Frontier ESRD-CEAA Responses Appendix 210b.1 ... · Figure 210b.1-3 Canadian Toad Habitat –...

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Integrated Application Supplemental Information Request

ESRD and CEAA Responses Appendix 210b.1: Supplemental Wildlife Species

Assessment–Canadian Toads, Northern and Little Brown Myotis and Wolverine

Appendix 210b.1 Supplemental Wildlife Species Assessment–Canadian Toads, Northern and Little Brown Myotis and Wolverine

ESRD and CEAA Responses Appendix 210b.1: Supplemental Wildlife Species Assessment–Canadian Toads, Northern and Little Brown Myotis and Wolverine

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project

Integrated Application Supplemental Information Request




ESRD/CEAA Page 210b.1-i

Table of Contents

APPENDIX 210B.1 SUPPLEMENTAL WILDLIFE SPECIES ASSESSMENT–CANADIAN TOADS, NORTHERN AND LITTLE BROWN MYOTIS AND WOLVERINE

210b.1.1 Canadian Toad ................................................................................................... 210b.1-1

210b.1.1.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 210b.1-1

210b.1.1.2 Species Account ............................................................................. 210b.1-1

210b.1.1.2.1 Status .................................................................... 210b.1-1 210b.1.1.2.2 Distribution........................................................... 210b.1-1 210b.1.1.2.3 Abundance ............................................................ 210b.1-1 210b.1.1.2.4 General Ecology ................................................... 210b.1-2

210b.1.1.3 Key Issues ...................................................................................... 210b.1-3

210b.1.1.3.1 Linkage Analysis .................................................. 210b.1-3 210b.1.1.3.2 Habitat Availability .............................................. 210b.1-3 210b.1.1.3.3 Landscape Connectivity ..................................... 210b.1-21 210b.1.1.3.4 Mortality Risk .................................................... 210b.1-22 210b.1.1.3.5 Regional Population Levels................................ 210b.1-27

210b.1.1.4 Effects Classification .................................................................... 210b.1-30

210b.1.1.4.1 Habitat Availability ............................................ 210b.1-30 210b.1.1.4.2 Landscape Connectivity ..................................... 210b.1-33 210b.1.1.4.3 Regional Populations .......................................... 210b.1-33

210b.1.1.5 Environmental Consequence ........................................................ 210b.1-35

210b.1.1.6 Prediction Confidence .................................................................. 210b.1-36

210b.1.2 Northern and Little Brown Myotis ..................................................................210b.1-37

210b.1.2.1 Introduction .................................................................................. 210b.1-37

210b.1.2.2 Species Account ........................................................................... 210b.1-37

210b.1.2.2.1 Status .................................................................. 210b.1-37 210b.1.2.2.2 Distribution......................................................... 210b.1-38 210b.1.2.2.3 Abundance .......................................................... 210b.1-38 210b.1.2.2.4 General Ecology ................................................. 210b.1-38

210b.1.2.3 Key Issues .................................................................................... 210b.1-40

210b.1.2.3.1 Linkage Analysis ................................................ 210b.1-40 210b.1.2.3.2 Habitat Availability ............................................ 210b.1-40 210b.1.2.3.3 Landscape Connectivity ..................................... 210b.1-58 210b.1.2.3.4 Mortality Risk .................................................... 210b.1-59 210b.1.2.3.5 Regional Population Levels................................ 210b.1-60




ESRD/CEAA Page 210b.1-ii


210b.1.2.4.1 Habitat Availability ............................................ 210b.1-63 210b.1.2.4.2 Landscape Connectivity ..................................... 210b.1-66 210b.1.2.4.3 Regional Populations .......................................... 210b.1-66


210b.1.2.6 Prediction Confidence .................................................................. 210b.1-69

210b.1.3 Wolverine ...........................................................................................................210b.1-70

210b.1.3.1 Introduction .................................................................................. 210b.1-70

210b.1.3.2 Species Account ........................................................................... 210b.1-70

210b.1.3.2.1 Status .................................................................. 210b.1-70 210b.1.3.2.2 Distribution......................................................... 210b.1-71 210b.1.3.2.3 Abundance .......................................................... 210b.1-71 210b.1.3.2.4 General Ecology ................................................. 210b.1-71

210b.1.3.3 Key Issues .................................................................................... 210b.1-73

210b.1.3.3.1 Linkage Analysis ................................................ 210b.1-73 210b.1.3.3.2 Landscape Connectivity ..................................... 210b.1-73 210b.1.3.3.3 Mortality Risk .................................................... 210b.1-83 210b.1.3.3.4 Regional Population Levels................................ 210b.1-92


210b.1.3.4.1 Landscape Connectivity ..................................... 210b.1-94 210b.1.3.4.2 Regional Population Levels and Mortality

Risk .................................................................... 210b.1-96


210b.1.4 Management and Monitoring ..........................................................................210b.1-99

210b.1.4.1 Regional ....................................................................................... 210b.1-99

210b.1.4.2 Project-specific ............................................................................. 210b.1-99

210b.1.4.3 Prediction Confidence ................................................................ 210b.1-100

210b.1.5 References ........................................................................................................210b.1-101

210b.1.5.1 Canadian Toad Assessment ........................................................ 210b.1-101

210b.1.5.2 Northern (long-eared) and Little Brown Myotis Assessment .... 210b.1-103

210b.1.5.3 Wolverine Assessment ............................................................... 210b.1-107




ESRD/CEAA Page 210b.1-iii

List of Tables

Table 210b.1-1 Canadian Toad Breeding Suitability Index by Cover Class ........................... 210b.1-6

Table 210b.1-2 Canadian Toad Overwintering Habitat Suitability Index by Soil Texture ............................................................................................................ 210b.1-6

Table 210b.1-3 Canadian Toad Overwintering Habitat Suitability Index Buffer .................... 210b.1-7

Table 210b.1-4 ZOI Disturbance Coefficients Applied to Canadian Toad Year-Round Habitat Suitability ............................................................................... 210b.1-8

Table 210b.1-5 Changes in Habitat Availability in the LSA for Canadian Toad .................. 210b.1-11

Table 210b.1-6 Change in Habitat Availability in the RSA for Canadian Toad.................... 210b.1-11

Table 210b.1-7 Relative Direct Mortality Risk for Canadian Toad in the LSA .................... 210b.1-24

Table 210b.1-8 Relative Direct Mortality Risk for Canadian Toad in the RSA .................... 210b.1-24

Table 210b.1-9 Potential Effects on Canadian Toad Population Levels in the RSA ............. 210b.1-29

Table 210b.1-10 Magnitude of Change in Habitat Availability ............................................... 210b.1-31

Table 210b.1-11 Effects Classification for Key Issues on Canadian Toad in the RSA ........... 210b.1-32

Table 210b.1-12 Environmental Consequence for Key Issues on Canadian Toad in the RSA ......................................................................................................... 210b.1-36

Table 210b.1-13 Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis Roosting Habitat Ratings .......... 210b.1-42

Table 210b.1-14 Roosting Habitat Rating by Cover Class and Structural Stage for Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis ................................................... 210b.1-42

Table 210b.1-15 ZOI Disturbance Coefficients Applied to Northern and Little Brown Myotis Roosting Habitat Suitability ............................................................. 210b.1-43

Table 210b.1-16 Changes in Habitat Availability in the LSA for Little Brown and Northern Myotis ........................................................................................... 210b.1-47

Table 210b.1-17 Change in Habitat Availability in the RSA for Little Brown and Northern Myotis ........................................................................................... 210b.1-47

Table 210b.1-18 Changes in Habitat Availability in the LSA – Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis ..................................................................................... 210b.1-48

Table 210b.1-19 Potential Effects on Little Brown and Northern Myotis Population Levels in the RSA ......................................................................................... 210b.1-62

Table 210b.1-20 Magnitude of Change in Habitat Availability ............................................... 210b.1-64

Table 210b.1-21 Effects Classification for Key Issues on Little Brown and Northern Myotis in the RSA ........................................................................................ 210b.1-65

Table 210b.1-22 Environmental Consequence for Key Issues on Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis in the RSA .................................................................. 210b.1-68

Table 210b.1-23 ZOI Disturbance Coefficients Applied to Wolverine Linkage Zone Model ............................................................................................................ 210b.1-74




ESRD/CEAA Page 210b.1-iv

Table 210b.1-24 Changes in Landscape Connectivity in the RSA for Wolverine ................... 210b.1-77

Table 210b.1-25 Changes in Core Security Area in the RSA .................................................. 210b.1-86

Table 210b.1-26 Potential Effects on Wolverine Population Levels in the RSA .................... 210b.1-93

Table 210b.1-27 Magnitude of Change in Landscape Connectivity in the RSA ..................... 210b.1-95

Table 210b.1-28 Effects Classification for Key Issues on Wolverine in the RSA .................. 210b.1-95

Table 210b.1-29 Environmental Consequence for Key Issues on Wolverine in the RSA .............................................................................................................. 210b.1-98

List of Figures

Figure 210b.1-1 Canadian Toad Habitat – Predevelopment ................................................... 210b.1-12

Figure 210b.1-2 Canadian Toad Habitat – Base Case ............................................................. 210b.1-13

Figure 210b.1-3 Canadian Toad Habitat – Application Case (Maximum Build-out) ............. 210b.1-14

Figure 210b.1-4 Canadian Toad Habitat – Closure ................................................................. 210b.1-15

Figure 210b.1-5 Canadian Toad Habitat (RSA) – Predevelopment ........................................ 210b.1-16

Figure 210b.1-6 Canadian Toad Habitat (RSA) – Existing..................................................... 210b.1-17

Figure 210b.1-7 Canadian Toad Habitat (RSA) – Base Case ................................................. 210b.1-18

Figure 210b.1-8 Canadian Toad Habitat (RSA) – Application Case (Maximum Build-out) ...................................................................................................... 210b.1-19

Figure 210b.1-9 Canadian Toad Habitat (RSA) – PDC .......................................................... 210b.1-20

Figure 210b.1-10 Bat Habitat – Predevelopment ...................................................................... 210b.1-49

Figure 210b.1-11 Bat Habitat – Base Case ............................................................................... 210b.1-50

Figure 210b.1-12 Bat Habitat – Application Case (Maximum Build-out) ................................ 210b.1-51

Figure 210b.1-13 Bat Habitat – Closure.................................................................................... 210b.1-52

Figure 210b.1-14 Bat Habitat (RSA) – Predevelopment ........................................................... 210b.1-53

Figure 210b.1-15 Bat Habitat (RSA) – Existing ....................................................................... 210b.1-54

Figure 210b.1-16 Bat Habitat (RSA) – Base Case .................................................................... 210b.1-55

Figure 210b.1-17 Bat Habitat (RSA) – Application Case (Maximum Build-out) .................... 210b.1-56

Figure 210b.1-18 Bat Habitat (RSA) – PDC ............................................................................. 210b.1-57

Figure 210b.1-19 Wolverine Habitat Connectivity (RSA) – Predevelopment .......................... 210b.1-78

Figure 210b.1-20 Wolverine Habitat Connectivity (RSA) – Existing ...................................... 210b.1-79

Figure 210b.1-21 Wolverine Habitat Connectivity (RSA) – Base Case ................................... 210b.1-80

Figure 210b.1-22 Wolverine Habitat Connectivity (RSA) – Application Case (Maximum Build-out) ................................................................................... 210b.1-81




ESRD/CEAA Page 210b.1-v

Figure 210b.1-23 Wolverine Habitat Connectivity (RSA) – PDC ............................................ 210b.1-82

Figure 210b.1-24 Wolverine Core Security Area (RSA) – Predevelopment ............................ 210b.1-87

Figure 210b.1-25 Wolverine Core Security Area (RSA) – Existing ......................................... 210b.1-88

Figure 210b.1-26 Wolverine Core Security Area (RSA) – Base Case ...................................... 210b.1-89

Figure 210b.1-27 Wolverine Core Security Area (RSA) – Application Case (Maximum Build-out) ................................................................................... 210b.1-90

Figure 210b.1-28 Wolverine Core Security Area (RSA) – PDC .............................................. 210b.1-91




ESRD/CEAA Page 210b.1-vi




ESRD/CEAA Page 210b.1-1

210b.1.1 Canadian Toad

210b.1.1.1 Introduction

An assessment of the effects of the Frontier Project on Canadian toad follows. For a description of the Project scope as it applies to wildlife and the wildlife assessment approach, see Volume 6, Sections 4.2 and 4.3, Pages 4-1 to 4-25. For the purpose of the Canadian toad assessment, effects discussed are those related to changes in habitat availability, landscape connectivity, mortality risk (direct), and regional abundance.

210b.1.1.2 Species Account

210b.1.1.2.1 Status

Canadian toad (Bufo hemiophrys) is listed as May be At Risk in Alberta (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development [ASRD] 2010a) because of a sharp decline in numbers throughout Alberta in the late-1980s and 1990s (Roberts 1992; Hamilton et al. 1998). It is listed as Data Deficient under the Alberta Wildlife Act (ASRD 2010b), Not At Risk under Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC 2012) and holds no status under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) (Government of Canada 2012). Canadian toad is a Priority 1 species under the Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA) (Wiacek et al. 2002). Globally, Canadian toad is listed as Apparently Secure (NatureServe 2012).

210b.1.1.2.2 Distribution

The distribution of Canadian toads in Canada includes the eastern half of Alberta, nearly all of Saskatchewan and the southern portion of Manitoba (Hamilton et al. 1998). Recent surveys in the oil sands region indicate that this species is widespread in northeastern Alberta with high local abundance (Golder 2006).

210b.1.1.2.3 Abundance

Abundance of Canadian toads is high in the oil sands region and classified as frequently observed in the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RMWB) (Browne 2009; Golder 2006). Browne (2009) reports that 240 observations of approximately 929 Canadian toads of all age classes were recorded in the RMWB from 1998 through 2007. Additionally, Golder Associates (Golder) surveyed 20 regions in the RMWB between 2002 and 2007 and found 64 Canadian toads in 10 of the areas (Browne 2009). In spite of this, no Canadian toads were recorded in the terrestrial local study area (LSA) during baseline surveys.





210b.1.1.2.4 General Ecology

Year-round habitat for Canadian toads includes breeding habitat, overwintering habitat, and travelling and foraging habitat.

Canadian toads breed in a variety of wetlands types, including natural ponds, burrow pits, streams and lake margins (Roberts and Lewin 1979). Toad reproductive success depends on the availability of shallow water habitats (Beiswenger 1988). Creeks have lower breeding potential except where the current is slowed and ponding occurs. Abundance tends to be higher in permanent ponds with some mudflats and a thin edge of cattails and rushes, and lower in ponds lacking mudflats or having dense sedge stands (Breckenridge and Tester 1961). Golder (2006) frequently found Canadian toads in open fens and shrubby fens. Individuals might use the same breeding site every year, but, depending on water level fluctuation, might move to alternate sites or might not breed at all (Kelleher and Tester 1969).

Adults disperse from the breeding habitats but might be found next to them throughout the year. In northern Alberta, Canadian toads were found in grass meadows, aspen/poplar, willow bogs and occasionally black spruce, while sedge fens were avoided (Roberts and Lewin 1979; Roberts et al. 1979). Young of the year were found in grass meadows or along the margin of waterbodies. Most individuals remain close (within 40 to 80 m) to water throughout the breeding season (Roberts et al. 1979). A radio telemetry study of 29 Canadian toads near Lac La Biche in 1996 and 1997 revealed that toads were most often in wetlands (especially spruce bogs and lake margins) or forested habitat (most commonly aspen or jack pine stands; Garcia et al. 2004). Although toads in that study were never more than 1.5 km from a breeding wetland, several individuals made cumulative movements of 3 to 4 km, and hibernated as far as 1 km from wetlands.

Canadian toads burrow into the soil profile below the frost line to hibernate in late August and early September, therefore, soil substrate critically affects the suitability of hibernation sites (Golder 2006, Breckenridge and Tester 1961). Canadian toads are unable to dig into fine textured soils such as clays and require coarse-textured soils to enable movement down through the profile (Hamilton et al. 1998). Coarse-textured soils are also well-drained and, as such, have low soil-moisture content, which is a necessary characteristic for the freeze-intolerant toads (Garcia et al. 2004). Coarse-textured soils are are preferred, while clays and other wet, poorly drained soils are avoided (Tester and Breckenridge 1964; Hamilton et al. 1998).

Throughout the winter and in response to decreasing soil temperatures, toads move vertically into the soil (Breckenridge and Tester 1961; Golder 2006). Golder (2006) found toads in northern Alberta had burrowed between 52 cm and 61 cm by mid-





September. Breckenridge and Tester (1961) found toads in Minnesota burrowed between 46 cm and 66 cm in mid-October, and increased their depths to over 1 m by January or February.

The distance of overwintering sites from the breeding pond varies from 75 m to over 1 km away (Garcia et al. 2004, Breckenridge and Tester 1961). Northern populations of Canadian toads tend to over-winter great distances away from the breeding pond than do southern populations (Golder 2006; Garcia et al. 2004; Kuyt 1991; Breckenridge and Tester 1961) potentially because of the relative scarcity of coarse-textured soils in the north. The use of communal hibernacula is also seen in the northernmost populations of Canadian toads in Wood Buffalo National Park (WBNP) where toads burrow into a hillside of loose sand that is lightly vegetated (Kuyt 1991).

210b.1.1.3 Key Issues

210b.1.1.3.1 Linkage Analysis

At 33,125 ha, the Project assessment area (PAA) comprises 67.6% of the terrestrial LSA. Construction, operation, reclamation and closure of the Project will affect potential Canadian toad living habitat availability in the terrestrial LSA, and might affect the abundance and distribution of Canadian toads in the vegetation and wildlife regional study area (RSA).

Loss of habitat is caused by site clearing and grading, whereas indirect effects, such as sensory disturbance (e.g., increased noise levels) might reduce breeding habitat effectiveness and also affect toad breeding habitat availability, and their ability to move across the landscape during daily or seasonal movements (at least during the operating life of the Project). In combination, these Project effects will temporarily reduce the local abundance of Canadian toads, if present. To put these effects on diversity into a regional context, habitat trends have also been examined at the regional scale.

210b.1.1.3.2 Habitat Availability

METHODS

For a discussion on habitat suitability models used for the wildlife assessment, including data sources and model assumptions, see Volume 6, Section 4.5.2, Pages 4-30 to 4-34. A description of the Canadian toad model follows.

The habitat-based model is intended to predict the suitability of year-round habitat for Canadian toad in the boreal region of northern Alberta. Year-round habitat for this model encompasses breeding- and foraging-life requisites, and potential overwintering habitat.





The model was developed from published literature on the breeding and overwintering habitat requirements of this species across its range. Where possible, data from the western boreal forest region of Canada was favoured.

KEY HABITAT REQUIREMENTS

A limiting life requisite for Canadian toad is year-round habitat. The key habitat requirements used to define the year-round habitat model include:

• coarse textured soils and parent materials for overwintering within 1 km of breeding wetlands

• water and wetlands for breeding within 1 km of coarse textured soils

MODEL DEVELOPMENT

Model Assumptions

This species is dependent on water during part of its lifecycle (breeding and larval stages); therefore, availability of suitable wetland habitat is critical. Adjacent upland habitats are used for foraging, and dry sites suitable for burrowing are required for hibernation.

Assumptions and limitations are specific to this model:

• This is a year-round model, incorporating breeding and hibernating requirements.

• Ponds, lake margins, streams and beaver impoundments all offer suitable breeding habitat for this species. Canadian toad breeding habitat includes a variety of open-water types, but might also include more vegetated wetlands such as fens and marshes. This variable ranks vegetation cover classes on their potential to provide suitable Canadian Toad breeding habitat (see Table 210b.1-1).

• Slow-moving watercourses are assumed to have ephemeral pools along the margins. Watercourses (with the exception of the Athabasca River) are buffered 50 m to include these waterbodies.

• Hibernation sites are the primary limiting factor for Canadian toad populations. Hibernating Canadian toads require coarse-textured soils to burrow below the frost line (Hamilton et al. 1998). Alberta Oil Sands Environmental Research Program (AEOSERP) soil units in the vegetation and wildlife RSA with coarse texture, which are considered suitable for Canadian toad overwintering are: Bitumount, Firebag, Kearl, Livock, Marguerite, Mildred, McMurray and Ruth Lake. All other soils are





considered unsuitable (see Table 210.1-2). Although the model is considered year-round habitat, overwintering habitat is weighted more than breeding habitat.

• Suitable toad habitat occurs within 1000 m of overwintering habitat (see Table 210b.1-3).

• Since Canadian toads require upland and wetland habitats, the distance between these habitats reflects the suitability of a site.

• This model can only resolve wetlands identified at the 1:20,000 scale. Ephemeral ponds and transient waterbodies that might provide breeding habitat cannot be resolved. Therefore, wintering habitat detected without a water source in the given buffer zones is still assumed to provide valuable toad habitat.

Note that most of these assumptions are consistent with those outlined by Golder (2006), with one key difference. Whereas Golder (2006) defined only overwintering habitat as critical in determining toad distribution, the present model identifies both hibernating and breeding habitat as essential.

Model Mechanics

The two critical parameters for the lifecycle of Canadian toad are the availability of suitable breeding wetlands and suitable hibernation sites near these wetlands. Habitat is optimal when these occur close together.

Canadian Toad Year-round Habitat Model (based on Golder 2006)

HSI Breeding = SI Breeding by Vegetation Cover Class

HSI Overwintering = SI Hibernating through Soil (buffered by distance to wetland)

HSI Overall = [(HSI Overwintering x 0.6) + (HSI Breeding x 0.4)] x (ZOI Disturbance Coefficient)

Where:

HSI = habitat suitability index

ZOI = zone of influence





Table 210b.1-1 Canadian Toad Breeding Suitability Index by Cover Class Vegetation Cover Class Vegetation Cover Class Model Assumption Breeding SI

Coniferous – black spruce leading Little or no water 0 Coniferous – Jack pine leading Little or no water 0 Coniferous – white spruce leading Little or no water 0 Mixedwood – Jack pine leading Little or no water 0 Mixedwood – white spruce leading Little or no water 0 Deciduous Little or no water 0 Upland shrubland Little or no water 0 Upland grassland Little or no water 0 Shrubby bog Little or no water 0 Wooded bog Little or no water 0 Poor wooded fen Little or no water 0 Rich wooded fen Little or no water 0 Shrubby fen Fen 0.5 Open fen Fen 0.5 Wooded swamp Little or no water 0 Shrubby swamp Little or no water 0 Marsh/wet meadow Water 1 Water Water 1 Mineral soil Little or no water 0.5 Watercourses Water 1

Table 210b.1-2 Canadian Toad Overwintering Habitat Suitability Index by Soil Texture

AOSERP Soil Unit Soil Texture Overwintering SI Algar Not coarse 0 Buckton Not coarse 0 Bitumount Coarse 1 Bayard Not coarse 0 Conklin Not coarse 0 Dover Not coarse 0 Firebag Coarse 1 Fort Not coarse 0 Gregoire Not coarse 0 Hartley Not coarse 0 Horse River Not coarse 0 Joslyn Not coarse 0 Kearl Coarse 1 Kinosis Not coarse 0





Table 210b.1-2 Canadian Toad Overwintering Habitat Suitability Index by Soil Texture (cont’d)

AOSERP Soil Unit Soil Texture Overwintering SI Legend Not coarse 0 Livock Not coarse 1 Marguerite Coarse 1 Mildred Coarse 1 Mikkwa Not coarse 0 McLelland Not coarse 0 McMurray Coarse 1 Mariana Not coarse 0 Muskeg Not coarse 0 Namur Not coarse 0 Rough Broken or River Bank Not coarse 0 River Not coarse 0 Rock Not coarse 0 Ruth Lake Coarse 1 Surmont Not coarse 0 Steepbank Not coarse 0 Wabasca Not coarse 0

Table 210b.1-3 Canadian Toad Overwintering Habitat Suitability Index Buffer Distance

(m) Distance SI

0–500 1

501–1000 0.5 >1000 0

Ratings Adjustments for Disturbances

Little information was available on response of Canadian toad to noise disturbance; however, it is reasonable to assume that noise disturbance might affect reproductive success because males use a mating call. Government of Alberta (2011) provides guidelines for establishing setback distances for a range of intensities of disturbances for Canadian toad. These setback buffers were used as a guide to developing the ZOI, and assigned to varying levels of sensory disturbance based on factors such as noise level. Ratings for Canadian toad breeding habitat in a disturbance feature ZOI are adjusted according to Table 210b.1-4.





Table 210b.1-4 ZOI Disturbance Coefficients Applied to Canadian Toad Year-Round Habitat Suitability

Disturbance Feature

ZOI (m)

ZOI Reduction

Footprint Habitat Rating

Primary industrial 0–100 0.25 0 Primary road 0–100 0.25 0 Active railway 0–100 0.5 0 Urban area 0–100 0.25 0 Active airstrip 0–100 0.25 0 Secondary industrial 0–100 0.25 0 Secondary road 0–100 0.25 0 Rural residential 0–100 0.5 0 Tertiary industrial 0–100 0.5 0 Tertiary road 0–100 0.5 0 Winter seasonal road 0–100 0.5 0 Recreation site 0–100 0.5 0 Foot trail No reduction N/A 0 Major transmission line 0–100 0.75 0 Major pipeline 0–100 0.75 0 Minor transmission line 0–100 0.75 0 Minor pipeline 0–100 0.75 0 Abandoned railway 0–100 0.75 0 Inactive airstrip No reduction N/A 0 Inactive industrial No reduction N/A 0 Cultivated agricultural 0–100 0.5 0 Rough pasture No reduction N/A 0 Trail and cutline No reduction N/A 0 Cutblock No reduction N/A 0

Spatial Requirements

Canadian toad overwintering habitat suitability incorporated a distance buffer component. Three different spatial zones were incorporated into the Canadian model: 0 to 500 m, 501 to 1000 m and greater than 1000 m (see Table 210b.1-3). For each of these zones, a suitability index was applied; taking into consideration that terrestrial breeding habitat suitability is very low to nil greater than 1000 m from overwintering areas.





MITIGATION

Project reclamation will include habitat that has high- to moderate-suitability for Canadian toad. High- to moderate-suitability habitat included as part of the reclamation landscape at closure is represented by land units that are breeding wetlands and suitable for overwintering, such as:

• waterbodies (WONN wetland class) and watercourses

• marsh and wet meadow (MONG wetland class) areas associated with Project waterbodies

• young Jack pine-dominated stands including ecosite phases a1 (Jack pine/lichen), c1 (mesic Jack pine-black spruce/Labrador tea) and b1 (Jack pine – aspen/blueberry) for potential overwintering habitat

For details on the closure, conservation and reclamation (CC&R) plan, see Volume 1, Section 13.

EFFECTS ANALYSIS – LSA

Under predevelopment predicted for 2057 reference conditions, moderate- and high-suitability Canadian toad habitat exists primarily on the east side of the terrestrial LSA in areas of sandy soils with aquatic habitats (see Figure 210.1-1). As forest age class is not a component of the Canadian toad model predevelopment conditions for both snapshots are equivalent.

Under existing conditions (2008) Canadian toad habitat is found on the east side of the terrestrial LSA, in areas of sandy soils with aquatic habitats. Habitat availability decreases for existing conditions when compared with predevelopment.

At Base Case, high- and moderate-suitability habitat decreases and low-suitability habitat increase compared with predevelopment. The increase in low-suitability habitat is largely because of effects of sensory disturbance and wellsites and the decreases in high- and moderate suitability are because of habitat loss and sensory effects. At Base Case, Canadian toad habitat occurs on the east side of the terrestrial LSA with patches of high- and low-suitability habitat interspersed with large areas of moderate-suitability habitat (see Figure 210b.1-2).

At maximum build-out (Application Case), Canadian toad habitat decreases compared with Base Case. High- and moderate-suitability habitat remains primarily in the east of the terrestrial LSA near the Athabasca River (see Table 210b.1-5 and Figure 210b.1-3).





At closure (Application Case), high-, moderate- and low-suitability habitat increase from Base Case. These increases represent the inclusion of wetlands and areas of sandy soils, including ecosite phases a1 (Jack pine/lichen), c1 (mesic Jack pine-black spruce/Labrador tea), and b1 (Jack pine – aspen/blueberry) in the reclamation plan (see Figure 210b.1-4).

EFFECTS ANALYSIS – RSA

Predevelopment predicted for 2057 reference conditions, moderate- and high-suitability Canadian toad habitat exists primarily through the centre and northeast portions of the vegetation and wildlife RSA. A large area of moderate and high-suitability habitat is located along the Athabasca River and the northeast part of the vegetation and wildlife RSA in wetland areas and areas of sandy soils (see Figure 210b.1-5). As forest age class is not a component of the Canadian toad model predevelopment conditions for both snapshots are equivalent.

Under existing conditions (2008), Canadian toad habitat occurs throughout the vegetation and wildlife RSA, with most of the moderate and high-suitability habitat located along the Athabasca River and the northeast part of the vegetation and wildlife RSA in areas with wetlands and sandy soils (see Figure 210b.1-6). There is a decrease in Canadian toad habitat in the vegetation and wildlife RSA at existing conditions compared with predevelopment.

At Base Case, high- and low-suitability habitat increases relative to predevelopment (see Figure 210b.1-7). These changes represent the inclusion of wetlands and areas of sandy soils associated with progressive reclamation of oil sands developments.

At maximum build-out (Application Case), Canadian toad habitat in the vegetation and wildlife RSA decreases relative to Base Case. Canadian toad habitat availability in the vegetation and wildlife RSA decreases as wetland habitats and areas of sandy soils are lost because of the effects of the Project and associated linear disturbances. High- and moderate-suitability Canadian toad habitat is expected to remain largely in the northeast corner the vegetation and wildlife RSA and is present in the closure landscapes of oil sands developments along the Athabasca River (see Figure 210b.1-8).

Canadian toad habitat decreases in the vegetation and wildlife RSA at Planned Development Case (PDC) relative to Base Case. High- and moderate-suitability Canadian toad habitat is expected to remain largely in the northeast corner the vegetation and wildlife RSA and is present in the closure landscapes of oil sands developments along the Athabasca River (see Figure 210b.1-9).





Table 210b.1-5 Changes in Habitat Availability in the LSA for Canadian Toad

Key Indicator Species

Habitat Suitability

Rating

Reference Condition

Base Case (2057)

Change from Predevelopment to

Base Case

Application Case Change from Base Case to Application

Case

Pre-development

(2057) Existing (2008)

Project Maximum Build-out

(2057)

Project Closure (2068)

Project Maximum Build-out Project Closure

ha ha ha ha % ha ha ha % ha % Canadian toad

High 2,331.8 2,280.1 1,006.8 -1,325.0 -56.8 660.8 2,271.6 -346.0 -34.4 1,264.7 125.6

Moderate 15,750.5 15,064.6 12,274.2 -3,476.3 -22.1 4,892.2 18,817.4 -7,382.0 -60.1 6,543.2 53.3

Low 2,658.0 3,275.1 3,105.0 447.0 16.8 2,128.8 5,687.8 -976.2 -31.4 2,582.7 83.2

Very low to nil 28,216.2 28,336.7 32,570.5 4,354.3 15.4 41,274.7 22,179.8 8,704.2 26.7 -10,390.6 -31.9

Table 210b.1-6 Change in Habitat Availability in the RSA for Canadian Toad


Habitat Suitability

Rating

Reference Conditions Base Case (2057)

Change from Predevelopment to Base Case

Application Case (2057)

Change from Base Case to Application

Case PDC

(2057)

Change from PDC to Base

Case Project Contribu-

tion

Pre-development

(2057) Existing (2008)





ha ha ha ha % ha ha % ha ha % % Canadian toad

High 48,950.6 43,511.0 56,344.4 7,393.8 15.1 54,731.2 -1,613.2 -2.9 52,962.9 -3,381.5 -6.0 47.7

Moderate 450,887.8 408,122.1 443,936.1 -6,951.7 -1.5 435,849.9 -8,086.2 -1.8 419,165.1 -24,771.0 -5.6 32.6

Low 115,057.1 117,204.1 127,902.2 12,845.1 11.2 126,659.3 -1,243.0 -1.0 123,599.9 -4,302.4 -3.4 28.9

Very low to Nil 580,664.3 626,722.5 567,377.1 -13,287.3 -2.3 578,319.4 10,942.3 1.9 599,831.9 32,454.8 5.7 33.7

Figure 210b.1-1 Canadian Toad Habitat – Predevelopment

Athab

asca R

iver

UnnamedLake 1

UnnamedLake 2

UnnamedWaterbody 12

UnnamedWaterbody 15

UnnamedWaterbody 8

UnnamedWaterbody 13

Unnamed Creek 6

U n na med Creek 2

Unna

med Cr

eek 1

9

Unnamed Creek 1

8

Unna

med C

reek 1

6

Redc

lay C

reek

Pierre River

First Cr eek

Eymundson Creek

Big Creek

Asphalt Creek

Unnamed Creek 17

Unnamed

Creek 7

Unnamed Creek 5

U n named Creek 1

Redclay C reek

UnnamedWaterbody 29

McClellandLake

UnnamedWaterbody 10

UnnamedWaterbody 7

UnnamedWaterbody 14

T99

R9R10R11

T98

T101

T100

T102R12 W4

T97Acknowledgements: Base data: AltaLIS, Hydrology ground truthed by Golder (2009).

0 2 4 6

KILOMETRES

Habitat AvailabilityHigh Moderate Low Nil to very low

Terrestrial Local Study AreaTownshipDefined WatercourseUndefined WatercourseWaterbody

File ID: 123510797-0085Date: 20121221

(Original page size: 8.5X11)Author: KL Checked: CES

UTM Zone 12 NAD 831:200,000

Frontier Project – Response to Supplemental Information Request – ESRD/CEAA

Figure 210b.1-2 Canadian Toad Habitat – Base Case

Athab

asca R

iver

UnnamedLake 1

UnnamedLake 2

UnnamedWaterbody 12

UnnamedWaterbody 15

UnnamedWaterbody 8

UnnamedWaterbody 13

Unnamed Creek 6

U n na med Creek 2

Unna

med Cr

eek 1

9

Unnamed Creek 1

8

Unna

med C

reek 1

6

Redc

lay C

reek

Pierre River

First Cr eek

Eymundson Creek

Big Creek

Asphalt Creek

Unnamed Creek 17

Unnamed

Creek 7

Unnamed Creek 5

U n named Creek 1

Redclay C reek

UnnamedWaterbody 29

McClellandLake

UnnamedWaterbody 10

UnnamedWaterbody 7

UnnamedWaterbody 14

T99

R9R10R11

T98

T101

T100

T102R12 W4


0 2 4 6

KILOMETRES

Habitat AvailabilityHigh Moderate Low Nil to Very Low


File ID: 123510797-0081Date: 20121221

(Original page size: 8.5X11)Author: KL Checked: DC

UTM Zone 12 NAD 831:200,000


Figure 210b.1-3 Canadian Toad Habitat – Application Case (Maximum Build-out)

Athab

asca R

iver

UnnamedLake 1

UnnamedLake 2

UnnamedWaterbody 12

UnnamedWaterbody 15

UnnamedWaterbody 8

UnnamedWaterbody 13

Unnamed Creek 6

U n na med Creek 2

Unna

med Cr

eek 1

9

Unnamed Creek 1

8

Unna

med C

reek 1

6

Redc

lay C

reek

Pierre River

First Cr eek

Eymundson Creek

Big Creek

Asphalt Creek

Unnamed Creek 17

Unnamed

Creek 7

Unnamed Creek 5

U n named Creek 1

Redclay C reek

UnnamedWaterbody 29

McClellandLake

UnnamedWaterbody 10

UnnamedWaterbody 7

UnnamedWaterbody 14

T99

R9R10R11

T98

T101

T100

T102R12 W4


0 2 4 6

KILOMETRES



File ID: 123510797-0072Date: 20121221


UTM Zone 12 NAD 831:200,000


Figure 210b.1-4 Canadian Toad Habitat – Closure

Athab

asca R

iver

UnnamedLake 1

UnnamedLake 2

UnnamedWaterbody 12

UnnamedWaterbody 15

UnnamedWaterbody 8

UnnamedWaterbody 13

Unnamed Creek 6

U n na med Creek 2

Unna

med Cr

eek 1

9

Unnamed Creek 1

8

Unna

med C

reek 1

6

Redc

lay C

reek

Pierre River

First Cr eek

Eymundson Creek

Big Creek

Asphalt Creek

Unnamed Creek 17

Unnamed

Creek 7

Unnamed Creek 5

U n named Creek 1

Redclay C reek

UnnamedWaterbody 29

McClellandLake

UnnamedWaterbody 10

UnnamedWaterbody 7

UnnamedWaterbody 14

T99

R9R10R11

T98

T101

T100

T102R12 W4


0 2 4 6

KILOMETRES



File ID: 123510797-0084Date: 20121221


UTM Zone 12 NAD 831:200,000


Figure 210b.1-5 Canadian Toad Habitat (RSA) – Predevelopment

63Athabasca River

McClellandLake

T091

T092

T100

T095

T096

T099

T088

T087

T093

T101

T089

T097

T085

T090

T094

T102

T098

T086

T084

Anzac

Fort McKay

Fort McMurray

R11R12 R09R13 R08R10 R07 R04R06 R05R14 R03R16T103

R15W4

Acknowledgements: Base data: AltaLIS.


Terrestrial Local Study Area

Wildlife Regional Study AreaMunicipalityHighwayTownshipWatercourseWaterbody

(Original page size: 8.5X11)Author: KL Checked: CS


0 5 10 15 20

KILOMETRESUTM Zone 12 NAD 831:750,000

File ID: 123510797-0083Date: 20121221

Figure 210b.1-6 Canadian Toad Habitat (RSA) – Existing

63Athabasca River

McClellandLake

T091

T092

T100

T095

T096

T099

T088

T087

T093

T101

T089

T097

T085

T090

T094

T102

T098

T086

T084

Anzac

Fort McKay

Fort McMurray

R11R12 R09R13 R08R10 R07 R04R06 R05R14 R03R16T103

R15W4







0 5 10 15 20


File ID: 123510797-0083Date: 20121221

Figure 210b.1-7 Canadian Toad Habitat (RSA) – Base Case

63Athabasca River

McClellandLake

T091

T092

T100

T095

T096

T099

T088

T087

T093

T101

T089

T097

T085

T090

T094

T102

T098

T086

T084

Anzac

Fort McKay

Fort McMurray

R11R12 R09R13 R08R10 R07 R04R06 R05R14 R03R16T103

R15W4







0 5 10 15 20


File ID: 123510797-0083Date: 20121221

Figure 210b.1-8 Canadian Toad Habitat (RSA) – Application Case (Maximum Build-out)

63Athabasca River

McClellandLake

T091

T092

T100

T095

T096

T099

T088

T087

T093

T101

T089

T097

T085

T090

T094

T102

T098

T086

T084

Anzac

Fort McKay

Fort McMurray

R11R12 R09R13 R08R10 R07 R04R06 R05R14 R03R16T103

R15W4







0 5 10 15 20


File ID: 123510797-0083Date: 20121221

Figure 210b.1-9 Canadian Toad Habitat (RSA) – PDC

63Athabasca River

McClellandLake

T091

T092

T100

T095

T096

T099

T088

T087

T093

T101

T089

T097

T085

T090

T094

T102

T098

T086

T084

Anzac

Fort McKay

Fort McMurray

R11R12 R09R13 R08R10 R07 R04R06 R05R14 R03R16T103

R15W4







0 5 10 15 20


File ID: 123510797-0083Date: 20121221





210b.1.1.3.3 Landscape Connectivity

A qualitative discussion of movement hindrances for Canadian toad follows.

MITIGATION

Although Project effects on landscape connectivity are being assessed at the regional scale, Project-specific mitigation at the PAA level will help restore contiguous blocks of suitable amphibian habitat in the northwestern portion of the vegetation and wildlife RSA following closure. Project reclamation will include vegetation classes that will become high- and moderate-suitability habitat for Canadian toad (see previous Mitigation discussion under Habitat Availability).

EFFECTS ANALYSIS

Canadian toad adults disperse from breeding habitats but might be found next to them throughout the year. Most individuals remain close (within 40 to 80 m) to water throughout the breeding season (Roberts et al. 1979). A radio telemetry study of 29 Canadian toads near Lac La Biche in 1996 and 1997 revealed that toads were most often in wetlands (especially spruce bogs and lake margins) or forested habitat (most commonly aspen or Jack pine stands; Garcia et al. 2004). Although toads in that study were never more than 1.5 km from a breeding wetland, several individuals made cumulative movements of 3 to 4 km, and hibernated as far as 1 km from wetlands.

As most of the Canadian toad habitat is outside the areas disturbed by oil sands mine developments, movement during the breeding (active) season should not be greatly affected as individuals will not be present in those areas. For most amphibian species, remaining contiguous blocks of habitat occur outside the centre of the vegetation and wildlife RSA, although use will vary depending on habitat preferences and the distribution of Canadian toad populations.

At Base Case, hindrances to amphibian movement are highest around large oil sands developments and municipalities (Fort McMurray and Fort McKay) primarily concentrated in the centre of the vegetation and wildlife RSA and along roads throughout (see Figure 210b.1-7). In addition, moderate hindrance to movement occurs throughout the terrestrial LSA primarily because of roads and other development features.

At Application Case, most of the Canadian toad habitat in the terrestrial LSA temporarily decreases because of the addition of the Project and associated linear features resulting from a decline in moderate and high habitat availability as compared with Base Case (see earlier discussion under Habitat Availability discussion and Figure 210b.1-8). The





remaining habitat in the terrestrial LSA during Application Case would likely not be available to Canadian toads because the Project would temporarily restrict access to these patches. There should be minimal change to amphibian movement potential in the remainder of the vegetation and wildlife RSA, outside of the terrestrial LSA.

Amphibian movement potential decreases during the PDC when compared with the Base Case, primarily from the addition of the Northern Lights and Joslyn North Mine projects in the northeast and west parts of the vegetation and wildlife RSA, as well as minor decreases from the Suncor Lewis project in the southeast of the vegetation and wildlife RSA. Remaining blocks of amphibian habitat occur throughout the vegetation and wildlife RSA, depending on habitat use, but are primarily in the northeast and southeast portions of the vegetation and wildlife RSA, as well as west and northeast of the terrestrial LSA (see Figure 210b.1-9). At closure in the terrestrial LSA, Canadian toad habitat increases compared with Base Case and therefore hindrances to movement would be minimal in the terrestrial LSA.

210b.1.1.3.4 Mortality Risk

VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT – WILDLIFE INTERACTIONS

METHODS

Direct mortality risk for Canadian toad would be because of vehicle-related mortality or destruction of hibernacula during construction activities. Direct mortality risk for Canadian toad is based on anticipated disturbance to areas of potential movement and overwintering habitat in the terrestrial LSA and vegetation and wildlife RSA, and vehicle-related mortality.

MITIGATION

Project reclamation will include habitat that has high- to moderate-suitability for Canadian toad. High- to moderate-suitability habitat included as part of the reclamation landscape at closure is represented by land units that are near breeding wetlands, such as:

• waterbodies (WONN wetland class) and watercourses

• shrubby swamps (SONS wetland class) along drainage features






• young mixedwood white spruce leading stands including ecosite phase d3 (white spruce-aspen/low bush cranberry)

• young deciduous-dominated stands including ecosite phases d1 (aspen/low-bush cranberry) and e1 (balsam poplar–aspen/dogwood)

For details on the CC&R plan, see Volume 1, Section 13.


Canadian toads require breeding habitat reasonably close to summer foraging and winter thermal shelter for the non-breeding portion of the year. Canadian toads overwinter in coarse textured soils below the frost line, to hibernate starting in late August and early September (Golder 2006; Breckenridge and Tester 1961). Because of the winter clearing and construction schedule, toads are most at risk of direct mortality from disturbance to hibernacula from vehicles and project equipment during this time.

Under predevelopment conditions (2057), Canadian toad overwintering habitat exists mainly on the east side of the terrestrial LSA in aquatic habitats and sandy uplands (see Figure 210b.1-1). As there are no human activities on the landscape at predevelopment, there is no direct mortality risk to Canadian toad.

Under existing conditions (2008), direct mortality risk to toads exists from the establishment of cutlines and roads in the Project area. Overall, Canadian toad overwintering habitat at existing conditions occurs mainly on the east side of the terrestrial LSA (see Table 210b.1-6).

At Base Case, there is a decrease of 2,968.5 ha (-21%) of Canadian toad overwintering habitat in the terrestrial LSA from predevelopment conditions (see Table 210b.1-7). Canadian toad habitat occurs mainly on the east side of the terrestrial LSA (see Figure 210b.1-2). At Base Case, direct mortality risk is higher than at predevelopment because of the establishment of cutlines and roads associated with wellsites in the PAA and near the PRM project.





Table 210b.1-7 Relative Direct Mortality Risk for Canadian Toad in the LSA

Overwintering Habitat

Reference Conditions

Base Case (2057)


Base Case

Application Case Change from Base to Application Case

Predevelopment (2057)

Existing (2008)

Project Maximum Build-out (2057)



Project Closure

ha ha ha ha % ha ha ha % ha % Canadian toad 14,112.1 13,477.1 11,143.6 -2,968.5 -21 4,759.4 16,156.8 -6,384.2 -57.3 5,013.2 45

Table 210b.1-8 Relative Direct Mortality Risk for Canadian Toad in the RSA

Overwintering Habitat


Base Case (2057)


Base Case



Case PDC

(2057) Change from PDC

to Base Case Project

Contribution

Predevelopment (2057)

Existing (2008)





Application Case / PDC

ha ha ha ha % ha ha % ha ha % % Canadian toad 425,621.6 385,494.5 419,780.5 -5,841.1 -1.4 412,850.9 -6,929.6 -1.7 396,727.3 -23,053.2 -5.5 30.1





Project construction, operation, reclamation and closure will affect Canadian toad overwintering habitat. Site clearing and grading will result in direct mortality through the removal of overburden containing hibernating toads. Overburden removal associated with pit development will result in a decrease of 6,384.2 ha (-57.3%) of Canadian toad overwintering habitat in the terrestrial LSA, compared with Base Case (see Table 210b.1-7). There will be an increase in mortality risk because of the removal of soils that may contain hibernating toads. Migrating toads might also be at risk of vehicle-related mortality on roads. Canadian toad habitat persists in the terrestrial LSA, with most habitat in the east near the Athabasca River (see Figure 210b.1-3).

At Project closure, no further mining will occur on the site, and Canadian toad mortality risk is expected to return to existing conditions. Overall, there will be an increase of 5,013.2 (45%) Canadian toad overwintering habitat in the terrestrial LSA from Base Case (see Table 210b.1-7 and Figure 210b.1-4).


The proportion of habitat in the terrestrial LSA influenced by the Application Case is high. At the local scale, Project effects in combination with existing landscape disturbances might reduce local abundance of Canadian toad during the life of the Project. To put these effects on diversity into a more meaningful regional context, habitat trends have also been examined at the regional scale.

Under predevelopment conditions (2057), there are 425,621.6 ha of Canadian toad overwintering habitat available in the vegetation and wildlife RSA (see Table 210b.1-8). Large areas of Canadian toad habitat are also located in sandy upland areas in the northeast portion of the vegetation and wildlife RSA and along the Athabasca River (see Figure 210b.1-5).

Under existing conditions (2008), Canadian toad overwintering habitat exists throughout the vegetation and wildlife RSA, primarily in the northeast portion of the vegetation and wildlife RSA in sandy uplands. There are 385,494.5 ha of Canadian toad overwintering habitat available in the vegetation and wildlife RSA at existing conditions (see Table 210b.1-8 and Figure 210b.1-6).

Compared with predevelopment, at Base Case there is a decrease of 5,841.1ha (-1.4%) of Canadian toad overwintering habitat (see Table 210b.1-8 and Figure 210b.1-7). At Base Case, direct mortality risk is higher than at predevelopment because of the establishment of oil sands developments and logging roads.





At maximum build-out (Application Case), there is a decrease of 6,929.6 ha (-1.7%) of Canadian toad overwintering habitat available in the vegetation and wildlife RSA, relative to Base Case (see Table 210b.1-8). However, at maximum build-out (Application Case), the majority of Canadian toad overwintering habitat available at Base Case, found in the northeast portion of the vegetation and wildlife RSA and reclaimed landscapes, will be undisturbed. Therefore, Project contributions to mortality risk are not expected to have an effect on the sustainability of toads in the vegetation and wildlife RSA. Canadian toad habitat is expected to remain largely in the northeastern edges of the vegetation and wildlife RSA in wetlands and sandy upland habitats (see Figure 210b.1-8).

Canadian toad overwintering habitat decreases 23,053.2 ha (-5.5%) at PDC in the vegetation and wildlife RSA, relative to Base Case (see Table 210b.1-8). Large areas of Canadian toad habitat exist throughout the vegetation and wildlife RSA, particularly in the northeast portion although some loss occurs in this area because of the addition of the Total Northern Lights project. Sufficient Canadian toad habitat would be available in the vegetation and wildlife RSA to sustain Canadian toad populations regionally (see Figure 210b.1-9).

INTERACTIONS WITH PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE

The main pathway between Project-related infrastructure (e.g., wetlands-influenced or created by process-affected waters) and Canadian toad mortality risk is through potential risks of chemical exposure to individuals. However, to date, knowledge on amphibian exposure characterization and toxicology is not adequate to permit an assessment of risk to amphibians.

Many amphibians are opportunistic foragers and can have a varied diet throughout their lifecycle that might include detritus, phytoplankton, zooplankton, periphyton, insects, small fish, other aquatic invertebrates, other amphibians and aquatic plants (Murphy et al. 2000; Linder et al. 2010). Modes of feeding change in most amphibians as they mature (e.g., from filter feeding in tadpoles to insect predation as adults) (Henry 2000). The highly variable diets of amphibians make it difficult to accurately assess food-chain exposure. This issue is compounded because, in many amphibians, feeding varies by season, temperature, activity level and moisture level, and assimilation efficiency varies markedly with the type of food ingested (Birge et al. 2000). Therefore, while an important exposure pathway, food ingestion is too complex and too variable to be assessed quantitatively with any degree of accuracy.





In light of the difficulties in evaluating dietary exposures, the vast majority of available toxicity data for amphibians comes from aqueous exposure studies. Sediment and soil exposure studies are extremely limited and even aqueous toxicity data are limited for amphibians. This reflects that ecotoxicological research on amphibians is a relatively new field of study. Available data regarding the effects of chemicals on individuals and populations are limited and incomplete.

Additionally, the usual uncertainties related to extrapolating laboratory toxicity data to the field are more pronounced for amphibians, as their responses to chemical stressors are complex and variable, and depend on a multitude of interacting biological, physical, chemical and ecological factors. There are consequently few regulatory environmental quality criteria available that incorporate amphibian toxicity data. On this basis, amphibians were not included in the quantitative risk assessment (see the response to ESRD/CEAA SIR 469c).

210b.1.1.3.5 Regional Population Levels

DENSITY ESTIMATES

Canadian toad distribution in Canada includes the eastern half of Alberta, nearly all of Saskatchewan and the southern portion of Manitoba (Hamilton et al. 1998).

Abundance of Canadian toads is high in the Oil Sands Region and classified as frequently observed in the RMWB (Browne 2009; Golder 2006). Browne (2009) reports that 240 observations of approximately 929 Canadian toads of all age classes were recorded in the RMWB from 1998 to 2007. Additionally, Golder surveyed 20 regions in this county between 2002 and 2007 and found 64 Canadian toads in 10 of the areas (Browne 2009).

There are no Canadian toad population estimates for Canada. Therefore, changes to regional population levels are assessed qualitatively based on habitat availability.

EFFECTS ANALYSIS

A summary of the Project-related environmental effects on Canadian toad abundance in the vegetation and wildlife RSA is provided in Table 210b.1-9. Under predevelopment (2008) and predevelopment (2057) conditions, moderate- and high-suitability Canadian toad breeding habitat exists throughout the vegetation and wildlife RSA where wetlands and sandy uplands are present (see Figure 210b.1-5).





At existing conditions (2008), Canadian toad breeding habitat exists throughout the terrestrial LSA where wetlands and sandy soils are present (see Figure 210b.1-6). The regional toad population is likely distributed throughout the vegetation and wildlife RSA with concentrations of toads in the northeast corner where large areas of toad habitat exist.

Compared with predevelopment, Canadian toad high- and moderate-suitability breeding habitat available in the vegetation and wildlife RSA at Base Case increases by 442 ha (-0.1%) (see Figure 210b.1-7). The increase in habitat is a result of the inclusion of wetlands and upland vegetation types with sandy soils in the closure landscapes of oil sands developments along the Athabasca River; because of this increase in habitat, Canadian toad population in the vegetation and wildlife RSA at Base Case could be higher than at predevelopment.

At maximum build-out (Application Case), high- and moderate-suitability breeding habitat decreases compared with Base Case by 9,699.3 ha (-1.9%). These decreases are because of the addition of the Project and associated linear features, resulting in direct habitat loss and indirect sensory disturbance, which could reduce the Canadian toad population in the vegetation and wildlife RSA. At Application Case, Canadian toad breeding habitat remains mostly in the northeast of the vegetation and wildlife RSA where wetland and sandy uplands are present (see Figure 210b.1-8).

Canadian toad breeding habitat decreases in the vegetation and wildlife RSA at PDC compared to Base Case by 28,152.5 ha (-5.6%) (see Figure 210b.1-9). The additional temporary loss of potential breeding habitat at PDC could further reduce the Canadian toad population in the vegetation and wildlife RSA.





Table 210b.1-9 Potential Effects on Canadian Toad Population Levels in the RSA


Habitat Availability Mortality Risk

Direct Loss of Habitat

Sensory Disturbance

Removal of Nuisance Animals

Vehicle-Wildlife

Collisions

Interactions with Equipment during

Construction

Interactions with Project

Infrastructure Hunting Trapping Predation Canadian toad PLD PLD N/A PLN PLD PLN N/A N/A N/A NOTES: PLD = potential linkage, data available and expected that effect will have potential effect on population levels) PLN = potential linkage, no data available but it is expected that the effect is negligible and therefore not assessed N/A = assumed to not be a valid linkage and therefore not assessed. No data available (in terms of mortality estimates or populations for this interaction). Based on professional opinion, there is potential for a measurable effect; therefore, this interaction is included in species specific assessment.





210b.1.1.4 Effects Classification


Effects of changes in habitat availability were determined using the overall change in preferred habitat availability (high and moderate suitability only) for Canadian toad in the vegetation and wildlife RSA for existing conditions and all cases, relative to predevelopment.

At closure (Application Case), preferred habitat availability for Canadian toad decreases in the terrestrial LSA from Base Case by 7,728.0 ha (-58.2%) as a result of the Project (see Table 210b.1-5). Breeding habitat included as part of the reclamation landscape at closure is represented by land units with sandy soils that are near breeding wetlands and include:

• waterbodies (WONN wetland class)


• young Jack pine-dominated stands including ecosite phases a1 (Jack pine/lichen), c1 (mesic Jack pine-black spruce/Labrador tea) and b1 (Jack pine – aspen/blueberry) for potential overwintering habitat

The greatest magnitude change for Canadian toad preferred habitat availability in the vegetation and wildlife RSA is for existing conditions relative to predevelopment (-9.6%; see Table 210b.1-10), representing a change of low magnitude (see Table 210b.1-11). This decrease is because of the loss of preferred habitat along the Athabasca River with the addition of oil sands developments on the existing landscape. At Base Case, with the inclusion of progressive reclamation there is a general increase in Canadian toad habitat. This occurs as progressive reclamation for oil sands mines typically includes areas of open water, associated littoral wetlands and drainage channels as well as upland vegetation types with sandy soils (see Table 210b.1-10).





Table 210b.1-10 Magnitude of Change in Habitat Availability

Snapshot Habitat

Reference Condition – Predevelopment1

(2057) Snapshot

Percent Change from Snapshot to Reference

Condition – Predevelopment4

Lower 95% Confidence Limit

Percent Change from Snapshot to

Range of Natural

Variability (RNV)2 Value

Percent Change from

Reference Condition

ha ha ha Percent ha Percent Percent Existing Conditions (2008)

High/Moderate 499,838.4 451,633.1 -48,205.3 -9.6 N/A N/A -9.6 High Only 48,950.6 43,511.0 -5,439.6 -11.1 N/A N/A -11.1

Base Case (2057) High/Moderate 499,838.4 500,280.5 442.0 0.1 N/A N/A 0.1 High Only 48,950.6 56,344.4 7,393.8 15.1 N/A N/A 15.1


High/Moderate 499,838.4 490,581.1 -9,257.3 -1.9 N/A N/A -1.9 High Only 48,950.6 54,731.2 5,780.6 11.8 N/A N/A 6.0

PDC (2057) High/Moderate 499,838.4 472,128.0 -27,710.4 -5.5 N/A N/A -5.5 High Only 48,950.6 52,962.9 4,012.3 8.2 N/A N/A 8.2

NOTES: 1 Only high- and moderate-suitability habitat was assessed for determination of magnitude of change in habitat 2 As RNV was determined using mean forest age, structural stage for some cover types did not differ substantially from reference conditions and, as a result, are

not included. Instead, percent change from the mean predevelopment preferred habitat was used when determining magnitude for these species and when calculating average changes from RNV for all key indicator species.

3 Fire applied to the Canadian toad habitat suitability model did not change the amount of high- and moderate-suitability habitat. 4 Comparison of change in habitat availability is based on two different snapshots (i.e., predevelopment at 2057 and existing conditions at 2008). N/A = not applicable (see Note 2).





Table 210b.1-11 Effects Classification for Key Issues on Canadian Toad in the RSA


Geographic Extent of

Effect

Duration

Frequency

Ability to Recover1

Magnitude2 (Percent Change from Range of Natural Variability [RNV])

Existing3

Base Case

Application Case

PDC

Habitat availability Regional Medium Isolated Reversible Low (-9.6%) Low (0.1%) Low (-1.9%) Low (-5.5%) Landscape connectivity4

Local Medium Continuous Reversible Moderate Moderate Moderate High

Mortality risk Local Medium Isolated Reversible Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Regional population levels7

Local Long Isolated Reversible Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

NOTES: 1 The ability to recover refers to the ability to reclaim available habitat and does not assume actual use; for a discussion on the ability to recover population

abundance and use, see Volume 6, Section 4.9, Page 4-399 to 4-402. 2 Magnitude of change in habitat availability includes the change in high- and moderate-suitability habitat relative to the 95% lower confidence interval for natural

variability for the vegetation and wildlife RSA. 3 Comparison of change in habitat availability is based on two different snapshots (i.e., predevelopment at 2057 and existing conditions at 2008). 4 Change in landscape connectivity and regional population levels for Canadian toad was assessed qualitatively based on habitat availability (high and moderate

suitability habitat) and mortality risk (regional population levels only)






At predevelopment, Canadian toad habitat is considered easily accessible by toads. Large human disturbances and linear developments (e.g., roads) are not present; therefore, hindrances to toad movement are minimal. At existing conditions, there is a decrease of habitat availability in the terrestrial LSA and vegetation and wildlife RSA and a resultant increase in movement hindrances, representing a moderate magnitude effect (see Table 210b.1-11). With consideration of progressive reclamation at Base Case, habitat availability increases slightly in the vegetation and wildlife RSA. At Application Case, more of the landscape is considered to be unavailable for movement because of the addition of the Project and associated linear features, which temporarily decrease habitat availability, representing a moderate magnitude effect. The remaining Canadian toad habitat in the terrestrial LSA during Application Case will likely not be available for toads outside of the terrestrial LSA because the Project will temporarily restrict access to these patches. There should be minimal change to toad movement potential in the remainder of the vegetation and wildlife RSA and outside of the terrestrial LSA during Application Case.

Overall, increases of disturbance features, which affect movement potential, are temporary and should primarily occur during construction and operation, and ending following closure. As movement hindrance is primarily affected by the presence of human activity as opposed to habitat suitability, effects on toad movement will be reversible with reclamation. As a result, the predicted regional magnitude loss for this species’ movement potential should be considered highly conservative.

210b.1.1.4.3 Regional Populations

For the assessment of mortality risk on wildlife, it was assumed that any effects from mortality risk at predevelopment conditions were insignificant and sustainable in terms of the wildlife populations in the vegetation and wildlife RSA. Because of progressive reclamation, the greatest change for mortality risk potential in the vegetation and wildlife RSA is for existing conditions relative to predevelopment. For instance, in terms of mortality risk associated with removal of overburden containing hibernating toads and site traffic, existing conditions would have more non-reclaimed areas than Application Case or PDC. Therefore, it was assumed that existing conditions were a suitable benchmark for identifying magnitude for Base Case, Application Case and PDC. For a summary of effects classification of mortality risk, see Table 210b.1-11.





When direct mortality risk for Canadian toad is examined at Application Case, the Project and other developments in the terrestrial LSA will disturb 9,352.7 ha (-66.3%) of Canadian toad overwintering habitat compared with predevelopment. High- and moderate-suitability habitat likely has a high potential to contain hibernating toads that will be subject to higher mortality risk during site grading and clearing during construction. Therefore, the potential population changes described—because of changes in high- and moderate-suitability habitat—might equate to a highly conservative estimate of potential fatalities. At closure, mining operations will cease in the terrestrial LSA, so no direct toad mortality associated with mining activity will occur. If habitat availability and habitat use (i.e., in terms of density) were assumed to be proportional, mortality effects on Canadian toads at Application Case would be a change of moderate magnitude. Mortality risk associated with overburden removal, which would be the major risk to mortality in the vegetation and wildlife RSA, is an isolated occurrence. Therefore, mortality risk would be reversible following construction.

Effects of changes in regional populations were qualitatively determined using the overall change in habitat availability (high- and moderate-suitability) for key indicator species in the vegetation and wildlife RSA. Low-suitability habitat was not included in the assessment of habitat availability (e.g., determining magnitude and environmental consequence; see Volume 6, Section 4.5, Page 4-30 through 4-256). For a summary of effects classification of combined effects (e.g., habitat availability and mortality risk) on regional population levels, see Table 210b.1-11. The effect of mortality risk on Canadian toad population levels follows.

Estimated declines in the vegetation and wildlife RSA are considered to be conservatively high for several reasons. Habitat loss does not necessarily equate to animal losses from the population, as animals displaced from disturbances can successfully relocate to adjacent areas if additional suitable habitat is available. This is particularly true for species at risk because such species seldom occupy the land at maximum carrying capacity.

At closure (Application Case), the population of Canadian toad in the terrestrial LSA might increase from predevelopment. Reclamation will result in a decrease in high-suitability breeding habitat in the form of wetlands and watercourses in the terrestrial LSA; reestablishment of sandy upland sites will provide some suitable overwintering habitat.

When changes in regional Canadian toad population levels are examined, the greatest habitat availability magnitude change is for existing relative to predevelopment. This represents a potential change of moderate magnitude from predevelopment.





The combined effect of changes in habitat availability and mortality will result in a potential moderate magnitude change in the Canadian toad population in the vegetation and wildlife RSA at Application Case relative to predevelopment. General increases in overall waterbody area, associated littoral wetlands and drainage channels will provide Canadian toad habitat in the reclamation landscape (when near overwintering areas). In addition, it is assumed that through the proposed connection of protected areas as discussed in the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (LARP) (Government of Alberta 2012), existing biodiversity for the RMWB will be sustained and will provide a source of recolonizing Canadian toad populations for the mineable oil sands area (MOSA), once mine closure and reclamation has occurred. As a result, the predicted regional magnitude loss for this species’ high- and moderate-suitability habitat, and subsequent effects on the regional Canadian toad population associated with direct mortality, should be considered highly conservative.

210b.1.1.5 Environmental Consequence

For Canadian toad, availability of preferred habitat (i.e., high- and moderate-suitability habitat) for existing conditions and all cases was compared against predevelopment conditions (see Table 210b.1-10).

Based on the magnitude of change and concept of reversibility, effects include (see Table 210b.1-12):

• Low environmental consequence for existing conditions and all assessment cases for habitat availability for Canadian toad. Wetland cover classes and sandy upland classes are typically included in reclamation planning for oil sands developments and therefore effects are reversible.

• Low environmental consequence for landscape connectivity for existing conditions, Base Case and Application Case and moderate environmental consequence for the PDC as effects can be considered reversible due to the inclusion of wetland and upland habitats in reclamation planning.

• Low environmental consequence for mortality risk at existing conditions through to PDC as substantial Canadian toad habitat is present outside of developments and associated linear features. These effects are considered reversible as mortality risk is minimal after closure of projects.

• Low environmental consequence for regional population levels and all assessment cases for Canadian toad as wetland cover classes and sandy upland classes are typically included in reclamation planning for oil sands development and therefore effects are reversible.





Table 210b.1-12 Environmental Consequence for Key Issues on Canadian Toad in the RSA

Key Indicator

Magnitude

Reversibility

Range of Environmental Consequence Existing2

Base Case

Application Case PDC

Habitat availability1

Low Low Low Low Reversible Low

Landscape connectivity

Moderate Moderate Moderate High Reversible Low to Moderate

Mortality risk Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Reversible Low Regional population levels

Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Reversible Low

NOTES: 1 Only high- and moderate-suitability habitat was assessed for determination of environmental consequence of

change in habitat 2 Comparison of change in habitat availability is based on two different snapshots (i.e., predevelopment at

2057 and existing conditions at 2008)

Progressive reclamation of the Project along with other developments and initiatives for expansion of protected areas (see Government of Alberta 2012) will mitigate cumulative effects on Canadian toad habitat availability in the vegetation and wildlife RSA. As the vegetation communities in the closure landscape change, species-specific habitat use of the terrestrial LSA will also change, as is expected in a dynamic ecosystem like the boreal forest. Species that rely on wetland ecosystems (i.e., fens) for part of their life history requirements (e.g., Canadian toad), will likely experience some irreversible or largely irreversible changes in a subset of their useable habitat; this is because of oil sands reclamation landscape topography and because the current body of knowledge on peatland reclamation is still in the early stages. However, Canadian toads are not peatland-dependent species, and therefore will likely find suitable habitat elsewhere in the region, including the closure landscapes (because of the inclusion of marshes and waterbodies for breeding and suitable overwintering habitat). Therefore, environmental effects on Canadian toad were considered reversible. Overall, the proposed CC&R plan will provide an increase in topographic diversity and more highly developed drainage in the terrestrial LSA, which should provide suitable conditions for the development of preferred habitat for the key indicator species with time.

210b.1.1.6 Prediction Confidence

Overall prediction confidence is moderate. Quality and quantity of baseline information is high because baseline field surveys were done throughout the terrestrial LSA, which targeted species of management concern such as Canadian toad. No wildlife baseline information was collected in the vegetation and wildlife RSA; however, data from





regional monitoring initiatives were reviewed. Confidence in analytical techniques is high for assessment of direct effects because abundant literature on species habitat requirements exists for model development, and because the Project footprint was defined by the mine plan at an adequate level of detail for the Integrated Application. Confidence in analytical techniques is low for indirect effects because effects of disturbances on wildlife are less documented in the literature; however, regulator-accepted standards were used wherever possible for definition of ZOI from disturbance (e.g., ESRD 2012). Professional judgement was also required to address sensory effects on Canadian toad, and a cautionary approach was taken in defining ZOI. Confidence in analytical techniques is low for population level effects because literature on species densities in northern Alberta is limited for most species and therefore changes were assessed qualitatively based on professional judgement and habitat availability. Confidence in analytical techniques is also reduced because localized effects from air emissions were not accounted for. For instance, it is assumed that sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) fumigation effects might affect habitat by causing an increase in shrub growth, resulting in shrubs to outcompete ground plant species. Confidence in mitigation is moderate. While long-term reclamation monitoring plots appear to be moving towards natural ecosystems, some areas (i.e., tailings sand) are developing into novel ecosystems (see Rowland et al. 2009); given this, prediction confidence of success of reclamation activities on habitat availability is moderate.

210b.1.2 Northern and Little Brown Myotis


The assessment of the effects of the Frontier Project on northern myotis (also known as northern long-eared bat) and little brown myotis (also known as little brown bat). For a description of the Project scope as it applies to wildlife and the wildlife assessment approach, see Volume 6, Sections 4.2 and 4.3, Pages 4-1 to 4-25. For the purpose of the bat assessment, effects discussed are those related to changes in habitat availability, landscape connectivity, mortality risk (direct) and regional abundance.


210b.1.2.2.1 Status

Little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) is listed as Secure in Alberta (ASRD 2010a) and has no status under the Alberta Wildlife Act (ASRD 2010b). Little brown myotis is listed as Endangered under COSEWIC because of catastrophic declines from the spread of White-nose Syndrome (WNS) (COSEWIC 2012a); however, it is not yet listed under the





Species at Risk Act (Government of Canada 2012a). Globally, little brown myotis is listed as Secure (NatureServe 2010).

Northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) is listed as May Be At Risk in Alberta (ASRD 2010a) because of threats to habitat and as Data Deficient under the Alberta Wildlife Act (ASRD 2010b). Northern myotis is listed as Endangered under COSEWIC because of catastrophic declines from the spread of WNS (COSEWIC 2012b); however, it is not yet listed under the Species at Risk Act (Government of Canada 2012b). Globally, northern myotis is listed as Apparently Secure (NatureServe 2010).


Little brown myotis has a widespread breeding distribution throughout Alberta (ASRD 2009).

The distribution of the northern myotis includes mature forest habitats in the Boreal Natural Region, the northern section of the Foothills Natural Region and the Peace River and Central Parkland Regions of northern Alberta (ASRD and ACA 2009).


Little brown myotis is the most common bat in Alberta. In 2009, the provincial population is estimated at 1 to 1.5 million (ASRD 2009). Population and population trends of the northern myotis in Alberta are unknown but were considered stable.

Mortality of little brown myotis and northern myotis associated with the fungal WNS has reduced populations by more than 75% in infected hibernacula in eastern North America (Frick et al. 2010). There is strong evidence that the same result will occur in the Canadian population. WNS has spread rapidly and significant declines and mortality events were recorded in Canada in 2011. Susceptibility to WNS is expected to be similar for both species across Canada.


Myotis species are dependent on forest interiors for foraging and commuting (Broders et al. 2006; Carter and Feldhamer 2005; Jung et al. 1999; Owen et al. 2003; Patriquin and Barclay 2003), but are also known to commute along edges, and rarely (if ever) fly through open non-forested areas (Hogberd et al. 2002). Henderson and Broders (2008) indicate that northern myotis do not fly more than 78 m from an edge of intact forest, thereby avoiding open, unforested areas.





Little brown myotis and northern myotis use a variety of tree species for roosting but seem to prefer deciduous trees (particularly aspen and balsam poplar) in deciduous dominated forests (Olson 2011; Owen et al. 2002; Broders and Forbes 2004; Henderson and Broders 2008; Henderson et al. 2008). Females tend to roost in groups in mature, deciduous stands (Broders and Forbes 2004; Foster and Kurta 1999; Menzel et al. 2002; Sasse and Pekins 1996) whereas males typically roost solitarily in either deciduous or coniferous trees (Broders and Forbes 2004; Ford et al. 2006; Jung et al. 2004; Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001), suggesting that mixedwood stands also hold importance to myotis species (ASRD and ACA 2009).

Mature forest stands are generally preferred roosting habitat because of high availability of snags and roosting sites (Vonhof and Wilkinson 1999; Owen et al. 2002). However, recent studies in Alberta and elsewhere have also found northern myotis in young stands and disturbed forests (Campton and Barclay 1998; Cryan et al. 2001; Foster and Kurta 1999; Henderson and Broders 2008; Henderson et al. 2008; Lausen 2006; Menzel et al. 2002). While some studies report use of mainly dead trees (Broders and Forbes 2004; Menzel et al. 2002; Sasse and Pekins 1996), others report equal use of dead and living trees (Carter and Feldhamer 2005; Foster and Kurta 1999). In general, cavity-roosting bats, such as the myotis species, select roost trees based on proximity to water (Kalcounis-Ruppell et al. 2005).

Little brown myotis and northern myotis rely on pre-existing cavities as sites for roosting, raising young and maternity colonies (Olson 2011). As bats do not create roosting structures, roosting habitat might be limiting to bat populations (Olson 2011; Kalcounis-Ruppell et al. 2005). Natural roost sites include cavities of trees, including structural defects such as sloughing bark, cracks, splits, breakage, knotholes and old bird excavations (Olson 2011; Carter and Feldhamer 2005; Foster and Kurta 1999; Menzel et al. 2002; Mumford and Cope 1964). Little brown myotis will also nest in human-made cavities such as buildings (ASRD 2009). Individual northern myotis move between a number of roost trees, switching every two days on average (Foster and Kurta 1999), although they seem to switch less often (every five days) during lactation (Menzel et al. 2002).

Northern myotis and little brown myotis hibernate with other bat species in caves or abandoned mines (ASRD and ACA 2009). Bats are true hibernators in that they enter a state of torpor where their internal body temperature approaches freezing, their breathing and heart rate are significantly slowed, and all unnecessary movement is avoided (ASRD and ACA 2009). This makes them vulnerable to disturbance during hibernation. There are two known caves used as hibernacula for northern myotis in Alberta: one near





Cadomin and one in Wood Buffalo National Park (ASRD and ACA 2009). Both caves are shared with little brown and long-legged (Myotis volans) bats.

Little brown myotis and northern myotis feed exclusively on insects. Their diet is limited by the size, behavior and quality (e.g., carapace hardness) of the insects they are capable of catching. Insect orders Diptera, Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, Thrichoptera, Ephemeroptera and Neuroptera comprise the majority of the diet (Anthony and Kunz 1977). Little brown myotis and northern myotis glean insects from vegetation, and use aerial hawking of prey, which makes them well adapted for interior forest foraging (Ratcliffe and Dawson 2003).



At 33,125 ha, the PAA comprises 67.6% of the terrestrial LSA. Construction, operation, reclamation and closure of the Project will affect myotis roosting habitat availability in the terrestrial LSA, and might affect the abundance and distribution of both myotis species in the vegetation and wildlife RSA.

Loss of habitat is caused by site clearing and grading, whereas indirect effects, such as sensory disturbance (e.g., increased noise levels) might reduce myotis breeding habitat effectiveness, affect roosting habitat availability and affect their ability move across the landscape during daily or seasonal movements, at least during the Project’s operating life. In combination, these Project effects will temporarily reduce the local abundance of both myotis species. To put these effects on diversity into a more meaningful regional context, habitat trends have also been examined at the regional scale.


METHODS

For a discussion on habitat suitability models used for the wildlife assessment, including data sources and model assumptions, see Volume 6, Section 4.5.2, Pages 4-30 to 4-34. As description of the northern and little brown myotis model follows.

The habitat-based model is intended to predict the suitability of roosting habitat for little brown myotis and northern myotis in the boreal region of northern Alberta. The model was developed from published literature on roosting habitat requirements across the species’ range, but where possible data from the western boreal forest region of Canada was favoured.





KEY HABITAT REQUIREMENTS

A limiting life requisite for little brown myotis and northern myotis in Alberta is roosting habitat. Key habitat requirements used to define the roosting habitat model follow:

• Deciduous dominated vegetation types are preferred. Mixedwood vegetation types are also used, but at a lower rate and therefore given a lower rating. Coniferous dominated and open-vegetation types are given a very-low to nil rating for the myotis species.

• Mature tree stands (Structural Stages 6 and 7) greater than 120 years old are preferred because of higher abundance of snags and roosting sites.

• Water is not considered to be limiting in the study area; therefore proximity to water is not considered.

MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND ASSUMPTIONS

A four-class rating scheme was used to model roosting habitat suitability for little brown myotis and northern myotis on the basis species life history and habitat requirements. High-suitability roosting habitats for little brown myotis and northern myotis were given a rating of 1, whereas very-low to nil habitats were rated 4. Guidance for developing the ratings follows (see Table 210b.1-13):

• Mature deciduous dominated vegetation classes are preferred and are given the highest rating at Structural Stages 6 and 7. Although lacking a mature tree canopy, Structural Stage 5 is assumed to have fewer suitable structures for roosting and is given a moderate rating. Structural Stages 4 and lower provide some habitat value and are given low or nil ratings.

• Moist deciduous-dominated mixedwood land cover classes at Structural Stages 6 and 7 provide some value for roosting and are given a moderate rating because of the high deciduous components. Structural Stages 3b, 4 and 5 lack mature trees and are given low or nil ratings.

• Coniferous-dominated vegetation cover classes and open vegetation cover classes are largely dominated by a coniferous tree layer, and generally do not provide preferred roosting habitat.

Little brown myotis and northern myotis habitat ratings for each vegetation-cover, class-structural-stage combinations are provided in Table 210b.1-13.





Table 210b.1-13 Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis Roosting Habitat Ratings

Vegetation Cover Assumptions Structural Stage

0–3b 4 5 6–7 Deciduous forests 4 3 2 1 Deciduous dominated mixedwood 4 3 3 2 Coniferous dominated/open 4 4 4 4

Ratings Example

Ratings for little brown myotis and northern myotis incorporated ratings assumptions of key habitat requirements and ZOIs. For example, deciduous vegetation cover class at Structural Stage 7 is given a high (1) rating because of its high-value vegetation class and high-value structural stage (see Table 210b.1-14). If this habitat is within 300 m of a primary industrial site, the value of that habitat would decrease by two classes to low (3) because of sensory disturbance.

Table 210b.1-14 Roosting Habitat Rating by Cover Class and Structural Stage for Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis

Vegetation Cover Class

Vegetation Cover Class Model Assumption

Habitat Rating by Structural Stage

0 1 2 3a 3b 4 5 6 7 Coniferous – black spruce leading Coniferous forest 4 4 4 4 4 Coniferous – Jack pine leading Coniferous forest 4 4 4 4 4 Coniferous – white spruce leading Coniferous forest 4 4 4 4 4 4 Mixedwood – Jack pine leading Dry mixedwood 4 4 4 4 4 Mixedwood – white spruce leading Moist mixedwood 4 3 3 2 2 Deciduous Deciduous

dominated forest 4 4 3 2 1 1

Upland shrubland Treeless 4 Upland grassland Treeless 4 Shrubby bog Coniferous forest 4 Wooded bog Coniferous forest 4 4 4 4 4 4 Poor wooded fen Coniferous forest 4 4 4 4 4 Rich wooded fen Coniferous forest 4 4 4 4 4 4 Shrubby fen Treeless 4 Open fen Treeless 4 Wooded swamp Moist mixedwood 4 4 3 3 2 2 Shrubby swamp Treeless 4





Table 210b.1-14 Roosting Habitat Rating by Cover Class and Structural Stage for Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis (cont’d)

Vegetation Cover Class

Vegetation Cover Class Model Assumption

Habitat Rating by Structural Stage

0 1 2 3a 3b 4 5 6 7 Marsh/wet meadow Treeless 4 Water Treeless 4 Mineral soil Treeless 4 NOTE: For a key to vegetation cover class and structural stages, see Volume 6, Appendix 4A,Tables 4A-1 and 4A-2, Pages 4A-1 to 4A-5. Habitat suitability is rated as: 1 = high, 2 = moderate, 3 = low and 4 = very-low to nil.

Ratings Adjustments for Disturbances

Little information was available on response of bats to noise disturbance. However, some disturbance from Project activities is expected. Ratings for myotis roosting habitat within a disturbance feature ZOI are adjusted according to Table 210b.1-15, based on recommended setback distances in ESRD 2012.

Table 210b.1-15 ZOI Disturbance Coefficients Applied to Northern and Little Brown Myotis Roosting Habitat Suitability

Disturbance Feature

ZOI (m)

ZOI Reduction


Primary industrial 0-300 -2 4 Primary road 0-300 -2 4 Active railway 0-100 -2 4 Urban area 0-300 -2 4 Active airstrip 0-300 -2 4 Secondary industrial 0-300 -2 4 Secondary road 0-100 -2 4 Rural residential 0-300 -2 4 Tertiary industrial 0-100 -2 4 Tertiary road 0-100 -2 4 Winter seasonal road 0-50 -1 4 Summer seasonal road N/A N/A N/A Recreation site 0-100 -2 4 Foot trail 0-50 -1 4 Major transmission line 0-50 -1 4 Major pipeline 0-50 -1 4 Minor transmission line 0-50 -1 4





Table 210b.1-15 ZOI Disturbance Coefficients Applied to Northern and Little Brown Myotis Roosting Habitat Suitability (cont’d)

Disturbance Feature

ZOI (m)

ZOI Reduction


Minor pipeline 0-50 -1 4 Abandoned railway 0-50 -1 4 Inactive airstrip 0-50 -1 4 Inactive industrial 0-50 -1 4 Cultivated agricultural 0-50 -1 4 Rough pasture 0-50 -1 4 Trail/cutline 0-50 -1 4 Cutblock 0-50 -1 4

Spatial Requirements

There are no spatial limitations applied to the myotis roosting habitat model.

VERIFICATION

This model represents a hypothesis of species-habitat relationships for little brown myotis and northern myotis, emphasizing the habitat attributes and disturbance features that likely influence the suitability of roosting habitat in the Project area. It is based on a synthesis of peer-reviewed and technical literature and the professional knowledge of project-assessment wildlife biologists familiar with little brown myotis and northern myotis ecology. As there are no roost-specific survey results in the vegetation and wildlife RSA, the myotis roosting habitat model was not statistically verified.

MITIGATION

Project reclamation will include habitat that has high- to moderate-suitability for little brown and northern myotis. High- to moderate-suitability habitat included as part of the reclamation landscape at closure is represented by land units that have high coverage of deciduous trees, such as:

• deciduous-dominated forest, including ecosite phases b2 (aspen/white birch/blueberry), d1 (aspen/low-bush cranberry) and e1 (balsam poplar-aspen/dogwood)

• mixedwood forests, including b3 (aspen-white spruce/blueberry), d2 (aspen-white spruce/low-bush cranberry), d3 (white spruce-aspen/low-bush cranberry) and e2 (balsam poplar-white spruce/dogwood)

For details on the CC&R plan, see Volume 1, Section 13.






In the predevelopment (2008) landscape, moderate- and high-suitability myotis habitat is present mainly in the western and centre portions of the terrestrial LSA. In the predevelopment (2057) landscape, myotis roosting habitat occurs mainly in the western and centre portions of the terrestrial LSA where large patches of mature and old-growth deciduous and mixedwood forests occur (see Figure 210b.1-10).

Under existing conditions (2008), myotis roosting habitat occurs throughout the terrestrial LSA, primarily on the west side and centre of the terrestrial LSA where large patches of mature and old-growth deciduous and mixedwood forests occur. Compared with predevelopment conditions, high- and moderate-suitability roosting habitat decreases and low-suitability habitat increase in the terrestrial LSA (see Table 210b.1-16). The changes are because of high- and moderate-suitability roosting habitat changing to low-suitability habitat from the effects of sensory disturbance of roads and other development features.

At Base Case, much of the high- and moderate-suitability myotis roosting habitat occurs on the west side of the terrestrial LSA where large patches of mature and old-growth deciduous and mixedwood forests remain (see Figure 210b.1-11). Bats’ roosting habitat availability decreases are caused by direct roosting habitat loss and indirect sensory effects from existing disturbances, particularly roads and other development features, as well as the addition of the PRM project.

With assumed maximum build-out before reclamation, myotis roosting habitat temporary decreases in the terrestrial LSA from Base Case. During Project development, high- and moderate-suitability myotis roosting habitat will remain primarily in the southwest where large patches of mature deciduous forest remain (see Table 210b.1-16 and Figure 210b.1-12).

At closure, myotis roosting habitat decreases in the terrestrial LSA from Base Case. The CC&R plan was designed with the goal of constructing sustainable terrain, soils and drainage features that will allow diverse vegetation communities and associated habitats to re-establish on the landscape. The increased topographic complexity and slopes of the closure landscape will result in the development of deciduous-dominated and mixedwood ecosite phases (see Table 210b.1-16 and Figure 210b.1-13). However, as myotis prefer roosting areas in mature to older forest stands, useable roosting habitat will likely not be available on the closure landscape for 50 to 60 years after closure. High- and moderate-suitability roosting habitat is expected to remain primarily along the western boundary of the terrestrial LSA and in a larger patch in the southwest of the terrestrial LSA. Several patches of moderate-suitability roosting habitat also occur in reclaimed deciduous-





dominated areas in the centre of the terrestrial LSA, pending the implementation of the proposed closure and reclamation plan. These areas are expected to become more suitable as they mature.


Moderate- and high-suitability myotis roosting habitat exists throughout the vegetation and wildlife RSA at predevelopment (2008), particularly in the northwest around the terrestrial LSA. At predevelopment (2057), myotis roosting habitat exists throughout the vegetation and wildlife RSA, particularly in the northwest around the terrestrial LSA, and in the centre where large patches of mature and old-growth deciduous and mixedwood forests occur (see Table 210b.1-17 and Figure 210b.1-14).

Under existing conditions (2008), myotis roosting habitat exists throughout the vegetation and wildlife RSA in patches of mature and old-growth deciduous and mixedwood forests throughout the vegetation and wildlife RSA (see Figure 210b.1-15).

Compared with predevelopment, high- and moderate-suitability roosting habitat temporarily decreases and low-suitability habitat increases in the vegetation and wildlife RSA at Base Case. The increase in low-suitability habitat is because of high- and moderate-habitats decreasing in suitability from sensory disturbance of oil sands projects on the landscape (see Table 210b.1-17 and Figure 210b.1-16).

At maximum build-out (Application Case), high-, moderate- and low-suitability habitat decreases in the vegetation and wildlife RSA compared with Base Case. The decreases are because of direct habitat loss and sensory disturbance associated with the Project. Myotis roosting habitat remains primarily to the west and farther south of the terrestrial LSA in mature and old-growth deciduous and mixedwood stands (see Table 210b.1-17 and Figure 210b.1-17).

High- and moderate-suitability habitat at PDC decreases from Base Case; however, low-suitability habitat increases because of reclamation of oil sands projects on the landscape. Myotis roosting habitat occurs throughout the vegetation and wildlife RSA at PDC (see Table 210b.1-17 and Figure 210b.1-18).





Table 210b.1-16 Changes in Habitat Availability in the LSA for Little Brown and Northern Myotis


Habitat Suitability

Rating

Reference Condition

Base Case (2057)


Base Case

Application Case Change from Base Case to Application Case

Pre-development

(2057) Existing (2008)


(2057)


Project Maximum Build-out Project Closure

ha ha ha ha % ha ha ha % ha % Little brown myotis and northern myotis

High 13,551.0 4,565.5 9,795.8 -3,755.2 -27.7 1,099.9 2,897.0 -8,695.9 -88.8 -6,898.7 -70.4

Moderate 13,616.0 14,219.6 10,389.5 -3,226.5 -23.7 1,148.2 6,269.2 -9,241.3 -88.9 -4,120.3 -39.7

Low 4,065.3 9,028.6 7,397.9 3,332.6 82.0 2,188.8 4,302.7 -5,209.1 -70.4 -3,095.3 -41.8

Very low to nil

17,724.2 21,142.8 21,373.4 3,649.1 20.6 44,519.6 35,487.7 23,146.3 108.3 14,114.3 66.0

Table 210b.1-17 Change in Habitat Availability in the RSA for Little Brown and Northern Myotis


Habitat Suitability

Rating

Reference Conditions Base Case (2057)

Change from Predevelopment

to Base Case


Change from Base Case to


(2057) Change from PDC

to Base Case Project

Contribution Pre-

development (2057)

Existing (2008)


Project Maximum Build-

out



Application Case / PDC

ha ha ha ha % ha ha % ha ha % % Little brown myotis and northern myotis

High 94,892.0 73,980.7 48,594.0 -46,298.0 -48.8 39,491.4 -9,102.7 -18.7 39,044.3 -9,549.7 -19.7 95.3

Moderate 156,395.3 156,093.8 127,397.4 -28,997.9 -18.5 117,814.0 -9,583.4 -7.5 110,441.2 -16,956.2 -13.3 56.5

Low 158,115.8 163,534.9 198,512.1 40,396.3 25.5 192,958.5 -5,553.5 -2.8 182,950.1 -15,562.0 -7.8 35.7

Very low to nil

786,156.7 801,950.4 821,056.3 34,899.6 4.4 845,295.9 24,239.6 3.0 863,124.2 42,067.9 5.1 57.6





Table 210b.1-18 Changes in Habitat Availability in the LSA – Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis

Habitat Suitability

Predevelopment Reference

Conditions (2008) (ha)

Predevelopment Reference

Conditions (2057) (ha)

Existing Conditions (2008)

(ha)

Percent Change from

Predevelopment to Existing Reference Conditions (2008)

Percent Change from

Predevelopment to Existing Reference Conditions (2057)

Difference in Percent Changes

from Predevelopment to Existing Reference

Conditions Percent Percent Percent

LSA High 5,355.1 13,551.0 4,565.5 -14.7 -66.3 -51.6 Moderate 17,531.7 13,616.0 14,219.6 -18.9 4.4 23.3 Low 8,345.6 4,065.3 9,028.6 8.2 122.1 113.9 Very low to nil 17,724.2 17,724.2 21,142.8 19.3 19.3 0.0 RSA High 105,970.2 94,892.0 73,980.7 -30.2 -22.0 8.2 Moderate 174,291.6 156,395.3 156,093.8 -10.4 -0.2 10.2 Low 168,958.7 158,115.8 163,534.9 -3.2 3.4 6.6 Very low to nil 746,339.3 786,156.7 801,950.4 7.5 2.0 -5.4

Figure 210b.1-10 Bat Habitat – Predevelopment

Athab

asca R

iver

UnnamedLake 1

UnnamedLake 2

UnnamedWaterbody 12

UnnamedWaterbody 15

UnnamedWaterbody 8

UnnamedWaterbody 13

Unnamed Creek 6

U n na med Creek 2

Unna

med Cr

eek 1

9

Unnamed Creek 1

8

Unna

med C

reek 1

6

Redc

lay C

reek

Pierre River

First Cr eek

Eymundson Creek

Big Creek

Asphalt Creek

Unnamed Creek 17

Unnamed

Creek 7

Unnamed Creek 5

U n named Creek 1

Redclay C reek

UnnamedWaterbody 29

McClellandLake

UnnamedWaterbody 10

UnnamedWaterbody 7

UnnamedWaterbody 14

T99

R9R10R11

T98

T101

T100

T102R12 W4


³

0 2 4 6

KILOMETRES



File ID: 123510797-0040Date: 20121211


UTM Zone 12 NAD 831:200,000


Figure 210b.1-11: Bat Habitat – Base Case

Athab

asca R

iver

UnnamedLake 1

UnnamedLake 2

UnnamedWaterbody 12

UnnamedWaterbody 15

UnnamedWaterbody 8

UnnamedWaterbody 13

Unnamed Creek 6

U n na med Creek 2

Unna

med Cr

eek 1

9

Unnamed Creek 1

8

Unna

med C

reek 1

6

Redc

lay C

reek

Pierre River

First Cr eek

Eymundson Creek

Big Creek

Asphalt Creek

Unnamed Creek 17

Unnamed

Creek 7

Unnamed Creek 5

U n named Creek 1

Redclay C reek

UnnamedWaterbody 29

McClellandLake

UnnamedWaterbody 10

UnnamedWaterbody 7

UnnamedWaterbody 14

T99

R9R10R11

T98

T101

T100

T102R12 W4


³

0 2 4 6

KILOMETRES

Habitat AvailabilityHigh Moderate Nil to Very Low Low


File ID: 123510797-0055Date: 20121211


UTM Zone 12 NAD 831:200,000


Figure 210b.1-12: Bat Habitat – Application Case (Maximum Build-Out)

Athab

asca R

iver

UnnamedLake 1

UnnamedLake 2

UnnamedWaterbody 12

UnnamedWaterbody 15

UnnamedWaterbody 8

UnnamedWaterbody 13

Unnamed Creek 6

U n na med Creek 2

Unna

med Cr

eek 1

9

Unnamed Creek 1

8

Unna

med C

reek 1

6

Redc

lay C

reek

Pierre River

First Cr eek

Eymundson Creek

Big Creek

Asphalt Creek

Unnamed Creek 17

Unnamed

Creek 7

Unnamed Creek 5

U n named Creek 1

Redclay C reek

UnnamedWaterbody 29

McClellandLake

UnnamedWaterbody 10

UnnamedWaterbody 7

UnnamedWaterbody 14

T99

R9R10R11

T98

T101

T100

T102R12 W4


³

0 2 4 6

KILOMETRES



File ID: 123510797-0057Date: 20121211


UTM Zone 12 NAD 831:200,000


Figure 210b.1-13: Bat Habitat – Closure

Athab

asca R

iver

UnnamedLake 1

UnnamedLake 2

UnnamedWaterbody 12

UnnamedWaterbody 15

UnnamedWaterbody 8

UnnamedWaterbody 13

Unnamed Creek 6

U n na med Creek 2

Unna

med Cr

eek 1

9

Unnamed Creek 1

8

Unna

med C

reek 1

6

Redc

lay C

reek

Pierre River

First Cr eek

Eymundson Creek

Big Creek

Asphalt Creek

Unnamed Creek 17

Unnamed

Creek 7

Unnamed Creek 5

U n named Creek 1

Redclay C reek

UnnamedWaterbody 29

McClellandLake

UnnamedWaterbody 10

UnnamedWaterbody 7

UnnamedWaterbody 14

T99

R9R10R11

T98

T101

T100

T102R12 W4


³

0 2 4 6

KILOMETRES



File ID: 123510797-0058Date: 20121211


UTM Zone 12 NAD 831:200,000


Figure 210b.1-14: Bat Habitat (RSA) – Predevelopment

63Athabasca River

McClellandLake

T091

T092

T100

T095

T096

T099

T088

T087

T093

T101

T089

T097

T085

T090

T094

T102

T098

T086

T084

Anzac

Fort McKay

Fort McMurray

R11R12 R09R13 R08R10 R07 R04R06 R05R14 R03R16T103

R15W4







0 5 10 15 20


File ID: 123510797-0042Date: 20121129

Figure 210b.1-15: Bat Habitat (RSA) – Existing

63Athabasca River

McClellandLake

T091

T092

T100

T095

T096

T099

T088

T087

T093

T101

T089

T097

T085

T090

T094

T102

T098

T086

T084

Anzac

Fort McKay

Fort McMurray

R11R12 R09R13 R08R10 R07 R04R06 R05R14 R03R16T103

R15W4







0 5 10 15 20


File ID: 123510797-0059Date: 20121129

Figure 210b.1-16: Bat Habitat (RSA) – Base Case

63Athabasca River

McClellandLake

T091

T092

T100

T095

T096

T099

T088

T087

T093

T101

T089

T097

T085

T090

T094

T102

T098

T086

T084

Anzac

Fort McKay

Fort McMurray

R11R12 R09R13 R08R10 R07 R04R06 R05R14 R03R16T103

R15W4







0 5 10 15 20


File ID: 123510797-0060Date: 20121129

Figure 210b.1-17: Bat Habitat (RSA) – Application Case (Maximum Build-Out)

63Athabasca River

McClellandLake

T091

T092

T100

T095

T096

T099

T088

T087

T093

T101

T089

T097

T085

T090

T094

T102

T098

T086

T084

Anzac

Fort McKay

Fort McMurray

R11R12 R09R13 R08R10 R07 R04R06 R05R14 R03R16T103

R15W4







0 5 10 15 20


File ID: 123510797-0061Date: 20121129

Figure 210b.1-18: Bat Habitat (RSA) – PDC

63Athabasca River

McClellandLake

T091

T092

T100

T095

T096

T099

T088

T087

T093

T101

T089

T097

T085

T090

T094

T102

T098

T086

T084

Anzac

Fort McKay

Fort McMurray

R11R12 R09R13 R08R10 R07 R04R06 R05R14 R03R16T103

R15W4







0 5 10 15 20


File ID: 123510797-0063Date: 20121129






A qualitative discussion of movement hindrances for little brown and northern myotis follows.

MITIGATION

Although Project effects on landscape connectivity are being assessed at the vegetation and wildlife RSA, Project-specific mitigation at the PAA will be restore contiguous blocks of suitable myotis roosting habitat in the northwestern portion of the vegetation and wildlife RSA following closure. Project reclamation will include vegetation classes that will eventually become high- and moderate-suitability habitat for little brown and northern myotis (see previous Mitigation discussion under Habitat Availability).

EFFECTS ANALYSIS

As most of the areas disturbed by oil sands mine developments contain little habitat for bat species and is generally considered open (i.e., no forest cover), movement during the breeding (active) season of myotis using roosting habitat next to oil sands developments might be affected. For bat species, remaining contiguous blocks of habitat occur mainly along centre of the vegetation and wildlife RSA, where most oils sands developments occur and in the northwest near the terrestrial LSA.

At predevelopment (2057), myotis roosting habitat occurs throughout the vegetation and wildlife RSA, concentrated in the centre of the vegetation and wildlife RSA along the Athabasca River. At predevelopment, there is little hindrance to bat movement throughout the vegetation and wildlife RSA (see Figure 210b.1-14).

At Base Case, hindrances to bat movement are highest around large oil sands developments and municipalities (Fort McMurray and Fort McKay), primarily concentrated in the centre of the vegetation and wildlife RSA (see Figure 210b.1-16). In addition, moderate hindrance to movement occurs throughout the terrestrial LSA primarily because of roads and other development features.

At Application Case, most myotis roosting habitat in the terrestrial LSA temporarily decreases because of the Project and associated linear features resulting from a decline in moderate and high habitat availability as compared with Base Case (see Figure 210b.1-12). The remaining habitat in the terrestrial LSA during Application Case would likely not be available to myotis species because the Project would temporarily restrict access to these patches. There should be minimal change to bat movement potential in the remainder of the vegetation and wildlife RSA and outside of the terrestrial





LSA (see Figure 210b.1-17). The Project might hinder myotis moving through the terrestrial LSA; however, connected habitat remains north, south and west of the terrestrial LSA, which might facilitate this movement. Once reclaimed, hindrances will be reduced. In addition, because of the width of the corridor between the Project and the Athabasca River, there should be no project-related effects to myotis along the Athabasca River valley.

Bat movement potential decreases during the PDC when compared with Base Case, primarily from the addition of the Northern Lights and Joslyn North Mine projects in the northeast and west parts of the vegetation and wildlife RSA, as well as minor decreases from the Suncor Lewis project in the southeast of the vegetation and wildlife RSA (see Figure 210b.1-18). Remaining blocks of myotis roosting habitat occur throughout the vegetation and wildlife RSA, but are primarily west and south of the terrestrial LSA.


VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT – WILDLIFE INTERACTIONS

Roosting and breeding myotis are at minimal risk for direct mortality because vegetation clearing will occur outside the breeding window. Northern myotis and little brown myotis hibernate in caves or abandoned mines (ASRD and ACA 2009); therefore, there is little risk of disturbance to hibernating myotis, assuming there are no suitable hibernacula in the PDA. Because of these conditions, direct mortality risk from Project construction activities was deemed sufficiently low to not have a measurable effect on myotis and therefore was not assessed. If clearing is required during the breeding and roosting window, mitigation to reduce effects have been identified (see Volume 6, Section 4.7.3, Pages 4-294 and 4-295).


For a discussion on the screening level ecological risk assessment (SLWRA) completed for the Project, see the response to ESRD/CEAA SIR 469. That response pertains to wildlife and potential risks of chemical exposure (as compared to generic soil and water quality guidelines) and the supplemental quantitative risk assessment (QRA).






DENSITY ESTIMATES

In 2009, the provincial population of little brown myotis was estimated at 1 to 1.5 million individuals (ASRD 2009). The population of the northern myotis are unknown in Alberta, although recent survey efforts suggest that northern myotis may be more abundant than previously thought in northern Alberta (ASRD and ACA 2009). There are no density estimates for little brown or northern myotis and therefore effects of the project on myotis are discussed qualitatively based on habitat availability.

Mortality of little brown myotis and northern myotis associated with the fungal WNS has reduced populations by more than 75% in infected hibernacula in eastern North America (Frick et al. 2010). There is strong evidence that the same result will occur in the Canadian population. WNS has spread rapidly and significant declines and mortality events were recorded in Canada in 2011. Susceptibility to WNS is expected to be similar for both species across Canada. Should the rate of spread continue, it is estimated that little brown myotis and northern myotis could become extirpated in their Canadian range in the future (ASRD and ACA 2009).

EFFECTS ANALYSIS

A summary of the Project-related environmental effects on little brown and northern myotis abundance in the vegetation and wildlife RSA is presented in Table 210b.1-19. Moderate- and high-suitability myotis roosting habitat exists throughout the vegetation and wildlife RSA at predevelopment (2057), with high-suitability habitat in mature to old-growth areas of high deciduous tree cover (see Figure 210b.1-14). Bat populations are expected to be concentrated in these areas.

At existing conditions (2008), large oil sands developments and municipalities (Fort McMurray and Fort McKay) are primarily concentrated in the centre of the vegetation and wildlife RSA. Under existing conditions, myotis roosting habitat exists throughout the vegetation and wildlife RSA with most high- and moderate-suitability habitat in deciduous-dominated forests in the terrestrial LSA and west and south of the terrestrial LSA (see Figure 210b.1-15). Little brown and northern myotis populations are expected to be concentrated in these areas.





Myotis roosting habitat in the vegetation and wildlife RSA at Base Case decreases compared with predevelopment. High- and moderate-suitability myotis roosting habitat decreases and low-suitability roosting habitat increases. These decreases in habitat likely represent a decrease in bat numbers in the vegetation and wildlife RSA at Base Case compared with predevelopment.

At maximum build-out (Application Case) and before complete reclamation, myotis roosting habitat decreases from Base Case in the vegetation and wildlife RSA. At Application Case, most of the roosting habitat for little brown and northern myotis in the terrestrial LSA temporarily decreases because of the addition of the Project and associated linear features. The remaining habitat in the terrestrial LSA at Application Case would likely not be available because the Project would temporarily restrict access to these patches. Overall, there might be a decrease in habitat use of the vegetation and wildlife RSA at Application Case by the little brown myotis and northern myotis because of the temporary decrease in available roosting habitat in the terrestrial LSA. This could result in a decrease in regional bat populations in the vegetation and wildlife RSA at maximum build-out (Application Case).

At PDC, myotis roosting habitat in the vegetation and wildlife RSA deceases from Base Case. This decrease in habitat might represent a decrease in bat populations in the vegetation and wildlife RSA at PDC.





Table 210b.1-19 Potential Effects on Little Brown and Northern Myotis Population Levels in the RSA


Habitat Availability Mortality Risk Direct

Loss of Habitat

Sensory Disturbance


Vehicle-Wildlife

Collisions


Construction


Infrastructure Hunting Trapping Predation Little brown myotis and northern myotis*

PLD PLD N/A N/A PLN PLN N/A N/A N/a

NOTES: PLD = potential linkage, data available and expected that effect will have potential effect on population levels). PLN = potential linkage, no data available but it is expected that the effect is negligible and therefore not assessed. N/A = assumed to not be a valid linkage and therefore not assessed. No data available (in terms of mortality estimates or populations for this interaction). Based on professional opinion, there is the potential for a measurable effect; therefore, this interaction is included in the species-specific assessment.







Effects of changes in habitat availability were determined using the overall change in preferred habitat availability (high and moderate suitability only) for northern and little brown myotis in the vegetation and wildlife RSA—for existing conditions and all cases, relative to predevelopment.

At closure (Application Case), preferred habitat availability for myotis decreases in the terrestrial LSA from Base Case by 11,019.1 ha (-54.6%) as a result of the Project (see Table 210b.1-20). High- to moderate-suitability habitat included as part of the reclamation landscape at closure is represented by land units that have high coverage of deciduous trees, such as:

• deciduous-dominated forest, including ecosite phases b2 (aspen/white birch/blueberry), d1 (aspen/low-bush cranberry) and e1 (balsam poplar-aspen/dogwood)

• mixedwood forests, including b3 (aspen-white spruce/blueberry), d2 (aspen-white spruce/low-bush cranberry), d3 (white spruce-aspen/low-bush cranberry) and e2 (balsam poplar-white spruce/dogwood).

ESRD/CEAA Responses Appendix 210b.1: Supplemental Wildlife Species Assessment–Canadian Toads, Northern and Little Brown Myotis and Wolverine

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Integrated Application

Supplemental Information Request


Table 210b.1-20 Magnitude of Change in Habitat Availability

Snapshot

Little Brown and Northern Myotis

Habitat

Reference Condition –

Predevelopment1

(2057) Snapshot

Change from Snapshot to Reference Condition

– Predevelopment2

Lower 95% Confidence Limit Percent

Change from

Snapshot to RNV Value

Percent Change from

Reference Condition

ha ha ha % ha % % Existing conditions (2008)

High and moderate 251,287.3 230,074.5 -21,212.8 -8.4 213,312.8 -15.1 6.7 High only 94,892.0 73,980.7 -20,911.3 -22.0 66,340.7 -30.1 8.1

Base Case (2057)

High and moderate 251,287.3 175,991.4 -75,295.9 -30.0 213,312.8 -15.1 -14.9 High only 94,892.0 48,594.0 -46,298.0 -48.8 66,340.7 -30.1 -18.7


High and moderate 251,287.3 157,305.3 -93,981.9 -37.4 213,312.8 -15.1 -22.3 High only 94,892.0 39,491.4 -55,400.6 -58.4 66,340.7 -30.1 -28.3

PDC (2057) High and moderate 251,287.3 149,485.5 -101,801.8 -40.5 213,312.8 -15.1 -25.4 High only 94,892.0 39,044.3 -55,847.7 -58.9 66,340.7 -30.1 -28.8

NOTES: 1 Only high- and moderate-suitability habitat was assessed to determine magnitude of change in habitat. 2 Comparison of change in habitat availability is based on two snapshots (i.e., predevelopment at 2057 and existing conditions at 2008).





Table 210b.1-21 Effects Classification for Key Issues on Little Brown and Northern Myotis in the RSA



Effect Duration Frequency Ability to Recover1

Magnitude2 (Percent Change from RNV)

Existing Base Case


Habitat availability3 Regional Long Isolated Reversible Moderate (6.7%) High (-14.9%) High (-22.3) High (-25.4) Landscape connectivity4

Regional Long Isolated Reversible Low Moderate High High

Mortality risk Regional Medium Isolated Reversible Low Low Low Low Regional population levels4

Regional Medium Isolated Reversible Moderate High High High

NOTES: 1 The ability to recover only refers to the ability to reclaim available habitat and does not assume actual use; for a discussion on the ability to recover population

abundance and use, see Volume 6, Section 4.9, Page 4-399 to 4-402. 2 Magnitude of change in habitat availability includes the change in high- and moderate-suitability habitat relative to the 95% lower confidence interval for natural

variability for the vegetation and wildlife RSA. 3 Comparison of change in habitat availability is based on two different snapshots (i.e., predevelopment at 2057 and existing conditions at 2008). 4 Change in landscape connectivity and regional population levels for myotis was assessed qualitatively based on habitat availability (high, moderate suitability

habitat) and mortality risk (regional population levels only).





The greatest magnitude change for little brown and northern myotis preferred habitat availability in the vegetation and wildlife RSA is for PDC relative to predevelopment (-40.5%; see Table 210b.1-20), representing a change of high magnitude. The reclamation landscape will include deciduous-dominated and mixedwood ecosite phases. However, as myotis prefer roosting areas in mature to older forest stands, useable roosting habitat will likely not be available on the closure landscape for 50 to 60 years after closure. Given this, the predicted regional magnitude loss for myotis habitat suitability should be considered highly conservative.


At predevelopment, myotis roosting habitat is considered easily accessed, as large human disturbances and linear developments are not present on the landscape and therefore hindrances to movement are minimal. At existing conditions, there is a decrease of habitat availability in the vegetation and wildlife RSA, representing a low magnitude effect. With addition of oil sands projects on the landscape and progressive reclamation in early seral stages at Base Case, habitat availability further decreases in the vegetation and wildlife RSA with moderate magnitude effects on bat movement potential. At Application Case, more of the landscape is considered to be unavailable for movement because of the addition of the Project and associated linear features, which temporarily decrease habitat availability, representing a high magnitude effect. Unless already present, the remaining myotis roosting habitat in the terrestrial LSA during Application Case would likely not be available because the Project would temporarily restrict access to these patches. There should be minimal change to bat movement potential in the remainder of the vegetation and wildlife RSA and outside of the terrestrial LSA during Application Case.

Overall, increases of disturbance features—which affect movement potential—are temporary and should occur during construction and operation, and end 50 to 60 years following closure. As movement hindrance is affected by the presence of human activity (as opposed to habitat suitability), effects on bat movement will be reversible with reclamation. As a result, the predicted regional magnitude loss for this species’ movement potential should be considered highly conservative.

210b.1.2.4.3 Regional Populations

Effects of changes in regional populations were qualitatively determined using overall change in habitat availability (high- and moderate-suitability) for little brown and northern myotis in the vegetation and wildlife RSA. Changes in regional population levels, using magnitude of loss in preferred habitat as a benchmark, assumed that the 95%





lower confidence interval of the RNV served as a suitable benchmark for identifying magnitude for existing conditions, Base Case, Application Case and PDC (see Table 210b.1-20). For a summary of effects classification of combined effects (e.g., habitat availability and mortality risk) on regional population levels, see Table 210b.1-21.

For the assessment of mortality risk on wildlife, it was assumed that any effects as a result of mortality risk at predevelopment conditions were insignificant and sustainable in terms of the wildlife populations in the vegetation and wildlife RSA. As discussed under Mortality Risk, construction activities will have a negligible effect on roosting and hibernating myotis; direct mortality associated with the Project would have a low magnitude effect on myotis populations. For a summary of effects classification of mortality risk, see Table 210b.1-21.

The estimated magnitude of declines in habitat and associated bat populations in the vegetation and wildlife RSA are considered to be conservatively high given that habitat loss does not necessarily equate to animal losses from the population, as animals displaced from disturbances could relocate to adjacent areas. This is particularly true for species at risk as they seldom occupy the landscape at maximum carrying capacity.

At closure (Application Case), the population of myotis in the terrestrial LSA is expected to decrease from Base Case because of a loss of habitat. Reclamation will result in a decrease in high- and moderate-suitability roosting habitat in the form of deciduous and mixedwood habitats in the terrestrial LSA; however, as myotis prefer roosting areas in mature to older forest stands, high-suitability roosting habitat will likely not be available on the closure landscape for 50 to 60 years after closure.

When estimated changes in regional bat population levels are examined using habitat availability, the greatest magnitude change is for PDC relative to predevelopment. This represents a potential change of high magnitude from predevelopment. The little brown and northern myotis population in the vegetation and wildlife RSA at Application Case relative to predevelopment is expected to decrease because of a loss of habitat from the Project and other developments on the landscape.

The combined effect of changes in habitat availability and (less so) mortality risk will result in a potential high magnitude change in the little brown and northern myotis population in the vegetation and wildlife RSA at Application Case relative to predevelopment. In addition, it is assumed that through the proposed connection of protected areas as discussed in the LARP (Government of Alberta 2012), existing biodiversity for the RMWB will be sustained and will provide a source of recolonizing bat populations for MOSA, once mine closure and reclamation has occurred. As a result,





the predicted regional magnitude loss for this species’ high- and moderate-suitability habitat, and any subsequent effects on the regional little brown and northern myotis population associated with habitat loss and direct mortality, should be considered highly conservative.


For little brown and northern myotis, availability of preferred habitat (i.e., high- and moderate-suitability habitat) for existing conditions and all cases was compared against predevelopment conditions, considering the RNV of predevelopment that incorporated future forest fires (see Table 210b.1-20). This was done to determine the environmental consequence of changes in habitat availability on wildlife diversity, using the percent change relative to the 95% lower limit of the RNV as the measure for determining magnitude of change (see Volume 6, Section 4.3.5, Table 4-5, Page 4-24).

Table 210b.1-22 Environmental Consequence for Key Issues on Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis in the RSA

Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis

Magnitude

Reversibility


Base Case


Habitat availability1 Moderate High High High Reversible Low to moderate

Landscape connectivity

Low Moderate High High Reversible Low to moderate

Mortality risk Low Low Low Low Reversible Low Regional population levels

Moderate High High High Reversible Low to moderate

NOTES: 1 Only high- and moderate-suitability habitat was assessed for determination of environmental

consequence of change in habitat 2 Comparison of change in habitat availability is based on two different snapshots (i.e., predevelopment at

2057 and existing conditions at 2008)

Based on the magnitude of change and concept of reversibility, effects include (see Table 210b.1-22):

• Moderate environmental consequence for habitat availability for Base Case, Application Case and PDC for little brown and northern myotis, as loss of habitat in the vegetation and wildlife RSA exceeds RNV. However, effects can be considered reversible, particularly as reclamation planning for oil sands development uses upland deciduous and mixedwood forests extensively, which is considered preferred myotis roosting habitat. Low environmental consequence for habitat availability existing





conditions, change in habitat is within RNV and effects can be considered reversible because of the inclusion of suitable habitat in reclamation planning.

• Moderate environmental consequence for landscape connectivity for Application Case and PDC for little brown and northern myotis, as loss of habitat in the vegetation and wildlife RSA might lead to loss of habitat connectivity in the vegetation and wildlife RSA. However, effects can be considered reversible, particularly as reclamation planning for oil sands development uses upland deciduous and mixedwood forests extensively, which is considered preferred myotis roosting habitat. Low environmental consequence for landscape connectivity at existing conditions, habitat change leading to change in habitat connectivity is low and effects can be considered reversible because of the inclusion of suitable habitat in reclamation planning.

• Low environmental consequence for changes in mortality risk for existing condition, Base Case, Application Case and PDC for little brown and northern myotis, as potential effects on roosting or hibernating myotis are considered negligible.

• Moderate environmental consequence for changes in regional populations for Base Case, Application Case and PDC for myotis, as loss of habitat in the vegetation and wildlife RSA might lead to decrease in little brown and northern myotis populations in the vegetation and wildlife RSA. However, effects can be considered reversible, particularly as reclamation planning for oil sands development uses upland deciduous and mixedwood forests extensively, which is considered preferred myotis roosting habitat. Low environmental consequence for changes in regional little brown and northern myotis populations for existing conditions, as effects can be considered reversible because of the inclusion of suitable habitat in reclamation planning, which is expected to provide habitat for little brown and northern myotis populations in the vegetation and wildlife RSA.


Overall prediction confidence is moderate. Quality and quantity of baseline information is moderate because baseline field surveys were completed in the terrestrial LSA, which targeted little brown and northern myotis. No wildlife baseline information was collected in the vegetation and wildlife RSA; however, data from regional databases were reviewed. The 2011 fires in the vegetation and wildlife RSA were not accounted for in habitat suitability models, as existing conditions was defined as being the Year 2008 for the Integrated Application. Confidence in analytical techniques is high for assessing direct effects because abundant literature on species habitat requirements exists for model development, and because the Project footprint was defined by the mine plan at an adequate level of detail in the Integrated Application. Confidence in analytical techniques





is low for indirect effects because effects of disturbances on wildlife are less documented in the literature. Professional judgement was also required to address sensory effects on myotis, and a cautionary approach was taken in defining ZOI. Confidence in analytical techniques is low for population level effects because literature on species densities in northern Alberta is limited for most species and therefore changes were assessed qualitatively based on professional judgement and habitat availability. Confidence in analytical techniques is also reduced because localized effects from air emissions were not considered. For instance, it is assumed that SO2 and NO2 fumigation effects might affect habitat by causing an increase in shrub growth, resulting in shrubs to outcompete ground plant species. Confidence in mitigation is moderate. While long-term reclamation monitoring plots appear to be moving toward natural ecosystems, some areas (e.g., tailings sand) are developing into novel ecosystems (see Rowland et al. 2009); given this, prediction confidence of success of reclamation activities on habitat availability is moderate.

210b.1.3 Wolverine


The assessment of effects of the Frontier Project on wolverine (Gulu gulu) follows. For a description of the Project Scope as it applies to wildlife and the wildlife assessment approach, see Volume 6, Sections 4.2 and 4.3. For the purpose of the wolverine assessment, effects discussed are those related to changes in landscape connectivity and mortality risk (direct and indirect), including their relevance to wolverine distribution and abundance in the region.


210b.1.3.2.1 Status

Wolverines are classified as May be At Risk in the General Status of Alberta Wild Species report (ASRD 2010a). However, little is known about wolverine population densities or trends throughout the province and they are therefore identified as Data Deficient by the Alberta Endangered Species Conservation Committee (ASRD 2010b). The May be At Risk ESRD classification is because of the potential for human disturbance and habitat fragmentation to negatively affect the species. Wolverines throughout western Canada are considered a Species of Special Concern by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC 2003). They hold no status under the Species at Risk Act (Government of Canada 2012). Globally, wolverines are listed as Apparently Secure (NatureServe 2012).






Wolverines are widely distributed in low densities across northern forested regions, mountain alpine areas and the Arctic tundra (COSEWIC 2003). Historically, they have occupied southern prairie regions; however, they are now considered extirpated from these areas (COSEWIC 2003). In Alberta, wolverines are distributed at low densities across forested and alpine regions throughout the province and appear to have a preference for areas with low levels of human development (Petersen 1997).


Wolverines exist in very low densities across their range, with densities averaging around four to six individuals per 1000 km2 (Quick 1953; Banci 1987; Copeland 1996; Fisher et al. 2009, all cited in Ontario Wolverine Recovery Team 2011; Lofroth and Krebs 2007).

Data on wolverine densities are lacking for the boreal region of Alberta. Preliminary research shows that extremely low densities (as low as one individual per 94 to 300 km2) occur in the foothills regions of Alberta (Fisher 2004, 2005). Population densities and habitat suitability are believed to decline from west to east throughout the province (Slough 2007). A provincial-wide population census has not been completed for wolverines, but a compilation of expert opinion across jurisdictions estimates about 1,500 to 2,000 individuals (Slough 2007). Trapping records from the closest registered fur management area (RMFA) between 2001 and 2010 indicated that two wolverines were harvested in 2001 and eight were harvested in 2002.


The wolverine is a wide-ranging species with low reproductive rates, making them vulnerable to human disturbance and a challenge to manage and conserve (Rowland et al. 2003). They are commonly considered habitat generalists and have been known to occupy a variety of ecotypes, including forest, subalpine and tundra. Wolverines tend to avoid human infrastructure and areas of high human-use (May et al. 2006). Home ranges for wolverines vary widely and might depend on habitat type and food availability. Nilsen et al. (2005) compiled data from numerous wolverine movement studies and reported an average home range size of approximately 259 km2 (SD = 122 km2) for females and 621 km2 (SD = 438) km2 for males, while others have reported home ranges varying from 73 to 3,513 km2 (Ontario Wolverine Recovery Team 2011). Wolverines in the boreal region of Ontario have reported home ranges averaging 2,563 km2 and 428 km2 for males and females (Dawson et al. 2010). Home range sizes for wolverines are relatively large compared with similarly sized solitary carnivores. Given the diversity





of habitat types that wolverines occupy, it is believed that food availability, rather than physical habitat characteristics, is the most influential factor determining distribution and densities (Banci and Harestad 1990). Inman et al. (2012) suggest, however, that habitat features facilitating food caching—such as low ambient temperatures and persistent spring snow cover—could be related to the limitations of their distribution. Wolverines are known to frequently cache excess food in snow drifts as a means of preserving it from decay and concealing it from other scavengers (Pasitschniak-Arts and Larivière 1995; Magoun and Copeland 1998). Therefore, decreased snow cover caused by climate change might result in a decline of suitable wolverine habitat in some parts of their range (McKelvey et al. 2011).

Wolverines are opportunistic feeders with a large proportion of their diet consisting of scavenged ungulates, especially in the winter months (Hornocker and Hash 1981; Petersen 1997). Small- and medium-sized mammals or ground-nesting birds are preyed on by wolverines in the absence of carrion (Petersen 1997; Lofroth et al. 2007). Eggs and berries may be important summer-time foods (Hornocker and Hash 1981). Occasional predation on large ungulates is speculated to occur, but rarely documented, especially in North America (Pasitschniak-Arts and Larivière 1995).

Breeding season for wolverines occurs between June and August (Magoun and Valkenburg 1983) but has been known to occur earlier in the spring or later in the autumn (Wright and Rausch 1955). Wolverines have delayed implantation of the blastocyst, which can occur from November to March (Banci and Harestad 1988). Peak parturition dates occur throughout February and early March (Inman et al. 2012). Before giving birth, females will enter a den site that typically consists of tunnels dug in snow banks, or beneath rocks and trees, or both (Magoun and Copeland 1998). Mean litter size for wolverines is 2.5 (Pulliainen 1968). Natal dens are used by females during parturition and lactation (Pasitschniak-Arts and Larivière 1995) and some observations have been made of females moving to an alternate maternal den that is used until weaning in late May or early June (Inman et al. 2012). Juvenile wolverines typically disperse in late summer or early autumn (Pulliainen 1968). Most wolverines are not reproductively active until they are over two years of age (Banci and Harestad 1988).







At 33,125 ha, the PAA comprises 67.6% of the terrestrial LSA. Project construction, operation, reclamation and closure will affect wolverine use of habitat in the terrestrial LSA, and might affect wolverine abundance and distribution in the vegetation and wildlife RSA.

Loss of habitat is caused by site clearing and grading, whereas indirect effects, such as sensory disturbance (e.g., increased noise levels) might result in effective habitat loss through habitat avoidance, and affect their ability to move across the landscape during daily or seasonal movements at least during the Project’s operating life. Effective habitat loss is most detrimental to a species when it affects suitable or preferred habitat (e.g., high suitability prey habitat, breeding or denning areas). While effective habitat loss through sensory disturbance is considered temporary and minimal—because of the large home range size and habitat generalist nature of wolverines—potential Project effects on wolverine were only examined regionally. Overall, as wolverines historically exist at low densities in the Project area, potential Project effects on the regional population abundance are considered minimal. However, mortality risk from direct (e.g., vehicle collisions) and indirect (e.g., increased harvesting because of changes in access) effects were examined.


METHODS

Changes in landscape connectivity for wolverine were evaluated quantitatively using linkage hazard zone analysis (see Volume 6, Section 4.6.2, Pages 4-258 to 4-262). It is believed that food availability is the most influential factor determining distribution of wolverines (Banci and Harestad 1990). Given that a large proportion of a wolverine’s diet comprises scavenged ungulates (Hornocker and Hash 1981; Petersen 1997), wolverine movement habitat was based on moose habitat suitability in the vegetation and wildlife RSA.

RATINGS ADJUSTMENTS FOR DISTURBANCES

Wolverines tend to avoid human infrastructure and areas of high human-use (May et al. 2006). Setback buffers for large mammals were used as a guide to develop the wolverine ZOIs, and were assigned to varying levels of sensory disturbance based on factors such as





noise level. Ratings for wolverine movement habitat in a disturbance feature ZOI are adjusted according to Table 210b.1-23.

Table 210b.1-23 ZOI Disturbance Coefficients Applied to Wolverine Linkage Zone Model

Disturbance Feature

ZOI 1 (m)

ZOI Reduction

for Habitats Ranked as

1

ZOI Reduction

for Habitats Ranked as 2

ZOI Reduction


ZOI Reduction



Primary industrial 0–100 3 3 4 4 4 Primary road 0–100 3 3 4 4 4 Active railway 0–100 3 3 4 4 4 Urban area 0–5500 3 3 4 4 4 Active aerodrome 0–100 3 3 4 4 4 Secondary industrial 0–100 3 3 4 4 4 Secondary road 0–100 3 3 4 4 4 Rural residential 0–1100 3 3 4 4 4 Tertiary industrial 0–100 3 3 4 4 4 Tertiary road 0–100 3 3 4 4 4 Winter seasonal road

0–100 3 3 4 4 4

Recreation site 0–1100 3 3 4 4 4 Foot trail 0–100 3 3 4 4 4 Major transmission line

0-100 3 3 4 4 4

Major pipeline 0 1 2 3 4 4 Minor transmission line

0–100 3 3 4 4 4

Minor pipeline 0 1 2 3 4 4 Abandoned railway 0–100 3 3 4 4 4 Inactive aerodrome 0–100 3 3 4 4 4 Inactive industrial 0–100 3 3 4 4 4 Cultivated agricultural

0–1100 3 3 4 4 4

Rough pasture 0–100 3 3 4 4 4 Trail/cutline 0 1 2 3 4 3 Cutblock 0 1 2 3 4 3





MITIGATION

Although Project effects on landscape connectivity are being assessed at the regional level, Project-specific mitigation at the PAA will aid in restoring contiguous blocks of suitable wolverine movement habitat in the northwestern portion of the vegetation and wildlife RSA following closure. Project reclamation will include areas that will eventually become suitability movement habitat for wolverine.

EFFECTS ANALYSIS

Under predevelopment conditions (2057), wolverine habitat is extremely contiguous with minimal hindrance to movement potential occurring in areas of high- and moderate-suitability habitat (largely mature and upland deciduous, mixedwood and coniferous forest, wooded swamps and fens) and low hindrance in low-suitability habitat (such as young vegetation types and open bogs) (see Figure 210b.1-19).

Under existing conditions (2008), 47.9% of the vegetation and wildlife RSA is classified as having hindrances to wolverine movement potential, including high and moderate movement hindrances (see Table 210b.1-24). Hindrances to wolverine movement are highest around large oil sands developments and municipalities (Fort McMurray and Fort McKay) primarily concentrated in the centre of the vegetation and wildlife RSA and in linear developments throughout (see Figure 210b.1-20). Remaining contiguous blocks of habitat occur mainly in the southeast corner of the vegetation and wildlife RSA, as well as west and northeast of the terrestrial LSA.

At Base Case, wolverine habitat connectivity decreases compared with predevelopment, with 14.6% of the vegetation and wildlife RSA falling within high and moderate movement hindrance classes (see Table 210b.1-24). At Base Case, hindrances to wolverine movement are highest around large oil sands developments and municipalities (Fort McMurray and Fort McKay) primarily concentrated in the centre of the vegetation and wildlife vegetation and wildlife RSA and in linear developments throughout (see Figure 210b.1-21). In addition, moderate and high hindrance to wolverine movement occur throughout the terrestrial LSA primarily because of roads and other development features. Remaining contiguous blocks of habitat occur mainly in the northeast and southeast corners of the vegetation and wildlife RSA, as well as west and northeast of the terrestrial LSA. The lower amount of high and moderate hindrance classes at Base Case compared with Existing is a result of reclaimed habitats on the landscape that would facilitate wolverine movement.





At maximum-build-out (Application Case), 15.8% of the landscape is considered to be high or moderate hindrance to wolverine movement potential (see Table 210b.1-24). Moderate and high hindrance areas increase by 14,112.4 ha in the vegetation and wildlife RSA from Base Case. This represents a decrease in wolverine habitat connectivity of 8.1% from Base Case, as indicated by less habitat available with minimal or low movement hindrances for wolverine. Remaining contiguous blocks of wolverine habitat occur primarily in the northeast and southeast corners of the vegetation and wildlife RSA, as well as west and northeast of the terrestrial LSA (see Figure 210b.1-22). Under the Application Case, some Base Case features—which were difficult for wolverine to move through (e.g., roads)—have been replaced with the PAA, which is rated as high hindrance.

Wolverine movement potential decreases during the PDC when compared with the Base Case, as indicated by more areas with high or moderate movement hindrance, and therefore a smaller potential movement area available (see Table 210b.1-24). At PDC, 18.1% of the landscape is moderate or high movement hindrance for wolverine. This represents a decrease of 23.9% in wolverine habitat connectivity from Base Case. Connectivity for wolverine decreases primarily from the addition of the Northern Lights and Joslyn South Mine projects in the northeast and west parts of the vegetation and wildlife RSA, as well as minor decreases from the Suncor Lewis project in the southeast of the vegetation and wildlife RSA. Remaining blocks of wolverine movement habitat occur primarily in the northeast and southeast of the vegetation and wildlife RSA, as well as west and northeast of the terrestrial LSA (see Figure 210b.1-23).





Table 210b.1-24 Changes in Landscape Connectivity in the RSA for Wolverine


Movement Hindrance


Base Case (2057)

Change from Reference Condition

to Base Case



Case PDC (2057) Change from Base Case to PDC Case

Pre- development

(2057) Existing (2008)

Maximum Build-out Maximum Build-out

Maximum Build-out Maximum Build-out

ha ha ha ha % ha ha % ha ha % Wolverine High 0 373,965.7 88,650.81 88,650.81 N/A 111,982.48 23,331.67 26.32 141,546.50 52,895.69 59.67

Moderate 0 198,877.1 85,622.88 85,622.88 N/A 76,403.56 -9,219.32 -10.77 74,440.93 -11,181.95 -13.06

Low 510,764.03 406,240.28 478,394.62 -32,369.41 -6.34 471,420.24 -6,974.38 -1.46 464,727.30 -13,667.32 -2.86

Minimal 684,795.67 216,476.66 542,874.24 -141,921.43 -20.72 535,753.46 -7,120.78 -1.31 514,812.26 -28,061.98 -5.17

Figure 210b.1-19: Wolverine Habitat Connectivity (RSA) – Predevelopment

63Athabasca River

McClellandLake

T091

T092

T100

T095

T096

T099

T088

T087

T093

T101

T089

T097

T085

T090

T094

T102

T098

T086

T084

R11R12 R09R13 R08R10 R07 R04R06 R05R14 R03R16T103

R15W4

Anzac

Fort McKay

Fort McMurray


Movement HindranceMinimal 6 - 7 Low 8 - 10 Moderate 11 - 13 High 14 - 18

Terrestrial Local Study AreaWildlife Regional Study AreaMunicipalityHighwayTownshipWatercourseWaterbody



0 5 10 15 20


File ID: 123510797-0013Date: 20121129

Figure 210b.1-20: Wolverine Habitat Connectivity (RSA) – Existing

63Athabasca River

McClellandLake

T091

T092

T100

T095

T096

T099

T088

T087

T093

T101

T089

T097

T085

T090

T094

T102

T098

T086

T084

R11R12 R09R13 R08R10 R07 R04R06 R05R14 R03R16T103

R15W4

Anzac

Fort McKay

Fort McMurray






0 5 10 15 20


File ID: 123510797-0021Date: 20121129

Figure 210b.1-21: Wolverine Habitat Connectivity (RSA) – Base Case

63Athabasca River

McClellandLake

T091

T092

T100

T095

T096

T099

T088

T087

T093

T101

T089

T097

T085

T090

T094

T102

T098

T086

T084

R11R12 R09R13 R08R10 R07 R04R06 R05R14 R03R16T103

R15W4

Anzac

Fort McKay

Fort McMurray






0 5 10 15 20


File ID: 123510797-0014Date: 20121129

Figure 210b.1-22 Wolverine Habitat Connectivity (RSA) – Application Case (Maximum Build-out)

63Athabasca River

McClellandLake

T091

T092

T100

T095

T096

T099

T088

T087

T093

T101

T089

T097

T085

T090

T094

T102

T098

T086

T084

R11R12 R09R13 R08R10 R07 R04R06 R05R14 R03R16T103

R15W4

Anzac

Fort McKay

Fort McMurray






0 5 10 15 20


File ID: 123510797-0015Date: 20121221

Figure210b.1-23: Wolverine Habitat Connectivity (RSA) – PDC

63Athabasca River

McClellandLake

T091

T092

T100

T095

T096

T099

T088

T087

T093

T101

T089

T097

T085

T090

T094

T102

T098

T086

T084

R11R12 R09R13 R08R10 R07 R04R06 R05R14 R03R16T103

R15W4

Anzac

Fort McKay

Fort McMurray






0 5 10 15 20


File ID: 123510797-0016Date: 20121129






MITIGATION

The wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan will include measures to reduce direct and indirect wildlife mortality, including wolverine, by:

• minimizing wildlife attractants, incidence reporting for problem wildlife, and wildlife-vehicle collisions

• prohibiting construction and operations personnel from hunting and trapping on the Project site

• providing environmental awareness training to project staff and contractors to reduce disturbance and negative human-wildlife interactions

• giving design consideration to reduce effects of lighting on wildlife movement

Mitigation measures to address motor vehicle collisions include access management and vehicle volume restrictions when wolverine movement rates are highest (e.g., breeding season and when subadults disperse from maternal home ranges). Establishing and enforcing speed limits and providing wildlife the right-of-way will also help mitigate wolverine-vehicle collisions. Routine removal of road-killed ungulates or other wildlife will reduce the presence of wolverines and scavengers on roadways. Limiting road access and implementing deactivation plans for roads subsequent to the Project will mitigate the intensity and duration of negative effects on wolverines.

Access management throughout the life of the Project and throughout reclamation will mitigate the potential for increased hunting or trapping and reduce the probability of human-wolverine interactions. Project reclamation will include habitat that has high- to moderate-suitability for wolverines. Suitable habitat included as part of the reclamation landscape at closure is represented by land units that are suitable for ungulates, which are a major food source for wolverines.

For other Project mortality risk-related mitigation measures, see Volume 6, Section 4.7.3, Page 4-294 and 4-295.

DIRECT MORTALITY RISK: VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT – WILDLIFE INTERACTIONS

EFFECTS ANALYSIS

Direct wolverine mortalities from the Project could result from collisions during vegetation clearing, overburden grading, excavation and Project-related vehicle traffic. Increases in Project-related traffic could increase mortality risk for wolverines





particularly on major highways such as Highway 63 north of Fort McMurray to the Project access road. The probability of wolverines coming into contact with Project equipment is low because of their tendency to avoid areas of high human-use (May et al. 2006). Increased traffic volume and construction of roads could result in higher mortality risk for wolverines from vehicle collisions. Road mortality might be linked to road location (relative to high quality habitat or travel corridors), volume of traffic or speed of traffic (Jalkotzy et al. 1997). Male wolverines tend to have larger home ranges and higher movement rates, especially during the breeding season. These factors might result in males being at higher risk of human-induced mortality because of the greater potential for their coming into contact with roads and human infrastructure (Landa et al. 2000). However, given the low density of wolverines in the area, Project–related mortality risk from wolverine-vehicle collisions is considered negligible.

INDIRECT MORTALITY RISK: RISK FROM HUNTING AND TRAPPING

METHODS

For a description of the core security area analysis, see Volume 6, Section 4.7.2.2, Page 4-293 and 4-294. For the purpose of the analysis, the daily foraging area of 2.2 km2 (2,200 ha) was used to determine core security areas for wolverine.

EFFECTS ANALYSIS

Project construction, operation, reclamation and closure will affect availability of wolverine core security area in the vegetation and wildlife RSA. Creation of new roads could result in the direct loss of wolverine core security area by increased fragmentation and reducing patch size and increasing mortality risk. Indirect effects from activities associated with the various Project phases will also affect availability of wolverine core security area.

Under predevelopment conditions (2057), there is wolverine core security area throughout most of the vegetation and wildlife RSA and there are small patches of non-secure habitat for wolverines in the northwestern and eastern regions of the vegetation and wildlife RSA. For existing conditions (2008), the largest amounts of core security habitat for wolverines are restricted to northeastern part of the vegetation and wildlife RSA.

At Base Case, oil sands developments are primarily in the centre of the vegetation and wildlife RSA. At this time, smaller amounts of usable patches greater than 2,200 ha also exist in southern regions of the vegetation and wildlife RSA. At maximum build-out and planned development case, core security area is reduced from Base Case throughout the





vegetation and wildlife RSA and a few patches greater than 2,200 ha remain around the outermost edge of the vegetation and wildlife RSA. Small amounts of core security habitat patches greater than 2,200 ha also remain in the north and south-central areas of the vegetation and wildlife RSA.

Throughout the Application and PDC phases, wolverine core security area is reduced throughout the vegetation and wildlife RSA with large patches remaining mainly on the outside edges of the vegetation and wildlife RSA. Increased human presence and development will likely result in habitat avoidance by wolverines. Increases in linear developments might increase access for trappers; trapping records in the vegetation and wildlife RSA indicate that only one wolverine was harvested in 2008, however two wolverines were harvested in 2001 and eight in 2002. The high take of wolverine between 2001-2002 may have had a measurable effect on the wolverine population in the vegetation and wildlife RSA, however this cannot be quantified as the wolverine population is unknown

Increased levels of human access as a result of newly created roads and other linear features might increase the probability of humans coming into contact with wolverines. However, given the low densities of wolverines in the area, and their reclusive nature, human-wolverine conflicts or incidences of poaching are expected to remain rare or negligible during and subsequent to Project activities.

Wolverines are also susceptible to predation by conspecifics or other predators such as wolves or cougars (Krebs et al. 2004). Adding linear features to the landscape might increase movement efficiencies for these predators and increase the probability of encounters between wolverines and predators. Therefore, roads or other linear disturbances resulting from Project activities could increase wolverine mortality risk, especially for subadults dispersing from maternal home ranges. During dispersal events, young and inexperienced subadults might be more susceptible to human-caused mortality sources and predation by conspecifics or other predators (Krebs et al. 2004, Persson et al. 2008).





Table 210b.1-25 Changes in Core Security Area in the RSA

Condition/ Case Reference Condition

Base Case (2057)

Change from Predevelopment

Condition to Base Case



Application Case PDC (2057)


Planned Development

Case Project

Contribution


Pre- development

(2057) Existing (2008)

Frontier Maximum Build-out



Frontier Maximum Build-out Application/PDC

ha ha ha ha % ha ha % ha ha % % Wolverine 1,025,216.49 457,524.67 826,298.84 -198,917.65 -19.4 798,150.49 -28,148.35 -3.41 759,721.35 -66,577.49 -8.06 42.28

Figure 210b.1-24: Wolverine Core Security Area (RSA) – Predevelopment

63Athabasca River

McClellandLake

T091

T092

T100

T095

T096

T099

T088

T087

T093

T101

T089

T097

T085

T090

T094

T102

T098

T086

T084

R11R12 R09R13 R08R10 R07 R04R06 R05R14 R03R16T103

R15W4

Anzac

Fort McKay

Fort McMurray


Core SecurityWolverine Core Security Area < 220 ha None



Frontier Project October 2012

0 5 10 15 20


File ID: 123510797-0017Date: 2012-10-11

Figure 210b.1-25: Wolverine Core Security Area (RSA) – Existing

63Athabasca River

McClellandLake

T091

T092

T100

T095

T096

T099

T088

T087

T093

T101

T089

T097

T085

T090

T094

T102

T098

T086

T084

R11R12 R09R13 R08R10 R07 R04R06 R05R14 R03R16T103

R15W4

Anzac

Fort McKay

Fort McMurray




(Original page size: 8.5X11)Author: CES Checked: DC

Frontier Project April 2012

0 5 10 15 20


File ID: 123510797-0022Date: 20120514

Figure 210b.1-26: Wolverine Core Security Area (RSA) – Base Case

63Athabasca River

McClellandLake

T091

T092

T100

T095

T096

T099

T088

T087

T093

T101

T089

T097

T085

T090

T094

T102

T098

T086

T084

R11R12 R09R13 R08R10 R07 R04R06 R05R14 R03R16T103

R15W4

Anzac

Fort McKay

Fort McMurray






0 5 10 15 20


File ID: 123510797-0018Date: 2012-10-11

Figure 210b.1-27: Wolverine Core Security Area (RSA) – Application Case (Maximum Build-Out)

63Athabasca River

McClellandLake

T091

T092

T100

T095

T096

T099

T088

T087

T093

T101

T089

T097

T085

T090

T094

T102

T098

T086

T084

R11R12 R09R13 R08R10 R07 R04R06 R05R14 R03R16T103

R15W4

Anzac

Fort McKay

Fort McMurray






0 5 10 15 20


File ID: 123510797-0019Date: 2012-10-11

Figure 210b.1-28: Wolverine Core Security Area (RSA) – PDC

63Athabasca River

McClellandLake

T091

T092

T100

T095

T096

T099

T088

T087

T093

T101

T089

T097

T085

T090

T094

T102

T098

T086

T084

R11R12 R09R13 R08R10 R07 R04R06 R05R14 R03R16T103

R15W4

Anzac

Fort McKay

Fort McMurray






0 5 10 15 20


File ID: 123510797-0020Date: 2012-10-11






For a discussion on the SLWRA completed for the Project, see response to ESRD/CEAA SIR 469. That assessment pertains to wildlife and potential risks of chemical exposure (as compared to generic soil and water quality guidelines), and the supplemental QRA.


DENSITY ESTIMATES

A summary of the Project-related environmental effects on wolverine abundance in the vegetation and wildlife RSA is found in Table 210b.1-26. No accurate density estimates are available for wolverines in the boreal forest of Alberta (Petersen 1997; COSEWIC 2003). Trapping records indicate that wolverines are more common along the British Columbia and Northwest Territories borders and less common in the eastern and southern portions of their Alberta range (Petersen 1997). There has been a limited amount of research done on wolverines in Alberta and preliminary results indicate extremely low densities (as low as one individual per 94 to 300 km2) occur in the foothills regions (Fisher 2004, 2005).

EFFECTS ANALYSIS

Reductions in wolverine habitat that is isolated from human development and contains abundant ungulate food resources will likely negatively influence overall habitat suitability for wolverines in the area. As a result, population densities of wolverines might decrease in the vegetation and wildlife RSA. However, wolverines are habitat generalists with large home ranges and are known to alter habitat use within their home range as a response to human disturbance (Krebs et al. 2007). Given that low densities of wolverines likely occur in the area, some individuals might shift their home range locations and habitat use to avoid habitat that has been disturbed. However, precise predictions regarding overall population effects as a result of the Project are difficult to ascertain given the lack of information available on wolverine distribution and habitat use in the boreal forest region of Alberta. Habitat reclamation and relative reductions in human presence throughout the vegetation and wildlife RSA subsequent to the life of the Project will mitigate long-term population effects that occur.


ESRD/CEAA Responses Appendix 210b.1: Supplemental Wildlife Species



Table 210b.1-26 Potential Effects on Wolverine Population Levels in the RSA


Habitat Availability Mortality Risk

Direct Loss of Habitat

Sensory Disturbance


Vehicle-Wildlife

Collisions


Construction


Infrastructure Hunting Trapping Predation Wolverine PLN PLD N/A PLN PLN PLN PLN PLD N/A NOTES: PLD = potential linkage, data available and expected that effect will have potential effect on population levels PLN = potential linkage, no data available but it is expected that the effect is negligible and therefore not assessed N/A = assumed to not be a valid linkage and therefore not assessed. No data available (in terms of mortality estimates or populations for this interaction). Based on professional opinion, there is the potential for a measurable effect; therefore, this interaction is included in species-specific assessment.







Large anthropogenic disturbances such as oil sands mines are known to reduce the movement potential of wildlife on the landscape, which is eventually reversible through reclamation and reestablishment of natural landscape processes.

Changes in landscape connectivity in the vegetation and wildlife RSA were determined quantitatively for wolverine using linkage zone analysis. Analyses were completed for the vegetation and wildlife RSA for existing conditions and all cases, relative to predevelopment. As discussed in Volume 6, Section 4.3.5, Pages 4-20 to 4-23, for changes in landscape connectivity, it was assumed that predevelopment conditions served as a suitable benchmark for identifying magnitude for existing conditions, Base Case, Application Case and PDC (see Table 210b.1-27). For a summary of effects classification of landscape connectivity, see Table 210b.1-28.

Effects on wolverine connectivity are considered long in duration, as reclamation of sufficient habitat with security cover might last beyond closure (see Table 210b.1-28). Once land is reclaimed and barriers to wildlife removed, connectivity is established and the effect reversed.

The greatest magnitude change for wolverine movement potential in the vegetation and wildlife RSA is for existing conditions relative to predevelopment (-47.9%; see Table 210b.1-27). When wolverine movement potential area (i.e., area of movement hindrances of minimal or low) is examined for the vegetation and wildlife RSA at Application Case, a decrease of 188,386.0 ha (-15.8%) is predicted relative to predevelopment (see Table 210b.1-27).

Movement hindrance is highest in the centre of the vegetation and wildlife RSA around the Project and other large oil sands developments, around municipalities (Fort McMurray and Fort McKay) and on linear developments throughout. Effects of habitat loss, sensory disturbance from human developments and increased access density in these areas affect the connectivity of the landscape and might affect daily or seasonal movements of wolverine. It is anticipated that other oil sands developments will include reclamation of preferred wolverine movement habitat in the reclamation landscape, which will help increase areas of low to nil hindrance. Overall, increases of moderate and high hindrance are temporary and should occur during construction and operations, ending following closure. As movement hindrance is primarily affected by the presence of human activity and not habitat suitability, effects on wolverine movement will be reversible with reclamation. The predicted regional magnitude loss for this species’ movement potential should be considered highly conservative.





Table 210b.1-27 Magnitude of Change in Landscape Connectivity in the RSA



Predevelopment1,2 Existing

Change from Existing to Reference

Condition – Predevelopment2

Base Case (2057)



Predevelopment


Change from Application Case

to Reference Condition –

Predevelopment PDC

(2057)

Change from PDC to Reference Condition –

Predevelopment ha ha ha % ha ha % ha ha % ha ha %

Wolverine 1,195,559.7 622,716.9 -572,842.8 -47.9 1,021,268.9 -174,290.8 -14.6 1,007,173.7 -188,386.0 -15.8 979,539.6 -216,020.1 -18.1

NOTE: 1 Only habitat with minimal or low movement hindrance was assessed when determining environmental consequence of effects of changes in landscape connectivity. 2 Comparison of change in landscape connectivity is based on two snapshots (predevelopment at 2057 and existing conditions at 2008).

Table 210b.1-28 Effects Classification for Key Issues on Wolverine in the RSA



Effect Duration Frequency Ability to Recover1

Magnitude2 (Percent Change from RNV)

Existing3 Base Case Application

Case PDC Landscape connectivity Regional Long Isolated Reversible High Low Low Low Mortality risk Regional Long Continuous Reversible High Moderate Moderate Moderate Regional population levels

Regional Long Isolated Reversible High Moderate Moderate Moderate

NOTES: 1 The ability to recover only refers to the ability to reclaim available habitat and does not assume actual use; for a discussion on the ability to recover population

abundance and use, see Volume 6, Section 4.9, Pages 4-399 to 4-402. 2 Magnitude of change in landscape connectivity includes the change in connectivity relative to the 95% lower confidence interval for natural variability for the

vegetation and wildlife RSA. 3 Comparison of change in habitat availability is based on two snapshots (predevelopment at 2057 and existing conditions at 2008).





210b.1.3.4.2 Regional Population Levels and Mortality Risk

It was assumed that effects related to mortality risk at predevelopment conditions were insignificant and sustainable in terms of wolverine populations in the vegetation and wildlife RSA. Because of the inclusion of progressive reclamation as part of assessment cases, the greatest change for mortality risk potential in the vegetation and wildlife RSA is for existing conditions relative to predevelopment for wolverine. Therefore, it was assumed that predevelopment conditions served as a suitable benchmark for identifying magnitude for Base Case, Application Case and PDC. For a summary of effects classification of mortality risk, see Table 210b.1-28.

The estimated declines in the vegetation and wildlife RSA are considered conservatively high. Habitat loss does not necessarily equate to animal losses from the population, as animals displaced from disturbances can successfully relocate to adjacent areas. This is true for species at risk that seldom occupy the land at maximum carrying capacity.

Population densities of wolverines might decrease in the vegetation and wildlife RSA at closure. Wolverines are habitat generalists with large home ranges and are known to alter habitat use within their home range as a response to human disturbance (Krebs 2007). Given that low densities of wolverines likely occur in the area, some individuals might shift home range locations and habitat use in their home range to avoid habitat that has been disturbed as a result of the Project. However, precise predictions regarding overall population effects of the Project are difficult to ascertain given the lack of information available on wolverine distribution and habitat use in the boreal forest region of Alberta. Habitat reclamation and relative reductions in human presence throughout the vegetation and wildlife RSA subsequent to the life of the Project will mitigate long-term population effects.

When mortality risk for wolverine is examined for the vegetation and wildlife RSA at Application Case, it is predicted that indirect mortality risk would decrease relative to existing conditions because of reclamation of oil sands developments and linear access that could be used by trappers and predators. Overall, increases of mortality risk are temporary and should primarily occur during construction and operations, ending following closure. As mortality risk is primarily affected by the presence of human activity, particularly linear access, effects on wolverine mortality risk will be reversible with reclamation.

The combined effect of changes in landscape connectivity and mortality will result in a potential moderate magnitude change in the wolverine population in the vegetation and wildlife RSA at Application Case relative to predevelopment. As with the Project, it is anticipated that other oil sands developments will include suitable habitat for wolverine





in the reclamation landscape in the long-term. In addition, it is assumed that through the proposed connection of protected areas as discussed in the LARP (Government of Alberta 2012), existing biodiversity for the RMWB will be sustained and will provide a source of recolonizing wolverine populations for MOSA, once mine closure and reclamation has occurred. As a result, the predicted regional magnitude effects on the regional wolverine population associated with indirect mortality should be considered highly conservative.


For wolverine, availability of movement habitat and mortality risk for existing conditions and all cases was compared against predevelopment conditions, considering the RNV of predevelopment that incorporated future forest fires (see Table 210b.1-27). This was done to determine the environmental consequence of changes in landscape connectivity and mortality risk on wildlife diversity, using the percent change relative to predevelopment as the measure for determining magnitude of change (for landscape connectivity, see Volume 6, Section 4.3.5, Table 4-5, Page 4-24).

Based on the magnitude of change and concept of reversibility, effects on wolverine include:

• Moderate environmental consequence for landscape connectivity for existing conditions and low environmental consequence for the assessment cases for wolverine; existing conditions have a higher environmental consequence ranking because the other assessment cases have included progressive reclamation that reverses effects.

• Moderate environmental consequence for mortality risk for existing conditions, and low environmental consequence for Base Case, Application Case and PDC for wolverine, as effects can be considered reversible because of the inclusion of suitable habitat in reclamation planning.

• Moderate environmental consequence for regional population levels for existing conditions, and low environmental consequence for Base Case, Application Case and PDC for wolverine, as effects can be considered reversible because of the inclusion of suitable habitat in reclamation planning.





Table 210b.1-29 Environmental Consequence for Key Issues on Wolverine in the RSA


Magnitude

Reversibility


Base Case


Landscape connectivity2

High Low Low Low Reversible Low to moderate

Mortality risk High Moderate Moderate Moderate Reversible Low to moderate Regional population levels

High Moderate Moderate Moderate Reversible Low to moderate

NOTES: 1 Comparison of change in habitat availability is based on two snapshots (predevelopment at 2057 and existing

conditions at 2008). 2 Based on the percent change from RNV for the Project at closure (2068).

The moderate environmental consequence ratings for wolverine population levels reflect the relatively high proportion of MOSA in the vegetation and wildlife RSA and lower representation of protected areas and new conservation areas (see Volume 6, Figure 4-2, Page 4-11) identified for the RMWB and LAR (see the LARP [Government of Alberta 2012]. If predicted effects were placed into a larger regional planning framework (e.g., LAR) that includes areas identified for intensive development as well as protected areas and identified conservation areas, predicted moderate environmental consequences would be reduced.

High levels of development and associated lower levels of environmental indicator values have been anticipated in the TEMF and LARP for lands that are underlain by bitumen. For instance, TEMF reported that several environmental indicators have already been substantially altered by linear developments, oil sands developments, forestry and other activities. TEMF states that, “areas underlain by bitumen would be available for development, except within the Protected Zone; however, a significant proportion of the RMWB is expected to be intensively developed at some point, and declines in environmental indicators are expected while an area is in an intensively developed condition.” (CEMA 2008)

Progressive reclamation of the Project along with other developments and initiatives for expansion of protected areas (see Government of Alberta 2012) will mitigate cumulative effects on wildlife habitat availability in vegetation and wildlife RSA. As the vegetation communities in the closure landscape change, species-specific habitat use of the terrestrial LSA will also change, as is expected in a dynamic ecosystem like the boreal forest.





210b.1.4 Management and Monitoring

210b.1.4.1 Regional

Participation in the following regional committees and research organizations is planned:

• CEMA, particularly the Sustainable Ecosystems Working Group (SEWG)

• the Canadian Oil Sands Network for Research and Development (CONRAD)

These groups are involved in a variety of research programs designed to understand ecosystem dynamics and enhance reclamation efforts in the oil sands region. There will be plans to study the ongoing research and to apply relevant findings to the reclamation program to ensure that reclamation objectives are met. Collaboration is also planned with the Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute to contribute to regional data collection on key indicator species.

210b.1.4.2 Project-specific

A wildlife mitigation and monitoring program will be implemented to monitor effects of the Project on species at risk abundance and distribution in the terrestrial LSA. Should effects be detected, additional mitigation measures can be implemented. Measures taken to monitor effects will be consistent with applicable recovery strategies and management and action plans for SARA-listed species, as well as provincially listed species at risk.

Several concerns related to monitoring of wildlife habitat were expressed by potentially affected Aboriginal communities and will be considered when developing a wildlife mitigation and monitoring program:

• The inclusion of specific targets or benchmarks of performance over time regarding wildlife habitat use and the successful recolonization of disturbed landscapes by wildlife.

• Consideration of incorporating end land use and wildlife recolonization into the design of the monitoring program, including a direct comparison of results with baseline conditions.

• A requirement for First Nations consultation and input into monitoring programs.

• The need for specific details and information gathering about wildlife health, which is important for continued traditional land use by First Nations.

• Discussion and consideration of the effects of ecosystem shifts on reclamation success, prediction confidence and wildlife recolonization in the terrestrial LSA and vegetation and wildlife RSA.





A Project-specific reclamation monitoring program will also be implemented to ensure compliance with all approval conditions. The reclamation monitoring program is described in the CC&R plan (see Volume 1, Section 13).


Overall prediction confidence is low to moderate. Quality and quantity of baseline information is low because baseline field surveys were completed in the terrestrial LSA, which targeted furbearers. However, wolverine densities on the landscape are low and these surveys are less effective for detecting wolverine. No wildlife baseline information was collected in the vegetation and wildlife RSA; however, data from regional databases were reviewed. The 2011 fires in the vegetation and wildlife RSA were not accounted for in habitat suitability models, as existing conditions were defined as 2008 for the Integrated Application. Confidence in analytical techniques is moderate for assessment of direct effects because literature on species habitat requirements exists; however, wolverine is a habitat generalist and little information on habitat preferences in boreal Alberta exists. However, the Project footprint was defined by the mine plan at an adequate level of detail for the Integrated Application. Confidence in analytical techniques is low for indirect effects because effects of disturbances on wildlife are less documented in the literature. Professional judgement was also required to address sensory effects on wolverine and a cautionary approach was taken in defining ZOI. Confidence in analytical techniques is low for population level effects because literature on species densities in northern Alberta is limited and therefore changes were assessed qualitatively based on professional judgement. Confidence in analytical techniques is also reduced because localized effects from air emissions were not accounted for. For instance, it is assumed that SO2 and NO2 fumigation effects might affect habitat by causing an increase in shrub growth, resulting in shrubs to outcompete ground-plant species. Confidence in mitigation is moderate. While long-term reclamation monitoring plots appear to be moving toward natural ecosystems, some areas (i.e., tailings sand) are developing into novel ecosystems (see Rowland et al. 2009). Given this, prediction confidence of success of reclamation activities on habitat availability is moderate.





210b.1.5 References

210b.1.5.1 Canadian Toad Assessment

ASRD (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development). 2010a. The General Status of Alberta Wild Species: 2010. Alberta Environment and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Edmonton, Alberta. Available at: http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/SpeciesAtRisk/ GeneralStatusOfAlbertaWildSpecies/GeneralStatusofAlbertaWildSpecies2010/ Default.aspx. Accessed: July 2012.

ASRD. 2010b. Species Assessed by Alberta’s Endangered Species Conservation Committee: Short List. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Edmonton AB. Available at: http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/SpeciesAtRisk/SpeciesSummaries/SpeciesAtRiskFactSheets.aspx. Accessed: May 2012.

Beiswenger, R.E. 1988. Integrating Anuran Amphibian Species into the Environmental Assessment Programs. Symposium, Management of Amphibians, Reptiles and Small Mammals in North America. Flagstaff, Arizona July 19-21, 1988.

Birge, W.J., A.G. Westerman and J.A. Spromberg. 2000. Comparative toxicology and risk assessment of amphibians. In: D.W. Sparling, G. Linder and C.A. Bishop (eds.), Ecotoxicology of Amphibians and Reptiles, pp. 727 - 791. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), Pensacola, FL.

Breckenridge, W.J. and J.R. Tester. 1961. Growth, local movements and hibernation of the Manitoba toad, Bufo hemiophrys. Ecology 42: 637–646.

Browne, C.L. 2009. Distribution and Population Trends of the Canadian Toad (Anaxyrus hemiophrys) in Alberta. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division. Alberta Species at Risk Report No. 126, Edmonton, AB. 30 pp.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2012. Wildlife Species Search: Canadian Toad. Available at: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/index_e.cfm. Accessed July 2012.

ESRD (Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development). 2012. Enhanced Approval Process: Integrated Standards and Guidelines. Available at: http://srd.alberta.ca/FormsOnlineServices/EnhancedApprovalProcess/ EAPManualsGuides/documents/EAP-IntegratedStandardsGuide-Jul16-2012.pdf.

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/SpeciesAtRisk/SpeciesSummaries/SpeciesAtRiskFactSheets.aspx

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/SpeciesAtRisk/SpeciesSummaries/SpeciesAtRiskFactSheets.aspx

http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/index_e.cfm





Garcia, P.F.J., J.M. Constible, P.T. Gregory and K.W. Larson. 2004. Natural history of the Canadian Toad, Bufo hemiophrys, in the mixed-wood boreal forest of northeastern Alberta. Submitted to Alberta-Pacific Industries Inc.

Golder (Golder Associates Ltd.). 2006. Canadian Toad Life History and Regional Habitat Model. Prepared for Sustainable Ecosystem Working Group (SEWG), Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA), Fort McMurray, Alberta.

Government of Alberta. 2011. Best Management Guidelines Enhanced Approval Process. Lands Division/SRD, Government of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

Government of Alberta. 2012. Lower Athabasca Regional Plan 2012 - 2022. Available at: https://www.landuse.alberta.ca/RegionalPlans/ LowerAthabascaRegion/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed January 2013.

Government of Canada. 2012. Species at Risk Public Registry. Species Profile: Canadian Toad. Available at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/ speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=758. Accessed July 2012.

Hamilton, I.M., J.L. Skilnick, H. Troughton, A.P. Russell and G.L. Powell. 1998. Status of the Canadian Toad (Bufo hemiophrys) in Alberta. Alberta Conservation Association. Alberta Wildlife Status Report No.12.

Henry, P.FP. 2000. Aspects of amphibian anatomy and physiology. In Sparling, D.W., G. Linder and C.A. Bishop (eds.), Ecotoxicology of Amphibians and Reptiles, pp. 71–110. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), Pensacola, FL.

Kelleher, K.E. and J.R. Tester, 1969. Homing and Survival in the Manitoba Toad, Bufo hemiophrys, in Minnesota. Ecology 50: 1040–1048.

Kuyt, E. 1991. A Communal Overwintering Site for the Canadian Toad, Bufo americanus hemiophrys, in the Northwest Territories. Canadian Field-Naturalist 105: 119–121.

Linder, G., C.M. Lehman and J.R. Bidwell. 2010. Ecotoxicology of amphibians in a nutshell. In: Sparling, D.W., G. Linder, C.A. Bishop and S.K. Krest (eds) Ecotoxicology of amphibians and reptiles, 2nd edition, pp 69 – 103. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETCA),





Pensacola, FL.Murphy, J.E., C.A. Phillips and V.R. Beasley. 2000. Aspects of amphibian ecology. In Sparling, D.W., G. Linder and C.A. Bishop (eds.), Ecotoxicology of Amphibians and Reptiles, pp. 141–178. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), Pensacola, FL.

NatureServe. 2012. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life: Canadian Toad. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe. Accessed: July 2012.

Roberts, W. 1992. Declines in Amphibian Populations: Designing a National Monitoring Strategy. Pp. 14–16. Canadian Wildlife Services Occasional Paper No. 76.

Roberts, W. and V. Lewin. 1979. Habitat Utilization and Population Densities of the Amphibians of Northeastern Alberta. Canadian Field-Naturalist 93: 144–154.

Roberts, W., V. Lewin and L. Brusnyk. 1979. Amphibians and Reptiles in the AOSERP Study Area. Alberta Oil Sands Environmental Research Program. AOSERP Project TF 5.1.

Tester, J.R. and W.J. Breckenridge. 1964. Population dynamics of the Manitoba Toad, Bufo hemiophrys, in northwestern Minnesota. Ecology 45: 592–601.

Wiacek, R., M. Nietfeld and H. Lazaruk. 2002. A Review and Assessment of Existing Information for Key Wildlife and Fish Species in the Regional Sustainable Development Strategy Study Area. Volume 1: Wildlife. Cumulative Environmental Management Association Wildlife and Fish Working Group. Westworth Associates Environmental Ltd. Edmonton, Alberta.

210b.1.5.2 Northern (long-eared) and Little Brown Myotis Assessment

Anthony, E.L.P. and T.H. Kunz. 1977. Feeding strategies of the little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus, in southern New Hampshire. Ecology 58: 775–786.

ASRD (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development). 2010. The General Status of Alberta Wild Species: 2010. Alberta Environment and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Edmonton, Alberta. Available at: http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/SpeciesAtRisk/ GeneralStatusOfAlbertaWildSpecies/GeneralStatusofAlbertaWildSpecies2010/ Default.aspx. Accessed: June 2012.

ASRD. 2009. Alberta Wild Species: Little Brown Bat. Available at: http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/WildSpecies/Mammals/Bats/ LittleBrownBat.aspx. Accessed June 2012.

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe





ASRD and ACA (Alberta Conservation Association). 2009. Status of the Northern Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) in Alberta: Update 2009. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Wildlife Status Report No. 3 (Update 2009). Edmonton, Alberta.

Broders, H.G. and G.J. Forbes. 2004. Effects of clutter on echolocation call structure of Myotis septentrionalis and M. lucifugus. Journal of Mammalogy 85: 273–281.

Broders, H.G., G.J. Forbes, S. Woodley and I.D. Thompson. 2006. Range extent and stand selection for roosting and foraging in forest-dwelling northern long-eared bats and little brown bats in the Greater fundy Ecosystem, New Brunswick. Journal of Wildlife Management 70: 1174–1184.

Crampton, J.H. and R.M.R. Barclay. 1998. Selection of roosting and foraging habitat by bats in different-aged aspen mixedwood stands. Conservation Biology 12: 1347–1358

Carter, T.C. and G.A. Feldhamer. 2005. Roost tree use by maternity colonies of Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats in southern Illinois. Forest Ecology and Management 219: 259–268.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2012a. Wildlife Species Search: Little Brown Myotis. Available at: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/index_e.cfm. Accessed June 2012.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2012b. Wildlife Species Search: Northern Myotis. Available at: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/index_e.cfm. Accessed June 2012.

Cryan, P.M., M.A. Bogan and G.M. Yanega. 2001. Roosting habits of four bat species in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Acta Chiropterologica 3: 43–52.

ESRD (Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development). 2012. Enhanced Approval Process: Integrated Standards and Guidelines. Available at: http://srd.alberta.ca/FormsOnlineServices/EnhancedApprovalProcess/ EAPManualsGuides/documents/EAP-IntegratedStandardsGuide-Jul16-2012.pdf.

Ford, W.M., S.F. Owen, J.W. Edwards and J.L. Rodrigue. 2006. Robinia pseudoacacia (Black locust) as day-roosts of male Myotis septentrionalis (Northern bats) on the Fernow Experimental Forest, West Virginia. Northeastern Naturalist 13: 15–24.

Foster, R.W. and A. Kurta. 1999. Roosting ecology of the northern bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and comparison with the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalist). Journal of Mammalogy 80: 659–672.





Frick, W.F., J.F. Pollock, A.C. Hicks, K.E. Langwig, D.S. Reynolds, G.G. Turner, C.M. Butchkoski and T.H. Kunz. 2010. An emerging disease causes regional population collapse of a common North American bat species. Science 329: 679–682.


Government of Canada. 2012a. Species at Risk Public Registry. Species Profile: Little Brown Bat. Available at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=1173. Accessed: June 2012.

Government of Canada. 2012b. Species at Risk Public Registry. Species Profile: Northern Myotis. Available at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=1175. Accessed: June 2012.

Henderson, L.E. and H.G. Broders. 2008. Movements and resource selection of the northern long-eared myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) in a forest-agriculture landscape. Journal of Mammalogy, 89: 952-963.

Henderson, L.E., L.J. Farrow and H.G. Broders. 2008. Intra-specific effects of forest loss on the distribution of the forest-dependent northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). Biological Conservation 141: 1819–1828.

Hogberg, L.K., K.J. Patriquin and R.M.R. Barclay. 2002. Use by bats of patches of residual trees in logged areas of the Boreal Forest. American Midland Naturalist 148: 282–288.

Jung, T.S. I.D. Thompson, R.D. Titman and A.P. Applejohn. 1999. Habitat selection by forest bats in relation to mixed-wood stand types and structure in central Ontario. Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 1306–1319.

Jung, T.S., I.D. Thompson and R.D. Titman. 2004. Roost site selection by forest-dwelling male Myotis in central Ontario, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 202: 325–335.

Kalcounis-Ruppell, M.C., J.M. Psyllakis and R.M. Brigham. 2005. Tree roost selection by bats: an empirical synthesis using meta-analysis. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33: 1123–1132.





Lacki, M.J. and J.H. Schwierjohann. 2001. Day-roost characteristics of northern bats in mixed mesophytic forest. Journal of Wildlife Management 65: 482–488.

Lausen, C.L. 2006. 2005-2006 bat survey of the middle Red Deer and Battle rivers. Unpublished report prepared for Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre, Parks and Protected Areas Division. Edmonton, Alberta.

Menzel, M.A., S.F. Owen, W.M. Ford, J.W. Edwards, P.B. Wood, B.R. Chapman and K.V. Miller. 2002. Roost tree selection by northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) maternity colonies in an industrial forest of the central Appalachian mountains. Forest Ecology and Management 155:107–114.

Mumford, R.E. and J.B. Cope. 1964. Distribution and status of the Chiroptera of Indiana. American Midland Naturalist 72: 473–489.

NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed: June, 2012.

Olson, C.R. 2011. The roosting behaviour of little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus) and northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) in the boreal forest of Northern Alberta. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.

Owen, S.F., M.A. Menzel, W.M. Ford, J.W. Edwards, B.R. Chapman, K.V. Miller and P.B. Wood. 2002. Roost tree selection by maternal colonies of northern long-eared Myotis in an intensively managed forest. Gen Tech Rep. NE-292. Newtown Square, Pennsylvania: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station.

Owen, S.F., M.A. Menzel, W.M. Ford, B.R. Chapman, K.V. Miller, J.W. Edwards and P.B. Wood. 2003. Home range size and habitat used by the northern myotis. American Midland Naturalist 150: 352–359.

Patriquin, K.J. and R.M.R. Barclay. 2003. Foraging by bats in cleared, thinned and unharvested boreal forest. Journal of Applied Ecology 40: 646–657.

Ratcliffe, J. and J. Dawson. 2003. Behavioural flexibility: the little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus, and the northern long-eared but, M. septentrionalis, both glean and hawk prey. Animal Behaviour 66: 847–856.

Sasse, D.B. and P.J. Pekins. 1996. Summer roosting ecology of northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) in the White Mountain National Forest. Pp. 91-101 in Bats and forests Symposium (R.M.R. Barclay and R.M. Brigham, eds.). B.C. Ministry of Forests. Working Paper 23/1996, Victoria, British Columbia.





Vonhof, M.J. and L.C. Wilkinson. 1999. A summary of roosting requirements of northern long-eared myotis in northeastern British Columbia. Proceedings: Biology and Management of species and habitats at risk. Kamloops, British Columbia. February 15-19, 1999: 459–460.

210b.1.5.3 Wolverine Assessment

ASRD (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development). 2010a. The General Status of Alberta Wild Species: 2010. Alberta Environment and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Edmonton, Alberta. Available at: http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/SpeciesAtRisk/ GeneralStatusOfAlbertaWildSpecies/GeneralStatusofAlbertaWildSpecies2010/ Default.aspx. Accessed: July 2012.

ASRD. 2010b. Species Assessed by Alberta’s Endangered Species Conservation Committee: Short List. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Edmonton AB. Available at: http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/SpeciesAtRisk/SpeciesSummaries/ SpeciesAtRiskFactSheets.aspx. Accessed: May 2012.

Banci, V. 1987. Ecology and behaviour of Wolverine in Yukon. MSc Thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby British Columbia.

Banci, V. and A.S. Harestad. 1988. Reproduction and natality of wolverine (Gulo gulo) in Yukon. Annales Zoologici Fennici 25: 265–270.

Banci, V. and A.S. Harestad. 1990. Home range and habitat use of wolverines Gulo gulo in Yukon, Canada. Holarctic Ecology 13: 195–200.

CEMA. 2008. Terrestrial Ecosystem Management Framework for the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo. Fort McMurray, Alberta.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2003. Assessment and update status report on the wolverine, Gulo gulo in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario.

Copeland, J. 1996. Biology of the Wolverine in Central Idaho. MSc. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

Dawson, F. N., A. J. Magoun, J. Bowman and J.C. Ray. 2010. Wolverine, Gulo gulo, home range size and denning habitat in lowland boreal forest in Ontario, Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 124: 139–144.

Fisher, J.T. 2004. Alberta Wolverine Experimental Monitoring Project: 2003-2004 Annual Report. Alberta Research Council, Vegreville, Alberta.





Fisher, J.T. 2005. Alberta Wolverine Experimental Monitoring Project: 2004-2005

Annual Report. Alberta Research Council, Vegreville, Alberta.

Fisher, J.T., S.M. Bradbury, A.C. Fisher and L. Nolan. 2009. Wolverine on the edge of Alberta’s Rockies. Alberta Research Council, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.


Government of Canada. 2012. Species at Risk Public Registry. Species Profile: Wolverine. Available at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails e.cfm?sid=172. Accessed July 2012.

Hornocker, M.G. and H.S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana. Canadian Journal of Zoology 59: 1286–1301.

Inman, R.M., A.J. Magoun, J. Persson and J. Mattisson. 2012. The wolverine’s niche: linking reproductive chronology, caching, competition, and climate. Journal of Mammalogy 93(3): 634–644.

Jalkotzy, M.G., P.I. Ross and M.D. Nasserden. 1997. The effects of linear developments on wildlife: a review of selected scientific literature. Prepared for Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Arc Wildlife Services Ltd. Calgary, Alberta.

Krebs, J., Lofroth, E., Copeland, J., Banci, V., Cooley, D., Golden, H., Magouin, R.M., and B. Shults. 2004. Synthesis of survival rates and causes of mortality in North American wolverines. Journal of Wildlife Management 68(3): 493–502.

Krebs, J., Lofroth, E.C., andParfitt, I. 2007. Multiscale habitat use by wolverines in British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(2): 2180–2192.

Landa, A., M. Linden and I. Kojola. 2000. Action plan for the conservation of wolverines (Gulo gulo) in Europe. Council of Europe Publishing. Nature and Environment, No. 115.

Lofroth, E.C., J.A. Krebs, W.L. Harrower and D. Lewis. 2007. Food habits of wolverine Gulo gulo in montane ecosystems of British Columbia, Canada. Wildlife Biology 13 (2): 31–37.

Lofroth, E.C. and J. Krebs. 2007. The abundance and distribution of Wolverine in British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 2159–2169.

Magoun, A.J. and J.P. Copeland. 1998. Characteristics of wolverine reproductive den sites. Journal of Wildlife Management 62(4): 1313–1320.

http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails





Magoun, A.J. and P. Valkenburg. 1983. Breeding behavior of free-ranging wolverines (Gulo gulo). Acta Zoologica Fennica 174: 175–177.

May, R., A. Landa, J. van Dijk, J.D.C. Linnell and R. Andersen. 2006. Impact of infrastructure on habitat selection of wolverines Gulo gulo. Wildlife Biology 12: 285–295.

McKelvey, K.S., J.P. Copeland, M.K. Schwartz, J.S. Littell, K.B. Aubry, J.R. Squires, S.A. Parks, M.M. Elsner and G.S. Mauger. 2011. Climate change predicted to shift wolverine distributions, connectivity, and dispersal corridors. Ecological Applications 21(8): 2882–2897.

Nilsen, E.B., I. Herfindal and J.D. Linnell. 2005. Can intra-specific variation in carnivore home-range size be explained using remote-sensing estimates of environmental productivity? Ecoscience 12(1): 68–75.

Ontario Wolverine Recovery Team. 2011. DRAFT Recovery Strategy for the Wolverine (Gulo gulo) in Ontario. Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario.

Pasitschniak-Arts, M. and S. Larivière. 1995. Mammalian species account: Gulo gulo No. 499: 1 – 10. Published by the American Society of Mammalogists.

Persson, J., G. Ericsson and P. Segerstrom. 2008. Human caused mortality in the endangered Scandinavian wolverine population. Biological Conservation 142: 325–331.

Petersen, S. 1997. Status of the Wolverine (Gulo gulo) in Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife Management Division, Wildlife Status Report No. 2, Edmonton, Alberta.

Pulliainen, E. 1968. Breeding biology of the wolverine (Gulo gulo L.) in Finland. Annales Zoologici Fennici 5: 338–344.

Quick, H.F. 1953. Wolverine, fisher and marten studies in a wilderness region. Transactions of the North American Wildlife Conference 18: 513–532.

Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, D.H. Johnson, B.C. Wales, J.P. Copeland and F.B. Edelmann. 2003. Evaluation of landscape models for wolverines in the interior northwest, United Stated of America. Journal of Mammalogy 84(1): 92–105.

Wright, P.L. and R. Rausch. 1955. Reproduction in the wolverine, Gulo gulo. Journal of Mammalogy 36(3): 346–355.

Frontier ESRD-CEAA Responses Appendix 210b.1 ... · Figure 210b.1-3 Canadian Toad Habitat –...

Documents

Transcript of Frontier ESRD-CEAA Responses Appendix 210b.1 ... · Figure 210b.1-3 Canadian Toad Habitat –...