Appendix 15-B

Wildlife Habitat Suitability Modelling Report

KEMESS UNDERGROUND PROJECT Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate Prepared for: KEMESS UNDERGROUND PROJECT Wildlife Habitat Suitability Modelling Report

December 2015

The world’s leading sustainability consultancy AuRico Metals Inc.

KEMESS UNDERGROUND PROJECT Wildlife Habitat Suitability Modelling Report

December 2015

Project #0196303-0021

Citation: ERM. 2015. Kemess Underground Project: Wildlife Habitat Suitability Modelling Report. Prepared for AuRico Metals Inc. by ERM Consultants Canada Ltd.: Vancouver, British Columbia.

ERM ERM Building, 15th Floor 1111 West Hastings Street Vancouver, BC Canada V6E 2J3 T: (604) 689-9460 F: (604) 687-4277

ERM prepared this report for the sole and exclusive benefit of, and use by, AuRico Metals Inc. Notwithstanding delivery of this report by ERM or AuRico Metals Inc. to any third party, any copy of this report provided to a third party is provided for informational purposes only, without the right to rely upon the report. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

AuRico Metals Inc. (AuRico) proposes to develop the Kemess Underground Project (the Project), an underground gold-copper mine located in north-central British Columbia (BC) approximately 250 km north of Smithers, 430 km north-northwest of Prince George, and 6.5 km north of the past-producing Kemess South (KS) Mine (coordinates: 57º0′N; 126º45′W). This report provides habitat suitability modelling for the Project, based on the terrestrial ecosystem mapping conducted by Ardea Biological Consulting Ltd.

The goal of the wildlife habitat suitability modelling was to map the current distribution and quality of habitat for selected wildlife species within the Project Local Study Area (LSA). Results of habitat suitability modelling will be used in the assessment of potential effects on wildlife in the Application for an Environmental Assessment (EA) Certificate (the Application).

Habitat suitability modelling was conducted using provincial ratings standards (RIC 1999) for the following species and associated seasons:

• caribou ( Rangifer tarandus ) early winter, late winter, spring reproducing, and summer habitat;

• moose ( Alces americanus ) early and late winter habitat;

• mountain goat ( Oreamnos americanus ) winter and summer habitat;

• grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos ) spring, summer, fall habitat;

• American marten ( Martes americana ) winter habitat; and

• hoary marmot ( Marmota caligata ) growing season (combined spring, summer, and fall) habitat.

The results of habitat suitability modelling indicate that there is valuable habitat for each species within the LSA. The distribution of high quality habitat (High and Moderately High rated habitat) for caribou was negligible during the early winter (~1% of LSA), but increased through the late winter (13% of LSA), spring calving period (12% of LSA), and the summer (16% of LSA) when caribou are expected to use higher elevation habitats (Table 1).

Moderate amounts of high quality winter habitat for moose were mapped across the LSA. In general, more high quality early winter habitat for moose (20% of LSA) was identified relative to late winter habitat (11% of LSA), as it is expected that moose will be restricted to lower elevations as the snowpack accumulates over the winter (Table 1).

The LSA contained similar amounts of high quality winter and summer habitats for mountain goat; High and Moderately High rated winter and summer habitats each accounted for 15% of LSA (Table 1).

Grizzly bear spring habitat was generally the most abundant seasonal habitat for bears in the LSA, with roughly 13% of the LSA identified as high quality spring habitat. High quality summer and fall habitats were generally very limited, with roughly 3% of the LSA identified as high quality summer habitat and less than 1% of the LSA rated as high quality during the fall (Table 1). Large portions of

AURICO METALS INC. i WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT the LSA were identified as functional habitat (High and Moderate rated habitat) for American marten during the winter, with just over 40% of the LSA rated as High and Moderate. Functional growing habitats for hoary marmot were very limited within the LSA, totalling approximately 7% of the LSA.

Table 1. Habitat Suitability Modelling Results

Moderately High 1 High 1 Moderate 1 Low 1 Very Low 1 Nil 1 Area Area Area Area Area Area Species Season (ha) % (ha) % (ha) % (ha) % (ha) % (ha) % Caribou Early Winter 2 0 0 232 1 6,723 40 469 3 4,587 28 2,173 13 Late Winter 1,104 7 1,078 6 3,124 19 8,056 48 5 < 1 3,292 20 Calving 1,369 8 669 4 3,451 21 5,498 33 3 < 1 5,669 34 Summer 1,392 8 1,254 8 4,179 25 6,345 38 4 < 1 3,485 21 Moose Early Winter 1,364 8 2,026 12 533 3 7,233 43 5,182 31 322 2 Late Winter 282 2 1,610 10 242 1 2,176 13 3,094 19 9,255 56 Mountain Goat Winter 826 5 1,604 10 1,248 7 551 3 11,299 68 1,130 7 Summer 1,198 7 1,244 7 1,288 8 524 3 11,275 68 1,130 7 Grizzly Bear Spring 602 4 1,531 9 7,147 43 3,087 19 3,969 24 322 2 Summer 0 0 474 3 9,639 58 2,254 14 3,969 24 322 2 Fall 0 0 113 1 7,548 45 4,139 25 4,536 27 322 2 American Marten Winter 4,379 26 NA NA 2,544 15 1,263 8 NA NA 8,472 51 Hoary Marmot Growing 101 1 NA NA 1,031 6 363 2 NA NA 15,163 91 1 Area and % habitat within LSA, LSA = 16,658 ha. 2 A total of 2,473 ha (15 % of LSA) was not rated for early winter suitability. NA = not assessed, as habitat was rated using a 4-class scheme: high, moderate, low and nil.

ii ERM | PROJ #0196303-0021 | REV B.1 | DECEMBER 2015 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was prepared for AuRico Metals Inc. by ERM Consultants Canada Ltd. Baseline terrestrial ecosystem mapping that was used in this report was produced by Ardea Biological Consulting Ltd. Wildlife habitat models were produced by Shaun Freeman (B.Sc., R.P.Bio). Report writing was conducted by Julia Shewan (B.Sc.) and reviewed by Katie Kuker (M.Sc.). The Kemess Underground Project was managed by Mark Branson (M.Sc.) and Greg Norton (M.Sc.).

AURICO METALS INC. iii KEMESS UNDERGROUND PROJECT Wildlife Habitat Suitability Modelling Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ...... i

Acknowledgements ...... iii

Table of Contents ...... v List of Figures ...... vii List of Tables ...... vii List of Appendices...... viii

Glossary and Abbreviations ...... ix

1. Introduction ...... 1-1 1.1 Project Description ...... 1-1 1.2 Project Location ...... 1-1 1.3 Project Proponent ...... 1-3 1.4 Project Setting ...... 1-3 1.5 Overview of Habitat Suitability Modelling ...... 1-3 1.6 Objectives ...... 1-4 1.7 Study Area ...... 1-4

2. Methods ...... 2-1 2.1 Species Selection ...... 2-1 2.2 Model Development and Limitations ...... 2-1 2.2.1 Development ...... 2-1 2.2.2 Limitations ...... 2-3 2.3 Wildlife Habitat Suitability Models ...... 2-3 2.3.1 Caribou ...... 2-3 2.3.1.1 Overview ...... 2-3 2.3.1.2 Early Winter Habitat Model ...... 2-4 2.3.1.3 Late Winter Habitat Model ...... 2-4 2.3.1.4 Spring (Calving) Habitat Model ...... 2-5 2.3.1.5 Summer Habitat Model ...... 2-5 2.3.2 Moose ...... 2-6 2.3.2.1 Overview ...... 2-6 2.3.2.2 Early Winter Habitat Model ...... 2-6

AURICO METALS INC. v WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

2.3.2.3 Late Winter Habitat Model ...... 2-6 2.3.3 Mountain Goat ...... 2-8 2.3.3.1 Overview ...... 2-8 2.3.3.2 Winter Habitat Model ...... 2-8 2.3.3.3 Summer Habitat Model ...... 2-9 2.3.4 Grizzly Bear ...... 2-10 2.3.4.1 Overview ...... 2-10 2.3.4.2 Spring Habitat Model ...... 2-11 2.3.4.3 Summer Habitat Model ...... 2-11 2.3.4.4 Fall Habitat Model ...... 2-11 2.3.5 American Marten ...... 2-11 2.3.5.1 Overview ...... 2-11 2.3.5.2 Winter Habitat Model ...... 2-12 2.3.6 Hoary Marmot ...... 2-12 2.3.6.1 Overview ...... 2-12 2.3.6.2 Growing Habitat Model ...... 2-12

3. Results and Discussion ...... 3-1 3.1 Caribou ...... 3-1 3.1.1 Early Winter Habitat...... 3-1 3.1.2 Late Winter Habitat ...... 3-3 3.1.3 Spring (Calving) Habitat ...... 3-5 3.1.4 Summer Habitat ...... 3-7 3.2 Moose ...... 3-9 3.2.1 Early Winter Habitat...... 3-9 3.2.2 Late Winter Habitat ...... 3-11 3.3 Mountain Goat ...... 3-13 3.3.1 Winter Habitat ...... 3-13 3.3.2 Summer Habitat ...... 3-15 3.4 Grizzly Bear ...... 3-17 3.4.1 Spring Habitat ...... 3-17 3.4.2 Summer Habitat ...... 3-19 3.4.3 Fall Habitat ...... 3-21 3.5 American Marten ...... 3-23 3.6 Hoary Marmot ...... 3-25

4. Conclusions ...... 4-1

References ...... R-1

vi ERM | PROJ #0196303-0021 | REV B.1 | DECEMBER 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.2-1. Kemess Underground Project Location ...... 1-2

Figure 1.7-1. Kemess Underground Project: Local Study Area ...... 1-5

Figure 3.1-1. Caribou: Early Winter Habitat ...... 3-2

Figure 3.1-2. Caribou: Late Winter Habitat ...... 3-4

Figure 3.1-3. Caribou: Spring Reproducing (Calving) Habitat ...... 3-6

Figure 3.1-4. Caribou: Summer Habitat ...... 3-8

Figure 3.2-1. Moose: Early Winter Habitat ...... 3-10

Figure 3.2-2. Moose: Late Winter Habitat ...... 3-12

Figure 3.3-1. Mountain Goat: Winter Habitat ...... 3-14

Figure 3.3-2. Mountain Goat: Summer Habitat ...... 3-16

Figure 3.4-1. Grizzly Bear: Spring Habitat ...... 3-18

Figure 3.4-2. Grizzly Bear: Summer Habitat ...... 3-20

Figure 3.4-3. Grizzly Bear: Fall Habitat ...... 3-22

Figure 3.5-1. American Marten: Winter Habitat ...... 3-24

Figure 3.6-1. Hoary Marmot: Growing Habitat ...... 3-26

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Habitat Suitability Modelling Results ...... ii

Table 2.1-1. Focal Species and Habitats Rated ...... 2-1

Table 2.2-1. Wildlife Habitat Rating and Habitat Suitability Rating Class Schemes 1 ...... 2-2

Table 2.3-1. Model Definition of Topographic and Vegetation Features for Caribou Late Winter Habitat ...... 2-5

Table 2.3-2. Cumulative Score and Associated Habitat Suitability Rating (for Caribou Late Winter Habitat ...... 2-5

Table 2.3-3. Model Definition of Topographic and Vegetation Features for Moose Late Winter Habitat ...... 2-7

Table 2.3-4. Cumulative Score and Associated Habitat Suitability Rating for Moose Late Winter Habitat ...... 2-7

Table 2.3-5. Model Definition of Escape Terrain for Mountain Goat ...... 2-8

AURICO METALS INC. vii WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

Table 2.3-6. Model Definition of Topographic and Vegetation Features for Mountain Goat Winter Habitat ...... 2-9

Table 2.3-7. Cumulative Score and Associated Habitat Suitability Rating for Mountain Goat Winter Habitat ...... 2-9

Table 2.3-8. Model Definition of Topographic and Vegetation Features for Mountain Goat Summer Habitat ...... 2-10

Table 2.3-9. Cumulative Score and Associated Habitat Suitability Rating for Mountain Goat Summer Habitat ...... 2-10

Table 3.1-1. Caribou Early Winter Habitat within the LSA...... 3-1

Table 3.1-2. Caribou Late Winter Habitat within the LSA ...... 3-3

Table 3.1-3. Caribou Spring (Calving) Habitat within the LSA ...... 3-5

Table 3.1-4. Caribou Summer Habitat within the LSA ...... 3-7

Table 3.2-1. Moose Early Winter Habitat within the LSA ...... 3-9

Table 3.2-2. Moose Late Winter Habitat within the LSA ...... 3-11

Table 3.3-1. Mountain Goat Winter Habitat within the LSA ...... 3-13

Table 3.3-2. Mountain Goat Summer Habitat within the LSA...... 3-15

Table 3.4-1. Grizzly Bear Spring Habitat within the LSA ...... 3-17

Table 3.4-2. Grizzly Bear Summer Habitat within the LSA ...... 3-19

Table 3.4-3. Grizzly Bear Fall Habitat within the LSA ...... 3-21

Table 3.5-1. American Marten Winter Habitat within the LSA ...... 3-23

Table 3.6-1. Hoary Marmot Growing Habitat within the LSA ...... 3-25

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Species Account for Caribou

Appendix 2. Species Account for Moose

Appendix 3. Species Account for Mountain Goat

Appendix 4. Species Account for Grizzly Bear

Appendix 5. Species Account for American Marten

Appendix 6. Species Account for Hoary Marmot

Appendix 7. Wildlife Habitat Ratings (WHRs) for Ecosystem Units Identified within the LSA

viii ERM | PROJ #0196303-0021 | REV B.1 | DECEMBER 2015 GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS

Terminology used in this document is defined where it is first used. The following list will assist readers who may choose to review only portions of the document.

Alpine High -elevation land above the tree -line. Alpine vegetation on zonal sites is dominated by low shrubs, herbs, bryophytes and lichens. Although treeless by definition, patches of stunted (krummholz) trees may occur. Much of the alpine is covered by rock and ice rather than vegetation. Ardea Ardea Biological Consulting Ltd. BAFA Boreal Altai Fescue Alpine BEC zone. BC British Columbia BEC Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification – a standard, hierar chical classification system for mapping terrestrial ecosystems in British Columbia. Biogeoclimatic A level of the biogeoclimatic classification system that defines the climate of an subzone area, as characterized by the plant association occurring on zonal sites, e.g., Spruce – Willow – Birch - Moist Cool Subzone (SWBwk; BC MOFR 2013). Biogeoclimatic A general term referring to any level of Biogeoclimatic zones, subzones, units variants or phases. Biogeoclimatic units are inferred from a system of ecological classification based on a floristic hierarchy of plant associations. The recognized units are a synthesis of climate, vegetation, and soil data (Pojar, Klinka, and Meidinger 1987). Biogeoclimatic A further subdivision of biogeoclimatic subzone reflecting further differences variant in regional climate. Variants are described as warmer, colder, drier, wetter, or snowier than the ‘typical’ subzone, e.g., Mountain Hemlock-Leeward Moist Maritime variant (MHmm2), where leeward (2) is the particular variant. Biogeoclimatic Geographical areas having similar patterns of energy flow, vegetation and soils zone as a result of a broadly homogeneous macroclimate. Biogeoclimatic zones are comprised of biogeoclimatic subzones with similar zonal climax ecosystems (BC MOFR 2013). Blue-list A list of ecologica l communities, and indigenous species and subspecies of special concern in British Columbia. CDC Conservation Data Centre - collects and disseminates information on plants, animals and ecosystems (ecological communities) at risk at the provincial level, and is tied to NatureServe, an international, non-profit organization of cooperating Conservation Data Centres and Natural Heritage Programs all using the same methodology to gather and exchange information on the threatened elements of biodiversity.

AURICO METALS INC. ix WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada - A federal committee of experts that assesses and designates the level of threat to wildlife and vegetation species in Canada. DEM Digital Elevation Model - a digital array of elevations for a n umber of ground positions at regularly spaced intervals. Ecological A term used by the BC CDC and NatureServe to include natural plant Community communities and plant associations and the full range of ecosystems that occur in British Columbia. Ecosystem A volume of earth -space that is composed of non -living parts (climate, (terrestrial) geologic materials, groundwater, and soils) and living or biotic parts, which are all constantly in a state of motion, transformation, and development. No size or scale is inferred. HSR Habitat Suitability Rating. Like Wildlife Habitat Ratings (WHRs), HSRs characterize the suitability of an ecosystem unit to support wildlife species for a particular life requisite and season; however, HSRs are the rating used for the final map product. Keystone species Keystone species are those that have relatively low population numbers compared to their importance in maintaining a balanced ecosystem (Helfield and Naiman 2006). For example, moose are considered biologically important keystone species, as they are highly capable of modifying the local ecology, especially wetland vegetation (McLaren et al. 2000) LSA Local Study Area, 16,658 ha in size. Mesic Water removed somewhat s lowly in relation to supply; soil may remain moist for a significant, but sometimes short period of the year. Available soil moisture reflects climatic inputs (BC MELP and BC MOF 1998). Moisture regime Indic ates, on a relative scale, the available moisture for plant growth in terms of the soil's ability to hold, lose, or receive water. Described as moisture classes from Very Xeric (0) to Hydric (8); (BC MELP and BC MOF 1998). Nutrient regime Indicates the available nutrient supply for plant growth on a site, relative to the supply on all surrounding sites. Nutrient regime is based on a number of environmental and biotic factors, and is described as classes from very poor (A) to very rich (E) and saline (F); (BC MELP and BC MOF 1998). Parkland Subalpine area characterized by forest clumps interspersed with open subalpine meadows and shrub thickets. Vegetation cover may vary in the proportion of treed patches, meadows, and shrub thickets. The term parkland can also be used for lower elevation forest that are open due to restricted moisture availability, such as occurs in the Ponderosa Pine zone. RIC Resource Inventor y Committee. A body of the BC government that develops survey standards for BC wildlife and ecosystems. RISC Resource Information Standards Committee, formerly the Resource Inventory Committee.

x ERM | PROJ #0196303-0021 | REV B.1 | DECEMBER 2015 GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS

SARA Species at Risk Act (2002 ) - A Canadian federal statute which is designed to meet one of Canada’s key commitments under the International Convention on Biological Diversity. The goal of the Act is to protect endangered or threatened organisms and their habitats. It also manages species which are not yet threatened, but whose existence or habitat is in jeopardy. Site series Describes all land areas capable of producing the same late seral or climax plant community within a biogeoclimatic subzone or variant (Banner et al. 1993). Site series can usually be related to a specified range of soil moisture and nutrient regimes within a subzone or variant, but other factors, such as aspect or disturbance history may influence it as well. Site series form the basis of ecosystem units. Definition is taken directly from the RISC standards for Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping. Structural Stage Describes the structural characteristics, and often the age, of vegetated ecosystems (RIC 1998b). SWB Spruce – Willow – Birch BEC zone SWBmk Spruce – Willow – Birch moist cool BEC subzone SWBmks Spruce – Willow – Birch moist cool scrub BEC subzone TEM Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping – delineation and attribution of ecosystem units based on air photo interpretation. Mapping follows provincial standards and a pre-defined classification system. Topography The confi guration of a surface, including its relief and the position of its natural and man-made features. TRIM Terrain Resource Information Management – refers to the digital dataset of geographic base mapping completed for the province of BC in 1996 at a scale of 1:20,000. The dataset includes elevational data, stream networks, and so on. Umbrella species Umbrella species are often wide ranging animals that are protected at the regional, provincial, or federal level, e.g., grizzly bear. The umbrella species concept is that the protection that is afforded to these species results, directly or indirectly, in the protection of many other species with similar or smaller home ranges, or that require similar life requisites as the umbrella species (Roberge and Angelstam 2004). Wetland Sit es dominated by hydrophytic vegetation where soils are water -saturated for a sufficient length of time such that excess water and resulting low soil oxygen levels are principal determinants of vegetation and soil development (MacKenzie and Moran 2004). WHR Wildlife Habitat Rating. A value assigned to an ecosystem or map unit to express the suitability of that unit to support wildlife species for a particular life requisite and season. Yellow List List of ecological communities and indi genous species that are not at risk in British Columbia.

AURICO METALS INC. xi 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

AuRico Metals Inc. (AuRico) proposes to develop the Kemess Underground Project (the Project), an underground gold-copper mine located in north-central British Columbia (BC). The purpose of the proposed Project is the economic extraction of gold and copper ore from the underground deposit using panel caving techniques and processing approximately 9 Mt/year (24,650 tonne per day (t/d) equivalent) with an average annual production rate estimated at 105,000 ounces of gold and 44 million pounds of copper, for a total of 1.3 million ounces of gold and 563 million pounds of copper over a mine life of approximately 12 years.

The Kemess South (KS) Mine, a former open pit mine was owned and operated by Northgate Minerals, and acquired by AuRico Metals Inc. (AuRico) in 2011. The site is currently under care and maintenance. Most of the KS mine infrastructure will be used for the proposed Project, including the mill, KS open pit (which will be used for the tailings storage facility for the Project), and administrative/service complex/accommodation. Only minor upgrades to KS mine infrastructure will be required for the Project. The Project will use the existing airstrip and road access to the site, and power will be provided by the existing 380 km, 230 kV transmission line.

The underground deposit will be accessed using three declines. Mining will take place on a single extraction level that includes 640 drawpoints over a 540-m-wide and 230-m-long footprint. Ore will be recovered using load-haul-dump machines and delivered to the underground crusher, located immediately south of the ore body. Once material is crushed, it will be placed on conveyor belt which rises through one of the dedicated declines and transfers the ore to surface conveyor, which will transport the crushed material to the existing, reclaimed stockpile area, directly north of the existing KS mill.

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION

The Project is located approximately 250 km north of Smithers, 430 km north-northwest of Prince George, and 6.5 km north of the past-producing KS Mine (coordinates: 57º0′N; 126º45′W; Figure 1.2-1). The Project is situated on provincial Crown land within the Peace River Regional District (PRRD), accessed from the Omineca Resource Access Road (ORAR) and Takla is the closest town by road to the Project. The closest communities to the Project by air are Kwadacha (alternately known as Fort Ware), Tsay Keh and Takla Landing.

AURICO METALS INC. 1-1 Figure 1.2-1 Kemess Underground Project Location

130°0'0"W 125°0'0"W 120°0'0"W 115°0'0"W

Great Slave Lake Northwest Territories Yukon 60°0'0"N ¤£1 60°0'0"N

British Columbia

Kemess Underground Kwadacha Alberta Project (Fort Ware) !. ¤£97 ^_ !. Tsay Keh ¤£37

Omineca Resource Alaska, Access Road Dawson Creek !. USA Takla !. Landing !. Mackenzie 55°0'0"N 55°0'0"N !. Smithers !. !. Fort St. Terrace James ¤£16 !. Prince George

r a ¤£16

i v

Pacific Ocean

¤£97 Kemess Underground ^_ Project ¤£1 !. Community/Settlement Omineca Resource Access Road 50°0'0"N Highway ¤£97 50°0'0"N ¤£3 Forest Service Road Vancouver Railway !. ¤£1 1:7,500,000 0 100 200 USA

Kilometres Contains information licensed under the Open Date: November 16, 2015 Government Licence – British Columbia and Canada. Projection: NAD 1983 BC Environment Albers Source: Copyright:© 2014 Esri

130°0'0"W 125°0'0"W 120°0'0"W

AURICO METALS INC. - Kemess Underground Project Proj # 0196303-0021 | GIS # KUG-23-008 INTRODUCTION

1.3 PROJECT PROPONENT

AuRico Metals Inc. (AuRico) proposes to develop the Kemess Underground Project (the Project). AuRico is a mineral exploration and mine-development company whose principal assets are the Kemess property in northern British Columbia and a suite of royalties on operating mines in Canada and Australia. AuRico was established on July 2, 2015 following the merger of AuRico Gold Inc. and Alamos Gold Inc., when the Kemess Property was divested into the sole ownership of the newly formed AuRico. The Proponent’s common shares are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX:AMI). Further information about AuRico Metals Inc. and the Project can be found at www.auricometals.ca.

1.4 PROJECT SETTING

The Project is located in the Peace River Regional District in north-central British Columbia near Thutade Lake. The Project Area is located between approximately 1,200 m and 1,800 m above sea level and is characterized by warm dry summers and cold wet winters. Temperatures range from -35ºC, to 25ºC, with November through March being the coldest months. Annual precipitation is approximately 700 mm. Maximum snowpack at the end of March at the KS Mine Site averages approximately 550 mm snow water equivalents.

The Project area can be roughly divided into three zones: the high U-shaped hanging valley of South Kemess Creek, the narrow valleys of Kemess Lake, North Kemess and Kemess Creeks (with numerous glaciofluvial terraces and aggregate deposits), and the broad valley outwash deposits of Attichika Creek. The Project is located between Attichika Creek (a tributary to Thutade Lake) and Attycelley Creek in the upper Finlay River watershed . The rivers ultimately drain northeast to the Peace River, east through the Athabasca-Mackenzie delta and into the Arctic Ocean.

1.5 OVERVIEW OF HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING

Habitat suitability models provide spatial and qualitative information about the distribution of functioning wildlife habitat within a given study area. As defined by the Resources Information Standards Committee (RIC 1999), suitability models and maps identify areas which, in their current condition, provide functioning (i.e., suitable) habitat for a particular species. Suitability is evaluated based on the physical attributes (e.g., elevation, slope, aspect, and geographical location) and the biological components (e.g., vegetation species composition, structure, and age) to identify habitat quality and the distribution of habitats for the species in question. This spatial catalogue, or habitat map, identifies areas of suitable habitat for wildlife species, provides a basis to evaluate the effects of development on wildlife habitat, and allows for the potential loss or alteration of these habitats to be placed into a local and regional context.

Species selected for habitat suitability modelling for the Kemess Underground Project (the Project) include species of conservation concern in British Columbia (BC), species of biological importance (e.g., possible indicators of ecosystem health), and/or species of particular economic or social importance (e.g., furbearers, game species) to regional governing agencies, residents of BC, or to

AURICO METALS INC. 1-3 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

Aboriginal peoples. Habitat suitability models were created in conjunction with ecosystem mapping produced by Ardea Biological Consulting Ltd. for the following species and seasonal attributes:

• caribou ( Rangifer tarandus ) early winter, late winter, spring reproducing, and summer habitat;

• moose ( Alces americanus ) early and late winter habitat;

• mountain goat ( Oreamnos americanus ) winter and summer habitat;

• grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos ) spring, summer, fall habitat;

• American marten ( Martes americana ) winter habitat; and

• hoary marmot ( Marmota caligata ) growing season (combined spring, summer, and fall) habitat.

1.6 OBJECTIVES

The goal of the wildlife habitat suitability baseline modelling was to map the current distribution of wildlife habitat within the study areas defined for the Project, specifically to generate habitat maps that represent the quality and spatial extent of suitable habitat available for select wildlife species within the Project Local Study Area (LSA). This information provides the basis for assessing potential direct and indirect effects of the Project on wildlife habitat (and subsequently to wildlife species), and for potential mitigation and management planning.

1.7 STUDY AREA

Habitat suitability mapping was conducted within the LSA (Figure 1.7-1). The LSA measures 16,658 ha in size and includes proposed and existing Project infrastructure.

1-4 ERM | PROJ #0196303-0021 | REV B.1 | DECEMBER 2015 Figure 1.7-1 Kemess Underground Project: Local Study Area

630000 635000 640000 645000 ± k ee Cr y le l E e c a y s

6330000 t 6330000 t t A C i r q u

O C

m r Subsidence e in e e Cone k c a Amazay R e (Duncan) s o u Lake r c e Proposed Exhaust Kemess Creek A rth c Ventilation Raise o c N e s s

6325000 R Kemess South 6325000 o a Tailings Storage d Proposed Decline Entrances Facility (TSF) !?!? End of Tunnel East Pit !? Quarry Expansion Bicknell Start of Tunnel !? Kemess Lake Lake Borrow 10 Tailings Storage Proposed Expansion Facility (TSF) East Dam

6320000 Closure 6320000 Spillway Upper NAG Dump k e Borrow Area re Thutade C ess Lake m e Proposed K Discharge Line Existing Attic hika Airstrip Cr eek

6315000 Local Study Area (LSA) 6315000 !? Decline Entrance !? Tunnel Entrance Infrastructure Existing Proposed (Surface) Proposed (Underground) Subsidence Cone

1:120,000 k e 6310000 6310000 0 2 4 re

n Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar

Kilometres r Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, o

Date: October 13, 2015 h AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 9N T swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

630000 635000 640000 645000

AURICO METALS INC. - Kemess Underground Project Proj # 0196303-0021 | GIS # KUG-23-005 2. METHODS

2.1 SPECIES SELECTION

Six species were selected for habitat suitability modelling for the Project: caribou, moose, mountain goat, grizzly bear, American marten, and hoary marmot. The seasons rated for each species reflect the primary season when the species would be present within the LSA, or the seasons for which habitat is limited for the species in the LSA (e.g., suitable winter habitat for ungulates). Seasonal life requisites and the rating scheme applied to models are provided in Table 2.1-1.

Table 2.1-1. Focal Species and Habitats Rated

Rating Additional Species Rated Season Life Requisite 1 Scheme Modelling 2 Caribou Early and Late Winter LI (FD emphasis for rating) 6 class Yes Summer Calving RE 6 class Yes Moose Early and Late Winter LI (FD emphasis for rating) 6 class Yes Mountain Goat Winter and Summer LI (FD and SH emphasis for rating) 6 class Yes Grizzly Bear Spring, Summer, and Fall LI (FD emphasis for rating) 6 class No American Marten Winter LI 4 class No Hoary Marmot Growing LI 4 class Yes 1 Life requisites are supplied by the species’ habitat and include food (FD), shelter (SH) and thermal (TH) (RIC 1999). The life requisite called living (LI) includes general activities that are mostly comprised of feeding, using cover for security and thermal purposes, and moving between the habitats required for these activities. Reproducing (RE) is a specific life requisite concerned with habitats with appropriate cover and thermal conditions for the spring calving period. 2 Additional modelling refers to the use of additional data ( e.g. , TRIM-based topography) to refine the habitat suitability model.

2.2 MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND LIMITATIONS

2.2.1 Development

The development of habitat suitability models for the Project was conducted in two steps. The first step involved gathering background information on focal wildlife species and summarizing this information into species accounts. Species accounts are summaries of the geographic distribution, life requisites, seasonal use of habitats, limiting factors, and habitat attributes for an animal species within a geographic range (RIC 1999); species accounts for the six species selected for habitat suitability modelling are provided in Appendices 1 to 6. Species accounts rely on available literature to identify important habitats (e.g., habitats most limiting to a wildlife species, such as winter range for ungulates) and biophysical components that constitute the habitat. Important habitat features may include slope, aspect, elevation limitations, or biological features such as vegetation, which provides forage and/or shelter.

The second step involved developing wildlife habitat ratings based on this background information. Ranking the suitability of available habitat for each wildlife species involves the use of standard ecosystem mapping products that identify and spatially define habitat across an area of interest (RIC

AURICO METALS INC. 2-1 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

1999). For the Project, the results of Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) produced by Ardea Biological Consulting Ltd. were used. The TEM product identifies a series of distinct ecosystem or “ecosystem unit” throughout the LSA. Ecosystem units are contained within mapped TEM polygons; up to three different ecosystem units may be contained within one TEM polygon. In these cases, the proportion of each ecosystem unit within the TEM polygon is determined during the mapping process (referred to as deciles).

Wildlife habitat ratings (WHRs) are assigned to each TEM ecosystem unit as a way to characterize the suitability of that unit to support a wildlife species for a particular life requisite and season (RIC 1999). WHRs are based primarily on vegetation composition and structure; however, a number of different attributes can be considered, such as terrain features (slope, aspect, elevation). Habitat models can also be refined to reflect changes in climate or annual fluctuations in vegetation phenology by applying seasonal models to an earlier or later period.

WHRs were developed according to either a 6-class or a 4-class system (RIC 1999), depending on the level of knowledge of the species and availability of relevant vegetation data (Table 2.2-1). The WHRs were then refined or weighted based on various topographic habitat features to determine a final 4- or 6-class Habitat Suitability Rating (HSR) for each ecosystem unit found within the RSA. For example, these features may include capable winter topography for caribou and moose and suitable escape terrain for mountain goat. Often WHRs and HSRs are equivalent; however, the HSR is the value used for the final map product. The habitat suitability models, including the ratings and additional topographic considerations in the modelling process, were developed based on ERM professional expertise in the northwest region of BC. ERM has completed several habitat suitability modelling exercises in nearby areas of similar ecology, and the results of these exercises were extended to the Project to develop species habitat suitability models. Ratings for each species are based on assumptions about the habitat requirements of the species as outlined in the species accounts (Appendices 1 to 6). WHRs assigned to ecosystem units are included in Appendix 7.

Table 2.2-1. Wildlife Habitat Rating and Habitat Suitability Rating Class Schemes 1

Rating Code % of Provincial Rating Class 6-Class Scheme 3 4-Class Scheme 3 (Regional) Best 2 High 1 H 100-76 Moderately High 2 M 75-51 Moderate 3 M 50-26 Low 4 L 25-6 Very Low 5 L 5-1 Nil 6 N 0 1 As described in RIC (1999). 2 % of best represents a conceptual framework for evaluating the habitat value based on the potential or expected use of the habitat as related to a provincial or regional benchmark. It is thus a qualitative representation of habitat value within the scale of the project. However, for the Project, habitat ratings were not adjusted according to the provincial benchmarks. 3 The 6 class scheme is used for bears and ungulates with a rating of 1 the best and a rating of 6 suggesting virtually no habitat value. The 4 class scheme is used for species such as marten and marmot.

The WHR and HSR values were developed and assigned to habitats within the LSA relative to habitat available in the region that encompasses the Project area and similar areas to the northwest;

2-2 ERM | PROJ #0196303-0021 | REV B.1 | DECEMBER 2015 METHODS values were not adjusted by comparison to provincial benchmarks (i.e., the best habitat for a given species across the entire province; RIC 1999). For example, the highest value habitat (i.e., HSR 1) identified for goats may be the best available in the region, but could only be considered moderate relative to what is available in the province and thus the ratings assigned for the Project may not match the percent of provincial best benchmarks (Table 2.2-1). HSR values specific to a region provide a more accurate reflection of the value of habitats to resident wildlife populations, and is therefore more applicable to Project planning.

To visually display the results of suitability modelling, the HSR assigned to the primary decile was used on all maps generated in this report. For example, the HSR assigned to a particular ecosystem unit that forms the largest proportion of habitat within a TEM polygon (e.g., HSR 1) was displayed on maps, even though the polygon may also contain two other HSR values (e.g., HSR 2 and HSR 3). The amount of habitat that was rated for suitability within the LSA, however, was summarized according to the actual amount of each HSR class that occurred across all deciles, summed across all TEM polygons within the LSA. Therefore, the numerical amounts of habitat presented within each rating class are a representation of the actual amount of habitat that exists within the LSA, while the maps were modified slightly to simplify the visual representation of the model results.

2.2.2 Limitations

The limitation associated with the models produced is the lack of field ground-truthing. According to RIC (1999), habitat suitability modelling is conducted in three steps: the two described above and the last being field verification of habitat models. RIC (1999) states that the results of habitat suitability modelling should be field tested to verify that habitat models are accurate in predicting habitat values for the selected species. This process is to be completed following the initial production of models (e.g., maps, data summaries), and the results of field testing are to be incorporated to adjust models for local conditions as required. Habitat models for the Project were not field tested, and thus may not accurately represent and reflect the conditions for local wildlife populations.

2.3 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELS

For each species, the model development and model variables are summarized below. Greater detail pertaining to the biology and habitat use of each focal species is summarized in the species accounts developed for the Project (Appendices 1 to 6). WHRs assigned to ecosystem units are included in Appendix 7.

2.3.1 Caribou

2.3.1.1 Overview

Woodland caribou that occur throughout the Project area are considered to be part of the northern mountain caribou population (sometimes referred to as northern caribou; COSEWIC 2014; BC CDC 2015). Northern mountain caribou are on the provincial blue list (BC CDC 2015) and are ranked as a species of Special Concern on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA; 2002). In addition, caribou in the area are an important species to Aboriginal peoples (Littlefield, Dorricott, and Cullon 2007).

AURICO METALS INC. 2-3 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

Four models were developed for the identification of caribou habitat in the LSA: three models that satisfy the living life requisite in early winter, late winter, and summer seasons, and a fourth model that satisfies the reproducing life requisite during the spring season (i.e., calving habitat). Reproducing areas are important for the maintenance of long-term viability of local populations.

In general, caribou in the study area use forested habitats at lower elevations (below approximately 1,600 m) when snow pack permits (e.g., early winter). During times when greater snow depth makes it difficult to move (e.g., late winter), caribou seek higher elevation habitat, such as alpine areas, which are windswept and support exposed barren and terrestrial lichen or grassland ground cover (Cichowski 1993). Caribou also feed opportunistically on arboreal lichen as they travel between terrestrial lichen sites, or seek arboreal lichens in forested wetlands and along wetland fringes where arboreal lichens are abundant. During the spring calving period, caribou seek out areas that provide security cover and are known to move to higher elevations at this time to avoid predators and other prey animals at lower elevations (Terry and Wood 1999; COSEWIC 2014). Throughout the summer, caribou typically forage at higher elevations, taking advantage of rich alpine vegetation and the relative absence of predators (COSEWIC 2014; Appendix 1).

2.3.1.2 Early Winter Habitat Model

During early winter, caribou generally remain in forested areas with sufficient structure and canopy closure to provide cover for snow interception and forage such as lichen. Sites with the potential to support abundant terrestrial and arboreal lichen were deemed to have the highest feeding values for caribou.

Given that caribou are expected to primarily use forested habitats in the early winter, only the forested ecosystems within the Spruce-Willow-Birch (SWB) Biogeoclimatic (BEC) zone were assigned WHRs in the early winter model, and the higher elevation habitat within the Boreal Altai Fescue Alpine (BAFA) BEC zone was not rated. High elevation habitat for caribou is considered in the late winter model.

The early winter model relied on wildlife habitat ratings, as identified by the ecosystem mapping products, in order to determine habitat suitability. No topographic features were considered for the development of the early season winter model.

2.3.1.3 Late Winter Habitat Model

During late winter, caribou generally move to high-elevation unforested areas (e.g., BAFA BEC zone). The caribou late winter habitat suitability model was developed based on topographic features defined by the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) information and 1:20,000 Terrain Resource Information Management (TRIM) data and vegetation features from the ecosystem mapping that were assigned a WHR.

Topographic and vegetation features used to develop the model were scored based on their importance as components of late winter habitat (Table 2.3-1). A final habitat score was developed for each ecosystem unit defined by the topographic and vegetation features. The final habitat suitability rating was consistent with the 6-class rating scheme recognized by the province (RIC 1999a; Table 2.3-2).

2-4 ERM | PROJ #0196303-0021 | REV B.1 | DECEMBER 2015 METHODS

Table 2.3-1. Model Definition of Topographic and Vegetation Features for Caribou Late Winter Habitat

Model Features Score Data Source Elevation >1,600 m 1 DEM information 1,200 m to 1,600 m 3 and TRIM data Slope 15-33 o 1 DEM information 0 to 14 o 2 and TRIM data

34 to 45 o 2 >45 o 4 Vegetation WHR 1 or 2 1 Food rating assigned to TEM WHR 3 3 ecosystem unit (Appendix 7)

WHR 4 or 5 5 WHR 6 100

Table 2.3-2. Cumulative Score and Associated Habitat Suitability Rating (for Caribou Late Winter Habitat

Cumulative Score from Associated Habitat Model HSR Provincial Rating Class (RIC 1999) 3, 4 1 High 5, 6 2 Moderately high 7, 8 3 Moderate 9, 10 4 Low 11-99 5 Very low ≥100 6 Nil

2.3.1.4 Spring (Calving) Habitat Model

The caribou spring (calving) model was based on habitat descriptions in the literature and professional expertise. The spring calving model used the same topographic and vegetation criteria as the late winter model (Table 2.3-1) to examine the suitability of high elevation, flat areas for caribou calving. However, vegetation features (i.e., WHRs for identified ecosystem units) were rated for their ability to provide adequate security habitat for calving females, instead of for their forage potential. Generally, suitable security habitats are very sparsely vegetated or barren locations (e.g., windswept and snow free areas) that provide good sightlines for detecting predators.

The final habitat suitability ratings were developed from the combined score of topography and vegetation in a same way as for late winter (Table 2.3-2).

2.3.1.5 Summer Habitat Model

The caribou summer model was focused on identifying suitable high elevation areas with abundant forage; the model was based on habitat descriptions in the literature and professional expertise.

AURICO METALS INC. 2-5 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

The summer model utilized the late winter model topographic and vegetation criteria (Table 2.3-1) to identify high elevation areas on gentler slopes. WHRs assigned to ecosystem units were generated based on forage potential; the highest ratings were assigned to areas where lush alpine vegetation, such as grasses, sedges, and forbs, may be available.

The final habitat suitability ratings were developed from the combined score of topography and vegetation in a same way as for late winter (Table 2.3-2).

2.3.2 Moose

2.3.2.1 Overview

Moose were selected for habitat suitability mapping because of their biological, social, and cultural significance. Moose are an important component of regional biodiversity, and they are harvested by Aboriginal peoples, resident hunters, and non-resident hunters (Littlefield, Dorricott, and Cullon 2007). Moose also provide important prey and carrion to predators (e.g., grizzly bear, wolf, and wolverine) and healthy populations are key to functioning ecosystems in northwest BC.

The moose habitat suitability model was developed in order to predict suitable winter habitat. Winter is considered to be the most limiting season for ungulates. During the winter, moose are in their poorest body condition, and experience high metabolic demands when moving through deep snow (Safford 2004). In addition, forage resources during winter are limited and of reduced nutritional quality (Appendix 2).

Habitat suitability mapping for moose focused on the early and late winter periods. The terms early and late refer to snowpack condition as opposed to a specific winter time frame. The early winter model represents winter conditions when snow pack is not limiting movements; therefore, moose may exploit a wider variety of habitats for foraging. The late winter model refers to the period when snowpack will potentially restrict movements because it is prohibitively deep. Only the late winter model considered topography (defined below), as it is anticipated that snow conditions would restrict moose to low elevation areas within the LSA.

2.3.2.2 Early Winter Habitat Model

Snow pack depth was not considered limiting for early winter moose habitat. Therefore, moose were anticipated to exploit areas that had available forage regardless of elevation. The early winter model relied on wildlife habitat ratings identified by the ecosystem mapping products to determine habitat suitability. Areas that may produce abundant and preferred moose winter forage (e.g., willow, red osier dogwood, aspen, scrub birch) were given higher HSR values (Appendix 2).

2.3.2.3 Late Winter Habitat Model

The moose late winter habitat suitability model was developed based on topographic features defined by the 1:20,000 scale TRIM and DEM data and vegetation features from the ecosystem mapping that were assigned a WHR. The model focused on identifying capable topography, forage, and cover availability. Capable topography for moose includes areas that provide relief from deep snow to facilitate access to browse (forage). Vegetation that provides security cover (i.e., avoid vulnerability to predators) contributes to habitat suitability. Elevation is an important component of

2-6 ERM | PROJ #0196303-0021 | REV B.1 | DECEMBER 2015 METHODS late winter moose habitat capability to identify the areas above which the snowpack is likely deep enough to limit habitat use; late winter represents the areas occupied by moose during severe winter conditions. Since snow pack is dynamic in both depth and density, the upper elevation limit of moose habitat exploitation during late winter likely fluctuates between years and within years. Slope was also considered as a topographic component; gentler slopes were considered to be of higher suitability for moose than steeper slopes in the areas where snowpack is not limiting.

Like the caribou late winter model, the late winter moose model included a score for topographic features as well as a score for vegetation features (Table 2.3-3). A final habitat score was developed for each ecosystem unit defined by the topographic and vegetation features. The final habitat suitability rating was consistent with the 6-class rating scheme recognized by the province (RIC 1999a; Table 2.3-4).

Table 2.3-3. Model Definition of Topographic and Vegetation Features for Moose Late Winter Habitat

Feature Score Source Data Elevation and Slope <1,200 m and <50% slope 1 DEM information 1,201 m to 1,300 m and <50% slope 3 and TRIM data

1,300 m to 1,375 m and <50% slope 100 <1,375 m and >50% slope 100 >1,375 and any slope 200 Vegetation WHR 1 1 Food rating assigned to WHR 2 2 TEM ecosystem unit (Appendix 7) WHR 3 3

WHR 4 4 WHR 5 or 6 5

Table 2.3-4. Cumulative Score and Associated Habitat Suitability Rating for Moose Late Winter Habitat

Cumulative Score from Habitat Associated Provincial Rating Class Model HSR (RIC 1999) 2, 3 1 High 4 2 Moderately high 5 3 Moderate 6 4 Low >6 to 199 5 Very low >200 6 Nil

AURICO METALS INC. 2-7 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

2.3.3 Mountain Goat

2.3.3.1 Overview

Habitat suitability models for mountain goats were conducted because of their contribution to regional biodiversity and their social and economic value associated with harvest.

Habitat suitability was modelled for both winter and summer seasons. Winter was modelled because habitats that provide accessible food, security, and shelter for goats during the severe climatic conditions of the northern winters are generally limited across the landscape. Summer was modelled because goats are vulnerable to noise and visual disturbance during the summer, particularly during the kidding period, primarily in May and June (Côté 1996; Blood 2000; Goldstein et al. 2005; BC MOE 2010).

Escape terrain is the most important component of mountain goat habitat, and therefore distance from escape terrain was assumed to have the greatest influence on habitat value (Appendix 3). Both winter and summer habitat suitability is highly dependent on availability of escape terrain, defined as barren areas with slopes from 40° to 70° (BC MOE 2010). Escape terrain was identified using a topographic model to isolate areas of steep, mountainous topography devoid of vegetation on slopes of 40° to 70° (Table 2.3-5). Habitats in very close proximity to escape terrain had the highest habitat values, which steadily decreased with increasing distance from escape terrain. Habitats beyond 400 to 500 m of escape terrain were assumed to have very low to no value for goats, based on results from previous studies (Fox, Smith, and Schoen 1989; RTEC 2006; BC MOE 2010)

Table 2.3-5. Model Definition of Escape Terrain for Mountain Goat

Escape Terrain Attribute Value Value Source Slope 40º - 70º DEM information and 1:20,000 TRIM data Vegetation barren areas TEM classification (AL - Altai fescue Lichen, RO - Rock Outcrop, DL - Lichen Tundra, TA – Talus, RG - Rock Glacier, OE - Mtn. sorrel Talus Slope, MC - Moss campion - Lichen Tundra)

2.3.3.2 Winter Habitat Model

The variables for the mountain goat winter habitat model were developed based on a combination of literature reviews and professional expertise. Escape terrain was defined (Table 2.3-5) and habitat was evaluated (scored) based on topographic and vegetation features (Table 2.3-6). Vegetation features were grouped into four classes based on WHRs.

The topographic and vegetation features were given a numerical score based on the importance of each feature for habitat suitability. The majority of the scores for habitat were determined by topographic parameters associated with escape terrain (i.e., distance from escape terrain and elevation). Low and very low habitat quality ratings were defined solely by distance to escape terrain. Vegetation was considered a secondary priority for winter habitat suitability.

2-8 ERM | PROJ #0196303-0021 | REV B.1 | DECEMBER 2015 METHODS

Table 2.3-6. Model Definition of Topographic and Vegetation Features for Mountain Goat Winter Habitat

Feature Score Data Source Distance to Escape Terrain 0 to 100 m 1 Buffer around Escape Terrain 101 to 200 m 2 (Table 2.3-7) 201 to 400 m 7 >400 m 12 Elevation >1,680 m 1 DEM information ≤1,680 m 2 and TRIM data Aspect Warm Southerly (135-285 °) 1 DEM information Cool Northerly (285-135 °) 2 and TRIM data Vegetation WHR 1or 2 1 Food rating assigned to TEM WHR 3 or 4 2 ecosystem unit (Appendix 7)

WHR 5 3 WHR 6 100

A final habitat score was developed for each habitat unit defined by topographic and vegetation features. These final scores were then translated into habitat suitability ratings (HSR) consistent with the 6-class rating scheme recognized by the province (Table 2.3-7).

Table 2.3-7. Cumulative Score and Associated Habitat Suitability Rating for Mountain Goat Winter Habitat

Cumulative Score from Associated Provincial Rating Class Habitat Model HSR (RIC 1999) 4, 5, 6 1 High 7, 8, 9 2 Moderately High 10, 11, and 12 3 Moderate 13 and 14 4 Low 15 to 99 5 Very Low ≥100 6 Nil

2.3.3.3 Summer Habitat Model

The summer habitat model for mountain goat was developed to identify suitable habitat in a similar fashion as the winter model. Similar to the winter habitat model, topographic features and vegetation features used to develop the model were scored based on their importance as components of summer habitat (Table 2.3-8).

AURICO METALS INC. 2-9 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

Table 2.3-8. Model Definition of Topographic and Vegetation Features for Mountain Goat Summer Habitat

Feature Score Source Data Distance to Escape Terrain 0 to 100 m 1 Buffer around Escape Terrain 101 to 200 m 2 (Table 2.3-7) 201 to 400 m 7 >400 m 12 Elevation >1,850 m 1 DEM information ≤1,850 m 2 and TRIM data Vegetation WHR 1, 2, or 3 1 Food rating assigned to TEM WHR 4 or 5 3 ecosystem unit (Appendix 7) WHR 6 100

While the availability of escape terrain remained a priority for evaluating summer habitat suitability, emphasis was also placed on the identification and classification of forage producing habitat (Appendix 3). Ecosystems likely to produce abundant forage (e.g., grasses and sedges) were given the highest ratings for summer vegetation, while sites that produced little forage were given the lowest ratings. Higher elevations above the treeline were also given greater habitat value. A final score was developed for each habitat polygon defined by the topographic and vegetation features and was translated into a final habitat suitability rating (Table 2.3-9).

Table 2.3-9. Cumulative Score and Associated Habitat Suitability Rating for Mountain Goat Summer Habitat

Cumulative Score from Associated Provincial Rating Class Habitat Model HSR (RIC 1999) 3, 4 1 High 5. 6 2 Moderately High 7, 8 3 Moderate 9 - 14 4 Low 15 to 99 5 Very Low ≥100 6 Nil

2.3.4 Grizzly Bear

2.3.4.1 Overview

Grizzly bears were selected for habitat suitability mapping because of their conservation status, and their social, economic, and biological importance. Grizzly bears are considered a species of Special Concern by COSEWIC and are blue-listed in BC (COSEWIC 2002, 2012; BC CDC 2015). Grizzly bears are an Identified Wildlife Species under the Identified Wildlife Management Strategy (IWMS), which means that the species requires special conservation measures within BC.

2-10 ERM | PROJ #0196303-0021 | REV B.1 | DECEMBER 2015 METHODS

Grizzly bear populations are managed for harvest throughout BC and are socially and economically important to Aboriginal peoples, resident hunters, and non-resident hunters. Grizzly bears play an important biological role within the ecosystem as top predators. From a conservation perspective, the grizzly bear is considered an umbrella species, which means that due to their large home ranges and habitat requirements, conservation measures for grizzly bears also afford protection to other species with similar or smaller home ranges or life requisites (Roberge and Angelstam 2004).

Habitat models were developed for grizzly bears for the spring, summer, and fall periods. These models represent the diverse habitat selection and foraging strategies that grizzly bears use over a large landscape as available vegetation and protein sources change and influence habitat selection throughout the year (Appendix 4).

2.3.4.2 Spring Habitat Model

The grizzly bear spring habitat model considered the results of ecosystem mapping; no topographic features were considered. Grizzly bear spring WHRs were developed based on vegetation forage production associated with identified ecosystem units, with an emphasis on herbaceous material produced by forbs (e.g., horsetail, devils club, skunk cabbage, lupine), grasses, and sedges (Appendix 7).

2.3.4.3 Summer Habitat Model

Similar to the spring model, the grizzly bear summer habitat model considered the results of ecosystem mapping; no topographic features were considered. The grizzly bear summer WHRs were based on vegetation forage production associated with identified ecosystem units, with emphasis on both herbs (e.g., fern frond and fireweed) and fruits (e.g., early produced berries from devils club and blueberry; Appendix 7).

2.3.4.4 Fall Habitat Model

Similar to the spring and summer models model, the grizzly bear fall habitat model considered the results of ecosystem mapping; no topographic features were considered. The grizzly bear fall WHRs were based on vegetation forage production associated with identified ecosystem units, with an emphasis on below ground vegetation (e.g., tubers and rhizomes from species such as lupine and cow parsnip) and fruit (e.g., late produced berries from red osier dogwood, high bush cranberry, huckleberries, blackberries and blueberries; Appendix 7).

2.3.5 American Marten

2.3.5.1 Overview

American marten were selected for habitat suitability mapping because of their regional economic importance and dependence on mature forest stand structure values, which help to identify important habitat for other wildlife species.

Winter is considered one of the most limiting times of year for marten, as foraging opportunities are lower in comparison to the snow free period. In addition, winter is the period when marten are

AURICO METALS INC. 2-11 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT actively trapped for fur. Therefore, habitat suitability modelling focused on identifying suitable winter habitat for marten (Appendix 5).

2.3.5.2 Winter Habitat Model

The American marten winter habitat suitability model relied on the ecosystem mapping conducted for the Project. American marten habitat was rated using a 4-class scheme: high, moderate, low and nil. In general, areas that supported conifer forests that were mature and structurally diverse (e.g., structural stage 6 and 7) were ranked higher than younger, more homogeneous stands. Open shrub and herb vegetation received a nil ranking (Appendix 7).

2.3.6 Hoary Marmot

2.3.6.1 Overview

Hoary marmots have been identified as a species of cultural importance by Aboriginal peoples (Littlefield, Dorricott, and Cullon 2007) and they are an important prey species for carnivores such as grizzly bears and golden eagles. Due to their cultural value and importance as a prey species, marmots were selected for habitat suitability modelling.

The hoary marmot is a relatively sedentary species, generally living in family colonies consisting of several burrows in mountainous alpine and subalpine habitats (Nagorsen 2005). Hoary marmots hibernate in their burrows for up to eight months and are generally active through the months of April to late August, depending on latitude (RIC 1998a). Modelling focused on identifying suitable growing season habitat (combined spring, summer, and fall habitat) since marmots are only active during snow-free months (Appendix 6).

2.3.6.2 Growing Habitat Model

The hoary marmot growing habitat suitability model was developed using the WHRs assigned to TEM ecosystem units (Appendix 7).

Hoary marmot habitat is rated on a 4-class scheme: High, Moderate, Low and Nil. Suitable habitat for marmot was restricted to high elevation areas above 1,400 m; all areas below 1,400 m were assumed to have no value for hoary marmot and were automatically assigned a nil rating. Areas with deep soils, lush herbaceous vegetation were assumed to have a combination of deep soils for denning and abundant vegetation forage. These areas were rated the highest. Polygons identified from the TEM mapping as supporting talus or broken rock capable of providing cover, but having low forage values were given moderate or low habitat ratings.

2-12 ERM | PROJ #0196303-0021 | REV B.1 | DECEMBER 2015 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 CARIBOU

3.1.1 Early Winter Habitat

Very little High and Moderately High rated (HSR 1 and HSR 2) early winter habitat was mapped across the LSA (Table 3.1-1). No High rated habitat occurred within the LSA and 1% (232 ha) of the area was identified as Moderately High rated habitat. Moderately High rated habitats were distributed across the southwestern LSA adjacent to the existing airstrip for the Kemess South Project and the south-facing slopes above Thutade Lake and Bicknell Lake (Figure 3.1-1). These Moderately High rated habitats are indicative of the areas where there may be an abundance of terrestrial and arboreal lichens available for caribou forage, and were typified by areas with larger, mature stands (structural stage 6) of lodgepole pine and white spruce.

Table 3.1-1. Caribou Early Winter Habitat within the LSA

Habitat Suitability Rating Area (ha) 1 % of Habitat in LSA 1 High 0 0 Moderately High 232.4 1.4 Moderate 6,722.7 40.4 Low 468.9 2.8 Very Low 4,587.3 27.5 Nil 2,173.7 13.0 Not Rated 2,473.3 14.8 1 LSA = 16,658 ha.

Moderate habitat (HSR 3) was the most commonly identified habitat in the LSA, accounting for 40% of the LSA. Moderate rated habitat was widely distributed across the lower elevations of the LSA (Figure 3.1-1). These Moderately suitable habitats represent areas where lichen forage may be present in lower quantities, and thus these habitats are still of use for caribou during the early winter. Generally, these areas included mature to old growth (structural stage 5 through 7) forests of lodgepole pine, white and black spruce, and subalpine fir.

The rest of the LSA that was rated for suitability fell in the lower three rating classes, including Low (3%), Very Low (28%), and Nil (13%). These lower rated habitats were largely mapped across water features (e.g., wetland habitats), across existing infrastructure for the Kemess South Project, and at mid-elevations where the forests become less dense and trees smaller, thereby providing little to no snow interception for caribou (Figure 3.1-1).

AURICO METALS INC. 3-1 Figure 3.1-1 Caribou: Early Winter Habitat

630000 635000 640000 645000

y Cree Attycelle k ± !(

a !( s 6330000 t 6330000

i r q u

e k Amazay (Duncan) Lake Subsidence Cone Proposed Exhaust emess Cree rth K k Ventilation Raise No

6325000 Kemess South 6325000 Tailings Storage Proposed Portal Facility (TSF) Proposed !?!? Conveyor End of Tunnel !( !? Bicknell Kemess !? Lake !( Lake Start of Tunnel

k Proposed Tailings e e Storage Facility r

C 6320000 6320000

e m e K Thutade Lake

Existing Airstrip At Mill, Service tic hi Complex, and ka Accomodation C re e k 6315000 6315000

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

!( Caribou Observation Existing Infrastructure Proposed Infrastructure Subsidence Cone (Northern Mountain Population) Access Road !? Portal Location Tailings Storage Facility Local Study Area (LSA) Exploration Road !? Tunnel Location Infrastructure Habitat Suitability Rating* Site Road Access Decline High Omineca Resource KUG Accessk Road Moderately High e 1:120,000 6310000 Access Road 6310000 Moderate Road re 0 2 4 Transmission Line C Low Conveyore n Infrastructure r Kilometres

Very Low East o Dam h

Nil T Date: August 11, 2015 *A total of 2473.3 ha (15%) of the LSA was not rated for caribou in the early winter Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 9N

630000 635000 640000 645000

AURICO METALS INC. - Kemess Underground Project Proj # 0196303-0021 | GIS # KUG-23-004a RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 2,473 ha (15% of LSA) was not rated for early winter suitability due to their high elevation (e.g., BAFA ecosystems). Habitats that were not rated included all alpine habitats above the treeline. In general, northern mountain caribou prefer to forage in forested areas at lower elevations in the early winter, and generally move upward in elevation once snow accumulation inhibits their ability to crater down to terrestrial lichens (Terry and Wood 1999; COSEWIC 2014). Therefore, higher elevation habitat, while it may contain suitable lichen forage, is not expected to be preferred until later in the winter (see following section).

The distribution of caribou and caribou sign recorded during baseline surveys for the Project in 2003, 2004, and 2015 indicate that the majority of early winter habitat use is concentrated in the area east of Duncan Creek and south of Attycelley Creek (Turney et al. 2006; Ardea 2015). This area was rated as Moderate in the present study. This result suggests that some areas of high value early winter habitat for caribou may not have been represented in the current study. A single observation of caribou sign was identified within the Moderately High rated habitat identified in the present study and two caribou have been observed during the early winter period in habitat rated as Moderate (Figure 3.1-1).

3.1.2 Late Winter Habitat

High and Moderately High suitable late winter habitat was mapped across 13% (2,182 ha) of the LSA (Table 3.1-2), occurring mostly in high elevation mountainous areas surrounding the Project Subsidence Cone, Amazay Lake in the northern LSA, and surrounding the Kemess South Project Tailing Storage Facility (TSF) in the eastern LSA (Figure 3.1-2). These higher rated habitats are indicative of areas where terrestrial lichens, such as reindeer lichens ( Clandina spp.), and gramanoid forage (e.g., grasses and sedges) may be found in abundance.

Table 3.1-2. Caribou Late Winter Habitat within the LSA

Habitat Suitability Rating Area (ha) 1 % of Habitat in LSA 1 High 1,104.0 6.6 Moderately High 1,077.6 6.5 Moderate 3,124.2 18.8 Low 8,056.0 48.4 Very Low 4.9 < 1 Nil 3,291.5 19.8 1 LSA = 16,658 ha

Approximately 19% of the LSA was rated as Moderate habitat (Table 3.1-2). For the most part, Moderately suitable habitat was dispersed among and surrounding Moderately High to Highly rated habitats and represented areas where terrestrial forage (e.g., lichen or gramanoid) may be present in lower quantities or where this forage is expected to be located under higher snow cover (e.g., on the lower slopes of mountains; Figure 3.1-2).

AURICO METALS INC. 3-3 Figure 3.1-2 Caribou: Late Winter Habitat

630000 635000 640000 645000

y Cree Attycelle k !( ± !(!( !( !( !( !( E

6330000 t 6330000

i r q u

e k Amazay (Duncan) Lake Subsidence Cone Proposed Exhaust emess Cree rth K k Ventilation Raise No !(

6325000 Kemess South 6325000 !( Tailings Storage Proposed Portal Facility (TSF) Proposed !?!? Conveyor !? End of Tunnel Bicknell Kemess !? Lake Lake Start of Tunnel

k Proposed Tailings e e Storage Facility r C 6320000 6320000 s

e m e K Thutade Lake

Existing Airstrip At !( Mill, Service tic hi Complex, and ka Accomodation C re e k 6315000 6315000

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

!( Caribou Observation Existing Infrastructure Proposed Infrastructure Subsidence Cone (Northern Mountain Population) Access Road !? Portal Location Tailings Storage Facility Local Study Area (LSA) Exploration Road !? Tunnel Location Infrastructure Habitat Suitability Rating Site Road Access Decline High Omineca Resource k e 1:120,000 6310000 Moderately High KUG Access Road 6310000 Access Road re 0 2 4 Moderate Road C

Transmission Line e

n Low Conveyorr Kilometres

Infrastructure o

h Very Low East T Dam Date: August 11, 2015 Nil Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 9N

630000 635000 640000 645000

AURICO METALS INC. - Kemess Underground Project Proj # 0196303-0021 | GIS # KUG-23-004b RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The majority of the LSA was rated in the lower three habitat classes, with 48% of the LSA rated as Low, < 1% as Very Low, and 20% as Nil. Lower rated habitats encompassed all lower elevation habitats, including most river drainages, existing mine infrastructure for the Kemess South Project, and water features (Figure 3.1-2). Small portions of high elevation habitat were also rated as Nil, which included barren and rocky alpine areas with no forage value. It should be noted that several areas of LSA adjacent to existing infrastructure for the Kemess South Project are in the process of being reclaimed with a variety of agricultural and native plant species (AECOM 2011). These areas have been rated as Nil for caribou in the late winter, although in time, these reclaimed areas may become more suitable as caribou foraging areas as plants become established.

The results of baseline surveys conducted for the Project in 2003, 2004, and 2015 suggest that caribou primarily utilized low elevation habitats in the late winter in similar areas as those identified for early winter (i.e., the areas south of Attycelley Creek and east of Duncan Creek; Section 3.1.1). These areas were rated as Low in the present study (Figure 3.1-2). As survey effort during baseline studies in 2003, 2004, and 2015 was directed towards low and high elevation habitat, the result suggests that lower elevation habitat with arboreal lichens may be more valuable to caribou in the local area of the Project than high elevation habitats supporting terrestrial lichens. Therefore, the current habitat suitability mapping may overemphasize the value of high elevation feeding habitat, and underestimate the amount of low elevation habitats supporting terrestrial lichens. Observations of caribou during the late winter period were primarily associated with Attycelley Creek in an area rated as Low (Figure 3.1-2).

3.1.3 Spring (Calving) Habitat

High and Moderately High rated spring calving habitat encompassed 12% of the LSA (2,037 ha; Table 3.1-3). In general, High and Moderately High rated habitat was mapped across high elevation mountainous terrain in the eastern and northern LSA, including an area within the Subsidence Cone (Figure 3.1-3).

Table 3.1-3. Caribou Spring (Calving) Habitat within the LSA

Habitat Suitability Rating Area (ha) 1 % of Habitat in LSA 1 High 1,368.5 8.2 Moderately High 668.5 4.0 Moderate 3,450.9 20.7 Low 5,498.2 33.0 Very Low 3.0 < 1 Nil 5,669.1 34.0

1 LSA = 16,658 ha

Moderately suitable habitat was mapped across 21% of the LSA (3,451 ha). Like the late winter period, the Moderately suitable habitats were generally located surrounding Moderately High to High rated habitats (Figure 3.1-3). Moderate rated habitat included most mid elevation areas, and included habitats that were either sparsely vegetated or shrubby (structural stage 3). Small patches of Moderate rated habitat was also identified in lower elevation areas adjacent to water features (e.g., along the shorelines of Amazay Lake and along the Kemess Creek drainage) and are indicative of areas that are more open (e.g., little to no tall vegetation) and thus may provide suitable sightlines for calving caribou.

AURICO METALS INC. 3-5 Figure 3.1-3 Caribou: Spring Reproducing (Calving) Habitat

630000 635000 640000 645000

") !( !( y Cree Attycelle k !( ±

E a #* s #* #*!!!!!!!!(((((((( #* t XXWW 6330000 """"""""")))))))))!!!!!!!!!!(((((((((( 6330000 C XXXXXXXWWWWWWW i !!(( r XXWW q u

#*#*#*!!((!!!!!!(((((( #* C #*

XXWW!!(( r

#*XXWW e

") e k Amazay ") (Duncan) 1:20,000 Lake Subsidence Cone Proposed Exhaust emess Cree rth K k Ventilation Raise No

6325000 Kemess South 6325000 Tailings Storage ") Proposed Portal Facility (TSF) !?!? !( Proposed Conveyor ") !? End of Tunnel Bicknell Kemess !? Lake Lake Start of Tunnel

Proposed Tailings !(

Storage Facility k e

6320000 e 6320000 r

C s s e m e Thutade K Lake !(

Existing !( Airstrip At !( Mill, Service tic hi Complex, and ka Accomodation C re e k

6315000 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar 6315000 Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Caribou Observation Habitat Suitability Rating Local Study Area (LSA) Proposed Infrastructure !( Adult Caribou High Existing Infrastructure !? Portal Location ") Adult and Yearling Moderately High Access Road !? Tunnel Location XW Yearling Caribou Moderate Exploration Road Access Decline Low Site Road KUG Access Road #* Pregnant Caribou Very Low Omineca Resource Road Access Road Nil k Conveyor e 6310000 1:120,000 Transmission Line 6310000 re East Dam 0 2 4 C Infrastructure e

n Subsidence Cone

Kilometres o

h Tailings Storage Facility

Date: August 11, 2015 T Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 9N Infrastructure

630000 635000 640000 645000

AURICO METALS INC. - Kemess Underground Project Proj # 0196303-0021 | GIS # KUG-23-004c RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The remainder of the LSA was rated Low (33%), Very Low (< 1%), and Nil (34%). These lower rated habitat were mapped across all lower elevation habitats, including all young to old forested ecosystems, water features, and existing infrastructure for the Kemess South Project (Figure 3.1-3). Nil rated habitat was also mapped across the most alpine habitats in the eastern LSA, which included very steep areas of talus, rocky outcrops, and areas of permanent snow or ice (Figure 3.1-3). Similar to late winter, areas identified as reclaimed habitat were identified as Nil for caribou during the calving period, although it is acknowledged that these areas could become more suitable for caribou calving as vegetation becomes established.

The results of the present study correspond to the results of caribou baseline surveys conducted for the Project. Caribou and caribou sign were generally recorded within sub-alpine and alpine areas within the LSA during calving surveys conducted in 2007 (MacLeod and Sheridan 2007; Ardea 2015), particularly along ridges between Duncan Lake and Cirque Creek. The area where calving caribou were recorded in the alpine areas between Duncan Lake and Cirque Creek was generally rated as Low, but caribou were directly adjacent to High rated habitat (Figure 3.1-3). Thus, it is likely that caribou were utilizing the High and Moderately High suitable habitat in this area for calving.

3.1.4 Summer Habitat

Similar amounts of High (8%; 1,392 ha) and Moderately High (7%; 1,253 ha) rated summer habitat for caribou was mapped across the LSA (Table 3.1-4). In general, Highly suitable habitats were located on gentle slopes of the mountainous regions of the LSA, and predominately on south and southwest facing slopes (Figure 3.1-4). Moderately High rated habitats were often located directly adjacent to Highly suitable habitats, although small, isolated areas of Moderately High rated habitats were mapped around areas near Bicknell Lake in the western LSA and adjacent to the transmission line and site roadways in the southern LSA. These higher rated habitats represent the areas where a variety of suitable graminoid and shrubby forage species selected by caribou during the summer are likely to be plentiful.

Table 3.1-4. Caribou Summer Habitat within the LSA

Habitat Suitability Rating Area (ha) 1 % of Habitat in LSA 1 High 1,392.1 8.4 Moderately High 1,253.5 7.5 Moderate 4,178.7 25.1 Low 6,345.3 38.1 Very Low 4.0 < 1 Nil 3,484.6 20.9 1 LSA = 16,658 ha

Moderately suitable habitat accounted for 25% of the LSA (4,179 ha; Table 3.1-4). Moderate rated habitats were distributed from high elevations, where Moderate rated habitats surrounded High to Moderately High rated habitats, to lower elevations, such as along the Kemess Creek drainage (Figure 3.1-4). The majority of the Subsidence Cone area was identified as Moderate rated summer caribou habitat.

AURICO METALS INC. 3-7 Figure 3.1-4 Caribou: Summer Habitat

630000 635000 640000 645000

y Cree Attycelle k ±

6330000 t 6330000

i r q u

e k Amazay (Duncan) Lake Subsidence ") Cone Proposed Exhaust emess Cree rth K k Ventilation Raise No !(

6325000 Kemess South 6325000 Tailings Storage Proposed Portal Facility (TSF) Proposed !?!? Conveyor !? End of Tunnel !( Bicknell Kemess Lake !? Lake !( Start of Tunnel

k Proposed Tailings e e Storage Facility r C 6320000 6320000 !( s s

e m e K Thutade Lake

Existing Airstrip At Mill, Service tic hi Complex, and ka Accomodation C re e k 6315000 6315000

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Caribou Observation Existing Infrastructure Proposed Infrastructure Subsidence Cone !( !( Adult Caribou Access Road !? Portal Location Tailings Storage Facility ") Adult and Yearling Exploration Road !? Tunnel Location Infrastructure Local Study Area (LSA) Site Road Access Decline Habitat Suitability Rating Omineca Resource KUG Access Road Access Road k High e 1:120,000 6310000 Road 6310000 Moderately High Transmission Line re 0 2 4 ConveyorC

Moderate Infrastructure e East n Dam

Low r Kilometres

h Very Low T Date: August 11, 2015 Nil Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 9N

630000 635000 640000 645000

AURICO METALS INC. - Kemess Underground Project Proj # 0196303-0021 | GIS # KUG-23-004d RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The rest of the LSA was rated as Low (38%), Very Low (< 1%), and Nil (21%). Like the late winter and calving periods, the lower rated habitats were distributed across lower elevation habitats, water features, and existing infrastructure for the Kemess South Project. Most of these lower rated habitats are forested or riparian habitats, or previously disturbed habitats in the case of existing infrastructure areas for the Kemess South Project, and are thus not expected to produce sufficient amounts of grassy or shrubby forage for caribou during the summer. Similar to late winter and calving, areas identified as reclaimed habitat were identified as Nil for caribou during the summer, although it is likely that some of these areas could become more suitable as summer foraging areas as vegetation, particularly native vegetation, becomes established.

There is a limited amount of baseline information collected for the Project on the distribution of caribou during the summer. Available information suggests that caribou or caribou sign were most often recorded in the alpine and subalpine plateaus during the summer (Ardea 2015), which are the habitats identified as High to Moderately High in the present study (Figure 3.1-4).

3.2 MOOSE

3.2.1 Early Winter Habitat

High and Moderately High suitable early winter habitat was mapped across 20% (3,389 ha) of the LSA (Table 3.2-1). Higher rated habitats are those that are capable of producing large quantities of suitable shrubby browse (e.g., willow and scrub birch) in areas that were not limited by snowpack. Highly rated habitats occurred in riparian areas along most major river drainages (e.g., Attichika Creek, Kemess Creek) and along shrubby high elevation areas (e.g., avalanche chutes along mountain slopes; Figure 3.2-1). Shrubby habitats located around the treeline were identified as Moderately High rated habitats in the northern LSA, while Moderately High rated habitats in the southern LSA were generally lower elevation forested areas that contained relatively high amounts of shrubby forage in the understory (Figure 3.2-1).

Table 3.2-1. Moose Early Winter Habitat within the LSA

Habitat Suitability Rating Area (ha) 1 % of Habitat in LSA 1 High 1,362.6 8.2 Moderately High 2,026.1 12.2 Moderate 532.5 3.2 Low 7,233.1 43.4 Very Low 5,181.7 31.1 Nil 322.4 1.9 1 LSA = 16,658 ha

Very little Moderate rated habitat occurred in the LSA; approximately 3% of the LSA was rated as Moderate for moose in the early winter. Moderate rated habitats generally occurred in relatively small patches within the LSA, such as along Attycelly Creek in the northern LSA and interspersed with Moderately High to Highly suitable habitat within the southern LSA. Moderately suitable habitats represent those where shrubby browse are available in lower quantities.

AURICO METALS INC. 3-9 Figure 3.2-1 Moose: Early Winter Habitat

630000 635000 640000 645000

ley Creek Attycel !( ±

6330000 t 6330000

i r q u

e k Amazay (Duncan) Lake Subsidence Cone !( Proposed Exhaust emess Cree rth K k Ventilation Raise No

6325000 Kemess South 6325000 Tailings Storage Proposed Portal Facility (TSF) Proposed !?!? Conveyor !? End of Tunnel Bicknell Kemess !? Lake Lake Start of Tunnel

k Proposed Tailings e e Storage Facility r C 6320000 6320000 s

e m e K Thutade Lake

Existing Airstrip At Mill, Service tic hi Complex, and ka Accomodation C re e k 6315000 6315000

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

!( Moose Observation Existing Infrastructure Proposed Infrastructure Subsidence Cone Local Study Area (LSA) Access Road !? Portal Location Tailings Storage Facility Habitat Suitability Rating Exploration Road !? Tunnel Location Infrastructure High Site Road Access Decline Omineca Resource Moderately High KUG kAccess Road e 1:120,000 6310000 Access Road 6310000 Moderate Road re 0 2 4 Transmission Line C Low Conveyore n Infrastructure r Kilometres

Very Low Easto Dam h

T Date: August 12, 2015 Nil Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 9N

630000 635000 640000 645000

AURICO METALS INC. - Kemess Underground Project Proj # 0196303-0021 | GIS # KUG-23-004e RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The majority of the LSA was rated in the lower three habitat classes, with 44% of the LSA rated as Low, 31% as Very Low, and 2% as Nil. Lower rated habitats were characterized by lower elevation forested habitats with poor understory shrub components, water features (including wetland habitat), and alpine areas with grass and forb type vegetation (Figure 3.2-1). In addition, all existing infrastructure for the Kemess South Project and adjacent reclaimed habitats was rated as Very Low to Nil habitat.

Early winter suitability is consistent with trends in animal observations and detections of sign collected for the Project during the winter period, although survey observations are not specific to early winter. The lower drainages of Attichika Creek and Attycelly Creek were areas where a number of moose and moose sign were observed during surveys conducted during the winter (Turney et al. 2005; Turney and Roberts 2005; Ardea 2015). In addition, several observations of winter moose sign were recorded along the lower drainage of Kemess Creek (Turney et al. 2005; Turney and Roberts 2005; Ardea 2015). Each of these areas was rated as High to Moderate for early winter in the present study.

3.2.2 Late Winter Habitat

High and Moderately High rated later winter habitat encompassed 12% of the LSA (1,892 ha; Table 3.2-2). High and Moderately High rated habitat was generally restricted to the Attichika Creek and Kemess Creek drainages, and represent habitats where moose can find suitable shrubby forage without being limited by the local snowpack (Figure 3.2-2). These areas also represent habitats with suitable forest cover (for snow interception), while open areas along river drainages also provide good sightlines for predator detection and avoidance. A small portion of Attycelly Creek in the northern LSA also contained High and Moderately High rated habitat (Figure 3.2-2).

Moderate rated habitat only occurred across 1% (242 ha) of the LSA (Table 3.2-2). The largest quantities of Moderate rated habitats were along the shoreline of Thutade Lake and along much of the Attycelly Creek drainage within the LSA; smaller patches of Moderate rated habitats occurred adjacent to existing infrastructure for the Kemess South Project and along the slopes above Thutade Lake (Figure 3.2-2). Moderate rated habitats represent areas where relatively good quality shrubby forage is available, but at elevations where the snowpack may become limiting and moose may not be able to access this forage (e.g., along Attycelly Creek), or lower elevation areas where snowpack is not limiting but there is less suitable shrubby browse available (e.g., along the shoreline of Thutade Lake).

Table 3.2-2. Moose Late Winter Habitat within the LSA

Habitat Suitability Rating Area (ha) 1 % of Habitat in LSA 1 High 281.6 1.7 Moderately High 1,610.0 9.7 Moderate 241.8 1.5 Low 2,175.6 13.1 Very Low 3,094.3 18.6 Nil 9,255.0 55.6 1 LSA = 16,658 ha

AURICO METALS INC. 3-11 Figure 3.2-2 Moose: Late Winter Habitat

630000 635000 640000 645000

y Cree Attycelle k !( ±

!( E

6330000 t 6330000

i r q u

e k Amazay !( (Duncan) Lake Subsidence Cone Proposed Exhaust emess Cree rth K k Ventilation Raise No !(

6325000 Kemess South 6325000 Tailings Storage Proposed Portal Facility (TSF) Proposed !?!? Conveyor !? End of Tunnel Bicknell Kemess !? Lake Lake Start of Tunnel

k Proposed Tailings e e Storage Facility r C 6320000 6320000 s

e m !( e K Thutade Lake !(

Existing Airstrip At Mill, Service tic hi Complex, and ka Accomodation C re e k 6315000 6315000

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

!( Moose Observation Existing Infrastructure Proposed Infrastructure Subsidence Cone Local Study Area (LSA) Access Road !? Portal Location Tailings Storage Facility Habitat Suitability Rating Exploration Road !? Tunnel Location Infrastructure High Site Road Access Decline Moderately High Omineca Resource KUG Access Road k e 1:120,000

6310000 Access Road 6310000 Moderate Road re 0 2 4

Transmission Line C Low Conveyor e

Infrastructure n r Kilometres

Very Low East o Dam h

Nil T Date: August 12, 2015 Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 9N

630000 635000 640000 645000

AURICO METALS INC. - Kemess Underground Project Proj # 0196303-0021 | GIS # KUG-23-004f RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The rest of the LSA (including the Kemess Underground area) was rated as Low (13%), Very Low (18%), and Nil (56%). Low rated habitats were distributed across forested areas below 1,300 m in the northern and southern LSA. Low rated habitats were generally identified as those that may contain a low to moderate amount of shrubby forage but where located at elevations where the snowpack may limit the access to these areas. Very Low and Nil habitats were largely determined by elevation. It is expected that moose will be restricted to habitats below 1,300 m in the late winter by the local snowpack. Therefore, while habitats above this elevation may contain highly suitable shrubby browse, they will be largely unavailable to the local moose population due to the deep, restrictive snowpack.

Similar patterns in animal and sign observation were recorded on surveys conducted for the Project during winter (Turney et al. 2005; Turney and Roberts 2005; Ardea 2015). Most of the observations of moose and moose sign collected during aerial and ground based studies conducted during the winter in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2015 in the LSA were recorded along the lower drainages of Attichika and Attycelly Creeks. Both of these areas within the LSA were identified as High to Moderate rated late winter habitats.

3.3 MOUNTAIN GOAT

3.3.1 Winter Habitat

Approximately 15% of the LSA (2,430 ha) was identified as High and Moderately High rated winter habitat for goats (Table 3.3-1). High and Moderately High rated habitats were well distributed across all high elevation mountainous terrain within the LSA (Figure 3.3-1). Small amounts of High to Moderately High rated habitats occurred in lower elevations adjacent to Kemess Lake. The area within the Subsidence Cone was largely mapped as High to Moderately High rated winter habitat (Figure 3.3-1); however, mountain goats have not been observed in this area during the winter during baseline surveys conducted in the mid 2000’s and recently in 2015 (Ardea 2015). In general, these higher rated habitats were those that were located within 200 m of suitable escape terrain, received some thermal protection during the winter (south-facing slopes), and would contain accessible and preferred forage.

Table 3.3-1. Mountain Goat Winter Habitat within the LSA

Habitat Suitability Rating Area (ha) 1 % of Habitat in LSA 1 High 825.8 5.0 Moderately High 1,604.3 9.6 Moderate 1,248.0 7.5 Low 550.8 3.3 Very Low 11,299.0 67.8 Nil 1,130.4 6.8 1 LSA = 16,658 ha

AURICO METALS INC. 3-13 Figure 3.3-1 Mountain Goat: Winter Habitat

630000 635000 640000 645000

y Cree Attycelle k ±

s 6330000 t !( 6330000 C !(!( !( i r q !( !( u !( e

e e

k !( Amazay (Duncan) Lake Subsidence Cone Proposed Exhaust emess Cree rth K k Ventilation Raise No

6325000 Kemess South 6325000 Tailings Storage !( Proposed Portal Facility (TSF) Proposed !?!? Conveyor !? End of Tunnel Bicknell Kemess !? Lake Lake Start of Tunnel

k Proposed Tailings e e Storage Facility r C 6320000 6320000 s

e m e K Thutade Lake

Existing Airstrip At Mill, Service tic hi Complex, and ka Accomodation C re e k 6315000 6315000

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Mountain Goat Existing Infrastructure Proposed Infrastructure !( Subsidence Cone Observation Access Road !? Portal Location Tailings Storage Facility Local Study Area (LSA) Exploration Road !? Tunnel Location Infrastructure Habitat Suitability Rating Site Road Access Decline High Omineca Resource KUG Access Road Moderately High Access Road k e 1:120,000 6310000 Road 6310000 Moderate Transmission Line re 0 2 4 ConveyorC Infrastructure e Low n

East r Dam Kilometres o

Very Low h

T Date: August 12, 2015 Nil Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 9N

630000 635000 640000 645000

AURICO METALS INC. - Kemess Underground Project Proj # 0196303-0021 | GIS # KUG-23-004g RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Moderate rated habitat accounted for approximately 7% (1,248 ha) of the LSA (Table 3.3-1). In general, Moderate rated habitats surrounded Moderately High to Highly suitable habitats, and were primarily identified based on distance to escape terrain. Most Moderate rated habitats were characterized as habitats that could contain very suitable forage but were located between 200 and 400 m of escape terrain.

The rest of the LSA was rated as Low (3%), Very Low (68%), and Nil (7%), and included habitats with relatively low forage value near escape terrain (e.g., within 400 m) and all other areas beyond 400 m of escape terrain. It is expected that goats rarely venture further than 400 m from escape terrain during the winter, despite the availability of suitable forage in alpine areas where escape terrain does not occur.

Baseline studies conducted for the Project on mountain goat indicate that mountain goat occupy discrete areas of the LSA during the winter. Across winter surveys conducted in the mid 2000’s (2003, 2004, 2005), and most recently in 2015, the majority of goats observed within the LSA were recorded on an escapement on the north side of the Subsidence Cone, with just two other observations on the ridge to the east of Duncan Lake (Ardea 2015). This result indicates that while most high elevation habitats have been identified as High to Moderately High rated habitat for mountain goat in the winter in the current study, not all may be used by the local population of goats.

3.3.2 Summer Habitat

High and Moderately High suitable summer habitat accounted for 15% (2,441 ha) of the LSA (7.2% High and 7.5% Moderately High; Figure 3.3-2; Table 3.3-2). These higher rated habitats encompass most high elevation mountainous terrain within the LSA (Figure 3.2-2). Like the winter period, these higher rated habitats are those located within 200 m of escape terrain that produce modest to high amounts of preferred summer forage for goats, such as grasses, sedges, and forbs.

Table 3.3-2. Mountain Goat Summer Habitat within the LSA

Habitat Suitability Rating Area (ha) 1 % of Habitat in LSA 1 High 1,197.6 7.2 Moderately High 1,243.6 7.5 Moderate 1,287.6 7.7 Low 524.2 3.1 Very Low 11,274.8 67.7 Nil 1,130.4 6.8 1 LSA = 16,658 ha

Moderate rated habitats accounted for approximately 8% of the LSA (Table 3.3-2). Moderate rated habitats are characterized by higher elevation habitats that are not directly adjacent to escape terrain (i.e., 200 to 400 m from escape terrain) but provide ready access to preferred summer forage. Thus, these areas will likely receive a moderate amount of use, though not as much as those closer to escape terrain.

AURICO METALS INC. 3-15 Figure 3.3-2 Mountain Goat: Summer Habitat

630000 635000 640000 645000

y Cree Attycelle k ±

6330000 t 6330000

C !(

i !(!( r !(!(!( q !( u !( e !(

e k Amazay (Duncan) Lake Subsidence Cone Proposed Exhaust emess Cree !( rth K k Ventilation Raise No

6325000 Kemess South 6325000 Tailings Storage Proposed Portal Facility (TSF) Proposed !?!? Conveyor !? End of Tunnel Bicknell Kemess !? Lake Lake Start of Tunnel

k Proposed Tailings e e Storage Facility r C 6320000 6320000 s

e m e K Thutade Lake

Existing Airstrip At Mill, Service tic hi Complex, and ka Accomodation C re e k 6315000 6315000

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

East r Dam Kilometres o

Very Low h

T Date: August 12, 2015 Nil Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 9N

630000 635000 640000 645000

AURICO METALS INC. - Kemess Underground Project Proj # 0196303-0021 | GIS # KUG-23-004h RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The remainder of the LSA was rated Low (3%), Very Low (68%), and Nil (7%). Similar to the winter period, lower rated habitats were those that where located at greater distances from escape terrain (greater than 400 m), and those that had relatively low amounts of preferred forage that were adjacent to escape terrain (~200 to 400 m; Table 3.3-2).

The results of baseline surveys conducted for the Project indicate that mountain goat habitat use during the summer is scattered across the LSA. In general, habitat use was restricted to the higher elevation sub-alpine to alpine area, and a small population of 4 to 12 individuals were consistently recorded on an escarpment to the north of the Subsidence Cone from 2003 to 2009 (Turney et al. 2005; Turney and Roberts 2005; Ardea 2015). Higher elevation habitats have been identified as High to Moderately High rated summer habitat in the current study, including the area north of the subsidence cone were goats have been recorded over the years.

3.4 GRIZZLY BEAR

3.4.1 Spring Habitat

Approximately 13% (2,133 ha) of the LSA was rated as High and Moderately High suitable spring habitat for grizzly bear, the majority of which was mapped in the southern LSA (Figure 3.4-1; Table 3.4-1). Higher rated habitats included low elevation wetland and riparian areas that produce early spring forage, such as horsetails and stinging nettle. Habitats at higher elevations where grass and herb type vegetation are abundant (e.g., avalanche tracks, alpine meadows) were also rated as High to Moderately High habitat and may be used in the late spring as the snow recedes and vegetation emerges.

Table 3.4-1. Grizzly Bear Spring Habitat within the LSA

Habitat Suitability Rating Area (ha) 1 % of Habitat in LSA 1 High 601.7 3.6 Moderately High 1,530.8 9.2 Moderate 7,147.0 42.9 Low 3,087.4 18.5 Very Low 3,969.0 23.8 Nil 322.4 1.9 1 LSA = 16,658 ha

Moderate rated habitats were widely distributed across the LSA and accounted for 43% of the LSA (Figure 3.4-1; Table 3.4-1). Moderate rated habitat was mapped across much of the forested habitats within the LSA, as well as at higher elevations where moderate amounts of grass and forbs may be present (i.e., less productive habitats than those identified as High to Moderately High). Some of the forested habitats that were rated as Moderate were identified as those that may support early berry production (e.g., devils club).

The rest of the LSA was rated as Low (18%), Very Low (24%), and Nil (2%). These lower rated habitats were distributed across the LSA and included mature, forested habitats at lower elevation with poor understory herb and shrub development, as well as high elevation areas that are primarily sparsely vegetated, rocky, or covered with permanent snow or ice (Figure 3.4-1).

AURICO METALS INC. 3-17 Figure 3.4-1 Grizzly Bear: Spring Habitat

630000 635000 640000 645000

y Cree Attycelle k ±

6330000 t 6330000

i r q !( u

e k Amazay (Duncan) Lake Subsidence Cone Proposed Exhaust !( emess Cree rth K k Ventilation Raise No

6325000 Kemess South 6325000 Tailings Storage Proposed Portal Facility (TSF) Proposed !?!? Conveyor !? End of Tunnel !( Bicknell Kemess !? Lake Lake Start of Tunnel !( k Proposed Tailings e e Storage Facility r C 6320000 6320000 s

e m e K Thutade Lake

Existing Airstrip At !( Mill, Service tic hi Complex, and ka Accomodation C re e k 6315000 6315000

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

!( Grizzly Bear Observation Existing Infrastructure Proposed Infrastructure Subsidence Cone Local Study Area (LSA) Access Road !? Portal Location Tailings Storage Facility Habitat Suitability Rating Exploration Road !? Tunnel Location Infrastructure High Site Road Access Decline Moderately High Omineca Resource KUG Access Road Access Road k e 1:120,000 6310000 Moderate Road 6310000 Transmission Line re 0 2 4 Low ConveyorC e

Infrastructure n

r Kilometres

Very Low Easto Dam h

Nil T Date: August 12, 2015 Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 9N

630000 635000 640000 645000

AURICO METALS INC. - Kemess Underground Project Proj # 0196303-0021 | GIS # KUG-23-004i RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

There is a limited amount of baseline information available on the distribution of grizzly bears, specifically for the spring period. Available information indicates that grizzly bear have been regularly observed in areas surrounding the Kemess South Project since 2003 (Ardea 2015), which suggests that grizzly bears are present throughout much of the year in the southern LSA. Ardea (2015) noted that bears were commonly recorded in the large wetland complexes north of the Kemess South airstrip, the riparian and wetland habitats along Attichika Creek and Kemess Creek, as well as wetland areas near the Kemess South Mine. Many of these locations were identified as High to Moderately High rated habitat for grizzly bear in the spring in the current study (Figure 3.4-1). It should be noted that the number of grizzly bear observations near the Kemess South Mine relative to other areas in the LSA may be influenced by the presence of people at the mine site over the years, hence a larger number of ‘observers’ to detect bears. Ardea (2015) also noted that the drainage that connects Kemess Creek with Attycelley Creek is a potential travel corridor for grizzly bear based on the large amount of grizzly bear sign recorded in this area. A portion of this valley is located within the LSA, and some of this area was identified as Moderately High rated habitat during the spring.

3.4.2 Summer Habitat

No High rated habitat occurred within the LSA and 3% (474 ha) of the area was identified as Moderately High rated habitat. Moderately High rated habitats were mapped in small areas of the southern LSA at the end of the existing Kemess South Project TSF and in the northern LSA, including within the Subsidence Cone (Figure 3.4-2). Moderately High rated summer habitat included higher elevation areas that are expected to produce large quantities of berries and forbs. During the summer and fall, grizzly bear also hunt hoary marmot in alpine areas; suitable growing habitats for hoary marmot, and thus potential hunting areas for grizzly bear, are discussed in Section 3.6.

Over half of the LSA (58%; 9,639 ha) was identified as Moderately suitable summer habitat (Table 3.4-2). Moderately rated habitats were widely distributed, the majority of which were forested and wetland type ecosystems; very little higher elevation alpine areas were identified as Moderate (Figure 3.4-2). Moderate rated habitats included forested areas that could produce modest amounts of preferred berry forage but where berry production may be limited due to more closed canopy cover. Areas with abundant herbs and sedges that may still have forage value in early summer prior to senescing were also identified as Moderately suitable.

Table 3.4-2. Grizzly Bear Summer Habitat within the LSA

Habitat Suitability Rating Area (ha) 1 % of Habitat in LSA 1 High 0 0.0 Moderately High 474.4 2.8 Moderate 9,638.8 57.9 Low 2,253.7 13.5 Very Low 3,969.0 23.8 Nil 322.4 1.9 1 LSA = 16,658 ha

AURICO METALS INC. 3-19 Figure 3.4-2 Grizzly Bear: Summer Habitat

630000 635000 640000 645000

y Cree Attycelle k ±

6330000 t 6330000

i r q u

e k Amazay (Duncan) Lake Subsidence Cone Proposed Exhaust emess Cree rth K k Ventilation Raise No

6325000 Kemess South 6325000 Tailings Storage Proposed Portal Facility (TSF) Proposed !?!? Conveyor !? End of Tunnel Bicknell Kemess !? Lake Lake Start of Tunnel

k Proposed Tailings e e Storage Facility r C 6320000 6320000 s

e m e K Thutade Lake

Existing Airstrip At Mill, Service tic hi Complex, and ka Accomodation C re e k 6315000 6315000

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Local Study Area (LSA) Existing Infrastructure Proposed Infrastructure Subsidence Cone !? Habitat Suitability Rating Access Road Portal Location Tailings Storage Facility !? High Exploration Road Tunnel Location Infrastructure Moderately High Site Road Access Decline k e 1:120,000 6310000 Moderate Omineca Resource KUG Access Road 6310000 Access Road re 0 2 4 Low Road C e

Transmission Line n

r Kilometres Very Low Conveyoro

Infrastructure h

Nil East T Dam Date: August 12, 2015 Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 9N

630000 635000 640000 645000

AURICO METALS INC. - Kemess Underground Project Proj # 0196303-0021 | GIS # KUG-23-004j RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The rest of the LSA was rated as Low (13%), Very Low (24%), and Nil (2%). For the most part, lower rated habitats were distributed across high elevation alpine areas within the LSA (Figure 3.4-2) and represented areas that would contain very little forage (e.g., areas dominated by lichens, mosses, and other sparsely vegetated areas) or were primarily rock, snow, and ice.

As noted above, grizzly bear have frequently been recorded near the Kemess South Mine, and a potential travel corridor for grizzly bear may exist between Kemess Creek and Attycelley Creek. These areas were generally of lower habitat quality during the summer (Moderate to Very Low).

3.4.3 Fall Habitat

No High rated habitat occurred within the LSA and less than 1% (113 ha) of the area was identified as Moderately High rated habitat. Moderately High rated habitat was primarily mapped at the south end of the existing Kemess South Project TSF and near the proposed tunnel location for the Project (Figure 3.4-3). Moderately High rated habitat represented lush alpine meadows where a variety of suitable grass and forb type vegetation would be available and likely to produce roots and tubers that would be dug up by gears in fall. During the summer and fall, grizzly bear also hunt hoary marmot in alpine areas; suitable growing habitats for hoary marmot, and thus potential hunting areas for grizzly bear, are discussed in Section 3.6.

Moderate rated habitat accounted for 45% of the LSA (Table 3.4-3). Similar to the summer period, Moderately suitable fall habitats for grizzly bear were primarily forested ecosystems that can produce late fruiting or persistent berries but in moderate amounts because these forests are expected to have more closed canopies, and thus generally lower light levels in the understory. In forested areas, canopy closures of 20-50% are optimal for berry production (Ash 1985).

Table 3.4-3. Grizzly Bear Fall Habitat within the LSA

Habitat Suitability Rating Area (ha) 1 % of Habitat in LSA 1 High 0 0.0 Moderately High 112.8 0.7 Moderate 7,548.2 45.3 Low 4,138.5 24.8 Very Low 4,536.4 27.2 Nil 322.4 1.9 1 LSA = 16,658 ha

The remainder of the LSA was rated Low (25%), Very Low (27%), and Nil (2%). Lower rated habitats for grizzly bear in the fall were similar to those identified during the summer period, and were primarily rated lower due to the lack of suitable forage growing in these areas. Habitat in the lower three habitat classes included sparsely vegetated alpine areas, water features, and existing infrastructure for the Kemess South Project (Figure 3.4-3).

AURICO METALS INC. 3-21 Figure 3.4-3 Grizzly Bear: Fall Habitat

630000 635000 640000 645000

y Cree Attycelle k ±

6330000 t 6330000

i r q u

e k Amazay (Duncan) Lake Subsidence Cone Proposed Exhaust emess Cree rth K k Ventilation Raise No

6325000 Kemess South 6325000 Tailings Storage Proposed Portal Facility (TSF) Proposed !?!? Conveyor !( !? End of Tunnel Bicknell Kemess !? Lake Lake Start of Tunnel

k Proposed Tailings e e Storage Facility r C 6320000 6320000 s

e m e K Thutade Lake

Existing Airstrip At Mill, Service tic hi Complex, and ka Accomodation C re e k 6315000 6315000

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

!( Grizzly Bear Observation Existing Infrastructure Proposed Infrastructure Subsidence Cone !? Local Study Area (LSA) Access Road Portal Location Tailings Storage Facility !? Habitat Suitability Rating Exploration Road Tunnel Location Infrastructure High Site Road Access Decline Moderately High Omineca Resource KUG Access Road Access Road k e 1:120,000 6310000 Moderate Road 6310000 Transmission Line re 0 2 4 Low ConveyorC e

Infrastructure n

r Kilometres

Very Low Easto Dam h

Nil T Date: August 12, 2015 Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 9N

630000 635000 640000 645000

AURICO METALS INC. - Kemess Underground Project Proj # 0196303-0021 | GIS # KUG-23-004k RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In addition, wetlands such as the large wetland that occurs along the south shore of Thutade Lake were also rated lower, as very little suitable forage for bears is expected to persist in these areas during the fall. Wetland areas are of high value during the spring (Section 3.4.1), as vegetation emerges earlier and provide bears with a source of food soon after they emerge from hibernation. However, the forage value of the vegetation growing within wetland areas decreases as the season progresses because the crude protein content of the vegetation decreases as the plants senesce, and they also become more difficult to digest.

The areas where grizzly bears have been noted during baseline studies includes several areas near the Kemess South Mine (as described in Section 3.4.1) as well as a potential travel corridor along a valley between Attycelley Creek and Kemess Creek (a portion of which is located within the LSA). In general, these areas were rated as Moderate, Low, and Very Low in the present study (Figure 3.4-3).

3.5 AMERICAN MARTEN

The results of the habitat suitability modelling suggest that functional American marten winter habitat, represented as High and Moderate rated habitat, occurs within 41% (6,934 ha) of the LSA and is widely distributed throughout lower elevation forested habitats (Figure 3.5-1; Table 3.5-1). Of the top two ratings classes, proportionately more was rated as High than Moderate (Table 3.5-1). Much of the High and Moderate rated habitat forms large continuous patches, indicative of the mature to old growth forests that likely contain large amounts of coarse woody debris in the understory (Figure 3.5-1).

Table 3.5-1. American Marten Winter Habitat within the LSA

Habitat Suitability Rating Area (ha) 1 % of Habitat in LSA 1 High 4,379.4 26.3 Moderate 2,544.3 15.3 Low 1,262.6 7.6 Nil 8,472.0 50.9 1 LSA = 16,658 ha

The rest of the LSA fell within the lower two rating classes, classified as Low (8%) and Nil (51%). Low rated habitat included habitats located near the treeline where trees are smaller and more sparsely distributed. Nil quality habitat constituted all the higher elevation alpine areas dominated by herb and shrub, and sparsely vegetated habitats that do not provide any cover for marten during the winter.

The results of the habitat suitability for American marten in the winter are consistent with the results of baseline studies conducted for furbearers in the LSA in the mid-2000’s. During snow-track surveys conducted from 2003 to 2008, American marten tracks were frequently recorded all throughout low elevation forested habitats within the LSA; only one American marten track was recorded in an alpine habitat (Ardea 2015). The majority of habitats where American marten, or marten sign, was recorded during these baseline surveys overlaps with High and Moderate rated habitat in the present study.

AURICO METALS INC. 3-23 Figure 3.5-1 American Marten: Winter Habitat

630000 635000 640000 645000

!( !( !( !( !(y Cree Attycelle k !( !( !( !( ± !( !( !( !( !(

!( !( a

6330000 !( 6330000 !( t C

i r q u

!( C

e k Amazay (Duncan) !( Lake Subsidence Cone !( Proposed Exhaust emess Cree rth K k Ventilation Raise No

6325000 Kemess South 6325000 Tailings Storage Proposed Portal Facility (TSF) Proposed !?!? Conveyor !( !( !? End of Tunnel !( Bicknell Kemess !? Lake Lake !( Start of Tunnel

k Proposed Tailings e !( e Storage!( Facility r C 6320000 6320000 s

e m e !( K Thutade Lake !( !(

Existing Airstrip At Mill, Service tic hi !( Complex, and ka Accomodation C re e k 6315000 6315000

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar !( Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community !( !( American Marten Sign Existing Infrastructure Proposed Infrastructure Subsidence Cone !? Local Study Area (LSA) Access Road Portal Location Tailings Storage Facility !? Habitat Suitability Rating Exploration Road Tunnel Location Infrastructure High Site Road Access Decline k e 1:120,000 6310000 Moderate Omineca Resource KUG Access Road 6310000 Access Road re 0 2 4 Low Road C e

Transmission Line n

r Kilometres Nil Conveyoro

Infrastructure h

East T Dam Date: August 12, 2015 Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 9N

630000 635000 640000 645000

AURICO METALS INC. - Kemess Underground Project Proj # 0196303-0021 | GIS # KUG-23-004l RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.6 HOARY MARMOT

Only habitat above 1,400 m within the LSA was modelled for hoary marmot growing habitat suitability as hoary marmot are only known to occupy subalpine to alpine areas (Banfield 1981). The elevation of 1,400 m was estimated to be the approximate position of the treeline, representing the transition between forested habitats and open, alpine areas. Considering that hoary marmot are not known to depend upon habitats below the treeline, all habitat below 1,400 m was automatically assigned a Nil rating.

The results of the habitat suitability modelling indicated that a substantial area of the habitat within the LSA above 1,400 m was identified as functional (HSR H and M) hoary marmot growing habitat. The percentage of the LSA identified as Highly suitable marmot habitat was 8.4% and approximately 9.9 % was identified as Moderately suitable (Figure 3.6-1; Table 3.6-1). The majority of High and Moderate rated habitats were mapped in the eastern LSA, near the subsidence cone and in the southeast. Some High rated habitat also occurs on the central western boundary associated with the mountainous LSA border. High and Moderate rated habitats are indicative of areas where marmots can excavate dens on slopes that provide good sightlines for detecting predators, as well as being in close proximity to lush, alpine vegetation.

Table 3.6-1. Hoary Marmot Growing Habitat within the LSA

Habitat Suitability Rating Area (ha) 1 % of Habitat in LSA 1 High 1406.4 8.4% Moderate 1656.7 9.9% Low 2874.3 17.3% Nil 10720.9 64.4% 1 LSA = 16,658 ha

The remainder of the LSA was rated in the lower suitability classes (Low and Nil), most of which was Nil habitat (64.4%). The majority (48%; 8,024 ha) of habitat that was rated as Nil was below 1,400 m elevation.

A number of hoary marmot baseline studies were conducted in areas surrounding the proposed Subsidence Cone and the alpine ridges to the west of Duncan Lake in 2007 and 2013 (Ardea 2015). The results of these surveys indicate that hoary marmot are abundant in areas surrounding the proposed Subsidence Cone, with several colonies and individuals recorded within alpine meadows located along the ridges surrounding the Subsidence Cone. Much of the habitat where hoary marmot was recorded during baseline studies was rated as High or Moderate in the present study. A review of 70 observations of hoary marmot made during field studies identified 69 in habitat rated High, Moderate or Low with 65.7% of the observations occurring within habitat rated as either High or Moderate suitability.

AURICO METALS INC. 3-25 Figure 3.6-1 Hoary Marmot: Growing Habitat

630000 635000 640000 645000

y Cree Attycelle k ±

6330000 t 6330000

i r q u

e e Amazay k (Duncan) !(#*!( #*!(#* #* !(!(#* #* Lake #* #*#*#*!(#*#* !(!(#* Subsidence Proposed !( #* #* !( !(#* Cone Exhaust #* emess Cree !(#* #* rth K k #* !(#*#* No Ventilation Raise !( #*#*#*#*

6325000 Kemess South 6325000 Tailings Storage Proposed Portal Facility (TSF) Proposed !?!? Conveyor !? End of Tunnel Bicknell Kemess !? Lake Lake Start of Tunnel

k Proposed Tailings e e Storage Facility r C 6320000 6320000 s

e m e K Thutade Lake

Existing Airstrip At Mill, Service tic hi Complex, and ka Accomodation C re e k 6315000 6315000

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community #* Hoary Marmot Den Existing Infrastructure Proposed Infrastructure Subsidence Cone Hoary Marmot Access Road !? Portal Location Tailings Storage Facility !( Observation Exploration Road !? Tunnel Location Infrastructure (Seen or Heard) Site Road Access Decline Local Study Area (LSA) Omineca Resource KUG Access Road Habitat Suitability Rating Access Road k e 1:120,000 6310000 Road 6310000 High Transmission Line re 0 2 4 ConveyorC Moderate e Infrastructure n

r Kilometres East o Dam

Low h

T Date: October 20, 2015 Nil Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 9N

630000 635000 640000 645000

AURICO METALS INC. - Kemess Underground Project Proj # 0196303-0021 | GIS # KUG-23-004m 4. CONCLUSIONS

Habitat suitability mapping was undertaken for the Project to identify the current distribution and quality of habitat within the LSA for caribou, moose, mountain goat, grizzly bear, American marten, and hoary marmot. Habitat was modelled during specific seasons, which reflected the primary season when the species would be present within the LSA, or the seasons for which habitat is limited for the species in the LSA (e.g., suitable winter habitat for ungulates).

The results of habitat suitability modelling indicate that there is valuable habitat for each species within the LSA, although some habitats are more limited for certain species across a calendar year. For caribou, high quality habitat (High and Moderately High rated habitat) winter habitats were the most limited in the LSA, while spring calving and summer habitats were relatively abundant comparatively. The results of baseline surveys conducted for caribou are generally consistent with the results of the habitat suitability mapping. The areas where caribou have been recorded across the winter, spring, and summer were similar to the areas where High to Moderately High rated habitat were mapped, although caribou were generally recorded in low elevation areas, particularly in the northern LSA, in the late winter, while the all the Moderately High to Highly suitable habitat in the present study was mapped at high elevation.

The LSA contained larger amounts of high value early winter moose habitat relative to late winter habitat; lower amounts of late winter habitat was mapped due to winter snowpack, as deeper snowpacks in the late winter restricts moose movement to low elevation area. Many of the areas that were rated as High to Moderately High in the present study were areas where moose and moose sign had been recorded during the winter period from previous baseline surveys for the Project, confirming the use of these habitats by the local moose population.

The results of habitat suitability modelling for mountain goat indicated that much of the high elevation mountainous habitat within the LSA was high quality winter and summer habitat. However, the results of baseline surveys conducted for the Project suggest that there are few goats in the LSA, with the main population of several individual (4 – 10 animals) inhabiting the area to the north of the Subsidence Cone. Taken together, the results indicate that there is a larger amount of suitable habitat in the LSA than is used by the local goat population.

Three seasons were modelled for grizzly bear: spring, summer, and fall. High quality spring habitat was the most abundant in the LSA, whereas high quality summer and fall habitats were generally very limited. Grizzly bear have regularly been recorded within habitats near the Kemess South Mine since 2003, indicating that bears make use of habitats near the Project throughout most of the year outside of the hibernation period. Thus, it appears as though some seasonal habitats (e.g., summer and fall) may have been underestimated in the present study.

Functional (High and Moderate rated) winter habitat for American marten were widely distributed across lower elevation forested habitats in the LSA. This result is consistent with the detections of American marten and marten sign recorded during baseline surveys for the Project, where the majority of snow-track surveys conducted in low elevation forested habitat within the LSA

AURICO METALS INC. 4-1 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT contained evidence of marten use. Therefore, it appears that most of the functional habitat identified in the present study is used by marten during the winter.

Functional growing season habitat for hoary marmot were identified across the subalpine and alpine habitats within the LSA, most of which were mapped in the eastern area near the Subsidence Cone and the southeastern LSA. Alpine terrain surrounding the Subsidence Cone and along the east side of Duncan Lake have been surveyed previously for marmot presence and distribution. The locations where marmots were documented generally overlapped with areas mapped as High and Moderate with 98.6% of all marmot observations occurring in habitat rated as H, M, or L. This suggests the model represents the availability of habitat well.

4-2 ERM | PROJ #0196303-0021 | REV B.1 | DECEMBER 2015 REFERENCES

Definitions of the acronyms and abbreviations used in this reference list can be found in the Glossary and Abbreviations section.

2002. Species at Risk Act, SC. C. c.29, S-15.3. AECOM. 2011. Wildlife Habitat Capability Mapping for the Kemess South Mine, 2009 . Report Prepared for Northgate Minerals Corporation by AECOM Burnaby, BC. Ardea. 2015. Kemess Underground Project: Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Baseline Report . Report Prepared for AuRico Gold by Ardea Biological Consulting Ltd.: Smithers, BC. Ash, M. 1985. Grizzly Bear Habitat Component Descriptions - Whitefish Range, Flathead and Kootenai National Forests . Banfield, A. W. F. 1981. The Mammals of Canada . Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Banner, A., W. H. MacKenzie, S. Haeussler, S. Thomson, J. Pojar, and R. L. Trowbridge. 1993. A Field Guide to Site Identification and Interpretation for the Prince Rupert Forest Region Victoria, BC: Land Management Handbook Number 26. BC Ministry of Forests and Range Research Branch. BC CDC. 2015. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer - Version 5.1.0 . BC Ministry of Environment, Conservation Data Centre. http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed January 2015). BC MELP and BC MOF. 1998. Field Manual for Describing Terrestrial Ecosystems . BC Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks and BC Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC: Land Management Handbook Number 25. Crown Publications Inc. BC MOE. 2010. Management Plan for the Mountain Goat ( Oreamnos americanus ) in British Columbia . Prepared by the Mountain Goat Management Team: BC MOFR. 2013. Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification Program. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/becweb/ (accessed July 2013). Blood, D. A. 2000. M ountain goat in British Columbia: Ecology, Conservation and Management. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch: Victoria, BC. Cichowski, D. B. 1993. Seasonal Movements, Habitat Use, and Winter Feeding Ecology of Woodland Caribou in West-Central British Columbia . British Columbia Ministry of Forests: Victoria, BC. COSEWIC. 2002. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos in Canada . Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada: Ottawa, ON. COSEWIC. 2012. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos in Canada . Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada: Ottawa, ON. COSEWIC. 2014. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Caribou Rangifer tarandus , Northern Mountain Population, Central Mountain population and Southern Mountain Population in Canada . Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada: Ottawa, ON.

AURICO METALS INC. R-1 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

Côté, S. D. 1996. Mountain goat responses to helicopter disturbance. Wildlife Society Bulletin , 24 (4): 681-85. Fox, J. L., C. A. Smith, and J. W. Schoen. 1989. Relation Between Mountain Goats and their Habitat in Southeastern Alaska . General Technical Report PNW-GTR-246. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: Portland, OR. Goldstein, M. I., A. J. Poe, E. Cooper, D. Youkey, B. A. Brown, and T. L. McDonald. 2005. Mountain goat response to helicopter overflights in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin , 33 (2): 688-99. Helfield, J. M. and R. J. Naiman. 2006. Keystone interactions: Salmon and bear in riparian forests of alaska. Ecosystems , 9 (2): 167-80. Littlefield, L., L. Dorricott, and D. Cullon. 2007. Tse Keh Nay Traditional and Contemporary Use and Occupation at Amazay (Duncan Lake): A Draft Report . Draft Report Produced for the Kemess North Joint Review Panel On Behalf of the Tse Keh Nay. http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents_staticpost/cearref_3394/hearings/SM01.pdf (accessed June 2013). MacKenzie, W. H. and J. R. Moran. 2004. Wetlands of British Columbia. Land Management Handbook 52. BC Ministry of Forests, Forest Sciences Program: Victoria, BC. MacLeod, A. and W. Sheridan. 2007. Additional Information for the Kemess Mine Expansion Environmental Assessment: Northern Woodland Caribou Calving Surveys. Report Prepared for Northgate Minerals Corporation by Gartner Lee Limited.: Smithers, BC. McLaren, B. E., S. P. Mahoney, T. S. Porter, and S. M. Oosenbrug. 2000. Spatial and temporal patterns of use by moose of pre-commercially thinned, naturally-regenerating stands of balsam fir in central Newfoundland. Forest Ecology and Management, 133 (3): 179-96. Nagorsen, D. W. 2005. Rodents and Lagomorphs of British Columbia. Volume 4 of The Mammals of British Columbia Victoria, BC: Royal BC Museum. Pojar, J., K. Klinka, and D. Meidinger. 1987. Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification in British Columbia. Forest Ecology and Management 22: 119-54. RIC. 1998a. Inventory Methods for Pikas and Sciurids: Pikas, Marmots, Woodchuck, Chipmunks & Squirrels. Standards for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity No. 29 . Version 2.0. Prepared for the Resources Information Committee, Terrestrial Ecosystem Task Force by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch: Victoria, BC. RIC. 1998b. Standard for Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping in British Columbia . Resources Inventory Committee, Terrestrial Ecosystems Taskforce, Ecosystems Working Group: Victoria, BC. RIC. 1999. British Columbia Wildlife Habitat Ratings Standards. Version 2.0. Prepared for the Resources Information Committee, Terrestrial Ecosystem Task Force by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch: Victoria, BC. Roberge, J. M. and P. Angelstam. 2004. Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conservation Biology , 18 (1): 76-85. RTEC. 2006. Galore Creek Mountain Goat Baseline Report 2004-2005 . Report Prepared for NovaGold Canada Inc by Rescan Tahltan Environmental Consultants. March 2006:

R-2 ERM | PROJ #0196303-0021 | REV B.1 | DECEMBER 2015 REFERENCES

Safford, K. R. 2004. Modelling critical winter habitat of four ungulate species in the Robson Valley, British Columbia . 2004/co14/no2/art9.pdf. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management, 4 (2): 1-13. http://www.forrex.org/publications/jem/ISS24/vol4_no2_art9.pdf (accessed December, 2009). Terry, E. L. and M. D. Wood. 1999. Peace/Williston Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, Seasonal Movements and Habitat Selection by Woodland Caribou in the Wolverine Herd, North-Central British Columbi a. Phase 2: 1994-1997. Turney, L., A. MacLeod, L. Rach, and S. Haeussler. 2006. Responses to Comments and Additional Information Requests for the Kemess Mine Expansion Environmental Assessment . Prepared for Northgate Minerals Corporation by Ardea Biological Consulting: Smithers, BC. Turney, L., A. MacLeod, L. Rach, and A. Roberts. 2005. Wildlife Assessments near the Proposed Kemess Mine Expansion: Winter and Spring 2005. Report Prepared for Northgate Minerals Corporation by Ardea Biological Consulting: Smithers, BC. Turney, L. and A. Roberts. 2005. Wildlife Habitat Assessment for the Kemess Mine Expansion, Kemess North Project . Northgate Minerals Corporation:

AURICO METALS INC. R-3

Appendix 1

Species Account for Caribou

KEMESS UNDERGROUND PROJECT Wildlife Habitat Suitability Modelling Report APPENDIX 1. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR CARIBOU

Name: Rangifer tarandus pop. 15 (Northern Mountain population) Species Code: M-RATA-15 Status*: Global: G5T4T5. Globally listed as Secure (G5); Common, widespread and abundant; but with a taxon (T) specific rank for the Northern mountain population (pop 15). Northern mountain caribou are listed as Apparently Secure to Secure (T4T5): Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. Provincial: S3 - Vulnerable. Vulnerable in the nation or state/province due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. COSEWIC: Special Concern: A wildlife species that may become threatened or endangered because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. BC List: Blue-listed: Includes any indigenous species or subspecies of Special Concern (formerly Vulnerable) in British Columbia. Taxa of Special Concern have characteristics that make them particularly sensitive or vulnerable to human activities or natural events. Blue-listed taxa are at risk, but are not Extirpated, Endangered, or Threatened. *Source: BC CDC (2015)

DISTRIBUTION

Global Range

Rangifer tarandus has a circumboreal distribution. In Northern mountain Europe and Asia, this species is known as Reindeer, and includes domestic, semi-domesticated, and wild populations.

There are three subpopulations or ecotypes of caribou in British Columbia, which have no formal taxonomic designation but are defined on the basis of distinct patterns of habitat use and diet/feeding behaviour. Southern mountain caribou, also referred to as the mountain caribou ecotype, occur in the Columbia Mountains, Idaho, and Washington, and parts of the western slopes of the Rocky Mountains in British Columbia. Northern mountain caribou, or Northern mountain caribou, are found in mountainous and adjacent low-elevation plateaus in west-central British Columbia and in Northern mountain British Columbia west of and in the Rocky Mountains. Boreal caribou are found in boreal forests east of the Rocky Mountains in northeastern British Columbia. The population described in this account is the Northern mountain caribou (COSEWIC 2014; BC CDC 2015).

Provincial Range

Northern mountain caribou occur in west-central British Columbia, in and around the Itcha, Ilgachuz, Rainbow, and Trumpeter mountains as well as in and around Northern mountain Tweedsmuir Provincial Park and Entiako Provincial Park and Protected Area. They also occur in the Telkwa Mountains and around the Northern mountain part of Takla Lake. Northern mountain

Page 1 of 10 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT caribou range from the Williston Lake area north to the Yukon border and northwest to Atlin, and southeast along the east side of the Rocky Mountains to the Alberta border near Kakwa Park.

Elevation Range

Northern mountain caribou are found at a variety of elevations depending on season and local population. During winter, Northern mountain caribou are generally found either at high elevations above treeline on windswept alpine slopes, or at low elevations in forested habitat beneath significant tree cover. In British Columbia, lower elevation forested habitat ranges from approximately 500 to 1,500 m, while high-elevation winter habitat generally ranges from 1,500 m to over 2,000 m. Some high elevation winter range also includes subalpine forests. During summer, Northern mountain caribou may be found as low as 500 m in coastal areas in west-central British Columbia to over 2500 m in mountainous areas.

Biogeoclimatic Units

Northern mountain caribou use a wide range of biogeoclimatic subzones and variants, partly because of the extent of their distribution throughout Northern mountain and west-central British Columbia. BAFA (AT) is used by most local Northern mountain caribou populations during both winter and summer. In the northern part of British Columbia, low elevation forested winter ranges occur in the BWBS zone and higher elevation ranges occur in the SWB. In north-central British Columbia, Northern mountain caribou low elevation winter ranges occur in SBS and BWBS, with high elevation ranges in ESSF. In west-central British Columbia, low elevation winter ranges occur in SBS, SBPS, and to some extent in the MS with high elevation ranges in the ESSF. In addition, some Northern mountain caribou summer ranges in west-central British Columbia lie within the MH at higher elevations and CWH at lower elevations.

Broad Ecosystem Units

Degree of use of broad ecosystem units (BEUs) varies between local populations.

Project Area

Ecoprovince: Northern mountain Boreal Mountains Ecoregions: Boreal Mountains and Plateaus Ecosections: Northern Omineca Mountains (NOM) Biogeoclimatic Zones: Boreal Altai Fescue Alpine (BAFA, previously Alpine Tundra [AT]), Spruce-Willow-Birch (SWB) Project Map Scale: 1:20,000

ECOLOGY AND KEY HABITAT REQUIREMENTS

Population Trends

In 2008, there were an estimated 18,630 Northern mountain caribou in British Columbia (BC CDC 2015). While numbers may have increased slightly since the late 1970s, it is likely that some of the

Page 2 of 10 APPENDIX 1. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR CARIBOU perceived increase is from more intensive survey efforts combined with radio-telemetry studies, which have enabled a more reliable status assessment of this ecotype.

Northern mountain caribou in the province are distributed across 30 separate local populations (BC CDC 2015). The current population trend for 11 of 30 local populations is unknown. For those which a trend has been established, approximately 4 are declining, 13 are stable and 2 are increasing (BC CDC 2015).

The local populations that are closest to the Project include the Spatzizi population that occurs primarily to the west of Thatude Lake, and the Chase population that ranges to the southeast of the Project on the northwest side of Williston Lake. Roughly 3,000 individuals occur within the Spatzizi population in 1996, while 475 caribou were counted within the Chase population in 2009. The current population trend for both herds is unknown (Environment Canada 2012, 2014).

Diet and Foraging Behaviour

During the winter, Northern mountain caribou forage primarily by digging through the snow for terrestrial lichens of the genera Cladina , Cladonia , Cetraria, and Stereocaulon . Cladina species are preferred but the other genera are also selected. Northern mountain caribou also feed on arboreal lichens opportunistically as they travel between terrestrial lichen sites or seek arboreal lichens in forested wetlands and along wetland fringes where arboreal lichens are abundant. Arboreal lichen use increases as snow hardness increases later in winter with melt/freeze conditions. During milder winters, frequent melt/freeze episodes could make cratering for terrestrial lichens difficult earlier in the winter, especially when ice crusts form close to the ground, forcing caribou to increase their reliance on arboreal lichens. Bryoria spp. are the most abundant arboreal lichens on most Northern mountain caribou winter ranges. Because of the relatively low snowpacks on most Northern mountain caribou winter ranges, caribou can forage on terrestrial lichens in low elevation forested habitats, or on windswept alpine slopes. The use of forbs and graminoids increases in the spring season and summer food consists of a wide variety of forbs, graminoids, lichens, fungi, and the leaves of some shrubs.

Reproduction

The mating system of caribou is polygynous, with dominant bulls breeding with a number of cows in late September to mid-October. Rutting group size varies, with up to 20 (or more) for Northern mountain caribou. Anti-predator strategies during calving include calving alone in isolated, often rugged locations and calving on islands in lakes in low elevation forested habitat (Shoesmith and Storey 1977; Bergerud, Butler, and Miller 1984; Bergerud and Page 1987).

The productivity of caribou is low compared with deer and moose because caribou only have one young per year and calves and most yearlings are not pregnant. The population growth rate rarely exceeds 26% per year. Pregnancy rate of females range from 90 to 97% (Seip and Cichowski 1996). Gestation is about 230 days, and calves are born in late May or early June. Calves are notably precocious, moving with their mothers shortly after birth. Calf mortality during the first few months of life is high, often 50% or greater. Causes of calf mortality may include predation, abandonment, accidents, and inclement weather. Calves generally make up 27–30% of the population at birth, but by recruitment age (1 yr old, after which mortality generally stabilizes to adult levels), their proportion is generally <20%.

Page 3 of 10 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

Site Fidelity

Fidelity patterns are complex. Some cows calve in the same location repeatedly, while others shift locations annually. Similarly, rutting sites may be occupied each year or only sporadically. Home ranges rarely remain fixed throughout an animal’s life. Individual caribou typically use a predictable series of activity centres over a season or several years, but most eventually make temporary or permanent shifts to new areas. From spring through early winter, individuals may travel with several other caribou temporarily and then shift to another band. Membership in late-winter aggregations is also inconsistent between years. At the local population level, fidelity to broad landscapes is stronger, but even at this scale there are occasional shifts of individuals and groups to areas that were not used for the past several years. Consistent use of mineral licks has been reported.

Home Range

Home range sizes are highly variable depending on local population size and the horizontal movement distance between summer and winter ranges. In Northern mountain and north-central British Columbia, home ranges average 1,100–1,900 km 2 for some populations and 150 km 2 for others (Hatler 1986; Terry and Wood 1999; Wood and Terry 1999; Poole, Heard, and Mowat 2000).

Movements and Dispersal

Although Northern mountain caribou are characterized by feeding primarily on terrestrial lichens during winter, local populations in British Columbia exhibit variable seasonal movement and habitat use strategies. Some local populations migrate long distances between summer and winter ranges while others do not. Use of high elevation versus low elevation winter ranges differs between local populations, and within local populations between winters. Variations in seasonal behaviour reflect differences in topography, snow accumulation, and availability of low elevation winter ranges between areas. In general, Northern mountain caribou can be described as using habitat during four seasonal time periods in British Columbia. Exact dates vary for each population depending on local conditions.

Snowfall in November triggers caribou movement out of high elevation summer ranges to lower elevation early winter ranges. Early winter ranges may be adjacent to the summer range or at a greater distance. In the early winter, caribou continue to seek out terrestrial forage and avoid deeper snow accumulations where terrestrial forage is difficult to access. Fall migration between summer and winter ranges tends to be diffuse, as caribou migrate in response to snow accumulation.

During early winter, snow depth at low elevations may be highly variable between years. In general, snow depth on low elevation winter ranges is lowest during early winter and gradually increases as the winter progresses. Shallower snow depths in early winter allow caribou to use the higher and more open portions of their forested plateau winter ranges (Itcha-Ilgachuz), or low elevation forested habitats (Wolverine) that are abandoned as snow accumulates during mid- to late-winter.

By mid- and late-winter, caribou have moved to low elevation forested winter ranges, or high elevation alpine/subalpine winter ranges to feed primarily on terrestrial lichens. In low elevation forested habitat, caribou prefer forests where terrestrial lichens are abundant; these are often on drier sites or sites with low productivity and in older forests (80 – 250 years old). Caribou also feed on arboreal lichens opportunistically as they travel between terrestrial lichen sites or seek arboreal lichens in forested

Page 4 of 10 APPENDIX 1. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR CARIBOU wetlands and along wetland fringes where arboreal lichens are abundant. At higher elevations, caribou prefer windswept alpine slopes that allow cratering for terrestrial lichens. Subalpine forests are also used for arboreal lichen feeding, and to a lesser extent, terrestrial lichen feeding.

By late April, caribou that migrate between winter and summer ranges begin moving back to calving and summering areas. Spring migration is more concentrated than fall migration both geographically and temporally. During spring, caribou migrate along relatively snow-free low elevation routes to reach summer ranges (Cichowski 1993; Johnson et al. 2002). Caribou that winter at higher elevations move to lower elevations in spring to take advantage of an earlier green-up. Spring ranges may be adjacent to late-winter ranges or may be a function of migration patterns. Female caribou reach calving areas by late May and calve in early June. Most caribou calve at higher elevations in alpine or subalpine habitat where food availability and quality is relatively poor to reduce predation risk since predators focus on other prey that remain at lower elevations where more nutritious forage is available.

During summer, caribou prefer high elevation habitats but can be found in a variety of habitats at all elevations because snow does not limit movement, and herb and shrub forage are abundant. Consequently, Northern mountain caribou are highly dispersed during summer, more so than during any other season. During the rut in October, some caribou move to rutting areas at higher elevations while others rut within their summer ranges. Portions of some local populations concentrate on rutting ranges, usually in open alpine or subalpine habitat.

Although studies of radio-collared Northern mountain caribou populations indicate that range use by adjacent local populations may overlap, especially during winter, all radio-collared caribou return to their summering areas. Northern mountain caribou may be dispersing between local populations but no studies have yet reported any evidence of dispersal by radio-collared animals.

HABITAT USE – LIFE REQUISITES

Structural Stage

Structural stage 7 is consistently preferred throughout most of the year for forage, predator avoidance (typically good lines of sight and only dispersed populations of other ungulates), ease of travel, snow interception in early winter, and possibly heat avoidance in the summer (Apps and Kinley 2000a, 2000b, 2000c; Apps et al. 2001). Structural stage 5 is particularly good for terrestrial lichen forage, while the older and more open habitats of stage 6 also provide useful habitat. Other structural stages are used to varying degrees. Structural stage 1a and 1b are used for calving sites when occurring in rough terrain (June), predator avoidance (good line of sight), insect avoidance (spring and summer), and resting areas. Structural stages 2 and 3a provide moderate to high forage value in spring and summer but also provide forage for other ungulates, especially below treeline. The least valuable stands to caribou are those in stages 3b and 4, where line of sight is poor for predator avoidance and forage value is generally low for caribou but can be high for other ungulates, especially moose (3b). In some cases, these stages may form partial barriers to movement and act to isolate adjacent patches of habitat from one another.

Table 1 summarizes the life requisites in terms of TEM attributes.

Page 5 of 10 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

Table 1. Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) Relationships for Each Life Requisite for Caribou

Life Requisite TEM Attribute Food Habitat • Site: ecosystem type, elevation, slope, aspect, structural stage • Soil/terrain: terrain texture, soil drainage • Vegetation: Percent cover by layer, species list by layer, cover for each species for each layer Security • Site: ecosystem type, elevation, slope, aspect, structural stage Habitat • Soil/terrain: terrain texture • Vegetation: total percent cover, percent cover by layer

Feeding Habitat (FD)

Foraging habitat is provided by large, contiguous patches of old forest. Specific values of such areas are as follows:

1. Arboreal hair lichen such as Bryoria is usually abundant only in older forests. Terrestrial lichens such as Cladina , Cladonia, and Cetraria are often most abundant in mature and older forests but are also abundant in younger forests on some site types. 2. Old trees with large crowns provide good snow interception, which facilitates cratering and movement in winter. 3. The more contiguous that foraging habitat is, the less energy is expended in moving between patches. 4. The suite of forage plants in old forest is different than that available in other habitat types.

Thus, old forests provide more than simply lichen for late-winter foraging, and old forests are selected across seasons and a range of spatial scales. Old stands of lodgepole pine ( Pinus contorta ) or lodgepole pine and white spruce ( Picea glauca ) in low elevation forested habitat are widely used by most local populations.

Northern mountain caribou use alpine habitat during summer and winter. During summer, emergent vegetation provides nutritious forage and in winter, alpine habitat yields terrestrial lichens.

Mineral Licks

Another vulnerable habitat element is mineral licks. Licks are used consistently between years, but can be effectively located only by monitoring local populations of caribou.

Security Habitat (SH)

Old forests typically have good visibility relative to younger forests, due to open stand architecture, leading to an improved ability to detect those predators that do occur there. Old forests and peatland complexes also provide a cooler microclimate during summer. During winter, windswept alpine slopes provide good visibility for detecting predators. In summer, open vistas also provide good visibility for detecting predators. All three ecotypes of Woodland caribou avoid predation by staying away as possible from habitat of their predators, especially during calving. Northern mountain caribou move into high elevation habitat for calving, presumably to avoid high densities of predators.

Page 6 of 10 APPENDIX 1. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR CARIBOU

There are generally fewer elk ( Cervus elaphus ), deer ( Odocoileus spp.), or moose ( Alces alces ) within old- growth forests than in or near non-forested areas (avalanche tracks, meadows, shrubby riparian zones, recent clearcuts), because this more abundant suite of other ungulate species tends to concentrate in early seral sites with abundant shrubs and forbs. Thus, the predators of other species also tend to occur less commonly within old forest than at the edge or outside of old forest or in peatland complexes.

Habitat fragmentation due to the creation of early seral patches within old forest is likely to bring other prey species close to caribou, resulting in a greater incidence of predator encounters (Kinley and Apps 2001). The potential for increased prey populations on some very dry Northern mountain caribou ranges may be somewhat reduced where shrub regeneration following disturbance is less pronounced (e.g., Itcha-Ilgachuz caribou winter range). The major habitat variable that affect numbers is space to avoid predation (Bergerud 1980; Bergerud, Butler, and Miller 1984; Bergerud and Page 1987; Bergerud 1992).

Breeding

Calving sites and rut locations are vulnerable habitat elements, but predicting their locations by habitat type is not feasible. Calving sites are dispersed, may vary between years, and appear to be defined primarily on the basis of isolation from other caribou, other ungulates, and predators. Rutting sites are likely to be more consistent between years, but can be effectively located only with site specific knowledge gained by monitoring individual caribou populations.

The most critical aspect of Northern mountain Caribou ranges is access to undisturbed high elevation calving grounds. In fact, access to undisturbed high elevation calving areas where caribou can distance themselves from other prey and predators, is the common feature among Northern mountain Caribou local populations. Historically occurring local populations of Northern mountain caribou without access to high elevation calving ranges no longer exist in British Columbia.

SEASONS OF USE

Table 2 summarizes the life requisites of caribou for each month of the year, and Table 3 summarizes the attributes for structural stages.

Ratings

There is a moderately high level of knowledge of the habitat requirements of caribou in British Columbia to warrant a 6-class rating scheme (RIC 1999).

Provincial Benchmark (winter season) Ecosection: Muskwa Foothills (MUF) Biogeoclimatic Zone: AT Habitats: AG – Alpine grassland

Provincial Benchmark (growing season) Ecosection: Muskwa Foothills (MUF) Biogeoclimatic Zone: AT Habitats: AG – Alpine grassland

Page 7 of 10 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

Table 2. Monthly Life Requisites for Caribou

Life Requisites Month Season* Feeding and Security Habitat January Early/Late Winter Feeding and Security Habitat February Late Winter Feeding and Security Habitat March Late Winter Feeding and Security Habitat April Late Winter/Spring Birthing and Security Habitat May Spring Birthing and Security Habitat June Summer Feeding and Security Habitat July Summer Feeding and Security Habitat August Summer Feeding and Security Habitat September Summer Feeding and Security Habitat October Summer/Early Winter Feeding and Security Habitat November Early Winter Feeding and Security Habitat December Early Winter * Seasons defined for Mountain caribou in the Northern mountain Interior Forest Region as per Cichowski et al (2004).

Table 3. Summary of General Habitat Attributes for Caribou

Habitat Use Specific Attributes for Suitable Caribou Habitat Structural Stage Feeding Large, contiguous tracts of mature forest with abundant arboreal lichen; 2,3a, 5-7 Habitat mature stands of lodgepole pine ( Pinus contorta ) and white spruce ( Picea glauca ) in low elevation areas; alpine habitat with terrestrial lichens Security Mature forests with unrestricted sightlines, windswept alpine slopes, 1a/1b Habitat open vistas (esp. during calving), 7

Ratings Assumptions

1. Forested habitats will be used in early winter, and higher elevation treeless areas will be used in late winter. 2. Gentler slopes (<45%) will be favoured for breeding and calving. 3. Warmer aspect slopes will be favoured over cooler aspect slopes. 4. Windswept and exposed areas will be favoured over more sheltered areas in winter due to better snow-shedding and more compact snowpacks. 5. Mature stands of forest (structural stage 5+) will be favoured over younger forests due to higher arboreal lichen production. 6. BAFA will be used almost exclusively during breeding/calving seasons; all other habitats will be rated low to very low.

Page 8 of 10 APPENDIX 1. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR CARIBOU

LITERATURE CITED

Apps, C. D. and T. A. Kinley. 2000a. Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, Nelson, B.C. and British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Prince George, B.C., Mountain Caribou Habitat Use, Movements, and Factors Associated with GPS Location Bias in the Robson Valley, British Columbia. Apps, C. D. and T. A. Kinley. 2000b. East Kootenay Environment Society, Kimberley, B.C., and Tembec Industries Inc., Cranbrook, B.C., Multi-Scale Habitat Associations of Mountain Caribou in the Southern Purcell Mountains, British Columbia. Apps, C. D. and T. A. Kinley. 2000c. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Williams Lake, B.C., Multiscale Habitat Modeling for Mountain Caribou in the Columbia Highlands and Northern Columbia Mountains Ecoregions, British Columbia. Apps, C. D., B. N. McLellan, T. A. Kinley, and J. Flaa. 2001. Scale-dependent habitat selection by mountain caribou in the Columbia Mountains, British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management , 65: 65-77. BC CDC. 2015. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer - Version 5.1.0 . BC Ministry of Environment, Conservation Data Centre. http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed January 2015). Bergerud, A. T. 1980. A Review of the Population Dynamics of Caribou and Wild Reindeer in North America . Roros, Norway: Directoratet for vilt og ferskvannsfisk, Trondheim, Norway. Bergerud, A. T. 1992. Rareness as an Antipredator Strategy to Reduce Predation Risk for Moose and Caribou. In Wildlife 2001: Populations . Ed. D. R. McCullough and R. H. Barrett. p1008–21. New York, N.Y.: Elsevier Applied Science. Bergerud, A. T., H. E. Butler, and D. R. Miller. 1984. Antipredator tactics of calving caribou: dispersion in mountains. Canadian Journal of Zoology , 62: 1566-75. Bergerud, A. T. and R. E. Page. 1987. Displacement and dispersion of parturient caribou at calving as antipredator tactics. Canadian Journal of Zoology , 65: 1597-606. Cichowski, D. B. 1993. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Seasonal Movements, Habitat Use, and Winter Feeding Ecology of Woodland Caribou in West-Central British Columbia. Land Management Handbook No. 79. Cichowski, D. B., T. Kinley, and B. Churchill. 2004. Province of British Columbia, Identified Wildlife Management Strategy: Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife - Northern Interior Forest Region. COSEWIC. 2014. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Caribou Rangifer tarandus, Northern Mountain population, Central Mountain population and Southern Mountain population in Canada . Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada: Ottawa, ON. Environment Canada. 2012. Management Plan for the Northern Mountain Population of Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Canada . Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Environment Canada: Ottawa, ON.

Page 9 of 10 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

Environment Canada. 2014. Strategy for the Woodland Caribou, Southern Mountain population (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Canada [Proposed] . Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada: Ottawa, ON. Hatler, D. F. 1986. Studies of Radio-collared Caribou in the Spatsizi Wilderness Park Area, British Columbia. Spatsizi Association Forest Biology Research Report, 3: 202. Johnson, C. J., K. L. Parker, D. C. Heard, and M. P. Gillingham. 2002. A multiscale behavioral approach to understanding the movements of woodland caribou. Ecological Applications , 12 (6): 1840-60. Kinley, T. A. and C. D. Apps. 2001. Mortality patterns in a subpopulation of endangered mountain caribou. Wildlife Society Bulletin , 29: 158-64. Poole, K. G., D. C. Heard, and G. Mowat. 2000. Habitat use by woodland caribou near Takla Lake in central British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology , 78: 1552-61. RIC. 1999. Resources Inventory Committee, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, British Columbia Wildlife Habitat Ratings Standards. Seip, D. R. and D. B. Cichowski. 1996. Population ecology of caribou in British Columbia. Rangifer , Spec. Issue No. 9: 73-80. Shoesmith, M. W. and D. R. Storey. 1977. Movements and associated behaviour of woodland caribou in central Manitoba. Proceedings of the International Congress on Game Biology , 13: 51-64. Terry, E. L. and M. D. Wood. 1999. Peace/Williston Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, Seasonal Movements and Habitat Selection by Woodland Caribou in the Wolverine Herd, North-Central British Columbia. Phase 2: 1994-1997. Wood, M. D. and E. L. Terry. 1999. Peace/Williston Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, Seasonal Movement and Habitat Selection by Woodland Caribou in the Omineca Mountains, North-Central British Columbia. Phase 1: The Chase and Wolverine Herds (1991-1994).

Page 10 of 10

Appendix 2

Species Account for Moose

KEMESS UNDERGROUND PROJECT Wildlife Habitat Suitability Modelling Report APPENDIX 2. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR MOOSE

Name: Alces alces or Alces americanus Species Code: M-ALAL or M-ALAM Status*: Global: G5 – Secure. Common; widespread and abundant. Provincial: S5 – Secure. Common, widespread, and abundant in the province. COSEWIC: Not listed. BC List: Yellow-listed. Ecological communities and indigenous species that are not at risk in British Columbia. *Source: BC CDC (2015)

DISTRIBUTION

Provincial Range

Moose are distributed throughout the entire interior of British Columbia. They are most abundant in the central and sub-boreal mountains, the northern boreal mountains, and the boreal plains of northeastern B.C. The northern areas of the province are home to over 70% of the population, with other moderate to plentiful populations located in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, Thompson-Okanagan and Kootenay regions (B.C. MELP 2000). Moose are found on the coast of the province in low densities and are absent from coastal islands and grasslands of the southern interior.

Elevation Range

Moose are widespread throughout a variety of habitats from sea-level to alpine. Moose migrate between elevation ranges seasonally, frequenting valley bottoms in winter and spring, and higher- elevations (up to 2,600 m) in summer and autumn (Cowan and Guiget 1978; Stevens 1995). Areas higher than 1,300 m are seldom used in the winter.

Provincial Context

Moose are one of the most widely distributed ungulates in British Columbia. Moose populations in B.C. were likely low or non-existent prior to the late 1800’s and have increased significantly since then, moving from northeastern B.C. and Alaska southwards in the last 100 years (Peterson 1955 in Kelsall and Telfer 1974; Cowan and Guiget 1978). Populations are currently rated stable, and there are an estimated 170,000 moose in British Columbia (B.C. MELP 2000), a slight decline from the 1979 population estimate of 240,000 (B.C. MoE 1979).

Project Area

Ecoprovince: Northern mountain Boreal Mountains Ecoregions: Boreal Mountains and Plateaus Ecosections Northern Omineca Mountains (NOM)

Page 1 of 18 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

Biogeoclimatic Zones: Boreal Altai Fescue Alpine (BAFA, previously Alpine Tundra [AT]), Spruce-Willow-Birch (SWB) Project Map Scale: 1:20,000

ECOLOGY AND KEY HABITAT REQUIREMENTS

General

Moose utilize a variety of different habitats depending on the season. Moose are generalist herbivores and are described as “browsers”, obtaining their food from aquatic plants, grasses, lichens, bark, twigs, and young shoots of trees and shrubs. Common browse species throughout their range include willow ( Salix sp .) , black cottonwood ( Populus balsamifera sp. trichocarpa ), red-osier dogwood ( Cornus stolonifera ), Douglas maple ( Acer glabrum ), birch ( Betula sp.), and trembling aspen ( Populus tremuloides ) (Ehlers, Bennett, and Corbett 1998; United States Forest Service 2006). Browse, an important component of their diet, varies depending on the availability, palatability and nutritional value of other available plant species.

Kelsall and Telfer (1974) attribute climate as the most likely limiting factor to moose expansion, with high winter snowfalls and high summer temperatures determining the extent of moose range. Winter is the critical season for moose and the presence of forest cover adjacent to foraging areas is essential. In winter, moose exist on woody, low-quality, difficult to digest browse; however, when snow cover allows, they may consume non-woody vegetation and succulent species (LeResche and Davis 1973). Moose are adapted for high snowfall areas, having long legs and low foot loads (Coady 1974; Kelsall and Telfer 1974), and can usually use areas where snow depths are high (Kelsall and Prescott 1971; Coady 1974; Kelsall and Telfer 1974). Snow density and crusting has an effect on the depth of snow that a moose can use, with higher density snow allowing for deeper snow use (Kelsall and Prescott 1971; Coady 1974). Moose will also feed on the bark of deciduous trees, especially aspen in late winter. The availability of woody food plants and snow conditions (especially snow depths greater than 1 m), limit moose winter distribution. In winter, moose move towards valley bottoms and into more mature stands of Douglas-fir ( Pseudotsuga menziesii ), western red cedar ( Thuja plicata ), and western hemlock ( Tsuga heterophylla ). These forest stands provide security, protection from deep snow, bedding, and adequate forage in the understory (Halko, Hebert, and Halko 2001; Serrouya and D'Eon 2002). Other habitats utilized by moose during the winter include: riparian habitats, floodplains and other shrub dominated habitats such as shrub lands, wetlands and their edges, burns, cutovers, and other open areas (D. A. Demarchi 1986; Sopuck, Ovaska, and Jakimchuk 1997).

During the summer, moose may move to higher elevation ranges to utilize forest stands for cover from heat and predation, and food resources (Sopuck, Ovaska, and Jakimchuk 1997). Moose are attracted to cool water features in the summer months, spreading out along ponds, lake shores, and swamps. Other summer habitats utilized by moose consist of the same type of habitat as the winter range: floodplains, riparian habitats and adjacent forests. Wetland habitats are used extensively for spring, summer, and fall foraging. Sedge meadows are important habitats in spring, as sedges are among the first plants to emerge from dormancy. Graminoids and forbs are preferred in spring and early summer as they become less nutritious in fall and winter (Himmer and Power 1999). Riparian areas along rivers and lakes are also favoured habitats but are not used as heavily as the spruce and shrub wetlands.

Page 2 of 18 APPENDIX 2. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR MOOSE

Moose are easily heat stressed even at temperatures as low as -5°C. In the summer, extreme panting occurs at temperatures from 14°C to 20°C (Renecker and Hudson 1986). Areas with climates having temperatures that exceed 27°C for long periods and lack of shade do not support moose (Kelsall and Telfer 1974). Lakes, ponds, bogs, wetlands and the forests associated with these habitats are important in the summer to alleviate heat stress and provide abundant forage (Kelsall and Telfer 1974; Schwab 1985; Renecker and Hudson 1986; M. W. Demarchi and Bunnell 1993, 1995).

Moose migrate seasonally from high elevations in the summer, to elevations below 1,300 m in the winter (Sopuck, Ovaska, and Jakimchuk 1997). The extent of seasonal migrations may vary depending on topography, snow fall patterns, and forage availability in certain areas. Seasonal home ranges average 2 to 10 km 2 in size and vary depending on the season, although further migration occurs between seasons (Stevens and Lofts 1988). LeResche et al. (1974) reviewed variations in migration patterns of moose, and suggested three migration patterns based on numerous studies of moose populations:

• Type A: short distance movements between two seasonal ranges with little elevation change;

• Type B: medium to long distance movements between two seasonal ranges with large elevation differences; and

• Type C: medium to long distance movements between three seasonal ranges with large elevation differences between the winter/spring and summer/fall habitats.

All of these patterns can be expressed within the same general area by different segments of the same population, and may be dependent on factors such as age, sex, social status, and reproductive status (LeResche, Bishop, and Coady 1974). In their review of numerous moose studies, LeResche et al. (1974) found that Type A populations were found in areas of low elevation relief and high habitat diversity so that movements between winter and growing season habitats were relatively small (0-10 km). Their review of other work suggested that Type B populations have a low elevation winter range and a higher elevation spring/summer/fall range separated by 500 to 1,000 m vertically and 2 to 60 km horizontally. Type C populations were identified where migrations occur from winter areas at low elevations to other low elevation spring areas approximately 20 km away followed by a movement to higher elevation (+ 500 m) summer/fall areas 30 to 50 km from the spring areas. Although LeResche et al. (1974) distinguish three migration patterns, they acknowledge that they are points upon a continuum of possible moose movement patterns within North America.

Moose seasonal habitat use varies depending on the area studied, sex, age, social status and reproductive status of the animal. General seasonal use patterns are difficult to predict and quantify due to the differences in migratory patterns (LeResche, Bishop, and Coady 1974) and food preferences (J.M. Peek 1974) described by various authors. During the winter, moose are severely restricted in their movements when snow levels are greater than 90 cm, are relatively mobile if the snow levels are less than 60 cm, and prefer areas where snow depths are less than 40 cm (Coady 1974). In general, more open habitats such as burns, shrublands, and cutblocks are used during early winter or when snow levels are low and more closed canopy coniferous forests are used when snow levels increase (Coady 1974; Eastman 1974; LeResche, Bishop, and Coady 1974; J.M Peek, Urich, and Mackie 1976; Eastman 1977; MacCracken, Ballenberghe, and Peek 1997). Spring, summer, and fall habitats tend to be open types such as cutblocks, burns, shrublands, and wetlands that have abundant

Page 3 of 18 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT browse species and aquatic habitats such as ponds, which provide aquatic browse plants (J.M. Peek 1974; J.M Peek, Urich, and Mackie 1976; Doer 1983; MacCracken, Ballenberghe, and Peek 1997).

The life span of moose is variable but estimated to last approximately 20 years. Full maturity is reached at approximately 5 or 6 years of age, and maximum fecundity occurs at the age of 10 or 11 (Peterson 1974).

Reproduction

Moose mate in late September to early October during the rutting period, which is a time of intense social interaction between males and between males and females (Lent 1974). The rutting period begins in mid to late September and usually lasts for approximately three weeks, but may last longer. Habitat requirements for rutting appear to be varies with respect to vegetation, topography, and proximity to human disturbance (Stevens and Lofts 1988; Sopuck, Ovaska, and Jakimchuk 1997). Usually one calf is born in late May and early June although two calves are not uncommon, especially when habitat quality is high (Franzmann and Schwartz 1985 in MacCracken, Ballenberghe, and Peek 1997). Calves stay with the female moose until the next spring and sometimes on into the fall (Stringham 1974). Female moose can become sexually mature after the first year but consistent reproductive success is not usually established until they are over 2.5 years (Simkin 1974).

The most important habitat requirement in the summer is security cover for cows with young calves. This is required in order to minimize predation (Sopuck, Ovaska, and Jakimchuk 1997). Such sites are often found in large forest stands with dense cover of shrubs and forest canopy. The primary predators of moose are wolves, black bears and grizzly bears.

HABITAT USE – LIFE REQUISITES

Habitats for moose are rated separately for two seasons: growing and winter. The life requisites that will be evaluated for Moose in the Kemess Underground Project will be living for the early and late winter, because winter habitat was considered to be the main constraint on habitat suitability. The life requisites that will be rated for moose are: feeding (FD), security habitat (SH) and thermal habitat (TH), which are described in detail below. Habitat use by moose is largely dependent on the ability of the habitat to provide foraging opportunities within a certain proximity to thermal and/or security habitat; therefore the living life requisite combines feeding, thermal and security life requisites. Foraging and thermal/security habitat will be described separately and then combined at the end of the modeling process in order to produce a value for moose living in the specified seasons.

Feeding Habitat (FD)

Moose are found in a wide variety of habitats and browse on a wide variety of plant species over their range in North America. Moose consume different plants in different parts of the continent and in different seasons (J.M. Peek 1974). In his review of 41 moose browse studies in North America, Peek (1974) cautioned against generalizations in food habits due to these wide variations and suggested that local information be used wherever possible. In the west, seasonal differences in browse species have been documented for British Columbia, Alberta, Alaska, and the western states of Montana, Utah, Washington and Wyoming (J.M. Peek 1974; Eastman 1977). In general, the main

Page 4 of 18 APPENDIX 2. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR MOOSE winter browse species in moose diets in British Columbia are willows ( Salix spp.), birches ( Betula spp.), and aspens ( Populus spp .) (Kelsall and Telfer 1974). Other species such as red osier dogwood (Cornus sericea ), and sub-alpine fir ( Abies lasiocarpa ) have also been found to be important during the winter (Eastman 1977). By late spring, the above species are still used along with alders ( Alnus spp.), maples ( Acer spp.), grasses, and ferns.

Moose typically only use foraging habitats that are within a certain proximity to thermal and/or security cover; this is especially true during the winter season. The distance between thermal/security cover habitat and used feeding habitat has been reported differently for various study areas (Table 1).

Table 1. Proximity Distances Reported between Feeding and Cover Habitats from a Review of the Literature

Distance Study Area (m) Season Details Location Citation 530 All Maximum distance to cover in boreal forest Alberta (Eastman 1974) 40 Winter Beyond 40 m from cover, frequency of use Ontario (Hamilton and decreased and became zero at approximately 100 m Drysdale 1975) from cover 200 All < 75 m is considered optimal Alberta (Tomm, Beck Jr, and Hudson 1981) 80 Winter 95% of browse activity within 80 m of cover Ontario (Hamilton, Drysdale, and Euler 1980) 60 Winter Cow/calf groups ranged 3-60 m from cover (mean of Ontario (Thompson and 27 m) in early winter and 0-30 (mean 12 m) in late Vukelich 1981) winter, distance decreased with increasing snow depth N/A Summer No difference in browsing at varying distances from Sweden (Andren and edge; authors note that no predators exist in study area Angelstam 1993) 100 Spring Female moose with calves Alberta (Penner 1997 in Higgelke and Macleod 2000) 100 Winter Maximum distance from cover habitat Alberta (Higgelke and Macleod 2000)

Early Spring

Moose spring foraging areas consists primarily of open areas that provide early green browse such as herbs and new leaf buds of woody plants. Spring foods in north-central British Columbia include deciduous shrubs such as Sitka alder ( Alnus viridis ssp. sinuata ), Douglas maple ( Acer glabrum ), willows and paper birch (Eastman 1977) (Table 2). Deciduous leading stands on south facing slopes are considered to provide the most suitable spring range conditions. Movement from winter areas to spring feeding areas occurs as soon as snow depth declines and green-up of plants starts (LeResche, Bishop, and Coady 1974).

Page 5 of 18 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

Table 2. Plant Species Consumed by Moose in British Columbia

Common Name Scientific Name Trees and Shrubs Balsam fir Abies balsamea Balsam Abies spp. Douglas maple Acer glabrum Sitka alter Alnus crispa Saskatoon Amelanchier alnifolia Bog birch Betula glandulosa Paper birch Betula papyrifera Swamp birch Betula pumila Birch Betula sp. Red osier dogwood C. stolonifera Hazelnut Corylus californica Black twinberry / bearberry honeysuckle Lonicera involucrate Myrtle pachistema/ Falsebox Pachistima myrsinities Black cottonwood Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa Quaking aspen Populus temuloides Trembling aspen Populus tremuloides Cherry Prunus sp. Cascades rhododendron Rhododendron albiflorum Scouler willow S. scouleriana Willow Salix spp. Elderberry Sambucus sp. Western mountain ash Sorbus scopulina Mountain ash Sorbus spp. Western Pacific yew Taxus brevifolia Western redcedar Thuja plicata Highbush cranberry/ Lowbush cranberry Viburnum edule Forbs Clematis Clematis sp. Bunchberry dwarf dogwood Cornus canadensis Fireweed Epilobium angustifolium Skunk cabbage Lysichtiton kamtschaktkense Claspleaf twistedstalk Streptopus amplexifolius Aquatic Water arum Calla palustris Yellow waterlily Nuphar lutea ssp. polysepala Large-leaf pondweed P. amplifolius Grassleaf pondweed P. gramineus Floating-leaf pondweed P. natans (continued)

Page 6 of 18 APPENDIX 2. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR MOOSE

Table 2. Plant Species Consumed by Moose in British Columbia (completed)

Common Name Scientific Name Richardson pondweed P. richardsonii Robinson pondweed P. robbinsii Pondweed Potamogenton spp. Burreed Sparganium spp. Horsetail Horsetail Equisetum spp. Water horsetail E. fluviatile Grasses and Sedges Sedge Carex spp. Grass Gramineae spp. (Renecker and Schwartz 1998)

In general, moose spring range consists primarily of areas that provide early green forage (e.g., herbs, new leaf buds of woody plants). Moose have also been reported to strip bark from willow and aspen trees during early spring (Miquelle and Ballenberghe 1989). Although the nutritional benefits of bark stripping remain unclear, some researchers suggest feeding on bark by moose is related to mineral requirements (McIntyre 1972) and seen as a sign of starvation, often due to low quality or scarcity of higher quality browse, or deep heavy snow conditions (Miquelle and Ballenberghe 1989).

Overall, spring food sources are not well documented. Peek et al. (1976) and MacCracken et al. (1997) provide plant protein analysis data that show spring browse provides the highest value food for moose and suggest that spring feeding is critical for moose replenishment of fat reserves. Vaccinium spp., freshly exposed herbaceous vegetation, and grasses (Gramineae spp.) have been identified as important spring foods (J.M. Peek 1974; Ritcey Undated). Singleton (1976) indicated that there is an overlap between winter foods and spring foods, so most riparian shrubs, including willow and cottonwood, will still be selected. This may explain the use of creeks and riparian areas.

Late Spring / Summer / Fall

Late spring is associated with a rapid increase in leaf litter consumption, followed by the introduction of forbs and graminoids as spring progresses into summer and this continues into autumn. Spring habitat types used for foraging include wetlands, shrublands, riparian areas, recent burns and cutblocks (Eastman 1977; Schwab 1985; Simpson, Kelsall, and Clement 1988). Moose that exhibit Type B and C migration patterns (LeResche, Bishop, and Coady 1974), will follow the receding snow levels to upper elevation wetlands, meadows and sub-alpine forest parklands during the latter part of the spring (Edwards and Ritcey 1956; Simpson, Kelsall, and Clement 1988).

During summer, moose continue to browse (especially on willows) by stripping leaves and reducing the amount of consumed woody forage. Depending on availability, moose can also increase the proportion of succulent vegetation in their diet. Studies of moose habitat relationships have indicated that moose seek aquatic macrophytes during summer as their primary source of succulent vegetation. The concentration of minerals in aquatic vegetation (particularly sodium) has been

Page 7 of 18 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT suggested as the limiting nutrient moose attempt to replenish during the summer (Belovsky and Jordon 1981). Thus, many moose populations (particularly cow/calves) tend to concentrate their feeding activities during early and mid-summer in and around wetland areas where aquatic vegetation is most accessible (shallow open ponds and small lakes) and where the cool water may provide relief from warm ambient temperatures. Potential aquatic food plants include yellow water lily ( Nuphar lutea ssp . polysepala), pondweed (Potamogeton spp.), horsetails ( Equisetum spp.), water arum (Calla palustris ) and sedges ( Carex spp.). The use of aquatic plants has been hypothesized to be a response to the increased amounts of minerals, especially sodium in these plants (Belovsky and Jordon 1981), making them an important food source in the early summer. Red-osier dogwood was found by Eastman (1977) to be an important fall food for moose in north-central British Columbia.

Not all wetlands will provide optimum feeding conditions. The capability of wetlands to produce aquatic macrophytes and preferred browse species has been shown to vary with substrate, pH, soil temperatures and flow rates (Fraser, Chavez, and Paloheimo 1984). Therefore, Adair et al. (1991) suggested that small lakes (1-5 ha) with organic bottoms, slow streams and beaver ponds provide higher abundance of aquatic macrophytes and higher summer habitat values than other wetland types.

Besides aquatic vegetation, preferred terrestrial species include willow, horsetail, and swamp birch (Betula pumila ) (Singleton 1976). Willow and horsetail have both been identified as the most important non-aquatic species (J.M. Peek 1974; Singleton 1976). Other important browse species for this season include highbush cranberry (Viburnum edule ), trembling aspen, Saskatoon ( Amelanchier albiflorum ), and black twinberry (Lonicera involucrata ).

During the fall rutting period (late September to early October), moose generally select open wetland and shrubland habitat types or early seral stage burns and cutblocks (Lent 1974; J.M Peek, Urich, and Mackie 1976; MacCracken, Ballenberghe, and Peek 1997). Use of closed canopy forests also can be found in areas where hunting of moose occurs, possibly in response to this activity (J.M Peek, Urich, and Mackie 1976; Tomm, Beck Jr, and Hudson 1981; Schwab 1985). Male moose tend to aggregate more during the rut than females (Lent 1974), and have been shown to have smaller seasonal home ranges during this time (Cederlund and Sand 1994).

Winter

Early winter foods include willows (Salix spp.), red osier dogwood ( Cornus sericea ), and paper birch (Betula papyrifera ) while late winter diets include willows, paper birch and subalpine fir ( Abies lasiocarpa ) (Eastman 1977).

The most important winter food for moose is willow, as it is both palatable and abundantly available (B.C. MoE 1979; Ritcey Undated). The winter diet is close to 100% trees and shrubs, with the occasional consumption of frozen sedges if they can be found (Schwartz, Hubbert, and Franzmann 1988). A food preference list for British Columbia identifies willows, falsebox ( Pachistima myrsinites ), balsam ( Abies spp.), saskatoon (Amelanchier alnifolia ), paper birch (Betula papyrifera ), and mountain ash ( Sorbus spp.) as preferred winter browse species (Singleton 1976). Red-osier dogwood ( Cornus stolonifera ), western red cedar (Thuja plicata ) regeneration, Vaccinium spp., and alder (Alnus sp.) are also important winter food sources (J.M. Peek 1974; Petticrew and Munro 1979; Ritcey Undated).

Page 8 of 18 APPENDIX 2. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR MOOSE

Use of any particular browse species, however, is contingent on the population density, abundance and distribution of browse species, and season of use (J.M. Peek 1974).

Most authors identify winter habitat as the limiting factor in moose production (Kelsall and Prescott 1971; McNicol and Gilbert 1980; Thompson and Vukelich 1981; Risenhoover 1985; Hatler 1988). Winter habitat is primarily low elevation riparian communities, especially along dynamic riverine systems, where much of the riparian vegetation is in a sub-climax seral stage (LeResche, Bishop, and Coady 1974; Van Drimmelin 1987; Modaferri 1992). When snow levels are low (<60 cm) in early winter or during mild winters, moose are able to browse in open habitat types such as shrublands, burns, and cutblocks (Eastman 1974; LeResche, Bishop, and Coady 1974; J.M Peek, Urich, and Mackie 1976; Schwab 1985; MacCracken, Ballenberghe, and Peek 1997). As snow levels increase (>60 cm), foraging in open habitat types decrease and use of closed canopy forests and edge habitats between open and closed canopy areas increase (Eastman 1974; J.M Peek, Urich, and Mackie 1976; McNicol and Gilbert 1980; Schwab 1985; Hundertmark, Eberhardt, and Ball 1990; MacCracken, Ballenberghe, and Peek 1997). Use of open areas is limited to distances ranging from 30 to 80 m from forested edges when snow levels are more than 60 cm (Hamilton and Drysdale 1975; Hamilton, Drysdale, and Euler 1980; Thompson and Vukelich 1981).

Winter ranges can include clearcut areas as well as forested sites. Habitat preferences in winter are for floodplain riparian habitats along major rivers, riparian shrub thickets along tributary streams, or warm aspect regenerating burns at lower elevations. Van Dyke (Van Dyke, Probert, and Van Beek 1995) suggested high value winter feeding areas have >30% shrub cover, relatively low mature tree density (<200 stems/ha) and gentle slopes ( <7%). Romito et al. (1996) suggested a minimum of 50% shrub cover to provide optimal moose browse.

Moose browse tends to be most abundant in natural openings as well as those areas that have been recently disturbed through fire or clearcut logging. As such, structural stage is an important variable that is strongly correlated with the availability of shrubby vegetation and winter browse. Consequently, 10 to 20 year old clearcuts typically provide abundant moose browse and have been reported to receive relatively high early winter use (Oct-Dec) in the central interior of B.C. (Westworth et al. 1989). Hence, structural stages 1 and 2 would have relatively low foraging and cover value whereas structural stages 3 (low and high shrub) would likely provide the most suitable early winter foraging habitats. Late winter foraging habitats could also be found in structural stage 3; however, adequate mature forest (structural stage 6 or 7) cover needs to be present.

Mineral licks, or natural salt licks, are a critical part of a moose’s dietary intake. While at the sites, the animals consume water and soil. The chemical and nutrient composition of lick water and soil varies, but many are characterized by high sodium, calcium, and/or magnesium levels. As stated earlier, these salt licks are described as critical for both maintaining sodium levels as well as balancing stomach acidity (Bechtold 1996; Klaus and Schmid 1998). The lick areas are identified by a well-used large network of trails leading to the area, the presence of spring water or mineral seeps, hoof prints, concentrated faecal matter and urine, and polished rocks (Bechtold 1996).

Page 9 of 18 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

Security Habitat (SH)

The main predators of moose are wolves, grizzly bears and black bears. Predation is a primary factor in calf mortality, with estimates of 3 to 52% of calf deaths caused by grizzlies, and 2 to 18% by wolves for a given population. The density of the moose population does influence the number of deaths by black bear predation but not by grizzlies. Grizzly kill rates are approximately 0.6 to 3.9 adult moose per year. A pack of wolves (ranging from 2 to 22 wolves) is said to be responsible for 1 adult moose death per 6 to 16 days.

Security cover for moose is most critical during spring calving when cow moose seek out islands and gravel bars on river floodplains for calving; landscape features adjacent to water provide escape from predators. At calving time, dense growth of tall shrubs (e.g., willows) and mature stands of white spruce-poplar with at least a moderately dense understorey also provide cover for moose. Cow moose and calves can find secure habitat during calving season in dense deciduous stands, or tall shrubs with canopy cover > 50% (MacCracken, Ballenberghe, and Peek 1997).

During summer/fall, security cover is provided by the same habitat types mentioned above. As well, the summer habitat preference for water may provide some shelter against predation. Moose also experience relief from insects in the deeper waters (J.M. Peek 1998). Moose at upper elevations (e.g., SBSmk) utilize coniferous and mixed forests, shrub thickets in riparian habitats, and willow thickets on plateaus as cover.

Thermal Habitat (TH)

The high energy needs of moose require that they find, consume, and digest food at a rapid rate. It is critical for success that thermal stress is reduced to a minimum and does not interfere with the time required to locate food (Renecker and Schwartz 1998). Thermal stress is induced at temperatures greater than 5.1 °C in winter and 14 °C in summer. At ambient temperatures higher than this (when panting occurs), moose rapidly seek shade or the cooling effects of water (Schwab and Pitt. 1991).

During winter, deep and persistent snow has been shown to have a negative impact on the physical condition of the moose and thus increasing its risk of predation. No lower critical temperature for moose is known, as Karns (1998) reports that moose have been observed unaffected at temperatures lower than -40 °C. Moose are described as “chionophyls”, or lovers of snow, and are well adapted to snow environment. The long length and strength of their legs enables better negotiation of snow. However, moose are severely restricted in their movements when snow levels are greater than 90 cm, are relatively mobile if the snow levels are less than 60 cm, and prefer areas where snow depths are less than 40 cm (Coady 1974). Snow density and crusting has an effect on the depth of snow that moose can use, with higher density snow allowing for deeper snow use (Coady 1974; Kelsall and Telfer 1974). Snow depth and duration were found to be the highest natural mortality factors for moose in Alaska over an eleven-year period (Modaferri 1992).

It is suspected that double canopy winter habitats are used as an effort to be in locations with greater potential mobility. The north-western British Columbia coastal forests of Sitka spruce, western hemlock and western red cedar support moose and improve their mobility in riparian areas during the wet winters (Eastman and Ritcey 1987). Thermal/snow interception cover habitats for moose in

Page 10 of 18 APPENDIX 2. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR MOOSE winter consist of closed-canopy coniferous forests, which intercept snow, provide shelter and minimize radiation of heat to the open sky (Coady 1974; Eastman 1974; J.M Peek, Urich, and Mackie 1976; McNicol and Gilbert 1980; Thompson and Vukelich 1981; Schwab 1985; Hundertmark, Eberhardt, and Ball 1990). Open habitats such as burns, shrublands and cutblocks are used during early winter or during low snow winters and closed canopy coniferous forests are used during heavy snow winters or in late winter when snow levels increase (Coady 1974; Eastman 1974; LeResche, Bishop, and Coady 1974; J.M Peek, Urich, and Mackie 1976; MacCracken, Ballenberghe, and Peek 1997). In British Columbia, Schwab (1985) found moose using forests with high canopy closures when snow levels were greater than 90 cm. Also in British Columbia, Eastman (1974) found that forested habitats were used by moose for cover in winter rather than for feeding and that partially logged stands were the preferred habitat type due to the presence of forage and cover.

Although during very extreme winter weather moose may experience cold stress, heat stress may be a more important factor of moose habitat selection during moderate winter temperatures (Schwab 1985). However, Schwab (1985) also found moose using forests with high canopy closures when temperatures were less than –20°C. Mature closed canopy forests provide shelter from wind, with even residual stands of trees providing important wind shelter (McNichol and Gilbert 1978).

Spring

Security/thermal habitat required by moose during the spring is primarily security cover to provide protection from predators, especially for female moose during the calving and post-calving period. This security cover is required near foraging areas for activities such as bedding, ruminating and calving. Female moose will use dense cover in the spring to give birth to calves (Stringham 1974) and may leave calves in hiding cover in the first few hours after birth (Peterson 1955 in De Vos, Brokx, and Geist 1967; Stringham 1974) or while feeding in the open (Altmann 1963 in De Vos, Brokx, and Geist 1967). MacCracken et al. (1997) found that calving areas were most often located in open, tall alder-willow shrub habitats and that extensive feeding on willow and bark stripping occurred, probably due to the female remaining close to the calf for 7-10 days in these habitats. Another researcher in Alaska found that mature aspen spruce forests with a high canopy closure were used for calving (Miquelle 1990 in MacCracken, Ballenberghe, and Peek 1997). Canopy closure for 17 of 22 calving areas studied by MacCracken et al. (1997) had over 50% canopy closure. MacCracken et al. (1997) hypothesized that the tall alder-willow shrub and closed canopy mature forest habitats used for calving provide predator protection and thermoregulation advantages for moose. They also found that 50% of the collared females in their study showed high site fidelity for calving sites between years, using areas within 0.1 to 1km from each other in successive years.

No information is available for calving areas in British Columbia, although it is expected that moose would select dense tall shrub, riparian or closed canopy mature forest habitats similar to those described in Alaska.

Summer/Fall

During the summer and early fall, thermal cover has been reported by many researchers to be an important habitat feature selected for by moose (Schwab 1985; Renecker and Hudson 1986; M. W. Demarchi and Bunnell 1995). Demarchi and Bunnell (1995) found that moose generally used habitats

Page 11 of 18 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT in proportion to their availability but modified habitat use in response to warmer temperatures, displaying increased use of forested habitats with greater than 55% crown closure. In north central B.C., Schwab (1985) found that summer habitat use was directly related to avoidance of heat stress.

Moose have been found to select habitats such as lakes, rivers, and ponds (Kelsall and Telfer 1974; J.M Peek, Urich, and Mackie 1976), closed-canopy tall shrublands (M. W. Demarchi and Bunnell 1995; MacCracken, Ballenberghe, and Peek 1997), and closed-canopy forests (Schwab 1985; M. W. Demarchi and Bunnell 1993, 1995) during high temperature days (>20-25° C). Demarchi and Bunnell (1993) also provide a range of crown closure classes required for moose based on summer ambient temperatures. They suggest that moose will select forests with crown closures greater than 66% when temperatures are greater than 25°C.

SEASONS OF USE

Moose require thermal, security, and feeding habitat throughout the year. Table 3 summarizes the life requisites for moose for each month of the year.

Two seasons will be rated for Moose: Early Winter and Late Winter.

Table 3. Monthly Life Requisites for Moose

Life Requisites Month Season * Food, Security and Thermal Habitat January Early Winter Food, Security and Thermal Habitat February Early/Late Winter Food, Security and Thermal Habitat March Late Winter Food, Security and Thermal Habitat April Late Winter Food, Security and Thermal Habitat May Late Winter Food, Security and Thermal Habitat June Growing (Spring) Food, Security and Thermal Habitat July Growing (Summer) Food, Security and Thermal Habitat August Growing (Summer) Food, Security and Thermal Habitat September Growing (Fall) Food, Security and Thermal Habitat October Early Winter Food, Security and Thermal Habitat November Early Winter Food, Security and Thermal Habitat December Early Winter *Seasons defined for Northern Boreal Mountains Ecoprovince per the Chart of Seasons by Ecoprovince (RIC 1999) .

HABITAT USE AND ECOSYSTEM ATTRIBUTES

Table 4 outlines how each life requisite relates to specific ecosystem attributes (e.g., site series/ ecosystem unit, plant species, canopy closure, age structure, slope, aspect, terrain characteristics).

Ratings

There is a detailed level of knowledge of the habitat requirements of Moose in British Columbia to warrant a 6-class rating scheme (RIC 1999) (Table 5).

Page 12 of 18 APPENDIX 2. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR MOOSE

Table 4. Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) Relationships for Each Life Requisite for Moose

Life Requisite TEM Attribute Food Habitat • Site: site disturbance, elevation, slope, aspect, structural stage • Soil/terrain: bedrock, terrain texture, flooding regime • Vegetation: Percent cover by layer, species list by layer, cover for each species for each layer Security Habitat • Site: elevation, slope, aspect, structural stage • Soil/terrain: terrain texture • Vegetation: total percent cover, percent cover by layer • Mensuration: tree species, diameter at breast height, height Thermal Habitat • Site: elevation, slope, aspect, structural stage • Soil/terrain: terrain texture • Vegetation: Percent cover by layer, total percent cover • Mensuration: tree species, dbh, height

Table 5. Summary of General Habitat Attributes for Moose

Structural Habitat Use Specific Attributes for Suitable Moose Habitat Stage Early/Late Winter • Shrub Cover 15-30% 3, 6-7 Feeding Habitat • Shrub Species Composition, Salix spp. or other browse species (e.g., saskatoon, elderberry, high bush cranberry) • Shrub Height (1-5 m) as a measure of forage abundance Security Habitat • Tree Species Composition Mixed Conifer/Deciduous Mature Conifer 6,7 • Shrub Cover > 50% • Canopy Closure Thermal Cover • Tree Species Composition Mixed Conifer/Deciduous Mature Conifer 3, 5-7 • Shrub Cover • Canopy Closure >66%.

Provincial Benchmark (winter season) Ecosection: Peace Lowland (PEL) Biogeoclimatic Zone: BWBSmw Broad Ecosystem Unit: Boreal White Spruce-Trembling Aspen (structural stage 2-3)

Provincial Benchmark (growing season) Ecosection: Peace Lowland (PEL) Biogeoclimatic Zone: BWBSmw Broad Ecosystem Unit: White Spruce-Baslsam Poplar Riparian (structural stage 2-3)

Ratings Assumptions

1. Productive floodplains and their associated glaciofluvial benches, riparian habitat, and regenerating burns will be rated as either class 1 or 2 moose winter living habitat depending on available forage species and cover.

Page 13 of 18 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

2. Habitats with high shrub density (structural stages 3a and 3b on willow benchlands) will be rated class 1 winter feeding habitat, and class 1 or 2 security habitat depending on percent cover in the understory. 3. Wetlands complexes, with suitable aquatic forage, will be rated class 1 or 2 for feeding during the growing season. 4. For the growing season, class 1 and 2 feeding habitat will be represented by structural stages 2, 3a and 3b containing at least 3 suitable forage species. 5. For the winter season, typically structural stage 3a and 3b in areas with moderate snow fall regimes and high willow abundance will be rated as class 1 or 2 feeding habitat. 6. Regardless of seasons, security habitat will be a function of stem density (e.g., stem density the obscures 90% of the animal at 60 m will be rated class 1), understory abundance and composition (e.g., a diverse understory which obscures an individual behind foliage will be rated class 2 or better), and topography (e.g., gullied terrain may offer security opportunities and will be rated good security habitat). Suitable security habitat could occur in structural stages 3b, 4, 5, 6 and 7, however, the best security habitat will likely occur in structural stages 3b, 4 and 5. 7. In winter, thermal habitat will be a function of canopy closure (e.g., stands with canopy closure >65% will rated class 1 thermal habitat) and snowfall regimes (e.g., lower elevation sites which receive less snowfall, and are typically warmer will have less stringent requirements for winter thermal habitat). Additional features which will affect thermal habitat ratings for moose in the winter season include topography, aspect, slope and elevation. 8. During the growing season, thermal habitat will be a function of canopy closure (e.g., stands with 25% to 50% canopy closure offering shade will be rated as class 2 or better thermal habitat). Additional features which will affect thermal habitat ratings for moose for the growing season include topography, aspect, slope and elevation.

Ratings Adjustments

Final habitat capability and suitability map products may incorporate:

1. landscape heterogeneity and connectivity; 2. habitats adjacent to significant anthropogenic disturbance regimes (e.g., roads, settlements); and 3. interspersion of different structural stages within the landscape.

Adjustments will typically increase or decrease suitability value by a single class.

Page 14 of 18 APPENDIX 2. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR MOOSE

LITERATURE CITED

Adair, W., P. Jordon, and J. Tillma. 1991. Aquatic forage ratings according to wetland type: modifications for the Lake Superior moose HSI. Alces , 27: 140-49. Andren, H. and P. Angelstam. 1993. Moose browsing on Scots Pine in relation to stand size and distance to forest edge. Journal of Applied Ecology , 30 (1): 133-42. B.C. MELP. 2000. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Moose in British Columbia: Ecology Conservation and Management. B.C. MoE. 1979. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Preliminary Moose Management Plan for British Columbia. BC CDC. 2015. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer - Version 5.1.0 . BC Ministry of Environment, Conservation Data Centre. http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed January 2015). Bechtold, J. P. 1996. Chemical characterization of natural mineral springs in northern British Columbia, Canada. Wildlife Society Bulletin , 24: 649-54. Belovsky, G. E. and P. A. Jordon. 1981. Sodium dynamics and adaptations of a moose population. Journal of Mammalogy , 62: 613-21. Cederlund, G. and H. Sand. 1994. Home-range size in relation to age and sex in moose. Journal of Mammalogy , 74 (4): 1005-12. Coady, J. W. 1974. Influence of snow on behavior of moose. Naturaliste Canadien , 101: 417-36. Cowan, I. M. and C. G. Guiget. 1978. The Mammals of British Columbia Handbook No. 11 . 7th printing ed. Victoria, B.C.: Provincial Museum of British Columbia. De Vos, A., P. Brokx, and V. Geist. 1967. A review of social behaviour of the North American cervids during the reproductive period. American Midlands Naturalist , 77 (2): 390-417. Demarchi, D. A. 1986. Ministry of Environment Technical Report, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Biophysical Resources of the East Kootenay Area Wildlife. Demarchi, M. W. and F. L. Bunnell. 1993. Estimating forest canopy effects on summer thermal cover for Cervidae (deer family). Canadian Journal of Forestry Research , 23: 2419-26. Demarchi, M. W. and F. L. Bunnell. 1995. Forest cover selection and activity of cow moose in summer. Acta Theriologica , 40 (1): 23-36. Doer, J. G. 1983. Home range size, movements and habitat use in two moose, Alces alces , populations in southeastern Alaska. Canadian Field Naturalist , 97 (1): 79-88. Eastman, D. S. 1974. Habitat use by moose of burns, cutovers and forests in north-central British Columbia. Transactions of the North American Moose Conference and Workshop , 8: 185-207. Eastman, D. S. 1977. Habitat Selection and Use in Winter by Moose in Sub-Boreal Forests of North- Central British Columbia, and Relationships to Forestry. Ph.D. thesis diss., University of British Columbia. Eastman, D. S. and R. Ritcey. 1987. Moose habitat relationships and management in British Columbia. Swedish Wildlife Research Supplement , 1: 101-18.

Page 15 of 18 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

Edwards, R. Y. and R. W. Ritcey. 1956. The migration of a moose herd. Journal of Mammalogy , 37 (4): 486-94. Ehlers, T., S. Bennett, and P. Corbett. 1998. Crestbrook Forest Industries Ltd, TFL #14 Ungulate Winter Range Inventory: Year 2 1996/1997. Fraser, D., E. R. Chavez, and J. E. Paloheimo. 1984. Aquatic feeding by moose: selection of plant species and feeding areas in relation to plant chemical composition and characteristics of lakes. Canadian Journal of Zoology , 62: 80-87. Halko, R., K. Hebert, and S. Halko. 2001. Unpublished report for Tembec Industries Inc., Creston- Yahk Moose Winter Habitat Analysis. Hamilton, G. D. and P. D. Drysdale. 1975. Effect of cutover width on browse utilization by moose. Proceedings of the North American Moose Conference Workshop , 1: 5-26. Hamilton, G. D., P. D. Drysdale, and D. L. Euler. 1980. Moose winter browsing patterns on clear- cuttings in northern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Zoology , 58: 1412-16. Hatler, D. F. 1988. History and Importance of Wildlife in Northern British Columbia. In The Wildlife of Northern British Columbia . Ed. R. J. Fox. p10-11. Smithers, B.C.: Spatsizi Association for Biological Research. Higgelke, P. E. and H. L. Macleod. 2000. Prepared for Millar Western Forest Products’ Biodiversity Assessment Project, KBM Forestry Consultants Inc., Thunder Bay, Ont, Moose: BAP Report #6: Habitat Supply Models. Himmer, S. and D. Power. 1999. Cariboo Region Wildlife Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Wildlife Species Habitat Models and Final Wildlife Suitability Ratings for the Itcha/Ilgachuz Area. Hundertmark, K. J., W. L. Eberhardt, and R. E. Ball. 1990. Winter habitat use by moose in southeastern Alaska: Implications for forest management. Alces , 26: 108-14. Karns, P. D. 1998. Population Distribution, Density and Trends. In Ecology and Management of the North American Moose . Ed. A. W. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Kelsall, J. P. and W. Prescott. 1971. Moose and Deer Behaviour in Snow in Fundy National Park, New Brunswick. Kelsall, J. P. and E. S. Telfer. 1974. Biogeography of moose with particular reference to western North America. Naturaliste Canadien , 101: 117-30. Klaus, G. and B. Schmid. 1998. Geophagy at natural licks and mammal ecology: a review. Mammalia , 62: 481-97. Lent, P. C. 1974. A review of rutting behavior in moose. Naturaliste Canadien , 101: 307-23. LeResche, R. E., R. H. Bishop, and J. W. Coady. 1974. Distribution and habitats of moose in Alaska. Naturaliste Canadien , 101: 143-78. LeResche, R. E. and J. L. Davis. 1973. Importance of nonbrowse foods to moose on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management , 37 (3): 279-87.

Page 16 of 18 APPENDIX 2. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR MOOSE

MacCracken, J. G., V. V. Ballenberghe, and J. M. Peek. 1997. Habitat relationships of moose on the Copper river delta in coastal south-central Alaska. Wildlife Monographs , 136: 54. McIntyre, E. G. 1972. Bark stripping – a natural phenonmenon. Journal of the Royal Scottish Forest Society , 26: 43-50. McNichol, J. G. and F. F. Gilbert. 1978. Late winter bedding practices of moose in mixed upland cutovers. Canadian Field Naturalist , 92: 189-92. McNicol, J. G. and F. F. Gilbert. 1980. Late winter use of upland cutovers by moose. Journal of Wildlife Management , 44 (2): 363-71. Miquelle, D. G. and V. V. Ballenberghe. 1989. Impact of bark stripping by moose on aspen-spruce communities. Journal of Wildlife Management , 53: 577-86. Modaferri, R. D. 1992. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Lower Susitna Valley Moose Population Identity and Movement Study. Peek, J. M. 1974. A review of moose food habits studies in North America. Naturaliste Canadien , 101: 195-215. Peek, J. M. 1998. Habitat Relationships. On file with BC Geological Survey, Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources. Peek, J. M., D. L. Urich, and R. J. Mackie. 1976. Moose habitat selection and relationships to forest management in northeastern Minnesota. Wildlife Monographs , 48: 65. Peterson, R. L. 1974. A review of the general life history of moose. Naturaliste Canadien , 101 (9-21): Petticrew, P. S. and W. T. Munro. 1979. British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch, Preliminary Moose Management Plan for British Columbia. Renecker, L. A. and R. J. Hudson. 1986. Seasonal energy expenditures and thermoregulatory responses of moose. Canadian Journal of Zoology , 64: 322-27. Renecker, L. A. and C. C. Schwartz. 1998. Food Habits and Feeding Behaviour. On file with BC Geological Survey, Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources. RIC. 1999. Resources Inventory Committee, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C., British Columbia Wildlife Habitat Ratings Standards. Version 2.0. Risenhoover, K. L. 1985. Intraspecific Variation in Moose Preference for Willows . F. D. Provenza, J. T. Flinders, and E. D. McArthur, eds. Snowbird, Utah: Intermountain Research Station Forest Service. United States Department of Agriculture. Ritcey, R. Undated. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Moose in British Columbia. Romito, A., K. Smith, B. Beck, J. Beck, M. Todd, R. Bonnar, and R. Quinlan. 1996. Moose (Alces alces) Winter Habitat – Draft Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Model . Draft report. Foothills Model Forest, Hinton, Alberta: Foothills Model Forest, Hinton, Alberta. Schwab, F. E. 1985. Moose Habitat Selection in Relation to Forest Cutting Practices in North-Central British Columbia. Ph.D. thesis diss., University of British Columbia.

Page 17 of 18 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

Schwab, F. E. and M. D. Pitt. 1991. Moose selection of canopy cover types relative to operative temperature, forage and snow depth. Canadian Journal of Zoology , 69: 3071-77. Schwartz, C. C., M. E. Hubbert, and A. W. Franzmann. 1988. Energy requirements of adult moose for winter maintenance. Journal of Wildlife Management , 52: 26-33. Serrouya, R. and R. G. D'Eon. 2002. Downie Street Sawmills, FIA, Moose Habitat Selection in Relation to Forest Harvesting in a Deep Snow Zone of British Columbia. Simkin, D. W. 1974. Reproduction and productivity of moose. Naturaliste Canadien , 101: 517-26. Simpson, K., J. P. Kelsall, and C. Clement. 1988. Unpublished report prepared for British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Parks, Nelson, B.C., Caribou and Moose Habitat Inventory and Habitat Management Guidelines in the Columbia River Drainages Near Revelstoke, B.C. Singleton, J. 1976. Environment and Land Use Committee Secretariat, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Food Habits of Wild Ungulates in British Columbia: Bibliography and Plant Synopsis. Sopuck, L., K. Ovaska, and R. Jakimchuk. 1997. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Williams Lake, B.C., Literature Review and Problem Analysis of Moose/Forestry Interactions in the Cariboo Forest Region. Stevens, V. 1995. Resources Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Forests; Wildlife Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Working Paper 04/1995. Wildlife Diversity in British Columbia: Distribution and Habitat Use of Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals in Biogeoclimatic Zones. Stevens, V. and S. Lofts. 1988. British Columbia Ministry of Environment Wildlife Branch, Victoria B.C., Volume 1: Species Notes for Mammals. Stringham, S. F. 1974. Mother-infant relations in moose. Naturaliste Canadien , 101: 325-69. Thompson, I. D. and M. F. Vukelich. 1981. Use of logged habitats in winter by moose cows with calves in northeastern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Zoology , 59 (11): 2103-44. Tomm, H. O., J. A. Beck Jr, and R. J. Hudson. 1981. Response of wild ungulates to logging practices in Alberta. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research , 11: 606-14. United States Forest Service. 2006. Alces alces. Biological Data and Habitat Requirements . United States Forest Service. http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/wildlife/mammal/alal/all.html (accessed May 26, 2006). Van Drimmelin, B. 1987. British Columbia Ministry of Environment Wildlife Branch, Northern Region, Coastal Skeena Moose Survey. Van Dyke, F., B. L. Probert, and G. M. Van Beek. 1995. Moose home range fidelity and core area characteristics in south-central Montana. Alces , 31: 93-104. Westworth, D., L. Brusnyk, J. Roberts, and H. Veldhuzien. 1989. Winter habitat use by moose in the vicinity of an open-pit mine in north-central British Columbia. Alces , 25 (156-166):

Page 18 of 18

Appendix 3

Species Account for Mountain Goat

KEMESS UNDERGROUND PROJECT Wildlife Habitat Suitability Modelling Report APPENDIX 3. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR MOUNTAIN GOAT

Name: Oreamnos americanus Species Code: M-ORAM Status*: Global: G5 – Secure. Common; widespread and abundant. Provincial: S4 – Apparently Secure. Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. COSEWIC: Not listed. BC List: Yellow-listed. Ecological communities and indigenous species that are not at risk in British Columbia. Mountain goats are considered to be regionally important because they require older age class forests for winter cover. *Source: BC CDC (2015).

DISTRIBUTION

Provincial Range

Mountain goat range extends from the Rocky Mountains south of the 49 th parallel to the Yukon border. In British Columbia, goats are present in most mountainous ranges except for those on Vancouver Island, the Queen Charlottes, and other coastal islands (B.C. MELP 2000). Populations exist in the Cassiar Mountains in north-central B.C., the Cariboo Mountains of the upper Fraser River system, the Purcell, Selkirk and Monashee Mountains of south-east B.C. and the Coast Mountains from the lower Fraser River to the extreme north-west portion of the province (B.C. MoF 1996, 1997).

Elevation Range

Mountain goats are seen in mountainous regions, ranging from as low as 300 m elevation in the winter to approximately 2,500 m in the Rockies (Houston, Moorhead, and Olson 1986). Mountain goats generally occur in mountainous terrain at >1,500 m. Some sub-populations are also known to use canyons and forested rocky habitats year-round (Turney et al. 2001; Mahon and Turney 2002).

Provincial Context

Mountain goats are restricted to the northwest portion of North America, including British Columbia. British Columbia has more native goat range than any other province. Populations are rated stable, and there is an estimated 50,000 mountain goats in British Columbia (B.C. MELP 2000), a slight decrease from the 1977 population estimate of 63,000 (Macgregor 1977).

Project Area

Page 1 of 11 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

ECOLOGY AND KEY HABITAT REQUIREMENTS

General

The mountain goat is a generalist herbivore, obtaining their food by both grazing and browsing on alpine and sub-alpine grasses, sedges, rushes and forbs in summer, and on a variety of shrubs, conifers, mosses and lichens in winter (B.C. MoF 1997). Habitat selection is determined more by topographical features rather than by the presence of specific forage species. Mountain goats inhabit rugged terrain comprised of cliffs, ledges, projecting pinnacles and talus slopes in subalpine and alpine habitats. Forage sites for mountain goats must be suitable landforms to which they can retreat in times of danger. Steep escape terrain is a critical factor in habitat selection. One study showed that summering goats made little use of foraging areas over 400 m from cliffs (Boyd et al. 1986). Areas with abundant food supply and little escape terrain are generally not utilized by mountain goats (Herbert 1967; Chadwick 1973; Russell 1974; B. L. Smith 1977; Fox 1978; Schoen and Kirchoff 1982).

Habitat Use and Home Range

Mountain goats may migrate a few kilometres between winter-spring and summer ranges, but many seasonal migrations are just local shifts in elevation (B.C. MELP 2000). Winters are spent on well ledged or fractured cliffs, and very steep terrain with interspersed vegetation with low snow accumulation. These habitats are usually on steep south to southwest aspects with slopes exceeding 40° and access to forage. Along the coast, winter ranges are invariably at low elevations because snow is much shallower in depth or even absent to expose forage (B.C. MELP 2000). Studies have also observed that adult male ranges tend to be much larger than those of adult females, especially during the fall rut (Chadwick 1973; Thompson 1980; Schoen and Kirchoff 1982; C. A. Smith and Raedeke 1982).

In spring, coastal mountain goats usually remain at low elevations in order to take advantage of the earliest flush of green vegetation. As spring progresses into summer, they will follow the melting snow line up slope and feed on emerging young, succulent vegetation on other aspects (Casebeer, Rognrud, and Brandborg 1950; Herbert 1967; Foster 1982; Fox, Smith, and Schoen 1989). Foraging takes place in a variety of habitat types ranging from alpine tundra, alpine grass-herb communities, sub-alpine meadows and sub-alpine shrub and early seral stage forests (Chadwick 1973; Russell 1974; Fox 1978; Foster 1982; Fox, Smith, and Schoen 1989). During summer months, goats often use areas of lush herbaceous forage in alpine grasslands, meadows, and grassy slide-rock slopes of the BAFA (AT) and ESSF parklands. Timbered areas and avalanche tracks in the ESSF subzones may also be used during migration or movement between cliff bands and feeding areas. When crossing areas that are without escape terrain goats repeatedly use the same trails (Boyd et al. 1986).

Reproduction

The life span of the mountain goat is variable but estimated at approximately 12 years. Full maturity is reached at 4 years of age, while female sexual maturity first occurs at 2.5 years of age (B.C. MELP 2000; S.D. Côté and Festa-Bianchet 2001). Males are capable of procreating at that age, but are generally out-dominated by older males. Studies in Colorado and Washington (Bailey 1991; Houston and Stevens 1988 in Festa-Bianchet, Urquhart, and Smith 1994) reported that kid production was common among 3-year-olds and rare among 2-year-olds. Côté and Festa-Bianchet (2001) found that

Page 2 of 11 APPENDIX 3. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR MOUNTAIN GOAT kid production was significantly influenced by both age and social rank of the female and that females may not give birth every year.

The mating season, or rut, peaks in late November and early December. Mountain goats are polygamous during this time. After a gestation period of six months, nannies (mothers), retire to secluded, precipitous ledges to give birth to kids in late May or early June. Generally one kid is born, although twins are common, and they will stay with their mothers in nursery groups for up to two years (Macgregor 1977). The kids are nursed intensively for 6 weeks, at which time they begin to forage near their mothers. Weaning occurs after four months, in August or September. The mothers are very protective of their young and are extremely attentive until the next kid is born the following year.

Mountain goats are moderately social creatures, forming herds (or bands) for short periods of the year. Nursery bands of four or five nannies and their kids are common, but may increase up to 15 or 20 after kidding. Groups of more than 40 animals have been reported in some areas (e.g.,Von Elsner-Schak 1986; Varley 1996). Billies are less social, occurring singly or in groups of two to four animals. Males and females live apart except during breeding (Holmes 1988; Tesky 1993; Varley 1996; Blood 2000).

HABITAT USE – LIFE REQUISITES

The life requisites that will be rated for mountain goat are: feeding (FD), security (SH), and thermal (TH) habitats, which are described in detail below.

Feeding Habitat (FD)

Mountain goats select habitat more for its topographical features than for the availability of specific forage species. Mountain goats will feed on a variety of habitats adjacent to escape terrain such as alpine tundra, alpine/subalpine wet meadow, subalpine parkland, talus shrublands and subalpine forest burns. Goats may feed in lower coniferous forests during winter in wet snow areas, or may use windswept ridges in dry interior locations (V. Stevens and Lofts 1988).

Mountain goats feed on a variety of plant foods (Table 1). Grasses, sedges, rushes, ferns, forbs, lichens, shrubs and conifers are important in different seasons.

Table 1. Plant Species Consumed by Mountain Goats in British Columbia

Common Name Scientific Name Trees and Shrubs Mountain Heath Phyllodoce aleutica Moosewood Viburnum edule Highbush cranberry/Lowbush cranberry Viburnum pauciflorum Sitka alter Alnus crispa Scrub birch Betula glandulosa Hazelnut Corylus californica Alpine fir Abies lasiocarpa Western red cedar Thuja plicata (continued)

Page 3 of 11 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

Table 1. Plant Species Consumed by Mountain Goats in British Columbia (completed)

Common Name Scientific Name Western service berry Amelanchier alnifolia Common juniper Juniperus communis Sitka spruce Picea crispa Quaking aspen Populus temuloides Black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa Willow Salix spp. Scouler willow Salix scouleriana Western and mountain hemlock Tsuga spp. Forbs Lupine Lupine spp. Bunchberry dogwood Cornus canadensis Red osier dogwood Cornus stolonifera Foamflower Tiarella trifoliate Mountain bluebell Mertensia spp. Polemonium Polemonium spp. Kinnikinnick Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Ferns Alpine lady fern Athyrium alpestre Oak fern Gymnocarpium dryopteris Maindenhair spleenwort Asplenium trichomanes Maindenhair spleenwort Asplenium trichomanes Moss and Lichens Lichen Cetraria Lichen Cladina Lichen Cladonia Moss Dicranum Moss Hedwigia ciliate Moss Hylocomium Grasses and Sedges Wheatgrass Agropyron spp. Bentgrass Agrostis scarbra Reedgrass Calamagrostis spp. Fescue Festuca spp. Bluegrass Poa spp. Grass Gramineae spp. Sedge Carex spp. Source: Foster and Rahs (1981); Fox, Raedeke, and Smith (1982).

During winter, feeding occurs on steep, south-facing rocky areas and in some cases forested or scrub forest areas nearby (Chadwick 1973; B. L. Smith 1977; Schoen and Kirchoff 1982). Goats will feed upon

Page 4 of 11 APPENDIX 3. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR MOUNTAIN GOAT whatever plants are available or emerging from the snow, from dried grasses to conifer needles and even litterfall, mosses and both arboreal and terrestrial lichens (Chadwick 1973; Thompson 1980; V. Stevens 1983). Foster and Rahs (1981) estimate the average winter food diet of mountain goats to be 80-95% shrubs and trees, 0% forbs, and 15% grasses. Use of forested habitats in winter is dependent on the availability of nearby escape terrain, snow condition and snow depth. In the interior, when snow levels are high, mountain goats will tend to stay on steep, snow-shedding terrain or in areas where the wind keeps the snow from accumulating (Herbert 1967; B. L. Smith 1977). In coastal areas, mountain goats will use south-facing timbered habitats below and adjacent to escape terrain, foraging on plant species such as Vaccinium spp, bunchberry, sedges, tree lichens and mosses (Foster 1982; C. A. Smith 1986; Fox and Smith 1988; Fox, Smith, and Schoen 1989). This difference in use of forested terrain in winter appears to be related to the difficulty in moving in the deep, wet snow found in coastal areas as opposed to the drier snow found in interior areas.

Summer diet is more varied with a higher proportion of forbs (35-70%), grasses (22-62%) and sedges (Foster and Rahs 1981). Travel to find feeding areas is greatest during the summer when movements of a couple of kilometres are common (Chadwick 1973). Habitats used include krummholz-parkland, avalanche tracks, alpine and sub-alpine meadows, cliffs, rocky outcrops, snowfields, sub-alpine parkland and sub-alpine forests (Thompson 1980; Foster 1982; Schoen and Kirchoff 1982; V. Stevens 1983). Plants commonly used during the summer include shrubs (e.g., willows and soopolallie), grasses, sedges and herbaceous plants (Chadwick 1973; Thompson 1980).

Mountain goats, like many other ungulates, seek out mineral supplementation in the form of natural (mineral) salt licks. Mountain goats will travel further from their normal habitats than any other ungulate to obtain minerals (Herbert 1967). Mountain goats will use mineral licks that are in unfavourable habitats and will travel through forests to obtain minerals (Herbert 1967; Turney, Blume, and Mahon 1999, 2000; Turney et al. 2001). Mineral licks are used once they become snow- free in the spring until snowfall in late fall, early winter (Herbert 1967; Thompson 1980; Turney, Blume, and Mahon 1999, 2000; Turney et al. 2001). These salt licks are described as critical for both maintaining sodium levels as well as balancing stomach acidity (Bechtold 1996; Klaus and Schmid 1998). The lick areas are identified by a well-used large network of trails leading to the area, the presence of spring water or mineral seeps, hoof prints, concentrated faecal matter and urine, and polished rocks (S.D. Côté and Festa-Bianchet 2003). The goats use the licks during the summer, beginning in April or May (males) or early June (females).

Security Habitat (SH)

Security terrain is critical at all times of the year for mountain goats. Escape terrain is characterized as steep, broken surface with cliffs, rock outcroppings, ledges and talus slopes for predator avoidance (Herbert and Turnbull 1977). Exposure is generally south or west and slopes are generally steep, ranging from 30° to 45° in summer and up to 55° in winter.

The adaptation to steep rugged terrain by the mountain goat is an effective strategy against predation by grizzly bears, wolves and other mammals. Festa-Bianchet et al (1994) found that the major cause of death for mountain goats in their first four years was predation by grey wolf, grizzly bear and cougar, with most of the deaths occurring in the fall. For mountain goats in their second year and goats greater than eight years old, the primary causes of mortality reported by Smith (1986)

Page 5 of 11 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT were predation by grey wolf and bear and other natural causes. Mountain goats between two and eight years of age appeared relatively invulnerable to predation and other natural causes of death, but died primarily as a result of hunting. Other causes of mountain goat mortality include predation by species such as the golden eagle, bobcat, wolverine, and coyote, diseases and parasites, falls and avalanches, and winter weather (Chadwick 1973; Macgregor 1977; Festa-Bianchet, Urquhart, and Smith 1994; Blood 2000). Several source suggest that the availability of suitable winter habitat is a major determinant of mountain goat survival (Macgregor 1977; Blood 2000).

The location of escape terrain limits the distribution of populations. Goats usually remain within 400 m of escape terrain in summer and within 250 m in winter (McFetridge 1977; Schoen, Kirchoff, and Walmo 1980; Fox, Raedeke, and Smith 1982). Bedding and kidding sites nearly always feature high visibility of the surroundings on high points, under the protection of overhanging rocks and usually near cliffs (Tesky 1993). Movements between seasonal ranges are generally along ridges in proximity to escape terrain and migration routes through forested areas are normally well-used paths that the goats will frequently run along in order to return to safer territory (Demarchi, Johnson, and Searing 2000).

Thermal Habitat (TH)

During the winter, the selection of south-facing habitats and areas under forest canopy is common for both coastal and interior mountain goats (B. L. Smith 1977; Fox 1978; Foster 1982; Schoen and Kirchoff 1982). The winter ranges ideally lack persistent snow cover, often windy west/south-facing steep (40°) slopes at the tree line or just below tree line. Tree and shrub cover on steep, rocky ledges affords thermal advantage during sunny weather (solar radiation) and during storms. Goats in coastal ranges may use low elevation habitats, wintering in coniferous forests at or just above sea level (Demarchi, Johnson, and Searing 2000; S.D. Côté and Festa-Bianchet 2003).

North aspect cliffs provide cooler habitats in summer, providing for thermal regulation during hot periods. Summer habitat use is at higher elevations, in alpine tundra, alpine meadows, talus shrub lands, and high elevation burns or grassy slopes.

SEASONS OF USE

Mountain goats require feeding and security habitat differentially throughout the year. Table 2 summarizes the life requisites for mountain goats for each month of the year.

Data will be collected for two seasons; growing (G) and winter (W). The primary life requisites that will be rated are security habitat (SH) and feeding (FD), in conjunction with the secondary life requisite living (LI).

The two seasons for which ratings will be applied to are:

• Growing Season: spring range use, security habitat (SH) for lambing, feeding (FD) in BAFA/AT (late-Apr to early-Jun); other open habitats close to cliffs (BWBS, SBS).

• Winter: feeding on shrubs and forbs on wind-blown or exposed rocky or alpine slopes in BAFA/AT and (mid-Nov to mid-Apr). BWBS, SBS adjacent to south facing cliffs.

Page 6 of 11 APPENDIX 3. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR MOUNTAIN GOAT

Table 2. Monthly Life Requisites for Mountain Goats

Life Requisites Month Season * Feeding, Security Habitat January Winter Feeding, Security Habitat February Winter Feeding, Security Habitat March Winter Feeding, Security Habitat April Winter Feeding, Security Habitat May Winter Feeding, Security Habitat June Growing (Spring) Feeding, Security Habitat July Growing (Summer) Feeding, Security Habitat August Growing (Summer) Feeding, Security Habitat September Growing (Fall) Feeding, Security Habitat October Winter Feeding, Security Habitat November Winter Feeding, Security Habitat December Winter *Seasons defined for Northern Boreal Mountains per the Chart of Seasons by Ecoprovince (RIC 1999)

HABITAT USE AND ECOSYSTEM ATTRIBUTES

Table 3 outlines how each life requisite relates to specific ecosystem attributes (e.g., site series/ecosystem unit, plant species, canopy closure, age structure, slope, aspect, terrain characteristics).

Table 3. Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) Relationships for Each Life Requisite for Mountain Goats

Life Requisite TEM Attribute Food Habitat • Site: site disturbance, elevation, slope, aspect, structural stage • Soil/terrain: bedrock, terrain texture • Vegetation: Percent cover by layer, species list by layer, cover for each species for each layer Security • Site: elevation, slope, aspect, structural stage Habitat • Soil/terrain: terrain texture • Vegetation: Percent cover by layer • Mensuration: tree species, diameter at breast height, height

Ratings

There is a detailed level of knowledge of the habitat requirements of mountain goats in British Columbia to warrant a 6-class rating scheme (RIC 1999).

Provincial Benchmark (winter season) Ecoprovince: Coast and Mountains / Southern Interior Mountains Ecosection: Nass Ranges (NAR) / Southern Park Ranges (SPK) Biogeoclimatic Zone: MHmm / ESSFdk Broad Ecosystem Unit: Mountain Hemlock-Amabilis / Engleman Spruce-Subalpine Fir/RO-Rock: Fir/RO-Rock

Page 7 of 11 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

Provincial Benchmark (growing season) Ecoprovince: Coast and Mountains / Southern Interior Mountains Ecosection: Nass Ranges (NAR) / Southern Park Ranges (SPK) Biogeoclimatic Zone: AT / AT Broad Ecosystem Unit: Alpine Meadow / Alpine Meadow

Habitats: Mature to old-growth forests, subalpine parkland and seepage areas complexed with cliffs, rock bluffs, talus slopes, and avalanche tracks, on steep (greater than 80% slope), south to southwest aspects. Mountain goats may at times use habitats on gentle to moderate slopes but usually within close proximity to steep escape terrain. Northerly aspects may be used in winter if windswept of snow accumulations.

Ratings Assumptions

1. Localized winter ranges are critical to maintenance of mountain goat populations. 2. Habitats providing thermal and security cover are regarded as being critical to mountain goats in the study area. 3. Lambing areas with suitable security cover (late-May to early-June) are important for mountain goat population maintenance; these occur possibly in the SBS. 4. Rutting ranges are important to local mountain goat populations. 5. Access to more extensive summer and fall range (June through Sept) in the AT may also be a limiting factor for mountain goat populations. 6. Use of the SBS and BWBS is minimal due to lack of escape terrain; some isolated areas at lower elevations in the BWBS may be used by goats. 7. Habitat alteration from forest harvesting, mining, hydrocarbon exploration and linear access (roads, power line, pipelines) associated with these activities, can directly impact mountain range through fragmentation of habitats, and can result in deterioration of habitat suitability.

Ratings Adjustments

Final capability and suitability map products may incorporate:

1. Landscape heterogeneity and connectivity; 2. Habitats adjacent to significant anthropogenic disturbance regimes (e.g., settlements); 3. Adjacency to escape terrain.

One study showed that the distance to class 1 habitat was the most important factor determining goat distribution. Summering goats were found to make little use of class 1 and 2 food habitat areas that were over 400 m from class 2 or better security habitat (Boyd et al. 1986).

Page 8 of 11 APPENDIX 3. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR MOUNTAIN GOAT

LITERATURE CITED

B.C. MELP. 2000. Government of British Columbia, Mountain Goat in British Columbia: Ecology Conservation and Management. B.C. MoF. 1996. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, MIWG (Managing Identified Wildlife Guidebook) Forest Practices Code of B.C. B.C. MoF. 1997. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, B.C. Forest Practices Code. Species and Plant Community Accounts for Identified Wildlife: Species #36 – Mountain Goat ( Oreamnos americanus ). Volume 1. Bailey, J. A. 1991. Reproductive success in female mountain goats. Canadian Journal of Zoology , 69: 2956-61. BC CDC. 2015. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer - Version 5.1.0 . BC Ministry of Environment, Conservation Data Centre. http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed January 2015). Bechtold, J. P. 1996. Chemical characterization of natural mineral springs in northern British Columbia, Canada. Wildlife Society Bulletin , 24: 649-54. Blood, D. A. 2000. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Mountain Goat in British Columbia: Ecology, Conservation and Management. Boyd, R. J., A. Y. Cooperrider, P. C. Lent, and J. A. Bailey. 1986. Ungulates. In Inventory and Monitoring of Wildlife Habitat . Ed. A. Y. Cooperrider, R. J. Boyd, and H. R. Stuart. p519-64. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Service Center. Casebeer, R. L., M. L. Rognrud, and S. Brandborg. 1950. Montana Fisheries and Game Department Bulletin (5), The Rocky Mountain Goat in Montana. Chadwick, D. H. 1973. Unpublished report for the State of Montana, Mountain Goat Ecology- Logging Relationships in the Bunker Creek Drainage of Western Montana. Côté, S. D. and M. Festa-Bianchet. 2001. Birthdate, mass and survival in mountain goat kids: effects of maternal characteristics and forage quality. Oecologia , (127): 230-38. Côté, S. D. and M. Festa-Bianchet. 2003. Mountain goat. In Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Conservation . Ed. G. A. Feldhamer, B. Thompson, and J. Chapman. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. Demarchi, M. W., S. R. Johnson, and G. F. Searing. 2000. Distribution and abundance of mountain goats Oreamnos americanus , in Westcentral British Columbia. The Canadian Field-Naturalist , 114: 301-06. Festa-Bianchet, M., M. Urquhart, and K. G. Smith. 1994. Mountain goat recruitment: Kid production and survival to breeding age. Canadian Journal of Zoology , 72: 22-27. Foster, B. R. 1982. Observability and Habitat Characteristics of the Mountain Goat ( Oreamnos americanus ) in West-Central British Columbia. M.Sc. thesis diss., University of British Columbia. Foster, B. R. and E. Y. Rahs. 1981. Relationships Between Mountain Goat Ecology and Proposed Hydroelectric Development on the Stikine River, B.C. Prepared by Mar-Terr Enviro Research Ltd. for B.C. Hydro and Power Authority:

Page 9 of 11 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

Fox, J. L. 1978. Weather as a Determinant Factor in Summer Mountain Goat Activity and Habitat Use. M.Sc. thesis diss., University of Alaska. Fox, J. L., K. J. Raedeke, and C. A. Smith. 1982. USDA Forest Service Forest Science Laboratory, Mountain Goat Ecology on Cleveland Peninsula, Alaska 1980-82. Fox, J. L. and C. A. Smith. 1988. Winter mountain goat diets in southeast Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management , 52 (2): 362-65. Fox, J. L., C. A. Smith, and J. W. Schoen. 1989. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-246, Relation Between Mountain Goats and their Habitat in Southeastern Alaska. Herbert, D. M. 1967. Natural Salt Licks as a Part of the Ecology of the Mountain Goat. M.Sc thesis diss., University of British Columbia. Herbert, D. M. and W. G. Turnbull. 1977. A Description of Southern Interior and Coastal Mountain Goat Ecotypes in British Columbia . W. Samuel and W. G. MacGregor, eds. Kalispell, Montana: Queen’s Printer, Victoria, BC. Holmes, E. 1988. Foraging Behaviours Among Different Age and Sex Classes of Rocky Mountain Goats . W. M. Samuel, ed. Banff, AB: Houston, D. B., B. B. Moorhead, and R. W. Olson. 1986. An aerial census of mountain goats in the Olympic Mountain Range, Washington. Northwest Science , 60: 131-36. Klaus, G. and B. Schmid. 1998. Geophagy at natural licks and mammal ecology: a review. Mammalia , 62: 481-97. Macgregor, W. G. 1977. Status of Mountain Goats in British Columbia . W. Samuel and W. G. Macgregor, eds. Kalispell, Montana: British Columbia Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Province of British Columbia. Mahon, T. and L. Turney. 2002. Unpublished Report Prepared for Small Business Forest Enterprise Program, B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lakes Forest District, Canyon-Dwelling Mountain Goats along Foxy Creek: Status, Habitat Use Patterns and Management Recommendations - 2001/2002 Final Report. McFetridge, R. J. 1977. Strategy and Resource Use by Mountain Goat Nursery Groups . W. Samuel and W. G. Macgregor, eds. Kalispell, Montana: British Columbia Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, Fish and Wildlife Branch. RIC. 1999. Resources Inventory Committee, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, British Columbia Wildlife Habitat Ratings Standards. Version 2.0. Russell, D. 1974. Unpublished Report for British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Grizzly Bear - Mountain Goat Investigations in Knight Inlet, B.C. Schoen, J. W. and M. D. Kirchoff. 1982. Unpublished Report for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Use by Mountain Goats in Southeast Alaska. Schoen, J. W., M. D. Kirchoff, and O. C. Walmo. 1980. Winter Habitat Use by Mountain Goats.

Page 10 of 11 APPENDIX 3. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR MOUNTAIN GOAT

Smith, B. L. 1977. Influence of Snow Conditions on Winter Distribution, Habitat Use and Group Size of Mountain Goats . W. M. Samuel and W. G. Macgregor, eds. Kalispell, Montana: Smith, C. A. 1986. Rates and causes of mortality in mountain goats in southeast Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management , 50 (4): 743-46. Smith, C. A. and K. J. Raedeke. 1982. Group Size and Movements of a Dispersed, Low Density Goat Population with Comments on Inbreeding and Human Impact . J. A. Bailey and G. G. Schoonveld, eds. Fort Collins, Colorado. Stevens, V. 1983. Dynamics of Dispersal in an Introduced Mountain Goat Population. Ph.D. thesis diss., University of Washington. Stevens, V. and S. Lofts. 1988. British Columbia Ministry of Environment - Wildlife Branch, Wildlife Habitat Handbook for the Southern Interior Ecoprovince. Species Notes for Mammals. Volume I. Tesky, J. L. 1993. Oreamnos americanus . U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ (accessed May 26, 2004). Thompson, M. 1980. Unpublished Report for the State of Montana, Mountain Goat Distribution, Population Characteristics and Habitat Use in the Sawtooth Range, Montana. Turney, L., R. Blume, and T. Mahon. 1999. Unpublished Report Prepared for British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Houston Forest Products Ltd., Habitat Use by Mountain Goats Near Nadina Mountain - Final Report. Turney, L., R. Blume, and T. Mahon. 2000. Unpublished Report Prepared for British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Northwood Inc. and Houston Forest Products Ltd., Mountain Goat Populations and Movement Patterns Near Nadina Mountain -1999 Summary Report. Turney, L., T. Mahon, R. Blume, and J. Farkvam. 2001. Unpublished Report Prepared for British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Canadian Forest Products Ltd. and Houston Forest Products Ltd. Ardea Biological Consulting, Mountain Goat Populations, Movement Patterns and Habitat Use in Forested Habitats Near Nadina Mountain and Foxy Creek British Columbia – 2000 Summary Report. Varley, N. C. 1996. Mountain Goat Subpopulations in the Absaroka Range, South-Central Montana . K. Hurley, D. Reed, and N. Wild, eds. Silverthorne, Colorado: Von Elsner-Schak, I. 1986. Habitat use by mountain goats, Oreamnos americanus , on the Eastern Slopes Region of the Rocky Mountains at Mount Hamell, Alberta. Canadian Field Naturalist , 100 (3): 319-24.

Page 11 of 11

Appendix 4

Species Account for Grizzly Bear

KEMESS UNDERGROUND PROJECT Wildlife Habitat Suitability Modelling Report APPENDIX 4. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR GRIZZLY BEAR

Name: Ursus arctos horribilis Species Code: M-URAR Status*: Global: G4 – Apparently Secure. Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. Provincial: S3 – Vulnerable Vulnerable in the province due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. COSEWIC: SC – Special Concern. Characteristics make it particularly sensitive to human activities or natural events. BC List: Blue-listed. Includes any indigenous species or subspecies considered to be of Special Concern (formerly Vulnerable) in British Columbia. Taxa of Special Concern have characteristics that make them particularly sensitive or vulnerable to human activities or natural events. Blue-listed taxa are at risk, but are not Extirpated, Endangered, or Threatened. *Source: BC CDC (2015).

DISTRIBUTION

Provincial Range

Grizzly bears are found throughout British Columbia, except the Georgia Depression Ecoprovince, Vancouver Island and Queen Charlotte Islands. They are currently extirpated from parts of their former range including south-western portions of mainland B.C. around the Fraser Valley, a large section of south-central B.C., and a smaller area in mid-eastern B.C. and are considered to be threatened in many of the surrounding areas (A. Hamilton and Bunnell 1992). Over four-fifths of the land area in British Columbia is range land for grizzlies. Grizzly bears can be found in all biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification zones within B.C. except for Coastal Douglas-fir (CDF), Bunchgrass (BG), and Ponderosa Pine (PP) (Stevens 1995).

Elevation Range

Grizzly bears occupy a broad elevational range, from sea level and river-valley riparian areas to high level alpine regions (Stevens 1995).

Provincial Context

Grizzly bears occur dispersed throughout their range. Populations are rated as vulnerable or threatened. The current provincial population of grizzly bears is estimated to be 16,887 (A. N. Hamilton, Heard, and Austin 2004), compared to the 1987 population estimate of 6,000 to 7,000 (Fuhr and Demarchi 1990). The British Columbian population is estimated to comprise approximately one half of the Canadian population of grizzly bears (B.C. MELP 1995).

Page 1 of 13 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

Project Area

ECOLOGY AND KEY HABITAT REQUIREMENTS

General

Grizzly bears are a North American subspecies of the brown bear. Varying from creamy yellow to dark brown, these large bears are known for their prominent shoulder hump, rounded head, and small, heavily furred ears. Their weight is dependent upon season and food availability; they are generally 30 to 40% heavier in the fall than in the spring. Adult male grizzly bears weigh approximately 220 kg in spring; females are smaller at 130 kg (B.C. WLAP 2003).

Grizzly bears are omnivorous and opportunistic in their feeding habits (McLellan and Hovey 2001). Grasses, herbs, roots, corns, and berries comprise 60 to 90 percent of grizzly bear diet (Bunnell and McCann 1993). Habitat selection is governed by season and forage availability during the growing season. Forest cover is required for security, but its importance varies according to individual vulnerability and type of cover. Grizzly bear diet also changes with the seasons to make use of the most digestible foods.

Some variation occurs in feeding patterns between coastal and interior grizzly bears. On the coast, beginning in the spring, grizzly bears feed on early green vegetation such as skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanum ) and sedges located in the estuaries and seepage sites that become snow-free first. As the season advances, bears follow the receding snow up the avalanche chutes and feed on emerging vegetation and roots. Ripe berries attract grizzlies onto the floodplain and sidehills where they eat devil’s club ( Oploplanax horridus ), salmonberry ( Rubus spectabilis ), raspberry ( Rubus sp.), black twinberry ( Lonicera involucrata ), elderberry ( Sambucus sp.), and a variety of blueberries ( Vaccinium sp.). Grizzly bears feed on salmon as they become available in the spawning channels and continue to do so until late fall. After the main salmon runs in August and early September, they often feed on late-senescing plants, autumn berries, roots and insects before hibernation (B.C. WLAP 2003).

In the interior during spring, grizzly bears congregate in moist, lower elevation sites such as wetlands and avalanche chutes, feeding on the roots of hedysarum, carrion and opportunistically prey on winter-weakened ungulates. As the green vegetation emerges, the bears begin to graze on grasses, horsetails, rushes and sedges. In the summer, bears switch to berries, feeding mainly on soopolallie (Shepherdia canadensis ), huckleberries ( Vaccinium sp.) and blueberries in subalpine burns. Interior bears have less access to salmon than coastal grizzly bears, but they make more use of alternate foods like lily bulbs, sweet-vetch roots, and ground squirrels. They also seek out the carcasses of ungulates that have died during the winter and prey on deer fawn and moose and elk

Page 2 of 13 APPENDIX 4. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR GRIZZLY BEAR calves born in the spring. Interior grizzly bears forage at a variety of elevations, from valley bottoms to alpine meadows (B.C. WLAP 2003).

Home Range

The area that a grizzly bear will use as a home range is dependent on factors such as sex, age, social status, population levels, and habitat availability (LeFranc et al. 1987). Large male grizzly bears are highly mobile and can range over hundreds of kilometres a year, while sub-adults or females with cubs maintain a much smaller home range, moving between habitat as new habitats become productive (LeFranc et al. 1987; Simpson 1992; MacHutchon, Himmer, and Bryden 1993). The amount of overlap between adjacent grizzly bear home ranges is variable and dependent on the region, sex, age and reproductive and social status of the animal (LeFranc et al. 1987). Mace and Waller (1997) found that the amount of habitat overlap between adjacent females in Montana was between 0 and 94% (avg. 24%), and that 76% of the females showed no territoriality between animals. Interactions between males and females showed that numerous female home ranges were enclosed in a single male home range. Overlap zones for females and males were also shown to contain important habitat features such as avalanche chutes, grass/rock lands, and shrub lands (Mace and Waller 1997).

Reproduction

Breeding occurs between the end of April and end of June (Mundy and Flook 1973; Aune 1985), but because of delayed implantation, cubs are born in the den between January and March. The female bear and her cubs will stay in the den in hibernation until mid-April on the coast of B.C., and until May in the interior of the province. The average age of first reproduction for females in southeastern B.C. is 6 years, the time period between litters is 2.7 years, and the mean number of cubs per litter is 2.3 (McLellan 1988). In southern grizzly populations, cubs tend to stay with their mothers for approximately 2.5 years. The life span of the grizzly is variable but estimated to last approximately 30 years with reproduction possible until a maximum of 25 years (B.C. WLAP 2003).

Grizzlies’ reproductive rate is the one of the lowest of all the land mammals in North America, with litters ranging from 1 to 4 cubs and averaging 2 cubs (LeFranc et al. 1987). McLellan (1989) found litter sizes in southeast B.C. averaged 2.26 cubs in 31 litters, while MacHutchon et al. (1993), reported 2.4 cubs per litter (n = 8) in B.C. coastal forests. A female grizzly will usually have her first litter when she is 5-7 years old (J. J. Craighead, Varney, and Craighead 1974; McLellan and Shackleton 1989; Eberhardt, Blanchard, and Knight 1994; Hovey and McLellan 1996 in McLellan and Hovey 2001). After this, females remain fertile throughout the remainder of their life but are only receptive every 3 to 4 years (John J. Craighead, Sumner, and Mitchell 1995).

Hibernating Habitat

Grizzly bears den from mid-October to May. Generally, adult males remain active longer and emerge from dens earlier than females, especially females with cubs (Wielgus 1986). Dens tend to be in sloped alpine or subalpine habitats, and can occur on any aspect. Grizzly bears sometimes dig more than one winter den before they are satisfied and occasionally move to a new site during the winter (B.C. WLAP 2003). Grizzly bears dig dens at or near the treeline, and below the ridge crest where mid-winter thaws are unlikely (Vroom, Herrero, and Ogilvie 1977). The dens are dug horizontally into the ground on steep slopes (20 - 40°) where prevailing winds result in deep,

Page 3 of 13 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT persistent snow cover, which provides insulation (F. C. Craighead and Craighead 1972; Vroom, Herrero, and Ogilvie 1977; B.C. WLAP 2003).

The elevation of most dens on the B.C. coast is between 350 and 850 m, and between 2,000 and 2,350 m in the Rockies. Hibernation habitats tend to be sloped, and have dry, stable soil conditions that remain frozen during the winter (Bunnell and McCann 1993). Grizzly bears usually den in the same area each year, but dig a new den each winter. Dens may be up to 4 m long and are characterized by a mound of excavated soil, an entrance tunnel about 0.7 m in diameter and a chamber that is 1 to 2 m wide (B.C. WLAP 2003). Dens may be clustered in areas that have favourable environmental conditions (Vroom, Herrero, and Ogilvie 1977; B.C. WLAP 2003).

In most cases, dens are dug in well-drained sites and areas of dry, stable soil to avoid flooding. Supporting vegetation overhead consists of root-mat forming sod, shrubs or trees that will help prevent roof collapse. Occasionally, grizzly bears will den in a dug out area in the roots of a large conifer (B.C. WLAP 2003). McLoughlin et al. (2001) found that esker landforms were selected preferentially over other sites, highlighting the importance of well-drained sites.

During hibernation, bears may not eat, drink, defecate or urinate for a period of 3 to 5 months and respiration, heart rate and core body temperature are significantly reduced (Sugg 1987). Pregnant females give birth while in the den. The location of the den site and the physical condition of the female are important factors in maintaining pregnancy and cub survival.

HABITAT USE – LIFE REQUISITES

Only the feeding life requisite will be rated for grizzly bears in the Kemess Underground Project because feeding habitat is thought to be the limiting factor. Feeding, security, and thermal life requisites are also described in detail below.

Feeding Habitat (FD)

Grizzly bears are omnivores, foraging for high nutrient, high protein plants and animals. Feeding requirements for grizzly bears are tied closely to food availability and season.

Early Spring

Early spring diet for grizzly bears consists of ungulates and roots (e.g., Hedysarum spp ., Claytonia lanceolata, Erythronium grandiflorum ) (Table 1). Spring foods consist mainly of new, green vegetation and winter-killed or weakened ungulates. Forest openings such as meadows, wetlands and seepage areas, and southerly and westerly aspect herb-dominated avalanche paths provide the most abundant vegetable foods. Riparian areas are heavily-used, specifically low gradient areas with back channels and meandering streams, which provide the most favourable conditions for succulent forb and grass production (Ash 1985).

Late Spring / Early Summer

Important late spring and early summer foods are horsetails ( Equisetum spp.), graminoids, willow catkins ( Salix spp.), and lush forbs. Preferred forbs are cow parsnip ( Heraculum lanatum ), peavine

Page 4 of 13 APPENDIX 4. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR GRIZZLY BEAR

(Lathyrus spp.), clover ( Trifolium spp.), colts foot ( Petasites spp .), desert-parsley ( Lomatium spp.), angelica (Angelica lucida), and dandelion ( Taraxacum spp.) (Mace and Bissell, 1986; Wielgus, 1986; McLellan and Hovey, 1995; McCann, 1997) (Table 1). Important habitats are avalanche chutes, low to mid elevation riparian habitats, wetlands, alpine meadows, seep areas, cutblocks, and floodplains.

Table 1. Plant and Other Food Species Consumed by Grizzly Bears in British Columbia

Common Name Scientific Name Trees and Shrubs Alpine fir Abies lasiocarpa Saskatoon Amelanchier alnifolia Western service berry Amelanchier alnifolia Kinnikinnick Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Red-osier dogwood C. stolonifera Bunchberry dogwood Cornus canadensis Crowberry Empetrum nigrum Black twinberry Lonicera involucrata Devil’s club Oploplanax horridus Bog cranberry Oxycoccus oxycoccos White spruce Picea glauca Quaking aspen Populus temuloides Black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa Northern gooseberry R. oxyacanthoides Buckthorn Rhamnus alnifolia Black gooseberry Ribes lacustre Red raspberry Rubus idaeus Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis Scouler willow S. scouleriana Sitka mountain ash S. sitchensis Willow Salix spp. Red elderberry Sambucus racemosa Soopolallie Shepherdia canadensis Western mountain ash Sorbus scopulina Highbush cranberry/ Lowbush cranberry V. pauciflorum Dwarf blueberry Vaccinium caespitosum Huckleberry Vaccinium spp. Moosewood Viburnum edule Forbs Angelica Angelica lucida Asters Aster sp. Vetch Astragalus spp. Fireweed Epilobium angustifolium (continued)

Page 5 of 13 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

Table 1. Plant and Other Food Species Consumed by Grizzly Bears in British Columbia (completed)

Common Name Scientific Name Cow parsnip Heracleum lanatum Peavine Lathyrus spp. Desert-parsley Lomatium spp. Skunk Cabbage Lysichiton americanum Sweet cicely Osmorhiza sp. Colts foot Petasites spp. Rose hips Rosa spp. Solomon’s seal Smilacina stellata Dandelion Taraxacum spp. Forbs White Clover Trifolium repens Clover Trifolium spp. Stinging nettle Urtica dioica Ferns Alpine lady fern Athyrium alpestre Spiny wood fern Dryopteris expansa Grasses and Sedges Bromes Bromus spp. Sedges Carex spp. Tufted hairgrass Deschampsia caespitose Horestails Equiseum spp. Grass Gramineae spp. Bluegrass Poa spp. Spike trisetum Trisetum spicatum Other Food Sources Moose Alces alces White sucker Castomomus commersoni Ants Formicidae Marmots Marmota spp. Mountain goats Oreamnos americanus Caribou Rangifer tarandus Wasps Vespidae Source: Fuhr and Demarchi (1990); Beaudry, Martin, and Paczkowski (2001).

Summer

Wet areas providing cow parsnip, sweet vetch and nettles on northern aspects continue to be used during the summer. Berries are most abundant at higher elevations; however, some low elevation habitats also supply some berries and a variety of other foods. Huckleberries ( Vaccinium spp.), soopolallie ( Shepherdia canadensis ), and saskatoon ( Amelanchier alnifolia) are the most important, while kinnikinnick ( Arctostaphylos urva-ursi), crowberry ( Empetrum nigrum ), cranberry ( Viburnum edule ),

Page 6 of 13 APPENDIX 4. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR GRIZZLY BEAR buckthorn ( Rhamnus alnifolia ) and rose hips ( Rosa spp.) are also consumed (Mace and Bissell 1986; McLellan and Hovey 1995; MacHutchon 1996; McCann 1997) (Table 1). Berries tend to be most abundant in natural openings as well as those areas that have been recently disturbed through fire or clear-cut logging. As a result, structural stage can be an important variable when correlated with the availability of berries. Regenerating burns and 10 to 20 year old clear-cuts typically provide abundant berries and receive relatively high summer use. In forested habitats, canopy closures of 20-50% are optimal for berry production (Ash 1985).

Fall

Coarse woody debris in all habitats is a source of insects and larvae. Grizzly bears will also opportunistically eat vegetation in order to prepare for hibernation.

Security Habitat (SH)

Security habitat for grizzly bears is variable, but is used to avoid intraspecific (i.e., bear to bear) and interspecific (e.g., bear to human) contact.

1. Bear/Bear avoidance: Forested habitats are used as security from other bears during the growing season. Therefore, forested habitats adjacent to early successional foraging areas are important (Jonkel 1987). Females with cubs will tend to use forested habitats older than pole-sapling with diverse understories, and isolated rugged habitats in order to avoid aggressive males while foraging (Pearson 1975). 2. Bear/human avoidance: Habitats adjacent to high-traffic roads (paved or active logging roads) are avoided especially if no forest cover exists nearby (McLellan and Mace 1985; McLellan and Shackleton 1988). Higher quality habitats adjacent to roads or other areas of human disturbance may not be used if adequate forest cover is not available (McLellan and Shackleton 1989).

Thermal Habitat (TH)

Bears will seek shelter from precipitation in forested habitats. During hot weather, bears will bed in shady areas such as forests with coarse woody debris, under rock overhangs, or tall shrubs. During the summer, grizzly bears use forests of structural stage 4+ for shade. Water sources, such as ponds, streams, and wetlands are important cooling environments. Areas of dense cover (e.g., alder thickets, riparian vegetation and dense coniferous forest) are used for bedding (J. J. Craighead, Sumner, and Scaggs 1983). Generally, these habitat features are too small to map as TEM polygons, and are difficult to rate. If located, these features will be identified in the ‘Evidence of Use’ section in the Wildlife Habitat Assessment Form.

Seasons of Use

Grizzly bears require different feeding, security and thermal habitat throughout the year. Table 2 summarizes the life requisites for grizzly bear for each month of the year for the Northern Boreal Mountains ecoprovince.

Three seasons will be rated for Grizzly Bears: Spring (June), Summer (Jul - Aug), and Fall (September).

Page 7 of 13 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

Table 2. Monthly Life Requisites for Grizzly Bear

Life Requisites Month Season * Hibernating January Winter Hibernating February Winter Hibernating March Winter Hibernating April Winter Hibernating May Winter Feeding/Security/Thermal June Spring Feeding/Security/Thermal July Summer Feeding/Security/Thermal August Summer Feeding/Security/Thermal September Fall Hibernating October Winter Hibernating November Winter Hibernating December Winter *Seasons defined for Northern Boreal Mountains Ecoprovinces per the Chart of Seasons by Ecoprovince (RIC 1999, Appendix B).

HABITAT USE AND ECOSYSTEM ATTRIBUTES

Table 3 outlines how each life requisite relates to specific ecosystem attributes (e.g., site series/ ecosystem unit, plant species, canopy closure, age structure, slope, aspect, terrain characteristics).

Table 3. Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) Relationships for Each Life Requisite of Grizzly Bears

Life Requisite TEM Attribute Feeding Habitat (FD) • Site: site disturbance, elevation, slope, aspect, structural stage, site modifier • Soil/terrain: flooding regime, terrain texture • Vegetation: Percent cover by layer, species list by layer, structural stage modifier, stand composition, available forage Security/Thermal (ST) • Site: slope, structural stage • Vegetation: total percent cover, percent cover by layer, stand composition Hibernation Habitat • Site: site disturbance, elevation, slope, aspect, structural stage (HI) • Soil/terrain: terrain texture, rooting depth, seepage water depth, flooding regime, soil depth, soil texture, percent coarse fragments

Ratings

There is a detailed level of knowledge of the habitat requirements of grizzly bears in British Columbia to warrant a 6-class rating scheme (RIC 1999). Table 4 summarizes the general habitat requirements of grizzly bears.

Provincial Benchmark (coastal British Columbia) Ecosection: Kitimat Ranges (KIR) Biogeoclimatic Zone: CWHvm1 Broad Ecosystem Unit : Coastal Western Hemlock-wet maritime

Page 8 of 13 APPENDIX 4. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR GRIZZLY BEAR

Table 4. Summary of General Habitat Attributes for Grizzly Bear

Structural Habitat Use Specific Attributes for Suitable Grizzly Bear Habitat Stage Early Spring • high forage plant diversity in lush herb layer with an abundance of grasses, 2-3, 6-7 Feeding sedges ( Carex spp.) horsetails ( Equisetum spp.); cow parsnip, stinging nettle, hellebore, dandelion, skunk cabbage, etc. • See Table 1 for detailed preferred forage species). Late Spring/ • 15-30% total shrub cover 3, 6-7 Summer Feeding • shrub species composition dominated (>15%) by Vaccinium or other berry producers (e.g., soopolallie, thimbleberry, twinberry, devil's club, elderberry, high bush cranberry) • shrub height < 2.5 m • high coarse woody debris Fall Feeding • salmon spawning areas - • berry-producing areas close to salmon streams • high coarse woody debris • moist forests with abundant forage plants Security/ • tree species composition mixed conifer/deciduous 3, 5-7 Thermal Cover • mature conifer • shrub cover >50% • canopy closure >66% Hibernating • deep, fine-textured soils 6,7 Habitat • dry, moisture-shedding site • higher elevation, steep slope site

Habitats: skunk cabbage sites, floodplains, wetlands, estuaries/beaches, the Khutzymateen Valley is considered to be grizzly bear benchmark habitat in British Columbia.

Provincial Benchmark (interior British Columbia) Ecosection: Border Ranges (BRR) Biogeoclimatic Zone: ESSFdk; MSdk Broad Ecosystem Unit: Engleman Spruce Subalpine Fir dry cool; Montane Spruce dry cool

Habitats: avalanche chutes, the Flathead Valley is considered to be interior grizzly bear benchmark habitat in British Columbia.

Ratings Assumptions

1. Grizzly bears make discrete choices about the plant food items consumed, and therefore, availability and abundance of food items are key factors in habitat selection by the bear (Hadden, Hann, and Jonkel 1985). Recorded habitat use is assumed to reflect habitat preferences, and habitat preferences are assumed to reflect habitat requirements. 2. The importance value of food items determined from scat analysis accurately reflects the importance of that food item to the bear in that time period, and that forage plant availability is correctly predicted by the site unit.

Page 9 of 13 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

3. Feeding and security habitats in close proximity are assumed to be the limiting factors for grizzly bears. 4. Although it is recognized that other factors such as predation, disease, intra/inter specific competition and hunting influence grizzly bear population growth and distribution, this model does not include these factors. Grizzly bear habitat use is strongly influenced by intraspecific social interactions and the presence and activities of people. Grizzly bear habitat selection takes place at multiple scales and preferred bedding, hibernating, feeding and security/thermal habitats are scattered throughout large home ranges (A. Hamilton and Bunnell 1992). 5. Ecosystem units with high forage plant diversity and abundance in a lush herb layer with an abundance of grasses, sedges ( Carex spp.), horsetails ( Equisetum spp.), skunk cabbage, cow parsnip, stinging nettle, hellebore, and dandelion represents high (1) grizzly bear spring, feeding habitat. Habitat with lower plant diversity and abundance will be rated poorer than high (1). 6. Ecosystem units with total shrub cover of 15-30%, shrub height <2.5 m, shrub species dominated (i.e., >15%) by Vaccinium or other berry producers (e.g., soopolallie, thimbleberry, twinberry, devil's club, elderberry, high bush cranberry), and high coarse woody debris will be rated high (1) grizzly bear summer, feeding habitat. 7. Ecosystem units consistently occurring near berry producing areas (see assumption 6), high coarse woody debris (e.g., moist forests with abundant forage plants), and abundant ground squirrel and/or marmot colonies will be rated high (1) grizzly bear fall, feeding habitat. 8. Ecosystem units with high concentrations of root species will be rated moderately high (2) to high (1) for summer use.

Ratings Adjustments

Final habitat suitability map products may incorporate:

Adjustments will typically increase or decrease suitability value by a single class.

Page 10 of 13 APPENDIX 4. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR GRIZZLY BEAR

LITERATURE CITED

Ash, M. 1985. Grizzly Bear Habitat Component Descriptions - Whitefish Range, Flathead and Kootenai National Forests . Aune, K. 1985. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Rocky Mountain Front Grizzly Bear Monitoring and Investigation. B.C. MELP. 1995. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Conservation of Grizzly Bears in British Columbia: A Background Report. B.C. WLAP. 2003. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Grizzly Bears in British Columbia: Ecology, Conservation and Management. BC CDC. 2015. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer - Version 5.1.0 . BC Ministry of Environment, Conservation Data Centre. http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed January 2015). Beaudry, L., M. Martin, and J. Paczkowski. 2001. Province of British Columbia, Using Silviculture to Maintain and Enhance Grizzly Bear Habitat in Six Variants of the Prince George Forest Region. Bunnell, F. L. and R. K. McCann. 1993. The Brown or Grizzly Bear. In Bears: Majestic Creatures of the Wild . 240p. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press. Craighead, F. C. and J. J. Craighead. 1972. Grizzly bear prehibernation and denning activities as determined by radiotracking. Wildlife Monographs , 32: 35pp. Craighead, J. J., J. S. Sumner, and J. A. Mitchell. 1995. The Grizzly Bears of Yellowstone: Their Ecology in the Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1959-1992 . Washington, D.C.: Island Press, Suite 300, 1718 Connecticut Avenue NW. Craighead, J. J., J. S. Sumner, and G. B. Scaggs. 1983. A definitive system for analysis of grizzly bear habitat and other wilderness resources. Journal of Wildlife Management , 47 (4): 1251-52. Craighead, J. J., J. R. Varney, and F. C. J. Craighead. 1974. A population analysis of the Yellowstone grizzly bears. Montana Forest & Conservation Experiment Station Bulletin , 40: 3-20. Eberhardt, L. L., B. M. Blanchard, and R. R. Knight. 1994. Population trend of the Yellowstone grizzly bear as estimated from reproductive and survival rates. Canadian Journal of Zoology , 72 (2): 360-63. Fuhr, B. and D. A. Demarchi. 1990. Methodology for grizzly bear habitat assessment in British Columbia. Wildlife Bulletin No. B-67. Hadden, D. A., W. J. Hann, and C. Jonkel. 1985. An Ecological Taxonomy for Evaluating Grizzly Bear Habitat in the Whitefish Range of Montana . G. P. Contreras and K. E. Evans, eds. Missoula, Montana: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. Hamilton, A. and F. L. Bunnell. 1992. Integrating Coastal Grizzly Bears and Forest Management at the Regional, Watershed, Stand and Microsite Levels . Missoula, Montana: Hamilton, A. N., D. Heard, and M. A. Austin. 2004. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, British Columbia Grizzly Bear ( Ursus arctos ) Population Estimate.

Page 11 of 13 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

Jonkel, C. J. 1987. Brown Bear. In Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America . Ed. M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch. p456-73. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. LeFranc, J., M.N., M. B. Moss, K. A. Patnode, and W. C. Sugg III. 1987. Grizzly Bear Compendium . Bozeman, Montana: Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. Mace, R. D. and G. N. Bissell. 1986. Grizzly Bear Food Resources in the Flood Plains and Avalanche Chutes of the Bob Marshall Wilderness, Montana . G. P. Contreras and K. E. Evans, eds. Missoula, Montana: Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. Mace, R. D. and J. S. Waller. 1997. Spatial and temporal interaction of male and female grizzly bears in northwestern Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management , 61 (1): 39-52. MacHutchon, A. G. 1996. Parks Canada Western Arctic District, Grizzly Bear Habitat Use Study, Ivvavik National Park, Yukon. MacHutchon, A. G., S. Himmer, and C. A. Bryden. 1993. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Khutzemateen Valley Grizzly Bear Study. Final report. McCann, R. K. 1997. Kluane National Park Grizzly Bear Research Project — Year End Report 1996 . Prepared for Parks Canada by the Centre for Applied Conservation Biology, University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.: McLellan, B. N. 1988. Dynamics of a grizzly bear population during a period of industrial resource extraction. III. Natality and rate of increase. Canadian Journal of Zoology , 67 (1865-1868): McLellan, B. N. and F. W. Hovey. 1995. The diet of grizzly bears in the Flathead River drainage of southeastern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology , 73: 704-12. McLellan, B. N. and F. W. Hovey. 2001. Habitats selected by grizzly bears in a multiple use landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management , 65: 92-99. McLellan, B. N. and R. D. Mace. 1985. Behaviour of Grizzly Bears in Response to Roads, Seismic Activity, and People . Preliminary Report of the Canadian Border Grizzly Project: Cranbrook, B.C. McLellan, B. N. and D. M. Shackleton. 1988. Grizzly bears and resource extraction industries: effects of roads on behaviour, habitat use and demography. Journal of Applied Ecology , 25: 451-60. McLellan, B. N. and D. M. Shackleton. 1989. Immediate reactions of grizzly bears to human activities. Wildlife Society Bulletin , 17: 269-74. McLoughlin, P. D., H. D. Cluff, and F. Messier. 2001. Denning ecology of barren-ground grizzly bears in the central Arctic. Journal of Mammalogy , 83: 188-98. Mundy, K. R. and D. R. Flook. 1973. Background for managing grizzly bears in the National Parks of Canada. Canadian Wildlife Service Report Series , 22: 35p. Pearson, A. M. 1975. The northern interior grizzly bear Ursus arctos . Canadian Wildlife Service Report Series , 34: 86p. RIC. 1999. Resources Inventory Committee, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, British Columbia Wildlife Habitat Ratings Standards.

Page 12 of 13 APPENDIX 4. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR GRIZZLY BEAR

Simpson, K. 1992. British Columbia Ministry of Forests and British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Grizzly Bear Habitats and Biodiversity Guidelines in the Babine River Drainage. Stevens, V. 1995. Research Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Forests; Wildlife Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Diversity in British Columbia: Distribution and Habitat Use of Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals in Biogeoclimatic Zones. Sugg, W. C. 1987. Body Temperature, Respiration, and Heart Rate. In Grizzly Bear Compendium . Ed. M. N. LeFranc, M. B. Moss, K. A. Patnode, and W. C. Sugg. p21. Washington, D.C.: Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, The National Wildlife Federation. Vroom, G. W., S. Herrero, and R. T. Ogilvie. 1977. The Ecology of Grizzly Bear Winter Den Sites in Banff National Park, Alberta . Kalispell, Montana: Wielgus, R. B. 1986. Habitat Ecology of the Grizzly Bear in the Southern Rocky Mountains of Canada. M.Sc thesis diss., University of Idaho.

Page 13 of 13

Appendix 5

Species Account for American Marten

KEMESS UNDERGROUND PROJECT Wildlife Habitat Suitability Modelling Report APPENDIX 5. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR AMERICAN MARTEN

Name: Martes americana Species Code: M-MAAM Status*: Global: G5 – Secure. Common; widespread and abundant. Provincial: S4S5 – Apparently Secure / Secure. Range rank (S4S5) indicates that marten is common to uncommon, but not extensively rare in the province, and that the species has some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. COSEWIC: Not listed. BC List: Yellow-listed. Ecological communities and indigenous species that are not at risk in British Columbia. *Source: BC CDC (2015).

DISTRIBUTION

Provincial Range

In British Columbia, martens occupy late-successional forest habitats throughout most of the province, existing in greatest densities in coastal old-growth forests. They are generally considered common in most of these habitats, except in the province’s dry interior (Ponderosa pine biogeoclimatic zone), where their occurrence is considered sporadic (Stevens and Lofts 1988; Stevens 1995).

Elevation Range

Martens occupy a broad elevational range, from sea level to subalpine. They occur in most elevational habitats with the exception of the Boreal Altai Fescue Alpine (BAFA) biogeoclimatic zone. This is largely due to the lack of forested habitats in this zone.

Provincial Context

Martens have undergone range contractions due to the expansion of residential and industrial land use, although this is largely limited to the Georgia Depression. Overall, martens are most abundant in central and northern British Columbia.

Project Area

Page 1 of 10 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

ECOLOGY AND KEY HABITAT REQUIREMENTS

General

Marten are residents of mature coniferous and mixed forests throughout North America. They are associated closely with late successional stands of mesic conifers, especially those with complex physical structure near the ground (Steven W. Buskirk and Powell 1994). However they will tolerate a variety of forest habitat types as long as specific habitat requirements are met (Strickland and Douglas 1987). Marten prefer stands with various age and size classes, since these stands provide a greater diversity and abundance of foraging areas and protective cover than do even-aged stands. Marten can also be found in moist areas with shrubby understorey and coarse woody debris for both feeding and security cover. They avoid wetlands, dry open areas and areas of disturbance, such as burned or logged areas.

Marten are opportunistic predators and will feed on a variety of small mammals that are characteristic of boreal forest environments, including red squirrel ( Tamiasciurus hudsonicus ), red-backed vole (Clethrionomys gapperi ), snowshoe hare ( Lepus americanus ), and numerous other small birds and mammals.

Home range size of martens has been shown to vary as a function of sex, geographic area, prey abundance, and habitat type. Males have larger home-ranges than females (Baker 1992), which may be a consequence of the larger body size of males. Territory size has been estimated as 5.9 and 2.1 km2 for males and females, respectively in the Yukon (Archibald and Jessup 1984), and 6.8 and 3.7 km 2 for males and females in Alaska (S. W. Buskirk 1984). The male home range may overlap with several females (Stordeur 1985; Strickland and Douglas 1987).

Marten often decline following the removal of forested habitat, increased human access and unrestricted trapping (Clarke et al. 1987). Areas with a minimum of 25% removal were not used by martens, even in the presence of increased prey abundance or low fragmentation (C.D. Hargis and Bissonnette 1997). The limiting factor for marten appears to be over-head cover provided by vegetation and coarse woody debris (Strickland and Douglas 1987; S.W. Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994; Thompson and Harested 1994).

HABITAT USE – LIFE REQUISITES

Only Living (winter) will be rated for American marten for the Kemess Underground Project. Other life requisites (feeding, security, thermal and reproducing (birthing)) are described in detail below.

Feeding Habitat (FD)

Marten are opportunistic foragers and consume a wide variety of food items throughout the year. They feed extensively, year-round, on small mammals with the primary prey species being red-backed voles ( Clethrionomys gapperi ), microtine voles ( Microtus spp,), red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus ), and in some areas ground squirrels ( Spermophillus spp.) (Strickland and Douglas 1987; Lofroth and Steventon 1990; Takats et al. 1996).

Page 2 of 10 APPENDIX 5. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR AMERICAN MARTEN

Spring / Summer

Marten have a diverse spring and summer diet of mammals, eggs, birds, fish, insects, and carrion. Marten mostly hunt on the ground, but are good climbers, and may climb trees after squirrels or to access bird nests. In late summer, however, the importance of fruiting shrubs increases, as wild strawberry ( Fragaria virginiana ), black huckleberry ( Vaccinium membranaceum ), raspberry ( Rubus spp.), wild sarsaparilla ( Aralia nudicaulis ), and saskatoon ( Amelanchier alnifolia ) become increasingly significant in the diet until winter (Thompson and Colgan 1990; S.W. Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994; Takats et al. 1996).

Due to diverse foraging opportunities in the spring and summer seasons, habitat use during this period is much more variable in comparison to winter periods. The use of non-forested habitats within the individual marten’s home range has been documented to occur significantly less frequently in winter than summer (W. D. Spencer, Barrett, and Zielinski 1983; Steven W. Buskirk and Powell 1994).

Fall / Winter

Quick (1955) identified the winter diet of marten in northern B.C. as including (in order of importance): red-backed vole, deer mouse, red squirrel, snowshoe hare, bird (spp. unknown), grouse, shrew, and porcupine. Squirrels and/or hares become more important in late winter and early spring (S. W. Buskirk and Macdonald 1984; S.W. Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). Douglass et al. (1983) found voles to be the major winter food source of marten in the boreal forest of the Northwest Territories. A study by Koehler et al. (1990) on marten use of different successional stages in the winter confirmed previous findings that marten did not forage in younger successional stages but selected older-aged stands with higher occurrences of voles.

A crucial component of marten winter feeding habitat is availability of “entry” points to sub-nivean hunting grounds (Steventon and Major 1982; S.W. Buskirk et al. 1989; Takats et al. 1996). Such “entry” points are believed to be critical to marten winter survival because they provide access to rodent prey that are active under deep snow (Lofroth and Steventon 1990; Sherburne and Bissonette 1994). Steventon and Major (1982) documented over 90% of marten winter feeding sites to be located at such “entry” points. Corn and Raphael (1992) found that marten used existing openings created by coarse woody debris at low snow depths and by lower branches of live trees in deeper snow. In the south-central Yukon Territory, marten were also found to use primarily passive means to gain access to the subnivean using tree trunks, deadfall, and saplings. Decayed stumps and trees of large diameter may also provide access (Steventon and Major 1982; C. D. Hargis and McCullough 1984).

However, excessive snow depth (>30 cm) limits access to subnivean prey and, therefore, overhead cover is also required in order to prevent excessively deep snow accumulation (Boyd 1977; Koehler and Hornocker 1977). In the Sub-Boreal Spruce biogeoclimatic zone, the best foraging habitats contain >100 m3/ha of coarse woody debris at least 20 cm in diameter, 5 m 2/ha basal area of snags at least 20 cm in diameter, and at least 30% canopy closure (Lofroth and Banci 1991).

Security Habitat (SH)

Marten select habitat based on the abundance of coarse woody debris, high shrub and low shrub closure, deciduous canopy closure, and abundance and size of trees and snags (Lofroth 1993). Spruce and fir

Page 3 of 10 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT dominated habitats provide the most suitable cover types for marten (S. W. Buskirk 1984; Takats et al. 1996). Stand composition of at least 40% spruce or fir provide optimal winter habitat (Strickland and Douglas 1987). Canopy closures are optimal when >50% and acceptable between 30-50% (W. D. Spencer, Barrett, and Zielinski 1983; Strickland and Douglas 1987; Lofroth and Steventon 1990).

In summer, marten rest above ground, often in the canopy layer (Martin and Bennett 1983). Overhead cover, especially near the ground is important as security cover to provide protection from both avian and terrestrial predators (S.W. Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994; Thompson 1994). Marten also require trees of pole size or bigger to climb to escape predation. Marten can occupy a variety of habitat types, but they tend to avoid habitats with minimal security cover: wetlands, young seral stages, dry, open areas including open forests, extensive stands of aspen or lodgepole pine and sub-alpine shrubland with only scattered stands of trees (B.C. MoE 2003). They also avoid disturbed areas such as logged or burned areas.

Thermal Habitat (TH)

During winter, marten refuge and resting sites are usually beneath the snow. Access to these sites may be provided by coarse woody debris, leaning logs and trees, decayed stumps, large logs, and large diameter trees. Subnivean environments are important for winter thermoregulation, as marten are not physically well-adapted for cold temperatures. The long, thin bodies of martens have a high surface area to mass ratio, which increases heat loss, and, in addition, the fur has relatively poor insulative value. Inactive martens, therefore, need well-insulated winter resting dens. These dens are almost always subnivean and typically associated with coarse woody debris, cavities in decayed logs, squirrel middens, snags, stumps, and logs (S. W. Buskirk 1984; W.D. Spencer 1987; S. W. Buskirk and McDonald 1989).

Reproducing (birthing) Habitat (RH)

Natal Denning

The breeding season for marten extends from June to early September over most of its North American range, with birth dates ranging from mid-March to late April (Strickland and Douglas 1987). Marten use two types of dens: natal dens (where parturition occurs) and maternal dens (different dens where young are raised). The availability of both natal dens and maternal dens are a critical characteristic of summer habitat for martens.

Good denning sites are moist areas with shrubby understory and abundant coarse woody debris. Marten give birth in natal dens which are found in habitat with more developed old-growth characteristics and in areas with an herbaceous overhead cover (S.W. Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). Most natal dens occur in natural cavities in escarpments, under boulders, and in hollow logs, snags and trees (Strickland et al. 1982; Stevens and Lofts 1988). These natal dens are important for security and cover for the kits. Once the kits become active, the maternal den is moved to ground level (Clarke et al. 1987; Lofroth and Banci 1991).

Page 4 of 10 APPENDIX 5. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR AMERICAN MARTEN

Maternal Denning

Little information exists on requirements for maternal den sites, although it is suggested that sheltered sites in snags and woody debris may make appropriate maternal denning sites (Lofroth and Banci 1991). Above ground dens may be required to protect kits from wet spring ground conditions during the whelping period (Wynne and Sherburne 1984).

SEASONS OF USE

Food and security/thermal are required throughout the year, while reproducing habitats for birthing are required only in March and April. Table 1 summarizes the life requisites for marten for each month of the year.

Table 1. Monthly Life Requisites for Marten

Life Requisites Month Season ** Feeding, Security, Thermal January Winter Feeding, Security, Thermal February Winter Feeding, Security, Thermal March Winter Feeding, Security, Thermal April Winter Feeding, Security, Thermal May Winter Feeding, Security, Thermal, Reproducing (birthing) June Spring Feeding, Security, Thermal July Summer Feeding, Security, Thermal August Summer Feeding, Security, Thermal September Fall Feeding, Security, Thermal October Winter Feeding, Security, Thermal November Winter Feeding, Security, Thermal December Winter **Seasons defined for Northern Boreal Mountains Ecoprovince per the Chart of Seasons by Ecoprovince (RIC 1999).

HABITAT USE AND ECOSYSTEM ATTRIBUTES

Table 2 outlines how each life requisite relates to specific ecosystem attributes (e.g., site series/ ecosystem unit, plant species, canopy closure, age structure, slope, aspect, terrain characteristics).

Ratings

There is an intermediate level of knowledge of the habitat requirements of martens in British Columbia to warrant a 4-class rating scheme (RIC 1999).

Provincial Benchmark Ecosection: East Purcell Mountains (EPM) Biogeoclimatic Zone: ESSFdk Broad Ecosystem Unit: Engleman Spruce-Subalpine Fir dry cool Habitats: Mature-old growth spruce-subalpine fir forests

Page 5 of 10 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

Table 2. Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) Relationships for Each Life Requisite for Marten

Life Requisite TEM Attribute Feeding Habitat • Site: site disturbance, elevation, slope, aspect, structural stage • Soil/terrain: • Vegetation: canopy closure, percent cover by layer, species list by layer, coarse woody debris (diameter at breast height, decay class, abundance), shrub diversity, shrub abundance Security/Thermal • Site: site disturbance, elevation, slope, structural stage Habitat • Soil/terrain: terrain texture, flooding regime • Vegetation: canopy closure, percent cover by layer, species list by layer, coarse woody debris, shrub diversity, shrub abundance • mensuration: wildlife tree characteristics Reproducing • site: elevation, slope, structural stage (birthing) Habitat • soil/terrain: terrain texture, flooding regime • vegetation: canopy closure, percent cover by layer, species list by layer, coarse woody debris, shrub diversity, shrub abundance • mensuration: wildlife tree characteristics

Ratings Assumptions

1. Mesic, mature – climax spruce and balsam forests with moderate to dense overstory (> 30% crown closure) and sufficient understory hiding cover for prey species and abundant coarse woody debris will rate high for living in all seasons. 2. Habitats with a high density of prey species (snowshoe hare, squirrels, small mammals) will be rated up to high for living. 3. Habitats with an absence of understorey vegetation will be rated up to low (necessary cover for prey animals). 4. Subalpine and parkland forests rate nil. 5. BAFA (alpine tundra) will be rated nil. 6. Marshes, fens, grasslands, open meadows and clearings >90 m from forest cover rate nil. 7. Habitats with an absence of understorey vegetation (closed canopy, intermediate structural stage forest) will be rated up to low (necessary cover for prey animals).

Table 3 summarizes the habitat requirements for American marten.

Ratings Adjustments Considerations

Habitat capability and suitability maps may incorporate:

1. landscape heterogeneity and connectivity; 2. habitats adjacent to significant anthropogenic disturbance regimes (e.g., settlements); 3. interspersion of different structural stages within the landscape.

Page 6 of 10 APPENDIX 5. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR AMERICAN MARTEN

Table 3. Summary of Habitat Requirements for Marten in the Study Area

Structural Season Life Requisite Stage Requirements Winter Feeding (FD) 6-7 Coniferous or mixed closed canopy, mature to old growth forests with abundant coarse woody debris. Understory vegetation and high density of prey species. Winter Security/Thermal (ST) 6-7 Coniferous or mixed closed canopy, mature to old growth forests with abundant coarse woody debris. Growing Feeding (FD) 6-7 Coniferous or mixed closed canopy, mature to old growth forests with abundant coarse woody debris. Understory vegetation and high density of prey species. Growing Security/Thermal (ST) 6-7 Coniferous or mixed closed canopy, mature to old growth forests with abundant coarse woody debris. Growing Reproducing (RB) 6-7 Coniferous or mixed closed canopy, mature to old growth forests with abundant coarse woody debris.

Page 7 of 10 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

LITERATURE CITED

Archibald, W. R. and R. H. Jessup. 1984. Population Dynamics of the Pine Marten ( Martes americana ) in the Yukon Territory. In Northern Ecology and Resource Management . Ed. R. Olsen, R. Hastings, and F. Geddes. p81-97. Edmonton, Alberta: University of Alberta Press. B.C. MoE. 2003. Furbearer Management Guidelines - Marten . British Columbia Ministry of Environment. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/documents/marten.pdf (accessed Baker, D. Q. 1992. Prepared for Williston Wildlife Compensation Program, B.C. Environment and B.C. Hydro., Upland Furbearer Problem Analysis. BC CDC. 2015. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer - Version 5.1.0 . BC Ministry of Environment, Conservation Data Centre. http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed January 2015). Boyd, M. 1977. Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Division, Analysis of Fur Production Records by Individual Fur-bearing Species for Registered Trapping Areas in Alberta, 1970-1975. Buskirk, S. W. 1984. Seasonal use of resting sites by marten Martes americana in South-central Alaska, USA. Journal of Wildlife Management , 48 (3): 950-53. Buskirk, S. W., S. C. Forrest, M. G. Raphael, and H. J. Harlow. 1989. Winter resting site ecology of marten in the central Rocky Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management 53 (1): 191-96. Buskirk, S. W. and S. O. Macdonald. 1984. Seasonal food habits of marten Martes americana in South Central Alaska, USA. Canadian Journal of Zoology , 62 (5): 944-50. Buskirk, S. W. and L. L. McDonald. 1989. Analysis of variability in home-range size of the American marten. Journal of Wildlife Management , 53 (4): 997-1004. Buskirk, S. W. and R. A. Powell. 1994. Habitat Ecology of Fishers and American Martens. pp283-96. On file with BC Geological Survey, Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources. Buskirk, S. W. and L. F. Ruggiero. 1994. American Marten. p184p. On file with BC Geological Survey, Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources. Clarke, T. W., E. Anderson, C. Douglas, and M. Strickland. 1987. Martes americana . In Mammalian Species .The American Society of Mammalogists. Corn, J. G. and M. G. Raphael. 1992. Habitat characteristics at marten subnivean access sites. Journal of Wildlife Management , 56: 422-48. Douglass, R. J., L. G. Fisher, and M. Mair. 1983. Habitat selection and food habits of marten Martes americana in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Canadian Field Naturalist , 97 (1): 71-74. Hargis, C. D. and J. A. Bissonnette. 1997. Effects of Forest Fragmentation on Populations of American marten in the Intermountain West. On file with BC Geological Survey, Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources. Hargis, C. D. and D. R. McCullough. 1984. Winter diet and habitat selection of marten Martes americana in Yosemite National Park, California, USA. Journal of Wildlife Management , 48 (1): 140-46.

Page 8 of 10 APPENDIX 5. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR AMERICAN MARTEN

Koehler, G. M., J. A. Blakesley, and T. W. Koehler. 1990. Marten use of successional forest stages during winter in north-central Washington. Northwest Naturalist , 71: 1-4. Koehler, G. M. and M. G. Hornocker. 1977. Fire effects on marten habitat in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. Journal of Wildlife Management , 41: 500-05. Lofroth, E. C. 1993. Scale Dependent Analysis of Habitat Selection by Marten in the Sub-boreal Spruce Biogeoclimatic Zone, British Columbia. M.Sc. thesis diss., Simon Fraser University. Lofroth, E. C. and V. Banci. 1991. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Marten habitat suitability research project – working plan. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-50. Lofroth, E. C. and J. D. Steventon. 1990. Managing for Marten Habitat in Interior Forests of British Columbia . A. Chambers, ed. Prince George, B.C.: Forestry Canada. Martin, S. K. and R. H. Bennett. 1983. The Importance of Snags to Pine Marten Habitat in the Northern Sierra Nevada . Denver, CO: United States Forest Service General Technical Report GTR-RM-99. Quick, H. F. 1955. Food habits of marten ( Martes americana ) in Northern British Columbia. Canadian Field Naturalist , 69: 144-47. RIC. 1999. Resources Inventory Committee, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, British Columbia Wildlife Habitat Ratings Standards. Sherburne, S. S. and J. A. Bissonette. 1994. Marten subnivean access point use: Response to subnivean prey levels. Journal of Wildlife Management , 58 (3): 400-05. Spencer, W. D. 1987. Seasonal rest-site preferences of pine martens in the Northern Sierra Nevada. Journal of Wildlife Management , 51: 616-21. Spencer, W. D., R. H. Barrett, and W. J. Zielinski. 1983. Marten Martes americana habitat preferences in the Northern Sierra-Nevada USA. Journal of Wildlife Management , 47 (4): 1181-86. Stevens, V. 1995. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Research Branch, Wildlife Diversity in British Columbia: Distribution and Habitat Use of Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals in Biogeoclimatic Zones. Stevens, V. and S. Lofts. 1988. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Wildlife Branch, Wildlife Report no. R-15. Wildlife Habitat Handbooks for the Southern Interior Ecoprovince. Volume 1: Species notes for mammals. Steventon, J. D. and J. T. Major. 1982. Marten use of habitat in a commercially clear-cut forest. Journal of Wildlife Management , 46: 175-82. Stordeur, L. 1985. British Columbia Ministry of Forests Research Branch, Marten in British Columbia with Implications for Forest Management. Strickland, M. A. and C. W. Douglas. 1987. Marten. pp530-46. On file with BC Geological Survey, Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources. Strickland, M. A., C. W. Douglas, M. Novak, and N. P. Hinziger. 1982. Marten. pp599-612. On file with BC Geological Survey, Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources.

Page 9 of 10 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

Takats, L., R. Stewart, M. Todd, R. Bonar, J. Beck, and R. Quinlan. 1996. Marten ( Martes americana ) Winter Habitat: Draft Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Model. pp137-44. On file with BC Geological Survey, Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources. Thompson, I. D. 1994. Marten populations in uncut and logged boreal forests in Ontario. Journal of Wildlife Management , 58: 272-80. Thompson, I. D. and P. W. Colgan. 1990. Prey choice by marten during a decline in prey abundance. Oecologia , 83: 443-51. Thompson, I. D. and A. S. Harested. 1994. Effects of Logging on American Marten with Models for Habitat Management. ppp 355-66. On file with BC Geological Survey, Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources. Wynne, K. M. and J. A. Sherburne. 1984. Summer home range use by adult marten Martes americana in Northwestern Maine, USA. Canadian Journal of Zoology , 62 (5): 941-43.

Page 10 of 10

Appendix 6

Species Account for Hoary Marmot

KEMESS UNDERGROUND PROJECT Wildlife Habitat Suitability Modelling Report APPENDIX 6. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR HOARY MARMOT

Name: Marmota caligata Species Code: M-MACA Status*: Global: G5 – Secure. Common; widespread and abundant. Provincial: S5 – Secure. Common, widespread, and abundant in the province. COSEWIC: Not listed. BC List: Yellow-listed. Ecological communities and indigenous species that are not at risk in British Columbia. *Source: BC CDC (2015)

DISTRIBUTION

Provincial Range

In British Columbia the hoary marmot occupies most of the mainland except for the northeast and low elevations in the dry interior.

Elevation Range

Hoary marmots occur at high elevations near the timber line on talus slopes and alpine and subalpine meadows and mountain slopes (Carling 1999).

Provincial Context

The hoary marmot is common in the high elevation, mountainous areas of the province.

Project Area

ECOLOGY AND KEY HABITAT REQUIREMENTS

General

The hoary marmot inhabits high elevation talus slopes near timberline, and alpine and subalpine meadows and mountain slopes. They feed on a variety of herbaceous plants and grasses and seeds. Hoary marmot can also be found in habitats with large boulders which they use to watch for danger and stretch out and sun themselves (Banfield 1981).

Page 1 of 6 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

In areas where food is plentiful, marmots live in colonies consisting of one dominant adult male, a few females and their offspring, and perhaps one or more subordinate adult males. The dominant hoary marmots are called colony males and are the only males who mate with the females in the colony. Colony males are sometimes challenged by satellite males and physical fights can occur, however, these fights are not documented to be fatal (Lee and Funderburg 1982; Barash 1989).

In areas where food is scare, hoary marmots do not exist in colonies. Food shortage require hoary marmots to increase their ranges, which can become large enough that a male will not be able to guard more than one female and feed himself at the same time. In these cases, hoary marmots are monogamous with little male-male competition (Lee and Funderburg 1982; Barash 1989).

Hoary marmots have many vocalizations. A common call is the alarm call which is given anytime anything comes near a burrow. The alarm call is a high-pitched shrill whistle. The calls of the hoary marmots are usually higher in frequency and longer than the calls of other marmot species (Lee and Funderburg 1982; Barash 1989).

Hoary marmots spend the majority of the year in hibernation in burrows beneath the ground’s surface. They begin hibernating as early as mid-September and usually emerge from their burrows around mid-May. These burrows are also used for security cover and cover from thermal extremes. Their dens may be found under the edge of a rock slide or in open hilly ground under a large boulder or in loose talus. The dens are lined with grasses which are replaced every spring with fresh grasses.

Marmots are only fertile in the first few weeks following their emergence from hibernation (Barash 1981). Mating typically occurs within two weeks of emergence from hibernation. Gestation takes about 30 days; hoary marmots use their dens as a nest for young, which are usually born in late July. After birth, it takes about another month for the young to become fully mobile and grow all their fur.

HABITAT USE – LIFE REQUISITES

The life requisites that will be rated for hoary marmot are Living (LI) which is satisfied by the presence of suitable feeding and security/thermal habitats. Hibernation (HI) habitat is described here as well, but will not be rated.

Living Habitat (LI)

Feeding Habitat

Hoary marmots are mainly herbivorous, and in the spring and early summer feed on leaves and blossoms of a variety of lush alpine grasses and forbs. Commonly eaten plants in British Columbia were reported to be western anemone ( Anemone occidentalis ), red Indian paintbrush ( Castilleja ), avalanche lily ( Erythronoim grandiflorum ), blue lupin ( Lupinus spp.), wood betony ( Pedicualris bracteosa ), ragwort ( Senecio spp.), grouseberry ( Vaccinium scoparium ), and false Indian hellebore ( Veratrum virdide ) (Gray 1967 in Hansen 1975). In late summer they feed on seeds (Lee and Funderburg 1982). Hoary marmots appear to drink almost daily and have frequently been observed eating snow. In places where standing water is scare, hoary marmots seem to acquire water from the plants they eat or

Page 2 of 6 APPENDIX 6. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR HOARY MARMOT morning dew (Lee and Funderburg 1982; Barash 1989; Parker 1990). Hoary marmots feed in the areas immediately around their dens and will travel up to 100 m around their dens to feed (Banfield 1981).

Security/Thermal Habitat

Hoary marmots live in open sites with lush plant growth and good visibility to see one another or detect predators. They are found in habitats with deep soils suitable for burrows and in areas of scattered boulders and rock ledges which are used for loafing and lookouts. When food is plentiful, hoary marmots may live in a colony and vocalize the presence of an approaching animal. The alarm call is a high-pitched shrill whistle that is usually higher in frequency and longer than the calls of other marmot species (Lee and Funderburg 1982; Barash 1989). Predators of the hoary marmot include golden eagles, lynx, coyotes, bears and wolverines.

Hibernating Habitat (HI)

Hoary marmots hibernate in deep burrows from October to May. Their burrows are located at high elevations in the alpine and subalpine meadows deep in the soil, often under a large boulder which provides protection from digging predators, such as grizzly bears. During hibernation they live on stored body fat.

SEASONS OF USE

Hoary marmots require living (food and security/thermal) habitats from June until September while hibernating habitats are required for the remaining months (October until May). Table 1 summarizes the life requisites required for hoary marmot for each month of the year.

Table 1. Monthly Life Requisites for Hoary Marmot

Life Requisites Month Season Hibernating January Winter Hibernating February Winter Hibernating March Winter Hibernating April Winter Hibernating May Winter Living June Growing – Spring Living July Growing – Summer Living August Growing – Summer Living September Growing – Fall Hibernating October Winter Hibernating November Winter Hibernating December Winter * Seasons defined for Northern Boreal Mountains Ecoprovince per the Chart of Seasons by Ecoprovince (RIC 1999).

Page 3 of 6 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

HABITAT USE AND ECOSYSTEM ATTRIBUTES

Table 2. Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) Relationships for Each Life Requisite for Hoary Marmot

Life Requisite TEM Attribute Living Habitat (LI) • Site: elevation, slope, aspect, structural stage • Soil/terrain: terrain texture, deep soils • Vegetation: Percent cover by layer, plant species • Boulder fields, talus, rock slides Hibernating Habitat (HI) • Site: elevation, slope, aspect, structural stage • Soil/terrain: terrain texture, deep soils • Vegetation: Percent cover by layer, plant species • Boulder fields, talus, rock slides

Ratings

There is an intermediate level of knowledge of the habitat requirements of hoary marmot in British Columbia and thus a 4-class rating scheme will be used (RIC 1999).

Provincial Benchmark The provincial benchmark is currently unknown.

Ratings Assumptions

1. Alpine and Subalpine meadows (structural stage 2) with deep soils (for burrow excavation) and moderate warm aspects (<30% slope, 135 - 185° aspect, used more commonly because these are areas of early snowmelt and green-up) will rate high. 2. Cool aspects and shallow soils will rate down one. 3. Wet areas will be rated down one. 4. Very shallow soils rate nil.

Table 3 summarizes the habitat requirements for hoary marmots.

Table 3. Summary of Habitat Requirements for Hoary Marmot in the Study Area

Structural Season Life Requisite Stage Requirements Growing Living (LI) 2-3 Alpine and subalpine meadows with deep soils, talus, boulder fields Winter Hibernating (HI) 2-3 Alpine and subalpine meadows with deep soils, talus, boulder fields

Page 4 of 6 APPENDIX 6. SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR HOARY MARMOT

Ratings Adjustments

Final capability and suitability map products may incorporate:

1. landscape heterogeneity and connectivity; 2. habitats adjacent to significant anthropogenic disturbance regimes (e.g., settlements) and; 3. interspersion of different structural stages within the landscape.

Page 5 of 6 WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT

LITERATURE CITED

Banfield, A. W. F. 1981. The Mammals of Canada . Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Barash, D. P. 1981. Mate guarding and gallivanting by male hoary marmots ( Marmota caligata ). Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology , 9 (3): 187-93. Barash, D. P. 1989. Marmots: Social Behavior and Ecology . Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. BC CDC. 2015. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer - Version 5.1.0 . BC Ministry of Environment, Conservation Data Centre. http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed January 2015). Carling, M. 1999. Marmota caligata . Presented at Animal Diversity Web, Hansen, R. M. 1975. Foods of the hoary marmot on Kenai Peninsula Alaska, USA. American Midland Naturalist , 94 (2): 348-53. Lee, D. S. and J. B. Funderburg. 1982. Marmots. In Wildlife Animals of North America: Biology, Management, and Economics . Ed. J. A. Chapman and G. A. Feldhamer. p176-91. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Parker, S. P. 1990. Grzimek’s Encyclopedia of Mammals . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. RIC. 1999. Resources Inventory Committee, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, British Columbia Wildlife Habitat Ratings Standards.

Page 6 of 6

Appendix 7

Wildlife Habitat Ratings (WHRs) for Ecosystem Units Identified within the LSA

KEMESS UNDERGROUND PROJECT Wildlife Habitat Suitability Modelling Report Appendix 7. Wildlife Habitat Ratings (WHRs) for Ecosystem Units Identified within the LSA

Structural Structural Stage ID Zone Subzone Site Series Map Code Ecosystem Name Stage Modifier Area (ha) MURAR_P MURAR_S MURAR_F MALAM_WE MALAM_WL MORAM_W MORAM_S MRATA_WE MRATA_WL MRATA_RB MRATA-S MMAAM_W-LI MMACA_G 138 BAFA un 0 AW Dryas - Altai fescue Tundra 2 d 139 3 4 4 5 6 2 2 1 1 2 N h 134 BAFA un 0 DL Lichen Tundra 1 b 20.2 5 5 5 5 6 2 4 2 1 4 N m 133BAFA un 0 ES Exposed Soil 1 a 19.2 5 5 5 5 6 2 4 2 1 4 N m 141 BAFA un 0 FW Altai fescue - Arctic willow Tundra 2 b 586.33445622 112Nh 139 BAFA un 0 HL Mountain heather Heath 2 d 198.1 3 4 4 5 6 2 3 3 1 2 N h 130BAFA un 0 HM Herb Meadow 2 a 12.6 3 4 4 5 6 2 3 3 1 2 N m 131 BAFA un 0 LC Wood-rush - Pyrenean sedge Grassland 2 b 13.9 3445622 112Nh 136 BAFA un 0 MC Moss campion - Lichen Tundra 2 a 60.7 3 4 4 5 6 2 2 1 1 2 N h 135 BAFA un 0 OE Mtn. sorrel Talus Slope 2 a 31.9 3 4 4 5 6 2 2 3 4 2 N h 128 BAFA un 0 OW Shallow Open Water 0 1.3 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 6 5 N n 137 BAFA un 0 PN Permanent Snow 0 110.8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 N n 129BAFA un 0 RG Rock Glacier 1 a 6.2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 N n 140 BAFA un 0 RO Rock Outcrop 1 a 370.8 5 5 5 5 6 4 5 4 4 5 N l 127BAFAun 0 RU Rubble 1 a 1.3 5 5 5 5 6 2 4 2 1 4 N l 126 BAFA un 0 SD Sedge - Dwarf willow Moist Meadow 2 b 0.7 3 445622 112Nh 142 BAFA un 0 TA Talus 1 a 598.8 5555634 555Nm 132 BAFA un 0 WV Willow Valerian Thicket 3 a 16.1 2 3 4 1 6 2 2 4 6 3 N l 16 SWB mk 0 AF At - Juniper - Feathermoss 3 b 2.8 3 2 2 2 6 2 3 5 4 4 4 N l 51 SWB mk 0 AF At - Juniper - Feathermoss 4 56.8 3 3 3 2 6 2 3 5 4 4 4 N n 33 SWB mk 0 AF At - Juniper - Feathermoss 5 13.3 3 3 3 2 6 2 3 5 4 4 4 L n 4 SWB mk 2 AL Altai fescue Lichen 1 b 0.5 5 5 5 5 6 2 4 2 1 4 N m 39 SWB mk 0 AL Altai fescue Lichen 1 b 26.9 5 5 5 5 6 2 4 2 1 4 N h 41 SWB mk 0 AO Altai fescue Grassland 2 b 37.8 3 4 4 5 5 2 2 4 1 1 2 N n 59 SWB mk 02$ AT AtSw - Scrub birch - Cladina 4 96.2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 5 4 4 4 N n 30 SWB mk 02$ AT AtSw - Scrub birch - Cladina 5 11.8 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 5 4 4 4 L n 23 SWB mk 02$ AT AtSw - Scrub birch - Cladina 6 6.3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 5 4 4 5 L n 17 SWB mk 0 DL Lichen Tundra 1 b 3 3 4 4 5 5 2 2 4 1 1 2 N h 52SWBmk 0 DM Dam 0 63.7 55556555666Nl 2 SWB mk 0 ES Exposed Soil 1 a 0.4 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 6 5 N l 3 SWB mk 0 FB Bl - Five-leaved bramble - Feathermoss 5 0.4 43343144554Ln 58 SWB mk 0 FB Bl - Five-leaved bramble - Feathermoss 6 93.8 43343143554Mn 15 SWB mk 0 FC Bl – Scrub birch – Crowberry 3 2.5 2 3 3 1 3 1 2 5 4 4 3 N l 44 SWB mk 0 FC Bl – Scrub birch – Crowberry 3 b 41.4 2 3 3 1 3 1 2 5 4 4 3 N l 29 SWB mk 0 FC Bl – Scrub birch – Crowberry 4 11.1 4 4 4 4 3 1 4 3 5 6 4 M n 50 SWB mk 0 FC Bl – Scrub birch – Crowberry 5 56.4 4 4 4 4 3 1 4 3 5 6 4 M n 78 SWB mk 0 FC Bl – Scrub birch – Crowberry 6 1223.5 4 3 3 4 3 1 4 3 5 6 4 H n 55 SWB mk 0 FF Bl - Feathermoss 3 a 81.8 2 3 3 1 6 1 2 5 4 4 3 N l 12 SWB mk 0 FM Bl - Huckleberry - Feathermoss 3 1.8 2 3 3 1 6 1 2 5 4 4 3 N n 10 SWB mk 0 FM Bl - Huckleberry - Feathermoss 5 1.4 4 4 4 4 3 1 4 3 5 6 4 M n 8 SWB mk 0 FM Bl - Huckleberry - Feathermoss 6 0.9 4 3 3 4 3 1 4 3 5 6 4 M n 76 SWB mk 0 FM Bl - Huckleberry - Feathermoss 6 651.3 4 3 3 4 3 1 4 3 5 6 4 M n 35 SWB mk 0 FM Bl - Huckleberry - Feathermoss 7 15.9 4 3 3 4 3 1 4 3 5 6 4 H n 22 SWB mk 0 GB Gravel Bar 1 5.8 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 2 5 N n 32 SWB mk 0 HM Herb Meadow 2 a 12.7 1 3 2 5 4 3 1 5 3 2 1 N h 72SWBmk 0 LA Lake 0 387.1 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 6 5Nn 66 SWBmk 0 MI Mine 1 a 159.1 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 N l 20 SWB mk 0 MIPD Mine Pond 0 4.1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 N l 7 SWB mk 0 MZ Rubbly Mine Spoils 1 a 0.8 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 N n Species: RATA = Caribou, ALAM = Moose, ORAM = Mountain Goat, URAR = Grizzly Bear, MAAM = American Marten, MACA = Hoary Marmot Seasons: P = Spring, S = Summer, F = Fall, W = Winter, WE = Early Winter, WL = Late Winter, RB = Reproducing, G = Growing

Page 1 of 3 Appendix 7. Wildlife Habitat Ratings (WHRs) for Ecosystem Units Identified within the LSA

Structural Structural Stage ID Zone Subzone Site Series Map Code Ecosystem Name Stage Modifier Area (ha) MURAR_P MURAR_S MURAR_F MALAM_WE MALAM_WL MORAM_W MORAM_S MRATA_WE MRATA_WL MRATA_RB MRATA-S MMAAM_W-LI MMACA_G 65 SWB mk 0 OP Open Pit 0 153.8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 N n 5 SWB mk 0 OW Open Water 0 0.5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 6 5 N n 1SWBmk 0 PD Pond 0 0.2 55555666565Nn 48SWBmk 0 PD Pond 0 55.9 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 6 5Nn 6 SWB mk 2 PL Sw - Scrub birch - Cladina 1 b 0.6 3 4 4 5 5 2 2 4 1 1 2 N m 37 SWB mk 2 PL Sw - Scrub birch - Cladina 3 16.8 3 4 4 3 2 2 2 4 1 1 2 N m 31 SWB mk 2 PL Sw - Scrub birch - Cladina 4 12.5 5 5 5 4 2 2 4 3 4 5 4 L n 69 SWB mk 2 PL Sw - Scrub birch - Cladina 5 247 5 5 5 4 3 2 4 3 4 5 4 M n 71 SWB mk 2 PL Sw - Scrub birch - Cladina 6 327.4 5 5 5 4 3 2 4 3 4 5 4 M n 73 SWB mk 0 RC Reclaimed Area 2 a 449.5 5 5 5 5 6 2 4 6 6 6 6 N m 42SWBmk 0 RI River 0 39.6 5 5 5 3 3 4 5 6 4 4 5Nn 14 SWB mk 0 RO Rock Outcrop 1 a 2.2 5 5 5 5 6 4 5 6 4 6 5 N l 47 SWB mk 0 RZ Road Surface 0 54.1 5 5 5 5 6 4 5 6 6 6 6 N n 49 SWB mk 0 RZ Road Surface 1 a 56.1 5 5 5 5 6 4 5 6 6 6 6 N n 64 SWB mk 0 SA Scrub birch - Altai fescue 3 a 152.5 2 3 3 3 2 1 2 5 4 3 3 N l 34 SWB mk 1 SB Bl - Sitka valerian 3 15.7 2 3 3 3 2 1 2 5 4 3 3 N l 38 SWB mk 1 SB Bl - Sitka valerian 5 26.7 4 4 4 4 3 1 4 3 5 5 4 M n 13 SWB mk 1 SB Bl - Sitka valerian 6 2 4 3 3 4 3 1 4 3 5 5 4 M n 75 SWB mk 1 SB Bl - Sitka valerian 6 485.7 4 3 3 4 3 1 4 3 5 5 4 M n 36 SWB mk 7 SC Sw - Scrub birch - Bluejoint 5 16.1 4 4 4 4 3 1 4 3 5 5 4 M n 40 SWB mk 7 SC Sw - Scrub birch - Bluejoint 6 31.3 4 3 3 4 3 1 4 3 5 5 4 H l 53 SWB mk 0 SF Sedge Fen 2 b 67.6 1 3 4 5 4 3 3 6 4 3 2 N n 43 SWB mk 8 SH Sw - Shrubby cinquefoil - Horsetail 3 39.9 1 3451336432Nn 18 SWB mk 8 SH Sw - Shrubby cinquefoil - Horsetail 5 3.4 3 4 443143554Mn 77 SWB mk 8 SH Sw - Shrubby cinquefoil - Horsetail 6 852.7 33343143554Hl 19 SWB mk 5 SL Sw - Willow - Crowberry 3 a 3.4 3 3 4 5 3 3 3 6 4 3 2 N l 45 SWB mk 5 SL Sw - Willow - Crowberry 3 43 3 3 4 5 4 3 3 6 4 3 2 N n 11 SWB mk 5 SL Sw - Willow - Crowberry 4 1.6 3 4 4 4 3 1 4 3 5 5 4 M n 74 SWB mk 5 SL Sw - Willow - Crowberry 5 460.4 3 3 3 4 3 1 4 3 5 5 4 M n 79 SWB mk 5 SL Sw - Willow - Crowberry 6 1800.8 3 3 3 4 3 1 4 3 5 5 4 H n 61 SWB mk 9 SO Sb - Horsetail – Sphagnum 3 b 124.4 1 3 4 5 3 3 3 6 4 3 2 N n 9 SWB mk 9 SO Sb - Horsetail – Sphagnum 5 1 1 3 4 5 3 3 3 6 4 5 2 N n 62 SWB mk 9 SO Sb - Horsetail – Sphagnum 6 126.8 1 3 4 5 3 3 3 6 4 5 2 N n 46 SWB mk 6 SS Sw - Willow - Step moss 5 43.7 3 4 4 3 2 1 4 3 5 5 4 M n 63 SWB mk 6 SS Sw - Willow - Step moss 6 136.4 3 3 3 3 2 1 4 3 5 5 4 H n 26 SWB mk 4 SW Sw - Arctic lupine - Step moss 3 9.2 5 5 5 3 2 2 4 3 4 3 4 N n 28 SWB mk 4 SW Sw - Arctic lupine - Step moss 4 9.8 5 5 5 4 2 2 4 3 4 5 4 L n 57 SWB mk 4 SW Sw - Arctic lupine - Step moss 5 93.4 5 5 5 4 3 2 4 3 4 5 4 M n 27 SWB mk 4 SW Sw - Arctic lupine - Step moss 6 c 9.4 5 5 5 4 3 2 4 2 4 5 4 H n 68 SWB mk 4 SW Sw - Arctic lupine - Step moss 6 223 5 5 5 4 3 2 4 2 4 6 4 H n 21SWBmk 0 TA Talus 1 a 4.5 5 5 5 5 6 3 4 5 6 5Nm 60 SWB mk 0 WB Willow Riparian 3 b 108.8 2 3 3 1 1 2 2 5 4 3 3 N n 67 SWB mk 0 WB Willow Riparian 3 a 207.6 2 3 3 1 1 2 2 5 4 3 3 N n 56 SWB mk 0 WF Willow - Sedge Fen 2 b 90.5 1 3 4 5 4 3 3 6 4 3 2 N n 70 SWB mk 0 WF Willow - Sedge Fen 3 a 276 2 3 3 1 1 2 2 5 4 3 3 N n 24 SWB mk 0 WN Willow - Scrub birch - Altai fescue 3 b 8.3 2 3311225433Nn 54 SWB mk 0 WN Willow - Scrub birch - Altai fescue 3 a 81.6 23311225433Nn 25 SWB mk 0 WV Willow Valerian Thicket 3 a 8.6 2 3 3 1 1 2 2 5 4 3 3 N n Species: RATA = Caribou, ALAM = Moose, ORAM = Mountain Goat, URAR = Grizzly Bear, MAAM = American Marten, MACA = Hoary Marmot Seasons: P = Spring, S = Summer, F = Fall, W = Winter, WE = Early Winter, WL = Late Winter, RB = Reproducing, G = Growing

Page 2 of 3 Appendix 7. Wildlife Habitat Ratings (WHRs) for Ecosystem Units Identified within the LSA

Structural Structural Stage ID Zone Subzone Site Series Map Code Ecosystem Name Stage Modifier Area (ha) MURAR_P MURAR_S MURAR_F MALAM_WE MALAM_WL MORAM_W MORAM_S MRATA_WE MRATA_WL MRATA_RB MRATA-S MMAAM_W-LI MMACA_G 92 SWB mks 0 AO Altai fescue Grassland 2 b 12.7 3 4 4 5 6 2 2 4 1 1 2 N m 105 SWB mks 0 DL Lichen Tundra 1 b 38.8 3 4 4 5 6 2 2 4 1 1 2 N m 82SWBmks 0 DM Dam 1 a 2.3 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 6 6 6Nl 97 SWB mks 0 ES Exposed Soil 1 a 18.4 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 6 5 N l 91 SWB mks 0 FB Bl - Five-leaved bramble - Feathermoss 6 10.1 43346143564Mn 87 SWB mks 0 FC Bl – Scrub birch – Crowberry 2 5.2 3 4 4 5 6 2 2 4 1 1 2 N 108 SWB mks 0 FC Bl – Scrub birch – Crowberry 3 a 48.9 3 3 4 2 6 2 2 5 3 3 3 N n 120 SWB mks 0 FC Bl – Scrub birch – Crowberry 3 b 255.5 3 3 4 2 6 2 2 5 3 3 3 N l 96 SWB mks 0 FC Bl – Scrub birch – Crowberry 4 17.7 3 3 4 2 6 2 2 5 3 3 3 N n 125 SWB mks 0 FC Bl – Scrub birch – Crowberry 6 612.8 3 3 4 2 6 2 2 5 3 5 3 L n 99 SWB mks 0 FC Bl – Scrub birch – Crowberry 7 22.2 3 3 4 2 6 2 2 5 3 5 3 L n 84 SWB mks 0 FF Bl - Feathermoss 3 5 2 2 3 1 6 2 2 5 4 3 3 N l 100 SWB mks 0 FF Bl - Feathermoss 3 b 24.2 2 2 3 1 6 2 2 5 4 3 3 N l 123 SWB mks 0 FF Bl - Feathermoss 3 a 400.9 2 2 3 1 6 2 2 5 4 3 3 N l 89 SWB mks 0 FF Bl - Feathermoss 6 6.3 3 3 4 2 6 2 2 5 3 5 3 L n 94 SWB mks 0 FH Bl - Mountain heather 2 d 13.8 5 5 5 5 6 2 4 5 2 1 5 N m 116 SWB mks 0 FH Bl - Mountain heather 3 b 138.8 4 4 5 4 6 2 3 5 4 4 4 L l 118 SWB mks 0 FH Bl - Mountain heather 3 a 244 4 4 5 4 6 2 3 5 4 4 4 L l 121 SWB mks 0 FH Bl - Mountain heather 6 283.1 3 3 4 2 6 2 2 5 3 4 3 N n 88 SWB mks 0 FM Bl - Huckleberry - Feathermoss 2 5.2 3 4 4 5 6 2 2 4 1 1 2 N m 112 SWB mks 0 FM Bl - Huckleberry - Feathermoss 3 b 80.3 4 4 5 4 6 2 3 5 4 3 4 L l 95 SWB mks 0 FM Bl - Huckleberry - Feathermoss 5 14.2 3 4 4 3 6 1 4 3 5 5 4 M n 98 SWB mks 0 FM Bl - Huckleberry - Feathermoss 6 21.7 3 3 3 3 6 1 4 3 5 5 4 H n 104 SWB mks 0 FM Bl - Huckleberry - Feathermoss 7 34 3 3 3 3 6 1 4 3 5 5 4 H n 114 SWB mks 0 FV Bl - Sitka valerian 3 b 104.3 3 4 5 4 6 2 3 5 4 3 4 L l 103 SWB mks 0 FV Bl - Sitka valerian 6 30.6 3 3 3 3 6 1 4 3 5 5 4 H n 115 SWB mks 0 FW Altai fescue - Arctic willow Tundra 2 b 135.8 34456224112Nh 106 SWB mks 0 HL Mountain heather Heath 2 d 41 3 3 4 5 6 2 3 5 3 2 2 N m 113 SWB mks 0 HM Herb Meadow 2 a 97.4 1 3 2 5 6 3 1 5 3 3 1 N h 109SWBmks 0 MI Mine 1 a 49.3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 N l 83SWBmks 0 PD Pond 0 3 55556666565Nn 81 SWB mks 0 PN Permanent Snow 0 2.3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 N n 101 SWB mks 0 RC Reclaimed Area 2 a 26.6 3 4 4 5 6 2 2 4 6 6 6 N h 85 SWBmks 0 RE Reservoir 0 5.1 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 N n 111 SWB mks 0 RO Rock Outcrop 1 a 63.6 5 5 5 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 5 N l 117 SWB mks 0 SA Scrub birch - Altai fescue 2 b 184 3 4 4 5 6 2 2 4 1 1 2 N h 93 SWB mks 0 SA Scrub birch - Altai fescue 3 b 13.4 3 3 4 2 6 2 2 5 3 4 3 N l 124 SWB mks 0 SA Scrub birch - Altai fescue 3 a 597.3 3 3 4 2 6 2 2 5 3 4 3 N l 80 SWB mks 0 SF Sedge Fen 2 b 2.1 3 4 4 5 6 2 2 4 1 1 2 N h 119SWBmks 0 TA Talus 1 a 253.5 5 5 5 5 6 3 4 5 5 5 N m 122 SWB mks 0 TP Tailings Pond 0 355 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 N n 86 SWB mks 0 WB Willow Riparian 3 a 5.1 2 3 3 1 6 2 2 5 4 4 3 N n 107 SWB mks 0 WF Willow - Sedge Fen 2 b 41.5 1 2 4 5 6 3 3 5 4 2 1 N n 110 SWB mks 0 WF Willow - Sedge Fen 3 a 56.5 2 3 3 1 6 2 2 5 4 3 3 N n 90 SWB mks 0 WV Willow Valerian Thicket 3 b 6.8 2 3 3 1 6 2 2 5 4 3 3 N n 102 SWB mks 0 WV Willow Valerian Thicket 3 a 29.6 2 3 3 1 6 2 2 5 4 3 3 N n Species: RATA = Caribou, ALAM = Moose, ORAM = Mountain Goat, URAR = Grizzly Bear, MAAM = American Marten, MACA = Hoary Marmot Seasons: P = Spring, S = Summer, F = Fall, W = Winter, WE = Early Winter, WL = Late Winter, RB = Reproducing, G = Growing

Page 3 of 3