Appendix A Photographs

Transcription

1 Northland Power Inc. - Kabinakagami River Project 2009 Terrestrial Field Investigations - Data Report Appendix A Photographs H , Rev. 0 Hatch 2011/10

2 Northland Power Inc. - Kabinakagami River Project 2009 Terrestrial Field Investigations - Data Report Figure 3.1 Stick Nest Found Along the Western Shore of the Kabinakagami River, Downstream of Site 7 Stick Nest Figure 3.2 Beaver Lodge Along the Kabinakagami River H , Rev. 0 Page A1 Hatch 2011/10

3 Northland Power Inc. - Kabinakagami River Project 2009 Terrestrial Field Investigations - Data Report Figure 3.3 Ground Lichen Bed Observed During Site Investigations Figure 3.4 Large Area of Muskeg East of the Kabinakagami River, ~500 m Northeast of Site 7 Muskeg Kabinakagami River H , Rev. 0 Page A2 Hatch 2011/10

4 Figure 3.5 Typical Shoreline within the River Reach Upstream of Site 1 Northland Power Inc. - Kabinakagami River Project 2009 Terrestrial Field Investigations - Data Report Figure 3.6 Typical Shoreline along the River Reach Upstream of Site 2 H , Rev. 0 Page A3 Hatch 2011/10

5 Northland Power Inc. - Kabinakagami River Project 2009 Terrestrial Field Investigations - Data Report Figure 3.7 Alder Thicket Surrounding Creekbed Figure 3.8 Rocky Rivershore at Site 3 H , Rev. 0 Page A4 Hatch 2011/10

6 Figure 3.9 Typical Shoreline along the River Reach Upstream of Site 3 Northland Power Inc. - Kabinakagami River Project 2009 Terrestrial Field Investigations - Data Report Figure 3.10 Rocky Rivershore at Site 4 H , Rev. 0 Page A5 Hatch 2011/10

7 Figure 3.11 Typical Shoreline along the River Upstream of Site 4 Northland Power Inc. - Kabinakagami River Project 2009 Terrestrial Field Investigations - Data Report Figure 3.12 Typical Shoreline along the River Upstream of Site 5 H , Rev. 0 Page A6 Hatch 2011/10

8 Figure 3.13 Vegetation Communities along Creek Upstream of Site 5 Northland Power Inc. - Kabinakagami River Project 2009 Terrestrial Field Investigations - Data Report Figure 3.14 Meadow Vegetation along the Shoreline Upstream of Site 6 H , Rev. 0 Page A7 Hatch 2011/10

9 Figure 3.15 Typical Shoreline along the River Upstream of Site 7 Northland Power Inc. - Kabinakagami River Project 2009 Terrestrial Field Investigations - Data Report H , Rev. 0 Page A8 Hatch 2011/10

10 Suite 500, 4342 Queen Street Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada L2E 7J7 Tel Fax

11 Northland Power Inc. - Kabinakagami River Project Draft Environmental Report/Environmental Screening Appendix D Aerial Survey for Woodland Caribou for the Kabinakagami Hydro Project H , Rev. B Hatch 2012/01

12 2011 Aerial Survey for Woodland Caribou for the Kabinakagami Hydro Project prepared for Hatch Ltd. by Marcel Pellegrini April 2011

13 Executive Summary Northland Power Inc., in a joint venture partnership with Constance Lake First Nation is planning to construct and operate four run-of-river hydroelectric facilities on the Kabinakagami River near Constance Lake, about 35 km west of Hearst and just north of Highway 11. The proposed hydroelectric development sites are located within a large portion of northern Ontario defined as continuous woodland caribou area by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). Woodland caribou is a threatened species under the Species At Risk Act (federal legislation) and their habitat is protected in Ontario under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (provincial legislation). The OMNR recommended that an aerial caribou survey be conducted in a 960 km² area around the project, with the goal of demonstrating due diligence in project planning. The survey objectives were to determine the presence or absence of caribou and to identify, if possible, any potential travel corridors to areas where caribou are known to currently exist. OMNR also specified a numbered of criteria and best practices for conducting the aerial survey, which were incorporated into the methodology for the survey conducted in February The aerial survey did not find any caribou within the study area. The survey did find a high wolf density which is believed to be limiting caribou in the lower 2/3 of the study area. As well, a relatively high density of moose was found in the lower 2/3 of the study area. Based on information from one Constance Lake First Nation member caribou have been harvested in areas adjacent to the survey area. Two of the three locations identified are north of the survey area but caribou have not been harvested there in 20 or more years. The third location is west of the study area where one caribou was harvested 5 years ago. An evaluation of the habitat conditions in and around the study area was made using Forest Resources Inventory data and satellite imagery. The evaluation shows that suitable habitat conditions for caribou do not currently exist in the lower portion of the study area where the 4 development sites are located. This is attributed to past and current forest harvesting resulting in loss of caribou habitat conditions. Suitable caribou habitat conditions currently exist in the upper portion of the study area and to the north of the study area. The study found that there are likely no restrictions for caribou from the north traveling into the northern portion of the study area. However caribou traveling into the lower portion of the study area from any direction will encounter poor habitat conditions and a high risk of falling prey to wolves. 2

14 As a result of these identified restrictions and lack of suitable habitat conditions in the southern extent of the study area, it is unlikely that development of these hydroelectric sites will affect the long-term viability of caribou in the area of continuous caribou range. 3

15 Table of Contents Page Executive Summary 2 Table of Contents.4 List of Figures...4 List of Tables 4 List of Appendices 4 Introduction. 5 Methods 5 Results.. 7 Discussion.9 Summary.. 11 Acknowledgments 11 Literature Cited.12 List of Figures: Figure 1: Woodland Caribou Distribution in Ontario 13 Figure 2: 2011 Caribou Survey Study Area...14 Figure 3: 2011 Caribou Survey Flightlines Figure 4: 2011 Caribou Survey Wildlife Observations.. 16 List of Tables: Table 1: Summary of Primary Observations, 2011 Aerial Survey for Woodland Caribou Kabinakagami River Project 17 Table 2: Summary of Ad Hoc Observations, 2011 Aerial Survey for Woodland Caribou Kabinakagami River Project.18 List of Appendices: Appendix 1: Survey line coordinates Appendix 2: A summary of the crew members experience with aerial surveys. Appendix 3: Summary of Waypoint Locations and Descriptions Appendix 4: Comparison of photographs from suspected wolverine tracks at Way Point 129 (upper) and known wolverine tracks at Peawanuck Ontario (lower). 4

16 Introduction Northland Power Inc., in a joint venture partnership with Constance Lake First Nation (CLFN) is planning to construct and operate four run-of-river hydroelectric facilities on the Kabinakagami River near Constance Lake, about 35 km west of Hearst and just north of Highway 11. The project will be subject to the requirements of the Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) for Waterpower Projects (OWA, 2008). The forest dwelling form of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Ontario are designated as a threatened species under the federal Species At Risk Act (SARA) and under the Ontario Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) advised the proponent that it was necessary to consider caribou during the Class EA process. The OMNR also advised that conducting an aerial winter survey for caribou was necessary because the project area is located near the southern border of the continuous distribution area for caribou in Ontario (Figure 1). The survey goal is to demonstrate due diligence under the ESA which currently provides legislated protection for caribou. There were two objectives for this survey, as specified by OMNR. The first objective was to determine the presence or absence of woodland caribou in the study area. The study area included the four hydroelectric generation sites and the possible road and transmission corridors (Figure 2). The study area was a 960 km² rectangle measuring 24 km east/west and 40 km north/south. The second objective of the survey was to evaluate the potential of caribou travel linkages with the Nagagami Herd and caribou residing further north of the project area. At the time of the survey, the Nagagami Herd was the closest known caribou herd to the project area. Methods In order to address the first objective, to determine the presence or absence of caribou, an aerial survey was planned. The survey method was designed to incorporate the criteria specified by OMNR (as discussed below) and adopted the flight management procedures identified for the Pagwachuan Caribou Aerial Surveys 2011 Protocol Document (OMNR, unpublished). The OMNR outlined the following criteria to be incorporated into the methodology: Surveys should be done as north/south transects, roughly 40 km long and spaced 2 km apart. The survey area should be bounded by Rogers Road to the west and the Fushimi Road to the east with the southern boundary being the Continuous Caribou Habitat Area line which is roughly at the northern boundary of Constance Lake First Nation (CLFN). The area to be flown is roughly 24 km wide and would require 12 transects 5

17 Surveys should be conducted in February to early March to determine if caribou are using any part of the area as a late wintering area. All animal observations including sightings and tracks should be recorded (caribou, moose (Alces alces), wolves (Canis lupis), otter (Lontra canadensis), etc) Recommend including CLFN and OMNR staff who have experience on these types of surveys Do the entire survey by helicopter and record all tracks, cratering and animal observations; in areas with caribou sign follow up to thoroughly evaluate the area Or Conduct a two stage approach by flying transects with a fixed wing aircraft and record all tracks, cratering and animal observations; in areas with caribou sign follow up with a helicopter investigation to thoroughly evaluate the area. This option is based on OMNR s integrated range assessment for caribou methodology. Although not explicit in the OMNR criteria it was implied that once animal tracks were determined to be other than caribou no further effort was made to find the animal (i.e. moose, wolf, otter etc). The following flight management procedures were adopted: Survey times should be between 09:30 am and 3:00 pm but may be extended in open or lowland forest conditions Light conditions sufficient to create enough contrast that animals tracks stand out and can be identified Altitude between 100 m (325 Ft) and 200 m (650 Ft) Air speed of 80 knots (148 km per hour or 92 miles per hour) or as appropriate for search conditions (i.e. faster over large lakes and slower in densely forested areas) No explicit restrictions on snow conditions, the preference is for no more than 5 days since last snowfall The following responsibilities were assigned to each member of the survey crew: Pilot: Primary responsibilities are to maintain flight safety, follow the flight line and flight management procedures. May assist in observing tracks and animals. Navigator: Determines whether or not to proceed with the survey based on light conditions. Will make the final call on animal or sign identification after considering input from all crew. Will monitor and mark waypoints on the navigation unit (GARMIN GPSMAP 60Cx), and update and maintain the flight data sheet to keep track of observation records and their corresponding waypoint numbers. Observer 1: will sit behind the pilot and call out all tracks and animals so that a positive identification and waypoint location can be recorded. Observer 2: Will sit behind the navigator and call out all tracks and animals so that a positive identification and location can be recorded. The final survey transect lines are shown in Figure 3. The predetermined start and end point for each transect line is shown in Appendix 1. 6

18 In order to address the second objective, to evaluate the possible evidence of caribou travel linkages, forest cover maps and Google Earth imagery were examined for landscape attributes used by caribou. These attributes are large areas dominated by mature conifer forest types, large wetland complexes, and low road density. Conversely, landscape attributes such as recently harvested forest areas, hardwood forest types and areas with high road density and human development were considered as areas not used by caribou at least in the early and late winter periods. Visual assessment of these landscape patterns and attributes were to be used as opposed to quantitative methods which are outside of the scope of this study (and consistent with the expectations of the OMNR). In addition, if time permitted, the area immediately to the north of the survey lines would be flown. Forest Resource Inventory information was not available for this area. Flying this area may detect nearby caribou and would help to evaluate travel linkages with caribou to the north. The aerial survey was conducted between February 20 and 22, A Bell 206 Jet Ranger helicopter was used to fly the entire survey. All 12 transect lines, totaling 480 km s, were flown in accordance to the criteria identified by OMNR and the flight management procedures previously identified. The only exception occurred at the start of Line 1 which began approximately 400 m east of the planned starting point and converged to the correct end point. In addition, 45 minutes of airtime were flown on an ad hoc basis north of the primary survey area in order to get an idea of the habitat types and linkages in this area. Some of the larger wetland complex perimeters were flown because caribou frequent this type of habitat in late winter and their signs (tracks and cratering) are readily apparent. A fresh snow fall had occurred the day before the survey began. Except for the occasional cloudy patch the survey was conducted under ideal light conditions which ranged from sunny bright to hazy bright. All of the survey crew members had previous experience doing aerial caribou surveys. A summary of the crew members experience with aerial surveys is shown in Appendix 2. Results The track log recorded during the survey as well as the waypoint location for each wildlife observation is shown in Figure 4. A summary of all of the wildlife observations by species in both the primary survey area and the ad hoc area immediately to the north is shown in Table 1 and Table 2. A detailed description of each waypoint location and the observation made is shown in Appendix 3. No caribou or sign of caribou (tracks, cratering or slushing) was observed in either the primary survey area or the ad hoc area flown to the north (Table 1 and Table 2). 7

19 A total of 26 moose and 63 unique occurrences of moose tracks were observed on the 12 transect lines. The moose group sizes ranged from 1 to 5 animals and averaged 2.0 moose per group (Table 1). No attempt was made to determine the number of moose represented by the 63 track occurrences or was there any attempt made to determine the number of moose making the track occurrence. A group of 2 moose and 4 unique occurrences of moose tracks were observed north of the primary survey area (Table 2). A total of 10 wolves and 9 unique occurrences of wolf tracks were observed on the 12 transect lines. The wolf group size ranged from 1 to 5 animals and averaged 3.3 wolves per group. No attempt was made to determine the number of wolves represented by the 9 track occurrences (Table 1). A total of 20 unique occurrences of otter tracks and 4 unique occurrences of lynx (Lynx lynx) tracks were observed on the 12 transect lines (Table 1). In addition to the above observations there was one track observation (way point 129) that appeared to be that of a wolverine (Gulo gulo). The track pattern appeared to be a 2x2 gait which is characteristic of the wolverine and other members of the weasel (Mustelidae) family. The track was old, made prior to the last snowfall, and was only visible in a small area near a beaver lodge. Discussion amongst the crew members failed to reach a consensus on the track identification. The tracks were photographed for further study before making a final call on the track type. Shortly after the survey was completed the navigator had the opportunity to work in the far north portion of Ontario, near Peawanuck, where numerous wolverine tracks were observed daily over a six day period. As well one live wolverine was observed and photographed. A comparison of the photograph taken at way point 129, at the north end of the survey area, with a photograph of a wolverine and its tracks is shown in Appendix 4. The tracks at way point 129 are much smaller and the track impression is not as deep as the known wolverine track from Peawanuck. Based on this comparison there is no doubt that the tracks at way point 129 are not those of a wolverine. The tracks at way point 129 are most likely from a fisher (Martes pennanti) or from a pine marten (Martes americana) The 45 minute ad hoc excursion into the area north of the primary study area was characterized by large wetland complexes, large stands of pure lowland black spruce, and very little hardwood forest. No roads were present within the area surveyed. 8

20 Discussion In regard to the first objective of this study it is clear that caribou were absent from the study area at the time of the survey. It is unlikely that caribou activity was missed with the transect coverage and flight conditions of the survey. The fact that no caribou or signs of caribou were observed is attributed to the current forest condition throughout most of the study area. The present forest composition, in the lower 2/3 of the study area, consists of large areas that are not capable of supporting caribou, and only relatively small amounts of area that are currently suitable as caribou habitat (Figure 3). The forest is highly fragmented and the road density is very high, primarily due to forest harvesting operations, especially near the 4 proposed hydroelectric generation sites. These are all factors contributing to woodland caribou range recession identified by the Ontario Woodland Recovery Team (2008). The high number of wolves and moose present indicate an ecological shift in this area resulting in higher predation pressures on caribou, should they be present. Increased wolf densities in disturbed caribou habitat have been attributed to increased moose densities thereby increasing predation on caribou (Ontario Woodland Recovery Team 2008). The area immediately north of the study area and the upper 1/3 of the study area consists of undisturbed mature conifer forest, large wetlands complexes and no roads or other man made linear features; features characteristics of suitable caribou habitat. Although no caribou sign was found in this area during the survey, caribou could be using this area at other times. Observations of both moose and moose tracks were mostly in the eastern and southern portions of the study area. The least intensively used area by moose is in the northern 1/3 of the study area. As well, moose and moose tracks were observed north of the study area. All three wolf observations were west and south of the Kabinakagami River in the southern part of the study area. However, wolf tracks were wide spread throughout the lower 2/3 of the study area and closely associated with the existing roads. Bergerud et al (2006) found that woodland caribou persistence is unlikely when moose exceed a density of 0.10 per km² thereby supporting wolf densities 6.5/1000 km² or a density of per km². In the primary study area (960 km²) 10 wolves were observed or a density of /km² which is 1.6 times the threshold suggested by Bergerud et al (2006). Based on the observed number of moose found in this survey a minimum population of 26 or a density of moose per km² exists. However, given that there were 63 unique occurrences of moose tracks observed in the primary study area, where no effort was made to find the moose that created the track, it is reasonable to expect that the actual moose population is greater than the threshold of 0.10/km². In the past caribou have been harvested just outside of the study area by First Nation hunters. Caribou were harvested regularly at the Squirrel River up until 35 years ago (per. comm. Ineese, 2011). The Squirrel River is located approximately 12 km north of the study area. Caribou were harvested up until 20 years ago near the confluence of the 9

21 Kabinakagami and Fox Rivers, approximately 5 km northwest of the study area (per. comm. Ineese, 2011). Five years ago one caribou was harvested 5 km west of Constance Lake on the abandoned Canadian National Railway (CNR) right of way (per. comm. Ineese, 2011). Although caribou were harvested in close proximity of the survey area as recently as 5 years ago, none were found in the survey area. The harvest record west of Constance Lake 5 years ago may represent an area of traditional travel for caribou. However, it currently represents an area of high risk for hunting mortality because of easy access and to predation by wolves because of moose densities. Therefore, based on habitat characteristics, and observed numbers of moose and wolves, it appears that the southern 2/3 of the study area is not presently suitable for caribou. The absence of First Nation harvest of caribou in this area also supports this view. Though no caribou or evidence of caribou were recorded during the survey within the northern 1/3 of the study area, and there is an absence of First Nation harvest of caribou from this area, conditions in the northern 1/3, and to the north of the study area still appear to be suitable for caribou. The second objective of this survey was to evaluate the possible evidence of caribou travel linkages within the Nagagami herd, to the southwest of the project area, and with caribou residing north of the project area. The Ontario Woodland Caribou Recovery Team (2008) lists a number of threats to the continued survival of caribou including: habitat loss and degradation; habitat fragmentation, highways, roads and other linear features; disturbance by other human activities; hunting and subsistence harvest; disease and parasites; and weather. Understanding caribou meta population dynamics requires an understanding of the cumulative impact of these threats. The absence of caribou in the survey area and the harvest of one 5 km W of Constance Lake on the CNR abandoned line may be indicative of the cumulative impact of the threats identified by the Ontario Woodland Recovery Team (2008). Understanding habitat connectivity requires information about the composition and arrangement of cover types at a landscape level and the preferences that caribou have to move through each cover type (Ontario Woodland Caribou Recovery Team, 2008). The current understanding of what constitutes a travel corridor for caribou is incomplete and sometimes contradictory. For example, Ferguson and Elkie (2004) found that habitat used in migration corridors by caribou could not be distinguished by any particular habitat type, were more likely to use conifer forest, but did not avoid recently disturbed areas and did not appear to select waterways or open areas. However, Brown (2005) found the abundance of mature conifer forest to be more important than other land cover types during travel seasons. 10

22 The Nagagami caribou herd is located approximately 80 km southwest of the project area. A recent study that tracked 2 of the caribou from this herd, using satellite telemetry, showed that they remained within an area of approximately 300 km² and never crossed Highway 11 or Highway 631 (per. comm., Sadowsky 2011). Venturing across either of these highways into heavily logged forest areas which have higher densities of moose, wolves, and roads would represent a significant cumulative threat to individual caribou survival. Therefore it is highly unlikely that members of the Nagagami herd would successfully travel to the study area under the current landscape conditions. In time, if suitable forest conditions develop within and adjacent to the study area through silvicultural practices, natural forest succession and road abandonment, a landscape capable of providing travel corridors for caribou may develop again. As the forest composition and structure develop into suitable conditions for caribou, moose and wolf densities should decrease. This should reduce predation pressure in favour of caribou survival. However, if additional forest harvesting and road building continues to disturb the area, caribou will be unlikely to return. In regard to travel linkages to caribou north of the study area, there are no apparent threats to successful travel. The northern 1/3 of the study area and the area to the north is characterized by large tracts of undisturbed mature conifer forest, large wetland complexes and an absence of roads. Although 2 moose and 4 unique occurrences of moose track where observed in this area during the ad hoc flight no wolves or wolf tracks were observed. This suggests that there is lower predation pressure and therefore a higher probability of survival for caribou traveling into this area from herds to the north. Summary The survey found no woodland caribou or sign of woodland caribou in the study area proper or in the ad hoc survey area to the north. The current forest condition in the lower 2/3 of survey area, and in particular around the four proposed hydroelectric development sites, is not currently conducive to caribou use. As well, the high road density and the high number of wolves in the area of the four developments sites represent a significant survival threat to any caribou that may venture into this area. Acknowledgements Nicole Woolnough, Resource Planner, OMNR Hearst, provided map products that were critical to conducting the field survey work. Derrick Ineese of Constance Lake First Nation participated in the aerial survey as an experienced caribou observer as well as providing a wealth of traditional First Nation knowledge. Dave Barbour, Planning Biologist, OMNR Hearst, participated in the aerial survey as an experienced caribou observer. David Ross, chief pilot, from Essential Helicopters provided flight services for the survey. Noel Boucher and Sean Male are gratefully acknowledged for their review and constructive comments on this report. 11

23 Literature Cited Bergerud, A.T., W.J. Dalton, H. Butler, L. Camps and R. Ferguson Woodland caribou persistence and extirpation in relic populations on Lake Superior. Rangifer Spec. Iss. 17: Brown, G.S Habitat selection by woodland caribou in managed boreal forest of northeastern Ontario. Ph. D. thesis, Univ. Guelph, Guelph, Ontario. (Cited in Ontario Woodland Caribou Recovery Team, 2008). Ferguson, S.H. and P.C. Elkie. 2004a. Habitat requirements of boreal caribou during the travel seasons. Basic Appl. Ecol. 5: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Undated. Ontario s Woodland Caribou Conservation Plan. 28pp.. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Pagwachuan Caribou Aerial Surveys 2011 Protocol Document. Unpublished. 21 pp.. Ontario Waterpower Association (OWA) Class Environmental Assessment for Waterpower Projects. October pp. Ontario Woodland Caribou Recovery Team Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) (Forest Dwelling Boreal Population) in Ontario. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough Ontario. 93pp. Personnel Communications Ineese, D Personal communications regarding traditional knowledge of caribou harvesting by Constance Lake First Nation members Sadowsky, J Personal communication regarding observations of collared caribou from the Nagagami herd. 12

24 Figures

25 Area of CCP app Continuo Discontin Forest - tundra woodland caribou (not at risk) Forest - dwelling woodland caribou (Threatened) Area of CCP application: Continuous Distribution Discontinuous Distribution Northland_H331694_DTC Northland Power Inc. Kabinakagami River Project Woodland Caribou Distribution in Ontario Figure 1

26 Rogers Road English River 66 Kenogami River Kabinkagami River Otasawian River Nagagami River Site 6 Site 5 Site 4 Site 3 LEGEND Flight Lines Railway Road Study Area Constance Lake 92 Fushimi Road Fushimi Lake First Nations Area Water Body Constance Lake Wetland First Nation Highway 11 CNR Km 1:225,000 Notes: 1. Produced by Hatch under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Copyright (c) Queens Printer Spatial referencing UTM NAD 83. Figure 2 Northland Power Inc. Kabinakagami River Project 2011 Caribou Survey Study Area P:\NORTHLAND\331694\DATABASES\GIS\Caribou_StudyArea.mxd

27 Nagagami River Kabinkagami River Site 6 Site 5 Rogers Road Site 4 Site 3 LEGEND Flight Lines Railway Road Study Area First Nation Area Water Body Constance Lake 92 Fushimi Road Fushimi Lake Wetland Km 1:125,000 Notes: 1. Produced by Hatch under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Copyright (c) Queens Printer Spatial referencing UTM NAD 83. CNR Figure 3 Northland Power Inc. Kabinakagami River Project 2011 Caribou Survey Flight Lines P:\NORTHLAND\331694\DATABASES\GIS\Caribou_FlightLines.mxd

28 Kabinkagami River Otasawian River Nagagami River b b Site b LEGEND Site Lynx Track Moose Observations Moose Tracks Otter Tracks Wolf Observation Wolf Tracks 159 Rogers Road Site Site b Flight Lines 63 Railway Road Study Area b First Nation Area Water Body Wetland 138 Constance Lake Fushimi Road Km 1:150,000 Notes: 1. Produced by Hatch under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Copyright (c) Queens Printer Spatial referencing UTM NAD 83. Figure 4 Northland Power Inc. Kabinakagami River Project 2011 Caribou Survey Wildife Observations P:\NORTHLAND\331694\DATABASES\GIS\Caribou_Wildife.mxd CNR