies 1996a). Mink and otter would have been less affected by regulation because they do not den but mink (and to a lesser extent otter) could have been affected by a reduced food supply.

8.3.6.4 SUMMARY

The effects of LWR on aquatic furbearers from the Kelsey GS to Gull Rapids have been negative but are difficult, if not impossible, to separate from the effects of other hydro-electric developments in the area.


Beaver Lodge and Food Cache on Split Lake

JULY 2014



The LWCNRSB anticipated that any effects of CRD/LWR to ungulate habitat along shorelines along the lower Nelson River and consequently to populations would be minor and temporary.


Split Lake and York Landing residents have expressed a number of concerns regarding ungulates including: a reduction in the number of ungulates in some areas due to over-hunting caused by increased road access; a reduction in habitat due to flooding (which is more closely related to the generating stations than LWR); decreased access to traditional hunting areas due to debris in the water, water level fluctuations, and poor ice conditions; loss of traditional hunting sites and camping areas; and loss of shoreline access.


Ungulates in Split Lake and the Nelson River to Gull Rapids were recently monitored as part of Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed Keeyask GS (Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership 2012c). Ungulate species in the area include moose and caribou. The moose population in the Split Lake Resource Management Area was estimated at 2,600 individuals in 2010 (Knudsen et al. 2010). There are three groupings of caribou occurring in the area: barren-ground caribou; Pen Islands; and ‘summer resident’12 caribou. Coastal and barren-ground caribou migrate from northern Manitoba/Ontario or Nunavut, respectively, to overwinter in the area. Calving habitat for summer resident caribou, which consists of relatively undisturbed islands on

12 The exact range and herd association of this group of caribous is uncertain; the group could consist of coastal caribou, woodland caribou, or a mixture of both (Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership 2012b).

Source: Wildlife Resource Consulting Service MB Inc.

Caribou on Long Island in the Nelson River

JULY 2014


lakes or raised black spruce surrounded by expansive wetlands or treeless areas, is common in the area. Moose and caribou continue to be harvested in the area by the KCNs and non-residents.


Studies of ungulates are not specific to LWR-impact areas as they are limited to surveys of Game Hunting Areas. The GHA that includes the Nelson River downstream of Kelsey GS (GHA 9) extends as far west as the Saskatchewan border. Post-LWR, Manitoba Natural Resources conducted a moose census in the Northern Flood agreement area between 1983-1987 (Elliott 1988) and again in 2000 (Elliott and Hedman 2001), and the Split Lake Resource Management Board (1995) sponsored a moose study in the Split Lake RMA during the winter of 1993-94. Ungulate studies have been conducted since 2001 as part of the Keeyask GS environmental assessment studies (Patenaude and Berger 2004a, b; Patenaude et al. 2005; Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership 2012b; Kibbins and Berger 2007; Knudsen et al. 2010).

The effects of LWR on ungulates along the Nelson River downstream of the Kelsey GS have not been well documented and are likely inseparable from effects associated with other hydro-electric developments in the area. Moreover, ungulate populations in the area are affected also by factors separate from hydro-electric development. Elliott and Hedman (2001) reported that changes in the distribution of moose since the 1950s was primarily related to forest succession and fire history. Moose populations in the area are also affected by both licensed hunters and local First Nations resource harvesters.

Local knowledge indicates that after regulation hanging ice on Split Lake resulted in some moose being killed and that moose moved further upland because the shoreline areas could no longer support them (Split Lake Cree-Manitoba Hydro Joint Studies 1996a). However, moose populations along Split Lake were still thought to be healthy. In both the pre- and post-regulation periods, moose occur throughout the area at low to moderate densities (Eliott and Hedman 2001; Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership 2012b). The Split Lake RMA moose herd has not declined in the last 15 years, assuming that the 1994 data is a rough indicator (Knudsen et al. 2010).

8.3.7.4 SUMMARY

The effects of LWR on ungulates downstream of the Kelsey GS are difficult, if not impossible, to separate from the effects of other hydro-electric developments in the area such as CRD. Any effect of hydro-electric development on the animals has been very local, but the effects on access for First Nation resource harvesters may have been substantial.

JULY 2014


9.0 ONGOING MONITORING

The Coordinated Aquatic Monitoring Program (CAMP), initiated in 2008, represents a coordinated effort between the Government of Manitoba (Manitoba) and Manitoba Hydro to implement a long-term, systematic and system-wide aquatic monitoring program across Manitoba Hydro’s hydraulic operating system in Manitoba. CAMP was designed to document the environmental condition of waterways affected by Manitoba Hydro’s hydraulic operating system and facilitate a better understanding over time, of the environmental effects of hydro-electric operations. The program was developed and benefited from extensive technical collaboration from scientists and specialists from various Federal and Provincial agencies (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment Canada, Manitoba Water Stewardship), Manitoba Hydro, and environmental consultants. The program has also benefited greatly from the valuable input provided by a host of Resource Management Boards, First Nations, community members and stakeholders. For additional information on CAMP see http://campmb.com/.

The primary objective of CAMP is to determine the health of aquatic environments and track them over time. The program is extensive in scope and includes monitoring of physical, chemical, and biological components of the aquatic environment including water quality, sediment quality, phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates, fish populations, and mercury in fish. Some sites are monitored annually while other sites are monitored on a three year rotational basis. Some parameters such as sediment quality and mercury which generally do not substantially change from year to year are monitored every six years and three years, respectively.

The following eight regions are monitored: Winnipeg River Region; Saskatchewan River Region; Lake Winnipeg Region; Upper Churchill River Region; Lower Churchill River Region; CRD Region; Upper Nelson River Region; and the Lower Nelson River Region. Both on-system and off-system waterbodies are sampled. Off-system waterbodies provide both context and the ability to determine how changes other than hydro-electric development (e.g., climate change) may be affecting the environment.

Monitoring conducted in the area affected by LWR (from Warren Landing to Gull Rapids) includes the following waterbodies: Playgreen Lake (on-system: every three years); Little Playgreen Lake (on-system: every three years); Cross Lake – west basin (on-system: annual); Setting Lake (off-system: annual); Walker Lake (off-system13: every three years); Sipiwesk Lake (on-system: every three years) ; Nelson River from Sipiwesk Lake to Kelsey GS (on-system: every three years); Split Lake (on-system: annual); and Assean Lake (off-system: annual).


JULY 2014


Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro have a long-term commitment to monitoring the system-wide effects of Manitoba Hydro’s hydro-electric developments through CAMP. Additional work regarding the monitoring and reporting of ecosystem health is being conducted both as part of CAMP and as part of the RCEA. Information on future monitoring and reporting will be provided in the Phase II document for the RCEA which is scheduled for late fall 2015.

JULY 2014


10.0 REFERENCES

10.1 LITERATURE CITED Austin, J.E., Afton, A.D., Anderson, M.G., Clark, R.G., Custer, C.M, Lawrence. J.S., Pollard, J.B., and

Ringelman, J.K. 2000. Declining scaup populations: Issues, hypotheses, and research needs. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(1): 254-263 pp.

Ayles, H., Brown, S., Machniak, K., and Sigurdson, J. 1974. The fisheries of the lower Churchill lakes, the Rat-Burntwood lakes and the upper Nelson lakes: Present conditions and the implications of hydroelectric development. Lake Winnipeg, Churchill and Nelson Rivers Study Board Technical Report, Appendix 5, Volume 2, Section I. 99 pp.

Ayles, H.A. 1974. The fisheries of the East Channel of the Nelson River. Lake Winnipeg Churchill and Nelson Rivers Study Board Technical Report, Appendix 5, Volume 2, Section B. 22 pp.

Baker R., and Davies, S. 1991. Physical, chemical, and biological effects of Churchill River Diversion and Lake Winnipeg Regulation on aquatic ecosystems. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 1806: 53 pp.

Barth, C.C., Graveline, P.G., and Kroeker, K. 2001. Cross Lake outlet control weir post-project fish stock assessment 2000, Cross and Pipestone lakes. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by North/South Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 74 pp.

Bernhardt, W.J. 1995. Cross Lake outlet control weir post-project fish stock assessment 1994, Cross and Pipestone lakes. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by North/South Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 113 pp.

Bernhardt, W.J. 1996. Cross Lake outlet control weir post-project fish stock assessment 1995, Cross and Pipestone lakes. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by North/South Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 82 pp.

Bernhardt, W.J., and Schneider-Vieira, F.I. 1994. Cross Lake outlet control weir post-project fish stock assessment 1993, Cross and Pipestone lakes. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by North/South Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 110 pp.

Bligh, E.G. 1971. Mercury levels in Canadian fish. In Proceedings, Special Symposium on Mercury in Man's Environment. Edited by J.E. Watkin. The Royal Society of Canada, Ottawa, ON. 73-90 pp.

Bodaly, R.A., and Hecky, R.E. 1979. Post-impoundment increases in fish mercury levels in the Southern Indian Lake reservoir, Manitoba. Fisheries & Marine Service Manuscript Report No. 1531: 15 pp.

Bodaly, R. A., Jansen, W.A., Majewski, A.R., Fudge, R.J.P., Strange, N.E., Derksen, A.J., and Green, D.J. 2007. Post-impoundment time course of elevated mercury concentrations in fish in hydroelectric

JULY 2014


reservoirs of northern Manitoba, Canada. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 53: 379-389 pp.

Bodaly, R.A., Rosenberg, D.M., Gaboury, M.N., Hecky, R.E., Newbury, R.W., and Patalas, K. 1984. Ecological effects of hydroelectric development in northern Manitoba, Canada: The Churchill-Nelson river diversion. In Effects of pollutants at the ecosystem level. Edited by P.J. Sheehan, D.R. Miller, G.C. Butler, and Ph. Boudreau. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Mississauga, ON. 273-309 pp.

Bodaly, R.A., Maiers, L.D., Reist, J.D., and Baker, R.F. 1988. Low levels of variation in mitochondrial DNA sequences among northern Manitoba (Canada) populations of Lake Whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis), with comparisons to Lake Cisco (C. artedi). Ergebnisse der Limnologie 0(50): 341-347.

CAMP (Coordinated Aquatic Monitoring Program). 2014. Three year summary report (2008-2010). Report prepared for the Manitoba/Manitoba Hydro MOU Working Group by North/South Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB.

Canada and Manitoba. 1987. Summary report: Canada-Manitoba agreement on the study and monitoring of mercury in the Churchill River Diversion. Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON, and Manitoba Environment and Workplace Safety and Health, Winnipeg, MB. 77 pp.

Cann, R. 1993. An analysis of whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) stock dynamics on Playgreen Lake, 1982-1990. MS Rep. No. 93-01, Manitoba Department of Mines and Natural Resources, Winnipeg, MB. 92 pp.

Caskey, R.R., and MacDonell, D.S. 2010. Cross Lake outlet control weir post-project fish stock assessment 2008, west Cross Lake. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by North/South Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 59 pp.

Clean Environment Commission. 2013. Report on Public Hearing: Bipole III Project June 2013. Winnipeg, Manitoba. 150 pp.

Cleator, H., Martin, K.A., Pratt, T.C., and Macdonald, D. 2010. Information relevant to a recovery potential assessment of Lake Sturgeon: Nelson River population (Designatable Unit 3). DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Advisory Report. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Winnipeg, MB. 33 pp.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2006. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Lake Sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, ON. 70 pp.

Davies, S., Baker, R., and Horne, B. 1998a. The quality of Lake Whitefish, Walleye, and Northern Pike from Playgreen Lake, Little Playgreen Lake, and Mossy Bay (Lake Winnipeg). A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by North/South Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 36 pp.

JULY 2014


Davies, S., Baker, R., and Horne, B. 1998b. Fish movements, species composition, and catch data for Playgreen Lake, Little Playgreen Lake, and Mossy Bay (Lake Winnipeg). A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by North/South Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 83 pp.

Derksen, A.J. 1978a. A report on the preliminary testing of mercury contamination in fishes from the Hudson Bay drainage system connected with Manitoba. MS Rep. No. 78-70, Manitoba Department of Northern Affairs, Renewable Resources and Transportation Services, Winnipeg, MB. 40 pp.

Derksen, A.J. 1978b. A review of possible natural sources of mercury contamination in Manitoba waters. MS Rep. No. 78-71, Manitoba Department of Northern Affairs, and Renewable Resources and Transportation Services, Winnipeg, MB. 77 pp.

Derksen, A.J. 1979. A summary report of mercury contamination in fishes from Manitoba waters to March, 1971. MS Rep. No. 79-55, Manitoba Department of Mines, Natural Resources and Environment, Winnipeg, MB. 43 pp.

Derksen, A.J., and Green, D.J. 1987. Total mercury concentrations in large fishes from lakes on the Churchill River Diversion and Nelson River. Canada-Manitoba Agreement on the Study and Monitoring of Mercury in the Churchill River Diversion, Technical Appendix 17, Volume 4. 195 pp.

Derksen, A.J., Green, D.J., and Hagenson, I. 1988. Ecological monitoring – fisheries: 1986 progress report. Manitoba Department Mines and Natural Resources, Winnipeg, MB. 56 pp.

DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 1987. Mercury data from inspected commercial shipments of fish from the Churchill River Diversion area in Manitoba. Canada-Manitoba Agreement on the Study and Monitoring of Mercury in the Churchill River Diversion, Technical Appendix 16, Volume 4. 18 pp.

Driver, E.A., and Doan, K.H. 1972. Fisheries survey of Cross Lake (Nelson River), 1965. MS Rep. No. 73-5, Manitoba Department of Mines, Resources and Environmental Management, Winnipeg, MB. 17 pp.

Dyck, C., and Lawrence, M. 2005. Kiskitto dyke repairs post project monitoring: Fish utilization assessment, year 2. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by North/South Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 38 pp.

Dyck, C., and Lawrence, M. 2006. Kiskitto dyke repairs post project monitoring: Fish utilization assessment, year 3. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by North/South Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 43 pp.

Elliott, D.C.M. 1988. Large area moose census in northern Manitoba. Alces 24 (1988): 48-55 pp.

Elliott, C., and Hedman, D. 2001. 2000 GHA 9 and GHA 9A moose inventory. Manitoba Conservation, Winnipeg, MB. 8 pp.

JULY 2014


Environment Canada and Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1992a. Federal ecological monitoring program: Final report (2 volumes). Environmental Canada and Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Winnipeg, MB.

Environment Canada and Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1992b. Federal ecological monitoring program: Summary report. Environment Canada and Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Winnipeg, MB.

Fazakas, C.R. 1999. Biological and environmental data from environmental gillnetting on Split Lake, Manitoba, August 1998. TEMA Report # 99-03. A report prepared for the Tataskweyak Environmental Monitoring Agency by North/South Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 101 pp.

Fazakas, C.R., and Lawrence, M.J. 1998. Biological and environmental data from experimental gillnetting on Split Lake, Manitoba, August 1997. TEMA Report # 98-03. A report prepared for the Tataskweyak Environmental Monitoring Agency by North/South Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 104 pp.

Gaboury, M.N., and Patalas, J.W. 1981. An interim report on the fisheries impact study of Cross and Pipestone lakes. MS Rep. No. 81-22, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Winnipeg, MB. 190 pp.

Gaboury, M.N., and Patalas, J.W. 1982. The fisheries at Cross, Pipestone and Walker lakes, and the effects of hydroelectric development. MS Rep. No. 82-14, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Winnipeg, MB. 198 pp.

Gaboury, M.N., and Patalas, J.W. 1984. Influence of water level drawdown on the fish populations of Cross Lake, Manitoba. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41: 118-125 pp.

Gallagher, C.P., and MacDonell, D.S. 2008. Cross Lake outlet control weir post-project fish stock assessment 2007, Cross and Pipestone lakes. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by North/South Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 87 pp.

Green, D.J. 1988a. Summary of fish population data from Sipiwesk and Cross lakes, 1987. MS Rep. No. 88-12, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Winnipeg, MB. 90 pp.

Green, D.J. 1988b. Summary of fish population data from Sipiwesk and Cross lakes, 1988. MS Rep. No. 89-11, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Winnipeg, MB. 91 pp.

Green, D.J. 1990a. Summary of fish population data from Sipiwesk and Cross lakes, 1989. MS Rep. No. 90-06, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Winnipeg, MB. 72 pp.

Green, D.J. 1990b. Updated summary of fish mercury data collected from six lakes on the Rat-Burntwood and Nelson River systems, 1983-1989. MS Rep. No. 90-10, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Winnipeg, MB. 277 pp.

Hagenson, I. 1987a. Fish population data from Rat and Split lakes, 1985. MS Rep. No. 87-4, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Winnipeg, MB. 59 pp.

Hagenson, I. 1987b. Fish population data from Split and Stephens lakes, 1986. MS Rep. No. 87-26, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Winnipeg, MB. 59 pp.

JULY 2014


Hagenson, I. 1988. Fish population data from Split and Stephens lakes, 1987. MS Rep. No. 88-15, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Winnipeg, MB. 66 pp.



Health Canada. 2007a. Human health risk assessment of mercury in fish and health benefits of fish consumption. Health Canada, Bureau of Chemical Safety, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Ottawa, ON. 70 pp.

Health Canada. 2007b. Health Canada's revised assessment of mercury in fish (March 27, 2007) (online). Available from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/_2007/2007_31-eng.php (accessed September 2012).

Health and Welfare Canada. 1984. Methylmercury in Canada: Exposure of Indian and Inuit residents to methylmercury in the Canadian environment. Health and Welfare Canada, Ottawa, ON. 164 pp.

Health and Welfare Canada. 1987. Mercury in the hair of native people. Canada-Manitoba Agreement on the Study and Monitoring of Mercury in the Churchill River Diversion, Technical Appendix 18, Volume 4, Section 18. 83 pp.

Hirai, T. 1998. An evaluation of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) calving habitat in the Wabowden area, Manitoba. M.N.R.M. Practicum, Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB. 119 pp.

Holm, J. 2010. Results of index gillnetting studies conducted in the Keeyask study area, summer 2009. Keeyask Project Environmental Studies Program Report # 09-01. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by North/South Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 94 pp.

Houston, J.J. 1987. Status of the Lake Sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens, in Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 101(2): 171-185 pp.

I.D. Systems Ltd. 1991. Effects of the Lake Winnipeg Regulation project on waterfowl use of the outlet lakes area and on Norway House Band. Original data and text produced by P. Boothroyd, Boothroyd and Associates for the Canadian Wildlife Service. 69 pp.

I.D. Systems Ltd. 1993. Investigations of waterfowl use of Playgreen Lake during fall, 1992 migration: Completion report. I.D. Systems Ltd., Winnipeg, MB. 65 pp.

Jansen, W. 2010. Mercury in fish from six northern Manitoba lakes and reservoirs: Results from 2007-2008 sampling and an update of time trends of monitoring data. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by North/South Consultants Inc. 45 pp.

Jansen, W., and Strange, N.E. 2007. Mercury in fish in northern Manitoba reservoirs: Results from 1999-2005 sampling and a summary of all monitoring data for 1970-2005. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by North/South Consultants Inc. 102 pp.

JULY 2014


Johnson, M.W., Neufeld, D.L., and MacDonell, D.S. 2005. Cross Lake outlet control weir post-project fish stock assessment, 2004, Cross and Pipestone lakes. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by North/South Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 28 pp.

Jones, G., and Armstrong, N. 2001. Long-term trends in total nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations in Manitoba streams. Manitoba Conservation Rep. No. 2001-07, Water Branch, Water Quality Management Section, Manitoba Conservation, Winnipeg, MB. 173 pp.

Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership. 2012a. Keeyask Generation Project: Environmental impact statement aquatic environment supporting volume. Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership, Winnipeg, MB.

Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership. 2012b. Keeyask Generation Project: Environmental impact statement terrestrial environment supporting volume. Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership, Winnipeg, MB.

Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership. 2012c. Keeyask Generation Project: Environmental impact statement response to EIS guidelines. Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership, Winnipeg, MB.

Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership. 2013. Response to Clean Environment Questions 1-56 (online). Available from http://www.cecmanitoba.ca/resourc/hearings/39/KHLP-103%20Response%20to%CEC%20Questions%20(December%202013)%201-56%20FINAL.pdf. (accessed March 6, 2014).

Kibbins, A., and Berger, R. 2007. Results of mammals investigations in the Keeyask study area, 2004. Keeyask Project Environmental Studies Program Report # 04-19. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by Wildlife Resource Consulting Services MB, Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 64 pp.

Kirton, J.A.W. 1986. Fish population data from Split and Stephens lakes, 1984. MS Rep. No. 86-04, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Winnipeg, MB. 61 pp.

Kiskitto Lake Regulation Committee. 1977. Kiskitto Lake regulation study. Kiskitto Lake Regulation Committee, Winnipeg, MB. 60 pp.

Knudsen, B., and Didiuk, A.B. 1985. The abundance of moose in the Cross Lake and Norway House resource areas: A progress report of the Northern Flood Agreement moose monitoring program. Wildlife Branch Tech. Rep. No. 85-3, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Winnipeg, MB. 50 pp.

Knudsen, B., Berger, R., Johnstone, S., Kiss, B., Paillé, J., and Kelly, J. 2010. Split Lake Resource Management Area moose survey 2009 and 2010. Keeyask Project Environmental Studies Program Report # 10-01. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by Knudsen Wildlife Management Systems and Wildlife Resource Consulting Services MB Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 144 pp.

Kooyman, B. 1955. An analysis of data collected in 1953 and 1954 from the sturgeon fisheries on the Nelson and Churchill River. Manitoba Department of Mines and Natural Resources, Winnipeg, MB. 8 pp.

JULY 2014


Koshinsky, G.D. 1973. The limnology-fisheries of the outlet lakes area: Present conditions and implications of hydro-electric development. Lake Winnipeg Churchill and Nelson Rivers Study Board Technical Report, Appendix 5, Volume 2, Section A. 156 pp.

Kristofferson, A.H., and Clayton, J.W. 1990. Subpopulation status of Lake Whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) in Lake Winnipeg. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47: 1484-1494 pp.

Kroeker, K., and Bernhardt, W.J. 1993. Cross Lake outlet control weir post-project fish stock assessment, 1992. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by North/South Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 83 pp.

Kroeker, K., and Bernhardt, W.J. 1997. Cross Lake outlet control weir post-project fish stock assessment 1996 Cross and Pipestone lakes. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by North/South Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 87 pp.

Kroeker, K., and Graveline, P.G. 1998. Cross Lake outlet control weir post-project fish stock assessment 1997, Cross and Pipestone lakes. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by North/South Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 88 pp.

Kroeker, K., and Graveline, P.G. 1999. Cross Lake outlet control weir post-project fish stock assessment 1998, Cross and Pipestone lakes. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by North/South Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 99 pp.

LWCNRSB (Lake Winnipeg, Churchill and Nelson Rivers Study Board). 1975. Lake Winnipeg, Churchill and Nelson Rivers Study Board: Technical report. Lake Winnipeg, Churchill and Nelson Rivers Study Board, Winnipeg, MB. 510 pp.

Macdonald, D. 1998. Five year report to the Nelson River Sturgeon Co-management Board on Nelson River sturgeon studies 1993-1997. Fisheries Branch, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Winnipeg, MB. 44 pp.

MacDonell, D., and Graveline, P.G. 2002. Cross Lake outlet control weir post-project fish stock assessment 2001, Cross and Pipestone lakes. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by North/South Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 86 pp.

MacDonald, J.E., and MacDonell, D.S. 2003. Cross Lake outlet control weir post-project fish stock assessment 2002, Cross and Pipestone lakes. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by North/South Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 86 pp.

MacDonald, J.E., and MacDonell, D.S. 2004. Cross Lake outlet control weir post-project fish stock assessment 2003, Cross and Pipestone lakes. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by North/South Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 91 pp.

MacKay, G.H., Davies, S., and Westdal, H. 1990. Post project assessment of Kelsey and Lake Winnipeg Regulation impacts on Wabowden. The Wabowden Study Team, Winnipeg, MB. 98 pp.

MacLaren Plansearch Inc. 1985. Ecological study of Playgreen Lake, Manitoba. Report, technical appendices, and addendum. MacLaren Plansearch Inc., Winnipeg, MB.

JULY 2014


MacLaren Plansearch Inc. 1989. Northern Flood Agreement Environmental Monitoring Program: Manitoba/Manitoba Hydro environmental monitoring program: June 1986-June 1988-biannual Report. MacLaren Plansearch Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 32 pp.

MacLaren Plansearch Inc. and Beak Consultants Ltd. 1988. Implementation of NFA article 19.4.1 Relevant background data. MacLaren Plansearch Inc., Winnipeg, MB and Beak Consultants Ltd., Brampton, ON.

MacLaren Plansearch Inc. and Beak Consultants Ltd. 1989. Implementation of NFA article 19.4.2. Previous impacts, present opportunities. MacLaren Plansearch Inc., Winnipeg, MB and Beak Consultants Ltd., Brampton, ON.

Manitoba Boreal Woodland Caribou Management Committee. 2014. Conserving the icon on the boreal, Manitoba’s boreal woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) recovery strategy. Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship, Winnipeg, MB. 30 pp.

Manitoba Conservation. 2006. Manitoba’s conservation and recovery strategy for boreal woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou). Manitoba Conservation, Winnipeg, MB. 20 pp.

Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship Fisheries Branch. 2012. Manitoba Lake Sturgeon management strategy 2012. Conservation and Water Stewardship Fisheries Branch, Winnipeg, MB. 52 pp.

Manitoba Hydro-Split Lake Cree Joint Studies. 1996. History and first order effects: Manitoba Hydro projects and related activities in the Split Lake Cree study area. Split Lake Cree Post Project Environmental Review, Volume 2. 64 pp.

Manitoba Water Stewardship. 2011. Manitoba water quality standards, objectives, and guidelines. MWS Report 2011-01, Water Science and Management Branch, Manitoba Water Stewardship. 67 pp.

Mavros, W.V., and Bodaly, R.A. 1992. The effect of the Lake Winnipeg Regulation hydroelectric project on the stock genetics of Lake Whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) in Playgreen Lake and northern Lake Winnipeg: Preliminary results. Federal Ecological Monitoring Program, Technical Appendices, Volume 2. 22 pp.

McCart, P. 1992. Nelson River sturgeon fishery: Maximum sustainable yield and the impact of hydroelectric development. Aquatic Environments Limited, Spruce View, AB. 15 pp.

McDougall, C.A., and Pisiak, D.J. 2012. Results of a Lake Sturgeon inventory conducted in the Sea Falls to Sugar Falls reach of the Nelson River – fall, 2012. Lake Sturgeon Stewardship and Enhancement Program Report 12-03. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by North/South Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 46 pp.

Mohr, L., and Kirton, J.A.W. 1986. Fish population data from Sipiwesk and Cross lakes, 1985. MS Rep. No. 86-28, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Winnipeg, MB. 83 pp.

Mohr, L. 1987. Fish population data from Sipiwesk and Cross lakes, 1986. MS Rep. No. 87-28, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Winnipeg, MB. 87 pp.

JULY 2014


Nelson River Group. 1986a. Cross Lake environmental impact assessment study: Volume 1: Key issues and impacts. Nelson River Group, Winnipeg, MB. 372 pp.

Nelson River Group. 1986b. Cross Lake environmental impact assessment study: Volume 2: Evaluation of mitigation options. Nelson River Group, Winnipeg, MB. 91 pp.

Nelson River Group. 1986c. Cross Lake environmental impact assessment study: Volume 3: Environmental impact statement. Nelson River Group, Winnipeg, MB. 54 pp.

Neufeld, D.L., MacDonald, J., and MacDonell, D.S. 2006. Cross Lake outlet control weir post-project fish stock assessment, 2005, Cross and Pipestone lakes. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by North/South Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 103 pp.

NHC (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd.). 1987. Assessment of sediment effects, Churchill River Diversion, Manitoba: Phase I report. Report # 87-4. A report prepared for Water Resources Branch, Western and Northern Region, Environment Canada by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd., Edmonton, AB. 29 pp.

NHC. 1988. Assessment of sediment effects, Churchill River Diversion, Manitoba: Phase II report. IWD-WNR(M)-WRB-SS-88-2, Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd., Edmonton, AB. 48 pp.

Noetix Research. 2012. Water Quality Service (online). Available from http://www.noetix.ca/WaterQuality (accessed September 2012).

North/South Consultants Inc. 2012. Limestone Generating Station: Aquatic environment monitoring programs: A synthesis of results from 1985 to 2003. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by North/South Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 192 pp.

O’Connor, J.F. 1982. Changes in the characteristics of the Playgreen Lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) population 1975-1981. MS Rep. No. 82-10, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Winnipeg, MB. 64 pp.

Patalas, J.W. 1984. Fish population data from Sipiwesk, Split and Stephens lakes, 1983. MS Rep. No. 84-24, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Winnipeg, MB. 29 pp.

Patalas, J.W. 1988. The effects of commercial fishing on Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) populations in the Sipiwesk Lake area of the Nelson River, Manitoba, 1987 to 1988. MS Rep. No. 88-14, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Winnipeg, MB. 38 pp.

Patenaude, A., and Berger, R. 2004a. Results of mammal, reptile and amphibian investigations in the Gull (Keeyask) study area, 2001. Gull (Keeyask) Project Environmental Studies Program Report # 01-12. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by Wildlife Resource Consulting Services MB Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 142 pp.

Patenaude, A., and Berger R. 2004b. Results of mammal investigations in the Gull (Keeyask) study area, 2002. Keeyask Project Environmental Studies Program Report # 02-07. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by Wildlife Resource Consulting Services MB Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 184 pp.

Patenaude, A., Kibbins, A., Walleyn, A., and Berger, R. 2005. Results of mammal investigations in the Gull (Keeyask) study area, 2003. Keeyask Project Environmental Studies Program Report # 03-

JULY 2014


34. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by Wildlife Resource Consulting Services MB Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 246 pp.

Petch, V. 1992. A preliminary indication of isinglass harvested in the Norway House area, 1832-1892. Prepared for North/South Consultants Inc. by Northern Lights Heritage Services, Winnipeg, MB. 6 pp.

Playle, R.C., and Williamson, D.A. 1986. Water chemistry changes associated with hydroelectric development in northern Manitoba: The Churchill, Rat, Burntwood, and Nelson rivers. Water Standards and Studies Rep. No. 86-8, Manitoba Environment and Workplace Safety and Health, Winnipeg, MB. 57 pp.

Ramsey, D.J. 1991a. Final water quality report. Federal Ecological Monitoring Program, Technical Appendices, Volume 2. Prepared by Agassiz North Associates Ltd., Winnipeg, MB. 320 pp.

Ramsey, D.J. 1991b. Final mercury report. Federal Ecological Monitoring Program, Technical Appendices, Volume 1. Prepared for Environment Canada by Agassiz North Associates Ltd., Winnipeg, MB. 141 pp.

Ramsey, D.J., Livingston, L., Hagenson, I., and Green, D.J. 1989. Evolution of limnological conditions in lakes of the Nelson and Rat-Burntwood river systems after Churchill River Diversion and Lake Winnipeg regulation: An overview. MS Rep. No. 89-15, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Winnipeg, MB. 93 pp.

Rannie, W.F., and Punter, E. 1987. Survey of existing data on levels and sources of mercury within the region covered by the Canada-Manitoba Mercury Agreement. Canada-Manitoba Agreement on the Study and Monitoring of Mercury in the Churchill River Diversion, Technical Appendix 2, Volume 1. 172 pp.

Remnant, R.A., Graveline, P.G., and Bretecher, R.L. 1997. Range extension of the Rainbow Smelt, Osmerus mordax, in the Hudson Bay drainage of Manitoba. Canadian Field-Naturalist 111(4): 660-662 pp.

Richardson, V.L., and MacDonell, D.S. 2007. Cross Lake outlet control weir post-project fish stock assessment 2006, Cross and Pipestone lakes. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by North/South Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 104 pp.

Schlick, R.O. 1968a. A survey of Sipiwesk Lake in 1966. MS Rep. No. 68-5, Manitoba Department of Mines and Natural Resources, Winnipeg, MB. 17 pp.

Schlick, R.O. 1968b. A survey of Split Lake in 1966. MS Rep. No. 68-8, Manitoba Department of Mines and Natural Resources, Winnipeg, MB. 21 pp.

Shipley, E.C.M. 2005. Kiskitto dyke repairs post project monitoring: Fish utilization assessment, year 1. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by North/South Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 45 pp.

Sopuck, R.D. 1978. The commercial fishery of Playgreen Lake with notes on recent changes in the whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) population. MS Rep. No. 78-67, Manitoba Department of Renewable Resources and Transportation Services, Winnipeg, MB. 66 pp.

JULY 2014


Sopuck, R.D. 1987. An analysis of changes in the Pipestone Lake fish community from 1980 to 1986. MS Rep. No. 87-11, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Winnipeg, MB. 69 pp.

Split Lake Cree First Nation. 1996. Analysis of change: Split Lake Cree First Nation. Split Lake Cree Post Project Environmental Review, Volume 1. 96 pp.

Split Lake Cree-Manitoba Hydro Joint Studies. 1996a. Environmental matrices: Summary of Manitoba Hydro impacts on Split Lake Cree. Split Lake Cree Post Project Environmental Review, Volume 3.

Split Lake Cree-Manitoba Hydro Joint Studies. 1996b. Environmental baseline evaluation. Split Lake Cree post project environmental review, Volume 4. Support from North/South Consultants Inc. 200 pp.

Split Lake Cree-Manitoba Hydro Joint Studies. 1996c. Summary and conclusions: Phase II summary and conclusions. Split Lake Cree Post Project Environmental Review, Volume 5. 103 pp.

Split Lake Resource Management Board. 1995. Moose conservation plan 1993/94. Produced by the Split Lake Resource Management Board and Manitoba Conservation, Winnipeg ,MB. 46 pp.

Sunde, L.A. 1961. Growth and reproduction of the Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens Rafinesque) of the Nelson River in Manitoba. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. 93 pp.

TetrES Consultants Inc. 2004. Avian field studies report, 2001. Gull (Keeyask) Project Generating Environmental Studies Program Report # 01-09. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by TetrES Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 212 pp.

TetrES Consultants Inc. 2005a. Avian field studies report 2002. Gull (Keeyask) Environmental Studies Program Report # 02-11. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by TetrES Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 190 pp.

TetrES Consultants Inc. 2005b. Avian field studies report 2003. Keeyask Environmental Studies Program Report # 03-04. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by TetrES Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 168 pp.

TetrES Consultants Inc. 2005c. Access road – avian field studies report 2004. Keeyask Environmental Studies Program Report # 04-01. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by TetrES Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 34 pp.

TetrES Consultants Inc. 2006. Avian field studies report 2005. Keeyask Environmental Studies Program Report # 05-01. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by TetrES Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 40 pp.

TetrES Consultants Inc. 2007. Avian field studies report 2006. Keeyask Environmental Studies Program Report # 06-01. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by TetrES Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 34 pp.

JULY 2014


TetrES Consultants Inc. 2008. Avian field studies report 2007. Keeyask Project Environmental Studies Program Report # 07-02. A report prepared for Manitoba Hydro by TetrES Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, MB. 50 pp

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Waterfowl population status, 2013. US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 79 pp.

Vitkin, N., and Penner, F. 1979. 1979 review of suspended sediment sampling in Manitoba. MS Rep. No. 79-22, Manitoba Department of Mines, Resources and Environmental Management, Winnipeg, MB. 71 pp.

Webb, R. 1973. Wildlife resource impact assessment Lake Winnipeg, Churchill and Nelson rivers hydroelectric projects: No. 1 – outlet lakes. Lake Winnipeg Churchill and Nelson Rivers Study Board Technical Report, Appendix 6, Section A. 62 pp.

Wheatley, B. 1979. Methylmercury in Canada: Exposure of Indian and Inuit residents to methylmercury in the Canadian environment. Health and Welfare Canada, Medical Service Branch, Ottawa, ON. 200 pp.

Williamson, D.A., and Ralley, W.E. 1993. A summary of water chemistry changes following hydroelectric development in northern Manitoba, Canada. Water Quality Management Rep. No. 93-02, Manitoba Environment, Winnipeg, MB. 68 pp.

Witty, D., Schlick, W., and Lamb, J. 1973. Recreation assessment of the outlet lakes area. Lake Winnipeg Churchill and Nelson Rivers Study Board Technical Report, Appendix 7, Section B. 85 pp.

Zimpfer, N.L., Rhodes, W.E., Silverman, E.D., Zimmerman, G.S., and Richkus, K.D. 2012. Trends in duck breeding populations, 1955-2012. Administrative report. Division of Migratory Bird Management, US Fish and Wildlife Service.

10.2 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS Wilson, Ross. 2013. Toxicologist, Wilson Scientific Consulting. Vancouver, BC. September 2013.

lake winnipeg regulation - appendix 6 · july 2014 lake winnipeg regulation page appendix 6 i this...

Documents