Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Home , Cariboo Plateau, Hozameen Range, Kitimat Ranges, Mountain beaver, Okanagan Highland, Okanagan South

WILDLIFE MODELLING AND SPECIES ACCOUNTS TECHNICAL REPORT

FOR THE TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE ULC TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT

December 2013

REP-NEB-TERA-00011

Prepared for: Prepared by:

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC

Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. TERA Environmental Consultants Suite 2700, 300 – 5th Avenue S.W. Suite 1100, 815 - 8th Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 5J2 Calgary, Alberta T2P 3P2 Ph: 403-514-6400 Ph: 403-265-2885

TranMountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 1.1 Project Overview ...... 1-1 1.2 Objectives ...... 1-1 1.3 Standards ...... 1-2 2.0 METHODS ...... 2-1 2.1 Study Area Boundaries ...... 2-1 2.2 Wildlife Indicators ...... 2-1 2.3 Life Requisites and Seasons of Use ...... 2-1 2.4 Habitat Modelling Approach ...... 2-3 2.5 Ecosystem Mapping and Data Sources ...... 2-4 2.6 Field Ratings ...... 2-4 2.7 Habitat Suitability Ratings ...... 2-5 2.8 Suitability Rating Adjustments ...... 2-6 2.8.1 Adjustments for Anthropogenic Disturbance ...... 2-6 2.8.2 Adjustments for Proximity to Landscape Features ...... 2-7 2.9 Indicator Distribution ...... 2-7 2.9.1 Model Evaluation and Refinement ...... 2-10 3.0 MAMMAL SPECIES ACCOUNTS AND HABITAT MODELS ...... 3-1 3.1 Grizzly Bear ...... 3-1 3.1.1 Status ...... 3-1 3.1.2 Distribution ...... 3-2 3.1.3 General Ecology...... 3-3 3.1.4 Key Habitat Requirements ...... 3-4 3.1.5 Limiting Factors ...... 3-5 3.1.6 Model Development ...... 3-5 3.2 Woodland Caribou ...... 3-6 3.2.1 Status ...... 3-6 3.2.2 Distribution ...... 3-7 3.2.3 General Ecology...... 3-8 3.2.4 Limiting Factors ...... 3-8 3.3 Moose ...... 3-9 3.3.1 Status ...... 3-9 3.3.2 Distribution ...... 3-9 3.3.3 General Ecology...... 3-10 3.3.4 Key Habitat Requirements ...... 3-11 3.3.5 Limiting Factors ...... 3-12 3.3.6 Model Development ...... 3-12 3.4 Forest Furbearers ...... 3-16 3.4.1 American Marten ...... 3-17 3.4.2 Fisher ...... 3-20 3.5 Coastal Riparian Small Mammals ...... 3-23 3.5.1 Pacific Water Shrew ...... 3-24 3.5.2 Mountain Beaver ...... 3-25 3.6 Bats ...... 3-28 3.6.1 Status ...... 3-29 3.6.2 Distribution ...... 3-29 3.6.3 General Ecology...... 3-29 3.6.4 Key Habitat Requirements ...... 3-30 3.6.5 Limiting Factors ...... 3-31

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page i

TranMountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

3.6.6 Model Development ...... 3-31 4.0 BIRD SPECIES ACCOUNTS AND HABITAT MODELS ...... 4-1 4.1 Grassland/Shrub-Steppe Birds ...... 4-1 4.1.1 Status ...... 4-2 4.1.2 Distribution ...... 4-2 4.1.3 General information ...... 4-2 4.1.4 Key Habitat Requirements ...... 4-2 4.1.5 Limiting Factors ...... 4-3 4.1.6 Model Development ...... 4-3 4.2 Mature/Old Forest Birds ...... 4-4 4.2.1 Status ...... 4-8 4.2.2 Distribution ...... 4-8 4.2.3 General information ...... 4-8 4.2.4 Key Habitat Requirements ...... 4-8 4.2.5 Limiting Factors ...... 4-9 4.2.6 Model Development ...... 4-9 4.3 Early Seral Forest Birds ...... 4-10 4.3.1 Status ...... 4-14 4.3.2 Distribution ...... 4-14 4.3.3 General Information ...... 4-14 4.3.4 Key Habitat Requirements ...... 4-14 4.3.5 Limiting Factors ...... 4-14 4.3.6 Model Development ...... 4-15 4.4 Riparian and Wetland Birds ...... 4-15 4.4.1 Status ...... 4-22 4.4.2 Distribution ...... 4-22 4.4.3 General Ecology...... 4-22 4.4.4 Key Habitat Requirements ...... 4-23 4.4.5 Limiting Factors ...... 4-23 4.4.6 Model Development ...... 4-24 4.5 Wood Warblers ...... 4-25 4.5.1 Black-Throated Green Warbler ...... 4-25 4.5.2 Cape May Warbler ...... 4-28 4.6 Short-Eared Owl ...... 4-30 4.6.1 Status ...... 4-30 4.6.2 Distribution ...... 4-31 4.6.3 General Ecology...... 4-31 4.6.4 Key Habitat Requirements ...... 4-32 4.6.5 Limiting Factors ...... 4-32 4.6.6 Model Development ...... 4-32 4.7 Rusty Blackbird ...... 4-34 4.7.1 Status ...... 4-34 4.7.2 Distribution ...... 4-34 4.7.3 General Ecology...... 4-34 4.7.4 Key Habitat Requirements ...... 4-35 4.7.5 Limiting Factors ...... 4-35 4.7.6 Model Development ...... 4-35 4.8 Flammulated Owl ...... 4-36 4.8.1 Status ...... 4-36 4.8.2 Distribution ...... 4-36 4.8.3 General Ecology...... 4-37 4.8.4 Key Habitat Requirements ...... 4-38 4.8.5 Limiting Factors ...... 4-38

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page ii

TranMountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

4.8.6 Model Development ...... 4-38 4.9 Lewis’s Woodpecker ...... 4-40 4.9.1 Status ...... 4-40 4.9.2 Distribution ...... 4-40 4.9.3 General Ecology...... 4-40 4.9.4 Key Habitat Requirements ...... 4-41 4.9.5 Limiting Factors ...... 4-41 4.9.6 Model Development ...... 4-41 4.10 Williamson’s Sapsucker ...... 4-43 4.10.1 Status ...... 4-43 4.10.2 Distribution ...... 4-43 4.10.3 General Ecology...... 4-44 4.10.4 Key Habitat Requirements ...... 4-44 4.10.5 Limiting Factors ...... 4-45 4.10.6 Model Development ...... 4-45 4.11 Western Screech-Owl ...... 4-45 4.11.1 Status ...... 4-45 4.11.2 Distribution ...... 4-46 4.11.3 General Ecology...... 4-46 4.11.4 Key Habitat Requirements ...... 4-47 4.11.5 Limiting Factors ...... 4-47 4.11.6 Model Development ...... 4-47 4.12 Great Blue Heron ...... 4-49 4.12.1 Status ...... 4-49 4.12.2 Distribution ...... 4-49 4.12.3 General Ecology...... 4-50 4.12.4 Limiting Factors ...... 4-50 4.13 Spotted Owl ...... 4-50 4.13.1 Status ...... 4-50 4.13.2 Distribution ...... 4-51 4.13.3 General Ecology...... 4-51 4.13.4 Key Habitat Requirements ...... 4-51 4.13.5 Limiting Factors ...... 4-52 4.13.6 Model Development ...... 4-52 4.14 Bald Eagle ...... 4-53 4.14.1 Status ...... 4-53 4.14.2 Distribution ...... 4-53 4.14.3 General Ecology...... 4-54 4.14.4 Limiting Factors ...... 4-55 4.15 Common Nighthawk ...... 4-55 4.15.1 Status ...... 4-55 4.15.2 Distribution ...... 4-55 4.15.3 General Ecology...... 4-56 4.15.4 Key Habitat Requirements ...... 4-56 4.15.5 Limiting Factors ...... 4-56 4.15.6 Model Development ...... 4-56 4.16 Northern Goshawk ...... 4-58 4.16.1 Status ...... 4-58 4.16.2 Distribution ...... 4-58 4.16.3 General Ecology...... 4-58 4.16.4 Key Habitat Requirements ...... 4-59 4.16.5 Limiting Factors ...... 4-59 4.16.6 Model Development ...... 4-59 4.17 Olive-Sided Flycatcher ...... 4-59

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page iii

TranMountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

4.17.1 Status ...... 4-59 4.17.2 Distribution ...... 4-60 4.17.3 General Ecology...... 4-60 4.17.4 Key Habitat Requirements ...... 4-61 4.17.5 Limiting Factors ...... 4-61 4.17.6 Model Development ...... 4-61 5.0 AMPHIBIAN SPECIES ACCOUNTS AND HABITAT MODELS ...... 5-1 5.1 Pond-Dwelling Amphibians ...... 5-1 5.1.1 Pond-Dwelling Amphibian Model ...... 5-2 5.1.2 Western Toad ...... 5-4 5.1.3 Great Basin Spadefoot ...... 5-6 5.2 Stream-Dwelling Amphibians ...... 5-10 5.2.1 Coastal Tailed Frog ...... 5-10 6.0 REPTILE SPECIES ACCOUNTS AND HABITAT MODELS ...... 6-1 6.1 Arid Habitat Snakes ...... 6-1 6.1.1 Western Rattlesnake ...... 6-1 7.0 SUMMARY ...... 7-1 8.0 REFERENCES ...... 8-1 8.1 Personal Communications ...... 8-1 8.2 Literature Cited ...... 8-1

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.3-1 Life Requisites and Seasons of Use Applied to Habitat Models ...... 2-1 Table 2.3-2 Summary of Wildlife Indicators and Habitat Models ...... 2-2 Table 2.7-1 Rating System Used for Habitat Suitability Modelling ...... 2-6 Table 2.9-1 Distribution of Modelled Indicators Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area and Regional Study Area ...... 2-8 Table 3.1-1 Grizzly Bear Population Units and Bear Management Areas Intersected by the Wildlife Local Study Area ...... 3-1 Table 3.3-1 Moose Population Estimates in British Columbia and Alberta ...... 3-9 Table 3.3-2 Important Moose Browse Species ...... 3-11 Table 3.3-3 Maximum Ratings for Biogeoclimatic Zones and Natural Subregions Occurring Within the Wildlife Local Study Area ...... 3-13 Table 3.3-4 Maximum Ratings for Moose Winter Foraging Habitat Based on Structural Stage and Presence of Preferred Browse Species ...... 3-14 Table 3.3-5 Habitat Ratings for Low Snowfall Areas Based on Stand Type and Structural Stage ...... 3-15 Table 3.3-6 Habitat Ratings for High Snowfall Areas Based on Stand Type and Structural Stage ...... 3-15 Table 3.4-1 Species Included in the Forest Furbearers Indicator Group ...... 3-16 Table 3.4-2 Ratings for Marten General Living Habitat Accounting for Soil Moisture, Stand Composition and Structural Stage ...... 3-19 Table 3.4-3 Biogeoclimatic Variants Along the Wildlife Local Study Area that Fall Within Fisher Range ...... 3-21 Table 3.4-4 Suitability Ratings for Fisher Adjusted According to Stand Characteristics and Moisture Regime ...... 3-23 Table 3.5-1 Species in the Coastal Riparian Small Mammals Community Indicator that Have the Potential to Occur in the Wildlife Local Study Area ...... 3-23 Table 3.6-1 Bat Species Likely to Occur in the Wildlife Local Study Area ...... 3-28 Table 3.6-2 Tree Species and Habitat Suitability for Tree-Roosting Bats ...... 3-32 Table 4.1-1 Grassland Shrub-Steppe Bird Community Species ...... 4-1 Table 4.1-2 Ratings Assumptions for the Grassland/Shrub-Steppe Bird Habitat Model ...... 4-4 Table 4.2-1 Mature/Old Forest Bird Community Species ...... 4-5

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page iv

TranMountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Table 4.2-2 Mature/Old Seral Forest Bird Habitat Ratings Assumptions for Stand Composition and Structural Stage ...... 4-9 Table 4.3-1 Early Seral Forest Bird Community Species ...... 4-11 Table 4.3-2 Early Seral Forest Bird Habitat Ratings Assumptions for Stand Composition and Structural Stage ...... 4-15 Table 4.4-1 Riparian and Wetland Bird Community Species ...... 4-17 Table 4.5-1 Black-Throated Green Warbler Habitat Rating Assumptions Based on the Best Available Habitat in Alberta ...... 4-27 Table 4.5-2 Black-Throated Green Warbler Habitat Rating Assumptions Within the Wildlife Local Study Area ...... 4-27 Table 4.5-3 Cape May Warbler Habitat Rating Assumptions Based on the Best Available Habitat in Alberta ...... 4-30 Table 4.5-4 Cape May Warbler Habitat Rating Assumptions Within the Wildlife Local Study Area ...... 4-30 Table 4.6-1 Ratings for Short-Eared Owl Nesting Habitat, Adjusted for Structural Stage and General Habitat Type ...... 4-33 Table 4.7-1 Ratings for Rusty Blackbird Wetland Habitats, Accounting for Stand Composition and the Presence/Absence of Black Spruce ...... 4-36 Table 4.8-1 Maximum Flammulated Owl Habitat Suitability Rating Based on Typical Soil Moisture Regime ...... 4-39 Table 4.11-1 Western Screech-Owl, Macfarlanei Nesting Habitat Maximum Ratings ...... 4-48 Table 4.11-2 Western Screech-Owl, Kennicottii Nesting Habitat Maximum Ratings ...... 4-48 Table 4.13-1 Ratings Assumptions for Spotted Owl Nesting Habitat Suitability ...... 4-53 Table 4.15-1 Common Nighthawk Habitat Ratings Adjusting for Structural Stage and Soil Moisture ...... 4-57 Table 4.17-1 Olive-Sided Flycatcher Habitat Rating Assumptions ...... 4-62 Table 5.1-1 Pond-Dwelling Amphibian Species that Are Likely to Occur Along the Project Route ...... 5-1 Table 5.1-2 Aquatic Habitat Associations of Pond-Dwelling Amphibian Species that Potentially Occur Along the Project Route ...... 5-3 Table 5.1-3 Western Toad Habitat Ratings Adjusted for Soil Moisture and Structural Stage ...... 5-6 Table 5.1-4 Habitat Ratings for Great Basin Spadefoot Adjusted for Soil Texture and Moisture ...... 5-9 Table 5.2-1 Rating Interpretations for the Coastal Tailed Frog Model ...... 5-12 Table 5.2-2 Maximum Habitat Ratings of Stream Segments Based on Gradient and Basin Area for Coastal Tailed Frog ...... 5-13 Table 6.1-1 Arid Habitat Snake Species that Are Likely to Occur Along the Project in the Southern Interior Ecoprovince ...... 6-1 Table 6.1-2 Rating Reductions for Western Rattlesnake Habitat Depending on Incident Solar Insolation ...... 6-5 Table 6.1-3 Rating Reductions for Western Rattlesnake Habitat Depending on Incident Solar Insolation ...... 6-6

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page v

TranMountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYM LIST

Definition/Acronym Full Name ABMI Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute ACA Alberta Conservation Association AESRD Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development AGCC Alberta Ground Cover Classification AL AltaLIS hydrology data ASRD Alberta Sustainable Resource Development AVI Alberta Vegetation Inventory BAMP Boreal Avian Monitoring Project BC British Columbia BC CDC British Columbia Conservation Data Centre BC MELP British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks BC MFLNRO British Columbia Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations BC MOE British Columbia Ministry of Environment BC MOFR British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range BC MWLAP British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection BCCF British Columbia Conservation Foundation BEC Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification BEI Broad Ecosystem Inventory BMA Bear Management Area COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada CPCN Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity CWD coarse woody debris dbh Diameter at breast height – standardized measurement of tree diameter ESA Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment FWA Freshwater Atlas GBPU Grizzly Bear Population Unit Habitat Capability The ability of the habitat, under the optimal natural (seral) conditions for a species to provide its life requisites, irrespective of the current condition of the habitat. Habitat Effectiveness The ability of the habitat in its current condition to provide the life requisites of a species; more narrowly defined than habitat suitability since it explicitly incorporates the configuration of the habitat relative to key landscape features or known disturbances Habitat Suitability The ability of the habitat in its current condition to provide the life requisites of a species Indicator A biophysical, social, or economic property or variable that society considers to be important and is assessed to predict Project-related changes and focus the impact assessment on key issues. One or more indicators are selected and used as surrogates to describe the present and predicted future condition of an element. Societal views reflect published information such as management plans and engagement with regulators, public, Aboriginal, and other interested groups KMC Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. Local Study Area (LSA) Zone of influence or area where the element and associated indicators are most likely to be affected by Project construction and operation. This generally represents a buffer from the centre of the proposed pipeline corridor MCST Mountain Caribou Science Team MCTAC Mountain Caribou Technical Advisory Committee MWI Merged Wetland Inventory of the Alberta Canadian Wetland Classification System NABCI North American Breeding Bird Conservation Initiative NCGBRT North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Team NEB National Energy Board NGRT Northern Goshawk Recovery Team PFOWG Provincial Flammulated Owl Working Group the Project Trans Mountain Expansion Project PWSRT Pacific Water Shrew Recovery Team Regional Study Area (RSA) Area extending beyond the Local Study Area boundary where the direct and indirect influence of other activities could overlap with project-specific effects and cause cumulative effects on the environmental or socio-economic indicator RIC Resource Inventory Committee SARA Species at Risk Act SIRART Southern Interior Reptile and Amphibian Recovery Team SOPET Spotted Owl Population Enhancement Team TEM Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping TMEP Trans Mountain Expansion Project

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page vi

TranMountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

TMPL Trans Mountain Pipeline Trans Mountain Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC US United States VRI Vegetation Resources Inventory WMU Wildlife Management Unit WSORT Western Screech-Owl, macfarlanei subspecies Recovery Team

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page vii

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION This Technical Report provides the method for development of wildlife habitat models and species accounts completed in support of the assessment of potential effects of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (the Project) on wildlife and wildlife habitat.

1.1 Project Overview Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain) is a Canadian corporation with its head office located in Calgary, Alberta. Trans Mountain is a general partner of Trans Mountain Pipeline L.P., which is operated by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC), and is fully owned by Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. Trans Mountain is the holder of the National Energy Board (NEB) certificates for the Trans Mountain Pipeline (TMPL) system.

The TMPL system commenced operations 60 years ago and now transports a range of crude oil and petroleum products from Western Canada to locations in central and southwestern British Columbia (BC), Washington State and offshore. The TMPL system currently supplies much of the crude oil and refined products used in BC. The TMPL system is operated and maintained by staff located at Trans Mountain’s regional and local offices in Alberta (Edmonton, Edson, and Jasper) and BC (Clearwater, Kamloops, Hope, Abbotsford, and Burnaby).

The TMPL system has an operating capacity of approximately 47,690 m3/d (300,000 bbl/d) using 23 active pump stations and 40 petroleum storage tanks. The expansion will increase the capacity to 141,500 m3/d (890,000 bbl/d).

The proposed expansion will comprise the following:

• Pipeline segments that complete a twinning (or “looping”) of the pipeline in Alberta and BC with about 987 km of new buried pipeline.

• New and modified facilities, including pump stations and tanks.

• Three new berths at the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby, BC, each capable of handling Aframax class vessels.

The expansion has been developed in response to requests for service from Western Canadian oil producers and West Coast refiners for increased pipeline capacity in support of growing oil production and access to growing West Coast and offshore markets. NEB decision RH-001-2012 reinforces market support for the expansion and provides Trans Mountain the necessary economic conditions to proceed with design, consultation, and regulatory applications.

Application is being made pursuant to Section 52 of the NEB Act for the proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project (referred to as TMEP or the Project). The NEB will conduct a detailed review and hold a Public Hearing to determine if it is in the public interest to recommend a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for construction and operation of the Project. Subject to the outcome of the NEB Hearing process, Trans Mountain plans to begin construction in 2016 and go into service in 2017.

Trans Mountain has embarked on an extensive program to engage Aboriginal communities and to consult with landowners, government agencies (e.g., regulators and municipalities), stakeholders, and the general public. Information on the Project is also available at www.transmountain.com.

1.2 Objectives The objective of the habitat models and species accounts was to support the assessment of potential Project effects on wildlife habitat. Results of the habitat models were used to identify habitat suitability within the wildlife study areas, predict changes in effective habitat as a result of the Project and other developments, and support development of mitigation.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 1-1

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Habitat models are a simplification of complex ecological processes. The results of habitat models for this assessment are not expected to be exact characterizations of habitat effectiveness for wildlife potentially occurring in the study areas. Rather, model results provide a characterization of habitats most likely to be used by a given indicator, based on habitat variables that have been demonstrated or deemed likely to affect suitability and effectiveness, and an indication of habitat change that could result from the Project.

Species accounts summarize available literature on the biology or management of the wildlife indicators selected for the assessment of potential Project effects. Species accounts were prepared in support of habitat interpretations needed for model development, as well as to support the assessment of Project effects by provision of context. For modelled indicators, the accounts also include a description of the habitat model mechanics (e.g., ratings, assumptions).

1.3 Standards Models developed for the Project were based on the BC Wildlife Habitat Rating Standards (British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks [BC MELP] 1999). This method was selected to be consistent with provincial standards and common practices in BC and with other projects of similar scope. Similar methodology was adapted for the Alberta portion of the Project to have a cohesive modelling strategy for the Project, and because habitat rating standards have yet to be developed for Alberta. The standards used to develop the Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) used in the habitat models are described in Appendix C of the Vegetation Technical Report (Volume 5C).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 1-2

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

2.0 METHODS The following sections describe the methods used to develop habitat suitability models.

2.1 Study Area Boundaries Spatial boundaries used for wildlife habitat modelling include the Wildlife Local Study Area (LSA) and the Wildlife Regional Study Area (RSA). The Wildlife LSA is defined generally as the area within a 1 km buffer of the centre of the proposed pipeline corridor and power lines, and within a 1 km buffer around the boundary of the proposed permanent facilities. The Wildlife RSA is defined generally as the area within a 15 km buffer of the centre of the proposed pipeline corridor and power lines, and within a 15 km buffer around the boundary of the proposed permanent facilities. Further description of spatial boundaries is provided in Section 7.2.10.2 of Volume 5A.

2.2 Wildlife Indicators The selection criteria, rationale and measurement endpoints for wildlife indicators used in the assessment of potential effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat are provided in Section 7.2.10.1 of Volume 5A.

A combination of wildlife indicators was selected to include:

• wildlife communities by habitat type (e.g., mature/old forest birds);

• species groups (e.g., forest furbearers);

• species at risk (e.g., grizzly bear); and

• species of management concern or of social or cultural importance (e.g., moose).

The habitat-based community indicators allow for an evaluation of potential Project effects on the broader wildlife community, including common and abundant species, as well as rare and widely dispersed species. The community indicators include: coastal riparian small mammals; bats; mature/old forest birds; early seral forest birds; grassland/shrub-steppe birds; riparian and wetland birds; pond-dwelling amphibians; stream-dwelling amphibians; and arid habitat snakes. The habitat models prepared for the community indicators are representive of habitat guilds, rather than species-specific habitat associations. Similar to the species-specific accounts, written accounts are provided for the community indicators, which include the species considered within the community.

2.3 Life Requisites and Seasons of Use In some cases, habitat models encompass all of the habitat requirements of an indicator through all seasons (e.g., year-round living habitat). In other cases, models focus on particular life requisites and season of use deemed to be limiting or of particular importance. For example, denning or nesting habitat can be of limited availability for some species, and seasonal availability of forage can impact mortality risk for some species at important times of the year. Life requisites and seasons are described in Table 2.3-1.

TABLE 2.3-1

LIFE REQUISITES AND SEASONS OF USE APPLIED TO HABITAT MODELS

Habitat Parameter Code Definition Life Requisite General Living LI Habitat used for general living activities, such as: foraging; staging; courtship/mating; hibernating; migrating; reproducing/birthing; and/or security. This is a general habitat category and includes most habitats where a species is commonly found. General living is the most suitable life requisite to model for species that are unlikely to be limited by any single life requisite or where several life requisites involve the same habitat. Reproductive –Birthing RB Habitat used for birthing and providing protection for live young. This life requisite is (Denning; Maternity Roosting) typically modelled for species that have specific birthing habitat requirements (e.g., old forest with suitable tree cavities). This life requisite does not necessarily include the foraging habitat used by an individual to support its young.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 2-1

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

TABLE 2.3-1 Cont'd

Habitat Parameter Code Definition Life Requisite Reproductive –Egg RE Habitat used for nesting and caring for young. Includes foraging habitat for species that (cont’d) (Nesting) defend territories that include both nesting and foraging habitat (e.g., most songbirds), but not for species that defend nesting-specific territories separate from primary foraging habitat (e.g., many raptors). Food (Foraging) FD Habitat used specifically for finding and consuming food. Security/Thermal ST Habitat used for protection from predators and protection from unfavourable climatic conditions. Hibernation HI Habitat used for hibernating. Season of Use All Seasons/Year-Round A The life requisite is important year-round. Growing G The life requisite generally includes spring, summer, and fall when individuals are active and reproduction often occurs. Spring P The life requisite primarily involves the spring (e.g., habitat used following winter hibernation). Fall F The life requisite primarily involves the fall (e.g., habitat used to prepare for hibernation). Winter W The life requisite primarily involves the winter (e.g., habitat used to survive winter conditions). Source: Adapted from BC MELP (1999)

Habitat models for the Project were completed for the life requisites and seasons of use that were deemed to have the greatest relevance for assessing Project effects. Several factors were considered when deciding which life requisites and seasons of use to model, including: guidelines of the Wildlife Habitat Rating Standards (BC MELP); information available on habitat associations; important habitat variables and habitat features that are most likely to be limiting; the ability of habitat models to represent habitat suitability for different life requisites; and the likelihood or extent of Project interactions with the life requisites of an indicator, with preference given to the life requisite most likely to be affected by the Project. For some wildlife indicators, multiple life requisites and/or seasons of use were modelled to capture a wider range of habitat requirements.

The wildlife indicators, habitat/life requisites and seasons of use modelled are summarized in Table 2.3-2.

TABLE 2.3-2

SUMMARY OF WILDLIFE INDICATORS AND HABITAT MODELS

Ecosystem Rating Wildlife Indicator Habitat/Life Requisite Season Mapping2 Scheme Model Source Grizzly Bear Feeding Spring TEM 6-point Developed for the Project Feeding Fall TEM 6-point Developed for the Project Woodland Caribou1 n/a Moose Feeding Winter TEM 6-point Developed for the Project Security/thermal Winter TEM 6-point Developed for the Project Forest Furbearers American marten general living Year-round TEM 4-point Developed for the Project Fisher natal denning Growing TEM 4-point Developed for the Project Coastal Riparian Small Pacific water shrew general living Year-round TEM 4-point Provincial model (adapted) Mammals (capability) Mountain beaver general living Year-round TEM 4-point Developed for the Project Bats Maternal tree-roosting Growing TEM 4-point Developed for the Project Grassland/Shrub-steppe Nesting Growing TEM 4-point Developed for the Project Birds Mature/Old Forest Birds Nesting Growing TEM 4-point Developed for the Project Early Seral Forest Birds Nesting Growing TEM 4-point Developed for the Project Riparian and Wetland Birds Riparian and wetland bird Growing FWA, MWI, AL 4-point Developed for the Project community nesting Cavity nesting waterfowl nesting Growing FWA, VRI 4-point Developed for the Project

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 2-2

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

TABLE 2.3-2 Cont’d

Ecosystem Rating Wildlife Indicator Habitat/Life Requisite Season Mapping2 Scheme Model Source Wood Warblers Black-throated green warbler Growing TEM 6-point Developed for the Project nesting Cape May warbler nesting Growing TEM 6-point Developed for the Project Short Eared Owl Nesting Growing TEM 4-point Developed for the Project Rusty Blackbird Nesting Growing TEM 4-point Developed for the Project Flammulated Owl Nesting Growing TEM 4-point Developed for the Project Lewis’s Woodpecker Nesting Growing TEM 6-point Developed for the Project Willamson’s Sapsucker Nesting Growing VRI 6-point Provincial model (adapted) Western Screech Owl macfarlanei ssp. nesting Growing TEM 4-point Developed for the Project kennicottii ssp. nesting Growing TEM 4-point Developed for the Project Great Blue Heron1 n/a Spotted Owl Nesting Growing VRI 6-point Developed for the Project Bald Eagle1 n/a Common Nighthawk Nesting Growing TEM 4-point Developed for the Project Northern Goshawk laingi ssp. nesting Growing Forest Cover 4-point Provincial model (adapted) Olive-sided Flycatcher Nesting Growing TEM 6-point Developed for the Project Pond-dwelling Amphibians Pond-dwelling amphibian Growing FWA, MWI 4-point Developed for the Project breeding Western toad general living Year-round TEM, FWA, 4-point Developed for the Project MWI Great Basin spadefoot breeding Growing TEM, FWA 4-point Developed for the Project Stream-dwelling Coastal tailed frog living Year-round VRI, FWA 6-point Developed for the Project Amphibians Arid Habitat Snakes Western rattlesnake general living Growing TEM 4-point Developed for the Project Western rattlesnake Year-round TEM 4-point Developed for the Project denning/hibernation Notes: 1 Refer to Sections 7.2.10 and 8.9.6 of Volume 5A for quantitative analysis of predicted change in caribou habitat. Great blue heron and bald eagle are not well suited to use of habitat suitability models to estimated changes resulting from the Project. These indicators were evaluated qualitatively (refer to Section 7.2.10 of Volume 5A). 2 The data sources listed include the primary spatial data used to model habitat suitability. Secondary data sources (e.g., disturbance, digital elevation, watershed/basin data) are not listed. TEM refers to Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping compiled for the Project. FWA refers to Fresh Water Atlas data. MWI refers to the Alberta Canadian Wetland Classification System Merged Wetland Inventory. AL refers to AltaLIS hydrology data. VRI refers to Vegetation Resources Inventory mapping. Forest cover data were used as the basis of the provincial northern goshawk model, the output of which were used for the Project. Additional information and sources for spatial data are provided in Section 2.5.

2.4 Habitat Modelling Approach Habitat suitability is defined as the ability of habitat in its current condition to support the life requisites of a species or indicator (BC MELP 1999). Habitat suitability models, as described by the BC Wildlife Habitat Rating Standards, use ecological mapping as the framework for assessing wildlife habitat relationships through assignment of suitability ratings based on known or likely habitat associations. Suitability ratings, described further in Section 2.7, were used to model habitat according to pre-determined suitability classes (e.g., Nil, Low, Low to Moderate, Moderate, Moderately High and High suitability).

As noted in Table 2.3-2, habitat models completed for the Project included a combination of models developed for the Project and existing models obtained from provincial regulatory agencies. Existing models were available for Williamson’s sapsucker, coastal northern goshawk and Pacific water shrew. The remainder of the models were developed for the Project.

Within the Wildlife LSA, habitat suitability was modelled for existing conditions and Project conditions, which is defined as the anticipated habitat conditions that may exist when the Project is constructed and operational. The difference between existing and Project conditions provides an estimation of the potential effects of the Project. Project conditions were modelled separately from cumulative conditions, which consider reasonably foreseeable developments, in combination with existing conditions and the Project. Cumulative conditions were modelled within the Wildlife RSA.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 2-3

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Different approaches to the habitat modelling within the Wildlife RSA were used, depending on the availability of data. Where data were available at the regional scale, the models developed or applied within the Wildlife LSA were run for the Wildlife RSA, with the only modification, aside from the spatial boundary, being the inclusion of the cumulative conditions scenario. LSA-scale models adapted to the RSA included the riparian and wetland bird community, coastal northern goshawk, Williamson’s sapsucker, spotted owl, pond-dwelling amphibians and coastal tailed frog suitability models. For other indicators, regional-scale ecosystem data were used to evaluate changes in potential habitat within the Wildlife RSA. Regional ecosystem units within the Wildlife RSA were derived from Alberta Ground Cover Characterization (AGCC) data in Alberta (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development [ASRD] 2010) and a combination of Broad Ecosystem Inventory (BEI) and Freshwater Atlas data in BC (British Columbia Ministry of Environment [BC MOE] 2003a, British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range [BC MOFR] 2008). This approach was used for moose, marten, fisher, mountain beaver, Pacific water shrew, bats, grassland/shrub steppe birds, mature/old forest birds, early seral forest birds, wood warblers, short-eared owl, rusty blackbird, flammulated owl, Lewis’s woodpecker, western screech owl (coastal and interior), common nighthawk, olive-sided flycatcher and western rattlesnake.

The results of the habitat models are presented in Volume 5A as the area (ha) of each habitat suitability class, and as the percentage change as a proportion of the existing habitat available. For ease of description, habitat rated moderate to high is referred to as ‘effective’ habitat in the assessment.

All wildlife modelling was completed using ArcGIS Version 10.1 and, where appropriate, involved the construction of models using Python scripting or Model Builder. Rating tables for habitat suitability were initially completed using a spreadsheet developed to expedite the ratings process and help ensure a consistent ratings approach across indicators.

2.5 Ecosystem Mapping and Data Sources Models applied to the Wildlife LSA were primarily based on the TEM data compiled for the Project (refer to Appendix C of the Vegetation Technical Report of Volume 5C for details on TEM methods, limitations and results, as well as abbreviations used for ecosystem classifications). Ecosystem units were classified according to the Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (BEC) system in BC (British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations [BC MFLNRO] 2013), and using ecosite classification in Alberta (Beckingham and Archibald 1996, Beckingham et al. 2006, Burkinshaw et al. 2009). The TEM for the Project defined ecosystem units by site series (BC) or ecosite phase (Alberta), structural stage, stand composition (i.e., coniferous, deciduous, mixedwood), and other modifiers (e.g., stand disturbance modifiers such as fire and mountain pine beetle or other forest pest infestation). TEM polygons were delineated to represent relatively homogenous site conditions assumed to support similar ecosystems and structural stages. Each polygon was assigned up to three proportionally described site series/ecosite phase, structural stage and site modifiers. Polygons with more than one ecosystem unit classification are termed ‘complex polygons’.

Vegetation Resources Inventory (VRI) (BC MFLNRO 2013a) data were used for some models, including cavity nesting waterfowl, Williamson’s sapsucker, spotted owl and coastal tailed frog. The VRI data set was considered a preferred alternative to the TEM for these models because it provides habitat variables that could not be derived from the TEM data (i.e., tree species composition, canopy height, stand age) and which have considerable importance in delineating suitable habitat for these indicators.

For those indicators that rely on wetland and aquatic habitats, the BC Freshwater Atlas (BC MOFR 2008) and the Alberta Canadian Wetland Classification System Merged Wetland Inventory (Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development [AESRD] 2012a) were key data inputs for the models. AltaLIS hydrology data (e.g., stream network) was also used to augment wetland data in Alberta (AltaLIS 2000).

Disturbance data compiled for the Project, using the assumptions and methods described in detail in Section 8.1.5.1 of Volume 5A, were used in the habitat suitability modelling.

2.6 Field Ratings TEM ecosystem units were rated in the field for the wildlife indicators modelled for the Project. Field sampling methods were adapted from the protocols outlined in the Field Manual for Describing Terrestrial Ecosystems (BC MOFR and BC MOE 2010) and the BC Wildlife Habitat Rating Standards

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 2-4

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

(BC MELP 1999). The wildlife habitat ratings from the field sampling will be used to evaluate the desktop habitat ratings for each TEM unit (BC MOFR and BC MOE 2010). Field sampling provided ground-truthing of the preliminary habitat ratings and a basis for revising the species-habitat models. Supplemental field studies will be completed where land access was limited or there were changes in the Project scope, which will support a comprehensive evaluation of model performance (refer to Section 2.9.1).

The method for selection of TEM survey sites is summarized in Appendix C of the Vegetation Technical Report (Volume 5C). Sites were selected to cover a wide range of TEM units found within the Wildlife LSA. Criteria for evaluating wildlife habitat ratings were developed prior to field surveys to aid observers and ensure consistency of field ratings.

All habitat ratings were completed out-of-context (i.e., not relative to adjacent habitat or disturbance) to ensure that ratings could be applied to other TEM units of the same classification. Nearby disturbances were recorded and used to evaluate preliminary habitat ratings, which include adjustments for anthropogenic disturbances. During the field sampling, signs of wildlife use were recorded to support model evaluation and adjustments. Incidental species were recorded separately, as were all incidental observations en route to or from the survey locations.

2.7 Habitat Suitability Ratings Habitat suitability ratings were based species’ habitat associations, informed by a thorough review of available scientific literature and expert knowledge. Habitat associations are summarized as ‘ratings assumptions’ in the species accounts provided in Sections 3.0 to 5.0.

The habitat characteristics used to determine the suitability of each ecosystem unit for a given indicator were interpreted from the relevant Land Management Handbooks (listed in Appendix C of the Vegetation Technical Report of Volume 5C), as well as stand composition and structural stage data. This allowed for habitat interpretations to be based on current habitat conditions, rather than typical or climax conditions that are provided by the Land Management Handbooks.

Suitability ratings were assigned to each ecosystem unit based on either a 4-point or 6-point scale. The 4-point scale was used for indicators for which an intermediate level of knowledge is available, while the 6-point scale was used for indicators where there is a high degree of knowledge about habitat associations (Table 2.7-1). Under the BC Wildlife Habitat Rating Standards, rating categories are designed to be relative to assumed optimal conditions for the species (i.e., benchmarks) within the province. Where appropriate, provincially defined benchmarks were used to develop ratings for the habitat models completed for the Project, and are defined in the species account. Benchmarks have not been defined for most species, and in some cases those that have been developed are not relevant for the population or management units being considered within the Wildlife LSA and RSA for the Project. In these situations, habitat suitability was rated relative to the assumed optimal habitat for the indicator.

Habitat ratings were assigned separately for each ecosystem within complex polygons, and the percent area of each rating was retained for further analysis. This approach was favoured over assigning a single composite rating (e.g., weighted average) for each complex polygon, because composite ratings can result in under-representation of relatively small areas of important habitat.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 2-5

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

TABLE 2.7-1

RATING SYSTEM USED FOR HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING

4-Point System 6-Point System % of Best Description High (1) High (1) 76-100 Habitat is optimal for satisfying the life requisite of an indicator. Generally the best, or near the best, habitat available for the indicator in the province. Moderate (2) Moderately High (2) 51-75 Habitat meets the requirements of the indicator for the life requisite under Moderate (3) 26-50 consideration, but has deficiencies that make it notably less suitable than optimal habitat. Indicators using the habitat for the life requisite being considered are expected to be at a lower density and/or have lower success than in high suitability habitat. Low (3) Low (4) 6-25 Habitat is capable of being used to satisfy the life requisite for the indicator, but there Very Low (5) 1-5 are one or more major deficiencies that affect habitat suitability. The indicator will occasionally be found using these habitats to satisfy the particular life requisite under consideration, but the ability of the habitat to support the life requisite(s) considered is substantially lower than it is in high suitability habitat. Nil (4) Nil (6) <1 Habitat fails to provide minimum requirements necessary to satisfy the life requisite of a species. Individuals of the species are unlikely to occur within these areas, or if they do, are unlikely to be using it for the life requisite being considered. Source: Adapted from BC MELP 1999

2.8 Suitability Rating Adjustments Habitat suitability ratings assigned based on ecosystem unit characteristics are preliminary, since they do not consider the spatial configuration of the ecosystem unit on the landscape (e.g., proximity to water), nor do they reflect the influence of surrounding land uses (e.g., anthropogenic disturbance). The preliminary ratings reflect habitat suitability under typical natural conditions. Rating adjustments are applied to account for atypical conditions (e.g., sensory disturbance). Structural stage and stand composition modifiers are part of the preliminary ratings, and allow suitability ratings to incorporate consideration of successional status and current ecosystem condition, including the influence of past disturbances. Large disturbances (e.g., urban areas, agricultural land) are also part of the ecosystem mapping and, therefore, are also accounted for in the preliminary ratings. Other factors that affect habitat suitability are incorporated using rating adjustments.

Preliminary habitat suitability ratings were modified through a series of adjustments designed to incorporate important landscape characteristics that influence habitat effectiveness. The characteristics considered include: human disturbance that can reduce the suitability of neighbouring habitat (i.e., within a zone of influence); elevation constraints; and proximity to landscape features that can modify the quality of surrounding habitat (e.g., watercourses). Adjustments were based on available information, including a review of scientific literature, government recommendations (e.g., setback distances), industry standard (where relevant), and professional knowledge and experience. Rating adjustments are also described in the individual species or community indicator accounts.

2.8.1 Adjustments for Anthropogenic Disturbance Some species may avoid or reduce habitat use in proximity to human disturbance even if suitable habitat features are present. This is considered indirect habitat disturbance or a reduction in habitat effectiveness. Indirect habitat loss or alteration occurs when habitat is available but the quality or effectiveness of the habitat is changed such that wildlife avoid the habitat or reduce their use of it. Reduced habitat effectiveness can occur as a result of fragmentation, creation of edges, or sensory disturbance (e.g., noise, artificial light, proximity to facilities and infrastructure, human activity and traffic). The area of avoidance or reduced use in proximity to disturbance is often referred to as a zone of influence, which varies depending on the species’ sensitivity, the type, intensity and duration of the disturbance, and the ability of the surrounding habitat to buffer the disturbance (e.g., topography and vegetation).

Noise, in particular, is commonly associated with reduced habitat effectiveness for a variety of wildlife species (Bayne et al. 2008, Kociolek and Clevenger 2011, Schaub et al. 2008, Slabbekoorn and Ripmeester 2008). For birds, noise caused by roadways and industrial activity has been associated with a

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 2-6

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

reduction in pairing success (Habib et al. 2007), changes in species composition (Francis et al. 2009), and reduced breeding bird density (Bayne et al. 2008, Francis et al. 2009). Birds may be especially affected by noise due to their reliance on acoustic signals for mate attraction, territory defense, and predator detection (Habib et al. 2007, Slabbekoorn and Ripmeester 2008). Because amphibians also use acoustic communication for mating behaviours, anthropogenic noise may have detrimental effects on amphibian breeding and survival (Lengagne 2008).

Some disturbance types result in greater mortality of wildlife occupying the habitat regardless of avoidance of sensory disturbances. For example, mortality caused by vehicle collisions is likely a contributing factor for the lower abundance of birds near roads (Summers et al. 2011), and is also responsible for mortality of amphibians and reptiles (Daigle 2010). Increased hunting pressure near roads may also result in lower habitat effectiveness near roads for game animals (Daigle 2010).

Habitat effectiveness may be reduced near anthropogenic disturbances as the result of disturbance-induced increases in predation risk. For example, caribou experience greater predation by wolves closer to linear disturbances (James and Stuart-Smith 2000). Anthropogenic habitat disturbance can also increase invasive or parasitic species abundance, causing increased mortality risk and reducing habitat effectiveness for other species (e.g., cowbird parasitism of songbird nests near forest edges).

Suitability ratings were adjusted within zones of influence relevant to the modelled indicator and disturbance type, where appropriate, such that the resultant habitat suitability rating decreases closer to anthropogenic disturbance. This puts the suitability ratings ‘in context’ and equates to a habitat effectiveness rating.

2.8.2 Adjustments for Proximity to Landscape Features Some species are strongly associated with particular landscape features or habitat characteristics that are not always associated with individual ecosystem units. For example, proximity to aquatic habitats (e.g., wetlands, waterbodies or watercourses) can affect probability of wildlife use of upland habitat. Ecosystem units are partially a product of topographic or geological properties. However, for some species, additional spatial data on topography (e.g., slope, aspect, elevation) or geology (e.g., bedrock) was used to improve species ratings. Relevant landscape features were considered individually for each indicator and, if appropriate, incorporated into the suitability ratings as a model adjustment.

2.9 Indicator Distribution Given the length of the Project and the variability in ecosystems traversed, many of the modelled indicators occur only in discreet portions of the Wildlife LSA and RSA. Indicators were modelled only within the natural subregions (Alberta) or ecosections (BC) overlapping the Wildlife LSA and RSA (where relevant), where the indicator is known or likely to occur (Table 2.9-1).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 2-7

TABLE 2.9-1

DISTRIBUTION OF MODELLED INDICATORS RELATIVE TO THE WILDLIFE LOCAL STUDY AREA AND REGIONAL STUDY AREA

Parkland Forest Boreal Foothills Mountain Rocky Interior Southern Mountains Southern and Central Interior Mountains and Coast Depression Georgia

* *

* * *

Foothills

Central Parkland Central Dry Mixedwood Mixedwood Central Lower Foothills Upper Montane * Subalpine Alpine * Mountains Kootenay Northern Trench Big Bend Ranges Park Northern Trench Fraser Upper Cariboo Mountains Highland Shuswap Northern Plateau Cariboo Upland Tranquille Upland Thompson Northern Basin Thompson Upland Guichon Nicola Basin Range Okanagan Pavilion Ranges * Upland Okanagan Western Hozamee n Range Eastern Pacific Ranges NW Cascade Ranges Southern Pacific Ranges Fraser Lowland Strait of Georgia MAMMALS

Page Grizzly bear ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Moose ● ● ● ● ● ● ▲ ▲ ● ● ● ● ● ▲ ● ● ● ● ▲ ▲ ▲ ●

2 American Marten ● ● ● ● ● ▲ ▲ ● ● ● ● ● ▲ ● ● ● ● ▲ ▲ ▲ ● ● ● ▲

- 8

Fisher ● ● ● ● ● ▲ ● ● ● ● ● ▲ ●

Mountain Beaver ● ● ● ▲ ● Pacific Water Shrew ● ● ▲ ● Bats ● ● ● ● ● ● ▲ ▲ ▲ ● ● ● ● ● ▲ ● ● ● ● ▲ ▲ ▲ ● ● ● ▲ ●

BIRDS Grassland shrub-steppe birds ▲ ● ● ● ● ▲ ▲ ▲ ● Mature / Old Forest Birds ● ● ● ● ● ● ▲ ▲ ▲ ● ● ● ● ● ▲ ● ● ● ● ▲ ▲ ▲ ● ● ● ▲ ●

Early Seral Forest Birds ● ● ● ● ● ● ▲ ▲ ▲ ● ● ● ● ● ▲ ● ● ● ● ▲ ▲ ▲ ● ● ● ▲ ●

Riparian / Wetland Birds ● ● ● ● ● ● ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ● ● ● ● ● ▲ ● ● ● ● ▲ ▲ ▲ ● ● ● ▲ ● Cavity Nesting Wetland Birds ▲ ▲ ● ● ● ● ● ▲ ● ● ● ● ▲ ▲ ▲ ● ● ● ▲ ● Wood Warblers ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Black-throated green warbler ■ ■ ■ Cape May warbler ■ ■ ■ ■ Short-eared owl ● ● ● ● ● ● ▲ ● ● ● ▲ ▲ ●

Rusty blackbird ● ● ● ● ● ● ▲ ▲ ● ● ● ● ● ▲ ● ● ● ● ▲ ▲ ▲ ●

Flammulated owl ▲ ● ● ● ● ▲ ▲ Lewis’s woodpecker ■ ● ● ● ▲ ▲

Williamson’s sapsucker ▲ ●

Western screech-owl, kennicottii ssp. ● ● ▲ ●

Western screech-owl, macfarlanei ssp. ▲ ● ● ● ● ▲

Spotted owl ● ● ● ▲ ● Common nighthawk ● ● ● ● ● ● ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ● ● ● ● ● ▲ ● ● ● ● ▲ ▲ ▲ ● ● ● ▲ ● Northern goshawk, laingi ssp. ● ● ▲ ●

TABLE 2.9-1 Cont'd

Parkland Forest Boreal Foothills Mountain Rocky Interior Southern Mountains Southern and Central Interior Mountains and Coast Depression Georgia

* *

* * *

Foothills

Central Parkland Central Dry Mixedwood Mixedwood Central Lower Foothills Upper Montane * Subalpine Alpine * Mountains Kootenay Northern Trench Big Bend Ranges Park Northern Trench Fraser Upper Cariboo Mountains Highland Shuswap Northern Plateau Cariboo Upland Tranquille Upland Thompson Northern Basin Thompson Upland Guichon Nicola Basin Range Okanagan Pavilion Ranges * Upland Okanagan Western Hozameen Range Eastern Pacific Ranges NW Cascade Ranges Southern Pacific Ranges Fraser Lowland Strait of Georgia Olive-sided flycatcher ● ● ● ● ● ● ▲ ▲ ● ● ● ● ● ▲ ● ● ● ● ▲ ▲ ▲ ● ● ● ▲ ●

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS Pond-dwelling amphibians ● ● ● ● ● ● ▲ ▲ ▲ ● ● ● ● ● ▲ ● ● ● ● ▲ ▲ ▲ ● ● ● ▲ ● Page Western Toad ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Great Basin spadefoot ■ ■ ■ ■

2 -

9 Coastal tailed frog ▲ ▲ ● ● ● ▲ ● Western rattlesnake ● Notes: Bald eagle, great blue heron, wolverine, and woodland caribou included as indicators but not modeled. * Ecosections that occur within the RSA but not the LSA. ● LSA and RSA. ■ LSA only (i.e., not extending beyond the LSA boundaries into the RSA). ▲ RSA only (i.e., not the LSA).

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

2.9.1 Model Evaluation and Refinement 2.9.1.1 Preliminary Evaluation Habitat models developed for the Project employed an adaptive modelling process. That is, models were defined and revised based on preliminary evaluations of model performance. Model performance was evaluated by comparing the model output with habitat data and, where available, species occurrence data. Model mechanics were further based on professional expertise. Model evaluation and refinement is ongoing, and will be completed pending completion of future field work (see 2.9.1.2 below).

Habitat data used in the model evaluation process were obtained from various sources (e.g., aerial photography, field data and photos collected for the Project). This information was used to evaluate and adjust preliminary habitat ratings, and will be used to evaluate final ratings upon final TEM mapping for the Project. In cases where spatial data for species occurrence were available (e.g., from provincial databases or field surveys conducted for the Project), these data were overlaid on the output maps produced by the habitat rating models. Models were then evaluated based on the correspondence between habitat quality ratings and confirmed species presence. For instance, in some cases preliminary models predicted certain habitats to be unsuitable (i.e., rated Nil or Very Low), whereas species occurrence data showed the opposite (species occurrence records in those habitats). In these cases, changes to the model assumptions were made to reduce the occurrence of suitable habitat being modelled as unsuitable.

2.9.1.2 Secondary Evaluation Supplemental field studies will be completed where land access was limited or there were changes in the Project scope, in order to support complete TEM coverage of the Wildlife LSA and allow for a comprehensive evaluation of model performance. The models and results provided are considered preliminary pending the completion of supplemental field studies, ecosystem mapping and model revisions. These additional data will enable a more complete evaluation of model quality according to the methods described in the Quality Assurance Guidelines for wildlife habitat ratings (BC MOE 2003b). Revised models and results will be provided in supplemental reporting.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 2-10

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

3.0 MAMMAL SPECIES ACCOUNTS AND HABITAT MODELS 3.1 Grizzly Bear 3.1.1 Status Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos, M-URAR) are designated as At Risk in Alberta (ASRD 2011) and Threatened under the Alberta Wildlife Act and Alberta Wildlife Regulation (AESRD 2012a), Blue-listed in BC (British Columbia Conservation Data Centre [BC CDC] 2013), and the western population of grizzly bears is designated as Special Concern by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) (2012a). The total population of grizzly bears within Alberta in 2010 was estimated at 700 individuals, including those found in national parks (COSEWIC 2012a). The total population of grizzly bears within BC was estimated at 15,000 in 2012 (BC MFLNRO 2012).

3.1.1.1 Relevant Populations The Project intersects two bear management areas (BMAs) in Alberta and four grizzly bear population units (GBPUs) in BC (Table 3.1-1). BMAs in Alberta are sometimes referred to as GBPUs (AESRD 2008).

TABLE 3.1-1

GRIZZLY BEAR POPULATION UNITS AND BEAR MANAGEMENT AREAS INTERSECTED BY THE WILDLIFE LOCAL STUDY AREA

Province BMA/GBPU Status Estimated Population Size Alberta BMA 2 (Grande Cache GBPU) Viable 353 BMA 3 (Yellowhead GBPU) Viable 42 British Columbia North Cascades Threatened 6 Columbia-Shuswap Viable 346 Wells Gray Viable 317 Robson Viable 534 Sources: AESRD 2012b, ASRD 2008a,b, BC MFLNRO 2012, Boulanger and Stenhouse 2009, COSEWIC 2002a

Alberta BMA 2 (Grand Cache Grizzly Bear Population Unit) The grizzly bear population in BMA 2, Grand Cache GBPU, was estimated at 353 individuals in 2008 (ASRD and Alberta Conservation Association [ACA] 2010). This population is likely stable and portions of the population are located in protected or inaccessible regions. The density of this population is estimated at 18 bears/1,000 km² and, like other populations within Alberta, the density decreases from west to east. A study of radio-collared bears was carried out from 1999 to 2009 to determine demographic characteristics of this grizzly bear population (Boulanger and Stenhouse 2009). Results indicated that the reproductive rate (number of female cubs/adult female) was 0.2 and the survival estimate was 0.8 and 0.9 for adult males and females, respectively.

BMA 3 (Yellowhead Grizzly Bear Population Unit) The grizzly bear population in BMA 3, Yellowhead GBPU, was estimated at 42 individuals in 2004 (ASRD and ACA 2010). The density of this population is estimated at 4.8 bears/1,000 km² and, like other populations within Alberta, the density decreases from west to east. A study of radio-collared bears was carried out from 1999 to 2009 to determine demographic characteristics of this grizzly bear population (Boulanger and Stenhouse 2009). Results indicated that the reproductive rate was 0.2 and the survival estimate was 0.8 and 0.9 for adult males and females, respectively.

British Columbia Robson Grizzly Bear Population Unit The Robson grizzly bear range (approximately 20,078 km² [Hamilton et al. 2004]) supports a population estimated at 534 individuals as of the 2012 population census (BC MFLNRO 2012). The Robson

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-1

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

population is at about 96% of the habitat capability (Hamilton et al. 2004) and is considered to be a viable population (BC MOE 2012a). Parts of the range are closed to hunting (BC MFLNRO 2012), and the anticipated threat level for this population is low (Apps 2010).

Wells Gray Grizzly Bear Population Unit The Wells Gray grizzly bear range (approximately 12,837 km² [Hamilton et al. 2004]) supports a population estimated at 317 individuals as of the 2012 population census (BC MFLNRO 2012). The Wells Gray population is at about 87% of the habitat capability (Hamilton et al. 2004) and is considered to be a viable population (BC MOE 2012a). Most of the range is closed to hunting (BC MFLNRO 2012), and the anticipated threat level for this population is low (Apps 2010).

Columbia-Shuswap Grizzly Bear Population Unit The Columbia-Shuswap grizzly bear range (approximately 14,927 km² [Hamilton et al. 2004]) supports a population estimated at 346 individuals as of the 2012 population census (BC MFLNRO 2012). The Columbia-Shuswap population is at about 80% of the habitat capability (Hamilton et al. 2004), and is considered to be a viable population (BC MOE 2012a). Parts of the range are closed to hunting (BC MFLNRO 2012) and the anticipated threat level for this population is moderate (Apps 2010).

North Cascades Grizzly Bear Population Unit The North Cascades grizzly bear population went through a severe bottleneck in the mid-1800s due to commercial trapping and destruction of bears, from which it was unable to recover (North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Team [NCGBRT] 2004). In addition, this population is geographically separated from other grizzly bear populations. The North Cascades grizzly bear range (approximately 9,801 km² [Hamilton et al. 2004]) supports a population estimated at six individuals as of the 2012 population census (BC MFLNRO 2012). This population is currently at < 7% of the habitat capability (Hamilton et al. 2004) and is listed as Threatened (BC MOE 2012a). The North Cascades grizzly bear population was previously estimated at 23 individuals in 2008 (Hamilton 2008) but sampling effort for this population has been largely unsuccessful (NCGBRT 2004). Both historical records and Traditional Ecological Knowledge suggests the region previously supported a much larger population. This range is completely closed to hunting (BC MFLNRO 2012), and the anticipated threat level for this population is high (Apps 2010). Because of its small size, isolation from other populations, and sensitivity to human impact, the North Cascades population is at risk of extirpation (NCGBRT 2004).

3.1.2 Distribution The grizzly bear has a Holarctic distribution and records of occupancy exist for 48 countries. Within Canada, the distribution of the grizzly bear extends throughout most of BC, western Alberta, Yukon, Northwest Territories, mainland Nunavut, northern Saskatchewan, and northeast Manitoba. A possible north and eastward range expansion may be occurring in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba (COSEWIC 2012a) and, the grizzly bear has been extirpated from the Prairie Region (COSEWIC 2002a). Since the grizzly bear was initially assessed by COSEWIC, there has been no notable reduction in distribution.

3.1.2.1 Provincial Range Alberta Grizzly bears occur primarily in the Rocky Mountain Natural Region, higher elevations of the Foothills Natural Region and in the Boreal Forest Natural Region in west-central and northwestern Alberta (from the BC border to as far east as High Level, Peace River, Red Earth, and Slave Lake) (ASRD 2008b). The grizzly bear has been extirpated from much of its historical range within the province.

British Columbia In BC, the grizzly bear is found in all biogeoclimatic zones, except for Bunchgrass and Coastal Douglas-fir (British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection [BC MWLAP] 2004). It is at its highest density in remote mountainous regions and in the north of the province and is less common in the Central Interior and Southern Interior Ecoprovinces. The grizzly bear has been extirpated from the Lower

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-2

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Mainland and the islands (BC MWLAP 2004, Eder and Pattie 2001). The North Cascade population is estimated at less than 20 individuals and is geographically isolated from other populations in BC (COSEWIC 2012a).

3.1.2.2 Elevational Range The grizzly bear occurs at all elevations, from sea level to high-elevation alpine environments (COSEWIC 2012a).

3.1.2.3 Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area Alberta The grizzly bear occurs in the Lower Foothills and Upper Foothills Natural Subregions of the Foothills Natural Region and the Montane Natural Subregion of the Rocky Mountain Natural Region within the Wildlife LSA in Alberta.

British Columbia The grizzly bear occurs in the Northern Park Ranges, Upper Fraser Trench, Cariboo Mountains, and Northern Shuswap Highland Ecosections of the Southern Interior Mountains Ecoprovince; the Cariboo Plateau Ecosection of the Central Interior Ecoprovince; the Nicola Basin, and the Hozameen Range of the Southern Interior Ecoprovince; and the Eastern Pacific Ranges Ecosection of the Coast and Mountains Ecoprovince. In the Project Wildlife LSA, the grizzly bear inhabits all biogeoclimatic zones, except the Bunchgrass and Ponderosa Pine zones. Grizzly bears are extirpated from the Wildlife LSA in the Northern Thompson Upland, Thompson Basin, Guichon Upland, Northwestern Cascade Ranges, and Fraser Lowland Ecosections.

3.1.3 General Ecology Within Canada, the grizzly bear is found in temperate coastal rain forests, upland boreal forest, mountain slopes, alpine tundra, taiga, the Arctic tundra, and dry grasslands bordering the Prairie Region (COSEWIC 2012a). The grizzly bear is a habitat generalist that requires a diverse combination of habitats within its large home range, including areas for travel, seclusion, foraging and denning. Grizzly bears exhibit great flexibility in the habitats they use and are capable of extensive mobility across the landscape. Forested habitats may provide beneficial thermal conditions and security cover (Blanchard 1983, McLellan 1990), while open habitats and avalanche chutes provide herbaceous forage (Apps et al. 2004). Winter den sites are generally in remote subalpine and alpine areas (COSEWIC 2012a).

Grizzly bear movements and habitat use exhibit strong seasonal variation, and often follow the availability and distribution of food (COSEWIC 2012a, Pearson 1975). Home range sizes vary depending on factors such as sex, age, social status, population density and habitat availability (LeFranc et al. 1987). Some grizzly bears, particularly males, can range over hundreds of kilometres, while sub-adults and females with cubs will maintain a much smaller home range, moving as required to satisfy resource needs (LeFranc et al. 1987, MacHutchon et al. 1993, Simpson 1992). Home range size is typically inversely associated with the availability and quality of food in an area (COSEWIC 2012a). Home ranges in Alberta are often substantially larger than those in BC (ASRD and ACA 2010), as a result of less productive habitats in their Alberta range.

Grizzly bears are omnivorous and opportunistic in their foraging habits, and habitat selection is governed by forage availability during the growing season. Therefore, grizzly bears require a mix of seasonal habitats in their annual home ranges to have sufficient access to the full range of primary food sources. Grizzly bear diet consists of five main food types: grasses, sedges and rushes; forbs and their roots; berries and nuts; mammals and fish (including ungulates, rodents, and salmon where available); and insects (including ants, wasps and bees) (MacHutchon et al. 1993, ASRD and ACA 2010). Grizzly bears adapt their behaviour to a diverse range of ecosystems; as a result, generalization about food sources and associated habitat requirements is difficult. Even within a region, individual bears may have vastly different approaches to meeting their energy requirements. The types of food used year to year may change due to availability, and some grizzly bears will use the same areas as other bears but feed on

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-3

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

different foods (Hatler 1995, Hamilton et al. 1986, MacHutchon et al. 1993, Simpson 1990, 1992, Zager and Jonkel 1983).

Although variable, several researchers have described a general pattern of seasonal habitat use by grizzly bears that can be used to refine habitat models (LeFranc et al. 1987, MacHutchon et al. 1993, Simpson 1990, Zager and Jonkel 1983). The general pattern for grizzly bears in the Wildlife LSA is to den in the winter in steep, high-elevation alpine or subalpine sites that have deep snow for insulative cover. In the spring, most grizzly bears will use lower elevation; south-facing habitats that are snow-free early in the season and provide newly emergent forage plants. The types of foraging habitats used during summer tend to be highly variable, ranging from low-elevation and riparian habitats to higher elevation alpine meadows. Streams that attract spawning salmon can provide important fall foraging habitat for grizzly bears, and the fall influx of fat and protein from these salmon help bears accumulate the energy stores necessary for successful denning. Other foods, such as berries, nuts and roots, can also be important for the same reason.

3.1.4 Key Habitat Requirements 3.1.4.1 Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use The productivity of grizzly bear populations is more strongly influenced by the availability of high-quality food resources than by density-dependent regulating factors (BC MWLAP 2004). Two models – a spring foraging model and fall foraging model – were completed for the Project. Spring and fall seasons were considered critical periods for forage availability. Food is often limited in the spring and corresponds to a period when bears already have depleted energy reserves. Fall foraging habitat may influence the accumulation of fat reserves and, therefore, influence over winter survival. The habitat characteristics for each of the modelled life requisites are described below.

Spring Foraging Habitat In the spring, grizzly bear movements and habitat use are largely determined by forage availability (COSEWIC 2012a). High quality foraging areas are essential as they allow grizzly bears to replenish their energy stores following winter dormancy (COSEWIC 2012a). Grizzly bears attempt to maximize their forage intake in the spring by concentrating in areas where snowmelt and green-up occurs earliest. Typically, this occurs in low-elevation riparian areas, avalanche tracks, and on south and west aspects (Zager and Jonkel 1983). Some researchers have characterized optimal spring grizzly bear habitat as being in areas away from human disturbance that contain a mosaic of early seral-stage forests and natural openings, and in proximity to mature forest stands that provide movement corridors, other food resources, and security cover (Blanchard 1983, Hamer and Herrero 1990, Herrero 1972). The majority of spring food items for grizzly bears are herbaceous plants such as grasses, sedges and rushes, as well as a number of forbs and new growth on some berry producing shrubs (BC MWLAP 2004, Ciarniello et al. 2003, Mace 1985, MacHutchon et al. 1993,). Avalanche chutes, cutblocks, floodplains, estuaries and forest openings including meadows, wetlands, seepage areas or riparian areas provide favourable conditions for herbaceous plant growth and are, therefore, expected to be of high value as foraging habitat for grizzly bears in the spring.

Fall Foraging Habitat A notable aspect of grizzly bear physiology is winter dormancy, an adaptation to help grizzly bears survive periods of harsh weather and food scarcity (COSEWIC 2012a). Fall is a critical period in a grizzly bear’s annual cycle, as substantial weight gain by bears in the fall is essential for successful denning. Grizzly bears will undergo a period of hyperphagia in order to generate sufficient fat stores prior to entering winter dens. Foraging options are reduced when frost freezes forage plants at higher elevations. This leads to bears concentrating in lower-elevation habitats to feed on remaining berries and succulent vegetation. In the fall, grizzly bears may be observed in shrub fields, cutblocks, and old burns, which contain berry-producing shrubs (Zager and Jonkel 1983, ASRD and ACA 2010). Once various salmonids start spawning in late summer and early fall, they become a key food source for some populations of grizzly bears (e.g., MacHutchon et al. 1993). The berries of Vaccinium spp. and Shepherdia spp. are some of the primary sources of energy for fat deposition for bears in the Wildlife LSA, particularly in areas where spawning salmon are not available (ASRD and ACA 2010, Ciarniello et al. 2003, BC MWLAP 2004).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-4

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

3.1.5 Limiting Factors Throughout their Canadian range, human-caused mortality has a major impact on the grizzly bear’s potential persistence. In nearly all regions (including some protected areas and parks), the majority of grizzly bear deaths are from human-related causes (ASRD 2008b, ASRD and ACA 2010, Austin and Wrenshall 2004, Hamilton et al. 2004, Kansas 2002, McLellan 1990, Ross 2002).

Grizzly bears are sensitive to land management practices due to their large home ranges, diverse seasonal habitat requirements, slow rate of population increase, and high potential for conflict with human activities (Ross 2002). Factors that have contributed to the decline in grizzly bears throughout their range include increased road access and human-caused mortality as well as habitat loss and fragmentation (ASRD and ACA 2010, Kansas 2002, McLellan 1990). Formerly remote wilderness areas have become more accessible to industry and wilderness recreational users, and this has resulted in more bear-human interactions and conflicts. Grizzly bears are at greater risk of being shot (legally or otherwise) near roads. As a result, access management and mortality risk remain the primary issues affecting grizzly bear populations and resource development activities.

3.1.6 Model Development There is detailed knowledge of grizzly bear foraging habitat requirements in Alberta and BC and a 6-point rating scheme was used, ranging from Nil (6) to High (1).

3.1.6.1 Provincial Benchmark Coastal British Columbia • Ecosection: Kitimat Ranges.

• Biogeoclimatic zone: Coastal Western Hemlock (CWHvm1).

• Habitats: skunk cabbage sites; floodplains, wetlands, estuaries/beaches; the Khutzeymateen Valley is considered to be grizzly bear benchmark habitat in BC (Rasheed 1999).

Interior British Columbia • Ecosection: Border Ranges.

• Biogeoclimatic zones: Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir (ESSFdk) and Montane Spruce (MSdk).

• Habitats: avalanche chutes; the Flathead Valley is considered to be interior grizzly bear benchmark habitat in BC.

3.1.6.2 Ratings Assumptions Foraging Habitat (Spring) • All non-vegetated units (e.g., rocky outcrop, cultivated field) were rated Nil (6).

• Structural stage 4 has minimal value for spring foraging habitat and was rated Low (4) to Very Low (5).

• Wetter and richer habitat types have higher value than drier, nutrient poor habitat types. Spring foraging value drier sites was decreased by 1 point at higher elevations (e.g., Engelmann Spruce Subalpine Fir and Mountain Hemlock).

• Ecosystem units with high cover and diversity of forbs and graminoids (e.g., skunk cabbage, spring beauty, avalanche lily, cow parsnip, stinging nettle, hellebore, dandelion, grasses, sedges, and horsetails) were rated up to High (1) depending on cover. The highest-rated units were low-elevation wetlands, meadows, riparian forests, and avalanche chutes were rated up to High (1).

• Sedge fens and other sedge-dominated habitat types were rated up to High (1).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-5

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

• Depending on the ecosystem unit, mature and old forests (structural stages 6 and 7) and shrub or herb-dominated ecosystems (structural stages 2 and 3) were rated higher than younger forests (structural stages 4 and 5).

• Depending on the ecosystem unit, warm aspects in the Engelmann Spruce Subalpine Fir, Sub-Boreal Spruce and Mountain Hemlock zones were rated one point higher, and cool aspects were rated one point lower (to a minimum of Very Low [5]).

• Depending on the ecosystem unit and the structural stage, sites on an active floodplain were rated one point higher for spring foraging.

Foraging Habitat (Fall) • All non-vegetated units (e.g., rocky outcrop, cultivated field) were rated Nil (6), except talus and rock outcrops, which were rated up to Low (4) to account for insect availability and some plant forage.

• Ecosystem units that support an abundance of berry-producing shrubs (particularly Vaccinium and Shepherdia) were rated highest. These included cutblocks and burns (structural stage 3) and, to a lesser degree, late successional forests with an open, heterogeneous tree canopy (i.e., structural stage 7).

• Depending on the ecosystem unit, mature and old forests (structural stages 6 and 7) and shrub-dominated ecosystem units (structural stage 3) were rated higher than younger forests (structural stages 4 and 5) for fall foraging. Herb-dominated ecosystems (structural stage 2) was rated Very Low (5) for fall foraging.

• Ecosystem units rated 2 through 5 for fall foraging that were found within 1 km of a suspected salmon spawning watercourse were increased by one habitat suitability point.

• Depending on the ecosystem unit and the structural stage, sites on an active floodplain were rated up to one point higher for fall foraging.

3.1.6.3 Ratings Adjustments

• Steeper slopes (> 120%) (Turney and Roberts 2004) were rated no higher than Very Low (5).

• Many studies have shown avoidance of roads by grizzly bears (Daigle 2010 and references therein). However, the distance and magnitude of road-related effects is unclear from existing studies. A reduction in suitability of up to two ratings was assumed to occur within 500 m of an active road (i.e., > 10 vehicles/day), which included both primary and secondary roads (Mace et al. 1996). Habitat ratings were also downgraded within 100 m of tertiary roads, which is consistent with reduced use of trails and resource extraction roads reported by others (e.g., Kasworm and Manley 1990, Archibald et al. 1987). Bears were assumed to avoid other anthropogenic disturbance with human presence in a similar manner to roads. Areas within 500 m of high sensory disturbances (e.g., industrial sites such as compressor stations) were downgraded by two ratings, while sites within 500 m of moderate sensory disturbances (e.g., recreation sites) were downgraded by one rating.

3.2 Woodland Caribou 3.2.1 Status The Project intersects the Wells Gray and Groundhog caribou herd ranges in BC. Wells Gray and Groundhog caribou are mountain woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou, M-RATA), within the Southern Mountain Designatable Unit (DU9). Mountain caribou are Red-listed, have a Conservation Framework Priority rating of 2 (BC CDC 2013), and are designated as Threatened under Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC (Environment Canada 2013a).

Mountain caribou in BC comprise 18 distinct populations, or herds, isolated from one another by anthropogenic habitat fragmentation (COSEWIC 2011). The metapopulation of mountain caribou in BC (i.e., the combined size of the 18 herds) was estimated at 1907 individuals in 2006 (Hatter 2006). While

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-6

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

some herds showed evidence of >20% decline from 2002 to 2006, other herds, including the Groundhog herd, showed evidence of >20% increases from 2002 to 2006 (Hatter 2006).

3.2.1.1 Wells Gray Caribou Herd The Wells Gray caribou herd population was estimated at 628 individuals in 1995, 516 in 2002, 307 in 2004, and 422 individuals in 2006 (Hatter 2006, Seip et al. 2005). Caribou calves observed during winter population censuses has ranged from 17.88-18.75% of the population between 1995 and 2004, and the mean annual survival rate for females was 84% (±2%) between 1984 and 2004 (Wittmer et al. 2005). A large portion of the Wells Gray caribou range is within protected areas. The recovery probability for this herd is high (Seip et al. 2005).

3.2.1.2 Groundhog Caribou Herd The Groundhog caribou herd population was estimated at 43 individuals in 1995, 20 individuals in 2004, and 30 individuals in 2006 (Hatter 2006; Seip et al. 2005). A population survey of the Groundhog herd in 2006 counted 23 individuals; a population estimate was not provided (Furk 2008). Caribou calves observed during winter population censuses has ranged from 10.81-18.75% of the population between 1995 and 2004, and the mean annual survival rate for females was 78% (±10%) between 1998 and 2002 (Wittmer et al. 2005). The Groundhog herd is small and isolated from other mountain caribou populations. The herd has experienced long-term declines and the recovery probability is low (Seip et al. 2005). A population viability analysis estimated a high probability of extinction of the Groundhog caribou herd within 30 years (Wittmer et al. 2010).

3.2.2 Distribution Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) have a circumarctic distribution covering northern Europe, Asia and North America. Woodland caribou occur in the boreal forests of Canada from Newfoundland to the southern Yukon and in the Rocky Mountains as far south as northern Idaho.

3.2.2.1 Provincial Range Alberta Two ecotypes of woodland caribou (boreal and mountain ecotypes) are found within Alberta and are differentiated based on behavioural and ecological characteristics. The boreal ecotype is found in the northern half of the province and the mountain ecotype is found throughout the northern Rocky Mountains (Cichowksi 2010). There is no interaction identified between the Project and woodland caribou in Alberta.

British Columbia Three ecotypes of woodland caribou are delineated in BC, based on differences in habitat use, behaviour and migration patterns: mountain, northern and boreal woodland caribou (Mountain Caribou Science Team [MCST] 2005], Mountain Caribou Technical Advisory Committee [MCTAC] 2002). The Project does not have an interaction with northern ecotype caribou.

COSEWIC (2011) has delineated mountain caribou within central and southeastern BC as the Southern Mountain Designatable Unit 9 (DU9). Anthropogenic habitat fragmentation has largely isolated the 18 distinct populations within DU9. The annual ranges of some populations in the Southern Mountain DU9 overlap somewhat with those of Central Mountain caribou (DU8) at the far north of the Southern Mountain caribou distribution (COSEWIC 2011).

Caribou within the Southern Mountain DU are behaviourally adapted to specific environments characterized by high-elevation forest communities that support abundant arboreal lichens. The steep terrain and high level of precipitation of the mountains of interior BC has resulted in behavioural strategies and distributional patterns that are a response to reliance on arboreal lichens as the primary forage type during winter (COSEWIC 2011). The distribution of mountain caribou in BC can be described as corresponding closely with the distribution of the Interior Wet Belt in central and southeastern BC (MCTAC 2002).

Mountain caribou distribution and ecology are detailed further below.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-7

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

3.2.2.2 Elevational Range Mountain caribou are generally found at high elevations from 1,500-2,100 m (BC MWLAP 2004). Mountain caribou may move to lower elevations (as low as 600 m) during spring or early winter when snow conditions are not suitable at higher elevations (BC MWLAP 2004, Terry et al. 1996, Seip 1990). The elevational range of seasonal habitat use by southern mountain caribou herds is variable and differs between populations, spatial scale, terrain characteristics, forage availability, snowfall levels and predator populations (Apps et al. 2001, Kinley et al. 2007, MCTAC 2002, Terry et al. 1996).

3.2.2.3 Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area Alberta Mountain (woodland) caribou do not occur in the Wildlife LSA in Alberta.

British Columbia Within the Wildlife LSA, mountain caribou occur in the Northern Park Ranges, Upper Fraser Trench, and the Cariboo Mountains Ecosections of the Southern Interior Mountains Ecoprovince, and the Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir (ESSFmm, wc) and Interior Cedar-Hemlock (ICHmm, mw, vk, wk) biogeoclimatic zones.

3.2.3 General Ecology Seasonally, mountain caribou generally exhibit weak horizontal range shifts, but strong elevational shifts (Hatter et al. 2009) from valley bottoms and low or mid-elevation slopes in early winter, to alpine and subalpine habitats in late winter and low elevation snow-free areas in spring (MCTAC 2002, BC MWLAP 2004). Sub-alpine forests and alpine areas are often used in summer. Parturient females typically move to exposed locations in high elevation alpine and sub-alpine areas to calve in spring and early summer. These sites offer refuge from most predators, but are often food-limited (MCTAC 2002, BC MWLAP 2004).

Late successional forests with abundant aboreal hair lichens are important for mountain caribou (Apps et al. 2001, BC MWLAP 2004, MCST 2005, Serrouya et al. 2008). Foraging behaviour differs between early and mid-winter; winter-green shrubs, forbs, graminoids, and terrestrial lichens on the ground and on windthrow are important in early winter. Winter snowpacks make terrestrial forage inaccessible; therefore, arboreal lichens are the primary forage throughout the winter (BC MWLAP 2004, COSEWIC 2002b, MCTAC 2002, Serrouya et al. 2008, Terry et al. 1996). In low snowfall years, mountain caribou may use lower elevation areas and make increased use of lodgepole pine and western hemlock stands, both of which may provide higher availability of arboreal lichens than other low-elevation trees (Kinley et al. 2007). The relationship between snow characteristics (depth, crust), height of arboreal lichens and standing versus windfallen trees affect how lichens are available to caribou, and determine its level of use more than lichen biomass alone (Serrouya et al. 2008). Ground forage is important during early winter, particularly in areas with very deep snow. During late winter, snow has accumulatied and settled enough to provide a platform from which caribou can reach lichens from branches in the lower canopy (Serrouya et al. 2008). Because arboreal lichens are more common in mature and old forests, the winter food supply of mountain caribou may be vulnerable to industrial harvesting and fragmentation (Heard and Vagt 1998, Serrouya et al. 2008).

3.2.4 Limiting Factors Calf survival and adult female longevity explain much of the variability in mountain caribou population performance, and both are primarily influenced by predation (Seip and Cichowski 1996, Wittmer et al. 2005). Predation has been inferred as the proximate limiting factor for mountain caribou populations (COSEWIC 2002b, Seip and Cichowski 1996, Wittmer et al. 2005). Predator densities capable of causing caribou declines are usually sustained by abundant alternate prey sources, such as moose or white-tailed deer (COSEWIC 2002b, Peters et al. 2012, Wittmer et al. 2005). Caribou can persist only where they can separate themselves from alternate prey (Wittmer et al. 2005). Alternate prey populations tend to increase in caribou range after industrial development and forestry have removed old forest habitat (COSEWIC 2002b). Further, predator search efficiency and predation success is positively associated with linear developments (Bergerud et al. 1984, James 1999, Rohner and Kuzyk 2000, Whittington et al.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-8

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

2011). The changes in predator-prey dynamics that are currently causing declines of mountain caribou are likely attributable to a variety of environmental changes including colonization of moose, landscape changes from forest management, management efforts to increase other ungulate populations, and changes in predator management policy (Peters et al. 2012). Forestry is recognized as the greatest concern to caribou habitat management and population declines in recent decades, because forest harvesting practices that produce a mosaic of various forest age classes linked with a network of roads is unlikely to provide an environment where caribou can effectively avoid predators (MCTAC 2002).

3.3 Moose 3.3.1 Status Moose (Alces americanus, M-ALAM) are designated as Secure in Alberta (ASRD 2011) and are Yellow- listed in BC (BC CDC 2013). Estimates of moose population sizes and trends are uncertain in BC and Alberta, and most estimates of moose abundance at broad scales are based on extrapolations made from short-term and small-scale studies. BC’s moose population was approximately 130,000-225,000 animals, based on a 2003 estimate (Mahon et al. 2005). No province-wide estimate is available for Alberta. Additional region-specific population parameter estimates for both BC and Alberta are provided in Table 3.3-1. Estimates are derived from aerial-based ungulate surveys (ACA 2013) and information supplied by provincial wildlife biologists (BC MFLNRO 2011).

TABLE 3.3-1

MOOSE POPULATION ESTIMATES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA AND ALBERTA

2012 Antlered Quota Province WMU or Region Estimated No. of Individuals Estimated Density Year of Estimate (bulls/100 km²) 248 ------not regulated under quota system 336 1,071 0.41/km² 2012 6.76 Alberta 337 ------7.10 338 927 0.37/km² 2009 3.10 342 139 0.09/km² 2009 0.86 344 ------1.28 346 ------3.89 348 1,690 0.57/km² 2001 6.29 438 ------3.19 British Columbia Omineca 30,000-50,000 0.19-0.32/km² 2011 -- Thompson 9,000-12,000 0.15-0.20/km² 2011 -- Okanagan 2,000-3,000 0.15-0.20/km² 2011 -- Lower Mainland 75-150 -- 2011 -- Sources: ACA 2013; AESRD 2012c; BC MFLNRO 2011 Notes: - Regions and Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) listed include those that overlap the Wildlife LSA. ‘--’ indicates that data are not available. - Antlered quota was assumed to correlate with population productivity and general habitat quality. In sexually dimorphic ungulates, like moose, males are more sensitive to resource shortage (LeBlanc et al. 2001). Therefore, comparisons of male abundance (proxy, antlered quota) are likely more suited for revealing differences in habitat quality among regions than are comparisons of female abundance.

3.3.2 Distribution Moose have a holarctic distribution and are most commonly associated with the boreal forest in the northern regions of North America and Eurasia. In North America, moose occur in Canada and Alaska, and in the west, their range extends south through the Rockies as far as northern Colorado. This species has been expanding its range since the last ice age; recently, moose range has been expanding into prairie and parkland regions, and the western coastal regions of BC (ASRD 2009, Darimont et al. 2005, Kelsall and Telfer 1974). The conversion of climax forest to early successional habitats through land clearing, road and railway construction, and fire has favoured moose in many areas, particularly when coupled with predator management programs (Rea and Child 2007).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-9

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

3.3.2.1 Provincial Range Alberta In Alberta, moose occur in all of the province’s natural regions. Most aerial moose surveys have been conducted within the Boreal and Foothills Natural Regions, and estimated densities are similar between the two regions (Boreal Natural Region, 0.38 moose/km2; Foothills Natural Region, 0.43 moose/km2) (ACA 2013). Over the last two decades, moose range has expanded into parkland and prairie regions of Alberta (ASRD 2009, Pattie and Fisher 2009).

British Columbia Moose are one of the most widely distributed ungulates in BC and occur across most of the province. Moose are common in the Central and Sub-boreal Interior, the Northern Boreal Mountains and, the Boreal Plains (BC MELP 2000). Moose generally do not inhabit the dry Bunchgrass or the wet Coastal Douglas-fir zones (Stevens 1995) and alpine areas are only inhabited during the summer (Mahon et al. 2005, Stevens 1995).

3.3.2.2 Elevational Range Moose use habitats at elevations ranging from sea level to subalpine, with minor use of alpine habitats primarily in the summer (Stevens 1995).

3.3.2.3 Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area Alberta Moose occur in all natural subregions within the Wildlife LSA.

British Columbia Moose range throughout the Wildlife LSA in the Southern Interior Mountains and Central Interior (Wall et al. 2011). They also occur in the Southern Interior, but are rare in the Ponderosa Pine and Bunchgrass zones (Stevens 1995). Moose are generally absent from the Coast and Mountains and Georgia Depression Ecoprovinces (Darimont et al. 2005, Stevens 1995).

3.3.3 General Ecology Moose undergo seasonal migrations between summer and winter ranges (Andersen 1991). Dense forests are preferred for cover while shrublands and early successional forests are used as foraging habitat (Peek 2007). Both natural and human-caused disturbances (e.g., wildfire, timber harvest, road and utility corridors) can promote early successional vegetation communities favoured by moose (Rea and Child 2007).

Moose populations are affected by the availability of preferred forage species as well as protective cover (Dussault et al. 2006). As generalist browsers, moose consume a diversity of plants, but leaves and stems of deciduous trees and shrubs are the staple of their diet (Rea and Child 2007). In Western Canada moose often rely heavily on willow (Salix spp.) outside of the growing season, but other species can also be important when present (Table 3.3-2) (Rea and Child 2007). In BC, moose are rarely observed in coastal habitats (e.g., Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic zone) likely because early successional forests suitable for browse production are rare (Darimont et al. 2005). Anecdotal evidence suggests that moose may be extending their range into coastal areas and this could be related to recent expansion of logging activities in this region (Darimont et al. 2005).

In mountainous areas, moose typically migrate away from their low elevation winter range in the spring and move to higher elevations over the course of the summer (Andersen 1991). As the growing season progresses, the abundance and quality of vegetation increases along a low-to-high altitudinal gradient. Many ungulates track these altitudinal changes in plant quality (Mysterud et al. 2001) and this may explain why moose will use subalpine and tundra areas during the summer. Abundant browse and emergent vegetation are important features of quality summer habitat (Rea and Child 2007). Closed canopy forests are also important for shelter and security cover during summer, and coniferous stands are often used to minimize daytime heat exposure (Van Beest et al. 2012).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-10

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Moose move back to low elevation habitats during late fall and winter to take advantage of more accessible browse and lower snow accumulation found in these regions (Rea and Child 2007). As winter snow depths become restrictive to movement (e.g. depths > 70 cm) (Kelsall 1969), moose may make use of mature conifer stands where browse availability is relatively low (Dussault et al. 2005). The higher canopy closure in these stands intercepts snow and reduces snow accumulation on the ground, which minimizes the energetic costs of movement. Mature coniferous forests also offer protection from predators (Dussault et al. 2006). Moose winter range is enhanced where cover is accompanied by abundant forage (Dussault et al. 2005). Clearings (including harvested timber stands), burns, and areas close to wetlands and watercourses are considered important components of moose winter range (Halko et al. 2001). In mountainous areas, moose selectively winter in low-elevation (< 1,000 m) sites with slopes ranging from 0 to < 40% (Goddard 2003, Wall et al. 2011).

TABLE 3.3-2

IMPORTANT MOOSE BROWSE SPECIES

Species Scientific Name arboreal lichens Alectoria spp. balsam fir Abies balsamea birches* Betula spp. choke cherry* Prunus virginiana currant/gooseberries Ribes spp. falsebox Pachistima myrsinites hazelnut Corylus cornuta poplars/aspen* Populus spp. red huckleberry Vaccinium scoparium red-osier-dogwood* Cornus stolonifera saskatoon* Amelanchier alnifolia sitka mountain ash Sorbus sitchensis soopolallie Shepherdia canadensis snowbrush Ceanothus velutinus subalpine fir Abies lasiocarpa western redcedar Thuja plicata willow* Salix spp. yew* Taxus brevifolia Sources: Crête and Courtois 2009, Kelsall and Telfer 1974, Keystone Wildlife Research 2006, Serrouya and D'Eon 2002, Stevens 1970 Note: - Plant species serving as important moose browse in western North America. Species with an asterisk are considered very important to moose because they are both preferred and capable of producing large amounts of digestible biomass.

3.3.4 Key Habitat Requirements 3.3.4.1 Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use The life requisites and seasons that were rated for moose are winter foraging habitat and winter security/thermal habitat; these life requisites are described in detail below. In contrast to summer habitat, which is generally widespread, resources capable of supporting moose during the winter are distributed over a much smaller area. Further, for all temperate and polar ungulates, a disproportionate amount of mortality occurs during the winter (Danell et al. 2006). As a result, the extent and quality of winter habitat is a limiting factor for most moose populations (Dussault et al. 2005).

Winter Foraging Habitat In the winter, moose may require as much as 20 kg of forage per day (BC MELP 2000). Given their large dietary requirements, moose broadly select habitats with the most abundant browse (Van Beest et al. 2010). Shrubs make up the bulk of the consumed biomass, but moose also eat the soft cambium layer of certain deciduous trees (e.g., aspen) (Mahon et al. 2005). Vegetation communities in riparian areas provide large expanses of contiguous cover and forage (Peek 2007) and these areas provide ideal winter foraging habitat for moose (Poole and Stuart-Smith 2006, Wall et al. 2011). Non-riparian habitats

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-11

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

with abundant browse are also frequently used (Van Beest et al. 2010) including disturbed areas (e.g., clearcuts) (Poley et al. 2013). Peatlands are generally avoided by moose (Poley et al. 2013).

Winter Security/Thermal Habitat High snowfall winters challenge the ability of moose to survive (Kelsall and Telfer 1974) and the availability of high-quality winter cover habitat is essential for buffering the effects of inclement weather. Although moose may use a variety of cover types during milder winters, the presence of mature coniferous and mixed forest stands is considered essential in severe winters (Eastman 1977, Hundertmark et al. 1990, Mahon et al. 2005). Moose are frequently observed using forested riparian floodplains under a variety of winter conditions (Poole and Stuart-Smith 2006); such habitats offer an ideal mixture of forage and cover, and the low-elevations characteristic of large floodplains make them less prone to high snow accumulations compared to surrounding areas (Poole and Stuart-Smith 2006).

3.3.5 Limiting Factors Climatic factors limit moose range (Darimont et al. 2005). Patterns of snow accumulation are of particular importance to moose, as survival generally declines with increasing winter snow depths (Kelsall and Telfer 1974). Although moose are well adapted to areas with deep snow, depths between 70 and 100 cm can become restrictive, and snow accumulations greater than 100 cm severely restrict movement (Des Meules 1964), reduce forage accessibility (Coady 1974), and likely reduce the ability of moose to escape from predators. Snow characteristics (e.g., crusting and density) can also affect the ability of moose to use high snowfall areas (Kelsall and Telfer 1974). In areas of generally high snowfall, moose often aggregate in lower elevation areas where snow depths are less restrictive to movement and foraging (Mahon et al. 2005). In many high snowfall areas, moose population sizes are likely limited by the availability of these low-elevation habitat types.

1985). Expansion of road networks and other linear disturbances may increase the effect of predation and there is some evidence that increasing road access can exacerbate hunting mortality and lead to population declines (Rempel et al. 1997). In BC, widespread moose declines have coincided with deforestation by mountain pine beetle and associated salvage logging; this led McNay et al. (2013) to speculate a cause-effect relationship between the two; however, additional data are needed to substantiate this conclusion.

3.3.6 Model Development Adequate information was available on moose winter foraging and shelter requirements in Alberta and BC to support a 6-point rating scheme, ranging from High (1) to Nil (6).

3.3.6.1 Provincial Benchmarks In Alberta and BC, optimal habitat is assumed to occur in mixed white spruce – aspen/poplar riparian habitat. The Boreal White and Black Spruce (BWBSmw) subzone of the Peace Lowlands Ecosection is considered the provincial benchmark in BC (BC MELP 1999).

3.3.6.2 Ratings Assumptions General Habitat Suitability Assumptions (Winter Foraging Habitat; Winter Security/Thermal Habitat) • The Coastal Douglas-fir, Coastal Western Hemlock, Ponderosa Pine, and Bunchgrass Biogeoclimatic zones are rarely used by moose in the Wildlife LSA and were rated Nil (6).

• Alpine and Subalpine ecosystems, urban areas, ecosystem units with steep modifiers (z or p; Resource Inventory Committee [RIC] 1998) and mapped units with average slope > 100% were rated Nil (6).

• Rural areas and grazed land were downgraded by one rating value (to a minimum of Very Low [5]).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-12

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

• Broad scale factors (e.g., climate and snow accumulation) appear to affect regional habitat suitability in both Alberta and BC. Therefore, rating limits were placed on the various broad-scale ecosystems of the two provinces. Details of the rating limits and rationale for them are described separately for Alberta and BC.

Alberta: WMUs that mostly overlapped the Upper Foothills, Montane, and Subalpine Natural Subregions (WMU 438, 344, 342) showed signs of low population productivity; these natural subregions had relatively low antlered moose harvest quotas (3.19, 1.28, 0.86 bulls/100 km², respectively, compared to an average of 5.45 bulls/100 km2 for the remaining WMUs) and estimated densities (Table 3.3-1) (AESRD 2012c). These differences in productivity may be caused by differences in winter snow accumulation; the average maximum snow depths in WMUs 438, 344, and 342 (100-199 cm snow) are higher than the remaining WMUs further to the east (maximum depth < 100 cm) (Atlas of Canada 2009). Based on these observed differences, regional adjustments were made as follows.

• Subalpline, Montane and Upper Foothills Natural Subregions received lower ratings for winter habitat; Subalpine was rated a maximum of Moderate (3), while Montane and Upper Foothills were rated to a maximum of Moderately-High (2).

• The Alpine Natural Subregion was rated Nil (6) as it was assumed to provide unsuitable winter habitat.

• The remaining natural subregions (Lower Foothills, Central Mixedwood, Dry Mixedwood, Central Parkland) were rated up to High (1).

• A summary of maximum ratings for the various natural subregions is provided in Table 3.3-3.

British Columbia: Habitat ratings were adjusted according to area-specific snowfall characteristics (Keystone Wildlife Research 2006, Meidinger and Pojar 1991). In BC, biogeoclimatic zones were grouped into four categories according to their snowfall-based suitability for moose (Keystone Wildlife Research 2006, Meidinger and Pojar 1991).

• Exclusion zones: Biogeoclimatic zones receiving extremely high winter snowfall (CMA, CWH, ESSF, IMA, MH) preventing winter habitation - Rated Nil (6).

• Highly Restrictive zones: Biogeoclimatic zones associated with high snowfall (ICH) placing extreme restrictions on winter habitation – Rated up to Moderate (3).

• Restrictive zones: Biogeoclimatic zones associated with high snowfall (SBS in wet or very wet climates) restricting winter habitation – Rated up to Moderately High (2).

• Mild zones: Biogeoclimatic zones associated with low snowfall (IDF, MS, SBS in drier climates) with little restriction on winter habitation – Rated up to High (1).

• A summary of maximum ratings for the various biogeoclimatic zones is provided in Table 3.3-3.

TABLE 3.3-3

MAXIMUM RATINGS FOR BIOGEOCLIMATIC ZONES AND NATURAL SUBREGIONS OCCURRING WITHIN THE WILDLIFE LOCAL STUDY AREA

Natural Subregion/ Biogeoclimatic Zone Non-Floodplain Habitats Riparian Floodplain Habitat Alpine Nil (6) Nil (6) Subalpine Moderate (3) Moderate-High (2) M, UF Moderate-High (2) High (1) LF, CM, DM, CP High (1) High (1) SBS, IDF, MS High (1) High (1) ICH Moderate (3) Moderate-High (2) BG, PP, MH, IMA, ESSF, CWH, CMA Nil (6) Nil (6)

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-13

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Note: The ratings shown for floodplain habitats represent the maximum ratings that can be attained within a given biogeoclimatic zone (under optimal conditions). Floodplains with structural stage > 3 are always considered optimal habitat and this is reflected in the higher ratings possible for such sites.

Foraging Habitat Model assumptions • Habitat suitability ratings were adjusted based on structural stage and the typical abundance of preferred forage species associated with the ecosystem unit (Table 3.3-4). Forested or shrubby floodplains (structural stage > 3) were assumed to have abundant forage, since these units often have dense undergrowth of palatable shrubs regardless of overstory tree cover.

• Soil moisture was used as a surrogate to estimate the amount of available browse. Sites associated with soil moisture regimes of very xeric or xeric were assumed to be unproductive. If these sites were not associated with preferred browse species, then the rating was downgraded by 4 rating levels, otherwise the sites were downgraded by 2 rating levels (to a minimum of Very Low [5]). Ratings were adjusted, if appropriate, to incorporate available information on the abundance of preferred shrub species typical of an ecosystem unit.

• Floodplains and wetlands are typically associated with abundant forage during all successional stages. To reflect the high abundance of browse, the following adjustments were applied:

Floodplains:

• Ratings were increased by one level above the typical maximum for the biogeoclimatic unit (Table 3.3-3).

• Floodplains in BC were based on TEM mapping. In Alberta, floodplains could not be determined based on TEM mapping, so areas within 30 m of a watercourse or lake were assumed to represent riparian floodplain habitat.

Wetlands:

• Swamps were upgraded by one rating value.

• Shrubby or treed wetland fringe habitats (i.e., within 30 m of a wetland) were upgraded by 1 rating value.

• Bogs are nutrient limited and generally have low primary productivity, resulting in low forage availability for moose. Therefore, bog ecosystems were rated to a maximum of Low (4) in low snowfall areas and Very Low (5) in high snowfall areas.

TABLE 3.3-4

MAXIMUM RATINGS FOR MOOSE WINTER FORAGING HABITAT BASED ON STRUCTURAL STAGE AND PRESENCE OF PREFERRED BROWSE SPECIES

Preferred Browse Preferred Browse Structural Stage Species Present Species Not Present 1-2 Nil (6) Nil (6) 3a Moderately-High (2) Moderate (3) 3b High (1) Moderately-High (2) 4 Moderately-High (2) Moderate (3) 5 Low (4) Very Low (5) 6 Moderate (3) Low (4) 7 Moderate (3) Low (4) Note: Presence of preferred browse species is based on known species associations for the various ecosystem units found in Alberta and BC (Table 3.3-2).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-14

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Winter Security/Thermal Habitat • Sites that were structural stage 6 or 7 were rated highest.

• Sites with structural stage < 2 were assumed to have no value and were rated Nil (6).

• Habitat suitability was adjusted for structural stage and stand composition. Coniferous trees are better able to intercept snow and result in reduced snowpack. Therefore, coniferous and mixed stands were rated higher than deciduous stands:

− In Mild Winter zones, habitats were rated according to Table 3.3-5. Restrictive and Very Restrictive zones were rated as shown in Table 3.3-6.

• Peatlands (i.e., Bogs and Fens) are avoided by moose (Poley et al. 2013) and the typical forest structure on these sites (sparse and stunted conifers) provide marginal security cover. Therefore, peatlands were rated up to Low (4) in low snowfall areas and Very Low (5) in high snowfall areas.

• Riparian floodplains offer an ideal mixture of cover and forage. Furthermore, within high snowfall areas, floodplains are often the only suitable winter refuges for moose. Therefore, floodplains with structural stage > 3 were considered optimal habitat within each biogeoclimatic zone or Natural Subregion and were rated according to Table 3.3-3.

TABLE 3.3-5

HABITAT RATINGS FOR LOW SNOWFALL AREAS BASED ON STAND TYPE AND STRUCTURAL STAGE

Stand Composition Structural Stage Conifer Mixed Deciduous 1-2 Nil (6) Nil (6) Nil (6) 3a Low (4) Low (4) Low (4) 3b - 5 Moderate (3) Moderate (3) Moderate (3) 6-7 High (1) Moderately-High (2) Moderate (3)

TABLE 3.3-6

HABITAT RATINGS FOR HIGH SNOWFALL AREAS BASED ON STAND TYPE AND STRUCTURAL STAGE

Stand Composition Structural Stage Conifer Mixed Deciduous 1-2 Nil (6) Nil (6) Nil (6) 3a Very Low (5) Very Low (5) Very Low (5) 3b - 5 Low (4) Low (4) Low (4) 6-7 Moderately-High (2) Moderately-High (2) Moderate (3) Restrictive Zones 6-7 Moderate (3) Moderate (3) Low (4) Highly Restrictive Zones Notes: - Restrictive Zones – biogeoclimatic zones and natural subregions associated with high snowfall (includes Interior Cedar-Hemlock, Subalpine) placing extreme restrictions on winter habitation. - Highly Restrictive Zones – biogeoclimatic zones associated with high snowfall (includes Sub-boreal Spruce in wet or very wet climates, Upper Foothills, and Montane) restricting winter habitation.

3.3.6.3 Ratings Adjustments Moose can respond positively to human landscape disturbances, especially when they create early successional shrub and woodland habitat (Rae and Child 2007). However, anthropogenic disturbances

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-15

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

associated with increased sensory disturbance or human access are often associated with reduced habitat effectiveness.

Roads are associated with higher mortality rates (moose-vehicle collisions [Seiler 2005] and higher hunter-induced mortality [Rempel et al. 1997]) and, avoidance behaviour by moose for distances up to 300 m from roadways (Yost and Wright 2001). Generally, the higher traffic volumes associated with primary roadways result in more moose-vehicle collisions compared to lower traffic roads (Seiler 2005). Although the effects of secondary and tertiary roads are relatively lower, these features are associated with higher hunting pressure (Rempel et al. 1997), which in turn can result in population declines (Rempel et al. 1997) and avoidance behaviour by moose (Neumann 2009). Utility corridors, which enhance access for off-road vehicles, are likely associated with increases in hunting pressure similar to secondary and tertiary roads.

Human disturbances elicit higher fear responses by moose compared to mechanical disturbances (Andersen et al. 1996). This applies even when mechanical and human disturbance co-occur. For instance, on-foot recreation (e.g., hiking) and all-terrain vehicle recreation (e.g., snowmobiling) both cause moose to temporarily abandon resting and foraging sites (Neumann 2009), however, moose show an exaggerated response to foot traffic (Neumann 2009). Mechanical disturbance in isolation from human disturbance is likely less disruptive than the two disturbance agents combined, however, no research has assessed this possibility.

Habitat ratings were downgraded by two levels within 300 m of high sensory disturbances (e.g., urban, industrial, primary roads); downgraded one rating within 300 m of moderate sensory disturbances (e.g., tertiary roads, secondary roads, railroads); and downgraded one rating within 100 m of low sensory disturbances, such as recreational facilities.

3.4 Forest Furbearers There are three mammal species within the Forest Furbearer indicator group: American marten; fisher; and wolverine. Habitat associations for these species include forests with large trees and adequate structural complexity for denning and hunting. The conservation status of each species is detailed in Table 3.4-1.

TABLE 3.4-1

SPECIES INCLUDED IN THE FOREST FURBEARERS INDICATOR GROUP

Common Name Scientific Name Province1 Alberta General Status2 BC List3 BCCF Priority4 COSEWIC5 SARA6 American marten Martes americanus Alberta, BC Secure Yellow 2 -- -- fisher Martes pennanti Alberta, BC Sensitive Blue 2 -- -- wolverine Gulo gulo luscus Alberta, BC May Be at Risk Blue 2 Special Concern -- Sources: ASRD 2011, AESRD 2013a; BC CDC 2013; Environment Canada 2013a Notes: 1 Provinces where the species range overlaps the Wildlife LSA. 2 General Status of Alberta Wild Species. 3 BC Red, Blue, and Yellow list status. 4 BC Conservation Framework (BCCF) Priority. 5 Species assessed by COSEWIC. 6 Species listed under SARA Schedule 1.

American marten and fisher were selected for modelling. The habitat requirements for marten and fisher are relatively well known, which makes them suitable for modelling. Wolverine were not modelled due to their wide-ranging and opportunistic habitat use patterns, which limit the usefulness of habitat models (BC MELP 1999).

Wolverines are more likely to occur in topographically rugged terrain and areas where industrial activity and habitat alteration is low (Fisher et al. 2013). Detailed species accounts and model details for American marten and fisher are provided below.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-16

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

3.4.1 American Marten 3.4.1.1 Status The conservation status of the American marten (Martes americanus, M-MAAM) is detailed in Table 3.4-1. The American marten is considered a furbearing species in Alberta and BC, and it is legally trapped in both provinces. Direct information on population dynamics is unavailable in Alberta and BC, but trapping data provide an indication of where the species lives and region-specific importance for trapping. In BC, the marten harvest from 1985 to 2000 was highest in the Omineca-Peace region (44.36% of provincial harvest), followed by Skeena (21.63%), Kootenay (13.56%), Cariboo (8.83%), Thompson (5.35%), Vancouver Island (3.48%), Okanagan (2.48%), and Lower Mainland (0.31%) regions (BC MFLNRO 2013b). In Alberta, the marten harvest has historically been most abundant in the Boreal, Foothills, and Montane Natural Subregions, with fewer animals taken in the Mixedwood Natural Subregion (Poole and Mowat 2001). Harvest statistics from 1994 to 1998 show a general decline in the harvest within boreal subregions and an increase in mixedwood subregions (Poole and Mowat 2001).

3.4.1.2 Distribution American marten occur within the boreal forest and extend across most of Canada, excluding the Arctic and the prairie regions (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994, Clark et al. 1987). The range extends south through the Rocky Mountains. Martens have been extirpated across much of the southeast part of their range in the United States (US) (Clark et al. 1987).

Provincial Range Alberta Martens are found in the northern half of Alberta within the boreal forest, foothills, and mountain regions (Poole and Mowat 2001). Martens are not present in the southeastern grassland portion of the province (Clark et al. 1987).

British Columbia Marten occur throughout BC, including Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlotte Islands (Clark et al. 1987, Eder and Pattie 2001). This species is most abundant in central and northern BC and is generally rare in urban areas due to habitat alteration.

Elevational Range Martens are most commonly found in forested areas from sea level to subalpine elevations; they do not generally occur above the treeline, but rocky alpine habitats may be used (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994, Roberts 2004).

Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area Alberta Marten occur in the Dry Mixedwood and Central Mixedwood Natural Subregions of the Boreal Forest Natural Region, the Lower Foothills and Upper Foothills Natural Subregions of the Foothills Natural Region, and the Montane Natural Subregion of the Rocky Mountains Natural Region.

British Columbia Marten occur in all biogeoclimatic zones and ecosections within the Wildlife LSA, except for the Fraser Lowland Ecosection where they have been extirpated (BC CDC 2013).

3.4.1.3 General Ecology Martens are strongly associated with structurally complex coniferous forests (Wasserman et al. 2012). Preferred habitats are characterized by large conifers and abundant ground-level structure (coarse woody debris [CWD]). In the northern Rocky Mountains, a dependence on deep winter snowpacks has also been identified (Baltensperger 2009, Wasserman et al. 2010), with snow depths exceeding 50 cm providing thermally optimal conditions for denning (Baltensperger 2009). Although this species is dependent on old

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-17

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

forests (Buskirk and Powell 1994), selection for this habitat is relaxed during the growing season. Provided that overhead cover is available, summer habitat can include open and non-vegetated sites such as early seral shrubland, and talus and boulder fields (Powell et al. 2003). Throughout the year, martens strongly avoid forest openings and clearings (Clark et al. 1987, Cushman et al. 2011). During winter, dependence on old-growth stands increases, likely because abundant snags and CWD provide access to warm microclimates and subnivean prey (Allen 1982).

Martens are opportunistic predators and their diets can be very diverse. Throughout their range, martens principally prey upon rodents, especially voles (Buskirk and Ruggierro 1994, Martin 1994). Snowshoe hares are also eaten, but in the western part of marten range, hares are not considered a staple food item (Powell et al. 2003). The diverse diet of martens can also include insects, fruit, carrion (e.g., ungulates), birds, and fish, with the latter two being eaten most often in coastal habitats (Nagorsen et al. 1991).

Aside from mating and the brief periods of maternal care, martens are largely asocial (Powell et al. 2003). As with other mustelids, the mating system is polygynous; males compete intensively for access to mates, males are markedly larger than females, and parental care is solely provided by the mother (Powell et al. 2003). Mating occurs in late March through to May, and the female’s reproductive system delays implantation for over 6 months; whelping occurs in the following March (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). Mothers select a wood cavity for denning, usually within a large hollow log, snag or live tree (> 50 cm dbh) (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). Females produce from one to five offspring (average 3.5) (Powell et al. 2003), which eventually disperse away from their natal range some 4-6 months later (Johnson et al. 2009).

3.4.1.4 Key Habitat Requirements Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use Year-Round General Living Habitat In western North America, martens are typically found within mesic old-growth coniferous forests. Common forest associations include: Pacific silver fir-western hemlock; white spruce-black spruce; and Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir (Powell et al. 2003). Structurally complex forests offer optimal habitat for martens, likely because they normally include CWD and snags necessary for denning and accessing subnivean prey in winter. Coarse woody debris is most available in recently disturbed forests and those transitioning through second-growth senescence (i.e., old forests). Stands between 30-60 years old tend to be structurally simple with little CWD (Andruskiw et al. 2008). Even when CWD is abundant (e.g., in recently disturbed sites), these areas may not be used because martens strongly avoid sites that lack overhead cover (e.g., clearcuts, meadows, burns, and bogs) (Cheveau et al. 2013, Clark et al. 1987). Open and non-vegetated terrain may be used during the summer provided that adequate screening cover is available (e.g., boulders, logging slash, etc.).

3.4.1.5 Limiting Factors Forest clearing negatively affects marten populations, and this species has been considered among those most sensitive to forest disturbance (Cushman et al. 2011, Johnson et al. 2009, Thompson 1991). Timber removal and landscape fragmentation can affect martens by increasing the risk of predation (Cushman et al. 2011), rendering preferred habitats inaccessible (Cushman et al. 2011), reducing survival during dispersal (Johnson et al. 2009), limiting dispersal distance (Johnson et al. 2009) and decreasing foraging efficiency (Andruskiw et al. 2008). Therefore, the continued fragmentation of forested landscapes poses a serious threat to marten populations throughout their range.

As with many species inhabiting mountainous terrain, martens are also being threatened by climate change. This species is associated with high winter snowpacks (Wasserman et al. 2010) and in the Rocky Mountains, climate change is predicted to reduce snowpack depth during winter. Therefore, the distribution of martens and connectivity among their populations is expected to decline (Wasserman et al. 2012). The negative effects of climate change may be magnified when possible interactions between forest clearing and trapping are considered (Carroll 2007).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-18

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

3.4.1.6 Model Development Provincial Benchmark There are no established provincial benchmarks for fisher in Alberta or BC.

Ratings Assumptions • With the exception of swamps, wetlands were rated Nil (4).

• Alpine areas were rated Nil (4).

• Structural stages 1-4 were rated Nil (4).

• Structural stage 6-7 forests were rated highest, followed by structural stage 5 forests (Table 3.4-2).

• Conifer stands were rated highest, followed by mixed and deciduous stands.

• High canopy cover stands with ground-level physical structure are preferred. Moist (subhygric to submesic) structural stage 5-7 forests were assumed to provide preferred structural attributes, while dry and wet sites were assumed to be suboptimal and downgraded by one rating value (to a minimum of Low [3]).

• A rating decision table is shown in Table 3.4-2.

• Sites within areas of high winter snow depths (> 50 cm) retained their rating, and all others were downgraded by one rating level (to a minimum of Low [3]). Snow depths were based on predictions derived from Environment Canada’s nation-wide snow depth analysis (Atlas of Canada 2009). In Alberta, this leads to a reduction in rating for all sites within the Lower Foothills, Central Mixedwood, and Dry Mixedwood Natural Subregions. In BC, only the Ponderosa Pine and Bunchgrass zones were downgraded.

• Forested sites within grazed pastures were rated up to Low (3); all rural developments were rated Nil (4).

TABLE 3.4-2

RATINGS FOR MARTEN GENERAL LIVING HABITAT ACCOUNTING FOR SOIL MOISTURE, STAND COMPOSITION, AND STRUCTURAL STAGE

Structural Stage Conifer Stand Mixedwood Stand Deciduous Stand 1-4 Nil (4) Nil (4) Nil (4) 5 (subhrygric to submesic) Moderate (2) Low (3) Low (3) 5 (dry or wet) Low (3) Low (3) Low (3) 6-7 (subhrygric to submesic) High (1) Moderate (2) Low (3) 6-7 (dry or wet) Moderate (2) Moderate (2) Low (3) Note: Moisture classes are based on the typical moisture regime for a given ecosystem (site series or ecosite). ‘Dry’ sites have soil moisture regimes that are mesic or drier, while ‘Wet’ sites are those with soil moisture regimes of subhydric or wetter.

Ratings Adjustments Martens strongly avoid forest clearings (Cheveau et al. 2013, Clark et al. 1987); therefore, disturbances that removed large swaths of forest cover (e.g., mountain pine beetle stands [Stevenson and Daust 2009], pipeline, transmission line) or removed all vegetation (e.g., compressor stations) were rated Nil (4). Marten occupancy rates are known to be lower surrounding industrial disturbances (Webb 2010) and expansion of road networks increases marten mortality risk (Wiebe et al. 2013). Ratings were downgraded by one level within 100 m of moderate sensory disturbances (e.g., secondary roads, quarries, recreations sites, railways, wellsites) and two levels within 200 m of intense sensory disturbances (e.g., primary roads, industrial and commercial facilities, urban developments).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-19

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

3.4.2 Fisher 3.4.2.1 Status The conservation status of the fisher (Martes pennanti, M-MAPE) is detailed in Table 3.4-1. Based on BC’s annual harvest records from 1996 to 2004, the population of fishers in the province was estimated to be 1,113-2,795 individuals (BC MWLAP 2004). In Alberta, trapping data indicate that most fishers are taken in the southern portion of the Boreal Natural Region, with the Foothills, Parkland, and Canadian Shield Natural Regions accounting for a smaller amount of the overall kill (Poole and Mowat 2001). The fisher carcass collection program allowed for analysis of 440 fisher carcasses, representing approximately 30% of the fishers harvested across Alberta over the 2012-2013 trapping season (AESRD 2013b). Results showed the ratio of juvenile to adult female (2.2:1) was lower than the target of 3:1, indicating reproduction rates below targets for the fisher population in Alberta. The average fur production from the Alberta fisher harvest between 2008 and 2013 (5 trapping seasons) was 1,430 (AESRD 2013b).

3.4.2.2 Distribution Fishers are found south of the Arctic circle in boreal forests, and their range extends south through forested habitats in the Appalachian Mountains and Western Cordillera. Fishers were extirpated from much of the southern and eastern parts of their range following European colonization of North America (BC MWLAP 2004).

Provincial Range Alberta In Alberta, the fisher is uncommon to rare and inhabits the forests of the Boreal Forest and Rocky Mountain Natural Regions (ASRD 2011).

British Columbia The range of the fisher extends throughout most of the forested regions of BC but this species is rare in coastal ecosystems (BC MWLAP 2004). Fisher densities are highest in the northern parts of the province (Boreal Plains, Sub-boreal interior, Central interior and Taiga Plains) and considerably lower in the southern half of the province. Fisher has likely been extirpated from the Cascade and Okanagan Mountain ranges in the southern interior and the Columbia and Rocky Mountain ranges south of the Kinbasket Reservoir (BC MWLAP 2004). Populations may be expanding in the central and eastern portions of the range due to the reforestation of abandoned agricultural lands, trapping restrictions, and reintroduction programs. Fisher has been extirpated from highly populated areas and a population of 61 adults and 23 kits was reintroduced in the southern Columbia Mountains (Fontana et al. 1999). Snow depth in the coastal region limits the distribution of the fisher on the mainland and it is absent from Vancouver Island, the Queen Charlotte Islands and the North Coast Islands (Weir 2003).

Elevational Range The fisher prefers low to mid-elevations (< 2,500 m) where snowpack is lower and does not restrict movement (BC MWLAP 2004, Powell and Zielinski 1994).

Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area Alberta Within the Wildlife LSA, fishers occur in the Central Parkland, Dry Mixedwood and Central Mixedwood Natural Subregions of the Boreal Natural Region, the Lower Foothills and Upper Foothills Natural Subregions of the Foothills Natural Region, and the Montane Subregion of the Rocky Mountain Natural Region (Poole and Mowat 2001, Proulx and Genereux 2009).

British Columbia Fisher occurs in the Northern Park Ranges, Upper Fraser Trench, and Cariboo Mountains Ecosections of the Southern Interior Mountains Ecoprovince; the Cariboo Plateau Ecosection of the Central Interior Ecoprovince; and the Northern Thompson Upland and Northern Shuswap Highlands Ecosections of the

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-20

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Southern Interior Ecoprovince. In the Wildlife LSA within these Ecosections, the fisher occurs in the Engelmann-Spruce Subalpine Fir, Interior Cedar-Hemlock, Interior Douglas-fir, and Sub-Boreal Spruce biogeoclimatic zones. Biogeoclimatic variants along the Wildlife LSA with potential to support fisher (based on fisher range) are shown in Table 3.4-3.

TABLE 3.4-3

BIOGEOCLIMATIC VARIANTS ALONG THE WILDLIFE LOCAL STUDY AREA THAT FALL WITHIN FISHER RANGE

Ecosection Biogeoclimatic Variants CAM ESSFmm1, ICHmm, ICHmw3, ICHwk1, SBSdh1 CAP ICHmk2, IDFmw2 NPK ESSFmm1, ICHmm, SBSdh1 NSH ICHdw3, ICHmw3, ICHmw2, IDFmw2, IDFmw2b NTU ICHmk2, IDFmw2, IDFxh2 UFT ICHmm, SBSdh1 Note: - Biogeoclimatic variants within fisher range were based upon mapping and GIS data made available by FORREX (2013).

3.4.2.3 General Ecology As generalist carnivores, fishers consume a variety of prey, including (but not limited to): porcupines; red squirrels; snowshoe hares; other small mammals (Weir 2003); and carrion (e.g., deer) (Powell 1981). Foraging occurs over a broad range of habitat types during the summer, and various structural stages may be used (e.g., non-vegetated, shrubland, etc.). In contrast, winter foraging is likely restricted to a smaller range of habitats. Due to their large size, fishers are limited to hunting on top of the snow layer during winter. Further, fishers are susceptible to sinking in deep and/or low-density snow due to their heavy foot loadings. As a result, this species often forages in areas with reduced winter snowpacks (Garroway et al. 2011, Powell et al. 2003, Raley et al. 2012).

In the most general sense, fishers are found within moist forests containing large-diameter trees and abundant ground-level CWD (Powell et al. 2003, Schwartz et al. 2013). An association with conifers has also been noted for this species, but the presence of dense understories may be more important than forest type in determining distribution and general habitat use (BC MWLAP 2004). Indeed, this species is often found in mixed and deciduous-dominated forests (Powell et al. 2003). A common feature of many fisher habitats is the presence of riparian and/or wetland areas, possibly because these habitats provide the productive understories and abundant prey that this species seeks (BC MWLAP 2004). In eastern North America, fishers are often associated with young forests, while in the west older stands seem to be preferred (Powell et al. 2003). This difference is likely explained by the fact that snowshoe hares are a primary food item in the east but not the west (Powell et al. 2003). In the west, where hares are less abundant, foraging in later seral habitats likely offers greater returns.

Although young forests may be used, old trees are an essential component of fisher habitat. In order to reproduce successfully, female fishers must have access to suitable denning and maternal resting sites. These habitat features typically occur within structurally complex (Powell et al. 2003) and older (structural stage 6 and 7) forests (BC MWLAP 2004) which contain large standing trees with cavities (Weir et al. 2012).

3.4.2.4 Key Habitat Requirements Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use The life requisite that was rated for fishers is natal denning habitat for reproduction and is described in detail below. Forest stands with large deciduous trees and/or decaying CWD that have suitable cavities for denning are a crucial component of reproducing habitat and may be the primary life requisite limiting fisher populations in some areas (Powell and Zielinksi 1994). Suitable denning sites are typically associated with mature or old-growth riparian forests (BC MWLAP 2004), which may also provide suitable food and security/thermal habitat to support reproduction. It was assumed that habitat requirements for daily resting, denning, and foraging are also found within natal denning habitat.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-21

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Growing Season Natal Denning Habitat Dens are used by females to give birth and successfully raise their offspring; therefore, suitable den sites are a crucial component of fisher habitat (Weir et al. 2012). Female fishers use a narrow range of habitat types for denning, and suitable den sites are generally uncommon across the landscape (BC MWLAP 2004). Female fishers exclusively use wood cavities for denning (Raley et al. 2012), which are typically located in the cavities of large diameter snags or living trees with sections of decay. In BC, dens are usually located in deciduous trees, with large diameter poplars (including cottonwood, aspen, and balsam) being used most frequently (BC MWLAP 2004, Weir et al. 2012). Coniferous trees (especially Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine) may also be used if suitable cavities are present (FORREX 2013, Weir and Almuedo 2010), but most conifer species rarely offer suitable den cavities (Weir et al. 2012). Poplars offer the most ideal denning habitat because they grow quickly, are prone to decay of the heartwood at an early age, and can continue growing and living with extensive heart-rot (BC MWLAP 2004, Weir 1995, Weir et al. 2012). Consequently, large diameter (> 50 cm dbh) poplars are likely to be available over extended time periods (Weir et al. 2012).

3.4.2.5 Limiting Factors Fisher populations are inherently unstable and characterized by local extinctions followed by recolonization events (BC MWLAP 2004). These population dynamics may be the result of their low reproductive capacity, low offspring survival, and poor effective dispersal capabilities (BC MWLAP 2004, BC CDC 2013). Natal and maternal den sites for fishers are uncommon across the landscape (BC MWLAP 2004). Only certain tree species are selected for den sites and they are generally atypically large, survivors of past disturbance, have some form of heart-rot, and have adequately-sized damage to the bole for access to the internal cavity (Weir and Almuedo 2010); the scarcity of suitable denning habitat is likely a limiting factor for many fisher populations. Habitat loss from resource extraction and human development is considered the greatest long-term threat to fisher populations (Weir and Almuedo 2010). Fishers are particularly sensitive to intensive forest harvesting practices that occur quickly and cover large areas (e.g., mountain pine beetle salvage harvests) (Weir and Almuedo 2010).

3.4.2.6 Model Development There was a moderate level of knowledge of fisher natal denning habitat requirements and a 4-point rating scheme was used, ranging from High (1) to Nil (4).

Provincial Benchmark There are no established provincial benchmarks for fisher in Alberta or BC.

Ratings Assumptions • Alpine tundra, avalanche tracks, and high-elevation forests (i.e., BC parkland), and all non-forested ecosystem units, were rated as Nil (4), as were bogs and urban areas, regardless of their structural stage.

• Biogeoclimatic variants not listed in Table 3.4-3 were rated Nil (4).

• The Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic zone was rated Nil (4) as was habitat within the northwest Cascades, Eastern Pacific Ranges and Fraser Lowlands Ecosections.

• All non-vegetated units (e.g., rocky outcrop, gravel bar, cultivated field) and recent cutblocks were rated Nil (4).

• All ecosystem units with structural stages 1-4 were rated Nil (4).

• Structural stage 6-7 stands were rated up to High (1) and structural stage 5 stands were rated up to Moderate (2).

• Stands that generally contain a cottonwood component were considered optimal (Table 3.4-4). If stands were Dry to Mesic (soil moisture regime ranges between mesic and subhygric) or Mesic to Wet (soil moisture regime ranges between mesic and subhygric) but cottonwood was not a typical

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-22

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

component of the stand, then these sites could still be rated as optimal: this was done if the stand was mixed or deciduous and generally contained an aspen component. It is assumed that on dry sites, aspen do not attain sufficient diameters (> 40 cm dbh) (Weir and Almuedo 2010) to become suitable for fisher denning. Dry sites may still be used if large diameter Douglas-fir or lodgepole pine are present (FORREX 2013). Therefore, regardless of soil moisture, stands containing Douglas-fir and/or lodgepole pine were rated according to structural stage (Table 3.4-4). Fisher dens are uncommon in conifer stands that lack Douglas-fir and lodgepole/jack pine (FORREX 2013); therefore, pure conifer stands without these conifer species were rated a maximum of Low (3). All other stands were rated Nil (6).

• Mountain pine beetle affected stands, clearcuts, bogs, and fens were rated Nil (6).

• Forested rural areas and grazed land were rated a maximum of Low (3).

TABLE 3.4-4

SUITABILITY RATINGS FOR FISHER ADJUSTED ACCORDING TO STAND CHARACTERISTICS AND MOISTURE REGIME

Structural Stage Conifer Mixed/Deciduous (poplar absent) Mixed/Deciduous (cottonwood present) 1-4 Nil (4) Nil (4) Nil (4) 5 Low (3) Low (3) Moderate (2) 6-7 Moderate (2) Moderate (2) High (1)

Ratings Adjustments Fishers are not well adapted for deep snow. Since high-elevation sites receive higher snowfall, ecosystem units at very high elevations (> 2,500 m) were rated Nil (4) (BC MWLAP 2004, Powell and Zielinski 1994).

Fisher abundance tends to be lower in areas with human disturbance (Buskirk and Powell 1994). The abundance of fishers may also be depressed near roads, since trapping effort tends to increase with better human access (Wiebe et al. 2013). Based on these relationships, habitat suitability was assumed to be lower in proximity to commercial/industrial disturbances.

3.5 Coastal Riparian Small Mammals The coastal riparian small mammal indicator was defined to include Pacific water shrew and mountain beaver specifically, but also addresses the broader community of small mammals that rely, at least for some life requisites, on riparian habitats in the coastal region of BC. These species were included on the basis of similar ecology and expected responses to Project disturbance. Habitat associations for these species include moist riparian areas, streams and wetlands. The conservation status of each species is detailed in Table 3.5-1.

TABLE 3.5-1

SPECIES IN THE COASTAL RIPARIAN SMALL MAMMALS COMMUNITY INDICATOR THAT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE WILDLIFE LOCAL STUDY AREA

Common Name Scientific Name BC List1 BCCF Priority2 COSEWIC3 SARA4 Pacific water shrew Sorex bendirii Red 1 Endangered Endangered Mountain beaver, rufa ssp. Aplodontia rufa rufa Blue 2 Special Concern Special Concern Mountain beaver, rainieri ssp. Aplodontia rufa rainieri Blue 1 Special Concern Special Concern Sources: BC CDC 2013; Environment Canada 2013a Notes: 1 BC Red, Blue, and Yellow list status. 2 BC Conservation Framework Priority. 3 Species assessed by COSEWIC. 4 Species listed under SARA Schedule 1.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-23

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Pacific water shrew and mountain beaver habitats were modelled. Detailed species accounts and model details for Pacific water shrew and mountain beaver are provided below.

3.5.1 Pacific Water Shrew 3.5.1.1 Status Pacific water shrew (Sorex bendirii, M-SOBE) is a species at risk at both provincial and federal levels (Table 3.5-1). Population estimates are not available for this species. There were approximately 183 occurrence records reported in the Recovery Strategy for the Pacific Water Shrew (Sorex bendirii) in British Columbia (Pacific Water Shrew Recovery Team [PWSRT] 2009). Pacific water shrew is considered rare in BC, and important habitat continues to be lost to urban and agricultural developments and forestry (MWLAP 2004, Pacific Water Shrew Recovery Team 2009, Zevit and Welstead 2012).

3.5.1.2 Distribution The range of Pacific water shrew is constrained to coastal western North America, from the coast of BC south to northern California (COSEWIC 2006a, PWSRT 2009). In BC, Pacific water shrew is found in the coastal lowlands of the lower mainland, bounded by the extreme southwest corner of BC, Point Grey in the west, the Chilliwack Valley in the east, and Squamish in the north (BC MWLAP 2004, PWSRT 2009).

Provincial Range Alberta The Pacific water shrew does not occur in Alberta.

British Columbia The Pacific water shrew is restricted to the Fraser River valley in the extreme southwestern corner of BC (COSEWIC 2006). Its known range is bounded by the extreme southwest corner of BC, Point Grey in the west, the Chilliwack Valley in the east, and Squamish in the north (BC MWLAP 2004, PWSRT 2009).

Elevational Range Records for Pacific water shrew are associated with elevations primarily below 600 m, although this may be a sampling bias (BC MWLAP 2004, PWSRT 2009). Pacific water shrew has been detected at elevations as high as 850 m in Mount Seymour Provincial Park, and up to 1,300 m in the Cascade mountains (PWSRT 2009).

Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area British Columbia The Pacific water shrew occurs in the Eastern Pacific Ranges and Northwestern Cascade Ecosections of the Coast and Mountains Ecoprovince, and the Fraser Lowland Ecosection of the Georgia Depression Ecoprovince. Within the Wildlife LSA in these ecosections, Pacific water shrew is found in the Coastal Western-hemlock (CWHdm, ds1, ms1, xm1) biogeoclimatic zone.

3.5.1.3 General Ecology The Pacific water shrew is generally found within 50 m of slow-moving streams and marshes (McComb and Anthony 1993, Whitaker and Maser 1976, Zuleta and Galindo-Leal 1994) and has been considered by some as a wetland-dependant species (Gomez and Anthony 1998). Pacific water shrew is typically found in and around riparian areas associated with narrow (e.g., < 10 m wide), slow-moving streams, although upland forests may be required for overwintering and dispersal (Zevit and Welstead 2012). Some researchers have captured Pacific water shrew as far as 350 m from streams (COSEWIC 2006a).

Other than proximity to streams, habitat selection by Pacific water shrews is varied and may range from deciduous to coniferous forests with moderate to high canopy cover (Zuleta and Galindo-Leal 1994). Some researchers have suggested that forest structural stage is less important than the basic features of a coastal climate (wet) and proximity to streams and other wetlands (BC MWLAP 2004). However, there

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-24

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

is disagreement on this point, as others have concluded that “data strongly suggest that the Pacific water shrew is more abundant in older seral stages of forest than young forest” (COSEWIC 2006a). Nevertheless, observations of this shrew in grass-dominated wetlands (BC MWLAP 2004) confirm that non-forested sites are not completely avoided. Based on studies in Oregon and Washington, the species’ presence has been linked to wetland habitats containing skunk cabbage, red alder, and densely stocked western redcedar stands (COSEWIC 2006a). In BC, Pacific water shrew habitats appear to be mainly associated with streams or wetlands in western redcedar-western hemlock coniferous forests and deciduous forests (e.g., big-leaf maple and mixed maple-Douglas-fir stands) (COSEWIC 2006a, PWSRT 2009). They have been confirmed in other habitat types in BC, including open habitats with dense marsh or wetland vegetation, and channelized drainages such as highway ditches (PWSRT 2009, Zevit and Welstead 20120).

Valuable habitat components for Pacific water shrew include instream and riparian habitats with high levels of structural diversity, high levels of CWD, low levels of disturbance and abundant invertebrate food sources (PWSRT 2009, Zevit and Welstead 2012).

Pacific water shrews are insectivorous. They are a more specialized feeder than many other species of shrew, predominately foraging on aquatic prey in slow-moving creeks and wetlands (BC MWLAP 2004, Whitaker and Maser 1976). Although the majority of foraging/hunting occurs in water, this species always consumes its prey on land (BC MWLAP 2004). The Pacific water shrew likely only survives a single winter and has a maximum life expectancy of about 18 months (BC MWLAP 2004).

3.5.1.4 Limiting Factors Pacific water shrews occur in areas with coastal climates and rely on low-elevation wetland and riparian habitat. Beyond the species’ climatic and elevational requirements, the extent of intact wetland habitats is likely the most limiting factor on Pacific water shrew distribution (PWSRT 2009). Pacific water shrew range in Canada is restricted to southwestern BC, an area that is subjected to intense urban and agricultural development (COSEWIC 2006a). Further urban, industrial, forestry and agricultural development threatens the remaining habitat for Pacific water shrew within BC and connectivity between habitats (PWSRT 2009). There is some research suggesting that competition with the American water shrew may limit range expansion by Pacific water shrews (COSEWIC 2006a). Pollution (e.g., contaminated runoff from roads), predation by feral and domestic cats, and trapping mortality are also identified as threats to the Pacific water shrew population in BC (PWSRT 2009).

3.5.1.5 Model Development Ratings were developed based on the Species Account and Preliminary Habitat Ratings for Pacific Water Shrew (Sorex bendirii) Using TEM Data (Craig 2009). The Pacific water shrew model maps habitat capability. Wet and riparian habitats are rated highest, and the model considers sites with the capacity for high understory plant diversity to be optimal.

3.5.2 Mountain Beaver 3.5.2.1 Status There are two subspecies of mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa, M-APRU) recognized in BC: A.r. rufa and A.r. rainieri. The two subspecies’ ranges overlap and it has recently been proposed that they constitute a single species (BC MOE 2013a). Both subspecies are species at risk at both provincial and federal levels (Table 3.5.1). The population of mountain beaver in BC is estimated to be >10,000 individuals, which constitutes about 5% of the global population (BC MOE 2013a).

3.5.2.2 Distribution Four disjunct populations of mountain beaver occur along the Pacific coast from BC in the north to California in the south (Caraway and Verts 1993).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-25

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Provincial Range Alberta Mountain beavers do not occur in Alberta.

British Columbia The rufa ssp. of mountain beaver is found south of the Fraser River, approximately from Hope west to Aldergrove-Langley. The rainieri ssp. is found in higher forested areas in the Southern Interior, between the Fraser River and Princeton and north to Merritt and Lytton (BC CDC 2013, Ransome 2003). There is a zone of overlap where both subspecies may occur, and the subspecies cannot be differentiated based on range alone (Ransome 2003). Very little is known about the population size or trends of either subspecies of mountain beaver in BC, but it is suspected that the population in the Fraser Valley will be restricted to Regional Parks as urbanization continues. The persistence of the population near Sumas and Chilliwack Mountains is considered unpredictable because of its isolation from the population further south and the increased development of residential property in the area (Ransome 2003).

Elevational Range Mountain beavers are most common at low elevations but can occur up to the treeline (Arjo et al. 2007, Carraway and Verts 1993).

Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area British Columbia The mountain beaver occurs in the Hozameen Range Ecosection of the Southern Interior Ecoprovince, the Northwestern Cascade Ranges and Eastern Pacific Ranges of the Coast and Mountains Ecoprovince, and the Fraser Lowland Ecosection of the Georgia Depression Ecoprovince. Within the Wildlife LSA in these ecosections, the mountain beaver is found in the Coastal Western-hemlock (CWHxm1, dm, vm2), Montane Spruce (MSdm2) and Interior Douglas-fir (IDFxh1, dk1, ww) biogeoclimatic zones.

3.5.2.3 General Ecology The mountain beaver is a rodent with evolutionarily primitive kidneys that do not concentrate urine (Nagorsen 2005), and as a result it is restricted to moist habitats with ample access to water. Mountain beavers inhabit wet, densely vegetated areas (COSEWIC 2012b) and live underground (i.e., are fossorial) where they excavate extensive burrow systems (Carraway and Verts 1993). Tunnel systems are typically located on sloped terrain and are always associated with moist soil (Carraway and Verts 1993).

Year-round, the primary food sources for mountain beavers are sword fern (Polystichum munitum) and salal (Gaultheria shallon) (Arjo et al. 2007), but bracken fern (Pteridium spp.) is also highly preferred (Arjo 2007). Early to mid-seral stage forest and riparian zones are favoured as they contain abundant shrubs (Carraway and Verts 1993). Openings in forest canopy cover, either anthropogenic (e.g., forest harvesting) or natural (e.g., blowdown), that allow seral species to grow may also be used (Randsome 2003). Domestic livestock are thought to degrade mountain beaver habitat (Arjo 2007).

Mountain beavers require deep, non-friable (high moisture content) soils in order to maintain the structural integrity of their burrows (Arjo et al. 2007) and riparian forest communities provide the best habitat for burrow construction. Burrows are generally complex, with multiple openings (Carraway and Verts 1993) and are located in close proximity to a water source and abundant vegetation (i.e., shrub and herbaceous understories associated with canopy openings). Leaves and twigs are used to line, support and cover the entrance to burrows (Martin 1971).

Mountain beavers do not live communally and social interactions primarily occur during reproduction, maternal care, and perhaps territory maintenance. Breeding is seasonal, with most mating occurring in February, March, April or May (Carraway and Verts 1993). Peak breeding dates vary among sites and do not necessarily occur later at higher latitudes. The gestation period is 28-30 days (Arjo 2007) and females produce from one to four altricial young (Carraway and Verts 1993). Offspring are weaned at approximately 6-8 weeks (Carraway and Verts 1993). The age at independence is not known.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-26

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

In contrast to many rodents, which have fast life-histories marked by early reproduction and high reproductive rates, mountain beavers do not reproduce until they reach their second year and reproduction is constrained (only one litter per year, and few offspring per litter) (Arjo 2007). These life history traits are typical of many fossorial rodents (Busch et al. 2000).

3.5.2.4 Key Habitat Requirements Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use General living habitat was rated for its ability to provide suitable food and burrowing (security/thermal) habitat during all seasons.

Year-Round General Living Habitat Wet, early seral forests with abundant preferred browse species are optimal for mountain beavers (Arjo et al. 2007). Riparian habitats appear to offer a combination of these features that are preferred by this species. Late seral forests may also be used when gap dynamics promote pockets of abundant browse; however, these sites are rarely as productive as young stands (Arjo et al. 2007). Site conditions favourable for burrowing are typically found on gently sloped terrain, and very steep or shallow sites tend to be less ideal (Carraway and Verts 1993).

3.5.2.5 Limiting Factors Low availability of intact habitats free from urban and agricultural development is a major limiting factor of mountain beaver abundance and distribution. In BC, mountain beavers have become extirpated from the lower valleys of the Fraser River and their disappearance has been directly linked to human development (COSEWIC 2012b). Apart from direct habitat loss, increased mortality rates near human habitations (e.g., from pets, motor vehicles, and illegal lethal removal by landowners) are likely to be involved in mountain beaver declines. Forestry operations that are conducted on deep snowpacks are generally not a concern for mountain beavers, but burrow systems can collapse when forestry activities occur during the growing season (COSEWIC 2012b). In general, however, the relative impact of forestry activities on provincial mountain beaver populations is thought to be low (COSEWIC 2012b).

3.5.2.6 Model Development There was an intermediate level of knowledge on the habitat requirements of mountain beaver in BC, therefore a 4-point rating scheme was used, ranging from High (1) to Nil (4).

Provincial Benchmark A provincial benchmark for mountain beaver has not been established in BC.

Ratings Assumptions • The following ecosections were assumed capable to supporting mountain beavers: Eastern Pacific Ranges, Fraser Lowlands, Hozameen Range, and Northwestern Cascade Ranges (British Columbia Ministry of Forests [BC MOF] and British Columbia Ministry of Environment [BC MOE] 2007).

• The following biogeoclimatic units and variants were assumed capable of supporting mountain beavers: CWD (dm, xm1), ESSF (mw), IDF (dk1, xh1), MH (mm2, dm2) (BC MOF and BC MOE 2007)

• Alpine areas, agricultural land, open water, disclimax communities, rock outcrops and talus were rated Nil (4). Cutblocks were reduced by one rating value.

• Urban and rural areas were rated up to Low (3).

• Wetland bogs and fens were rated up to Moderate (2) due to the relatively low productivity of these wetlands (Thormann and Bayley 1997). Active channel flood classes were rated Low (3) due to the substrate scouring that occurs on these sites. In contrast, other floodplain classes (e.g., low-bench, mid-bench) were rated up to High (1).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-27

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

• Structural stages 3 and 4 were rated up to High (1), while structural stages 1-2, and 5-6 were rated Nil (4). Structural stage 7 may provide suitable habitat due to gap dynamics, and were rated up to Moderate (2).

• Sites associated with preferred forage (e.g., salal, bracken fern, swordfern, Vine maple, huckleberry, red alder, elderberry, salmonberry, oregon grape, and dogwood [Arjo et al. 2007]) were rated up to High (1). Site series not typically associated with preferred forage were rated up to Low (3).

• Deciduous and mixed forests provide better habitat for mountain beavers compared to coniferous forests. Therefore, coniferous stands were truncated at a maximum rating of Moderate (2).

• Mountain beavers prefer non-friable soils with ample moisture. Therefore, site series associated with soil moistures subhygric or wetter were rated up to High (1). Sites with soil moisture regimes xeric or drier were rated Nil (4). All other soil moisture regimes were rated up to Moderate (2).

Ratings Adjustments Industrial developments are associated with noise and may increase the risk of mortality for mountain beavers (e.g., from motor vehicle mortality). Therefore, habitat quality was assumed to be reduced in proximity to industrial/commercial developments. Ratings were downgraded one level within 50 m of moderate sensory disturbances (e.g., urban developments, recreational sites, railways, secondary roads), or one level within 100 m of intense sensory disturbances (e.g., primary roads and industrial or commercial facilities).

3.6 Bats There are 15 or more species of bats that potentially occur within the Wildlife LSA. Approximately 12 of these may use tree cavities to some extent, although they may also use buildings or other human made structures, as well as rock crevices and caves. Two additional species – the eastern red bat and hoary bat – roost among the foliage of trees. One other species, the spotted bat, roosts in the crevices of cliffs. The bat species potentially occurring in the Wildlife LSA are shown in Table 3.6-1. A habitat suitability model was prepared for tree cavity-cavity roosting bats. Rock crevices, cliffs, or human structural are site- specific features that are not suitable for habitat modelling.

TABLE 3.6-1

BAT SPECIES LIKELY TO OCCUR IN THE WILDLIFE LOCAL STUDY AREA

Common Name Scientific Name Province1 Alberta General Status2 BC List3 BCCF Priority4 COSEWIC5 SARA6 Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus Alberta,BC Secure Yellow 6 -- -- Californian myotis Myotis californicus BC -- Yellow 2 -- -- Eastern red bat Lasiurus borealis Alberta, BC Sensitive Red ------Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes BC -- Blue 3 Data Deficient -- Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus Alberta, BC Sensitive Yellow 2 -- -- Keen's myotis Myotis keenii BC -- Blue 1 Data Deficient -- Little brown Myotis lucifugus Alberta,BC Secure Yellow 5 Endangered -- myotis Long-eared Myotis evotis Alberta,BC Secure Yellow 2 -- -- myotis Long-legged Myotis volans Alberta,BC Undetermined Yellow 4 -- -- myotis Northern myotis Myotis septentrionalis Alberta,BC May be at Risk Blue 2 Endangered -- Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris Alberta,BC Sensitive Yellow 2 -- -- noctivagans Spotted bat Euderma maculatum BC -- Blue 2 Special Concern Special Concern Townsend's big- Corynorhinus BC -- Blue 2 -- -- eared bat townsendii Western small- Myotis ciliolabrum BC Sensitive Blue 3 -- -- footed myotis Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis BC -- Yellow 6 -- --

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-28

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Sources: ASRD 2011, AESRD 2012a, BC CDC 2013, Environment Canada 2013a Notes: 1 Province refers to provinces where the species has potential to breed within the Wildlife LSA. Status designations are only included for the province in which the species range overlaps the Wildlife LSA. 2 General Status of Alberta Wild Species. 3 BC Red, Blue, and Yellow list status. 4 BC Conservation Framework Priority. 5 Species assessed by COSEWIC. 6 Species listed under SARA Schedule 1.

3.6.1 Status Provincial and federal status designations of bat species likely to occur along the Project are summarized in Table 3.6-1. The northern myotis and little brown myotis are listed by COSEWIC (2012c,d) as Endangered primarily because of the concerns related to white-nose syndrome. White-nose syndrome is not currently known to occur in BC or Alberta. The northern myotis is listed as May Be at Risk in Alberta because of its presumed reliance on old forest, which may be limited in some areas due to forest harvesting and industrial development (ASRD and ACA 2009). Most other bats in BC with special conservation status are found in the southern regions of the province and are typically at the northern extent of their global range.

3.6.2 Distribution 3.6.2.1 Provincial Range Alberta Eight species of bat have potential to occur along the Alberta portion of the Project, although the ranges of these species are poorly understood in west-central Alberta. Two species listed by COSEWIC as Endangered, the northern myotis and the little brown myotis, are known to occur from Elk Island east of Edmonton to at least the Rocky Mountains Natural Region in Alberta (Holroyd 1983, Olson et al. 2011).

British Columbia The exact range of bat species in BC has not been determined, especially for areas with low survey coverage or for species groups that are morphologically similar. Townsend’s big eared bats are found in southern BC. Keen’s myotis is found on the coastal islands and in the coastal forests of the mainland. Spotted bats, western small-footed myotis, and fringed myotis are found primary in the dry-interior of south-central BC. Little brown myotis is found in suitable habitat throughout most of the province.

3.6.2.2 Elevational Range Bats occupy a variety of elevational ranges from sea level to high-elevation mountainous habitat. However, the suitability of habitat for some species declines with elevation, likely due to cold temperatures that result in short foraging windows and reduced availability of flying insects (Barclay 1991). The spotted bat and Townsend’s big eared bat are both primarily associated with low-elevation habitats in southern BC.

3.6.2.3 Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area Bats are anticipated to occur in all ecosections crossed by the Project.

3.6.3 General Ecology Bats in Western Canada typically mate in the late summer or fall (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993). Young bats fledge by late summer and migrate to warmer areas or hibernate in Canada during the winter. Very little is known about the hibernating habitat of bats in Western Canada (Olson et al. 2011). Caves and mines are known to be important hibernating habitat for bats, but account for a small portion of the total population. Buildings, rock crevices (such as in river valleys) may also be suitable hibernating habitat (Lausen and Barclay 2006), but the relative importance of these structures has not been determined. In

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-29

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

warmer climates (e.g., coastal BC), some bats may hibernate in tree cavities; however, the importance of trees for hibernation has not been determined (COSEWIC 2003).

All bats in Alberta and BC feed on arthropods (e.g., insects, spiders). Bat species vary in the spatial extent and relative complexity of their foraging habitats. The echolocation structure and wing morphology varies among bat species, resulting in different foraging strategies among them (Lacki et al. 2007). The northern myotis and Townsend’s big-eared bat are adapted to glean stationary arthropods, as well as hawk flying insects. These species may also be better able to navigate cluttered environments, such as among the foliage of forested areas. Most myotis species employ both a hawking and gleaning foraging strategy and can occupy a variety of habitats. Most bats are flexible in their foraging behaviour, although spotted bats appear to forage mainly by hawking flying moths (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, BC MWLAP 2004). Few generalizations can be made regarding the relative suitability of foraging habitat, and this habitat typically varies regionally, seasonally, and among years (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993). However, foraging activity is generally greater near riparian areas, waterbodies, and near wetlands (Lookingbill et al. 2010), likely because of a greater abundance of flying insects and an available supply of water for drinking.

3.6.4 Key Habitat Requirements 3.6.4.1 Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use Roosting habitat is likely to be removed by the Project and is believed to be an important life requisite affecting the diversity and abundance of bats. Habitat used by reproductive bats for raising offspring is believed to be especially important because resource requirements are higher during reproduction and the habitat will have a strong influence on population recruitment (Barclay and Kurta 2007). Deep rock fissures in cliff faces or boulders may be important resources for hibernation or roosting, but these features cannot reliably be identified using habitat modelling. Nonetheless, deep rock fissures are most likely to occur in steep topography, which were generally avoided by Project routing. The removal of tree- roosting habitat is likely to be more substantial, especially in areas where the route follows river valleys where trees suitable for roosting are likely to occur. Although some bat species roost in the foliage of trees, tree-cavities are assumed to be scarcer since they are associated with old forest. A habitat suitability model was developed specifically to address habitat used by tree-cavity roosting bats, with emphasis on habitat used by reproductive bats during the spring – fall growing period.

A reduction in foraging habitat resulting from linear disturbances may occur for species that commonly forage in the understory of forests (e.g., northern myotis); however, this reduction will be similar to the loss of roosting habitat (Morris et al. 2010, Patriquin and Barclay 2003). Forest edges, such as those created by pipeline developments, are often associated with elevated foraging activity, likely because they provide openings required by bats, provide movement corridors, or accumulate insects (Jantzen 2012, Morris et al. 2010). Therefore, foraging habitat has potential to increase for some species, especially for those that forage within openings (e.g., little brown bats).

Growing Season Tree-Roosting Habitat Bats are unable to create or modify the structure of their roost and are entirely reliant on pre-existing structures in their environment. Where available, many bat species will occupy rock crevices, caves, mines, or buildings (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993); however, bats commonly use tree-cavities in areas where suitable rock crevices are absent (Olson 2011). Cavities may be created by natural decay (especially heart-rot), breakage, and the activity of birds and insects (Olson 2011, Parsons et al. 2003). Common defects used as roosts include knot holes, cracks or splits, tree stumps, sloughing bark, broken branches, and abandoned woodpecker holes (Barclay and Kurta 2007, Olson 2011).

Maternity roost preferences vary between bat species. Also, individuals of a bat species may exhibit a variety of behaviours and roost type selection. Species that have the potential to roost in a wide variety of roost types (e.g., buildings, tree cavities, rock crevices) include big brown bat, Californian myotis, fringed myotis, little brown myotis, long-eared bat, long-legged bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat and Yuma myotis. Keen’s myotis and western small-footed myotis potentially use both tree cavities and rock crevices, but do not tend to roost in anthropogenic structures. Northern myotis and silver-haired bats rely on tree cavities for roosting, while spotted bats tend to use rock crevices exclusively. Eastern red bat and hoary bats tend not to use any of the above mentioned roosting types, instead utilizing tree branches and foliage.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-30

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Cavity roosting bats commonly select old, large-diameter trees (Kalcounis-Ruppell et al. 2005), which helps explain an increase in bat activity that is commonly observed in old forests (Crampton and Barclay 1998). Older forests typically have more advanced decay conducive to cavity formation, and larger diameter trees support a wider range in roosting aggregations, which provide important social-thermoregulatory benefits for reproductive bats (Olson and Barclay 2013). Some tree species are more commonly used by bats, which is likely due to decay characteristics that promote cavity formation (Barclay and Kurta 2007). For example, aspen and poplar is susceptible to heart-rot which often results in the formation of chambers suitable for roosting (Parsons et al. 2003).

Roosts are also more likely to be located near water, likely because these sites offer sources of drinking water, foraging habitat, and they tend to be associated with older forests and larger-diameter trees (Kalcounis-Ruppell et al. 2005, Lookingbill et al. 2010). Sites near water (e.g., riparian areas) are also more likely to be used by reproductive bats (Grindal et al. 1999).

Higher elevations are commonly associated with lower overall bat activity and a biased sex ratio, favouring males and non-reproductive females (Barclay 1991, Cryan et al. 2000, Grindal et al. 1999). This association is likely due to higher temperatures, increased insect availability, a longer foraging window, and greater availability of large-diameter trees (important for reproductive females) that occur at lower elevations (Barclay 1991, Grindal et al. 1999, Olson and Barclay 2013).

3.6.5 Limiting Factors Bats have potential to be limited by the loss of suitable roosting, foraging, or hibernation habitat. Pipeline construction is most likely to limit populations through the removal or degradation of roosting habitat, primarily because of the removal of large-diameter old decaying trees. The loss of foraging habitat may also limit populations, but this is most likely to be an issue for species adapted to foraging in the understory of forests, and is expected to parallel the loss of old-forest roosting habitat.

Bats differ in their response to sensory disturbance and habitat alteration (Duchamp and Swihart 2008). Some species are commonly found near areas with human activity, and may benefit from artificial roost structures, such as building and bridges. Likewise, linear disturbances such as pipelines and transmission lines may create commuting habitat or foraging habitat for aerial-hunting species (Morris et al. 2010), partially offsetting the negative effect of the loss of roost trees. However, some species may be negatively affected by noise-generating disturbances, which impede their foraging success and ability to navigate cluttered environments (Barber et al. 2009). Bat species that glean insects off the surface of vegetation may be especially affected because the noise obscures the sound created by the small movements of their insect prey (Schaub et al. 2008). In general, bat species diversity decreases in more developed areas, primarily the result of decreases in species adapted to gleaning prey or navigating complex environments.

3.6.6 Model Development There was an intermediate level of knowledge on the habitat requirements of bats in Alberta and BC and a 4-point rating scheme was used, ranging from High (1) to Nil (4).

3.6.6.1 Provincial Benchmark There is no established provincial benchmark for bats in Alberta or BC.

3.6.6.2 Ratings Assumptions Growing Season Tree-Roosting Habitat Tree-roosting habitat was rated based on four habitat characteristics known to affect suitability for roosting, including 1) structural stage, 2) tree species composition, 3) proximity to water, and 4) elevation. Although these variables are known to be important for bat roosting suitability, exact thresholds appropriate for differentiating suitability ratings cannot be determined. Therefore, thresholds were selected using available literature, professional knowledge, and a precautionary approach where ratings were designed to err on the side of higher suitability. The following assumptions affected suitability:

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-31

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

• To account for increased roost observations and bat activity in older forests, structural stages 6 and 7 forests were rated up to High (1). Trees in structural stage 5, where time since disturbance is generally < 80 years, were deemed to be too young to possess optimal decay characteristics; however, some bat species are able to make use of smaller-diameter trees and there may be larger-diameter remnant trees or snags that have characteristics suitable for roosting. Therefore, structural stage 5 was rated up to Low (3). Structural stage 1-4 forests were rated Nil (4); these structural stages may still have remnant trees, which would suggest a rating of Low (3) is more appropriate. However, the presence of remnant trees or snags within young forest/low structural stages cannot be determined using available ecosystem mapping and defaulting to higher rating would not improve model performance.

• Relevant literature was reviewed on tree species commonly used for roosting (Table 3.6-2). Species more commonly reported to be used as roost trees received a higher rating. Trees unlikely to posses suitable decay characteristics for roost formation (e.g., absence of heart-rot or sloughing bark; low diameter; trees that fall soon after senescence) were rated lower. Deciduous species were rated highest, while spruce was rated lowest. Tree composition was based on typical seral association; however, stands with a deciduous or mixed stand composition modifier were always rated up to High (1).

• Stands where a disturbance modifier was added during TEM mapping indicating either evidence of wildfire or mountain pine beetle kill were increased by one habitat rating to reflect the increased availability of snags. This adjustment was applied to all structural stages.

• Biogeoclimatic zones associated with high elevations were rated lower to account for colder temperatures. Alpine units (CMA, IMA) were rated Nil (4); ESSF received a maximum rating of Low (3); MS and MH received maximum ratings of Moderate (2).

• Distance to water has a strong association with roost selection and overall bat activity (Grindal et al. 1999, Kalcounis-Ruppell et al. 2005, Lookingbill et al. 2010). Habitat was downgraded by one rating (to a minimum of Low [3]) for areas farther than 500 m from a wetland, watercourses or waterbody.

TABLE 3.6-2

TREE SPECIES AND HABITAT SUITABILITY FOR TREE-ROOSTING BATS

Tree Species Maximum Suitability Description Trembling aspen, balsam poplar, High (1) Includes trees with large diameter, favourable decay properties (e.g., heart-rot), and ponderosa pine, western white pine, that have been frequently reported to be used as a maternity colony by bats. Generally Douglas-fir, western redcedar, arbutus; associated with cavity roosts and bark roosts. all deciduous and mixed stands Jack/lodgepole pine, mountain hemlock Moderate (2) Includes trees that are only occasionally reported to be used as roosts and/or trees where bark roosts or stump roosts are common, however, generally have few or no larger cavity roosts. Tamarack, black spruce, white spruce, Low (3) Includes trees that are rarely reported to be used as roosts or trees that are likely Engelmann spruce, Sitka spruce suitable, however, underrepresented by habitat studies. Non-forested Nil (4) Habitat assumed to lack trees. Sources: Barclay and Kurta 2007 (and references therein), Boland et al. 2009, Fischback et al. 2005, Kellner and Rasheed 2002, Olson 2011, van den Driessche et al. 1999

3.6.6.3 Ratings Adjustments The magnitude and spatial extent of sensory disturbance on bat communities are poorly understood, but it was assumed that intense disturbances would result in reduced use by bats and/or reduced diversity of bat species. Habitat ratings were downgraded by one rating up to 100 m from an intense sensory disturbance (i.e., primary roads, active wellsites, and industrial facilities).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 3-32

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

4.0 BIRD SPECIES ACCOUNTS AND HABITAT MODELS 4.1 Grassland/Shrub-Steppe Birds The grassland/shrub-steppe bird community indicator includes species that are associated with open grassland and shrub-steppe habitats in the Southern Interior region of BC. Grassland birds are in decline in every area of Canada where they have been studied (North American Breeding Bird Conservation Initiative [NABCI] 2012). Species that are included in the grassland/shrub-steppe bird community are listed in Table 4.1-1. A community-level model for nesting habitat was developed for this habitat-based bird community indicator.

TABLE 4.1-1

GRASSLAND SHRUB-STEPPE BIRD COMMUNITY SPECIES

1 Common Name Species Name BC List2 BCCF Priority3 COSEWIC4 SARA5 American Kestrel Falco sparverius Yellow 2 -- -- American Robin Turdus migratorius Yellow 6 -- -- Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Blue 2 Threatened -- Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Blue 2 Threatened -- Brewer's Sparrow Spizella breweri Yellow 4 -- -- Brewer's Sparrow, breweri subspecies Spizella breweri breweri Red 2 -- -- Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia Red 2 Endangered Endangered Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Yellow 6 -- -- Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Yellow 5 -- -- Clay-Colored Sparrow Spizella pallida Yellow 4 -- -- Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Yellow 2 Threatened Threatened Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Yellow 5 -- -- Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii Yellow 6 Not at Risk -- Dark-Eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Yellow 5 -- -- Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis Yellow 5 -- -- Hammond's Flycatcher Empidonax hammondii Yellow 5 -- -- Horned Lark, merrilli subspecies Eremophila alpestris merrilli Blue 4 -- -- House Wren Troglodytes aedon Yellow 5 -- -- Lark Bunting Calamospiza melanocorys 6 -- -- Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus Red 2 -- -- Le Conte's Sparrow Ammodramus leconteii Blue 4 -- -- Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Red 2 Threatened Threatened Long-Billed Curlew Numenius americanus Blue 2 Special Special Concern Concern MacGillivray's Warbler Geothlypis tolmiei Yellow 5 -- -- Mountain Bluebird Sialia currucoides Yellow 4 -- -- Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Yellow 6 -- -- Orange-Crowned Warbler Oreothlypis celata Yellow 5 -- -- Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus Red 2 -- -- Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Yellow 6 Not at Risk -- Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis Yellow 5 -- -- Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Yellow 6 -- -- Say's Phoebe Sayornis saya Yellow 6 -- -- Sharp-tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus Yellow 2 -- -- Sharp-tailed Grouse, columbianus Tympanuchus phasianellus Blue 2 -- -- columbianus Short-Eared Owl Asio flammeus Blue 2 Special Special Concern Concern Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni Red 2 -- -- Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Yellow 2 -- -- Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis Yellow 4 -- -- Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Yellow 2 -- --

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-1

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

TABLE 4.1-1 Cont'd

1 Common Name Species Name BC List2 BCCF Priority3 COSEWIC4 SARA5 Western Wood-Pewee Contopus sordidulus Yellow 2 -- -- Yellow Warbler Setophaga petechia Yellow 2 -- -- Sources: BC CDC 2013, Government of Canada 2013 Notes: 1 Shrub-steppe birds only include those found in the southern interior of BC. 2 BC Red, Blue, and Yellow list status. 3 BC Conservation Framework Priority. 4 Species assessed by COSEWIC. 5 Species listed under SARA Schedule 1.

4.1.1 Status The conservation status designations of grassland/shrub-steppe birds are detailed in Table 4.1-1.

4.1.2 Distribution 4.1.2.1 Elevational Range Members of the grassland/shrub-steppe bird community are found within the elevational extents of the grassland biogeoclimatic units in the Southern Interior Ecoprovince of BC.

4.1.2.2 Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area British Columbia The grassland/shrub-steppe bird community considered in this model is restricted to the Southern Interior Ecoprovince of BC.

4.1.3 General information BC’s southern interior is climatically defined by its low rates of precipitation and high summer temperatures. These conditions have favoured drought-tolerant plant communities dominated by grasses and shrubs. Currently, grassland/shrub-steppe ecosystems (herein grasslands) span approximately 1% of BC’s land-mass, and the majority (90%) of these ecosystems are found within a restricted 650,000 ha area of the southern interior (Wilkeem and Wilkeem 2004).

Despite the limited distribution of grassland ecosystems in BC, these habitats support a large number of the province’s endemic bird species, and many of these species are grassland-obligates. The vast majority of grassland-associated birds nest on the ground (McCracken 2005), and this aspect of their ecology makes them more sensitive to anthropogenic activities than forest-dwelling birds (McCracken 2005). Based on their ground-nesting tendencies, incubating females and their offspring are also vulnerable to terrestrial predators (McCracken 2005). Therefore, factors that increase the abundance or search efficiency of such predators are also expected to affect grassland bird abundance. During the summer, the diet of many grassland birds is dominated by insects, though some species such as the horned lark are primarily granivorous (seed-eaters).

4.1.4 Key Habitat Requirements 4.1.4.1 Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use The life requisite that was rated for the grassland/shrub-steppe birds was nesting habitat, described in detail below. Grassland/shrub-steppe birds are associated with arid landscapes dominated by grasses; low shrubs (e.g., sagebrush) can be a major component of these ecosystems but are not required for all species. The analysis of this habitat type is restricted to the grassland/shrub-steppe communities within the Southern Interior Ecoprovince.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-2

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Growing Season Nesting Habitat High suitability nesting habitat occurs in native grasslands free from human disturbance. Arid environments delay or entirely prevent the establishment of trees (Wilkeem and Wilkeem 2004) and therefore such sites provide habitat over greater periods of time. Although the absence of trees is an important aspect of grasslands, such absence does not guarantee productive bird habitat. For example, introduction and spread of exotic plant species can degrade habitat quality (Brennan and Kuvelsky 2005), as can the presence of human disturbance (Gilbert and Chalfoun 2011). Habitat use can decline adjacent to roads, and grassland birds tend to avoid roads at a greater distance compared to woodland species (Ingelfinger and Anderson 2004). These habitat-based differences likely occur because visual disturbances are unobstructed and sound attenuates more slowly in open terrain (Ingelfinger and Anderson 2004). Grassland and forest birds can also be contrasted in their response to grazing. Grassland birds (as a group) do not show a discernible response to livestock grazing while woodland species generally decline (Bock et al. 1993); the reduced response among grassland birds may occur because native ungulates have long played a role in shaping grassland ecosystems.

4.1.5 Limiting Factors Throughout North America, grassland-associated birds have been undergoing marked declines, and as a group, their rate of decline outpaces that of any other species guild. These declines are principally related to the loss of grassland ecosystems, a problem which has its roots in the interactive effects of various anthropogenic forces, including: forest and dense shrub encroachment (from fire-suppression), agricultural development, and conversion of grasslands for urban uses (Brennan and Kuvlesky 2005).

4.1.6 Model Development A 4-point rating scheme was used to rate habitat suitability for the grassland/shrub-steppe bird community.

4.1.6.1 Ratings Assumptions

• Sites with impermeable substrate (e.g., rock talus) were generally rated Nil (4). However, rock outcrops were rated up to Moderate (2) because they can provide nesting habitat for some species (e.g., red-tailed hawk).

• Wetland ecosystem units (fens, bogs, swamps, marsh, open water) were rated Nil (4). Meadows were rated up to Moderate (2).

• The grassland/shrub-steppe habitat is restricted to the Southern Interior Ecoprovince. Areas outside this region were not rated.

• Structural stages 2 – 3b were rated up to High (1) (Table 4.1-2). Structural stage 1 ecosystem units are typically low productivity and often associated with anthropogenic disturbance; however, some species (e.g., burrowing owls) may still occupy these habitats. Therefore, structural stage 1 was rated up to Low (3).

• Structural stage 3b habitats that normally transition to forest were rated a maximum of Low (3); these sites will have tree encroachment which reduces suitability for grassland and shrub-dependent species.

• Natural grassland/shrub-steppe habitats were assumed to have a greater diversity of songbirds, especially of species with special conservation status, and were rated higher than units originating as the result of anthropogenic disturbance. Therefore, all anthropogenic grasslands and shrub-steppe (e.g., resulting from clearcuts or agriculture) were downgraded by one rating value (to a minimum of Low [3]). Due to the high level of disturbance occurring in cultivated fields, these units were assigned a value of Nil (4).

• Grassland/shrub-steppe habitat associated with alpine or subalpine ecosystems received a maximum rating of Moderate (2).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-3

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

TABLE 4.1-2

RATINGS ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE GRASSLAND/SHRUB-STEPPE BIRD HABITAT MODEL

Structural Stage Grassland/Shrub-Steppe Habitat Rating 1 Low (3) 2 – 3b High (1) 4-7 Nil (4) Note: - Structural stage 2c (Aquatic) is rated Nil (4).

4.1.6.2 Ratings Adjustments

• Noise-generating oil and gas facilities have been associated with lower songbird abundance (Bayne et al. 2008), and songbird density is also typically reduced near roadways (Kociolek and Clevenger 2011). These features appear to be avoided at greater distances in open habitats such as grasslands (Ingelfinger and Anderson 2004). To account for these effects, habitat ratings were reduced in proximity to noise-generating facilities and roadways. The distance of this effect was assumed to be greater than would occur with forest birds, where trees would attenuate the magnitude of sensory disturbance. Ratings were downgraded one or two levels within a distance of up to 400 m from active disturbances (e.g., primary roads, industrial or commercial facilities). Ratings near more intense disturbances (e.g., primary roads, industrial facilities) were downgraded more than less intense disturbances (e.g., primary and tertiary roads). Vegetated disturbances with negligible sensory disturbance retained their rating.

4.2 Mature/Old Forest Birds The mature/old forest bird community indicator includes species that are adapted to live in mature and/or old forests (i.e., structural stages 6 and 7). Mature/old (late seral) forest stands typically contain a mature component of shade tolerant trees with well developed, often patchy, understories. Overstories are relatively open and may become multi-layered, and trees in various states of decay are common (Hilbert and Wiensczyk 2007). Species that are known or likely to use mature/old stage forests are listed in Table 4.2-1. A community-level model for nesting habitat was developed for this habitat-based bird community indicator.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-4

TABLE 4.2-1

MATURE/OLD FOREST BIRD COMMUNITY SPECIES

Common Name Species Name Province1 Alberta General Status2 Alberta Wildlife Act3 BC List4 BCCF Priority5 COSEWIC6 SARA7 American Goldfinch Spinus tristis Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- American Robin Turdus migratorius Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula Alberta Sensitive ------Band-Tailed Pigeon Patagioenas fasciata BC -- -- Blue 2 Special Concern Special Concern Barred Owl Strix varia Alberta, BC Sensitive Special Concern Yellow 6 -- -- Bewick's Wren Thryomanes bewickii BC -- -- Yellow 2 -- -- Black-Backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 6 -- -- Black-Capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Black-Headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus BC -- -- Yellow 6 -- -- Black-Throated Gray Warbler Setophaga nigrescens BC -- -- Yellow 2 -- -- Black-Throated Green Warbler Setophaga virens Alberta Sensitive Special Concern ------Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Alberta Secure ------Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius Alberta Secure ------Broad-Winged Hawk Buteo platypterus Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Blue 4 -- -- Brown Creeper Certhia americana Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 1 -- -- Page 4 Brown-Headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Bullock's Oriole Icterus bullockii BC -- -- Yellow 5 -- -- -

5 Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus BC -- -- Yellow 5 -- -- Canada Warbler Cardellina canadensis Alberta Sensitive ------Threatened Threatened Cape May Warbler Setophaga tigrina Alberta Sensitive In Process ------Cassin's Vireo Vireo cassinii BC -- -- Yellow 6 -- -- Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Chestnut-Backed Chickadee Poecile rufescens BC -- -- Yellow 2 -- -- Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Common Raven Corvus corax Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Dark-Eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Dusky Flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri BC -- -- Yellow 2 -- -- Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Flammulated Owl Otus flammeolus BC -- -- Blue 2 Special Concern Special Concern Golden-Crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 4 Not at Risk -- Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Hammond's Flycatcher Empidonax hammondii BC -- -- Yellow 5 -- -- Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 6 -- -- Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- --

TABLE 4.2-1 Cont'd

Common Name Species Name Province1 Alberta General Status2 Alberta Wildlife Act3 BC List4 BCCF Priority5 COSEWIC6 SARA7 Macgillivray's Warbler Geothlypis tolmiei BC -- -- Yellow 5 -- -- Merlin Falco columbarius Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Mountain Chickadee Poecile gambeli Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Mourning Warbler Geothlypis philadelphia Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Nashville Warbler Oreothlypis ruficapilla BC -- -- Yellow 5 -- -- Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 3 -- -- Northern Goshawk, BC -- -- Red 1 Threatened Threatened laingi subspecies Accipiter gentilis laingi Northern Hawk Owl Surnia ulula Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 Not at Risk -- Northern Pygmy-Owl Glaucidium gnoma Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 3 -- -- Northern Waterthrush Parkesia noveboracensis Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Northwestern Crow Corvus caurinus BC -- -- Yellow 5 -- -- Orange-Crowned Warbler Oreothlypis celata Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 4 -- -- Pacific Wren / Winter Wren Troglodytes pacificus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- --

Page 4 Pacific-Slope Flycatcher Empidonax difficilis BC -- -- Yellow 2 -- -- Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 4 -- -- Pine Siskin Spinus pinus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- - 6

Purple Finch Haemorhous purpureus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Red-Breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Red-Breasted Sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber BC -- -- Yellow 6 -- -- Red-Eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Red-Naped Sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis BC -- -- Yellow 5 -- -- Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 Not at Risk -- Rose-Breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus Alberta Secure ------Ruby-Crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Sharp-Shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 Not at Risk -- Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis BC -- -- Red 2 Endangered Endangered Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Spruce Grouse Falcipennis canadensis Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Steller's Jay Cyanocitta stelleri BC -- -- Yellow 5 -- -- Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Tennessee Warbler Oreothlypis peregrina Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Townsend's Warbler Setophaga townsendi BC -- -- Yellow 5 -- -- Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Vaux's Swift Chaetura vauxi BC -- -- Yellow 2 -- -- Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- --

TABLE 4.2-1 Cont'd

Common Name Species Name Province1 Alberta General Status2 Alberta Wildlife Act3 BC List4 BCCF Priority5 COSEWIC6 SARA7 Western Screech-Owl, kennicottii Megascops kennicottii BC -- -- Blue 1 Threatened Special Concern subspecies kennicottii Western Screech-Owl, macfarlanei Megascops kennicottii BC -- --- Red 1 Threatened Endangered subspecies macfarlanei Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 6 -- -- Western Wood-Pewee Contopus sordidulus Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 2 -- -- White-Crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- White-Throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- Williamson's Sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus BC -- -- Blue 2 Endangered Endangered Wilson's Warbler Cardellina pusilla Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Yellow Warbler Setophaga petechia Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Yellow-Bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris Alberta Undetermined ------Yellow-Bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Yellow-Rumped Warbler Setophaga coronata Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Sources: ASRD 2011, AESRD 2012, BC CDC 2013, Government of Canada 2013 Notes: 1 Province refers to provinces where the species has potential to breed within the Wildlife LSA. Status designations are only included for the province in which the species range overlaps the Wildlife LSA. Page 4 2 General Status of Alberta Wild Species. 3 Alberta Wildlife Act. - 7 4 BC Red, Blue, and Yellow list status.

5 BC Conservation Framework Priority. 6 Species assessed by COSEWIC. 7 Species listed under SARA Schedule 1.

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

4.2.1 Status The conservation status designations of mature/old forest birds are detailed in Table 4.2-1.

4.2.2 Distribution 4.2.2.1 Elevational Range Members of the mature/old forest bird community are found from sea level to treeline.

4.2.2.2 Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area Alberta and British Columbia Members of the mature/old forest bird community are found in all natural subregions and ecosections crossed by the Project.

4.2.3 General information The spatiotemporal availability of mature/old forests depends on local disturbance regimes, with availability increasing as disturbance frequency and spatial extent decline. Since European settlement of North America, human activities such as forestry, urban and industrial development, and agriculture have all resulted in shorter disturbance intervals (and in some cases, disturbances at larger spatial scales), and in turn the abundance of mature/old forests has declined (Pimm and Askins 1995). Historical forest losses have been implicated in regional bird extinctions in North America (Pimm and Askins 1995), and there are indications that old forest birds are in a state of sustained decline (NABCI 2012). Although mature/old forest birds show signs of increasing slightly in the western boreal region of Canada, their populations are declining in the coastal and mountainous areas of BC (NABCI 2012). Because old forests support diverse avian communities, the protection of this habitat type has been identified as a conservation objective by the North American Bird Conservation initiative (NABCI 2012).

4.2.4 Key Habitat Requirements 4.2.4.1 Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use The life requisite that was rated for mature/old birds was year-round general living habitat, and this is described in detail below. Species within this guild are associated with forests containing old-growth features. Habitat modelled for the Mature/old forest bird community indicators may be used either seasonally or year-round (by resident species).

Growing Season Nesting Habitat Mature/old forest characteristics known to be selected by certain bird species for nesting areas include: large diameter and tall trees (LaHaye and Gutierrez 1999); structural heterogeneity (i.e., large variation in tree size, multi-layered canopy, and patchy understory) (Rosenvald et al. 2011); an abundance of standing and fallen CWD (Mac Nally et al. 2002, Rosenvald et al. 2011); and living trees in various states of decay (e.g., heart-rot) (Rosenvald et al. 2011).

Various other factors general to forest-dwelling birds also affect bird presence, abundance, and diversity. For instance, mature coniferous or deciduous stands tend to support fewer and less diverse bird communities than do mixed stands (Hobson and Bayne 2000). Also, in North America and elsewhere, bird diversity and abundance are tied to forest primary productivity (Christie and Reimchen 2008, Hawkins et al. 2013), and all are linked to nutrient availability and climatic factors. At northern latitudes, both moisture and ambient energy (sunshine and temperature) have positive effects on bird diversity, with the latter generally being most limiting (Hawkins et al. 2013, Lehmkuhl et al. 2007). Variations in nutrient availability can also explain a high degree of variation in bird abundance and diversity, with both factors having positive effects (Field and Reynolds 2011).Therefore, ecosystems that generally have low rates of primary production (e.g., bog and fen wetlands) (Thormann and Bayley 1997), are expected to support less diverse bird communities. Primary production is additionally affected by elevation, and at high elevations (e.g., subalpine and alpine areas) diversity is at its lowest (McCain 2009).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-8

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

4.2.5 Limiting Factors The spatial extent of high-productivity mature/old forests limits the abundance of mature/old forest birds. Forest clearing caused by timber harvesting, agriculture, and urbanization are involved in the loss of old forest bird diversity (Pimm and Askins 1995), and all of these activities tend to be concentrated on the most productive land (Satterthwaite et al. 2010). The problem of mature/old forest bird declines is not limited to reduced availability of old forests. Even when forests are given time to mature, a high diversity of old forest birds is not guaranteed. For example, forestry practices that aim to maximize production of merchantable timber can simplify the structure of forests, causing them to be less suitable for a diverse assemblage of birds (Rosenvald et al. 2011).

4.2.6 Model Development A 4-point rating scheme was used to rate habitat for the mature/old forest bird community.

4.2.6.1 Provincial Benchmark Not applicable.

4.2.6.2 Ratings Assumptions

• Structural stages 6 – 7 were rated up to High (1) and structural stage 5 was rated up to Low (3). Other structural stages were rated Nil (4) (Table 4.2-2).

• Forests that are part of agricultural land were rated Low (3) (Schieck et al. 1995).

• Dry sites (sites with moisture regimes ranging from very xeric to submesic) were downgraded by one rating value, to a minimum of Low (3).

• Wetland bogs and fens were rated up to Low (3).

• Mixedwood forests were rated up to High (1). Pure coniferous or pure deciduous stands were rated up to Moderate (2) (Table 4.2-2).

TABLE 4.2-2

MATURE/OLD SERAL FOREST BIRD HABITAT RATINGS ASSUMPTIONS FOR STAND COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURAL STAGE

Structural Stage Deciduous Forest Mixedwood Forest Coniferous Forest 1 – 4 Nil (4) Nil (4) Nil (4) 5 Low (3) Low (3) Low (3) 6 – 7 Moderate (2) High (1) Moderate (1)

4.2.6.3 Ratings Adjustments

• Noise-generating oil and gas facilities have been associated with lower songbird abundance (Bayne et al. 2008), and songbird density is also typically reduced near roadways (Kociolek and Clevenger 2011). To account for these effects, habitat ratings were downgraded in proximity to noise-generating facilities and roadways. Ratings within 300 m of intense disturbances (e.g., primary roads, industrial facilities) were downgraded one or two levels, and ratings within 50 m or 100 m (depending on degree of disturbance) of less intense disturbances (e.g., primary and tertiary roads) were downgraded a single rating. Ratings were also downgraded within 50 m of vegetated linear developments (e.g., pipelines, transmission lines) to account for decreased nesting success that is often associated with these features. Rating reductions for edge effects or sensory disturbances did not go below Nil (4), which was reserved for unusable habitat.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-9

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

4.3 Early Seral Forest Birds Early seral birds are adapted to nest in young forests that develop following forest-stand replacing disturbances. These forests are often dense, mixedwood or broadleaf-dominated, and have few signs of decay. However, as these stands age or are replaced with shade-tolerant, often coniferous, species, snags often begin to appear and self thinning will occur. Early seral bird habitat is defined based on the typical characteristics of young early seral stage forests, rather than actual seral stage. This most notably includes mid structural stage forests (tall shrub to young forest) dominated by deciduous or mixed tree cover. Species known or likely to use early seral stage forests are listed in Table 4.3-1. A community-level model for nesting habitat was developed for this habitat-based bird community indicator.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-10

TABLE 4.3-1

EARLY SERAL FOREST BIRD COMMUNITY SPECIES

Common Name Species Name Province1 Alberta General Status2 Alberta Wildlife Act3 BC List4 BCCF Priority5 COSEWIC6 SARA7 American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- American Goldfinch Spinus tristis Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- American Robin Turdus migratorius Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- American Three-Toed Woodpecker Picoides dorsalis Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula Alberta Sensitive ------Band-Tailed Pigeon Patagioenas fasciata BC -- -- Blue 2 Special Concern Special Concern Black-Backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 6 -- -- Black-billed Magpie Pica hudsonia Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Black-Capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Black-Headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus BC -- -- Yellow 6 -- -- Black-Throated Gray Warbler Setophaga nigrescens BC -- -- Yellow 2 -- -- Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Alberta Secure ------Blue-Headed Vireo Vireo solitarius Alberta Secure ------Page 4 Boreal Chickadee Poecile hudsonicus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Brown-Headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- -

11 Bullock's Oriole Icterus bullockii BC -- -- Yellow 5 -- --

Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus BC -- -- Yellow 5 -- -- Calliope Hummingbird Selasphorus calliope BC -- -- Yellow 4 -- -- Cape May Warbler Setophaga tigrina Alberta Sensitive In process ------Cassin's Vireo Vireo cassinii BC -- -- Yellow 6 -- -- Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Chestnut-Backed Chickadee Poecile rufescens BC -- -- Yellow 2 -- -- Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Clark's Nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 5 -- -- Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis Alberta Secure ------Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 Not at Risk -- Dark-Eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Dusky Flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri BC -- -- Yellow 2 -- -- Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Golden-Crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Hammond's Flycatcher Empidonax hammondii BC -- -- Yellow 5 -- -- Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena BC -- -- Yellow 5 -- -- Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 6 -- -- Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Alberta, BC Secure --- Yellow 6 -- --

TABLE 4.3-1 Cont'd

Common Name Species Name Province1 Alberta General Status2 Alberta Wildlife Act3 BC List4 BCCF Priority5 COSEWIC6 SARA7 Macgillivray's Warbler Geothlypis tolmiei BC -- -- Yellow 5 -- -- Mountain Chickadee Poecile gambeli Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Nashville Warbler Oreothlypis ruficapilla BC -- -- Yellow 5 -- -- Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Northern Pygmy-Owl Glaucidium gnoma Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 3 -- -- Northern Waterthrush Parkesia noveboracensis Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Northwestern Crow Corvus caurinus BC -- -- Yellow 5 -- -- Olive-Sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi Alberta, BC May Be At Risk -- Blue 2 Threatened Threatened Orange-Crowned Warbler Oreothlypis celata Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 4 -- -- Pacific-Slope Flycatcher Empidonax difficilis BC -- -- Yellow 2 -- -- Pacific Wren / Winter Wren Troglodytes pacificus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 4 -- -- Pine Siskin Spinus pinus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Purple Finch Haemorhous purpureus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Red-Breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Page 4 Red-Eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Red-Naped Sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis BC -- -- Yellow 5 -- --

- Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 Not at Risk -- 12

Rose-Breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus Alberta Secure ------Ruby-Crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Sharp-Shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 Not at Risk -- Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Sooty Grouse Dendragapus fuliginosus BC -- -- Blue 2 -- -- Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Spruce Grouse Falcipennis canadensis Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Steller's Jay Cyanocitta stelleri BC -- -- Yellow 5 -- -- Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 4 -- -- Tennessee Warbler Oreothlypis peregrina Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Townsend's Warbler Setophaga townsendi BC -- -- Yellow 5 -- -- Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Veery Catharus fuscescens Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Violet-Green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina BC -- -- Yellow 2 -- -- Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 6 -- -- Western Wood-Pewee Contopus sordidulus Alberta, BC Sensitive Yellow 2 -- -- White-Crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- White-Throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii BC -- -- Yellow 2 -- --

TABLE 4.3-1 Cont'd

Common Name Species Name Province1 Alberta General Status2 Alberta Wildlife Act3 BC List4 BCCF Priority5 COSEWIC6 SARA7 Wilson's Warbler Cardellina pusilla Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Yellow Warbler Setophaga petechia Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Yellow-Bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris Alberta Undetermined ------Yellow-Bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Yellow-Rumped Warbler Setophaga coronata Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Sources: ASRD 2011, AESRD 2012a, BC CDC 2013, Government of Canada 2013 Notes: 1 Province refers to provinces where the species has potential to breed within the Wildlife LSA. Status designations are only included for the province in which the species range overlaps the Wildlife LSA. 2 General Status of Alberta Wild Species. 3 Alberta Wildlife Act. 4 BC Red, Blue, and Yellow list status. 5 BC Conservation Framework Priority. 6 Species assessed by COSEWIC. 7 Species listed under SARA Schedule 1.

Page 4 - 13

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

4.3.1 Status The status designations of species within the early seral forest bird community are detailed in Table 4.3-1.

Early seral birds are declining in many areas of North America (Sauer et al. 2011), and in the Pacific Northwest. These declines have been linked to reduced availability of early seral cover (Betts et al. 2010).

4.3.2 Distribution 4.3.2.1 Elevational Range Members of the early seral forest bird community are found from sea level to treeline.

4.3.2.2 Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area Alberta and British Columbia Members of the early seral forest bird community are found in all natural subregions and ecosections crossed by the Project.

4.3.3 General Information Early seral forests are composed of young shade-intolerant trees and large shrubs that have attained dominance over other vegetation. Such forests are often characterized by their high stem density, broadleaf dominance, and lack of mature trees. In later stages of succession early seral stands undergo self-thinning and vertical structure can become evident (RIC 1998). These stages of early seral cover support a variety and abundance of birds (Ellis et al. 2012).

Early seral forests are relatively short-lived under natural disturbance regimes (Bunnell 1995). Under contemporary forest management practices, the life-span of this successional stage is being further shortened and their overall structure is altered as well (Betts et al. 2010). In the conifer-dominated portions of the Pacific Northwest, early successional forests typically contain an abundant and relatively long-lasting broadleaf component. This successional stage is gradually being reduced in spatial extent due to intensive management for conifers, fire suppression, and public demand for old forests (Kennedy and Spies 2005). A recent study suggests that the reductions in the extent of early seral forests may be responsible for declines seen in various bird species of the Pacific Northwest (Betts et al. 2010).

4.3.4 Key Habitat Requirements 4.3.4.1 Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use The life requisite that was rated for early seral forest birds was nesting habitat, and this is described in detail below. This community indicator is associated with post-disturbance woodlands which provide the desired habitat characteristics (young broadleaf species, and [for insectivores] abundant insects).

Growing Season Nesting Habitat Early seral forests are productive ecosystems for birds. Insect biomass is high in this forest type, and as a result leaf-gleaning insectivores are typically the most abundant bird group in early seral forests (Ellis and Betts 2011). Habitat productivity for early seral birds increases with the amount of broadleaf cover (Ellis et al. 2012), and this is driven by the higher insect biomass produced in broadleaf habitats (Hammond and Miller 1998, Hagar 2007). Early seral bird diversity also appears to increase with higher rates of primary production (McWethy et al. 2009, Verschuyl et al. 2008).

4.3.5 Limiting Factors Since this is a group-based model of early seral forest birds, the primary limiting factor for this group is the availability of early seral habitat (Betts et al. 2010). Other factors affecting habitat quality, such as cover type (deciduous, mixed, coniferous) (Ellis et al. 2012) and site productivity (McWethy et al. 2009, Verschuyl et al. 2008) can also be considered as limiting factors for this guild.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-14

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

4.3.6 Model Development A 4-point rating scheme was used to rate habitat suitability for the early seral forest bird community.

4.3.6.1 Provincial Benchmark Not applicable.

4.3.6.2 Ratings Assumptions

• Early seral forest was assumed to include structural stage 3b (tall shrub), 4 (pole/sapling), and 5 (young forest). These structural stages were rated up to High (1) (Table 4.3-2). Structural stage 3a (low shrub) and 6 (mature forest) were deemed to be transitional and rated up to Low (3).

• Early seral forests are most often characterized by a greater proportion of deciduous species, and these cover types generally support the most birds, therefore, deciduous and mixed forests were rated up to High (1), while coniferous forests were rated up to Moderate (2) (Table 4.3-2).

• Bogs, Fens, alpine areas, Rock outcrops and Talus were downgraded by one rating value (to a minimum of Low [3]) due to their low productivity.

• Early seral forest cover that was part of agricultural or urban land was downgraded by one rating value (to a minimum of Low[3]).

• Mines were rated up to Low (3).

• ‘Dry’ sites (soil moisture regime ranges to submesic or drier) were downgraded by one rating level (to a minimum of Low [3]).

TABLE 4.3-2

EARLY SERAL FOREST BIRD HABITAT RATINGS ASSUMPTIONS FOR STAND COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURAL STAGE

Structural Stage Deciduous and Mixed Forest Coniferous Forest 1 – 2 Nil (4) Nil (4) 3a Low (3) Low (3) 3b - 5 High (1) Moderate (2) 6 Low (3) Low (3) 7 Nil (4) Nil (4)

4.3.6.3 Ratings Adjustments

• Noise-generating oil and gas facilities have been associated with lower songbird abundance (Bayne et al. 2008), and songbird density is also typically reduced near roadways (Kociolek and Clevenger 2011). To account for these effects, habitat ratings were downgraded in proximity to noise-generating facilities and roadways. Ratings within 300 m of intense disturbances (e.g., primary roads, industrial facilities) were downgraded one or two levels, and ratings within 50 m or 100 m (depending on degree of disturbance) of less intense disturbances (e.g., primary and tertiary roads) were downgraded a single rating. Ratings were also downgraded within 50 m of vegetated linear developments (e.g., pipelines, transmission lines) to account for decreased nesting success that is often associated with these features. Rating reductions for edge effects or sensory disturbances did not go below Nil (4), which was reserved for unusable habitat.

4.4 Riparian and Wetland Birds A variety of birds are associated with wetlands and the habitats they provide. Wetland breeding bird populations appear to be in general decline in Canada; of the species showing substantial population changes (increasing or decreasing) between 1966 and 2010, 65% (15 of 23 species) showed substantial

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-15

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

declines (Environment Canada 2013b). The riparian and wetland bird community indicator represents a community of birds that are known to use riparian and wetland habitats, based on a literature review and results from field surveys. Species that occur in this bird community may also be associated with other habitat types for other life requisites or at different times of year. Species known or likely to use riparian and wetland habitat are listed in Table 4.4-1. A community-level model for nesting habitat was developed for this habitat-based bird community indicator.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-16

TABLE 4.4-1

RIPARIAN AND WETLAND BIRD COMMUNITY SPECIES

Common Name Species Name Province1 Alberta General Status2 Alberta Wildlife Act3 BC List4 BCCF Priority5 COSEWIC6 SARA7 Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- American Avocet Recurvirostra americana Alberta, BC Secure -- Red 2 -- -- American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Blue 2 -- -- American Coot Fulica americana Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 Not at Risk -- American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- American Dipper Cinclus mexicanus Alberta Secure ------American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- American Robin Turdus migratorius Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Red 1 Not at Risk -- American Wigeon Anas americana Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 6 Not at Risk -- Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula Alberta Sensitive ------Band-Tailed Pigeon Patagioenas fasciata BC -- -- Blue 2 Special Special Concern Concern Bank Swallow Riparia riparia Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 Threatened Page 4 Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Blue 2 Threatened -- Barrow's Goldeneye Bucephala islandica Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 1 -- -- -

17 Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- --

Bewick's Wren Thryomanes bewickii BC -- -- Yellow 2 -- -- Black Swift Cypseloides niger BC -- -- Yellow 2 -- -- Black Tern Chlidonias niger Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 3 Not at Risk -- Black-And-White Warbler Mniotilta varia Alberta Secure ------Black-Backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 6 -- -- Black-Billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus Alberta Undetermined ------Black-Capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Black-Headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus BC -- -- Yellow 6 -- -- Black-Throated Green Warbler Setophaga virens Alberta Sensitive Special Concern ------Blackpoll Warbler Setophaga striata Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Blue-Headed Vireo Vireo solitarius Alberta Secure ------Blue-Winged Teal Anas discors Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Bonaparte's Gull Chroicocephalus philadelphia Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Boreal Chickadee Poecile hudsonicus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Bullock's Oriole Icterus bullockii BC -- -- Yellow 5 -- -- California Gull Larus californicus Alberta, BC Secure -- Blue 4 -- -- Canada Goose Branta canadensis Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Canada Warbler Cardellina canadensis Alberta Sensitive ------Threatened Threatened Canvasback Aythya valisineria Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Cape May Warbler Setophaga tigrina Alberta Sensitive In Process ------Cassin's Vireo Vireo cassinii BC -- -- Yellow 6 -- --

TABLE 4.4-1 Cont'd

Common Name Species Name Province1 Alberta General Status2 Alberta Wildlife Act3 BC List4 BCCF Priority5 COSEWIC6 SARA7 Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 4 -- -- Clay-Colored Sparrow Spizella pallida Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 4 -- -- Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 3 -- -- Common Loon Gavia immer Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 Not at Risk -- Common Merganser Mergus merganser Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 2 Threatened Threatened Common Raven Corvus corax Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Common Tern Sterna hirundo Alberta Secure ------Not at Risk -- Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 5 -- -- Dark-Eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Double-Crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Alberta, BC Secure -- Blue 2 Not at Risk -- Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Dusky Flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri BC -- -- Yellow 2 -- -- Page 4 Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 4 -- -- Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- --

- Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe Alberta Sensitive ------18

Forster's Tern Sterna forsteri Alberta Sensitive ------Data Deficient -- Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Gadwall Anas strepera Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Glaucous-Winged Gull Larus glaucescens BC -- -- Yellow 5 -- -- Golden-Crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Great Blue Heron, fannini Ardea herodias fannini BC -- -- Blue 1 Special Special subspecies Concern Concern Great Blue Heron, herodias Ardea herodias herodias Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Blue 2 -- -- subspecies Greater Scaup Aythya marila BC -- -- Yellow 2 -- -- Green Heron Butorides virescens BC -- -- Blue 4 -- -- Green-Winged Teal Anas crecca Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 5 -- -- Hammond's Flycatcher Empidonax hammondii BC -- -- Yellow 5 -- -- Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus Alberta, BC Sensitive Special Concern Yellow 1 -- -- Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 4 Special -- Concern House Wren Troglodytes aedon Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Le Conte's Sparrow Ammodramus leconteii Alberta Secure ------Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 6 -- --

TABLE 4.4-1 Cont'd

Common Name Species Name Province1 Alberta General Status2 Alberta Wildlife Act3 BC List4 BCCF Priority5 COSEWIC6 SARA7 Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 2 -- -- Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Alberta Sensitive Special Concern ------MacGillivray's Warbler Geothlypis tolmiei BC -- -- Yellow 5 -- -- Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Nashville Warbler Oreothlypis ruficapilla BC -- -- Yellow 5 -- -- Nelson's Sparrow Ammodramus nelsoni Alberta Secure ------Not at Risk -- Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 2 Not at Risk -- Northern Hawk Owl Surnia ulula Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 Not at Risk -- Northern Pintail Anas acuta Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 2 -- -- Northern Rough-Winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Alberta, BC Secure Yellow 2 -- -- Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata Alberta, BC Secure Yellow 6 -- -- Northern Waterthrush Parkesia noveboracensis Alberta, BC Secure Yellow 6 -- -- Olive-Sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi Alberta, BC May Be At Risk Blue 2 Threatened Threatened Page 4 Orange-Crowned Warbler Oreothlypis celata Alberta, BC Secure Yellow 5 -- -- Osprey Pandion haliaetus Alberta, BC Sensitive Yellow 6 -- --

- Pacific Wren / Winter Wren Troglodytes pacificus Alberta, BC Secure Yellow 6 -- -- 19

Pacific-Slope Flycatcher Empidonax difficilis BC -- -- Yellow 2 -- -- Peregrine Falcon, anatum Falco peregrinus anatum Alberta, BC At Risk Threatened Red 2 Special Special Concern Concern Peregrine Falcon, pealei Falco peregrinus pealei BC -- -- Blue 1 Special Special Concern Concern Pied-Billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 2 -- -- Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 4 -- -- Pine Siskin Spinus pinus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Purple Martin Progne subis Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Blue 3 -- -- Red-Breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Red-Eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Redhead Aythya americana Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Red-Necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 4 Not at Risk -- Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 Not at Risk -- Red-Winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Ring-Necked Duck Aythya collaris Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Rose-Breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus Alberta Secure ------Ruby-Crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Blue 2 Special Special Concern Concern Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 5 Not at Risk -- Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- --

TABLE 4.4-1 Cont'd

Common Name Species Name Province1 Alberta General Status2 Alberta Wildlife Act3 BC List4 BCCF Priority5 COSEWIC6 SARA7 Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis Alberta Sensitive ------Sharp-tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 2 -- -- Short-Billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus Alberta Undetermined ------Short-Eared Owl Asio flammeus Alberta, BC May Be At Risk -- Blue 2 Special Special Concern Concern Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria Alberta Secure ------Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Sora Porzana carolina Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 5 -- -- Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis BC -- -- Red 2 Endangered Endangered Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata BC -- -- Blue 4 -- -- Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 4 -- -- Tennessee Warbler Oreothlypis peregrina Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Townsend's Warbler Setophaga townsendi BC -- -- Yellow 5 -- -- Page 4 Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator Alberta At Risk Threatened ------

- Veery Catharus fuscescens Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 Not at Risk -- 20 Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- --

Violet-Green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina BC -- -- Yellow 2 -- -- Virginia Rail Rallus limicola BC -- -- Yellow 2 -- -- Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 6 -- -- Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis Alberta Sensitive Special Concern ------Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis BC -- -- Yellow 4 -- -- Western Screech-Owl, kennicottii Megascops kennicottii kennicottii BC -- -- Blue 1 Threatened Special Concern Western Screech-Owl, macfarlanei Megascops kennicottii macfarlanei BC -- -- Red 1 Threatened Endangered Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 6 -- -- Western Wood-Pewee Contopus sordidulus Alberta, BC Sensitive -- Yellow 2 -- -- White-Throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- White-Winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- White-Winged Scoter Melanitta fusca Alberta, BC Sensitive Special Concern Yellow 5 -- -- Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii BC -- -- Yellow 2 -- -- Wilson's Snipe Gallinago delicata Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Wilson's Warbler Cardellina pusilla Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Wood Duck Aix sponsa BC -- -- Yellow 1 -- -- Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis Alberta Undetermined ------Special Special Concern Concern Yellow Warbler Setophaga petechia Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- -- Yellow-Bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris Alberta Undetermined ------Yellow-Headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 2 -- --

TABLE 4.4-1 Cont'd

Common Name Species Name Province1 Alberta General Status2 Alberta Wildlife Act3 BC List4 BCCF Priority5 COSEWIC6 SARA7 Yellow-Rumped Warbler Setophaga coronata Alberta, BC Secure -- Yellow 5 -- -- Sources: ASRD 2011, AESRD 2012, BC CDC 2013, Government of Canada 2013 Notes: 1 Province refers to provinces where the species has potential to breed within the Wildlife LSA. Status designations are only included for the province in which the species range overlaps the Wildlife LSA. 2 General Status of Alberta Wild Species. 3 Alberta Wildlife Act. 4 BC Red, Blue, and Yellow list status. 5 BC Conservation Framework Priority. 6 Species assessed by COSEWIC. 7 Species listed under SARA Schedule 1.

Page 4 - 21

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

4.4.1 Status The conservation status designations of birds in the riparian and wetland bird community are detailed in Table 4.4-1.

4.4.2 Distribution 4.4.2.1 Elevational Range Species of the riparian and wetland bird community are found from sea level to treeline.

4.4.2.2 Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area Alberta and British Columbia Species of the riparian and wetland bird community are found in all natural subregions and ecosections crossed by the Project.

4.4.3 General Ecology The riparian and wetland birds community indicator includes bird species associated with wetlands, watercourses, or waterbodies as well as the riparian ecosystems surrounding these features. Wetlands are defined as terrain where the water table is near or above the surface and where water saturation occurs for a sufficient time to promote wetland or aquatic processes, such as the establishment of hydrophytic vegetation and other wetland adapted species (National Wetland Working Group 1997). Wetlands may include fens, bogs, marshes, swamps, and shallow water. Bogs are nutrient poor, acidic peatlands (i.e., > 40 cm peat accumulation), often with low primarily productivity and vegetation dominated by sphagnum moss, ericaceous shrubs and stunted trees. Fens are peatlands that are not isolated from the water table, resulting in greater mineral inputs than bogs, and greater cover of minerotrophic vegetation, especially low shrubs, sedges and other graminoid vegetation. Fens are often intermediate between marshes and bogs in wetland progression. Bog and Fens are associated with unique bird assemblages and may provide important nesting habitat for sandhill cranes and several other bird species. Ruby-crowned kinglet, dark-eyed junco, hermit thrush, palm warbler, and blackpoll warbler commonly show strong associations with peatland ecosystems (MacKenzie and Moran 2004).

Marshes, swamps, and shallow water are mineral wetlands (i.e., < 40 cm peat accumulation) (National Wetland Working Group 1997). Marshes are highly productive wetlands characterized by abundant emergent vegetation, such as grasses, sedges, cattails, bulrushes, and horsetail. Several species of waterfowl and songbirds (e.g., marsh wren, red-winged blackbirds) occupy these habitats, often making their nests in the dense emergent vegetation (MacKenzie and Moran 2004). Swamps are typically drier than other wetlands (except treed bogs), and are dominated by woody vegetation, such as shrubs and trees (National Wetland Working Group 1997). They are often transitional between upland forest and marshes or fens. The dense shrub cover of swamps may provide important nesting structure for a variety of songbirds, such as many warblers, flycatchers, and sparrows. Shallow water wetlands have less emergent vegetation, but usually have abundant submerged or floating vegetation, which provides microenvironments that support a variety of aquatic life, such as macroinvertebrates. Shallow water wetlands includes ponds, pools, shallow lakes, oxbows, sloughs, reaches or channels, and are often associated with lakes or other wetlands. Riparian and wetland birds are also associated with lakes (i.e., open water greater than 2 m deep) and permanent watercourses (i.e., streams, creeks, and rivers). Larger watercourses, lakes, and shallow water often contain fish, which support piscivorous birds, such as kingfishers, cormorants, loons, mergansers and osprey.

Riparian habitats occur adjacent to wetlands, watercourses, and waterbodies. These areas are often characterized by large and older trees, dense shrub cover, deciduous tree cover, snags, and CWD (Bunnell and Dupuis 1993). High primary productivity and greater structural complexity results in high wildlife diversity, often of unique species not found elsewhere (Bunnell and Dupuis 1993, MacKenzie and Moran 2004). Riparian habitat provides protective cover for waterfowl and other species, as well as providing foraging and nesting habitat for water birds. Trees and shrubs in riparian habitats provide nesting platforms for several bird species, such as many warblers, sparrows, tanagers, vireos, flycatchers, wrens, and blackbirds. Upland graminoid vegetation adjacent to wetlands may provide dry

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-22

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

sites for nesting and support the nesting requirements of species such as le Conte’s sparrows and mallards.

Several species of waterbirds nest in the cavities of large diameter trees, but forage in wetlands. Cavity nesting waterfowl occurring near the Project in Alberta or BC include Barrow’s goldeneye, common goldeneye, bufflehead, hooded merganser, common merganser, and wood ducks (Martin and Eadie 1999, Martin et al. 2004). Tree swallows and violet-green swallow also nest in tree cavities, and often forage over water. Cavity trees used by waterfowl must be large diameter, usually deciduous, and have some form of decay conducive to cavity formation. Larger cavity nesting waterfowl are particularly reliant on the excavations of large primary excavators, such as piliated woodpecker and northern flickers (Martin et al. 2004). High suitability cavity nesting sites are ideally near water, but waterfowl may travel long distances in search of suitable nesting sites. Common mergansers may travel over 500 m in search of nesting sites, and have been recorded up to 2 km from water (Mallory and Metz 1999). Hooded mergansers typically nest near the shoreline, but have been reported nesting 500 m from water (Dugger et al. 2009). Nests of buffleheads are typically within 25 m of water, with nests up to at least 425 m from water being reported (Gauthier 1993). Common goldeneye and barrow’s goldeneye nest along shorelines, but have also been reported nesting up to 1.3 km and 2 km from water, respectively (Eadie et al. 1995, Eadie et al. 2000). Likewise, wood ducks may nest up to 2 km from water to find suitable cavities for rearing offspring (Hepp and Bellrose 2013).

4.4.4 Key Habitat Requirements 4.4.4.1 Selected Life Requisites and Season of Use The life requisite that was rated for the riparian and wetland bird community indicator was nesting habitat, described in detail below and in Section 4.4.3.

Nesting Habitat The riparian and wetland bird community depends on the availability of wetlands, waterbodies, or watercourses, as well as adjacent habitat for nesting sites. A wide variety of nesting strategies and structures are used by the community. Several species nest on floating mats among emergent vegetation or on the ground among upland graminoid or herbaceous vegetation (Baicich and Harrison 1997). Among the species employing this strategy include many species of ducks (e.g., mallard, northern pintail), geese (Canada goose), grebes (e.g., horned grebe, western grebe, red-necked grebe), rails (e.g., sora), shorebirds (e.g., spotted sandpiper), and songbirds (e.g., le Conte’s sparrow, red-winged blackbird). Others build nests on trees or shrubs, within wetlands or in the adjacent riparian habitats. Birds nesting in trees or shrubs often have specialized nesting strategies. For example, alder flycatchers commonly nest in willows or alders; palm warblers typically nest at the base of small conifers in peatlands; ruby-crowned kinglets often nest among the foliage of mature conifers in riparian habitats; tree swallows nest in the cavities of old decaying trees, typically aspen (Martin et al. 2004). Several species also commonly build cryptic nests on non-vegetated sites (e.g., killdeer, lesser yellowlegs).

4.4.5 Limiting Factors The loss or degradation of wetlands or riparian habitats is a primary factor limiting populations of riparian or wetland birds. Conversions of wetlands or riparian habitats have largely been the result of clearing and drainage for agriculture following European settlement, and more recently, because of the intensification of agricultural production (Federal, Provincial and Territorial Governments of Canada 2010). Wetlands and riparian habitats are continuing to decline as a result of factors that include habitat alternation, water level control (e.g. hydroelectric development), and climate change. Fragmentation of wetland ecosystems, pollution, invasive species, recreation, grazing, management of adjacent land, and climate change also result in a loss of habitat effectiveness. Many wetlands and riparian habitats in southern BC are located in valley bottoms, where development is often concentrated. The loss of riparian and shoreline habitat in British Columbia and Alberta is a leading cause of the decline of some wetland or riparian species, in part because these habitats support the nesting requirements of many wetland and riparian species (ASRD and ACA 2006, COSEWIC 2012e). Cavity nesting waterfowl may be especially vulnerable to the degradation of upland habitat since suitable cavities are scarce in many areas and may limit populations (Newton 1994).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-23

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

4.4.6 Model Development A 4-point rating scheme was used to rate habitat suitability for the riparian and wetland bird community. Two related models were developed for this community indicator: (1) a general riparian and wetland bird community model, and (2) a model specific to cavity nesting waterfowl. Cavity nesting waterfowl were modelled separately because tree cavities are especially important resources for this guild, and often occur away from water.

Wetlands, waterbodies, and watercourses, were identified based on the Freshwater Atlas in British Columbia (BC MOFR 2008) and the Canadian Wetland Classification System Merged Wetland Inventory (AESRD 2012d) in Alberta.

4.4.6.1 Riparian and Wetland Birds Model Ratings Assumptions • Because of the large diversity of nesting strategies, and dependence of individual species on particular wetland types, it was assumed that all wetlands (bogs, fens, marsh, swamp, shallow water), freshwater waterbodies, and watercourses represented high suitability habitat (rated High [1]). First order (Strahler) streams were excluded from the Freshwater Atlas stream network since these generally correspond to temporary/seasonal drainages.

• All wetlands, watercourses, and waterbodies were buffered by 30 m. Habitat within this buffer was assumed to be High (1) suitability for at least a portion of the riparian and wetland birds. Habitat farther than 30 m from a wetland, waterbody or watercourses were rated Nil (4).

• Most riparian and wetland ecosystems will be occupied by birds. It was assumed that reductions in suitability were primarily the result of anthropogenic disturbance.

Ratings Adjustments • The footprint of suitable habitat was reduced to Nil (4) for high disturbances, such as facilities and commercial sites, roads, railways, airports and wellsites.

• The footprint of suitable habitat was downgraded to Low (3) for moderate disturbances, such as urban and recreational sites.

• The footprint of suitable habitat was downgraded to Moderate (2) for minor (vegetated) disturbances, such as pipelines, transmission lines, cutlines, cutblocks, and agricultural fields.

• Sites within 100 m of a high human use area was downgraded by a single rating to reflect elevated disturbance and greater mortality associated with these sites.

4.4.6.2 Cavity Nesting Waterfowl Model Ratings Assumptions • All wetlands (except bogs) and waterbodies were assumed to be suitable for cavity nesting waterfowl. In Alberta, bogs were excluded since these sites are generally drier than other sites and were assumed to be unsuitable for waterfowl.

• Waterbodies and wetlands suitable for cavity nesting waterfowl were buffered by three distance bands: 0-30 m was rated up to High (1); 30-500 m was rated up to Moderate (2); 500 m-2 km was rated up to Low (3), and greater than 2 km was rated Nil (4).

• Habitat ratings were adjusted based on forest age. Sites < 40 years were reduced to Nil (4); sites 40 to 80 years were reduced by 1 rating; sites > 80 years retained their rating.

Ratings Adjustments • Anthropogenic disturbances that result in the removal of large diameter trees were reduced to Nil (4).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-24

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

• Urban, recreational sites, and agriculture were downgraded to Low (3) to account for high disturbance, but the possibility that suitable nesting sites may still occur.

• High intensity disturbances were downgraded by one or two ratings to account for sensory disturbance.

4.5 Wood Warblers Wood warblers are a group of passerine birds of the family Parulidae. The wood warblers indicator includes species with special conservation status (e.g., Black-throated green warbler, Cape May warbler) and common species (e.g., American redstart, blackpoll warbler, Connecticut warbler, MacGillivray’s warbler, ovenbird and Wilson’s warbler). Habitat models were developed specifically for the Cape May warbler and the black-throated green warbler, which occupy habitats that may be especially sensitive to anthropogenic disturbances. Species accounts and model details are provided for both species below.

4.5.1 Black-Throated Green Warbler 4.5.1.1 Status The black-throated green warbler appears to be stable to slightly increasing nationally, but within Alberta observations of the species have declined (Environment Canada 2013b). The black-throated green warbler (Dendroica virens, B-BTNW) is listed as Sensitive in Alberta (ASRD 2011) and is designated as Special Concern by Alberta’s ESCC (AESRD 2012a).

4.5.1.2 Distribution The breeding range of the black-throated green warbler extends from the Peace River in BC to the Maritimes, and from south of the Great Lakes along the Appalachian Mountains to possibly as far north as the Northwest Territories (Norton 1999).

Provincial Range Alberta The black-throated green warbler breeds throughout the northern half of Alberta, primarily in the Boreal Forest Natural Region and the northern extent of the Foothills Natural Region (Semenchuk 2007). Historical distribution of this species included scattered records west of Edmonton; however, during a survey in 1995, no black-throated green warblers were detected in the Hinton area (Norton 1999).

British Columbia The black-throated green warbler is mainly found in the northeast corner of the province (BC MWLAP 2004), including the Peace Lowlands Ecosection (Cooper et al. 1997a).

Elevational Range Breeding occurs from 650-1,000 m and migration occurs from sea level to 1,800 m (BC MWLAP 2004). In Alberta, this species breeds at all elevations outside the Rocky Mountain and Upper Foothill Natural Regions.

Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area Alberta The black-throated green warbler occurs within the portion of the Wildlife LSA corresponding to the Central Mixedwood, Dry Mixedwood and Lower Foothills Natural Subregions. The Project approximately parallels the southern extent of the species’ breeding range in Alberta where the black-throated green warbler is generally uncommon.

British Columbia The black-thoated green warbler does not occur within the Wildlife LSA in British Columbia.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-25

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

4.5.1.3 General Ecology The black-throated green warbler primarily eats insects, including caterpillars (its main food source), beetles, bugs, gnats, ants, spiders, mites and plant lice (BC MWLAP 2004). This species forages high in the canopy at heights of 13-15 m (Norton 1999).

Male black-throated green warblers arrive on their breeding territories in mid to late May with females typically arriving a few days later. Eggs are laid in mid-June and hatch after 10 to 12 days of incubation by the female.

4.5.1.4 Key Habitat Requirements Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use The life requisite that was rated for the black-throated green warbler is nesting habitat and is described in detail below. The black-throated green warbler only occurs within the study area during the breeding season and nesting habitat is assumed to provide all the life requisites of breeding individuals for the spring-summer growing period.

Growing Season Nesting Habitat The black-throated green warbler has a strong association with old mixedwood forests (Boreal Avian Modelling Project [BAMP] 2013, Norton 1999). The most suitable forest stands have a well-developed understory, which may provide important foraging habitat (Norton 1999). These stands are typically nutrient rich and have moist soil conditions. Nest sites are typically in conifers but they may use deciduous species, such as birch and poplar (Morse and Poole 2005). Mixedwood forests and deciduous forests with some white spruce in the canopy are typically associated with the highest density of black- throated green warblers. Pure white-spruce forests are used, but are generally associated with a lower territory density. Use of pine stands and lowland forests (bogs, fens) has been reported, but detection rates are lower relative to other cover types.

Limiting Factors Habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from industrial developments is believed to be among the most important limiting factors for black-throated green warbler populations in Alberta (Norton 1999). Population declines have been documented following habitat fragmentation in northern Alberta (Schmiegelow and Hannon 1999).

4.5.1.5 Model Development There was an advanced level of knowledge on the habitat requirements of the black-throated green warbler in Alberta, therefore a 6-point rating system was used, ranging from High (1) to Nil (6).

Ratings were based on a review of data published by the Boreal Avian Modelling Project (BAMP 2013) for the North Saskatchewan and Upper Athabasca land-use planning region. Age classifications were converted to structural stage based on typical age cut offs (BC MOFR and BC MOE 2010). Habitat ratings were relative were based on breeding bird densities for the different forest types and rated relative to the best available habitat in the province (see Section 2.7, Table 2.7-1 for thresholds used to assign ratings based on relative density). Where necessary, habitat ratings were adjusted based on a review of available literature and professional knowledge.

Provincial Benchmark British Columbia: Not modelled/not applicable.

Alberta: Old (> 140 years) mixedwood forest in the Lower Peace land use planning region (BAMP 2013).

Ratings Assumptions • The black-throated green warbler is an old forest specialist; therefore, more advanced structural stages received the highest ratings (Table 4.5.1). Non-forested habitats (e.g., Mines) were rated Nil (6).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-26

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

• Mixedwood forests are generally associated with the highest densities of black-throated green warblers (Table 4.5-1). Deciduous and coniferous forests are also commonly used. Pine forests, bogs and fens were given the lowest ratings among the forested habitats.

• Preliminary habitat ratings for the best available habitat in Alberta are shown in Table 4.5-1 below. These ratings correspond to the Lower Peace land use planning region (BAMP 2013).

• The Wildlife LSA occurs within the North Saskatchewan and Upper Athabasca land-use planning region. Black-throated green warblers occur at much lower densities in these regions than for the provincial benchmark (assumed to be the Lower Peace land-use Planning area). The maximum habitat suitability rating within the Wildlife LSA was determined to be Moderate (3), based on an average density between 36-50% of the provincial benchmark (for old mixedwood forest). This is consistent with the low number of reported observations of black-throated green warblers with the Wildlife LSA. Table 4.5-2 shows the modified habitat suitability ratings specific to the Wildlife LSA.

• Agricultural and urban areas were never rated higher than Very Low (5), even when forested.

• The Montane, Upper Foothills, and Parkland Natural Subregions were rated Nil (6) for black-throated green warbler habitat suitability.

TABLE 4.5-1

BLACK-THROATED GREEN WARBLER HABITAT RATING ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON THE BEST AVAILABLE HABITAT IN ALBERTA

Structural Stage Stand Composition 1-2 3a-4 5 6-7 Deciduous (> 75% aspen, poplar, birch) Nil (6) Very Low (5) Low (4) High (1) Mixedwood (Coniferous ≤ 75%, Deciduous ≤ 75%) Nil (6) Low (4) Low (4) High (1) Upland Coniferous (> 75% upland spruce/fir) Nil (6) Very Low (5) Low (4) Moderate (3) Lowland Coniferous (Bogs, Fens) Nil (6) Very Low (5) Very Low (5) Very Low (5) Pine (> 75% pine or pine leading coniferous) Nil (6) Very Low (5) Low (4) Low (4) Source: Derived from BAMP 2013 Note: Ratings are based on the Alberta land-use planning region with the greatest maximum density of black-throated green warblers.

TABLE 4.5-2

BLACK-THROATED GREEN WARBLER HABITAT RATING ASSUMPTIONS WITHIN THE WILDLIFE LOCAL STUDY AREA

Structural Stage Stand Composition 1-4 5 6-7 Deciduous (> 75% aspen, poplar, birch) Nil (6) Very Low (5) Low (4) Mixedwood (Coniferous ≤75%, Deciduous ≤75%) Nil (6) Very Low (5) Moderate (3) Upland Coniferous (> 75% upland spruce/fir) Nil (6) Very Low (5) Low (4) Lowland Coniferous (Bogs, Fens) Nil (6) Nil (6) Nil (6) Pine (> 75% pine or pine leading coniferous) Nil (6) Very Low (5) Very Low (5) Source: Derived from BAMP 2013

Ratings Adjustments • Forest songbirds can respond negatively to the presence of habitat edges (Parker et al. 2005). Therefore, habitat suitability was downgraded for areas adjacent to pipeline right-of-way or other wide linear features (areas within 50 m of these features downgraded by one rating).

• Noise-generating oil and gas facilities have been associated with lower songbird abundance (Bayne et al. 2008), and songbird density is also typically reduced near roadways (Kociolek and

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-27

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Clevenger 2011). To account for these effects, habitat ratings were downgraded by up to two ratings within a distance of up to 300 m from noise-generating facilities and roadways.

4.5.2 Cape May Warbler 4.5.2.1 Status The Cape May warbler (Dendroica tigrina, B-CMWA) is listed as Sensitive in Alberta (ASRD 2011). Populations of Cape May warbler appear to be stable in Canada (Environment Canada 2013b). In Alberta, the population is stable to increasing (Environment Canada 2013b).

4.5.2.2 Distribution The Cape May warbler breeds in boreal coniferous forests across Canada and is considered an uncommon breeder in both Alberta and BC. It overwinters almost exclusively on the islands of the West Indies (BC MWLAP 2004, Norton 2001).

Provincial Range Alberta The Cape May warbler is a relatively uncommon songbird that breeds in the Boreal and Foothills Regions of Alberta. The southeastern limits of the breeding range likely coincide with the limits of the Boreal forest Natural Region (Norton 2001). Between 1894 and 1999 there were breeding and non-breeding records of the Cape May warbler between Edmonton and Hinton. There are several June records of singing male birds in the Hinton area and it is considered a very rare visitor of Jasper National Park (Norton 2001).

British Columbia The Cape May warbler is found in the Fort Nelson and Peace Regions of BC, north of the Wildlife LSA (BC MWLAP 2004).

Elevational Range In Alberta, Cape May warblers occur at all elevations outside the Rocky Mountains (Norton 2001).

Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area Alberta The Cape May warbler breeds within the portion of the Wildlife LSA corresponding to the Foothills and Boreal Forest Natural Regions.

4.5.2.3 General Ecology The Cape May warbler is a spruce budworm specialist, foraging in the upper canopy. Populations can be greatly influenced by the abundance of spruce budworms and their numbers can fluctuate depending on availability of this prey (Morse 1978, Semenchuk 2007). This species also forages opportunistically on other insects, spiders, berries and seeds. The Cape May warbler is present in Alberta from late May until late summer (August/September) (Campbell et al. 2001). Egg-laying begins in early June, with nestlings present in July.

4.5.2.4 Key Habitat Requirements Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use The life requisite that was rated for the Cape May warbler is nesting habitat. This life requisite is assumed to be the most limiting for Cape May warblers in Alberta, and there is potential for Project interaction (Norton 2001). This species only occurs in the study area during the breeding season, and habitat selection during migration is assumed to be more general than nesting habitat. Nesting habitat encompasses security and foraging habitat.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-28

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Growing Season Nesting Habitat The Cape May warbler is typically associated with upland mature or old forests containing a high proportion of coniferous trees (Norton 2001). They are relatively uncommon in pure pine or lowland spruce stands, and nearly absent from pure deciduous stands (BAMP 2013). Mixedwood stands are commonly used, but densities are lower compared to pure white spruce stands. Older forest stands typically have a greater density of Cape May warblers (BAMP 2013, Norton 2001) and the species is rarely reported to use recently disturbed sites (Norton 2001). Common elements of Cape May warbler nesting habitat are an understory of highbush cranberry, bunchberry, palmate coltsfoot, willow, and twinflower; fairly tall, dense stands of white spruce with flat, open, mossy groundcover; frequent openings in stand; and very tall conifers extending above the canopy (reviewed in Cooper et al. 1997b). Nests are typically built near the trunk of coniferous trees, generally at least 10 m above the ground (Norton 2001).

Limiting Factors Both the distribution and population density of the Cape May warbler fluctuate in tandem with spruce budworm outbreaks (reviewed in BC MWLAP 2004). Habitat loss and fragmentation from logging and energy sector activities are the main threats to the Cape May warbler (Norton 2001).

4.5.2.5 Model Development There was an advanced level of knowledge on the habitat associations of the Cape May warbler in Alberta, therefore a 6-point rating system was used, ranging from High (1) to Nil (6).

Ratings were based on a review of data published by BAMP (2013) for the North Saskatchewan and Upper Athabasca land-use planning region. Age classifications were converted to structural stage based on typical age cutoffs (BC MOFR and BC MOE 2010). Habitat ratings were relative to the provincial benchmark, and were based on relative breeding bird densities for the different forest types (see Section 2.7, Table 2.7-1 for thresholds used to assign ratings based on relative density). Where necessary, habitat ratings were adjusted based on a review of available literature and professional knowledge.

Provincial Benchmark Old (> 140 years) upland spruce forest in the Lower Athabasca land use planning region (BAMP 2013).

Ratings Assumptions • Agricultural and Urban areas were never rated higher than Very Low (5).

• Non-vegetated sites (e.g., Mines) were rated Nil (6).

• The Cape May warbler is a forest specialist and is typically most common in older forests, especially mature/old upland spruce (BAMP 2013). More advanced structural stages were assigned higher habitat suitability ratings (Table 4.5-4).

• Upland forest with a greater spruce content received the highest suitability ratings (Table 4.5-4). Pure deciduous forests are generally not suitable for Cape May warblers. Bogs and fens have lower density than upland forest, and pine stands were assigned intermediate habitat ratings.

• Preliminary habitat ratings for the best available habitat in Alberta are shown in Table 4.5-3 below. These ratings correspond to the Lower Athabasca land use planning region (BAMP 2013).

• The Wildlife LSA occurs within the North Saskatchewan and Upper Athabasca land-use planning region. Cape-may warblers occur at much lower densities in these regions compared to the provincial benchmark (assumed to be the Lower Athabasca land-use planning region). The maximum habitat suitability rating within the Wildlife LSA was determined to be Low (4), based on an average density between 6-25% of the provincial benchmark (for old upland spruce forest). This is consistent with the low number of reported observations of Cape May warblers within the Wildlife LSA. Table 4.5-4 shows the modified habitat suitability ratings specific to the Wildlife LSA.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-29

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

• Habitat within the Montane and Parkland Natural Subregions were rated Nil (6).

TABLE 4.5-3

CAPE MAY WARBLER HABITAT RATING ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON THE BEST AVAILABLE HABITAT IN ALBERTA

Sturctural Stage Stand Composition 1-2 3a 4 5 6-7 Deciduous (> 75% aspen, poplar, birch) Nil (6) Nil (6) Very low (5) Very low (5) Very low (5) Mixedwood (Coniferous ≤ 75%, Deciduous ≤ 75%) Nil (6) Low (4) Low (4) Low (4) Moderate-High (1) Upland Coniferous (> 75% upland spruce/fir) Nil (6) Nil (6) Low (4) Moderate (3) High (1) Lowland Coniferous (Bogs, Fens) Nil (6) Nil (6) Low (4) Low (4) Low (4) Pine (> 75% pine or pine leading coniferous) Nil (6) Low (4) Low (4) Low (4) Moderate (3) Source: Derived from BAMP 2013 Note: - Ratings are based on the Alberta land-use planning region with the greatest maximum density of Cape May warblers.

TABLE 4.5-4

CAPE MAY WARBLER HABITAT RATING ASSUMPTIONS WITHIN THE WILDLIFE LOCAL STUDY AREA

Structural Stage Stand Composition 1-3a 4 5 6-7 Deciduous (> 75% aspen, poplar, birch) Nil (6) Nil (6) Nil (6) Nil (6) Mixedwood (Coniferous ≤ 75%, Deciduous ≤ 75%) Nil (6) Nil (6) Very low (5) Low (4) Upland Coniferous (> 75% upland spruce/fir) Nil (6) Very low (5) Low (4) Low (4) Lowland Coniferous (Bogs, Fens) Nil (6) Nil (6) Very low (5) Very low (5) Pine (> 75% pine or pine leading coniferous) Nil (6) Nil (6) Nil (6) Very low (5) Source: Derived from BAMP 2013 Note: - Ratings are adjusted relative to the provincial benchmark. The highest habitat rating ‘Low (4)’ represents habitat where the average density is assumed to be 6-25% of the provincial benchmark.

• Noise-generating oil and gas facilities have been associated with lower songbird abundance (Bayne et al. 2008), and songbird density is also typically reduced near roadways (Kociolek and Clevenger 2011). To account for these effects, habitat ratings were downgraded by up to two ratings within a distance of up to 300 m from noise-generating facilities and roadways.

4.6 Short-Eared Owl 4.6.1 Status The short-eared owl (Asio flammeus, B-SEOW) is designated as Special Concern on Schedule 1 of SARA and COSEWIC (Environment Canada 2013a), is listed as May Be at Risk in Alberta (ASRD 2011), and is Blue-listed in BC (BC CDC 2013). Although short-eared owls are not adequately sampled using regular bird surveys, the Breeding Bird Survey (1970-2011) manages to capture the wide population fluctuations characteristic of this species. Most recently (2011), short-eared owls appear to be in a phase of abundance in Alberta (Environment Canada 2013b); however, national trends indicate an overall decline since 1970 (Environment Canada 2013b).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-30

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

4.6.2 Distribution A wide ranging owl that is found on most continents except Australia and Antarctica (Wiggins et al. 2006). However, may be uncommon throughout much of their range. In Canada, the short-eared owl is most common in the Prairie Provinces and along the Arctic coast, with a smaller population occurring in BC (COSEWIC 2008a).

4.6.2.1 Provincial Range Alberta In Alberta, short-eared owls are found in open farmland, grasslands and marshes. During the breeding season it is most common in the Parkland and Grassland Natural Regions, but breeding range extends as far north as the Peace River, Lesser Slave Lake and Cold Lake areas (Semenchuk 1992). Breeding primarily occurs in the southern portion of the province but has been reported north of Edmonton and even into the Northwest Territories. Breeding range does not generally extend into mountainous areas (Clayton 2000).

British Columbia The short-eared owl breeds on the Lower Mainland (east to Langley) and Southern Interior (Okanagan north to Chilcotin-Cariboo basins) regions of BC and commonly overwinters in the Fraser River delta (BC MWLAP 2004).

4.6.2.2 Elevational Range In Western Canada, short-eared owls have been observed from sea level to 2,165 m, with most occurrences below 975 m (Campbell et al. 1990).

4.6.2.3 Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area Alberta A paucity of data exists on the distribution of short-eared owls in Alberta (Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute [ABMI] 2013a, Semenchuk 2007). This species has been reported to occur in all natural regions of Alberta, except the Rocky Mountain Natural Region (Semenchuck 1992). Short-eared owls have been reported numerous times around Edmonton and at least once near Edson (Clayton 2000). Short-eared owls are considered absent from the Alpine, Subalpine, Montane and Upper Foothills subregions and present within the Lower Foothills, Central and Dry Mixedwood, and Central Parkland Natural Subregions.

British Columbia The short-eared owl breeds in the Fraser Lowlands, Guichon Upland, Hozameen Range, Nicola Basin, Northern Thompson Upland, Norwestern Cascade Ranges, and Thompson Basin Ecosections in BC. In the Wildlife LSA in these ecosections, the short-eared owl occurs in the Bunchgrass (BGxh2, xw1), Coastal Western Hemlock (CWHdm, xm1), Interior Douglas-fir (IDFdk1, xh1, xh2, xh2a), and Ponderosa Pine (PPxh2) biogeoclimatic zones (BC MWLAP 2004).

4.6.3 General Ecology Short-eared owls are nomadic and their distribution and abundance is tied to that of small rodents, particularly microtines (shrews) (BC MWLAP 2004). In Western Canada, short-eared owls are generally considered to be summer residents, though some birds of unknown origin remain through the winter (COSEWIC 2008a). Short-eared owl migration is likely in response to changes in food availability (BC MWLAP 2004). Choice of breeding and wintering habitat is flexible and owls may use previously unused areas when prey becomes temporarily abundant (COSEWIC 2008a). The breeding season extends from March to May and an average of seven eggs is laid per clutch (Wiggins 2004). In BC, the nesting period can extend from late March to early June (Campbell et al. 1990), but delayed nesting seasons have been noted in prairie regions such as North Dakota (May to late July) (Murphy and Ensign 1996). Short-eared owls may re-nest if their first clutch is lost, and fledging success is relatively high for a ground nesting species (COSEWIC 2008a).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-31

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

4.6.4 Key Habitat Requirements 4.6.4.1 Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use The life requisite that was rated for the short-eared owl was nesting habitat, and the rating procedure is described in detail below.

Growing Season Nesting Habitat Short-eared owls use extensive, open areas to meet most of their life requisites, including reproducing, foraging, and roosting (Campbell et al. 1990). Short-eared owls build their own nests, which they typically locate in vegetated open areas with sufficient ground cover (BC MWLAP 2004); dry areas are preferred (Wiggins et al. 2006). Nest sites in BC tend to be located in shrubby, grassy fields adjacent to agricultural areas; use of airport fields, dry marshes, rangeland, sagebrush plains, bogs, and hayfields has also been documented (Campbell et al. 1990, COSEWIC 2008a). Grazed areas are generally avoided because cover is reduced, and nest predation rates are higher at these sites (Fondell and Ball 2004). East of the Rocky Mountains, short-eared owls have frequently been found nesting in active cropland with grain stubble. Although these sites may be attractive for nesting, fledging success may be very low (COSEWIC 2008a, Houston 1997). In many areas, short-eared owls begin nesting before agricultural activities commence, and anthropogenic disturbance during cultivation, planting, and crop maintenance likely depress nesting success in these areas. Similar conclusions have been drawn regarding hayfields (Campbell et al.1990). Therefore, crop and hay fields may act as ecological traps (Shochat et al. 2005). In addition to using agricultural fields and grasslands, young reforested areas (< 10 year old) also provide attractive nesting cover (Shaw 1995). Larger regenerating stands are preferred (Shaw 1995). The relation between grassland patch size and short-eared owl habitat suitability is still poorly understood, but in North America this species has been observed nesting and foraging in patches as small as 28 ha (Kerkert et al. 1999). Short-eared owls are sensitive to disturbance, especially during the nesting period, and females have been reported to abandon nests after being flushed and harassed at their nest site (Leasure and Holt 1991).

4.6.5 Limiting Factors Survival and reproduction of short-eared owls is related to the abundance of their small-mammal prey and the availability of suitable nesting areas (Clayton 2000). With the exception of landscapes dominated by row-crop agriculture, small mammal abundance and nesting habitat co-occur in grassland and early seral forest communities. Therefore, the availability of grassland complexes is likely important for maintaining short-eared owl populations (COSEWIC 2008a). The loss of grasslands due to conversion for agriculture, urban development and industrial activities has contributed to the population decline of short-eared owls (COSEWIC 2008a).

4.6.6 Model Development There was an intermediate level of knowledge on the habitat requirements of the short-eared owl in Alberta and BC, therefore a 4-point rating system was used, ranging from High (1) to Nil (4).

4.6.6.1 Provincial Benchmark British Columbia • Ecosection: Fraser River Basin.

• Biogeoclimatic Zones: Interior Douglas-fir (IDFxm).

• Habitats: dense, herbaceous habitat dominated by perennial grasses and forbs and generally lacking shrubs or trees.

Alberta A benchmark for short-eared owl habitat suitability has not been established for Alberta.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-32

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

4.6.6.2 Ratings assumptions Nesting Habitat • In BC, Mountain Hemlock, Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir, Montane Spruce, interior Mountain-heather alpine, Coastal Mountain-heather alpine, and Boreal altai Fescue alpine were rated Nil (4).

• In Alberta, alpine, Subalpine, and Montane regions were rated Nil (4).

• Aquatic sites, Rocky outcrops, Mines, active channel floodplains, Rock cliffs, Roads, Rock Talus, and Urban areas were rated Nil (4).

• Structural stages 2-3b were considered suitable for nesting, and other structural stages were generally considered unsuitable (Table 4.6-1). Natural grass and shrublands were rated up to High (1) (Table 4.6-1), while other early seral ecosystems (structural stage 2-3) were rated up to Moderate (2).

• Agricultural land (i.e., hayfields, cultivated fields) can provide suitable nesting habitat after crops begin to grow, but are often associated with greater disturbance from agricultural equipment and other human activities. Therefore, these sites were considered suitable, but rated to a maximum of Low (3) (Table 4.6-1). Tame pasture was rated up to Moderate (2).

• Wetlands were rated lower than uplands in order to reflect uncertainty in wetland water tables and the concomitant restrictions on nesting suitability. Aquatic sites (such as 2c) were rated Nil (4). Floodplains) were rated as wetlands, with the exception that structural stage 3b floodplains were assumed to be too dense for short-eared owl nesting and were rated Nil (4).

TABLE 4.6-1

RATINGS FOR SHORT-EARED OWL NESTING HABITAT, ADJUSTED FOR STRUCTURAL STAGE AND GENERAL HABITAT TYPE

Structural Stage General Habitat Type 1 2-3a 3b 4-7 Upland Nil (4) High (1) Low (3) Nil (4) Wetland Nil (4) Moderate (2) Low (3) Nil (4) Agricultural Land1 Low (3) Low (3) Low (3) Nil (4) Tame Pasture Nil (4) Moderate (2) Low (3) Nil (4) Note: 1 Agricultural Land includes both cropland and hayfields.

4.6.6.3 Ratings Adjustments

• Short-eared owl habitat has not been associated with steep terrain. Therefore, sites with an average slope > 100% were rated Nil (4).

• The response of short-eared owl to noise and visual disturbance is not known. However, the species is considered sensitive to disturbance at its nesting sites, and nest abandonments have been documented for owls flushed from their nests (Leasure and Holt 1991). Therefore, a sensitivity to visual and auditory disturbances is assumed, habitat suitability was assumed to decline within 250 m of areas with high sensory disturbance, and effects were assumed greatest within 50 m of such disturbances.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-33

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

4.7 Rusty Blackbird 4.7.1 Status The rusty blackbird (Euphagus carolinus, B-RUBL) is listed as Special Concern under Schedule 1 of SARA and COSEWIC (Governemnt of Canada 2013), is listed as Sensitive in Alberta (ASRD 2011), and is Blue-listed in BC (BC CDC 2013). From 1970 to 2011, this species declined nationally at an annual rate of 6.61% (9.10-3.57%, 95 CI) (Environment Canada 2013b).

4.7.2 Distribution The breeding range of the rusty blackbird occurs mainly in Canada and Alaska (COSEWIC 2006b). The species is wide-ranging within this area, extending from the east coast to the west coast and throughout the northern boreal forest. Approximately 70% of the breeding range for this species occurs in Canada. The winter range includes the southeastern United States, although some individuals also overwinter in the southern part of their Canadian range.

4.7.2.1 Provincial Range Alberta The breeding range of the rusty blackbird in Alberta includes the Parkland, Foothills, and Boreal Forest Natural Regions (Semenchuk 2007). Non-breeding individuals may also occur in the Grassland and Rocky Mountain Natural Regions.

British Columbia The rusty blackbird has potential to occur throughout most of BC; however, the majority of records are from the northern portion of the province and the south-central interior (Campbell et al. 2001, Matsuoka et al. 2010a). The highest densities of rusty blackbirds occur in the Central Interior and Sub-Boreal Interior Ecoprovinces (Campbell et al. 2001). The species is rarely reported breeding in the southwest or southeast of the province but may overwinter throughout southern BC. Winter range extends north to at least Smithers, BC (Campbell et al. 2001).

4.7.2.2 Elevational Range The rusty blackbird is found at elevations from 80-1,465 m (Campbell et al. 2001).

4.7.2.3 Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area Alberta Suitable habitat for rusty blackbirds may occur throughout the Wildlife LSA in Alberta, especially within the Boreal Forest and Foothills Natural Regions.

British Columbia The rusty blackbird may occur in all ecosections crossed by the Wildlife LSA in BC; however, most breeding records in proximity to the Wildlife LSA are concentrated in the Southern Interior (Campbell et al. 2001, Matsuoka et al. 2010a).

4.7.3 General Ecology Rusty blackbirds are summer residents in Canada, where they breed in wetland habitats, primarily in the boreal forest (COSEWIC 2006b). Winter habitat is located primarily in the southeastern United States (COSEWIC 2006b). Adult rusty blackbirds form socially monogamous pairs, and egg-laying is usually complete by mid-May to June (Campbell et al. 2001); chicks hatch in June and July and fledge 11 to 13 days later. Rusty blackbirds are usually solitary nesters but they may form loose groups or colonies in some areas (COSEWIC 2006b). The diet during the breeding season consists largely of invertebrates (especially aquatic invertebrates), as well as small fish and amphibians (COSEWIC 2006b). Fall migration begins by October; most migrants that leave Western Canada and Alaska winter east of the Missisippi River (COSEWIC 2006b). Insects continue to provide important food for wintering rusty blackbirds, but

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-34

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

diets can become diversified to include seeds, small fruit, and occasionally small birds as well (COSEWIC 2006b).

4.7.4 Key Habitat Requirements 4.7.4.1 Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use The life requisite that was rated for the rusty blackbird is nesting habitat, which is described in detail below. Rusty blackbirds are considered a wetland obligate and seldom use forest interiors.

Growing Season Nesting Habitat Rusty blackbirds are strongly associated with riparian and wetland habitats for both nesting and foraging. Reproducing habitat occurs where wetlands contain or are adjacent to suitable nesting substrate, and upland forests are used when suitable wetland cover is nearby. Nests are primarily located in short spruce, particularly black spruce, but deciduous trees and shrubs are also used infrequently (Matsuoka et al. 2010a,b). Matsuoka et al. (2010b) reported that nesting success was greater in black spruce compared to deciduous vegetation. Rusty blackbirds can also be found nesting within remnant trees in harvested forest stands, but these habitats are also associated with reduced nesting success and may function as ecological traps (Powell et al. 2010a). Habitats that commonly support nesting pairs include: beaver ponds, riparian scrub, wooded heathland, bogs, fens, spruce swamps, recent burns, wooded lake shores, wet meadows, and marshes (COSEWIC 2006b). Nesting generally does not occur above the treeline, and is not common in high-elevation habitats (COSEWIC 2006b). Rusty blackbirds establish nesting territories either individually or colonially with other rusty blackbirds (COSEWIC 2006b).

4.7.5 Limiting Factors The loss and degradation of breeding habitat may be limiting to rusty blackbird populations, particularly along the southern portion of its range where wetland habitat has been altered for human developments and agricultural use (COSEWIC 2006b). In addition to the direct loss of wetland habitats, an increase in anthropogenic edges and forest harvesting may decrease the quality of nesting habitat and reduce nesting success (Powell et al. 2010a).

4.7.6 Model Development There was an intermediate level of knowledge on the habitat requirements for the rusty blackbird in Alberta and BC, therefore a 4-point rating system was used, ranging from high (1) to nil (4).

4.7.6.1 Provincial Benchmark There is no established provincial benchmark for the rusty blackbird in Alberta or BC.

4.7.6.2 Ratings Assumptions

• Rusty blackbirds are not observed above 1,465 m (Campbell et al. 2001), which roughly corresponds to the alpine tundra limit (1,400-1,650 m) (Pojar and Stewart 1991). Therefore, alpine areas were rated Nil (4).

• In Alberta, areas within the Central Parkland Natural Subregion were rated a maximum of Low (3).

• Sites within the Coastal Douglas-fir and Ponderosa Pine zones were rated Nil (4) (Campbell et al. 2001).

• Avalanche tracks, flood channels and waterways, rock cliffs, rocky outcrops, rock talus, roads, and mines were rated Nil (4).

• Structural stages 1 to 2 were rated Nil (4).

• Pasture, cropland, hayfields, rural land, and urban areas were rated Low (3) unless other factors dictated that they be rated Nil (4).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-35

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

• Wet sites (soil moisture regime ranges between mesic and hydric) with structural stage > 3 were rated as follows:

− Sites likely to have black spruce were rated highest.

− Coniferous sites without black spruce were rated higher than deciduous sites without black spruce (Table 4.7-1).

TABLE 4.7-1

RATINGS FOR RUSTY BLACKBIRD WETLAND HABITATS, ACCOUNTING FOR STAND COMPOSITION AND THE PRESENCE/ABSENCE OF BLACK SPRUCE

Stand Composition Black Spruce Present Black Spruce NOT Present Deciduous (> 75% deciduous cover) High (1) Low (3) Mixedwood (< 75% deciduous or coniferous cover) High (1) Moderate (2) Coniferous (> 75% coniferous cover) High (1) Moderate (2)

4.7.6.3 Ratings Adjustments

• With the exception of wetlands and floodplains, all sites not within 75 m of a wetland, river, or open waterbody were rated Nil (4).

• Habitats within 75 m of a wetland, river, or waterbody were rated according to Table 4.7-1 (Powell et al. 2010b).

• Structural stage 3-4 sites that are part of a recent (< 20 year old) cutblock were downgraded by one rating value (to a minimum of Low [3]).

• Edge effects were assumed based on previous research on this species (Powell et al. 2010a). Therefore, habitat adjacent to anthropogenic forest clearings were reduced in value.

• The response of the rusty blackbird to noise or anthropogenic disturbance has not been thoroughly studied; however, songbird density is typically lower in proximity to roadways (Kociolek and Clevenger 2011) and has been shown to be lower in proximity to noise-generating oil and gas facilities (Bayne et al. 2008). To account for such likely effects, habitat quality was reduced in proximity to noise generating facilities and roadways.

4.8 Flammulated Owl 4.8.1 Status The flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus, B-FLOW) is Blue-listed in BC (BC CDC 2013) and designated as Special Concern on Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC (Environment Canada 2013a). Population estimates and distribution are poorly known and the latest estimate was 1,200-2,000 owls across a range of 113,000 km² in BC (COSEWIC 2010a). The flammulated owl was first documented in BC in 1901, and there were only 6 records prior to 1980 (Booth and Merkens 1998, van Woudenberg 1999). In 1998, 337 owls were counted in the Kamloops forest District (Booth and Merkens 1998); 26 owls were detected in 1995 and 40 were detected in 1996 at Wheeler Mountain (van Woudenberg and Christie 1997); and 24 owls were counted in the Heffley Creek area in 2007 (Iredale and Ferguson 2007). Estimates of breeding pairs in 1999 were 100 in the Okanagan Valley, 100-200 in the Merritt forest District, and > 200 in the Kamloops forest District (van Woudenberg 1999).

4.8.2 Distribution The flammulated owl is a migratory raptor of North America. The species breeds in western forests from central BC in the north to the northern forests of Mexico in the south. Wintering occurs in southern Mexico and possibly Central America (van Woudenberg 1999).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-36

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Provincial Range Alberta The flammulated owl is not known to breed in Alberta.

British Columbia The northern extent of the flammulated owl breeding range is in the southern interior of BC, primarily in the Okanagan, Similkameen, Nicola, and Thompson valleys (BC MWLAP 2004, Provincial Flammulated Owl Working Group [PFOWG] 2011, van Woudenberg 1999). Confirmed records of flammulated owls include the North and South Thompson valleys and Wheeler Mountain (BC MWLAP 2004). In the east, the flammulated owl is found in the valleys of the Rocky Mountain trench as far north as Radium Hot Springs (van Woudenberg 1999).

Elevational Range In BC, the flammulated owl occurs from approximately 400-1,375 m in elevation, coinciding with the Ponderosa Pine and Interior Douglas-fir Biogeoclimatic zones (van Woudenberg et al. 1995).

Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area British Columbia Within the Wildlife LSA, Flammulated owls are associated with the Northern Thompson Upland, Thompson Basin, Guichon Upland, and Nicola Basin Ecosections of the Southern Interior Ecoprovince (BC MWLAP 2004). The species primarily occurs in the Interior Douglas-fir (IDFdk1, dk2, mw2, xh1, xh2, xh2a) biogeoclimatic zones, and secondarily, the Ponderosa Pine (PPxh2) biogeoclimatic zone (BC MWLAP 2004, PFOWG 2011). They may also occur in the Bunchgrass (BGxh2, xw1) zone in the Cariboo Region.

4.8.3 General Ecology Flammulated owls are associated with Douglas–fir–ponderosa pine forests in the hot and dry regions of south-central BC. Mature or old forest is important habitat for nesting, roosting and foraging (Environment Canada 2012). They are a secondary cavity nester and use either natural cavities or cavities excavated by pileated woodpeckers or northern flickers (Campbell et al. 1990). Nests are located in large trees or snags with natural or previously excavated cavities (van Woudenberg 1992). Mixed Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine stands with multiple layers and a variety of tree ages are used for nesting habitat (COSEWIC 2010a). Low to moderate crown closures appear to be preferred. Crown closures of 15-28% (Manley 2005) have been reported for the East Kootnays and 40-50% has been reported near Kamloops (Christie and van Woudenberg 1997). Ponderosa pine trees appears to be selected over Douglas-fir for nesting, likely because of greater use by pileated woodpeckers and northern flickers (BC MWLAP 2004). Nesting may also occur in aspen.

Nest trees are usually dead snags, although live trees may be used (Environment Canada 2012). Although ponderosa pine trees are preferred for nesting, the Flammulated owl appears to be more abundant in the Interior Douglas-fir biogeoclimatic zone than it is in the Ponderosa Pine zone (Environment Canada 2012), and pure ponderosa pine forests receive relatively little use (Christie and van Woudenberg 1997).

Flammulated owls are insectivorous, eating mostly large insects such as moths, crickets, and beetles. Foraging occurs in flight and prey is either taken in tall grass or shrubs in forest openings or from the forest canopy (BC MWLAP 2004). Openings used for foraging can be natural (e.g., blowdown) or result from forest harvesting (van Woudenberg 1992); however, openings must be small (< 1 ha) and adjacent to thick forest cover for security (BC MWLAP 2004). Foraging generally occurs within 300 m of the nest (BC MWLAP 2004).

Population growth and distribution of the flammulated owl are limited by its low fecundity, unvarying fertility, and dependence on structurally complex, old forests (Booth and Merkens 1998, BC MWLAP 2004, COSEWIC 2010a). Recruitment of large diameter ponderosa pine may be critical for

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-37

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

persistence of local flammulated owl populations. Large diameter trees are more stable than smaller trees and characteristics of ponderosa pine snags may limit the amount of nest predation (BC MWLAP 2004).

The flammulated owl is present in BC during the breeding season from May to September. Clutches are typically laid in June and consist of 2-4 eggs. Young generally fledge during mid-July to mid-August (BC MWLAP 2004). They will reuse the same tree or group of trees in subsequent years, but generally occupy different cavities.

4.8.4 Key Habitat Requirements 4.8.4.1 Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use The life requisite that was rated for the flammulated owl is nesting habitat. Flammulated owls are Neotropical migrants and do not occur in BC during the winter.

Growing Season Nesting Habitat The flammulated owl is a habitat specialist, and the loss or degradation of old heterogeneous stands of Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine has potential to limit populations in BC (COSEWIC 2010a). Suitable habitat has decreased substantially from historical levels as the result of forest harvesting, fire suppression, and, more recently, mountain pine beetle infestation. A nesting habitat suitability model was constructed for flammulated owl for the spring-fall reproductive period. Suitable habitat provides both nesting structures and food.

4.8.5 Limiting Factors The availability of suitable nesting habitat, particularly old-growth Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine, is limiting the abundance of flammulated owls (Environment Canada 2012). Historical forest activities have removed large areas of their preferred old-growth habitat, and historically large snags were removed for safety reasons (Environment Canada 2012). Changes in forestry practices make it difficult to assess the future consequences of current forestry operations (Environment Canada 2012). Fire suppression may also limit the available habitat for flammulated owls, as it often results in ponderosa pine stands being replaced replaced with shade-tolerant Douglas-fir stands, which are generally avoided by this species (Environment Canada 2012).

4.8.6 Model Development There was an intermediate level of knowledge on the habitat requirements of the flammulated owl in BC, therefore a 4-point rating system was used, ranging from High (1) to Nil (4).

4.8.6.1 Provincial Benchmark There is no established provincial benchmark for the flammulated owl in BC; however, hot dry mixed Douglas-fir stands in the southern interior are believed to be optimal habitat for flammulated owls (van Woudenberg 1999).

4.8.6.2 Ratings Assumptions

• Flammulated owls prefer hot dry microclimates, likely due to greater insect availability (van Woudenberg and Christie 2000). They are primarily associated with drier subzones of the Interior Douglas-fir (IDF) biogeoclimatic zone and, secondarily, in the Ponderosa Pine (PP) zone (Environmental Canada 2012). Biogeoclimatic units associated with preferred climatic conditions were rated higher. Maximum ratings for biogeoclimatic units were based on Christie and van Woudenberg (1997): IDFxh2 and IDFxh1 were rated up to High (1); PPxh2 and IDFdk1 were rated up to Moderate (2); IDFdk2 was rated up to Low (3). Remaining units were rated Nil (4).

• Flammulated owls are associated with dry forests (Table 4.8-1); therefore drier forests received greater maximum habitat suitability ratings than wetter units. Moist to wet forests (ranging up to hygric or wetter) were assumed to be unsuitable for nesting and were rated Nil (4). Moisture regime assumptions are consistent with Christie and van Woudenberg (1997) and van Woudenberg and Christie (2000).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-38

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

TABLE 4.8-1

MAXIMUM FLAMMULATED OWL HABITAT SUITABILITY RATING BASED ON TYPICAL SOIL MOISTURE REGIME

Soil Moisture Regime1 Maximum Habitat Rating Xeric – Submesic High (1) Mesic Moderate (2) Subhygric Low (3) Hygric - Hydric Nil (4) Sources: Christie and van Woudenberg (1997), van Woudenberg and Christie (2000) Note: - Soil moisture regime is based on typical conditions for a TEM based ecosystem unit. Categories are typically based on the upper range of the moisture regime category.

• Douglas-fir dominated stands with a secondary layer of ponderosa pine is optimal habitat for flammulated owls. Stands with typical seral associations of Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine were rated up to High (1). Douglas-fir monospecific stands were downgraded by one rating level (to a minimum of Moderate [2]); Douglas-fir stands with a substantial deciduous component were downgraded by one rating value (to a minimum of Low [3]); and units not dominated by either Douglas-fir or containing a mixture of Douglas-fir/ponderosa pine were rated Nil (4).

• Christie and van Woudenberg (1997) rated stands with age class < 5 (i.e., ≤ 80 years) as unsuitable; age class 5 (81 – 100 years) up to low; age class 6-7 (101-140 years) up to moderate; and age class 8-9 (≥ 141 years) up to high. TEM mapping for the project cannot be used to determine stand age, but it does include a correlate, structural stage. Consistent with Christie and van Woudenberg (1997), structural stages 1-5 (which are typically all < 80 years) were rated Nil (4), while structural stage 6-7 were rated up to High (1). These ratings are precautionary since structural stage 6 likely contains stands that are too young to support flammulated owls. No attempt was made to separate structural stage 6 and 7 because of the difficulty in distinguishing these classes using aerial interpretation.

• Stands with a cool aspect or a very steep atypical modifier (i.e., TEM modifiers k,q,z) (RIC 1998) were reduced to Nil (4).

• Elevation was not used to adjust ratings because (1) it is correlated to biogeoclimatic units and, therefore, already considered, and (2) it is likely that observed variation in use of different elevations reported by others (e.g., Christie and van Woudenberg 1997) is correlated to forest cover properties already considered, rather than actual selection for specific elevational ranges. Likewise, ratings were not adjusted for crown closure since this is not a component of TEM mapping; however, closure is expected to be correlated with the other elements of the ecosystem unit that were used for assigning habitat ratings (e.g., drier sites are more open).

4.8.6.3 Ratings Adjustments The flammulated owl appears tolerant of human activity, and evidence for a response to disturbance is lacking (Environment Canada 2012). However, since auditory cues are important for foraging, mating, and territorial defense, some degree of response to intense anthropogenic noise is likely (Barber et al. 2009); in addition, mortaility associated with roads may reduce the suitability of this habitat irrespective of noise disturbance (Forman and Alexander 1998, Summers et al. 2011). Thresholds of intensity, duration, and proximity for anthropogenic disturbances have not been established (Environment Canada 2012). Instead, a generic zone of influence of up to 300 m was assumed for roads and other noise-generating features, wherein habitat suitability ratings were downgraded. A zone of influence of up to 300 m around roads and other intense anthropogenic disturbances is broadly supported by studies of avian communities in other regions (Bayne et al. 2008, Forman and Alexander 1998, Palomino and Carrascal 2007). Adjustments for sensory disturbance applied to the flammulated owl model were conservative because there was limited information to support more aggressive reductions, and greater reductions would potentially underestimate potential Project effects by eliminating suitable habitat prior to the inclusion of Project-related disturbances.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-39

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

4.9 Lewis’s Woodpecker 4.9.1 Status The Lewis’s woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis, B-LEWO) is Red-listed in BC (BC CDC 2013) and is designated as Threatened on Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC (Environment Canada 2013a). Based on surveys in 2006 and 2007, the BC population is estimated to be 315 to 460 breeding pairs (Environment Canada 2011). Population trends in the East Kootenay Trench show an estimated 22% decline in this species from 1997 to 2007 (COSEWIC 2010b). Breeding Bird Surveys show a general decline in sightings of this species in BC (Environment Canada 2013b).

4.9.2 Distribution The Lewis’s woodpecker breeding range is restricted to western North America, from New Mexico to the central interior of BC. Over-wintering occurs as far north as Oregon and as far south as Mexico (BC MWLAP 2004).

4.9.2.1 Provincial Range Alberta The Lewis’s woodpecker is considered a vagrant species in Alberta (COSEWIC 2010b) and is not found within the Wildlife RSA in Alberta. Occasional occurrences have been recorded in the foothills and lower mountain slopes, and the last breeding record is from 1946 (COSEWIC 2010b).

British Columbia Lewis’s woodpeckers occur in the interior of the province, including the Thompson and Okanagan valleys, Boundary area, and the Fraser basin. A few records also occur in the West Kootenays and the East Kootenay Trench (COSEWIC 2010b). As of 2007, there were 10-20 breeding pairs in the Cariboo Region, 75-125 pairs in the Thompson-Nicola Region, and 160-200 pairs in the Okanagan-Boundary Region (COSEWIC 2010b). It was once an abundant breeder in the Lower Mainland, but the last breeding record is from 1964. Individuals, most likely juveniles, are still observed in the Lower Mainland after the breeding season (BC MWLAP 2004, COSEWIC 2010b). Lewis’s woodpeckers have also been recorded at Wells Gray Park, but there are no recent records from this area (COSEWIC 2010b). Individuals have been observed in mature cottonwood stands in the Robson Valley of east-central BC, although breeding there has not been documented (BC MWLAP 2004). Some birds may overwinter in residential areas and orchards within the southern Okanagan.

4.9.2.2 Elevational Range Lewis’s woodpeckers are found from 250-1,160 m elevation; all nests that have been found above 1,000 m have been in burns (Campbell et al. 1990, Cooper and Beauchesne 2000).

4.9.2.3 Distribution Relative to the Wildlife LSA British Columbia Lewis’s woodpeckers are found in the Northern Thompson Upland, Thompson Basin, Guichon Upland, and Nicola Basin Ecosections of the Southern Interior Ecoprovince. Lewis’s woodpeckers were historically found in the Fraser Lowland Ecosection of the Georgia Depression Ecoprovince. Within the Wildlife LSA, Lewis’s woodpeckers may occur in the Bunchgrass (BGxh2, xw1), Ponderosa Pine (PPxh2), Interior Douglas-fir (IDFxh1,xh2, xh2a, mw2, dk1, dk2), and possibly the Montane Spruce (MSdm2) biogeoclimatic zones (BC MWLAP 2004, Gyug 2010a).

4.9.3 General Ecology Lewis’s woodpeckers use cavities in large trees for nesting and the surrounding areas for foraging. The same cavity is often occupied in consecutive years (COSEWIC 2010b). Provided there is suitable foraging habitat and a suitable nest tree, they will occupy habitat with tree crown closure ranging from < 1-30% (COSEWIC 2010b). An average live tree canopy coverage of 6.63% was reported for the South Okanagan Valley (Zhu et al. 2012). Cottonwood stands with a high tree density may be occupied if they

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-40

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

are adjacent to open habitat (BC MWLAP 2004). Open habitat used by Lewis’s woodpecker is often the result of fires, and they will often occupy snags within burned stands (Vierling et al. 2013). An important component of habitat suitability is the presence of a well developed understory providing suitable foraging opportunities (insects, berries). An average shrub cover of 16.5% was reported for the East Kootenay Trench (BC MWLAP 2004) and 14.9% for the South Okanagan Valley (Zhu et al. 2012).

Lewis’s woodpeckers take advantage of seasonally changing food resources; as a consequence, diets can vary widely throughout the year. Large open areas are required to provide enough space and visibility for aerial pursuit of flying insects (BC MWLAP 2004). The diet of the Lewis’s woodpecker also includes ants, acorns and other nuts, seeds, and berries, much of which is stashed under bark crevasses for consumption in fall before migration (Vierling et al. 2013). In the Okanagan Valley, various tree fruits, including cherries, apples, and peaches, are also incorporated into the diet (BC MWLAP 2004). Summer foraging is primarily via aerial flycatching and hawking or surface gleaning.

Migrants arrive in BC in May. Clutches of 2-8 eggs are produced in May and June, and fledging occurs in July or August. Return migration takes place in August or early September (BC MWLAP 2004).

4.9.4 Key Habitat Requirements 4.9.4.1 Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use The life requisite and season of use rated for Lewis’s woodpeckers were nesting habitat used during the growing season. Lewis’s woodpecker is a migratory species and is only present in the BC during the breeding season.

Growing Season Nesting Habitat The Lewis’s woodpecker typically nests in open areas with low tree densities, and is typically found in three habitat types: open forest or shrub-steppe/grassland with scattered trees (especially ponderosa pine); riparian cottonwood forests adjacent to open areas; and burns (COSEWIC 2010b, Vierling et al. 2013). They nest in the cavities of trees, especially within ponderosa pine, black cottonwood, and Douglas-fir (BC MWLAP 2004). Western larch, trembling aspen and paper birch may also be suitable, and utility poles have been used as nest sites when close to good foraging grounds (Cooper and Beauchesne 2000). Lewis’s woodpeckers are weak cavity excavators; they can excavate their own nest cavity, but often use natural cavities or holes excavated by other woodpeckers (Cooper and Beauchesne 2000). In cases where Lewis’s woodpeckers excavate their own cavity, they require nest trees with more advanced decay than other species of woodpecker (COSEWIC 2010b); trees suitable for self-excavation tend to be rare in most areas (COSEWIC 2010b). Large diameter decaying snags are often ideal for nest cavity excavation by Lewis’s woodpecker, and are important components of breeding habitat (BC MWLAP 2004). Nest stands have been reported to have a higher density of suitable nest cavities than adjacent random stands (Zhu et al. 2012). Reported mean nest tree diameter, regardless of species, is approximately 52 cm, with aspen and birch having the lowest mean diameters (Cooper and Beauchesne 2000).

4.9.5 Limiting Factors The loss or degradation of suitable breeding habitat is believed to be a limiting factor for Lewis’s woodpeckers in BC (COSEWIC 2010b). Habitat has been substantially reduced as a result of fire suppression (resulting in the growth of dense forest stands), removal of snags for safety reasons, intensifying agricultural practices, over-grazing, urbanization, commercial forestry (especially the selective removal of ponderosa pine and replanting of dense stands), harvesting trees for firewood, and industrial development (COSEWIC 2010b, Vierling et al. 2013).

4.9.6 Model Development The habitat model for Lewis’s woodpecker focuses on stand characteristics known to be important for supporting nesting birds, including foraging and nest structures. A 6-point rating scheme was used for the Lewis’s woodpecker in BC, ranging from High (1) to Nil (6).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-41

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Ecosystem ratings defined by Gyug (2010a) were considered when establishing TEM-based ratings for Lewis’s woodpecker. However, complete replication of Gyug’s (2010a) approach was not possible because it was based on the BEI, whereas TEM-based data were available for the Project assessment. Differences in the level of detail and resolution between the BEI and Project-specific TEM often necessitated independent ratings. For example, the BEI class “Big Sagebrush Shrub/Grassland” often contains a small component of ponderosa pine, whereas with Project TEM mapping, these trees would be classified as separate (tree-bearing) ecosystem units, resulting in most bunchgrass ecosystem units not having suitable cavity trees. Nonetheless, both approaches would correctly identify the value of ponderosa pine grasslands.

4.9.6.1 Provincial Benchmark

• Ecosection: Southern Okanagan Basin; Southern Okanagan Highland (Haney and Iverson 2009, Gyug 2010a).

• Biogeoclimatic Zone: PP, BG.

• Habitats: Open ponderosa pine stands with old/large ponderosa pine; burned ponderosa pine stands; cottonwood stands. Stands must contain large snags.

4.9.6.2 Ratings Assumptions Growing Season Nesting Habitat • BGC ecosystem unit ratings follow Gyug 2010a: ICHdw3, ICHmk2, IDFdk1, IDFdk2, IDFmw2, IDFmw2b, and MSdm2 were rated up to Very Low (5); IDFxh1, IDFxh2, and IDFxh2a were rated up to Low (4); BGxw1 was rated up to Moderate (3). PPxh2 was rated up to Moderately-High (2); BGxh2 was rated up to High (1); and other ecosystem units were rated Nil (6).

• Stands with typical climax communities containing ponderosa pine were rated up to High (1); cottonwood stands were rated up to Moderate (3); Douglas-fir dominated stands (without ponderosa pine or cottonwood) were rated up to Very Low (5). Most other stands were rated Nil (6). Stands with signs of fire were rated two levels higher (to the maximum for the BGC variant), so that stands containing burned ponderosa pine or cottonwood were rated up to High (1), and fire damaged pure Douglas-fir stands were rated up to Moderate (3).

• Because Lewis’s woodpecker nesting habitat often has very low tree density, structural stage was assumed to be an unreliable indicator of whether suitable nest trees occur. However, ignoring structural stage would have resulted in excessive over rating or under rating of habitat suitability. Therefore, the following approach was adopted: (1) Bunchgrass Grassland or Shrub-Steppe ecosystem units that typically do not have tree cover at climax successional stages were rated up to Very Low (5) to accommodate the possibility that ponderosa occurs, but likely at too low a density to be used for nesting. Structural stage 2 – 4 communities that would have suitable conditions at climax were downgraded a single unit – residual older trees often still occur in these stands but the availability of nest trees was assumed to be more limited. Structural stage 1 (non-vegetated) ecosystem units were rated Nil (6) since these were typically non-vegetated anthropogenic disturbances. Structural stages 5-7 were assumed to have suitable trees and retained their rating.

• Anthropogenic Units (rural, urban, cultivated fields, tame pasture, hay) were rated Nil (6) if structural stage 1 to 4. Units with structural stage 5 or greater were rated up to Moderately-High (2) for Tame Pasture and Cultivated Fields; up to Moderate (3) for rural and Very Low (5) for urban. Grazing zooclimax was rated up to Moderately-High (2). (Note: only treed anthropogenic units within suitable BGC variants would receive ratings of Moderate (3) or greater, and, therefore, would have high potential to have suitable nest tree species).

• Floodplains were assumed to contain cottonwood if forested; other wetlands were rated Nil (6).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-42

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

4.9.6.3 Ratings Adjustments Ratings were adjusted based on elevation following Gyug (2010a). Elevations < 800 m retained their rating. Stands with average elevations 800 – < 900 m were downgraded, if necessary, to a maximum rating of Moderately-High (2). Stands with an average elevation of 900 - <1,100 were downgraded to Low (4). Stands with an average elevation of 1,100 - <1,300 m were downgraded to Very Low (5) if south of 50°N latitude, or Nil (6) otherwise. All stands ≥ 1,300 m were rated Nil.

The Lewis’s woodpecker is generally tolerant of disturbance. The primary impact of human activities is likely through direct habitat loss. However, Lewis’s woodpecker is known to abandon its nest if continuously disturbed (COSEWIC 2010b). It was assumed that high levels of noise would reduce habitat quality by impeding intra-specific communication or predator detection. Therefore, ratings were downgraded by one level within 100 m of intense disturbances (e.g. primary roads, industrial facilities).

4.10 Williamson’s Sapsucker 4.10.1 Status There are two recognized subspecies of Williamson’s sapsucker (Sphyrapicus thyroideus, B-WISA) in BC: S.t. nataliae and S.t. thyroideus. The Williamson’s sapsucker is Blue-listed in BC (BC CDC 2013). The thyroideus ssp.is listed as Endangered on Schedule 1 of SARA and Endangered by COSEWIC (Environment Canada 2013a). The nataliae ssp. occurs outside the Wildlife LSA and will not be considered further in this assessment. Based on inventory data from 2007, the estimated population in BC is 460-1000 breeding birds (BC MOE 2012b). There are no reliable trend data for the Canadian population, but in Oregon, where it has been assessed, this species has declined at an average rate of 3.3% per year from 1980 to 2003 (COSEWIC 2005).

4.10.2 Distribution The range of the Williamson’s sapsucker extends from BC in the north to New Mexico in the south. It is distributed throughout the western mountain ranges in the United States and its distribution is largely fragmented (COSEWIC 2005).

4.10.2.1 Provincial Range Alberta The species is considered a vagrant in Alberta.

British Columbia The Williamson’s sapsucker is rare and uncommon across its range in BC and has a much more restricted distribution than other sapsuckers found in the province (BC MWLAP 2004). The range of Williamson’s sapsuckers has expanded to the north and east since 1938, and the first observation near Kamloops was not until the 1990s (COSEWIC 2005). Williamson’s sapsuckers are restricted to the Southern Interior, where they occur over an approximately 2,296 km² area. There are three main populations of Williamson’s sapsucker in BC: the Western population, Okanagan-Boundary population, and East Kootenay population (BC MOE 2012b). The highest breeding density occurs in the Okanagan- Boundary population (Gyug et al. 2007). Nests have been found as far west as Lytton (BC MWLAP 2004), but most nesting records in the western population occur near Merritt (Gyug et al. 2007).

4.10.2.2 Elevational Range Across the entire BC range, Williamson’s sapsucker nest trees have been located from approximately 600-1,550 m elevation (Gyug et al. 2007). In the western population, nests have been located from 800-1,350 m elevation, with with most observations being below 1,150 m elevation.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-43

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

4.10.2.3 Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area British Columbia The Wildlife LSA includes a portion of the western population of the Williamson’s sapsucker (thyroideus ssp.). This population is concentrated in the Nicola Basin Ecosection (Gyug 2010b). A few observations of Williamson’s sapsucker have been reported outside the Wildlife LSA, in the Thompson Basin, Guichon upland, and Hozameen Range Ecosections (BC MWLAP 2004, Gyug 2010b). Suitable habitat in the Wildlife LSA is assumed to be restricted to the designated Williamson’s sapsucker area of occupancy, which occurs from RK 336 to RK 956, and is entirely within the Nicola Basin (Gyug 2010b).

4.10.3 General Ecology The Williamson’s sapsucker is found in coniferous or mixed deciduous mountain forests at mid to high elevations. They are strongly associated with forests containing Western Larch where it occurs, and show strong selection for large-diameter partially decaying western larch as nest trees (Gyug et al. 2009b). They may also occupy montane spruce-fir, Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine forests (BC MWLAP 2004). Western larch is not available for the western population, and instead they nest extensively in trembling aspen within mixed trembling aspen forest. Of 73 nests located for the western population from 1995-2008, 56 were in trembling aspen, 11 were in ponderosa pine, and 6 were in Douglas-fir (Gyug et al. 2009b). The aspen nest trees had an average diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) of 33 cm and were approximately 90-130 years old. In other areas of BC, black cottonwood, water birch, and hybrid white spruce/Englemann spruce have also been used as nest trees (Gyug et al. 2009b). Conifers used as nest trees tend to be larger and older than deciduous nest trees, owing to their larger maximum size, longer lifespan, and slower decay. Nest trees may be in closed forest, open forest, and natural or anthropogenic openings; however, when occupying openings, they are almost always near (i.e., < 140 m) a forested area (COSEWIC 2005). They do not occupy isolated trees within openings or small remnant patches of aspen within non-forested habitat (COSEWIC 2005, Gyug et al. 2012). Nest productivity (i.e., number fledged per nest) is reduced in open stands with low tree density; in particular, when tree density goes below 85 trees/ha in the breeding territory (Gyug et al. 2010).

Foraging sites may range up to 460 m from the nesting sites, but are typically < 100 m from the nest tree (COSEWIC 2005, Gyug et al. 2009a). The diet of the Williamson’s sapsucker is largely conifer sap and phloem during the pre-nesting period (COSEWIC 2005). During the breeding season, when nestlings are present, ants (especially carpenter ants or wood ants) or other arthropods become the primary food source (BC MWLAP 2004, Gyug et al. 2012). Downed trees, stumps and snags become important habitat components during these times as they are preferred by carpenter ants (COSEWIC 2005). These habitat components are often associated with older forest. The availability of sap trees is not believed to be limiting for Williamson’s sapsucker because these trees are younger and generally abundant (BC MOE 2012b, Gyug et al. 2009a). Forage trees are typically live conifers (e.g., Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, western larch, lodgepole pine), but also includes snags and aspen (Gyug et al. 2009a, Gyug et al. 2012).

The Williamson’s sapsucker arrives on its breeding grounds in BC in April (Campbell et al. 1990). Males establish breeding territories and mating pairs may reuse nest trees in successive years, but each year a new nest cavity is used (BC MWLAP 2004).

4.10.4 Key Habitat Requirements 4.10.4.1 Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use The life requisite and season of use rated for the Williamson’s sapsucker was nesting habitat used during the breeding season. Williamson’s sapsuckers are migratory and are only present in the Wildlife LSA during the breeding season (Gyug et al. 2012).

Growing Season Nesting Habitat Habitat with suitable nest sites is believed to be the primary limiting factor for Williamson’s sapsucker in Canada (COSEWIC 2005, Gyug et al. 2012). Older stands are most likely to contain abundant forage (especially ants) and large-diameter decaying trees (needed for nesting). Retention of western larch forests are a primary conservation concern for the species, but suitable habitat still occurs in older stands

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-44

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

containing trembling aspen, ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir (Gyug et al. 2012). The potential loss of old forest as a result of short-rotation forestry and industrial development is a management concern (COSEWIC 2005).

4.10.5 Limiting Factors The abundance and distribution of large-diameter veteran western larch trees has been suggested as a factor limiting Williamson’s sapsucker distribution in BC (BC MWLAP 2004). Timber removal (e.g., from foresty harvesting) is a concern for Williamson’s sapsucker, as timber removal rates tend to be higher than the rate of old-growth replacement (Cooper 1995).

4.10.6 Model Development The nesting habitat model for Williamson’s sapsucker was adapted from the Final Nest VRI attribute Model (Feb 2010) described in Gyug (2010b). This model is based on a 6-Point rating scheme; however, habitat suitability within the Wildlife LSA is well below the provincial benchmark, resulting in a maximum rating of Moderate (3). Model results from Gyug (2010b), were modified to incorporate the direct footprint of the updated disturbance layer compiled for the Project, as well as anticipated disturbance zones of influence.

4.10.6.1 Provincial Benchmark IDFdm1 within the South Okanagan Basin/North Okanagan Highlands Ecosections (Gyug 2010b).

4.10.6.2 Ratings Adjustments The Williamson’s sapsucker is generally tolerant of disturbance and often forages near or within forest openings (Gyug et al. 2012). The primary impact of human activities is likely through direct habitat loss and the removal of large dead or decaying trees. However, it was assumed that high levels of noise would reduce habitat quality by impeding intra-specific communication or predator detection. Therefore, areas within 100 m of highways and other similarly noisy facilities were reduced in quality.

Preliminary model ratings were adjusted based on the disturbance layer compiled for the Project. Unlike with TEM-based models, which already incorporate existing disturbances, the VRI-based Williamson’s sapsucker model was adjusted to include reductions within the footprint of existing disturbances; these adjustments are in addition to potential Project disturbances and other future disturbances included in the cumulative effects assessment for the Project. Most anthropogenic disturbances remove tree cover, and, therefore, the footprint of these disturbances was rated Nil (6).

4.11 Western Screech-Owl 4.11.1 Status The western screech-owl (Megascops kennicottii macfarlanei ssp., B-WSOW) is Red-listed in BC (BC CDC 2013) and is listed as Endangered on Schedule 1 of SARA and designated as Threatened by COSEWIC (Environment Canada 2013a). It is estimated that 50-200 owls inhabit a range of 22,000 km² in the interior region, mostly within the Okanagan and lower Similkameen valleys (COSEWIC 2002c, Western Screech-Owl, macfarlanei subspecies Recovery Team [WSORT] 2008). The provincial population estimate is 350-500 individuals (COSEWIC 2012e). The kennicotti ssp. (Megascops kennicottii kennicottii, B-WSOW) is Blue-listed in BC (BC CDC 2013), is listed as Special Concern on Schedule 1 of SARA and has been designated as Threatened by COSEWIC (Environment Canada 2013a). Approximately 3,000-10,000 owls inhabit the 50,000 km² area along the southern coast of BC and about 10 breeding pairs inhabit the Greater Vancouver area (COSEWIC 2002c). More recent population surveys for the kennicottii subspecies estimate 1,500 to 3,000 individuals in BC (COSEWIC 2012e). Populations appear to be declining in the southern coastal area (COSEWIC 2012e).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-45

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

4.11.2 Distribution 4.11.2.1 Provincial Range Alberta The western screech-owl is considered a vagrant in Alberta (COSEWIC 2002c).

British Columbia The western screech-owl, macfarlanei ssp. is found in the dry southern interior of the province. Most of this population occurs in the Okanagan Valley; however, breeding pairs can be found in the Thompson Valley from Chase to Spences Bridge and a new western screech-owl observation was acoustically detected near Merritt in 2007 (Ferguson and Iredale 2007). There are also recorded occurrences in the south Kootenays near Creston (BC MWLAP 2004).

The kennicottii ssp. is found on the BC coast and Vancouver Island. Its range extends east to Chilliwack on the Lower Mainland (COSEWIC 2012e); the highest frequency of occurrence was in the Fraser Valley and owls were recorded in Langley, Surrey, and Aldergrove (Robertson et al. 2000). A population in the Campbell Valley was extirpated (COSEWIC 2002c).

4.11.2.2 Elevational Range The western screech-owl occurs below 600 m, with nests generally occurring below 540 m (Campbell et al. 1990).

4.11.2.3 Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area British Columbia The western screech-owl, macfarlanei ssp. occurs in the North Thompson Upland, Thompson Basin, Guichon Upland, and Nicola Basin Ecosections of the Southern Interior Ecoprovince. Within the Wildlife LSA, the western screech-owl occurs in the Bunchgrass (BGxh2, xw1), Ponderosa Pine (PPxh2) and Interior Douglas-fir (IDFxh1, xh2, mw2, dk1, dk2) biogeoclimatic zones.

The kennicottii ssp. occurs in the Northwestern Cascade Ranges of the Coast and Mountains Ecoprovince and the Fraser Lowland Ecosection of the Georgia Depression Ecoprovince. In the Wildlife LSA in these ecosections, the western screech-owl occurs in the Coastal Western Hemlock (CWHdm, xm1) biogeoclimatic zone.

4.11.3 General Ecology In BC, the western screech-owl is a non-migratory, territorial bird found in woodland habitats, generally at low-elevation and near riparian habitat (BC MWLAP 2004, Campbell et al. 1990). The western screech-owl is a generalist predator and will feed on small mammals, birds, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. It is a nocturnal forager, and prey use appears to be opportunistic (COSEWIC 2012e).

Western screech owls likely form monogamous pair-bonds, and they may begin breeding as early as one year of age (COSEWIC 2002c). Females lay their eggs between March and late May, and the breeding pair tends to a single brood per year (BC MWLAP 2004). Owlets stay in the nest until as late as August before dispersing. The breeding lifespan for screech owls is relatively short, with one study in Idaho reporting average male and female lifespands of 1.83 abd 1.73 years (COSEWIC 2002c).

The western screech-owl nests in secondary or natural tree cavities; nest boxes are sometimes used where they are provided (COSEWIC 2012e). Nesting usually occurs in larger diameter trees (> 25 cm). Cavities are also used for roosting, and at least two suitable roost cavities are required (one for each of the mated pair) (COSEWIC 2012e). Preferred nesting habitat usually occurs within old forests, as these are most likely to contain abundant and suitable tree cavities (COSEWIC 2012e).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-46

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

4.11.4 Key Habitat Requirements 4.11.4.1 Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use The life requisite that was rated for the western screech-owl, (macfarlanei spp. and kennicottii spp.) is nesting habitat and is described in detail below. As a secondary cavity nester, the availability of suitable nesting trees is a limiting factor for this species.

Growing Season Nesting Habitat Western screech-owls use mature mixedwood or deciduous forests in close proximity to riparian habitat. Western screech-owls prefer to nest in black cottonwood, trembling aspen, and waterbirch, likely because these species have a natural tendancy to form cavities. Coniferous trees are also used, especially when there are nesting cavities previously made by pileated woodpecker or northern flicker (Cannings and Davis 2007). The macfarlanei subspecies is primarily restricted to riparian cottonwood, whereas the kennicottii subspecies appears to be less restricted to riparian areas (COSEWIC 2012e). Availability of conifers is important for the kennicottii subspecies (COSEWIC 2012e), and this preference may be driven by the wetter coastal climate which it inhabits. Both subspecies typically nest in trees with a degree of decay or heartrot (BC MWLAP 2004).

4.11.5 Limiting Factors Western screech-owls are secondary cavity nesters and, as a result, the availability of suitable nesting habitat is often limited. This limitation is reinforced by their need for at least two nest cavities per breeding pair (BC MWLAP 2004, Cannings and Davis 2007). Habitat loss is the primary threat to the macfarlanei ssp. in the Southern interior of BC; an estimated 50% of its habitat has already been lost and the majority of the remaining habitat is degraded (BC MWLAP 2004). The kennicottii subspecies faces similar limitations (COSEWIC 2012e), but given that it is not as restricted to riparian areas (which are often preferred by humans for agriculture and urbanization), this subspecies is likely buffered from the effects of human development.

4.11.6 Model Development There was an intermediate level of knowledge on the habitat requirements of the western screech-owl, macfarlanei ssp. and kennicottii ssp. in BC. Therefore a 4-point rating system was used, ranging from High (1) to Nil (4).

4.11.6.1 Provincial Benchmark Macfarlanei ssp. • Ecosection: Southern Okanagan Basin.

• Biogeoclimatic Units: Bunchgrass (BGxh), Ponderosa Pine (PPxh).

• Habitat: low-elevation (< 600 m) mature to old riparian forests (Sarell and Haney 2003).

4.11.6.2 Ratings Assumptions Macfarlanei ssp. • Nesting habitat is most often associated with riparian cottonwood and birch (Table 4.11-1). Stands associated with any amount of cottonwood or birch were rated up to High (1). Deciduous and mixed stands lacking cottonwood or birch were rated up to Moderate (2). Pure coniferous stands were rated up to Low (3).

• Western screech-owls are dependent on mature or old forest (Table 4.11-1). Structural stages 6 and 7 were assumed to be optimal and rated up to High (1). Structural stage 5 may still have patches of older trees and was rated up to Moderate (2). Structural stages 1-4 were assumed to be unsuitable and rated Nil (4).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-47

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

• Old burns and pine beetle affected stands that retain living late seral trees are likely to provide high quality nesting habitat for screech owls. Therefore, such stands were upgraded by one rating value.

• Fens and bogs were assumed to have low availability of suitable nest trees and, therefore, they were rated up to Low (3).

• Floodplains are often associated with riparian cottonwood stands, so deciduous or mixed stands within floodplains were rated up to High (1) if structural stage 6-7 or up to Moderate (2) for structural stage 5.

• The following biogeoclimatic zones and variants were assumed to be capable of supported the macfarlanei subspeces: BG (xh1, xh2, xh2a, xw, xw1), PP (dh1, dh2, xh1, xh2, xh2a), IDF (dk1, dk2, dk3, dm1, mw1, mw2, mw2b, xh1, xh1a, xh2, xw), and ICH (dw, mw2, xw) (BC MWLAP 2004). Other biogeoclimatic variants found along the Wildlife LSA were rated Nil (4).

• Forested rural and urban areas were rated up to Low (3).

TABLE 4.11-1

WESTERN SCREECH-OWL, MACFARLANEI NESTING HABITAT MAXIMUM RATINGS

Cottonwood or Birch Deciduous or Mixed Structural Stage Stands Stands Pure Coniferous 6 – 7 (mature/old) High (1) Moderate (2) Low (3) 5 (young) Moderate (2) Low (3) Low (3) 1 – 4 (up to Pole/Sapling) Nil (4) Nil (4) Nil (4)

Kennicottii ssp. • The kennicotti subspecies uses a variety of forest types but is most associated with mixed forests (Table 4.11-2). Nesting often occurs in deciduous trees (especially cottonwood or bigleaf maple), but the proportion of deciduous content in the stand may be small (COSEWIC 2012e). Conifers appear important as security cover. Therefore mixed and coniferous forest was rated up to High (1), while pure deciduous forest was rated up to Moderate (2).

• Western screech-owls are dependent on mature or old forest (Table 4.11-2). Structural stages 6 and 7 were assumed to be optimal and rated up to High (1). Structural stage 5 may still have patches of older trees and was rated up to Moderate (2). Structural stages 1-4 were assumed to be unsuitable and rated Nil (4).

• Fens and bogs were assumed to have low availability of suitable nest trees. Therefore, they were rated up to Low (3).

• Within the Wildlife LSA, the kennicotti subspecies is restricted to the Fraser Lowland, Northwestern Cascade Ranges, and Eastern Pacific Ranges.

• Forested rural and urban areas were rated up to Low (3).

TABLE 4.11-2

WESTERN SCREECH-OWL, KENNICOTTII NESTING HABITAT MAXIMUM RATINGS

Structural Stage Mixed or Coniferous Forest Pure Deciduous 6 – 7 (mature/old) High (1) Moderate (2) 5 (young) Moderate (2) Low (3) 1 – 4 (up to Pole/Sapling) Nil (4) Nil (4)

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-48

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

4.11.6.3 Ratings Adjustments Both Subspecies • A digital elevation model was used to modify the ratings based on elevation. Ecosystem units above 600 m elevation were reduced to Nil (4).

• The western screech-owl appears tolerant of human activity and has been found to use suburban habitats. Inadequate species-specific information is available to determine the species’ response to anthropogenic noise. However, excessive noise was assumed to reduce habitat quality since owls are at least partially reliant on acoustic cues for foraging and communication. Therefore, habitat suitability was reduced in areas of potential habitat when they were within 100 m of highways, compressor stations and other excessively noisy structures.

4.12 Great Blue Heron 4.12.1 Status Two subspecies of great blue heron (Ardea herodias, B-GBHE) occur in the Wildlife LSA. A.h. fannini is Blue-listed in BC and has a Conservation Framework Priority of 1 under Goal 3 (BC CDC 2013). The fannini ssp. is designated as Special Concern on Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC (Environment Canada 2013a). A.h. herodias is also Blue-listed in BC (BC CDC 2013). The herodias ssp. has no federal listing (Environment Canada 2013a).

The highest density of herons is found in the Lower Mainland, as the population is resident and supplemented by visiting migrants stopping over in the spring and fall (BC MWLAP 2004). It is estimated that there are 3,000 to 6,000 birds in the BC population of A.h. fannini, however, it appears that the population has decreased from historical levels. Breeding bird surveys indicate a 5.7% decline from 1966 to 1994 (Gebauer and Moul 2001). The interior subspecies, A.h. herodias, appears to have increased from historical levels, with a current estimated population size of 300 to 700 birds (Gebauer and Moul 2001).

4.12.2 Distribution Great blue herons breed in North America from southern Alaska to Mexico and from the east coast to the west coast (NatureServe 2013). Overwintering occurs in southern BC and the United States, south to Panama, Columbia and Venezuela (Gebauer and Moul 2001).

4.12.2.1 Provincial Range Alberta A.h. herodias is the only subspecies found in Alberta. Herons breed in the central and southern parts of the province, east of the foothills. The northernmost breeding colony occurs at Lake Claire in Wood Buffalo National Park (Semenchuk 1992).

British Columbia The great blue heron occurs throughout BC and the coastal islands.

A.h. fannini is resident year-round in the south-eastern area of Vancouver Island, the southern Gulf Islands and the Fraser Lowlands as far east as Hope (COSEWIC 2008b).

A.h. herodias is migratory, breeding in the interior of the province. Key areas of the breeding distribution in BC include the Chilcotin plateau surrounding William’s Lake, the Thompson-Okanagan valleys, the north Coast near Kitimat, and the Kootenay Trench. The Queen Charlotte Islands and areas along the coast serve as stop-over areas during migration (Gebauer and Moul 2001).

4.12.2.2 Elevational Range Great blue herons occur from sea level to 1,100 m, with most breeding at sea level or in the valley bottoms in the interior (BC MWLAP 2004).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-49

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

4.12.2.3 Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area Alberta The great blue heron breeds in the Central Parkland, Dry Mixedwood, and Central Mixedwood Natural Subregions.

British Columbia The great blue heron breeds in the following ecosections of the Wildlife LSA: the Fraser Lowland and Strait of Georgia in the Georgia Depression Ecoprovince; the Northern Cascade Ranges and Eastern Pacific Ranges in the Coast and Mountains Ecoprovince; the North Thompson Upland, Thompson Basin, Guichon Upland, Nicola Basin in the Southern Interior Ecoprovince; and the Cariboo Plateau in the Central Interior Ecoprovince. The species occurs in the Coastal Western Hemlock (CWHdm, xm1), Bunchgrass (BGxw1), Ponderosa Pine (PPxh2), Interior Douglas-fir (IDFxh1, xh2, mw2), and Interior Cedar-Hemlock (ICHmk2) biogeoclimatic zones.

4.12.3 General Ecology Resident herons live year-round in the estuarine mudflats and eelgrass beds of the Fraser River Delta. Great blue herons primarily prey on fish but they are known to eat crustaceans, gastropods, amphibians and small mammals. Foraging habitat outside of the delta and through the interior of the heron’s range include ocean shoreline, wetlands, marshes, ponds, lakes, rivers and flooded fields (BC MWLAP 2004).

Breeding begins for resident birds as early as February. Incoming migrants breed in late March, soon after arrival in the breeding grounds (Semenchuk 1992). Herons form monogamous breeding pairs, which produce one to eight eggs. Nest construction is elaborate and can take one day to one month to complete (BC MWLAP 2004).

Great blue herons are colonial breeders. There is a degree of nest site fidelity, and males will reclaim nesting sites used in the previous year and defend their territory.

Great blue heron nesting sites are typically located in mature forested areas that are within 10 km of a marsh or wetland that is used for foraging (BC MWLAP 2004). Black cottonwood and red alder are two of the most commonly used species for nesting, while bigleaf maple, lodgepole pine, and Douglas-fir are used to a lesser extent (BC MWLAP 2004); both live and dead trees are used (Semenchuck 1992).

Nests are constructed high in mature trees. The nest is a platform constructed of interlaced twigs (Semenchuk 1992). Nests are reused year after year and repaired and added to as necessary. The centre of the nest is a shallow depression lined with small twigs, bark strips, rushes, evergreen boughs, lichen and moss. Old nests can be up to 1 m across (Gebauer and Moul 2001).

4.12.4 Limiting Factors Great blue herons are relatively sensitive to disturbance. In the Strait of Georgia, available nesting habitat for herons has declined due to logging- and urbanization-related disturbances. Human disturbance can result in nest desertion and abandonment, and heron colonies subjected to frequent disturbance raise fewer fledglings than colonies with no disturbance (Butler et al. 1995, Carlson and McLean 1996). Corvids and bald eagles prey upon eggs and chicks when the opportunity arises (Moul 1990) and their populations have grown in the Fraser River delta (Butler and Campbell 1987, Butler et al. 1995, Vermeer et al. 1989).

4.13 Spotted Owl 4.13.1 Status There are three subspecies of spotted owl (Strix occidentalis, B-SPOW) in North America; only the caurina ssp. occurs in Canada. The caurina ssp. is Red-listed in BC (BC CDC 2013). The spotted owl is designated as Endangered on Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC (Environment Canada 2013a). The population in BC was estimated to be about 500 pairs prior to European settlement

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-50

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

(Blackburn et al. 2002), < 30 pairs in 2002 (BC MWLAP 2004), 25 birds in 2004 and 24 birds in 2005 (Hobbs 2005), 17 birds in 2006 (Hausleitner 2006), and 19 birds in 2007 (COSEWIC 2008c).

4.13.2 Distribution The spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) ranges from BC in the north to California in the south and is found exclusively in the Cascade Range and west to the Pacific Coast.

Provincial Range Alberta The spotted owl does not occur in Alberta.

British Columbia In BC, the spotted owl range stretches from Lillooet in the north to the US border in the south, and from the coast to the Cascade Range in the east (BC MWLAP 2004). BC is the northern extent of the spotted owl’s range and it occurs at low densities in this area. Approximately 10 northern spotted owls are currently known to occur in BC (Blackburn pers. comm.).

Elevational Range Spotted owls occur from sea level to 1,370 m (BC MWLAP 2004).

Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area British Columbia The spotted owl is found in the Hozameen Range Ecosection of the Southern Interior Ecoprovince, the Eastern Pacific Ranges and the Northwestern Cascade Ranges Ecosections of the Coast and Mountains Ecoprovince, and Fraser Lowland Ecosection of the Georgia Depression Ecoprovince. In the Wildlife LSA in these ecosections, the spotted owl was historically found in the Coastal Western-hemlock (CWHdm, ds1, ms1, ms2), Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir (ESSFmw), and Interior Douglas-fir (IDFdww) biogeoclimatic zones.

4.13.3 General Ecology The spotted owl is associated with a variety of forest types but is generally found in mature to old forests dominated by coniferous tree species (COSEWIC 2008c). The requirements for all life requisites (foraging, roosting and nesting) are met in these habitats. Habitat requirements include structural diversity (structural deformities, snags, broken tops of trees), multiple canopy layers with open spaces for flying, moderate to high canopy cover, and large amounts of large CWD on the forest floor (BC MWLAP 2004).

Requirements for roosting and foraging habitat are generally broader than those for nesting habitat; however, moderate to high canopy cover, with multiple canopy layers and high structural diversity are still required for protection from predation and weather (BC MWLAP 2004). The spotted owl is a sit and wait predator, and high structural diversity provides these owls with a variety of hunting perches at different heights of the canopy and understory (BC MWLAP 2004). Spotted owls prey upon small mammals, birds, amphibians and insects (Forsman et al. 1984). In BC, the main prey species of spotted owls is the flying squirrel (BC MWLAP 2004).

Spotted owls are non-migratory and individuals tend to occupy the same geographical area for a long time, making the species particularly susceptible to disturbance and habitat loss (BC MWLAP 2004). Home range size varies throughout the year, from a small area surrounding the nest in breeding season to several thousand hectares in the winter (Forsman et al. 1984).

4.13.4 Key Habitat Requirements 4.13.4.1 Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use The life requisite that was rated for the spotted owl is nesting habitat, which is described in detail below. This life requisite includes habitat used for nesting, foraging and roosting during the reproductive period.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-51

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

High suitability habitat is more likely to be used for nesting, while low suitability habitat may only be used for foraging or roosting.

Growing Season Nesting Habitat High quality nesting habitat is generally mature to old forest with a multistory canopy and natural openings that allow for understory growth in some areas. This type of forest provides the structure required for nesting, as well as foraging habitat within close proximity to the nest (BC MWLAP 2004). The spotted owl requires very specific structural habitat features for nesting. The spotted owl does not create its own nesting cavities or platforms but uses natural cavities, cavities excavated by other birds, or natural accumulations of debris (BC MWLAP 2004). Spotted owl nests average approximately 50 cm in diameter; therefore, large diameter trees with large branches, snags, or cavities are required. These trees are generally found in mature and old forests with a mean tree age >140 years. Reproductive success is generally greater in forests with a greater amount of interior old forest (Dugger et al. 2005). The tree species preferred for nesting are western redcedar, western hemlock and Douglas-fir. In wetter habitat types (maritime Coastal Western Hemlock) spotted owls show a tendency to nest in cavities, and in drier habitat types (submaritime Coastal Western Hemlock and Interior Douglas-fir) spotted owls more commonly use platform nests (BC MWLAP 2004).

4.13.5 Limiting Factors The spotted owl is vulnerable to extirpation in BC because of its small population size. The primary threats facing the spotted owl are habitat loss and fragmentation and increased competition with the barred owl, likely as the result of habitat fragmentation (Blackburn and Godwin 2004, Dugger et al. 2011, Kelly et al. 2003). The small population size combined with habitat fragmentation may limit the connectivity of the spotted owl population in BC by reducing recruitment of dispersing juvenile owls, increasing the number of sites occupied by a single owl, and increasing the distance between breeding pairs (COSEWIC 2008c). Approximately 50% of forested area within the range of the spotted owl is considered to be suitable habitat; of this area, much is functionally unsuitable because the patch size is too small, patches are isolated from one another, the distribution of suitable habitat across the landscape is too low to support the current population, or the spotted owl is excluded from suitable habitat by barred owls (Blackburn et al. 2002). The amount and distribution of suitable habitat can further affect reproductive success because the spotted owl shows site fidelity to breeding habitats (COSEWIC 2008c). Finally, climate change may have altered weather patterns in the area, resulting in altered wildfire patterns and increased severity of insect infestations (e.g., mountain pine beetle) throughout the range of the spotted owl (Spotted Owl Population Enhancement Team [SOPET] 2007).

4.13.6 Model Development There was an advanced level of knowledge on the habitat requirements of the spotted owl in BC; therefore a 6-point rating system was used, ranging from High (1) to Nil (6).

4.13.6.1 Provincial Benchmark There is no established provincial benchmark for the spotted owl in BC.

4.13.6.2 Ratings Assumptions

• Aeas outside the Chilliwack and Squamish Forest Districts were outside the spotted owl’s range and were rated Nil (4). Stands within the Eastern Pacific Ranges, Northwestern Cascade Ranges, Fraser Lowland, and Hozameen Range were rated up to High (1); other stands were rated Nil (6). Within these ecosections, CWHdm, CWHds1, CWHms1, CWHvm1, CWHvm2, ESSFmw, IDFdww, and MHmm1, MHmm2 were rated up to High (1). Other subzones occurring in the Wildlife LSA (i.e., IMAunp, MSdm2, MSmw1) were rated Nil (6).

• Western redcedar, Douglas-fir, or western hemlock leading stands were rated up to High (1). Red alder and bigleaf maple stands with the second species as western redcedar, Douglas-fir, or western hemlock were also rated High (1). Other stands were rated Nil (6).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-52

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

• Stands > 140 years with large diameter tall trees are superior habitat for northern Spotted Owl in BC (Spotted Owl Best Management Practices Working Group 2009). Suitable nesting habitat may still occur in younger stands if suitable vertical structure occurs. Younger stands with smaller trees may still be used for dispersal and foraging and nesting may occur within older residual patches (Spotted Owl Best Management Practices Working Group 2009, BC MWLAP 2004). Habitat suitability based on age and height was rated as shown in Table 4.13-1.

TABLE 4.13-1

RATINGS ASSUMPTIONS FOR SPOTTED OWL NESTING HABITAT SUITABILITY

Stand age (years) Height (m) ≤ 80 80-140 > 140 < 10.5 Very low (5) Very low (5) Very low (5) 10.5 – 19.4 Low (4) Low (4) Low (4) 19.5 – 30.0 Low (4) Moderate (3) Moderate (3) > 30.0 Low (4) Moderately-High (2) High (1) Note: Ratings apply to stands where the leading species are Douglas-fir, western redcedar, and western hemlock; other stands were rated Nil (4).

4.13.6.3 Ratings Adjustments

• The reproductive success of northern spotted owls has been shown to decrease within 100 m of noisy roads in northern California (Hayward et al. 2011). Nesting success did not decrease near quiet roads in northern California; however, northern spotted owls are known to avoid nesting within 100 m of forest edges (Johnson 1993) and California spotted owls show a positive selection for the amount of interior forest habitat (>100 m from an edge) (Chatfield 2005). Due to competition with barred owls, a negative response to forest edge is likely to occur in BC. Therefore, habitat ratings were adjusted based on one of the following:

− Areas within 100 m of a quiet natural or anthropogenic edge were downgraded by one rating (to a minimum of Nil [6]). Edges were defined as any site with a structural stage of 1-3b.

− Areas within 100 m of a source of regular moderate noise (e.g., secondary or tertiary roads) were downgraded by 2 ratings (to a minimum of Nil [6].

− Areas within 100 m from a source of regular intense noise (e.g., highways, compressor stations, urban or rural) were reduced to Nil (6).

− Areas within 100-500 m of these features were reduced by one rating value (to a minimum of Nil [6]).

4.14 Bald Eagle 4.14.1 Status Bald eagle (Haliaeetus luecocephalus, B-BAEA) is listed as Sensitive in Alberta (ASRD 2011), is Yellow-listed in BC (BC CDC 2013), and is designated as Not at Risk by COSEWIC (Environment Canada 2013a). A global estimate of 70,500 birds was proposed in 1980. Of this total, 30,000 bald eagles were thought to occur in Canada, with 28,500 in BC (Blood and Anweiler 1994). Since the 1970s, observations of this species have been increasing steadily throughout its Canadian range (Environment Canada 2013b).

4.14.2 Distribution Bald eagles are primarily found in North America, however, non-breeding birds have been observed in Siberia, Ireland, and Puerto Rico (Blood and Anweiler 1994). The breeding range of bald eagles extends from Alaska to Newfoundland and south to Mexico. Bald eagles are known to nest from coast to coast in Canada, but rarely breed in the Great Basin, prairies, or plains regions. Bald eagles winter along the northwest Pacific Coast and most major river systems in the western US.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-53

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

4.14.2.1 Provincial Range Alberta Bald eagles are found throughout much of Alberta but do not often breed in the southern or central portions of the province (Blood and Anweiler 1994). Most bald eagles do not winter in Alberta, although there is a small resident population in the Rocky Mountains.

British Columbia The largest bald eagle populations in Canada occur along the coast of BC; a smaller population occurs in interior BC (Blood and Anweiler 1994). Coastal BC is also a common wintering ground for bald eagles.

4.14.2.2 Elevational Range Bald eagles occupy a range of elevations but tend to nest at low elevations along the coast and all recorded nests in interior BC are below 1,370 m (Campbell et al. 1990).

4.14.2.3 Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area Alberta Bald eagles occur in all natural subregions within the Wildlife LSA.

British Columbia Bald eagles occur in all ecosections within the Wildlife LSA.

4.14.3 General Ecology Bald eagles nest earlier in the year than other birds in the same area, and tend to be territorial during the breeding season (Blood and Anweiler 1994). The nesting densities of bald eagles vary by region and are generally highest where food abundance is highest (Blood and Anweiler 1994). Bald eagle nests have been observed on the ground, on sea stacks and offshore islands, and on cliffs, but bald eagles primarily nest in the tallest old-growth trees within forested areas. Nests are often used for several years and there may be alternate nest sites within a single territory. Nest site selection appears to be dependent on structural characteristics of the tree (e.g., tallest tree in area, clear flight path to nearby water, view of surrounding area, and proximity to food source) rather than tree species; both coniferous and deciduous trees may be used (Blood and Anweiler 1994). Even the structural stage and composition of the surrounding area is of little concern as long as appropriate nest trees are available. In the Pacific northwest, the majority of bald eagle nests have been found in old-growth ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, Sitka spruce and western hemlock trees with > 76 cm dbh and within 1.6 km of a large waterbody (Blood and Anweiler 1994).

The seasonal movements of bald eagles are very complex and vary by geographic region, weather, food availability, age, and status (Blood and Anweiler 1994). Many populations migrate from breeding grounds in the north to wintering grounds in the southern US, while other populations are found year-round in many areas of Canada (Blood and Anweiler 1994). Coastal populations do not migrate but may undergo seasonal movements in response changes in food availability. It is thought that bald eagles from the south coast of BC move to Alaska in late summer in response to salmon spawning (Blood and Anweiler 1994).

Bald eagles are a generalist carnivore that feeds primarily on fish, aquatic birds, and carrion. While they have a varied diet, bald eagles primarily eat fish (> 90% in some areas) and are reliant on large waterbodies as the source of most prey items throughout the year (Blood and Anweiler 1994). Bald eagles are known to nest in the vicinity of other bird species’ colonies and are known as a major cause of great blue heron colony failure. Ice-free waterbodies are the most important habitat requirement for bald eagles wintering in BC, and population sizes will fluctuate from region to region and month to month, depending on the availability of prey. Bald eagles use the Pacific coastline during the winter, focusing largely on fish spawning rivers and estuaries and mudflats with wintering waterfowl (Blood and Anweiler 1994). In addition to foraging habitat, bald eagles also require adequate perching and roosting habitat in

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-54

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

proximity to waterbodies throughout the winter. Roosting and perching habitat includes snags, deciduous or spindly coniferous trees, pilings, log booms, or unvegetated ground.

4.14.4 Limiting Factors Bald eagle populations reached record lows in the 1970s, which was principally related to environmental contamination by industrial/agricultural chemicals (namely, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane [DDT]). Following DDT bans in Canada and the US in 1970 and 1972, respectively, bald eagle numbers increased steadily (Travsky and Beauvais 2004a). Environmental contamination is still a concern in some parts of bald eagle range (e.g., Great Lakes area) (Travsky and Beauvais 2004a), but effects have not been quantified.

The response of bald eagles to human disturbance appears to be variable. For example, some eagles are accustomed to human-related noise and visual stimuli and voluntarily construct their nests in suburban residential areas. In other cases, human activities (presumably near birds that were naïve to human intrusion) have reduced nesting success (Travsky and Beauvais 2004a).

The availability of suitable foraging habitat (e.g., open water with abundant fish and/or waterfowl) and nearby nesting structures undoubtedly affects the capacity for population growth. In some cases, human activities can create suitable habitat. For instance, electrical power generating facilities with warm water outflows can provide ice-free and productive winter foraging habit for bald eagles.

4.15 Common Nighthawk 4.15.1 Status Common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor, B-CONI) is designated Threatened on Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC (Environment Canada 2013a), is listed as Sensitive in Alberta (ASRD 2011), and is Yellow- listed in BC (BC CDC 2013). The population estimate of common nighthawks in Canada is 400,000 individuals (COSEWIC 2007a). Breeding Bird Surveys from 1976 to 2011 suggest that common nighthawk populations have declined on a national scale at an average annual rate of 3.81% (5.70 to 2.32%, 95% CI) (Environment Canada 2013b).

4.15.2 Distribution Common nighthawks are migratory and can be found breeding throughout North America and parts of Central America and wintering in South America (COSEWIC 2007a).

4.15.2.1 Provincial Range Alberta Breeding occurs throughout Alberta (Semenchuk 1992).

British Columbia Common nighthawks occur throughout most of the province, except for the Queen Charlotte Islands and Coast Ranges north of Vancouver Island (Campbell et al. 1990).

4.15.2.2 Elevational Range Common nighthawks breed from sea level to 1,250 m elevation and do not inhabit alpine habitats (Campbell et al. 1990).

4.15.2.3 Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area Alberta The common nighthawk occurs in all natural subregions within the Wildlife LSA.

British Columbia The species occurs in all ecosections and biogeoclimatic zones within the Wildlife LSA.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-55

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

4.15.3 General Ecology Common nighthawks are aerial insectivores and are most active at dawn and dusk (Brigham et al. 2011). Nighthawks use a wide variety of sparsely and non-vegetated habitats, including: dune complexes, shorelines, clearcuts and burns, grasslands and pasture, industrial disturbances (mines, quarries), and a variety of wetlands such as bogs and marshes (COSEWIC 2007a).

Females lay 2 eggs directly on the ground and are the sole incubator of the clutch. Non-vegetated sites with bare ground or rock are markedly preferred (Allen and Peters 2012, Lohnes 2010). The incubating female is fed by her mate, which roosts separately from the female during the day (COSEWIC 2007a). In urban areas, gravel rooftops can provide attractive nesting habitat, but high sun exposure at these sites has been associated with nestling mortality (COSEWIC 2007a). When nesting in natural habitats, young nighthawks seek refuge from the sun and heat in nearby vegetation (Lohnes 2010).

4.15.4 Key Habitat Requirements 4.15.4.1 Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use The life requisite that was rated for the common nighthawk is nesting habitat and is described in detail below. Common nighthawks are habitat generalists but breeding is restricted to open habitat types.

Growing Season Nesting Habitat Common nighthawks breed in a variety of open habitat types, including sand dunes and beaches, recent burns and logged areas, forest clearings, prairies, pastures, bogs, marshes, lakeshores, gravel roads, river banks, rock barrens and outcrops, railways, quarries, urban parks, airports, mines (COSEWIC 2007a), clearcuts and burns (Poulin et al. 2011), and open ponderosa pine forests (Campbell et al. 1990). Although urban areas may be used, natural sites (including grazed grasslands) are preferred (Brigham 1989, Poulin et al. 2011).

4.15.5 Limiting Factors The common nighthawk is limited by the availability of suitable nesting habitat. Habitat loss has resulted from forest fire suppression, changes to forest harvesting practices, reforestation efforts, and intensive agricultural practices. All of these changes result in fewer open areas for nesting (COSEWIC 2007a). A general decline in insect populations, particularly in urban environments, may be responsible for the decline in some common nighthawk populations (Brigham et al. 2011).

4.15.6 Model Development There was an intermediate level of knowledge on the habitat requirements of the common nighthawk in Alberta and BC; therefore, a 4-point rating system was used, ranging from High (1) to Nil (4).

4.15.6.1 Provincial Benchmark There is no established provincial benchmark for the common nighthawk in Alberta or BC.

4.15.6.2 Ratings Assumptions

• Alpine areas were rated Nil (4).

• Mines (structural stages 1-3) and rural areas were truncated at Moderate (2) due to the associated human disturbances at each site type.

• Bogs and low productivity fens, which can offer suitable peat hummocks for nesting, were rated up to Moderate (2). All other wetland sites received a maximum rating of Low (3). Sites with permanent standing water and active floodplains were rated Nil (4).

• Cliffs were rated Nil (4).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-56

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

• Cultivated land and hayfields were rated Nil (4). Because cattle grazing opens the forest understory and can reduce grass cover in grasslands (both preferred by nighthawks) pasture land was rated at the maximum level possible for each structural stage (see ‘Dry’ column in Table 4.15-1).

• The common nighthawk uses a variety of open habitats with little ground cover; therefore, both vegetated and non-vegetated sites free from regular human disturbance are considered suitable nesting habitat. This includes habitats originating from historical human disturbance such as reclaimed mines and clearcuts:

− Sites with structural stage 1 or 2 (except 2c) and other types of non-vegetated sites (e.g., rocky outcrops) were rated up to High (1).

− Non-vegetated sites with high human disturbance (e.g., roads) were rated Nil (4).

− Recent burns and clearcuts (<20 years old) were rated up to High (1).

− For sites not burned or cut, structural stage 3 was rated up to Moderate (2). Site series associated with open ponderosa pine forests were rated High (1), while other forests (structural stage 4-7) were rated up to Low (3).

− To reflect the availability of bare nesting substrate, sparsely vegetated sites were rated highest. Soil moisture was used as a proxy for availability of sparsely-vegetated nesting patches, with drier sites generally being rated better (Table 4.15-1).

− Structural stage > 4 with ‘Dry’ (soil moisture regime ranges to submesic or drier) soil characteristics were upgraded to Moderate (2) when ponderosa pine was a common site associate.

− Common nighthawks will nest on gravel roof tops; however, these types of buildings are relatively rare. Therefore, urban areas were rated Nil (4).

TABLE 4.15-1

COMMON NIGHTHAWK HABITAT RATINGS ADJUSTING FOR STRUCTURAL STAGE AND SOIL MOISTURE

Soil Moisture Structural Stage Moist to Wet Dry to Moist Dry 1 Low (3) High (1) High (1) 2 Low (3) Moderate (2) High (1) 3 Nil (4) Low (3) Moderate (2) 4-7 Nil (4) Low (3) Low (3) Note: - Soil moisture is based on the following ecosite and site series specific soil moisture regimes – ‘Moist to Wet’, soil moisture regime ranges to subhydric or wetter; ‘Dry’, soil moisture regime ranges to submesic or drier; ‘Dry to Moist’, soil moisture regime ranges between mesic and subhygric.

4.15.6.3 Ratings Adjustments

• Common nighthawk nests have not been associated with steep terrain. Therefore, sites with slopes > 100% were rated nil (6).

• The common nighthawk is well-adapted to living in disturbed habitats (e.g., urban rooftops, agricultural land, clearcuts, etc.); however, noise disturbance may be an issue. Therefore, habitat ratings were downgraded when they were less than 50 m from a source of intense noise (e.g., primary road, industrial or commercial facility).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-57

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

4.16 Northern Goshawk 4.16.1 Status There are two subspecies of northern goshawk recognized in the Wildlife LSA: accipiter gentilis laingi (coastal goshawk, B-NOGO laingi) and a. g. atricapillus (interior goshawk, B-NOGO atricapillus). The interior goshawk is Yellow-listed in BC with a provincial status of S5B (BC CDC 2013) and is Sensitive in Alberta (ASRD 2011); this subspecies is not listed federally and will not be considered further in this assessment. The coastal goshawk, laingi ssp., is Red-listed in BC (BC CDC 2013) and is federally designated as Threatened on Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC (Environment Canada 2013a).

The northern goshawk is a rare to uncommon forest raptor and few data are available to assess trends. Nevertheless, goshawks are believed to be declining in Canada due to the loss of mature forests which they required for nesting and foraging (Cooper and Stevens 2000). In BC, the coastal goshawk is believed to number < 1,000 individuals (COSEWIC 2000). On Haida Gwaii, suitable breeding habitat may have declined by more than 40% in the last 40 years (Doyle 2006).

4.16.2 Distribution In North America, goshawks inhabit all Canadian provinces and territories and occur throughout the northern United States. In the west, goshawk range extends southward to include Arizona and New Mexico and portions of Mexico (Squires and Reynolds 1997). The coastal subspecies of goshawk is found within the Pacific Northwest from Alaska to California (Northern Goshawk Recovery Team [NGRT] 2008).

4.16.2.1 Provincial Range Alberta The laingi ssp. does not occur in Alberta.

British Columbia The coastal goshawk occurs along the coastal islands and mainland of BC west of the Coast Mountains (Campbell et al. 1990, NGRT 2008).

4.16.2.2 Elevational Range Coastal goshawks breed from sea level to 900 m elevation and may use higher elevations for foraging throughout the year (BC MWLAP 2004).

4.16.2.3 Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area British Columbia Along the Wildlife LSA the coastal goshawk occurs within the Fraser Lowland Ecosection of the Georgia Depression Ecoprovince, which includes the Coastal Douglas-fir and Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic zones (BC MOE 2008).

4.16.3 General Ecology Northern goshawks require mature to old forest (Coopers and Stevens 2000) and may avoid forest clearings, industrial development and human encroachment. The home range of the northern goshawk is characterized by selection of habitat components along a spatial hierarchy including nest areas (fine-scale), post-fledging areas, and foraging areas (larger scale) (Reynolds et al. 1992).

The diet of the northern goshawk includes mostly small to medium sized birds, including pheasants, grouse, ducks, corvids, thrushes and passerines. Northern goshawks will take small mammals, such as squirrels, chipmunks, and hare (Campbell et al. 1990). Individuals often fly below the forest canopy. An open understory combined with natural or anthropogenic openings in the canopy provide goshawks with flyways, space for foraging, and access to nests (Mahon 2009, Penteriani 2002, Schaffer et al. 1999).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-58

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Goshawks breed in April and brooding continues through September. Most northern goshawks are residents and overwinter close to a foraging home range, which includes the nest site (BC MWLAP 2004).

4.16.4 Key Habitat Requirements 4.16.4.1 Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use The life requisite that was rated for the coastal goshawk is nesting habitat and is described in detail below. Nesting habitat was selected for modelling because this habitat type is relatively limited (compared to habitats used for other life requisites (e.g., foraging) and goshawks are unlikely to compensate for its loss.

Growing Season Nesting Habitat Ideal goshawk nesting habitat provides multiple nest and roost trees, foraging areas, post-fledging areas, and centres for courtship (NGRT 2008). Nest sites of northern goshawks can be located in a wide variety of forest types, including deciduous, coniferous, and mixed forests, and generally occur in mature forests (> 80 years old) (BC MWLAP 2004, Penteriani 2002). Canopy closure and understory density are important features of forest stands used for nesting. Nestling mortality is largely due to exposure to cold and rain (Squires and Reynolds 1997), and a dense canopy in nest stands can maintain a mild and stable microclimate (Schaffer 1998, Schaffer et al. 1999). Canopy closure of 45-70% is reported to be optimal for northern goshawk nesting and a relatively open understory is important for nest access and foraging (BC MWLAP 2004). Stands with <30% canopy closure are generally too open for nesting (Mahon 2009). Nests are typically located against the trunk and the lower canopy of large trees where large-diameter branches provide wide and stable nest support (Penteriani 2002, Schaffer 1998).

4.16.5 Limiting Factors Habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from industrial activities have potential to adversely affect northern goshawk populations in BC. Forest fragmentation reduces the availability of suitable nesting sites. Forestry operations are of particular concern, because harvesting is usually focused in areas that offer suitable nesting habitat (Cooper and Stevens 2000).

4.16.6 Model Development 4.16.6.1 Coastal Goshawk Habitat Suitability Index Model The assessment of the coastal goshawk’s nesting and foraging habitat was based on an existing Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) model developed for the North Coast Conservation Region and reviewed by the Northern Goshawk Recovery Team (Mahon et al. 2008). Habitat ratings suitable for spatial analysis were provided by the BC MFLNRO (2012). Ratings were subsequently adjusted based on known disturbances, including those created by the Project.

4.16.6.2 Ratings Adjustments Northern goshawks are sensitive to human distance and habitat fragmentation (Cooper and Stevens 2000, Mahon and Doyle 2003). Northern goshawks generally avoid edges when establishing nesting territories. Habitat ratings were downgraded two levels within 100 m of any anthropogenic edge (e.g. within 100 m of the edge of a pipeline), and downgraded by one level 100-200 m from an anthropogenic edge.

4.17 Olive-Sided Flycatcher 4.17.1 Status The olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi, B-OSFL) is designated as Threatened on Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC (Environment Canada 2013a), is listed as May Be at Risk in Alberta (ASRD 2011), and is Blue-listed in BC with a provincial status of S3,S4B and a Conservation Framework Priority of 2 under Goal 2 (BC CDC 2013). An estimated 450,000 adult olive-sided flycatchers live within Canada (COSEWIC 2007b). From 1973 to 2011, olive-sided flycatchers in Canada declined at an average annual rate of 3.22% (4.22 to 2.05%, 95% CI) (Environment Canada 2013b). Observations of

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-59

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

olive-sided flycatchers have been declining in Alberta, but the data are too variable to determine if this represents a true decline in numbers. In contrast, BC’s population appears to be declining at an average annual rate of 3.23% (3.83 to 1.68%, 95% CI) (Environment Canada 2013b).

4.17.2 Distribution Olive-sided flycatchers have a wide breeding range across Canada and the northern and western United States. Wintering populations are found in the Andes Mountains and occasionally in Central America and other parts of South America (COSEWIC 2007b).

4.17.2.1 Provincial Range Alberta The olive-sided flycatcher is widespread throughout Alberta with the exception of the Grassland Natural Region. Records of breeding occur primarily in the Parkland, Boreal, Foothills and Rocky Mountain Natural Regions (Semenchuk 1992), with the latter supporting the highest densities (ABMI 2013b).

British Columbia In BC, olive-sided flycatchers are found throughout most forested areas, except the Queen Charlotte Islands (Campbell et al. 1997). The highest densities of breeding individuals are found in the sub-boreal plains, the Lower Mainland, the south coast and on the eastern side of Vancouver Island (Campbell et al. 1997).

4.17.2.2 Elevational Range The olive-sided flycatcher breeds from sea level to 2,220 m in BC (Campbell et al. 1997) and as high as 2,400 m in Alberta (Semenchuk 1992).

4.17.2.3 Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area Alberta In Alberta, the olive-sided flycatcher is found in all natural subregions and natural regions crossed by the Project.

British Columbia Olive-sided flycatchers are found in all ecosections and ecoprovinces crossed by the Wildlife LSA, and in BC they occur within all biogeoclimatic zones and variants along the Wildlife LSA, except the Bunchgrass and Interior Mountain-Heather Alpine zones.

4.17.3 General Ecology Olive-sided flycatchers can be found in immature second-growth forests to old-growth and climax forests. they are most commonly found in fragmented forest habitat with abundant edges (either natural or man-made); mature coniferous forests, especially patches adjacent to water, and burned sites are preferred (Campbell et al. 1997, COSEWIC 2007b, Wright 1997); open woodlands, deciduous woodlands, swamps, floodplain forests, and fringes of steep mountain slopes may also be used (Campbell et al. 1997, COSEWIC 2007b). In Alberta, olive-sided flycatchers are most abundant in shrubby and wetland-fringe habitats (ABMI 2013b). Residual live and dead trees that are taller than surrounding vegetation are preferred for perching, presumably because they enhance territory maintenance, mate attraction, and prey detection (Campbell et al. 1997, COSEWIC 2007b). Olive-sided flycatchers are passive, sit-and-wait insectivores that primarily feed on hymenopterans (bees, wasps, and ants) (COSEWIC 2007b).

In BC spring migrants arrive in late April to early May, and fall migration occurs from late August through September (Campbell et al. 1997). Olive-sided flycatchers are socially monogamous and pair bonds form once females arrive on the breeding grounds (COSEWIC 2007b). Breeding territories are well-spaced and rarely overlap one another (Robertson and Hutto 2007). There is some evidence of breeding site fidelity in this species (Wright 1997).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-60

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

4.17.4 Key Habitat Requirements 4.17.4.1 Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use The life requisite that was rated for the olive-sided flycatcher is nesting habitat and is described in detail below. Olive-sided flycatchers are associated with forest edges and openings; post-burned habitats are considered to be most important for this species. Forest management practices and other human-caused forest disturbances provide additional nesting habitat for this species, but these areas can act as ecological traps (Robertson and Hutto 2007), rendering them of low quality. Olive-sided flycatchers are only found in the Wildlife RSA during the growing season.

Growing Season Nesting Habitat High suitability nesting habitat occurs in coniferous-dominated and mixedwood forest. In Alberta, young (< 60 years old) coniferous and mixed stands are attractive to olive-sided flycatchers (BAMP 2013, COSEWIC 2007b); however, use of these stands is likely conditional on the presence of residual tall trees (COSEWIC 2007b) including large live or dead conifers (Campbell et al. 1997, Robertson and Hutto 2007, Semenchuck 1992, Wright 1997). Forest fires and clearcuts generate this type of preferred structural mosaic (Robertson and Hutto 2007), but reproductive success is comparatively low on harvested sites (Robertson and Hutto 2007). Aside from burns, high quality habitat can be found where spatial variation in soil moisture creates natural edges. Breeding territories are often aligned along drainages and edges created by standing water or wetlands (COSEWIC 2007b, Wright 1997). Older forests can also be attractive, as forest gap dynamics can open the canopy and produce suitable nesting habitat (Chambers et al. 1999).

4.17.5 Limiting Factors Due to fire suppression, high productivity burned habitat is likely less available than it was prior to European colonization. Burns have largely been replaced by clearcuts, and these harvested sites now make up the bulk of habitat used by this species. Despite the high availability of regenerating clearcuts, olive-sided flycatcher populations continue to decline. Declines may be occurring because clearcuts can act as ecological traps, as some evidence suggests (Robertson and Hutto 2007). The extent and quality of winter habitat may also be a limiting factor for this species (COSEWIC 2007b). Declines in aerial insectivores, like the olive-sided flycatcher, may be caused by reductions in the prey base (e.g., from liberal insecticide use), reductions in suitable habitat, or possibly unknown effects of contemporary climate change (Nebel et al. 2010). The potential causes are varied, but a definitive answer to what is driving declines remains unavailable (COSEWIC 2007b).

4.17.6 Model Development An abundance of information was available on the habitat requirements of the olive-sided flycatcher in Alberta and BC and so a 6-point rating system was used, ranging from High (1) to Nil (6).

4.17.6.1 Provincial Benchmark There is no established provincial benchmark for the olive-sided flycatcher in Alberta or BC.

4.17.6.2 Ratings Assumptions Ratings were based on a review of data published by the Boreal avian Modelling Project (BAMP 2013) and the ABMI (2013b), especially density estimates for land cover classes specific to Alberta and BC, as well as Alberta-based forest age and cover type density estimates. Habitat ratings were adjusted to incorporate known habitat relationships based on a review of available literature and professional knowledge.

• Non-vegetated sites (structural stage 1) are assumed to be unsuitable and were rated Nil (6).

• Structural stage 2 was rated up to Very Low (5) (ABMI 2013b) on upland sites and Nil (6) on wetland sites.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-61

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

• Lakes, mines, rock cliffs, rocky outcrops and talus, shallow water aquatic sites, herb disclimax sites, rivers, urban areas, roads, alkaline meadows, and alpine heath were rated Nil (6).

• Grasslands and wetlands with structural stage 2 were rated Nil (6).

• Olive-sided flycatchers are most commonly associated with patches of snags or live residual trees found within post-disturbance early seral forests. Old forests may also be suitable, especially if adjacent to natural edges or if gap dynamics create natural openings (e.g., wetland and riparian fringes, post-burn stands). Therefore, shrub and forested land within naturally disturbed forests (mountain pine beetle and post-burn stands) were rated as High (1) (Table 4.17-1).

• Structural stages 3a-7 within a disturbed matrix (e.g., agricultural or rural sites) can be attractive to olive-sided flycatchers. However, agricultural and rural sites may be similar to clearcuts since both are associated with high predator populations, a factor which may depress reproductive success. Therefore, structural stages 3a-7 embedded in agricultural land were reduced by one rating value (to a minimum of Very Low [5]) and were not rated better than Moderate (3).

• Wetlands with an unknown forest composition were rated according to the highest ratings possible for lowland sites (see columns ‘Deciduous’, ‘Mixed’ and ‘Lowland Coniferous’ in Table 4.17-1).

TABLE 4.17-1

OLIVE-SIDED FLYCATCHER HABITAT RATING ASSUMPTIONS

Structural Stage Stand Composition 3-4 5 6-7 Deciduous (> 75% aspen, poplar, birch) Moderate (3 ) Very Low (5) Very Low (5) Mixedwood (Coniferous ≤ 75%, Deciduous ≤ 75%) Moderate (3) Moderate (3) Low (4) Upland Coniferous (> 75% upland spruce/fir) High (1 ) Very Low (5) Moderate (3) Lowland Coniferous (Bogs, Fens) Low (4) Low (4) Low (3) Pine (> 75% pine or pine leading coniferous) High (1) Moderate (3) Low (4) Sources: ABMI 2013b, BAMP 2013

4.17.6.3 Ratings Adjustments

• Preliminary habitat ratings based on forest cover and structural stage depend on the availability of natural edge habitat and suitable perch trees. This requirement is most often met in naturally disturbed habitats. All structural stage > 3 sites that were not affected by mountain pine beetle or wildfire (< 40 years ago) or were not < 100 m from a waterbody or wetland (or within a floodplain) were downgraded by one rating value.

• Structural stage >3 habitats that were affected by mountain pine beetles, fire, and/or were within 100 m of a wetland were not downgraded and were rated a minimum of Moderately-High (2).

• Areas affected by logging were downgraded by one habitat rating (to a minimum of Very Low [5]) to account for lower reproductive success associated with this disturbance type.

• Reproductive performance is known to decrease near anthropogenic disturbances (Robertson and Hutto 2007). Habitat suitability ratings within 100 m of features with high sensory disturbance (e.g. primary roads, industrial facilities, active wellpads) were downgraded to Low (4), and downgraded 2 rating levels from 100 – 300 m of these features. Habitat suitability ratings within a distance of up to 100 m of other active disturbances (e.g. urban, secondary roads) were downgraded by up to 2 rating levels (but not below Low [4]).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 4-62

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

5.0 AMPHIBIAN SPECIES ACCOUNTS AND HABITAT MODELS 5.1 Pond-Dwelling Amphibians Pond-dwelling amphibians inhabit slow-moving and/or lentic waterbodies that are either ephemeral or permanent. Such waterbodies include swamps, marshes, fens, bogs, ponds, vernal pools, and small lakes. Species are aquatic on either a seasonal or year-round basis. Terrestrial habitats are used to varying extents by different species.

Three models were created for pond-dwelling amphibians. The pond-dwelling amphibian model is a community-based model, representing aquatic breeding habitats and terrestrial habitat immediately surrounding aquatic breeding habitat. Western toad breeding habitat requirements are included in the pond-dwelling amphibian model. The terrestrial habitat requirements for western toad are encompassed by the western toad general living habitat model. A general living habitat suitability model was also created for the Great Basin spadefoot. This model includes both breeding and terrestrial habitat requirements. The models are detailed below.

A variety of native pond-dwelling amphibians have distribution ranges that overlap the Wildlife LSA, including seven species of frog, two species of toad, one spadefoot species, and four salamander species. Details on the status and distribution of each species can be found in Table 5.1-1.

TABLE 5.1-1

POND-DWELLING AMPHIBIAN SPECIES THAT ARE LIKELY TO OCCUR ALONG THE PROJECT ROUTE

Alberta General BCCF Common Name Scientific Name Province1 Status2 BC List3 Priority4 COSEWIC5 SARA6 boreal chorus frog Pseudacris maculata Alberta Secure Yellow 3 -- --

Canadian toad Bufo hemiophrys Alberta May Be at Risk -- -- NAR --

Columbian spotted frog Rana luteiventris Alberta, BC Sensitive Yellow 2 NAR -- great basin spadefoot Spea intermontana BC -- Blue 1 Threatened Threatened northern leopard frog Rana pipiens Alberta At Risk -- -- Endangered Endangered northwestern Ambystoma gracile BC -- Yellow 1 NAR -- salamander Oregon spotted frog Rana pretiosa BC -- Red 1 Endangered Endangered Pacific tree frog Hyla regilla BC -- Yellow 6 -- -- red-legged frog Rana aurora BC -- Blue 1 Special Concern Special Concern roughskin newt Taricha granulosa BC -- Yellow 4 -- -- tiger salamander Ambysoma tigrinum Alberta Secure -- -- Endangered Endangered western long-toed Ambystoma Alberta, BC Sensitive Yellow 4 NAR -- salamander macrodactylum western toads Bufo boreas Alberta, BC Sensitive Blue 2 Special Concern Special Concern wood frog Rana sylvatica Alberta, BC Secure Yellow 2 -- -- Sources: ASRD 2011, AESRD 2012a, BC CDC 2013, Environment Canada 2013a Notes: 1 Province refers to provinces where the species has potential to breed within the Wildlife LSA. Status designations are only included for the province in which the species range overlaps the Wildlife LSA. 2 General Status of Alberta Wild Species. 3 BC Red, Blue, and Yellow list status. 4 BC Conservation Framework Priority. 5 Species assessed by COSEWIC. 6 Species listed under SARA Schedule 1.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 5-1

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

5.1.1 Pond-Dwelling Amphibian Model The vast majority of amphibians require aquatic habitats during at least some portion of their life cycle. Of the 20 native amphibians inhabiting BC, only four species (terrestrial salamanders) do not require aquatic habitats for breeding (Matsuda et al. 2006). 13 of the 16 aquatic-breeding species use lentic pond habitats to reproduce (Matsuda et al. 2006). In Alberta, the trend towards pond breeding is even more apparent, as all the amphibian species in the province are pond-dependent for reproduction (Russell and Bauer 2000). Maintenance of suitable lentic ecosystems is essential for maintaining amphibian diversity in both provinces.

The habitat requirements of individual pond-dwelling amphibian species are diverse; species differ in the characteristics of wetlands that they most often occupy (Table 5.1-1), as well as their relative use of upland terrestrial habitat. Nonetheless, they are all assumed to rely on ponds or open water during critical stages of their life cycle. Instead of adopting a species-specific approach, which would be unmanageable for the large number of amphibians, the pond-dwelling amphibian model broadly characterizes the potential of wetland ecosystems to support pond-dwelling amphibians. Habitat modelled as being higher suitability pond-dwelling amphibian habitat is expected to be more important for maintaining amphibian populations, and be associated with greater abundance or diversity of amphibians.

5.1.1.1 Status The pond-dwelling amphibian community indicator includes both common species and those of conservation concern (Table 5.1-1).

5.1.1.2 Distribution Elevational Range Not applicable.

Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area Alberta and British Columbia The pond-dwelling amphibian community considered in this model applies to all ecoprovinces and natural subregions of BC and Alberta, respectively.

5.1.1.3 Key Habitat Requirements Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use The life requisite that was modelled for the pond-dwelling amphibian community indicator was breeding habitat and the details of this model are described below. The model includes wetland breeding habitat and terrestrial features directly adjacent to wetlands that support breeding individuals. The breeding habitat life requisite is also expected to encompass other life requisites of select amphibian species that associate with wetlands outside the breeding season. Some pond-dwelling amphibians hibernate and/or forage in the riparian buffer surrounding a wetland, meaning that an absence of suitable riparian habitat can dictate an absence of particular species from the wetland (Houlahan and Findlay 2003). Several amphibian species in this community overwinter in breeding ponds.

Amphibian Breeding Habitat The habitat requirements of pond-dwelling amphibians are diverse. While some species use mostly ephemeral wetlands, other species are dependent on permanent waterbodies (Table 5.1-2). Similarly, the relative reliance on upland habitat and various upland features differ among pond-dwelling amphibian species. Therefore, under the current model, small lakes and all wetlands (except bogs) and areas within 30 m of these features were considered potential amphibian breeding habitat. Lakes known to be fish bearing were not considered to be suitable habitat, but wetlands adjacent to fish bearing lakes were considered suitable.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 5-2

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

TABLE 5.1-2

AQUATIC HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS OF POND-DWELLING AMPHIBIAN SPECIES THAT POTENTIALLY OCCUR ALONG THE PROJECT ROUTE

Common Name Aquatic Habitat Associations boreal chorus frog Ephemeral and permanent wetlands, either shallow or deep. Canadian toad Ponds, lakes, and other wet areas. Columbian spotted frog Lakes, ponds, slow-moving streams and marshes. Usually permanent waterbodies. great basin spadefoot A wide range of lentic wetlands, including ephemeral pools and shorelines of permanent wetlands (see species-specific model for further details). northern leopard frog Spring seeps, streams, marshes, and other permanent waterbodies. Abundant emergent vegetation is preferred. northwestern salamander Wetlands, ponds, lake edges, ditches, and slow-moving streams, usually with shallow depths and permanent to semi-permanent water availability. Oregon spotted frog Slow moving streams, sloughs, and marshes with permanent water and ephemeral pools nearby. Pacific tree frog A variety of wetlands, including: ditches, flooded roads and fields. Prefers shallow wetlands – may be either permanent or ephemeral. red-legged frog Slow-moving streams with emergent vegetations, ponds, ephemeral wetlands. Breeding usually occurs in large bodies of water, but non-breeding habitat typically consists of small pools, ponds, and swamps within damp forest. roughskin newt Ponds, lakes, wetlands, slow-moving streams, especially along shallow, vegetated shorelines tiger salamander Warm ponds, shallow lake edges, ephemeral (often salty or alkaline) pools, and slow-moving creeks. western long-toed salamander Large shallow lakes and ponds free of predatory fish, with at least some aquatic vegetation. western toads Permanent or ephemeral wetlands, especially those with sandy bottoms. wood frog Ephemeral pools, shallow ponds, marshy lake edges, flooded meadows and slow-moving streams. Sources: BC MOE 2013b, Matsuda et al. 2006

Limiting Factors Refer to Ratings Assumptions section below.

5.1.1.4 Model Development A 4-point rating system was used for modelling pond-dwelling amphibian habitat, and ratings ranged from High (1) to Nil (4).

Ratings Assumptions • Marshes, fens, swamps, wetlands, shallow water ponds, and lakes, plus terrestrial habitat within 30 m of the waterbodies, were considered potential habitat (rated High [1] to Low [3]).

• Lakes with evidence of fish were reduced to Nil (4).

• The suitability ratings within the footprint of non-vegetated anthropogenic disturbances (e.g. roads, industrial facilities) were reduced to Nil (4).

• The suitability ratings within the footprint of high intensity anthropogenic disturbances that are partially vegetated (e.g. recreation sites, urban) were reduced to Low (3).

• The suitability ratings within the footprint of regenerating vegetated anthropogenic disturbances (e.g. cutlines, cutblocks) were reduced to Moderate (2).

• The suitability rating within the footprint of wide linear vegetated disturbances (e.g. pipelines, transmission lines), as well as agricultural sites, were reduced to Low (3).

Ratings Adjustments • Landscape changes brought on by the expansion of road networks and industrial activities pose various risks to amphibians (Houlahan and Findlay 2003, Knutson et al. 1999). Roads in particular can be a problem as they impede dispersal and increase mortality rates of amphibians (Houlahan and Findlay 2003).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 5-3

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

• Habitat suitability was assumed to decline near roads, active oil and gas wells, buildings and industrial/commercial disturbances. Ratings were downgraded by one rating within a distance of up to 100 m of high sensory disturbances (e.g. primary roads, industrial facilities).

5.1.2 Western Toad 5.1.2.1 Status The western toad (Anaxyrus boreas, a-ANBO) is listed as Special Concern on Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC (Environment Canada 2013a), is listed as Sensitive in Alberta (ASRD 2011), and is Blue-listed in BC with a Conservation Framework Priority Rating of 2 under Goal 2 (BC CDC 2013).

No reliable provincial population estimates exist for Alberta or BC. However, available data suggest that in Alberta, western toads are expanding their range (COSEWIC 2002d). An amphibian survey in the Fraser River Lowlands in 1997 reported a marked decline in the abundance of the western toad compared to historical records (COSEWIC 2002d); however, it is uncertain if the low estimate reflects normal year-to-year fluctuations in density or a sustained decline. More recent declines in BC have been linked to the introduction of novel predators (e.g., racoons, fish), environmental contamination, and habitat destruction (COSEWIC 2002d).

5.1.2.2 Distribution The western toad occurs throughout most of BC, the west-central third of Alberta, the south east corner of the Yukon, and much of the western United States, as far south as California (COSEWIC 2002d).

Provincial Range Alberta The western toad is found in western Alberta, along the Rocky Mountains. The range appears to be expanding and the western toad may be replacing the Canadian toad in some parts of the province (COSEWIC 2002d).

British Columbia The western toad occurs in most of BC, except for the far northeast (COSEWIC 2002d).

Elevational Range The western toad occurs at elevations from sea level to 3,660 m and is one of few amphibians found in alpine areas (COSEWIC 2002d).

Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area Alberta The western toad occurs in all natural subregions within the Wildlife LSA.

British Columbia The western toad occurs in all biogeoclimatic zones and variants in all ecosections within the Wildlife LSA.

5.1.2.3 General Ecology Western toads (juveniles and adults) are opportunistic predators and feed on a range of invertebrates including ants, beetles, crayfish, spiders, centipedes and earthworms. Tadpoles are herbivorous and feed on aquatic plants, algae and detritus (COSEWIC 2002d). Mating and oviposition occur between March and July, and eggs are laid in the shallow water areas of ponds, lakes and other wetlands. Tadpoles start to hatch in early summer and develop through September. Juveniles and adults overwinter in terrestrial habitat between October and April. The length and depth of hibernation likely varies over the Wildlife LSA, as temperatures are warmer and there is less snow in the south-western part of BC.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 5-4

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

With the exception of time spent breeding in ponds and wetlands, adult toads are found in a variety of habitats, including relatively dry upland mature forests, regenerating clearcuts, and wetlands. The movements and home range locations of adult toads outside the breeding season can range from a few hundred metres to several thousand metres from breeding ponds (COSEWIC 2002d, Davis 2002).

Adult toads are highly adaptable and utilize any habitat that has at least some accessible water and cover. Cover is probably important for maintaining a favourable water balance, behavioural thermoregulation, and protection from vertebrate predators (Bartelt and Peterson 2005, Davis 2002). Evaporative water loss is likely a major factor limiting the habitat use and movements of western toads (Bartelt et al. 2010). Moisture availability is more limiting for juvenile toads (Boutilier et al. 1992).

5.1.2.4 Key Habitat Requirements Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use The life requisite that was modelled for western toad is year-round general living, which encompasses the western toad’s terrestrial habitat requirements and includes movement (including dispersal and migration), hibernation, foraging, and security/cover habitat. Details are described below. Breeding habitat is not modelled, as this is already incorporated into the pond-dwelling amphibian breeding habitat model.

Year-Round Terrestrial Habitat Terrestrial habitat is used year-round by western toads for movement, foraging, hibernation, and security cover. Adults and juveniles require similar terrestrial habitats; however, juvenile toads may have narrower environmental tolerances than adult toads and are more sensitive to desiccation. As a consequence, adults can be found using drier upland sites, while juveniles tend to be found inhabiting moister habitats (Bartelt and Peterson 2005), including wetlands, moist forests and shrubland, avalanche slopes and subalpine meadows (Bull 2009, Matsuda et al. 2006). Recent clearcuts (< 5 years) are probably unfavourable to both adult and juvenile toads, but as regeneration occurs and cover becomes available, clearcuts become very favourable habitats, especially for adults. (Davis 2002).

Moist habitats are particularly important during migration, as they allow both juveniles and adults access to seasonally important habitats (e.g., breeding sites and hibernation sites) (Murphy et al. 2010, Bartelt et al. 2010). In alpine habitats, migrating juveniles appear to prefer wet areas associated with low canopy cover, particularly grass and forb-rich meadows (Bull 2009). Movement along the margins of streams and spring seeps has also been documented for all terrestrial life stages (Bull 2009), and small rivers may sometimes be used for passive migration (Schmetterling and Young 2008).

Western toads over-winter in a variety of sites, including banks of spring seeps and streams, willow clumps, the base of trees and small mammal burrows (COSEWIC 2002d). In north-central Alberta, western toads use a variety of habitats for hibernation, including: marshes, peat wetlands, dry and wet meadows, deciduous and coniferous forest, wet shrubland, and burned forests (Browne and Paszkowski 2010). Within these areas, hibernation often occurs within tunnels and crevices, such as those created by small mammals (e.g., red squirrels) and decaying root masses (Browne and Paszkowski 2010). Western toads do not appear to hibernate in self-made burrows (Browne and Paszkowski 2010).

5.1.2.5 Limiting Factors Climatic and physical barriers, including dry ecosites, impervious terrain, and steep topography, can limit movements and habitat colonization of western toads (Murphy et al. 2010). Anthropogenic barriers, such as drainage ditches, have been shown to isolate previously connected populations of amphibians (Sjögren-Gulve and Ray 1996). Reduced connectivity among populations results in fewer opportunities for demographic and genetic rescue (Allendorf et al. 2013), and this may present problems for persistence of this species. Changes in climate may exacerbate the issue of connectivity, as a climatic trend towards drier and hotter summers is expected to yield more inhospitable terrain across the species’ range.

Diseases such as Batrachochytrium dendrotidis (chytrid fungus) can cause populations to decline. The population impact of this disease may increase following disturbance and climatic warming

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 5-5

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

(Bartelt et al. 2010). Chytrid fungus has been detected in western toads in southern BC (Deguise and Richardson 2009).

5.1.2.6 Model Development Provincial Benchmark No benchmark has been identified.

Ratings Assumptions • Moisture is a key factor affecting western toad movements and habitat suitability. Submesic to hydric sites (herein ‘wet sites’) were rated highest followed by mesic habitats then submesic sites. Subxeric to xeric habitats were considered unsuitable (Nil [4]).

• Alpine fellfields, alpine heathlands, and alkaline habitats were rated Nil (4).

• Wet structural stage 2-3 habitats were rated highest (Table 5.1-3). Conifer and mixed stands appear to be optimal hibernation sites. Therefore, deciduous forests (structural stage 4-7) were downgraded by one rating value (to a minimum of Low [3]) while mixed and coniferous stands retained their rating.

• Sites within an agricultural (hay or cropland) matrix were downgraded by one rating value (to a minimum of Low [3]) because agricultural activities likely result in increased mortality risk. Tame pasture was not reduced in value, because preferred hibernation microsites (in the form of rodent burrows) can be abundant at such sites. Urban areas were rated a maximum of Low (3). Rock outcrops, cliffs, mines, roads, and rivers were rated Nil (4). Open waterbodies lacking emergent vegetation were also rated Nil (4).

TABLE 5.1-3

WESTERN TOAD HABITAT RATINGS ADJUSTED FOR SOIL MOISTURE AND STRUCTURAL STAGE

Structural Stage Moisture Regime 1 2-7 Subhygric-Hydric Low (3) High (1) Mesic Low (3) Moderate (2) Submesic Nil (4) Low (3) Subxeric-Xeric Nil (4) Nil (4)

Ratings Adjustments • Habitats with slope > 100% were rated Nil (4).

• Landscape changes brought on by the expansion of road networks and industrial activities pose various risks to amphibians (Houlahan and Findlay 2003, Knutson et al. 1999). Roads in particular can be a problem as they impede dispersal and increase mortality rates of amphibians (Houlahan and Findlay 2003).

• Habitat quality was assumed to decline near roads, active oil and gas wells, buildings and industrial/commercial disturbances.

5.1.3 Great Basin Spadefoot 5.1.3.1 Status The Great Basin spadefoot (Spea intermontana, a-SPIN) is Blue-listed in BC with a provincial status of S3 (BC CDC 2013) and is designated as Threatened on Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC (Environment Canada 2013a). An estimated minimum of 10,000 adult Great Basin spadefoots live in BC, however, this estimate is highly speculative (COSEWIC 2007c). It is generally assumed that this species

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 5-6

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

is declining in Canada due to habitat loss, but as with most amphibians, data are lacking to validate this assumption (COSEWIC 2007c).

5.1.3.2 Distribution The Great Basin spadefoot is found throughout the arid regions within the inter-montane region of western North America. Within Canada, Great Basin spadefoots are restricted to BC (Southern Interior Reptile and Amphibian Recovery Team [SIRART] 2008a).

Provincial Range Alberta The Great Basin spadefoot does not occur in Alberta.

British Columbia The Great Basin spadefoot is found in the valleys of central and southern BC and appears to be divided into two geographically separate populations. The southern population is found in the Okanagan-Similkameen and Kettle-Granby valleys; the second population is found in the South Cariboo Region in the Thompson and Nicola valleys and extends as far north as 70 Mile House (SIRART 2008a).

Elevational Range The Great Basin spadefoot occurs in BC from 275-1,800 m. Breeding sites are most common below 600 m in the Southern Interior Ecoprovince and above 1,000 m in the Central interior Ecoprovince (SIRART 2008a).

Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area British Columbia The Great Basin spadefoot occurs within 3 ecosections overlapped by the Wildlife LSA; these include the Cariboo Plateau Ecosection (Central Interior Ecoprovince) and the Thompson Basin, Nicola Basin and Guichon Upland Ecosections (Southern Interior Ecoprovince). The Wildlife LSA overlaps 7 biogeoclimatic variants that are associated with Great Basin spadefoots, including biogeoclimatic variants in the Bunchgrass (BGxh2, xw1), Ponderosa Pine (PPxh2), Interior Cedar-Hemlock (ICHmk2), and Interior Douglas-fir (IDFxh2, xh2a, mw2) biogeoclimatic zones.

5.1.3.3 General Ecology The Great Basin spadefoot occupies semi-arid areas of sagebrush, grassland or open forests with sandy substrate (Corkran and Thomas 1996). In the interior of BC, they are often associated with bluebunch wheatgrass, Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine (Matsuda et al. 2006). Great basin spadefoots are considered to be fossorial, meaning that the majority of their life is spent underground (Garner 2012). To avoid desiccation in their arid environment, the Great Basin spadefoot retreats to small mammal burrows or digs into loose, deep, and friable soils where surrounding soil moisture can be absorbed through the skin (COSEWIC 2007c). Deep burrows are used to avoid thermal stress in the active season and to avoid lethal freezing temperatures in the winter (BC MWLAP 2004).

The Great Basin spadefoot hibernates in burrows from October to March. Breeding occurs in April through June (Garner 2012), eggs hatch 2-4 days later with metamorphosis requiring at minimum 36 additional days (Lannoo 2005). Each reproductive female lays from 300-500 eggs which are divided into 30-40 batches (Lannoo 2005).

Great basin spadefoots are primarily nocturnal foragers, as this allows them to avoid desiccation and thermal stress from high day-time temperatures (Matsuda et al. 2006). Foraging occurs near burrowing sites where there is an abundance of invertebrate prey (SIRART 2008a). Tadpoles are omnivorous, foraging on algae, detritus, and occasionally conspecific tadpoles (Lannoo 2005). Newly metamorphosed spadefoots stay fairly close to the security of waterbodies and hunt small prey both on land and in the water. Adults and juveniles eat insects and invertebrates, including slugs and spiders, found in a variety of terrestrial habitats.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 5-7

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

In BC, adult spadefoots spend the majority of their time (> 80%) within 250 m of their breeding ponds (Garner 2012). foraging often occurs at night in upland areas, and burrows are used during the day. Daytime burrows tend to be located in non-vegetated microsites, perhaps because the soil moisture in these habitats is higher (Garner 2012).

5.1.3.4 Key Habitat Requirements Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use The life requisite that was rated for the Great Basin spadefoot is year-round general living habitat, which encompasses both breeding and terrestrial habitat requirements for this species. The model, described in detail below, includes habitat requirements for breeding, food, security/thermal cover, and hibernation.

Year-Round General Living Habitat Permanent or temporary shallow ponds and waterbodies (including slow-moving streams and spring seeps) are used for reproduction (Lannoo 2005). Egg masses often attached to loose, emergent vegetation (BC MWLAP 2004), but eggs can be deposited on other structures or substrates (COSEWIC 2007c). Shallow edges of larger waterbodies can be used but eggs are generally not deposited in lakes where predatory fish are present. Great Basin spadefoots prefer ephemeral waterbodies for breeding, but availability of permanent waterbodies in the landscape may be necessary for this species to persist through extended years of drought (SIRART 2008a). As a result of its reliance on ephemeral waterbodies, Great Basin spadefoots are susceptible to premature drying of their wetland habitats. Unsuccessful attempts to breed may occur in swimming pools, temporary puddles created by cattle hoof prints and tire tracks, and other ecological sinks (COSEWIC 2007c).

Food items for tadpoles, including algae, aquatic plants, and detritus, occur in wetlands and aquatic habitats. Juveniles and adults forage for insects and invertebrates in terrestrial habitats surrounding breeding ponds. Movements of up to 370 m from the breeding pond have been recorded (Garner 2012). Foraging habitat typically occurs in grasslands, but open forests are also used (SIRART 2008a). Abundance of litter and CWD is required to avoid thermal and moisture stress (BC MWLAP 2004).

Habitat for daily retreats and hibernation includes grasslands and open forests (e.g., ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir forests); adequate cover may not be present in the flat and wet areas immediately surrounding breeding ponds. The Great Basin spadefoot prefers drained, sandy soils where small mammal burrows are abundant and soils are friable for easy burrow construction (COSEWIC 2007c).

5.1.3.5 Limiting Factors Habitat connectivity is important for Great Basin spadefoots to link aquatic and terrestrial habitats and to allow for dispersal, colonization, and persistence of the population (COSEWIC 2007c, SIRART 2008a). Given that spadefoots are restricted from venturing far (< 500 m, SIRART 2008a) from their breeding habitats, the distance between suitable breeding sites influences landscape connectivity. High connectivity of breeding habitats in the spadefoot’s arid environment has been identified as an important aspect of spadefoot conservation (SIRART 2008a).

The Great Basin spadefoot has experienced extensive habitat loss due to housing developments in the Thompson-Okanagan region and suffers major mortality due to roads and pollution from pesticides (SIRART 2008a).

5.1.3.6 Model Development There was an intermediate level of knowledge on the habitat requirements of the Great Basin spadefoot in BC, therefore a 4-point rating system was used, ranging from High (1) to Nil (4).

Provincial Benchmark • Ecosection: Southern Okanagan Basin.

• Biogeoclimatic Units: BGxh1, PPxh1 (BC MOE 2006).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 5-8

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

• Habitats: Low-elevation wetlands in or near deep-soiled grasslands.

Ratings Assumptions • Sites with suitable habitat occur in the Bunchgrass, Ponderosa Pine and Interior Douglas-fir zones; all other zones were rated Nil (4).

• Alpine areas, avalanche paths, slopes >100%, mines, cliffs, rivers, roads, urban areas, talus, and rock outcrops were rated Nil (4).

• Habitat ratings were initially set by soil texture and moisture (Table 5.1-4). Given appropriate substrates, wetter sites (subhydric) likely provide ephemeral breeding habitat in the spring and terrestrial habitat in the summer. Coarse to Medium textured soils are suitable across a broad range of moisture classes. Fine textured soils are susceptible to compaction and are not easily excavated, especially under very dry conditions. Therefore, these sites were considered suitable over a narrower range of moisture classes (Table 5.1-3). These initial ratings were downgraded under sub-optimal conditions outlined below.

− Open understory forests were truncated at a rating of Moderate (2) because they provide suitable upland foraging habitat but are not preferred. Swamps (i.e., structural stage > 4, soil moisture subhydric to hydric) were rated up to Moderate (2) for their value as breeding habitat. All other dense understory forests were rated Low (3).

− Wetlands or waterbodies known to be fish-bearing were downgraded to Low (3). Lakes were rated up to Moderate (2) and all other lentic waterbodies were rated up to High (1).

− Alkaline (salt) wetlands were rated Nil (4).

• Hay and crop production is associated with frequent landscape disturbance; therefore, they were rated no higher than Low (3). Rural areas were also rated Low (3).

• Grazed lands were assumed to have coarse soil textures and subxeric soil moistures.

• Floodplains were assumed to have variable soil textures. All floodplains, except active channel floodplains, were assumed to offer some habitat for spadefoots.

TABLE 5.1-4

HABITAT RATINGS FOR GREAT BASIN SPADEFOOT ADJUSTED FOR SOIL TEXTURE AND MOISTURE

Soil Texture Class3 Soil Moisture Regime Fragmental Coarse Medium Fine Variable Hydric High (1)1, 2 High (1) 1, 2 High (1) 1, 2 High (1) 1, 2 Subhydric High (1)1, 2 High (1) 1, 2 High (1) 1, 2 High (1) 1, 2 Hygric High (1) 2 High (1) 2 High (1) 2 High (1) 2 Subygric High (1)2 High (1)2 Moderate (2)2 Moderate (2)2 Mesic Nil (4) High (1) 2 High (1) 2 Moderate (2) 2, Moderate (2) 2, Submesic High (1) 2 1 High (1) 21 Low (3) 2, 1 Low (3) 2, 1 Subxeric Moderate (2) 2, Moderate (2) 2 Low (3) 2, 1 Low (3) 2, 1 Xeric Moderate (2) 2, Moderate (2) 2, Nil (4) 2, 1 Nil (4) 2, 1 Very Xeric Low (3) 2, 1 Low (3) 2, 1 Nil (4) 2, 1 Nil (4) 2, 1 Notes: 1 Site likely to provide some value for breeding 2 Site likely to provide some value for terrestrial use 3 Soil Texture Classes are described as follows: Fragmental - rock fragments (includes talus slopes and rocky outcrops) Coarse – sands and loamy sands Medium – silts, silt loams, loams, sandy clay loams, and sandy loams

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 5-9

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

TABLE 5.1-4 Cont'd

Fine – heavy clays, silty clays, clays, sandy clays, silty clay loams, and clay loams Variable – more than one texture class present

Ratings Adjustments • Sites were rated Nil (4) if they were >500 m from a waterbody or wetland polygon (habitat polygons with subhydric to hydric moisture regimes).

• Therefore, habitat quality was assumed to decline near roads, active oil and gas wells, buildings and industrial/commercial disturbances.

5.2 Stream-Dwelling Amphibians Stream-dwelling amphibians inhabit cool, clear mountain streams in old forest that are generally nonfish-bearing. Aquatic and terrestrial habitats are required for different life stages for both members of the stream-dwelling amphibian community indicator: coastal tailed frog and Pacific giant salamander (BC MWLAP 2004, COSEWIC 2011). Both the coastal tailed frog and the Pacific giant salamander are species at risk in BC (BC CDC 2013).

The coastal tailed frog was modelled to represent the stream-dwelling amphibian community as the range of the coastal tailed frog encompasses that of the Pacific Giant Salamander and the habitat requirements of the coastal tailed frog are more limiting. A species account and details of the model for coastal tailed frog are provided below.

5.2.1 Coastal Tailed Frog 5.2.1.1 Status The coastal tailed frog (Ascaphus truei, a-ASTR) is Blue-listed in BC with a provincial status of S3S4 (BC CDC 2013). The species is listed as Special Concern on Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC (Environment Canada 2013a). The population size and trend for the coastal tailed frog is unknown, but populations are likely decreasing as a result of habitat removal and degradation (COSEWIC 2011). Density has been estimated to be 60-80 adults/ha within productive riparian forest in southwestern BC (COSEWIC 2011).

5.2.1.2 Distribution The coastal tailed frog occurs throughout the Coast and Cascade mountains of western North America, from northern California to the Alaskan Panhandle (COSEWIC 2011).

Provincial Range Alberta The coastal tailed frog does not occur in Alberta.

British Columbia The coastal tailed frog is found in the windward and leeward drainages of the Cascades and Coast Ranges in BC, from the Nass River in the north to the Lower Mainland in the south (Dupuis et al. 2000, COSEWIC 2011). In-stream frog densities are highest in the south and in remote areas where forestry and development have not degraded the habitat (BC MWLAP 2004).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 5-10

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Elevational Range The coastal tailed frog occurs on the BC coast from near sea level to about 2,000 m (COSEWIC 2011).

Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area British Columbia The coastal tailed frog occurs in the Hozameen Range Ecosection of the Southern Interior Ecoprovince, the Northwestern Cascade Ranges and the Eastern Pacific Ranges Ecosections of the Coast and Mountains Ecoprovince, and the Fraser Lowland Ecosection of the Georgia Depression Ecoprovince. Within the Wildlife LSA in these ecosections, the species occurs in the Coastal Western-hemlock (CWHdm, xm1, ds1, ms1), Mountain Hemlock (MHmm2), Montane Spruce (MSdm2) and Interior Douglas-fir (IDFdk2) biogeoclimatic zones.

5.2.1.3 General Ecology The coastal tailed frog occupies small perennial mountain streams, which are cool, clear, unsilted, contain abundant boulders or cobble, and which have a stable cascade or step pool morphology (Dupuis and Friele 2003, Matsuda et al. 2006). Eggs require water temperatures 5-18ºC to survive (BC MWLAP 2004), and tailed frog abundance peaks in streams with a water temperature of approximately 8-12ºC. Streams colder than 6ºC generally do not support tadpoles (Dupuis and Friele 2003). The species is typically associated with moderate gradient streams, and steep channels are often avoided due to scouring during seasonal run-off (Matsuda et al. 2006). During the day coastal tailed frogs hide under rocks or logs along the stream beds. Adult coastal tailed frogs are terrestrial foragers, generally remaining within the moist riparian corridor of their stream. Adults or dispersing juveniles may travel up 100 m or more from the stream channel (Matsuda 2001, Wahbe et al. 2000, 2004). They typically feed on terrestrial and aquatic insects including spiders, ticks, mites, collembola and snails (BC MWLAP 2004, Matsuda et al. 2006). Tadpoles feed on algae and diatoms that they scrape from large rocks within their natal pools (BC MWLAP 2004).

Mating occurs in the fall and sperm is stored in the female’s oviducts until egg are deposited the following June or July (BC MWLAP 2004). The species has an exceptionally slow reproductive cycle relative to most amphibians. Females do not breed every year, and biennial reproductive cycles are common (COSEWIC 2011). Eggs (approximately 20-96) are deposited near the head waters of mountain streams in areas that will provide food and security for tadpoles, and are generally attached to a boulder or cobble in a step or pool. Tadpoles will metamorphose after approximately 3-5 in-stream winters, and sexual maturity occurs at approximately 7-9 years after hatching (COSEWIC 2011). Adults live to approximately 10-20 years. Preferred habitat is found within step-pools, especially those surrounded by old forests containing dense understories (BC MWLAP 2004). These habitats likely provide moist conditions and structural complexity required for successful foraging and predator avoidance. Streams that have low levels of silt are also required to allow tadpoles to develop. Tadpoles require coarse substrates (rocks, wood) for protective cover in streams.

5.2.1.4 Key Habitat Requirements Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use The life requisite that were rated for the coastal tailed frog is year-round general living habitat, which encompasses habitat used for foraging, security and reproduction.

Year-Round General Living Habitat • Coastal tailed frogs are known to use watercourses with step-pool and cascade morphology (COSEWIC 2011); these streams typically have slopes >3%, with abundance decreasing for slopes > 40% (Dupuis and Friele 2003, Montgomery and Buffington 1997). Sutherland et al. (2001) reported that tailed frogs (Ascaphus sp.) use an average gradient of 31% with a range of 2-93%. The use of low gradient streams is uncommon, but previous studies in the province have reported occupancy in low gradient streams (i.e., ≥ 0.5%; Hobbs and Gyug 2012, Wind 2009).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 5-11

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

• Drainage basin area is known to influence habitat suitability for coastal tailed frogs due to its influence on stream flow. Core habitat includes streams with a drainage basin 0.1-10 km² (Dupuis and Friele 2003, Friele and Dupuis 2007). Streams with drainage basins 10-50 km² are associated with a lower abundance of coastal tailed frogs but may still be important for dispersal and linking adjacent basins. Individuals rarely occur in drainages > 50 km².

• Coastal tailed frogs commonly use moist terrestrial habitat, generally within 100 m of a stream (Wahbe et al. 2000). They are strongly associated with old or mature forest (> 100 years) (BC MWLAP 2004, COSEWIC 2011). The species is negatively impacted by clearcut forestry, with one study reporting about half the capture rate of coastal tailed frogs in clearcut areas (Wahbe et al. 2000).

• Bedrock geology has a strong influence on the presence and abundance of coastal tailed frogs (Sutherland et al. 2001). Coastal tailed frogs favour bedrock geology that provides stable stream channels, and which breaks down into coarse (cobble-boulder) substrate. Sedimentary and composite intrusive bedrocks result in low stability and increased sedimentation, and are less suitable for coastal tailed frogs. Stable granitic bedrock and bedrock of a volcanic origin are favoured.

5.2.1.5 Limiting Factors Coastal tailed frogs are dependent on mountain streams throughout their lives. This species is, therefore, vulnerable to activities that degrade the suitability of mountain streams and adjacent forest cover (COSEWIC 2011). Stream sedimentation from forest clearing and road construction are a major contributor to habitat degredation (COSEWIC 2011). ‘Flashy’ stream hydrologies, which can result from clearcutting, road construction, and rapid spring melts, are also associated with reduced habitat quality (COSEWIC 2011). Although long-term (e.g., decadal) forecasts relating to climate change are uncertain, negative effects are expected due to likely changes in hydrological patterns.

5.2.1.6 Model Development Numerous surveys and studies have been completed for coastal tailed frogs in the province, and several of these report stream characteristics used by this species. As such, there is sufficient information to warrant a 6-point rating scheme. Habitat was rated optimistically (i.e., erred on the side of higher suitability) when there was uncertainty in the specific habitat-characteristic thresholds used to differentiate habitat ratings. Rating definitions for coastal tailed frogs are presented in Table 5.2-1.

TABLE 5.2-1

RATING INTERPRETATIONS FOR THE COASTAL TAILED FROG MODEL

Numeric Rating Rating Definition High 1 Stream characteristics and surrounding forest cover are believed to be within the optimal range for the species Moderate 2-3 Stream characteristics and surrounding forest cover are within the range reported for species, but are slightly outside assumed optimal range. The habitat may still be used for reproduction. Low 4 Stream characteristics may meet the minimum requirements for the species but there is substantial departure from conditions assumed to be optimal. Use for reproduction is expected to be uncommon, but may occur in some locations – especially in situations when available spatial data are not an adequate surrogate for local stream conditions. Very Low 5 Habitat will not ordinarily be used for reproduction but may still provide dispersal habitat or foraging habitat during moist conditions. Includes streams with basin area 10-50 KM², streams with very low gradients, or areas 100-200 m from a stream. Nil 6 Habitat not suitable for coastal tailed frogs. Includes areas not associated with a stream or else associated with a mainstem river. Also within this class are streams with an excessively steep gradient (> 93%) as well areas outside the coastal mountains.

Watercourse information used for the model was based on the BC Freshwater Atlas Stream Network (BC MOFR 2008). A digital elevation model was used to calculate the gradient of individual stream segments found within the BC Freshwater Atlas (BC MOFR 2008). Basin area was calculated for each stream segment using the Freshwater Atlas fundamental watershed layer (BC MOFR 2008). Preliminary ratings were based on individual segments of the stream network, and subsequently modified using VRI

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 5-12

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

data and geology data. Geology data were based on the Digital Geology Map of BC (British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines 2005).

Provincial Benchmark A provincial benchmark for coastal tailed frog has not been established in BC.

Ratings Assumptions • Suitable habitat was assumed to occur in the Hozameen Range, Eastern Pacific Ranges, Northwestern Cascade Ranges, and Fraser Lowland. Other ecosections occurring in the Wildlife LSA were rated Nil (6).

• Optimal conditions for coastal tailed frogs were assumed to occur in streams with a gradient 3-40% and a basin area 0.1-10 km². These sites were rated up to High (1) and less optimal sites were rated between Nil (6) and Moderate (4) (Table 5.2-2). Basin ruggedness, which is a measure of average basin slope, was not included in the model because it was assumed to be correlated with stream gradient and would require the inclusion of arbitrary suitability thresholds (Dupuis and Friele 2003, Friele and Dupuis 2007).

TABLE 5.2-2

MAXIMUM HABITAT RATINGS OF STREAM SEGMENTS BASED ON GRADIENT AND BASIN AREA FOR COASTAL TAILED FROG

Basin area Stream Gradient < 0.1 km² 0.1-10 km² 10-50 km² > 50 km² <0.5% Nil (6) Nil (6) Nil (6) Nil (6) 0.5-2% Nil (6) Very Low (5) Very Low (5) Nil (6) 2-3% Nil (6) Low (4) Very Low (5) Nil (6) 3-60% Nil (6) High (1) Very Low (5) Nil (6) 61-93% Nil (6) Low (4) Very Low (5) Nil (6) >93% Nil (6) Nil (6) Nil (6) Nil (6) Note: - Basin area measured at terminal node of stream segments based on BC Freshwater atlas.

• Streams flowing through sedimentary bedrock were downgraded by 1 habitat rating (to a minimum of Moderate [3]).

• Ratings were adjusted based on the ‘back-end rule’ defined by Friele and Dupuis (2007), which is a surrogate for stream temperature by accounting for the proportion of the watershed draining cool, high-elevation (alpine) areas. The backend rule is based on the minimum and maximum elevation of the basin draining into a stream segment. It was calculated as:

( ) = (Source: Friele and Dupuis 2007) ( ) ( ) Max Elevation m − 1500 m • Stream퐵푎푐푘푒푛푑 segments푅푢푙푒 with MaxbackendElevation valuesm −

• Ratings were adjusted based on aspect. Southern exposures receive greater insolation resulting in warmer water, while northern exposures receive the least insolation (Dupuis and Friele 2003). Sites with a predominately northern exposure were downgraded by 1 rating if the minimum basin elevation was > 600 m. Sites with an East, West, or Southern exposure retained their rating.

• The presence of fish likely reduces habitat suitability because of increased predation (Dupuis and Friele 2003). However, streams where coastal tailed-frogs occur often have fish, indicating that fish and coastal tailed frogs are able to co-occur (Hobbs and Gyug 2012). Due to incomplete information on fish occurrence, and the inclusion of variables which are already correlated with fish absence (e.g., small basin area, steep gradient), no adjustment was made for fish presence.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 5-13

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

• Coastal tailed frogs were assumed to primarily use habitat within 100 m of a stream, but may also use habitat farther than 100 m during wet conditions or during dispersal events. Stream segments were buffered by 100 m and 500 m. The area up to 100 m from a watercourse was given a preliminary rating corresponding to the highest rated stream segment within 100 m. The 100-500 m distance was given a preliminary rating corresponding to the highest rated stream within 500 m, downgraded by two rating levels to account for reduced use.

• The preliminary ratings for the 500 m buffered stream segments were adjusted using ecosystem data from VRI. Adjustments were as follows:

− Areas with stand age > 80 years (analogous to structural stage 6 – 7) retained their rating.

− Areas with stand age 40-80 years (analogous to structural stage 5) were downgraded by one rating (to a minimum of Low [4]).

− Areas with height < 10 m or age < 40 years (analogous to structural stage 3 - 4) were downgraded by two ratings (to a minimum of Low [4]). This includes all clearcuts < 40 years.

− Non-vegetated or herb dominated units (analogous to structural stage 1 -2) were downgraded to Very Low (5).

Ratings Adjustments Coastal tailed frogs require suitable watercourses for all life stages and are assumed to not be able to cross Nil (6) rated habitat. Therefore, otherwise suitable terrestrial habitat that cannot be reached from a suitable watercourse without traversing Nil (6) rated habitat was downgraded to Nil (6).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 5-14

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

6.0 REPTILE SPECIES ACCOUNTS AND HABITAT MODELS 6.1 Arid Habitat Snakes Arid habitat snakes were selected as a habitat-based community indicator to represent reptiles. The arid habitat snake community includes western rattlesnake, Great Basin gopher snake, yellow-bellied racer, rubber boa and garter snakes. Habitat associations for these species include grasslands, shrub-steppe landscapes (e.g., sagebrush) and open forests in the Southern Interior Ecoprovince. The conservation status of each species is detailed in Table 6.1-1.

TABLE 6.1-1

ARID HABITAT SNAKE SPECIES THAT ARE LIKELY TO OCCUR ALONG THE PROJECT IN THE SOUTHERN INTERIOR ECOPROVINCE

Common Name Scientific Name BC List1 BCCF Priority2 COSEWIC3 SARA4 common garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis Yellow 5 -- -- gopher snake, deserticola ssp. Pituophis catenifer deserticola Blue 2 Threatened Threatened rubber boa Charina bottae Yellow 1 Special Concern Special Concern terrestrial garter snake Thamnophis elegans Yellow 4 -- -- western rattlesnake Crotalus oreganus Blue 2 Threatened Threatened yellow-bellied racer Coluber constrictor Blue 2 Special Concern Special Concern Sources: BC CDC 2013, Environment Canada 2013a Notes: 1 BC Red, Blue, and Yellow list status. 2 BC Conservation Framework Priority. 3 Species assessed by COSEWIC. 4 Species listed under SARA Schedule 1.

Western rattlesnake was identified as a suitable species to model change in habitat. Of the species within the arid habitat snakes indicator community, the western rattlesnake’s habitat preferences have been studied relatively well. Further, western rattlesnake habitat requirements overlap those of other sensitive arid snake species (e.g., gopher snake, yellow-bellied racer), and critical hibernation habitat is often shared between these species (Charland et al. 1993, Gomez 2007, Macartney 1985). Therefore, a western rattlesnake habitat model is likely to have broader and more reliable application than would models based on other members of this indicator group. A detailed species account and model details for the western rattlesnake are provided below.

6.1.1 Western Rattlesnake 6.1.1.1 Status The western rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus; R-CROR) is Blue-listed in BC (BC CDC 2013) and is designated as Threatened on Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC (Environment Canada 2013a). Estimates have placed BC’s rattlesnake population at under 5,000 adults (COSEWIC 2004), but this is likely a considerable underestimate (Hobbs 2013). Based on limited mark-recapture work, anecdotal observations and known habitat conversion, the BC population of western rattlesnakes is thought to be declining (COSEWIC 2004).

6.1.1.2 Distribution The western rattlesnake is found in northwestern North America and the northern extent of its range is in south-central BC (BC MWLAP 2004).

Provincial Range Alberta The western rattlesnake does not occur in Alberta.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 6-1

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

British Columbia The western rattlesnake is restricted to the hot dry interior of BC, including the Similkameen, Okanagan, Kettle, Lower Nicola, South Thompson, and Fraser valleys (COSEWIC 2004). Populations are disjunct and can be spaced widely across parts of the range and snake densities are higher in the southern part of the range (Okanagan-Similkameen) than in the north (Thompson-Nicola) (Bertram et al. 2001). The range of the western rattlesnake is much more restricted than the range of the gopher snake or racer, despite the three species sharing similar habitat requirements. Climate and suitable denning habitat may restrict the distribution of the western rattlesnake in southern BC (BC MWLAP 2004).

Elevational Range Hibernacula of the western rattlesnake are generally found at 400-600 m elevation on slopes with rocky outcrops or cliffs. During the active season, a broader range of elevations are used, ranging from 300-1,200 m. Unconfirmed sightings of western rattlesnake have been reported for areas as high as 1,400 m (BC MWLAP 2004).

Distribution Relative to the Wildlife Local Study Area British Columbia The western rattlesnake occurs in the north Thompson Upland, Thompson Basin, Guichon Upland, and Nicola Basin Ecosections in the Southern Interior Ecoprovince. In the Wildlife LSA in these ecosections, the western rattlesnake is found in Bunchgrass (BGxh, xw), Interior Douglas-fir (IDFdk, mw, xh), Montane Spruce (MSdm), and Ponderosa Pine (PPxh) biogeoclimatic zones.

6.1.1.3 General Ecology Western rattlesnakes prey upon a variety of animals across their range. Small mammals make up the bulk of their diet and can include squirrels, marmots, chipmunks, voles, shrews, deer mice, and cottontail rabbits (BC MWLAP 2004, Macartney 1989, Wallace and Diller 1990). In BC, birds, amphibians, and other snakes are also occasionally consumed (BC MWLAP 2004, Macartney 1989).

Western rattlesnakes hibernate from mid-October to mid-April, and hibernation tends to be more protracted in the north. Snakes emerge in April or May, and individuals are often emaciated and dehydrated. Most western rattlesnakes bask in the vicinity of the den after emergence, and they may not depart for foraging habitat for several weeks. The distance these individuals travel over the course of the growing season varies within and between populations, different age classes, and alternate reproductive states (Bertram et al. 2001, Gomez 2007, Macartney et al. 1988). Adults generally range between 0.5 and 4 km (Bertram et al. 2001, Gomez 2007, Macartney et al. 1988), but gravid (pregnant) females spend the length of their pregnancy near the hibernaculum (Macartney 1985).

Mating occurs within foraging habitats in June though to August. Sperm is stored in the female reproductive tract, and fertilization is delayed until emergence from hibernation the following spring (BC MWLAP 2004). During the active season, gestating females will limit their movement and will not hunt or forage (BC MWLAP 2004). Following a gestation period which lasts through the summer, young are born in August or September; young of the year enter hibernation shortly thereafter. Overwinter survival of neonates is highly variable and has been reported to range from 0-77% (Charland 1989, Charland et al. 1993); survival of hibernating adults is more consistent and typically exceeds 90% (Charland et al. 1993). The physical condition and survival of post-parturient mothers is reduced compared to non-reproductive and gravid females (Macartney 1985). This is related to high rates of energy loss during gestation and reduced energy intake associated with post-partum maternal care (Amarello et al. 2011). Delayed physical recovery from reproduction is associated with a lengthy reproductive interval of 3-4 years (Macartney 1985). These life-history traits dictate that western rattlesnake populations are slow to grow even under optimal conditions.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 6-2

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

6.1.1.4 Key Habitat Requirements Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use The life requisites that were rated for the western rattlesnake are hibernating/denning habitat and foraging habitat, both of which are described in detail below. Hibernating habitat includes security and thermal habitat and is required by ectothermic species for survival through the winter. Gravid females use this habitat year-round, so it will be considered for all seasons. Foraging habitat is the habitat used during the active season (April to October).

Year-Round Hibernating/Denning Habitat Like other temperate reptiles, western rattlesnakes undergo a period of dormancy (hibernation) in the winter. In order for dormancy to be successful, snakes must find warm microclimates to escape death from freezing temperatures (Macartney et al. 1987). In BC, where winters are relatively cold, western rattlesnakes hibernate communally in large groups. Such communal hibernation is primarily driven by the low availability of suitable den sites in cold climates (Harvey and Weatherhead 2006). Western rattlesnake dens are often shared with other sensitive species such as racers and gopher snakes (Charland et al. 1993, Gomez 2007, Macartney 1985).

Despite the importance of hibernacula to western rattlesnakes, there is an incomplete understanding of the factors that determine site suitability for hibernation. However, a few studies have described the general features of dens for this species (COSEWIC 2004). These are described in detail below.

• Underground cavities/chambers – underground cavities and chambers are features common to all observed western rattlesnake hibernacula. This species is usually found hibernating in the cracks of rocky outcrops (both bare and soil-covered) and cavities in talus slopes (COSEWIC 2004, SIRART 2008b). These cavities must be of sufficient depth to prevent freezing, but exact depth requirements depend on site-specific climatic conditions. Hence, a minimum depth threshold is unknown. In a study of western rattlesnakes in Wyoming, dens were exclusively found in rocky outcrops (Parker and Andersen 2007). In BC, basalt and gneiss rock formations are thought to be most likely to provide the rock fractures needed for denning (Hobbs 2013).

• Solar heating – in northern climates, snakes prefer to hibernate in areas with higher insolation (Hamilton and Nowak 2009). This can account for the preponderance of studies that find a preference for south-facing hibernacula (Browning et al. 2005, Gienger and Beck 2011, Hamilton and Nowak 2009). The general expectation is that high solar heating elevates the temperature within hibernation chambers and causes snakes to select these sites. Although this may be possible, Geinger and Beck (2011) showed that at small-scales, aspect only influences the surface temperature and not the internal temperature of dens. High solar heating may still be important because surface-level basking sites are needed in the weeks leading up to and following hibernation (Gienger and Beck 2011). Hobbs (2013) and Macartney et al. (1987) suggest that the presence of large rock features enhances site suitability, because these structures are better able to store heat and release it over an extended time period. Although this was primarily conceived as a factor influencing temperatures within hibernacula, the logic applies to surface basking sites as well.

• Secondary Cover – Hibernacula are associated with secondary cover objects (Gomez 2007, Travsky and Beauvais 2004b) including small rocks, talus, CWD, and shrubs (Hobbs 2013). These features likely provide protection for all rattlesnakes during pre and post-hibernation. Also, these structures probably protect gravid females and their young during the active season. As outlined above, secondary objects also radiate heat, which may be another reason why snakes are associated with these structures.

• Slope – Western rattlesnake dens have been found on steep slopes (e.g., 56°) (Geinger and Beck 2011), possibly because steep sites are also associated with exposed rock and crevices for over-wintering and have a high capacity for solar heating. Within such broadly steep terrain, hibernacula tend to be located on more moderately sloped benches (Geinger and Beck 2011). In the Okanagan, a large number of dens have been located on shallower slopes at the base of cliffs (Hobbs 2013). Although broadly steep terrain may be associated with preferred denning structures, dens have also been found on areas with generally shallow slopes (e.g., 29.5°) (Bertram et al. 2001).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 6-3

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

There is an absence of research on broader-scale selection for particular slopes by western rattlesnakes, but it seems likely that in most cases slope per se is not the feature that determines site suitability. Rather, surface substrate (e.g., availability of boulders, rocky outcrops and talus) and solar insolation, which correlate with slope, are probably more important. This is supported by a den-selection study on western rattlesnakes in Wyoming; slope did not serve to predict the locations of dens once the distance from rock outcrops was taken into account (Spear et al. 2011).

• Elevation – McCartney (1985) noted hibernacula as high as 1000 m elevation, but most known dens are at lower elevations towards the toe or middle portions of rocky outcrops (SIRART 2008b). Indeed, in a review of BC den sites relative to elevation, Hobbs (2013) notes that the majority (> 90%) of dens occur below 800 m elevation, and only rarely are dens observed above 1000 m in BC (1% of dens).

Growing Season Foraging habitat Nutrition is a primary determinant of reproductive performance in the western rattlesnakes (Diller and Wallace 1984). Therefore, maintaining adequate foraging habitat is important for the conservation of this species. Considering the needs of western rattlesnakes, ideal foraging habitat should combine abundant prey, appropriate thermal conditions, and adequate cover for behavioural thermoregulation, predator avoidance, and prey ambush.

Since both snakes and their rodent prey require cover for daily living, quality foraging and cover habitats likely co-occur (Gomez 2007). During the active season, adult male rattlesnakes in BC preferentially select Interior Douglas-fir over Ponderosa Pine and Bunchgrass (Gomez 2007). At finer spatial scales, males are positively associated with percentage cover in woody debris, rocks, and shrubs and negatively related to grass cover (Gomez 2007). Further, habitat use is negatively related to distance from rocky outcrops, gullies, and other stable structures, and positively related with distance to tree cover and slopes >50% (Gomez 2007). Presumably, sites with higher insolation are preferred at larger spatial scales, but in the study by Gomez (2007) aspect did not appear to affect selection at micro-habitat (0.5 m) scales. In contrast to hibernation sites which typically occur below 1,000 m, summer habitat can extend into higher elevations up to 1,434 m (Hobbs 2013). Although snakes are not constrained to remain near their dens during the summer, all sexes and age-classes can be found near dens during the active season (Parker and Andersen 2007). This behaviour has not been noted in any BC populations.

6.1.1.5 Limiting Factors The distribution of western rattlesnakes is primarily limited by climate and availability of suitable hibernating habitat. In addition, the den site is the start and end point of all seasonal movements, thereby limiting the potential movement distances and patterns (BC MWLAP 2004). The western rattlesnake demonstrates high den site fidelity and is vulnerable to even low levels of disturbance, such as repeated visits to den sites by researchers (Charland et al. 1993). It is expected that most western rattlesnakes will not survive if areas near their hibernacula are disturbed or if their hibernacula are destroyed while the rattlesnakes are absent (BC MWLAP 2004).

In addition to the limits of climate, western rattlesnakes in BC are likely limited by the availability of rodents (their primary prey source) (Charland et al. 1993). Therefore, factors that influence rodent populations likely affect western rattlesnake numbers as well (Charland et al. 1993).

Anthropogenic effects are a more recent limiting factor. Road mortality is considered to be an influential stressor to BC’s western rattlesnake populations. Although negative effects of roads on snakes are generally most pronounced nearby these features, negative consequences have been detected at and above 850 m from roads (Hobbs 2013).

6.1.1.6 Model Development There was an intermediate level of knowledge on the habitat requirements of the western rattlesnake in BC. Therefore a 4-point rating system was used, ranging from High (1) to Nil (4).

Provincial Benchmark A historical benchmark exists for rattlesnakes in BC (BC MOE 2003c).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 6-4

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

• Ecosection: South Okanagan Basin.

• Biogeoclimatic Zones: Bunchgrass (BGxh1), Ponderosa Pine (PPxh1).

• Habitat: rugged open habitats with riparian and meadow habitats nearby.

Ratings Assumptions General Habitat • High quality habitat (High [1], Moderate [2]) occurs in the Bunchgrass, Ponderosa Pine or Interior Douglas-fir biogeoclimatic zones. All other biogeoclimatic zones were rated Nil (4).

• Cultivated Fields and Hayfields were rated up to Moderate (2).

• Urban areas were rated up to Low (3).

• Mines, alpine areas, and avalanche tracks were rated Nil (4).

• Sites with typical moisture regimes ranging between hydric and submesic were rated Nil (4).

• Sites with typical moisture regimes extending from xeric to mesic retained their rating.

Year-Round Hibernating/Denning Habitat • Rocky outcrops, rock cliffs, and talus slopes were assumed to provide hibernation habitat and were rated High (1).

• Structural stage 1-3 sites which were part of or adjacent to the above hibernation habitat were rated up to High (1).

• Structural stage 1-3 sites which were adjacent and downslope of a cliff were rated up to High (1).

• Sructural stage > 4 ponderosa pine stands were rated up to High (1), and Douglas-fir stands were rated up to Low (3).

• Sites not adjacent to rock outcrops, talus slopes, and cliffs (as described above) were rated up to Low (3).

• Ratings were further downgraded if insolation values were less than 5115.435 watt hours per meter squared (Wh/m2) (Table 6.1-2).

• No adjustments were made for slope.

TABLE 6.1-2

RATING REDUCTIONS FOR WESTERN RATTLESNAKE HABITAT DEPENDING ON INCIDENT SOLAR INSOLATION

Insolation Value (Wh/m2) Rating Adjustment < 5115.435 downgraded to Nil (4) > 5115.435 no adjustment Note: - Insolation measured in daily average watt hours per square meter (Wh/m2).

Growing Season Foraging Habitat • Rattlesnake range within the Wildlife LSA occurs at low elevations (i.e. < 936 m), so suitability ratings were not adjusted for elevation.

• Boulder fields, rocky outcrops, talus slopes were rated up to Moderate (2).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 6-5

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

• Sites in BGxh2, PP and IDFxh1 zones were rated up to High (1).

• Other forested sites (structural stage 4-7) were rated up to Low (3).

• Ratings were further adjusted based on insolation threshold values (Table 6.1-3).

TABLE 6.1-3

RATING REDUCTIONS FOR WESTERN RATTLESNAKE HABITAT DEPENDING ON INCIDENT SOLAR INSOLATION

Insolation Value (Wh/m2) Rating Adjustment 0 – 1354.17 +1 (downgrade) 1354.17 – 7205.93 no adjustment 7205.93 – 10131.81 +2 (downgrade) >10131.81 downgraded to Nil (4) Note: - Insolation measured in daily average watt hours per square meter (Wh/m2).

6.1.1.7 Ratings Adjustments Road mortality is a concern in western rattlesnake range (BC MWLAP 2004). Therefore, habitat ratings were downgraded near road features (including secondary and tertiary roads). Alterations to the natural state of foraging and hibernation habitat were also assumed to reduce the quality of rattlesnake habitat. Vegetated linear developments (e.g., transmission lines, pipelines) were assumed be usable foraging habitat, but reduced in value because of the loss of structural complexity such as shrubs, rocks and other debris. Therefore, pipelines and transmission lines developed for the Project were assumed to result in a one rating reduction in foraging habitat suitability. All project disturbances were assumed to be unsuitable for hibernation/denning habitat.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 6-6

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

7.0 SUMMARY Wildlife habitat modelling was completed within the Wildlife LSA and, for select indicators, within the Wildlife RSA, to quantify predicted changes in availability of effective habitat which may occur from construction and operations of the Project, and cumulative interactions with existing and foreseeable future developments.

• Thirty-two habitat models were completed at the Wildlife LSA scale, for 23 wildlife indicators. Methods used to develop habitat models were adapted from the BC Wildlife Habitat Ratings Standards. Existing habitat models provided by provincial regulatory authorities were used for three wildlife indicators.

• Different approaches to the habitat modelling within the Wildlife RSA were used, depending on the availability of data. Where data were available at the regional scale, the models developed or applied within the Wildlife LSA were run for the Wildlife RSA, with the only modification, aside from the spatial boundary, being the inclusion of the cumulative conditions scenario. Where data were not available to adapt the Wildlife LSA scale models to the Wildlife RSA, regional-scale ecosystem data were used to evaluate changes in potential habitat within the Wildlife RSA. Regional ecosystem units within the Wildlife RSA were derived from AGCC data in Alberta (ASRD 2010) and a combination of BEI and Freshwater Atlas data in BC (BC MOE 2003a, BC MOFR 2008).

• Habitat models developed for the Project employed an adaptive modelling process. Models were defined and revised based on preliminary evaluations of model performance.

• The results of the habitat models are presented in Sections 7.2.10 and 8.9 of Volume 5A as the area (ha) of each habitat suitability class, and as the percentage change as a proportion of the existing habitat available. For ease of description, habitat rated moderate to high is referred to as ‘effective’ habitat in the assessment.

• Species accounts were prepared for 30 wildlife species and communities, encompassing the 26 wildlife indicators selected for the Project. Accounts were used to guide habitat evaluations used for developing habitat models as well as provide context for the effects assessment.

• Field surveys to evaluate habitat suitability ratings were conducted in 2012 and 2013. Field sampling provided ground-truthing of the preliminary habitat ratings and a basis for revising the species-habitat models. Supplemental field studies will be completed where land access was limited or there were changes in the Project scope, which will support a comprehensive evaluation of model performance.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 7-1

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

8.0 REFERENCES 8.1 Personal Communications Blackburn, I. British Columbia Ministry of forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Spotted Owl Recovery Coordinator. Surrey, British Columbia (July 29, 2013).

8.2 Literature Cited Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute. 2013a. Species Account: Asio flammeus (Short-eared Owl). Website: http://www.abmi.ca/abmi/biodiversitybrowser/speciesprofile.jsp? tsnId=177935&rankId=220&kingdomId=5&categoryId=1&subcategoryId=-1. Accessed: July 2013.

Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute. 2013b. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) Distribution and Habitat Associations in Alberta. Website: http://www.abmi.ca/abmi/reports/reports.jsp? categoryId=183. Accessed: October 2013.

Alberta Conservation Association. 2013. Big Game Surveys. Website: http://www.ab- conservation.com/go/default/index.cfm/programs/wildlife/wildlife-projects/aerial-ungulate- surveys/overview/. Accessed: August 2013.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2008. Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan 2008-2013. Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 15. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division. Edmonton, AB. 68 pp.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. 2012a. Species Assessed by Alberta's Endangered Species Conservation Committee: Short List. Updated: November 6, 2012. 2 pp.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. 2012b. Grizzly Bear Conservation in Alberta: 2012 Management Activities and Recovery Implementation. Website: http://srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/WildlifeManagement/BearManagement/GrizzlyBears/documents/ GrizzlyBears-GrizzlyBearConservationAlberta-Jun2013.pdf. Accessed: October 2013.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. 2012c. 2012 Alberta Hunting Draws Summary Report. Website: http://mywildalberta.com/hunting/HuntingDraws/ HuntingDrawsReports/DrawsSummaryReport/Default.aspx. Accessed: November 2013.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. 2012d. Alberta Canadian Wetland Classification System Merged Wetland Inventory Shapefiles. Website: http://srd.alberta.ca/MapsPhotosPublications/Maps/ResourceDataProductCatalogue/Biophysical. aspx. Acquired: November 2013. Reproduced with the permission of Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. 2013a. Wild Species Status Search. Website: http://srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/SpeciesAtRisk/WildSpeciesStatusSearch.aspx. Accessed: November 2013.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. 2013b. 2013-2014 Alberta Guide to Trapping Regulations. Website: http://srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/FishingHuntingTrapping/AlbertaRegulations/documents/AlbertaG uideTrappingRegs-2013-2014.pdf. Accessed November 2013.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2008a. September 24, 2008 Draft Core and Secondary Grizzly Bear Conservation Boundaries. Map produced by Resource Analysis Section, Forest Management Branch, Forestry Division (map name: csa_080924_draft.pdf). Website: http://srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/WildlifeManagement/BearManagement/GrizzlyBears/documents/ GrizzlyBear-CoreSecondaryConservationBoundaries-Sep2008.pdf. Accessed: November 2013.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 8-1

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2008b. Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan 2008-2013. Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 15. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division. Edmonton, AB. 68 pp.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2009. Moose (Alces alces). Website: http://srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/WildSpecies/Mammals/Deer/Moose.aspx. Last Updated: June 1, 2009. Accessed November 2013.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2010. Alberta Ground Cover Classification Shapefile. Edmonton, AB. Received via email, Website: http://srd.alberta.ca/Wildfire/ WildfirePreventionEnforcement/GISWildlandFireManagement/RemoteSensing.aspx. Acquired: November 2011.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2011. General Status of Alberta Wild Species 2010. Website: http://srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/SpeciesAtRisk/GeneralStatusOfAlbertaWildSpecies/ GeneralStatusOfAlbertaWildSpecies2010/SearchForWildSpeciesStatus.aspx. Accessed: September 2013.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association. 2006. Status of the Western Grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis) in Alberta. Wildlife Status Report No. 60. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Edmonton, AB. 29 pp.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association. 2009. Status of the Northern Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) in Alberta: Update 2009. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Wildlife Status Report No. 3 (Update 2009). Edmonton, AB. 34 pp.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association. 2010. Status of the Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) in Alberta: Update 2010. Wildlife Status Report No. 37. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Edmonton, AB. 44 pp.Allen, A.W. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Marten. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-92/10.11. 9 pp.

Allen, M.C. and K.A. Peters. 2012. Nest survival, phenology, and nest-site characteristics of common nighthawks in a New Jersey Pine Barrens grassland. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 124:113-118.

Allendorf, F.W., G. Luikart and S.N. Aitken. 2013. Conservation and the Genetics of Populations: Second Edition. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. West Sussex, UK. 624pp.

AltaLIS. 2000. 1:20 000 Base Features Shapefiles. Calgary, AB. Available: http://www.altalis.com/ prod_base_bound.html. Acquired: July 2013.

Amarello, M., J.J. Smith and J. Slone. 2011. Family values: rattlesnake parental care is more than just attendance (poster). Website: http://precedings.nature.com/documents/6671/version /1/files/npre20116671-1.pdf. Accessed: October 2013.

Andersen, R. 1991. Habitat deterioration and the migratory behaviour of moose (Alces alces l.) in Norway. Journal of Applied Ecology 28:102-108.

Andersen, R., J.D.C. Linell, R. Langvatn. 1996. Short term behavioural and physiological response of moose Alces alces to military disturbance in Norway. Biological Conservation 77(2-3):169-176.

Andruskiw, M., J.M. Fryxell, I.D. Thompson and J.A. Baker. 2008. Habitat-mediated variation in predation risk by the American marten. Ecology 89(8):2273-2280.

Apps, C. 2010. Grizzly Bear Population Inventory and Monitoring Strategy for British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation. Victoria, BC. 58 pp.

Apps, C., B. McLellan, T. Kinley and J. Flaa. 2001. Scale-dependent habitat selection by mountain caribou, Columbia Mountains, British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management 65(1):65-77.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 8-2

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Apps, C., B. McLellan, J.G. Woods and M.F. Proctor. 2004. Estimating grizzly bear distribution and abundance relative to habitat and human influence. Journal of Wildlife Management 68(1):138-152.

Archibald, R., R. Ellis and A. Hamilton. 1987. Responses of grizzly bears to logging truck traffic in the Kimsquit River valley, BC. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 7:251-257.

Arjo, W.M. 2007. Mountain beaver: a primitive fossorial rodent. United States Department of Agriculture, National Wildlife Research Center – Staff Publications. Paper 675:309-321.

Arjo, W.M., R.E. Huenefeld and D.L. Nolte. 2007. Mountain beaver home ranges, habitat use, and population dynamics in Washington. Canadian Journal of Zoology 85:328-337.

Atlas of Canada. 2009. Canada: Average Maximum Snow Depth. Website: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/data/english/maps/water/average_maximum_snow_depth_map.pdf. Accessed: August 2013.

Austin, M.A. and C. Wrenshall. 2004. An Analysis of Reported Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) Mortality Data in British Columbia from 1978-2003. B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Victoria, BC. 16 pp.

Baicich, P.J. and C.J.O Harrison. 1997. A Guide to the Nests, Eggs, and Nestlings of North American Birds (2nd ed.). Academic Press, CA. 347 pp.

Baltensperger, A.P. 2009. Behavior and distribution of American marten (Martes americana) in relation to snow and forest cover on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. M.Sc. Thesis, Colorado State University. Fort Collins, CO.

Barber, J.R., K.M. Fristrup, C.L. Brown, A.R. Hardy, L.M. Angeloni and K.R. Crooks. 2009. Conserving the wild life therein—protecting park fauna from anthropogenic noise. Park Science 26(3):26-31.

Barclay, R.M. 1991. Population structure of temperate zone insectivorous bats in relation to foraging behaviour and energy demand. Journal of Animal Ecology 60:165-178.

Barclay, R.M.R. and A. Kurta. 2007. Ecology and behavior of bats roosting in tree cavities and under bark. Pp. 17-59 in Bats in Forests: Conservation and Management. M.J. Lacki, J.P. Hayes and A. Kurta (Eds.). John Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, MD.

Bartelt, P. and C.R. Peterson. 2005. Physical modeling operative temperature and evaporative water loss in amphibians. Journal of Thermal Biology 30:93-102.

Bartelt, P.E., R.W. Klaver and W.P. Porter. 2010. Modeling amphibian energetic, habitat suitability, and movements of western toads, Anaxyrus (=Bufo) boreas, across present and future landscapes. Ecological Modelling 221:2675-2686.

Bayne, E.M., L. Habib and S. Boutin. 2008. Impacts of chronic anthropogenic noise from energy-sector activity on abundance of songbirds in the boreal forest. Conservation Biology 22(5):1186-1193.

Beckingham, J.D. and J.H. Archibald. 1996. Field Guide to Ecosites of Northern Alberta. Canadian Forest Service Northwest Region Northern Forestry Centre. Natural Resources Canada. 336 pp.

Beckingham, J.D., I.G.W. Corns and J.H. Archibald. 1996. Field Guide to Ecosites of West-Central Alberta. Canadian Forest Service Northwest Region Northern Forestry Centre. Natural Resources Canada. 380 pp.

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

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 8-3

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Bertram, N., K.W. Larsen and J. Surgenor. 2001. Identification of Critical Habitats and Conservation Issues for the Western Rattlesnake and Great Basin Gopher Snake within the Thompson–Nicola region of British Columbia. Report prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air protection and the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund of British Columbia. 53 pp.

Betts, M.G., J.C. Hagar, J.W. River, .J.D. Alexander, K. McGarigal and B.C. McComb. 2010. Thresholds in forest bird occurrence as a function of the amount of early-seral broadleaf forest at landscape scales. Ecological Applications 20(8):2116-2130.

Blackburn, I., A. Harestad, J. Smith, S. Godwin, R. Hentze and C. Lenihan. 2002. Population Assessment of the Northern Spotted Owl in British Columbia 1992-2001. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Surrey, BC. 22 pp.

Blackburn, I. and S. Godwin. 2004. Status of the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) in British Columbia. BC. Wildlife Bulletin No. B-118. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection – Biodiversity Branch. Victoria, BC. 34 pp.

Blanchard, B.M. 1983. Grizzly bear-habitat relationships in the Yellowstone area. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 5:118-123.

Blood, D.A. and G.G. Anweiler. 1994. Status of the Bald Eagle in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-62. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch, Victoria, BC. 77 pp.

Bock, C.E., V.A. Saab, T.D. Rich and D.S. Dobkin. 1993. Effects of Livestock Grazing on Neotropical Migratory Landbirds in Western North America. Pp 296-309 in Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Estes Park, CO.

Boland, J. L., J.P. Hayes, W.P. Smith and M.M. Huso. 2009. Selection of day-roosts by Keen’s myotis (Myotis keenii) at multiple spatial scale. Journal of Mammalogy 90(1):222-234.

Booth, B. and M. Merkins. 1998. Extensive Survey and Evaluation of a Predictive Habitat Model for the Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus) in the Kamloops Forest District. PAW Research Services. Report submitted to the British Columbia Ministry of Environment and North Thompson Indian Band. 32 pp.

Boreal Avian Modelling Project. 2013. Boreal Avian Modelling Project. Website: http://www.borealbirds.ca/. Accessed: October 2013.

Boulanger, J. and G. Stenhouse. 2009. Demography of Alberta Grizzly Bears: 1999–2009. Foothills Research Institute. Report prepared for Alberta Sustainable Resource, Development, Fish and Wildlife Division. Hinton, AB. 23 pp.

Boutilier, R.G., D.F. Stiffler and D.P. Toews. 1992. Exchange of Respiratory Gases, Ions, and Water in Amphibious and Aquatic Amphibians. Pp. 81-124 in Environmental Physiology of Amphibians. Feder, M. E. and W. W. Burggren (eds). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Brennan, L.A. and W.P. Kuvlesky. 2005. North American grassland birds: an unfolding conservation crisis? Journal of Wildlife Management 69:1-3.

Brigham, R.M. 1989. Roost and nest sites of common nighthawks: are gravel roofs important? Condor 91:722-724.

Brigham, R.M., J. Ng, R.G. Poulin and S.D. Grindal. 2011. Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor). In The Birds of North America Online. A. Poole (Ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. Website: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/213. Accessed: November 2013.

British Columbia Conservation Data Centre. 2013. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer. Website: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/. Accessed: October 2013.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 8-4

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines. 2005. Digital Geology Map of British Columbia - Geology (digital file). Victoria, BC. Website: http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Mining/Geoscience/ BedrockMapping/Pages/BCGeoMap.aspx. Acquired: September 2012.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1999. British Columbia Wildlife Habitat Ratings Standards (Version 2). Victoria, BC. 97 pp.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 2000. Moose in British Columbia: Ecology, Conservation and Management. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, BC. 5 pp.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2003a. Broad Ecosystem Inventory Classification (digital file). Victoria, BC. Available: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/ecology/bei/base_data.html. Acquired: November 2011.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2003b. Quality Assurance Guidelines: Wildlife Habitat Ratings (Draft). Victoria, BC. 37 pp.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2003c. Species Account: Northern Pacific Rattlesnake. Website: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/acat/documents/r1757/whr_4002_rcror_1224094812128 _8e248a8d30d8a9320898638a4b82840986e6405f8898.pdf. Accessed: October 2013.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2006. Great Basin Spadefoot (A-SPIN) Species Account. Website: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/acat/documents/r4159/whr_4477_aspin_ 1150408587285_7aa87b11e6fd408cb82fe3fd2bd99524.pdf. Accessed: September 2013.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2008. Recovery Strategy for the Northern Goshawk, laingi Subspecies (Accipiter gentilis laingi) in British Columbia. Victoria, BC. 56 pp.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2012a. Grizzly Bear Population Status in B.C. (2012). Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/indicators/plants-and-animals/grizzly-bears.html. Accessed: November 26, 2013.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2012b. Recovery Plan for the Williamson’s Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus thyroideus) on Crown Lands in British Columbia. Victoria, BC. 21 pp.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2013a. Management Plan for the Mountain Beaver (Aplodontia rufa) in British Columbia. Victoria, BC. 28 pp.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2013b. BC Frogwatch Program. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/frogwatch/ Accessed: October 2013.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Ministry of Environment. 1997. Species and Plant Community Accounts for Identified Wildlife: Mountain Beaver (Aplodontia rufa rufa - Aplodontia rufa rainier). Website: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/other/species/species-29.htm. Accessed: November 2013.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2011. Frequently Asked Questions: Moose Harvest Strategies in South-central BC (Cariboo, Thompson, Okanagan, Kootenay, Omineca). Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/managementissues/docs/ Moose%20Selective%20Harvest_15%20July%202011.pdf. Accessed: September 2013.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2012. British Columbia Grizzly Bear Population Estimates for 2012. Victoria, BC. 9 pp.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2013a. VRI - Forest Vegetation Composite Polygons and Rank 1 Layer (digital file). Victoria, BC. Website: https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/dwds/home.so. Acquired: July 2013.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 8-5

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2013b. Furbearer Management Guidelines: Marten (Martes americana). Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/ fw/wildlife/trapping/docs/marten.pdf. Accessed: November 2013.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range. 2008. Freshwater Atlas (digital files). Victoria, BC. Website: https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/dwds/home.so. Acquired: August 2011.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range and British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2010. Field Manual for Describing Terrestrial Ecosystems. 2nd Edition. Province of British Columbia. Victoria, BC. 266 pp.

British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2004. Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife – Accounts V. 2004. B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Victoria, BC. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/frpa/iwms/accounts.html Accessed: October 2013.

Browne, C.L. and C.A. Paszkowski. 2010. Hibernation sites of western toads (Anaxyrus boreas): characterization and management implications. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 5(1):49-63.

Browning, D.M., S.J. Beaupre and L. Duncan. 2005. Using partitioned Mahalanobis D2 (k) to formulate a GIS-based model of timber rattlesnake hibernacula. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(1):33-44.

Bull, E.L. 2009. Dispersal of newly metamorphosed and juvenile western toads (Anaxyrus boreas) in northeastern Oregon, USA. Herpitological Conservation and Biology 4(2):236-247.

Bunnell, F.L. 1995. Forest-dwelling vertebrate faunas and natural fire regimes in British Columbia: patterns and implications for conservation. Conservation Biology 9(3):636-644.

Bunnell, F.L. and L.A. Dupuis. 1993. Riparian Habitats in British Columbia; their Nature and Role. Pp. 7- 12 in Riparian Management and Research. K.H. Morgan and M.A. Lashmar (Eds.). Proceedings of a workshop held in Kamloops, B.C. 4-5 May, 1993. Special Publication of the Fraser River Action Plan, Environment Canada, and the Canadian Wildlife Service Delta.

Burkinshaw, A.M., M.G. Wiloughby, K. France, H. Loonen and R.L. McNeil. 2009. Range Plant Communities and Range Health Assessment Guidelines for the Central Parkland Subregion of Alberta. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Land Division. Red Deer, AB. 136 pp.

Busch, C., C.D. Antinuchi, J.C. Del Valle, M. Kittlein, A.I. Malizia, A.I. Vassallo and R.R. Zenuto. 2000. Population Ecology of Subterranean Rodents. Pp. 183-226 in Life Underground: The Biology of Subterranean Rodents. E.A Lacey, G Cameron and J.L Patton (Eds.) University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Buskirk, S.W. and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994. American Marten. Pp. 7-37 in American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the western United States. L.F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski (Eds.). US Forest Service General Technical Report RM-254.

Buskirk, S.W. and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat Ecology of Fishers and American Martens. Pp. 283-296 in Martens, Sables, and Fishers – Biology and Conservation. S.W. Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael and R.A. Powell (Eds). Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

Butler, R.W. and R.W. Campbell. 1987. The Birds of the Fraser River Delta: Populations, Ecology and International Significance. Occasional Paper No. 65. Canadian Wildlife Service. Ottawa, ON. 73 pp.

Butler, R.W., P.E. Whitehead, A.M. Breault and I.E. Moul. 1995. Colony effects on fledging success of great blue herons (Ardea herodias) in British Columbia. Colonial Waterbirds 18(2):159-165.

Campbell, W.R., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G. W. Kaiser and M.C.E. McNall. 1990. Birds of British Columbia: Volume 2, Nonpasserines; Diurnal Birds of Prey through Woodpeckers. Royal British Columbia Museum. University of British Columbia Press. Vancouver, BC. 636 pp.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 8-6

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Campbell, W.R., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G. W. Kaiser, M.C.E. McNall and G.E.J. Smith. 1997. The Birds of British Columbia, Volume 3. Passerines: Flycatchers through Vireos. Royal British Columbia Museum. University of British Columbia Press. Vancouver, BC. 693 pp.

Campbell, W.R., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G. W. Kaiser, A.C. Stewart and M.C.E. McNall. 2001. The Birds of British Columbia, Volume 4. Passerines: Wood-Warblers through Old World Sparrows. Royal British Columbia Museum. University of British Columbia Press. Vancouver, BC. 739 pp.

Cannings, R.J. and H. Davis. 2007. Status of the Western Screech-Owl macfarlanei subspecies (Megascops kennicottii macfarlanei) in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report. No. WR-112. British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Victoria, BC. 21 pp.

Carlson, B.A. and E.B. McLean. 1996. Buffer zones and disturbance types as predictors of fledging success in great blue herons, Ardea herodias. Colonial Waterbirds 19:124-127.

Carraway, L.N. and B.J. Verts. 1993. Aplodontia rufa. Mammalian Species 431:1-10.

Carroll, C. 2007. Interacting effects of climate change, landscape conversion, and harvest on carnivore populations at the range margin: marten and lynx in the Appalachians. Conservation Biology 21(4):1092-1104.

Chambers, C.L., W.C. McComb and J.C. Tappeiner II. 1999. Breeding bird responses to three silvicultural treatments in the Oregon coast range. Ecological Applications 9(1):171-185.

Charland, M.B. 1989. Size and winter survivorship in neonatal western rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis). Canadian Journal of Zoology 67(7):1620-1625.

Charland, M.B., K.J. Nelson and P.T. Gregory. 1993. Status of the northern Pacific rattlesnake in British Columbia. Wildlife Branch, Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks. vi + 18 pp.

Chatfield, A.H. 2005. Habitat Selection by a California Spotted Owl Population: A Landscape Scale Analysis Using Resource Selection Functions. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

Cheveau, M., L. Imbeau, P. Drapeau and L. Belanger. 2013. Marten space use and habitat selection in managed coniferous boreal forests of eastern Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management 77(4):749-760.

Christie, D.A. and A.M. van Woudenberg. 1997. Modeling critical habitat for flammulated owls (Otus flammeolus). Pp. 97–106 in Biology and Conservation of Owls in the Northern Hemisphere. J.R Duncan, D.H. Johnson, and T.H. Nicholls (Eds.). General Technical Report GTR NC-190. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, St. Paul, MN.

Christie, K.S. and T.E. Reimchen. 2008. Presence of salmon increases passerine density on Pacific Northwest streams. Auk 125(1):51-59.

Ciarniello, L., D. Seip and D. Heard. 2003. Parsnip Grizzly Bear Population and Habitat Project. Summary Data Sets 1998–2002, Including Habitat Use and Availability. Final Report, Parsnip Grizzly Project, Prince George, BC. viii + 89 pp.

Cichowski, D. 2010. Status of the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Alberta: Update 2010. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Wildlife Status Report No. 30 (Update 2010). Edmonton, AB. 88 pp.

Clark, T.W., E. Anderson, C. Douglas and M. Strickland. 1987. Martes americana. Mammalian Species 289:1-8.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 8-7

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Clayton, K.M. 2000. Status of the Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) in Alberta. Alberta Environment, Fisheries and Wildlife Management Division, and Alberta Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report No. 28, Edmonton, AB. 15 pp.

Coady, J.W. 1974. Influence of snow on behaviour of moose. Canadian Naturalist 101:417-436.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2000. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Northern Goshawk laingi Subspecies Accipiter gentilis laingi in Canada. Ottawa, ON. vi + 36 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2002a. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos in Canada. Ottawa, ON. vii + 91 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2002b. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Woodland Caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou in Canada. Ottawa, ON. xi + 98 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2002c. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Western Screech-owl Otus kennicottii. Ottawa, ON. 31 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2002d. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Western Toad Bufo boreas in Canada. Ottawa, ON. vi + 31 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2003. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Keen’s Long-eared Bat Myotis keenii in Canada. Ottawa, ON. vii + 35 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2004. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Western Rattlesnake Crotalus oreganus in Canada. Ottawa, ON. 26 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2005. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Williamson's Sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus in Canada. Ottawa, ON. vii + 45 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2006a. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Pacific water shrew Sorex bendirii in Canada. Ottawa, ON. 28 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2006b. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus in Canada. Ottawa, ON. 45 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2007a. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor in Canada. Ottawa, ON. 25 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2007b. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi in Canada. Ottawa, ON. vi + 42 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2007c. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Great Basin Spadefoot Spea intermontana in Canada. Ottawa, ON. vi + 34 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2008a. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus in Canada. Ottawa, ON. 24 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2008b. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Great Blue Heron fannini Subspecies Ardea herodias fannini in Canada. Ottawa, ON. 39 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2008c. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina, Caurina Subspecies, in Canada. Ottawa, ON. vii + 48 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2010a. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Flammulated Owl Otus flammeolus in Canada. Ottawa, ON. 23 pp.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 8-8

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2010b. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis in Canada. Ottawa, ON. x + 23 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2011. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Coastal Tailed Frog Ascaphus truei in Canada. Ottawa, ON. xii + 53pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2012a. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos in Canada. Ottawa, ON. xiv + 84 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2012b. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Mountain Beaver Aplodontia rufa in Canada. Ottawa, ON. xi + 30 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2012c. Technical Summary and Supporting Information for an Emergency Assessment of the Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus. Ottawa, ON. 24 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2012d. Technical Summary and Supporting Information for an Emergency Assessment of the Northern Myotis Myotis septentrionalis. Ottawa, ON. 25 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2012e. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Western Screech-Owl kennicottii Subspecies Megascopus kennicottii kennicottii and the Western Screech-owl macfarlani Subspecies Megacopus kennicottii macfarlenei in Canada. Ottawa, ON. 30 pp.

Cooper, J.M. 1995. Status of the Williamson’s Sapsucker in British Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Wildlife Branch. Victoria, BC. viii + 16 pp.

Cooper, J.M. and S.M. Beauchesne. 2000. Inventory of Lewis’s Woodpecker Breeding Population and Habitat in the East Kootenay. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch, Wildlife Working Report No. WR-100. Victoria, BC. 30 pp.

Cooper, J.M. and V. Stevens. 2000. A Review of the Ecology, Management and Conservation of the Northern Goshawk in British Columbia. Wildlife Bulletin No. B-101, British Columbia Environment, Land and Parks, Wildlife Branch. Victoria, BC. 31 pp.

Cooper, J.M., K.A. Enns and M.G. Shepard. 1997a. Status of the Black-throated Green Warbler in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-80. Wildlife Branch, Victoria, BC. 24 pp.

Cooper, J.M., K.A. Enns and M.G. Shephard. 1997b. Status of the Cape May warbler in British Columbia. BC Environment Branch. Victoria, BC. 23 pp.

Corkan, C.C and C. Thomas. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia: A Field Identification Guide. Lone Pine Publishing. 175 pp.

Craig, V. 2009. Species Account and Preliminary Habitat Ratings for Pacific Water Shrew (Sorex bendirii) Using TEM data – V.3. EcoLogic Research, Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Surrey, BC. 14 pp.

Crampton, L.H. and R.M.R. Barclay. 1998. Selection of roosting and foraging habitat by bats in different- aged aspen mixedwood stands. Conservation Biology 12:1347-1358.

Crête, M. and R. Courtois. 2009. Limiting factors might obscure population regulation of moose (Cervidae: Alces alces) in unproductive boreal forests. Journal of Zoology 242(4):765-781.

Cryan, P.M., M.A. Bogan and J.S. Altenbach. 2000. Effect of elevation on distribution of female bats in the Black Hills, South Dakota. Journal of Mammalogy 81(3):719-725.

Cushman, S.A., M.G. Raphael, L.F. Ruggiero, A.S. Shirk, T.N. Wasserman and E.C. O’Doherty. 2011. Limiting factors and landscape connectivity: the American marten in the Rocky Mountains. Landscape Ecology 26:1137-1149.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 8-9

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Daigle, P. 2010. A summary of the environmental impacts of roads, management responses, and research gaps: A literature review. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 10(3):65-89.

Danell, K., R. Bergström, P. Dunkan and J. Pastor. 2006. Large Herbivore Ecology, Ecosystem Dynamics and Conservation. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK. 524 pp.

Darimont, C.T., P.C. Paquet, T.E. Reimchen and V. Crichton. 2005. Range expansion by moose into coastal temperate rainforests of British Columbia, Canada. Biodiversity Research 11:235-239.

Davis, T.M. 2002. Research Priorities for the Management of the Western Toad, Bufo boreas. British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Biodiversity Branch. Victoria, BC. Wildlife Working Report WR-106. Victoria, BC. vii + 23 pp.

Deguise, I. and J.S. Richardson. 2009. Prevalence of the chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) in Western Toads in southwestern British Columbia, Canada. Northwestern Naturalist. 90(1):35-38.

Des Meules, P. 1964. The influence of snow on the behaviour of moose. Ministere du Tourisme de la Chasse et de la Pêche. Quebec, PQ. Rep. 3:51-73.

Diller, L.V. and R.L. Wallace. 1984. Reproductive biology of the northern Pacific rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis oreganus) in northern Idaho. Herpetologica 40(2):182-193.

Doyle, F. 2006. Breeding Success of the Goshawk (A. g. laingi) on Haida Gwaii/Queen Charlotte Islands 2005: is the Population Continuing to Decline? Prepared for British Columbia Ministry of the Environment. Telkwa, BC. 13 pp.

Duchamp, J.E. and R.K. Swihart. 2008. Shifts in bat community structure related to evolved traits and features of human-altered landscapes. Landscape Ecology 23:849-860.

Dugger, B.D., K.M. Dugger and L.H. Fredrickson. 2009. Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus). In The Birds of North America Online. A. Poole (Ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Website: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/098. Accessed: September 2013.

Dugger, K.M., R.G. Anthony and L.S. Andrews. 2011. Transient dynamics of invasive competition: barred owls, spotted owls, habitat, and the demons of competition present. Ecological Applications 21(7):2459-2468.

Dugger, K.M., F. Wagner, R.G. Anthony and G.S. Olson. 2005. The relationship between habitat characteristics and demographic performance of northern spotted owls in southern Oregon. Condor 107(4):863-878.

Dupuis, L.A. and P.A. Friele. 2003. Watershed-level protection and management measures for the maintenance of Ascaphus truei populations in the Skeena Region. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Smithers, BC. 57 pp.

Dupuis, L.A., F.L. Bunnell and P.A. Friele. 2000. Determinants of the tailed frog’s range in British Columbia, Canada. Northwest Science 74(2):109-115.

Dussault, C.R. Courtois and J. Ouellet. 2006. A habitat suitability index model to assess moose habitat selection at multiple spatial scales. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36:1097-1107.

Dussault, C.R. J. Ouellet, R. Courois, J. Huot, L. Breton, H. Jolicoeur. 2005. Linking moose habitat selection to limiting factors. Ecography 28(5):619-628.

Eadie, J.M., J.L. Savard and M.L. Mallory. 2000. Barrow's Goldeneye (Bucephala islandica). In The Birds of North America Online. A. Poole (Ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Website: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/548. Accessed: September 2013.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 8-10

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Eadie, J.M., M.L. Mallory and H.G. Lumsden. 1995. Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula). In The Birds of North America Online. A. Poole (Ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Website: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/170. Accessed: September 2013.

Eastman, D.S. 1977. Habitat selection and use in winter by moose in sub-boreal forests of north-central British Columbia, and relationships to forestry. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Eder, T. and D. Pattie. 2001. Mammals of British Columbia. Lone Pine Publishing. Edmonton, AB. 296 pp.

Ellis, T.M and M.G. Betts. 2011. Bird abundance and diversity across a hardwood gradient within early seral plantation forest. Forest Ecology and Management 261:1372–1381.

Ellis, T.M., A.J. Kroll and M.G. Betts. 2012. Early seral hardwood vegetation increases adult and fledgling bird abundance in Douglas-fir plantations of the Oregon Coast Range, USA. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 42:918-933.

Environment Canada. 2011. Management Plan for the Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Environment Canada. Ottawa, ON. iii + 23 pp.

Environment Canada. 2012. Management Plan for the Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. 6 pp. + Appendix.

Environment Canada. 2013a. Species at Risk Public Registry. Website: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm. Accessed: November 2013.

Environment Canada. 2013b. North American Breeding Bird Survey - Canadian Trends Website, Data- version 2011. Environment Canada, Gatineau, Quebec, K1A 0H3. Website: http://www.ec.gc.ca/ron-bbs/P004/A001/?lang=e&m=s&r=CONI&p=L. Accessed: August 2013.

Federal, Provincial and Territorial Governments of Canada. 2010. Canadian Biodiversity: Ecosystem Status and Trends 2010. Canadian Councils of Resource Ministers. Ottawa, ON.

Ferguson, G. and F. Iredale. 2007. Inventory of Western Screech-Owl in the Thompson Region. British Columbia Conservation Foundation and British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 13 pp.

Ferguson, S.H. and F. Messier. 1996. Can human predation of moose cause population cycles? Alces 32:149-161.

Field, R.D. and J. Reynolds. 2011. Sea to sky: impacts of residual salmon-derived nutrients on estuarine breeding bird communities. Proceedings of the Royal Society 278(1721):3081-3088.

Fischbach, A.S., S.W. Lewis and P. Hooge. 2005. Roost Selection by Bats in Southeast Alaska Coastal Rainforest. Report for Thorne Bay Ranger Station U.S. Forest Service. 23 pp.

Fisher, J.T., S. Bradbury, B. Anholt, L. Nolan, L. Roym J.P, Volpe, M. Wheatley. 2013. Wolverines (Gulo gulo luscus) on the Rocky Mountain slopes: natural heterogeneity and landscape alteration as predictors of distribution. Canadian Journal of Zoology 91(10):706-716.

Fondell, T.F. and I.J. Ball. 2004. Density and success of bird nests relative to grazing in western Montana. Biological Conservation 117:203-213.

Fontana, A., I.E. Teske, K. Pritchard and M. Evans. 1999. East Kootenay Fisher Reintroduction Program. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Cranbrook, BC. 29 pp.

Forman, R.T. and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:207-231+C2.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 8-11

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

FORREX. 2013. Fisher Forest and Habitat Management Web Module. Website: http://fisher.forrex.org/. Accessed: October 2013.

Forsman, E.D., E.C. Meslow and H.M. Wright. 1984. Distribution and biology of the Spotted Owl in Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 87:1-64.

Francis, C.D., C.P. Ortega and A. Cruz. 2009. Noise pollution changes avian communities and species interactions. Current Biology 19(16):1415-1419.

Friele, P.A. and L.A. Dupuis. 2007. Species Account and Habitat Model for Coastal Tailed Frog (Ascaphus truei) in the Lillooet Forest District. Report prepared for Lillooet TSA Committee, Kamloops, BC. Website: ftp://ftp.geobc.gov.bc.ca/.virtual/slk6ftp/pub/outgoing/requests/ Mid_Coast_Specified_Area/Background_info/TAFR/Paper_support/ASTR_Lill_2007%20(2).pdf Accessed: July 2013.

Furk, K.L. 2008. 2008 Population Census of Mountain Caribou in Wells Gray Park, the North Thompson Watershed and a portion of the Adams River Watershed of the Ministry of Environment Thompson Region. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Thompson Region and British Columbia Ministry of Forests Research Branch. 13 pp.

Garner, J.L. 2012. Movement and habitat-use of the Great Basin spadefood (Spea intermontana) at its northern range limit. M.Sc. Thesis, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, BC.

Garroway, C.J., J. Bowman and P.J. Wilson. 2011. Using a genetic network to parameterize a landscape resistance surface for fishers, Martes pennanti. Molecular Ecology 20:3978-3988.

Gauthier, G. 1993. Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola). In The Birds of North America Online. A. Poole (Ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Website: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/067. Accessed: September 2013.

Gebauer, M.B. and I.E. Moul. 2001. Status of the Great Blue Heron in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. 102, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch, Victoria, BC. x + 66 pp.

Gienger, C. M. and D.D. Beck. 2011. Northern pacific rattlesnakes (Crotalus oreganus) use thermal and structural cues to choose overwintering hibernacula. Canadian Journal of Zoology 89(11):1084-1090.

Gilbert, M.M. and A.D. Chalfoun. 2011. Energy development affects populations of sagebrush songbirds in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 7(4):816-824.

Goddard, A.D. 2003. Ungulate Winter Range Species Accounts Specific to the Peace River Region. Prepared for Ministry Water, Land and Air Protection Ecosystem Section. Fort St. John, BC. ii + 56 pp.

Gomez, D.M. and R.G. Anthony. 1998. Small mammal abundance in riparian and upland areas of five seral stages in Western Oregon. Northwest Science 72:293-302.

Gomez, L.M. 2007. Habitat use and movement patterns of the northern pacific rattlesnake (Crotalus o. oreganus) in British Columbia. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC.

Grindal, S. D., J.L. Morissette and R.M. Brigham. 1999. Concentration of bat activity in riparian habitats over an elevational gradient. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77(6):972-977.

Gyug, L.W., I.P. Ohanjanian, C. Steeger, I. A. Manley and P.W. Davidson. 2007. Distribution and density of Williamson's Sapsucker in British Columbia, Canada. British Columbia Birds 16:2-15.

Gyug, L.W. 2010a. Lewis’s Woodpecker Preliminary Species Account and Habitat Model for Interior British Columbia (draft). April 13, 2010. Unpublished report prepared for Environment Canada (contract K2F51-09-4148).

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 8-12

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Gyug, L.W. 2010b. Final Species Account for Williamson’s Sapsucker Species-Habitat Model West of Okanagan Lake. Unpublished report prepared for B.C. Ministry of Environment. Victoria, BC. 30 pp.

Gyug, L.W., C. Steeger and I.P. Ohanjanian. 2009a. Williamson’s sapsucker (Sphyrapicus thyroideus) sap trees in British Columbia. British Columbia Birds 19:6-12.

Gyug, L.W., C. Steeger and I.P. Ohanjanian. 2009b. Williamson's sapsucker (Sphyrapicus thyroideus) nest tree characteristics and densities in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 39:2319-2331.

Gyug, L.W., S. Wilson, C. Steeger and I.P. Ohanjanian. 2010. Williamson's sapsucker (Sphyrapicus thyroideus) nest productivity in relation to tree densities in British Columbia. British Columbia Birds 20:9-15.

Gyug, L.W., R.C. Dobbs, T.E. Martin and C.J. Conway. 2012. Williamson's Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus thyroideus). In The Birds of North America Online. A. Poole (Ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Website: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/285 doi:10.2173/bna.285. Accessed: September 2013.

Habib, L., E.M. Bayne and S. Boutin. 2007. Chronic industrial noise affects pairing success and age structure of ovenbirds Seiurus aurcapilla. Journal of Applied Ecology 44:176 184.

Hagar, J.C. 2007. Wildlife species associated with non-coniferous vegetation in Pacific Northwest conifer forests: a review. Forest Ecology and Management 246:108–122.

Halko, R., K. Hebert and S. Halko. 2001. Creston-Yahk Moose Winter Habitat Analysis. Prepared for Tembec Industries Inc. Cranbrook, BC. 36 pp.

Hamer, D. and S. Herrero. 1990. Courtship and use of mating areas by grizzly bears in the Front Ranges of Banff National Park, Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68:2695-2697.

Hamilton, A.N., W.R. Archibald and E. Lofroth. 1986. Coastal Grizzly Research Project. Progress Report - Year 4 -1985; Working Plan - Year 5 - 1986. Ministry of Environment and Parks Working Report No. WR-22 and Ministry of Forests Wildlife Habitat Research Report No. WHR-26. viii + 92 pp.

Hamilton, A.N. 2008. 2008 Grizzly Bear Population Estimate for British Columbia. Ministry of Environment. Victoria, BC. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/gbcs/ 2008_Grizzly_Population_Estimate_Final.pdf. Accessed: October 2013.

Hamilton, A.N., Heard, D.C. and M.A. Austin. 2004. British Columbia Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) Population Estimate. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. 7 pp.

Hamilton, B.T. and E.M. Nowak. 2009. Relationships between insolation and rattlesnake hibernacula. Western North American Naturalist 69(3):319-328.

Hammond, P.C. and J.C. Miller. 1998. Comparison of the biodiversity of Lepidoptera within three forested ecosystems. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 91(3):323-328.

Haney, A. and K. Iverson. 2009. WHA Species Accounts: Lewis’s Woodpecker in Conservation Analysis and Updated Ecosystem Mapping for the Central Okanagan Valley: Central Okanagan, South Slopes, Kelowna, Ellison and Joe Rich Wildlife LSAs. Website: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/acat/public/viewReport.do?reportId=16043 Accessed: April 2013.

Harvey, D.S. and P.J. Weatherhead. 2006. Hibernation site selection by eastern massasauga rattlesnakes (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus) near their northern range limit. Journal of Herpetology 40(1):66-73.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 8-13

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Hatler, D.F. 1995. Grizzly Bear Monitoring in the Babine LRUP Area: 1994 Project Final Report. Unpublished report for Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Forests Smithers, BC. 117 pp.

Hatter, I. 2006. Mountain Caribou 2006 Survey Results, Subpopulation Trends and Extinction Risk. Ministry of Environment. Victoria, BC. 19 pp.

Hatter, I., D. Cichowski and J. Quayle. 2009. Towards Defining Conservation Units for Woodland Caribou in British Columbia. Proceedings from the Caribou Genetics and Relationships Workshop. K. McFarlane, A. Gunn and C. Strobeck (Eds.). March 8-9, 2003. Edmonton, AB.

Hausleitner, D. 2006. 2006 Inventory and monitoring of the Northern Spotted Owl in southwest British Columbia. Report for British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC. 22 pp.

Hawkins, B.A., E.E. Porter and K.A.F. Diniz-Filho. 2013. Productivity and history as predictors of the latitudinal diversity gradient of terrestrial birds. Ecology 84(6):1608-1623.

Hayward, L.S., A.E. Bowles, J.C. Ha and S.K. Wasser. 2011. Impacts of acute and long-term vehicle exposure on physiology and reproductive success of the northern spotted owl. Ecosphere 2(6): art65.

Heard, D. and K. Vagt. 1998. Caribou in British Columbia: a 1996 status report. Rangifer Special Issue No. 10: 117-123.

Hepp, G.R. and F.C. Bellrose. 2013. Wood Duck (Aix sponsa). In The Birds of North America Online. A. Poole (Ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Website: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/169. Accessed: July 2013.

Herrero, S. 1972. Aspects of evolution and adaptation in American black bears (Ursus americanus Pallus) and brown and grizzly bears (Ursus arctos Linne.) of North America. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 2:221-231.

Hilbert, J. and A. Wiensczyk. 2007. Old growth definitions and management: a literature review. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 8(1):15-31.

Hobbs, J. 2005. Spotted Owl Inventory and Nest Site Descriptions (2004) and Telemetry and Monitoring of Juvenile Spotted Owls (2004 and 2005) in British Columbia. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Victoria, BC. 39 pp.

Hobbs, J. 2013. Species account and population assessment for the northern Pacific rattlesnake in Canada. Website: http://ecoreserves.bcca/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/CROR-sps-accounts.pdf. Accessed: September 2013.

Hobbs, J.H., D. Lynch and L.W. Gyug. 2012. An Inventory of Coastal Tailed Frogs in the Cascade Mountains 2012 - Final Report. Report prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 24 pp.

Hobson, K.A. and E. Bayne. 2000. Breeding bird communities in boreal forest of Western Canada: consequences of “unmixing” mixedwoods. Condor 102(4):759-769.

Holroyd, G.L. 1983. A brief survey of the bats of Elk Island National Park. Blue Jay 41:217-222.

Houlahan, J.E. and C.S. Findlay. 2003. The effects of adjacent land use on wetland amphibian species richness and community composition. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 60:1078-1094.

Houston, C.S. 1997. Banding of Asio Owls in South-Central Saskatchewan. Pp. 237-242 in Biology and Conservation of Owls of the Northern Hemisphere: Second International Symposium. J.R. Duncan, D.H. Johnson and T.H. Nicholls (Eds.). USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NC-190, St. Paul, MN.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 8-14

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Hundertmark, K.J., W.L. Eberhardt and R.E. Ball. 1990. Winter habitat use by moose in southeastern Alaska: implications for forest management. Alces 26:108-114.

Ingelfinger, F. and S. Anderson. 2004. Passerine response to roads associated with natural gas extraction in a sagebrush steppe habitat. Western North American Naturalist 64(3):385-395.

Iredale, F.J. and G.M. Ferguson. 2007. Flammulated owl survey in Tolko Industries Ltd. Heffley Creek Operating Area, Spring 2007. Tolko Industries Ltd., British Columbia Ministry of Environment, FORREX, and British Columbia Conservation Foundation. 20 pp.

James, A.R.C. 1999. Effects of industrial development on the predator-prey relationship between wolves and caribou in northeastern Alberta. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Alberta. Edmonton, AB.

James, A.R.C and A.K. Stuart-Smith. 2000. Distribution of caribou and wolves in relation to linear corridors. Journal of Wildlife Management. 64:154-159.

Jantzen, M.K. 2012. Bats and the landscape: the influence of edge effects and forest cover on bat activity. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Western Ontario. London, ON.

Johnson, C.A., J.M. Fryxell, I.D. Thompson and J.A. Baker. 2009. Mortality risk increases with natal dispersal distance in American martens. Proceedings of the Royal Society – B 276:3361-3367.

Johnson, D.H. 1993. Spotted owls, great horned owls, and forest fragmentation in the central Oregon Cascades. M.Sc. Thesis, Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR.

Kalcounis-Ruppell, M.C., J.M. Psyllakis and R.M. Brigham. 2005. Tree roost selection by bats: an empirical synthesis using meta-analysis. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(3):1123–1132.

Kansas, J. 2002. Status of the Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) in Alberta. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, and Alberta Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report No. 37, Edmonton, AB. 43 pp.

Kasworm, W.F. and T.L. Manley. 1990. Road and trail influences on grizzly bears and black bears in northwest Montana. Bears: Their Biology and Management 8:79-84.

Kellner, M. and S. Rasheed. 2002. Campbell River Bat Project: Inventory and Habitat Enhancement. Prepared for: B.C. Hydro Bridge-Coastal Fish and Wildlife Restoration Program Burnaby, BC.

Kelly, E.G., E.D. Forsman and R.G. Anthony. 2003. Are barred owls displacing spotted owls? Condor 105(1):45-53.

Kelsall, J.P. 1969. Structural adaptations of moose and deer for snow. Journal of Mammalogy 50:302-310.

Kelsall, J.P. and E.S. Telfer. 1974. Biogeography of moose with particular reference to western North America. Canadian Naturalist 101:117-130.

Kennedy, R.S.H. and T.A. Spies. 2005. Dynamics of hardwood patches in a conifer matrix: 54 years of change in a forested landscape in Coastal Oregon, USA. Biological Conservation 122:363–374.

Kerkert, J.R., S.A. Simpson, R.L. Westemeir, T.L. Esker and J.W. Walk. 1999. Response of northern harriers and short-eared owls to grassland management in Illinois. Journal of Wildlife Management 32:517-523.

Keystone Wildlife Research. 2006. Identification and Management of Moose Winter Habitat in the Caribou Region: Literature Review and Mapping Pilot Study. Prepared for British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Williams Lake, BC. vii + 47 pp.

Kinley, T.A., T. Goward, B.N. McLellan and R. Serrouya. 2007. The influence of variable snowpacks on habitat use by mountain caribou. Rangifer Special Issue No. 17:93-102.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 8-15

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Knutson, M.G., J.R. Sauer, D.A. Olsen, M.J. Mossman, L.M. Hemesath and M.J. Lannoo. 1999. Effects of landscape composition and wetland fragmentation on frog and toad abundance and species richness in Iowa and Wisconsin, U.S.A. Conservation Biology 13(6):1437-1446.

Kociolek, A.V. and T.P. Clevenger. 2011. Effects of Paved Roads on Birds: A Literature Review and Recommendations for the Yellowstone to Yukon Ecoregion. Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative. Canmore, AB. Technical Report No. 8 March 2011. iv + 29 pp.

Lacki, M. J., S.K. Amelon and M.D. Baker. 2007. Foraging Ecology of Bats in Forests. Pp. 38-127 in Bats in Forests: Conservation and Management. M.J. Lacki, J.P. Hayes and A. Kurta (Eds.). Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, MD.

LaHaye, W.S. and R.J. Gutierrez. 1999. Nest sites and nesting habitat of the northern spotted owl in northwestern California. Condor 101:324-330.

Lannoo, M. 2005. Amphibian Declines: The Conservation and Status of United States Species. University of California Press, Berkley, CA. 1115 pp.

Lausen, C.L. and R.M.R. Barclay. 2006. Winter bat activity in the Canadian prairies. Canadian Journal of Zoology 84(8):1079-1086.

Leasure, S.M. and D.W. Holt. 1991. Techniques for locating and capturing nesting female short-eared owls (Asio flammeus). North American Bird Bander 16:32-33.

LeBlanc, M., M. Festa-Bianchet and J.T. Jorgenson. 2001. Sexual size dimorphism in bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis): effects of population density. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:1661-1670.

LeFranc, M.N. Jr., M.B. Moss, K.A. Patnode and W.C. Sugg, III (Eds.). 1987. Grizzly Bear Compendium. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. National Wildlife Federation. Washington, DC. 540 pp.

Lehmkuhl, J.F., E.D. Burger, E.K. Drew, J.P. Lindsey, M. Haggard and K. Woodruff. 2007. Breeding birds in riparian an upland dry forests of the Cascade Range. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(8):2632-2643.

Lengagne, T. 2008. Traffic noise affects communication behaviour in a breeding anuran, Hyla arborea. Biological Conservation 141(8):2023-2031.

Lohnes, R. 2010. Nest site selection and nest thermal properties of common nighthawks on the tallgrass prairie of Kansas. M.Sc. Thesis, Cornell University. Ithaca, NY.

Lookingbill, T.R., A.J. Elmore, K.A. Engelhardt, J.B. Churchill, J. Edward Gates and J.B. Johnson. 2010. Influence of wetland networks on bat activity in mixed-use landscapes. Biological Conservation 143(4):974-983.

Mac Nally, R., G. Horrocks, and L. Pettifer. 2002. Experimental evidence for potential beneficial effects of fallen timber in forests. Ecological Applications 12(6):1588-1594.

Macartney, J.M. 1985. The ecology of the northern pacific rattlesnake, Crotalus viridis oreganus. British Columbia. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Victoria. Victoria, BC.

Macartney, J.M. 1989. Diet of the northern pacific rattlesnake, Crotalus viridis oreganus, in British Columbia. Herpetologica 45(3):299-304.

Macartney, J. M., P.T. Gregory, and K.W. Larsen. 1988. A tabular survey of data on movements and home ranges of snakes. Journal of Herpetology 22(1):61-73.

Macartney, J.M., K.W. Larsen and P.T. Gregory. 1987. Body temperature and movements of hibernating snakes (Crotalus and Thamnophis) and thermal gradients of natural hibernacula. Canadian Journal of Zoology 67:108-114.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 8-16

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Mace, R.D., J.S.Waller, T.L. Manley, L.J. Lyon and H. Zuuring. 1996. Relationships among grizzly bears, roads and habitat in the Swan Mountains Montana. Journal of Applied Ecology 33:1395-1404.

Mace, R.D. 1985. Analysis of Grizzly Bear Habitat in the Bob Marshall Wilderness, Montana. pp. 136–149 in Proceedings of the Grizzly Bear Habitat Symposium. G.P. Contreras and K.E. Evans (Eds.). General Technical Report INT-207. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

MacHutchon, A.G., S. Himmer and C.A. Bryden. 1993. Khutzeymateen Valley Grizzly Bear Study, Final Report. Report to British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC. ix + 105 pp.

MacKenzie, W.H. and J.R. Moran. 2004. Wetlands of British Columbia: A Guide to Identification. Research Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, B.C. Land Management Handbook No. 52. x + 287 pp.

Mahon, T. 2009. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Habitat Model for the Mist Mountain Project. Prepared for Matrix Solutions Inc. 54 pp.

Mahon, T.A. Edie, D. Fillier, L. Malkow, M. Marsland, D. Morgan, D. Reid, G. Schultze, L. Turney and J. Warren. 2005. Winter habitat suitability model for moose (Alces alces) in the Kispiox and Cranberry TSAs. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection, Skeena Region, Smithers, BC. 16 pp.

Mahon, T. and F. Doyle. 2003. Status and Nesting Requirements of the Northern Goshawk in the Morice and Lakes Forest Districts. Morice and Lakes Innovative Forest Practices Agreement. Summary No. 30. 12 pp.

Mahon, T., E. McClaren and F. Doyle. 2008. Parameterization of the Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis laingi) Habitat Model for Coastal British Columbia: Nesting and Foraging Habitat Suitability Models and Territory Analysis Model. Prepared by WildFor Consultants Ltd., British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Wildlife Dynamics. 48 pp.

Mallory, M. and K. Metz. 1999. Common Merganser (Mergus merganser). In The Birds of North America Online. A. Poole (Ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. Website: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/442. Accessed: November 2013.

Manley, I. 2005. Inventory of Flammulated Owls Breeding in the East Kootenay 2004. Unpublished report for Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Nelson, BC. v + 29 pp.

Martin, K. and J.M. Eadie. 1999. Nest webs: a community-wide approach to the management and conservation of cavity-nesting forest birds. Forest Ecology and Management 115:243-257.

Martin, K., K.E.H. Aitken and K.L. Wiebe. 2004. Nest sites and nest webs for cavity-nesting communities in interior British Columbia, Canada: nest characteristics and niche partitioning. Condor 106:5-19.

Martin, P. 1971. Movements and activities of the mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa). Journal of Mammalogy 52(4):717-723.

Martin, S.K. 1994. Feeding ecology of American martens and fishers. Pp 297-31 in S.W. Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael and R.A. Powell (Eds). Martens, sables, and fishers – biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

Matsuda, B.M. 2001. The effects of clear-cut timber harvest on the movement patterns of tailed-frogs (Ascaphus truei) in southwestern British Columbia. M.Sc. Thesis, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, BC.

Matsuda, B.M., D.M Green and P.T. Gregory. 2006. Amphibians and reptiles of British Columbia. Royal British Columbia Museum Handbook. Victoria, BC. 266 pp.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 8-17

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Matsuoka, S.M., D. Shaw and J.A. Johnson. 2010a. Estimating the abundance of nesting Rusty Blackbirds in relation to wetland habitats in Alaska. Condor 112(4):825-833.

Matsuoka, S.M., D. Shaw, P.H. Sinclair, J.A. Johnson, R.M. Corcoran, N.C. Dau, P.M. Meyers and N.A. Rojek. 2010b. Nesting ecology of the Rusty Blackbird in Alaska and Canada. Condor 112(4):810-824.

McCain, C.M. 2009. Global analysis of bird elevational diversity. Global Ecology and Biogeography 18:364-360.

McComb, W.C. and R.G. Anthony. 1993. Small mammal and amphibian abundance in streamside and upslope habitats of mature Douglas-fir stands, western Oregon. Northwest Science 67(1):7-15.

McCracken, J.D. 2005. Where the bobolinks roam: the plight of North America’s grassland birds. Biodiversity 6(3):20-29.

McLellan, B.N. 1990. Relationships between human industrial activity and grizzly bears. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 8:57-64.

McNay, R.S., G. Sutherland, R.K. McCann and V. Brumovsky. 2013. Re-evaluation of Trends in Moose Populations in the Cariboo Region 1985-2012. Technical Report Prepared for Ministry of Environment, Cariboo Region. Report No. 449. Wildlife Infometrics Inc., Mackenzie, BC. 76 pp.

McWethy, D.B., A.J. Hansen and J.P. Verschuyl. 2009. Bird response to disturbance varies with forest productivity in the northwestern United States. Landscape Ecology 25:533-549.

Meidinger, D.V. and J. Pojar (Eds.) 1991. Ecosystems of British Columbia. Research Branch Ministry of Forests. Victoria, BC. 330 pp.

M . 1985. Moose-wolf dynamics and the natural regulation of moose populations. Oecologia 65:503-512.

Montgomery, D.R. and J.M. Buffington. 1997. Channel-reach morphology in mountain drainage basins. Geological Society of America Bulletin 109(5):596-611.

Morris, A.D., D.A. Miller and M.C. Kalcounis-Rueppell. 2010. Use of forest edges by bats in a managed pine forest landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:26-34.

Morse, D.H. 1978. Populations of bay-breasted and Cape May warblers during an outbreak of the spruce budworm. Wilson Bulletin 90(3):404-413.

Morse, D.H. and A.F. Poole. 2005. Black-throated Green Warbler (Setophaga virens). In The Birds of North America Online. A. Poole (Ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. Website: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/055. Accessed: September 2013.

Moul, I.E. 1990. Environmental contaminants, disturbance and breeding failure at a great blue heron colony on Vancouver Island. M.Sc. Thesis, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, BC.

Mountain Caribou Science Team. 2005. Mountain caribou in British Columbia: a situation analysis. 9 pp.

Mountain Caribou Technical Advisory Committee. 2002. A strategy for the recovery of mountain caribou in British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Victoria, BC. 73 pp.

Murphy, M.A., J.S. Evans and A. Storfer. 2010. Quantifying Bufo boreas connectivity in Yellowstone National Park with landscape genetics. Ecology 91(1):252-261.

Murphy, R.L. and J.T. Ensign. 1996. Raptor nesting chronology in northwestern North Dakota. Prairie Naturalist 28:51-57.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 8-18

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Mysterud, A., R. Langvatn, N.G. Yoccoz and N.C. Stenseth. 2001. Plant phenology, migration and geographical variation in body weight of a large herbivore: the effect of a variable topography. Journal of Animal Ecology 70:915-923.

Nagorsen, D.W. and R.M. Brigham. 1993. Bats of British Columbia: Royal British Columbia Museum Handbook. 164 pp.

Nagorsen, D.W. 2005. Rodents and Lagomorphs of British Columbia. Royal British Columbia Museum Handbook. Victoria, BC. 400 pp.

Nagorsen, D.W., R.W. Campbell and G.R. Giannico. 1991. Winter food habits of marten, Martes americana, on the Queen Charlotte Islands. Canadian Field Naturalist 105:55-59.

National Wetland Working Group. 1997. The Canadian Wetland Classification System. Edited by B.G. Warner and C.D.A. Rubec. Wetlands Research Centre, University of Waterloo. Waterloo, ON. vii + 68 pp.

NatureServe. 2013. NatureServe Explorer - An Online Encyclopedia of Life. Website: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/index.htm. Accessed: November 2013.

Nebel, S., A. Mills, J.D. McCracken and P.D. Taylor. 2010. Declines of aerial insectivores in North America follow a geographic gradient. Avian Conservation and Ecology 5(2):1-13.

Neumann, W. 2009. Moose Alces alces behaviour related to human activity. Ph.D Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Umeå, SE.

Newton, I. 1994. The role of nest sites in limiting the numbers of hole-nesting birds: a review. Biological Conservation 70:265-276.

North American Breeding Bird Conservation Initiative. 2012. The State of Canada’s Birds: 2012. Website: http://www.stateofcanadasbirds.org/State_of_Canada's_birds_2012.pdf. Accessed: October 2013.

North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Team. 2004. Recovery plan for grizzly bears in the North Cascades of British Columbia. 60 pp.

Northern Goshawk Recovery Team. 2008. Recovery Strategy for the Northern Goshawk, laingi subspecies (Accipiter gentilis laingi) in British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Victoria, BC. 56 pp.

Norton M.R. 2001. Status of the cape May Warbler (Dendroica tigrina) in Alberta. Wildlife Status Report No. 33. Alberta Environment Fisheries and Wildlife Management Division and Alberta Conservation Association Edmonton AB. 20 pp.

Norton, M.R. 1999. Status of the Black-Throated Green Warbler (Dendroica virens) in Alberta. Wildlife Status Report No 23. Alberta Environment, Fisheries and Wildlife Management Division. Edmonton, AB. 24 pp.

Olson, C.R. 2011. The roosting behaviour of little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus) and northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) in the boreal forest of northern Alberta. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Calgary. Calgary, AB.

Olson, C.R. and R.M.R. Barclay. 2013. Concurrent changes in group size and roost use by reproductive female little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus). Canadian Journal of Zoology 91(3):149-155.

Olson, C.R., D.P. Hobson and M.J. Pybus. 2011. Changes in population size of bats at a hibernaculum in Alberta, Canada, in relation to cave disturbance and access restrictions. Northwestern Naturalist 92(3):224-230.

Pacific Water Shrew Recovery Team. 2009. Recovery strategy for the Pacific water shrew (Sorex bendirii) in British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Victoria, BC. 27 pp.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 8-19

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Palomino, D. and L.M. Carrascal. 2007. Threshold distances to nearby cities and roads influence the bird community of a mosaic landscape. Biological Conservation 140(1):100-109.

Parker, J.M. and S.H. Andersen. 2007. Ecology and behaviour of midget faded rattlesnakes (Crotalus oreganus concolor) in Wyoming. Journal of Herpetology 41(1):41-51.

Parker, T.H., B.M. Stansberry, C.D. Becker and P.S. Gipson. 2005. Edge and area effects on the occurrence of migrant forest songbirds. Conservation Biology 19(4):1157-1167.

Parsons, S., K.J. Lewis and J.M. Psyllakis. 2003. Relationships between roosting habitat of bats and decay of aspen in the sub-boreal forests of British Columbia. Forest Ecology and Management 177:559-570.

Patriquin, K.J. and R.M.R. Barclay. 2003. Foraging by bats in cleared, thinned and unharvested boreal forest. Journal of Applied Ecology 40(4):646-657.

Pattie, D. and C. Fisher. 1999. Mammals of Alberta. Lone Pine Publishing. Edmonton, AB. 240 pp.

Pearson, A.M. 1975. The Northern Interior Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos L. Canadian Wildlife Service Report Series No. 34.

Peek, J.M. 2007. Habitat Relationships. Pp. 351-376 in Ecology and Management of the North American Moose. A.W. Franzmann and C.C. Schwartz (Eds.). University Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO.

Penteriani, B. 2002. Goshawk nesting habitat in Europe and North America: A review. Ornis Fennica 79(4):149-163.

Peters, W., M. Hebblewhite, N.J. DeCesare, F. Cagnacci, M. Musiani. 2012. Human landscape alteration affects resource partitioning of coexisting moose and threatened caribou. Ecography 36:658-668.

Pimm, S.L. and R.A. Askins. 1995. Forest losses predict bird extinctions in eastern North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 92:9343-9347.

Pojar, J. and A. Stewart . 1991. Alpine Tundra Zone. Pp. 263-274 in Ecosystems of British Columbia – Special Report Series 6. J. Pojar and D. Meidinger (Eds). British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Research Branch. Victoria, BC.

Poley, L.G., B.A. Pond, J.A. Schaefer, G.S. Brown, J.C. Ray, D.S. Johnson. 2013. Occupancy patterns of large mammals in the far north of Ontario under imperfect detection and spatial autocorrelation. Journal of Biogeography (Early View) DOI: 10.1111/jbi.12200.

Poole, K.G. and K. Stuart-Smith. 2006. Winter habitat selection by female moose in western interior montane forests. Canadian Journal of Zoology 84:1823-1832.

Poole, K.G. and G. Mowat. 2001. Alberta furbearer harvest data analysis. Alberta Species at Risk Report No. 31.

Poulin, R.G., S.D. Grindal and R.M. Brigham. 2011. Common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor). Website: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/213/articles/breeding. Accessed: July 2013.

Powell, L. L., T.P. Hodgman and W.E. Glanz. 2010b. Home ranges of rusty blackbirds breeding in wetlands: how much would buffers from timber harvest protect habitat? Condor 112(4):834-840.

Powell, L. L., T.P. Hodgman, W.E. Glanz, J.D. Osenton and C.M. Fisher. 2010a. Nest-site selection and nest survival of the Rusty Blackbird: does timber management adjacent to wetlands create ecological traps? Condor 112(4):800-809.

Powell, R.A. 1981. Martes pennanti. Mammalian Species 156:1-6.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 8-20

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Powell, R.A. and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher. pp. 38-73 in The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine. L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinshi (Eds.). General technical report RM-254. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Powell, R.A., S.W. Buskirk and W.J. Zielinski. 2003. Fisher and Marten. G.A. Feldhamer, BC. Thompson, J.A. Chapman (Eds). Pp. 635-649 in Wild mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Conservation, Second Edition. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

Proulx, G. and B. Genereux. 2009. Persistence of a reintroduced fisher, Martes pennanti, population in Cooking Lake-Blackfoot Provincial Recreation Area, Central Alberta. Canadian Field Naturalist 123:178-181.

Provincial Flammulated Owl Working Group. 2011. Management plan for the flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus) in British Columbia. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Victoria, BC. 19 pp.

Raley, C.M., E.C. Lofroth, R.L. Truex, J.S. Yaeger and J.M. Higley. 2012. Habitat Ecology of Fishers in Western North America: A New Synthesis. Pp. 231-355 in Biology and Conservation of Martens, Sables, and Fishers: A New Synthesis. K.B. Aubry, W.J. Zielinski, M.G. Raphael, G. Proulx and S.W. Buskirk (Eds.). Cornell University Press, Ithica, NY.

Ransome, D. 2003. Distribution, Population Dynamics, Habitat Associations, and the Influence of Forest Management on Mountain Beavers. Annual Report on Project R2003-0123. Forestry Innovation Investment. Website: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/FIA/2003/R2003-123a.pdf. Accessed: November 2013.

Rasheed, S. 1999. Draft Species Habitat Model for Grizzly Bear. Province of British Columbia, Resource Inventory Branch. Victoria, BC.

Rea, R.V. and K.N. Child. 2007. Wildlife Data Centre: Featured Species – Moose. Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Institute, University of Northern British Columbia. Prince George, BC. pp 33.

Rempel, R.S., P.C. Elkie, A.R. Rodgers and M.J. Gluck. 1997. Timber-management and natural disturbance effects on moose habitat: landscape evaluation. Journal of Wildlife Management 61(2):517-524.

Renecker, L.A. and C.C. Schwartz. 1998. Population dynamics. Pp. 403-439 in Ecology and Management of the North American Moose. A. W. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz (Eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press.

Resources Inventory Committee. 1998. Standard for terrestrial ecosystem mapping in British Columbia. Province of British Columbia. Victoria, BC. x + 100 pp.

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, G. Goodwin, R. Smith and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station and Southwestern Region Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. General Technical Report RM-217.

Roberts, A-M. 2004. Marten Winter-Habitat Suitability Model. Morice and Lakes Forest Districts Innovative Forest Practices Agreement. 18 pp.

Robertson, B.A. and R.L. Hutto. 2007. Is selectively harvested forest an ecological trap for olive-sided flycatchers? Condor 109(1):109-121.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 8-21

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Robertson, I., M. Gebauer, G. Ryder and R. Toochin. 2000. Observations of two species at risk in mainland southwestern British Columbia: Hutton’s Vireo and Western Screech-owl. Pp 267-273. in L.M. Darling (ed.) Proceedings of a Conference on the Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk, Kamloops, BC 15-19 February, 1999. Volume 1. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC and College of the Caribou, Kamloops, BC.

Rohner, C. and G. Kuzyk. 2000. Wolves and Caribou in West-Central Alberta: Predator Responses to Industrial Resource Development. Research News 3, University of Alberta and West-Central Caribou Standing Committee. Edmonton, AB. 4 pp.

Rosenvald, R., A. Lohmus, A. Kraut, L. Remm. 2011. Bird communities in hemiboreal old-growth forests: the roles of food supply, stand structure, and site type. Forest Ecology and Management 262:1541-1550.

Ross, P.I. 2002. Update COSEWIC status report on the grizzly bear Ursus arctos in Canada. In COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, ON.

Russell, A. and A.M. Bauer. 2000. The Amphibians and Reptiles of Alberta: A Field Guide and Primer of Boreal Herpetology, Second Edition. University of Calgary Press. 279 pp.

Sarell, M. and A. Haney. 2003. Sensitive Ecosystems Inventory: Bella Vista – Goose Lake Range, 2002 Volume 3: Wildlife Habitat Mapping. Prepared for: Okanagan Indian Band, Allan Brooks Nature Centre, City of Vernon, and Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 43 pp.

Satterthwaite, D., G. McGranahan and C. Tacoli. 2010. Urbanization and its implications for food and farming. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society – B 365(1554):2809-2820.

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, J.E. Fallon, K.L. Pardieck, D.J. Ziolkowski, Jr. and W.A. Link. 2011. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2010. Version 12.07.2011. USGS Patucent Wildlife Research Center. Laurel, MD.

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.W. 1998. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) habitat characterization in central Alberta. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Edmonton, AB.

Schaub, A., J. Ostwald and B.M. Siemers. 2008. Foraging bats avoid noise. Journal of Experimental Biology 211(19):3174-3180.

Schiek, J., K. Lertzman, B. Nyberg and R. Page. 1995. Effects of patch size on birds in old-growth montane forests. Conservation Biology 9(5):1072-1084.

Schmetterling, D.A. and M.K. Young. 2008. Summer movements of boreal toads (Bufo boreas boreas) in two western Montana basins. Journal of Herpetology 42(1):111-123.

Schmiegelow, F.K.A. and S.J. Hannon. 1999. Forest-Level Effects of Management on Boreal Songbirds: The Calling Lake Fragmentation Studies. Pp. 201-221 in Forest Fragmentation, Wildlife and Management Implications. J.A. Rochelle, L.A. Lehmann and J. Wisniewski (Eds.). Brill. Boston, MA.

Schwartz, M.K., N.J. DeCesare, B.S. Jimenez, J.P. Copeland and W.E. Melquist. 2013. Stand- and landscape-scale selection of large trees by fishers in the Rocky Mountains of Montana and Idaho. Forest Ecology and Management 305(1):103-111.

Seiler, A. 2005. Predicting locations of moose-vehicle collisions in Sweden. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:371-382.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 8-22

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Seip, D. 1990. Ecology of Woodland Caribou in Wells Gray Provincial Park. British Columbia Ministry of Environment Wildlife Bulletin No. B-68. Victoria, BC. 43 pp.

Seip, D.R. and D.B. Cichowski. 1996. Population ecology of caribou in British Columbia. Rangifer 9:73-80.

Seip, D.R., H. Armleder, G. Ashcroft, R. Beauchesne, W. Beiber, C. Blake, D. Butler, M. Calabrese, J. Campbell, P. Dion, R. Howard, W. Michel, M. Nash, C. Ritchie, R. Slavens, C. Smith, S. Stevenson, D. Stevenson, J. Surgenor, M. Todd and J. Young. 2005. Recovery Implementation Plan for Threatened Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in the Hart and Cariboo Mountains Recovery Area, British Columbia. Website: http://www.centralbccaribou.ca/downloads/HCM_RAP.pdf. Accessed: December 2013.

Semenchuk, G.P. (Ed.). 1992. The Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Alberta. Federation of Alberta Naturalists, Edmonton, AB. vi + 391 pp.

Semenchuk, G.P. (Ed.). 2007. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Alberta: A Second Look. Federation of Alberta Naturalists, Edmonton, AB. viii + 626 pp.

Serrouya, R. and R.G. D’Eon. 2002. Moose Habitat Selection in Relation to Forest Harvesting in a Deep Snow Zone in British Columbia. Prepared for Downie Timber Ltd. Revelstoke, BC. iii + 23 pp.

Serrouya, R., B.N. McLellan, C.D. Apps and H.U. Wittmer. 2008. A synthesis of scale-dependent ecology of the endangered mountain caribou in British Columbia, Canada. Rangifer 28(1):33-46.

Shaw, G. 1995. Habitat selection by short-eared owls Asio flammeus in young coniferous forests. Bird Study 42:158-164.

Shochat, E., M.A. Patten, D.W. Morris, D.L. Reinking, D.H. Wolfe and S.K. Sherrod. 2005. Ecological traps in isodars: effects of tallgrass prairie management on bird nest success. Oikos 111(1):159-169.

Simpson, K. 1990. Seasonal habitat use by grizzly bears in the Babine River drainage. Unpublished report for Ministry of Environment. Smithers, BC. 29 pp.

Simpson, K. 1992. Grizzly Bear Habitats and Biodiversity Guidelines in the Babine River Drainage. Unpublished report for Ministry of Forests and Ministry of Environment. Smithers, BC. 36 pp.

Sjögren-Gulve, P. and C. Ray. 1996. Extinction and isolation gradients in metapopulations: the case of the pool frog (Rana lessonae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 42:135-147.

Slabbekoorn, H. and E.A.P. Ripmeester. 2008. Birdsong and anthropogenic noise: implications and applications for conservation. Molecular Ecology 17(1):72-83.

Southern Interior Reptile and Amphibian Recovery Team. 2008a. Recovery strategy for the Great Basin spadefoot (Spea intermontana) in British Columbia. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Victoria, BC. 20 pp.

Southern Interior Reptile and Amphibian Recovery Team. 2008b. Recovery strategy for the Western Rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus) in British Columbia. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Victoria, BC. 21 pp.

Spear, S.F., J.M. Parker, C.R. Peterson and C.L. Jenkins. 2011. Conservation and management of midget faded rattlesnakes. State Wildlife Grant Final Report to Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

Spotted Owl Best Management Practices Working Group. 2009. Best Management Practices for Managing Spotted Owl Habitat. A Component of the Spotted Owl Management Plan 2. Chilliwack Forest District. Prepared for Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Forests and Range. i + 32 pp.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 8-23

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Spotted Owl Population Enhancement Team. 2007. Northern Spotted Owl Population Enhancement and Recovery in British Columbia: Proposed Five-Year Action Plan. Government of the British Columbia. Victoria, BC. 48 pp.

Squires, J.R. and R.T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). In The Birds of North America Online. A. Poole (Ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Website: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/298. Accessed: November 2013.

Stevens, D. 1970. Winter ecology of moose in the Gallatin mountains, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 34:37-46.

Stevens, V. 1995. Wildlife Diversity in British Columbia: Distribution and Habitat Use of Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals in Biogeoclimatic Zones. British Columbia Ministry of Forests. Victoria, BC. 289 pp.

Stevenson, D.J. and D.K. Daust. 2009. Management strategies for a large-scale mountain pine beetle outbreak: Modelling impacts on American martens. Forest Ecology and Management 257:1976-1985.

Stevenson, S.K. 1991. Forestry and caribou in British Columbia. Rangifer, Special Issue No. 7:124-129.

Summers, P.D., G.M. Cunnington and L. Fahrig. 2011. Are the negative effects of roads on breeding birds caused by traffic noise? Journal of Applied Ecology 48(6):1527-1534.

Sutherland, G., M. Hayes, T. Quinn, L. Dupuis, T. Wahbe, D. Rundle and J. Richardson. 2001. Predictive Habitat Models for the Occurrence and Abundance of the Olympic Tailed Frog, Ascaphus truei Stejneger 1899 and the Rocky Mountain Tailed Frog, Ascaphus montanus Mittleman and Myers 1949: A pilot meta analysis. Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA. 62 pp.

Terry, E., B. McLellan, G. Watts and J. Flaa. 1996. Early winter habitat use by mountain caribou in the North Cariboo and Columbia Mountains, British Columbia. Rangifer, Special Issue No. 9:133-140.

Thompson, I.D. 1991. Could marten become the spotted owl of eastern Canada? Forestry Chronicle 67:136-140.

Thormann, M.N. and S.E. Bayley. 1997. Aboveground net primary production along a bog-fen-marsh gradient in southern boreal Alberta, Canada. Ecoscience 4(3):374-384.

Travsky, A. and G.P. Beauvais. 2004a. Species assessment for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in Wyoming. United States Department o the Interior Bureau of Land Management. Cheyenne, WY.

Travsky, A. and G.P. Beauvais. 2004b. Species assessment for the midget faded rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis concolor) in Wyoming. United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. Cheyenne, WY. 22 pp.

Turney, L. and A. Roberts. 2004. Grizzly Bear Spring, Summer, and Fall–Habitat Suitability Models. Prepared for the Morice and Lakes Innovative Forest Practices Agreement. 24 pp.

Van Beest, F.M, B.V. Moorter and J.M. Milner. 2012. Temperature-mediated habitat use and selection by a heat-sensitive northern ungulate. Animal Behavior 84(3):723-735.

Van Beest, F.M., A. Mysterud, L.E. Loe and J.M. Milner. 2010. Forage quantity, quality and depletion as scale-dependent mechanisms driving habitat selection of a large browsing herbivore. Journal of Animal Ecology 79:910-922.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 8-24

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

van den Driessche, T. Chatwin and R.M. Mather. 1999. Habitat selection by bats in temperate old-growth forests, Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia. In L. M. Darling, editor. 2000. Proceedings of the Conference on the Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk, Kamloops, BC, February 15 - 19,1999. Volume 1. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC and University College of the Cariboo. Kamloops, BC. 490 pp.

van Woudenberg, A.M. 1992. Integrated management of Flammulated owl breeding habitat and timber harvest in British Columbia. M.Sc. Thesis, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, BC. van Woudenberg, A.M. 1999. Status of the Flammulated Owl in British Columbia. B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildife Branch. Working Report WR-95. 48 pp. van Woudenberg, A.M. and D.A. Christie. 2000. Flammulated Owl Habitat Model Validation for the Merritt and Kamloops Forest Districts. Pp. 217-222 in Proceedings of the Conference on the Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk, Kamloops, BC, February 15-19, 1999. Volume 1. L.M. Darling (Ed.). British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC, and University College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, BC. 490 pp. van Woudenberg, A.M. and D.A. Christie. 1997. Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus) population and habitat inventory at its northern range limit in the Southern Interior of British Columbia. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report NC, 466-476. van Woudenberg, A.M., D.J. Low and B. Persello. 1995. 1994 extensive survey of Flammulated Owls in the Southern Interior of British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Kamloops, BC. 37 pp.

Vermeer, K., K.H. Morgan, R.W. Butler and G.E.J. Smith. 1989. Population, Nesting Habitat and Food of Bald Eagles in the Gulf Islands. Pp. 123-130 in The Ecology and Status of Marine and Shoreline Birds in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia. K. Vermeer and R.W. Butler (Eds.). Special Publications, Canadian Wildlife Service. Ottawa, ON.

Verschuyl, J.P., A.J. Hansen, D.B. McWethy, R. Sallabanks and R.L. Hutto. 2008. Is the effect of forest structure on bird diversity modified by forest productivity? Ecological Applications 18(5):1155-1170.

Vierling, K.T., V.A. Saab and B.W. Tobalske. 2013. Lewis's Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis). In The Birds of North America Online. A. Poole (Ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Website: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/284. Accessed: November 2013.

Wahbe, T.R., F.L., Bunnell and R.B. Bury. 2000. Defining wildlife habitat areas for tailed frogs. In L. M. Darling, editor. 2000. Proceedings of a Conference on the Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk, Kamloops, B.C., 15 - 19 Feb.,1999. Volume Two. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC and University College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, BC.

Wahbe, T.R., F.L. Bunnell and R.B. Bury. 2004. Terrestrial movements of juvenile and adult tailed frogs in relation to timber harvest in coastal British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 34: 2455-2466.

Wall, W.B., M. Belisle and L.A. Luke. 2011. British Columbia’s interior: Moose Wildlife Habitat Decision Aid. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 11:45-49.

Wallace, R.L. and L.V. Diller. 1990. Feeding ecology of the rattlesnake, Crotalus viridis oreganus, in northern Idaho. Journal of Herpetology 24(3):246-253.

Wasserman, T.N., S.A. Cushman, A.S. Shirk, E.L. Landguth and J.S. Littell. 2012. Simulating the effects of climate change on population connectivity of American marten (Martes americana) in the northern Rocky Mountains, USA. Landscape Ecology 27:211-225.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 8-25

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Wasserman. T.N., S.A. Cushman and D.O. Wallin. 2010. Spatial scaling and multi-model inference in landscape genetics: Martes americana in northern Idaho. Landscape Ecology 25:1601-1612.

Webb, S.M. 2010. Marten fur harvests and landscape change in west-central Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(6):894-903.

Weir, R.D. 1995. Diet, spatial organization, and habitat relationships of fishers in south-central British Columbia. M.Sc. Thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.

Weir, R.D. 2003. Status of the Fisher in British Columbia. B.C. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Conservation Data Centre, and British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Biodiversity Branch. Victoria, BC. Wildlife Bulletin No. B-105. 38 pp.

Weir, R.D. and P.L. Almuedo. 2010. British Columbia’s Interior: Fisher Wildlife Habitat Decision Aid. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 10(3):35-41.

Weir, R.D., M. Phinney and E.C. Lofroth. 2012. Big, sick, and rotting: why tree size, damage, and decay are important to fisher reproductive habitat. Forest Ecology and Management 265:230-240.

Western Screech-Owl, macfarlanei Subspecies Recovery Team. 2008. Recovery Strategy for the Westen Screech-Owl, macfarlanei Subspecies (Megascops kennicottii macfarlanei) in British Columbia. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Victoria, BC. 14 pp.

Whitaker, J.O. and C. Maser. 1976. Food habits of five western Oregon shrews. Northwest Science 50(2):102-107.

Whittington, J., M. Hebblewhite, N.J. DeCesare, L. Neufeld, M. Bradley, J. Wilmshurst and M. Musiani. 2011. Caribou encounters with wolves increase near roads and trails: a time-to-event approach. Journal of Applied Ecology 48(6):1535-1542.

Wiebe, P.A., J.M. Fryxell, I.D. Thompson, L. Börger, and J.A. Baker. 2013. Do trappers understand marten habitat? Journal of Wildlife Management 77:379-391.

Wiggins, D.A. 2004. Short-Eared Owl (Asio flammeus): A Technical Conservation Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 37 pp.

Wiggins, D.A., D.W. Holt and S.M. Leasure. 2006. Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus). In The Birds of North America Online. A. Poole (Ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. Website: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/062. Accessed: November 2013.

Wilkeem, B. and S. Wilkeem. 2004. Grasslands of British Columbia. Grasslands Conservation Council of British Columbia. Kamloops, BC. xvii + 479 pp.

Wind, E. 2009. Coastal Tailed Frog Inventory and Habitat Assessment. BCRP Project number 09.W.BRG.01. Prepared by E.Wind Consulting, Nanaimo, B.C. Website: http://www.bchydro.com/bcrp/projects/docs/south_interior/09_W_BRG_01.pdf. Accessed: November 2013.

Wittmer, H.U., B.N. McLellan, D.R. Seip, J.A. Young, T.A. Kinley, G.S. Watts and D. Hamilton. 2005. Population dynamics of the endangered mountain ecotype of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 83:407-418.

Wittmer, H.U., R.N.M. Ahrens and B.N. McLellan. 2010. Viability of mountain caribou in British Columbia,Canada: effects of habitat change and population density. Biological Conservation 143:86-93.

Wright, J.M. 1997. Preliminary study of olive-sided flycatchers, July 1994-April 1997. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Wildlife Conservation. Final Research Performance Report Endangered Species Conservation Fund Federal Aid Studies SE-3-3,4 and 5. Juneau, AK. ii + 34 pp.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 8-26

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Volume 5C, ESA – Biophysical Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Wildlife Modelling and Species Accounts Technical Report

Yost, A.C. and R.G. Wright. 2001. Moose, caribou, and grizzly bear distribution in relation to road traffic in Denali National Park, Alaska. Arctic 54(1):41-48.

Zager, P.E. and C.J. Jonkel. 1983. Managing grizzly bear habitat in the northern Rocky Mountains. Journal of Forestry 81(8):524–536.

Zevit, P. and K. Welstead. 2012. BC's Coast Region: Species and Ecosystems of Conservation Concern - Pacific Water Shrew (Sorex bendirii). Website: http://www.geog.ubc.ca/biodiversity/factsheets/ pdf/Sorex_bendirii.pdf. Accessed: November 2014.

Zhu, X., D.S. Srivastava, J.N. Smith and K. Martin. 2012. Habitat selection and reproductive success of Lewis's woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) at its northern limit. PloS One 7(9):e44346.

Zuleta, G.A. and C. Galindo-Leal. 1994. Distribution and abundance of four species of small mammals at risk in a fragmented landscape. British Columbia Minitry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch, Wildlife Working Report No. WR-64. Victoria, BC. 34 pp.

7894/December 2013 REP-NEB-TERA-00011 Page 8-27