Technical Data Report Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach ... · Table 2-2 Broad Habitat Class Delineation for Bird Habitat Modelling..... 2-9 Table 3-1 White-Winged Scoter Habitat

Technical Data Report

Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts

ENBRIDGE NORTHERN GATEWAY PROJECT

Jacques Whitford AXYS Ltd. Calgary, Alberta

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

Richard Wiacek, M.Sc.

2010

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

2010 Page i

Table of Contents

1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 1-1 2 Methods ......................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Key Indicator Species ....................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Habitat Suitability Models ................................................................................. 2-2

2.2.1 General Approach ......................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.2 Alternatives to Habitat Suitability Modelling .................................................. 2-4 2.2.3 Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use............................................... 2-6 2.2.4 Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping ..................................................................... 2-7 2.2.5 Habitat Ratings .............................................................................................. 2-7

3 Bird Habitat Models ........................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 White-winged Scoter ........................................................................................ 3-1

3.1.1 Status ............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.2 Distribution ..................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites .................................................................... 3-2 3.1.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes .......................................................... 3-3 3.1.5 Ratings ........................................................................................................... 3-3

3.2 American Bittern............................................................................................... 3-5 3.2.1 Status ............................................................................................................. 3-5 3.2.2 Distribution ..................................................................................................... 3-5 3.2.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites .................................................................... 3-6 3.2.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes .......................................................... 3-7 3.2.5 Ratings ........................................................................................................... 3-7

3.3 Pacific Great Blue Heron .................................................................................. 3-8 3.3.1 Status ............................................................................................................. 3-8 3.3.2 Distribution ..................................................................................................... 3-9 3.3.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites .................................................................... 3-9 3.3.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ........................................................ 3-10 3.3.5 Ratings ......................................................................................................... 3-10

3.4 Northern Goshawk ......................................................................................... 3-12 3.4.1 Status ........................................................................................................... 3-12 3.4.2 Distribution ................................................................................................... 3-13 3.4.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites .................................................................. 3-14 3.4.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ........................................................ 3-15 3.4.5 Ratings ......................................................................................................... 3-16

3.5 Yellow Rail ..................................................................................................... 3-18 3.5.1 Status ........................................................................................................... 3-18 3.5.2 Distribution ................................................................................................... 3-18 3.5.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites .................................................................. 3-19 3.5.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ........................................................ 3-19 3.5.5 Ratings ......................................................................................................... 3-19


Page ii 2010

3.6 Sandhill Crane ................................................................................................ 3-20 3.6.1 Status ........................................................................................................... 3-20 3.6.2 Distribution ................................................................................................... 3-21 3.6.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites .................................................................. 3-22 3.6.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ........................................................ 3-23 3.6.5 Ratings ......................................................................................................... 3-23

3.7 Western Screech-Owl ..................................................................................... 3-25 3.7.1 Status ........................................................................................................... 3-25 3.7.2 Distribution ................................................................................................... 3-26 3.7.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites .................................................................. 3-26 3.7.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ........................................................ 3-27 3.7.5 Ratings ......................................................................................................... 3-28

3.8 Barred Owl...................................................................................................... 3-29 3.8.1 Status ........................................................................................................... 3-29 3.8.2 Distribution ................................................................................................... 3-30 3.8.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites .................................................................. 3-31 3.8.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ........................................................ 3-32 3.8.5 Ratings ......................................................................................................... 3-32

3.9 Short-eared Owl ............................................................................................. 3-34 3.9.1 Status ........................................................................................................... 3-34 3.9.2 Distribution ................................................................................................... 3-34 3.9.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites .................................................................. 3-35 3.9.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ........................................................ 3-36 3.9.5 Ratings ......................................................................................................... 3-37

3.10 Common Nighthawk ....................................................................................... 3-39 3.10.1 Status ........................................................................................................... 3-39 3.10.2 Distribution ................................................................................................... 3-39 3.10.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites .................................................................. 3-40 3.10.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ........................................................ 3-40 3.10.5 Ratings ......................................................................................................... 3-41

3.11 Olive-sided Flycatcher .................................................................................... 3-42 3.11.1 Status ........................................................................................................... 3-42 3.11.2 Distribution ................................................................................................... 3-42 3.11.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites .................................................................. 3-43 3.11.4 Reproducing Habitat .................................................................................... 3-43 3.11.5 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ........................................................ 3-44 3.11.6 Ratings ......................................................................................................... 3-45

3.12 Sprague’s Pipit ............................................................................................... 3-47 3.12.1 Status ........................................................................................................... 3-47 3.12.2 Distribution ................................................................................................... 3-47 3.12.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites .................................................................. 3-48 3.12.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ........................................................ 3-48 3.12.5 Ratings ......................................................................................................... 3-48


2010 Page iii

3.13 Cape May Warbler ......................................................................................... 3-50 3.13.1 Status ........................................................................................................... 3-50 3.13.2 Distribution ................................................................................................... 3-50 3.13.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites .................................................................. 3-51 3.13.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ........................................................ 3-53 3.13.5 Ratings ......................................................................................................... 3-53

3.14 Black-throated Green Warbler ........................................................................ 3-54 3.14.1 Status ........................................................................................................... 3-54 3.14.2 Distribution ................................................................................................... 3-55 3.14.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites .................................................................. 3-56 3.14.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ........................................................ 3-57 3.14.5 Ratings ......................................................................................................... 3-57

3.15 Bay-breasted Warbler .................................................................................... 3-59 3.15.1 Status ........................................................................................................... 3-59 3.15.2 Distribution ................................................................................................... 3-59 3.15.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites .................................................................. 3-60 3.15.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ........................................................ 3-61 3.15.5 Ratings ......................................................................................................... 3-61

3.16 Connecticut Warbler ....................................................................................... 3-63 3.16.1 Status ........................................................................................................... 3-63 3.16.2 Distribution ................................................................................................... 3-63 3.16.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites .................................................................. 3-64 3.16.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ........................................................ 3-65 3.16.5 Ratings ......................................................................................................... 3-65

3.17 Canada Warbler ............................................................................................. 3-67 3.17.1 Status ........................................................................................................... 3-67 3.17.2 Distribution ................................................................................................... 3-67 3.17.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites .................................................................. 3-68 3.17.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ........................................................ 3-69 3.17.5 Ratings ......................................................................................................... 3-70

3.18 Le Conte’s Sparrow ........................................................................................ 3-71 3.18.1 Status ........................................................................................................... 3-71 3.18.2 Distribution ................................................................................................... 3-72 3.18.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites .................................................................. 3-73 3.18.4 Reproducing Habitat .................................................................................... 3-73 3.18.5 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ........................................................ 3-73 3.18.6 Ratings ......................................................................................................... 3-74

3.19 Nelson’s Sparrow ........................................................................................... 3-75 3.19.1 Status ........................................................................................................... 3-75 3.19.2 Distribution ................................................................................................... 3-75 3.19.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites .................................................................. 3-76 3.19.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ........................................................ 3-77 3.19.5 Ratings ......................................................................................................... 3-77


Page iv 2010

3.20 Rusty Blackbird ............................................................................................... 3-78 3.20.1 Status ........................................................................................................... 3-78 3.20.2 Distribution ................................................................................................... 3-79 3.20.3 Habitat Use and Life Requisites .................................................................. 3-80 3.20.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes ........................................................ 3-80 3.20.5 Ratings ......................................................................................................... 3-80

4 Mammal Habitat Models .................................................................................4-1 4.1 Moose ............................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Status ............................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.2 Distribution ..................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.3 Abundance ..................................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.4 General Ecology ............................................................................................ 4-3 4.1.5 Key Habitat Requirements ............................................................................. 4-4 4.1.6 Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping-based Model ............................................... 4-5 4.1.7 Ratings ........................................................................................................... 4-6

4.2 Woodland Caribou ............................................................................................ 4-8 4.2.1 Status ............................................................................................................. 4-8 4.2.2 Distribution ..................................................................................................... 4-8 4.2.3 Abundance ................................................................................................... 4-10 4.2.4 General Ecology .......................................................................................... 4-11 4.2.5 Key Habitat Requirements ........................................................................... 4-14 4.2.6 Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping-based Model ............................................. 4-15 4.2.7 Ratings ......................................................................................................... 4-16

4.3 Mountain Goat ................................................................................................ 4-19 4.3.1 Status ........................................................................................................... 4-19 4.3.2 Distribution ................................................................................................... 4-19 4.3.3 Abundance ................................................................................................... 4-20 4.3.4 General Ecology .......................................................................................... 4-20 4.3.5 Key Habitat Requirements ........................................................................... 4-21 4.3.6 Non-Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Models .............................................. 4-21

4.4 Grizzly Bear .................................................................................................... 4-22 4.4.1 Status ........................................................................................................... 4-22 4.4.2 Distribution ................................................................................................... 4-22 4.4.3 Abundance ................................................................................................... 4-25 4.4.4 General Ecology .......................................................................................... 4-25 4.4.5 Key Habitat Requirements ........................................................................... 4-30 4.4.6 Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping-based Model ............................................. 4-31 4.4.7 Ratings ......................................................................................................... 4-32

4.5 Wolverine ....................................................................................................... 4-34 4.5.1 Status ........................................................................................................... 4-34 4.5.2 Distribution ................................................................................................... 4-34 4.5.3 Abundance ................................................................................................... 4-35 4.5.4 General Ecology .......................................................................................... 4-35 4.5.5 Qualitative Habitat Assessment ................................................................... 4-36

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

2010 Page v

4.6 American Marten ............................................................................................ 4-37 4.6.1 Status ........................................................................................................... 4-37 4.6.2 Distribution ................................................................................................... 4-37 4.6.3 Abundance................................................................................................... 4-38 4.6.4 General Ecology .......................................................................................... 4-38 4.6.5 Key Habitat Requirements ........................................................................... 4-39 4.6.6 Ratings ......................................................................................................... 4-41

4.7 Fisher ............................................................................................................. 4-42 4.7.1 Status ........................................................................................................... 4-42 4.7.2 Distribution ................................................................................................... 4-42 4.7.3 Abundance................................................................................................... 4-44 4.7.4 General Ecology .......................................................................................... 4-44 4.7.5 Key Habitat Requirements ........................................................................... 4-45 4.7.6 Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping-based Model ............................................. 4-46 4.7.7 Ratings ......................................................................................................... 4-46

5 Amphibian Habitat Models .............................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Coastal Tailed Frog .......................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 Status ............................................................................................................. 5-1 5.1.2 Distribution ..................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.3 Abundance..................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.4 General Ecology ............................................................................................ 5-2 5.1.5 Key Habitat Requirements ............................................................................. 5-3 5.1.6 Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping-based Model ............................................... 5-3 5.1.7 Ratings ........................................................................................................... 5-4

5.2 Pond-Dwelling Amphibians .............................................................................. 5-6 5.2.1 Overview ........................................................................................................ 5-6 5.2.2 Non-Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Model .................................................. 5-7

6 References ..................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Literature Cited ................................................................................................ 6-1 6.2 Personal Communications and Personal Observations .................................. 6-34 6.3 Internet Sites .................................................................................................. 6-35

Appendix A Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping-based Modelling Data ......................... A-1

List of Tables

Table 2-1 Life Requisites and Seasons of Use Modelled for Key Indicators ........... 2-6Table 2-2 Broad Habitat Class Delineation for Bird Habitat Modelling .................... 2-9Table 3-1 White-Winged Scoter Habitat Ratings Assumptions, Alberta and

British Columbia ..................................................................................... 3-4Table 3-2 American Bittern Habitat Ratings Assumptions, Alberta and British

Columbia ................................................................................................ 3-8Table 3-3 Pacific Great Blue Heron - Ratings Assumptions for Reproducing

Habitat, Coastal British Columbia ......................................................... 3-11

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

Page vi 2010

Table 3-4 Pacific Great Blue Heron - Ratings Assumptions for Living and Foraging Habitat, Coastal British Columbia ........................................... 3-11

Table 3-5 Northern Goshawk Habitat Requirements and Ecosystem Attributes in the PEAA ........................................................................................... 3-16

Table 3-6 Northern Goshawk Habitat Ratings Assumptions, Alberta and British Columbia .................................................................................... 3-17

Table 3-7 Yellow Rail Habitat Ratings Assumptions .............................................. 3-20Table 3-8 Sandhill Crane - Ratings Assumptions for Nesting Habitat ................... 3-24Table 3-9 Sandhill Crane - Ratings Assumptions for Migrating and Foraging

Habitat ................................................................................................... 3-24Table 3-10 Western Screech-Owl Habitat Requirements and Ecosystem

Attributes in the PEAA ........................................................................... 3-28Table 3-11 Western Screech-Owl Habitat Ratings Assumptions, British

Columbia ............................................................................................... 3-29Table 3-12 Barred Owl Habitat Ratings Assumptions ............................................. 3-33Table 3-13 Short-eared Owl Habitat Requirements and Ecosystem Attributes in

the PEAA ............................................................................................... 3-37Table 3-14 Short-eared Owl Habitat Ratings Assumptions, Alberta and British

Columbia ............................................................................................... 3-38Table 3-15 Common Nighthawk Habitat Ratings Assumptions ............................... 3-41Table 3-16 Olive-sided Flycatcher Habitat Ratings Assumptions ............................ 3-46Table 3-17 Sprague’s Pipit Habitat Ratings Assumptions ....................................... 3-49Table 3-18 Cape May Warbler Habitat Ratings Assumptions .................................. 3-54Table 3-19 Black-Throated Green Warbler Habitat Ratings Assumptions ............... 3-58Table 3-20 Bay-breasted Warbler Habitat Ratings Assumptions ............................. 3-62Table 3-21 Connecticut Warbler Habitat Ratings Assumptions ............................... 3-66Table 3-22 Canada Warbler Habitat Ratings Assumptions ..................................... 3-71Table 3-23 Le Conte’s Sparrow Habitat Ratings Assumptions ................................ 3-74Table 3-24 Nelson’s Sparrow Habitat Ratings Assumptions ................................... 3-78Table 3-25 Rusty Blackbird Habitat Ratings Assumptions ...................................... 3-81Table 4-1 Caribou - Conservation Status and Population Size of Herds

Intersecting the PEAA ............................................................................. 4-8Table 4-2 Grizzly Bear - Characteristics of Population Units Intersecting the

Pipeline Route ....................................................................................... 4-24Table 5-1 Conservation Status of Pond-Dwelling Amphibians Known or Likely

to Occur in the PEAA .............................................................................. 5-7

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

2010 Page vii

Abbreviations

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

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

Page viii 2010

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

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

2010 Page ix

Glossary

ambient temperature The temperature of the surrounding (external to a body) environment.

anthropogenic Controlled or modified by human activities.

arboreal lichen A lichen that grows in the tree canopy.

bedload The particles in a river or stream that are transported along the bed, rather than in suspension.

bench Platform geomorphology, nearly level or gently inclined surface on harder material.

benchmark condition A regional reference point from which to compare local conditions.

biogeoclimatic subzone An area with distinct climax plant association and zonal sites, and indicated by climatic modifiers (e.g., dry, wet, cold, warm).

biogeoclimatic variant An area with differences in regional climate and varying levels of soil moisture.

biogeoclimatic zone A geographical area with a relatively uniform macroclimate characterised by a mosaic of vegetation and soils.

bird density The number of individual birds (abundance) per unit of area, e.g. birds per hectare.

bog/fen wetland An area of wet peat supporting a moisture-tolerant plant community.

browse Woody plants from which animals eat the new growth or bark.

canopy A continuous layer of branches and foliage in a stand of trees or shrubs.

canopy closure The degree to which the canopy foliage blocks the sky.

carnivore An animal that feeds on animal matter.

carrion Dead and rotting body of an animal.

coarse woody debris Fallen trees, logs, branches in various stages of decomposition, on the forest floor.

coniferous A tree species that is cone-bearing, typically evergreen.

cratering The act of digging or pawing through snow in search of terrestrial forage (chiefly lichen and grasses), used primarily by caribou.

cygnet A young-of-the-year swan.

deciduous A tree species with leaves that are not persistent and fall off, typically broad-leaved.


Page x 2010

ecological land classification A system used to delineate differing scales of landscape or ecosystems, based on climate, physiography and vegetation.

ecological niche An organism’s actual place within a community.

ecoprovince An area of uniform climate, geological history and physiography, on a sub-continental scale.

ecoregion An area with major physiographic and minor macroclimatic or oceanographic variation, on a regional scale within an ecoprovince.

ecosection An area with minor physiographic and microclimatic or oceanographic variation, on a subregional scale within an ecoregion.

ecosite phase The part of an ecosection in which there is relative uniformity or parent material, soil, hydrology and vegetation.

ecosystem unit Derived from site series and further differentiated using more specific site conditions, structural stages, and other attributes such as stand composition.

emergent vegetation Plants that have their roots in shallow water, with the remaining parts above water.

ephemeral water body A temporary stream or pond that exists in response to precipitation.

fledgling An immature bird after leaving the nest, but still dependent on its parents for protection and food.

floodplain Flat land, bordering a stream or river, onto which a flood will spread.

fluvial rounding The erosion of rocks and boulders by stream or river processes such as dragging and rolling.

forb A herbaceous plant with broad leaves.

generalist feeder A species with broad food preferences

graminoid A grass or grass-like green plant.

guild A set of species that share a common habitat, use the same resources, or forage in the same way.

habitat polygon An area with the same habitat characteristics as delineated by terrestrial ecosystem mapping.

habitat suitability A measure of likelihood that a species will use a habitat type for one or more life requisites.

herbaceous cover An area of ground occupied by forbs, grass and leafy plants.

herbivore An animal that feeds exclusively on plant matter.

heterogeneous Mixed composition or structure.


2010 Page xi

hibernation A dormant condition of certain animals in which metabolic activity is greatly reduced, triggered by the onset of winter.

home range The area that an animal traverses during its lifetime.

homogeneous Uniform composition or structure.

hydric Soil condition where the water table is at or above the surface all year.

hygric Soil condition where water is removed slowly enough to keep soil wet for most of the growing season, with permanent seepage.

igneous rock Rock formed by cooling and crystallization from a molten or partially molten state.

interspecific competition Competitive interaction between individuals of two or more species.

intraspecific competition Competitive interaction between individuals of the same species.

lek A location where communal courtship displays take place among birds.

lekking Communal courtship displaying.

life requisite A component of an animal’s basic needs for living, such as seasonal feeding, reproduction or winter shelter.

marsh wetland An area of low-lying, poorly drained land, periodically or permanently covered with water, with a mineral soil base; and dominated by emergent, non-woody vegetation.

mesic Soil condition where soil may remain moist for a considerable but sometimes short period of the year.

metamorphosis A change in the shape, structure and habits of an animal during development from an egg or embryo into an adult.

metapopulation A population comprising several local populations that are spatially separated but linked by migrants.

microhabitat A set of distinctive environmental conditions that compose habitat on a small scale.

microtine A rodent belonging to the subfamily Microtinae, which includes voles, mole-voles, lemmings and muskrats.

midden A ground burrow or heap used mostly for food storage by red squirrels.

mixedwood Stand of trees with a well-mixed composition of deciduous and coniferous species (i.e., the deciduous component in 26% to 75%)

moisture regime Soil moisture as determined by the physical properties and arrangement of the soil particles.

natal Birth.


Page xii 2010

natural region A broad, landscape-scale ecosystem delineated by climate and broad vegetation types.

natural subregion An area within a natural region as defined by vegetation and site conditions (climate, soils and geology)

neotropical migrant A songbird that breeds in North America during the spring and summer, and winters in Mexico, the Caribbean or Central and South America.

nocturnal An animal whose most active period is between dusk and dawn

old-growth forest Typically includes climax species, complex structure such as a multilayered canopy representing multiple ages, a high incidence of standing dead trees and the presence of species and functional processes that are representative of the potential natural community,

omnivore An animal that feeds on plant, fungal and animal matter.

parturition The process of giving birth.

passerine A perching bird with feet having four toes arranged to allow for gripping the perch.

peatland An area with peat formation, which partially decayed vegetation matter.

perennial water A water body that exists permanently year-round.

philopatric An animal that remains in, or returns to, its birthplace.

pole A tree greater than 10 m tall, typically densely stocked, usually less than 40 years since disturbance.

post-fledging The stage in a bird’s first year of life after fledging, when the bird is no longer dependent on its parents for survival.

recruitment The addition to a population from reproduction, immigration and stocking.

refugia The location of an isolated or relict population of a once widespread wildlife species.

relative abundance A rough estimate of dominance of each species in the same area or community; calculated from the number of individuals of a certain species divided by the number of individuals of all species in the community.

riffles The shallow portions of a stream bed that create surface disturbances.

riparian habitat A terrestrial area where the vegetation and soil conditions are products of the combined presence and influence of water, associated with high water tables where plants are rooted.


2010 Page xiii

sapling The stage of a tree development between a seedling and a pole, typically 1 to 2 m tall and 2 to 4 cm in diameter.

second growth forest A forest that has developed following a disturbance of the old-growth forest, such as harvesting, fire or insect attack.

sedge A grass-like plant with solid stems, leaves in three vertical rows, and spikelets of inconspicuous flowers.

seral stage The series of plant community conditions that develop during ecological succession from bare ground to the climax stage.

shrub-steppe A low rainfall, natural grassland that can support a cover of perennial grasses and shrubs.

site modifier An additional descriptor for atypical conditions for each site series, such as topography, moisture and soil.

site series An area with selected environmental properties (e.g., soil moisture, nutrients) and associated vegetation usually present in late seral or climax stages, on a fine scale.

slash The coarse and fine woody debris generated during logging operations.

slope toe The outermost, gently inclined surface at the base of a hill slope with a linear form.

snag A standing dead or partially dead tree, at least 3 m tall.

specialist feeder A species with narrow or specific food preferences.

species diversity An assessment of the number of species present, their relative abundance in the area, and the distribution of individuals among the species. A measure of complexity of an area.

species richness The number of species in an area.

staging area An area where birds congregate to rest and feed, usually during migration.

stand attribute A definable and inherent characteristic of a forest stand, such as species composition, canopy structure, ground and shrub cover composition.

step-pool morphology The characteristic bedforms that dominate steep mountain streams composed of cobbles and boulders separated by finer materials in a repetitive sequence of steps and pools.

structural stage The condition of the vegetation defined by age, height, complexity and species composition.

subhydric A soil condition where the water table is at or near surface for most of year, with permanent seepage less than 30 cm below the surface.


Page xiv 2010

subhygric A soil condition where water is removed slowly enough to keep soil wet for a considerable part of growing season, with some temporary seepage.

submesic A soil condition where water is available for moderately short periods following precipitation.

subnivean prey An animal eaten by others that live in a zone in or under the snow layer. It relies on winter snow cover for survival.

subxeric A soil condition where soil is moist for short periods following precipitation.

succession A series of dynamic changes in ecosystem structure, function, and species composition over time.

swamp wetland A wetland type characterised by periodic flooding and dominated by trees or tall shrubs; with nearly permanent, subsurface, nutrient-rich water flow through mineral and organic materials.

terrace A relatively flat area eroded into the side slope of a valley wall, bounded by a steep descending slope on one side and a steep ascending slope on the other.

terrestrial ecosystem mapping The stratification of a landscape into map units, based on an integration of abiotic and biotic ecosystem components, such as climate, physiography, surficial material, bedrock geology, soil, and vegetation.

terrestrial lichen A ground-growing lichen.

territory The area that an animal defends, usually during breeding season, against individuals of the same species.

toadlet A juvenile toad.

understorey vegetation Plants that grow close to the ground, under taller species that provide shade.

ungulate A hoofed, grazing mammal with horns or antlers.

very xeric Soil condition where the soil is moist for a negligible time after precipitation.

waterbird A loon, grebe, duck, goose, swan, coot, rail, heron, crane, gull or tern.

xeric A soil condition where soil is moist for brief periods following precipitation.

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

2010 Page 1-1

1 Introduction This technical data report (TDR) describes the wildlife habitat models used to support the Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment (ESA) for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project (the Project).

The habitat modelling conducted for the Project is based primarily on the British Columbia Wildlife Habitat Ratings Standards (RIC 1999). These standards outline the development of expert opinion-based wildlife habitat suitability models and habitat ratings tables. As outlined in the ESA, the habitat suitability models are used to quantify habitat availability for key indicator (KI) species within the project effects assessment area (PEAA; defined as 1 km wide and including the pipeline right-of-way [RoW]) during three project phases: baseline (i.e., prior to construction), construction and operations. Therefore, these models are an important analytical tool used in the ESA to identify project effects on wildlife habitat availability. The habitat models are also used to identify areas along the pipeline route that may be particularly sensitive to project disturbance.

This TDR outlines the modelling approach and methodology used to quantify habitat availability for wildlife KIs and summarizes the habitat suitability models and ratings developed for select species. This TDR does not present model results or output, as these are presented and discussed in the ESA.

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

2010 Page 2-1

2 Methods

2.1 Key Indicator Species The pipeline route crosses a wide range of ecosystems, each with complex faunal associations. As a result, it is not feasible to evaluate all species known or likely to occur along the RoW or within the project effects assessment area (PEAA) to a comparable degree. Instead, as described in detail in the ESA, species of management concern and individual species that represent the habitat requirements of other species are selected for detailed assessment. Species selected for the assessment are called key indicators (KIs). This approach focuses the assessment on the species of greater concern.

The selected KIs use a diversity of habitat types in the PEAA (e.g., forest, wetlands, grasslands), and occupy a range of ecological niches. Thus, they are useful indicators of habitat change for a broad suite of wildlife species and their habitats. Twenty-two bird species, seven mammal species and two amphibian species are identified as KIs in the ESA.

The 22 bird KIs are:

• Trumpeter Swan • White-winged Scoter • Sharp-tailed Grouse • American Bittern • Pacific Great Blue Heron • Northern Goshawk • Yellow Rail • Sandhill Crane • Western Screech-Owl • Barred Owl • Short-eared Owl • Common Nighthawk • Olive-sided Flycatcher • Sprague’s Pipit • Cape May Warbler • Black-throated Green Warbler • Bay-breasted Warbler • Connecticut Warbler • Canada Warbler • Le Conte’s Sparrow • Nelson’s Sparrow • Rusty Blackbird


Page 2-2 2010

The seven mammal KIs are:

• American marten • fisher • wolverine • grizzly bear • moose • woodland caribou • mountain goat

The two amphibian KIs are:

• coastal tailed frog • pond-dwelling amphibians (a species group)

The Resources Inventory Committee (RIC 1999) habitat suitability modelling standards are used to assess habitat availability for the majority of wildlife KIs. Exceptions include Trumpeter Swan, Sharp-tailed Grouse, wolverine, mountain goat and pond-dwelling amphibians. The approaches used for these species are discussed below.

2.2 Habitat Suitability Models

2.2.1 General Approach The habitat modelling conducted for the Project is based primarily on the British Columbia Wildlife Habitat Ratings Standards (RIC 1999). Because of a lack of standards in Alberta, the RIC (1999) standards are applied to the Project in both British Columbia and Alberta. A detailed description of the modelling process, including limitations and alternatives, is presented in RIC (1999) and is summarized below.

Habitat suitability modelling, as defined by RIC (1999), is an expert opinion-based modelling process where knowledgeable biologists and species experts assign ratings to mapped ecological or habitat units for species of interest (e.g., KIs). Suitability ratings reflect the relative importance or value of habitat units to wildlife populations under current (e.g., disturbed) habitat conditions, and are based on the potential or expected use of habitats relative to the best habitat in the province (RIC 1999). Ideally, suitability ratings reflect known animal densities but, most often, because of limited availability of data, are based on a biologist’s interpretation of habitat quality (RIC 1999). A number of factors other than habitat quality can affect habitat use, such as predation, disease and social interactions, but are not considered when assigning ratings (RIC 1999). Although this is an acknowledged limitation of the modelling process, habitat suitability ratings are considered a useful tool for analyzing habitat values for wildlife in British Columbia (RIC 1999).

The modelling process involves the development of species accounts and species-specific ratings tables. The species account summarizes known information on the status, ecology, habitat requirements, life requisites (defined as the life history elements necessary for reproduction and survival, such as nesting, feeding, and hibernating) and seasonal use patterns of wildlife species (e.g., KIs) in a given area


2010 Page 2-3

(RIC 1999). The information on species ecology and habitat requirements is used to rate the expected use (i.e., relative importance) of habitat units, based on the structure and composition of these units (e.g., percent canopy cover, shrub composition), for selected life requisites and seasons of use (e.g., summer nesting and/or winter foraging). The relationships between habitat suitability and habitat structure and/or composition for selected life requisites are summarized in detailed modelling assumptions that describe rating rules and procedures. These assumptions are a key component of the model and allow for critical evaluation of model mechanics.

Ratings are applied to habitat units using 2-, 4- or 6-class rating schemes, depending on the level of information available for a species (RIC 1999). For example, for a species with a moderate level of information, a 4-class scheme is used, where habitat units are rated as having nil, low, moderate or high habitat suitability. The ratings are summarized in a ratings table, and can be displayed graphically on a terrestrial ecosystem map using a geographic information system (GIS). As discussed in Section 3.1.5.3, ratings adjustments are incorporated into the model using GIS to take into account disturbance factors and the spatial arrangement of habitats to more accurately reflect habitat availability at a given time and project phase. Once adjustments are incorporated, the area (e.g., hectares) of suitable habitat for a given life requisite and season of use can be calculated and summarized, providing information on habitat availability at baseline or project construction or operations.

For the Project, all habitat modelling was done in ArcGIS Version 9.2 software with model builder and Spatial Analyst (ArcGIS 1999 to 2006 for Version 9.2) and the results are presented in the Lambert Conformal Conic projection.

2.2.1.1 Model Adjustments

Two parameters are used to refine habitat suitability models for KIs: sensory disturbance buffer and spatial arrangement:

• sensory disturbance buffer: Although habitat may be suitable for a given wildlife species, actual use may be limited or precluded because of other factors, such as human disturbance. Typically, habitats close to intensive land use activities have lower habitat effectiveness or use than comparable habitats in remote settings. To incorporate reduced habitat effectiveness as a result of sensory disturbance into the habitat models, a sensory disturbance buffer was defined for each type of human disturbance identified in the PEAA, and a disturbance coefficient (i.e., reduction factor) is applied to the habitat suitability ratings within the sensory disturbance buffer. The sensory disturbance buffers and disturbance coefficients vary by KI.

• spatial arrangement: Where habitat of suitable quality exists for a given species, the size, shape, isolation and dynamics of habitat patches across the landscape may have profound effects on the persistence of populations of that species (e.g., Flather and Bevers 2002). In such cases, habitat quality may have a spatial component related to the arrangement of habitat patches within the PEAA. Wildlife species may be affected by the spatial arrangement of their habitat in several ways, including requirements for: a minimum habitat patch size, below which a habitat patch will receive little or no wildlife use, even if it is otherwise suitable; and the distribution of resources (for food, shelter and reproduction) that together fulfill a species’ habitat needs. If a KI’s habitat requirements have a spatial component, this is included in the models when determining habitat availability.


Page 2-4 2010

2.2.2 Alternatives to Habitat Suitability Modelling Numerous techniques are available for developing habitat models for wildlife. The British Columbia Wildlife Habitat Rating Standards are used for the Project because of their accepted role as a provincial land management planning tool (RIC 1999). Use of Resource Suitability Indices, similar to the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) modelling developed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (1981) is being explored in British Columbia, but has not replaced the RIC (1999) standards (BC MoE 2006, Internet site). Other techniques, such as development of resource selection functions (RSFs), are not employed because of the lack of spatial data on animal locations along the majority of the pipeline route.

Although habitat suitability models and habitat ratings are used to determine habitat availability for the majority of the wildlife KIs, alternative methods are used for Trumpeter Swan, Sharp-tailed Grouse, wolverine, mountain goat and pond-dwelling amphibians. As discussed in the ESA, these alternative methods are as follows.

2.2.2.1 Trumpeter Swan and Sharp-tailed Grouse

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

2.2.2.2 Wolverine

As a wide-ranging habitat generalist, wolverine is not recommended as an appropriate candidate for habitat suitability modelling and mapping. Although some wolverine habitat models are available (e.g., Singleton et al. 2002; Proulx 2005), given the geographic extent of the Project, a single wolverine habitat model is unlikely to be valid along the entire length of the pipeline route unless applied only at the broad landscape level. Thus, direct modelling of wolverine habitat is not proposed. Instead, two indicators are selected as surrogates for wolverine habitat value: grizzly bear and ungulates. The rationale for selecting these indicators is:

• Grizzly bear: Like the wolverine, the grizzly bear is a landscape-level large carnivore sensitive to human disturbance, and Banci (1994) suggests that the effects of land-use activities on wolverines are likely similar to those on grizzly bears. Grizzly bear fall feeding habitat is the focus, because fall feeding habitat, rather than spring feeding habitat, more closely resembles potential wolverine habitat.

• Ungulates: Wolverines are opportunistic scavengers and predators, but rely on carrion and cached items in winter (Magoun 1985). In British Columbia, wolverines rely on ungulate carrion during winter, primarily moose, caribou and mountain goat (Lofroth et al. 2007), and wolverine winter habitat use is positively associated with moose winter range (Krebs et al. 2007). Thus, an adverse effect on ungulate winter habitat availability would likely also have an adverse effect on wolverine habitat suitability, regardless of the cause.


2010 Page 2-5

2.2.2.3 Mountain Goat

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

Peace Region Goat Escape Terrain

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

Kalum Goat Winter Habitat

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

Morice and Lakes Goat Ungulate Winter Ranges

The methods used to identify goat ungulate winter ranges (UWRs) in the Nadina Forest District are provided in Turney (2004). The Nadina Forest District was formerly the Morice and Lakes Timber Supply Areas. The original naming convention is retained here to be consistent with the government spatial data source.

Factors used to identify suitable UWRs are slope, distance to steep slopes, aspect, elevation, and glacier presence. On the basis of model output values, Turney (2004) has partitioned the results into primary and secondary UWRs. However, all UWRs are treated equally from a management perspective (Heinrichs 2009, pers. comm.), and are therefore collectively considered key habitat.

2.2.2.4 Pond Dwelling Amphibians

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

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

were considered to represent pond-dwelling amphibian habitat.


Page 2-6 2010

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

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

Table 2-1 Life Requisites and Seasons of Use Modelled for Key Indicators Species or Group Life Requisite Season of Use1

Birds White-winged Scoter Reproducing Spring and summer American Bittern Reproducing Spring and summer Pacific Great Blue Heron Reproducing Spring and summer

Living (foraging) Year-round Northern Goshawk Reproducing Spring and summer Yellow Rail Reproducing Spring and summer Sandhill Crane Reproducing Spring and summer

Migrating (foraging) Late winter, spring and summer Western Screech-Owl Reproducing Spring and summer Barred Owl Reproducing Spring and summer Short-eared Owl Reproducing Spring and summer Common Nighthawk Reproducing Spring and summer Olive-sided Flycatcher Reproducing Spring and summer Sprague’s Pipit Reproducing Spring and summer Cape May Warbler Reproducing Spring and summer Black-throated Green Warbler Reproducing Spring and summer Bay-breasted Warbler Reproducing Spring and summer Connecticut Warbler Reproducing Spring and summer Canada Warbler Reproducing Spring and summer Le Conte’s Sparrow Reproducing Spring and summer Nelson’s Sparrow Reproducing Spring and summer Rusty Blackbird Reproducing Spring and summer


2010 Page 2-7

Table 2-1 Life Requisites and Seasons of Use Modelled for Key Indicators (cont’d)

Species or Group Life Requisite Season of Use1 Mammals American marten Living Year-round Fisher Natal denning Winter and spring Grizzly bear Feeding Spring and fall Moose Feeding Winter

Shelter Winter Woodland caribou Feeding Early and late winter Amphibians Coastal tailed frog Living Year-round

NOTE: 1 As defined in RIC (1999).

2.2.4 Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping As discussed earlier, habitat ratings are assigned to ecosystem or habitat units. The core mapping product developed for the Project is based on terrestrial ecosystem mapping (TEM) in British Columbia, and ecosite mapping in Alberta. Habitat models and ratings that use TEM and ecosite mapping are thus described as being TEM-based.

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

2.2.5 Habitat Ratings

2.2.5.1 Mammals and Amphibians

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


Page 2-8 2010

2.2.5.2 Birds

With the exception of Trumpeter Swan and Sharp-tailed Grouse, TEM-based habitat suitability models are applied to all bird KIs. However, ratings are not assigned to each unique ecosystem unit, as done for mammals and tailed frog. Instead, TEM ecosystem units are lumped into broader habitat classes that reflect habitat use by birds, and ratings are assigned to these broader units. This process allowed for efficient development of habitat ratings for the large number of bird KIs, without the loss of model accuracy. The ratings are still considered TEM-based because ecological units are used to delineate the broader habitat classes.

Habitat use by birds is dependent on a number of stand attributes that, for the KIs, include dominant vegetation type, canopy closure, understorey complexity, moisture regime and structural stage. To facilitate model development and habitat ratings for the large number of bird KIs, ecosystem units were grouped into 17 broad habitat classes based on dominant vegetation type. The delineation of broad habitat classes was based on known habitat requirements of bird KIs, as determined by a thorough review of species habitat preferences.

As birds respond to a variety of stand attributes, the broad habitat classes were further subdivided based on canopy closure (open/sparse, intermediate and dense), understorey complexity (shrub cover), moisture regime (dry to wet, including upland and riparian) and structural stage (Class 1 to 7). This approach allowed ecosystem units to be grouped into distinct habitat types (e.g., closed canopy old growth white spruce forest with low understorey complexity and wet moisture regime) that reflected habitat preferences of bird KIs. Habitat delineation for bird habitat modelling is illustrated in Table 2-2.

Habitat ratings for bird KIs were based on a four-class system (RIC 1999), with values ranging from 1 (high quality habitat) to 4 (unusable habitat). Habitat quality was based on the potential density or reproductive success of birds using a site, as follows:

• Rank 1 (high quality): Habitat has high suitability for a life requisite (based on attributes such as structural stage, canopy cover, stand composition, moisture regime) and is expected to support a high density or reproductive success of birds. Structure or composition of habitat is not considered limiting.

• Rank 2 (intermediate quality): Habitat has moderate suitability for a life requisite (based on combined attributes) and is expected to support an intermediate density or reproductive success of birds. Structure or composition of habitat has some limitations.

• Rank 3 (low quality): Habitat has low suitability for a life requisite (based on combined attributes) and is expected to support a low density or reproductive success of birds. Structure or composition of habitat has many limitations, but does not exclude birds entirely.

• Rank 4 (unusable): Habitat is not suitable for a life requisite (based on combined attributes) and is not expected to be used by birds, or have very low reproductive success (i.e., sink habitat). Structure or composition of habitat has severe limitations.


2010 Page 2-9

Table 2-2 Broad Habitat Class Delineation for Bird Habitat Modelling

Stand Type Broad Habitat

Class Description

Broad Habitat Subclass Delineation Structural

Stage Canopy Closure

Understorey Cover

Moisture Regime

Forested Deciduous Forest

Stands dominated1 by deciduous trees

• 4 (pole/ sapling)

• 5 (young) • 6 (mature) • 7 (old

growth)

• Open • (>10 – 25%) • Intermediate • (>25-50%) • Dense • (>50%)

• Higher • (>25%) • Lower • (


Page 2-10 2010

Table 2-2 Broad Habitat Class Delineation for Bird Habitat Modelling (cont’d)

Stand Type Broad Habitat

Class Description

Broad Habitat Subclass Delineation Structural

Stage Canopy Closure

Understorey Cover

Moisture Regime

Shrub Shrub Shrub dominated sites, including avalanche tracks

• 3 • 3a (low) • 3b (tall)

With or without snags3

N/A As above

Herb/ graminoid

Marsh Cattail marsh • 2b (graminoid)

N/A N/A N/A

Meadow Wet sedge or forb meadows, including avalanche tracks

• 2a (forb) • 2b

(graminoid)

N/A N/A N/A

Grassland Dry native grassland communities

• 2b N/A N/A N/A

Non-vegetated

Natural Non-vegetated

Various sites, such as rock outcrops, beaches, gravel bars

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Disturbed Anthropogenic – Vegetated

Cultivated Fields Rural areas Reclaimed mines

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Anthropogenic– Non-vegetated

Various sites, such as roads, railways, gravel pits

N/A N/A N/A N/A

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

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

2010 Page 3-1

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

3.1 White-winged Scoter

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

3.1.2 Distribution

3.1.2.1 Provincial Range

Alberta and British Columbia

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

3.1.2.2 Study Area Range

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

British Columbia

Ecoprovinces: Boreal Plains, Sub-boreal Interior, Central Interior

Ecoregions: Southern Alberta Upland, Central Canadian Rocky Mountains, Fraser Basin, Fraser River Plateau, Bulkley Ranges

Ecosections: Kiskatinaw Plateau, Hart Foothills, Southern Hart Ranges, McGregor Plateau, Nechako Lowland, Babine Upland, Bulkley Basin, Bulkley Ranges, Nechako Upland


Page 3-2 2010

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

Alberta

Natural Regions: Parkland, Boreal Forest, Foothills

Natural Subregions: Central Parkland, Central Mixedwood, Dry Mixedwood, Lower Foothills

3.1.2.3 Elevational Range

British Columbia

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

Alberta

No information available.

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

3.1.3.1 Reproducing Habitat

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


2010 Page 3-3

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

3.1.4 Habitat Use and Ecosystem Attributes As discussed in Section 2.2.4, habitat polygons (site series and ecosite phases) were grouped into broad habitat classes that reflected ecosystem attributes considered important for nesting White-winged Scoter. The key ecosystem attributes used to define nesting habitat for White-winged Scoter include:

• stand type (forested or shrub habitats are preferred) • vegetation structure (dense, closed shrub preferred)

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

3.1.5.1 Provincial Benchmark

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

3.1.5.2 Ratings Assumptions

The ratings assumptions used to define habitat suitability for White-winged Scoters are summarized below and in Table 3-1.

• White-winged scoter prefers nesting in dense overhead cover and does not nest in sparsely vegetated sites. Sites with moderate to dense (more than 25%) overhead (shrub and upland herbaceous) cover are given a high (1) rating, and sites with low cover (equal to or less than 25%) are given a low (3) rating. Sites with only upland herbaceous cover are given a low (3) rating as shrub cover is considered most important for nesting.

• Nesting occurs predominantly in forested (coniferous, deciduous or mixedwood) or shrub-dominated sites. Nesting can occur in structural stage 2 to 7 habitats, including mountain pine beetle stands, depending on density of overhead cover.


Page 3-4 2010

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

Table 3-1 White-Winged Scoter Habitat Ratings Assumptions, Alberta and British Columbia

3.1.5.3 Ratings Adjustments

Ratings are adjusted to take into account distance to water and potential effects of sensory disturbance, as follows:

• Distance to water:

• Sites within 100 m of water retain their rating

• sites more than 100 m and equal to or less than 200 m from water are given a maximum moderate (2) rating

• sites more than 200 m and equal to or less than 800 m from water are given a maximum low (3) rating

• sites more than 800 m from water are given a nil (4) rating, regardless of cover and stand type

• Sensory disturbance:

• Habitat ratings were reduced by 2 ranks within 50 m of primary industrial sites or major roads, and by 1 rank within 50 m of secondary roads or industrial sites, to take into account potential disturbance effects (see Appendix A).

Adjustments were not applied for distance to edge because many edge openings suitable for escape are too small to be identified on habitat maps (Safine and Lindberg 2008), and thus would be underestimated in habitat modelling. Distance to the water’s edge is likely the most important edge measurement and is incorporated above.

3.1.5.4 Ratings Table

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

Structural Stage More than 25% Shrub Cover Less than 25% Shrub Cover 1 N/A 4 2 – wet lowland N/A 4 2 – dry upland N/A 3 3-7 1 3

NOTE: N/A – not applicable


2010 Page 3-5

3.2 American Bittern

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

3.2.2 Distribution

3.2.2.1 Provincial Range

British Columbia

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

Alberta

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

3.2.2.2 Study Area Range

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

British Columbia

Ecoprovinces: Boreal Plains, Sub-boreal Interior, Central Interior

Ecoregions: Southern Alberta Upland, Central Canadian Rocky Mountains, Fraser Basin, Fraser River Plateau, Bulkley Ranges

Ecosections: Kiskatinaw Plateau, Hart Foothills, Southern Hard Ranges, McGregor Plateau, Nechako Lowland, Babine Upland, Bulkley Basin, Nechako Upland, Bulkley Ranges

Biogeoclimatic Zones: Boreal White and Black Spruce, Sub-Boreal Spruce


Page 3-6 2010

Alberta

Natural Regions: Parkland, Boreal Forest, Foothills

Natural Subregions: Central Parkland, Central Mixedwood, Dry Mixedwood, Lower Foothills

3.2.2.3 Elevational Range

British Columbia

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

Alberta

No information available.

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

Technical Data Report Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach ... · Table 2-2 Broad Habitat Class Delineation for Bird Habitat Modelling..... 2-9 Table 3-1 White-Winged Scoter Habitat

Documents