Chapter 16 - Caribou

16. Caribou

"Hunting is more than food on the table. It is a fundamental part of who we are. It is part of our way of life. The animals we hunt are not just commodities. We believe that they are given to us by the animal masters, and that by hunting, we show respect for the land and all that it provides." (Daniel Ashini, Voisey's Bay News, June 1997: 24 and 28)

Caribou are important to the residents of northern Labrador, particularly Innu and Inuit for whom it is a major part of their diet. Caribou are also the focus of many cultural activities of the region and are an important base of the traditional economy. The harvest of caribou is part of the social structure and culture of Labrador north coast communities.

16.1 Existing Environment

The Landscape Region (Figure 16.1) lies within the range of the George River Caribou Herd (the Herd), the largest of several herds which occupy the Ungava peninsula (Brice-Bennett et al. 1995:1; Couturier et al. 1990:9) (Figure 16.1). The Herd has shown dramatic fluctuations in numbers over the past two hundred years as a result of food availability, predation, hunting, or a combination of these and other factors. A 1993 census estimated the population to be between 675,000-877,000 animals (Department of Natural Resources 1995). The 1993 figures are considered representative of current herd size (Schaefer J., pers. comm.). However, other documentation suggests that the population is currently in decline (Messier et al. 1988; Bergerud 1994), and will continue to decline over the next 25-35 years.

"I've travelled down there by dog team, way inside of Voisey's Bay about 70, 80 mile. I've gone inside there caribou hunting with my dog team. And it's a wonderful land for the caribou." (Douglas Jacque, Panel Scoping Meetings in Postville, May 12, 1997.

Caribou have a widespread distribution with only a small portion of their population confined at any one time in one area. The Herd ranges widely, and often unpredictably, over a 700,000 km² range extending from Hudson Bay in the west to the Labrador coast in the east. Small portions of the Herd may occupy the Voisey's Bay area from December to early May in some years.

The critical habitat needs of caribou include adequate availability of forage during all seasons, relatively predator-free calving areas, and habitats providing insect relief during summer (DND 1994a). The seasonal movements and distribution of the Herd (Figure 16.1) reflect these requirements and improve the Herd's chances of reproduction and survival. For example, the dramatic increase in numbers (mid-1970s to mid-1980s) was accompanied by a large increase in range size (at present, the Herd occupies most of the Labrador-Quebec peninsula) and major shifts in patterns of range use (Berger and Luttich 1985; Williamson 1997).

With the exception of the calving area (known as the "centre of habitation" (Skoog 1968)) at the height-of-land along the Quebec-Labrador border, the Herd shows little fidelity to most of their other seasonal ranges (Joyce et al. 1991). Distribution and movement patterns at other times of the year are quite variable and are also much influenced by environmental conditions. Snowfall amounts may influence caribou to select overwintering sites hundreds of kilometres apart from one year to the next (Vandal et al. 1989). Heavy snow conditions in the central portion of the Labrador-Quebec peninsula have regularly caused caribou to overwinter in central and eastern Labrador (Dauphine et al. 1975).

Figure 16.1 Seasonal Movements and Ranges of the George River Caribou Herd, Caribou Assessment Area

"But recently, for the last five or six years now, our caribou have been walking back and forth on the ice here...so it is making it much easier for the elders to get their caribou..." (Etienne Pastiwet, Panel Scoping Meetings in Utshimassits, April 20, 1997)

Hunters are sensitive to the local availability of caribou; the preference is for hunting when caribou are nearby and plentiful enough to make the effort worthwhile. For example, 67 percent of 303 kill locations by Nain hunters during 1982-1984 were within 16 km of the Fraser River west of Nain (Harrington 1988). Of all harvesters, Labrador residents may be most affected if the population of the Herd were to decline. Since a decline in population will likely move the calving area farther west (Messier et al. 1988; Crete et al. 1990), caribou may no longer winter along the coast, and access for local residents will be more difficult (Williamson 1997).

16.1.1 Environmental Assessment Boundaries

Capitalized terms used herein (such as Landscape Region and VBNC Claim Block) may be defined in other chapters. Some terms and phrases used may have different definitions in other chapters depending upon the context in which they are used; for example, the Assessment Area.

Project activities will take place within the eastern periphery of the Herd's range. The environmental assessment boundary for caribou in this chapter is the spatial extent (or range) of the Herd (Figure 16.1), the Caribou Assessment Area. Interactions between the Project and the Herd will be limited to:

individuals and small groups of caribou occurring throughout the winter within the VBNC Claim Block;
moderate numbers of caribou crossing the VBNC Claim Block in April/May during their migratory movement during all phases of the Project; and
from December to May, individuals and small groups of caribou occurring on ice along the shipping route.

VBNC studies have focused on caribou within the Landscape Region (since this region encompasses the VBNC Claim Block and shipping route); however, predictions of environmental effects will be made for the population of the whole Herd.

16.1.1.1 Administrative Boundaries

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, through the Wildlife Division, Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, is responsible for the management of caribou while the animals are within the province (elsewhere in the range of the Herd the Quebec government is responsible). Currently, harvesting is managed through a system of hunting zones: 13 smaller zones in the south and two larger ones in the north. The southern zones are not open to hunting until they are occupied by a large number of the Herd, while the northern zones have fixed season dates.

16.1.1.2 Technical Boundaries

Current estimates of the population have been difficult to determine due to the erratic movements and range expansions of the Herd. Caribou studies for the Project have therefore focused on understanding how caribou use the various habitats in the Landscape Region, rather than estimating the population size.

16.1.2 Methods

Data used in this assessment was collected during 22 dedicated aerial surveys conducted twice a month from January to May of 1996 and January to June 1997. Aerial and ground surveys also occurred during calving and rutting periods. During these surveys, the helicopter altitude was adjusted to reduce disturbance to caribou, except in the case of a single survey. Incidental observations of caribou and caribou sign were also compiled during field surveys for other VBNC studies. A comprehensive review of the scientific and technical literature reporting on caribou biology and ecology of the Herd was provided by the Wildlife Division. A review was also completed of interactions that occurred in similar projects between caribou and infrastructure development.

16.1.3 Existing Conditions

"Prior to three or four years ago when the George River caribou didn't migrate as far south as they are now today and they have been for the last three or four years, it was an annual trek for us to go, hunters from here, from Rigolet to go to Nain and north of Nain and beyond." (Derek Pottle, Panel Scoping Meetings in Rigolet, May 7, 1997)

The size and importance of the Herd has resulted in much research effort in Labrador and Quebec to understand population fluctuations, seasonal movements, and the importance of factors such as habitat, predation, and hunting. Since the first scientific census (Banfield and Tener 1958), several inventories and research investigations have been completed throughout the range of this herd (DND 1994a; 1994b). To supplement this extensive database and because of the unpredictable distribution of caribou, research effort for this assessment has focused on understanding habitat use when caribou occupy the Landscape Region (JWEL 1997). This has involved a series of intensive aerial surveys of the VBNC Claim Block and vicinity to identify locations of caribou. These surveys also noted the characteristics of wintering habitat and the migration corridors leading to the calving areas in the height-of-land, northwest of the VBNC Claim Block. Surveys have also been completed in the Landscape Region to confirm presence of caribou during other stages of their annual cycle. Mineral exploration activities at Voisey's Bay have had no effect on caribou.

16.1.3.1 Seasonal Movements

"Daddy used to tell us when he was a young man, he and his brother used to watch caribou crossin' the bay...goin' north." Alice (Voisey) Andersen, Them Days 1997.

Historically, Labrador (including the North Coast) has been an important region for wintering caribou (Berger and Luttich 1985). However, caribou do not show fidelity to wintering areas (Joyce et al. 1991). Historical records indicate that the distribution of wintering caribou has been changing in Labrador. This has also been confirmed during the approximately 40 years since reliable surveys have been conducted (Williamson 1997). The variation in population numbers is, in part, due to caribou moving into Labrador (Figure 16.1) to avoid deep snow and ice on the more traditional and larger winter range in Quebec (Dauphine et al. 1975; Ferguson et al. 1985).

Since 1992-1993, a substantial portion of the Herd has wintered along a 50 km-wide coastal strip from Makkovik to north of Nain. The Landscape Region formed part of the winter range used by the Herd in 1995-1996 (Figure 16.2). During this period, the animals arrived in the area in early January and departed for the calving grounds in early May. Individuals or small groups of caribou were present throughout the Reid Brook Valley. The animals regularly travelled along trails compacted by snowmachines and, as a result, small groups were observed to pass close to buildings and tent structures at the Voisey's Exploration camp. Caribou frequently grazed on the eastern slopes of Reid Brook Valley within sight of snowmachine and helicopter activity.

Tracks in the snow indicated that caribou in the Landscape Region moved continually in the winter of 1995-1996. The most prominent movement patterns were east-west on the ridges in the south between the Notakwanon and Kogaluk Rivers, and north-south along the coast (including near-shore islands and fast ice) between Zoar and Nain. Caribou tracks were also observed in this area in 1997, but at lower densities. The movements were most likely related to feeding activity, but a certain amount of general wandering is characteristic of the species. Caribou may feed peacefully in one area for several days, then travel 30 km or so to another site and stay there for a day or several weeks (Skoog 1968). The feeding activity alternates with periods of resting. Observations in the winter of 1996 showed that the most frequently selected resting places were the ridge slopes (late winter-early spring) and sheltered shoreline sites on frozen ponds and marine bays (winter and early spring).

"cratering" is an activity carried out by caribou to uncover lichens or other ground vegetation under the snow.

Consistent with low densities of caribou tracks observed in the Landscape Region in 1997, the five surveys conducted during the winter and spring of 1997, showed caribou were considerably less abundant in the VBNC Claim Block, compared to similar periods in 1996. For example, no caribou were observed on a survey conducted April 25-27, 1997, whereas the April 23-27, 1996 survey of the same area recorded over 5,000 caribou, the largest number for any survey that year. In fact, no evidence of cratering by caribou was seen throughout the early part of 1997. This evidence, and reports by local Inuit hunters (Williamson 1997), suggests that a much smaller number of caribou overwintered in the vicinity of the Project in 1997, compared to 1996.

"Inuit maintain that some caribou remain in this coastal zone throughout the year, with a few does dropping their young in such places as Aulatsivik Island and the Kiglapait Mountains." (Williamson 1997:25)

The point of departure of the caribou to their calving grounds is where their wanderings have taken them by April or May. In 1996, about 8,000-10,000 animals that had overwintered around Voisey's Bay, concentrated in the eastern portion of the VBNC Claim Block prior to the spring migration in early May, 1996. This aggregation formed in the latter part of April, and the migration itself occurred between April 27 and May 8. Based on snowcover and track evidence, caribou moved (via three or four trails) from the coastal sections to the slopes on the east side of Reid Brook Valley. At this point, the trails merged into two main routes across the valley and continued westward via Reid Brook gorge to the calving area west of the Landscape Region.

Figure 16.2 Caribou Wintering Areas within the Landscape Region

In contrast, the few animals present in the VBNC Claim Block in 1997 appeared to have moved out by the middle of April. Surveys in late April and late May revealed no caribou within the VBNC Claim Block.

Calving is the most sensitive period in the caribou's life cycle. The principal calving grounds of the Herd are on the upland tundra plateau along the Quebec-Labrador border, approximately 40-100 km (depending on the particular location within the calving range) west of the VBNC Claim Block. Satellite telemetry data from 1987-1996 (NLWD 1997) confirms that calving consistently occurs on the plateau. Calving activity was not observed in the Landscape Region during a calving-period survey in 1996 and 1997 (JWEL 1997) and there has been limited use of the Landscape Region in the post-calving period (June 20-August 15) over the last nine years. Inuit hunters have reported caribou on offshore islands during summer where they are believed to calve (Williamson 1997). Although the main forage plants used by caribou during the calving and summer periods are present in the Landscape Region, hunting and predation risk on these restricted and exposed locations would be high and calving does not usually occur there. Caribou show great fidelity to calving areas but not to other seasonal ranges (Joyce et al. 1991).

"Chesley Flowers used to say that after sixty years the deer (caribou) makes a turn, they haves all their food eat up to the place where they was and then they shifts looking for some new."(Them Days 1997)

Calving areas appear to be chosen primarily because they offer reduced predation risks, especially from wolves (Miller et al. 1984; Ferguson et al. 1985; Fancy and Whitten 1991), which typically den at or below tree-line (Heard and Williams 1992). The quantity and quality of food resources may be a secondary consideration in choice of a calving area, and might affect caribou movements and distribution within a wider area chosen primarily for its safety from predators. Food reserves on the calving range have been in decline for some time (Couturier et al. 1990; Crete et al. 1990), and this may partially explain the expansion of the Herd's range. As the caribou population grew dramatically from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, the area used for calving increased in size, but the general location remained unchanged (Dalton and Luttich 1986; Couturier et al. 1990).

About the end of June (a week or two after calving), large post-calving aggregations of cows and calves begin to form as the caribou move to their summer range. These aggregations may serve to reduce the predation risk for young of the year (Bergerud 1974). The Herd spends the summer (Figure 16.1) on the tundra plateau east of George River and on the North Coast of Labrador (Ferguson et al. 1985).

Coastal areas in northern Labrador provide important summer habitat for caribou as cool, on-shore breezes serve to lessen the effect of insects (Juniper 1982). Inuit hunters have reported caribou along the northern coast during summer (Brice-Bennett 1977).

Participant in LIA study: "They seem to be making a continuous big circle and going further and further south every year... you still have fairly large herds around the bays and even on some of the islands, 20 or 30 to a herd... that's large compared to what we used to get first when we were caribou hunting...you were lucky if you saw 8 or 9 in a herd, it would mostly be 5 or 6" (Williamson 1997: 25)

In August, the large aggregations of caribou break up into smaller groups. By late August, these groups are widely dispersed, generally north of 55° N (Makkovik), from Ungava Bay to the Labrador coast (Ferguson et al. 1985). Fall migration begins in October as a wide, circling movement adjacent to (but mostly west of) the Quebec-Labrador border between Schefferville and Ungava Bay (Figure 16.1). Mating (the 'rut') takes place en route, with the most active rutting period occurring in the last three weeks of October (Luttich 1975; Ferguson et al. 1985). Rutting activity has only been recorded on one occasion in the vicinity of Voisey's Bay (RRCS 1992).

LIA study participant: "A few caribou at NukKangavet (stopping places) in the autumn, are also hunted. Garland Bight (Voisey's Bay), Kikkertavak Island and Kerry Island are such places" (Williamson 1997; 51)

Although most rutting activity takes place in Quebec, some occurs in Labrador. Many rutting caribou were observed between the Fraser River and Kogaluk River canyons in 1975 (Luttich 1975), 70-100 km west of Voisey's Bay, and mostly in Quebec. Rutting activity by an estimated 10,000 caribou occurred in 1991 along the coast just south of the mouth of Voisey's Bay near Zoar, within the Landscape Region (RRCS 1992). Rutting activity was not observed in the Landscape Region in 1996. However, several thousand animals were rutting north of Snegamook Lake (approximately 200 km south of the VBNC Claim Block) in October, 1996.

About mid-November, most of the herd begins its migration to the wintering ranges. Fall migration patterns have changed substantially during the past several decades (Berger and Luttich 1985) and are now generally considered to be unpredictable. Ferguson et al. (1985) observed that the choice of wintering area influences the direction of migration which, in turn, influences the geographical location of the rut. George River caribou show no fidelity to either rutting or wintering locations (Joyce et al. 1991).

Overwintering, migration and (rarely) rutting can occur in the vicinity of Voisey's Bay. However, the major overwintering areas are in Quebec (Department of Natural Resources 1995) and in central Labrador (Berger and Luttich 1985). Spring migration occurs on a number of fronts, depending on the overwintering location.

Caribou winter farther from their calving area as the size of the herd increases, and this trend was exhibited by the George River Caribou Herd (Skoog 1968). It is predicted that with a decline in herd size, the caribou range will shrink toward the centre of habitation at the height-of-land (roughly corresponding to the Quebec-Labrador border) (Messier et al. 1988; Crete et al. 1990; Williamson 1997: 5). The more traditional winter range in Quebec is expected to receive greater use as the herd becomes smaller and range quality in this area improves. However, large segments of the herd would likely continue to overwinter in Labrador, including along the coast, in years of heavy snow and ice accumulation in central Ungava.

16.1.3.2 Habitat

Habitat preferences are strongly determined by the presence of suitable forage for caribou. Vegetation studies determined that the winter forage species for caribou (lichens, grasses, sedges and shrubs) reported by Skoog (1968), Roby (1978), and Couturier et al. (1990) are present in greater abundance in areas of high caribou numbers. Caribou that were present in the VBNC Claim Block in 1997 occupied the same high-use habitat as was observed during the winter of 1996, though the numbers of caribou were much fewer in 1997. In any area, changing snow conditions (i.e., depth, hardness) and its effect on forage availability will greatly influence distribution of caribou. Generally, the animals move to higher, wind-swept elevations as snow depths increase at lower elevation sites (Bergerud 1974).

Caribou concentrated in two areas in the Landscape Region in 1996: i) the high ridges in the southwest; and ii) along the coast (nearshore islands) and fast ice in the northeast. Caribou exhibited similar habitat use patterns in 1997. Habitat in these areas has vegetation and terrain features considered to be desirable for overwintering caribou such as barren ridges, stream beds, and frozen rivers, lakes and sea ice (Skoog 1968). The numerous small valleys and small forest stands provide protection from winds and driving snow. The high-use habitat in higher elevations are windswept and thus snow-free in early winter. In mid-winter, the snow cover is softer in the wind-protected forests and shrub thickets.

A primary determinant for summer range areas is the ability to gain relief from biting insects. Insect harassment is reduced on the windswept, upland plateau (Walsh et al. 1992) and in locations where snow patches survive into the summer (Ion and Kershaw 1989). Summer habitat provides forage for lactating females and growing calves.

LIA study participant: "Last few years, too, with all the caribou around they've been digging up a lot of ground and places where you go berry picking...it's all dug up and there's nothing. It's all trampled." (Williamson 1997:38)

During population peaks, grazing pressure damages the ranges where animal concentrations are greatest. Overgrazing on the calving and summer range has been observed (Messier et al. 1988; Couturier et al. 1990) and, together with the increased work and resulting energy deficit required to forage farther away, may contribute to summer mortality and Herd decline. Reduced summer survival may be largely responsible for the decline of the Herd (Hearn et al. 1990). If a decline occurs, the resulting drop in grazing pressure will allow the range to recover. The relationship between population size and range quality will have large and unpredictable effects on the movements and distribution of the Herd.

The Landscape Region served primarily as winter range in 1996 and was used by substantially fewer animals in 1997. The different densities observed between 1996 and 1997 and the lack of rutting activity in 1996 demonstrate the variability of habitat use by the Herd.

16.1.3.3 Predation

"From the time they get up in the morning, until getting dark in the evening it would be all day, a herd of deer and then a pack of wolves, so far from one another." (Alice (Voisey) Andersen, Them Days 1997).

Wolves are considered the major predator of caribou. Eleven wolves were observed during the 1995-1996 winter surveys, and wolf tracks were frequently recorded. Most of the wolves were following caribou or caribou tracks. Three wolves were sighted on one caribou kill on sea ice in Merrifield Bay at the mouth of the Notakwanon River, (near Utshimassits) and a number of abandoned caribou carcasses appeared to have been the result of wolves (on the basis of track evidence). Several of the wolves and tracks observed were on the fast ice or nearshore islands. Only one wolf was observed during 1997 surveys. Wolves appear to move with the caribou herd and the small number of wolves observed is consistent with the decreased number of caribou in the Landscape Region.

Wolves are not the only potential predator of caribou in the Landscape Region, but the only one co-existing with it for the entire winter. Black bears are common in the Landscape Region, but they occur with caribou only for a short period in the fall before (December) and following (April) denning. Black bears are known to prey on both adult caribou and calves (Mahoney 1980), and a black bear was observed attacking an adult caribou on the ice in Anaktalak Bay. A number of other species also prey on caribou. Wolverine and lynx will take adult caribou on occasion, but mostly prey on calves. Several other mammalian and avian predators prey on calves or scavenge adult or calf remains (Skoog 1968).

16.1.3.4 Harvesting of Caribou

During winter surveys, some local hunting activity was observed along the coast and on the frozen rivers in the southern part of the Landscape Region. Several caribou kills were noted. There was no evidence that hunting activity was causing any noticable amount of caribou movement. Inuit hunters noted that snowmobiles and aircraft also did not appear to bother caribou in the vicinity of Nain Hill during the winter of 1995-1996. Hunting activity was close to communities and usually successful (JWEL 1997).

"And when the Innu people hunt caribou, they don't hunt for the joy of it, they don't overkill caribou. They kill just what they need. That is how we live in the country." (Mary Josette (through interpreter) Panel Scoping Meetings in Utshimassits, April 19, 1997)

The current annual harvest of approximately 38,000 caribou from the Herd is shared between Labrador and Quebec (Department of Natural Resources 1995) Approximately 10,000-15,000 George River caribou are harvested in Labrador annually. Caribou harvested by the Inuit of Nunavik (Northern Quebec) in 1993 provided about 800,000 kg of fresh meat to local communities (CEAA 1995). Harvests by the Innu of Utshimassits provided 29,616 kg of caribou meat in 1987 (Armitage 1990).

The Herd is the primary resource supporting the sport hunting industry in Labrador and Quebec. The outfitting industry is well established in Quebec; an estimated 5,000 non-resident licences have been issued there annually since the hunt began in 1964 (Department of Natural Resources 1995). The Labrador sport hunt began in the late 1970s, but it is smaller than its Quebec counterpart and based largely in western Labrador. The value to the local economy from the purchase of transportation, accommodation, and related goods and services is substantial in both provinces.

A commercial harvest is conducted in Quebec. Processing plants have been built in four Inuit communities (CEAA 1995). The Labrador Inuit Development Corporation was also engaged in a commercial harvest until recently. This Nain-based venture created about 60 direct jobs, as well as spin-off employment. A potential cottage industry based on the production of felt (for hats, coats, and sleeping bags) from caribou hair is in initial stages of development and could create 32 full-time jobs in Labrador communities (Robin Goodfellow & Assoc. 1997).

16.1.4 Likely Future Conditions

"People already witness the caribou are slowly decreasing in population." (George Gregoire, Panel Scoping Meeting in Utshimassits, April 20, 1997)

In the absence of the Project, the Herd within the Landscape Region would be likely to decline over the next 25 years due to natural population fluctuations. Inuit hunters have predicted that the Herd will decline and become scarce in coastal areas, causing people to once again use traditional travel routes inland (Williamson 1997). The condition of individual caribou is expected to deteriorate as a result of declining habitat quality from overgrazing. Ongoing human activity (hunting and industrial development) and natural processes (insects, predation, and climate) will continue to influence caribou population dynamics.

16.2 Environmental Effects Assessment

While there are numerous studies reporting on the response of caribou (and other ungulates) to noise, presence of people and machines, and roads and other linear features, there is little specific information on the long-term effects of mining activity on ungulates (Brunsnyk and Westworth 1988). The potential effects of the Project on caribou are largely related to habitat alteration or loss during the construction and operation of the Project. Noise, visual disturbance, and the possibility of collisions with vehicles are also issues, as well as the possibility of bioaccumulation of contaminants from water and plants ingested by caribou.

Potential environmental effects are summarized in Table 16.1. Results of the environmental effects analysis are summarized in Appendix 16A.

Table 16.1 Potential Environmental Effects

Potential Environmental Effects	Project Phase	Project Activities
habitat alteration or loss	- construction - operation	- land clearing - presence of Project infrastructure
noise and visual disturbance	- construction - operation - decommissioning	- blasting - vehicle and air traffic - Mine operations - human presence
bioaccumulation	- operation - decommissioning - post-decommissioning	- release of liquid effluent - air emissions/dustfall

16.2.1 Alteration or Loss of Habitat

Caribou habitat used as an access corridor to calving grounds or to provide forage during overwintering will be altered by site clearing, grubbing, and construction of facilities. This will result in the clearing or alteration of an estimated total area of 750 ha.

Although caribou overwinter (January to May) in the general vicinity of Voisey's Bay, only a small number have been documented in the VBNC Claim Block during the winter, which is the period of greatest concentration in the Landscape Region. For these animals, Project development may mean the loss of foraging and resting habitat and disruption in localized movement patterns in an area that does not appear to be critical habitat. Extensive undisturbed foraging and resting areas are available outside the VBNC Claim Block.

"I am quite concerned about the impacts that they will have on the habitats that are on the land. For instance, the caribou that depends on the land for its food and calving grounds. Doesn't the migration pattern change?" (Martha Hurley, Panel Scoping Meeting in Shetshatshiu, May 14, 1997)

The VBNC Claim Block occupies a portion of a corridor used by caribou to access spring calving grounds. Due to terrain characteristics, particularly on the west side of the valley, one route near Halfway Hill is the most effective for caribou migrating across the VBNC Claim Block. In early May 1996, several thousand animals moved directly across the area from east to west, passing near areas proposed for the North Tailings Basin, the pipeline and service road between Headwater Pond and the North Tailings Basin, and the plant-port access road (Figure 16.3). Animals crossing through the southern portion of the VBNC Claim Block would encounter the service road (along the north shore of Headwater Pond) and probably move along it toward Reid Brook Valley. Animals travelling north of this location would probably travel to the south of the North Tailings Basin, cross the service road and pipeline, enter Reid Brook Valley, and exit to the west using the gorge adjacent to Halfway hill.

16.2.1.1 Roads and Pipelines

Caribou have been observed to approach roads in a broad front formation and have appeared to show more apprehension approaching a road in forested areas than in open terrain. A road through a forest may represent a much greater visual change in the landscape than a road in open terrain (Surrendi and DeBock 1976). In open terrain, caribou approach a road in single file but often hesitate before crossing if willows or other shrubs grow along the sides of the road (Surrendi and DeBock 1976). Roadside growth could presumably provide cover for wolves or other predators; caribou frequently run once they enter the willows. Caribou approaching a road in forested areas seem to prefer to cross where the road is straight and level, since this provides the best visibility (Klein 1980).

The presence of linear structures such as roads and pipelines may interfere with caribou as they move through or occur in the VBNC Claim Block. Habitat used as corridors could be physically altered (e.g., by ice breaking or by the presence of structures, which could result in temporary avoidance and possibly increased energetic costs). Studies examining the reaction of caribou to disturbance generally, and with roads in particular, have observed variations in response based on sex, age, and group size. Females accompanied by calves during spring and summer demonstrate the greatest avoidance (Chubbs et al. 1993). The cow-calf segment of the Central Arctic Caribou Herd appeared to avoid areas disturbed by petroleum development on the Arctic slope of Alaska more than bulls did; bulls appeared to be less sensitive to the disturbance (Whitten and Cameron 1983; Dau and Cameron 1986). On several occasions, large post-calving groups have approached an oilfield in fragmented and dispersed subgroups, with only individuals and small groups (mostly adult males) actually entering the area (Whitten and Cameron 1983).

The height of the road above the surrounding terrain appears to influence the crossing behaviour of caribou (Klein 1980). In open terrain, caribou showed stronger avoidance to a road if it was raised appreciably above the ground surface. In such cases, the road presents a visual barrier, and the steep embankments limit the ease of movement of caribou. High berms of plowed snow were also a hindrance to caribou movement (Klein 1980). Roads may be attractive to caribou in winter when plowed or compressed snowcover makes movement easier.

Figure 16.3 Caribou Trails Observed in the VBNC Claim Block During 08-11 May 1996

In some situations (i.e., heavy traffic and precipitous side slopes), structures may be necessary to assist caribou across roads. Ramps (bridges) are recommended since caribou appear to prefer to cross over, rather than under, a structure (Curatolo and Murphy 1986). In contrast to some other forms of disturbance, cow-and-calf groups (compared to bull groups or other age and sex cohorts) do not exhibit a marked difference in crossing a road or pipeline in this manner. Slopes on all roads will be designed as 1:1.5 or gentler, which will not present an obstacle to caribou movement.

"Will the project interfere with the migration of caribou to and from their winter range?" (Naskapi Band of Quebec, Comments on the Draft EIS Guidelines for the Review of the Voisey's Bay Mine and Mill Project, May 13, 1997: 15)

During travel through the VBNC Claim Block, caribou may encounter a road (with 3-4 vehicles per hour) and a transmission line along the Reid Brook Valley. Should some caribou choose to avoid the road, alternative migration routes may be used. Other segments of the Herd wintering on the coast move west to the calving range along other routes such as south of Voisey's Bay (e.g., Mistastin River and Adlatok River). Observations in 1996 confirmed that Anaktalak Bay was also used by some caribou for spring migration.

Caribou migrating through the VBNC Claim Block may also encounter the airstrip. Assuming that the airstrip site would be cleared of snow, it is possible that caribou would attempt to cross it, since it would represent easy travelling in the direction of migration. In the event of aircraft or personnel activity on the strip, caribou would probably detour around it.

During early exploration activity for diamonds near Lac de Gras in the Northwest Territories, caribou were observed crossing roads, an airstrip, and adjacent habitats during the summer of 1994 (BHP and DiaMet 1995:3.28). Spring and fall migrations of groups of 100-1,500 caribou have also crossed access roads in this area.

VBNC personnel will be made aware of the presence of caribou by on-site monitors and will be able to schedule road construction activity to avoid disturbance to caribou as they move to calving grounds. Sodium chloride (which may attract caribou as a source of salt) will not be used to control ice on roads.

Pipelines can also disrupt movement of caribou, acting as both visual and physical barriers, particularly in open terrain (Klein 1980). Consequently, elevated or buried pipelines are typically incorporated into pipeline construction in areas along expected travel routes to reduce disturbance to caribou. Elevated pipeline crossings of 1.5 m (Curatolo and Murphy 1986) to 2.2 m (Eide et al. 1986; Carruthers and Jakimchuk 1987; Hanson 1981) were sufficient to permit passage by caribou under the structure. Buried sections of pipelines covered by gravel ramps were readily crossed by caribou (Child 1974; Curatolo and Murphy 1986; Eide et al. 1986). In some cases, guide fences have been installed to funnel caribou toward the crossings.

Pipelines associated with nearby roads were crossed less frequently than pipelines isolated from roads, with the crossing rate inversely proportional to vehicular frequency (Curatolo and Murphy 1986). For example, about half of the cow-and-calf groups observed by Curatolo and Murphy (1986) crossed a pipeline and road complex having an average of 15 vehicles per hour, but only about a quarter of such groups crossed at another site with an average of 30 vehicles per hour. Bull groups were not as sensitive to similar variations in traffic, but were still much less likely to cross pipelines near roads than isolated pipelines. Although ramps function better than elevated sections in permitting caribou to cross pipelines, even ramps did not function effectively under heavy traffic conditions, which was defined as 30 vehicles per hour (Curatolo and Murphy 1986: 223).

The reluctance to cross under elevated sections of pipeline associated with an active road appears to decrease as group size increases, at least during summer when harassed by insects (Child 1974; Curatolo and Murphy 1986). Along sections of pipeline without associated roads, small and large groups were equally likely to cross (Curatolo and Murphy 1986).

Pipelines will follow even gradients, following contours generally, but will be elevated or buried as necessary to keep slopes even. There will be few long stretches, so animals will be detoured for only short distances where pipelines are perpendicular to their travel route.

16.2.1.2 Ice

Smooth ice surfaces facilitate winter travel for caribou. Ice breaking activity will create a temporary open water lead and an edge of rougher ice. Caribou may treat ship tracks as they do other linear structures; their movements may be deflected along the track for some distance before crossing (Canarctic 1992; Canadian Coast Guard 1990).

One review of related literature suggests that caribou movements can be hindered (FEARO 1984). Some animals have avoided crossing ship tracks less than 12 hours old, but most have crossed tracks within the next 36 hours (Canarctic 1992). Six caribou were observed in Hebron Fjord during ice breaking trials in 1994 (Transportation Development Centre 1985). Of these, three that attempted to cross the track did so with no apparent difficulty.

Vessels moving in and out of Anaktalak Bay will cross north-south travel routes used by caribou in winter. The mitigation measures described in Chapter 9 include restricting shipping during the freeze-up period and during the early spring.

Icebreaking activity may affect caribou movement, since nearshore islands provide important foraging areas. Caribou may react in a number of ways to the appearance of open leads (or partially refrozen ice in the shipping track) created through icebreaking activity. They may swim across the open water, wait for the track to partially or completely refreeze, or move away from the shipping track. Since caribou are not actively trying to move in any particular direction during the winter (other than to forage for food and avoid predators), the appearance of open leads is not expected to substantively disrupt caribou movements. Because shipping will stop for a period in early spring, Anaktalak Bay will have sufficient ice cover to facilitate caribou movement to calving areas to the west.

16.2.2 Disturbance Due to Noise and Human Presence

Activities associated with construction (e.g., use of heavy equipment, blasting, and human presence) may affect caribou. Caribou may avoid habitat where levels of noise and human/equipment activities are high. Such a reaction is considered temporary, since caribou tend to habituate quickly to disturbance. A review of the effects of industrial activities (e.g., airports) and transportation corridors (e.g, highways, railways) on the demography, movement, and behaviour patterns of eight caribou populations concluded that caribou can withstand periodic severe disturbance without long-term adverse effects on productivity and survival (Bergerud et al. 1984).

A startle reaction, consisting of acute physiological (flight response) and muscular reflexes, is a common response of animals exposed to a sudden noise or other disturbing stimuli (Dufour 1980; Manci et al. 1988). A startle reaction may cause slight changes in behaviour (i.e., pricking of the ears or turning the head toward the sound) or it may result in running or panic reactions. Often, the visual stimuli associated with the noise may be more important than the noise itself in eliciting avoidance behaviour (Horejsi 1981).

The reaction of reindeer (and likely caribou) to loud noise is intensified by the visual image of the noise source such as aircraft (Thompson 1972). Visibility in open habitat is generally greater than in forested areas. Thus, habitat type is likely to play a role in the degree to which caribou react to noise. Caribou have also been observed to run much longer in response to helicopter overpasses than to jet overpasses. Caribou reacted to jet overpasses by running longer and further if they saw the jet approach (Harrington and Veitch 1991).

Caribou seem to be most sensitive to noise disturbance during the calving period, with cows and calves being the most sensitive groups (Calef and Lortie 1973; Davis and Valkenburg 1985; Harrington and Veitch 1992; Murphy et al. 1993).

"Unless directly chased or harassed, caribou also appeared to become accustomed to human activity...For example, in the winter of 1995-96, companies of caribou remained for days on Nain Hill behind the houses of the community of Nain, despite continued snowmobile and aircraft traffic all around them." (Williamson 1997:25)

A general conclusion regarding noise disturbance and wildlife is that noise levels under 90 dBA or of a continuous or predictable nature have little affect and lead to habituation (Gladwin et al. 1988; Larkin 1994; Williamson 1997). Observations indicate that heavy equipment do not disturb caribou at distances greater than 1 km as long as operators remain in the machines (Shideler 1986). Similarly, caribou not directly overflown by jet aircraft (and therefore exposed to lower sound levels) showed little or no overt response, compared to caribou more directly overflown (Harrington and Veitch 1991). Caribou apparently perceive and identify adverse stimuli through visual and olfactory means.

Noise (e.g., from blasting, use of vehicles, snowmobiles, and heavy equipment) associated with the visual cues of construction and operation may affect caribou behaviour within the VBNC Claim Block. The open pit, plant and accommodations, airstrip, and shipping dock sites will be the main locations of noise generation. These locations will likely be avoided by caribou.

The combination of noise and movement is expected to elicit an avoidance response from caribou during periods of relatively intense road construction or traffic activity. Generally, caribou respond more readily to visual stimuli than to auditory ones. This is most likely to occur on the plant/port access road. Caribou might travel on the smaller roads (i.e., North Tailings Basin access road), and on the plant/port access road during periods of low vehicle activity. However, it is unlikely that this interaction will be substantial during winter. Recent history has indicated that few animals are present there. As caribou travel through the VBNC Claim Block enroute to the calving grounds, they will probably encounter facilities and moving vehicles. Based on the literature and environmental design features (e.g., slow vehicle speeds, yielding right-of-way), caribou are expected to either cross roads, walk around facilities, or wait before crossing (until activity subsides). During operation, equivalent sound level (LEQ) values similar to those generated during construction will be expected but over a smaller area restricted to the vicinity of the dock, airstrip, access road, and tailings ponds.

While roads and other linear structures (e.g., transmission lines) can block or deflect caribou movement, the principal avoidance stimulus is the presence of people or vehicle traffic, rather than the constructed features themselves (Klein 1980; Shideler et al. 1986). Caribou are continually exposed to movement, whether it be that of other caribou or wolves, and can distinguish between movements that are casual and those that are not. Casual (seen as not dangerous) movements seem likely to be of limited importance in triggering an alert. Rapid (seen as dangerous) movements usually elicit a direct flight response (Horejsi 1981).

During observations of barren ground caribou in the Yukon, 86 percent of the animals ran or trotted away from a road on which vehicles were approaching at speeds of 56 km/h or greater. Vehicles travelling at high speed in winter often generate clouds of snow behind them, and this adds to the intensity of the disturbance. A similar effect from clouds of dust created behind fast-moving vehicles in summer, with large trucks evoking a stronger avoidance response than automobiles or pickup trucks, was reported in Roby (1978). Slow-moving vehicles were less disturbing to caribou than those travelling at high speed (Klein 1980).

When caribou were observed to retreat from the Dempster Highway because of fast-moving traffic, they usually moved about 0.8 km. On occasion, the animals retreated 12-16 km before stopping (Surrendi and DeBock 1976). Caribou frequently delayed crossing the highway until night, when traffic had ceased. In another study, the distance at which caribou began to flee from a fast-moving vehicle (between 200-300 m) did not differ between the sexes or between open and forested habitat in winter (Horejsi 1981). There was a difference with flight time, however, with females fleeing longer (62-84 seconds) than males (32-44 seconds).

Caribou avoided, or showed reduced use of areas where construction activity was taking place in the Upper Salmon hydroelectric project (Hill 1985) and in the Hope Brook gold project (Mahoney et al. 1989). Following construction, caribou occupation of adjacent habitat in these areas returned to approximate pre-development levels (Upper Salmon) or showed some recovery toward pre-development levels (Hope Brook) (Tucker and Mahoney 1990).

The effect of visual intrusion on caribou behaviour will vary throughout the VBNC Claim Block because the Project infrastructure is not visible from distant vantage points. For example, Edward's Cove has high ridges to the east and west. Facilities such as the shipping dock and equipment storage area will be hidden from caribou approaching from the east until they descend the ridge slopes directly above the cove. Caribou may not enter the valley from the west between the Reid Brook Valley and Edward's Cove because of precipitous slopes. Animals encountering personnel and equipment accompanied by noise at a distance of just a few hundred metres would be expected to move around these perceived threats. Therefore, movements would only be altered locally as they pass through the VBNC Claim Block. The plant/port access road is also well masked from distant visual intrusion along its northern half by steep slopes and by forest stands on the valley floor.

Along the southern half of the road, the valley widens and forest cover diminishes, providing visibility of up to 1 km or more for caribou. Near its southern end, the road approaches Camp Pond, which is an area of wide visibility to caribou and an area containing many Project features. From the east ridges, portions of the area near Camp Pond are visible up to 3 km; from the ground, visibility would be 1 km or less. The low profile and high elevation of the North Tailings Basin and pipeline will reduce its visibility until animals are in close proximity. In addition, the relatively low level of human presence and movement in the winter at the North Tailings Basin and the pipeline will reduce reaction as animals approach and move around these facilities.

The blasting at the open pit during the operation phase is likely to cause temporary stress in caribou present in Reid Brook valley. Aircraft landing and departing from the airstrip and traffic on the plant/port road may have a similar effect. Since exposure to the particular stimuli (blast, aircraft, and road traffic) will be short, the stress and energetic costs, if they occur, will be temporary.

Caribou have adapted to fairly high levels of stressors such as predators, insect harassment, and hunting by humans (Klein 1980). The energetic costs associated with any additional stress will be low, although during winter, the energetic costs associated with any additional stress may not be low. Running costs caribou little additional energy, since caribou have the lowest net cost of locomotion of any terrestrial vertebrate studied to date (Murphy and Curatolo 1987). Only exceptional cases of prolonged harassment may result in lower reproduction rates. However, caribou are unlikely to be subjected to prolonged physiological stress within the VBNC Claim Block. Caribou will avoid locations that generate stress during winter, or will habituate to it. Spring migration across the Project site takes place in three or four days, too short a time for lasting adverse physiological effects.

16.2.3 Bioaccumulation

Effects on caribou associated with the uptake and bioaccumulation of metals has been evaluated through the use of a risk assessment model (Beak International Incorporated 1997). The model considered six metals (nickel, copper, cobalt, zinc, lead, and cadmium) based on contaminant source characterizations (Senes 1997a, b, c) and biological sensitivity. Caribou were considered to potential uptake these elements through a number of pathways including drinking water, eating plants, and inhalation of air containing particulate matter. For modelling purposes, four watersheds were modelled: North Tailings Basin, Reid Brook Valley, Option 5, and Camp Pond. Inhalation (breathing) of metals was only included as a pathway for caribou located within the Reid Brook Valley and Camp Pond watersheds because air contaminants from the pit and mill area do not extend into the other watersheds.

It was assumed that caribou reside in these watersheds for four months of the year, which agrees with the recorded presence of caribou in the Assessment Area during the baseline survey. It was also assumed that the caribou obtain all of their food and water from within these watersheds while on site. Caribou were modelled with a diet consisting of lichens (75 percent) and deciduous browse (25 percent). The dietary intake was scaled in proportion to body weight. The uptake and bioaccumulation of metals from dietary sources is based on ingestion transfer factors which determine the efficiency to which the metals are transferred from a food source to the caribou. These ingestion transfer factors are based on established literature values which are available primarily for livestock species. For modelling of caribou, ingestion transfer factors for other herbivores (i.e., cows) were used (IAEA 1994).

Based on exposure, diet, and ingestion transfer, the bioaccumulation of metals in caribou was modelled for 140 years to accommodate the post-decommissioning period. The model provided estimates of doses (mg/kg/day) for each of the metals modelled. The predicted dose concentrations were compared to lowest observed effect level (LOEL) which are toxicological benchmark concentrations. Specific LOEL (benchmark doses) were calculated based on weight using established equations for wildlife (Sample 1996). The LOEL represent the concentration at which some effect on the animal (e.g., weight loss) was observed. These values do not represent acute toxicological thresholds, which would be substantially higher. The predicted dose was compared to the benchmark dose (LOEL) to produce hazard quotients (HQ) for each of the metals modelled. The HQ simply represents the ratio of the predicted dose to the benchmark dose. An HQ equal to or greater than one indicates a predicted dose concentration equal to or greater than the benchmark does (LOEL). Therefore, an HQ of less than one may be interpreted as representing a dose which is not expected to have an observable effect on caribou.

HQ values were highest in the Camp Pond watershed for nickel, copper and cobalt, which is attributed to atmospheric sources of particulate deposition on vegetation and inhalation during the operation of the open pit mine mill. However, these values are one to two orders of magnitude (10 to 100 times) below the benchmark dose and the post-decommissioning HQ values are four to six orders of magnitude (10,000 to 1 million) below one in the Camp Pond watershed. In the northern watersheds (North Tailings Basin and Option 5), which are outside of the air plume, HQ values for all metals are from four to nine orders of magnitude lower.

Therefore, based on the IMPACT^TM modelling, the caribou is not expected to bioaccumulate metals to a dose which would cause an adverse effect.

16.2.4 Accidental Events

Human presence may increase the possibility of accidental fire. Lichens are particularly susceptible to wildfire destruction during summer and require many decades to recover (Klein 1982; Helle and Aspi 1984b). Lichens provide caribou with critical winter forage, and wintering areas are often selected for this reason (Klein 1982; Lindgren et al. 1983; Sulkava et al. 1983; Skogland 1984). Although natural fires in old growth spruce forest may actually increase the amount of lichen available in the longer term (i.e., a century) (Klein 1982), the effects of natural fires are more serious to lichen recovery than severe overgrazing in the short term (Henry and Gunn 1991). Summer forage plants are also at risk, although generally not to the same degree, because they can recover relatively quickly from root systems or seed sources (Henry and Gunn 1991).

While vegetation or forage may be lost or altered by a forest fire, the results would be similar to that of any natural fire occurring in the VBNC Claim Block. Fires in coastal habitat are not expected to cause extensive damage; most available forage would either not burn or recover quickly.

Other accidental events may result from vehicle collisions with caribou travelling on access roads. Strictly controlled speeds and a requirement to yield to wildlife will reduce the likelihood of collisions.

16.2.5 Cumulative Environmental Effects

The Herd is affected by a variety of human activities that take place within its range. Some individuals may experience effects from one or all of these activities.

Harvesting of caribou by Labrador residents will continue in the future, although harvest success may be expected to decline if the Herd size becomes smaller, and over-exploitation of the Herd may result from commercial harvesting.

Interactions between caribou and ongoing mineral exploration by VBNC and other companies in the Landscape Region may occur between December and May, when, and if, the caribou occupy the Landscape Region. The movement patterns of the Herd are highly unpredictable. Snow conditions may cause the caribou to overwinter in central and eastern Labrador, increasing the likelihood of human interactions. With restrictions governing hunting and harassment of wildlife, the effects of exploration activities should be limited to temporary avoidance of habitat or interference with movements. If population declines occur, interactions may become less frequent, particularly if the Herd's range constricts in size and activity becomes more concentrated to the west in the western portion of its range.

The Department of National Defence has reconfigured its Low-Level Training Area in Labrador away from most of the range of the Herd (including all calving areas) and implemented an avoidance program. As of 1996, the new flying zone extends
northwards to a latitude of 55°30', approximately 135 km south of Voisey's Bay. Overflights may affect the energetic balance of a relatively large number of caribou occupying the training area in late winter-early spring and during August.

If the Herd declines, harvesting by Labrador residents may decrease, and interactions between caribou and mineral exploration activities and low-level flying will also become less frequent. The overall level of disturbance (mortality, habitat loss, energetic costs), when combined with the other activities that are currently occurring, are not anticipated to cause a decline or influence seasonal movement of the Herd.

16.2.6 Environmental Design and Mitigation

VBNC is committed to reducing the Project's effects on wildlife through an environmental management plan that incorporates a suitable design to reduce potential effects on caribou and their environment (e.g., air, water, land and habitat). These design features have generally been developed elsewhere in the mining industry (e.g., Hope Brook, BHP Diamonds Project, and Red Dog) and have proven to be successful. A description of the Environmental, Health, and Safety Management System is presented in Chapter 4. The key points relevant to caribou include:

identification, of sensitive wildlife habitat (predominantly east/west travel routes);
avoidance of caribou through reducing or temporarily altering site activity during seasonal movements;
no feeding, harassment, or hunting of wildlife by Project personnel permitted;
vehicles will be restricted to designated routes;
graded/engineered slopes on access roads at potential crossing points for caribou; and
vehicles will operate at appropriate speeds and yield to wildlife.

16.3 Residual Environmental Effects

The interactions related to the potential residual environmental effects of the Project on caribou may be restricted to a relatively short period if caribou use of the VBNC Claim Block continues as observed in recent years. Caribou may overwinter during December to April along the coast in the vicinity of Kikkertavak Island and other headlands and nearshore islands when the animals are seeking foraging, relief from snow, and avoiding wolves. Occasionally, caribou will interact with winter shipping. If caribou do overwinter in the vicinity of the coast, there is a possibility that they will pass through the VBNC Claim Block immediately prior to the onset of spring break-up as was observed in late April early May of 1996. This movement to the calving areas in the west may occur over an approximately two week period.

The definitions for the rating of significance of residual environmental effects are as follows:

A major (significant) residual environmental effect is one affecting a whole stock or population of the George River Caribou Herd in the Caribou Assessment Area in such a way as to cause a change in abundance and/or change in distribution beyond which natural recruitment (reproduction and immigration from unaffected areas) would not return that population, or any populations or species dependent upon it, to its former level within several generations.

A moderate (significant) residual environmental effect is one affecting a portion of a population of the George River Caribou Herd that results in a change in abundance and/or distribution in the Caribou Assessment Area over one or more generations of that portion of the population, or any population or species dependent upon the Herd, but does not change the integrity of any population as a whole; it may be localized.

A minor (not significant) residual environmental effect is one affecting a specific group of caribou in the George River Caribou Herd population at a localized area (the Landscape Region) and/or over a short period (one generation or less), but not affecting other trophic levels or the integrity of the population itself.

A negligible (not significant) residual environmental effect is one affecting the population or a specific group of the George River Caribou Herd at a localized area (Landscape Region) and/or over a short period in such a way as to be similar in effect to small random changes in the population due to natural irregularities, but having no measurable effect on the population as a whole.

The residual environmental effects remaining after the application of mitigation, and including consideration of cumulative environmental effects, are presented in Table 16.2.

Table 16.2 Summary of Residual Environmental Effects

Project Phase	Residual Environmental Effect	Significance	Likelihood^a(Probability)	Sustainable (Capacity) Use of Renewable Resources^a
construction	- habitat alteration and disturbance	minor (not significant)	n/a	n/a
operation	- disturbance	minor (not significant)	n/a	n/a
decommissioning	- disturbance	negligible (not significant)	n/a	n/a
post-decommissioning	- habitat alteration	negligible (not significant)	n/a	n/a
accidental events	- habitat alteration - vehicle collisions	negligible (not significant)	n/a	n/a
^a likelihood and sustainable use of renewable resources are only defined for environmental effects that are significant (moderate or major) (CEAA 1994: 84, 187). * n/a = not applicable

16.3.1 Construction

Caribou may be disturbed by Project activities when migrating across the plant/port road construction site for a two week period in late April and early May. The unpredictable nature of caribou distribution and movement patterns suggests that this may not be a regular occurrence. Should this occur, caribou are quite adaptable to most disturbance. Some local avoidance of areas may be expected but caribou will still be able to access alternate routes or habitat. It is not anticipated that the road or facilities will serve as a barrier to caribou movements. Mortality due to these activities is not anticipated but, if it were to occur, it will be limited to individuals and will not be a substantive segment of the population. A minor (not significant) residual environmental effect is predicted during construction.

16.3.2 Operation

During operations, there will be a greater volume and frequency of vehicular and vessel traffic than during construction. The noise levels during operation will be greater than background in the vicinity of particular activities (e.g., blasting at the open pit). It is unlikely that the future use of the VBNC Claim Block by caribou will exceed the high level observed during the winter of 1995-1996. Key areas of roads and pipelines can be engineered appropriately to prevent the possibility of these features becoming barriers to caribou movement. If caribou are encountered, reducing or delaying traffic at important crossing points, such as the plant/port access road or the North Tailings Basin road, will reduce the likelihood of disturbance or direct collision. Additionally, alternate habitat and routes are available to allow caribou to move westward without undue disturbance during operations.

Caribou movements also may be disrupted by shipping through ice. Shipping through ice should result in only temporary delays or local adjustments to movement on wintering habitat (i.e., fast ice). Ice will freeze within 24 hours of passage and the shipping route passing to the north of Kikkertavak Island will result in reduced temporal and spatial influence on caribou in this area. Shipping will cease for a period in the spring. This cessation will tend to coincide with the period when caribou have used the VBNC Claim Block, in some years, to access the calving areas far to the west.

Considering the entire Herd in the context of hunting and other human activities from mineral exploration or low-level flying, the Project will not cause the population to decline or adjust its movement patterns. A minor (not significant) residual environmental effect is predicted during operation.

16.3.3 Decommissioning

Decommissioning activities will be similar to those associated with construction, except they will occur during summer, when few caribou would occupy the VBNC Claim Block. Prior to decommissioning, there will be an assessment of contaminant exposure or accumulation as a consequence of mine operation. With the implementation of mitigation strategies, a negligible (not significant) residual environmental effect is predicted during decommissioning.

16.3.4 Post-Decommissioning

Activities with the potential to cause temporary avoidance by caribou will cease after decommissioning is complete. As the workforce is reduced, encounters between Project personnel and caribou will also be reduced.

A negligible (not significant) residual environmental effect is predicted between the Project and caribou following decommissioning.

16.3.5 Accidental Events

The only potential accidental events likely to interact with caribou is a forest fire or vehicle accident. Such events are anticipated to be very infrequent and will result in a negligible (not significant) residual environmental effect on the population.

16.3.6 Follow-up Program

There are no compliance monitoring requirements for caribou. VBNC plans for environmental effects monitoring are summarized in Chapter 4.

16.4 References

Literature Cited

Armitage, P. 1990. Land Use and Occupancy among the Innu of Utshimassits and Sheshatshit. Innu Nation (Naskapi Montagnais Innu Association), Sheshatshit and Utshimassits, Nitassinan (Labrador-Quebec).

Banfield, A.W.F. and J.S. Tener. 1958. A preliminary study of the Ungava caribou. J. Mammal. 39(4):560-573.

Beak International Incorporated. 1997. Assessment of Potential Contamination Effects in the Environment, Voisey's Bay Mine/Mill Project. Updated December 1997. Prepared for Voisey's Bay Nickel Company. Voisey's Bay Nickel Company, St. John's, NF.

Berger, M. and S. Luttich. 1985. Winter range patterns for the caribou population(s), including the George River Herd, inhabiting Nouveau Quebec/Labrador. 1954-1983. Newfoundland-Labrador Wildlife Division, Goose Bay.

Bergerud, A.T. 1974. The role of the environment in the aggregation, movement and disturbance behavior of caribou, pp. 552-584. In: V. Geist and F. Walters (eds.). The behavior of ungulates and its relation to management. IUCN, Morges.

Bergerud, A.T. 1994. The abundance and distribution of sedentary caribou in Ungava. Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Division. 36 p.

Bergerud, A.T., R.D. Jakimchuk, and D.R. Carruthers. 1984. The buffalo of the North: caribou (Rangifer tarandus) and human developments. Arctic 37(1): 7-22.

BHP and Diamet. 1995. NWT Diamonds Project, Environmental Impact Statement. Volume II: Environmental Setting. BHP Diamonds Inc. Vancouver, BC.

Brice-Bennett, C., ed. 1977. Our footprints are everywhere: Inuit land use and occupancy in Labrador. Labrador Inuit Association, Nain, Labrador. 381 pp.

Brice-Bennett, C., L.S. Duquette, J.D. Jacobs, W.A. Montevecchi, and D.H.C. Wilton. 1995. The George River Caribou Herd. Report of a Workshop held in Labrador City, January 27-29, 1994. The Lab. Inst. Of Northern Studies. Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Nfld.

Brunsnyk, L.M. and D.A. Westworth. 1988. The impacts of mining activities on ungulates: A literature review. Report prepared by D.A. Westworth & Associates Ltd. for Noranda Inc., Toronto. 43 pp.

CEAA (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency). 1994. Responsible Authority's Guide.

CEAA (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency). 1995. Military flying activities in Labrador and Quebec. Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel. 85 pp.

Calef, G.W. and G.M. Lortie. 1973. Observations of the Porcupine caribou herd, 1972. Towards an environmental impact assessment of the portion of the Mackenzie gas pipeline from Alaska to Alberta. Interim Rep. No. 3, Appendix I: Wildlife. Prepared for Environment Protection Board. Sponsored by Canadian Arctic Gas Study Ltd.

Canadian Coast Guard. February 1990. Polar 8 Ice breaker: Initial Environmental Evaluation. Report prepared by team of consultants: Bureau of Management Consulting, CCG, LGL Limited, Lutra Associates Ltd., Melville Shipping Ltd., and Norland Science & Engineering Ltd., Ottawa.

Canarctic Shipping Company Limited. November 16, 1992. A study of Marine Environmental Issues Associated with a Marine Transportation System Servicing Coronation Gulf, N.W.T prepared for Minnova Inc., Edmonton.

Carruthers, D.R. and R.D. Jakimchuk. 1987. Migratory movements of the Nelchina caribou herd in relation to the trans-Alaska pipeline. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 15: 414-420.

Child, K.N. 1974. Recation of caribou to various types of simulated pipelines at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Pages 805-812. In: V. Geist and F. Walther (eds.). The behaviour of ungulates and its relation to management. Vol. 2. International Union of Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. ICUN Publ. No. 24. Morges, Switzerland.

Chubbs, T.E., L.B. Keith, S.P. Mahoney, and M.J. McGrath. 1993. Responses of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) to clear-cutting in east-central Newfoundland. Can. Jour. of Zool. 71 (3): 487-493.

Couturier, S., J. Brunelle, D. Vandal, and G. St.-Martin. 1990. Changes in the population dynamics of the George River caribou herd. 1976-87. Arctic 43: 9-20.

Crete, M., J. Hou and L. Gauthier. 1990. Food selection during early lactation by caribou calving on the tundra in Quebec. Arctic 43: 60-65.

Curatolo, J.A. and S.M. Murphy. 1986. The effects of pipelines, roads, and traffic on the movements of caribou, Rangifer tarandus. Can. Field-Nat. 100: 218-224.

DND (Department of National Defence). 1994a. The caribou herds of Labrador and northeastern Quebec. Tech. Report No. 5. EIS: Military Flight Training. Prepared by Renewable Resources Consulting Services Ltd. 90 pp.

DND (Department of National Defence). 1994b. A review of the literature pertaining to the effects of noise and other disturbance on wildlife. Tech. Report No. 7. EIS Military Flight Training. Prepared by Renewable Resources Consulting Services Ltd. 155 pp.

Dalton, W.J. and S. Luttich. 1986. The George River Caribou calving grounds. Newfoundland-Labrador Wildlife Division, Goose Bay.

Dau, J.R., and R.D. Cameron. 1986. Effects of a road system on caribou distribution during calving. Rangifer Special issue No. 1: 95-101.

Dauphine, T.C. Jr., F.W. Anderka, C.A. Drolet, and D.T. McLlveen. 1975. Distribution and movements of marked caribou in Ungava, June 1973 to 1974. Canadian Wildlife Service, Progress Note No. 46.

Davis, J.L. and P. Valkenburg. 1985. Demography of the Delta caribou herd under varying rates of natural mortality and harvest by humans. Final rep. Juneau, AK: Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game. 50 pp.

Department of Natural Resources. 1995. The Labrador caribou hunt; a discussion paper. Wildlife Division. St. John's. 29 pp.

Dufour, P. A. 1980. Effects of noise on wildlife and other animals: Review of research since 1971. No. 550/9-80-100. U.S. Environ. Protec. Agency, EPA. 97 pp.

Eide, S.H., S.D. Miller and M.A. Chihuly. 1986. Oil pipeline crossing sites utilized in winter by moose, Alces alces, and caribou, Rangifer tarandus, in southcentral Alaska. Can. Field-Nat. 100: 197-207.

Fancy, S.G. and K.R. Whitten. 1991. Selection of calving sites by Porcupine herd caribou. Can. J. Zool. 69: 1736-1743.

Federal Environment Assessment Review Office (FEARO). 1984. Arctic Pilot Project: Report of the Environmental Assessment Review Panel. Ottawa.

Ferguson, S.H., S. Luttich and F. Goudreault. 1985. Distribution and movement of radio-collared caribou of the George River herd captured in 1982 and 1983. Newfoundland/Labrador Wildlife Division, Field Project Report No. 4011. 53 pp.

Gladwin, D.N., K.M. Manci and R. Villella. 1988. Effects of aircraft noise and sonic booms on domestic animals and wildlife: bibliographic abstracts. National Ecology Research Centre, Fort Collins, CO.

Gregoire, G. 1997. Environmental Assessment Panel for the Voisey's Bay Mine/Mill Project. Transcript of Proceeding of the Scoping Sessions, April 20, Utshimassits.

Hanson, W.C. 1981. Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) encounters with pipelines in northern Alaska. Can. Field-Nat. 95: 57-62.

Harrington, F.H. 1988. The George River caribou population: its history and management, with special reference to low-level military training in Labrador. Goose Bay, LB: L.I.A. Rep.

Harrington, F.H. and A.M. Veitch. 1991. Short-term impacts of low-level jet fighter training on caribou in Labrador. Arctic 44: 318-327.

Harrington, F.H. and A.M. Veitch. 1992. Calving success of woodland caribou exposed to low-level jet fighter overflights. Arctic 45(3): 213-218.

Heard, D.C. and T.M. Williams. 1992. Distribution of wolf dens in migratory caribou ranges in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Can. J. Zool. Rev. Can. Zool. 70:1504-1510.

Hearn, B.J., S.N. Luttich, M. Crete and M.B. Berger. 1990. Survival of radio-collared caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) from the George River herd, Nouveau-Quebec-Labrador. Can. J. Zool. 68: 276-286.

Helle, T. and J. Aspi. 1984a. Do sandy patches help reindeer against insects? Rep. Kevo Subarct. Res. Stn. 19: 57-62.

Helle, T. and J. Aspi. 1984b. Prescribed burning from the viewpoint of reindeer husbandry. Multiple Use Forestry in the Scandinavian Countries. Proceedings of the Scandinavian Symposium held in Rovaniemi and Saariselka, Finland, September 13-17, 1982., 120: 97-101.

Henry, G.H.R. and A. Gunn. 1991. Recovery of tundra vegetation after overgrazing by caribou in Arctic Canada. Arctic 44: 38-42.

Hill, E.L. 1985. A preliminary examination of the behavioral reactions of caribou to the Upper Salmon Hydroelectric Development in Newfoundland. Pages 85-94. In T.C. Meredith and A. M. Martel (eds.) Proceedings of the second North American caribou workshop, Val Morin, Quebec, 1984. McGill Subarctic Res. Pop. No. 40. McGill University, Montreal, 327 pp.

Hurley, M. 1997. Environmental Assessment Panel for the Voisey's Bay Mine/Mill Project. Transcript of Proceeding of the Scoping Sessions, May 14, Sheshatshiu.

Horejsi, B.L. 1981. Behavioral response of barren ground caribou to a moving vehicle. Arctic 34: 180-185.

IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). 1994. Handbook of Parameter Values for the Prediction of the Radionuclide Transfer in Temperate Environments. IAEA Technical Report Series No. 364.

Ion, P.G. and G.P. Kershaw. 1989. The selection of snowpatches as relief habitat by woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Macmillan Pass, Selwyn/ Mackenzie Mountains, N.W.T., Canada. Arct. Alp. Res. 21: 203-211.

JWEL (Jacques Whitford Environment Limited). 1997. Voisey's Bay 1996 Environmental Baseline Technical Data Report: Caribou. Prepared for Voisey's Bay Nickel Company, St. John's, NF.

Jacque, D. 1997. Environmental Assessment Panel for the Voisey's Bay Mine/Mill Project. Transcript of Proceedings of the Scoping Sessions, May 12, Postville.

Josette, M. 1997. Environmental Assessment Panel for the Voisey's Bay Mine/Mill Project. Transcript of Proceedings of the Scoping Sessions, April 19, Utshimassits.

Joyce, T.L., D. Phillips and N. Hughes. 1991. Calving ground fidelity of George River caribou herd. Newfoundland/ Labrador Wildlife Division. Internal Research Report No. 4016. 20 pp.

Juniper, I. 1982. The George River Caribou Herd. Gouvernment du Quebec.

Klein, D.R. 1973. The reaction of some northern mammals to aircraft disturbance. International Congress. Game Biologists. Stockholm. p. 377-383.

Klein, D.R. 1980. Reaction of caribou and reindeer to obstructions - a reassessment. Pages 519-527. In: E. Reimers, E. Gaare and S. Skjennebergy (eds.). Proceedings of the second internations reindeer/ caribou symposium. Roros, Norway, 1979.

Klein, D.R. 1982. Fire, lichens, and caribou. J. Range Manage. 35: 390-395.

Larkin, R.P. 1994. Effects of military noise on wildlife: a literature review. Available from the author, Centre for Wildlife Ecology, Illinois Natural History Survey, 607 E. Peabody Drive, Champaign, IL, USA 61820.

Lindgren, E., E. Pulliainen, S. Sulkava, E. Erkinaro and K. Heikura. 1983. Lichen resources and their use in winter by wild forest reindeer in the area of Lake Lentua. Acta Zool. Fenn. 175: 21-23.

Luttich, S. 1975. Classification, distribution and movement of the George River Caribou herd in northern Labrador and northwestern Quebec.

Mahoney, S.P. 1980. The Grey River caribou study. Final report Year 1. Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Division and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. St. John's, NF. 92 pp. + app.

Mahoney, S., B.J. Tucker, S.H. Ferguson, M. Berger, P. Northcott and J. Lane. 1989. The relationship between the Hope Brook gold mine and the La Poile caribou herd in Newfoundland. Draft No. 2. Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Division and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. St. John's, Newfoundland. 130 p.

Manci, K.W., D.N. Gladwin, R. Villella and M.G. Cavendish. 1988. Effects of aircraft noise and sonic booms on domestic animals and wildlife: A literature synthesis. No. NERC-88. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Ft. Collins, CO: National Ecology Research Center. 88 pp.

Messier, F., J. Hout, D. Le-Henaff and S. Luttich. 1988. Demography of the George River caribou herd: evidence of population regulation by forage exploitation and range expansion. Arctic 41: 279-287.

Miller, F.L., C.J. Jonkel and G.D. Tessier. 1972. Group cohesion and leadership response by barren ground caribou to man-made barriers. Arctic 25(3): 193-202.

Miller, D.R., H.E. Butler and A.T. Bergerud. 1984. Antipredator tactics of calving caribou: Dispersion in mountains. Can. J. Zool. 62: 1566-1575.

Murphy, S.M., M.D. Smith, R.G. White, J.A. Kitchens, B.A. Kugler and D.S. Barber. 1993. Behavioral responses of caribou to low-altitude jet aircraft. Armstrong Laboratory, Air Force Material Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. 53 p.

Murphy, S.M. and J.A. Curatolo. 1987. Activity budgets and movement rates of caribou encountering pipelines, roads, and traffic in northen Alaska. Can. J. Zool. 65: 2483-2490.

NLWD (Newfoundland-Labrador Wildlife Division). 1997. George River Caribou Aggregation Seasonal Ranges, 1987-1993. Maps.

Pastiwet, E. 1997. Environmental Assessment Panel for the Voisey's Bay Mine/Mill Project. Transcripts of Proceedings of the Scoping Sessions, May 7, Rigolet.

Pottle, D. 1997. Environmental Assessment Panel for the Voisey's Bay Mine/Mill Project. Transcripts of Proceedings of the Scoping Sessions, May 7, Rigolet.

RRCS (Renewable Resource Consulting Services Ltd.) . 1992. The 1991 caribou avoidance monitoring program in Labrador and northeastern Quebec. Prepared for Dept. of National Defence. Project Management Office, Goose Bay. 82 pp.

Robin Goodfellow & Associates Inc. 1997. Presentation to Environmental Scoping Meetings in Goose Bay, May 13.

Roby, B.A. 1978. Behavioral patterns of barren-ground caribou of the Central Arctic herd adjacent to the Trans-Alaska Oil pipeline. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Alaska. Fairbanks. 200 p.

Sample, B.E., D.M. Presko, and G.W. Suter II. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife. 1996 Region. ES/ERTIM-86/R3. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA.

Senes. 1997a. Assessment of Edward's Cove Treated Effluent Discharge Quality. Memo Report, October 1997. Prepared for Voisey's Bay Nickel Company, St. John's, NF.

Senes. 1997b. Preliminary Assessment of the Performance of the Voisey's Bay Pond 4 Tailings Management Facility - years 9-24. Memo Report, October 1997. Prepared for Voisey's Bay Nickel Company, St. John's, NF.

Senes. 1997c. Assessment of the Performance of Headwater Pond. Memo Report, October 1997. Prepared for Voisey's Bay Nickel Company, St. John's, NF.

Shideler, R.T. 1986. Impacts of human developments and land use on caribou: A literature review. Vol. II Impacts of oil and or gas developments on the central Arctic herd. Technical Report No. 86-3, Habitat Division, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Fairbanks, 128 p.

Shideler, R.T., M.H. Robus, J.F. Winters and M. Kuwada. 1986. Impacts on human developments and land use on caribou: A literature review. Tech. Rep. 86-2. Vol. 1: A worldwide perspective. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Junea, AK, 119 p.

Skogland, T. 1984. Wild reindeer foraging-niche organization. Holarct. Ecol. 7: 345-379.

Skoog, R.O. 1968. Ecology of the caribou (Rangifer tanandus granti) in Alaska. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of California, Berkeley. University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan 699 p.

Sulkava, S., E. Erkinaro, K. Heikura, E. Lindgren and E. Pulliainen. 1983. Food of the wild forest reindeer, Rangifer tarandus fennicus, in Finland in winter and summer 1981. Acta. Zool. Fenn. 175: 17-19.

Surrendi, D.C. and E.A. DeBock. 1976. Seasonal distribution, population status and behaviour of the Porcupine caribou herd. Can. Wildl. Serv. Ottawa, Canada: Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Investigations. 144 pp.

Them Days, 1997. Life in Voisey's Bay. Them Days 22(2). Them Days, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador. 184p.

Thompson, B. R. 1972. Reindeer disturbance. Deer. 2(8): 882-883.

Transportation Development Centre (R. Frederking and J.E. Laframboise, eds.). 1985. Polarstern Trials off the Labrador Coast, May 1994: Report from the Canadian Team.

Tucker, B. and S. Mahoney. 1990. Report on the cause-specific mortality of LaPoile caribou on the southwest coast of Newfoundland, June 8, 1985. - March 30, 1990. Hope Brook Gold Inc. and Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Division, Department of Environment and Lands. 31 p.

Vandal, D., S. Couturier, D. Remillard and S. Luttich. 1989. Seasonal distribution and migration of George River caribou from 1984-1987. Dept. Environment & Lands, Wildlife Division Report.

Walsh, N.E., S.G. Fancy, T.R. McCabe and L.F. Pank. 1992. Habitat use by the porcupine caribou herd during predicted insect harassment. J. Wildl. Manage. 56: 465-473.

Whitten, K.R. and R.D. Cameron. 1983. Movements of collared caribou. Rangifer tarandus, in relation to petroleum development on the Arctic Slope of Alaska. Canadian Field - Naturalist. 97(2): 143-146.

Williams, T.M. and D.C. Heard. 1986. World status of wild Rangifer tarandus populations. Rangifer, Special Issue 1: 19-28.

Williamson, T. 1997. From Sina to Sikujâluk: Our Footprint: Mapping Inuit Environmental Knowledge in the Nain District of Northern Labrador. Prepared for the Labrador Inuit Association, Nain, Labrador.

Personal Communications

Schaefer, T., Regional Biologist, Labrador Region Newfoundland Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, Wildlife Division, Goose Bay, Labrador.

Appendix 16A

Environmental Effects Assessment Synthesis: Caribou