(A37906)
December 21, 2011
Secretary of the Joint Review Panel Enbridge Northern Gateway Project 444 – Seventh Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 0X8 Fax: 403-292-5503
Re: Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Joint Review Panel OH-4-2011 File No. OF-Fac-Oil-N304-2010-01 01 Written Evidence of BC Nature and Nature Canada
On behalf of BC Nature and Nature Canada, I hereby submit written evidence in the matter of reference. This submission comprises the following 12 documents, in addition to this cover letter:
1. Written evidence of the intervenors BC Nature and Nature Canada in the matter of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Joint Review Panel 2. Exhibit 1 – Resume of Anne Harfenist 3. Exhibit 2 – Resume of Peter Davidson 4. Exhibit 3 – Evidence Prepared by Brian Churchill (including Resume) 5. Appendix 1: Canadian IBA Criteria (2001) 6. Appendix 2: Important Bird Areas Overlapping with the OWA 7. Appendix 3a: Long-billed Curlew Distribution 8. Appendix 3b: Yellow Rail Distribution 9. Appendix 3c: Lewis’s Woodpecker Distribution 10. Appendix 3d: Short-eared Owl Distribution 11. Appendix 4: Average Foraging Distances for Colonial Nesting Seabirds 12. Map 1: Important Bird Areas in the OWA
Sincerely,
Carla Sbert Manager of Conservation Programs and Legal Issues Nature Canada
(A37906)
IN THE MATTER OF
ENBRIDGE NORTHERN GATEWAY PROJECT JOINT REVIEW PANEL
Northern Gateway Pipelines Limited Partnership
HO-4–2011
File No. OF-Fac-Oil-N304-2010-01 01
WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF THE INTERVENORS
BC NATURE AND NATURE CANADA
Page 1 of 55
(A37906)
Table of Contents Introduction ...... 4
Part I - Potential Impacts of the NGP on Marine Birds ...... 5
I.1 Potential Impacts of the NGP on Marine Birds Related to the Marine Terminal and/or Marine Transportation ...... 5
I.1.1 Direct Mortality ...... 5
I.1.2 Displacement by Vessels ...... 9
I.1.3 Chronic Oiling ...... 12
I.1.4 Prey-mediated Impacts ...... 14
I.1.5 Alleged Evidence of Stable Populations in the CCAA ...... 15
I.2 Species at Risk ...... 17
I.3 Key Indicators ...... 20
I.4 Hydrocarbon Spills ...... 22
I.4.1 Unbalanced review of the impacts of EVOS on marine birds ...... 24
I.4.2 Failure to consider information from other oil spills ...... 25
I.4.3 Failure to fully incorporate variation in vulnerability to oil spills among species or groups of species into the assessment...... 25
I.4.4 Unsupported extrapolation to form the conclusion that population recovery will be relatively short-term following a Project-related oil spill...... 26
I.4.5 Failure to include an oil spill scenario with high ecological consequences for marine birds 27
Part II - Potential Impacts of the NGP on Terrestrial and Freshwater Wetland Birds, and Terrestrial and Marine Important Bird Areas ...... 28
II.1 Terrestrial and Freshwater Bird Species at Risk ...... 31
II.1.1 Band-tailed Pigeon (Columba fasciata) ...... 31
II.1.2 Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) ...... 32
Page 2 of 55
(A37906)
II.1.3 Yellow Rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis) ...... 33
II.1.4 Horned Grebe (Podiceps auritus) ...... 33
II.1.5 Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) ...... 33
II.1.6 Western Grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis) ...... 34
II.1.7 Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) ...... 34
II.1.8 Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) ...... 34
II.2 Methodological Issues ...... 35
II.3 Important Bird Areas and Globally Threatened Marine Birds in the OWA ...... 38
II.3.1 Important Bird Areas in the OWA ...... 38
II.3.2 Globally Threatened Marine Birds in the OWA ...... 40
II.4 Freshwater Wetland Important Bird Areas and WHSRN Sites – Wetland Connectivity ...... 42
Part III - Potential Impacts on Terrestrial Wildlife Species (Caribou) ...... 43
Part IV - Conclusions ...... 44
Attachments ...... 49
References for Part I ...... 50
References for Part II ...... 55
Page 3 of 55
(A37906)
Introduction
1. BC Nature and Nature Canada are joint intervenors in the Joint Review Panel (JRP or Panel) review of the Northern Gateway Project (NGP or Project).
2. BC Nature is a province‐wide federation of naturalists and naturalists’ clubs, with approximately 4,800 members. Its interest is the maintenance of the integrity of British Columbia’s wide range of ecosystems and rich biodiversity, and related public education.
3. Nature Canada is the national voice of naturalists in Canada. Its mission is to protect and conserve wildlife and habitats in Canada by engaging people and advocating on behalf of nature.
4. Nature Canada is also a co‐partner with Birds Studies Canada of BirdLife International in Canada. BirdLife International is a global partnership of conservation organisations that strives to conserve birds, their habitats and global biodiversity, working with people towards sustainability in the use of natural resources.
5. As part of this partnership, Nature Canada implements the Important Bird Area (IBA) program in Canada. BC Nature coordinates the IBA program in British Columbia.
6. The primary interest of BC Nature and Nature Canada in the NGP is the potential impact of the Project on wildlife, including birds, and their habitats.
7. With the limited funding received we have concentrated our review on the potential impacts of the Project on marine and terrestrial birds and their habitat, including IBA’s, and terrestrial wildlife and habitat along the proposed pipeline route, with a focus on Woodland Caribou and birds at risk.
8. In this submission BC Nature and Nature Canada will provide evidence regarding Northern Gateway’s Application (herein referred to also as ‘the Application’) to the effect that the Application fails to adequately assess the potential effects of the Project on marine birds, birds listed under the Species at Risk Act (SARA), IBA’s and Woodland Caribou.
Page 4 of 55
(A37906)
Part I - Potential Impacts of the NGP on Marine Birds 9. The evidence in this section regarding the potential impacts of the NGP on marine birds related to the marine terminal and/or marine transportation was prepared for BC Nature and Nature Canada by Anne Harfenist (M.Sc.).
10. The area of expertise of Anne Harfenist is Marine Bird Ecology, Demography and Behaviour; Marine Bird Species at Risk.
11. Anne Harfenist has 31 years of experience working on conservation and management of marine and freshwater birds as a Canadian Wildlife Service biologist and biological consultant. Since 1988, her research and management projects have focused on Pacific marine bird species, including Species at Risk. Ms Harfenist chaired the National Marbled Murrelet Recovery Team. The resume of Anne Harfenist is attached as Exhibit 1.
12. For the purposes of this discussion, “marine birds” is used as it is in the Application: “marine birds” refers to the broad range of species that use the marine ecosystem during any portion of their life history. Included are loons, grebes, albatrosses, fulmars, shearwaters, storm-petrels, cormorants, waders, geese, swans, diving ducks, dabbling ducks, coastal raptors, shorebirds, gulls, jaegers, skuas, terns, alcids and kingfishers.
I.1 Potential Impacts of the NGP on Marine Birds Related to the Marine Terminal and/or Marine Transportation
I.1.1 Direct Mortality
I.1.1.a Artificial Light Induced Mortality
13. Although the negative impacts of artificial lights on marine birds are well documented, they have been essentially dismissed by the Proponent. Recent reviews (e.g. Montevecchi 2006, Greer et al. 2010) list key impacts including increased energetic costs, deviation from normal migratory pathway, delayed migration, circling platforms for extended periods, collision with lighted structures, disorientation and collision with the ground. Birds have large eyes and optic lobe which provides them with excellent vision and the retina of Page 5 of 55
(A37906)
nocturnally active species contains a compound that enables superior night vision. In addition, marine birds use an internal magnetic compass to aid in navigation during migration between breeding and wintering areas. Red light is exceptionally attractive to marine birds and interferes with the magnetic compass, causing disorientation. Greer et al. (2010) state that “the result is a strong attraction to manmade light sources, including lighthouses, flood lights and ceilometers, city lights, lightshops, shops, communication towers, and oil/gas platforms.”
14. Artificial light may also increase the risk of predation of nocturnal species at their breeding colonies and at sea. Oro et al. (2005) reported that predation by Yellow-legged Gull (Larus michahellis) on European Storm-petrels (Hydrobates pelagicus) was higher at a colony that was more illuminated by artificial lights than at a darker colony. The nocturnal behaviour of many species at their breeding colonies is thought to be an adaptation to decrease predation, and birds decrease their activity at the colonies on moonlit nights (e.g. Mougeot and Bretagnolle 2000). The proposed shipping route for the Project passes in close proximity to significant marine bird breeding colonies (see Section II.3 bellow).
15. Artificial lights may also cause shorebirds to collide with structures, attract them to degraded habitat close to the sources of light and raise their risk of predation (Jones and Francis 2003; Santos et al. 2009; both cited in Australia Pacific 2011).
16. Weather conditions contribute to the severity of the effects described above. Disorientation tends to be more pronounced during foggy conditions (Birdlife International 2003). Greer et al. (2010) note that mortality events are episodic and generally occur during conditions of poor visibility such as cloudy or inclement weather.
17. Mortality due to artificial light has been cited as a significant issue in petitions to list the Ashy Storm-petrel (Oceanodroma homochroa; Wolf 2007) and Xantus’ Murrelet (Synthliboramphus hypoleucus; Pacific Seabird Group 2004). Xantus’ Murrelet is a very close relative of the Ancient Murrelet (Synthliboramphus antiques), a species of Special Concern under SARA in Canada. The former document states that ”artificial light pollution from commercial and recreational vessels, offshore energy platforms, and other lighted structures Page 6 of 55
(A37906)
near Ashy Storm-petrel breeding colonies and at-sea foraging areas poses a significant threat to this species...The negative impacts of artificial night lighting on seabirds have been well- documented (Montevecchi 2006). By attracting nocturnal seabirds like the Ashy Storm-petrel, artificial light disrupts normal breeding and foraging activities. Seabirds have been observed to continually circle lights (light entrapment); collide with lights or structures around the lights, causing injury or mortality; or strand on lighted platforms where they are vulnerable to injury, oiling or other feather contamination, and exhaustion (Telfer et al. 1987, Wiese et al. 2001, Le Corre et al. 2002, Black 2005). Fledgling seabirds appear to be particularly vulnerable to artificial light attraction.”
18. The Application dismisses effects on marine birds of lights associated with anchorages as "rare and shortterm" and does not consider them further (Volume 8B). However, reports of impacts on marine birds of artificial lights on moving or anchored vessels are readily available in the literature or through discussion with local fishermen. Black (2005) reports a series of light-induced mortality events involving tens to hundreds of dead seabirds: “Bird strikes on vessels operation in the southern oceans is an almost nightly occurrence (personal observation)....occasionally large events concerning hundreds of birds take place.” Bertram (1995) quotes evidence presented by a salmon fisherman describing shoveling 50 Ancient Murrelet carcasses off the boat deck in the morning after collisions with his fishing boat anchored in a bay. In addition, several Haisla fishermen told J. Kelson (pers. comm.) that they used to leave the deck light on their boats at night because “birds would crash into the light and fall on the deck and we'd eat them. The ones that nest in holes in the Charlottes, and other ones too." “The ones that nest in holes in the Charlottes” were most likely Ancient Murrelets, known to be sensitive to light and a listed species.
19. Whereas Northern Gateway fails to address the impact of artificial lighting on marine birds, documents prepared for other marine developments do acknowledge the issue. For example, the NaiKun application for development of a wind farm in Hecate Strait considered the potential impacts of lights related to its project on local marine birds (LGL et al. 2009). Similarly, the Bird Avoidance and Lighting Plan, prepared for ConocoPhillips (2011) in support
Page 7 of 55
(A37906)
of their at sea drilling program, notes that “birds often can be attracted to and disoriented by artificial lights, especially during periods of low ambient visibility, which may result in potentially fatal downings, exhaustion, or collisions (Cochran and Graber 1958; Verheijen 1981, 1985; Rich and Longcore 2006). Although the effects of lights on Spectacled and Steller’s Eiders specifically have not been determined, studies have demonstrated that seabirds and migrating birds at sea are particularly susceptible to deleterious effects of artificial lighting (Telfer et al. 1987, Le Corre et al. 2002, Russell 2005, Montevecchi 2006).” ConocoPhillips’ (2011) Bird Avoidance and Lighting Plan also notes that alcids and loons may require human intervention in order to take off from a ship’s deck following a collision. Northern Gateway’s application does not include bird rescue on vessels in its proposed mitigation measures.
20. The negative impact of artificial light on marine birds is a widespread phenomenon across multiple taxa. The dismissal by Northern Gateway of impacts of artificial lights at the terminal, on moving vessels and on vessels at anchor as a cause of death and/or injury to marine birds is indefensible in light of the state of knowledge about this issue.
I.1.1.b Collisions with Wires
21. Collisions by birds with power lines are a cause of mortality in many species. A review by Golder Associates (2009) notes that "fatal impact from transmission lines have been recorded in 350 species of birds worldwide and in some cases the level of fatalities are speculated to have contributed to declines in local and regional bird populations” (Hunting 2002 cited in Golder 2009). In another review of avian collisions, Erickson et al. (2005) summarized that “based on the limited studies, waterfowl including ducks, geese, swans, cranes, and shorebirds appear to be most susceptible to collisions when powerlines are located near wetlands.” Jenkins et al. (2010) reviewed the issue at a global scale and concluded that “many large ... wetland birds and some smaller, fast-flying species are prone to colliding with overhead wires... waterfowl, shorebirds... are among the most frequently affected avian groups and collision frequency is thought to be an influential factor in ongoing population declines in several species.” Similarly, Kingsley and Whittam (2001) noted that “birds that fly Page 8 of 55
(A37906)
fast in tight flocks at low altitudes such as waterfowl and shorebirds appear to be particularly susceptible to collisions with wires (James & Haak 1979, NUS Corporation 1979, Association of Bay Area Governments 1987)... raptors are also frequent victims of wire kills (Enderson & Kirven 1979, Olsen & Olsen 1980).”
22. The Proponent acknowledges that collisions with power lines and electrocution are major causes of human caused mortality in Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus; Blood and Anweiler 1994, cited in Volume 6B). The Application notes that wires as collision hazards are especially important where raptors concentrate (e.g. salmon streams, at migration or staging areas) and for young birds learning to fly (Demarchi et al. 2005, cited in Volume 6B). The Kitimat estuary and marine waters near the proposed Terminal qualify as migration and staging areas according to the Marine Bird Technical Data Report. The Application offers mitigation measures to prevent electrocution and Northern Gateway states they will investigate mechanisms to deter Bald Eagles from collisions.
23. Despite overwhelming evidence that collisions with wires can be a significant cause of mortality in marine birds, the Proponent dismisses the issue as so rare as to not require a full assessment. The failure of the Proponent to include a shorebird species as a KI facilitates this dismissal of collisions with wires as a significant project impact. Northern Gateway should quantify the risk and assess the potential impact on local populations. If mitigation measures are being proposed for shorebirds and other marine bird taxa, those should be included in the Application.
I.1.2 Displacement by Vessels
24. Many studies report a flush distance, the distance at which birds leave an area when vessels pass by; some also report the duration of displacement. The Application refers to several studies that report a relatively narrow approach distance for Marbled Murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus), one of the KI species, and conclude that displacement by vessels associated with the project will not be a significant issue. Bellefleur et al. (2009) reported that most small boats were able to approach within 40 m before the birds reacted. Similar distances were reported in an Alaskan study that observed Marbled Murrelets in Page 9 of 55
(A37906)
proximity to boats of a range of sizes (Speckman et al. 2004). Arness et al. (2008) studied the closely related Kittlitz’s Murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris) and reported that birds recovered from displacement within a day.
25. Marine bird species vary widely in their sensitivity to boat traffic (e.g. Schwemmer et al. 2011). Schwemmer et al. (2011) found that loons (Gavia spp.) avoided areas with high levels of shipping traffic and, among four species of sea ducks, Common Scoters (Melanitta nigra) reacted at the longest distance and Common Eiders (Somateria mollissima) at the shortest. Kaiser (2002, cited in LGL et al. 2009) also found that the scoters were very sensitive to disturbance by boats: large flocks of Common Scoters flushed at distances between 1000 - 2000 m. Hentze (2006, cited in LGL et al. 2009) suggested that flushing of Marbled Murrelets, Rhinoceros Auklets (Cerorhinca monocerata) and Common Murres (Uria aalge) required a buffer of more than 150 m to eliminate most instances of disturbance, whereas the corresponding distance for Pelagic Cormorants (Phalacrocorax pelagicus) is more than 200 m. Ronconi and Cassady St Clair (2002) recommended a buffer of 600 m from shore for Black Guillemots (Cepphus grille). The latter study found that the displacement duration was longest for Common Scoters among all of the sea duck species examined. In addition, Kaiser et al. (2006) suggested that the lack of spatial overlap between Common Scoters and high use shipping lanes was evidence that habituation to vessel traffic does not occur in this species. Both Kaiser (2002, cited in LGL et al. 2009) and Schwemmer et al. (2011) found that flush distance was positively related to flock size. Flock size is relevant to Surf Scoters (Melanitta perspicillata), a project KI, in the CCAA and OWA.
26. It is clear from the literature that the issue of displacement of marine birds by vessels is more complex than suggested by simple measures of flush distances and duration. The Alaskan Marbled Murrelet study cited by the proponent to suggest that the species is relatively insensitive to disturbance by boats (Speckman et al. 2004) also found that staging adults that were holding fish (presumably to be delivered to chicks) tended to swallow their fish when boats approached. A lost meal may represent a considerable energetic expense for Marbled Murrelets, which often forage at great distance from their nests. Bellefleur et al.
Page 10 of 55
(A37906)
(2009) noted that juvenile birds flushed at greater distances and more frequently than did adults. Furthermore, birds were likely to leave the feeding areas completely if disturbed by boats late in the breeding season.
27. The significance of displacement also depends on the spatial pattern of high quality foraging habitat in relation to shipping routes. As noted in the NaiKun wind farm application (LGL et al. 2009), “non-passerines such as marine birds are especially prone to reliance on traditional staging and wintering areas that are often associated with seasonally or locally abundant food resources (e.g. herring spawn...shellfish beds, etc), so any exclusion from these areas has the potential to affect local populations of these species (Tingley 2003).”
28. The Application dismissal of the potential impacts of displacement of marine birds by vessel traffic is not supported by the literature and is too simplistic. The literature suggests that scoters exhibit a relatively long flush distance and duration of displacement. A re- analysis should consider spatial overlap between high quality foraging habitat and shipping routes. Age of the bird and varying energetic requirements throughout the year should also be considered.
29. Furthermore, the assessment of the potential impacts from vessel traffic related to the Project on marine birds is incomplete and inadequate because it failed to include additional KI species. In response to BCN/NC IR#1 (A30928), Northern Gateway noted that “the majority of Surf Scoter vessel survey observations were recorded in sheltered inlets and bays along Douglas and Principe Channels ... The majority of remaining observations were along shoreline areas bordering the proposed approach routes. Surf Scoters remain in intertidal and sub-tidal habitats along shallow, protected bays, fjords and estuaries during foraging; as such they tend to be geographically separated from the majority of Project-related marine transportation.” (A2E8I8) In the same document, Northern Gateway stated that “most Marbled Murrelet vessel survey observations were recorded in sheltered inlets and bays along Douglas and Principe Channels... The majority of remaining observations along the proposed approaches were along shoreline areas...” Thus, the proponent is using the spatial separation of the activity under consideration, and the two KI species assessed for impacts of that Page 11 of 55
(A37906)
activity as an argument for insignificant impact on all marine birds. Our interpretation is instead that the two KI species used by Northern Gateway are not appropriate indicators for this Project-related activity. An adequate assessment would have used a KI that overlaps spatially with vessel traffic; for example, Ancient Murrelet, a species of Special Concern found in more open waters.
I.1.3 Chronic Oiling
30. The following section focuses on the issue of chronic oiling of marine birds. It does not attempt to discuss impacts of large catastrophic oil spills or oil in general on birds: Northern Gateway committed to producing a review of those topics (A21969; A2E8J0), but has failed to do so.
31. Two major reviews of oil in the marine environment note that non-compliant vessels and accidental discharge from ships and/or coastal facilities (e.g. caused by equipment failure or human error) are sources of chronic oiling (NRC 2003, GESAMP 2007). In a summary of oil in Canadian waters, NRC (2003) stated that “although these vessels are not permitted to discharge bilge effluent, it is believed that there is a significant level of non-compliance. To account for this, 15 percent of the commercial vessels and 30 percent of the other vessels were assumed to not comply with MARPOL regulations.” Published estimates of marine bird deaths resulting from chronic oiling include 21,000 per year on the east coast of Canada and 72,000 annually across Canada (Thomson et al. 1991, cited in LGL et al. 2009). Garcia- Borboroglu et al. (2006) found that the most frequent cause of injury or sickness in Magellenic Penguins (Spheniscus magellanicus) was oil fouling. They correlated the increasing number of oiled penguins reported in their wintering range with increased petroleum exports from Argentina.
32. A review by Camphuysen (2007) found that oil rates in seabirds found dead on beaches are highest along shipping lanes: the cluster of oil slicks in areas around the busiest marine shipping was clearly reflected in the oiling rates of beached bird corpses. On the east coast of Canada, Wiese et al. (2004) documented impacts of chronic oiling on seabird populations with an emphasis on areas where ship traffic and concentrations of birds overlap. Page 12 of 55
(A37906)
33. COSEWIC status reports on listed species in the OWA underline the significance of chronic oiling as an issue for marine birds. COSEWIC (2003) on Short-tailed Albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) notes that “seabirds in British Columbia waters are vulnerable to both smaller chronic and larger catastrophic oil spills (Burger et al 1997). In general, seabirds are more at risk from smaller chronic spills (including deliberate discharge of oily waste) than from large, catastrophic ones, as timing, frequency and location of spills are better predictors of impact than is spill size alone (Burger 1993; Wiese and Robertson 2004).” COSEWIC (2004) on Pink- footed Shearwater (Puffinus creatopus) states that the concentrations of the species in their wintering range “leaves them particularly vulnerable to effects of oil pollution either from illegal dumping of oil bilges as well as from oil spills. These latter threats represent the greatest risks to the continued occurrence of the species in Canada”. Chronic and catastrophic oil spills are also considered a threat to Black-footed Albatross (Phoebastria nigripes) in Canada (COSEWIC 2006).
34. The published literature includes numerous methods of ranking marine bird vulnerability to oil on the ocean. Camphuysen (2007) summed up by stating that, in general, truly pelagic and least aerial birds as well as deep divers are the most vulnerable. Specific behaviours by some species increase their vulnerability. For example, Black-footed Albatrosses, a listed species, “innately investigate everything on the ocean from flotsam to ships” (O’Hara pers. comm. cited in the COSEWIC 2006) so are expected to be exposed to oil. The COSEWIC status report notes that oiling of this highly pelagic species does occur: oiled Black-footed Albatrosses have been observed at one of their breeding colonies. The report notes that “oil spills or discharges in or near key foraging areas (e.g., upwelling in the vicinity of shelf breaks) could pose a particularly high risk to Black-footed Albatrosses and other offshore seabirds.”
35. As stated in the introduction to this section, this discussion will not review the extensive literature on effects of oil on marine birds. However, it should be emphasized that the life history strategy of marine birds involves high adult survival, low reproductive success and delayed maturity. Chronic oil pollution affects adult survival and reproductive success and, thus, is a significant issue for these species. The Canadian Wildlife Service National Policy on
Page 13 of 55
(A37906)
Oiled Birds and Oiled Species at Risk (2000) states that “In the cold waters off much of Canada’s coasts most birds die if they encounter even a tiny amount of floating oil necessary to mat a small area of their plumage. Birds that come to land are usually those which have depleted their energy reserves and are near death... there are vast expanses of Canada’s coastlines where the waters are generally cold or frigid and the species generally affected do not respond well to cleaning and rehabilitation.”
36. In the Application, the proponent downplays the seriousness of oil spills by suggesting that populations will recover within a decade. Although we will dispute that conclusion in our comments on the effects of oil spills on marine birds, here we note that one of the significant differences between chronic and episodic oil spills is that the former do not allow the recovery of the impacted communities (Camphuysen 2007).
37. BCN/NC IR # 1 requested an assessment of the impact of chronic oiling on marine birds. Northern Gateway’s response was that because the Kitimat Terminal and oil tankers are expected to manage ballast water as well as solid and liquid waste according to Canada Shipping Act and other regulations, routine marine operations in the CCAA and OWA will not result in chronic oiling or associated effects on marine birds. However, evidence shows that while existing regulations may reduce chronic discharge of oil into the marine environment, they do not eliminate it. As acknowledged in the NaiKun application, marine construction activities involve large quantities of hydrocarbons used for fuel (LGL et al. 2009). Construction and operation of the Kitimat terminal and transport of oil are all project activities that pose a real threat to marine birds, including listed species. Chronic oiling is a significant issue for marine birds in the CCAA and OWA and should have been assessed. For the proponent to assume that there will be no chronic oiling or associated effects on marine birds from the project is not defensible given available information.
I.1.4 Prey-mediated Impacts
38. The Application lists the project-related key issues for marine birds as sensory disturbance, habitat avoidance from in-air acoustic emissions, physical presence of vessels and possibly underwater noise. However, the Proponent has failed to address the very important issue of Page 14 of 55
(A37906)
prey-mediated impacts. If the marine fish and/or invertebrate prey of marine birds is impacted by the project, there may be corresponding impacts on the survival and/or reproductive success of the birds. A connection between population health and prey availability and/or quality is a basic tenet of ecology and the biological literature is filled with studies that show impacts on marine birds when their prey is affected. For example, reduced availability of high quality prey is considered a threat to Marbled Murrelet populations (Becker et al. 2007). The relationship between reproductive performance and diet composition has been reported in Rhinoceros Auklet nesting at three British Columbia breeding colonies and Tufted Puffins (Fratercula cirrhata; Bertram et al. 2002, 2009, Hedd et al. 2006). Cassin’s Auklet reproductive performance has also been related to diet composition (Hedd et al. 2002). The studies on Rhinoceros Auklet, Cassin`s Auklet (Ptychoramphus aleuticus) and Tufted Puffin all were conducted on Triangle Island, British Columbia’s largest breeding colony. Triangle Island lies near the project’s southern shipping route.
39. Evidence on potential Project impacts on Pacific herring and eulachon, important forage fish species for marine birds, will be provided to the Joint Review Panel in the written evidence submitted by the Raincoast Conservation Foundation. Given the significant risk of degradation of the birds’ prey base from the Project, Northern Gateway’s failure to address the issue of prey-mediated impacts on marine birds renders its assessment of the Project incomplete and its conclusion of insignificant impacts on marine birds is unsupported.
I.1.5 Alleged Evidence of Stable Populations in the CCAA
40. The Proponent cites the relative stability of Marbled Murrelet and Surf Scoter populations in the Kitimat area and CCAA, respectively, as evidence that the birds have not been adversely affected by the type of activities that are associated with the project. The Application states that Marbled Murrelet occurrence in the PEAA has remained relatively consistent; current levels of vessel traffic have had no apparent adverse effects on the population of Marbled Murrelets in the Kitimat area; and Surf Scoters in the CCAA have
Page 15 of 55
(A37906)
remained relatively constant despite the presence of existing projects (Volume 6B; Volume 8B).
41. BCN/NC IR#1 requested evidence upon which the above statements were based. In response, Northern Gateway noted that “the context of the term “relatively consistent” takes into account daily, seasonal and annual variability” and that “it is important to indicate that occurrence is highly variable both seasonally and annually”. The response continues to state that “no significant increase or decrease in trend is supported by the data.” To say that the data show no significant trend is quite different from saying that the population has stayed relatively consistent. Absence of a trend is not synonymous with stability. One is unlikely to detect a statistically significant trend with highly variable data and low sampling effort.
42. The latter point was in effect confirmed by Northern Gateway in its response to the BCN/NC IR#1 request related to boat traffic impacts on Marbled Murrelets (A2E8I8), where they stated “to show that current vessel traffic has no adverse impacts on Marbled Murrelet populations would require a long term set of data that could isolate vessel traffic effects from other factors known to affect populations (e.g., habitat loss, by-catch).” The response continues to say that “the claim that current vessel traffic has no adverse impacts on Marbled Murrelet is made on the basis of a review of literature on murrelet behaviour and association with vessel traffic from the study area, and elsewhere”. In other words, while there are observations of Marbled Murrelet behaviour around boats, as we acknowledge in Section I.1.2 above (paragraph 24), there is no evidence that current levels of vessel traffic in the Kitimat area have not had adverse effects on the Marbled Murrelet population.
43. The qualifier “relatively” (see paragraphs 40 and 41 above) is again used by the proponent in reference to Surf Scoter populations in the CCAA. In response to BCN/NC IR#1, Northern Gateway notes that the status of the Surf Scoter is described as ‘common to very abundant’, ‘common to abundant’ and ‘abundant to very abundant’ in the 1990 reference work cited. They suggest that those descriptors would still apply. To infer a consistent population from descriptors with very wide ranges is misleading. In contrast, the Kitimat Valley Naturalists
Page 16 of 55
(A37906)
offer evidence of a possible decline in Surf Scoters in the area (Kitimat Valley Naturalists Enbridge Review Final December 20, 2011 (A2K0E9)).
44. Northern Gateway’s claims that Marbled Murrelet and Surf Scoter populations in the Kitimat area and CCAA have not been adversely affected by industrialization and boat traffic to date is simply not substantiated.
I.2 Species at Risk
45. Listed species in the CCAA and/or OWA include Short-tailed Albatross, Black-footed Albatross, Pink-footed Shearwater, Marbled Murrelet, Ancient Murrelet, Great Blue Heron (Ardea Herodias fannini), Horned Grebe (Podiceps auritus) and Peale’s Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus pealei). These species are vulnerable to project effects, including: episodic and chronic oil spills, lights, changes to their prey base and vessel traffic. However, with the exception of Marbled Murrelet, the Proponent fails to assess project impacts on these listed species.
46. The following section outlines some of the ways in which the very limited KI approach used by the Proponent in the application fails.
47. BCN/NC IR #1 and #2 asked how Marbled Murrelet, Surf Scoter and Bald Eagle, the three KI species used to assess project effects (with the exception of hydrocarbon spills), represent Pink-footed Shearwater, Black-footed Albatross and Short-tailed Albatross. Northern Gateway’s response was that the three species share offshore habitat occupancy with Marbled Murrelet. This rationale is puzzling as, according to the Marine Bird Technical Data Report and Northern Gateway’s responses to BCN/NC IR#1, Marbled Murrelets are a nearshore species usually found in bays and sheltered waters. In contrast, and again according to the Proponent’s own words, the Pink-footed Shearwater is a species of the open ocean; Black-footed Albatross occur along the outer coast of BC and are unlikely to occur in the CCAA; and (according to the Proponent) Short-tailed Albatross have not been recorded along the North Coast. (In fact, the distribution map in the COSEWIC status report on Short- tailed Albatross shows recent sightings in northern BC waters (COSEWIC 2003)). The
Page 17 of 55
(A37906)
COSEWIC status report on the Pink-footed Shearwater notes that it prefers waters over the outer edge of the continental shelf (COSEWIC 2004); Marbled Murrelets are not typically found in those waters. Clearly, the Marbled Murrelet does not share marine habitat, except in the most general terms that it is all ocean, with the three SARA listed species. We disagree that there is a reasonable association between the three listed species and the nearshore species chosen as KI species.
48. Northern Gateway’s response to BCN/NC’s IRs also states that “any selection of a limited number of KIs will result in some species having greater representation than others; however, there are reasonable associations between the KIs and most species. KI selection focused on species with greatest susceptibility to oiling.” As noted in section l.1.3 on chronic oiling, the Black-footed Albatross, Pink-footed Shearwater and Short-tailed Albatross are all considered highly vulnerable to oil contamination.on chronic oiling, the Black-footed Albatross, Pink- footed Shearwater and Short-tailed Albatross are all considered highly vulnerable to oil contamination. At a minimum, one of these three species should have been assessed as a KI in the application.
49. Northern Gateway’s response continues “Assessing Project effects on species not selected as KIs (including species listed above) can be further complicated due to the lower observed occurrence rates of some species (Marine Bird Technical Data Report, Table 4-4 and Table 4- 6), which infers an associated decreased likelihood of detection in future surveys (Marine Bird Technical Data Report, Section 3.1.7.2 and Appendix A).” The “species listed above” refers to the SARA listed shearwater and albatross species. Northern Gateway seems to be arguing that it is not appropriate to assess project effects on rare species even if those are listed under SARA. In our opinion, this argument is not rational. We consider that the proponent has an obligation to assess all listed species that are expected to be impacted by the project.
50. The Ancient Murrelet is another SARA listed species found in the CCAA and OWA. According to the information provided in the Marine Bird Technical Data Report, Ancient Murrelets also show a very different distribution and abundance pattern from those of Marbled Murrelets, Surf Scoters or Bald Eagles. As the proponent argues, Marbled Murrelets Page 18 of 55
(A37906)
will rarely be exposed to vessels because of their tendency to be found in sheltered bays in the CCAA (see Section I.1.2 Displacement by Vessels). Marbled Murrelets are therefore not an appropriate indicator for assessing displacement by vessels on Ancient Murrelets which were observed in the more open waters. Furthermore, the mortality risk faced by Ancient Murrelets from vessels also differs from that of Marbled Murrelets due to their differing fledging strategies. Ancient Murrelet chicks fledge at two days of age, when they are not yet able to fly. As a Canadian Wildlife Service biologist, I received reports of Ancient Murrelet fledglings being run over by boats off Haida Gwaii. In contrast, Marbled Murrelet fledglings are able to fly when they first leave the nest.
51. In addition, the nesting habits of the two species differ in ways that affect their vulnerability to population-level damage from oil spills. The colonial-nesting habit of Ancient Murrelets concentrates the birds during a portion of the year, which increases the species’ vulnerability to oil spills and risk of damage to the population. Yet none of the KI species, apparently chosen as species with the greatest susceptibility to oil, are colonial nesters. Approximately half of the world’s breeding population of Ancient Murrelets nest in the OWA. They differ in habitat use, nesting habit and reproductive strategy from any of the KI species in the Application. We submit that the Application does not adequately assess potential impacts of the Project on Ancient Murrelets, a species of Special Concern under the Species at Risk Act.
52. Great Blue Heron fannini is a listed subspecies found in the CCAA and OWA. It is a wader that may experience both shore-based disturbance and disturbance of feeding by vessel wake. In both these respects, the Great Blue Heron differs from any of the KI species assessed in the Application. Thus, the application does not adequately assess potential impacts of the project on Great Blue Heron.
53. Additional comments on Northern Gateway’s assessment of marine birds listed under the SARA are provided in Section II.3.2, paragraphs 135-141 below.
Page 19 of 55
(A37906)
I.3 Key Indicators
54. As noted in BCN/NC motions #1 and #2 (A36873; A37398), the proponent chose not to respond to a request in BCN/NC IR#1 (A30928) for the rationale for selection of three KI species to represent the broad range of marine birds found in the CCAA and OWA. This, despite the fact that the commitment to produce the rationale was made to Environment Canada in October of 2010, a year prior to the deadline for responses to the first round of IRs. The rationale was finally produced on the day of the deadline for the second round of IRs, seven weeks after it should have been submitted in response to the first round of IRs. The document containing the rationale (A21965) is, as noted in BCN/NC Motion #2 (A37398), long and includes six tables (one of which is six pages in length), 13 figures, a complex statistical analysis and 26 references. To expect a full assessment of the document in the short time available between the date on which Northern Gateway provided this information and the deadline to submit evidence is unrealistic, particularly in view of the limited funding allocated to us to hire professional and respected specialists to review the Application.
55. Thus, the comments on KI species below and in the preceding section on Listed Species are made primarily in reference to information available in the Application and in the text of Northern Gateway’s responses to BCN/NC’s IRs (A2E8I8).
56. The Application proposes that three species are adequate for the assessment of project effect (four for hydrocarbon spills) on marine birds, a grouping that includes seabirds, waterfowl, waders, shorebirds, coastal raptors, and kingfishers. In the Application, Northern Gateway states that Marbled Murrelet, Surf Scoter and Bald Eagle were selected because they are sensitive to disturbances of the type expected from the project and are of conservation concern or cultural value.
57. Those selection criteria are sufficiently general that almost any marine bird would qualify as a KI. In response to BCN/NC IR#1, Northern Gateway states “species selected as KIs are not intended to be “more or less sensitive” to Project effects, but rather as representative species from which Project effects can be evaluated for the valued ecosystem components (“VEC”).” Page 20 of 55
(A37906)
58. In its responses to BCN/NC IR #2, the Proponent states that “KI selection focused on species with greatest susceptibility to oiling.”
59. In response to “significant reservations/concerns regarding how these few Key Indicators were generated and the ability of the Key Indicators assessed by the Proponent to reasonably reflect the range and degree of potential project impacts to marine bird groups in the area” expressed by Environment Canada, Northern Gateway states that selection of key indicators was based on the following criteria: occurrence and use of habitats in PEAA and CCAA and sensitivity to project effects (A1V7R3).
60. Thus, it is not clear whether the main consideration in selection of KI species was sensitivity to the range of identified project effects considered key issues for marine birds in the Application, or only susceptibility to oiling. It is not clear what role ‘conservation concern’ or ‘cultural value’ played in the selection. However, it is clear that degree of sensitivity to project effects was not a consideration.
61. In its response to BCN/NG IR #2 (A2I9I0), the Proponent states that “there are reasonable associations between the KIs and most species.” The section on Listed Species above identifies ways in which the selected KI species do not represent numerous species.
62. We submit that the selection of KI species in the application was deeply flawed. Most of the listed species are not adequately represented, species with little interaction with a project activity were used and their spatial separation from the project was then used as an argument of non-significance of the activity for all marine birds, and degree of sensitivity of the species to the Project activities was not considered. We do not believe that the JRP can make an informed decision about the potential impacts of the Project on marine birds in the absence of assessments of a broader range of KI species.
63. Furthermore, the Summary of Key Findings in Attachment Federal Government IR 2.65 (A21965) includes the following: “To further support the assessment of Project effects on marine birds, and provide a broader collection of baseline data for use in monitoring surveys after construction and during operations, Northern Gateway is open to discussion with regard
Page 21 of 55
(A37906)
to the selection of additional KI species. The analyses provided above suggests the possible inclusion of a species from one or more of the bird groups; loons, grebes, shorebirds and/or ducks; such as Harlequin Ducks for which there is already substantial baseline available.” We fully support the use of additional KI species to assess the Project’s effects on marine birds. We agree that at least one species of loon, grebe, shorebird and duck should be included. However, the time for that further assessment is prior to submissions of evidence from the public and Intervenors, and prior to project review and decision by the JRP. All interested parties should have the opportunity and time to consider the further assessments and provide their views to the JRP for their consideration of the Project.
64. We offer the following example of a more reasonable number of KI species: a recent environmental oil spill risk assessment to Transport Canada selected 11 species of marine bird KI species in acknowledgement of the fact that “seabirds are the VEC most vulnerable to the effects of oiling; the identified species all come into contact with the sea surface, and potentially oil from a spill” (SL Ross 2007).
65. Additional comments on the selection of KIs are provided in Part II below, paragraphs 92, 99, 100, 102, 105, 110, 114, 116, 127, 133-135, 137 and 148.
I.4 Hydrocarbon Spills
66. The Proponent does not question the basic premise that oil harms marine birds. As summarized by Camphuysen (2007) “most oiled birds ultimately die due to hypothermia and/or starvation”. However, the Application presents an incomplete and biased selection of research results to argue that impacts from a spill on marine bird populations will be relatively short-term: two years for Surf Scoter and four to five years for Marbled Murrelet (Volume 8C). That conclusion is not supported by available information. This and other significant flaws in the proponent’s “qualitative assessment” of the impacts of an oil spill on marine birds are presented below.
67. This discussion does not attempt to be a full literature review. In response to a request for a more comprehensive assessment of effects on marine birds in Government Canada IRs#1
Page 22 of 55
(A37906)
and #2 and BCN/NC IR#2 (A35310), Northern Gateway committed to “completing a tabular summary that would describe for each major group of marine avifauna:
Sensitivity to oil spills
Relative vulnerability to oil spills relative to distribution and occurrence in the CCAA and the OWA
Summary of observed effects in the published literature
Potential mitigation measures"
68. However, the resulting document, provided on the deadline for responses to IR#2, failed to include a literature review of the effects of oil spills. That review may or may not have been submitted to Environment Canada (“This summary has been submitted to Environment Canada ...The review will be provided to Environment Canada for review and, once completed...” *emphasis added+ NG response to BCN/NC IR#2). It has not however been submitted to BC Nature and Nature Canada. That failure formed a portion of BCN/NC’s Motion #2, which requested that the proponent fully respond to BCN/NC IR#2 and sought a delay in submission of evidence by the Intervenors on this subject until the summary had been produced and there was sufficient time to review it.
69. We argue that it is not possible to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the potential effects of Project-related oil spills on marine birds without access to the full range of available research results; of particular importance is research on population-level effects. No timeline is given for the production of the compilation of critical information.
70. Instead of a full literature review, therefore, we focus on the approach used by the Proponent to develop the assessment of potential impacts of oil spills as it appears in the Application. The Application refers to effects of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) on four KI species to provide a qualitative assessment of potential impacts of hydrocarbon spills on the full range of marine birds in the CCAA and OWA: Marbled Murrelet, Surf Scoter Bald Eagle and Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularius) or Black Oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani). The assessment: Page 23 of 55
(A37906)
Presents an unbalanced review of the available literature on impacts of EVOS;
Fails to consider information from other oil spills;
Fails to fully discuss variation among species or groups of species in vulnerability to oil spills;
Extrapolates unreasonably that populations will recover within a relatively short time; and
Fails to provide an oil spill scenario with high ecological consequences to marine birds.
71. The Application fails to discuss the variables that might lead to alternative outcomes, despite extensive discussion in the literature about factors that influence the impacts of oil spills on marine birds.
I.4.1 Unbalanced review of the impacts of EVOS on marine birds
72. The Application incorporates only a portion of the information that has become available from EVOS into its discussion of the potential impacts of an oil spill on marine birds. The discussion is based primarily on the conclusions of Harwell and Gentile (2006) who found no remaining significant effects on the marine ecosystem of Prince William Sound following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS). However, those conclusions are controversial. Landis (2006) compares the main conclusions of Harwell and Gentile with respect to continuing impacts of EVOS with those of Peterson et al. (2003) and points out that the discrepancies appear to be due, at least in part, to “interpretation of data in support of specific values or policies”.
73. The Application also fails to incorporate newer information about long-term effects of EVOS. Reduced winter survival of female Harlequin Ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus) in oiled areas of Prince William Sound relative to unoiled areas was reported in the mid- to late 1990s (Esler et al. 2002); the difference was no longer apparent 10-14 years post-EVOS (Esler and Iverson 2010). However, Esler et al. (2010) showed that Harlequin Duck exposure to oil from EVOS continued through at least 2009.
Page 24 of 55
(A37906)
I.4.2 Failure to consider information from other oil spills
74. The impact of an oil spill on marine birds depends on numerous factors, such as season and location, and to base an assessment on a single spill, even one as well studied as EVOS, can be misleading. The literature on longer-term impacts of oil spills on marine birds is not extensive: often adequate pre-spill data are not available or post-spill data are not collected once acute effects are no longer obvious. However, long-term impacts on populations have been reported from other oil spills.
75. For example, oil spills in the North Atlantic have negatively affected the over-winter survival of Common Murres (Votier et al. 2005). The slow recovery of Common Loons (Gavia immer) wintering in Shetland was reported by Heubeck (1997, cited in Camphuysen 2007). Eppley and Rubega (1990) reported complete reproductive failure in South Polar Skuas (Stercorarius maccormicki) following the Bahia Paraiso oil spill near Antarctica. Parental neglect increased following the spill, leaving chicks vulnerable to predation.
76. Camphuysen (2006) published a preliminary reference list of papers on impacts of oil spills on marine bird populations. We expect that the review of the literature promised by the Proponent will investigate the listed references and present a more complete and balanced assessment of the potential impacts of the Project on marine birds.
I.4.3 Failure to fully incorporate variation in vulnerability to oil spills among species or groups of species into the assessment
77. The Application assesses the impacts of oil spills on only four marine bird species and provides little discussion of factors that lead to variation in species vulnerability to oil spills. That gap in the Application is addressed to a considerable degree in Stantec (2011), which comprises the Proponent’s response to requests from BCN/NC and the Government of Canada for a more complete discussion of the impacts of oil on marine birds. For example, Stantec (2011) notes the increased vulnerability of colonial breeders which are seasonally found in large assemblages. Most of BC’s breeding alcids fall into this category. We note
Page 25 of 55
(A37906)
that the Marbled Murrelet, the KI representing alcids in the Application’s assessment, is a rare exception.
78. Unfortunately, Stantec (2011) provides an unbalanced presentation of information. For example, the document notes that species’ behaviours influence their exposure to oil and gives as examples, “shorebirds have been shown to avoid oiled shorelines (Wiens 1995), while gulls and certain grebes, although potentially present in large numbers in the Project area, may utilize alternative environments and thus can be at lower risk of exposure.” Noticeable by their absence are references to the behaviours of SARA-listed pelagic species that may be attracted to oil spills and thus be at higher risk of exposure.
79. Table 1 of Stantec (2011) is a chart of species’ oil spill vulnerabilities. Alcids top the list as the most vulnerable group, which is in agreement with other rankings. However, dabbling ducks are shown as more vulnerable than either diving ducks or pelagic species. This despite far lower Oil Vulnerability Indices listed in the chart for the former group. In contrast, other rankings of oil vulnerability tend to list diving ducks and pelagic shearwaters and albatrosses relatively high (e.g. Camphuysen 2007).
I.4.4 Unsupported extrapolation to form the conclusion that population recovery will be relatively short-term following a Project-related oil spill
80. Numerous factors influence a population’s recovery rate following an oil spill. Extrapolation from the results of a single spill without a discussion of those factors, as is done in the Application, is not sound science.
81. Stantec (2011) mentions some of those factors, including seasonal influences. For example, birds exposed to an oil spill in winter are at higher risk of hypothermia and starvation, which may delay population recovery. Poor body condition may cause slow recovery in migrating birds.
82. Camphuysen (2007) provides a more extensive discussion of factors influencing recovery rate and measurement of recovery rate. The age distribution of birds killed will affect population recovery. Marine birds are generally long-lived species with relatively low annual
Page 26 of 55
(A37906)
reproductive output. In such species, adult survival has a greater effect on population trends than does juvenile survival. However, a negative impact on the adult population may be masked at the nesting grounds by the presence in the population of floaters, non-breeding individuals that are capable of breeding. If juvenile mortality is relatively high, effects on the breeding population may not be apparent for several years.
83. An additional complicating factor is the seasonality of oil spills: most occur in the winter when affected birds are not near their breeding sites (Votier et al. 2006, Camhuysen 2007). It is not necessarily evident which colonies are affected by a spill and, thus, where the impacts should be investigated.
84. Camphuysen (2007) also notes the importance of quality and quantity of pre-spill data as well as post-spill data. He notes that the probability of detecting the impacts of a spill will depend on whether the population is stable, increasing or decreasing.
I.4.5 Failure to include an oil spill scenario with high ecological consequences for marine birds
85. The Application fails to present any oil spill scenarios that are likely to have high consequences for marine birds. The Application states that its primary assumption is that "all areas along the marine transportation Approaches are at risk of being oiled in the unlikely event of an incident" and continues "by focusing on examples likely to have the greatest consequences [emphasis mine]..., the assessment encompasses effects of lower consequence situations" (Volume 8A).
86. In its response to BCN/NC IR#1, the Proponent stated that “Northern Gateway has placed high priority on the assessments of both the likelihood of tanker spills and the associated consequences if a spill were to occur.” However, the response continues by explaining that the locations of the scenarios were selected based on likelihood of incidents and spills along the routes (Increased Risk Areas or IRAs) and “the potential for adverse consequences on coastal and marine sensitivities does not influence the likelihood of a spill incident occurring and, therefore, was not considered when identifying the IRAs.”
Page 27 of 55
(A37906)
87. None of the scenarios outlined in the Application involves a spill at locations along the Approaches distant to the CCAA. None are in areas where the ecological consequences to marine birds are relatively high despite the fact that the Approaches pass in close proximity to the largest seabird colony in BC with over one million breeding seabirds. Coloniality is a behaviour that increases the vulnerability of birds to an oil spill, and alcids are the most vulnerable taxa according to Stantec (2011) in a report prepared for the Proponent The Approaches also pass by breeding colonies of Ancient Murrelets, a species of Special Concern, and red-listed Tufted and Horned Puffin ((Fratercula corniculata) colonies. Camphuysen (2007) points out that understanding the effects of spills on marine birds requires consideration of sensitivity of areas, not just sensitivity of species. Areas where sensitive species (such as alcids) congregate (such as breeding colonies or foraging areas) are highly sensitive.
88. We submit that the Application provides a far too simplistic and incomplete assessment of the potential impacts of the Project on marine birds given all of the factors that influence population recovery rates following an oil spill, evidence of long-term impacts from EVOS and other spills, the debatable nature of the single paper that forms the basis of the Application’s conclusions about population recovery rates, and the failure to include any spill scenarios with high ecological consequences for marine birds. Without additional assessment, the Panel will not have an accurate understanding of the potential impacts of a Project-related oil spill on marine birds.
Part II - Potential Impacts of the NGP on Terrestrial and Freshwater Wetland Birds, and Terrestrial and Marine Important Bird Areas 89. The evidence in this section regarding potential impacts of the NGP on terrestrial and freshwater wetland birds, and terrestrial and marine important bird areas was prepared for BC Nature and Nature Canada by Peter Davidson (M.Sc.).
90. The area of expertise of Peter Davidson is terrestrial and Marine Bird Distribution, Abundance and Ecology, Important Bird Areas and Bird Species at Risk.
Page 28 of 55
(A37906)
91. Peter Davidson has 22 years of experience working in the field of bird, mammal and habitat conservation monitoring and research in North America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Current position: BC Program Manager for Bird Studies Canada, overseeing 12 regional, national and international bird monitoring, research and conservation projects, held for six years. The resume of Peter Davidson is attached as Exhibit 2.
92. Available resources precluded a comprehensive review of Northern Gateway’s Application with respect to terrestrial and freshwater wetland birds and their habitats, and Important Bird Areas (IBAs) for the entire project area. This review therefore focuses on: select specific details indicative of broader themes. These include, important species- specific information gaps within the Species at Risk assessments, and the rationale behind the model-based approach for assessing effects on Key Indicator (KI) Species);
broader themes that underly the Application with respect to birds and their habitats, and the Proponent’s responses to bird-related questions posed by BC Nature and Nature Canada in IRs #1 and #2, and the Government of Canada (GOC) IRs#1 and #2. These themes include inadequate assessment of species at risk and other species for which the area is of high conservation importance, flaws in the methodological approach of assessing affects on multiple species, and insufficient understanding of the potential project effects on a range of species with different needs.
93. Northern Gateway must address fully all requests made by BC Nature, and Nature Canada, and the GOC, pertaining to birds, as well as address the deficiencies identified in this submission, for the Panel to have sufficient information to assess fully the potential impact of the Project on birds. 94. One over-arching ecological issue with the Application is the very large study area and the relative lack of distribution, abundance and local or regional habitat association information on birds from the Project Effects Assessment Area (PEAA), Regional Assessment Area (REAA), Confined Channel Assessment Area (CCAA) and Open Water Area (OWA), in particular the western Land Use Planning Areas (LUPAs) of the PEAA, the CCAA and the OWA, which have been relatively little studied by biologists, being somewhat remote and, in places, difficult to Page 29 of 55
(A37906)
access. Northern Gateway needs to conduct sufficient field studies to fill the numerous gaps in information for the PEAA and REAA, and use the several significant, available existing information sources that would help fill these gaps. This failure by Northern Gateway both to gather new information, and adequately use existing information is borne out by the GOC IRs with respect to birds. 95. Of particular concern to us is the consistent lack of thoroughness in the methodological approach used in the Application to identify important bird species, be they species at risk, or other species for which the area traversed represents a national, continental or global centre of abundance. This is evidenced by the occurrence of several Species at Risk Act (SARA) listed birds within the PEAA, REAA, CCAA and OWA that were not mentioned in the Application, but which do occur, as highlighted by evidence provided in subsequent information requests. Methodological issues are addressed further in Section LL2. 96. Northern Gateway’s choice of Key Indicators is deficient in a number of respects, for the following reasons: It does not include global significance of the species population within the PEAA, REAA, CCAA and OWA as a criterion (confirmed by Northern Gateway in A2E818 – Northern Gateway Response to BCN/NC IR#1, section 1.18). It fails to capture significant habitats within the PEAA, REAA, CCAA and OWA, including but not limited to, pelagic continental shelf waters, and agricultural areas. And finally it does not capture the specific, critical life requisites of some federal and provincial species at risk, and IUCN-listed Globally Threatened species (IUCN 2011) for which the PEAA, REAA, CCAA and OWA are of elevated global, regional or national conservation importance. 97. The current baseline of bird data for the Application is unacceptable. Some very significant existing datasets are available, which if analysed in the appropriate way would provide a more objective and rigorous bird species effects assessment for the project as a whole. The current information gaps in the Application, identified herein, prevent an adequate assessment of the potential effects of the project on birds. These deficiencies must
Page 30 of 55
(A37906)
be fully addressed for the Panel to have all the information needed for a decision on the Project.
II.1 Terrestrial and Freshwater Bird Species at Risk
II.1.1 Band-tailed Pigeon (Columba fasciata)
98. The Band-tailed Pigeon is listed as a species of Special Concern under SARA. The Application, which includes literature reviews and consultations with experts, concludes that this species is unlikely to occur within the PEAA (confirmed by Northern Gateway in A2E818 – Northern Gateway Response to BCN/NC IR#1, section 1.12 (A2E818)), despite information to the contrary in information sources cited by Northern Gateway (including the COSEWIC 2008 Assessment and Status Report on Band-tailed Pigeon, and Campbell et al. 1990). The fact that the Band-tailed Pigeon “is likely to occur with annual regularity” in the Kalum South LUPA is belatedly acknowledged in Northern Gateway’s response to the GOC’s IR#2 (A219D0, section 2.59).
99. In responding to the GOC’s request that Northern Gateway consider the Band-tailed Pigeon as a KI, Northern Gateway considers that four other bird species associated with forest habitats represent the habitat requirements of Band-tailed Pigeon, namely: one fish and aquatic invertebrate predator (Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias), one top predator (Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis) and another small bird and mammal predator (Western Screech-owl Otus kennicottii). The latter two species both occur at naturally low densities, and patchily across the landscape. The fourth KI species selected by Northern Gateway is an aerial insectivore (Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi) whose distribution barely overlaps that of Band-tailed Pigeon in the PEAA. 100. These selections are strange, because the Band-tailed Pigeon is a fruit eater that must have access to mineral sites as a critical life requisite (Sanders and Jarvis 2000, and references therein). None of the four key indicator species, whose broad habitat requirements are considered by Northern Gateway as a sufficient proxy for Band-tailed Pigeon, uses mineral sites. Northern Gateway acknowledges the importance of mineral sites to Band-tailed Pigeon in its response to GOC IR#2 (A219D0 section 2.59), but provides no Page 31 of 55
(A37906)
indication that mineral sites were, or are to be accounted for in its effects assessment for the species. Should there be one or more mineral sites used by Band-tailed Pigeon within the PEAA, it is conceivable that flocks of the species use them on a daily basis, as occurs elsewhere in British Columbia (Sanders and Jarvis 2000, and references therein, A. Breault, Canadian Wildlife Service pers. comm.). There is no valid scientific nor ecological argument provided for Northern Gateway’s statement that there is “likely a high degree of overlap between Band-tailed Pigeon and all four key indicators”. We conclude that Northern Gateway has not adequately addressed GOC’s request for a KI assessment of this SARA listed species, and has not demonstrated a sufficient understanding of the species biology to objectively assess potential effects and impacts on the species. 101. The Band-tailed Pigeon appears to be expanding its range north along the BC coast (COSEWIC 2008), which suggests that the PEAA and surrounding region may be of increasing importance to the species as habitats farther south become increasingly fragmented.
II.1.2 Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus)
102. The Long-billed Curlew is listed as a species of Special Concern under SARA. Recent survey evidence indicates that it is likely to occur in the REAA at least, and probably in the PEAA (see Appendix 3a, Long-billed Curlew Distribution). However, Northern Gateway has excluded the species from its effects assessments (confirmed by Northern Gateway in A2E818 – Northern Gateway Response to BCN/NC IR#1, section 1.12). The species is now recorded farther north than was previously documented (e.g. by Campbell et al. 1990), perhaps indicating a recent range expansion, or perhaps simply reflecting a greater survey effort in public participation (citizen science) programs. The habitat requirements of this natural and semi-natural grassland and agriculture specialist are not captured by any of the Application’s current bird KIs. 103. Long-billed Curlew should have received specific attention as part of the environmental assessment, through spring (April-May) surveys of valley bottom and lower slope habitats comprising large fields of pasture, hay, alfalfa, fallow and semi-natural or natural grassland in the interior British Columbia LUPAs.
Page 32 of 55
(A37906)
II.1.3 Yellow Rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis)
104. Yellow Rail is listed as a species of Special Concern under SARA, and recent survey evidence (Appendix 3b, Yellow Rail Distribution) demonstrates that this species is a regular visitor during the breeding season to several parts of British Columbia, and not “accidental” as assessed by Northern Gateway’s environmental assessment (BCN/NC IR#1, section 1.13). In response to GOC’s IR#2, section 2.60 (A219D0), Northern Gateway does acknowledge the occurrence of Yellow Rail as fact, and commits to conduct nocturnal and dawn playback surveys for the species in wetlands with a focus on Alberta and northeast British Columbia. Since Yellow Rail is highly cryptic, however, we recommend that a new survey technique being used by the Prairie Habitat Joint Venture (Drake and Dudragne, unpublished), involving placement of remote autonomous audio recording equipment, be used in surveys for this and other marsh birds (including American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus and Nelson’s Sparrow Ammodramus nelsoni). Surveys using this technique should be extended west along the PEAA into interior British Columbia, because the Yellow Rail’s range extends south-west to the Chilcotin Plateau (see Appendix 3b), and may include the pipeline route in the Prince George, Vanderhoof and Lakes LUPAs.
II.1.4 Horned Grebe (Podiceps auritus)
105. Horned Grebe is recommended by COSEWIC for listing as Special Concern under SARA. GOC’s IR#2 (A35374, section 2.59) pertaining to this species recommends that a full assessment of potential adverse effects of the Project on Horned Grebes be carried out; and measures to mitigate and monitor those effects be identified as per subsection 79(2) of SARA; and that Horned Grebe should be included in the Assessment Report as a KI. We fully support GOC’s request and recommendations.
II.1.5 Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis)
106. Lewis’s Woodpecker is listed as Threatened under SARA, and has recently been reported as far north as the REAA (see Appendix 3c, Lewis’s Woodpecker Distribution). There is no mention of Lewis’s Woodpecker in either the Application or any of the IR responses to BC
Page 33 of 55
(A37906)
Nature and Nature Canada, or the GOC. Whilst breeding has not been confirmed in the area, this threatened species should be searched for using the standard approaches being developed in collaboration with the Lewis’s Woodpecker Recovery Team, and attempts made to verify its breeding status.
II.1.6 Western Grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis)
107. Western Grebe is the subject of a status assessment by COSEWIC due to concern over very significant declines in the northern part of its wintering range in British Columbia and Washington that are not balanced by slight increases in the southern part of its wintering range (in California and northern Mexico) (COSEWIC 2011). Western Grebe colonies within the PEAA or downstream of the proposed pipeline route should be identified, and the potential effects of the project during and post construction on these colonies (including habitat quality) should be assessed.
II.1.7 Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus)
108. Short-eared Owl is listed as Special Concern under SARA, and its range overlaps with the REAA throughout Alberta and British Columbia (Appendix 3d, Sort-eared Owl Distribution; and Federation of Alberta Naturalists 2007). However, nowhere within the Application or subsequent IRs relating to birds is this fact mentioned. All known nesting locations along the pipeline route should be identified, and the potential effects of the project during and post construction on these nests (including habitat quality) must be assessed.
II.1.8 Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia)
109. Bank Swallow is the subject of a current status assessment by COSEWIC due to ongoing long-term declines (Jon McCracken, COSEWIC Birds Committee Co-Chair pers. comm.). Existing data sources (including the BC Breeding Bird Atlas – data are publicly available from this source through the website www.naturecounts.ca; and Federation of Alberta Naturalists 2007) were not consulted to identify known nest colony locations along the pipeline route and the potential effects of the project during and post construction on these colonies (including habitat quality) were not assessed.
Page 34 of 55
(A37906)
II.2 Methodological Issues
110. Northern Gateway’s selection of KI bird species was chosen based on the conservation status and sensitivity of these species (confirmed in Northern Gateway’s response to BCN/NC IR#1, A2E818 section 1.18). The Application assesses the habitat preferences of these KI species in the broadest terms (using rudimentary habitat modeling) and applies the results subjectively, assuming that the key life requisites of most other species of potential conservation interest are captured by the KI approach.
111. One problem with this approach is that it assumes that documented (in published and grey literature) habitat characteristics favoured by bird species can be directly reflected in digital spatial habitat layers like the Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) layer used in the Application. However, TEM does not contain the same information as the source publication demonstrating the habitat association. Even in regions where TEM is most advanced, such as the South Okanagan, the mapped habitat information does not pick up the microhabitat features that best explain the distribution and abundance of specific bird species (Orville Dyer, BC Ministry of Environment pers. comm.). The application of TEM for this purpose is accordingly flawed.
112. Another problem is that the species-habitat modeling approach in the Application assumes uniformity in individual species habitat choice across the entire >1,000km length of the REAA, which is highly unlikely to be the case for most of the species modeled. Our point here is that the species-habitat modeling approach in the Application is flawed and would not pass scientific peer-review. Further, the assumption that the approach will adequately capture the needs of other bird species is entirely inappropriate.
113. Point count surveys are the primary means of detection for the community of ~200 songbird species occurring in the REAA. As pointed out below, the surveys undertaken represent an extremely low level of survey effort, rendering any interpretation of results problematic.
Page 35 of 55
(A37906)
114. Ten songbird species are used as KIs; collectively, these ten species represent over 40% of the project’s bird KI species. Six hundred and ten 5-minute point counts (approximately 50hrs) and 78 hours of general searching was conducted for this guild over a 12-day period in one year across the total REAA land base area of 33,600km2 (Northern Gateway response to BCN/NC IR#1, A2E818, section 1.16), approximately equivalent to one point count per 50km2, and one survey hour per 430km2.
115. Large point count databases exist for the REAA, including (but not limited to) the Breeding Bird Survey, the British Columbia Breeding Bird Atlas, and the Boreal Avian Monitoring Project. A more appropriate approach to assessing effects would be population- based using these datasets to model species abundance (e.g. following Cadman et al. 2007), rather than habitat-based.
116. Data assessed for Trumpeter Swan – a KI – was summarized based on wetland occupancy during the breeding season (Northern Gateway response to BCN/NC IR#1, A2E818, section 1.15). Several large wetlands within the REAA are used as key fall migratory stopovers by Trumpeter Swans. This seasonal value is captured in the designation of several of these wetlands as IBAs of global importance (see Section II.4 below, paragraphs 140-141), but is not adequately acknowledged in the Application. One two-day survey period in fall is the data baseline upon which Northern Gateway assesses project effects on fall migration concentrations of Trumpeter Swan.
117. This demonstrates a lack of understanding of
the baseline required from which to objectively assess effects, the seasonal importance of wetland habitats, and the global conservation values within the REAA.
118. In response to BCN/NC IR#1, section 1.14, Northern Gateway states that the prediction confidence of baseline data availability and quality for Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinators) was moderate, and for White-winged Scoter (Melanitta fusca) and Yellow Rail was low. This demonstrates a recurrent theme in the GOC and BC Nature and Nature Canada IR#s 1 and 2:
Page 36 of 55
(A37906)
the fact that the Application was based on an insufficient baseline; and therefore more field data collection is required.
119. Our concerns are twofold, namely:
the opportunity to collect more field data in such a data-poor region was not realized and addressed during the environmental assessment, and
commitments made by Northern Gateway to conduct further work as part of the environmental assessment (A36991, section 2.60) made in response to GOC’s IR#2 section 1.73 (A35374), still do not adequately address the need for a meaningful effects assessment for, in particular, federally and provincially listed species at risk.
120. A suite of additional bird species-specific surveys are proposed by Northern Gateway (A36991, section 2.60) in response to GOC’s IR#2 (A35374, section 1.73). We have a number of comments on that plan, some of which relate to comments in this response to GOC IR#2 and others to comments made in the response to BCN/NC IR#1 (A2E818), including (paragraphs 121 through 128):
121. Further point count surveys should be informed by a prior analysis of point count data from along and adjacent to the final centerline (an appropriate buffer radius from final centerline might be ~100km), to identify known centres of abundance of each species. The current approach proposed assumes habitat requirements are already established, but in an area as little known as the proposed pipeline route, such an approach carries risks of overlooking important local details.
122. Point count surveys are stated to be conducted at dawn. Resource Inventory Committee (RIC) standards should be followed for diurnal timing of point counts. Simply conducting them at dawn will bias samples, miss some species, and greatly reduce the sample size collectable.
123. Northern Gateway commits to conducting more aerial waterfowl surveys in May to identify important waterbird breeding habitat. Several major wetlands within the REAA Page 37 of 55
(A37906)
support nationally and continentally significant populations of waterfowl during fall migration staging and early winter periods. Northern Gateway does not propose to undertake any further surveys to ensure this key life requisite is captured, however, despite the Application being based on an entirely inadequate total of two days of field surveys.
124. Yellow Rail should be sampled using a remote recording technique, which is more effective than call playback (this technique is appropriate for a range of other secretive marsh bird surveys – note comments under Yellow Rail above in Section II.1.3).
125. Great Blue Heron nest surveys should be conducted from March to July to ensure active nests and colonies are discovered, feeding grounds for those nesting birds are identified, and breeding success can also be measured.
126. Band-tailed Pigeon dawn point count surveys in June-July make no mention of mineral sites searches (a key life requisite) and observations. Further, Band-tailed Pigeon surveys should begin earlier in the season (calling begins in April).
127. Northern Goshawk is a KI, so surveys should be conducted along the length of the pipeline route and not simply in the Kalum South LUPA.
128. Western Screech-owl can also be effectively surveyed for during the June-August period, when family groups are especially vocal, which would help with territory confirmation and delineation.
II.3 Important Bird Areas and Globally Threatened Marine Birds in the OWA
II.3.1 Important Bird Areas in the OWA
129. Nature Canada is Canadian co-partner in BirdLife International, an alliance of bird and habitat conservation organizations in over 120 countries and territories worldwide. One of BirdLife’s flagship global initiatives is the Important Bird Areas (IBA) program, which has been adopted by bodies like the United Nations as a key indicator of global progress toward Millennium Development and Convention on Biodiversity goals, and is a core implementing mechanism for a major piece of legislation, the European Union Birds Directive.
Page 38 of 55
(A37906)
130. BC Nature is a lead partner for the IBA Program within British Columbia. In line with similar initiatives by other BirdLife partners, the BC IBA program has created a network of IBA Caretakers to monitor birds and be proactive in stewardship, educational and conservation initiatives at the IBA sites. In collaboration with Nature Canada, this model has now been adopted by many other regions across the country.
131. IBA’s are identified using published and peer-reviewed bird count information, assessed against a standard suite of scientific criteria (see Appendix 1 – Canadian IBA Criteria) applied at global, continental and national levels.
132. The OWA encompasses an area of exceptional international conservation importance to a suite of marine birds, as evidenced by 30 IBA’s designated for the globally and nationally significant populations of marine birds they support (Devenish et al. 2009; Appendix 2 - IBAs overlapping with the OWA). Each of these IBAs supports 1% or more of the world population of at least one bird species. The names, locations, and species-specific information for these IBAs are presented on Map 1 – IBAs in the OWA and in Appendix 2 - IBAs overlapping with the OWA.
133. Many of these IBAs within the OWA are seabird colonies located on offshore islands around Haida Gwaii and the Central and North Coast of British Columbia, which collectively support, inter alia, approximately one half (1.5+ million individuals) of the world’s Cassin’s Auklets Ptychoramphus aleuticus, about one third (0.5 million) of the world’s Ancient Murrelets Synthliboramphus antiquus, about one quarter (300,000) of the world’s Rhinoceros Auklets Cerorhinca monocerata, and up to 10% of the global population of Pelagic Cormorants Phalacrocorax pelagicus. Other breeding seabirds that exceed global importance thresholds within the OWA include Leach’s Storm-petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa (up to 2% of the global population), Fork-tailed Storm-petrel Oceanodroma furcata (up to 3% of the global population) and Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba (up to 2% of the global population). None of these species is assessed as a KI in the Application. None of the bird populations within these IBA’s is acknowledged as a “valued ecosystem component” and potential impacts on these populations are not assessed. Page 39 of 55
(A37906)
134. Some of the globally significant IBAs within the OWA are designated for species other than true seabirds, like geese (including Black Brant Branta bernicla – spring and fall migration staging), grebes (including Western Aechmophorus occidentalis – non-breeding), sea ducks (including Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata – non-breeding), and shorebirds (including Black Turnstone Arenaria melanocephala – non-breeding), which all vary widely in their seasonality of occurrence and abundance, and in their habitat use within the CCAA and OWA. Only one of these species, Surf Scoter, is assessed as a KI in the Application, but the IBAs in which it occurs are not specifically acknowledged, nor are potential impacts on these IBAs specifically assessed.
II.3.2 Globally Threatened Marine Birds in the OWA
135. Several Globally Threatened, Globally Near-Threatened and federally and provincially listed seabird species regularly occur in the OWA as non-breeders, including Short-tailed Albatross Phoebastria albatrus, Laysan Albatross Phoebastria immutabilis, Black-footed Albatross Phoebastria nigripes, Pink-footed Shearwater Puffinus creatops, Buller’s Shearwater Puffinus bulleri, Sooty Shearwater Puffinus griseus and Yellow-billed Loon Gavia adamsii. As discussed in Section I.3, none of these species is assessed as a KI in the Application. Further, in its response to BCN/NC IR#2 (A21910, section 2.1) Northern Gateway considers that the pelagic, open ocean wanderers like albatrosses and shearwaters are adequately represented by the needs of two KIs (Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus and Surf Scoter), which are largely restricted to shallow offshore (~20m depth) and near-shore habitats. This is a rather extraordinary contention: not only do these two guilds have very different life history requisites; their habitat use barely overlaps at all.
136. Five of the bird species that either a) have IBAs designated for them, or b) are threatened with global extinction based on IUCN assessments and occur regularly in the OWA, are also listed under the SARA: Marbled and Ancient Murrelets, Pink-footed Shearwater, Short-tailed and Black-footed Albatross. In addition, Cassin’s Auklet and Western Grebe are the subjects of current COSEWIC assessments (Jon McCracken, COSEWIC Birds Committee Co-Chair pers. comm.). Page 40 of 55
(A37906)
137. Ancient Murrelet, Cassin’s and Rhinoceros Auklets, Black-footed Albatross (the most frequently occurring of the albatrosses in the OWA), Sooty Shearwater (the commonest of the shearwaters in the OWA), and Yellow-billed Loon would be appropriate as a collective suite of KIs for the offshore pelagic environment of the OWA. Marbled Murrelet and Surf Scoter are not appropriate KIs for the offshore pelagic environment of the OWA.
138. The breeding seabird populations nest on islands, but commute widely across the OWA to feed. For some of these species, or similar species, information exists from other parts of their range on their average commuting distances from breeding colonies (see Appendix 4- Average Foraging Distances for Colonial Nesting Seabirds). This information on commuting distance is not yet available from within the OWA for most species or any colony, except Cassin’s and Rhinoceros Auklets on the Scott Islands (Kenyon et al. 2009), but can be expected to be in the order of 15-40km at least for most species (Appendix 4). However, two major pelagic seabird survey datasets are available that could greatly inform the seasonal distribution and abundance of marine birds, both breeding and non-breeding, and enable a very much improved effects assessment on the species of conservation concern and global interest listed in the preceding paragraphs. One dataset is published by the Canadian Wildlife Service (Kenyon et al. 2009), and the other is held by the Raincoast Conservation Foundation. Both are multi-year, multi-season transect datasets from Hecate Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound, Dixon Entrance and other parts of the OWA. There are other, more localized marine bird datasets also available for the area, including pelagic surveys conducted as part of the Naikoon windfarm project, Laskeek Bay Conservation Society near-shore surveys, and a 15 year time series of volunteer-collected data from the Prince Rupert to Skidegate ferry route. The peer-reviewed analyses of these datasets, to accurately map the seasonal distribution and abundance of the following species, would provide the basis for conducting a more rigorous effects assessment for each species of global, national or provincial conservation concern: Cassin’s and Rhinoceros Auklets, Ancient Murrelet, Leach’s and Fork-tailed Storm-petrels, Short-tailed, Laysan and Black-footed Albatrosses, Pink-footed,
Page 41 of 55
(A37906)
Buller’s and Sooty Shearwaters, Pelagic Cormorant, Pigeon Guillemot, Western Grebe and Yellow-billed Loon.
139. Most of the aforementioned seabirds have life history strategies that involve “living slow and dying old”, commencing breeding at a relatively old age and raising just one young per year at best. They are therefore intrinsically more vulnerable to population crashes (e.g., following a major hydrocarbon spill event) and less capable of recovering than birds that reproduce at faster rates. The alcids, cormorants and grebes flock on the water’s surface and dive-feed, traits which elevate their vulnerability to oil spill events. The very large potential global impact of a oil spill event at a time and place of high bird concentration within the OWA greatly concerns us, a possibility which is currently not acknowledged within the Application at all. This elevated oil spill risk must be considered within the context of the cumulative population level effects of other risk factors already operating within and outside the OWA, including but not limited to fisheries by-catch, impacts from climate change and oceanographic shifts (which impact the distribution and abundance of prey populations), and invasive species (predators of seabird chicks in burrows and non-native vegetation reducing nest site availability).
II.4 Freshwater Wetland Important Bird Areas and WHSRN Sites – Wetland Connectivity
140. There are four freshwater wetland Important Bird Areas within or adjacent to the PEAA and REAA: the Stuart, Tachie and Middle Rivers IBA and Fraser Lake IBA, both near Fort St. James, BC, and the Grand Prairie and Big Lake IBAs in Alberta. These wetland complexes support globally significant populations of Trumpeter and Tundra Swans, chiefly during the fall migration. The Stuart, Tachie and Middle Rivers, and Fraser Lake IBAs in particular are vulnerable to downstream effects resulting from changes to water quality during the planning, construction and post-construction (operational) phases of the project. Plans to minimise disturbance to wetlands generally during the breeding season are acknowledged in the Application and responses to GOC IRs, but there is no acknowledgement of the sensitivity of freshwater wetland habitats used as fall staging areas by waterfowl (typically from October through early December), and in particular the IBAs used by globally significant Page 42 of 55
(A37906)
numbers of Trumpeter Swans. Fall surveys conducted by the proponent to date are of insufficient duration to capture the peak pulses and overall dynamics of fall migration at these sites; some data may already exist on this valued ecosystem component. The Application did not identify the primary areas within the REAA (including all significant downstream wetlands from the proposed centreline) that are used throughout the fall migration period by concentrations of waterfowl, in particular Trumpeter Swans, but also dabbling and diving duck species. The potential effects of the Project on these important areas were not assessed by Northern Gateway.
141. The Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (www.whsrn.org) is a coalition of government and non-government organizations that identifies and conserves a network of key sites for shorebirds across North and South America (Duncan and Davidson 2011). There are a number of candidate WHSRN sites in Alberta (Devenish et al. 2009, Appendix 4b), that were not reviewed by Northern Gateway for potential overlap with the REAA or potential downstream effects outside the REAA, and for which the effects of disturbance, physical alterations and potential future water quality and flow risks were not assessed.
Part III - Potential Impacts on Terrestrial Wildlife Species (Caribou) 142. The evidence on potential impacts on terrestrial wildlife species with a focus on Woodland Caribou, prepared for BC Nature and Nature Canada by Brian Churchill is attached as Exhibit 3.
143. Brian Churchill is a Registered Professional Biologist (#128) in British Columbia. His area of expertise is wildlife habitat and management and applied biology on the industry-wildlife interface.
144. Brian Churchill has a 34 year career of wildlife habitat and management experience dealing with all aspects of the upstream oil and gas industry; training & experience in the Canadian EA process (Teresen-Kinder Morgan –TMX-Anchor Loop); specific work on pipelines, mountain goats, southern mountain caribou and grizzly bear in the NE BC/ Prince George regions. As a professional biologist he is required to have up to date knowledge of
Page 43 of 55
(A37906)
research and management in his area of expertise. Brian practices applied biology on the industry-wildlife interface. Brian has considerable field experience in the south peace region. The resume of Brian Churchill is included in Exhibit 3.
Part IV - Conclusions 145. BC Nature and Nature Canada submit that the Northern Gateway Application for the Northern Gateway Project fails to adequately assess the potential effects of the Project on marine birds, birds listed under the Species at Risk Act (SARA), Important Bird Areas (IBA’s) and Woodland Caribou.
146. The dismissal by Northern Gateway of impacts of artificial lights at the terminal, on moving vessels and on vessels at anchor as a cause of death and/or injury to marine birds is indefensible in light of the state of knowledge about this issue.
147. Despite overwhelming evidence that collisions with wires can be a significant cause of mortality in marine birds, the Proponent dismisses the issue as so rare as to not require a full assessment.
148. The Application dismissal of the potential impacts of displacement of marine birds by vessel traffic is not supported by the literature and is too simplistic. Furthermore, the assessment of the potential impacts from vessel traffic related to the Project on marine birds is incomplete and inadequate because it failed to include additional key indicator (KI) species.
149. Northern Gateway committed to producing a review of impacts of large catastrophic oil spills or oil in general on birds (A21969; A2E8J0), but has failed to do so.
150. The Proponent’s assumption that there will be no chronic oiling or associated effects on marine birds from the Project is not defensible given available information.
151. Northern Gateway’s failure to address the issue of prey-mediated impacts on marine birds renders its assessment of the Project incomplete and its conclusions of insignificant impacts on marine birds is unsupported.
Page 44 of 55
(A37906)
152. Northern Gateway makes unsubstantiated claims that Marbled Murrelet and Surf Scoter populations in the Kitimat area and Confined Channel Assessment Area (CCAA) have not been adversely affected by industrialization and boat traffic to date.
153. The species listed under SARA that occur in the CCAA and/or Open Water Area (OWA) include Short-tailed Albatross, Black-footed Albatross, Pink-footed Shearwater, Marbled Murrelet, Ancient Murrelet, Great Blue Heron fannini, Horned Grebe and Peale’s Peregrine Falcon. These species are vulnerable to project effects. However, with the exception of Marbled Murrelet, the Proponent failed to assess Project impacts on these listed species.
154. Marbled Murrelet and Surf Scoter are not appropriate KIs for the offshore pelagic environment of the OWA.
155. The selection of KI species in the Application was deeply flawed. Most of the listed species are not adequately represented, species with little interaction with a Project activity were used and their spatial separation from the Project was then used as an argument of non-significance of the activity for all marine birds, and degree of sensitivity of the species to the Project activities was not considered.
156. Despite requests from the submitting intervenors and Environment Canada, the information needed to review the selection of KI species in the Application was not provided by Northern Gateway within a reasonable time frame.
157. The Panel cannot make an informed decision about the potential impacts of the Project on marine birds in the absence of assessments of a broader range of KI species.
158. It is not possible to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the potential effects of Project-related oil spills on marine birds without access to the full range of available research results. Despite requests from the submitting intervenors and Environment Canada, Northern Gateway has failed to provide this information to BC Nature and Nature Canada.
159. Northern Gateway’s conclusions that population recovery will be relatively short-term following a Project-related oil spill are based on unsupported extrapolation and are not supported by available information. Page 45 of 55
(A37906)
160. The Application presents an unbalanced review of the impacts of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) on marine birds.
161. Northern Gateway fails to fully incorporate variation in vulnerability to oil spills among species or groups of species into its assessment.
162. The Proponent failed to include an oil spill scenario with high ecological consequences for marine birds.
163. Without additional assessment, the Panel will not have an accurate understanding of the potential impacts of a Project-related oil spill on marine birds.
164. The baseline of bird data for the Application is inadequate, despite the fact that some very significant existing datasets are available.
165. The methodological approach used in the Application to identify bird species potentially affected by the Project is deeply flawed.
166. The Proponent’s assessment of potential impacts on bird species listed under SARA is inadequate and flawed, in particular with respect to Band-tailed Pigeon (Special Concern), Long-billed Curlew (Special Concern), Yellow Rail (Special Concern ), Horned Grebe (COSEWIC Special Concern), Lewis’s Woodpecker (Threatened), Short-eared Owl ( Special Concern) and Western Grebe and Bank Swallow which are the subject of a status assessment by COSEWIC.
167. The OWA encompasses an area of exceptional international conservation importance to a suite of marine birds, as evidenced by 30 Important Bird Areas (IBA’s) designated for the globally and nationally significant populations of marine birds they support.
168. Many of these IBAs within the OWA are seabird colonies located on offshore islands around Haida Gwaii and the Central and North Coast of British Columbia, which collectively support, inter alia, approximately one half (1.5+ million individuals) of the world’s Cassin’s Auklets, about one third (0.5 million) of the world’s Ancient Murrelets, about one quarter (300,000) of the world’s Rhinoceros Auklets, and up to 10% of the global population of Pelagic Cormorants.
Page 46 of 55
(A37906)
169. Other breeding seabirds that exceed global importance thresholds within the OWA include Leach’s Storm-petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa (up to 2% of the global population), Fork-tailed Storm-petrel Oceanodroma furcata (up to 3% of the global population) and Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba (up to 2% of the global population). None of these species is assessed as a Key Indicator in the Application. None of the bird populations within these IBA’s is acknowledged as a “valued ecosystem component” and potential impacts on these populations are not assessed.
170. Five of the bird species that either a) have IBAs designated for them, or b) are threatened with global extinction based on IUCN assessments and occur regularly in the OWA, are also listed under SARA: Marbled and Ancient Murrelets, Pink-footed Shearwater, Short-tailed and Black-footed Albatross. In addition, Cassin’s Auklet and Western Grebe are the subjects of current COSEWIC assessments.
171. While several Important Bird Areas protecting huge seabird colonies in the OWA are at risk from an oil spill, the potential impacts of oil spills on these IBAs and their bird populations have not been assessed by Northern Gateway.
172. The Proponent has failed to consider the potential impact of oil spills on pelagic open ocean wanderers such as albatrosses and shearwaters, considering them sufficiently covered by Key Indicator species that occupy totally different habitats.
173. The Proponent has failed to acknowledge the very large potential global impact of a spill event at a time and place of high bird concentration within the OWA.
174. Northern Gateway has failed to assess the potential effects of the proposed pipeline on freshwater wetland IBAs in the PEAA and REAA.
175. The Northern Gateway application appropriately identifies Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus-caribou) as a KI species for wildlife. These Caribou (Southern Mountain Population) are listed as Threatened under the Species at Risk Act and similar categories in British Columbia (Red, threatened) and Alberta (AR, at Risk). The Application identifies that some 214 kilometres of the proposed pipeline Right of Way (RoW) are intended to cross sensitive
Page 47 of 55
(A37906)
areas for Woodland Caribou. Further, the environmental and socio-economic assessment identifies 24,465 hectares of the PEAA to be overlapping caribou range. Two of the five caribou populations that occur in this area are identified as declining; another two are stable, and one is stable and increasing. 176. The Application has incorrectly identified caribou mortality in winter as the determining factor for population viability, when recent literature clearly documents that summer mortality is prevalent. 177. The consequence of this error is that a finding of insignificant impacts on caribou from the Project based on assessment of impacts on winter habitat is also in error. 178. The Project is a significant cumulative increment of risk for the Little Smokey, Narraway, Hart and Telkwa Caribou herds whose habitat the proposed pipeline corridor bisects. These Woodland Caribou populations are listed under the Species at Risk Act of Canada as Threatened. 179. The Application substantiates that the impacts of this Project will not be positive for these Woodland Caribou herds. It is only the level and significance of the degradation that is under discussion. 180. It is our contention that a reasonable expectation would be that the Northern Gateway Pipeline project will exacerbate the current decline in the Little Smokey, Narraway, Hart and Telkwa Caribou herds through cumulative effects and increased mortality. The pipeline and the residual impacts of the pipeline will continue to provide detrimental effects for the life of the pipeline and an extended period after and likely contribute to the extinction of two or more of these Woodland Caribou herds. The Application has not disproved that proposition.
Page 48 of 55
(A37906)
Attachments
Exhibits:
Exhibit 1 – Resume of Anne Harfenist
Exhibit 2 – Resume of Peter Davidson
Exhibit 3 – Evidence Prepared by Brian Churchill (including Resume)
Appendices:
Appendix 1: Canadian IBA Criteria (2001)
Appendix 2: Important Bird Areas Overlapping with the OWA
Appendix 3a: Long-billed Curlew Distribution
Appendix 3b: Yellow Rail Distribution
Appendix 3c: Lewis’s Woodpecker Distribution
Appendix 3d: Short-eared Owl Distribution
Appendix 4: Average Foraging Distances for Colonial Nesting Seabirds
Maps:
Map 1: Important Bird Areas in the OWA
Page 49 of 55
(A37906)
References for Part I
Agness, A.M., J.F. Piatt, J.C. Ha and G.R. VanBlaricom. 2008. Effects of Vessel Activity on the Near-shore Ecology of Kittlitz’s Murrelets (Brachyramphus brevirostris) in Glacier Bay, Alaska. Auk 125(2): 346-353. Australia Pacific LNG PTY Limited. 2011. Australia Pacific LNG Project Construction Operation and Decommsiioning Migratory Shorebird Management Plan – LNG Facility. http://www.aplng.com.au/sites/default/pdf/Migratory_Shorebirds_Management_Plan.pdf Becker, B.H., M.Z. Peery and S.R. Beissinger. 2007. Ocean climate and prey availability affect the trophic level and reproductive success of the Marbled Murrelet, an endangered seabird. Marine Ecology Progress Series 329: 267–279. Bellefleur, D., P. Lee and R.A. Ronconi. 2009. The impact of recreational boat traffic on Marbled Murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus). Journal of Environmental Management 90: 531-538. Bertram, D.F. 1995. The roles of introduced rats and commercial fishing in the decline of Ancient Murrelets on Langara Island, British Columbia. Conservation Biology 9(4): 865–872. Bertram, D.F., T. Golumbia, G.K. Davoren, A. Harfenist and J. Brown. 2002. Short visits reveal consistent patterns of interyear and intercolony variation in seabird nestling diet and performance. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80: 2190–2199. Bertram, D.F., A. Harfenist and A. Hedd. 2009. Seabird nestling diets reflect latitudinal temperature-dependent variation in availability of key zooplankton prey populations. Marine Ecology Progress Series 393: 199–210. Birdlife International. 2003. Wind farms and Birds: An analysis of the effects of wind farms on birds, and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site selection issues. Proceedings of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, 1–4 December 2003, Strasbourg, France. 58 p. Black, A. 2005. Light induced seabird mortality on vessels operating in the Southern Ocean: incidents and mitigation measures. Antarctic Science 17 (1): 67–68. Camphuysen C.J. 2007. Chronic oil pollution in Europe, a status report. Report Royal. Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, commissioned by International Fund for Animal Welfare, Brussels. http://www.ifaw.in/Publications/Program_Publications/Emergency_Relief/asset_upload_file83 0_12014.pdf Camphuysen, C.J. 2006. The impact of oil spills on seabirds. The Impact of Oil Spills on Seabirds, Santa Cruz, Spain, 7-9 September 2006. http://www.nioz.nl/public/mee/birds/impact.pdf
Page 50 of 55
(A37906)
Canadian Wildlife Service. 2000. National Policy on Oiled Birds and Oiled Species at Risk. http://ec.gc.ca/ee-ue/default.asp?lang=en&n=A4DD63E4 ConocoPhillips. 2011. Bird Strike Avoidance and Lighting Plan. Prepared in support of ConocoPhillips Exploration Drilling Program in the Chukchi Sea within Lease Sale Area 193, ConocoPhillips Company, Anchorage. http://alaska.boemre.gov/ref/ProjectHistory/2011_Chukchi_COP/draftEP/appendK.pdf COSEWIC. 2003. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Short-tailed Albatross Phoebastria albatrus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 25 pp. COSEWIC. 2004. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Pink-footed Shearwater Puffinus creatopus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 22 pp. COSEWIC. 2006. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Black-footed Albatross Phoebastria nigripes in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 59 pp. Eppley, Z.A. and M.A. Rubega. 1990. Indirect effects of an oil spill: reproductive failure in a population of South Polar skuas following the 'Bahia Paraiso' oil spill in Antarctica. Marine Ecology Progress Series 67:1-6. Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson and D.P. Young, Jr. 2005. A summary and comparison of bird mortality from anthropogenic causes with an emphasis on collisions. Pp. 1029-1042 In: USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191. http://studentaffairs.case.edu/farm/doc/birdmortality.pdf Esler, D. And S.A. Iverson. 2010. Female Harlequin Duck Winter Survival 11 to 14 Years After the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 471-478. Esler, D., T. D. Bowman, K. Trust, B. E. Ballachey, T. A. Dean, S. C. Jewett and C. E. O’Clair. 2002. Harlequin duck population recovery following the Exxon Valdez oil spill: progress, process, and constraints. Marine Ecology Progress Series 241: 271-286. Esler, D., K.A. Trust, B.E. Ballachey, S.a.Iverson, T.L. Lewis, D.J. Rizzolo, D.M. Mulcahy and A. Keith. 2010. Cytochrome P4501A biomarker indication of oil exposure in harlequin ducks up to 20 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 29: 1138- 1145. Garcia-Borboroglu, P., P.D. Boersma, V. Ruoppolo, L. Reyes, G.A. Rebstock, K. Griot, S.R. Heredia, A.C. Adrones and R.P. Da Silva. 2006. Chronic oil pollution harms Magellanic Penguins in the Southwest Atlantic. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52: 193–198. GESAMP. 2007. Estimates of oil entering the marine environment from sea-based activities. GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection)– Rep. Stud. GESAMP No. 75. 96 pp.
Page 51 of 55
(A37906)
Golder Associates. 2009. Bird Carcass survey plan for the Vancouver Island transmission reinforcement project. http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p250/1246571232844_1bb741ddc61356297d ea68065bc8239db4aa74bc11763223c8dbe5a737a10122.pdf Greer, R.D., R.H. Day and R.S.Bergman. 2010. Effects of Ambient Artificial Light on Arctic Marine Fauna. Northern Oil and Gas Research Forum. http://www.arcus.org/files/meetings/279/presentations/greer.pdf Harwell, M.A. and J.H. Gentile. 2006. Ecological significance of residual exposures and effects from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 2:204– 246. Hedd, A., D.F. Bertram, J.L. Ryder and I.L. Jones. 2006. Effects of interdecadal climate variability on marine trophic interactions: Rhinoceros Auklets and their fish prey. Marine Ecology Progress Series 309: 263–278. Hedd, A., J.L. Ryder, L.L. Cowen and D.F. Bertram. 2002. Inter-annual variation in the diet, provisioning and growth of Cassin’s Auklet at Triangle Island, British Columbia: responses to variation in ocean climate. Marine Ecology Progress Series 229: 221–232. Heubeck, M. 1997. The long-term impact of the Esso Bernicia oil spill on numbers of common loons Gavia immer wintering in Shetland, Scotland. Pp. 110-122 In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Effects of Oil on Wildlife, Monterey, California. Jenkins, A.R., J.J. Smallie and M. Diamond. 2010. Avian collisions with power lines: a global review of causes and mitigation with a South African perspective. Bird Conservation International 20: 263-278. Kaiser, M.J., M. Galanidi, D.A. Showler, A.J. Elliott, R.W.G. Caldow, E.I.S. Rees, R.A. Stillman and W.J. Sutherland. 2006. Distribution and behaviour of Common Scoter Melanitta nigra relative to prey resources and environmental parameters. Ibis 148:110-128. Kingsley, A. and B. Whittam. 2001. Potential impacts of wind turbines on birds at North Cape, Prince Edward Island. Prince Edward Island Energy Corporation http://www.bsc- eoc.org/download/PEIwind.pdf Kitimat Valley Naturalists. 2011. Review of Enbridge Project Documents: Marine Birds, Mammals & Kitimat Estuary. Submitted to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel, December 2011. (A2K0E9) Landis, W. G. 2007. The Exxon Valdez oil spill revisited and the dangers of normative science. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 3: 439–441. Le Corre, M., A. Ollivier, S. Ribes and P. Jouventin. 2002. Light-induced mortality of petrels: a four year study from Re´union Island (Indian Ocean). Biological Conservation 105:93–102. Leighton, P.A. The toxicity of petroleum oils to birds. 1993. Environmental Reviews 1:92-103.
Page 52 of 55
(A37906)
LGL LTd, KS Biological Services and Pottinger Gaherty Environmental Consultants. 2009. Naikun Offshore Wind Energy Project. Volume 8 – Marine Birds. http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p230/d29856/1242852242549_65f01eb6ca8c 72dd6b6b913184fc3f67b13510f066a1689fbf7098ea323ed76c.pdf Montevecchi, W.A. 2006. Influences of artificial light on marine birds. Pp. 94–113 in C. Rich and T. Longcore (Eds.). Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Island Press, Washington, DC. Mougeot, F. and Bretagnolle, V. 2000. Predation risk and moonlight avoidance in nocturnal seabirds. Journal of Avian Biology 31: 376–386. NRC. 2003. Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects. Ocean Studies Board, Marine Board, Divisions of Earth and Life Studies, and Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council of the National Academies. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 265 pp. Oro, D., A. De Leon, E. Minguez and R.W. Furness. 2005. Estimating predation on breeding European storm-petrels (Hydrobates pelagicus) by yellow-legged gulls (Larus Michahellis). Journal of Zoology 265: 421-429. Pacific Seabird Group. 2004. Petition to the California Fish and Game Commission to list the Xantus’ Murrelet as threatened under the California Fish and Game Code. http://www.pacificseabirdgroup.org/policy/XAMU_PETITION_STATE.pdf Pacific States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force. 2002. West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report. Available at: http://www.oilspilltaskforce.org/wcovtrm_report.htm [accessed February 2006]. Peterson, C.H., S.D. Rice, J.W. Short, D. Esler, J.L. Bodkin, B.E. Ballachey and D.B. Irons. 2003. Long-term ecosystem response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Science 302:2082–2086. Resource Inventory Standards Committee (RISC). 1997. Inventory Methods for Seabirds: cormorants, gulls, murres, storm-petrels, Ancient Murrelet, auklets, puffins and Pigeon Guillemot. Standards for Components of British Columbia’s Biodiversity No. 13. Victoria, B.C. Resource Inventory Standards Committee (RISC). 1998. Inventory Methods for Riverine Birds Harlequin Duck, Belted Kingfisher and American Dipper. Standards for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity No. 12, Version 2.0. Victoria, B.C. Ronconi, R.A. and C. Cassady St. Clair. 2002. Management options to reduce boat disturbance on foraging black guillemots (Cepphus grylle) in the Bay of Fundy. Biological Conservation 108: 265–271. Schwemmer, P., B. Mendel, N. Sonntag, V. Dierschke and S. Garthe. 2011. Effects of ship traffic on seabirds in offshore waters: implications for marine conservation and spatial planning. Ecological Applications 21:1851–1860.
Page 53 of 55
(A37906)
SL Ross Environmental Research Ltd. 2007. Synopsis Report – Environmental Oil Spill Risk Assessment for the South Coast of Newfoundland. Edition 1. Transport Canada TP 14740E. http://www.tc.gc.ca/publications/en/tp14740/pdf/hr/tp14740e.pdf Speckman, S.G., J.F. Piatt and A.M. Springer. 2004. Small boats disturb fish-holding Marbled Murrelets. Northwestern Naturalist 85:32–34. Stantec. 2011. Marine Birds: Susceptibility to Oil. Attachment Federal Government IR 2.76 (A21969). Tingley, M.W. 2003. Effects of offshore wind farms on birds: Cuisinarts of the sky or just tilting at windmills? B.A. thesis, Harvard University. Cited in Naikun Application Thomson, D., R.A. Davis, and T. Hillis. 1991. Effects of operational discharges from ships on marine life. Report prepared for the Government Consulting Group and the Canadian Coast Guard, Ottawa, Ontario. 30 p.cited in Naikun Velando, A. and I. Munilla. 2011. Disturbance to a foraging seabird by sea-based tourism: Implications for reserve management in marine protected areas. Biological Conservation 144(3): 1167-1174. Votier, S.C., B.J. Hatchwell, A. Beckerman, R.H. McCleery, F. M. Hunter, J. Pellatt, M. Trinder and T.R. Birkhead. 2005. Oil pollution and climate have wide-scale impacts on seabird demographics. Ecology Letters 8: 1157-1164. Wiens, J.A. 1995. Recovery of Seabirds Following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: An Overview. Pp. 854-893 In: Wells, P.G., J.N. Butler and J.S Hughes Eds.). Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Fate and Effects in Alaskan Waters. STP 1219. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA. Wiese, F.K., G.J. Robertson and A.J. Gaston. 2004. Impacts of chronic marine oil pollution and the murre hunt in Newfoundland on thick-billed murre Uria lomvia populations in the eastern Canadian Arctic. Biological Conservation 116:205-216. Wolf, Shaye. 2007. Petition to list the Ashy Storm-petrel (Oceanodroma homochroa) as a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/birds/ashy_storm-petrel/pdfs/ashy_storm- petrel_petition.pdf
Page 54 of 55
(A37906)
References for Part II Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (Eds) 2007. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001-2005. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature. Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser and M.C.E. McNall. 1990. The Birds of British Columbia, Volume 2 – Non-passerines (Diurnal Birds of Prey through Woodpeckers). Royal British Columbia Museum. Victoria, BC. COSEWIC. 2008. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Band-tailed Pigeon Patagioenas fasciata in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 42 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). COSEWIC 2011. www.cosewic.gc.ca/htmlDocuments/cfb/2011_10_CFB_e.pdf Devenish, C., Diaz Fernandez, D.F., Clay, R.P., Davidson, I., & Yepez Zabala, I. Eds. 2009. Important Bird Areas Americas – Priority sites for biodiversity conservation. Quito, Ecuador: BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 16) Drake, K. and Dudragne, R. unpublished. Testing Autonomous Audio Recorders as a Means for Providing Survey Data for Marsh Birds. Draft report to Prairie Habitat Joint Venture. Duncan, C.D. and Davidson, P. 2011. Shorebirds across the Americas. BirdWatch Canada 57:8- 11. Federation of Alberta Naturalists. 2007. The atlas of breeding birds of Alberta - A second look. Federation of Alberta Naturalists, Edmonton, AB. IUCN. 2011. The IUCN Red List www.iucnredlist.org Kenyon, J., Morgan, K.H., Bentley, M.D., McFarlane Tranquilla, L.A., Moore, K.E. 2009. Atlas of pelagic seabirds off the west coast of Canada and adjacent areas. Technical Report series No. 499. Canadian Wildlife Service. Pacific and Yukon Region, British Columbia. Sanders, T.A., and Jarvis, R.L. 2000. Do Band-tailed Pigeons seek a calcium supplement at mineral sites? The Condor 102:855-863.
Page 55 of 55
(A37906)
Anne Harfenist
Box 2498 Smithers, B.C., Canada V0J 2N0 (250) 847-1849 [email protected]
Education
1991 M.Sc.: Behavioural Ecology at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. NSERC Post-Graduate Scholarship Thesis: Effects of growth rate and parental predation risk on fledging in Rhinoceros Auklets, Cerorhinca monocerata.
1979 Hon. B.Sc.: Zoology at University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Selected Employment History
1999- Biological Consultant, British Columbia present Projects include: Design and management of a five year Leach’s Storm-petrel adult survival study Synthesis of historical data and preparation of a technical report establishing baselines for marine birds in Haida Gwaii Design and implementation of a baseline inventory and nesting habitat assessment of Marbled Murrelets on Haida Gwaii Surveys of marine birds at the mouth of the Skeena River, British Columbia Development of conservation and management proposals for British Columbia seabird colonies Analysis and interpretation of results of a multi-year Cassin’s Auklet research project for presentation at scientific conferences and in peer-reviewed journals Preparation and presentation of background reports for multi-stakeholder land use planning processes Preparation of Identified Wildlife Management Strategy species accounts Evaluation of Land and Resource Management Plan implementation Chair of the Marbled Murrelet Technical Committee of the Pacific Seabird Group
1992- Marine Bird Biologist for Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), British Columbia 1999 Duties include: Design and delivery of marine bird research, monitoring and management programs Development and implementation of strategies to address threats from introduced species Development of conservation and management policies for endangered species Training and supervision of employees and volunteers Chairing the National Marbled Murrelet Recovery Team
1988 - Biological Consultant, British Columbia 1992 Projects included: Evaluation of habitat use by estuarine birds Toxicology studies of marine and estuarine birds Study of abundance and productivity of marine birds in Alaska Preparation of manuscripts for publication
(A37906)
1986- Pesticide Technologist for CWS, Ottawa 1988 Duties of term position included: Preliminary screening of pesticide registration submissions Design of computerized reference system
1983- Biological Consultant, Ottawa 1986 Projects included: Toxicology studies of freshwater birds Studies of reproductive success, diet, behaviour and habitat use by marine birds Preparation of manuscripts for publication
1980- Wildlife Toxicologist for CWS, Ottawa, and Memorial University of Newfoundland 1983 Duties included: Impact assessment of acid precipitation on wildlife, invertebrates and vegetation Impact assessment of oil exploration and development on seabirds Design and implementation of toxicology studies on freshwater birds
Publications
Refereed Publications:
Bertram, D.F., A. Harfenist and A. Hedd. 2009. Nestling diet of Cassin’s Auklets in distinct oceanographic domains of the Northeast Pacific reflect latitudinal temperature dependent variation in the seasonal evaluation of key zooplankton prey populations. Marine Ecology Progress Series 393:199-210.
Bertram, D.F., A. Harfenist and B.D. Smith. 2005. Ocean climate and El Nino impacts on survival of Cassin’s auklets from upwelling and downwelling domains of British Columbia. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62: 2841-2853.
Harfenist, A. 2004. Cassin’s Auklet Ptychoramphus aleuticus. Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife – Accounts V. 2004. BC Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC. 12 pp.
Harfenist, A. 2004. Ancient Murrelet Synthliboramphus antiquus. Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife – Accounts V. 2004. BC Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC. 12 pp.
Harfenist, A., N.A. Sloan and P.M. Bartier. 2002. Living marine legacy of Gwaii Haanas. III: Marine bird baseline and marine bird-related management issues throughout the Haida Gwaii region. Parks Canada Agency Technical Report Series 36: 164 pp.
Bertram, D.F., T. Golumbia, G.K. Davoren, A. Harfenist and J. Brown. 2002. Short visits reveal consistent patterns of interyear and intercolony variation in seabird nestling diet and performance. Can. J. Zool. 80: 2190-2199.
Morbey, Y.E., R.C. Ydenberg, H.A. Knechtel and A. Harfenist. 1999. Parental provisioning, nestling departure decisions and pre-fledging mass recession in Cassin’s Auklets. Anim. Behav. 57: 873-881.
Harfenist, A. and G.W. Kaiser. 1997. Effects of introduced predators on the nesting seabirds of the Queen Charlotte Islands. Pp. 132-136 In: Occasional Paper No. 93. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa.
(A37906)
Vermeer, K., A. Harfenist, G.W. Kaiser and D.N. Nettleship. 1997. The reproductive biology, status, and conservation of seabirds breeding in the Queen Charlotte Islands: a summary. Pp. 58-77 In: Occasional Paper No. 93. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa.
Harfenist, A. 1995. Effects of growth-rate variation on fledging of Rhinoceros Auklets (Cerorhinca monocerata). Auk: 60-66.
Harfenist, A. and R.C. Ydenberg. 1995. Parental provisioning and predation risk in rhinoceros auklets (Cerorhinca monocerata): effects on nestling growth and fledging. Behav. Ecol. 6: 82-86.
Ydenberg, R.C., C.W. Clark and A. Harfenist. 1995. Intraspecific fledging mass variation in the Alcidae, with special reference to the seasonal fledging mass decline. Am. Nat. 145: 412-433.
Harfenist, A. 1994. Effects of introduced rats on nesting seabirds of Haida Gwaii. Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific and Yukon Technical Report Series 218: 52 pp.
Whitehead, P.E., A. Harfenist, J.E. Elliott and R.J. Norstrom. 1992. Levels of polychlorinated dibenzo-p- dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans in waterbirds of Howe Sound, British Columbia. Pp. 229- 238 in Can. Tech. Report Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 1879.
Harfenist, A., A.P. Gilman and K.L. Maus. 1991. The effects of exposure of incubating adult and young Herring Gulls to a simulated No. 2 fuel oil slick. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 19: 902-906.
Butler, R.G., A. Harfenist, F.A. Leighton and D.B. Peakall. 1988. Impact of sub-lethal oil and emulsion exposure on the reproductive success of Leach’s Storm Petrels: short- and long-term effects. J. Appl. Ecol. 25: 125-143.
Blokpoel, H., G.D. Tessier and A. Harfenist. 1987. Distribution during post-breeding dispersal, migration and overwintering of Common Terns colour-marked on the lower Great Lakes. J. Field Ornithol. 58: 206-217.
Sheehan, P., A. Baril, P. Mineau, D.K. Smith , A. Harfenist and W.K. Marshall. 1987. The impact of pesticides on the ecology of prairie nesting ducks. Canadian Wildlife Service, Headquarters Technical Report Series No. 19: 344 pp.
Blokpoel, H. and A. Harfenist. 1986. Comparison of the 1980 and 1984 inventories of Common Terns, Caspian Terns and Double-crested Cormorants in the eastern North Channel, Lake Huron, Ontario, Canada. J. Colonial Waterbirds 9: 61-67.
Selected Non-refereed Reports and Presentations:
Harfenist, A. 2009. Evaluation of the Kalum Land and Resources Management Plan. Unpublished report submitted to the Integrated Land Management Bureau, Ministry of Agriculture and Land, Smithers, B.C.
Harfenist, A. 2008. Evaluation of the Lakes Land and Resources Management Plan. Unpublished report submitted to the Integrated Land Management Bureau, Ministry of Agriculture and Land, Smithers, B.C.
Harfenist, A. and A. Cober. 2006. Baseline radar inventory of Marbled Murrelets on Haida Gwaii/Queen Charlotte Islands, 2004-2005. Unpublished report submitted to South Moresby Forest Replacement Account, Charlotte, B.C.
Harfenist, A., N.A. Sloan and P. Bartier. 2004. Incorporating marine bird distribution and abundance information into marine conservation area management. In.: Making Ecosystem-based Management Work. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Science and Management of Protected (A37906)
Areas. N.W.P. Munro, T.B. Herman, K. Beazley, and P. Dearden (eds). Uppaginated CD-ROM issued by: Science and Management of Protected Areas Association, Wolfville, N.S.
Harfenist, A. 2003. Seabird colony background report for the Haida Gwaii/Queen Charlotte Islands Land Use Plan. Unpublished report submitted to B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Queen Charlotte, B.C.
Harfenist, A., K. MacDowell, T. Golumbia, G. Schultze and Laskeek Bay Conservation Society. 2000. Monitoring and control of raccoons on seabird colonies in Haida Gwaii (Queen Charlotte Islands). Pp. 333-339 In: At risk: proceedings of a conference on the biology and management of species and habitats at risk. L.M. Darling (ed.). B.C. Ministry of Environment, Land and Parks, Victoria, B.C.
Welch, D., F. Whitney, D. Bertram, A. Harfenist and S. Tucker. 1999. Ocean climate change and growth and survival of Pacific salmon and seabirds on the west coast of North America. Presented at: PICES VIII, 12 October 1999, Vladivostock, Russia.
Gaston, A.J. and A. Harfenist. 1998. Timing of breeding in Ancient Murrelets: comparison of east and west coasts of Haida Gwaii, British Columbia. Pacific Seabirds 25: 65-67.
Harfenist, A. 1994. Marbled Murrelets - Why the concern?. Marshnotes Fall 1994: 6-7.
(A37906)
Peter Davidson - Curriculum Vitae November 2011
Education
B.Sc. Ecology - University of East Anglia, U.K. (1991) M.Sc. Ecology - University of East Anglia, U.K. (2004)
Current Position: British Columbia Program Manager, Bird Studies Canada (2006-present)
Primary Responsibilities: ─ design, development, management and delivery of all regional (British Columbian) and some national projects ─ senior responsibility for fund-raising and reporting for all regional programs in British Columbia and some national programs ─ hiring and supervising British Columbia program staff, overseeing annual operating plans ─ ensuring that data, results and recommendations from BSC's monitoring and research are used to inform conservation planning and policy ─ building partnerships with organisations possessing complementary strengths, to ensure BSC is as effective at achieving its mandate as possible; ─ science-outreach through publication of popular articles and scientific papers in peer- reviewed journals; ─ implementing BSC's national strategic plan in British Columbia, including building scientific capacity and growing membership; ─ representing BSC on regional, national and international working groups for bird conservation. Key Accomplishments • Developed a program with an annual budget of ~$60,000 for delivery of two projects to one comprising >10 regional, national and international projects staffed and supported by >10 highly motivated and committed individuals, >2,500 volunteers, and an annual operating budget of ~$0.5 million, with a British Columbian annual membership growth of ~12% • Strengthened BSC's scientific credibility by publishing analyses of long-term datasets in technical reports and peer-reviewed journals, assisting development of innovative ways to disseminate large-scale datasets to multiple users (e.g. through www.naturecounts.ca), and gaining industrial partner status with the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council, then establishing one post-doctoral fellow under NSERC’s IRDF program • Regular integration of data and recommendations from ongoing monitoring and research into provincial and federal government bird and habitat management processes (including BC’s Conservation Framework and three Joint Ventures) • Led the development and delivery of the British Columbia Breeding Bird Atlas, a major provincial partnership bringing together >50 government, NGO, industry groups and foundations, and >1,200 grass roots volunteers, to electronically map the distribution and abundance of breeding birds throughout British Columbia www.birdatlas.bc.ca. • Develop and submit ~15 funding proposals annually ($2,500-$80,000), with ~80% success • Development and implementation of an ongoing 3-year initiative to integrate bird data with forest certification standards and best forest management practices • Designed surveys and delivered a key report on status and distribution of marine birds and mammals to inform and support the designation of a National Marine Conservation Area (A37906)
• Collaborating with U.S. and Mexican organisations to establish a marine Important Bird Area network in the NE Pacific, and with U.S., Central and South American groups (spanning ten nations) to establish a range-wide long-term conservation science program for Pacific Flyway shorebird populations • Deliver 15-20 presentations per year to a diverse range of audiences (general public, post- grad and under-grad university classes, government agencies, NGOs, corporate sector, Boards of other organizations) Board/Committee Roles: ─ Sustainable Forestry Initiative Resources Committee (North America) (2010 – present) ─ Pacific Coast Joint Venture Technical Committee (BC & Washington) (2009 – present) ─ Canadian Important Bird Areas National Technical Committee (Canada) (2011) ─ North American Ornithological Conference V (Vancouver 2012) Steering and Organising Committees (representing Bird Studies Canada as one of 10 host organisations), including Chairing Field Trips Committee (2010 to present) ─ Pacific Flyway Shorebird Survey Steering Committee (spanning Alaska – Ecuador) (2011) ─ British Columbia Breeding Bird Atlas (Steering and Technical Committees) (2008 - present) ─ World Seabird Conference (2010) Organising Committee & Media point person ─ Young Naturalists Club of British Columbia Board of Directors (2006-2010) – led writing that organisation’s strategic plan.
Previous Positions and Key Achievements
Consultant (based in Viet Nam; 2003-2005) • Co-developed an ecosystem profile and five-year investment strategy for the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF, administered by Conservation International) to invest in the Indo-Burma Hotspot, which guided disbursement of $5.9 million to >40 projects in this region of South-East Asia, for the period 2008-2013. • Compiled and authored the first status review of all known biodiversity in the Tonle Sap UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve for the UNDPGEF, published in 2006. • Conducted and published a study of raptor migration at Tam Dao National Park (Viet Nam) to inform management planning, and investigate the potential for tourism development. • Supervised Bengal Florican population and habitat monitoring in Cambodia for the Wildlife Conservation Society (see below). • Edited the Directory of Important Bird Areas in Thailand for BirdLife International, published in 2006. • Edited Vietnam's National Action Plan to Strengthen the Control of Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora to 2010 for TRAFFIC South-East Asia; the Action Plan is a key delivery mechanism for CITES in Viet Nam, and was adopted by the government of Viet Nam in 2004. • Conducted a review of regulatory procedures for commercial captive rearing of crocodiles in Cambodia for TRAFFIC South-East Asia and the IUCN Crocodile Specialist Group.
Conservation Biologist - Wildlife Conservation Society, Cambodia (2000-2003) • Established a monitoring program for the Bengal Florican Houbaropsis bengalensis in the Tonle Sap floodplain to investigate the importance of a traditional rice agro-ecosystem to maintenance of its breeding habitat, and establish seasonal movements and non-breeding habitat associations, laying the foundation for a collaborative research program of the Universities of Cambridge and East Anglia, the Wildlife Conservation Society and the Cambodian government, and BirdLife International, which in turn has led to the (A37906)
establishment of a suite of protected areas under a Prime Ministerial Decree, and three completed PhDs to-date. • Conducted baseline wildlife and habitat surveys and trained Cambodian government staff in a variety of field survey and monitoring techniques, in four ecosystems of major international significance to biodiversity. • Assisted the Cambodian government in gazetting two new protected areas identified by our surveys, and completed three technical reports documenting the findings of those surveys. • Discovered and described one bird species new to science, and previously unknown populations of several Critically Endangered and Endangered birds, including the largest remnant Giant Ibis and Bengal Florican populations in the world. • Published several papers and popular articles on ornithology, bird and mammal conservation, and since then have authored a guide to Birds of Cambodia, Laos and Viet Nam. • Mentored several Khmer government staff in the study of birds and their habitats, including one 2010 nominee for the Whitley Award for exceptional contributions to conservation. • Assisted in drafting the Cambodian Wildlife Law. • Conducted the first marine mammal surveys in Cambodian waters in the Gulf of Thailand and published one paper documenting the findings, and recommending conservation actions. • Conducted environmental impact assessments for smaller infrastructure development projects along the Mekong River. • Conducted wet season aerial surveys for large waterbirds across the entire country of Cambodia, in partnership with the International Crane Foundation.
Asia Red Data Book Officer, BirdLife International, UK (1999) • Compiled detailed species accounts for the Asia Red Data Book (Birds), and for Threatened Birds of the World for South Asian, South-East Asian, Indonesian and Philippine species; applied and assigned IUCN Red List categories and criteria to all candidate species.
Wildlife Biologist, Wildlife Conservation Soceity, Lao PDR (1996-1999) • Coordinated and conducted baseline wildlife and habitat surveys, and interview surveys with local villagers and market vendors, for larger mammals, bats, birds, reptiles and amphibians in and around nine protected areas in Lao PDR (chiefly in evergreen and deciduous forests, and wetlands), most of which had never previously been surveyed for wildlife. • Authored five technical reports documenting the findings of these surveys and delivered conservation recommendations to the Lao government, in consultation with government counterparts. • Co-authored a comprehensive review of the status and distribution of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians in Lao PDR, published by the World Conservation Union (IUCN). • Discovered a key population of the Indochinese subspecies of Tiger in north-east Lao PDR, which has since become the focus of a major conservation effort to save this subspecies from extinction. • Discovered, and described with colleagues, a new bird species to science, and published other papers and popular articles on ornithology and bird conservation in Lao PDR. • Trained 14 central, provincial and district government staff in a variety of field identification and survey techniques, including the placement of remote heat sensitive cameras. (A37906)
• Mentored one Lao forestry official who went on to complete a PhD on the wild cat population in the region mentioned above supporting the Tigers. • Led an eco-regional review of bird conservation priorities in Lao PDR, Cambodia and Vietnam for WWF-Indochina. • Collaborated with other international organisations and government agencies to conduct field work, share results and discuss implications.
Field Guide Researcher, British Museum of Natural History, Tring, Aug - Nov 1996, UK. Proofed species identification texts and plates, carefully comparing them with skins at the British Museum of Natural History, Tring, and all available relevant literature for A Field Guide to the Birds of the Indian Subcontinent authored by Richard Grimmett, Carol and Tim Inskipp, published by Christopher Helm Ltd. Sales and Distribution Assistant, WildSounds Ltd., Aug - Nov 1996, UK. Telesales and distribution assistant for a wildlife vocalisation and sound recording equipment mail order service. Research assistant, Uppsala University, May - July 1996, Sweden. Conducted genetic research on Collared Flycatcher Ficedula albicollis populations on Gotland Island, including trapping and ringing adults and young, blood sampling, conducting feeding observations and clutch-swap experiments. Ornithological Consultant, Himalayan Jungle Project and BirdLife International Dec 1995 - Mar 1996, Pakistan. Devised and implemented studies on the winter distribution and habitat preferences of Western Tragopan Tragopan melanocephalus and other pheasants in Palas Valley. Communications Assistant, Rare Bird Alert Pagers June 1992 - Dec 1995, UK. This position required a broad range of skills including: a detailed knowledge of the status and identification of all bird species occurring in the UK and Ireland; compiling a database of these species occurrence; liaising with reserve wardens and private landowners; daily communications with subscribers to the service and Vodapage Ltd relating to a range of technical issues, sales and advertising. Bird Census Coordinator, Ornithological Society of the Middle East, March - May 1993, Yemen. Coordinated and wrote-up habitat and bird community surveys on an expedition to southern Yemen and Socotra Island. Cetacean Surveyor and Fisheries Monitor Cornwall Wildlife Trust/Cornwall Fish Producers' Organisation Sept 1992 - July 1993, U.K. Responsibilities included Conducted cetacean transects and monitored fishing activity and cetacean by-catch to assess the impact of offshore gill-netters on cetacean populations on the Celtic Shelf. University of East Anglia Expedition Leader, Aug- Nov 1991, Indonesia. Conducted quantitative surveys of the avifauna of Taliabu concentrating on endemic and restricted-range birds and the endangered suid Babirusa Babyrousa babyrussa. The expedition won the 1991 British Petroleum plc - sponsored ICBP/FFPS Conservation Expeditions award (threatened species category). Research assistant, University of East Anglia July - October 1990, U.K. Assisted an RSPB funded study of the management of coastal lagoons for breeding Avocets Recurvirostra avosetta. (A37906)
Select Publications
Duncan, C. and Davidson, P. 2011. Shorebirds across the Americas. BirdWatch Canada 57: 8-11. Butler, R.W., Davidson, P. and Golumbia, T. 2011. The Gulf Islands – Gateway to the Salish Sea. BirdWatch Canada 55: 4-7. Davidson, P. and Stewart, B. 2011. BSC Partnerships support International Year of the Forests. BirdWatch Canada 55: 16-17. Davidson, P., Butler, R.W., Couturier, A., Marquez, S., and Lepage, D. 2010. Status and distribution of marine birds and mammals in the Southern Gulf Islands, British Columbia. Bird Studies Canada and Pacific Wildlife Foundation report to Parks Canada. Davidson, P. and Barry, K. 2010. Salish Sea Sentinels. BirdWatch Canada 51: 20-21. Alstrom, P., Davidson, P., Duckworth, J.W., Eames, J.C., Le Trong Trai, Nguyen Cu, Olsson, U., Robson, C.R. & Timmins, R.J. 2010. Description of a new species of Phylloscopus warbler from Vietnam and Laos. Ibis 152: 145-168. Davidson, P. 2009. A Photographic Guide to the birds of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. London: New Holland. 144pp. Hamel, N.J., A.E. Burger, K. Charleton, P. Davidson, S. Lee, D.F. Bertram, and J.K. Parrish. 2009. Bycatch and beached birds: Assessing mortality impacts in coastal net fisheries using marine bird strandings. Marine Ornithology 37 (1): 41-60. O’Hara, P., P. Davidson, and A.E. Burger. 2009. Aerial surveillance and oil spill impacts based on beached bird survey data collected in Southern British Columbia. Marine Ornithology 37 (1): 61-65. Gray, T.N.E., Collar, N.J., Davidson, P.J.A., Dolman, P.M., Evans, T.D., Fox, H.N., Hong Chamnan, Ro Borey, Seng Kimhout & van Zalinge, R. 2009. Distribution, status & conservation of Bengal Florican Houbaropsis bengalensis in Cambodia. Bird Conservation International 19: 1-14. Davidson, P., Smith, P., Wilson, S. and Martin, K. 2009. Poleward bound: arctic birds and their habitats. BirdWatch Canada 45: 4-7. Barry, K., Davidson, P., O’Hara, P. and Morgan, K. 2009. Understanding Seabird Mortality. BirdWatch Canada 48: 20-21. Badzinski, S.S., Cannings, R.J., Armenta, T.E., Komaromi, J. & Davidson, P.J.A. 2008. Monitoring coastal bird populations in B.C.: the first five years of the Coastal Waterbird Survey (1999-2004). British Columbia Birds 17: 1-36. Davidson, P., Wilson, S., Bears, H., Camfield, A. and Martin, K. 2008. Birds in High Places. BirdWatch Canada 41: 4-7. Beasley, I.L. and Davidson, P.J.A. 2007. Conservation Status of Marine Mammals in Cambodian Waters, Including Seven New Cetacean Records of Occurrence. Aquatic Mammals 33: 368-379. Davidson, P., Martin, K and Easton, W. 2007. Beetlemania in British Columbia. BirdWatch Canada 39: 8- 11. Tordoff, A.W., M.C. Balzer, P. Davidson, J. Fellowes, Ha Quy Quynh, Tran Thanh Tung. 2007. Ecosystem Profile and Strategy for Investment: Indo-Burma Biodiversity Hotspot, Indochina Region. Washington, DC: Conservation International. Davidson, P. 2006. Birds over troubled waters: perils facing Pacific birds. BirdWatch Canada 35: 4-9. Badzinski, S.S., Cannings, R.J., Armenta, T.E., Komaromi, J. & Davidson, P.J.A. 2006. The British Columbia Coastal Waterbird Survey: an evaluation of survey power and species trends after five years of monitoring. Canadian Wildlife Service Technical Report Series no. 455. Davidson, P. 2006. The Biodiversity of the Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve: 2005 status review. UNDP-GEF and Wildlife Conservation Society Cambodia Program. 65pp. Davidson, P., Clements, T. & Tan Setha. 2005. Where to see Giant Ibis and White-shouldered Ibis: Northern Plains of Cambodia. Birding Asia 4: 24-30. Duckworth, J. W., Poole, C.M., Round, P. D., Timmins, R. J., Davidson, P. and Wells, D.R. 2004. Major vulture Gyps and Sarcogyps declines in South-East Asia during the twentieth century and inferences on causation. Bird Conservation International. Davidson, P. 2003. Endangered partridge discovered in Cambodia. Bulletin of the Oriental Bird Club 37: 61 (A37906)
Seng Kim Hout, Pech Bunnat, Poole, C.M., Tordoff, A.W., Davidson, P. and Delattre, E. 2003. Directory of Important Bird Areas in Cambodia: key sites for conservation. Phnom Penh: Department of Forestry and Wildlife, Department of Nature Conservation and Protection, BirdLife International in Indochina and the Wildlife Conservation Society Cambodia Program. Davidson, P. and Reid, A. 2002. Cetacean observations during a seismic survey in the Faroe-Shetland Channel, August-September 2000. ORCA 2: 99-115. Duckworth, J. W., Davidson, P., Evans, T. D., Round, P. D. & Timmins, R. J. 2002. Bird records from North Laos, principally the upper Lao/Thai Mekong and Xiangkhouang Province, in 1998-2000. Forktail 18: 11-44. Davidson, P. 2001. Mekong Wagtail Motacilla samvaesnae: the great river’s only known avian endemic. Bull. Oriental Bird Club 34: 56-59. Davidson, P., Poole, C.M. and Walston, J. 2001. Cambodia’s Northern Plains: heartland of the Giant Ibis. World Birdwatch 23 (4): 15-19. Duckworth, J.W., Alström, P., Davidson, P., Evans, T.D., Poole, C.P., Tan Setha and Timmins, R.J. 2001. A new species of wagtail from the lower Mekong basin. Bull. British Ornithologists’ Club 121(3): 152- 182. Sheldon, B.C., Davidson, P. & Lindgren, G. 1999. Mate replacement in experimentally widowed collared flycatchers: determinants and outcomes. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 46: 141-148. Raja, N., Davidson, P., Bean, N.J., Drijvers, R., Showler, D.A., Barker, C. 1999. The birds of Palas, North West Frontier Province, Pakistan. Forktail 15: 77-86. Shirihai, H., Andrews, I.J., Kirwan, G.M. and Davidson, P. 1999. A checklist of the birds of Israel and Jordan. Sandgrouse 21 (1): 36-44. Stuart, B.L. and Davidson, P. 1999. Use of bomb crater ponds by frogs in Laos. Herpetological Review 30 (2):72-73. Davidson, P. and Showler, D.A. 1999. Observations of Jerdon's Babbler Chrysomma altirostre and Rufous- vented Prinia Prinia burnesii in Punjab and North West Frontier Provinces, Pakistan. Forktail 15: 67- 76. Barker, C., Bean, N., Davidson, P., Drijvers, R. and Showler, D.A 1999. Some recent records of birds around Islamabad, Pakistan. Forktail 15: 96-97. Kirwan, G.M., Martins, R.P., Eken, G. and Davidson, P. 1999. A checklist of the birds of Turkey. Sandgrouse Supplement (1999) 1:1-32. Duckworth, J.W., Davidson, P. and Timmins, R.J. 1999. Birds (pp.69-159) in Duckworth, J. W., Salter, R. E. and Khounboline, K. (compilers) Wildlife in Lao PDR: 1999 Status Report. Vientiane: IUCN-The World Conservation Union/Wildlife Conservation Society/Centre for Protected Areas and Watershed Management. Duckworth, J.W., Timmins, R.J., Khounboline, K., Salter, R. and Davidson, P. 1999. Large Mammals (pp.161-220) in Duckworth, J. W., Salter, R. E. and Khounboline, K. (compilers) Wildlife in Lao PDR: 1999 Status Report. Vientiane: IUCN-The World Conservation Union/Wildlife Conservation Society/Centre for Protected Areas and Watershed Management.
(A37906)
Northern Gateway Pipeline Project Joint Review Panel A Submission regarding risks to SARA Listed Woodland Caribou The Northern Gateway Pipeline Project
Brian Churchill, M.SC.; R. P. Bio. 128
For Nature Canada and BC Nature
December 2011 (A37906) A Submission regarding risks to SARA Listed Woodland Caribou The Northern Gateway Pipeline Project
Table of Contents Executive Summary ...... 2 Introduction ...... 3 Risk Factors ...... 3 Northern Gateway Pipeline Project Assessment ...... 4 Habitat Assessment ...... 5 Mortality Factors ...... 6 Significance ...... 6 Mitigation ...... 7 Discussion...... 8 Conclusions ...... 10 References ...... 10 Resume ...... 12
©Chillborne Environmental* a division of Chillborne Holdings Ltd. 2011 Page 1 of 15
(A37906) A Submission regarding risks to SARA Listed Woodland Caribou The Northern Gateway Pipeline Project
Executive Summary 1. The Gateway Application appropriately identifies Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus-caribou) as a key indicator species for wildlife. These Caribou (Southern Mountain Population) are listed on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act and similar categories in British Columbia (Red, threatened) and Alberta (AR, at Risk). The Northern Gateway Pipeline Project application identifies that some 214 kilometres of the proposed pipeline Right of Way (RoW) are intended to cross Sensitive areas for Woodland Caribou. Further, the environmental and socio-economic assessment (ESA) identifies 24,465 hectares of the Project Effects Assessment Area (PEAA) to be overlapping caribou range. Two of the five caribou populations that occur in this area are identified as declining; another two are stable, and one is stable and increasing.
2. The two significant risk factors are increased mortality and disturbance (fragmentation) of the habitat of Woodland Caribou. These factors are cumulative and thus the risks of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline Project impacts must be assessed in the long term and cumulatively in context with other anthropogenic caused impacts. Contributions to cumulative risks are to be considered under the terms of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
3. The Northern Gateway Pipeline Project Environmental Assessment has incorrectly identified caribou mortality in winter as the determining factor for population viability, when recent literature clearly document that summer mortality is prevalent. The consequence of this error is that a finding of insignificant impacts on caribou from the pipeline proposal is based on assessment of impacts on winter habitat is also in error.
4. Without the assessment and modeling of linear density changes and the role of corridors to patch environments in the summer season, the proponent has underestimated the risk of increased predation on caribou populations that are currently recognised as vulnerable. A conclusion of non-significance is therefore not supportable.
5. The proponent also implies that it will achieve marked reductions in impacts through its mitigation actions. While these actions are certainly best management practices, they are not specific, quantified nor measurable for results.
6. The ESA substantiates that the impacts of this major project will not be positive for these caribou herds. It is only the level and significance of the degradation that is under discussion.
©Chillborne Environmental* a division of Chillborne Holdings Ltd. 2011 Page 2 of 15
(A37906) A Submission regarding risks to SARA Listed Woodland Caribou The Northern Gateway Pipeline Project
7. It is our contention that a reasonable expectation would be that the Northern Gateway Pipeline project will exacerbate the current decline in the Little Smokey, Narraway, Hart and Telkwa Caribou herds through cumulative effects and increased mortality. The pipeline and the residual impacts of the pipeline will continue to provide detrimental effects for the life of the pipeline and an extended period after and likely contribute to the extinction of two or more of these herds. The ESA has not disproved that proposition.
Introduction 8. The Gateway Application appropriately identifies Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus-caribou) as a key indicator species for wildlife (Gateway Application, V 6A Environmental and Socio- economic Assessment –Pipelines and Tank Terminal, Section 9 Wildlife; Table 9a). It identifies that these Caribou (Southern Rocky Mountains Ecotype) are listed on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act and similar categories in British Columbia (Red, threatened) and Alberta (AR, at Risk).
9. The Species at Risk Act states “threatened species” means a wildlife species that is likely to become an endangered species if nothing is done to reverse the factors leading to its extirpation or extinction. It is intuitive that “For a threatened species, the objective is to improve environmental conditions for the species to halt and reverse current population declines. Further destruction of core habitat is inconsistent with recovering these threatened caribou, and rather, efforts to improve the habitat condition for these animals is what is required to meet recovery objectives” (Seip 2011).
10. The Northern Gateway Pipeline Project application identifies that some 214 kilometres of the proposed pipeline RoW is identified as crossing Sensitive Areas for Woodland Caribou. (pg. 9-9). Further, the ESA identifies 24,465 hectares of the PEAA as overlapping caribou range. (Table 9- 39)
11. The conservation status of Woodland Caribou is identified as threatened and two of the five populations are documented as declining, another two are currently stable and one is stable and increasing (Table 9-38).
12. This submission reviews the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project‘s assertion that the impact of the project to caribou risk is insignificant, based on assessment of potential winter range disturbance and restoration.
Risk Factors
13. Woodland Caribou (Southern Rocky Mountain and Boreal Ecotypes) are listed as threatened as a result of continuing loss of occupied range and general declines in overall numbers. In the past
©Chillborne Environmental* a division of Chillborne Holdings Ltd. 2011 Page 3 of 15
(A37906) A Submission regarding risks to SARA Listed Woodland Caribou The Northern Gateway Pipeline Project
two decades much effort has been made to identify the causes. Currently most accepted rationale is summarized in an appendix to the Forest Practices Board of British Columbia report on cumulative effects (FPB/SR/39) which states “Natural and anthropogenic disturbance have been shown to influence caribou distribution and movement (Smith et al. 2000, Dyer et al. 2002), and development activities have been associated with increased mortality of woodland caribou (Darby & Duquette 1986, Cumming & Beange 1993, James & Stuart-Smith 2000, Smith 2004).” (Forest Practices Board March 2011).
14. While some will argue that this relationship has not been proven, science accepts that a proposition is likely when it is unable to be disproven. The same Forest Practices Board Report, looking at the role of forest management in cumulative effects, concludes “Given research constraints and well-documented links between caribou distribution, population demographics and disturbance, the lack of an established causal relationship between population declines and disturbance of woodland caribou does not provide sufficient evidence that such a relationship is nonexistent (Seip 1998, Dzuz 2001, Mahoney & Schaefer 2002)”. (Forest Practices Board March 2011)
15. The two significant risk factors are increased mortality and disturbance (fragmentation) of the habitat of woodland caribou. These factors are cumulative and thus the risks of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline Project impacts must be assessed in the long term and cumulatively in context with other anthropogenic caused impacts. Contributions to cumulative risks are to be considered under the terms of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
16. This submission will identify that we believe the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project Environmental Assessment has incorrectly identified caribou mortality in winter as the determining factor for population viability, when recent literature clearly shows that summer mortality is prevalent. The consequence of this error is that a finding of insignificant impacts on caribou from the pipeline proposal that is based on assessment of impacts on winter habitat is also in error. An assessment of the impacts of the pipeline proposal on the much larger amount of summer range is very likely to show a significant risk to the viability of four of the five caribou populations; with a special risk of greatly increasing the risk to the Hart population due to the fragmentation of the Roadless area between km 588 and 615 of the proposed route.
Northern Gateway Pipeline Project Assessment
©Chillborne Environmental* a division of Chillborne Holdings Ltd. 2011 Page 4 of 15
(A37906) A Submission regarding risks to SARA Listed Woodland Caribou The Northern Gateway Pipeline Project
Habitat Assessment 17. Section 9.2.7 of the ESA identifies that “an effect is significant when a resource undergoes an unacceptable change or reaches and unacceptable level…or….. when it passes a key threshold…..e.g. the viability of a population….. an effect is considered not significant when the project is not expected to result in an effect on the long term viability of a wildlife population (our emphasis)….it is considered significant when there is a moderate to high probability that the project may result in an effect on the long term viability of that same population” The question thus becomes whether the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project will have an impact on the long term viability of the caribou populations.
18. Section 9.5.24 states “Three caribou ecotypes are distinguished along the PEAA based on seasonal migration patterns and habitat use.” However “Predation is recognized as an important limiting factor (our emphasis (pg. 9-224) “. While the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project accepts that predation is an important limiting factor, it incorrectly identifies predation as important in winter. Wittmer et al (2008) clearly identify for these particular caribou populations “caribou more likely to die during calving and summer seasons (pg. 412)”.
19. Section 9.5.24 states “Habitat in early and late winter, which has been selected as the critical season for caribou for this assessment “(our emphasis)…. “Early and late winter habitat was the focus of assessment for habitat change” (Northern Gateway Response to BC Nature & Nature Canada IR 1) even though it is the changes in summer habitat that are manifested in the increased predation and declines in caribou populations.
20. When questioned on this approach the proponent responded “Early and late winter habitat was the focus of assessment for habitat change, not mortality risk. Early and late winter habitats are considered to be a limiting life requisite for caribou, and are supported by the literature.” (Northern Gateway Response to BC Nature & Nature Canada IR 1-A30928); an entirely true, but misleading response. Of course caribou cannot exist without adequate winter habitats and the proponent has rightly utilized linear density to characterize their proportion of impact on these habitats “The Application (Volume 6A, Section 9.4.3.2) states that linear feature density was identified as a suitable predictor of mortality risk for a number of species, including caribou. Linear feature density is a commonly-used metric for quantifying and modeling the effect of development on large mammals such as caribou “(Northern Gateway Response to BC Nature & Nature Canada IR 1), however it is more important for summer habitats than winter habitats.
21. What the proponent has apparently failed to acknowledge is that caribou with an adequate supply of good winter range can face declines and even extinction from the consequences of predation, primarily in summer. Without the assessment and modeling of linear density changes and the role of corridors in and to summer environments, the proponent has
©Chillborne Environmental* a division of Chillborne Holdings Ltd. 2011 Page 5 of 15
(A37906) A Submission regarding risks to SARA Listed Woodland Caribou The Northern Gateway Pipeline Project
underestimated the increased risk of increased predation on caribou populations that are currently recognised as vulnerable. This severely underestimates the risk to caribou populations created by this project proposal.
Mortality Factors
22. When requested to “Rationalize the finding of no significance to the increased mortality factors for threatened woodland caribou” (BC Nature & Nature Canada IR 1), the proponent responded; “Early and late winter habitats are not appropriate measurable parameters for mortality risk; as indicated in the Application (Volume 6A, Section 9.4.3.2) linear feature density was chosen as the measurable parameter for mortality risk” (Northern Gateway Response to BC Nature & Nature Canada IR 1). We Concur.
23. However, linear feature density and related issues of corridors to patch habitats, such as isolated mountaintop features, were not assessed for the habitats utilized in the seasons of mortality, calving and summer. Consequently, the risk of predation mortality is, for the critical part, not assessed. A conclusion of non-significance is therefore not supportable; as this model, based on inaccurate assumptions, is incorrect.
24. Further, The ESA identifies that “Corrective measures to reverse the decline of caribou must involve mitigating predation either by managing early seral forest conditions, roads and linear corridors, non-caribou ungulates and predators, or a combination of these…… Although this supposition is not new, the importance of non-caribou ungulates and the success of predation mitigation techniques remain largely untested and unknown. Therefore, the value of managing predation risk is circumstantial and anecdotal“ (Section 9.6.5.2., pg. 9-195). We believe that this statement is unfounded and contrary to other findings () and the word anecdotal is misleading, not reflecting the considerable caribou science that has been undertaken in the last decade (Wittmer et al 2008 , Forest Practices Board 2011).
Significance
25. When questioned on the finding of significance the proponent responded: “The approach to significance determination for wildlife is described in the Application (Volume 6A, Section 9.2.7). In brief, an effect is significant when a resource undergoes an unacceptable change or reaches an unacceptable change or reaches an unacceptable level.
26. Northern Gateway accepts that ultimately it is the role of the responsible authority, that is, the government authority charged with making a decision about whether a project is in the
©Chillborne Environmental* a division of Chillborne Holdings Ltd. 2011 Page 6 of 15
(A37906) A Submission regarding risks to SARA Listed Woodland Caribou The Northern Gateway Pipeline Project
public interest, to determine the significance of an environmental effect. The ESA includes analyses intended to aid regulators and support their decision-making process. The determination of significance is most straightforward when clear thresholds separate minor and major effects. However, accepted thresholds are less clear for most effects on wildlife in general, and even less so, for individual species and most population units.
27. For this assessment, an effect is considered not significant when the Project is not expected to result in an effect on the long-term viability of a wildlife population (e.g., a subpopulation, herd or management unit, as appropriate). It is considered significant when there is a moderate to high probability that the Project may result in an effect on the long-term viability of that same population.
28. The end goal of the mitigation strategies that Northern Gateway has committed to for the management of Project effects on woodland caribou were applied to the assessment of all five caribou herds and the resulting characterization of Project effects and the determination of significance of these effects. As outlined above, the long term viability of caribou was the criteria used to define significance, and Project effects were measured comparably against the approach taken by the Species at Risk Act (“SARA”) for a threatened species, specifically to improve environmental conditions for the species to halt and reverse current population declines (our emphasis). The approach taken by Northern Gateway is in alignment with the intent of recovery strategies being examined under SARA.” (Northern Gateway Response to BC Nature & Nature Canada IR 1)
29. There is no disagreement with these statements except the statement that “project effects were measured comparatively against the approach taken by the Species at Risk Act (“SARA”) for a threatened species, specifically to improve environmental conditions for the species to halt and reverse current population declines”. There is nothing in the ESA to show that the project was assessed to halt and reverse population declines, in fact the ESA shows negative effects but identifies them as not significant. However, as already identified, the risks of increased predation from impacts on summer habitat are likely to be very significant and are not utilized in the determination of significance. Additionally the proponent attributes considerable weight to the application of actions which mitigate impacts. Again there is no disagreement with the mitigation actions as appropriate, although they appear to be best management actions rather than a mitigation program; however, the significance of these actions in reducing the long term impacts of the project on the viability of caribou populations is not measurable and of concern.
Mitigation 30. We (BC Nature and Nature Canada IR1) asked the proponent to:
©Chillborne Environmental* a division of Chillborne Holdings Ltd. 2011 Page 7 of 15
(A37906) A Submission regarding risks to SARA Listed Woodland Caribou The Northern Gateway Pipeline Project
“Identify if increases in linear feature density can lead to increased caribou mortality without human access.
Identify the time frame to decreased mortality risks from both operations decommissioning (i.e. reversibility -Table 9-78) if mortality is increased by linear features without human access?”
31. The proponent has responded with: ‘Mortality risk at the operations and decommissioning phases is characterized as long term, meaning more than 10 years, but not more than 30 years, beyond decommissioning. However, measures to reduce mortality risk will be ongoing through all Project phases, and thus decreases in mortality risk will be realized on an ongoing basis, rather than entirely during the decommissioning phase. For example, temporary access roads used for construction will be decommissioned early in the operations phase. Another measure to reduce mortality risk along linear features in the absence of human activity will be to reduce line of sight for predators (see Table 9-78). Line of sight reduction is considered highly effective [Caribou Landscape Management Association (CLMA) and Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC). 2007. Audit of operating practices and mitigation measures employed within woodland caribou ranges. Unpublished report prepared for CLMA and FPAC, Peace River, AB.], and may include the use of vegetation screening (i.e., active-replanting or natural regeneration), rollback or berms, and bends in the RoW. Line of sight measures will be implemented early in the operations phase. Further to reducing the time frame of mortality risk, Northern Gateway has committed to all mitigation measures presented in Volume 7A, including development of an Access Management Plan prior to commencement of construction.“
32. The proponent, while recognising the mortality risk is long term, arbitrarily indicates the term is less than 30 years, with no data to substantiate. The life of the pipeline and the time it takes to re-establish a forest is clearly much longer than 30 years and beyond the time when declining caribou populations will have gone extinct. The proponent also implies that it will achieve marked reductions in impacts through its mitigation actions. While these actions are certainly best management practices they are not specific, quantified nor assessable for results.
Discussion
33. Caribou habitat is a spatial entity, somewhat uniformly featureless with no easily definable travel routes. Linear corridors, by the cutting down of trees and the disturbance of the soil to change the vegetation to an early seral state (grasses and shrubs), fragment the spatial entity that is caribou habitat. This fragmentation is only “reversed” when the forest grows back to the height of the adjoining forest canopy and the trails and travel routes disappear into the trackless
©Chillborne Environmental* a division of Chillborne Holdings Ltd. 2011 Page 8 of 15
(A37906) A Submission regarding risks to SARA Listed Woodland Caribou The Northern Gateway Pipeline Project
whole. In the northern forests of Canada this process takes many decades from the time of disturbance.
34. In pipeline projects these disturbances, by the objectives of a pipeline going from one place to another, necessarily bisect the caribou landscape into fragments, at least two but usually many more, as the pipeline is in combination with periodic access points, utility corridors and other resource development features. Linear disturbances become the travel routes and corridors for predators.
35. Caribou exist by avoiding predation on this spatial scale, they are unpredictable in their utilization of their habitat and so provide no reliable food source to sustain predator populations. The fragmentation of their habitat provides travel corridors for predators, these corridors dramatically increase the potential for the paths of caribou and predators to intercept and additionally allow predators (wolves in particular) to increase their travel range into caribou habitat from other habitat where they have a more predictable prey base. Once fragmented, caribou habitat will stay that way for several decades, even with the intervention of accelerating succession by the planting of trees.
36. Disturbances from this pipeline project will functionally fragment caribou habitat, with the fragmentation lasting for at least three decades from initial disturbance and longer, if maintained for the use and functioning of the pipeline. These impacts last for several decades after abandonment. These are significant, long term negative impacts by any assessment consideration.
37. The Proposal, as submitted, is so conceptual and lacking in specifics that it is not possible to accurately quantify the large number of access routes, utility corridors etc. that determine the actual footprint, nor to accurately quantify the fragmentation and loss of use of caribou habitat. The assessment of significance utilized in this ESA relies on the quantitative assessment of linear disturbance and the efficacy of “mitigation” proposals. We question the quantitative assessment, as it is based erroneously on winter habitat when it should have included summer habitat.
38. Mitigation is defined as to lessen in force or intensity, not eliminate. We see the proponent’s proposed mitigation simply to be expected best management practices already implemented in similar pipeline projects. These proposed “mitigation” actions are merely qualitative mitigation strategies that would not eliminate the significant long term consequences this project would have on five caribou populations.
©Chillborne Environmental* a division of Chillborne Holdings Ltd. 2011 Page 9 of 15
(A37906) A Submission regarding risks to SARA Listed Woodland Caribou The Northern Gateway Pipeline Project
Conclusions
39. The intent of this submission is to assist the Panel. The Panel must ultimately judge the risk that the project is a significant cumulative increment of risk for the Little Smokey, Narraway, Hart and Telkwa Caribou herds whose habitat the pipeline corridor bisects. These caribou populations have been recognised by the Species at Risk Act of Canada as threatened and vulnerable.
40. The ESA substantiates that the impacts of this major project will not be positive for these caribou herds. It is only the level and significance of the degradation that is under discussion.
41. It is our contention that a reasonable expectation would be that the Northern Gateway Pipeline project will exacerbate the current decline in the Little Smokey, Narraway, Hart and Telkwa Caribou herds through cumulative effects and increased mortality. In the lifetime of the pipeline and the residual impacts of the pipeline, the project will likely continue to provide detrimental effects and contribute to the extinction of two or more of these herds. The ESA has not provided information or details to disprove that proposition.
References
Cumming, H. G. & Beange, D. B. 1993. Survival of woodland caribou in commercial forests of northern Ontario. The Forestry Chronicle 69: 579–588
Darby, W. R. & Duquette, L. S. 1986. Woodland caribou and forestry in northern Ontario, Canada. Rangifer Special Issue No. 1: 87–93.
Dyer, S. J., O'Neill, J. P., Wasel, S. M. & Boutin, S. 2002. Quantifying barrier effects of roads and seismic lines on movements of female woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80: 839–845.
©Chillborne Environmental* a division of Chillborne Holdings Ltd. 2011 Page 10 of 15
(A37906) A Submission regarding risks to SARA Listed Woodland Caribou The Northern Gateway Pipeline Project
Forest Practices Board, 2011. Cumulative Effects Assessment,A Case Study for the Kiskatinaw River Watershed, Special Report, Appendix to FPB/SR/39 http://www.fpb.gov.bc.ca/SR39_CEA_Case_Study_for_the_Kiskatinaw_River_Watershed.pdf
James. A. 1999. Wolf use of linear corridors in caribou habitat as revealed by global positioning system collars. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. 70pp.
James, A. R. C. & Stuart-Smith, A. K. 2000. Distribution of caribou and wolves in relation to linear corridors. Journal of Wildlife Management 64: 154–159.
Seip 2011; Comments on Wildlife Component of Roman Coal EAO Assessment Dale Seip, B.C. Ministry of Environment February, 2011 http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p308/1299198111558_1f601dfb64544a6f69a3134bbe645c0062 81fa8a7100da19f01fdf901ab9e9f9.pdf
Smith, K. G., Ficht, E. J., Hobson, D., Sorensen, T.C. & Hervieux, D. 2000. Winter distribution of woodland caribou in relation to clear-cut logging in west-central Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78: 1433–1440.
Wittmer, H. U., McLellan, B. N., Seip, D. R., Young, J. A., Kinley, T. A., Watts, G. S. & Hamilton, D. 2005. Population dynamics of the endangered mountain ecotype of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 83: 407– 418.
©Chillborne Environmental* a division of Chillborne Holdings Ltd. 2011 Page 11 of 15
(A37906) A Submission regarding risks to SARA Listed Woodland Caribou The Northern Gateway Pipeline Project
Resume
In 2004 British Columbia designated the College of Applied Biology Act which designates Applied Biology as a self-regulating profession. Only members of the college can use the designation Registered Professional Biologist or Professional Biologist in British Columbia.
Brian Churchill is a Registered Professional Biologist (#128) in British Columbia.
Brian has with 34year career of wildlife habitat and management experience dealing with all aspects of the upstream oil and gas industry; training & experience in the Canadian EA process (Teresen-Kinder Morgan –TMX-Anchor Loop); specific work on pipelines, mountain goats, southern mountain caribou and grizzly bear in the NE BC/ Prince George regions; As a professional biologist he is required to have up to date knowledge of research and management in his area of expertise. Brian practices applied biology on the industry-wildlife interface. Brian has considerable field experience in the south peace region.
Education:
Bachelor of Science in Biology with specialization in Terrestrial Ecology and Physical Geography, University of Victoria. Master of Science Faculty of Forestry (Wildlife Management), UBC. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Training Applying DNA Methods to the Study of Wildlife Distribution and Abundance.
Professional experience includes:
Chair NE BC Stone Sheep Science Committee Research and Inventory project, ILMB. Integrating First Nations Values in Land Use Planning, Wildlife and Industrial Development MOELP (Peace Region) 1985-1997 Consultant 1997-2007 Management/research of Habitat and Populations of Moose, Elk, Caribou, Mountain Goats, Grizzly Bear, Birds, Stone and Bighorn Sheep Deer MOELP (Peace Region) 1985-1997 Consultant 1997-2007 Wildlife Habitat Connectivity and Conservation of Peace River Lowlands, A Conservation Plan For The Security Of Wildlife Habitat Peace Habitat and Conservation Endowment Trust 2002-2003.
©Chillborne Environmental* a division of Chillborne Holdings Ltd. 2011 Page 12 of 15
(A37906) A Submission regarding risks to SARA Listed Woodland Caribou The Northern Gateway Pipeline Project
Pre-Tenure Planning for Oil and Gas Tenures (Upper Sikanni Management Plan, Besa Prophet Phase 1 and four results based Pre Tenure Plans, Sulphur/8 mile Plan), MOELP (Peace Region) 1977-1997 , Consultant 1997,2001-2007) Habitat assessments for forest planning Slocan/BC Timber Sales 2004 Heli-drilling Suitability Assessment Muskwa-Kechika Trust Fund 2002 Environmental Management of Industry (Oil and Gas, Forestry, Coal Mining, Agriculture) in North-eastern British Columbia including the Muskwa-Kechika MOELP (Peace Region) 1977- 1997, Consultant 1997-2007. Oil and Gas Regulation and Environmental Management for Roads, Leases, Pipelines, MOELP (Peace Region) 1977-1997 Mitigation of Wildlife Impacts Oil and Gas Proposals (Roads, Leases, Pipelines), MOELP (Peace Region) 1977-1997 Consultant (1997-2007). Land Use Planning, Land and Resource Management Plans (Ft. Nelson, Ft. St. John & Dawson Creek) MOELP (Peace Region) 1992-1997. Planning, facilitation and coordination (Co-ordinator Muskwa-Kechika Advisory Board) Consultant (1998-2000). Expert Witness s (Wildlife and fish habitat, pesticides, ecosystem, vegetation) Consultant (1997- 2007). Habitat Assessments for Pesticide applications Consultant (1997-2007). Wildlife habitat model and assessment reports (moose, elk, bison, caribou, mule deer, mountain goat) Consultant (1997-2007). Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) projects. MOELP (Peace Region) 1977-1997Consultant (1997-2007) Wildlife and Fish Habitat Protection MOELP (Peace Region) 1977-1997 Wildlife Habitat Enhancement MOELP (Peace Region) 1985-1988(full time) 1988-1997. Liaison with First Nations MOELP 1992-96, MK Board 1998-2000 Consultant 2001-2007
Managerial Experience:
Councillor, Vice president, College of Applied Biologists of BC, 2004-2011 Board of Directors, Association of Professional Biologists, 2001-2007 Wildlife and Habitat Section Head Ministry of Environment, 1987-1997, Principal and project manager of Chillborne Environmental, 1997 to Present. Councillor, City of Fort St. John, 1996--2004 Board of Directors of School District 60, Peace River North, 1987-1992
©Chillborne Environmental* a division of Chillborne Holdings Ltd. 2011 Page 13 of 15
(A37906) A Submission regarding risks to SARA Listed Woodland Caribou The Northern Gateway Pipeline Project
©Chillborne Environmental* a division of Chillborne Holdings Ltd. 2011 Page 14 of 15
(A37906)
Canadian Important Bird Area Criteria
Rosalind Chaundy and Steve Wilcox, Bird Studies Canada April 2001
The BirdLife International partnership is working to identify and document those sites that are vital to the long term conservation of the world’s birds. These sites are called Important Bird Areas (IBAs). In Canada, the IBA program was initiated in 1996, in conjunction with the launch of parallel programs in the United States and Mexico. The Canadian partner in BirdLife International is Bird Studies Canada (BSC) and the Canadian Nature Federation (CNF).
The goal of the IBA program is the identify and conserve a worldwide network of sites necessary to ensure the long-term viability of naturally occurring bird populations. Conservation work in selected sites is undertaken by CNF
The IBAs identified as of April 2001 are the end product of four years’ work. Over those four years 1,246 potential sites were considered for IBA status. Of these, 597 have been accepted as IBAs by the Technical Steering Committee. As with other IBA programs around the world, the criteria are organized into four categories: 1) Threatened Species, 2) Restricted Range Species, 3) Biome- restricted/representative Species and 4) Congregatory Species. Each IBA is also identified as being either globally, continentally or nationally significant. If an IBA site falls under one or more of the four categories, the highest level of significance determines the overall significance. For instance if a site was identified at the global level for a congregatory species and at the national level for a threatened species the site would be identified as globally significant.
Category 1: Threatened Species
The general objective of this category is to identify sites that regularly hold significant numbers of a species that has been identified as threatened or at risk of extinction. The criteria for global and national levels of significance are as follows:
Global - A1 The site regularly holds significant numbers of a globally threatened bird species.
National - C1 The site regularly holds significant numbers of a bird species, subspecies or biogeographical species which is considered threatened in Canada.
In general, a ‘significant number’ was considered to be 1% or more of the relevant population, although in a few cases less than this was accepted. Regular occurrence at a site was generally defined as the yearly presence of a species, if known. If information on the species abundance was known for several years the data from the most recent five years was used in many but not all cases. (A37906)
Species were considered globally threatened if they were listed as Critical, Endangered and Vulnerable in Threatened Birds of the World (BirdLife International 2000). Prior to the publication of this document, its predecessor, Birds To Watch 2 was used (Collar et al. 1994). Although these documents also identify some species as Near-threatened, this level was not used by the Canadian IBA program.
Species were considered nationally threatened if they were designated as Endangered, Threatened or Vulnerable by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), the body that ranks and assigns status to at risk species in Canada (www.cosewic.gc.ca). Scientists from Environment Canada and non-governmental organizations together form COSEWIC. At the end of the year 2000 the name of the lowest at-risk status, Vulnerable was changed to Special Concern.
Unlike at the global and national levels there is no organizational body that identifies threatened species at the North American level, thus a continental level was not used in this category. Together, national and global rankings probably include all the bird species that should be covered.
Species identified as globally or nationally at-risk are highlighted in purple and blue in the
There are 168 IBAs identified under the threatened species category.
Category 2: Restricted-range Species
Species that have a very limited distribution are vulnerable to habitat loss or natural disturbances. Some endemic species are abundant within their range and are not considered threatened; nonetheless it is important to include the best or representative sites for these species within the IBA network. Subspecies or disjunct populations restricted to small areas are also of concern. The criteria for global, continental and national levels of significance under this category are as follows:
Global - A2 The site regularly holds significant numbers of a bird species whose global breeding range is less than 50,000 km2.
National - C2 The site contains species with small total breeding ranges (ie greater than 100,000 km2 but less than 250,000km 2) and important populations within North America (ie more than 50% of the North American distribution). At the national level, distinctive subspecies with breeding ranges of less than 50,000 km2 are also included.
Most bird species occurring in Canada have large breeding ranges and thus this criterion had limited application in this country - this category is more relevant to parts of the tropics and island countries. However, species that do meet these criteria are Whooping Crane at the global level, and Iceland Gull, Ivory Gull, Ross’ Goose, Common Ringed Plover and 14 subspecies at the national level. The 14 subspecies are: Northern Goshawk subspecies laingi, Peregrine Falcon ssp. pealei, Blue Grouse ssp. sitkensis, Northern Saw-whet Owl ssp. brooksi, Hairy Woodpecker ssp. picoides, and Steller’s Jay (A37906) ssp. carlottae all found on the Queen Charlotte Islands, B.C., Rock Ptarmigan ssp. welchi, Ovenbird ssp. furvoir, Red Crossbill ssp. pusilla all found in Newfoundland, Rock Ptarmigan ssp captus (northern Ellesmere Island), White-tailed Ptarmigan ssp. saxitalis (Vancouver Island), Ipswich Savannah Sparow ssp. princeps (Sable Island, Nova Scotia), and Common Redpoll ssp. rostrata (Baffin Island).
No species met the criteria at the continental level (those with breeding ranges greater than 50,000 km2 but less than 100,000 km2, and with > 50% of population within North America). Coastal breeding species which have linear breeding distributions were excluded from the analysis because they are mostly covered under the congregatory species category.
For those species listed above that were not already considered congregatory species, the 1% threshold was not used because these species or subspecies were mostly without population estimates. Instead, a target of at least one site in Canada for each restricted-range population was used. Where a choice of sites was possible the best available, often in already protected areas, was chosen.
There are 16 IBAs identified under the restricted-range category.
Category 3: Biome-restricted/representative Species Assemblages
The objective of this category is to identify sites that have assemblages of birds whose breeding ranges are largely restricted to, or representative of the various North American biomes. Although significant amounts of effort went into analyzing information for the purposes of identifying sites under this category, no biome-restricted/representative sites (hereafter called biome) have been identified to date. The identification of biome sites was placed on hold to coordinate with the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) and Partners in Flight (PIF) efforts.
For the purposes of this category, the Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) as defined in November 1999 by the NABCI mapping subcommittee, are being used to reflect biomes. Associated with each BCR will be a list of priority bird species. These would be the species which the IBA program would use to identify category 3 sites. As of spring 2001, committees have been struck for some BCRs across the country and priority species lists been developed in only one or two BCRs. These committee are composed of a mix of individuals from non-governmental organizations, governments and other interested parties.
Category 4
The congregatory species category covers sites that are important because they hold large concentrations of birds during one or more seasons, either breeding, wintering or migratory season. Marine, lacustrine, terrestrial, and sites over which raptors concentrate are included. Sites can qualify for a single species or under the general congregatory thresholds, at the global, continental or national levels as follows:
Single Species Congregations - The site is known or thought to hold on average of 1% or more of the biogeographical population of a species.
Global - A4 The site is known or thought to hold 1% or more of the global or North American population of a (A37906)
species.
Continental - B4 The site is known or thought to hold 1% or more of a continental biogeographical population of a species; that is,1% or more of the population of a flyway or a subspecies or a recognized separate regional population.
National - C4 The site is known or thought to hold 1% or more of the Canadian population of a species, or 1% or more of the Canadian population of a flyway or otherwise separate population.
B) General Thresholds for Congregatory Species - The following come into use if there are several different species present in large numbers or if the population thresholds are unknown.
Category Global Continental National Minimum numbers of birds present
Congregations of Waterfowl - 4i 20,000 15,000 10,000 The site is regularly an important concentration site for waterfowl during any portion of the year. Concentrations refer to those present over a short period of time rather than over an entire season.
Congregations of Seabirds or Colonial Waterbirds 20,000 15,000 10,000 - 4ii The site is regularly an important concentration site for seabirds or colonial waterbirds during any portion of the year. Concentrations refer to those present over a short period of time rather than over an entire season.
Congregations of Shorebirds - 4iii 20,000 15,000 10,000 The site is regularly an important migratory stopover or wintering site for shorebirds. Concentrations refer to those present over a short period of time rather than over an entire season.
Congregations of Raptors - 4iv 20,000 15,000 10,000 The site is a regular migratory bottleneck for raptors. concentrations refer to seasonal totals rather than those occurring over a brief period of time.
Congregations of Wading Birds - 4v 10,000 5,000 500 The site is an important concentrations site for wading birds (herons, egrets, cranes etc.) during any portion of the year. Concentrations refer to those present over a short period of time rather than over an entire season. (A37906)
Congregations of Migratory Landbirds - 4vi Large NA NA The site is a regular migratory stopover site for migratory concentrations landbirds (other than raptors). Sites nominated should contain exceptional numbers and or diversity of migratory landbirds. Concentrations refer to seasonal totals. No absolute thresholds have been set, owing to the scarcity of quantitative data. Other evidence (# of species, landscape configuration) will be partly used to identify these sites.
Congregatory species are defined according to Wetlands International (Rose and Scott 1997), as recommended by BirdLife International (1997). Included are species such as shearwaters, storm-petrels, gannets, auks, and pelicans. Terrestrial species that congregate during a portion of their life-cycle (eg. hawks) are also included in this category.
Biogeographical populations at the continental level were considered important because even though some of these species are widespread in their distribution, their populations rarely exchange members. There are two reasons for treating biogeographical populations separately. First, populations with little emigration and immigration are likely to have genetic differences and thus should be conserved from the standpoint of overall avian biodiversity. Second, populations in different areas often face different pressures on their habitats and different alternatives for their conservation and management. The latter also applies for national level populations.
There is no fundamental biological reason why 1% should be used as a threshold. However, around the world other countries and programs have applied the 1% threshold and found it to afford an appropriate degree of protection through the identifcation of ecologically sensible sites. In addition, the 1% measure is proportional and is self-adjusting to rarity (i.e. species with small population sizes need fewer individuals to qualify).
An internal document was created that described in detail the sources of the population estimates for this category (and for the threatened species category). Some of the more important sources for congregatory species were: Rose and Scott (1997), del Hoyo et al. (1992, 1994, 1996), Canadian Wildlife Service Bird Trends, and the Birds of North America series. Where differing estimates existed, either the lowest or an average estimate was used whichever seemed appropriate for the species; this depended on the disparity between estimates, the date of the estimate and the quality of the source. In a small number of cases .75% or .50% of the global population was used as a threshold where no North American or national populations were known. The resultant thresholds can be viewed in the
There are 518 IBAs identified under the congregatory species category.
Notes
* In the tables of bird data within each site summary there are species highlighted which meet either national, continental or global criteria. A species has been automatically highlighted when the maximum number of a species recorded in the database meets the threshold. This is somewhat different than what was actually used in assessing sites, where an average was generally used, and it was furthermore possible to individually assess the sites. In isolated cases the level assigned (by the Technical Steering Committee) differs from the level of significance identified by the algorithm that generates the summary bird table. In most cases the committee’s assessment is more conservative than what is being generated (A37906) automatically. Additional programming modifications in future versions of the online directory will fix this discrepancy.
* Data that has been provided through personal communications or personal obervations is not yet available online. Eventually this information will also be available.
* Determining thresholds for the shorebird species was more difficult than some other groups because the population estimates for these species (aside from species-at-risk) were, and still are, imprecise. Near the end of the IBA identification period, a new Canadian Wildlife Service publication appeared (Morrison et al. 2001) that gave significantly higher population estimates than those sources which we had been using (such as those noted in the category 4 section). Some sites have been revised accordingly, but others, especially those identified earlier in the process have not been up-dated.
* A couple of species have different breeding season versus non-breeding season thresholds. The most frequently used threshold is shown in the table.
* The official names (as designated by the American Ornithologists’ Union) of a few bird species have changed over the last year. For example, Oldsqaw is now Long-tailed Duck and Sage Grouse is Greater Sage-Grouse. Most of the these recent name changes do not appear in the text of the site summaries, although they do appear in the tables of bird data.
Many thanks to the Canadian IBA Technical Steering Committee:
Michael Bradstreet, Bird Studies Canada Rob Butler, Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific and Yukon Region Caroline Shultz, Canadian Nature Federation Steve Wendt, Canadian Wildlife Service, Head Office David Wege, BirdLife International, United Kingdom
References
BirdLife International. 1997. Important Bird Areas in the Americas: Regional IBAs Workshop. February 24-28, 1997. Quito, Ecuador.
BirdLife International. 2000. Threatened Birds of the World. Barcelona and Cambridge, U.K: Lynx Edicions and BirdLife International.
Birds of North America series (A. Poole, F. Gill and P. Stettenheim eds). 1992 - 2000. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington D.C., The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philedelphia, and Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca. Volumes 1- 550.
Canadian Wildlife Service. 1991-1999. Bird Trends, A report on the results of national ornithological surveys in Canada. Volumes 1-7.
CEC (Commission for Environmental Cooperation). 1997. Ecological Regions of North America. Ecoregion Maps.
Collar, N. J., M. J. Crosby, and A.J. Stattersfield. 1994. Birds to Watch 2: The World List of Threatened (A37906)
Birds. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 4. del Hoyo, J., A. Elliot, and J. Sargatal eds. 1992. Handbook of the Birds of the World. Vol 1 Ostrich to Ducks. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. del Hoyo, J., A. Elliot, and J. Sargatal eds. 1994. Handbook of the Birds of the World. Vol 2. New World Vultures to Guineafowl. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. del Hoyo, J., A. Elliot, and J. Sargatal eds. 1996. Handbook of the Birds of the World. Vol 3. Hoatzin to Auks. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.
Morrison, R.I.G, R.E. Gill Jr., B.A. Harrington, S.Skagen, G.W. Page, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and S.M. Haig. 2001. Estimates of shorebird populations in North America. Occasional Paper No. 104, Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario. 64 pp.
Rose, P.M., and D.A. Scott. 1997. Waterfowl Population Estimates - Second Edition. Wetlands International Publ. 44, Wageningen, The Netherlands. (A37906)
Appendix 2: Important Bird Areas overlapping with the OWA (refer to Map 1; note the spatial file of IBAs is freely available on request from Bird Studies Canada (contact: [email protected]))
IBA # Region IBA Name Habitat Type Key Species: Global or National thresholds exceeded (bold) and federal and provincial Species At Risk (italics) BC003 North Coast & Langara Island Seabird Colonies Marbled Murrelet, Pelagic Cormorant, Ancient Murrelet, Haida Gwaii Peregrine Falcon, Pigeon Guillemot, seabirds BC004 North Coast & Frederick Island Seabird Colonies Ancient Murrelet, Cassin's Auklet, Peregrine Falcon, Black Haida Gwaii Osytercatcher, Pigeon Guillemot, seabirds BC005 North Coast & Kerouard and Seabird Colonies Cassin's Auklet, Common Murre, Pelagic Cormorant, Peregrine Haida Gwaii St James Falcon, Tufted Puffin, seabirds Islands BC008 North Coast & Lepas Bay Islet Seabird Colonies Fork-tailed Storm-petrel, Pigeon Guillemot, seabirds, Cassin's Haida Gwaii Auklet BC009 North Coast & Hippa Island Seabird Colonies Ancient Murrelet, Pelagic Cormorant, Cassin's Auklet, Haida Gwaii Peregrine Falcon, Tufted Puffin, Fork-tailed Storm-Petrel, Leach's Storm-Petrel BC010 North Coast & Anthony Island Seabird Colonies Black Oystercatcher, Fork-tailed Storm-Petrel, Pigeon Haida Gwaii Guillemot, Rhinoceros Auklet, Glaucous-winged Gull, Horned Puffin, Pelagic Cormorant, Ancient Murrelet, Cassin's Auklet, Peregrine Falcon, Tufted Puffin BC011 North Coast & Tian Bay/Port Seabird Colonies Black Oystercatcher, Glaucous-winged Gull, Pigeon Guillemot, Haida Gwaii Louis Area Pelagic Cormorant, Cassin's Auklet BC016 North Coast & Englefield Bay Seabird Colonies Pelagic Cormorant, Ancient Murrelet, Cassin's Auklet, Peregrine Haida Gwaii Islands Falcon, Tufted Puffin, Fork-tailed Storm-Petrel, Pigeon Guillemot, Leach's Storm-Petrel, Rhinoceros Auklet, seabirds BC105 North Coast & Goose Island Seabird Colonies (islands, Marbled Murrelet, Black Oystercatcher Haida Gwaii Group and marine, beaches) Banks (A37906)
IBA # Region IBA Name Habitat Type Key Species: Global or National thresholds exceeded (bold) and federal and provincial Species At Risk (italics) BC106 North Coast & Moore and Seabird Colonies (islands and Black Oystercatcher, Rhinoceros Auklet, Leach's Storm-Petrel, Haida Gwaii Byers Islands banks) Fork-tailed Storm-Petrel, Glaucous-winged Gull, Marbled and Banks Murrelet, Brandt's Cormorant, Pelagic Cormorant, Doubled- crested Cormorant, California Gull, Cassin's Auklet, Pigeon Guillemot, Peregrine Falcon, Tufted Puffin, Horned Puffin BC110 North Coast & Mussel and Open sea Marbled Murrelet, Mew Gull, Surf Scoter Haida Gwaii Kynoch Inlet and Sheep Passage BC119 North Coast & Kitkatla Mudflats, rocky shores, Surf Scoter, waterfowl Haida Gwaii Channel, estuary, marine Goschen Island north to Porcher Island BC122 North Coast & Lucy Islands Seabird Colonies Rhinoceros Auklet, Pigeon Guillemot Haida Gwaii BC124 North Coast & Big Bay south Mudflats, rocky shores, Black Turnstone, Surf Scoter, seabirds, waterfowl, Black Brant Haida Gwaii to Delusion Bay estuary, marine BC125 North Coast & Grey and Green Seabird Colonies Glaucous-winged Gull Haida Gwaii Islands BC136 North Coast & Kunghit Island Seabird Colonies Pigeon Guillemot, Marbled Murrelet, Pelagic Cormorant, Haida Gwaii and Luxana Bay Ancient Murrelet, Peregrine Falcon, Tufted Puffin BC137 North Coast & Rankine and Seabird Colonies Fork-tailed Storm-Petrel, Leach's Storm-Petrel, Ancient Haida Gwaii Langtry Islands Murrelet, Cassin's Auklets, Peregrine Falcon, seabirds BC138 North Coast & Skincuttle Inlet Seabird Colonies Ancient Murrelet, Cassin's Auklets, Black Oystercatcher, Fork- Haida Gwaii Islands tailed Storm-Petrel, Leach's Storm-Petrel, Pigeon Guillemot, Glaucous-winged Gull, Peregrine Falcon BC139 North Coast & Alder Island Seabird Colonies (islands and Ancient Murrelet, Cassin's Auklets, Surf Scoter Haida Gwaii banks) (A37906)
IBA # Region IBA Name Habitat Type Key Species: Global or National thresholds exceeded (bold) and federal and provincial Species At Risk (italics) BC140 North Coast & Ramsay and Seabird Colonies Black Oystercatcher, Pelagic Cormorant, Ancient Murrelet, Haida Gwaii Northern Juan Cassin's Auklet, Peregrine Falcon, seabirds Perez Sound Islands BC141 North Coast & Dodge Point & Seabird Colonies Black Oystercatcher, Fork-tailed Storm-Petrel, Marbled Haida Gwaii Gogit Passage Murrelet, Ancient Murrelet, Cassin's Auklet, seabirds Island Chain BC143 North Coast & Laskeek Bay Seabird Colonies Marbled Murrelet, Pelagic Cormorant, Ancient Murrelet, Haida Gwaii Cassin's Auklet, Peregrine Falcon, Black Oystercatcher, Glaucous-winged Gull, Pigeon Guillemot BC144 North Coast & Cumshewa Seabird Colonies Black Oystercatcher, Pigeon Guillemot, White-winged Scoter, Haida Gwaii Inlet north to Marbled Murrelet, Surf Scoter, Black Brant, seabirds Sheldens Bay BC145 North Coast & Skidegate Inlet Seabird Colonies (marine, Marbled Murrelet, Black Brant, Black Oystercatcher, Pigeon Haida Gwaii beaches) Guillemot, Surf Scoter BC147 North Coast & Lawn Point Mudflats, rocky shores, Pacific Loon, Pigeon Guillemot, Pelagic Cormorant, Surf Scoter Haida Gwaii marine BC161 North Coast & McIntyre Beach Sandy beaches, saltwater Black Brant, Sanderling, Semipalmated Plover, Northern Haida Gwaii & Rose Spit bays, estuaries, & marine Fulmar, Pink-footed Shearwater, Ancient Murrelet, Flesh-footed Shearwater, Surf Scoter BC221 Northern Interior Fraser Lake Freshwater lake & streams American Wigeon, Canada Goose, Trumpeter Swan, waterfowl BC223 Northern Interior Stuart, Tachie Rivers & streams Trumpeter Swan and Middle Rivers BC270 Northern Interior Tachick and Freshwater lake, marsh & Canada Goose, waterfowl Nulki Lakes forest BC006 Vancouver Island - Scott Islands Seabird Colonies (islands, Black Oystercatcher, Brandt's Cormorant, Pelagic Cormorant, Central Coast opea sea) Common Murre, Fork-tailed Storm-Petrel, Glaucous-winged Gull, Leach's Storm-Petrel, Thick-billed Murre, Horned Puffin, Tufted Puffin, Cassin's Auklet, Peregrine Falcon, Pigeon Guillemot, Rhinoceros Auklet, seabirds (A37906)
IBA # Region IBA Name Habitat Type Key Species: Global or National thresholds exceeded (bold) and federal and provincial Species At Risk (italics) BC007 Vancouver Island - Duke of Seabird Colonies (islands, Black Oystercatcher, Cassin's Auklet, Fork-tailed Storm-Petrel, Central Coast Edinburgh forest, shores) Glaucous-winged Gull, Leach's Storm-Petrel, Pigeon Guillemot, Ecological Rhinoceros Auklet, seabirds Reserve BC253 Vancouver Island - Major Brown Seabird Colonies Black Turnstone, Glaucous-winged Gull, Pelagic Cormorant Central Coast Rock
(A37906)
Appendix 3a : Long-billed Curlew Distribution: mapped data collected by the BC Breeding Bird Atlas, viewable on that project’s website – http://www.birdatlas.bc.ca/bcdata/maps.jsp - click on Long-billed Curlew under Species Name drop-down menu).
(A37906)
Appendix 3b: Yellow Rail Distribution: mapped data collected by the BC Breeding Bird Atlas, viewable on that project’s website – http://www.birdatlas.bc.ca/bcdata/maps.jsp - click on Yellow Rail under Species Name drop-down menu).
(A37906)
Appendix 3c: Lewis’s Woodpecker Distribution: mapped data collected by the BC Breeding Bird Atlas, viewable on that project’s website – http://www.birdatlas.bc.ca/bcdata/maps.jsp - click on Lewis’s Woodpecker under Species Name drop-down menu).
(A37906)
Appendix 3d: Short-eared Owl Distribution: mapped data collected by the BC Breeding Bird Atlas, viewable on that project’s website – http://www.birdatlas.bc.ca/bcdata/maps.jsp - click on Short-eared Owl under Species Name drop-down menu).
(A37906)
Appendix 4: Average Foraging Distances for Colonial Nesting Seabirds
Radius 15 km Rationale Radius 30 km Rationale To minimize colony disturbance; reduce risk of pollution; foraging normally occurs well away Based on foraging Northern Fulmar from breeding colony Thick-billed Murre distance Based on foraging distance; to minimize colony Based on foraging Black Guillimot disturbance; reduce risk of pollution Black-legged Kittiwake distance Based on foraging distance; minimize colony Common Eider disturbance Table 1: Appropriate radii from breeding islands/sites for seabirds/waterbirds (Environment Canada – Canadian Wildlife Service Occasional Paper 109, Key marine habitat sites for migratory birds in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories; Mallory and Fontaine, 2004).
Radius 5 km Radius 15 km Radius 40 km Still Unknown Arctic Skua Manx Shearwater (rafts) Great Skua Leach's Storm-petrel Little Tern Great Cormorant Herring Gull Band-rumped Storm-Petrel Black Guillemot Common Shag Lesser Black-backed Gull White-faced Petrel Slender-billed Gull Mew Gull Great Black-backed Gull European Storm-petrel Gull-billed Tern Arctic Tern Black-legged Kittiwake Northern Fulmar Common Tern Common Murre Northern Gannet Sandwich Tern Razor Bill Roseate Tern Atlantic Puffin Cory's Shearwater (rafts) Audouin's Gull Balaeric Shearwater (rafts) Black-headed gull Mediterranean Gull Table 2: Appropriate radii from breeding islands/sites for seabirds/waterbirds (Conserving our seabirds: how to identify Important Bird Areas in the marine environment [marine IBAs] Vilanova i la Geltrú, Spain, 13-16 November 2005).
Radius 5 km Radius 15 km Radius 40 km Arctic Skua Manx Shearwater (rafts) Great Skua Little Tern Great Cormorant Herring Gull Black Guillemot Common Shag Lesser Black-backed Gull Mew Gull Great Black-backed Gull Arctic Tern Black-legged Kittiwake Common Tern Common Murre Sandwich Tern Razor Bill Roseate Tern Atlantic Puffin
Table 3: Marine boundaries around seabird breeding colonies for three categories of feeding ranges of species breeding in the British Isles (RSPB 2000).
(A37906)
Map 1: Important Bird Areas in the OWA; the spatial file of IBAs is freely available on request from Bird Studies Canada (contact: [email protected])