Guidelines for Evaluating, Avoiding and Mitigating Impacts of Major Development Projects on Wildlife in British Columbia

Transcription

1 Some of the information may be out of date. Proponents should discuss management issues, mitigation and compensation initiatives with regional B.C. Ministry of Environment staff. Guidelines for Evaluating, Avoiding and Mitigating Impacts of Major Development Projects on Wildlife in British Columbia By W.L. Harper, RPBio, J.M. Cooper, RPBio, K. Simpson, RPBio, J. Hamilton, MSc, K.A. Dunham, MA, and D.S. Eastman, RPBio April 2001

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES... 4 I. INTRODUCTION... 5 A. PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING TECHNICAL GUIDELINES... 6 B. CONTENT OF TECHNICAL GUIDELINES... 6 C. APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES... 6 II. LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK... 7 A. THE BCEAA PROCESS PROJECT REVIEW THRESHOLDS STAGES OF PROJECT REVIEW TIMELINES CONSULTATION LINKS TO OTHER PROCESSES B. FEDERAL LEGISLATION CEAA REVIEW PROPOSED SPECIES AT RISK ACT (SARA) C. MELP AND BCEAA COORDINATION WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES PROJECT APPROVAL CERTIFICATE CONDITIONS AND COMPLIANCE REVIEW PERMITTING CONCURRENT REVIEWS III. PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION A. BC WILDLIFE ACT B. BC PARK ACT C. BC ECOLOGICAL RESERVE ACT D. BC FISH PROTECTION ACT E. FOREST PRACTICES CODE F. PERMITS, LICENCES AND APPROVALS NORMALLY REQUIRED AUTHORIZATIONS PURSUANT TO THE WILDLIFE ACT AUTHORIZATIONS PURSUANT TO THE PARK ACT IV. SOURCES FOR INFORMATION ON TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES. 24 A. RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES B. SPECIES OF MANAGEMENT CONCERN C. ECOSYSTEM AND WILDLIFE HABITAT MAPPING D. WILDLIFE SPECIES INVENTORY (SPI) E. HARVEST DATA F. MINISTRY OF FORESTS G. WILDLIFE ACCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM (WARS) H. GOVERNMENT OF CANADA I. UNIVERSITIES J. NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (NGO) K. PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 2

3 V. POTENTIAL WILDLIFE IMPACTS: A GENERAL PERSPECTIVE A. LINEAR DEVELOPMENTS HIGHWAYS, RAILWAYS AND ROADS ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION LINES AND OIL AND GAS PIPELINES B. MINING HABITAT ALTERATION ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION INCREASED ACCESS BARRIERS TO MOVEMENT C. INDUSTRIAL PROCESSING PLANTS METAL SMELTERS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANTS COGENERATION POWER PLANTS PULP MILLS PETROCHEMICAL PROCESSING D. HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS SHORT TERM LONG TERM E. TOURISM AND RECREATION DEVELOPMENTS VI. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR EA PROJECTS VII. A. GENERIC APPROACH TO EA FOR WILDLIFE SPECIES INVENTORY TERRESTRIAL HABITAT INVENTORY ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ACCESS ISSUES B. SPECIES-SPECIFIC EA FOR WILDLIFE HOOFED MAMMALS - UNGULATES CARNIVORES OTHER MAMMALS BIRDS FRESHWATER NESTING BIRDS RAPTORS BIRDS OF PREY GROUSE WHITE-THROATED SWIFT RED- AND BLUE-LISTED WOODPECKERS PASSERINE BIRDS - SONGBIRDS REPTILES AMPHIBIANS COMPONENTS OF WILDLIFE HABITAT PLANTS AND PLANT COMMUNITIES WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT MITIGATION MEASURES FOR EA PROJECTS A. GENERIC WILDLIFE MITIGATION MEASURES FOR EA PROJECTS B. POTENTIAL WILDLIFE MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR SPECIFIC EA PROJECT CATEGORIES HIGHWAYS, RAILWAYS AND ROADS ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION LINES AND OIL AND GAS PIPELINES MINES INDUSTRIAL PROCESSING PLANTS Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 3

4 5. HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS TOURISM RESORTS C. POTENTIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES-SPECIFIC MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR EA PROJECTS HOOFED MAMMALS - UNGULATES CARNIVORES OTHER MAMMALS BIRDS FRESHWATER NESTING BIRDS RAPTORS BIRDS OF PREY GROUSE WHITE-THROATED SWIFT RED- AND BLUE-LISTED WOODPECKERS PASSERINE BIRDS - SONGBIRDS REPTILES AMPHIBIANS COMPONENTS OF WILDLIFE HABITAT PLANTS AND PLANT COMMUNITIES D. MONITORING VIII. LITERATURE CITED IX. APPENDICES LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Examples of activities requiring authorization under permits issued under the Wildlife Act Permit Regulation Table 2. List of regional offices of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Table 3. List of activities related to evaluating, avoiding and mitigating impacts of major development projects on wildlife under BCEAA (see Figure 1) Table 4. Inventory manuals in RIC s standards for components of British Columbia s biodiversity series Table 5. Inventory manuals in RIC s standards for terrestrial ecology series Table 6. Cliff-nesting raptors of conservation concern Table 7. Tree-nesting raptors of conservation concern or special interest Table 8. Tree-nesting owls of conservation concern (Red- or Blue-listed) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Flowchart of activities related to evaluating, avoiding and mitigating impacts of major development projects on wildlife under BCEAA Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 4

5 I. INTRODUCTION The report is divided into five major sections. The first section describes the purpose and applications of guidelines. The second part discusses the legislative, regulatory and approval framework that makes up the provincial environmental assessment process as it relates to wildlife. Next, sources of information on provincial wildlife are described. The fourth section generally summarizes potential impacts on wildlife arising from the seven broad types of major developments. The fifth section describes generic and speciesspecific approaches wildlife environmental assessment. The sixth and final section presents mitigation measures for selected groups of wildlife species. In presenting information on environmental assessment approaches and guidelines for mitigation a coarse filter fine filter approach was used. Environmental assessment approaches that are widely applicable for a variety of wildlife species are discussed in a generic section. More species-specific approaches are presented in separate sections on individual species or groups of species. Mitigation measures were developed in a similar way, beginning with a coarse filter approach that presents generic guidelines applicable to all wildlife and all project categories. At next level, potential mitigation strategies are discussed that are specific to a project category (e.g. hydroelectric development) but are widely applicable to most wildlife species. The lowest level presents wildlife mitigation strategies that are specific to both the project category and wildlife species. Whenever appropriate, environmental assessment approaches and potential mitigation strategies are lumped together with other species or types of projects to minimize the number of separate guidelines. The report addresses terrestrial animals (birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians), their habitats, as well as plants and plant communities considered at risk in British Columbia. In order to remain consistent with the jurisdictional responsibilities of the BC Wildlife Program, marine mammals (i.e. whales and seals), and fish are not addressed in this report. Grizzly Bear and Black Bear are also not addressed in this report, but are the subject of separate and similar report British Columbia Environmental Assessment Guidelines for Grizzly Bears and Black Bears (MacHutchon 2001). Most of the species discussed in this report are Red- or Blue-listed (i.e. threatened, endangered or vulnerable) while others are regionally significant or have characteristics that make them especially vulnerable to major developments. These guidelines are comparable to guidelines for other industries in British Columbia, such as the Identified Wildlife Management Strategy for the forest industry (Province of BC 1997, 1999), or the Guidelines for Mitigating the Impact of Commercial Backcountry Recreation (Harper and Eastman 2000, MELP 2000). Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 5

6 A. PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING TECHNICAL GUIDELINES The purpose of the guidelines is to provide proponents with information, in a number of Ministry program areas, on how to conduct environmental assessments of projects reviewed under the BC Environmental Assessment Act (BCEAA). These guidelines can also be utilized in non-bceaa projects with associated potential wildlife impacts. One of the key objectives of these guidelines is to provide potential project proponents with an early indication of any wildlife/wildlife habitat information requirements in the preparation of a project application. The intent of providing guidelines is to: Guide proponents with potential EA projects in the development of project approval applications and project reports; Assist in providing provincial consistency and continuity in the ministry s data and information requirements; Ensure that the requirements under the BC Environmental Assessment Act and ministry wildlife objectives are met; Support ministerial decision making on EA project reviews; and Reduce ministry staff time allocation in EA reviews. B. CONTENT OF TECHNICAL GUIDELINES In general the MELP EA guidelines will address: Information on relevant legislation, policy, and permitting requirements. Information requirements for baseline monitoring and methodologies for data collection and reporting. Identification of potential impacts. Identification of mitigation options. Reference documents. C. APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES The guidelines are approved by the Ministry Executive. They are intended to be flexible so that MELP staff may consider alternatives relevant to a specific project that is still consistent with the intent of the guidelines. It is also expected that as new scientific information and experience is gained that the guidelines will be modified to reflect this new information. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 6

7 II. LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK A. THE BCEAA PROCESS The BCEAA became law on June 30, It built on many years of experience with review processes that the Ministry participated in for energy, mines, and other major project proposals. The purpose of the Act is to: 1. Promote sustainability by protecting the environment and fostering a sound economy and social well-being. 2. To provide for the thorough, timely, and integrated assessment of environmental, social, cultural, heritage, and health effects of reviewable projects. 3. To prevent or mitigate adverse effects of reviewable projects. 4. To provide for an open, accountable, and neutrally administered process for the assessment. The Act contains a considerable amount of detail on how the EA process must be carried out. Requirements are described for: The types and sizes of projects that must go through the review process. The stages of a review. Information that must be provided. Who must be involved and the methods for involvement. Time limits for completing certain activities. The Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) is a neutral agency that administers BCEAA. The EAO is not part of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. The Guide to the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Review Process ( the Guide ), available from the Environmental Assessment Office or online at provides a complete description of the Act and the process, along with copies of the legislation and regulations. There are also numerous other review processes for projects that are not reviewed under BCEAA, through permitting, referrals, licencing and approvals. These other processes also require assessments, to varying degrees, and public and First Nations consultation. These guidelines may be applied in these other review processes to projects that have a potential for wildlife/wildlife habitat impacts. A short description of the key features of the Act and the relationship to Ministry guidelines follows. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 7

8 1. PROJECT REVIEW THRESHOLDS The Reviewable Projects Regulation lists the types and sizes of projects that must go through the EA review process. The regulation covers major new projects as well as major expansions or modifications of existing projects. Whether a project is reviewable or not is at times difficult to determine, as there are a number of interpretations of the regulation and associated legislation required to make a final determination. Usually the proponent approaches the EAO for a determination, or a government agency (local, provincial or federal) may be contacted and they may make the inquiry. The EAO contacts MELP and the responsible ministry (e.g. Energy & Mines) to discuss and verify any interpretation of that agency s legislation. For example, definitions (e.g. of a stream under the Water Act) are often in pieces of legislation that are not the EA Act. Or industries may fall under an SIC code that is not clearly in or out of review until it s investigated (e.g. a gelatin plant). In some cases, the EAO seeks legal counsel on an interpretation. Once an interpretation is made, a letter goes out indicating the section of the regulation and interpretation on reviewability. There is also a provision in Section 4 of the Act for the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks to designate any other project as reviewable under the Act if there is expected to be significant adverse impact and it is in the public interest. Any person or agency can request a project be included in a Section 4 designation, although this section is little used. To date, there have been 18 requests to consider using Section 4 to designate a project for review under the Act. All but two of these requests were denied Bamberton town development and addition of a fourth lane on Lions Gate Bridge (project did not proceed). The review, once designated, proceeds in the same staged fashion as all other reviewable projects. The limited use of Section 4 reflects the government s commitment to use the power sparingly, to avoid undermining the certainty provided by the Reviewable Projects Regulation. Under current government policy, Section 4 designation is interpreted as being in the public interest only where there are significant impact concerns that fall outside the scope of the existing regulatory regime. Section 40 of the Act also allows for reviews of a category of projects. There has been only one review under this section to date, the Salmon Aquaculture Review. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 8

9 2. STAGES OF PROJECT REVIEW The most fundamental characteristic of the BC process, similar to EA processes in many other jurisdictions, is a staged sequence. The process moves from an application stage (stage 1), and may move to a project report (stage 2). The Act also provides for a third stage, a public hearing, although this stage has never been invoked. Not all stages are necessarily required; a project decision can be made at the end of any of these stages. a) PRE-APPLICATION The original intent of the Act was that most projects would go to the second stage of review to address issues in more detail than the application would contain. Experience with the Act has resulted in more project proponents undertaking intensive preapplication studies and consultation to attempt to complete their review in the application stage. Ministry advice on studies to undertake, methods to use, and processes to follow is frequently sought at this juncture, although there is no formal process in the Act for preapplication work. The intent of the guidelines is to assist potential project proponents in an early identification of information requirements for the preparation of a project application. b) APPLICATION REVIEW The formal review of the application requires that a project committee be struck which may include federal, provincial, local, regional and First Nations government representatives. The proponent s program of consultation is assessed for whether it is adequate. A public review period is set where comments can be submitted, and project committee agencies (including First Nations) provide detailed comments on the application. Ministry staff s reviewing the application refers to guidelines and previous practices on EA reviews to assist them in providing their comments on the application. The proponent either addresses the comments to the satisfaction of the project committee, with subsequent approval by two Ministers (Environment, Lands and Parks and a responsible minister) or is sent the next stage of review or the project is rejected. c) PROJECT REPORT SPECIFICATIONS If the project proceeds to Stage 2, the project committee (including First Nations) provides legally binding requirements for additional information or commitments by the proponent ( project report specifications ) that address the deficiencies noted in the project application. The guidelines should assist MELP staff in developing project report specifications for additional information requirements and/or commitments for mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. The public and the project committee review these specifications in draft form before they are finalized. The proponent then completes the remaining studies and prepares a project report. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 9

10 d) PROJECT REPORT The project committee (including First Nations) reviews the proponents project report based on the requirements of the project report specifications. Once the project report is screened and accepted for review, it is reviewed by the Project Committee for its adequacy in meeting the requirements of the project report specifications, and whether it resolves the issues to the satisfaction of the relevant agency on the Project Committee. e) PUBLIC HEARING If there remain significant outstanding issues, a public hearing may be called. The detailed process for hearings is outlined in the Act but has not been used to date. 3. TIMELINES BCEAA sets legislated timelines for each step of the review. It places limits on the length of time to establish a project committee, and how long the project committee has to consider the project before a recommendation is to be made. It also sets the length of public comment periods. The minimum and maximum time limits for each legislated stage for project committee review and decision-making (note: proponents do not have time limits) are as follows: Stage 1: months Stage 2: Project Report Specifications: 1.5 to 2.5 months Project Report Review: 6 to 8 months Stage 3: 6 to 12 months 4. CONSULTATION BCEAA sets out requirements for the information distribution or consultation by the proponent, for preparation of the application. 5. LINKS TO OTHER PROCESSES The EA review is at a strategic level, that is, the emphasis is always on what is really a significant issue, i.e. identifying and determining if impacts have been addressed and/or are mitigable. Significant is taken to mean that: There are no other processes for approval that could provide suitable assessment of this issue (e.g. post-certification approvals do not exist). There are concerns from other levels of government or multi-agency concerns about this issue. The issue reflects a high degree of public concern. Detailed project design and plans are dealt with, on the whole, during the permitting process and are not addressed during the EA project review. BCEAA projects are reviewed on a conceptual level, not the detailed level of review normally expected in Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 10

11 permitting, the exception being where concurrent permitting is requested in the EA review. The existing policy and land use plan regime, such as LRMPs, guide the EA review. B. FEDERAL LEGISLATION 1. CEAA REVIEW The purposes of this federal Act are: To ensure that the environmental effects of projects receive careful consideration before responsible authorities take actions in connection with them; To encourage responsible authorities to take actions that promote sustainable development and thereby achieve or maintain a healthy environment and a healthy economy; To ensure that responsible authorities carry out their responsibilities in a coordinated manner with a view to eliminating unnecessary duplication in the environmental assessment process; To ensure that projects that are to be carried out on federal lands do not cause significant adverse environmental effects outside the jurisdictions in which the projects are carried out; and To ensure that there be an opportunity for public participation in the environmental assessment process. The Canadian process is also a staged review process. A CEAA review is triggered when the federal government is a proponent, or for other projects where there is a regulatory approval required from the federal government (Law List), federal financial support or federal interest in the land where the project is situated. There are some projects that require a review under CEAA because they are listed under a regulation (Comprehensive Study List) that requires a major assessment, called a comprehensive study. A mediation or a review panel can also be invoked. Most assessments are done at what is called a screening level. Every level of assessment (screening, comprehensive study, mediation or review panel) requires that effects be assessed, including cumulative effects, potential accidents and malfunctions, and alternatives to the project. The definition of effects to be assessed includes socioeconomic conditions, physical and cultural heritage, the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by aboriginal persons, or effects on any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance. The federal and BC government have a Harmonization Agreement, to coordinate their reviews where both at BCEAA review and a CEAA review are triggered. In that case, the BC review process is used, which is designed to meet both federal and provincial Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 11

12 requirements. The federal government, in these cases, delegates its EA process responsibilities, but not its decision-making. What this means is that the approval by the federal responsible minister is still required in addition to the two provincial ministers approval under BCEAA. Further information on the CEAA is available from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Office ( 2. PROPOSED SPECIES AT RISK ACT (SARA) In October 1996, wildlife ministers from across the country agreed in principle to the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk. This Accord, of which British Columbia is signatory, outlines commitments on behalf of provincial, territorial and federal governments, to designate species at risk, protect their habitats and develop recovery plans. The federal Minister of Environment reintroduced the Species at Risk Act (SARA) to the House of Commons on February 2, SARA fulfills part of the Government of Canada's responsibility under the Accord. The proposed Species at Risk Act covers nationally listed endangered and threatened species, and species of special concern, as determined by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC, SARA will prohibit the killing, harming, harassing, capturing or taking of species officially listed as threatened, endangered or extirpated, and the destruction of their residences. There will also be a mandatory requirement for developing recovery plans for endangered or threatened species, and management plans for species of special concern. The two-part recovery plan consists of 1) a recovery strategy (goals and objectives), and 2) one or more actions plans to designed to achieve recovery objectives. Among other things, recovery strategies and action plans will identify the critical habitat of threatened or endangered species that needs protection. There are already a number of recovery activities under way in Canada under the Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife (RENEW) program launched in 1988, and these will be incorporated into the SARA recovery process. RENEW initiatives active in British Columbia in 2001 include recovery planning for the Vancouver Island Marmot, Wood Bison, Burrowing Owl, Marbled Murrelet, Northern Spotted Owl, Peregrine Falcon, Northern Leopard Frog, Oregon Spotted Frog, and the South Okanagan Ecosystem. Under SARA, conservation actions by landowners and land users to protect critical habitat of species at risk will be encouraged and funded through the Habitat Stewardship Program. Under this program, non-federal agencies, organizations, businesses, communities or individuals are eligible to receive funding. Activities that are eligible for funding under the program focus on stewardship initiatives for the recovery of species at Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 12

13 risk and the prevention of biodiversity loss on private lands, provincial crown lands, Aboriginal lands and in aquatic and marine areas. When not protected by the provinces or territories, the federal Minister will have the authority to recommend to the Governor-in-Council an order to prohibit the destruction of any designated critical habitat of a threatened or endangered species on non-federal land. SARA will enable compensation to be paid to individuals, organizations, Aboriginal peoples, or businesses for losses suffered as a result of any extraordinary or unfair impact when it is necessary to prohibit destruction of critical habitat. A public registry, maintained by the Canadian Wildlife Service, will be established under SARA as the main source of information related to the proposed Act ( C. MELP and BCEAA MELP is a key agency on the project committee. The term key is used to indicate that sign-off on the recommendations is informally considered to be a necessary condition of approval, although this isn t specified in the Act. The Ministry s active participation is recognized as needed to: Bring valuable environmental information to the table. Ensure that the ministry s mandate is fulfilled in the development of a major project. Achieve the ministry s goals and objectives. MELP s EA unit provides Ministry representation ( the project review manager ) on project committees. There is only one active member for the Ministry on the project committee (this is similar to several other ministry s approach) - and this member coordinates and presents all ministry input to the project committee. The Ministry typically also provides a number of technical advisors on each EA review. Members of the technical review team have duties ranging from reviewing or coordinating technical reviews of the application and project report to attending public meetings and project committee meetings. 1. COORDINATION WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES Federal agencies, when there is a CEAA trigger, may provide similar comments to provincial agencies on the same matters. Generally, there is a good degree of cooperation between provincial and federal departments in presenting comments and how the common issues should be resolved. Ministry guidelines are useful in discussions with federal agencies, as the guidelines provide a basis for resolving common issues about study methodologies and mitigation measures. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 13

14 2. PROJECT APPROVAL CERTIFICATE CONDITIONS AND COMPLIANCE REVIEW A Project Approval Certificate is subject to specific measures or steps outlined in the conditions of the certificate, which are legally binding. Proponents must abide by the certificate conditions in order to maintain the certificate. Conditions may relate to preconstruction activities, construction, operation, modification, dismantling or abandonment of the facilities constructed. The mitigation measures outlined in these guidelines should assist the ministry in determining appropriate conditions for the Project Approval Certificate for different project types. During the final stages of the BCEAA review, a Compliance Review Tracking Document is prepared under the auspices of the EAO. This document lists all certificate conditions and those proponent commitments identified in the recommendations report and other correspondence agreed upon by relevant government agencies and the proponent. The conditions listed in the tracking document will be those which the EAO will require verification of compliance. MELP will undertake a compliance review of certificate conditions and proponent commitments which fall under the ministry s mandate and which have been agreed upon at the certification stage. The scope of compliance review will be contingent on the ministry s environmental risk assessment of the project. Compliance review activities will be initiated upon project start-up and continue until the ministry is satisfied that all conditions are considered to have been met. The ministry s compliance information will be utilized by the EAO in the conduct of their EA compliance review, which will typically be initiated at the completion of construction. 3. PERMITTING Reviewable projects must obtain both EA approval (Project Approval Certificate) as well as any necessary statutory approvals, permits and licenses from individual regulatory agencies. During the EA review, the EAO s responsibility is to ensure that information and consultation requirements for necessary permit approvals are identified during the EA review, to the greatest extent possible. Key information on required permits is prepared during the EA review and regulatory agencies are expected to provide permitting information within the EA process. No statutory approvals, permits and licenses can be issued until the issuance of the Project Approval Certificate. Statutory approvals, permits and licenses are not subject to the EA compliance review and are the responsibility of the individual regulatory agency to track. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 14

15 Separate consultation is required for the EA review process and for permit issuance. However, for concurrent reviews, the public may be notified of applications through advertisements or other notification measures that are a routine part of the regulatory procedures for processing specific permits. There may be an overlap between the conditions in the PAC and the conditions within the statutory approvals, permits and licenses. 4. CONCURRENT REVIEWS Proponents have the option to request that the EA review be conducted concurrently with the review of applications for other statutory approvals, i.e. water licenses. BCEAA establishes a specific process for concurrent reviews. Optional concurrent reviews can result in timelier permit issuance where the proponent s plans are sufficiently well developed. However, proponents are encouraged to contact permitting agencies to clarify information requirements and the level of detailed required before requesting a concurrent review. A request for concurrent reviews can be made anytime after the acceptance of an application for review but no later than the date of submission of the project report. Requests for concurrent reviews and the supporting documentation are placed on the EAO Project Registry. Within 70 days after the conclusion of the project report review period (or earlier if the concurrent review is completed) the regulatory authorities must inform the project committee and the proponent that, following certification, the specific permits requested: Will be issued within 30 days of certification; Will be refused; or The decision will be postponed with written reasons for the postponement. An indication of when a decision will be forthcoming will be provided. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 15

16 III. PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION The purpose of this section is to discuss the various provincial environmental statutes administered by or in part by MELP that are directly relevant to the assessment of project impacts on terrestrial wildlife and its habitat. Relevant environmental statutes are discussed and a list of regulatory permits, licenses and approvals issued by MELP under those enactments follows. Readers requiring additional information should refer to the appropriate statute in full text for complete requirements under that statute. A. BC WILDLIFE ACT The primary legislation directly affecting species protection in the province is the BC Wildlife Act R.S. 1996, c.488. The Act guides the management of wildlife in British Columbia to maintain the diversity and abundance of native species and habitats throughout the province, to provide a variety of opportunities for the use and enjoyment of wildlife, and to reach a balance between meeting the needs of wildlife and the needs of people. The Act vests ownership of all wildlife in the province with the provincial Crown. The Wildlife Act grants the Minister of Environment, Land and Parks broad powers to manage and protect wildlife, including the power to: Designate land as a wildlife management area (WMA), pursuant to sec. 4; Designate land in a WMA as a critical wildlife area if required as habitat for an endangered or threatened species, pursuant to sec. 5; Designate species as endangered or threatened, pursuant to sec. 6; and Bring an action for damages against a person who destroys or damages wildlife habitat, pursuant to sec. 8. Wildlife species are protected under the Wildlife Act primarily through the enforcement of offences including: Damaging wildlife habitat in a WMA, pursuant to sec. 7; Damaging beaver or muskrat houses, dens or dams, pursuant to sec. 9; Hunting, killing or wounding a threatened or endangered species, pursuant to sec. 26(1); and Possessing, taking, injuring, molesting or destroying a bird or its nest, pursuant to sec. 34. The Act establishes procedures for issuing licences for hunting, firearm possession and angling within the province. Certain provisions place limits on how hunting, trapping, Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 16

17 guiding and angling can be conducted (e.g., sec. 30). The Act provides the Lieutenant Governor in Council (Cabinet) the authority to make regulations to limit hunting for any particular wildlife species. The Wildlife Act Permit Regulation provides for the exercise of specific activities under the Wildlife Act, or an exemption from the requirement to comply with certain regulations. Two basic types of permits may be granted an authorization permit and an exemption permit. Examples of activities requiring authorization under these permits are noted in Table 1. The appropriate regional office normally issues permits. Most permits apply for limited periods of time, usually not more than five years. Table 1. Examples of activities requiring authorization under permits issued under the Wildlife Act Permit Regulation 1 An authorization permit is required to engage in any of the following selected activities. Capturing, possessing or importing live wildlife Possessing dead wildlife or wildlife parts Transporting or exporting wildlife or parts Rehabilitating injured wildlife Trapping, hunting or killing wildlife for any of the following reasons: population control, scientific research, crop protection, public safety, or ceremonial, educational or humane purposes Hunting big game with a non-resident of British Columbia Possessing or distributing game meat for sustenance An exemption permit is required to engage in any of the following selected activities. Destroying particular types of bird nests or eggs Destroying beaver dams or muskrat dens Discharging firearms in a no-shooting or restricted area, from a vehicle or powerboat Operating a vehicle in an area that is closed under the Wildlife Act The Wildlife Branch of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks prepares lists of endangered, vulnerable and management species respectively, the Red, Blue and Yellow Lists to help prioritize conservation activities and assist in wildlife management. The British Columbia Conservation Data Centre (CDC) of the Resource Inventory Branch tracks the global and provincial rarity ranks (respectively, the status of the species throughout its entire range and the species status in British Columbia), and provincial list status (i.e., Red List, Blue List, Yellow List) of wildlife species. The CDC also tracks vascular plant species, selected non-vascular plant groups, plant communities, 1 These lists are not inclusive; refer to the Wildlife Act Permit Regulation for additional information. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 17

18 invertebrates and fish, which are included as required on Red and Blue Lists of endangered and vulnerable species. When the Wildlife Branch adds wildlife species to the Red List, it becomes a candidate for legal designation as an endangered species under sec. 6 of the Wildlife Act. Only four species are designated currently under the provincial Act the Vancouver Island Marmot, the Sea Otter, the Burrowing Owl and the American White Pelican 2. These species were all designated in The other provincial enactment with application to endangered species, though to a limited extent, is the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act. Terrestrial plant species are not included in the definition of species used in the Wildlife Act, and therefore are not protected under the Act. Also, terrestrial plant species cannot be designated as endangered or threatened under the Act (sec. 6). Recently, the provincial government was provided the power to designate fish, aquatic invertebrates and aquatic plants as endangered and threatened species pursuant to the BC Fish Protection Act. The Wildlife Branch of MELP has a limited mandate over the land base upon which wildlife resources depend. For example, MELP has direct jurisdiction over wildlife habitat only: on land acquired by MELP for wildlife protection under sec. 3 of the Wildlife Act (often with other agencies such as the federal Canadian Wildlife Service, a municipality or a non-governmental organization); wildlife management areas designated under sec. 4 of the Wildlife Act; or in ecological reserves designated under sec. 2 and 3 of the BC Ecological Reserve Act. Protection of critical wildlife habitat under sec. 5(1) of the Wildlife Act has been established only once, for the Vancouver Island marmot. Most of the wildlife habitat in the province is administered by other government agencies such as the Ministry of Forests. MELP administers a number of programs and initiatives within the province that include some form of wildlife or wildlife habitat protection relevant to the purpose of these guidelines. The Protected Areas Strategy is MELP s primary tool for conserving wildlife habitat. One of the Strategy s goals is to preserve a target amount of 12 per cent of the area of each of British Columbia s 14 biogeoclimatic zones. B. BC PARK ACT The Park Act R.S. 1996, c.344 is the primary legal mechanism used by the provincial government to establish protected areas. However, typically parks are neither chosen on the basis of their importance as habitat for species at risk, nor are protection of habitat the primary management consideration in many provincial parks. 2 The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) lists nationally endangered species, including species that occur in British Columbia such as the Spotted Owl, the Anatum Peregrine Falcon and the Leatherback Turtle. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 18

19 The Park Act is subject to the BCEAA, but most projects or actions occurring in provincial parks will not meet the criteria that define renewable projects under that act. C. BC ECOLOGICAL RESERVE ACT Protected areas can be legally designed in British Columbia under the Ecological Reserve Act R.S. 1996, c Reserves are found in all of the province s 14 biogeoclimatic zones. Terrestrial wildlife protected in reserves includes seabird colonies, eagles, falcons and sandhill cranes. Reserves have been established for important and threatened plant and tree species such as wildflower stands, stands of Douglas fir, Ponderosa pine, Engelmann spruce, Garry oaks and Arbutus. The Ecological Reserve Act is subject to the BCEAA, but most projects or actions occurring in provincial ecological reserves will not meet the criteria that define renewable projects under that act. BC Environment does not issue regulatory permits, licences or approvals under this act. D. BC FISH PROTECTION ACT The Fish Protection Act S.B.C. 1997, c.21 focuses on four major objectives: ensuring sufficient water for fish; protecting and restoring fish habitat; improving riparian protection and enhancement; and providing for stronger local government decisionmaking in environmental planning. A key provision of the Act includes the prohibition on new dams on specific provincially significant rivers (defined in the Act as protected rivers ) (sec. 4). Also, the Act prohibits the introduction of debris (defined as (a) clay, silt, sand rock or similar material, or (b) any material, natural or otherwise, from construction or demolition) that causes harm to fish or fish habitat, or the diversion and use of water or the operation of works authorized under the BC Water Act. The Fish Protection Act provides the provincial government the power to designate fish, aquatic invertebrates and aquatic plants as endangered and threatened species. The new Streamside Protection Regulation under the Act incorporates consideration of potential impacts on fish and fish habitat in water allocation decisions or approvals for changes in or about a stream (Part 7, Water Regulation of the Water Act). The regulation applies only to new or redeveloped industrial, commercial and residential developments that take place beside urban streams that have the potential for fish habitat. It does not apply to agriculture, mining, hydroelectric facilities or forestry activities. The initiative provides a pro-active, planning approach providing preventive measures before impacts to fish and fish habitat occur. The legislation compliments the federal Fisheries Act, Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 19

20 under which the Department of Fisheries and Oceans can prosecute only after fish habitat has been damaged. The regulation compliments and strengthens existing legislation to ensure adequate protection of water quality and production of natural riparian areas for wildlife habitat. MELP does not issue regulatory permits, licences or approvals under this act. E. FOREST PRACTICES CODE The Forest Practices Code of British Columbia R.S. 1996, c.158 (Code) was brought into effect to improve forest practices in B.C, including the prevention of detrimental environmental impacts from logging. It contains some provisions addressing provincial endangered species, wildlife and biodiversity. For example, provisions enable wildlife habitat areas to be established for Identified Wildlife (defined in the Code as species or plant communities requiring special forest practices to be applied where forest activities are planned). Other mechanisms to manage Identified Wildlife under the Code are general wildlife measures and higher level plan recommendations. The Identified Wildlife Management Strategy is a component of the Code. Its goal is to preserve elements of biodiversity that are not addressed in other parts of the Code such as threatened and endangered species and plant communities. The Operational Planning Regulations under the Code use the provincial Red and Blue Lists in the development of the Identified Wildlife Species List. The strategy details the procedures and management practices that are mandatory for Identified Wildlife under the Code. Compliance to the strategy is the responsibility of the Conservation Officers of MELP and the Compliance and Enforcement Branch of the Ministry of Forests. In general, the Code is limited in scope in addressing wildlife and wildlife habitat in several ways. Firstly, it applies only to Crown land. Secondly, it related only to forestry activities. Potential impacts to wildlife or wildlife diversity from activities unrelated to forestry, including hydroelectricity, urban development, and agriculture are not covered under the Code. Thirdly, provisions implemented under the Code are subject to an overall ceiling of 6 per cent impact on the current rate of cut. In addition, there are impact ceilings for specific provisions. For example, 1 per cent (of the 6 per cent) is allocated for Identified Wildlife provisions. MELP does not issue regulatory permits, licences or approvals under the Code. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 20

21 F. PERMITS, LICENCES AND APPROVALS NORMALLY REQUIRED The following list identifies the regulatory permits, licences and approvals issued by MELP under the Wildlife Act, the Park Act and the Ecological Reserves Act that are normally required for reviewable projects. The statutory requirements included in the list are applicable directly or indirectly to terrestrial wildlife and/or wildlife habitat. Each requirement may be applicable to any category of reviewable project industrial, mine, energy, water management, waste disposal, aquaculture and food processing, transportation, tourism and recreation depending on the characteristics of the specific project. The type of authorization required (permit, licence or approval), effecting provision, agency responsible for issuing the authorization, description of permit, and information requirements are identified. The list is not inclusive for all projects. For example, non-statutory impact mitigation / compensation requirements and referrals are not included. 1. AUTHORIZATIONS PURSUANT TO THE WILDLIFE ACT a. Alter or Damage a Wildlife Management Area Permit Title: Permit to Alter or Damage a Wildlife Management Area Statutory Reference: s. 7 of the Wildlife Act Issuing Agency: Habitat Protection Section, Regional Office, MELP Description of Permit and Information Requirements: The regional manager may issue a permit to authorize a person to alter, destroy or damage habitat or deposit a substance, manufactured product or by-product on land or in water, that is deleterious to wildlife or wildlife habitat in a wildlife management area. Permits may include special conditions. An application for a permit can be filed usually at the regional office Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Protection, or MELP Victoria office, if applicable. b. Disturb a Muskrat or Beaver House, Den or Dam Permit Title: Exemption Permit to Disturb a Muskrat or Beaver House, Den or Dam Statutory Reference: s. 9 of the Wildlife Act and Wildlife Act Permit Regulation Issuing Agency: Habitat Protection Section, Regional Office, MELP Description of Permit and Information Requirements: The regional manager may issue a permit to authorize a person to disturb, molest or destroy (i) a muskrat house or den, except on diked land, or (ii) a beaver house or den or beaver dam, except if the action is Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 21

22 taken to provide irrigation or drainage for the protection of property. Permits may include special conditions. An application for a permit can be filed usually at the regional office Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Protection, or MELP Victoria office, if applicable. The regional office may be able to provide guidance with regard to contacting registered trappers to undertake relocation or removal of muskrats or beavers, and the associated process requirements (an authorization permit issued under the Wildlife Act Permit Regulation to capture and transport wildlife may be required). c. Possess or Import Live Wildlife or Eggs Permit Title: Authorization Permit to Possess or Import Live Wildlife or Eggs Statutory Reference: s. 21(1), Wildlife Act and Wildlife Act Permit Regulation Issuing Agency: Habitat Protection Section, Regional Office, MELP Description of Permit and Information Requirements: The regional manager may issue a permit to authorize a person to possess or import into British Columbia live wildlife or the egg of a wildlife species. An application for a permit can be filed usually at the regional office Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Protection, or MELP Victoria office, if applicable. Conditions of this permit may be included in the Project Certificate issued under the Environmental Assessment Act. Example of activities requiring an authorization permit for the purpose of possessing or importing live wildlife are the use (i.e., pack animals) or display (i.e., petting zoo) of animals for recreational activities at a resort. d. Capture Live Wildlife Permit Title: Authorization Permit to Capture Live Wildlife Statutory Reference: sec. 29, Wildlife Act and Wildlife Act Permit Regulation Issuing Agency: Habitat Protection Section, Regional Office, MELP Description of Permit and Information Requirements: The regional manager may issue a permit with whatever conditions, may authorize a person to capture live wildlife (sec. 29, Wildlife Act), or hunt, trap or kill wildlife during the open or closed season for scientific purposes (Wildlife Act Permit Regulation). An application for a permit can be filed usually at the regional office Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Protection, or MELP Victoria office, if applicable. Conditions of this permit may be included in the Project Certificate issued under the BCEAA. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 22

23 Examples of activities requiring a Capture Permit are capturing of a specific species for radio-telemetry studies or removal. e. Disturb a Bird or its Nest Permit Title: An Exemption Permit to Disturb a Bird or its Nest Statutory Reference: s. 34 of the Wildlife Act and Wildlife Act Permit Regulation Issuing Agency: Habitat Protection Section, Regional Office, MELP Description of Permit and Information Requirements: The regional manager may issue a permit to authorize a person to possess, take, injure, molest or destroy (a) a bird or its nest, (b) the nest of an eagle, peregrine falcon, gyrfalcon, osprey, heron or burrowing owl, or (3) the nest of a bird not referred to in paragraph (b) when the nest is occupied by a bird or its egg. Permits may include special conditions. An application for a permit can be filed usually at the regional office Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Protection, or MELP Victoria office, if applicable. 2. AUTHORIZATIONS PURSUANT TO THE PARK ACT a. Park Use / Resource Use Permit Title: Park Use Permit / Resource Use Licence Statutory Reference: s. 20(1), Park Act Issuing Agency: Parks [and Ecological Reserves] District Office, MELP Description of Permit and Information Requirements: The Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks may issue a park use permit or a resource use licence authorizing, on the terms and conditions specified, a person or persons to do any one or more things for which, under the Act, a permit or licence is required. The person to whom the permit is issued must make a written application. The application must be accompanied by an undertaking in writing, executed by the person to whom the permit is issued, to pay to the government certain costs and permit fees. A restoration deposit may also be required. Activities requiring a Park Use Permit are any that use, occupy, or cause development, exploitation or extraction of a natural resource on or in a park. Activities requiring a Resource Use Licence are any that occupy, use, or cause development, exploitation or extraction of a natural resource on or in a recreation area. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 23

24 IV. SOURCES FOR INFORMATION ON TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES This section describes sources for information on provincial wildlife and their habitats. The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks will make its wildlife inventory and habitat information available to applicants for their use in preparing applications and management plans. However, some information on especially sensitive species at risk may only be released on a need-to-know basis under specific circumstances (e.g. nest sites of Peregrine Falcons). Other provincial ministries, agencies or ministries of the Government of Canada, universities, non-governmental conservation organizations, or private individuals may also be sources of important information. A. RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES General information on the distribution, status, biology and conservation needs of rare and endangered wildlife resources (Red- and Blue-listed species) are available from a large variety of sources. A good starting point is Rare Amphibians, Reptiles and Mammals of British Columbia (Cannings et al. 1999), Rare Birds of British Columbia (Fraser et al. 1999), Rare Vascular Plants of British Columbia (Douglas et al. 1998), and Biodiversity in British Columbia (Harding and McCullum 1994). For more specific information, the British Columbia Conservation Data Centre (CDC) provides a centralized data source on the location of Red- and Blue-listed animal and plant species, and plant communities. The CDC has collected information from museums, herbaria, universities, published and unpublished reports, theses, scientists, natural history groups, and the ongoing work of its own staff and contractors. Location and status information of rare and endangered species and plant communities is available to anyone making a written request. In most cases this information can be made available within one week. The CDC can be contacted as follows: Mail: BC Conservation Data Centre Resources Inventory Branch Min. of Environment, Lands and Parks PO Box 9344, Stn Prov Gov t VICTORIA BC V8W 9M1 By Location/Courier: Second Floor, 2975 Jutland Road VICTORIA BC V8T 5J9 By Phone/Computer: Tel: (250) toll free through Enquiry BC Fax: (250) [email protected] Website: Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 24

25 B. SPECIES OF MANAGEMENT CONCERN General information on wildlife in British Columbia is available through a number handbooks and texts published by the Royal British Columbia Museum, including The Amphibians of British Columbia (Green and Campbell 1984), The Reptiles of British Columbia (Gregory and Campbell 1984), The Birds of British Columbia (Campbell et al. 1990a, 1990b, 1997, 2001), The Bats of British Columbia (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993), Opossums, Shrews and Moles of British Columbia (Nagorsen 1996), and Hoofed Mammals of British Columbia (Shackleton 1999). The BC Wildlife Branch in Victoria has various publication series with information on wildlife species and their conservation in British Columbia. More specific information on the distribution, status, biology and conservation needs of regionally significant and other wildlife species can best be located through discussions with wildlife and habitat protection biologists located in regional MELP offices (Table 2). For some Red and Bluelisted species, location information is classified as sensitive and is only available on a need to know basis from the Regional Endangered Species Specialist located in these regional offices (Table 2). Recovery and Management Plans for sensitive wildlife may have been developed and implemented in MELP regions by regional MELP staff. These documents will usually provide critical information for environmental assessments and must be consulted. A list of current Recovery and Management Plans is provided below. *********(NOTE: LISTS TO BE PROVIDED BY REGIONAL REVEWERS FOR EACH REGION)********* Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 25

26 Table 2. List of regional offices of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Region 1 - Vancouver Island 2080-A Labieux Road NANAIMO BC V9T 6J9 Tel: (250) Fax: (250) Region 2 Lower Mainland 2 nd Floor, Street SURREY BC V3R 0Y3 Tel: (604) Fax: (604) Region 3 Southern Interior 1259 Dalhousie Street KAMLOOPS BC V2C 5Z5 Tel: (250) Fax: (250) Region 5 Cariboo Ste Borland Street WILLIAMS LAKE BC V2G 4T1 Tel: (250) Fax: (250) Region 6 Skeena Bag 5000, 3726 Alfred Avenue SMITHERS BC V0J 2N0 Tel: (250) Fax: (250) Region 7 Omineca/Peace 3 rd Floor, th Avenue PRINCE GEORGE BC V2L 3H9 Tel: ( Fax: (250) Region 4 Kootenay # Victoria Street NELSON BC V1L 4K3 Tel: (250) Fax: (250) C. ECOSYSTEM AND WILDLIFE HABITAT MAPPING Maps of terrestrial ecosystems and wildlife habitat interpretations are available for much of the province at various scales ranging from 1:5000 to 1:250,000. Terrestrial ecosystem mapping are typically called TEM maps, and are based mainly on vegetation and soils. Over 10 million ha have been mapped and are available on the Venus database. Predictive ecosystem mapping (PEM) is a new mapping tool and is available for selected areas, and is useful for larger-scale analysis. Wildlife habitat mapping (WHR) is available for many areas, often with good information on relative quality of habitat polygons for wildlife habitat. A Sensitive Ecosystems Inventory (SEI) has mapped rare or fragile habitats mainly in urban or rural areas that are threatened by ongoing development. Regional offices of Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks will be aware of ecosystem and habitat maps available for particular areas of interest (Table 2). As well, the Wildlife Inventory Section of the Resources Inventory Branch may have additional wildlife habitat mapping available for certain areas of the province. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 26

27 Wildlife Inventory Section Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks PO Box 9344, Stn Prov Gov t VICTORIA BC V8W 9M1 Fax: (250) D. WILDLIFE SPECIES INVENTORY (SPI) Provincially funded wildlife inventories now are required to submit inventory data to the SPI database. Hundreds of projects are currently included in the database. Data are collected using Resource Inventory Committee inventory standards ( The SPI database can be accessed by contacting the Resource Inventory Branch. Wildlife Inventory Section Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks PO Box 9344, Stn Prov Gov t VICTORIA BC V8W 9M1 Fax: (250) Website: E. HARVEST DATA Harvest data from registered trappers and hunters may be available for most areas of the province. These data will provide evidence of presence and, possibly, relative densities for areas that are regularly trapped or hunted. Data are available from the Wildlife Branch, Victoria, BC. Biometrics Section Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks PO Box 9374, Stn Prov Gov t VICTORIA BC V8W 9M4 Fax: (250) Website: F. MINISTRY OF FORESTS The Ministry of Forests is a key source of information on wildlife that depend on forested ecosystems, especially for those species that depend on old-growth forests or wilderness areas, or are potentially impacted by timber harvest. Wildlife Biologists within the Research Branch of Ministry of Forests, both in Victoria and in Regional offices, and MELP Forest Ecosystem Specialists located in Regional MOF offices are good resources to use during an EA project review. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 27

28 Research Branch Ministry of Forests 712 Yates Street Victoria, BC Tel: G. WILDLIFE ACCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM (WARS) The WARS database of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways (MOTH) provides data on wildlife, mainly large mammals, which are killed by collision with vehicles on British Columbia highways. Data are useful for identifying hotspots for collisions, and indirectly, identifying such features as ungulate migration corridors or areas with high quality habitat and relatively abundant wildlife populations. Databases are available from MOTH, Victoria. Environmental Services Section Engineering Branch Ministry of Transportation and Highways 940 Blanshard Street Victoria, BC H. GOVERNMENT OF CANADA The Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) is an agency of Environment Canada that implements a multitude of wildlife and wildlife habitat-related projects. CWS has several publication series that disseminate information on wildlife. Most projects deal with conservation of breeding or wintering populations of birds or mammals, or sensitive or rare wildlife habitat or plant communities. Databases may be available to proponents upon request. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 28

29 CWS works with the provinces in determining the status of rare wildlife through the Committee on Endangered Species in Canada (COSEWIC). COSEWIC reports exist for many wildlife species that occur in British Columbia and should be consulted ( National Recovery Plans for threatened wildlife also exist for a few species that are most threatened ( Contact CWS in Delta for technical reports and databases. Canadian Wildlife Service 5421 Robertson Road, RR#1 Delta, BC. V4K 3N2 Tel: Fax: I. UNIVERSITIES Major universities and colleges in British Columbia sponsor studies of wildlife and wildlife habitat that may have databases available to proponents. Many of these studies are linked to provincial funds from Forest Renewal BC. Proponents should contact the appropriate science departments at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver; Simon Fraser University, Burnaby; University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George; and University of Victoria, Victoria; plus regional colleges in areas near the proposed project. J. NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (NGO) British Columbia has numerous wildlife-related NGOs that may have very useful databases or reports on wildlife, or wildlife habitat. Some of these include The Nature Trust, Ducks Unlimited Canada, BC Conservation Foundation, BC Nest Records Scheme and The Wild Bird Trust, BC Waterfowl Society, BC Federation of Naturalists and their local naturalist clubs, Sierra Club of Canada, Valhalla Wilderness Society, and others. Proponents should consult with regional MELP staff to discuss which organizations might have useful information. K. PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS Most regions of the province have several local people who have expert local knowledge about wildlife resources. These people are usually associated with local hunting and fishing clubs, or naturalist groups, and are usually well known in local communities. Proponents should consult with regional MELP staff to short-list for interview known private individuals with special knowledge. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 29

30 V. POTENTIAL WILDLIFE IMPACTS: A GENERAL PERSPECTIVE Major development projects potentially have significant negative impacts on wildlife or wildlife habitat. These impacts may be related to a wide range of factors including the size or footprint of the development, temporal and spatial extent of the construction phase, direct or indirect impacts from operations or maintenance, general increased human activity levels, increased access for humans to wildlife habitat, longevity of the project, and other factors. Potential negative impacts include a wide range of direct or indirect effects that may occur over the short, medium or long term. The importance of these potential impacts depends largely on the species involved, the scale and type of project that is being proposed, and the location of the project. The types of projects that will trigger BC s EA process are discussed in earlier sections of this report. This chapter provides an overview of the potential impacts on wildlife or wildlife habitat that may occur as a result of major development projects. The discussion is general in nature, and is not intended to be a comprehensive discussion of all potential impacts. We have discussed major developments in groups that seem to have similar impact potential for wildlife or wildlife habitat. These groups differ somewhat from those listed as project categories for EA reviewable projects, and do not include all project types, in Appendix 2 of the Guide to the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Process (Province of British Columbia 2001) A. LINEAR DEVELOPMENTS 1. HIGHWAYS, RAILWAYS AND ROADS Construction of highways, railways and roads can negatively impact wildlife through direct habitat loss, fragmentation of habitats, invasion of exotic species, introduction of new additive sources of mortality, disruption of movement patterns, and increased human disturbance (Jackson and Griffin 1998, Findlay and Bourdages 2000, van der Grift and Kuijsters 1998). Even relatively small roads have the potential to cause significant impacts. Some species of small mammals are reluctant to cross small roads (Swihart and Slade 1984), and if traffic volumes are high, even secondary roads can result in substantial levels of direct mortality for reptiles and amphibians (Jackson and Griffin 1998). Blasting during road building can disturb and damage bird embryos in nests that are within the area influenced by the blasting shockwave. New roads may create new access in remote areas and additional mortality due to hunting, trapping, poaching, and recreation (MacArthur et al. 1982, Findlay and Bourdages 2000, Trombulak and Frissell Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 30

31 2000). Besides the impacts associated with increased human disturbance on new roads, increasing access through road development can also increase the risk of predation for ungulate species. For example, woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta that are close to linear corridors are at a higher risk of depredation by wolves (James and Stuart-Smith 2000). Larger roads and high-speed highways pose an even greater threat to wildlife populations since they affect a greater variety of species, the higher speeds and traffic volumes result in more animal-vehicle collisions, and larger volumes of traffic mean higher levels of public access and the wildlife problems associated with it. As individual animals are killed, or denied access to important habitats, local populations can fail. Reduced wildlife diversity in wetlands (Findlay and Houlahan 1997), lower densities of frogs (Fahrig et al. 1995) and rattlesnakes (Rudolph 1998) have been attributed to increased traffic intensity and road density. Since populations of some species decline gradually after road construction, and local extinctions occur sometime later, the full effects of road construction on wetland biodiversity can go undetected for decades for some species (Findlay and Bourdages 2000). a) DIRECT MORTALITY FROM COLLISIONS The occurrence rate of animal-vehicle collisions is primarily a function of three factors, density of animals, traffic volume, and traffic speed. The faster design speeds of modern roads and highways, coupled with increases in traffic volumes, means there will continue to be an increase in the frequency and severity of animal-vehicle collisions unless mitigation measures are implemented. In the United States, animal-vehicle collisions increased by 69% over a 6 year period ending in 1991 (Hughes et al. 1996). Besides the effect on animal populations, automobile collisions with large animals can cause considerable vehicle damage, human injury, and even the occasional death. In British Columbia, between 5 and 10% of large animal-vehicle collisions resulted in hospital treatments for vehicle occupants (Economic Planning Group 1986). Fatalities to vehicle occupants resulting from collisions with wildlife are not common, but they do occur regularly. In the United States the fatality rate is approximately 0.1 percent of collisions (Hughes et al. 1996), but given the large number of accidents each year, this adds up to 120 people killed annually (Romin and Bissonette 1996). Collisions with larger animals are more dangerous than collisions with smaller animals. Since elk and moose are three and four times heavier than mule deer, respectively, collisions with these larger ungulates cause more property damage and injuries to vehicle occupants than collisions with deer. Reported vehicle repair costs from ICBC in the 1980s were twice as high for collisions with moose compared to collisions with deer (Economic Planning Group of Canada 1986). Not only do the larger ungulates present more mass in an automobile accident, but also the increased height of these animals Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 31

32 means there are more likely than deer to crash through a vehicle windshield on impact, increasing the severity of human injuries. Vegetation along highway and railway rights-of-way can influence the location that animals choose to cross. In Utah, mule deer road-kill locations were positively correlated with traffic volume, percent vegetative cover, and to areas where large drainages intersected highways (Romin 1994). Right-of-way vegetation and slope also influenced kill locations (Romin 1994). Highway vegetation can also attract wildlife species to the rights-of-way because of relatively higher food values associated with some plants, greatly increasing the probability of collisions with vehicles. Often grasses and forbs along highway rights-ofway are the first to green-up in the spring and remain succulent into the fall (Feldhamer et al. 1986). In Wisconsin, deer in the fall are increasingly attracted to green, mowed grass along roadsides as vegetation in forested habitats begins dying (Reed 1997). In Michigan, the two heavy periods for deer collisions correspond to spring (April-May) and fall (October-November) green-ups. Road-killed animals can attract scavenging animals such as eagles and coyotes, which are then at risk of become road-kill themselves (Johnson 1998). Highway de-icers applied to roadways in winter usually contains salt, and can be a significant attractant to wildlife in some areas. Salt accumulated along highways during spring snowmelt may concentrate animals near roadways and increase wildlife accident rates. Animal-train collisions are less studied than their equivalent on roads and highways, but can be significant nevertheless (Wells 1997, 1999). Moose appear to be particularly at risk and losses in some areas sufficient to have substantial effects on population dynamics (Child 1983, Child and Stuart 1987). In a comprehensive investigation of mortality patterns in south-central Alaska, collisions with trains killed a substantial number of moose (12% of all non-hunting mortality) despite the presence of a high-volume highway and numerous secondary roads in the study area (Modafferi and Becker 1997). Most moose-train collisions occurred in deep-snow winters when moose were forced to cross or aggregate in snowplowed railway corridors. The relatively narrow footprint of railways also makes it less costly to elevate the tracks or otherwise install animal crossing structures under the roadbed; and the shorter length of these crossing structures to cross the narrow roadbed make them more effective at allowing animal movements. b) HABITAT LOSS The footprint of transportation corridors can also destroy or severely impact relatively rare and valuable wildlife habitat. Since most highways and railways are constructed Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 32

33 mainly along valley bottoms, often near rivers, it is often that highly valuable riparian habitat is impacted. Loss of riparian habitat along rivers can rarely be adequately compensated for as the physical and age structure of vegetation and biodiversity is not feasible to duplicate elsewhere. Generally railway corridors have fewer and less severe impacts on wildlife populations compared to highway corridors. Since railway corridors are narrower, they have a smaller footprint of direct removal of wildlife habitats. c) INCREASED PREDATION There are other, less obvious, impacts of road and rail developments. One is the potential for linear developments to influence ungulate population dynamics through increased predation. For example, James and Stuart-Smith (2000) determined that woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta close to linear corridors were at a higher risk of depredation by wolves than animals further from linear corridors. d) POLLUTION A less obvious potential impact is non-point source pollution of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in the vicinity of transportation corridors. Run-off waters from highways contain pollutants and contaminants associated with the vehicles traveling over them (chiefly from tires and gasoline emissions). Toxic effects from treated railway ties may locally impact vegetation or small ground-dwelling mammals. However, since railway beds are unsealed and ballast filters much of the runoff, there are fewer problems with run-off waters from railways moving beyond the toe of slope and polluting and contaminating adjacent ecosystems. 2. ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION LINES AND OIL AND GAS PIPELINES Pipelines and electric transmission lines that pass through forests must be cleared of trees. Construction these types of linear development permanently alters wildlife habitat values because forest vegetation is replaced with shrub or grass dominated plant communities. Almost all transmission line and pipeline impacts to vegetation are negative since they represent a complete removal or modification of the original vegetation pattern, and therefore a change in the ecosystem dynamics (Tera Environmental Consultants 1982, 1983, De Santo and Smith 1993). Alterations to microclimatic, ground cover, and soil structural differences due to the compaction of soils by large machines affect both plant and animal species (Goosem and Marsh 1997, Ercelawn 1999, Grialou et al. 2000, Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Salamanders and other small vertebrates use the soil Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 33

34 column to escape from unfavourable surface conditions. Grialou et al. (2000) found that reduced salamander abundance was a result of soil compaction and reduced amounts of decaying coarse woody debris and leaf litter, common in cleared areas. Support structures for transmission lines may increase bird populations by providing suitable perch, roost and nest sites where they were not originally available (Howard and Postovit 1987, Knight and Kawashima 1993, Steenhof et al. 1993, Knight et al. 1995, Jalkotzy et al. 1997, Knight et al. 1999). Negative habitat effects for most species would be minor unless a significant portion or critical element of the habitat was rendered unsuitable by the development. a) CREATION AND MAINTENANCE OF YOUNG SERAL HABITATS Pipeline and transmission line construction and operation not only require the clearing of forested areas, but also the maintenance of early seral stages on the right-of-way. Although such habitats are important foraging areas for many species (Unsworth et al. 1998, O Neil and Witmer 1991, Lowell and Crain 1999), the creation of early seral stages may destroy rare and endangered flora, introduce weeds and/or prevent the regeneration of suitable vegetation (Tera Environmental Consultants 1982, 1983, Calibre Consultants Inc. and Saskatchewan Energy Conservation and Development Authority 1994, Pomeroy & Neil Consulting 1994, Kirchhoff and Thomson 1998). Whether through simple habitat conversion or through the creation of new habitat, pipeline and transmission line rights-of-way may modify adjacent ecosystems in many ways resulting in both increases or decreases to some wildlife populations. Mediumsized carnivores like coyotes and lynx and raptors may also be attracted to the right-ofway because of increased densities of rodents and other prey (Tera Environmental Consultants 1983, Loft and Menke 1984, Calibre Consultants Inc. and Saskatchewan Energy Conservation and Development Authority 1994, Thurber et al. 1994, Goodrich and Buskirk 1995, James and Stuart-Smith 2000). Some habitat enhancement effects may be expected for some species such as ungulates, where corridors may provide forage and travel routes. Travel between feeding and bedding sites appeared to be the main motivation for resident moose to use rights-of-way in Alaska and Quebec (Sopuck and Vernam 1985, Crete et al. 1995). In most cases, creation of a small portion of young seral habitat would not be expected to influence most wildlife populations. b) EDGE EFFECT When forested areas must be cleared in long narrow corridors there is a significant creation of an edge. Edge effect is an important concept of wildlife ecology and is generally believed to be beneficial to wildlife by increasing patchiness and diversity of a community. Whether pipeline or powerline easements actually create edge effects for native mammal species requires further investigation (Goldingay and Whelan 1997). Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 34

35 Interior forest-dwelling wildlife lose habitat to the right-of-way, while habitat generalists, and mixed habitat or early successional species may increase in number (Tera Environmental Consultants 1982, Kroodsma 1982, Loft and Menke 1984, Sopuck and Vernamn 1985, Tessman 1985, De Santo and Smith 1993, Knight et al. 1995, Goldingay and Whelan 1997, Jalkotzy et al. 1997, Morneau et al. 1999, Whitaker and Montevecchi 1999). Much of the interest in the edge effect is due to avian population declines in fragmented landscapes. Low reproductive success of some birds is primarily a result of nest predation. Nest predation is high in fragmented forests because predators forage along travel lanes such as edges (Paton 1994, Robinson et al. 1995, Whitaker and Montevecchi 1997, Meehan and Haas 1997, Dijak and Thompson 2000). Robinson et al. (1995) found that the increased levels of brood parasitism by cowbirds were a result of the higher population of cowbirds in fragmented landscapes. Construction of pipelines and powerlines would be most harmful to forest-interior species in cases where rights-ofway cross large contiguous areas of forest that had not previously been disturbed. c) BIOLOGICAL, MANUAL AND CHEMICAL MAINTENANCE Vegetation management programs are implemented in order to control tall, woody vegetation that may interfere with electrical conductors or pipeline maintenance. Three different control methods are used for vegetation maintenance: biological, manual and chemical (Bramble and Byrnes 1972, Tera Environmental Consultants 1983). The use of machines for clearing is unselective and usually disruptive to the ecological development of desirable plant species. Hand cutting of the problem species has often been used in combination with chemical herbicides. Chemical maintenance, although successful, can cause unreasonable adverse effects on desirable ground-covering plant species and the environment if the application is not carefully controlled. d) LOSS OF OLD AND MATURE FOREST Conifer and to a lesser extent, mixed forests provide passage, shelter and some forage for ungulates during periods of deep snow (O Neil and Witmer 1991, Unsworth et al. 1998). Clearing the right-of-way may result in removing food and shelter necessary for winter range usefulness (Tera Environmental Consultants 1982, 1983, Robertson Env. Serv. 1997, Ercelawn 1999) and may reduce the wildlife diversity of the habitat for decades. Forest cover is important for escaping or hiding from predators or humans and for protection from inclement weather. A decrease in canopy cover and the resulting increase in public access may decrease security and habitat use adjacent to powerlines and pipelines. Generally, removal of narrow bands of forest should have minor impacts, however, losses must be assessed relative to the availability of various forest types and ages within the project area. In cases where the forest associations or age classes removed are very rare on the landbase, impacts may be locally significant. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 35

36 e) WATER RESOURCES Impacts of pipeline and transmission line construction on water resources are primarily in the form of sediment added to streams. Fine sediment, which is held in suspension in the water, has the most serious impact because it can enter the water directly as a result of construction, vehicles, or bank erosion resulting from removal of the natural stabilizing stream bank vegetation. High concentrations of suspended sediment may kill aquatic organisms and impair aquatic productivity (BC Hydro and Power Authority and Reid et al. 1978, Tera Environmental Consultants Ltd. 1983, Tessman 1985, Chilibeck et al. 1992, Ercelawn 1999, Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Proper vegetation management should mitigate most long-term effects except in areas with highly erodable (fine) soils or on unstable terrain. f) BARRIERS TO MOVEMENT Barriers pose what many conservation ecologists consider the greatest obstruction to maintaining species diversity and ecological integrity. Linear developments such as roads, pipelines and transmission lines can have the effect of blocking, delaying or deflecting ungulate movements and may reduce or restrict access to parts of their range (Johnson et al. 1976, Kiell et al. 1986, O Neil and Witmer 1991, Smith 1991, Treweek et al. 1993, Calibre Consultants and Saskatchewan Energy Conservation and Development Authority 1994, Truett et al. 1994, Solheim et al. 1995, Treweek and Veitch 1996, Clevenger and Waltho 2000, Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Steep banks, debris from right-of-way clearing, harassment from predators or insects, and human disturbance may act as barriers since animals will tend to avoid such locations. There may also be a loss of habitat effectiveness as a result of habitat avoidance in the vicinity of disturbance or access corridors (Johnson et al. 1981, Singer and Doherty 1985, Witmer and decalesta 1985, Kiell et al. 1986, Ballard et al. 1988, Cole et al. 1997, Jalkotzy et al. 1997, James and Stuart-Smith 2000). There is evidence to suggest that small mammals may not be willing or able to cross openings without some tall shrub or tree cover (Goosem and Marsh 1997). Provision of cover across linear developments in gullies will assist in maintaining movements, dispersal and population contiguity for many species. Most disturbance and physical barriers to movement for large mammals can be avoided with proper construction and access management along transmission lines and underground pipelines. Impacts should generally be lower than has been observed for some road projects where traffic and berms or aboveground structures impede movements. Impacts to small mammal and amphibian populations may be significant in cases where essential habitat elements are separated by powerline and pipeline clearings that they are reluctant to cross. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 36

37 g) PUBLIC ACCESS AND DISTURBANCE Roads required to service powerlines and pipelines may create new access in remote areas. Responses to human disturbance are species-specific but public access can leads to additional mortality due to hunting, trapping, poaching, recreation, firewood cutting, noise, dust and management actions (Macarthur et al. 1982, Tera Environmental Consultants 1983, Tessman 1985, O Neil and Witmer 1991, Unsworth et al. 1993, Pomeroy & Neil Consulting 1994, Thurber et al. 1994, Jalkotzy et al. 1997, Unsworth et al. 1998, Clevenger and Waltho 2000, Findlay and Bourdages 2000, Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Human disturbance of birds, particularly raptors nesting on powerline support structures and birds using the powerline for resting, roosting, and hunting has also been documented along powerline corridors (Jalkotzy et al. 1997, Howard and Postovit 1987). The access road along the right-of-way itself typically does not cause a disturbance response; it s the human presence on the road that causes disturbance. Public access is one of the greatest concerns associated with new development but can be mitigated with appropriate access controls. h) INTRODUCTION OF NOXIOUS WEEDS Creation of roads and other linear developments and use of heavy equipment significantly increases the likelihood of exotic species spreading and increasing their dominance by out-competing the native vegetation removed during construction. Exotic species are almost completely restricted to roadsides, streams and recent clear-cut (Robertson Env. Serv. 1997, Ercelawn 1999, Parendes and Jones 2000, Trombulak and Frissell 2000). For example, knapweed is allelopathetic, secreting chemicals, which suppresses competing vegetation. Native vegetation may be extirpated from sites dominated by knapweed, which will significantly reduce forage production for ungulates. Knapweed is also known to alter the structure of grassland communities to the detriment of ground nesting birds (Robertson Env. Serv. 1997). Invasive weeds can eliminate rare plant communities and outcompete desirable species reducing natural diversity and degrading animal habitat quality. The effects, although localized, can be significant depending on the susceptibility of the impacted plant communities and the rate of spread of the weeds. Recovering native species in habitats dominated by noxious weeds can be very difficult. Herbicide and seeding treatments may reduce the cover of target weeds, but typically this also involves a reduction in native forb species (Tyler et al. 1998). i) DIRECT MORTALITIES Direct mortality of animals is mostly limited to bird collisions and electrocutions with electric transmission lines, and trapping of amphibians and reptiles in open ditches during construction of oil and gas pipelines. Bird electrocutions occur because support structures for transmission lines are attractive perching platforms for resting, roosting, nesting and Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 37

38 hunting (Howard and Postovit 1987, Steenhof et al. 1993, Alfonso et al. 1994, Calibre Consultants Inc and Saskatchewan Energy Conservation and Development Authority 1994, Jalkotzy et al. 1997, Davis 1998, Janss et al. 1999). The numbers of collisions increase when transmission lines are constructed along flight corridors used by migratory birds (Stout and Cornwell 1976, Avery 1978, McNeil 1985, Tessman 1985, Faanes 1987, Bevanger 1993). Power lines placed across major feeding flight lines or waterways act to funnel the birds and contribute to increased mortality at specific sites. Construction work and maintenance crews can cause indirect mortality to birds utilizing the right-of-way by disturbing nesting pairs and destroying nest sites (Jalkotzy et al. 1997, Howard and Postovit 1987). Bird collisions with power transmission lines may be contributing to disease events at widespread locations throughout the country Malcolm (1982) documented 5200 waterfowl deaths from collisions with a powerline traversing a wetland. Decaying bird carcasses resulting from collisions the powerline provided the substrate needed for avian botulism bacteria to thrive and produce poisonous toxin. Larvae or other invertebrates feeding on carcasses can provide a source of the paralysing toxin that increases losses in nearby populations (Malcolm 1982, McNeil 1985). Direct mortalities of birds may be a concern where the numbers killed is large relative to the local population. A more significant concern is the potential spread of infectious and lethal diseases. Direct mortalities associated with open trenches during construction of pipelines generally affect smaller animals and juveniles. In Florida, a 2 km section of gas pipeline trench trapped a minimum of 459 amphibians and 12 reptiles over a 4-week period (Enge et al. 1996). Most of these animals were alive when observed, but would likely become buried later during pipeline installation. j) ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION Spills of petroleum products into terrestrial and particular aquatic ecosystems as a result of pipeline breaks and accidental discharges can have locally severe, and sometimes wide-ranging consequences for wildlife populations. An important route for petrochemical exposure for waterfowl is ingestion of contaminated grits and sediments (King and Bendell-Young 2000). Generally there is less concern around impacts of environmental contamination associated with electric transmission lines, but there is potential for accidents and spills from transformers at substations. B. MINING Potential impacts of mine developments are typically centred around three main issues, direct habitat impacts associated with the footprint of excavation and related buildings, environmental contamination associated with heavy metals and acid-generating waste Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 38

39 rock, and direct and indirect mortalities associated with the creation of new access roads and the attendant increase in human disturbance of wildlife populations. 1. HABITAT ALTERATION Open-pit mines often cover large areas of land, and if this coincides with important habitats for certain species then significant negative impacts to populations may occur. Mining sands and gravels from stream channels results major impacts to fish and other aquatic organisms. By altering the geomorphology, stream channel form, fine-particle dynamics, and turbidity, gravel-mining streams reduced the density and biomass of large and small invertebrates (Pascoe et al. 1998). Conversely, some species with particular habitat needs actually benefit from commercial sand and gravel mining operations (sand pits). Along the Platte River system in Nebraska, sand pits provided alternative nesting habitat along rivers for endangered Least Terns (Sterna antillarum) and threatened Piping Plovers (Charadrius melodus)(sidle and Kirsch 1993). This was particularly important in areas where natural sandbar habitats were severely degraded, but birds also used sand pits in areas where both sandbar and sand pit habitats were plentiful. The spatial pattern habitat disturbance can affect wildlife species distribution and abundance in neighbouring unaffected habitats. Isolated residual patches created by bog mining had a different assemblage of bird species than non-isolated habitats (Delage et al. 2000). 2. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION Toxic chemicals and heavy metals leaching from mines can have wide-ranging negative effects on wildlife, both directly through increased mortality or metabolic impairment and decreased reproduction, and indirectly through effects on habitats or important ecosystem processes. Erosion and leaching of abandoned deposits of mine tailings is the most common source of heavy metal contamination. A comprehensive ecological risk assessment of upstream releases of mining wastes in the upper Clark Fork River in Montana has been used to predict impacts to wildlife (Canfield et al. 1994). This involved studies of the chemistry and toxicity of mining wastes, their transfer through the food web, and their impact on the population ecology of waterfowl, mammals, and predatory birds. Risks to benthic ecology were evaluated through studies of sediment exposures. Overall results indicated that acute adverse effects were largely absent from this particular wetland, but that adverse effects to reproductive, growth, and physiological end points of various terrestrial and aquatic species were related to metals exposures in more highly contaminated depositional areas (Canfield et al. 1994). Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 39

40 a) Selenium (Se) In North Carolina, wastewater from a coal-fired electric generating facility caused selenium to bioaccumulate in downstream aquatic ecosystems and significant adverse impacts on fish (reproductive failure and teratogenic deformities) and aquatic birds (Lemly 1997). Ten years after selenium discharges were stopped, concentrations of selenium the water and biota dropped by 85-95%, but toxic effects are still evident. Concentrations sediments have fallen by 65-75%, but are still high enough (14 mu-g/g) to contaminate benthic food organisms of fish and aquatic birds, and cause developmental abnormalities in young fish (Lemly 1997). Embryo deformities in eggs of the American Avocet are known to occur at concentrations >41 ppm (Robinson et al. 1997). b) Copper (Cu) Eisler (1998) reviewed the hazards of copper to wildlife species. Copper toxicoses in terrestrial higher plants is rare but can occur on mine spoils, and birds and mammals are relatively resistant to copper poisoning compared to lower forms of life. However, copper is among the most toxic of heavy metals to freshwater and marine biota, and often accumulates and causes irreversible harm to these species. Sublethal effects to estuarine algae, molluscs and arthropods frequently occur at 1-10 µg Cu/L but mammals and birds are at least 100 times more resistant than these organisms (Eisler 1998). Ruminant mammals are more sensitive than other mammals to copper toxicity, and among domestic ruminants sheep are the most sensitive. A food-web model was used to estimate daily metal intakes by wildlife receptors such as mice, voles, muskrats, beaver, various waterfowl species, osprey, bald eagles, and deer near the upper Clark Fork River in Montana (Pascoe et al. 1996). Upstream sources of metals averaged 465 mg/kg for Cu in sediments, and 585 mg/kg in soils. Consistent with Canfield et al. (1994) estimated daily intakes compared to literature-derived values for toxicity indicated these wildlife receptors were at minimal health risk due to the presence of elevated metals in sediments, upland soils, water, or food items at this particular site (Pascoe et al. 1996). c) Lead (Pb) Lead poisoning from the ingestion of fishing weights, shotgun pellets (shot), or contaminated vegetation or sediments associated with mining and smelting wastes has killed at least 10,000 swans (Blus 1994).. While lead from mining and smelter sources has the potential for substantial local effects, an analysis of lead isotope ratios indicated that ingestion of lead shot pellets and sinkers is the cause of most of the elevated exposure and toxicity in waterfowl and their predators in Canada (Scheuhammer and Templeton 1998). Unlike some heavy metals and pesticides, lead does not biomagnify in the food chain (Henny et al. 1991). The conventional standard threshold that indicates lead poisoning is 0.5 mu-g/g in whole blood (Henny et al. 1991). Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 40

41 Erosion and leaching of abandoned deposits of lead-mine tailings can have significant impacts wildlife and terrestrial ecosystems. In parts of southeast Missouri, this has resulted in the lead and cadmium contamination of surface waters and sediments and adverse impacts on a number of aquatic invertebrates including Orconectes nais, Hexagenia limbata and Chironomus riparius (Besser and Rabeni 1987). As well, bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus) and green-backed herons (Butorides striatus) collected downstream from the source of metal contamination had significantly higher lead and cadmium levels than specimens collected from uncontaminated sites (Niethanner et al. 1985). Northern water snakes (Nerodia sipedon) had elevated lead levels below the tailings source, but did not seem to accumulate cadmium. Vegetative cover (e.g. seeding and sodding with fertilizer) reduced future runoff and erosion from tailings deposits, but organic mulches led to the formation of metal/organic complexes that resulted in higher levels of bioaccumulation and toxicity (Besser and Rabeni 1987). An extensive mining-smelting complex in the Coeur d'alene River system of northern Idaho is an example of lead-contaminated ecosystem. Concentrations of lead in the livers of mink (Mustela vision), muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus), and small mammals were higher (5.8 to 22 mu-g per g) than those inducing serious problems, including mortality, in experimental mammals on Pb-contaminated diets (Blus et al. 1987). Tissue concentrations of Cd, Cu, Hg, and Zn were generally low. Declines in certain mammal populations have probably occurred in northern Idaho as a result of direct toxicity of metals and associated secondary effects on cover and food supply (Blus et al. 1987). Different wildlife species react differently to exposure to toxic heavy metals. For example in the Coeur d'alene River basin, while swans continued to die from exposure to environmental lead, raptors appear to be much less affected. For example, the only observed effect on Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) was lead-induced biochemical changes in blood parameters. Delta-aminolevulinic acid dehydratase (ALAD) activity decreased and protoporphyrin concentrations were elevated in the blood of lead exposed Osprey, but offspring production remained high (Henny et al. 1991). In American Kestrels (Falco sparverius), blood lead concentrations of nestlings were 3 times higher (0.24 mu-g/g, wet wt) along the Coeur d'alene River compared to uncontaminated control areas. Blood levels of ALAD that were decreased 35, 55, and 81% in nestling Northern Harriers (Circus cyaneus), nestling American Kestrels, and adult American Kestrels, respectively (Henny et al. 1994). Although lead exposed American Kestrels had 8% lower hemoglobin levels, but no deaths related to lead poisoning were observed in raptors (Henny et al. 1994). The impact of elevated lead levels on post-fledging survival of raptors exposed to lead early in life remains unknown (Henny et al. 1991). Waterfowl appear to be particularly susceptible to lead poisoning. Sediment ingestion is sometimes the principal route of exposure to environmental contaminants that are not readily taken up by plants and invertebrates and this route should be considered in Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 41

42 wildlife risk assessments. Despite the fact that Wood Ducks are surface feeders and rarely dabble beneath the surface for feed on the bottom, most of the lead in their digesta came from ingested sediment, rather than plant material (Beyer et al. 1997). Tundra Swans (Cygnus columbianus) accumulated high levels of lead from the ingestion of sediments that contained up to 8,700 mu-g/g of lead and plants that contained up to 400 mu-g/g (Blus et al. 1991). Although these swans spend only a few weeks in the area staging during the spring migration, all of the swans in the Coeur d'alene River system were either lead-poisoned or at risk of developing plumbism. Experimental ingestion of Pb-contaminated sediments (3449 mu-g/g) from the Coeur d'alene River system also had significant effects on post-hatching development of the Canada Geese (Branta canadensis). Diets that consisted of 12% contaminated sediment resulted in blood lead concentration averaging 0.68 ppm and various metabolic effects (Hoffman et al. 2000). Diets with 48% contaminated sediment resulted in blood lead concentration averaging 2.52 ppm, an increase in the number and magnitude of metabolic effects, and 22% mortality. Liver and kidney lead concentrations in the later group was 6.57 and ppm, respectively (Hoffman et al. 2000). d) Mercury (Hg) Wildlife may be exposed to mercury and methylmercury (MeHg) from a variety of environmental sources. These sources include mine tailings, industrial effluent, agricultural drainwater, water impoundments, and atmospheric deposition from electric power generators (Wolfe et al. 1998). Terrestrial and aquatic wildlife may be at risk from exposure to waterborne Hg and MeHg. The transformation of inorganic mercury by sediment microorganisms in the water column produces methylmercury, which bioaccumulates at successive trophic levels in the food chain. If piscivorous birds and mammals ingest sufficient MeHg in prey and drinking water, mercury toxicoses, including damage to nervous, excretory and reproductive systems, will result. Currently accepted no observed adverse effect levels for waterborne Hg in wildlife have been developed from the piscivorous model (Wolfe et al. 1998). In Nevada, as a result of silver and gold refining in the late 1800s, approximately 7100 metric tons of metallic mercury were released into the Carson River-Lahontan Reservoir watershed (Wayne et al. 1996). Mercury contamination is currently most severe in mine tailings, where concentrations can exceed several hundred mu-g/g, but tailings-derived Hg has been redistributed throughout the entire Carson-Lahontan watershed over the last century. Elevated Hg levels (>20 ng/l) in Carson River waters first appear downstream of mine tailings, and increase further downstream away from the tailings to levels that are among the highest known worldwide (100 to 1000 ng/l) (Wayne et al. 1996). e) Cyanide Although cyanide is ubiquitous in the environment, levels tend to be elevated in the vicinity of metal processing operations, electroplaters, gold-mining facilities, oil Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 42

43 refineries, power plants, and solid waste combustion. Cyanides are readily absorbed through inhalation, ingestion, or skin contact. Cyanide is a potent and rapid-acting asphyxiant, inducing tissue anoxia through inactivation of cytochrome oxidase, despite normal hemoglobin oxygenation (Eisler 1991). Animals can rapidly detoxify sublethal doses of cyanide, so are able ingest cyanide over extended periods without harm if the dose is low enough. There are no reports of cyanide biomagnification though cycling in living organisms. Flesh-eating birds are more sensitive to cyanide than herbivores (Eisler 1991). Concentrations of cyanide and molybdenum in the vicinity of a molybdenum mine and mill in north-central British Columbia were apparently not high enough to adversely affect invertebrate communities (Whiting et al. 1994). Macroinvertebrate communities exposed to tailings pond seepage had slightly lower richness and diversity than those at control sites, and tended to be dominated by taxa that are generally pollution-tolerant (tubificid worms and chironomids). These communities appeared to have been affected mainly by elevated iron concentrations in tailings seepage (Whiting et al. 1994). Since the mid-1980s, cyanide in heap leach solutions and mill tailings ponds at gold mines in Nevada has killed a large but incompletely documented number of wildlife (over 9,500 individuals, primarily migratory birds)(henny et al. 1994). Techniques used to reduce wildlife loss include chemically treatment of larger mill tailings ponds to reduce cyanide concentrations, and covering smaller ponds and channels with netting to exclude birds and most mammals (Henny et al. 1994). Mill tailings ponds were found to exhibit a gradient of cyanide with concentrations 2-3 times higher at the inflow point than the reclaim point. Henny et al. (1994) were unable to determine a safe threshold concentration of cyanide to eliminate wildlife loss. Clark and Shah (1993) used European Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) to test the effectiveness of 5 chemical bird repellents at reducing consumption of cyanidecontaminated pond water in a laboratory setting. Despite a high ph (10.6) and presence of chelating metals, conditions that might destroy the activity of the repellents, each of the additives reduced pond water intake for up to 5 weeks. The rank order (from best to worst) of these bird repellents was: 1. o-aminoacetophenone (OAP), 2. 2-amino-4,5-dimethoxyacetophenone (2A45DAP), 3. veratryl amine (VA), 4. methyl anthranilate (MA), 5. 4-ketobenztriazine (4KBT). 3. INCREASED ACCESS Public access is one of the greatest concerns associated with new mine developments. Roads required to access new mine sites often create new access to remote areas and the Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 43

44 increased public access can lead to increased mortality due to hunting, trapping, poaching, and recreation. Road developments can also lead to increased risk of predation for some ungulate species (James and Stuart-Smith 2000). Human disturbance can also alter traditional habitat use patterns. For example, elk (Cervus elaphus) abandoned their traditional calf-rearing area under human and simulated mining disturbance (Kuck et al. 1985). For more information on the impacts of new roads and increased public access the reader is referred to the chapter on Linear Developments Sections V.A.1, and V.A.2.g)). 4. BARRIERS TO MOVEMENT Mine developments and infrastructures may restrict animal movements and have the potential to fragment home ranges. Migration corridors that include appropriate security cover for animals can be used to facilitate seasonal movements of ungulates through human-built obstacles. In Idaho, deer avoided crossing the Maybe Canyon Mine during a year of low snowfall when other routes were available, but took the most direct route through the mine site in years of high snow accumulations (Merrill et al. 1994). Only in the year of most rapid and highest accumulation of snow was the movement of deer through the mine-site delayed. In areas of high snow accumulation, factors affecting snow distribution such as aspect, slope, and wind are important considerations in the placement of travel corridors (Merrill et al. 1994). In Utah, mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) avoided crossing an overland coal conveyor at underpass opportunities where the clearance was less than 50 cm. Clearances between 50 and 90 cm were selected for crossing, and deer passed beneath the conveyor both day and night, and while the conveyor was either operating or idle (Greenwood and Dalton 1984). C. INDUSTRIAL PROCESSING PLANTS A discussion of the potential impacts of industrial processing plants is broken down into separate discussions of metal smelters, waste management plants, cogeneration power plants, pulp mills, and petrochemical plants. 1. METAL SMELTERS Potential impacts to wildlife populations and habitat are mainly related to two issues - the footprint of the smelter development, and the effects of liquid, gas, or solid waste products that are dispersed into the environment. Smelters are typically relatively large industrial complexes that cover large amounts of terrain. If the smelter sites destroys or damages critical habitat for species at risk or high quality habitat other species that have Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 44

45 limited amounts of that habitat available (e.g., ungulate winter range), then significant negative impacts to populations may occur. Effluent from smelters typically includes heavy metals (mercury, arsenic, cadmium, copper, manganese, zinc, lead) or chemicals such as sulphur dioxide that may have wideranging negative effects on wildlife habitat, or direct impacts on wildlife through bioaccumulation of those metals or chemicals. Other impacts may arise from related infrastructure development such as transportation systems, which may add to the footprint, or negatively affect dispersal of wildlife or increase human-related mortality of wildlife. Effects vary depending on many factors. In most cases, wildlife emigrates from areas with high concentrations of effluent or emissions (Surrendi 1995). Most potential effects of sulphur dioxide emissions are on wildlife habitat, rather than directly on wildlife, as sulphur dioxide is not a persistent substance and does not bioaccumulate. Potential effects include 1) injury or death of vegetation, and 2) acidification of wetlands and forest ecosystems, which often impacts on food supplies for wildlife (Bevenger and Albu 1986, Mitchell 1989, Schreiber and Newman 1988), or which can disrupt osmoregulation in amphibian eggs or larvae causing reproductive failure (Pierce 1987). Heavy metals, on the other hand, can bioaccumulate, and can be persistent in the environment for very long periods of time. Arsenic, for example, begins to negatively affect plant growth at concentrations of 20mg/kg dw tissue, and becomes lethal in mammals at 2-6 mg/kg (horses) and 4-12 mg/kg (dogs) (NRCC 1978). Arsenic from industrial plants in Europe is known to have increased arsenic loads in moose, reindeer, and red deer, and accumulates in lichen, a favoured food of reindeer and caribou. Impacts of arsenic loading depends on a multitude of variables but in Quebec, good soil has concentrations of 6 mg/kg or less whereas soil requiring cleanup has concentrations of >50 mg/kg. Aluminum smelters also produce aluminum and fluorides, which have been shown to accumulate in the bones of small mammals near Kitimat (Smith 1996). See a more detailed discussion of effects of heavy metals and other toxic materials in Section V.B.2 on MINES. 2. WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANTS Potential impacts of sewage treatment plants, landfills, and recycling depots are related mainly to footprint. These facilities are usually constructed close to urban centres, as they are required to service centres of human population. As most large urban areas occur in low elevation, valley-bottom areas, waste management plants will likely compound the loss of a relatively rare and valuable wildlife habitat that tends to occur in those areas. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 45

46 Sewage treatment plants are typically constructed adjacent to the sea, a river, or lake and tend to impact relatively rare riparian, wetland, or tidal marsh habitat. Although relatively small compared to major landfills, the footprint may have a relatively large impact on critical habitat. The potential effects on wildlife or wildlife habitat of effluent discharge into aquatic ecosystems will also be of high concern. Sewage lagoons conversely may attract many species of wildlife such as waterfowl, songbirds, and shorebirds; these lagoons may or may not be beneficial to them. Landfills may have significant wildlife issues related to the footprint, if developed in valuable or rare wildlife habitat (e.g., Cannings et al. 1987). Landfills are typically developed in low-lying areas such as valley bottoms, lakes, wetlands, ravines, or along riparian areas. Other issues are related mainly to leachate of toxic materials into watersheds, attraction of wildlife to ponds with high concentrations of toxic materials (arsenic, boron, selenium, organochlorines, heavy metals-tanner et al. 1999), and attraction of pest species of wildlife (Gabrey 1997). 3. COGENERATION POWER PLANTS Cogeneration power plants require the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, or coal) or wood to produce electricity. Burning of these materials adds carbon to the atmosphere, thus potentially adding to global warming effects, but these effects on wildlife or wildlife habitat are almost impossible to measure in the short or medium term. Acidification of the environment, and emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ), hydrogen sulphide, and other substances may be of local or regional concern as well. Air pollution resulting from industrial activity has the potential to have significant negative impacts wildlife populations. Roe deer in Europe are exposed to atmospheric deposition of fluorides, originating from emission sources in the North-Bohemian brown coal belt (Kierdorf et al. 1999). Deer closest to the main fluoride emission sources had the highest prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis, which coincided spatially with results from other studies that directly measured fluoride deposition and fluoride levels in vegetation (Kierdorf et al. 1999). Llacuna et al. (1996) compared hematological parameters of passerine birds between an area with atmospheric air pollution (coal-fired power plant emanating SO 2, NO X and particulates) and non-polluted control area. They found birds from the polluted area had fewer but larger red blood cells, and that Emberiza cia had increased pre-albumines and decreased beta-globulines. Turdus merula from the polluted area were lower in weight and had significantly elevated levels of transaminases (GOT and GPT). More direct effects on wildlife or wildlife habitat are related to the impact of the footprint on valuable or critical wildlife habitat. As well, the effects of newly-developed power distribution systems, transportation systems for humans and fuel, and associated development on the footprint, on movements of wildlife, on fragmentation of habitat, and Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 46

47 on human-related mortality can have a direct affect on wildlife population viability. These potential impacts are similar to those discussed for other industrial processing plants. 4. PULP MILLS Numerous studies have documented the impacts on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems from the discharge of liquid and gas effluent from pulp mills. Most studies have documented increased bioaccumulation of dioxins, furans, PCBs, and other organochlorides in a range of wildlife from swallows to seabirds to raptors to mammals (e.g., Harris and Elliott 2000, Elliott et al. 1999, Elliott and Norstrom 1998, Elliott and Martin 1998, Elliott et al. 1996). The effect of these increased loadings is often lower productivity that may lead to smaller and declining populations. Modern technology has dramatically improved the quality of gas and liquid emissions but bioaccumulation of chemicals or heavy metals continues to be of concern, especially if populations of species at risk are present near the mill. Pulp mills also produce hydrogen sulphide and sulphur dioxide, but newer technology has reduced substantially these emissions. Pulp mills have a relatively large footprint, associated with land alienated for buildings, wood product storage areas, and transportation facilities. On the coast, pulp mills are typically built adjacent to the sea, often in estuaries, where raw materials are relatively easily transported. These locations may have significant local impacts on rare estuarine or foreshore marshes. In the interior, pulp mills tend to be built along rivers on flat, low elevation areas that are often ungulate winter range. 5. PETROCHEMICAL PROCESSING Oil refineries, chemical plants, and natural gas distribution centres have a range of potential impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat. These are mainly related to direct impacts of the footprint, discharge of toxic materials into the environment, and the risk of spills of concentrated petrochemical products along transportation systems. Oil refineries and chemical plants are typically developed along waterways or marine shorelines, where footprint impacts can be severe in rare riparian, wetland, or foreshore habitat. Impacts of discharge of liquid effluents on aquatic ecosystems can also be locally severe and have widespread lower level impacts. Even leaching of creosote from pilings has been documented to bioaccumulate at high levels in sea ducks (Fischer 1998). Spills of petroleum products in waterways (pipeline breaks, shipwrecks, spills during transfers) usually have locally severe, and sometimes wide-ranging consequences for waterbirds and some aquatic mammals (Piatt et al. 1990, Burger and Fry 1997). Grit ingestion can be a significant route of petrochemical contaminant exposure for waterfowl, specifically for oil-sand related compounds such as oil and grease and naphthenic acids (King and Bendell-Young 2000). Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 47

48 Gas plants also produce relatively large amounts of hydrogen sulphide and sulphur dioxide. Potential impacts on wildlife such as caribou seem obvious, since concentrations as low as ppm have been shown to inhibit reproduction of lichens (the main food source for caribou)(leblanc and Rao 1973). D. HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS 1. SHORT TERM Short-term effects of hydroelectric projects are mostly associated with the construction site and the work force. Most impacts can be adequately regulated or mitigated as long as their potential effects are recognized and dealt with during the planning process. a) CONSTRUCTION WORK FORCE There are many environmental impacts that are associated with construction activities at dam sites and the large work forces required to complete such projects. Camps required to house workers urbanize some significant areas near the construction site. In cases where nearby communities house the workers, traffic to and from the work site may result in collisions with wildlife (Leedy and Adams 1982, Blood 1993, Andrusiak and Simpson 1996, Robertson Env. Serv. 1997). Noise from construction activity can disturb wildlife and cause some species to avoid the area (Kiell et al. 1986, Ballard et al. 1988, Blood 1993, Calibre Consultants Inc. and Saskatchewan Energy Conservation and Development Authority 1994, Andrusiak and Simpson 1996, Robertson Env. Serv. 1997). b) SITE DISTURBANCE AND RECLAMATION The evaluation of proposed construction sites is important to determine the amount of impact to vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat (Blood 1993). The success of reclamation works following completion of the project will determine whether the impacts are limited primarily to the construction period. c) WASTE DISPOSAL In all cases where temporary communities are created to support major construction projects, adequate facilities must be available to dispose of garbage and other wastes. Local community resources are generally inadequate particularly in the remote areas most often associated with such construction projects. Potential siltation and sediment in the downstream water, spills of toxic fluids, and improper disposal of hazardous waste can affect species dependent on quality water (Calibre Consultants Inc., and Saskatchewan Energy Conservation and Development Authority 1994). Proper sewage treatment is also a basic requirement. In all cases adequate infrastructure must be demonstrated to support both the direct and indirect workforce and the anticipated maximum human population Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 48

49 associated with the project. Although waste disposal should be considered in any environmental impact assessment, most potential impacts should be fully mitigated. d) RECREATION PRESSURE Large work forces temporarily located in remote natural environments often place increased user pressure on local wildlife populations and natural areas (Heinzenknecht and Paterson 1978, Howard and Postovit 1987, Findholt 1988, Leslie and Stancill 1990). Facilities available for outdoor recreation may become overloaded to the extent that sites are degraded and fish and wildlife populations are overexploited. In anticipation of such effects, regulatory changes should be made in advance of the increased demands on the land base. Depending on the size of the work force and access to surrounding areas, such impacts may be felt a considerable distance away from the project area. Appropriate measures should be identified and undertaken in co-operation with the appropriate agencies to ensure that potential recreation impacts caused by the workforce are properly regulated during the construction period. With proper management, impacts should be minor. e) WILDLIFE RESCUE As a result of public pressure, rescue operations (translocations) have become a standard feature of reservoir flooding (Pinder 1996). Fifty five hundred animals were captured, sampled and translocated in Guiana during reservoir flooding (Vie 1999). The new data collected and increased interests in conservation were valuable by-products of the rescue project. Consideration should be given to rescue programs if the flooded area is large with topography that would tend to strand animals on promontories that are eventually inundated. 2. LONG TERM Dams in river systems are used to generate electricity, provide flood control, and divert irrigation waters (Hunter et al. 1987, Witmer et al. 1998). Reservoirs destroy habitats, affect ground water regime and water table, possibly increasing seismic tendencies, and often leading to explosive aquatic weed growth and the spread of communicable diseases (Canter 1985). Destruction of critical staging and migration areas, destruction of nesting opportunities, and change in species composition in accordance with habitat changes are some potential long-term effects of hydroelectric projects (Calibre Consultants and Saskatchewan Energy Conservation and Development Authority 1994). Reservoirs can provide some of the structural landscape elements and aquatic ecosystems similar to lakes. On the other hand, the construction of a reservoir inevitably alters the natural landscape and destroys the previously existing terrestrial habitat (Volz 1995). Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 49

50 a) HABITAT LOSSES One of the most important factors that affect wildlife is habitat loss. Permanent loss of habitat occurs from placement of facility structures such as buildings, and the inundation of land by reservoirs. Inundation of riparian habitats is a major impact to wildlife, which depend heavily on such habitats during critical periods. Valley bottom wetlands have suffered substantial losses due to hydroelectric developments in many areas. Species living in wetlands have been seriously impacted by these developments, including rare and endangered species. Losses of food resources, resting/roosting habitat, birthing and wintering habitat for big game, and drowning and loss of nest and den sites of waterfowl and furbearers may all result from flooding habitat (Loft and Menke 1984, Kiell et al. 1986, Smith et al. 1986, Hunter et al. 1987, Howard and Postovit 1987, Ballard et al. 1988, O Neil and Witmer 1991, Antas Paulo De Tarso 1994, Calibre Consultants and Saskatchewan Energy Conservation and Development Authority 1994, Rubec 1995, Rickard and Gray 1995, Pinder 1996, Utschick 1996, Robertson Env. Serv. 1997, Witmer et al. 1998, Pereira and Wajntal 1999). Even in newly created shoreline habitats, steep banks on the edge of reservoirs, created by the erosion of soils, may be too steep for waterfowl to easily access potential nesting sites (Pyrovetsi 1997). Adjacent vegetation is modified and the land area affected by reservoirs can increase greatly when salinization and a rise in the ground water levels result in gleying of the soil. Flooding creates an anaerobic environment surrounding the roots, which destroys terrestrial vegetation (Heinzenknecht and Paterson 1978, Canter 1985, Hunter et al. 1987). Since all reservoirs result in substantial losses to terrestrial habitat, the species associated with that habitat will decline in abundance or in some cases be entirely eliminated. The significance of the losses is dependent on the value to wildlife of the habitat lost relative to habitat available in nearby areas. b) NEW HABITATS The creation of new lakes and reservoirs may provide good habitat for aquatic birds by increasing foraging areas, isolated island habitats and new nest sites. (Howard and Postovit 1987, Findholt 1988, Manny et al. 1994, King and Allen 1996, Perry et al. 1996, Reitan and Sandvik 1996, Pyrovetsi 1997, Benedict and Hepp 2000). Reservoirs may provide increased recreational opportunities such as boating, fishing and wildlife viewing. As the human use of reservoirs increases, wildlife may be exposed to mounting stress (Heinzenknecht and Paterson 1978). For example, human activity, primarily recreational boating, appeared to restrict use of some habitats by mallard ducks (Findholt 1988, Leslie and Stancill 1990). Plant productivity and algal biomass production are stimulated with increased aquatic bird faeces but increased concentrations of phosphorus may decrease water quality (Maceina and Cichra 1987, Manny et al. 1994). Shorebirds may benefit from the gradual exposure of shorelines as reservoir levels drop particularly if drawdowns correspond with Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 50

51 migration periods (Rorslett and Johansen 1996, Mihuc et al. 1997). Herbicides, water level management, mechanical harvesting and biological controls have been used to manage nuisance aquatic vegetation in new habitats (McKnight and Hepp 1995, Rickard and Gray 1995, Piper 1996). Maintenance techniques can have large effects on wildlife and plant communities. The use of grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), as a biological control for aquatic vegetation may alter the habitat quality for waterfowl because the foods of grass carp and waterfowl overlap (McKnight and Hepp 1995, Benedict and Hepp 2000). Purple loosestrife, an herbaceous perennial hydrophyte infests alluvial floodplains, wetlands, streams, river margins, ponds and lakeshores. This aggressive weed rapidly replaces wildlife supporting indigenous plant species in wetland communities while offering no substitute value to wildlife (Piper 1996). Weirs have been used in some reservoirs to retain shallow water in shoreline areas that would normally dry during drawdowns (Reitan and Sandvic 1996). This maintains a stable water shoreline plant community and greatly enhances potential for use by wildlife, particularly ducks. Clearly the potential value of new habitats created in reservoirs is dependent on a variety of factors including water level management, establishment of stable and accessible plant communities and meshing those characteristics with wildlife species which can use them. c) BARRIERS TO MOVEMENT Large reservoirs may represent an impassable barrier to ungulate species and seasonal movement patterns can be disrupted following reservoir filling. Partially frozen reservoirs and unfrozen rivers with ice shelves along their shorelines form the most dangerous barrier to movement for ungulates in winter (Kiell et al. 1986, Ballard et al. 1988, Sigma Engineering Ltd. 1992). Changing the thermal regime of rivers may result in ungulates trying to cross partially frozen rivers, falling through and drowning. Ice shelving, open water, thin ice and floating debris may cause direct mortality to ungulates attempting to cross impoundments (BC Hydro and Power Authority Engineering Division 1980, Simpson 1987, Ballard et al. 1988, Sigma Engineering Ltd. 1992, Simpson 1993, Vie 1999). Displacement of herds may result in concentrating use in smaller areas, attracting predators and forcing increased intraspecific competition. Displaced species may be particularly vulnerable to predators because of stress, weakened condition, and lack of familiarity with escape routes (Heinzenknecht and Paterson 1978, Simpson 1987, Ballard et al. 1988, Sigma Engineering Ltd. 1992, McKnight et al. 1998). In most cases reservoirs that are completely frozen or completely ice free do not prevent movements of large species as long as debris is removed (Simpson 1987). Water bodies kept open in winter by flows or regulation often create a seasonal barrier to movement. The significance of the impact depends on the migration patterns and timing of movements of the species affected. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 51

52 d) FLUCTUATING WATER LEVELS Changes in flow regime are a direct effect of regulation, which in turn cause indirect changes to other physical parameters, such as thermal regime, channel morphology and riparian vegetation (Ballard et al. 1988, Sigma Engineering Ltd. 1992, Rorslett and Johansen 1996, Goodwin et al. 1997, Utschick 1998, Goodwin et al. 1997). Reliable and food-rich staging areas are essential for migrating shorebirds. Water level fluctuations may destroy or make unavailable the vegetation and invertebrates that wildlife species feed on. Timing, duration and intensity of drawdowns are important components in determining the health of riparian systems (Heinzenknecht and Paterson 1978, Christman 1984, Casey and Wood 1985, Brakhage et al. 1987, Howard and Postovit 1987, Hunter et al. 1987, Findholt 1988, Olendorf et al. 1989, Smith and Perterson 1991, Barry and Shaffer 1994, Mihuc et al. 1997, Sayler and Willms 1997, Kertell and Truett 2000). Rorslett and Johansen (1996) found that reducing the designated fluctuation range of reservoir elevation from 7 to 1.6 m resulted in recolonization by submerged macrophytes. Fluctuating water levels substantially altered the availability of microhabitats and influence wildlife use (Leslie and Stancill 1990). In general, minor fluctuations are preferable to large drawdowns, which effectively prevent establishment of either aquatic or terrestrial plant communities. Recent studies of run-of-the-river facilities showed that more stable reservoirs tend to mimic lake characteristics and provide more predictable habitats for wildlife (Andrusiak and Simpson 1996). Expected water regulation regimes are therefore an important consideration in assessing potential impacts of reservoir creation. e) DOWNSTREAM EFFECTS The quality and composition of particulate organic matter (POM) in regulated waters is determined by the size and productivity of reservoir and river systems, depth of water release levels at the dam and flow regime. Dams alter the downstream transport of particulate organic matter because reservoirs act as sitting basins. POM is an important food source for filter feeding and deposit-feeding stream invertebrates (Perry and Perry 1991, Cascade Heritage Power Park Project Committee 2000). Rivers transport sediment from eroding uplands to depositional areas near sea level. If the continuity of sediment transport is interrupted by dams or removal of sediment from the channel by gravel mining, the flow could become sediment-starved ( hungry water ) and prone to erode the channel bed and banks, producing channel incision (downcutting), coarsening of bed material, and loss of spawning gravels for salmon and trout (as smaller gravels are transported without replacement from upstream)(kondolf 1997). Incoming sediment will pass through smaller reservoirs, and the continuity of sediment transport through impoundments should be maintained as much as possible (Kondolf 1997). More stable annual flows without spring flood events results in increased deposition of materials in river channels downstream of major dams. The materials that would normally be carried far downstream are deposited in new upstream areas. Deltas created at Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 52

53 tributaries are not removed during annual floods so that new terrestrial habitats are created along the regulated river channel. These changes are usually at the expense of deltas or lakes downstream that no longer receive masses of material from the river. The Peace River dams in British Columbia are having significant effects on the Athabasca delta in Alberta (Wiacek 1998). Long-term implications of such changes have not been quantified but appear very significant. f) WATER TEMPERATURE CHANGE As a result of flow regime, the thermal regime of the river is affected by reservoir storage and water temperatures are usually higher in winter and lower in summer than in the unregulated river. The impact is felt primarily in spring and fall, with delayed freeze-up and delayed break-up. Delayed freeze-up in winter may affect ice formation and thereby affect winter use of the surface of the reservoir (Sigma Engineering Ltd. 1992, Calibre Consultants Inc. and Saskatchewan Energy Conservation and Development Authority 1994). The impacts of these changes on wildlife are dependant on the species using the affected reaches of the river. In the Peace River, moose, deer and elk avoided crossing the river in open water areas during winter, but readily crossed in other seasons either on solid ice or by swimming (Simpson 1993). Similar effects were noted for moose and caribou on the Revelstoke reservoir that remained partially open in some winters due to significant flows (water movement) through the narrows (Simpson 1987). g) MICROCLIMATE CHANGE The large thermal mass of reservoirs causes a lag between the temperature of water and prevailing seasonal air temperatures. Reservoirs can cause a cooling influence in the summer and a warming influence in the winter if the water is not frozen. These alterations in the local climate may make it less suitable for restricted species (Huntley et al. 1998). Whether microclimate conditions are sufficient enough to affect vegetation and dependent wildlife is not well proven (Heinzenknecht and Paterson 1978). h) TOXICOLOGY Several studies have shown that heavy metal accumulations, selenium, DDE, PCB and dioxins are increased particularly among fish-eating raptors near new reservoirs (Mitra 1986, Hoffman et al. 1988, Olendorf et al. 1989, Phillips et al. 1987, Axys Environmental Consultants and Aquatic Resources Ltd. 1994, Rickard and Gray 1995, Mattice et al. 1997, Cascade Heritage Power Park Project Committee 2000, Elliott et al. 2000). Significant amounts of PCBs have been found in fishes below dams. The decrease in reproductive success of bald eagles in the Great Lakes was primarily a result of thinning eggshells and the increased levels of toxins in eggs (Giesy 1995). Documented levels have generally not been lethal but could have undetermined long term effects on many species at the top of the food chain where toxins often accumulate (Hothem and Olendorf 1989, Bodaly and Johnston 1992, Giesy et al. 1995, Desgranges et al. 1998, Sample and Suter 1999, Trombulak and Frissell 2000). The potential long term impacts of bio-accumulation of toxins is difficult to predict however, the current evidence Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 53

54 suggests that it should be identified as a concern and long term monitoring should be included as a condition of approving new projects. E. TOURISM AND RECREATION DEVELOPMENTS A modern trend in resort development is to build ever-larger facilities with increasing capacity and increasing variety of potential activities in order to capture as many visitors as possible and to maximize return on investment. Conflicts with wildlife become an issue when these resorts are built in more remote localities where human activities previously occurred at much lower levels. In most cases, the potential conflicts increase with the degree of remoteness of the development, or fragility of the ecosystem, as wildlife with less tolerance for human disturbance often occur in such areas. Maximum potential for conflict often occurs when development proceeds in wilderness areas or in particularly critical wildlife habitat. In British Columbia, the two major resort developments with the highest potential for impacts on wildlife are commercial backcountry recreation and ski resorts. Proposed guidelines for mitigation of impacts from commercial backcountry recreation have been dealt with in a previous document (Harper and Eastman 2000) but many of the issues discussed in that document are relevant to issues related to ski resorts and other resorts, as backcountry recreation is often initiated from a resort base. Other resort developments with potential to significantly impact on wildlife are golf courses (mainly rare habitat loss), water sport summer resorts (disturbance to breeding, moulting or migrating waterbirds), fishing lodges (human disturbance to shy wildlife such as grizzly bears), RV parks and campgrounds (impacts on rare riparian, estuarine, grassland or lakeshore habitats). Ski resort development is probably the most contentious of all resort development issues in British Columbia, especially when proposed for wilderness areas. For example significant public opposition has arisen to proposed ski developments at Melvyn Creek, southwest of Lillooet and at Jumbo Glacier, west of Invermere. At Melvyn Creek, potential impacts on a very significant population of mountain goats that inhabits the Cayoosh Range and on grizzly bear movements are of high concern. At Jumbo Glacier, impacts on the Purcell grizzly bear population are of highest concern. Expansion of existing facilities tends to cause much less concern over environmental values; for example at Sun Peaks north of Kamloops, the Fernie ski hill, Northstar at Kimberley, Golden Peaks at Golden, or Mount Washington (Vancouver Island). Environmental concerns related to ski resorts in British Columbia are mirrored in other jurisdictions as well. For example, there is opposition to a proposed ski resort in an Oregon wilderness area due to threats to old-growth coniferous forests, Bald Eagle nesting and roosting areas, and other listed wildlife species (ENN 1999). Expanding ski services at Vail, Colorado have threatened movements of Lynx, and some ski runs have Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 54

55 been closed to minimize disturbance (ENN 2000). Artificial snowmaking also has the potential to distribute toxic heavy metals into pristine ecosystems. In Colorado's Keystone Ski Area, snowmaking water is contaminated with levels of zinc, cadmium and copper that exceed standards set to protect aquatic life, with concentrations of some metals being 30 times more in the manmade snow than in the natural snowpack (Berwyn 2000). Whistler/Blackcomb has been a tremendously successful business development that has focused world attention on British Columbia as a world-class ski destination. As ski tourist volume has increased new ski resorts have been built and existing ski resorts have expanded capacity to meet demand and modernized facilities to better compete with the newer resorts. As large-scale ski resorts become more successful, peripheral developments related to the resort, such as permanent residential areas, roads, airfields, shopping areas, and other service areas may be built adjacent to the resort, and these addons can have significant additional impacts on wildlife. Increased traffic on roads also poses significant threats to wildlife that have large home ranges and are likely to cross those roads. As the scale of these resorts increases they also tend to look to bring visitors during nonskiing seasons and become all-season resorts. For example, development of Golden Peaks, Golden into a destination resort will increase skier visits from 20,000/year to 140,000/year, and off-season visits from 40,000/year to 200,000/year. Popular outdoor activities during the ski off-season such as golfing, hiking, and mountain biking have become extremely popular, even in very remote locations. Developments to accommodate such activities can add a tremendous amount of impact to the initial ski development in terms of the development footprint (direct loss of habitat) and the potential for disturbance to sensitive wildlife during the spring to fall seasons. Examples of these include building of golf courses at Whistler/Blackcomb (footprint and loss of forest habitat), and Fairmont (impacts on rare riparian habitat and ungulate winter range). Golf courses alone tend to be built in areas with relatively flat topography and close to human settlements. As most human settlements and the flat terrain associated with settlements in British Columbia tends to occur in valley bottoms, golf courses are typically built on relatively rare valley bottom sites or in adjacent uplands. These areas typically contain rare riparian habitat along watercourses, wetlands, ungulate winter ranges especially in the interior, rare grasslands in the south interior, and other special wildlife habitats. Resort developments that combine golf courses with residential development can have relatively large local impacts on wildlife habitat, compared to golf courses alone, as the total area developed increases greatly. Examples of these include Predator Ridge (Kelowna-impacts on ponderosa pine forest and grasslands), Morningstar (French Creekimpacts on coastal Douglas-fir forest and riparian habitat), and Fairwinds (Nanoose Bayimpacts on coastal Douglas-fir forest). Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 55

56 VI. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR EA PROJECTS The EA process contains a number of staged components, each of which must be completed satisfactorily before moving on to the next stage or until the minister approves or rejects the project. These stages (pre-application, application, project report, public hearing) are discussed in detail in the Guide to the British Columbia Environmental Process (Province of British Columbia 2001), and will not be repeated here. Project or development activities also occur in a staged manner ranging from preconstruction to construction, post-construction, operation and abandonment. In a similar way, impact assessment for wildlife or wildlife habitat should proceed in a staged manner. Wildlife and wildlife habitat impact assessments are done in the preapplication or preconstruction phases of a project and should be used to assist in developing mitigation measures that are applicable to the construction and operation phases of a project. Monitoring may be conducted from preconstruction through to project abandonment. Impact assessment may be an iterative process for a development, in the respect that information/data gathered through surveys and monitoring may lead to changes in mitigation measures or may lead to further studies or monitoring programs. The level and intensity of an impact assessment will be dependent on the species of concern and the habitat/species impacts from the type of development. For example, the level of intensity of an impact assessment for a species of concern may be more intense in a critical habitat area for a project with potential adverse impacts on that species than it will be for a development with the potential for minor impacts. Wildlife and wildlife habitat impact assessments should take into consideration all phases of a project development, which include preconstruction, construction, post-construction, operation and abandonment. Both impacts and mitigation measures for each of these phases must be addressed in the Project Application (or Project Report if the Application is deficient). The intent of adopted mitigation measures should be to avoid or minimize identified significant adverse impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat. A. GENERIC APPROACH TO EA FOR WILDLIFE A flowchart of activities related to evaluating, avoiding and mitigating impacts of major development projects on wildlife under BCEAA is outlined in Figure 1. A number of stages and alternate pathways are identified. Scenario #1 is the most likely pathway (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, K, and L; Table 3 and Figure 1), such that after initial scoping, some wildlife data is identified, MELP determines more data is required, the proponent develops a terms of reference for studies that is signed off by MELP, the studies are Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 56

57 conducted, mitigation measures are developed and accepted by MELP, the potential for residual effect is present so criteria/thresholds of acceptable impacts are established, and finally the effectiveness of mitigation measures are monitored. In this scenario the information/data/mapping that is collected at E is used in the EA process to determine what mitigation measures will be effective. The terms of reference for any wildlife or wildlife habitat studies should be approved by MELP prior to initiating any work. It is recommended that there be regular communication with MELP staff once a study has been initiated to ensure the right data is collected. If mitigation measures are uncertain, MELP will likely take the precautionary approach and request additional data to provide more certainty around the mitigation measures in question. One potential tool for evaluating wildlife impacts is using an Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) approach (Habitat Branch 2000). Environmental Risk Assessment is designed to be applied at a variety of spatial and time scales, for a variety of issues and at various levels of funding. It is important to recognize that the impact assessment process is iterative, and managers should recognize that the future cannot be predicted perfectly. In response to these imperfect predictions, mitigation strategies are modified frequently as better information becomes available. This adaptive management approach requires constant monitoring and an analysis of the results of past actions, which are then fed back into current decisions. Monitoring programs should be developed in conjunction with MELP and CWS (as appropriate). Monitoring programs should assess the effectiveness of mitigation or compensation and to determine if any unpredicted impacts occur. Scenario #2 involves an alterative pathway if the proponent is willing to accept the worst case scenario for wildlife impacts and proposes mitigation measures accordingly. If MELP determines that data is required to substantiate the proposed mitigation measures, then this pathway is (A, B or H, I, J, D, E, F, G, K, and L; see below and Figure 1). The difference from the first pathway is in the focus of wildlife studies conducted in D. In this scenario the wildlife studies are concerned with collecting data to substantiate proposed mitigation measures, so they should in all likelihood be more focused and less expensive to conduct compared to studies designed to determine potential impacts. Scenario #3 is the shortest pathway. This could occur when the proponent is willing to accept the worst case scenario for wildlife impacts and proposes mitigation measures accordingly. If MELP determines that data is not required to substantiate the proposed mitigation measures, then this pathway is (A, B or H, I, G, K, and L; see below and Figure 1). Monitoring the response of wildlife populations to mitigation measures is still required, and will involve some baseline collection of data prior to development, but the amount of data required should be considerably less than that required under Scenarios 1 and 2 above. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 57

58 There is also a built-in feedback loop in the flowchart where if monitoring at L shows that mitigation measures are not effective then the proponent develops new or modifies existing mitigation measures at F which then go to MELP for approval at G. Table 3. List of activities related to evaluating, avoiding and mitigating impacts of major development projects on wildlife under BCEAA (see Figure 1). A. Identify wildlife species and habitats of concern (scoping exercise done with MELP at the preapplication phase. B. Some data, information, mapping available on species and/or habitats of concern. C. MELP determines that data, information or mapping will be required. D. Proponent develops terms of reference (TOR) for studies that are signed off by MELP. E. Conduct studies, mapping, etc as directed in the terms of reference. F. Develop mitigation measures based on studies, mapping, etc. G. MELP accepts mitigation measures. H. No data/information/mapping available on species and/or habitat of concern. I. Proponent assumes worst case scenario and proposes mitigation measures to address agreed upon impacts. J. Data required to substantiate proposed mitigation measures. K. Establish criteria/thresholds to determine if significant negative effects related to the development will occur. L. Monitor effectiveness of mitigation measures. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 58

59 A. Identify wildlife species and habitats of concern (Scoping exercise done with MELP at preapplication stage) H. No data/information/mapping available on species and/or habitat of concern B. Some data, information, mapping available on species and/or habitats of concern I. Proponent assumes worst case scenario and proposes mitigation measures to address agreed upon impacts C. MELP determines that data, information or mapping will be required I. Proponent assumes worst case scenario and proposes mitigation measures to address agreed upon impacts J. Data required to substantiate proposed mitigation measures D. Proponent develops TOR for studies that are signed off by MELP E. Conduct studies, mapping, etc as directed in the TOR J. Data required to substantiate proposed mitigation measures F. Develop mitigation measures based on studies, mapping, etc. G. MELP accepts mitigation measures K. Establish criteria/thresholds to determine if significant negative effects related to the development will occur Potential for residual effects No potential for residual effects L. Monitor effectiveness of mitigation measures If monitoring shows that mitigation measures are not effective Figure 1. Flowchart of activities related to evaluating, avoiding and mitigating impacts of major development projects on wildlife under BCEAA. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 59

60 Implementation of mitigation measures and monitoring programs may be required during the preconstruction, construction, and/or post-construction phases of the development. Monitoring of effects of mitigation measures are necessary to determine if the measures are successful in reducing negative impacts associated with the development to acceptable levels. Further mitigation may be required if initial measures prove unsuccessful. 1. SPECIES INVENTORY Wildlife and wildlife habitat inventories provide information on the distribution, status and abundance, and relative information on the ecology of supporting habitats (Demarchi et al. 2000). Ecosystem classification is a important component of wildlife and wildlife habitat inventories, and hierarchical approaches have been developed in British Columbia for describing and delineating both ecoregions (Demarchi 1995) and biogeoclimatic zones (Meidinger and Pojar 1991, BC Ministry of Forests 1994). Wildlife and wildlife habitat inventory projects must be balanced between scale and the level of survey intensity, taking into account the purpose of the survey (Demarchi et al. 2000). In order to assess impacts of developments on wildlife or wildlife habitat, inventory and assessment of existing populations and habitat conditions is usually necessary. In some cases, substantial amounts of existing information may be available. In other cases, no information may be available. The first step in planning for wildlife assessment is to discuss with MELP which species and habitats are of concern for the EA process (Item A in Figure 1). The next step is to gather existing information and to determine if what baseline data exists and if the existing data are sufficient for EA purposes (Item B in Figure 1). In most cases, additional inventory work will be required (Item C in Figure 1). Development of an appropriate study design for acquiring necessary data then becomes an obvious necessity (Item D in Figure 1). All wildlife, wildlife habitat, and plant community inventories that are conducted for EA purposes should be conducted in a standardized manner which will facilitate consistency and comparability throughout the duration of the project and with other regions of the province. Standard inventory methodologies assist in reducing conflicts with respect to adequacy and conflict. MELP staff will identify wildlife species that should be inventoried: At a presence/not detected level to identify which species are present in the project area; At a relative or absolute abundance level (to allow long term monitoring to assess impacts from the proposed project and the success or failure of implemented mitigation measures; and By telemetry (to assess habitat use and displacement) if required in special circumstances. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 60

61 Recent developments in the field of wildlife telemetry have made it possible to acquire detailed data on many aspects of species biology, including habitat use, home range size, mortality and survivorship, and migration timing and routes. In some cases, radiotracking may be the most effective way to provide the type and level of information required to evaluate and monitor potential impacts of major development projects on animal populations. Wildlife radio-telemetry: standards for components of British Columbia's biodiversity No. 5 (RIC 1998f) provides information on licensing and permit requirements, mechanics of radio transmitters, signal reception, and study design. All studies involving radio-telemetry of terrestrial wildlife should undergo peer and veterinary review prior to commencement. The level of intensity of surveys is extremely important for the proponent to negotiate with MELP in advance of beginning any inventory. Expectations for the qualitative and quantitative nature of baseline data required must be clear from the outset. Both the proponent and MELP should be comfortable with the level of inventory intensity negotiated, as these data will likely be carefully scrutinized during public consultations. In addition, costs of determining presence/absence vs. relative abundance vs. absolute abundance may differ by orders of magnitude depending on the species being inventoried. Since 1992 by the Resource Inventory Committee (RIC) has been developing standards for the collection of wildlife population and habitat inventory data (Quayle and Westerner 2000). The inventory manuals in the Standards for Components of British Columbia s Biodiversity contain well-established methods for evaluating the presence/absence and/or relative abundance of various wildlife species (Table 3). Electronic copies of RIC manuals are available Hard copies of RIC manuals are available from BC Government Publications Centre (Tel: , Toll free: , Fax: , All wildlife inventories, including reports must be based on RIC standards, where available. All wildlife inventories for EA projects must meet or exceed the standards established by RIC. MELP staff must approve any deviations from RIC standards. In the absence of RIC standards, other methodologies acceptable to MELP staff must be used. All wildlife inventories conducted must include quality assurance/quality control procedures that are checked and approved by MELP staff. Where long term monitoring is an objective, inventory design must consider the sample size and statistical power required to detect significant changes in a species abundance or distribution. Experimental design is the most crucial aspect of the wildlife inventory program. The proponent must develop a study design that will collect data needed to address issues put forward by wildlife/wildlife habitat technical reviewers. Note that the necessary baseline wildlife inventory studies will normally be required to begin and/or be completed during the early phases of the EA process. Monitoring studies may be required throughout the life of the project. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 61

62 Some issues related to study design often become contentious at later stages of the EA process, especially during the review and public and FN consultation periods. It is important for proponents to propose a study design that is sufficiently rigorous to withstand significant criticism. Some of the common issues raised include: Boundaries of study areas (impacts of the footprint versus a broader area?) Use of control sites for comparative purposes (how does the project area compare to surrounding areas?) Adequacy of baseline data collected (e.g., how much data is enough?) Length of time of wildlife studies (some species with low abundance or cyclic populations may be problematic to inventory some years or within a 1-2 year time frame) Provincial standards exist for species data collection. All inventory data collected as part of an EA wildlife impact assessment must be entered into the species inventory database (SPI database, Lepp 2000) by the consultant collecting the data. Consultants must contact the Resource Inventory Branch to get an account for SPI prior to data entry. Regional Wildlife Habitat Inventory Specialists (WHIS) will perform a quality control check on the data before approving the project s entry into SPI. There are several advantages to both MELP and the proponent in this procedure: Data is entered in a approved data entry format; Confidential data will be security flagged and have limited access; The consultant s work is published in a provincial data warehouse and accessible to others; and The SPI database is a secure storage and is backed up daily. Proponent s consultants who will be conducting the inventories must fully understand and adhere to the protocols outlines in Species Inventory Fundamentals Standards for Components of British Columbia s Biodiversity No. 1, version 2 (December 1998). Any biologist who collects data for the Province to assess the presence or abundance of wildlife species is required to be certified in the course, Introduction to Wildlife Species Inventory, by April A process is now in place for biologists who wish to gain certification by challenging this course. To be eligible to challenge, a biologist must provide objective proof of his/her ability to apply the principles of survey design in a field-based wildlife inventory. This can be accomplished by either: Proving his/her status as a Registered Professional Biologist (RPBio) in the Association of Professional Biologists of BC, or Submitting the citation for a graduate thesis or a peer-reviewed published journal article with the applicant as first author, that demonstrates a knowledge of survey design for the purpose of detecting the presence of, or enumerating, a species of wildlife. Once an applicant's eligibility to challenge is confirmed, they must successfully complete a written exam to prove competence. Applicants whose challenge eligibility cannot be Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 62

63 confirmed must take the two-day course through Forestry Continuing Studies Network to gain certification. See the Forestry Continuing Studies Network for a list of mandatory courses. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 63

64 Table 4. Inventory manuals in RIC s standards for components of British Columbia s biodiversity series. RIC Species Inventory Standard No. Reference Species Inventory Fundamentals 1 Resources Inventory Committee 1998e The Vertebrates of British Columbia: 2 Resources Inventory Committee 2000c Scientific and English Names Live Animal Capture and Handling 3 Resources Inventory Committee 1997e Voucher Specimen Collection - Animals 4a Resources Inventory Committee 1999e Voucher Specimen Collection - Plants and 4b Resources Inventory Committee 1999f Fungi Wildlife Radio-Telemetry 5 Resources Inventory Committee 1998f Marsh Birds Bitterns and Rails 7 Resources Inventory Committee 1998g Colonial-nesting Freshwater Birds 8 Resources Inventory Committee 1998h Nighthawks and Poorwills 9 Resources Inventory Committee 1998i Marbled Murrelets 10 Resources Inventory Committee 1997f Raptors 11 Resources Inventory Committee 1996a Riverine Birds 12 Resources Inventory Committee 1998j Seabirds 13 Resources Inventory Committee in prep. Shorebirds 14 Resources Inventory Committee 1997g Forest and Grassland Songbirds 15 Resources Inventory Committee 1999g Swallows and Swifts 16 Resources Inventory Committee 1998k Upland Gamebirds 17 Resources Inventory Committee 1997h Waterfowl and Allied Species 18 Resources Inventory Committee 1999h Woodpeckers 19 Resources Inventory Committee 1999i Bats 20 Resources Inventory Committee 1998l Bears 21 Resources Inventory Committee 1998m Beaver and Muskrat 22 Resources Inventory Committee 1998n Hares and Cottontails 23 Resources Inventory Committee 1998o Marten and Weasels 24 Resources Inventory Committee 1998p Medium-sized Carnivores Coyote, Red 25 Resources Inventory Committee 1999j Fox, Lynx, Bobcat, Fisher and Badger Moles and Pocket Gophers 26 Resources Inventory Committee 2000d Mountain Beaver, Bushy-tailed Woodrat 27 Resources Inventory Committee 1998q and Porcupine Pikas and Sciurids 29 Resources Inventory Committee 1998r Small Mammals Shrews, voles, Mice and 31 Resources Inventory Committee 1998s Rats Aerial-based Inventory of Ungulates 32 Resources Inventory Committee 1997i Ground-based Inventory of Selected 33 Resources Inventory Committee 1998t Ungulates Moose, Elk and Deer Wolf and Cougar 34 Resources Inventory Committee 1998u Plethodontid Salamanders 36 Resources Inventory Committee 1999k Pond-breeding Amphibians and Painted 37 Resources Inventory Committee 1998v Turtle Snakes 38 Resources Inventory Committee 1998w Tailed Frogs and Pacific Giant 39 Resources Inventory Committee 2000e Salamanders Terrestrial Arthropods 40 Resources Inventory Committee 1998x Macrofungi 41 Resources Inventory Committee 1998y Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 64

65 2. TERRESTRIAL HABITAT INVENTORY Species inventory alone will not provide an adequate measure of initial conditions, and a habitat inventory is typically required. Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) is the MELP (RIC) standard for detailed mapping of ecosystems (habitats). TEM provides both a basis for wildlife capability/suitability interpretation for wildlife species and a common context for species and habitat inventory in the province. Broad Ecosystem or Predictive Ecosystem mapping may also be required. Terrestrial ecosystem mapping (TEM) standards (RIC 1998d) use a three-level classification hierarchy of ecological units, including ecoregion units and biogeoclimatic units at broader levels, and site units and vegetation developmental stages (combined as ecosystem units) at a more detailed scale. Ecoregion classification is hierarchical, with five levels of generalization, ranging from the highest level (ecodomain) to the lowest level (ecosection). Biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification (BEC) includes four levels, including zone, subzone, variant, and phase. Ecoregion and biogeoclimatic units are broad-level delineations derived from provincial maps (Demarchi 1995, Ministry of Forests 1994). Within these broader units, site-level polygons describe ecosystem units composed of BEC site series, site modifiers, and structural stages (Meidinger and Pojar 1991). Guides to the identification and interpretation of BEC site series are available for the Vancouver Forest Region (Green and Klinka 1994), Kamloops Forest Region (Lloyd et al. 1990), Nelson Forest Region (Braumandl and Curran 1992), Cariboo Forest Region (Steen and Coupe 1998), Prince George Forest Region (Delong 1988, Delong et al. 1990, MacKinnon et al. 1990), Prince Rupert Forest Region (Banner et al. 1993). Collection of ecological data should follow the Field Manual for Describing Terrestrial Ecosystems (BC Ministry of Forests and BC Ministry of Environment 1998). This manual has been prepared to assist field surveyors in the completion of the Ecosystem Field Forms, including site (FS882-1), soil (FS882-2), vegetation (FS882-3), mensuration (FS882-4), wildlife habitat assessment (FS882-5), tree attributes for wildlife (FS882-6), and coarse woody debris (FS882-7) data forms. These forms are to be used in various inventories including ecosystem classification, terrestrial ecosystem mapping, and wildlife habitat assessment. Not all the data fields on all the forms need to be completed on every sample plot, since project objectives will determine which forms and fields need to be completed. Similarly, project objectives will determine where and how plots are located. The field manual follows Describing Ecosystems in the Field (Luttmerding et al. 1990), however, it has been updated to accommodate new inventory requirements and standards. Sample plot size is not identified in this field manual, however, in most cases, a plot size of 400 m 2 is considered adequate. In species-poor ecosystems (e.g., some wetlands, grasslands, and dense forests), the plot size could be smaller. Plot shape can be rectangular, square, or circular, but should be consistent for a project. Other supporting references to this field manual (e.g. Luttmerding et al. (1990) and Howes and Kenk Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 65

66 (1997), among others) will be required if the user is not already familiar with their contents. For some habitat studies, it may be appropriate to use Vegetation Resource Inventory (VRI) Ground Sampling procedures to ensure random placement of sample plots. In these procedures sample plots that are selected systematically from a sorted list with known equal probability from all land classes. Sample plots are placed where they fall. Ground sampling procedures for VRI are designed produce statistically valid results with small sampling errors and no bias. Sample site selection can combine traditional stratification to ensure a sample that stabilizes more quickly than a completely random sample. Measurements are made to a known level of precision and all measurements are to be completed and recorded in the field (RIC 2000a). Wildlife habitat capability and suitability can be derived from appropriately constructed ecosystem maps at scales from 1:250,000 to 1:20,000 (Bonner and Demarchi 2000). Depending on the level of knowledge on how a species relates to its habitat and what ecosystem attributes are important to the species, mapped ecosystem units are rated according to a 2-class, 4-class, or 6-class system (RIC 1999l). These ratings are applied, as appropriate, to different seasons of use and different life requisites (e.g. winter feeding, fall staging, spring birthing). The Species-Habitat Model thus derived includes a species account and ratings table, which can be used to derive thematic habitat capability and suitability maps from the ecosystem map. Monitoring of habitat change can involve a wide selection of sampling intensities, plot layouts, data attributes, precision and accuracy margins, and statistical complexities at both a research and operational level. A common system for the collection and analysis of data to measure changes in habitat that result from resource management activities is available (RIC 1996b). These are a standard set of operational-level procedures for the documentation and sampling of pre-treatment conditions, treatment activity, and posttreatment response of the site and vegetation to a prescribed treatment. Standard methods developed for capability and suitability mapping utilizing standard ecosystem mapping system must follow the BC Wildlife Habitat Rating Standard (RIC 1998d), i.e. TEM. All TEM wildlife and habitat maps must be checked and approved by the Resources Inventory Branch prior to finalization and submission in the project application or report. RIC standards for TEM include a detailed process of Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) that must be followed. Resources Inventory Branch should be contacted by the proponent s consultant(s) to ensure all digital data are in a format acceptable to MELP. Final copies of the digital data should be submitted to the Resources Inventory Branch. The inventory manuals in RIC s Terrestrial Ecology Series contain well-established methods for vegetation, ecosystem and wildlife habitat inventory (Table 4). Electronic Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 66

67 copies of RIC manuals are available Hard copies of RIC manuals are available from BC Government Publications Centre (Tel: , Toll free: , Fax: , Table 5. Inventory manuals in RIC s standards for terrestrial ecology series. RIC Habitat and Vegetation Inventory Standard Terrestrial ecosystem mapping (TEM) - standards Predictive ecosystem mapping (PEM) - inventory Predictive ecosystem mapping (PEM) digital data capture Terrain geology mapping Terrain mapping standards Terrain classification Site series mapping Wildlife habitat ratings Habitat Monitoring Land cover classification VRI land cover classification VRI photo interpretation - procedures VRI ground sampling procedures VRI photo interpretation procedures VRI localization procedures VRI quality assurance standards VRI photo interpretation standards VRI ground calibration VRI air calibration Procedures for forest resource survey and mapping using GPS Reference Resources Inventory Committee 1998d Resources Inventory Committee 1999d Resources Inventory Committee 2000b Resources Inventory Committee 1996c Resources Inventory Committee 1998c Resources Inventory Committee 1997d Resources Inventory Committee 1997j Resources Inventory Committee 1999l Resources Inventory Committee 1996b Resources Inventory Committee 1997k Resources Inventory Committee 1999b Resources Inventory Committee 1997c Resources Inventory Committee 2000a Resources Inventory Committee 1999a Resources Inventory Committee 1999c Resources Inventory Committee 1998a Resources Inventory Committee 1998b Resources Inventory Committee 1997a Resources Inventory Committee 1997b Resources Inventory Committee 1998x Mapping extent must coincide with ecological based boundaries, such as landscape units or watershed units, with the exception of some linear developments. Boundaries for habitat mapping must be determined in consultation with MELP regional staff or designates and will be dependent on the species of concern. The habitat mapping scale will vary depending on the type on project proposed. As a general rule, 1:20,000 TEM should be provided to document areas directly and indirectly impacted by the project. More detailed mapping may be required for high value wildlife habitats or rare or sensitive ecosystems. Mapping scales must be approved by regional MELP wildlife and habitat staff or designate. Some examples of project related mapping scales are as follows: Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 67

68 a) Mining Projects The direct footprint of the mining project (the area directly impacted by the proposed mine) must be TEM mapped at 1:5000 or 1:20,000 depending on site conditions. The context of the proposed mine site (the locality surrounding the area directly impacted by the mine) must be TEM mapped at 1:20,000. This mapping must include capability/suitability interpretations for species identified by regional MELP staff. The boundary for this mapping must be defined in consultation with MELP regional staff. b) Linear Corridors (e.g. access roads, highways, pipeline corridors, power lines) 1:20,000 to 1:50,000 TEM and wildlife habitat capability and suitability must be completed to survey intensity level approved by MELP staff (normally level 4). The boundary for this mapping project must be defined in consultation with MELP staff and will be based on third order watersheds. In some situations, full TEM will not be required and Predictive Ecosystem Mapping (PEM) may be used as an acceptable alternative. Use of PEM for EA projects must be approved by MELP regional staff or designate. PEM may be used in the following instances: For landscape level inquiries; For areas of lower resource values; To provide context for more detailed inventories undertaken on smaller footprint sites. It may be useful for proponents to utilize PEM at an early stage of the project conceptualization and prior to project application submission to identify areas of potential concern that may require more detailed mapping. 3. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT Assessment of impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat may need to be made for the various phases of the proposed development including construction, post-construction and operation phases. Determination of significant negative impacts that will require mitigation depends on the acquisition of appropriate baseline data, the establishment of criteria to define significant negative impacts, and the setting of threshold levels that will Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 68

69 trigger implementation of mitigation measures. The proponent should discuss these issues with MELP staff in advance of beginning wildlife studies. 4. ACCESS ISSUES One of the most contentious issues related to wildlife is human access from new roads or other transportation infrastructure. These issues are most prominent when they are related to ungulate and carnivore populations and to wilderness values. In general, new roads open up areas to easier access by humans. For ungulates, issues of concern are mainly increased opportunity for recreational hunting, illegal poaching, road-kill mortality and disturbance on migration routes, wintering ranges, or at critical microhabitats. Proponents should be aware that considerable attention would likely be placed on these issues by MELP and by people concerned about access issues. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 69

70 B. SPECIES-SPECIFIC EA FOR WILDLIFE Each EA project will have a different suite of wildlife species and issues of concern to deal with during the process depending on the location and the type of project. In this section we highlight species-specific, or groups of species, issues that proponents may be required to deal with during the EA process and/or throughout the life of the project. In general, most assessment emphasis will be placed on species or groups of species that are Red or Blue-listed, are regionally significant for economic or intrinsic values, or are known to be sensitive to large development projects. These wildlife species tend to include the ungulates (deer, moose, elk, mountain goats, caribou, sheep), carnivores (bears, cats, furbearers), rare or threatened wildlife or habitat (Red and Blue list species), or Identified Wildlife (Province of British Columbia 1999) under the Forest Practices Code. The discussion below should inform the proponent about the scope of wildlife and wildlife habitat related issues that may arise and help guide the proponent s discussions and negotiations with MELP on the scope of wildlife inventory, research, or monitoring required. The discussion includes the potential scope of issues, plus information requirements. For suggestions on specific mitigation measures see Chapter VII. 1. HOOFED MAMMALS - UNGULATES a) Ungulate Winter Ranges Key issues of concern: habitat fragmentation of winter ranges, human disturbance on winter ranges, road-kill mortality. Principal sources of information: (Clevenger 1998, Olliff et al. 1999, Canfield et al. 1999) For hoofed mammals, there is generally more concern about the effects of major projects during the winter season because animals are most vulnerable to adverse impacts at that time. During this season, ungulates are: Concentrated into smaller areas compared to other times of the year, so that any adverse activity or event is more likely to affect a greater number of individuals than at other seasons when they are more dispersed. Declining in physical condition because of nutritionally inadequate forage, and so are less able to cope with extra stresses and disturbances, both natural and human-caused. Exposed to increased metabolic costs because of more inclement climatic conditions. Less able to disperse to other parts of there winter ranges because deep snow restricts or prevents their movements. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 70

71 Very limited in their choices of alternative habitats because deep snow and other physical factors precludes access to them. The above conditions and factors apply to the entire winter season, but ungulates progressively deteriorate over the winter, so that by the end of winter, they can be quite debilitated. Of course the loss of condition and the resulting levels of over-wintering mortality vary according to the severity and duration of adverse conditions. Another critical season is the post-winter or early spring period. At this point, ungulates are at the lowest point in their annual cycle, and access to nutritious new forage is essential if individuals are to regain physical condition. Most adult females are in the last stages of pregnancy and preparing for birth and lactation. Energy demands are especially heavy, and nutritious forage is essential for their recovery, and for the successful birthing and rearing of newborns. Lactation is the most energy demanding time of the annual cycle for females. If ungulates are exposed to excessive stresses over the winter, the effects are rarely observed immediately, for example by death. More typically however, animals move away from a stress, and nothing more seems to happen. Of course, the animal s response varies according to many factors such as type of activity, its proximity, its duration, and its frequency, but it is the cumulative incremental effects of these seemingly innocuous events that are of greatest concerns. Consequences of these impacts are often subtle, subclinical and delayed. They can occur in late winter/early spring or during lactation chronic stress can impair immune responses, animals lose weight and die of malnutrition, others are less able to escape predators or withstand disease, females abort fetuses, newborns fail to thrive because of inadequate milk supplies or interrupted maternal care. By their very nature, these types of cumulative impacts are difficult to document. Studies of ungulate response to human disturbance commonly measure behavioural changes, such as movements by animals when exposed to different activities at varying distances. The energy costs of these responses can be determined by extrapolating from studies of ungulate locomotion. Other studies have used heart rate to monitor ungulate responses, because there is a strong correlation between heart rate and metabolic costs. Again, energy costs can be estimated and impacts modeled based on energy budgets. One example of this kind of study is the work of MacArthur et al. (1982) on the cardiac response of bighorn sheep to human disturbance. There are a variety of diseases and parasites that can infect and be carried by apparently healthy exotic pack animals (e.g. domestic goats, llamas and alpacas) that are capable of being transmitted to native ungulate populations with disastrous consequences. Most wild ungulate populations are immunologically naïve and are believed to have little natural resistance to organisms that are found in these domesticated species. Transfer between animals can result in illness of individual animals and has the potential to spread Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 71

72 to a greater proportion of the wild population and become endemic. Many examples exist where organisms have transferred from domestic stocks to wild ungulates (e.g. brucellosis in elk, tuberculosis in white tailed deer, pasteurellosis in mountain sheep). Another consideration is that there are only limited areas that meet the habitat requirements of ungulates for winter range. Although each species has its own requirements for winter habitat, in most cases winter range is population limiting. Consequently, human activities that reduce the physical extent of winter habitat place an additional demand on the animals. Information requirements will likely include: Baseline data on existing ungulate populations (RIC standard inventory if existing information is lacking), Mapping of ungulate winter ranges (ecosystem mapping), Rating habitat polygons and identify polygons with high and moderate sensitivity, Identification of important ungulate winter range (e.g., high density winter range), Identification of specific rare or important habitat features (e.g., mineral licks), Identification of important temporal periods, and Assessment of potential impacts on ungulate populations and habitat. Wildlife Accident Reporting System (WARS) of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. b) Bighorn Sheep and Thinhorn Sheep Key issues of concern: habitat fragmentation of winter ranges, human disturbance on winter, spring and summer ranges, road-kill mortality, disease vectors. Principal sources of information: (Clevenger 1998, Olliff et al. 1999, Canfield et al. 1999, Harper and Eastman 2000) Wild sheep also seem more sensitive to human activities than forest dwelling ungulates, as might be expected by a species living in open habitats. In addition to habitat needs generally described for hoofed mammals, wild sheep have additional needs for escape terrain and for lambing steep cliffs (Olliff et al. 1999, Paquet and Demarchi 1999). Activities that prevent wild sheep from accessing escape terrain or increase time spent in these areas and probably increases stress, and may lower foraging efficiency. Human activities that stress Mountain Sheep include viewing, helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft (Frid 1998, Legg 1998), vehicles and domestic dogs (MacArthur et al. 1982, Krausman and Hervert 1983, Stemp 1983). While occasional exposure to these activities likely has minimal effect on wild sheep, chronic exposure potentially reduces forage efficiency (Stockwell et al. 1991, Bleich et al. 1994) that, in turn, impacts growth and Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 72

73 survival (Geist 1978). Chronic stress can also compromise the immune system in wild sheep, increasing their vulnerability to diseases. Mountain sheep are particularly susceptible to infectious diseases carried by apparently healthy domestic sheep. Frid (1998) suggests a preliminary setback distance of 3.5 km to reduce helicopter disturbance of Dall s sheep in the Yukon. A five-year research program in the Churn Creek area suggests Bighorn Sheep may be as sensitive to helicopter disturbance as Mountain Goats. Bighorns have been observed to flee from helicopters that are 1 to 2 km away (J. Youds, pers. comm.). A recently completed literature review on the effects of helicopters on mountain goats and mountain sheep supports the need for large setback distances (Wilson and Shackleton 2001). Information requirements will likely include those listed above for ungulates but should also include identification and mapping of sensitive sites including escape terrain, lambing habitats, mineral licks and winter ranges. c) Bison Key issues of concern: human activity on winter ranges Principal sources of information: Yellowstone report (Harper et al. 2000, Olliff et al. 1999, Aune 1981) Bison react to humans on foot more quickly than humans on mechanized vehicles, such as snowmobiles. In winter, bison use groomed snowmobile trails as travel routes, and the level of use increases with increasing snow depth. However, bison do not appear to use groomed ski trails to the same extent (Aune 1981). Snowmobilers may cause bison to flee when encountered. Aune (1981) reported that heavy human activity within 63 yards of trails might temporarily displace bison. Wood Bison in British Columbia are Red-listed, and populations are currently being recovered under the direction of both the provincial management plan (Harper et al. 2000) and national recovery efforts (Gates et al., in prep.). Information requirements will likely include those listed above for ungulates but should also include identification and mapping of sensitive sites including calving and rutting habitats and winter ranges. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 73

74 d) Caribou Key issues of concern: habitat fragmentation of winter and summer range, increased human access and activities in remote caribou habitat. Principal sources of information: (Simpson et al. 1997, Simpson and Terry 2000, Canfield et al. 1999) Caribou cover wide elevational and geographical ranges over the course of a year, and this extensive movement puts them into contact with many types of human activities. The two areas of greatest concern for caribou are the calving and late winter ranges. During calving, caribou disperse to more isolated areas, where they are susceptible to impacts of human disturbance. Late winter habitat use in subalpine and alpine areas can be greatly impacted by human activities, particularly in Mountain Caribou populations. Mountain caribou have evolved a strategy of wintering at high elevations to obtain arboreal lichens and, presumably, to reduce their exposure to predation. While the concerns are greatest for mountain caribou, there are several northern caribou herds that are also facing pressure (e.g. Telkwa herd). Improved access has increased chances of illegal harvest of caribou, facilitated by the characteristic unwary behaviour of caribou (Simpson and Woods 1987). The development of new transportation corridors within caribou habitat should be minimized and existing corridors should be made unsuitable as travel routes to reduce the impacts of industrial development on caribou populations (James and Stuart-Smith 2000). Second, increased recreational activity has exposed caribou to greater levels of contact with humans. Simpson and Terry (2000) examined the potential threat of four winter backcountry recreation activities on Mountain Caribou. They rated snowmobiling as very high, heliskiing as high, snowcat skiing as moderate and backcountry skiing as low. The presence of humans in caribou habitat can create stress for caribou and cause them to abandon a habitat, either temporarily or permanently. Like other ungulates, caribou will likely habituate to predictable non-threatening human behaviours if negative associations are avoided. However, sudden loud noises and unpredictable human behaviour typically results in alarm responses and flight. Simulated petroleum exploration in (i.e. loud unpredictable noise) resulted in increased caribou movement and energy expenditure (Bradshaw et al. 1997). Information requirements will likely include those listed above for ungulates but should also include identification and mapping of sensitive areas including calving, early and late winter ranges, and movement corridors will be very important. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 74

75 e) Mountain Goat Key issues of concern: Interruption of seasonal movements between critical habitats, human disturbance, and human access to remote populations. Principal sources of information: Wilson and Shackleton 2001, Varley 1998, Canfield et al. 1999, Cote 1996, Foster and Rahs 1983, Frid 1997, Singer and Doherty 1985, Joslin Of all the ungulate species, mountain goats appear the most sensitive to disturbance, especially by helicopters. In Montana, increased disturbance by helicopters reduced productivity of mountain goats (Joslin 1986). In the Rocky Mountains of Alberta, mountain goats moved in response to helicopters from a distance of at least up to 1.5 km (Cote 1996). In northern British Columbia, Foster and Rahs (1983) reported that goats required a buffer area of 2 km to completely avoid harassment. Cote (1996), Frid (1997) and Varley (1998) recommended that helicopters should maintain a minimum of 2 km horizontal distance to avoid disturbance to mountain goats. An extensive problem analysis and literature review on aircraft disturbance of Mountain Goats supports helicopter buffer areas on the order of 2 km (Wilson and Shackleton 2001). The response of mountain goats to people, traffic and noise has also been examined in summer and in winter. In summer, goats can tolerate foot and vehicular traffic, if they are gradually acclimatized and negative associations are avoided (Penner 1988), especially if the activity is localized and highly predictable, but do not appear to habituate to sudden, unpredictable stimuli such as aircraft over flights or predators. Penner (1988) reported that Mountain Goats accepted indirect, persistent noise (i.e. generator noise) but showed alarm responses to aircraft. Information requirements will likely include those listed above for ungulates. Helicopter based surveys will be required. Identification and mapping of important seasonal mountain goat habitats and game trails are very important. 2. CARNIVORES Carnivores exhibit a wide variety of responses to human activities, which range from being highly sensitive to human disturbance (e.g. grizzly bears) to being well adapted to the presence of humans and human activities (e.g. skunks and coyotes). Claar et al. (1999) provide a recent, comprehensive survey of human disturbance impacts on carnivores. Although they focus on Montana, much of their information and recommendations apply to British Columbia. We did not develop species-specific guidelines for furbearers because their use of habitats tends to be more generalist than specialist. It was felt the general guidelines for all projects and the specific recommendations for conservation of Coarse Woody Debris would minimize and mitigate impacts to furbearer populations in most situations. There may be project Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 75

76 specific exceptions to this generalization, but the lack of specific section on furbearers should in no way be misconstrued that programs to mitigate impacts on furbearing species are not required. a) Badger Key issues of concern: Direct persecution, road-kill mortality, elimination of rodent prey base, and habitat loss through development of grasslands. Principal sources of information: (Rahme et al. 1995, Newhouse and Kinley 2000) This Red-listed carnivore is found mainly in shrub-steppe and dry open forested ecosystems of southern interior British Columbia where they hunt fossorial prey such as ground squirrels and pocket gophers. All biogeoclimatic zones were used in the east Kootenays (Newhouse and Kinley 2000). Distribution of Badger* is likely highly linked to availability of ground-dwelling rodents. Badgers range widely and are susceptible to road-kill mortality as their habitat often occurs along valley bottoms where roads tend to occur. Information needs include identification and mapping of potential habitat within the known range of Badger, documentation of existing or historical populations, and identification of high to moderate quality Badger habitat areas. All evidence of this species should be documented and records on the appropriate RIC form should be submitted to MELP as soon as feasible after discovery (including sightings of individuals, burrows, scats, and tracks). *Location information on this species is classified as sensitive and is only available on a need to know basis from the Regional Endangered Species Specialist (Table 2). b) Fisher Key issues of concern: natal den sites, fragmentation of habitat by logging, overharvest by trappers. Principal sources of information: (Banci 1989, Ruggiero et al. 1994, Olliff et al. 1999, Claar et al. 1999) In their review of Fisher, Claar et al. (1999) noted that the direct effects of recreational activities on this species have not been systematically examined. However, the literature on Fisher suggests that they are adaptable to human activity, with the possible exception of females with kits. Possible indirect effects include loss, degradation or fragmentation of prime habitats and displacement as a result of increased human access. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 76

77 The Fisher is Identified Wildlife under the Forest Practices Code, and special mitigation measures may be required by MELP if high quality fisher habitat is to be impacted. Information needs include identification and mapping of potential habitat, and inventory of populations. c) Wolverine Key issues of concern: Fragmentation of habitat by logging, overharvest by trappers, human disturbance. Principal sources of information: (Ruggiero et al. 1994, Krebs and Lewis 2000, Austin 1998, Conard and Youmans 1999, Weaver et al. 1996) Wolverines occupy large home ranges, and so they are likely to intersect human activities of many sorts, depending on the area. Winter is the critical period for wolverine and other carnivores, and so it is winter activities that can potentially affect wolverine the most, including disrupting foraging behaviour along groomed trails and other travel corridors, and displacement due to noise of machinery or human presence. Wolverines seem to avoid human settlements (Banci 1994). In the northern Columbia Mountains of British Columbia, national parks and unroaded wilderness areas receive high wolverine use, but pressures from commercial backcountry use, snowmobiling, and logging may jeopardize the ability of these high use areas to act as refugia for wolverine populations (Krebs and Lewis 2000). In late winter (Feb 15 Apr 30), reproductive females establish natal dens in areas with little or no human disturbance, in non-forested habitats (avalanche debris or large blocky talus) of upper-elevation forested zones (e.g. ESSFvc)(Krebs and Lewis 2000). Females with kits are extremely vulnerable to human disturbance and will abandon den sites if disturbed (Cannings et al. 1999). Information needs include identification and mapping of potential habitat, and assessments of populations. Special surveys for very important microhabitats such as natal dens and high-use sites may be required. As a Blue-listed wildlife species all sightings or evidence of sign should be reported to MELP. d) Sea Otter Key issues of concern: colonies, aggregations and feeding areas Principal sources of information: Cannings et al Sea Otters are considered Endangered under the BC Wildlife Act and the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada has listed the Sea Otter as Threatened. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 77

78 Heavily exploited for their fur, they were extirpated from Canada by 1911 (Cannings et al. 1999). Reintroductions from have resulted in small, but growing, populations off the west coast of Vancouver Island and at the Hakai Provincial Recreation Area off the central coast of British Columbia. Their preferred habitat is kelp beds in shallow coastal waters with abundant prey such as sea urchins, abalone, crabs and other molluscs. Information needs include identification and mapping of colonies, aggregations, and feeding areas. As an Endangered species all occurrences should be reported to MELP as soon as feasible. e) Cougar Key issues of concern: natal den sites, winter ranges of ungulate prey Principal sources of information: Weaver et al. (1996) and Claar et al. (1999). Cougar appear to tolerate human activity, although data are limited (Claar et al. 1999, Weaver et al. 1996). Several studies demonstrated that cougar could use areas of relatively heavy human use, but that they tend to be active during periods when humans are least active at night and in the early morning. Females may move to less busy areas to give birth and when kits are very young. The effect of human activity on prey species is an indirect factor to consider when assessing cougar-human interactions. Earlier studies in Arizona and Utah, found both resident and successful dispersing cougars establish homes ranges with little or no human residences and lower than average road densities (Van Dyke et al. 1986). Cougars appear to habituate to humans, and can become food conditioned. This combination has been implicated in assessing the risk of cougar attacks, but Beier (1992) claimed that no evidence substantiated an increase in attacks to habituated cougars. Information needs include an assessment of potential for cougars to occur within or near the development area, and the risk of human/cougar encounters, especially on ungulate winter ranges. An assessment of impacts on ungulate populations is needed to determine potential impacts on cougar populations. f) Lynx Key issues of concern: Range of landscape conditions required to produce adequate prey, human disturbance in movement corridors between larger reserves of habitat. Principal sources of information: (Claar et al. 1999, Mowatt et al. 1999, Olliff et al. 1999; Apps et al. 2000) Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 78

79 Most major development projects are more likely to have indirect affects on lynx natality and survival than they are to have direct affects. Human activities and associated infrastructures have the potential to reduce the amount of suitable habitat available to lynx in two major ways. First, buildings and transportation routes may destroy and fragment habitat. Second, lynx may avoid otherwise suitable habitat because of unfamiliar sights, sounds and smells associated with human activity. This avoidance reduces habitat effectiveness, which in turn, could reduce hunting success and so reduce food intake. Taken to extreme situations, this could lead to reproductive failure or reduced litter sizes, or increased levels of mortality among kittens. Human activities are that are dispersed and unpredictable (from the lynx s perspective) are more likely to result in flight responses than repetitive, predictable activities. Conversely, lynx do become habituated to human activity in some instances, such as around sources of food at garbage dumps. It is thought that lynx populations in the southern Canadian Rocky Mountains occur at low, stable densities but occur in a patchy distribution (Apps et al. 2000). This suggests that developments that occur in high quality lynx habitat may have disproportionate effects compared to developments elsewhere. Information needs include an assessment of the impact of the development on movements and occurrence of lynx, the impact on lynx prey such as snowshoe hare, and if impacts will be felt at a regional population level. g) Gray Wolf Key issues of concern: fragmentation of habitat by roads, human disturbance, road-kill mortality, and winter ranges of ungulate prey Principal sources of information: Olliff et al. 1999, Weaver et al. 1996, Clevenger 1998, Claar et al In a review paper, Weaver et al. (1996) note that most field researchers have found that wolves tend to avoid human settlements, and to exhibit slight aversion within about 1 km of open roads, and to use gated and unplowed roads readily. Among their cited papers were Thurber et al. (1994) who found that radio-collared wolves in Alaska avoided accessible roads but were attracted to gated and gravel roads that received little use. Also, Paquet (1993) observed that wolves avoided exploiting their prey near clusters of human habitation and development, especially in narrow river valleys. Weaver et al. (1996) also remarked that wolves are sensitive to human disturbance near active den sites from mid- April to July, but provided no evidence in support of this statement. Beyond the problem of disturbance and displacement, domestic dogs also present a significant risk of transmitting infectious diseases and parasites to wolves (Joslin and Youmans 1999). Information needs include an inventory of wolf packs that frequent the project area, an assessment and mapping of habitat quality, surveys for special habitat features such as Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 79

80 natal and summer dens, and an assessment of the effect of road development on predation by wolves of ungulates. 3. OTHER MAMMALS a) Red- and Blue-listed Bats Key issues of concern: Destruction of maternal and overwintering sites, disturbance at roosts, habitat loss, and pesticide application. Principal sources of information: Firman et al. 1993, Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, Barclay and Brigham 1996, Cannings et al. 1999; Davis et al British Columbia is home to 16 species of bats (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993). Most are migratory, arriving in the Province in spring and leaving in the fall: exact timing of these seasonal movements varies with species and location within the province. Thus, it is during their period of residency that concern exists regarding impacts of major developments. While migratory bats are in British Columbia, their principal activity is birthing and raising offspring. The important consideration is for the sites used by bats to give birth and raise young (maternity colonies), and the sites used by bats for daytime roosts. A few species of bats are year-round residents, and so the concern about roosting and den sites exists throughout the year. Hibernation is critical period in the life cycle of bats, a time they typically lose 20 to 40% of their body weight and severely deplete their reserves of body fat (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993). Thus are extremely vulnerable to human disturbance in the caves, mines, buildings, tree cavities, tree bark, and rock crevices they use as winter hibernacula. Disturbance from hibernation uses up valuable fat reserves prematurely, with the result that bats disturbed from hibernation may die later of starvation (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993). The sensitivity of bats to human disturbance at roost sites is well established (Hickman et al. 1999). Information needs include the documentation of species that occur within a project area, identification and mapping of sensitive habitats, including hibernacula, maternal colonies, roost sites, and critical foraging habitats. b) Red- and Blue-listed Rodents Key issues of concern: Habitat loss for small, isolated populations in rare habitats due to human development or activities, rodent control. Principal sources of information: Zuleta and Galindo-Leal 1994, Hickman et al Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 80

81 Red- and Blue-listed Rodents include 16 species and subspecies of mammals (Appendix 1). Most are small, such as chipmunks, voles, lemmings and mice, and they occupy a wide range of habitats from sea level to alpine and from shrub-steppe to evergreen forests. For such a diverse group of animals it is difficult generalize about the impacts of major developments, so the appropriate course of action is to first identify which species likely occur in the area of activity. The next logical step is to then determine the critical needs of those species present, and then develop specific guidelines to minimize or prevent impacts. Notwithstanding the need for a site- and species-specific approach, Hickman et al. (1999) do offer some useful general considerations: In alpine habitats, small rodents can be affected by even minor levels of human use due to the ecological sensitivity of these high elevation ecosystems. Local extinctions can be serious because alpine species are often isolated from each other, given the discontinuous distribution of alpine areas especially in the southern half of the province. In bog habitats, snowmobiles and other OHVs can damage bog vegetation that could degrade habitats for some species. Trails and roads that divert or modify drainage also can seriously degrade bog habitats. Snow cover is important to the winter survival of many rodents and snow compaction by snowmobiles can markedly increase the mortality of some small mammals. Information needs include the documentation and inventory of species that occur within a project area, identification and mapping of sensitive habitats and special habitat features. c) Vancouver Island Marmot Key issues of concern: Impacts on colonies from human development and activity, disturbance, logging or other clearings that act as mortality sinks Principal sources of information: Bryant 1997, 2000; Janz et al. 1998, Elner 2000, Munro et al The Vancouver Island marmot is among the world s most rare mammals: fewer than 100 individuals exist in the wild (Elner 2000). These marmots live in small colonies in steep, unforested patches at or just below treeline. Marmots are hibernators. They emerge from their winter dens in May, give birth to litters in June and enter hibernation in September. Winter recreational activities appear to have no impact on marmot and there is no evidence that summer recreational activities affect marmots. Habitat changes resulting from ski developments also appear to have minimal impact on marmots. In fact, one Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 81

82 colony of marmots lives on a ski run at a popular Vancouver Island ski resort (Bryant 1997). Notwithstanding the lack of evidence that human activities adversely affect marmots, the extremely precarious state of the species means that any activities must be avoided (Janz et al. 1998). As noted by Bryant (1997:16), The potential exists that some marmot colonies could be loved to death by ecotourists, but I consider this risk to be small. Among the reasons cited for this statement is the fact that most marmot colonies are unpublicized, difficult to access and located on private forestry lands (Bryant, ibid). Information needs include documentation and mapping of all occurrences, colonies, and habitat used by marmots. All occurrences should be reported to MELP as soon as feasible. 4. BIRDS The province of British Columbia has jurisdictional responsibility for most bird species in British Columbia, except for birds listed under the Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994) that are the legal responsibility of the federal government. a) Red- and Blue-Listed Seabirds Key issues of concern: Integrity of breeding colonies, contamination of marine environments with toxins, human disturbance at breeding colonies, mortality related to oil spills, gill nets and lighting. Principal sources of information: (Vermeer et al. 1993) Colonial-nesting seabirds tend to nest on small unvegetated coastal rocks and islands or small to medium-sized forested islands (Campbell et al. 1990b). They are vulnerable at this time to human-related disturbances because large numbers of pairs (100s to 10,000s) may nest at one location and one disturbance may impact the entire colony. Species such as cormorants and murres are particularly susceptible to disturbance effects as they nest on cliffs, rock bluffs, or open islands and when adults are flushed from nests eggs or young are very vulnerable to predation by gulls. Other species such as Ancient Murrelet, Cassin s Auklet and Tufted Puffin are restricted to only a few breeding islands (Campbell et al. 1990b). Although they nest in underground burrows they are extremely vulnerable to introduced mammalian predators such as raccoons and Norway rats (Gaston 1992; Hartman et al. 1997). The Red-listed Marbled Murrelet nests in large coniferous trees in coastal old-growth forests and is a key Identified Wildlife species under the Forest Practices Code (Province of British Columbia 1999). All Red and Blue-listed seabirds are very vulnerable to oil spills at ocean staging areas near breeding sites, at favoured feeding areas, or anywhere concentrations occur (e.g., Rodway et al. 1989; Ralph et al. 1995). Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 82

83 Information needs include identification and mapping of breeding colonies, breeding habitat, and nearshore foraging areas. Document and report any known species occurrences of Red-listed seabirds. Assessments of impacts of human disturbance on breeding success and foraging behaviour should be conducted if development poses any threat. Guidelines for recreational viewing of seabirds are currently (2001) being developed by the Canadian Wildlife Service. b) Great Blue Heron Key issues of concern: Contamination of marine environments with toxins, breeding habitat loss, human disturbance at breeding colonies Principal sources of information: (Butler 1991, 1997, 1999, Vennesland 2000) Great Blue Herons* are a colonial-nesting species that forages primarily in freshwater and marine environments, especially along margins and shorelines. They are year-round residents over most of the southern half of British Columbia. The nest structures of Great Blue Herons are protected under Section 34 of the British Columbia Wildlife Act. Heron colonies occur in treetops in numbers that range from a few to more than 150 (Butler 1997). The location of colonies shift from time-to-time, but the presence of suitable trees is a key habitat requirement. A key concern for herons is the need to maintain the structure and integrity of forests used for nesting and to minimize disturbance of nesting birds. Information needs include identification and mapping of nesting colonies and foraging areas within 1 km of development. * Location information on this species is classified as sensitive and is only available on a need to know basis from the Regional Endangered Species Specialist (Table 2). c) American Avocet Key issues of concern: Human development or disturbance at breeding colonies Principal sources of information: (Robinson et al. 1997, Gebauer 2000) The American Avocet is an unusual shorebird in that it breeds in loose colonies (Robinson et al. 1997). Only two breeding colonies are known to exist in British Columbia, but other sites seem to provide suitable habitat and new colonies could develop in the future (Gebauer 2000). This shorebird is vulnerable to pollution of wetlands and disturbance of breeding colonies. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 83

84 Information needs include identification and mapping of nesting colonies and foraging areas. d) Long-billed Curlew Key issues of concern: Grassland habitat loss to human development Principal sources of information: (Cannings 1999) Information needs include mapping of all breeding territories, nest sites, and mapping of potential habitat. e) Upland Sandpiper Key issues of concern: Grassland habitat loss or degradation due to human development Principal sources of information: (Hooper 1997) Information needs include mapping of all breeding territories, nest sites, and mapping of potential habitat. 5. FRESHWATER NESTING BIRDS a) American White Pelican Key issues of concern: Human disturbance at breeding colonies, maintaining quality of foraging lakes Principal sources of information: (Dunbar 1984) American White Pelicans in British Columbia nest in only one location, at Stum Lake, 70 km northwest of Williams Lake. Although pelicans have been observed at over 50 lakes on the Fraser Plateau during the breeding season, less than half of these are regularly used by significant numbers of foraging pelicans. The single breeding population is Red-listed and designated as Endangered in British Columbia (Fraser et al. 1999). Although the nesting area is protected in a Provincial Park, foraging sites of breeding adults are not currently protected. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 84

85 Information needs include documentation of any occurrences and reporting to MELP as soon as feasible. Foraging and loafing habitats on lakes and streams within 5 km of area to be developed should be identified and mapped. b) Harlequin Duck Key issues of concern: Human disturbance on breeding streams, loss of riparian habitat on breeding streams, contamination of coastal marine environments with toxins, oil spills Principal sources of information: (Breault and Savard 1991, Smith 2000; Smith et al. 2000) Harlequin Ducks winter in marine areas of coastal British Columbia, and breed mostly near streams in the interior, often at elevations above 1000 m (Campbell et al. 1990a). Within their forested breeding range, they prefer fast-flowing shallow streams and rivers with intact riparian banks (Hill and Wright 2000). Harlequin Ducks are known to be significantly disturbed and displaced by water craft and rafts (see Joslin and Youmans 1999), with the result that river rafting in Jasper National Park was substantially reduced to protect the species during the nesting and fledging period (Clarkson 1992). Altered stream flow regimes associated with hydroelectric developments have the potential to negatively affect nesting broods (Hill and Wright 2000). Information needs include identification and mapping of nesting, foraging and loafing habitats. Moulting and wintering sites on coastal islets should be identified and mapped. c) Red- and Blue-listed Marsh Birds Key issues of concern: Human disturbance at breeding colonies, loss of wetland habitat Principal sources of information: (Hamann et al. 1999) Colonial-nesting Red and Blue-listed marsh birds such as Western Grebe, Forster s Tern, or Caspian Tern breed at only one to a few localities in British Columbia (Campbell et al. 1990a,b), and are therefore susceptible to extirpation from localized events such as development, pollution, or disturbance. Others such as American Bittern, Green Heron, and Sandhill Crane nest singly, but occupy relatively rare wetland habitats (Campbell et al. 1990a,b). Western Grebe, American Bittern, and Sandhill Crane are Identified Wildlife under the Forest Practices Code. Information needs include identification and mapping of colony sites, potential nesting and foraging habitat, and nearshore marine wintering areas (for Western Grebe only). Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 85

86 d) Western Grebe Key issues of concern: Human disturbance at breeding colonies, maintaining breeding wetland quality, contamination of coastal marine environments with toxins, oil spills Principal sources of information: Burger (1997). Western grebes are colonial nesting birds breed on large freshwater marshes and lakes and, because breeding is asynchronous, breeding colonies are active from late April through late August. Breeding habitat is characterized by extensive emergent vegetation and stable water levels from nest building to incubation. Grebes are vulnerable to human disturbance and habitat alterations. The wash of power-boats and close approaches by people in canoes, other or as swimmers, will cause grebes to vacate nests, leaving eggs and young exposure to predation. In British Columbia, human disturbance has caused the loss of at least three nesting areas. Wintering aggregations of Western Grebes can reach 10,000 or more individuals, making them vulnerable to events such as oil and chemical spills. Information needs include identification and mapping of nesting colonies and foraging areas within 1 km of development. 6. RAPTORS BIRDS OF PREY Most concern for raptors focuses on the impact of human activities during the breeding and rearing season, and the loss of nest sites. Raptors are sensitive to disturbance and although some species will actively defend their nest sites, given sufficient disturbance, raptors will abandon nests. From a conservation perspective, the two key groups of raptors of particular concern are those that nest on cliffs and those that nest in trees. a) Red- and Blue-listed Cliff-nesting Raptors Key issues of concern: Human disturbance at nesting cliffs, loss of foraging habitat, and organochlorine accumulation in tissues. Principal sources of information: (APLIC 1996 Hamann et al. 1999) There are four species or subspecies of cliff-nesting raptors that are of conservation concern, that is, they are either red- or blue-listed (Table 6). Like other raptors, these species are extremely sensitive to bioaccumulative organochlorine pesticides (e.g. DDT). These species lay their eggs on cliffs, usually with little effort at nest building. Generally, the season for egg laying and rearing of young extends from April through to September. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 86

87 During this period, the birds are sensitive to disturbance whether from the air, via aircraft and hang gliders, or from the ground, by rock-climbers. Little information exists on the sensitivity of these raptors to these types of disturbances, but given their conservation status, a precautionary approach is warranted. Table 6. Cliff-nesting raptors of conservation concern. Species Conservatio n status in B.C. Nest site features Prairie Falcon Red-listed Shallow cavities on bare rock on protected cliff Peregrine Falcon, anatum subspecies Red-listed ledges Hollows on inaccessible cliff ledges Remarks Nest sites frequently reused; seldom builds nests Rarely on large brokentopped tree or ledges of tall city buildings Peregrine Falcon, pealei subspecies Blue-listed Hollows on inaccessible cliff ledges Occurs on Queen Charlotte and Vancouver Islands Gyrfalcon Blue-listed Rocky crags or shelves Occasionally nest in trees, using ravens nests Location information on these species is classified as sensitive and is only available on a need to know basis from the Regional Endangered Species Specialist (Table 2). Information needs include documentation of nest sites, identification and mapping of nesting and foraging habitat, and assessments of potential impacts on nest sites or breeding success. All occurrences should be reported to MELP as soon as feasible. b) Red- and Blue-listed Tree-nesting Raptors Key issues of concern: Human disturbance at nests, loss or fragmentation of foraging and nesting habitat, organochlorine accumulation in tissues. Principal sources of information: (APLIC 1996, Bird et al. 1996, Hamann et al. 1999) There are five species or subspecies of tree-nesting raptors that are of conservation concern (Red- and Blue-listed Surface-nesting Seabirds Include Brandt s Cormorant, Pelagic Cormorant - pelagicus subspecies, Double-crested Cormorant, Common Murre, Thick-billed Murre, and Horned Puffin (Fraser et al. 1999). Red- and Blue-listed Tree-nesting Raptors, Appendix 1) or have high public visibility. These species lay their eggs in trees, and their stick nests are often prominent. Generally, the season for egg laying and rearing of young extends from April through to September. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 87

88 Table 7. Tree-nesting raptors of conservation concern or special interest. Species Conservatio n status in Nest features Remarks B.C. Bald Eagle Not at-risk Large sticks in tall tree Nests often re-used; high visibility with the public Red-listed Stick platform in tall tree Usually uses conifers; often several sites Northern Goshawk, laingi subspecies Broad-winged Hawk Red-listed Sticks and twigs in either conifer or deciduous trees Swainson s Hawk Red-listed Stick nest Nest often re-used Ferruginous Hawk* Red-listed Stick nest Nests repeatedly re-used; also nests in bushes and on the ground * Sometimes nest on cliffs. Information needs include documentation of nest sites, identification and mapping of nesting and foraging habitat, and assessments of potential impacts on nest sites or breeding success. All occurrences should be reported to MELP as soon as feasible. Northern Goshawk Northern Goshawks* are forest predators, usually associated with mature and old growth forests. Because of their apparent dependence on old forests, they have been the subject of intensive research and conservation concern, e.g., Ethier (1999), Iverson et al. (1996). They feed on forest-dwelling birds and mammals, ranging in size from varied thrush and red squirrels to grouse and hares. The key issues for this species are disturbance during the nesting and rearing season, and nest sites and habitat make-up of post-fledging areas. The nesting and rearing season for Goshawks extends from April-September. Northern Goshawks nest in large trees, and actively defend these nest sites. Nesting birds are sensitive to human disturbance, and will attack and call loudly when people approach within approximately 12-hectare area around the nest sites. Research results indicate that disturbance will cause Goshawks to abandon nests. * Location information on this species is classified as sensitive and is only available on a need to know basis from the Regional Endangered Species Specialist (Table 2). Bald Eagle Bald Eagles are a highly visible species to the public. The key issues of concern relate to nest sites (that are usually located in riparian areas), nighttime communal roosts in fall and winter, concentrated food sources (salmon spawning areas, ungulate winter ranges at low elevations). The following information is taken principally from Olliff et al. (1999). Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 88

89 Human activities have various effects on Bald Eagles. In the breeding season, temporary human activities influence nest building, egg laying and incubation (Stalmaster and Newman 1978). In winter human activities can influence feeding at a time when Bald Eagles are food-stressed. The responses of eagles vary among individuals and among populations, but documented reactions range from avoidance and displacement, to abandonment of nests and reproductive failure due to prolonged absences of adults from young birds at the nest. Bald Eagles change their feeding activities and show shifts in spatio-temporal use patterns. High levels of human activities can increase energy demands, and can increase mortality rates (Stalmaster and Newman 1978). The nest structures of Bald Eagles are protected under Section 34 of the British Columbia Wildlife Act. Broad-winged Hawk, Swainson s Hawk, and Ferruginous Hawk* All three species are tree-nesters and consequently, any activities that destroy current and future nest trees could have adverse impacts on their populations. * Location information on these species is classified as sensitive and is only available on a need to know basis from the Regional Endangered Species Specialist (Table 2). c) Red- and Blue-listed Tree-nesting Owls Key issues of concern: Loss and fragmentation of habitat, Principal sources of information: (Hamann et al. 1999) There are five species or subspecies of Red- and Blue-listed Tree-nesting Owls (Appendix 1) that are of conservation concern in British Columbia (Table 8). Table 8. Tree-nesting owls of conservation concern (Red- or Blue-listed). Species Conservation status Nest site features Spotted Owl Red-listed Tree cavity or abandoned hawk s nest Western Screech-Owl, macfarlanei subspecies Red-listed Natural cavity or deserted woodpecker hole Western Screech-Owl, saturatus subspecies Blue-listed Natural cavity or deserted woodpecker hole Northern Pygmy-Owl, swarthi subspecies Blue-listed Natural cavity or deserted woodpecker hole Flammulated Owl Blue-listed Hollow tree or deserted woodpecker hole Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 89

90 Information needs include documentation of nest sites, identification and mapping of nesting and foraging habitat, and assessments of potential impacts on nest sites or breeding success. All occurrences should be reported to MELP as soon as feasible. d) Short-eared Owl and Burrowing Owl Key issues of concern: Loss and fragmentation of foraging, nesting and wintering habitat, human disturbance of nesting areas. Principal sources of information: (Holt and Leasure 1993, Cadman 1994) Short-eared Owls and Burrowing Owls nest in open treeless areas such as grasslands, rangelands, dry marshes, farmlands, brushy fields and forest clearings. Winter habitats for Short-eared Owls are concentrated in the lower Fraser River valley in coastal grasslands and old-field habitats, and Burrowing Owls are migratory and do not remain in British Columbia in the winter (Fraser et al. 1999). Information needs include documentation of nest sites, identification and mapping of nesting and foraging habitat, and assessments of potential impacts on nest sites or breeding success. All occurrences should be reported to MELP as soon as feasible. 7. GROUSE With the exception of two subspecies of White-tailed Ptarmigan and Sharp-tailed Grouse, most grouse species are widespread and abundant, and therefore little concern exists for the impacts of most major projects on the more common species. a) Sharp-tailed Grouse columbianus subspecies Key issues of concern: Loss and fragmentation of grassland habitats, lekking grounds, nesting habitat, and critical winter habitat. Principal sources of information: (Ritcey 1995, Hamann et al. 1999) Sharp-tailed Grouse* are a Blue-listed species with relatively low populations and restricted distributions. Of particular concern is the need to minimize habitat damage and prevent disturbance of the lek sites where males perform courtship displays in the breeding season (Ritcey 1995, Fraser et al. 1999). Females avoid disturbed leks (Baydeck and Hein 1987), and in Idaho, over-enthusiastic photographers have caused grouse to abandon leks. Information needs include identification and mapping of leks, nesting areas and critical winter habitats. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 90

91 * Location information on this species is classified as sensitive and is only available on a need to know basis from the Regional Endangered Species Specialist (Table 2). b) White-tailed Ptarmigan saxatilis subspecies Key issues of concern: nesting habitat, critical winter habitat Principal sources of information: (Campbell et al. 1990b) White-tailed Ptarmigan saxatilis subspecies are a Blue-listed species with relatively low populations and distribution restricted to the higher elevations of central Vancouver Island. Information needs include inventory and mapping of occurrences and potential habitat. 8. WHITE-THROATED SWIFT Key issues of concern: human disturbance of cliff nesting sites Principal sources of information: (Summers 1995; Richardson 2000) The White-throated Swift nests on sheer cliffs along some southern interior valleys of British Columbia (Campbell et al. 1990b). Primary concerns include impacts from recreational rock climbers on nesting cliffs (disturbance and breeding success issues), and development of cliffs for rock quarries or development of facilities adjacent to cliffs. Information needs include identification and mapping of nesting cliffs. 9. RED- AND BLUE-LISTED WOODPECKERS Key issues of concern: Loss of nesting habitat, particularly individual trees with very specific characteristics Principal sources of information: (Cooper 1995, Cannings 1995, Cooper et al. 1998, Cooper and Beauchesne 2000) Red- and Blue-listed Woodpeckers tend to depend on trees and forests with specific characteristics for nesting sites and nesting habitat. Potential nest trees are usually relatively rare across the landscape and are often subject to harvesting for timber or firewood, or are cut because they are perceived to be diseased and/or pose a safety hazard. Recruitment trees are rarely available as shortened logging rotations prevent trees from growing old enough to exhibit certain characteristics necessary for potential nest trees. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 91

92 Information needs include inventory, documentation and mapping of nest trees, and potential nesting habitat. All occurrences should be reported to MELP as soon as feasible. 10. PASSERINE BIRDS - SONGBIRDS a) Red- and Blue-listed Songbirds Key issues of concern: Loss and fragmentation of breeding habitat, Principal sources of information: (Campbell et al. 2001). General information needs include identification and mapping of nesting and foraging habitats. Document and report any known species occurrences to MELP as soon as feasible. b) Canyon Wren Key issues of concern: human disturbance of cliff nesting sites Principal sources of information: (Cannings 1992, Hamann et al. 1999) Few specific studies have examined impacts on Canyon Wren. In Joshua Tree National Park, California, Camp and Knight (1998) examined bird communities in relation to three levels of rock climbing: unclimbed cliffs, moderate-use cliffs and popular cliffs. Although the sample size was small, Canyon Wrens were only observed at unclimbed sites: only three other of the 33 species had a similar distribution. The authors did not provide any guidelines about managing rock climbing, but they recommended that programs be implemented to monitor the use of cliffs by climbers and to evaluate spatial and temporal changes in number of birds, including changes in the number of invasive species. Information needs include documentation of nest sites, identification and mapping of nesting and foraging habitat, and assessments of potential impacts on nest sites or breeding success. All occurrences should be reported to MELP as soon as feasible. c) Bobolink Key issues of concern: Mowing of fields used for nesting Principal sources of information: (Campbell et al. 2001) The Bobolink is a migratory, blue-listed species. It nests in hayfields and moist meadows, and can therefore be affected by the timing of hay cropping during incubation. Fraser et Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 92

93 al. (1999) suggest that mowing be delayed until after birds leave in August and that the use of pesticides on breeding grounds should be avoided. Information needs include documentation of nest sites, identification and mapping of nesting and foraging habitat, and assessments of potential impacts on nest sites or breeding success. All occurrences should be reported to MELP as soon as feasible. 11. REPTILES a) Painted Turtle Key issues of concern: Contamination of wetlands with toxic chemicals, illegal collection of individuals, road-kill mortality, loss of terrestrial nesting habitat. Principal sources of information: (Maxell and Hokit 1999, Joslin and Youman 1999) The Painted Turtle* is widespread in southeastern North America, but is restricted to valleys and lowlands across southern BC, from Vancouver Island to the East Kootenay, and north to Williams Lake. The species lays eggs in May or June in a nest dug in sandygravelly soils near water. Individuals often move between summer and winter hibernating ponds. Turtles hibernate in bottom mud of lakes and ponds and emerge with warming water temperatures. Where motorized vehicles bisect travel corridors used by painted turtles between their summer and winter habitats, there is a risk that animals will be crushed. As well, activities that impact water quality of both summer and winter waterbodies will adversely affect turtles. Information needs include identification and mapping of terrestrial nesting, and aquatic habitats. * Location information on this species is classified as sensitive and is only available on a need to know basis from the Regional Endangered Species Specialist (Table 2). b) Red- and Blue-listed Snakes Key issues of concern: Loss of winter den sites to development or persecution, killing of individuals. Principal sources of information: (Charland et al. 1993, Spalding 1993, Cannings et al. 1999) Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 93

94 There are three red-listed snakes; Sharptail Snake, Night Snake, and Gopher Snake - catenifer subspecies, and four blue-listed snakes; Rubber Boa, Racer, Western Rattlesnake and Gopher Snake -deserticola subspecies*. Except for the Sharptail Snake and Gopher Snake -catenifer subspecies, most of the snakes at risk in British Columbia occur in the southern interior of the Province, although their individual distributions vary somewhat. All of these snakes den in winter hibernacula, and most winter communally, sometimes with other species. They emerge in the spring and disperse to summer feeding areas. These wintering sites are critical for these snakes to cope with cold winter temperatures, and so precautions are required to prevent damage to hibernacula. As well, it is important to minimize human disturbance of emerging snakes. Information needs include identification and mapping of denning (hibernacula), nesting and important foraging habitats. As well, likely snake movement corridors that cross road and access rights-of-way should also be identified to allow implementation of appropriate mitigation techniques during construction and operation of facilities. * Location information on these species is classified as sensitive and is only available on a need to know basis from the Regional Endangered Species Specialist (Table 2). 12. AMPHIBIANS Key issues of concern: Degradation of habitat by logging, agricultural practices, and general environmental pollution. Most amphibians require water for all or part of their life cycle. They breathe through their skin, which must remain moist for this process to occur. There are six species of Red- and Blue-listed Amphibians and all are extremely sensitive to changes in environmental conditions such as water temperature, ph, turbidity, and increased loads of toxic chemicals in herbicides, pesticides, or industrial wastes and nitrates in fertilizers. Beside protecting important breeding and foraging habitats, conservation efforts must minimize or eliminate negative impacts to water chemistry and quality caused by major project developments. Information needs include inventory and documentation of breeding and overwintering sites, mapping of sites and potential habitat, and assessments of potential impacts including downstream effects. a) Coeur d Alene Salamander Key issues of concern: breeding habitat, wintering areas. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 94

95 Principal sources of information: Cannings et al The Coeur d Alene Salamander* is a red-listed species in British Columbia that occurs as small, disjunct populations in southeastern British Columbia. Its habitat requirements include wet areas, such as wet seeps, waterfall splash zones and streamside riparian zones. As well, this salamander requires rock formations with deep clefts that provide protection from hot dry temperatures in summer, and freezing temperatures in winter. Activities that affect water quality and riparian habitats can be deleterious to this species (Cannings et al. 1999). Thus human activities that modify water quality (e.g., improper treatment of liquid wastes), and habitat composition (e.g., road construction), expose this species to additional risks. This sensitivity is exacerbated by their fragmented population structure: small, isolated populations are more prone to extinction than larger populations, and re-colonization of extirpated populations is problematic. Information needs include inventory and documentation of breeding and overwintering sites, mapping of sites and potential habitat, and assessments of potential impacts including downstream effects. Likely frog movement corridors that cross road and access rights-of-way should be identified to allow implementation of appropriate mitigation techniques during construction and operation of facilities. * Location information on this species is classified as sensitive and is only available on a need to know basis from the Regional Endangered Species Specialist (Table 2). b) Northern Leopard Frog Key issues of concern: wetlands Principal sources of information: Cannings et al Historically, this species occurred in the Okanagan Valley and in the East Kootenays. Northern leopard frogs* have disappeared from all previously known locations, and presently occur only in the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area. Given that this is a protected area, there is little concern about the impacts of major development projects. However, previously occupied habitat should not be overlooked as it provides the areas for this species to become re-established, whether by natural processes or by translocation through recovery efforts. Information needs include inventory and documentation of breeding and overwintering sites, mapping of sites and potential habitat, and assessments of potential impacts including downstream effects. Likely frog movement corridors that cross road and access Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 95

96 rights-of-way should be identified to allow implementation of appropriate mitigation techniques during construction and operation of facilities. * Location information on this species is classified as sensitive and is only available on a need to know basis from the Regional Endangered Species Specialist (Table 2). c) Tailed Frog Key issues of concern: breeding streams, water quality and stream stability Principal sources of information: Cannings et al Tailed frogs* occur in the Coast and Cascade Mountain Ranges of western British Columbia, and in two drainages in the extreme southeastern corner of the province. This species lives in cool, permanent mountain streams with stable substrates and narrow temperature regimes (Cannings et al. 1999). The coastal population is Blue-listed and the Kootenay population is Red-listed. Activities that damage the integrity of streams will adversely affect tailed frogs. Actions that damage riparian vegetation and in-stream activities can increase sediment loads, increase water temperatures and de-stabilize stream channels all of these are detrimental to the well-being of this species. Information needs include inventory and documentation of breeding and overwintering sites, mapping of sites and potential habitat, and assessments of potential impacts including downstream effects. Likely frog movement corridors that cross road and access rights-of-way should be identified to allow implementation of appropriate mitigation techniques during construction and operation of facilities. * Location information on this species is classified as sensitive and is only available on a need to know basis from the Regional Endangered Species Specialist (Table 2). 13. COMPONENTS OF WILDLIFE HABITAT a) Sensitive Wetlands Key issues of concern: loss or degradation of wetland habitat Principal sources of information: Mackenzie and Shaw 2000 Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 96

97 Wetlands are relatively rare and valuable habitats for wildlife. Many species of amphibians and aquatic birds and mammals are restricted to these habitats. Threats include destruction or degradation from human activities, fragmentation, and pollution. Necessary permits and/or licences with specific legal conditions related to water for road and access development, commercial water use, sewage disposal, and water diversion for hydroelectric power development must be obtained. b) Coarse Woody Debris The objective of guidelines for coarse woody debris is to maintain the natural supply of large standing dead trees and large fallen trees as structural components of wildlife habitat. Information requirement include the amount and distribution of coarse woody debris using standard RIC inventory methods, if it is determined to be significant component of wildlife habitat in the project area. 14. PLANTS AND PLANT COMMUNITIES a) Red-listed Plants and Plant Communities The objective of guidelines is to preserve, protect and restore Red-listed Plants and Redlisted Plant Communities*. Information needs include identification of plant or community occurrence and condition, mapping of occurrences, and assessment of impacts, both within the project area and in the general vicinity of the project area. All occurrences should be reported to MELP as soon as feasible. * The location and description of Red-listed Plant Communities is available from the British Columbia Conservation Data Centre in Victoria, BC. b) Riparian Ecosystems The objective of guidelines is to minimize disturbance of riparian ecosystems. c) Alpine and Subalpine Meadows The objective of guidelines is to maintain natural vegetation and ecosystem function within alpine and subalpine meadows. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 97

98 VII. WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT MITIGATION MEASURES FOR EA PROJECTS In this section we discuss guidelines for mitigating negative impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat. These guidelines are general to specific in nature and are intended to provide proponents a framework for the development of project-specific mitigation measures. We discuss guidelines at three levels: generic guidelines, project specific guidelines, and species-specific guidelines. As a coarse filter, the highest-level guidelines are generic and are generally applicable to all wildlife and all project categories. At the next level, potential mitigation strategies are presented that are specific to particular project categories (e.g. mining) but are widely applicable to most wildlife species. The lowest-level or fine filter guidelines are specific for species or species groups, and are also broken down by project category as appropriate. Not all potential wildlife mitigation measures and strategies are included in this section, and some of the approaches outlined below will work better or worse depending on the site-specific circumstances associated with each project. The idea was to provide an overall view of the potential mitigation strategies that are tailored for different projects and different species. Over time, effectiveness monitoring and applied wildlife research should bring forth new information on the response of wildlife and wildlife populations to major development projects. This new information will be incorporated into these guidelines as it become available. Normally appropriate and approved mitigation strategies and measures become incorporated into an Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) that is part of the Project Approval Certificate. All workers involved in the project from preconstruction, through construction and operation should receive training on relevant components of the EPP. Once mitigation strategies and measures are part of Project Approval Certificate they become legally binding. For the purposes of these mitigation measures the phases of major project development have been broken down into three components: P Preconstruction, which includes the initial project planning activities such as conceptual planning, siting, and pre- and post-application project design. C Construction, which includes all phases of access development, construction scheduling, site preparation and development, road building, and construction and assembly of buildings and structures. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 98

99 O Operation, which includes all post-construction activities including maintenance and abandonment of workings, structures and buildings. For the higher-level generic and project-specific mitigation measures, we have labeled the typical development phase at which the measure would usually apply. Thus at the end of these measures a letter code corresponding to a project development phase will appear, P for preconstruction, C for construction and O for operation, as above. This does not mean that in all situations and circumstance these are the only phases that certain mitigation measures could be appropriately implemented. The timing of application of mitigation measures could vary considerably depending on the site-specific circumstances associated with individual projects. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 99

100 A. GENERIC WILDLIFE MITIGATION MEASURES FOR EA PROJECTS For all EA projects there are a number of generic guidelines that likely will be useful to mitigate impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat. The following is a list of these guidelines: 1. Avoid concentrations of wildlife, rare plants and plant communities in determining locations and routes for development (P). 2. Carefully consider future and existing activities to avoid disturbing or removing important habitat components (P, C). 3. Avoid completely the alteration of habitats of endangered species that have very restricted ranges (P, C). 4. Cluster new developments and facilities to reduce overall size of the habitat loss footprint and concentrate the area of human Disturbance(P, C). 5. Within projects, place necessary new developments within or immediately adjacent to existing developments or facilities so that human impacts are clustered (P, C). 6. Use existing roads and rights-of-way to access the project site whenever and wherever possible. 7. Salvage and translocate rare and endangered plants (P, C). 8. Conserve and salvage topsoil for later use in habitat restoration. Salvaged topsoil conserves the native plant seed bank, as well as the nutrients, organic matter and microorganisms essential for plant growth. The depth of soils to be conserved will depend on site-specific conditions and restoration objectives, but should include at a minimum the uppermost layer (e.g. A horizon) that is enriched with organic matter. In many cases (particularly when the organic layer is thin) it may be appropriate to salvage some portion of the next layer (B horizon) since it is often contains substantial plant nutrients. If feasible, these two layers should be salvaged and reapplied separately (P, C). 9. Restrict human activity on access roads and publicize the benefits to user groups (P, C, O). 10. Employ on-site mitigation, off-site compensation, habitat restoration, and enhancement to address loss of wildlife habitat to the project footprint. Habitat enhancement techniques activities include prescribed burning, seeding and planting, fertilizer application, forest thinning, etc (P, C, O). 11. Avoid noisy, intrusive, or otherwise potentially harassing human activities during periods of the year when wildlife are under severe environmental and physiological stress. The two times most critical for a wide variety of species are the winter survival and spring natality periods (P, C, O). 12. Humans should not feed or approach wild mammals closer than 20 m, even habituated individuals (P, C, O). Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 100

101 13. Information on seasonal habitat use, migration routes, natality areas, and timing of animal activities is important to effectively mitigate impacts on wildlife populations. Proponent initiated monitoring programs, under the direction of a professional biologist and with the approval of MELP s Wildlife Program, could be used to modify guidelines to be more area and user specific (P, C, O). 14. During construction, prevent human disturbance and ecosystem impacts on sensitive areas adjacent to projects by using temporary fencing to restrict travel to construction zones, rights-of-way and workspaces (C). 15. Determine the area of influence and shock wave impact area of construction blasting and avoid blasting during the nesting period of any Red- or Blue-listed birds within that area (C). 16. Prevent hunting by all workers both on and immediately adjacent to the project site (C, O). 17. As appropriate, restrict hours of use of certain road sections to reduce wildlife Disturbance and the numbers of animal-vehicle collisions (C, O). 18. In wilderness settings, prevent workers from bringing pets on-site, particularly dogs and cats and any other species that could disturb wildlife or become established as an exotic feral population. 19. If pack animals are to be used, government approval is required through formal application to BC Environment (C, O). 20. During development and operation, apply the concepts and practices of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act that pertain to conservation of biodiversity, particularly provisions in the Identified Wildlife Management Strategy (Province of BC 1997, 1999), Biodiversity Guidebook (Province of BC 1995a (e.g. wildlife tree retention measures), and Riparian Management Area Guidebook (Province of BC 1995b) (C, O). 21. Control erosion during construction through use of riprap, sumps, filter-fabric, and vegetative cover. Cut and fills in unstable and highly erodable soils should only be worked during the dry summer months (C, O). 22. Revegetate slopes with native and agronomic species to reduce erosion and weed invasion (C, O). 23. Employ vegetated ditches and constructed wetlands as biofilters to remove contaminants from run-off waters before they enter aquatic ecosystems (C, O). 24. Contour, groom and re-seed disturbed soils with appropriate species to encourage the return of productive vegetative cover for wildlife (except for highways and railways where animal-vehicle collisions are an issue). Native species should be used as much as possible, particularly if the goal is ecosystem restoration (C, O). 25. Schedule construction and maintenance during periods when sensitive species are absent (C, O). 26. Provide predator-proof garbage containers at outside locations throughout the project site for the use of staff and visitors (C, O). 27. In small camps left empty during the day, store food in predator-proof containers. Never store excess cooking grease; incinerate it immediately after a meal (C, O). Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 101

102 28. Destroy garbage and its odours through high temperature incineration after every meal. For smaller camps, 45-gallon drums can be converted into small-scale incinerators using a simple conversion-kit, but semi-permanent and permanent camps should use oil-fired, forced-air incinerators. If garbage cannot be incinerated on site, it should be stored in a predator-proof container and transported to the nearest facility for proper disposal. See MacHutchon (2001) for more details on the management of predator attractants that included garbage, grey-water, sewage, and industrial lubricants (C, O). 29. Train staff and construction workers to increase awareness on appropriate behaviour in wilderness settings to minimize potential for human harassment and habitat disturbance (C, O). 30. Train staff and construction workers working in areas of highly erodable or fine soils, unstable terrain, or in close proximity to watercourses of work practices and methods to eliminate sediment transfer from the work site and work vehicles into water drainages (C, O). 31. Avoid the use of pesticides and other chemicals that may contaminate the environment and impair healthy ecosystem functions (C, O). Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 102

103 B. POTENTIAL WILDLIFE MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR SPECIFIC EA PROJECT CATEGORIES 1. HIGHWAYS, RAILWAYS AND ROADS The best way to mitigate the adverse impacts of roads, highways and railways is to avoid areas with high concentrations of animals, and ecosystems that support rare plants or plant communities. Thus input of wildlife and habitat information during the route selection stage is by far the most effective way to minimize impacts associated with habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, increased levels of direct and indirect mortality, and human disturbance. Although avoidance is the most effective means of reducing adverse impacts on wildlife populations, engineering and economic constraints on route selection often result in proposed transportation corridors that bisect high value wildlife and plant communities. As well, avoiding areas with high concentrations of one species may result in selecting routes that bisect the ranges of another wildlife species. Regardless, impacts to wildlife resources should be considered very early in the route planning stage, so this wildlife information can be weighed along with other considerations such as cost, engineering constraints and public safety. Wildlife input to route selection should be considered at a variety of spatial scales, from the landscape or watershed level through to details of final alignment and road location. General mitigation strategies include: 1. Consider requirements for preventing wildlife access to transportation corridor rightsof-way early in project design to minimize incremental costs associated with preventing animal-vehicle collisions (P). 2. Consider requirements for maintaining permeability of transportation corridors for wildlife early in project design to minimize incremental costs associated with providing animal crossing-structures (P). 3. In revegetating the right-of-way, prevent the use of nitrogen-fixing plants and other species preferred by wildlife as forage to avoid attracting animals to the transportation corridor where they could be killed by collisions. Revegetating the roadside with plant species that do not attract wildlife may be difficult in some parts of the province where natural colonization favours plants that are attractive to wildlife (C, O). 4. Institute a regular program to remove road-kill carcasses from the road to mitigate impacts on wildlife scavengers (O). Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 103

104 a) Habitat Alteration (1) Salvaging Significant Botanical Resources In areas where threatened and endangered plants and plant communities are affected, it may be possible to salvage and translocate these plants to minimize damage to rare ecosystems. During the earth-moving phase of a highway-widening project in Arizona, more than 4,000 cacti were salvaged (Black 1997). Each plant's directional orientation and root depth was measured as it was dug up, so that replanting conditions could mimic original conditions as closely as possible. The plants were placed in a nursery until the excavation and blasting work was completed. Some 450 boulders ranging from three to five feet in diameter were also salvaged and placed on embankment slopes that were left rough-cut to appear more natural and mimic natural conditions. The cacti were then replanted on the slopes to complete the rehabilitation. Each plant was tagged to facilitate subsequent monitoring (Black 1997). (2) Controlling Erosion and Managing Stormwater Erosion should be controlled in watercourses by use of riprap, and on vegetated slopes within the right-of-way by terracing, hydro seeding, sodding and mulching to establish a permanent vegetative cover. During construction, sheet erosion and sedimentation can be controlled through the use of ditches, sumps, and filtering devices such as landscape fabric and hay bales. Natural and constructed wetlands in the vicinity of highways are effective as biofilters in removing pollutants and contaminants from highway run-off waters before they enter freshwater ecosystems and effect wildlife species living in them (Wren 1997). Specially constructed sediment sumps, such as those used on the Okanagan Connector Freeway for highway run-off waters are also effective in improving water quality. (3) Artificially Created Wetlands Constructed wetlands can be used improve water quality, increased flood attenuation, or mitigate loss of wildlife habitat. Wetlands can be constructed by excavating upland areas to grades at or below groundwater elevations, then planting these areas with native wetland vegetation (Hasbrouk and Messenkopf 1995). There are a number of recently constructed wetlands immediately adjacent to the Vancouver Island Highway. It is also possible to enhance existing wetlands by removing invasive exotic vegetation and then planting with more desirable species. Artificially created wetlands are not necessarily as good as undisturbed wetlands at filtering nutrients, storing floodwaters and providing wildlife habitats. A 17-acre salt marsh in Chula Vista, California was created in 1988 to mitigate the impacts of highway construction. Unfortunately, efforts to replace habitats of the endangered light-footed clapper rail did not work because their preferred nesting grass would not grow tall enough in the artificially created wetland (Niiler 1998). Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 104

105 (4) Habitat Compensation Except for BC Hydro, the BC Government currently has no formal policy on habitat compensation. In practice, most mining projects in British Columbia address loss of wildlife habitat using a habitat compensation approach (B. Hart, pers. comm.). Habitat compensation is a common approach to mitigating the impacts of major construction projects in the United States. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, restoration and creation projects have added nearly 1 million acres of freshwater and saltwater wetlands since 1982 (Niiler 1998). In Tennessee, restoration of off-site wetlands using a habitat bank was used to mitigate damages to wetland habitats adjacent to a highway (Charlier 1997). The mitigation bank consisted of 788 acres purchased by the transportation department for US$725,000. Costs for on-site mitigation were estimated $10,000 per acre, compared to costs at the mitigation bank that were predicted to be half of that on a per acre basis. b) WILDLIFE COLLISIONS There are a number of ways to reduce or prevent animal-vehicle collisions. Since the frequency of animal-vehicle collisions are primarily a function of the density of animals, traffic volume, and traffic speed, any mitigation strategy that reduces one or more of these factors should result in fewer animals being struck by vehicles or trains. (1) Controlling Traffic Volume On public highways it is not possible to control traffic volume, but on industrial roads traffic volume could be controlled through the use of convoys of vehicles that travel through areas of high wildlife concentrations at the same time. This should reduce the rate of animal-vehicle collisions since the encounter rate would be reduced by a factor of the number of vehicles traveling in the convoy. (2) Reducing Traffic Speed Decreasing traffic speed can also reduce the rate and severity of animal-vehicle collisions. Fewer accidents result from both an increased ability of vehicle operators to brake and avoid animals, and an increased ability of animals to move away from oncoming traffic. Above a threshold of approximately 60 kph it becomes increasingly difficult for drivers to avoid hazards on the road (M. Kent, pers. comm.). The best way to reduce vehicle speed is through the engineered design speed of the road or highway. Conventional wildlife warning signs or lighted/animated warning signs have proved ineffective in reducing accident rates or vehicle speeds on highways in the United States (Romin and Bissonette 1996). It is remotely possible that a system of temporary warning signs associated with reduced speed limits, erected during the period of maximum collision potential, might reduce the frequency and severity of ungulate collisions. However, to be effective these signs would need to significantly influence motorist Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 105

106 behaviour, and this is probably unlikely. Warnings signs associated with deer crosswalks in Utah elicited no change in vehicle speed, and only 0.59% of motorists applied their brakes (Lehnert and Bissonette 1997). (3) Reducing Animal Densities (a) Wildlife Fencing As mentioned earlier, the best way to reduce the density of animals encountering a transportation corridor is to avoid areas with high wildlife concentrations. When this is not feasible, it may be necessary to prevent animals from accessing the right-of-way through exclusion fencing. Animal exclusion fencing is generally acknowledged as the most effective means of reducing animal-vehicle collisions, despite the high initial capital investment (Woods 1990, Keystone 1995, Clevenger 1998a). In British Columbia, ungulate exclusion fencing has been used successfully to prevent animal-vehicle collisions on new highways, including both sides of the Okanagan Connector Freeway (82 km), both sides of portions of the Coquihalla Highway (70 km)(sielecki 1999), and one side of portions of the Vancouver Island Highway. Ungulate exclusion fencing has also been used on existing highways, for example 15 km on one side of Highway 97 near Summerland (Andrusiak and Simpson 1997), and both sides of the Trans Canada Highway in Banff National Park (Woods 1988, Clevenger and Waltho 2000). Generally, the most effective ungulate-exclusion designs involve fencing both sides of the highway. To exclude large ungulates from the transportation rights-of-way, the fencing must be at least 2.4 m high and installed flush with the ground. Proper installation and maintenance are vital to ensure effectiveness (Simpson et al. 1995). Considerable savings in the cost of fence installation can be obtained through early preparation and planning during highway grade development. A fencing right-of-way should be accessible, clean of clearing and grubbing debris, smooth enough to reduce problems with gaps under the fence, and wide enough to accommodate fencing equipment and roll out the 2.4 m fence. The fence rightof-way should also be as straight as possible to avoid the need for extra fence bracing, and be free of any trees that might fall and damage the fence after installation (Harper and Lougheed 1988). While page wire fencing is effective for larger animals, its mesh opening is too large to exclude smaller animals. If the objective is to prevent road-kill of smaller animals then a smaller mesh size is required. For example, Rhode Island has used galvanized chain-link fencing to replace worn-out highway right-of-way fences (Kreimer 1996). Fencing systems designed to exclude ungulates must include one-way escape gates to allow animals that become trapped within the highway right-of-way to escape back to the forest. In Utah, mule deer used one-way escape gates in 17% of encounters, suggesting the average deer passes by them approximately six times before successfully escaping (Lehnert and Bissonette 1997). Similar success rates were determined for moose using Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 106

107 one-way gates on the Okanagan Connector (Gyug and Simpson 1989). Earthen ramps could be an improvement over the traditional moveable-tine gates. In Wyoming, earthen ramps lead to the top of some wildlife fencing, allowing trapped animals to jump safely out of the right-of-way (Lehnert and Bissonette 1997). Wildlife fencing systems must also include ungulate guards or Texas gates at road access points. These modified cattle guards permit access to and from the right-of-way for vehicles but prevent large animals from entering into the fencing system. Increase mortalities of birds and other species has been noted with some fencing systems. In Scotland, various species of grouse are killed when they collide with deer-proof fencing used to protect forest plantations. Marking the fences so they are more visible to the swooping birds should be able to prevent most of these mortalities (Clover 1998). In Banff National Park, inadvertent mortalities of bighorn sheep running into highway fencing while fleeing from coyotes are being mitigated with the attachment of green plastic mesh to make them more visible (Ball 1997). (b) Wildlife Reflectors Highway reflector systems have been in fairly wide use throughout North America and Europe for the past 20 years. They are relatively inexpensive, but since they depend on reflected light from automobile headlights they can only be effective at night, and require a great deal of maintenance to be kept clean and in working order. Manufacturers of these devices suggest deer will "freeze, and stay away" from the road in response to the reflected light. Unfortunately, most detailed studies have shown that roadside reflector systems have no effect in reducing animal-vehicle collision rates. Studies in Colorado, California, Ohio, and Utah also indicated that roadside reflectors were unable to reduce accident rates (Romin and Bissonette 1996, Associated Press 1998). There are two exceptions, however, but both studies involved relatively small sample sizes. Reduced accident rates involving white-tailed deer roadside reflector systems were documented in Washington (Schafer and Penland 1985) and Iowa (Romin and Bissonette 1996). The original Austrian-manufactured Swareflex system consists of a series of 17 cm x 5 cm red reflectors and has been around for 20 years. These are mounted along a highway at 10 to 20 m intervals so that light from passing headlights is reflected as red light back into the forest. It has since been replaced by the "Strieter-Lite", that sell for US$18 each and are apparently easier to install and maintain than their predecessor (McHugh 1998). There is also a German-manufactured system, the WEGU Game Warning Reflector. Each device consists of a pair of 15 cm x 4 cm panels resembling a portion of a flattened disco ball. When a vehicle's headlights hit the mirrored facets, the light is reflected at right angles back into the forest. These sell for US$20 each, and a 2 km test section has been Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 107

108 set up, with the devices installed every 45 m on both sides of a New Jersey highway (McHugh 1998). In Michigan, early evaluations suggest the system is effective in reducing deer-vehicle collision (Shepardson 1997). When tested in a controlled environment, Danish researchers found a substantial proportion of fallow deer initially exhibited flight reactions to light reflections from a WEGU reflector, but rapidly habituated to the stimuli (Ujvari et al. 1998). The long-term efficacy of this new reflector system has not been tested. As of 1998, wildlife reflectors have been installed on 147 km of highways in British Columbia, and consistent with results elsewhere, this effort has met with mixed success. The two most successful installations resulted in reductions in road-killed deer of 23% on Highway 3 near Grand Forks, and 40% on Highway 95A in the East Kootenays (Sielecki 1999). Since it is apparent ungulates will habituate to the presence of wildlife reflectors, this mitigation technique should only be used on migration routes and not on winter ranges where individual animals can encounter the reflectors on a regular basis. (c) Intercept Feeding On a short-term basis, intercept feeding may reduce deer-vehicle collisions by up to 50%, but further lowering of the collision rate would require application of other techniques such as fencing (Wood and Wolfe 1988). This technique would not be appropriate for long-term use since deer may become dependent on supplemental food, become attracted to roadsides, and increase in number if supplemental food increases survival. In areas where animals are attracted to road salt, artificial sources of salt could be placed away from the highway to avoid concentrating animals along the highway right-of-way in spring. (d) Wildlife Warning Whistles Various animal warning devices are available that are designed to emit an ultrasonic whistle when mounted to a vehicle traveling over 60 kph. The manufacturer suggests the sound frequencies that are emitted will freeze or move deer away from the path of your vehicle (Riley 1997). Unfortunately, scientific evaluation of these sonic devices indicate that mule deer do not exhibit any behavioral response that would indicate acknowledgment or avoidance of vehicles using ultrasonic warning whistles (Romin and Dalton 1992). c) WILDLIFE CROSSING STRUCTURES Whether fenced or unfenced, transportation corridors represent a barrier to movement for at least some wildlife species. These physical barriers, and their potential for fragmenting habitats, are considered by many to be the greatest risk to maintaining species diversity and ecological integrity in the vicinity of transportation corridors (Clevenger and Waltho 2000). When fencing is used to eliminate road-kill mortality, then provisions for allowing Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 108

109 animals to move across the highway are needed in order to prevent disruption of migration routes and movement patterns. Unless properly designed, fencing and crossing structure systems can fragment wildlife populations and jeopardize their viability. For example, some moose in the vicinity of the Okanagan Connector Freeway changed movement patterns despite the presence of wildlife underpasses, fragmenting part of the population to a more restricted home range (Keystone 1995). In Banff National Park, the use of crossing structures across the Trans Canada Highway is quite low for grizzly bears (Clevenger 1998b, Gibeau and Herrero 1998). Although some wolves use the provided crossing structures, other have been shown to avoid crossing the Trans Canada Highway in fenced areas, even to the point of moving km to the end of the fence line rather than use the provided crossings (Clevenger 1998a). Maintaining the permeability of transportation corridors to increase habitat connectivity can be difficult for some species. Several different types of wildlife crossing structures are available for moving animals over or under a fenced or unfenced transportation corridor. Although the design of specific animal crossing structure is important in determining how effective they are in encouraging animal passage, the location of the structure relative to traditional movement corridors may be even more important (Ruediger 1998). Generally, the more effective structures are located along natural movement corridors, are free of human disturbance (Clevenger and Waltho 2000), include adequate security cover at both ends, and are not perceived as confining to the animals involved. Different species have different tolerances to these factors. For example, moose appear to be more sensitive than other ungulates to a lack of security cover and human disturbance (Keystone 1995), and grizzly bears and wolves appear to be more reluctant to use wildlife crossing structures compared to ungulates (Clevenger 1998a). Considering the expense involved in constructing these structures, considerable effort should be made to identify animal movement patterns prior to their design and construction. Human factors are also important in the design of an effective wildlife fencing and crossing structure system. Studies along the Trans Canada highway in Banff National Park showed that increased human activity had a significant negative effect on use of wildlife underpasses by four large carnivore and three ungulate species (Clevenger and Waltho 2000). (1) Wildlife Overpasses These are among the best structures for allowing animals to move relatively unimpeded from one side of a fenced transportation corridor to another. They have been employed successfully in Europe, the United States, and Canada. Banff National Park installed two 52 m wide overpasses over the Trans Canada Highway in These overpasses are planted with indigenous trees and shrubs, and are designed to blend with the surroundings. Earthen berms are built up on the sides to minimize the sight and sound of Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 109

110 the highway when animals are on the overpass. The overpass is designed to encourage use by large predators, which have proven to be reluctant to use wildlife underpasses. Although it is too soon to fully evaluate their effectiveness, these overpasses were used in the first year of operation by most of the ungulates and large predators they were designed for, but wolves and grizzly bears have yet to be documented using these structures. Constructions costs for each overpass were estimated at $1.9 million (Ball 1997). A less expensive, 7 m wide, wildlife overpass on the Okanagan Connector Freeway near Peachland has proven to be effective at maintaining migratory movements of mule deer. The primary advantage of overpasses compared to underpasses is they are less confining, quieter, and maintain ambient environmental conditions (rain, temperature, light). When planted with native plant species, can also serve as intermediate habitat for small animals (Jackson and Griffin 1998). The primary disadvantage is the expense of construction. (2) Wildlife Underpasses Underpasses have been shown to be effective for a variety of animal species, including large ungulates, cougar and variety of smaller animals (Foster and Humphrey 1995, Beier 1995). Most large ungulates are reluctant to use confining structures (Reed et al. 1975), so the larger the structure, the more likely it will be used by the widest variety of species. High span bridges, with adequate clearance for animal movement through natural habitats along the banks of rivers or gorges, are likely the most effective wildlife crossing structure. Bridge-type, open-span wildlife underpasses or highway viaducts are also effective in allowing passage of a wide range of species, provided they have a high ceiling and wide span. Culvert-style underpasses are among the least effective structures, but are certainly capable of providing animal passage provided they are large enough and are designed for particular species (i.e. not grizzly bears). Culvert-style underpasses have proven effective for ungulate passage when they are located along natural travel corridors, have adequate escape cover, and are free of human disturbance. In general, a larger more open crossing structure is better at allow passage of a wider range of species compared to a smaller more confining underpass. Retrofitted installation of highway underpasses can be twice as expensive as those installed during initial construction of a highway (Sarasota Herald Tribune 1997). Smaller tunnels and culverts have also been designed for use by amphibians, such as the one on Britain s Highway A11 used to allow toads to cross to their breeding ponds in springs (Knight 1998). In Virginia, special fencing has been used to encourage leopard frogs and spring peepers to use an existing culvert to cross the highway (Latane 1995). In Massachusetts, two small tunnels (eight inches wide and 18 inches high) have provided a safe passage since 1987 for spotted salamanders during their annual spring migration from upper woodlands to breeding ponds. In Texas "toad fencing" was used to funnel Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 110

111 endangered Houston toads under the highway through existing drainage culverts at a cost US$100,000 (Kelso 1995). General recommendations for the location, design and maintenance of wildlife underpasses are available (Norman 1998, Clevenger and Waltho 2000). Underpasses should be located where cover from adjoining habitat or topography closely approaches the transportation corridor, and well away from sources of human disturbance. Vegetation within the approach to an underpass should be attractive to wildlife and representative of natural habitats, but not so thick as to disguise the entrance or restrict sight lines for predator avoidance. The underpass should be as short as possible, so if a wide median strip is involved it should be open rather than covered. Narrow median strips should be covered to minimize noise levels. Skylights and artificial lighting should be avoided (Norman 1998). (3) Wildlife Crosswalks A system designed to restrict deer-crossings to nine specific, well-marked locations where motorists could anticipate them was recently evaluated in northern Utah (Lehnert and Bissonette 1997). The deer were directed to the crosswalks with 2.3 m high fencing, where a funnel directed them to a path across the highway bordered on either side by painted cattleguard lines. The painted lines were used to identify crosswalk boundaries to motorists and present a visual cue to help direct deer across the highway. A series of three warning signs were associated with each crosswalk to advise motorists they were entering a crossing zone. One-way escape gates were installed to allow trapped deer to escape the right-of-way. Results of a 15-month evaluation of the system suggest a 43% reduction in road-kills, but this was not statistically significant (Lehnert and Bissonette 1997). Fencing and crosswalks did not reduce the tendency for some deer to use highway right-of-way vegetation for foraging. Some deer wandered outside the confines of the crosswalk and became trapped in the highway right-of-way between the fences despite the presence of one-way escape gates. Others stayed within the confines of the crosswalk, and were struck by vehicles anyways. Motorists did not reduce their speed when traveling through crosswalk zones. (4) Permeable Median Barriers High concrete median barriers may act as a barrier to small mammals, reptiles and amphibians, preventing them from crossing a highway or trapping them within the roadway. Cut-outs (15 x 50 cm) at the bottom of these concrete barriers can be used to allow small animal passage. Conversely, if the objective is to encourage small animals to use culverts and underpasses to pass under the roadway, then concrete barriers could be used to prevent access onto the traveled surface of the road. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 111

112 d) RIGHT-OF-WAY LANDSCAPING In British Columbia, where wildlife attraction to highway rights-of-way is an issue, legumes can be removed from hydro seed mixtures (A. Planiden, pers. comm.). For the interior seed mix, this would involve removing red clover and the two species of alfalfa. Other species in the interior formula include crested wheatgrass, slender wheatgrass, and fall rye. Fall rye may attract deer and bear to feed on the large seed heads, but this should be considered a short-term issue since the species always dies out after 3 years. Off the shelf mixtures used to revegetate most rights-of-way in the province often contain clover and alfalfa and will attract wildlife to transportation rights-of-way. e) RIGHT-OF-WAY MAINTENANCE Road-killed animals can attract scavenging animals such as eagles and coyotes, which then are then at risk of become road-kill themselves (Johnson 1998). A regular program of removing carcasses from the road can mitigate the impact on wildlife scavengers. For transportation corridors with wildlife fencing systems in place, regular inspection and repair of fences and crossing structures should be included in the general road maintenance program. Beyond that, a full inspection and mitigation effectiveness assessment should be completed on a periodic basis to ensure the fencing system is working as designed. Salt, which is used as a de-icer accumulates along highways during spring snowmelt attracts wildlife, especially ungulates and songbirds, near roadways and, therefore, increases risk of wildlife mortality from collision with vehicles. Further research is needed to find economic and environmentally friendly deicing alternatives that can be applied to highways where road salt is attracting wildlife. 2. ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION LINES AND OIL AND GAS PIPELINES Development of pipeline and transmission line routes normally follows a process whereby the route options are delineated and evaluated to select the best route option. In general, the routes that reduce the level of alteration to the land base and avoid rare, sensitive or unique features have the lowest potential impacts. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 112

113 a) ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION LINES Some obvious route selection methods used to reduce impacts include placing electric transmission lines through areas where the vegetation does not have to be altered (e.g. alpine, grasslands, agricultural) or adjacent to existing linear developments where the anticipated impacts would only be incremental to those already present. Most project developments in BC have resulted in clearing of some forestlands to accommodate transmission line construction and maintenance. Clearing the right-of-way may result in removing habitat components such as wintering, migration, and breeding areas that are critical for some species. Destruction of rare and endangered species, the introduction of weeds, and pesticide/herbicide use are some major impacts to clearing and maintaining the right-of-way. Clearing and maintenance of transmission corridors may have the effect of blocking, delaying or deflecting species movements and restricting access to critical habitat areas. Bird electrocutions and collisions with transmission lines are especially significant during migration periods. Decaying bird carcasses resulting from transmission line mortalities may be contributing to widespread disease events. Increased human access in the form of hunting, trapping, poaching, recreation, firewood cutting, noise and dust generally leads to additional mortality and/or area avoidance. Building powerlines parallel to flight paths, enhancing visibility of wires, or underground cables are some methods of mitigation (McNeil 1985). Avoidance of known water bird concentration areas during the route planning stage is probably the most cost effective method of lowering avian mortality levels. Most avian mortality at powerlines results from collisions with the overhead ground wire. Considerations should be given to placing towers in location that will make the structures more visible to flying birds (Faanes 1987). The majority of bird-powerline strikes are believed to have occurred at dawn, dusk, night, or at times of poor visibility due to weather conditions. Because of the high number of collisions that occur during poor visibility, marking wires to increase visibility does not seem to be an adequate solution. Power transmission lines should not be routed over, through, or within 1 km of the known historical high-water mark of marsh areas or dry basins known to hold water intermittently. Construction of lines through known waterfowl feeding flight lines or heavily used bird migration routes should be avoided. Carcasses of line collision bird casualties should be removed from waters where they can be a potential source of botulism resulting in secondary mortality. Regular and thorough cleanup of bird carcasses can be effective in reducing botulism losses. Transmission lines provide nesting site opportunities where they were originally not available. They provide protection from predation and range fires. The largest impact of birds nesting on towers appears to be destruction of nests by wind and entanglement in tower stanchions (Steenhof et al., 1993). Methods of mitigation of collision mortality are: (1) making cables more visible to birds through markings, (2) ground wires marked with colour spirals (Alonso et al. 1994). Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 113

114 b) OIL AND GAS PIPELINES Most of the potential mitigation strategies that apply to construction of oil and gas pipelines have been discussed in the sections above that discuss other linear developments (highways, railways, roads and electric transmission lines). Chief among these is avoiding areas with high concentrations of animals, and ecosystems that support rare plants or plant communities. Input of wildlife and wildlife habitat information during route selection discussions is by far the most effective way to minimize impacts associated with habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, increased wildlife mortality, and human disturbance. Impacts to wildlife resources should be considered very early in the route planning stage, so this wildlife information can be weighed along with other considerations such as cost, engineering constraints and public safety. Clearing the oil and gas pipeline rights-of-way may remove certain habitat components that are critical for some wildlife species. Destruction of rare and endangered species, the introduction of weeds, and pesticide/herbicide use are some of the major impacts associated with clearing and maintaining rights-of-way. Invasive weeds introduced during construction can have significant impacts on wildlife habitats and can degrade or eliminate rare plant communities. Recovering native species in habitats dominated by noxious weeds can be very difficult, and although herbicide and seeding treatments may reduce the cover of target weeds, they also typically reduce the cover of native forb species as well. Preventing the establishment and spread of noxious weeds through a comprehensive weed management program during construction and operation of the pipeline is the most effective solution. Avoid unnecessary removal or trimming of woody vegetation (except for the extirpation of knapweed and other invasive weeds) to minimize disruption to desirable plant species, maintain natural diversity, and decrease the likelihood of exotic weeds out-competing native vegetation. The permeability of the pipeline right-of-way for wildlife should be maintained by providing security cover in access corridors as much as possible (e.g. tall shrub or tree cover in gullies). Feather the edge of the cleared workspace by leaving clumps of mature vegetation on either side of the right-of-way, in order to break long straight sight lines and increase security and thermal cover for wildlife. In areas where threatened and endangered plants and plant communities are affected, it may be possible to salvage and translocate these plants to minimize damage to rare ecosystems. See section VII.B.1.a)(1) Salvaging Significant Botanical Resources. Restoration of terrestrial ecosystems is often a component of environmental programs aimed at mitigating impact of habitat loss associated with pipeline development. A number of options exist, but the basic strategy is to provide an appropriate soil substrate and source of plants to ensure a vegetative cover that either mimics natural ecosystems or Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 114

115 contains the structural attributes necessary to support viable populations specific wildlife species. Soil condition is very important, and restoration plans should ensure there are abundant, balanced nutrients in overburden soil and the depth and quality of soil to be used is sufficient to achieve restoration objectives. Obtaining local native seeds can be a difficult, but new techniques such as vacuum seed-harvesting offer labour-saving alternatives to hand collection. Native perennial grasses, shrubs and forbs should be used whenever possible. Rocky and woody debris are also important structural components of wildlife habitats and should be utilized as part of any habitat restoration program. Restoration of riparian ecosystems is potentially more difficult than dryer ecosystems because of the delicate balance of hydrology and geomorphology involved in riparian ecosystem processes. These narrow ecotones between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are typically very productive as wildlife habitat, so restoration of degraded riparian areas are an important component of mitigation programs aimed at wildlife habitats. See section VII.B.3.b)Restoration of Terrestrial Habitats. Erosion should be controlled in watercourses by use of riprap, and on vegetated slopes within the right-of-way by terracing, hydro seeding, sodding and mulching to establish a permanent vegetative cover. See section VII.B.1.a)(2)Controlling Erosion and Managing Stormwater Direct mortalities associated with open trenches and open pipes during construction of pipelines can impact smaller animal species and juvenile individuals. Pipe-end covers, or nightcaps, can be used to keep small animals out of pipe sections stored adjacent to the trench area. As well, temporary drift fences can be used to keep small animals out of open trenches in areas with high-density small animal populations or particularly sensitive small animal populations (e.g. Red- and Blue-listed species). Human presence on the pipeline access roads can lead additional mortality and/or area avoidance in some animals. Controls on public access and activity on access roads and rights-of-way can be used to minimize human-related wildlife impacts. Impacts associated with spills of petroleum products into terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems can be severe and occasionally wide-ranging. The magnitude of wildlife impacts associated with pipeline breaks and accidental discharges can be minimized through a comprehensive program of inspection, monitoring and spill response planning that addresses the relative sensitivity of wildlife habitats along the pipeline route. General mitigation measures for electrical transmission lines and oil and gas pipelines include: 1. Route pipelines and electric transmission lines away from concentrations of wildlife species, rare plants and plant communities (P, C). Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 115

116 2. Route electric transmission lines through dry non-forested areas where vegetation does not have to be altered (e.g., alpine, grasslands, agricultural lands). 3. Route pipelines and electric transmission lines adjacent to existing linear developments (e.g. roads, transmission lines or pipelines) where the anticipated impacts would be only incremental to those already present. 4. Avoid routing pipelines and electric transmission lines across areas adjacent to wetland and riparian ecosystems (P, C). 5. For electrical transmission lines, consider the use of underground cables when this would avoid impacts to certain wildlife species (P, C). 6. Route electric transmission lines away from flight corridors used by migratory birds, major feeding flight lines, waterways acting as a funnel to birds, or in areas of known water bird concentrations. If routing near a known flight path is required, route the transmission lines parallel to, rather than across, the flight corridor (P, C). 7. Construct powerlines and conductors in accordance with raptor-safe design criteria (P, C). 8. Maintain permeability for wildlife by providing access corridors across rights-of-way (e.g. tall shrub or tree cover in gullies) (P, C, O). 9. Feather the edge of the cleared workspace by leaving clumps of mature vegetation on either side of the right-of-way, in order to break long straight sight lines and increase security and thermal cover for wildlife (P, C, O). 10. Minimize the magnitude of wildlife impacts associated with pipeline breaks and accidental discharges through a comprehensive program of inspection, monitoring and spill response planning that addresses the relative sensitivity of wildlife habitats along the pipeline route (P, C, O). 11. Enhance visibility of transmission cables and towers near bird flight corridors by marking ground wires with colour spirals or flags and locating towers in areas that will make the structures more visible to birds in flight. Unfortunately most collisions occur during periods of poor visibility, so marking ground wires may not be an adequate solution in many cases (C, O). 12. On rights-of-way, avoid unnecessary removal or trimming of woody vegetation (except for the extirpation of knapweed and other invasive weeds) to increase ground cover and forage, minimize disruption to desirable plant species, maintain natural diversity, and decrease the likelihood of exotic weeds out-competing native vegetation (C, O). 13. Use selective clearing methods for rights-of-way, such as hand cutting of undesirable species to minimize adverse effects on ground covering plant species (C, O). 14. Train staff and construction workers working with heavy machinery in and adjacent to rights-of-way to minimize the area of disturbance and resultant compaction of soils (C, O). 15. Restrict human access and activity on right-of-way access roads to minimize humanrelated wildlife Disturbance and impacts to sensitive ecosystems adjacent to pipeline and transmission line rights-of-way (C, O). Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 116

117 3. MINES General mitigation measures include: 1. Prevent release of environmental contaminants through various techniques including underground disposal of tailings, covering tailings with water impermeable substrates or man-made materials, revegetation of tailings and ditches, chemical treatment of tailings leachate, and biofiltering of tailings leachate in constructed wetlands (P, C, O). 2. Monitor contaminants in the tissues of wildlife species to establish the long-term impact of bioaccumulation that might result from construction and operation of the mine or processing plant (P, C, O). 3. Prevent excessive animal-vehicle collisions on haul roads that bisect important wildlife habitats through the use of wildlife fencing, reduced traffic speed (more curves) or reduced traffic volume through the use of convoys (P, C, O). 4. Prevent animals from ingesting contaminated soils, sediments, water or vegetation through wildlife fencing, netting, and the use of chemical repellents (C, O). 5. Monitor contaminants in tailings leachate and mitigation structures (e.g. constructed wetlands) using levels of precision appropriate for determining impacts of wildlife (see Wren et al. 1997) (O). a) Habitat Alteration Attempts to mitigate impacts of gravel pits in riverbeds could be ineffective because of permanent changes to stream morphology (lack of gravel bedload) over distances of kilometers both upstream and downstream of mining sites. Alternatives to river-derived aggregate sources should be encouraged to reduce impacts to riverine ecosystems (Kondolf 1997). Delage et al. (2000) recommend clustering of natural residual areas should be used to reduce edge effects and isolation of microhabitats. b) Restoration of Terrestrial Habitats Restoration of terrestrial ecosystems is often an important component of environmental programs aimed at mitigating impact of habitat loss associated with mine development. A variety of options exist, but the basic strategy is to provide an appropriate soil substrate and source of plants to ensure a vegetative cover that either mimics natural ecosystems or contains the structural attributes necessary to support viable populations specific wildlife species. A wide variety of soil substrates form the basis of restoration efforts, ranging from mine tailings to native soils (with or without the upper organic layer). Sources of plant species include natural and artificial seeding (native and non-native), cuttings, plantings and translocations (turf). Organic and inorganic fertilizers and other soil ameliorants are often employed. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 117

118 In central Florida the recovery of phosphate-mined land depended largely on soil conditions, with aboveground lenses of hardening clay undergoing very slow plant succession and a depauperate animal community, and spoil piles exhibiting rapid succession to an oak forest with rich animal communities (Schnoes and Humphrey 1987). Reclamation plans should ensure there are abundant, balanced nutrients in overburden soil and potential for nitrogen-fixing plants. Schnoes and Humphrey (1987) maintain it is necessary to focus reclamation plans to towards specific wildlife habitat features if the goal is to mitigate wildlife habitat loss, since managing for domestic livestock rangelands does not meet the needs of most wildlife species. Since soil condition is a key variable, reclamation plans should specifically address the depth and quality of soil to be stockpiled and used to restore wildlife habitats after mining. Parmenter et al. (1985) described the general pattern of plant and animal succession on seven reclaimed mine sites in western Wyoming, that were revegetated at 1-year intervals, as follows: 1) "Volunteer" forbs dominated new sites, but were replaced by perennial grasses (artificially seeded) after 4 years. 2) After 6 years, shrubs attained a cover value of 11% (less than the undisturbed control area's value of 33%). 3) Plant species composition and abundance on the mined areas were still very dissimilar to the control area. 4) Vertebrate recolonization by certain species was rapid, although only about half of the control area species were ever caught or observed on the mined area. 5) Vertebrates re-established on the plots in a cumulative fashion rather than being replaced by later successional species. 6) Vertebrate species richness was positively correlated to percentage cover of shrubs. 7) High walls and permanent ponds permitted cliff-nesting birds, waterfowl and amphibians to survive on the plots. Not surprisingly, the rate of soil erosion is dependent on the percentage of herbaceous ground cover, and was considered intolerable when ground cover was <25% (Andres and Jorba 2000). Revegetating highly erodable shales in Colorado was best accomplished using a combination seeding grasses and transplanting forbs and shrubs (Paschke et al. 2000). Although obtaining sources of local native seeds can be a problem, new techniques such as vacuum seed-harvesting (Stevenson et al. 1997) offer labour-saving alternatives to hand collection. Native perennial grasses have been used successfully to revegetate highway rights-of-way in California (Bugg et al. 1997). Experiments with turf translocation in Wales found little difference between whole-turf translocations and so-called spread and rotovate techniques (Good et al. 1999). Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 118

119 However, altered soil hydrology and nutrition between donor and translocation sites resulted in changes in the plant communities over time that were substantial in some cases. Development of the vegetation community is a key factor controlling the composition of animal communities. Insect communities closely correspond plant community composition and structure, with young mine sites consisting of mostly annual forbs (>34% cover) and little grass (<12% cover) supporting a depauperate fauna dominated by Ceuthophilus alpinus Scudder (Gryllacrididae). Sites with a stronger grass component (21-38% cover) supported significant populations of Acrididae in addition to C. alpinus (Parmenter et al. 1991). Orthoptera species richness and diversity was also correlated with plant species richness and diversity. Bird communities in rehabilitated bauxite mine sites in a jarrah forest in southwestern Australia were also strongly influenced by plant community composition and structure (Armstrong and Nichols 2000). In this productive jarrah forest ecosystem recovery of bird communities occurred whether or not sites were seeded or given fresh topsoil, but took longer on the unmanaged sites. Small mammals appear to rapidly colonize reclaimed shrub-steppe habitats in Wyoming. Six species were present on the 2-year-old reclaimed areas, 8 on the 3 to 5-year-old areas, and 5 on unmined rangeland. Deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) were most abundant in all community types, but 13-lined ground squirrels (Spermophilus tridecemlineatus) dominated in terms of biomass on the unmined areas. Masked shrew (Sorex cinereus) and northern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys leucogaster) were captured almost exclusively on the 3 to 5-year-old reclaimed land and unmined rangeland (Hingtgen and Clark 1984). On reclaimed mine sites in northeastern Wyoming, mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) foraged on alfalfa (Medicago sativa) in summer and fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens) in winter and actually used reclaimed land more than unmined land. Pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana), on the other hand, depended more on native forbs in spring and summer, and sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) in fall and winter. The importance of native forages, as well as avoidance of reclaimed areas by fawns, resulted in pronghorns making greater year-round use of unmined land than reclaimed land (Medcraft and Clark 1986). Wildlife browsing of newly established (3-year-old) fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens) and common winterfat (Ceratoides lanata) on these reclaimed lands reduced average length and crown dry weights by 36 to 52%, but these shrubs sustained moderate winter use without being eliminated by browsing effects (Clark and Medcraft 1986). Olson et al. (2000) evaluated shrub reestablishment and wildlife habitat value for pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) and sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) at 14 reclaimed study sites (>10 years old) at 8 mines in Wyoming. Of the 14 sites, 6 had sufficient cover for antelope and grouse, but only one site provided sufficient shrub density for sage grouse life requisites and only 2 provided sufficient Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 119

120 grass, forb and shrub composition for antelope life requisites. Sites seeded with multiple shrub species had higher canopy cover, density, and diversity compared with singlespecies shrub seedlings. Achieving pre-mining shrub cover, density, height, species composition, and diversity in these fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens) and big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) communities within existing bond-release time frames is unrealistic, considering that some native shrublands require yr to reach maturity (Olson et al. 2000). The importance of shrubs as part of the habitat structure for ruffed grouse chicks was demonstrated on reclaimed surface-mined sites in northern West Virginia. Grass-legume reclamation provided poor cover and low feeding rates for ruffed grouse compared to a 25-yr-old reclaimed mine planted to autumn olive that had a more favorable microclimate for their insect prey (Kimmel and Samuel 1984). Rocky and woody debris are also important structural components of wildlife habitats that are required many animals. Faunal recolonization studies found greater species richness of small mammals and the greater abundance of reptiles on unmined sites compared to reclaimed coal mine sites in northwestern New Mexico that was attributed to a lack of rock cover and woody cover on the reclaimed sites (Ireland et al. 1994). Oil development in arctic Alaska has left a range of disturbed lands including gravel roads and pads, gravel pits and overburden stockpiles, drilling reserve pits, occasional accidental spills, and other minor disturbances to the tundra. Jorgenson and Joyce (1994) investigated methods for rehabilitating degraded lands for fish and wildlife habitat and proposed several general strategies. These include flooding gravel mine sites and creation of wetlands on perched overburden stockpiles to create aquatic habitats. Restoration of thick gravel fill and overburden will require revegetation, but removal of thinner gravel fills could be used to restore wet tundra habitats. Restoration of riparian ecosystems is potentially more difficult than dryer ecosystems because of the delicate balance of hydrology and geomorphology involved in riparian ecosystem processes (Goodwin et al. 1997). These narrow ecotones between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are typically very productive as wildlife habitat, so restoration of degraded riparian areas are an important component of mitigation programs aimed at wildlife habitats. Although riparian systems are complex and conditions at specific locations are singular, there are three main considerations that should be addressed before embarking on a riparian restoration program. The first is the spatial extent of the anthropogenic disturbance, since impacts local to the riparian area are easier to fix than those originating off-site (e.g. water control issues). The second is whether the source of disturbance will continue, since restoration is not possible if source of the impact is not controlled. The third is whether the removal of the anthropogenic disturbance will result in recovery without human intervention (Goodwin et al. 1997). Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 120

121 c) Restoration of Wetland Habitats In an extensive program to rehabilitate wetlands associated with abandoned mines in northeast Wyoming, over 300 wetlands were filled, reclaimed, created, or otherwise modified. A model was used to calculate the Wetland Habitat Value (WHV) for the purposes of calculating mitigation requirements and monitoring their effectiveness. Predicted WHVs were consistently overestimated, with the most common variables overestimated being wetland size, fraction of emergent cover, adjacent upland cover, and the number of bays and peninsulas (McKinstry and Anderson 1994). Fifty-five of 64 wetlands were smaller than pre-reclamation engineering goals. The WHV Model accurately predicted use of wetlands by migrating and breeding Canada geese (Branta canadensis), migrating dabbling ducks and migrating diving ducks. Especially when considering projects that involve wetland destruction, proponents and regulatory agencies should be careful not to overestimate results of planned mitigation efforts, since the predicted size of constructed wetlands appears to be commonly overestimated in prereclamation engineering drawings (McKinstry and Anderson 1994). The creation of constructed wetlands as wildlife habitat may also be appropriate in some instances as an alternative to topsoil replacement for surface mine reclamation. The effectiveness of this technique depends on how well constructed wetlands mimic the characteristics of natural wetlands. In Alabama, constructed wetlands (mainly Scirpus and Typha) developed on lands strip-mined for coal gained biogeochemical characteristics similar to those of natural wetlands (mainly Typha and Polygonum) regardless of the initial chemical characteristics of the mined spoil materials. However, more site-specific studies are required before this result can be assumed to work in all situations (Sistani et al. 1995), and mimicking the biogeochemical characteristics of natural wetlands does not necessarily mean constructed wetland will meet wildlife goals. Even wetlands constructed for the treatment of mine water drainage can provide secondary benefits as habitat for a variety of wildlife species provided species-specific life requisites are taken into account during their construction and landscaping. At four wetland sites in Ohio, mammal diversity and richness was highest at the constructed cattail (Typha latifolia) wetland and lowest at the site established with traditional reclamation procedures (Lacki et al. 1991). Species composition of reptiles and amphibians in mine drainage wetlands was dependent on the construction design, the proximity to source populations, and the degree of acidity and heavy-metal concentrations in drainage waters (Lacki et al. 1992). The vegetation characteristics of constructed wetlands may not necessarily meet the goals of reclamation if dense monocultures of aquatic plants become established. Efforts to manipulate plant species composition have met with mixed success. Plant species richness was increased in coal slurry ponds by mechanical cutting of dense stands of Phragmites australis and Typha latifolia, although the additional species that resulted were mostly exotics (Mathis and Middleton 1999). Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 121

122 Wetland habitats created by surface mining in westcentral Illinois provided nesting habitat for the Canada goose, mallard, black duck, blue-winged teal, wood duck, hooded merganser, mute swan, American coot, common moorhen, pied-billed grebe, killdeer, and spotted sandpiper. Suspected nesting species included lesser scaup, northern pintail, American bittern, and green-backed heron (Perkins and Lawrence 1985). These impoundments were so effective in providing safe nesting conditions (islands) and a diversity of wetlands for the Canada goose that their populations were increasing in both numbers and distribution (Perkins and Klimstra 1984). Not all attempts to restore wetlands are successful. In southern California, high interannual variation and lack of directional changes in species composition meant that a marsh restoration project has not been able to meet agency expectations for compliance with mitigation criteria for the endangered Clapper Rail (Zedler and Callaway 1999). 4. INDUSTRIAL PROCESSING PLANTS General mitigation measures include: 1. Prevent release of environmental contaminants through various techniques including underground disposal of toxic materials, covering toxic materials with water impermeable substrates or man-made materials, revegetation of contaminated sites, chemical treatment of leachates, and biofiltering of leachates in constructed wetlands (P, C, O). 2. Prevent animals from ingesting contaminated soils, sediments, water or vegetation through wildlife fencing, netting, and the use of chemical repellents (P, C, O). 3. Monitor contaminants in leachates and mitigation structures (e.g. constructed wetlands) using levels of precision appropriate for determining impacts of wildlife (see Wren et al. 1997) (P, C, O). 4. Monitor contaminants in the tissues of wildlife species to establish the long-term impact of bioaccumulation that result might from construction and operation of the mine or processing plant (P, C, O). 5. Prevent excessive animal-vehicle collisions on access roads that bisect important wildlife habitats through the use of wildlife fencing, reduced traffic speed (more curves) or reduced traffic volume through the use of convoys (P, C, O). 5. HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS General mitigation measures include: 1. Locate large and small reservoirs away from known concentrations and important seasonal movement corridors for wildlife (P). Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 122

123 2. Utilize weirs in reservoirs to retain shallow water in shoreline areas that would normally dry during drawdowns, to maintain a stable shoreline plant community for use by waterfowl (P, C, O). 3. Monitor contaminants (heavy metals, selenium, DDE, PCB, and dioxins) in the tissues of wildlife species to establish the long-term impact of bioaccumulation that result might from construction and operation of the dam (P, C, O). 4. Establish expected water regulation regimes regarding the timing, duration and intensity of drawdowns and the resultant effect on riparian and aquatic vegetation and invertebrate availability. Minimize large drawdowns to allow the establishment of both aquatic and terrestrial plant communities along the edge of reservoirs (P, O). 5. Control nuisance aquatic vegetation and weed growth, including algal biomass production, in new lakes and reservoirs with selected maintenance techniques to maintain water quality (P, O). 6. In cases where temporary communities house the construction work force, encourage appropriate mass transportation methods, such as bus transport, to and from the work site to decrease traffic volumes and resultant collisions with wildlife (C). 7. In cases where temporary communities house the construction work force, an adequate infrastructure is required to effectively deal with the disposal of garbage, sewage and hazardous waste as well the improper disposal of waste or accidental spills that have the potential to impact water quality (C). 8. Anticipate the requirement for wildlife rescue operation (translocations) for wildlife trapped within the flood zone during reservoir inundation if the area to be flooded is large and with topography that would tend to strand animals on promontories (C, O). 9. Use dominant native plant species that are used by wildlife in the reclamation of work sites disturbed during construction. Avoid aggressive, introduced plant species (C, O). 10. Coordinate drawdowns of reservoir levels, and resultant gradual exposure of shorelines, with the migration periods of shorebirds (O). 11. Regulate human activity, particularly recreational boating, fishing and hunting, on new lakes and reservoirs caused by hydroelectric development to minimize Disturbance to wildlife (O). a) Site Disturbance and Reclamation During reclamation work emphasis should be placed on using dominant native species that are used by wildlife and avoiding aggressive, introduced species (Tessman 1985). Where sites are not returned to their natural state, the value of the substitute habitat should be considered in the evaluation. In most cases the construction site will be a minor impact in comparison with the impact from the reservoir. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 123

124 b) Recreation Pressure and the Construction Work Force In anticipation of increased recreation pressure, regulatory changes should be made in advance of the increased demands on the land base. Depending on the size of the work force and access to surrounding areas, such impacts may be felt a considerable distance away from the project area. Appropriate measures should be identified and undertaken in co-operation with the appropriate agencies to ensure that potential recreation impacts caused by the workforce are properly regulated during the construction period. With proper management, impacts should be minor. c) Wildlife Rescue Animals trapped within the flood zone of hydroelectric projects during inundation should be captured and moved to suitable habitats outside the reservoir area, if regional wildlife managers deem numbers or species significant. 6. TOURISM RESORTS General mitigation measures include: 1. Prevent release of environmental contaminants through various techniques including underground disposal, revegetation of contaminated sites and ditches, chemical treatment of leachates, and biofiltering of leachates in constructed wetlands (P, C, O). 2. Regulate and minimize the use of motorized vehicles (e.g. snowmobile, OHVs, and trucks) in backcountry areas with moderate to high wildlife sensitivity (P, O). 3. Regulate use of aircraft (particularly helicopters) in backcountry areas with moderate to high wildlife sensitivity (P, O). 4. Regulate human access to critical wildlife habitats to avoid Disturbance during highuse periods (P, O). Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 124

125 C. POTENTIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES-SPECIFIC MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR EA PROJECTS This section provides guidelines for mitigating against negative effects of EA projects on specific wildlife species or wildlife habitat. The guidelines are general to specific in nature, depending on our existing knowledge of accepted mitigation practices. Adherence to any guideline and the precise nature of the implementation of any guideline will need to be negotiated by the proponent with MELP. Additional or more intensive measures may be required by MELP, depending on the importance or conservation priority of the wildlife resource in question and the type of development project involved. 1. HOOFED MAMMALS - UNGULATES a) Ungulate Winter Ranges (1) All Major Developments 1. Prevent construction of facilities on MELP Designated ungulate winter ranges (Appendix 1) (P, C). 2. Plan developments so there are buffer areas between humans and wintering ungulates, and create or maintain sight barriers, noise barriers and hiding cover between areas of human-use and winter ranges (P, C). 3. Locate major and minor transportation routes and trails outside of critical winter ranges (P, C). 4. Where proposed roads and/or trails are in close proximity (within 300 m) of important winter ranges, screen these routes behind ridgelines and vegetative cover (P, C). 5. Establish, maintain, and enforce low speed limits (e.g. 40 kph) on roads and trails that are within 300 m of important winter ranges (O). 6. Restrict off road travel during critical winter periods (O). 7. If ungulates are traveling on plowed roads, ensure frequent escape breaks are created in the bermed snow to allow animals to exit the road to avoid vehicular traffic (C, O). 8. Restrict human activities so that they occur in a predictable fashion within defined areas to decrease flight responses. Where human-activity occurs on winter ranges, keep it concentrated in established areas to limit Disturbance impacts (C, O). 9. Restrict snowmobile, OHV, and other motorized vehicle use in moderate to high-use winter ranges (O). 10. Restrict human use of certain moderate to high-use winter ranges during critical periods when there are indications that ungulates are being displaced either spatially or temporally by human Disturbance (C, O). 11. Helicopter over-flights should meet the species-specific avoidance criteria unless these activities are separated from winter range habitat by a physical barrier that Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 125

126 would minimize disturbance levels (e.g. a mountain ridge or terrain block). Distance interval restrictions may be relaxed by ameliorating circumstance (e.g. safety concerns because of weather) (C, O). 12. Where the potential exists for competition for forage resources, manage livestock use of critical ungulate winter ranges to minimize impacts and improve range condition (O). 13. Prevent contact between exotic ungulates (e.g. llamas, alpacas, domestic goats) and native ungulates to eliminate the possibility of transferring deadly diseases (O). 14. Train staff and construction workers on responsible behaviour on and near ungulate winter ranges, including the leashing of pets to prevent chasing of wintering ungulates (C, O). Refer to species-specific guidelines for Mountain Sheep, Caribou, Mountain Goat, Plains Bison and Wood Bison. (2) Highways and Railways 15. Avoid locating highways and railways on or near ungulate winter ranges (P, C). 16. In areas where high frequencies of animal-vehicle collisions are predicted (a product of vehicle speed, traffic frequency and animal density), prevent collisions through installation of ungulate exclusion fencing. If both sides of the highway/railway are fenced, construct animal crossing structures at appropriate intervals (e.g. 2 to 4 km) (P, C). 17. In areas where moderate frequencies of animal-vehicle collisions are predicted, and the ungulates involved are migratory, reduce collisions through installation of wildlife reflectors. Monitoring the effectiveness of these reflectors will be required to determine if a sufficient reduction in collisions has occurred to meet objectives, and if alternative mitigation techniques (e.g. fencing) are required (C, O). 18. Avoid use of road salt near ungulate winter ranges to prevent attracting animals to unfenced highways (O). (3) Pipelines and Electric Transmission Lines 19. Use plugs of native shrubs that are browsed by local ungulates to restore wildlife habitat within the working area. Young seedlings may have to be protected from excessive browsing for a few years to facilitate establishment (C, O). 20. Aggressively manage noxious weeds to prevent their establishment and spread along rights-of-way. Disturbed ground should be re-seeded as soon as possible with a mix of rapid growing agronomic annual grasses (that won t persist) and native perennial species (C, O). 21. Restrict human access on rights-of-way that bisect ungulate winter ranges with locked gates to prevent poaching and excessive human Disturbance (C, O). Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 126

127 (4) Mine Developments and Industrial Processing Plants 22. Avoid locating mines and industrial processing plants on or near ungulate winter ranges (P, C). 23. Use fencing to prevent ungulates from accessing contaminated soils, sediments, water or vegetation (C, O). 24. If necessary, facilitate seasonal movements of ungulates through mine sites by providing appropriate security cover (trees and shrubs) in travel corridors, as necessary. Factors that affect snow distribution (e.g. aspect, slope, and wind) should be explicitly considered in the placement of travel corridors (P, C, O). 25. If necessary, facilitate seasonal and local movements of ungulates under conveyor belts and other small obstacles by providing underpass opportunities that are at least 1 m high (P, C, O). (5) Tourism Resorts 26. Avoid locating tourism resorts on or near ungulate winter ranges (P, C). 27. Prevent use of motorized vehicles (e.g. snowmobile, OHVs, and trucks) on ungulate winter ranges (O). 28. Restrict human access to ungulate winter ranges to avoid Disturbance during the critical winter/spring months (C, O). (6) Hydroelectric Developments 29. Avoid locating hydroelectric impoundments on ungulate winter ranges (P, C). 30. Consider potential for reservoirs to become a barrier to ungulate movements and propose water management regimes and habitat enhancement techniques to mitigate this impact (P, C, O). b) Bighorn Sheep and Thinhorn Sheep The following guidelines apply to all populations of wild Mountain Sheep: (1) All Major Developments 1. Seasonally close sensitive habitats (e.g., lambing grounds, critical winter range, mineral licks) to snowmobiles, OHVs and other motorized equipment. 2. Limit helicopter and fixed-wing flight altitudes to a minimum of 500 m over MELP Designated mountain sheep habitat (Appendix 1) and a minimum 1000 m horizontal distance from designated sheep habitats. 3. For highly sensitive sites (e.g. natal areas) maintain a 2000 m horizontal separation from helicopter and fixed-wing flights. Distance interval restrictions may be relaxed by ameliorating circumstance (e.g. safety concerns because of weather). 4. Select heliports, helipads, and helispots for all helicopter activities to avoid locations within 2000 m horizontal distance of designated Mountain Sheep habitats. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 127

128 5. Prevent facility development on or near critical seasonal Mountain Sheep habitats. 6. All development activities should be at least 300 m away from sensitive sites such as mineral licks and natal areas. 7. Prevent contact between exotic ungulates (e.g. llamas, alpacas, domestic goats and sheep) and Mountain Sheep to eliminate the possibility of transferring deadly diseases. Under no circumstances should domestic sheep be used for vegetation management in the vicinity of mountain sheep populations. 8. Train staff and construction workers on responsible behaviour near Mountain Sheep and their habitats. 9. Apply guidelines for Ungulate Winter Ranges. (2) Highways and Railways 10. In areas where high frequencies of animal-vehicle collisions are predicted (a product of vehicle speed, traffic frequency and animal density), prevent collisions through installation of ungulate exclusion fencing. If both sides of the highway/railway are fenced, construct animal crossing structures at appropriate intervals (e.g. 2 to 4 km). 11. In areas where moderate frequencies of animal-vehicle collisions are predicted, and the mountain sheep involved are migratory, reduce collisions through installation of wildlife reflectors. Monitoring the effectiveness of these reflectors will be required to determine if a sufficient reduction in collisions has occurred to meet objectives, and if alternative mitigation techniques (e.g. fencing) are required. 12. To prevent attracting animals to unfenced highways, road salt should not be used near areas where mountain sheep congregate on summer or winter ranges. (3) Pipelines and Transmission Lines 13. Minimize spraying of pesticides used to maintain early seral stages of vegetation in those areas where mountain sheep are foraging along transmission line and pipeline rights-of-way. (4) Mine Developments and Industrial Processing Plants 14. Restrict human access on roads that pass through sensitive sheep habitat. 15. Prevent mountain sheep from ingesting any source of copper contaminated soil, sediment, water or vegetation since sheep are the most sensitive ungulate to copper poisoning. 16. Prevent mountain sheep disease epidemics by not using domestic sheep for vegetation management. (5) Tourism Resorts 17. Route hiking and biking trails away from high value summer foraging habitats. 18. Restrict helicopter-related activities to avoid landings and fly-bys of high value summer foraging areas. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 128

129 19. Prevent mountain sheep disease epidemics by not using domestic goats, alpacas and llamas as pack animals for hiking tours. c) Bison The following guidelines apply to wild populations of both Plains Bison and Wood Bison: (1) All Major Developments 1. Identify and map sensitive habitats including calving and rutting habitats and winter ranges. Assign ratings of high and moderate sensitivity. 2. Seasonally close highly sensitive habitats to all forms of human Disturbance. 3. Restrict snowmobile, OHV, and other mechanized vehicle use within moderate and high sensitivity areas as needed. 4. Limit helicopter and fixed-wing flight altitudes to a minimum of 500 m over MELP Designated Bison habitats. 5. In cooperation with BC Environment staff, select particular routes, heliports, helipads, and helispots for all helicopter activities in the vicinity of bison ranges. 6. Prevent facility development on or near critical seasonal Bison habitats. 7. Train staff and construction workers on responsible behaviour near Bison and their habitats. 8. Apply guidelines for Ungulate Winter Ranges (2) Highways and Railways 9. In areas where moderate and high frequencies of animal-vehicle collisions are predicted (a product of vehicle speed, traffic frequency and animal density), prevent collisions through installation of ungulate exclusion fencing. If both sides of the highway/railway are fenced, construct animal crossing structures at appropriate intervals (e.g. 2 to 4 km). Bison are the largest land animal in North America and fencing designed to prevent these animals from entering a transportation corridor would have to be custom-designed with extra strength to be effective. 10. In areas where low frequencies of animal-vehicle collisions are predicted, and the Bison involved are migratory, reduce collisions through installation of wildlife reflectors. Monitoring the effectiveness of these reflectors will be required to determine if a sufficient reduction in collisions has occurred to meet objectives, and if alternative mitigation techniques (e.g. fencing) are required. 11. To prevent attracting animals to unfenced highways, road salt should not be used near areas where Bison congregate on summer or winter ranges. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 129

130 (3) Pipelines and Transmission Lines 12. Minimize spraying of pesticides used to maintain early seral stages of vegetation in those areas where Bison are foraging along transmission line and pipeline rights-ofway. (4) Mine Developments and Industrial Processing Plants 13. Restrict human access on roads that pass through sensitive Bison habitat. (5) Tourism Resorts 14. Restrict hiking and backcountry ski use within moderate sensitivity areas as needed. 15. Restrict helicopter-related activities to avoid landings and fly-bys of high value summer foraging areas. d) Caribou The following guidelines apply to all British Columbia Conservation Data Centre (CDC) and Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) listed Caribou herds, and other herds designated by regional MELP staff: (1) All Major Developments 1. Seasonally close highly sensitive habitats to snowmobiles, OHVs, helicopters, and other motorized vehicles. 2. Restrict snowmobile and OHV activity within moderate sensitivity areas as needed. 3. Limit helicopter and fixed-wing flight altitudes to a minimum of 300 m over MELP Designated Caribou habitats; where there is direct overlap of intensive helicopter use with caribou habitats then consideration should be given to horizontal no-fly zones over critical habitat areas. 4. Schedule helicopter and fixed-wing flights to avoid Designated calving and late winter habitats. 5. In cooperation with BC Environment staff, select particular routes, heliports, helipads, and helispots for all helicopter activities in the vicinity of Caribou ranges. 6. Prevent facility development on or near critical seasonal caribou habitats. 7. Ensure all non-motorized access trails are well screened from highly sensitive sites. Non-motorized trail users should stay on single trails and avoid wandering in highly sensitive areas. 8. If encountering caribou, stay at a distance that does not disturb or alarm them, or cause them to leave the immediate area. 9. Train staff and construction workers on responsible behaviour near sensitive Caribou habitats. 10. Apply guidelines for Ungulate Winter Ranges. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 130

131 (2) Highways and Railways 11. In areas where high frequencies of animal-vehicle collisions are predicted (a product of vehicle speed, traffic frequency and animal density), prevent collisions through installation of ungulate exclusion fencing. If both sides of the highway/railway are fenced, construct animal crossing structures at appropriate intervals (e.g. 2 to 4 km). 12. In areas where moderate frequencies of animal-vehicle collisions are predicted, and the Caribou involved are migratory, reduce collisions through installation of wildlife reflectors. Monitoring the effectiveness of these reflectors will be required to determine if a sufficient reduction in collisions has occurred to meet objectives, and if alternative mitigation techniques (e.g. fencing) are required. 13. To prevent attracting animals to unfenced highways, road salt should not be used near areas where Caribou congregate on summer or winter ranges. (3) Pipelines and Transmission Lines 14. Minimize spraying of pesticides used to maintain early seral stages of vegetation in those areas where Caribou are foraging along transmission line and pipeline rights-ofway. (4) Mine Developments and Industrial Processing Plants 15. Restrict human access on roads that pass through sensitive Caribou habitat. 16. Monitor and regulate adverse impacts on forest health of emissions of toxic compounds such as sulphur dioxide, chlorinated hydrocarbons and heavy metals from natural gas or oil processing plants or wellheads. Particularly important is the impact of air pollution on the growth and survival of those species of lichen important as caribou forage. (5) Tourism Resorts 17. Provide undisturbed travel corridors through mountain ranges where populations are bisected by development. 18. Restrict helicopter skiing to avoid skier use of, and helicopter fly bys in, moderate to high sensitivity areas. 19. Locate ski lifts on routes with low seasonal use for foraging or thermal cover. 20. Restrict snowmobile, OHV, hiking, backcountry skiing within moderate to high sensitivity areas. 21. Route trails, roads, and human activity areas away from critical winter or summer habitats. e) Mountain Goat The following guidelines apply to all populations of Mountain Goat: Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 131

132 (1) All Major Developments 1. Maintain seasonal no-fly zones for helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft that are a minimum 2000 m horizontal and vertical distance from MELP Designated Mountain Goat habitats, unless goats are separated by a physical barrier that would minimize disturbance levels (e.g. a mountain ridge or terrain block). Distance interval restrictions may be relaxed by ameliorating circumstances (e.g. safety concerns because of weather). 2. Select heliports, helipads, and helispots for all helicopter activities to avoid locations within 2000 m of designated Mountain Goat habitats. 3. Avoid all human disturbances of identified kidding areas from May 1 to July Avoid all human Disturbance of Designated winter ranges from Dec. 1 to April Prevent development of facilities in or near high use habitats such as mineral licks, nursery sites, or winter habitat. 6. Train staff and construction workers on responsible behaviour near critical seasonal Mountain Goat habitats. 7. Apply guidelines for Ungulate Winter Ranges. (2) Highways and Railways 8. In areas where high frequencies of animal-vehicle collisions are predicted (a product of vehicle speed, traffic frequency and animal density), prevent collisions through installation of ungulate exclusion fencing. If both sides of the highway/railway are fenced, construct animal crossing structures at appropriate intervals (e.g. 2 to 4 km). 9. In areas where moderate frequencies of animal-vehicle collisions are predicted, and the Mountain Goats involved are migratory, reduce collisions through installation of wildlife reflectors. Monitoring the effectiveness of these reflectors will be required to determine if a sufficient reduction in collisions has occurred to meet objectives, and if alternative mitigation techniques (e.g. fencing) are required. 10. To prevent attracting animals to unfenced highways, road salt should not be used near areas where Mountain Goats congregate on summer or winter ranges. (3) Pipelines and Transmission Lines 11. Minimize spraying of pesticides used to maintain early seral stages of vegetation in those areas where Mountain Goats are foraging along transmission line and pipeline rights-of-way. (4) Mine Developments and Industrial Processing Plants 12. Monitor and regulate impacts of emissions of toxic compounds such as sulphur dioxide, chlorinated hydrocarbons, or heavy metals from mines, pulp mills, metal refineries, or natural gas and oil processing plants, to minimize impacts on forage plants. 13. Route access roads away from bases of mountains used as winter ranges. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 132

133 (5) Tourism Resorts 14. All non-motorized access trails and Mountain Goat viewing areas should be at least 300 m away from sensitive sites such as mineral licks, kidding cliffs, lush basins below rugged escape terrain, or traditionally used trails (easily identified). 15. Provide undisturbed travel corridors through mountain ranges where populations are bisected by development. 16. Prevent human access to cliffs or mountains with nursery refuges for females with kids. 17. Locate ski lifts and other ski facilities in areas with low seasonal use for foraging, escape or thermal cover. 18. Restrict snowmobile, OHV, hiking, backcountry skiing within moderate to high sensitivity areas. 2. CARNIVORES a) Badger The following guidelines apply to all populations of Badger: (1) All Major Developments 1. Prevent facility development on high-use or high-capability habitats. 2. Maintain badger burrows (badgers use hundreds of burrows). 3. Minimize human access in known use areas. 4. Protect badgers from human disturbance and poaching. 5. Maintain populations and habitats of prey species, primarily ground squirrels and pocket gophers. 6. Avoid use of rodenticides to control rodent populations in all areas with badger sign. 7. Train staff and construction workers on responsible behaviour near badger habitats. (2) Highways and Railways 8. Badgers are particularly susceptible to high levels of mortality associated with motor vehicle collisions. In areas where high frequencies of animal-vehicle collisions are predicted (a product of vehicle speed, traffic frequency and animal density), prevent collisions through installation of specially designed exclusion fencing. If both sides of the highway/railway are fenced, construct animal crossing structures at appropriate intervals (e.g. 2 to 4 km) since Badgers have extremely large home ranges. (3) Mine Developments and Industrial Processing Plants 9. In areas with high risk of mortality from collision with vehicles construct underpasses under paved access roads and build drift fences to funnel badgers toward the underpasses. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 133

134 10. Monitor and regulate impacts of emissions of toxic compounds such as sulphur dioxide, chlorinated hydrocarbons, or heavy metals from mines, pulp mills, metal refineries, or natural gas and oil processing plants, to minimize contamination of small mammal prey. (4) Tourism Resorts 11. In areas with high risk of mortality from collision with vehicles construct underpasses under paved access roads and build drift fences to funnel badgers toward the underpasses. b) Fisher The following guidelines apply to all populations of Fisher: (1) All Major Developments 1. Maintain sufficient amounts of mature forested habitat and coarse woody debris in known habitats by limiting basal area reduction in known habitats to 20%. 2. Minimize activities in riparian zones and maintain mature deciduous trees. 3. Prevent removal of Coarse Woody Debris from known habitats. 4. In areas with high risk of mortality from collision with vehicles construct underpasses under paved access roads and highways and build drift fences to funnel Fishers toward the underpasses. (2) Mine Developments and Industrial Processing Plants 5. Monitor and regulate impacts of emissions of toxic compounds such as sulphur dioxide, chlorinated hydrocarbons, or heavy metals from mines, mines, pulp mills, metal refineries, or natural gas and oil processing plants, to minimize contamination of small mammal prey. 6. Apply riparian management and wildlife tree retention measures in the Forest Practices Code. (3) Tourism Resorts 7. Minimize clearing of mature coniferous and riparian forest for facility development. 8. Retain forested mountain saddles between drainages to facilitate dispersal movements. 9. Restrict snowmobile, OHV, hiking, backcountry skiing within moderate to high sensitivity areas. 10. Minimize peripheral road development in moderate to high sensitivity areas. 11. Apply riparian management and wildlife tree retention measures in the Forest Practices Code. c) Wolverine The following guidelines apply to all populations of Wolverine: Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 134

135 (1) All Major Developments 1. Avoid human activities within 2000 m of known denning habitats from January to May. 2. Avoid helicopter over-flights, and prevent helicopter landings and snowmobile activity near known den areas. 3. Prevent facilities development and high levels of human activity in identified high use habitats at all other times of the year. 4. Heli-skiing should be avoided in areas where wolverines are known to occur, especially if the activity is near denning habitat (Trochta 1999). (2) Mine Developments and Industrial Processing Plants 5. Minimize peripheral road development in moderate to high sensitivity areas. 6. Provide undisturbed travel corridors through mountain ranges where populations are bisected by development. (3) Tourism Resorts 7. Restrict snowmobile, OHV, hiking, backcountry skiing within moderate to high sensitivity areas, especially in mountainous wilderness areas. 8. Provide undisturbed travel corridors through mountain ranges where populations are bisected by development. 9. Minimize peripheral road development in moderate to high sensitivity areas. 10. Route roads and trails away from forested saddles that link major drainages or mountain ranges. 11. Seasonally close access to humans to natal habitats. d) Sea Otter The following guidelines apply to all populations of Sea Otter: (1) All Major Developments 1. Maintain a no motorized watercraft buffer zone of 200 m around colonies, aggregations and feeding areas. 2. Maintain no-fly zones for helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft that are a minimum 200 m horizontal and vertical distance from colonies, aggregations and feeding areas. 3. Prevent all human activities within 100 m of colonies, aggregations and feeding areas. 4. Prevent facility development within 2000 m of colonies, aggregations and feeding areas. 5. Train staff and construction workers in appropriate behaviour in the vicinity of Sea Otters and their habitats. e) Cougar The following guidelines apply to all populations of Cougar: Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 135

136 (1) All Major Developments 1 Prevent facilities development on or near ungulate winter ranges that also support cougar in winter. 2 Close human destination areas near cougar dens between April 15 and July 15 to prevent displacement of cougars during critical denning period. 3 Maintain good sanitation of all transportation routes and snowmobile trails. 4 Locate and design facilities to minimize the risk of cougar/human encounters. 5 Train staff and construction workers on responsible behaviour near sensitive cougar habitats. (2) Highways and Railways 6 In areas where high frequencies of animal-vehicle collisions are predicted (a product of vehicle speed, traffic frequency and animal density), prevent collisions through installation of exclusion fencing. If both sides of the highway/railway are fenced, construct animal crossing structures at appropriate intervals (e.g. 2 to 4 km). f) Lynx The following guidelines apply to all populations of Lynx: (1) All Major Developments 1 Ensure lynx do not have access to human supplied-foods by storing food and garbage in lynx proof containers. 2 Maintain good sanitation of all transportation routes, access roads and snowmobile trails. 3 Regulate human activities so that they occur in a predictable fashion within defined areas to decrease flight responses. Where human-activity occurs on winter ranges, keep it concentrated in established areas as much as possible. 4 Minimize peripheral road development in moderate to high sensitivity areas. 5 Apply Coarse Woody Debris guidelines in the Forest Practices Code in undeveloped areas. g) Gray Wolf The following guidelines apply to all populations of Gray Wolf: (1) All Major Developments 1 Avoid road and facilities development on or near ungulate winter ranges that also support wolves in winter. 2 Close human destination areas near wolf dens between April 15 and July 15 to prevent displacement of wolves during critical denning period. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 136

137 3 Keep domestic dogs leashed and/or tethered in areas with significant wolf populations. 4 Minimize peripheral road development in moderate to high sensitivity areas. 5 Regulate and seasonally close human use of roads in wilderness areas frequented by wolves. 3. OTHER MAMMALS a) Red- and Blue-listed Bats The following guidelines apply to all populations of Red- and Blue-listed Bats (Appendix 1): (1) All Major Developments 1 Avoid facility development near sensitive habitats (e.g. caves, abandoned mines and buildings, old forests, etc). 2 Avoid use of pesticides near critical foraging habitats. 3 Prevent abandonment of hibernacula and roost sites by preventing access to these sites. 4 Train staff and construction workers on responsible behaviour near sensitive bat habitats. (2) Highways and Railways 5 Some highway and railway structures have the potential to be used for nesting and roosting bats. Consider roughening the underside of concrete box culverts to make it easier for bats to attach themselves, and encourage their continued use of these sites. (3) Mine Developments and Industrial Processing Plants 6 Conserve sites and prevent development on maternity or hibernacula sites wherever feasible. 7 Prevent human access to maternity or hibernacula sites. 8 Provide alternative habitat if maternity and hibernacula sites are impacted by development. 9 Disperse roosting colonies before impacting roost sites during development. 10 Monitor and regulate impacts of emissions of toxic compounds such as sulphur dioxide, chlorinated hydrocarbons, or heavy metals from mines, pulp mills, metal refineries, or natural gas and oil processing plants, to minimize contamination of small mammal prey. 11 Apply riparian management and wildlife tree retention measures in the Forest Practices Code. 12 Minimize application of pesticides in foraging habitat. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 137

138 (4) Tourism Resorts 13 Conserve sites and prevent development on maternity or hibernacula sites wherever feasible. 14 Prevent human access to maternity or hibernacula sites. 15 Provide alternative habitat if maternity and hibernacula sites are impacted by development. 16 Disperse roosting colonies before impacting roost sites during development. 17 Apply riparian management and wildlife tree retention measures in the Forest Practices Code. 18 Minimize application of pesticides in foraging habitat. (5) Hydroelectric Developments 19 Provide alternative habitat if maternity and hibernacula sites are impacted by development. b) Red- And Blue-Listed Rodents The following guidelines apply to all populations of Red- and Blue-listed Rodents (Appendix 1): (1) All Major Developments 1. Prevent facility development at known sites. 2. Maintain sensitive habitats and the natural distribution of important habitat features (e.g. Coarse Woody Debris). 3. Avoid use of rodenticides to control rodent populations in all areas with evidence of Red- and Blue-listed Rodents. 4. Apply Riparian and Coarse Woody Debris guidelines of the Forest Practices Code. 5. Salvage coarse woody debris and rocks to be placed on disturbed areas during the habitat restoration phase for use by Red- and Blue-listed Rodents as thermal and security cover 6. Protect known population through training of staff and construction workers since these species are often treated as pests. (2) Tourism Resorts 7. Close areas with known populations to human or domestic animal use. 8. Route trails and roads away from known sites. c) Vancouver Island Marmot The following guidelines apply to all natural occurrences of Vancouver Island Marmot: Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 138

139 (1) All Major Developments 1. Prevent dogs from approaching within 500 m of occupied habitats. 2. Prevent facilities development and high levels of human activity in identified critical habitats at all times of the year. 3. Limit helicopter and fixed-wing flight altitudes to a minimum of 500 m over occupied marmot habitats. Prevent helicopter landings near known use areas. 4. Avoid human recreational activities near occupied habitats during spring and summer when marmots are active. 5. Maintain sensitive habitats and the natural distribution of important habitat features. 6. Train staff and construction workers on responsible behaviour near Vancouver Island Marmot habitats. (2) Mine Developments and Industrial Processing Plants 7. Prevent logging of high elevation forest on mountains with colonies. (3) Tourism Resorts 8. Prevent facility development on or near existing colonies. 9. Prevent establishment of hiking or mountain bike trails through colonies. 10. Prevent logging of high elevation forest on mountains with colonies. 11. Seasonally close colonies to human access. (4) Hydroelectric Developments 12. Prevent hydroelectric developments on or near existing colonies. 4. BIRDS a) Red- and Blue-Listed Seabirds The following guidelines apply to all populations of Red- and Blue-listed Seabirds (Appendix 1): (1) All Major Developments 1. Maintain a no motorized watercraft buffer zone of 500 m around nest areas of Redand Blue-listed Surface-nesting Seabirds* from May to August. 2. Limit helicopter or fixed-wing altitudes to a minimum of 500 m over nesting colonies of Red- and Blue-listed Surface-nesting Seabirds*. 3. Prevent human access to nesting colonies of Red- and Blue-listed Surface-nesting Seabirds*. 4. Maintain a no human or pet contact buffer zone of 500 m around mainland nest areas from May to August. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 139

140 5. Prevent facility development within 2000 m of mainland nest areas. Prevent facility development on islands with nesting colonies. 6. Determine the area of influence and shock wave impact area of construction blasting and avoid blasting during the nesting period of any Red- or Blue-listed Seabirds within that area. 7. Train staff and construction workers in appropriate behaviour in the vicinity of colonial-nesting seabirds and their habitats. (2) Mine Developments and Industrial Processing Plants 8. Select marine transportation routes for petroleum products that minimize the risk of accident or intentional discharge of petroleum products into the sea. 9. Regulate effluent discharge to minimize discharge of toxic materials into marine ecosystems. (3) Tourism Resorts 10. Establish minimum distance boundaries for eco-tourists and sports fishermen around the periphery of nesting colonies of Red- and Blue-listed Surface-nesting Seabirds*. * Red- and Blue-listed surface-nesting seabirds include Brandt s Cormorant, Pelagic Cormorant - pelagicus subspecies, Double-crested Cormorant, Common Murre, Thickbilled Murre, and Horned Puffin. b) Great Blue Heron The following guidelines apply to all populations of Great Blue Heron: (1) All Major Developments 1 Prevent facility development within 250 m of occupied or unoccupied heronries or adjacent to critical intertidal foraging habitats. 2 Seasonally close human access to nesting colonies within a 250m perimeter to prevent observers, particularly with dogs, from walking under active heronries. 3 Limit helicopter and fixed-wing flight altitudes to a minimum of 500 m over active heronries during the breeding season. Prevent helicopter landings near active heronries. 4 Prevent disturbance of nest trees and nesting habitats in both occupied and unoccupied heronries. 5 Avoid intensive use in and adjacent to foraging areas. 6 Train staff and construction workers in appropriate behaviour in the vicinity of Great Blue Herons and their habitats. (2) Highways and Railways 8 Route highways and railways away from known nesting areas. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 140

141 (3) Pipelines and Transmission Lines 9 Route electric transmission lines as far away as practicable from active heronries. Use underground cables to bury electric transmission lines that must approach within 500 m of active heronries. (4) Mine Developments and Industrial Processing Plants 10 Regulate effluent discharge to minimize discharge of toxic materials into marine and freshwater ecosystems. (5) Tourism Resorts 11 Restrict human access to important foraging habitats to avoid disturbance during high-use periods. 12 Route trails, roads, and activities away from heronries and important foraging areas. (6) Hydroelectric Developments 13 Locate large and small reservoirs away from active heronries. c) American Avocet The following guidelines apply to all populations of American Avocet: (1) All Major Developments 1. Prevent humans and dogs from approaching within 150 m of nesting colonies from May to August. 2. Prevent in filling, draining, or flooding of marsh and wetland habitats used by American Avocets for nesting or foraging. 3. Train staff and construction workers in appropriate behaviour in the vicinity of American Avocets and their habitats. (2) Highways and Railways 4. Route highways and railways away from known nesting areas. (3) Pipelines and Transmission Lines 5. Route pipeline and electric transmission lines away from known nesting areas. (4) Mine Developments and Industrial Processing Plants 6. Manage concentration of heavy metals or other toxic chemicals (particularly selenium), nitrates, and salts in evaporation ponds to sub-lethal levels for adults and chick embryos. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 141

142 7. In areas frequented by American Avocets, use netting to prevent birds from accessing leachate ponds contaminated with cyanide or oil. (5) Tourism Resorts 8. Prevent facility development on or adjacent to wetlands where nesting colonies exist. 9. Route trails, roads, and activities away from wetlands used for breeding. (6) Hydroelectric Developments 10. Locate large and small reservoirs away from known nesting areas. d) Long-billed Curlew The following guidelines apply to all populations of Long-billed Curlew: (1) All Major Developments 1. Prevent dogs from approaching within 250m of nesting habitats from May to August. 2. Prevent facility development and OHV use on MELP Designated grassland nesting areas. 3. Maintain native bunchgrass vegetation and prevent prescribed burning in MELP Designated nesting areas. 4. Minimize use of pesticides in grassland nesting and foraging areas. 5. Train staff and construction workers in appropriate behaviour in the vicinity of Longbilled Curlews and their habitats. (2) Highways and Railways 6. Route highways and railways away from known nesting areas. (3) Pipelines and Transmission Lines 7. Route pipelines and electric transmission lines away from known nesting areas. (4) Hydroelectric Developments 8. Locate large and small reservoirs away from known nesting areas. e) Upland Sandpiper The following guidelines apply to all populations of Upland Sandpiper: (1) All Major Developments 1. Prevent dogs from approaching within 250m of nesting habitats from May to August. 2. Prevent facility development and OHV use on MELP Designated grassland nesting areas. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 142

143 3. Maintain native bunchgrass vegetation and prevent prescribed burning in MELP Designated nesting areas. 4. Minimize use of pesticides in grassland nesting and foraging areas. 5. Train staff and construction workers in appropriate behaviour in the vicinity of Upland Sandpipers and their habitats. (2) Highways and Railways 6. Route highways and railways away from known nesting areas. (3) Pipelines and Transmission Lines 7. Route pipelines and electric transmission lines away from known nesting areas. (4) Tourism Resorts 8. Restrict grazing of grassland nesting and foraging areas by domestic animals to nonbreeding seasons. (5) Hydroelectric Developments 9. Locate large and small reservoirs away from known nesting areas. 5. FRESHWATER NESTING BIRDS a) American White Pelican The following guidelines apply to all populations of American White Pelican: (1) All Major Developments 1. Maintain seasonal no-fly zones for helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft that are a minimum 2000 m horizontal and 500 m vertical distance from the breeding colony at Stum Lake on the Chilcotin Plateau. 2. During the breeding season, close all access to the nesting colony at Stum Lake and any other nesting colonies that may be discovered. 3. Prevent alteration of natural water regimes (dams and diversions) associated with loafing and foraging habitats. 4. Prevent facility development on or adjacent to lakes and streams that serve as loafing and foraging habitats. 5. Prevent humans and dogs from approaching within 250m of loafing and foraging habitats. 6. Avoid aircraft landings and takeoffs on or near loafing and foraging habitats. 7. Train staff and construction workers in appropriate behaviour in the vicinity of American white pelicans and their habitats. (2) Highways and Railways Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 143

144 8. Route highways and railways away from nesting colonies and known loafing and foraging habitats. (3) Pipelines and Transmission Lines 9. Route oil and gas pipelines and electric transmission lines away from nesting colonies and known loafing and foraging habitats. (4) Mine Developments and Industrial Processing Plants 10. Prevent facility development on or adjacent to wetlands or lakes that have nesting colonies and known loafing and foraging habitats. 11. Prevent discharge of effluents into drainage basins upstream of nesting wetlands or important foraging lakes and streams. (5) Tourism Resorts 12. Prevent facility development on wetlands or lakes that have nesting colonies. 13. Prevent discharge of effluents into drainage basins upstream of nesting wetlands. (6) Hydroelectric Developments 14. Locate large and small reservoirs away from nesting colonies and loafing and foraging habitats. b) Harlequin Duck The following guidelines apply to all populations of Harlequin Duck: (1) All Major Developments 1. Prevent facility development on or adjacent to important breeding streams and riparian habitats. 2. Avoid activities on critical habitats during the nesting and fledgling period (May to September) 3. Train staff and construction workers in appropriate behaviour in the vicinity of Harlequin Ducks and their habitats. (2) Pipelines and Transmission Lines 4. Route oil and gas pipelines away from important breeding streams and riparian habitats. (3) Mine Developments and Industrial Processing Plants 5. Select marine transportation routes for petroleum products that minimize the risk of accident or intentional discharge of petroleum products into the sea near important coastal moulting and wintering sites. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 144

145 6. Regulate effluent discharge to minimize discharge of toxic materials, especially chlorinated hydrocarbons and heavy metals, into marine and freshwater ecosystems. (4) Tourism Resorts 7. Seasonally restrict watercraft use on breeding streams with moderate to high use by Harlequin Ducks to minimize human Disturbance. 8. Prevent discharge of sewage effluent or wastewater into breeding streams. 9. Restrict human access by watercraft to important coastal moulting and wintering sites by creating appropriately sized buffer zones around those sites. (5) Hydroelectric Developments 10. Locate large and small reservoirs away from important breeding streams. 11. Maintain relatively constant stream flows below dams from May through July on breeding streams. c) Red- and Blue-Listed Marshbirds The following guidelines apply to all populations of Red- and Blue-listed Marshbirds (Appendix 1): (1) All Major Developments 1. Prevent alteration of natural water regimes (dams and diversions). 2. Prevent facility development within 500 m of marsh and wetland nesting areas of Forster s Tern and Caspian Tern. 3. Maintain a no motorized watercraft buffer zone of 250 m around nest areas from April to September. 4. Maintain a no human or pet contact buffer zone of 250 m around Forster s Tern and Caspian Tern nest areas from April to September. 5. Prevent in filling, draining or flooding of marsh habitats used by the Red- and Bluelisted Marshbirds. 6. Avoid the use of pesticides in the vicinity of nesting or foraging areas. 7. Train staff and construction workers in appropriate behaviour in the vicinity of Redand Blue-listed marshbirds and their habitats. (2) Highways and Railways 8. Route highways and railways away from marsh and wetland habitats used by Redand Blue-listed Marshbirds. (3) Pipelines and Transmission Lines 9. Route oil and gas pipelines away from marsh and wetland habitats used by Red- and Blue-listed Marshbirds. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 145

146 10. Route transmission lines away from flight corridors used by used by Red- and Bluelisted Marshbirds. If routing near a known flight path is required, route the transmission lines parallel to, rather than across, the flight corridor. 11. Avoid routing transmission lines over, through or within 1 km of high-water mark of marsh areas (or dry basins known to hold water intermittently) that are used by Redand Blue-listed Marshbirds. 12. Enhance visibility of transmission cables and towers in the vicinity of Red- and Bluelisted Marshbird habitats. (4) Mine Developments and Industrial Processing Plants 13. Regulate upstream effluent discharges to minimize input of toxic materials into lakes or wetlands associated with breeding colonies. (5) Hydroelectric Developments 14. Locate large and small reservoirs away from important marsh and wetland breeding areas. d) Western Grebe The following guidelines apply to all populations of Western Grebe: (1) All Major Developments 1. Prevent in filling, draining or flooding of marsh and wetland habitats used by Western Grebes. 2. Maintain stable water levels during the breeding period. 3. Prevent use of motorized watercraft within 250 m of MELP Designated nesting areas during the breeding period as nests are easily swamped. 4. Maintain a safe distance of 100 m from nests by swimmers and all watercraft (including canoes, kayaks, windsurfers). 5. Avoid operating motorized watercraft in the midst of wintering aggregations. 6. Train staff and construction workers in appropriate behaviour in the vicinity of grebes and grebe habitats. (2) Highways and Railways 7. Route highways and railways away from known nesting areas. (3) Pipelines and Transmission Lines 8. Route oil and gas pipelines away from known nesting areas. (4) Mine Developments and Industrial Processing Plants 9. Prevent facility development on or adjacent to wetlands or lakes that have nesting colonies. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 146

147 10. Prevent facility development on lands adjacent to critical coastal marine wintering habitats. 11. Select marine transportation routes for petroleum products that minimize the risk of accident or intentional discharge of petroleum products into the sea near important coastal wintering sites. 12. Regulate effluent discharge to minimize discharge of toxic materials, especially chlorinated hydrocarbons and heavy metals, into marine and freshwater ecosystems. (5) Tourism Resorts 13. Select appropriate locations that minimize disturbance for facility development on wetlands or lakes that have nesting colonies. (6) Hydroelectric Developments 14. Locate large and small reservoirs away from known nesting areas. e) American Bittern The following guidelines apply to all populations of American Bittern: (1) All Major Developments 1. Avoid disturbance of critical nesting habitat. 2. Maintain natural water levels from April to August. 3. Maintain a no motorized watercraft buffer zone of 250 m around nest areas from April to August. 4. Prevent dogs from approaching within 250m of nesting habitats. 5. Prevent in filling of marsh habitats used by American Bitterns. 6. Train staff and construction workers in appropriate behaviour in the vicinity of American Bitterns and their habitats. (2) Highways and Railways 7. Route highways and railways away from nesting colonies and known loafing and foraging habitats. (3) Pipelines and Transmission Lines 8. Route oil and gas pipelines and electric transmission lines away from nesting colonies and known loafing and foraging habitats. (4) Mine Developments and Industrial Processing Plants 9. Prevent facility development on breeding wetlands 10. Regulate upstream effluent discharges to minimize input of toxic materials into lakes or wetlands used for breeding. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 147

148 (5) Tourism Resorts 11. Prevent facility development in stands of emergent vegetation in breeding wetlands. (6) Hydroelectric Developments 12. Locate large and small reservoirs away from important marsh and wetland breeding areas. f) Sandhill Crane The following guidelines apply to all populations of Sandhill Crane: (1) All Major Developments 1. Maintain structural integrity of identified riparian areas along with a 50 m buffer. 2. Prevent use of motorized watercraft on identified lake areas during the breeding period. 3. Prevent OHVs and dogs from approaching within 250m of nesting areas. 4. Train staff and construction workers in appropriate behaviour in the vicinity of Sandhill Cranes and their habitats. (2) Pipelines and Transmission Lines 5. Route oil and gas pipelines away from marsh and wetland habitats used by Sandhill Cranes. 6. Route transmission lines away from flight corridors used by Sandhill Cranes. If routing near a known flight path is required, route the transmission lines parallel to, rather than across, the flight corridor. 7. Enhance visibility of transmission cables and towers in the vicinity of Sandhill Crane flight corridors. (3) Mine Developments and Industrial Processing Plants 8. Regulate upstream effluent discharges to minimize input of toxic materials into marshes and wetlands associated with breeding birds. (4) Hydroelectric Developments 9. Locate large and small reservoirs away from important marsh and wetland breeding areas. 6. RAPTORS BIRDS OF PREY a) Red- and Blue-Listed Cliff-Nesting Falcons Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 148

149 The following guidelines apply to all populations of Red- and Blue-listed Cliff-nesting Falcons (Appendix 1): (1) All Major Developments 1. Prevent development of facilities at cliffs used for nesting or within an appropriately sized buffer zone around the cliff. 2. In regularly used areas, design power distribution systems to accommodate perching or nesting raptors without electrocution. 3. Avoid the use of pesticides in the vicinity of nesting or foraging areas. 4. Train staff and construction workers in appropriate behaviour in the vicinity of cliff nest sites. (2) Pipelines and Transmission Lines 5. Route electric transmission lines away from cliff nesting habitats. 6. Enhance visibility of transmission cables and towers in the vicinity of cliff nests. (3) Mine Developments and Industrial Processing Plants 7. Seasonally close heavy equipment operation within an appropriately sized buffer zone around the nesting cliff. (4) Tourism Resorts 8. Route trails and roads away from nesting sites. 9. Prevent rock climbing, hang-gliding and other recreational activities on or near occupied cliff nests until after the offspring have fledged. b) Peregrine Falcon The following guidelines apply to all populations and both subspecies of Peregrine Falcon. (1) All Major Developments 1. Prevent in filling or draining of wetland foraging habitats. 2. Apply guidelines for Red- and Blue-Listed Cliff-Nesting Falcons. (2) Pipelines and Transmission Lines 3. Route oil and gas pipelines away from wetland foraging habitats. (3) Mine Developments and Industrial Processing Plants Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 149

150 4. Regulate upstream effluent discharges to minimize input of toxic materials into wetlands foraging habitats. (4) Hydroelectric Developments 5. Locate large and small reservoirs away from important wetland foraging habitats. c) Prairie Falcon The following guidelines apply to all populations of Prairie Falcon (1) All Major Developments 1. Maintain grassland foraging habitats in late seral stage. 2. Avoid use of rodenticides to control rodent populations in Prairie Falcon foraging areas. 3. Apply guidelines for Red- and Blue-Listed Cliff-Nesting Falcons. d) Northern Goshawk The following guidelines apply to all populations and both subspecies of Northern Goshawk: (1) All Major Developments 1. Prevent facility development within a 240 ha post-fledging area centered on known nest trees. 2. Train staff and construction workers in appropriate behaviour in the vicinity of northern goshawks and their habitats. e) Bald Eagle The following guidelines apply to all populations of Bald Eagle: (1) All Major Developments 1. Protect Bald Eagle nest structures (Section 34 of the Wildlife Act) 2. Prevent facility development within 100 m of nest trees. 3. Minimize human activities within 100 m of active nests between February and July. 4. Maintain all existing habitat components within 100 m of nest trees. 5. Apply riparian management and wildlife tree retention measures in the Forest Practices Code. 6. Train staff and construction workers in appropriate behaviour in the vicinity of Bald Eagles and their habitats. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 150

151 (2) Highways and Railways 7. Maintain good sanitation of all highways and railways to prevent eagles from being attracted to road-kill carcasses and becoming at risk of being struck by vehicles. f) Broad-winged Hawk, Swainson s Hawk, and Ferruginous Hawk The following guidelines apply to all populations of Broad-winged Hawk, Swainson s Hawk, and Ferruginous Hawk: (1) All Major Developments 1. Prevent facility development within 100 m of nest trees. 2. Minimize human activities within 100 m of active nests between February and July. 3. Maintain all existing habitat components within 100 m of nest trees. 4. Apply riparian management and wildlife tree retention measures in the Forest Practices Code. 5. Train staff and construction workers in appropriate behaviour in the vicinity of treenesting hawks at risk and their habitats. g) Red and Blue-listed Tree-Nesting Owls The following guidelines apply to all populations of Red- and Blue-listed Tree-nesting Owls (Appendix 1): (1) All Major Developments 1. Minimize disturbance of mature and old growth forests and riparian deciduous forests that are potential habitat for Red- and Blue-listed Tree-nesting Owls. 2. Prevent the cutting of wildlife trees or standing dead snags except as necessary for safety (topping should be considered as a safety option). 3. Avoid the use of pesticides in the vicinity of nesting areas. 4. Apply riparian and range management and wildlife tree retention measures in the Forest Practices Code. 5. Use the concepts and habitat practices for managing habitat in any Identified Wildlife Management Strategy guidelines under the Forest Practices Code that may become in the future. 6. Mitigate loss of potential nesting sites for cavity-nesters by enhancing adjacent habitat. 7. Train staff and construction workers in appropriate behaviour in the vicinity of Redand Blue-listed Tree-nesting Owls and their habitats. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 151

152 h) Short-eared Owl and Burrowing Owl The following guidelines apply to all populations of Short-eared Owl and Burrowing Owl: (1) All Major Developments 1. Prevent development of facilities in high-quality grassland and meadow habitat within the breeding range of Short-eared Owls and Burrowing Owls. 2. Prevent OHV on grasslands used for nesting. 3. Minimize grazing disturbance of winter and summer breeding habitats. 4. Prevent dogs from approaching within 250m of nesting habitats. 5. Avoid the use of pesticides in the vicinity of nesting areas. 6. Use the concepts and habitat practices for managing habitat in the Identified Wildlife Management Strategy under the Forest Practices Code. 7. Train staff and construction workers in appropriate behaviour in the vicinity of Shorteared Owls, Burrowing Owls and their habitats. (2) Tourism Resorts 8. Prevent OHV, mountain bikes, or domestic animals on grasslands and meadows used for nesting. 9. Seasonally close human access in areas used for nesting. 7. GROUSE a) Sharp-tailed Grouse columbianus subspecies The following guidelines apply to all populations of Sharp-tailed Grouse columbianus subspecies: (1) All Major Developments 1. Prevent facility development within 1 km of leks; also avoid nesting areas and critical winter habitats. 2. Establish appropriately sized no human activity buffer zones around leks. 3. Prevent habitat alteration of leks, nesting areas and critical winter habitats. 4. Prevent OHV use on or near traditional lek sites or in high-quality nesting habitat. 5. Prevent dogs from approaching within 250m of leks, nesting areas and critical winter habitats. 6. Avoid the use of pesticides near leks and nesting areas. 7. Minimize livestock use of Sharp-tailed Grouse habitats (leks, nesting, and wintering areas) where potential exists for loss of adequate vegetative cover. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 152

153 8. Train staff and construction workers in appropriate behaviour in the vicinity of Sharptailed Grouse and their habitats. (2) Highways and Railways 9. Route highways and railways at least 1 km away from Sharp-tailed Grouse leks. (3) Pipelines and Transmission Lines 10. Route oil and gas pipelines at least 1 km away from Sharp-tailed Grouse leks. (4) Tourism Resorts 11. Seasonally Restrict use of mountain bikes, and domestic animals in high-quality nesting habitat. (5) Hydroelectric Developments 12. Locate large and small reservoirs away from important wetland foraging habitats. b) White-tailed Ptarmigan saxatilis subspecies The following guidelines apply to all populations of White-tailed Ptarmigan saxatilis subspecies: (1) All Major Developments 1. Avoid facility development within 1 km of major nesting areas and critical winter habitats. 2. Prevent habitat alteration of nesting areas and critical winter habitats. 3. Prevent dogs from approaching within 250m of nesting areas and critical winter habitats. 4. Avoid the use of pesticides near nesting areas. 5. Train staff and construction workers in appropriate behaviour in the vicinity of Whitetailed Ptarmigan and their habitats. 8. WHITE-THROATED SWIFT The following guidelines apply to all populations of White-throated Swift: (1) All Major Developments 1. Prevent facility development 100m of nesting cliffs. 2. Prevent rock climbing on or near occupied nesting and foraging habitats from May through July. 3. Prevent the use of pesticides near nesting sites. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 153

154 4. Train staff and construction workers in appropriate behaviour in the vicinity of Canyon Wrens and their habitats. (2) Tourism Resorts 5. Prevent rock climbing and other human activities on occupied nesting cliffs from May through July. 9. RED- AND BLUE-LISTED WOODPECKERS The following guidelines apply to all populations of Red- and Blue-listed Woodpeckers (Appendix 1): (1) All Major Developments 1. Minimize disruption of mature and old growth forest habitat. 2. Prevent the cutting of wildlife trees or standing dead snags except as necessary for safety (topping should be considered as a safety option). 3. Conserve known nest trees. 4. Apply riparian and range management and wildlife tree retention measures in the Forest Practices Code. 10. PASSERINE BIRDS - SONGBIRDS a) Red and Blue-listed Songbirds The following guidelines apply to all populations of Red- and Blue-listed Songbirds (Appendix 1): 1. Prevent development or clearing in critical nesting and foraging habitats. 2. Maintain structural integrity of nesting and foraging habitats (e.g. prevent deliberate and accidental fires, avoid clearing and firewood collection in sensitive habitats). 3. Apply riparian and range management measures in the Forest Practices Code 4. Undertake construction and maintenance activities outside of the nesting season so as not to disturb nesting pairs or destroy nest sites. 5. Avoid disturbance or removal of brush piles in cleared areas to provide shelter from predators and protection from inclement weather. 6. Include in vegetation management plans the requirement to extirpate knapweed and other noxious weeds known to alter the structure of grassland communities to the detriment of ground nesting birds 7. Avoid the use of pesticides near nesting sites. 8. Prevent dogs from approaching within 250m of nesting areas. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 154

155 9. When detrimental, minimize livestock grazing in occupied habitats. 10. Train staff and construction workers on responsible behaviour near sensitive songbird habitats. b) Canyon Wren The following guidelines apply to all populations of Canyon Wren: (1) All Major Developments 1. Prevent facility development 100m of nesting habitats. 2. Prevent removal of talus rock on or near nesting and foraging habitats. 3. Prevent rock climbing and other human activities on or near occupied nesting and foraging habitats from May through July. 4. Avoid rocking climbing on or near over-wintering habitats from November through February. 5. Prevent the use of pesticides near nesting sites. 6. Train staff and construction workers in appropriate behaviour in the vicinity of Canyon Wrens and their habitats. c) Bobolink The following guidelines apply to all populations of Bobolink: (1) All Major Developments 1. Mow fields after 31 July if nesting pairs are present. 2. Avoid the use of pesticides in the vicinity of nesting or foraging areas. 11. REPTILES a) Painted Turtle The following guidelines apply to all populations of Painted Turtle: (1) All Major Developments 1. New facilities or roads should not be constructed within 250 m of key nesting, overwintering, and foraging sites. 2. Regulate upstream effluent discharges to minimize input of toxic materials into lakes or wetlands with turtles. 3. New water impoundments should not be constructed where they would flood important habitats. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 155

156 4. Train staff and construction workers in appropriate behaviour in the vicinity of Painted Turtles and their habitats. (2) Highways and Railways 5. In areas where high frequencies of animal-vehicle collisions are predicted (a product of vehicle speed, traffic frequency and animal density), prevent collisions through installation of exclusion fencing, and maintain connectivity between habitats as necessary using appropriately designed crossing structures. (3) Mine Developments and Industrial Processing Plants 6. If access road development bisects travel routes between wetlands and terrestrial breeding habitat, then provide fencing and alternate nesting habitats, or fencing and underpasses, to prevent road-kills. (4) Tourism Resorts 7. If access road development bisects travel routes between wetlands and terrestrial breeding habitat, then provide fencing and alternate nesting habitats, or fencing and underpasses, to prevent road-kills. (5) Hydroelectric Developments 8. Locate large and small reservoirs away from important nesting, overwintering and foraging habitats. b) Red and Blue-listed Snakes The following guidelines apply to all populations of Red- and Blue-listed Snakes (Appendix 1): (1) All Major Developments 1. Prevent facility development within 250 m of known den sites. 2. Seasonally close human access to den sites. 3. During construction and operation of facilities, use drift fences to intercept snakes moving into hazardous areas (e.g. heavy machinery, road traffic or open pits) to prevent increases in direct mortality. 4. Apply coarse woody debris retention guidelines, found in the Forest Practices Code, where appropriate. 5. Salvage coarse woody debris and rocks to be placed on disturbed areas during the habitat restoration phase for use by snakes as thermal and security cover. 6. Protect critical structural elements of snake habitats outside of planned development area. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 156

157 7. Train staff and construction workers in appropriate behaviour in the vicinity of Redand Blue-listed Snakes and their habitats. Increase awareness about snakes within the project area by preparing a brochure for all staff and construction workers. (2) Highways and Railways 8. In areas where high frequencies of animal-vehicle collisions are predicted (a product of vehicle speed, traffic frequency and animal density), prevent collisions through installation of exclusion and drift fencing, and maintain connectivity between habitats as necessary using appropriately designed crossing structures. (3) Pipelines and Transmission Lines 9. Use pipe-end covers, or nightcaps, to keep snakes and other wildlife species out of pipe sections stored adjacent to the trench area during the construction period. (4) Tourism Resorts 10. Route trails and roads away from nesting sites. (5) Hydroelectric Developments 11. Locate large and small reservoirs away from important nesting, overwintering and foraging habitats. 12. AMPHIBIANS a) Red- And Blue-Listed Amphibians The following guidelines apply to all populations of Red- and Blue-listed Amphibians (Appendix 1): (1) All Major Developments 1. Prevent facility development at known breeding and wintering localities. 2. Avoid facility development at historic breeding and wintering localities. 3. Maintain important habitat values by preventing alteration of breeding and foraging habitats. Prevent in filling, draining or flooding wetland habitats currently or historically used by Red- and Blue-listed Amphibians. 4. Prevent use of pesticides and fertilizers within an appropriate buffer zone around current and historical breeding and wintering sites. 5. Prevent livestock grazing in riparian areas near current breeding and larvae rearing habitats. 6. Train staff and construction workers in appropriate behaviour in the vicinity of Redand Blue-listed Amphibians and their habitats. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 157

158 (2) Highways and Railways 7. In areas where the potential exists for animal-vehicle collisions, install exclusion drift fences to prevent Red- and Blue-listed Amphibians from accessing the right-of-way. As appropriate, maintain connectivity between habitats using appropriately designed crossing structures (modified culverts). (3) Pipelines and Transmission Lines 8. Route pipelines and transmission lines away from breeding and foraging areas. 9. Identify likely Red- and Blue-listed Amphibian movement corridors that cross the right-of-way for implementation of appropriate mitigation techniques during construction and operation of facilities. 10. Use pipe-end covers, or nightcaps, to keep salamanders and other wildlife species out of pipe sections stored adjacent to the trench area during the construction period. (4) Mine Developments and Industrial Processing Plants 11. Prevent facility development upstream of breeding and foraging habitats (within the local drainage basin that impacts on known sites). (5) Tourism Resorts 12. Route trails and roads away from breeding and foraging areas. (6) Hydroelectric Developments 13. Locate large and small reservoirs away from important breeding and foraging habitats. b) Coeur d Alene Salamander The following guidelines apply to all populations of Coeur d Alene Salamander: (1) All Major Developments 1. Restrict human access and activities at known sites. 2. Prevent facility development within 500 m of breeding and foraging habitats. 3. Prevent road construction within 100 m of breeding and foraging habitats. 4. Prevent trail construction within 50 m of breeding and foraging habitats. 5. Prevent the use of pesticides or herbicides at or near known sites. 6. Apply coarse woody debris and riparian management guidelines of the Forest Practices Code. (2) Highways and Railways 7. In areas where the potential exists for animal-vehicle collisions, install exclusion drift fences to prevent salamanders from accessing the right-of-way. As appropriate, Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 158

159 maintain connectivity between habitats using appropriately designed crossing structures (modified culverts). (3) Pipelines and Transmission Lines 8. Route pipelines and transmission lines away from breeding and foraging areas. 9. Use pipe-end covers, or nightcaps, to keep salamanders and other wildlife species out of pipe sections stored adjacent to the trench area during the construction period. (4) Mine Developments and Industrial Processing Plants 10. Prevent facility development upstream of breeding and foraging habitats (within the local drainage basin that impacts on known sites). (5) Tourism Resorts 11. Route trails and roads away from breeding and foraging areas. (6) Hydroelectric Developments 12. Locate large and small reservoirs away from important breeding and foraging habitats. c) Northern Leopard Frog The following guidelines apply to all populations of Northern Leopard Frog: (1) All Major Developments 1. Prevent facility development at known breeding and wintering localities. 2. Avoid facility development at historic breeding and wintering localities. 3. Maintain important habitat values by preventing alteration of breeding and foraging habitats. Prevent in filling, draining or flooding wetland habitats currently or historically used by Northern Leopard Frogs. 4. Prevent introduction of predatory fish to aquatic systems that currently or historically used by Northern Leopard Frogs. 5. Prevent use of pesticides and fertilizers within an appropriate buffer zone around current and historical breeding and wintering sites. 6. Prevent livestock grazing in riparian areas near current breeding and tadpole rearing habitats. 7. Close roads seasonally to avoid road-kills of seasonally dispersing frogs. 8. Prevent human access to known breeding sites as frogs and egg masses are very vulnerable. 9. Train staff and construction workers in appropriate behaviour in the vicinity of Northern Leopard Frogs and their habitats. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 159

160 (2) Highways and Railways 10. In areas where the potential exists for animal-vehicle collisions, install exclusion drift fences to prevent frogs from accessing the right-of-way. As appropriate, maintain connectivity between habitats using appropriately designed crossing structures (modified culverts). (3) Pipelines and Transmission Lines 11. Route pipelines and transmission lines away from breeding and foraging areas. (4) Mine Developments and Industrial Processing Plants 12. Restrict facility development upstream (within the drainage basin that impacts on known breeding sites) so that effluent discharged is not at lethal concentrations as it reaches breeding or wintering habitat, or does not add significantly to cumulative toxic effects. (5) Tourism Resorts 13. Restrict facility development upstream (within the drainage basin that impacts on known breeding sites) so that effluent discharged is not at lethal concentrations as it reaches the breeding or wintering habitat, or does not add significantly to cumulative toxic effects. (6) Hydroelectric Developments 14. Locate large and small reservoirs away from breeding and foraging habitats. d) Tailed Frog The following guidelines apply to all populations of Tailed Frog: (1) All Major Developments 1. Maintain natural stream flows by avoiding significant upstream water diversions. 2. Maintain important habitat values in stream channel integrity, groundwater flow, substrate composition, forest cover and natural temperature regimes. 3. Prevent earthworks in breeding and foraging habitats. 4. Prevent siltation of habitats by avoiding road development on unstable soils near breeding and foraging habitats. 5. Avoid development of access to breeding and foraging habitats. 6. Prevent introduction of fish to stream reaches that support Tailed Frogs. 7. Prevent the use of pesticides and fertilizers within an appropriate buffer zone around known streams. 8. Apply Riparian Management Guidelines of the Forest Practices Code. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 160

161 (2) Highways and Railways 9. In areas where the potential exists for animal-vehicle collisions, install exclusion drift fences to prevent frogs from accessing the right-of-way. As appropriate, maintain connectivity between habitats using appropriately designed crossing structures (modified culverts). (3) Pipelines and Transmission Lines 10. Route pipelines and transmission lines away from breeding and foraging areas. (4) Mine Developments and Industrial Processing Plants 11. Prevent facility development upstream of known reaches of streams where tailed frogs occur. (5) Tourism Resorts 12. Restrict facility development upstream (within the drainage basin that impacts on known streams) so that effluent discharged is not at lethal concentrations as it reaches known sites. (6) Hydroelectric Developments 13. Locate large and small reservoirs away from breeding and foraging habitats. 13. COMPONENTS OF WILDLIFE HABITAT a) Sensitive Wetlands The following guidelines apply to all sensitive wetlands and are designed to further reduce the risk of water sedimentation and contamination: (1) All Major Developments 1. Minimize the number of creek crossings, cross at right angle to the water flow where possible, and where practical use bridges instead of fording. 2. Train staff and construction workers on responsible behaviour near sensitive wetlands, lakes and streams. 3. Extra efforts should be made to control erosion during construction through use of riprap, sumps, filter-fabric, and rapid revegetation of disturbed soils. Avoid disturbing unstable and highly erodable soils in the vicinity of sensitive wetlands. 4. Make liberal use of vegetated ditches and constructed wetlands as biofilters to remove contaminants and sediments from run-off waters before they enter sensitive wetlands. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 161

162 5. Monitor and extirpate Purple loosestrife plants and plant communities, and other invasive noxious weed species, in all wetland areas and replace with indigenous plant species amendable to wildlife. (2) Highways and Railways 6. Route highways and railways away from sensitive wetlands. (3) Pipelines and Transmission Lines 7. Route pipelines and transmission lines away from sensitive wetlands. 8. Include in routine maintenance activities the requirement to remove carcasses of birds killed in collisions with electric transmission lines. Carcasses from wetlands or nearby waters traversed by a powerlines can be a potential source of botulism entering aquatic ecosystems that would cause secondary wildlife mortalities. (4) Mine Developments and Industrial Processing Plants 9. Prevent facility development on or adjacent to sensitive wetlands. 10. Restrict facility development upstream of sensitive wetlands to avoid negative downstream impacts on wetland productivity. 11. Regulate emissions to prevent negative impacts on wetland habitat productivity. 12. Restrict human access and activities in sensitive wetlands. (5) Tourism Resorts 13. Prevent facility development on or adjacent to sensitive wetlands. 14. Restrict facility development upstream of sensitive wetlands to avoid negative downstream impacts. 15. Restrict human access and activities in sensitive wetlands. (6) Hydroelectric Developments 16. Avoid locations of large and small reservoirs that impact sensitive wetlands. 17. Avoid introducing the grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) as a biological control for aquatic vegetation in areas of high waterfowl concentrations. b) Coarse Woody Debris (1) All Major Developments 1. Prevent unauthorized cutting of trees on Crown Land. Obtain a permit to cut trees for clearing, construction or firewood from the Ministry of Forests. 2. Avoid cutting of standing dead trees or the disturbance or removal of fallen trees over 10 cm in diameter except as necessary for development or for safety reasons within planned development area. 3. Apply coarse woody debris retention guidelines in the Forest Practices Code. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 162

163 14. PLANTS AND PLANT COMMUNITIES a) Red Listed Plants and Plant Communities The following guidelines apply to all populations of Red-listed Plants and Red-listed Plant Communities: (1) All Major Developments 1. Avoid any development or human use on or near Red-listed Plants and Red-listed Plant Communities. All necessary development or human use should be pre-planned and agency-approved. 2. When habitat impacts cannot be avoided, salvage Red-listed Plants and translocate them to nearby undisturbed areas that most closely mimic environmental conditions of the affected area. Careful and expert botanical handling of Red-listed Plants would be required in these circumstances, to ensure a reasonable likelihood of success. 3. Prevent soil compaction and erosion, and the introduction of non-native species. 4. Use selective clearing methods of undesirable plant species, such as hand cutting, in the vicinity of known Red-listed Plants and Red-listed Plant Communities. 5. Prevent use of pesticides in a wide buffer area that surrounds known occurrences of Red-listed Plants and Red-listed Plant Communities. 6. Prevent livestock grazing in the vicinity of Red-listed Plants and within Red-listed Plant Communities. 7. Restore degraded Red-listed plant communities to a natural state as part of an overall habitat mitigation plan. b) Riparian Habitat (1) All Major Developments 1. Locate main facilities outside riparian zone. If necessary, limit facility development in the riparian zone to the minimum required that achieves development purpose through careful planning and site location. 2. Avoid road development, and limit trail development in the riparian zone. 3. Employ bioengineering techniques (e.g. live brush sills, brush grids or timber cribs) and conventional engineering techniques to stabilize stream banks and prevent slumping and erosion. 4. Locate all construction staging areas outside of wetland and riparian zones. 5. Restore the natural grade of riverbanks and floodplains after construction. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 163

164 6. Salvage large blocks of native grasses and herbs from the shoreline to be used during restoration of riparian areas after construction. 7. Revegetate all disturbed areas with native wetland herbaceous and woody plant species to restore habitat complexity. Only use commercially available wetland vegetation species when native species are unavailable. 8. Apply Riparian Management Guidelines of the Forest Practices Code. c) Alpine Meadows (1) All Major Developments 1. Avoid soil compaction so there is minimal evidence of vegetation change. 2. Confine use to designated trails and campsites that have been hardened with gravel or other well draining material. Evidence of use and vegetation change should be limited to developed facilities. 3. Limit ATV use to existing roads and well-developed trails. 4. Minimize water diversion and channeling. D. MONITORING The spatial and temporal intensity of monitoring will vary according to the type of monitoring required and the wildlife species involved. There are basically two types of monitoring, compliance monitoring and effectiveness monitoring. Compliance monitoring is concerned with compliance with specific requirements or instructions, and is largely administrative in nature, being most concerned with whether a task was completed or not (Daryl Brown Associates 2000). Proponents can expect some level of compliance monitoring from both the provincial and federal governments, as appropriate, to ensure the terms of the Project Approval Certificate and the Environmental Protection Program are being met. Effectiveness monitoring on the other hand is concerned with whether the objectives of a program were met or not. It is fundamentally linked to the goals and objectives of a mitigation program, and is designed to measure progress toward basic conservation outcomes, and less with the administrative details (Daryl Brown Associates 2000). The process of avoiding and minimizing the impacts of major developments on wildlife and wildlife habitats should be iterative. As such, monitoring will plays a key role in the Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 164

165 development of mitigation strategies that can be modified as better information becomes available. A good program of effectiveness monitoring should promote mitigation and avoidance strategies that are both cost-effective and conservation-effective. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 165

166 VIII. LITERATURE CITED Allen, R.E., ed The concise Oxford dictionary of current English. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK. 1454pp. Alonso, Juan C., Javier A. Alonso and Pulido Rodrigo Munoz Mitigation of bird collisions with transmission lines through groundwire marking. Biological Conservation. 67 (2) Andres, P. and M. Jorba Mitigation strategies in some motorway embankments (Catalonia, Spain). Restoration Ecology 8: Andrusiak, L. and K. Simpson Evaluation of the impacts on wildlife of the Waneta dam expansion project. Keystone Wildlife Research. Prepared for B.C. Hydro and Power Authority. Andrusiak, L. and K. Simpson Problem analysis: Deer-vehicle collisions on Highway 97, Summerland to Peachland. Unpublished report by Keystone Wildlife Research for BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Transportation and Highways, Penticton, BC. 22pp. Antas Paulo De Tarso, Zuquim Migration and other movements among the lower Parana River valley wetlands, Argentina, and the south Brazil/Pantanal wetlands. Bird Conservation International. 4 (2-3) APLIC Suggested practices for raptor protection on power lines: the state of the art in Avian Power Line Interaction Committee, Edison Electric Institute/Raptor Research Foundation, Washington, DC. 125pp. Apps, C.D., A.Dibb and A.J. Fontana Lynx ecology in the southern Canadian Rocky Mountains: preliminary results and conservation implications. Pages in Darling, L.M., (Ed.). At Risk, Proceedings of a Conference on Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. Armstrong, K.N. and O.G. Nichols Long-term trends in avifaunal recolonization of rehabilitated bauxite mines in the jarrah forest of south-western Australia. Forest Ecology and Management. 126 (2): Associated Press Officials doubt device keeps deer off roads. The Plain Dealer, Page 2B, Jan 18, 1998, Cleveland, OH. Aune, K.E Impact of winter recreationists on wildlife in a portion of Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. M.Sc. Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. 111pp. Austin, M Wolverine winter travel routes and response to transportation corridors in Kicking Horse Pass between Yoho and Banff National Parks. Unpubl. Thesis. Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. 40pp. Avery, M.L. (ed.) Impacts of transmission lines onbirds in flight: Proceedings of a workshop. Workshop held 31 January - 2 February 1978 (Oak Ridge, TN). Project No. FWS/OBS-78/48. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 158pp. Axys Environmental Consultants and Aquatic Resources An environmental impact assessment of the proposed expansion of the Sooke Lake reservoir. Ball, C How they get to the other side. Boston Globe, Dec 1, 1997, Boston, Mass. Ballard, W.B., A.F. Cunning, J.S. Whitman Hypotheses of impacts on moose due to hydroelectric projects. Alces 24:34-47 Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 166

167 Banci, V A Fisher management strategy for British Columbia. BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Bulletin No. B-63. Victoria, BC. 127pp. Banci, V Wolverine. Pages in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski, tech. Eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine in the western United States. US Dept. Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report RM-254. Fort Collins, CO. 184pp. Banner, A., W. MacKenzie, S. Haeussler, S. Thomson, J. Pojar and R. Trowbridge A field guide to site identification and interpretation for the Prince Rupert Forest Region. Land Manage. Handbook 26. BC Min. For., Victoria, BC. Barclay, R.M.R. and R.M. Brigham (editors) Bats and Forests Symposium, October 19-21, 1995., Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Research Branch, BC Ministry of Forests, Working Paper 23/1996. Victoria, BC. Barry, Sean J. and H. Bradley Shaffer The status of the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) at Lagunita: A 50-year update. Journal of Herpetology. 28 (2) Baydeck, R.K. and D.A. Hein Tolerance of Sharp-tailed Grouse to lek disturbance. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15: BC Hydro and Power Authority and Reid, Crowther and Partners Report on the environmental studies for the McGregor Diversion Project BC Hydro and Power Authority Engineering Division Peace Site C Project. Environmental Impact Statement. Report No. SE BC Hydro Vegetation Management Policy Near Powerlines. BC Hydro Environmental Resources, Restoration Management. BC Ministry of Forests and BC Ministry of Environment Field manual for describing terrestrial ecosystems. 3 rd Edition. Land Management Handbook No. 25. BC Min. For. and BC Min. Environ., Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. BC Ministry of Forests Biogeoclimatic zones of British Columbia [map]. Victoria, BC. Scale 1:2,000,000. Beier, P Cougar attacks on humans: an update and some further reflections. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 15: Beier, P Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 59: Benedict, R. Joseph Jr. and Gary R. Hepp Wintering water bird use of two aquatic plant habitats in a southern reservoir. Journal of Wildlife Management. 64 (1): Berwyn, B Heavy metal? Snowmaking under scrutiny. ENN News October 30, Available online at: Besser, J.M. and C.F. Rabeni Bioavailability and toxicity of metals leached from lead-mine tailings to aquatic invertebrates. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 6(11): Bevanger, Kjetil Bird collisions with a 220 kv transmission line in Polmak, Finnmark. NINA-Norsk Institutt for Naturforskning Forskningsrapport. 0 (40) Bevenger, K. and O. Albu Decrease in a Norwegian feral mink Mustela vison population-a response to acid precipitation? Biological Conservation 38: Beyer, W. Nelson, Lawrence J, Blus, Charles J. Henny and Dan Audet The role of sediment ingestion in exposing wood ducks to lead. Ecotoxicology. 6 (3) Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 167

168 Bird, D., D. Varland and J. Negro Raptors in human landscapes. Adaptations to built and cultivated environments. Academic Press, New York, NY. 396pp. Black, T Building to mother nature's specs. The American City & County 112: Bleich, V.C., R.T. Bowyer, A.M. Pauli, M.C. Nicholson and R.W. Anthes Mountain sheep (Ovis canadensis) helicopter surveys: ramifications for the conservation of large mammals. Biological Conservation 70:1-7. Blood, D Lower Columbia Development Project, Preliminary Wildlife Assessment. Donald A. Blood and Associated Ltd. Prepared for B.C. Hydro and Power Authority Environmental Resources Division. Blus, L.J., C.J. Henney and B.M. Mulhern Concentrations of metals in mink and other mammals from Washington and Idaho (USA). Environmental Pollution. 44(4): Blus, L.J., C.J. Henney, D.J. Hoffman and R.A. Grove Lead toxicosis in tundra swans near a mining and smelting complex in northern Idaho. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 21(4): Blus, Lawrence J A review of lead poisoning in swans. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology C-Pharmacology Toxicology and Endocrinology. 108 (3) Bodaly, R.A., and T.A. Johnston The mercury problem in Hydro-electric reservoirs with predictions of mercury burdens in fish in the proposed Grande Blaeine Complex, Quebec. Hydro-electric development: Environmental Impacts paper no.3 December. Bonner, L. and D.A. Demarchi Deriving wildlife habitat values from ecosystem maps. Pages in L.M. Darling, ed. Proceedings of a Conference on the Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk. Volume 1. BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC and University College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, BC. 490pp. Bradshaw, C.J.A., S. Boutin and D.M. Hebert Effects of petroleum exploration on woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 61: Brakhage, D.H., T.S. Baskett, D.A. Graber and D.D. Humburg Impacts of a new reservoir on resident Canada Geese. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 15(2) Bramble, W.C., and W.R. Byrnes A long term ecological study of game food and cover on a sprayed utility right-of-way. Research Bull. No. 885, Purdue University, Agric. Exp. Stat., Lafayette, Indiana. 20pp. Braumandl, T. and M.P. Curran A field guide for site identification and interpretation for the Nelson Forest Region. Land Manage. Handbook 20., BC Min. For., Victoria, BC. Breault, A., and J.-P.L. Savard Status report on the distribution and ecology of Harlequin Ducks in British Columbia. Canadian Wildlife Services Technical Report no. 110, Pacific and Yukon Region, Delta, BC. British Columbia Assets and Land Corporation (BCALC) Commercial recreation on Crown Land - Policy. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. Bryant, A.A Updated status report on the Vancouver Island marmot (Marmota vancouverensis). Committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario. 21pp. Bryant, A.A Relative importance of episodic versus chronic mortlaity in the decline of Vancouver Island Marmots. Pages in L.M. Darling, ed. Proceedings of a Conference on the Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk. Volume 1. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC and University College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, BC. 490pp. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 168

169 Bugg, R.L., C.S. Brown and J.H. Anderson Restoring native perennial grasses to rural roadsides in the Sacramento Valley of California: establishment and evaluation. Restoration Ecology 5: Burger, A.E Status of the Western Grebe in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-87. Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks, Victoria. 40pp. Burger, A.E.and D.M. Fry Effects of oil pollution on seabirds in the northeast Pacific. Pages in The status, ecology, and conservation of marine birds of the North Pacific (Vermeer, K., K.T. Briggs, K.H. Morgan and D. Siegel-Causey, eds.). Canadian Wildlife Service Special Publication, Ottawa, Ontario. Burger, J Integrating environmental restoration and ecological restoration: long-term stewardship at the Department of Energy. Environmental Management 26: Butler, R.W Habitat selection and time of breeding in the Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias). Ph.D. Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. 99pp. Butler, R.W The Great Blue Heron: a natural history and ecology of a seashore sentinel. Univ. Brit. Col. Press, Vancouver, BC. 167pp. Butler, R.W Status of the subspecies of Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias fannini) in Canada. Draft report for the Committee on Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). Available from the Canadian Nature Federation, Ottawa, ON. Cadman, M.D Status Report on the Short-eared Owl, Asio flammeus, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 53pp. Calibre Consultants Inc., and Saskatchewan Energy Conservation and Development Authority Environmental Effects of Major Hydroelectric Projects SECDA Publications No. T P-012. Camp, R.J., and R.L. Knight Rock climbing and cliff bird communities at Joshua Tree National Park, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26: Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser and M.C.E. McNall. 1990a. The Birds of British Columbia, Volume 1, Nonpasserines: loons through waterfowl. Royal British Columbia Museum and Canadian Wildlife Service. Mitchell Press, Vancouver, BC. 535pp. Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser and M.C.E. McNall. 1990b. The Birds of British Columbia, Volume 2, Nonpasserines: diurnal birds of prey through woodpeckers. Royal British Columbia Museum and Canadian Wildlife Service. Mitchell Press, Vancouver, BC. 636pp. Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser, M.C.E. McNall and G.E.J. Smith The Birds of British Columbia, Volume 3, Passerines: flycatchers through vireos. Canadian Wildlife Service and BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. University of BC Press, Vancouver, BC. 693pp. Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser, and M.C.E. McNall The Birds of British Columbia, Volume 4, Passerines: warblers through finches. Canadian Wildlife Service and BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. University of BC Press, Vancouver, BC. 739pp. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Available on-line at Canfield, Nile E. Kemble, Chris G. Ingersoll, Aida Farag and Julie A. Dalsoglio Characterization of ecological risks at the Milltown Reservoir Clark Fork River sediments Superfund site, Montana. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13: Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 169

170 Cannings, R.A., R.J. Cannings and S.G. Cannings Birds of the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia. Royal B.C. Museum, Victoria, BC. 420pp. Cannings, R.J Status of the Long-billed Curlew in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-96. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 20pp. Cannings, R.J Status of the White-headed Woodpecker in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-80. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 20pp. Cannings, R.J Status report on the Canyon Wren (Catherpes mexicanus) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Otyawa, Ontario. 9pp Cannings, S.G., L.R. Ramsay, D.F. Fraser, and M.A. Fraker Rare amphibians, reptiles, and mammals of British Columbia. Wildlife Branch and Resources Inventory Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 190pp. Available through Crown Publications ( for $26.00, Inventory Number 605. Canter, L Environmental Impact of Water Resources Projects. Norman, Oklahoma. Lewis Publishers, Inc. Cascade Heritage Power Park Project Committee Cascade heritage power park project. Powerhouse Energy Corp. Casey, D., and M.Wood Effects of water levels on productivity of Canada geese in the northern flathead valley, Montana. Issues and Technology in the Management of Impacted Western Wildlife. Proceedings of a National Syposium Glenwood Springs, Colorado Feb 4-6. Chandler, C., P. Cheney, P. Thomas, L. Trabaud and D. Williams Fire in forestry Vol. 1, Forest fire behaviour and effects (450 pp.) and Vol. 2, Forest fire management and organization (298 pp.). John Wiley & Sons, New York. Charland, M.B., K.J. Nelson and P.T. Gregory Status of the Northern Pacific Rattlesnake in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-54. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 23pp. Charlier, T Land bank paves way for new roads: Wetlands to be restored acre for acre. The Commercial Appeal, Jan 25, 1997, Memphis, TN. Child, K.N Railways and moose in the central interior of British Columbia: a recurrent management problem. Alces 19: Child, K.N. and K.M. Stuart Vehicle and train collision fatalities on moose: some management and socio-economic considerations. Swedish Wildlife Research (Supplement) 1: Chilibeck, B., G. Chislett, and G. Norris Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Habitat. Min of Env. Lands and Parks, Integrated Management Branch. 128pp. Christman, S.P Breeding bird response to greentree reservoir management. Journal of Wildlife Management. 48(4) Claar, J.J., N. Anderson, D. Boyd, M. Cherry, B. Conrad, R. Hompesch, S. Miller, G. Olson, H. Ihsle Pac, J. Waller, T. Wittinger, H. Youmans Carnivores. Pages in Joslin, G. and H. Youmans (coordinators). Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain Wildlife: A review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 307pp. Clark, Larry and Pankaj S. Shah Chemical bird repellents: Possible use in cyanide ponds. Journal of Wildlife Management. 57 (3) Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 170

171 Clark, W.R. and J.R. Medcraft Wildlife use of shrubs on reclaimed surface-mined land in northeastern Wyoming (USA). Journal of Wildife Management. 50(4): Clarkson, P A preliminary investigation into the status and distribution of Harlequin Duck in Jasper National Park. Unpublished technical report. Natural Resource Conservation, Jasper National Park, AB. 63pp. Clevenger, A.P. 1998a. Permeability of the Trans Canada Highway to wildlife in Banff National Park: importance of crossing structures and factors influencing their effectiveness. Pages in Evink, G.L., P. Garrett, D. Zeigler and J. Berry, eds. Proceedings of the International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. FL-ER-69-98, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida. 263pp. Clevenger, A.P. 1998b. Road effects on wildlife: a research, monitoring, and adaptive mitigation study. Progress report 4 (Oct 1997-Oct 1998). Canadian Parks Service, Environment Canada, Banff National Park, AB. Internet address: Clevenger, A.P. and N. Waltho Factors influencing the effectiveness of wildlife underpasses in Banff National Park, Alberta Canada. Conservation Biology 14: Clover, C Grouse grounded by forest fences. The Daily Telegraph, Feb 27, 1998, London. UK. Cole, E.K., M.D. Pope and R.G. Anthony Effects of road management on movement and survival of Roosevelt Elk. Journal of Wildife Management. 61(4) Conard, B. and H. Youmans Marten, fisher and wolverine. Pages in Joslin, G. and H. Youmans (coordinators). Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain Wildlife: A review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 307pp. Cooper, J.M Status of the Williamson's Sapsucker in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-69. B.C. Wildlife Branch, Victoria. 24pp. Cooper, J.M. and S. Beauchesne Inventory of Lewis s Woodpecker population and habitat in the east Kootenay. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-100. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 30pp. Cooper, J.M., C. Siddle, and G. Davidson Status of the Lewis' Woodpecker in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-91, B.C. Wildlife Branch, Victoria. 34pp. Cote, S.D Mountain goat responses to helicopter disturbance. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24: Crete, Michel, Bruno Drolet, Jean Huot, Marie Josee Fortin and G.J. Doucet Post-fire stages of mammal and bird diversity in the north of Quebecois boreal forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 25 (9) Daryl Brown Associates Designing a landscape unit plan monitoring framework: preliminary scoping of issues and considerations. Unpublished report to the Strategic Policy and Planning Section, Forest Practices Branch, BC Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC. 29pp. Davis, Carmen A review of the success of major crane conservation techniques. Bird Conservation International. 8 (1) Davis, M.J., A.D. Vanderberg, T.A. Chatwin and M.H. Mather Bat usage of the Weymer Creek Cave systems on northern Vancouver Island. Pages in Darling, L.M., (Ed.). At Risk, Proceedings of a Conference on Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. Davis, T.M.and P.T. Gregory Status of the Clouded Salamander in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-53. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 19pp. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 171

172 Delong, C A field guide for identification and interpretation of seral aspen ecosystems of the BWBSc1, Prince George Forest Region. Land Manage. Handbook 16. BC Min. For. Victoria, BC. Delong, C., A. MacKinnon and L. Jang A field guide for identification and interpretation of ecosystems of the northeast portion of the Prince George Forest Region. Land Manage. Handbook 22. BC Min. For. Victoria, BC. Demarchi, D.A Ecoregions of British Columbia [map]. 4th Edition. BC Min. Environ., Lands and Parks. Victoria, BC. Scale 1:2,000,000. Demarchi, D.A., R.P. Thomas and B.A. Pendergast Wildlife and wildlife inventory planning to meet land-based program planning needs in British Columbia. Pages in L.M. Darling, ed. Proceedings of a Conference on the Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk. Volume 1. BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC and University College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, BC. 490pp. De Santo, R.S. and D.W. Smith An introduction to issues of habitat fragmentation relative to transportation corridors with special reference to high-speed rail (HSR). Environmental Management 17: De Santo, Robert S. and Dwight G. Smith An introduction to issues of habitat fragmentation relative to transportation corridors with special reference of high-speed rail (HSR). Environmental Management. 17 (1) Delage, Valerie, Marie-Josee Fortin and Andre Desrochers Effects of edge and isolation on habitats of songbirds in mined bogs. Ecoscience. 7 (2): Desgranges, J.L., J. Rodrigue, B. Tardif and M. Laperle Mercury accumulation and biomagnification in ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) in the James Bay and Hudson Bay Regions of Quebec. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 35 (2) Dijak, W.D. and F.R. Thompson Landscape and edge effects on the distribution of mammalian predators in Missouri. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(1): Douglas, G.W., G.B. Straley and D.V. Meidinger Rare native vascular plants of British Columbia. Resources Inventory Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 423pp. Available through Crown Publications ( for $39.95, Inventory Number 731. Dunbar, D.L The breeding ecology and management of White Pelicans at Stum Lake, British Columbia. Fish and Wildlife Report R-6, Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC. 85 pp. Dunster, J.A. and K.J. Dunster Dictionary of natural resource management. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. 363pp. Economic Planning Group of Canada Economic considerations regarding wildlife fencing along the Coquihalla Phase III (Merritt to Peachland). Unpublished report for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Victoria, BC. 11pp. Eisler, R Cyanide hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report. 85(123): I-III, Eisler, R Copper hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review. Contaminant Hazards Reviews Report 33, Biological Science Report. USGS/BRD/BSR US Geological Survey, US Department of Interior, Washington, DC. Elliott, J.E., M.M. Machmer, L.K. Wilson and C.J. Henny Contaminants in ospreys from the Pacific Northwest: II. Organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, and mercury, Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 38 (1): Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 172

173 Elliott, J.E., C.J. Henny, M.L. Harris, L.K. Wilson and R.J. Norstrom Chlorinated hydrocarbons in livers of American mink (Mustela vison) and river otter (Lutra canadensis) from the Columbia and Fraser River basins, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 57 (3): Elliott, John E. and Pamela A. Martin Chlorinated hydrocarbon contaminants in grebes and seaducks wintering on the coast of British Columbia, Canada: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 53 (2) Elliott, John E. and Ross J. Norstrom Chlorinated hydrocarbon contaminants and productivity of bald eagle populations on the Pacific Coast of Canada. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 17 (6) Elliott, John E., Laurie K. Wilson, Ken W. Langelier and Ross J. Norstrom Bald eagle mortality and chlorinated hydrocarbon contaminants in livers from British Columbia, Canada, Elner, R.W. (compiler) Proceedings: International Workshop for the Conservation of Vancouver Island Marmot. Technical Report Series No Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific and Yukon Region, Delta, BC. 63pp. Enge, Kevin M., David T. Cobb, Gary L. Sprande and Donald L. Francis Wildlife captures in a pipeline trench in Gadsden County, Florida. Florida Scientist. 59 (1) ENN News Lynx cramps Colorado ski style. Environmental News Network, 10 Nov ENN News Groups fight Oregon ski resort. Environmental News Network, 20 Jan Ercelawn, A End of the road - the adverse ecological impacts of roads and logging: A compilation of independently reviewed research. Natural Resources Defense Council. Esler, D Habitat use by piscivorous birds on a power plant cooling reservoir. Journal of Field Ornithology. 63(3): Ethier, T.J Breeding ecology and habitat of northern goshawks (Accipiter gentiles laingi) on Vancouver Island: a hierarchical approach. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC. 91pp. Evink, G.L Ecological highways. Pages in Evink, G.L., P. Garrett, D. Zeigler and J. Berry, eds. Proceedings of the International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. FL-ER , Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida. 263pp. Faanes, C.A Bird behaviour and mortality in relation to powerlines in prarie habitats. United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. Fish and Wildlife Technical Report 7. Washington, D.C. Fahrig, L., J.H. Pedlar, S. Pope, P.D. Taylor and J.F. Wegner Effect of road traffic on amphibian density. Biological Conservation 73: Feldhamer, G.A., J.E. Gates, D.M. Harman, A.J. Loranger, and K.R. Dixon Effects of interstate highway fencing on white-tailed deer activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 50: Findholt, S.L Status, distribution and habitat affinities of double-crested cormorant nesting colonies in Wyoming (USA). Colonial Waterbirds. 11(2): Findlay, C.S. and J. Houlahan Anthropogenic correlates of species richness in southeastern Ontario wetlands. Conservation Biology 11: Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 173

174 Findlay, C. Scott and Josee Bourdages Response time of wetland biodiversity to road construction on adjacent lands. Conservation Biology. 14 (1): Firman, M.C., M. Getty and R.M.R. Barclay Status of Keen s Long-eared Myotis in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-59. BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 22pp. Fischer, J.B Feeding behaviour, body condition, and oil contamination of wintering Harlequin Ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus) at Shemya Island, Alaska. M.Sc. thesis, Univ. Massachusetts, Amherst. Foster, B.R. and E.Y. Rahs A study of canyon-dwelling mountain goats in relation to a proposed hydroelectric development in northwest British Columbia, Canada. Biological Conservation 33: Foster, M.L. and S.R. Humphrey Use of highway underpasses by Florida panthers and other wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23: Fraser, D.F., W.L. Harper, S.G. Cannings, L.R. and J.M. Cooper Rare birds of British Columbia. Wildlife Branch and Resources Inventory Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 244pp. Available through Crown Publications ( for $30.00, Inventory Number 600. Frazier, D Off-road travel may soon be off limits: Roaming autos, bikes tearing up public land. Rocky Mountain News, Denver, CO, February 10, Internet address: Frid, A Human disturbance of mountain goats and related ungulates: a literature-based analysis with applications to Goatherd Mountain. Unpublished report, Kluane National Park Reserve, Haines Junction, Yukon. 30pp. Frid, A Responses to helicopter disturbance by Dall s sheep: determinants of escape decisions. Yukon Fish and Wildlife Branch, Whitehorse, YT. 37pp. Gabrey, Steven W Bird and small mammal abundance at four types of waste-management facilities in northeast Ohio. Landscape and Urban Planning. 37 (3-4) Gaston, A.J The Ancient Murrelet, A natural history in the Queen Charlotte Islands. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 249 pp. Gates, C.C., H. Reynolds, M. Hoefs, C.G. van Zyll de Jong, N. Cool, H. Schwantje, S. Brechtel, R. Larche, and R.O. Stephenson. In prep. National recovery plan for the Wood Bison. Report for the Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife Committee (RENEW). Available from the Canadian Wildlife Federation, Ottawa. Gebauer, M.B Status of the American Avocet in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-98. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch. Victoria, BC. 22 pp. Geist, V Behaviour - Chapter 19. Pages in J. L. Schmidt and D. L. Gilbert, eds. Big game of North America Ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pa. Gibeau, M.L. and S. Herrero Roads, rails and grizzly bears in the Bow River valley, Alberta. Pages in Evink, G.L., P. Garrett, D. Zeigler and J. Berry, eds. Proceedings of the International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. FL-ER-69-98, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida. 263pp. Giesy, J.P., W.W. Bowerman, M.A. Mora, D.A. Verbrugge, R.A. Othoudt, J.L. Newsted, C.L. Summer, R.J. Aulerich, S.J. Bursian, J.P. Ludwig. G.A. Dawson, T.J. Kubiak, D.A. Best and D.E. Tillitt Contaminants in fishes from Great Lakes-influenced sections and above dams of three Michigan rivers: III. Implications for health of bald eagles. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 29 (3) Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 174

175 Goldingay, Ross L. and Robert J. Whelan Powerline easements: Do they promote edge effects in eucalypt forest for small mammals? Wildlife Research. 24 (6) Good, J.E.G.. H.L. Wallace, P.A. Stevens and G.L. Radford Translocation of herb-rich grassland from a site in Wales prior to opencast coal extraction. Restoration Ecology. 7 (4): Goodrich, J.M., S.W. Buskirk Control of abundant native vertebrates for conservation of endangered species. Conservation Biology. 9 (6) Goodwin, C.N., C.P. Hawkins and J.I. Kershner Riparian restoration in the western United States: overview and perspective. Restoration Ecology 5:4-14. Goosem, Miriam and Helene Marsh Fragmentation of a small-mammal community by a powerline corridor through tropical rainforest. Wildlife Research. 24 (5) Government of Canada Guide to the preparation of a comprehensive study for proponents and responsible authorities. Available on-line at Green, D.M. and R.W. Campbell The Amphibians of British Columbia. Handbook No. 45, Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, BC. 100pp. Green, R.N. and K. Klinka A field guide to site identification and interpretation for the Vancouver Forest Region. Land Manage. Handbook 28. BC Min. For. Victoria, BC. Greenwood, C.L. and L.B. Dalton Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) passage beneath an overland coal conveyer. Great Basin Naturalist. 44(3): Gregory, P.T. and R.W. Campbell The Reptiles of British Columbia. Royal BC Museum Handbook, Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, BC. 102pp. Grialou, J.A., West, S.D., and Wilkins, R.N The effects of forest clearcut harvesting and thinning on terrestrial salamanders. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(1): Gyug, L. and K. Simpson Okanagan Connector ungulate telemetry and inventory progress report: Seasonal ranges and movements of moose. Unpublished report for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and Ministry of Environment and Parks. Keystone Bio-Research, Surrey, BC. 32pp. Habitat Branch Environmental risk assessment (ERA): an approach for assessing and reporting environmental conditions. Technical Bulletin No. 1, Habitat Branch, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 70pp. Hamann, B., H. Johnston, P. McClelland, S. Johnson, L. Kelly and J. Gobielle Birds. Pages in G. Joslin and H. Youmans (coordinators). Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife. A review for Montana. Committee on effects of recreation on wildlife, Montana chapter of The Wildlife Society. Harding, L.E. and E. McCullum, eds Biodiversity in British Columbia. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Delta, BC. 426pp. Harper, W.L. and D.N. Lougheed A guide for the installation of 2.5 m ungulate exclusion fencing on highway rights-of-way. Unpublished report for the BC Ministry of Environment and Parks and BC Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Penticton, BC. Harper, W.L. and D.S. Eastman Wildlife and commercial backcountry recreation in British Columbia: assessment of impacts and interim guidelines for mitigation. Discussion report by Osiris Wildlife Consulting for the BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 80pp. Internet address: Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 175

176 Harper, W.L., J.P. Elliot, I. Hatter, and H. Schwantje Management plan for Wood Bison in British Columbia. Wildlife Bulletin No. B-102, BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 43pp. Harris, M.L. and J.E. Elliott Reproductive success and chlorinated hydrocarbon contamination in tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) nesting along rivers receiving pulp and paper mill effluent discharges. Environmental Pollution. 110 (2): Hart, B.T Personal Communication. Project Review Manager, Environmental Assessment Section, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Victoria, BC. Hartman, L.H., A.J. Gaston and D.S. Eastman Raccoon predation on Ancient Murrelets on East Limestone Island, British Columbia. J. Wildlife Management 61: Hasbrouk, B. and C. Messenkopf The road to mitigation. Water Environment and Technology 7: Heinzenknecht, G.B., and J.R. Paterson Effects of Large Dams & reservoirs on wildlife habitat. International commission on large dams. US committee on Environmental Effects. American Society of Civil Engineers: New York. Henny, C.J., L.J. Blus, D.J. Hoffman, R.A. Grove and J.S. Hatfield Lead accumulation and osprey production near a mining site on the Coeur d'alene River, Idaho (USA). Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 21(3): Henny, Charles J., Lawrence J. Blus, David J. Hoffmann and Robert A. Grove Lead in hawks, falcons and owls downstream from a mining site on the Coeur D'Alene River, Idaho. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 29 (3) Henny, Charles J., Robert J. Hallock and Elwood F. Hill Cyanide and migratory birds at gold mines in Nevada, USA. Ecotoxicology. 3 (1) Hickman, G.R., B.G. Dixon, and J. Corn Small Mammals. Pages in G. Joslin and H. Youmans (coordinators). Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain Wildlife: A review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 307 Hill, E.L. and K.G. Wright Harlequin duck breeding distribution and hydroelectric operations on the Bridge River, British Columbia. Pages in L.M. Darling, ed. Proceedings of a Conference on the Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk. Volume 1. BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC and University College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, BC. 490pp. Hingtgen, T.M. and W.P. Clark Small mammal recolonization of reclaimed coal surface-mined land in Wyoming (USA). Journal of Wildlife Management. 48(4): Hoffman, D.J., H.M. Olendorf, T.W. Aldrich Selenium teratogenesis in natural populations of aquatic birds in central California (USA). Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 17(4): Hoffman, David J., Gary H. Heinz, Louis Sileo, Daniel J. Audet, Julie K. Campbell, Leonard J. LeCaptain and Holly H. Obrecht III Developmental toxicity of lead-contaminated sediment in Canada geese (Branta canadensis). Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part A. 59 (4): Holt, D.W. and S.M. Leasure Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus). In The Birds of North America, No. 62 (A.Poole and F.Gill, Eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia and The American Ornithologists Union, Washington, D.C. 22pp. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 176

177 Hooper, T.D Status of the Upland Sandpiper in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-86. B.C. Wildlife Branch, Victoria. 20pp. Hopkins, W.A., M.T. Mendonca and J.D. Congdon Responsiveness of the hypothalamo-pituitaryinterrenal axis in an amphibian (Bufo terrestris) exposed to coal combustion wastes. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology C-Pharmacology Toxicology and Endocrinology. 122 (2) Hothem, R.L. and H.M. Olendorf Contaminants in foods of aquatic birds at Kesterson Reservoir, California, 1985). Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 18: Howard, R. and B.C. Postovit Impacts and Mitigation Techniques. National Wildlife Fed. Sci. Tech. Ser. # : Howes, D.E. and E. Kenk (ed.) Terrain Classification System for British Columbia. Version 2. MOE Manual 10. BC Updated by Resources Inventory Branch, BC Min. Environ., Lands and Parks. Victoria, BC. Hughes, W.E., A.R. Saremi, and J.F. Paniati Vehicle-animal crashes: an increasing safety problem. Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal (Aug). Hunter, W.C., B.W. Anderson and R.D. Ohmart Avian community structure changes in a mature floodplain forest after extensive flooding. Journal of Wildlife Management. 51(2): Huntley, Brian, Robert Baxter, Katherine J. Lewthwaite, Stephen G. Willis and John K. Adamson Vegetation responses to local climatic changes induced by a water-storage reservoir. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters. 7 (4) Ireland, Terry T., Gale L. Wolters and Sanforf D. Schemnitz Recolonization of wildlife on a coal strip-mine in northwestern New Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist. 39 (1) Iverson, G.C., G.D. Hayward, K. Titus, E. Degayner, R.E. Lowell, D.C. Crocker-Bedford, P.F. Schempf, and J. Lindell Conservation assessment for the Northern Goshawk in southeast Alaska. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-387. USDA Forest Service, Portland, Oregon. 101pp. Jackson, S.D. and C.R. Griffin Toward a practical strategy for mitigating highway impacts on wildlife. Pages in Evink, G.L., P. Garrett, D. Zeigler and J. Berry, eds. Proceedings of the International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. FL-ER-69-98, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida. 263pp. Jalkotzy, M.G., P.I. Rossand, M.D. Nasserden The Effects of Linear Developments on Wildlife: A Review of Selected Scientific Literature James, Adam R.C. and A. Kari Stuart-Smith Distribution of caribou and wolves in relation to linear corridors. Journal of Wildlife Management. 64 (1): Janss, Guyonne F.E., Alfonso Lazo and Miguel Ferrer Use of raptor models to reduce avian collisions with powerlines. Journal of Raptor Research. 33 (2): Janz, D.W., A.A. Bryant, N.K. Dawe, H. Schwantje, B. Harper, D. Nagorsen, D. Doyle, M. delaronde, D. Fraser, D. Lindsay, S. Leight-Spencer, R. McLaughlin, and R. Simmons Revised National Recovery Plan for the Vancouver Island Marmot (1998). Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife (RENEW) Committee Report. Available from the Canadian Nature Federation, Ottawa, ON. Johnson, D.R., D.R. Miller, and J.M. Peek Guidelines for human activity within the range of mountain caribou southern Selkirk mountains. Dept. of Biol. Sciences. Johnson, D.R., D.R. Miller, and J.M. Peek Guidelines for human activity within the range of mountain caribou, southern Selkirk mountains. Misc. Publ. No. 3. Forest, Wildlife and Range Exp. Stat., Univ. Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. 6pp. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 177

178 Johnson, M Traffic endangers eagles dining on road-kill. The Grand Rapids Press, Mar 9, 1998, Grand Rapids, MI Jorgenson, M. Torre and Michael R. Joyce Six strategies for rehabilitating land disturbed by oil development in arctic Alaska. Arctic. 47 (4) Joslin, G Mountain goat population changes in relation to energy exploration along Montana s Rocky Mountain Front. Biennial Symposium of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 5: Joslin, G. and H. Youmans (coordinators) Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain Wildlife: A review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 307pp. Kasworm, W.F., and T.M. Manley Road and trail influences on grizzly bears and black bears in northwest Montana. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 8: Kelso, J Amphibian amenities show county s fondness for toads. Austin American Statesman, Feb 16, 1995, Austin, TX. Kent, M.J Personal Communication. Chief Environmental Officer, Ministry of Transportation and Highways, Victoria, BC. Kertell, Kenneth and Joe. C. Truett Impoundments serve as habitat for pond-nesting waterbirds in arctic Alaska oil fields. Ecological Restoration. 18(2). Keystone Wildlife studies on the Okanagan Connector Freeway Unpublished report by Keystone Wildlife Research for Environmental Services, Ministry of Transportation and Highway, Victoria, BC. 34pp. Keystone Vancouver Island highway project evaluation of deer-vehicle collision hazard: cost-benefit analysis for ungulate exclusion fencing. Draft report by Keystone Wildlife Research for Ministry of Transportation and Highway, Victoria, BC. 34pp. Kiell, D.J., E.L. Hill and S.P. Mahoney Protecting caribou during hydroelectric development in Newfoundland. Ecological Knowledge and Environmental Problem Solving: concepts and case studies. Committee on the Applications of Ecological Theory to Environmental Problems Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council. p Kierdorf, H., U. Kierdorf and F. Sedlacek Monitoring regional fluoride pollution in the Saxonian Ore mountains (Germany) using the biomarker dental fluorosis in roe deer (Capreolus capreolus L.). Science of the Total Environment. 232 (3): Kimmel, R.O. and D.E. Samuel Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) brood habitat on reclaimed surface mines in West Virginia (USA). Minerals and the Environment. 6(4): King, Joline R. and Leah I. Bendell-Young Toxicological significance of grit replacement times for juvenile mallards. Journal of Wildlife Management. 64 (3): King, Sammy L. and James A. Allen Plant succession and greentree reservoir management: Implications for management and restoration of bottomland hardwood wetlands. Wetlands. 16 (4) Kirchhoff, Matthew D. and Simon R.G. Thomson Effects of selection logging on deer habitat in Southeast Alaska: A retrospective study. Research Final Report. W-24-4, W-24-5 and W Study No U.S. Forest Service, Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Knight, J Motoring: safety first for our four-legged friends. The Daily Telegraph, June 6, 1998, London. UK. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 178

179 Knight, Richard L. and Jack Y. Kawashima Response of raven and red-tailed hawk populations to linear rights-of-way. Journal of Wildlife Management. 57 (2) Knight, Richard L., Heather A.L. Knight and Richard J. Camp Common ravens and number and type of linear rights-of-way. Biological Conservation. 74 (1) Knight, Richard L., Richard J. Camp, William I. Boarman and Heather A.L. Knight Predatory bird populations in the east Mojave Desert, California. Great Basin Naturalist. 59 (4): Kondolf, G. Mathias Hungry water: Effects of dams and gravel mining on river channels. Environmental Management. 21 (4) Krausman, P.R. and J.J. Hervert Mountain sheep responses to aerial surveys. Wildlife Society Bulletin 11: Krebs, J.A. and D. Lewis Wolverine ecology and habitat use in the North Columbia Mountains: progress report. Pages in L.M. Darling, ed. Proceedings of a Conference on the Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk. Volume 2. BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC and University College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, BC. 520pp. Kreimer, S About 2 miles of fence replaced on Rte. 146 during reconstruction. Providence Journal - Bulletin, Jul 26, 1996, Providence, RI. Kroodsma, R.L Edge effect on breeding forest birds along a power-line corridor. Journal of Applied Ecology 19: Kuck, L. G.L. Hompland and E.H. Merrill Elk (Cervus elaphus) calf response to simulated mine disturbance in southeast Idaho (USA). Journal of Wildlife Management. 49(3): Lacki, M.J., J.W. Hummer and H.J. Webster Effect of reclamation technique on mammal communities inhabiting wetlands on mined lands in east-central Ohio (USA). Ohio Journal of Science. 91(4): Lacki, M.J., J.W. Hummer, H.J. Webster Mine-drainage treatment wetland as habitat for herpetofaunal wildlife. Environmental Management. 16(4): Latane, L Safer passage on the highway to wildlife heaven: VDOT supports private effort to steer frogs into culvert. Richmond Times Dispatch, May 31, 1995, Richmond, VA. Latane, L Safer passage on the highway to wildlife heaven: Tunnel planned for Fairfax Parkway. Richmond Times Dispatch, May 31, 1995, Richmond, VA. Lazaroff, C Jet Skis Banned in Most U.S. Parks. Environment News Service, March 21, Internet address: LeBlanc, F., and D.N. Rao Effects of sulfur dioxide on lichen and moss transplants. Ecology 54: Leedy, D.L., and L.W. Adams Wildlife considerations in planning and managing highway corridors. unpubl. rep., Offices of Res. and Develop., Fed. Highway Admin., U.S. Dept. of Transport., FHWA-TS , Columbia, Maryland. 93pp. Legg, K.L A review of the potential effects of winter recreation on bighorn sheep. Biennial Symposium of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 11: Lehnert, M.A. and J.A. Bissonette Effectiveness of highway crosswalk structures at reducing deervehicle collisions. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: Lemly, A. Dennis Ecosystem recovery following selenium contamination in a freshwater reservoir. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 36 (3) Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 179

180 Lepp, G British Columbia s species inventory information system. Pages in L.M. Darling, ed. Proceedings of a Conference on the Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk. Volume 1. BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC and University College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, BC. 490pp. Leslie, D.M. Jr., W.J. Stancill (1991). Importance of an old, multiple-use reservoir to migrating and wintering dabbling ducks. Prairie Naturalist. 22(4): Llacuna, S., A. Gorriz, M. Riera and J. Nadal Effects of air pollution of hematological parameters in passerine birds. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 31 (1) Lloyd, D., K. Angrove, G. Hope and C. Thompson A guide to site identification and interpretation for the Kamloops Forest Region. Land Manage. Handbook 23. BC Min. For. Victoria, BC. Lofholm, N 'Killer 82' work turns road into obstacle course. Denver Post, May 20, 1998, Denver, CO. Loft, E.R. and J.W. Menke Deer use and habitat characteristics of transmission-line corridors in a Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) forest. Journal of Wildilfe Management. 48(4): Loomis, B Legacy route appears to have been dead-ended. The Salt Lake Tribune, Jun 10, 1998, Salt Lake City, UT. Lowell, Richard E. and Edward B. Crain Moose habitat enhancement at Thomas Bay, Alaska. Habitat Enhancement Progress Report No. W Study No. 1. U.S. Forest Service, Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Luttmerding, H., D.A. Demarchi, E.C. Lea, D.V. Meidinger, T. Vold Describing Ecosystems in the Field. MOE Manual 11, 2nd Edition. BC Min. Environ., and BC Min. For. Victoria, BC. M2 Communications Ltd Ohio EPA approves wetlands project for US route 30 extension. May 1, 1998, M2 Presswire, Coventry, OH. Ma, J. and C.A. Pritsos Tissue-specific bioenergetic and increased enzymatic activities following acute sublethal peroral exposure to cyanide in the Mallard duck. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 142(2) MacArthur, R.A., V. Geist and R. Johnson Cardiac and behavioural response of mountain sheep to human disturbance. Journal Of Wildlife Management 46: MacHutchon, A.G British Columbia environmental assessment guidelines for Grizzly Bears and Black Bears. Draft report. Environmental Assessment Section, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. MacKinnon, A., C. DeLong and D. Meidinger A field guide for identification and interpretation of ecosystems of the northwest portion of the Prince George Forest Region. Land Manage. Handbook 21. BC Min. For. Victoria, BC. Maceina, M.J. and M.F. Cichra Limnological characteristics of Aquilla Lake, Texas (USA) during impoundment. Texas Journal of Science. 39(1): Mackenzie, W. and J. Shaw Wetland classification and habitats at risk in British Columbia. Pages in L.M. Darling, ed. Proceedings of a Conference on the Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk. Volume 2. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC, and University College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, BC. 520pp. Malcolm, J.M Bird collisions on a power transmission line and their relation to botulism. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 10(4) Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 180

181 Manny, B.A., W.C. Johnson and R.G. Wetzel Nutrient additions by waterfowl to lakes and reservoirs: Predicting their effects on productivity and water quality. Hydrobiologia 279/280: Mathis, Marilyn J. and Beth A. Middleton Simulated herbivory and vegetation dynamics in coal slurry ponds reclaimed as wetlands. Restoration Ecology. 7 (4): Matthews, M Animal conservationists tackle the threat of highways in Montana. The Washington Post, Jul 27, Section A, p.7., Washington, DC. Mattice, J.S., D.B. Porcella and R.W. Brocksen Sediment-water interactions affect assessments of metals discharges at electric utilities. Water Air and Soil Pollution. 99 (1-4) Mattson, D.J Human impacts on bear habitat use. International Conference on Bear research and Management 8: Mattson, D.J., R.R. Knight, and B.M. Blanchard The effects of development and primary roads on grizzly bear habitat use in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 7: Maxell, B.A. and D.G. Hokit Amphibians and reptiles. Pages in G. Joslin and H. Youmans (coordinators). Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife. A review for Montana. Committee on effects of recreation on wildlife, Montana chapter of The Wildlife Society. McHugh, M Deer warning system gets road test: Fence of light keeps creatures off the street. The Star - Ledger, Jun 5, 1998, Newark, NJ. McKinstry, M.C. and S.H. Anderson Evaluation of wetland creation and waterfowl use in conjunction with abandoned mine lands in Northeast Wyoming. Wetlands. 14 (4) McKnight, S. Keith and Gary R. Hepp Potential effect of grass carp herbivory on waterfowl foods. Journal of Wildlife Management. 59 (4) McKnight, S. Keith and Gary R. Hepp Foraging-niche dynamics of gadwalls and American coots in winter. Auk. 115 (3) McLellan B.N., and D.M. Shackleton Grizzly bears and resource extraction industries: effects of roads on behaviour, habitat use and demography. Journal of Applied Ecology 25: McNeil, R Bird mortility at a power transmission line in northeastern Venezuela. Biological Conservation 31: MD Helicopters Technical specifications for NOTAR anti-torque system. MD Helicopters Inc., Mesa, AZ. Internet address: Medcraft, J.R. and W.R. Clark Big game habitat use and diets on a surface mine in northeastern Wyoming (USA). Journal of Wildlife Management. 50(1): Meehan, Amy L. and Carola A. Haas Use of a powerline corridor by breeding and wintering birds in Giles County, Virginia. Virginia Journal of Science. 48 (4) Meidinger, D. and J. Pojar (compilers and editors) Ecosystems of British Columbia. BC Min. For. Special Report Series 6. Victoria, BC. 330 pp. Merrill, Evelyn H., Thomas P. Hemker, Kent P. Woodruff and Lonn Kuck Impacts of mining facilities on fall migration of mule deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 22 (1) Mihuc, Janet R., Charles H. Trost and Timothy B. Mihuc Shorebird predation on benthic macroinvertebrates in an irrigation reservoir. Great Basin Naturalist. 57 (3) Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 181

182 Milstein, M Use of snowmobiles key problem: Park s winter-use plan fails EPA test. The Billings Gazette, Wyoming. Thursday, March 2, Internet address: Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Business plan : strategies for a healthy environment. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Expanded Kootenay guidelines for wildlife and commercial recreation. Wildlife Branch, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. Mitchell, B.A Acid rain and birds: how much proof is needed? American Birds 43: Mitra, S Mercury in the ecosystem: its dispertion and pollution today. Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland. Modafferi, R.D. and E.F. Becker Survival of radio-collared adult moose in lower Susitna River valley, south-central Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 61: Morneau, Francois, G. Jean Doucet, Michel Giguere and Marcel Laperle Breeding bird species richness associated with a powerline right-of-way in a northern mixed forest landscape. Canadian Field Naturalist. 113 (4): Myers, R Divided Trail for Mountain Bikes-PRO-Lost in the arguments: Whose land is this? San Francisco Chronicle, Thursday, March 23, 2000, p. A23. Internet address: Nagorsen, D.W Opossums, Shrews and Moles of British Columbia. Volume 2 - The Mammals of British Columbia, Royal British Columbia Museum Handbook. University of BC Press, Vancouver, BC. 169pp. Nagorsen, D.W. and R.W. Brigham The Bats of British Columbia. Volume 1 - The Mammals of British Columbia, Royal British Columbia Museum Handbook. University of BC Press, Vancouver, BC. 164pp. Newhouse, N.J. and T.A. Kinley Biology and conservation challenges of Badgers in the east Kootenay region of British Columbia. Pages in L.M. Darling, ed. Proceedings of a Conference on the Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk. Volume 2. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC, and University College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, BC. 520 pp. Niethammer, K.R., R.D. Atkinson, T.S. Baskett and F.B. Samson Metals in riparian wildlife of the lead mining district of Southeastern Missouri (USA). Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 14(2): Niiler, E Government unsuccessful with wetland: birds not fooled by local, man-made site. The San Diego Union-Tribune, Jun 10, 1998, San Diego, CA. Norman, T The role of fauna underpasses in New South Wales. Pages in Evink, G.L., P. Garrett, D. Zeigler and J. Berry, eds. Proceedings of the International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. FL-ER-69-98, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida. 263pp. NRCC Effects of arsenic in the Canadian environment. National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. No O Neil, T.A. and G.W. Witmer Assessing cumulative impacts to elk and mule deer in the Salmon River Basin, Idaho. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 29(1/4) Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 182

183 Olendorf, H.M., R.L.Hothem, D.Welsh Nest success, cause-specific nest failure, and hatchability of aquatic birds at selenium-contaminated Kesterson Reservoir and a reference site. Condor. 91(4): Olliff, T., K. Legg, and B. Kaeding (eds.) Effects of winter recreation on wildlife of the Greater Yellowstone Area: a literature review and assessment. Report to the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee. Yellowstone National Park, WY. 315pp. Olson, Richard A., James K. Gores, D. Terrance Booth and Gerald E. Schuman Suitability of shrub establishment on Wyoming mined lands reclaimed for wildlife habitat. Western North American Naturalist. 60 (1): O'Neil, T.A., and G.W.Witmer Assessing cumulative impacts to elk and mule deer in the Salmon River Basin, Idaho. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 29: Paquet, M.M Ecotourism: Panacea or Eco-opportunism? 4pp. Paquet, M.M., and R.A. Demarchi Stone s Sheep of the northern Rockies: the effects of access. Prepared for the Foundation of North American Wild Sheep and Guide-Outfitters Association of British Columbia. Paquet, P.C Summary reference document ecological studies of recolonizing wolves in the central Canadian Rocky Mountains. Final report. Parks Canada. Banff National Park. John/Paul & Associates, Canmore, Alberta. 219pp. Parendes, Laurie A. and Julia A. Jones Role of light availability and dispersal mechanisms in invasion of exotic plants along roads and streams in the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon. Conservation Biology. 14(1) Parmenter, R.R., J.A. MacMahon and C.A.B. Gilbert Early successional patterns of arthropod recolonization on reclaimed Wyoming strip mines (USA): The grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae) and allied faunas (Orthoptera: Gryllacrididae, Tettigoniidae). Environmental Entomology. 20(1): Parmenter, R.R., J.A. MacMahon, M.E. Waaland, M.M. Stuebe, P. Landres and C.M. Crisafulli Reclamation of surface coal mines in western Wyoming (USA) for wildlife habitat: A preliminary analysis. Reclamation & Revegetation Research. 4(2): Paschke, M.W., C. DeLeo and E.F. Redente Revegetation of roadcut slopes in Mesa Verde National Park, U.S.A. Restoration Ecology 8: Pascoe, G..A., R.J. Blanchet and G. Linder Food chain analysis of exposures and risks to wildlife at a metals-contaminated wetland. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 30 (3) Pascoe, Gary A., Richard J. Blanchet, Greg Linder, Don Palawski, William G. Brumbaugh, Tim J. Brown, Arthur V., Madeleine M. Lyttle and Kristine B. Brown Impacts of gravel mining on gravel bed streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 127 (6) Paton, P.W.C The effect of edge on avian nest success. How strong is the evidence? Conservation Biology 8(1) Penner, D.F Behavioural response and habituation of Mountain Goats in relation to petroleum exploration at Pinto Creek, Alberta. Biennial Symposium of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 6: Pereira, Sergio Luiz and Anita Wajntal Reintroduction of guans of the genus Penelope (Cracidae, Aves) in reforested areas in Brazil: Assessment by DNA fingerprinting. Biological Conservation. 87 (1) Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 183

184 Perkins, G.A. and J.S. Lawrence Bird use of wetlands created by surface mining. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science. 78(1-2): Perkins, G.A. and W.D. Klimstra Productivity of giant Canada geese (Branta canadensis maxima) in west central Illinois (USA). Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science. 77(1-2): Perry, Matthew C., Cynthia B. Sibrel and Gregory A. Gogh Wetlands mitigation: Partnership between an electric power company and a federal wildlife refuge. Environmental Management. 20 (6) Perry, S.A. and W.B. Perry Organic carbon dynamics in two regulated rivers in northwestern Montana, USA. Hydrobiologia. 218(3): Phillips, G.R., P.A. Medvick, D.R. Skaar and D.E. Knight Factors affecting the mobilization, transport, and bioavailability of mercury in reservoirs of the upper Missouri River basin. Fish and Wildlife Technical Report 10. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of Interior, Washington, DC. Piatt, J.F., C.J. Lensink, W. Butler, M. Kendziorek and D.R. Nysewander Immediate impact of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on marine birds. Auk 107: Pierce, B.A The effects of acid rain on amphibians. The American Biology Teacher 49: Pinder, Laurenz Marsh deer Blastocerus dichotomus population estimate in the Parana River, Brazil. Biological Conservation. 75 (1) Piper, G.L Biological control of the wetlands weed purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in the Pacific northwestern United States. Hydrobiologia. 340 (1-3) Planiden, A Personal communication. Manager of Roadside Development, Ministry of Transportation and Highways, Victoria, BC. Pomerantz, G.A., D.J. Decker, G.R. Goff, and K.G. Purdy Assessing impact of recreation on wildlife: a classification scheme. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16: Pomeroy & Neil Consulting Inc. Columbia basin development program 230 KV transmission system project summary report BC Hydro report. Province of British Columbia Guide to the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Process. Environmental Assessment Office, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. Province of British Columbia General wildlife measures and procedures for identified wildlife, volume 1. Part of identified wildlife management strategies for the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act. BC Ministry of Forests and Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 93pp. Province of British Columbia Species and plant community accounts for identified wildlife, volume 1. Part of identified wildlife management strategies for the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act. BC Ministry of Forests and Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 171pp. Province of British Columbia. 1995a. Biodiversity Guidebook. Forest Practices Code of British Columbia. BC Ministry of Forests and Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. Province of British Columbia. 1995b. Riparian Management Area Guidebook. Forest Practices Code of British Columbia. BC Ministry of Forests and Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 184

185 Public Works Canada Principles and details of animal fencing and crossing structures proposed for Trans Canada Highway twinning Banff National Park. Gov t of Canada, Environmental Assessment Review. 20pp. Pyrovetsi, Myrto Integrated management to create new breeding habitat for Dalmatian pelicans (Pelecanus crispus) in Greece. Environmental Management. 21 (5) Quayle, J.F. and L.K. Westereng Methods or madness? Developing population inventory manuals for British Columbia s biodiversity. Pages in L.M. Darling, ed. Proceedings of a Conference on the Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk. Volume 1. BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC and University College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, BC. 490pp. Rahme, A.H., A.S. Harestad and F.L. Bunnell Status of the Badger in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-72. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 52pp. Ralph, C.J., G.L. Hunt, Jr., M.G. Raphael and J.F. Piatt. Eds Ecology and conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. General Tech. Report PSW-GTR-152, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.Reed, D.F., T.N. Woodward and T.M. Pojar Behavioral response of mule deer to a highway underpass. Journal of Wildlife Management 39: Reed, J Deer-car collisions could be bigger problem in Wisconsin. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Oct 26, p.18, Milwaukee, WI. Reitan, Ole and Jostein Sandvik An assessment of retaining dams in hydropower reservoirs for enhancing bird habitat. Regulated Rivers Research and Management. 12 (4-5) Resources Inventory Committee. 2000a. Vegetation Resources Inventory (VRI) - Ground Sampling Procedures. Version 4.1. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 2000b. Standards for Predictive Ecosystem Mapping (PEM) - Digital Data Capture. Predictive Ecosystem Technical Standards and Database Manual. Version 1.0. PEM Data Committee, TEM Alternatives Task Force, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 2000c. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: The Vertebrates of British Columbia: Scientific and English Names, No. 2. Version 2.1. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 2000d. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Moles and Pocket Gophers, No. 26. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 2000e. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Tailed Frogs and Pacific Giant Salamanders, No. 39. Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1999a. Vegetation Resources Inventory (VRI) - Photo Interpretation Procedures Manual. Version 2.2 British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1999b. Vegetation Resources Inventory (VRI) - BC Land Cover Classification Scheme. Version 1.1. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1999c. Vegetation Resources Inventory - Localization Procedures. Version 1.0. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1999d. Standards for Predictive Ecosystem Mapping - Inventory Standard. Version 1.0. TEM Alternatives Task Force, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1999e. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Voucher Specimen Collection, Preparation, Identification and Storage Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 185

186 Protocol: Animals, No. 4a. Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1999f. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Voucher Specimen Collection, Preparation, Identification and Storage Protocol: Plants and Fungi, No. 4b. Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1999g. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Forest and Grassland Songbirds, No. 15. Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. 20 pp. Resources Inventory Committee. 1999h. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Waterfowl and Allied Species, No. 18. Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1999i. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Woodpeckers, No. 19. Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1999j. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Medium-sized Carnivores Coyote, Red Fox, Lynx, Bobcat, Fisher and Badger, No. 25. Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1999k. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Plethodontid Salamanders, No. 36. Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1999l. British Columbia Wildlife Habitat Rating Standards. Version 2.0. Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1998a. Vegetation Resources Inventory (VRI) - Quality Assurance Procedures for Photo Interpretation British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1998b. Vegetation Resources Inventory (VRI) - Photo Interpretation Standards. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1998c. Standards for Terrain Mapping in British Columbia. Terrestrial Ecosystem Task Force. Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1998d. Standards for terrestrial ecosystem mapping in British Columbia. Ecosystems Working Group, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. 222 pp. Resources Inventory Committee. 1998e. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Species Inventory Fundamentals, No. 1. Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1998f. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Wildlife Radio-Telemetry, No. 5. Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1998g. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Marsh Birds Bitterns and Rails, No. 7. Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1998h. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Colonial-nesting Freshwater Birds, No. 8. Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 186

187 Resources Inventory Committee. 1998i. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Nighthawks and Poorwills, No. 9. Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1998j. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Riverine Birds, No. 12. Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1998k. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Swallows and Swifts, No. 16. Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1998l. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Bats, No. 20. Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1998m. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Bears, No. 21. Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1998n. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Beaver and Muskrat, No. 22. Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1998o. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Hares and Cottontails, No. 23. Version 2.0 British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1998p. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Marten and Weasels, No. 24. Version 2.0 British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1998q. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Mountain Beaver, Bushy-tailed Woodrat and Porcupine, No. 27. Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1998r. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Pikas and Sciurids, No. 29. Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1998s. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Small Mammals Shrews, voles, Mice and Rats, No. 31. Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1998t. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Ground-based Inventory of Selected Ungulates Moose, Elk and Deer, No. 33. Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1998u. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Wolf and Cougar, No. 34. Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1998v. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Pond-breeding Amphibians and Painted Turtle, No. 37. Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1998w. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Snakes, No. 38. Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 187

188 Resources Inventory Committee. 1998x. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Terrestrial Arthropods, No. 40. Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1998y. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Macrofungi, No. 41. Version 1.1. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1998z. Operational Field Procedures for Forest Resource Survey and Mapping Using Global Positioning System Technology. Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1997a. Vegetation Resources Inventory (VRI) - Ground Calibration. Version 1.0. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1997b. Vegetation Resources Inventory (VRI) - Air Calibration. Version 1.0. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1997c. Vegetation Resources Inventory Photo Interpretation Procedures Manual. Vegetation Resources Inventory. Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1997d. Terrain classification system for British Columbia. Version 2. Fisheries Branch, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and Surveys and Resource Mapping Branch, Ministry of Crown Lands. Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1997e. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Live Animal Capture and Handling Guidelines For Wild Mammals, Birds, Amphibians and Reptiles, No. 3. Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1997f. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Marbled Murrelets, No. 10. Version 1.1. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. 31 pp. Resources Inventory Committee. 1997g. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Shorebirds, No. 14. Version 1.1. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. 61 pp. Resources Inventory Committee. 1997h. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Upland Gamebirds, No. 17. Version 1.1. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. 36 pp. Resources Inventory Committee. 1997i. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Aerial-based Inventory of Ungulates, No. 32. Version 1.1. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1997j. Provincial site series mapping codes and typical environmental conditions. Ecosystems Working Group. Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1997k. British Columbia Land Cover Classification, March Terrestrial Ecosystems -Vegetation Series. Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. 1996a. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Raptors, No. 11. Version 1.1. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. 56 pp. Resources Inventory Committee. 1996b. Procedures for Environmental Monitoring in Range and Wildlife Habitat Management. Habitat Monitoring Committee. Victoria, BC. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 188

189 Resources Inventory Committee. 1996c. Guidelines and Standards for Terrain Geology Mapping in British Columbia. Victoria, BC. Resources Inventory Committee. In prep. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Seabirds, No. 13. Version 1.1. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Victoria, BC. Richardson, H Threats posed by rock-climbers to birds nesting on cliffs in the south Okanagan. Pages in L.M. Darling, ed. Proceedings of a Conference on the Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk. Volume 1. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC, and University College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, BC. 490pp. Rickard, William H. Jr. and Robert H. Gray The Hanford Reach of the Columbia River: A Refuge for Fish and Riverine Wildlife and Plants in Eastern Washington. Natural Areas Journal. 15 (1) Riley, M Deer population boom causes trouble, Town and Country tries device to avert collisions. St. Louis Post - Dispatch, Dec 17, 1997 St. Louis, MO. Ritcey, R Status of the Sharp-tailed Grouse (columbianus subspecies) in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-70. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 52pp. Robertson Environmental Services Columbia Power Corporation Keenleyside 150MW powerplant project vegetation and wildlife effects. Robinson, J.A., L.W. Oring, J.P. Skoura and R. Boettcher American Avocet. No. 275 in The Birds of North America (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Science, Philadelphia and The American Ornithologists Union, Washington, DC. 32 pp. Robinson, S.K., Thompson, F.R., Donovan, T.M., Whitehead, D.R., & Faaborg, J Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Science 267: Rodway, M.S., M.J.F. Lemon, J-P. Savard and R. McKelvey Nestucca oil spill: impact assessment on avian populations and habitat. Tech. Report Series N0. 66, Canadian Wildlife Service, Delta, BC 48 pp. Romin, L.A Factors associated with the highway mortality of mule deer at Jordanelle Reservoir, Utah. M.Sc. Thesis. Utah State University, Logan, UT. Romin, L.A. and J.A. Bissonette Deer-vehicle collisions: status of state monitoring activities and mitigation efforts. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24: Romin, L.A. and L.B. Dalton Lack of response by mule deer to wildlife warning whistles. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20: Rorslett, Bjorn and Stein W. Johansen Remedial measures connected with aquatic macrophytes in Norwegian regulated rivers and reservoirs. Regulated Rivers Research and Management. 12 (4-5) Rubec, Clayton Canada: Peatland sustainability and resources use. Gunneria. 0 (70) Rudolph, D.C., S.J. Burgdorf, R.N. Conner and J.G. Dickson The impact of roads on the timber rattlesnake, (Crotalus horridus), in eastern Texas. Pages in Evink, G.L., P. Garrett, D. Zeigler and J. Berry, eds. Proceedings of the International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. FL-ER-69-98, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida. 263pp. Ruediger, B Rare carnivores and highways moving into the 21 st century. Pages in Evink, G.L., P. Garrett, D. Zeigler and J. Berry, eds. Proceedings of the International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. FL-ER-69-98, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida. 263pp. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 189

190 Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski (tech. eds) The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine in the western United States. US Dept. Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report RM-254. Fort Collins, CO. 184pp. Sample, Bradley E. and Glenn W. Suter II Ecological risk assessment in a large river-reservoir: 4. Piscivorous wildlife. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 18 (4) Sarasota Herald Tribune Toll of roadkill. Sarasota Herald Tribune, Page 10A, Sep 2, 1997, Sarasota, FL. Sargent, R If it works, why not try it? The state s looking at ways to save bears from highway traffic - and one idea in particular really stinks. Orlando Sentinel, Feb 28, 1998, Orlando, FL. Sayler, Rodney D., Mark A. Willms Brood ecology of mallards and gadwalls nesting on islands in large reservoirs. Journal of Wildlife Management. 61 (3) Schafer, J.A. and S.T. Penland Effectiveness of Swareflex reflectors in reducing deer-vehicle accidents. Journal of Wildlife Management 49: Scheuhammer, A.M. and D.M. Templeton Use of stable isotope ratios to distinguish sources of lead exposure in wild birds. Ecotoxicology. 7 (1) Schnoes, R.S. and S.R. Humphrey Terrestrial plant and wildlife communities on phosphate-mined lands in central Florida (USA). Bulletin of the Florida State Museum Biological Sciences. 30(3): Schreiber, R.K. and J.R. Newman Acid precipitation effects on forest habitats: implications for wildlife. Conservation Biology 2: Shackleton, D Hoofed Mammals of British Columbia. Royal British Columbia Museum Handbook, Mammals of British Columbia, Volume 3. University of BC Press, Vancouver, BC. 268pp. Shepardson, D Reflector system reduces car-deer accidents in state: wall of light from headlamps immobilized deer. Detroit News, Nov 12, 1997, Detroit, MI. Sidle, John G. and Eileen M. Kirsch Least Tern and Piping Plover nesting at Sand Pits in Nebraska. Colonial Waterbirds. 16 (2) Siegel, L Researcher s aim: people and wildlife getting along. The Salt Lake Tribune, May 8, Section C, p. 2., Salt Lake City, UT. Sielecki, L.E WARS - Wildlife Accident Reporting System 1998 Annual Report ( Synopsis). Environmental Services Section, Engineering Branch, BC Ministry of Transportation and Highways, Victoria, BC. 29pp. Sigma Engineering Ltd Effects of BC Hydro flow regulation on the Alberta portion of the mainstem Peace River. Simpson, K Peace River Site C Hydroelectric Development Environmental Assessment Consumptive Wildlife Resources. Keystone Bio-Research. Prepared for B.C. Hydro Environmental Resources. Simpson, K Impacts of a hydro-electric reservoir on populations of caribou and grizzly bear in southern British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-24. Ministry of Environment and Parks, Victoria, BC. Simpson, K. and E. Terry Impacts of backcountry recreation activities on Mountain Caribou - management concerns, interim management guidelines and research needs. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-99. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 11pp. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 190

191 Simpson, K., E. Terry and D. Hamilton Toward a Mountain Caribou management strategy for British Columbia: habitat requirements and sub-population status. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-90. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 29pp. Simpson, K., J.P. Kelsall and L.W. Gyug Wildlife studies on the Okanagan Connector Freeway 1987 to Unpublished report by Keystone Wildlife Research. Ministry of Transportation and Highways, Victoria, BC. Simpson, K. and G.P. Woods Movements and habitats of caribou in the mountains of southern British Columbia. Wildlife Bulletin B-57. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 41pp. Singer, F.J. and J.L. Doherty Managing mountain goats at a highway crossing. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 13: Sistani, K.R., D.A. Mays and R.W. Taylor Biogeochemical characteristics of wetlands developed after strip mining for coal. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 26 (19-20) Skagen, S.K., R.L. Knight, and G.H. Orians Human disturbance of an avian scavenging guild. Ecological Applications 1: Slade, D Doubt cast on warning whistles. Calgary Herald, Jul 24, 1996, Calgary, AB. Smith, C.M Population dynamics and breeding ecology of Harlequin Ducks in Banff National Park, Alberta, Unpublished Technical Report. Parks Canada, Banff National Park, Banff, Alberta, Canada. Smith, C.D., F. Cooke, G.J. Robertson, R.I. Goudie and W.S. Boyd Population dynamics of Harlequin Ducks in British Columbia and Alberta. Pages in L.M. Darling, ed. Proceedings of a Conference on the Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk. Volume 1. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC, and Univesity College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, BC. 490pp. Smith, D.W., R.O. Perterson Behavior of beaver in lakes with varying water levels in Northern Minnesota (USA). Environmental Management. 15(3): Smith, G Highway 14, Route Study Wildlife Concerns. Contractors Report prepared for Willis, Cunliffe Tait and Company Ltd. Prepared by Glen Smith Wildlife Resources Consultant Ltd. 29pp. Smith, J.L A synthesis: fluoride monitoring programs in the Kitimat Valley, BC Min. Forests, Prince Rupert Forest Region. 60pp. Smith, L.M., L.D. Vangilder, R.T. Hoppe, S.J. Morreale and I.L. Brisbin Jr Effect of diving ducks on benthic food resources during winter in South Carolina, USA. Wildfowl. 37(0): Solheim, Roar, Jens H. Engan and Hans J. Engan A corridor into the future for wild reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) in Norway. Fauna Oslo. 48 (2) Sopuck, L.G. and D.J. Vernam Distribution and movements of moose (Alces alces) in relation to the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline. Acrtic 39 (2): Spalding, D.J Status of the Sharp-tailed Snake in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-57. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 15pp. Stalmaster, M.V. and J.R. Newman Behavioral responses of wintering Bald Eagles to human activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 42: Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 191

192 Steen, O.A. and R. Coupe A field guide to forest site identification for the Cariboo Forest Region: Draft. BC Min. For., Research Branch, Cariboo Forest Region. Steenhof, Karen, Michael N. Kochert and Jerry A. Roppe Nesting by raptors and common ravens on electrical transmission line towers. Journal of Wildlife Management. 57 (2) Stemp, R.E Heart rate responses of bighorn sheep to environmental factors and harassment. M.Sc. Thesis. University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. 314pp. Stevenson, M.J., L.K. Ward and R.F. Pywell Re-creating semi-natural communities: vacuum harvesting and hand collection of seed on calcareous grassland. Restoration Ecology 5: Stockwell, C.A., G.C. Bateman and J. Berger Conflicts in national parks: a case study of helicopters and bighorn sheep time budgets at the Grand Canyon. Biol. Cons. 56: Stout, J., Cornwell, G.W Nonhunting mortality of fledged North American waterfowl. Journal of Wildlife Management 40 (4): Summers, K Status of the White-throated Swift in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report WR No.68, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Wildlife Branch, Victoria, BC. Surrendi, D.C Survey of Wildlife, Including Aquatic Mammals, Associated with Riparian Habitat on the Syncrude Canada Ltd. Aurora Mine Environmental Impact Assessment Local Study Area. Fort McKarty Environment Services Ltd. pages Swihart, R.K. and N.A. Slade Road crossing in Signodon hispidus and Microtus ochrogaster. Journal of Mammology 65: Tanner, Rene, Edward P. Glenn and David Moore Food chain organisms in hypersaline, industrial evaporation ponds. Water Environment Research. 71 (4): Tera Environmental Consultants Ltd Preliminary environmental assessment studies for Murphy creek transmission. BC Hydro report. Tera Environmental Consultants Ltd Keenleyside-Murphy-Selkirk 230 kv transmission project environmental impact assessment studies. BC Hydro report. Tessman, S.A Guidelines for evaluating developmental impacts upon wildlife in Wyoming. Issues and Technology in the Management of Impacted Western Wildlife. Proceedings of a National Syposium. Glenwood Springs, Colorado Feb 4-6. Thurber, Joanne M., Rolf O. Peterson, Thomas D. Drummer and Scott A. Thomasma Gray wolf response to refuge boundaries and roads in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 22 (1) Treweek, J.R., S. Thompson, N. Veitch and C. Japp Ecological assessment of proposed road developments: A review of environmental statements. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management Treweek, Joanna and Neil Veitch The potential application of GIS and remotely sensed data to the ecological assessment of proposed new road schemes. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters. 5 (4-5) Trochta, D Effects of winter recreation on mid-sized carnivores. Pages in Olliff, T., K. Legg, and B. Kaeding, eds. Effects of winter recreation on wildlife of the Greater Yellowstone Area: a literature review and assessment. Report to the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee, Yellowstone National Park, WY. 315pp. Trombulak, Stephen C. and Christopher A. Frissell Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology. 14(1) Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 192

193 Truett, Joe C., Robert G.B. Senner, Kenneth Kertell, Robert Rodrigues and Robert H. Pollard Wildlife responses to small-scale disturbances in Arctic tundra. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 22 (2) Tyler, R.W., J.M. Asebrook, R.W. Potter and L.L. Kurth Roadside revegetation in Glacier National Park, U.S.A.: effects of herbicide and seeding treatments. Restoration Ecology 6: Ujvari, M., H.J. Baagoe, and A.B. Madsen Effectiveness of wildlife warning reflectors in reducing deer-vehicle collisions: a behavioral study. Journal of Wildlife Management 62: United Nations Environment Program Convention on Biological Diversity. Na , United Nations Environment Program, Geneva, Switzerland. 24pp. Unsworth, James W., Lonn Kuck, Edward O. Garton and Bart R. Butterfield Elk habitat selection on the Clearwater National Forest, Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management. 62 (4) Unsworth, James W., Lonn Kuck, Michael D. Scott and Edward O. Garton Elk mortality in the clearwater drainage of northcentral Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management. 57 (3) Utschick, Hans Population dynamics of waterfowl communities influenced by a new river impoundment (Perach, Lower Inn, southern Bavaria). Ornithologischer-Anzeiger. 35 (1) Utschick, Hans Water bird communities in the Perach river reservoir 20 years after colonization. Ornithologischer-Anzeiger. 37 (3) Van der Grift, E.A. and H.M.J. Kuijsters Mitigation measures to reduce habitat fragmentation by railway lines in the Netherlands. Pages in Evink, G.L., P. Garrett, D. Zeigler and J. Berry, eds. Proceedings of the International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. FL-ER , Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida. 263pp. Van Dyke, F.G., R.H. Brocke, H.G. Shaw, B.B. Ackerman, T.P. Hemker, and F.G. Lindzey Reactions of mountain lions to logging and human activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 50: Varley, N Winter recreation and human disturbance on mountain goats: a review. Biennial Symposium of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 11:7-13. Vennesland, R.G The effects of disturbance from humans and predators on the breeding decisions and productivity of the Great Blue Heron in south-coastal British Columbia. M.Sc. Thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC. Vermeer, K., K.T. Briggs, K.H. Morgan and D. Siegel-Causey, (eds.) Status, ecology, and conservation of marine birds in the North Pacific. Canadian Wildlife Service Special Publication, Ottawa, Ontario. Vie, Jean Christophe Wildlife rescues-the case of the Petit Saut hydroelectric dam in French Guiana. Oryx. 33 (2): Volz, J Reservoirs and nature: A contradiction? Aqua Oxford. 44 (SUPPL. 1) United Nations Environment Program Convention on Biological Diversity. Na , United Nations Environment Program, Geneva, Switzerland. 24pp. Washington State Department of Transport Noise reduction on existing roads. Northwest Region of the Washington State Department of Transport, Olympia, WA. Internet address: Wayne, David M., John J. Warwick, Paul J. Lechler, Gary A. Gill and W. Berry Lyons Mercury contamination in the Carson River, Nevada: A preliminary study of the impact of mining wastes. Water Air and Soil Pollution. 92 (3-4) Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 193

194 Weaver, J.L., P.C. Paquet and L.F. Ruggiero Resilience and conservation of large carnivores in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology 10 (4): Webster, L The effects of human-related harassment on caribou (Rangifer tarandus). Unpublished report. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Williams Lake, BC. 298pp. Wells, P Tracking death on the rails. BC Outdoors, June 1999: Wells, P Wildlife mortality on the Canadian Pacific Railway between Field and Revelstoke, British Columbia. Unpublished report, Canadian Pacific Railways Ltd., Revelstoke, BC 6pp. Whitaker, D.M. and W.A. Montevecchi Breeding bird assemblages associated with riparian, interior forest and nonriparian edge habitats. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 27(8) Whitaker, D.M. and W.A. Montevecchi Breeding bird assemblages inhabiting riparian buffer strips in Newfoundland, Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management 63(1): Whiting, E.R., S. Mathieu and D.W. Parker Effects of drainage from a molybdenum mine and mill on stream macroinvertebrate communities. Journal of Freshwater Ecology. 9 (4) Wiacek, R Peace River Fluctuating Flows Wildlife Impact Study. B.C. Hydro. Revised by Simpson, K., and L. Andrusiak Keystone Wildlife Research. Wildlife Branch Maintaining British Columbia s wildlife heritage: Provincial wildlife strategy to BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 20pp. Wilson, S.F. and D.M. Shackleton Backcountry recreation and mountain goats: a proposed research and adaptive management plan. Wildlife Research Group, Agroecology, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. 39pp Witmer, G.W., S.K. Martin, and R.D. Sayler Forest Carnivore Conservation and Management in the Interior Columbia Basin: Issues and Environmental Correlates. General Technical Report PNW- GTR-420 July Witmer, G.W. and D.S. decalesta Effect of forest roads on habitat use by Roosevelt elk. Northwest Science, Vol.59, No Wolfe, Marti F., Steven Schwarzbach and Rini A. Sulaiman Effects of mercury on wildlife: A comprehensive review. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 17 (2) Wood, P. and M.L. Wolfe Intercept feeding as a means of reducing deer-vehicle collisions. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16: Woods, J.G Effectiveness of fences and underpasses on the Trans-Canada Highway and their impact on ungulate populations. Report to Parks Canada, Banff National Park Warden Service, Banff, AB. 103pp. Woods, J.G Effectiveness of fences and underpasses on the Trans-Canada Highway and their impact on ungulate populations in Banff National Park, Alberta. Second Progress Report (Sept 1988 to May 1988). Canadian Parks Service, Environment Canada, Banff, AB. Wren, C.D Wildlife and contaminants in constructed wetlands and stormwater ponds: current state of knowledge and protocols for monitoring contaminant levels and effects in wildlife. Ontario Region, Canadian Wildlife Service Technical Report Series No pp. Wren, C.D., C.A. Bishop, D.L. Stewart and G.C. Barrett Wildlife and contaminants in constructed wetlands and stormwater ponds: current state of knowledge and protocols for monitoring contaminant levels and effects in wildlife. Technical Report pp. Ontario Region, Canadian Wildlife Service. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 194

195 Youds, J Personal Communication. Wildlife Section Head, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Williams Lake, BC. Young, Donald D. Jr. and Thomas R. McCabe Grizzly bears and calving caribou: What is the relation with river corridors? Journal of Wildlife Management. 62 (1) Zedler, J.B. and J.C. Callaway Tracking wetland restoration: do mitigation sites follow desired trajectories? Restoration Ecology 7: Zuleta, G.A. and C. Galindo-Leal Distribution and abundance of four species of small mammals at risk in a fragmented landscape. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-64. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 80pp. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 195

196 IX. APPENDICES Appendix 1. Definition of terms and acronyms used in the report. Active Inhibition A disturbing stimulus that precipitates excitement, a physiological state that is not always detectable in the behaviour of an individual because the animal may rigidly control its skeletal muscles while its organ systems remains prepared for instant exertion (Geist 1978). Adaptive Management A dynamic planning or modeling process that recognizes the future cannot be predicted perfectly. In response to these imperfect predictions, planning and management strategies are modified frequently as better information becomes available. It applies scientific findings, and adapt to changing social expectations and demands. Adaptive management is based on the adage expect the unexpected. It is a continuous process requiring constant monitoring and an analysis of the results of past actions, which are then fed back into current decisions (Dunster and Dunster 1996). Aircraft Machines capable of flight. This includes fixed-wing airplanes, floatplanes, helicopters, ultra-light personal aircraft, para-gliders, hanggliders, and hot-air balloons. Avoid Keep away or refrain from (Allen 1990). Backcountry Skiing Skiing outside of regularly groomed and prepared tracks such as that used for cross-country skiing. Typically involves skiing to a particular destination and back. Base camp Baseline BCALC The main business location for a commercial recreation operation. It typically contains a lodge and/or cabins and related permanent improvements, including outbuildings. Base camps located on Crown shore land usually also involve moorage facilities that are used in connection with the commercial operation (BCALC 1998). The starting point for analysis. This may be the conditions at a point in time (e.g. when inventory data is collected) or it may be the average of a set of data collected over a specified period of time (Dunster and Dunster 1996). British Columbia Assets and Land Corporation. Biodiversity (Biological Diversity) The variety, distribution, and abundance of different plants, animals, and microorganisms, the ecological functions and processes they perform, and the genetic diversity they contain at local, Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 196

197 Blue List Capability regional or landscape levels of analysis. Biodiversity has five principal components: (1) genetic diversity (the genetic complement of all living things); (2) taxonomic diversity (the variety of organisms); (3) ecosystem diversity (the three-dimensional structures on the earth s surface, including the organisms themselves); (4) functions or ecological services (what organisms and ecosystems do for each other, their immediate surroundings, and for the ecosphere as a whole [i.e., processes and connectedness through time and space]); and (5) the abiotic matrix within which the above exists (the unity of the soil, water, air, and organisms, with each being interdependent on the continued existence of the other)(dunster and Dunster 1996). 1 vulnerable taxa that could become candidates for the Red List in the foreseeable future; and 2 taxa generally suspected to be vulnerable because information is too limited to allow designation in another category (Fraser et al. 1999). The potential for a specified area, in an optimal successional stage, to produce a given number of animals of a given species (Luttmerding et al. 1990). Commercial Backcountry Recreation All forms of outdoor recreation activities authorized by the British Columbia Assets and Land Corporation (BCALC) on provincial Crown land in a provincial forest and Crown land covered by saltwater and freshwater, on a fee for service basis (BCALC 1998). Contamination The introduction of any foreign, undesirable physical, chemical, or biological substance, often human-made, into the environment (Dunster and Dunster 1996). Cumulative Effects The resulting outcomes of many different effects (positive or negative) acting together additively, antagonistically, or synergistically. Effects may be large or small, long or short term, widespread or isolated in occurrence, known or unknown, and may or may not have been anticipated. While cumulative effects may develop without prior consideration, they are also an important outcome of integrated planning, in which many different activities are planned and implemented in order to achieve management goals and objectives. The geographical boundaries and time frames used in analyzing cumulative effects may influence the predicted outcomes (Dunster and Dunster 1996). Designated Habitats These are habitats mapped by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MELP), and include currently occupied habitats and formerly occupied habitats where MELP may consider re-establishing the species. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 197

198 Destination Area Developed areas with permanent structures varying from small communities with various facilities to simple cabins and warming huts. Disturbance A specific human activity resulting in the altering of an animal s behaviour that could potentially increase energy expended or risk of injury to the animal (Webster 1997). Also referred to as Harassment. Includes worry, exhaust, fatigue, annoy, plague, pester, tease or torment, but does not include the lawful hunting, trapping, or capturing of wildlife. Disturbance may range from active inhibition in one situation, to mild arousal in another situation, or to panic, exertion or death of an individual in yet another situation. Disturbance of wildlife has a number of consequences including (after Geist 1978): 1 Elevated metabolism at the cost of energy resources and reserves needed for the animal s normal growth and reproductive potential; 2 Death, illness or reduced reproduction due to secondary effects from physical exertion and temporary confusion; and 3 Avoidance or abandonment of areas and ultimately to reduction of the population due to loss of access to resources, increased predation or increased energy cost for existence. Document Species-specific sensitivity to disturbance is based on each species tolerance to disturbance and their current conservation status (e.g. red, blue, and yellow lists maintained by the CDC and the Wildlife Branch). Among ungulates, the species most sensitive to disturbance (from most to least) are Mountain Goat, Mountain Sheep, Caribou, Bison, and other ungulates (Moose, Elk, and Deer). Prove by or provide with evidence in a factual record or report (after Allen 1990). Ecological Risk Assessment Predicting the likelihood of, and adverse effects from, various human activities, by combining an understanding of the particular harm a human activity can cause with the likelihood of that harm being realized (after Burger 2000). Ecosystem 1 A complex system of living organisms (plants, animals, fungi, and microorganisms), together with their abiotic environment (soil, water, air, and nutrients) that function together to circulate nutrients and create a flow of energy which creates biomass, a trophic structure in the living community, and a change in ecosystem form and function over time. 2 A unit of land or water comprising populations of organisms considered together with their physical environment and interacting processes between them; for example, marsh, watershed, or lake ecosystem. Any one ecosystem has relative uniformity in the composition, structure, and properties of both the biotic and abiotic components and their interactions. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 198

199 Ecotourism Ecosystems do not have boundaries fixed in time or space, since their component parts are in a constant state of flux and can change rapidly or slowly, depending on prevailing environmental factors. While many definitions tend to emphasize the component parts present, it is the processes acting on and/or initiated by the component parts that make the ecosystem function. Without the vital processes, the system is dysfunctional or, worse still, non-functional (Dunster and Dunster 1996). Responsible travel that conserves the environment and sustains the well being of local people. Also defined as purposeful travel that creates an understanding of cultural and natural history, while safeguarding the integrity of the ecosystem and producing economic benefits that encourage preservation. Paquet (1999) indicated that ecotourism should generally conform to the following definitions and requirements: 1 It is naturebased. 2 It often takes place in fragile ecosystems with low use capacity, embraces no-trace practices, and leaves minimum footprint. All waste is disposed of in an environmentally sustainable, aesthetic manner, or is carried out. This also means limiting the number of people on any given trip, and limiting the frequency of trips; the constraints favour supply over demand. 3 It provides educational enrichment on the culture, environment, and conservation issues in the area where it is carried out. Tours strengthen local conservation efforts, including inviting local naturalists or other experts to speak to clients. 4 It promotes, is enhanced by, and works as much as possible with the people and culture of the area, using local guides, amenities, and experts where these are available. Clients receive information of local culture, are encouraged to appreciate it, and are advised not to interfere in or openly criticize it. 5 It is essentially nonconsumptive. Operators do not provide hunting trips, nor do they trade in animal and plant products (Paquet 1999). Extensive use/area A generalized area of Crown land, usually in a dispersed manner (i.e., as opposed to concentrated use of the entire area at all times), to operate a commercial recreation business (BCALC 1998). Facility A plant, installation or establishment (Allen 1990). Habitat Fragmentation The alteration or breaking up of habitat into discrete or tenuously connected islands as a result of modification or conversion of the landscape by management activities (Dunster and Dunster 1996). Habitat 1 Those parts of the environment (aquatic, terrestrial, atmospheric), often typified by a dominant plant form or physical characteristic, on which an organism depends, directly or indirectly, in order to carry out its life processes. See also Designated Habitat. 2 The specific environmental conditions in which organisms thrive in the wild (Dunster and Dunster 1996). Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 199

200 Habituation The ability for an animal to adjust to a non-natural source of disturbance and continue to carry out its normal activities. Habituation likely occurs to some degree in most situations, although animals are unlikely to adjust to intense, chronic disturbance (Frid 1997). The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks do not manage for habituated animals populations, but rather unhabituated wild populations. Harassment See Disturbance. Healthy Ecosystem An ecosystem in which the structure and functions permit the maintenance of the desired condition of biological diversity, biotic integrity, and ecological processes over time (Dunster and Dunster 1996). Helipad Heliport Helispot Impact Lek A prepared surface at a heliport where a helicopter usually lands (the surface where the skids are placed)(dunster and Dunster 1996). A permanent landing area for helicopters where fuel, service, and supplies are generally available. A fully equipped heliport usually has a wind sock, and the landing ground is permanently marked to indicate the north direction either with an arrow pointing north or by placing the long legs of the letter H in a north-south alignment (Dunster and Dunster 1996). A temporary area prepared to facilitate helicopter landings (Dunster and Dunster 1996). Describes a positive or negative change in the environment through space or time as a result of human, nonhuman (natural), or abiotic activity. In Canada, effect is often used synonymously. The general term environmental impact assessment (EIA) is widely used around the world and can included assessments of social, economic, cultural, biophysical, technological, and policy aspects. Impacts can be additive (the outcome equals the sum of individual impacts), subtractive (the outcome is less than the sum of individual impacts because some have cancelled each other out), or synergistic (the final impact is greater than the sum of the individual impacts). See also Baseline, Scope, and Significance (Dunster and Dunster 1996). A patch of ground used by groups of certain birds during the breeding season a setting for the males display and their meeting with the females (Allen 1990). Loafing Habitat An area where a particular bird species gathers to rest and sleep communally. Similar to bird roosting habitat. Maintain MELP Cause to continue; support by work, nourishment, expenditure, etc. (Allen 1990). British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 200

201 Minimize Mitigation Monitoring Reduce to the smallest possible amount or degree. Attain a minimum value (Allen 1990). In respect of a project, the elimination, reduction, or control of the adverse environmental effects of the project, and includes restitution for any damage to the environment caused by such effects through replacement, restoration, compensation, or any other means (Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 1995). The process of checking, observing, and measuring outcomes for key variables or specific ecological phenomena against a predefined quantitative objective or standard. It takes place after an event or process has been initiated or is completed to evaluate if the anticipated or assumed results of a management plan have been or are being realized and/or if implementation is proceeding as planned. The results of monitoring are usually compared to a previously known baseline of data, but can themselves become the initial data baseline for future projects. A careful monitoring program permits the defensible documentation of change for the purpose of testing the validity of impact hypotheses and predictions, and the mitigative measure employed or proposed. Monitoring is a very important part of environmental impact assessment, but to be truly useful, the monitoring work must be designed so that any results gathered can be compared to an earlier state or condition, known as the baseline data (the condition before change). See also Baseline (Dunster and Dunster 1996). Monitoring can be broadly divided into two main types: 1 Implementation Monitoring, that is concerned with the status of program delivery and compliance with instructions and bureaucratic process, and 2 Effectiveness Monitoring, that is fundamentally linked to program goals or objectives and the ultimate state or condition of the resource being monitored (Daryl Brown Associates 2000). Off-highway Vehicle (OHV) A motor vehicle capable of traveling over rough, uneven terrain away from paved highways. Includes both personal allterrain vehicles (ATVs) such as quads and trail bikes, as well as the larger four-wheel drive cars and trucks that are capable of transporting several individuals and their equipment. Outdoor Commercial Recreation Covers a wide range of activities including, but not limited to, hiking, snowmobiling, mountaineering, fishing and hunting, sea kayaking and helicopter skiing. Includes adventure travel and ecotourism. Personal Motorized Watercraft (PWC) A small motorized vessel, usually less than 5 meters, that uses an inboard motor to power a water jet pump for propulsion. A person sitting, standing, or kneeling on the vessel operates them. Designed for speed and maneuverability, they are commonly Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 201

202 Pesticide referred to as jet skis, waverunners, wavejammers, wetjets, sea-doos, wetbikes, and surf jets. Chemical or biological substances used to deliberately kill unwanted plants or animals. Pesticides include herbicides, insecticides, rodenticides, algicides and fungicides (after Dunster and Dunster 1996). Prescribed burning The controlled application of fire to wildland fuels in either their natural or modified stare, under specified environmental conditions that confine the fire to a predetermined area and also produce the intensity of heat and rate of spread required to meet predetermined resource management objectives (Chandler et al. 1983). Prescribed fire Any fire that achieves resource management objectives. Ignitions may be scheduled or unscheduled (natural ignition) but the fire is confined to a designated area and behaves within a predetermined range of properties. Prevent Stop from happening; hinder; make impossible (Allen 1990). Primary air transportation routes Designated or used flight paths for helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft to travel from one location to another, typically to deliver people and supplies. Primary ground transportation routes Year round roads maintained for use by 2- wheel drive vehicles. Primary water transportation routes Designated or used navigational routes for motorized watercraft to travel from one location to another, typically to deliver people and supplies. Raptor Any predatory bird, such as a falcon, hawk, eagle, or owl, that has feet with sharp talons or claws adapted for seizing prey, and a hooked beak for tearing flesh (Dunster and Dunster 1996). Reclamation A planned series of activities designed to recreate the biophysical capacity of an ecosystem in such a way that the resulting ecosystem is different from the ecosystem existing before disturbance. See also Restoration (Dunster and Dunster 1996). Red- and Blue-listed Amphibians Include Tiger Salamander, Coeur d Alene Salamander, Pacific Giant Salamander, Tailed Frog Kootenay population, Northern Leopard Frog, Oregon Spotted Frog, Tailed Frog coastal population, and Great Basin Spadefoot (Cannings et al. 1999). Red- and Blue-listed Bats Include Western Red Bat, Pallid Bat, Keen s Long-eared Myotis, Fringed Myotis, Western Small-footed Myotis, Northern Longeared Myotis, Spotted Bat, and Townsend s Big-eared Bat (Cannings et al. 1999).Red- and Blue-listed Cliff-nesting Falcons Include Peregrine Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 202

203 Falcon - anatum subspecies, Peregrine Falcon - pealei subspecies, Prairie Falcon, and Gyrfalcon (Fraser et al. 1999). Red- and Blue-listed Marshbirds Include Western Grebe, Forster s Tern, American Bittern, and Green Heron (Fraser et al. 1999). Red- and Blue-listed Rodents Include Mountain Beaver rufa subspecies, Mountain Beaver - rainieri subspecies, Least Chipmunk orocetes subspecies, Least Chipmunk selkirki subspecies, Red-tailed Chipmunk ruficaudus subspecies, Red-tailed Chipmunk simulans subspecies, Cascade Mantled Ground Squirrel, Vancouver Island Marmot, Northern Pocket Gopher segregatus subspecies, Great Basin Pocket Mouse, Western Harvest Mouse, Southern Red-backed Vole occidentalis subspecies, Southern Red-backed Vole galei subspecies, Townsend s Vole cowani subspecies, Northern Bog Lemming artemisiae subspecies, and Meadow Jumping Mouse alascensis subspecies (Cannings et al. 1999). Red- and Blue-listed Seabirds Include Brandt s Cormorant, Pelagic Cormorant - pelagicus subspecies, Double-crested Cormorant, Common Murre, Thickbilled Murre, Marbled Murrelet, Ancient Murrelet, Cassin s Auklet, Horned Puffin, and Tufted Puffin (Fraser et al. 1999). Red- and Blue-listed Shorebirds Include Hudsonian Godwit, American Golden- Plover, American Avocet, Great Blue Heron, Wandering Tattler, Shortbilled Dowitcher, and Red-necked Phalarope (Fraser et al. 1999). Red- and Blue-listed Snakes Include Rubber Boa, Racer, Sharptail Snake, Night Snake, Gopher Snake -catenifer subspecies, Gopher Snake -deserticola subspecies, and Western Rattlesnake (Cannings et al. 1999). Red- and Blue-listed Songbirds Include Gray Flycatcher, Hutton's Vireo, Philadelphia Vireo, Steller's Jay -carlottae subspecies, Horned Lark - strigata subspecies, Purple Martin, Canyon Wren, Sage Thrasher, Cape May Warbler, Black-throated Green Warbler, Bay-breasted Warbler, Connecticut Warbler, Canada Warbler, Yellow-breasted Chat, Brewer's Sparrow -breweri subspecies, Vesper Sparrow -affinis subspecies, Lark Sparrow, Grasshopper Sparrow, Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow, Smith's Longspur, Bobolink, and Pine Grosbeak -carlottae subspecies (Fraser et al. 1999). Red- and Blue-listed Surface-nesting Seabirds Include Brandt s Cormorant, Pelagic Cormorant - pelagicus subspecies, Double-crested Cormorant, Common Murre, Thick-billed Murre, and Horned Puffin (Fraser et al. 1999). Red- and Blue-listed Tree-nesting Raptors Include Northern Goshawk - laingi subspecies, Broad-winged Hawk, Swainson s Hawk, and Ferruginous Hawk (Fraser et al. 1999). Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 203

204 Red- and Blue-listed Tree-nesting Owls Include Spotted Owl, Western Screech-Owl - macfarlanei subspecies, Western Screech-Owl - saturatus subspecies, Northern Pygmy-Owl, swarthi subspecies, and Northern Saw-whet Owl, brooksi subspecies (Fraser et al. 1999). Red- and Blue-listed Woodpeckers Include Williamson s Sapsucker - nataliae subspecies, Williamson s Sapsucker - thyroideus subspecies, Whiteheaded Woodpecker, Lewis s Woodpecker, and Hairy Woodpecker - picoideus subspecies, (Fraser et al. 1999). Red List 1 species or subspecies that are designated as Threatened or Endangered under the British Columbia Wildlife Act; and 2 species or subspecies that are candidates for legal designation as Threatened or Endangered; and 3 species or subspecies that have been extirpated, but were once part of the natural fauna of British Columbia (Fraser et al. 1999). Rehabilitation The restoration of ecosystem functions and processes in a degraded system or habitat. See also Restoration (Dunster and Dunster 1996). Residual Effects These are the effects of a development or undertaking that remain after all efforts to minimize and mitigate adverse environmental impacts have been implemented. Restoration Ecology A discipline devoted to the acquisition of ecological knowledge and development of theory involved with the renewal of ecosystems downgraded by humans, involving all levels of organization from the individual to the ecosystem (Burger 2000). Restoration Scope Sensitivity A process of returning ecosystems or habitats to their original structure and species composition. Ecological restoration requires a detailed knowledge of the (original) species, ecosystem functions, and interacting processes involved (after Dunster and Dunster 1996). This is distinctly different from simply removing of hazardous wastes to reduce human risk (Burger 2000). See also Reclamation; Rehabilitation The number of variables to be considered in any problem-solving exercise. In environmental impact assessment work, the scope of the project analysis determines what will or will not be analyzed and is thus an extremely important step because it determines which variables will form the basis for decisionmaking at some future point. A narrow scope might omit important factors that ought to be analyzed in more detail, but a broad scope runs the risk of analyzing almost everything, potentially yielding unusable results in the timeframe needed to make defensible decisions. The activity of deciding the scope is called scoping (Dunster and Dunster 1996). The relative degree to which a wildlife species is able to adapt to human disturbance. Sensitivity varies by wildlife species, habitat occupancy and Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 204

205 disturbance type. For example, Mountain Sheep occupying rugged escape terrain may show less of an overt response to fixed-wing aircraft than sheep on gentler terrain. Cote (1996) suggested that mountain goats were the most sensitive large mammals to human disturbance. Significance 1 In statistics, the probability of making a Type One error is termed the significance level of the statistical test, and it can be set at any level. 2 A general term often used to describe a threshold beyond which an outcome can be considered of sufficient importance to warrant a different set of actions. The exact definition of where the threshold lies is often difficult. One definition is: Any exercise in judging the significance of an environmental impact should consider (a) the importance of the environmental attribute in question to the decision makers, (b) the distribution of change in time and space, (c) the magnitude of change, and (d) the reliability with which the change has been predicted or measured. See also Scope (Dunster and Dunster 1996). Snowmobile A motor vehicle, especially with runners and caterpillar tracks, for traveling over snow. Includes both personal snowmobiles and the larger snow-cats capable of transporting several individuals. Suitability The present ability of a specified habitat, in its current state, to produce a given number of animals of a particular species (Luttmerding et al. 1990). Train Teach a specific skill especially by practice (Allen 1990). Ungulate Yellow List A group of terrestrial mammals that are characterized by the presence of hooves (Shackleton 1999). There are 9 species of native ungulates in British Columbia; Elk, Moose, Mule Deer, White-tailed Deer, Caribou, Bison, Mountain Goat, Bighorn Sheep, and Thinhorn Sheep. Taxa that are considered to be secure in British Columbia; they are managed at the habitat level by managing for a diversity of habitats in the province (Fraser et al. 1999). Osiris Wildlife Consulting May 2001 Page 205