Technical Data Report

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts

ENBRIDGE NORTHERN GATEWAY PROJECT

Jacques Whitford AXYS Ltd. Calgary, Alberta

Paul Sargent, P.Biol., R.P.Biol. Colleen A. Bryden, M.Sc., R.P.Biol. Richard Wiacek, M.Sc.

2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Table of Contents

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ...... 1-1 2 Methods ...... 2-1 2.1 Key Indicator Species ...... 2-1 2.2 Habitat Suitability Models ...... 2-2 2.2.1 General Approach ...... 2-2 2.2.2 Alternatives to Habitat Suitability Modelling ...... 2-4 2.2.3 Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use...... 2-6 2.2.4 Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping ...... 2-7 2.2.5 Habitat Ratings ...... 2-7 3 Bird Habitat Models ...... 3-1 3.1 White-winged Scoter ...... 3-1 3.1.1 Status ...... 3-1 3.1.2 Distribution ...... 3-1 3.1.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites ...... 3-2 3.1.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ...... 3-3 3.1.5 Ratings ...... 3-3 3.2 American Bittern...... 3-5 3.2.1 Status ...... 3-5 3.2.2 Distribution ...... 3-5 3.2.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites ...... 3-6 3.2.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ...... 3-7 3.2.5 Ratings ...... 3-7 3.3 Pacific Great Blue Heron ...... 3-8 3.3.1 Status ...... 3-8 3.3.2 Distribution ...... 3-9 3.3.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites ...... 3-9 3.3.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ...... 3-10 3.3.5 Ratings ...... 3-10 3.4 Northern Goshawk ...... 3-12 3.4.1 Status ...... 3-12 3.4.2 Distribution ...... 3-13 3.4.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites ...... 3-14 3.4.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ...... 3-15 3.4.5 Ratings ...... 3-16 3.5 Yellow Rail ...... 3-18 3.5.1 Status ...... 3-18 3.5.2 Distribution ...... 3-18 3.5.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites ...... 3-19 3.5.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ...... 3-19 3.5.5 Ratings ...... 3-19

2010 Page i

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Table of Contents

3.6 Sandhill Crane ...... 3-20 3.6.1 Status ...... 3-20 3.6.2 Distribution ...... 3-21 3.6.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites ...... 3-22 3.6.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ...... 3-23 3.6.5 Ratings ...... 3-23 3.7 Western Screech-Owl ...... 3-25 3.7.1 Status ...... 3-25 3.7.2 Distribution ...... 3-26 3.7.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites ...... 3-26 3.7.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ...... 3-27 3.7.5 Ratings ...... 3-28 3.8 Barred Owl...... 3-29 3.8.1 Status ...... 3-29 3.8.2 Distribution ...... 3-30 3.8.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites ...... 3-31 3.8.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ...... 3-32 3.8.5 Ratings ...... 3-32 3.9 Short-eared Owl ...... 3-34 3.9.1 Status ...... 3-34 3.9.2 Distribution ...... 3-34 3.9.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites ...... 3-35 3.9.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ...... 3-36 3.9.5 Ratings ...... 3-37 3.10 Common Nighthawk ...... 3-39 3.10.1 Status ...... 3-39 3.10.2 Distribution ...... 3-39 3.10.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites ...... 3-40 3.10.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ...... 3-40 3.10.5 Ratings ...... 3-41 3.11 Olive-sided Flycatcher ...... 3-42 3.11.1 Status ...... 3-42 3.11.2 Distribution ...... 3-42 3.11.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites ...... 3-43 3.11.4 Reproducing Habitat ...... 3-43 3.11.5 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ...... 3-44 3.11.6 Ratings ...... 3-45 3.12 Sprague’s Pipit ...... 3-47 3.12.1 Status ...... 3-47 3.12.2 Distribution ...... 3-47 3.12.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites ...... 3-48 3.12.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ...... 3-48 3.12.5 Ratings ...... 3-48

Page ii 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Table of Contents

3.13 Cape May Warbler ...... 3-50 3.13.1 Status ...... 3-50 3.13.2 Distribution ...... 3-50 3.13.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites ...... 3-51 3.13.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ...... 3-53 3.13.5 Ratings ...... 3-53 3.14 Black-throated Green Warbler ...... 3-54 3.14.1 Status ...... 3-54 3.14.2 Distribution ...... 3-55 3.14.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites ...... 3-56 3.14.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ...... 3-57 3.14.5 Ratings ...... 3-57 3.15 Bay-breasted Warbler ...... 3-59 3.15.1 Status ...... 3-59 3.15.2 Distribution ...... 3-59 3.15.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites ...... 3-60 3.15.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ...... 3-61 3.15.5 Ratings ...... 3-61 3.16 Connecticut Warbler ...... 3-63 3.16.1 Status ...... 3-63 3.16.2 Distribution ...... 3-63 3.16.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites ...... 3-64 3.16.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ...... 3-65 3.16.5 Ratings ...... 3-65 3.17 Canada Warbler ...... 3-67 3.17.1 Status ...... 3-67 3.17.2 Distribution ...... 3-67 3.17.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites ...... 3-68 3.17.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ...... 3-69 3.17.5 Ratings ...... 3-70 3.18 Le Conte’s Sparrow ...... 3-71 3.18.1 Status ...... 3-71 3.18.2 Distribution ...... 3-72 3.18.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites ...... 3-73 3.18.4 Reproducing Habitat ...... 3-73 3.18.5 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ...... 3-73 3.18.6 Ratings ...... 3-74 3.19 Nelson’s Sparrow ...... 3-75 3.19.1 Status ...... 3-75 3.19.2 Distribution ...... 3-75 3.19.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites ...... 3-76 3.19.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ...... 3-77 3.19.5 Ratings ...... 3-77

2010 Page iii

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Table of Contents

3.20 Rusty Blackbird ...... 3-78 3.20.1 Status ...... 3-78 3.20.2 Distribution ...... 3-79 3.20.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites ...... 3-80 3.20.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ...... 3-80 3.20.5 Ratings ...... 3-80 4 Mammal Habitat Models ...... 4-1 4.1 Moose ...... 4-1 4.1.1 Status ...... 4-1 4.1.2 Distribution ...... 4-1 4.1.3 Abundance ...... 4-2 4.1.4 General Ecology ...... 4-3 4.1.5 Key Habitat Requirements ...... 4-4 4.1.6 Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping-based Model ...... 4-5 4.1.7 Ratings ...... 4-6 4.2 Woodland Caribou ...... 4-8 4.2.1 Status ...... 4-8 4.2.2 Distribution ...... 4-8 4.2.3 Abundance ...... 4-10 4.2.4 General Ecology ...... 4-11 4.2.5 Key Habitat Requirements ...... 4-14 4.2.6 Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping-based Model ...... 4-15 4.2.7 Ratings ...... 4-16 4.3 Mountain Goat ...... 4-19 4.3.1 Status ...... 4-19 4.3.2 Distribution ...... 4-19 4.3.3 Abundance ...... 4-20 4.3.4 General Ecology ...... 4-20 4.3.5 Key Habitat Requirements ...... 4-21 4.3.6 Non-Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Models ...... 4-21 4.4 Grizzly Bear ...... 4-22 4.4.1 Status ...... 4-22 4.4.2 Distribution ...... 4-22 4.4.3 Abundance ...... 4-25 4.4.4 General Ecology ...... 4-25 4.4.5 Key Habitat Requirements ...... 4-30 4.4.6 Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping-based Model ...... 4-31 4.4.7 Ratings ...... 4-32 4.5 Wolverine ...... 4-34 4.5.1 Status ...... 4-34 4.5.2 Distribution ...... 4-34 4.5.3 Abundance ...... 4-35 4.5.4 General Ecology ...... 4-35 4.5.5 Qualitative Habitat Assessment ...... 4-36

Page iv 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report List of Tables

4.6 American Marten ...... 4-37 4.6.1 Status ...... 4-37 4.6.2 Distribution ...... 4-37 4.6.3 Abundance...... 4-38 4.6.4 General Ecology ...... 4-38 4.6.5 Key Habitat Requirements ...... 4-39 4.6.6 Ratings ...... 4-41 4.7 Fisher ...... 4-42 4.7.1 Status ...... 4-42 4.7.2 Distribution ...... 4-42 4.7.3 Abundance...... 4-44 4.7.4 General Ecology ...... 4-44 4.7.5 Key Habitat Requirements ...... 4-45 4.7.6 Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping-based Model ...... 4-46 4.7.7 Ratings ...... 4-46 5 Amphibian Habitat Models ...... 5-1 5.1 Coastal Tailed Frog ...... 5-1 5.1.1 Status ...... 5-1 5.1.2 Distribution ...... 5-1 5.1.3 Abundance...... 5-1 5.1.4 General Ecology ...... 5-2 5.1.5 Key Habitat Requirements ...... 5-3 5.1.6 Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping-based Model ...... 5-3 5.1.7 Ratings ...... 5-4 5.2 Pond-Dwelling Amphibians ...... 5-6 5.2.1 Overview ...... 5-6 5.2.2 Non-Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Model ...... 5-7 6 References ...... 6-1 6.1 Literature Cited ...... 6-1 6.2 Personal Communications and Personal Observations ...... 6-34 6.3 Internet Sites ...... 6-35 Appendix A Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping-based Modelling Data ...... A-1

List of Tables

Table 2-1 Life Requisites and Seasons of Use Modelled for Key Indicators ...... 2-6 Table 2-2 Broad Habitat Class Delineation for Bird Habitat Modelling ...... 2-9 Table 3-1 White-Winged Scoter Habitat Ratings Assumptions, Alberta and British Columbia ...... 3-4 Table 3-2 American Bittern Habitat Ratings Assumptions, Alberta and British Columbia ...... 3-8 Table 3-3 Pacific Great Blue Heron - Ratings Assumptions for Reproducing Habitat, Coastal British Columbia ...... 3-11

2010 Page v

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report List of Tables

Table 3-4 Pacific Great Blue Heron - Ratings Assumptions for Living and Foraging Habitat, Coastal British Columbia ...... 3-11 Table 3-5 Northern Goshawk Habitat Requirements and Ecosystem Attributes in the PEAA ...... 3-16 Table 3-6 Northern Goshawk Habitat Ratings Assumptions, Alberta and British Columbia ...... 3-17 Table 3-7 Yellow Rail Habitat Ratings Assumptions...... 3-20 Table 3-8 Sandhill Crane - Ratings Assumptions for Nesting Habitat ...... 3-24 Table 3-9 Sandhill Crane - Ratings Assumptions for Migrating and Foraging Habitat ...... 3-24 Table 3-10 Western Screech-Owl Habitat Requirements and Ecosystem Attributes in the PEAA ...... 3-28 Table 3-11 Western Screech-Owl Habitat Ratings Assumptions, British Columbia ...... 3-29 Table 3-12 Barred Owl Habitat Ratings Assumptions ...... 3-33 Table 3-13 Short-eared Owl Habitat Requirements and Ecosystem Attributes in the PEAA ...... 3-37 Table 3-14 Short-eared Owl Habitat Ratings Assumptions, Alberta and British Columbia ...... 3-38 Table 3-15 Common Nighthawk Habitat Ratings Assumptions ...... 3-41 Table 3-16 Olive-sided Flycatcher Habitat Ratings Assumptions ...... 3-46 Table 3-17 Sprague’s Pipit Habitat Ratings Assumptions ...... 3-49 Table 3-18 Cape May Warbler Habitat Ratings Assumptions ...... 3-54 Table 3-19 Black-Throated Green Warbler Habitat Ratings Assumptions ...... 3-58 Table 3-20 Bay-breasted Warbler Habitat Ratings Assumptions...... 3-62 Table 3-21 Connecticut Warbler Habitat Ratings Assumptions ...... 3-66 Table 3-22 Canada Warbler Habitat Ratings Assumptions ...... 3-71 Table 3-23 Le Conte’s Sparrow Habitat Ratings Assumptions ...... 3-74 Table 3-24 Nelson’s Sparrow Habitat Ratings Assumptions ...... 3-78 Table 3-25 Rusty Blackbird Habitat Ratings Assumptions ...... 3-81 Table 4-1 Caribou - Conservation Status and Population Size of Herds Intersecting the PEAA ...... 4-8 Table 4-2 Grizzly Bear - Characteristics of Population Units Intersecting the Pipeline Route ...... 4-24 Table 5-1 Conservation Status of Pond-Dwelling Amphibians Known or Likely to Occur in the PEAA ...... 5-7

Page vi 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Abbreviations

Abbreviations

ASRD ...... Alberta Sustainable Resource Development AT ...... alpine tundra BCCDC ...... British Columbia Conservation Data Centre BC MELP ...... British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks BEC ...... biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification BMA ...... bear management area BWBS ...... boreal white and black spruce CCC ...... Caribou Chilcotin Conservation Society CF ...... cultivated field COSEWIC ...... Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada CWD ...... coarse woody debris CWH ...... coastal western hemlock dk ...... dry cool variant ELC ...... ecological land classification ESA ...... environmental and socio-economic assessment ESSF ...... Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir FAN ...... Federation of Alberta Naturalists GB ...... gravel bar GBPU ...... grizzly bear population unit GIS ...... geographic information system KI ...... key indicator KSL ...... Kitimat–Summit Lake Looping LUPA ...... land use planning unit mc ...... moist cool variant MH ...... mountain hemlock mk ...... moist cool variant mm ...... moist maritime variant MOE ...... Ministry of Environment MPB ...... mountain pine beetle MS ...... montane spruce mv ...... moist very cold variant NGRT ...... Northern Goshawk Recovery Team NSR ...... natural subregion PEAA ...... project effects assessment area PTP ...... Pacific Trail Pipelines RIC ...... Resources Inventory Committee RO ...... rocky outcrop RoW ...... right-of-way RSF ...... resource selection function SBS ...... sub-boreal spruce

2010 Page vii

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Abbreviations

TDR ...... technical data report TEM ...... terrestrial ecosystem mapping TRIM ...... terrain and resource information mapping un ...... undifferentiated variant UWR ...... ungulate winter range vc ...... very wet cold variant vk ...... very wet cool variant vm ...... very wet maritime variant wc ...... wet cold variant wk ...... wet cool variant ws ...... wet submaritime variant

Page viii 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Glossary

Glossary ambient temperature The temperature of the surrounding (external to a body) environment. anthropogenic Controlled or modified by human activities. arboreal lichen A lichen that grows in the tree canopy. bedload The particles in a river or stream that are transported along the bed, rather than in suspension. bench Platform geomorphology, nearly level or gently inclined surface on harder material. benchmark condition A regional reference point from which to compare local conditions. biogeoclimatic subzone An area with distinct climax plant association and zonal sites, and indicated by climatic modifiers (e.g., dry, wet, cold, warm). biogeoclimatic variant An area with differences in regional climate and varying levels of soil moisture. biogeoclimatic zone A geographical area with a relatively uniform macroclimate characterised by a mosaic of vegetation and soils. bird density The number of individual birds (abundance) per unit of area, e.g. birds per hectare. bog/fen wetland An area of wet peat supporting a moisture-tolerant plant community. browse Woody plants from which animals eat the new growth or bark. canopy A continuous layer of branches and foliage in a stand of trees or shrubs. canopy closure The degree to which the canopy foliage blocks the sky. carnivore An animal that feeds on animal matter. carrion Dead and rotting body of an animal. coarse woody debris Fallen trees, logs, branches in various stages of decomposition, on the forest floor. coniferous A tree species that is cone-bearing, typically evergreen. cratering The act of digging or pawing through snow in search of terrestrial forage (chiefly lichen and grasses), used primarily by caribou. cygnet A young-of-the-year swan. deciduous A tree species with leaves that are not persistent and fall off, typically broad-leaved.

2010 Page ix

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Glossary ecological land classification A system used to delineate differing scales of landscape or ecosystems, based on climate, physiography and vegetation. ecological niche An organism’s actual place within a community. ecoprovince An area of uniform climate, geological history and physiography, on a sub-continental scale. ecoregion An area with major physiographic and minor macroclimatic or oceanographic variation, on a regional scale within an ecoprovince. ecosection An area with minor physiographic and microclimatic or oceanographic variation, on a subregional scale within an ecoregion. ecosite phase The part of an ecosection in which there is relative uniformity or parent material, soil, hydrology and vegetation. ecosystem unit Derived from site series and further differentiated using more specific site conditions, structural stages, and other attributes such as stand composition. emergent vegetation Plants that have their roots in shallow water, with the remaining parts above water. ephemeral water body A temporary stream or pond that exists in response to precipitation. fledgling An immature bird after leaving the nest, but still dependent on its parents for protection and food. floodplain Flat land, bordering a stream or river, onto which a flood will spread. fluvial rounding The erosion of rocks and boulders by stream or river processes such as dragging and rolling. forb A herbaceous plant with broad leaves. generalist feeder A species with broad food preferences graminoid A grass or grass-like green plant. guild A set of species that share a common habitat, use the same resources, or forage in the same way. habitat polygon An area with the same habitat characteristics as delineated by terrestrial ecosystem mapping. habitat suitability A measure of likelihood that a species will use a habitat type for one or more life requisites. herbaceous cover An area of ground occupied by forbs, grass and leafy plants. herbivore An animal that feeds exclusively on plant matter. heterogeneous Mixed composition or structure.

Page x 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Glossary hibernation A dormant condition of certain animals in which metabolic activity is greatly reduced, triggered by the onset of winter. home range The area that an animal traverses during its lifetime. homogeneous Uniform composition or structure. hydric Soil condition where the water table is at or above the surface all year. hygric Soil condition where water is removed slowly enough to keep soil wet for most of the growing season, with permanent seepage. igneous rock Rock formed by cooling and crystallization from a molten or partially molten state. interspecific competition Competitive interaction between individuals of two or more species. intraspecific competition Competitive interaction between individuals of the same species. lek A location where communal courtship displays take place among birds. lekking Communal courtship displaying. life requisite A component of an animal’s basic needs for living, such as seasonal feeding, reproduction or winter shelter. marsh wetland An area of low-lying, poorly drained land, periodically or permanently covered with water, with a mineral soil base; and dominated by emergent, non-woody vegetation. mesic Soil condition where soil may remain moist for a considerable but sometimes short period of the year. metamorphosis A change in the shape, structure and habits of an animal during development from an egg or embryo into an adult. metapopulation A population comprising several local populations that are spatially separated but linked by migrants. microhabitat A set of distinctive environmental conditions that compose habitat on a small scale. microtine A rodent belonging to the subfamily Microtinae, which includes voles, mole-voles, lemmings and muskrats. midden A ground burrow or heap used mostly for food storage by red squirrels. mixedwood Stand of trees with a well-mixed composition of deciduous and coniferous species (i.e., the deciduous component in 26% to 75%) moisture regime Soil moisture as determined by the physical properties and arrangement of the soil particles. natal Birth.

2010 Page xi

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Glossary natural region A broad, landscape-scale ecosystem delineated by climate and broad vegetation types. natural subregion An area within a natural region as defined by vegetation and site conditions (climate, soils and geology) neotropical migrant A songbird that breeds in North America during the spring and summer, and winters in Mexico, the Caribbean or Central and South America. nocturnal An animal whose most active period is between dusk and dawn old-growth forest Typically includes climax species, complex structure such as a multilayered canopy representing multiple ages, a high incidence of standing dead trees and the presence of species and functional processes that are representative of the potential natural community, omnivore An animal that feeds on plant, fungal and animal matter. parturition The process of giving birth. passerine A perching bird with feet having four toes arranged to allow for gripping the perch. peatland An area with peat formation, which partially decayed vegetation matter. perennial water A water body that exists permanently year-round. philopatric An animal that remains in, or returns to, its birthplace. pole A tree greater than 10 m tall, typically densely stocked, usually less than 40 years since disturbance. post-fledging The stage in a bird’s first year of life after fledging, when the bird is no longer dependent on its parents for survival. recruitment The addition to a population from reproduction, immigration and stocking. refugia The location of an isolated or relict population of a once widespread wildlife species. relative abundance A rough estimate of dominance of each species in the same area or community; calculated from the number of individuals of a certain species divided by the number of individuals of all species in the community. riffles The shallow portions of a stream bed that create surface disturbances. riparian habitat A terrestrial area where the vegetation and soil conditions are products of the combined presence and influence of water, associated with high water tables where plants are rooted.

Page xii 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Glossary sapling The stage of a tree development between a seedling and a pole, typically 1 to 2 m tall and 2 to 4 cm in diameter. second growth forest A forest that has developed following a disturbance of the old-growth forest, such as harvesting, fire or insect attack. sedge A grass-like plant with solid stems, leaves in three vertical rows, and spikelets of inconspicuous flowers. seral stage The series of plant community conditions that develop during ecological succession from bare ground to the climax stage. shrub-steppe A low rainfall, natural grassland that can support a cover of perennial grasses and shrubs. site modifier An additional descriptor for atypical conditions for each site series, such as topography, moisture and soil. site series An area with selected environmental properties (e.g., soil moisture, nutrients) and associated vegetation usually present in late seral or climax stages, on a fine scale. slash The coarse and fine woody debris generated during logging operations. slope toe The outermost, gently inclined surface at the base of a hill slope with a linear form. snag A standing dead or partially dead tree, at least 3 m tall. specialist feeder A species with narrow or specific food preferences. species diversity An assessment of the number of species present, their relative abundance in the area, and the distribution of individuals among the species. A measure of complexity of an area. species richness The number of species in an area. staging area An area where birds congregate to rest and feed, usually during migration. stand attribute A definable and inherent characteristic of a forest stand, such as species composition, canopy structure, ground and shrub cover composition. step-pool morphology The characteristic bedforms that dominate steep mountain streams composed of cobbles and boulders separated by finer materials in a repetitive sequence of steps and pools. structural stage The condition of the vegetation defined by age, height, complexity and species composition. subhydric A soil condition where the water table is at or near surface for most of year, with permanent seepage less than 30 cm below the surface.

2010 Page xiii

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Glossary subhygric A soil condition where water is removed slowly enough to keep soil wet for a considerable part of growing season, with some temporary seepage. submesic A soil condition where water is available for moderately short periods following precipitation. subnivean prey An animal eaten by others that live in a zone in or under the snow layer. It relies on winter snow cover for survival. subxeric A soil condition where soil is moist for short periods following precipitation. succession A series of dynamic changes in ecosystem structure, function, and species composition over time. swamp wetland A wetland type characterised by periodic flooding and dominated by trees or tall shrubs; with nearly permanent, subsurface, nutrient-rich water flow through mineral and organic materials. terrace A relatively flat area eroded into the side slope of a valley wall, bounded by a steep descending slope on one side and a steep ascending slope on the other. terrestrial ecosystem mapping The stratification of a landscape into map units, based on an integration of abiotic and biotic ecosystem components, such as climate, physiography, surficial material, bedrock geology, soil, and vegetation. terrestrial lichen A ground-growing lichen. territory The area that an animal defends, usually during breeding season, against individuals of the same species. toadlet A juvenile toad. understorey vegetation Plants that grow close to the ground, under taller species that provide shade. ungulate A hoofed, grazing mammal with horns or antlers. very xeric Soil condition where the soil is moist for a negligible time after precipitation. waterbird A loon, grebe, duck, goose, swan, coot, rail, heron, crane, gull or tern. xeric A soil condition where soil is moist for brief periods following precipitation.

Page xiv 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 1: Introduction

1 Introduction This technical data report (TDR) describes the wildlife habitat models used to support the Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment (ESA) for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project (the Project). The habitat modelling conducted for the Project is based primarily on the British Columbia Wildlife Habitat Ratings Standards (RIC 1999). These standards outline the development of expert opinion-based wildlife habitat suitability models and habitat ratings tables. As outlined in the ESA, the habitat suitability models are used to quantify habitat availability for key indicator (KI) species within the project effects assessment area (PEAA; defined as 1 km wide and including the pipeline right-of-way [RoW]) during three project phases: baseline (i.e., prior to construction), construction and operations. Therefore, these models are an important analytical tool used in the ESA to identify project effects on wildlife habitat availability. The habitat models are also used to identify areas along the pipeline route that may be particularly sensitive to project disturbance. This TDR outlines the modelling approach and methodology used to quantify habitat availability for wildlife KIs and summarizes the habitat suitability models and ratings developed for select species. This TDR does not present model results or output, as these are presented and discussed in the ESA.

2010 Page 1-1

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 2: Methods

2 Methods

2.1 Key Indicator Species The pipeline route crosses a wide range of ecosystems, each with complex faunal associations. As a result, it is not feasible to evaluate all species known or likely to occur along the RoW or within the project effects assessment area (PEAA) to a comparable degree. Instead, as described in detail in the ESA, species of management concern and individual species that represent the habitat requirements of other species are selected for detailed assessment. Species selected for the assessment are called key indicators (KIs). This approach focuses the assessment on the species of greater concern. The selected KIs use a diversity of habitat types in the PEAA (e.g., forest, wetlands, grasslands), and occupy a range of ecological niches. Thus, they are useful indicators of habitat change for a broad suite of wildlife species and their habitats. Twenty-two bird species, seven mammal species and two amphibian species are identified as KIs in the ESA. The 22 bird KIs are: • Trumpeter Swan • White-winged Scoter • Sharp-tailed Grouse • American Bittern • Pacific Great Blue Heron • Northern Goshawk • Yellow Rail • Sandhill Crane • Western Screech-Owl • Barred Owl • Short-eared Owl • Common Nighthawk • Olive-sided Flycatcher • Sprague’s Pipit • Cape May Warbler • Black-throated Green Warbler • Bay-breasted Warbler • Connecticut Warbler • Canada Warbler • Le Conte’s Sparrow • Nelson’s Sparrow • Rusty Blackbird

2010 Page 2-1

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 2: Methods

The seven mammal KIs are: • American marten • fisher • wolverine • grizzly bear • moose • woodland caribou • mountain goat The two amphibian KIs are: • coastal tailed frog • pond-dwelling amphibians (a species group) The Resources Inventory Committee (RIC 1999) habitat suitability modelling standards are used to assess habitat availability for the majority of wildlife KIs. Exceptions include Trumpeter Swan, Sharp-tailed Grouse, wolverine, mountain goat and pond-dwelling amphibians. The approaches used for these species are discussed below.

2.2 Habitat Suitability Models

2.2.1 General Approach The habitat modelling conducted for the Project is based primarily on the British Columbia Wildlife Habitat Ratings Standards (RIC 1999). Because of a lack of standards in Alberta, the RIC (1999) standards are applied to the Project in both British Columbia and Alberta. A detailed description of the modelling process, including limitations and alternatives, is presented in RIC (1999) and is summarized below. Habitat suitability modelling, as defined by RIC (1999), is an expert opinion-based modelling process where knowledgeable biologists and species experts assign ratings to mapped ecological or habitat units for species of interest (e.g., KIs). Suitability ratings reflect the relative importance or value of habitat units to wildlife populations under current (e.g., disturbed) habitat conditions, and are based on the potential or expected use of habitats relative to the best habitat in the province (RIC 1999). Ideally, suitability ratings reflect known animal densities but, most often, because of limited availability of data, are based on a biologist’s interpretation of habitat quality (RIC 1999). A number of factors other than habitat quality can affect habitat use, such as predation, disease and social interactions, but are not considered when assigning ratings (RIC 1999). Although this is an acknowledged limitation of the modelling process, habitat suitability ratings are considered a useful tool for analyzing habitat values for wildlife in British Columbia (RIC 1999). The modelling process involves the development of species accounts and species-specific ratings tables. The species account summarizes known information on the status, ecology, habitat requirements, life requisites (defined as the life history elements necessary for reproduction and survival, such as nesting, feeding, and hibernating) and seasonal use patterns of wildlife species (e.g., KIs) in a given area

Page 2-2 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 2: Methods

(RIC 1999). The information on species ecology and habitat requirements is used to rate the expected use (i.e., relative importance) of habitat units, based on the structure and composition of these units (e.g., percent canopy cover, shrub composition), for selected life requisites and seasons of use (e.g., summer nesting and/or winter foraging). The relationships between habitat suitability and habitat structure and/or composition for selected life requisites are summarized in detailed modelling assumptions that describe rating rules and procedures. These assumptions are a key component of the model and allow for critical evaluation of model mechanics. Ratings are applied to habitat units using 2-, 4- or 6-class rating schemes, depending on the level of information available for a species (RIC 1999). For example, for a species with a moderate level of information, a 4-class scheme is used, where habitat units are rated as having nil, low, moderate or high habitat suitability. The ratings are summarized in a ratings table, and can be displayed graphically on a terrestrial ecosystem map using a geographic information system (GIS). As discussed in Section 3.1.5.3, ratings adjustments are incorporated into the model using GIS to take into account disturbance factors and the spatial arrangement of habitats to more accurately reflect habitat availability at a given time and project phase. Once adjustments are incorporated, the area (e.g., hectares) of suitable habitat for a given life requisite and season of use can be calculated and summarized, providing information on habitat availability at baseline or project construction or operations. For the Project, all habitat modelling was done in ArcGIS Version 9.2 software with model builder and Spatial Analyst (ArcGIS 1999 to 2006 for Version 9.2) and the results are presented in the Lambert Conformal Conic projection.

2.2.1.1 Model Adjustments Two parameters are used to refine habitat suitability models for KIs: sensory disturbance buffer and spatial arrangement: • sensory disturbance buffer: Although habitat may be suitable for a given wildlife species, actual use may be limited or precluded because of other factors, such as human disturbance. Typically, habitats close to intensive land use activities have lower habitat effectiveness or use than comparable habitats in remote settings. To incorporate reduced habitat effectiveness as a result of sensory disturbance into the habitat models, a sensory disturbance buffer was defined for each type of human disturbance identified in the PEAA, and a disturbance coefficient (i.e., reduction factor) is applied to the habitat suitability ratings within the sensory disturbance buffer. The sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance coefficients vary by KI. • spatial arrangement: Where habitat of suitable quality exists for a given species, the size, shape, isolation and dynamics of habitat patches across the landscape may have profound effects on the persistence of populations of that species (e.g., Flather and Bevers 2002). In such cases, habitat quality may have a spatial component related to the arrangement of habitat patches within the PEAA. Wildlife species may be affected by the spatial arrangement of their habitat in several ways, including requirements for: a minimum habitat patch size, below which a habitat patch will receive little or no wildlife use, even if it is otherwise suitable; and the distribution of resources (for food, shelter and reproduction) that together fulfill a species’ habitat needs. If a KI’s habitat requirements have a spatial component, this is included in the models when determining habitat availability.

2010 Page 2-3

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 2: Methods

2.2.2 Alternatives to Habitat Suitability Modelling Numerous techniques are available for developing habitat models for wildlife. The British Columbia Wildlife Habitat Rating Standards are used for the Project because of their accepted role as a provincial land management planning tool (RIC 1999). Use of Resource Suitability Indices, similar to the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) modelling developed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (1981) is being explored in British Columbia, but has not replaced the RIC (1999) standards (BC MoE 2006, Internet site). Other techniques, such as development of resource selection functions (RSFs), are not employed because of the lack of spatial data on animal locations along the majority of the pipeline route. Although habitat suitability models and habitat ratings are used to determine habitat availability for the majority of the wildlife KIs, alternative methods are used for Trumpeter Swan, Sharp-tailed Grouse, wolverine, mountain goat and pond-dwelling amphibians. As discussed in the ESA, these alternative methods are as follows.

2.2.2.1 Trumpeter Swan and Sharp-tailed Grouse The scale of ecosystem mapping is not considered suitable for delineating and rating nesting and lekking sites for Trumpeter Swan and Sharp-tailed Grouse, respectively. Therefore, existing information on nesting and lekking sites, as well as recent data from field surveys is used to identify suitable areas for Trumpeter Swan and Sharp-tailed Grouse, respectively.

2.2.2.2 Wolverine As a wide-ranging habitat generalist, wolverine is not recommended as an appropriate candidate for habitat suitability modelling and mapping. Although some wolverine habitat models are available (e.g., Singleton et al. 2002; Proulx 2005), given the geographic extent of the Project, a single wolverine habitat model is unlikely to be valid along the entire length of the pipeline route unless applied only at the broad landscape level. Thus, direct modelling of wolverine habitat is not proposed. Instead, two indicators are selected as surrogates for wolverine habitat value: grizzly bear and ungulates. The rationale for selecting these indicators is: • Grizzly bear: Like the wolverine, the grizzly bear is a landscape-level large carnivore sensitive to human disturbance, and Banci (1994) suggests that the effects of land-use activities on wolverines are likely similar to those on grizzly bears. Grizzly bear fall feeding habitat is the focus, because fall feeding habitat, rather than spring feeding habitat, more closely resembles potential wolverine habitat. • Ungulates: Wolverines are opportunistic scavengers and predators, but rely on carrion and cached items in winter (Magoun 1985). In British Columbia, wolverines rely on ungulate carrion during winter, primarily moose, caribou and mountain goat (Lofroth et al. 2007), and wolverine winter habitat use is positively associated with moose winter range (Krebs et al. 2007). Thus, an adverse effect on ungulate winter habitat availability would likely also have an adverse effect on wolverine habitat suitability, regardless of the cause.

Page 2-4 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 2: Methods

2.2.2.3 Mountain Goat Modelling of mountain goat winter range and escape terrain used spatial data and models currently available from the British Columbia Ministry of Environment. The provincial wildlife agencies have developed slightly different approaches depending on which land use planning unit (LUPA) the goat herds fall into, as described below.

Peace Region Goat Escape Terrain The British Columbia Ministry of Environment has identified areas of high-suitability goat escape terrain in the Peace Region on the basis of parameters such as site steepness and snow load. In addition, a 500-m sensory disturbance buffer on these areas is used to encompass adjacent living habitat, based on the assumption that goats rarely venture farther than this distance from suitable escape terrain. Some areas of highly suitable escape terrain are known to have goat occurrences, and other such areas are known to have goats nearby. The areas of highly suitable escape terrain, and their associated sensory disturbance buffer areas, are considered to be key habitat.

Kalum Goat Winter Habitat A resource probability selection function model was used to identify preferred winter habitat in the Skeena River watershed within the Kalum Forest District. The data collection and analytical methods used in this model are described in detail in Keim (2007) and Keim and Lele (2007). The model parameters include accessibility to suitable escape terrain, aspect and location of non-alpine areas. The suitability of winter habitat was classed as high, moderate, low and very low, based on the range of absolute values generated by the model, and moderate and high-suitability areas are considered to be key habitat.

Morice and Lakes Goat Ungulate Winter Ranges The methods used to identify goat ungulate winter ranges (UWRs) in the Nadina Forest District are provided in Turney (2004). The Nadina Forest District was formerly the Morice and Lakes Timber Supply Areas. The original naming convention is retained here to be consistent with the government spatial data source. Factors used to identify suitable UWRs are slope, distance to steep slopes, aspect, elevation, and glacier presence. On the basis of model output values, Turney (2004) has partitioned the results into primary and secondary UWRs. However, all UWRs are treated equally from a management perspective (Heinrichs 2009, pers. comm.), and are therefore collectively considered key habitat.

2.2.2.4 Pond Dwelling Amphibians All ponds in the PEAA are assumed to provide habitat for pond-dwelling amphibians; however, the actual area of ponds present in the PEAA is unknown as only relatively large open water bodies were mappable at 1:20,000. Thus, wetlands in general1 were considered to represent pond-dwelling amphibian habitat.

1 The relative value of different wetland types to amphibians was not determined.

2010 Page 2-5

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 2: Methods

Therefore, the analysis of pond-dwelling amphibian habitat is based on the findings of the wetlands assessment (see Vegetation TDR [Reid et al. 2010]).

2.2.3 Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use To assess the effects of the Project on habitat availability for wildlife KIs, at least one life requisite was modelled, based on the most limiting habitat requirement of that species. Table 2-1 lists the life requisites and seasons of use modelled for each KI. Only those species modelled using RIC (1999) standards are presented in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1 Life Requisites and Seasons of Use Modelled for Key Indicators Species or Group Life Requisite Season of Use1 Birds White-winged Scoter Reproducing Spring and summer American Bittern Reproducing Spring and summer Pacific Great Blue Heron Reproducing Spring and summer Living (foraging) Year-round Northern Goshawk Reproducing Spring and summer Yellow Rail Reproducing Spring and summer Sandhill Crane Reproducing Spring and summer Migrating (foraging) Late winter, spring and summer Western Screech-Owl Reproducing Spring and summer Barred Owl Reproducing Spring and summer Short-eared Owl Reproducing Spring and summer Common Nighthawk Reproducing Spring and summer Olive-sided Flycatcher Reproducing Spring and summer Sprague’s Pipit Reproducing Spring and summer Cape May Warbler Reproducing Spring and summer Black-throated Green Warbler Reproducing Spring and summer Bay-breasted Warbler Reproducing Spring and summer Connecticut Warbler Reproducing Spring and summer Canada Warbler Reproducing Spring and summer Le Conte’s Sparrow Reproducing Spring and summer Nelson’s Sparrow Reproducing Spring and summer Rusty Blackbird Reproducing Spring and summer

Page 2-6 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 2: Methods

Table 2-1 Life Requisites and Seasons of Use Modelled for Key Indicators (cont’d) Species or Group Life Requisite Season of Use1 Mammals American marten Living Year-round Fisher Natal denning Winter and spring Grizzly bear Feeding Spring and fall Moose Feeding Winter Shelter Winter Woodland caribou Feeding Early and late winter Amphibians Coastal tailed frog Living Year-round

NOTE: 1 As defined in RIC (1999).

2.2.4 Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping As discussed earlier, habitat ratings are assigned to ecosystem or habitat units. The core mapping product developed for the Project is based on terrestrial ecosystem mapping (TEM) in British Columbia, and ecosite mapping in Alberta. Habitat models and ratings that use TEM and ecosite mapping are thus described as being TEM-based. Ecosystem units were delineated on a 1:20,000 ecosystem map prepared for the entire PEAA. The PEAA thus defines the study area for habitat suitability modelling. Each polygon of this map is attributed with one to three ecosite phases (in Alberta) or site series (in British Columbia), structural stages (e.g., old forest) and site modifiers (e.g., warm aspect). A detailed description of the ecosystem mapping methods and the mapped ecosystem units are provided in the Vegetation TDR. In British Columbia, the ecosystem map was prepared according to the provincial TEM standards (i.e., RIC 1998a). In Alberta, the ecological land classification (ELC) system (Beckingham and Archibald 1996) was used as the basis for the ecosystem map with some modifications (e.g., use of TEM site modifiers and structural stage categories) to produce a relatively seamless map product across the two provinces.

2.2.5 Habitat Ratings

2.2.5.1 Mammals and Amphibians Most mammal species and the coastal tailed frog use TEM-based habitat suitability models. For each KI- specific, TEM-based model a habitat suitability rating is assigned to each TEM unique ecosystem unit. Either a 6- or 4-class rating scheme was used, depending on the level of habitat use information available for each KI, where 1 equals high suitability (generally equivalent to benchmark conditions) and 4 or 6 equals nil habitat suitability (RIC 1999).

2010 Page 2-7

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 2: Methods

2.2.5.2 Birds With the exception of Trumpeter Swan and Sharp-tailed Grouse, TEM-based habitat suitability models are applied to all bird KIs. However, ratings are not assigned to each unique ecosystem unit, as done for mammals and tailed frog. Instead, TEM ecosystem units are lumped into broader habitat classes that reflect habitat use by birds, and ratings are assigned to these broader units. This process allowed for efficient development of habitat ratings for the large number of bird KIs, without the loss of model accuracy. The ratings are still considered TEM-based because ecological units are used to delineate the broader habitat classes. Habitat use by birds is dependent on a number of stand attributes that, for the KIs, include dominant vegetation type, canopy closure, understorey complexity, moisture regime and structural stage. To facilitate model development and habitat ratings for the large number of bird KIs, ecosystem units were grouped into 17 broad habitat classes based on dominant vegetation type. The delineation of broad habitat classes was based on known habitat requirements of bird KIs, as determined by a thorough review of species habitat preferences. As birds respond to a variety of stand attributes, the broad habitat classes were further subdivided based on canopy closure (open/sparse, intermediate and dense), understorey complexity (shrub cover), moisture regime (dry to wet, including upland and riparian) and structural stage (Class 1 to 7). This approach allowed ecosystem units to be grouped into distinct habitat types (e.g., closed canopy old growth white spruce forest with low understorey complexity and wet moisture regime) that reflected habitat preferences of bird KIs. Habitat delineation for bird habitat modelling is illustrated in Table 2-2. Habitat ratings for bird KIs were based on a four-class system (RIC 1999), with values ranging from 1 (high quality habitat) to 4 (unusable habitat). Habitat quality was based on the potential density or reproductive success of birds using a site, as follows: • Rank 1 (high quality): Habitat has high suitability for a life requisite (based on attributes such as structural stage, canopy cover, stand composition, moisture regime) and is expected to support a high density or reproductive success of birds. Structure or composition of habitat is not considered limiting. • Rank 2 (intermediate quality): Habitat has moderate suitability for a life requisite (based on combined attributes) and is expected to support an intermediate density or reproductive success of birds. Structure or composition of habitat has some limitations. • Rank 3 (low quality): Habitat has low suitability for a life requisite (based on combined attributes) and is expected to support a low density or reproductive success of birds. Structure or composition of habitat has many limitations, but does not exclude birds entirely. • Rank 4 (unusable): Habitat is not suitable for a life requisite (based on combined attributes) and is not expected to be used by birds, or have very low reproductive success (i.e., sink habitat). Structure or composition of habitat has severe limitations.

Page 2-8 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 2: Methods

Table 2-2 Broad Habitat Class Delineation for Bird Habitat Modelling Broad Habitat Subclass Delineation Broad Habitat Structural Canopy Understorey Moisture Stand Type Class Description Stage Closure Cover Regime Forested Deciduous Stands dominated1 by • 4 (pole/ • Open • Higher • Drier Forest deciduous trees sapling) • (>10 – 25%) • (>25%) • (xeric to 1 • White Spruce Stands dominated by white 5 (young) • Intermediate • Lower mesic; Forest spruce • 6 (mature) • (>25-50%) • (<25%) upland) • 7 (old • Dense • Wetter Mixedwood Stands with approximate equal 2 growth) • (>50%) • (subhygric Forest cover deciduous and to hydric, coniferous trees including Pine Forest Stands dominated1 by pine riparian and Black Spruce Stands dominated1 by black lowland) (upland) Forest spruce in upland positions Subalpine Fir Stands dominated1 by Forest subalpine fir Hemlock Forest Stands dominated1 by hemlock Mixed Stands dominated1 by a mixture Coniferous of coniferous species, no single Forest dominant species Treed Bog Lowland sites dominated1 by black spruce Treed Fen Lowland sites dominated1 by tamarack and black spruce

2010 Page 2-9

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 2: Methods

Table 2-2 Broad Habitat Class Delineation for Bird Habitat Modelling (cont’d) Broad Habitat Subclass Delineation Broad Habitat Structural Canopy Understorey Moisture Stand Type Class Description Stage Closure Cover Regime Shrub Shrub Shrub dominated sites, • 3 With or without N/A As above 3 including avalanche tracks • 3a (low) snags • 3b (tall) Herb/ Marsh Cattail marsh • 2b N/A N/A N/A graminoid (graminoid) Meadow Wet sedge or forb meadows, • 2a (forb) N/A N/A N/A including avalanche tracks • 2b (graminoid) Grassland Dry native grassland • 2b N/A N/A N/A communities Non- Natural Non- Various sites, such as rock N/A N/A N/A N/A vegetated vegetated outcrops, beaches, gravel bars Disturbed Anthropogenic – Cultivated Fields N/A N/A N/A N/A Vegetated Rural areas Reclaimed mines Anthropogenic– Various sites, such as roads, N/A N/A N/A N/A Non-vegetated railways, gravel pits

NOTES: 1 Dominated refers to greater than 60% cover. 2 Approximate equal cover refers to greater than 40 to less than 60% cover. 3 Based on designation as mountain pine beetle stands. N/A – not applicable

Page 2-10 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3 Bird Habitat Models The species accounts for birds reflect the reporting requirements outlined in RIC (1999) but have been condensed because of the large number of species considered. Information about population size, population trends and limiting factors is presented in the ESA (Volume 6A Part 2, Section 9.5). In addition, only those life requisites that were modeled are reviewed in this TDR.

3.1 White-winged Scoter

3.1.1 Status White-winged Scoter (Melanitta fusca) is listed as sensitive in Alberta (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development [ASRD] 2005, Internet site) and is designated as a species of special concern (ASRD Fish and Wildlife Division 2008). In British Columbia, it is yellow-listed (not at risk) (British Columbia Conservation Data Centre [BCCDC] 2009, Internet site).

3.1.2 Distribution

3.1.2.1 Provincial Range

Alberta and British Columbia During breeding and migration, White-winged Scoter is widely distributed throughout Alberta and British Columbia (Campbell et al. 1990a; Federation of Alberta Naturalists [FAN] 2007). In British Columbia the breeding range extends east of the Coast Mountains (Campbell et al. 1990a; Brown and Fredrickson 1997, Internet site) and ranges from as far west as Burns Lake in the central portion of the province to the Alberta border (Campbell et al. 1990a). In Alberta, breeding occurs throughout much of the province with the exception of the Rocky Mountain Natural Region (FAN 2007).

3.1.2.2 Study Area Range Based on information from breeding bird atlases (Campbell et al. 1990a; FAN 2007), breeding may occur along the PEAA in appropriate habitat between Bruderheim, Alberta (KP 0) and the Coast Mountains in British Columbia (approximately KP 1050).

British Columbia Ecoprovinces: Boreal Plains, Sub-boreal Interior, Central Interior Ecoregions: Southern Alberta Upland, Central Canadian Rocky Mountains, Fraser Basin, Fraser River Plateau, Bulkley Ranges Ecosections: Kiskatinaw Plateau, Hart Foothills, Southern Hart Ranges, McGregor Plateau, Nechako Lowland, Babine Upland, Bulkley Basin, Bulkley Ranges, Nechako Upland

2010 Page 3-1

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

Biogeoclimatic Zones: Boreal White and Black Spruce, Sub-Boreal Spruce, Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir

Alberta Natural Regions: Parkland, Boreal Forest, Foothills Natural Subregions: Central Parkland, Central Mixedwood, Dry Mixedwood, Lower Foothills

3.1.2.3 Elevational Range

British Columbia Breeding: 700 to 1,530 m (Campbell et al. 1990a)

Alberta No information available.

3.1.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites Important life requisites for White-winged Scoter in Alberta and British Columbia include migrating (staging) and reproducing (nesting). Habitat modelling was conducted only for reproducing (nesting) habitat. Important staging areas can be determined from existing information and field surveys, and thus were not delineated using habitat modelling. Brood rearing habitat, which is primarily aquatic, is not considered because it is not likely to be affected by the Project.

3.1.3.1 Reproducing Habitat White-winged scoters nest in terrestrial habitats adjacent to freshwater lakes, ponds and slow moving rivers and streams (Campbell et al. 1990a; Brown and Fredrickson 1997, Internet site; Kehoe 2002; FAN 2007). A critical characteristic of nesting habitat is the presence of overhead and lateral cover (Safine and Lindberg 2008). Scoter nests in the Yukon Flats were characterized by relatively high levels of woody cover (mainly shrubs), likely because this increased nest survival (Safine and Lindberg 2008). In addition to occurring in dense cover, nest sites also had more variable cover than random sites (Safine and Lindberg 2008). Stand type does not appear to be an important determinant of nest location; with nesting in the Yukon Flats occurring in coniferous (white and black spruce), deciduous (paper birch and aspen), mixedwood, dwarf tree, and tall scrub (willow, shrub birch, alder and immature or stunted trees) habitats (Safine and Lindberg 2008). In contrast, graminoid habitat types in the Yukon Flats did not appear to be used for nesting (Safine and Lindberg 2008), possibly because these areas may be flooded. In the Mackenzie Delta, scoters avoided nesting in recently burned uplands, but used these areas three years after the burn presumably because of increased herbaceous ground cover (Haszard and Clark 2007). Elsewhere in their range, scoters are known to nest in very high cover (Vermeer 1969; Brown and Brown 1981; Traylor 2003).

Page 3-2 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

Nesting is often documented on islands, but also occurs on mainland sites (Brown and Brown 1981; Brown and Fredrickson 1997, Internet site; Kehoe 2002; Traylor et al. 2004; Safine and Lindberg 2008). Kehoe (2002) reported that, although studies in the southern part of the species range indicate preferential use of islands in large lakes, the majority of birds at these sites may actually nest on the mainland. Scoters often nest relatively far from water. Distance to water averaged 96 m on islands in Saskatchewan (Brown and Fredrickson 1997, Internet site), whereas on mainland sites distance to water was up to 800 m (Keith 1961; Brown and Brown 1981; Traylor et al. 2004; Safine and Lindberg 2008). However, the majority of nests likely occur within 200 m of water (Traylor et al. 2004; Safine and Lindberg 2008). In the boreal forest, scoters nest near (less than 120 m) edge, with edge defined as any change in habitat type (e.g., forest–shrub edge, forest–forest edge). Female scoters may prefer nesting near edges because these sites provide openings that facilitate escape from predators (Safine and Lindberg 2008). In the Yukon Flats, most nests were reported within 10 m of an opening that could be used for escape (Safine and Lindberg 2008).

3.1.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes As discussed in Section 2.2.4, habitat polygons (site series and ecosite phases) were grouped into broad habitat classes that reflected ecosystem attributes considered important for nesting White-winged Scoter. The key ecosystem attributes used to define nesting habitat for White-winged Scoter include: • stand type (forested or shrub habitats are preferred) • vegetation structure (dense, closed shrub preferred)

3.1.5 Ratings A four-class rating scheme was used for White-winged Scoter.

3.1.5.1 Provincial Benchmark No provincial benchmark for evaluating habitat ratings has been established for White-winged Scoter in British Columbia or Alberta.

3.1.5.2 Ratings Assumptions The ratings assumptions used to define habitat suitability for White-winged Scoters are summarized below and in Table 3-1. • White-winged scoter prefers nesting in dense overhead cover and does not nest in sparsely vegetated sites. Sites with moderate to dense (more than 25%) overhead (shrub and upland herbaceous) cover are given a high (1) rating, and sites with low cover (equal to or less than 25%) are given a low (3) rating. Sites with only upland herbaceous cover are given a low (3) rating as shrub cover is considered most important for nesting. • Nesting occurs predominantly in forested (coniferous, deciduous or mixedwood) or shrub-dominated sites. Nesting can occur in structural stage 2 to 7 habitats, including mountain pine beetle stands, depending on density of overhead cover.

2010 Page 3-3

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

• Nesting does not occur in sparsely vegetated or wet graminoid sites, therefore wet lowland areas with structural stage 1 and 2 are not used for nesting and are given a nil (4) rating.

Table 3-1 White-Winged Scoter Habitat Ratings Assumptions, Alberta and British Columbia Structural Stage More than 25% Shrub Cover Less than 25% Shrub Cover 1 N/A 4 2 – wet lowland N/A 4 2 – dry upland N/A 3 3-7 1 3

NOTE: N/A – not applicable

3.1.5.3 Ratings Adjustments Ratings are adjusted to take into account distance to water and potential effects of sensory disturbance, as follows: • Distance to water: • Sites within 100 m of water retain their rating • sites more than 100 m and equal to or less than 200 m from water are given a maximum moderate (2) rating • sites more than 200 m and equal to or less than 800 m from water are given a maximum low (3) rating • sites more than 800 m from water are given a nil (4) rating, regardless of cover and stand type • Sensory disturbance: • Habitat ratings were reduced by 2 ranks within 50 m of primary industrial sites or major roads, and by 1 rank within 50 m of secondary roads or industrial sites, to take into account potential disturbance effects (see Appendix A). Adjustments were not applied for distance to edge because many edge openings suitable for escape are too small to be identified on habitat maps (Safine and Lindberg 2008), and thus would be underestimated in habitat modelling. Distance to the water’s edge is likely the most important edge measurement and is incorporated above.

3.1.5.4 Ratings Table The White-winged Scoter nesting habitat ratings table, model flowchart and sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance reductions are included on the accompanying CD (see Appendix A).

Page 3-4 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.2 American Bittern

3.2.1 Status American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) is blue-listed (special concern) in British Columbia (BCCDC 2009, Internet site), and is listed as sensitive in Alberta (ASRD 2005, Internet site). American Bittern has not been assessed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC).

3.2.2 Distribution

3.2.2.1 Provincial Range

British Columbia The documented breeding distribution of American Bittern in British Columbia is limited (Campbell et al. 1990a; Fraser et al. 1999). Breeding has occurred near Bear Lake (Fraser et al. 1999) and has also been confirmed from Boundary Lake near the Alberta border and from Cameron Lake just north of Chetwynd (Campbell 2009, pers. comm.). Sightings of American Bittern have also been made from Bullmoose Flats just north of Tumbler Ridge (Campbell 2009, pers. comm.). In addition to confirmed records, it is likely that undiscovered breeding sites exist elsewhere in central British Columbia, including the Skeena and Nechako drainages (Fraser et al. 1999). Summer records of birds have been reported widely in the central and southern portions of the province, suggesting the possibility of nesting (Campbell et al. 1990a).

Alberta In Alberta, the American Bittern is widely distributed throughout the province, although the species is not often encountered in the Boreal Forest and Rocky Mountain Natural Regions (Semenchuk 1992; FAN 2007). Its breeding range extends across much of the province, including the PEAA (Semenchuk 1992; FAN 2007).

3.2.2.2 Study Area Range The breeding range of American Bittern could potentially span almost the entire pipeline route in Alberta and British Columbia, excluding the coast and coastal mountains. Therefore, habitat modelling was conducted from KP 0 near Bruderheim, Alberta up to and including the Bulkley Ranges in British Columbia.

British Columbia Ecoprovinces: Boreal Plains, Sub-boreal Interior, Central Interior Ecoregions: Southern Alberta Upland, Central Canadian Rocky Mountains, Fraser Basin, Fraser River Plateau, Bulkley Ranges Ecosections: Kiskatinaw Plateau, Hart Foothills, Southern Hard Ranges, McGregor Plateau, Nechako Lowland, Babine Upland, Bulkley Basin, Nechako Upland, Bulkley Ranges Biogeoclimatic Zones: Boreal White and Black Spruce, Sub-Boreal Spruce

2010 Page 3-5

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

Alberta Natural Regions: Parkland, Boreal Forest, Foothills Natural Subregions: Central Parkland, Central Mixedwood, Dry Mixedwood, Lower Foothills

3.2.2.3 Elevational Range

British Columbia Breeding: 0 to 1,300 m (Campbell et al. 1990a)

Alberta No information available.

3.2.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites American Bitterns are migratory throughout much of their range in Alberta and British Columbia. The primary life requisites of American Bittern in the PEAA are reproducing and foraging. Breeding habitats are used for nesting and foraging, and also for shelter and security. Therefore, habitat suitability was rated only for reproducing habitat and it is assumed that all living requirements are met in these habitats (FAN 2007). Primary foraging habitat for non-breeding birds is considered to be similar to breeding habitat.

3.2.3.1 Reproducing Habitat American Bitterns nest primarily in freshwater wetlands with tall, dense emergent vegetation (bulrush, cattail, Scirpus sp., Salix sp.; Gibbs et al. 1992, Internet site). Preferred vegetation cover at wetland nest sites is 1.3 m tall with an average density of 117 stems/m2 (Hanowski and Niemi 1986, cited in Gibbs et al. 1992, Internet site). Tall (20 to 85 cm) upland grass cover adjacent to wetlands may also sometimes be used (Lor 2007), whereas tidal marshes and sparsely vegetated wetlands are rarely used (Gibbs et al. 1992, Internet site). In wetland areas, American Bitterns build well-concealed floating or platform nests above mud or water that is 5 to 60 cm deep (Gibbs et al. 1992, Internet site; Lor and Malecki 2006). Successful nesting is dependent on stable water levels (Gibbs et al. 1992, Internet site). In British Columbia, American Bitterns breed in wet areas dominated by dense emergent vegetation or tall grasses (Campbell et al. 1990a). Nesting sites include any shallow, well-vegetated areas associated with freshwater sloughs, marshes, swamps, or the shallow protected edges of lakes and slow-moving rivers. Dry fields and marshes may be used occasionally, while there are few nesting records in tidal marshes (Campbell et al. 1990a). Breeding habitat in Alberta is similar and described as wet areas with dense emergent vegetation or tall grasses, including marshes, swamps, moist meadows, wet alder or willow thickets (Semenchuk 1992; FAN 2007). Drier meadows may sometimes also be used (Semenchuk 1992).

Page 3-6 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

American Bittern nest in wetlands of various sizes, ranging from 0.1 ha to over 1,000 ha (Gibbs et al. 1992, Internet site). However, they prefer nesting in larger wetlands (more than 10 ha in Iowa, Brown and Dinsmore 1986; and 4 ha in New York, Eaton 1910, cited in Gibbs et al. 1992, Internet site). In western New York, the American Bittern used marshes from 2 to 155 ha but was more likely to be found in intermediate-sized wetlands from 41 to 100 ha (Lor and Malecki 2006). In Minnesota, bitterns used larger wetlands from 75 to 400 ha (Lor 2007).

3.2.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes As discussed in Section 2.2.4, habitat polygons (site series and ecosite phases) were grouped into broad habitat classes that reflect ecosystem attributes considered important for American Bittern. The key ecosystem attributes used to define nesting habitat for American Bittern include: • stand type (wetland habitat types with dense, tall emergent vegetation and grasses are preferred) • stand age (structural stages 2 and 3 are used) • soil moisture (standing water or wet sites preferred, although dry sites near wetlands are also used)

3.2.5 Ratings A four-class rating scheme was used for American Bittern.

3.2.5.1 Provincial Benchmark No provincial benchmark has been established for American Bittern habitat in British Columbia or Alberta.

3.2.5.2 Ratings Assumptions The ratings assumptions used to define habitat suitability for American Bittern are summarized below and in Table 3-2. • American Bittern prefer wetland or grassland habitats. It does not occur in forested habitats (structural stage 4 to 7), which are given a nil (4) rating. • American Bittern prefer nesting in freshwater wetlands with tall emergent vegetation, including marshes and swamps, which are given a high (1) rating. Wet sedge meadows, where vegetation is typically lower growing, were given a moderate (2) rating. Upland grasslands near wetlands, as well as tidal marshes, are given a low (3) rating. • Moist or wet areas (subhygric to hydric) are preferred for nesting and are given a higher rating, whereas drier areas (xeric to mesic) are given a lower rating. • Structural stage 2b habitats composed of emergent vegetation (cattail and bulrush) are preferred and given a high (1) rating. Structural stage 3 and 2a habitats are given a moderate (2) rating. • Ecosystem units on toe, level, or depression slope positions are considered higher suitable breeding habitat than ecosystem units on lower to upper slope, or crest positions.

2010 Page 3-7

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

• Ecosystem units on an active floodplain or terrace are considered higher suitable breeding habitat than ecosystem units on ridges.

Table 3-2 American Bittern Habitat Ratings Assumptions, Alberta and British Columbia Structural Stage Subhygric – Hydric Xeric – Mesic 1 4 4 2a 2 4 2b 1 3 3 2 3 4-7 4 4

3.2.5.3 Ratings Adjustments Ratings adjustments were made to take into account minimum patch size requirements and potential effects of sensory disturbance, as follows: • Minimum patch size requirements: habitat suitability in higher quality habitat (i.e., with moderate and high ratings) was reduced to low (3) in isolated habitat patches less than 4 ha in size to account for potential lower bird abundance in smaller habitat fragments. • Habitat ratings were reduced by 1 or 2 rankings, depending on distance to roads and other features, to take into account the potential effects of sensory disturbance (see Appendix A).

3.2.5.4 Ratings Table The American Bittern reproducing habitat ratings table, model flowchart and sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance reductions are included on the accompanying CD (see Appendix A).

3.3 Pacific Great Blue Heron

3.3.1 Status Two subspecies of Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) occur in British Columbia: A.h. fannini and A.h. herodias (Campbell et al. 1990a; Gebauer and Moul 2001). The fannini subspecies, referred to as Pacific Great Blue Heron in this TDR, occurs in coastal areas of British Columbia and is likely to be affected by project activities. The herodias subspecies breeds primarily in southern British Columbia, and birds sighted north of 52° N latitude are considered non-breeding wanderers (Campbell et al. 1990a). Therefore, this subspecies will likely have little interaction with project activities. The herodias subspecies also occurs in Alberta (Gebauer and Moul 2001) where it is listed as sensitive, and thus does not qualify for designation as a KI. Pacific Great Blue Heron is blue-listed (special concern) in British Columbia (BCCDC 2009, Internet site) and does not occur in Alberta. This subspecies is also listed as special concern by COSEWIC (2008a).

Page 3-8 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.3.2 Distribution

3.3.2.1 Provincial Range

British Columbia Pacific Great Blue Heron occupies coastal areas of British Columbia (COSEWIC 2008a). Potential areas of occupancy include terrestrial sites in the Coastal Douglas-Fir and Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic zones that are within 10 km of foraging areas (COSEWIC 2008a).

3.3.2.2 Study Area Range Non-breeding birds have been reported in the Kitimat area (Campbell et al. 1990a), and although breeding has not been documented along the coast near Kitimat (breeding is primarily concentrated in the Strait of Georgia), Fraser et al. (1999, cited in Gebauer and Moul 2001) identified coastal habitat around Douglas Channel as a possible breeding area. Based on this information, habitat modelling was conducted from KP 1110.0 to KP 1172, which is all within 10 km of Kitimat Arm (COSEWIC 2008a).

British Columbia Ecoprovinces: Coast and Mountains Ecoregions: Coastal Gap, Nass Ranges Ecosections: Kitimat Ranges, Nass Mountains Biogeoclimatic Zones: Coastal Western Hemlock

3.3.2.3 Elevational Range

British Columbia Breeding: 0 to 1,100 m (Campbell et al. 1990a)

3.3.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites Pacific Great Blue Heron are a year-round resident in coastal parts of the PEAA (Campbell et al. 1990a). The primary life requisites of this heron in the PEAA are reproducing (nesting) and living (foraging). It uses distinctly different habitats for each life requisite, so each is rated separately.

3.3.3.1 Reproducing Habitat Great Blue Heron nest in trees in contiguous or fragmented forests (Campbell et al. 1990a). The species of tree does not appear to be important as nesting has been documented in red alder, black cottonwood, bigleaf maple, lodgepole pine, Sitka spruce and Douglas-fir (summarized in Gebauer and Moul 2001). In southern coastal areas, red alder and black cottonwood are the most common nest trees (Butler 1991; Gebauer 1995). Heights of nests range from 7 to 70 m with 65% being between 17 and 30 m (Forbes et al. 1985). Nests are typically built in structural stage 5, 6 and 7 stands (Vennesland 2004) although younger

2010 Page 3-9

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

stands are also used (Gebauer and Moul 2001). Nest sites are within 10 km of foraging areas (Butler 1995) and, on the coast, generally occur near sea level (Campbell et al. 1990a; Vennesland 2004).

3.3.3.2 Living and Foraging Habitat Great Blue Heron feed on a wide variety of animals, including small fish, amphibians, snakes, invertebrates and small mammals (Butler 1992). Small fish are the primary prey for adult birds, while small mammals are important for juveniles during winter (Butler 1992, 1995). Primary foraging habitat for herons is aquatic, although they also use terrestrial areas. Foraging habitat for Pacific Great Blue Heron includes tidal mudflats, slow-moving rivers, lakes, ponds, marshes, wetlands and sloughs (Campbell et al. 1990a; Butler 1992; Gebauer and Moul 2001). Grasslands, pastures and old cultivated fields are also used during winter in southern coastal areas and provide important habitat for juveniles (Butler 1995).

3.3.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes As discussed in Section 2.2.4, habitat polygons (site series and ecosite phases) were grouped into broad habitat classes that reflect ecosystem attributes considered important for Pacific Great Blue Heron. The key ecosystem attributes used to define nesting habitat for Pacific Great Blue Heron include: • stand type (forested stands used) • stand age (structural stages 6 and 7 preferred) The key ecosystem attributes used to define living (foraging) habitat for Pacific Great Blue Heron include: • stand type (wetlands, tidal marshes, tidal mudflats, rivers, lakes, ponds, sloughs are preferred) • stand age (structural stage 2b and 2c are used) • terrain (flooded sites are preferred)

3.3.5 Ratings A four-class rating scheme was used to rate Pacific Great Blue Heron reproducing and living habitats.

3.3.5.1 Provincial Benchmark No provincial benchmark has been established for Pacific Great Blue Heron habitat in British Columbia.

3.3.5.2 Ratings Assumptions

Reproducing The ratings assumptions used to define reproducing habitat suitability for Pacific Great Blue Heron are summarized below and in Table 3-3. • Nesting occurs in forested habitats. Non-forested stands (structural stage 1 and 2) are given a nil (4) rating for nesting.

Page 3-10 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

• Structural stage 6 and 7 habitats are preferred for nesting and are given a high (1) rating. Structural stage 5 stands are given a moderate (2) rating, and structural stage 3 and 4 habitats (including mountain pine beetle stands) are given a low (3) rating. • Both coniferous and deciduous trees can be used for nesting.

Table 3-3 Pacific Great Blue Heron - Ratings Assumptions for Reproducing Habitat, Coastal British Columbia Structural Stage Rating 1 – 2 4 3 – 4 3 5 2 6-7 1

Living (Foraging) The ratings assumptions used to define living (foraging) habitat suitability for Pacific Great Blue Heron are summarized below and in Table 3-4. • Preferred foraging habitats include flooded (hydric) areas such as wetlands, tidal marshes, and tidal mudflats, as well as rivers, lakes, ponds, and sloughs, and are given a high (1) rating. Grasslands, pastures and cultivated fields are also given a high rating as these may be important habitat for juveniles. Suitable graminoid habitats may be wet or dry. • Foraging occurs in non-forested stands. Therefore, forested and shrub-dominated stands (structural stages 3 to 7), including mountain pine beetle stands, are given a nil (4) rating. • Structural stage 2c (aquatic) habitats provide suitable foraging areas and are given a high (1) rating. Similarly, structural stage 2b (graminoid-dominated) habitats may also provide high quality foraging areas for juveniles.

Table 3-4 Pacific Great Blue Heron - Ratings Assumptions for Living and Foraging Habitat, Coastal British Columbia Slope/Site Structural Stage Toe, Floodplain Crest, Upper 1 4 4 2a, 2d 3 4 2b, 2c 1 3 3-7 4 4

2010 Page 3-11

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.3.5.3 Ratings Adjustments Ratings adjustments were made to take into account the potential effects of sensory disturbance on nesting and foraging birds. Nesting Great Blue Herons can be sensitive to disturbance and are known to abandon nesting sites as a result of nearby development (Gebauer and Moul 2001). However, some heron colonies are relatively long-lived in areas where development is abundant and ongoing (e.g., Stanley Park, Vancouver in Campbell et al. 1990a; Vernon in Siddle 2008; Central Saanich on southern Vancouver Island, M. Preston, pers. obs.). Where abandonment does occur, distance between the disturbance and nesting colony greatly influences the outcome; sensory disturbance buffers of 250 m around nest sites have been recommended to prevent abandonment (Gebauer and Moul 2001). As a result, nesting habitat ratings were reduced by 2 rankings within 250 m of primary roads and industrial sites, and by 1 ranking within 250 m of secondary roads and industrial sites (see Appendix A). Foraging birds are not considered as sensitive to disturbance as nesting birds. Therefore, foraging habitat ratings were only reduced within 50 m of primary and secondary roads, as well as other disturbance features (see Appendix A).

3.3.5.4 Ratings Table The Pacific Great Blue Heron nesting and living habitat ratings tables, model flowcharts and sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance reductions are included on the accompanying CD (see Appendix A).

3.4 Northern Goshawk

3.4.1 Status Two subspecies of Northern Goshawk occur in British Columbia: Accipiter gentilis atricapillus and A.g. laingi. The A.g. atricapillus subspecies occurs throughout the entire PEAA, east of the Wet Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic subzone. There are no confirmed occurrences of A.g. laingi in the coastal portion of the PEAA (Wildlife Data and Field Surveys TDR [Wiacek and Sargent 2010]). However, recent range maps developed by the Northern Goshawk Recovery Team (NGRT) indicate that A.g. laingi could occur in the PEAA, and that it likely overlaps with A.g. atricapillus in the transition zone between subspecies (NGRT 2008). For this reason, models for both subspecies were developed for the PEAA, although ratings would not differ if both subspecies were considered together. The subspecies A.g. atricapillus is considered not at risk in Canada (COSEWIC 1995, Internet site). The nominate species (A. gentilis) is ranked as sensitive in Alberta (ASRD 2005, Internet site), and this rating applies to A.g. atricapillus, the only subspecies known to occur in Alberta. A. gentilis is yellow-listed and considered not at risk in British Columbia (BCCDC 2009, Internet site). The subspecies A.g. laingi, which in Canada occurs only in British Columbia, is considered threatened federally (COSEWIC 2000), and is red-listed in British Columbia (BCCDC 2009, Internet site).

Page 3-12 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.4.2 Distribution

3.4.2.1 Provincial Range

Alberta and British Columbia A.g. atricapillus breeds throughout the forested regions of British Columbia’s mainland, and east throughout the northern forest regions of Alberta (Schaffer 1998; Cooper and Stevens 2000). It also occurs in portions of the Coast and Mountains ecoprovince in British Columbia, where it may overlap with A.g. laingi (NGRT 2008). In northern and western portions of Alberta it is most common in the Boreal Forest, Foothills, and Parkland Natural Regions (Semenchuk 1992). As of 1994 in Alberta, there were 33 confirmed, 14 probable and 18 possible Northern Goshawk breeding records (Duncan and Kirk 1995; Schaffer 1998). In British Columbia, more than 250 breeding records have been recorded from various studies between 1990 and 2008; a good number of these are multi-year nestings of the same pair (e.g., Mahon 2007). Current population estimates are as yet undetermined. A.g. laingi occurs mainly on coastal islands and its distribution in coastal mainland British Columbia is unknown, however, it is likely that they also inhabit mainland coastal forests (McClaren 2004; NGRT 2008).

3.4.2.2 Study Area Range A.g. atricapillus may occur in suitable forest habitat along the entire length of the pipeline route, including the Coast Ranges (COSEWIC 2000). Although occurrence of A.g. laingi has not been confirmed in the PEAA (COSEWIC 2000; McClaren 2004), it is included here on the basis of assumed occurrence (NGRT 2008). Northern Goshawk research and habitat suitability mapping has taken place in many areas along the pipeline route in British Columbia, including the Skeena-Stikine Forest District (formerly the Kispiox Forest District; Doyle and Mahon 2001; Hawkes and Neal 1999), Morice and Lakes Forest District (Keystone Wildlife Research 1997; Mahon and Doyle 2003; Morice and Lakes Innovative Forest Practices Agreement [Morice and Lakes IFPA] 2003, 2004), and the North Coast Forest District (Mahon et al. 2003). Northern Goshawk research has also taken place in several areas south of the pipeline route, including the Cariboo Region (Bosakowski and Rithaler 1997) and the Columbia Forest District (Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. 2001). Schaffer (1998) produced a habitat suitability index model for Northern Goshawk in central Alberta.

British Columbia Ecoprovinces: Boreal Plains, Central Interior, Coast and Mountains, Sub-boreal Interior Ecoregions: Southern Alberta Upland, Central Canadian Rocky Mountains, Coastal Gap, Inner Pacific Shelf, Fraser Basin, Fraser Plateau, Nass Ranges Ecosections: Kiskatinaw Plateau, Hart Foothills, Southern Hart Ranges, McGregor Plateau, Nechako Lowland, Babine Upland, Bulkley Basin, Nechako Upland, Bulkley Ranges, Nass Mountains, Kitimat Ranges

2010 Page 3-13

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

Biogeoclimatic Zones: Coastal Western Hemlock, Boreal White and Black Spruce, Sub-Boreal Spruce, Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir. A.g. laingi and A.g. atricapillus likely overlap in drier variants of the Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic zone, while only A.g. laingi occurs in wet variants of this zone.

Alberta Natural Regions: Boreal Forest, Foothills, Parkland Natural Subregions: Central Mixedwood, Central Parkland, Dry Mixedwood, Lower Foothills

3.4.2.3 Elevational Range

British Columbia Breeding: 0 to 1,400 m (Campbell et al. 1990b); restricted to 900 m in the Coast Ranges (McClaren 2003) Non-breeding: 0 to 2,290 m (Campbell et al. 1990b)

Alberta No specific information, although the species likely occurs at all elevations throughout the PEAA.

3.4.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites Northern Goshawk occurs as a year-round resident and migratory bird in Alberta and British Columbia (Campbell et al. 1990a; Semenchuk 1992). The British Columbia Wildlife Habitat Ratings Standards (RIC 1999) specify that, at a minimum, habitat modelling should include all-season living habitat for resident bird species. Although this was considered, the greatest potential effects of the Project on Northern Goshawk will likely be related to disturbance or loss of reproducing or nesting habitat. As a result, habitat modelling is focused on suitable reproducing (nesting) habitat.

3.4.3.1 Reproducing Habitat The breeding home range of Northern Goshawk is traditionally described as having three hierarchically organized units: foraging area, post-fledging area, and nest area and nest site (Hawkes and Neal 1999; Cooper and Stevens 2000; Mahon 2007). The nest site is defined as a tree containing a nest and 1 ha of land surrounding it (Cooper and Stevens 2000). Typically, nests are built in almost any kind of tree, provided that the tree is forked or divided to provide good anchorage for the nest (Keystone Wildlife Research 1997). In British Columbia, Northern Goshawk nests in a variety of coniferous and deciduous tree species, including trembling aspen, Douglas-fir, black cottonwood, larch, ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, birch, spruce, western hemlock, red alder, and amabilis fir (Reynolds et al. 1982; Campbell et al. 1990b; Mahon and Franklin 1997; McClaren 1997). Sizes of nest trees vary among regions, although they are consistently the largest tree in the stand, and trees within the stand tend to be larger than those in the surrounding area (Cooper and Stevens 2000). In the Morice and Lakes Forest District of British Columbia, average diameter at breast height (dbh) of nest trees was 30 cm (17 to 63 cm range), with a mean height of 24 m (Mahon and Doyle 2003). Nest sites are

Page 3-14 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models usually situated within mature or old forest (structural stages 6 and 7; Keystone Wildlife Research 1997), 120 to 360 m from a lake or river (Keystone Wildlife Research 1997), and in structurally diverse stands that are removed from anthropogenic influence (McClaren 2004). Nests are often on benches, slope toes or level ground; where slope is substantial and nests are usually on the lower one-third of the slope (Cooper and Stevens 2000). The nest is constructed from sticks and bark, about 60 to 100 cm in diameter and 25 to 100 cm deep, and always well below the forest crown in an exposed position (Beebe 1974; Mahon and Doyle 2003). Nest height is dependent on tree height, but averages 15.3 m (8.1 to 23.2 m range) above ground (Mahon and Doyle 2003). In British Columbia, the nest area which surrounds the nest site (1 ha) has been found to range between 8 and 50 ha (Mahon and Doyle 2005). In one study near Prince George, average nest area size was 24 ha (Mahon and Doyle 2000). The nest area, for which high fidelity is often demonstrated, is characterized by a relatively homogeneous stand of mature forest with high canopy closure. Nest areas, which are also centres for courtship, often contain several alternative nest trees, roost trees, and plucking posts (McClaren 2003). Cooper and Stevens (2000) summarized the characteristics common to Northern Goshawk nest areas in western North America, as: • mature to old-growth forests • canopy closure more than 60% • open understorey • gentle to moderate incline (less than 40%), generally on benches, slope toes or level ground • northern exposure, northeast to northwest (Note: In British Columbia Mahon and Doyle [2003] did not observe aspect selection.) • often close to a perennial water source • proximity to abundant prey base The post-fledging area is an area of approximately 200 ha that surrounds and includes the nest site and nest area (Mahon 2007). It is an important area where recently fledged goshawks learn to fly and hunt at a time when they are particularly sensitive to predation (Daw and DeStefano 2001). Post-fledging areas should have abundant prey habitat (characterized by snags and coarse woody debris) and extensive canopy cover (more than 50%) to provide adequate food and protection (Daw and DeStefano 2001). Over time, post-fledging areas tend to show directional drift from the nest site (Mahon and Doyle 2003), which may be a response to the direction from which parents bring food. Fledglings tend to avoid edges during the first three weeks, but then start using these habitats as they become stronger, more capable hunters.

3.4.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes The key ecosystem attributes used to delineate reproducing habitat for Northern Goshawk are summarized in Table 3-5.

2010 Page 3-15

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

Table 3-5 Northern Goshawk Habitat Requirements and Ecosystem Attributes in the PEAA Life Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Requisite Requirement Key Attributes Attribute Reproducing Nest tree In trembling aspen, Douglas-fir, • Site: Slope, aspect, elevation, black cottonwood, larch, lodgepole ecosystem type, disturbance, pine, birch, white spruce, western distance to water, distance to hemlock, Sitka spruce, and red edge. alder; highly forked and branched • Vegetation: Percent cover by trees; ≥17 cm dbh with nest ≥5 m layer, canopy coverage, up; on bottom 1/3 of slope or level species list by layer, tree ground diameter and height, basal Nest Area ~8 to 24 ha; mature to old-growth area of trees, and tree density. forest; canopy closure >60%; open understorey with snags and coarse woody debris; structurally diverse; low or no slope; close to perennial water source; far from urban areas. Post-fledging ~200 ha; mature to old-growth Area forest; canopy closure >50%; open understorey with snags and coarse woody debris; abundant prey.

3.4.5 Ratings There is a moderate level of knowledge of Northern Goshawk habitat requirements in Alberta and British Columbia. Consequently, a 4-class rating scheme of habitat suitability will be used (1 = high; 2 = moderate; 3 = low; 4 = nil). A.g. laingi: model only Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic zones in the Kitimat Ranges, Nass Mountains and North Coast Fjords ecosections A.g. atricapillus: model all ecosystem units, except where the biogeoclimatic unit is Coastal Western Hemlock, Very Wet Maritime Submontane variant or Coastal Western Hemlock, Very Wet Maritime Montane variant

3.4.5.1 Provincial Benchmark No provincial benchmark has been established for Northern Goshawk habitat in British Columbia or Alberta.

Page 3-16 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.4.5.2 Ratings Assumptions

Alberta and British Columbia The ratings assumptions, used to define habitat suitability for Northern Goshawk, are summarized below and in Table 3-6. • For A.g. atricapillus, ecosystem units below 900 m elevation were rated higher than ecosystem units above 900 m. A.g. laingi habitat was only rated below 900 m. • Mature and old-growth forests (structural stages 6 and 7) were rated higher than younger forests (structural stage 5). Pole/sapling forests and open sites were rated nil (4). • Forested ecosystem units with canopy cover more than 60% were considered optimal habitat. Adjustments were made to suitability ratings for forested ecosystem units with more open canopy: suitability decreased by one class for 35% to 60% canopy cover (to a maximum of class 3); and by 2 classes for less than 35% cover, including all “irregular” stands (to a maximum of class 3). • Multistorey canopy forests, with increased vertical structure, were considered less suitable, due to inhibited mobility: suitability decreased by one class for these forest types. • An abundant, tall, shrub layer was considered less suitable, due to inhibited mobility: suitability decreased by one class for forested ecosystem units with more than 50% shrub cover or tall understorey. • Forested ecosystem units occurring on lower slope or toe positions were considered more suitable than upper slope or ridge-top positions: suitability increased by one class for lower slope and toe positions. Suitability decreased by one class for ridge-top ecosystem units. Very steep slopes (more than 100%) were rated nil.

Table 3-6 Northern Goshawk Habitat Ratings Assumptions, Alberta and British Columbia Elevation below 900 m Elevation above 900 m Deciduous or Deciduous or Structural Stage Mixedwood Coniferous Mixedwood Coniferous 2 – 4 4 4 4 4 5 2 2 3 3 6 – 7 1 1 2 3

3.4.5.3 Ratings Adjustments Ratings adjustments were made as follows: • Mountain pine beetle (MPB) stands were rated nil (4) because of decreased canopy cover. • Minimum patch size requirements: habitat polygons less than 8 ha in size were rated nil (4) for nesting.

2010 Page 3-17

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

• Habitat ratings were reduced within 200 m of primary roads and industrial sites, and within 100 m of secondary roads and other disturbance features to take into account the effects of sensory disturbance (Grubb et al. 1998; King et al. 2001) (see Appendix A).

3.4.5.4 Ratings Table The Northern Goshawk nesting habitat ratings table, model flowchart and sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance reductions are included on the accompanying CD (see Appendix A).

3.5 Yellow Rail

3.5.1 Status The status of Yellow Rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis) is undetermined in Alberta (ASRD 2005, Internet site) because of limited data availability. In British Columbia, Yellow Rail is red-listed (BCCDC 2009, Internet site), but occurs only accidentally and therefore, is unlikely to overlap with the PEAA (Wilson 2009, pers. comm.). As a result, Yellow Rail is not considered further in British Columbia.

3.5.2 Distribution

3.5.2.1 Provincial Range

Alberta Yellow Rail is distributed widely but sparsely across Alberta (Prescott et al. 2002). Its breeding range includes the Boreal Forest, Foothills and Parkland Natural Regions (FAN 2007).

3.5.2.2 Study Area Range Breeding bird atlas data and field surveys conducted by Prescott et al. (2002) suggest Yellow Rail could breed along the pipeline route from Bruderheim, Alberta to the Alberta–British Columbia boundary, although likelihood of occurrence is expected to decrease west of the Simonette River (Prescott 2002; FAN 2007). Based on this information, habitat modelling for Yellow Rail was conducted from KP 0 to 500, excluding the Upper Foothills Natural Subregion.

Alberta Natural Regions: Parklands, Boreal Forest, Foothills Natural Subregions: Central Parkland, Dry Mixedwood, Central Mixedwood, Lower Foothills

3.5.2.3 Elevational Range

Alberta No specific information is available.

Page 3-18 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.5.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites Yellow Rail is present in western Canada only during the breeding season (mid April to mid August). As a migrant, the primary life requisite of Yellow Rail in the PEAA is reproducing. Breeding habitats are used for nesting and foraging, and for shelter and security. Therefore, habitat suitability was rated only for reproducing habitat and it is assumed that all living requirements are met in these habitats.

3.5.3.1 Reproducing Habitat Yellow Rails breed in wet meadows dominated by sedges and other low herbaceous vegetation (Bookhout 1995, Internet site; Prescott et al. 2002; Semenchuk 2007). This species prefers seasonal wetlands (Prescott et al. 2002) with little or no standing water, i.e., less than 12 cm (Bookhout 1995, Internet site). Researchers have suggested that habitat selection may be influenced more by plant physiognomy (i.e., preference for fine-stemmed plants) and water levels than particular vegetation species (Alvo and Robert 1999). Vegetation height does not appear to be important, although a matted canopy of senescent vegetation is a frequent characteristic of Yellow Rail nests (Stenzel 1982). Meadows or wetlands dominated by cattails or shrubby vegetation, such as willow or birch, are usually avoided for nesting (Bookhout 1995, Internet site; Semenchuk 2007). Meadow size does not appear to be an important factor, with Yellow Rail nesting in marshes and meadows ranging from less than 1 ha (Alvo and Robert 1999) to greater than 10 ha (Gibbs et al. 1991).

3.5.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes As discussed in Section 2.2.4, habitat polygons (site series and ecosite phases) were grouped into broad habitat classes that reflect ecosystem attributes considered important for Yellow Rail. The key ecosystem attributes used to define nesting habitat for Yellow Rail include: • stand type (wet sedge meadows preferred) • stand age (structural stage 2b preferred) • soil moisture (wet sites preferred)

3.5.5 Ratings A four-class rating scheme was used for Yellow Rail.

3.5.5.1 Provincial Benchmark No provincial benchmark for evaluating habitat ratings has been established for Yellow Rail in Alberta.

3.5.5.2 Ratings Assumptions The ratings assumptions used to define habitat suitability for Yellow Rail are summarized below and in Table 3-7. • Yellow Rail is restricted to early successional habitats and does not occur in forested stands. Forested stands are given a nil (4) rating.

2010 Page 3-19

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

• Yellow Rail occurs primarily in sedge habitats. Wet sedge and grassy meadows with or without scattered shrubs are likely preferred and are given a high (1) rating. Open, wet, shrub-dominated areas are given a low (3) rating. • Wet (subhygric to hydric) habitats are preferred and are given a high (1) rating.

Table 3-7 Yellow Rail Habitat Ratings Assumptions Moisture Regime Structural Stage Subhygric – Hydric Xeric – Mesic 1 4 4 2a 2 4 2b 1 4 2d, 3 3 4 4 – 7 4 4

3.5.5.3 Ratings Adjustments No information is available on the response of Yellow Rail to habitat fragmentation, edge effects and other disturbances. They nest in both small (less than 1 ha) and larger (more than 10 ha) wetlands (Alvo and Robert 1999) and thus, may not be sensitive to patch size. Subsequently, no ratings adjustments were applied to account for habitat fragmentation or edge effects. It is not known whether Yellow Rail are affected by noise disturbance, as reported for songbirds in forested habitat (Habib 2006; Habib et al. 2007). However, because vocalizations of males have breeding functions (Bookhout 1995, Internet site), it is reasonable to assume that noise disturbance may affect Yellow Rail abundance and nesting success, in a manner similar to that of songbirds (e.g., Habib 2006; Habib et al. 2007). Therefore, ratings adjustments were applied as follows: • Noise disturbance: habitat suitability in higher quality habitat (i.e., with moderate and high ratings) was reduced to low (3) within 250 m of existing compressor stations and other noisy areas (e.g., highways, towns) to account for the potential effects of anthropogenic noise on bird abundance and reproductive success (Habib 2006; Habib et al. 2007).

3.5.5.4 Ratings Table The Yellow Rail reproducing habitat ratings table, model flowchart and sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance reductions are included on the accompanying CD (see Appendix A).

3.6 Sandhill Crane

3.6.1 Status Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis) is yellow-listed in British Columbia (BCCDC 2009, Internet site). It was recently removed from the blue list because of long-term increases in population size and range (BCCDC 2009, Internet site). In Alberta, it is listed as sensitive (ASRD 2005, Internet site).

Page 3-20 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.6.2 Distribution

3.6.2.1 Provincial Range

British Columbia Sandhill Crane has a broad distribution in British Columbia, particularly during migration (Cooper 1996). However, the known breeding range is restricted to the Central Interior ecoprovince, Boreal Plains ecoprovince, the Queen Charlotte Islands2, central mainland coast, East Kootenay Trench, Fort Nelson Lowland and Fraser Lowland (Campbell et al. 1990b; Cooper 1996; Fraser et al. 1999; Manning and Cooper 2004). Nesting has also been reported near Vanderhoof (Campbell et al. 1990b). Breeding has been confirmed near Chetwynd (Campbell et al. 2007a), and is probable on the Kiskatinaw Plateau.

Alberta Sandhill Cranes migrate through much of Alberta (Semenchuk 1992). Breeding is widely distributed across the Boreal Forest and Foothills Natural Regions and occurs rarely in the Parkland Natural Region (Semenchuk 1992; FAN 2007). Probable nesting has been inferred along the Wapiti River west of Grande Prairie (FAN 2007).

3.6.2.2 Study Area Range Sandhill Cranes occur across much of the PEAA. Nesting may be widely dispersed, especially in British Columbia. Breeding records near Vanderhoof and in the Boreal Plains ecoprovince indicate that the species could nest along the PEAA. Until more comprehensive surveys are conducted to confirm species breeding distribution, it is assumed that Sandhill Crane may nest in appropriate habitat along the entire PEAA in British Columbia (Gebauer 2004). Therefore, based on the above information, habitat modelling for Sandhill Crane was conducted from KP 0 to KP 1172.

British Columbia Ecoprovinces: Boreal Plains, Sub-boreal Interior, Central Interior, Coast and Mountains Ecoregions: Southern Alberta Upland, Central Canadian Rocky Mountains, Fraser Basin, Fraser River Plateau, Bulkley Ranges, Nass Ranges, Coastal Gap Ecosections: Kiskatinaw Plateau, Hart Foothills, McGregor Plateau, Nechako Lowland, Babine Upland, Bulkley Basin, Bulkley Ranges, Nechako Upland, Kitimat Ranges, Nass Mountains Biogeoclimatic Zones: Boreal White and Black Spruce, Sub-Boreal Spruce, Coastal Western Hemlock

2 In December 2009, the Queen Charlotte Islands were renamed Haida Gwaii. The previous name is retained for consistency with reviewed literature.

2010 Page 3-21

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

Alberta Natural Regions: Boreal Forest, Foothills Natural Subregions: Central Mixedwood, Dry Mixedwood, Lower Foothills

3.6.2.3 Elevational Range

British Columbia Breeding: 0 to 1,200 m (Campbell et al. 1990b)

Alberta No specific information is available.

3.6.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites Sandhill Cranes occur as migrant and breeding birds in Alberta and British Columbia. Therefore, the primary life requisites of cranes in the PEAA are migrating and reproducing. Habitat suitability was rated for both life requisites. An important component of migrating habitat is the availability of food. Therefore, ratings for migrating habitat reflect availability of food resources. Ratings for reproducing habitat reflect breeding requirements of cranes. Breeding territories are used for nesting, foraging and roosting (Tacha et al. 1992, Internet site; Cooper 1996).

3.6.3.1 Reproducing Habitat Sandhill Cranes nest in isolated bogs, marshes, swamps, meadows and other secluded freshwater wetlands (Campbell et al. 1990b; Cooper 1996; Gebauer 2004). An important component of these sites is the presence of emergent vegetation such as sedges, cattail, bulrush, willows and Labrador tea (Gebauer 2004). Nests may be built on the ground, but are usually built over water in emergent vegetation or on raised hummocks (Campbell et al. 1990b; Gebauer 2004). Suitable nesting wetlands are usually surrounded by forest, which provides security against sensory disturbance and escape cover for young birds (Gebauer 2004). Clear-cuts are occasionally used for nesting (Campbell et al. 1990b), but are not considered suitable habitat (Gebauer 2004). Furthermore, Cooper (1996) suggested that cranes avoid nesting in wetlands adjacent to clear-cuts. Wetland size is not considered an important factor for nesting; rather, isolation and the presence of water may be more important (Cooper 1996).

Page 3-22 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.6.3.2 Migrating and Foraging Habitat Grain fields are an extremely important habitat for migrating cranes across their range, but are of less importance in British Columbia because of limited availability (Cooper 1996). In British Columbia, wetlands, marshes, swamps, bogs, ponds, meadows, dry grasslands, flooded fields, pastures, grain fields and estuarine meadows are used by foraging and roosting birds during migration (Campbell et al. 1990b; Cooper 1996). Important characteristics of migration habitat are unobstructed views of surrounding areas and isolation from disturbance (Lovvorn and Kirkpatrick 1981); therefore, open habitats are likely preferred.

3.6.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes As discussed in Section 2.2.4, habitat polygons (site series and ecosite phases) were grouped into broad habitat classes that reflect ecosystem attributes considered important for reproducing and migrating Sandhill Cranes. The key ecosystem attributes used to define nesting habitat for Sandhill Crane include: • stand type (marshes, bogs, swamps, meadows and other wetland sites are preferred) • soil moisture (wet or hydric sites are preferred) • stand age (structural stages 2 to 3 are preferred, although sparsely treed bogs are also used for nesting) The key ecosystem attributes used to define migrating (foraging) habitat for Sandhill Crane include: • stand type (open wetlands, marshes, bogs or upland fields are preferred) • stand age (structural stage 2 is preferred) • terrain (both flooded and dry sites are used)

3.6.5 Ratings A four-class rating scheme was used to rate Sandhill Crane reproducing and migrating habitat.

3.6.5.1 Provincial Benchmark No provincial benchmark has been established for Sandhill Crane habitat in British Columbia or Alberta.

3.6.5.2 Ratings Assumptions

Reproducing The ratings assumptions used to define nesting habitat suitability for Sandhill Cranes are summarized below and in Table 3-8. • Sandhill Crane nests in wetlands, marshes, swamps, bogs and wetlands. Nesting does not occur in closed, forested habitats, and these habitat types are given a nil (4) rating (although adjacent forest cover is important; see ratings adjustments below). Presence of emergent vegetation (sedge, cattail, bulrush, willows and Labrador tea) is important and characterizes high quality sites.

2010 Page 3-23

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

• Structural stage 2 and 3 habitats are likely preferred for nesting and are given a high (1) rating. Sparsely treed bog habitats (structural stage 4 to 7) are also given a high (1) rating. Other forested stands (structural stage 4 to 7 habitats) are given a nil (4) rating. • Wet or hydric sites are preferred for nesting and are given a high (1) rating. Dry sites are given a low (3) rating.

Table 3-8 Sandhill Crane - Ratings Assumptions for Nesting Habitat Moisture Regime Structural Stage Subhygric – Hydric Xeric – Mesic 1 4 4 2 – 3 1 3 4 – 7 (open) 1 4 4 – 7 (closed) 4 4

Migrating (Foraging) The ratings assumptions, used to define migrating (foraging) habitat suitability for Sandhill Crane, are summarized below and in Table 3-9. • Foraging occurs in non-forested habitats, although sparsely treed bogs and fens may be used. Closed forest stands are given a nil (4) rating. • Preferred foraging habitats include wetlands, coastal and inland marshes, swamps, open fens, open bogs, ponds, meadows, upland grasslands and agricultural fields, and are given a high (1) rating. Closed forests are given a nil (4) rating. • Structural stage 2 habitats and open bogs and fens (structural stages 4 to 7) provide suitable foraging areas and are given a high (1) rating. Open shrub (structural stage 3) habitats may also be used and are given a low (3) rating. Closed forests (structural stages 4 to 7) are not considered suitable for foraging and are given a nil (4) rating. • Both wet and dry sites (xeric to hydric) are used for foraging during migration.

Table 3-9 Sandhill Crane - Ratings Assumptions for Migrating and Foraging Habitat Structural Stage Subhygric – Hydric Xeric – Mesic 1 4 4 2 1 1 3 3 3 4 – 7 (open) 1 3 4 – 7 (closed) 4 4

Page 3-24 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.6.5.3 Ratings Adjustments

Reproducing In British Columbia, wetland size is not considered important for crane occupancy (Cooper 1996) and thus ratings were not adjusted for patch size. Laudenslayer and Parisi (2007) indicated that the minimum patch size for persistence of a reproducing pair is from 0.2 to 2.0 ha. Cranes are sensitive to disturbance and prefer to nest in isolated areas (Cooper 1996; Gebauer 2004), thus, sites that are disturbed may be avoided, and forest buffers surrounding wetlands may be important (Cooper 1996; Gebauer 2004). Wetlands that occur adjacent to cutblocks may be avoided or have lower use by nesting birds. Consequently, the following adjustments were made: • Wetlands that do not have contiguous forest buffers and are adjacent to cutblocks are given a low (3) rating. • Ratings are also reduced for wetlands and other nesting sites that occur within 200 m of roads and other sources of sensory disturbance (Cooper 1996).

Migrating (Foraging) Although cranes are sensitive to disturbance, they may be more tolerant of disturbance during migration. Therefore, habitat suitability was reduced only within 100 m of active disturbances such as roads, towns and construction sites.

3.6.5.4 Ratings Table The Sandhill Crane reproducing and foraging habitat ratings tables, model flowcharts and sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance reductions are included on the accompanying CD (see Appendix A).

3.7 Western Screech-Owl

3.7.1 Status Two subspecies of Western Screech-Owl (Megascops kennicottii) occur in British Columbia: M. k. macfarlanei occurs in the southern interior of British Columbia, while M. k. kennicotti occurs along the west coast (COSEWIC 2002). M. k. kennicotti is the only subspecies that overlaps with the PEAA. Therefore, unless otherwise specified, the term Western Screech-Owl in this TDR refers to the M. k. kennicottii subspecies. Western Screech-Owl is blue-listed (special concern) in British Columbia (BCCDC 2009, Internet site), and is listed as a species of special concern by COSEWIC (2002). It does not occur in Alberta.

2010 Page 3-25

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.7.2 Distribution

3.7.2.1 Provincial Range

British Columbia Western Screech-Owl is found on Vancouver Island and the adjacent mainland east through the Central Fraser Valley to Hope, and along the central and northern mainland coast, west of the Coast Ranges, at least to Terrace (Campbell et al. 1990b). Breeding is confirmed for several locales on southern and eastern Vancouver Island and the Fraser Lowland. To the north, breeding has been confirmed on some coastal islands and at Kitimat (Campbell et al. 1990b). Western Screech-Owl does not occur on the Queen Charlotte Islands. The geographic range of Western Screech-Owl has likely contracted over the past 100 years, mostly as a result of clear-cut logging and subsequent habitat loss and reduction in habitat quality (Cannings and Angell 2001, Internet site; COSEWIC 2002).

3.7.2.2 Study Area Range Within the PEAA, Western Screech-Owl may be found between Kitimat and Terrace, west of the Coast Ranges. It appears, however, that occurrences will generally be rare (COSEWIC 2002), although nesting is known to occur (Campbell et al. 1990b).

British Columbia Ecoprovinces: Coast and Mountains Ecoregions: Coastal Gap, Nass Ranges Ecosections: Kitimat Ranges, Nass Mountains Biogeoclimatic Zones: Coastal Western Hemlock

3.7.2.3 Elevational Range

British Columbia Breeding: 0 to 540 m (Campbell et al. 1990b). Elevation limits along the Pacific coast appear to be delineated by the January isotherm (2°C to -7°C) (Hekstra 1982).

3.7.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites Western Screech-Owl is a year-round resident in British Columbia (Campbell et al. 1990a). The British Columbia Wildlife Habitat Ratings Standards (RIC 1999) specify that, at a minimum, habitat modelling should include all-season living habitat for resident bird species. All-season living habitat includes habitat used for nesting, roosting and foraging. The greatest potential effect of the Project on Western Screech- Owl will likely be related to disturbance or loss of reproducing or nesting habitat. As a result, habitat modelling is focused on reproducing (nesting) habitat.

Page 3-26 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.7.3.1 Reproducing Habitat Western Screech-Owls occupy a variety of forest types, although riparian habitats and deciduous trees are used over much of their range (Cannings and Angell 2001, Internet site). Populations in coastal British Columbia prefer mature coniferous or mixedwood forests, usually near a source of water (Campbell et al. 1990b). Birds near Terrace, British Columbia are frequently observed using mature hemlock forests (COSEWIC 2002). In British Columbia, Western Screech-Owl has not been reported nesting over 540 m asl (Campbell et al. 1990b), and it has not been recorded in higher elevation mountain hemlock, subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, or lodgepole pine forests (Canning and Angell 2001, Internet site). In the Nass Mountains and Kitimat Ranges portion of the PEAA, the Coastal Western Hemlock zone is bounded by a 600-m upper elevation limit. Of 62 nests described for British Columbia, 61% were in nest boxes and 26% were in natural cavities of black cottonwood, red alder, Douglas-fir, western redcedar and western hemlock. The remaining 13% of nests were in cavities excavated by pileated woodpecker or northern flicker. Nest trees are typically large- diameter deciduous trees, although coniferous trees are also used. Tree age and canopy cover appear to be variable, with nests found in dense young Douglas-fir forests, open 50 to 60 year old Douglas-fir forest, and mature forest (COSEWIC 2002). On northern Vancouver Island, western screech-owls favoured forests with a basal area of 44 m2/ha, stand age of 128 years, height of 25 m and 50% canopy closure (Setterington 1998). Nests in British Columbia have ranged from 1.2 to 12.2 m above the ground, and all have been in trees measuring more than 25 cm dbh (Campbell et al. 1990b; COSEWIC 2002). The nest itself is 30 to 36 cm in depth, and the entrance hole is no larger than the owl (7 cm diameter; Cannings and Angell 2001, Internet site). On average, nests are within 69 m of a stream, marsh, or small water body, although distances of up to 300 m have been recorded (COSEWIC 2002). In general, few studies have evaluated the effects of habitat loss, although it can be presumed that the availability of suitable nest cavities likely affects breeding capability (COSEWIC 2002). Western Screech-Owl may be threatened by timber harvesting and the removal of dead trees and snags, especially in riparian areas (COSEWIC 2002).

3.7.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes The key ecosystem attributes used to delineate reproducing habitat for Western Screech-Owl are summarized in Table 3-10.

2010 Page 3-27

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

Table 3-10 Western Screech-Owl Habitat Requirements and Ecosystem Attributes in the PEAA Life Terrestrial Ecosystem Requisite Requirement Key Attributes Mapping Attribute Reproducing Suitable nest Nests can be found in black • Site: Site disturbance, tree species cottonwood, red alder, Douglas- structural stage, distance to fir, western redcedar and western water. hemlock. • Vegetation: Percent cover by Suitable nest Trees need to be ~ 25 m tall (at layer, canopy coverage, tree least tall enough for a nest 12.2 species list by layer, tree characteristics m from the ground), >25 cm diameter and height. diameter at breast height and have natural or pre-excavated cavities. Nest trees should be less than 300 m from a small water source. Suitable stand Tend to avoid very dense characteristics canopy, preferring stands with 50% canopy coverage and some open areas for foraging for small mammals. Home range Territory size likely less than 65 ha

3.7.5 Ratings There is a moderate level of knowledge of Western Screech-Owl habitat requirements in British Columbia. Consequently, a four-class rating scheme of habitat suitability will be used (1 = high; 2 = moderate; 3 = low; 4 = nil).

3.7.5.1 Provincial Benchmark No provincial benchmark has been established for Western Screech-Owl habitat in British Columbia or Alberta.

3.7.5.2 Ratings Assumptions The ratings assumptions used to define habitat suitability for Western Screech-Owl are summarized below and in Table 3-11. • Only ecosystem units in the Coastal Western Hemlock zone were rated. • Ecosystem units above 600 m elevation were considered nil (4) habitat. • Mature and old-growth forests (structural stages 6 and 7) were rated higher than denser, younger forests (structural stage 5). Pole/sapling forests and open sites were rated nil (4).

Page 3-28 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

• Mixedwood and open canopy (50% cover or with canopy gaps) conifer-dominated forests were considered optimal habitats (class 1). Suitability decreased by one class for closed canopy conifer- dominated and deciduous-dominated ecosystem units. • Suitability ratings were adjusted based on slope position. Ecosystem units in valley bottoms or on lower slopes were considered suitable habitat: rating was retained. Ecosystem units on hill crests or ridge tops were considered low suitability: suitability decreased by one class. • Very steep slopes (more than 100%) were rated nil (4).

Table 3-11 Western Screech-Owl Habitat Ratings Assumptions, British Columbia Structural Stage Coniferous Mixedwood Deciduous 1 – 4 4 4 4 5 (open canopy) 2 2 3 5 (closed canopy) 3 2 3 6 – 7 (open canopy) 1 1 2 6 – 7 (closed canopy) 2 1 2

3.7.5.3 Ratings Adjustments Ratings adjustments were made to take into account distance to water and potential effects of sensory disturbance, as follows: • Proximity to water: Habitat ratings for forested polygons more than 300 m from water (e.g., streams, wetlands) were reduced by one class to reflect a decrease in habitat suitability. • Sensory disturbance: Little information is available on tolerance to disturbance. Some birds nest in suburban habitats and thus may be generally tolerant of humans close to the nest (Cannings and Angell 2001, Internet site). However, as a conservative approach, habitat ratings were reduced within 50 m of roads and other disturbances.

3.7.5.4 Ratings Table The Western Screech-Owl nesting habitat ratings table, model flowchart and sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance reductions are included on the accompanying CD (see Appendix A).

3.8 Barred Owl

3.8.1 Status Barred Owl (Strix varia) is listed as sensitive in Alberta (ASRD 2005, Internet site) and is designated as a species of special concern (ASRD Fish and Wildlife Division 2008). In British Columbia it is yellow- listed (not at risk) (BCCDC 2009, Internet site).

2010 Page 3-29

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.8.2 Distribution

3.8.2.1 Provincial Range

Alberta and British Columbia In British Columbia, Barred Owl occurs throughout much of the province (Campbell et al. 1990b, Mazur and James 2000, Internet site), although breeding has only been reported as far north as Terrace on the coast, McBride in the eastern interior (Campbell et al. 1990b), and Smithers in the western interior (Biodiversity Centre for Wildlife Studies [BCFWS] 2008, Internet site). In Alberta, Barred Owl is widely distributed across forested regions, with most records in the Boreal Forest, Foothills and Rocky Mountain Natural Regions (FAN 2007). The species has been observed near the Wapiti River close to the British Columbia border (FAN 2007).

3.8.2.2 Study Area Range Breeding bird atlas data indicate that Barred Owl may nest in appropriate habitat along the entire pipeline route across Alberta and British Columbia (Campbell et al. 1990b, FAN 2007). Based on the above information, habitat modelling for Barred Owl was conducted from KP 0 near Bruderheim, Alberta to KP 1172 near Kitimat, British Columbia.

British Columbia Ecoprovinces: Boreal Plains, Sub-boreal Interior, Central Interior, Coast and Mountains Ecoregions: Southern Alberta Upland, Central Canadian Rocky Mountains, Fraser Basin, Fraser River Plateau, Bulkley Ranges, Nass Ranges, Coastal Gap Ecosections: Kiskatinaw Plateau, Hart Foothills, Southern Hart Ranges, McGregor Plateau, Nechako Lowland, Babine Upland, Bulkley Basin, Bulkley Ranges, Nechako Upland, Kitimat Ranges, Nass Mountains Biogeoclimatic Zones: Boreal White and Black Spruce, Sub-Boreal Spruce, Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir, Coastal Western Hemlock

Alberta Natural Regions: Parkland, Boreal Forest, Foothills Natural Subregions: Central Parkland, Central Mixedwood, Dry Mixedwood, Lower Foothills, Upper Foothills

3.8.2.3 Elevational Range

British Columbia Breeding: 90 to 1,100 m (Campbell et al. 1990b)

Page 3-30 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

Alberta No specific information is available.

3.8.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites Barred Owl is resident in Alberta and British Columbia year-round, although many individuals will move south during late fall and early winter (Campbell et al. 1990a; FAN 2007). Important life requisites for Barred Owl include reproducing (nesting), foraging and roosting (security/thermal requirements). Habitat use within breeding home ranges is variable, depending on the life requisite. Because Barred Owl is considered a generalist feeder (Takats 1998), it can utilize a wide variety of habitat types for foraging, including young stands and open areas such as old cutblocks and wetlands (Olsen et al. 2006). In contrast, nesting habitat is typically limited to older, closed canopy forests (Livezey 2007). Therefore, habitat suitability was only modeled for nesting habitat as this habitat is likely more limited in occurrence, and thus its availability may be affected to a greater degree by disturbance. Habitats used for roosting may be similar to nesting (Takats 1998) and thus separate modelling was not considered necessary for this life requisite.

3.8.3.1 Reproducing Habitat Throughout its range, Barred Owl prefers nesting in mature and old forests (Livezey 2007). In the Foothills Model Forest in west-central Alberta, nesting occurs in old-growth, uneven-aged, mixedwood forests composed of white spruce, balsam poplar and trembling aspen (Takats 1998). Nesting habitats were reported to have high (more than 50%) canopy cover, tall (more than 18 m) trees, and medium (28% to 59%) shrub cover composed of green alder, prickly rose, lowbush cranberry and red-osier dogwood (Takats 1998). Nesting sites also occurred in lower elevation watersheds where large balsam poplars were present (Takats 1998). Piorecky and Prescott (2004) also reported preference for lower elevations in the Alberta Foothills Natural Region. In the Calling Lake region of Alberta, Barred Owl nested in old poplar stands characterized by a high density of dead and live large poplars, and a high density of understorey shrubs and trees (Olsen et al. 2006). Nesting territories included a variety of habitat types, such as clear-cuts, bogs, pine stands and young coniferous and deciduous stands, but birds selected patches of old mixedwood forest with a high density of balsam poplars for nesting (Olsen et al. 2006). Over half of the identified nests were located within 50 m of cutblocks, suggesting that birds did not avoid nesting near anthropogenic disturbances (Olsen et al. 2006). Mazur et al. (1997) reported similar results in Saskatchewan, where Barred Owl nests were within 25 m of roads. Habitat use in Saskatchewan was similar to Alberta, with strong selection for old mixedwood habitats, followed by selection for mature mixedwood and deciduous stands (Mazur et al. 1998).

2010 Page 3-31

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

Considerable attention has been paid to Barred Owl in British Columbia because of its potential to displace the endangered spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) in the southwestern portion of the province (Livezey 2007). In British Columbia, habitat use by Barred Owl is more variable than in Alberta. Campbell et al. (1990b) reported nesting in coniferous and mixedwood forests, with nests found in both Douglas-fir and black cottonwood trees. Use of coniferous trees for nesting in British Columbia may be high because of their greater overall availability relative to deciduous trees (Livezey 2007). Nesting has been documented from 90 to 1,100 m asl in British Columbia (Campbell et al. 1990b), although lower elevations may be preferred (Livezey 2007). In Washington State, Pearson and Livezey (2003) reported that riparian areas and lowland forests were preferred by Barred Owls, and that upland areas were less likely to be used. As in Alberta and Saskatchewan, Barred Owls in the Pacific Northwest select mature and old-growth forests (more than 180 years old) (Pearson and Livezey 2003). Minimum patch size requirements for Barred Owl are not known (Takats 1998; Olsen et al. 2006; Livezey 2007). In eastern North America, they have been recorded nesting in relatively small forest patches (6 to 33 ha; Haney 1997). In Alberta, Olsen et al. (2006) reported that the average patch size for nesting was 9 ha, and recommended that retention patches be at least 10 ha in size. Further study is needed.

3.8.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes As discussed in Section 2.2.4, habitat polygons (site series and ecosite phases) were grouped into broad habitat classes that reflect ecosystem attributes considered important for Barred Owl. The key ecosystem attributes used to define nesting habitat for Barred Owl include: • stand age (structural stages 6 and 7 preferred) • forest type (mixedwood forests are preferred, pure coniferous and deciduous also used) • canopy cover (dense canopy cover is preferred for nesting) • understorey complexity (moderate to high shrub cover is preferred) • moisture regime (moist and wet sites are preferred, which favour growth of large-diameter trees for nesting) • slope position (lower slopes and floodplains are preferred)

3.8.5 Ratings A four-class rating scheme was used for Barred Owl.

3.8.5.1 Provincial Benchmark No provincial benchmark has been established for Barred Owl habitat in British Columbia or Alberta.

Page 3-32 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.8.5.2 Ratings Assumptions The ratings assumptions, used to define habitat suitability for Barred Owl, are summarized below and in Table 3-12. • Barred Owl nests in forested habitats. Shrub and sparsely vegetated habitats are assumed to have no value for nesting and are given a nil (4) rating. • Barred Owl prefers mature and old-growth forests, which are considered most valuable for nesting. Structural stage 6 and 7 stands are given a high (1) rating if associated with the appropriate forest type. Structural stage 1 to 5 stands are considered to have no value for nesting and are given a nil (4) rating. • Mixed coniferous – deciduous forests are considered most valuable for nesting across the species’ range and are given a high (1) rating. These forests provide both cover (conifer trees) and suitable nesting trees. Deciduous (e.g., aspen, poplar, birch, and cottonwood) and coniferous (e.g., white spruce, Douglas-fir, cedar, hemlock and pine) stands are also important for nesting and are given a moderate (2) rating. Black spruce and larch have little value for nesting and stands dominated by these species are given a nil (4) rating. • Dense tree canopies (more than 50% cover) are preferred for nesting and are given a high (1) rating. Semi-open canopies (more than 25 to 50% cover) are given a moderate (2) rating, while open canopies (equal to or less than 25% cover) are given a low (3) rating. • Stands with moderate to high cover (more than 25%) of understorey shrubs are given a high (1) rating, while stands with low cover (equal to or less than 25%) of understorey shrubs are given a low (3) rating. • Moist and wet (mesic to hygric) sites likely favour growth of large diameter trees and are given a high (1) rating. Dry (xeric to submesic) and very wet (subhydric and hydric) sites are given a moderate (2) to low (3) rating, depending on forest type and age class. • Stands in lower slope positions and floodplains are preferred and are rated as high (1), while stands at higher elevations are rated as moderate (2). If the ecosystem unit is on an upper slope, crest, or ridge position, suitability decreases to Class 3.

Table 3-12 Barred Owl Habitat Ratings Assumptions

1 Structural Canopy Mixedwood Pure Stands Stage Closure Submesic – Xeric – Submesic; Submesic – Xeric – Submesic; (%) Subhygric Subhydric - Hydric Subhygric Subhydric - Hydric 1 – 5 4 4 4 4 6 – 7 <25 3 3 3 3 25-50 2 2 or 3 2 or 3 3 >50 1 2 2 2

2010 Page 3-33

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.8.5.3 Ratings Adjustments Ratings adjustments were made to take into account the potential effects of sensory disturbance, as follows: • Sensory disturbance: Records of birds nesting near roads and in urban areas suggest they are tolerant of some level of human disturbance. However, as a conservative approach, habitat ratings were reduced within 50 m of roads and other disturbances. Ratings adjustments were not made for habitat patch size and minimum area requirements. The effects of habitat fragmentation on Barred Owl are not well understood and minimum patch size requirements have not been identified for this species. Therefore, adjustments for patch size were not incorporated into the nesting habitat model.

3.8.5.4 Ratings Table The Barred Owl nesting habitat ratings table, model flowchart and sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance reductions are included on the accompanying CD (see Appendix A).

3.9 Short-eared Owl

3.9.1 Status Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) is blue-listed (special concern) in British Columbia (BCCDC 2009, Internet site), and is classified as may be at risk in Alberta (ASRD 2005, Internet site). It is also listed as a species of special concern by COSEWIC (2008b, Internet site).

3.9.2 Distribution

3.9.2.1 Provincial Range

British Columbia Short-eared Owls are highly nomadic, with local occurrence depending on prey availability (Clayton 2000). In British Columbia, Short-eared Owl breeds in the Lower Mainland east to the Central Fraser Valley, and in the south and central interior valleys from Creston and the Okanagan Valley as far north as Prince George, and in the Peace River (Fraser et al. 1999; Cooper and Beauchesne 2004a), and may breed in the Tatshenshini-Alsek region (Preston, pers. obs.; Cooper and Beauchesne 2004a). Winter populations are concentrated in the lower Fraser River Valley, with small numbers occurring on southeast Vancouver Island and the southern interior valleys (Campbell et al. 1990b; Fraser et al. 1999). The distribution of potential breeding habitat is local and patchy in British Columbia.

Alberta Short-eared Owl are found throughout Alberta in open grasslands, marshes, and farmland, and is noticeably absent from open alpine or subalpine habitats and open areas in the montane zone in the Rocky Mountains (Semenchuk 1992; FAN 2007). In the breeding season it is most common in the Grassland and

Page 3-34 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

Aspen Parkland Natural Regions (Semenchuk 1992), reaching its northern breeding limit in the Peace River, Lesser Slave Lake, and Cold Lake areas (Clayton 2000). On occasion, breeding may occur in more northerly boreal regions near Fort Chipewyan (Semenchuk 1992). In winter, Short-eared Owl occurs sporadically throughout southern Alberta, occasionally as far north as Edmonton (Cadman 1994).

3.9.2.2 Study Area Range Short-eared Owls may be distributed along the pipeline route in Alberta west to the Prince George and Fort St. James LUPAs in British Columbia (Campbell et al. 1990a; Federation of Alberta Naturalists [FAN] 2007). This species has not been detected in the PEAA, although species-specific surveys have not been conducted.

British Columbia Ecoprovinces: Boreal Plains, Sub-boreal Interior Ecoregions: Southern Alberta Upland, Central Canadian Rocky Mountains, Fraser Basin Ecosections: Hart Foothills, Kiskatinaw Plateau, Nechako Lowland Biogeoclimatic Zones: Boreal White and Black Spruce, Sub-Boreal Spruce

Alberta Natural Regions: Boreal Forest, Foothills, Parkland Natural Subregions: Central Mixedwood, Central Parkland, Dry Mixedwood, Lower Foothills

3.9.2.3 Elevational Range

British Columbia Breeding: 0 to at least 975 m (Campbell et al. 1990b)

Alberta No specific information is available.

3.9.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites Short-eared Owl are present in Alberta and British Columbia during the breeding season (March to August) but may also occur as a resident bird in some locations (Campbell et al. 1990a; FAN 2007). The British Columbia Wildlife Habitat Ratings Standards (RIC 1999) specify that, at a minimum, habitat modelling should include all-season living habitat for resident bird species. Although this was considered, the greatest potential effect of the Project on Short-eared Owl will likely be related to disturbance or loss of reproducing or nesting habitat. As a result, habitat modelling is focused on suitable reproducing (nesting) habitat.

2010 Page 3-35

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.9.3.1 Reproducing Habitat Short-eared Owl typically nests on the ground in open treeless areas, such as grasslands, rangelands, dry marshes, farmlands, low-arctic tundra, brushy fields, and forest clearings (Fraser et al. 1999). Most nests in British Columbia are near agricultural areas in shrubby grass fields with grasses 25 to 90 cm tall (Campbell et al. 1990b). Clark (1975) reported that among 65 nest sites in Saskatchewan, 55% were in grassland, 24% in stubble fields, 14% in hayland, and 6% in low shrubland. In Montana, 85% of Short- eared Owl nests were surrounded by grass, 8% by forbs and 7% by grass/forbs (Wiggins et al. 2006, Internet site). Most of the vegetation (90%) around these nests was less than 50 cm tall. The nest site of the Short-eared Owl tends to be on relatively dry ground that may be slightly elevated (Clark 1975; Clayton 2000). Nesting does not occur in actively grazed areas (Kantrud and Higgins 1992 in Dechant et al. 1998). Response to developed areas by Short-eared Owl is generally negative, with declines being attributed primarily to the loss or conversion of suitable breeding habitat to industrial and housing developments, or intensive agriculture. Short-eared Owls generally prefer nesting in large grassland areas (Herkert et al. 1999), and rarely occur in habitat patches less than 100 ha (Dechant et al. 1998; Wiggins 2004, Internet site), although they are noted nesting in patches as small as 28 ha (Herkert et al. 1999). Herkert et al. (1999) indicate that Short-eared Owls may respond more to the total amount of grassland in a landscape than the size of individual grassland patches, and thus may use small blocks of habitat if they occur near more extensive grassland areas. In areas that are developed, avoidance of buildings is evident, with nests being, on average, 789 m away from such structures (Combs-Beattie 1993). Minimum distance to buildings was noted to be 250 m (Combs-Beattie 1993). However, Short-eared Owls have been reported nesting near other developments such as roads, parking lots and airport runways (Campbell et al. 1990), suggesting that vertical interference from buildings reduces the suitability of adjacent habitat.

3.9.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes The key ecosystem attributes used to delineate reproducing habitat for Short-eared Owl are summarized in Table 3-13. Reproducing habitat was rated for its ability to provide suitable breeding habitat, which includes the nest site, and foraging and post-fledging areas.

Page 3-36 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

Table 3-13 Short-eared Owl Habitat Requirements and Ecosystem Attributes in the PEAA Terrestrial Ecosystem Life Requisite Requirement Key Attributes Mapping Attribute Reproducing Nesting cover Nests located in treeless areas • Vegetation: Percent cover (canopy and such as grasslands, dry by layer, species list by layer, lateral cover to marshes, brushy fields and forest percent cover for species by prevent nest clearings, on dry slightly elevated layer. depredation) ground; nests are usually • Site: site disturbance, surrounded by predominantly structural stage grassy vegetation 25-90 cm tall (usually <50 cm); territory size 20-121 ha. Prey availability Habitat with abundant prey, (cyclic small predominantly voles or mice (in mammals, winter); open grassland; winter primarily voles) roosting sites nearby hunting grounds. Safe, sheltered Shelter from weather and roost sites predation; close proximity to hunting grounds; old-field habitat and grasslands

3.9.5 Ratings There is a moderate level of knowledge of Short-eared Owl habitat requirements in Alberta and British Columbia. Consequently, a 4-class rating scheme of habitat suitability will be used (1 = high; 2 = moderate; 3 = low; 4 = nil).

3.9.5.1 Provincial Benchmark No provincial benchmark has been established for Short-eared Owl habitat in British Columbia or Alberta.

3.9.5.2 Ratings Assumptions The ratings assumptions used to define habitat suitability for Short-eared Owl in Alberta and British Columbia are summarized below and in Table 3-14. • Ecosystem units above 900 m elevation were rated nil (Class 4). • Forested and riparian ecosystem units (structural stages 4 to 7) were rated nil (4). Open habitats with high herb cover (more than 60%) and sparse shrub cover were considered optimal habitat (1). • Agricultural lands were considered low to high suitability depending on the amount of anthropogenic disturbance. Rural was rated class 3. Cultivated crop was rated 2. Improved pasture was rated 1. Disturbed non-vegetation was rated nil.

2010 Page 3-37

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

• Suitability ratings were adjusted based on moisture regime and ground conditions in open ecosystem units. Very moist but hummocky wetlands were considered suitable habitat: rating class was retained. Wetlands that experience seasonal drying, turning meadow-like, decreased in suitability by one class. Wetlands that remain very wet throughout the summer were rated nil (4). • Very steep slopes (more than 100%) were rated nil (4). • Mountain pine beetle (MPB) stands were rated nil (4).

Table 3-14 Short-eared Owl Habitat Ratings Assumptions, Alberta and British Columbia Site Series Herb Values Herb Greater or Equal to 60% Herb Less than 60% Structural Stage Low Shrub Cover High Shrub Cover 2 1 N/A 3, 3a 1 2 3b 2 3 4 – 7 4 4

NOTE: N/A – not applicable

3.9.5.3 Ratings Adjustments Ratings adjustments were made to take into account minimum patch size requirements, and the potential effects of sensory and visual disturbance, as follows: • Minimum area requirements: Habitat polygons less than 28 ha in size were reduced in suitability by one rating to reflect lower potential as nesting habitat. • Sensory disturbance: Little information is available on tolerance to disturbance. Habitat ratings were reduced by one class within 50 m of roads and other disturbances. • Visual disturbance: Habitat polygons within 250 m of developed sites (e.g., with vertical structures) were reduced by one class to reflect lower potential as nesting habitat.

3.9.5.4 Ratings Table The Short-eared Owl nesting habitat ratings table, model flowchart and sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance reductions are included on the accompanying CD (see Appendix A).

Page 3-38 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.10 Common Nighthawk

3.10.1 Status Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) is yellow-listed in British Columbia (BCCDC 2009, Internet site), and listed as sensitive in Alberta (ASRD 2005, Internet site). It is also listed as threatened by COSEWIC (2007a) because of long-term population declines.

3.10.2 Distribution

3.10.2.1 Provincial Range Breeding bird atlas data indicate this species has a wide distribution across Alberta and British Columbia (Semenchuk 1992; Campbell et al. 2006; FAN 2007). Their breeding range includes the Boreal Forest, Parkland, and Foothills natural regions in Alberta (FAN 2007), and the Boreal Plains, Central Interior, Sub-boreal Interior, and Coast and Mountains ecoprovinces in British Columbia (Campbell et al. 1990a).

3.10.2.2 Study Area Range Breeding bird atlas data indicate this species could breed in appropriate habitat along the entire pipeline route from Bruderheim, Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia (Semenchuk 1992; Campbell et al. 2006; FAN 2007). No observations of Common Nighthawk were made during field surveys, but based on the above information, habitat modelling for Common Nighthawk was conducted from KP 0 to KP 1172.

British Columbia Ecoprovinces: Boreal Plains, Sub-boreal Interior, Central Interior, Coast and Mountains Ecoregions: Southern Alberta Upland, Central Canadian Rocky Mountains, Fraser Basin, Fraser River Plateau, Bulkley Ranges, Nass Ranges, Coastal Gap Ecosections: Kiskatinaw Plateau, Hart Foothills, Southern Hart Ranges, McGregor Plateau, Nechako Lowland, Babine Upland, Bulkley Basin, Bulkley Ranges, Nechako Upland, Kitimat Ranges, Nass Mountains Biogeoclimatic Zones: Boreal White and Black Spruce, Sub-Boreal Spruce, Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir, Mountain Hemlock, Coastal Western Hemlock

Alberta Natural Regions: Parkland, Boreal Forest, Foothills Natural Subregions: Central Parkland, Central Mixedwood, Dry Mixedwood, Lower Foothills, Upper Foothills

2010 Page 3-39

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.10.2.3 Elevational Range

British Columbia Breeding: 0 to 1,495 m (Campbell et al. 2006)

Alberta No specific information is available.

3.10.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites Common Nighthawk is present in western Canada primarily during the breeding season (mid-March to late August) (Campbell et al. 1990a; FAN 2007). As a migrant species, the primary life requisite of Common Nighthawk in the PEAA is reproducing. Breeding habitats are used for nesting and foraging, and also for shelter and security. Therefore, habitat suitability was rated only for reproducing habitat and it is assumed that all living requirements are met in these habitats.

3.10.3.1 Reproducing Habitat Common Nighthawk uses a variety of habitats throughout its range. Preferred habitats are open and semi- open areas with little ground cover, and include open coniferous forest, short grass prairies, recently logged or burned-over areas, forest clearings, rocky outcrops, rock barrens, peat bogs, marshes, meadows, dry shrublands, pastures, sand dunes, beaches and areas around cities and towns (COSEWIC 2007a; Semenchuk 1992; Campbell et al. 2006; FAN 2007; Poulin et al. 1996, Internet site). Thinned forests may also provide habitat for nighthawks (Hagar et al. 2004). In British Columbia, secondary habitat is characterized as farmland, pastureland, disturbed sites such as gravel pits and construction sites, openings in regenerating forest, meadows and urban areas (Campbell et al. 2006). Thus, natural non-vegetated sites may be preferred over non-vegetated sites disturbed by human activities.

3.10.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes As discussed in Section 2.2.4, habitat polygons (site series and ecosite phases) were grouped into broad habitat classes that reflect ecosystem attributes considered important for Common Nighthawk. The key ecosystem attributes used to define nesting habitat for Common Nighthawk include: • stand type (open and semi-open habitats preferred, including open forested, open shrubland, grassland areas and non-vegetated sites) • stand age (structural stage 1 preferred, but may use a variety of age classes depending on availability of open areas) • canopy cover (open canopy preferred in forested areas) • ground cover (nest in areas with low ground cover)

Page 3-40 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.10.5 Ratings A four-class rating scheme was used for Common Nighthawk.

3.10.5.1 Provincial Benchmark No provincial benchmark has been established for Common Nighthawk habitat in British Columbia or Alberta.

3.10.5.2 Ratings Assumptions The ratings assumptions, used to define habitat suitability for Common Nighthawk, are summarized below and in Table 3-15. • Common Nighthawk uses a variety of habitat types, with the main requirement being the presence of open areas with little ground cover. Thus, both vegetated and non-vegetated stands may provide suitable habitat. Microhabitat characteristics may be an important component of habitat selection. • Preferred habitat includes open and semi-open forests, open and semi-open shrublands, marshes, meadows, rocky outcrops, recent burns and clear-cuts. Natural habitats are considered of higher value than anthropogenic habitats. • Various structural stages can be used for nesting, depending on availability of open areas. It is assumed that structural stage 1 habitats are preferred, but other suitable habitats could include structural stage 2 to 7 habitats, depending on openness of stands. • Open and semi-open habitats are used. In forested areas, it is assumed that open and semi-open stands have less than 25% canopy cover, but data are lacking on preferred canopy cover. • Stands with little ground cover (less than 25%) are preferred for nesting and are given a high (1) rating. Stands with more than 25% cover are given a nil (4) rating. • Steep slopes and very wet habitats have lower value and ratings in these habitats are reduced by one rank.

Table 3-15 Common Nighthawk Habitat Ratings Assumptions Ground Cover Structural Stage Open 1 Closed 2 1 1 N/A 2a, 2b 1 N/A 2d, 3 1 3 4 – 5 2 4 6 – 7 1 3 - 4 NOTES: 1 Less than 25% canopy or ground cover. 2 More than 25% canopy or ground cover. N/A not applicable

2010 Page 3-41

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.10.5.3 Ratings Adjustments Ratings adjustments were made to take into account the potential effects of sensory disturbance, as follows: • Sensory disturbance: Although Common Nighthawk nests in disturbed areas, including urban areas, and thus tolerate disturbance, habitat ratings were reduced by one class within 50 m of active construction sites.

3.10.5.4 Ratings Table The Common Nighthawk nesting habitat ratings table, model flowchart and sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance reductions are included on the accompanying CD (see Appendix A).

3.11 Olive-sided Flycatcher

3.11.1 Status Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) is yellow-listed in British Columbia (BCCDC 2009, Internet site) and listed as secure in Alberta (ASRD 2005, Internet site). It is also listed as threatened by COSEWIC (2007b) because of a long-term and widespread population decline (79% in 40 years) across its breeding range in Canada.

3.11.2 Distribution

3.11.2.1 Provincial Range

Alberta and British Columbia Olive-sided Flycatcher has a wide distribution across Alberta and British Columbia (Semenchuk 1992; Campbell et al. 1997; FAN 2007). Its breeding range includes the Boreal Forest, Parkland, and Foothills natural regions in Alberta (FAN 2007), and the Boreal Plains, Central Interior, Sub-boreal Interior, and Coast and Mountains ecoprovinces in British Columbia (Campbell et al. 1997).

3.11.2.2 Study Area Range Breeding bird atlas data indicate this species could breed in appropriate habitat along the entire pipeline route from Bruderheim, Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia (Semenchuk 1992; Campbell et al. 1997; FAN 2007). Olive-sided Flycatchers were widely identified along the pipeline route in both Alberta and British Columbia during breeding bird surveys in 2006 (Wildlife Data and Field Surveys TDR). Based on this, and the above information, habitat modelling for Olive-sided Flycatcher was conducted from KP 0 to KP 1172.

Page 3-42 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

British Columbia Ecoprovinces: Boreal Plains, Sub-boreal Interior, Central Interior, Coast and Mountains Ecoregions: Southern Alberta Upland, Central Canadian Rocky Mountains, Fraser Basin, Fraser River Plateau, Bulkley Ranges, Nass Ranges, Coastal Gap Ecosections: Kiskatinaw Plateau, Hart Foothills, Southern Hart Ranges, McGregor Plateau, Nechako Lowland, Babine Upland, Bulkley Basin, Bulkley Ranges, Nechako Upland, Kitimat Ranges, Nass Mountains Biogeoclimatic Zones: Boreal White and Black Spruce, Sub-Boreal Spruce, Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir, Mountain Hemlock, Coastal Western Hemlock

Alberta Natural Regions: Parkland, Boreal Forest, Foothills Natural Subregions: Central Parkland, Central Mixedwood, Dry Mixedwood, Lower Foothills, Upper Foothills

3.11.2.3 Elevational Range

British Columbia Breeding: 0 to 2,200 m (Campbell et al. 1997)

Alberta No specific information is available.

3.11.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites Olive-sided Flycatcher is present in western Canada only during the breeding season (late May to early September) (Campbell et al. 1997; FAN 2007). As a neotropical migrant, the primary life requisite of Olive-sided Flycatcher in the PEAA is reproducing. Breeding habitats are used for nesting and foraging, and also for shelter and security. Therefore, habitat suitability was rated only for reproducing habitat and it is assumed that all living requirements are met in these habitats.

3.11.4 Reproducing Habitat Across their range, Olive-sided Flycatcher typically occurs in coniferous and mixed-coniferous forest (Altman and Sallabanks 2000, Internet site; COSEWIC 2007b; Kotliar 2007). They are found in boreal forest, montane and subalpine areas. Primary nesting habitat includes late successional open and semi- open coniferous forests (0 to 40% canopy cover), as well as forest edges near natural openings such as ponds, lakes, rivers and meadows, and near anthropogenic openings such as clear-cuts (Altman and Sallabanks 2000, Internet site; COSEWIC 2007b; Kotliar 2007). Gaps in old-growth coniferous forests provide suitable habitat, whereas closed canopy coniferous forests, including young (pole-sapling) and mature forests that lack gaps or edges, as well as hardwood forests, are considered poor habitats

2010 Page 3-43

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

(COSEWIC 2007b; Kotliar 2007). Clear-cuts and other young (0 to 10 years old) forests are used if they contain snags or residual live trees (Altman and Sallabanks 2000, Internet site; COSEWIC 2007b). Similarly, recent (0 to 30 years old) burns are considered important habitat, likely because of the creation of forest openings and edge habitat, as well as availability of snags and live trees (Altman and Sallabanks 2000, Internet site; COSEWIC 2007b; Kotliar 2007). Based on the above, an important characteristic of Olive-sided Flycatcher habitat is the juxtaposition of mature or old trees and forest openings (Kotliar 2007). However, although they can be abundant in clear-cuts, birds nesting in these habitats may experience higher nestling mortality and lower nest success than those in natural forest openings through increased predation, suggesting these habitats are ecological traps (Robertson and Hutto 2007). In the boreal forest, Olive-sided Flycatcher occupies open bogs, muskeg and swamps that are dominated by spruce and tamarack (Altman and Sallabanks 2000, Internet site). They have been identified in a number of western boreal forest habitats, including young jack pine (burnt), mature black spruce, lowland black spruce with boggy openings, balsam fir and white birch, trembling aspen-jack pine (5 to 9 years old), and jack pine-trembling aspen (20 years old) stands (Kirk et al. 1996). In Alberta, Semenchuk (1992) characterized their habitat as semi-open coniferous and mixedwood forests, often near water, as well as bogs and muskegs, open areas with snags (e.g., burns and cutblocks) and lakes with standing dead trees. In British Columbia, breeding habitat is described as edge habitats in semi-open mature coniferous and mixedwood forests, usually adjacent to water (Campbell et al. 1997). Breeding occurs from near sea-level to 2,200 m, although higher elevations (above 1,100 m) may be preferred in interior regions (Campbell et al. 1997). In the northern Rocky Mountains, Olive-sided Flycatcher is common in burnt forest with numerous dead standing trees (MacNaughton 1995); mature black spruce and white spruce dominated mixedwood was not used in this study. In Douglas-fir forests in the Caribou Forest Region, they were found in high-volume removal cutblocks (14 to 35% tree retention), and were absent from moderate- volume removal, low-volume removal and old-growth (control) forests (Waterhouse and Dawson 1998). They were also more common in riparian areas than upland Douglas-fir forest (Waterhouse and Dawson 1998). Kinley and Newhouse (1997) reported them absent from narrow (14- and 37-m wide) riparian reserves adjacent to cutblocks, but present in a wide (74-m wide) riparian reserve in southeastern British Columbia. In lower subalpine habitat in Kootenay National Park, Olive-sided Flycatcher was most abundant along edges where pole-sapling forest was adjacent to old-growth forest, and less common where mature forest was adjacent to old-growth forest (Catt 1991).

3.11.5 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes As discussed in Section 2.2.4, habitat polygons (site series and ecosite phases) were grouped into broad habitat classes that reflect ecosystem attributes considered important for Olive-sided Flycatcher. The key ecosystem attributes used to define nesting habitat for Olive-sided Flycatcher include: • stand age (old, structural stage 7 forests are preferred but will use younger forests [structural stages 4 to 6] that are open, or early succession habitats with standing snags or residual trees) • forest type (coniferous dominated stands preferred)

Page 3-44 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

• canopy closure (open and semi-open canopy preferred, 0% to 40% canopy cover) • edge contrast (mature and old forest adjacent to openings is preferred)

3.11.6 Ratings A four-class rating scheme was used for Olive-sided Flycatcher.

3.11.6.1 Provincial Benchmark No provincial benchmark has been established for Olive-sided Flycatcher habitat in British Columbia or Alberta.

3.11.6.2 Ratings Assumptions The ratings assumptions used to define habitat suitability for Olive-sided Flycatchers are summarized below and in Table 3-16. • Upland and lowland coniferous-dominated forests (spruce, fir, pine, hemlock, larch and cedar) are preferred and are given a high (1) rating. Hardwood-dominated forests are considered low quality habitat and are given a low (3) rating. • Olive-sided Flycatcher prefers treed habitat types, including residual tree patches and snags in burns and mountain pine beetle kill areas. Non-treed/forested habitats are assumed to have no value for nesting and are given a nil (4) rating. • Olive-sided Flycatcher prefers old-growth forests, which are considered the most valuable for nesting. Structural stage 7 stands are given a high rating (1) if associated with the appropriate forest type. Open canopy, structural stage 6 stands are also considered suitable and are given a moderate (2) rating. Structural stage 4 and 5 habitats are given a low (3) rating, while structural stage 1, 2 and 3 stands are given a nil (4) rating, although structural stage 3 stands with snags are given a high (1) rating. • Olive-sided Flycatcher also prefers edge habitats. Edge habitat was assumed to extend 50 m into the forest interior. Structural stage 6 and 7 habitats along natural edges are given a high rating, while structural stage 4 and 5 edge habitat is given a low (3) rating. Structural stage 6 and 7 habitats along anthropogenic edges (e.g., clear-cuts) are given a low (3) rating because of a potential increase in predation in disturbed landscapes (see Section 3.11.6.3). Interior forest habitat (more than 50 m from edge) was given a low (3) rating, depending on canopy cover or forest type (which could increase the rating to a moderate or high rating). • Open and semi-open canopy forests (0% to 40% canopy cover) are preferred and are given a high (1) rating. Tree canopies with small gaps (disturbances) are preferred; therefore, open and semi-open canopies are rated as high (1), while closed canopies are rated as low to moderate, depending on shrub cover.

2010 Page 3-45

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

Table 3-16 Olive-sided Flycatcher Habitat Ratings Assumptions Coniferous Structural Stage Edge Interior Deciduous 1 – 31 4 4 4 4 – 5 (closed2) 3 4 4 4 – 5 (open3) 3 3 4 6 (closed2) 2 3 4 6 (open3) 1 2 3 7 (closed2) 1 2 3 7 (open3) 1 1 3

NOTES: 1 Structural stage 3 with snags is rated high (1). 2 Canopy closure more than 40%. 3 Canopy closure less than 40%.

3.11.6.3 Ratings Adjustments Ratings adjustments were made to take into account edge effects along linear corridors and the potential effects of sensory disturbance, as follows: • Edge effects: Although Olive-sided Flycatchers are attracted to edge habitat, there is some evidence to suggest that nest predation of forest songbirds may increase along the edge of wide linear corridors (Fleming 2001). As a result, habitat suitability in higher quality habitat (i.e., with moderate and high ratings) was reduced within 50 m of wide (more than 50 m) RoWs (e.g., roads, pipelines) to account for possible increases in predation in adjacent forest habitat (Fleming 2001). • Noise disturbance: No information is available on whether Olive-sided Flycatcher would be affected by noise disturbance, as reported for other songbirds (Habib 2006; Habib et al. 2007). However, because Olive-sided Flycatcher vocalizations are presumably used to attract mates and defend territories (Altman and Sallabanks 2000, Internet site), it is reasonable to assume that noise disturbance may affect flycatcher abundance and nesting success. Therefore, habitat suitability in higher quality habitat (i.e., with moderate and high ratings) was reduced to low (3) within 250 m of existing compressor stations and other excessively noisy areas (e.g., highways, towns) to account for the effects of anthropogenic noise on songbird abundance and reproductive success (Habib 2006; Habib et al. 2007). The minimum patch size requirement for Olive-sided Flycatcher is unknown. Because this species nests in burns, clear-cuts and edge habitats, habitat fragmentation may not be a limiting factor. Therefore, no adjustments were made for patch size.

3.11.6.4 Ratings Table The Olive-sided Flycatcher reproducing habitat ratings table, model flowchart and sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance reductions are included on the accompanying CD (see Appendix A).

Page 3-46 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.12 Sprague’s Pipit

3.12.1 Status Sprague’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) is listed as sensitive in Alberta (ASRD 2005, Internet site) and is designated a species of special concern (ASRD Fish and Wildlife Division 2008). It is also listed as threatened by COSEWIC and on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (Environment Canada 2008).It is considered accidental in British Columbia, where only one breeding record has been reported in the southern interior (Campbell et al. 1997; BCCDC 2009, Internet site). As a result, Sprague’s Pipit is not considered further in British Columbia.

3.12.2 Distribution

3.12.2.1 Provincial Range

Alberta Alberta represents the western extent of this species’ breeding range in North America (Semenchuk 1992). In Alberta, its occurrence is greatest in the Grassland Natural Region, followed by the Parkland Natural Region and, lastly, southern fringes of the Boreal Forest Natural Region as far west as Barrhead (Semenchuk 1992; FAN 2007). The furthest west in the province where breeding may have occurred is near Barrhead in the Dry Mixedwood subregion (Semenchuk 1992).

3.12.2.2 Study Area Range Breeding bird atlas data indicate that this species could occur in appropriate habitat along the pipeline route between Bruderheim and Mayerthorpe, Alberta (i.e., the area spanning the Central Parkland and Dry Mixedwood subregions). It is not expected to occur within the PEAA in British Columbia. Several Sprague’s Pipits were recorded along the pipeline route in Alberta during breeding bird surveys in 2006 (Wildlife Data and Field Surveys TDR). Sightings occurred at approximately KP 54.0 and KP 61.0. Based on this, and the above information, habitat modelling for Sprague’s Pipit was conducted from KP 0 to KP 165.0. This area likely represents the maximum range of Sprague’s Pipit along the pipeline route.

Alberta Natural Regions: Parkland, Boreal Forest Natural Subregions: Central Parkland, Dry Mixedwood

3.12.2.3 Elevational Range

Alberta No specific information is available.

2010 Page 3-47

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.12.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites Sprague’s Pipit is present in Alberta during the breeding season (April to September). As a migrant species, the primary life requisite of Sprague’s Pipit in the PEAA is reproducing. Breeding habitats are used for nesting and foraging, and also for shelter and security. Therefore, habitat suitability was rated only for reproducing habitat and it is assumed that all living requirements are met in these habitats.

3.12.3.1 Reproducing Habitat Throughout their range, Sprague’s Pipit is dependent on native grasslands, where breeding densities are highest, and is much less common in areas where introduced grasses or cultivated land are prevalent (Prescott 1997; Robbins and Dale 1999, Internet site). Well-drained grasslands are preferred, while shrubby grasslands are avoided (Robbins and Dale 1999, Internet site). In southern Alberta, they were 15 times more common in native grassland (fescue and mixed grass prairie) than in seeded pastures and agricultural areas (Owens and Myres 1973; Prescott and Wagner 1996). In the aspen parkland subregion, they were found mainly in idle native grasslands and native rangelands, and very infrequently in tame pastures (Prescott et al. 1995; Prescott and Murphy 1996). In Saskatchewan, pipits built nests in sites with taller vegetation (22 cm), more dead vegetation (less than 30 cm tall), and less bare ground (8%), compared to random sites (Davis 2005). Also in Saskatchewan, Sprague’s Pipit preferred higher grass and sedge cover (53%), lower forb and shrub cover (10.5%), lower bare ground cover (17%), and higher maximum vegetation height (28 cm), compared to what was available (Sutter 1997). Some vegetation characteristics, such as species richness and species composition, were not notable factors in choice of nest sites (Sutter 1997). Patch size was the best predictor of density of singing males in native pastures, with occurrence increasing with patch size (Davis et al. 2006). Minimum patch size is 29 ha (Davis 2004). Patch shape was also important because probability of occurrence decreased as the amount of edge increased (Davis 2004).

3.12.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes As discussed in Section 2.2.4, habitat polygons (site series and ecosite phases) were grouped into broad habitat classes that reflect ecosystem attributes considered important for Sprague’s Pipit. The key ecosystem attributes used to define nesting habitat for Sprague’s Pipit include: • stand type (native grasslands preferred) • stand age (occur exclusively in structural stage 2b habitats) • soil moisture (well-drained areas preferred)

3.12.5 Ratings A four-class rating scheme was used for Sprague’s Pipit.

3.12.5.1 Provincial Benchmark No provincial benchmark has been established for Sprague’s Pipit habitat in Alberta.

Page 3-48 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.12.5.2 Ratings Assumptions The ratings assumptions, used to define habitat suitability for Sprague’s Pipit, are summarized below and in Table 3-17. • Sprague’s Pipit prefers grassland habitat and does not occur in forested or shrub-dominated habitats, which are given a nil (4) rating. • Sprague’s Pipit prefers native grasslands, which are given a high (1) rating. Probability of use decreases with increased shrub cover. Grasslands with scattered shrubs are given a low (3) rating. Cultivated hayfields and tame pasture (disturbed fallow fields) are given a low (3) rating. • Nesting occurs predominantly in structural stage 2b habitats, which are given a high (1) rating. All other habitats are given a nil (4) rating. • Well- to moderately well-drained grasslands (xeric to mesic) are preferred and are given a high (1) rating. Imperfectly and poorly drained soils (subhygric to hydric) are given a low (3) rating. • Slope position – grassland ecosystem units on a level slope are considered more suitable (rating retained) than in a depression (rating reduced to Class 3) • Site modifier – grassland ecosystem units on a ridge are considered more suitable (rating retained) than in an active floodplain (rating reduced to Class 3)

Table 3-17 Sprague’s Pipit Habitat Ratings Assumptions Moisture Regime Structural Stage Xeric to Mesic Subhygric to Hydric 1, 2a 4 4 2b (native) 1 3 2b (agriculture) 3 3 2d, 3 – 7 4 4

3.12.5.3 Ratings Adjustments Sprague’s Pipit is considered an area-sensitive species (Davis 2004; Davis et al. 2006) and thus may be affected by habitat fragmentation. Patch size was the best predictor of density of singing males in native pastures (Davis et al. 2006). Minimum patch size requirements are estimated to be 29 ha (Davis 2004). Therefore, the following adjustment was applied: • Habitat fragmentation: habitat suitability in higher quality habitat (i.e., with moderate and high ratings) was reduced to low (3) in isolated habitat patches less than 29 ha in size to account for lower potential bird abundance in smaller habitat fragments (Davis 2004).

2010 Page 3-49

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

The response of Sprague’s Pipit to noise is not known. Because Sprague’s Pipit likely uses vocalizations to delineate territories and for self-advertisement, it is reasonable to assume that noise disturbance may affect pipit abundance and nesting success, as has been reported for songbirds in forested areas (Habib 2006; Habib et al. 2007). Therefore, ratings adjustments were further applied as follows: • Noise disturbance: habitat suitability in higher quality habitat (i.e., with moderate and high ratings) was reduced to low (3) within 250 m of existing compressor stations and other excessively noisy areas (e.g., highways, town) to account for the effects of anthropogenic noise on songbird abundance and reproductive success (Habib 2006; Habib et al. 2007).

3.12.5.4 Ratings Table The Sprague’s Pipit reproducing habitat ratings table, model flowchart and sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance reductions are included on the accompanying CD (see Appendix A).

3.13 Cape May Warbler

3.13.1 Status Cape May Warbler (Dendroica tigrina) is red-listed in British Columbia (BCCDC 2009, Internet site) and listed as sensitive in Alberta (ASRD 2005, Internet site). In Alberta, it is also being considered for designation as a species of special concern (ASRD Fish and Wildlife Division 2008).

3.13.2 Distribution

3.13.2.1 Provincial Range

Alberta and British Columbia Knowledge of Cape May Warbler breeding distribution is limited by its scarcity and breeding behaviour (Campbell et al. 2001). In British Columbia, the species occurs at the western extent of its North America breeding distribution, occurring only in the Taiga Plains and Boreal Plains ecoprovinces (Campbell et al. 2001). In the Tumbler Ridge region, which is near the southern limit of their range, Cape May Warbler is considered accidental (Helm 2006). However, this may be changing as Preston and Pomeroy (in press) recently documented a substantial increase in the southern breeding limit of Cape May Warbler in British Columbia to include the Graham River watershed and Bear Flats near Hudson’s Hope. In Alberta, the breeding range includes the Boreal Forest Natural Region, and parts of the Parkland and Foothills Natural Regions (FAN 2007).

3.13.2.2 Study Area Range Breeding bird atlas data suggest Cape May Warbler could nest along the pipeline route from west-central Alberta to the Kiskatinaw Plateau and lower Hart Foothills in northeastern British Columbia (Semenchuk 1992; Campbell et al. 2001). The pipeline route crosses the southern end of the Kiskatinaw Plateau and Hart Foothills, and thus overlaps with the southern edge of the species’ possible range in British

Page 3-50 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

Columbia. As a result, the species could be a rare, local breeder along the pipeline route in northeastern British Columbia. Cape May Warbler was observed along the pipeline route in the Green Area of Alberta during breeding bird surveys conducted in 2006 (Wildlife Data and Field Surveys TDR). Based on this, and the above information, habitat modelling for Cape May Warbler was conducted from KP 65.0 to KP 580.0 along the pipeline route (i.e., the area spanning the Dry Mixedwood natural subregion in Alberta and the Boreal White and Black Spruce biogeoclimatic zone in British Columbia in the Kiskatinaw Plateau and lower Hart Ranges). This area represents the likely maximum range of Cape May Warbler along the pipeline route.

British Columbia Ecoprovinces: Boreal Plains, Sub-boreal Interior Ecoregions: Southern Alberta Upland, Central Canadian Rocky Mountains Ecosections: Kiskatinaw Plateau, Hart Foothills Biogeoclimatic Zones: Boreal White and Black Spruce, Sub-Boreal Spruce

Alberta Natural Regions: Boreal Forest, Foothills Natural Subregions: Central Mixedwood, Dry Mixedwood, Lower Foothills

3.13.2.3 Elevational Range

British Columbia Breeding: 420 to 660 m (Campbell et al. 2001)

Alberta No specific information is available.

3.13.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites Cape May Warbler is present in western Canada only during the breeding season (late May to early September). As a neotropical migrant, the primary life requisite of Cape May Warbler in the PEAA is reproducing. Breeding habitats are used for nesting and foraging, and also for shelter and security. Therefore, habitat suitability was rated only for reproducing habitat and it is assumed that all living requirements are met in these habitats.

2010 Page 3-51

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.13.3.1 Reproducing Habitat Nesting habitat of Cape May Warbler in British Columbia is described as dense mature and old-growth white spruce stands with an open, moss-dominated understorey (Bennett et al. 2000; Campbell et al. 2001; Cooper and Beauchesne 2004b). Stands may be pure spruce or interspersed with small patches of lodgepole pine, paper birch, balsam poplar, aspen, willow or alder. Cape May Warbler prefers closed canopy stands (more than 60% closure), although more open forests (less than 25% canopy closure) may be used (Bennett and Enns 1996). The shrub layer is generally poor to moderately well-developed, with these sites typically located on level or gently rolling river terraces. In the Liard River area, preferred habitat was dense, even-aged stands of white spruce averaging 140 years of age, although they were also found in younger (40 to 80 years old) stands. Trees in old stands were 22 cm diameter at breast height, and ground cover was comprised of considerable woody debris, mosses and herbs (Campbell et al. 2001). In British Columbia, Cape May Warbler has been recorded between 420 and 660 m elevation. In Alberta, Cape May Warbler occurs in mature and old-growth spruce-dominated forests (Norton 2001a; FAN 2007). Preferred stands are white spruce, although black spruce can also be used (Westworth Associates 2002; Norton 2001a). In northeastern Alberta, Cape May Warbler has been observed in mature and old white spruce forests, mature spruce-dominated and aspen-spruce-pine mixedwoods, riparian forests (presumably mature coniferous forest), and black spruce bogs and fens (Westworth Associates 2002; Norton 2001a). Norton (2001a) also indicates occasional occurrence in aspen-dominated stands, although the highest numbers in Alberta occur in mature to old white spruce-dominated stands, sometimes mixed with balsam poplar, trembling aspen or white birch. An association with ecosite phases d2 and d3 has been noted in the boreal mixedwood forest of Alberta (Norton 2001a). Near Calling Lake, 64% of sightings occurred in stands composed of more than 60% white spruce, with most stands having more than 80% white spruce (Norton 2001a). Stands used by Cape May Warbler range from 60 to more than 130 years old. In Manitoba and Saskatchewan, Cape May Warbler has been observed in overmature white spruce forest, lowland black spruce forests with alder and tamarack in boggy openings, black spruce forest with alder swales and scattered tall white spruce, uneven-aged balsam fir, and mature trembling aspen – jack pine forest (40 to 80 years old) (Kirk et al. 1996). Baltz et al. (1998, Internet site) summarized nesting habitat for Cape May Warbler across their range as medium to old coniferous forests with spruce and balsam fir, with canopy closure varying from open to closed. An important component of Cape May Warbler nesting habitat is the availability of tall trees that rise above the canopy. Also, Cape May Warbler is typically found in older rather than younger forest stands, and favours forests that are infested with spruce budworms (Baltz et al. 1998, Internet site). In eastern North America, Cape May Warbler has been recorded in white spruce, wet black spruce- dominated bogs, mid-aged spruce forests (25 to 75 years old), and balsam fir forests (Baltz et al. 1998, Internet site).

Page 3-52 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.13.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes As discussed in Section 2.2.4, habitat polygons (site series and ecosite phases) were grouped into broad habitat classes that reflect ecosystem attributes considered important for Cape May Warbler. The key ecosystem attributes used to define nesting habitat for Cape May Warbler include: • stand age (structural stage 6 and 7 preferred) • forest type (white spruce forests preferred) • canopy cover (closed canopy preferred) • understorey complexity (shrub layer poorly to moderately well developed, high moss cover) • terrain (level or gently rolling terrain preferred)

3.13.5 Ratings A four-class rating scheme was used for Cape May Warbler.

3.13.5.1 Provincial Benchmark No provincial benchmark has been established for Cape May Warbler habitat in British Columbia or Alberta.

3.13.5.2 Ratings Assumptions The ratings assumptions used to define habitat suitability for Cape May Warblers are summarized below and in Table 3-18. • Cape May Warbler is a forest interior bird and only forested habitat types are rated. Non-forested and sparsely vegetated habitats are assumed to have no value for nesting and are given a nil (4) habitat rating. • Cape May Warbler prefers mature and old-growth forests (structural stages 6 and 7), which are considered the most valuable for nesting. Preference increases with age (Cooper and Beauchesne 2004b). Structural stage 6 and 7 stands are given a high rating (1) if associated with the appropriate forest type. Structural stage 4 and 5 stands are considered much lower in value and are given a low rating (3) if associated with the appropriate forest type. Structural stages 1 to 3 are considered to have no value for nesting and are given a nil (4) rating. • Spruce and spruce-dominated stands are preferred for nesting. White spruce is preferred over black spruce. Stands dominated by white spruce are given a high rating (1), while those dominated by black spruce or fir, or mixed spruce-deciduous, are given a moderate rating (2). Stands dominated by deciduous or deciduous-pine are given a low rating (3). Non-forested stands are given a nil rating (4). • Dense, closed canopy stands (more than 25% canopy closure) with open understoreys are preferred over open canopy stands (less than 25% canopy closure) with higher understorey complexity. Moist stands (subhygric) may be preferred. • Preferred nesting habitat is on level to gently sloping ground, and may be associated with riparian areas.

2010 Page 3-53

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

Table 3-18 Cape May Warbler Habitat Ratings Assumptions White Spruce Black Spruce/Fir/ Structural Stage Dominated Mixedwood Pine/Deciduous 1 – 3 4 4 4 4 – 5 3 3 4 6 – 7 (open1) 2 3 3 6 – 7 (closed2) 1 2 3 NOTES: 1 Canopy closure less than 25% with high understorey. 2 Canopy closure more than 25% with low understorey.

3.13.5.3 Ratings Adjustments No information is available on the response of Cape May Warblers to forest fragmentation, edge effects and other disturbances in the western boreal forest. However, it is assumed that Cape May Warbler responds to habitat disturbances in a similar fashion to other boreal forest wood-warblers such as Black- throated Green Warbler (Norton 2001a). Therefore, the following ratings adjustments were applied: • Forest fragmentation: habitat suitability in higher quality habitat (i.e., with moderate and high ratings) was reduced to low (3) in isolated forest patches less than 10 ha in size to account for potential lower songbird abundance in isolated forest fragments (Schmiegelow and Hannon 1999). • Edge effects: habitat suitability in higher quality habitat (i.e., with moderate and high ratings) was reduced within 50 m of wide (more than 50 m) RoWs (e.g., roads, pipelines, powerlines) to account for possible increases in predation in adjacent forest habitat (Fleming 2001). • Noise disturbance: habitat suitability in higher quality habitat (i.e., with moderate and high ratings) was reduced to low (3) within 250 m of existing compressor stations and other excessively noisy areas (e.g., highways, town) to account for the effects of anthropogenic noise on songbird abundance and reproductive success (Habib 2006; Habib et al. 2007).

3.13.5.4 Ratings Table The Cape May Warbler reproducing habitat ratings table, model flowchart and sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance reductions are included on the accompanying CD (see Appendix A).

3.14 Black-throated Green Warbler

3.14.1 Status Black-throated Green Warbler (Dendroica virens) is blue-listed in British Columbia (BCCDC 2009, Internet site) and listed as sensitive in Alberta (ASRD 2005, Internet site). In Alberta, it is also designated as a species of special concern (ASRD Fish and Wildlife Division 2008).

Page 3-54 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.14.2 Distribution

3.14.2.1 Provincial Range

Alberta and British Columbia In British Columbia, Black-throated Green Warbler occurs at the western extent of its North American breeding range, breeding only in the Taiga Plains and Boreal Plains ecoprovinces (Campbell et al. 2001). In Alberta, it is widespread across central and northern portions of the province (FAN 2007).

3.14.2.2 Study Area Range Breeding bird atlas data suggest Black-throated Green Warbler could breed along the pipeline route from west-central Alberta to the Kiskatinaw Plateau and adjacent eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains in northeastern British Columbia (Semenchuk 1992; Campbell et al. 2001). The pipeline route crosses the southern end of the Kiskatinaw Plateau and Hart Foothills, and thus overlaps with the southern edge of the species’ range in British Columbia. As a result, the species could be a rare, local breeder along the pipeline route in northeastern British Columbia. Black-throated Green Warbler was found along the pipeline route in the Green Area of Alberta during breeding bird surveys by the study team in 2006, as noted in the Wildlife Data and Field Surveys TDR. Based on this, and the above information, habitat modelling for Black-throated Green Warbler was conducted from KP 65.0 to KP 580.0 (i.e., the area spanning the Dry Mixedwood natural subregion in Alberta and low elevation (less than 1,100 m) Boreal White and Black Spruce in the Kiskatinaw Plateau and lower Hart Foothills of British Columbia). This area represents the likely maximum range of Black- throated Green Warbler along the pipeline route.

British Columbia Ecoprovinces: Boreal Plains, Sub-boreal Interior Ecoregions: Southern Alberta Upland, Central Canadian Rocky Mountains Ecosections: Kiskatinaw Plateau, Hart Foothills Biogeoclimatic Zones: Boreal White and Black Spruce, Sub-Boreal Spruce

Alberta Natural Regions: Boreal Forest, Foothills Natural Subregions: Central Mixedwood, Dry Mixedwood, Lower Foothills

3.14.2.3 Elevational Range

British Columbia Breeding: 650 to 1,100 m (Campbell et al. 2001)

2010 Page 3-55

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

Alberta No specific information is available.

3.14.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites Black-throated Green Warbler is present in western Canada only during the breeding season (late May to early September). As a neotropical migrant, the primary life requisite of Black-throated Green Warbler in the PEAA is reproducing. Breeding habitats are used for nesting and foraging, and also for shelter and security. Therefore, habitat suitability was rated only for reproducing habitat and it is assumed that all living requirements are met in these habitats.

3.14.3.1 Reproducing Habitat Black-throated Green Warbler breeds in a variety of forest habitats from coniferous-leading, deciduous- leading, and mixedwood stands. In British Columbia, most sites have at least some coniferous component; pure deciduous forests are rarely used (Cooper et al. 1997a; Campbell et al. 2001; Darling et al. 2002; Cooper and Beauchesne 2004c). Pine stands are also rarely used (Cooper et al. 1997a). Typical stands used in northeastern British Columbia include riparian mixedwood (white spruce/trembling aspen/poplar) and white spruce forests (Enns and Siddle 1996; Cooper et al. 1997a; Campbell et al. 2001; Cooper and Beauchesne 2004c). Darling et al. (2002) reported that abundance may be higher in mixedwood stands dominated by white spruce. In contrast, Booth (1996) reported higher numbers of detections in aspen leading mixedwood forests. Use of riparian areas is variable and not consistent across northeastern British Columbia (Darling et al. 2002). Near Dawson Creek, Phinney (2003) observed that riparian areas were not preferred. Mature and old stands (structural stages 6 and 7) are preferred. Mixed spruce-poplar stands may contain mid-aged, mid-canopy aspen trees, suggesting use of two-storey or multi-storey stands. Stands tend to be mesic and support a diverse understorey containing rose, baneberry, highbush cranberry, bunchberry, fireweed, kinnikinnick, mosses, peavine and American vetch (Cooper et al. 1997a). In Saskatchewan, Hobson and Bayne (2000a) reported associations of Black-throated Green Warbler with mature mixedwood stands with higher deciduous shrub cover. In British Columbia, Black-throated Green Warblers are likely most associated with the mesic white spruce ,trembling aspen and step moss site series (Boreal White and Black Spruce Peace Moist Warm variant [BWBSmw1]) (Cooper et al. 1997a). In the Dawson Creek Timber Supply Area, Preston et al. (2007) described occupied sites as being conifer- leading stands more than 80 years old with relatively low stem density, low shrub cover (less than 20%), and shallow slope (less than 15°). Additionally, sites tended to be wetter rather than drier as noted by the prevalence of understorey plants such as rose, twinberry, highbush cranberry, bunchberry, coltsfoot, grasses, and fireweed (Preston et al. 2007). Nesting habitat in Alberta is similar to that in British Columbia, with breeding reported from coniferous, deciduous and mixedwood forests, but preferentially in contiguous, mature coniferous forests (FAN 2007). Norton (1999) reported that the species prefers mixed stands of aspen and white spruce, with both aspen-dominated and spruce-dominated stands being used. They are not associated with lodgepole pine stands (Norton 1999). Near Calling Lake, most records of this warbler were from deciduous-dominated stands with 10% to 20% white spruce in the canopy; few records occurred in stands with more than

Page 3-56 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

50% spruce in the canopy (Norton 1999). Similarly, mature deciduous-dominated stands that contained some conifers were used in the Lower Foothills and Calling Lake areas of Alberta (Westworth and Telfer 1993; Song 1998). Robichaud and Villard (1999) reported that Black-throated Green Warbler did not use patches of aspen forest with few or no mature white spruce. As in British Columbia, its occurrence in Alberta is primarily in mature and old forests (e.g., 80 to 130 year-old deciduous-dominated mixedwood forest; Schmiegelow et al. 1997; Robichaud and Villard 1999), with younger stands being avoided (Westworth and Telfer 1993). Black-throated Green Warbler is also associated with increasing canopy complexity in older stands (Schieck and Nietfeld 1995). Most studies from the boreal forest (reviewed in Norton 1999) have shown that Black-throated Green Warbler prefers large contiguous tracts of mature forest with white spruce (Hobson and Bayne 2000b). Across the species’ geographic range, tree species in occupied sites differ substantially, suggesting that structure is more important than composition (Collins 1983).

3.14.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes As discussed in Section 2.2.4, habitat polygons (site series and ecosite phases) were grouped into broad habitat classes that reflect ecosystem attributes considered important for Black-throated Green Warbler. The ecosystem attributes used to define habitat use by Black-throated Green Warbler include: • stand age (structural stage 6 and 7 forests are preferred) • forest type (mixedwood forests are preferred) • canopy cover (complex canopy structure preferred) • understorey (well-developed understorey preferred) • terrain (riparian areas used, but not exclusively)

3.14.5 Ratings A four-class rating scheme was used for Black-throated Green Warbler.

3.14.5.1 Provincial Benchmark No provincial benchmark has been established for Black-throated Green Warbler habitat in British Columbia or Alberta.

3.14.5.2 Ratings Assumptions The ratings assumptions used to define habitat suitability for Black-throated Green Warblers are summarized below and in Table 3-19. • Black-throated Green Warbler is a forest interior bird and only forested habitat types are rated. Non-forested and sparsely vegetated habitats are assumed to have no value for nesting and are given a nil (4) habitat rating.

2010 Page 3-57

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

• Black-throated Green Warbler prefers mature and old-growth forests, which are considered most valuable for nesting. Therefore, structural stage 6 and 7 stands are given a high rating (1) if associated with the appropriate forest type. Structural stage 4 and 5 stands were considered much lower in value and are given a low rating (3) if associated with the appropriate forest type. Structural stage 1 to 3 habitats are considered to have no value for nesting and are given a nil (4) rating. • Mixedwood (spruce – aspen/polar) stands are preferred for nesting. Mixedwood stands dominated by spruce or aspen/poplar are given a high (1) rating. Spruce stands are given a moderate (2) rating, and pure aspen and pine stands are given a low (3) rating. Non-forested stands are given a nil (4) rating. • Black-throated Green Warbler prefers to nest on mesic and moist sites with high canopy and understorey complexity. • Preferred nesting habitat occurs in valley bottoms and lower slopes. Ecosystem units on the upper slope, crest, or ridge position are considered less suitable and rated class 3 for all forest ages and stand types.

Table 3-19 Black-Throated Green Warbler Habitat Ratings Assumptions Structure1/ Mixedwood with Structural Stage Moisture2 White Spruce White Spruce Aspen/Pine 1 – 3 4 4 4 4 – 5 3 3 4 6 – 7 Low/Dry 2 3 3 6 – 7 High/Moist 1 2 3

NOTES: 1 Structure – low complexity (single storey canopy, open understorey); high complexity (two- or multistorey canopy, moderate to high understorey cover). 2 Moisture – soil moisture regime: dry (xeric to submesic); moist (mesic to subhygric).

3.14.5.3 Ratings Adjustments Ratings adjustments were made to take into account the effects of forest fragmentation, edge effects and noise disturbance, as follows: • Forest fragmentation: habitat suitability for Black-throated Green Warbler in higher quality habitat (i.e., with moderate and high ratings) was reduced to low (3) in forest patches less than 10 ha in size to account for potential lower songbird abundance in isolated forest fragments (Schmiegelow and Hannon 1999). • Edge effects: habitat suitability for Black-throated Green Warbler in higher quality habitat (i.e., with moderate and high ratings) was reduced within 50 m of wide (more than 50 m) RoWs (e.g., roads, pipelines, powerlines) to account for possible increases in predation in adjacent forest habitat (Fleming 2001).

Page 3-58 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

• Noise disturbance: habitat suitability for Black-throated Green Warbler in higher quality habitat (i.e., with moderate and high ratings) was reduced to low (3) within 250 m of existing compressor stations and other excessively noisy areas (e.g., highways, town) to account for the effects of anthropogenic noise on songbird abundance and reproductive success (Habib 2006; Habib et al. 2007).

3.14.5.4 Ratings Table The Black-throated Green Warbler reproducing habitat ratings table, model flowchart and sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance reductions are included on the accompanying CD (see Appendix A).

3.15 Bay-breasted Warbler

3.15.1 Status Bay-breasted Warbler (Dendroica castanea) is red-listed in British Columbia (BCCDC 2009, Internet site), and listed as sensitive in Alberta (ASRD 2005, Internet site). In Alberta, it is also being considered for designation as a species of special concern (ASRD Fish and Wildlife Division 2008).

3.15.2 Distribution

3.15.2.1 Provincial Range

Alberta and British Columbia In British Columbia, Bay-breasted Warbler occurs at the western extent of its North American breeding range, breeding only in the Taiga Plains and Boreal Plains ecoprovinces (Campbell et al. 2001). It is considered rare in British Columbia south of Tumbler Ridge (Campbell et al. 2001) although potential habitat occurs in this area (Cooper and Beauchesne 2004b). Bay-breasted Warbler appears to be absent from apparently suitable habitat in southern parts of the Boreal Plains ecoprovince (Campbell et al. 2001). However, based on the presence of suitable but unexplored habitat, there may be a small number of breeding pairs that are as yet undetected. Detection of this species can be difficult because of its overall scarcity and high-pitched, weak song, which makes it difficult for some observers to hear (Norton 2001b). In Alberta, the species distribution spans the northern half of the province (FAN 2007). Its breeding range is described as being coincident with the limits of the Boreal Forest Natural Region and the Lower Foothills Natural Subregion (Norton 2001b).

3.15.2.2 Study Area Range Breeding bird atlas data suggest this species could nest in appropriate habitat along the pipeline route from Bruderheim, Alberta to the Kiskatinaw Plateau in northeastern British Columbia (Semenchuk 1992; Campbell et al. 2001; FAN 2007). The pipeline route crosses the southern end of the Kiskatinaw Plateau, and thus overlaps the southern edge of this species’ possible range in British Columbia. As a result, the species could be a very rare, local breeder along the pipeline route in northeastern British Columbia.

2010 Page 3-59

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

Based on the above information, habitat modelling for Bay-breasted Warbler was conducted from KP 65.0 to KP 580.0 along the pipeline route (i.e., the area spanning the Boreal Forest Natural Region and the Lower Foothills Natural Subregion in Alberta, and the Boreal White and Black Spruce biogeoclimatic zone in British Columbia). This area represents the likely maximum range of Bay-breasted Warbler along the pipeline route. The probability of its occurrence along the pipeline route in northeastern British Columbia is likely very low; however, modelling was extended into this area because of the existence of potential habitat (Cooper and Beauchesne 2004d).

British Columbia Ecoprovinces: Boreal Plains, Sub-boreal Interior Ecoregions: Southern Alberta Upland, Central Canadian Rocky Mountains Ecosections: Kiskatinaw Plateau, Hart Foothills Biogeoclimatic Zones: Boreal White and Black Spruce

Alberta Natural Regions: Boreal Forest, Foothills Natural Subregions: Central Mixedwood, Dry Mixedwood, Lower Foothills

3.15.2.3 Elevational Range

British Columbia Breeding: 230 to 760 m (Campbell et al. 2001)

Alberta No specific information is available.

3.15.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites Bay-breasted Warbler is present in western Canada only during the breeding season (late May to early September). As a neotropical migrant, the primary life requisite of Bay-breasted Warbler in the PEAA is reproducing. Breeding habitats are used for nesting and foraging, and also for shelter and security. Therefore, habitat suitability was rated only for reproducing habitat and it is assumed that all living requirements are met in these habitats.

3.15.3.1 Reproducing Habitat In British Columbia, Bay-breasted Warbler is usually found in mature and old-growth stands of white spruce, as well as white spruce-dominated mixedwood stands interspersed with aspen, birch, poplar, willow and alder (Campbell et al. 2001). Stand suitability declines with an increasing deciduous component (Bennett and Enns 1996). Bay-breasted Warbler may occur in both valley bottom and mid-to upper slope habitats (Bennett and Enns 1996; Bennett et al. 2000). In the Liard River area, 58% of records

Page 3-60 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

were in mature mixed riparian and mature coniferous riparian habitat, while 42% were in mature mixed upslope and mature coniferous upslope habitats (Bennett and Enns 1996). Preferred sites are also characterized by a relatively closed tree canopy (25% to 60%) and high diversity of understorey shrubs, indicating high site productivity. Common shrubs found at occupied sites included high-bush cranberry, prickly rose, speckled alder, twinflower, bunchberry and trailing raspberry (Bennett and Enns 1996). Preferred sites also tend to have mesic to subhygric soil conditions. In Alberta, the highest numbers of Bay-breasted Warbler have been found in mature and old stands dominated by white spruce (Norton 2001b). These stands may include some aspen, balsam poplar or white birch. Deciduous-dominated forests may be used, but to a much lesser extent (Norton 2001b). Similarly, occurrence is negatively associated with the presence of black spruce (Norton 2001b). In boreal forests in Saskatchewan, Bay-breasted Warblers were found exclusively in old forests rather than mature or young forests (Hobson and Bayne 2000a). Similarly, Kirk et al. (1996) found the highest densities in more than 80 years old forests in central Saskatchewan, low densities in 40 year-old forests, and very low densities in young (0 to 20 year-old) forests.

3.15.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes As discussed in Section 2.2.4, habitat polygons (site series and ecosite phases) were grouped into broad habitat classes that reflect ecosystem attributes considered important for Bay-breasted Warbler. The key ecosystem attributes used to define habitat use by Bay-breasted Warbler include: • stand age (structural stage 6 and 7 forests are preferred) • forest type (spruce and spruce-dominated mixedwood forests are preferred) • canopy cover (closed canopies are preferred) • understorey (well-developed, diverse shrub understorey may be preferred) • terrain (riparian and mid-to upper slope positions used) • soil moisture (mesic and subhygric sites may be preferred)

3.15.5 Ratings A four-class rating scheme was used for Bay-breasted Warbler.

3.15.5.1 Provincial Benchmark No provincial benchmark has been established for Bay-breasted Warbler habitat in British Columbia or Alberta.

3.15.5.2 Ratings Assumptions The ratings assumptions used to define habitat suitability for Bay-breasted Warblers are summarized below and in Table 3-20. • Bay-breasted Warbler is a forest interior bird and only forested habitat types are rated. Non-forested and sparsely vegetated habitats are assumed to have no value for nesting and are given a nil (4) rating.

2010 Page 3-61

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

• Bay-breasted Warbler prefers mature and old-growth forests (structural stages 6 and 7), which are considered most valuable for nesting. Structural stage 6 and 7 stands are given a high rating (1) if associated with the appropriate forest type. Structural stage 4 and 5 stands are considered much lower in value and given a low rating (3) if associated with the appropriate forest type. Structural stage 1 to 3 habitats are considered to have no value for nesting and are given a nil (4) rating. • White spruce stands and white spruce-dominated mixedwood stands are preferred and given a high (1) rating. Other coniferous and deciduous stands are given a low (3) rating. • Bay-breasted Warbler prefers to nest on mesic and subhygric sites with high canopy cover (more than 25%) and high shrub understorey complexity. • Both riparian and mid-to-upper slope positions are used for nesting.

Table 3-20 Bay-breasted Warbler Habitat Ratings Assumptions White Spruce/White Spruce Mixedwood High Shrub Cover/ Low Shrub Cover/ Non-White Spruce Structural Stage Moist1 Dry2 Stands 1 – 3 4 4 4 4 – 5 3 3 4 6 – 7 (< 25% canopy) 2 3 3 6 – 7 (>25% canopy) 1 2 3

NOTES: 1 Moist Soil Regime – submesic to subhygric. 2 Dry Soil Regime – xeric to subxeric.

3.15.5.3 Ratings Adjustments No information is available on the response of Bay-breasted Warbler to forest fragmentation, edge effects and other disturbances in the western boreal forest. However, it is assumed that Bay-breasted Warbler responds to habitat disturbance in a fashion similar to other boreal forest wood-warblers (Norton 2001b), such as the Black-throated Green Warbler. Therefore, the following ratings adjustments were applied: • Forest fragmentation: habitat suitability in higher quality habitat (i.e., with moderate and high ratings) was reduced to low (3) in isolated forest patches less than 10 ha in size to account for potential lower songbird abundance in isolated forest fragments (Schmiegelow and Hannon 1999). • Edge effects: habitat suitability in higher quality habitat (i.e., with moderate and high ratings) was reduced within 50 m of wide (more than 50 m) RoWs (e.g., roads, pipelines, powerlines) to account for possible increases in predation in adjacent forest habitat (Fleming 2001). • Noise disturbance: habitat suitability in higher quality habitat (i.e., with moderate and high ratings) was reduced to low (3) within 250 m of existing compressor stations and other excessively noisy areas (e.g., highways, town) to account for the effects of anthropogenic noise on songbird abundance and reproductive success (Habib 2006; Habib et al. 2007).

Page 3-62 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.15.5.4 Ratings Table The Bay-breasted Warbler reproducing habitat ratings table, model flowchart and sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance reductions are included on the accompanying CD (see Appendix A).

3.16 Connecticut Warbler

3.16.1 Status Connecticut Warbler (Oporornis agilis) is red-listed in British Columbia (BCCDC 2009, Internet site), and listed as secure in Alberta (ASRD 2005, Internet site).

3.16.2 Distribution

3.16.2.1 Provincial Range

Alberta and British Columbia In British Columbia, Connecticut Warbler occurs at the western extent of its North American breeding range, breeding only in the Taiga Plains and Boreal Plains ecoprovinces and mainly in discrete populations in the Peace Lowlands and Kiskatinaw Plateau ecosections (Campbell et al. 2001). In Alberta, it is more widespread, occurring in the Boreal Forest, Foothills and Parkland Natural Regions (FAN 2007).

3.16.2.2 Study Area Range Breeding bird atlas data suggest that Connecticut Warbler could breed along the pipeline route from Bruderheim, Alberta to the Kiskatinaw Plateau and lower Hart Foothills in northeastern British Columbia (Semenchuk 1992; Campbell et al. 2001; FAN 2007). The pipeline route crosses the southern end of the Kiskatinaw Plateau and Hart Foothills, and thus overlaps the southern edge of the species’ possible range in British Columbia. As a result, the species could be a rare, local breeder along the pipeline route in northeastern British Columbia. Connecticut Warbler was observed along the PEAA in the Green Area of Alberta, as well as in the Dawson Creek LUPA in northeastern British Columbia (Wildlife Data and Field Surveys TDR). Based on this, and the above information, habitat modelling for Connecticut Warbler was conducted from KP 0 to KP 580.0 (i.e., the area spanning the Central Parkland natural subregion in Alberta and the Boreal White and Black Spruce biogeoclimatic zone in British Columbia in the Kiskatinaw Plateau and lower Hart Foothills). This area represents the likely maximum range of Connecticut Warbler along the pipeline route.

British Columbia Ecoprovinces: Boreal Plains, Sub-boreal Interior Ecoregions: Southern Alberta Upland, Central Canadian Rocky Mountains

2010 Page 3-63

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

Ecosections: Kiskatinaw Plateau, Hart Foothills Biogeoclimatic Zones: Boreal White and Black Spruce

Alberta Natural Regions: Parklands, Boreal Forest, Foothills Natural Subregions: Central Parkland, Central Mixedwood, Dry Mixedwood, Lower Foothills

3.16.2.3 Elevational Range

British Columbia Breeding: 400 to 1,100 m (Campbell et al. 2001)

Alberta No specific information is available.

3.16.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites Connecticut Warbler is present in western Canada only during the breeding season (late May to early September). As a neotropical migrant, the primary life requisite of Connecticut Warbler in the PEAA is reproducing. Breeding habitats are used for nesting and foraging, and also shelter and security. Therefore, habitat suitability was rated only for reproducing habitat and it is assumed that all living requirements are met in these habitats.

3.16.3.1 Reproducing Habitat In British Columbia, Connecticut Warbler occurs in aspen-dominated forest, on flat to gently sloping sites, with scattered large trees (Enns and Siddle 1996). Spruce may be interspersed sporadically throughout the stand. Stands may be characterized by a well-developed, low understorey (less than 3 m) and an open gap between the crowns. Age of stands used in British Columbia is variable. Cooper et al. (1997b) indicated that Connecticut Warbler occurs mainly in mature and old-growth aspen stands. In the Dawson Creek Forest District, Darling et al. (2002) reported that Connecticut Warbler occurred in mature aspen stands, harvested cutblocks adjacent to mature aspen stands, and edge habitat along seismic lines in mature aspen forest. In a review of data from northeastern British Columbia, Darling et al. (2002) reported that Connecticut Warbler was consistently found in mature aspen and aspen-dominated stands, although they also occurred in mixed poplar – white spruce stands, pole-stage aspen regenerating stands, and in 40 to 60 year-old aspen stands. Preston et al. (2007) determined that mean stand age was 68 years (range: 20 to 120 years old), and that occupied sites tended to have less than 5% tall shrubs (3 m), and less than 20% total shrub cover. Generally, occupied sites in the Dawson Creek Defined Forest Area had shallow slope (approximately 5°; Preston et al. 2007).

Page 3-64 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

In Alberta, Connecticut Warbler has been reported to breed in wet, open forests, and occur in deciduous and mixedwood forests if the density of trees is low (FAN 2007). They are reported to nest in early succession forests and along forest edges (FAN 2007). Norton et al. (2000) reported that Connecticut Warbler is more common in deciduous forest than in coniferous forest and recent clear-cuts. Westworth and Telfer (1993) did not record this species in recent clear-cuts or very young (14 years old) aspen forests. In their study, Connecticut Warbler was most abundant in 30 year-old aspen stands, but also occurred in 60 and 80 year old aspen stands. Similarly, in aspen-dominated mixedwood forests, Schieck and Nietfeld (1995) reported them to be most abundant in young (20 to 30 years old) stands, followed by mature (50 to 65 years old) stands, and least abundant in old (120+ years old) stands. In contrast, Rangen (1997) did not detect Connecticut Warblers in young (25 years old) aspen-dominated mixedwood stands in the Foothills Model Forest, whereas they did occur in low abundance in older (76 to 100 years old) forest. In mixedwood boreal forests in Saskatchewan, Kirk et al. (1996) reported highest densities of Connecticut Warbler in mature (40 years old) forests, followed by young (15 to 20 years old) forests. Densities were very low in very young (0 to 9 years old) forests, and lowest in the oldest (80 years old) forests. Similarly, Hobson and Bayne (2000a) found this species to be most abundant in mature (54 years old) aspen- dominated forest in central Saskatchewan. Densities were intermediate in young (21 years old) forests, and lowest in the oldest (90 years old) forests.

3.16.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes As discussed in Section 2.2.4, habitat polygons (site series and ecosite phases) were grouped into broad habitat classes that reflect ecosystem attributes considered important for Connecticut Warbler. The key ecosystem attributes used to define nesting habitat for Connecticut Warbler include: • forest type (deciduous and deciduous-dominated mixedwood forests preferred) • stand age (structural stage 5 and 6 preferred, although structural stage 4 and 7 stands are also used) • understorey complexity (e.g., low shrub cover) • canopy cover (high, thin canopy)

3.16.5 Ratings A four-class rating scheme was used for Connecticut Warbler.

3.16.5.1 Provincial Benchmark No provincial benchmark has been established for Connecticut Warbler habitat in British Columbia or Alberta.

3.16.5.2 Ratings Assumptions The ratings assumptions used to define habitat suitability for Connecticut Warblers are summarized below and in Table 3-21. • Connecticut Warbler prefers forested habitat types. Sparsely vegetated habitats are assumed to have no value for nesting and are given a nil (4) rating.

2010 Page 3-65

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

• Connecticut Warbler prefers mature forests, which are considered most valuable for nesting. Structural stage 6 stands are given a high rating (1) if associated with the appropriate forest type. Structural stage 5 stands are also given a high (1) rating because high densities are often recorded in 40 to 80 year-old stands in western Canada. Structural stage 7 stands are used less often and are considered to have moderate (2) value, while structural stage 4 stands (typically less than 30 years old) are given a low (3) rating. Structural stage 1 to 3 stands are given a nil (4) rating. • Deciduous and deciduous-dominated mixedwood stands are preferred for nesting. Stands with aspen, birch, and/or balsam poplar, with or without a small component of white spruce, are given a high (1) rating. Conifer-dominated mixedwoods are given a low (3) rating, while pure coniferous stands are given a nil (4) rating. • Stands with low understorey cover are given a high (1) rating, while stands with a high understorey cover are given a low (3) rating.

Table 3-21 Connecticut Warbler Habitat Ratings Assumptions Aspen- Conifer- Aspen/ dominated dominated Structural Stage Deciduous Mixedwood Mixedwood Coniferous 1 – 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 5 – 6 (closed canopy) 2 3 4 4 5 – 6 (open canopy) 1 2 3 4 7 2 3 4 4

3.16.5.3 Ratings Adjustments Limited information is available on the response of Connecticut Warbler to forest fragmentation, edge effects and other disturbances in the western boreal forest. A recent study in an agricultural landscape in western Canada characterized the Connecticut Warbler as a forest interior species that was more likely to occur in larger forest fragments (Hobson and Bayne 2000a). Therefore, in non-agricultural forested landscapes, it is assumed that Connecticut Warblers respond similarly to habitat disturbances as other neotropical migrants (Cooper et al. 1997b), such as Black-throated Green Warbler. The following ratings adjustments were thus applied: • Forest fragmentation: habitat suitability in higher quality habitat (i.e., with moderate and high ratings) was reduced to low (3) in isolated forest patches less than 10 ha in size to account for potential lower songbird abundance in isolated forest fragments (Schmiegelow and Hannon 1999). • Edge effects: habitat suitability in higher quality habitat (i.e., with moderate and high ratings) was reduced within 50 m of wide (more than 50 m) RoWs (e.g., roads, pipelines, powerlines) to account for possible increases in predation in adjacent forest habitat (Fleming 2001).

Page 3-66 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

• Noise disturbance: habitat suitability in higher quality habitat (i.e., with moderate and high ratings) was reduced to low (3) within 250 m of existing compressor stations and other excessively noisy areas (e.g., highways, town) to account for the effects of anthropogenic noise on songbird abundance and reproductive success (Habib 2006; Habib et al. 2007). Breeding habitat may be affected by powerlines (Niemi and Hanowski 1984).

3.16.5.4 Ratings Table The Connecticut Warbler reproducing habitat ratings table, model flowchart and sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance reductions are included on the accompanying CD (see Appendix A).

3.17 Canada Warbler

3.17.1 Status Canada Warbler (Wilsonia canadensis) is blue-listed in British Columbia (BCCDC 2009, Internet site), and listed as sensitive in Alberta (ASRD 2005, Internet site). It is also listed as threatened by COSEWIC (2008b) because of a notable long-term population decline across its breeding range in Canada.

3.17.2 Distribution

3.17.2.1 Provincial Range

Alberta and British Columbia In British Columbia, Canada Warblers occur at the western extent of their North American breeding range, breeding only in the Taiga Plains and Boreal Plains ecoprovinces (Campbell et al. 2001). Among breeding records in British Columbia, the most southerly areas include Swan Lake south of Dawson Creek, Bear Mountain near Dawson Creek, and Jackfish Lake, 4 km north of Chetwynd (Campbell 2005; Campbell et al. 2007b). In Alberta it is more widespread, occurring mainly in the Boreal Forest, Foothills and Parkland Natural Regions (FAN 2007).

3.17.2.2 Study Area Range Breeding bird atlas data suggest the species could breed along the pipeline route from Bruderheim, Alberta to the Kiskatinaw Plateau and lower Hart Foothills in northeastern British Columbia (Semenchuk 1992; Campbell et al. 2001). The pipeline route crosses the southern end of the Kiskatinaw Plateau and Hart Foothills, and thus overlaps the southern edge of this species’ possible range in British Columbia. As a result, the species could be a rare, local breeder along the pipeline route in northeastern British Columbia. Canada Warbler was observed along the pipeline route in the Green Area of Alberta during breeding bird surveys conducted in 2006 (Wildlife Data and Field Surveys TDR). Based on this, and the above information, habitat modelling for Canada Warbler was conducted from KP 0 to KP 580.0 (i.e., the area spanning the Central Parkland natural subregion in Alberta and the Boreal White and Black Spruce

2010 Page 3-67

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

biogeoclimatic zone in British Columbia in the Kiskatinaw Plateau and lower Hart Foothills). This area represents the likely maximum range of Canada Warbler along the pipeline route.

British Columbia Ecoprovinces: Boreal Plains, Sub-boreal Interior Ecoregions: Southern Alberta Upland, Central Canadian Rocky Mountains Ecosections: Kiskatinaw Plateau, Hart Foothills Biogeoclimatic Zones: Boreal White and Black Spruce, Sub-Boreal Spruce

Alberta Natural Regions: Parklands, Boreal Forest, Foothills Natural Subregions: Central Parkland, Central Mixedwood, Dry Mixedwood, Lower Foothills

3.17.2.3 Elevational Range

British Columbia Breeding: 237 to 1,100 m (Campbell et al. 2007b)

Alberta No specific information is available.

3.17.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites Canada Warbler is present in western Canada only during the breeding season (late May to late August). As a neotropical migrant, the primary life requisite of Canada Warbler in the PEAA is reproducing. Breeding habitats are used for nesting and foraging, and also for shelter and security. Therefore, habitat suitability was rated only for reproducing habitat and it is assumed that all living requirements are met in these habitats.

3.17.3.1 Reproducing Habitat Nesting habitat for Canada Warbler in British Columbia is generally described as mature and old mixed deciduous (birch, aspen, polar and alder) forests with a minor component of spruce (Enns and Siddle 1996; Cooper et al. 1997c; Bennett et al. 2000; Campbell et al. 2001). Stands with at least 8% birch trees may be preferred (Cooper et al. 1997c). Canada Warbler can occur in younger stands (Bennett et al. 2000), but mature and old forests are preferred (Campbell et al. 2001; Campbell et al. 2007b). Preferred sites have a tall (2.5 to 3.5 m), rich shrub understorey, most commonly dominated by green alder but also with willow spp., rose, aspen saplings, red-osier dogwood, mountain ash, and Saskatoon (Campbell et al. 2007b). Non-woody plants less than 50 cm are common at sites with Canada Warbler, and include bunchberry, kinnikinnick, horsetail spp., fireweed, grasses, mosses, cow-parsnip, ferns, lily-of-the-valley, and twinflower (Campbell et al. 2007b). Soil moisture can be wet or dry, although moist and wet sites

Page 3-68 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

likely provide the greatest understorey cover. Riparian or floodplain sites are often occupied, but upland areas are also used frequently for nesting in British Columbia (Bennett et al. 2000). Nesting habitat is often on moderate to steep slopes, but adjacent flat areas are also used (e.g., 0° to 75°, mean = 17° from 103 occupied sites; Campbell et al. 2007b). Suitable sites are often characterized by wind-thrown trees (Enns and Siddle 1996), although abundant coarse woody debris is not a prerequisite (Campbell et al. 2007b). Canada Warbler is often recorded from forest edge habitats with high shrub cover, especially along powerlines, pipelines, seismic lines, roads, and other linear RoWs (Campbell et al. 2007b). Bennett et al. (2000) indicated that most sightings in northeastern British Columbia occur in mature aspen stands with closed canopies, open midstoreys (widely spaced tree stems) and dense shrub understoreys often dominated by alder and high bush cranberry. Campbell et al. (2007b) noted from 103 sites that canopy cover ranged from 15% to 80% (mean = 62%). In Alberta, Canada Warbler habitat includes thick stands of willow and alder along streams, as well as mesic deciduous and mixedwood forests taller than 10 m and characterized by tall, rich deciduous undergrowth (Semenchuk 1992). The species may be more abundant in older mixed forests near water (FAN 2007), and may also be abundant along forest-clear-cut edges (Song 1998). Schieck and Nietfeld (1995) reported highest densities in more than 120 year-old aspen-dominated mixedwood forest, low density in 50 to 65 year-old mixedwood forests, and no detections in 20 to 30 year-old mixedwood forest. They also reported warbler abundance was notably and positively associated with density of birch trees. During breeding bird surveys for the Project, the majority of Canada Warbler sightings in Alberta occurred in old deciduous, mixedwood and coniferous forests (6 sightings) and relatively few in dry deciduous shrub habitat (1 sighting) (Wildlife Data and Field Surveys TDR). No sightings were reported in wet shrub habitat. Elsewhere in the western and northern Canadian boreal forest, Canada Warbler has been found in old deciduous forest (more than 80 years old) although small numbers have been detected in young deciduous stands (Kirk et. al. 1996). Canada Warbler was also likely to be found in closed as opposed to open mixedwood sites and, if found in coniferous sites, those with relatively high numbers of deciduous trees (Kirk et al. 1996).

3.17.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes As discussed in Section 2.2.4, habitat polygons (site series and ecosite phases) were grouped into broad habitat classes that reflect ecosystem attributes considered important for Canada Warbler. The key ecosystem attributes used to define nesting habitat for Canada Warbler include: • stand age (structural stage 6 and 7 preferred) • forest type (deciduous and mixedwood forests) • canopy cover (small canopy gaps allow for high shrub growth) • moisture regime (moist and wet sites preferred) • terrain (slopes and floodplains may be important habitat components) • understorey complexity (high cover of tall shrubs preferred)

2010 Page 3-69

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.17.5 Ratings A four-class rating scheme was used for Canada Warbler.

3.17.5.1 Provincial Benchmark No provincial benchmark has been established for Canada Warbler habitat in British Columbia or Alberta.

3.17.5.2 Ratings Assumptions The ratings assumptions used to define habitat suitability for Canada Warblers are summarized below and in Table 3-22. • Canada Warbler prefers forested habitat types but shrub habitats may also be used. Sparsely vegetated habitats are assumed to have no value for nesting and are given a nil (4) rating. • Canada Warblers prefer mature and old-growth forests, which are considered the most valuable for nesting. Structural stage 6 and 7 stands are given a high rating (1) if associated with the appropriate forest type. Structural stage 3 to 5 stands have some value, depending on moisture regime and shrub cover; they are given a moderate to low rating (2 to 3). Structural stage 1 and 2 stands are given a nil (4) rating. • Deciduous and deciduous-dominated mixedwood stands are preferred for nesting. Stands with birch, aspen, and/or balsam poplar with or without a small component of white spruce are given a high (1) rating. Conifer-dominated mixedwoods are given a low (3) rating, while pure coniferous stands are given a nil (4) rating. • Tree canopies with small gaps (disturbances) are preferred; therefore, open and semi-open canopies are rated as high (1), while closed canopies are rated as low (3) to moderate (2), depending on shrub cover. • Stands with high cover and complexity of understorey shrubs are given a high (1) rating, while stands with a low cover of understorey shrubs are given a low (3) rating. • Lower slopes and floodplains are important and are rated as high (1), depending on shrub cover and overstorey characteristics.

Page 3-70 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

Table 3-22 Canada Warbler Habitat Ratings Assumptions High Shrub Cover/Moist Site Low Shrub Cover/Dry Site Conifer- Conifer- Deciduous- dominated Deciduous- dominated Structural Stage dominated Mixedwood dominated Mixedwood Coniferous 1 – 2 4 4 4 4 4 3 – 5 2 3 3 4 4 6 – 7 2 3 3 4 4 (closed canopy) 6 – 7 1 3 3 4 4 (canopy with gaps)

3.17.5.3 Ratings Adjustments Little information is available on the response of Canada Warbler to forest fragmentation, edge effects and other disturbances in the western boreal forest. Canada Warblers breeding in western Canada may be less sensitive to habitat fragmentation than birds in eastern North America (Cooper et al. 1997c). Schmiegelow et al. (1997) reported no decrease in abundance of Canada Warbler in isolated forest fragments two years following harvest. Therefore, minimum patch size adjustments were not modelled for this species. Ratings adjustments were made for potential edge and disturbance effects, as follows: • Edge effects: habitat suitability in higher quality habitat (i.e., with moderate and high ratings) was reduced within 50 m of wide (more than 50 m) RoWs (e.g., roads, pipelines, powerlines) to account for possible increases in predation in adjacent forest habitat (Fleming 2001). • Noise disturbance: habitat suitability in higher quality habitat (i.e., with moderate and high ratings) was reduced to low (3) within 250 m of existing compressor stations and other excessively noisy areas (e.g., highways, town) to account for the effects of anthropogenic noise on songbird abundance and reproductive success (Habib 2006; Habib et al. 2007).

3.17.5.4 Ratings Table The Canada Warbler reproducing habitat ratings table, model flowchart and sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance reductions are included on the accompanying CD (see Appendix A).

3.18 Le Conte’s Sparrow

3.18.1 Status Le Conte’s Sparrow (Ammodramus leconteii) is blue-listed in British Columbia (BCCDC 2009, Internet site) and listed as secure in Alberta (ASRD 2005, Internet site).

2010 Page 3-71

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.18.2 Distribution

3.18.2.1 Provincial Range

Alberta and British Columbia In British Columbia, the species occurs at the western extent of its North America breeding range, occurring only in the Boreal Plains and Taiga Plains ecoprovinces (Campbell et al. 2001). An observation along the PEAA in 2006 at approximately KP 686.0 (west of the Parsnip River) represents one of the most westerly sightings of this species in central British Columbia (Wildlife Data and Field Surveys TDR). As most sightings have been in the Boreal Plains ecoprovince (Campbell et al. 2001), this sighting is considered an extralimital record. In Alberta, its breeding range includes the Boreal Forest Natural Region and parts of the Parkland and Foothills Natural Regions (FAN 2007).

3.18.2.2 Study Area Range Breeding bird atlas data in Alberta suggest this species could nest in appropriate habitat along the pipeline route from Bruderheim, Alberta to the British Columbia border (Semenchuk 1992; FAN 2007). Le Conte’s Sparrow was detected along the pipeline route in both Alberta and British Columbia during surveys in 2006 (Wildlife Data and Field Surveys TDR). In Alberta, it was identified at several sites in the White Area and the Green Area. As noted above, it was also detected outside its known range in British Columbia near KP 686.0. Based on this, and the above information, habitat modelling for Le Conte’s Sparrow was conducted from KP 0 (near Bruderheim, Alberta) to KP 580.0 (Kiskatinaw Plateau and lower Hart Foothills). This area currently represents the likely maximum extent of Le Conte’s Sparrow along the pipeline route.

British Columbia Ecoprovinces: Boreal Plains, Sub-boreal Interior Ecoregions: Southern Alberta Upland, Central Canadian Rocky Mountains, Fraser Basin Ecosections: Kiskatinaw Plateau, Hart Foothills Biogeoclimatic Zones: Boreal White and Black Spruce, Sub-Boreal Spruce

Alberta Natural Regions: Parklands, Boreal Forest, Foothills Natural Subregions: Central Parkland, Central Mixedwood, Dry Mixedwood, Lower Foothills

3.18.2.3 Elevational Range

British Columbia Breeding: 400 to 1,090 m (Campbell et al. 2001)

Page 3-72 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

Alberta No specific information is available.

3.18.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites Le Conte’s Sparrow is present in western Canada only during the breeding season (late May to late August). As a neotropical migrant, the primary life requisite of Le Conte’s Sparrow in the PEAA is reproducing. Breeding habitats are used for nesting and foraging, and also shelter and security. Therefore, habitat suitability was rated only for reproducing habitat and it is assumed that all living requirements are met in these habitats.

3.18.4 Reproducing Habitat In the Peace Lowland region of British Columbia, Le Conte’s Sparrow is associated with damp sites ranging from sedge-willow habitats to open grassy bogs (Enns and Siddle 1996). They are most commonly found in sedge meadows at the edge of wetlands dominated by tall shrubs (Enns and Siddle 1996). Plants associated with preferred habitat included beaked sedge, horsetail, bog cranberry, scrub bush, Labrador tea, sphagnum moss, palmate coltsfoot, and willow. They also use damp, short-grass edges of grain fields, wet sedge edges of black spruce and tamarack muskeg, and tall grasses at sewage lagoons (Siddle 1990, cited in Campbell et al. 2001). Campbell and McNall (1982, cited in Campbell et al. 2001) found Le Conte’s Sparrow in patches of Labrador tea beside muskeg ponds, and Preston (2009, pers. obs.) found them in hardhack bogs and wet grassy RoWs adjacent to new clear-cuts in the Fort St. John Timber Supply Area. Although most often associated with wet meadows, wet sites are not always required as they were repeatedly recorded in 5 and 6 year-old clear-cuts in the Dawson Creek Forest District (Darling et al. 2002). In such stands, the low canopy cover and high density of regenerating aspen may provided suitable habitat for this species (Darling et al. 2002). In Alberta, Le Conte’s Sparrow nests in open areas including marshy sedge meadows, and thick grass and shrub tangles at the edges of marshes and bogs (Semenchuk 1992; FAN 2007). Various studies in the boreal forest in northeastern Alberta have found them in sedge meadows, shrubby fens, and open bogs (Westworth Associates 2000). In mountainous areas, flooded grass and sedge meadows, as well as wet grass and willow tangles are used by this species (Semenchuk 1992). As in British Columbia, they have been found in aspen and mixedwood clear-cuts (Westworth and Telfer 1993; Song 1998; M. Preston, pers. obs.). Use of clear-cuts has also been observed in boreal regions of Saskatchewan (Kirk et al. 1996). In general this species does not use cultivated fields in Alberta, but rather it prefers marshy bogs that are common in the boreal forest (FAN 2007).

3.18.5 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes As discussed in Section 2.2.4, habitat polygons (site series and ecosite phases) were grouped into broad habitat classes that reflect ecosystem attributes considered important for Le Conte’s Sparrow. The key ecosystem attributes used to define nesting habitat for Le Conte’s Sparrow include: • stand type (wet sedge meadows, thick grass and shrub tangles at the edges of marshes, clear-cuts, shrubby poor fens, shrubby rich fens, and shrubby bogs)

2010 Page 3-73

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

• stand age (structural stage 2b likely preferred, but also uses structural stage 3 stands) • soil moisture (mesic to subhygric may be preferred)

3.18.6 Ratings A four-class rating scheme was used for Le Conte’s Sparrow.

3.18.6.1 Provincial Benchmark No provincial benchmark has been established for Le Conte’s Sparrow habitat in British Columbia or Alberta.

3.18.6.2 Ratings Assumptions The ratings assumptions used to define habitat suitability for Le Conte’s Sparrow are summarized below and in Table 3-23. • Le Conte’s Sparrow is restricted to early succession habitats and does not occur in forested stands. Forested stands are give a nil (4) rating. • Le Conte’s Sparrow occurs primarily in sedge, grass or shrub-dominated habitats. Wet sedge and grassy meadows with or without scattered shrubs are likely preferred and are given a high (1) rating. Open, wet, shrub-dominated areas are given a moderate (2) rating, while drier, closed-shrub habitats are given a low (3) rating. • Moist or wet habitats may be preferred and are given a high (1) rating. • Slope position – low, flat sites (e.g., toe, level, depression, floodplain) are considered more suitable and rated higher than high, sloped sites (e.g., upper slope, crest, ridge).

Table 3-23 Le Conte’s Sparrow Habitat Ratings Assumptions

Structural Stage Moisture Regime/Cover Submesic – Subhygric/Open Xeric – Subxeric/Closed 1 4 4 2a 2 3 2b 1 3 2d, 3 1 or 2 3 4 – 7 4 4

Page 3-74 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.18.6.3 Ratings Adjustments Existing information suggests that Le Conte’s Sparrow may be resilient to habitat fragmentation and edge effects. Le Conte’s Sparrow shows little dependence on patch size (Winter et al. 2005); therefore, no ratings adjustments were applied to account for habitat fragmentation. In addition, Le Conte’s Sparrow nests in extensive sedge and open shrub habitats, and may not be affected by edge habitat along RoWs. Therefore, ratings adjustments were not applied along RoW edges. It is not known whether Le Conte’s Sparrows are affected by noise disturbance, as reported for songbirds in forested habitat (Habib 2006; Habib et al. 2007). However, because Le Conte’s Sparrows likely use vocalizations to delineate territories and for self-advertisement (Lowther 2005, Internet site), it is reasonable to assume that noise disturbance may affect sparrow abundance and nesting success, as in forested areas. Therefore, ratings adjustments were applied as follows: • Noise disturbance: habitat suitability in higher quality habitat (i.e., with moderate and high ratings) was reduced to low (3) within 250 m of existing compressor stations and other excessively noisy areas (e.g., highways, town) to account for the effects of anthropogenic noise on songbird abundance and reproductive success (Habib 2006; Habib et al. 2007).

3.18.6.4 Ratings Table The Le Conte’s Sparrow reproducing habitat ratings table, model flowchart and sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance reductions are included on the accompanying CD (see Appendix A).

3.19 Nelson’s Sparrow

3.19.1 Status Nelson’s Sparrow (Ammodramus nelsoni), formerly known as Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow (Chesser et al. 2009), is red-listed in British Columbia (BCCDC 2009, Internet site) and listed as secure in Alberta (ASRD 2005, Internet site).

3.19.2 Distribution

3.19.2.1 Provincial Range

Alberta and British Columbia In British Columbia, Nelson’s Sparrow occurs at the western extent of its North America breeding range, occurring only in the Boreal Plains ecoprovince (Campbell et al. 2001). In Alberta, its breeding range includes the Boreal Forest Natural Region and parts of the Parkland and Foothills Natural Regions (FAN 2007).

3.19.2.2 Study Area Range Breeding bird atlas data suggest the species could breed along the pipeline route from Bruderheim, Alberta to the Kiskatinaw Plateau and lower Hart Foothills in northeastern British Columbia (Semenchuk

2010 Page 3-75

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

1992; Campbell et al. 2001; FAN 2007). The pipeline route crosses the southern end of the Kiskatinaw Plateau and the Hart Foothills, and thus overlaps the southern edge of this species’ possible range in British Columbia. Potential habitat has been mapped in this area (Cooper and Beauchesne 2004e). As a result, the species could be a rare, local breeder along the pipeline route in northeastern British Columbia. Nelson’s Sparrow was detected along the pipeline route in the White Area region of Alberta during surveys in 2006 (Wildlife Data and Field Surveys TDR). Based on this, and the above information, habitat modelling for Nelson’s Sparrow was conducted from KP 0 to KP 580.0 (i.e., the area spanning the Central Parkland natural subregion in Alberta and the Boreal White and Black Spruce biogeoclimatic zone in British Columbia in the Kiskatinaw Plateau and lower Hart Foothills). This area represents the likely maximum range of Nelson’s Sparrow along the pipeline route.

British Columbia Ecoprovinces: Boreal Plains, Sub-boreal Interior Ecoregions: Southern Alberta Upland, Central Canadian Rocky Mountains Ecosections: Kiskatinaw Plateau, Hart Foothills Biogeoclimatic Zones: Boreal White and Black Spruce

Alberta Natural Regions: Parklands, Boreal Forest, Foothills Natural Subregions: Central Parkland, Central Mixedwood, Dry Mixedwood, Lower Foothills

3.19.2.3 Elevational Range

British Columbia Breeding: 690 to 800 m (Campbell et al. 2001)

Alberta No specific information is available.

3.19.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites Nelson’s Sparrow is present in western Canada only during the breeding season (late May to late August). As a neotropical migrant, the primary life requisite of Nelson’s Sparrow in the PEAA is reproducing. Breeding habitats are used for nesting and foraging, and for shelter and security. Therefore, habitat suitability was rated only for reproducing habitat and it is assumed that all living requirements are met in these habitats.

3.19.3.1 Reproducing Habitat Nelson’s Sparrow is a bird of wetlands and marshes (Greenlaw and Rising 1994, Internet site). In British Columbia, it has been found in damp sedge meadows and marshes at the margins of woodland lakes,

Page 3-76 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models among dead and living willows near creeks and wet grassy meadows, and on willow-covered islets in lakes (Campbell et al. 2001). The marshes and sedge meadows used by this species are characterized by large areas of grasses and sedges, as well as clumps of dead and living willows (Campbell et al. 2001). Enns and Siddle (1996) noted that it appears to use sites with standing water. Tall emergent or shoreline vegetation and scattered clumps of willow are good predictors of habitat use by this species (Campbell et al. 2001). In Alberta, Nelson’s Sparrow is found in sedge marshes with scattered clumps of willows (Semenchuk 1992). Preferred areas include the margins of woodland ponds and lakes where sedges, bulrushes or cattails occur in shallow water (Semenchuk 1992). Nelson’s Sparrow occurs in areas that are wetter than those occupied by the closely related Le Conte’s Sparrow (Semenchuk 1992).

3.19.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes As discussed in Section 2.2.4, habitat polygons (site series and ecosite phases) were grouped into broad habitat classes that reflect ecosystem attributes considered important for Nelson’s Sparrow. The key ecosystem attributes used to define nesting habitat for Nelson’s Sparrow include: • stand type (wet sedge meadows and marshes preferred) • stand age (structural stage 2b preferred) • soil moisture (standing water or wet sites preferred)

3.19.5 Ratings A four-class rating scheme was used for Nelson’s Sparrow.

3.19.5.1 Provincial Benchmark No provincial benchmark has been established for Nelson’s Sparrow habitat in British Columbia or Alberta.

3.19.5.2 Ratings Assumptions The ratings assumptions used to define habitat suitability for Nelson’s Sparrows are summarized below and in Table 3-24. • Nelson’s Sparrow is restricted to early successional habitats and does not occur in forested stands. Forested stands are give a nil (4) rating. • Nelson’s Sparrow occurs primarily in sedge and marsh habitats. Wet sedge and grassy meadows with or without scattered shrubs, as well as cattail marshes, are likely preferred and are given a high (1) rating. Open, wet, shrub-dominated areas are given a low (3) rating. • Wet habitats are preferred and are given a high (1) rating.

2010 Page 3-77

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

Table 3-24 Nelson’s Sparrow Habitat Ratings Assumptions

Structural Stage Moisture Regime Subhygric – Hydric Xeric – Mesic 1 4 4 2a 2 4 2b 1 4 2d, 3 3 4 4 – 7 4 4

3.19.5.3 Ratings Adjustments No information is available on the response of Nelson’s Sparrow to habitat fragmentation, edge effects and other disturbances. They nest in both small (1 to 5 ha) and larger (more than 5 ha) wetlands (Cooper and Beauchesne 2004e) and thus, may not be sensitive to patch size. Subsequently, no ratings adjustments were applied to account for habitat fragmentation or edge effects. It is not known whether Nelson’s Sparrows are affected by noise disturbance, as reported for songbirds in forested habitat (Habib 2006; Habib et al. 2007). However, because Nelson’s Sparrow vocalizations have sexual and advertising functions (Greenlaw and Rising 1994, Internet site), it is reasonable to assume that noise disturbance may affect sparrow abundance and nesting success, as in forested areas. Therefore, ratings adjustments were applied as follows: • Noise disturbance: habitat suitability in higher quality habitat (i.e., with moderate and high ratings) was reduced to low (3) within 250 m of existing compressor stations and other excessively noisy areas (e.g., highways, town) to account for the effects of anthropogenic noise on songbird abundance and reproductive success (Habib 2006; Habib et al. 2007).

3.19.5.4 Ratings Table The Nelson’s Sparrow reproducing habitat ratings table, model flowchart and sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance reductions are included on the accompanying CD (see Appendix A).

3.20 Rusty Blackbird

3.20.1 Status Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) is blue-listed in British Columbia (BCCDC 2009, Internet site) and listed as sensitive in Alberta (ASRD 2005, Internet site). It is also listed as a species of special concern by COSEWIC (2006) because of a long-term and severe population decline.

Page 3-78 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.20.2 Distribution

3.20.2.1 Provincial Range Rusty Blackbird has a wide distribution across Alberta and British Columbia. Its breeding range includes the Boreal Forest, Parkland, and Foothills Natural Regions in Alberta (FAN 2007), and the Boreal Plains, Central Interior, Sub-boreal Interior, and Coast and Mountains ecoprovinces in British Columbia (Campbell et al. 2001).

3.20.2.2 Study Area Range Breeding bird atlas data indicate this species could breed in appropriate habitat along the entire pipeline route from Bruderheim to Kitimat (Semenchuk 1992; Campbell et al. 2001; FAN 2007). Rusty Blackbird was observed along the pipeline route in both Alberta and British Columbia during breeding bird surveys in 2006 (Wildlife Data and Field Surveys TDR). Based on this, and the above information, habitat modelling for Rusty Blackbird was conducted from KP 0 to KP 1172.

British Columbia Ecoprovinces: Boreal Plains, Sub-boreal Interior, Central Interior, Coast and Mountains Ecoregions: Southern Alberta Upland, Central Canadian Rocky Mountains, Fraser Basin, Fraser River Plateau, Bulkley Ranges, Nass Ranges, Coastal Gap Ecosections: Kiskatinaw Plateau, Hart Foothills, Southern Hart Ranges, McGregor Plateau, Nechako Lowland, Babine Upland, Bulkley Basin, Bulkley Ranges, Nechako Upland, Kitimat Ranges, Nass Mountains Biogeoclimatic Zones: Boreal White and Black Spruce, Sub-Boreal Spruce, Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine fir, Coastal Western Hemlock

Alberta Natural Regions: Parkland, Boreal Forest, Foothills Natural Subregions: Central Parkland, Central Mixedwood, Dry Mixedwood, Lower Foothills, Upper Foothills

3.20.2.3 Elevational Range

British Columbia Breeding: 540 to 1,465 m (Campbell et al. 2001)

Alberta No specific information is available.

2010 Page 3-79

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.20.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites The Rusty Blackbird is present in western Canada primarily during the breeding season (mid-April to late August), although migrants and non-breeding birds may be present until late October and into winter (Campbell et al. 2001; FAN 2007). As a migratory species, the primary life requisite of Rusty Blackbird in the PEAA is reproducing. Breeding habitats are used for nesting and foraging, and also for shelter and security. Therefore, habitat suitability was rated only for reproducing habitat and it is assumed that all living requirements are met in these habitats.

3.20.3.1 Reproducing Habitat Habitat requirements of Rusty Blackbird are consistent across its range in western North America and thus are similar in Alberta and British Columbia. In general, this species nests in conifer forest wetlands, including bogs (with or without ponds), fens, muskegs, swamps and wet shrubby meadows (Avery 1995, Internet site; COSEWIC 2006; Shaw 2006, Internet site). It also uses shrubby riparian areas along the margins of lakes, beaver ponds, rivers and creeks in coniferous and mixedwood forests (Semenchuk 1992; Avery 1995, Internet site; Campbell et al. 2001; COSEWIC 2006; FAN 2007). Most nest sites are associated with water and coniferous forests (Campbell et al. 2001), although wet, open areas in mixedwood forests are also used (Semenchuk 1992, Avery 1995, Internet site; FAN 2007). This species also uses disturbed areas near water, such as burns and clear-cuts where there is dense coniferous growth. Overall, Rusty Blackbird uses riparian areas almost exclusively, whereas upland forest interior habitats are rarely used (LaRue et al. 1995; COSEWIC 2006), and alpine wetlands are not used (COSEWIC 2006). Nests are generally built over or near water in a tree or shrub (Avery 1995, Internet site; Shaw 2006, Internet site).

3.20.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes As discussed in Section 2.2.4, habitat polygons (site series and ecosite phases) were grouped into broad habitat classes that reflect ecosystem attributes considered important for Rusty Blackbird. The key ecosystem attributes used to define nesting habitat for Rusty Blackbird include: • stand type (coniferous forest wetlands and riparian areas in coniferous and mixedwood forests are preferred) • stand age (structural stages 3 to 7 used) • soil moisture (standing water or wet sites preferred)

3.20.5 Ratings A four-class rating scheme was used for the Rusty Blackbird.

3.20.5.1 Provincial Benchmark No provincial benchmark has been established for Rusty Blackbird habitat in British Columbia or Alberta.

Page 3-80 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

3.20.5.2 Ratings Assumptions The ratings assumptions used to define habitat suitability for Rusty Blackbirds are summarized below and in Table 3-25. • Rusty Blackbird occurs in both forested and shrubby habitats. Non-vegetated sites, or those sparsely vegetated, are give a nil (4) rating. • Rusty Blackbird nests in coniferous forest wetlands and riparian edges in coniferous and mixedwood forests. Coniferous forest wetlands, such as bogs, fens, swamps and wet shrubby meadows are given a high (1) rating. Riparian areas in coniferous and mixedwood forests are also given a high (1) rating. Riparian habitat was assumed to extend 50 m from water bodies. Upland coniferous, mixedwood and deciduous habitats are given a nil (4) rating. Disturbed sites (e.g., burns, cutblocks) near water (i.e., within 50 m) are given a high (1) rating. • Rusty Blackbird will nest in structural stages 3 to 7. Treed bogs, fens and swamps within those structural stages are preferred and are given a high (1) rating. Shrubby and treed riparian coniferous and mixedwood habitats (structural stages 3 to 7) are also preferred and are given a high (1) rating. Structural stage 1 and 2 habitats are likely not used for nesting and are given a nil (4) rating. • Moist or wet habitats may be preferred and are given a high (1) rating. Dry areas are given a low (3) rating.

Table 3-25 Rusty Blackbird Habitat Ratings Assumptions Stand Type Structural Stage Wet1 Coniferous/ Moist2 Coniferous/ Mixedwood/Riparian Mixedwood/Riparian Dry3 Forest 1 – 2 4 4 4 3 – 7 1 2 4 NOTES: 1 Wet sites: hydric to subhydric soil moisture (standing water present). 2 Moist sites: mesic to hygric soil moisture. 3 Dry sites: xeric to submesic soil moisture.

3.20.5.3 Ratings Adjustments The minimum patch size requirement for Rusty Blackbird is unknown. However, because this species nests in edge habitats, habitat fragmentation may not be a limiting factor. Therefore, no adjustments were made for patch size or edge effects.

2010 Page 3-81

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 3: Bird Habitat Models

No information is available on whether Rusty Blackbirds are affected by noise disturbance, as reported for songbirds (Habib 2006; Habib et al. 2007). However, because Rusty Blackbird vocalizations are presumably used for territory establishment and pair-bonding (Avery 1995, Internet site), it is reasonable to assume that noise disturbance may affect blackbird site occupancy and nesting success. Therefore, ratings adjustments were applied as follows: • Noise disturbance: habitat suitability in higher quality habitat (i.e., with moderate and high ratings) was reduced to low (3) within 250 m of existing compressor stations and other excessively noisy areas (e.g., highways, town) to account for the effects of anthropogenic noise on bird abundance and reproductive success (Habib 2006; Habib et al. 2007).

3.20.5.4 Ratings Table The Rusty Blackbird reproducing habitat ratings table, model flowchart and sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance reductions are included on the accompanying CD (see Appendix A).

Page 3-82 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

4 Mammal Habitat Models The following sections provide the background information and detailed methods for the habitat modelling used for each mammal KI.

4.1 Moose

4.1.1 Status Moose (Alces americanus) are not a species of conservation concern in British Columbia or Alberta.

4.1.2 Distribution

4.1.2.1 Continental Range Moose occur throughout the circumpolar region and are most common within the boreal forests of the northern hemisphere. The North American distribution of moose is primarily limited to Canada and the northern United States, with the western population extending as far south as northern Colorado. Moose have expanded their range in North America considerably in the last 200 years (Kelsall and Telfer 1974; Karns 1998). There are four subspecies of moose in North America. However, only one of these, A. a. andersoni, occurs within the PEAA. This northwestern subspecies is found throughout the forested portion of western Canada from British Columbia to as far north as the Mackenzie River delta in the NWT and east to western Ontario and northern Michigan and Minnesota (Bubenick 1998).

4.1.2.2 Provincial Range Moose are widespread throughout Alberta and British Columbia (Pattie and Fisher 1999; Shackleton 1999). The northwestern subspecies has the largest distribution across these two provinces, being limited by the Coastal Mountains to the west in British Columbia and the prairie region in southern Alberta.

British Columbia In British Columbia, moose have expanded their range into southern, western and coastal areas (Petticrew and Munro 1979; Darimont et al. 2005, and are now found in all ecoprovinces and biogeoclimatic zones in the province (British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks [BC MELP] 2000a).

Alberta In Alberta, moose are common throughout most ecoregions, the exceptions being the prairie and parkland, however in recent years their numbers have been increasing in the parkland region (ASRD 2002, Internet site).

2010 Page 4-1

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

4.1.2.3 Study Area Range Moose are known or likely to occur anywhere within the PEAA.

British Columbia Ecoprovinces: Boreal Plains, Central Interior, Sub-boreal Interior, and Coast and Mountains Ecoregions: Southern Alberta Upland, Central Canadian Rocky Mountains and Coastal Gap Ecosections: Kiskatinaw Plateau, Hart Foothills, Southern Hart Ranges, McGregor Plateau, Nechako Lowland, Babine Upland, Bulkley Basin, Nechako Upland, Bulkley Ranges, Nass Mountains and Kitimat Ranges Biogeoclimatic Zones: Boreal White and Black Spruce, Sub-boreal Spruce, Engelmann Spruce Subalpine Fir, Coastal Western Hemlock, and Mountain Hemlock

Alberta Natural Regions: Boreal Forest, Foothills, Parkland Natural Subregions: Central Mixedwood, Central Parkland, Dry Mixedwood, Lower Foothills

4.1.3 Abundance Populations of moose across North America are generally considered to be common and secure under present condition (BCCDC 2009, Internet site) and the North American moose population has had a steady upwards trend since at least 1960 (Karns 1998). In 1997 the moose population in British Columbia was estimated at 170,000, with over 70% occurring in northern regions (Shackleton 1999). The Alberta population is estimated to be about 118,000 animals (ASRD 2002, Internet site). Moose is an important game species in Alberta and British Columbia, with an average annual harvest in British Columbia of 11,500 individuals, and a harvest of over 7,000 during the 2002 season in Alberta (Hunting for Tomorrow Foundation 2004). Densities of moose in northern Alberta have been estimated to range between 0.10 moose per km2 and 0.98 moose per km2 (ASRD 2002, Internet site). Densities of moose throughout British Columbia range from 0.3 to 1.5 moose per km2, with the highest densities found in the northeastern and central interior portions of the province (Shackleton 1999). Moose appear to have expanded their range west of the Coast Mountains since the 1940s (Darimont et al. 2005), however, their densities remain relatively low in these areas and along the coastal fjords and headlands of the west coast (Spalding 1989; Shackleton 1999; Darimont et al. 2005).

Page 4-2 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

4.1.4 General Ecology

4.1.4.1 Overview Moose are a predominantly boreal forest species whose distribution is closely tied to the range of northern trees and plants. They are a browse-dependent herbivore, occupying a variety of forest biomes which offer edge or disturbed areas of early succession vegetation (e.g., Krefting 1974). For food and cover, moose exploit the shrub and ground strata of deciduous, mixed and coniferous forests and shrub cover types. During spring and summer the emergent/submergent zone of wetlands is also used as a food source. Berg and Phillips (1974) described moose habitat selection as relatively flat areas supporting broad expanses of marsh, willow, aspen, and coniferous forests. Moose are seldom limited by the amount of available forage but rather by the availability of palatable vegetation of adequate quality (Regelin et al. 1987). Except for aquatic plants, food habit studies have shown moose choose diets primarily of leaves and twigs all year round, with woody plants being especially important in winter (Renecker and Schwartz 1998). Moose are essentially solitary animals that move within familiar summer and winter home ranges. In a given season, their home range seldom exceeds 5 to 10 km2 (BC MELP 2000a). Their annual home range is much larger, particularly for those that make movements between seasonal ranges. Moose do not defend their home range and do not have year-round dominance hierarchies like the more social Elk and Bighorn Sheep (BC MELP 2000a). Moose can live 8 to 12 years on average in the wild (Wilson and Ruff 1999). Only half of all moose make it through their first year, after which the annual adult mortality rate is approximately 10 to 15% (Wilson and Ruff 1999; ASRD 2002, Internet site). In a hunted population annual mortality can be higher and highly skewed towards yearling moose and young males (Boer 1988). Young moose and ill adults are susceptible to predation by bears and wolves, while healthy adults are more likely to face natural mortality due to starvation or extreme weather conditions (Wilson and Ruff 1999).

4.1.4.2 Limiting Factors Limiting factors for moose populations are varied, including food availability, weather, hunting, disease (including winter ticks) and predation (Gasaway et al. 1992). Of these factors, food availability and weather may be the most critical (Messier and Crête 1984; Gasaway et al. 1992), suggesting that to maintain moose populations over time, the landscape must have adequate, well distributed amounts of accessible high quality forage and habitats providing thermal cover in winter.

Habitat Snow depth is an important factor influencing ungulate browse availability (accessibility) as well as the energetic cost of movement. Although moose have morphological features (e.g. long legs) well-suited to relatively deep snow conditions (Telfer and Kelsall 1984), variation in snowfall among biogeoclimatic subzones can influence winter habitat suitability. While moose can travel with ease in snow depths up to approximately 60 cm, their movement is severely restricted when snow reaches depths beyond that threshold (Coady 1974; Kelsall and Telfer 1974) and moose are unlikely to be found in areas where snow

2010 Page 4-3

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

depth exceeds 100 cm. Deep snow conditions can also lead to increased wolf predation risk, particularly on calves and moose in poor physical condition (Coady 1974). During the winter of 2006 to 2007, an unusually deep snow pack (double the average) may have been responsible for the decline of more than 70% of the moose population in northern British Columbia (BCCDC 2009, Internet site).

Roads Linear features such as roads, trails, seismic lines and pipelines can increase moose mortality by improving access to quality habitat by natural predators and humans. The vast majority of moose harvested by hunters are taken within a few kilometres of a road. New roads into otherwise inaccessible areas are likely to increase the legal and illegal harvest pressure on a moose population (Goddard 1970; Boer 1990; Trombulak and Frissell 2000; Wisdom et al. 2000). Also, roads may increase natural predation pressure on moose because they can serve as travel corridors for carnivores in the winter (James and Stuart-Smith 2000; Kunkel and Pletscher 2000; Whittington et al. 2005). Moose and caribou kills by wolves may increase near roads and other linear features (e.g., seismic lines, pipelines; Bergerud 1988; James and Stuart-Smith 2000; Kunkel and Pletscher 2000). New roads or forest clearings may also provide excellent winter browse for moose, putting moose in the direct path of their predators (Child 1998; Potvin et al. 2005), possibly creating highly attractive ecological traps in newly disturbed areas (Gates and Gysel 1978; Eastman and Ritcey 1987).

4.1.5 Key Habitat Requirements Although providing adequate spring and summer range is important to maintain most ungulate populations including moose, winter is frequently considered to be the most limiting season in terms of providing adequate quantities of food and mature forest cover. Food availability and winter snow conditions may affect moose population size to a greater extent than predation (Mech et al. 1987; Messier 1991). Winter feeding habitat is particularly important as the winter browse diet of moose is generally inadequate to maintain body mass (Renecker and Hudson 1992. Therefore, winter feeding and shelter habitats were considered critical for this species and were the only life requisites rated for the purposes of this Project. The characteristics of moose winter feeding and shelter habitat are described in further detail in the following sections.

4.1.5.1 Winter Feeding Habitat In Alberta and British Columbia, preferred winter browse plants include willows, red osier dogwood, cottonwood, cranberry, trembling aspen, Saskatoon, red elderberry, Douglas maple, birch, and mountain ash (Westworth et al. 1989; Baker 1990; Renecker and Hudson 1992; Simpson 1992; Romito et al. 1999; Keystone Wildlife Research 2000). As snow depths increase, subalpine fir regeneration can be browsed heavily in the mid-late winter if other browse species become buried. During winter, opportunities to forage selectively generally decrease as the quality of browse declines and availability of high quality food decreases (Schwartz 1992; Schwartz and Renecker 1998). The availability of high quality forage may be a notable limiting factor to moose populations, especially in winter when their ability to digest low quality forage is limited (Messier 1991; Schwartz and Renecker 1998).

Page 4-4 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

Winter range with sufficient browse can include clear-cut areas as well as forested sites (Serrouya and D’Eon 2002; Potvin et al. 2005). Moose browse tends to be most abundant in natural openings as well as those areas that have been recently disturbed through fire or clear-cut logging (Kelsall and Telfer 1974; Peek 1998). As such, structural stage is an important variable, which is strongly correlated with the availability of shrubby vegetation and winter browse. Consequently, 10 to 20 year-old clear-cuts typically provide abundant moose browse and have been reported to receive relatively high early winter use in the central interior of British Columbia and elsewhere (Westworth et al. 1989; Potvin et al. 2005). Van Dyke (1995) suggests that high value winter feeding areas have 30% shrub cover, relatively low mature tree density (less than 200 stems/ha) and gentle slopes (7%). Romito et al. (1999) suggested a minimum of 50% shrub cover to provide optimal moose browse. Riparian areas are critical winter habitats for moose, often providing both adequate shrubby growth for foraging (e.g. willow, cottonwood) and canopy cover for protection from weather and snow (Doerr 1983). In British Columbia and coastal Alaska, moose prefer low elevation riparian areas during winter, where there is an abundance of their preferred winter browse: willow (Kelsall and Telfer 1974; Singleton 1976; Doerr 1983; Risenhoover 1986).

4.1.5.2 Winter Shelter Habitat Snow depths can influence winter habitat suitability for moose. In mountainous regions, deep snow accumulations may prevent moose from wintering at higher elevations. Specific habitat attributes that can influence snow depths include aspect, canopy closure and slope. Mature forest and dense shrub may provide moose with cover and reduced snow depths (through snow interception), permitting greater ease in movement, increased browse availability and reduced risk of predation. In general, warmer aspects (south-facing slopes) provide shallower snow depths as they receive more direct sunlight. Snow depths tend to be shallower on steeper slopes as the same amount of snow is distributed over a greater surface area. Depending on the local and regional climate and type of forest, at least 30% and up to 70% canopy closure may be required to provide sufficient snow interception and thermal cover for moose (Costain 1989; Romito et al. 1999). Moose seek out forested areas for shelter and security during extreme weather (e.g. excess heat or cold) and when the snow pack in open areas restricts movement (Peek 1998). Cover is most valuable for moose when it is near good foraging habitat as moose prefer to forage close to cover, especially in winter (Brusnyk and Gilbert 1983; Molvar and Bowyer 1994; Kufeld and Bowden 1996). Dense stands of forest (often coniferous) are used extensively by moose in winter (Brusnyk and Gilbert 1983; Pierce and Peek 1984; Forbes and Theberge 1993).

4.1.6 Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping-based Model The moose winter feeding and shelter habitat ratings table, model flowchart and sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance reductions are included on the accompanying CD (see Appendix A).

2010 Page 4-5

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

4.1.6.1 Overview Moose winter feeding and shelter habitat availability is determined using habitat suitability ratings developed for ecosystem units identified within the PEAA. Winter habitat generally consists of interspersed patches of mature forest for shelter and snowfall interception, and patches of dense taller shrubs for forage. A six-class rating scheme is used and the reliability of the ratings is considered moderate (RIC 1999). In addition to the sensory disturbance buffers, the moose winter feeding habitat model also incorporates a “distance to cover” rule that is used to refine the suitability of winter feeding areas according to how far they are from suitable cover (shelter).

4.1.6.2 Provincial Benchmark Ecoprovince: Boreal Plains Ecosection: Peace Lowland Biogeoclimatic Subzone: Boreal White and Black Spruce Moist Warm subzone (BWBSmw) Broad Ecosystem Unit: Boreal White Spruce - Trembling Aspen (BA), seral stage 1 (recent disturbance), less than 20 years for normal forest succession

4.1.7 Ratings In British Columbia, ratings for winter feeding and shelter habitat were developed based on ecosystem unit characteristics (Vegetation TDR; Banner et al. 1993a, 1993b; DeLong et al. 1993; DeLong et al. 1994; Delong 2003, 2004; MacKenzie and Moran 2004), field observations, structural stage, and site modifiers. In Alberta, ratings were developed based on tree species composition (Vegetation TDR; Beckingham and Archibald 1996; Beckingham et al. 1996), field observations, structural stage, and site modifiers. There is detailed knowledge of moose winter habitat requirements in Alberta and British Columbia; therefore, a six-class rating scheme will be used.

Ratings Assumptions • Alpine and parkland areas are rated nil (6). • All ecosystem units and ecosite phases with a steep modifier (z or q) are rated nil. • All non-vegetated units (e.g., rocky outcrop [RO], gravel bar [GB], cultivated field [CF]) are rated nil. • Cool aspects are generally rated lower for winter feeding and shelter, especially at higher elevations and in more open ecosystem units and ecosite phases (including deciduous-dominated stands). • Coastal areas (west of the Coast Mountains) are rated lower than interior areas. • Recent cutblocks are rated low (4) for winter feeding and nil for winter shelter. • Pipeline RoWs and powerline easements and cutlines are rated very low (5) for winter feeding and nil (6) for winter shelter.

Page 4-6 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

• Snow depth is taken into account when ranking habitat suitability based on biogeoclimatic variant as well as indirectly through structural stage and canopy cover estimates. Areas at low elevations (less than 900 m) with low snowpack were rated highest. • Ecosystem units and ecosites phases that provide abundant, preferred winter browse (e.g. willows, cottonwood, dogwood, and aspen) are rated highest for winter feeding. • Structural stage 3b (tall shrub) and mature seral forested sites with high shrub cover (more than 20%) area rated highest for winter feeding. • Structural stage 2 wetlands are rated no higher than low (4) for winter feeding. • Floodplain sites (site modifier = a) that are structural stage 3 or higher and are ecosystem units or ecosite phases with an abundance of preferred forage species are increased in value by one class for winter feeding. • Ecosystem units and ecosites phases that are structural stage 6 and 7 are rated highest for winter shelter. However, in lower elevation areas with reduced snowpack (e.g., Boreal White and Black Spruce), structural stage 3b (tall shrub) are also rated relatively high for winter shelter. • Forested ecosystem units and ecosite phases with very open canopy (less than 30%) are rated lower for winter shelter, and those with more than 60% canopy closure are rated highest for winter shelter. • In the Lower Foothills Natural Subregion (NSR) correlations between the ecosite phases in this NSR and the TEM ecosystem units in the Boreal White and Black Spruce Peace Moist Warm variant (BWBSmw1) were identified and were used to harmonize the moose winter habitat ratings across the provincial boundary. • Mountain pine beetle (MPB) -affected stands (British Columbia only) are considered to have nil (6) value for moose winter shelter, but are rated the same as equivalent non-MPB structural stage 3 ecosystem units for winter feeding. Winter feeding suitability ratings for MPB stands are decreased by one class (to a minimum of 5) during the project operations phase because of downed trees decreasing accessibility of forage and reduced snow interception.

Ratings Adjustments In addition to the reductions related to sensory disturbance, the following adjustments were incorporated into the winter feeding habitat model for moose. Proximity of feeding habitat to cover (where cover defined as habitat patches rated as low to high suitability [i.e., Classes 1, 2, 3 or 4] for shelter): • less than 100 m from cover = retain feeding habitat value • 100 to 200 m from cover = decrease feeding habitat value by one class (to a minimum of 5) • more than 200 m from cover = decrease feeding habitat value by 2 classes (to a minimum of 5)

2010 Page 4-7

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

4.2 Woodland Caribou

4.2.1 Status There are five caribou herds whose ranges intersect the PEAA. These herds are assigned to three different ecotypes, northern, mountain and boreal, and all three ecotypes are considered to be a conservation concern federally and provincially (see Table 4-1). For the purpose of modelling, British Columbia’s ecotype definitions of woodland caribou have been adopted. Therefore, Alberta’s boreal ecotype (Little Smoky herd) is referred to as northern caribou, and the term “mountain caribou” is used to identify British Columbia’s unique mountain ecotype (see Table 4-1).

Table 4-1 Caribou - Conservation Status and Population Size of Herds Intersecting the PEAA

British Approximate Federal Alberta Columbia Population Population Ecotype Herd Status Status Status Status4 Size Northern Telkwa Threatened – Blue-listed Stable 90 1, 2 ecotype Narraway on Schedule Threatened Blue-listed Declining 95-100 1 of SARA Quintette – Blue-listed Stable/increa 173-218 sing Mountain Hart Ranges – Red-listed Stable 331-359 ecotype 1 Boreal Little Smoky Threatened – Declining/ 80 ecotype 3 Immediate Risk of Extirpation

NOTES: 1 Southern Mountain National Ecological Area. 2 The Northern ecotype in British Columbia is equivalent to the Mountain ecotype in Alberta. 3 Boreal National Ecological Area. 4 Thomas and Gray 2002; Seip 2002; Alberta Woodland Caribou Recovery Team 2005; Stronen et al. 2007; Seip and Jones 2008.

4.2.2 Distribution

4.2.2.1 Continental Range In North America, caribou are predominantly found in Canada where their range extends from just south of the United States–Canada border northward to Ellesmere Island (Miller 1982). Woodland caribou are found from extreme northwestern British Columbia and the Yukon east through the central provinces to southern portions of Newfoundland. In general, the present distribution of woodland caribou coincides with boreal forest and mountainous areas of Canada. Across their North American range, five subspecies of caribou are recognized (Banfield 1974). However, only the woodland caribou subspecies (Rangifer tarandus caribou) intersects the PEAA.

Page 4-8 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

As indicated in Table 4-1, the ranges of caribou herds from three woodland caribou ecotypes (northern, mountain and boreal) intersect the PEAA.

4.2.2.2 Provincial Range

British Columbia Woodland caribou occur east of the Coast Mountains, from the Yukon border south to the Itcha-Ilgachuz in the western Chilcotin, east to the foothills of the northern Rocky Mountains, in the Cariboo, Selkirk, Purcell, and Monashee mountains in the southeast, and throughout the highlands and plateaus in the province’s northern and central interior (Seip and Cichowski 1996; Thomas and Gray 2002). Their range has been reduced compared to historical times, especially in the central and southern half of the province. The mountain ecotype inhabits the high, steep terrain of British Columbia’s interior Rocky Mountain Trench extending through southeast and east-central British Columbia. The northern caribou ecotype inhabits the more gentle topography of boreal forests and alpine tundra in northern and west-central British Columbia.

Alberta Alberta’s woodland caribou have undergone extreme range reductions from historical reports (Dzus 2001). Edmonds and Bloomfield (1984) reviewed historical records of caribou in west-central Alberta and indicated that caribou have disappeared or remain as fragmented populations in many parts of the Rocky Mountains. Several recently occupied caribou ranges have also been observed to have contracted or disappeared, for example a portion of the Little Smoky range (Dzus 2001). Only about 39% of the generalized maximum historical range in Alberta is occupied (Edmonds 1998; Thomas and Gray 2002). Boreal caribou in Alberta do not undergo seasonal migrations and remain within forest and peat habitats of west-central Alberta throughout the year (Dzus 2001; Alberta Woodland Caribou Recovery Team 2005).

4.2.2.3 Study Area Range As indicated in Table 4-1, the ranges of five woodland caribou herds intersect the PEAA. Within British Columbia, the Quintette, Hart Ranges and Telkwa herds occur. The Narraway herd straddles the British Columbia–Alberta boundary, and the Little Smoky herd is entirely within Alberta. More specifically, woodland caribou can be expected to inhabit the following ecosections and biogeoclimatic zones:

British Columbia Mountain Caribou (Hart Ranges herd): • Ecoprovinces: Sub-boreal Interior • Ecoregions: Central Canadian Rocky Mountains

2010 Page 4-9

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

• Ecosections: Hart Foothills and Southern Hart Ranges • Biogeoclimatic Zones: ESSFwc, ESSFwk, Sub-Boreal Spruce Very Wet Cool subzone (SBSvk), Sub- Boreal Spruce Wet Cool subzone (SBSwk) Northern Caribou (Narraway, Quintette, and Telkwa herds) Ecoprovinces: Boreal Plains, Central Interior and Sub-boreal Interior Ecoregions: Central Canadian Rocky Mountains and Southern Alberta Upland Ecosections: Kiskatinaw Plateau, Hart Foothills and Bulkley Ranges Biogeoclimatic Zones: Boreal White and Black Spruce Peace Moist Warm variant (BWBSmw1), Boreal White and Black Spruce Murray Wet Cool variant (BWBSwk1), Coastal Western Hemlock Montane Wet Submaritime variant (CWHws2), Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir Bullmoose Moist Very Cold variant (ESSFmv2), Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir Omineca Moist Very Cold variant (ESSFmv3), Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir Graham Moist Very Cold variant (ESSFmv4), Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir Cariboo Wet Cold variant (ESSFwc3), Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir Misinchinka Wet Cool variant (ESSFwk2), Mountain Hemlock Leeward Moist Maritime variant (MHmm2), Sub-boreal Spruce Dry Cool subzone (SBSdk), Sub-Boreal Spruce Babine Moist Cool variant (SBSmc2), Sub-Boreal Spruce Mossvale Moist Cool variant (SBSmk1), Sub-Boreal Spruce Finlay-Peace Wet Cool variant (SBSwk2)

Alberta Northern Caribou (Narraway herd): • Natural Regions: Foothills • Natural Subregions: Lower Foothills Boreal Caribou (Little Smoky herd): • Natural Regions: Foothills • Natural Subregions: Lower Foothills

4.2.3 Abundance It is estimated there are approximately 19,000 woodland caribou in British Columbia (Cichowski et al. 2004) and 2,500 to 4,200 woodland caribou in Alberta (ASRD 2006, Internet site). The most recent population estimates and population trends for the five herds that intersect the PEAA are presented in Table 4-1. Two of the herds appear to be declining in numbers and the Little Smoky herd is considered at risk of extirpation.

Page 4-10 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

4.2.4 General Ecology

4.2.4.1 Overview Woodland caribou are highly variable in their ecology. As described above, there are three ecotypes of caribou that intersect the PEAA. These ecotypes are distinguished by their habitat use patterns and diet (Cichowski et al. 2004): • The mountain ecotype occurs in mountainous areas with deep snowpack, their winter diet consists primarily of arboreal lichen with some use of terrestrial lichen in early winter, and they exhibit distinct elevational shifts in seasonal movement patterns. • The northern ecotype occurs in mountainous and adjacent plateau areas with low snowpack, their winter diet consists primarily of terrestrial lichen with some use of arboreal lichen in late winter, and they exhibit both elevational and horizontal shifts in seasonal movement patterns. • The boreal ecotype occurs in lowland muskeg (peatland) areas with low snowpack, their winter diet consists primarily of terrestrial lichens with some use of arboreal lichen, and they are generally non- migratory with overlap between summer and winter ranges. A major source of ecological variability in winter is fluctuating snow conditions. Harsh snow conditions can have negative impacts on caribou populations, especially if sufficient required habitat is not available (Vandal and Barrette 1985; Wilson 2001; Johnson et al. 2004). Such potential bottlenecks occur during extreme winters, and during the late winter of most years, when snow is typically deeper and harder than in early winter. Caribou employ two main foraging strategies in the winter: they either crater (dig through the snow) for terrestrial lichens and forbs, or forage on arboreal lichens that have fallen on the snow or directly from trees (Edmonds and Bloomfield 1984; Hervieux et al. 1996; Stepaniuk 1997; Brown and Hobson 1998). Although caribou are well adapted to cratering (Telfer and Kelsall 1984), very deep or hard snow may force caribou to switch to feeding on arboreal lichens (Simpson et al. 1985; Rominger and Oldemeyer 1989). Mature and old-growth coniferous forests are important for all three ecotypes at all times of the year because terrestrial and arboreal lichens are most abundant in these forests (Rominger and Oldemeyer 1989; Thomas and Gray 2002). However, in summer, caribou occasionally feed in young stands after fire (Schaefer and Pruitt 1991) or logging (Thomas and Armbruster 1996). Caribou eat a variety of plants including sedges, grasses, forbs, lichens, fungi, and the leaves of shrubs, particularly willow (Thomas and Gray 2002). However, lichens are the predominant component of their diet. For example, the mountain ecotype survives for 6 to 8 months feeding almost exclusively on arboreal lichens (Thomas and Gray 2002). Preferred species are the arboreal lichens Bryoria, and to a lesser extent Alectoria, and the terrestrial lichens Cladina, Cladonia, Cetraria and Stereocaulon (Cichowski et al. 2004). Caribou breed in late September to mid-October and calves are born in late May or early June (Cichowski et al. 2004). Caribou exhibit a number of anti-predator strategies during calving including calving alone in isolated, rugged areas, calving on islands in lakes, and calving in large muskegs (Cichowski et al. 2004). In general, woodland caribou do not appear to maintain fidelity to calving sites (Thomas and Gray 2002;

2010 Page 4-11

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

Cichowski et al. 2004). The productivity of caribou is low compared to deer and moose (Cichowski et al. 2004). Woodland caribou require sufficient preferred habitat to space out across the landscape (Cumming 1992; Hervieux et al. 1996). Although caribou travel in small groups throughout the winter, maintaining low densities across their range is thought to be a fundamental anti-predator strategy (Seip 1992). Home range size is variable according to geographic area and ecotype but may range from less than 100 km2 to almost 2,000 km2 (Cichowski et al. 2004).

4.2.4.2 Limiting Factors Woodland caribou, which naturally exist at low density and have low reproductive output (Seip and Cichowski 1996), cannot recover from an array of limiting factors (either alone or together) as quickly as species such as moose, which naturally maintain higher population densities and are more productive (Edmonds 1988; Dzus 2001). The following is a discussion of limiting factors that may be affecting woodland caribou.

Habitat Woodland caribou populations are especially vulnerable to winter habitat loss and altered predator-prey relationships (Seip 1992; James and Stuart-Smith 2000; Johnson et al. 2002; Johnson et al. 2004; Saher 2005). The biologically limiting factor at work in winter habitat loss is the caribou’s almost exclusive dependence upon slow-growing lichens as winter forage. Removal of old-growth forest habitats through forest harvesting, various industry, and other human disturbances directly affect winter forage availability through the direct removal of arboreal lichen on harvested trees and through the mechanical disturbance of terrestrial lichens during harvesting operations. MPB timber salvage has become an issue with respect to woodland caribou winter range in British Columbia. Given the differences between ecotypes in the province in their use of terrestrial forage lichens, their ecological responses to the pine beetle infestation and to the silvicultural practices associated with timber salvage are likely to vary. The affect of the MPB on caribou is also different at each phase of the infestation (green, red, and gray attack and fall down). Studies indicate that caribou will continue to use their winter range into the early stages of the gray phase and may continue to dig for terrestrial lichen even when snow interception decreases (Cichowski 2007). Cichowski (2007) suggests that the effects of the MPB on caribou will likely be indirect via increased competition with species such as moose and a possible associated increase in predation if food for caribou was not a limiting factor. Moose are less affected by the beetle kill because they appear to use younger stands and earlier seral stages than caribou and are not dependant on terrestrial lichens. Therefore, there is potential that moose may displace caribou (Proulx and Kariz 2005) in at least some areas of MPB-killed timber. The eventual impact of the beetle epidemic on caribou is still uncertain (Cichowski 2007; Whittaker and Wiensczyk 2007). This is largely because vegetation is only one attribute among many others that characterize caribou range. Changes in predator-prey relationships can be expected as a result of dramatic shifts in forest seral stage distributions and the creation of linear corridors (Dyer et al. 2001). Also, the MPB epidemic is likely to affect the connectedness of seasonal ranges and the risk that caribou must undertake in moving from one seasonal range to another.

Page 4-12 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

Roads Indirectly, caribou in Alberta have been shown to experience habitat loss through avoidance of the following human disturbances: timber harvesting (Chubbs et al. 1993; Smith et al. 2000; Smith 2004), industrial development around well sites (Dyer et al. 2001, 2002), noise associated with seismic exploration (Bradshaw et al. 1997, 1998), and linear features such as roads and seismic lines (Brown and Ross 1994; Oberg 2001; Dyer et al. 2001; Dyer et al. 2002; Apps and McLellan 2006; Vistnes and Nellemann 2008). Recent studies in British Columbia by Serrouya et al. (2007a, 2007b) tested the potential for use of partial cuts, roads, and edges by mountain caribou. Their results indicated that there was selection of roads at the fine scale as caribou often use roads for movement. However, when the influence of roads is considered across much larger scale, road densities are negatively associated with the persistence of mountain caribou populations (Apps and McLellan 2006). Thus, selection of roads for movement or partial cuts and edges for foraging may be an indication of caribou opportunistically deriving benefits at smaller scales, but the management strategies that produce these conditions may have negative consequences to populations at larger scales (Serrouya et al. 2007a, 2007b). Cumulative increases in road and cutblock densities have been linked with the decline in adult female woodland caribou survival (Brown and Ross 1994; Smith et al. 2000; Smith 2004). Studies in west- central Alberta have indicated that caribou were observed further from timber harvesting activity, on average 1,200 m, than would be expected by chance (Smith et al. 2000). Industrial activity around well sites was also found to elicit a maximum avoidance of up to 1,000 m (Dyer et al. 2001, 2002). Notable avoidance of roads has been documented at 100 m (Oberg 2001) and 250 m (Dyer et al. 2001) distances and conservatively up to 500 m. Roads were also found to act as semi-permanent barriers to movement (Dyer et al. 2001; Serrouya et al. 2007a, 2007b). Avoidance of seismic lines was observed throughout all seasons (Dyer et al. 2001) however, seismic lines were not found to act as barriers to movement (Dyer et al. 2001). The biologically limiting factors behind the avoidance of cutblocks, well sites, and linear anthropogenic features are not entirely understood but are likely a combination of a lack of suitable winter forage and perhaps more importantly an alteration in existing predator-prey relationships (Smith et al. 2000).

Predation Predation is considered an important limiting factor for caribou populations (Compton et al. 1990; Seip 1992; McNay et al. 2008. Changes in forest composition and the increasing development of access routes are thought to be primary causes of increased predation on caribou (Edmonds and Smith 1991; McLoughlin et al. 2005). For example, both timber harvesting and fire increase the amount and distribution of young forest stands and of various plant species, which in many cases attract and sustain increased numbers of moose, elk and deer. These changes lead to increases in the number of predators, especially wolves, and a subsequent increase in predation threat to caribou (Seip 1992; Lessard 2005; Neufield 2006). In addition, habitat loss and alteration (including barriers to caribou movement and reduced use of areas by caribou) may concentrate caribou in restricted portions of their range (Dyer et al. 2001, 2002; Hillis 2003). Since maintaining low population densities is one of the ways that caribou avoid predation, this concentration of animals may lead to greater caribou mortality. Finally, research has demonstrated that

2010 Page 4-13

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

linear access corridors facilitate wolf travel and hunting behaviour within caribou range (James 1999; James and Stuart-Smith 2000). Continued industrial and nonindustrial use of corridors may further facilitate wolf hunting efficiency by compacting snow during winter. On Alberta’s caribou ranges where intensive studies have occurred, wolf predation has been demonstrated to be the most common cause of adult woodland caribou mortality (Edmonds 1998; Kinley and Apps 2001; Szkorupa 2002; McLoughlin et al. 2003; Wittmer et al. 2005). McNay et al. (2008), reporting on the progress made during the second year of a three-year research project established to test the efficacy of using regulated traplines to reduce predation risk for threatened herds of woodland caribou in north-central British Columbia, believe that the effects of removing wolves from the Chase study area are beginning to provide for less mortality, better calf recruitment, and larger population size in the Chase herd area than have been observed there in the recent past (McNay 2008).

Climate Change Weather and climatic conditions may also affect caribou populations. Some caribou specialists have suggested that deep snow accumulation reduces wolf hunting effectiveness and thereby enhances caribou survival, and that mild winters may be detrimental to predator avoidance by caribou (Kinley et al. 2007). Alternatively, it is possible that severe winter and snow conditions (especially snow crusting) may lead to greater caribou mortality and reduced calf production and survival. Considerable spring snow pack may hinder adult female mountain caribou migration to remote calving areas, possibly resulting in lower calf recruitment (Edmonds and Smith 1991). Although woodland caribou have adapted to fire patterns (Schaefer and Pruitt 1991) it is possible that climate change could affect forest fires (frequency and severity), permafrost, snow conditions, forage (amount and distribution), and predator-prey systems. The responses of caribou population size and distribution to climate change are largely unknown, but probable scenarios suggest negative effects are likely.

4.2.5 Key Habitat Requirements Early and late winter feeding habitat has been selected as the limiting life requisite for modelling and the characteristics of these habitats are described briefly below for each of the ecotypes.

4.2.5.1 Early and Late Winter Feeding Habitat

Northern Ecotype The Northern ecotype is characterized by its reliance on terrestrial lichens. In early winter, key habitats are lower elevation dry pine forests and windswept alpine and parkland areas (Johnson et al. 2002; Cichowski et al. 2004; Jones 2008). Arboreal lichen may be used in the late winter when snow hardness limits access to terrestrial lichens (Cichowski 1996; Thomas et al. 1996; Johnson et al. 2004). The Quintette herd is more reliant on high-elevation alpine and parkland habitats in all seasons than the other northern ecotype herds (Telkwa and Narraway herds) (Jones 2008).

Page 4-14 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

Mountain Ecotype The Mountain ecotype is characterized by its reliance on arboreal lichens. In early winter, mountain caribou move down from the alpine and upper subalpine forests to mid-elevation habitats where they feed on a variety of forage, such as forbs, shrubs and graminoids, in addition to arboreal lichens (Terry et al. 2000; Apps et al. 2001; Stevenson et al. 2001; Serrouya et al. 2007a, 2007b). As snow depth increases, cratering for forage becomes energetically demanding and caribou move further down slope (Cichowski et al. 2004. Preferred late winter habitat is open stands in or near the parkland subzone where they feed predominantly on arboreal lichen (Terry et al. 2000; Cichowski et al. 2004).

Boreal Ecotype Compared to the other ecotypes, most boreal caribou herds inhabit relatively low-elevation areas and are considered non-migratory (Cichowski et al. 2004). The exception is the Little Smoky herd which spends the entire year in the subalpine and upper foothills (Smith 2004). Year-round preferred habitat is old- growth peatland complexes (fens and bogs) dominated by black spruce and larch, and with an understorey layer of Labrador tea and sphagnum mosses (e.g., Edmonds and Bloomfield 1984; Bradshaw et al. 1995; Boreal Caribou Research Program 1999). In winter, boreal caribou are lichen specialists, using both arboreal and terrestrial lichens.

4.2.6 Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping-based Model The caribou early and late winter feeding habitat ratings model flowchart and sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance reductions are included on the accompanying CD (see Appendix A).

4.2.6.1 Overview Caribou early and late winter feeding habitat availability is determined using habitat suitability ratings developed for ecosystem units identified within the PEAA. Five caribou herds intersect the PEAA: the Little Smoky, Narraway, Quintette, Hart Ranges and Telkwa. These herds vary in their habitat requirements and habitat use patterns (Thomas and Gray 2002; Jones 2008). Therefore, habitat suitability ratings are developed for each herd separately. A six-class rating scheme is used, and the reliability of the ratings is considered moderate (RIC 1999). Sensory disturbance buffers are used when refining the caribou habitat models.

4.2.6.2 Provincial Benchmark

British Columbia Mountain Ecotype (winter): • Ecosections: Hart Foothills, Cariboo Mountains and Northern Kootenay Mountains • Biogeoclimatic Zones: Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir Misinchinka Wet Cool variant (ESSFwk2), Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine fir Subzone Very Wet Cold (ESSFvc)

2010 Page 4-15

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

• Habitats: Structural stages 6 and 7, subalpine fir forests on gentle to moderate slopes (less than 30%), with abundant arboreal lichen in the winter and elevation dependant on time of year Northern Ecotype (winter): • Ecosections: Muskwa Foothills, Stikine Plateau, Teslin Basin, and Tuya Range • Biogeoclimatic Zones: Alpine Tundra, Spruce-Willow-Birch (undifferentiated)/Alpine Tundra, Sub-Boreal Spruce Dry Cool subzone • Habitats: Low productivity 85 to 250 year-old pine or spruce forests, structural stages 5 to 7 or high elevation windswept ridges with terrestrial lichens

Alberta There is no benchmark for boreal caribou in Alberta.

4.2.7 Ratings In British Columbia, ratings for early and later winter feeding habitat were developed based on ecosystem unit characteristics (Vegetation TDR; Banner et al. 1993a, 1993b; DeLong et al. 1993; DeLong et al. 1994; Delong 2003, 2004; MacKenzie and Moran 2004), field observations, structural stage, and site modifiers. In Alberta, ratings were developed based on ecosite phase characteristics, particularly terrestrial lichen presence and tree species composition, (Vegetation TDR; Beckingham and Archibald 1996; Beckingham et al. 1996), field observations, structural stage, and site modifiers. There is detailed knowledge of caribou winter feeding habitat requirements in Alberta and British Columbia; therefore, a 6-class rating scheme will be used.

Ratings Assumptions

General • Very steep slopes preclude woodland caribou use due to their treacherous and unstable landscape characteristics (Young et al. 1998). Therefore, all ecosystem units with a steep modifier (z or q) are rated nil (6). • All non-vegetated units (e.g., rocky outcrop [RO], gravel bar [GB], cultivated field [CF]) are rated nil. • Recent cutblocks are rated very low (5).

Northern Ecotype • For the Quintette herd, the highest value early and late winter feeding habitat are windswept alpine areas (rated up to high [1]). There are no alpine units in the portion of the PEAA within this herd’s range, however, so no ecosystem units were rated higher than moderate (3) for this herd. • Wetlands are rated no higher than very low (5) in the winter.

Page 4-16 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

• Shrubby and pole sapling (structural stages 3 and 4) units are generally rated very low (5) in the early and late winter at lower elevations, and nil in the late winter in the Engelmann Spruce Subalpine Fir biogeoclimatic zone. However, site series 02 (dry pine-lichen) is rated one class higher than other site series in all biogeoclimatic variants. • Site series 02 units that have either a warm aspect or a ridge modifier (w or r, respectively) increase in value by one class. • Structural stage 5 is rated from very low to low depending on the ecosystem unit (e.g., bog units and site series 02 are rated higher than other units). • Ecosystem units with relatively high forest cover had higher value in late winter than in early winter. • Highest value ecosystem units (moderate [3]) were structural stage 6 or 7 moist or mesic forests in the Engelmann Spruce Subalpine Fir (i.e., forests likely to provide arboreal lichens). Other structural stage 6 or 7 ecosystem units were rated very low to low depending on the ecosystem unit (e.g., bog unit and site series 02 are rated higher than other units). • For the Narraway herd, the assumptions are similar to those for the Quintette herd except that low- elevation ecosystem units and ecosite phases are rated higher, and high-elevation (alpine) ecosystem units and ecosite phases are rated lower. Specifically, dry pine-lichen stands and treed bogs are the highest rated: • up to high (1) for site series 02 ridges that are structural stage 6 • up to moderately high (2) for black spruce bogs and site series 02 that are structural stage 5 to 7 • up to high (1) for structural stages 5 to 7 of ecosite phases b1, h1 and k1 • For the Telkwa herd, the assumptions are similar to those for the Narraway herd: • Wetlands are rated no higher than low (4) in the winter. • Shrubby and pole sapling (structural stages 3 and 4) units are generally rated very low (5) to low (4) in the early and late winter at lower elevations, and very low to nil in the late winter in the Engelmann Spruce Subalpine Fir. However, pine-lichen units (e.g., site series 02) are rated higher than other site series in all biogeoclimatic variants (up to moderately high [2]). • Structural stages 5 to 7 are generally rated from very low to moderate depending on the ecosystem unit (i.e., pine-lichen units are rated higher than other units). • Ecosystem units with relatively high forest cover had higher value in late winter than in early winter. • In the Lower Foothills NSR, correlations between the ecosite phases in this NSR and the TEM ecosystem units in the Boreal White and Black Spruce Peace Moist Warm variant (BWBSmw1) were identified and were used to harmonize the Narraway herd habitat ratings across the provincial boundary. The British Columbia TEM-based ratings took precedence over the Alberta ecosite phase- based ratings.

2010 Page 4-17

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

• MPB-affected stands (British Columbia only) are considered to have nil (6) to low (4) value for caribou feeding depending on the season (early vs. late winter) and ecosystem unit. Suitability ratings for MPB stands did not change at the project operations phase.

Mountain Ecotype • Ecosystem units are rated the same for early and late winter except where the structural stage is less than structural stage 5. In those cases, the late winter habitat value is nil (because of increased snow load). • Ecosystem units in the Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir Misinchinka Wet Cool variant (ESSFwk2) are rated highest (up to high [1] for structural stage 6 and 7), followed by Engelmann Spruce- Subalpine Fir Cariboo Wet Cold variant (ESSFwc3) (up to moderate [3]). Sub-Boreal Spruce biogeoclimatic variants are rated lowest (no higher than low [4]). • Structural stages 6 and 7 are rated highest (up to high [1]), followed by structural stage 5 (up to moderate [3]). • Structural stages 1 to 4 are rated lowest (generally no higher than low [4], some wetland ecosystem units may be rated higher [up to 3] in early winter). • MPB-affected stands were only identified in the Sub-Boreal Spruce, and were considered to have very low (5) habitat value. Suitability ratings for MPB stands did not change at the operations phase.

Boreal Ecotype • Any ecosite phase that has at least one species of terrestrial lichen is rated as moderate (3) in early winter and moderately high (2) in late winter. Any ecosite phase with more than one species of terrestrial lichen is rated as moderately high (2) in early winter and high (1) in late winter. • Any ecosite phase that has terrestrial lichen (any number of species) and black spruce (which is assumed to support arboreal lichens) is rated as moderately high (2) in early winter and high (1) in late winter. • Any ecosite phase that has black spruce but no terrestrial lichen is rated as low (4) in early and late winter. • Any ecosite phase with no black spruce or terrestrial lichen is rated as very low (5) in early and late winter. • For forested ecosite phases, structural stages 6 and 7 are generally rated higher than structural stages 1 to 4. • Bogs and fens that are structural stage 5, 6 or 7 are rated higher than structural stages 1 to 4. • MPB-affected stands were not identified in Alberta.

Page 4-18 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

Ratings Adjustments Reductions related to sensory disturbance were the only ratings adjustments incorporated into the early and late winter feeding models for caribou.

4.3 Mountain Goat

4.3.1 Status Mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) are not a species of conservation concern in British Columbia or Alberta.

4.3.2 Distribution

4.3.2.1 Continental Range In North America, mountain goats are found within the northwestern mountain ranges from southeast Alaska along the coast of British Columbia to Washington, as well as in the mountains of northern British Columbia, southern Yukon, and southeastern NWT. A disconnected population is located within the Rocky Mountains along the border of Alberta and British Columbia, extending southward into Montana and Idaho. Mountain goats have been introduced into Colorado, Oregon, the Olympic Peninsula of Washington, and South Dakota (Patterson et al. 2003).

4.3.2.2 Provincial Range

British Columbia In British Columbia, goats are present in mountain ranges throughout the province, with the exception of Vancouver Island, the Queen Charlotte Islands, and other coastal islands (BC MELP 2000b). Goats are more numerous in the northwest part of the province, but substantial populations occur within the main body of the Rocky Mountains and in the Coast, Cariboo, Selkirk, and Purcell Ranges.

Alberta In Alberta, mountain goats occur in a thin strip of mountainous terrain in the Rocky Mountains along the southwestern edge of the province.

4.3.2.3 Study Area Range At a broad scale, mountain goats are found in three distinct zones of the PEAA that differ in topography, ecology, and climate. These areas include portions of the Coast Mountains range near Kitimat and the west coast of British Columbia, the Rocky Mountains near the continental divide, and a complexity of canyon and bluff habitats in an area of relatively flatter terrain near Houston, British Columbia. No mountain goat winter population areas occur within the PEAA in Alberta. More specifically, mountain goat habitat in the PEAA is localized in a few areas in the Kalum South, Morice, and Lakes LUPAs. In the Kalum South LUPA, mountain goat ranges have been identified at

2010 Page 4-19

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

KP 1078.0, where terrain is steep and mountainous near the entrance to the Hoult and Clore tunnels and also between KP 1087.0 and KP 1093.0, in the steep terrain of the Coast Mountains just west of the tunnel entrance. In the Morice LUPA mountain goat ranges in the PEAA are scattered between KP 969.0 and KP 971.0 and KP 990.0 to KP 1070.0 on steep terrain with various aspects. In the Lakes LUPA, mountain goat ranges in the PEAA are isolated areas located at KPs 962.0, 920.0, 921.0 and 922.0 on steep mountainsides, several of which are west-facing.

4.3.3 Abundance Recent estimates of the mountain goat population size in North America vary from 75,000 to 100,000, including 14,000 to 15,000 in the western states, 10,000 to 25,000 in Alaska, about 50,000 in British Columbia, and small numbers in Alberta, Yukon, and Mackenzie Territory (BC MELP 2000b). Hunting restrictions and reintroductions have largely reversed a population decline most evident between 1950 and 1975 (BC MELP 2000b).

4.3.4 General Ecology

4.3.4.1 Overview Goat habitat is dominated by extremely steep rocky slopes including cliffs, crags, pinnacles, loose rock, and rubble (Stevens 1980; Smith 1982; ASRD 2003). This steep habitat protects goats from terrestrial predators, since none of its natural predators are as agile in such steep terrain, which is often defined by slopes between 35 and 65 degrees (Hebert and Turnbull 1977). Goat predators include wolves, coyotes, cougars, wolverine, lynx and eagles, all of which generally prey on kids. Their seasonal movements are not well studied and vary considerably (Côté and Festa-Bianchet 2003; Wilson 2005). Some mountain goat populations are known to remain in the same location throughout the year with only elevational changes on the same mountain or ridge during the seasons, while other populations are known to use distinct summer and winter ranges kilometres apart (BC MELP 2000b; Côté and Festa-Bianchet 2003). These areas of steep terrain also receive less snow than surrounding habitats, and shed snow more readily, providing for greater mobility and access to forage than flatter areas with deeper snow (ASRD 2003). In the interior of British Columbia, mountain goats usually winter in high-elevation, windswept and southwest facing slopes near escape terrain (Wilson 2005; Côté and Festa-Bianchet 2003). In the northern Rocky Mountains of Alberta and British Columbia, typical elevations range from 1,500 to 2,700 m (Côté and Festa-Bianchet 2003). Coastal mountain goats choose southern aspects at low elevations, and coniferous forests where snow is shallow or absent (BC MELP 2000b; ASRD 2003; AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. 2005; Taylor and Brunt 2007). Female goats (nannies) will find the most inaccessible crags for the first days of lambing, and nursery herds are seldom found more than 400 m from escape terrain (McFetridge 1977; Stevens 1980; Smith 1982; Chadwick 1983; Harrison 1999). Since adult males and yearlings are separated from nursery herds (females and kids) for most of the year, suitable habitat must exist for both groups (ASRD 2003).

Page 4-20 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

Goats forage on a wide variety of plant materials, including tree bark, lichens, and almost any browse species that other ungulates would not normally use (ASRD 2003). This generalized strategy for foraging helps them to get enough food while staying within their cliff habitats. Mountain goats need access to water as well as mineral licks. Mineral licks are used most in May, June, and July but also occasionally throughout the rest of the year (Herbert 1967; Stevens 1980).

4.3.4.2 Limiting Factors Although it depends on the situation, mountain goats appear to become intolerant of human disturbance at a distance of approximately 300 m (Chadwick 1976; Wright 1977; Johnson 1983). Goats have been known to disperse in search of more secluded habitat when faced with steady disturbance from road construction, traffic, and logging or mineral exploration (Pendergast and Bindernagel 1977; Wright 1977; Chadwick 1983; Joslin 1986). Helicopter flights have also been documented to disturb mountain goats within a distance of 500 m (Côté 1996).

4.3.5 Key Habitat Requirements Winter habitat and escape terrain were considered to be critical habitat for goats. Cliffs used for winter ranges tend to be south- or west-facing with more snow melt and higher ambient temperatures (BC MELP 2000b; ASRD 2003). Overhangs, caves, and the lee sides of rocks and ridges give shelter from storms and high winds. Goats also use dense growths of conifers near cliffs for protection from cold and wind. In west-central Alberta, Kerr (1965) observed that 76% of goat winter ranges contained shrubs, conifers, or both. Ridgetop habitats are highly suitable, since goats are able to adjust for thermal changes by moving across the ridge to a different aspect (Stevens 1980).

4.3.6 Non-Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Models Modelling of mountain goat winter range and escape terrain used spatial data and models currently available from the British Columbia Ministry of Environment. The provincial wildlife agencies have developed slightly different approaches depending on which LUPA the goat herds fall into. We have taken this into consideration and have selected the following three measurable parameters for goat habitat.

4.3.6.1 Peace Region Goat Escape Terrain The British Columbia Ministry of the Environment has identified areas of high-suitability goat escape terrain in the Peace Region on the basis of parameters such as site steepness and snow load. In addition, a 500-m sensory disturbance buffer on these areas is used to encompass adjacent living habitat, based on the assumption that goats rarely venture farther than this distance from suitable escape terrain. Some areas of highly suitable escape terrain are known to have goat occurrences, and other such areas are known to have goats nearby. The areas of highly suitable escape terrain, and their associated sensory disturbance buffer areas, are considered to be key habitat.

4.3.6.2 Kalum Goat Winter Habitat A resource probability selection function model was used to identify preferred winter habitat in the Skeena River watershed within the Kalum Forest District. The data collection and analytical methods

2010 Page 4-21

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

used in this model are described in detail in Keim (2007) and Keim and Lele (2007). The model parameters include accessibility to suitable escape terrain, aspect and location of non-alpine areas. The suitability of winter habitat was classed as high, moderate, low and very low, based on the range of absolute values generated by the model, and moderate and high-suitability areas are considered to be key habitat.

4.3.6.3 Morice and Lakes Goat Ungulate Winter Ranges The methods used to identify goat UWRs in the Nadina Forest District are provided in Turney (2004). The Nadina Forest District was formerly the Morice and Lakes Timber Supply Areas. The original naming convention is retained here to be consistent with the government spatial data source. Factors used to identify suitable UWRs are slope, distance to steep slopes, aspect, elevation, and glacier presence. On the basis of model output values, Turney (2004) has partitioned the results into primary and secondary UWRs. However, all UWRs are treated equally from a management perspective (Heinrichs 2009, pers. comm.), and are therefore collectively considered key habitat.

4.4 Grizzly Bear

4.4.1 Status The grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) is blue-listed in British Columbia and listed as may be at risk in Alberta. COSEWIC has listed the grizzly bear as special concern, vulnerable to human disturbance (ASRD 2005, Internet site; BCCDC 2009, Internet site; COSEWIC 2008c, Internet site).

4.4.2 Distribution

4.4.2.1 Continental Range The grizzly bear has historically occupied the greatest geographic distribution of any bear in North America; grizzly bears have been found from central Mexico to the Arctic Ocean and from the Pacific Ocean east to the Mississippi River (McLellan 1992). However, the range of grizzly bears in North America has drastically declined over the past 150 years to its present extent, which includes Alaska, western and northern Canada, and the northern Rocky Mountains in the United States.

4.4.2.2 Provincial Range Two grizzly bear ecotypes are recognized as inhabiting the PEAA: the coastal grizzly bear, and the interior grizzly bear (Gyug et al. 2004). The coastal ecotype inhabits the British Columbia coastal region; specifically the Nass Mountains and Kitimat Range. Coastal mountain studies indicate that grizzly bear habitat occurs predominantly below tree–line, concentrating on ecosystems associated with important salmon rivers (Banner et al. 1985). The interior grizzly bear inhabits the remainder of the PEAA eastward from the Hazleton Mountains in British Columbia to the perimeter of their eastern range in Alberta. The interior grizzly bear ecotype occurs where there are no salmon-bearing watersheds. These bears use a

Page 4-22 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

range of habitat types from forested valleys to alpine and subalpine ecosystems (Banner et al. 1985; Gyug et al. 2004).

British Columbia Grizzly bears occur at various elevations from sea level to alpine, throughout British Columbia with exception of the Georgia Depression ecoprovince, Vancouver Island, Queen Charlotte Islands, and the Coastal Douglas-fir, Bunchgrass, and Ponderosa Pine biogeoclimatic zones (Rasheed 1999; Guyg et al. 2004). Grizzly bears have been extirpated from the Lower Mainland (Vancouver area), portions of the south-central interior (Okanagan, Thompson River valley, and Williams Lake), and portions of the northeast parkland (Peace River valley near the Alberta border) (Cowan and Guiguet 1965; Banfield 1974). The current range of grizzly bears in British Columbia has been divided into grizzly bear population units (GBPUs) that delineate individual populations. GBPUs serve as the key units for population objective setting, and for determining allowable human-caused mortality thresholds. They are also used for setting land-use priorities during strategic land-use planning. Each GBPU has been assigned a conservation status of either Threatened or Viable. This status is based on the difference between the current population estimate and the estimated habitat capability for the GBPU where habitat capability is defined as the inherent, idealized ability of the land to support a specific density of grizzly bears independent of human influence. If the current estimate is less than 50% of habitat capability, the GBPU is designated as threatened. The selection of the 50% threshold should not be considered an absolute indication of population status but rather a subjective limit chosen in the context of considerable uncertainty about what constitutes a viable grizzly bear population (Grizzly Bear Scientific Panel 2003). In some cases a population may be viable at less than 50% of habitat capability. In other cases, populations that exceed 50% may not be viable over the long term (Hamilton et al. 2004). In British Columbia, the pipeline route crosses seven GBPUs (see Table 4-2). Although all of the GBPUs are currently classified as viable (more than 50% capability), population estimates are apparently below what the watersheds could optimally support.

Alberta Grizzly bears occur primarily in the Rocky Mountains and higher elevations of the Foothills Natural Regions and the Boreal Mixed Wood Region in West Central and Northwestern Alberta (British Columbia border to as far east as High Level, Peace River, Red Earth, and Slave Lake) (Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Team 2008). Grizzly bears occur in 13 of the 20 Natural Subregions in Alberta. Grizzly bear ranges that support consistent resident populations are found primarily in the Upper and Lower Foothills, Sub-Alpine, Montane, Alpine, Wetland Mixedwoods, Subarctic and Boreal Highlands subregions (Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division 1990). Subregions that support grizzly bears seasonally or at very low population densities include the Central Mixedwood, Foothills Parkland, Peace River Parkland, and Foothills Fescue.

2010 Page 4-23

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

Recent work by the Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Team has grouped provincial Bear Management Areas into six regions; Southeast, Southwest, Southern Foothills, Northern Foothills, Northwest and Northeast. The pipeline route crosses the Northern Foothills region, and includes Bear Management Areas (BMAs) 3A and 2B starting around KP 200.0 and extending to the British Columbia border (Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Team 2008).

Table 4-2 Grizzly Bear - Characteristics of Population Units Intersecting the Pipeline Route Grizzly 1 2,3 BearPopulation Unit Population Size Density Population Status 2 (bears/1000 km2) Alberta < 500 unknown May be at risk Hart 386 20 Viable Parsnip 473 43 Viable Nation 241 13 Viable Francois 140 17 Viable Nulki 192 11 Viable Bulkley-Lakes 407 17 Viable North Coast 214 32 Viable

SOURCES: 1 Hamilton 2008. 2 Hamilton et al. 2004. 3 Alberta Grizzly Bear Inventory Team 2008.

4.4.2.3 Study Area Range The PEAA is within occupied grizzly bear range, although density is very low east of the Hart Ranges and into Alberta. Grizzly bears do not occur at the extreme eastern end of the PEAA (Alberta’s White Area).

British Columbia Ecoprovinces: Coast and Mountains, Central Interior, Sub-boreal Interior and Boreal Plains Ecoregions: Coastal Gap, Nass Ranges, Bulkley Ranges, Fraser Plateau, Fraser Basin, Central Canadian Rocky Mountains, and Central Alberta Uplands Ecosections: Kitimat Ranges, Nass Mountains, Bulkley Ranges, Kimsquit Mountains, Nechako Uplands, Bulkley Basin, Babine Upland, Nechako Lowland, McGregor Plateau, Southern Hart Ranges, Hart Foothills, and Kiskatinaw Plateau Biogeoclimatic Zones: Alpine Tundra, Boreal White and Black Spruce, Coastal Western Hemlock, Engelmann Spruce Subalpine Fir, Mountain Hemlock, Sub-Boreal Spruce

Page 4-24 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

Alberta Natural Regions: Boreal Forest, Foothills Natural Subregions: Central Mixedwood, Dry Mixedwood, Lower Foothills

4.4.3 Abundance There are estimated to be approximately 16,000 grizzly bears in British Columbia (Hamilton 2008). The province-wide trend is considered to be generally stable, although declines in some areas and increases in others are suspected (Hamilton 2008). Grizzly bears along much of the southern fringe of their distribution in British Columbia occur at low or very low densities, including in the Coast, Yahk, and South Selkirk Mountains (McLellan 1998). Population estimates and densities for grizzly bears within the PEAA are presented in Table 4-2. The Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Team (2008) has estimated the population of grizzly bears in Alberta at 700 bears, which includes those found in national parks. This estimate was generated as a temporary, working number for the Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan 2008 to 2013. However, several studies conducted through the Foothills Research Institute Grizzly Bear Program from 2004 to 2008 (and ongoing) suggest that the actual number of grizzlies in Alberta could be less than 500 (Stenhouse 2009, pers. comm.).

4.4.4 General Ecology

4.4.4.1 Overview A high diversity of habitats, which can range from coastal estuaries to alpine meadows, is required within a grizzly bear's home range including areas for travel, seclusion, feeding and denning. Critical grizzly bear foraging habitats typically include moist floodplain forests, riparian areas, salmon spawning streams, avalanche chutes, berry-producing habitats and sedge meadows. A bear that has forb-rich avalanche slopes, riparian areas with horsetail and productive berry crops in its home range will have a greater chance to prosper energetically than one in a landscape that is homogeneous with respect to vegetation and topography. Grizzly bears consume a wide variety of foods, including roots, grasses, herbs, roots and berries, both small and large mammals, fish, birds, and insects (Hamer et al. 1981; Servheen 1983; Schwartz et al. 2003). Because grizzly bears are omnivorous and opportunistic in their feeding habits, habitat selection is governed by forage availability during the growing season. Thus, grizzly bears require a mix of seasonal habitats in their annual home ranges to have sufficient access to the full range of primary food sources. Grizzly bears have a large range of learned behavioural adaptations related to diverse regional ecosystems, thus generalization about food sources and associated habitat requirements is difficult. Even within a region, individual bears may have vastly different approaches to meeting their food requirements. In brief, however, the following seasonal patterns of habitat use are typical for coastal and interior bears. During the spring, coastal grizzly bear feed on sedges, horsetails, and forbs in the lower parts of river valleys where sites first become snow free (Hamilton 1987; MacHutchon et al. 1993). As summer progresses, bears move up in elevation to follow the advance of snowmelt and emerging vegetation in

2010 Page 4-25

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

avalanche chutes and subalpine meadows (Hamilton 1987; MacHutchon et al. 1993). In late summer and fall, bears will move back down in elevation to take advantage of the arrival of salmon and the ripening of berries, which occurs first at lower elevations. When salmon are no longer available, bears will feed on remaining green vegetation and late-ripening berries prior to denning (Guyg et al. 2004). In the interior, early spring feeding is mainly on horsetails, the roots of Hedysarum and winter-killed or weakened ungulates (McLellan and Hovey 1995; Ciarniello et al. 2003). As green-up progresses into summer, the range of habitats used begins to increase, and bears also feed on all the vegetation foods used in the spring as well as early ripening berries and forbs. Bears will make use of the abundant new growth in avalanche tracks, wetlands, moist meadow and forested sites and some alpine sites. During berry season grizzly bears feed almost exclusively on buffalo berries, blueberries, and huckleberries. Fall feeding focuses mainly on the roots of Hedysarum once again. Throughout the active season, interior grizzlies will also prey on small mammals, especially ground squirrels. Both coastal and interior grizzlies will feed on insects and grubs when the opportunity arises. Except for females with cubs, sibling groups, and during the mating season, grizzly bears are solitary for most of the year. Mothers and daughters tend to have overlapping home ranges, while male home ranges are large and overlap with several adult females (Bunnell and McCann 1993). The smaller range sizes of female grizzly bears with young, which have greater energy requirements than males, may provide the best estimate of the minimum feeding habitat requirements of individual bears. The large range sizes of male grizzly bears are probably related more to breeding than to food availability, while females may use small ranges where they can improve security of the young while still obtaining adequate food (Guyg et al. 2004). Social intolerance and security needs of young bears probably act to distribute grizzlies widely over the available range. In many areas, adult females may inhabit marginal ranges or disturbed areas, such as road margins, where human activities help to exclude larger males (McLellan 1990). Home ranges for coastal grizzly bears tend to be smaller than those for interior or northern bears, due to the presence of highly productive habitats (e.g., salmon streams). For coastal British Columbia, MacHutchon et al. (1993) estimated an average home range size of 51.8 km2 (ranging from 22.5 to 115.5 km2) for adult females and 65.1 km2 (ranging from 28.8 km2 to 124.3 km2) for subadult males. Interior grizzly bear ranges have been reported at 187 km2 for males and 103 km2 for females (Simpson 1987; Ciarniello et al. 2003). In the dryer interior mountains and plateau areas, the average home range size for male grizzly bears was 804 km2 and females, 222 km2 (Russell et al. 1979; McLellan 1981; Wielgus 1986; Ciarniello et al. 2003). In the Rocky Mountain eastern slopes, Stevens and Gibeau (2005) reported average home range sizes of 520 km2 for females and 1,405 km2 for males. Interpretation of these home range sizes indicates that grizzly bear food sources in the eastern slopes portion of the PEAA are likely widely dispersed throughout the landscape, in comparison to food sources that are concentrated in local areas in coastal portions of the PEAA. Grizzly bears have low dispersal capabilities relative to other large carnivores (Weaver et al. 1996). This is especially true for subadult female grizzly bears, which usually establish their home range within or adjacent to the maternal range (Nagy et al. 1983; Blanchard and Knight 1991). This inherent fidelity of female grizzly bears to their maternal home ranges reduces the speed with which this species can recolonize areas where breeding populations have been depleted (Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division 1990; Weaver et al. 1996). Subadult male grizzly bears usually disperse upon independence, whereas

Page 4-26 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

subadult females are commonly philopatric (LeFranc et al. 1987; Blanchard and Knight 1991). Dispersal distances for young grizzly bears are short compared with some other large carnivores. In southeastern British Columbia, male and female dispersals averaged 29.9 km and 9.8 km, respectively (McLellan and Hovey 2001). Dispersal in grizzly bears is a gradual process, taking from 1 to 4 years (McLellan and Hovey 2001); therefore, grizzly bears must be able to live in dispersal corridors, rather than simply passing through them. Studies conducted by Linke (2003) indicate that grizzly bears appear to select areas with larger landscape patches, and that mean patch size is generally reduced by the density of linear disturbances such as seismic lines (Linke 2003; Linke and Franklin 2003). Also, bears appear to use areas more when landscape patches are consistently spaced (Linke 2003). Spacing between patches becomes more variable with increased linear features on the landscape (Linke 2003). Nielsen and Boyce (2002) demonstrated that grizzly bears tended to select for areas with higher habitat variety, which suggests patchy landscapes. Linke et al. (2005) suggest that grizzly bear use appears to decrease if the habitat patches occur at more variable distances to each other. Hamer and Herrero (1983) also suggested the importance of habitat patch configuration in the context of grizzly bear movement by summarizing that grizzly bears appeared to move frequently between similar habitat patches. While grizzly bears appear to generally forage on a small scale, there are implications for the large-scale structuring of the landscape. A more consistent spacing between habitat patches could indicate lower energetic costs incurred in the search for food, resting, or bedding, which would make such a landscape condition more suitable for grizzly bear persistence (Linke et al. 2005).

4.4.4.2 Limiting Factors Grizzly bear populations can be affected through direct mortality, or indirectly through factors that influence vital rates such as birth rates or cub survival. In most Canadian populations, direct human- caused mortality has a major impact on the potential persistence of grizzly bears. In nearly all regions including some protected areas, most grizzlies die from human-related causes (McLellan 1990; Kansas 2002; Ross 2002; Austin and Wrenshall 2004; Hamilton et al. 2004; Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Team 2008; Stenhouse 2009, pers. comm.). All provinces and territories where grizzly bears persist manage the species as a game animal. Hunting seasons are provided for Aboriginal groups, resident and, in some cases, non-resident hunters. Bears are commonly attracted to sites of human activity, and may be destroyed as perceived or real threats to life or property. Grizzly bears are shot illegally, perhaps in cases where they were mistaken for black bears, or for malicious reasons. Grizzly bears are also susceptible to accidental human-caused mortality such as collision with vehicles and trains or as the result of bear-human encounter (Ross 2002).

Habitat Grizzly bears are sensitive to land management practices due to their relatively large annual home range, diverse seasonal habitat requirements, slow rate of population increase, and high potential for conflict with human activities (Ross 2002). Factors that have contributed to the decline in grizzly bears throughout their range include increased road access and human-caused mortality as well as habitat loss and fragmentation (McLellan 1990; Kansas 2002). Linear developments such as roads and pipelines can result

2010 Page 4-27

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

in habitat avoidance and reduced habitat effectiveness for critical seasonal habitats as well as security areas. Similarly, pipeline corridors may also result in habitat displacement; however, bears may also use reseeded corridors as early spring and fall foraging areas (Jalkotzy et al. 1997). Overall, increased access into former remote areas has brought more industrial activity as well as recreational and other wilderness users into grizzly bear habitat, with a subsequent increase in bear-human conflicts. As a result, access management and mortality risk remain the primary issues regarding grizzly bear populations and resource development activities. Habitat disturbances influence an area’s capacity to support grizzly bears. Although natural and anthropogenic habitat alterations can be beneficial to bear populations (e.g., enhancement of early forest successional stages through fire or timber harvest), of greater concern to grizzly bear status and conservation are those activities which degrade habitat effectiveness. Linke et al. (2005) demonstrated that landscape configuration, and not only habitat composition or type, matter to grizzly bear landscape use. The study established that seismic cutlines, a landscape feature associated with oil and gas exploration, modify the landscape in a way that appears to be less favourable for grizzly bear use (Linke et al. 2005). Cutlines change the configuration of the landscape; they increase the variation of inter-patch distances, while bear use is higher in areas with fewer changes to this metric (Linke et al. 2005). The most important habitat alterations are those which convert grizzly bear habitat to areas which will not be suitable for bears either permanently or over a sufficient term to affect population characteristics. Included in this category are certain resource-extraction industries, agriculture, and residential development (Berland et al. 2008). There is a clear link between habitat degradation and grizzly bear population parameters. Doak (1995) modelled the reduction of habitat quality in the Yellowstone area of Wyoming, Montana and Idaho and predicted that even small amounts of habitat degradation could result in rapid declines in grizzly population growth rates. Even more subtle was his finding that when the rate of degradation was slow (1% per year), it could take more than 10 years to detect critical amounts of degradation beyond which bear populations could begin long-term declines. Of all human-caused habitat alterations within grizzly bear range, the most disruptive is residential development (Ross 2002). Recently, more people have been building homes on the fringes of grizzly bear distribution. With most industrial developments, human activities are confined to a diurnal, seasonal or rotational timescale. When the people leave, so does the habitat disruption, with the possible exception of a disturbed footprint. Residential developments are more disruptive because the human presence is continuous and permanent. Although the area of habitat displacement related to a single home may be small, it contributes to the cumulative influence of whole subdivisions, and works in concert with other developments and activities in the region. Additionally, the attractants usually associated with human homes (e.g., garbage, pet food, livestock) dictate that bears with home ranges overlapping with permanent human dwellings are at extremely elevated risk of mortality (McLellan 1994).

Roads Although direct mortality of grizzly bears from roads (i.e., roadkills) has been documented, the most important effects of roads on grizzly bears are: loss of habitat effectiveness because of bears avoiding the disturbance associated with roads, and shooting mortality facilitated by the development of new access routes for hunters and others with firearms.

Page 4-28 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

Grizzly bears may be vulnerable to individual disruption arising from construction, maintenance, and use of linear developments. Efficient foraging strategies of bears were disrupted near human facilities including roads in Yellowstone National Park (Mattson et al. 1987). Archibald et al. (1987) documented an average reduction of 36% in the number of times that two bears crossed a logging road in the Kimsquit Valley in British Columbia before hauling began, compared to the number of crossings after it ceased. These bears did not appear to habituate to logging traffic even after two years of hauling. Grizzlies in southern Alberta similarly did not appear to habituate to high-speed, high-volume traffic on the Trans-Canada Highway (Gibeau et al. 2002). However, some authors believe that grizzly bears may become accustomed, or desensitized, to predictable occurrences, including traffic (McLellan and Mace 1985; McLellan and Shackleton 1989). Disturbance along roads may result in habitat avoidance by grizzly bears. Logging-truck traffic in the Kimsquit Valley in British Columbia resulted in a 78% reduction in use of the “zone of hauling activity” by radio-collared bears compared to non-hauling periods (Archibald et al. 1987). During periods of hauling activity, between 3% and 23% of each bear's home range was unavailable to them for 14 hours per day because of disturbance. Because bears used these areas when hauling was not going on, it was clear that these areas were of value to the bears. In rich habitats such as coastal British Columbia, where bear home ranges are small, these losses can limit access to important food sources (Archibald et al. 1987). In southeastern British Columbia, McLellan and Shackleton (1988) calculated that 8.7% of their total study area was effectively lost to bears as a result of road avoidance. Females with cubs still used habitat associated with roads, as it may have provided a more secure habitat due to male avoidance of roads. Females with cubs exhibited a trade-off between secure habitat and increased cub mortality due to the presence of the road (McLellan and Shackleton 1988). In their Yellowstone National Park study, Mattson et al. (1987) estimated that habitat effectiveness lost to developments represented a loss of support for 4 to 5 adult female grizzly bears.

Mortality Risk Many authors have reported mortality in grizzly bear populations as a direct or indirect consequence of linear developments. Grizzly bears may be killed in collisions with vehicles (LeFranc et al. 1987; Gibeau and Heuer 1996). Gunson (1995) analyzed records of 798 grizzly bear mortalities on provincial lands in Alberta from 1972 to 1994; 5 bears were killed by trains, and 4 by other vehicles. Although such mortalities can be important to small or low-density populations, most authors concur that greater mortality occurs as indirect consequences of the construction of roads and other linear developments. During winter nearly all grizzly bears are in dens (Linnell et al. 2000). Bears may be displaced from their dens by industrial activity or other disturbance (Harding and Nagy 1980; Swenson et al. 1997). Bears that flee their dens during winter will likely experience severe physiological stress and may die. Pregnant females may lose their cubs (Swenson et al. 1997), and abandoned cubs will not survive. The danger of winter industrial operations within grizzly bear denning areas is that precise locations of dens will not be known, and new construction or other activities may inadvertently approach them very closely.

2010 Page 4-29

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

Climate Change Global warming could lengthen the growing season particularly for bears at high latitudes, increasing the period during which green forage is available. The effects of climate change could be direct, in providing more vegetation for bears to consume, and indirect, in increasing habitat quality for bear prey. If bears are able to exploit enhanced food resources, this could result in larger bears, lower mortality rates, and higher litter sizes and other reproductive parameters. Some landscapes may increase in overall productivity, and bear carrying capacity could increase. Also, global warming could shorten the winter denning period. On the other hand, increasing temperatures may raise sea level and result in the loss of some of productive coastal bear habitats. If warming is accompanied by generally drier conditions, moist productive ecosystems may be replaced with ecosystems that support plant species that are less palatable or less nutritious for bears, lowering the biomass of potential bear forage. Increasing temperatures may also facilitate human habitation of areas presently considered inhospitable.

4.4.5 Key Habitat Requirements Although it is recognized that other factors such as predation, disease, intra and inter-species competition, and hunting influence grizzly bear population growth and distribution, this model does not include these factors. A high diversity of habitat is required within the limits of a grizzly bear's home range including areas for travel, seclusion, feeding, and denning. However, the productivity of grizzly bear populations is more strongly influenced by the availability of high-quality food resources than by density-dependent regulating factors (Guyg et al. 2004). Therefore, two feeding seasons, spring and fall, were considered critical for this species and were the only life requisites rated for the purposes of this Project. The characteristics of grizzly bear spring and fall feeding habitat are described in further detail in the following sections.

4.4.5.1 Spring Feeding Habitat Grizzly bears emerge from their dens in late March and early April in poor condition due to winter weight loss. Grizzly bears attempt to maximize their forage intake in the spring by concentrating in areas where early snowmelt and green-up occurs. Typically, this occurs in low-elevation riparian areas, avalanche tracks, and on south and west aspects (Zager and Jonkel 1983). Bears will move extensively searching for newly emergent vegetation and carrion on south-facing slopes and riparian areas (Ramcharita 2000; Guyg et al. 2004). In the spring, grizzly bears mostly feed on herbaceous plants such as grasses and sedges (Mace 1985; MacHutchon et al. 1993). Avalanche chutes, cutblocks, floodplains, estuaries, and forest openings including meadows, wetlands, seepage areas, or riparian areas (specifically those with low gradient and meandering back channels) provide favourable conditions for plant growth and are used by grizzly bears (Ash 1985; Michelfelder 2004). Wet, rich areas with an open forest canopy generally produce a greater abundance and diversity of forage plants than dry, poor areas with a closed/dense forest canopy (Schoonmaker and McKee 1988; Meidinger et al. 2002; Michelfelder 2004). South-facing slopes are important for early spring habitat as snow melt occurs first on these slopes. Tressler at al. (2003) reported notably higher biomass of grizzly bear spring forage species in wet meadow sites than forested sites, and also reported that these wet meadow sites had the highest percentage of important bear forage items.

Page 4-30 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

Grizzly bears will also opportunistically feed on the remains of winter-weakened animals; UWRs are the most likely habitats to encounter winter-kill ungulates.

4.4.5.2 Fall Feeding Habitat Fall is a critical period in a grizzly’s annual cycle; many habitat options are decreased when frost freezes forage plants at higher elevations. This tends to increase densities of bears at lower-elevation habitats to feed on remaining berries and succulent vegetation. The weight gain required by bears in the fall is critical in preparation for denning. Commonly in the fall, grizzly bears will be observed in shrub fields, cutblocks, and old burns which contain berry-producing shrubs (Zager and Jonkel 1983). Once various salmonids start spawning in late summer, they become a key food item for coastal grizzly bears (e.g., MacHutchon et al. 1993). As a result, areas with an abundance of forage plants close to salmon-bearing streams are more important than such areas further away from salmon-bearing streams. The berries of Vaccinium spp. and Shepherdia spp. are the primary sources of energy and fat deposition in the fall, particularly in areas where spawning salmon are not available. Dwarf blueberry, black huckleberry, velvet-leaved blueberry, and oval-leaved blueberry are particularly important to local bear populations in parts of British Columbia, as are the fruits and stalks of devil’s club.

4.4.6 Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping-based Model The grizzly bear spring and fall feeding habitat ratings , model flowchart and sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance reductions are included on the accompanying CD (see Appendix A).

4.4.6.1 Overview Grizzly bear spring and fall feeding habitat availability is determined using habitat suitability ratings developed for ecosystem units identified within the PEAA. Spring habitat generally consists of areas of early green-up, such as sedge meadows, valley bottoms, riparian zones and avalanche chutes. Fall habitat is forested stands with berry-producing shrubs and, where available, spawning salmon. A six-class rating scheme is used, and the reliability of the ratings is considered moderate (RIC 1999). In addition to the sensory disturbance buffers, the grizzly bear fall habitat model also incorporates a rule that increases the feeding habitat’s rating if it is within 1 km of a salmon-bearing watercourse.

4.4.6.2 Provincial Benchmark Provincial Benchmark (coastal British Columbia): • Ecosection: Kitimat Ranges • Biogeoclimatic Zone: Coastal Western Hemlock, Very Wet Maritime Submontane variant • Habitats: skunk cabbage sites; floodplains, wetlands, estuaries/beaches; the Khutzeymateen Valley is considered to be the coastal grizzly bear benchmark habitat in British Columbia (Rasheed 1999) Provincial Benchmark (interior British Columbia): • Ecosection: Border Ranges

2010 Page 4-31

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

• Biogeoclimatic Zones: Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir Dry Cool variant (ESSFdk), Montane Spruce Dry Cool variant (MSdk) • Habitats: avalanche chutes, the Flathead Valley is considered to be interior grizzly bear benchmark habitat in British Columbia

4.4.7 Ratings In British Columbia, ratings for spring and fall feeding habitat were developed based on ecosystem unit characteristics (Vegetation TDR; Banner et al. 1993a, 1993b; DeLong et al. 1993; DeLong et al. 1994; Delong 2003, 2004; MacKenzie and Moran 2004), field observations, structural stages, and site modifiers. In Alberta, ratings were developed based on tree species composition (Vegetation TDR; Beckingham and Archibald 1996; Beckingham et al. 1996), field observations, structural stage, and site modifiers. There is detailed knowledge of grizzly bear feeding habitat requirements in Alberta and British Columbia; therefore, a six-class rating scheme will be used.

Ratings Assumptions • All non-vegetated units (e.g., rocky outcrop [RO], gravel bar [GB], cultivated field [CF]) are generally rated nil (with exception of exposed soil [ES] and talus [TA] for insects and some plant forage). • Recent cutblocks and cutlines are rated low (4) for spring feeding and moderate (3) for fall feeding. • Inactive industrial and rough pasture are rated very low (5) for spring feeding and nil (6) for fall feeding. • Pipeline RoWs and powerline easements are rated moderately high (2) for spring feeding and low (4) for fall feeding. • Structural stage 4 has minimal value for spring and fall feeding habitat and is rated low (4) to very low (5). • Ecosystem units and ecosite phases with high cover and diversity of forbs and graminoids (e.g., grasses, sedges, horsetails, skunk cabbage, cow parsnip, stinging nettle, hellebore, and dandelion) are rated up to high (1) for spring feeding. The highest-rated units are low-elevation wetlands, meadows and open forests (e.g., structural stage 6 and 7), particularly riparian forests, and avalanche chutes. Wetter and richer habitat types have higher value for spring feeding than drier and poorer habitat types. Spring feeding value for these units is decreased at higher elevations (e.g., Engelmann Spruce Subalpine Fir, Mountain Hemlock). • Sedge fens and other sedge-dominated habitat types are generally rated high (1) for spring feeding and only have marginal value for fall feeding (e.g., very low [5]). • Depending on the ecosystem unit or ecosite phase, open-canopy (e.g., less than 60% cover; site modifier i [irregular]) mature and old forests (structural stages 6 and 7) and structural stages 2 and 3 are rated higher than closed-canopy and younger forests (structural stages 4 and 5) for spring feeding.

Page 4-32 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

• Depending on the ecosystem unit and variant, warm aspects in the Engelmann Spruce Subalpine Fir, Sub-Boreal Spruce and Mountain Hemlock are rated one class higher for spring feeding, and cool aspects are rated one class lower (to a minimum of very low [5]). • Ecosystem units and ecosite phases that support an abundance of berry-producing shrubs (particularly Vaccinium) are rated highest. These include cutblocks and burns (structural stage 3) and, to a lesser degree, late successional forests with an open, heterogeneous tree canopy (i.e., structural stage 7). • Depending on the ecosystem unit or ecosite phase, open-canopy (e.g., less than 60% cover; site modifier i [irregular]) mature and old forests (structural stages 6 and 7) and structural stage 3 are rated higher than closed-canopy and younger forests (structural stages 4 and 5) for fall feeding. Structural stage 2 is rated very low (5) for fall feeding. • Depending on the ecosystem unit or ecosite phase and the structural stage, sites on an active floodplain (site modifier a) are rated one class higher for spring and fall feeding. • In the Lower Foothills NSR, correlations between its ecosite phases and the TEM ecosystem units in the Boreal White and Black Spruce Peace Moist Warm variant (BWBSmw1) were identified and were used to harmonize the grizzly bear spring and fall feeding habitat ratings across the provincial boundary. • MPB-affected stands (British Columbia only) are rated the same as equivalent non-MPB structural stage 3 ecosystem units for spring and fall feeding. Suitability ratings for MPB stands do not change at the operations phase.

Ratings Adjustments Stream data were not available for the powerline easements for Clore and Hoult tunnels, Tumbler Ridge pump station and Houston pump station. For these areas, the provincial Fisheries Information Summary System (FISS 2009, Internet site) was used to identify streams with and without salmonids. Streams with salmonids were classified as “suitable”, and the fall feeding ratings adjustment was applied. Streams without salmonids were not adjusted. For streams lacking any information about salmonid presence or absence, all first-order streams (e.g., rivers) were considered as being “suitable”, and thus the fall feeding ratings adjustment was applied. All other streams were considered “unsuitable” for fall feeding.

Stream Selection (GIS) Locations (point features) of “excellent” and “good” streams were overlaid on 1:20,000 Terrain and Resource Information Mapping (TRIM). Stream (line) features were selected as follows: • Downstream: including all tributaries, to 1 km (perpendicular) beyond PEAA • Upstream: main stream only (no tributaries), to 1 km (perpendicular) beyond PEAA • Kitimat River: select as polygon feature, to 1 km (perpendicular) beyond PEAA

Grizzly Bear Stream Sensory Disturbance Buffers (GIS) • Apply 1,000-m sensory disturbance buffer to all selected streams (including Kitimat River polygon) • Trim sensory disturbance buffers to within PEAA

2010 Page 4-33

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

Fall Feeding Rating Adjustment Ecosystem units rated 2 through 5 for fall feeding and within the grizzly bear stream sensory disturbance buffer increase by one habitat suitability class (e.g., from 3 [moderate] to 2 [moderately high]).

4.5 Wolverine

4.5.1 Status The wolverine (Gulo gulo) is blue-listed in British Columbia (BCCDC 2009, Internet site) and designated as may be at risk in Alberta (ASRD 2005, Internet site). It is considered a species of special concern federally and is presently on Schedule 3 of SARA (COSEWIC 2008d, Internet site), which includes species that have been designated as special concern and have yet to be reassessed by COSEWIC using revised criteria.

4.5.2 Distribution

4.5.2.1 Continental Range Wolverines have a circumpolar distribution. In Canada, wolverines inhabit northern, forested wilderness areas across the country, including alpine tundra and arctic tundra of the western mountains (COSEWIC 2003).

4.5.2.2 Provincial Range

British Columbia Wolverines occur throughout British Columbia, except for most coastal islands, the dry Thompson- Okanagan areas and the southwestern regions where rural and urban development is prominent (Banci 1994; Hatler 1989).

Alberta Generally, due to the wolverine’s secretive nature and aversion to humans and associated development, the current range of wolverine in Alberta can be said to correspond with areas that have relatively low levels of human development; these include the northern portion of the province as well as more remote areas of the Rocky Mountains along the western border (Petersen 1997).

4.5.2.3 Study Area Range Wolverines are expected to occur along the length of the pipeline route, except for more urban areas and the agriculturally dominated landscape of Alberta’s White Area. Lofroth and Krebs (2007) rated habitat quality for wolverine at a broad scale for all of British Columbia. The majority of the RoW crosses moderate-quality habitat (Lofroth and Krebs 2007). There are two areas identified as high quality that are crossed by the RoW: one area is within the Rocky Mountains, at the Alberta−British Columbia boundary, and the other is located east of the Coast Range in west-central British Columbia (Lofroth and Krebs

Page 4-34 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

2007). The area west of the Coast Range, along the coast, is considered to be low-quality or “rare” wolverine habitat (Lofroth and Krebs 2007).

4.5.3 Abundance In British Columbia, the wolverine populations potentially affected by the Project are believed to be stable (COSEWIC 2003). Lofroth and Ott (2007) estimated wolverine populations for 74 identified wolverine population management units within British Columbia. Seven of these management units intersect the PEAA. The population estimates for these units range from 13 (North Coast) to 101 (Hart) (Lofroth and Ott 2007). Based on a study conducted in southeastern British Columbia, Krebs and Lewis (1999) estimated wolverine density at 1 per 167 km². In addition, the study used overlay techniques to demonstrate that high-use areas were located predominantly in protected areas (e.g., national parks). Density in Glacier and Revelstoke National Parks was proportionally higher than surrounding areas based on relative trapping effort and total park area, suggesting that the Parks may be acting as refugia (Krebs and Lewis 1999). There is limited information available on wolverine population size in Alberta, although in the past, the trend has been described as declining (Petersen 1997).

4.5.4 General Ecology

4.5.4.1 Overview Wolverines are solitary animals, for which a relatively undisturbed wilderness setting is considered important (Banci 1987; COSEWIC 2003; Weir 2004). They use a wide variety of habitats and structural stages, although mature and old forests are used predominantly (Weir 2004). High elevations provide cooling, foraging, and security habitats during the summer months while montane forests provide shelter, forage opportunities, and security during the winter (Hornocker and Hash 1981; Whitman et al. 1986). Isolation from the presence and influence of humans is probably the most important characteristic of wolverine habitat (Copeland 1996). Males use low-elevation forests and moose winter ranges in winter (Hornocker and Hash 1981; Whitman et al. 1986; Banci and Harestad 1990; Krebs et al. 2007), and mid-elevation subalpine avalanche chutes and recently logged areas in summer (Hornocker and Hash 1981; Lofroth et al. 2007; Krebs et al. 2007). Females often use lower-elevation forested habitats in winter, moving to higher-elevation subalpine and alpine habitats in summer (Whitman et al. 1986; Copeland 1996; Landa et al. 1998; Magoun and Copeland 1998; Krebs and Lewis 2000; Lofroth 2001). The intensity and frequency of use of various habitats is linked to their ability to support year-round food sources. Wolverines consume a variety of food items, however ungulates (primarily obtained as carrion) including moose, elk, caribou, deer and mountain goats) form the majority of their diet (Weir 2004). Wolverines are opportunistic feeders and have also been known to eat snowshoe hare, porcupines, squirrels, mice other small rodents, birds and bird eggs, fish, and vegetation (Banci 1994; COSEWIC 2003; Weir 2004). Wolverines move great distances in search of prey (Krebs et al. 2007) and have large home ranges. For

2010 Page 4-35

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

example, studies completed by Krebs and Lewis (2000) and Lofroth (2001) showed females travelled in an area up to 311 km2 and males travelled up to 1,366 km2. The wolverine’s preference for higher-elevation habitats during summer may be related to the availability of prey (Whitman et al. 1986) and avoidance of humans (Hornocker and Hash 1981). Lower-elevation forest types commonly associated with ungulates likely provide the highest carrion availability (Copeland 1996). Banci (1987) felt that low availability of rodent prey in subalpine habitats in the Yukon may have accounted for avoidance of these habitats by male wolverines. Krebs et al. (2007) studied two populations in British Columbia and found that seasonal habitat use by female wolverines shifted from low-elevation forested environments in winter to high subalpine and alpine habitats in summer. Krebs et al. (2007) also found that, in rugged and mountainous terrain, avalanche path habitats were consistently used by both sexes in winter and summer; for winter avalanche kill of prey species such as mountain goat and moose (Krebs and Lewis 2000), and availability of hoary marmots, a late winter and summer prey species. Natal and maternal den sites have been located in a variety of habitats within the subalpine vegetation zone. Tree cavities, exposed root systems, boulder fields, tunnels in deep snow, and large accumulations of coarse woody debris (CWD) are important habitat features for denning (BCCDC 2009, Internet site; Magoun 1985; Copeland 1996). A study conducted in British Columbia noted that all wolverine dens were found within tributary valleys with minimal or no human disturbance (i.e., roads) in the ESSFvc biogeoclimatic subzone, under woody debris or a combination of woody debris and large boulders (Krebs and Lewis 1999).

4.5.4.2 Limiting Factors Wolverines require large tracts of wilderness to maintain viable populations (Banci 1994; Weir 2004). As a result, wolverine populations are susceptible to habitat loss from the expansion of human settlement and natural resource extraction. The wolverine’s habitat is increasingly fragmented by industrial activity, especially in the southern part of its range, and increased motorized access will increase harvest pressure and other disturbances. In Alberta, a rabies control program in the 1950s and continual trapping have also contributed to population declines (Petersen 1997). Because wolverines have such low reproductive potential, the loss of even one mature male in a given area may impact the success of several females (Magoun 1985; Banci 1987).

4.5.5 Qualitative Habitat Assessment As a wide-ranging habitat generalist, the wolverine is not recommended as an appropriate candidate for habitat suitability mapping. Although some wolverine habitat models are available (e.g., Singleton et al. 2002; Proulx 2005), given the geographic extent of the Project, a single wolverine habitat model is unlikely to be valid along the entire length of the pipeline route unless applied only at the broad landscape level. Thus, no measurable parameter for loss or alteration of wolverine habitat is proposed. Instead, two indicators are selected for assessing project-related effects on wolverine habitat value: grizzly bear and ungulates. The rationale for selecting these indicators is: • Grizzly bear: Like the wolverine, the grizzly bear is a landscape-level large carnivore sensitive to human disturbance, and Banci (1994) suggests that the effects of land-use activities on wolverines are likely similar to those on grizzly bears. Thus, project-related effects on grizzly bear habitat,

Page 4-36 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

particularly as they relate to habitat fragmentation, will likely be of similar magnitude for wolverine. Grizzly bear fall feeding habitat is the focus, because fall feeding habitat, rather than spring feeding habitat, more closely resembles potential wolverine habitat. • Ungulates: Wolverines are opportunistic scavengers and predators, but rely on carrion and cached items in winter (Magoun 1985). In British Columbia, wolverines rely on ungulate carrion during winter, primarily moose, caribou and mountain goat (Lofroth et al. 2007), and wolverine winter habitat use is positively associated with moose winter range (Krebs et al. 2007). Thus, an adverse effect on ungulate winter habitat availability would likely also have an adverse effect on wolverine habitat suitability, regardless of the cause.

4.6 American Marten

4.6.1 Status The American marten (Martes americana) is not a species of conservation concern in British Columbia or Alberta. Marten are managed as a fur-bearing species in both provinces.

4.6.2 Distribution

4.6.2.1 Continental Range In North America, marten are found in coniferous forests throughout Canada and some areas of the United States, such as the coastal forests in some areas of Washington, Oregon, and California, as well as Maine, and the central coniferous forests in Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. They are also found in Alaska (NatureServe 2009, Internet site).

4.6.2.2 Provincial Range

British Columbia Marten are found throughout British Columbia, on Vancouver Island and most of the smaller islands (Nagorsen 1990; RIC 1998b). They are found in every biogeoclimatic zone in the province except Bunchgrass, Spruce-Willow-Birch Boreal Scrub, and Alpine Tundra (Stevens 1995).

Alberta In Alberta the distribution of marten coincides closely with that of the Boreal Forest Natural Region, although marten are also found in the forested regions of the Foothills and Rocky Mountain Natural Regions.

4.6.2.3 Study Area Range Marten occur in all non-alpine biogeoclimatic units and natural subregions that intersect the PEAA, although habitat availability is limited within the White Area because of the dominant agricultural landscape.

2010 Page 4-37

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

British Columbia Ecoprovinces: Boreal Plains, Central Interior, Sub-boreal Interior, and Coast and Mountains Ecoregions: Southern Alberta Upland, Central Canadian Rocky Mountains, Eastern Hazelton Mountains, Fraser Plateau, Fraser Basin, and Coastal Gap Ecosections: Kiskatinaw Plateau, Hart Foothills, Southern Hart Ranges, McGregor Plateau, Nechako Lowland, Babine Upland, Bulkley Basin, Nechako Upland, Bulkley Ranges, and Kitimat Ranges Biogeoclimatic Zones: Boreal White and Black Spruce Moist Warm subzone (BWBSmw), Boreal White and Black Spruce Wet Cool subzone (BWBSwk), Sub-Boreal Spruce Wet Cool subzone (SBSwk), Sub- Boreal Spruce Dry Cool subzone (SBSdk), Sub-Boreal Spruce Dry Warm subzone (SBSdw), Sub-Boreal Spruce Moist Cold subzone (SBSmc), Sub-Boreal Spruce Moist Cool subzone (SBSmk), Sub-Boreal Spruce Very Wet Cool subzone (SBSvk), Coastal Western Hemlock Very Wet Maritime subzone (CWHvm), Coastal Western Hemlock Wet Submaritime subzone (CWHws), Engelmann Spruce- Subalpine Fir Moist Cold subzone (ESSFmc), Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir Moist Cool subzone (ESSFmk), Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir Moist Very Cold subzone (ESSFmv), Engelmann Spruce- Subalpine Fir Wet Cool subzone (ESSFwk), Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir Wet Cold subzone (ESSFwc), and Mountain Hemlock Moist Maritime subzone (MHmm)

Alberta Natural Regions: Boreal Forest, Foothills, Parkland. Natural Subregions: Central Parkland, Dry Mixedwood, Central Mixedwood, Lower Foothills

4.6.3 Abundance Two-thirds of all marten trapped in British Columbia between 1985 and 2000 were in the Peace-Omineca and Skeena regions (Hatler et al. 2003). Trends for different populations of marten in British Columbia are not known, but are thought to fluctuate widely, especially in the north (Hatler et al. 2003). Marten are strongly dependent upon prey availability, and may demonstrate cyclic behaviour in areas where voles and hares are the primary prey. Densities are likely highest in the boreal forest regions, as harvest densities are highest in the area between the foothills and the British Columbia border (Poole and Mowat 2001). In the Central Parkland NSR, which is dominated mainly by deciduous forests and anthropogenic land uses, marten populations are likely sparse and at low densities.

4.6.4 General Ecology

4.6.4.1 Overview Marten are widespread in the forested regions of Alberta and British Columbia. Their greatest densities are in coastal old-growth forests, but they are generally common across their range (Stevens and Lofts 1988; Stevens 1995). Prey abundance appears to be a critical factor affecting marten population dynamics (Mech and Rogers 1977; Fryxell et al. 1999).

Page 4-38 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

Marten are often referred to as old-growth dependent; however, they may occur in second-growth stands (Buskirk and Powell 1994; Bowman and Robitaille 1997), including those that are deciduous-dominated (Poole et al. 2004). Marten in the northern boreal forest are closely associated with late successional coniferous stands, especially those dominated by spruce and fir, with complex structure near the ground (i.e., CWD) (Slough 1989; Buskirk and Powell 1994). Open areas and young seral stage forests are low-value habitat for marten (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994; Poole et al. 2004). They are not typically found in alpine areas. Marten may move to lower elevations in winter when snowpack is high in mountainous coastal areas, such as those of southeastern Alaska (Banfield 1974; Steventon and Major 1982; Buskirk 1983). Commonly reported refuge sites include ground burrows, rock piles and crevices, downed logs, stumps, snags, brush or slash piles and squirrel middens (Steventon and Major 1982; Buskirk 1984; Ruggiero et al. 1994; Bull and Heater 2000). Marten are opportunistic predators that prey mainly on red-backed voles and other microtines in many parts of their range (Buskirk and Powell 1994; Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994; Thompson and Colgan 1994; Paragi et al. 1996). Snowshoe hares, mice, squirrels, carrion, birds and bird eggs, insects and berries are also part of the marten diet (Nagorsen et al. 1989; Thompson and Colgan 1994; Poole and Graf 1996; Bull 2000).

4.6.4.2 Limiting Factors Hargis et al. (1999) suggest a maximum threshold of 25% open areas across a landscape to sustain marten populations at a regional scale. Other findings indicate that marten might tolerate up to 50% cutover forest at the landscape level, although typical home ranges include less than 30% to 35% clear-cuts (Potvin et al. 1999, 2000; Poole et al. 2004).

4.6.5 Key Habitat Requirements Although winter habitat requirements are most critical for both individual martens and populations (Steventon and Major 1982; Hargis and McCullough 1984; Sherburne and Bissonette 1994), similar habitat is required throughout the year. Given this, year-round living habitat in general was considered critical for this species and is the only marten life requisite modelled. The characteristics of marten year-round living habitat are described in further detail in the following section.

4.6.5.1 Year-round Living Habitat Mature and old-growth coniferous forests with high canopy closure generally support the highest densities of marten, likely because of their structural diversity (e.g., standing and downed woody material) and cover from avian predators (Hargis and McCullough 1984; Buskirk and Ruggerio 1994; Thompson and Colgan 1994; Thompson and Harestad 1994). Generally, 30% canopy closure is considered minimum cover for marten (Koehler and Hornocker 1977; Spencer et al. 1983). However, marten have been observed using canopy-burned forest stands, particularly in winter for hunting (Sherburne 1992). A study in Newfoundland showed marten use insect-defoliated stands in a similar manner (Drew and Bissonette, unpublished data. cited in Bissonette and Broekhuizen 1995). Marten show a preference for moist or mesic forest types, possibly related to the correlation between moisture and forest productivity (Buskirk and Powell 1994). In the Rocky Mountains, this is evidenced by preference

2010 Page 4-39

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

for spruce and fir-dominated stands over dry stands dominated by ponderosa and lodgepole pine (Campbell 1979; Buskirk et al. 1989). In northeastern British Columbia, marten have also been documented using young seral stage forest (approximately 40 years old) as well as deciduous-dominated forest (Poole et al. 2004). CWD is an important ecological element for marten, which they use for thermal insulation and access to subnivean prey in winter, denning in spring, and for hunting and protection from predators all year (Thompson and Harestad 1994; Buskirk and Powell 1994; Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994; Sherburne and Bissonette 1994; Taylor and Buskirk 1994; Thompson and Colgan 1994). The amount of available CWD generally has a U-shaped distribution in relation to forest age, being relatively abundant in recently cut forests, rare in intermediate aged forests (approximately 50 yrs old), and being highest in forest stands greater than 80 years old (Sturtevant et al. 1997; Pedlar et al. 2002; Feller 2003). In British Columbia, CWD is most abundant in the Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic zone (Feller 2003). Lofroth (1993) indicates that marten prefer habitats with greater than 200 m3/ha CWD in the Sub-boreal Spruce biogeoclimatic zone. In general, marten prefer larger pieces of CWD (Thompson et al. 1989; Corn and Raphael 1992; Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994), because they provide greater small mammal habitat and sheltered area per piece. In general, marten will cross forestry roads and small clearings; however, they typically do not venture into open areas (Buskirk 1984; Buskirk and Ruggerio 1994), and have seldom been documented crossing areas without canopy or ground cover (Soutière 1979; Spencer et al. 1983). In some situations, marten have been observed crossing relatively large non-forested openings (e.g., 300 m [Buskirk 1984]); however, these movements were attributed to home range shifts or dispersion, rather than being typical of movements within a home range.

4.6.5.2 Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping-based Model The marten year-round living habitat ratings model flowchart and sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance reductions are included on the accompanying CD (see Appendix A).

4.6.5.3 Overview American marten year-round living habitat availability is determined using habitat suitability ratings developed for ecosystem units identified within the PEAA. Year-round living habitat is generally in mature and old growth forests with high canopy closure. Mature forests provide structural diversity in the form of standing and fallen CWD. Open areas and young seral stage forests are considered low-quality habitat for American marten (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994; Poole et al. 2004). A four-class rating scheme is used and the reliability of the ratings is considered moderate (RIC 1999). In addition to the sensory disturbance buffers, the marten habitat model also incorporates a patch size rule that decreases the value of patches under a threshold size (i.e., 15 ha).

4.6.5.4 Provincial Benchmark A provincial benchmark has not been determined for marten in British Columbia or Alberta.

Page 4-40 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

4.6.6 Ratings Living habitat was rated for its ability to provide suitable foraging, security, and thermal habitat during all seasons. In British Columbia, ratings were developed based on ecosystem unit characteristics (Vegetation TDR; Banner et al. 1993a, 1993b; DeLong et al. 1993; DeLong et al. 1994; Delong 2003, 2004; MacKenzie and Moran 2004), field observations (on CWD), structural stage, and stand structure modifiers. In Alberta, ratings were developed based on tree species composition (Vegetation TDR; Beckingham and Archibald 1996; Beckingham et al. 1996), field observations, and structural stage. There is detailed knowledge of marten habitat in some parts of the PEAA, but coastal habitat requirements are not well known; therefore, a four-class rating scheme is used.

Ratings Assumptions • All ecosystem units and ecosite phases with structural stage of 1, 2, 3 or 4 are rated nil (4). • All non-vegetated units (e.g., rocky outcrop [RO], gravel bar [GB], cultivated field [CF]) and recent cutblocks are rated nil. • Ecosystem units in the Sub-Boreal Spruce and Coastal Western Hemlock zones, and lower elevation (less than 1,500 m) Engelmann Spruce Subalpine Fir variants (i.e., ESSFmk, Engelmann Spruce- Subalpine Fir Bullmoose Moist Very Cold (ESSFmv2), Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir Misinchinka Wet Cool variant (ESSFwk2)) are rated higher than Boreal White and Black Spruce and Mountain Hemlock zones, and higher elevation Engelmann Spruce Subalpine Fir variants. • Habitat in the Boreal Forest subregions is generally considered more suitable for marten than that in the Central Parkland NSR. • Ecosystem units and ecosite phases that are structural stage 6 and 7 are rated higher than structural stage 5. • In general, moist ecosite phases or ecosystem units (submesic to subhygric) are rated higher than dry (very xeric to subxeric) or very wet (hygric to hydric) ecosite phases or ecosystem units. Moister habitats are rated higher because they usually have higher canopy closure and denser shrub and herb layers. • Ecosystem units and ecosite phases with high (more than 40%) canopy closure are rated higher than ecosystem units with low or open canopy. However, if the high canopy ecosystem units had irregular (i) or shelterwood (h) stand structure modifiers (indicating very open forests) their suitability is decreased by one class. • Forested ecosystem units and ecosite phases with high ground cover are rated higher than units with sparse ground cover. Suitability is decreased by one class for units with sparse cover (less than 30%) of low shrubs. • Conifer-dominated ecosystem units and ecosite phases are rated higher than deciduous-dominated ecosystem units. Suitability is increased by one class for ecosystem units with more than 50% spruce or fir in the canopy, and is decreased by one class for seral (deciduous-dominated) ecosystem units, to a low of class 3 (moderate).

2010 Page 4-41

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

• If information on CWD was available for the ecosystem unit or ecosite phase, suitability is increased by one class for high CWD volume (more than 20% cover), and is decreased by one class for low volume or no CWD. • In the Lower Foothills NSR, correlations between its ecosite phases and the TEM ecosystem units in the Boreal White and Black Spruce Peace Moist Warm variant (BWBSmw1) were identified and were used to harmonize the marten habitat ratings across the provincial boundary. MPB-affected stands (British Columbia only) are generally considered to have nil habitat value for marten habitat. However, if the ecosystem unit is characterized by mixed conifers with high stem density and shrub cover, suitability is increased by one class (to 3 [low]). If CWD information is available for the MPB ecosystem unit, suitability is increased by one class for high CWD volume (more than 20% cover). Suitability ratings for MPB stands do not change at the operations phase.

Ratings Adjustments In addition to the sensory disturbance buffers, marten living habitat ratings were adjusted based on adjacency of MPB-affected stands to high value habitat and patch size, as follows: • If a MPB stand is adjacent to high-quality (Class 1 or 2) habitat, suitability of the MPB stand is increased by one class (to a maximum of Class 2) for the area within 100 m of the high-quality forest edge. • Snyder and Bissonette (1987) found that the majority of marten detections were in habitat patches ≥ 15 ha, and this threshold has been used in other marten models in Alberta and British Columbia (Takats et al. 1999; D’Eon et al. 2002). Thus, patches of suitable habitat (i.e., contiguous areas with ratings of 1, 2 or 3) that were less than 15 ha were downgraded to nil and patches ≥ 15 ha retained their rating value.

4.7 Fisher

4.7.1 Status The fisher (Martes pennanti) is blue-listed in British Columbia and designated as sensitive in Alberta (ASRD 2005, Internet site; BCCDC 2009, Internet site).

4.7.2 Distribution

4.7.2.1 Continental Range The fisher occurs only in North America. The majority of the fisher’s range is located north of the Canada–United States border and south of 60 degrees North latitude with rare occurrences in the NWT (Strickland et al. 1982). Historically, fishers ranged from Nova Scotia and the Appalachian Mountains in the east, across the mixedwood and boreal forests to the west coast of British Columbia. They are generally absent from the southern portions of the Prairie Provinces. The species is relatively abundant in the eastern provinces of Canada, with lower populations in Alberta and British Columbia.

Page 4-42 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

4.7.2.2 Provincial Range

British Columbia The fisher occurs throughout most forested regions in mainland British Columbia, although it is rare in coastal ecosystems and likely rare in the dry southern interior (Weir 2003). Fisher are absent from Vancouver Island, the Queen Charlotte Islands, and the north coast islands. Excessive snow depths limit their distribution in coastal areas as well as the northwestern region of the province.

Alberta Fishers are most likely confined to central and northern Alberta and mountain park areas, where mature forest is present.

4.7.2.3 Study Area Range Fisher occur in all non-alpine BEC variants and NSRs that intersect the PEAA, although their presence in the White Area is likely very limited, and they are considered rare in the Coastal Western Hemlock zone (Badry 2004).

British Columbia Ecoprovinces: Boreal Plains, Central Interior, Sub-boreal Interior, and Coast and Mountains Ecoregions: Southern Alberta Upland, Central Canadian Rocky Mountains, Eastern Hazelton Mountains, Fraser Plateau, Fraser Basin, and Coastal Gap Ecosections: Kiskatinaw Plateau, Hart Foothills, Southern Hart Ranges, McGregor Plateau, Nechako Lowland, Babine Upland, Bulkley Basin, Nechako Upland, Bulkley Ranges, and Kitimat Ranges Biogeoclimatic Zones: Boreal White and Black Spruce Moist Warm subzone (BWBSmw), Boreal White and Black Spruce Wet Cool subzone (BWBSwk), Sub-Boreal Spruce Wet Cool subzone (SBSwk), Sub- Boreal Spruce Dry Cool subzone (SBSdk), Sub-Boreal Spruce Dry Warm subzone (SBSdw), Sub-Boreal Spruce Moist Cold subzone (SBSmc), Sub-Boreal Spruce Moist Cool subzone (SBSmk), Sub-Boreal Spruce Very Wet Cool subzone (SBSvk), Coastal Western Hemlock Very Wet Maritime subzone (CWHvm), Coastal Western Hemlock Wet Submaritime subzone (CWHws), Engelmann Spruce- Subalpine Fir Moist Cold subzone (ESSFmc), Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir Moist Cool (ESSFmk), Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir Moist Very Cold subzone (ESSFmv), Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir Wet Cool subzone (ESSFwk), Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir Wet Cold subzone (ESSFwc), and Mountain Hemlock Moist Maritime subzone (MHmm)

Alberta Natural Regions: Boreal Forest, Foothills, Parkland Natural Subregions: Central Parkland, Dry Mixedwood, Central Mixedwood, Lower Foothills

2010 Page 4-43

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

4.7.3 Abundance Fishers naturally occur in very low densities throughout much of their range; however, the population density in British Columbia is considerably lower than in the eastern extent of their range. The most modest density estimate ranged between 1 fisher per 65 km² and 1 fisher per 100 km², the latter value representing the highest quality habitats in British Columbia (Weir 2003). Based on a 400,000 km² extent of occurrence, Weir (2003) estimated the fisher population in British Columbia to be between 1,113 and 2,759 in 2003; whereas, the British Columbia Conservation Data Centre estimates the British Columbia population to be slightly greater at 3,800 (BCCDC 2009, Internet site). There appear to be four genetically isolated fisher subpopulations in British Columbia, two of which overlap the PEAA: the Peace Region subpopulation and the Omineca/Skeena subpopulation (Weir 2003). The Peace Region subpopulation is estimated to be 548 to 1,300 animals, the highest in the province, and there are estimated to be 258 to 626 animals in the Omineca Region and 78 to 247 animals in the Skeena Region (Weir 2003). Fishers are considered uncommon to rare in Alberta and no population estimate is available (ASRD 2005, Internet site).

4.7.4 General Ecology

4.7.4.1 Overview Fishers are associated with late successional forests (Weir 2003). The complex vertical and horizontal structure and denser canopy of older forests provides the key requirements for fishers: good prey habitat, protection from predators, den trees, resting sites and snow interception (Powell and Zielinski 1994; Krohn et al. 1995; Kilpatrick and Rego 1994; Weir 2003). Within mature forests, riparian areas appear to be particularly important for fisher (Banfield 1974; Powell 1993; Jones and Garton 1994). Large forest openings, open hardwood forests, recent clear-cuts, grasslands, and areas above timberline are poor habitat for fisher (Powell and Zielinski 1994). Travel in deep, soft snow is energetically costly and fishers have been found to modify their foraging and dispersal movement to take advantage of areas with low snow accumulation (Leonard 1986; Powell 1993; Cariboo Chilcotin Conservation Society [CCC] 2008, Internet site). Thus, where snow is deep and frequent, fishers should be expected to be rare or absent (Krohn et al. 1995). This may be why there are few fishers in coastal British Columbia where deep, wet snow is more common (CCC 2008, Internet site). The fisher is a generalist and opportunistic predator (Weir 2003). The bulk of their diet is composed of snowshoe hare and rodent species, but fisher will also prey on birds (particularly grouse species), snakes, insects, fish, and eggs (Forsyth 1985; Weir 2003). In addition to live prey, fishers will also consume carrion as well as vegetation, mushrooms and nuts (Powell 1993). Furthermore, fishers are known to consume porcupine when they are available and are considered to be the porcupine’s primary predator (CCC 2008, Internet site; Weir 2003). Breeding takes place between late March and April and females reproduce via delayed implantation (Powell and Zielinski 1994; Weir 2003). Parturition generally occurs between February and April of the following year when a female will have one to three kits (Weir 2003). Kits are completely dependent

Page 4-44 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

upon their mother all summer and into the fall until they are about five months old (Powell and Zielinski 1994; Weir 2003). After dispersal, kits will remain in their mother’s territory until they are one to two years of age (Arthur et al. 1993; Weir 2003). Due to their solitary nature, selective habitat requirements and ability to traverse 5 to 6 km/day, fishers need relatively large home ranges (Powell and Zielinski 1994). In Alberta, home ranges of 24.3 km2 (males) and 14.9 km2 (females) have been reported (Badry et al. 1997). The home ranges of fishers in British Columbia are substantially larger (particularly for males) than those reported elsewhere in North America, perhaps because suitable habitat is less uniformly distributed in the province (Weir 2003). For example, home ranges were 49 km2 (females) and 219 km2 (males) in north-central British Columbia (Weir and Corbould 2008) and 28 km2 (females) and 190 km2 (males) in northeast British Columbia (Weir 2008).

4.7.4.2 Limiting Factors The main threats to fisher populations in British Columbia are from changes to habitat from development of forested lands and changes in survival rates due to trapping (Weir 2003). These same threats are likely in Alberta. Forest harvesting likely has the greatest effect on fisher habitat given their reliance on mature and old forest habitats and their associated attributes (Weir 2003). Effects include loss of stand complexity, fragmentation of habitat and increased human access. Although it is unclear what effect trapping pressure has had on fisher population dynamics in the British Columbia, it is considered likely to have contributed to their current conservation status (Weir 2003).

4.7.5 Key Habitat Requirements Habitat containing suitable natal dens is considered to be more limiting than foraging habitat within fisher ranges in western Canada (Powell and Zielinski 1994). As such, reproduction (natal denning) is the only life requisite modelled and described in further detail in the following section.

4.7.5.1 Natal Denning Suitable natal denning trees are rare across the landscape and are a critical requirement for fishers (Weir and Harestad 2003; Badry 2004). Natal dens sites may be re-used year to year (Weir 2003). With respect to natal denning trees, fishers appear to select for tree characteristics rather than patch or habitat characteristics (Weir and Corbould 2008). In British Columbia, fisher natal (and maternal) denning requirements have been studied in north and south central British Columbia (several sub-boreal spruce subzones), the Kiskatinaw Plateau region (boreal white and black spruce zone), and in the dry interior (sub-boreal pine–spruce zone). Cottonwoods are almost exclusively selected for natal dens in the Sub- Boreal Spruce and Boreal White and Black Spruce zones (Weir and Harestad 2003; Weir and Corbould 2008). Aspen and birch may also be used (e.g., Weir and Harestad 2003; Paragi et al. 1996 [Maine]). Where cottonwood are largely unavailable, coniferous trees are used for natal dens (e.g., Douglas-fir, pine in the dry interior; Davis 2007, pers. comm.). In general, the best natal denning habitat will be found in lower elevation, mature forests along major riparian corridors.

2010 Page 4-45

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

4.7.6 Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping-based Model The fisher natal denning habitat ratings model flowchart and sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance reductions are included on the accompanying CD (see Appendix A).

4.7.6.1 Overview As with the marten, fisher natal denning habitat availability is determined using habitat suitability ratings developed for ecosystem units identified within the PEAA. Natal dens are generally found in riparian areas where large, old deciduous trees are present. Habitat containing suitable natal den sites is considered to be more limiting than foraging habitat within fisher ranges in western Canada (Powell and Zielinski 1994). A four-class rating scheme is used and the reliability of the ratings is considered moderate (RIC 1999). In addition to the sensory disturbance buffers, the fisher habitat availability model also incorporates a patch rule, which considers that some patches of suitable natal denning habitat may not be used, or may be underused if surrounded by habitat that fisher are unlikely to travel through (e.g., unforested land).

4.7.6.2 Provincial Benchmark A provincial benchmark has not been determined for fisher in British Columbia or Alberta.

4.7.7 Ratings In British Columbia, ratings for natal denning habitat were developed based on ecosystem unit characteristics (Vegetation TDR; Banner et al. 1993a, 1993b; DeLong et al. 1993; DeLong et al. 1994; Delong 2003, 2004; MacKenzie and Moran 2004), field observations, structural stage, stand type (mixedwood, conifer, broadleaf), seral identifier, and site modifiers. In Alberta, ratings were developed based on tree species composition (Vegetation TDR; Beckingham and Archibald 1996; Beckingham et al. 1996), field observations, structural stage, and site modifiers. The Alberta mapping does not include a stand variable so individual polygons could not be rated more specifically according to whether they were conifer, mixedwood or broadleaf, as was the case with the British Columbia mapping. There is a moderate level of knowledge of fisher natal denning habitat requirements; therefore, a four-class rating scheme will be used.

Ratings Assumptions • All ecosystem units or ecosite phases with structural stage of 1, 2, 3 or 4 are rated nil. • All non-vegetated units (e.g., rocky outcrop [RO], gravel bar [GB], cultivated field [CF]) and recent cutblocks are rated nil. • Ecosystem units that are purely coniferous are rated as nil for structural stage 5, and 3 (low) for structural stages 6 and 7. If the stand type of the structural 6 and 7 units is broadleaf or mixedwood then the value is increased by one class (to 2 [moderate]).

Page 4-46 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

• Ecosystem units that are likely to have cottonwood are rated as 3 (low) for structural stage 5, and 1(high) for structural stage 6 and 7. If the stand type of the structural stage 6 and 7 units is conifer then the value is decreased by one class (to 2 [moderate]). • Ecosystem units that are likely to have a deciduous component but are unlikely to have cottonwood are rated as 3 (low) for structural stage 5, and 2 (moderate) for structural stage 6 and 7. If the stand type of the structural stage 6 and 7 units is conifer then the value is decreased by one class (to 3 [low]). • Ecosite phases that are purely coniferous or have a small (less than 5%)3 deciduous component but no cottonwood are rated as nil for structural stage 5, and 3 (low) for structural stages 6 and 7. If these units have a floodplain modifier (a) or a fan modifier (n) then the value is increased by one class. • Ecosite phases that have a prominent cottonwood component (more than 5%) are rated as 3 (low) for structural stage 5, and 1 (high) for structural stages 6 and 7. If structural stage 6 and 7 units have a cool aspect (k) their value is decreased by one class (to 2 [moderate]). • Ecosite phases that have more than 5% deciduous component but no or very little (less than 5%) cottonwood or have a small deciduous component (less than 5%) with some cottonwood are rated as 3 (low) for structural stage 5, and 2 (moderate) for structural stage 6 or 7. • In the Lower Foothills NSR correlations between the ecosite phases in this NSR and the TEM ecosystem units in the Boreal White and Black Spruce Peace Moist Warm variant (BWBSmw1) were identified and were used to harmonize the fisher habitat ratings across the provincial boundary. The British Columbia TEM-based ratings took precedence over the Alberta ecosite phase-based ratings. • MPB-affected stands are rated nil.

Ratings Adjustments In addition to the sensory disturbance buffers, natal denning habitat ratings were adjusted based on a measure of their isolation from adjacent living habitat. The assumption is that fisher may not use patches of otherwise suitable habitat if they have to cross large open areas to get to those patches. The approach used is based on Saxena and Bilyk (2000). The following sensory disturbance buffers and adjustments were applied around natal denning habitat patches where habitat suitability is rated as 1 (high) to 2 (moderate) in a two-step process: • Step 1 – 0-to-100 m sensory disturbance buffer band: If there is “suitable” year-round living habitat within this band, then there is no change in natal denning patch value. If there is no suitable habitat within this band, then the model considers what is in the next band (100 to 200 m [Step 2]).

3 Percentages based on descriptions in Beckingham and Archibald (1996) and Beckingham et al. (1996).

2010 Page 4-47

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 4: Mammal Habitat Models

• Step 2 – 100-to-200 m sensory disturbance buffer band: If there is no “suitable” year-round living habitat within this band, then the natal denning patch value becomes nil (based on the assumption that fishers will not cross a stretch of “unsuitable” habitat that is more than 200 m in width to get to the patch; in other words the natal denning patch is considered totally isolated). If there is suitable year- round living habitat within this band, then the natal denning patch value decreases by one class (based on the assumption that fishers might cross a stretch of largely unsuitable habitat up to 200 m wide if there is some suitable habitat present. Note that suitable year-round living habitat is defined as structural stage 4, 5, 6 or 7 for this model application. Mature and old forest (structural stages 5, 6, and 7) is the most suitable year-round living habitat for fishers but structural stage 4 was included as suitable as it was presumed to provide movement (travel) habitat (as opposed to foraging habitat).

Page 4-48 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 5: Amphibian Habitat Models

5 Amphibian Habitat Models

5.1 Coastal Tailed Frog

5.1.1 Status The coastal tailed frog (Ascaphus truei) is blue-listed in the British Columbia (BCCDC 2009, Internet site) and listed as Special Concern federally (COSEWIC 2008a, Internet site).

5.1.2 Distribution

5.1.2.1 Continental Range The Coastal Tailed Frog occurs along the west coast of North America from northwestern California to as far north as Portland Canal and the Nass River (Mallory 2004).

5.1.2.2 Provincial Range The coastal tailed frog is associated with the windward and leeward drainages of the Coast Mountains, and is found in the Lower Mainland, up the Fraser River valley to Lytton and as far east as Cathedral Lakes, and northward along the coast to Portland Canal (Dupuis et al. 2000; Matsuda et al. 2006). This species does not occur in Alberta.

5.1.2.3 Study Area Range The coastal tailed frog is only found at the western end of the PEAA, in the Coast Range Mountains of British Columbia: • Ecoprovince: Coast and Mountains • Ecoregion: Coastal Gap • Ecosections: Kitimat Ranges, Kimsquit Mountains, Nass Mountains • Biogeoclimatic units: Coastal Western Hemlock Very Wet Maritime Submontane variant, Coastal Western Hemlock Very Wet Maritime Montane variant, Coastal Western Hemlock Submontane Wet Submaritime variant (CWHws1), Coastal Western Hemlock Montane Wet Submaritime variant (CWHws2), Mountain Hemlock Windward Moist Maritime variant (MHmm1), Mountain Hemlock Leeward Moist Maritime variant (MHmm2)

5.1.3 Abundance The population status of the coastal tailed frog is unknown, although it is considered vulnerable due to its highly specialized life history. Coastal tailed frogs may be abundant in particular watersheds or creeks due to their clustered distribution pattern (Metter 1964; Matsuda 2001). They are known to occur as metapopulations (Sutherland 2000).

2010 Page 5-1

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 5: Amphibian Habitat Models

5.1.4 General Ecology

5.1.4.1 Overview The coastal tailed frog is found in the Coastal Western Hemlock and Mountain Hemlock biogeoclimatic zones. In general, they occur from sea level to the subalpine zone in mountainous, moderate-to-wet coniferous mature and old forests, especially in areas with high herb and fern cover and coarse woody debris (CWD; Corn and Bury 1991; Welsh 1993; Sutherland 2000). They have, however, also been found in streams flowing through young clear-cuts (Matsuda 2001). Higher densities and biomass of tadpoles are associated with higher-elevation sites (Wahbe and Bunnell 2003). The coastal tailed frog is a relatively small frog, with adults reaching 30 to 40 mm from nose to rump (Matsuda et al. 2006), and has a number of unusual characteristics, including a copulatory organ (the “tail” found only on adult males), vertical pupils, and a lack of external eardrums and vocal sacs (Schmidt 1970). They are the only North American frog species that breeds in cool mountain streams (Mallory 2004). Breeding occurs in the fall with sperm stored in the female’s oviduct until egg-laying the following summer (Nussbaum et al. 1983; Leonard et al. 1993). Eggs are attached to the underside of large rocks or boulders in streams (Karraker et al. 2006). Coastal tailed frog eggs and tadpoles require cool water temperatures to survive (i.e., between 5°C and 18.5°C, Brown 1975) and adults cannot tolerate temperatures above 20°C (Government of Canada 2008, Internet site). The tadpole stage lasts between one and four years (Metter 1964; Brown 1990; Bury and Adams 1999). Adult coastal tailed frogs are largely nocturnal and may forage further from water at night or during times of high humidity (Mallory 2004). Adults feed on a variety of invertebrates including spiders, snails, ticks, mites, flies, ants and moths (Metter 1964). Tadpoles feed on diatoms which they scrape from rocks in the stream while adhering with their suction cup-like mouthparts (Leonard et al. 1993; Dupuis 1999; Jones et al. 2005).

5.1.4.2 Limiting Factors Due to its specialized habitat requirements, the coastal tailed frog is considered to be vulnerable to habitat loss and alteration associated with logging. Development impacts include stream exposure, increased silt, bank erosion and windfall, as well as reduced flow rates and substrate stability (Government of Canada 2008, Internet site). Predation and channel bedload movement (floods and debris flows) are two known mortality factors affecting populations (Dupuis 1999). Wahbe et al. (2000) found that tailed frog larvae in streams flowing through old-growth sites move 7.5 times further than those found in streams flowing through clear-cuts. This suggests that dispersal may be limited in watersheds with clear-cut activity. However, average tailed frog tadpole mass (Wahbe and Bunnell 2003), length (Kim 1999) and numbers (Richardson and Neill 1998; Matsuda 2001) have been found to be greater in clear-cuts and than in forested streams, but these are likely attributable to short- term, higher food productivity (i.e., algal growth) as a result of increased sunlight due to the post-logging absence of overhead canopy (Murphy and Hall 1981; Kim 1999). Such parameters are not indicative of population viability however, particularly if post-metamorphic survival is low (Sutherland 2000).

Page 5-2 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 5: Amphibian Habitat Models

5.1.5 Key Habitat Requirements Streams and adjacent riparian habitat are closely linked ecologically and are required year-round by coastal tailed frogs, although relative use varies depending on life stage (adults vs. tadpoles). Given this, living habitat in general was considered critical for this species and is the only life requisite modelled. The characteristics of living habitat are described in further detail in the following section.

5.1.5.1 Year-round Living Habitat Coastal tailed frogs require both terrestrial and aquatic habitats. They are strongly associated with cool, fish-free, clear, bouldery mountain streams or creeks that remain ice-free in winter, are 0.5 to 15 m in width, and are typically surrounded by forest (Matsuda and Richardson 1999; Matsuda et al. 2006; Government of Canada 2008, Internet site). Tadpoles prefer rocks in turbulent water for forage and cover while adults and juveniles require riparian vegetation, boulders and CWD for cover and forage (Mallory 2004). In addition, boulders at the stream surface provide required overwintering habitat for adults and tadpoles (Government of Canada 2008, Internet site). Creeks and streams must remain cool and static throughout the summer season because of this frog’s narrow temperature tolerance (Government of Canada 2008, Internet site). Also, due to the long larval development period, tadpoles require stable perennial streams (Mallory 2004). Terrestrial habitat use is not well understood, but mature and old moist forests appear to be important (Wilkins and Peterson 2000; Mallory 2004). Coastal tailed frogs are relatively sedentary and generally do not occur more than 100 m from suitable streams in any life stage (Wahbe et al. 2000; Matsuda 2001). Studies have found more overland movements and dispersal among younger frogs than adults (e.g., Bury and Corn 1987, 1988; Wahbe et al. 2004; Matsuda and Richardson 2005).

5.1.6 Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping-based Model The coastal tailed frog habitat ratings, model flowchart and sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance reductions are included on the accompanying CD (see Appendix A).

5.1.6.1 Overview Coastal tailed frog year-round living habitat availability is determined using: • habitat suitability ratings developed for ecosystem units identified within the PEAA • the 1:20,000 TRIM water feature coverage • tailed frog occurrence records (e.g., Wildlife Data and Field Surveys TDR) • stream data collected by the fisheries discipline Coastal tailed frogs generally inhabit cold, bouldery, fast-flowing streams with no fish, and prefer mature or old moist forests with high herb and fern cover as terrestrial habitat. They are not known to be associated with any specific vegetation type (ecosystem unit) (Metter 1964; Matsuda 2001), thus, the main criteria for rating coastal tailed frog terrestrial habitat were structural stage and moisture regime. A four-class rating scheme is used and the reliability of the ratings is considered moderate (RIC 1999). In addition to the sensory disturbance buffers, the coastal tailed frog habitat availability model also

2010 Page 5-3

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 5: Amphibian Habitat Models incorporates a distance-to-water rule that decreases the value of suitable terrestrial habitat to nil if it is more than 100 m from suitable streams (i.e., streams known or likely to support tailed frogs).

5.1.6.2 Provincial Benchmark A provincial benchmark has not been determined for coastal tailed frog.

5.1.7 Ratings Ratings for terrestrial habitat were developed based on ecosystem unit characteristics (Vegetation TDR; Banner et al. 1993a, 1993b; MacKenzie and Moran 2004), structural stage and site modifiers. There is a moderate level of knowledge of coastal tailed frog habitat requirements in British Columbia; therefore, a four-class rating scheme will be used.

Ratings Assumptions • Major rivers (ecosystem unit = RI [river]) are rated nil. • Structural stages 6 or 7 are assumed to provide the most suitable terrestrial habitat for tailed frogs. However, streams following through shrubby areas (including recent clear-cuts) are considered to have some value. • All ecosystem units with structural stage of 1 or 2 are rated nil. • All non-vegetated units (e.g., rocky outcrop [RO], gravel bar [GB]) are rated nil. • Ecosystem units that are structural stage 6 or 7 are rated as 1 (high) and ecosystem units that are structural stage 5 are rated as 2 (moderate). . If these ecosystem units are very xeric, xeric, or xeric-sub-xeric then suitability is decreased by one class to a minimum of 3 (low). Sub-xeric-mesic units retain their value. • Ecosystem units that are structural stage 3 or 4 are rated as 3 (low) unless rated as nil for other reasons (see below). • Cutblocks are rated as 3 (low). • Fresh to moist sites are assumed to provide the most suitable terrestrial habitat for tailed frogs. Sites that are too wet (e.g., hygric) or too dry (xeric) are assumed to have minimal value. • All wetlands ecosystem units are rated nil. • All low bench floodplain ecosystem units are rated nil. • Very xeric, xeric, xeric-sub-xeric ecosystem units are rated as nil unless they are structural stage 5, 6 or 7 (see above). • All ecosystem units with a steep modifier (z or q) are rated nil.

Page 5-4 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 5: Amphibian Habitat Models

Ratings Adjustments In addition to the sensory disturbance buffers, terrestrial habitat ratings were adjusted based on whether or not they fell within 100 m of suitable coastal tailed frog stream habitat. Terrestrial habitats within 100 m of a suitable stream retained their value; terrestrial habitats outside any 100-m sensory disturbance buffer were downgraded to nil value. Suitable streams were identified as follows:

The Data Coast and Mountains ecoprovinces (the extent of coast tailed frog occurrence in the PEAA): • Stream data from field surveys – all watercourse crossings • Frog data from field surveys (18 confirmed occurrences; 2 confirmed absences, see the Wildlife Data and Field Surveys TDR) All data points overlaid on 1:20,000 TRIM Data grouped as: • Frogs present • Frogs absent • Suitable stream but frog presence not confirmed Suitable streams were considered to be non-fish-bearing S3 to S6 streams. Stream data were not available for the Clore and Hoult tunnels powerline easement. For this area, the provincial Fisheries Information Summary System (FISS 2009) was used to identify streams that do not support predatory fish, then the sensory disturbance buffer rules were applied. For streams lacking information about predatory fish, all third-order or higher streams (e.g., S3 to S6) we considered as “suitable”, and the sensory disturbance buffer rules were applied. All other streams (S1 and S2) were considered “unsuitable” as tailed frog habitat.

Sensory Disturbance Buffer Rules After overlaying data points on 1:20,000 TRIM, the following sensory disturbance buffer rules were applied: • For all Frogs Present and Suitable Stream data points, apply a 100-m sensory disturbance buffer to all upstream channels (including tributaries) to the PEAA boundary. Apply a 100-m sensory disturbance buffer downstream from the data point to either the first confluence (assuming fish occur in downstream tributaries) or to the PEAA boundary, whichever comes first. • For all Frogs Present and Suitable Stream data points that do not have an underlying 1:20,000 TRIM stream, apply a 100-m radius sensory disturbance buffer to the data point. The 100-m sensory disturbance buffer is derived from the maximum terrestrial distance that tailed frogs appear to move from stream habitats; a large percentage of movements are less than this distance (Matsuda and Richardson 1999).

2010 Page 5-5

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 5: Amphibian Habitat Models

Data Validation The model was validated and supported by additional data as follows: • KSL Pipeline Stream Data (Pacific Trail Pipelines Ltd. [PTP] 2007): There was one record of a tailed frog occurrence in this report; the record was a new data point, and was buffered as per the second buffer rule above. • Frid et al. (2003): among 146 streams searched for tailed frog in coastal British Columbia, 87 had confirmed frog occurrences; three of these records occurred within the PEAA. These three records were on streams that had already been buffered.

5.2 Pond-Dwelling Amphibians

5.2.1 Overview Ten of the 25 species of pond-dwelling amphibians that inhabit Alberta and British Columbia have ranges that overlap with the PEAA. These are: • roughskin newt (Taricha granulosa) • northwestern salamander (Ambystoma gracile) • tiger salamander (A. tigrinum) • long-toed salamander (A. macrodactylum) • western toad (Bufo boreas) • Canadian toad (B. hemiophrys) • boreal chorus frog (Pseudacris maculata) • Pacific chorus frog (P. regilla) • wood frog (Rana sylvatica) • Columbia spotted frog (R. luteiventris) The provincial and federal conservation listings for these species are presented in Table 5-1. The endangered British Columbia tiger salamander population does not occur outside southwest British Columbia (BCCDC 2009, Internet site). Therefore, the only SARA-listed pond-dwelling amphibian known or likely to occur in the PEAA is the western toad. Note that the western toad is not listed as a species of conservation concern in British Columbia because, with the exception of the south coast population, this species is not likely at risk in the rest of British Columbia (Wind and Dupuis 2002). Pond-dwelling amphibians can be found in a wide variety of habitats, including conifer forests, mixed woodlands, riparian areas, grasslands, open valleys, ranch lands and various types of wetlands and open water bodies. Wetlands are an important component of the reproductive cycle of all pond-dwelling amphibians, although they will use larger aquatic habitats such as lakes, reservoirs and slow moving streams (Behler and King 1979; Stebbins 1985).

Page 5-6 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 5: Amphibian Habitat Models

Table 5-1 Conservation Status of Pond-Dwelling Amphibians Known or Likely to Occur in the PEAA British Columbia Species Federal Status1 Alberta Status2 Status3 Roughskin newt Not assessed – Yellow-listed Northwestern Not at risk – Yellow-listed salamander Tiger salamander Endangered (BC); Secure Red-listed Not at risk (AB) Long-toed salamander Not at risk Sensitive Yellow-listed Western toad Species of concern Sensitive Yellow-listed Canadian toad Not at risk May be at risk – Boreal chorus frog Not assessed Secure Yellow-listed Pacific chorus frog Not assessed – Yellow-listed Wood frog Not assessed Secure Yellow-listed Columbia spotted frog Not at risk Sensitive Yellow-listed NOTES: 1 COSEWIC 2008d, Internet site 2 ASRD 2005, Internet site 3 BCCDC 2009, Internet site

5.2.2 Non-Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Model All ponds in the PEAA are assumed to provide habitat for pond-dwelling amphibians; however, the actual area of ponds present in the PEAA is unknown as only relatively large open water bodies were mappable at 1:20,000. Thus, wetlands in general4 were considered to represent pond-dwelling amphibian habitat. Therefore, the analysis of pond-dwelling amphibian habitat is based on the findings of the wetlands assessment (see Vegetation TDR).

4 The relative value of different wetland types to amphibians was not determined.

2010 Page 5-7

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

6 References

6.1 Literature Cited Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division. 1990. Management Plan for Grizzly Bear in Alberta. Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 2. Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife. Alberta Grizzly Bear Inventory Team. 2008. Grizzly Bear Population and Density Estimates for Alberta Bear Management Unit 6 and British Columbia Management Units 4-1, 4-2, and 4-23 (2007). Integrated Ecological Research for the Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, and Parks Canada, Edmonton, AB. Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Team. 2008. Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan 2008-2013. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division. Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 15. Edmonton, AB. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2003. Management Plan for Mountain Goats in Alberta. Wildlife Management Planning Series No. 7. Alberta Fish and Wildlife Management Division. Edmonton, AB. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) Fish and Wildlife Division. 2008. Report of Alberta’s Endangered Species Conservation Committee: June 2006. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Edmonton, AB. Alberta Woodland Caribou Recovery Team. 2005. Alberta woodland caribou recovery plan 2004/05- 2013/14. Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 4. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Edmonton, AB. Alvo, R. and M. Robert. 1999. COSEWIC status report on the yellow rail Coturnicops noveboracensis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, ON. Apps, C.D. and B.N. McLellan. 2006. Factors influencing the dispersion and fragmentation of endangered mountain caribou populations. Biological Conservation 130: 84–97. Apps, C.D., B.N. McLellan, T.A. Kinley and J.P. Flaa. 2001. Scale-Dependent Habitat Selection by Mountain Caribou, Columbia Mountains, British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:65–77. Archibald, W.R., R. Ellis and A.N. Hamilton. 1987. Responses of grizzly bears to logging truck traffic in the Kimsquit River valley, British Columbia. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 7:251–257. Arthur, S.M., T.F. Paragi and W.B. Krohn. 1993. Dispersal of juvenile Fisher in Maine. J. Wildl. Manage. 57:686–674.

2010 Page 6-1

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Ash, M. 1985. Grizzly bear habitat component description – Whitefish range, Flathead and Kootenai National Forests. Manuscript report. Austin, M.A. and C. Wrenshall. 2004. An analysis of reported grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) mortality data in British Columbia from 1978–2003. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. 2005. Identifying Mountain Goat Winter Ranges in the North Coast of British Columbia. Prepared for British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Smithers, BC. Badry, M. 2004. Fisher Martes pennanti. Accounts and Measures for Identified Wildlife - Accounts V. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Biodiversity Branch, Identified Wildlife Management Strategy, Victoria, BC. Badry, M.J., G. Proulx and P.M. Woodward. 1997. Home-range and habitat use by Fishers translocated to the aspen parkland of Alberta. 233–251. In G. Proulx, H.N. Bryant and P.M. Woodward (eds.). Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques, and management. Prov. Mus. Alberta, Edmonton, AB. Baker, B.G. 1990. Winter habitat selection and use by moose in the west-Chilcotin region of British Columbia. MSc thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Banci, V. 1987. Ecology and behaviour of wolverine in Yukon. MSc thesis, Univ. British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Banci, V. 1994. Wolverine. 99–127 in L.F. Ruggerio, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski (eds.). The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. GTR RM-254. U.S. Dep. Agric. Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO. Banci, V. and A.S. Harestad. 1990. Home range and habitat use of wolverines Gulo gulo in Yukon, Canada. Holarctic Ecology 13: 195–200. Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. The Mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, ON. Banner, A., J. Pojar, R. Trowbridge and A. Hamilton. 1985. Grizzly bear habitat in the Kimsquit river valley, coastal British Columbia: Classification, description, and mapping. Proceedings of the Grizzly Bear Habitat Symposium, Missoula, MT, Apr 30–May 2, 1985. (G.P. Contreras and K.E. Evans, eds.) Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 36–49. Banner, A., W. MacKenzie, S. Haeussler, S. Thomson, J. Pojar and R. Trowbridge. 1993a. A Field Guide to Site Identification and Interpretation for the Prince Rupert Forest Region: Part 1. Land Management Handbook 26. Research Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC. Banner, A., W. MacKenzie, S. Haeussler, S. Thomson, J. Pojar and R. Trowbridge. 1993b. A Field Guide to Site Identification and Interpretation for the Prince Rupert Forest Region: Part 2. Land Management Handbook 26. Research Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC.

Page 6-2 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Beckingham, J.D. and J.H. Archibald. 1996. Field Guide to Ecosites of Northern Alberta. Special Report 5, Canadian Forest Service, Northwest Region. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. Beckingham, J.D, I.G.W. Corns and J.H. Archibald. 1996. Field guide to Ecosites of West-Central Alberta. Northern Forestry Centre, Ottawa, ON. Beebe, F.L. 1974. Field studies of the Falconiformes of British Columbia. Occasional Paper No. 17. British Columbia Provincial Museum. Victoria, BC. Behler, J.L. and F.W. King. 1979. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf. New York, NY. Bennett, S. and K. Enns. 1996. A bird inventory of the Boreal White and Black Spruce biogeoclimatic zone near the “Big-Bend” of the Liard River. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Fort St. John, BC. Bennett, S., P. Sherrington, P. Johnstone and B. Harrison. 2000. Habitat use and distribution of neotropical migrant songbirds in northeastern British Columbia. In L.M. Darling (ed.), Proceedings of a Conference on the biology and management of species and habitats at risk. Kamloops, BC. Feb. 15–19, 1999. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC, and University College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, BC. 79–88. Berg, W.E. and R.L. Phillips. 1974. Habitat use by moose in northwestern Minnesota with reference to other heavily willowed areas. Nat. Can. 101:101–116. Bergerud, A.T. 1988. Caribou, wolves and man. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 3:68–72. Berland, A., T. Nelson, G. Stenhouse, K. Graham and J. Cranston. 2008. The impact of landscape disturbance on grizzly bear habitat use in the Foothills Model Forest, Alberta, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 256:1875–1883 Bissonette, J.A. and S. Broekhuizen. 1995. Martes populations as indicators of habitat spatial patterns: the need for a multiscale approach. In W.Z. Lidicker, Jr. (ed.). Landscape approaches in mammalian ecology and conservation. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. Blanchard, B.M. and R.R. Knight. 1991. Movements of Yellowstone grizzly bears. Biological Conservation 58:41–67. Boer, A.H. 1988. Mortality rates of moose in New Brunswick: a life table analysis. Journal of Wildlife Management 52:21–25. Boer, A.H. 1990. Spatial distribution of moose kills in New Brunswick. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18:431– 434. Booth, B. 1996. A pilot study of the forest bird and vegetation communities in mixedwood forest in the Dawson Creek forest district. Progress Report 1995.1996. British Columbia Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch, Victoria, BC. Boreal Caribou Research Program. 1999. Caribou conservation in working landscapes. Unpublished report. Boreal Caribou Research Program, Edmonton, AB.

2010 Page 6-3

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Bosakowski, T. and J. Rithaler. 1997. Goshawk and raptor inventory in the Cariboo, 1996. Unpublished Report 29900.033. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Williams Lake, BC. Bowman, J.C. and J-F. Robitaille. 1997. Winter habitat use of American marten, Martes americana, within second-growth forest in Ontario, Canada. Wildlife Biology 3: 97–105. Bradshaw, C.J., S. Boutin and D.M. Hebert. 1997. Effects of petroleum exploration on woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 61:1127–1133. Bradshaw, C.J., D.M. Hebert, A.B. Rippin and S. Boutin. 1995. Winter peatland habitat selection by woodland caribou in north-eastern Alberta. Can. J. Zool. 73: 1567–1574. Bradshaw, C.J., S. Boutin and D.M. Hebert. 1998. Energetic implications of disturbance caused by petroleum exploration to woodland caribou. Can. J. Zool. 76: 1319–1324. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (BC MELP). 2000a. Moose in British Columbia: ecology, conservation and management. Province of British Columbia, Victoria, BC. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (BC MELP). 2000b. Mountain Goat in British Columbia; Ecology, Conservation and Management. Wildlife Branch, Victoria, BC. Brown, H.A. 1975. Temperature and development of the tailed frog, Ascaphus truei. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 50A: 397–405. Brown, H.A. 1990. Morphological variation and age-class determination in overwintering tadpoles of the tailed frog, Ascaphus truei. Journal of Zoology 220: 171–184. Brown, M. and J.J. Dinsmore. 1986. Implications of marsh size and isolation for marsh bird management. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:392–397. Brown, P.W. and M. Brown. 1981. Nesting biology of the white-winged scoter. Journal of Wildlife Management 45:38–45. Brown, W.K. and I. Ross. 1994. Caribou-vehicle collisions: a review of methods to reduce caribou mortality on Highway 40, west-central Alberta. Prepared by Terrestrial and Aquatic Environmental Managers Ltd. for Alberta Environmental Protection, Fish and Wildlife Services and Alberta Transportation and Utilities, Research and Development Branch, Calgary, AB. Brown, W.K. and D.P. Hobson. 1998. Caribou in west-central Alberta – Information review and synthesis. Prepared for The Research Subcommittee of the West-Central Alberta Caribou Standing Committee. Terrestrial and Aquatic Environmental Managers Ltd., AB. Brusnyk, L.M. and F.F. Gilbert. 1983. Use of shoreline timber reserves by moose. Journal of Wildlife Management 47:673–685. Bubenik, A.B. 1998. Evolution, taxonomy and morphophysiology. In Ecology and management of North American Moose (A. W. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz [eds.]). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Page 6-4 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Bull, E.L. 2000. Seasonal and sexual differences in American marten diet in northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science 74:186–191. Bull, E.L. and T.W. Heater. 2000. Resting and denning sites of American martens in northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science 74:179–185. Bunnell, F.L. and R.K. McCann. 1993. The Brown or Grizzly Bear. In Bears: Majestic Creatures of the Wild. Rodale Press. Emmaus, PA. Bury, R.B. and M.J. Adams. 1999. Variation in age at metamorphosis across a latitudinal gradient for the tailed frog, Ascaphus truei. Herpetologica 55: 283–291. Bury, R.B. and P.S. Corn. 1987. Evaluation of pitfall trapping in Northwestern forests: trap arrays with drift fences. Journal of Wildlife Management 51: 112–119. Bury, R.B. and P.S. Corn. 1988. Responses of aquatic and streamside amphibians to timber harvest: a review. In Proceedings, Streamside Management: Riparian Wildlife and Forestry Interactions, Seattle, Washington, 11–13 February 1987. K.J. Raedeke (ed.). Seattle Institute of Forest Resources, Contribution 59, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 165–181. Buskirk, S.W. 1983. The ecology of marten in south central Alaska. PhD thesis, University of Alaska. Fairbanks, AK. Buskirk, S.W. 1984. Seasonal use of resting sites by marten in south-central Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 48: 950–953. Buskirk, S.W. and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994. American Marten. In L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski (eds.). The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM- 254. U.S. Department of Agriculture and Forestry Service, Rocky Mountain Forestry Range Experimental Station, Fort Collins, CO. Buskirk, S.W. and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. Pages 283–296. In S.W. Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael and R.A. Powell (eds.). Martens, sables and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. 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 53:191–196. Butler, R.W. 1991. Habitat selection and time of breeding in the Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias). Ph.D. dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Butler, R.W. 1992. A review of the biology and conservation of the Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) in British Columbia. Canadian Wildlife Service Technical Report No. 154, Delta, BC. Butler, R.W. 1995. The Patient Predator: Foraging and Population Ecology of the Great Blue Heron in British Columbia. Canadian Wildlife Service Occasional Paper No. 86. Ottawa, ON. Cadman, M.D. 1994. Status report on the Short-eared Owl, Asio flammeus, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, ON.

2010 Page 6-5

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Campbell, R.W. 2005. First nest and eggs of the Canada Warbler for British Columbia. Wildlife Afield 2:15–16. Campbell, R.W. and M.C.E. McNall. 1982. Field report of the Provincial Museum expedition to the vicinity of Kotcho Lake, northeastern British Columbia, June 11–July 9, 1982. British Columbia Provincial Museum, unpublished report, Victoria, BC. Campbell, R.W., M.I. Preston, S. Kinsey and L. Law. 2007a. Wildlife checklists of British Columbia: the birds of Chetwynd with popular birdwatching sites. Biodiversity Centre for Wildlife Studies. Special Publication No. 8. Victoria, BC. Campbell, R.W., M.I. Preston, M. Phinney, C. Siddle and J. Deal. 2007b. Featured species – Canada Warbler. Wildlife Afield 4:95–160. Campbell, R.W., M.K. McNicholl, R.M. Brigham and J. Ng. 2006. Featured Species – Common Nighthawk. Wildlife Afield 3:32–71. Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser, M.C.E. McNall and G.E. John Smith. 1997. The birds of British Columbia: Volume 3 – passerines (flycatchers through vireos). University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, BC. Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser, A.C. Stewart and M.C.E. McNall. 2001. The birds of British Columbia: Volume 4 – passerines (wood warblers through Old World sparrows). University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, BC. Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser and M.C.E. McNall. 1990a. The birds of British Columbia, Volume 1 – nonpasserines (introduction, loons through waterfowl). Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, BC. Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser and M.C.E. McNall. 1990b. The birds of British Columbia, Volume 2 – nonpasserines (diurnal birds of prey through woodpeckers). Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, BC. Campbell, T.M. 1979. Short-term effects of timber harvests on pine marten ecology. MSc Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Catt, D.J. 1991. Bird communities and forest succession in the subalpine zone of Kootenay National Park, British Columbia. MSc Thesis. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC. Chadwick, D.H. 1976. Ecological relationships of mountain goats, Oreamnos americanus, in Glacier National Park. In proceedings First Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks, R.M. Linn (ed.). 1:451–456. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Chadwick, D.H. 1983. A beast the color of winter. San Francisco, CA. Sierra Club Books. Chesser, R.T., R.C. Banks, F.K. Barker, C. Cicero, J.L. Dunn, A.W. Kratter, I.J. Lovette, P.C. Rasmussen, J.V. Remsen, Jr., J.D. Rising, D.F. Stotz and K. Winker. 2009. Fiftieth Supplement to the American Ornithologists’ Union Check-list of North American Birds. Auk 126(3):705–714.

Page 6-6 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Child, K.N. 1998. Incidental mortality. In Ecology and Management of North American Moose (A.W. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz (eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Chubbs, T.E., L.B. Keith, S.P. Mahoney and M.J. McGrath. 1993. Responses of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) to clear-cutting in east central Newfoundland. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71: 487–493. Ciarniello, L., D. Seip and D. Heard. 2003. Parsnip grizzly bear population and habitat project. Summary Data Sets 1998–2002, Including Habitat Use and Availability. Final Report, Parsnip Grizzly Project, Prince George, BC. Cichowski, D., T. Kinley and B. Churchill. 2004. Caribou: Rangifer tarandus. In Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife. Version 2004. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. Cichowski, D.B. 1996. Managing woodland caribou in west-central British Columbia. Rangifer Special Issue No. 9:119–126. Cichowski, D.B. 2007. Literature review: effects of mountain pine beetles on caribou. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Edmonton, AB. Clark, R.J. 1975. A field study of the Short-eared Owl, Asio flammeus (Pontoppidan), in North America. Wildlife Monographs 47:1–67. Clayton, K.M. 2000. Status of the Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) in Alberta. Alberta Environment, Fisheries and Wildlife Management Division, and Alberta Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report No. 28, Edmonton, AB. Coady, J.W. 1974. Influence of snow on behaviour of moose. Le Naturaliste Canadien 101:417–436. Collins, S.L. 1983. Geographic variation in habitat structure of the Black-throated Green Warbler (Dendroica virens). Auk 100:382–389. Combs-Beattie, K. 1993. Ecology, habitat use patterns and management needs of Short-eared Owls and Northern Harriers on Nantucket Island, Massachusetts. MSc Thesis. Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2000. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Northern Goshawk laingi subspecies. Accipiter gentilis laingi in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, ON. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2002. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Western Screech-Owl Otus kennicotii in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2003. Assessment and Update Status Report on the Wolverine Gulo gulo Eastern population Western Population in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2006. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus in Canada.

2010 Page 6-7

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2007a. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2007b. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2008a. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the great blue heron Ardea herodias fannini in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2008b COSEWIC assessment and status report of the Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis in Canada. Compton, B.B., P. Zager and L. Allen-Johnson. 1990. Selkirk Mountains caribou transplant: October 1989 – September 1990. Annual Rep., Threatened and Endangered Species Proj. E-7-1. Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, Boise, ID. Cooper, J.M. 1996. Status of the sandhill crane in British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Wildlife Bulletin No. B-83. Cooper, J.M. and S.M. Beauchesne. 2004a. Short-eared Owl. In Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife. Version 2004. Identified Wildlife Management Strategy, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Victoria, BC. Cooper, J.M. and S.M. Beauchesne. 2004e. Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow. In Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife. Version 2004. Identified Wildlife Management Strategy, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Victoria, BC. Cooper, J.M. and S.M. Beauchesne. 2004b. Cape May warbler Dendroica tigrina. In Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife. Version 2004. Identified Wildlife Management Strategy, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Victoria, BC. Cooper, J.M. and S.M. Beauchesne. 2004c. Black-throated green warbler. In Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife. Version 2004. Identified Wildlife Management Strategy, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Victoria, BC. Cooper, J.M. and S.M. Beauchesne. 2004d. Bay-breasted warbler. In Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife. Version 2004. Identified Wildlife Management Strategy, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Victoria, BC. Cooper, J.M. and V. Stevens. 2000. A review of the ecology, management and conservation of the Northern Goshawk in British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Wildlife Bulletin No. B-101. Victoria, BC. Cooper, J.M., K.A. Enns and M.G. Shepard. 1997a. Status of the Black-throated Green Warbler in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-80. Cooper, J.M., K.A. Enns and M.G. Shepard. 1997b. Status of the Connecticut Warbler in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-83. Cooper, J.M., K.A. Enns and M.G. Shepard. 1997c. Status of the Canada Warbler in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-81.

Page 6-8 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Copeland, J. 1996. Biology of wolverine in Central Idaho. MSc thesis, Univ. Idaho, Moscow, ID. Corn, J.G. and M.G. Raphael. 1992. Habitat characteristics at marten subnivean access sites. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:442–448. Corn, P.S. and R.B. Bury. 1991. Terrestrial amphibian communities in the Oregon coast range. Pages 305–317. In L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, A.B. Carey and M.H. Huff (eds.). Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. No. PNW-GTR-285, U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Serv. Pacific Northwest Res. Sta., Portland, OR. Costain, W.B. 1989. Habitat use patterns and population trends among Shiras Moose in a heavily logged region of northwest Montana. MSc thesis, University of Montana, Missoula, MT. Côté, S.D. 1996. Mountain goat responses to helicopter disturbance. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24: 681– 685. Côté, S.D. and M. Festa-Bianchet. 2003. Mountain goat, Oreamnos americanus. In G.A. Feldhamer, B.C. Thompson and J.A. Chapman (eds.). 2003. Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Conservation – 2nd edition. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. 1061–1075. Cowan, I.M. and C.J. Guiguet. 1965. The mammals of British Columbia. British Columbia Provincial Museum Handbook No. 11. Cumming, H.G. 1992. Woodland caribou: facts for forest managers. Forestry Chronicle 68:60–65. D’Eon, R.G., S.M. Glenn, I. Parfitt and M-J. Fortin. 2002. Landscape connectivity as a function of scale and organism vagility in a real forested landscape. Conservation Ecology 6:10. Darimont, C.T., P.C. Paquet, T.E. Reimchen and V. Crichton. 2005. Range expansion by moose into coastal temperate rainforests of British Columbia, Canada. Diversity and Distributions 11: 235-239. Darling, L.M., B. Booth, M. Merkens and M. Gebauer. 2002. Songbird, forest owl and small mammal diversity in mature and harvested aspen and mature mixed-wood forests in the Dawson Creek forest district. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-104. Davis, S.K. 2004. Area sensitivity of grassland passerines: effects of patch size, patch shape, and vegetation structure on bird abundance and occurrence in southern Saskatchewan. Auk 121:1130-1145. Davis, S.K. 2005. Nest-site selection patterns and the influence of vegetation on nest survival of mixed- grass prairie passerines. Condor 107:605–616. Davis, S.K., R.M. Brigham, T.L. Shaffer and P.C. James. 2006. Mixed-grass prairie passerines exhibit weak and variable responses to patch size. Auk 123:807–821. Daw, S.K. and S. DeStefano. 2001. Forest characteristics of northern goshawk nest stands and post- fledging areas in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1379–1384.

2010 Page 6-9

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Dechant, J.A., M.L. Sondreal, D.H. Johnson, L.D. Igl, C.M. Goldale, M.P. Nenneman and B.R. Euliss. 1998. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Short-eared Owl. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Centre, Jamestown, ND. DeLong, C. 2003. A field guide to site identification and interpretation for the southeast portion of the Prince George Forest Region. Land Management Handbook No. 51. Research Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC. DeLong, C. 2004. A field guide to site identification and interpretation for the north central portion of the Northern Interior Forest Region. Land Management Handbook No. 54. Research Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC. DeLong, C., D. Tanner and M.J. Jull. 1993. A Field Guide for Site Identification and Interpretation for the Southwest Portion of the Prince George Forest Region. Land Management Handbook 24. Research Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC. DeLong, C., D. Tanner and M.J. Jull. 1994. A Field Guide for Site Identification and Interpretation for the Northern Rockies Portion of the Prince George Forest Region. Land Management Handbook 29. Research Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC. Doak, D.F. 1995. Source-sink models and the problem of habitat degradation: general models and applications to the Yellowstone grizzly. Conservation Biology 9:1370–1379. Doerr, J.G. 1983. Home range size, movements and habitat use in two moose populations in southeastern Alaska. Canadian Field-Naturalist 97:79–88. Doyle, F.I. and T. Mahon. 2001. Inventory of the northern goshawk in the Kispiox Forest District. Annual Report 2000. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Smithers, BC. Duncan, P. and D.A. Kirk. 1995. Status report on the Queen Charlotte Goshawk Accipiter gentilis laingi and Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis atricapillus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, ON. Dupuis, L.A. 1999. Status report on the tailed frog, Ascaphus truei in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada status report. Ottawa, ON. Dupuis, L.A., F.L. Bunnell and P.A. Friele. 2000. Determinants of the tailed frog’s range in British Columbia. Northwest Science 74: 109–115. Dyer, S.J., J.P. O’Neill, S.M. Wasel and S. Boutin. 2001. Avoidance of industrial development by woodland caribou. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:531–542. Dyer, S.J., J.P. O’Neill, S.M. Wasel and S. Boutin. 2002. Quantifying barrier effects of roads and seismic lines on movements of female woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80: 839–845. Dzus, E. 2001. Status of the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Alberta. Alberta Environment, Fisheries and Wildlife Management Division, and Alberta Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report No. 30, Edmonton, AB.

Page 6-10 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Eastman, D.S. and R. Ritcey. 1987. Moose habitat relationships and management in British Columbia. Swedish Wildlife Research Supplement 1:101–118. Eaton, E.H. 1910. Birds of New York. University of the State of New York. Albany, NY. Edmonds E.J. and M.I. Bloomfield. 1984. A study of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in west-central Alberta, 1979–1983. Unpublished report, Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Division, Edmonton, AB. Edmonds, E.J. 1988. Population status, distribution, and movements of woodland caribou in west central Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology 66: 817–826. Edmonds, E.J. and K.G. Smith. 1991. Calf production and survival, and calving and summer habitat of mountain caribou in west central Alberta. Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife, Wildlife Research Series No. 4. Edmonds, J. 1998. Status of woodland caribou in Alberta. Rangifer Special Issue No. 10: 111–115. Enns, K.A. and C. Siddle. 1996. The distribution, abundance, and habitat requirements of selected passerine birds of the boreal and taiga plains of British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-76, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch, Victoria, BC. Environment Canada. 2008. Recovery strategy for the Sprague’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON. Federation of Alberta Naturalists (FAN). 2007. The atlas of breeding birds of Alberta: a second look. Federation of Alberta Naturalists, Edmonton, AB. Feller, M.C. 2003. Coarse woody debris in the old-growth forests of British Columbia. Environmental Reviews 11:S135–S157. Flather, C.H. and M. Bevers. 2002. Patchy reaction-diffusion and population abundance: the relative importance of habitat amount and arrangement. American Naturalist 159: 40–56. Fleming, W.D. 2001. Effects of pipeline rights-of-way on forest birds in the boreal forest of Alberta. MSc thesis. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. Forbes, G.J. and J.B. Theberge. 1993. Multiple landscape scales and winter distribution of moose, Alces alces, in a forest ecotone. Canadian Field-Naturalist 107:201–207. Forbes, L.S., K. Simpson, J.P. Kelsall and D.R. Flook. 1985. Reproductive success of Great Blue Herons in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 63:1110–1113. Forsyth, A. 1985. Mammals of the Canadian Wild. Camden House Publishing Ltd. Fraser, D.F., W.L. Harper, S.G. Cannings and J.M. Cooper. 1999. Rare birds of British Columbia. Wildlife Branch and Resource Inventory Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Victoria, BC.

2010 Page 6-11

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Frid, L., P. Friele and L. Dupuis. 2003. Defining effective wildlife habitat areas for tailed frog (Ascaphus truei) populations in coastal British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. Fryxell, J.M., J.B. Falls, E.A. Falls, R.J. Brooks, L. Dix and M.A. Strickland. 1999. Density dependence, prey dependence, and population dynamics of martens in Ontario. Ecology 80: 1311–1321. Gasaway, W.C., R.D. Boertje, D.V. Grandgard, K.G. Kellyhouse, R.O. Stephenson and D.G. Larsen. 1992. The role of predation in limiting moose at low densities in Alaska and Yukon and implications for conservation. Wildlife Mongraphs 120. Gates, J.E. and L.W. Gysel. 1978. Avian nest dispersion and fledging success in field-forest ecotones. Ecology 59:871–883. Gebauer, M. 1995. Status and productivity of Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) colonies in the lower Fraser River valley in 1992, 1993 and 1994. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Surrey, BC. Gebauer, M. 2004. Sandhill crane Grus canadensis. In Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife. Version 2004. Identified Wildlife Management Strategy, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Victoria, BC. Gebauer, M.B. and I.E. Moul. 2001. Status of the Great Blue Heron in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. 102, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch, Victoria, BC. Gibbs, J.P., W.G. Shriver and S.M. Melvin. 1991. Spring and summer records of yellow rail in Maine. Journal of Field Ornithology 62: 509–516. Gibeau, M.L. and K. Heuer. 1996. In: G.L. Evink, P. Garrett, D. Zeigler and J. Berry, (eds.). Trends in Addressing Transportation Related Wildlife Mortality: Proceedings of the Transportation Related Wildlife Mortality Seminar; 1996 Apr 30; Orlando, Florida. State of Florida, Dept. of Transportation, Environmental Management Office, Tallahassee, FL. Gibeau, M.L., A.P. Clevenger, S. Hererro and J. Wierzchowski. 2002. Grizzly bear response to human development and activities in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta. Biological Conservation 103:227–236. Goddard, J. 1970. Movements of moose in a heavily hunted area of Ontario. Journal of Wildlife Management 34:439–445. Grizzly Bear Scientific Panel. 2003. Management of grizzly bears in British Columbia: a review by an independent scientific panel. Report prepared for the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. Grubb, T.G., L.L. Pater and D.K. Delaney. 1998. Logging truck noise near nesting Northern Goshawks. USDA Forest Service, Research Note RMRS-RN-3.

Page 6-12 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Gunson, J.R. 1995. Analysis of grizzly bear mortalities in Alberta during 1972–1994. Occasional Paper No. 16, Wildlife Management Division, Natural Resources Service, Alberta Environmental Protection, Edmonton, AB. Guyg, L., T. Hamilton and M. Austin. 2004. Grizzly Bear. In Identified Wildlife Management Strategy: Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife, Version 2004. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. Habib, L. 2006. Effects of chronic industrial noise disturbance on boreal forest songbirds. M.Sc. Thesis. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. Habib, L., E.M. Bayne and S. Boutin. 2007. Chronic industrial noise affects pairing success and age structure of ovenbirds Seiurus aurocapilla. Journal of Applied Ecology 44:176–184. Hagar, J., S. Howlin and L. Ganio. 2004. Short term response of songbirds to experimental thinning of young Douglas-fir forests in the Oregon cascades. Forest Ecology and Management 199:333-347. Hamer, D. and S. Herrero (eds.). 1983. Ecological studies of grizzly bears in Banff National Park. Final Report. Prepared for Parks Canada by University of Calgary. Calgary, AB. Hamer, D., S. Herrero and K. Brady. 1981. Studies of the grizzly bear in Waterton Lakes National Park. Parks Canada 1: 51. Hamilton, A. 1987. Classification of Coastal Grizzly Bear Habitat for Forestry Interpretations and the Role of Food in Habitat Use by Coastal Grizzly Bears. MSc Thesis. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Hamilton, A.N., D.C. Heard and M.A. Austin. 2004. British Columbia Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) population estimate 2004. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Victoria, BC. Hamilton, A.N. 2008. 2008 Grizzly Bear Population Estimate for British Columbia. Ecosystems Branch, Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC. Haney, J.C. 1997. Spatial incidence of Barred Owl (Strix varia) reproduction in old-growth forest of the Appalachian Plateau. Journal of Raptor Research 31:241–252. Hanowski, J.M. and G.J. Niemi. 1986. Habitat characteristics for bird species of special concern. Unpublished report to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN. Harding, L. and J.A. Nagy. 1980. Responses of grizzly bears to hydrocarbon exploration on Richards Island, Northwest Territories, Canada. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 4:277–280. Hargis, C.D. and D.R. McCullough. 1984. Winter diet and habitat selection of marten in Yosemite National Park. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:140–146. Hargis C.D., J.A. Bissonette and D.L. Turner. 1999. The influence of forest fragmentation and landscape pattern on American martens. J. Applied Ecology 36:157–172.

2010 Page 6-13

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Harrison, D.G. 1999. Distribution and movements of canyon-dwelling mountain goats along Pinto Creek, Alberta. MSc Thesis. University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC. Haszard, S. and R.G. Clark. 2007. Wetland use by white-winged (Melanitta fusca) scoters in the Mackernzie Delta Region. Wetlands 27:855–863. Hatler, D.F. 1989. A wolverine management strategy for British Columbia. Wildl. Bull. B-60, B.C. Minist. Environ., Victoria, BC. Hatler, D.F., Blood, D.A. and A.M.M. Beal. 2003. Furbearer Management Guidelines: Marten. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. Hawkes, V.C. and M. Neal. 1999. Kispiox Forest District Wildlife Habitat Suitability Modelling and Mapping. TerraMar Environmental Research Ltd. Contract No. 12015-20/99DKI-504. Hebert, D.M. and W.G. Turnbull. 1977. A description of southern interior and coastal mountain goat ecotypes in British Columbia. Pages 126–146 in W. Samuel and W.G. Macgregor (eds.). Proceedings of the First International Mountain Goat Symposium. Kalispell, MT, February 19, 1977. British Columbia Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Victoria, BC. Hekstra, G.P. 1982. Description of twenty-four new subspecies of American owls (Aves: Strigidae). Zoological Museum, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Bulletin 9:49–63. Helm, C. 2006. Wildlife checklists of British Columbia – the birds of Tumbler Ridge. Biodiversity Centre for Wildlife Studies, Special Publication No. 1. Victoria, BC. Hebert, D.M. 1967. Natural salt licks as a part of the ecology of the mountain goat. MSc thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Herkert, J.R., S.A. Simpson, R.L. Westemeier, T.L. Esker and J.W. Walk. 1999. Response of Northern Harriers and Short-eared Owls to grassland management in Illinois. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:517–523. Hervieux, D., J. Edmonds, R. Bonar and J. McCammon. 1996. Successful and unsuccessful attempts to resolve caribou management and timber harvesting issues in west-central Alberta. Rangifer Special Issue 9: 185–190. Hillis, T.L. 2003. Ecology of woodland caribou, Rangifer tarandus caribou, in northwestern Ontario; responses to habitat fragmentation. PhD thesis, Laurentian University. Sudbury, ON. Hobson, K.A. and E. Bayne. 2000b. Effects of forest fragmentation by agriculture on avian communities in the southern boreal mixedwoods of western Canada. Wilson Bulletin 112: 373–387. Hobson, K.A. and E. Bayne. 2000a. Breeding bird communities in boreal forest of western Canada: Consequences of “unmixing” the mixedwoods. Condor 102: 759–769. Hornocker, M.G. and H.S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of wolverine in northwestern Montana. Can. J. Zool. 59:1286–1301.

Page 6-14 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Hunting for Tomorrow Foundation. 2004. Alberta’s outfitted hunting industry. Hunting for Tomorrow Foundation, Edmonton, AB. Jalkotzy, M.G., P.I. Ross and M.D. Nasserden. 1997. The effects of linear developments on wildlife: a review of selected scientific literature. Arc Wildlife Services Ltd. Report prepared for Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. James, A.R.C. 1999. Effects of industrial development on the predator-prey relationship between wolves and caribou in northeastern Alberta. PhD Thesis, University of Alberta. Edmonton, AB. James, A.R.C. and A.K. Stuart-Smith. 2000. Distribution of caribou and wolves in relation to linear corridors. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:154–159. Johnson, C.J., K.L. Parker, D.C. Heard and D.R. Seip. 2004. Movements, foraging habits, and habitat use strategies of northern woodland caribou during winter: implications for forest practices in British Columbia. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 5:22–35. 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 12:1840–1860. Johnson, R.L.1983. Mountain Goat and Mountain Sheep of Washington. Biological Bulletin No. 18. Jones, E.S. 2008. Seasonal habitat use and selection by woodland caribou herds in the South Peace region, central British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Prince George, BC. Jones, J.L. and E.O. Garton. 1994. Selection of successional stages by Fishers in north-central Idaho. Pp. 377–388. In S.W. Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael and R.A. Powell (eds.). Martens, sables, and Fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell Univ. Press, New York, NY. Jones, L.L.C., W. Leonard and D.H. Olson (eds.). 2005. Amphibians of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA. Joslin, G.L. 1986. Mountain goat population changes in relation to energy exploration along Montana’s Rocky Mountain front. Bienn. Symp. North Wildl. Sheep and Goat Council 5:253–271. Kantrud, H.A. and K.F. Higgins. 1992. Nest and nest site characteristics of some ground-nesting, non- passerine birds of northern grasslands. Prairie Naturalist 24:67–84. Kansas, J. 2002. Status of the Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) in Alberta. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, and Alberta Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report No. 37, Edmonton, AB. Karns, P.D. 1998. Population distribution, density and trends. In Ecology and management of North American Moose. A. W. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz (eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Karraker, N.E., D.S. Pilliod, M.J. Adams, E.L. Bull, P.S. Corn, L.V. Diller, L.A. Dupuis, M.P. Hayes, B.R. Hossack, G.R. Hodgson, E.J. Hyde, K. Lohman, B.R. Norman, L.M. Ollivier, C.A. Pearl and C.R. Peterson. 2006. Taxonomic variation in oviposition by tailed frogs (Ascaphus spp.). Northwestern Naturalist 87: 87–97.

2010 Page 6-15

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Kehoe, P. 2002. Status of the White-winged Scoter (Melanitta fusca deglandi) in Alberta. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, and Alberta conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report No. 45, Edmonton, AB. Keim, J.L. 2007. Mountain Goat Survey and Data Report: Data Collected in and Surrounding Timber Forest Licence 1 and Timber Forest Licence 41. Unpublished report. Keim, J.L. and S.R. Lele. 2007. Analyzing aerial survey observations to identify winter mountain goat habitat in TFL-01 and TFL-41. Unpublished report. Keith, L.B. 1961. A study of waterfowl ecology on small impoundments in south-eastern Alberta. Wildlife Monograph No. 6. Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD. Kelsall, J.P. and E.S. Telfer. 1974. Biogeography of moose with particular reference to western North America. Le Naturaliste Canadien 101:117–130. Kerr, G.R. 1965. The ecology of mountain goats in west central Alberta. MSc thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. Keystone Wildlife Research. 2000. West Fraser (TFL 52) and Weldwood License Areas Wildlife Habitat Suitability Mapping: Species Accounts. Keystone Wildlife Research, White Rock, BC. Keystone Wildlife Research. 1997. Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping, Babine East Landscape Unit, Wildlife Habitat Interpretations. Prince George, BC. Kilpatrick, H.J. and P.W. Rego. 1994. Influence of season, sex, and site availability on fisher (Martes pennanti) rest-site selection in the central hardwood forest. Can. J. Zool. 72:1416-1419. Kim, M.A. 1999. The influence of light and nutrients on interactions between a tadpole grazer and periphyton in two coastal streams. MSc thesis, Department of Forest Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. King, C.L., M.S. Siders and L. Pater. 2001. Determining levels of noise disturbance for Northern Goshawk on the Kaibab Plateau. In Annual Monitoring Report for Implementing the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan - Fiscal Year 2002 (M. Williams [ed.]). Kinley, T.A. and C.D. Apps. 2001. Mortality patterns in a subpopulation of endangered mountain caribou. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29: 158–164. Kinley, T. and N.J. Newhouse. 1997. Relationship of riparian reserve zone width to bird density and diversity in southeastern British Columbia. Northwest Science 71:75–86. Kinley, T., T. Goward, B.N. McLellan and R. Serrouya. 2007. The influence of variable snowpacks on habitat use by Mountain Caribou. Rangifer Special Issue 17: 93–102. Kirk, D.A., A.W. Diamond, K.A. Hobson and A.R. Smith. 1996. Breeding bird communities of the western and northern Canadian boreal forest: relationship to forest type. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:1749–1770. Koehler, G.M. and M.G. Hornocker. 1977. Fire effects on marten habitat in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. Journal of Wildlife Management 41:500–505.

Page 6-16 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Kotliar, B.N. 2007. Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi): A technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project. Krebs, C.J. and D. Lewis. 2000. Wolverine ecology and habitat use in the Northern Columbia Mountains: Progress report. In L.M Darling (ed.). Proceedings of a conference on the biology and management of species and habitat at risk. Volume 2. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Victoria, BC, and University College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, BC. Krebs, J. and D. Lewis. 1999. Wolverine Ecology and Habitat Use in the North Columbia Mountains: Progress Report. Proc. Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk, Feb. 15–19, 1999, Kamloops, BC. Krebs, J., E.C. Lofroth and I. Parfitt. 2007. Multiscale habitat use by wolverines in British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 2180–2192. Krefting, L. 1974. The ecology of the Isle Royale moose. Tech. Bull. No. 297. University of Minnesota, Agric. Res.Stn. Minneapolis, MN. Krohn, W.B., K.D. Elowe and R.B. Boone. 1995. Relations among fishers, snow, and martens: development and evaluation of two hypotheses. For. Chron. 71:97–105. Kufeld, R.C. and D.C. Bowden. 1996. Movements and habitat selection of Shiras moose (Alces alces shirasi) in Colorado. Alces 32:85–99. Kunkel, K.E. and D.H. Pletscher. 2000. Habitat factors affecting vulnerability of moose to predation by wolves in southeastern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:150–157. Landa, A., O. Strand, J.D.C. Linnell and T. Skogland. 1998. Home-range sizes and altitude selection for arctic foxes and wolverines in an alpine environment. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76:448–457. LaRue, P., L. Belanger and J. Huot. 1995. Riparian edge effects on boreal balsam fir bird communities. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 25:555–566. Laudenslayer, W.F. and M.D. Parisi. 2007. Species notes for sandhill crane (Grus canadensis): California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) System Level II Model Prototype. California Department of Fish and Game, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. LeFranc, M.N., Jr., M.B. Moss, K.A. Patnode and W.C. Sugg, III (eds.). 1987. Grizzly bear compendium. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, Washington, DC. Leonard, R.D. 1986. Aspects of reproduction of the fisher, Martes pennanti, in Manitoba. Can. Field-Nat. 100: 32–44. Leonard, W.P., H.A. Brown, L.L.C. Jones, K.R. McAllister and R.M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA. Lessard, Robert. 2005. Conservation of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in west-central Alberta: a simulation analysis of multi-species predator-prey systems. PhD thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.

2010 Page 6-17

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Linke, J. 2003. Using Landsat TM and IRS imagery to Detect Seismic Cutlines: Assessing their Effects on Landscape Structure and on Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) Landscape Use in Alberta. MSc Thesis. University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. Linke, J. and S.E. Franklin. 2003. Grizzly bear foothills habitat fragmentation by seismic cutlines: Preliminary report about parsimony of landscape metrics and cutline effects on habitat structure and foothills grizzly bear landscape use. 68–87. In G.B. Stenhouse, R.H. Munro and K. Graham. (eds.), Foothills Model Forest Grizzly Bear Research Program. 2002 Annual Report. Hinton, AB. Linke, J., S.E. Franklin, F. Huettmann and G.B. Stenhouse. 2005. Seismic cutlines, changing landscape metrics and grizzly bear landscape use in Alberta. Landscape Ecology 20:811-826. Linnell, J.D.C., J.E. Swenson, R. Andersen and B. Barnes. 2000. How vulnerable are denning bears to disturbance? Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:400–413. Livezey, K.B. 2007. Barred owl habitat and prey: a review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Raptor Research 41:177–201. Lofroth, E.C. 1993. Scale dependent analyses of habitat selection by marten in the Sub-boreal Spruce biogeoclimatic zone, British Columbia. MSc Thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC. Lofroth, E.C. 2001. Wolverine ecology in plateau and foothill landscapes. Northern Wolverine Project 2000/01 year end report, 1996–2001. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Victoria, BC. Lofroth, E.C. and J. Krebs. 2007. The Abundance and Distribution of Wolverines in British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 2159–2169. Lofroth, E.C. and P.K. Ott. 2007. Assessment of the sustainability of wolverine harvest in British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 2193–2200. Lofroth, E.C., J.A. Krebs, W.L. Harrower and D. Lewis. 2007. Food habits of wolverines, Gulo gulo, in montane ecosystems of British Columbia, Canada. Wildlife Biology 13: 31–37. Lor, S. and R.A. Malecki. 2006. Breeding ecology and nesting habitat associations of five marsh bird species in western New York. Waterbirds 29:427–436. Lor, S.K. 2007. Habitat use and home range of American Bitterns (Botaurus lentiginosus) and monitoring of inconspicuous marsh birds in northwest Minnesota. PhD Dissertation. University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. Lovvorn, J.R. and C.M. Kirkpatrick. 1981. Roosting behavior and habitat of migrant greater sandhill cranes. Journal of Wildlife Management 45:842–856. Mace, R.D. 1985. Analysis of grizzly bear habitat in the Bob Marshall Wilderness, Montana. 136–149 in G.P. Contreras and K.E. Evans (eds.). Proceedings of the grizzly bear habitat symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-207. USDA Forest Serv., Intermountain Research Stn., Ogden, UT. MacHutchon, A.G., S. Himmer and C.A. Bryden. 1993. Khutzeymateen Valley Grizzly Bear study, final report. Report to British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC.

Page 6-18 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

MacKenzie, W.H. and J.R. Moran. 2004. Wetlands of British Columbia: a guide to identification. Land Management Handbook No. 52. Research Branch, BC Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC. MacNaughton, C.J. 1995. The effects of prescribed burning on songbirds in the Tuchodi-Gathto region of British Columbia. Wildlife Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. Magoun, A.J. 1985. Population characteristics, ecology and management of wolverines in Alaska. PhD thesis, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK. Magoun, A.J. and J.P. Copeland. 1998. Characteristics of wolverine reproductive den sites. Journal of Wildlife Management 62: 1313–1320. Mahon, T. 2007. Effects of forest development near nest sites on the reproductive success of Northern Goshawks (Accipiter gentilis): an adaptive management approach. 2006/2007 Annual Report. Morice and Lakes Innovative Forest Practices Agreement. BC. Mahon, T. and F. Doyle. 2000. An assessment of northern goshawk nest site choice and reproductive success in proximity to forest harvesting: an adaptive management strategy. Unpublished Report. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Smithers, BC. Mahon, T. and F. Doyle. 2003. Northern Goshawks in the Morice and Lakes Forest Districts, 5-year Project Summary. Morice and Lakes Innovative Forest Practices Agreement. Project IFPA No. 431.02. Mahon, T. and F. Doyle. 2005. Effect of timber harvesting near nest sites on the reproductive success of northern goshawks. Journal of Raptor Research 39:335–341. Mahon, T. and S. Franklin. 1997. Inventory of the Northern Goshawk in the Kispiox Forest District. Unpublished Report. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Houston Forest Products Ltd., and Forest Renewal BC. Mahon, T., D. Morgan and F. Doyle. 2003. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Habitat in the North Coast Forest District, foraging area and nest area habitat suitability models. Draft v2.2. Mallory, A. 2004. Coastal Tailed Frog. In Identified Wildlife Management Strategy: Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife, Version 2004. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. Manning, T. and J.M. Cooper. 2004. Stand-level management guidelines for selected forest-dwelling species in the Fort St. John timber supply area. Canadian Forest Products Ltd., Peace Region, Fort St. John, BC. Matsuda, B.M. 2001. The effects of clear-cut timber harvest on the movement patterns of tailed frogs (Ascaphus truei) in southwestern British Columbia. MSc Thesis. Department of Forest Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

2010 Page 6-19

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Matsuda, B.M. and J.S. Richardson. 1999. Clearcut timber harvest and movement patterns in tailed frogs. In Proceedings of a Conference on the biology and management of species and habitats at risk. L.M. Darling (ed.). Kamloops, BC, Feb. 15–19, 1999. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC, and University College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, BC. 489–496. Matsuda, B.M. and J.S. Richardson. 2005. Movement patterns and relative abundance of coastal tailed frogs in clearcuts and mature forest stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35: 1131–1138. Matsuda, B.M., D.M. Green and P.T. Gregory. 2006. The Amphibians and Reptiles of British Columbia. Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, BC. Mattson, D.J., R.R. Knight and B.M. Blanchard. 1987. The effects of developments and primary roads on grizzly bear habitat use in Yellowstone National Park. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 7:259–273. Mazur, K.M., P.C. James, M.J. Fitzsimmons, G. Langen and R.H.M. Espie. 1997. Habitat associations of the Barred Owl in the boreal forest of Saskatchewan, Canada. Journal of Raptor Research 31:253–259. Mazur, K.M., S.D. Frith and P.C. James. 1998. Barred Owl home range and habitat selection in the boreal forest of central Saskatchewan. Auk 115:746–754. McClaren, E. 1997. Queen Charlotte Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis laingi) population inventory summary for Vancouver Island, British Columbia (1996/1997). British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Nanaimo, BC. McClaren, E. 2003. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis laingi) population inventory summary for Vancouver Island, British Columbia 1994–2002. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Nanaimo, BC. McClaren, E. 2004. Queen Charlotte Goshawk Accipiter gentilis laingi. In Identified Wildlife Management Strategy: Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife, Version 2004. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. McFetridge, R.J. 1977. Strategy of resource use by mountain goat nursery groups. 169–173. In W. Samuel and W.G. Macgregor (eds.). Proceedings of the first international mountain goat symposium. Kalispell, MT. McLellan, B. 1994. Density-dependent population regulation of brown bears.15–25 in M. Taylor (ed.). Density-dependent population regulation in black, brown, and polar bears. International Conference on Bear Research and Management Monograph Series No. 3. McLellan, B. and R.D. Mace. 1985. Behaviour of grizzly bears in response to roads, seismic activity, and people. British Columbia Minister of the Environment, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Cranbrook, BC. McLellan, B.N. 1981. Akamina-Kishinena Grizzly Bear Project, Progress report: 1980. BC Fish and Wildlife Branch. Victoria, BC.

Page 6-20 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

McLellan, B.N. 1990. Relationships between human industrial activity and grizzly bears. Int. Conf. Bear. Res. and Manage. 8:57–64. McLellan, B.N. 1992. Current status and long-term threat to grizzly bears in British Columbia. 111–122 in: S. Rautio (ed.). Community Action for Endangered Species. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Victoria, BC. McLellan, B.N. 1998. Maintaining viability of brown bears along the southern fringe of their distribution. Ursus 10:607–611. McLellan B.N. and D.M. Shackleton. 1989. Grizzly Bears and Resource Extraction Industries: Habitat Displacement in Response to Seismic Exploration, Timber Harvesting and Road Maintenance Journal of Applied Ecology 26:371–380. 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 25:451–460. McLellan, B.N. and F.W. Hovey. 2001. Natal dispersal of grizzly bears. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:838–844. McLellan, B.N. and F.W. Hovey. 1995. The diet of grizzly bears in the Flathead River drainage of southeastern British Columbia. Can. J. Zool. 73:704–712. McLoughlin, P.D., E. Dzus, B. Wynes and S. Boutin. 2003. Declines in populations of woodland caribou. Journal of Wildlife Management 67: 755–761. McLoughlin, P.D., J.S. Dunsford and S. Boutin. 2005. Relating predation mortality to broad-scale habitat selection. Journal of Animal Ecology 74: 701–707. McNay R.S., L. Giguere and F. McDonald. 2008 Mitigating risk of predation for woodland caribou in north-central British Columbia. Wildlife Infometrics Inc. Report No. 274. Wildlife Infometrics Inc., Mackenzie, BC. McNay, R.S. 2008. Spatial characteristics of predation risk for woodland caribou in north-central British Columbia. Wildlife Infometrics Inc. Report No. 233. Wildlife Infometrics Inc., Mackenzie, BC. Mech, L.D. and L.L. Rogers. 1977. Status, distribution, and movements of martens in northeastern Minnesota. Research Paper NE-143. USDA, Northern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, PA. Mech, L.D., R.E. McRoberts, R.O. Peterson and R.E. Page. 1987. Relationship of deer and moose populations to previous winters' snow. Journal of Animal Ecology 56: 615–627. Meidinger, D., T. Lee, G.W. Douglas, G. Britton, W. MacKenzie and H. Qian. 2002. British Columbia plant species codes and selected attributes. Version 4 Database. Research Branch. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC. Messier, F. 1991. The significance of limiting and regulating factors on the demography of moose and white-tailed deer. Journal of Animal Ecology 60: 377–393. Messier, F. and M. Crête. 1984. Body condition and population by food resources in moose. Oecologia 65:44–50.

2010 Page 6-21

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Metter, D.E. 1964. A morphological and ecological comparison of two populations of the tailed frog, Ascaphus truei Stejneger. Copeia 1964: 181–195. Michelfelder, V. 2004. A study of forest understories in two parts: community structure of forage plants consumed by coastal black bears and effects of partial cutting on understorey. Master of Resource Management. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC. Miller, F.L. 1982. Caribou. 923–959 in: J.A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer (eds.) Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and economics. Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, MD. Molvar, E.M. and R.T. Bowyer. 1994. Costs and benefits of group living in a recently social ungulate: the Alaskan moose. Journal of Mammalogy 75: 621–630. Morice and Lakes Innovative Forest Practices Agreement (Morice and Lakes IFPA). 2003. Status and nesting requirements of the Northern Goshawk in the Morice and Lakes Forest Districts. Morice and Lakes IFPA Project Summary No. 30. Morice and Lakes Innovative Forest Practices Agreement (Morice and Lakes IFPA). 2004. Habitat modelling for the Morice and Lakes IFPA. Morice and Lakes IFPA Project Summary No. 39. Murphy, M.L. and J.D. Hall. 1981. Varied effects of clear-cut logging on predators and their habitat in small streams of the Cascade Mountains, Oregon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38: 137–145. Nagorsen, D.W. 1990. The mammals of British Columbia. Royal British Columbia Museum Memoir No. 4. Royal British Columbia Museum and Wildlife Branch, Victoria, BC. Nagorsen, D.W., K.F. Morrison and J.E. Forsberg. 1989. Winter diet of Vancouver Island marten (Martes americana). Canadian Journal of Zoology 67: 1394–1400. Nagy, J.A., R.H. Russell, A.M. Pearson, M.C.S. Kingsley and C.B. Larson. 1983. A study of grizzly bears on the barren-grounds of Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula and Richards Island, Northwest Territories, 1974 to 1978. Canadian Wildlife Service, Edmonton, AB. Neufeld, L. 2006. Spatial dynamics of wolves and woodland caribou in an industrial forest landscape in west-central Alberta. MSc thesis. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. Nielsen S.E. and M.S. Boyce. 2002. Resource selection functions and population viability analyses. 17-42. In: G.B. Stenhouse and R.H. Munro (eds.). Foothills Model Forest Grizzly Bear Research Program. 2001 Annual Report. Hinton, AB. Niemi, G.J. and J.M. Hanowski. 1984. Effects of a transmission line on bird populations in the red lake peatland, northern Minnesota. Auk 101: 487–498. Northern Goshawk Recovery Team (NGRT). 2008. Recovery strategy for the Northern Goshawk, laingi subspecies (Accipiter gentilis laingi) in British Columbia. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC.

Page 6-22 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Norton, M.R. 1999. Status of black-throated green warbler (Dendroica virens) in Alberta. Alberta Environment, Fisheries and Wildlife Management Division, and Alberta Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report No. 23, Edmonton, AB. Norton, M.R. 2001a. Status of Cape May Warbler (Dendroica tigrina) in Alberta. Alberta Environment, Fisheries and Wildlife Management Division, and Alberta Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report No. 33, Edmonton, AB. Norton, M.R. 2001b. Status of bay-breasted warbler (Dendroica castanea) in Alberta. Alberta Environment, Fisheries and Wildlife Management Division, and Alberta Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report No. 32, Edmonton, AB. Norton, M.R., S.J. Hannon and F.K.A. Schmiegelow. 2000. Fragments are not islands: patch vs landscape perspectives on songbird presence and abundance in a harvested boreal forest. Ecography 23: 209–223. Nussbaum, R.A., E.D. Brodie, Jr. and R.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, ID. Oberg, P. 2001. Responses of mountain caribou to linear features in a west-central Alberta landscape. MSc thesis. University of Alberta. Edmonton, AB. Olsen, B.T., S.J. Hannon and G.S. Court. 2006. Short-term response of breeding barred owls to forestry in a boreal mixedwood forest landscape. Avian Conservation and Ecology 1(3):1. Owens, R.A. and M.T. Myres. 1973. Effects of agriculture upon populations of native passerine birds of an Alberta fescue grassland. Canadian Journal of Zoology 51:697–713. Pacific Trail Pipelines Ltd. (PTP). 2007. Kitimat–Summit Lake natural gas pipeline looping project: non- fish-bearing atlas. Fish and Fish Habitat Investigations, Volume A: KP 40 – KP 51. Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. 2001. Northern goshawk inventory and breeding habitat assessment in Tree Farm License 56: Final Report 2001. Nelson, BC. Paragi, T.F., W.N. Johnson, D.D. Katnik and A.J. Magoun. 1996. Marten selection of postfire seres in the Alaskan taiga. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:2226–2237. Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Pattie, D. and C. Fisher. 1999. Mammals of Alberta. Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton, AB. Pearson, R.R. and K.B. Livezey. 2003. Distribution, numbers, and site characteristics of spotted owls and barred owls in the Cascade Mountains of Washington. Journal of Raptor Research 37:265–276. Pedlar, J.H., J.L. Pearce, L.A. Vernier and D.W. McKenney. 2002. Coarse woody debris in relation to disturbance and forest type in boreal Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 158:189–194. Peek, J.M. 1998. Habitat relationships. In Ecology and management of North American Moose. A.W. Franzmann and C.C. Schwartz (eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

2010 Page 6-23

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Pendergast, B. and J. Bindernagel. 1977. The impact of exploration for coal on mountain goats in northeastern British Columbia. 64–68. In W. Samuel and W.G. Macgregor (eds.). Proceedings of the first international mountain goat symposium. Kalispell, MT. Petersen, S. 1997. Status of the Wolverine (Gulo gulo) in Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife Management Division, Wildlife Status Report No. 2, Edmonton, AB. Petticrew, P.S. and W.T. Munro. 1979. Preliminary moose management plan for British Columbia. BC Ministry of the Environment, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Victoria, BC. Phinney, M. 2003. Do Black-throated Green Warblers in northeast B.C. require riparian forest? British Columbia Birds 13:2–5. Pierce, D.J. and J.M. Peek. 1984. Moose habitat use and selection patterns in north-central Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:1335–1343. Piorecky, M.D. and D.R.C. Prescott. 2004. Distribution, abundance and habitat selection on northern pygmy and barred owls along the eastern slopes of the Alberta Rocky Mountains. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Species at Risk Report No.91, Edmonton, AB. Poole, K.G. and G. Mowat. 2001. Alberta furbearer harvest data analysis: Alberta Species at Risk Report No. 31. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division. Edmonton, AB. Poole, K.G. and R.P. Graf. 1996. Winter diet of marten during a snowshoe hare decline. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74: 456–466. Poole, K.G., A.D. Porter, A. de Vries, C. Maundrell, S.D. Grindal and C.C. St. Clair. 2004. Suitability of a young deciduous-dominated forest for American marten and the effects of forest removal. Canadian Journal of Zoology 82: 423–435. Potvin, F., L. Belanger and K. Lowell. 2000. Marten habitat selection in a clearcut boreal landscape. Conservation Biology 14: 844–857. Potvin F., R. Courtois and L. Belanger. 1999. Short-term response of wildlife to clear-cutting in Quebec boreal forest: multiscale effects and management implications. Can. J. For. Res. 29: 1120–1127. Potvin, F., L. Breton and R. Courtois. 2005. Response of beaver, moose, and snowshoe hare to clear- cutting in a Quebec boreal forest: a reassessment 10 years after cut. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35: 151–160. Powell, R.A. 1993. The fisher: life history, ecology and behavior. 2nd edition. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. Powell, R.A. and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher. 38–73. In L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinshi (technical eds.). The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine. General technical report RM-254. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. Prescott, D.R.C. 1997. Status of the Sprague's Pipit (Anthus spragueii) in Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife Management Division, Wildlife Status Report No. 10, Edmonton, AB.

Page 6-24 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Prescott, D.R.C., A.J. Murphy and E. Ewaschuk. 1995. An avian community approach to determining the biodiversity value of NAWMP habitats in the aspen parkland of Alberta. Alberta North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) Centre. NAWMP-012. Edmonton, AB. Prescott, D.R.C., M.R. Norton and I.M.G. Michaud. 2002. Night surveys of yellow rails, Coturnicops noveboracensis, and Virginia rails, Rallus limicola, in Alberta using call playbacks. Canadian Field-Naturalist 116(3): 408–415. Prescott, D.R.C. and A.J. Murphy. 1996. Habitat associations of grassland birds on native and tame pastures in the aspen parkland of Alberta. Alberta North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) Centre. NAWMP-021. Edmonton, AB. Prescott, D.R.C. and G.M. Wagner. 1996. Avian responses to implementation of a complementary/rotational grazing system by the North American Waterfowl Management Plan in southern Alberta: the Medicine Wheel project. Alberta North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) Centre. NAWMP-018. Edmonton, AB. Preston, M.I. and A. Pomeroy. In press. Two noteworthy breeding records of Cape May Warbler in British Columbia. Wildlife Afield. Preston, M.I., F.L. Bunnell and P. Vernier. 2007. Identification of habitat variables and information gaps for providing scale-dependent management recommendations to monitor Black-throated Green Warbler and Connecticut Warbler in northeast British Columbia. Report prepared for Ministry of Environment and Louisiana-Pacific Canada Ltd. Proulx, G. 2005. Integrating the habitat needs of fine and coarse filter species in landscape planning. In T.D. Hooper (ed.). Proceedings of the Species at Risk 2004 Pathways to Recovery Conference, Victoria, BC. Proulx, G. and R. Kariz. 2005. Winter habitat use by moose, Alces alces, in central interior British Columbia. Canadian Field Naturalist 119: 186–191. Ramcharita, R. 2000. Grizzly Bear Use of Avalanche Chutes in the Columbia Mountains British Columbia. MSc Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Rangen, S. 1997. Songbird abundance, distribution, and reproductive success in two age classes of mixedwood stands in the foothills model forest. Department of Biology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK. Rasheed, S. 1999. Draft species habitat model for grizzly bear. Province of British Columbia, Resource Inventory Branch, Victoria, BC. Regelin, W.L., C.C. Schwartz and A.W. Franzmann. 1987. Effects of forest succession on nutritional dynamics of moose forage. Swedish Wildlife Research Supplement 1: 247–262. Reid, D., C. Thompson, L. Roberts and M.A. Johnson. 2010. Vegetation Technical Data Report. Prepared for Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB.

2010 Page 6-25

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Renecker, L.A. and C.C. Schwartz. 1998. Food habits and feeding behaviour. In Ecology and management of North American Moose. A.W. Franzmann and C.C. Schwartz (eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Renecker, L.A. and R.J. Hudson. 1992. Habitat and forage selection of moose in the aspen-dominated boreal forest, Central Alberta. Alces 28: 189–201. Resources Inventory Committee (RIC). 1998b. Inventory methods for marten and weasels: standards for components of British Columbia’s Biodiversity No. 24. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee (RIC). 1998a. Standard for terrestrial ecosystem mapping in British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee (RIC). 1999. British Columbia Wildlife Habitat Rating Standards Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch, Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force Resources Inventory Committee, Victoria, BC. Reynolds, R.T., E.C. Meslow and H.M. Wight. 1982. Nesting habitat of coexisting accipiters in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 46: 124–138. Richardson, J.S. and W.E. Neill. 1998. Headwater amphibians and forestry in British Columbia: Pacific giant salamanders and tailed frogs. Northwest Science 72: 122–123. Risenhoover, K.L. 1986. Winter activity patterns of moose in interior Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 50: 727–734. Robertson, B.A. and R.L. Hutto. 2007. Is selectively harvested forest an ecological trap for olive-sided flycatchers? Condor 109: 109–121. Robichaud, I. and M.A. Villard. 1999. Do Black-throated Green Warblers prefer conifers? Meso- and microhabitat use in a mixedwood forest. Condor 101: 262–271. Rominger, E.M. and J.L. Oldemeyer. 1989. Early-winter habitat of woodland caribou, Selkirk Mountains, British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management 53: 238–242. Romito, T., K. Smith, B. Beck, J. Beck, M. Todd, R. Bonar and R. Quinlin. 1999. Moose (Alces alces) draft Habitat Suitability Index (HIS) model. Foothills Model Forest, Hinton, AB. Ross, P.I. 2002. Update COSEWIC status report on the grizzly bear Ursus arctos in Canada. In 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. Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the Western United States. General Technical Report RM–254, USDA Forest Service. Russell, R.H., J. Nolan, N. Woody and G. Anderson. 1979. A study of the grizzly bear in Jasper National Park 1975 to 1978. Report prepared for Parks Canada by Canadian Wildlife Service, Edmonton, AB.

Page 6-26 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Safine, D.E. and M.S. Lindberg. 2008. Nest habitat selection of white-winged scoters on Yukon Flats, Alaska. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120: 582–593. Saher, J. 2005. Woodland Caribou Habitat Selection during Winter and Along Migratory Routes in West- Central Alberta. MSc thesis. University of Alberta. Edmonton, AB. Saxena, A. and L.P. Bilyk. 2000. Wildlife habitat suitability interpretations for terrestrial ecosystems – Canfor TFL 48. Canadian Forest Products Ltd., Chetwynd, BC. Schaefer, J.A. and W.O. Pruitt. 1991. Fire and woodland caribou in southeastern Manitoba. Wildlife Monographs 116: 1–39. Schaffer, W.W. 1998. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) habitat characterization in central Alberta. M.Sc. Thesis. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. Schieck, J. and M. Nietfeld. 1995. Bird species richness and abundance in relation to stand age and structure in aspen mixedwood forests in Alberta. Pages 115–157 in: J.B. Stelfox, (ed.), Relationships between stand age, stand structure, and biodiversity in aspen mixed wood forests in Alberta. Alberta Environmental Centre and Canadian Forest Service, Edmonton, AB. Schmidt, R.S. 1970. Auditory receptors of two mating call-less anurans. Copeia 1: 169–170. Schmiegelow, F.K.A. and S.J. Hannon. 1999. Forest-level effects of management on boreal songbirds: the Calling Lake Fragmentation Studies. In J.A. Rochelle, L.A. Lehmann and J. Wisniewski (eds.), Forest fragmentation, wildlife and management implications. Brill, Boston, MA. 201–221. Schmiegelow, F.K.A., C.S. Machtans and S.J. Hannon. 1997. Are boreal birds resilient to forest fragmentation? An experimental study of short-term community responses. Ecology 78: 1914-1932. Schoonmaker, P. and A. McKee. 1988. Species composition and diversity during secondary succession of coniferous forests in the western Cascade Mountains of Oregon. For. Sci. 34: 960–979. Schwartz, C., S.D. Miller and M.A. Haroldson. 2003. Grizzly Bear. Pp 556–586. In: G.A. Feldhamer, B.C. Thompson and J.A. Chapman (eds.). Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Conservation. John Hopkins University Press, MD. Schwartz, C.C. 1992. Physiological and nutritional adaptations of moose to northern environments. Alces Supplement 1: 139–155. Schwartz, C.C. and L.A. Renecker. 1998. Nutrition and energetics. In Ecology and management of North American Moose. A.W. Franzmann and C.C. Schwartz (eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Seip, D.R. 1992. Factors limiting mountain caribou populations and their interrelationships with wolves and moose in southeastern British Columbia. Can. J. Zool. 70: 1494–1503. Seip, D. R. and D.B. Cichowski. 1996. Population ecology of caribou in British Columbia. Rangifer Special Issue 9: 73–80.

2010 Page 6-27

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Seip, D. 2002. Ecological relationships between threatened caribou herds and their habitat in the Central Rocky Mountains Ecoregion. FRBC Report. Prince George, BC. Seip, D.R. and E. Jones. 2008. Population Census of Threatened Caribou Herds in the South Peace area of British Columbia. Unpublished internal report of the Ministry of Forests and Range, Prince George, BC. Semenchuk, G.P. (ed.). 1992. The Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Alberta. Federation of Alberta Naturalists, Edmonton, AB. Semenchuk, G. (ed.). 2007. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Alberta: a Second Look. Federation of Alberta Naturalists, Edmonton, AB. Serrouya, R. and R. D’Eon. 2002. Moose habitat selection in relation to forest harvesting in a deep snow zone of British Columbia. Consultant’s report prepared for Downie Timber Limited, Revelstoke, BC. Serrouya, R., B.N. McLellan and J.P. Flaa. 2007a. Scale-dependent microhabitat selection by threatened mountain caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in cedar-hemlock forests during winter. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 37: 1082–1092. Serrouya, R., D. Lewis, B. McLellan and G. Pavan. 2007b. The selection of movement paths by mountain caribou during winter within managed landscapes: 4-year results of snow trailing. Forest Investment Account – Forest Science Program, Final Technical Report FSP Project #Y071312. Servheen, C. 1983. Grizzly bear food habits, movements and habitat selection in the Mission Mountains, Montana. J. Wild. Manage. 47: 1026–1035. Setterington, M. 1998. Owl abundance and habitat in the Nimpkish Valley, Vancouver Island. Unpublished report prepared for Canadian Forest Products Ltd., Englewood Logging Division, Woss, BC. Shackleton, D. 1999. Hoofed mammals of British Columbia, Volume 3. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. Sherburne, S.S. 1992. Marten use of subnivean access points in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. MS. thesis. Utah State University, Logan, UT. Sherburne, S.S. and J.A. Bissonette. 1994. Marten sub-nivean access point use: response to subnivean prey levels. Journal of Wildlife Management 58: 400–405. Siddle, C. 1990. The winter season – British Columbia and the Yukon region. American Birds 44: 312-317. Siddle, C. 2008. Status, size, and breeding chronology of an urban Great Blue Heron nesting colony at Vernon, British Columbia, 1986–2008. Wildlife Afield 5: 31–39. Simpson, K. 1992. Peace River Site C Hydroelectric Development. Environmental Assessment Consumptive Wildlife Resources. Progress Report. BC Hydro. Environmental Resources, Vancouver, BC.

Page 6-28 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Simpson, K. 1987. Impacts of a hydro-electric reservoir on populations of caribou and grizzly bear in southern B.C. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-24, Ministry of Environment, Nelson, BC. Simpson, K., J.P. Kelsall and M. Leung. 1985. Critical habitat of caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in the mountains of southern British Columbia. McGill Subarctic Research Paper No. 40: 177–191. Singleton, J. 1976. Food habits of wild ungulates in British Columbia: bibliography and plant synopsis. Environment and Land Use Committee Secretariat, Department of Environment, Victoria, BC. Singleton, P.H., W.L. Gaines and J.F. Lehmkuhl. 2002. Landscape permeability for large carnivores in Washington: A geographic information system weighted-distance and least cost corridor assessment. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station Research Paper No. 549. Slough, B.G. 1989. Movements and habitat use by transplanted marten in the Yukon Territory. Journal of Wildlife Management 53: 991–997. Smith, K. 1982. Winter studies of forest-dwelling mountain goats of Pinto Creek, Alberta. Proceedings of the Biennial Symposium of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 3: 374–390. Smith, K.G. 2004. Woodland caribou demography and persistence relative to landscape change in west central Alberta. MSc thesis. University of Alberta. Edmonton, AB. Smith, K.G., E.J. Ficht, D. Hobson, T. Sorenson and D. Hervieux. 2000. Winter distribution of woodland caribou in relation to clear-cut logging in west-central Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78: 1433–1440. Snyder, J.E. and J.A. Bissonette. 1987. Marten use of clear-cuttings and residual forest stands in western Newfoundland. Canadian Journal of Zoology 65: 269–174. Song, S.J. 1998. Effects of natural and anthropogenic forest edge on songbirds breeding in the boreal mixed-wood forest of northern Alberta. PhD thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. Soutière, E.C. 1979. Effects of timber harvesting on marten in Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management 43: 850–860. Spalding, D.J. 1989. The early history of moose (Alces alces): Distribution and relative abundance in British Columbia. Contributions to Natural Science 11. The Royal British Columbia Museum. Victoria, BC. Spencer, W.D., R.H. Barrett and W.J. Zielinski. 1983. Marten habitat preferences in the northern Sierra Nevada. Journal of Wildlife Management 47: 1181–1186. Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (2nd ed.). Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, MA. Stenzel, J.R. 1982. Ecology of breeding Yellow Rails at Seney National Wildlife Refuge. MSc thesis, Ohio State University, OH. Stepaniuk, D.W. 1997. Planning for Woodland Caribou winter habitat needs in west-central Alberta. MSc thesis. University of Alberta. Edmonton, AB.

2010 Page 6-29

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Stevens, S. and M. Gibeau. 2005. Home Range Analysis. In S. Herrero (ed.). Biology, demography, ecology and management of grizzly bears in and around Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country: The final report of the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project. Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, AB. 143–152. Stevens, V. 1980. Terrestrial baseline surveys, non-native mountain goats of the Olympic National Park, (initial mountain goat population studies). Final Rep. Contract Number CX-9000-7-0065. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Stevens, V. 1995. Wildlife diversity in British Columbia: distribution and habitat use of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals in biogeoclimatic zones. Work Paper 04/1995. Res. Br., B.C. Min. For. Wildlife. Br., BC Min. Environ., Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. Stevens, V. and S. Lofts. 1988. Wildlife habitat handbooks for the Southern Interior Ecoprovince, Vol. 1: Species notes for mammals. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC. Stevenson S.K., H.M. Armleder, M.J. Jull, D.G. King, B.N. McLellan and D.S. Coxson. 2001. Mountain caribou in managed forests: recommendations for managers. Report No. R-26. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks. Wildlife Branch. Victoria, BC. Steventon, J.D. and J.T. Major. 1982. Marten use of habitat in commercially clear-cut forests. Journal of Wildlife Management 46: 175–182. Strickland, M.A., M. Novak and N.P. Hunzinger. 1982. Fisher (Martes pennanti). Pages 586–598 in J.A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer (eds.). Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and economics. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. Stronen, A.V., P. Paquet, S. Herrero, S. Sharpe and N. Waters. 2007. Translocation and recovery efforts for the Telkwa Caribou, Rangifer tarandus caribou, herd in west-central British Columbia, 1997-2005. Canadian Field-Naturalist 121: 155–163. Sturtevant, B.R., J.A. Bissonette, J.A. Long and D.W. Roberts. 1997. Coarse woody debris as a function of age, stand structure, and disturbance in boreal Newfoundland. Ecological Applications 7: 702-712. Sutherland, G.D. 2000. Risk assessment for conservation under ecological uncertainty: a case study using a stream-dwelling amphibian in managed forests. PhD. dissertation, Department of Forest Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Sutter, G.C. 1997. Nest-site selection and nest-entrance orientation in Sprague's Pipit. Wilson Bulletin 109: 462–469. Swenson, J.E., F. Sandegren, S. Brunberg and P. Wabakken. 1997. Winter den abandonment by brown bears Ursus arctos: causes and consequences. Wildlife Biology 3: 35–38. Szkorupa, T.D. 2002. Multi-scale Habitat Selection by Mountain Caribou in West Central Alberta. MSc thesis. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. Takats, D.L. 1998. Barred owl habitat use and distribution in the foothills model forest. Wildlife Ecology and Management, Department of Renewable Resources, Edmonton, AB.

Page 6-30 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Takats, L., R. Stewart, M. Todd, R. Bonar, J. Beck, B. Beck and R. Quinlan. 1999. American marten winter habitat: Habitat Suitability Index Model. Foothills Model Forest, Hinton, AB. Taylor, S. and K. Brunt. 2007. Winter habitat use by mountain goats in the Kingcome River drainage of coastal British Columbia. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 8: 32-49. Taylor, S.L. and S.W. Buskirk. 1994. Forest microenvironments and resting energetics of the American marten Martes americana. Ecography 17: 249–256. Telfer, E.S. and J.P. Kelsall. 1984. Adaptations of some large North American mammals for survival in snow. Ecology 65: 1828–1834. Terry, E.L., B.N. McLellan and G.S. Watts. 2000. Winter habitat ecology of mountain caribou in relation to forest management. Journal of Applied Ecology 37: 589–602. Thomas, D.C. and H.J. Armbruster. 1996. Woodland Caribou habitat studies in Saskatchewan: second annual report including some preliminary recommendations. Environment Canada, Environment Conservation Ecological Research, Canadian Wildlife Service, Edmonton, AB. Thomas, D.C. and D.R. Gray. 2002. Update COSEWIC status report on the woodland caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou in Canada. In COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Woodland Caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, ON. Thomas, D.C., J.E. Edmonds and W.K. Brown. 1996. The diet of woodland caribou populations in west- central Alberta. Rangifer Special Issue No. 9: 337–342. Thompson, I.D. and A.S. Harestad. 1994. Effects of logging on American martens and models for habitat management. In S.W. Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael and R.A. Powell (eds.). Martens, sables and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. 355–367. Thompson, I.D. and P.W. Colgan. 1994. Marten activity in uncut and logged boreal forests in Ontario. Journal of Wildlife Management 58: 280–288. Thompson, I.D., I.J. Davidson, S. O’Donnell and F. Brazeau. 1989. Use of transects to measure the relative abundance of some boreal mammals in uncut forests and regeneration stands. Canadian Journal of Zoology 67: 1816–1823. Traylor, J.J. 2003. Nesting and duckling ecology of white-winged scoters (Melanitta fusca) at Redberry Lake, SK. MSc. Thesis, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK. Traylor, J.J., R.T. Alisauskas and F.P. Kehoe. 2004. Nesting ecology of white-winged scoters (Melanitta fusca deglandi) at Redberry Lake, Saskatchewan. Auk 121: 950–962. Tressler, R., T.I. Mohagen and J. Zablotney. 2003. Baker River Relicensing Project. Grizzly Bear Spring Foraging Habitat Study. Final Report. Relicense Study T12. Puget Sound Energy Inc., Seattle, WA. Trombulak, S.C. and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14: 18–30.

2010 Page 6-31

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Turney, L. 2004. Modelling of ungulate winter range for mountain goat in the Nadina Forest District, British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection, Smithers, BC. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services. 1981. Standards for the Development of Habitat Suitability Index Models. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103-ESM. Van Dyke, F. 1995. Micro-habitat characteristics of moose winter activity sites in south-central Montana. Alces 31: 27–33. Vandal, D. and C. Barrette. 1985. Snow depth and feeding interactions at snow craters in woodland caribou. In T.C. Meridith and A.M. Martell (eds.). Proceedings of the 2nd North American caribou workshop. Val Morin, Quebec, 1984. McGill Subarctic Research Paper No. 40: 199–212. Vennesland, R.G. 2004. Great blue heron Ardea herodias. In Identified Wildlife Management Strategy: Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife, Version 2004. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. Vermeer, K. 1969. Some aspects of the breeding of the White-winged Scoter at Miquelon Lake, Alberta. Blue Jay 27: 72–73. Vistnes, I. and C. Nellemann. 2008. The matter of spatial and temporal scales: a review of reindeer and caribou response to human activity. Polar Biology 31: 399–407. Wahbe, T.R. and F.L. Bunnell. 2003. Relations among larval tailed frogs (Ascaphus truei), forest harvesting, stream microhabitat, and site parameters in southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33: 1256–1266. Wahbe, T.R., F.L. Bunnell and R.B. Bury. 2000. Defining wildlife habitat areas for tailed frogs. In L.M. Darling (ed.). Proceedings of a Conference on the Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk, Kamloops, BC, Feb. 15–19, 1999. Volume Two. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC, and University College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, BC. Wahbe, T.R., F.L. Bunnell and R.B. Bury. 2004. Terrestrial movements of juvenile and adult tailed frogs in relation to timber harvest in coastal British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 34: 2455–2466. Waterhouse, M. and R. Dawson. 1998. Bird communities in Interior Douglas-fir forests in the Cariboo Forest Region. In Managing the dry, Douglas-fir forests of the southern interior: workshop proceedings. A. Vyse, C. Hollstedt and D. Huggard (eds.). April 29–30, 1997. Kamloops, BC. Working Paper No. 34. BC Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC. Weaver, J.L., P.C. Paquet and L.F. Ruggiero. 1996. Resilience and conservation of large carnivores in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology 10: 964–976. Weir, R.D. 2003. Status of the Fisher in British Columbia. Wildl. Bull. B-105. B.C. Minist. Water, Land and Air Prot., Biodiversity Branch, and B.C. Minist. Sustainable Resour. Manage., Conservation Data Centre Victoria, BC.

Page 6-32 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Weir, R.D. 2004. Wolverine Gulo gulo. In Identified Wildlife Management Strategy: Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife, Version 2004. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. Weir, R.D. 2008. Fisher Ecology in the Kiskatinaw Plateau Ecosection. Year-end Report. March 2008. Prepared for Louisiana-Pacific Canada Ltd, Dawson Creek, BC and British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC. Weir, R.D. and F.B. Corbould. 2008. Ecology of Fishers in the Sub-boreal Forests of North-central British Columbia: Final Report. Peace/Williston Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program Report No. 315. Weir, R.D. and A.S. Harestad. 2003. Scale dependent habitat selectivity by Fishers in South Central British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management 67: 73‐82. Welsh, H.H., Jr. 1993. A Hierarchical Analysis of the Niche Relationships of Four Amphibians from Forested Habitats of Northwestern California. PhD dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, CA. Westworth Associates Environmental Ltd. 2000. Wildlife and Vegetation Surveys along the Muskeg River Pipeline. Prepared for ATCO Pipelines, Edmonton, AB. Unpublished data. Westworth Associates Environmental Ltd. 2002. A Review and Assessment of Existing Information for Key Wildlife and Fish in the Regional Sustainable Development Strategy Study Area - Volume 1: Wildlife. Prepared for the Sustainable Ecosystems Working Group of the Cumulative Environmental Management Association. Edmonton, AB. 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: 156–165. Westworth, D.A. and E.S. Telfer. 1993. Summer and winter bird population associated with five age- classes of aspen forest in Alberta. Journal of Forest Research 23: 1830–1836. Whitman, J.S., W.B. Ballard and C.L. Gardner. 1986. Home range and habitat use by wolverines in southcentral Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 50: 460–463. Whittaker, C. and A. Wiensczyk. 2007. Caribou Response to Mountain Pine Beetle Management: An Expert Workshop. Project Report. FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources (FORREX), Kamloops, BC. Whittington, J., C.C. St. Clair and G. Mercer. 2005. Spatial responses of wolves to roads and trails in mountain valleys. Ecological Applications 15: 543–553. Wiacek, R. and P. Sargent. 2010. Wildlife Field Surveys Technical Data Report. Prepared for: Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc., Calgary, AB. Wielgus, R.B. 1986. Habitat ecology of the Grizzly Bear in the southern Rocky Mountains of Canada. MSc Thesis. University of Moscow, ID.

2010 Page 6-33

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Wilkins, R.N. and N.P. Peterson. 2000. Factors related to amphibian occurrence and abundance in headwater streams draining second-growth Douglas-fir forests in southwestern Washington. Forest Ecology and Management 139: 79–91. Wilson, D. and S. Ruff. 1999. The Smithsonian Book of North American Mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Wilson, J. 2001. Habitat Characteristics of Late Wintering Areas Used by Woodland Caribou in Northeastern Ontario. MSc thesis, Department of Biology Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON. Wilson, S.F. 2005. Desired Conditions for Coastal Mountain Goat Winter Range. Wildlife Working Report No WR-107. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. Wind, E. and L.A. Dupuis. 2002. COSEWIC Status Report on the Western Toad, Bufo boreas, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, ON. Winter, M., J.A. Shaffer, D.H. Johnson, T.M. Donovan, W.D. Svedarsky, P.W. Jones and B.R. Euliss. 2005. Habitat and nesting of Le Conte’s Sparrows in the northern tallgrass prairie. Journal of Field Ornithology 76:61–71. Wisdom, M.J., R.S. Holthausen, B.C. Wales, C.D. Hargis, V.A. Saab, D.C. Lee, W.J. Hann, T.D. Rich, M.M. Rowland, W.J. Murphy and M.R. Eames. 2000. Source Habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-scale trends and management implications. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-485. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. Wittmer, H.U., A.R. Sinclair and B.N. McLellan. 2005. The role of predation in the decline and extirpation of woodland caribou. Oecologia 144: 257–267. Wright W. 1977. Ecology of the Cascade Mountain Goat, Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Washington. MS Thesis. Western Washington State Univ., Bellingham, WA. Young, J.A., L.M. Webster, K. VanSpall and P. Dielman. 1998. Towards integrated management solutions: the Quesnel Highland caribou project – radio-telemetry progress report. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Forests. Williams Lake, BC. Zager, P.E. and C.J. Jonkel. 1983. Managing grizzly bear habitat in the northern Rocky Mountains. Journal of Forestry 524–536.

6.2 Personal Communications and Personal Observations Campbell, R.W. 2009. Senior Research Scientist (retired), British Columbia Wildlife Branch. Conversation. January 2009. Davis, L. 2007. Wildlife Biologist, Davis Environmental Consulting, Williams Lake, BC. Email. January 2007. Heinrichs, R. 2009. Ecosystem Specialist. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Skeena Region, Smithers, BC. Email. January 2009. Preston, M. Wildlife Biologist. Stantec, Sidney, BC. Unpublished data. Personal observations.

Page 6-34 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Stenhouse, G. 2009. Wildlife Carnivore Biologist. Foothills Research Institute, Hinton, AB. Email. March 3, 2009. Wilson, D. 2009. Wildlife Biologist. British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Prince George, BC.

6.3 Internet Sites Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2005. General Status of Alberta Wildlife. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division. Edmonton, AB. Accessed: June 2008, February and May 2009. Available at: http://www.srd.alberta.ca/fishwildlife/speciesatrisk/generalstatus.aspx Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2006. Little Smoky Caribou Calf Project. Accessed: March 2009. Available at: http://www.srd.alberta.ca/fishwildlife/cariboucalfproject/default.aspx Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2002. Cow and calf moose survival. Available at: http://www.srd.alberta.ca/fishwildlife/livingwith/huntingalberta/northernmoosemanagement/cowc alfsurvival.aspx Altman, B. and R. Sallabanks. 2000. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole [ed.]). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed: February 9, 2009. Available at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/502/ Avery, M.L. 1995. Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole [ed.]). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed: February 10, 2009. Available at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/200/ Baltz, M.E. and S.C. Latta. 1998. Cape May Warbler (Dendroica tigrina), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole [ed.]). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed: February 9, 2009. Available at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/332/ Biodiversity Centre for Wildlife Studies (BCFWS). 2008. Species maps and profiles – Barred Owl. Accessed: January 14, 2009. Available at: http://www.wildlifebc.org/index.php?pageid=1 Bookhout, T.A. 1995. Yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis), In The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole [ed.]). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed: October 2009. Available at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/139 British Columbia Conservation Data Centre (BCCDC). 2009. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC. Accessed: June 2009. Available at: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BC MOE). 2006. Users Guide for the Resource Ratings Modeling Tool (Version 3.xx). British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Environmental Stewardship Division, Ecosystems Branch, Wildlife. Accessed: November 2009. Available at: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wildlife/whr/rrm_tool/index.htm

2010 Page 6-35

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Brown, P.W. and L.H. Fredrickson. 1997. White-winged Scoter (Melanitta fusca), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, [ed.]). Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Ithaca, NY. Accessed: January 10, 2009. Available at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/274/ Cannings, R.J. and T. Angell. 2001. Western Screech-Owl (Megascops kennicottii), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed: December 21, 2008. Available at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/597 Cariboo Chilcotin Conservation Society (CCC). 2008. Accessed: June 5, 2008. Available at: http://www.ccconserv.org/fisher.html Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2008d. Canadian Species at Risk. Updated 2005. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, ON. Accessed: Nov. 7, 2008. Available at: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/searchdetail_e.cfm Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2008c. Grizzly Bear. Wildlife Species Search. Accessed: November 2008 and February 2009. Available at: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct5/index_e.cfm Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2008a. Coast tailed frog – Wildlife species search. Accessed: February 2009. Available at: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/index_e.cfm Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2008b. Short-eared Owl. Accessed: December 12, 2008. Available at: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/index_e.cfm Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 1995. Wildlife Species Search: Northern Goshawk atricapillus subspecies. Accessed: December 23, 2008. Available at: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/index_e.cfm Fisheries Information Summary System (FISS). 2009. Welcome to the Fisheries Inventory Data Queries. British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Accessed: December 24, 2009. Available at: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/fidq/main.do Gibbs, J.P., S. Melvin and F.A. Reid. 1992. American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole [ed.]). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed: January 18, 2009. Available at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/018/ Government of Canada. 2008. Species Profile. Coastal Tailed Frog. Species at Risk Public Registry. Accessed: September 29, 2008. Available at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=631 Greenlaw, J.S. and J.D. Rising. 1994. Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow (Ammodramus caudacutus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole [ed.]). Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Ithaca, NY. Accessed: January 16, 2009. Available at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/112 Lowther, P.E. 2005. Le Conte's Sparrow (Ammodramus leconteii), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole [ed.]). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed: January 10, 2009. Available at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/224/

Page 6-36 2010

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Section 6: References

Mazur, K.M. and P.C. James. 2000. Barred Owl (Strix varia), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole [ed.]). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed: February 11, 2009. Available at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/508 NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Accessed: May 27, 2009. Available at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Poulin, R.G., S.D. Grindal and R.M. Brigham. 1996. Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole [ed.]). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed: January 18, 2009. Available at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/213/ Robbins, M.B. and B.C. Dale. 1999. Sprague's Pipit (Anthus spragueii), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole [ed.]). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed: January 10, 2009. Available at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/439/ Shaw, D. 2006. Breeding ecology and habitat affinities of an imperilled species, the Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) in Fairbanks, Alaska. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed: January 3, 2009. Available at: http://www.alaskabird.org/?s=rusty+blackbird Tacha, T.C., S.A. Nesbitt and P.A. Vohs. 1992. Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole [ed.]). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed: July 2008. Available at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/031 Wiggins, D. 2004. Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus): a technical conservatio n assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Accessed: January 2009. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/shortearedowl.pdf Wiggins, D.A., D.W. Holt and S.M. Leasure. 2006. Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole [ed.]). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed: December 15, 2008. Available at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/062

2010 Page 6-37

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Appendix A: Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping-based Modelling Data

Appendix A Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping-based Modelling Data

Habitat ratings tables, model flowcharts, sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance reductions are included as Excel files on the accompanying CD.

2010 Page A-1