lower churchill hydroelectric generation project ... · pdf filethe lower churchill...

LOWER CHURCHILL HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE REPORT

MOOSE (Alces alces)

LCP 535746

Final Report

October 16, 2009

THE LOWER CHURCHILL HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE REPORT: MOOSE (Alces alces)

LCP 535746

FINAL REPORT

16 October 2009

Prepared by

Minaskuat Inc.

for

Nalcor Energy

Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project

MIN0316.10/1013774.10 • Moose EBR • October 2009 Page i © Minaskuat Inc. 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Nalcor Energy is proposing to develop the hydroelectric potential of the lower Churchill River at two locations, Gull Island and Muskrat Falls. The Project includes construction camps, transmission lines and other components within the lower Churchill River watershed that provide year-round, seasonal and other temporary habitat for a variety of wildlife species in central Labrador. Minaskuat Limited Partnership (Minaskuat) was retained in June 2006 to conduct a Terrestrial Wildlife Component Study and collect baseline information on wildlife species and their habitats in the lower Churchill River valley. This Environmental Baseline Report presents the results of investigations related to moose (Alces alces) in the vicinity of the proposed Project (i.e., within the lower Churchill River watershed).

Previous investigations (Trimper et al. 1996; Chubbs and Schaefer 1997; Jacques Whitford 1997) indicate that moose use several riparian areas and islands within the lower Churchill River valley during winter, but appear to move out of the valley to higher elevations and upland wetland areas during summer months. Little is known of these movements in terms of distance traveled, routes, timing and relative importance of wintering areas in this watershed in particular, although several areas within the physical zone of influence of the Project (in the lower Churchill River watershed) are known to provide wintering habitat for moose.

The objective of this investigation was to assess annual habitat use and associated movements of moose occupying the lower Churchill River valley in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Three initiatives, aerial surveys, a capture program, and telemetry tracking; were pursued as part of this work scope. Scientific Research Permits to complete these initiatives were obtained from the provincial Wildlife Division who also assisted with the capture program.

Winter aerial surveys were completed over a three-day period between 6 and 10 March 2007. Seventeen 10.5 km2 blocks within (n=9) and adjacent to (n=8) the lower Churchill River watershed were surveyed to document moose presence, including information on habitat use, and the age and sex of the animals. With the exception of a single block near Atikonak (due to logistics issues) all blocks had previously been surveyed by members of the Study Team and others (Trimper et al. 1996; Chubbs and Schaefer 1997; Jacques Whitford 1997; Northland and Jacques Whitford 2000). Fifteen moose were observed during the March surveys, consisting of six adult female (AF), three adult male (AM), two calf-male (CM), one calf-unidentified sex (CU), one yearling male (YM), one yearling-unidentified sex (YU) and one unidentified age/sex (U). Calf/cow combinations were observed on two occasions, within survey blocks C8 and C7. A maximum of four (confirmed) moose sightings per block (density of 0.38/km2) was recorded, with no moose sightings in nine (or 53 percent) of the surveyed blocks. Moose sign (tracks or other sign) was not observed in four of the survey blocks. In comparison with data from Trimper et al. (1996), Jacques Whitford (1997) and Northland and Jacques Whitford (2000) for the same survey blocks, moose activity (presence) appears generally low compared to elsewhere in the range of this species, with no consistent trends in the data among years, other than an absence of moose in survey block C3, along the proposed transmission line north of Winokapau.

Following the aerial surveys, a moose capture and Global Positioning System (GPS) collar deployment program was initiated on 17 April 2007 in the lower Churchill River valley. Eight moose (4 males and 4 females) were immobilized at six locations, tagged, fitted with a collar and examined for gender, estimated age and other physical features. All collars were equipped with a self-release mechanism set to disconnect after 24 months. All captured moose were in good physical condition and all four females were pregnant at the time of capture.


MIN0316.10/1013774.10 • Moose EBR • October 2009 Page ii © Minaskuat Inc. 2009

The Study Team returned to each capture location for the eight moose and successfully downloaded their data on 26 April 2007. Following this initial data download, several technical limitations (e.g., detection of VHF signal, inconsistent UHF connection) were encountered during subsequent surveys. As a result of these technical limitations, data from only two moose (1334 (female) and 1336 (male)) has been downloaded beyond the initial survey in April, 2007 (July 2009 and September 2007, respectively). One moose (1337) was shot by a hunter in the fall of 2007; Lotek, the manufacturer of the GPS collars, was able to recover data for this animal for the period ending 4 June 2007.

The collared moose remained in the lower Churchill River valley immediately post-capture, before moving out of the valley to higher elevations by late April (1337), May (1334) or June (1336). Animals remained at higher elevations (as far as 40 km from capture locations) throughout the summer and fall, but returned to the valley again by November the following winter. The home range occupied by these moose, based on Minimum Convex Polygon (MCP) estimates over the period for which data were collected, was 26.8 km2 for Moose 1337 (April-June 2007), 268.1 km2 for Moose 1336 (April-September 2007) and 483.8 km2 for Moose 1334 (April 2007-September 2008).

Detailed habitat information was available for the lower Churchill River valley and its watershed as part of the Project Area and Regional Ecological Land Classification (ELC) environmental baseline studies (Minaskuat Inc. 2008a, 2008b). Within the valley during winter, moose were found in association with coniferous habitat types, particularly black spruce or spruce-fir combinations, and to a lesser extent hardwood, riparian and gravel bar habitats. Animals also occurred in proximity to tributaries (along rivers and areas of confluence with the lower Churchill River) and/or other water bodies. Within the larger watershed during summer, moose were generally associated with open and sparse coniferous forests and low shrub habitats. Bryoids and wetland shrub habitats were also used during this period.

Overall, the distribution of wintering moose in the lower Churchill River valley was similar to that observed since 1995, based on repeat visits to the aerial survey blocks, with the population remaining consistently low. The concentration of good to moderate moose habitat in association with river valleys in Labrador (Jacques Whitford 1997) may account for the concentration of moose sightings along areas of the lower Churchill River. However, the low availability of suitable browse throughout Labrador in general, may account for the overall low numbers of moose in the region (Jacques Whitford 1997). While the capture program was considered successful, problems encountered with the field equipment limited the data available for analysis. Based on the data collected, a pattern of dispersal (up to 33 km) from the lower Churchill River valley in spring to higher elevations during the summer before returning in the fall/early winter was evident. This seasonal pattern was expected, based on a review of the relevant literature and the previous experience of the Study Team.


MIN0316.10/1013774.10 • Moose EBR • October 2009 Page iii © Minaskuat Inc. 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ iv

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

1.1 Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project ................................................................ 1-2

2.0 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Studies Related to the Proposed Hydroelectric Development on the Lower Churchill River . 2-1

2.2 Previous Studies of Moose in Labrador ................................................................................ 2-1

2.2.1 Wintering Moose and Habitat Surveys in the Military Training Area .............................. 2-1

2.2.2 Late Winter Aerial Moose Surveys in Central Labrador ................................................ 2-1

2.2.3 Annual Monitoring within the Military Training Area ...................................................... 2-1

2.2.4 Studies in Relation to the Trans Labrador Highway ...................................................... 2-2

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY TEAM ................................................................................... 3-1

4.0 SUMMARY OF STUDY OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................... 4-1

5.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA ................................................................................... 5-1

6.0 METHODS ................................................................................................................................ 6-1

6.1 Field Preparation .................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.2 Aerial Block Surveys ............................................................................................................ 6-1

6.3 Capture and Handling .......................................................................................................... 6-1

6.4 Monitoring and Data Retrieval .............................................................................................. 6-2

6.5 Data Compilation and Analysis ............................................................................................ 6-3

6.6 Habitat Characterization ....................................................................................................... 6-4

6.7 Quality Assurance/Quality Control ....................................................................................... 6-4

7.0 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................. 7-1

7.1 Aerial Block Surveys ............................................................................................................ 7-1

7.2 Capture and Handling – GPS Collar Deployment ................................................................. 7-3

7.3 Telemetry Monitoring ........................................................................................................... 7-6

7.4 Movements of Collared Moose ............................................................................................. 7-9

7.5 Habitat Characterization ..................................................................................................... 7-22

7.6 Data Limitations ................................................................................................................. 7-25

8.0 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................... 8-1

8.1 Moose in the Study Area ...................................................................................................... 8-1

8.2 Movements and Habitat Associations within the Lower Churchill River Watershed .............. 8-1


MIN0316.10/1013774.10 • Moose EBR • October 2009 Page iv © Minaskuat Inc. 2009

9.0 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 9-1

10.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 10-1

10.1 Personal Communications ................................................................................................. 10-1

10.2 Literature Cited .................................................................................................................. 10-1

11.0 GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................................. 11-1

LIST OF TABLES

Page No.

Table 3-1 Study Team and Respective Roles .............................................................................. 3-1

Table 7-1 Comparison of 2007 Results with Studies done in 19951, 19972 and 19993 .................. 7-3

Table 7-2 Summary of Moose Capture Data, 17-19 April 2007 .................................................... 7-4

Table 7-3 Summary of Telemetry Survey Effort, April 2007 to July 2009 ...................................... 7-6

Table 7-4 Summary of Telemetry Survey (GPS) Data and Status of Collared Moose .................. 7-9

Table 7-5 Habitat Use (%) in the Lower Churchill River Valley ................................................... 7-23

Table 7-6 Habitat Use (%) in the Lower Churchill River Watershed ............................................ 7-25

Table 8-1 Wildlife Habitat Types and Value for Moose in the Terrestrial Environment Study Area [from Table 8-1 in Volume IIA of the EIS by Nalcor Energy (2009)] ...................... 8-2

LIST OF FIGURES

Page No.

Figure 5-1 Moose Study Area ........................................................................................................ 5-2

Figure 6-1 Ear Tagging of Collared Moose .................................................................................... 6-2

Figure 7-1 Results of Aerial Moose Surveys, March 2007 ............................................................. 7-2

Figure 7-2 Moose Capture Locations, April 2007 ........................................................................... 7-5

Figure 7-3 Movements of Moose 1330 (Female) ......................................................................... 7-11



Figure 7-6 Movements of Moose 1333 (Male) ............................................................................. 7-14


Figure 7-8 Moose 1334 (Female) Home Range .......................................................................... 7-16



Figure 7-11 Moose 1336 (Male) Home Range ............................................................................... 7-19


MIN0316.10/1013774.10 • Moose EBR • October 2009 Page v © Minaskuat Inc. 2009


Figure 7-13 Moose 1337 (Male) Home Range ............................................................................... 7-21

Figure 7-14 Moose 1334 Habitat Use in the Lower Churchill River Valley ..................................... 7-24

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Scientific Research Permit

Appendix B Aerial Survey Data

Appendix C Carfentanil Citrate Information Sheet

Appendix D Capture and Processing Data

Appendix E Additional Moose Observations


MIN0316.10/1013774.10 • Moose EBR • October 2009 Page 1-1 © Minaskuat Inc. 2009

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Nalcor Energy (Nalcor) is proposing to develop the hydroelectric potential of the lower Churchill River. Two dams and other Project components such as transmission lines and access roads are to be constructed over a ten-year period at Gull Island and Muskrat Falls that would generate over 3,000 MW of electricity annually. The lower Churchill River watershed provides year-round, seasonal and other temporary habitat for a variety of wildlife species in central Labrador. Minaskuat Limited Partnership (Minaskuat) was retained in June 2006 to conduct a series of terrestrial wildlife studies, collecting baseline information on these species and their habitats in the lower Churchill River valley. This Environmental Baseline Report (EBR) presents the results of investigations related to moose (Alces alces) as part of the planning for this Project.

Moose are a relatively new species to Labrador having been first introduced in the southeastern portion of this region in the 1950’s (Folinsbee 1974; Mercer and Kitchen 1968) while they were also spreading naturally from the southwest starting in the 1950s. One aspect of their ecology that denotes their importance in terms of the Project is their reliance on habitat providing relief from snow depths while maintaining access to available browse in the winter. The most important habitats that satisfy these requirements are mature forests with high canopy cover and a rich under storey. Open wetlands and other riparian zones are an important summer habitat (Peek 1997).

Moose are also a food source for area residents and an important prey item for wolves (Canis lupus), particularly in river valleys which are used as travel corridors by this predator (Phillips 1983; Dalton 1986; Trimper et al. 1996). They are also occasionally preyed upon by black bear (Ursus americanus). In addition to this role in northern boreal forest food webs, moose occupy an important ecological niche as a herbivore with localized influences on regenerating vegetation.

Previous surveys (Trimper et al. 1996; Chubbs and Schaefer 1997; Jacques Whitford 1997) indicate that moose use several riparian areas and islands within the lower Churchill River valley during winter, but appear to move out of the valley to higher elevations and upland wetland areas during summer months. Little is known of these movements in terms of distance traveled, routes, timing and relative importance of wintering areas in the Project Area in particular, although several areas within the physical influence of the Project are known to provide important wintering range (or summer range as in the case of transmission lines) for moose.

Three initiatives were completed as part of this EBR:

• Aerial surveys of seventeen 10.5 km2 winter range blocks within central Labrador, the majority initially surveyed by Trimper et al. (1996) in March 1996, as well as during subsequent studies by others (Jacques Whitford 1997, Northland and Jacques Whitford 2000);

• Deployment of Global Positioning System (GPS) collars on adult moose in the lower Churchill River watershed; and

• Aerial telemetry monitoring of seasonal movements of these animals.



1.1 Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project

The Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project (the “Project”) will include hydroelectric generating facilities at Gull Island and Muskrat Falls, interconnecting transmission lines to the existing Labrador grid. The Gull Island facility will consist of a generating station with a capacity of approximately 2,200 MW and include:

• a dam 99 m high and 1,315 m long; and

• a reservoir 215 km² in area at an assumed full supply level (fsl) of 125 m above sea level (asl).

The dam will be a concrete faced rockfill dam. The reservoir will be 230 km long, and the area of inundated land will be 85 km² at fsl. The powerhouse will contain four to six Francis turbines.

The Muskrat Falls facility will consist of a generating station that will be approximately 800 MW in capacity and will include:

• a concrete dam with two sections on the north and south abutments of the river; and

• a 100 km² reservoir at an assumed fsl of 39 m asl.

The north section dam will be 32 m high and 432 m long, while the south section will be 29 m high and 325 m long. The reservoir will be 60 km long and the area of inundated land will be 41 km² at fsl. The powerhouse will contain four to five propeller or Kaplan turbines, or a combination of both.

The interconnecting transmission lines will consist of:

• a 735 kV transmission line between Gull Island and Churchill Falls; and

• two 230 kV transmission lines between Muskrat Falls and Gull Island.

The 735 kV transmission line will be 203 km long and the 230 kV transmission lines will be 60 km long and 80 m wide. Both lines will likely be lattice-type steel structures. The location of the transmission lines will be north of the Churchill River; the final alignment within the preferred corridor is the subject of a route selection study that will be completed during detailed design. The lines between Muskrat Falls and Gull Island will be combined on double-circuit structures.

The Project design may be refined as engineering details become available.



2.0 BACKGROUND

Background data related to moose (and a variety of other species) in this region are available in addition to this EBR.

2.1 Studies Related to the Proposed Hydroelectric Development on the Lower Churchill River

Background research related to previous proposals to develop the hydroelectric potential of the lower Churchill River has been conducted on several occasions over the last three decades. Studies related to species of wildlife in the lower Churchill River valley include:

• a terrestrial wildlife survey, literature search and informant interviews regarding mammals in the lower Churchill River valley during 1978 (Northland Associates Ltd. 1978), including historic (1800s) information on wildlife species from the Fort Winokapau Journals;

• Wildlife Atlas Phase I and II containing a series of maps indicating observations and sign (e.g., caribou, moose, furbearers) (Northland Associates Ltd. 1978, 1980);

• a series of informant interviews with trappers regarding their activity in the lower Churchill River valley (Budgell 1981); and

• wildlife habitat surveys, land classification surveys and habitat classification conducted for the Project (Minaskuat Inc. 2008a, 2008b, 2008c).

2.2 Previous Studies of Moose in Labrador

2.2.1 Wintering Moose and Habitat Surveys in the Military Training Area

Surveys for wintering moose and available habitat in south-central Labrador and north-eastern Quebec were initiated in 1995, to assess habitat information presented in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on Military Flying Activities in Labrador and Quebec (Trimper et al. 1996 and Jacques Whitford 1997), as well as to determine the density of moose in relation to the avoidance mitigation criteria. Additional surveys were conducted in 1997, in areas of important potential wintering habitat in the Low-Level Training Area (LLTA).

2.2.2 Late Winter Aerial Moose Surveys in Central Labrador

In March 2008, LGL Limited inventoried moose in the military training air range known as CYA 732a and in Moose Management Area (MMA) 53, in central Labrador. Modified ranking-based habitat stratification was used to classify habitats within these areas as either high or low value moose habitat, and estimates of moose density and population size were made. Trends in population status (as compared to the 1995 and 1997 surveys) were discussed.

2.2.3 Annual Monitoring within the Military Training Area

An extensive database on the distribution of wildlife in central Labrador has been collected since 1991 as a result of the monitoring program of low level military flight training activities by the Department of National Defence (DND). While the primary focus of this effort related to birds, all encounters of wildlife



and wildlife sign were recorded. This information exists on 1:50,000 National Topographic Series (NTS) map sheets filed at the Minaskuat office in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Since 2003, the Institute for Environmental Monitoring and Research (IEMR) has assumed responsibility for the monitoring program.

2.2.4 Studies in Relation to the Trans Labrador Highway

Since the early 1990s, the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Transportation and Works has been expanding and upgrading its highway network in Labrador. Several aerial surveys (e.g., Jacques Whitford 1998; 1999) for raptors, caribou (Rangifer tarandus) and other wildlife species have been conducted. Observations have been recorded on 1:50,000 NTS map sheets in association with the Trans Labrador Highway Phase II (Cartwright to Red Bay) and the Trans Labrador Highway Phase III (Happy Valley-Goose Bay to Cartwright Junction) Environmental Assessments (Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Works, Services and Transportation (NLDWST) 2003).



3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY TEAM

The Study Team included the component manager and study lead, a scientific advisor, field personnel and data management personnel (Table 3-1). Team members have in-depth knowledge and experience in their fields of expertise and a broad general knowledge of the work conducted by other experts in related fields. Brief biographical statements, highlighting roles and responsibilities and relevant education and employment experience, are provided below.

Table 3-1 Study Team and Respective Roles

Role Personnel Component Manager & Study Lead Perry Trimper

Scientific Advisor Dave Westworth Aerial Block Surveys Perry Trimper, Steve Gullage, Jennifer Mitchell, Apenam Pone

Moose Capture and GPS Collar Deployment Perry Trimper, Rebecca Jeffery, Ted Pardy, Jennifer Mitchell Radio Telemetry Surveys Perry Trimper, Karen Rashleigh, Jennifer Mitchell

Data Management and Reporting Perry Trimper, Karen Rashleigh, Jennifer Mitchell

GIS Mapping Carolyn Pelley, Jackie Bowman, Erin Marshall, Stephen Rowe Wildlife Official (NL Department of Environment and Conservation)

Rebecca Jeffrey, Ted Pardy

Perry Trimper, B.Sc.F. (Jacques Whitford Stantec Limited) is a Senior Wildlife Biologist and Principal based in the Minaskuat Inc. office in Labrador. Mr. Trimper has worked on various projects dealing with moose, including several surveys/investigations in Labrador, Newfoundland, elsewhere in Canada and internationally. He is the overall Project Manager for the Terrestrial Wildlife Component of the Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project and participated in and led all aspects of the field and written components of the moose baseline surveys.

Dave Westworth, M.Sc., P.Biol. (Westworth Associates Environmental Ltd., an affiliate of Jacques Whitford) is an environmental specialist based in Edmonton, AB. He has worked on a number of projects in Newfoundland and Labrador, including earlier investigations of the potential effects of Lower Churchill hydro development on moose populations, an assessment of the effects of military aircraft training on wildlife in Labrador and a review of potential effects of mineral exploration and development on wildlife near Voisey’s Bay, Labrador. Mr. Westworth participated as a Scientific Advisor to the Project.

Steve Gullage, M.Sc. (formerly with Jacques Whitford) is a Terrestrial Biologist based in St. John’s. His responsibilities included wildlife and plant surveys, data analysis, and report-writing for various projects. Mr. Gullage participated in the aerial block survey program, as a field observer.

Jennifer Mitchell, B.Sc. (formerly Minaskuat Inc.) is an Environmental Scientist based in Labrador. With Minaskuat, she was involved in various aspects of field data collection, results analysis and reporting. She served as a Field Biologist (assistant) in aspects of the program, as well as assisted with data management, analysis and reporting.

Karen Rashleigh, M.Sc. (Jacques Whitford Stantec Limited) is an Environmental Scientist based in Happy Valley-Goose Bay specializing in ecological investigations related to resource development in



the Labrador region. Her responsibilities in the moose survey were as field observer/field lead during telemetry surveys, as well as data management, analyses and reporting.

Apenam Pone (formerly Minaskuat Inc.) is an Aboriginal Technician (Innu) based in Sheshatshiu, Labrador. He is experienced in the field and has worked previously with Minaskuat on various projects related to wildlife and their habitat in the region, including other baseline studies associated with the Lower Churchill Project. Mr. Pone participated as on observer during the aerial block survey component.

Provincial Wildlife Officials included Ms. Rebecca Jeffrey and Mr. Ted Pardy, who led the moose capture/collar deployment component. In particular, they were responsible for tranquilizing animals, assessing health and reproductive status and administering the antidote to assist their recovery. Both worked closely with Minaskuat staff on the capture program.

In addition to the above listed Study Team members, pilots were supplied either by Universal Helicopters Newfoundland and Labrador (UHNL) (Peter Jefford) or Canadian Helicopters (John Farr), depending on availability and bookings. Pilots also assisted with observations during surveys.



4.0 SUMMARY OF STUDY OBJECTIVES

The objective of the moose program was to assess seasonal habitat use and associated movements of moose occupying the lower Churchill River valley. Specifically, three initiatives were completed:

• surveyed previously inventoried blocks (each 10.5 km2) within (n=9) and adjacent to (n=8) the lower Churchill River watershed, to document moose presence, including information on habitat use, age and sex;

• captured (immobilized) and deployed VHF/GPS collars on eight adult moose; and

• monitored seasonal movements of collared moose using VHF and UHF technology.

Given the background work already completed by the Study Team in the lower Churchill River (Section 2.2), the outcome of the study also included a comparison of previous survey data and status information on moose.



5.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA

The various components of the Moose EBR were completed within the lower Churchill River watershed, including a portion of tributaries and the nearby Goose River valley (Figure 5-1). Specific locations of aerial survey blocks are also indicated (Figure 5-1) and moose capture locations are described in Section 7.0. Telemetry surveys were usually carried out within an area 40 km area of the entire lower Churchill River.

The lower Churchill River watershed is characterized primarily as boreal forests, with a mean annual temperature of approximately -1°C to -2°C and mean annual precipitation of between 800 and 1000 mm (ESWG 1995). Rich lowland areas are dominated by balsam fir, white birch, and aspen, while less diverse upland regions are dominated by black spruce and lichen woodlands. Coastal plains with alluvial soils are found in the eastern region of the lower Churchill River valley, where bogs and fens predominate. Hardwoods are sparse in the western region of the lower Churchill River valley.

There are four MMAs within the lower Churchill River watershed (Figure 5-1), comprising 60 of Labrador’s 185 licenses. MMAs 53 and 53A are near Happy Valley-Goose Bay, north and south of the Churchill River, respectively, MMA 52 encompasses the Churchill River from Gull Island to the west end of Winokapau Lake, and MMA 51 includes the remainder of the lower Churchill River valley from Winokapau to Churchill Falls. Both the Gull Island and Muskrat Falls construction sites are in MMAs 53 and 53A.

Lo

wer

Ch

urc

hill

Hyd

roel

ectr

ic G

ener

atio

n P

roje

ct

M

IN03

16.1

0/10

1377

4.10

• M

oose

EB

R •

Oct

ober

200

9

Pag

e 5-

2 ©

Min

asku

at In

c. 2

009

Fig

ure

5-1

M

oo

se S

tud

y A

rea



6.0 METHODS

6.1 Field Preparation

Prior to initiating field studies, a Scientific Research Permit was obtained from the provincial Wildlife Division (Appendix A). On a daily basis during all aspects of the field program, participating Study Team members reviewed Minaskuat’s Health and Safety Checklist and discussed related issues and contingencies in the event of an incident. All participants signed this documentation.

6.2 Aerial Block Surveys

Aerial surveys were completed during 6-10 March 2007 and occurred at least 24 hours post-snowfall to ensure that tracks were fresh. The aircraft was a Bell 206L helicopter that provided unobstructed forward, lateral and an element of rear visibility (as per Gosse et al. 2002). The crew consisted of a lead observer/navigator/recorder situated in front (next to the pilot), two or three rear observers and a pilot experienced in conducting wildlife surveys.

An area of up to approximately 250 m (less in dense forest cover) on either side of the aircraft was searched intensively, flying a tight formation at various heights (usually approximately 300’ above ground level (agl)) and speeds (usually hover to 100 kph) to ensure that each block was thoroughly assessed as judged by the navigator (i.e., 100 percent coverage). All observations were recorded on field data sheets (Appendix B) and directly on 1:50,000 topographical map sheets with the aid of a GPS. Observations recorded included age and sex of moose (following standard procedures advocated by LeResche and Rausch (1974) and Lent (1974)), old and fresh tracks, days since last snowfall, other wildlife and survey search effort.

All blocks were 10.5 km2 and with the exception of a single block near Atikonak (due to logistics issues) had been previously located and surveyed by members of the Study Team (Trimper et al. 1996; Jacques Whitford 1997) and others Chubbs and Schaefer 1997. Note that these blocks were first identified by Trimper et al. (1996) based on the presence of actual sign and potential habitat for moose during transect surveys. These transect surveys were completed in areas of relatively high potential habitat capability for this species throughout the military training area (MTA) at 5 Wing Goose Bay (DND 1994). The blocks were organized according to nearest adjacent river and grouped as either part of the Churchill, Goose, Petit Mecatina, or Atikonak areas.

6.3 Capture and Handling

In co-operation with the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Environment and Conservation (NLDEC), moose capture and GPS collar deployment occurred between 17 and 19 April 2007 using a Bell 206L helicopter. Provincial wildlife officials were responsible for handling and immobilizing of animals.

When a moose was encountered, the aircraft hovered at a distance in an attempt to encourage the animal to move into an area suitable for tranquilization (i.e., open habitat, away from water). The Study Team acted at all times to minimize unnecessary stress or harassment to the animals. To that end, animals were frequently passed over if they were found near open water or if they could not be positioned into open habitat with minimal effort.



The actual capture involved the use of chemical immobilization from a helicopter, as this method is considered the best means of capturing moose during winter (Arnemo et al. 2003). Moose were immobilized with a dart (fired from a gun) using an appropriate dosage (1.15-1.25 ml) of Carfentanil citrate (Appendix C), a highly potent, rapidly acting, opiate agonist used predominantly for reversible immobilization of large ungulates. The team then landed nearby for observation and to wait for the drug to take effect (leaving the animal in a crouched and upright position). Each moose was examined for gender, estimated age and other practical obvious features (e.g., pelage). Moose were ear tagged with a tag of unique color and number identifier (Figure 6-1). All information related to the capture and handling of each animal was recorded (Appendix D). All captured moose were fitted with a VHF/GPS collar/telemetry unit (model number GPS4400M manufactured by Lotek Wireless), programmed to collect location data every three hours. Lotek Wireless states coordinates have an accuracy of ±3m. These data are stored in the collar until retrieved and downloaded. VHF signals were transmitted during 0900 to 1400 hrs. daily (i.e., to prolong battery life and allow the Study Team an adequate period to relocate animals) on a unique frequency. All GPS collars were equipped with a self-release mechanism set to disconnect after 24 months.

Prior to departure, provincial wildlife officials administered an antidote (Metroxin) to stimulate recovery and remained onsite (in the helicopter or at a safe distance from the animal) until the animal was able to stand and move away from the collaring site. Eight moose (four of each sex) were captured and collared.

Figure 6-1 Ear Tagging of Collared Moose

(Shown: Moose 1331)

6.4 Monitoring and Data Retrieval

Radio telemetry surveys were conducted on a seasonal basis commencing in April 2007 and ending in July 2009). A telemetry receiver (model number SRX_400 manufactured by Lotek Wireless) was connected to the aircraft antennae and preset to scan each GPS collar frequency (n=8), at 4 second intervals. Prior to each survey, the equipment (telemetry receiver and left and right antennae) was



tested using a transmitter that had previously been placed at Otter Creek (frequency 150.730) or at the UHNL hanger (frequency 150.500).

A search flight plan was selected to maximize the potential for moose encounters along or adjacent to (within 40 km of) the lower Churchill River, particularly the area between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and west as far as the Metchin and Elizabeth Rivers. However note that the helicopter occasionally refueled in Churchill Falls and thus this area and several locations further north and south, were also searched. Given the temporal and physical overlap of this EBR with a parallel study of black bear in the lower Churchill River (also as part of the environmental baseline program), the team also searched for collared bears during these telemetry surveys. Additionally, frequencies of animals were provided to others (i.e., provincial Wildlife Division) conducting telemetry programs in the region.

When commencing the search pattern, the aircraft was usually at an altitude of 4,000 feet agl (or higher). Strategically, individual moose were often selected prior to the survey, depending on the route chosen. Existing time constraints (based on the time period which the collars were set to transmit a signal) also influenced the individuals/area for focus during any given survey. Once a collared moose was located, the team would decrease elevation and orientation based on the strength of the VHF signal (i.e., location of the moose) until the combination of a relatively loud signal at a low ‘Gain’ (approximately 40) was obtained. A hand-held UHF DownLoad Link (model DL-2 manufactured by Lotek Wireless) was then used to download all information stored on the collars. The DL-2 could both upload information (e.g., if the collar was to be programmed) or download the location data since the last successful retrieval. The aircraft remained hovering (in a consistent orientation) during this procedure, particularly if no landing sites were available.

6.5 Data Compilation and Analysis

Aerial survey data were transferred from maps and compiled into a spreadsheet according to survey date, location (block), mapsheet reference, time of day, search effort, weather conditions, date since last snowfall, survey team, habitat type, age and sex of moose and additional comments/observations as relevant to the survey objectives. Information on moose distribution/presence was subsequently used to determine search locations for moose capture/GPS collar deployment. Observations of other moose in association with collared animals or observations during other environmental baseline programs in the lower Churchill River valley, were also recorded (Appendix E).

Location data downloaded (eight sets of coordinates per 24-hour period) from the GPS collars were stored on GPSPlus® computer software. Analysis of the collar data (and direct observations/coordinates of individual collared moose) involved overlaying locations with topographic and forest cover features to examine the seasonal movements and habitat selection of each individual. Forest cover information was obtained through ELC research completed in association with this baseline program (Minaskuat Inc. 2008a, 2008b).

Where data were available beyond the initial week of capture, a variety of analyses were completed. The total area occupied (km2) was estimated using Minimum Convex Polygons (MCP). MCPs are simple delineations of the area an animal might be using, as the method takes into account all exterior data points (Powell 2000). MCPs are not sensitive to interior data points and can be influenced by extreme outer location points (Powell et al. 1997; Powell 2000). MCPs allow the habitat available within an animal’s range to be described when used in concert with available vegetation data from the



Ecological Land Classification (ELC) (Minaskuat Inc. 2008a) and satellite imagery referred to as EOSD (Earth Observation for Sustainable Development of Forests Initiative).

6.6 Habitat Characterization

In support of the EIS, ELCs were prepared to describe habitats within the lower Churchill River valley and the entire watershed (Minaskuat 2008a, 2008b). The Project Area ELC describes the ecological mosaic of the lower Churchill River valley and provided the basis on which effects of the Project on the surrounding environment could be understood and quantified (Minaskuat 2008a). Ten habitat types were identified and mapped (1:20,000), based on predominant vegetation, geomorphology and soil, for an area 2 km on either side of the Churchill River from Churchill Falls to Lake Melville (i.e., the proposed reservoirs). The Regional ELC was completed of the entire lower Churchill River watershed, based primarily on EOSD data (Minaskuat 2008b). Through this initiative, seventeen broad land-cover classes were established and generalized in a GIS environment at a scale of 1:250,000.

Moose habitat associations within the Study Area were examined in terms of habitat use within the lower Churchill River valley, based on the work of Minaskuat Inc. (2008a), and habitat use beyond the Project Area (but within the watershed), based on the work of Minaskuat Inc (2008b). Results were presented as a percentage of locations by habitat occupied, by month, for each collared moose. Where extensive data existed (e.g., Moose 1334), seasonal habitat use within the lower Churchill Valley was examined.

6.7 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

To provide consistent delivery of high quality products and services, Minaskuat Inc. has developed and implemented a Quality Management System (QMS) for its operations that was used particularly in the collection and handling of field data. The QMS is registered to ISO 9001:2000 (Quality Management Systems - Requirements) by QMI Management System Registration (CERT-0011312:026332).

An in-house technical peer review process of the draft report was conducted by senior reviewers to confirm it addressed the scope and conforms to the quality requirements stipulated by Minaskuat Inc.



7.0 RESULTS

7.1 Aerial Block Surveys

Surveys were conducted during 6, 9 and 10 March 2007. Fifteen moose were observed within the 17 blocks sampled (Figure 7-1), consisting of six adult female (AF), three adult male (AM), two calf-male (CM), one calf-unidentified sex (CU), one yearling male (YM), one yearling-unidentified sex (YU) and one unidentified age/sex (UU) (Figure 7-1 and Appendix B). Calf/cow combinations were confirmed on two occasions, within survey blocks C8 and C7. Additional calf/cow pairs were suspected, one in each of survey blocks C6 and C7. However, the Study Team could only locate either the adult or the calf and fresh tracks (but not the individual) of the other (Appendix C). A maximum of four (confirmed) moose sightings in a single block was recorded, with no moose sightings in nine (or 53 percent) of the surveyed blocks (Table 7-1). Of these, moose sign (fresh/old tracks or other indication of recent presence) were absent from four blocks (Appendix B): south-east of Churchill Falls on the Elizabeth River (C5), south of Muskrat Falls on the Mackenzie River (C9); south of Atikonak Lake (A3); and south-west of the Mecatina River overlapping Lac Arvert/Lac Joubert (M1).

Moose were usually in association with riparian habitat that supported preferred foraging material (e.g., balsam fir, willow, red-osier dogwood). Moose tended to occur in areas with a southern exposure that provide some relief from snow depth and have available browse. A variety of other wildlife sign (e.g., wolf, marten, ptarmigan) were often observed from the helicopter in these areas.

Data from the 2007 surveys from this EBR, were compared with existing survey block data from Trimper et al. (1996), Jacques Whitford (1997) and Northland and Jacques Whitford (2000) (Table 7-1). The following points were noted:

• Moose activity (presence) was low during all four years.

• No moose were recorded in survey block C3 (along the proposed interconnecting transmission line north of Winokapau Lake) throughout sampling years (although tracks have been noted). There were no other consistent, obvious trends in the data among years.

• Relatively high numbers of moose were recorded in M1 in 1997 (n=5) but no moose were observed in subsequent years, with a complete absence of any sign (e.g., browse, tracks) in 2007 (Appendix B).

• In contrast to previous years, moose were not recorded along the Goose River in 2007, although moose sign was noted (Appendix B).

Lo

wer

Ch

urc

hill

Hyd

roel

ectr

ic G

ener

atio

n P

roje

ct

M

IN03

16.1

0/10

1377

4.10

• M

oose

EB

R •

Oct

ober

200

9

Pag

e 7-

2 ©

Min

asku

at In

c. 2

009

Fig

ure

7-1

R

esu

lts

of

Aer

ial M

oo

se S

urv

eys,

Mar

ch 2

007


MIN0316.10/1013774.10 • Moose EBR •October 2009 Page 7-3 © Minaskuat Inc. 2009

Table 7-1 Comparison of 2007 Results with Studies done in 19951, 19972 and 19993

Block ID Number of Moose

1995 1997 1999 20074 Trend Churchill River

C1 0 2 4 1 Variable C2 2 0 0 1 Variable C3 0 0 0 0 Absent C4 2 0 0 1 Variable C5 2 0 3 0 Variable C6 1 0 6 4 Increasing C7 1 2 0 35 Increasing C8 - - 2 26 Stable C9 - - 0 0 Absent

Sub-total Churchill River

Blocks 8 (1.14)7 4 (0.57) 15 (1.67) 12 (1.33)

Goose River G1 - - 1 0 Unknown G2 - - 1 0 Unknown G3 4 3 2 0 Declining

Mecatina River M1 - 5 0 0 Declining M2 - 2 0 2 Variable

Atikonak River A1 - - - 1 Unknown A2 - - 0 0 Absent A3 - - 2 0 Declining

Sub-total Other Blocks 4 (4.0) 10 (3.33) 6 (0.86) 3 (0.38)

Notes: 1 Previous data from Trimper et al. (1996) 2,Previous data from Jacques Whitford (1997) 3 Previous data from Northland and Jacques Whitford (2000). 4 Locations of 2007 survey blocks are presented in Figure 5-1. 5 One additional adult suspected in C7 (could only locate the calf and fresh tracks of the adult). 6 One additional calf suspected in C8. 7 Bracketed values represent average based on the number of 10.5 km2 blocks surveyed.

7.2 Capture and Handling – GPS Collar Deployment

Four male and four female adult moose were captured (immobilized) (Table 7-2 and Appendix D) at six locations within the Study Area during April 2007 (Figure 7-2). All animals were immobilized with a single dose of Carfentanil and usually were motionless within seven minutes (or less) of administering the drug. Two exceptions, 1330 and 1335, travelled up to 500 m before the drug was effective.


MIN0316.10/1013774.10 • Moose EBR •October 2009 Page 7-4 © Minaskuat Inc. 2009

Table 7-2 Summary of Moose Capture Data, 17-19 April 2007

Collar ID Ear Tag Gender Age Capture/Release Date Capture/Release Location

1332 Pink 221 Female Adult 17 April Tomas Brook 1335 Orange 214 Male Adult 17 April Lower Brook 1331 Green 209 Female Adult 17 April Tomas Brook 1334 Pink 222 Female Adult 18 April West of Metchin River 1336 Yellow 241 Male Adult 18 April Mouth of Elizabeth River 1337 Dark green 210 Male Adult 18 April Mouth of Elizabeth River 1333 White 202 Male Adult 19 April Beaver Brook

1330 No ear tag Female Adult 19 April 3 km S of lower Churchill River/Edwards Brook

Notes: 1. Capture Locations are shown in Figure 7-2 2. Tomas Brook is also referred to locally as “Upper Upper Brook”

All captured moose appeared to be in good physical condition and the four females were pregnant at the time of capture (Appendix D). Facial scarring was noted on males 1336 and 1335, as well as a ‘healed’ apparent bullet hole through the right ear of 1335. Moose 1335 was the only male to have antlers emerging (approximately 10 cm in length). Ectoparasites were not observed on any of the moose (Appendix D).

Each animal was processed by the Study Team within an average of 63 minutes (ranging from 25 to 102 minutes) from the time of administering the drug to departure of the team (Appendix D). Actual handling times required a period of only five to ten minutes. Table 7-2 summarizes aspects of the capture location and each animal. Estimated weight, dosages administered, injection site and weather parameters, as well as additional details regarding capture and handling are provided in Appendix D.

Lo

wer

Ch

urc

hill

Hyd

roel

ectr

ic G

ener

atio

n P

roje

ct

M

IN03

16.1

0/10

1377

4.10

• M

oose

EB

R •

Oct

ober

200

9

Pag

e 7-

5 ©

Min

asku

at In

c. 2

009

Fig

ure

7-2

M

oo

se C

aptu

re L

oca

tio

ns,

Ap

ril 2

007


MIN0316.10/1013774.10 •Moose EBR • October 2009 Page 7-6 © Minaskuat Inc. 2009

7.3 Telemetry Monitoring

Twenty-two monitoring surveys (usually aerial although some involved effort from vehicles) to locate collared moose were completed in association with similar surveys for collared bear (Minaskuat Inc. 2009) within the lower Churchill River watershed (Table 7-3). These surveys were completed irregularly according to season, logistics and other parameters, and since April 2007, over 20 separate telemetry survey efforts were completed over a 27 month period (up to July 2009).

Table 7-3 Summary of Telemetry Survey Effort, April 2007 to July 2009

Date Area Surveyed Number Located Moose Download

Status Comments

26 April 2007

Goose Bay to Churchill Falls 8 All All data

downloaded No visuals

16 June 2007

Goose Bay to Tomas Brook and adjacent tributaries

1 1332 Unsuccessful Could pick up collar signal (53°09 231N, 60°57 535W) but could not get a visual or download data. Surveyed ~2 hrs.

7 July 2007

Churchill Falls and return 0 - -

No moose detected. Could pick up signal at Otter Creek. Weather precluded working at heights >1.2 km. Surveyed ~3hrs.

9 July 2007

Concentrated in Gull Island area 0 - -

No moose detected. Could pick up signal at Otter Creek. Possible antennae issues. Surveyed ~3 hrs.

10 July 2007

Muskrat Falls – north and south 0 - - No moose detected. Could pick up signal

at Otter Creek. New antennae.

27 July 2007

Lake Melville area to Gull Island 1 1330 Unsuccessful

Could locate (see) animal, but could not download data (52°22 038N, 60°28 074W).

31 August 2007

North of Churchill River between Gull Island and Lake Melville

1 1332 Unsuccessful Only a brief signal heard and did not get a chance to attempt download.

17 September 2007

Goose Bay to Beaver Brook; wide south search for moose (Including areas for bears)

0 - - No moose detected.

18 September 2007

Goose Bay to Winokapau 2

1336, 1334

Successful - 1336 Unsuccessful - 1334

No visual on 1336, but cow and calf in area with him. Several attempts to download data from 1334 (53°28 575N, 63°16 999W) but kept losing connection.

13 October 2007

Primarily searching for bears, but checked for moose throughout surveys


16 November 2007

Goose Bay to Bob's Brook, Gull Island (Including areas for Bears)


17 November 2007

Goose Bay to Bob's Brook, Gull Island, (Including areas for bears)




Date Area Surveyed Number Located Moose Download

Status Comments

28 January 2008

Goose Bay to Winokapau and associated tributaries

2 1336, 1334

Unsuccessful - 1336 Successful - 1334

1336 in a group of 7 animals (53°15 218N, 63°17 207W). Could see male and the collar, but could not make a connection with the UHF receiver. Downloaded 1334 at (53°20 673N, 63°29 973W).

29 January 2008

Goose Bay to Beaver Book/Dominion Lake, along river as well as inland ~10km


15 & 26 March 2008*

53.233603N -60.870989W and 53.233603N, -60.870989W

1 1335 NA

Initially observed on 15 March with 2 other adult males <1 km from the confluence with the Churchill River. Observed again on 26 March, lying in the extensive riparian shrub beds (alder dominated). Two males were again reported in the vicinity.

1 April 2008

Goose Bay to Beaver Book/Dominion Lake, along river as well as inland ~10km


30 July 2008

Goose Bay to Bob’s Brook 1 1335 Unsuccessful Weak signal near Muskrat Falls.

5 August 2008

Goose Bay to Churchill Falls 2 1334

1336 Unsuccessful

1334 between Fig and Elizabeth Rivers; signal from 1336 at 53°21N 60°54W near Echo Lake and faintly heard near Wilson Lake.

20 March 2009

Goose Bay to Churchill Falls

1 1334 Unsuccessful Signal at 53°21 676N, 63°29 540W

22 July 2009

Goose Bay to Dominion Lake 2 1333

1335 Unsuccessful

Picked up 1333 signal north of Dominion Lake (52°49 493N, 62°01 344W and 52°50 294N, 61°57 681W). 1335 signal picked up at airport, but not located during survey.

23 July 2009

Goose Bay to Churchill Falls 1 1334 Successful Located collar on ground.

24 July 2009

North side of Churchill River 1 - Unsuccessful Found a caribou with calf that was on the

same frequency as 1333.

*Data are from LGL Limited (C. Jones, pers. comm.)

Despite technical challenges associated with data retrieval, the information collected provided insight regarding seasonal movements and habitat association. The most extensive data were collected from Moose 1334. The animal was captured on 18 April 2007, west of the Metchin River along the lower Churchill River. The animal was relocated (no visual) one week later when data were successfully downloaded. Later that fall this female was located (at 53°28 575N, 63°16 999W), but problems were encountered at that time which prevented data download. However, on 28 January 2008, all data were downloaded from the animal which was then along the lower Churchill River (i.e., 53°20 673N, 63°29 973W). Signals using the VHF system continued to be detected in August 2008 (near Fig and Elizabeth Rivers) and March 2009 (53°21 676N, 63°29 540W), but stored data could not be downloaded. Finally, the collar was retrieved from a position near its capture location on 23 July 2009.



Based on the location, it appeared the collar had released as designed in April 2009. The supplier of the collar (Lotek) was able to retrieve stored data up to September 2008.

Moose 1336 was captured on 18 April 2007 along the lower Churchill River, immediately upstream of the Elizabeth River. This animal was checked one week following capture/release (no visual) and data were successfully downloaded. In September 2007, this male was located near a female cow and calf moose, and data again downloaded. On 28 January 2008, this male was identified as part of a group of 7 animals along the lower Churchill River (at 53°15 218N, 63°17 207W). The collar was visible but no connection could be established using the UHF receiver. The VHF signal was detected again in August, near Echo Lake (53°21N, 60°54W) but the data could not be retrieved.

A third moose captured near Elizabeth River on 18 April, Moose 1337, was also located one week following capture/release (no visual) and data were successfully downloaded. Signals from this male were not detected beyond April 2007, however the collar was returned to the Study Team when the moose was shot by a hunter in September 2007, allegedly near its capture location. The collar was returned to provincial Wildlife Division Officials in Wabush, Labrador and then returned to the Study Team. The hunters removed the collar by cutting through the strap severing the internal wiring (instead of removing the nut/screw assembly). Neither the VHF nor UHF signal could be obtained so the collar was forwarded to the manufacturer for assessment. Lotek was able to recover data for the period ending 4 June 2007.

Moose 1330 was captured south of the lower Churchill River and east of Gull Island on 19 April 2007. This female was located one week following capture/release (no visual) and data were successfully downloaded. This moose was visually located on 27 July 2007 over 15 km southwest (at 52°22 038N, 60°28 074W) but data could not be downloaded. The animal was not relocated thereafter.

Two adult female moose (1332 and 1331) were captured along the lower Churchill River at Tomas Brook on 17 April 2007. Both were relocated one week following capture/release (no visual) and their data successfully downloaded. On 16 June, 1332 was identified north of the lower Churchill River (at 53°09 231N, 60°57 535W), but the Study Team was unable to get a visual or download data from the collar. The only other sign of this moose was a brief signal picked up on 31 August 2007. Attempts to locate Moose 1331 following the initial data retrieval on 26 April 2007 were unsuccessful.

Moose 1335 was an adult male moose captured near Lower Brook on the lower Churchill River on 17 April. This animal was located one week following capture/release (no visual) and data successfully downloaded. Weak VHF signals were picked up near Muskrat Falls and from the Goose Bay Airport, in July 2008 and July 2009, respectively, but were of insufficient strength to confirm location. No further data were retrieved.

Moose 1333 was captured east of Beaver Brook and south of the lower Churchill River on 19 April 2007. This animal was relocated in the same area one week following capture/release (no visual) and data were successfully downloaded. This animal was not relocated thereafter.

Following the initial data download of all eight moose, on 26 April 2007, technical problems occurred during subsequent surveys that limited the data available for this EBR (Table 7-4), including:

• Relocating animals, as moose began to move away from wintering areas, became difficult. Despite extensive surveys, it was uncertain whether the animals had moved an extraordinary distance (i.e., greater than 40 km) or if there was a problem with the VHF beacon in the collar;



• For those animals relocated, the Study Team would often encounter problems with the UHF capacity in recognizing the collar, despite being able to observe the animal (i.e., the animal was visually identified by the team but was not detected by the UHF receiver). Note that specifications for the collar indicated a capacity in this regard for up to 6 km; and

• Occasionally, following UHF recognition, the DownLoad Link would be interrupted and could not be reinstated despite maintaining a hovering position.

Note that during each survey, equipment was verified using local VHF beacons deployed in Goose Bay and an available UHF collar. As a result of these technical problems, data from only two moose (1334 and 1336) were downloaded remotely beyond the initial relocation survey in April (Table 7-4).

Table 7-4 Summary of Telemetry Survey (GPS) Data and Status of Collared Moose

Collar ID Telemetry Data Available Status at End of Program

1330 19-26 April 2007 Last observed on 27 July 2007, approximately 20 km southeast of capture location. Could not download data.

1331 17-26 April 2007 Not located after download on 26 April.

1332 17-26 April 2007 Observed on 16 June 2007 (53°9.234N, -60°57.534W, 2 km south of capture location) and 31 August (brief signal SW of Muskrat Falls) 2007, but could not download data.

1333 19-26 April 2007 Not located after download on 26 April. 1334 26 April 2007-September 2008 Collar released as programmed and retrieved from the field.

1335 17-26 April 2007 Observed at Lower Brook on 15 March (53°14.436N, -60°52.248W) and 26 March (53°14.016N, -60°52.260W) 2008 by LGL Limited (C. Jones, pers. comm.) approximately 3 km northeast of capture location.

1336 18 April-18 September 2007 Last observed on 28 January 2008 (53°15.216N, -63°17.208W, 1 km from capture location). Could not download data.

1337 18 April-4 June 2007 Shot by a hunter reportedly near capture location (Figure 7-10). Collar subsequently returned to Wildlife Officials and <2 months of data were retrieved from collar.

Other (i.e., not collared) moose were frequently recorded within the Study Area during aerial telemetry surveys and surveys for other environmental baseline programs. These observations are presented in Appendix E.

7.4 Movements of Collared Moose

Maps depicting the seasonal movements of collared moose are presented in Figures 7-3 through 7-13. With the exception of one female moose (1330), who was captured approximately three kilometers south of the Churchill River (Table 7-2) all moose were captured either on or adjacent to the lower Churchill River (Figures 7-3 through 7-13). As indicated, only incomplete data were available for five of these animals (Table 7-4), primarily due to problems encountered with the DownLoad Link associated with data retrieval.

Moose 1330 (Figure 7-3) was observed approximately 20 km southeast from its capture location (three months later) on 27 July 2007. This female was in a shallow lake feeding on submergent aquatic vegetation when encountered. It moved into the surrounding forest but unfortunately the UHF signal could not be sufficiently secured to allow for the download of the data.

Moose 1331 (Figure 7-4) has not been observed since 26 April 2007. Moose 1332 (Figure 7-5) was relocated twice (no visual) approximately 2 km south of the capture site on 16 June 2007, and again on



31 August (southwest of Muskrat Falls), but the data could not be downloaded through the UHF system. Moose 1333 (Figure 7-6) has not been observed since 26 April 2007.

Following release (18 April 2007), Moose 1334 (Figures 7-7 and 7-8) moved upstream along the Churchill River and occupied an area predominantly on the north side of the river, approximately 2 to 3 km from its capture location near Goose Cove. It continued to move back and forth along the Churchill River (remaining west of the capture location) until the morning of 26 May 2007 when it moved out of the River valley. Over the next 12 hrs, this animal covered approximately 16 km (i.e., >1 km/hr), crossing Goose Brook, the Trans Labrador Highway and the existing transmission line, finally stopping at the headwaters of the West Metchin River (Figure 7-8). Throughout May to July, this female was found in a relatively dry upland area, northwest of the Metchin River (Figure 7-8). From August through November, it moved within a series of interconnecting lakes and rivers, west of the Metchin River, before returning towards the River Valley (via a different route) in December. Moose 1334 remained in the lower Churchill River valley until the following May, when it once again headed to upland habitat where it remained until at least September 2008, beyond which point data for this animal are unavailable. Throughout the one and a half years that this animal was observed, it ranged approximately 40 km from its point of capture, occupying an area of approximately 483.3 km2 (Figure 7-8).

Moose 1335 (Figure 7-9) was last encountered by the Study Team on 26 April 2007. However, during aerial surveys for moose by others, this animal was visually identified (using the coloured ear tag) at Lower Brook on 15 and 26 March 2008, only 1 km from its capture location the previous year (C. Jones, pers. comm. 2008).

Moose 1336 (Figures 7-10 and 7-11) apparently crossed over the river post-capture and remained on the north side of river, in the lower Churchill River valley, throughout May and a portion of June. By late June, this adult male moved north, staying in an area north of the proposed transmission line in the vicinity of the Metchin River during July and August. In September, this animal moved south towards the lower Churchill River, following a similar route as in the spring. The maximum distance travelled from the point of capture was approximately 35 km, and the total area covered 268.1 km2 (Figure 7-11).

After leaving the lower Churchill River valley in April 2007, Moose 1337 spent most of May in areas along or adjacent to the Elizabeth River, travelling in a northwesterly direction, before moving north towards (but still above) the lower Churchill River valley in June (Figures 7-12 and 7-13). The maximum distance this adult travelled from its point of capture was approximately 10 km occupying an area of 26.8 km2 (Figure 7-13). It was shot by hunters in September 2007 on the shore of the Churchill River, near Metchin River. Unfortunately, data from June 2007 until this date could not be recovered by Lotek.

Continuous data (beyond the initial download in April 2007) that can provide insight into seasonal movements of moose within and to and from the Lower Churchill River Valley are available for three animals [1334 (April 2007-September 2008), 1336 (April-September 2007) and 1337 (April-June 2007) (Note that this animal was shot on the shoreline of the lower Churchill River during September 2007); Figures 7-7, 7-10 and 7-12, respectively). These moose remained in the lower Churchill River valley immediately post-capture, but moved out of the valley to higher elevations by late April (1337), May (1334, both years) or June (1336), and returned to the valley the following Fall (November, 1334). Although all three moose were captured west of Winokapau Lake, little spatial overlap in their home range was documented.

Lo

wer

Ch

urc

hill

Hyd

roel

ectr

ic G

ener

atio

n P

roje

ct

MIN

0316

.10/

1013

774.

10 •

Moo

se E

BR

• O

ctob

er 2

009

P

age

7-11

©

Min

asku

at In

c. 2

009

Fig

ure

7-3

M

ove

men

ts o

f M

oo

se 1

330

(Fem

ale)

Lo

wer

Ch

urc

hill

Hyd

roel

ectr

ic G

ener

atio

n P

roje

ct

MIN

0316

.10/

1013

774.

10 •

Moo

se E

BR

• O

ctob

er 2

009

P

age

7-12

©

Min

asku

at In

c. 2

009

Fig

ure

7-4

M

ove

men

ts o

f M

oo

se 1

331

(Fem

ale)

Lo

wer

Ch

urc

hill

Hyd

roel

ectr

ic G

ener

atio

n P

roje

ct

MIN

0316

.10/

1013

774.

10 •

Moo

se E

BR

• O

ctob

er 2

009

P

age

7-13

©

Min

asku

at In

c. 2

009

Fig

ure

7-5

M

ove

men

ts o

f M

oo

se 1

332

(Fem

ale)

Lo

wer

Ch

urc

hill

Hyd

roel

ectr

ic G

ener

atio

n P

roje

ct

MIN

0316

.10/

1013

774.

10 •

Moo

se E

BR

• O

ctob

er 2

009

P

age

7-14

©

Min

asku

at In

c. 2

009

Fig

ure

7-6

M

ove

men

ts o

f M

oo

se 1

333

(Mal

e)

Lo

wer

Ch

urc

hill

Hyd

roel

ectr

ic G

ener

atio

n P

roje

ct

MIN

0316

.10/

1013

774.

10 •

Moo

se E

BR

• O

ctob

er 2

009

P

age

7-15

©

Min

asku

at In

c. 2

009

Fig

ure

7-7

M

ove

men

ts o

f M

oo

se 1

334

(Fem

ale)

lower churchill hydroelectric generation project ... · pdf filethe lower churchill...

Documents