Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP Suite 2500, TransCanada Tower 450 – 1st Street S.W. Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 5H1 403.260.7000 MAIN 403.260.7024 FACSIMILE

Calgary November 26, 2020 Martin Ignasiak

Toronto Our Matter Number: 1167150

Montréal SENT BY ELECTRONIC MAIL

Ottawa Grassy Mountain Coal Project Joint Review Panel Impact Assessment Agency Vancouver 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor

New York Place Bell Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3

Attention: Alex Bolton, Chair, Joint Review Panel

Dear Mr. Bolton:

Re: Benga Mining Limited (“Benga”) Grassy Mountain Coal Project (“Project”) CEAA Reference No. 80101 Response to Undertakings #24 and #25

We write to provide Benga’s response to undertakings #24 and #25, given in the public hearing for the above noted Project.

Undertaking #24

Undertaking #24: Confirm whether any confidentiality restrictions apply to the report regarding the expansion of the Yellowhead Tower Mine, referenced by Mr. John Kansas in cross-examination on November 25, 2020, and if there are no restrictions, provide a copy of the report.

Benga’s Response: Attached at Appendix “A” is a copy of the report referenced by Mr. Kansas, titled “Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project: Ungulate, Small Mammal, Avifauna, Amphibian Assessment”.

Status: Complete

Undertaking #25

Undertaking #25: Provide literature regarding the success of bat boxes utilized for maternity roosting.

Benga’s Response: Attached at Appendix “B” is the following paper: Niels Rueegger, “Bat boxes — a review of their use and application, past, present and future” (2016), 18(1) Acta Chiropterologica 279. Further reference to the use of bat boxes for the Little Brown

LEGAL_CAL:15115031.2

Myotis, specifically, is made in the Recovery Strategy for the Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus), the Northern Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis), and the Tri-colored Bat (Perimyotis subflavus) in Canada (2018), located on the record at CIAR 904 (PDF 30 and 46).

Status: Complete

Conclusion

We assume the above responses satisfy the undertakings given.

Yours truly,

Martin Ignasiak

cc. Gary Houston Mike Bartlett

LEGAL_CAL:15115031.2

Appendix “A”

LEGAL_CAL:15115031.2

Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project: Ungulate, Small Mammal, Avifauna, Amphibian Assessment

February 2008

Prepared by Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. 176 Moberly Dr. Hinton AB T7V 1Z1

Prepared for Coal Valley Resources Inc. Bag Service 5000 Edson, AB T7E 1W1

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 i

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the results of an environmental and cumulative impact assessment of a proposed mine extension by Coal Valley Resources Inc. on ungulates, small mammals, avifauna and amphibians. The Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project (MW-YT Mine Extension Project) is located near Robb, Alberta and involves two Principle Development Areas (PDAs) and an adjoining walk road. A Regional Study Area (RSA) has also been identified which includes seven Bear Management Units (BMUs) defined by the Foothills Model Forest Grizzly Bear project. The MW-YT mine permit boundary encloses a 3,546 ha local study area (LSA). Mercoal West (MW) is almost twice as large (3,546 ha) as Yellowhead Tower and the walk road (1,872 ha). Various wildlife inventories were carried out on the MW and YT LSA between 2004 and 2007. Previous inventories undertaken on the reclaimed part of Coal Valley Mine (Bighorn 1995 and 1999) were updated by means of aerial ungulate survey, breeding bird survey, amphibian monitoring and a monthly ground survey conducted April 2006 to March 2007.

MW is dominated by Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / Labrador Tea (38%) and various fen (19%) habitats. YT is dominated by Lodgepole Pine / Tall Bilberry (30%), and Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / Labrador Tea (18%) habitats. Mixed wood habitats comprise about 10% of the YT but were barely represented in MW (1%). Cutblocks in various types of pine habitat represented about 16% of MW but were not present in YT. Hard surface right-of-ways comprised 4.0% and 1.7% of YT and MW respectively. Mixed wood habitats are a feature of the Lovett Ridge on which parts of the operating the Coal Valley Mine and proposed YT are located. The Lovett Ridge supports populations of moose, elk and deer at higher densities than the surrounding coniferous forest (Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1990).

Elk were the most abundant ungulate (133) observed during a January 2007 aerial survey of the MW-YT and the Coal Valley Mine area, followed by white-tailed deer (110), moose (64), and mule deer (9). Survey results indicate that elk numbers have not increased since 1996/97, moose numbers have declined, mule deer numbers are lower and white-tailed deer numbers have substantially increased.

Elk distribution in 2007 was largely restricted to the Coal Valley Mine. They were not found scattered through the mixed wood habitats of the Lovett Ridge as in 1996/97. Moose bull:100 cow and calf:100 cow ratios were extremely low (9 bull:100 cow and 7 calf:100 cow). Low calf moose numbers are generally attributed to wolf predation, lack of forage, increased access leading to increased hunting and die-off related to ticks. Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division reported a significant decline in the moose population in WMU340 between 1996 and 2004 resulting in a 50% decrease in the eight years. Increased road access that enhances regulated and unregulated hunting opportunities, an overestimate of the moose population for several years resulting in too high bull harvest goals, and a more accurate survey in 2004 over 1996 were cited as reasons for the decline (Ficht and Smith 2004). Decreased numbers of mule deer observed during the annual ground survey of the Coal Valley Mine in 2007 as compared to 1997 suggests a drop in mule deer numbers since 1997. White-tailed deer numbers have increased on the Lovett Ridge, and in west-central Alberta.

Pellet-group surveys indicated that two habitats (Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / Labrador Tea and Lodgepole Pine / Tall Bilberry) comprising 50% of the disturbed area of the MW-YT LSA were used at levels less than availability by moose, elk and deer. Ungulates showed preference Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 iii for a variety of forest community types that comprised 29% of the area to be disturbed in the LSA. These were: Mixed Wood / Hairy Wild Rye (elk, moose, deer), Mixed Wood / Tall Bilberry (elk and deer), Trembling Aspen / Hairy Wild Rye (moose and deer), Lodgepole Pine / Hairy Wild Rye (elk and moose), Black & White Spruce / Labrador Tea (moose), Black & White Spruce-Lodgepole Pine / Bracted Honeysuckle (deer), White Spruce / Tall Bilberry (deer) and Treed Rich Fen (moose).

Total species identified in the RSA, MW LSA, YT LSA, and the reclaimed Coal Valley Mine (CV Mine) are: • RSA = 244 species (5 ungulates, 29 small mammals, 205 birds, 4 amphibians) • CV Mine = 162 species (5 ungulates, 12 small mammals, 142 birds, 3 amphibians) • YT LSA = 87 species (3 ungulates, 10 small mammals, 72 birds, 2 amphibians) • MW LSA = 71 species (4 ungulates, 9 small mammals, 56 birds, 2 amphibians)

Elk, moose, mule deer, white-tailed deer, small mammals, breeding birds, raptors, and amphibians were identified as Valued Environmental Components. Initial displacement of the existing wildlife community on the MW-YT LSA by active mining will be followed quickly by colonization of species appropriate to the stage of succession reached by the regenerated plant community. Wildlife species composition will be similar, but changed, in response to the addition of lakes, ponds and other habitat features into the final landscape. Species composition of the wildlife communities will change over time in response to vegetation development and maturation. Because the MW-YT development is relatively narrow and small in area, species representative of the initially undisturbed habitats are expected to continue to be represented in the final landscape. Designing complexity into the landscape (lakes, ponds, wetlands, variety in vegetation communities and topography) will support wildlife diversity.

With mitigation, including reclamation and monitoring, there were no significant impacts for the MW-YT Mine Extension Project on ungulates, small mammals, breeding birds, raptors, and amphibians. The residual impact ratings assume: human recreation and access is managed to provide security for wildlife especially in the vicinity of the Lovett Ridge, diverse habitat types are established, structural complexity is established in reclaimed forest types, deciduous shrubs are incorporated into the reclaimed landscape, and industrial development in the region promotes best management practices that ensure long term viable wildlife populations.

Cumulative effects assessment (CEA) was carried out for elk, moose, and terrestrial avifauna in the RSA (Figure 1.1). The RSA encompasses approximately 2,658.5 km. The CEA is based on a land class map (LC20 RSA) developed by Geographic Dynamics Corporation (2007). Development features in the RSA were identified (e.g., pipelines, wellsites, roads) and the 20 land classes were modified to predict changing conditions caused by mining, forest harvesting, mountain pine beetle, and climate change, for 10, 25 and 50 years (Section 5.1.4.3, GDC 2007).

The MW-YT Mine Extension Project will increase regional elk habitat suitability for winter forage by year 10 at which time elk are expected to colonize this new habitat resulting in a potential increase in the regional elk population. More use of the YT LSA by elk is expected than of the MW LSA because of habitat limitations. Once reclamation is complete, this effect should last 25-50 years at which time, large areas of reclamation on the current and future Coal Valley Mine operations and on the MW-YT LSA become closed forest regeneration. At Year 50, elk habitat suitability will be reduced by 10% without MW-YT and 11% with MW-YT. Implementing appropriate mitigation for elk (Section 12.2) including establishing a variety of vegetation Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 iv communities (upland grassland, shrublands, mixed wood, coniferous forest) and promoting understorey complexity in regenerated forests (Section 12.2) will moderate this effect and maintain higher quality of habitat for elk in the future.

The reduced distribution of elk between 1997 and 2007 however, may be indicative of a lack of security for elk caused by various regional industrial developments and recreation pressure. Consideration should be given to maintaining the mineral surface lease on the Coal Valley Mine on the Lovett Ridge Zone 2 while MW-YT is active to provide some level of security for regional elk populations. The issue of how increased access and the nature of human use of the RSA affect elk numbers and distribution needs to be better understood. Elk in the RSA may be particularly vulnerable to human disturbance because their habitat is largely restricted to the Lovett Ridge and major river valleys. Given the importance of the Lovett Ridge to elk and their need for security, a review of the resource objectives for the Robb Highlands Resource Management Area with the purpose of achieving its wildlife objectives for elk is recommended.

The MW-YT Mine Extension Project will result in a 2.1% decrease in moose habitat suitability by year 10. By Year 50 habitat suitability for moose in the RSA will decrease by 1.6% without MW- YT and 1.8% with MW-YT; an insignificant effect. Large amounts of moderate quality moose habitat is available throughout the RSA for moose thereby moderating the affect of habitat change caused by mining and other developments. High quality moose habitat on the YT LSA and other areas associated with mixed wood of the Lovett Ridge will be reclaimed with a closed forest regeneration forest of lesser habitat quality (Figure 13.8 and 13.11). Implementing appropriate mitigation for moose (Section 12.2) including establishing a variety of vegetation communities, and promoting understorey complexity in regenerated forests that includes willow species (Section 12.2) will moderate this effect and maintain higher quality of habitat for moose in the future.

A regional level focus on management activities may be needed, particularly regarding increased access in the vicinity of the Lovett Ridge and how overall human use of the RSA has affected elk and moose populations. This may include regular regional assessments of all activities at pre-established intervals or in response to large natural disturbances, e.g., fire, pine beetle invasion, or in response to novel landscape level industrial, recreation or other human use development.

Fourteen bird species in the MW-YT LSA are identified as Sensitive by ASRD (2005) and five bird species in the RSA appear on the COSEWIC list. These 19 species were used to discuss potential cumulative effects on birds at the regional scale. All birds in the MW-YT LSA were listed as secure by CESCC (2006) and no birds were listed by COSEWIC.

Effects of the MW-YT Mine Extension Project on birds are local, reversible and considered insignificant; cumulative effects are not anticipated. Assuming successful mitigation for other industrial impacts, the coordination of disturbance caused by mining and forest harvesting to mitigate impacts on wildlife, and the implementation of land and resource management planning in the RSA, it is expected that no significant negative effects on birds from a cumulative effects perspective will occur within the RSA and any residual effects will be of a minor magnitude.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many professionals worked on this inventory and assessment. Beth MacCallum, Barry Godsalve, Rainer Ebel, Conor Johnson, Illo Harpe, Melissa Parker, and Dean Woods carried out the wildlife inventory consisting of winter aerial survey, winter track counts, owl survey, woodpecker survey, pellet-group counts, breeding bird survey, small mammal trapping, bat survey, raptor migration survey and systematic ground counts. Andrew Godsalve assisted with owl surveys, pellet-group counts and small mammal trapping. Bill Weimann of the Royal Alberta Museum verified small mammal identification.

Kirby Smith provided Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division aerial survey reports as well as valuable personal communication. Lisa Wilkinson, Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division provided data from FWMIS. Dave Hobson, Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division provided bat survey data from the Cadomin Cave. Bill Wishart, Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division (Emeritus) made relevant comments on moose calf numbers. John Frank provided helpful comments on wolf numbers. The Whisky-jack Club made available their observations of raptors from the Yellowhead fire tower from the fall of 2007. West Fraser Mills Ltd. provided recent information on traffic use of the Robb Road and assessments of campground use in the regional study area. Lindsay Thompson, Dennis Robson, and Dean Woods helped classify human use of the regional study area. Rich Ashton provided base mapping for the classification of human use of linear features and compiled the final maps. John Beckingham, Sharlene Becker and Kevin Kemball, Geographic Dynamics Corporation, provided excellent information on vegetation prominence values, ecosite phase, and land cover mapping and were available to discuss interpretation and results of their work. Barry Godsalve provided GIS support for the report and conducted the modeling exercises for moose and elk.

This report was prepared by Beth MacCallum, P.Biol., Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd., Hinton, AB. She was assisted by Barry Godsalve, Rainer Ebel, and Erin Geymonat. Report Printed February 18, 2008.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Terms of Reference 2

2.0 Project Background 6

2.1 Data Sources 6

2.2 Public Policy and Management 6 2.2.1 Northern East Slope Strategy 6 2.2.2 The Coal Branch Sub-Regional Integrated Resource Plan 6 2.2.3 Alberta Fish and Wildlife Guidelines for Land Use Activities 9 2.2.4 Hunting Management 9 2.2.5 Watchable Wildlife 11

3.0 METHODS 12

3.1 Ungulates 12 3.1.1 Winter Ungulate Aerial Survey 12 3.1.2 Pellet-Group Counts 12 3.1.3 Winter Snow-Tracking Surveys 12

3.2 Small Mammals 13 3.2.1 Small Mammal Trapping 13

3.3 Bird Surveys 14 3.3.1 Breeding Passerines 14 3.3.2 Winter Resident Passerines and Woodpeckers 15 3.3.3 Nocturnal Owl Monitoring 16 3.3.4 Fall Migration 16 3.3.5 Incidental Observation 16

3.4 Amphibian Survey 17

3.5 Biodiversity 17

4.0 HABITAT 19

4.1 RSA Habitat Effectiveness 23

5.0 UNGULATES 24

5.1 Elk 26 5.1.1 Abundance 26 5.1.2 Distribution 27 5.1.3 Habitat 27 5.1.4 Harvest 27 Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 vii

5.2 Moose 30 5.2.1 Abundance 30 5.2.2 Distribution 30 5.2.3 Habitat 31 5.2.4 Harvest 31

5.3 Mule Deer 33 5.3.1 Abundance 33 5.3.2 Distribution 33 5.3.3 Habitat 33 5.3.4 Harvest 34

5.4 White-tailed deer 35 5.4.1 Abundance 35 5.4.2 Distribution 35 5.4.3 Habitat 35 5.4.4 Harvest 35

5.6 Mineral Licks 37

5.7 Movement Patterns 37

6.0 SMALL MAMMALS 39

6.1 Shrews and Cricetid Rodents 39 6.1.1 Abundance 39 6.1.2 Small Mammal Communities if Mercoal West and 40 Yellowhead Tower 6.1.3 Regional Distribution and Biodiversity of Small Mammals 43

6.2 Bats 45

6.3 Snowshoe Hare 45

6.4 Squirrels, Muskrats, Beaver and Porcupine 47 6.4.1 Squirrels 47 6.4.2 Least Chipmunk 47 6.4.3 Muskrat 47 6.4.4 American Beaver 47 6.4.5 Porcupine 47

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 viii

7.0 AVIFAUNA 48

7.1 Breeding Birds (Perching birds, Waterfowl, Cranes, Rails, 48 and Allies, Shorebirds, Gulls, Auks, Fowl-like birds and Woodpeckers and Allies) 7.1.1 Classification and Distribution 48 7.1.2 Breeding Bird Abundance 49 7.1.3 Winter Resident Passerines and Woodpeckers 49 7.1.4 Breeding Bird Diversity 52 7.1.5 Bird Use of Habitat 55

7.2 Raptors 63 7.2.1 Diurnal Raptors 63 7.2.2 Nocturnal Raptors 66

8.0 AMPHIBIANS 68

8.1 Wood Frog 68

8.2 Western Toad 68

8.3 Boreal Chorus Frog 68

9.0 BIODIVERSITY 70

9.1 Species Biodiversity 70 9.1.1 Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower RSA 70 9.1.2 Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower LSA 71 9.1.3 Coal Valley Mine 71

9.2 Species Status Summary 72 9.2.1 Amphibians 72 9.2.2 Avifauna 72 9.2.3 Ungulates and Small Mammals 73

10.0 TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE 84

11.0 CLIMATE CHANGE 84

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 ix

12.0 MERCOAL WEST and YELLOWHEAD TOWER MINE EXTENSION 86 PROJECT, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

12.1 Industrial Impacts on Wildlife 86 12.1.1 Ungulates 87 12.1.2 Small Mammals 89 12.1.3 Breeding Birds (Perching birds, Waterfowl, Cranes, Rails, 89 and Allies, Shorebirds, Gulls, Auks, Fowl-like birds and Woodpeckers and Allies) 12.1.4 Raptors 91 12.1.5 Amphibians 92

12.2 Mitigation of Impacts on Wildlife 92

12.3 Net Impact 96

13.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT 102

13.1 Methods 102 13.1.1 Land Cover Map (LC20 RAS) 102 13.1.2 Human Disturbance Projection 103

13.2 Cumulative Effects Assessment for Elk 103 13.2.1 Predicted Change in Elk Habitat 104

13.3 Cumulative Effects Assessment for Moose 107 13.3.1 Predicted Change In Moose Habitat 107

13.4 Avifauna 110 13.4.1 Northern Harrier 110 13.4.2 Golden Eagle 112 13.4.3 Bald Eagle 113 13.4.4 Northern Goshawk 113 13.4.5 Broad-winged Hawk 114 13.4.6 Sandhill Crane 114 13.4.7 Barred Owl 115 13.4.8 Great Gray Owl 115 13.4.9 Northern Pygmy-Owl 116 13.4.10 Pileated Woodpecker 116 13.4.11 Barn Swallow 117 13.4.12 Brown Creeper 118 13.4.13 Black-throated Green Warbler 118 13.4.14 Common Yellowthroat 119 13.4.15 Yellow Rail 119 13.4.16 Common Nighthawk 119

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 x

13.4.17 Loggerhead Shrike 120 13.4.18 Olive-sided Flycatcher 120 13.4.19 Rusty Blackbird 121

13.5 Summary of Regional Effects on Birds 121 13.5.1 Mitigation 122

14.0 REFERENCES 125

APPENDIX l. Ungulate aerial survey results Coal Valley Mine 135 area, January 12 & 12, 2007.

APPENDIX II. Overwinter use by elk, moose and deer in 140 the Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project.

APPENDIX III. Check-list of the Birds of the Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower 143 Mine Extension Project.

APPENDIX lV. Habitat association and abundance of bird 150 species, Mercoal West LSA, 2004 breeding bird survey.

FIGURES 153

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Coal Valley Mining Expansion Environmental 4 Impact Assessment Terms of Reference, Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower, May 2007.

Table 2.1 Summary of hunting regulations for WMU 340, 10 WMU 437 and WMU 438

Table 3.1 Habitat type and number of small mammal trap 14 transects set in Mercoal West (2004) and Yellowhead Tower (2006).

Table 3.2 Wildlife Inventory activities for the Mercoal West 18 - Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project EIA and CEA.

Table 4.1 Relationship between ecosite designation and 20 habitat for the Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower LSA.

Table 4.2 Amount and composition of habitat Mercoal 21 West (MW) - Yellowhead Tower (YT) Mine Extension Project.

Table 4.3 Amount (ha) and percent of habitat disturbed by 22 the Mercoal West (MW) - Yellowhead Tower (YT) Mine Extension Project.

Table 5.1 Number of ungulates observed during the January 25 11 and 12, 2007 aerial survey of the Coal Valley Mine area.

Table 5.2 Summary results of the harmonic mean analysis 25 of ungulate distribution during the January 11, 2007 air survey, Coal Valley Mine area.

Table 5.3 Comparison of number of ungulates observed 25 during three ungulate aerial surveys flown in the Coal Valley area during the winters of 1996-97 and 2007.

Table 5.4 Summary of the total number of elk, moose, mule 26 deer and white-tailed deer harvested in WMU 340, 437 and 438 between 1985 and 2006.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 xii

Table 5.5 Ungulate use vs. availability of habitats measured 28 by pellet-group counts, Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower LSA, 2004, 2006 and 2007.

Table 5.6 Estimated total harvest results for bull and 29 (cow) elk from WMU 340, WMU 438 and WMU 437, 1985 - 2006

Table 5.7 Estimated total harvest for moose from WMU 340, 32 WMU 438 and 437, 1985-2006

Table 5.8 Estimated total harvest for mule deer WMU 340, 34 WMU 438 and WMU 437, 1985 - 2006

Table 5.9 Estimated total harvest for white-tailed deer for 36 WMU 340, WMU 438 and WMU 437, 1985 – 2006

Table 6.1 Relative abundance of small mammals (CE = # / 42 100 trap nights) per habitat, Mercoal West, June 29 - July 1 and September 14 - 16, 2004.

Table 6.2 Relative abundance of small mammals (CE = # / 42 100 trap nights) per habitat, Yellowhead Tower, July 5 -7 and September 12 - 14, 2006.

Table 6.3 The corrected catch effort (# / 100 TN) of small 44 mammal species from the Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower Regional Study Area, 1992 - 2006.

Table 6.4 Mean tracks/km-day indicating winter use by 46 squirrel and hare in the Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower Local Study Area (LSA), Mercoal West (MW) and Yellowhead Tower (YT), 2005 and 2006.

Table 7.1 Relative abundance of bird species located on the 50 Mercoal West (MW) - Yellowhead Tower (YT) Mine Extension Project.

Table 7.2 Relative abundance of bird species recorded 51 during the woodpecker survey on the Yellowhead Tower (YT) local study area (LSA), May 2006 and 2007.

Table 7.3 Bird species diversity (BSD) and relative 54 abundance (pairs/km²) per habitat, Mercoal West breeding bird survey, 2004.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 xiii

Table 7.4 Bird species diversity (BSD) and relative 54 abundance (pairs/km²) per habitat, Yellowhead Tower breeding bird survey, 2006.

Table 7.5 Use of 24 habitats by the 53 bird species recorded 56 during the breeding bird survey on Mercoal West (2004) and Yellowhead Tower (2006) 2006.

Table 8.1 Amphibians observed on the Mercoal West - 69 Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project and the Coal Valley Mine.

Table 9.1 Status and regional biodiversity for amphibians, 74 birds, ungulates and small mammals in the Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project, Regional Study Area (RSA).

Table 12.1 Amount of ungulate winter range and core area 88 (ha) disturbed by the Mercoal West (MW) - Yellowhead Tower (YT) Mine Extension Project.

Table 12.2 Determination of the significance of potential 98 effects of the proposed Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project on wildlife resources (ungulates, small mammals, breeding birds and raptors, amphibians).

Table 12.3 Summary of impact assessment criteria used for evaluating the 100 Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project.

Table 13.1 Land cover codes and classes for the regional 103 study area at baseline T0 and ungulate HSI values.

Table 13.2 Predicted changes to elk habitat without and with 105 the Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower (MW-YT) Mine Extension Project.

Table 13.3 Predicted changes to elk habitat from Time 0 105 (baseline) to year 50 without and with the Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower (MW-YT) Mine Extension Project.

Table 13.4 Predicted changes to moose habitat without and 108 with the Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower (MW- YT) Mine Extension Project.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 xiv

Table 13.5 Predicted changes to moose habitat from Time 0 108 (baseline) to Year 50 without and with the Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower (MW-YT) Mine Extension Project.

Table 13.6 Population trends for 14 sensitive bird species 111 (ASRD 2005) in the MW-YT LSA and 5 bird species listed by COSEWIC in the RSA.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 xv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 The location of the Mercoal West - Yellowhead 153 Tower Mine Extension Project and the Regional Study Area.

Figure 1.2. Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project 154 Regional Study Area 2005 Natural Regions and Subregions.

Figure 1.3 Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project Bear 155 Management Units (adapted from Stenhouse and Munroe 2007).

Figure 3.1 Flight lines for the January 12, 2007 ungulate air 156 survey, Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project.

Figure 3.2 The location of pellet-group transects in the 157 Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower Regional Study Area.

Figure 3.3 The location of breeding bird survey plots on the 158 Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project.

Figure 4.1 Wildlife habitat, Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower 159 Mine Extension Project.

Figure 4.2 Wildlife habitat distribution by the Mercoal West - 160 Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project.

Figure 4.3 Summer access ratings for linear disturbances in 161 the Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project and the Regional Study Area.

Figure 4.4 Winter access ratings for the linear disturbances in 162 the Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project and the Regional Study Area.

Figure 5.1 Distribution of elk in the Coal Valley Mine area 163 during the January 12, 2007 air survey.

Figure 5.2 Distribution of moose in the Coal Valley Mine area 164 during the January 12, 2007 air survey.

Figure 5.3 Distribution of mule deer in the Coal Valley Mine 165 area during the January 12, 2007 air survey.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 xvi

Figure 5.4 Distribution of white-tailed deer in the Coal Valley 166 Mine area during the January 12, 2007 air survey.

Figure 12.1 Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower Mine 167 Extension Project. End Land Use Plan.

Figure 12.2 CVRI - Yellowhead Tower. End Land Use Plan. 168

Figure 13.1 Elk HSI Year 0 without MW - YT. 169

Figure 13.2 Elk HSI Year 10 with MW - YT. 170

Figure 13.3 Elk HSI Year 25 with MW - YT. 171

Figure 13.4 Elk HSI Year 50 with MW - YT. 172

Figure 13.5 Elk HSI Year 10 without MW - YT. 173

Figure 13.6 Elk HSI Year 25 without MW - YT. 174

Figure 13.7 Elk HSI Year 50 without MW - YT. 175

Figure 13.8 Moose HSI Year 0 without MW - YT. 176

Figure 13.9 Moose HSI Year 10 with MW - YT. 177

Figure 13.10 Moose HSI Year 25 with MW - YT. 178

Figure 13.11 Moose HSI Year 50 with MW - YT. 179

Figure 13.12 Moose HSI Year 10 without MW - YT. 180

Figure 13.13 Moose HSI Year 25 without MW - YT. 181

Figure 13.14 Moose HSI Year 50 without MW - YT. 182

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 xvii Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project: Ungulates, Small Mammals, Avifauna, Amphibians Assessment

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Coal Valley Resources Inc. (CVRI) is proposing to develop the Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower leases adjacent to the existing Coal Valley Mine operation which has operated since 1978. CVRI plans to submit an environmental impact assessment and cumulative effects assessment to Alberta Environment in the first quarter of 2008. Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. is retained by CVRI to complete an assessment for ungulates, small mammals, avifauna and amphibians. The Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project (MW-YT Mine Extension Project) involves two Principle Development Areas (PDAs) and an adjoining walk road. A Regional Study Area (RSA) has also been identified (Figure 1.1). The following terms are used to denote the components of the project:

• Local Study Area (LSA)

This is the mine permit boundary that encloses the Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project and the dragline walk road that joins the two projects. It encloses 5,418 ha. Mercoal West (3,546 ha) is almost twice as large (89% larger) as Yellowhead Tower (1,872 ha). In this report the area required for the dragline walk road is included in the area for the Yellowhead Tower.

• Mercoal West (MW)

MW extends in a northwest direction from Hwy 40 in the vicinity of the former mining town of Mercoal. Mercoal is located 75 km southwest of Edson via Hwy 16, Hwy 47 and Hwy 40. MW consists of one coal seam (Val D’or) which begins northwest of Mercoal and extends to the McLeod River Valley. The mine permit boundary encloses 35.5 km² (3,546 ha) is approximately 18.9 km long and varies from 1.4 to 2.7 km in width. Mining and reclamation activities are planned to begin in 2009 and will continue until 2012. A haul road will connect the current Coal Valley Mine operation on Mercoal East to MW. The haul road will bypass Mercoal and will cross Hwy 40 and the CN rail line on the east side of Mercoal.

MW falls within the Upper Foothills Natural Region (Figure 1.2). Dominant vegetation consists of lodgepole pine-black spruce and lodgepole pine forests and various fen types. McCardell Creek drains the western portion of the MW lease. The eastern portion of the lease drains into Mercoal Creek.

• Yellowhead Tower (YT)

YT extends northwest from the former mining town of Coalspur at the junction of Chance Creek, Jackson Creek and the Erith River. The former mining town of Coalspur is located 65 km southwest of Edson via Hwy 16 and Hwy 47. YT consists of highly fractured multiple coal seams (Val D’or and Mynheer) running parallel to each other. The mine permit boundary encloses 18.74 km² (1,873 ha). This includes the area necessary for construction of a dragline walk road between MW and YT. YT is approximately 10 km long and 2.3 km wide. Mining in the YT will begin in 2009 with final reclamation completed within several years. A haul road will connect the current Coal Valley Mine operation in the West Extension (Pit 29) to the YT. The haul road crosses the Erith River and Hwy 47 south of Coalspur and north of the Coalspur Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 1 -

Provincial Recreation Area. The haul road crosses the CN rail line and Chance Creek on the west side of Coalspur where it joins the YT.

YT falls within the Upper Foothills Natural Region (Figure 1.2). Dominant vegetation consists of lodgepole pine, lodgepole pine-black spruce forests and lesser amounts of mixed wood forests. Chance Creek drains the west side of YT and flows into the Erith River at Coalspur on the southeast side of Hwy 47. Jackson Creek flows southeast through YT and joins the Erith River at Coalspur on the north side of Hwy 47.

• Yellowhead Tower Walk Road

This road is required to move two draglines (a Marion 7450 and a Page 752) from MW to YT. The walk road will only be operational for a short period of time. Construction would begin in late spring of 2009 with the dragline being moved between July and August of 2009. Reclamation will begin right away and should be completed by fall 2010. In this report the YT walk road is assessed with the YT mine extension project.

• Principle Development Area (PDA)

This is the area directly affected by development including mine and roads. The PDA is also called the disturbance footprint. The MW-YT Mine Extension Project will disturb approximately 1,343 ha, 532 of which will be in MW and 811 in YT. About 78.5 ha of the YT disturbance is comprised of the walk road. Development is planned to occur initially in MW followed by development of the YT. The MW pit disturbance will be approximately 16 km long and 0.3 km wide while the YT disturbance will be about 8.25 km long and 1.3 km wide.

• Regional Study Area (RSA)

This is the same as the cumulative effects assessment area. The RSA encompasses approximately 2,658.5 km² (265,846 ha) and is comprised of seven Bear Management Units (BMUs) defined by the Foothills Model Forest Grizzly Bear project (Stenhouse and Munroe 2002). The units are: McPherson, McLeod, Embarras, Lendrum, Beaverdam, Upper Pembina and Lower Pembina (Figure 1.3). Much of the area is zoned multiple use and supports a variety of commercial, industrial and recreation uses, i.e., trapping, timber harvest, oil and gas development and coal mining. Recreation activity includes camping, fishing, hiking, ATV use, horse riding, snowmobiling and berry picking (Jones 2006). Current and future vegetation land cover mapping of 20 classes (rsa_all2) is available for the RSA (Geographics Dynamics Corp. 2007).

1.1 Terms of Reference

The wildlife inventory and environmental impact assessment were carried out according to requirements specified under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (AEPEA). The terms of reference for wildlife for the proposed extension are taken from Alberta Environment (AENV) May 2007, Section 5.7 and 5.9 (Table 1.1).

The specific tasks established for this component of the wildlife assessment were:

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 2 - • Identify relative abundance, concentration areas, distribution patterns, and habitat associations of ungulates by means of winter aerial surveys, snow track-counts, and a spring pellet-browse survey.

• Identify small mammal, avian and amphibian presence, relative abundance and habitat association by means of snow track-counts, trapping small mammals, owl surveys, spring bird survey, breeding bird survey, migration survey, and amphibian survey.

• Compile a list of vertebrate species (excluding fishes) and identify their status as per the Committee on Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC 2006) and the General Status of Alberta Wild Species (ASRD 2005).

• Prepare a habitat map to identify the quantity and quality of habitat present in the Project Development Areas.

• Update wildlife use of the existing Coal Valley Mine by means of aerial survey, systematic monthly ground surveys, spring pellet-group counts, breeding bird survey and amphibian survey.

• Identify Valued Environmental Components for assessing the potential impact of the proposed development on ungulates, small mammals, birds and amphibians.

• Discuss biodiversity at the LSA and RSA scale

• Review Traditional Use Studies (TUS) prepared for CVRI from a wildlife perspective.

• Discuss climate change with respect to changes in the Boreal-Cordilleran ecoregion that may affect wildlife

• Evaluate the potential impacts of the Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower Extension Project within a temporal and spatial perspective that incorporates existing and future demands by other users and developments by conducting a quantitative cumulative effects assessment for elk.

For the purposes of this report the definition of wildlife was taken from the Wildlife Act: “wildlife means big game, birds of prey, fur-bearing animals, migratory game birds, non-game animals, non-licence animals and upland game birds, and includes any hybrid offspring resulting from the crossing of two wildlife animals”.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 3 -

Table 1.1. Coal Valley Mining Expansion Environmental Impact Assessment Terms of Reference, Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower, May 2007.

5.9 Wildlife

CVM shall describe existing wildlife resources (amphibians, reptiles, birds and terrestrial and aquatic mammals), and their use of habitats in the Study Area(s). Document the anticipated changes to wildlife in the Study Area(s). Specifically:

a) Document and describe wildlife in the Study Area(s) using recognized protocols to provide current information. Emphasis will be on “endangered” and “threatened” species listed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) and in the Alberta Wildlife Act (“species at risk” or “species that may be at risk”); b) Identify wildlife species composition, seasonal distribution and movement, relative abundance, habitat use and general life history in the Study Area(s); c) Discuss the criteria and selection process for wildlife indicator species used in the EIA report; d) Discuss and assess the potential impacts of the proposed Project on wildlife, wildlife habitat use, and habitat quality during the phases of mine operation and reclamation. Consider and describe habitat change as it relates to local and regional wildlife populations over the life of the project. Discuss potential cumulative effects of the proposed Project on wildlife in combination with other proposed, existing and approved developments in the Study Area(s); e) Identify wildlife studies that are being conducted in the Study Area(s) and discuss how CVM plans to integrate its mine operation and mitigation activities with these studies; f) Identify habitat enhancement projects that are present in the Study Area(s) and discuss the impact of the Project on these enhancement projects; and g) Provide a strategy to mitigate impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat as a result of mining operations, considering: i. A mitigation plan and a schedule of mitigation measures for wildlife and significant wildlife habitat areas through the life of the Project; ii. Consistency of the plan with applicable regional, provincial and federal wildlife habitat objectives and policies; iii. The need for access control and other management strategies to protect wildlife during the phases of mine operation and reclamation; and iv. Monitoring programs to assess impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat and the effectiveness of mitigation measures and reclamation for wildlife.

5.10 Biodiversity

CVM shall use the definition for biodiversity in the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy (1995), to determine the suite of target elements that will be used to assess biodiversity in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, that will be used to characterize the existing ecosystems and that will be used to represent broad taxonomic assemblages, and

a) Discuss the process and rationale used to select target elements for biodiversity; b) Within selected taxonomic groups, discuss the presence and abundance of species in each ecological type. Provide species lists and summaries of observed and estimated species richness and evenness for each ecological type; c) Rank each ecological unit for biodiversity potential by combining measures of species richness, overlap in species lists, significance of individual species or associations, uniqueness and other appropriate measures. Describe the techniques used in the ranking process;

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 4 -

d) Discuss the contribution of the Project to any anticipated changes in regional biodiversity, including measures to minimize such changes; e) Discuss pre- and post-topography, soil, and parent material conditions and their contribution to biodiversity; f) Provide a measure of biodiversity on baseline sites that are representative of the proposed reclamation ecotypes; g) Discuss how CVM’s plan for mitigation, reclamation and monitoring relates to “Sustaining Alberta’s Biodiversity, An Overview of Government of Alberta Initiatives Supporting the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy” (Alberta Environmental Protection 1998).

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 5 -

2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND

2.1 Data Sources

In addition to specific inventories carried out for this project, the following data sources were accessed: • Canadian Species at Risk (COSEWIC) http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/index_e.cfm • Canadian Bird Trends Web site (Downes and Collins 2007) http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/mgbc/trends/ • Wild Species 2005: The general status of species in Canada (CESCC 2006) http://www.wildspecies.ca/wildspecies2005/ • The general status of Alberta wild species 2005 (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2005) http://www.srd.alberta.ca/fishwildlife/wildspecies/ • Mammals of Alberta (Smith 1993) • Breeding bird atlas of Alberta update, a second look, Federation of Alberta Naturalists (FAN 2007) • Fish and Wildlife Management Information System (FWMIS, L. Wilkinson, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, pers. comm. July 9, 2007) • Traditional Use Studies/Consultation Briefing Notes for EIA Coal Valley Mine Extension (Lifeways 2007)

2.2 Public Policy and Management

This section provides a review of government planning framework and wildlife policy for the LSA.

2.2.1 Northern East Slope Strategy

The Northern East Slopes (NES) Strategy covers an area of about 7.7 million hectares of West- central Alberta. It includes Jasper National Park and the towns of Hinton, Robb, Edson, Mayerthorpe, Barrhead, Swan Hills, Whitecourt, Fox Creek and Grande Cache. The strategy (Draft) represents a coordinated strategic approach to regional sustainable development in this area that focusses on four themes: wise use of land, economic sustainability, conservation of biodiversity and air, water and soil conservation. A framework for conservation of biodiversity at the ecosystem, species and genetic levels was developed by the NES Regional Steering Group (Alberta Environment 2003:24).

The strategic direction for conserving biodiversity in the Northern East Slopes is to: “Manage landscapes and vegetation in the region based on a broad-scale ‘coarse filter’ approach that considers natural disturbance regimes to achieve biodiversity objectives.” and “Maintain landscape and watershed connectivity” (Alberta Environment 2003:130).

2.2.2 The Coal Branch Sub-Regional Integrated Resource Plan

The Coal Branch Sub-Regional Integrated Resource Plan (Alberta Forestry Lands and Wildlife 1990) indicates that 44% of the area of the YT falls within an area that is zoned Critical Wildlife or Zone 2 (Alberta Forestry Lands and Wildlife 1990). The remaining YT area falls within a Zone 5 (Multiple Use) that lies adjacent to the Zone 2 area. The YT Walk Road and MW are zoned Category 5 or multiple use. Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 6 -

The intent of the Critical Wildlife Zone is to protect specific fish and wildlife populations by protecting aquatic and terrestrial habitat crucial to the maintenance of those populations. Intensive recreation, commercial and industrial development, residential subdivisions and cultivation are not permitted uses in this zone. Coal exploration and development are classed as permitted uses (uses compatible with the intent of a land use zone under certain circumstances and under special conditions and controls where necessary).

The intent of the Category 5 multiple use zone is to provide for the management and development of the full range of available resources, while meeting long-term objectives for watershed management and environmental protection.

Habitat in the Coal Branch varies greatly. In the eastern part of the Coal Branch, coniferous forests and organic fens are dominant. The high level of interspersion of cover and forage allows for moderate-to-high densities of moose. The valleys of the McLeod, Pembina, and Cardinal Rivers provide riparian areas and associated river valleys that represent important habitat for elk, deer, moose and numerous non-game species of wildlife.

The Coal Branch Sub-Regional Integrated Resource Plan (Alberta Forestry Lands and Wildlife 1990) presents the Government of Alberta's resource management policy for public lands within the area in which the proposed Coal Valley Mine Extension is located. For the entire region of the Coal Branch, 10 objectives and eight guidelines pertaining to wildlife were listed: a) Wildlife Objectives for the Coal Branch:

1. To maintain the numbers, distribution and diversity of regionally significant wildlife species, and to increase numbers where projected public demand (for both consumptive and non-consumptive uses) exceeds current populations. 2. To maintain and/or increase the quality and quantity of suitable aquatic and terrestrial habitat required to support wildlife population at optimal densities. 3. To maintain, increase or reintroduce rare and threatened species, including peregrine falcon, trumpeter swan and long-toed salamander. 4. To ensure that populations of elk, moose and deer are maintained or increased. 5. To maintain viable, abundant and diverse populations of furbearers, and to maintain a mosaic of habitat types. 6. To maintain existing populations of upland game birds. 7. To maintain the bighorn sheep population slightly below the carrying capacity (650-725 animals) of the range through non-trophy and trophy sheep harvests. To protect and improve sheep habitat (areas above 1,700 masl [5,577 ft]). 8. To maintain available habitat for mountain goats to increase populations, using the area on a seasonal basis, and to re-establish herds on historic range. 9. To maintain existing populations of non-game species of wildlife. 10. To continue the present wolf management approach (e.g. trapping, kill if problem wildlife situation). b) Wildlife Guidelines for the Coal Branch: 1. A diversity of habitat types will be maintained to support a variety of wildlife species (including non-game and furbearers). This will be achieved through the Fish and Wildlife Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 7 -

Division's input into a development plan and through Fish and Wildlife enhancement programs. 2. A mosaic of forest cover and forage areas will be maintained to help increase ungulate populations. This will be achieved through the Fish and Wildlife Division's recommendations in logging plans, range improvement programs on public land and habitat enhancement programs. 3. Hunting seasons will be adjusted to meet wildlife population objectives. 4. Disturbance of wildlife population during sensitive time periods will be minimized. 5. Disturbance of wildlife will be reduced by managing off-highway vehicle access and controlling hunting activities. 6. Regulation of animal densities will occur primarily by recreational and Treaty Indian hunting and commercial trapping. 7. Late winter disturbance in critical overwintering areas designated as Zone 2, will be kept to a minimum, especially during winters with deep snow and cold temperatures. 8. Closure of new access resulting from development work will be an integral part of industrial development in important wildlife areas.

The Coal Branch planning area contains a wide diversity of wildlife species and habitat types and is subdivided into eight Resource Management Areas (RMAs). The Coal Valley Mine Extension falls within the Robb Highlands Resource Management Area, an area of approximately 2,212 km². The management intent for this RMA is to provide for a range of multiple use activities while recognizing the area’s resource values. c) Wildlife Objectives for the Robb Highlands Resource Management Area:

A diversity of wildlife habitat exists in this RMA. The deciduous and coniferous forest cover, as well as the willow-alder habitat found along the Lovett Ridge complex, support populations of moose, elk and deer much higher than those found in surrounding areas and is productive for a diversity of breeding birds. Outside the ridge complex, several minor watercourses such as the Erith River, Lendrum and Halpenny Creek drainages provide good ungulate habitat and are connected to the Lovett Ridge complex. Hunting is an important recreation activity in the RMA.

Wildlife objectives and guidelines for this RMA are (Alberta Forestry Lands and Wildlife 1990:42):

Objectives: 1. To increase the elk population from 100 to 300 animals, with half the increase to occur in Zone 2 areas. 2. To maintain moose densities of 0.6/km2 in the Beaverdam Creek [Zone 2 area] and Lovett Ridge [Zone 2 area], and to increase moose densities from 0.3/km2 to 0.5/km2 outside Zone 2. 3. To provide for a general increase in the mule deer population.

Guidelines: 1. Escaped/abandoned horses will be controlled to limit competition with elk. 2. Horse grazing in the critical elk wintering range will be managed so as to maximize forage production for elk.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 8 -

2.2.3 Alberta Fish and Wildlife Guidelines for Land Use Activities

Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division developed a set of guidelines for industrial activities for the conservation and protection of wildlife populations and habitats that are applicable to west- central Alberta (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2005). The guidelines are not intended to conflict with any existing agreement between the government and any industrial stakeholder. Most of the YT (44%) falls within lands zoned as Class C - Key wildlife and watercourse. This wildlife zone is a combination of critical wildlife habitat from both uplands and major watercourse valleys. The intent of this zone is to:

• protect regionally-significant wildlife movement corridors; • protect areas with rich habitat diversity and regionally-significant habitat types; • protect critical hiding and thermal cover for ungulates; and • protect the complex structure and processes of riparian areas.

To achieve the above goals, guidelines for industrial activities in this zone aim to (in order of priority) prevent loss and fragmentation of habitat; prevent long-term all-weather vehicle access; prevent sensory disturbance during periods of thermal or nutritional stress on wildlife; and prevent the development of barriers to wildlife corridors, e.g., stream crossings (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2005).

2.2.4 Hunting Management

The major consumptive uses of wildlife in the Coal Branch planning area are trapping, and hunting of elk, moose, bighorn sheep and deer. Big game hunters from across the province as well as non-residents hunt in the Coal Branch. Native hunting of wildlife is a significant activity in the area. It is carried out by residents of the area as well as Treaty Indians from other parts of Alberta.

The Coal Valley Mine falls within two wildlife management units (WMU’s): WMU 340 and WMU 437. WMU 340 is situated east of Highway 40 and is comprised of 2,582 km². WMU 437 is located west of Highway 40 and is 1,087 km² in size. A summary of regulations for these WMU’s are listed in Table 2.1.

MW falls within WMU 438. A small part of the east end of the mine permit boundary crosses Hwy 40 to allow the haulroad to connect to current mining operations in the Mercoal East Block. This part of MW falls within WMU 437.

The YT falls within WMU 438. A small part of the east end of the mine permit boundary crosses Hwy 40 to allow the haulroad to connect to current mining operations in Pit 29 on the West Extension. This part falls within WMU 437. A private road runs north-south through the YT LSA. A sign at the south end of the road reads: “Petro Canada Oil & Gas. Private road. Public use of this road is at your own risk. No Hunting within 300 meters of roads or wellsites. Commercial users require road use permit. Contact Hanlan Robb Plant Ph: 780-764-8400”.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 9 -

Table 2.1. Summary of hunting regulations for WMU 340, WMU 437 and WMU 438 (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2007).

Big Game Archery Seasons

White-tailed Deer 340: Antlered & Antlerless (Aug 25 - Sept 16) 437: Antlered & Antlerless (Aug 25 - Sept 16) 438: Antlered & Antlerless (Aug 25 - Sept 16)

Mule Deer 340: Antlered (Aug 25 - Sept 16) 437: Antlered (Aug 25 - Sept 16) 438: Antlered (Aug 25 - Sept 16)

Moose 340: Antlered (Aug 25 - Sept 23) 437: Antlered (Aug 25 - Sept 23) 438: Antlered (Aug 25 - Sept 23)

Elk 340: Antlered (≥3 pt) & Antlerless: (Aug 25 - Sept 16) 437: Antlered (≥6 pt): (Aug 25 - Sept 16) 438: Antlered (≥6 pt): (Aug 25 - Sept 16) 438: Antlerless (Aug 25 - Sept 16)

Black Bear 340: Fall 2007 (Aug 25 - Sept 16) 437: Fall 2007 (Aug 25 - Sept 4) 438: Fall 2007 (Aug 25 - Sept 4)

Big Game General Seasons

White-tailed Deer 340: Antlered and Antlerless (Sept 17 - Nov 30) 437: Antlered and Antlerless (Sept 17 - Nov 30) 438: Antlered and Antlerless: (Sept 17 - Nov 30)

Mule Deer 340: Antlered (Sept 17 - Nov 30)

Elk 340: Antlered (≥3 pt) (Sept 17 - Nov 30) 437:Antlered (≥6 pt) (Sept 17 - Nov 30) 438: Antlered (≥6 pt) (Sept 17 - Nov 30)

Trophy Sheep 438: (Aug 25 - Oct 31)

Black Bear 340: Fall 2007 (Sept 17 - Nov 30) 340: Spring 2008 (Apr 1 - May 31) 437: Fall 2007 (Sept 5 - Nov 30) 437: Spring 2008 (Apr 17 - July 5) 438: Fall 2007 (Sept 5 - Nov 30) 438: Spring 2008 (Apr 17 - July 5)

Cougar 340: (Dec 1 - Feb 28) 437: (Dec 1 - Feb 28) 438: (Dec 1 - Feb 28)

Additional Special License and Authorization Draw Hunts

Mule Deer 437: Antlered (Sept 17 - Nov 30) 438: Antlered (Sept 17 - Nov 30)

Moose 340: Antlered (Sept 24-Oct 31) (Nov 1 - Nov 30) 437 Antlered: (Sept 24 - Nov 30) Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 10 -

438 Antlered: (Sept 24 - Nov 30) Elk 340: Antlerless (Sept 17 - Dec 20) 438: Antlerless (Sept 17 - Nov 30)

Trophy Sheep 437: (Aug 25 - Sep 23) (Sept 24 - Oct 31) 438: (Nov 1 - Nov 10) (Nov 11 - Nov20), (Nov 21 - Nov 30) 438: Non-resident and Non-resident Alien (Sept 1 - Oct 15)

Game Bird Seasons

Ruffed & Spruce Grouse 340: Sept 15 - Nov 30 437: Sept 1 - Nov 30 438: Sept 1 - Nov 30

Blue Grouse 340: Sept 15 - Nov 30 437: Sept 1 - Nov 30 438: Sept 1 - Nov 30

Sharp-tailed Grouse 340: Oct 1 - Nov 15

Gray Partridge 340: Sept 15 - Nov 30

Ptarmigan 437: Sept 1 - Nov 30 438: Sept 1 - Nov 30

Ducks, Coots, Common Snipe 340: Sept 1 - Dec 16 437: Sept 1 - Dec 16 438: Sept 1 - Dec 16

White-fronted & Canada Geese 340: Sept 1 - Dec 16 437: Sept 1 - Dec 16 438: Sept 1 - Dec 16

Snow & Ross’ Geese 340: Sept 1 - Dec 16 437: Sept 1 - Dec 16 438: Sept 1 - Dec 16

2.2.5 Watchable Wildlife

Non-consumptive uses, such as viewing and photography, are popular in the Coal Branch, mainly in association with hiking, equestrian trail riding and camping. No specific sites within the mountain/foothills region of Alberta’s Watchable Wildlife Program (Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1990) were identified within the MW-YT Mine Extension Project. The Whisky-jack Club ([email protected]) initiated an annual fall hawk watch program in the fall of 2007 from the base of the Yellowhead fire tower located north of the YT LSA.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 11 -

3.0 METHODS

3.1 Ungulates

3.1.1 Winter Ungulate Aerial Survey

To identify relative abundance, concentration areas, distribution patterns and habitat associations of ungulates during the winter, a systematic air survey using a Jet Ranger Bell 206 was conducted on January 11 & 12, 2007. The study area included the MW-YT LSA as well as the existing Coal Valley Mine operations and the future Robb Trend development (Figure 3.1). The survey was conducted when weather, visibility and snow conditions were excellent in order to control for bias due to variable conditions. Visibility bias can result in one third or more of the animals missed (Samuel 1992). The magnitude of visibility bias depends on animal behaviour and dispersion, observers, weather, habitat, equipment and methods. In this survey, standardized procedures were adopted in an effort to minimize bias, and maintain consistent sampling procedures.

A series of parallel lines placed parallel to the length of the MW-YT LSA and spaced approximately 0.8 km apart were flown to achieve 50% coverage of the study area. Survey speed was between 90 and 140 km/hr, and height was between 30 and 45 meters above the ground. The survey was conducted with a pilot, navigator/recorder and two observers. When concentrations of animals, tracks or craters in the snow were found, they were circled to increase survey efficiency. Species, number of animals and age/sex class (where possible) and habitat associated was recorded (Appendix I). Coordinates of each checkpoint (observation locations) were identified by GPS and by manually plotting on an orthorectified satellite image of the study area. Subsequent mapping was performed with Program Home Range (Ackerman 1989) and MAPINFO.

3.1.2 Pellet-Group Counts

Pellet-group counts were conducted to provide a measure of relative abundance for over wintering ungulates in the LSA and RSA (Figure 3.2). A line intercept method using 500 m long transects was designed to survey representative habitats. Techniques follow Neff (1968), British Columbia MELP (1998) and Bighorn Environmental Design Ltd. (1999). A walking survey of each transect was conducted in early spring 2004, 2006 and 2007 after snow melt and prior to greenup (April - May). All pellet-groups that occurred within one meter of either side of the 500 m transect were counted and identified to species (moose, elk, deer) and season of deposition. Each transect represented a 1,000 m² quadrat. Mean pellet-group density was calculated to generate a relative index of cumulative winter use of each habitat by ungulate species (British Columbia MELP 1998:31). A use/availability analysis was used to determine habitat preference.

3.1.3 Winter Snow-Tracking Surveys

The relative abundance and habitat association of ungulates, rodents, lagomorphs and carnivores were determined by winter snow-tracking techniques (Hatler and Mahon 1994). To generate an index of relative abundance, transects 500 m in length were established in representative habitats. Transects were placed 50 m from the edge of the habitat to eliminate any potential edge effect and all tracks intersecting transects were recorded at 100 m intervals. Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 12 -

All tracks intersecting transects were counted as one track. Multiple crossings of red squirrels and hare are identified individually up to three tracks, then identified as trails and arbitrarily assigned five individual tracks. Tracks of least weasel, short-tailed weasel and long-tailed weasel were identified separately when possible. Ungulate or carnivore tracks that were parallel to transects were counted as one track. Small rodents were separated to mice, voles and shrews. The animal activity for each track was recorded.

Track counts were conducted 24 to 48 hours after a snowfall to allow time for animals to move around. Weather and snow conditions (temperature, cloud, wind, snow depth) for each transect was recorded as well as the time since the last snowfall. Vegetation cover was recorded for each 100 m interval. The number of tracks of each species was used to generate an indirect index of wildlife activity for each habitat (tracks/km day). It is assumed that activity is related to abundance where the relation of track counts to abundance improves under “ideal” tracking conditions. It is assumed that the index is positively related to activity and differences in the index between habitats represents a relative difference in activity, e.g., if foraging activity or activity related to shelter requirement increases or decreases, then the index of activity will increase or decrease. It is assumed that absence is evidence, i.e., index = 0 and increases with increasing activity.

3.2 Small Mammals

Information on small mammals was compiled from small mammal trapping (shrews and cricetid rodents) and winter track-counts, i.e., snowshoe hare, squirrel. Observations of other small mammals were made incidental to other wildlife work.

3.2.1 Small Mammal Trapping

Relative numbers of cricetid rodents and shrews were sampled by using snap-traps (Holroyd and Van Tighem 1983:37) placed in five habitats in MW and nine habitats in Yellowhead Tower (Table 3.1). Two trapping sessions were conducted on MW: • June 29-July 1, 2004 (T1-T6), and • September 14-16, 2004 (T7-T12).

Two trapping sessions were conducted on YT: • July 5-7, 2006 (T1-T6), and • September 12-14, 2006 (T7-T12).

For each trapping session six traplines 250 m in length were established and two baited traps were set every 10 m along the transect for a total of 50 traps. In addition, three snap traps per line were established at 80, 160 and 240 m to replace the use of pitfall traps which are no longer permitted by the Provincial Animal Care Committee. The additional three snap traps ensure that trapping effort is comparable to previous small mammal studies when pitfall traps were used. Each trapline was run for three consecutive nights and checked once daily. The total number of trap nights (TN) on MW was 1,908 (2 sessions x 6 lines x 53 traps x 3 nights). Similar effort was made for YT. Small mammal species identification was verified by Bill Weimann, Royal Alberta Museum, Edmonton, AB.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 13 -

Table 3.1. Habitat type and number of small mammal trap transects set in Mercoal West (2004) - Yellowhead Tower (2006). No. Habitat # of Transects # of Transects Mercoal West Yellowhead Tower H2 Lodgepole Pine / Hairy Wild Rye 1 H5 Mixed Wood / Hairy Wild Rye 1 H6 Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / Labrador Tea 3 2 H8 Lodgepole Pine / Tall Bilberry 2 1 H10 Lodgepole Pine / Tall Bilberry 2-10m 1 H11 Mixed Wood / Tall Bilberry 2 H12 White Spruce / Tall Bilberry 1 H13 Subalpine Fir / Labrador Tea 1 H18 Willow-Birch Meadow 2 H22 Black Spruce-White Spruce / Labrador Tea 1 H27 Treed Rich Fen 1 H24 Treed Poor Fen 5

The measure of relative abundance used for small mammals is animals per 100 trap-nights (number/100TN). This is calculated by correcting the trapping success for sprung but empty traps (Nelson and Clark 1973) using the formula: CE = 100A/ N–S/2 where: • CE is the catch per unit effort, • A is the number of animals of each species caught, • N is the number of trap nights, • S is the number of traps sprung by any cause, including animals caught.

The traps sprung by any cause were divided by two because it is assumed that, on average, each trap is sprung for half the trapping interval. This is necessary to allow for the decrease in trapping efficiency resulting from traps being sprung by animals being caught or from other causes such as heavy rains, hail, large ungulates walking on traps, or medium-sized mammals eating bait.

In 2004 a White-throated Sparrow was captured on MW and in 2006 a juvenile Gray Jay and a Dark-eyed Junco were captured on YT. These birds were entered as sprung traps.

3.3 Bird Surveys

3.3.1 Breeding Passerines

The point count method is the most common technique for the survey of breeding birds (Ralph et al. 1995). It is an accepted method for establishing relative abundance and habitat associations and can be used for quantifying long-term trends. It is efficient and can be readily standardized. To facilitate comparisons of relative abundance among habitat types, and observers, a fixed radius point count was used. Observers classified all detections that occurred within 50m of point centre and between 50 and 100m of point centre. As well all birds detected beyond the 100m radius limit were recorded to allow for comparisons with unlimited point techniques. All Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 14 - occurrences of individual birds were recorded at each point. Key response variables recorded at each point are species, number and sex of individuals (if known). Habitat type and weather conditions were recorded at each plot.

Survey activities were conducted during breeding season when detection rates are most stable, and territorial males are singing, but migrants are not present. This period occurs in June through to July 7 in the Mountains and Foothills (Downes and Collins 2007). Surveys began at 5:00 a.m and finished at 10:00 a.m. depending on bird activity. Surveys were not conducted when conditions were adverse to bird detection (rain or wind capable of moving small branches). Stations were approached quietly and a one minute “quiet down” period was observed before recording was begun. Plots were placed 500 m apart in representative habitats throughout the study area. After entering a stand and proceeding to the first plot, the observer recorded every bird heard or seen over the next 10 minutes. Further time does not improve efficiency (Millikin 1988, Verner 1988). All bird observations were recorded, including flyovers, flocking species, i.e., Pine Siskin, Red Crossbill, and species living in colonies such as the Cliff Swallow. The observer then moved to the next plot and repeated the process.

Fifty-seven plots were surveyed over an eight day period (May 27-28, June 11, July 5-10, 2004) on MW and 60 plots were surveyed over 11 day period (June 13-15, 18-20, July 1, 2006) on YT (Figure 3.3). Birds heard from an adjacent habitat or from an extreme distance, i.e., across valleys, were noted on the field forms but not included in the analysis for that plot.

The number of birds observed or heard at each plot was used to generate an index of abundance for each species. Relative abundance, bird species diversity (Shannon-Wiener diversity index, Zar 1984:32) and species richness (number of species) were calculated for each habitat and for the study area. Breeding pair abundance was calculated by assuming observers could hear birds singing within a 100 m radius (1 plot = .0314 km²). This value should be interpreted as an abundance index rather than absolute density. Singing males were used to identify a pair. An adult with young was recorded as a pair.

3.3.2 Winter Resident Passerines and Woodpeckers

Resident birds, e.g., members of the corvid family, chickadees, nuthatches, and woodpeckers, generally initiate breeding earlier than migrant species and may not be monitored effectively in June due to low territorial behaviour (Schmiegelow et al. 1997). These birds are best inventoried during a winter sampling period.

All woodpecker species (seven) found in the Foothills Natural Region and potentially found within the LSA during the first half of May are vociferous and active in some aspect of courtship or territorial advertising. By June when point counts are undertaken for passerines, woodpeckers become secretive, their presence at times betrayed by the noisy nestlings that adult birds are feeding. Encounters with woodpeckers are casual and as such their presence is often underestimated.

Woodpecker surveys on 22 plots on the YT and YT walk road were conducted May 3 & 4, 2006 and May 13, 2007 respectively. Point counts similar to those used for breeding pairs of passerines were employed to determine the presence of resident and new arrival (migrant) species of woodpeckers. Passerine detections during the woodpecker surveys were not used in Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 15 - the breeding bird plot analysis since the majority of new passerine arrivals were not likely to remain within the area but continue northward to breed elsewhere.

3.3.3 Nocturnal Owl Monitoring

Nocturnal owl surveys using listening/broadcasting techniques were conducted to obtain information on the distribution of owls, estimate the relative abundance of owls within the LSA and determine the habitat association of owls. Methods are modified from Takats et al. (2001). Owls that could be present on the LSA include: Great Horned Owl, Great Gray Owl, Barred Owl, Boreal Owl, Northern Saw-whet Owl, Northern Pygmy-Owl and possibly Northern Hawk Owl.

Nineteen listening stations were selected along four routes based on existing roads, quad trails and truck tracks on and adjacent to MW. Each station was located at an interval of approximately 1.6 km (or greater). Each route was surveyed at least twice between early March and early May 2004, 2005 and 2006 when vocal activity of the majority of owl species is greatest.

In 2006, 10 stations were placed on the road running the length of the YT at 1.6 km intervals. This route was surveyed twice for nocturnal owls during the first and last week of April 2006 when vocal activity of the majority of owl species was greatest. The route was also surveyed on April 3, 2006 during the day in an attempt to elicit response from the Northern Pygmy-Owl.

Surveys were conducted either on snowmobiles, quads, or 4x4 trucks between 30 minutes after sunset and midnight and under favorable conditions (wind speeds <20km, no precipitation and average temperatures for the season). At each stop, observers started with a two minute silent listening period and recorded any owls heard. The two minute silent listening period was followed by a 10 minute period of alternating broadcast calls of the Boreal Owl, Great Gray Owl, and Barred Owl and silent listening. For each owl detected, the approximate direction and distance to the owl was recorded. Weather conditions, cloud cover and noise levels also recorded at each station.

3.3.4 Fall Migration

Observations of raptors from previous studies (Bighorn 1995, 1999) indicate a movement of raptors through the Robb area in the fall. An assessment of migrating raptors was conducted from the Yellowhead fire tower located 1.5 km northwest of the YT LSA on September 21 & 22, 2007 and October 13 & 14, 2007. The fire tower is located on a hill approximately 1,400 m above sea level. The area immediately below the fire tower is free of forest cover providing a 190 degree view of Sphinx Mountain west, Obed Mine to the north and Mayburn fire tower to the east. Spring observations were conducted April 17, 23 & 25, 2007 from the Yellowhead fire tower.

All raptors encountered were identified at least to family grouping, i.e., accipiter, buteo, eagle, and when possible to species. Cloud cover, wind speed, wind direction temperature, barometric pressure, visibility, precipitation, flight direction were recorded.

3.3.5 Incidental Observation

Incidental sightings of birds made during other wildlife inventory activities during the breeding season and at other times of the year were recorded. Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 16 -

3.4 Amphibian Survey

Potential amphibian breeding water bodies in the MW-YT LSA and on the Coal Valley Mine were visited from April through June in 2004, 2006 and 2007 (Table 3.2) to search for amphibians as per the Alberta Amphibian Monitoring Program (AEP 1997).

3.5 Biodiversity

A list of species presence (expected or known) for the Coal Valley Mine, MW LSA, YT LSA, and the RSA was compiled. National and provincial status rankings were identified for each species from ASRD (2005), CESCC (2006) and COSEWIC. Nomenclature is from Stambaugh (2005). Species information was derived from the MW-YT wildlife inventory as well as other wildlife inventories completed for CVRI (Bighorn 1995, 1999 and 2004) and regionally for mammals by Smith (1993), for birds by FAN (2007), and for amphibians by Russell and Bauer (1993). Wildlife inventory activities for the MW-YT Mine Extension Project EIA and CEA are summarized in Table 3.2.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 17 - Table 3.2. Wildlife Inventory activities for the Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project EIA and CEA, Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. Dates in italics and red indicate on-going activities. Activity Mercoal West Yellowhead Tower Coal Valley Mine Robb Trend (on-going) CEA Ungulate

Pellet Counts 34,500 m (2004) 19,650 m (2006) 11,200 m (2006) 4,000 m (2006) 19,100 m (2006) 35,000 m (2007) 78,450 m (2007) Ground Survey Apr 27, Jun 8 & 29, Jul 20, Aug 20, Sep 20, Oct 4, Nov 9, Dec 5, 2006, Jan 4 & 25, Mar 27, 2007 Snow Tracks 19,000 m (2005) 18,315 m (2006) 5,000 m (2007)

Air Survey January 11 & 12 2007 January 11 & 12 2007 January 11 & 12 2007 January 11 & 12 2007 Small Mammals (information also obtained from snow tracks) Traplines (6) June 29-July 1, 2004 (6) July 5-7, 2006 Aug 29-31 2007 (6) Sept 14-16, 2004 (6) September 12-14, 2006 Bats August 2 2007 Avifauna Breeding Bird 57 Plots (2004) 60 Plots (2006) 25 Plots(2006) 28 Plots (2007) Surveys Woodpecker 13 Plots (2006) 32 Plots (2007) Surveys 11 Plots (2007) Nocturnal Owl 14 Stations 10 Stations 10 Stations (2007) 10 Stations Surveys April 20, 25&26, 2004 April 3, 24, 2006 Mar 29, Apr 26, 2007 April 6, 26, 2006 March 2&3, 29, 2005 20 Stations Mar 28, Apr 8, 17, 30, 2007 Diurnal Raptor Sept 21, 22, Oct 10, 2006 May 23, 24, 2006 Sept 21, 22, Oct 10, 2006 fall 2007 Surveys Sept 21, 22, Oct 10, 2006 Apr 17, 23, 25, 2007 Amphibians April 30, May 4, 5, 2006 May 5, Jun 7&30, Jul 17, 2006 May 6, 22, 25, 26, 2006 2006, 2007 Apr 17, May 3, 8, 9, 2007

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 18 4.0 HABITAT

Thirty-two habitat types were identified for the LSA (Table 4.1, Table 4.2, Figure 4.1). Habitats were derived from ecosite phase coverage cv_eco13.e00, November 5, 2007 provided by Geographic Dynamics Corporation (GDC). Polygons which were comprised of a complex of ecosite phases were assigned the designation with the greater percentage assisted by reference to prominence values GDC, prominence.txt, February 2, 2007 and field notes made during various wildlife surveys. Rights-of-way were separated based on whether they were a hard road surface or reclaimed graminoid meadow, e.g. powerline, pipeline. Polygons designating cutblocks were created and identified by tree height or year of recent cut.

The MW LSA (3,546 ha) is almost twice as large (89% larger) as the YT LSA (1,872 ha). Twenty- five habitats dominated by lodgepole pine-black spruce / LT (38%) and various fen types (19%) occurred in MW (Table 4.2). Twenty-six habitats dominated by lodgepole pine / TB (30%), and lodgepole pine-black spruce / LT (18%) occurred in YT. Mixed wood habitats comprised about 10% of the YT but were barely represented in MW (1%). Cutblocks in various types of pine habitat represented about 16% of MW but were not present in YT. Hard surface right-of-ways comprised 4.0 % and 1.7% of YT and MW respectively.

A total of 1,343 ha of wildlife habitat will be disturbed by the MW-YT Mine Extension Project (Table 4.3, Figure 4.2). Of this, 532 ha or 40% will occur in MW and 811 or 60% will occur in YT.

Most of the disturbance in MW (69%) will occur in three Lodgepole Pine habitats: • Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT (47%), • Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT 2-10m cutblock (11%), and • Lodgepole Pine / TB (11%).

Disturbance in YT is primarily comprised (67%) of four habitats: • Lodgepole Pine / TB (29%), • Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT (16%), • Black & White Spruce / LT (11%), and • Mixed Wood / TB (11%).

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 19 -

Table 4.1. Relationship between ecosite and habitat for the MW-YT LSA (adapted from coverage provided by Geographic Dynamics Corporation, November 5, 2007).

Predominant Ecosite Designation Habitat B = bearberry/lichen (subxeric/poor) B1 = bearberry/lichen Pl H1 = lodgepole pine / bearbearry C = hairy wild rye (submesic/medium) C1 = hairy wild rye Pl H2 = lodgepole pine / HWR H3 = lodgepole pine / HWR cutblock 2-10m C2 = hairy wild rye Aw H4 = trembling aspen / HWR C3 = hairy wild rye Aw-Sw-Pl H5 = mixed wood / HWR D = Labrador tea – mesic (mesic/poor) D1 = Labrador tea – mesic Pl-Sb H6 = lodgepole pine-black spruce / LT H7 = lodgepole pine-black spruce / LT cutblock 2- 10m E = tall bilberry/arnica (mesic/medium) E1 = tall bilberry/arnica Pl H8 = lodgepole pine / TB H9 = lodgepole pine / TB burn H10 = lodgepole pine / TB cutblock 2-10m E2 = tall bilberry/arnica Aw-Sw-Pl H11 = mixed wood / TB E3 = tall bilberry/arnica Sw H12 = white spruce / TB E4 = dwarf bramble/Labrador tea Fa H13 = subalpine fir / LT F = bracted honeysuckle (subhygric/rich) F1 = bracted honeysuckle Pl H14 = lodgepole pine / BH F3 = bracted honeysuckle Pb-Sw-Pl H15 = black & white spruce-lodgepole pine / BH F4 = bracted honeysuckle Sw H16 = white spruce / BH F6 = bracted honeysuckle Willow H17 = willow upland G = meadow (subhygric/very rich) G1 = shrubby meadow H18 = willow-birch meadow G2 = forb meadow H19 = forb meadow H20 = graminoid meadow (mostly agronomics) H = Labrador tea – subhygric (subhygric/poor) H1 = Labrador tea – subhygric Sb-Pl H21 = black spruce-lodgepole pine / LT I = Labrador tea/horsetail (hygric/medium) I1 = Labrador tea/horsetail Sb-Sw H22 = black & white spruce / LT J = horsetail (hygric/rich) J1 = Horsetail Sw H23 = white spruce / LT L = poor fen (subhydric/medium) L1 = treed poor fen H24 = treed poor fen L2 = shrubby poor fen H25 = shrubby poor fen L3 = graminoid poor fen H26 = graminoid poor fen M = rich fen (subhydric/rich) M1 = treed rich fen H27 = treed rich fen M2 = shrubby rich fen H28 = shrubby rich fen M3 = graminoid rich fen H29 = graminoid rich fen H30 = cutblock (2003, 2005 or 2006) ROW H31 = right of way NWL= seasonally thaws, lakes, ponds W = shallow open water H32 = shallow open water

Terrain types: A = Anthropogenic F = Fluvial M = Morrainal O = Organic X = Residium Plant names: HWR = Hairy Wild Rye LT = Labrador Tea BH = Bracted Honeysuckle

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 20 - Table 4.2. Amount and composition of habitat, Mercoal West (MW) - Yellowhead Tower (YT) Mine Extension Project. Habitat ID Habitat Name MW % of MW % of Total YT % of YT % of Total Total LSA (ha) MW-YT LSA (ha) MW-YT MW-YT(ha) 1 Lodgepole Pine / Bearberry 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 2.07 0.1% 0.0% 2.07 2 Lodgepole Pine / Hairy Wild Rye 30.67 0.9% 0.6% 111.66 6.0% 2.1% 142.32 3 Lodgepole Pine / Hairy Wild Rye 2-10m 6.56 0.2% 0.1% 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 6.56 4 Trembling Aspen / Hairy Wild Rye 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 23.43 1.3% 0.4% 23.43 5 Mixed Wood / Hairy Wild Rye 22.64 0.6% 0.4% 89.90 4.8% 1.7% 112.54 6 Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / Labrador Tea 1,335.42 37.7% 24.6% 341.53 18.2% 6.3% 1,676.94 7 Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / Labrador Tea 2-10m 185.21 5.2% 3.4% 98.57 5.3% 1.8% 283.78 8 Lodgepole Pine / Tall Bilberry 437.58 12.3% 8.1% 548.97 29.3% 10.1% 986.55 9 Lodgepole Pine / Tall Bilberry - burned 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 11.74 0.6% 0.2% 11.74 10 Lodgepole Pine / Tall Bilberry 2-10m 372.73 10.5% 6.9% 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 372.73 11 Mixed Wood / Tall Bilberry 16.19 0.5% 0.3% 102.61 5.5% 1.9% 118.80 12 White Spruce / Tall Bilberry 9.48 0.3% 0.2% 109.18 5.8% 2.0% 118.66 13 Subalpine Fir / Labrador Tea 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 8.52 0.5% 0.2% 8.52 14 Lodgepole Pine / Bracted Honeysuckle 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 3.24 0.2% 0.1% 3.24 15 Black & White Spruce-Lodgepole Pine / Bracted Honeysuckle 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 12.38 0.7% 0.2% 12.38 16 White Spruce / Bracted Honeysuckle 4.61 0.1% 0.1% 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 4.61 17 Willow Upland 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 11.13 0.6% 0.2% 11.13 18 Willow - Birch Meadow 13.42 0.4% 0.2% 59.39 3.2% 1.1% 72.81 19 Forb Meadow 12.54 0.4% 0.2% 1.66 0.1% 0.0% 14.20 20 Graminoid Meadow 2.26 0.1% 0.0% 43.73 2.3% 0.8% 45.99 21 Black Spruce-Lodgepole Pine / Labrador Tea 234.83 6.6% 4.3% 33.72 1.8% 0.6% 268.55 22 Black & White Spruce / Labrador Tea 0.21 0.0% 0.0% 129.53 6.9% 2.4% 129.75 23 White Spruce / Horsetail 44.70 1.3% 0.8% 2.27 0.1% 0.0% 46.96 24 Treed Poor Fen 370.96 10.5% 6.8% 9.27 0.5% 0.2% 380.23 25 Shrubby Poor Fen 111.24 3.1% 2.1% 7.93 0.4% 0.1% 119.17 26 Graminoid Poor Fen 12.24 0.3% 0.2% 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 12.24 27 Treed Rich Fen 105.26 3.0% 1.9% 15.67 0.8% 0.3% 120.94 28 Shrubby Rich Fen 33.10 0.9% 0.6% 17.86 1.0% 0.3% 50.96 29 Graminoid Rich Fen 47.69 1.3% 0.9% 1.89 0.1% 0.0% 49.58 30 Cutblock 75.64 2.1% 1.4% 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 75.64 31 Right of Way 60.50 1.7% 1.1% 74.62 4.0% 1.4% 135.12 32 Shallow Open Water 0.24 0.0% 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.24 3,545.93 100.0% 65.4% 1,872.45 100.0% 34.6% 5,418.38

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 21 - Table 4.3. Amount (ha) and percent of habitat disturbed by the Mercoal West (MW) - Yellowhead Tower (YT) Mine Extension Project. ID Habitat Name MW % of total % of total % of YT % of total % of total % of MW-YT disturbed disturbed disturbed undisturbed disturbed disturbed disturbed undisturbed disturbed (ha) MW MW-YT MW-YT (ha) YT MW-YT MW-YT (ha) 1 Lodgepole Pine / Bearberry 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.22 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.22 2 Lodgepole Pine / HWR 19.35 3.6% 1.4% 0.4% 28.61 3.5% 2.1% 0.5% 47.96 3 Lodgepole Pine / HWR 2-6m 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00 4 Trembling Aspen / HWR 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.80 1.5% 0.9% 0.2% 11.80 5 Mixed Wood / HWR 19.88 3.7% 1.5% 0.4% 47.51 5.9% 3.5% 0.9% 67.39 6 Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT 249.01 46.8% 18.5% 4.6% 126.94 15.7% 9.5% 2.3% 375.96 7 Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT 2-6m 58.89 11.1% 4.4% 1.1% 29.73 3.7% 2.2% 0.5% 88.62 8 Lodgepole Pine / TB 60.09 11.3% 4.5% 1.1% 237.35 29.3% 17.7% 4.4% 297.44 9 Lodgepole Pine / TB - Burned 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.43 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 2.43 10 Lodgepole Pine / TB 2-6m 30.32 5.7% 2.3% 0.6% 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.32 11 Mixed Wood / TB 8.39 1.6% 0.6% 0.2% 85.58 10.6% 6.4% 1.6% 93.97 12 White Spruce / TB 5.14 1.0% 0.4% 0.1% 54.83 6.8% 4.1% 1.0% 59.97 13 Subalpine Fir / LT 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00 14 Lodgepole Pine / BH 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.16 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.16 15 Black&White Spruce-Lodgepole Pine / BH 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00 16 White Spruce / BH 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00 17 Willow Upland 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.60 0.6% 0.3% 0.1% 4.60 18 Willow - Birch Meadow 0.19 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.97 1.5% 0.9% 0.2% 12.16 19 Forb Meadow 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.76 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.76 20 Graminoid Meadow 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.75 1.7% 1.0% 0.3% 13.75 21 Black Spruce-Lodgepole Pine / LT 16.78 3.2% 1.2% 0.3% 7.64 0.9% 0.6% 0.1% 24.42 22 Black & -White Spruce / LT 0.03 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 92.48 11.4% 6.9% 1.7% 92.50 23 White Spruce / Horsetail 1.64 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 2.27 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 3.90 24 Treed Poor Fen 20.13 3.8% 1.5% 0.4% 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.13 25 Shrubby Poor Fen 8.02 1.5% 0.6% 0.1% 0.36 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.38 26 Graminoid Poor Fen 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00 27 Treed Rich Fen 7.94 1.5% 0.6% 0.1% 13.68 1.7% 1.0% 0.3% 21.62 28 Shrubby Rich Fen 1.26 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 10.82 1.3% 0.8% 0.2% 12.08 29 Graminoid Rich Fen 9.02 1.7% 0.7% 0.2% 0.60 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 9.62 30 Cutblock 3.92 0.7% 0.3% 0.1% 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.92 31 Right of Way 12.17 2.3% 0.9% 0.2% 26.73 3.3% 2.0% 0.5% 38.90 32 Shallow Open Water 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00 Total 532.15 100.0% 39.6% 9.8% 810.81 100.0% 60.4% 15.0% 1,342.96

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 22 - 4.1 RSA Habitat Effectiveness

Habitat effectiveness can be reduced by the presence of roads used by motorized vehicles or when human activity is unpredictable (Lyon 1983, Wisdom 1986, Morgantini 1995). To understand where high densities of linear features and potential reduced habitat effectiveness occur in the RSA, linear features were mapped at a scale of 1:50,000 (BWT 2007). A classification system was developed from previous studies and cumulative effects assessment procedures carried out for the Coal Valley Mine Extension (Bighorn 1999, URSUS 1999) and land use planning exercises (Kansas 2001). The choice of the very low, low and medium categories was based on the USDA (1990) grizzly bear cumulative effects model. The high and very high use levels were added based on studies of the response of grizzly bears to roads (Mace and Waller 1997) and a recent land use planning exercise in Alberta’s Bighorn Backcountry (Kansas 2001). The non use category (None) includes those features on which travel is not possible and those features which receive incidental use (<1 party per week).

The level of traffic use of the linear features was quantified with information from: • Traffic use levels on Hwy 40 and 47 (Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation 2007); • Traffic use levels on the Robb Road and the Pembina River Road (Bergeron 2007, Hinton Wood Products 2007); • Rail line use levels (M. Pearson, Elk Valley Coal Corporation, Cardinal River Operations, pers. comm., August 3, 2007 and L. LaFleur, Coal Valley Mine, pers. comm., August 9, 2007); • Local experts representing the hunting, and OHV communities; and • Residents of Robb.

Human use of linear features in the RSA was higher in the summer than the winter (Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4). Three areas in the McPherson and McLeod Units were identified as dispersed motorized recreation areas. All lines in these areas are used more or less at a Yellow level (3 to 20 parties / week). These three areas are used similarly in the winter but the level of use is less. These areas are: • McPherson Unit north of the McLeod River, • McLeod Unit north of Hwy 40 between the Pembina River Road and the McLeod River • Tri-creeks area of the McLeod Unit west of the McLeod River and north and east of Hwy 40.

The McPherson and McLeod Units are dominated by timber harvesting activity. The Embarras Unit supports timber harvesting, oil and gas activity and coal mining as well as various levels of recreation activity. The Town of Robb is located in this unit. There is steady skidoo traffic in the Robb area in winter. The Lendrum, Lower Pembina and Upper Pembina Units are dominated by industrial use (oil and gas, coal mining, timber harvesting) but also receive recreation use. The Beaverdam Unit supports oil and gas activity, timber harvesting and dispersed recreation at low levels.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 23 -

5.0 UNGULATES

Air Survey - The January 11 & 12, 2007 aerial survey indicated that elk were the most abundant ungulate (133) observed during the winter air survey, followed by white-tailed deer (110), moose (64), and mule deer (9) (Table 5.1). Relative abundance as expressed by density (uncorrected for visibility bias) was: elk (0.32 /km²), white-tailed deer (0.26/km²), moose (0.15/km²), and mule deer (0.02/km²). Results of a distribution analysis for elk, moose, mule deer and white-tailed deer are found in Table 5.2.

One wolf, and five coyotes were also observed during the January 11 & 12, 2007 survey. Results of a harmonic mean analysis of ungulate distribution during the January 11 & 12 survey are found in Table 5.2.

The area (865 km²) flown for the 2007 survey was approximately 1.8 times or 184% larger than the area flown for the 1996-97 survey (304 km², Bighorn 1999). Results of the 2007 air survey were adjusted to the same area flown in 1996-1997 for comparative purposes for this assessment and are presented in Table 5.3. Elk observed in 2007 (133 elk) were intermediate in number between the 1996 (184 elk) and 1997 (77 elk) surveys. Moose numbers in 2007 (17 moose) represented a decline of 71 and 54 animals compared to the 88 and 71 moose counted in 1996 and 1997 surveys (81% and 54% reduction respectively). Mule deer in 2007 (four mule deer) were lower than mule deer observed in 1996 (39 mule deer) and in 1997 (seven mule deer). White-tailed deer numbers in 2007 (76 white-tailed deer) indicated a substantial increase in numbers compared to the few observed in 1996 and 1997 (two and five white-tailed deer respectively).

Ground Survey of Coal Valley Mine, West Extension and South Block 2006-2007 - Analysis of observations recorded during the monthly ground surveys of Coal Valley Mine, West Extension and the South Block between April 2006 and March 2007 indicated that the elk was the most abundant ungulate on the Coal Valley Mine (57% of observations), followed by white-tailed deer (36%) and mule deer (7%). No moose were observed on these surveys.

On the West Extension ground surveys indicated that white-tailed deer was the most abundant ungulate in 2006/2007 comprising 78% of ungulate observations. Mule deer comprised 18% of observations and moose 4%. No elk were observed. In 1996/1997, mule deer comprised 60% of observations on the West Extension followed by moose (32%) and elk (8%).

On the South Block, mule deer were the most abundant animal observed in 2006/07 (70% of observations), followed by white-tailed deer (15%) , moose (10%) and elk 5%. In 1996/97, moose were the most abundant ungulate on the South Block (67% of summer records), followed by deer (27%) and elk (6%).

Harvest Summary - A summary of the total number of elk, moose, mule deer and white-tailed deer harvested in WMU 340, 437 and 438 between 1985 and 2006 indicates that 84% of all elk, 78% of all moose, 70% of all mule deer and 75% of all white-tailed deer harvested occurred in WMU 340 (Table 5.4).

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 24 -

Table 5.1. Number of ungulates observed during the January 11 and 12, 2007 aerial survey of the Coal Valley Mine area.

Species Cow Calf Bull U/C Total Bull :100 Cow :Calf

Elk 96 29 8 133 8 : 100 : 30 Moose 53 6 5 64 9 : 100 :11 Mule Deer 6 1 2 9 0 : 100 :17 White-tailed Deer 73 35 1 1 110 1: 100 : 48

Table 5.2. Summary results of the harmonic mean analysis of ungulate distribution during the January 11, 2007 air survey, Coal Valley Mine area.

Species Sample Harmonic Area # of Core Area # of Core Area Core Area Size # Centre within modes at Isopleth within modes as a % of as a % of animals / Easting 95% 95% % Core at Core Total Area of Total Use # check Northing Isopleth Isopleth Area Isopleth HM of HM points NAD83 (km²) (km²) Distribution Distribution

Elk 133 / 11 516320 30.2 4 no significant core area 5876498

Moose 64 / 49 508861 962.3 1 57 384.3 4 42 57 5885875

Mule 9 / 5 516799 212 2 no core area (<10 observations) Deer 5879734

WT 110 / 53 508861 388.7 1 62 159 2 35 62 Deer 5885875 Harmonic Centre = centre of activity (the point most frequented by the species in the survey area).

Table 5.3. Comparison of number of ungulates observed during three ungulate aerial surveys flown in the Coal Valley Mine area during the winters of 1996-97 and 2007. The 2007 numbers have been adjusted to the same area flown in 1996/97.

Date Elk Moose Mule Deer White-tailed Deer Deer sp. Total

November 21, 1996 184 88 39 2 4 317 January 12, 1997 77 71 7 5 1 161 January 11 & 12, 2007 133 17 4 76 0 230

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 25 -

Table 5.4. Summary of the total number of elk, moose, mule deer and white-tailed deer harvested in WMU 340, 437 and 438 between 1985 and 2006 from: [http://www.srd.gov.ab.ca/fishwildlife/livingwith/huntingalberta/harvesteffort.aspx]. Species WMU 340 WMU 437 WMU 438 Total Harvest Elk 710 (84%) 133 (15%) 5 (1%) 848 Moose 2723 (78%) 465 (13%) 318 (9%) 3506 Mule Deer 1104 (70%) 324 (20%) 152 (10%) 1580 White-tailed Deer 3331 (75%) 735 (17%) 338 (8%) 4404

5.1 Elk

5.1.1 Abundance

One hundred and thirty-three elk (eight bulls, 96 cows, 29 calves) were observed during the January 2007 aerial survey (Table 5.1). All bulls observed were yearlings. Adult bulls tend to group together after the rut, not losing their antlers until as late as April. It is possible that adult bulls were missed during the survey. With the exception of two cow elk and two calves which were observed beside the Lovett River east of Hwy 40, all elk were observed on the Coal Valley Mine and West Extension during the January 2007 survey. No elk were observed on the northeast side of the Lovett Ridge or Coal Valley Mine. Group sizes ranged from one to 70 elk.

The bull:cow:calf ratio for the elk during the January 11 & 12, 2007 air survey was: 8 bulls:100 cows:30 calves. This ratio is lower than that reported for the elk of the Cadomin area in 2005 (13:100:60). The Cadomin population has increased since 1998/99 in the general area as well as on the Luscar and Gregg River Mines (Hobson and Ficht 2002, Kneteman 1995, Bighorn 2006). A 2002 survey by Hobson and Ficht (2002) of winter ranges for six elk herds along the northern east slopes (Cadomin, Camp 1, Athabasca Ranch, Sheep Creek, Lower Smoky River (headwaters) and the Upper Smoky River (Grande Cache) reported an overall increase in elk numbers of 30% (819 in 1995 to 1065 in 2002). Of the six herds, the Athabasca Ranch/Camp 1 herd showed the greatest increase (93%).

Elk herds are known to respond positively to reclaimed sites on the Coal Valley Mine (Bighorn 1999), in southern British Columbia (Gibson and Sheets 1997) and at Cardinal River Operations and Gregg River Mine south of Hinton where the elk population has increased from 14 elk in 1992 to 236 in 2006. In 2006 the bull:100 cow: calf ratio on the Luscar and Gregg River Mines was 32:100:44 (Bighorn 2007).

The 100 cow:calf ratio (100:30) reported for elk during the Coal Valley Mine 2007 air survey was similar to that reported during ground surveys carried out on December 14, 1998 and January 22, 1999 on the Coal Valley Mine. A maximum of 64 elk were observed on the Coal Valley Mine during the two surveys in 1998 and 1999 which resulted in a bull:cow:calf ratio of 38:100:35.

Even though elk numbers in the northern east slopes have increased since 1995, particularly for the Cadomin and Camp 1/Athabasca herds, it appears that the elk of the Lovett Ridge complex are not increasing. Several reasons for this may include: increased access on the northeast side

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 26 - of the Lovett Ridge allowing for increasing legal and illegal harvest, continuing predation and static habitat.

5.1.2 Distribution

During the January 2007 aerial survey, 97% (129) of all elk observations were made on the Coal Valley Mine and West Extension (Figure 5.1). Unlike the 1996 and 1997 surveys, when elk were found scattered through the mixed wood habitats of the Lovett Ridge located northeast of the Coal Valley Mine and West Extension, no elk were observed on the northeast side of the Lovett Ridge in 2007. No elk were observed in the MW-YT LSA during the 2007 air survey but elk pellets were found in both areas during the spring pellet-group counts indicating some level of overwinter use. An intensive drilling program was in operation on the YT LSA during the January 2007 air survey. This activity may have caused temporary displacement of elk and other ungulates from the YT LSA.

A harmonic mean analysis of elk distribution during the January 2007 survey indicated that 95% of elk observations were made in two areas centred on the Coal Valley Mine (Table 5.2). The area occupied in 2007 (30.2 km²) is an 84% reduction of the area occupied during the 1996/97 survey (190.9 km²) even though a larger area was flown in 2007. The centre of activity (Harmonic Centre) was located on Pit 21 where a large cow herd (76+ elk) was found using the reclamation. Elk were also found concentrated on the reclaimed upper slopes of Halpenny East (Figure 5.1).

5.1.3 Habitat

Evidence of overwinter elk use as measured by pellet-group counts was found in 10 of 21 habitats sampled in the MW-YT LSA at a very low overall level of use (mean = 3.94 ±0.54 SE pg/ha, Appendix ll). A one-way analysis of variance indicated that there were differences in the means (pg/ha) between habitats (F=2.5548, p=<0.0002) in the LSA.

Elk showed highest preference for Mixed Wood / HWR (24.4 pg/ha), Mixed Wood TB (16 pg/ha) and Lodgepole Pine / HWR (12 pg/ha) habitats (Table 5.5). These three habitats occur in MW but comprise a small amount of total area (<2%). In contrast, Mixed Wood habitats comprised 10.3% of the area of YT. Elk also showed slight preference for Lodgepole Pine / TB, Willow - Birch Meadow, and Lodgepole Pine / TB 2-10m (cutblock).

Elk made use of Black Spruce - Lodgepole Pine / LT, Black & White Spruce / LT, Treed Poor Fen, Lodgepole Pine / TB and Lodgepole Pine - Black Spruce / LT but showed no preference for these habitats. These habitats comprise 67% of the MW-YT LSA.

No use by elk of Lodgepole Pine / HWR was detected in the YT LSA; this may be partly due to low sample effort for this habitat (n=5).

5.1.4 Harvest

Harvest results for elk (22 years) from WMU 340, WMU 438 and WMU 437 are found in Table 5.6. A trend over time analysis of elk harvest in WMU 340 between 1985 and 2006 indicates there is no evidence to suggest that the slope is different from zero (-0.04 elk per year, se=0.51,

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 27 - Table 5.5. Ungulate use vs. availability of habitats measured by pellet-group counts, Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower LSA, 2004, 2006 and 2007. ID Habitat Name Area Proportion n Elk % use Elk Moose % use Moose Deer % use Deer ( ha) Available pg/ha Ratio pg/ha Ratio pg/ha Ratio 2 Lodgepole Pine / Hairy Wild Rye 142 2.79 25 12 14.80 5.308 76 8.01 2.875 40 3.13 1.12 4 Trembling Aspen / Hairy Wild Rye 23 0.46 10 0 0.00 0.000 30 3.16 6.895 50 3.91 8.52 5 Mixed Wood / Hairy Wild Rye 113 2.20 45 24.4 30.09 13.650 40 4.22 1.914 115.6 9.04 4.10 6 Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / Labrador Tea 1,677 32.84 350 1.1 1.36 0.041 6.3 0.66 0.020 26.6 2.08 0.06 7 Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / Labrador Tea 2-10m 284 5.56 98 8.2 10.11 1.819 73.4 7.74 1.393 51 3.99 0.72 8 Lodgepole Pine / Tall Bilberry 987 19.32 144 2.1 2.59 0.134 25 2.64 0.136 79.9 6.25 0.32 10 Lodgepole Pine / Tall Bilberry 2-10m 373 7.30 90 7.8 9.62 1.317 62.2 6.56 0.898 25.6 2.00 0.27 11 Mixed Wood / Tall Bilberry 119 2.33 25 16 19.73 8.479 8 0.84 0.363 244 19.08 8.20 12 White Spruce / Tall Bilberry 119 2.32 30 0 0.00 0.000 16.7 1.76 0.758 93.3 7.30 3.14 13 Subalpine Fir / Labrador Tea 9 0.17 5 0 0.00 0.000 20 2.11 12.646 0 0.00 0.00 15 Black&White Spruce-Lodgepole Pine/B Honeysuckle 12 0.24 5 0 0.00 0.000 0 0.00 0.000 160 12.51 51.60 17 Willow Upland 11 0.22 5 0 0.00 0.000 20 2.11 9.675 40 3.13 14.35 18 Willow - Birch Meadow 73 1.43 55 1.8 2.22 1.556 50.9 5.37 3.764 25.5 1.99 1.40 20 Graminoid Meadow 46 0.90 30 0 0.00 0.000 26.7 2.82 3.126 33.3 2.60 2.89 21 Black Spruce-Lodgepole Pine / Labrador Tea 269 5.26 30 3.3 4.07 0.774 33.3 3.51 0.668 60 4.69 0.89 22 Black & -White Spruce / Labrador Tea 130 2.54 70 1.4 1.73 0.679 77.1 8.13 3.199 20 1.56 0.62 24 Treed Poor Fen 380 7.45 100 3 3.70 0.497 41 4.32 0.581 12 0.94 0.13 25 Shrubby Poor Fen 119 2.33 10 0 0.00 0.000 50 5.27 2.259 190 14.86 6.37 27 Treed Rich Fen 121 2.37 5 0 0.00 0.000 80 8.44 3.562 0 0.00 0.00 28 Shrubby Rich Fen 51 1.00 20 0 0.00 0.000 65 6.85 6.867 5 0.39 0.39 29 Graminoid Rich Fen 50 0.97 15 0 0.00 0.000 146.7 15.47 15.930 6.7 0.52 0.54 5,106 100.00 1167 3.94 100.00 1.000 36 100.00 1.000 45.9 100.00 1.00 Ratio = % use / proportion available; 1 = no preference n = number of 100 m² pg quadrats per habitat Habitats No. 1, 3, 9, 14, 16, 19, 23, 26, 30, 31, 32 comprising 6% of area not sampled; assumption of negligible or non use

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 28 - p=0.9333) meaning that there has been no change in harvest levels over the years. Similarly there is no evidence to suggest that the annual harvest of elk in WMU 438 (0.3 elk per year, se 0.288, p=0.308) has changed between 1985 and 2006. Elk harvest in WMU 437 is minimal.

Table 5.6. Estimated total harvest results for bull and (cow) elk from WMU 340, WMU 438 and WMU 437, 1985 - 2006 [www.srd.gov.ab.ca/fishwildlife/ livingwith/huntingalberta/harvesteffort.aspx]. Year WMU 340 WMU 438 WMU 437 Total 1985 71 0 0 71 1986 19 26 0 45 1987 28 5 5 38 1988 49 0 0 49 1989 26 0 0 26 1990 28 5 0 33 1991 8 0 0 8 1992 25 0 0 25 1993 29 0 0 29 1994 25 0 0 25 1995 27 16 0 43 1996 33 8 0 41 1997 53 0 0 53 1998 5 0 0 5 1999 32 8 0 40 2000 33 5 0 38 2001 34 5 0 39 2002 53 5 0 58 2003 44.6 0 0 44.6 2004 34.4 8.5 0 42.9 2005 23.2 31.6 0 54.8 2006 30 10 0 40 Mean 32.3 6.1 0.2 38.6

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 29 -

5.2 Moose

5.2.1 Abundance

There were 64 moose (five bulls, 53 cows, six calves) observed during the January 2007 air survey. The bull:100cow:calf ratio was 9:100:11 (Table 5.1). Total numbers are lower than reported for the Coal Valley Mine surveys in 1996 and1997 even though the area flown was almost twice as large as that flown in 2007 (see discussion above). The bull:100 cow ratio of 9 bulls:100 cows is similar to the 1996 Coal Valley Mine survey (7 bulls :100 cows) but lower than that reported for WMU 340 by Alberta Fish and Wildlife between 1983 and 2004 (range 15-36 bulls:100 cows). The calf:100 cow ratio (nine calves:100 cows) is lower than any previous Coal Valley Mine (27 calves:100 cows in 1996) or Alberta Fish and Wildlife survey (range 39-53 calves:100 cows) between 1983 and 2004. Low calf moose numbers are generally attributed to wolf predation, lack of forage, increased access leading to increased hunting and die-off related to ticks (B. Wishart, Alberta Fish and Wildlife emeritus, pers. comm., December 19, 2007). The number of wolves in the Robb area is thought to have not changed in recent years (J. Frank, trapper, pers. comm. 2007). Moose habitat in the area has been altered by forest harvesting in the general area and by mining at Coal Valley Mine. New clearing will result in temporary loss of forage locally. There have been no reports of tick die-offs in the area. Low bull numbers may mean cows are not mated until their second estrous cycle leading to later born calves which potentially are more susceptible to predation.

Moose density (0.15/km²) in the Coal Valley Mine area during the 2007 survey was lower than recorded during the 1996 Coal Valley Mine survey (0.70/km²) and lower than surveys conducted by Alberta Fish and Wildlife (Ficht and Smith 2004) in WMU 340 in 1994 (0.63/km²), 1996 (0.48 km²) and 2004 (0.26/km²). Ficht and Smith (2004) report the moose population declined significantly between 1996 and 2004 resulting in a 50% decrease in the eight years. Increased road access that enhances regulated and unregulated hunting opportunities, an over estimate of the population for several years resulting in too high bull harvest goals, and a more accurate survey in 2004 over 1996 were cited as reasons for the decline.

In the Coal Valley Mine survey area, new road building since 1997 for timber harvest and gas extraction, i.e., Conoco Phillips Lovett Induction Facility and the Denison South road, has increased access to the east side of the Lovett Ridge. The potential for increased regulated and non regulated hunting in this important wildlife area has increased in the past 10 years. As well as increased hunting pressure, predation and other factors may be responsible for the low calf numbers in the Coal Valley Mine area.

5.2.2 Distribution

Moose were distributed between the Pembina River and the McLeod River in four areas of concentration. Fifty-seven percent of moose observations in the survey area were made in these four areas (Figure 5.2, Table 5.2):

1) Moose were concentrated along the Pembina River and north to the Lund Creek Road in a 24 km² area including Fairfax Lake.

2) Moose occurred in a 256 km² area enclosing the Lovett Ridge from the Lovett fire tower northwest to the headwaters of the Erith River. This area encloses most of the Coal Valley Mine, the West Extension and part of Mercoal East in the vicinity of the large fen

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 30 -

draining into the headwaters of the Embarrass River. The centre of activity for moose in the survey area occurred in the ridges north of the Coal Valley Mine and east of Halpenny East.

3) A very small area (<1 km²) immediately southwest of Robb.

4) A 104 km² enclosing MW from Hwy 40 northwest to include Mercoal Creek and the headwaters of Felton Creek.

No moose were observed in the South Block during the January 2007 air survey.

5.2.3 Habitat

Evidence of the presence of moose was found in 20 of 21 habitats sampled by pellet/browse techniques in MW-YT LSA (Table 5.5, Appendix ll.). Overall use of habitats was moderate (36 pg/ha). A one-way analysis of variance indicated that there were differences in the means (pg/ha) between habitats in the LSA (F=13.547 p=<0.0001). A Tukey’s HSD test between means indicated use of Graminoid Rich Fens (147 pg/ha) and Treed Rich Fens (80 pg/ha) were significantly higher than use of other habitats.

Moose showed highest preference for Graminoid Rich Fen, Subalpine Fir / LT, Willow Upland, Trembling Aspen / HWR and Shrubby Rich Fen. Moderate preference was made for Willow - Birch Meadow, Treed Rich Fen, Black & White Spruce / LT, Graminoid Meadow, Lodgepole Pine / HWR, Shrubby Poor Fen and Mixed Wood HWR. Low preference was made for Mixed Wood / HWR.

Moose used Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT 2-10m (cutblock) Lodgepole Pine / TB 2-10 m (cutblock), White Spruce / TB, Black Spruce-Lodgepole Pine LT and Treed Poor Fen but indicated no preference for these habitats.

Moose used Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT, Lodgepole Pine / TB, and Mixed Wood /TB at levels less than availability. These habitats comprise 54% of the MW-YT LSA. Moose use (6 pg/ha) of Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT habitat was significantly lower than all other habitats with the exception of Black & White Spruce - Lodgepole Pine / BH habitat in which no use was recorded. Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT habitat comprises 31% of the project area. Black & White Spruce - Lodgepole Pine / BH does not occur in MW and comprises <1% of YT.

5.2.4 Harvest

Harvest results for moose in WMU 340, WMU 438 and WMU 437 between 1985 and 2006 are listed in Table 5.7. A trend over time analysis of moose harvest between 1985 and 2006 indicates that harvest of moose in WMU 340 has declined by -11.6 (se 1.548, p=<0.0001) moose per year. All harvest after 1990 is below the mean annual harvest (123.8 moose per year) in WMU340 (Table 5.7). Several factors can influence lower harvest rates however lower harvest in recent years likely reflects the population decrease in WMU 340 as discussed in Section 5.2.1. Population decrease is the result of several factors including too high bull harvest goals which remained in place for several years between 1996 and 2003 (Ficht and Smith 2004). A declining trend in moose harvest similar to WMU 340 was also found in WMU 438 and 437. Moose harvest in WMU 438 has declined by -1.7 (se 0.403, p=0.0006) moose per year between 1985

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 31 - and 2006. Moose harvest in WMU 437 has declined by -1.1 (se 0.316, p=0.0028) moose per year in the same interval.

Table 5.7. Estimated total harvest for moose from WMU 340, WMU 438 and 437, 1985-2006 [www.srd.gov.ab.ca/fishwildlife/ livingwith/huntingalberta/harvesteffort.aspx]. Year WMU 340 WMU 438 WMU 437 Total 1985 199 23 15 237 1986 309 56 9 374 1987 265 55 49 369 1988 301 34 41 376 1989 253 47 29 329 1990 184 20 13 217 1991 116 22 16 154 1992 106 17 8 131 1993 108 NA 12 120 1994 100 12 18 130 1995 91 42 14 147 1996 60 12 10 82 1997 86 NA 13 99 1998 99 19 13 131 1999 47 20 11 78 2000 64 20 9 93 2001 77 30 8 115 2002 72 17 10 99 2003 84.9 0 0 84.9 2004 51.1 9.4 9.3 69.8 2005 27.8 0 0 27.8 2006 22 10 11 43 Mean 123.8 23.3 14.5 159.4

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 32 -

5.3 Mule Deer

5.3.1 Abundance

Nine mule deer were observed on the January 12, 2007 air survey (Table 5.1). Of these, only four were observed in the same area flown in 1996 and 1997 (Table 5.3). Mule deer in rugged terrain are difficult to observe from the air and typically actual numbers are underestimated however low numbers of incidental observations were made of mule deer during other wildlife work on the LSA and decreased numbers were observed during the annual ground survey of the Coal Valley Mine in 2007 as compared to 1997. This suggests a drop in mule deer numbers since 1997 in the vicinity of the Coal Valley Mine.

Only one observation of mule deer was made on the LSA between 2004 and 2007 during various wildlife inventories (three males on MW, April 4, 2004).

5.3.2 Distribution

Mule deer exhibited a bimodal distribution associated with the Coal Valley Mine and YT (Figure 5.3) where 95% of observations occurred. There was no core area (< 10 observations). Mule deer were not observed on MW nor Mercoal East, the South Block or on the West Extension. Mining of the Aspen /Alder /Fireweed habitats located on south-facing slopes that were logged prior to the 1950s reduced the local availability of this high quality habitat in the West Extension.

5.3.3 Habitat

A strong association exists between mule deer distribution and rugged, steep-sloping terrain. Mule deer prefer steep topography, partially treed lands associated with valley slopes and bottom-lands, south-facing slopes, tree-line subalpine, and montane environments (Neitfeld et al. 1984). Mule deer possess a variety of anti-predator strategies (Geist 1981) which affect its use of space. Deer specialize at detecting predators at very long range using their large ears and excellent vision. Movement is restricted to areas close to escape terrain or cover (wintering deer have a tendency to stay close to steep slopes, river banks and cover).

The following discussion of habitat use as measured by pellet-group counts does not distinguish between mule deer and white-tailed deer. Deer used 19 of 21 habitats measured by pellet-group counts in the LSA at levels (46 pg/ha) higher than elk or moose (Table 5.5, Appendix ll). Highest use occurred on YT (77 pg/ha) as compared to MW (25 pg/ha). A one-way analysis of variance indicated that there were differences in the means (pg/ha) between habitats in the LSA (F=7.493 p=<0.0001).

Deer showed highest preference for Black & White Spruce-Lodgepole Pine / BH and Willow Upland habitats (Note: Black & White Spruce - Lodgepole Pine / BH was not used by elk nor moose in the project area however sample size was small and this habitat did not occur in MW). Deer showed moderate preference for Trembling Aspen / HWR, Mixed Wood / TB, Shrubby Poor Fen, Mixed Wood / HWR, White Spruce / TB and Graminoid Meadow.

Six habitats including Willow-Birch meadow and Lodgepole Pine / HWR were used with no preference. Five habitats were used by deer at levels less than availability including Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT and Lodgepole Pine / TB (Table 5.5). These two habitats comprise 50% of the LSA (Table 5.5).

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 33 -

5.3.4 Harvest

Harvest results for mule deer in WMU 340, WMU 438 and WMU 437 for 1985 - 2006 are listed in Table 5.8. A trend over time analysis of mule deer harvest between 1985 and 2006 indicates that harvest of mule deer in WMU 340 has declined by -2.3 (se 0.758, p=<0.0059) deer per year. All harvest after 1990 is below the mean annual harvest (52.6 mule deer per year) in WMU 340 (Table 5.8). Similarly, mule deer harvest has declined in WMU 438 (-1.3, se 0.480, p=0.015) between the years 1985 and 2006. There is no evidence to suggest that mule deer harvest in WMU 437 has changed over the years (-0.5 mule deer per year, se=0.320, p=0.144).

Table 5.8. Estimated total harvest for mule deer WMU 340, WMU 438 and WMU 437, 1985 - 2006 [www.srd.gov.ab.ca/fishwildlife/ livingwith/huntingalberta/harvesteffort.aspx]. Year WMU 340 WMU 438 WMU 437 Total 1985 68 NA NA 68 1986 73 36 0 109 1987 85 34 34 153 1988 87 46 23 156 1989 76 49 14 139 1990 111 26 16 153 1991 52 0 0 52 1992 43 7 0 50 1993 43 NA 6 49 1994 9 3 3 15 1995 32 18 0 50 1996 46 0 9 55 1997 37 NA 2 39 1998 50 25 7 82 1999 27 11 1 39 2000 71 20 2 93 2001 77 6 9 92 2002 NA NA NA 0 2003 22.6 7 0 29.6 2004 44.7 7.1 13.8 65.6 2005 18.4 14.7 3.5 36.6 2006 31 14 9 54 Mean 52.6 18.0 7.6 71.8

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 34 -

5.4 White-tailed Deer

5.4.1 Abundance

One hundred and ten white-tailed deer were observed during the January 10, 2007 survey (Table 5.1). Two white-tailed deer were observed during the November 1996 aerial survey and five were observed during the January 1997 survey. White-tailed deer numbers have increased in west-central Alberta in recent years as indicated by the introduction of a supplemental antlerless season by Alberta Fish and Wildlife in 2002. This supplemental antlerless season was first applied to WMUs associated with agricultural areas east of Obed primarily to deal with crop depredation issues. However in 2003 the supplemental antlerless season was extended to all 300 and 400 WMUs (K. Smith, Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division, pers. comm., December 21 2007).

5.4.2 Distribution

White-tailed Deer were strongly associated (62% of observations) with the Lovett Ridge southwest of Robb in the headwaters of the Embarras River, Bacon Creek, Halpenny Creek and Lendrum Creek west of Corser’s Road (Figure 5.4, Table 5.2). The centre of activity occurred on the Lovett Ridge on the east side of the West Extension and west of Halpenny Creek. Most observations on the Coal Valley Mine were associated with the headwaters of Halpenny Creek.

White-tailed deer were not observed on MW, Mercoal East or the South Block. Two antlerless white-tailed deer were observed in Mixed Wood habitat on YT during the air survey. Between February 3 and October 25, 2006, 53 white-tailed deer were recorded on the YT incidental to other work. Only 12 white-tailed deer were recorded on MW in 2004 during various wildlife surveys.

5.4.3 Habitat

White-tailed deer are generally associated with valley bottom habitat. This may explain why white-tailed deer are found on the north side of the Lovett Ridge complex where streams and associated riparian habitat are found throughout the area. Of the 4,404 white-tailed deer harvested in WMU 340, WMU 437 and WMU 438 between 1985 and 2006, 75% were harvested within WMU 340 (north of HWY 40) and 8% were harvested in WMU 437 (south of HWY 40) and 17% in WMU 438. HWY 40 is the boundary between WMU’s 340 and 437and is also roughly the division between continuous coniferous forest characteristic of the South Block and Mercoal East and that of the Mixed Wood habitat characteristic of the West Extension. Both MW and YT are found in WMU 438 which provides a mix of continuous coniferous cover that is characteristic of MW and mixed wood habitat that is characteristic of YT. Hunting regulations in the three WMU’s are similar for white-tailed deer (Table 2.2). For a general discussion of overwinter deer use of the LSA refer to Section 5.3.3, Table 5.5 and Appendix ll.

5.4.4 Harvest

Harvest results for white-tailed deer in WMU 340 and WMU 437 are listed in Table 5.9. The harvest of white-tailed deer in WMU 340 has increased by 8.2 (se 1.982, p=<0.0005) deer per year between 1985 and 2006. There is no evidence to indicate that white-tailed deer harvest has changed in WMU 438 (0.7 deer per year, se 0.977, p=0.4818) nor in WMU 437 (0.6 deer, se 0.526, p=0.2923) between 1985 and 2006.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 35 -

Table 5.9. Estimated total harvest for white-tailed deer for WMU 340, WMU 438 and WMU 437, 1985 - 2006 [www.srd.gov.ab.ca/fishwildlife/ livingwith/huntingalberta/harvesteffort.aspx]. Year WMU 340 WMU 438 WMU 437 Total 1985 75 32 0 107 1986 208 43 8 259 1987 114 42 18 174 1988 103 57 64 224 1989 125 72 12 209 1990 69 0 12 81 1991 114 0 10 124 1992 126 18 0 144 1993 85 NA 6 91 1994 88 13 4 105 1995 76 8 8 92 1996 106 5 10 121 1997 103 NA 4 107 1998 121 94 16 231 1999 132 49 8 189 2000 174 80 13 267 2001 237 17 9 263 2002 210 23 5 238 2003 136 5.7 15.5 157.2 2004 299 58.4 41 398.4 2005 313 57.3 37.3 407.6 2006 317 61 37 415 Mean 151.4 36.8 15.4 203.5

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 36 -

5.6 Mineral Licks

Mineral licks are: "A special landscape feature that can draw ungulates into areas where they drink spring water and eat soil. Such water and soil may contain sodium and other minerals" (Telfer 1984:62). A large seepage found in MW at the headwaters of McCardell Creek was identified as a possible lick site for wildlife. MW is comprised of a high percentage of wetland fen habitats (19%) which are readily accessible to ungulates. Water, seeps and springs are ubiquitous throughout YT. The sandstone above the Val D’or seam is highly fractured but the water could be coming from anywhere ( R. Ronaghan, geologist Coal Valley Mine, pers. comm., December 6, 2007).

5.7 Movement Patterns

Little is known about movement patterns of boreal forest elk but as elk constantly seek food resources and security, their distribution and movement patterns will reflect the availability of these resources. Elk are grazers by preference in winter, but they will browse on deciduous shrubs and trees if snow depths prevent foraging. Elk use aspen ridges in early winter but after snow crusting will shift to different vegetation - often conifer / black spruce dominated as they switch to sedge or willow forage. Forage provided by mine reclamation can become important at this time. In spring elk may make local shifts where there is early green up and make heavy use of sedge grazing. Calving occurs wherever there is shrub cover and security for calves. Preference for calving areas is site specific and if “calving” areas exist, it is because individual elk become accustomed to one area to which they will return in subsequent years. Elk can supplement their diet with substantial amounts of willow in the summer.

The ability of elk to adapt to the availability of food as well as security resources may mean that they move very little during times requiring high security. In the Elk River area, south of the Pembina River, elk have been documented using very particular cover types and changing their diurnal patterns in response to hunting pressure ( C. Olsen, Lakeland College, Vermillion Alberta, pers. comm., February 1999). The January, 2007 air survey indicated that elk numbers have not increased in the Coal Valley Mine area since 1997 and are at best stable. Distribution appears to have been reduced to within or immediately adjacent to the boundary of the Coal Valley Mine. Total harvest of elk has not changed between the years 1985 and 2006. This suggests that the elk that use the Coal Valley Mine Mineral Surface Lease as part of their annual home range, have been able to maintain the local Lovett Ridge population despite increased access in the region leading to an increase in human disturbance.

Moose distribution is largely dependent on the presence of extensive shrublands. Moose are primarily a browsing species which consume large quantities of foliage and twigs (primarily willow) from deciduous shrubs and trees. In late winter moose may be confined to coniferous cover in response to deep snow. This is likely where winter mortality occurs. Forage consumption in winter is half of that consumed in early spring and summer. For calving, moose seek wet areas primarily in coniferous cover. Later in the season, moose move to areas of new vegetation, in cutblocks and meadows. These are likely to be wet areas with early snow melt. During the rut, bulls use open area in coniferous forest with thick understorey. Following the rut, moose move into areas of better forage such as willow flats; groups of males are often found together at this time.

Aspen provides quality habitat for deer which eat the leaves in fall and browse on twigs later in the season. Mule deer can make use of coarser forage in these habitats while white-tailed deer

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 37 - use finer forage. White-tailed deer are generally associated with valley bottom habitat and generally seek seclusion in riparian habitat in spring during fawning. They are particularly sensitive to snow depths. Mule deer are generally associated with more rugged terrain. They are found in spring on open grassland slopes making use of new green forage. Mule deer are not as secluded as white-tailed deer and will run off coyotes if near their young or act like a decoy to bears (B. Wishart, Alberta Fish and Wildlife emeritus, pers. comm., August 1998). Home ranges of deer are quite small and once they find secure areas, they generally don’t go far.

Ungulate movement in the project area appears to revolve around subtle seasonal shifts in response to habitat or security requirements and local, site specific movements rather than large en masse migrations.

Both elk and mule deer use rugged terrain as part of their anti-predator response which is evident by the higher use made by elk and deer of YT than MW. Streams in the area do not present impediments to ungulate movement, nor do they offer dedicated travel routes different from adjacent terrain.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 38 -

6.0 SMALL MAMMALS

6.1 Shrews and Cricetid Rodents

Mercoal West - Seven species of small mammals and 26 individuals were caught on MW in 2004 during 1908 trap-nights. Capture success was 1.36% and the corrected catch effort was 1.43 animals per 100 trap-nights (1.43 /100 TN, Table 6.1). Species captured in MW were:

Masked Shrew (n = 7; 26.9% of all captures) Southern Red-backed Vole (n = 6; 23.1% of all captures) Meadow Vole (n = 4; 15.4% of all captures) Western Jumping Mouse (n = 3; 11.5% of all captures) Dusky Shrew (n = 3; 11.5% of all captures) Arctic Shrew (n = 2; 7.7% of all captures) Northern Bog Lemming (n = 1; 3.8% of all captures)

Yellowhead Tower - Two hundred and fifty-four small mammals were captured on YT during 1908 trap-nights. Capture success was 13.3% and the corrected catch effort was 15.48 /100 TN (Table 6.2). Small mammal species captured in YT were:

Southern Red-backed Vole (n = 86; 33.9% of all captures) Meadow Vole (n = 65; 25.6% of all captures) Masked Shrew (n = 42; 16.5% of all captures) Arctic Shrew (n = 33; 13.0% of all captures) Dusky Shrew (n = 19; 7.5% of all captures) Western Jumping Mouse (n = 4; 1.6% of all captures) Deer Mouse (n = 3; 1.2% of all captures) Vole sp. (n = 1; 0.4% of all captures) Unknown (n = 1; 0.4% of all captures)

6.1.1 Abundance

The masked shrew was the most abundant (0.39 /100 TN) small mammal captured in MW (Table 6.1). It was most abundant in Treed Poor Fen habitat but was also found in Lodgepole Pine / TB, and Lodgepole Pine / TB 2-10m cutblock in MW. In the YT it was the third most abundant small mammal (2.56 / 100 TN) and was found in all habitats except for Treed Rich Fens. It was most common in Mixed Wood / TB habitat. (Table 6.2)

The southern red-backed vole was the second most abundant small mammal in MW (0.33 /100 TN) and the most abundant in YT (5.24 /100 TN). It was found in all habitats in MW and all habitats except Treed Rich Fen in YT.

The meadow vole was the second most abundant species (3.96 /100 TN) in the YT where it was found in all habitats especially Willow-Birch meadows and Mixed Wood forest. The meadow vole was found only in Treed Poor Fen habitats of MW but was abundant there.

The Western Jumping Mouse was restricted to Lodgepole Pine / TB 2-10m cutblock, and Treed Poor Fens in MW (overall CE = 0.06 /100 TN) and Mixed Wood / HWR, and Treed Rich Fens in YT (overall CE = 0.24 /100 TN).

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 39 -

The arctic shrew and dusky shrew were both fairly widespread and common in the YT. The dusky shrew was found in three habitats on YT in which arctic shrews were absent (Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT, Lodgepole Pine / TB, and Black & White Spruce / LT). Likewise the arctic shrew was associated with Mixed Wood / HWR, and Rich Treed Fen habitats in which the dusky shrew did not occur. These two shrews were relatively common in MW but were found only in Treed Poor Fen (both) and Lodgepole Pine / TB 2-10m cutblock (arctic shrew only).

One occurrence of Northern Bog Lemming was found in Treed Poor Fen habitat in MW (0.06 /100 TN). The Northern Bog Lemming is an uncommon albeit widely distributed species in Alberta (Smith 1993:134). Most records are of single specimens captured during general surveys as is the case for trapping at MW.

The Deer Mouse was found in low abundance (0.18 /100 TN) in YT and was associated with Lodgepole Pine / HWR and Mixed Wood / HWR habitats. It was not found in MW.

6.1.2 Small Mammal Communities of Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower

Lodgepole Pine / Hairy Wild Rye (H2) YT: Six species of small mammals and 27 individuals were captured in this habitat representing the highest capture effort for all habitats (21.43 /100 TN) in YT. The southern red-backed vole was the most abundant species in this habitat (11 individuals or 5.24 /100 TN were caught). The highest CE (4.76 /100 TN) for masked shrews in all YT occurred in this habitat. The meadow vole (3.97 /100 TN), arctic shrew and dusky shrew (1.59 /100 TN each) were also captured as well as a single deer mouse (0.79 /100TN).

Mixed Wood / Hairy Wild Rye (H5) YT: High numbers of meadow voles (5.36 /100 TN) were caught in this habitat in the YT. The masked shrew and arctic shrew occurred in this habitat at a reasonably high abundance (CE = 3.83 and 3.07 /100 TN respectively). The highest number of western jumping mouse (2.30 /100 TN), and deer mouse (1.53 /100 TN) in the YT occurred in this habitat. The southern red-backed vole (1.53 /100 TN) was also present. One Dark-eyed Junco was accidentally caught here.

Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / Labrador Tea (H6) MW & YT: Two southern red-backed voles were captured in this habitat in MW, one was captured on transect seven and one on transect 11, September 14-16, 2004. No small mammals were caught on transect five set in this habitat June 29 - July 1, 2004. This habitat was the second least productive for small mammals of five habitats sampled in MW in 2004 (CE = 0.44 /100 TN). On YT, 42 small mammals and four species dominated by the southern red-backed vole (10.91 /100 TN) were caught in this habitat. Overall capture effort for this habitat was 15.27 /100 TN, third highest in the YT. The masked shrew (2.55 /100 TN), dusky shrew (1.09 /100 TN) and low numbers of meadow vole (0.73 /100 TN) were also caught in this habitat. One juvenile Gray Jay was accidentally caught.

Lodgepole Pine / Tall Bilberry (H8) MW & YT: This habitat supported low numbers of small mammals in MW (0.99 /100 TN) and YT (9.66 /100 TN). Two transects were set in this habitat in MW and three small mammals were captured on T1 (June 29-July 1) and none were captured on T9 (September 14-16). The southern red-backed vole was the most common species in both project areas and the masked shrew was found in both locations. Reasonably high numbers of meadow vole and dusky shrew also occurred in this habitat in YT. A White-throated Sparrow was captured in this habitat on MW, June 30, 2004.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 40 -

Lodgepole Pine / Tall Bilberry 2-10m (H10) MW: This habitat occurred only in MW. This habitat supported four species (masked and arctic shrew, southern red-backed vole and the western jumping mouse) and the highest abundance (4.04 /100 TN) of small mammals in MW habitats.

Mixed Wood / Tall Bilberry (H11) YT: This habitat supported high numbers of meadow voles (5.91 /100 TN) and masked shrew (4.44 /100 TN) and was the second most productive habitat in YT for small mammals (19.22 /100 TN). This habitat supported the highest number of dusky shrews in all habitats of the YT. The southern red-backed vole and arctic shrew also occurred in this habitat.

White Spruce / Tall Bilberry (H12) MW: One transect was placed in this habitat in MW, September 14-16, 2004. No small mammals were caught. This habitat was the least productive for small mammals in MW in 2004.

Subalpine Fir / Labrador Tea (H13) YT: Five species of small mammals at high abundance (19.12 /100 TN) were captured in this habitat. The highest abundance of southern red-backed voles (13.24 /100 TN) in the YT occurred in this habitat. All three shrews found in the YT project area (masked shrew, dusky shrew and arctic shrew) occurred in this habitat. The meadow vole was present also.

Willow - Birch Meadow (H18) YT: Willow - birch meadows supported the highest abundance of meadow voles (9.19 /100 TN) and arctic shrews (4.78 /100 TN) of all YT habitats. Masked shrew, dusky shrew and south red-backed vole were also present. Overall small mammal abundance in this habitat was 17.65 /100 TN.

Black & White Spruce / Labrador Tea (H22) YT: Of the four species captured in this habitat, the southern red-backed vole was the most abundant species (6.57 /100 TN). The meadow vole was fairly abundant (2.19 /100 TN) while the dusky shrew (1.46 /100 TN) and masked shrew (0.73 /100 TN) were present. Overall small mammal abundance in this habitat was 10.95 /100 TN).

Treed Poor Fen (H24) MW: Seventeen animals representing seven species were captured for a success rate of 2.25 /100 TN. This habitat supports the most diverse assemblage of small mammals of the five habitats sampled in MW. This habitat is comprised of various amounts of black spruce, tamarack and dwarf birch as well as scattered amounts of Lodgepole Pine and Willow. The Northern Bog Lemming was captured in Black Spruce-Tamarack / Dwarf Birch habitat on Transect #2, June 29, 2004.

Treed Rich Fen (H27) YT: Three species of small mammals (Arctic Shrew, Meadow Vole, and Western Jumping Mouse) were caught in this habitat for an overall CE of 4.91 /100 TN, the lowest of all habitats sampled in YT.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 41 -

Table 6.1. Relative abundance of small mammals (CE = # / 100 trap nights) per habitat, Mercoal West, June 29 - July 1 and September 14 - 16, 2004.

Habitat # H6 H8 H10 H24 CE Masked Shrew 0.33 1.35 0.53 0.39 Arctic Shrew 1.35 0.26 0.11 Dusky Shrew 0.40 0.17 SRB Vole 0.44 0.66 0.67 0.13 0.33 Meadow Vole 0.53 0.22 N Bog Lemming 0.13 0.06 W Jumping Mouse 0.67 0.26 0.17 Total 0.44 0.99 4.04 2.25 1.43 N Bog Lemming = Northern Bog Lemming SRB Vole = Southern Red-backed Vole W Jumping Mouse = Western Jumping Mouse

Table 6.2. Relative abundance of small mammals (CE = # / 100 trap nights) per habitat, Yellowhead Tower, July 5 -7 and September 12 - 14, 2006. Habitat # H2 H5 H6 H8 H11 H13 H18 H22 H27 CE Masked Shrew 4.76 3.83 2.55 0.69 4.44 2.21 2.57 0.73 2.56 Arctic Shrew 1.59 3.07 2.96 0.74 4.78 3.51 2.01 Dusky Shrew 1.59 1.09 2.07 2.22 1.47 0.37 1.46 1.16 Deer Mouse 0.79 1.53 0.18 SRB Vole 8.73 1.53 10.91 4.14 3.33 13.24 0.37 6.57 5.24 Meadow Vole 3.97 5.36 0.73 2.76 5.91 1.47 9.19 2.19 0.70 3.96 W Jumping Mouse 2.30 0.70 0.24 Vole sp. 0.37 0.06 Unknown 0.37 0.06 Total 21.43 17.62 15.279.66 19.2219.12 17.65 10.95 4.9115.48 SRB Vole = Southern Red-backed Vole W Jumping Mouse = Western Jumping Mouse

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 42 -

6.1.3 Regional Distribution and Biodiversity of Small Mammals

The capture effort on the YT (15.48 /100TN) was higher than other small mammal inventories conducted in the region since 1992 while the MW was the lowest (1.43 /100TN). Catch effort on the Coal Valley Mine (1992), South Block, West Extension and Mercoal East ranged between 4.44 and 6.09 /100 TN (Table 6.3). Variation in the abundance of small mammals among years may be due to changes in moisture (Wrigley et al. 1979, MacCracken et al. 1985, Roy et al. 1995), temperature (Zirul and Fuller 1970, Kucera and Fuller 1978, Mowrey and Zasada 1984), population cycles (Krebs and Meyer 1974, Keith and Windberg 1978), prey availability, predator activity, parasites, disease, or behavioural traits. Indirect evidence indicates that 2004 may have been a low cycle year for small mammals in west central Alberta. The 105th Christmas Bird Count for 2004-2005 indicated that across central Canada from the Rockies to the St. Lawrence, Great Gray Owls and Northern Hawk-Owls moved out of their northern forests, perhaps driven by a crash in vole populations (Cannings 2005).

All species captured on the MW-YT LSA occurred within their expected range in Alberta (Smith 1993). Winter is the limiting season for all permanent mammalian residents in the boreal forest. Shrews, mice, and voles generally do not hibernate during this long, cold, and snowy period but stay active under the relatively deep and soft snow cover.

The Arctic Shrew occurs on the western edge of its range in the Coal Valley Mine area. It is found throughout the northern forests and parklands and is relatively common within its range in the province. It inhabits damp meadows, aspen groves, black spruce-larch bogs, deadfall, and lodgepole pine-aspen forest. The Dusky Shrew is widely distributed and common throughout the province where it tolerates a variety of habitats. It is generally associated with dense cover and is common except in grasslands where it is uncommon. The Masked Shrew is common to very common throughout the province except in the arid grasslands of the southeast. Shrews inhabit areas having moist microclimates. Lush herb and shrub cover adjacent to ponds or streams is very productive shrew habitat. Because of their insectivorous diet, shrews are important predators on forest insects (Holroyd and Van Tighem 1983).

The Southern Red-backed Vole is found throughout most of forested Alberta. It is generally absent from grasslands. It is one of the most common and abundant small rodents in those regions of the province where it is found. This species is very important as a prey species for a number of predators including the Great Horned Owl, Barred Owl, Rough-legged Hawk, weasels, marten, mink, red fox, black bear and red squirrel (Holroyd and van Tighem 1983).

The Meadow Vole is found throughout the province in suitable habitat. It is common and even abundant in some years. The meadow vole has a large number of predators because of its widespread distribution and occupancy of several habitats. Predation of meadow voles by coyote, Northern Saw-whet Owl, and Northern Pygmy-Owl was recorded by Holroyd and Van Tighem (1983). A high level of predation of meadow voles by Great Gray Owls was recorded in Mercoal East (Bighorn 2004). Other predators include marten, weasels, mink, badger, fox, bears, hawks, other owls, crows, magpies, jays, shrikes and gulls.

The Northern Bog Lemming is an uncommon albeit widely distributed species in Alberta and is associated with boreal-cordilleran regions. It inhabits moist meadows and bogs in the northern forest and subalpine areas. Most records are of single specimens captured during general surveys as is the case for trapping at MW. The Western Jumping Mouse is found in the southern

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 43 - half of the province south of Lesser Slave Lake. Seed crops are necessary in this species’ diet for overwintering fat deposition. Hibernation is from September to late May (Banfield 1974).

The Deer Mouse was not captured in MW but was present in the YT. It is found in all habitats in the province but prefers alpine meadows and open grasslands. It is common and likely the most abundant mammal in the province.

Other species that could occur regionally include the Water Shrew (Smith 1993). It is considered to be uncommon and is seldom found away from water. It has not been captured in various inventory efforts associated with Coal Valley Mine extensions (Table 6.3). It is possible that the Pygmy Shrew (Sorex hoyi) and the Heather Shrew (Phenacomys intermedius) could occur in the Coal Valley Mine area (Smith 1993) but no records exist for these species.

Table 6.3. The corrected catch effort (# / 100 TN) of small mammal species from the Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower Regional Study Area, 1992 - 2006. Coal West South Mercoal Mercoal Yellowhead Valley Extension Block East West Tower 1992 1996, 1997 1996, 1997 2001, 2002 2004 2006

# of Trap Nights 1908 1431 1431 3816 1908 1908 # of Traplines 12 9 9 24 12 12 # /100TN (CE) 4.85 6.09 4.44 4.98 1.43 15.48

Masked Shrew - 0.53 0.66 0.57 0.39 2.56 Dusky Shrew 0.11 0.08 - 0.03 0.17 1.16 Arctic Shrew 0.83 1.2 0.36 0.33 0.11 2.01 Deer Mouse 1.05 - - - - 0.18 SRB Vole 0.61 2.18 2.26 1.77 0.33 5.24 Meadow Vole 2.21 1.57 1.09 2.26 0.22 3.96 N Bog Lemming - - - - 0.06 -

WJ Mouse 0.06 0.45 0.07 - 0.17 0.24 Total Species 6 6 6 5 7 7 SRB Vole = Southern Red-backed Vole N Bog Lemming = Northern Bog Lemming WJ Mouse = Western Jumping Mouse

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 44 -

6.2 Bats

Bat surveys were conducted on the YT August 2, 2007, but no bats were detected nor were any bats incidentally observed in the LSA. Smith (1993) indicates that the range of the Little Brown Bat (Myotis lucifugus), Silver-haired Bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), Big Brown Bat (Eptesicus fuscus) and Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus) includes the MW-YT LSA. These four species are widespread in Alberta. The southern boundary of the Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) cuts through the RSA. It is possible that this bat occurs in the MW-YT LSA. The range of the Long-eared Bat (Myotis evotis) and Long-legged Bat (Myotis volans) occur south and west of the RSA respectively (Smith 1993).

Big Brown Bats were found in the Coal Valley Mine office complex on January 12, 1994 (Bighorn 1995). Little Brown Bat, Long-legged Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat are known to hibernate in the Cadomin Caves about 25 km southwest of MW. The Little Brown Bat and Long-legged Bat constituted 87% and 13% respectively of all bats captured at the Cadomin Caves in the late 1970's. The Northern Long-eared Bat was present (D. Hobson, Alberta Wildlife Management, pers. comm. March 25, 1999). A time trend analysis of bat numbers in the Cadomin Cave between 1972 and 2007 indicated total bat numbers have increased by 8.6 bats per year (se=2.355, p=0.0014). Closure of the cave in winter was implemented September 1, 2000 (A. McCracken, District Conservation Officer, Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture, pers. comm., January 3, 2008). A time trend analysis of bat numbers prior to the closure indicated that the total number of bats increased by 6.2 bats per year (se=2.631, p=0.0302) between 1972 and 2000.

Bat distribution and ecology in forested areas of Alberta is not well understood. Crampton and Barclay (1995) investigated bats in the aspen mixed wood forest of northeastern Alberta. They concluded that bat distribution was influenced by the age of tree stands, abundance of roost trees, large openings (cutblocks) and insect densities.

6.3 Snowshoe Hare

Snowshoe hare was the most abundant small mammal (8.13 t/km-d) in MW measured by winter track counts (Table 6.4). They were most abundant in Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT habitat and 2-10m cutblocks in the same habitat (16 t/km-d and 11.67 t/km-d respectively) as well as Black Spruce-Lodgepole Pine / LT habitats (8 t/km-d). Seven snowshoe hare were observed on MW, May 4, 26 and 28, 2004 and nine were observed April 30 and May 4, 2006.

No incidental observations of snowshoe hare were made on YT however snow track counts indicated they were reasonably abundant (mean = 2.29 t/km-d). They were most abundant on the YT in Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT 2-10m cutblocks (14.61 t/km-d). Tracks of snowshoe hare were observed November 10, 2006 in planted pine reclamation on the Coal Valley Mine.

The snowshoe hare is found throughout the province except for the grassland region. It occurs in the Foothills where it is widespread but may undergo local periodical fluctuations. The snowshoe hare is an animal of the forest preferring the shrubby open areas or the forest edges.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 45 -

Table 6.4. Mean tracks/km-day indicating winter use by squirrel and hare in the Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower Local Study Area (LSA), Mercoal West (MW) and Yellowhead Tower (YT), 2005 and 2006. The sampling unit = 50m quadrat. Sample size (n) = 380 (MW) and 405 (YT). Habitat Habitat n Squirrel Squirrel Squirrel Hare Hare Hare ID LSA MW YT LSA MW YT 1 Lodgepole Pine / Bearberry 13 0.00 0 0 0 2 Lodgepole Pine / Hairy Wild Rye 5 4.00 4 10.67 10.67 4 Trembling Aspen / Hairy Wild Rye 5 0.00 0 0 0 5 Mixed Wood / Hairy Wild Rye 15 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 6 Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT 207 2.71 3 2.21 11.06 16 2.7 7 Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT 2- 43 2.52 3.61 0 12.56 11.67 14.61 10m 8 Lodgepole Pine / Tall Bilberry 110 1.12 0.61 1.31 2.45 8 0.37 10 Lodgepole Pine / Tall Bilberry 2-10m 20 0.25 0.25 2.25 2.25 11 Mixed Wood / Tall Bilberry 49 0 0 0 5.10 25 0 12 White Spruce / Tall Bilberry 40 0.50 0.5 7.75 7.75 13 Subalpine Fir / Labrador Tea 5 20 20 6 6 18 Willow - Birch Meadow 33 0 0 0.15 0.15 19 Forb Meadow 5 0 0 0 0 20 Graminoid Meadow 25 0 0 0 0 21 Black Spruce-Lodgepole Pine / LT 20 2 0 4 5 8.00 2 22 Black & White Spruce / LT 25 0.53 0.53 0 0 24 Treed Poor Fen 80 0.06 0.06 0.56 0.56 25 Shrubby Poor Fen 20 0 0 0 0 27 Treed Rich Fen 40 0 0 0 0 28 Shrubby Rich Fen 25 0 0 3.20 3.2 Mean All Habitats 1.27 1.39 1.16 5.12 8.13 2.29

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 46 -

6.4 Squirrels, Muskrats, Beaver and Porcupine

6.4.1 Squirrels

Snow track counts on MW indicated that red squirrel was most abundant in Lodgepole Pine- Black Spruce / LT habitat and 2-10m cutblocks in the same habitat (3.00 t/km-d and 3.6 t/km-d respectively) (Table 6.4). Similarly in YT, red squirrel was most abundant in the Lodgepole Pine- Black Spruce / LT forest (2.21 t/km-d). Red squirrel is widespread throughout the Boreal- Cordilleran region (Smith 1993) and is probably the best known tree squirrel in the region. It is absent from grassland regions.

The LSA occurs within the range of the northern flying squirrel (Smith 1993) although this species was not detected during wildlife surveys. This species occurs in coniferous and mixed wood forests. Trees with holes in which nests can be made are important requirements for these squirrels.

6.4.2 Least Chipmunk

Least Chipmunk are widespread in the Foothills NR (Smith 1993) but may have a local distribution. They are generally found inhabiting a variety of habitats including rocky outcrops, deadfall and brush piles. One sighting was made June 13, 2006 in aspen-willow habitat on YT.

6.4.3 Muskrat

Muskrat were not observed on the LSA during the study period. Muskrats are found on the Coal Valley Mine. On May 22, 2006, observations of individuals, bank burrows and a lodge were made on the west end of Lovett Lake and on ponds elsewhere on the mine. Muskrat is a semi- aquatic rodent and is widespread throughout the region wherever there is long-standing or permanent water, i.e., sloughs, lakes, marshes, streams (Smith 1993).

6.4.4 American Beaver

A series of beaver ponds are found along Chance Creek in the YT LSA. A large pond is located along the Embarras River including one south of Hwy 47 and the rail line at the east end of the YT PDA. This will not be disturbed by mining activity. Beavers have been recorded on ponds and various water bodies on the Coal Valley Mine. Beavers are found throughout the province wherever there is suitable water (sloughs, rivers, creeks and lakes) and trees within easy access.

6.4.5 Porcupine

Porcupines were not observed on the LSA during the study period. Porcupines are found throughout the province but never in large numbers. In Jasper National Park it was identified as is common and was often encountered in the Englemann Spruce subalpine forests (Holroyd and Van Tighem 1983:316). Porcupines were observed in the West Extension and South Block extensions (Bighorn 1999:68).

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 47 -

7.0 AVIFAUNA

7.1 Breeding Birds (Perching birds, Waterfowl, Cranes, Rails, and Allies, Shorebirds, Gulls, Auks, Fowl-like birds and Woodpeckers and Allies)

7.1.1 Classification and Distribution

The Order Passeriformes (Perching birds) accounted for 39/45 (87%) of the species, or 865/899 (96%) of the individuals recorded during the breeding bird survey on the LSA. All other species were represented by five Orders: Anseriformes (Waterfowl), Gruiformes (Cranes, Rails, and Allies), Charadriiformes (Shorebirds, Gulls, Auks), Galliformes (Fowl-like birds), and Piciformes (Woodpeckers and Allies).

On MW 26/32 (81%) species, or 435/446 (98%) of the individuals were from the Order Passeriformes. The 6 remaining individuals belonged to four species and four Orders. The Order Piciformes (woodpeckers) was represented by one Pileated Woodpecker. Three Ruffed Grouse were the only members of the Order Galliformes. The Order Charadriiformes was represented by eight Wilson’s Snipe, one Greater Yellowlegs and one Solitary Sandpiper. The Order Gruiformes was represented by two Sandhill Cranes.

On YT, 35/45 (78%) species, or 492/513 (96%) individuals were from the Order Passeriformes. The other 21 individuals were from 10 species and four Orders. The Order Anseriformes was represented by four Buffleheads and one Mallard. One Spruce Grouse represents the Order Galliformes. Five Northern Flickers and two Yellow-bellied Sapsuckers, one Hairy Woodpecker, and one American Three-toed Woodpecker belonged to the Order Piciformes. Three species: four Wilson’s Snipes, one Killdeer, and one Spotted Sandpiper, represented the Order Charadriiformes.

Of the 53 total species identified on the LSA, 25 (47%) occurred in both MW and YT; seven (13%) species were specific to MW, and 19 (38%) were found only on YT (Table 7.1). The most abundant bird species that occurred in both MW and YT were: Yellow-rumped Warbler, Ruby- crowned Kinglet, Swainson’s Thrush, and Dark-eyed Junco. The Chipping Sparrow was present in both locations but was more abundant in YT than in MW (Table 7.1).

Of the seven species found only on MW, five species (Greater Yellowlegs, Solitary Sandpiper, Pileated Woodpecker, Common Yellowthroat and Purple Finch were represented by a single individual. The Sandhill Crane and Brown Creeper were represented each by two birds. Sandhill Crane, waterfowl and shorebirds are associated with fens and in general wetlands and streams which were found south of the junction of the Mercoal Mainline and Pembina River Road and in valleys between hilltops.

On YT, eight of the 20 species specific to that site were represented by a single individual (Mallard, Spruce Grouse, Killdeer, Spotted Sandpiper, Hairy Woodpecker, American Three-toed Woodpecker, Blue-headed Vireo and Black-throated Green Warbler). Two species specific to the YT, American Robin and Black-capped Chickadee, were common in abundance (8.5 and 4.2 pairs/km2 respectively). The American Robin and Black-capped Chickadee are widespread in distribution. The American Robin generally associates with all habitats except for closed coniferous forests. It was found in 10 habitats in the YT LSA: H2, H5, H6, H8, H11, H14, H15, H18, H20, and H29. The Black-capped Chickadee is often found in deciduous or deciduous dominated mixed forests. Deciduous habitat occurs in both LSAs but comprise 10% of YT and

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 48 - only 1% of MW (Section 4.0). Four Pacific-slope Flycatchers were present locally on YT. They were associated with cliffs adjacent fasting flowing streams in three habitats (H2, H18 and H20) associated with the confluence of Jackson Creek, Chance Creek and the Embarras River.

7.1.2 Breeding Bird Abundance

During the MW 2004 breeding bird survey, 446 individual birds representing 32 species were counted. Higher number of birds (513 individuals) and twice the number of species (60) were recorded on YT during the 2006 breeding bird survey (Table 7.1, Appendix III). In the MW LSA, four bird species were classed as abundant, 14 were common, four were uncommon and 10 were very uncommon. In the YT LSA, six bird species were classed as abundant, 12 were common, 11 were uncommon and 14 were very uncommon. The Yellow-rumped Warbler, Ruby- crowned Kinglet, Swainson’s Thrush and Dark-eyed Junco were abundant in the MW and YT LSAs. The Chipping Sparrow and Varied Thrush were abundant in the YT LSA and common in the MW LSA. Seven species occurred exclusively on MW while 20 species occurred exclusively on YT.

The Sandhill Crane, Brown Creeper, Greater Yellowlegs, Solitary Sandpiper, Pileated Woodpecker, Common Yellowthroat, and Purple Finch were unique to the MW LSA and to the habitat in which they were identified (Table 7.1, Appendix IV-1).

Bird species exclusive to YT were: American Robin, Black-capped Chickadee, Alder Flycatcher, Northern Flicker, Winter Wren, Bufflehead, Pacific-slope Flycatcher, Tennessee Warbler, Yellow- bellied Sapsucker, Cliff Swallow, Savannah Sparrow, Red-winged Blackbird, Mallard, Spruce Grouse, Killdeer, Spotted Sandpiper, Hairy Woodpecker, American Three-toed Woodpecker, Blue-headed Vireo and Black-throated Green Warbler (Table 7.1 and Appendix IV-2).

7.1.3 Winter Resident Passerines and Woodpeckers

Woodpeckers belong to a guild of forest birds known as “primary cavity excavators”. Members of this guild (which also include chickadees and nuthatches) excavate nest cavities in dead or live defective trees. Woodpeckers usually build one or more nest cavities each year as part of their annual courtship ritual and for other possible reasons including predation and parasitism avoidance or availability of cavities. Most species also excavate tree cavities for roosting and during the process of foraging.

Woodpeckers play important roles within forest ecosystems. The cavities they excavate are often used by secondary cavity users, including small ducks, owls and raptors, many passerines, and mammals such as bats and squirrels. Species such as the Yellow-bellied Sapsucker excavate nest sites that are used by many secondary cavity nesters (Steeger et al. 1996) including chickadees, wrens, and swallows. Woodpeckers drill sap wells which provide nourishment for a wide variety of species, e.g., hummingbirds, warblers, chipmunks, and various insects (Daily et al. 1993). Woodpeckers play a significant role in the regulation of forest insect pests (Machmer and Steeger 1995). Woodpeckers are highly dependent on the condition of a tree for nesting, roosting and feeding.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 49 -

Table: 7.1. Relative abundance of bird species located on the Mercoal West (MW) - Yellowhead Tower (YT) Mine Extension Project. Species in boldface are specific to either the MW or YT local study area. Species abundance is classified as abundant ( A ), common ( C ), uncommon ( U ) and very uncommon ( VU ). See Appendix III for definitions.

Species (MW) Abundance # of Birds Pairs/km² Species (YT) Abundance # of Birds Pairs/km² Yellow-rumped Warbler A 90 50.3 Yellow-rumped Warbler A 81 43 Ruby-crowned Kinglet A 45 25.1 Ruby-crowned Kinglet A 41 21.8 Swainson's Thrush A 45 25.1 Swainson's Thrush A 39 20.7 Dark-eyed Junco A 44 24.6 Chipping Sparrow A 37 19.6 Gray Jay C 3016.8 Dark-eyed Junco A 37 19.6 Varied Thrush C 23 12.9 Varied Thrush A 36 19.1 White-throated Sparrow C 21 11.7 White-throated Sparrow C 27 14.3 Chipping Sparrow C 19 10.6 Gray Jay C 22 11.7 Pine Siskin C 18 10.1 Pine Siskin C 21 11.1 Hermit Thrush C 17 9.5 Orange-crowned Warbler C 18 9.6 Lincoln Sparrow C 12 6.7 American Robin C 16 8.5 Orange-crowned Warbler C 11 6.1 Lincoln Sparrow C 15 8 Golden-crowned Kinglet C 10 5.6 Warbling Vireo C 12 6.4 Wilson’s Snipe C 8 4.5 Wilson's Warbler C 11 5.8 Boreal Chickadee C 7 3.9 Golden-crowned Kinglet C 10 5.3 Red-breasted Nuthatch C 7 3.9 Hermit Thrush C 10 5.3 White-winged Crossbill C 7 3.9 Black-capped Chickadee C 8 4.2 Pine Grosbeak C 6 3.4 Alder Flycatcher C 7 3.7 Yellow-bellied Flycatcher U 4 2.2 Northern Flicker U 5 2.7 Ruffed Grouse U 3 1.7 Winter Wren U 5 2.7 Common Raven U 3 1.7 Bufflehead U 4 2.1 Warbling Vireo U 3 1.7 Wilson’s Snipe U 4 2.1 Sandhill Crane VU 2 1.1 Yellow-bellied Flycatcher U 4 2.1 Brown Creeper VU 2 1.1 Pacific-slope Flycatcher U 4 2.1 Wilson's Warbler VU 2 1.1 Common Raven U 4 2.1 Greater Yellowlegs VU 1 0.6 Tennessee Warbler U 4 2.1 Solitary Sandpiper VU 1 0.6 Red-breasted Nuthatch U 3 1.6 Pileated Woodpecker VU 1 0.6 Clay-colored Sparrow U 3 1.6 Dusky Flycatcher VU 1 0.6 Brown-headed Cowbird U 3 1.6 Common Yellowthroat VU 1 0.6 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker VU 2 1.1 Clay-colored Sparrow VU 1 0.6 Cliff Swallow VU 2 1.1 Purple Finch VU 1 0.6 Boreal Chickadee VU 2 1.1 Savannah Sparrow VU 2 1.1 Red-winged Blackbird VU 2 1.1 Pine GrosbeakVU 2 1.1 Mallard VU 1 0.5 Spruce Grouse VU 1 0.5 Killdeer VU 1 0.5 Spotted Sandpiper VU 1 0.5 Hairy Woodpecker VU 1 0.5 Am. 3-toed Woodpecker VU 1 0.5 Dusky Flycatcher VU 1 0.5 Blue-headed Vireo VU 1 0.5 Blk-throated Grn Warbler VU 1 0.5 White-winged Crossbill VU 1 0.5 Total: 32 species 446 249.2 Total: 45 species 513 272.3

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 50 -

Table 7.2. Relative abundance of bird species recorded during the woodpecker survey on the Yellowhead Tower (YT) local study area, May 2006 and 2007. Species in boldface are specific to the YT LSA. Species abundance is classified as abundant ( A ), common ( C ), uncommon ( U ) and very uncommon ( VU ). See Appendix III for definitions.

Species (YT) Abundance # of Birds Pairs/km² Ruby-crowned Kinglet C 19 25.2 Yellow-rumped Warbler C 14 18.6 Dark-eyed Junco C 14 18.6 Varied Thrush C 9 11.9 Spruce Grouse C 7 9.3 Golden-crowned Kinglet C 6 8 American Robin U 5 6.6 Northern Flicker U 4 5.3 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker U 3 4 Gray Jay U 3 4 Hermit Thrush U 3 4 Chipping Sparrow U 3 4 Ruffed Grouse VU 2 2.7 Common Raven VU 2 2.7 Boreal Chickadee VU 2 2.7 Cedar Waxwing VU 2 2.7 Lincoln Sparrow VU 2 2.7 Northern Pygmy-Owl VU 1 1.3 Pileated Woodpecker VU 1 1.3 Tree Swallow VU 1 1.3 Black-capped Chickadee VU 1 1.3 Red-breasted Nuthatch VU 1 1.3 Orange-crowned Warbler VU 1 1.3 White-throated Sparrow VU 1 1.3 Total: 24 species 107 142

Woodpecker surveys in the first half of May recorded 107 birds and 24 species (Table 7.2). Most species recorded are migrants which arrive as early as late March (Golden-crowned Kinglet) and continue to do so until early June. Changes in relative abundance occur daily for passerines during May as some arrive, some linger and others continue to move northward. This daily exchange rate confounds breeding bird (passerine) survey techniques that rely on the establishment and maintenance of territories by resident birds. Woodpeckers on the other hand take up residency quicker than passerines and by mid-May are in the process of becoming territorial.

There were seven winter resident and three woodpecker species recorded during the May woodpecker survey: Spruce Grouse, Ruffed Grouse, Northern Pygmy-Owl, Northern Flicker, Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, Pileated Woodpecker, Gray Jay, Common Raven, Black-capped Chickadee and Boreal Chickadee (Table 7.2). The Red-breasted Nuthatch and Golden-crowned Kinglet recorded during this survey could be either winter residents or migrants passing through the area. The Pileated Woodpecker is a year round resident while the Northern Flicker, Yellow- bellied Sapsucker and migrants that arrive early and set up territories.

The Northern Flicker was most abundant woodpecker recorded during the survey (5.3 breeding pairs/km2) followed by the Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (4.0 breeding pairs/km2). A single Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 51 - observation of a Pileated Woodpecker is indicative of its naturally low occurrence and scattered distribution.

The Northern Flicker was found in Trembling Aspen / HWR and Treed Rich Fen habitat. This species is a primary cavity nester selecting deciduous mixed wood forests or the edge of clearings, i.e. fens, containing large diameter snags or decaying tree for potential nest sites. The Yellow-bellied Sapsucker was found in Trembling Aspen / HWR and Black & White Spruce- Lodgepole Pine / BH habitat. Sapsuckers arrive by late April to early May or about the time that tree sap begins to flow. Sapsuckers drill numerous holes in the bark of coniferous or deciduous trees which causes sap to ooze to the surface. The sap is used nourishment by the sapsucker. These sap wells also attract insects which become feeding stations for the arriving migrants. One Pileated Woodpecker was detected in Subalpine Fir / LT habitat. This species prefers larger diameter deciduous trees for nesting and prefers carpenter ants found in large substrates either dead or damaged. Habitat selection is flexible at territory and stand scales (Bonar 2001). Its distribution may be limited to the availability of large diameter trees.

Woodpeckers were also detected during the June breeding bird survey. A single Pileated Woodpecker was observed on MW (Table 7.1). Four woodpecker species were observed on YT during the June breeding bird survey: They were: Northern Flicker, Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, Hairy Woodpecker and American Three-toed Woodpecker (Table 7.1)

7.1.4 Breeding Bird Diversity

Bird species diversity is higher overall on YT (BSD=3.111) than on MW (BSD=2.792) (Table 7.3 and 4). Bird diversity on YT is enhanced by a greater variety of habitats, large amount of mixed wood habitat (10%) compared to MW (1%), variable topographic relief, riparian stream habitat associated with Chance Creek, Jackson Creek, and the Embarras River, pond habitat associated with the Embarras River, the presence of old growth subalpine fir habitat and grassy meadows.

Breeding bird diversity of habitats in the MW-YT LSA were classed as Very High (≥3.0), High (≥2.5 to <3.0), Moderate (≥2.0 to <2.5), Low (≥1.0 to <2.0), Very Low (>0 to < 1.0) and None.

Mercoal West Bird Diversity

Habitats supporting the highest diversity of birds in MW were (Table 7.3): • Treed Poor Fen (BSD = 2.629, High) • Lodgepole Pine / TB (BSD = 2.566, High) • Lodgepole Pine / TB cutblock (BSD = 2.521, High) • Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT cutblock (BSD = 2.505, High) These habitats comprise 1,366.5 ha or 39% of the MW LSA. Mining will disturb 169 ha of these habitats on the MW LSA.

Habitats supporting moderate bird diversity on MW were: • Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT (BSD = 2.427, Moderate) • Black Spruce-Lodgepole Pine / LT (BSD = 2.288, Moderate) • Lodgepole Pine / HWR (BSD = 2.206, Moderate) These habitats comprise 1,601 ha or 45% of the MW LSA. Mining will disturb 285 ha of these habitats on the MW LSA.

Habitats supporting the lowest bird diversity on MW were:

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 52 -

• White Spruce / BH (BSD = 1.733, Low) • Graminoid Rich Fen (BSD = 1.352, Low) • Shrubby Poor Fen (BSD = 1.099, Low) • Mixed Wood / HWR (BSD = 0.673, Very Low) These habitats comprise 186 ha or 5% of the MW LSA. Mining will disturb 37 ha of these habitats on the MW LSA.

Yellowhead Tower Bird Diversity

On YT habitats with the highest bird species diversity were (Table 7.4): • Willow-Birch Meadow (BSD = 3.107, Very High) • Graminoid Meadow (BSD = 2.699, High) • Mixed Wood / HWR (BSD = 2.656, High) These habitats comprise 193 ha or 10% of the YT LSA. Mining will disturb 73 ha of these habitats on the YT LSA.

Habitats supporting moderate bird diversity on YT were: • Lodgepole Pine / TB (BSD = 2.498, Moderate) • Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT (BSD = 2,495, Moderate) • Black & White Spruce / LT (BSD = 2.468, Moderate) • Lodgepole Pine / HWR (BSD = 2.424, Moderate) • Lodgepole Pine / TB burn (BSD = 2.175, Moderate) • Mixed Wood / TB (BSD = 2.245, Moderate) • White Spruce / TB (BSD = 2.219, Moderate) • Shrubby Rich Fen (BSD = 2.327, Moderate) • Treed Rich Fen (BSD = 2.144) These habitats comprise 1,280 ha or 68% of the YT LSA. Mining will disturb 598 ha of these habitats on the YT LSA.

Habitats with the lowest bird species diversity on YT were: • Willow Upland (BSD = 1.889, Low) • Lodgepole Pine / BH (BSD = 1.834, Low) • Black & White Spruce - Lodgepole Pine / BH (BSD = 1.831, Low) • Subalpine Fir / LT (BSD = 1.792, Low) • Graminoid Rich Fen (BSD = 1.581, Low) • Trembling Aspen / HWR (BSD = 1.498, Low) These habitats comprise 61 ha or 3% of the YT LSA. Mining will disturb 17 ha of these habitats on the YT LSA.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 53 -

Table 7.3. Bird species diversity (BSD) and relative abundance (pairs/km²) per habitat, Mercoal West breeding bird survey, 2004.

No. No. No. Habitat BSD pairs/km² plots species birds H2 Lodgepole Pine / HWR 1 10 14 2.206 445.9 H5 Mixed Wood / HWR 1 2 5 0.673 159.2 H6 Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT 17 16 84 2.427 157.4 H7 Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT - cutblock 6 16 61 2.505 323.8 H8 Lodgepole Pine / TB 8 17 72 2.566 286.6 H10 Lodgepole Pine / TB - cutblock 11 22 102 2.521 295.3 H12 White Spruce / BH 1 6 8 1.733 254.8 H21 Black Spruce-Lodgepole Pine / LT 4 12 33 2.288 262.2 H24 Treed Poor Fen 6 18 57 2.629 302.5 H25 Shrubby Poor Fen 1 3 3 1.099 95.5 H29 Graminoid Rich Fen 1 4 7 1.352 222.9 Total (11 habitats) 57 32 446 2.792 249.2

Table 7.4. Bird species diversity (BSD) and relative abundance (pairs/km²) per habitat, Yellowhead Tower breeding bird survey, 2006. No. No. No. Habitat BSD pairs/km² plots species birds H2 Lodgepole Pine / HWR 5 16 40 2.424 254.8 H4 Trembling Aspen / HWR 1 6 10 1.498 318.5 H5 Mixed Wood / HWR 4 17 41 2.656 326.4 H6 Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT 6 17 51 2.495 270.7 H8 Lodgepole Pine / TB 15 19 100 2.498 213.3 H9 Lodgepole Pine / TB - Burn 2 11 26 2.175 414 H11 Mixed Wood / TB 2 10 13 2.245 207 H12 White Spruce / TB 6 12 43 2.219 228.2 H13 Subalpine Fir / LT 1 6 6 1.792 191.1 H14 Lodgepole Pine / BH 1 7 10 1.834 318.5 H15 Black & White Spruce-Lodgepole Pine / BH 1 7 9 1.831 286.6 H17 Willow Upland 1 7 9 1.889 286.6 H18 Willow-Birch Meadow 4 27 58 3.107 461.8 H20 Graminoid Meadow (mostly agronomics) 2 16 25 2.699 398.1 H22 Black & White Spruce / LT 4 13 27 2.468 215 H27 Treed Rich Fen 1 10 14 2.144 445.9 H28 Shrubby Rich Fen 2 12 22 2.327 350.3 H29 Graminoid Rich Fen 2 6 9 1.581 143.3 Total (18 habitats) 60 45 513 3.111 272.3

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 54 -

7.1.5 Bird Use of Habitat

Twenty-four habitats were sampled on the MW-YT LSA during the breeding bird survey (Table 7.5). Eleven habitats were sampled on MW and 18 on the YT (Table 7.4 and 7.5). Six habitats were common to both MW and YT: Lodgepole Pine / HWR, Mixed Wood / HWR, Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT, Lodgepole Pine / TB, White Spruce / BH, and Graminoid Rich Fen. Five unique habitats occurred in MW and 12 unique habitats occurred on YT.

The Yellow-rumped Warbler and the Ruby-crowned Kinglet were the most wide-spread bird species in the MW-YT LSA appearing in 19 of the 24 habitats that were surveyed (Table 7.5). The Dark-eyed Junco occurred in 18 of the 24 habitats and the Gray Jay was reported in 17 of the 24 habitats.

Of the 53 species recorded during the breeding bird survey, 19 (36%) used only a single habitat: Blue-headed Vireo, Brown Creeper, Black-throated Green Warbler, Bufflehead, Cliff Swallow, Common Yellowthroat, Greater Yellowlegs, Hairy Woodpecker, Killdeer, Pileated Woodpecker, Purple Finch, Red-winged Blackbird, Sandhill Crane, Savannah Sparrow, Solitary Sandpiper, Spotted Sandpiper, Spruce Grouse, American Three-toed Woodpecker.

Presence/absence and relative abundance categories (very low, low, moderate, high, and very high) for all breeding bird species in each habitat are presented for MW and YT in Appendix IV-1 and Appendix IV-2 respectively. The tables were compiled from results of the breeding bird survey and the woodpecker survey. Incidental observations of birds that were not counted on the breeding bird survey and that occurred during the woodpecker survey [other than the three woodpecker species and the Northern Pygmy-Owl] are not included in these results. A discussion of birds associated with each habitat in MW and YT follows:

Lodgepole Pine / Hairy Wild Rye (H2)

Lodgepole Pine / HWR habitat comprises 0.9% and 6% of MW and YT respectively. Six bird plots (one in MW and five in YT) were surveyed in H2 habitat.

On MW, 14 birds from 10 species were recorded in H2 (Table 7.4). Bird species diversity is Moderate (BSD=2.206). Relative abundance is higher in H2 habitat (446 pairs/km²) than all other habitats in MW (Table 7.4). The Swainson’s Thrush is the most abundant species (Very High) in H2. The Red-breasted Nuthatch, Yellow-rumped Warbler, Orange-crowned Warbler, Wilson’s Warbler, Chipping Sparrow, Pine Grosbeak and Pine Siskin all occurred at Moderate levels in MW (Appendix IV-1).

On YT, 40 birds represented by 16 species were recorded (Table 7.5). Species diversity is Moderate (BSD=2.424). Breeding pair abundance (255 pairs/km2) is lower than the mean for all habitats in the YT LSA (272 pairs/km2). The Yellow-rumped Warbler and White- throated Sparrow were the most abundant (Moderate) species in this habitat (Appendix IV-2). The Swainson’s Thrush, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Hermit Thrush, Chipping Sparrow, and Orange- crowned Warbler occurred at Low abundance levels while nine species (Wilson’s Snipe, Yellow- bellied Flycatcher, Pacific-slope Flycatcher, Gray Jay, American Robin, Varied Thrush, Wilson’s Warbler, Dark-eyed Junco, and Pine Grosbeak were present in Very Low numbers. The Pacific- slope Flycatcher and American Robin are unique to the YT LSA.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 55 -

Table 7.5. Use of 24 habitats by the 53 bird species recorded during the breeding bird survey, Mercoal West (2004) and Yellowhead Tower (2006). # Habitats # Species Species occupying the specific numbers of habitat classes 24 0 23 0

22 0 21 0 20 0 19 2 Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Yellow-rumped Warbler 18 1 Dark-eyed Junco 17 1 Gray Jay 16 3 Chipping Sparrow, Swainson’s Thrush, White-throated Sparrow 15 2 Orange-crowned Warbler, Varied Thrush 14 1 Pine Siskin 13 0 12 1 Lincoln’s Sparrow, 11 1 Hermit Thrush 10 1 American Robin 9 0

8 0 7 4 Red-breasted Nuthatch, Warbling Vireo, Wilson’s Snipe, Yellow-bellied Flycatcher 6 2 Pine Grosbeak, Wilson’s Warbler 5 1 Black-capped Chickadee 4 4 Boreal Chickadee, Common Raven, Golden-crowned Kinglet, Northern Flicker 3 6 Brown-headed Cowbird, Clay-colored Sparrow, Pacific-slope Flycatcher, Ruffed Grouse, Tennessee Warbler, White-winged Crossbill 2 4 Alder Flycatcher, Dusky Flycatcher, Winter Wren, Yellow-bellied Flycatcher 1 19 Blue-headed Vireo, Brown Creeper, Black-throated Green Warbler, Bufflehead, Cliff Swallow, Common Yellowthroat, Greater Yellowlegs, Hairy Woodpecker, Killdeer, Mallard, Pileated Woodpecker, Purple Finch, Red-winged Blackbird, Sandhill Crane, Savannah Sparrow, Solitary Sandpiper, Spotted Sandpiper, Spruce Grouse, American Three-toed Woodpecker

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 56 -

Trembling Aspen / Hairy Wild Rye (H4)

One bird plot was surveyed in H4 habitat on YT. This habitat was only found in YT and makes up 1.3% of the YT LSA. Species diversity is Very Low (BSD=1.498) for this habitat. H4 habitat has a slightly higher than average bird abundance (318 pairs/km²). The White-throated Sparrow occurred at High levels of abundance while the Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, Gray Jay, Black- capped Chickadee, Orange-crowned Warbler, and Dark-eyed Junco occurred at Moderate levels (Appendix IV-2). During the woodpecker surveys, two Yellow-bellied Sapsuckers and three Northern Flickers were recorded in this habitat.

Mixed Wood / Hairy Wild Rye (H5)

H5 habitat makes up 0.6% % of the MW LSA and approximately 5% of the YT LSA. One bird plot was surveyed in MW and four in YT in this habitat.

Five birds representing two species (Yellow-rumped Warbler and Ruby-crowned Kinglet) were detected in MW. Species diversity (BSD=0.673) was Very Low. Abundance in this habitat (159 pairs/km²) was below the mean of all MW habitats (249 pairs/km²). The Yellow-rumped Warbler occurred at Very High levels while the Ruby-crowned Kinglet was present in Moderate numbers (Appendix IV-1).

H5 habitat in YT supports high bird diversity (BSD=2.656) and higher than average bird abundance (326 pairs/km², mean = 272 pairs/km²). The Yellow-rumped Warbler, Gray Jay, Swainson’s Thrush and Black-capped Chickadee were present in moderate numbers while the Orange-crowned Warbler, Chipping Sparrow, White-throated Sparrow, Hermit Thrush, Warbling Vireo, Northern Flicker (unique to the YT LSA) occurred at low levels of abundance. The Dusky Flycatcher, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, American Robin, Tennessee Warbler (unique to the YT LSA), Pine Grosbeak, and Pine Siskin occurred at very low levels (Appendix IV-2).

Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / Labrador Tea (H6)

Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT habitat comprised 38% and 18% of MW and YT respectively in which 17 and 6 bird plots respectively were surveyed.

In MW, bird diversity for H6 (BSD=2.427) was moderate and relative abundance (157 pairs/km²) was lower than the mean abundance (249 pairs/km²) for all habitats in MW (Table 7.4). No species was recorded at High or Very High levels but the Yellow-rumped Warbler was present in Moderate numbers. The Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Gray Jay, Dark-eyed Junco, Varied Thrush, and Pine Siskin occurred in Low numbers. White-winged Crossbill, Golden-crowned Kinglet, Swainson's Thrush, Hermit Thrush, Boreal Chickadee, Ruffed Grouse, Solitary Sandpiper (unique to MW LSA and H6 habitat), Red-breasted Nuthatch, Clay-colored Sparrow, and Chipping Sparrow all were present at Very Low Levels (Appendix IV-1).

H6 habitat in YT supported moderate species diversity (BSD=2.495) and average abundance (271 pairs/km², mean=272 pairs/km²). The Yellow-rumped Warbler, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Varied Thrush, Chipping Sparrow were present in Moderate numbers. The Varied Thrush, Dark- eyed Junco, Gray Jay, Northern Flicker (unique to the YT LSA), Common Raven, Swainson’s Thrush, American Robin (unique to the YT LSA) were present at Low levels while the Wilson’s Snipe, Golden-crowned Kinglet, Warbling Vireo, Tennessee Warbler, Orange-crowned Warbler,

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 57 -

Lincoln’s Sparrow, and Pine Siskin were present at Very Low levels (Appendix IV-2). During the woodpecker survey a Northern Pygmy-Owl was detected in H6 habitat.

Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / Labrador Tea 2-10m cutblock (H7)

H7 habitat occurs only in MW and makes up 3% of the MW LSA. This habitat supports high bird species diversity (BSD=2.505) and an above average abundance (324 pairs/km², mean=249 pairs/km²). Yellow-rumped Warblers occurred in H7 habitat in high numbers, while Swainson’s Thrush, White-throated Sparrow and Dark-eyed Junco occurred in Moderate numbers. Low numbers of Varied Thrush, Hermit Thrush, Chipping Sparrow, Gray Jay, Pine Siskin, Wilson’s Snipe, Yellow-bellied Flycatcher, Lincoln’s Sparrow and Ruby-crowned Kinglet occurred in H7 habitat. Ruffed Grouse, Red-breasted Nuthatch, and Pine Grosbeak were present in Very Low numbers in H7 habitat (Appendix IV-1).

Lodgepole Pine / Tall Bilberry (H8)

Lodgepole Pine / TB habitat comprises 12% and 29% of MW and YT respectively in which eight and 15 bird plots were surveyed.

H8 habitat in MW supports high species diversity (BSD=2.566) and above average abundance (287 pairs/km2, mean=249 pairs/km2). The Yellow-rumped Warbler, White-throated Sparrow and Swainson’s Thrush occurred moderate densities in H8 habitat while the Golden-crowned Kinglet, Varied Thrush, Dark-eyed Junco, Gray Jay, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Orange-crowned Warbler, Boreal Chickadee occurred at low levels. The Brown Creeper (unique to this habitat and MW LSA), Warbling Vireo, Pine Grosbeak, Pine Siskin, Hermit Thrush, Wilson’s Warbler, and White- winged Crossbill were present at very low abundance (Appendix IV-1).

H8 habitat in YT supports moderate species diversity (BSD=2.498) and below average abundance (213 pairs/km², mean=272 pairs/km²). Swainson’s Thrush, Yellow-rumped Warbler, Varied Thrush occurred at moderate levels while Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Golden-crowned Kinglet, Gray Jay, Chipping Sparrow, Pine Siskin were present in low numbers. The Winter Wren (unique to the YT LSA and H12 and H13 habitats), Dark-eyed Junco, Common Raven, Black-capped Chickadee (unique to the YT LSA was also recorded in H4, H5, H17 and G1 habitats), Red-breasted Nuthatch, Warbling Vireo, Orange-crowned Warbler, Wilson’s Snipe, Boreal Chickadee, American Robin, and White-winged Crossbill were all at very low levels in YT (Appendix IV-2). Black-capped Chickadees are relatively silent during the time breeding bird surveys are conducted which may partly explain the low abundance and lack of presence in MW.

Lodgepole Pine / Tall Bilberry - Burn (H9)

H9 habitat occurs only in the YT LSA and makes up 0.6% of the YT LSA. Two bird plots were completed in H9 habitat. Lodgepole Pine/TB supports moderate species diversity (BSD=2.175) and high numbers of birds (414 pairs/km2, mean=272 pairs/km2). The Dark-eyed Junco was recorded at a very high level of abundance in H9 habitat. The Yellow-rumped Warbler occurred at high levels. The Swainson’s Thrush, Wilson’s Warbler, Chipping Sparrow and Lincoln’s Sparrow were present at moderate levels while the Varied Thrush, Orange-crowned Warbler, White-throated Sparrow, and Pine Siskin occurred at a low abundance level (Appendix IV-2).

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 58 -

Lodgepole Pine / Tall Bilberry 2-10m cutblock (H10)

The Lodgepole Pine / TB cutblock occurs only in MW and comprises 10.5% of the MW LSA. Eleven bird plots were surveyed in H10 habitat. This habitat has high species diversity (BSD=2.521) and relative abundance (295 pairs/km2, mean=249 pairs/km2). The Yellow-rumped Warbler occurred in H10 habitat at a high level of abundance while the Dark-eyed Junco, and Swainson's Thrush occurred at moderate levels. The Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Gray Jay, Pine Siskin, Chipping Sparrow were recorded at Low levels. Species such as the Hermit Thrush, Lincoln’s Sparrow, White-throated Sparrow, Sandhill Crane (unique to this habitat and MW LSA), Common Raven, Red-breasted Nuthatch, Orange-crowned Warbler, Greater Yellowlegs (unique to this habitat and MW LSA), Pileated Woodpecker (unique to this habitat and study area), Yellow-bellied Flycatcher, Boreal Chickadee, Varied Thrush, Warbling Vireo, Pine Grosbeak, and Purple Finch (unique to this habitat and study area) occurred at a very low abundance level (Appendix IV-1).

Mixed Wood / Tall Bilberry (H11)

Mixed Wood / TB habitat comprises 0.5% of the MW LSA and 5.5% of the YT LSA. Two bird plots were completed in this habitat on YT. H11 habitat maintains moderate species diversity (BSD=2.245) and lower than average relative abundance (207 pairs/km², mean=272 pairs/km²). The Hermit Thrush, Warbling Vireo, and Chipping Sparrow occurred in H11 in moderate numbers while the remaining species: Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, Hairy Woodpecker (unique to this habitat and YT LSA),Yellow-bellied Flycatcher, American Robin, Orange-crowned Warbler, and Yellow-rumped Warbler were present in low numbers (Appendix IV-2).

White Spruce / Tall Bilberry (H12)

This habitat makes up 0.3% of the MW LSA and 6% of the YT LSA. One plot was placed in MW and six in YT.

On MW this habitat supported moderate avian diversity (BSD=1.733) and an average relative abundance (255 pairs/km², mean=249 pairs/km²). The Swainson's Thrush, Dark-eyed Junco, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Orange-crowned Warbler, Yellow-rumped Warbler, and White-winged Crossbill all occurred in H12 at Moderate levels (Appendix IV-1).

In YT H12 supports moderate species diversity (2.219, mean=3.111) and lower than average relative abundance (228 pairs/km², mean=272 pairs/km²). In H12 habitat, five species: Yellow- rumped Warbler, Varied Thrush, Swainson’s Thrush, Ruby-crowned Kinglet and Pine Siskin occurred at moderate abundance levels. The Golden-crowned Kinglet, Gray Jay, Chipping Sparrow were present at low levels. The Spruce Grouse (unique to this habitat and the YT LSA), Winter Wren (unique to the YT LSA but also found in H8, and H13 habitats), White-throated Sparrow and Dark-eyed Junco all were present at very low levels in H12 habitat (Appendix IV-2).

Subalpine Fir / Labrador Tea (H13)

This habitat makes up approximately 0.5% of the YT LSA and does not occur in the MW LSA. One bird plot was surveyed in the YT LSA. This habitat is characterized by a low species diversity (BSD=1.792) and lower than average relative abundance (191 pairs/km², mean=272 pairs/km²).

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 59 -

All species recorded in H13 were present at moderate levels: Gray Jay, Winter Wren (unique to the YT LSA but also found in H8 and H12 habitats), Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Varied Thrush, Dark- eyed Junco, and White-winged Crossbill (Appendix IV-2). A single Pileated Woodpecker was detected in H13 habitat during the May Woodpecker survey in Moderate numbers.

Lodgepole Pine / Bracted Honeysuckle (H14)

This habitat makes up approximately 0.2% of the YT LSA and does not occur in the MW LSA. One bird plot was surveyed in the YT LSA. This habitat is characterized by a low species diversity (BSD=1.834) and higher than average relative abundance (318 pairs/km², mean=272 pairs/km²).

Species recorded in H14 were: White-throated Sparrow at very high abundance levels and Wilson’s Warbler, Gray Jay, Swainson’s Thrush, American Robin, Blue-headed Vireo (unique to this habitat and the YT LSA), Brown-headed Cowbird (unique to the YT LSA but also found in H18 and H22 habitats), in moderate numbers (Appendix IV-2).

Black & White Spruce - Lodgepole Pine / Bracted Honeysuckle (H15)

This habitat makes up approximately 0.7% of the YT LSA and does not occur in the MW LSA. One bird plot was surveyed in the YT LSA. H15 habitat supports low species diversity (BSD=1.831) and a slightly higher than average bird abundance (287 pairs/km², mean=272 pairs/km²). The Yellow-rumped Warbler was detected at a very high abundance levels in H15 habitat. The Gray Jay, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Swainson's Thrush, American Robin, Varied Thrush, and Black-throated Green Warbler (unique to this habitat and the YT LSA) were all detected in moderate numbers (Appendix IV-2). The Yellow-bellied Sapsucker was recorded in this habitat during the woodpecker surveys in moderate numbers.

Willow Upland (H17)

This habitat occurred solely in the YT LSA of which it comprised 0.6%. One plot was surveyed in H17 habitat. This habitat supported low species diversity (BSD=1.889) and higher than average relative abundance (287 pairs/km², mean=272 pairs/km²). Hermit Thrush, Orange-crowned Warbler, Gray Jay, Black-capped Chickadee (unique to the YT LSA and also present in H4, H5, H8, and H18 habitat), Yellow-rumped Warbler, Lincoln’s Sparrow, and White-throated Sparrow occurred at moderate levels of abundance (Appendix IV-2).

Willow - Birch Meadow (H18)

H18 habitat comprises 0.4% of MW and 1.1% of YT. Four plots were placed in YT in H18 habitat. Willow-birch habitat supported very high species diversity (BSD=3.107) and the highest relative abundance in YT (462 pairs/km², mean=272 pairs/km²).

Twenty-seven species were recorded in H18 habitat. The Chipping Sparrow, Alder Flycatcher (unique to the YT LSA, also present in H20 habitat), and Bufflehead (unique in the YT LSA and H18 habitat) occurred at moderate levels of abundance. The American Robin, Warbling Vireo, Yellow-rumped Warbler, Wilson’s Warbler, Lincoln's Sparrow, Pine Siskin, Cliff Swallow (unique the YT LSA and this habitat), Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Orange-crowned Warbler, Clay-colored Sparrow (unique to the YT LSA and H18 habitat), White-throated Sparrow and Red-winged Blackbird (unique to the YT LSA and H18 habitat) occurred at low levels of abundance. Mallard

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 60 -

(unique to the YT LSA and H18 habitat), Killdeer (unique to the YT LSA and H18 habitat), Spotted Sandpiper (unique to the YT LSA and H18 habitat), Northern Flicker (unique to the YT LSA but also occurs in H4, H5, H8 and H17 habitats), Pacific-slope Flycatcher (unique to the YT LSA but also found in H2 and H20 habitats), Gray Jay, Black-capped Chickadee (unique to the YT LSA and also present in H4, H5, H8, and H17 habitat), Swainson’s Thrush, Hermit Thrush, Tennessee Warbler (unique to the YT LSA but also found in H5, H6 and H20 habitat), Dark- eyed Junco, Brown-head Cowbird (unique to the YT LSA and also present in H14 and H22 habitat) occurred at very low levels of abundance (Appendix IV-2).

Thirteen bird species identified in willow-birch habitat were unique to the YT LSA. Seven of these species only occurred in willow-birch habitat. They were the Bufflehead, Clay-colored Sparrow, Cliff Swallow, Red-winged Blackbird, Mallard, Killdeer, and Spotted Sandpiper. Willow- birch habitat occurs in riparian locations. The remaining six unique species, Alder Flycatcher, Northern Flicker, Pacific-slope Flycatcher, Black-capped Chickadee, Tennessee Warbler, and Brown-headed Cowbird were also present in habitats found elsewhere in the YT LSA. The presence of these birds indicates the diversity of micro habitats usually associated with riparian ecosystems, i.e., ponds, streams, rock outcrops, patches of mature trees, and coniferous and deciduous tree species.

Graminoid Meadow (mostly agronomics) (H20)

This habitat comprises 0.1% of the MW LSA and 2.3% of the YT LSA. Two bird plots were surveyed on the YT LSA. H20 habitat supported high species diversity (BSD=2.699) and higher than average relative abundance (398 pairs/km², mean = 272 pairs/km²). H20 habitat on YT is associated with road verges, well sites, pipelines and other right-of-way reclamation. The grassland habitat associated with these features is interspersed with mature forest, shrubland and riparian features hence the presence of birds requiring mature forest elements interspersed with more open habitats to fulfill their life requirements. The Savannah Sparrow is the only species unique to this grassland habitat; all other species are also associated with other habitats.

The American Robin, Alder Flycatcher (unique to the YT LSA but also found in H18 habitat), Pacific-slope Flycatcher (unique to the YT LSA but also found H2, and H18 habitats), Yellow- rumped Warbler, Chipping Sparrow, and Savannah Sparrow (unique to the YT LSA and H20 habitat) occur in H20 at moderate levels of abundance. The White-throated Sparrow, Pine Siskin, Wilson’s Snipe, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Warbling Vireo, Tennessee Warbler, Orange- crowned Warbler, Clay-colored Sparrow, Lincoln’s Sparrow, and Dark-eyed Junco are present in H20 habitat at low levels of abundance (Appendix IV-2).

Black Spruce-Lodgepole Pine / Labrador Tea (H21)

Black Spruce-Lodgepole Pine / LT habitat covered approximately 4.3% of MW and 0.6% of YT. Four bird plots were surveyed in the MW LSA. Species diversity is high (BSD=2.288) and relative abundance is slightly above average (262 pairs/km², mean=249 pairs/km²). The Ruby- crowned Kinglet, Yellow-rumped Warbler, and White-throated Sparrow were present in H21 in moderate numbers while the Swainson’s Thrush, Orange-crowned Warbler, Chipping Sparrow, Wilson’s Snipe, Varied Thrush occurred in low and Dusky Flycatcher, Gray Jay, Lincoln's Sparrow, and Dark-eyed Junco in very low numbers.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 61 -

Black & White Spruce / Labrador Tea (H22)

H22 habitat makes up 2.4% of the YT LSA in which four bird plots were surveyed. Species diversity in H22 is high (BSD=2.468) but relative abundance was below average (215 pairs/km², mean=272 pairs/km²). Lincoln's Sparrow occurred in moderate numbers in H22 habitat while Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Yellow-rumped Warbler, Dark-eyed Junco, Swainson’s Thrush, Varied Thrush, Wilson’s Warbler, Chipping Sparrow occurred in low numbers and White-throated Sparrow, Red-breasted Nuthatch, Golden-crowned Kinglet, Orange-crowned Warbler and Brown-headed Cowbird occurred in very low numbers (Appendix IV-2).

Treed Poor Fen (H24)

Treed Poor Fen habitat comprises 10.5% of the MW LSA and 0.5% of the YT LSA. Six bird plots were surveyed in Treed Poor Fen habitat in the MW LSA. Bird species diversity was high (BSD= 2.629) and relative abundance was higher than average (302 pairs/km², mean=249 pairs/km²). The Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Yellow-rumped Warbler, Chipping Sparrow, Dark-eyed Junco, Gray Jay, and Lincoln’s Sparrow occurred in moderate numbers in H24 habitat while the Hermit Thrush, Varied Thrush, Wilson’s Snipe, Swainson’s Thrush occurred in low and the Yellow- bellied Flycatcher, Common Raven, Boreal Chickadee, Red-breasted Nuthatch, Common Yellowthroat (unique in this habitat and study area), White-throated Sparrow , Pine Grosbeak and Pine Siskin occurred in very low numbers (Appendix IV-1).

Shrubby Poor Fen (H25)

Shrubby Poor Fen comprises 2.1% of the MW LSA and 0.4%of the YT LSA. One bird plot was surveyed in the MW LSA. H25 habitat supported low species diversity (1.099) but lower than average relative abundance (95 pairs/km², mean=249 pairs/km²). The Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Hermit Thrush, and Lincoln's Sparrow were present in H25 habitat at moderate abundance (Appendix IV-1).

Treed Rich Fen (H27)

Treed Rich Fen habitat comprises 3% of the MW LSA and 0.8% of the YT LSA. One bird plot was surveyed in the YT LSA. Species diversity was moderate (BSD=2.144) and relative abundance was higher than average (446 pairs/km², mean=272 pairs/km²). The Dark-eyed Junco occurred in this habitat in very high numbers while all other species were present at moderate levels: Lincoln's Sparrow, American Three-toed Woodpecker (unique to the YT LSA and H27 habitat), Gray Jay, Boreal Chickadee, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Varied Thrush, Northern Flicker, Yellow-rumped Warbler, Chipping Sparrow, and Pine Siskin (Appendix IV-2). During the May woodpecker surveys, a single Northern Flicker was recorded in H27 habitat.

Shrubby Rich Fen (H28)

This habitat comprised 0.9% of the MW LSA and 1% of the YT LSA. Two plots were surveyed in the YT LSA. Species diversity is moderate and relative abundance (350 pairs/km², mean=272) is higher than average. The Yellow-rumped Warbler, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Swainson’s Thrush, Dark-eyed Junco and American Robin occurred in moderate numbers in H28 habitat while the Warbling Vireo, Northern Flicker (unique to the YT LSA but also present in H5, H6, and H18 habitats), Yellow-bellied Flycatcher, Varied Thrush, Orange-crowned Warbler, Chipping Sparrow, and White-throated Sparrow were present in low numbers (Appendix IV-2).

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 62 -

Graminoid Rich Fen (H29)

This habitat is found in the MW and YT LSAs and comprises 1.3% and 0.1% of these areas respectively. One plot was surveyed in the MW LSA and two in the YT LSA.

Species diversity in MW for H29 is low (BSD=1.352) while relative abundance is below average (223 mean=249). In MW the Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Swainson’s Thrush, Yellow-rumped Warbler and Gray Jay all occurred in moderate numbers in H29 (Appendix IV-1).

H29 supported low species diversity in YT (BSD=1.581) and below average abundance (143 pairs/km², mean=272 pairs/km²). The Dark-eyed Junco was present in this habitat in moderate numbers while the Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Varied Thrush, Yellow-rumped Warbler, Chipping Sparrow, and Lincoln’s Sparrow were present in low numbers (Appendix IV-2).

7.2 Raptors

Two groups of raptors are present on MW and YT. The diurnal raptors are represented by true hawks, falcons, eagles and soaring hawks and are active during daylight hours. Nocturnal raptors are represented by owls which are primarily active at night. Both raptor groups employ different strategies for acquiring prey and represent second level carnivores in the food web.

Of the 18 diurnal raptors listed for Alberta, 10 species nest from late April until July in the foothills. These are: Osprey, Bald Eagle, Golden Eagle, Northern Harrier, Sharp-shinned Hawk, Cooper's Hawk, Northern Goshawk, Red-tailed Hawk, American Kestrel, and Merlin. The remaining, three hawks (Swainson's Hawk, Ferruginous Hawk, Broad-winged Hawk), two falcons (Peregrine Falcon and Prairie Falcon) and the Turkey Vulture breed elsewhere in the Province and but occasionally are encountered in the foothills. The Gyrfalcon and Rough-legged Hawk move either through or into the foothills region either as a regular biannual migrant (Rough- legged Hawk) or as an occasional migrant perhaps lingering into the winter (Gyrfalcon).

The Northern Harrier, Bald Eagle, Cooper’s Hawk, Northern Goshawk, and Red-tailed Hawk, were present on or near MW. These diurnal raptors, except for the Bald Eagle, were designated as possibly breeding or at least, had incorporated some portion of the MW property into their breeding territory or home range. The Bald Eagle was the only species designed as migrant using the study area either as a travel corridor or as a resting and feeding stop.

7.2.1 Diurnal Raptors

On the YT LSA two species of raptors were identified as possibly breeding and nine were identified as migrants. The Northern Goshawk and Red-tailed Hawk likely use some portion of the YT LSA as part of their breeding territory while the Golden Eagle, Bald Eagle, Sharp-shinned Hawk, Cooper’s Hawk, Broad-winged Hawk, Rough-legged Hawk, American Kestrel, Merlin and Gyrfalcon were observed on or near the YT LSA during seasons which indicated that they bred elsewhere. These birds may use all or part of YT either as a travel corridor or to occasionally stop to rest and feed during migration.

Raptor Migration Monitoring at Yellowhead fire tower - Seven hours of fall raptor surveys were conducted on the Yellowhead fire lookout tower on September 21 & 22 and October 29, 2006. Surveys were conducted between 10:30 and 15:00 hrs. These surveys resulted in observation

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 63 - of eight species of raptors and 56 individuals moving in a southerly direction either over or west of the LSA for a migration rate of 8 birds/hr. There were: two Bald Eagle, one Golden Eagle, 12 Red-tailed Hawks, two Broad-winged Hawks, 10 Rough-legged Hawks, 11 Sharp-shinned Hawks, one Gyrfalcon, one Merlin, four unidentified Buteos, and 12 unidentified raptors. The Yellowhead fire tower was revisited on October 13 & 14 2007 by the Whisky-jack Club ([email protected]). At that time, 23 birds and seven species were counted including one Northern Pygmy-Owl.

In spring 2007 the Yellowhead fire tower was briefly visited for 2.25 hrs on April 17, 23 & 25. Fourteen birds and six species were counted producing a migration rate of 2 birds/hr. There were: three Red-tailed Hawk, one Rough-legged Hawk, one Golden Eagle, one Sharp-shinned Hawk, one Cooper’s Hawk, two Northern Goshawk, and two unidentified Buteos.

Northern Harrier - On the MW LSA, one Northern Harrier was observed flying over the pellet- group count transect #T1, April 21, 2004. A May 4, 2004 observation of a single Northern Harrier hunting over shrub habitat associated with Felton Creek north of the MW LSA suggests that this species is a visitant to MW that moves through to breed elsewhere. There were no records of the Northern Harrier on YT.

Golden Eagle - There are six records of Golden Eagles in the vicinity of the YT LSA and one on the Coal Valley Mine. Two spring records of single birds were made May 2, 2006 during the YT pellet-count survey and April 25, 2007 at the Yellowhead fire tower. Fall migration observations of Golden Eagles were made on October 10, 2006 (1) and October 13, 2007 (2) at the Yellowhead fire tower. One observation of a Golden Eagle was made on the east end of Lovett Lake on the Coal Valley Mine, October 4, 2006. One Golden Eagle was also observed north of Robb on the Road Robb across from the Veritas camp, November 3, 2006.

Bald Eagle - One juvenile Bald Eagle was sighted hunting or scavenging near the bridge over the McLeod River on the Robb Road and another juvenile eagle was sighted near the boundary of MW. Both observations were on October 29, 2004. Because eagles can range great distances and these sightings are located near MW, it is probable that the MW LSA is used occasionally for feeding and loafing opportunities. Four soaring Bald Eagles were sighted from the Yellowhead fire tower located near the north end of the YT LSA on September 22, 2006 and October 14, 2007. All birds were moving in a southerly direction indicating they were migrants and not resident birds. In Alberta, an extensive Bald Eagle biannual migration occurs primarily along the Rocky Mountains. Low numbers of eagle sightings at the Yellowhead fire tower suggest that these birds are farther east of their traditional migration route in the Rockies.

Sharp-shinned Hawk - The Sharp-shinned Hawk was observed as a migrant at the Yellowhead fire tower on September 21, 2006, April 17 & 25, 2007 and on October 13, 2007. There were no observations of this species on MW.

Cooper’s Hawk - In MW a single female was observed flying through a pine reforestation cutblock on May 27, 2004. One Cooper’s Hawk was observed April 25, 2004 and two October 13, 2007 during the raptor migration monitoring at the Yellowhead fire tower.

Northern Goshawk - A single Northern Goshawk was observed on MW while conducting aerial surveys on January 3, 2005 indicating that this bird may have been overwintering. A small resident population in Alberta regularly stays the winter provided there is an abundance of suitable prey. The Northern Goshawk kills a wide diversity of prey depending on region, season,

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 64 - vulnerability and availability. Main prey items include tree squirrels, hares, large passerines, woodpeckers, game birds and corvids. Foraging areas consist of a mosaic of shrublands, forests, and openings with perching trees to observe prey (Reynolds et al. 1992). The Northern Goshawk is adapted to hunting in moderately dense, mature forests. Prey availability is more important than prey density in habitat selection (Beier and Drennan 1997). Forest stands can generally be considered suitable foraging habitat if a stand is open enough to allow a goshawk unimpeded flight through the understorey (Maj 1996).

The Northern Goshawk was observed as a spring and fall migrant at the Yellowhead fire tower September 21, 2006 and April 23 & 25, 2007. Migration movements for the Northern Goshawk in Alberta are recorded in March/April and September/October (Pinel et al. 1991).

Broad-winged Hawk - The Broad-winged Hawk in Alberta is found in every natural region but it breeds only in mature to old growth mixed wood forest which occurs most often in the Boreal Forest NR. Here they nest and often go undetected because of their shy and quiet disposition during the nesting period. It is present in the Foothills NR but not as a breeder. Two incidental observations were made of migrants at the Yellowhead fire tower on September 21, 2006. Migration in Alberta begins in early August and lasts until the end of September or in some years even into November (Pinel et al. 1991).

Red-tailed Hawk - No nesting Red-tailed Hawks were noted for either MW or YT. No spring or summer observation was made in MW suggesting that this species does not nest in or near this LSA. Spring and summer records were reported for YT. Single birds, either hunting or loafing visited the site on May 1, June 30, and July 20, 2006. Migrant Red-tailed Hawks (20) were noted for both locations; the majority (19) being observed at YT. On September 21, 2006 a single Red- tailed Hawk was observed soaring near the access road to MW but moving in a southerly direction. The remaining observations were obtained during fall and spring raptor migration monitoring at the Yellowhead fire tower on September 21, 22 & 28 and October 10, 2006, and April 23 & 25, 2007. These birds primarily use the air space to either glide or soar over the YT perhaps stopping on occasion to rest and/or hunt. This species begins to arrive in Alberta in late March and peaks during mid to late April. By mid-and-late September fall movements reach their peaks and the last of the migrants have usually left the province by the end of October (Pinel et al 1991; Sadler and Myres 1976). A few are known to overwinter in Alberta.

The Red-tailed Hawk inhabits a wide range of open habitats throughout Alberta but it is most abundant in the aspen parkland habitat of central Alberta (FAN 2007). Low numbers of Red- tailed Hawks nest in the Foothills NR wherever suitable habitat may occur. It prefers open areas with scattered elevated perches in fields, meadows, clearings (natural or man-made) and patchy coniferous and deciduous forests for hunting and nesting (Preston and Beane 1993). Prey will vary by location, season, and availability or even between adjacent pairs or individuals, but in general, mammals make up the bulk (37-99%) of their diets either in the number of prey items or biomass (Terres 1980:484).

Long term trends (1968 to 2006) provided by the Canadian Breeding Bird Survey suggest this species is relatively stable across Canada and Alberta. More recent trends (1996 to 2006) indicate declines both for Alberta and Canada (Downes and Collins 2007).

Rough-legged Hawk - The Rough-legged Hawk does not nest in Alberta but large numbers do move through the province during spring and fall. Spring migrants arrive early to mid March peaking from the end of March to mid April. Fall migration usually begins in mid September,

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 65 - peaks from mid to late October and by mid November the last of the migrants have left the province (Pinel et al 1991). A few Rough-legged Hawks are known to overwinter in Alberta.

All Rough-legged Hawk observations were made during migration monitoring at the Yellowhead fire tower. During the fall migration single birds were detected on September 21 & 22, seven birds were observed on October 10, 2006 and four birds on October 13, 2007. One bird was reported April 14, 2007 during spring migration.

American Kestrel - There is only one reported observation for the American Kestrel in the LSA. A pair was observed April 26, 2006 at the south side of the YT near the junction of Highway 40 and 47. The American Kestrel is present in the Coal Branch as well as throughout the Foothills and the other natural regions. It prefers semi-open to open landscapes where it hunts for insects or rodents and breeds wherever suitable nesting sites are available. American Kestrels use natural cavities, holes, or crevices in trees, cliffs, or man made structures. Recent declines in relative abundance of the American Kestrel have been reported for Alberta and Canada (FAN 2007, Downes and Collins 2007).

Merlin - A single Merlin was sighted on September 22, 2006 moving southwest from the Yellowhead fire tower. This is the only sighting of this species for the LSA although it was observed at other locations within the RSA, e.g., one Merlin was observed September 21, 2006 at the gravel pits beside the McLeod River at Steeper. The Breeding Bird Atlas for Alberta indicates no changes in relative abundance for this species in the Foothills NR between the years 1987-1992 and 2000-2005 (FAN 2007). Decreases were noted in other natural regions. Long term trends (1968 to 2006) for Canada and Alberta suggest stable populations; trends from 1996 to 2006 for both jurisdictions show populations have decreased in the past 11 years (Downes and Collins 2007).

Gyrfalcon - The southward bound sighting of a Gyrfalcon on September 22, 2006 was unusual and unexpected for the migration monitoring at the Yellowhead fire tower. This species is an irregular wanderer and as a result it’s occurrence varies from year to year. Reports for the first fall migrants are usually from late October to late November [www.eaglewatch.ca Accessed November 2007] although Sadler and Myres (1976) report an August sighting and Pinel et al. (1991) report a September sighting. Gyrfalcons leave Alberta for the arctic by mid-March with the last report usually by mid-to-late May (Pinel et al. 1991).

7.2.2 Nocturnal Raptors

Nocturnal owl surveys were conducted April 20, 25, 26, 2004, March 2, 3, 29, 30, 2005, and April 30 and May 4, 2006 on MW (20 stations). Nocturnal owl surveys were conducted April 4 & 24, 2006 on YT (10 stations). One day time survey was conducted April 3, 2006 (10 stations) on the YT specifically for the Northern Pygmy-Owl. Five species of owls were identified on the LSA: Great Horned Owl, Barred Owl, Great Gray Owl, Northern Pygmy-Owl and Boreal Owl.

Distance and compass directions taken during the owl surveys on MW indicated that the territory of two Great Gray Owls and five Boreal Owls occurred at least partly on MW. An incidental observation of a Great Horned Owl was made October 29, 2004 in tall trees south of the Pembina River Road on the MW LSA. Incidental observations of Great Gray Owls in or near MW occurred from May 27 to October 29, 2004.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 66 -

Owl surveys indicated that three Barred Owls, two Great Gray Owls, and three Boreal Owls included YT as part of their home range. A Northern Pygmy-Owl was also recorded on the YT walk road during the May 13, 2007 woodpecker survey. Other observations of owls on the YT included a Great Gray Owl on June 20, 2006 near plot #49 of the breeding bird survey and a Northern Pygmy-Owl at the base of the Yellowhead fire tower October 14, 2007.

Boreal Owls and Barred Owls were not sighted outside of the nocturnal owl survey.

Great Horned Owl - The Great Horned Owl occupies a variety of habitats throughout Alberta but prefers the open fragmented areas such as second growth forests. The Great Horned Owl is not migratory but will move in response to shortages of prey species. Salt and Salt (1976) also reported that, in the fall and winter, it will appear in regions where it was not seen in summer as younger birds wander about looking claim new territories.

Barred Owl - Barred Owls are essentially non migratory in Alberta. However some individuals in populations at northern extent of range may migrate (Johnsgard 1988, Campbell et al. 1990) or may exhibit nomadism especially during winters with low prey availability (Elody 1983).

Great Gray Owl - Great Gray Owls feed on small mammals, mice, young hares, squirrels, voles and small birds (Bent 1961, Osborne 1987) and when they are available, amphibians are also taken. The Great Gray Owl is usually a sedentary species but during winter, irruptions occur in southern areas (Cannings 2005). This behaviour may be due to high population of owls and a scarcity or availability of food due to low numbers of small mammals such as microtines and other prey species. Snow depth as well as ice covered snow may also facilitate owl movements.

Northern Pygmy-Owl - The Northen Pygmy-Owl nests in forest habitats of various types from deciduous bottomland to high-elevation coniferous forests. Breeding surveys indicate a preference for mixed spruce/fir forests (Bent 1961, Holt and Hillis 1987) providing there are scattered clearings throughout. Nest sites are located in cavities abandoned by larger woodpeckers, i.e., Pileated Woodpecker, Northern Flicker or Hairy Woodpecker.

Boreal Owl - The Boreal Owl is generally a year round resident that wanders within a stable home range. It disperses in years when prey populations are low or scarce or when snow depth reduces prey availability. There are different movement patterns for males and females. Males exhibit greater site tenacity that females who tend to exhibit more nomadism (Hayward and Hayward 1993).

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 67 -

8.0 AMPHIBIANS

8.1 Wood Frog

Wood frogs were present on the YT and MW LSAs and on the Coal Valley Mine (Table 8.1). In the YT LSA, wood frogs were identified on 11 sites associated with slow moving streams, roadside ponds, ditches, permanent puddles on cutlines and beaver ponds. Calling individuals were detected as early as April 24, 2006, and egg masses and tadpoles were observed May 5, 2006. On the MW LSA, wood frogs were heard as early as April 20, 2004 until June 7, 2006 from 10 sites ranging from permanent ponds in a black spruce bog to near a mineral lick. On the Coal Valley Mine, wood frogs were heard April 27, 2006 from puddles located alongside the haul road. Wood frogs are found in small permanent and semi-permanent ponds associated with reclaimed areas of the Coal Valley Mine (Bighorn 1999). Wood frogs are found throughout the Foothills NR (Russell and Bauer 1993).

The wood frog is chiefly diurnal and is found in moist wooded areas or associated with permanent or ephemeral ponds. It is very cold tolerant and forages widely becoming largely terrestrial during the non breeding season. Breeding begins as soon as the ice begins to melt in late April and lasts until June. Eggs hatch in about three weeks and tadpoles grow quickly. Metamorphosis occurs in 6 to 12 weeks after hatching (Russell and Bauer 1993).

8.2 Western Toad

Western toads were found in the YT and MW LSAs and on the Coal Valley Mine (Table 8.1). On the YT LSA, an old beaver pond associated with Chance Creek contained western toad egg strings on June 7, 2006 and tadpoles July 20, 2006. Vocal western toads were identified April 30, 2006 from six widely distributed owl survey sites on the MW LSA. On the Coal Valley Mine, tadpoles and toadlets were observed July 20, 2006 in the Pit #33 pond. Young western toads have been observed dispersing in reclaimed grassland above Lovett Lake August 10, 1994 on the Coal Valley Mine (Bighorn 1995). Western toads are found throughout the Foothills NR (Russell and Bauer 1993).

Western toads are active from April to September breeding from April to June in temporary or permanent, shallow, sandy bottom pools and ponds (Table 8.1). Hatching occurs in 3 to 12 days and by mid September all larvae in the Rockies have metamorphosed and left the breeding ponds (Russell and Bauer 1993). It is a largely terrestrial species that may overwinter in hibernacula. They use pre-existing rodent burrows or dig their own burrows into loose soil.

8.3 Boreal Chorus Frog

Boreal chorus frogs were not found on either the MW or YT LSA (Table 8.1). They were heard calling from roadside ditches, permanent ponds and shallow grassy pools on the Coal Valley Mine. Tadpoles were observed May 25, 2006. Boreal chorus frogs have been recorded on the West Extension near Coalspur (Bighorn 1999) and on two sites in Mercoal East (a temporary pool in riparian meadow associated with the headwaters of the Lovett River and a sedge- bordered permanent pond located on the east side of the centrally located large fen; Bighorn 2005). Boreal chorus frogs are found throughout Alberta but few records exist from the Foothills NR (Russell and Bauer 1993). The boreal chorus frog may spend the non-breeding period in damp marshy or wooded areas and overwinter in relatively dry sites.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 68 -

Table 8.1. Amphibians observed on the Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project and on the Coal Valley Mine. Location Wood Frog Western Toad Striped Chorus Frog Yellowhead Tower April 24 to July 17, 2006 June 7, July 20, 2006 - May 8 & 9, 2007 May 8, 2007 (vocal, egg clusters) (egg string, tadpoles) Mercoal West April 20, 26 & 30, 2004 April 30, 2006 - April 30, May 4, June 7, 2006 (vocal) (vocal) Coal Valley Mine April 27, 2006 July 20, 2006 (tadpoles, May 22 to July 4, 2006 (vocal) toadlets) (vocal, tadpoles)

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 69 -

9.0 BIODIVERSITY

Biodiversity is discussed throughout the report and in this section. This section identifies species of amphibians, birds, ungulates and small mammals that are confirmed to be present on the RSA (Table 9-1; this study, Bighorn 1999, FAN 2007, Russell and Bauer 1993, Smith 1993), the MW LSA, and the YT LSA (this study). Canadian Breeding Bird Survey records (Downes and Collins 2007) were also searched but no survey routes are present in the RSA. Species occurrence on the reclaimed Coal Valley Mine is identified and information on other pre-disturbance Coal Valley Mine extension projects is presented (Table 9-1; this study, Bighorn 1995, 1999). This section summarizes the status of species as assigned by national and provincial species risk assessment procedures (Table 9-1). Definitions for national and provincial species status ranks are found in Appendix III.

Total species occurring in the RSA, MW LSA, YT LSA, the reclaimed Coal Valley Mine (CV Mine) and other (pre-development) Coal Valley Mine extensions, i.e., Mercoal East Phase 2 (ME Ph2), Mercoal East Phase 1 (ME Ph1), West Extension (W Ext.), and South Block (S Block) are (this study, Bighorn 1995, 1999, 2003, 2005):

• RSA = 244 species (5 ungulates, 29 small mammals, 205 birds, 4 amphibians) • CV Mine = 162 species (5 ungulates, 12 small mammals, 142 birds, 3 amphibians) • YT LSA = 87 species (3 ungulates, 10 small mammals, 72 birds, 2 amphibians) • ME Ph2 = 80 species (4 ungulates, 11 small mammals, 62 birds, 3 amphibians) • W Ext. = 74 species (4 ungulates, 12 small mammals, 55 birds, 3 amphibians) • MW LSA = 71 species (4 ungulates, 9 small mammals, 56 birds, 2 amphibians) • ME Ph1 = 55 species (4 ungulates, 10 small mammals, 38 birds, 3 amphibians) • S Block = 45 species (3 ungulates, 9 small mammals, 31 birds, 2 amphibians)

9.1 Species Biodiversity

9.1.1 Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower RSA

Species occurrence in the RSA provides a context for the results of wildlife inventories conducted on the MW and YT LSAs. Records from “The atlas of breeding birds of Alberta, a second look” (FAN 2007), “Alberta mammals, an atlas and guide” (Smith 1993) and “The amphibians and reptiles of Alberta, a field guide and primer of Boreal herpetology” (Russell and Bauer 1993) were searched within the RSA boundary for species presence. Note that there are no Canadian Breeding Bird Survey routes in the RSA with the exception of Route #225 which touches on the SW corner of the RSA. Route #225 travels through Subalpine and Alpine habitat and is not directly comparable to the predominantly Upper Foothills habitat of the RSA.

Range maps found in Russell and Bauer (1993) indicate that four amphibians (long-toed salamander, western toad, wood frog, and boreal chorus frog) are present in the RSA. The long- toed salamander predominately occurs north of the McLeod River in the McPherson BMU (L. Wilkinson, FWMIS pers. comm. July 9, 2007). It is not expected to occur in the LSA.

Range maps in the Atlas of Breeding Birds in Alberta (Semenchuk 1992) identified 96 bird species confirmed breeding in the RSA (Table 9-1). An additional 86 species were simply observed or were thought to be possibly or probably breeding in the RSA. This study and Bighorn (1999 and 1995) identified an additional 23 species for the RSA that were not identified by Downe and Collins (2007) or FAN (2007) for a total of 205 species in the RSA.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 70 -

A number of bird species (45) that occur in the RSA (FAN 2007) were not present on the LSA or Coal Valley Mine. These species are: Wood Duck, American Wigeon, Northern Pintail, Canvasback, Redhead, Harlequin Duck, Ruddy Duck, White-tailed Ptarmigan, Dusky Grouse, Eared Grebe, Prairie Falcon, Franklin’s Gull, Bonaparte’s Gull, California Gull, Black Tern, Common Tern, Rock Pigeon, Mourning Dove, Common Nighthawk, Black Swift, Ruby-throated Hummingbird, Calliope Hummingbird, Downy Woodpecker, Black-backed Woodpecker, Hammond’s Flycatcher, Eastern Phoebe, Loggerhead Shrike, Cassin’s Vireo, Steller’s Jay, Blue Jay, Clark’s Nutcracker, Black-billed Magpie, Bank Swallow, Mountain Chickadee, House Wren, American Dipper, Palm Warbler, Blackpoll Warbler, Black-and-White Warbler, Ovenbird, Northern Waterthrush, Golden-crowned Sparrow, Yellow-headed Blackbird, Baltimore Oriole and House Sparrow.

Range maps in Smith (1993) identified five ungulates and 29 small mammals as possibly occurring in the RSA (Table 9-1). A number of species occurred at the western or northern edge of the RSA boundary and are not expected to occur in the MW-YT LSA. These species include: long-legged bat, pika, golden-mantled ground squirrel and long-tailed vole. The bighorn sheep has been observed as an accidental visitant to the Coal Valley Mine.

9.1.2 Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower LSA

Two species of amphibians (western toad and wood frog), 56 bird species, four ungulates and nine small mammals were confirmed present on the MW LSA (Table 9-1). Twenty bird species were confirmed breeding. No species was exclusive to MW.

Two species of amphibians (western toad and wood frog), 74 bird species, three ungulates and 10 small mammals were confirmed present on the YT LSA (Table 9-1). A number of bird species were observed on YT and not elsewhere in the RSA (Table 9-1, Appendix IV). These were: Double-crested Cormorant (migrant), Broad-winged Hawk (migrant), Gyrfalcon (migrant), Northern Pygmy-Owl (migrant, possible breeding), and Spotted Towhee (Accidental).

9.1.3 Coal Valley Mine

Three species of amphibians (western toad, wood frog and boreal chorus frog), 143 bird species, five ungulates and 12 small mammals were confirmed present on the Coal Valley Mine (Table 9- 1). A number of bird species were observed on the Coal Valley Mine and not elsewhere in the RSA (Table 9-1, Appendix IV). These were: Trumpeter Swan, Yellow Rail, Black-bellied Plover, Semipalmated Plover, Semipalmated Sandpiper, Western Sandpiper, Least Sandpiper, Baird’s Sandpiper, Pectoral Sandpiper, Short-tailed Dowitcher, Say’s Phoebe, Rock Wren, Mourning Warbler, Brewer’s (Timberline) Sparrow, Snow Bunting and Western Meadowlark. Many of these species were observed during migration and were associated with the reclaimed Lovett and Silkstone Lakes.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 71 -

9.2 Species Status Summary

9.2.1 Amphibians

One amphibian (western toad) in the RSA was listed as a Species of Special Concern in 2002 by COSEWIC. The western toad occurred in the MW and YT LSAs as well as on the Coal Valley Mine (Section 8.2). The reasons for COSEWIC designation are listed in Table 9-1 and include vulnerabilities to urban expansion, conversion of habitat for agriculture, habitat deterioration, introduced exotic predators and competitors, and disease, all of which have severely reduced its abundance and range in the southern part of its range in Canada. In Alberta, Browne et al. (2003) states: “Despite its apparent sensitivity to environmental change, the western toad is found in many ecoregions in Alberta including the Rocky Mountains, boreal forest and parkland. In fact, in parts of northern Alberta the western toad is actually expanding its range eastward possibly at the expense of its smaller congener, the Canadian Toad.” The western toad is listed as Sensitive by CESCC (2006) and Sensitive by ASRD (2005).

ASRD (2005) lists the Long-toed Salamander as Sensitive. It is also designated as a "Species of Special Concern" by Alberta which means that Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division will prepare a Long-toed Salamander Conservation Management Plan. ASRD (2005) indicates that Long-toed Salamander populations are: “Few patchy, disjunct populations in mountain riparian areas. Distribution may be declining. Vulnerable to habitat destruction / alteration associated with industrial, recreational and transportation development. [It is] a "Species of Special Concern" in Alberta. Most of the Long-toed Salamander populations in Alberta are concentrated in mountain passes and associated river valleys (Graham and Powell 1999). There are nine distinct population groupings in Alberta including the Athabasca Valley in Jasper and east to Hinton. Current distribution of the Long-toed Salamander suggests it is unlikely to occur in the MW-YT LSA. No evidence of Long-toed Salamanders was found during amphibian surveys conducted for MW-YT Mine Expansion Project.

9.2.2 Avifauna

Five bird species in the RSA were listed by COSEWIC. They are: Yellow Rail (Special Concern in 2001), Common Nighthawk (Threatened in 2007), Olive-sided Flycatcher (Threatened in 2007), Loggerhead Shrike (Threatened in 2004) and Rusty Blackbird (Special Concern in 2006). None of these birds were observed on the MW-YT LSA. The Yellow Rail was observed during migration on the Coal Valley Mine and is considered to be an accidental occurrence. The Olive- sided Flycatcher and Rusty Blackbird were observed on the Coal Valley Mine as migrants. There is limited habitat in the RSA for the Common Nighthawk and the Loggerhead Shrike does not normally occur in the RSA (FAN 2007).

Of the 205 species in the RSA, CESCC (2006) identifies: one species as At Risk (Loggerhead Shrike), six species as Sensitive, 194 as Secure, one as Undetermined/Secure (Cordilleran/Pacific-Slope Flycatcher) and three as Exotic (Table 9-1). Of the 205 species in the RSA, ASRD (2005) identifies: one species as At Risk (Trumpeter Swan), 38 species as Sensitive, 156 species as Secure, seven as Undetermined, and three as Exotic/Alien (Table 9-1).

All 56 identified species in MW are listed Secure by CESCC (2006, Table 9-1, Appendix IV). Of the 56 bird species in MW, ASRD (2005) identifies: eight species as Sensitive (Northern Harrier, Bald Eagle and Northern Goshawk, Sandhill Crane, Great Gray Owl, Pileated Woodpecker,

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 72 -

Brown Creeper, and Common Yellowthroat), 47 species as Secure, and one species as Undetermined (Yellow-bellied Flycatcher).

All 74 bird species in the YT were ranked as Secure by CESCC (2006). ASRD ranked 10 species in the YT as Sensitive. Three of these were recorded during the breeding bird and owl survey: Barred Owl, Great Gray Owl, and Black-throated Green Warbler. Seven of the Sensitive bird species on YT were observed during the fall raptor surveys at the Yellowhead fire tower and as incidental observations: Golden Eagle, Bald Eagle, Northern Goshawk, Broad-winged Hawk, Pileated Woodpecker, and Barn Swallow.

9.2.3 Ungulates and Small Mammals

No ungulate or small mammal in the RSA was on the COSEWIC list (Table 9.1). All ungulates and small mammals in the RSA were identified as secure by CESCC. All ungulates and small mammals in the RSA were identified as secure by ASRD (2005) with the exception of the Northern Long-eared Bat which was identified as "May Be At Risk" (Table 9-1). ASRD (2005) indicates that for the Northern Long-eared Bat the “Population size [is] unknown, but uncommon over known range. Current forestry practices threaten habitat, as it relies on large, early decay trees for roosting. Need to incorporate habitat requirements into forest management”. Current records suggest that the range of the Northern Long-eared Bat is continuous across Alberta, north of Cold Lake, Edmonton, and Jasper (Caceres and Pybus1997). A recent study by Vonhof and Hobson (2001) confirms this distribution. These authors found Northern Long-eared Bats at all study sites where bats were found (Sousa Creek, Rainbow Lake, Wabasca River, Lesser Slave Lake and Edmonton area). The MW-YT Mine Expansion Project is at the very southern edge of this species range in Alberta.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 73 -

Table 9.1. Status and regional biodiversity for amphibians, birds, ungulates and small mammals on Coal Valley Mine, Mercoal West, Yellowhead Tower, and the Regional Study Area (RSA).

Coal Valley Provincial National COSEWIC Mine Mercoal Yellowhead RSA Status Status [Accessed Bighorn 1995 West Tower BBS 2007 Common Name ASRD 2005 CESCC 2005 Jan 30 2008] 1999 this study this study FAN 2007

AMPHIBIANS Sensitive & Long-toed Salamander Special Secure P² Concern Special Western Toad Sensitive Sensitive Concern P P P P (2002) Boreal Chorus Frog Secure Secure P P Wood Frog Secure Secure P P P P

BIRDS Canada Goose Secure Secure B B B Trumpeter Swan At Risk Secure O Wood Duck Secure Secure O Gadwall Secure Secure O PrB American Wigeon Secure Secure O Mallard Secure Secure B PoB B Blue-winged Teal Secure Secure O B Cinnamon Teal Secure Secure O PrB Northern Shoveler Secure Secure O PrB Northern Pintail Sensitive Secure PoB Green-winged Teal Sensitive Secure O PrB Canvasback Secure Secure PrB Redhead Secure Secure PrB Ring-necked Duck Secure Secure PoB B Lesser Scaup Sensitive Secure PrB PrB Harlequin Duck Sensitive Sensitive B Surf Scoter Secure Secure O PoB Bufflehead Secure Secure PrB PoB B B Common Goldeneye Secure Secure O PoB PoB B Barrow's Goldeneye Secure Secure B PoB B Hooded Merganser Secure Secure O O Common Merganser Secure Secure O PoB B Ruddy Duck Secure Secure PrB Ruffed Grouse Secure Secure B B PrB B Spruce Grouse Secure Secure B B B B White-tailed Ptarmigan Secure Secure B Dusky Grouse Secure Secure B Sharp-tailed Grouse Sensitive Secure O B Common Loon Secure Secure O B Horned Grebe Sensitive Secure O O Red-necked Grebe Secure Secure PrB Eared Grebe Secure Secure PoB

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 74 -

Table 9.1. Status and regional biodiversity for amphibians, birds, ungulates and small mammals on Coal Valley Mine, Mercoal West, Yellowhead Tower, and the Regional Study Area (RSA). Double-crested Secure Secure O Cormorant Great Blue Heron Sensitive Secure O O Osprey Sensitive Secure O B Bald Eagle Sensitive Secure O O O PoB Northern Harrier Sensitive Secure O O PoB Sharp-shinned Hawk Secure Secure O O B Cooper's Hawk Secure Secure O1 PoB O PrB Northern Goshawk Sensitive Secure O PoB O B Broad-winged Hawk Sensitive Secure O Swainson's Hawk Sensitive Secure PoB Red-tailed Hawk Secure Secure O PoB O B Rough-legged Hawk Secure Secure O O O Golden Eagle Sensitive Secure O O O American Kestrel Secure Secure PoB O B Merlin Secure Secure O B Prairie Falcon Sensitive Sensitive PoB Gyrfalcon Secure Secure O Special Yellow Rail Undetermined Sensitive Concern O (2001) Sora Sensitive Secure O PoB American Coot Secure Secure O B Sandhill Crane Sensitive Secure O PrB Black-bellied Plover Secure Sensitive O Semipalmated Plover Secure Secure O Killdeer Secure Secure B PrB B Willet Secure Secure O Lesser Yellowlegs Secure Secure O B Greater Yellowlegs Secure Secure B PrB O B Solitary Sandpiper Secure Secure PoB PrB B Spotted Sandpiper Secure Secure B PrB B B Semipalmated Sandpiper Secure Sensitive O Western Sandpiper Secure Secure O Least Sandpiper Secure Secure O Baird's Sandpiper Secure Secure O Pectoral Sandpiper Secure Secure O Upland Sandpiper Sensitive Secure O PrB Short-billed Dowitcher Undetermined Secure O Wilson's Snipe Secure Secure B B B B Wilson's Phalarope Secure Secure O O PrB Franklin's Gull Secure Secure PoB Bonaparte's Gull Secure Secure PoB Ring-billed Gull Secure Secure O O California Gull Secure Secure O Black Tern Sensitive Secure B Common Tern Secure Secure PoB Rock Pigeon Exotic/Alien Exotic B

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 75 -

Table 9.1. Status and regional biodiversity for amphibians, birds, ungulates and small mammals on Coal Valley Mine, Mercoal West, Yellowhead Tower, and the Regional Study Area (RSA). Mourning Dove Secure Secure PoB Great Horned Owl Secure Secure B PoB PoB Northern Hawk Owl Sensitive Secure O Northern Pygmy-Owl Sensitive Secure PoB O² Barred Owl Sensitive Secure B B Great Gray Owl Sensitive Secure B B B Boreal Owl Secure Secure PoB B B O Northern Saw-whet Owl Secure Secure B PrB Threatened Common Nighthawk Sensitive Secure B (2007) Black Swift Undetermined Secure O Ruby-throated Secure Secure B Hummingbird Calliope Hummingbird Secure Secure PrB Rufous Hummingbird Secure Secure O B Belted Kingfisher Secure Secure B B Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Secure Secure B B Downy Woodpecker Secure Secure PoB Hairy Woodpecker Secure Secure B PoB B American Three-toed Secure Secure PoB PrB B Woodpecker Black-backed Sensitive Secure PoB B Woodpecker Northern Flicker Secure Secure B PoB B B Pileated Woodpecker Sensitive Secure O PrB PrB B Threatened Olive-sided Flycatcher Secure Secure O PoB (2007) Western Wood-Pewee Secure Secure O PrB Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Undetermined Secure O1 PrB B PrB Alder Flycatcher Secure Secure B B B Least Flycatcher Sensitive Secure B B Hammond's Flycatcher Secure Secure PoB Dusky Flycatcher Secure Secure B O PoB PrB Cordillern/Pacific-slope Undetermined/ Undetermined/ B O Flycatcher Undetermined Secure Eastern Phoebe Sensitive Secure B PoB Say's Phoebe Secure Secure O Eastern Kingbird Secure Secure O PrB Threatened Loggerhead Shrike Sensitive At Risk O (2004) Northern Shrike Secure Secure O O Cassin's Vireo Undetermined Secure B Blue-headed Vireo Secure Secure O PrB B Warbling Vireo Secure Secure O PrB B B Philadelphia Vireo Secure Secure PrB Red-eyed Vireo Secure Secure O1 B Gray Jay Secure Secure B B B B Steller's Jay Secure Secure B Blue Jay Secure Secure PrB Clark's Nutcracker Sensitive Secure O Black-billed Magpie Secure Secure B Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 76 -

Table 9.1. Status and regional biodiversity for amphibians, birds, ungulates and small mammals on Coal Valley Mine, Mercoal West, Yellowhead Tower, and the Regional Study Area (RSA). American Crow Secure Secure O B Common Raven Secure Secure B O PrB B Horned Lark Secure Secure PoB B Tree Swallow Secure Secure B PrB B Violet-green Swallow Secure Secure O PoB Northern Rough-winged Secure Secure PoB Swallow Bank Swallow Secure Secure B Cliff Swallow Secure Secure B B B Barn Swallow Sensitive Secure B B B Black-capped Chickadee Secure Secure PoB PrB B B Mountain Chickadee Secure Secure B Boreal Chickadee Secure Secure PoB B B B Red-breasted Nuthatch Secure Secure B B B B White-breasted Nuthatch Secure Secure PoB Brown Creeper Sensitive Secure O1 PrB B Rock Wren Secure Secure O House Wren Secure Secure B Winter Wren Secure Secure B B Marsh Wren Secure Secure PoB American Dipper Secure Secure B Golden-crowned Kinglet Secure Secure O1 B B B Ruby-crowned Kinglet Secure Secure B B B B Mountain Bluebird Secure Secure B B Townsend's Solitaire Secure Secure PoB PoB PrB Gray-cheeked Thrush Undetermined Secure O1 O Swainson's Thrush Secure Secure B B B B Hermit Thrush Secure Secure B B B B American Robin Secure Secure B PoB B B Varied Thrush Secure Secure B B B B European Starling Exotic/Alien Exotic O B American Pipit Secure Secure O O Bohemian Waxwing Secure Secure O PrB Cedar Waxwing Secure Secure PoB B PrB Tennessee Warbler Secure Secure B B B Orange-crowned Warbler Secure Secure B B B B Yellow Warbler Secure Secure PoB B Magnolia Warbler Secure Secure O1 PoB Cape May Warbler Sensitive Secure O1 O Yellow-rumped Warbler Secure Secure B B B B Sensitive & Black-throated Green 1 Special Secure O PoB Warbler Concern Palm Warbler Secure Secure PoB Blackpoll Warbler Secure Secure PoB Black-and-white Warbler Secure Secure PoB American Redstart Secure Secure O1 PrB

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 77 -

Table 9.1. Status and regional biodiversity for amphibians, birds, ungulates and small mammals on Coal Valley Mine, Mercoal West, Yellowhead Tower, and the Regional Study Area (RSA). Ovenbird Secure Secure PrB Northern Waterthrush Secure Secure B Mourning Warbler Secure Secure O1 Common Yellowthroat Sensitive Secure PoB PoB B Wilson's Warbler Secure Secure B PrB B B Western Tanager Sensitive Secure O PrB Spotted Towhee Secure Secure O American Tree Sparrow Secure Secure O O Chipping Sparrow Secure Secure B B B B Clay-colored Sparrow Secure Secure B PoB B B Brewer's (Timberline) Sensitive Secure B Sparrow Vesper Sparrow Secure Secure B PoB Savannah Sparrow Secure Secure B PoB B B Le Conte's Sparrow Secure Secure O PrB Fox Sparrow Secure Secure O PoB Song Sparrow Secure Secure O PrB B Lincoln's Sparrow Secure Secure B B B B Swamp Sparrow Secure Secure O B White-throated Sparrow Secure Secure B B B B White-crowned Sparrow Secure Secure B O B Golden-crowned Sparrow Secure Secure O Dark-eyed Junco Secure Secure B B B B Lapland Longspur Secure Secure O Snow Bunting Secure Secure O Rose-breasted Grosbeak Secure Secure O1 PrB Red-winged Blackbird Secure Secure O B B Western Meadowlark Secure Secure O Yellow-headed Blackbird Secure Secure PrB Special Rusty Blackbird Sensitive Sensitive Concern O O (2006) Brewer's Blackbird Secure Secure O B Brown-headed Cowbird Secure Secure B B B Baltimore Oriole Sensitive Secure PrB Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch Secure Secure O O Pine Grosbeak Secure Secure O PrB PrB Purple Finch Secure Secure B O B PrB Red Crossbill Secure Secure B PoB PrB White-winged Crossbill Secure Secure PrB PrB PrB B Common Redpoll Secure Secure O1 O O Pine Siskin Secure Secure B PrB B B American Goldfinch Secure Secure O1 PrB Evening Grosbeak Secure Secure O1 PrB House Sparrow Exotic/Alien Exotic B

MAMMALS

Masked Shrew Secure Secure P P P

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 78 -

Table 9.1. Status and regional biodiversity for amphibians, birds, ungulates and small mammals on Coal Valley Mine, Mercoal West, Yellowhead Tower, and the Regional Study Area (RSA). Dusky Shrew Secure Secure P P P P Water Shrew Secure Secure P Arctic Shrew Secure Secure P P P P Pgymy Shrew Secure Secure P Little Brown Bat Secure Secure P Northern Long-eared Bat May Be at Risk Secure P Long-legged Bat Undetermined Secure P Silver-haired Bat Sensitive Secure P Big Brown Bat Secure Secure P P Hoary Bat Sensitive Secure P Pika Secure Secure P Snowshoe Hare Secure Secure P P P Least Chipmunk Secure Secure P P P Woodchuck Secure Secure P Golden-mantled Ground Secure Secure P Squirrel Red Squirrel Secure Secure P P P P Northern Flying Squirrel Secure Secure P Beaver Secure Secure P P P Deer Mouse Secure Secure P P P Bushy-tailed Woodrat Secure Secure P Southern Red-backed Secure Secure P P P P Vole Heather Vole Secure Secure P Meadow Vole Secure Secure P P P P Long-tailed Vole Secure Secure P Muskrat Secure Secure P P Northern Bog Lemming Secure Secure P P Western Jumping Mouse Secure Secure P P P P Porcupine Secure Secure P Wapiti Secure Secure P P P P Mule Deer Secure Secure P P P White-tailed Deer Secure Secure P P P P Moose Secure Secure P P P P Bighorn Sheep Secure Secure A

Amphibians - RSA distribution based on Russell & Bauer (1993): P = present Birds - RSA distribution based on FAN (2007): Breeding status codes are: O = Observed (Migrant & Accidental) PoB = Possible Breeding PrB = Probable Breeding B= Confirmed Breeding Mammals - RSA distribution based on Smith (1993): P = present A = accidental

1 Record from Cottonwood and Sweetgrass (1978), Cottonwood (1981) ² Record from FWMIS

Web site references: Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC). 2006. Wild Species 2005: The General Status of Species in Canada. http://www.wildspecies.ca/wildspecies2005/ [Accessed January 30, 2008]

COSEWIC. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Species search, database of species assessed by COSEWIC. http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/index_e.cfm [Accessed January 30, 2008].

The General Status of Alberta Wild Species. 2005. http://www.srd.alberta.ca/fishwildlife/wildspecies/ [Accessed January 30, 2008]

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 79 -

Comments from: COSEWIC. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Species search, database of species assessed by COSEWIC. http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/index_e.cfm [Accessed January 30, 2008]:

Toad, Western | Bufo boreas Status: Special Concern Last Examination and Change: November 2002 (New) Canadian Occurrence: YT, NT, BC, AB Status Criteria: Not applicable Reason for Designation: This species has suffered population declines and population extirpations, at least one of which is well documented. It is relatively intolerant of urban expansion and the conversion of habitat for agricultural use. Dependent upon oligotrophic and fishless ponds and small lakes for breeding, it is also sensitive to habitat deterioration, introduced exotic predators and competitors, and disease. This species remains widespread and locally abundant throughout most of its historic range in Canada despite its known vulnerabilities to urban expansion, conversion of habitat for agriculture, habitat deterioration, introduced exotic predators and competitors, and disease, all of which have severely reduced its abundance and range further south. Status History: Designated Special Concern in November 2002. Assessment based on a new status report.

Rail, Yellow | Coturnicops noveboracensis Status: Special Concern Last Examination and Change: November 2001 (No Change) Canadian Occurrence: NT, BC, AB, SK, MB, ON, QC, NB Status Criteria: Not applicable Reason for Designation: Relatively small population, declining because of continuing habitat losses, especially on the wintering grounds. Further decline could go undetected because of the secretive nature of the species. Status History: Designated Special Concern in April 1999. Status re-examined and confirmed in November 2001. Last assessment based on an existing status report.

Nighthawk, Common | Chordeiles minor Status: Threatened Last Examination and Change: April 2007 (New) Canadian Occurrence: YT, NT, BC, AB, SK, MB, ON, QC, NB, PE, NS, NL Status Criteria: A2b Reason for Designation: In Canada, this species has shown both long and short-term declines in population. A 49% decline was determined for areas surveyed over the last three generations. Reduction of food sources has apparently contributed to the decline of this species, as with several other aerial insectivores. Reductions in habitat availability, caused by fire suppression, intensive agriculture, and declines in the number of gravel rooftops in urban areas, may also be factors in some regions. Status History: Designated Threatened in April 2007. Assessment based on a new status report.

Flycatcher, Olive-sided | Contopus cooperi Status: Threatened Last Examination and Change: November 2007 (New) Canadian Occurrence: YT, NT, BC, AB, SK, MB, ON, QC, NB, PE, NS, NL Status Criteria: Does not strictly meet any of the criteria, but assessed as Threatened because of a 79% decline from 1968 to 2006, a 29% decline since 1996, and because there is no evidence that the decline has ceased. Reason for Designation: This songbird has shown a widespread and consistent population decline over the last 30 years; the Canadian population is estimated to have declined by 79% from 1968 to 2006 and 29% from 1996-2006. The causes of this decline are uncertain. Status History: Designated Threatened in November 2007. Assessment based on a new status report.

Shrike excubitorides subspecies, Loggerhead | Lanius ludovicianus excubitorides Status: Threatened Last Examination and Change: May 2004 (No Change) Canadian Occurrence: AB, SK, MB Status Criteria: A2bc Shrike excubitorides subspecies, Loggerhead Reason for Designation: This raptorial songbird has suffered significant (more than 80 %) population declines over the past 35 years. These declines have been linked to loss of native prairie and pastureland habitats and pesticide residues. Status History: The species was considered a single unit and designated Threatened in April 1986. Split according to subspecies in April 1991. The excubitorides subspecies retained the original Threatened designation from April 1986. Status re-examined and confirmed in May 2004. Last assessment based on an update status report.

Blackbird, Rusty | Euphagus carolinus Status: Special Concern Last Examination and Change: April 2006 (New) Canadian Occurrence: YT, NT, NU, BC, AB, SK, MB, ON, QC, NB, PE, NS, NL Status Criteria: Not applicable Reason for Designation: More than 70% of the breeding range of the species is in Canada’s boreal forest. The species has experienced a severe decline that appears to be ongoing, albeit at a slower rate. There is no evidence to suggest that this trend will

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 80 -

be reversed. Known threats occur primarily on the winter range, and include habitat conversion and blackbird control programs in the United States. Status History: Designated Special Concern in April 2006. Assessment based on a new status report.

Comments from: The General Status of Alberta Wild Species 2005. http://www.srd.alberta.ca/fishwildlife/wildspecies/ [Accessed January 30, 2008]:

Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Sensitive Few patchy, disjunct populations in mountain riparian areas. Distribution may be declining. Vulnerable to habitat destruction/alteration associated with industrial, recreational and transportation development. A "Species of Special Concern" in Alberta.

Western Toad Bufo boreas Sensitive Population declining elsewhere and possibly within Alberta. Concentrated mainly in northern and western Alberta. Population requires long-term monitoring. Pollution and pesticides are threats in other parts of range, while drought poses a local threat.

Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator At Risk An estimated 166 breeding pairs occur in Alberta. Critical shortage of key winter habitat limits population growth. Breeding habitat relatively secure. Efforts underway to expand wintering areas. Designated as “Threatened” under the Wildlife Act.

Northern Pintail Anas acuta Sensitive Widespread species with severe population declines across North America in last 40 years. Wetland habitat threatened by drought and drainage. Conservation of temporary wetlands in native habitats essential.

American Green-winged Teal Anas crecca Sensitive A common, widespread species with no known threats but is rapidly decreasing in Alberta, Canada, and North America.

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Sensitive Surveys show a long-term decline in populations within Alberta and surrounding jurisdictions. Alteration and loss of suitable habitat may pose threats.

Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus Sensitive Provincial population estimated at 2 000- 4000 individuals. Habitat integrity may be threatened by logging, mining, grazing and recreational activities. Site-specific mitigation of disturbances may be necessary.

Sharp-tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus Sensitive A common, widespread species; however, population appears to be declining, and farming intensification has decreased habitat availability in central Alberta.

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus Sensitive Has declined across most of its range since 1966. Drought-related disappearance of small ponds and other forms of wetland degradation affect this species.

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Sensitive Overall trend for this species may be decreasing. Entire Alberta population dependent on fewer than 100 known nesting colonies. Management of these key habitats and protection from human disturbance is essential.

Osprey Pandion haliaetus Sensitive This species is uncommon, but widespread, and faces limited threats to population and habitat, including threats to nesting sites. Continued monitoring and protection of specific nest sites desirable.

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Sensitive A species once at risk throughout much of its North American range, but now recovering; low density in Alberta. Nests vulnerable to human disturbance, and as such, require protection.

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Sensitive Appears to be declining in Alberta and across much of its North American range. Several threats to population and habitat identified. Maintenance and preservation of wetlands for waterfowl is beneficial to the Northern Harrier.

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Sensitive Logging, industrial development, and human encroachment on nesting habitat may reduce populations in the boreal forest. Maintenance of mature forest breeding habitat needs to be incorporated into forest planning on both public and private lands.

Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus Sensitive May be experiencing major population declines as breeding habitat disappears. Requires large stands of mature to old-growth forest in the parkland and southern boreal forest. Careful woodlot management by essential to maintain breeding habitat.

Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni Sensitive Adult population recently subjected to mass poisoning on winter range. Dependent on healthy ground squirrel population.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 81 -

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Sensitive Most recent estimate suggests 100-250 breeding pairs in Alberta. Disturbance from human related activities is greatest threat. Because of its low population and dispersal over a large area, nest site inventory and protection are necessary.

Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus Sensitive Core range in southern Alberta dependent on availability of secure nest sites and adequate ground squirrel prey base.

Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis Undetermined

Sora Porzana carolina Sensitive Large (>50%) declines have occurred in Alberta and all surrounding jurisdictions since 1994. Species threatened by loss of wetland habitat.

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis Sensitive Sparsely distributed through boreal and foothill bogs and marshes. Vulnerable to wetland loss; sensitive to human disturbance. Land use planning needs to incorporate the maintenance of breeding habitat.

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Sensitive Multiple threats to populations and habitat identified. Population has likely declined with loss of native prairie grassland nesting areas. Appears to have relatively narrow habitat requirements.

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus Undetermined

Black Tern Chlidonias niger Sensitive Wetland habitat vulnerable to alteration; species declining across its North American range, likely a result of habitat loss on both breeding and wintering grounds.

Northern Hawk Owl Surnia ulula Sensitive A widely distributed, but uncommon species. Natural fluctuations make determining population trends difficult. Requires stands of mature forest for nesting and also uses burns extensively, and as such is vulnerable to certain forestry practices.

Northern Pygmy-owl Glaucidium gnoma Sensitive Local populations in boreal forest, foothills and Rocky Mountains. Forest management plans need to ensure breeding habitat maintained.

Barred Owl Strix varia Sensitive Likely fewer than 2000 breeding birds in the province. This interior forest species requires larger blocks of mature dense woodland. Forest fragmentation detrimental. Forest management plans need to ensure breeding habitat retained. Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa Sensitive A naturally scarce species, widely distributed in foothill and boreal habitats. Requires stands of mature forest for nesting,thus is vulnerable to harvest.

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Sensitive Species has declined across most of its North American range since 1966, and has even disappeared from some parts of Canada. Declines require investigation. Food supply may be affected by pesticide use in urban and suburban areas. Black Swift Cypseloides niger Undetermined

Black-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus Sensitive Maintenance of mature coniferous forests important. Standing dead trees (snags) required for nesting. Forestry and fire suppression practices may decrease the availability of these stand types.

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Sensitive Requires mature to old-growth trees for nesting. Essential to incorporate maintenance of breeding habitat into management plans on both public and private lands. Some threats to populations identified.

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris Undetermined

Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus Sensitive Species has been declining in Alberta and surrounding jurisdictions. May be threatened by habitat changes on wintering range.

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe Sensitive Populations are declining in Alberta and across parts of North America, possibly due to loss of habitat on wintering range.

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Sensitive The Alberta population is estimated at approximately 3000 pairs. Designated a “Species of Special Concern” in Alberta. Numerous threats to populations and habitat identified. Cassin's Vireo Vireo cassinii Undetermined

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 82 -

Clark's Nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana Sensitive The Clark’s nutcracker has a restricted distribution within the province’s mountain parks. Its dependency on declining species such as limber pine and whitebark pine may cause population declines. It may also be susceptible to the West Nile Virus.

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Sensitive A common species that is declining in Alberta and all surrounding jurisdictions.

Brown Creeper Certhia americana Sensitive A mature forest-dependent species that is vulnerable to forest fragmentation, and certain forest management practices.

Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus Undetermined

Cape May Warbler Dendroica tigrina Sensitive Current forestry practices may decrease availability of breeding habitat (old-growth forest). Species is an obligate neotropical migrant, and there has been severe loss of its wintering habitat.

Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens Sensitive Over 10 000 individuals in the province. Designated a “Species of Special Concern” in Alberta. Habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from industrial development threaten this old-growth dependent species.

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Sensitive A common, widespread species with a declining population in Alberta and surrounding jurisdictions. Threats to habitat identified.

Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana Sensitive Prefers old coniferous and mixedwood forest; obligate neotropical migrant. Species may be vulnerable to habitat loss or deterioration by various forecast land uses, mainly timber harvest.

Brewer's Sparrow Spizella breweri Sensitive Steep population decline in Alberta since 1994. Prairie population of the species relies on availability of natural sage brush. Thought to be declining because of its specific habitat requirements.

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Sensitive An uncommon but widespread species that has undergone steep declines across its range since 1966, and occupies a threatened habitat.

Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula Sensitive Species has largely declined within Alberta and surrounding jurisdictions since 1994. Parkland habitat threatened by cultivation.

Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis May Be at Risk Population size unknown, but uncommon over known range. Current forestry practices threaten habitat, as it relies on large, early decay trees for roosting. Need to incorporate habitat requirements into forest management.

Long-legged Bat Myotis volans Undetermined

Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Sensitive Species is sensitive to mortality at current and (potentially) future wind energy projects. More research necessary to determine population size.

Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus Sensitive Species is sensitive to mortality at current and (potentially) future wind energy projects. More research necessary to determine population size.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 83 -

10.0 TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE

The traditional use study prepared for the Coal Valley Mine by Lifeways (2007) was reviewed with respect to wildlife values. First Nations concerns focused on mineral licks, springs, the impact of mining on game populations, particularly moose, and health of wild game. Mineral licks are discussed in this report in Section 5.6 and in the mitigation Section 12.2 (recommendation #16). Moose abundance, distribution, habitat and harvest levels are discussed in Section 5.2. Moose are identified as a Valued Environmental Component and are specifically dealt with in the Environmental Assessment and Cumulative Assessment sections of this report. Several specific recommendations to mitigate the impact of mining on moose are made in Section 12.2 (recommendations #1, 2, 7-12, 16). The first recommendation to designate wildlife as a primary end land use for the Yellowhead Tower LSA should ensure that a focus on wildlife is maintained through the stages of mining and reclamation. Issues of the impact of oil and gas development on the health of wildlife are outside the scope of this study. Issues that may develop specific to wildlife and mining can be addressed through appropriate processes.

The O’Chiese Camp report (Beaverbones 2007) specifically refers to the northern end of Mercoal West and recommends that the permit boundary be shortened to protect an old campsite and the river valley migratory corridor area. The current mine permit boundary does not descend into the valley but extends to almost the top of the valley edge. Shortening the mine permit boundary by 0.5 km to the southeast would provide a buffer to the McLeod River valley which is Zone 2 (Critical Wildlife) in this area (Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1990).

11.0 CLIMATE CHANGE

Biogeography models simulating forest change to various climate change scenarios predict forest redistribution in North America which will result in a redistribution of wildlife dependent on these forests. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that the Boreal, taiga, and tundra regions will shrink by as much as 36% (IPCC 2007).

Many bird species are expected to be at risk from global warming http://www.borealbirds.org/ globalwarmingbirds.shtml. Long distance migrants that winter in the tropics and summer in the Boreal Forest are at a disadvantage because they use seasonal changes in daylight rather than climatic cues to start their migrations northward (Wormworth 2006). Insects in the northern breeding grounds are hatching earlier in the spring and as a result, many long distance migrants may arrive on the breeding grounds after the maximum abundance of insects are available for feeding their young (Crick 2004). Species like the Gray Jay and other food-hoarding birds could be affected by warmer autumns in which food cached for the winter spoils before it had a chance to freeze.

Wetlands are critical to sustaining North America’s duck populations. Wetlands associated with Canada’s Boreal Forest are increasingly seen as rivaling in importance the prairie pothole wetlands which provide prime breeding grounds for most of the continent’s ducks (Ducks Unlimited 2007). Drying of the prairie potholes and closed-basin ponds in the Boreal Forest will affect duck production in North America.

On the MW-YT LSA, GDC (2007) indicates that “Overall, the predicted amount of climate changes is unlikely to be sufficient to cause community type changes over the life of the Project”. However, it is expected that moisture stress may increase, particularly in late summer and fall,

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 84 - and this will have a potentially negative impact on establishing ground cover and trees on dry south-facing slopes in reclaimed areas”.

Distribution of species like the Gray Jay and other hoarding birds may be altered if autumn temperatures warm substantially. Reclaimed wetlands on the Coal Valley Mine provide habitat for migrating waterfowl and shorebirds, breeding habitat for Canada Geese and Mallard and probable breeding for Lesser Scaup and Ring-necked Duck. Canada Geese nest on islands, promontories and in reeds near shore. They require grassy edges for grazing. Mallards will nest up to 5 km from water in a variety of grassland and tree habitats. Lesser Scaup nest on dryland close to shore as they do not walk well. The Ring-necked Duck nests on emergent vegetation close to shore. Reclaiming wetlands to include islands, irregular shoreline features, and a variety of aquatic and upland vegetation will promote nesting by waterfowl.

Healthy grasslands that are established and maintained on south-facing slopes will provide habitat for elk, deer, small mammals, raptors and other birds associated with this habitat.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 85 -

12.0 MERCOAL WEST and YELLOWHEAD TOWER MINE EXTENSION PROJECT, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

This environmental impact statement attempts to identify and predict the impacts of human activities on the biophysical environment. It also interprets and communicates information about those impacts and investigates and proposes means for their management (Thompson 2002:231).

Elk, moose, mule deer and white-tailed are identified as Valued Environmental Components (VECs) because goals specific to ungulates are identified in the Coal Branch Sub-Regional Integrated Resource Plan (Section 2.2.2, Alberta Forestry Lands and Wildlife 1990). Ungulates are often used as umbrella species for reclamation to wildlife habitat because they have large home ranges, require a variety of landform features and vegetation types to fulfill their annual life requirements, and are important prey for carnivores. These characteristics require the planner to work at the landscape level. As well, certain ungulate species can respond relatively quickly to reclamation even in an early development stage, therefore they provide a useful monitoring tool for reclamation success. Small mammals (shrews and cricetid rodents) are identified as VECs because they provide prey for many avian and terrestrial predators. Breeding birds and raptors are identified as VECs because they represent a significant component of the wildlife diversity in the MW-YT Mine Extension Project (Section 9.0). Amphibians require specific aquatic habitats and are also identified as VECs.

The following materials were used to assess the impacts of the Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project on the wildlife VECs:

• Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project End Land Use Plan. December 20, 2007. Project: 05-171 (Figure 12.1 and 12.2).

• Mercoal West Development Area (Map) and Mercoal West Reclamation Plan (Map) February 15, 2007; and Mercoal West Mine Plan (Map), CVRI, February 25, 2007.

• Yellowhead Tower Reclamation Plan (Map), CVRI, April 30, 2007.

12.1 Industrial Impacts on Wildlife

Industrial impacts on wildlife can be classed as direct or indirect. Direct impacts involve mortality by increased vehicular collisions; mortality by increased legal and illegal hunting through provision of new access. Indirect impacts include disturbance and habitat loss due to construction and operating phases. Indirect impacts can be divided into three categories; habitat change, creation of barriers, and harassment resulting in habitat alienation or death.

Habitat change involves loss of food, loss of cover and loss of environmental complexity. The construction phase can result in habitat change by temporary avoidance and increased energy loss. Barriers can interrupt migration patterns and travel routes, create uneven habitat use, alter predation rates, and increase human access and hunting efficiency.

Harassment has been described as active or passive. Active harassment involves acute psychological or physiological stress resulting in flight and direct mortality, or flight and lost reproduction. Passive harassment involves anxiety, stress and prolonged vigilance resulting in avoidance behaviours or increased energy costs and reduced reproduction.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 86 -

Certain types of industrial development on crown land require Mineral Surface Leases (MSL) within which access is controlled. Control of human activities can provide a predictable and neutral environment for wildlife. This reduces the effects of human harassment and provides conditions where wildlife can use reclaimed habitats even while industrial activity is on-going. For example, this type of response is realized for elk in urban conditions (Thompson and Henderson 1998), for elk, deer, and moose at the Coal Valley Mine (Bighorn 1995); bighorn sheep, mule deer, elk, and other wildlife at Cardinal River Coals Ltd, Luscar Mine (MacCallum and Geist 1992, MacCallum 2003); elk and other wildlife at the Elkview Mine in British Columbia (Gibson and Sheets 1997); and for moose on the Bell Mine in BC (Westworth et al. 1989).

12.1.1 Ungulates

The following sections summarize potential impacts on the four ungulate species in relation to the specific development components.

1) Direct Mortality - Haul trucks to be used are 789C with a 190 tonne payload. They have a maximum speed of 50 km/h. The number of vehicles on the road changes depending on the development area. For MW there will be 10 haul trucks with a 1.5 hr cycle time. There will also be five service vehicles, a water truck and a grader. For YT there could be 15-20 haul trucks used when mining in the northwest end but this would decrease to 10 near the southeast. Again there would be five service vehicles, a water truck and a grader (K. Young, Millennium Ltd. pers. comm. 2007).

Potential direct mortality through vehicle collisions is not expected to be a problem as haul roads are typically wide and provide a good field of view for operators and wildlife. Truck travel is slower (max 50 km/h) than highway speeds. Haul truck operators at the Coal Valley Mine are experienced drivers. All mine vehicles using the haulroad are radio-equipped. It is standard operating practice for operators to advise other operators if a road hazard is encountered including wildlife on the road. Mine traffic on a haulroad is more predictable to wildlife than traffic on a public road as it is not associated with activity that often accompanies the presence of vehicles on a public road, e.g., camping, hiking, hunting, and stopping at random. Coal Valley Mine and their employees are motivated to avoid animal collisions by safety, cost, and consideration for wildlife.

2) Loss of Winter Habitat

ELK - No elk were observed in the LSA during the 2007 air survey but elk pellets were found in both areas during the spring pellet-group counts indicating some level of overwinter use (Table 12.1). An intensive drilling program was in operation on the YT during the January 2007 air survey. This activity may have caused temporary displacement of elk and other ungulates from YT.

Elk displayed preference for Mixed Wood / HWR, Mixed Wood / TB and Lodgepole Pine / HWR habitats of which 88.4 ha on MW and 161.7 ha on YT will be disturbed. This is 2.5% and 8.6% of the total area of the MW and YT LSAs respectively. Elk also showed slight preference for Lodgepole Pine / TB, Willow-Birch Meadow, and Lodgepole Pine / TB 2-10m (cutblock) habitats of which 119.3 ha and 279 ha will be disturbed on MW and YT respectively. This is 3.4% and 14.9% of the total area of the MW and YT LSAs respectively. Seven habitats were not used by

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 87 - elk in winter or used at levels less than their availability. This indicates a local occurrence in this area.

In total, the MW-YT Mine Extension Project will disturb 648.4 ha of habitat which is preferred or slightly preferred by elk (7% of total LSA). Sixty-eight percent of this preferred habitat area (441 of 648 ha) falls within the YT LSA.

The reclamation plan for the MW-YT LSA will initially increase the amount of upland grassland habitat. Currently only a very small proportion of the pre-disturbance MW-YT LSA is comprised of upland grassland (2.3% of YT and 0.1% of MW). These grasslands are represented largely by reclaimed herbaceous meadows associated with right-of-ways. The plant species used for initial vegetation establishment on the MW-YT LSA are palatable to elk and deer. It is expected that elk and deer will respond positively to upland reclamation on the MW-YT LSA but the response may be less on MW because of habitat limitations in areas surrounding the MW LSA.

Table 12.1. Amount of ungulate winter range and core area (ha) disturbed by the Mercoal West (MW) - Yellowhead Tower (YT) Mine Extension Project.

Species Total MW YT Total MW YT winter range winter range winter range core area core area core area (ha) (ha) & (%) (ha) & (%) (ha) ha & (%) ha & (%) disturbed disturbed disturbed disturbed Elk 3020 - - - - - Moose 96230 471 (0.5) 811 (0.8) 10392 375 (3.6) 129 (1.2) Mule Deer 21200 - 223 (1.0) - - - White-tailed 38870 - 274 (0.7) 1590 - - Deer

MOOSE - The MW-YT Mine Extension Project will disturb 3.6% (375 ha) of moose winter range core area in the LSA (Table 12.1). Disturbance will affect 286 ha of highly preferred (Willow Upland, Trembling Aspen / HWR and Shrubby Rich Fen), moderately preferred (Willow - Birch Meadow, Treed Rich Fen, Black & White Spruce / LT, Graminoid Meadow, Lodgepole Pine / HWR, Shrubby Poor Fen and lowest preferred (Mixed Wood HWR) habitat. Habitats preferred by moose comprise a small proportion of the MW-YT LSA (5.3%) but may provide a necessary resource for moose in winter as use is disproportionate to availability.

DEER - A small amount of mule deer winter home range (1%) located on the YT LSA will be disturbed by the MW-YT Mine Extension Project (Table 12.1). A similar amount of winter white- tailed deer home range will be disturbed on YT. An intensive drilling program on the YT may have temporarily displaced deer in this area.

Disturbance will affect 200 ha of habitat preferred by deer including highly preferred habitat (Black & White Spruce-Lodgepole Pine / BH and Willow Upland), and moderately preferred habitat (Trembling Aspen / HWR, Mixed Wood / TB, Shrubby Poor Fen, Mixed Wood / HWR, White Spruce / TB and Graminoid Meadow. Habitats preferred by deer comprise 4% of the MW- YT LSA. Deer used six habitats with no preference of which 266 ha or 5% of the MW-YT LSA will be disturbed. Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 88 -

Deer are expected to respond positively to the upland grasslands provided by reclamation of the MW-YT LSA (see discussion for elk).

3) Disruption of Movement Patterns - Ungulates will be temporarily displaced by active mining as they are unable to cross a pit disturbance. This displacement will be restricted to local use as there are no indications of long distance or major seasonal migrations in the LSA.

4) Displacement - Ungulates and other wildlife respond positively to predictable human activity by a process of habituation which allows the animal to gradually accept new experiences in the absence of negative feedback. Elk, moose, mule deer, white-tailed deer and other wildlife on the Coal Valley Mine make use of the reclaimed landscapes in the presence of active mining. It can be expected that animals local to the MW-YT LSA area will respond in the same positive manner as at the Coal Valley Mine. Once mining and reclamation is completed and the miners have left the site, wildlife will be exposed to random human activity. Ungulates and other wildlife may alter their use of the reclaimed sites at this time if human activity is frequent and unpredictable.

12.1.2 Small Mammals

The impact of mining development will involve direct mortality through clearing and loss of habitat during mine development and changed composition in small mammal communities in the early stages of reclamation.

The density of small mammals in reclaimed grasslands has been shown to be similar to undisturbed habitats (Hingtgen and Clark 1984). After initial grassland establishment, the number of small mammal species is expected to be similar to those on undisturbed similar habitats, although a greater proportion of deer mice can be expected to occur in the early succession reclamation. The number of small mammal species on the Coal Valley Mine (6) is similar to the number of species on Mercoal West (7), Yellowhead Tower (7), Mercoal East (6), South Block (5) and West Extension (6). Once trees and shrubs begin to establish, the small mammal community composition should change to reflect the forest community.

Capture success on YT (15.48%) was higher than capture success on all other areas of the Coal Valley Mine. Capture success on the Coal Valley Mine reclamation (5%) was similar to trapping success on the undisturbed Mercoal East Block (4.98%) and the West Extension (5.7%), but higher than trapping on the South Block (3.1%) and Mercoal West (1.43%) (Table 6.3).

Other forest dependent small mammals (red squirrel, snowshoe hare) will be expected to use the regenerated forest and its understorey once it becomes established. Understorey development is a necessary component of snowshoe hare habitat. Muskrat and beaver have been observed using the reclaimed lakes on the Coal Valley Mine (Bighorn 1995:24).

12.1.3 Breeding Birds (Perching birds, Waterfowl, Cranes, Rails, and Allies, Shorebirds, Gulls, Auks, Fowl-like birds and Woodpeckers and Allies)

Habitat Loss - Loss of habitat and the subsequent temporary displacement/loss of birds are a consequence of mining activities. Habitats supporting the highest diversity of birds in the MW LSA are (Table 7.3):

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 89 -

• Treed Poor Fen (BSD = 2.629), • Lodgepole Pine / TB (BSD = 2.566), • Lodgepole Pine / TB cutblock (BSD = 2.521), • Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT cutblock (BSD = 2.505, High).

Habitats supporting the highest diversity of birds in the YT LSA are (Table 7.5):

• Willow-Birch Meadow (BSD = 3.107, Very High), • Graminoid Meadow (BSD = 2.699, High), • Mixed Wood / HWR (BSD = 2.656, High).

Mining will disturb 242 ha of these high diversity habitats comprising 5% of the MW-YT LSA. About 883 ha (16% of the MW-YT LSA) of moderately diverse bird habitats will be disturbed by the MW-YT Mine Extension Project and 54 ha (1 % of the MW-YT LSA) of habitats supporting the lowest diversity (Section 7.1.5).

Mining and reclamation activities and will shift the community composition of birds. Early succession bird communities associated with grasslands will predominate the initial reclaimed landscape, however overall bird diversity (3.170) on the Coal Valley Mine (BSD = 3.170, Bighorn 1999) is higher than bird diversity on the undisturbed MW LSA (BSD = 2.792) but similar to that on the YT LSA (BSD = 3.111). The high diversity of the reclaimed habitats on the Coal Valley Mine is partly a result of species response to:

• reclaimed lakes and ponds on the Coal Valley Mine, i.e., Common Loon, Osprey, Bufflehead, Canada Goose, Greater Yellowlegs, Mallard, Ring-necked Duck, Lesser Scaup, and several species of waterfowl and shorebird migrants (Table 9-1);

• upland early succession grassland reclamation, i.e., Savannah Sparrow, Western Meadowlark, American Kestrel, Killdeer, and LeConte’s Sparrow;

• riparian/reclaimed edge and forest/reclaimed edge habitats, i.e., Clay-colored Sparrow, Song Sparrow, Tree Swallow, Cliff Swallow, White-crowned Sparrow, Alder Flycatcher;

• birds associated with undisturbed forest, i.e., Yellow-rumped Warbler, Dark-eyed Junco, Ruby- crowned Kinglet.

Cavity nesting birds will not nest in reclaimed habitat until toward the end of the life span of the seral forest community. Cavity nesting birds have been found nesting in trees adjacent to riparian/reclamation habitat in the Lovett Lake area of the Coal Valley Mine (Bighorn 1995:85). Woodpeckers and other cavity nesters require forests with structural components such as standing dead and decaying trees, stem rot-infected trees, large live trees, hardwoods, and stumps. Conservation of these ecosystem components requires the integration of wildlife habitat requirements with timber harvesting, pest management and reclamation activities.

Direct Mortality - Most breeding birds are active from May to the end of July in the LSA; clearing in these three months would invariably destroy nests and young birds.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 90 -

12.1.4 Raptors

"Human activities impact raptors in three basic ways: by causing mortality of eggs, young, or adults; by altering habitats and by disrupting birds' normal behaviour” (Postovit and Postovit 1987). These three basic forms of impact can range from: direct impacts such as mortality (electrocution on power lines), habitat loss (clearing of tree cover and habitats for prey), to indirect impacts from simple human presence and activity (sensory disturbance or obstruction of movements).

Loss of Habitat - Habitat loss or alteration results in direct impacts to raptors by removal of cover, perch sites, nest sites and loss or alteration of prey sources. Clearing of vegetation will result in direct losses of both nesting and foraging habitat for raptors using the immediate area. Not all raptors will be affected in the same way by vegetation clearing. While certain species like the cavity nesters, e.g., Boreal Owl, may be affected by forest clearing, others such as the Great Gray Owl will benefit as they hunt along the edges of forest margins. Hawks and eagles will generally benefit from clearing a continuous forest because they need the open spaces for hunting and migration. Open areas have the potential of creating thermal updrafts important for migrating soarers. Red-tailed Hawks and Rough-legged Hawks have been observed during migration in modest numbers over the Coal Valley Mine; Golden Eagles have also been observed during migration. The presence of healthy small mammal communities in the Coal Valley Mine reclamation provide good foraging habitat for species like the Northern Harrier which are commonly observed hunting over the reclaimed grasslands. Practices to reestablish or improve raptor habitat on reclaimed lands are compatible with general wildlife habitat reclamation goals. The first priority must be to establish healthy prey populations.

Direct Mortality - Raptors that hunt or scavenge dead rodents or ungulates along roads or railways may be killed by moving vehicles. In Jasper National Park, Golden Eagles have been killed by collision with trains while scavenging on dead ungulates along the tracks. Potential direct mortality through vehicle collisions is not expected to be a problem in the MW-YT LSA as haul roads are typically wide (30-40 m), and truck travel is slower than highway speeds.

Because of their size, behaviour, and habit of perching or nesting on power poles, some raptor species are particularly prone to electrocution, i.e., Golden Eagles, Osprey, Great Horned Owls, Red-tailed Hawks, and Rough-legged Hawks. Large size is the most crucial factor predisposing birds to electrocution however there are few records of large falcons (Peregrine and Prairie) and surprisingly few for Osprey given that it often nests on power poles (APLIC 1996). Eagles and the large soaring hawks like the Red-tailed Hawk and Rough-legged Hawk are susceptible to electrocution because of their large size. The maximum wing span of a female Golden Eagle is 2.3 m (7.5 feet). Tails can extend 25.4 (10 inches) below the top of a perch.

Forest dwelling raptors such as Sharp-shinned Hawk, Cooper's Hawk and the Northern Goshawk are rarely found in electrocution records (APLIC 1996). Forested areas generally have fewer reported raptor electrocutions than parklands, shrublands, and grasslands. Because natural perches are abundant in forested areas, accipiters (small forest dwelling raptors) are more likely to perch in trees than on relatively exposed perches provided by electric transmission and distribution lines. Ground nesting raptors, e.g., Northern Harrier, are electrocuted infrequently and owl species appear in the records in low numbers. Small species like American Kestrel, and Merlin with wing spans below 100 cm (39 inches) generally cannot span the distance between two electric conductors even with outstretched wings.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 91 -

Raptor-safe power line configurations ensure there is 52 cm (60 inches) between energized conductors or between energized conductors and grounded hardware (APLIC 1996). Most lines that electrocute raptors are energized at voltage levels between 1 kV and 69 kV (APLIC 1996). Raptor electrocutions are often associated with a "preferred pole", often one that is elevated above the landscape, such as on the tops of knolls or hills.

There has been no indication that electrocution of raptors has been a problem on the existing Coal Valley Mine. The MW-YT Mine Extension Project is located in a forested environment. Raptor electrocution, if it occurs, likely happens as an isolated event. Modifications are generally not recommended as a response to single electrocutions that may be isolated events ((APLIC 1996). These two factors and the use of raptor safe specifications on distribution lines will minimize potential of raptor electrocution on the PDA.

Displacement - Mining is not expected to interrupt the raptor migration over the Yellowhead fire tower but removal of forested habitat early in the mining process will eliminate trees and foraging habitat for raptors that may occasionally stop to hunt and rest in the MW-YT LSA. It is expected that once reclamation is initiated, the small mammals typically associated with early succession grasslands will provide a food source for raptors during migration especially for Northern Harrier, Rough-legged Hawk and Red-tailed Hawk in the fall and perhaps eagles in the spring.

12.1.5 Amphibians

Two species of amphibians were identified in the LSA. Wood frogs and western toads are found throughout the LSA where small ponds associated with riparian and wetland areas are found. Direct loss of habitat by mining will initially occur as some wetland areas will be disturbed. Pit development may obstruct seasonal movement of amphibians until reclamation is established. Reclamation of wetland habitats on the Coal Valley Mine provides new breeding areas for western toads and wood frogs. Boreal chorus frogs are found in the RSA and on the Coal Valley Mine and may be expected to use reclaimed wetlands on the LSA.

12.2 Mitigation of Impacts on Wildlife

The following measures are recommended to mitigate the potential impacts of the MW-YT Mine Extension Project on wildlife:

Identify Wildlife as a Primary End Land Use in the Yellowhead Tower Zone 2 area

1) Identification of wildlife as a primary end land use will encourage reclamation activities that specifically enhance wildlife use of the reclaimed area. The YT and, to a lesser extent MW support ungulates, their predators and a diverse bird community all of which require diverse vegetation communities and complex arrangements of vegetation and landscape features. Reclamation will ensure that diverse vegetation community and complex topography is established that will benefit wildlife. This is particularly important in the YT of which a large proportion is classed as Zone 2 (Critical Wildlife).

Minimize Disturbance

2) Maintenance of as much undisturbed habitat as possible during mining will help to enhance the wildlife diversity of the reclaimed sites. Maintenance of undisturbed habitat will reduce the loss of habitat and the resulting loss/displacement of the bird and small Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 92 -

mammal community. Avoid disturbing wetland habitats as much as possible particularly during haul road placement.

Avoid Direct Mortality

3) To prevent direct mortality of nesting birds, vegetation clearing should be planned for outside of the May to July breeding season.

4) Should raptor nest locations be found during clearing operations, mitigation should be developed to address the specific situation, i.e., timing of clearing, moving nests, observation of nests, and timing activity near a nest. Disturbances should be minimized during the incubation stage, when raptors are particularly sensitive to activity around the nest, and most likely to abandon their nests (Newton 1979).

5) Maintain the existing program in place at the Coal Valley Mine to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions. A trained staff member (in this case the Environmental Technologist) is delegated as the key contact for other employees. This person documents wildlife- vehicle collisions and contacts Fish and Wildlife if necessary. Field staff train on wildlife awareness, safety practices to reduce bear-human interactions, and on the importance of not feeding or approaching wildlife. The company wildlife education program is updated periodically to address new situations as they develop and to keep new staff informed and aware.

6) Removal of carrion from the roads is encouraged to reduce raptor mortality. Use of raptor-safe power line configurations for distribution lines will minimize chances of raptor electrocution.

Establish Ecosystem Function

7) Reclamation should focus on establishing ecosystem function and initiating soil microbial activity. Wherever possible, direct haul placement techniques should be used, and the reclaimed vegetation should be similar to the existing vegetation, e.g., a mosaic of upland and wetland vegetation types. The reclamation seed mix should generally be composed of several species of grasses and several species of legumes to provide foraging diversity for small mammals, ungulates, and various bird species. Reclamation activities will initially establish a cover vegetation of grasses and legumes to prevent erosion and initiate soil development. Trees and shrubs will additionally be planted at the appropriate time.

Promote Structural Complexity of Regenerated Forests

8) Tree planting at the Coal Valley Mine has resulted in successful forest regeneration. This has produced growth tall enough to provide hiding cover for ungulates but lacks understorey development. Planting high densities of willow, and other deciduous shrubs in selected areas will provide additional hiding cover and browsing opportunities for ungulates. Hiding cover for elk and moose is defined as forest cover 3 m tall; for mule deer and white-tailed deer 1.8 m tall. Browse is assumed to be generally available when shrubs are at least 1 m tall.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 93 -

Elk are highly associated with Mixed Wood / HWR, Mixed Wood / TB and Lodgepole Pine / HWR habitats in the LSA; 68% of these habitats which will be disturbed are located on YT; efforts to establish habitats specifically for elk should focus on YT.

Moose showed preference for a variety of habitats including Willow Upland, Trembling Aspen / HWR, Shrubby Rich Fen, Willow-Birch Meadow, Treed Rich Fen, Black & White Spruce / LT, Graminoid Meadow, Lodgepole Pine / HWR, Shrubby Poor Fen and Mixed Wood HWR. Vegetation communities with an understorey of willow are particularly important to moose, as willow is a staple food for their winter diet.

Deer showed preference for Black & White Spruce-Lodgepole Pine / BH, Willow Upland, Trembling Aspen / HWR, Mixed Wood / TB, Shrubby Poor Fen, Mixed Wood / HWR, White Spruce / TB and Graminoid Meadow.

Increased forest structural diversity will also promote increased bird and small mammal diversity.

Establish a Variety of Vegetation Communities

9) Currently only a very small proportion of the LSA (1.1%) is comprised of upland grasslands represented by forb meadow (0.26%) and graminoid meadow (0.84%). The initial reclamation activities on the MW-YT PDA will create a vegetation type similar to the upland habitat on the Coal Valley Mine that is readily used by elk and deer. Consequently there will be enhanced foraging opportunities on the reclaimed sites in MW-YT for elk and deer. These foraging opportunities may be augmented by rugged terrain and proximity to mature forest cover; habitat features for both species. Upland grasslands should be planned for south-facing aspects so that winter forage opportunities are created for elk and deer.

10) Establish deciduous shrubs to provide forage for ungulates, especially moose, hiding cover for small mammals, and nests sites and food for various bird species. Shrub species like Abies lasiocarpa, Alnus viridis, Lonicera involucrata, Populus tremuloides, P. balsamifera, Ribes lacustre, Rosa acicularis, Salix spp. Shepherdia canadensis and Viburnum edule are present in the upland vegetation of the LSA. Deciduous shrubs can be established as part of a forest understorey or as a shrubby meadow type

Particular attention should be given to ensure that willow (Salix spp.) is established in a variety of vegetation community types. Young leaves of willow are highly nutritious, containing high concentrations of protein, calcium and phosphate. Moose will eat willow catkins in spring, strip leaves off new willow shoots in summer and clip off the annual woody shoots of willow in winter (Geist 1999). The genus Salix as a whole is rated as good forage value; in general hairy-leaved species tend to be more palatable than those with stiff smooth foliage however willow species throughout the LSA will generally be palatable to moose. Willow species found in the LSA are (GDC 2007, Appendix 2): S. arbusculoides, S. athabascensis, S. bebbiana, S. candida, S. discolor, S. drummondiana, S. exigua, S. glauca, S. lucida, S. lutea, S. maccalliana, S. myrtillifolia, S. pedicellaris, S. petiolraris, S. planifolia, S. prolixa, S. pyrifolia, S. scouleriana, S. serissima and S. vestita.

11) Two habitats (Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT and Lodgepole Pine / TB) that comprise 50% of the disturbed area of the LSA were used at levels less than availability by moose,

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 94 -

elk and deer. Ungulates showed preference for a variety of forest community types that comprised 29% of the area to be disturbed in the LSA. These were: • Mixed Wood / HWR (elk, moose, deer), • Mixed Wood / TB (elk and deer), • Trembling Aspen / HWR (moose and deer), • Lodgepole Pine / HWR (elk and moose), • Black & White Spruce / LT (moose), • Black & White Spruce-Lodgepole Pine / BH (deer), • White Spruce / TB (deer), and • Treed Rich Fen (moose).

Planting a variety of mixed wood and coniferous forest types similar to these types on at least 30% of the area designated for tree planting would establish forest complexity for ungulates and other wildlife.

12) Use reclamation techniques appropriate to birds and mimic the natural disturbance regime where possible. This includes designing complexity into the landscape by establishing forests with structural diversity and variety in vegetation communities and topography. Lake, pond and wetland development also promotes bird diversity. Reclaiming wetlands to include islands, irregular shoreline features, and a variety of aquatic and upland vegetation will promote nesting by waterfowl. The margins of lakes and ponds should be planted with a diversity of vegetation, e.g, shrubs, trees, open meadows. Maintenance of a mudflat margin in certain areas is important for migrating shorebirds.

13) Opportunities to develop a number of fishless ponds with shallow edges (<1 m) and emergent vegetation suitable for amphibian breeding and waterfowl nesting should be identified for the reclamation phase of development. The development of shallow lakes also provides this habitat function.

Revegetate Soil Stockpiles and Waste Areas

14) Soil stockpiles and waste areas should be vegetated with a grass/legume mix to maintain wildlife use in the disturbance zone and reduce erosion potential.

Topographic Modification to Pits and Dumps

15) Variable contouring of dump slopes will help to reduce line of sight and promote movement of wildlife across reclaimed areas. Continuous pit disturbances should be broken at intervals by “land bridges” or by variable slope angles as is currently done on the Coal Valley Mine. This is particularly important in MW as it is a continuous disturbance for about 16 km.

Establish Specialized Habitat Features

16) Important habitat features, such as snags, rock outcrops, cliffs and mineral licks will add diversity to the landscape. Stumps and other irregularities on the grassland surface will be used by kestrels and harriers for perching. Mature forests left adjacent to the mining footprint provide perches for Red-tailed Hawks which frequent the area. Logging residual placed on the reclaimed surface will function as downed wood in the future forest and will

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 95 -

provide habitat for small mammalian predators, i.e., weasels. The debris will also attract them into the reclaimed landscape which supports high densities of small mammals. Cliff Swallows have made nests in pit walls that remain after mining, e.g., south wall of the west end of Pit 20.

Seepages which develop on the landscape after mining may provide mineral licks for ungulates. These should be identified as permanent features in the final reclaimed landscape.

Management and Monitoring

17) Once mining and reclamation is complete, animals using the reclaimed sites may be subjected to new forms of human activity and the unpredictability associated with it. Enhanced management may be required for a period of time after mining and reclamation is complete. The MSL on the Coal Valley Mine currently restricts human access and provides wildlife with secure habitats. Access to the east side of the Lovett Ridge has increased over the last 10 years thus increasing opportunities for legal and illegal hunting and behavioural displacement in areas adjacent to the existing Coal Valley Mine. It is recommended that the MSL on the Coal Valley Mine and West Extension remain in place during development of the Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project. Changes to the MSL on operating parts of the mine should be coordinated with an overall access management plan for the area.

18) Ungulates will be dependent on hiding cover provided by forest immediately adjacent to mine disturbance in the early years of reclamation. As well, part of the high bird diversity recorded on the Coal Valley Mine is dependent on the proximity of undisturbed habitat. Undisturbed forest is required adjacent to the reclaimed areas until the regenerated forest begins to provide hiding cover for ungulates and habitat for forest-dwelling birds. Removal of timber immediately adjacent to the mine footprint should be coordinated with West Fraser Mills Hinton Division so that mining and forest harvesting do not result in simultaneous removal of mature tree cover and the creation of overly large open disturbances.

19) Because of the importance of the Lovett Ridge and the Coal Valley MSL to ungulates in the RSA, and the overall reduction in moose numbers and apparent change in elk distribution between 1996/97 and 2007, it is recommended that a monitoring program be developed to track response of ungulates to reclamation of the MW-YT Mine Extension Project and other Coal Valley Mine projects. This includes repeating the 2007 Coal Valley Mine air survey in 2008 and again at appropriate intervals during the life of the project. Systematic ground surveys provide information about wildlife response to reclamation. The annual ground survey conducted monthly from April 2006 to March 2007 on the Coal Valley Mine should be expanded to include the MW-YT Mine Extension Project and conducted at appropriate stages during the Coal Valley Mine reclamation program.

12.3 Net Impact

Table 12.2 provides a summary of the net impacts of the MW-YT Mine Extension Project on wildlife after mitigation measures have been implemented. Table 12.3 presents a summary of

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 96 - criteria used for evaluating the MW-YT Mine Extension Project. The assessment assumes the following vegetation response (adapted from GDC 2007, Section 5.2.1.1):

• grassland vegetation will take five years to establish after initial disturbance;

• trees are typically planted 2-4 years after the initial seed mix. After 8 years (for pine) or 14 years (for spruce) trees will be 2 m high and begin to provide hiding cover for ungulates, i.e, 10- 18 years after initial seeding. It is assumed that shrubs will be planted at the same time as trees;

• most areas planted to trees will have crown closure by 25 years after initial seeding, average tree height will be >5 m, understorey vegetation will change to respond to altered light regime and native species adapted to understorey conditions will begin to ingress and dominate;

• marsh vegetation dominated by sedges and rushes (ecosite n1) around lake margins will be mature after 25 years;

• forest stands will begin to resemble ecosites with an understorey of hairy wild rye and labrador tea / feather moss at 50 years. More open areas including less densely planted forests and areas left as meadows will have higher cover and diversity of plant species and native graminoids will increasingly dominate open areas.

A variety of wildlife use undisturbed and reclaimed habitat associated with coal leases during and after the mining phase. Wildlife have colonized new habitat created by reclamation of coal mines (MacCallum 2003). Activity associated with mining is predictable and focused. Animals are not subject to random and varied human disturbance within the Mineral Surface Lease. These conditions allow animals to colonize the reclaimed landscape. The Mineral Surface Lease associated with the Coal Valley Mine has provided a secure environment for wildlife and is instrumental in maintaining regional ungulate populations especially in the Critical Wildlife Habitat associated with the Lovett Ridge. Initial displacement of the existing wildlife community on the MW-YT LSA by active mining will be followed relatively quickly by colonization of wildlife species appropriate to the stage of succession reached by the regenerated plant community. Because the development is relatively narrow and small in area, species representative of the initially undisturbed habitats are expected to continue to be represented in the final landscape. Designing complexity into the landscape (lakes, ponds, wetlands, variety in vegetation communities and topography) will support wildlife diversity.

Over time, wildlife will adjust to the initial displacement and disturbance by colonizing newly available habitat and incorporating it into their daily and seasonal activities. Species composition on the MW-YT LSA will be similar, but changed, in response to the addition of lakes, ponds and other habitat features into the final landscape. Species composition of the wildlife communities will change over time in response to vegetation development and maturation.

The residual impact ratings assume: human recreation and access is managed to provide security for wildlife especially in the vicinity of the Lovett Ridge, diverse habitat types are established, structural complexity is established in reclaimed forest types, deciduous shrubs are incorporated into the reclaimed landscape, and industrial development in the region promotes best management practices that ensure long term viable wildlife populations.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 97 - Table 12.2. Determination of the significance of potential effects of the proposed Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project on wildlife resources (ungulates, small mammals, breeding birds and raptors, amphibians). VEC Nature of Potential Mitigation/ Type of Criteria for Determining Significance Significance Project Confidence Impact Protection Plan Effect Contribution Rating Extent Duration Frequency Recovery Magnitud Probabil e ity

UNGULATES (Moose, Deer, Elk)

Elk Loss of Foraging Minimize Loss (2) Project Local Grassland Development Continuous Reversible in Moderate High Significant Positive High Habitat Reclamation (1, (Extended) Short-Term 9,10,12,17,18) Shrub Development (Long) Loss of Forest Minimize Loss (2) Residual Local Forest Development Continuous Reversible in Low High Insignificant Neutral High Cover Reclamation (9,10) (Long ) Long-Term

Moose Loss of Minimize Loss (2) Project Local Shrub Development Continuous Reversible Low High Insignificant Neutral Moderate Foraging Habitat Reclamation (1, 7, (Long) Longt-Term 8, 10, 11, 16)

Loss of Minimize Loss (2) Residual Local Forest Development Continuous Reversible in Low High Insignificant Neutral High Forest Cover Reclamation (1, 7, (Long) Long-Term 8, 11, )

Deer Loss of Foraging Minimize Loss (2) Project Local Grassland Development Continuous Reversible in Moderate High Significant Positive High Habitat Reclamation (1, 7, 8, (Extended) Short-Term 9,10,11,12,16) Shrub Development

(Long) Loss of Forest Minimize Loss (2) Residual Local Forest Development Continuous Reversible in Low High Insignificant Neutral High Cover Reclamation (9,10) (Long) Long-Term

Elk Disruption of Minimize Loss (2) Project Local Short Continuous Reversible in Low High Insignificant Neutral High Moose Movement Patterns Reclamation (15) Short-Term Deer

Management (18) Project Local Short Continuous Reversible in Moderate High Insignificant Neutral Moderate Short-Term

Elk Displacement Management Project Region Long Continuous Reversible in Moderate Medium Insignificant Neutral Moderate Moose (17,18) al Long-Term Deer

Elk Direct Mortality Training Project Local Short Continuous Irreversible Low High Insignificant Neutral High Moose (5) Deer

SMALL MAMMALS

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 98 -

Table 12.2. Determination of the significance of potential effects of the proposed Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project on wildlife resources (ungulates, small mammals, breeding birds and raptors, amphibians). VEC Nature of Potential Mitigation/ Type of Criteria for Determining Significance Significance Project Confidence Impact Protection Plan Effect Contribution Rating Extent Duration Frequency Recovery Magnitud Probabil e ity

Loss of Habitat Minimize Loss (2) Project Local Grassland Development Continuous Reversible in Low High Insignificant Neutral High Reclamation (Extended) Short-Term (1,7,8, 9, 10, 11, 15,16) Shrub Development Continuous Reversible in Low High Insignificant Neutral Moderate (Long) Long-Term Forest Development (Long) BREEDING BIRDS and RAPTORS

Loss of Habitat Minimize Loss Project Local Grassland Development Continuous Reversible in Low High Insignificant Neutral High ( 2) and (Extended) Short-Term Reclamation Residual (1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, Shrub Development Continuous Reversible in Low High Insignificant Neutral Moderate 13, 16) (Long) Long-Term Forest Development Management (18) Project Local (Long) Continuous Reversible in Low High Insignificant Neutral High Short-Term Short

Direct Mortality Timing & Training (3, Project Local Short Continuous Irreversible Low High Insignificant Neutral High 4, 6)

Displacement Minimize Loss Project Local Grassland Development Continuous Reversible in Low High Insignificant Neutral High ( 2) and (Extended) Short-Term Reclamation Residual (1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, Shrub Development Continuous Reversible in Low High Insignificant Neutral Moderate 13, 16) (Long) Long-Term Forest Development Management (18) Project Local (Long) Continuous Reversible in Low High Insignificant Neutral High Short-Term Short AMPHIBIANS

Loss of Habitat Minimize Loss (2) Project Local Short Continuous Reversible in Low High Insignificant Neutral High Reclamation Short-Term (1, 13)

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 99 -

Table 12.3. Summary of impact assessment criteria used for evaluating the Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project Category Criteria Definition Nature of Potential Impact or - Impacts or effects represent those identified in Section Effect 12.1.1 to 12.1.4. Mitigation/Protection Plan - A general plan or method for dealing with the impact is identified. The number(s) refer to applicable mitigation that were identified in Section 12.2 and were considered applicable to the potential impact. Type of Impact or Effect (after Project Effect occurs during the life of the project or for a short mitigation) period of time after mitigation and mine abandonment. Residual Effect remains for a considerable period of time after mitigation and mine abandonment. Cumulative Residual effect from project combined with past, current, and imminent activities create a general measurable environmental effect. Geographical Extent of Impact Local Effect occurs mainly within or in close proximity to the or Effect proposed development area. Regional Effect (or implications of effect) extends outside of the project boundary to regional surroundings. Provincial Effect (or implications of effect) extends outside of the regional surroundings, but within provincial boundary. National Effect (or implications of effect) extends outside of the provincial boundary, but within the national boundary. Global Effect extends outside of national boundary. Duration of Impact or Effect Short Effect occurs within development phase. Long Effect persists after completion of reclamation. Extended Effect persists after completion of reclamation but diminishes with time (<80 years). Persistent Effect persists after completion of reclamation for a long period of time (>80 years). Frequency of Impact or Effect Continuous Effect occurs continuously over assessment period. Isolated Effect confined to a specific period. Periodic Effect occurs intermittently but repeatedly over assessment period. Occasional Effect occurs intermittently and sporadically over assessment period. Accidental Effect occurs rarely over assessment period. Seasonal Effect occurs seasonally over assessment period. Ability for Recovery from Impact Reversible in short- Effect is reversible and diminishes upon cessation of or Effect term activity. Reversible in long- Effect remains after cessation of activities but term diminishes with time.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 100

Table 12.3. Summary of impact assessment criteria used for evaluating the Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project Category Criteria Definition Irreversible Effect is not reversible and does not diminish upon cessation of activities or with time. Magnitude of Impact or Effect Nil No change from background conditions anticipated after mitigation. Low Disturbance predicted to be somewhat above typical background conditions, but no detectable substantial change in ecological parameters. Moderate Disturbance predicted to be considerably above background conditions, or causes a change in ecological parameters within range of natural variability. High Disturbance predicted to exceed established criteria or scientific thresholds associated with potential adverse effects, or causes a change in ecological parameters beyond the range of natural variability. Probability of Impact or Effect Low Unlikely. Occurrence (after full effect of mitigation) Medium Possible or probable. High Certain. Significance of Residual Effects Insignificant An impact which affects a population or species in a localized manner over a short period of time similar to natural variation and has no measurable effect on the integrity of the population as a whole Significant Within specified time and space boundaries, a significant impact is a predicted or measured change in an environmental attribute that should be considered in project decisions, depending on the reliability and accuracy of the prediction and the magnitude of the change (Beanlands and Duinker 1983). Project Contribution Neutral No net benefit or loss to the resource, community, (implications of impact with region, or province. mitigation) Positive Net benefit to the resource, community, region, or province. Negative Net loss to the resource, community, region, or province. Confidence Rating (as related to Low Incomplete understanding of cause-effect relationships Project Contribution based on and incomplete data pertinent to the study. professional opinion) Moderate Good understanding of cause-effect relationships using data from elsewhere, or incompletely understood cause-effect relationships using data pertinent to the study. High Good understanding of cause-effect relationships and data pertinent to study.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 101

13.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

Cumulative affects assessment (CEA) differs from an impact assessment in that it assesses the effects of all activities in the RSA as well as a single project. It is applied to a landscape scale rather than simply a local scale. It includes longer time frames and requires an increased level of integration between assessment and planning. An assessment of cumulative impacts is required under the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act 47(d) - paragraph 5, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 16(1). The limitations of conducting a single- project cumulative assessment are well known and have been discussed by Kennett (1999 and 2000).

In an effort to put the impacts of the MW-YT Mine Extension Project into a temporal and spatial perspective with existing and future demands by other users and developments, a cumulative effects assessment was carried out for elk, moose and terrestrial avifauna in the regional study area (Figure 1.1). The RSA encompasses approximately 2,658.5 km² (265,846 ha) and is comprised of seven Bear Management Units (BMUs) described in Section 1.0, and Figure 1.3.

13.1 Methods

Modeling was carried out for the following time frames 10, 25 and 50 years into the future (GDC Section 5.1.4.2). Seven scenarios were developed

• Time 0 year Baseline Year (Year 0) without project

• Time 10 years Maximum disturbance case for MW and YT PDAs (approximately 10 years) with the project (T10a) and without the project (T10b)

• Time 25 Years Maximum disturbance within the RSA from all activities (approximately 25 years), with the MW-YT PDAS (T25a) and without the project (T25b).

• Time 50 Years Regional closure case (50 years), with the MW-YT PDAs (T50a) and without the project (T50b).

To assess the impact of the project within the RSA, the following scenarios were compared:

• Time 10 years T10a versus T10b (project maximum disturbance) • Time 25 years T25a vs T25b (regional maximum disturbance) • Time 50 Years T50a vs T50b (project regional net impact)

13.1.1 Land Cover Map (LC20 RSA)

The cumulative effects assessment is based on a land class map (LC20 RSA) developed by GDC (2007). Codes and a description of the 20 land classes are listed in Table 14.1. A more detailed description of the 20 RSA land classes is found in Section 2.3.5.2 (GDC 2007). The LC20 map is comprised of 403,962 polygons (265,846 ha). On the boundary of the RSA, 3,189 polygons comprising 90.9 ha (0.034% of area of CEA) were assigned a value of zero. These were not included in the model calculations for elk or moose.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 102

Table 13.1. Land cover codes and classes for the regional study area at baseline T0 (adapted from GDC 2007) and ungulate HSI values (adapted from Buckmaster et al. 1999 and Romito et al. 1999). Code LC20 and RSA Descriptions Area (ha) Elk HSI Moose HSI 1 open conifer (< 50% cover) 11,139 0.08 0.4 2 moderate conifer (50% to 70% cover) 62,975 0.04 0.4 3 dense conifer (> 70% cover) 55,618 0.01 0.2 4 open broadleaf (< 50% cover) 981 0.8 0.3 5 moderate broadleaf (50% to 70% cover) 1,896 0.4 0.5 6 dense broadleaf (> 70% cover) 2,020 0.1 0.4 7 open mixed (< 50% cover) 7,344 0.4 0.5 8 moderate mixed (50% to 70% cover) 16,370 0.2 1 9 dense mixed (> 70% cover) 17,941 0.05 0.5 10 open forest regen (< 50% cover) 29,242 0.08 0.4 11 closed forest regen (>= 50% cover) 21,465 0.02 0.4 12 upland herb 5,320 1 0.2 13 Shrubs 12,597 0.6 1 14 open wetland 1,510 0.05 0.2 15 treed wetland 8,358 0.08 1 16 Water 461 - - 17 barren land 10,229 - - 18 snow & ice 1 - - 19 Cloud 3 - - 20 Shadow 106 - -

13.1.2 Human Disturbance Projection

Development features in the RSA were identified (e.g., pipelines, wellsites, roads) and the 20 land classes were modified to predict changing conditions caused by mining, forest harvesting, mountain pine beetle, and climate change, for 10, 25 and 50 years. Details are provided in Section 5.1.4.3, GDC 2007.

13.2 Cumulative Effects Assessment for Elk

A winter foraging Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Model developed by the Foothills Model Forest (Version 5) was used to predict the suitability of habitat for elk (Buckmaster et al. 1999) in the RSA for baseline, 10, 25 and 50 years. The model is used to predict potential changes in elk habitat area. The model produces HSI values for critical winter food habitat and is applicable to the Foothills Model Forest in west-central Alberta. The model applies to forest and non-forest habitat areas of the Lower Foothills and Montane Natural Subregions but is broadly applicable to other habitat areas dominated by vegetation similar to that in this region, including pure

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 103 deciduous, mixed wood and pure coniferous forest types, as well as wetland and riparian forest, meadows, shrublands, and areas regenerating after forest harvesting.

Model assumptions are modified from Buckmaster et al. (1999): 1. Winter is the critical period determining elk habitat. 2. Snow cover does not limit the availability of herbaceous food. 3. Water and minerals are not limiting winter resources. 4. Hiding cover is not a limiting winter resource. Note: Thermal cover is not a significant determinant (Cooke et al. 1998). 5. Stand characteristics can be used to predict high cover values of grass, herbs and shrubs. 6. Elk primarily overwinter in the Lower Foothills and Montane Natural Subregions. 7. Suitable foraging habitat near a road or far from cover will be used. Foraging in these places may occur under cover of darkness.

The HSI winter foraging model for elk consists of 3 controlling habitat variables (S1, S2, S4) and one modifying variable (S3) where:

S1 Tree canopy closure [in non forested areas] - Tree canopy closure in non forested areas of <6% is considered optimal. Anything above 6% has no suitability. S2 Tree Canopy Closure [in forested sites] - A canopy cover of between 6 and 20% is considered optimal. As tree canopy closure increase, suitability decreases until it reaches 0 at 80%. S3 Deciduous in Tree canopy - Forests that are at least 50% deciduous are considered optimal. There is some suitable food in conifer forests so suitability never reaches 0 if there is no deciduous component. S4 Grass Cover - Included to ensure areas of non habitat are not given a high suitability.

Whenever an area is devoid of trees, S1 and S4 will produce the greatest suitability value and will determine the HSI value. Whenever a forested stand is present, the combination of S2 and S3 will produce the greatest value and will therefore determine the HSI value.

HSI elk foraging = max (S1 x S4, S2 x S3).

The 20 land classes were assigned an HSI value (Table 13.1) based on: • Elk winter foraging model (Buckmaster et al. 1999), • LC20 RSA descriptions, and • Prominence values for ecosite phase designations (GDC February 2007). HSI values were then compared to actual winter use levels as measured by elk pellet-group/ha throughout the RSA and modified if necessary.

13.2.1 Predicted Change in Elk Habitat

The outcomes of the HSI analysis for elk for the seven scenarios (outlined in Section 13.1) are shown in Table 13.2. Year T0 baseline (Figure 13.1) shows an HSI value of 0.147, this value increases in Year 10 to 0.161 (Figure 13.5) without the MW-YT development and to 0.165 with MW-YT (Figure 13.2). In Year 25 the elk HSI value decreases to 0.136 without MW-YT (Figure 13.6) and to 0.135 with MW-YT (Figure 13.3). In Year 50 there is another decrease to 0.132 without MW-YT (Figure 13.7) and to 0.131 with MW-YT (Figure 13.4).

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 104

The percent difference between the elk HSI values without MW-YT and with MW-YT for each of the future year periods is also shown in Table 13.2. A positive value indicates a higher HSI value with MW-YT than without MW-YT. In Year 10 the elk HSI value is predicted to be 2.22% higher with the MW-YT development than without the MW-YT development. This increase is a result of the upland herb land cover which will be created in the reclaimed areas of the MW and YT LSAs. This land cover type is classified as a having a high elk HSI value (1).

Table 13.2. Predicted changes to elk habitat without and with the Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower (MW-YT) Mine Extension Project.

Percent difference Elk HSI without Elk HSI with between without MW-YT MW-YT MW-YT and with MW-YT

Year 0 0.147 Year 10 0.161 0.165 2.22% Year 25 0.136 0.135 -0.73% Year 50 0.132 0.131 -0.73%

Both Year 25 and Year 50 show a slight reduction (less than 1%) in the elk HSI values between without MW-YT and with MW-YT. The small amount of difference between without MW-YT and with MW-YT and the overall reduction of the elk HSI value between Year 0 and Year 50 (10.32% for without MW-YT and 10.97% for with MW-YT) shown in Table 13.2 is a reflection of the increased amount of mature coniferous forest which will replace the upland herb reclamation on the current and future Coal Valley Mine operations and on the MW-YT LSA (Table 5-2 in GDC 2007). Conifer dominated land cover types are given lower elk HSI rating (0.01 - 0.08) than mixed wood (0.05 - 0.4) and broadleaf (0.1 - 0.8) cover types. Replacement of mixed wood habitat over the long term with conifer habitat reduces the regional elk habitat suitability by 10% without MW-YT and with MW-YT by 11%.

Table 13.3. Predicted changes to elk habitat from Time 0 (baseline) to Year 50 without and with the the Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower (MW-YT) Mine Extension Project.

Elk HIS Percent change Elk HSI Percent change without MW-YT from Year 0 with MW-YT from Year 0

Year 0 0.147 0.147

Year 10 0.161 9.26% 0.165 11.74% Year 25 0.136 -7.62% 0.135 -8.29% Year 50 0.132 -10.32% 0.131 -10.97%

Development of MW-YT will have little effect on regional elk populations because their use of the MW-YT LSA is low and existing habitat is expected to absorb any temporary displacement of elk caused by development of MW-YT. The MW-YT Mine Extension Project will increase

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 105 regional elk habitat suitability for winter forage by year 10 at which time elk are expected to colonize this new habitat resulting in a potential increase in the regional elk population. More use of the YT LSA by elk is expected than of the MW LSA because of habitat limitations for elk in the immediate vicinity of MW. Once reclamation is complete, this effect should last 25-50 years at which time large areas of reclamation on the current and future Coal Valley Mine operations and on the MW-YT LSA become closed forest regeneration. At Year 50, elk habitat suitability will be reduced by 10% without MW-YT and 11% with MW-YT. Implementing appropriate mitigation for elk (Section 12.2) including establishing a variety of vegetation communities (upland grassland, shrublands, mixed wood, coniferous forest) and promoting understorey complexity in regenerated forests (Section 12.2) will moderate this effect and maintain higher quality of habitat for elk in the future.

Elk in the Coal Valley Mine area have not increased in numbers between 1997 and 2007 even though increases in elk numbers have been reported for six elk herds along the northern east slopes (Hobson and Ficht 2002). The goal for elk in the Robb Highlands Resource Management Area appears to not have been reached. The goal is “To increase the elk population from 100 to 300 animals, with half the increase to occur in Zone 2 areas” (Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1990). Elk distribution in 2007 was noticeably restricted to the Coal Valley Mine as opposed to 1997 when distribution was more widespread over the Lovett Ridge. Factors affecting the population numbers and distribution change may include: increased access on the northeast side of the Lovett Ridge allowing for increasing legal and illegal harvest, continuing predation and static habitat.

The impacts of the MW-YT development on elk are insignificant provided mitigation is implemented including reclamation appropriate for elk, and future monitoring is implemented. Land reclamation for diverse wildlife habitat is a key mitigation measure associated with the MW-YT Mine Extension Project. Ecological attributes are not the same in the MW LSA and the YT LSA and different reclamation strategies may be developed for each unit to recognize this ecological diversity. It is recommended a variety of reclamation techniques be employed at the micro-site level to encourage diversity in the final landscape. Conservation and reclamation of disturbed land is identified in goal #1 of Alberta's Biodiversity Strategy "To conserve biodiversity and use biological resources in a sustainable manner" (AEP 1998). The reduced distribution of elk between 1997 and 2007 however, may be indicative of a lack of security for elk caused by various regional industrial developments and recreation pressure. Consideration should be given to maintaining the mineral surface lease on the Coal Valley Mine on the Lovett Ridge Zone 2 while MW-YT is active to provide some level of security for regional elk populations.

The issue of how increased access and the nature of human use of the RSA affect elk numbers and distribution needs to be better understood. Elk in the RSA may be particularly vulnerable to human disturbance because their habitat is largely restricted to the Lovett Ridge and major river valleys. Given the importance of the Lovett Ridge to elk and their need for security, a review of the resource objectives for the Robb Highlands Resource Management Area with the purpose of achieving its wildlife objectives for elk is recommended. Integrated Resource Management is discussed in goal #2 of Alberta's Biodiversity Strategy "To improve our understanding of ecosystems and increase our resource management capability" (AEP 1998).

A regional level focus on management activities may include regular regional assessments of all activities at pre-established intervals or in response to large natural disturbances, e.g., fire, pine beetle invasion, or in response to novel landscape level industrial, recreation or other human use development. Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 106

13.3 Cumulative Effects Assessment for Moose

A winter habitat HSI model developed by the Foothills Model Forest (Version 5) was used to predict the suitability of habitat for moose (Romito et al. 1999) at a landscape scale for baseline, 10, 25 and 50 years. The model is used to predict potential changes in moose habitat area and carrying capacity. The model produces HSI values for winter food habitat and is applicable to the Foothills Model Forest in west-central Alberta. The model applies to forest and non-forest habitat areas of the Lower and Upper Foothills, Montane and Subalpine Natural Subregions since suitability is determined from structural characteristics within stands rather than classified forest stands directly. Model assumptions are (modified from Romito et al. 1999): 1. Moose are able to migrate freely to their winter range from their summer range. 2. Habitat used throughout the spring and fall which includes calving, summer activities and reproduction is not limiting. 3. Winter is the critical period which determines moose habitat supply. 4. All tall shrub species (>1 m in height) have the same value as food and this does not diminish throughout the winter. 5. Moose do not modify their feeding behaviour in the presence of human activity. 6. Water and minerals are not limiting winter resources. 7. Suitable cover is always present.

One variable is used to predict foraging habitat for moose (S1) where S1 = Tall Shrub and Deciduous Sapling Cover - Deciduous tree and shrub cover is optimal at values >25%. At 0% cover, the suitability is 0 and rises linearly to optimal suitability at 25%.

HSI moose foraging = S1.

The 20 land classes were assigned a moose HSI value (Table 13.1) based on: • Moose winter habitat model (Romito et al. 1999), • LC20 RSA descriptions, and • Prominence values for ecosite phase designations (GDC February 2007).

HSI values were then compared to actual winter use levels as measured by moose pellet- group/ha throughout the RSA and modified if necessary.

13.3.1 Predicted Change in Moose Habitat

At baseline T0, moose habitat suitability is much higher (greater HSI =0.453, Table 13.4, Figure 13.8) in the RSA than elk habitat suitability (HSI = 0.147, Table 13.2, Figure 13.1). Large areas of moderately rated moose habitat exist over most of the RSA while elk habitat is concentrated to local areas of relatively high quality habitat. In addition, the differences between the without MW-YT and with MW-YT were smaller for moose than for elk. The greatest difference (-0.72%) between without and with MW-YT was observed in year 10 (Figure 13.12 and Figure 13.9 respectively) while years 25 and 50 had almost identical differences (-0.25% and -0.26% respectively; Figures 13.10, 13.11, 13.13 and 13.14).

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 107

Table 13.4. Predicted changes to moose habitat without and with the Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower (MW-YT) Mine Extension Project.

Percent difference Moose HSI Moose HSI between without MW-YT without MW-YT with MW-YT and with MW-YT Time 0 0.453 Time 10 0.447 0.444 -0.72% Time 25 0.453 0.452 -0.25% Time 50 0.446 0.445 -0.26%

Overall, moose HSI change between years ranges from 0% (year 25 without MW-YT) to - 2.06% (year 10 with MW-YT). The decrease in Year 10 between without MW-YT and with MW- YT is a result of the replacement of habitat with higher HSI values with habitat with lower HSI values in the areas of the MW-YT and Robb Trend developments as moose habitat is removed (Table 13.5).

Table 13.5. Predicted changes to moose habitat from Time 0 (baseline) to Year 50 without and with the Mercoal West - Yellowhead Tower (MW-YT) Mine Extension Project.

Moose HSI without Percent change Moose HSI with Percent change MW-YT from Year 0 MW-YT from Year 0 Year 0 0.453 0.453 Year 10 0.447 -1.36% 0.444 -2.06% Year 25 0.453 0 0.452 -0.26% Year 50 0.446 -1.57% 0.445 -1.82%

The MW-YT project will result in a 2.06% decrease in habitat suitability by year 10. By Year 50 habitat suitability for moose in the RSA will decrease by 1.6% without MW-YT and 1.8% with MW-YT; an insignificant effect. Large amounts of moderate quality moose habitat is available throughout the RSA for moose thereby moderating the affect of habitat change caused by mining. High quality moose habitat on the YT LSA and other areas associated with mixed wood of the Lovett Ridge will be reclaimed with a closed forest regeneration forest of lesser habitat quality (Figure 13.8 and 13.11). Implementing appropriate mitigation for moose (Section 12.2) including establishing a variety of vegetation communities, and promoting understorey complexity in regenerated forests that includes willow species (Section 12.2) will moderate this effect and maintain higher quality of habitat for moose in the future.

A comparison of results from the Coal Valley Mine 1997 and 2007 aerial surveys indicates that moose numbers appear to have declined. Moose surveys conducted by ASRD in WMU 340 indicate a 50% decrease in moose numbers between 1996 and 2004 (Ficht and Smith 2004). Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 108

The bull:100 cow ratio of 9 bulls :100 cows reported for the Coal Valley Mine aerial survey is lower than that reported for WMU 340 by Alberta Fish and Wildlife between 1983 and 2004 (range 15-36 bulls:100 cows). The calf:100 cow ratio (9 calves:100 cows) is lower than any previous Coal Valley Mine or Alberta Fish and Wildlife survey (range 39-53 calves:100 cows) between 1983 and 2004. Low calf moose numbers are generally attributed to wolf predation, lack of forage, increased access leading to increased hunting and die-off related to ticks. Wolf numbers appear not to have changed appreciably in the Robb area. Mining and forest harvesting may result in temporary displacement of local populations but the RSA is characterized by a large amount of moderate quality moose habitat. There have been no reports of tick die-offs in the area. Ficht and Smith (2004) cite reasons for the decline in moose numbers in WMU 340 as: increased road access that enhances regulated and unregulated hunting opportunities, an over estimate of the population for several years resulting in too high bull harvest goals, and a more accurate survey in 2004 over 1996.

The impact of the MW-YT development on moose is not significant after mitigation and future monitoring is implemented (Section 12.2). Reclamation is an important part of mitigation including establishing a variety of vegetation communities suitable for moose, i.e., mixed wood, and structural complexity is added to the forest. Establishment of willow is particularly important to moose. Conservation and reclamation of disturbed land is identified in goal #1 of Alberta's Biodiversity Strategy "To conserve biodiversity and use biological resources in a sustainable manner" (AEP 1998).

A regional level focus on management activities may be needed, particularly regarding increased access in the vicinity of the Lovett Ridge and how overall human use of the RSA has affected moose populations. This may include regular regional assessments of all activities at pre-established intervals or in response to large natural disturbances, e.g., fire, pine beetle invasion, or in response to novel landscape level industrial, recreation or other human use development.

The Alberta Sustainable Resource Development wildlife goal #2 for the Coal Branch “To ensure that populations of elk, moose and deer are maintained or increased.” and wildlife goal #4 for the Robb Highlands Resource Management Area: “To maintain moose densities of 0.6/km2 in the Beaverdam Creek and Lovett Ridge Zone 2s, and to increase moose densities from 0.3/km2 to 0.5/km2 outside Zone 2" (Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1990) appear to not have been achieved. Wildlife populations in the Lovett Ridge Zone 2 have been provided a level of security by the Coal Valley Mine Mineral Surface Lease. Maintenance of this level of security for wildlife of the Lovett Ridge should be a part of future management activities.

Given the importance of the Lovett Ridge to moose, and the impact on their populations by multiple factors, i.e., increased access, industrial development, harvest levels (legal, illegal, First Nations) and various recreation activities, a review of the resource objectives for the Robb Highlands Resource Management Area with the purpose of achieving its wildlife objectives for moose is recommended. Integrated Resource Management is identified in goal #2 of Alberta's Biodiversity Strategy "To improve our understanding of ecosystems and increase our resource management capability" (AEP 1998).

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 109

13.4 Avifauna

Breeding birds and raptors were recognized as Valued Environmental Components (VECs) in the MW-YT Mine Extension impact assessment. The impact assessment concluded that mining activities would shift bird community composition for an extended period of time but that grassland and wetland habitat created by reclamation would result in similar biodiversity once these habitats were established. A complete list of bird species that occur in the RSA and their national and provincial status is found in Section 9.0 (Table 9.1). Fourteen bird species in the LSA are identified as Sensitive by ASRD (2005) and five bird species in the RSA appear on the COSEWIC list. These 19 species are used to discuss potential cumulative effects on birds at the regional scale. All birds in the MW-YT LSA were listed as secure by CESCC (2006) and no birds were listed by COSEWIC (Table 9.1, Appendix IV).

The 14 species in the LSA listed Sensitive by ASRD (2005) are: Northern Harrier, Golden Eagle, Bald Eagle, Northern Goshawk, Broad-winged Hawk, Sandhill Crane, Barred Owl, Great Gray Owl, Northern Pygmy-Owl, Pileated Woodpecker, Barn Swallow, Brown Creeper, Black- throated Green Warbler, and Common Yellowthroat. The 5 species in the RSA that area on the COSEWIC list are: Yellow Rail, Olive-sided Flycatcher, Rusty Blackbird, Common Nighthawk; and Loggerhead Shrike.

Information assembled for the MW-YT Mine Extension Project (this study) as well as information from Downes and Collins (2007), FAN (2007) and specific species accounts provide the basis for this CEA. Species distribution, abundance, population trend, and habitat association are discussed in this section. Population trends in Alberta and Canada for the 19 bird species are identified from the Canadian Bird Trends Web site (Downes and Collins 2007, Table 13.6). Population trends for the 19 bird species between the Alberta bird atlas survey years 1987- 1991and 2000-2005 (FAN 2007) are discussed in the text. The extent to which habitat will likely be disturbed by the MW-YT Mine Extension Project and other activities in the RSA are identified as well as ecological changes with respect to expected bird response. Planning strategies that incorporate mitigation for wildlife and are relevant to the area of consideration are identified.

13.4.1 Northern Harrier - Spring/Summer Visitant and Migrant, Very Uncommon (MW)

The Northern Harrier nests throughout Alberta (Salt and Salt 1976). Harriers occur in open alluvial meadows and wetlands in the montane, lower subalpine and upper subalpine ecoregions. They nest on the ground among shrubs, grasses and forbs in either wet or dry areas. Harriers hunt over grasslands and shrub meadows. During migration, they occur in high creeks and valleys of the front ranges (Holroyd and Van Tighem 1983). While usually associated with Prairie or Parkland habitats, the Subalpine and Foothills NRs possess habitat characteristics that provide suitable nesting for the Northern Harrier, although populations are low in abundance compared to those populations found in this species primary range

A single Northern Harrier was sighted twice, on April 21 and May 4, 2004 near the MW LSA. It is likely that these birds may occasionally forage or nest in the grassy and fen areas of the LSA. Nests are located on the ground in open areas that are usually near wetlands or marshy meadows. Harriers have been confirmed breeding in these habitats on the Coal Valley Mine (Bighorn 1995, 1999). They are commonly observed on the Luscar and Gregg River Mines during migration (MacCallum 2003). Harriers have been observed hunting on these mines during migration where small mammals exist in high density in reclaimed grassland. Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 110

Table 13.6. Population trends for 14 sensitive bird species (ASRD 2005) in the MW-YT LSA and 5 bird species listed by COSEWIC in the RSA. Trend is the mean annual percent change in the bird population from the Canadian Bird Trends Web site (Downes and Collins 2007) http://www.cws~scf.ec.gc.ca/mgbc/trends/ [Accessed February 6, 2008]. Alberta Canada Species 1968-2006 1996-2006 1968-2006 1996-2006 Trend P N Trend P N Trend P N Trend P N Species listed by Alberta (2005): Northern Harrier -5.2 * 102 0.9 83 -1.9 * 471 -1.3 340 Golden Eagle NA NA -7.4 35 NA Bald Eagle NA NA 8.6 * 178 1.4 147 Northern Goshawk NA NA 1 132 -7.3 62 Broad-winged Hawk NA NA 0.9 238 1.9 156 Sandhill Crane 0.2 35 44 * 27 10.2 * 169 4.4 145 Barred Owl NA NA 1.6 103 3.9 55 Great Gray Owl NA NA -3.9 36 NA Northern Pygmy-Owl NA NA -10.5 n 28 NA Pileated Woodpecker 7.8 n 62 5.4 44 6.5 * 458 6.7 * 374 Barn Swallow -0.9 132 -7.0 * 119 -3.3 * 683 -5.6 * 551 Brown Creeper NA NA 1.8 236 0 154 Black-throated Green Warbler NA NA -0.6 339 -2.9 * 270 Common Yellowthroat -1.1 116 -6.3 * 96 -0.5 * 727 -1.6 * 599 Species listed by COSEWIC: Yellow Rail NA NA 16.4 38 13.5 28 Common Nighthawk -8.9 * 51 -11.7 23 -4.4 * 313 -8 * 166 Olive-sided Flycatcher 2.3 67 -12.7 47 -4 * 468 -3.3 * 309 Loggerhead Shrike -4.3 34 0.8 28 -6.6 * 122 -2.7 58 Rusty Blackbird -9.3 19 NA -9.9 * 208 -1.7 84 P = the statistical significance: * indicates P <0.05; n indicates 0.05

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 111

A significant decrease in Northern Harrier populations was detected across Canada for the period 1996 to 2006 (Downes and Collins 2007). A slight positive trend was detected for Alberta for the same period but this was not significant (Table 13.6). Increases in relative abundance were detected in Grassland and Rocky Mountain NRs between the Alberta breeding bird atlas survey periods 1987-1991 and 2000-2005 (FAN 2007). Decreases in relative abundance were detected in the Boreal Forest, Parkland and Foothills NRs. In 2000-2005, drier conditions occurred in the north and wetter conditions in the south; these changes may reflect a population that is shifting spatially, rather than an actual change in the size of the population. ASRD (2005) indicates that the Northern Harrier “appears to be declining in Alberta and across much of its North American range. Several threats to population and habitat identified. Maintenance and preservation of wetlands for waterfowl is beneficial to the Northern Harrier”.

GDC (2007) indicated that shrub vegetation in the RSA will change by -0.6%, -0.6%, -0.6% at T10, T25 and T50 respectively. By year 10, reclamation on MW-YT will result in open meadow like conditions providing foraging opportunities for the Northern Harrier especially during migration. Vegetation communities around lake margins will be mature after 25 years.

Forest harvest activities within the RSA will have little effect on birch/willow meadows and wetlands. These vegetation types are generally designated as non-contributing area to the annual allowable cut and riparian areas generally fall within special management zones focused on floodplain and watercourse buffers (Weldwood 1999). Disturbance by other coal mining activities will be accompanied by progressive reclamation activity. Northern harriers may also nest in recent clearcuts, which provide a temporary habitat source for up to 10 years after harvest. Mitigation applied to forest harvesting and reclamation activity on other mining developments should reduce environmental effects that Northern Harriers may experience in other parts of its range.

13.4.2 Golden Eagle - Migrant, Common (YT).

In Alberta, the Golden Eagle nests locally in the lower reaches of the southern river systems and in the Rocky Mountain region (Semenchuk 1992:89). During the breeding season, Golden Eagles occur in open and semi-open habitat in the Alpine and Subalpine NRs. They nest on cliff faces with generally southerly exposure (Holroyd and Van Tighem 1983). In summer they hunt mainly along semi-open mountain slopes, avalanche paths and alpine meadows. During migration and winter they concentrate in low valleys.

Alberta breeding bird records indicate no change in relative abundance between the years 1987-1991 and 2000-2005 for the Foothills or the Rocky Mountain NRs (FAN 2007). ASRD (2005) writes: “[The] most recent estimate suggests 100-250 breeding pairs in Alberta. Disturbance from human related activities is greatest threat. Because of its low population and dispersal over a large area, nest site inventory and protection are necessary”.

Six records of migrating Golden Eagles were recorded in the vicinity of the YT LSA and one on the Coal Valley Mine during this study. Spring observations of single birds were made May 2, 2006 during the YT pellet-count survey and April 25, 2007 at the Yellowhead fire tower. Fall migration observations of Golden Eagles were made on October 10, 2006 (1) and October 13, 2007 (2) at the Yellowhead fire tower. An October 4, 2006 observation of one Golden Eagle was made on the east end of Lovett Lake on the Coal Valley Mine and a November 3, 2006 observation of one was made north of Robb on the Road Robb across from the Veritas camp. Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 112

Golden Eagles do not nest on the LSA. The MW-YT Mine Extension Project may cause visitants and migrants to distribute themselves differently on the permit area during active mining but it is expected that they will continue to move through the RSA as well as the LSA.

13.4.3 Bald Eagle - Migrant, Very Uncommon (MW) and Migrant, Uncommon (YT).

The Bald Eagle breeds in all natural regions of Alberta. Nests are placed in tall trees, near large lakes or rivers with an adequate fish supply. In Alberta, an extensive Bald Eagle biannual migration occurs primarily along the Rocky Mountains. Low numbers of eagle sightings at the Yellowhead fire tower suggest that these birds are farther east of their traditional migration route in the Rockies. ARSD (2005) describes the Bald Eagle population as “once at risk is now recovering throughout much of its North American range, Low density in Alberta. Nests [are] vulnerable to human disturbance”.

One juvenile Bald Eagle was sighted hunting or scavenging near the McLeod River bridge on the Robb Road and another juvenile eagle was sighted near the boundary of MW. Both observations were on October 29, 2004. Because eagles can range great distances and these sightings are located near MW, it is probable that the MW LSA is used occasionally for feeding and loafing opportunities. Four soaring Bald Eagles were sighted from the Yellowhead fire tower located near the north end of the YT LSA on September 22, 2006 and October 14, 2007. All birds were moving in a southerly direction indicating they were migrants and not resident birds.

Bald Eagles are not nesting in the MW-YT LSA. The MW-YT Mine Extension Project may cause visitants and migrants to distribute themselves differently on the permit area during active mining but it is expected that they will continue to move through the RSA as well as the LSA.

13.4.4 Northern Goshawk - Summer Resident and/or Permanent Resident, Possibly Breeding, Very Uncommon (MW). Summer Visitant / Migrant, Possibly Breeding, Uncommon (YT)

Northern Goshawk nest in areas of mature deciduous and deciduous-dominated mixed wood stands, in mid-to lower slope positions (Schaffer 1997). Goshawks forage in stands with high structural and tree species diversity (Schaffer et al. 1999). This species is most prevalent in the Foothills NR but, with the exception of the Grassland and Parkland NRs, is found elsewhere in Alberta where suitable nesting structures occur in mixed wood forests with high canopy closure (FAN 2007). Pinel et al. (1991) suggest that the majority of goshawks migrate with only a few spending the winter in nesting and non-nesting areas.

A decrease in Northern Goshawk populations was detected across Canada for the period 1996 to 2006 although this was not significant (Table 13.6). Data was not available for Alberta. Decreases in relative abundance between the years 1987-1991 and 2000-2005 for the Boreal Forest and Foothills in Alberta were detected by FAN (2007) but no change was reported for other NRs in the province. ASRD (2005) notes that: “Logging, industrial development, and human encroachment on nesting habitat may reduce populations in the boreal forest. [The] maintenance of mature forest breeding habitat needs to be incorporated into forest planning on both public and private lands”.

One incidental observation of a Northern Goshawk was made January 3, 2005 on MW. This Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 113 sighting may represent a resident bird. Observations of migrants were made on September 21, 2006 and April 23 and 25, 2007 from the Yellowhead fire tower.

GDC (2007) indicated that there will be a -1.1%, -1.1% and -1.2% change in amount of dense mixed wood the in the RSA at T10, T25 and T50 respectively. By year 50, the reclaimed upland forested areas will increasingly come to resemble and function like mature mixed wood ecosites. Reclamation to establish a variety of vegetation communities including mixed wood forest and understorey diversity will provide habitat for the Northern Goshawk as well as a variety of wildlife species.

13.4.5 Broad-winged Hawk - Fall Migrant, Very Uncommon (YT)

Broad-winged Hawks breed in the Boreal Forest but can be present in any natural region where a mature to old growth mixed wood forest may occur. They often are undetected during breeding because of their shy and quiet disposition during the nesting period.

An increase in the Broad-winged Hawk populations was detected across Canada for the period 1996 to 2006 but this was not significant (Table 13.6). Alberta breeding bird atlas records indicate an increase in relative abundance of Broad-winged Hawks between the years 1987- 1991and 2000-2005 for the Boreal Forest NR, a decline in the Parkland NR and no change in other NRs (FAN 2007:172) but not in the other regions where this species appears to be stable. ASRD (2005) describes the Broad-winged Hawk as: “May be experiencing major population declines as breeding habitat disappears. [It] requires large stands of mature to old-growth forest in the parkland and southern boreal forest. Careful woodlot management [is] essential to maintain breeding habitat”.

Two Broad-winged Hawks were observed overhead at the Yellowhead fire tower on September 21, 2006. The MW-YT Mine Extension Project may cause visitants and migrants to distribute themselves differently on the permit area during active mining but it is expected that they will continue to move through the RSA as well as the LSA.

13.4.6 Sandhill Crane - Summer Visitant, Very Uncommon (MW)

A Sandhill Crane was heard from two bird survey plots on May 27, 2007. The vocalization was associated with the fen areas located between the junction of the Pembina Road and the Mercoal Mainline. This area will not be disturbed by the MW-YT Mine Extension Project. The Sandhill Crane nests on the ground in wet forest areas usually near small ponds or marshes. Sandhill Cranes are usually seen in pairs, are solitary nesters, and are widely distributed across their range. In Alberta they were recorded during the breeding season in the Boreal Forest and Foothills NRs and less frequently in the Rocky Mountain NR (FAN 2007:198).

A 4.4% increase in Sandhill Crane populations was detected across Canada for the period 1996 to 2006 although this was not significant (Table 13.6). A significant 44% increase was detected for Alberta for the same period (Table 13.6). Alberta breeding bird atlas records indicate no change in relative abundance for Sandhill Cranes between the years 1987-1991and 2000-2005 in the Foothills and Rocky Mountain NRs (FAN 2007). The Sandhill Crane is described in ASRD (2005) as “sparsely distributed through boreal and foothill bogs and marshes. It is vulnerable to wetland loss and sensitive to human disturbance. Land use planning needs to incorporate the maintenance of breeding habitat”. Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 114

GDC (2007) indicated that there will be a -0.2%, -0.2% and -0.2% change in the amount of treed wetland in the RSA at year T10, T25 and T50 respectively. This low amount of change may partially reflect the relative abundance of wetlands in the RSA. Wetlands that will be most affected by the MW-YT Mine Extension Project include bog, forested and wooded swamps. Treed fens with internal lawns are not expected to be affected. The reduction in number and area of wetlands caused by MW-YT is non-significant with mitigation (GDC 2007).

13.4.7 Barred Owl - Permanent Resident, Breeding, Uncommon (YT)

Barred owls inhabit mature to old mixed wood and deciduous stands with large, tall canopy trees and numerous dead or dying trees with cavities or tops broken off (Olsen et al. 1999). Owls will select large balsam poplars with cavities, or broken off trees for nesting sites. Three pairs of owls were identified on the YT LSA during the April 4 and 24, 2004 owl surveys.

A 3.9% increase in Barred Owl populations was detected across Canada for the period 1996 to 2006 although this was not significant (Table 13.6). Data was not available for Alberta. The Barred Owl appears fairly stable throughout its range in Alberta (FAN 2007). ASRD (2005) describes this species as: “Likely fewer than 2000 breeding birds in the province. This interior forest species requires larger blocks of mature dense woodland. Forest fragmentation [is] detrimental. Forest management plans need to ensure breeding habitat retained.

GDC (2007) indicated that there will be a -1.1%, -1.1% and -1.2% change in amount of dense mixed wood the in the RSA at T10, T25 and T50 respectively. By year 50, the reclaimed upland forested areas will increasingly come to resemble and function like mature mixed wood ecosites. Reclamation to establish a variety of vegetation communities including mixed wood forest and understorey diversity will provide habitat for the Northern Goshawk as well as a variety of wildlife species. Retention of wildlife trees during forest harvesting and other best practices can maintain habitat suitability for the Barred Owl in harvested areas.

13.4.8 Great Gray Owl - Permanent Resident, Breeding, Uncommon (MW) and Permanent Resident, Breeding, Very Uncommon (YT)

The Great Gray Owl is found in a diverse mix of treed muskeg and mature forest close to open areas. It breeds and winters in forested areas across Canada. It will nest in mature deciduous forests and mature coniferous forest with broken off trees. They prey on mice, voles, shrews, bog lemmings, small birds and other animals. Great Gray Owls heard were calling from the MW LSA on April 30, 2006 (2) and May 4, 2006 (1) during the owl survey. Incidental observations were made on May 27 and October 29, 2004 near MW LSA. Two calling Great Gray Owls were recorded during the April 4, 2006 owl survey on the YT LSA. An incidental observation was made of one Great Gray Owl being mobbed by smaller passerines during the breeding bird survey on the YT LSA, June 20, 2006.

A -3.9 decrease in the Great Gray Owl population was reported across Canada for the period 1996 to 2006 although this was not significant (Table 13.6). No data was available for Alberta. Alberta breeding bird atlas records indicate that the Great Gray Owl numbers declined in relative abundance in the Foothills NR between the years 1987-1991 and 2000-2005. Populations in this NR could be declining due reduced availability of breeding habitat (FAN 2007) but other factors such as prey availability, reproductive output, seasonal weather patterns and increased encounters with the Great-horned Owl as a predator can affect the local Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 115 occurrence and distribution of this species. ASRD (2005) indicates that the Great Gray Owl is: “A naturally scarce species, widely distributed in foothill and boreal habitats. Requires stands of mature forest for nesting, thus is vulnerable to harvest.”

GDC (2007) indicated that there will be a -1.8%, -1.8% and -2.0% change in amount of dense broadleaf and a -0.6, -0.8, -0.7 change in the amount of dense coniferous in the RSA at T10, T25 and T50 respectively. By year 50, the reclaimed upland forested areas will increasingly come to resemble and function like mature deciduous and coniferous ecosites. Reclamation to establish a variety of forest vegetation will benefit the Great Gray Owl and other wildlife. Patch retention and other best practices can maintain habitat suitability for the Great Gray Owl in harvested areas.

13.4.9 Northern Pygmy-Owl - Migrant, Possible Breeding, Very Uncommon (YT)

Northern Pygmy-Owls show preference for older, structurally diverse mixed wood habitats with line-of-sight enhanced by increased edge and terrain roughness (Piroecky and Prescott 2004). This secondary cavity nester prefers to select trees with an existing cavity. On May 13, 2006 a calling Northern Pygmy-Owl was detected in a forested area near the YT walk road. A single Northern Pygmy-Owl was observed at the Yellowhead fire tower, October 14, 2007.

A -10.5 decrease in the Great Gray Owl population was reported across Canada for the period 1968 to 2006 although this only weakly significant (0.05

GDC (2007) indicated that there will be a -0.6, -0.6, -0.6 change in the amount of moderate broadleaf and a -1.1%, -1.1% and -1.2% change in amount of dense mixed wood in the RSA at T10, T25 and T50 respectively. By year 50, the reclaimed upland forested areas will increasingly come to resemble and function like mature mixed wood ecosites. Reclamation to establish a variety of vegetation communities including mixed wood forest and understorey diversity will provide habitat for the Northern Goshawk as well as a variety of wildlife species. Retention of live deciduous trees during forest harvest will provide perching sites for Northern Pygmy-Owls and increase structural diversity of the replacement stand.

13.4.10 Pileated Woodpecker - Permanent Resident, Probable Breeding, Very Uncommon (MW and YT)

In Alberta the Pileated Woodpecker is found mainly in the mature mixed wood, deciduous or coniferous forest of Boreal Forest, Foothills, Parklands and Rocky Mountain NRs (Fan 2007). This species prefers larger diameter deciduous trees for nesting and prefers carpenter ants found in large substrates either dead or damaged. Habitat selection is flexible at territory and stand scales (Bonar 2001). Its distribution may be limited to the availability of large diameter trees (>25 cm dbh) which it uses for nesting and roosting. Pileated Woodpeckers occur in naturally low numbers.

A significant 6.7% increase in Pileated Woodpecker populations was detected across Canada for the period 1996 to 2006 (Table 13.6). A 5.4% increase was detected in Alberta during the Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 116 same time frame but this was not significant. Alberta breeding bird atlas records indicate a decrease in relative abundance in the Foothills NR between the years 1987-1991 and 2000- 2005 (FAN 2007). The Pileated Woodpecker is described in ASRD (2005) as: “requiring mature to old-growth trees for nesting. Essential to incorporate maintenance of breeding habitat into management plans on both public and private lands. Some threats to populations [are] identified”.

Two incidental observations were made for this species on the MW LSA, one on April 25, 2004 and one on May 26, 2004. One Pileated Woodpecker was detected during the breeding bird survey on MW on May 27, 2004. On the YT LSA, one observation of a Pileated Woodpecker was made on February 26, 2006 and another during the woodpecker survey May 3, 2006.

GDC (2007) indicated that there will be a -1.8, -1.8, -2.0 change in the amount of dense broadleaf and a -1.1%, -1.1% and -1.2% change in amount of dense mixed wood in the RSA at T10, T25 and T50 respectively. By year 50, the reclaimed upland forested areas will increasingly come to resemble and function like mature mixed wood ecosites. Reclamation to establish a variety of vegetation communities including mixed wood forest and understorey diversity will provide habitat for the Pileated Woodpecker as well as a variety of wildlife species. Best Management Practices such as wildlife tree retention, leaving dead wood on the forest floor from the pre-harvest stand, as well as new silviculture techniques, i.e., retention system, partial cut, are all techniques that mitigate the impact of forest harvesting on species like the Pileated Woodpecker.

13.4.11 Barn Swallow - Summer Resident, Breeding, Uncommon (YT).

This species is often found associated with human activity, and near open areas which are used for foraging. Ancestral breeding habitat presumably was in mountainous areas and seacoasts that provided caves and rock crevices for nesting. The Barn Swallow has almost completely converted to breeding under the eaves of or inside artificial structures (Brown and Bomberger- Brown 1999). Two observations of three Barn Swallows were made on the June 20 and July 1, 2006 on the YT LSA. Birds from both sightings were associated with compressor station buildings where nests are likely built either beneath the eaves or inside. The pair seen on July 1, 2006 were carrying nest material.

A significant -5.6% decrease in Barn Swallow populations was detected across Canada for the period 1996 to 2006 (Table 13.6). A significant -7.0% decrease was detected in Alberta during the same time frame. Declines in relative abundance were detected throughout Alberta between the atlas surveys years of 1987-1991 and 2000-2005 (FAN 2007). One factor that could be contributing to declines in Barn Swallow populations is changing agricultural practices, i.e., reduction of dairy farming causing reductions in invertebrate food sources, and removal of outbuildings and barns by industrial farm operations. The Barn Swallow is described in ASRD (2005) as “a common species that is declining in Alberta and all surrounding jurisdictions “.

Current human activities in the RSA have little effect on the Barn Swallow as the RSA is sparsely populated and agriculture is not practiced in the region. Buildings associated with various activities, i.e., oil & gas, mining, trapping and recreation cabins, are scattered through the region. Robb is the only settlement in the RSA.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 117

13.4.12 Brown Creeper - Permanent Resident, Probable Breeding, Very Uncommon (MW)

In Alberta the Brown Creeper breeds in the Boreal Forest, Foothills, and Rocky Mountain NRs where it favours late succession stages of coniferous spruce-fir forests (rarely pine) with an abundance of dead and dying trees which are used for nesting and foraging (Banks et al 1999). Brown Creepers are opportunistic and colonize recently disturbed areas, e.g, after fire where large amounts of dead and dying trees occur.

The Brown Creeper was recorded on the MW LSA on July 5, 2004 when two Brown Creepers were observed on bird plots in north-facing, open pine-white spruce forest habitat. An incidental observation of a Brown Creeper occurred on September 21, 2006 in a medium height pine reforestation cutblock on the MW LSA. This species tends to quiet and inconspicuous.

No trend was detected across Canada for the period 1996 to 2006 (Table 13.6). Data was not available for Alberta. Alberta breeding bird atlas records identified increases in relative abundance of the Brown Creeper in the Boreal Forest, Foothills, and Rocky Mountain NRs between the years 1987-1991 and 2000-2005 (FAN 2007). ASRD (2005) states the Brown Creeper is: “A mature forest-dependent species that is vulnerable to forest fragmentation, and certain forest management practices”.

GDC (2007) indicated that there will be a -0.6%, -0.8%, and -0.7% change in the amount of dense coniferous in the RSA at T10, T25 and T50 respectively. By year 50, the reclaimed upland forested areas will increasingly come to resemble and function like mature coniferous ecosites. Reclamation to establish a variety of forest vegetation will benefit the Brown Creeper and other wildlife. Best Management Practices such as wildlife tree retention, and silviculture techniques, i.e., retention system, are techniques that mitigate the impact of forest harvesting on species like the Brown Creeper.

13.4.13 Black-throated Green Warbler - Summer Resident, Possibly Breeding, Very Uncommom (YT)

This bird breeds in a variety of forested habitats including coniferous, deciduous, and mixed wood habitats preferring extensive unfragmented stretches of mature coniferous forests. A single Black-throated Green Warbler was detected June 13, 2006 in spruce-pine habitat on YT.

A significant -2.9% decrease in Black-throated Green Warbler populations was detected across Canada for the period 1996 to 2006 (Table 13.6). Data was not available for Alberta. In Alberta this species is primarily encountered in the Boreal Forest and Foothills NRs where it appears to have increased in relative abundance between 1987-1991 and 2000-2005 (FAN 2007). There is a well established population in Alberta (Norton 1999). ASRD (2005) states that there are: “Over 10,000 individuals [Black-throated Green Warblers] in the province. [It is] designated a “Species of Special Concern” in Alberta. Habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from industrial development threaten this old-growth dependent species”. A management plan is in preparation ( R. Gutsell, Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division, pers. comm. February 6, 2008).

The range of the Black-throated Green Warbler in Alberta occurs to the north and west of the RSA. No birds were detected in the RSA during the Alberta breeding bird atlas surveys in 1987- 1991 and 2000-2005 (FAN 2007). Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 118

13.4.14 Common Yellowthroat - Summer Resident, Possible Breeding, Very Uncommon (MW)

This species has the ability to breed in a variety of habitats but prefers to nest in damp or wet areas that have high densities of low vegetation such as shrubby wetlands, and early succession forests often the result of forest fires or tree harvesting. A single Common Yellowthroat was found in MW in treed poor fen habitat on July 10, 2004.

A significant -1.6% decrease in Common Yellowthroat populations was detected across Canada for the period 1996 to 2006 (Table 13.6). A significant -6.3% decrease for Alberta was detected for the same time period. Although this species is widespread in Alberta, breeding atlas records indicate that a decrease in relative abundance occurred between the survey periods 1987-1991 and 2000-2005 in the Foothills and other NRs but remained stable in the Rocky Mountain NR (FAN 2007). ASRD (2005) describes this species as “a common, widespread species with a declining population in Alberta and surrounding jurisdictions. Threats to habitat identified”.

GDC (2007) indicated that there will be a 0.1%, 0.1% and 0.1% change in the amount of open wetland in the RSA at year T10, T25 and T50 respectively. This low amount of change may partially reflect the relative abundance of wetlands in the RSA. Wetlands that will be added to the area by the MW-YT reclamation include deepwater lakes and marsh. Wetlands most affected by the MW-YT Mine Extension Project include bog, forested and wooded swamps. Treed fens with internal lawns are not expected to be affected. The reduction in number and area of wetlands caused by MW-YT is non-significant with mitigation (GDC 2007).

13.4.15 Yellow Rail - Accidental, Very Uncommon (Coal Valley Mine)

The Yellow Rail is widely distributed in Canada, chiefly east of the Rocky Mountains. Within its breeding range, it generally inhabits fresh and brackish water marshes, preferring the higher (drier) margins. Its presence is quite local (Bookhout 1995). The range of the Yellow Rail in Alberta occurs to the east of the RSA.

A 13.5% increase in Yellow Rail populations was detected across Canada for the period 1996 to 2006 (Table 13.6). No data was available for Alberta. No birds were detected in the RSA during the Alberta breeding bird atlas surveys in 1987-1991 and 2000-2005 (FAN 2007).

The Yellow Rail was observed only once since formal bird surveys have been conducted for the Coal Valley Mine and extension projects (Cottonwood and Sweetgrass 1978, Cottonwood 1981, Bighorn 1995, 1999, 2003, 2005). Its occurrence is considered to be accidental in the RSA. This sighting may represent a migratory overshoot from its normal, more easterly provincial breeding distribution or an erratic westward movement. It is an irruptive species which may account for its presence in some years.

13.4.16 Common Nighthawk - Migrant and Summer Resident, Breeding, Very Uncommon (RSA)

The Common Nighthawk actively pursues flying insects on the wing. It nests most often on open, cultivated fields, gravel beaches, rocky outcrops, burned over woodlands, and flat gravel roofs in cities. In Alberta this species is most often found in the Grasslands NR (FAN 2007). Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 119

The Common Nighthawk winters in South America but its distribution is poorly known.

A significant -8.0% decrease in Common Nighthawk populations was detected across Canada for the period 1996 to 2006 (Table 13.6). In Alberta a -11.7% decrease was observed for the same period but this was not significant (Table 13.6). The Common Nighthawk was identified as breeding on the northern boundary of the RSA near the Athabasca River Valley during the 1987-1991 breeding atlas survey but it was not recorded during the 2000-2005 survey (FAN 2007). Cooler temperatures in the Foothills NR may not support the insect populations necessary to maintain a viable Common Night population.

Factors given for the decline in populations include: use of non selective pesticide for control of mosquitoes and the change from gravel roofs to rubberized roofing (Poulin et al. 1996). Habitat for this species is lacking in the RSA.

13.4.17 Loggerhead Shrike - Accidental, Very Uncommon (RSA)

The Loggerhead Shrike is found in the Grassland and Parkland NRs in Alberta. Approximately 3000 pairs of Loggerhead Shrikes are present in Alberta from May to August (Prescott and Bjorge 1999, Pinel et al. 1993). The majority are located south and east of Stettler with an estimated 50% of the population occurring in two discrete areas in south western Alberta. Records in the Foothills NR made during the Alberta breeding bird atlas survey are outside the normal breeding range of the Loggerhead Shrike (FAN 2007) which occurs east of the RSA.

An -2.7% decrease in Loggerhead Shrike populations was detected across Canada for the period 1996 to 2006 but this was not significant (Table 13.6). In Alberta a 0.8 increase was observed for the same period but this was not significant. Alberta breeding bird atlas records indicate that a decrease in relative abundance of the Loggerhead Shrike occurred between the survey periods 1987-1991 and 2000-2005 in the Grassland and Parkland NRs (FAN 2007).

Factors given for the decline in populations include: reduction of suitable habitat, pesticide residues and increased human disturbance (FAN 2007).

13.4.18 Olive-sided Flycatcher - Migrant (Coal Valley Mine), Summer Resident, Possible Breeding, Uncommon (RSA)

The Olive-sided Flycatcher breeds along forest edges and openings, including burns, natural edges of bogs, marshes and open water, semi-open forest, and harvested forest with some structure retained. It breeds in semi-open coniferous and mixed wood forests with considerable height diversity or an open canopy that are often associated with riparian habitat. Tall, prominent trees and snags, which serve as singing and foraging perches, and unobstructed air space for foraging are common features of all nesting habitats (Altman and Sallabanks 2000). The Olive-sided Flycatcher winters in Central and South America. It departs early in the fall and arrives late in the spring. The Olive-sided Flycatcher was not observed on the LSA but was observed during spring migration on the Coal Valley Mine (May 31, 1992; Bighorn 1995).

A -3.3% decrease in Olive-sided Flycatcher populations was detected across Canada for the period 1996 to 2006 but this was not significant (Table 13.6). In Alberta a -12.7% decrease was observed for the same period but this was not significant. Alberta breeding bird atlas records indicate that no changes in relative abundance occurred in Rocky Mountain NR, increases were Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 120 detected in the Grassland NR and decreases were detected in Boreal Forest, Foothills, and Parkland NRs (FAN 2007).

GDC (2007) indicated that there will be a -0.3, -0.3, -0.3 change in the amount of open conifer and a -0.6%, -0.6% and 1.1% change in amount of moderate conifer in the RSA at T10, T25 and T50 respectively. By year 50, the reclaimed upland forested areas will increasingly come to resemble and function like mature conifer ecosites. Forest harvest practices that retain snags and live trees (potential nest trees) help provide suitable habitat for the Olive-sided Flycatcher.

Reasons for the declines in Olive-sided Flycatcher populations are unclear. Population decline is occurring throughout its breeding range despite different forest management practices. One hypothesis suggests that loss or alteration of habitat on wintering grounds is largely responsible (Altman and Sallabanks 2000).

13.4.19 Rusty Blackbird - Migrant, Very Uncommon (Coal Valley Mine)

The Rusty Blackbird is associated with wet forests in Alaska, Canada and northeast U.S.A. It nests along bogs, muskeg swamps, beaver ponds and streams (Avery 1995). The Rusty Blackbird was not observed on the LSA but one bird was observed on the Coal Valley Mine on May 24, 1992 during migration (Bighorn 1995).

A -1.7% decrease in Rusty Blackbird populations was detected across Canada for the period 1996 to 2006 but this was not significant (Table 13.6). Information was not available for Alberta. Alberta breeding bird atlas records indicate a decrease in relative abundance occurred between the survey periods 1987-1991 and 2000-2005 in the Boreal Forest NR (FAN 2007).

The RSA is on the very southern edge of the Rusty Blackbird’s range. Small numbers of this species may appear annually on their way to breeding sites further north of the RSA.

13.5 Summary of Regional Effects on Birds

Mining and other activities will affect birds in the RSA by:

• Potential collisions on roads by scavenging birds (Golden Eagle, Bald Eagle)

• Potential redistribution of migrants and visitants on the MW-YT PDA during active mining (Northern Harrier, Golden Eagle, Bald Eagle, Broad-winged Hawk). These birds are expected to continue to move through or visit the PDA once reclamation begins to establish upland grassland communities:

• Loss of breeding habitat will occur for species which primarily prefer: - Mature broadleaf and mixed wood (Northern Goshawk, Barred Owl, Northern Pygmy- Owl, Pileated Woodpecker). - Mature coniferous vegetation (Brown Creeper). - Diverse mix of treed muskeg and mature forest (Great Gray Owl). - Wetlands (Common Yellowthroat, Sandhill Crane).

Mining and other activities in the RSA will have no effect on several bird species for the following reasons: Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 121

- Range is north of the RSA (Black-throated Green Warbler, Rusty Blackbird). - Range is east of the RSA (Yellow Rail, Loggerhead Shrike). - Habitat is naturally limiting in the RSA (Common Nighthawk). - Suspected reasons for population declines occur elsewhere in the breeding grounds (Barn Swallow) or wintering grounds (Olive-sided Flycatcher).

13.5.1 Mitigation

MW-YT Mine Extension Project - Factors that will reduce the impact of the MW-YT Mine Extension Project on birds include:

• The progressive nature of mining means not all habitat will be disturbed at once and as reclamation is implemented new habitats will become available before the end of mining in 2015 (see Section 1.0 for an explanation of expected time sequence for total disturbance).

• Bird communities will respond to an ecosystem approach to reclamation that attempts to integrate procedures that restore pre-mine habitat condition, replace habitat function, and exchange certain components for others of similar benefit.

• Land reclamation for diverse wildlife habitat is a key mitigation measure associated with the MW-YT Mine Extension Project. Ecological attributes are not the same in the MW LSA and the YT LSA and different reclamation strategies may be developed for each unit to recognize this ecological diversity. It is recommended a variety of reclamation techniques be employed at the micro-site level to encourage diversity in the final landscape. Species with very specialized requirements such as riparian habitat are identified in the reclamation program and specific action taken.

Steps taken to ensure these predicted events occur during the MW-YT Mine Project Extension include:

• Clearing outside of breeding season when possible.

• Minimizing disturbance of existing habitat during mining.

• Identification of wildlife habitat as a primary end land use in the YT LSA.

• Implementation of reclamation techniques that create wildlife habitat by mimicking the natural disturbance regime where possible.

• Immediate removal of any ungulate carcasses on roads to avoid collisions with eagles and other scavenging birds.

• Use of raptor safe guidelines for power distribution line construction.

• Coordination of mining and harvesting activities on the mine permit boundary to prevent overlarge clearings and promote edge habitats.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 122

• Periodic monitoring of population abundance and distribution to document response of birds to reclamation over time.

The number of bird species associated with the reclaimed Coal Valley Mine (142) is at least 50% higher than species identified in pre-disturbance LSAs and other mine areas (Section 9.0). Many of the species are birds associated with water habitats which would have been poorly represented in the pre-development ecosystem. While bird abundance and types of species may change as a result of mining activity it appears that the number of bird species will be similar or may increase as a result of adding new habitats e.g. upland grassland, lake, pond and wetland development. The edge associated with the MW-YT Mine Extension Project should enhance tree growth potential both natural and through reclamation planting as well as promoting maintenance of bird species occurrence during active mining.

Reclamation on the Coal Valley Mine has resulted in a bird community with diversity comparable or higher to natural habitats adjacent to the mine. The bird community on the Coal Valley Mine is composed of those bird species preferring early succession grasslands, species restricted to the aquatic environment provided by lake and pond development, species using the forest/grassland edge, species using the riparian/grassland edge, and those species which are present in the undisturbed riparian and forested habitat (Bighorn 1999).

The high bird species diversity of the reclaimed habitats on the Coal Valley Mine is partly a result of species response to upland and aquatic reclamation but is also a result of proximity to a variety of undisturbed habitats including pine forest, wetland, riparian areas and their associated bird species. This explains the presence of birds like the Yellow-rumped Warbler, Dark-eyed Junco, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Northern Flicker and other species associated with a coniferous or mixed wood forest. Cavity nesting birds will not nest in the reclaimed area until toward the end of the life span of the seral forest community but nests have been found in pine trees at the edge of reclaimed areas at the east end of Lovett Lake on the reclaimed Coal Valley Mine.

Other Activities in the RSA - Factors that will reduce the impact of other activities, i.e., forest harvesting, oil and gas development, and human recreation on birds in the RSA include:

• Shrublands and wetlands are generally designated as non-contributing area to the annual allowable cut (Weldwood 1999).

• Riparian areas generally fall within special management zones focused on floodplain and watercourse buffers (Weldwood 1999).

• Forest harvesting will not add to the impact on species that depend on shrubland or the shrub/riparian edge like the Northern Harrier, nor species that are more dependent on the aquatic environment like the Common Yellowthroat and Sandhill Crane.

• Best management practices reduce the effect of forest harvesting on species like the Pileated Woodpecker (Weldwood 1999) or species with conspicuous nest structures like the Great Gray Owl. Best management practices include wildlife tree retention, leaving dead wood on the forest floor from the pre-harvest stand, as well as new silviculture techniques, i.e., retention system, partial cut.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 123

• Procedures to mitigate the loss or modification of forest and wetland vegetation are detailed in GDC (2007).

• Disturbance of habitat by other coal mining activities will be accompanied by progressive reclamation activity thus mitigating the disturbance.

Steps taken to ensure these predicted events occur during the MW-YT Mine Project Extension include:

• Avoidance and reclamation (mining). The various mitigations applied to specific bird species as well as the overall reclamation program are factors expected to result in the maintenance of bird species diversity across the permit area.

• Application of best practices to forestry harvesting, i.e., establishment of riparian management zones, wildlife tree and dead wood retention, implementation of new silviculture techniques i.e. retention and partial cut.

• Review the effectiveness of land and resource management plans with respect to increased access and wildlife goals.

• Regular regional assessments of all activities at pre-established intervals or in response to large natural disturbances, e.g., fire, pine beetle invasion, or in response to novel landscape level industrial, recreation or other human use development.

Potential cumulative effects of the MW-YT Mine Extension Project and other activities on habitat for birds were assessed through an evaluation of 19 bird species. The assessment has found that the effect on bird species experiencing habitat loss as a result of the MW-YT Mine Extension Project is mitigated by efforts to minimize disturbance during mining, the implementation of an ecosystem approach to reclamation, the maintenance of non-disturbed vegetation within the disturbance boundary, and maintenance of the forest edge associated with the disturbance boundary. Effects of the MW-YT Mine Extension Project on birds are local, reversible and considered insignificant; cumulative effects are not anticipated. Assuming successful mitigation for other industrial impacts, the coordination of disturbance caused by mining and forest harvesting to mitigate impacts on wildlife, and the implementation of land and resource management planning in the RSA, it is expected that no significant negative effects on birds from a cumulative effects perspective will occur within the RSA and any residual effects will be of a minor magnitude.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 124

14.0 REFERENCES

Ackerman, B. B., F. A. Leban, M. D. Samuel, and E. O. Garton. 1989. User’s manual for Program Home Range. Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, Tech Rep 15, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 79pp.

Alberta Environment. 2003. Recommendations to the Minister of the Environment for: The Northern East Slopes sustainable resource and environmental management strategy DRAFT. Prepared by the Regional Steering Group, March 5, 2003. 152pp.

Alberta Environmental Protection. 1997. Alberta amphibian monitoring manual. Alberta Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Service, Wildlife Management Division and Alberta Conservation Association. 42pp.

Alberta Environmental Protection. 1998. Sustaining Alberta's biodiversity, an overview of Government of Alberta initiatives supporting the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy. 39pp.

Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife. 1990. Coal branch sub-regional integrated resource plan. Energy/Forestry, Lands and Wildlife, Pub. No. I/294. 91pp.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2005. Wildlife guidelines for land use activities in Areas 3 and 4 of the Southwest Region, September 15, 2005. Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division. 29pp.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2005. The general status of Alberta wild species 2005, Edmonton, AB. http://www.srd.gov.ab.ca/fw/wildspecies/index.htm. [Accessed January 30, 2008].

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2007. 2007 Alberta guide to hunting regulations. 86pp.

Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation. 2007. Traffic Volumes at points on the Highway. http://www. infratrans.gov.ab.ca/INFTRA_Content/docType181/production/hnp003.htm [Accessed July 16, 2007].

Altman, B., and R. Sallabanks. 2000. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi). In The Birds of North America, No. 502 (A. Poole, and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 1996. Suggested practices for raptor protection on power lines: the state of the art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute, Washington, DC 78pp plus appendices.

Avery, M. L. 1995. Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carilinus). In The Birds of North America, No. 220 (A. Poole, and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington , D.C.

Banfield, A. W. F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. Published for the National Museum of Natural Sciences, National Museums of Canada by University of Toronto Press. Reprinted 1977 (with corrections), Toronto, Canada. Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 125

Banks, T., D. Farr, R. Bonar, B. Beck, and J. Beck. 1999. Brown Creeper Reproductive Habitat. Habitat suitability index model. Version 3. Foothills Model Forest. Hinton, Ab.

Beaverbones, F. 2007. Coal Valley expedition report. Prepared for Coal Valley Resources Inc. Prepared by O’Chiese Camp. 5pp.

Beanlands, G. E., and P. N. Duinker. 1983. An ecological framework for environmental assessment in Canada. Published by the Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University and the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, Halifax NS. 132pp.

Beier, P., and J. E. Drennan. 1997. Forest structure and prey abundance in foraging areas of northern goshawks. Ecological Applications 7:564-571.

Bent, A. C. 1961. Life histories of North American birds of prey. Part II. Reprinted from the Smithsonian Institution U. S. National Museum Bulletin 170, 1938. Dover Publication, Inc., New York.

Bergeron, L. 2007. E-mail August 7, 2007 to B. MacCallum, Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. Re: road-use survey for Hinton Wood Products, A Division of West Fraser Mills Ltd.

Bighorn Environmental Design Ltd. 1995. Wildlife inventory of the Coal Valley Mine 1991-1992. Prepared for Luscar Sterco (1977) Ltd., Edson, AB. 114 pp.

Bighorn Environmental Design Ltd. 1999. Environmental assessment and cumulative effects of the proposed Coal Valley Mine Extension Project: ungulates, small mammals, avifauna, amphibians. Prepared for Luscar Ltd., Coal Valley Mine, Edson AB. 164pp.

Bighorn Environmental Design Ltd. 2003. Coal Valley Mine Mercoal East Block, Phase 1 wildlife report. Prepared for Luscar Ltd., Coal Valley Mine, Edson AB.

Bighorn Environmental Design Ltd. 2004. Coal Valley Mine Mercoal East Block, wildlife report 2001-2003. Prepared for Luscar Ltd., Coal Valley Mine, Edson AB.

Bighorn Environmental Design Ltd. 2005. Coal Valley Mine Mercoal East Block, Phase 2 wildlife assessment. Prepared for Luscar Ltd., Coal Valley Mine, Edson AB.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. 2006. Ungulate aerial survey of the Cheviot Mine area December 3, 2005. Prepared for Elk Valley Coal Corporation, Hinton, AB.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. 2007. Luscar and Cheviot Mine wildlife inventory 2006. Prepared for Elk Valley Coal Corporation, Cardinal River Coals Operation, Hinton, AB.

Bonar, R. 2001. Pileated woodpecker habitat ecology in the Alberta Foothills. PhD dissertation, Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta. 75pp.

Bookhout, T.A. 1995. Yellow Rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis). In Birds of North America, No. 139 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 126

British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1998. Ground-based inventory methods for selected ungulates: moose, elk and deer. Standards for components of British Columbia’s biodiversity No. 33. 52pp.

Browne, C. R., and M. B. Bomberger-Brown. 1999. Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica). In Birds of North America, No. 452 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The birds of North America, Inc., Philidelphia, PA.

Browne, C, B. Eaton, C. Pazkowski, and R. Chapman. 2003. Toads in trouble. Research Links. Vol. 11 No. 3:12.

Buckmaster, G., M. Todd, K. Smith, R. Bonar, B. Beck. J. Beck, and R. Quinlan. 1999. Elk Winter Foraging. Habitat suitability index model. Version 5. Foothills Model Forest, Hinton, AB.

Caceres, C, and M. Pybus. 1997. Status of the Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife Management Division. Wildlife Status Report No. 3, Edmonton, AB. 19 pp.

Cannings, R. J. 2005. The 105th Christmas Bird Count in Canada, December 14, 2004 to January 5, 2005. American Birds, Vol 59: 8 and 9.

Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC). 2006. Wild species 2005: the general status of species in Canada. http://www.wildspecies.ca/wildspecies2005/index.cfm?lang=e. [Accessed January 30, 2008].

Campbell, R. W., N. K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cown, J. M. Cooper , G. W. Kaiser, and M. C. E. McNall. 1990. The birds of British Columbia . Vol 2: Diurnal birds of prey through woodpeckers. Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, BC.

Crampton, L.H., and R. M. R. Barclay. 1995. Relationships between bats and stand age and structure in aspen mixed wood forests in Alberta. Pages 211-225 in Stelfox, J. B. (editor). Relationships between stand age , stand structure and biodiversity in aspen mixed wood forests in Alberta. Jointly published by Alberta Environmental Centre (AECV95-R1), Vegreville, Alberta and Canadian Forest Service (Project No. 0001A), Edmonton, Alberta. 308pp.

Crick, H. Q. P. 2004. The impact of climate change on birds. Ibis 146:48-56.

Cottonwood Consultants Ltd. 1981. Coal Valley Mine 1980 wildlife monitoring program and habitat reclamation review. prepared for Luscar Ltd. by C. Wallis and C. Wershler. 48pp.

Cottonwood Consultants Ltd. and Sweetgrass Consultants Ltd. 1978. Coal Valley 1980 wildlife monitoring program - 1978 study. prepared for Luscar Ltd. by C. Wallis and C. Wershler. 115pp.

Cooke, J. G., L. L. Irwin, L. D. Bryant, R. A. Riggs, and J. W. Thomas. 1998. Relations of forest cover and condition of elk: a test of the thermal cover hypothesis in summer and winter. Wildlife Monographs No. 141. The Wildlife Society, Inc. 61pp.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 127

COSEWIC. 2007. Canadian species at risk, 2007. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, Canada. http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/index_e.cfm [Accessed January 30, 2008].

Daily, C. G., P. R. Ehrlich, and N. M. Haddad. 1993. Double keystone bird in a keystone species complex. Proceeding of the National Academy of Science. USA 90:592–594. Downes, C. M., and B. T. Collins. 2007. Canadian bird trends web site Version 2.2. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Gatineau, Quebec, K1A 0H3. http://www.cws- scf.ec.gc.ca/mgbc/trends/.

Ducks Unlimited. 2007. Western Boreal Forest, Canada Region 5. Ducks Unlimited online, http://ducks.org/page2513.aspx [Accessed October 17, 2007].

Elody, B. I. 1983. Techniques for capturing, marking, monitoring, and habitat analysis for the Barred Owl in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Master’s thesis, Michigan Technological University, Houghton.

Federation of Alberta Naturalists. (FAN). 2007. The atlas of breeding birds of Alberta: a second look. Federation of Alberta Naturalists, Edmonton, AB. 626pp.

Ficht, J., and K. Smith. 2004. Aerial survey for moose in WMU 340. Fish and Wildlife Division. Edson, Alberta. 5pp.

Geist, V. 1981. Behaviour: Adaptive strategies in Mule Deer. Mule and Black Tailed Deer of North America. Pages 157-223.

Geist, V. 1999. Moose, behaviour, ecology conservation. Voyageur Press. 144pp.

Geographic Dynamics Corp. 2007. Vegetation and wetland resource assessment & rare plant survey of Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower Mine Extensions. Prepared by Geographic Dynamics Corp., Edmonton AB for Coal Valley Resources Inc., Edson AB.

Gibson, C., and D. Sheets. 1997. Natal Ridge elk study, Vol. I and II. Prepared for Elkview Coal Corporation, BC.

Graham, K. L., and G. L. Powell. 1999. Status of the Long-toed Salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum) in Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Fisheries and Wildlife Management Division, and Alberta Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report No. 22, Edmonton, AB. 19pp.

Hatler, D. F., and C. L. Mahon. 1994. Standardized methodologies for the inventory of biodiversity in British Columbia: techniques for medium-sized territorial carnivores. Resource Inventory Committee, Wildlife Branch, Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Victoria, BC. 58pp.

Hayward, G. D., and P. H. Hayward. 1993. Boreal Owl (Aegolius funereus). In the birds of North America. No. 63 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds) Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C., The American Ornithologists Union.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 128

Hingtgen, T. M., and W. R. Clark. 1984. Small mammal recolonization of reclaimed coal surface-mined land in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:1255-1261.

Hinton Wood Products. 2007. FMA Access Map. 1:250,000 map updated February 10, 2007 by Hinton Wood products, A Division of West Fraser Mills Ltd.

Hobson, D., and Ficht, J. 2002. Aerial survey on elk winter ranges in the mountain areas of the Southwest Region - SW3 Foothills Area, February - March 2002. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Service, Edson, AB.

Holroyd, G. L. and K. J. Van Tighem. 1983. Ecological (Biophysical) land classification of Banff and Jasper National Parks. Vol. III: The Wildlife Inventory. Canadian Wildlife Service, Edmonton, AB. 691pp.

Holt, D. W., and J. M. Hillis. 1987. Current status and habitat associations of forest owls in western Montana. Pages 281-288 in Biology and conservation of northern forest owls (Nero, R., R.J. Clark, R.J. Knapton, and R.H. Hamre, eds.) USDA For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-142, Rocky Mtn. For.and Range Exper. Stat., Ft. Collins CO.

IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Special report on the regional impacts of climate change and assessment of vulnerability. http://www.grida.no/climate/ ipcc/regional/index/htm [Accessed October 17, 2007].

Johnsgard, P. A. 1988. North American owls. Smithsonian Inst. Press. Washington, D.C.

Jones, A. 2006. 2006 recreation survey. An examination of the results from Hinton Wood Products’ recreation survey conducted in 2006. Hinton Wood Products, A Division of West Fraser Mills. 40pp.

Kansas, J. 2001. Human and recreational use in the Bighorn Backcountry. Prepared for Land and Forest Division, Clearwater Forest Area, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development by URSUS Ecosystem Management Ltd. 10pp.

Keith, L. B., and L. A. Winberg. 1978. A demographic analysis of the snowshoe hare cycle. Wildlife Monographs Number 58. 70pp.

Kennett, S. A. 1999. Cumulative effects assessment and the Cheviot Project: What’s wrong with this picture? Resources. No. 68.

Kennett, S. A. 2000. The future for cumulative effects management: beyond the environmental assessment paradigm. Resources. No. 69.

Kneteman, J. 1995. Aerial survey of elk in the Mountain Wildlife Management Units of the Northern East Slopes Regions, March, 1995. Alberta Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Services, Wildlife Management Division, Hinton, AB.

Krebs, C. J., and J. H. Meyers. 1974. Population cycles in small animals. Advances in Ecological Research 8:268-399.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 129

Kucera, E., and W. A. Fuller. 1978. A winter study of small rodents in Aspen Parkland. Journal of Mammalogy. Vol. 59(1).

Lifeways of Canada Limited. 2007. Traditional use studies/consultation briefing notes for EIA Coal Valley Mine Extension. Lifeways of Canada Limited, Calgary AB.

Lyon, J. L. 1983. Road density models describing habitat effectiveness for elk. Journal of Forestry. Vol. 81(9):592-595 pp.

MacCallum, B. 1995. Winter survey of the ungulates and other wildlife on the proposed Cheviot Mine and surrounding area, 1994. Bighorn Environmental Design Ltd.

MacCallum, B. 2003. Reclamation to wildlife habitat in Alberta’s Foothills. Technical Paper #14 in Price, W., W. Gardner and C. Howell. Proceedings of the 27th annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium, Kamloops BC, September 15-18, 2003. The British Columbia Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation. Bitech Publishers Ltd., Richmond, BC.

MacCallum, N. B., and V. Geist. 1992. Mountain restoration: soils and surface wildlife habitat. GeoJournal 27.1:23-46.

Mace, R. D., and J. S. Waller 1997. Final report: grizzly bear ecology in the Swan Mountains. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, MT. 191pp.

Machmer, M. M., and C. Steeger. 1995. The ecological roles of wildlife tree users in forest ecosystems. Report prepared for British Columbia Min. For. Res. Program, Land Manage. Handbook 35. 54pp.

MaCracken, J. G., D. W. Uresk, and R. M. Hansen. 1985. Habitat used by shrews in southeastern Manitoba. Northwest Science 59:24-27.

Maj, M. 1996.Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus): Assessment of monitoring and management in the Northern Region. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana, USA. 32pp.

Millikin, R. L. 1988. A comparison of spot, transect and plot methods for measuring the impact of forest pest control strategies on forest songbirds. Canadian Forestry Service, Information Report FRM-X-83, Edmonton, AB. 83pp.

Morgantini, L. E. 1995. The Ya Ha Tinda: An ecological overview. Wildlife Resources Consulting Ltd. Edmonton, AB.

Mowrey, R. A., and J. C. Zasada. 1984. Den tree use and movements of northern flying squirrel in interior Alaska and implications for forest management. Pages 351-356 In Meeham, W.R., Merril, T.R., and Hanley, T.A. (editors). Fish and wildlife relationships in old-growth forests. American Institute of Fish Research and Biology, Juneau, Alaska.

Neff, D. J. 1968. The pellet-group count technique for big game trend, census, and distribution: a review. The Journal of Wildlife Management Vol. 32(3):597-614.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 130

Nelson, L. Jr., and F. W. Clark. 1973. Correction for sprung traps in catch/effort calculations of trapping results. Journal of Mammalogy 54:295-298.

Newton, I. 1979. Population ecology of raptors. Buteo Books, Vermillion, South Dakota. 399pp.

Nietfeld, M., J. Wilk, K. Woolnough, and B. Hoskin. 1984. Wildlife habitat requirement summaries for selected wildlife species in Alberta. Alberta Energy and Natural Resources - Fish and Wildlife Division, Wildlife Resource Inventory Unit, Edmonton, AB.

Norton, M. R. 1999. Status of the 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. 24 pp.

Olsen, B., L. Takats, B. Beck, J. Beck, and R. Bonar. 1999. Barred Owl reproductive habitat. Habitat suitability index model. Version 3. Foothills Model Forest. Hinton, AB.

Osborne, T. O. 1987. Biology of the Great Gray Owl in interior Alaska. in Biology and conservation of northern forest owls: Symposium proceedings, 1987 February 3-7, Winnipeg, MB. R. W. Nero, R. J. Clark, R. J. Knapton, and R. H. Hamre, (editors) Gen. Tech. Rep. RM- 142. U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Serv., Rocky Mtn. For. and Range Exp. Stn, Fort Collins, CO.

Pinel, H. W., W. W. Smith, and C.R. Wershler. 1991. Alberta birds, 1971 - 1980. Volume 1. Non-passerines. Provincial Museum of Alberta Natural History Occasional Paper No. 13. Natural History Section, Provincial Museum of Alberta Edmonton, AB.

Piorecky, M. D., and D. R. C. Prescott. 2004. Distribution, abundance and habitat selection of northern pygmy and barred owls along the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Species at Risk Report no.91, Edmonton, AB. 26 pp.

Postovit, H. R., and B. C. Postovit. 1987. Impacts and mitigation techniques. Pages 183-213 in Pendleton, B. A. G., B. A. Millsap, K. W. Cline, and D. M. Bird (eds). Raptor management techniques manual. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC.

Poulin, R. G., S. D. Grindel, and R. M. Brigham. 1996. Common Nighthawk. The Birds of North America. No. 213. (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philedelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 19pp.

Prescott, D. R. C., and R.R. Bjorge. 1999. Status of the Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in Alberta. Alberta Environment, Fisheries and Wildlife Management Division , and Alberta Conservation Association. Wildlife Status Report No. 24. Edmonton, AB. 28pp.

Preston, C. R., and R. D. Beane. 1993. Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis). in The birds of North America, No. 52 (A. Poole, and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.

Ralph, C. J., S. Sroege, and J. R. Sauer (technical eds.) 1995. Monitoring bird populations by point counts. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-149. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA, USA. Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 131

Reynolds R. T., R. T. Graham, M. H. Reiser, R. L. Bassett, P .L. Kennedy, D. A. Boyce, G. Goodwin, R. Smith, E. L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station and US Forest Service General Technical Report RM-217. 90pp.

RMERF (Rocky Mountain Eagle Research Foundation), www.eaglewatch.ca [Accessed November 2007].

Romito, T., K. Smith, B. Beck, J. Beck, M. Todd, R. Bonar, and R. Quinlan. 1999. Moose Winter Habitat. Habitat suitability index model. Version 5. Foothills Model Forest. Hinton, Ab.

Roy, D. R., J. B. Stelfox, and J. W. Nolan. 1995. Relationships between mammal biodiversity and stand age and structure in aspen mixed wood forests in Alberta. Pages 159-189 In Stelfox, J. B. (editor). Relationships between stand age, stand structure and biodiversity in aspen mixed wood forests in Alberta. Jointly published by Alberta Environmental Centre (AECV95-R1), Vegreville, Alberta and Canadian Forest Service (Project No. 0001 A), Edmonton, AB. 308pp.

Russel, A. P., and A. M. Bauer. 1993. The amphibians and reptiles of Alberta. University of Calgary, Calgary and University of Alberta Press, Edmonton, AB.

Salt, W. R., and J. R. Salt. 1976. The birds of Alberta. Hurtig Publishers, Edmonton, AB. 498pp.

Sadler, T. S., and M. T. Myres. 1976. Alberta birds 1961-1970. Provincial Museum of Alberta. Natural History Section. Occasional Paper No. 1.

Samuel, M. D., R. K. Steinhorst, E. O. Garton, and J. W. Unsworth. 1992. Estimation of wildlife population ratios incorporating survey design and visibility bias. Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol. 56(4):718-725.

Schaffer, W., B. Beck, J. Beck, R. Bonar, and L. Hunt. 1999. Northern Goshawk reproductive habitat. Habitat suitability index model. Version 3. Foothills Model Forest. Hinton, Ab.

Schaffer, W. 1997. Northern Goshawk habitat characterization in Central Alberta. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. Printed by Foothills Model Forest, Hinton, AB.

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.

Semenchuk, G. P. (ed.). 1992. The atlas of the breeding birds of Alberta. Federation of Alberta Naturalists, Edmonton, AB. 391 pp.

Smith, H. C. 1993. Alberta mammals, an atlas and guide. The Provincial Museum of Alberta. Edmonton, AB. 238pp.

Stambaugh, C. 2005. Vertebrate and invertebrate species codes used in the Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Program. Integrated Resource Management, Alberta Research Council, Vegreville, AB. 62pp. Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 132

Steeger, C., M. M. Machmer, and E. Walters. 1996. Ecology and management of woodpeckers and wildlife trees in British Columbia. Environment Canada, Pacific Wildlife Research Centre, Delta, BC. 23pp.

Stenhouse, G., and R. Munro. 2002. Foothills Model Forest grizzly bear research program 2001 annual report. Foothills Model Forest, Hinton, AB. 127pp.

Takats, D. L, C. M. Francis, G. L. Holroyd, J. R. Duncan, K. M. Mazur, R. J. Cannings, W. Harris, and D. Holt. 2001. Guidelines for nocturnal owl monitoring in North America. Beaverhill Bird Observatory and Bird Studies Canada, Edmonton, AB 32pp.

Telfer, E. S. 1984. Circumpolar distribution and habitat requirements of Moose (Alces alces). Pages 145-182 in Olson, R., Geddes, F., and Hastings, R. (editors). Northern Ecology and Resource Management. The University of Alberta Press, Edmonton, AB.

Terres, J. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American Birds. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Thompson, D. 2002. Tools for environmental management, a practical introduction and guide. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC. 452pp.

Thompson, M. J., and R. E. Henderson. 1998. Elk habituation as a credibility challenge for wildlife professionals. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26(3):477-483.

URSUS Ecosystem Management Ltd. 1999. Specific and cumulative impact statement for mammalian carnivores-South Block and West Extension Project-Coal Valley Mine. Prepared for Luscar Ltd., Coal Valley Mine, Edson AB. 142pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. CEM - A model for assessing effects on grizzly bears. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Missoula, MT. 24pp.

Verner, J. 1988. Optimizing the duration of point counts for monitoring trends in bird populations. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Research Note PSW- 395. 4pp.

Vonhof, M. J., and D. Hobson. 2001. Survey of the bats of central and northwestern Alberta. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Service, Alberta Species at Risk Report No. 4. Edmonton, AB. 33pp.

Weldwood of Canada Limited. 1999. 1999 Forest Management Plan, Volume I and II, Management Strategy 1999-2008, Hinton AB. http://www.weldwood.com/hinfr01/internet/hinnet.nsf.

Westworth, D., L. Brusnyk, J. Roberts, and H. Veldhuzien. 1989. Winter habitat use by moose in the vicinity of an open pit copper mine in north-central British Columbia. Alces 25:156-166.

Wisdom, M. J. 1986. A model to evaluate elk habitat in Western Oregon. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 33pp.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 133

Wormworth, J. 2006. Bird species and climate change; a global status report. A climate risk report to the World Wildlife Fund for Nature.

Wrigley, R. E., J. E. Dubois, and H. W. R. Copeland. 1979. Habitat abundance, and distribution of six species of shrew in Manitoba. Journal of Mammalogy. Vol. 60(3).

Zar, J. C. 1984. Biostatistical analysis, 2nd Edition. Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 718pp.

Zirul, D.L., and W.A. Fuller. 1970. Winter fluctuations in size of home range of the red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus). North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference Transactions 35:115-127.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 134

APPENDIX I. Ungulate aerial survey results Coal Valley Mine area, January 11 & 12, 2007. Check Zone Easting Northing Month/ Year Altitude Species Total Cow/ Calf/ Male Male Unclass Activity % Light Veg Terrain Point NAD83 NAD83 Day m Doe Fawn Yrlg Adult -ified Snow Class WPT001 11 484485 5889943 Jan/11 2007 1397 Moose 1 1 3 100 0 6 1 WPT002 11 486108 5889123 Jan/11 2007 1465 Moose 2 1 1 3 100 0 6 1 WPT003 11 484743 5890090 Jan/11 2007 1388 Moose 1 1 3 100 0 6 1 WPT004 11 479519 5893653 Jan/11 2007 1349 Moose 1 1 1 100 0 4 1 WPT005 11 488480 5891166 Jan/11 2007 1405 Moose 1 1 3 100 0 6 1 WPT006 11 482984 5894643 Jan/11 2007 1464 Moose 1 1 1 100 0 1 1 WPT007 11 489041 5892839 Jan/11 2007 1470 Moose 1 1 2 100 0 6 2 WPT008 11 492584 5891968 Jan/11 2007 1446 Moose 1 1 2 100 1 3 1 WPT009 11 488105 5895905 Jan/11 2007 1395 Moose 1 1 3 100 0 6 1 WPT010 11 484634 5897653 Jan/11 2007 1410 Moose 2 2 3 100 0 6 1 WPT119 11 490027 5895852 Jan/11 2007 1382 Moose 2 1 1 3 100 1 3 1 WPT011 11 490193 5896123 Jan/11 2007 1382 Moose 3 3 3 100 1 3 1 WPT012 11 497922 5894036 Jan/11 2007 1367 WTD 2 2 2 100 1 5 2 WPT013 11 498762 5894725 Jan/11 2007 1366 Moose 1 1 3 100 0 4 2 WPT014 11 496228 5896829 Jan/11 2007 1484 MD 2 2 2 100 0 6 2 WPT015 11 500189 5894798 Jan/11 2007 1326 WTD 2 1 1 2 100 1 4 3 WPT016 11 497784 5900583 Jan/11 2007 1264 WTD 1 1 3 100 0 4 1 WPT017 11 498385 5901214 Jan/11 2007 1244 Moose 1 1 1 100 1 1 1 WPT018 11 501799 5899335 Jan/11 2007 1198 WTD 3 2 1 2 100 1 5 2 WPT019 11 508358 5894156 Jan/11 2007 1229 WTD 1 1 2 100 0 5 1 WPT020 11 518002 5885928 Jan/11 2007 1242 Moose 1 1 3 100 0 5 2 WPT021 11 518735 5885243 Jan/11 2007 1265 WTD 1 1 2 100 0 5 2 WPT022 11 530517 5874591 Jan/11 2007 1341 MD 1 1 3 100 1 9 1 WPT023 11 524441 5879280 Jan/11 2007 1276 MD 2 1 1 2 100 0 9 1 WPT024 11 512023 5889758 Jan/11 2007 1224 Moose 1 1 1 100 0 6 1 WPT025 11 511612 5890084 Jan/11 2007 1222 Moose 1 1 2 100 0 6 1 WPT026 11 505472 5895305 Jan/11 2007 1230 WTD 3 3 3 100 1 6 2 WPT027 11 505272 5895445 Jan/11 2007 1233 WTD 1 1 3 100 0 6 2 WPT028 11 503588 5896774 Jan/11 2007 1234 Moose 2 2 1 100 1 4 1 WPT029 11 502063 5897292 Jan/11 2007 1197 WTD 1 1 2 100 0 5 1 WPT030 11 502270 5897131 Jan/11 2007 1208 WTD 1 1 1 100 1 5 2 WPT031 11 502702 5896699 Jan/11 2007 1219 WTD 4 2 2 3 100 1 5 1 Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 135

APPENDIX I. Ungulate aerial survey results Coal Valley Mine area, January 11 & 12, 2007. WPT032 11 508139 5892144 Jan/11 2007 1282 WTD 1 1 3 100 1 6 2 WPT033 11 509837 5890812 Jan/11 2007 1280 Moose 1 1 3 100 0 7 2 WPT120 11 509795 5890840 Jan/11 2007 1280 WTD 2 1 1 3 100 0 7 2 WPT034 11 519915 5882431 Jan/11 2007 1289 Moose 1 1 3 100 0 6 2 WPT035 11 519585 5881966 Jan/11 2007 1299 Moose 1 1 3 100 0 6 2 WPT037 11 523282 5878694 Jan/11 2007 1365 Moose 1 1 1 100 1 9 1 WPT038 11 520005 5881207 Jan/11 2007 1307 Coyote 2 2 3 100 1 1 1 WPT039 11 516487 5884059 Jan/11 2007 1284 Moose 1 1 1 100 0 6 2 WPT040 11 510601 5889117 Jan/11 2007 1296 WTD 2 1 1 3 100 1 9 1 WPT041 11 509433 5890166 Jan/11 2007 1307 Moose 1 1 1 100 0 7 1 WPT042 11 504617 5894323 Jan/11 2007 1310 WTD 4 4 3 100 0 9 2 WPT043 11 502121 5895275 Jan/11 2007 1272 WTD 3 1 2 2 100 0 5 2 WPT044 11 507705 5890426 Jan/11 2007 1317 WTD 2 1 1 2 100 0 6 2 WPT045 11 514137 5885162 Jan/11 2007 1307 WTD 1 1 2 100 0 6 2 WPT046 11 514488 5884893 Jan/11 2007 1311 WTD 1 1 2 100 0 6 2 WPT047 11 516117 5883528 Jan/11 2007 1300 WTD 2 1 1 2 100 0 5 2 WPT048 11 516284 5883369 Jan/11 2007 1306 WTD 2 1 1 2 100 0 5 2 WPT049 11 516523 5883164 Jan/11 2007 1322 WTD 2 1 1 3 100 0 5 2 WPT050 11 517441 5882299 Jan/11 2007 1345 Moose 1 1 2 100 0 6 2 WPT051 11 517782 5882091 Jan/11 2007 1343 Moose 1 1 1 100 0 5 2 WPT052 11 518063 5881900 Jan/11 2007 1346 WTD 2 1 1 1 100 0 5 2 WPT053 11 520573 5879824 Jan/11 2007 1390 WTD 1 1 3 100 0 6 2 WPT054 11 520865 5879588 Jan/11 2007 1395 WTD 5 3 2 3 100 0 6 2 WPT055 11 528526 5872163 Jan/11 2007 1401 Moose 2 1 1 3 100 0 9 1 WPT056 11 528421 5872267 Jan/11 2007 1391 Moose 1 1 2 100 0 9 1 WPT057 11 521507 5877784 Jan/11 2007 1417 Moose 1 1 2 100 0 6 2 WPT058 11 516650 5881931 Jan/11 2007 1448 Moose 2 2 2 100 0 5 2 WPT121 11 516632 5881996 Jan/11 2007 1448 WTD 3 2 1 3 100 0 5 2 WPT059 11 515443 5882941 Jan/11 2007 1440 WTD 1 1 2 100 0 5 2 WPT060 11 514197 5883882 Jan/11 2007 1382 WTD 2 1 1 3 100 0 6 2 WPT061 11 514136 5883941 Jan/11 2007 1389 WTD 2 1 1 3 100 0 6 2 WPT062 11 512872 5885054 Jan/11 2007 1388 WTD 3 2 1 3 100 0 5 2 WPT063 11 511687 5885990 Jan/11 2007 1384 WTD 1 1 1 100 0 5 2 WPT064 11 511594 5886077 Jan/11 2007 1383 WTD 2 1 1 1 100 0 5 2 Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 136

APPENDIX I. Ungulate aerial survey results Coal Valley Mine area, January 11 & 12, 2007. WPT065 11 509347 5887991 Jan/11 2007 1433 WTD 6 3 3 2 100 0 6 2 WPT066 11 506481 5890352 Jan/11 2007 1440 WTD 3 2 1 2 100 0 4 3 WPT067 11 506198 5890598 Jan/11 2007 1432 Moose 2 1 1 2 100 0 4 2 WPT068 11 505344 5891500 Jan/11 2007 1452 WTD 1 1 3 100 0 5 2 WPT069 11 501192 5894574 Jan/11 2007 1272 WTD 3 3 2 100 0 6 2 WPT070 11 503151 5892069 Jan/11 2007 1382 WTD 2 1 1 2 100 0 6 1 WPT071 11 504195 5891241 Jan/11 2007 1441 WTD 3 2 1 2 100 0 6 2 WPT072 11 504821 5890704 Jan/11 2007 1485 WTD 1 1 3 100 0 5 2 WPT073 11 506412 5889353 Jan/11 2007 1351 Moose 1 1 3 100 0 6 1 WPT074 11 510003 5886538 Jan/11 2007 1376 Wolf 1 1 1 100 0 Pond 1 WPT075 11 512732 5883878 Jan/11 2007 1475 Elk 7 4 2 1 2 100 0 5 2 WPT076 11 512855 5884085 Jan/11 2007 1458 WTD 1 1 3 100 0 5 2 WPT077 11 512604 5884192 Jan/11 2007 1445 WTD 1 1 3 100 0 5 2 WPT078 11 512605 5884290 Jan/11 2007 1436 Moose 1 1 2 100 0 5 2 WPT079 11 513635 5883318 Jan/11 2007 1409 Moose 1 1 2 100 0 5 2 WPT080 11 514540 5882542 Jan/11 2007 1395 WTD 4 2 2 1 100 0 5 2 WPT081 11 514856 5882355 Jan/11 2007 1428 WTD 1 1 2 100 0 5 1 WPT082 11 515500 5881731 Jan/11 2007 1499 MD 3 1 2 3 100 0 5 2 WPT083 11 520506 5877567 Jan/11 2007 1454 WTD 2 1 1 3 100 0 6 2 WPT084 11 531752 5868153 Jan/11 2007 1326 Moose 1 1 2 100 0 1 1 WPT085 11 531307 5867572 Jan/11 2007 1334 Moose 2 1 1 2 100 0 6 1 WPT086 11 518194 5878464 Jan/11 2007 1402 Elk 2 2 2 100 0 8 2 WPT087 11 513238 5882764 Jan/11 2007 1469 Elk 27 21 6 2 100 0 8 2 WPT088 11 512737 5883087 Jan/11 2007 1466 WTD 1 1 3 100 0 5 1 WPT089 11 512062 5883694 Jan/11 2007 1486 WTD 1 1 3 100 0 5 1 WPT090 11 511775 5883882 Jan/11 2007 1488 Moose 1 1 3 100 0 5 1 WPT091 11 509224 5885911 Jan/11 2007 1505 WTD 5 4 1 2 100 0 5 1 WPT092 11 508988 5886225 Jan/11 2007 1495 WTD 3 1 2 3 100 0 6 1 WPT093 11 501849 5892083 Jan/11 2007 1359 WTD 1 1 3 100 0 1 2 WPT094 11 508003 5886008 Jan/11 2007 1394 WTD 1 1 2 100 0 1 1 WPT095 11 517563 5878220 Jan/11 2007 1433 Elk 4 4 2 100 0 8 1 WPT096 11 517690 5878013 Jan/11 2007 1421 Elk 4 4 2 100 0 8 1 WPT097 11 530745 5866059 Jan/11 2007 1355 Moose 1 1 1 100 0 6 1 WPT098 11 517781 5876498 Jan/11 2007 1443 Elk 6 5 1 2 100 0 8 1 Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 137

APPENDIX I. Ungulate aerial survey results Coal Valley Mine area, January 11 & 12, 2007. WPT099 11 512570 5881001 Jan/11 2007 1462 Elk 1 1 1 100 0 6 2 WPT100 11 508160 5884945 Jan/11 2007 1454 Elk 2 1 1 2 100 0 9 2 WPT101 11 508378 5884720 Jan/11 2007 1444 Elk 6 4 1 1 2 100 0 9 2 WPT102 11 507639 5885197 Jan/11 2007 1445 Moose 1 1 2 100 0 7 1 WPT103 11 507191 5885690 Jan/11 2007 1432 WTD 2 1 1 3 100 0 6 2 WPT104 11 503075 5889024 Jan/11 2007 1329 WTD 2 1 1 3 100 0 4 1 WPT105 11 512584 5879450 Jan/12 2007 1432 Elk 4 2 2 2 100 0 8 1 WTP106 11 513635 5878753 Jan/12 2007 1461 Moose 1 1 2 100 0 9 1 WPT107 11 516428 5876656 Jan/12 2007 1453 Elk 70 48 17 5 2 100 0 8 2 WPT118 11 525865 5868036 Jan/12 2007 1401 Moose 2 1 1 2 100 0 3 1 WPT108 11 520755 5870996 Jan/12 2007 1401 Moose 2 2 2 100 1 8 1 WPT09 11 516491 5874945 Jan/12 2007 1427 Moose 2 1 1 2 100 0 4 1 WPT110 11 504644 5885482 Jan/12 2007 1492 WTD 2 1 1 2 100 0 6 3 WPT111 11 511444 5879932 Jan/12 2007 1465 Moose 1 1 2 100 0 8 1 WTP112 11 513314 5878305 Jan/12 2007 1448 Moose 1 1 1 100 0 6 1 WPT113 11 529938 5862639 Jan/12 2007 1373 Moose 1 1 1 100 0 1 1 WPT114 11 508403 5880341 Jan/12 2007 1487 MD 1 1 2 100 0 6 1 WPT115 11 495571 5889946 Jan/12 2007 1413 Moose 2 1 1 2 100 0 1 1 WPT116 11 503231 5883931 Jan/12 2007 1477 Moose 1 1 3 100 0 6 1 WPT117 11 501401 5881730 Jan/12 2007 1482 Moose 2 2 2 100 1 2 1 WPT122 11 516491 5874945 Jan/12 2007 1427 Grouse 5 5 3 100 0 4 1

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 138

Coal Valley, 2007 Air Survey Legend: Location 1 CV Coal Valley 2 WE West Extension 3 SB South Block 4 ME Mercoal East 5 MW Mercoal West 6 YT Yellowhead Tower 7 RT Robb Trend Activity 1 Bed Bedded 2 Stand Standing 3 Move Moving % Snow Cover % Percent snow cover visually estimated around 45 m from where animal was first seen Light 0 Flat Reflection of sunlight off the ground 1 Bright Vegetation Class 1 Cut Cutline/Powerline 2 Fen Open Organic Wetland (Fen) 3 Bog Treed Bog 4 Shrub Deciduous Shrubs 5 Poplar Deciduous Timber 6 Conifer Coniferous Timber 7 Mixed Mixed Wood 8 Meadow Hebaceous Meadow 9 Block Cutblock 10 Rock Cliff/Rocks Terrain 1 Flat ≤ 5 degree slope 2 Moderate > 5 and < 20 degree slope 3 Steep > 21 degree slope

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 139

APPENDIX II. Overwinter use by elk, moose and deer in the Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project

Appendix ll - 1. Mean pellet-group counts (pg/ha) indicating overwinter use by elk in the Local Study Area (LSA), Mercoal West (MW, n=700) and Yellowhead Tower (YT, n=467), 2004, 2006 and 2007. Habitat ID Habitat n LSA MW YT 5 Mixed Wood / HWR 45 24.4 20 25.7 11 Mixed Wood / TB 25 16 0 26.7 2 Lodgepole Pine / HWR 25 12 15 0 7 Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT 2-10m 98 8.2 10 3.6 10 Lodgepole Pine / TB 2-10m 90 7.8 7.8 NA 21 Black Spruce-Lodgepole Pine / LT 30 3.3 5 0 24 Treed Poor Fen 100 3 3 NA 8 Lodgepole Pine / TB 144 2.1 1.7 2.4 18 Willow-Birch Meadow 55 1.8 0 2.2 22 Black & White Spruce / LT 70 1.4 NA 1.4 6 Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT 350 1.1 1.1 1.4 13 Subalpine Fir / LT 5 0 NA 0 12 White Spruce / TB 30 0 NA 0 27 Treed Rich Fen 5 0 NA 0 15 Black & White Spruce - Lodgepole Pine / BH 5 0 NA 0 17 Willow Upland 5 0 NA 0 4 Trembling Aspen / HWR 10 0 NA 0 25 Shrubby Poor Fen 10 0 0 NA 20 Graminoid Meadow 30 0 NA 0 28 Shrubby Rich Fen 20 0 0 0 29 Graminoid Rich Fen 15 0 0 0 All Habitats 1167 3.94 3.86 4.07

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 140

Appendix II - 2. Mean pellet-group counts (pg/ha) indicating overwinter use by moose in the Local Study Area (LSA), Mercoal West (MW, n=700) and Yellowhead Tower (YT, n=467), 2004, 2006 and 2007. Habitat ID Habitat n LSA MW YT 29 Graminoid Rich Fen 15 146.7 90 260 27 Treed Rich Fen 5 80 NA 80 22 Black & White Spruce / LT 70 77.1 NA 77.1 2 Lodgepole Pine / HWR 25 76 95 0 7 Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT 2-10m 98 73.4 62.9 100 28 Shrubby Rich Fen 20 65 60 70 10 Lodgepole Pine / TB 2-10m 90 62.2 62.2 NA 18 Willow-Birch Meadow 55 50.9 0 62.2 25 Shrubby Poor Fen 10 50 50 NA 24 Treed Poor Fen 100 41 41 NA 5 Mixed Wood / HWR 45 40 150 8.6 21 Black Spruce-Lodgepole Pine / LT 30 33.3 45 10 4 Trembling Aspen / HWR 10 30 NA 26.7 20 Graminoid Meadow 30 26.7 NA 26.7 8 Lodgepole Pine / TB 144 25 25 25 13 Subalpine Fir / LT 5 20 NA 20 17 Willow Upland 5 20 NA 20 12 White Spruce / TB 30 16.7 NA 16.7 11 Mixed Wood / TB 25 8 20 0 6 Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT 350 6.3 5 11.4 15 Black & White Spruce - Lodgepole Pine / BH 5 0 NA 0 All Habitats 1167 36 36 39.6

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 141

Appendix II - 3. Mean pellet-group counts (pg/ha) indicating overwinter use by deer in the Local Study Area (LSA), Mercoal West (MW, n=700) and Yellowhead Tower (YT, n=467), 2004, 2006 and 2007. Habitat Habitat n LSA MW YT ID 11 Mixed Wood / TB 25 244 10 400 25 Shrubby Poor Fen 10 190 190 NA 15 Black & White Spruce - Lodgepole Pine / BH 5 160 NA 160 5 Mixed Wood / HWR 45 115.6 120 114.3 12 White Spruce / TB 30 93.3 NA 93.3 8 Lodgepole Pine / TB 144 79.9 46.7 103.6 21 Black Spruce-Lodgepole Pine / LT 30 60 45 90 7 Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT 2-10m 98 51 22.9 121.4 4 Trembling Aspen / HWR 10 50 NA 50 17 Willow Upland 5 40 NA 40 2 Lodgepole Pine / HWR 25 40 50 0 20 Graminoid Meadow 30 33.3 NA 33.3 6 Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce / LT 350 26.6 15 72.9 10 Lodgepole Pine / TB 2-10m 90 25.6 25.6 NA 18 Willow-Birch Meadow 55 25.5 0 31.1 22 Black & White Spruce / LT 70 20 NA 20 24 Treed Poor Fen 100 12 12 NA 29 Graminoid Rich Fen 15 6.7 10 0 28 Shrubby Rich Fen 20 5 10 0 13 Subalpine Fir / Labrador Tea 5 0 NA 0 27 Treed Rich Fen 5 0 NA 0 All Habitats 1167 45.9 24.9 77.5

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 142

Appendix III Check-list of the Birds of the Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project

The relative abundance, seasonal occurrence and breeding status of species of birds that were present in the Mercoal West and the Yellowhead Tower Mine Extension Project are listed in this Appendix. Because of habitat and avian biodiversity differences between the Mercoal West and the Yellowhead Tower, a status and a relative abundance category was assigned for each species found in the two Local Study Areas (LSAs). Information for each species was compiled from owl, woodpecker, breeding bird and raptor migration surveys as well as from incidental observation while conducting other wildlife work for the MW-YT wildlife inventory. Additional information from published sources in Alberta and sources relevant to specific species was used to assist in the interpretation of the seasonal status for each species.

Categories to describe the breeding status of each species were modified and used from definitions in the Atlas of breeding birds of Alberta: a second look (FAN 2005:31). The relative abundance was determined by using the total number of actual bird observations that were made in each study area. It should be noted that the status assigned to each species applies only to the study area.

The provincial general status category for each species is identified from: The General Status of Alberta Wild Species. 2005. Alberta Environment, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2005. http://www.srd.gov.ab.ca/fishwildlife/wildspecies/ [Accessed January 30, 2008]. The national general status rank for each species is taken from: Wild Species 2005: The General Status of Species in Canada. 2006. Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC). http://www.wildspecies.ca/wildspecies2005/ [Accessed January 30, 2008]. No species in the LSA were listed by COSEWIC. http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/index_e.cfm [Accessed January 30, 2008].

Relative Abundance

Abundant: A: A total of 35+ observations of individuals during the study period. Common: C: A total of six to 34 observations of individuals during the study period. Uncommon: U: A total of three to five observations of individuals during the study period. Very Uncommon: VU: One or two observations during the study period.

Seasonal Occurrence

Permanent Resident PR: A species that resides and breeds in the study area throughout the year. Summer Resident SR: A species that nests in the study area but as a population the majority migrates elsewhere for the winter. Small numbers of the summering population from the study area and adjacent areas (less than 1%) may overwinter if climatic conditions are suitable. Winter Visitant WV: A species that occurs/breeds elsewhere but uses the study area for feeding or loafing for periods in the winter. Summer Visitant SV: A species that occurs/breeds elsewhere but uses the study area for loafing or feeding for periods in the summer. Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 143

Migrant M: A species that stops briefly to rest or feed in the study area during spring (late March to early June) or fall (mid July, to and including November) migration periods. Accidental Ac A species recorded in the study area but whose normal range is found elsewhere; its occurrence in the study area is unpredictable and not likely to occur in the immediate future. Breeding Status

Possible Breeding PoB: A species observed or heard singing in a suitable nesting habitat.

Probable Breeding PrB: A pair, male and female, observed in suitable nesting habitat undergoing one or all of the following; courtship behaviour; visits to a probable nest site, exhibiting territorial behaviour. Breeding B: A species was assigned this category if one or more of the following were observed: nest building; excavation of nest cavities; recently fledged young; a nest containing either eggs or young, distraction displays; adult carrying food; or birds on transect at least two times in the same location during the 2004 -2007 survey period. Observed O: This category was used when information about a species was not enough to determine its seasonal occurrence, breeding or relative abundance.

Provincial General Status Category Definitions (ASRD 2005):

At Risk Any species known to be “At Risk” after formal detailed status assessment and designation as “Endangered” or “Threatened” in Alberta.

May be at Risk Any species that “May be at Risk” of extinction or extirpation but may require special attention or protection to prevent it from becoming at risk.

Sensitive Any species that is not at risk of extinction or extirpation but may require special attention or protection to prevent it from becoming at risk.

Secure A species that is not “At Risk”, “May Be At Risk” or “Sensitive”.

Undetermined Any species for which insufficient information, knowledge or data is available to reliably evaluate its general status.

National General Status Rank Definitions (CESCC 2006):

Extinct Species that are extirpated worldwide, i.e., they no longer exist anywhere. This rank partially replaces the rank of “Extirpated/Extinct”, used in “Wild Species 2000".

Extirpated Species that are no longer present in a given geographic area but occur in other areas. This rank partially replaces the rank of “Extirpated/Extinct”, used in “Wild Species 2000".

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 144

At Risk Species for which a formal, detailed risk assessment (COSEWIC status assessment or provincial or territorial equivalent) has been completed and that have been determined to beat risk of extirpation or extinction, i.e., “Endangered” or “Threatened”. A COSEWIC designation of “Endangered” or “Threatened” automatically results in a Canada General Status Rank (Canada rank) of “At Risk”. Where a provincial or territorial formal risk assessment finds a species to be “Endangered” or “Threatened” in that particular region, then, under the general status program, the species automatically receives a provincial or territorial general status rank of “At Risk”.

May Be At Risk Species that may be at risk of extirpation or extinction and are therefore candidates for a detailed risk assessment by COSEWIC, or provincial or territorial equivalents.

Sensitive Species that are not believed to be at risk of immediate extirpation or extinction but may require special attention or protection to prevent them from becoming at risk.

Secure Species that are not believed to belong in the categories “Extirpated”, “Extinct”, “At Risk”, “May Be At Risk”, “Sensitive”, “Accidental” or “Exotic”. This category includes some species that show a trend of decline in numbers in Canada but remain relatively widespread or abundant.

Undetermined Species for which insufficient data, information, or knowledge is available with which to reliably evaluate their general status.

Not Assessed Species that are known or believed to be present regularly in the geographic area in Canada to which the rank applies, but have not yet been assessed by the general status program

Exotic Species that have been moved beyond their natural range as a result of human activity. In this report, “Exotic” species have been purposefully excluded from all other categories.

Accidental Species occurring infrequently and unpredictably, outside their usual range.

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 145

Appendix III-1. Status of all bird species observed on Mercoal West, 2004 - 2006. No species were listed by COSEWIC. Common Name ASRD CESCC # Birds # Birds Relative Seasonal Breeding 2005 2006 Survey Incidental Abundance Occurrence Status

Canada Goose Secure Secure 5 UC SR B Common Goldeneye Secure Secure 4 UC SR PoB Bufflehead Secure Secure 2 VU SR PoB Ruffed Grouse Secure Secure 3 16 UC PR B Spruce Grouse Secure Secure 20 C PR B Northern Harrier Sensitive Secure 2 VU SV O Bald Eagle Sensitive Secure 1 VU M O Cooper's Hawk Secure Secure 1 VU SV PoB Northern Goshawk Sensitive Secure 1 VU PR/SR PoB Red-tailed Hawk Secure Secure 1 VU SV PoB Sandhill Crane Sensitive Secure 2 VU SV O Greater Yellowlegs Secure Secure 1 8 VU SR PrB Solitary Sandpiper Secure Secure 1 1 VU SR PrB Spotted Sandpiper Secure Secure 1 VU SR PrB Wilson's Snipe Secure Secure 8 28 C SR B Wilson's Phalarope Secure Secure 1 VU SV O Great Horned Owl Secure Secure 1 VU SV PoB Great Gray Owl Sensitive Secure 3 3 UC PR B Boreal Owl Secure Secure 14 C PR B Northern Flicker Secure Secure 1 VU SR PoB Pileated Woodpecker Sensitive Secure 1 2 VU PR PrB Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Undetermined Secure 4 UC SR PrB Dusky Flycatcher Secure Secure 1 VU SR O Blue-headed Vireo Secure Secure 1 VU SR O Warbling Vireo Secure Secure 3 3 UC SR PrB Gray Jay Secure Secure 30 15 C PR B Common Raven Secure Secure 3 21 UC SV O Black-capped Chickadee Secure Secure 1 VU PR PrB Boreal Chickadee Secure Secure 7 22 C PR B Brown Creeper Sensitive Secure 2 1 VC PR PrB Red-breasted Nuthatch Secure Secure 7 7 C PR B Golden-crowned Kinglet Secure Secure 10 1 C PR B Ruby-crowned Kinglet Secure Secure 45 22 A PR B Swainson's Thrush Secure Secure 45 23 A SR B Hermit Thrush Secure Secure 17 19 C SR B Varied Thrush Secure Secure 23 23 C SR B American Robin Secure Secure 3 UC SR PoB Orange-crowned Warbler Secure Secure 11 3 C SR B Yellow-rumped Warbler Secure Secure 90 21 A SR B Wilson's Warbler Secure Secure 2 1 VU SR PrB Common Yellowthroat Sensitive Secure 1 VU SR PoB American Tree Sparrow Secure Secure 1 VU M O Chipping Sparrow Secure Secure 19 7 C SR B Clay-colored Sparrow Secure Secure 1 VU SR PoB Fox Sparrow Secure Secure 1 VU M O Savannah Sparrow Secure Secure 1 VU SR PoB Lincoln's Sparrow Secure Secure 12 7 C SR B Song Sparrow Secure Secure 1 VU SR PrB Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 146

White-throated Sparrow Secure Secure 21 10 C SR B Dark-eyed Junco Secure Secure 44 14 A SR B Gray-cowned Rosy-Finch Secure Secure 12 C WV O Purple Finch Secure Secure 1 VU SV O White-winged Crossbill Secure Secure 7 8 C PR PrB Pine Grosbeak Secure Secure 6 10 C PR PrB Pine Siskin Secure Secure 18 23 C SR PrB Common Redpoll Secure Secure 24 C WV O

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 147

Appendix III-2. Status of all bird species observed on Yellowhead Tower, 2006 and 2007. No species were listed by COSEWIC. Common Name ASRD CESCC # Birds # Birds Relative Seasonal Breeding 2005 2006 Survey Incidental Abundance Occurrence Status Mallard Secure Secure 1 VU SR PoB Bufflehead Secure Secure 4 1 UC SR B Barrow's Goldeneye Secure Secure 3 UC SR PoB Common Merganser Secure Secure 4 UC SR PoB Spruce Grouse Secure Secure 8 8 C PR B Ruffed Grouse Secure Secure 2 20 VU PR PrB Double-crested Cormorant Secure Secure 1 VU M O Golden Eagle Sensitive Secure 5 UC M O Bald Eagle Sensitive Secure 4 UC M O Sharp-shinned Hawk Secure Secure 23 C M O Cooper's Hawk Secure Secure 3 UC M O Northern Goshawk Sensitive Secure 3 UC SV/M O Broad-winged Hawk Sensitive Secure 2 VU M O Red-tailed Hawk Secure Secure 19 C SV O Rough-legged Hawk Secure Secure 14 C M O American Kestrel Secure Secure 2 VU M O Merlin Secure Secure 1 VU M O Gyrfalcon Secure Secure 1 VU M O Killdeer Secure Secure 1 2 VU SR PrB Greater Yellowlegs Secure Secure 1 VU M O Spotted Sandpiper Secure Secure 1 VU SR B Wilson's Snipe Secure Secure 4 2 UC SR B Barred Owl Sensitive Secure 4 UC PR B Great Gray Owl Sensitive Secure 2 1 VU PR B Northern Pygmy-Owl Sensitive Secure 1 1 VU M PoB Boreal Owl Secure Secure 3 1 UC PR B Northern Flicker Secure Secure 9 6 C SR B Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Secure Secure 5 4 UC SR B Hairy Woodpecker Secure Secure 1 VU PR PoB American Three-toed Secure Secure 1 2 VU PR PrB Woodpecker Pileated Woodpecker Sensitive Secure 1 1 VU PR PrB Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Undetermined Secure 4 1 UC SR B Alder Flycatcher Secure Secure 7 1 C SR B Dusky Flycatcher Secure Secure 1 VU SR PoB Cordilleran/Pacific-slope Undetermin/ Undeterm/ 4 UC SR B Flycatcher Undetermined Secure Blue-headed Vireo Secure Secure 1 VU SR PrB Warbling Vireo Secure Secure 12 C SR B Gray Jay Secure Secure 22 28 C PR B Common Raven Secure Secure 4 69 UC PR PrB Tree Swallow Secure Secure 2 VU SR PrB Cliff Swallow Secure Secure 2 10 VU SV B Barn Swallow Sensitive Secure 3 UC SR B Black-capped Chickadee Secure Secure 8 C PR B Boreal Chickadee Secure Secure 2 19 VU PR B Red-breasted Nuthatch Secure Secure 3 4 UC PR B Winter Wren Secure Secure 5 2 UC SR B Golden-crowned Kinglet Secure Secure 10 13 C PR B Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 148

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Secure Secure 41 22 A SR B Townsend's Solitaire Secure Secure 2 VU SR PoB Swainson's Thrush Secure Secure 39 A SR B Hermit Thrush Secure Secure 10 8 C SR B American Robin Secure Secure 16 25 C SR B Varied Thrush Secure Secure 36 49 A SR B Cedar Waxwing Secure Secure 40 C SR B Tennessee Warbler Secure Secure 4 2 UC SR B Orange-crowned Warbler Secure Secure 18 2 C SR B Yellow-rumped Warbler Secure Secure 81 8 A SR B Black-throated Green Sensitive & Secure 1 VU SR PoB Warbler Special Concern Wilson's Warbler Secure Secure 11 C SR B Spotted Towhee Secure Secure 1 VU Ac O Chipping Sparrow Secure Secure 37 A SR B Clay-colored Sparrow Secure Secure 3 UC SR B Savannah Sparrow Secure Secure 2 VU SR B Lincoln's Sparrow Secure Secure 15 2 C SR B White-throated Sparrow Secure Secure 27 7 C SR B White-crowned Sparrow Secure Secure 1 VU M Dark-eyed Junco Secure Secure 37 20 A SR B Red-winged Blackbird Secure Secure 2 2 VU SR B Brown-headed Cowbird Secure Secure 3 1 UC SR B Purple Finch Secure Secure 3 UC SR B Red Crossbill Secure Secure 2 VU SV PoB White-winged Crossbill Secure Secure 1 VU SV O Pine Grosbeak Secure Secure 2 7 VU SR B Pine Siskin Secure Secure 21 1 C SR B

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 149 Appendix IV-1. Habitat association and abundance of bird species, Mercoal West LSA, 2004 breeding bird survey. H2 H5 H6 H7 H8 H10 H12 H21 H24 H25 H26 Ruffed Grouse M VL VL Sandhill Crane VL Greater Yellowlegs VL Solitary Sandpiper VL Wilson's Snipe M L L L Pileated Woodpecker VL Yellow-bellied Flycatcher L VL VL Dusky Flycatcher VL Warbling Vireo VL VL Gray Jay L L L L VL M M Common Raven VL VL Boreal Chickadee VL L VL VL Brown Creeper VL Red-breasted Nuthatch M VL VL VL M VL Golden-crowned Kinglet M VL L Ruby-crowned Kinglet L L L L M M M M Swainson's Thrush VH VL M M M M L L M Hermit Thrush VL L VL VL L M Varied Thrush L L L VL L L Orange-crowned Warbler M L VL M L Yellow-rumped Warbler M VH M H M H M M M M Wilson's Warbler M VL Common Yellowthroat VL Chipping Sparrow M VL L L L M Clay-colored Sparrow VL Lincoln's Sparrow L VL VL M M White-throated Sparrow M M VL M VL Dark-eyed Junco L M L M M VL M Purple Finch VL White-winged Crossbill VL VL M Pine Grosbeak M VL VL VL VL Pine Siskin M L L VL L VL VH (Very High) = 89 to 100 pairs/km² H (High) = 67 to 88 pairs/km² M (Medium) = 26 to 66 pairs/km² L (Low) = 11 to 25 pairs/km² VL (Very Low) = 1 to 10 pairs/km²

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 150 -

Appendix IV-2. Habitat association and abundance of bird species for the Yellowhead Tower, 2006 breeding bird survey. H2 H4 H5 H6 H8 H9 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H17 H18 H20 H22 H27 H28 H29 Mallard VL Bufflehead M Spruce Grouse VL Killdeer VL Spotted Sandpiper VL Wilson's Snipe VL VL VL L Northern Pygmy-Owl VL Northern Flicker VH VL L VL L Yellow-bellied M L L M Sapsucker Hairy Woodpecker L American Three-toed M Woodpecker Yellow-bellied Flycatcher VL M L L Pileated Woodpecker M Alder Flycatcher M M Dusky Flycatcher VL Pacific-slope Flycatcher VL VL M Blue-headed Vireo M Warbling Vireo L VL VL M L L L Gray Jay VL M M L L L M M M M VL M Common Raven L VL Cliff Swallow L Black-capped Chickadee M L VL M VL Boreal Chickadee VL M Red-breasted Nuthatch VL VL Winter Wren VL VL M Golden-crowned Kinglet VL L L VL Ruby-crowned Kinglet L VL M L M M M L L VL M M L Swainson's Thrush L M L M M M M M VL L M Hermit Thrush L L M M VL American Robin VL VL L VL L M M L M M Varied Thrush VL L M L M M M L M L L Tennessee Warbler VL VL VL L Orange-crowned Warbler L M L VL VL L L M L L VL L Yellow-rumped Warbler M M M M H L M VH M L M L M M L Black-throated Green M Warbler Wilson's Warbler VL M L L Chipping Sparrow L L M L M M L M M L M L L Clay-colored Sparrow L L Savannah Sparrow M Lincoln's Sparrow VL M L L M M L White-throated Sparrow M VH L L VL VH L M L L Dark-eyed Junco VL M M L VL VH VL M VL L L VH M M Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 151 -

Appendix IV-2. Habitat association and abundance of bird species for the Yellowhead Tower, 2006 breeding bird survey. Red-winged Blackbird L Brown-headed Cowbird M VL VL White-winged Crossbill VL Pine Grosbeak VL VL Pine Siskin VL VL L L L M M L M M VH (Very High) = 89 to 100 pairs/km² H (High) = 67 to 88 pairs/km² M (Medium) = 26 to 66 pairs/km² L (Low) = 11 to 25 pairs/km² VL (Very Low) = 1 to 10 pairs/km²

Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd. February 2008 - 152 -

Appendix “B”

LEGAL_CAL:15115031.2 Acta Chiropterologica, 18(1): 279–299, 2016 PL ISSN 1508-1109 © Museum and Institute of Zoology PAS doi: 10.3161/15081109ACC2016.18.1.017

Bat boxes — a review of their use and application, past, present and future

NIELS RUEEGGER1, 2, 3

1Australia School of Environment, Science and Engineering, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia 2Present address: 43 Rutland Road, Medlow Bath, NSW 2780, Australia 3E-mail: [email protected]

Loss of tree cavities presents a threat to tree roosting echolocating bat populations. Bat boxes have been used for over a century to provide artificial cavities. The aims of this review were to provide a synthesis of bat box use in temperate parts of the world, to discuss the applications and effectiveness of bat boxes, to provide box deployment recommendations and to identify areas requiring further research. The 109 publications reviewed originated from four regions. The majority were from Europe (70%) followed by North America (16%), Australia (12%) and Asia (3%). Publications reported box use for research (n = 67), conservation management (n = 42) and public bat awareness (n = 1). The most commonly used bat box designs could be divided into five basic types, four originating from Europe and one from North America. Woodcement as a box material was frequently used in Europe and was practically absent elsewhere with timber boxes most commonly used overall. Seventy-one species of bats have been recorded using boxes, although only 18 were identified as using boxes commonly and 31 species were reported to have formed maternity roosts. The lack of maternity and overwintering roost records in boxes is a concern. There is a need to test current box types across geographical regions and to develop designs further. Where boxes are used as a conservation tool, consideration should be given to the long-term maintenance costs of a box program. Unless known to be unsuitable to target species, boxes should be made from durable materials, be unattractive to non-target species and be ‘self-cleaning’. Deploying a variety of box designs in clusters, time since box installation, non-target species box competition and target species-specific box design elements are likely influencing box uptake. The provision of boxes that comprise different microclimates and box aspects are likely best suited to meet the varying needs of a given tree roosting echolocating bat community. No conclusive evidence was found that box installation height is important for box uptake. There is concern that boxes may provide a competitive advantage for bat species commonly using boxes. Bat boxes should not be used as a justification for the removal of trees that comprise potential roost cavities.

Key words: bat box, bat house, artificial roost, tree cavity-roosting bats, conservation

INTRODUCTION The development of cavities occurs through either natural processes such as fungal decay, in- It is well documented that industries such as min- sects, fire and/or wind (Mackowski, 1984; Inions et ing and agriculture, as well as poor silvicultural prac- al., 1989; Adkins, 2006; Fox et al., 2009) or through tices and urban sprawl, negatively impact wild- the activity of wood-excavating birds (Jones et al., life habitat worldwide (Gibbons and Linden mayer, 1994; Newton, 1994; Jackson and Jackson, 2004). 2002; Lindenmayer and Franklin, 2002; Mick- Cavity development through natural processes is leburgh et al., 2002; Niemelä et al., 2005; Young et slow, with cavity-bearing tree recruitment likely to al., 2005). One aspect of habitat degradation is the take > 100 years (Gibbons et al., 2000; Kalcounis- loss of trees that comprise hollows, fissures or de - Rüppell et al., 2005; Cameron, 2006; Vesk et al., corticating bark which provide potential roost or 2008). As such, depletion of cavity-bearing trees and nest sites for various fauna species. This loss has the the many decades it takes for cavities to be recruited potential to impact on population size, abundance have invariably led to current and future scarcities of and diversity of cavity-using species (e.g., Linden- this resource in many environments. mayer et al., 1990; Holt and Martin, 1997; Evelyn Tree cavity abundance needs to be considered and Stiles, 2003; Marsden and Pilgrim, 2003; by local management authorities where cavity- Cockle et al., 2011), particularly species that are not dependant fauna are a conservation priority through able to excavate cavities (Newton, 1994). determining whether the present and predicted 280 N. Rueegger abundance is sufficient to support viable popula- because the use of bat boxes has become a common tions. Where a cavity paucity is identified, there is management tool to mitigate or offset the loss of a need to devise a response. A common temporary natural cavities in some regions over recent years response is to deploy artificial cavities. Habitat (e.g., Goldingay and Stevens, 2009). Literature re- boxes (also termed nest and roost boxes) have been views on artificial roosts have been conducted pre- used for more than a century (Bruns, 1960), and for viously. Kowalski and Lesiński (1994) reviewed the several decades they have been used in many parts literature of bats using artificial cavities in Poland, of predominantly temperate regions (e.g., Issel and Goldingay and Stevens (2009) reviewed literature in Issel, 1955; Menkhorst, 1984; Stebbings and Walsh, Australia, and Mering and Chambers (2014) con- 1991; Tuttle et al., 2013). In addition to using habi- ducted an international review using 47 publications tat boxes as a conservation management tool, boxes on bats using artificial roosts. In contrast to earlier have also been used to conduct ecological research reviews, this paper; provides further differentia- (e.g., Beyer and Goldingay, 2006). tions and synthesis of current knowledge, draws on This review focuses on the use of bat boxes by a larger number of publications, focuses on the use of tree roosting echolocating bats (hereafter tree cav- bat boxes, provides consideration for their practical ity-roosting bats) which comprise a large proportion application and their implications of use, focuses on of mammal biodiversity worldwide (Hutson et al., tree cavity-roosting bats and provides guidelines for 2001; Kunz and Fenton, 2003). Echolocating bats future bat box applications based on the reviewed have a long life expectancy and low reproduction literature. The specific aims of this review are to: potential similar to large mammals (Barclay and 1) synthesise findings of bat box use across regions Harder, 2003). This life history makes bats vulnera- and analyse trends, 2) examine the historic regional ble to loss of roost sites because recovery is slow uses of bat boxes, 3) evaluate the effectiveness of (Barclay and Harder, 2003). A large proportion of using bat boxes as a conservation tool, 4) discuss bat a bat’s life is spent in roosts. Roosts are used for box designs and design elements, 5) provide guide- sheltering from weather, as a place to rest, protec- lines for future bat box programs in temperate re- tion from predators, mating, hibernation, rearing gions, and 6) identify areas in which bat box knowl- young and social interactions (Kunz and Fenton, edge is scarce to encourage future research. 2003). The quality of the roost site can influence the survival, fitness and reproduction of individuals MATERIALS AND METHODS (Li and Martin, 1991; Duplessis and Williams, 1994; Online searches of ‘Scopus’ were conducted using a variety Zahn, 1999). Therefore, managing the availability of of search terms related to bat boxes. Key words used were ‘bat’ suitable roost sites is an important consideration in and ‘box’, ‘artificial hollow’, ‘artificial roost’ and ‘bat house’. bat conservation. Fundamental roost site require- In addition, journal and book articles that did not come up in the ments for tree cavity-roosting bats include suitable searches but were cited in resulting publications were also re- viewed where they could be obtained. This included the use microclimates, protection from abiotic influences of a number of published papers in the German journal NYC - such as wind and water, protection from predators TA LUSand articles in the North American Bat Conservation and space to allow for the clustering of individual Interna tional (BCI) BATS magazine. It is thought that, whilst bats into colonies (e.g., for thermoregulation or rear- some studies may not have been extracted using the above ing young) (Entwistle et al., 1997; Sedgeley, 2001; methods, a comprehensive and representative set of literature search results were returned. This review focuses on species that Kunz and Fenton, 2003; Willis and Brigham, 2007). use hollows, fissures or decorticating bark for roosting and does There are gaps in our understanding of the specific not include evaluation of publications of large artificial roosting tree cavity roosting requirements of many bat spe- structures such as large ‘bat houses’ or ‘towers’ (e.g., Freer et cies and correspondingly, what box design, design al., 1998; Tuttle et al., 2013) or artificial roost caves (e.g., San- der, 1997). The species term Pipistrellus pipistrellus sensu lato elements and box setup are effective when deploy- was used in this paper for references made in reviewed publica- ing bat boxes (Goldingay and Stevens, 2009; Rho - tions prior to 2000. This species has until 1999 included two des and Jones, 2011; Mering and Chambers, 2014) cryptic species, now known as P. pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus along with the extent to which bat boxes can assist (Jones and Barratt, 1999; ICZN, 2003). From the obtained liter- ature, data were extracted that related to; bat box design and de- with bat management and research. sign elements, the applications and effectiveness of bat boxes, Attaining a comprehensive understanding of the factors that influenced bat box uptake across geographical re- bat box types used and describing the factors that gions and the species reported to have used boxes. Based on the have been attributed to the effectiveness of bat box reviewed data, recommended guiding principles are provided to inform future bat box deployment programs that seek to use bat deployments is highly relevant to further the effec- boxes as a conservation tool. Areas lacking scientific knowledge tiveness of future bat box applications. It is timely have been identified and described to stimulate future research. Bat boxes — a review of their use and application 281

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Overall, 109 studies originating from 17 coun- Community education tries that described the use of bat boxes (sometimes referred to as ‘bat houses’ in North America) in Research some detail were reviewed. Most publications were Conservation from Europe (n = 76), followed by North America (n = 17), Australia (n = 13) and Asia (n = 3) (Fig. 1). Seventy-one species were found in boxes, including 31 using boxes as maternity roosts and 18 species No. of publications were identified as using boxes commonly (Table 1). In Europe, a large number of locally occurring bat species (20 species) have been recorded to use Europe North America Australia Asia boxes, with 10 using boxes commonly and 11 found Region to have used boxes for maternity roosting. Similarly, FIG. 1. Number and type of the reviewed bat box publications a large number of North American bat species (36 per region species) were reported to use boxes, however, only six species were identified to commonly use boxes while 13 species were recorded to have used boxes numbers that would feed on forest pest insects to rear young. There is a lack of documented tree as was done previously with birds. At that time cavity-roosting bat species diversity using boxes in however, the idea was not well received (Altum, Australia, with only Gould’s wattled bat (Chalino - 1876). Elsewhere in Europe, records of bat boxes lobus gouldii) and Gould’s long-eared bat (Nycto - were used around the same time and early designs philus gouldi) reported to use boxes commonly were described in a book published in 1918 by (Table 1). Records of maternity roosts in boxes are Jolyet (Mayle, 1990; Stebbings and Walsh, 1991). largely restricted to C. gouldii, although low num- During that time, many thousands of bat boxes bers of maternity roosts have been recorded for four were deployed with several different designs trialled other species (Table 1). (Mayle, 1990; Stebbings and Walsh, 1991). Un - fortunately the extent and success of bat box use History of Regional Bat Box Use was largely undescribed in the literature until 1955, when Issel and Issel (1955) started using bat boxes The idea of using bat boxes to augment roost re- in a scientific context. Since then, publications on sources where cavity-bearing trees are depleted was the use of bat boxes have steadily increased, reach- suggested more than a century ago (Haensel and ing the highest number of publications in the 2000s. Näfe, 1982; Meschede and Heller, 2002). In North Of the reviewed literature, publications originat- America, the first known artificial bat roost was ing from Europe were most common for each of built in the early 1900s in Texas (Kiser, 2002). Large the decades since scientific publication started in tower-like roosts were built by a physician C. A. the 1950s. The first of the reviewed Austral ian and Campbell in an attempt to increase bat numbers and North American publications were in the 1980s and in turn reduce mosquito numbers and thus the threat 1990s respectively (Fig. 2). of Malaria infections (Storer, 1926; Murphy, 1989). Application and development of different designs Bat Box Designs and Materials became more widespread in North America during the 1980s and early 1990s as a tool for bat conserva- Five commonly used box design types were tion and insect pest management (Kiser, 2002; Tuttle identified, differing by cavity shape (voluminous et al., 2013). cavity vs fissure type cavity), box construction ma- In Europe, bats and birds were recognised as nat- terials, number of chambers and entrance location ural pest control agents and the scarcity of natural and shape (Fig. 3). Within design types, box dimen- cavities in coniferous plantations was identified as sions varied (see also Table 2). Four design types a threat to bird and bat populations (Mayle, 1990; originated from Europe and one from North Amer - Stebbings and Walsh, 1991). Gloger (1865) used bat ica. One design type is a ‘rectangular’ voluminous boxes as early as the mid-1800s in Germany to pro- timber box (hereafter ‘Stebbings and Walsh type’) vide roost resources with the aim of increasing bat which is described in Stebbings and Walsh (1991) 282 N. Rueegger

TABLE 1. List of species found in boxes across the four regions (Asia, Australia, Europe and North America). * — species recorded to have used boxes commonly, ** — species recorded to have used boxes as maternity roosts Asia P. pygmaeus (62, 67, 71, 77, 78, 81, 87, 92, 98)*, ** Pipistrellus abramus (70, 97)*, ** Plecotus auritus (2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, Scotophilus kuhlii (97) 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, 35, 37, 41, 42, 43, Vespertilio sinensis (88) 44, 49, 52, 63, 66, 76, 81, 85, 87, 89, 91, 99)*, ** Australia P. austriacus (6, 24, 42, 49) Austronomus australis (65, 90,105)** Vespertilio murinus (2, 29) Chalinolobus gouldii (11, 31, 51, 65, 79, 90, 105)*, ** North America C. morio (65, 90) Antrozous pallidus (73, 102) Falsistrellus tasmaniensis (11, 50) Carollia castanea (80, 101) Mormopterus norfolkensis (82) C. perspicillata (80, 101) Nyctophilus bifax (57, 93) C. sowelli (80, 101) N. geoffroyi (11, 50) Desmodus rotundus (80, 96, 100, 101) N. gouldi (57, 58, 79, 93)*, ** Eptesicus fuscus (46, 47, 54, 61, 64, 73, 75, 95, 102)*, ** Scotorepens orion (103)** Eumops floridanus (102)** Scoteanax rueppellii (57, 93) E. glaucinus (61)** Vespadelus darlingtoni (50, 65, 90, 103)** Glossophaga commissarisi (80, 101) V. regulus (50, 65, 90, 103) G. soricina (80, 101) Europe Idionycteris phyllotis (54) Barbastella barbastellus (105)** Lasionycteris noctivagans (75) Eptesicus nilssonii (8, 15, 16, 23, 28, 87, 92)** Lasiurus cinereus (108) E. serotinus (2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 12, 24, 25, 42, 49, 63) L. xanthinus (108) Myotis bechsteinii (1, 13, 14, 18, 19, 25, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 45, Micronycteris hirsute (80, 101) 53, 55, 60, 72, 74, 89)*, ** M. microtis (80, 101) M. brandtii (1, 6, 8, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24, 28, 33, M. schmidtorum (80, 101) 42)*, ** Mimon crenulatum (96, 100) M. dasycneme (26, 37, 38, 52, 81, 87)** Molossus molossus (102) M. daubentonii (1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 15, 16, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25, Myotis auriculus (95) 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, 37, 42, 44, 49, 52, 63)*, ** M. austroriparius (102)*, ** M. myotis (1, 6, 13, 14, 19, 21, 24, 25, 32, 33, 42, 44, 49, 63, 85) M. californicus (73) M. mystacinus (6, 24, 25, 33, 42, 44, 49) M. ciliolabrum (106) M. nattereri (6, 9, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 26, 32, 33, 36, 37, M. evotis (54, 95, 102)** 41, 42, 43, 49, 52, 74, 89, 91, 99)*, ** M. lucifugus (30, 47, 61, 64, 75, 95, 102)*, ** Nyctalus lasiopterus (48, 83) M. occultus (95)** N. leisleri (1, 6, 17, 24, 25, 32, 33, 42, 48, 49, 83, 86, 94)* M. septentrionalis (68, 75, 102)*, ** N. noctula (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, M. sodalis (61, 68, 75, 102)** 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, 35, 37, 40, 42, 44, 49, 52, M. thysanodes (106)** 63, 76, 81, 84, 85, 87, 107)*, ** M. velifer (102) Pipistrellus kuhlii (22, 56, 69) M. volans (95) P. nathusii (2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25, M. yumanensis (61, 73, 102)** 26, 28, 32, 33, 37, 38, 42, 44, 49, 52, 59, 63, 66, 67, 71, 76, Nycticeius humeralis (61, 102)*, ** 81, 85, 87)*, ** Perimyotis subflavus (102) P. pipistrellus (50, 53) Tadarida brasiliensis (61, 73, 102)*, ** P. pipistrellus sensu lato (6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, Trachops cirrhosis (80, 101) 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, 36, 37, 41, 42)*, ** References: 1. Issel and Issel, 1955; 2. Kurskow, 1968; 3. Stratmann, 1971; 4. Stratmann, 1973; 5. Luger, 1977; 6. Schmidt, 1977; 7. Stratmann, 1978; 8. Gerell, 1981; 9. Heise, 1980; 10. Dieterich, 1982; 11. Calder et al., 1983; 12. Heise, 1983; 13. Schwenke, 1983; 14. Schwenke, 1984; 15. Gerell, 1985; 16. Gerell and Lundberg, 1985; 17. Heise, 1985; 18. Taake and Hildenhagen, 1987; 19. Nagel and Nagel, 1988; 20. Boyd and Stebbings, 1989; 21. Oldenburg and Hackethal, 1989; 22. Benzal, 1990; 23. Gerell and Lundberg, 1990; 24. Schmidt, 1990; 25. Schwarting, 1990; 26. Dieterich and Dieterich, 1991; 27. Gerell and Gerell Lundberg, 1993; 28. Gerell-Lundberg and Gerell, 1994; 29. Kowalski and Lesiński, 1994; 30. Neilson and Fenton, 1994; 31. Irvin and Bender, 1995; 32. König and König, 1995; 33. Weishaar, 1995; 34. Kerth and König, 1996; 35. Dieterich and Dieterich, 1997; 36. Altringham, 1998; 37. Dieterich, 1998; 38. Dieterich and Dieterich, 1998; 39. Dieterich et al., 1998; 40. Heise and Blohm, 1998; 41. Park et al., 1998; 42. Schmidt, 1998; 43. Weidner, 1998; 44. Haensel and Tismer, 1999; 45. Kerth and König, 1999; 46. Arnett and Hayes, 2000; 47. Brittingham and Williams, 2000; 48. Dondini and Vergari, 2000; 49. Schmidt, 2000; 50. Ward, 2000; 51. Bender and Irvin, 2001; 52. Kasprzyk and Ruczyński 2001; 53. Kerth et al., 2001; 54. Chambers, 2002; 55. Kerth et al., 2002; 56. Meschede and Heller, 2002; 57. Rhodes, 2002; 58. Smith and Agnew, 2002; 59. Jarzembowski, 2003; 60. Kerth and Reckardt, 2003; 61. Kiser and Kiser, 2004; 62. Lourenço and Palmeirim, 2004; 63. Wendorf, 2004; 64. White, 2004; 65. Bender, 2005; 66. Ciechanowski, 2005; 67. Flaquer et al., 2005; 68. Ritzi et al., 2005; 69. Boye and Dietz, 2005; 70. Chan, 2006; 71. Flaquer et al., 2006; 72. Kerth et al., 2006; 73. Long et al., 2006; 74. Siemers and Swift, 2006; 75. Whitaker et al., 2006; 76. Baranauskas, 2007; 77. Bartonička and Gaisler, 2007; 78. Bartonička and Řehák, 2007; 79. Goldingay et al., 2007; 80. Kelm et al., 2008; 81. Baranauskas, 2009; 82. Churchill, 2009; 83. Dondini and Vergari, 2009; 84. Görföl et al., 2009; 85. Lesiński et al., 2009; 86. Schorcht, 2009; 87. Baranauskas, 2010; 88. Fukui et al., 2010; 89. Schöner et al., 2010; 90. Bender, 2011; 91. Meddings et al., 2011; 92. Michaelsen, 2011; 93. Rhodes and Jones, 2011; 94. Vergari and Dondini, 2011; 95. Mering and Chambers, 2012; 96. Reid and Casallas-Pabón, 2012; 97. Shek et al., 2012; 98. Bartonička and Růžičková, 2013; 99. Dodds and Bilston, 2013; 100. Reid et al., 2013; 101. Salazar et al., 2013; 102. Tuttle et al., 2013; 103. Bender et al., 2014; 104. Chytil, 2014; 105. Fletcher, 2014; 106. Horncastle et al., 2008 and 2009; 107. Voigt et al., 2014; 108. Wilhelm, 2012 Bat boxes — a review of their use and application 283

Asia (Freer et al., 1998) and Australia (Agnew and Veary, 2008). Little is published about the effectiveness of Australia these ‘houses’, although some success has been re- North America ported (Freer et al., 1998; Bayless, 2006; Tuttle et

Europe al., 2013). The internal box volumes in the reviewed publications ranged between 1.88 dm3 to 46.93 dm3. Timber was the most commonly used box construc- tion material, although woodcement has also been used extensively in Europe since the 1950s (Bäum -

No. of publications ler, 1988), whereas little use of this material has been reported in North America, Australia and Asia (Fig. 4).

Box design elements Box design element preferences are likely to dif- Time fer between species. European studies indicated that FIG. 2. Number of reviewed publications by decade and region the preference for interior shape and volume of boxes varies, with some species preferring a ‘flat’ box design (Heise, 1983; Gerell, 1985; Taake and and also comprises the ‘Issel’ box design described Hildenhagen, 1987; Dieterich and Dieterich, 1988; in Issel and Issel (1955) for the purpose of this re- Meschede and Heller, 2002), whereas others prefer view. It is a single chambered box that resembles a voluminous box (Gerell 1985; Taake and Hil- a voluminous tree cavity. The box type comprises of denhagen, 1987; Heise and Blohm, 1998; Boye and a narrow bottom entrance slit at the base of the box Dietz, 2005). Other box design elements suggested (Stebbings and Walsh, 1991). The second European to be important include; pointed roofs, horizontal box type frequently used is the ‘Stratmann type’. grooves on internal walls, distance from entrance to This timber box is generally taller and narrower than roof (Dieterich, 1982; Wendorf, 2004), large multi- the Stebbings and Walsh type and resembles a fis- chambered boxes (Flaquer et al., 2006; Baranauskas, sure type cavity (Stratmann, 1971). The entrance is 2010; Tuttle et al., 2013) and painted box exterior to through an open bottom slit (Stratmann, 1971). The influence box microclimate (Kerth et al., 2001; third and fourth European design types are made up Lourenço and Palmeirim, 2004; Fukui et al., 2010). of woodcement, a mixture of sawdust and cement. Box entrance has been shown to be important One type has a cylindrical voluminous shape, the to meet target species requirements. For example, other a rectangular fissure-like shape (see Dodds Bender (2011) used narrower entrances to exclude and Bilston, 2013). The fifth design type was devel- a bat species that dominated use and instead attract- oped by BCI (Tuttle et al., 2013), hereafter referred ed smaller species with some success. Entrance size to as ‘BCI type’. This type is a large box that con- selection also needs to consider the minimum size tains multiple, often four or five, narrow chambers. requirement to allow pregnant females of a given Exterior colour, air vents and multiple chambers target species access (e.g., Dieterich and Dieterich, are used to influence box temperature and to attract 1991; Heise and Blohm, 1998). In Europe, some maternity roosting. Access into the box chambers is authors recommend entrance size not to exceed through open bottom slit entrances. 18 mm to exclude birds that could outcompete bats Several less commonly used design types have (Gerell, 1985; Stebbings and Walsh, 1991), how- been reported in the reviewed papers. In more recent ever, this will depend on the target species and years, four North American studies have trialled may range from 12 mm for small species (e.g., structures that resemble decorticating bark using Bender, 2011) up to 40 mm (e.g., Tuttle et al., 2013). materials such as resin, plastic, tarpaper or shingles, It has also been reported that some bat species may as well as injuring tree trunks and wedging up bark prefer an entrance location positioned in the front (Siders and Sinton, 1998; Chambers et al., 2002; panel of a box whereas other species may favour Whitaker et al., 2006; Mering and Chambers, 2012). entering boxes through a bottom opening (Gerell, Large bat ‘houses’ that have the potential to house 1985). several thousand bats have been trialled in North The accumulation of guano in boxes (Stratmann, America (Bayless, 2006; Tuttle et al., 2013), Europe 1978; Dieterich, 1982; Wolz, 1986) and natural 284 N. Rueegger

FIG. 3. Commonly used bat box design types. A1 — narrow woodcement type; A2 — voluminous woodcement type; B — Stebbings and Walsh type; C — BCI style multi-chambered type with vents; and D — Stratmann box type. Note: box dimensions vary between publications cavities (Stratmann, 1978) has the potential to cause from Australia and are outlined in Table 2. Most of bats to abandon roosts. Using box designs with an the studies lacked statistical analysis. The only study open bottom to allow guano to fall out can eliminate testing box design preference between the Stebbings this risk. The Stratmann box was the first design and Walsh and Stratmann design types found that without a bottom panel. Nathusius’ pipistrelle (Pipistrellus nathusii) showed a significant preference for the Stebbings and Walsh Bat Box Design Preferences box. In addition, three maternity roosts were found in the Stebbings and Walsh type while none were Bat box design preference studies are relative- found in the Stratmann type. In a subsequent ly scarce with the 17 studies reviewed providing study (Bara nauskas, 2010), BCI type boxes were tri- limited insight. Of those, nine were from Europe, alled in addition to the Stebbings and Walsh and three from North America, three from Asia and two Strat mann designs, with larger maternity colony Bat boxes — a review of their use and application 285

Asia Management applications Bat boxes in Europe, particularly in Germany Australia and the United Kingdom, have frequently been em- North America ployed as a conservation tool to supplement roost- Europe ing opportunities (e.g., Issel and Issel, 1955; Bruns, 1960; Bäumler, 1988; Altringham, 1998; Meschede and Heller, 2002). In North America and Australia,

No. of studies bat boxes have also been used as a conservation tool and mitigation measure in landscapes scarce in nat- ural cavities (e.g., Dillingham et al., 2003; Ritzi et al. 2005; Goldingay and Stevens, 2009). In Aus - Stebbings Stratmann Woodcement Multi- tralia, the prescription to offset lost cavity-bearing chambered trees with boxes is becoming a common practice by Box design types consent authorities for large scale development proj- FIG. 4. Design types used in publications across regions. Note: ects in some regions (Goldingay and Stevens, 2009). some publications used more than one design and some studies Bat box literature from Asia is scarce, however, the did not provide details on box designs potential for using bat boxes as a conservation tool has been acknowledged (e.g., Chan, 2006; Shek et formation report ed in the BCI type compared to the al., 2012). Stebbings and Walsh type. Another suggested management application is Several European publications reported a prefer- the use of bat boxes to provide alternative roost re- ence for boxes made of woodcement over timber sources for bats roosting in houses (Brigham and (Gerell, 1985; Haensel and Tismer, 1999; Kasprzyk Fenton, 1986; Neilson and Fenton, 1994; Britting - and Ruczyński, 2001; Dodds and Bilston, 2013), ham and Williams, 2000; Lourenço and Palmeirim, whereas Weidner (1998) found that timber boxes 2004; Flaquer et al., 2006). Conflicts with humans were preferred by the Natterer’s bat (Myotis nat- can occur as noise or smell may become a nuisance tereri) during the reproduction phase with woodce- or occupants may have health concerns (Lourenço ment boxes only used during spring and autumn. and Palmeirim, 2004; Fukui et al., 2010). Docu - A study undertaken by König and König (1995) and mented success of using boxes to provide an alterna- Dieterich (1998) found that bats used different box tive roost resource for bats using houses is limited types for maternity, hibernation, mating and disper- however (Neilson and Fenton, 1994; Brittingham sal roosting. This suggests that roost requirements and Williams, 2000) and some bat species commonly change across seasons and that any one of the com- found roosting in houses, such as Rhino lophus spp. monly used box types is unlikely to meet all roost (horseshoe bats), are not known to use boxes due to requirements. their roost requirements (e.g., Roer, 1971; Kayik cio - glu and Zahn, 2004; Boye and Dietz, 2005). Applications of Bat Boxes Effectiveness of bat boxes as a conservation tool Sixty-seven of the reviewed publications used This review shows that bat boxes have provided bat boxes for research purposes, 42 for bat conserva- roost habitat for several bat species, with fewer spe - tion and one for community education. Many of the cies using boxes commonly, to rear young or to hi- research studies initially deployed bat boxes as bernate. It appears rational that boxes have the po- a management tool to mitigate local tree cavity tential to increase populations of some bat species in scarcity and subsequent box monitoring resulted in situations where natural roost sites are a limiting re- publications. The classification of bat box applica- source (e.g., Nagel and Nagel, 1988; Schwenke, tion was based on the publication’s context and not 1988; Schmidt, 1990). However, empirical evidence what the initial aim of box deployment may have is largely absent (e.g., Heise, 1983; Schmidt, 1990) been. In Europe, North America and Asia, the num- as very few strategic long-term monitoring studies ber of publications relating to bat box use for re- have been conducted (but see Boyd and Stebbings, search was proportionally higher compared to box 1989; Schmidt, 2000; Bender, 2011; Heise and use for conservation purposes, whereas in Australia, Blohm, 2012). a higher number of publications described box use The extent of competitive interactions for as a conservation tool (Fig. 1). bat boxes between bat species is unclear. Some 286 N. Rueegger showed . P. abramus P. P nathusii P displayed a preference for C. gouldii individuals was significantly higher in black boxes than P. abramus P. white or grey boxes for the first three years. After two years, white or grey boxes for the first three years. during temperature extremes, black boxes reached temperatures over the soprano roosts with almost equal use between designs in second year. pipistrelle’s thermal neutral zone. pipistrelle’s boxes trialled. woodcement boxes was identified to be beneficial. in-between the two Based on the findings, a new box was designed with dimensions Boxes with easterly aspect, double compartment and boxes on poles and houses Boxes with easterly aspect, double compartment and boxes on poles over sun During lactation (no maternity roosts formed), bats preferred shaded 2-chambered and 4-chambered bat boxes close to equal use. 62.5 % for 2-chambered 2-chambered and 4-chambered bat boxes close to equal use. 62.5 % boxes to timber boxes. Species specific entrance location preference was suggested. (rather than trees) were preferred during maternity season. box competition by birds. The two largest woodcement boxes were preferred, although influenced by seasonal woodcement boxes were preferred, although influenced The two largest exposed boxes of either box colour. Post lactation, bats displayed preference for exposed boxes of either box colour. white over black boxes. Close to equal use between designs (nine timber and eight resin roosts used). Close to equal use between designs (nine timber highest number of species (six spp.). Three maternity roosts in Stebbings and Walsh design, none in Stratmann design. Walsh Three maternity roosts in Stebbings and . (2006) for description of each design artificial bark was limited). et al See Whitaker 120 × 98; 430 205 100), 2 with single box microclimates but not choice by bats. (18 × 15.5 10). Exterior box colours were trialled BCI box (white, grey and black) for the large BCI box over the smaller design. a preference for the large 4-chambered BCI type; Stebbings and Walsh type Walsh 4-chambered BCI type; Stebbings and compartment and one with two compartments) colours (black, grey and white) (40 × 46) vs white) and locations (shade sun exposed positions). significant preference of lactating females for warm over cold boxes. ‘Issel’ design ‘Issel’ Tismer (1999) for design descriptions Tismer cement. See Gerell (1985) for description of each design based assumed drier box microclimate and better insulation properties of cement (43 × 27; 33 × 16; 36 × 16; 44 × 29) 19 × 20 10; 2-compartment: 10) and white boxes (16.5 × 19 × 7); 1 × 4 chambered (44.5 × 58 × 12)) and 57.0 % for 4-chambered design. wall thickness and entrance size. See Bender (2011)for design descriptions Resin and timber roosts resembling exfoliating bark (60 × 60) box volume. large (35 × 4 × 15); BCI 4-chambered type (30 × 15 × 15);BCI 5-chambered type design (55 × 35 × 19.5) designs. Stratmann design recorded Walsh roosts in BCI compared to Stebbings and Stratmann (35 × 4 15) design attracting five species, Stratmann type two species. Walsh Stebbings and (2006)/USA designs (boxes and artificial bark type designs). Various bark (although longevity of Bat boxes were preferred over designs resembling artificial . (2006)/Spain types (1-compartment: Walsh 2 × Stebbings and . (2010)/Japan Stratmann type (100 × 40 10) made up of black . (2001)/Germany exterior colours (black box with different Woodcement of pregnant females and in preferring cold over warm boxes Significant difference . (2012)/Hong Kong (79 × 44 13.5) and 1 small (43 28.5 1 large The number of et al. et al 2. Summary of reviewed bat box design and element preference studies Reference/Country Bat box designs/elements (dimensions in cm) Results et al et al et al ABLE USA USA (2004)/Portugal Germany Germany England Australia T Whitaker Shek Rhodes and Jones (2011)/ Rhodes and Jones (2011)/ types (varying in volume (170 ×Walsh 3 × Stebbings and Box colour and volume influenced No box design element preference was identified. Mering and Chambers (2012)/ Resin and timber roosts resembling exfoliating bark roosts more frequently than the timber In the first year of monitoring, bats used resin Kerth Lourenço and Palmeirim exterior 3-chambered BCI box design trialling 3 different high box temperatures, although Black boxes identified to be most suitable due Issel and (1955)/ (60 × 25 15) Small (35 × 25 10) and large Haensel and Tismer (1999)/ Tismer Haensel and Nine timber and woodcement designs. See Haensel timber or textile interior in boxes preferred over timber boxes. Using Woodcement Gerell (1985)/Sweden Seven designs made up of wood, pores concrete and wood- boxes. Suggested due to Porous concrete and woodcement preferred over timber Fukui Flaquer Chan (2006)/Hong KongDodds and Bilston (2013)/ BCI multi-chambered type (1 × 2-chambered 1 wood (44 × 12 ×12); 4 × woodcement types Chambers (2002)/USA Baranauskas (2009)/Lithuania (25 × 10 Walsh Stebbings and 15); box by Walsh Significant preference for the Stebbings and Baranauskas (2010)/Lithuania type (25 ×Walsh Stebbings and 10 × 15); Stratmann type maternity roosts. Larger designs used as maternity Bender (2011)/AustraliaWalsh BCI and Stebbings in volume, type. Designs differed Walsh Stebbings and Pattern of use varied between years, although Bat boxes — a review of their use and application 287 competition and displacement from boxes between known to use tree-cavities in mainland Europe is species has been described (Dieterich, 1982; Gerell listed as threatened under IUCN and only two tree and Lundberg, 1985; Nagel and Nagel, 1988; cavity-roosting bat species [M. sodalis and Florida Schwarting, 1990; Dieterich and Dieterich, 1991; bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus)] on mainland König and König, 1995; Flaquer et al., 2005; North America and one on mainland Australia [east- Bender, 2011). There are, however, some records of coast freetail bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis)] are interspecific box use (Calder et al., 1983; Heise, listed. All three of these species have been recorded 1983; Flaquer et al., 2005; Shek et al., 2012; Tuttle using bat boxes (Table 1). et al., 2013; Ben der et al., 2014), including the con- current use of box es by two species as maternity sites Effectiveness of current bat box designs.—The (Heise, 1983). lack of common box use by many mainland tree It is uncertain whether the provision of boxes can cavity-roosting species, including the absence of cause changes in the make-up of a local bat commu- maternity and hibernation roost records (Table 1) nity (Meschede and Heller, 2002; Mering and across the geographical regions where bat boxes Chambers, 2014). Do bats that make high use of have been used, indicates that the box designs tri- boxes become locally more prolific and therefore alled are inadequate for a large number of species. have a competitive advantage over other locally oc- There is a lack of trialling different box types across curring tree cavity-roosting bat species? There is regions, as well as a lack of scientific investigations some preliminary evidence to suggest this. In on box type preferences of local species using statis- Australia, the most common species reported to use tical analysis. Apart from European publications, bat boxes are C. gouldii and N. gouldi (Calder et al., detailed description of the box designs used is 1983; Bender and Irvine, 2001; Smith and Agnew, sparse, and except for two Costa Rican studies that 2002; Bender, 2011; Evans and Lumsden, 2011; used woodcement boxes (Kelm et al., 2008; Reid et Rhodes and Jones, 2011; Fletcher, 2014) and there al., 2013), this material has only been used in Eu ro - has been concern that C. gouldii may displace some pe. In addition, the European Stratmann and Steb- bat species (Bender, 2011). Bender (2005) noted that bings and Walsh box types have been used sparingly before box installation, harp trapping data indicated in other regions, whereas the BCI design has only that the C. gouldii was not particularly abundant, commonly been used in North America (Fig. 4). whereas the little forest bat (Vespadelus vulturnus) Currently, box designs do not generally differ be- (a small 4-g species) was captured frequently. After tween maternity and other day roosts. The multi- 10 years of box installation in regrowth forest lack- chambered BCI box type was the only box type ing natural cavities, capture frequencies were re- found to be designed to attract maternity roosting versed. In a North American study, the high box use (Tuttle et al., 2013). In Europe, maternity roosts of by a non-target species, the northern myotis (Myotis several species have been documented in box design septentrionalis), and the low box use by the target types smaller than the BCI type. However, initial species, the threatened Indiana myotis (Myotis so- tests of the BCI type in Europe reported some suc- dalis) (Ritzi et al., 2005; Whitaker et al., 2006), may cess (Baranauskas, 2010; Michaelsen, 2011) with have resulted in a competitive advantage of M. se- Baranauskas (2010) recording large colony forma- ptentrionalis. These reports suggest that bat boxes tion (Table 2). In Australia, maternity roosts in bat could have an adverse effect on the local bat species boxes are scarcely reported for most species (Table composition and warrants future research. 1). The use of BCI type designs have not been re- Very few publications are available that describe ported in Australia apart from three boxes used by the deployment of bat boxes to specifically target Bender (2011), which were subsequently removed threatened species. Judging the effectiveness of bat due to reported difficulty in monitoring. boxes based on the number of threatened species Little information is available about suitable listed under the IUCN Red List (e.g., Mering and over-wintering box designs. Stebbings and Walsh Chambers, 2014) is not adequate. This is because (1991) report that their standard box design is used many threatened species (species listed as vulnera- throughout the year except when temperatures fall ble, endangered or critically endangered) are local- below -4°C. They describe an alternative winter box ly restricted and most bat boxes have been used design with thicker walls which has not been widely in parts of mainland Europe, North America and tested and with limited success reported by Bender Australia where threatened IUCN listed tree cavity- (2005, 2011). Haensel and Näfe (1982) comment roosting bats are largely absent. No bat species that none of the timber or woodcement boxes are 288 N. Rueegger likely to be frost proof and as such would not record of resident P. nathusii in the Iberian Pen- provide adequate winter roosts. Dieterich (1998) re- insula, Spain, through nest box monitoring, while ported woodcement box use for hibernation by com- Schmidt (1989) found four species of bats that were mon noctule (Nyctalus noctula) in Germany, how- not known previously to occur in his study area ever, 20 of the 80 hibernating individuals were using bat boxes. Dieterich and Dieterich (1998) found dead in spring, thought to be due to insuffi- recorded the most northern Bechstein’s bat (Myotis cient thermal protection. More recently, Voigt et al. bechsteinii) maternity roost for Europe at the time (2014) reported that cylindrical-shaped woodcement and Görföl et al. (2009) detailed new breeding boxes provided hibernacula for N. noctula. They records of N. noctula that extended the known range suggest that artificial winter roosts can be an impor- in Hungary, using a combination of bat boxes and tant management tool in the face of decreasing nat- mist netting. ural hibernacula for tree cavity-roosting species in- cluding migratory species. Factors Influencing Bat Box Uptake

Research Natural cavity abundance and forest type Boxes have been used extensively for research The abundance of natural cavities, which is often purposes (Fig. 1) and have been deployed in various related to forest age and type (e.g., Smith et al., landscapes of both low and high natural tree cavity 2008; Vesk et al., 2008; Fox et al., 2009), as well as abundance. They have been used to study bat popu- anthropogenic disturbance (e.g., Gibbons and Lin - lations (e.g., Boyd and Stebbings, 1989; Gerell and denmayer, 2002; Young et al., 2005), may influence Lundberg, 1990; Benzal, 1991; Gerell and Gerell box uptake. Low numbers of potential natural roost Lundberg, 1993; Schorcht et al., 2009) and to inves- cavities likely results in small bat populations which tigate the structure of local bat communities (using may affect box uptake (Goldingay and Stevens, bird boxes) (Kasprzyk and Ruczyński, 2001). Boxes 2009), whereas high natural cavity abundance is have also been used to study the social structures of likely to support large bat populations and the fre- bats (e.g., Park et al., 1998; Kerth and König, 1999; quency of box uptake may be high in such land- Kerth et al., 2002, 2006), as well as to investigate scapes. Some studies suggest that natural cavities the information transfer between individuals for are preferred over artificial ones (e.g., Smith and roost sites (Kerth and Reckardt, 2003). Other box re- Agnew, 2002; Ciechanowski, 2005; Rhodes and search applications have included studies on bat ec- Jones, 2011), whereas Schwarting (1994) reported toparasite levels and their effect on roost switching that natural cavity abundance did not influence bat behaviour (Bartonička and Gaisler, 2007; Bartonička box use, and Weissmann (1997) reported that bat and Růžičková, 2013), microclimate requirements boxes were preferred over natural cavities during the (Kerth et al., 2001; Lourenço and Palmeirim, 2004; maternity season. One difference between natural Bartonička and Řehák, 2007; Fukui et al., 2010), and artificial cavities is that boxes are less likely to mating structures (Dondini and Vergari, 2009; provide the same variety of cavity diversity, such as Vergari and Dondini, 2011), migratory patterns size differences or microclimates found in a mature (Jarzembowski, 2003; Voigt et al., 2014), prey com- intact forest. Another factor that may influence rate petition between congeneric species (Siemers and of box uptake is the forest type in which boxes are Swift, 2006), the roost switching/predator avoidance deployed. Cie chanowski (2005) hypothesised that hypothesis (Threlfall et al., 2013) and bat facilitated broad-leaved and coniferous forests influence box rain-forest regeneration (Kelm et al., 2008; Reid et microclimates and abundance of invertebrates using al., 2013). boxes differently which in turn may affect the rate at which boxes are used. Species detection.—Any given bat survey tech- nique has limitations and may not always identify all Time since box installation species. For example, bat call recorders are limited The time it took for bats to use boxes varied con- as not all species can be confidently identified using siderably between studies. A lag time of > one year this technique (e.g., Fenton and Bell, 1981; Adams before the first use was recorded in some studies et al., 2010). One use of boxes is simply to detect (e.g., Schmidt, 1977; Haensel and Näfe, 1982; Die - locally occurring species and aid in determining terich, 1998; Bender, 2005). It is poorly understood how widespread a species is within a given area. For how bats find new roost sites. It has been suggested example, Flaquer et al. (2005) detected the first that locating new roosts is time consuming, may Bat boxes — a review of their use and application 289 only be found if they are in close range of existing provided woodcement bat boxes during the birds’ roosts, that species well adapted to navigate through breeding season. In order to reduce box competition, vegetation are more likely to find new roosts quicker bird boxes were subsequently deployed resulting in (Ruczyński et al., 2009) and that visual cues may be a reduction of bat box competition (Meddings et al., important (Ruczyński et al., 2011). It has also been 2011). Non-flying vertebrates have also been re - postulated that once a new roost is found, other bats corded to compete for bat boxes, including non-fly- are able to find the roost more easily through ‘eaves- ing mammals (Bender and Irvine, 2001; Smith and dropping’ on social calls made by bats inside Agnew, 2002; Baranauskas, 2009; Bender, 2011) the roost (Wilkinson, 1992; Ruczyński et al., 2007; and reptiles (Rhodes and Jones, 2011). Schön er et al., 2010; Furmankiewicz et al., 2011; The use of bat boxes by invertebrate species, Chaverri et al., 2014). However, given the necessity such as wasps, can be common (e.g., Schwenke, and importance of roost sites and that tree cavity- 1983; Ciechanowski, 2005; Baranauskas, 2009). It roosting bats cannot build refuges, it may be that is unclear whether wasps exclude bats from boxes. bats are highly adapted in finding and remembering Several studies reported exclusion (Gerell, 1985; roost site locations (Kerth et al., 2001). As such, the Ciechanowski, 2005; Baranauskas, 2009), whereas reason for a long delay in bat box uptake may be due others reported co-habitation (Stratmann, 1978; to factors other than bats not finding boxes, includ- König and König, 1995). Ants have also been iden- ing the local abundance of bats. Several studies tified to exclude bats from boxes comprising of have recorded bat box uptake of < five months (e.g., a bottom panel (i.e., Stebbings and Walsh type) Hack ethal and Oldenburg, 1983; Nagel and Nagel, (Bender, 2011; Rhodes and Jones, 2011). It is un- 1988; Kerth et al., 2001, 2006; Shek et al., 2012; clear what effect other invertebrates, such as spiders Tuttle et al., 2013) with the shortest reported box (and their webs) or gastropods, have on bat box use vacancy of only three days (Stratmann, 1971). It by the target species. Preschel (1997) and Cie cha - may be that bats take up boxes more quickly where nowski (2005) reported that slugs have the potential they have been exposed to them in the past (e.g., to make boxes unattractive to bats. Issel, 1958; Heise, 1985). Heise (1985) postulated To reduce non-target species using bat boxes, de- that bats displayed an active period of roost site ploying boxes that are open at the bottom and com- search that started after young were reared and prise of narrow multiple chambers (e.g., BCI multi- ceased when bats started hibernation. ple chamber design) are unlikely used by most Time since box installation has also been attrib- non-target species, yet have been shown to be attrac- uted to the rate at which bat boxes are occupied. tive, at least for some bat species, across geographi- Agnelli et al. (2011) reported that time since place- cal regions (e.g., Baranauskas, 2010; Shek et al., ment affected box occupancy, with boxes in place 2012; Tuttle et al., 2013). Using boxes with a nar- for two years recording a 40% occupancy success, row entrance has also been shown to exclude non- whereas boxes installed one year ago and < 1 year target mammals in Stebbings and Walsh designs ago recorded box occupancies of 26% and 12%, (e.g., Bender, 2011). respectively. Authors report that box uptake may increase over a period of 10 years post bat box in- Importance of box microclimate stallation (e.g., Boyd and Stebbings, 1989; Bender, Given that more than half of an echolocating 2011). bat’s life is spent roosting (Kunz and Lumsden, 2003) and that echolocating bats are heterothermic Non-target species mammals, roosts have the potential to influence en- Boxes designed for birds have been used by bats ergy expenditure considerably (Campbell et al., (e.g., Benzal, 1991; Kowalski and Lesiński, 1994; 2010) through thermoregulation and/or passive König and König, 1995; Haensel and Tismer, 1999; rewarming from daily torpor (Turbill et al., 2003a, Kasprzyk and Ruczyński, 2001; Jarzembowski, 2003b; Ruczyński and Bogdanowicz, 2005; Turbill, 2003; Siemers and Swift, 2006). There is strong 2006a). Microclimate selection is often considered evidence, however, that birds displace bats from to be an important factor in the uptake of natural and boxes during their breeding season, even in boxes artificial roosts (e.g., Gerell, 1985; Nagel and Nagel, designed for bats (Haensel and Näfe, 1982; Gerell, 1988; Cryan et al., 2001; Sedgeley, 2001; Kunz 1985; König and König, 1995; Baranauskas, 2009; and Lumsden, 2003; Whitaker et al., 2006; Boyles, Meddings et al., 2011; Dodds and Bilston, 2013). In 2007). Empirical field data, however, are largely a study in England, birds used > 40% of the absent to inform whether roost sites are indeed 290 N. Rueegger selected for microclimates (Boyles, 2007; Willis and Hackethal, 1989; Schwarting, 1990; Schmidt, and Brigham, 2007) and how different box construc- 1998). Boyd and Stebbings (1989) and Stebbings tion materials, such as timber and woodcement, may and Walsh (1991) suggested boxes be installed in influence box microclimate. clusters on the same tree facing different aspects. It It is likely that microclimate preferences differ is largely agreed that boxes should be placed in lo- between species, age classes, sex and seasons cations where the flight path to the entrance is free (Schmidt, 1990; König and König, 1995; Fukui et of vegetation (e.g., Issel and Issel, 1955; Schmidt, al., 2010). There is some evidence that individuals 1977; Haensel and Näfe, 1982). in temperate regions select sites that facilitate torpor It is unclear where the most suitable place of box by choosing thermally unstable roosts that allow installation is within the landscape and species pref- passive rewarming (e.g., Geiser and Ruf, 1995; Tur - erences likely differ. Some authors report that boxes bill et al., 2003a; Geiser et al., 2004; Turbill, 2006a, are best installed along forest edges or pathways 2006b). In sub-tropical and tropical climates, select- (e.g., Issel and Issel, 1955; Schmidt, 1977; Olden - ing roosts for cooler, relatively constant tempera- burg and Hackethal, 1989), whereas others report tures and high humidity is likely important (Usman, that box installation in the forest interior is preferred 1988; Smith and Agnew, 2002; Rhodes and Jones, (e.g., Nagel and Nagel, 1988; Schwarting, 1990). 2011; Reid et al., 2013). The most convincing evi- The installation of boxes near water has also been dence found for the importance of box temperatures noted as a potential contributor to box uptake was for females forming maternity colonies. Stud- (Haensel and Näfe, 1982; Long et al., 2006; Rhodes ies showed that in temperate regions, particu- and Jones, 2011; Tuttle et al., 2013), although larly after parturition, warm boxes were selected Wendorf (2004) noted that this factor did not influ- by the species studied (Brittingham and Williams, ence box uptake in his study. There are reports that 2000; Kerth et al., 2001; Lourenço and Palmeirim, boxes mounted on poles or dwellings are preferred 2004). To provide warm box temperatures, paint- over boxes installed on trees (Flaquer et al., 2006) or ing the box exterior black and installing boxes in that uptake is quicker and in larger numbers (White, sun exposed locations should be considered (see 2004; Tuttle et al., 2013). Such a preference may be Kerth et al., 2001; Fukui et al., 2010; Tuttle et al., explained due to boxes on trees receiving less 2013). sun exposure, predator access being more likely Box aspect and sun exposure is a commonly dis- (Fla quer et al., 2006; Tuttle et al., 2013) or boxes cussed factor when installing bat boxes although lit- being less readily found by bats (Flaquer et al., tle empirical field data is available (e.g., Dillingham 2006; Ruczyński et al., 2011; Tuttle et al., 2013). et al., 2003). The few available findings diverge The reported box hosts in the reviewed publications which further supports the view that microclimate were trees (74%), poles (15%), dwellings (9%) and preferences likely differ between species, sexes and bridges (2%). time of year. Boxes receiving morning and midday There is no clear empirical evidence that bat sun (Dillingham et al., 2003; Flaquer et al., 2006; boxes need to be installed over a specific height. Mer ing and Chambers, 2012), sun exposed boxes There have been reports of boxes used ≤ 1 m above (Gerell, 1985; Tuttle and Hensley, 1993; Dillingham ground (Krzanowski, 1959 in Haensel and Näfe et al., 2003) or shade covered boxes (Nagel and 1982), and Gerell (1985) did not detect a preference Nagel, 1988; Flaquer et al., 2005; Dodds and Bil- when offering installation heights between 2 m to ston, 2013) have all been identified to be preferred 5.5 m. For two species, N. noctula (Stratmann, by the subject species or sexes. 1978; Kowalski and Lesiński, 1994) and P. nathusii (Heise, 1982), a box height preference of ≥ 4 m has Placement and numbers been suggested. However, Boonman (2000) record - There is evidence that box deployments in clus- ed natural roost entrances as low as 1.4 m above ters are important to offer opportunities for roost ground suggesting that high entrances may not be switching (Lewis, 1995), social interactions (e.g., crucial for N. noctula. It should be considered that Kerth and König, 1999) and to enable bats to even if certain bats were to display a roost height choose boxes that comprise favourable conditions preference, it is unlikely that boxes installed close to (Schmidt, 1977, 1990; Hackethal and Oldenburg, the ground (e.g., 3 m) would not be used in situa- 1983; Nagel and Nagel, 1988; Schwarting, 1990; tions where no alternatives were available. Low Boye and Dietz, 2005). Suggested box densities installed boxes have the advantage in that they can range from two to eight boxes per 10 ha (Olden burg be easily accessed (e.g., for ecological research, box Bat boxes — a review of their use and application 291 monitoring, box maintenance or box replacement) keep box replacement and box maintenance costs without the need for specialised personnel. low. A main consideration for box attachments to trees is the ability of the attachment to compensate Box program maintenance for tree girth growth (Bender and Irvine, 2001; Gold- There is some ongoing box maintenance required ingay et al., 2015). A proven attachment method in for bat box programs used for conservation pur- Australia is a wiring system termed ‘Habisure’ (de- poses. A lack of maintenance may occur where veloped by Hollow Log Homes), whereby the wire funding is limited and potentially result in reduced is attached around the tree trunk and allows for girth box uptake where boxes become unavailable to tar- growth through the provision of loops within the get species over time (e.g., Bender and Irvin, 2001). wire. Other box attachments may include the use of One cost factor is box longevity and replacement. If long rust resistant screws or nails (e.g., aluminium bat boxes are used as a conservation tool, they screws) that protrude some distance on which boxes should be replaced continually when they disinte- are hung (e.g., Heise and Blohm, 2012) or screws in- grate until sufficient cavity-bearing trees have been corporating spacers (e.g., Bender and Irvine, 2001). recruited. Replacement of timber boxes can be costly for large scale, long-term habitat box pro- Bat Box Program Considerations grams (e.g., Lindenmayer et al., 1991, 2009; Bender and Irvine, 2001) and the use of bat boxes made of Where bat box programs are deployed for con- sturdy box construction materials will reduce costs servation purposes, there is a need to monitor their long-term. effectiveness over time and adopt an adaptive man- Woodcement boxes have been documented to agement approach if the box program does not outlast timber boxes having an estimated life ex- achieve its predetermined aims. To identify bat box pectancy of 25–30 years (e.g., Bruns, 1960; Henze, program effectiveness the following four criteria 1991; Heise and Blohm, 2012), whereas timber should be considered: 1) do all or most locally oc- boxes may only last five to 10 years (e.g., Hackethal curring cavity-roosting bat species use the boxes and Oldenburg, 1983; Lindenmayer et al., 1991; consistently, 2) do they use the boxes throughout the Bender and Irvine, 2001). Woodcement boxes have seasons including for maternity and hibernation the advantage of being rot resistant and less likely roosting (unless sufficient other roost sites are avail- to be damaged by wildlife, such as birds (e.g., able to complete a yearly cycle), 3) do they use Dieterich, 1982; Oldenburg and Hackethal, 1989; boxes long-term, and 4) have the locally occurring Baranauskas, 2009), or mammals (Henze, 1968; cavity-roosting bat species increased or decreased in Stebbings and Walsh, 1991; Rueegger et al., 2012). numbers since initiation of the bat box program in Covering timber boxes with tarpaper has been doc- areas scarce of natural cavities. The considerations umented to result in a similar life expectancy to outlined below aim to provide guidelines for land woodcement boxes (Heise, 1980; Hackethal and managers and other parties engaged in tree cavity- Oldenburg, 1983; Heise and Blohm, 2012), although roosting bat management that consider the deploy- box damage by woodpeckers has been recorded ment of bat boxes. (Oldenburg and Hackethal, 1989). Another long- lasting box material is resin. Chambers et al. (2002) Prior to deploying bat boxes estimated resin roosts to last > 20 years, although Prior to installing boxes, the local tree cavity- annual maintenance such as waterproofing may be roosting bat species and their relative abundance required, which can be costly long-term (Mering should be identified. This information will assist in and Chambers, 2012). identifying the target species, as well as providing Other box maintenance considerations are non- base line data that can be used to assess the effec- target species box use (e.g., Bender and Irvin, 2001; tiveness of the bat box program over time. Another Smith and Agnew, 2002; Lindenmayer et al., 2009; criterion that should be considered is the current and Rhodes and Jones, 2011), as well as removal of predicted natural cavity abundance and the time- guano where accumulation obstructs box entrance. frame for which the bat box program should be In the absence of known target species-specific box maintained. An estimation of the budget require- design elements, open bottom boxes should be con- ment to install, monitor and maintain the box sidered as they allow guano to fall out and reduce program over this period should be undertaken and non-target species box uptake. Furthermore, long- key performance criteria identified (e.g., guided by lasting lid and box attachments are important to the criteria listed above). 292 N. Rueegger

Which box type to use?—This review showed the key performance targets are not met, an adaptive that not all local tree cavity-roosting bat species ben- management response should be implemented. Next efit equally from the box designs deployed and it is to monitoring, some box maintenance and repair likely that a single box type is insufficient to accom- work will be necessary over time. Re moving guano modate an entire local tree cavity-roosting bat com- in boxes with a bottom panel may be required where munity. In the absence of known target species-spe- box use is high and guano accumulation is re- cific box design preferences, several bat box designs stricting box access. Boxes may require treatment should be deployed including a variety of box to exclude non-target species such as ants (see shapes to accommodate both fissure and volumi- Rhodes and Jones, 2011) or the removal of old nous cavity-roosting bats. Where target species are nest material from non-target species such as birds known not to hibernate in tree cavities, considera- and mammals. tion should be given to whether artificial structures other than boxes need to be provided to ensure the CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH species have access to roosting resources throughout the year. Bat boxes have been used extensively for re- Box design elements that may be considered in- search and conservation purposes. Where tree cav- clude; an open bottom entrance (e.g., BCI and ity-roosting bat species are a management priority, Stratmann types) to allow guano to fall out and re- the use of artificial roosts can be one of very few duce non-target species box use, painting of boxes tools to augment a lack of natural cavities. This using both dark and light colours to provide a range review has shown that bat boxes provided roost re- of differing box microclimates, using large multi- sources predominantly in temperate regions for sev- chambered boxes with vents to provide a large ther- eral bat species including for rearing young by some. mal profile within a box to allow bats to select suit- There is a need to identify bat box design elements able temperatures across seasons as well as during that increase the use of boxes for species that do climatic extremes, long-lasting box construction not readily occupy bat boxes to-date. In addition, materials and a sturdy lid attachment. current box designs not used by species for mater- nity and/or hibernation roosting need to be further Deploying boxes developed. Given the lack of knowledge of the importance Conducting research on species-specific natural of box aspect and sun exposure and that preferences roost cavity characteristics is likely a key element in likely differ between species, regions and seasons, advancing box development for all types of day the setup of boxes should be such that they provide roosting. In the absence of that knowledge, provid- a range of aspect and sun exposure. Boxes should be ing boxes that comprise warm internal temperatures deployed in clusters to facilitate roost switching, so- and large volumes to allow colony formation are cial behaviour and to allow local selection of boxes likely two important factors to increase box use for comprising favourable conditions. Where appropri- maternity roosting. Furthermore, research on bat ate, boxes may not be installed high up in trees to re- box types and materials that has recorded success in duce maintenance and monitoring costs and address some temperate regions should be trialled in others. height safety considerations. However, site specific The use of construction materials other than timber factors should be considered, such as box vandal- appears crucial where bat boxes are intended to be ism, disturbance or increased predation risk. A long- deployed mid to long-term. Materials such as wood- lasting box attachment method should be used. cement, timber with a tarpaper cover and resin should be scientifically tested across geographical Post box deployment regions. Another relatively unexplored but poten- Monitoring of boxes is crucial to assess whether tially long lasting artificial roost resource is the cre- the box program meets its predetermined aims. ation of tree hollows, snags or the acceleration of Frequent checking permits a greater insight, albeit tree cavity development processes (e.g., Carey and increasing costs and disturbance to bats. Disturb - Gill, 1983; Lewis, 1998; Rose et al., 2001; Shea et ance to bats should be kept to a minimum at times al., 2002; Manning, 2008; Arnett et al., 2010) and when bats rear young or hibernate. If open bottom should be explored and documented further. boxes are used, box inspection may be performed Research on bat box thermal profiles and the in- efficiently from the ground by shining a torch fluence different box design elements have on box into the box. When monitoring data indicates that temperatures need to be further advanced. This is Bat boxes — a review of their use and application 293 important as providing a large thermal range within LITERATURE CITED a box accommodates climatic extremes and allows bats to select suitable temperatures (and humidity) ADAMS, M. D., B. S. LAW, and M. S. GIBSON. 2010. Reliable au- tomation of bat call identification for eastern New South across seasons. The BCI multi-chambered box de- Wales, Australia, using classification trees and AnaScheme sign has started this process. Obtaining information software. Acta Chiropterologica, 12: 231–245. in this field may prove particularly important in light ADKINS, M. F. 2006. A burning issue: using fire to accelerate of the predicted temperature increase associated tree hollow formation in Eucalyptus species. Australian with climate change. Large ‘bat house’ style de- For estry, 69: 107–113. signs, although not part of this review, hold opportu- AGNELLI, P., G. MALTAGLIATI, L. DUCCI, and S. CANNICCI. 2011. Artificial roosts for bats: education and research. The ‘be nities in providing large thermal ranges within a bat’s friend’ project of the Natural History Museum of the a roost (see Freer et al., 1998; Agnew and Veary, University of Florence. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mam - 2008; Tuttle et al., 2013). It may be, as knowledge mal ogy, 22: 215–223. advances, that these larger structures are most suit- AGNEW, L., and A. VEARY. 2008. Artificial structures to enhance able for providing artificial roost resources through- habitat values and accelerate vertebrate fauna colonisation within mine rehabilitation within the Bowen Basin, Central out the year. Queensland — Microbats. ACARP Research Project Bat boxes should not be used as a justification for C13406. Australian Coal Association Research Program, the removal of natural cavities as current box de- Brisbane, 46 pp. signs are a poor substitute due to their limited lifes- ALTRINGHAM, J. D. 1998. Bat houses in British forests. Bats, 1: pan and limited cavity characteristic diversity, of 8–11. which, various roost characteristic requirements ALTUM, B. 1876. Forstzoologie I. Säugethiere, 2nd edition. Verlag Julius Springer, Berlin, 409 pp. [Not seen, cited after or preferences for many bats species are still un- Meschede and Heller, 2002]. known. Whilst the maintenance and recruitment ARNETT, E. B., A. J. KROLL, and S. D. DUKE. 2010. Avian forag- of sufficient natural roost resources must be the pri- ing and nesting use of created snags in intensively-managed mary conservation management objective, in some forests of western Oregon, USA. Forest Ecology and Mana - circumstances, this is not feasible. The use of bat gement, 260: 1773–1779. BARANAUSKAS, K. 2007. Bats (Chiroptera) found in bat boxes boxes to offset the loss of cavity-bearing trees in southeastern Lithuania. Ekologija, 53: 34–37. due to development or to increase roost resources in BARANAUSKAS, K. 2009. The use of bat boxes of two models by landscapes scarce in natural cavities requires more Nathusius’ Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus nathusii) in Southeast- detailed research to identify the effectiveness of ern Lithuania. Acta Zoologica Lituanica, 19: 3–9. such prescriptions and mitigation measures. When BARANAUSKAS, K. 2010. Diversity and abundance of bats deploying bat boxes as a management strategy, (Chiroptera) found in bat boxes in East Lithuania. Acta Zoologica Lituanica, 20: 39–44. boxes should be monitored, maintained and replaced BARCLAY, R. M. R., and L. D. HARDER. 2003. Life histories of until sufficient natural cavities are recruited and bats: life in the slow lane. Pp. 209–253, in Bat ecology funding requirements considered at the plan- (T. H. KUNZ and M. B. FENTON, eds.). University of Chicago ning stage of the box program. There is some con- Press, Chicago, xix + 779 pp. cern that bat boxes have the potential to alter a local BARTONIČKA, T., and J. GAISLER. 2007. Seasonal dynamics in the numbers of parasitic bugs (Heteroptera, Cimicidae): bat community where only some of the locally a possible cause of roost switching in bats (Chiroptera, Ves - occurring species use the boxes. This aspect and per tilionidae). Parasitology Research, 100: 1323–1330. whether bat boxes do increase population numbers BARTONIČKA, T., and Z. ŘEHÁK. 2007. Influence of the micro- in landscapes scarce in natural cavities will need fur- climate of bat boxes on their occupation by the soprano ther investigation through long-term monitoring pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus: possible cause of roost studies. switching. Acta Chiropterologica, 9: 517–526. BARTONIČKA, T., and L. RŮŽIČKOVA. 2013. Recolonization of bat roost by bat bugs (Cimex pipistrelli): could parasite load be ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a cause of bat roost switching? Parasitology Research, 112: 1615–1622. This paper greatly benefited from the review by Ruth and BÄUMLER, W. 1988. Fledermäuse und Bilche in Nistkästen — Sacha Perram and four anonymous reviewers. I thank Steph Eine Erhebung in Bayern. Anzeiger für Schädlingskunde, Yamey for digitally redrawing Figure 3. I also thank the South- Pflanzenschutz, Umweltschutz, 61: 149–152. ern Cross University library staff that endured the many publi- BAYLESS, M. 2006. Designing homes for forest bats — moms cation requests over the period this review was developed and and pups accept artificial trees. Bats, 26: 9–11. Ross Goldingay for suggesting this review. I would like to BENDER, R. 2005. Bat box update from Organ Pipes National acknowledge the Holsworth Wildlife Research Endowment, the Park and Wilson Reserve. The Australasian Bat Society MA Ingram Trust, the Australian Geographic Society and the News letter, 24: 11–17. Australian Postgraduate Award (APA) scholarship for the fund- BENDER, R. 2011. Bat roost boxes at Organ Pipes National Park, ing support of current bat box research projects. Victoria: seasonal and annual usage patterns. Pp. 443–459, 294 N. Rueegger

in The biology and conservation of Australasian bats CHURCHILL, S. 2009. Australian bats, 2nd edition. Allen and (B. LAW, P. EBY, D. LUNNEY, and L. LUMSDEN, eds.). Unwin, Crows Nest, 256 pp. Royal Zool o gical Society of New South Wales, Mossman, CHYTIL, J. 2014. Occupancy of bat boxes in the Dolní Morava 498 pp. Biosphere Reserve (southern Moravia, Czech Republic). BENDER, R., and R. IRVINE. 2001. Bat boxes at Organ Pipes Na- Vespertilio, 17: 79–88. tional Park. The Australasian Bat Society Newsletter, 16: CIECHANOWSKI, M. 2005. Utilization of artificial shelters by bats 19–23. (Chiroptera) in three different types of forest. Folia Zoolo- BENDER, R., S. GRIFFITHS, and L. LUMSDEN. 2014. Bats breeding gica, 54: 31–37. in Melbourne roost boxes. The Australasian Bat Society COCKLE, K. L., K. MARTIN, and T. WESOŁOWSKI. 2011. Wood- Newsletter, 43: 19–21. peckers, decay, and the future of cavity-nesting vertebrate BENZAL, J. 1991. Population dynamics of the brown long eared communities worldwide. Frontiers in Ecology and the En - bat (Plecotus auritus) occupying bird boxes in a pine forest vironment, 9: 377–382. plantation in central Spain. Netherlands Journal of Zoology, CRYAN, P. M., M. A. BOGAN, and G. M. YANEGA. 2001. Roosting 41: 241–249. habits of four bat species in the Black Hills of South Da- BEYER, G. L., and R. L. GOLDINGAY. 2006. The value of nest kota. Acta Chiropterologica, 3: 43–52. boxes in the research and management of Australian hollow- DIETERICH, H. 1998. Zum Einsatz von Holzbeton-Grosshöhlen using arboreal marsupials. Wildlife Research, 33: 161–174. für waldbewohnende Fledermäuse und zur Bestandsent- BOONMANN, M. 2000. Roost selection by noctules (Nyctalus wicklung der Chiropteren in einem schleswig-holsteini- noctula) and Daubenton’s bats (Myotis daubentonii). Jour - schen Revier nach 30 jährigen Erfahrungen. Nyctalus nal of Zoology (London), 251: 385–389. (N.F.), 6: 456–467. BOYD, I. L., and R. E. STEBBINGS. 1989. Population changes of DIETERICH, H., and J. DIETERICH. 1988. Zur Ansiedelung brown long-eared bats (Plecotus auritus) in bat boxes at von Waldfledermäusen in Schleswig-Holstein. Myotis, 26: Thetford Forest. Journal of Applied Ecology, 26: 101–112. 153–159. BOYE, P., and M. DIETZ. 2005. Development of good practice DIETERICH, H., and J. DIETERICH. 1997. Daumenkrallen - guidelines for woodland management for bats. English Na - abnutzung bei Fledermäusen in Holzbeton-Nistgeräten. Ny - ture Research Reports, 661: 1–89. ctalus (N.F.), 3: 309–318. BOYLES, J. 2007. Describing roosts used by forest bats: the impor- DIETERICH, H., and J. DIETERICH. 1998. Erster Wochenstub - tance of microclimate. Acta Chiropterologica, 9: 297–303. enfund der Bechsteinfledermaus (Myotis bechsteini) in Ost- BRIGHAM, R. M., and M. B. FENTON. 1986. The influence of holstein. Nyctalus (N.F.), 6: 627–629. roost closure on the roosting and foraging behaviour of DIETERICH, H., J. DIETERICH, and K. PRYSWITT. 1998. Teich- Eptesicus fuscus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Canadian fledermäuse (Myotis dasycneme) mehrmals in Holzbeton- Journal of Zoology, 64: 1128–1133. Nisthölen. Nyctalus (N.F.), 6: 551–553. BRITTINGHAM, M. C., and L. M. WILLIAMS. 2000. Bat boxes DIETERICH, J. 1982. Vergleichende Beobachtungen über den as alternative roosts for displaced bat maternity colonies. Fledermausbesatz in verschiedenen Nistgeräten nach Wild life Society Bulletin, 28: 197–207. Untersuchungen in Schleswig-Holstein. Myotis, 20: 38–44. BRUNS, H. 1960. The economic importance of birds in forests. DIETERICH, J., and H. DIETERICH. 1991. Untersuchungen an Bird Study, 7: 193–208. baumlebenden Fledermäusen im Kreis Plön. Nyctalus CALDER, T., B. GOLDING, and A. ANDERSON. 1983. Manage ment (N.F.), 4: 53–167. for arboreal species in the Wombat State Forest. Envi - DILLINGHAM, C. P., S. P. CROSS, and P. W. DILLINGHAM. 2003. ronmental Report, Graduate School of Environmental Two environmental factors that influence usage of bat Science, Monash University, Mel bourne, 16: iii + 1–108. houses in managed forests of southwestern Oregon. North- CAMERON, M., 2006. Nesting habitat of the glossy black-cocka- western Naturalist, 84: 20–23. too in central New South Wales. Biological Conservation, DODDS, M., and H. BILSTON. 2013. A comparison of different 127: 402–410. bat box types by bat occupancy in deciduous woodland, CAMPBELL, S., G. COULSON, and L. LUMSDEN. 2010. Divergent Buckinghamshire, UK. Conservation Evidence, 10: 24–28. microclimates in artificial and natural roosts of the large- DONDINI, G., and S. VERGARI. 2000. Carnivory in the greater footed myotis (Myotis macropus). Acta Chiropterologica, noctule bat (Nyctalus lasiopterus) in Italy. Journal of Zool - 12: 173–185. ogy (London), 251: 233–236. CAREY, A., and J. GILL. 1983. Direct habitat improvement — DONDINI, G. I., and S. I. VERGARI. 2009. Harem size and male some recent advances. Snag habitat management: proceed- mating tactics in Nyctalus leisleri (Kuhl, 1817) (Chiroptera, ings of a symposium. USDA Forest Service General Vespertilionidae). Hystrix, Italian Journal Mammalogy, 20: Technical Report RM-99, Rocky Mountain Forest and 147–154. Range Experimental Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, 99: DUPLESSIS, M. A., and J. B. WILLIAMS. 1994. Communal cavity 80–87. roosting in Green Woodhoopoes: consequences for energy CHAMBERS, C. L., V. ALM, M. S. SIDERS, and M. J. RABE. 2002. expenditure and the seasonal pattern of mortality. Auk, 111: Use of artificial roosts by forest-dwelling bats in northern 292–299. Arizona. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 30: 1085–1091. ENTWISTLE, A. C., P. A. RACEY, and J. R. SPEAKMAN. 1997. CHAN, C. S. M. 2006. Preliminary results of bat-box trial project Roost selection by the brown long-eared bat Plecotus auri- in the Hong Kong Wetland Park. Hong Kong Biodiversity, tus. Journal of Applied Science, 34: 399–408. 13: 13–14. EVANS, L. and L. LUMSDEN. 2011. Comparison of the roosting CHAVERRI, G., E. GILLAM, and M. VONHOF. 2014. Social calls behaviour of Gould’s wattled bats Chalinolobus gouldii us - used by a leaf-roosting bat to signal location. Biology Let- ing bat boxes and tree hollows in suburban Melbourne. Pp. ters, 6: 441–444. 288–296, in The biology and conservation of Australasian Bat boxes — a review of their use and application 295

bats (B. LAW, P. EBY, D. LUNNEY, and L. LUMSDEN, eds.). GIBBONS, P., and D. LINDENMAYER. 2002. Tree hollows and Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mossman, wild life conservation in Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Col - 498 pp. ling wood, vii + 211 pp. EVELYN, M. J., and D. A. STILES. 2003. Roosting requirements GIBBONS, P., D. B. LINDENMAYER, S. C. BARRY, and M. T. TAN - of two frugivorous bats (Sturnira lilium and Arbiteus inter- TON. 2000. Hollow formation in eucalypts from temperate medius) in fragmented Neotropical forest. Biotropica, 35: forests in southeastern Australia. Pacific Conservation Biol- 405–418. ogy, 6: 218–228. FENTON, M. B., and G. P. BELL. 1981. Recognition of species of GLOGER, C. W. L. 1865. Die Hegung der Höhlenbrüter mit insectivorous bats by their echolocation calls. Journal of be son derer Rücksicht auf die Nachtheile des Vogelfangens Mammalogy, 62: 233–243. für Land- und Forstwirthschaft. Allgemeine Deutsche Ver- FLAQUER, C., R. RUIZ-JARILLO, I. TORRE, and A. ARRIZABALAGA. lags-Anstalt, Berlin. [Not seen, cited after Meschede and 2005. First resident population of Pipistrellus nathusii Heller, 2002]. (Key serling and Blasius, 1839) in the Iberian Peninsula. GOLDINGAY, R., and J. STEVENS. 2009. Use of artificial tree Acta Chiropterologica, 7: 183–188. hollows by Australian birds and bats. Wildlife Research, 36: FLAQUER, C., I. TORRE, and R. RUIZ-JARILLO. 2006. The value 81–97. of bat-boxes in the conservation of Pipistrellus pygmaeus GOLDINGAY, R. L., M. J. GRIMSON, and G. C. SMITH. 2007. Do in wetland rice paddies. Biological Conservation, 128: feathertail gliders show a preference for nest box design? 223–230. Wildlife Research, 34: 484–490. FLETCHER, C. A. 2014. Bats, birds and boxes in an urban bush- GOLDINGAY, R. L., N. N. RUEEGGER, M. J. GRIMSON, and B. D. land matrix. Honours Thesis, University of Sydney, Syd - TAYLOR. 2015. Specific nest box designs can improve habi- ney, 97 pp. tat restoration for cavity-dependent arboreal mammals. Re- FOX, J. C., F. HAMILTON, and S. OCCHIPINTI. 2009. Tree hollow storation Ecology, 23: 482–490. incidence in Victorian state forests. Australian Forestry, 72: GÖRFÖL, T., I. DOMBI, S. BOLDOGH, and P. ESTÓK. 2009. Going 39–48. further south: new data on the breeding area of Nyc talus FREER, R. A., D. A. WATERS, and J. D. ALTRINGHAM. 1998. Arti - noctula (Schreber, 1774) in central Europe. Hystrix, Italian ficial maternity roosts for Rhinolophus hipposideros, Journal Mammalogy, 20: 37–44. the lesser horseshoe bat. Countryside Council of Wales HACKETHAL, H., and W. OLDENBURG. 1983. Erste Erfahrungen Contract Science Report, School of Biology, University of mit dem Einsatz modifizierter FS1-Kästen in Waren-Eckt- Leeds, 250: 1–11. annen und in der Nossentiner Heide. Nyctalus, 1: 513–514. FUKUI, D., K. OKAZAKI, M. MIYAZAKI, and K. MAEDA. 2010. HAENSEL, J., and M. NÄFE. 1982. Anleitungen zum Bau von The effect of roost environment on roost selection by non- Fledermauskästen und bisherige Erfahrungen mit ihrem reproductive and dispersing Asian parti-coloured bats Ves - Einsatz. Nyctalus (N.F.), 1: 327–348. pertilio sinensis. Mammal Study, 35: 99–109. HAENSEL, J., and R. TISMER. 1999. Versuchsrevier für Fleder - FURMANKIEWICZ, J., I. RUCZYŃSKI, R. URBAN, and G. JONES. mauskästen im Forst Berlin-Schmöckwitz — Ergebnisse, 2011. Social calls provide tree-dwelling bats with informa- insbesondere zu den überwiegend vertretenen Rauhaut- tion about the location of conspecifics at roosts. Ethology, fleder mäusen (Pipistrellus nathussi). Nyctalus (N.F.), 7: 117: 480–489. 60–77. GEISER, F., and T. RUF. 1995. Hibernation versus daily torpor HEISE, G. 1980. Ein Verfahren, um die Effektivität des Fleder - in mammals and birds: physiological variables and clas- mauskasteneinsatzes zu erhöhen. Nyctalus, 1: 187–189. sification of torpor patterns. Physiological Zoology, 68: HEISE, G. 1982. Zu Vorkommen, Biologie und Ökologie der 935–966. Rauhautfledermaus (Pipistrellus nathusii) in der Umge - GEISER, F., R. L. DRURY, G. KÖRTNER, C. TURBILL, R. PAVEY, bung von Prenzlau (Uckermark), Bezirk Neubranden burg. and R. BRIGHAM. 2004. Passive rewarming from torpor in Nyctalus (N.F.), 1: 281–300. mammals and birds: energetic, ecological and evolution- HEISE, G. 1983. Interspezifische Vergesellschaftungen in Fleder- ary implications. Pp. 51–61, in Life in the cold: evolution, mauskästen. Nyctalus (N.F.), 1: 518–520. mecha nisms, adaptation, and application (B. M. BARNES HEISE, G. 1985. Zur Erstbesiedlung von Quartieren durch ‘Wald- and H. V. CAREY, eds.). Inkworks, Fairbanks, 593 pp. fledermäuse’. Nyctalus (N.F.), 2: 191–197. GERELL, R. 1981. Bat conservation in Sweden. Myotis, 18–19: HEISE, G., and T. BLOHM. 1998. Welche Ansprüche stellt der 11–15. Abendsegler (Nyctalus noctula) an das Wochenstuben - GERELL, R. 1985. Tests of boxes for bats. Nyctalus (N.F.), 2: quartier? Nyctalus (N.F.), 6: 471–475. 181–185. HEISE, G., and T. BLOHM. 2012. Arbeit mit Fledermauskästen — GERELL, R., and K. GERELL LUNDBERG. 1993. Decline of a bat sinnvoll oder nicht? Nyctalus (N.F.), 17: 226–239. Pipi strellus pipistrellus population in an industrialized area HENZE, O. 1968. Fledermäuse bevorzugen Holzbetonkästen. in south Sweden. Biological Conservation, 65: 153–157. My otis, 6: 5–8. GERELL, R., and K. LUNDBERG. 1985. Social organization in the HENZE, O. 1991. Die richtigen Vogelkästen in Wald und Garten: bat Pipistrellus pipistrellus. Behavioral Ecology and So cio - über die Lebensweise und Bedeutung aller ihrer Bewohner; biology, 16: 177–184. ein Sach- und Kontrollbuch, 5th edition. Südkurier-Verlag, GERELL, R., and K. LUNDBERG. 1990. Sexual differences in sur- Konstanz, 388 pp. vival rates of adult pipistrelle bats (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) HOLT, R. F., and K. MARTIN. 1997. Landscape modification and in South Sweden. Oecologia, 83: 401–404. patch selection: the demography of two secondary cavity GERELL-LUNDBERG, K., and R. GERELL. 1994. The mating- nesters colonizing clearcuts. The Auk, 114: 443–455. behavior of the pipistrelle and the nathusius pipistrelle (Chi - HORNCASTLE, V., V. FRARY, and M. F. INGRALDI. 2008. 2007 roptera) — a comparison. Folia Zoologica, 43: 315–324. progress report: forest-dwelling bat responses to forest 296 N. Rueegger

re storation. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. KERTH, G., K. WEISSMANN, and B. KÖNIG. 2001. Day roost [Not seen, cited after Mering and Chambers, 2014]. selection in female Bechstein’s bats (Myotis bechsteinii): HORNCASTLE, V., V. FRARY, and M. F. INGRALDI. 2009. 2008 pro - a field experiment to determine the influence of roost tem- gress report: forest-dwelling bat responses to forest restor - perature. Oecologia, 126: 1–9. ation. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. [Not KERTH, G., K. SAFI, and B. KÖNIG. 2002. Mean colony related- seen, cited after Mering and Chambers, 2014]. ness is a poor predictor of colony structure and female phil- HUTSON, A. M., S. P. MICKLEBURGH, and P. A. RACEY (comp.). opatry in the communally breeding Bechstein’s bat (Myotis 2001. Mi crochiropteran bats: global status survey and bechsteinii). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 52: conservation action plan. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, x + 203–210. 258 pp. KERTH, G., C. EBERT, and C. SCHMIDTKE. 2006. Group decision ICZN. 2003. Opinion 2028 (Case 3073). Vespertilio pipistrellus making in fission-fusion societies: evidence from two-field Schreber, 1774 and V. pygmaeus Leach, 1825 (currently experiments in Bechstein’s bats. Proceedings of the Royal Pipistrellus pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus; Mammalia, Chi- Society of London, 273B: 2785–2790. roptera): neotypes designated. Bulletin of Zoological No- KISER, M. 2002. North American bat house research project. men clature, 60: 85–87. Bats, 20: 19–21. INIONS, G. B., M. T. TANTON, and S. M. DAVEY. 1989. Effect of KISER, M., and S. KISER. 2004. A decade of bat house discovery. fire on the availability of hollows in trees used by the com- The bat house researcher, 12: 1–12. mon brushtail possum Trichosurus vulpecula Kerr, 1792, KÖNIG, H., and W. KÖNIG. 1995. Ergebnisse einer Untersuchung and the ringtail possum Pseudocheirus peregrinus Bod - nistkastenbewohnender Fledermäuse in der Nordpfalz. Ny - daerts, 1785. Wildlife Research, 16: 449–458. c ta lus (N.F.), 6: 529–544. ISSEL, B. 1958. Zur Ökologie unserer Waldfledermäuse. Natur KOWALSKI, M., and G. LESIŃSKI. 1994. Bats occupying nest boxes und Landschaft, 1: 2–5. for birds and bats in Poland. Nyctalus (N.F.), 5: 19–26. ISSEL, B., and W. ISSEL. 1955. Versuche zur Ansiedelung von KRZANOWSKI, A. 1959. Ergebnisse des Waldfledermausschutzes ‘Waldfledermäusen’ in Fledermauskästen. Forstwissen - auf Grund fremder und eigener Erfahrungen. Waldhygiene, schaft liches Centralblatt, 74: 193–204. 3: 99–105. JACKSON, J. A., and B. J. S. JACKSON. 2004. Ecological relation- KUNZ, T. H., and M. B. FENTON. 2003. Bat ecology. Uni ver sity ships between fungi and woodpecker cavity sites. The Con- of Chicago Press, Chicago, xix + 779 pp. dor, 106: 37–49. KUNZ, T. H., and L. F. LUMSDEN. 2003. Ecology of cavity and JARZEMBOWSKI, T. 2003. Migration of the Nathusius’ pipistrelle foliage roosting bats. Pp. 3–89, in Bat ecology (T. H. KUNZ Pipistrellus nathusii (Vespertilionidae) along the Vistula and M. B. FENTON, eds.). University of Chicago Press, Split. Acta Theriologica, 48: 301–308. Chicago, xix + 779 pp. JONES, C. G., J. H. LAWTON, and M. SHACHAK. 1994. Organisms KURSKOW, A. 1968. Erfahrungen mit künstlichen Fledermaus- as ecosystem engineers. Oikos, 69: 373–386. quartieren in der Sowjetunion. Myotis, 6: 3–5. JONES, G., and E. M. BARRATT, 1999. Vespertilio pipistrellus LESIŃSKI, G., P. SKRZYPIEC-NOWAK, A. JANIAK, and Z. JAGNIESZ - Schre ber, 1774 and V. pygmaeus Leach, 1825 (currently CZAK. 2009. Phenology of bat occurrence in boxes in cen- Pipi strellus pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus; Mammalia, Chi- tral Poland. Mammalia, 73: 33–37. roptera): proposed designation of neotypes. Bulletin of LEWIS, J. 1998. Creating snags and wildlife trees in commercial Zool ogical Nomenclature, 56: 182–186. forest landscapes. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 13: KALCOUNIS-RÜPPELL, M. C., J. M. PSYLLAKIS, and R. M. BRIG - 97–101. HAM. 2005. Tree roost selection by bats: an empirical syn- LEWIS, S. E. 1995. Roost fidelity of bats: a review. Journal of thesis using meta-analysis. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 33: Mammalogy, 76: 481–496. 1123–1132. LI, P. J., and T. E. MARTIN. 1991. Nest-site selection and nesting KASPRZYK, K., and I. RUCZYŃSKI. 2001. The structure of bat success of cavity-nesting birds in high elevation forest communities roosting in bird nest boxes in two pine mono- drainages. The Auk, 108: 405–418. cultures in Poland. Folia Zoologica, 50: 107–116. LINDENMAYER, D. B., and J. F. FRANKLIN. 2002. Conserving for- KAYIKCIOGLU, A. and A. ZAHN. 2004. High temperatures and est biodiversity: a comprehensive multiscaled approach. Is - the use of satellite roosts in Rhinolophus hipposideros. land Press, Washington, D.C., 352 pp. Mam malian Biology, 69: 337–341. LINDENMAYER, D. B., R. B. CUNNINGHAM, M. T. TANTON, A. P. KELM, D., K. WIESNER, and O. VON HELVERSEN. 2008. Effects of SMITH, and H. A. NIX, 1990. The conservation of arboreal artificial roosts for frugivorous bats on seed dispersal in marsupials in the montane ash forests of the central high- a neotropical forest pasture mosaic. Conservation Biology, lands of Victoria, Southeast Australia: I. Factors influencing 22: 733–741. the occupancy of trees with hollows. Biological Conserva- KERTH, G., and B. KÖNIG. 1996. Transponder and an infrared tion, 54: 111–131. videocamera as methods in a fieldstudy on the social be- LINDENMAYER, D. B., M. TANTON, and R. CUNNINGHAM. 1991. haviour of Bechstein’s bats (Myotis bechsteini). Myotis, 34: A critique of the use of nest boxes required for the con- 27–34. servation of Leadbeater’s possum. Wildlife Research, 18: KERTH, G., and B. KÖNIG. 1999. Fission, fusion and nonrandom 619–624. associations in female Bechstein’s bats (Myotis bechstei - LINDENMAYER, D. B., A. WELSH, C. DONNELLY, M. CRANE, D. nii). Behaviour, 136: 1187–1202. MI CHAEL, C. MACGREGOR, and P. GIBBON. 2009. Are nest KERTH, G., and K. RECKARDT. 2003. Information transfer about boxes a viable alternative source of cavities for hollow-de- roosts in female Bechstein’s bats: an experimental field pendent animals? Long-term monitoring of nest box occu- study. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 270: pancy, pest use and attrition. Biological Conservation, 142: 511–515. 33–42. Bat boxes — a review of their use and application 297

LONG, R. F., W. M. KISER, and S. B. KISER. 2006. Well-placed human interests in Europe. Forest Policy and Economics, 7: bat houses can attract bats to Central Valley farms. Califor - 877–890. nia Agriculture, 60: 91–94. OLDENBURG, W., and H. HACKETHAL. 1989. Zur Bestande sent - LOURENÇO, S. I., and J. M. PALMEIRIM. 2004. Influence of tem- wicklung und Migration des Mausohrs, Myotis myotis perature in roost selection by Pipistrellus pygmaeus (Chiro - (Borkhausen, 1797), in Mecklenburg. Nyctalus (N.F.), 2: ptera): relevance for the design of bat boxes. Biological 501–519. Con servation, 119: 237–243. PARK, K. J., E. MASTERS, and J. D. ALTRINGHAM. 1998. Social LUGER, F. 1977. Untersuchung zur Verbreitung und Lebens- structure of three sympatric bat species (Vespertilionidae). weise von Fledermäusen in Nistkästen im Geisenfelder Forst, Journal of Zoology (London), 244: 379–389. Oberbayern. Annual Review of Physiology, 50: 183–188. PRESCHEL, G. 1997. Flugunfähigkeit einer Fransenfledermaus MACKOWSKI, C. M. 1984. The ontogeny of hollows in blackbutt, (My otis nattereri) durch Schnecken? Nyctalus (N.F.), 6: 309. Eucalyptus pilularis, and its relevance to the management REID, J. L., and D. CASSALAS-PABÓN. 2012. Scientists explore of forests for possums, gliders and timber. Pp. 553–567, in artificial roosts for rebuilding forests. Bats, 30: 7–9. Possums and gliders (A. P. SMITH and I. D. HUME, eds.). REID, J. L., E. K. HOLSTE, and R. A. ZAHAWI. 2013. Artificial bat Aus tralian Mammal Society, Sydney, 598 pp. roosts did not accelerate forest regeneration in abandoned MANNING, T. 2008. Fungal inoculation of trees as a habitat en- pastures in southern Costa Rica. Biological Conservation, hancement tool in second-growth forests TFL 37 and TFL 167: 9–16. 44 Operational trial. Final Report for Western Forest Pro- RHODES, M. 2002. Update from the bat box project in Brisbane: ducts Inc., Campbell River. A modified bat box design for Australian microbats. The MARSDEN, S. J., and J. D. PILGRIM. 2003. Factors influencing the Australasian Bat Society Newsletter, 19: 13–14. abundance of parrots and hornbills in pristine and disturbed RHODES, M., and D. JONES. 2011. The use of bat boxes by insec- forests on New Britain, PNG. The Ibis, 145: 45–53. tivorous bats and other fauna in the greater Brisbane region. MAYLE, B. 1990. A biological basis for bat conservation in Pp. 424–442, in The biology and conservation of Austral - British woodlands — a review. Mammal Review, 20: asian bats (B. LAW, P. EBY, D. LUNNEY, and L. LUMSDEN, 159–195. eds.). Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Moss - MEDDINGS, A., S. TAYLOR, L. BATTY, R. GREEN, M. KNOWLES, man, 498 pp. and D. LATHAM. 2011. Managing competition between RITZI, C. M., B. L. EVERSON, and J. O. WHITAKER, JR. 2005. Use birds and bats for roost boxes in small woodlands, north- of bat boxes by a maternity colony of Indiana myotis east England. Conservation Evidence, 8: 74–80. (Myotis sodalis). Northeastern Naturalist, 12: 217–220. MENKHORST, P. 1984. The application of nest boxes in research ROER, H. 1971. Gittertore and Nistkästen als wichtige Hilfs - and management of possums and gliders. Pp. 517–525, in mittel zur Erhaltung der in ihrem Bestand bedrohten euro- Possums and gliders (A. P. SMITH and I. D. HUME, eds.). päischen Fledermäuse. Decheniana-Beihefte, 18: 109–113. Australian Mammal Society, Sydney, 598 pp. ROSE, C. L., B. G. MARCOT, T. K. MELLEN, J. L. OHMANN, K. L. MERING, E. D., and C. L. CHAMBERS. 2012. Artificial roosts for WADDELL, D. L. LINDLEY, and B. SCHREIBER. 2001. Decay- tree-roosting bats in northern Arizona. Wildlife Society ing wood in Pacific Northwest forests: concepts and tools Bulletin, 36: 765–772. for habitat management. Pp. 580–623, in Wildlife-habitat MERING, E. D., and C. L. CHAMBERS. 2014. Thinking outside the relationships in Oregon and Washington (D. H. JOHNSON box: a review of artificial roosts for bats. Wildlife Society and T. A. O’NEIL, eds.). Oregon State University Press, Cor- Bulletin, 38: 741–751. vallis, Oregon, 736 pp. MESCHEDE, A., and K. G. HELER. 2002. Ökologie und Schutz RUCZYŃSKI, I., and W. BOGDANOWICZ. 2005. Roost cavity selec- von Fledermäusen in Wäldern, 2nd edition. Schriftenreihe tion by Nyctalus noctula and N. leisleri (Vespertilionidae, Landschaftspflege and Naturschutz, 66: 1–374. Chiroptera) in Białowieża Primeval Forest, Eastern Poland. MICHAELSEN, T. 2011. BCI bat houses pay off in Norway. Bats, Journal of Mammalogy, 85: 921–930. 29: 9–11. RUCZYŃSKI, I., E. K. V. KALKO, and B. M. SIEMERS. 2007. MICKLEBURGH, S. P., A. M. HUTSON, and P. A. RACEY. 2002. The sensory basis of roost finding in a forest bat, Nyctalus A re view of the global conservation status of bats. Oryx, 36: noctula. Journal of Experimental Biology, 210: 3607–3615. 18–34. RUCZYŃSKI, I., E. K. V. KALKO, and B. M. SIEMERS. 2009. Calls MURPHY, M. 1989. Dr. Campbell’s ‘malaria-eradicating, guano- in the forest: a comparative approach to how bats find tree producing bat roosts’. Bats, 72: 10–13. cavities. Ethology, 115: 167–177. NAGEL, A., and R. NAGEL. 1988. Einsatz von Fledermauskästen RUCZYŃSKI, I., A. SZARLIK, and B. M. SIEMERS, 2011. Con spi - zur Ansiedlung von Fledermäusen: ein Vergleich von 2 ver- cuous visual cues can help bats to find tree cavities. Acta schiedenen Gebieten Baden-Württembergs. Myotis, 26: Chiropterologica, 13: 385–389. 129–144. RUEEGGER, N. N., R. L. GOLDINGAY, and L. O. BROOKS. 2012. NEILSON, A. L., and M. B. FENTON, 1994. Responses of little Does nest box design influence use by the eastern pygmy- brown myotis to exclusion and to bat houses. Wildlife possum? Australian Journal of Zoology, 60: 372–380. Society Bulletin, 22: 8–14. SALAZAR, D., D. H. KELM, and R. J. MARQUIS. 2013. Directed NEWTON, I. 1994. The role of nest sites in limiting the numbers seed dispersal of piper by Carollia perspicillata and its ef- of hole-nesting birds: a review. Biological Conservation, fect on understory plant diversity and folivory. Ecology, 94: 70: 265–276. 2444–2453. NIEMELÄ, J., J. YOUNG, D. ALARD, M. ASKASIBAR, K. HENLE, SANDER, S. M. 1997. How to build a cave. Bats, 15: 8–11. R. JOHN SON, M. KURTTILA, T. LARSSON, S. MATOUCH, P. NO - SCHMIDT, A. 1977. Ergebnisse mehrjähriger Kontrollen von Fle - WIC KI, et al. 2005. Identifying, managing and monitoring dermauskästen im Bezirk Frankfurt (Oder). Naturschutz - conflicts between forest biodiversity conservation and other arbeit in Berlin und Brandenburg, 13: 42–51. 298 N. Rueegger

SCHMIDT, A. 1989. Die Fledermäuse der Naturschutzgebiete SMITH, C. Y., I. G. WARKENTIN, and M. T. MORONI. 2008. Snag Schwarzberge und Karauschsee (Kreis Beeskow). Bee - availability for cavity nesters across a chronosequence of skower Naturwissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, 7: 36–41. post-harvest landscapes in western Newfoundland. Forest SCHMIDT, A. 1990. Fledermausansiedlungsversuche in ostbran- Ecology and Management, 256: 641–647. denburgischen Kiefernforsten. Nyctalus, 3: 177–207. SMITH, G. C., and G. AGNEW. 2002. The value of ‘bat boxes’ for SCHMIDT, A. 1998. Zur Fledermausfauna ostbrandenburgischer attracting hollow-dependent fauna to farm forestry planta- Kiefernforste. Nyctalus (N.F.), 6: 450–455. tions in southeast Queensland. Ecological Management and SCHMIDT, A. 2000. 30-jährige Untersuchungen in Fledermaus- Restoration, 3: 37–46. kastengebieten Ostbrandenburgs unter besonderer Berück - STEBBINGS, R. E., and S. T. WALSH. 1991. Bat-boxes: a guide to sichtigung von Rauhautfledermaus (Pipistrellus nathusii) the history, function, construction and use in the conserva- und Abendsegler (Nyctalus noctula). Nyctalus (N.F.), 7: tion of bats. Bat Conservation Trust, London, 24 pp. 396–422. STORER, T. 1926. Bats, bat towers and mosquitoes. Journal of SCHÖNER, C. R., M. G. SCHÖNER, and G. KERTH. 2010. Similar Mam malogy, 7: 85–90. is not the same: social calls of conspecifics are more ef- STRATMANN, B. 1971. Erfahrungen bei der Herstellung und beim fective in attracting wild bats to day roosts than those of Einsatz von Fledermausschlaf und Fortpflanz ungs kästen other bat species. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, in der Regionalgruppe Halle. Nyctalus, 3: 69–71. 64: 2053–2063. STRATMANN, B. 1973. Hege waldbewohnender Fledermäuse SCHORCHT, W., F. BONTADINA, and M. SCHAUB. 2009. Variation mittles spezieller Fledermausschlaf und Fortplanzungs - of adult survival drives population dynamics in a migrating kästen im StFB Waren (Müritz). Teil 1. Myotis, 5: 6–16. forest bat. Journal of Animal Ecology, 78: 1182–1190. STRATMANN, B. 1978. Faunistisch-ökologische Beobachtungen SCHWARTING, H. 1990. Kastenquartiere für Baumfledermäuse. an einer Population von Nyctalus noctula im Revier Eck - Natur and Museum, 120: 118–126. tan nen des StFB Waren (Müritz). Nyctalus (N.F.), 1: 2–22. SCHWARTING, H., 1994. Erfahrungen mit Fledermauskästen in TAAKE, K., and U. HILDENHAGEN. 1987. Nine years’ inspections einer hessischen Region. Pp. 159–166, in Die Fledermäuse of different artificial roosts for forest-dwelling bats in Hessens. Man fred Hennecke, Frankfurt, 248 pp. North ern Westfalia: some results. Pp. 487–493, in European SCHWENKE, W. 1983. Zur Ansiedlung von Singvögeln und Fleder- bat research (V. HANÁK, I. HORÁČEK, and I. GAISLER, eds.), mäusen in Kunsthölen in Kieferwäldern, unter besonderer Charles University Press, Praha, 718 pp. Berücksichtigung früherer und neuer Kontrollergebnisse im THRELFALL, C., B. LAW, and P. B. BANKS. 2013. Odour cues in- Geisenfelder Forst, Oberbayern. Anzeiger für Schädlings- fluence predation risk at artificial bat roosts in urban bush- kunde. Pflanzenschutz, Umweltschutz, 5: 52–58. land. Biology Letters, 9: 20121144. SCHWENKE, W. 1984. Neue Erkenntnisse zur Ansiedlung von TUPINER, D. 1981. Experimentelle Untersuchung mit künst - Fledermäusen und Vögeln in Wäldern mit Hilfe von Kunst- lichen Rastplätzen für Fledermäuse. Myotis, 18: 37–40. höhlen. Anzeiger für Schädlingskunde, Pflanzen schutz, TURBILL, C. 2006a. Roosting and thermoregulatory behaviour Um weltschutz, 57: 94–97. of male Gould’s long-eared bats, Nyctophilus gouldi: ener- SCHWENKE, W. 1988. Fledermausscchutz und Ansiedlung im getic benefits of thermally unstable tree roosts. Australian Wald; Erfolge und Probleme. Forstwissenschaftliches Cen- Journal of Zoology, 54: 57–60. tralblatt, 107: 197–202. TURBILL, C, 2006b. Thermoregulatory behavior of tree-roosting SEDGELEY, J. 2001. Quality of cavity microclimate as a factor chocolate wattled bats (Chalinolobus morio) during sum- in fluencing selection of maternity roosts by a tree-dwelling mer and winter. Journal of Mammalogy, 87: 318–323. bat, Chalinolobus tuberculatus, in New Zealand. Journal of TURBILL, C., G. KÖRTNER, and F. GEISER. 2003a. Natural use of Applied Science, 38: 425–438. heterothermy by a small, tree-roosting bat during summer. SHEA, P. J., W. F. LAUDENSLAYER, G. FERRELL, and R. BORYS. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology, 76: 868–876. 2002. Girdled versus bark beetle-created ponderosa pine TURBILL, C., B. LAW, and F. GEISER. 2003b. Summer torpor in snags: utilization by cavity-dependent species and differ- a free-ranging bat from subtropical Australia. Journal of ences in decay rate and insect diversity. Proceedings of the Thermal Biology, 28: 223–226. symposium on the ecology and management of dead wood TUTTLE, M., and D. L. HENSLEY. 1993. Bat houses: the secrets in western forests (W. F. LAUDENSLAYER, P. J. SHEA, B. E. of success. Bats, 11: 1–14. VALENTINE , C. P. WEATHERSPOON, and T. E. LISLE, eds.). For - TUTTLE, M., M. KISER, and S. KISER. 2013. The bat builder’s est Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2: 145–153. handbook, 3rd edition. Bat Conservation International, SHEK, C., J. W. K. SO, C., T. Y. LAU, C. S. M. CHAN, A. O. Y. LI, Aus tin, 35 pp. W. S. H. CHOW, and C. S. K. LIU. 2012. Experimentation on USMAN, K. 1988. Role of light and temperature in the roosting the use of bat boxes in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Biodiver - ecology of tropical microchiropteran bats. Proceedings of sity, 22: 10–15. the Indian Academy of Sciences (Animal Sciences), 97: SIDERS, M. S., and D. SINTON. 1998. Artificial bat bark develop- 551–559. ment and testing. Final report for National Forest Found - VERGARI, S., and G. DONDINI. 2011. Long-term monitoring of ation challenge cost-share project 96-CCS-091-0303, North Nyctalus leisleri at an Italian mating site. Hystrix, Italian Kaibab Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest, Fredonia, Journal Mammalogy, 22: 93–98. 17 pp. VESK, P. A., R. NOLAN, J. R. THOMSON, J. W. DORROUGH, and R. SIEMERS, B. M., and S. M. SWIFT. 2006. Differences in sensory MAC NALLY. 2008. Time lags in provision of habitat re- ecology contribute to resource partitioning in the bats source through revegetation. Biological Conservation, 141: Myotis bechsteinii and Myotis nattereri (Chiroptera: 174–186. Vesper tilionidae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, VOIGT, C. C., L. S. LEHNERT, A. G. POPA-LISSEANU, M. CIE- 59: 373–380. CHA NOWSKI, P. ESTÓK, F. GLOZA-RAUSCH, T. GÖRFÖL, Bat boxes — a review of their use and application 299

M. GÖTTSCHE , C. HARRJE, M. HÖTZEL, et al. 2014. The WHITE, E. P. 2004. Factors affecting bat house occupancy in transboundary importance of artificial bat hibernacula in Colo rado. The Southwestern Naturalist, 49: 344–349. managed Euro p ean forests. Biodiversity and Conservation, WILHELM, A. 2012. Use of artificial roosts by bats in central 23: 617–631. Arizona. M.Sci. Thesis, Northern Arizona University, Flag - WARD, S. J. 2000. The efficacy of nestboxes versus spotlight- staff, 84 pp. [Not seen, cited after Mering and Chambers, ing for detecting feathertail gliders. Wildlife Research, 27: 2014]. 75–79. WILKINSON, G. S. 1992. Information transfer at evening bat WEIDNER, H. 1998. Biologische Untersuchungen in einer colonies. Animal Behaviour, 44: 501–518. Wochens tube der Fransenfledermaus, Myotis nattereri WILLIS, C. K. R., and R. M. BRIGHAM. 2007. Social thermoreg- (Kuhl, 1818) in einem Fichtenwald Ostthüringens. Nyctalus ulation exerts more influence than microclimate on forest (N.F.), 6: 506–516. roost preferences by a cavity-dwelling bat. Behavioral WEISHAAR, M. 1995. Effizienz verschiedener Untersuchungs- Ecol ogy and Sociobiology, 62: 97–108. methoden für die Nachweisbarkeit von Fledermausarten. WOLZ, I. 1986. Wochenstuben-Quartierwechsel bei der Bech- Dendrocopos, 22: 3–9. steinfledermaus. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde, 51: 65–75. WEISSMANN, K. 1997. Einfluss der Temperatur auf die Quartier- YOUNG, J., A. WATT, P. NOWICKI, D. ALARD, J. CLITHEROW, K. wahl weiblicher Bechsteinfledermäuse (Myotis bechstei - HENLE, R. JOHNSON, E. LACZKO, D. MCCRACKEN, S. MA - nii). Diplom Arbeit, University Würzburg, Würzburg. [Not TOUCH, et al. 2005. Towards sustainable land use: identify- seen, cited after Meschede and Heller, 2002]. ing and managing the conflicts between human activities WENDORF, R. 2004. Modellprojekt für Fledermauskästen and biodiversity conservation in Europe. Biodiversity and im Forstrevier Berlin – Schmöckwitz. Nyctalus (N.F.), 9: Conservation, 14: 1641–1661. 372–388. ZAHN, A. 1999. Reproductive success, colony size and roost WHITAKER, J. O., JR., D. W. SPARKS, and V. BRACK. 2006. Use temperature in attic-dwelling bat Myotis myotis. Journal of of artificial roost structures by bats at the Indianapolis Inter - Zoology (London), 247: 275–280. na tional Airport. Environmental Management, 38: 28–36.

Received 10 August 2015, accepted 09 January 2016